New Model for Predicting Thermal Radiation from
Flares and High Pressure Jet Fires for Hydrogen
and Syngas
Derek Miller
Chief Engineer’s Office, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc, Allentown, PA; Millerd3@airproducts.com (for correspondence)
Published online 00 Month 2016 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI 10.1002/prs.11867
Current flare and jet fire models used in the process
industry are primarily based on hydrocarbon gases and
have been found not to be particularly effective for low lumi-
nosity gases such as hydrogen and syngas mixtures. This
article presents a new model for such gases, for low to high
pressure releases in both vertical and horizontal orientations.
The model, which predicts flame geometry and thermal radi-
ation, allowing for jet momentum, buoyancy, wind and
flame radiant fraction, is based on extension of established
models, with the addition of several new correlations. Valida-
tion against existing published data and new previously
unpublished test data collected at both pilot and full scale is
presented. This article provides the complete set of equations
for the model. V C 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
Process Saf Prog 000: 000–000, 2016
Keywords: hydrogen; syngas; jet fire; flare; model
OVERVIEW
Hydrogen and syngas (mixtures containing hydrogen, car-
bon monoxide, and other components) are routinely used
across a wide range of industrial applications. One important
hazard to manage is jet fires, both planned (e.g., flares) and
unplanned (e.g., process leaks). There is currently no pub-
lished model that adequately predicts flame geometry and
thermal radiation for these gases across a wide range of gas
compositions and release conditions (velocity, temperature,
and orientation), taking adequate account of ambient condi-
tions, such as wind speed—Air Products previously presented
a comparison between existing models and published data at
GCPS in 2014 [1]. A new model is presented here, built on
extension of published models primarily developed for hydro-
carbon flames, which has been validated against available pub-
lished data, as well as new test data specially collected for this
purpose. This report provides the equations required for the
model with the available experimental data and validation
between data and model. The new model is called AP Flame.
COMPARISON OF MODELS
To introduce the subject, it is worthwhile to briefly compare
results of two established models, Chamberlain [2] and API 521
This article is prepared for presentation at American Institute of
Chemical Engineers 2016 Spring Meeting, 12th Global Congress on
Process Safety Houston, Texas, April 10–14, 2016.
C 2016 American Institute of Chemical Engineers
V direction.
Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
[3] with the new AP Flame model. The Chamberlain model is
really only for light hydrocarbons, but is often used more broad-
ly, API 521 is for light hydrocarbons and hydrogen. Figure 1
shows results for a typical hydrogen and syngas flare, across a
range of conditions up to choked flow. The example flare is actu-
ally located at the Air Products Garyville hydrogen plant, where
tests were performed at turndown rates for both hydrogen and
syngas (73% H2, 7% CH4, 4% CO, and 16% CO2) [4]. Terminology
is described in third section of this paper.
API 521
API 521 matches hydrogen flare test data points quite
well, but overestimates radiant fraction and flame length at
high rates, as choke flow is approached. API 521 model is
only valid for subsonic flares. API 521 overpredicts flame
length and tilt for syngas.
Chamberlain
It should be noted that this model was intended for use
with natural gas and was never intended for use with hydrogen
or syngas. Nonetheless, it matches hydrogen test data points
quite well, but overestimates radiant fraction at lower rates. Air
Products has observed flames getting longer at high tilt angles,
(which has caused operational issues) but this is not picked up
by Chamberlain. To compound this issue, hydrogen flames are
more greatly impacted by wind than natural gas flames, which
is why Chamberlain underpredicts tilt for hydrogen. Chamber-
lain overpredicts radiant fraction and tilt for syngas.
AP Flame
AP Flame matches test data points well (expected since
data are part of overall dataset). General graph trends sup-
ported by results from other tests in dataset.
TERMINOLOGY
Figure 2 illustrates key terms used in this article. AP Flame
models vertical, horizontal, and 458 releases in the wind
direction.
Coordinates
X is in wind direction. Y is in the vertical direction. Z
is in the sideways direction, perpendicular to the wind
Month 2016 1
Figure 1. Comparison of model results: Chamberlain, API 521, and AP Flame for 2700 diameter, 53 m high vertical hydrogen
and syngas (73% hydrogen) flare, rural topography. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Flame Dimensions lift off from the flare tip (no combustion at tip). For purposes
Initial momentum section length, bl: Flame initially travels of this model, bl is the total length that is momentum dominat-
straight in release direction due to momentum. For some ed, included any lift off. Wind–buoyancy section length, RL:
gases with relatively low burning velocities, the flame may flame travels in direction determined by buoyancy and wind

2 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
Figure 2. Flame geometry. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Table 1. Summary of data sources.

Release Flare Release Flame

Data Source Gas Direction Diameter (”) Rate (kg/s) Length (m) Test Location Reference
Fishburne, 1979 H2 Vertical 6–27 2–126 48–110 USA Rocketdyne [6]
test site
Chamberlain, 1987 NG Vertical 6–42 4–63 – UK on & off shore [2]
Shirvill, 2005 H2 Horizontal 0.12–0.24 0.02–1 4–6 UK HSL site [7]
Schefer, 2007 H2 Vertical 0.2–0.3 0.06–0.4 – USA SRI test site [8]
DNV GL, 2008 NG and NG/H2 Horizontal 0.8–2 3–20 20–50 UK Spadeadam [9]
mixtures
Willoughby, 2011 H2 Vertical 0.75–2 0.04–0.4 3–7 UK HSL test site [10]
Air Products, 2014 H2 Vertical 36 1.3 30 Pasadena, TX H2 plant [1]
Air Products, 2014 H2 and syngas Vertical 27 1.7–13 25 Garville, LA H2 plant [4]
Air Products/ H2 Horizontal 0.7–2 1–7.5 17–49 UK Spadeadam Previously
DNV GL, 2009 unpublished
Air Products, 2015 NG, H2, Horizontal 1 0.02–0.07 3–5 USA R&D lab Previously
mixtures unpublished
with N2, CO2

