A hybrid (analytical-numerical) method for the modeling of BLEVE events seems the most realistic approach given the complex coupled physical models required for a purely numerical approach. The code exploCFD employs just such a method for the calculation of events involving multiple types of explosions including BLEVEs whereby the results from an analytical model are fed into a CFD code to model the wider domain. The CFD code is configured as a 2D solver hence the methodology carries some uncertainty. So how do the results from a hybrid method compare with those obtained from experiments? Here we look at the BLEVE experiments of Birk and Vandersteen. We show that despite simplifications inherent in the methodology, which include the combining separate discrete events such as initial tank rupture, catastrophic failure and mixing and subsequent ignition into one equivalent event, exploCFD produces results which are in good agreement with the experimental peak pressures and impulses. The peak pressure is captured at locations 10, 20, 30, and 40 m from tank side and the impulse values also show good agreement. Surprisingly, the time histories also show better than expected agreement.

中文翻译：

---

使用混合代码exploCFD验证BLEVE事件

考虑到纯数值方法所需的复杂耦合物理模型，用于BLEVE事件建模的混合（解析-数字）方法似乎是最现实的方法。代码exploCFD仅采用这种方法来计算涉及包括BLEVE在内的多种类型爆炸的事件，从而将分析模型的结果馈入CFD代码以对更广泛的域进行建模。CFD代码被配置为2D求解器，因此该方法存在一些不确定性。那么，混合方法得到的结果与实验得到的结果又如何比较呢？在这里，我们看一下Birk和Vandersteen的BLEVE实验。我们表明，尽管该方法具有固有的简化功能，包括将单独的离散事件（例如初始储罐破裂）组合在一起，灾难性故障以及混合和随后的点燃成为一个等效事件，exploCFD产生的结果与实验峰值压力和脉冲非常吻合。在距储罐一侧10、20、30和40 m处捕获了峰值压力，并且脉冲值也显示出良好的一致性。令人惊讶的是，时间历史也显示出比预期更好的协议。