Multidisciplinary Advanced Engineering Consultants and Software Developers
Specialists in fire, explosion, and risk assessment
Explosion, Fire & Consequence Analysis Frequently Asked Questions
This page compiles the most common questions asked by engineers, safety professionals, and regulators about explosion and consequence modelling, fire protection, and dispersion analysis.
Each answer draws from our project experience, published research, and exploCFD validation work, providing clear, practical guidance in one place.
FAQ Index - Explosion, Fire & Consequence Analysis
Fundamentals of Consequence Analysis
Consequence analysis estimates the physical effects of accidental releases allowing design for people and asset protection. It predicts how far toxic or flammable gases may travel, expected thermal radiation from fires, and overpressure and impulse from explosions. Results inform separation distances, building design, passive protection, detector placement, and emergency planning.
Consequence analysis in process safety is used when designing a new facility, changing processes or inventories, or preparing evidence for regulators and insurers.
Advanced Analysis Australia uses exploCFD to perform consequence assessments for gas, dust, and fire scenarios, helping clients move from qualitative estimates to physically based, defensible results.
Dispersion analysis predicts how gases, vapours, or particulates spread after a loss of containment. It helps define exclusion zones, ventilation design, and toxic exposure risks.
Fire analysis examines ignition and combustion behaviour, from pool and jet fires to radiant heat and flame impingement, to assess structural damage and personnel safety.
Explosion analysis evaluates how ignition of a flammable cloud generates overpressure and impulse on structures and people. It considers flame acceleration, confinement, and congestion to quantify potential damage.
Each discipline supports the others: dispersion defines what can ignite, fire analysis shows how it burns, and explosion analysis determines how much force is released.
Advanced Analysis integrates all three through exploCFD to simulate realistic accident scenarios and design effective mitigation measures.
Explosions involve many coupled physical processes: ignition timing, flame speed, turbulence, confinement, fuel concentration, and geometry. Even small changes in these parameters can shift an event from a weak flash fire to a destructive explosion.
Gas and dust mixtures behave differently depending on concentration, particle size, and the degree of congestion or venting in the space. Traditional simplified methods often assume uniform conditions, but real facilities are irregular and complex.
exploCFD accounts for these variations using a hybrid approach that captures directionality, confinement, and geometry effects, providing physically realistic overpressure predictions validated against large-scale experimental data.
Explosion assessments depend on many input assumptions that can vary widely in real conditions.
Key uncertainties include:
Release parameters: size, duration, and composition of the flammable cloud.
Ignition factors: timing, location, and ignition energy.
Environmental factors: wind direction, turbulence intensity, and obstacles.
Geometry: variations in congestion and confinement that change flame acceleration.
Model choice: simplified 1D correlations vs. hybrid or full CFD models.
Even large scale validation programs show wide scatter in experimental results, and many industrial validation schemes accept agreement within about 50 percent for explosion overpressure.
Good practice is to be explicit about uncertainties and to choose methods that reflect geometry and physics, not just 1D curves. That is why transparent documentation of assumptions and the use of validated, physics-based models such as exploCFD are critical for credible consequence studies.
Validation results have been published in peer-reviewed literature, including the Journal of Process Safety and Environmental Protection (Roos & Abdel-Jawad, 2024) and in open-access proceedings of MABS-26, available here.
Obstacles and confined spaces accelerate the flame front, increasing turbulence and therefore the rate of pressure rise. The higher the congestion (e.g., pipe racks, compressor skids, equipment clusters), the stronger the turbulence and the higher the resulting overpressure.
Confinement limits expansion of combustion gases, creating a “pressure-pot” effect that amplifies peak pressures. Conversely, open areas allow gases to expand freely, lowering overpressure and impulse.
This relationship between geometry and explosion strength is central to how explosion models predict overpressure and impulse, and it is why methods such as the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC) and hybrid analytical–numerical approach used in exploCFD provide more reliable predictions, because they account for geometry-driven effects far more realistically than simplified one-dimensional curves.
