Comparing Different Methods for Calculating the Gas Dispersion

When handling flammable and/or toxic liquids or gases, the gas dispersion following a release of substance is a scenario to be considered in the risk assessment to determine the lower flammability distance (LFD) and toxicity thresholds. In this work a comparison of different gas dispersion tools of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Chemical engineering transactions 2013-01, Vol.31
Main Authors: A. Habib, B. Schalau, D. Schmidt
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Chemical engineering transactions
container_volume 31
creator A. Habib
B. Schalau
D. Schmidt
description When handling flammable and/or toxic liquids or gases, the gas dispersion following a release of substance is a scenario to be considered in the risk assessment to determine the lower flammability distance (LFD) and toxicity thresholds. In this work a comparison of different gas dispersion tools of varying complexity ranging from a simple Gaussian model over a boundary layer model (BLM) and a Lagrangian model to CFD (in this case ANSYS CFX v14) is presented. The BLM covers the special case of liquid releases with formation of a pool. It does not only solve the gas dispersion but also calculates the evaporating mass flow out of the pool. The simulation values are compared to each other and to experimental data resulting mainly from our own open air experiments covering the near field and carried out on the Test Site Technical Safety of BAM (BAM-TTS) for different release types (pool evaporation, gas release) and topologies. Other validation data were taken from literature and cover large scale experiments in the range of several 100 m.
doi_str_mv 10.3303/CET1331025
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>doaj</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4ad3ed36eb4848929f88d028a9ad258d</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_4ad3ed36eb4848929f88d028a9ad258d</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>oai_doaj_org_article_4ad3ed36eb4848929f88d028a9ad258d</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-d285t-a0225521131178a46b1d7860a11585a448d7de578d46b2b6c5a87e82eeb717a93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjMtOwzAQRS0kJKrSDV-QHwh4xnY82SChUEqlIjZlHU1ip02VxpEdFvw95bG60jlHV4g7kPdKSfVQrfegFEg0V2KBSCovEYobsUrpJKVEICBdLMRjFc4Tx348ZM991_noxzl78_MxuJR1IWYVD-3nwPNPMR99tuF0KdPkY-rDeCuuOx6SX_3vUny8rPfVa75732yrp13ukMycs0Q0BgEUgCXWRQPOUiEZwJBhrclZ540ld1HYFK1hsp7Q-8aC5VItxfbv1wU-1VPszxy_6sB9_QtCPNQc574dfK3ZKe9U4RtNmkosOyInkbhkh4ac-gYDyVQC</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing Different Methods for Calculating the Gas Dispersion</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>A. Habib ; B. Schalau ; D. Schmidt</creator><creatorcontrib>A. Habib ; B. Schalau ; D. Schmidt</creatorcontrib><description>When handling flammable and/or toxic liquids or gases, the gas dispersion following a release of substance is a scenario to be considered in the risk assessment to determine the lower flammability distance (LFD) and toxicity thresholds. In this work a comparison of different gas dispersion tools of varying complexity ranging from a simple Gaussian model over a boundary layer model (BLM) and a Lagrangian model to CFD (in this case ANSYS CFX v14) is presented. The BLM covers the special case of liquid releases with formation of a pool. It does not only solve the gas dispersion but also calculates the evaporating mass flow out of the pool. The simulation values are compared to each other and to experimental data resulting mainly from our own open air experiments covering the near field and carried out on the Test Site Technical Safety of BAM (BAM-TTS) for different release types (pool evaporation, gas release) and topologies. Other validation data were taken from literature and cover large scale experiments in the range of several 100 m.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2283-9216</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3303/CET1331025</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>AIDIC Servizi S.r.l</publisher><ispartof>Chemical engineering transactions, 2013-01, Vol.31</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,2102,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>A. Habib</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>B. Schalau</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D. Schmidt</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing Different Methods for Calculating the Gas Dispersion</title><title>Chemical engineering transactions</title><description>When handling flammable and/or toxic