{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013788098693759071, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.474178403755869, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Getting it right for projects in early design phase: Advanced techniques to ensure accurate explosion assessments

A large vapour cloud explosion followed by a fire is one of the most dangerous and high‐consequence events that can occur at petrochemical facilities. As the size and complexity of facilities increase, designs must consider the potential adverse effects associated with vapour cloud explosions in large congested areas. Designing topside structures to withstand a maximum credible event by avoiding unacceptable escalation of events and damage to safety critical equipment is an essential part of the path toward safer designs. One main factor inhibiting inherently safer designs is the lack of detailed geometry information in the early design phase. When congestion due to small components is not integrated into the explosion pressure analysis model, the design blast loads will be severely underestimated. This article will compare detailed computer‐aided design (CAD) models obtained for both early design phase and as‐built final detailed design, and demonstrate the gross under prediction of accidental explosion loads of the early phase models, as compared to as‐built. In fact, the explosion overpressures can differ by an order of magnitude underlining the need for guidance on the necessary levels of congestion required to obtain reliable blast loads.