conditions. Vertical flame direction defined by tilt angle, a.
Horizontal flames defined by lift, Ly or lift angle, d. Centerline
flame length, Lf is the overall flame length (bl 1 RL).
Flame Radiation
The fraction of the total heat released in the flame that is
in the form of thermal radiation is called the radiant fraction,
F determined empirically from test data. The total heat radiat-
ing from the flame in AP Flame is distributed as individual
point sources along the flame centerline, weighted to be a
maximum at the widest point in the flame (about 2/3 along
the flame, the radiant section), with low contributions from
the momentum section and at the tip, where the flame is
wispy [5]. The heat flux experienced at the receiver is the
sum of the heat received from each point source (function of
heat emitted and the distance between the source and the
receiver, Ri), with allowance for the air transmissivity, the
fraction of thermal radiant passing through a thickness of air
(not absorbed). Heat fluxes from other thermal radiation
sources, such as solar, should be added to determine total
heat flux at any point of interest.
SUMMARY OF DATA
Table 1 summarizes all data sources used in this analysis.
Full set of data used in the development of AP Flame is pro-
vided at the end of this article.
Previously Published Data
Fishburne (1979) [6] performed large-scale flare testing of ambi-
ent and cold hydrogen vertical releases through a variety of vent

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 3
Figure 3. Typical flames observed during the various Air Products tests. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.
com]
sizes. Flame length and radiant fraction results provided. Chamber-
lain (1987) [2] performed large-scale vertical natural gas (and simi-
lar) flare testing at off-shore and on-shore facilities and presented
a flare model derived from this data which is used as the basis for
the new model presented in this article. Shirvill (2005) [7] per-
formed tests on high pressure horizontal hydrogen releases, both
ignited and unignited and presented flame length results. Schefer
(2007) [8] performed tests with high pressure vertical hydrogen
releases and presented flame lengths and radiant fractions, as
well as a model for high pressure, vertical jet fires in the absence
of wind. DNV GL (previously Advantica) (2008) [9] performed
tests on high pressure horizontal natural gas and natural gas/
hydrogen mixtures and presented flame lengths and heat flux
measurements, from which this author has derived radiant frac-
tions. Willoughby (2011) [10] performed tests on vertical jet fires
and provided photos of flames, with weather conditions as well
as heat flux values at different locations, from which this author
has extracted flame lengths, flame tilt, and radiant fractions. Air
Products (2014) [1,4] performed tests on full scale hydrogen plant
vertical flares with both hydrogen and syngas (73% H2) and pre-
sented results on flame length, heat flux, and radiant fraction.
Air Products Previously Unpublished Test Data
In 2008, the company commissioned DNV GL (then Advan-
tica) to perform tests on high pressure horizontal hydrogen jet
fires, collecting information on flame length, heat flux, and
radiant fraction [15]. In 2015, Air Products completed testing at
its R&D facility on horizontal and 458 jet fires at different eleva-
tions, of mixtures of natural gas, hydrogen, nitrogen, and car-
bon dioxide and obtained data on flame length, heat flux, and
4 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE
radiant fraction to develop methods to model syngas mixtures.
Results of these tests are presented in this report.
Additional Data
During the review process for this article, another important
source of test data was identified. Johnson et al. [13] tested large
horizontal natural gas jet fires and developed a model, basically
extending the work of Chamberlain to horizontal releases. Includ-
ed in the Johnson paper are four sets of test data. At the end of
this article, a comparison between Johnson data and AP Flame
predictions is provided. Overall, AP Flame performs quite well.
TYPICAL FLAMES OBSERVED DURING AIR PRODUCTS TESTS
Figure 3 shows a selection of flames observed during Air
Products tests. Figures 3a and 3b were obtained during the
Air Products/DNV GL tests at Spadeadam, for hydrogen
releases from 3=400 and 200 horizontal pipe. Figures 3c and 3d
were obtained during the Air Products Garyville full scale
vertical flare tests for hydrogen and syngas using IR camera.
Figures 3e and 3f were obtained during Air Products R&D
tests for 100 458 natural gas and horizontal hydrogen releases.
AP FLAME BASIS
AP Flame is based on the Chamberlain model [2], devel-
oped in the 1980s from extensive data collected from natural
gas vertical flares. The new model also includes features
from the model developed by Sandia National Labs [5] for no
wind high pressure flames, primarily hydrogen. AP Flame
includes a number of newly developed correlations to ade-
quately model mixtures and horizontal/458 release flames.
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
None of the modifications impact the predictions for natural
gas from the original Chamberlain model. All equations from
the Chamberlain model are clearly identified in the text with
“Chamberlain” designation after the equation number. All
other equations represent new developments unless other-
wise referenced. All symbols used are described at the end
of the article. To help follow the series of equations, this is a
simple overview of the calculation steps
1. Determine source condition for the flame, expanded
source velocity uexp, density qexp, and diameter dexp.
2. Determine Richardson number n (LBO) and zero wind
flame length LBO, both used extensively as correlation
variables.
3. Determine flame dimensions bl, RL, Lf, and tilt a (for verti-
cal releases) or lift d (for horizontal releases).
4. Determine flame radiant fraction F based on gas mixture
and release orientation. Figure 4. Adiabatic combustion temperature correlation vs.
5. Determine overall heat flux, q at point of interest, by NASA CEA results. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonli-
summing heat fluxes received from thermal radiation nelibrary.com]
sources along flame.

JET RELEASE EXPANDED SOURCE CONDITION FOR CHOKED FLOW

RELEASES
It is necessary to determine conditions downstream of the
choke, where pressure is atmospheric, called the expanded (or
effective) source condition. The expanded source condition
defines the source term used in AP Flame. A number of different
methods have been proposed to determine the expanded source
condition, including Birch (1984) [19]; Birch (1987) [17] and
Ewan & Moodie [16]. AP Flame uses the Yuceil methodology [11]
to determine conditions at the expanded source, using conserva-
tion of mass, momentum, and energy. Expanded source condi-
tions (uexp, qexp, dexp) are calculated from the release throat
(pipe exit) condition, where isentropic expansion and choked
flow, if applicable, are applied, (qexp is determined from Hexp
and Pexp 5 Patmos). Note that the expanded source Mach
number > 1 when throat is choked. For nonchoked releases,
conditions at the throat and at the expanded source are the
same, Mach number < 1. The mass release rate, m_ is either speci-
fied or calculated based on upstream pressure.
The equations for conservation of momentum, energy,
and mass are written as (1)–(3),
Pthroat 2Patmos
uexp 5uthroat 1
uthroat qthroat
1 2 
Hexp 5Hthroat 2 uexp 2u2throat
2 mwair Tad
m_ p mwproducts Tair
5 d2
qexp uexp 4 exp
FLAME GEOMETRY FUNDAMENTALS
Richardson Number, n (LBO)
This dimensionless number is used extensively by Cham-
berlain and represents the ratio of buoyancy to momentum
flux for the zero wind flame length, LBO.
!0:333
g
Richardson number; nðLBO Þ5 LBO (4)Chamberlain
Ds2 u2exp
 
