Procedia Engineering 52 ( 2013 ) 602 606

1877-7058 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of School of Engineering of Sun Yat-sen University
doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.02.192

Thermal Radiation and Impact Assessment of the LNG BLEVE Fireball
ZHANG Qian-xi
a,b,c
, LIANG Dong
a,b,*

a
School of Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510006, China
b
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fire Science and Technology, Guangzhou 510006, China
c
School of Engineering, Guangdong Ocean University, Zhanjiang 524008, China
Abstract
Correlations are presented that represent consensus views on the influence of mass of LNG in the release on BLEVE fireball diameter,
duration, and radiation output. And when the BLEVE fireball accidents of different load of LNG road tankers occurred, the corresponding
safety distances of thermal radiation influence are calculate.

2012 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: thermal radiation; LNG; BLEVE; fireball
1. Introduction
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) market has evolved significantly in the past decade and seems destined for sustained growth
and diversification over the next decade or so. With the prompt growth of LNG trades, more and more LNG projects and
storage tanks have been set up. As the rapid development of LNG industry, safety consideration is among the first on the
main concern.
The BLEVE (boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion) is a physical phenomenon that an explosion resulting from the
failure of a vessel containing a liquid at a temperature significantly above its boiling point at normal atmospheric pressure
[1]
.
Venart, with considerable experience in this area, and maintains that LNG BLEVE events are possible
[2]
. One LNG BLEVE
event has been identified, which was a road tanker accident in Spain in June 2002
[3]
. In most case, the BLEVE is followed
by a fireball. For a typical fireball resulting from an accidental release of flammable material, combustion energy is released
within a time span of 1020s
[4]
. About one fourth of this energy is emitted as radiationpowerful enough to scorch people,
damage property, and trigger secondary fires
[5]
. For these reasons fireballs are considered as one of the major hazards in
process industry. In this paper, The BLEVE fireball thermal radiation and its impact assessment model are introduced, and
we can calculate the radius, duration time, lift-off height, heat radiation flux of the BLEVE fireball and predict the death
probability when people exposes in heat radiation flux of BLEVE fireball.
2. Thermal radiation Calculation steps and parameters
Crawley points that the fireball passes through three phases
[6]
:
(a) Growth. The growth phase has two intervals, each spanning about 1s. During the first time span, during which the
fireball grows to about half its final diameter, the fireball boundary is bright with yellowish-white flames. In the second time
span of the first phase, the fireball attains its maximum volume, but about 10% of the surface is dark and sooty with the rest
being white, yellowish-orange or light red.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-20-39332230.
E-mail address: 14083726@qq.com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of School of Engineering of Sun Yat-sen University
603 Zhang Qian-xi and Liang Dong / Procedia Engineering 52 ( 2013 ) 602 606

(b) Steady burning. In the second phase, which lasts some 10s, the fireball, which is now roughly spherical, is no longer
growing. At the start of this phase it begins to lift off. It rises and changes to the familiar mushroom shape.
(c) Burnout. In the third phase, which lasts some 5s, the fireball remains the same size, but the flame becomes less sooty
and more translucent.
The Yellow Book
[7]
presents a 14-step calculation with which the thermal radiation of a likely LNG fireball from a
BLEVE can be predicted. The steps are associated with calculations of: (a) the amount of flammable material likely to be
released on vessel failure, (b) fireball radius, (c) fireball duration, (d) fireball lift-off height, (e) distance of impact point X
from the center of the fireball, (f) maximum value of view factor at point X, (g) heat generated by the fireball, (h) net
available heat for radiation, (i) absorption factor for water vapor, (j) absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide, (k)
atmospheric transmisivity, and (l) the heat flux. Further assessments can be done of the damage likely at point X in terms of
degree of burns.
The 12 parameters mentioned above can be concluded as two parts, the first part is to define the fireball characters, and
the other part is to estimate the heat radiation flux of BLEVE fireball:
2.1. BLEVE fireball characters:
The amount of flammable material likely to be released on vessel failure M , Fireball diameter
max
( ) D m , and fireball
duration ( )
B
t s
[8]
:


0.325
max
6.48 D M (1)

0.260
0.852
B
t M (2)

Correlations for estimating height of the center of the fireball from the ground ( ) H m
[8]
,

0.333
4.35 H M (3)
2.2. Heat radiation flux of BLEVE fireball:
From Fig.1.wo can get the objects distance from the fireball center ( ) X m :















Fig.1. Assumed orientation of a ground-level target to the fireball surface

2 2
X l H (4)
: l Distance of point on ground directly below the fireball centre, from the target.
The view factor
F
incorporates the orientation of the object relative to the fireball, and its distance from the fireball
center. An empirical equation is given to describe the view factor as follows
[1,7]
:

2 max
( )
2
F
D
X
(Highest value of view factor) (5)
Surface emissive power
[7]
, E (kW/m2).
l
H
2 2
X l H
TARGET
FIREBALL
604 Zhang Qian-xi and Liang Dong / Procedia Engineering 52 ( 2013 ) 602 606


2
max
=
r
B
HMF
E
D t
(6)
H : Net heat available for radiation (J/kg)
r
F : Radiation coefficient
Expressions for atmospheric transmisivity
[9]
, .

