LNG ACCIDENT DYNAMIC SIMULATION: APPLICATION FOR

HAZARDOUS CONSEQUENCE REDUCTION

Biao Sun
Kaihua Guo
SYSU-BP Center for LNG Training
Education and Research
Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
KEYWORDS: LNG accident, dynamic simulation, consequence reduction
ABSTRACT
The definition of hazard area, centered inside the LNG stations, is essential for risk assessment in LNG
industry. In this study, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations have been conducted for the two main
LNG hazards, LNG flammable vapor dispersion and LNG pool fire radiation, to determine the hazard
exclusion area. The spatial and temporal distribution of hazard in complex spill scenario has been considered
in CFD model. With the developed CFD code, the spray water curtains were studied as a shield to prevent
LNG vapor dispersing. Two types of water spray curtain, flat curtain and cone, were analyzed to show their
performance for reduction and minimization of the hazard influencing distance and area. The high expansion
foam firefighting process was also studied with dynamic simulation of the foam action. The characteristics of
the foam action on the reduction of LNG vaporization rate, vapor cloud and flame size as well as the thermal
radiation hazard were analyzed and discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION
Large quantities of LNG liquid could give off cryogenic and flammable vapor once released. In LNG industry,
safety concern for LNG station siting, construction and production has been raised highly because of potential
risk of LNG release hazards

[1, 2]

. One of the most important factors in risk assessment is the prediction of the

exclusive distance of inside and outside of LNG plant

[3]

. For public safety, the two typical hazards upon LNG

release, LNG vapor dispersion and LNG pool fire radiation, have gained most attention

[4]

Since 1960s, large-scale field tests of LNG release and its resultant hazards have been conducted to study
the important physical phenomena

[5, 6]

. Specifically, experiments of LNG vapor dispersion, as well as LNG

fires have been performed during later 1980s

[7]

. The experimental data have been used to validate

mathematical models, including integral model and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The CFD
models, which include detailed description of flow physics, are more computationally intensive but are
capable of modeling various phenomena adequately. The CFD models have gained increasing interest for
analyses of LNG spill hazards. Sutton, Brandt, and White

[8]

were among the first to apply CFD method to

simulate dense gas dispersion in a boundary-layer wind tunnel. Since 1990s, commercial CFD softwares,
such as FEM 3

[9]

, FLACS

[10]

, Star-CD, FLUENT

[11]

and CFX

[12]

, have become popular and were widely

applied to simulate LNG spill hazards.

This study deals with the spatial and temporal CFD simulations of the two typical LNG release resultant
hazards, vapor dispersion and fire radiation. Besides, mitigation methods of LNG releases were studied,
spray water curtain and high expansion foam working on LNG vapor dispersion and LNG pool fire,
respectively. Commercial code FLUENT 13.0 was applied to establish the CFD model of LNG hazards.

Corresponding author, email: guokaih@mail.sysu.edu.cn, tel: +86 20 39332893

Theory basis of these models can be referred to Ref [13].

2. VALIDATION OF CFD MODELING ON LNG HAZARDS
2.1 CFD model validation for LNG vapor dispersion
Falcon series of LNG vapor dispersion field tests were performed in 1987

[14]

by the Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory (LLNL). This study used the experimental data from Falcon tests to validate CFD model
of LNG vapor dispersion. Another field test, Montoir series of LNG pool fire tests, performed in 1987

[15]

, was

applied to validate CFD model of LNG pool fire. In the Falcon tests, LNG was released onto the surface of a
rectangular water pond, 60 m long and 40 m wide. The water was recycled in order to fully vaporize LNG. A
billboard stood in front of the water pond, which behaved as the LNG storage tank. The pond was
surrounded by a fence, 8.7 m high, 88m long and 44 m wide, behaving as the impoundment wall.
Monin-Obukhov theory was applied to describe the atmospheric stability, in order to calculate the vertical
profile of ambient wind velocity in the boundary layer

[16]

. A steady-state solution was first sought for the

ambient velocity field, as shown in Fig. 1. Swirls were generated inside the impoundment area, which would
influence the vapor dispersion.