qexp 0:5
Equivalent air source diameter; Ds 5dexp
qair
(5)Chamberlain
Here, qair is ambient air density, and qexp is expanded source
density.
Zero Wind Flame Length, LBO
This parameter is used extensively in the model and Cham-
berlain uses a previously developed correlation, equation (6) by
Kalghatgi [20] which is solved iteratively to obtain LBO, using the
Richardson number. mwair 5 molecular weight of air, mwpro-
ducts 5 molecular weight of stoichiometric combustion products.
Tad 5 Adiabatic combustion temperature (constant pressure),
Tair 5 Ambient air temperature. Fs 5 stoichiometric mass frac-
tion fuel in fuel 1 air (note: simplified equation for Fs provided
in original Chamberlain paper only applicable to pure fuels of
form CnH2 n 1 2 and should not be used for syngas). Determina-
tion of Tad can be done using the following newly developed
correlation, based on Tad values for a range of syngas composi-
tions from pure H2 through to condensate off-gas (15% H2,
remainder CO2 and water vapor) determined using the online
Chemical Equilibrium with Applications (CEA) from NASA [12].
The correlation provides a reasonable fit, see Figure 4.
 2=3
Ds b
50:210:024nðLBO Þ (6)Chamberlain
LBO Fs
(1)
Where b is the density correction,
(2)  0:5
b5 (7)Chamberlain
(3)
In which,
 
Tad 5Tad;fuel 20:7395CD2equiv 10:0366CDequiv 10:9972
Tad;fuel 5321:08H32equiv 2310:88H22equiv 1144:03H2equiv 12223
CDequiv 5xCD 10:84xWA 10:59xN2
xH2equiv
H2equiv 5
xH2equiv 1xC1equiv
xH2equiv 5xH2 1xCM
xC1equiv 5xC1 1xC2 1xC3 1xC4
(8)
Wind Velocity at Flare Tip
Reference wind velocity, uwind0 is measured at a reference
height, h0 (10 m). Wind velocity at the flare tip, uwind is
scaled according to flare stack height, where aw 5 power

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 5
exponent depends on ground roughness of surrounding
area: rural (0.14); built up rural (0.27); suburban (0.34). If m_ NG 5255:42d02 YNG
release elevation < 10 m, the 10 m value is used. ( 2
2:0074XNG 21:0103XNG 10:0185 ; for XNG > 0:665
  YNG 5
hstack aw 2:9013
uwind 5uwind;0 (9) 0:7873XNG ; for XNG  0:665
h0
LBO
XNG 5
VERTICAL FLAMES 174:83d00:8794
Vertical Flame Tilt (13)
Angle between vertical and flame buoyancy section axis,
a. Chamberlain predicts tilt for natural gas flames, a0
Vertical Flare Tip to Flame End Distance, LB
(
8000R ; for R < 0:05 This parameter is used by Chamberlain as an intermediate
a0 nðLBO Þ5 step in determining flame dimensions Lf and RL. Flame
1726ðR20:026Þ0:5 1134 ; for R  0:05 length decreases with increasing wind, due to air
(10)Chamberlain entrainment.
uwind
Flame velocity ratio; R5 (11)Chamberlain LB
uexp 50:4910:51e20:4uwind (14)Chamberlain
LBO
For gases other than natural gas, it is found that a correction
term is required since hydrogen tilts more than predicted by For tilt angles a > p/3 (608) approximately, it is found that
Chamberlain, and syngas less, see Figure 5. A correction can flame length actually increases and obtains a maximum
be applied based on the ratio of mass release rates (basically length of approximately LBO at a 5 p/2 (908 horizontal),
a momentum correction) using the concept of m_ NG 5 mass which is not predicted by Chamberlain, see Figure 6. The
release rate of natural gas that creates the same LBO length as Chamberlain model could not include the effect of flame
the gas of interest, for the same flare diameter. A correlation length increase for tilted flames with wind, since no data
for m_ NG has been developed through multiple runs of the were available at that time. An increase in flame length with
chamberlain model. This method successfully corrects both tilt has previously been observed, for example, by Johnson
hydrogen underprediction and syngas overprediction. et al. [13] for horizontal natural gas flames. Consequently, a
modification is required, which increases LB from its value at
m_ NG 608 tilt (LB60) to LBO at 908 tilt. This requires a several step
a5a0 (12)
m_ process, using R60, the value of R (5 uwind/uexp) that yields
Where, a tilt of 608:

LB
5ae ba when a < p=3
LBO
a5e 290b  
1 1
b5 ln
30 ðLB =LBO Þ60
ðLB =LBO Þ60 50:4910:51e20:4uwind;60
(15)
uwind;60 5R60 uexp
8   2
>
> m_ 60m_ nðLBO Þ
>
< 0:0261 60nðLBO Þ m_ NG 2134 =1726 ;
> for
m_ NG 8000
> 0:05
R60 5
>
> 60m_ nðLBO Þ
>
> 60m_ nðLBO Þ
: ; for  0:05
m_ NG 8000 m_ NG 8000

Vertical Flare Momentum Section Length, bl Vertical Flare Wind–Buoyancy Section Length, RL
The Chamberlain method is used directly in the new By geometry,
model since it found to be adequate for hydrogen and
syngas  0:5
RL 5 L2B 2ðblsin ðaÞÞ2 2blcos ðaÞ (17)Chamberlain
8
>
> 0:2LB ; for a50
>
>
>
>
< sin ðK aÞ
bl5 LB ; for a 6¼ 0; a 6¼ p K 50:185e220R 10:015
>
> sin ðaÞ Vertical Flare Centerline Flame Length, Lf
>
>
>
> By definition,
:
0:015LB ; for a5p
(16)Chamberlain Lf 5bl1RL (18)

