See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276501485

Underground gas pipeline explosion and fire: CFD based assessment of

foreseeability

Article  in  Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering · May 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.010

CITATIONS READS

21 1,368

2 authors:

Kirti Bhushan Mishra K. D. Wehrstedt

Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung
121 PUBLICATIONS   402 CITATIONS    217 PUBLICATIONS   847 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Thermal radiation hazard from biofuels pool fires (Sponsor: DST, Duration: 2016-2019) View project

High-Rise Building Fires View project

All content following this page was uploaded by K. D. Wehrstedt on 17 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jngse

Underground gas pipeline explosion and fire: CFD based assessment

of foreseeability
Kirti Bhushan Mishra*, Klaus-Dieter Wehrstedt
Department 2, Chemical Safety Engineering, BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing, Unter den Eichen 87, 12205 Berlin, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Scenarios of underground gas pipeline failure, crater formation, dispersion of gas, explosion and sub-
Received 2 March 2015 sequent fires are investigated with semi-empirical and with CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics)
Received in revised form modelling. In order to strengthen the accident based learning approaches present investigations are
7 April 2015
performed in the context of recent GAIL (Gas Authority of India Limited) natural gas pipeline incident
Accepted 8 April 2015
occurred in India. The foreseeability of damages to lives of people and assets due to explosion over-
Available online
pressure and thermal radiation are assessed. The released gas is considered as slightly dense-than-air i.e.
1.5 times. Depending on the LFL (Lower Flammability Limit) of gas the dispersion diameter and heights
Keywords:
Natural gas
are predicted which followed the visual evidences appropriately. The model was furthermore tested with
Underground pipeline an even denser medium and was found to be worked well there too. The estimated explosion over-
Dense gas dispersion pressures with the standard methods and also with CFD reproduced the scenario nicely. The effects of
Explosion and fire congestion VBR (Volume Blockage Ratio) in form of vegetation on stable atmospheric boundary layer
CFD flow is analysed and its contribution towards turbulence and hazard enhancement is studied.
Safety distance It is found that the major source of fatalities was higher thermal radiation emitted by pool fires of
methane. The estimated thermal safety distances clearly demonstrate the ignorance/under estimation of
likelihood and consequence of such hazardous events. For such incidents CFD demonstrated a strong
capability to assess the pre or/and post events foreseeabilities within a reasonable amount of time and
with an acceptable level of accuracy meeting the industrial needs for risk analysis.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction explosion and fire, respectively and therefore should be included in

The safe storage and transportation of flammable and toxic
gases require reasonable estimation of hazardous scenarios and
consequences thereof (SCI, 2014; Johnson, 2014; Mannan, 2005;
van den Bosch and Weterings, 2005). In context of the accidents
took place in oil and gas storage facilities (Mishra et al., 2013, 2014)
in the last two decades it led to the observation that the existing
methods/models for predicting the safety distances from dense gas
(vapor cloud) explosion and multiple tank fire scenarios are
insufficient and thus need significant reviews. In the previous
works such major accidents were described and the implications of
present knowledge on explosion and fire modelling were outlined
(Mishra et al., 2013). At the same time advanced modelling tech-
niques e.g. CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) provides much
better three dimensional estimation of scenarios of dispersion,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kirti-bhushan.mishra@bam.de (K.B. Mishra).
future chemical, process and plant safety norms and regulations
(Gexcon, US, Mishra et al., 2013, 2014; Mishra and Wehrstedt, 2014;
Koopman and Ermak, 2007; Hanlin, 2006; Liu et al., 2014; Khabeev,
1999; Xie et al., 2014; Hanna et al., 2009; Hanna and Chang, 2001;
Koopman and Ermak, 2007; Luketa-Hanlin et al., 2007; Qi et al.,
2010; Woodward and Pitbaldo, 2010; Mishra and Wehrstedt, 2013,
2012; Mishra; Vela, 2009; Schaelike et al.).
This work investigates a scenario of underground gas pipeline
hazard based on the recent accident (The Hindu; Firstpost; The
New Indian Express). Steel pipe rupture led to massive release of
flammable gas, formation of dense vapor cloud, explosion and
eventually to occurrence of a large pool fire. Source strength of
dispersed cloud, explosion overpressure and thermal radiation
were the key parameters on which present study is focused on.
Semi-empirical as well as phenomenological models (Mudan, 1984;
DECHEMA, 2012) were applied to estimate these parameters to
begin the investigation. Most importantly, CFD modelling were
done to predict the dispersion diameter, height and overall strength