Figure 1. Horizontal and vertical velocity field as initial conditions

t=10s

t=150s

t=400s

Falcon1: wind velocity 1.7 m/s, LNG spill rate 28.7 m /mintemperature 28.7 ,
atmospheric stability C, spill duration 131 s

Figure 2. Footprint of LNG vapor cloud dispersion in downwind distance

(iso-concentration 2.5% (vol))
The time-dependent simulation was then performed, initialized by the steady-state simulation. Swirls dragged
the dispersed cloud upwind at the beginning of LNG spill, shown in Fig. 2.

16

16

Falcon 1 (Experimental data)

14
12

8
6

10
8
6

-60

-40

-20

20

40

Downwind distance 150m, Time 180s

12

10

Height (m)

Height (m)

Falcon 1 (Simulation results)

14

Downwind distance 150m, Time 180s

0.5
5.0
10

60

-60

-40

Horizontal (m)

-20

20

40

60

Horizontal (m)

Figure 3. Experimental data (left) vs. predicted value (right)

of gas concentration contours at 150 m downwind
Fig. 3 illustrated the comparison of vertical volumetric concentration between test and simulation, located 150
m downwind. The maximum value was almost consistent with experimental data.
12

50 m downwind, 1 m above ground

20

150 m downwind, 1 m above ground

10

Test value

15

Volumetric Concentration (%)

Volumetric concentration (%)

Predicted value

Test Falcon 1
Wind velocity 1.7m/s
Temperature 33.5
Spill rate 28.7m3/min
Spill duration 131s
Air stability G

10

100

200

300

Time (s)

400

500

600

Predicted value
8
6

Test Falcon 1
Wind velocity 1.7m/s
Temperature 33.5
Spill rate 28.7m3/min
Spill duration 131s
Air stability G

4
2
0

700

Test value

100

200

300

400

Time (s)

500

600

700

800

Figure 4. Predicted vs. measured gas concentration

at 1 m above ground, 50 m and 150 m downwind
Fig. 4 compared the evolution of the predicted value and measured value of gas concentration at 50m and
150m downwind of the impoundment, respectively. It showed that CFD simulation captured the general
dispersion behavior of LNG vapor cloud.
2.2 CFD model validation for LNG pool fire radiation
Among the different types of LNG fire, LNG pool fire happened in a higher frequency. The CFD model for LNG
pool fire was verified by Montoir series of field test

[15]

. LNG spilled on a 35 m diameter insulated concrete dike.

Tab. 1 listed the experimental conditions of three tests. Test 1 and 2 were applied to verify the CFD model of
thermal radiation. Fig. 5 illustrated the temperature contours and radiant emissive power iso-profile in Montoir
1 test. A parameter study of flame length vs. iso-temperature surface was implemented and iso-temperature
surface of 1100 K was defined as flame outer surface. Comparison of the predicted value of LNG pool fire
characteristics and experimental data was listed in Tab. 2. The maximum relative error was lower than 10%.
Table 1. Initial conditions of Montoir series of LNG pool fire tests
No.

LNG Spill (m3)

238

198

196

Component (% mole)
CH4 90.33 C2H6 8.95
C3H6 0.342 N2 0.341
CH4 89.90 C2H6 8.70
C3H6 0.80
N2 0.42
CH4 90.10 C2H6 8.91
C3H6 0.64
N2 0.266

[15]

Wind velocity (m/s)

Temp. ()

2.7-4.8

25

7.0-10.1

21

2.8-4.8

14

Figure 5. Temperature contour (left) and iso-radiant power distribution (right) of vertical central plane
Comparison of horizontal radiant power profile was demonstrated in Fig. 6. The downwind and crosswind fire
radiant distance had a higher relative error. The total average relative error was 8.75%.
Table 2. Comparison of predicted value and experimental data in Montoir series tests
Measured
data
Flame lengthm
Average emissive
powerkW/m2

