4.1 Article

Characterization of Medium-Scale Accidental Releases of LNG

Journal

FIRE-SWITZERLAND
Volume 6, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fire6070257

Keywords

liquefied natural gas; evaporation rate; burning rate; pool fire; safety

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The need for sustainable energy sources has led to the increased use of LNG as a low-carbon fuel. However, there are concerns about its safe use and transportation. This study conducted experiments to characterize the release of medium-scale LNG and found that the commonly assumed equality between evaporation rate and burning rate for LNG pools is inaccurate. The flame morphology analysis showed a maximum ratio between flame height and diameter of 2.5 and temperatures up to 1100 K near the flame.
The need for sustainable energy sources has recently promoted the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a low-carbon fuel. Although economic evaluations indicate the transportation of LNG as a convenient solution for long distances between markets and reservoirs, several concerns are still present regarding its safe use and transportation. The preliminary evaluations performed in this work indicate that credible releases deriving from real bunkering operations result in pools having a diameter smaller than 1 m, which has been poorly investigated so far. Hence, an experimental campaign devoted to the characterization of a medium-scale release of LNG was carried out either in the presence or absence of an ignition source. An evaporation rate of 0.005 kg s(-1) m(-2) was collected for the non-reactive scenario, whereas the measured burning rate was 0.100 kg s(-1) m(-2). The reduction factor of 20 demonstrates the inaccuracy in the commonly adopted assumption of equality between these values for the LNG pool. Flame morphology was characterized quantitatively and qualitatively, showing a maximum ratio between flame height and flame diameter equal to 2.5 and temperatures up to 1100 K in the proximity of the flame.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available