1/18

GAS EXPLOSION MODELLING BY

COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS

Holger Schmidt, Carl-Alexander Graubner

Summary:
Flame Acceleration Simulator (FLACS) is an effective tool for the modelling of ventilation,
gas dispersion and explosion in complex process areas. FLACS is generally used for the
quantification of explosion risks in the offshore petroleum industry and onshore chemical
industries. Accidental situations also have to be included in the structural design in order
to avoid a failure of the structure and consequently to avoid injury to humans, damage to
the environment, or economic losses for society. Gas explosions are one of the most
common accidental situations in buildings (e.g. Reinheim [20.08.2001], Eisenhttenstadt
[12.02.2001], Frankfurt [14.01.2001], Bremen [20.11.2000], and Thedinghausen
[24.07.2000]). Causes of gas explosions within buildings include failure of equipment or
unsuitable use and manipulation. Gas is extensively used in buildings and the effect of gas
explosions is higher than other accidental loads, constituting a problem for the structure.
Hence it seems appropriate to take a gas explosion as a general design accidental load.
Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Simulations can be done to ensure construction of as
save as possible buildings. Data is entered into FLACS through the Computer Aided
Scenario Design (CASD). The post-processing is done in a graphical presentation
program called Flowvis. The program outputs scalar-time curves, 2D contour plots, 3D
plots and volume plots. FLACS has been validated against a large set of experimental
data, including the recent full-scale experiments ( figure I). FLACS does not predict
structural deformations. However, structural deformation is accounted for by modelling
yielding walls and other structural elements. The structural elements are given failure
pressures and mass per unit area, such that their behaviour in the explosion may be
modelled. On the other hand the pressure time curves generated during the simulation
process may be used with other Finite Element (FEM) programs to analyse the nonlinear
behaviour of embedded construction elements in detail. The most interesting parameter

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

2/18

from these simulations are peak value and duration of pressure pulse at specified
locations. Figure II illustrates an example for local pressure at a specified location during
an explosion in a vented vessel. These parameters are needed for structural response, blast
and risk calculations. Numerical studies can be used to develop statistical moments for a
risk based design concept.
The results of Computational Fluid Dynamic Simulations depend on the accuracy of the
input parameters. Aim of this report is to present basic knowledge for the usage of FLACS
as well as its application in structural engineering.

Figure I: Validation of Flame Acceleration Simulator [GEXCON]

Figure II: Pressure time curve at a specified location [GEXCON]

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

3/18

1. INTRODUCTION
A main product of fossil fuels is natural gas, used both in private households as well as in
the industry. In general the usage of gas is a quite safe matter. Nevertheless gas can escape
unintentionally. If gas is mixed with an oxidant and ignited by a spark or similar an
explosion may occur. Such unintended gas explosions appear rarely and irregularly.
However, the results of these explosions are often devastating. The pressure developed
may have negative effects on the structure of a building, because the components within a
building are designed only for normal load cases. To avoid a complete collapse of a
building, relief panels have to be installed to reduce the maximum overpressure. However,
such relief panels exist only in endangered plants. In domestic buildings the pressure is
reduced by the failure of the weakest component of the structure. If the available relief
panels emphasise to be insufficient to reduce the overpressure to an innocuous level, the
building may collapse.
However certain circumstances have to be present to result in an explosion. Both programspecific and realistic parameters influencing the maximum overpressure were examined
with the CFD tool FLACS. Furthermore additional examinations were enforced, in order to
give information about the effects of relief panels on the maximum explosion pressure. In
this report basic results of these studies are presented.