6 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
Figure 5. Vertical flame tilt vs. R for hydrogen and syngas. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

trends toward 1 as Ly/LBO trends toward 0: a flame that stays

Figure 6. Vertical flame length as a function of tilt. [Color
figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
HORIZONTAL FLAMES
horizontal. Low jet momentum drives Richardson number up
and bl/LBO trends toward 0 as Ly/LBO trends toward 1: a
flame that rapidly becomes vertical.
The horizontal flame correlation does not include the
impact of wind (no available data) and so it is mathematical-
ly possible for a horizontal release to become more vertical
than the same flame if released vertically (where AP Flame
does account for wind), which is clearly wrong. To avoid
this, the maximum value for d is capped so that it cannot
exceed (p/2 2 a) where a is the tilt from vertical, for the
same flame released vertically. Lift angle, d is obtained by
simple geometry:
      
Ly p
d5MAX 0; MIN ASIN ; 2a (22)
Lf 2b 2
This means that each time a horizontal release is run in AP
Flame, an equivalent vertical release must also be run to
determine a. Note that if d is limited to (p/2 2 a), then Lf
must be adjusted to match, Ly 5 (Lf 2 bl) sin (d).

Horizontal Flame Length, Lf 458 RELEASE FLAMES

Lf is found to be independent of wind within range of data
obtained and can be approximated to be LBO, see Figure 7a. Flame Length
Lf 5LBO (19) Based on Air Products R&D tests, the length of 458 release
flames is found to be similar to horizontal flames at the same
Horizontal Flame Momentum Section Length, bl release rate:
Momentum section length is found to be a function of
Richardson number, see Figure 7b. Switching LBO for Lf from Lf 5LBO (23)
(19) gives:
bl bl
520:125nðLBO Þ11:25; 0  1 (20) Flame Tilt
LBO LBO
Based on limited testing, 458 release flames can be
Horizontal Flame Lift, Ly and Lift Angle, d approximately modeled assuming that they are relatively
Horizontal flames lift in the wind–buoyancy section, due straight and continue at approximately a 458 angle from
to buoyancy. Lift is found to be a function of Richardson release point to the end of the flame.
number. See Figure 7c. Switching LBO for Lf from (19) gives:
Effect of Wind
Ly Ly No data are currently available to determine the impact of
50:125nðLBO Þ20:25; 0  1 (21) wind on 458 release flames. It would seem reasonable to
LBO LBO
assume that at high wind speeds the flame would bend
Equations (20) and (21) are mutually consistent. High jet toward horizontal, but no allowance has been made for this
momentum drives Richardson number down and bl/LBO in the model.

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 7
Figure 7. Horizontal flame dimensions for nat. gas, H2, and mixtures of nat. gas, H2, N2, and CO2. [Color figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FLAME RADIANT HEAT FRACTION, F
Total heat radiating from flame, Qrad is determined from
F 5 radiant heat fraction, m_ 5 mass flow rate (kg/s),
DHcombustion 5 gas heat of combustion (Lower Heating Value,
LHV) using Eq. (24).
1. AP Flame uses the Chamberlain correlation
F 5 0.11 1 0.21 exp (20.00323 uexp) for vertical natural
gas flames. Data indicate that this correlation is also rea-
sonable for horizontal natural gas flames, see Figure 8a.
2. Figure 8b shows radiant fractions for all available hydrogen
data, indicating that vertical release values of F can be well
correlated with Mflux mass flux at pipe exit (not expanded
source). This figure also shows that equivalent horizontal
and 458 release hydrogen flames have higher F values.
3. To predict F values for horizontal and 458 release hydro-
gen flames, a correction factor to the predicted vertical F
value (from the Mflux correlation) is applied, based on the
ratio of flame length, Lf, to elevation of radiant center
above ground, hRC, see Figure 8c. The correction factor
increases as the distance between the flame radiant center
and the ground, hRC decreases. It can be speculated that
the reason the F value is higher for a horizontal or 458
flame, compared to an equivalent vertical flame, is due to
reflection of thermal radiation off the ground between
the flame and the point of measurement and/or the hot
8 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE
ground underneath the flame preheating some of the air
entering the flame, increasing the flame temperature—this
effect would diminish with distance between flame and
ground and would be a lesser effect for vertical release
flames. It is not clear why this effect is not seen for natu-
ral gas. Where the flame is very near the ground, it will
impinge on the ground and AP Flame is no longer really
valid and a cap of 10 is applied to Lf/hRC.
4. Radiant fractions are found to be similar for 458 and hori-
zontal flames at the same flow rates and example for
hydrogen/natural gas mixtures is shown in Figure 8d.
Note that for this data F values are similar for natural gas
and hydrogen, although this is not generally the case.
5. Addition of inert gases reduces radiant fraction and a simple
relationship where radiant fraction is proportional to the fuel
fraction in the gas does a reasonable job capturing the effect
within the range tested. Figure 8e summarizes Air Products
R&D test results which were obtained for 458 flames, which
proved to be more stable than horizontal flames at this scale.
The fuel flow was kept constant and inert added as required.
It was not possible to obtain readings for higher inert addi-
tion due to flame instability/blow-off.
6. For purposes of the overall correlation for radiant frac-
tion, the syngas composition is split up into two effective
components: C1equiv which is the total mole fraction of
DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
Figure 8. Radiant fraction. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

“sooting” components C1 through C4 (assumes C2, C3,

C4 are only minor components in gas), H2equiv, which is
the total mole fraction of “nonsooting” components H2,
and CO, no data available on CO flames, so assumed
similar to H2 based on similar stoichiometry and flame
temperature. Note that C1equiv 1 H2equiv add up to less
than 1 when inerts are present, reflecting the “dilution”
effect of inerts. FC1 and FH2 are the radiant fractions of
“sooting” and “nonsooting” components, respectively.
7. The minimum values for F will occur for small high pres-
sure release flames, lowest value reported is 0.05 [14],
which acts as a lower limit in AP Flame.

