4.4 Article

Consequence analysis of heptane multiple pool fire in a dike

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/09544062231181813

Keywords

CFD; pool fire; dike; combustion; turbulence; Ansys; LES

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aims to develop a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model to calculate the safety distance of Multiple Pool Fire (MPF), and validate the predicted results with experimental data. It is found that the LES turbulence model accurately predicts flame structures and fluctuations, while the Re-Normalization Group k-epsilon model predicts average characteristics.
Multiple Pool Fire (MPF) reasonably enhances the flame height, the rate of fuel combustion and irradiation due to cascading effect and flame merging of multiple pools. The distribution of temperature and radiative heat flux from the source is the key parameter in predicting safety distance. The current study's major objective is to develop a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model to calculate the safety distance of MPF and validate the predicted results (flame temperature, radiative heat flux, CO2 and O-2 mass fraction) with the experimental data. The flame structure and its thermal properties have been evaluated using the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) and the Large Eddy Simulation (LES) model. The CFD results are found to be in close agreement with the experimental findings. The LES turbulence model predicts more accurately the flame structures and the fluctuations with an error of less than 3%, while the Re-Normalization Group k-epsilon model predicts the average characteristics. This authenticates the accuracy of computational methodology and robustness of the LES turbulence model to predict MPF flame characteristics. Furthermore, this computational methodology can be utilised by the industries for quantitative risk assessment and the worst-case scenario of various pool fires to save the human and material of the workplace beforehand.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available