Search for a command to run...
Abstract Adequate Cryogenic Spill Protection (CSP) specification plays a critical role in preventing cryogenic spill structural escalation and maintaining asset integrity. When an unprotected Safety and Environmental Critical Element (SECE) is reached by an accidental cryogenic spill, it could brittle fracture, impair its main safety functions and the event escalate into a Major Accident. This paper presents how adequate CSP specifications on SECEs reduce the structural escalation potential and can critically protect the integrity of Brownfield and Greenfield LNG assets. The paper also presents safety and structural solutions to mitigate the risk of generic CSP specifications on SECEs, which might not be adequate in some cases, The paper gives a brief introduction to the main cryogenic spill approaches to estimate the CSP specification. The CSP specification provides a) the LNG asset's SECEs to be protected with CSP, b) the load type received and c) the exposure duration. Details of each approach will not be given here, as we included them in the PFPNet Cryogenic Spill Protection (CSP) guidance (Pujol and Sari) /1/ Then the paper assesses, through nonlinear finite element analyses of representative structural connections and members, three distinct possible response regimes: stable structural response with adequate CSP ("Safe"), localized brittle fracture under inadequate CSP (potentially critical), and critical fracture with loss of load-carrying capacity in the absence of CSP. The structural performance of each cryogenic structural design (adequate CSP, inadequate CSP, no CSP) is analyzed against defined loading and asset integrity metrics. Comparisons are made across the two ignition scenarios and cryogenic brittle fracture conditions. Failure assessment diagrams (FAD) are presented and comparative analysis of the increased escalation potential for all the combinations (adequate CSP, inadequate CSP, no CSP, no ignition and ignition) are discussed. The FAD comparisons show the criticality of producing adequate CSP specifications (location to protect, load type and duration) for each SECEs. The results demonstrate that even partial CSP deficiencies—such as insufficient thickness or incomplete coverage—can materially increase fracture initiation risk and escalation potential, particularly when combined with restraint, residual stresses, and pre-existing defects. The paper emphasizes that adequate CSP specifications for critical structural elements to mitigate the risk of brittle fracture and structural escalation should receive attention. Missing the cryogenic spill risk during design stages results in under-prediction of the asset's total risk. Moreover, from the regulatory standpoint, the real total risk of the LNG asset could be crossing the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) unacceptable thresholds (whereas the total risk estimation, e.g. QRA, would say is it safe). The topic of cryogenic spill risk, brittle fracture and adequate CSP specification is receiving new industry and regulatory attention (e.g. LNG assets). A new wave of performance-based CSP design guidance, Recommended Practices, technical papers and research is coming. This paper aims to support the current industry practice in this area. Safety and structural solutions available to compensate and mitigate the risk of inadequate CSP are also briefly mentioned, e.g. CSP materials, structural redundancy, alternative steels, prevention of defects, crack arrest solutions,