Abstract
Dispersion of toxic and flammable materials from Chemical industries represents a major issue in Risk Analysis; presently, integral models are generally used to assess dispersion consequences, due to the low CPU and time requirements connected to the use of these tools. Nevertheless, they are mainly developed and tuned for releases in open field (open spaces without relevant obstacles), and therefore they cannot properly account for the geometrical features of the dispersion domain. Computational Fluid Dynamic, on the other hand, allows a full 3D analysis, thus accounting for all the obstacles influence on the flow field, but it involves large computational requirements. In case of gas discharge directed towards nearby large obstacles, an impinged jet is expected: if the jet hits a nearby obstacle, the gas velocity suddenly drops, minimizing the inertial dispersion phase, thus reducing the relevant air entrainment and generally increasing the damages distances. Impinged release models are included in some commercial integral models for consequences assessment even if a clear method to decide when to use them is often missing. The aim of this work is to provide a comparison between the two approaches (CFDs vs. integral tools) in predicting damage thresholds for both impinged and non impinged jets. A realistic case-study of industrial interest was set-up and the fine tuning of all the involved models and parameters (turbulence modeling, geometry description, mesh independence, etc.) was finalized.