2. PARAMETERS
2.1 Gridlines
A variation of the number of gridlines influences the maximum pressure and the maximum
pressure-time curve. This phenomenon is a computer specific problem and does not
reproduce reality. The gridlines form the base for the calculation with FLACS. The smaller
the division of the grids, the more exact the results of the simulation process are.
Consequently one may reach the decision to define as many gridlines as possible. However
limits in the number of gridlines exist, for example in form of the duration of the
calculation process. Furthermore it is known that extremely fine grids may produce

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

4/18

incorrect results. Although the last-mentioned point was not realised during the
examinations with FLACS it should be memorised. As mentioned before, too many
gridlines extent the simulation process unfavourable. However a certain number of
gridlines is necessary to achieve a sufficient precision. FLACS recommends grid numbers
from at least 5 to 6 per axis. Consequently the simulation volume is subdivided into 5 to 6
squares per axis. Obtained on the complete simulation volume this is equivalent to 125 or
216 cuboids.
Additional gridlines have to be defined outside the simulation volume to achieve good
results. On this basis several simulation studies have been carried out. The simulation
scenario was defined to an ambient pressure of 1.013 bar and a room temperature of 20
degrees. In order to examine the influence of the room size two different volumes were
simulated. The ignition point was in the centre of the respective simulation room. The gasair ratio was set to 10.50 per cent which is equivalent to an equivalence ratio of 1.12.
Figure 1 shows the range of the simulation volume, the point of ignition as well as the
gridlines.
The number of gridlines was varied from 3 to 19 per axis referring to the inside of the
cube. A number of 5 gridlines per side were defined outside the cube so that the total
number increased to 10 per axis. The grids were varied between 3 and 21. Diagram 1
shows the maximum overpressure depending on the number of gridlines. At the time when
the number of gridlines exceeds 21, a definite trend can be identified. To obtain more
adequate results more gridlines have to be defined. However, this would extent the
simulation process inefficiently. Hence the test series were enforced with a number of 21
grids. With this number of grids the maximum explosion pressure for methane is about
8.14 bar.
The maximum rise in pressure shows similar results depending on the number of gridlines.
Diagram 2 shows the continuity in maximum pressure-time-rise at the time when the value
of gridlines exceeds 15. This can also be verified for different simulation volumes. Thus it
can be assumed that a number of about 15 to 17 gridlines is sufficient to achieve results of
adequate precision.

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

5/18

point of ignition

Figure 1: Definition of a cuboid (3 x 3 x 3 m), 25 grids, centric ignition

Gridlines

8,170 bar

8,165 bar

pressure

8,160 bar

8,155 bar
16m cube
27m cube
8,150 bar

8,145 bar

8,140 bar

8,135 bar
2

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

number of gridlines
Diagram 1: Maximum explosion pressure depending on the number of gridlines

variation of the number of gridlines

room volume
gas-air-mixture
gas
environmental pressure
environmental temperature
ignition point

3-21 pieces
16m/27m
10,50%
methane
1.013mbar
20C
middle

Table 1: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 1

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

6/18

Gridlines
50,00 bar / s

maximum pressure rise

45,00 bar / s
40,00 bar / s
35,00 bar / s
30,00 bar / s
16m cube

25,00 bar / s

27m cube

20,00 bar / s
15,00 bar / s
10,00 bar / s
5,00 bar / s
0,00 bar / s
0

10

15

20

25

num ber of gridlines

Diagram 2: Maximum temporal rise in pressure depending on the number of gridlines

variation of the number of gridlines

room volume
gas-air-mixture
gas
environmental pressure
environmental temperature
ignition point

3-21 pieces
16m/27m
10,50%
methane
1.013mbar
20C
middle

Table 2: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 2

2.2 Gas-air-ratio
The aim of these simulation series was to analyse the flammability limits of FLACS as
well as the ratio to achieve the maximum explosion pressure. The simulation volume was a
1 m cube with dimensions of 1m/1m/1m. The ignition point was in the center of the cube.
The gridlines were defined in a distance of 0.2 m to each other. The temperature as well as
the ambient pressure were accepted from the fundamental attitude of FLACS. Therefore
the ambient pressure was set to 1.013 bar and the ambient temperature to 20 degrees.
These assumptions seems to be adequate for normal domestic buildings.
Different specifications for the flammability limits of methane can be found in the
literature. In [1] a range of 5 to 15 per cent is proposed for the flammability limits of
methane where as in [2] these limits are enhanced to 4 to 16 per cent. In [3] the lower