Near-field effects occur close to the source of ignition or within the flammable cloud. In this region, pressure waves interact with flames, structures, and obstacles, creating high local overpressures, impulse loads, and flame impingement. Damage mechanisms in the near field are typically structural, i.e., rupture of panels, vessel deformation, or equipment failure.
Far-field effects are observed beyond the main explosion zone, where the pressure front has detached from the flame and behaves as a blast wave. Here, the concern shifts from structural failure to window breakage, secondary fires, or personnel exposure to radiation and flying debris.
Hybrid models such as exploCFD calculate both regions within a single simulation, resolving near-field flame dynamics and tracking the resulting far-field blast propagation with realistic geometry and shielding effects.
Explosion results are not just numbers; they are decision tools. Peak overpressure, impulse, and thermal radiation contours indicate which structures, systems, or personnel may be at risk, and guide the selection of protective measures.
For design, results help determine siting distances, wall strength, vent sizing, and passive protection requirements.
For operations, they support safe maintenance planning, ignition control, and equipment segregation.
For emergency planning, they define exclusion zones, muster points, and response timing based on credible scenarios.
Using validated models such as exploCFD ensures that these results reflect real physics rather than oversimplified assumptions, providing a credible technical basis for both safety and compliance decisions.
Methods and Modelling Approaches
Simplified 1D methods use empirical correlations that treat the explosion as a uniform expanding sphere. They estimate overpressure based on cloud size, gas type, and idealized congestion levels, meaning they are fast to compute but ignore real geometry, shielding, and directionality.
Numerical methods (including CFD and hybrid analytical–numerical approaches) solve the physics of gas expansion, flame propagation, and pressure interaction with obstacles and walls. They reveal effects that 1D tools cannot, such as asymmetric flame acceleration, reflection from barriers, and structural shielding.
Hybrid solvers such as exploCFD combine both the speed of analytical correlations with the realism of numerical propagation, giving engineers credible results within practical project timelines.
1D radial curves assume that explosions expand uniformly in all directions from a central ignition point. This works only in open or symmetric environments where there are no major obstructions.
In real facilities, layouts are irregular. Piping, vessels, and walls create non-uniform congestion and confinement, causing flame acceleration and shielding that distort the pressure field. 1D curves cannot capture these directional effects, meaning results often overestimate in open areas and underestimate in congested ones.
To address these limitations, geometry-responsive methods such as the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC) and hybrid solvers used in exploCFD quantify geometry effects directly, providing more reliable and defensible results for design and safety studies.
The Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC) was developed to predict explosion overpressure in real industrial geometries, where congestion and confinement vary from one area to another.
Traditional 1D correlations treat the vapor cloud as a simple sphere expanding in free space. CSC, by contrast, uses parameters such as blockage ratio, confinement ratio, obstacle size, gas reactivity, and flame speed to describe how pressure develops in irregular layouts.
It was created through analysis of hundreds of explosion scenarios, comparing model predictions against large-scale test data. CSC became the foundation for hybrid analytical–numerical solvers like exploCFD, allowing engineers to capture geometry-dependent flame acceleration and directional overpressure within minutes, without the computational cost of full CFD.
exploCFD's capabilities comprises modelling of the behavior and impact of gas and dust explosions, including the Baker-Strehlow model for precise explosion simulations.
A hybrid analytical–numerical method combines the speed of analytical correlations with the realism of numerical propagation.
In explosion analysis, the analytical component defines the source term, i.e., how much energy the explosion releases, where it forms, and how strong it is. The numerical component then solves how that pressure wave moves through complex geometries, interacting with walls, structures, and open paths.
This approach avoids the limits of 1D simplifications and the heavy runtime of full CFD, achieving CFD-level accuracy with practical turnaround times. It is particularly useful in large-scale industrial layouts where directionality, shielding, and escalation matter.
exploCFD uses a validated hybrid modelling approach based on the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC), allowing engineers to simulate realistic explosion propagation in a fraction of the time required by traditional CFD tools.