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.010
1875-5100/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542
of source, explosion overpressure and thermal radiation from pool
fire. The EN 1473 and NFPA 59A codes (Federal Pollution Control
Act, 2013; Berger, 2009; PHMSA Calendar Year, 2009; NFPA 59A,
2013; European Standard EN 1473, 1997e11; American Institute
of Chemical Engineers/Center for Chemical Process Safety, 1994;
Raj, 2008) were used to develop appropriate safety distances
from explosion and fire risks. Furthermore, the effects of congestion
in form of vegetation on atmospheric boundary layer flow and
overall increase in hazard magnitude is also studied. It is demon-
strated that CFD helps to establish more realistic scenario de-
scriptions and provide enough evidences for developing reliable
safety distances and better risk assessment criterias.
2. The incident
On 22 June 2014 an explosion occurred in GAIL (Gas Authority of
India Limited) owned underground pipeline transporting natural
gas to the nearby refinery in east godavari district of the state of
Andhra Pradesh in India (Fig. 1). The incident began with over-
pressurized gas supply which led to the initial blast of buried
pipeline and formed a crater of radius ~7 m as shown in Fig. 2
(wikimapia). Due to full bore rupture a massive spill of gas over a
radius of ~0.5 km occurred. One of the many potential sources
might have ignited the gas cloud which exploded and kept burning
the available/supplied gas in form of pool fires for hours long
leading to heavy destruction of life, property and environment. Till
this paper was written a total reported causalities and serious in-
juries were 18 and 40, respectively. The total capital loss has not
been assessed yet (The Hindu; Firstpost).
3. Definition of loss of containment
By looking to the post incident evidences and informations
collected from the web pages two kinds of hazardous scenarios
could be postulated. They are based on leak sizes and are discussed
below.
3.1. Minor leak
In general natural gas is an odourless gas unless some amount of
sulphur based additive is added in it to ease the early sensing and
detection. As reported by the nearby inhabitants small gas leak was
felt weeks before the incident. Some victims also told that these
Fig. 1. Location of the incident.
527
minor leaks were brought into the knowledge of the company of-
ficials well in advance (The Hindu; Firstpost; The New Indian
Express) which were however ignored. So it is likely that the
incident was waiting to occur. An existence of minor leak of
1 mme5 mm cannot be a pure hypothesis as also seen (quality of
rusting of steel pipe) after incident images (Fig. 2) (Woodward and
Pitbaldo, 2010).
If it were only a minor leak the formation of a crater (7 m
7 m)
and complete rupture of dp ¼ 0.5 m pipe probably can not be
justified. There had to be an additional source of overpressure
generation inside the pipe itself. That can only be possible with an
overpressuried (above design) supply of gas via the compressors.
Some sources also claim that this overpressure was twice as much
as of designed supply (Normal: ~2.8 bar and Over: ~4.8 bar). This
fact clearly indicates that there was an initial blast leading to full
bore failure of steel pipe leading to a major spill of gas.
3.2. Full bore rupture
Full bore rupture (due to excess supply of gas) seems to be the
most likely consequence to justify the crater formation and major
spill around the residential areas. Fig. 3 shows an arbitrary source of
spill and the probable extent of an affected diameter of ~300 m.
Significant vegetation in form of coconut and deciduous trees were
found on the site. Fig. 4 shows one of such location where a total
congestion in terms of Volume Blockage Ratio (VBR) can be even up
to 10%. When considered the total affected area is largely populated
with coconut trees (d1 ¼ 0.2 m and l1 ¼ 25 m) a VBR of 1e5% would
be a better approximation.
4. Occurred scenarios and consequences thereof
4.1. Dispersion of gas
A massive release of gas from carter began soon after the
rupture of steel pipe. The exact location of this crater is not yet clear
however the post catastrophe images favour that the residential
areas were heavily affected (The Hindu; Firstpost). On the basis of
such a postulation a contour of LFL (Lower Flammability Limit) up
to 300 m can be established as shown in Fig. 3.
A typical distribution of congested coconut trees are shown in
Fig. 5 where an average spacing between two trees of 8 m can be
given. However, they are only symbolic and should not be treated as
a generic distribution over the whole affected area. There were
some locations (Fig. 4) which contain both coconut as well as de-
ciduous trees forming an even densely congested environment.
4.2. Unconfined vapor cloud explosion (UVCE)
As a result of massive spill of natural gas a large flammable
vapor cloud was formed. The location of the incident indicated that
there was not enough confinement therefore an after ignition
scenario can be considered as an UVCE. An UVCE generates high
near-field over-pressures can be in the range of 5 kPae100 kPa
(Mannan, 2005; van den Bosch and Weterings, 2005). For the
reliable estimation of UVCE overpressure there are following semi-
empirical and phenomenological models available in the literature.
They will be discussed below along with their suitability for such
incidents.
4.2.1. TNT equivalent method
Based on the nature of damages occurred to the concrete
structures, nearby parked vehicles (Fig. 6) and noted experiences of
eyewitnesses and victims the deafening noise of explosion
(~15 kPa) could be felt as far as 90 m from the source. If follows TNT
528 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Fig. 2. Formed crater as a result of overpressurized gas supply leading to first blast and full pipe (bore) rupture.