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

7/18

flammability limit (LFL) is indicated at 4.1 to 6.3 per cent and the upper flammability limit
(UFL) at 11.9 to 17.16 per cent. The reason for these differences is the fact that these limits
can only be calculated experimentally. The maximum explosion pressure is expected near
the stoichiometric ratio. For methane and air this is a ratio of 9.5 per cent. Nevertheless the
maximum explosion pressure is expected to be apart of this relation [1]. In [3] the
maximum explosion pressure for methane is set to 7.1 bar. This differs from results in [1],
where the maximum pressure for methane is set to 8 bar.
Within the use of FLACS it has to be taken into account that the gas-air-mixture is
indicated by the equivalence ratio (ER). The equivalence ratio ER can be calculated by
dividing gas volume to oxygen volume. In the following a brief example for calculating the
ER-ratio is given for a gas-air-mixture of 10.50 per cent.

Test room volume:

V = 1m

Quantity of gas:

Vg = V 10,50% = 1 0,105 = 0,105 m

Quantity of air:

Vl = V Vg = 1 0,105 = 0,895 m

Quantity of oxygen:

VO2 = Vl 20,95% = 0,895 0,2095 = 0,188 m

Equivalence ratio:

ER =

2Vg
VO2

= 1,12

In the following section the results of research are presented for different ER ratios.
Diagram 3 shows the maximum explosion pressure depending on the gas-air-ratio. The
explosion limits mentioned above can be confirmed to a lower flammability limit of 4.02
per cent and a upper flammability limit of 17.25 per cent resulting from the simulation
process. The maximum simulated explosion pressure of about 8 bar is also in agreement
with the literature. The maximum explosion pressure can be found to be at a gas-air-ratio
of about 10.50 per cent. Diagram 4 shows the maximum pressure-time-rise depending on

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

8/18

the gas-air-ratio. The determination of the pressure-time-rise has been carried out
graphically. The simulation results confirm the test series found in literature. The
maximum pressure-time-rise of about 94.35 bar/s can be found at a gas-air-ratio of 10.50
per cent. The fluctuations can be explained by the graphical analysis.

9,000bar
8,000bar
7,000bar

pressure

6,000bar
5,000bar
4,000bar
3,000bar
2,000bar
1,000bar
0,000bar
2,00%

4,00%

6,00%

8,00%

10,00%

12,00%

14,00%

16,00%

18,00%

gas-air-mixture
Diagram 3: Maximum explosion pressure depending on the gas-air-ratio

variation of the gas-air-mixture

room volume
gas
environmental pressure
environmental temperature
ignition point

4,02-17,25%
1m
methane
1.013mbar
20C
middle

Table 3: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 3

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

9/18

100,00bar/s
90,00bar/s

maximum pressure rise

80,00bar/s
70,00bar/s
60,00bar/s
50,00bar/s
40,00bar/s
30,00bar/s
20,00bar/s
10,00bar/s
0,00bar/s
3,00%

5,00%

7,00%

9,00%

11,00%

13,00%

15,00%

17,00%

gas-air-mixture
Diagram 4: Maximum temporal rise in pressure depending on the gas-air-ratio

variation of the gas-air-mixture

room volume
gas
environmental pressure
environmental temperature
ignition point

4,02-17,25%
1m
methane
1.013mbar
20C
middle

Table 4: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 4

2.3 Vessel volume

The aim of these simulation series was to analyse the dependencies of maximum explosion
pressure and maximum pressure-time-rise on the vessel volume. Three different cube sizes
were examined with volumes of 1 m, 4 m and 16 m respectively. The ambient pressure
was set to 1.013 bar and the ambient temperature to 20 degrees. The gas-air-ratio was
ignited in the center at a level of 10.50 per cent.
Differences in the maximum explosion pressure should not be considered since all
boundary conditions were equal for all test volumes. On the other hand, a distinct
difference between the maximum pressure-time-rise should be identifiable.
Diagram 5 shows the maximum explosion pressure dependent on the gas-air-ratio for
different vessel volumes. Diagram 5 manifests that the vessel volume has no effect on the