Full CFD becomes hard to justify when you need many scenarios, tight deadlines, or have incomplete inputs.
Typical blockers are:
Runtime and cost: millions of cells and sub-millisecond time steps can take days per case, plus specialist effort.
Sensitivity to unknowns: ignition point, turbulence intensity, and sub-grid combustion choices can change results as much as the design change you are testing.
Mesh dependence and reproducibility: results can shift with meshing and model tuning, which is difficult for rapid design iterations or audits.
Portfolio studies: QRAs and siting reviews often require tens to hundreds of runs, which is rarely feasible with full CFD.
Simplified 1D methods are fast, but they assume uniform expansion and cannot capture geometry, shielding, or directionality, so they often overestimate in open areas and underestimate in congested ones.
Hybrid analytical–numerical modelling, as used in exploCFD, bridges this gap. It defines a physically based explosion source, then propagates pressures through real geometry numerically. The result is:
Turnaround in minutes for plant-scale cases, suitable for dozens or hundreds of scenarios.
Directional and geometry-aware loads (shielding, reflections, vent paths) that 1D methods miss.
Validation against large-scale tests showing agreement within experimental variance, which provides a defensible basis for design and regulatory submissions.
In short, when 1D curves are too crude and full CFD is too slow or too uncertain, the hybrid approach in exploCFD delivers practical speed with validated accuracy for complex industrial geometries
The right modelling approach depends on what question needs to be answered and how much accuracy, turnaround, and defensibility are required.
1D / Empirical Methods Used mainly for screening or regulatory submissions. These are quick but assume simplified geometry, producing conservative or sometimes misleading overpressures. They cannot capture directional blast loading, shielding, or flame acceleration effects.
Full CFD Tools Offer high geometric detail but are computationally expensive, often requiring days to weeks per case. Sensitivity to initial conditions can also produce inconsistent outcomes without experienced oversight.
Hybrid Analytical–Numerical Methods (exploCFD) Provide the best balance of accuracy and practicality. exploCFD couples validated analytical correlations (e.g., Confinement Specific Correlation, CSC) with numerical propagation to preserve geometry-driven physics while keeping runtimes manageable, often hundreds of times faster than traditional CFD. It enables engineers to evaluate multiple credible scenarios in the time it would take to complete a single run in full CFD.
In short, choose methods that reflect the physics of your facility, not just the equations that are easiest to run. That’s why exploCFD has become the preferred tool among engineers needing both quantitative credibility and operational feasibility.
For real-world applications of exploCFD, visit our Case Studies page, featuring explosion, dispersion, and fire investigations across industries.
exploCFD Methodology & Validation
exploCFD is a hybrid analytical–numerical explosion modelling software developed by Advanced Analysis Australia to predict gas and dust explosion consequences with accuracy comparable to full CFD, but within minutes instead of days.
The method begins with an analytical explosion source model derived from the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC), a physics-based formulation that quantifies how congestion, confinement, gas composition, and flame acceleration influence explosion strength.
This analytical stage defines the strength and energy release of the explosion. The model then transitions to a numerical solver, which propagates pressure waves through complex 3D geometries, accounting for reflections, shielding, and channeling effects.
Because exploCFD solves only the propagation phase, rather than the full combustion sequence, it achieves realistic directional results at a fraction of traditional CFD cost. Validation against large-scale explosion trials and hydrogen test programs has shown agreement within experimental scatter, confirming both speed and reliability.
Learn more on our exploCFD page or explore recent validation work in the Journal of Process Safety and Environmental Protection and MABS-26 proceedings.
The Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC) is the mathematical foundation that allows exploCFD to represent explosion strength accurately without running a full combustion CFD.
CSC directly relates overpressure to the physical parameters that actually drive explosions:
Confinement ratio (how enclosed the cloud is),
Congestion (how many obstacles obstruct the flame path),
Gas type and flame speed, and
Obstacle blockage and size distribution.