liquids or gases, the gas dispersion following a release of substance is a scenario to be considered in the risk assessment to determine the lower flammability distance (LFD) and toxicity thresholds. In this work a comparison of different gas dispersion tools of varying complexity ranging from a simple Gaussian model over a boundary layer model (BLM) and a Lagrangian model to CFD (in this case ANSYS CFX v14) is presented. The BLM covers the special case of liquid releases with formation of a pool. It does not only solve the gas dispersion but also calculates the evaporating mass flow out of the pool. The simulation values are compared to each other and to experimental data resulting mainly from our own open air experiments covering the near field and carried out on the Test Site Technical Safety of BAM (BAM-TTS) for different release types (pool evaporation, gas release) and topologies. Other validation data were taken from literature and cover large scale experiments in the range of several 100 m.</description><issn>2283-9216</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNotjMtOwzAQRS0kJKrSDV-QHwh4xnY82SChUEqlIjZlHU1ip02VxpEdFvw95bG60jlHV4g7kPdKSfVQrfegFEg0V2KBSCovEYobsUrpJKVEICBdLMRjFc4Tx348ZM991_noxzl78_MxuJR1IWYVD-3nwPNPMR99tuF0KdPkY-rDeCuuOx6SX_3vUny8rPfVa75732yrp13ukMycs0Q0BgEUgCXWRQPOUiEZwJBhrclZ540ld1HYFK1hsp7Q-8aC5VItxfbv1wU-1VPszxy_6sB9_QtCPNQc574dfK3ZKe9U4RtNmkosOyInkbhkh4ac-gYDyVQC</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>A. Habib</creator><creator>B. Schalau</creator><creator>D. Schmidt</creator><general>AIDIC Servizi S.r.l</general><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Comparing Different Methods for Calculating the Gas Dispersion</title><author>A. Habib ; B. Schalau ; D. Schmidt</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d285t-a0225521131178a46b1d7860a11585a448d7de578d46b2b6c5a87e82eeb717a93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>A. Habib</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>B. Schalau</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D. Schmidt</creatorcontrib><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Chemical engineering transactions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>A. Habib</au><au>B. Schalau</au><au>D. Schmidt</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing Different Methods for Calculating the Gas Dispersion</atitle><jtitle>Chemical engineering transactions</jtitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>31</volume><eissn>2283-9216</eissn><abstract>When handling flammable and/or toxic liquids or gases, the gas dispersion following a release of substance is a scenario to be considered in the risk assessment to determine the lower flammability distance (LFD) and toxicity thresholds. In this work a comparison of different gas dispersion tools of varying complexity ranging from a simple Gaussian model over a boundary layer model (BLM) and a Lagrangian model to CFD (in this case ANSYS CFX v14) is presented. The BLM covers the special case of liquid releases with formation of a pool. It does not only solve the gas dispersion but also calculates the evaporating mass flow out of the pool. The simulation values are compared to each other and to experimental data resulting mainly from our own open air experiments covering the near field and carried out on the Test Site Technical Safety of BAM (BAM-TTS) for different release types (pool evaporation, gas release) and topologies. Other validation data were taken from literature and cover large scale experiments in the range of several 100 m.</abstract><pub>AIDIC Servizi S.r.l</pub><doi>10.3303/CET1331025</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2283-9216
ispartof Chemical engineering transactions, 2013-01, Vol.31
issn 2283-9216
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_4ad3ed36eb4848929f88d028a9ad258d
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
title Comparing Different Methods for Calculating the Gas Dispersion
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T19%3A31%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-doaj&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20Different%20Methods%20for%20Calculating%20the%20Gas%20Dispersion&rft.jtitle=Chemical%20engineering%20transactions&rft.au=A.%20Habib&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=31&rft.eissn=2283-9216&rft_id=info:doi/10.3303/CET1331025&rft_dat=%3Cdoaj%3Eoai_doaj_org_article_4ad3ed36eb4848929f88d028a9ad258d%3C/doaj%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-d285t-a0225521131178a46b1d7860a11585a448d7de578d46b2b6c5a87e82eeb717a93%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true