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

10/18

simulated explosion pressure. The assumption of different maximum pressure-time-rises

for different vessel volumes can be confirmed with diagram 6. As expected, the pressuretime-rise for the smallest vessel volume is the highest and those of the largest vessel
volume is the lowest.
In the range of the flammability limits the pressure-time-rise for the different vessel
volumes approaches each other. The "optimal" ratio of 10.50 per cent yields the highest
difference in pressure-time-rise. The maximum pressure-time-rise for the 16 m vessel is
about 30.83 bar/s, the maximum pressure-time-rise for the 4 m vessel is about 44.36 bar/s
and the maximum pressure-time-rise for the 1 m vessel is about 65.80 bar/s.

9,000 bar

8,000 bar

7,000 bar

pressure

6,000 bar

5,000 bar

1m cube
4m cube
16mcube

4,000 bar

3,000 bar

2,000 bar

1,000 bar

0,000 bar
3,00%

5,00%

7,00%

9,00%

11,00%

13,00%

15,00%

17,00%

gas-air-mixture
Diagram 5: Maximum explosion pressure depending on the gas-air-ratio for different vessel volumes

variation of the room volume

gas
gas-air-mixture
environmental pressure
environmental temperature
ignition point

1-16m
methane
10,50%
1.013mbar
20C
middle

Table 5: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 5

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

11/18

70,00 bar/s

maximum pressure rise

60,00 bar/s

50,00 bar/s

40,00 bar/s

1m cube
4m cube
16mcube

30,00 bar/s

20,00 bar/s

10,00 bar/s

0,00 bar/s
3,00%

5,00%

7,00%

9,00%

11,00%

13,00%

15,00%

17,00%

gas-air-mixture
Diagram 6: Maximum pressure-time-rise depending on the gas-air-ratio for different vessel volumes

variation of the room volume

gas
gas-air-mixture
environmental pressure
environmental temperature
ignition point

1-16m
methane
10,50%
1.013mbar
20C
middle

Table 6: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 6

2.4 Ignition point

According to [1] the ignition point has no influence on maximum explosion pressure in
closed vessels. However a difference should be considered for the maximum pressuretime-rise.
A cube vessel of 27 m and length ratio of 3m/3m/3m was designed for this test series. The
ambient conditions were set to 1.013 bar, 20 degrees and a gas-air-ratio of 10.50 per cent.
21 gridlines define the inside, 10 the outside of the vessel, giving a total number of 31
gridlines per axis.
The ignition point was varied in three directions. The ignition point at the center of the
vessel [0;0;0] generates the highest value of maximum explosion pressure. Disposing the
ignition point to the boundary results in lower explosion pressures. The explosion pressure

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

12/18

is smallest when ignition starts in the edge of two walls. Surprisingly a higher pressure
arises in the corner of three walls. This may be a result of generated turbulences. The
fluctuations which generate lower values may be interpreted by the cooling effect of the
walls. The cooling effect can be controlled with the parameter WALLF. Diagram 8 shows
the maximum pressure-time-rise depending on the ignition point. The speed at which the
flame front propagates through a gas-air-mixture during an explosion determines the rate at
which pressure is generated. The lower the flame area the lower the pressure-time-rise.
Consequently central ignition generates the highest pressure-time-rise for closed vessel.
8,150bar

8,140bar

[0;0;0]
[X;0;0]

[X;Y;Z]
[X;Y;0]

pressure

8,130bar

1,43m

8,120bar

1,29m
1,14m
8,110bar

0,71m

8,100bar

8,090bar

8,080bar
0

[-]