These variables determine how rapidly energy is released and how pressure waves form and amplify. Traditional correlations, like the old GAME method used in 1D tools, assume uniform congestion and cannot distinguish between open and semi-confined geometries, leading to large prediction errors.
By contrast, CSC was derived from hundreds of CFD-based explosion scenarios and validated against large-scale experimental data. In exploCFD, CSC is applied dynamically to define the source strength of the explosion, which is then coupled with the numerical solver to simulate realistic blast propagation through the site layout.
This approach provides the physics of full CFD without the computational burden, producing directionally accurate results even in highly congested or irregular industrial layouts where conventional methods fail.
To see how CSC performs in practice, review our Case Studies and published papers such as Li et al. (2014) and Roos & Abdel-Jawad (2024).
Some journal papers are hosted behind paywalls; thus you are very welcome to request copies directly from us, simply visit our Contact us page and mention the publication title.
For a complete list of exploCFD and SU2 methodology papers, see our Publications and Validation Studies.
exploCFD defines a physically based explosion source using validated correlations, then numerically propagates the resulting pressure field through the actual site geometry. The solver accounts for reflections, shielding, channeling, and impedance changes around walls, vessels, pipe racks, and equipment. This captures directionality and shadowing that simplified 1D methods miss, yet runs far faster than conventional full CFD solvers, because only the propagation phase is solved numerically.
For examples of geometry-driven effects and performance, see our Case Studies and the Validation Studies section on the exploCFD page.
Validation is at the core of exploCFD’s credibility. The model has been validated against multiple large-scale explosion experiments, offshore module and hydrogen explosion tests, including:
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), United Kingdom, particularly the “Explosions in Full-Scale Offshore Model Geometries” program (BG Technology, 2000).
International hydrogen explosion research frameworks, such as HySEA and MABS (Major Accident Hazards of Substances) experimental programs.
University and industrial datasets, including configurations derived from the GAME correlation and FLNG-scale dispersion and explosion studies (Li et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2016).
Across these programs, exploCFD predictions of overpressure and impulse consistently matched measured data within experimental variation, typically within ±30 - 50 %. This level of agreement is comparable to or better than that achieved by full CFD tools, while requiring only a fraction of the computational time.
exploCFD’s validation covers hydrocarbon, hydrogen, and mixed-fuel deflagrations, confirming reliability across a wide range of fuels, geometries, and congestion levels.
For validation details and references, see our Publications and Validation Studies section, including Roos & Abdel-Jawad (2024), Ma et al. (2016), and Li et al. (2014).
Hydrogen behaves very differently from typical hydrocarbons, it has a wider flammability range and higher laminar burning velocity, so methods tuned for methane/propane can misjudge severity.
exploCFD accounts for hydrogen explicitly by calibrating the explosion source (via the CSC approach) with hydrogen-appropriate reaction parameters, then numerically propagating pressures through real geometry.
This captures directionality, shielding, and confinement effects that one-dimensional curves cannot.
For full technical details, see our peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Process Safety and Environmental Protection (Roos & Abdel-Jawad, 2024). A condensed validation focused on hydrogen scenarios was also presented at the APPEA 2024 Conference.
If you wish to obtain copies of these or any other papers listed on our Validation Studies page, please contact us.
Traditional CFD packages (like FLACS, FLUENT or OpenFOAM) simulate explosions by solving the full Navier–Stokes equations for flow, combustion, and turbulence across the entire domain. While this can be physically complete, it often demands high computational resources, sometimes taking days for a single run, and still requires user decisions on combustion models, meshing, and turbulence schemes that can strongly affect results.
By contrast, simplified one-dimensional methods such as PHAST (and other tools based on the Multi-Energy or TNT equivalency approaches) predict explosion overpressure using empirical correlations. These methods assume uniform gas clouds, regular congestion, and symmetric flame propagation, which makes them computationally fast but insensitive to geometry, shielding, and directional effects. As a result, they tend to overpredict in open layouts and underpredict in confined or congested geometries.
exploCFD was developed specifically for industrial explosion consequence analysis. Instead of modelling the entire ignition-to-decay sequence, it focuses on the most critical physics:
the source strength of the explosion, determined analytically via the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC),
and the propagation of pressure waves through complex geometry, computed numerically on simplified structured grids.