0.09
2.02*( )
w s
P X (7)
w
P : Water partial pressure (Pa);
s
X : Distance from surface of fireball to the target (m).
The heat radiation flux of BLEVE fireball q :
* *
F
q E (8)
3. Calculation Example and result
Assuming that an LNG road tanker with a volume of 56 m
3
, loading of liquefied natural gas weight range is 9500-19000
kg, rolled over onto its side, and flames appeared immediately, and all the mass initially contained in the tank is involved in
the fireball. The corresponding size and duration of the fireball can then be estimated, obtaining the following values:

Table 1 BLEVE fireball parameters
LNG weight
( ) kg
Fireball diameter
( ) m
Fireball duration
( ) s
Fireball height
( ) m
Surface emissive power
2
( / ) kW m
9500 127.16 8.93 91.85 236.98
11500 135.30 9.38 97.88 241.09
13500 142.54 9.78 103.25 244.59
15500 149.08 10.14 108.11 247.65
17500 155.08 10.46 112.57 250.37
19000 159.28 10.69 115.69 252.23

Assuming an atmospheric humidity of 60%, the air temperature of 30 . The atmospherical transmissivity and the view
factor are calculated as:

2 2 0.09
( ) 0.997( 115 88) l l (9)

2 max
2 2
6889
( ) ( )
2 115
F
D
l
X l
(10)
The maximum radiation reaching a target at a distance of l would have therefore been:

2 0.09 max
( ) * ( ) * ( ) *2.02*( ) *
2
F w s
D
I l l E P X E
X
(11)

The eq. (3) is used to calculate heat fluxes. Figure 12 shows the maximum radiation reaching a target at different distance.
Thus, the increase of the distance would result in a significant reduction of heat flux.

605 Zhang Qian-xi and Liang Dong / Procedia Engineering 52 ( 2013 ) 602 606


Fig.2. Heat fluxes vs. Distance (LNG weight 19000kg
Combined with NPFA 59 A (2009 Edition), the LNG fire heat radiation safety distance definition, see table 2, namely
thermal radiation intensity corresponding distance called safety distance.
Table 2 NFPA 59 A: Safety heat radiation intensity for different receiving objects
Thermal radiation receiving object Heat radiation intensity (kW/m
2
)
Schools, residential areas and other public buildings and
office buildings stand field, etc
9
People can accept from the critical thermal radiation in
tensity
5

This paper will use the above model, assuming LNG road tanker have an BLEVE fireball accident, safety distance under
heat radiation of the fire can be calculated, which will change responding to different LNG loading.


Fig.3. Safety distance vs. LNG tanker loading
606 Zhang Qian-xi and Liang Dong / Procedia Engineering 52 ( 2013 ) 602 606

4. 4. Conclusion
4.1. Calculation shows that diameter, fireball duration, height of fireball centre and surface emissive power all in the acciden
t with the quality of the LNG involved in the fireball.
4.2. When LNG BLEVE fireball broke out, a lot of heat will be released, and the heat flux is significantly reduced with the i
ncrease of the distance from the centre of the fireball.
4.3. Tanker loading of different quality of LNG produces LNG BLEVE accident, the safe distance is different, and on the
whole, with the increase of the load, the safety distance is getting further.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by funds of Guangdong Provincial Scientific and Technological Project (No. 2011B090400518)
and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fire Science and Technology (No. 2010A060801010).
References
[1] CCPS, Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash Fires and BLEVEs, Center for Chemical Process Safety,
American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1994.
[2] Venart, J. E. S. (20 05). Letter to the editor. Process Safety Progress, 24(4), 226.
[3] Planas-Cuchi, E., Gasulla, N., Ventosa, A ., & Casal, J. (2004). Explosion of a road tanker containing liquefied natural gas. Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries, 17,315-321.
[4] G.M. Makhviladze, J.P. Roberts, S.E. Yakush, Combustion of two-phase hydrocarbon fuel clouds released into the atmosphere, Combus. Flame 118
(1999) 583605.
[5] Abbasi, T. and S.A. Abbasi, The boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion (BLEVE): Mechanism, consequence assessment, management. Journal
of Hazardous Materials, 2007. 141(3): p. 489-519.
[6] F.K. Crawley, The effect of ignition of a major fuel spillage, in: The Assessment of Major Hazards, Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby, 1982.
[7] C.J.H. van den Bosch, R.A.P.M. Weterings, Methods for the Calculation of Physical Effects, Committee for the Prevention of Disasters, CPR 14E
(TNO Yellow Book), The Hague, The Netherlands,1997.
[8] CCPS., Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
New York, 1989.
[9] CCPS, Guidelines for Consequence Analysis of Chemical Releases, Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
New York, 1999.