Diagram 7: Maximum explosion pressure depending on the position of ignition

variation of the ignition point

room size
gas
gas-air-mixture
environmental pressure
environmental temperature

3m x 3m x 3m
methane
10,50%
1.013mbar
20C

Table 7: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 7

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

13/18

25,00bar / s

[0;0;0]

maximum pressure rise

20,00bar / s

[X;0;0]
[X;Y;0]

15,00bar / s

0,71m

[X;Y;Z]

1,14m
1,29m
1,43m

10,00bar / s

5,00bar / s

0,00bar / s
0

[-]
Diagram 8: Maximum pressure-time-rise depending on the ignition point

variation of the ignition point

room size
gas
gas-air-mixture
environmental pressure
environmental temperature

3m x 3m x 3m
methane
10,50%
1.013mbar
20C

Table 8: Boundary conditions relating to diagram 8

3 STANDARDISATION
E DIN 1055-9 regulates the design of weight-bearing components due to the maximum
explosion pressure. The background of this standard are tests carried out by the "Institute
TNO for Building Materials and Building Structures". The publication was made by the
SBR Report No. 29 Constructieve maatregelen tegen aardgasexplosies in hoge
woongebouwen, publ. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn & Brussels, 1973.
The tests from [4] form the basis of DIN 1055-9 in order to calculate the maximum
pressure generated during an explosion. The active openings were provided with wood
planks or glass fronts. The ambient pressure and the room temperature were set to 1.013
bar and 20 degrees, the gas-air mixture was about 10 per cent. The test room had the

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

14/18

geometries of a normal kitchen with the measurements of approximately 4.00 x 2.00 x 2.60
[m]. In the test container a "living room" was located next to the kitchen room but
separated of the explosion influences in some of the tests by a steel door. The walls of the
"kitchen" consisted of reinforced concrete which could resist a pressure of up to 350 kN/m
(3.5 bar). At the front of the test building different possibilities for the attachment of
venting walls were installed. The active openings were provided with different materials,
which failed at different pressure levels.
The main question that had to be answered with the execution of these tests was how far
the maximum explosion pressure can be reduced. The first series of tests had to serve the
aim of getting in the difficulties. An idea of the maximum explosion pressure and the
calibration of the instruments resulted from these first tests. They took place in the kitchen
in which the relief openings were covered by wood planks or chipboards and already
responded to a low pressure. After the introductory tests the relief openings were varied in
their area in series two. Series three dealt with the variation of the strength and the size of
the relief openings. The consequences of a gas-air-ratio between 7 per cent and 13 per cent
were examined in series four. Series five dealt with the scatter of the results. The room size
was examined in test series six. The second room (living room) also was filled with gas for
this experimental setup. Furthermore the strength of load-bearing walls and relief openings
had to be examined. A masonry wall was included in some tests.
The exact experimental setup and test results can be comprehended in the appendix of
HERON [4]. Thirty-four tests were carried out at the 6 series of experiments. In the main,
all the tests resembled the characteristics shown schematised in figure 2. The time
measured from the instant of ignition is plotted on the axis of abscissa, the total length of
time represented being approximately one second. The ordinates represent the pressure
developed.
The pressure rises at an accelerated rate to a value at which the venting blows out. In the
figure this is indicated by point A. After this the pressure undergoes any further increase
and then decreases rapidly, often down to a negative value. However further fluctuations
occur after a while in which the amplitudes PW attained in most of the tests were
substantially in excess of the peak value P1 of the first pressure pulse. This second
phenomenon is differentiated to look at. The pressures P1, P2 and PW are of short duration