This hybrid approach eliminates unnecessary overhead, giving results that reflect real geometry and confinement effects within minutes rather than days. It bridges the gap between oversimplified 1D correlations and slow, generic 3D CFD codes, offering validated accuracy within project timelines and regulatory review windows
Regulators increasingly expect modelling to be transparent, reproducible, and supported by evidence.
exploCFD was developed around these principles. Each assumption, correlation, and calculation step is documented and traceable, producing clear, audit-ready evidence for review.
The methodology has been validated against independent test programs and published in peer-reviewed journals, satisfying the regulatory criteria of fitness for purpose.
For safety reviewers and competent authorities, exploCFD provides a technically justified, defensible, transparent alternative to both oversimplified screening tools and time-consuming full-CFD simulations.
For examples of comparative studies and validation outcomes, visit our Methodology and Validation of exploCFD section.
exploCFD’s predictive reliability comes from its foundation in validated physical correlations and controlled numerical propagation rather than arbitrary tuning.
The software combines the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC), which quantifies how congestion, confinement, and gas reactivity interact, with a finite-volume solver that models wave propagation through real geometry.
Each physical mechanism (ignition strength, gas type, turbulence intensity, confinement ratio) is parameterized based on peer-reviewed validation programs, including offshore explosion trials (HSE, UK), hydrogen tests (HySEA, MABS-26), and BLEVE studies published in Process Safety Progress (2021).
This multi-dataset validation ensures exploCFD delivers consistent accuracy across gas, dust, and mixed explosion scenarios, not just isolated test cases.
By comparison, conventional tools often rely on fixed empirical factors and outdated scaling rules, which can misrepresent pressure buildup and flame interaction when applied to complex industrial layouts.
For published validation results and supporting studies, see our Methodology and Validation of exploCFD section.
Yes. exploCFD has been validated and applied to a broad range of emerging energy technologies, including hydrogen production, storage, and refuelling systems, as well as Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS).
The software captures the unique flame and pressure characteristics of hydrogen, its high diffusivity, low ignition energy, and fast flame speeds, through validation against HySEA and MABS hydrogen explosion trials and published studies (Roos & Abdel-Jawad, 2024).
For BESS applications, exploCFD models thermal runaway, vent gas dispersion, and delayed ignition scenarios to evaluate explosion overpressure and fire escalation risks.
Advanced Analysis' experience extends across multiple BESS configurations, one of which is summarised on the Case Studies page.
Because the exploCFD solver applies consistent, validated physics to both confined and open environments, it can be reliably used for hydrogen process plants, energy hubs, tunnels, and enclosed battery rooms without modification.
This ensures results remain consistent and defensible across all new energy sectors.
Validation has been central to exploCFD’s development since its first release.
The software has been benchmarked against large-scale explosion experiments carried out by recognised research institutions, including:
The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) – full-scale offshore explosion trials (“Explosions in Full-Scale Offshore Model Geometries”, BG Technology, 2000)
The MABS and HySEA hydrogen explosion programs
University-led studies comparing numerical predictions with experimental overpressures in irregular obstacle configurations (Li et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2015)
These datasets cover gas, dust, hydrogen, and BLEVE scenarios, giving exploCFD a broad foundation of validation that few consequence analysis tools possess.
The results consistently show exploCFD predicting peak overpressures and impulses within the experimental scatter (typically ±50 %), while maintaining computational speeds several orders of magnitude faster than full-CFD solvers.
For detailed references, see our Methodology and Validation of exploCFD section.
Yes. exploCFD is specifically designed for engineering-grade and regulatory-approved consequence analysis.
It has been successfully applied in explosion and dispersion studies for oil and gas facilities, hydrogen plants, energy storage systems, underground infrastructure, and chemical processing sites, with results accepted by operators, independent verifiers, and government regulators.