Montoir 1 test
Predicted Relative error
value
%

Measured
data

Montoir 2 test
Predicted Relative error
value
%

Measured
data

Montoir 3 test
Predicted Relative error
value
%

75.17.1

77.0

2.53

77.84.3

78.7

1.16

71.01.0

65.0

8.45

260.56.4

251.2

3.57

264.86.6

264.5

0.11

261.32.5

243.2

6.93

Flame tilted angle 47.09.9

45.2

3.83

57.33.2

62.7

9.42

44.78.1

45.1

0.89

Experimental data

Predicted value

Figure 6. Comparison of iso-radiant power in Montoir 2 test

3. MITIGATION METHOD ON LNG VAPOR DISPERSION
The mitigation of accidental LNG releases had gained a great concern in the LNG industry. Spray water
curtain was one of the commonly used methods to block LNG vapor dispersion

[17]

. The mitigation effects of

the two types of spray curtain, flat curtain and cone curtain were studied. The fan nozzle was capable to
project a fan-shaped water curtain in 180. According to the product specification from Angus

[18]

, the flat

curtain could cover approximate 24.4 m wide in crosswind and 7.6 m high. The other type of water curtain, 60
cone curtain, was constructed by a full cone spiral nozzle. The cone nozzles were usually designed in a line in
the downwind of LNG vapor dispersion, which behaved as a porous block.

Flow ratem3/min

2.0

q=kP

1011

1.50

0.75
0.50

0.5

Pipe diameter 0.0508m (2in)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Pipe diameter 0.0508 m

Outlet pressure 690 kPa

1010

1.75

1.00

1.0

0.0

2.00

1.25

D2/D1 =(P2/P1 )-0.3

1.5

1012

Resistance coefficient

Flow rate (Flat)

Flow rate (Cone)
Droplet (Flat)
Droplet (Cone)

2.5

2.25

Water droplet diameter

3.0

109
108
107
106
105
104

Viscous resistance (Flat)

Inertial resistance (Flat)

10

0.25

102

0.00

101
0.1

Viscous resistance (Cone)

Inertial resistance (Cone)
1

10

Distance away from the spray center (m)

PressurekPa

Figure 7. Flow rate and droplet size

vs. nozzle pressure

Figure 8. Resistance coefficient

vs. water curtain size

The basic characteristics of the two types of nozzles were displayed in Fig. 7. The cone nozzles could
create smaller water droplet. A semi-empirical correlation, Ergun equation

[19]

, was referred to calculate the

coefficients of viscous resistance, Cv, and inertial resistance, Ci, which were described in Eqn. 1.

Cv =

3.5(1 )
1.5(1 ) 2
, Ci =
2 3
D p 3
Dp

Where Dp is the diameter of water droplet in curtain;

is void fraction in curtain, which equals 1.0 at the

spray center and equals 0.0 at the edge of curtain. The resistance coefficients were summarized in Fig. 8.
The steady-state velocity field was obtained first and the results were demonstrated in Fig. 9. Swirls were
generated in both vertical and horizontal, which made the dispersed vapor to move towards the swirls center
and mitigated the hazardous area to a large degree.

Cone water curtain

Flat water curtain

Figure 9. Steady-state velocity field

Flat curtain

Cone curtain

No curtain

Figue10. Volumetric iso-concentration contours under different spill scenario

Fig. 10 compared the hazard influencing area of scenarios of flat curtain, cone curtain and no curtain,
assuming the ambient conditions were the same. Iso-concentration surface of 2.5% was the most concerned,
because exclusive distance would build at the downwind edge of this concentration, according to NFPA 59A
(2009 Edition)

[20]

. The results showed that if there was no water curtain existed, the exclusive distance was

82.0 m downwind. The flat curtain helped to reduce the distance by 83.9 %, while the cone curtain reduced
the distance by 61.0%.
4. MITIGATION METHOD ON LNG POOL FIRE RADIATION
Commonly used mitigation method in LNG industry was high expansion (HEX) foam, especially for reducing
the hazard from LNG pool fire

[21]

. Previous experimental research had been showed that HEX foam with an

expansion ratio of 500:1 had an optimum mitigation effects for LNG fire. Generally, HEX foam made the LNG
burning rate reduced in a large amount. Considering of effect of the pool size, the burning rate could be
written as

[22]

m '' = m " 1 e D
Where

(2)
''

m " is the LNG burning rate (kg/(m2s)); m is the maximum time-independent constant burning rate
2

(0.08 kg/(m s)); D is the LNG pool diameter; is the absorption-extinction coefficient of flame and is a
-1

mean-beam-length correction; is equal to 1.1 [m ] for LNG. For large pool, the wind may cause an
increased burning rate. The formula suggested by Blinov and Khudiakov

[23]

may be applied, i.e.

