Explosion pressure prediction via polynomial mathematical correlation based on advanced CFD Modelling

Computational Fluid Dynamics CFD can be used as a powerful tool supporting engineers throughout the steps of the design. The combination of CFD with response surface methodology can play an important role in such cases. During the conceptual engineering design phase, a quick response is always a matter of urgency. During this phase even a sketch of the geometrical model is rare. Therefore, the utilisation of typical response surface developed for congested and confined environment rather than CFD can be an important tool to help the decision making process, when the geometrical model is not available, provided that similarities can be considered when taking into account the characteristic of the geometry in which the response surface was developed. The present work investigates how three different types of response surfaces behave when predicting overpressure in accidental scenarios based on CFD input. First order, partial second order and complete second order polynomial expressions are investigated. The predicted results are compared with CFD findings for a classical offshore experiment conducted by British Gas on behalf of Mobil and good agreement is observed for higher order response surfaces. The higher order response surface calculations are also compared with CFD calculations for a typical offshore module and good agreement is also observed. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Mathematical relationships between representations of structure in linear interconnected dynamical systems

A dynamical system can exhibit structure on multiple levels. Different system representations can capture different elements of a dynamical system's structure. We consider LTI input-output dynamical systems and present four representations of structure: complete computational structure, subsystem structure, signal structure, and input output sparsity structure. We then explore some of the mathematical relationships that relate these different representations of structure. In particular, we show that signal and subsystem structure are fundamentally different ways of representing system structure. A signal structure does not always specify a unique subsystem structure nor does subsystem structure always specify a unique signal structure. We illustrate these concepts with a numerical example. © 2011 AACC American Automatic Control Council.