The software outputs standard process-safety quantities, i.e., overpressure, impulse, thermal radiation, and gas cloud extents, in formats compatible with structural analysis, fire protection design, and quantitative risk assessment (QRA).
This ensures that exploCFD results can be directly incorporated into safety case submissions, hazard studies, and design verifications without conversion or reinterpretation.
Because exploCFD integrates validated physics within a transparent hybrid solver, it offers the defensibility and audit trail required for regulatory acceptance, while maintaining the efficiency needed to meet project deadlines.
Every assumption and correlation is documented, allowing reviewers to trace the basis of each prediction clearly and consistently.
For examples of approved projects and model validation, visit our Case Studies and Methodology and Validation of exploCFD sections.
Hydrogen and Emerging Energies
Yes. exploCFD has been experimentally validated for hydrogen dispersion and explosion behaviour, including deflagration-to-detonation transitions and partial confinement geometries typical of hydrogen facilities. Its hybrid analytical–numerical method allows accurate prediction of flame acceleration, overpressure, and impulse without excessive mesh or runtime demands.
Hydrogen explosions differ from hydrocarbon cases due to higher flame speeds, broader flammability limits, and greater sensitivity to geometry. Traditional 1D methods struggle to reproduce these effects, while full CFD often becomes impractical for the scale of hydrogen energy systems.
exploCFD captures these physics efficiently by combining validated correlations with structured CFD propagation, delivering results that are both realistic and computationally practical.
Validation has been published in:
Roos & Abdel-Jawad (2024), Journal of Process Safety and Environmental Protection, and
Roos & Abdel-Jawad (2024), Australian Energy Producers Journal (APPEA).
To learn more about these studies, visit our Methodology and Validation of exploCFD section or Contact us and request access to the full publications.
Many hydrogen explosion tools focus on narrow research objectives. For example, validating a single test geometry, or comparing one ignition scenario at laboratory scale. While these models can be useful for academic insight, they often require specialist CFD tuning, high computational cost, and may not be practical for engineering-scale studies or regulatory submissions.
exploCFD was designed for real-world hydrogen safety assessments.
It incorporates the same validated combustion and dispersion correlations proven across full-scale experiments, while allowing engineers to model complex plant geometries and large cloud volumes quickly and transparently.
Instead of relying on user-calibrated turbulence or combustion parameters, exploCFD embeds validated relationships such as the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC), ensuring consistent accuracy across facility layouts, enclosure sizes, and ignition conditions.
This means exploCFD delivers:
Results within minutes, not days.
Traceable physics based on published peer-reviewed validation.
Outputs that can be directly used for design verification and regulatory review.
For a comparison of hydrogen validation outcomes, see our Methodology and Validation of exploCFD section.
Yes. exploCFD models both pre-ignition hydrogen dispersion and post-ignition explosion scenarios within the same consistent modelling environment. This allows safety assessors and designers to evaluate leak behaviour, gas accumulation, and potential ignition outcomes seamlessly, without switching between separate tools.
The dispersion module accounts for buoyancy flow, ventilation effects, and transient release rates, capturing the rapid mixing and vertical rise typical of hydrogen leaks. The resulting concentration fields can then be directly ignited in the exploCFD solver, preserving realistic gas cloud geometry and concentration gradients.
This capability is especially important for battery energy storage systems (BESS), hydrogen refuelling stations, and process enclosures, where small leaks can accumulate unnoticed until ignition.
By modelling both dispersion and explosion stages accurately, exploCFD provides a complete picture of potential consequences, supporting safe facility design, ventilation layout, and hazard zoning.
For examples of coupled dispersion-explosion analyses, visit our Case Studies page.
Yes. exploCFD can model multi-source explosion scenarios, including interactions between hydrogen and lithium-ion battery installations. In these situations, gas venting from a BESS module may mix with released hydrogen or other flammable vapours, creating a layered, partially confined cloud with highly variable reactivity and unpredictable ignition strength.