_
Qrad 5F mDHcombustion

F 5MAXfðC1equiv FC1 1H2equiv FH2 Þ; 0:05g Figure 9. Distribution of radiant heat sources along flame
C1equiv 5xC1 1xC2 1xC3 1xC4 centerline. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlineli-
brary.com]
H2equiv 5xH2 1xCO
FC1 50:1110:21e 20:00323uexp
(
FH2 5Fcorr ð0:169120:01ln ðMflux ÞÞ hstack 1MAXð0; ð0:66Lf 2bÞsin ðdÞÞ ; for horizontal
hRC 5
4m_ hstack 10:66Lf sin ðp=4Þ ; for 45o
Mflux 5
pd02 (25)
8
<1; for vertical
Fcorr 5 DISTRIBUTION OF RADIATING SOURCES IN FLAME
: The model splits the total radiated heat up into 30 point
1:36 1 0:076 MINf10; Lf =hRC g ; for horizontal=45o
sources located evenly along the flame centerline (length Lf),
(24)Chamberlain following method by Ekoto [5]. Each point source, i, has a

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 9
Figure 10. Overall comparison of model predictions vs. data for some key flame parameters, Lf (m) and F. [Color figure can
be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

discrete location (xi, yi, zi) following along the flame center- relative humidity) and distance traveled through air (distance
line path of bl and RL. The amount of heat radiating from between radiation source and receiver). Method from Wayne
each point source has a weighting factor, wi arranged to be a [18] si 5 Air transmissivity 5 fraction of radiated heat passing
maximum at the radiant center of the flame, 2/3 along Lf (5 through distance Ri of air, Ri 5 distance from source i to
bl 1 RL) and a minimum at each end. Figure 9 shows how receiver, RH 5 Ambient relative humidity (fraction) Smm 5 sa-
the radiating heat is distributed. turated water pressure, mm Hg at ambient air temperature,
The radiating heat weighting factor for ith point in flame, Tair. It should be noted that the Wayne correlation was devel-
wi, is defined as, oped for hydrocarbon flames with both water and carbon
dioxide combustion gases, hydrogen only has water. Some
(
0:003273i ; for 1  i  20 inaccuracy is therefore expected using this correlation for
wi 5 (26) hydrogen. However, test results indicate this error to be rela-
0:003273ð2021:9ði220ÞÞ ; for 20  i  30 tively minor. For example, the estimation of radiation fraction
F for the Air Products full scale hydrogen flare test [4]
Where Qrad,i is the Heat radiation from the ith point source, obtained effectively the same calculated value for F (using
AP Flame) from two radiometer locations, one at 34 m from
Qrad;i 5Qrad wi (27) the flare tip, the other at 90 m.
    2
si 51:00620:01171log10 Xair ðWAÞi 20:02368 log10 Xair ðWAÞi
AIR TRANSMISSIVITY     2
Water and carbon dioxide in the air adsorb thermal radia- 20:03188 log10 Xair ðCDÞi 10:001164 log 10 Xair ðCDÞi
tion as a function of the concentration of carbon dioxide in (28)
the air (fixed), water in the air (function temperature and

10 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
Table 2. Johnson et al. horizontal natural gas jet fire tests.

Test 1040 Test 1083 Test 1033 Test 1089

Data from Paper
Mass flow rate (kg/s) 2.8 8.4 7.9 3.8
Stagnation pressure (barg) 0.3 2.1 11.1 66
Stagnation temperature (K) 277 267 279 281
Hole diameter (mm) 152 152 75 20
Wind speed (m/s) 1.7 0.3 3.9 6.9
Wind direction, clockwise from north (8) 247 326 271 269
Ambient temperature (K) 279 281 282 286
RH (%) 89 80 81 91
Calculated Values
Wind to release angle (8) 223 56 1 21
AP Flame expanded source Mach number 0.49 1.25 1.9 2.07
AP Flame radiant fraction, F 0.22 0.16 0.14 0.14

Table 3. Johnson et al. heat fluxes vs. AP Flame predictions.

x y z DATA AP Flame x y z DATA AP Flame

Test 1040 (m) (m) (m) (kW/m2) (kW/m2) Ratio Test 1083 (m) (m) (m) (kW/m2) (kW/m2) Ratio
1 15 20.5 10.3 8.6 15.7 1.8 1 9 22 10.3 14 21 1.5
2 15 20.5 14.3 6.7 9 1.3 2 9 22 14.3 11.4 13.7 1.2
4 15 20.5 24.3 3.3 3.3 1.0 3 9 22 18.3 8 8.4 1.1
5 15 20.5 30.3 2.2 2.2 1.0 4 9 22 22.3 6.6 6.9 1.0
10 10 20.5 18.3 5.5 5.6 1.0 5 9 22 26.3 5.2 5.2 1.0
12 15 20.5 214.3 9.6 9 0.9 6 9 22 30.3 3.4 3.9 1.1
13 15 20.5 224.6 3.9 3.3 0.8 10 9 21 44.3 0.7 2 2.9
Average 1.1 12 50 22 0.3 4.6 5.7 1.2
13 55 22 0.3 3.3 3.7 1.1
14 60 22 0.3 2.2 3 1.4
Average 1.4

x y z DATA AP Flame x y z DATA AP Flame

Test 1033 (m) (m) (m) (kW/m2) (kW/m2) Ratio Test 1089 (m) (m) (m) (kW/m2) (kW/m2) Ratio

1 15 22 10.3 20.2 24.7 1.2 1 15 22 10.3 9.5 13.6 1.4

2 15 22 14.3 14.1 14.6 1.0 2 15 22 14.3 5.8 7.7 1.3
4 15 22 24.3 5.9 5.7 1.0 3 15 22 18.3 3.8 4.8 1.3
5 15 22 30.3 4 3.7 0.9 4 15 22 22.3 2.6 3.3 1.3
9 5 22 18.3 6.8 7.2 1.1 5 15 22 26.3 2 2.4 1.2
10 10 22 18.3 8.3 8.5 1.0 Average 1.3
12 15 22 214.3 14 14.6 1.0
13 15 22 224.6 5.7 5.6 1.0
Average 1.0

x, release direction; y, vertical; z, perpendicular to release direction.