"
m windy
u

= 1 + 0.15
"
m still
D

Where

(3)

"
"
still
and m
are the wind-influencing and no-wind LNG burning rate; u is the wind velocity. A
m windy

semi-empirical correlation was assumed to consider the burning rate when LNG pool was covered by HEX
foam,

m =
m (1 e
''

"

u vAt

) 1 + 0.15 D e V

(4)

is the HEX foam factor only related with foam expansion ratio; is the HEX application rate (m3/(m2s)); A
2

is the opening area of HEX foam generator (m ); t is the HEX foam working time;
3

V is the LNG pool volume

(m ). HEX foam factor was the key value for suppression of the burning rate of LNG pool fire. In a higher
value , LNG pool fire was suppressed quickly and flame length was minimized in a short time. For foam
expansion rate 500: 1, equaled to 30000 through comparing with Suardins experiments. The conditions of
the experiments were summarized in Tab. 3. Test 3 and 4A were applied for simulation.
Table 3. Experiment conditions from Suardins study
Test ID

[21]

4A

4B

45

65

65

65

65

HEX foam application rate (L/(m min))

10

3.5

10

10

Radiometer location from pool edge (m)

30

30

30

30

27

Average wind speed (m/s)

3.7

NA

1.2

2.2

3.7

Air temperature (

15.8

NA

26.7

24.5

28.7

Pool area (m )
2

4000

LNG pool area 65 m

3000

HEX foam application rate of 7 L/(m2.min)

40

Heat flux data at 30 m from edge of LNG pool

2000

Predicted value

Test 4A

80

6000

Experimental data

5000

70
60

LNG pool area 65 m2

50

4000

HEX foam application rate of 10L/(m2.min)

40

3000

Heat flux data at 30 m from edge of LNG pool

30

2000

20

20
1000
0

Heat flux (% of maximum)

Experimental data

Heat Flux (W/m2)

60

7000

90

Predicted value

Test 3

80

Heat Flux (% of maximum)

100

5000

Heat Flux (W/m2)

100

Time (mins)

1000

10
0

10

Time (mins)

Figure 11. Heat flux vs. time in the 65 m LNG pool fire with different HEX foam application rate

t=22 s

t=40 s

t=45 s

t=1 min

t=2 min

t=4 min

t=7 min

t=10 min

Figure 12. Evolution of LNG pool fire flame at different burning time
Fig. 11 illustrated the comparison of the predicted value and experimental data of Test 3 and Test 4A,
respectively. Fire Control Time (FCT) was defined as the time required for 90% heat flux reduction, as
specified in NFPA 11

[24]

. In the experiment, 90% heat flux reduction arrived at 100s and 60s, comparing of

130s and 55s in the simulation.

The sequence of plots in Fig. 12 demonstrated the pool fire flame changing with time in Test 3. The LNG pool
fire started from t=0 s. At t=22 s, the fire was fully developed. Meanwhile, HEX foam was turned on. The fire
flame length was declined quickly within 30 s. At t=4 min, the fire reached at a steady-state buring, with a
consistant flame length. However, the fire was not extinguished by HEX foam although the time extended as
long as 10 min.
5. CONCLUSION
In this study, LNG vapor dispersion and LNG pool fire radiation CFD models were validated through modeling
historical field tests. The relative error of CFD model of pool fire radiation was lower than 10%. It concluded
that CFD model could describe the complex terrain effectively. The two mitigation methods for LNG hazards,
water curtain and HEX form, were studied. CFD simulation indicated that water curtains acted mainly as a
porous barrier to block LNG vapor dispersion, which could reduce the hazardous area significantly. The
effectiveness of HEX foam depended heavily on the foam expansion ratio and application rate. A new
correlation was introduced to calculate the LNG pool fire burning rate. For foam expansion ratio 500:1, the
HEX foam factor equaled 30000 through validating the experiments.
7

REFERENCES
[1]

J. Havens and T. Spicer. United States regulations for siting LNG terminals: Problems and potential. J.
Hazardous Materials, 2007. 140(3): p. 439-443.