The hybrid solver in exploCFD quantifies how vent direction, gas composition, and structural confinement influence ignition, flame acceleration, and resulting overpressures, key parameters for facility siting and design.
Because exploCFD applies the same validated modelling approach across both hydrogen and hydrocarbon systems, it provides a consistent basis for hazard zoning, emergency planning, and compliance demonstration at emerging multi-energy sites.
For an example of this application, see our Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) case study.
exploCFD Usage and Licensing
exploCFD is designed for industrial consequence analysis where geometry, confinement, and escalation matter.
It models explosions, fires, and toxic releases across both conventional and emerging energy systems, capturing the real behaviour of gases, flames, and pressure waves that simplified tools cannot.
Explosion and Overpressure
Gas and dust explosions in congested or semi-enclosed areas
BLEVE events and pressure vessel ruptures
TNT or ammonium nitrate detonation equivalence studies
Electrical arc and transformer explosions
Confined space overpressure (tunnels, enclosures, or mine chambers)
Dispersion and Fire
Toxic and flammable dispersion, including evaporating liquids like LNG, ammonia, and methanol
Jet and pool fires with radiation heat-load assessment
Dynamic fire-and-gas detection performance analysis
Specialised Modules
Hydrogen and BESS explosion hazard assessment
Multi-phase heat transfer and transient analyses for evolving processes
Scenario-based explosion risk assessments for design and siting
While traditional 1D models estimate average behaviour, exploCFD captures how blast waves actually move through real structures, accounting for shielding, reflections, and directional loading.
It helps engineers, regulators, and safety specialists see and understand how explosions and fires develop in real layouts, not just how they might look in a spreadsheet. This allows decisions to be made with quantified confidence, not conservative guesses.
To see exploCFD in action, visit our Case Studies or exploCFD page.
exploCFD was designed for professionals who need accurate, physically realistic results within practical project timelines.
A full explosion assessment for a large facility typically runs in minutes to a few hours, depending on grid size and scenario complexity, compared to days or weeks for traditional 3D CFD.
Most projects run efficiently on standard engineering-grade workstations (for example, Intel i7/i9 or AMD Ryzen 7/9 CPUs with 32–64 GB RAM).
For large probabilistic studies or multiple parallel cases, exploCFD also supports scalable execution across multi-core and cloud environments.
Unlike full CFD tools that require heavy meshing or GPU clusters, exploCFD uses structured grids and validated physics correlations, making it suitable for both desktop and enterprise use without the need for supercomputing resources.
For further information, visit exploCFD page.
exploCFD is available through several licensing options to suit different project and organisational needs:
Permanent license: One-time purchase with ongoing maintenance and update support.
Annual or monthly license: Flexible access for consulting firms or project-based work.
Academic license: Discounted version for universities and research institutions.
Trial access: Short-term evaluation license available on request.
Each license includes:
Access to all modelling capabilities (dispersion, fire, explosion, BLEVE, dust, hydrogen, BESS).
Installation assistance and setup guidance.
Online training covering software use and explosion fundamentals.
Ongoing technical support and version updates during the active period.
To discuss licensing or request a trial, please visit our Contact us page.
Each exploCFD license includes full training and support to help users apply the software confidently and correctly.
Training resources include:
Structured online training sessions covering installation, setup, and practical case studies.
Fundamental tutorials on gas, dust, and explosion physics.
Example projects that demonstrate dispersion, fire, explosion, and BLEVE simulations.
Validation resources include:
Access to published cases comparing exploCFD results to large-scale experimental data, including offshore module explosions, BLEVE events, and hydrogen validation studies.
Reference documentation explaining the Confinement Specific Correlation (CSC) and hybrid analytical–numerical methodology.
These resources ensure that users can produce transparent, reproducible, and regulator-ready results for design, consulting, and academic work.
For more details, visit the exploCFD page.
exploCFD is designed to communicate complex physical results in a clear, visual way. Results can be exported as high-quality images, videos, and summary reports that explain key findings without requiring any engineering software.