Rh Ri Smm X 30
Qrad;i si
Xair ðWAÞi 5288:651 q5 (31)
T 4pRi2
(29) i51
Ri
Xair ðCDÞi 5273
 T  Where Ri is the distance from ith point in flame to receiver,
3816:42
23:189862
Smm 50:0075e Tair 246:13
(30)  0:5
Ri 5 ðx2xi Þ2 1ðy2yi Þ2 1ðz2zi Þ2 (32)

HEAT FLUX AT POINT OF INTEREST RECEIVER

The heat total heat flux from the flame, at a point of inter-
est receiver, q, kw/m2 is the sum of heat fluxes received
from each radiating point (i) in the flame. (x,y,z) is location
of receiver, (xi, yi, zi) is location of ith radiating source.
OVERALL MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR FLAME LENGTH AND RADIANT
FRACTION VERSUS ALL AVAILABLE DATA
Figure 10 shows overall comparisons of model vs. data
for some key parameters of vertical, horizontal and 458
flames. Overall, the model performs well. It is encouraging,

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 11
Figure 11. Johnson et al. test result flame profile side view vs. AP Flame prediction. [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonli-
nelibrary.com]

for example, to see the good prediction of the full scale same direction as the wind. For Test 1089 (high pressure
Garyville vertical syngas flame radiant fraction (0.12 model release), AP Flame overpredicts heat fluxes. For natural
vs. 0.11 data) and flame length (25 m model vs. 25 m data) gas, AP Flame simply uses the Chamberlain correlation for
using the method developed from small scale R&D tests on F and it is recognized in the Chamberlain paper that this
horizontal syngas mixture flames. correlation may be conservative for high pressure/high
velocity releases, 600 or less in diameter.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The new AP Flame model is based on the established NOMENCLATURE
Chamberlain model which has proven to be a strong foun- Symbol Description
dation. The new model extends the scope to include non- aw Power exponent for scaling wind at different
sooting gases such as hydrogen and carbon monoxide as heights
well as inerts and it also covers horizontal and 458 release a Parameter in vertical flame length correction
flames. b Parameter in vertical flame length correction
2. The model is based on a reasonably extensive dataset of bl Length of vertical flame momentum dominated
previously published and new test data on natural gas and (m)
hydrogen and more limited data on syngas mixtures. Data CDequiv Weighted carbon dioxide equivalent for CD, N2,
cover a wide range of scales from lab and pilot scale up WA components
to and including large industrial flares (0.200 to 4200 pipe C1equiv Sum C1, C2, C3, C4 mole fractions
diameters) and low pressure up to high pressure releases d Diameter (m)
(nonchoked and choked). d0 Flare exit diameter (m)
3. Given the inherent variability in the nature of flames and Ds Equivalent air source diameter (m)
the many challenges involved with setting up tests and F Radiant fraction of flame
measuring needed parameters, the new AP Flame per- Fs Stoichiometric mass fraction fuel in fuel 1 air
forms quite well across the full range of flames studied. g Gravitational constant, 9.81 (m/s2)
H Enthalpy (J/kg)
AP FLAME PREDICTIONS VERSUS JOHNSON ET AL.’S DATA DHcomb Gas heat of combustion (LHV; KJ/kg)
1. Johnson et al. [13] present a model for predicting flame H2equiv Sum H2, CO mol fractions
shape and thermal radiation for large natural gas jet fires, hstack Height of flare tip above grade (m)
based on testing at Spadeadam, UK in the late 1980s. h0 Reference height, 10 m (m)
These data were not used in the development of AP Flame hRC Height of flame radiant center above ground (m)
and can, therefore, be used as an independent check of m_ Release rate (kg/s)
the model. The paper includes the results for four sets of mw molecular weight of released gas
tests, summarized in Table 2. K Variable used to determine b
2. Flame shape and heat flux values, compared to AP Flame L Dimension of interest, such as flame length (m)
predictions are presented in Table 3 and Figure 11. LB Distance from flare tip to flame end (m)
3. Overall, AP Flame performs quite well, allowing that for LBO Flame length in no wind (m)
the first two tests, release direction is different than wind Lmb Mean beam length (m)
direction—AP Flame assumes release direction is in the Lf Centerline flame length (m)

12 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
Ly Horizontal flame lift (m) f (L) Richardson number
P Pressure (Pa) T Air transmissivity
q Heat flux (kw/m2) Subscripts
Qrad Total heat radiated from flame (kw) ad Adiabatic flame condition
R Ratio wind velocity/expanded source velocity ad fuel Adiabatic flame condition for fuel components
RH Relative humidity only (no inerts)
RH2 Ratio H2 to total fuel fraction of gas, used in adi- air Ambient air condition
abatic flame temperature correlation atmos Atmospheric condition
Ri Distance from radiating source to receiver (m) C1 Methane
RL Length of flame buoyancy/wind dominated (m) C2 Ethane
RWA Ratio water/(water 1 carbon dioxide) C3 Propane
Smm Ambient air saturated water pressure (mm Hg) C4 Butane
T Temperature (K) H2 Hydrogen
u Velocity (m/s) CM Carbon monoxide
X Ratio of LBO to LBO at given Mach number CD Carbon dioxide
x Mol fraction choke Choked flow condition
x Distance from flare tip in wind direction (m) exp Expanded (effective) source condition
Xair (CD) Variable representing impact of CD in air on s flame Flame condition
Xair (WA) Variable representing impact of WA in air on s i ith radiating source in flame
Y Ratio of release rate/release rate at given Mach NG Natural gas
number N2 Nitrogen
y Vertical distance above grade (m) O2 Oxygen
YL Horizontal flame lift due to buoyancy (m) products Combustion products condition
z Cross wind distance (m) throat Release exit condition
a Vertical flame tilt from vertical due to wind WA Water
(radians) wind Wind condition at flare tip
a0 Vertical flame tilt from vertical due to wind for wind0 Wind condition at reference height (10m)
natural gas (radians) 0 Initial condition
b Density correction factor 60 Condition at 608 tilt
d Horizontal flame lift angle (radians)
q Density (kg/m3)
FULL DATASET