[2]

R.P. Koopman, D.L.Ermak, Lessons learned from LNG safety research. J. Hazardous Materials, 2007.
140(3): p. 412-428.

[3] P.K. Raj and T. Lemoff. Risk analysis based LNG facility siting standard in NFPA 59A. J. Loss Prevention
in the Process Industries, 2009. 22(6): p. 820-829.
[4]

Mike Hightower. Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Spill Over Water. SANDIA REPORT.

[5]

Luketa-Hanlin. A review of large-scale LNG spills: Experiments and modeling. J. Hazardous Materials,
2006. 132(2-3): p. 119-140.

[6]

P. Cleaver, M. Johnson, B. Ho. A summary of some experimental data on LNG safety. J. Hazardous
Materials, 2007. 140(3): p. 429-438.

[7] D. L. Ermak, R.C., H. C. Goldwire, F. J. Gouveia, H. C. Rodean. Heavy Gas Dispersion Test Summary
Report. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, UCRL-21210, 1988.
[8] Sutton, S. B., H. Brandt, and B. R. White. Atmospheric dispersion of a heavier-than-air gas near a
two-dimensional obstacle. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 1986. 35(1): p. 125-153.
[9] Luketa-Hanlin, R. P. Koopman, and D. L. Ermak. On the application of computational fluid dynamics
codes for liquefied natural gas dispersion. J. Hazardous Materials, 2007. 140(3): p. 504-517.
[10] S. Dharmavaram, S. R. Hanna, and O. R. Hansen. Consequence AnalysisUsing a CFD Model for
Industrial Sites. Published online 3 May 2005 in Wiley InterScience.
[11] Gavelli, F., E. Bullister, and H. Kytomaa. Application of CFD (Fluent) to LNG spills into geometrically
complex environments. J. Hazardous Materials, 2008. 159(1): p. 158-168.
[12] Qi, R., et al., Numerical simulations of LNG vapor dispersion in Brayton Fire Training Field tests with
ANSYS CFX. J. Hazardous Materials, 2010. 183(1-3): p. 51-61.
[13] ANSYS (2010). ANSYS FLUENT Theory Guide. USA: ANSYS Inc.
[14] T. C. Brown, R.T.C., S. T. Chan, D. L. Ermak, R. P. Koopman, K. C. Lamson, J. W. McClure, L. K.
Morries, Falcon Series Data Report: 1987 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials. America: (LLNL)
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, 1990.
[15] D. Nedelka, J. Moorhouse, et al. The Montoir 35m diameter LNG pool fire experiments, Midlands
Research Station, 1989.
[16] Khaled S. M. Essa, M.E., Soad M. Etman, A notional variation of the wind profile power-law exponent as
a function of surface roughness and staility. 4th Conference on Nuclear and Particle Physics. Fayoum,
Egypt, 2003.
[17]

Rana, M.A., et al. Experimental study of effective water spray curtain application in dispersing liquefied
natural gas vapor clouds. Process Safety Progress, 2008. 27(4): p. 345-353.

[18] Angus. Product specification sheet. Oxford shire, UK: Angus Fire Armour Limited, 2005.
[19] Ergun. S. Fluid Flow through Packed Columns. Chem. Eng. Progr,, 1952. 48(2): p. 89-94.
[20] NFPA 59A. Standard for the Production, Storage and Handling of Liquefied Natural Gas. 2009.
[21] Suardin, J.A., et al. Field experiments on high expansion (HEX) foam application for controlling LNG
pool fire. J. Hazardous Materials, 2009. 165(13): p. 612-622.
[22] VYTENIS BABRAUSKAS. Estimating Large Pool Fire Burning Rates. Fire techonology.
[23] V. I. Blinov, and G. N. Khudimakov. Diffusion Burning of Liquids. U.S. Army Translation, NTIS No.
AD296762 (1961).
[24]

NFPA 11. Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-expansion Foam, 2005.
8