4.1 Article

Characterization of Medium-Scale Accidental Releases of LNG

期刊

FIRE-SWITZERLAND
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/fire6070257

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据