h T mdot Ta Wind m/s Lf b a Ly

Source H2 C1 CO CO2 N2 Direction (m) d00 (K) (kg/s) (K) @ 10 m F (m) (m) (8) (m)
Schefer [16] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5 0.2 288 0.36 288 0 0.07 0
Schefer [16] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5 0.3 288 0.06 288 0 0.08 0
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5.5 0.75 272 0.08 272 1.6 0.11 4.6 5
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5.5 0.75 275 0.2 275 1.9 0.13 6.4 5
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5.5 0.75 271 0.35 271 4.5 0.11 6.4 12
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5.5 2 275 0.08 275 2.5 0.14 5.5 15
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5.5 2 275 0.2 275 4.2 0.15 6.1 15
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 5.5 2 273 0.4 273 3.2 0.13 7.3 12
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 0.75 273 0.35 273 10 7 16
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 0.75 273 0.04 273 10 3 60
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 2 273 0.4 273 10 7 33
Willoughby [10] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 2 273 0.04 273 10 6 81
AP/DNV GL [15] 1 0 0 0 0 H 3.25 0.8 279 1 279 3.4 0.15 17.4 12.1 3.5
AP/DNV GL [15] 1 0 0 0 0 H 3.25 2.1 279 7.5 279 2.6 0.20 48.5 30.8 11
AP/DNV GL [15] 1 0 0 0 0 H 3.25 2.1 279 6.6 279 2.6 0.20 44.6 28.4 9.8
DNV GL [9] 0 1 0 0 0 H 3.25 0.8 290 2.9 290 5 0.12 19.8 11.9 2.4
DNV GL [9] 0 1 0 0 0 H 3.25 1.4 290 9.6 290 5 0.14 37.8 23.5 6.4
DNV GL [9] 0 1 0 0 0 H 3.25 2 290 19.5 290 5 0.17 49.9 30.8 15
DNV GL [9] 0.24 0.76 0 0 0 H 3.25 0.8 290 2.7 290 5 0.12 17.6 12.4 2.8
DNV GL [9] 0.24 0.76 0 0 0 H 3.25 1.4 290 7.2 290 5 0.14 30.7 20.6 6.4
DNV GL [9] 0.24 0.76 0 0 0 H 3.25 2 290 16.9 290 5 0.16 45.2 28.5 12
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 6 125 1.9 290 1.5 0.11
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 10 125 17 290 1.5 0.10
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 1.9 290 1.5 0.15
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 17 290 1.5 0.12
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 43 290 1.5 0.11
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 250 43 290 1.5 0.11
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 84 290 1.5 0.10
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 126 290 1.5 0.09
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 5.5 290 1.5 48

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 13
 h T mdot Ta Wind m/s Lf b a Ly
Source H2 C1 CO CO2 N2 Direction (m) d00 (K) (kg/s) (K) @ 10 m F (m) (m) (8) (m)
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 9.1 290 1.5 55
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 22 290 1.5 110
Fishburne [6] 1 0 0 0 0 V 10 27 125 26 290 1.5 93
AP Garyville [4] 1 0 0 0 0 V 53 27 311 1.74 290 2.3 0.16 26 50
AP Garyville [4] 0.73 0.07 0.04 0.16 0 V 53 27 311 13 290 2 0.11 25 9
AP Pasadena [4] 1 0 0 0 0 V 30 36 310 1.3 290 9 33 80
AP R&D 1 0 0 0 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.005 290 2 0.24
AP R&D 1 0 0 0 0 H 3 1 290 0.005 290 2 0.20
AP R&D 0 1 0 0 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.027 290 2 0.21
AP R&D 0 1 0 0 0 H 3 1 290 0.027 290 2 0.24
AP R&D 0.21 0.79 0 0 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.025 290 2 0.26
AP R&D 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.023 290 2 0.23
AP R&D 0.69 0.31 0 0 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.019 290 2 0.23
AP R&D 0.88 0 0 0 0.12 458 1.5 1 290 0.014 290 2 0.21
AP R&D 0.79 0 0 0 0.21 458 1.5 1 290 0.024 290 2 0.16
AP R&D 0.72 0 0 0 0.28 458 1.5 1 290 0.032 290 2 0.13
AP R&D 0.88 0 0 0.12 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.02 290 2 0.23
AP R&D 0.79 0 0 0.21 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.034 290 2 0.20
AP R&D 0.75 0 0 0.25 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.042 290 2 0.17
AP R&D 0 0.83 0 0 0.17 458 1.5 1 290 0.036 290 2 0.19
AP R&D 0 0.71 0 0 0.29 458 1.5 1 290 0.045 290 2 0.16
AP R&D 0 0.83 0 0.17 0 458 1.5 1 290 0.041 290 2 0.19
AP R&D 0 1 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.027 290 2 3.7 1.5 2.4
AP R&D 0 1 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.053 290 2 4.6 2.1 1.8
AP R&D 0 1 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.064 290 2 4.9 3.0 1.8
AP R&D 0 0.83 0 0 0.17 H 2.8 1 290 0.036 290 2 3.4 1.8 1.8
AP R&D 0 0.71 0 0 0.29 H 2.8 1 290 0.045 290 2 3.0 2.1 0.6
AP R&D 0 0.66 0 0 0.34 H 2.8 1 290 0.05 290 2 4.0 2.1 1.2
AP R&D 0 0.83 0 0.17 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.041 290 2 4.0 2.7 1.8
AP R&D 0 0.73 0 0.27 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.053 290 2 4.0 2.1 1.5
AP R&D 0.21 0.79 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.025 290 2 4.3 2.1 2.4
AP R&D 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.023 290 2 4.3 1.5 2.1
AP R&D 0.69 0.31 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.019 290 2 3.4 1.5 1.8
AP R&D 1 0 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.003 290 2 2.1 0.3 2.0
AP R&D 1 0 0 0 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.005 290 2 3.0 1.2 1.8
AP R&D 0.93 0 0 0.07 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.012 290 2 2.7 1.5 0.9
AP R&D 0.88 0 0 0.12 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.02 290 2 2.4 1.8 0.3
AP R&D 0.79 0 0 0.21 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.034 290 2 2.4 2.4 0.0
AP R&D 0.74 0 0 0.26 0 H 2.8 1 290 0.043 290 2 2.4 2.4 0.0
AP R&D 0.88 0 0 0 0.12 H 2.8 1 290 0.014 290 2 2.7 1.5 0.6
AP R&D 0.79 0 0 0 0.21 H 2.8 1 290 0.024 290 2 3.0 1.8 0.6
AP R&D 0.72 0 0 0 0.28 H 2.8 1 290 0.032 290 2 2.1 2.1 0.0
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 12 290 10.3 290 8 0.23
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 12 290 17.4 290 8 0.20
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 12 290 22.3 290 8 0.19
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 12 290 24.6 290 8 0.15
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 8 290 5.9 290 8 0.21
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 8 290 8 290 8 0.20
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 8 290 11.2 287 8 0.17
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 8 290 14.9 290 8 0.15
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 8 290 20.3 290 8 0.15
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 4.6 290 8 0.16
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 5.9 290 8 0.14
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 7.6 290 8 0.13
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 19.1 290 8 0.12
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 42 290 27.2 290 8 0.29
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 42 290 35.8 290 8 0.26
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 42 290 43.6 290 8 0.28
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 42 290 55.6 286 8 0.27 55.5 36
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 1.54 290 8 0.28
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 2.63 290 8 0.22
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 6 290 3.8 290 8 0.19
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 24 290 4.6 290 8 0.32