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

15/18

and therefore should not simply be conceived as sustained loads. The effect of these
pressures on a structural member depends on the following factors:

fluctuations in the pressure course mentioned above

the frequency and the number of fluctuations

the natural frequency of the structural components

the strength of the component under loading of short duration

A dynamic analysis taking into account these influences is possible but very complicated
and extensive. For this reason the values from the tests were converted to comparable static
loads, which can be accepted for a structural analysis as permanent loads of the same size.
In general, it is assumed that the ratio of F (area of the opening) to V (volume of the room)
strongly influences the magnitude of the maximum explosion pressure. By reducing the
vent area the pressure will rise. In the case of the first pressure pulse this effect was not
manifested. With reference to the influencing factors, the information on the explosion
loading can be summarised as follows:

even with a large relief area of low strength an explosion loading of the order of
3 kN/m is possible;

this loading increases proportionally to p0 in the first pressure pulse and to 0.5p0 in
the second pressure pulse;

a loading increase of 0.04/(F/V) occurs in the second pressure pulse.

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

16/18

Thus HERON [4] suggested the following calculations:

For the first pressure pulse:

p = 3 + p0

For the second pressure pulse:

p = 3 + 0,5p 0 + 0,04 / 2

Gas
oxygen

O2

Name

% Vol.
0,01

carbon dioxide

CO2

nitrogen

N2

14,35

methane

CH4

81,30

ethane

C2H6

2,85

propane

C3H6

0,37

butane

C4H10

0,14

pentane

C5H12

0,04

hexane
other hydrocarbons

C8H14

0,05

0,89

Table 9: Composition of the gas mixture [4]

Figure 2: Pressure as a function of time, as observed in [4]

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

17/18

4 CONCLUSION
It has been suggested that the origin of the oscillatory pressure peaks PW depends on the
interaction between combustion of mixture remaining in the vessel and acoustic pressure
disturbances generated by fluctuations in the rate of heat release. Experiments have shown
that these pressure peaks only occur when particular conditions are satisfied. The pressure
peaks will be reduced if the vessel is filled with obstacles and the shape of the vessel is not
square. Consequently these pressure peaks can be ignored for the design of domestic
buildings against gas explosions. However it should be mentioned that the oscillatory
pressure peaks - as an effect of acoustic pressure disturbances - cannot be simulated with
FLACS. Consequently only the first pressure peak P1 and the second pressure peak for
small relief panels were taken into account. Furthermore the test series in [4] were not
sufficient to provide the worst case scenario. It has been identified that for vented
explosions an ignition point far away from the relief panel is more unfavourable then
central ignition. This is because the burnt reaction products take longer to escape out of the
vessel. The formulae in E DIN 1055-9 were calculated for the so called vent ratio concept
(A/V). This concept originally derived from studies on dust explosions. Most experts in the
field of explosion now agree that the vent ratio concept is based on a misconception.
Studies by the British Gas Research have shown that reasonable agreement between
experiment and formulae is obtained using the factor A/V2/3.
In order to cause mean values and standard deviations for a reliability based design concept
a worst case and a best case scenario should be identified. The mean value for the expected
explosion pressure should be equal to the mean value of these scenarios for different
A/V2/3 ratios. Subsequently the standard deviation can be acquired by setting the worst
case and the best case scenario equal to a low fractile. Thus a formulae could be introduced
to calculate the mean value and the standard deviation for gas explosions in residential
buildings.

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html

18/18

References:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

Harris, R.J.: The Investigation And Control Of Gas Explosions In Buildings And
Heating Plant; British Gas Research
Bjerketvedt et al: Gas Explosion Handbook; Christian Michelsen Research
Bartknecht, W.: Explosion protection, bases and applications; Jumper publishing
house 1993
Heron: Structural measures against natural-gas explosions in high-rise blocks of flats,
Ir. M. Dragosavic, 1973, The Netherlands
E DIN 1055-9: Accidental actions due to impact and explosions

Contact to the authors:

Schmidt@massivbau.tu-darmstadt.de
Graubner@massivbau.tu-darmstadt.de

Homepage of Darmstadt Concrete:

http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de

Schmidt, Graubner: Gas Explosion Modelling by Computational Fluid Dynamics,

Darmstadt Concrete 17 (2002). http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2002/explosion.html