Deliverables typically include:
Pressure and thermal contour maps over site layouts.
Time-sequence visuals showing flame development or gas cloud dispersion.
Structured summary reports highlighting key results, assumptions, and safety recommendations.
These outputs are suitable for presentations, safety reviews, and regulatory submissions, ensuring technical accuracy without requiring software access.
For examples of report formats and visual outputs, visit the Case Studies section or Contact us to discuss your project.
Consulting & Services Advanced Analysis
Advanced Analysis provides specialised consulting for explosion, fire, and dispersion hazards across high-risk industries including oil & gas, hydrogen, energy storage, mining, and defence.
Our work covers the full lifecycle of safety assessment, from concept design through to regulatory approval.
Typical consulting areas include:
Explosion consequence analysis for gas, dust, and BESS events.
Fire and gas detection mapping and optimisation.
BLEVE and pressure vessel rupture studies.
Explosion risk assessment and Bow-Tie analysis.
Accident investigation and forensic reconstruction.
Hydrogen and new energy safety assessments.
All studies are performed using validated methods and our proprietary explosion simulation tool, exploCFD, ensuring results are transparent, physics-based, and defensible.
To learn more, visit our Page or Contact us to discuss your project requirements.
Each facility presents unique conditions, i.e., layout, materials, processes, and risk tolerance, all influence how hazards behave.
At Advanced Analysis, we don’t apply generic templates. Every study begins with a detailed review of the facility’s geometry, ventilation, and operating context to ensure the modelling accurately reflects real conditions.
Our engineer experts then build a tailored simulation environment in exploCFD, incorporating:
Site-specific geometry and congestion patterns.
Weather and ventilation conditions.
Chemical properties and inventory data.
Ignition scenarios and consequence thresholds relevant to the client’s standards.
This approach ensures that the results are meaningful to the site being assessed, supporting design decisions, safety cases, and regulatory submissions with confidence.
For examples of few past studies, see our Case Studies section.
Regulatory approval often depends on clear evidence that hazards have been properly identified, quantified, and controlled.
Analysis provides detailed, transparent reports designed for direct submission to safety authorities, environmental agencies, and insurers.
Every key assumption is traceable, and every result can be reproduced, giving reviewers confidence in the technical basis of the conclusions.
Where required, our engineers participate in technical meetings or hearings to explain the methodology and modelling outcomes. This end-to-end support ensures our clients can move from assessment to approval efficiently and with confidence.
Advanced Analysis has worked with a wide range of industries, including LNG plants, refineries, hydrogen refuelling stations, chemical terminals, battery-energy storage systems (BESS), data centres, and offshore platforms.
Projects have ranged from large-scale explosion consequence studies and fire safety assessments to targeted dispersion analyses for critical equipment and occupied buildings.
A fire safety assessment should be commissioned when planning new facilities, changing layouts, or introducing new materials that may alter risk. It is also important after incidents, near misses, or regulatory audits to confirm that fire and explosion protection systems are still effective.
At Advanced Analysis, our assessments identify gaps in passive and active protection measures, confirm compliance with local and international standards, and recommend improvements that can be implemented immediately or phased over time.
For further information, see our Fire Risk Assessment and Dust Audit pages.
Each of these tools answers a different question:
Bow-Tie Analysis defines how incidents occur and what barriers prevent or mitigate them.
Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) estimates how often those incidents may happen and their overall risk contribution.
Consequence Modelling predicts what physically happens if an event occurs: fire, explosion, or toxic release.
Together, they form a complete picture of risk.
At Advanced Analysis, these methods can be applied individually or combined, depending on the project’s needs.
When performed together, consequence modelling results from exploCFD can directly inform Bow-Tie or QRA studies, keeping inputs consistent and scientifically defensible.
This approach ensures each element, cause, likelihood, and physical consequence, is aligned and transparent to both engineers and regulators.
If you would like to discuss your project needs or request assistance, please visit our Contact us page.