14 Month 2016 Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00)
 h T mdot Ta Wind m/s Lf b a Ly
Source H2 C1 CO CO2 N2 Direction (m) d00 (K) (kg/s) (K) @ 10 m F (m) (m) (8) (m)
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 24 290 5.7 290 8 0.31
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 24 290 8.96 290 8 0.30
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 24 290 12.2 290 8 0.30
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 24 290 12.4 290 8 0.29
Chamberlain [2] 0 1 0 0 0 V 10 24 290 14.9 290 8 0.30
Shirvil [7] 1 0 0 0 0 H 1.5 0.2 290 0.1 290 2 5.8 5.5 0.2
Shirvil [7] 1 0 0 0 0 H 1.5 0.1 290 0.018 290 2 2.9 2.7 0.1
Shirvil [7] 1 0 0 0 0 H 1.5 0.1 290 0.035 290 2 3.6 3.5 0.1
Shirvil [7] 1 0 0 0 0 H 1.5 0.1 290 0.045 290 2 4 3.8 0.2

Notes
1. Chamberlain and Fishburne do not provide flare elevation, but do provide wind speed. For this data, a 10 m nominal eleva-
tion has been selected.
2. Willoughby radiant fractions estimated from averaging published heat fluxes at different locations.
3. All flame dimensions determined from photographs. Since flames can move significantly over time due to wind fluctuation,
values provided are subject to error. AP Garyville hydrogen and syngas flame dimensions obtained accounting for perspective,
according to location of camera vs. flame.
4. Chamberlain radiant fractions vs. release conditions obtained through interpretation of plots provided in paper.

10. D.B. Willoughby, M. Royle, S. Nilsen, and T. Gautier,

LITERATURE CITED
1. D. Miller, S. Jung, and E. Lutostansky, “Applicability of
currently available flare radiation models for hydrogen
and syngas,” Proceedings of 10th Global Congress on
Process Safety, New Orleans, LA, 2014.
2. G.A. Chamberlain, Developments in design methods for
predicting thermal radiation from flares, Chem Eng Res
Des 65 (1987), 299–309.
3. Pressure Relieving and Depressurizing Systems, American
Petroleum Institute (API) 521, 6th Edition, 2014.
4. D. Miller, and J. Bedenbaugh, “Hydrogen and syngas
flares – Comparison between experimental data and
model predictions,” AFPRC Industrial Combustion Sym-
posium, Houston TX, 2014.
5. I.W. Ekoto, A.J. Ruggles, L.W. Creitz, J.X. Li, “Updated jet
flame radiation modeling with buoyancy corrections,”
International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, Brussels,
Belgium, 2013.
6. E.S. Fishburne and H.S. Pergament, “The dynamics and
radiant intensity of large hydrogen flames,” Colloquium
on Fire and Explosion, 1979.
7. L.C. Shirvill, P. Roberts, C.J. Butler, T.A. Roberts, and M.
Royle, Characterisation of the Hazards from Jet Releases
of Hydrogen, Health and Safety Laboratory, UK, 2005.
8. R.W. Schefer, W.G. Houf, B. Bourne, and J. Colton, Spa-
tial and radiative properties of an open-flame hydrogen
plume, Int J Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006), 1332–1340.
9. B.J. Lowesmith, An experimental programme to study
high pressure jet fires following releases of natural gas/
hydrogen mixtures, R0051-WP2-R-0 (Part of Deliverable
D37), 2008.
Hydrogen Venting under Variable Flow Conditions,
Health and Safety Laboratory, UK, 2011.
11. K.B. Yuceil and M.V. Otugen, Scaling parameters for
underexpanded supersonic jets, Phys Fluids 14 (2002),
4206.
12. B.J. McBride and S. Gordon, NASA CEA, Available at
http://cearun.grc.nasa.gov/index.html.
13. A.D. Johnson, H.M. Brightwell, and A.J. Carsley, “A mod-
el for predicting the thermal radiation hazards from large
scale horizontal natural gas jet fires,” Hazards XII, UMIST,
Manchester, UK, April 19–21, 1994.
14. R.W. Molina and R.W. Schefer, et al., “Radiative fraction
and optical thickness in large – Scale hydrogen – Jet
fires,” Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 2007.
15. Advantica, Report on Hydrogen Jet Fires Carried Out On
Behalf of Air Products & Chemicals Inc., Private Report,
2009.
16. B.C.R. Ewan and K. Moodie, Structure and velocity meas-
urements in underexpanded jets, Combust Sci Technol 45
(1986), 275–288.
17. A.D. Birch, D.J. Hughes, and F. Swaffield, Velocity decay
of high pressure jets, Combust Sci Technol 52 (1987),
161–171.
18. F.D. Wayne, An economical formula for calculating atmo-
spheric infrared transmissivities, J Loss Prev Process Ind 4
(1991), 86–92.
19. A.D. Birch, D.R. Brown, M.G. Dodson, and F. Swaffield,
The structure and concentration decay of high pressure
jets of natural gas, Combust Sci Technol 36 (1984), 249–
261.
20. G.T. Kalghatgi, Flowout stability of gaseous jet diffusion
flames. Part 1: In still air, Combust Sci Technol (1981).

Process Safety Progress (Vol.00, No.00) Published on behalf of the AIChE DOI 10.1002/prs Month 2016 15