Fig. 3. Estimated extent of gas dispersion based on evidences.

MW2
equivalent method (Fig. 7) this estimation leads to a scaled distance
Pmax ¼ 2:4 (1)
z* value of 10 m kg1/3 and corresponding source overpressure of ð1 þ MW Þ
200 kPa at 20 m. This high value of overpressure was not in
agreement with the observed damages. Due to this overprediction Pmax
TNT equivalent method is not preferred for UVCE, i.e. near field PS ¼ (2)
Pa
overpressure estimations (Baker et al., 1996; Van den Berg, 1989;
GexCon)].
1=3
Pa
R¼R : (3)
E1
4.2.2. BakereStrehloweTang method
BakereStrehloweTang model is another popular method for where Pmax, dimensionless average side on pressure P S and the
overpressure estimation of such UVCE (Baker et al., 1996). It is scaled distance R; MW: Mach number; E1: total available energy (J).
based on the flame Mach number MW (Fig. 8) and can be written as: Assuming a less than medium reactivity and flame Mach number
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542
Fig. 4. Location of significant vegetation in form of coconut and deciduous trees.
Fig. 5. Typical distribution of coconut trees on site.
between 0.45 and 0.5 Eq. (1) provides an overpressure range of
35e40 kPa. This value seems to be realistic for the damages it
created (Fig. 6).
4.2.3. TNO Multi-Energy method
TNO multi energy method (Van den Berg, 1989) is based on the
realistic representation of fuel and flame characteristics and
simultaneous influences of turbulence. For the estimation of
Fig. 6. Damaged concrete structures, steel frames and parked cars.
529
maximum overpressure it utilizes the following expression:


Lf 2:75 2:7 0:7
Pmax ¼ 0:84 VBR SL D : (4)
D
where Pmax: Maximum overpressure in barg;
VBR: Volume Blockage Ratio (%) defined as the ratio of summed
volume of obstacles in an obstructed region to volume of that
region considering the obstacles as of cylinderical shape; Lf:
flame path length through the obstructed region (m); D: average
obstacle diameter (m); SL: laminar burning velocity of flam-
mable mixture (m/s). Fig. 9 shows a characteristic plot for this
model.
The affected and other nearby regions are densely obstructed
with coconut trees (diameter (D): 0.2 m and height: 25 m). It is
likely that they occupied between 4% (the minimum) and 20% of
the total area. Though, VBR value of 4% was used for initial esti-
mations. The average flame path length Lf through such obstructed
region should lie between 25 m and 30 m. Assuming the fuel as
propane with a laminar burning velocity of 0.464 m/s. Such an
estimated value of minimum overpressure for VBR ¼ 0.04 and
Lf ¼ 25 m is 286 kPa. However, this seems to be high for the
observed damages (Fig. 6).
It is evident that the critical parameters for the above model are
VBR and Lf as the others can be relatively easily judged. For instance
530 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Fig. 7. Explosion overpressure vs. scaled distance according to TNT equivalent model.

Fig. 9. Scaled overpressure vs. scaled distance according to Multi-Energy model.

4.3. Jet fire

Some post explosion flame images also suggest that there was a
pressurized supply of fuel for a specific period of time (may be an
hour) which led to the formation of jet fire of natural gas. The
visible flames (Fig. 10) were twice in length to the average height of
a coconut tree (25 m). For estimating the thermal radiation hazard
from a subsonic jet fire the following equation has been used
(Gmez-Mares et al., 2010).

SEP ¼ 10 þ 7:8H (5)

SEP ¼ 22 þ 10H (6)

The corresponding Surface Emissive Power SEP for the present
case can be between 400 kW/m2 to 522 kW/m2. The irradiance E at
a certain horizontal distance (Dy) from fire is given by

E ¼ SEP4F;R t: (7)

Fig. 8. Scaled overpressure vs. scaled distance according to Baker-Strehlow model.

E
4F;R ¼ (8)
tSEP
if considered Lf as 15 m a maximum overpressure value of 70 kPa Assuming the flame as a cylinder of (length H ¼ 50 m; diameter
results. Though, the damages also support such value the un- d ¼ width b ¼ 0.5 m)
certainties in VBR still to be properly resolved. The informations

1 b H
gathered till date on the post incident reality deny from a previ- 4F;R ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffitan1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ously estimated overpressure value of 286 kPa. 2p b2 þ Dy2 b2 þ Dy2
 (9)
Although, considering higher reactivity (butane) and precise H b
values of VBR and Lf can even lead to a scenario of DDT (Defla-
þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffitan1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H2 þ Dy2 H 2 þ Dy2
garation to Detonation Transition) and an excessive over-
pressure of 2000 kPa can also occur (Mannan, 2005; van den where t: Transmissivity (); SEP: average emissive power (kW/
Bosch and Weterings, 2005; Mishra et al., 2013). This was m2); b: average flame width (m) and H: average flame length (m).
however not seen in the incident under consideration. This The above equations recommend that for a jet fire scenario a
postulation may not be supported without a much more minimum safety distance (Dy) to avoid skin burn injury should not
detailed investigation. be less than 39 m from the flame outer surface. For this safety
Therefore, both BakereStrehloweTang and Multi-Energy distance the EN 1473 criteria was followed according to which the
methods estimate the overpressure to be in the range of critical thermal radiation exposure limit is 1.6 kW/m2. In the
35e70 kPa. following section it will be shown that probability of occurrence of
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542
Fig. 10. Pool fire of methane formed at crater.
a jet fire is too low if not impossible. The source of major hazard was
pool fire thermal radiation.
4.4. Pool fire
Fig. 11 shows the existence of a large pool fire (diameter
d ~ 200 m) after UVCE. Probably the jet and pool fires both coex-
isted for some time. Near to the ruptured pipe large amount of
released gas and immediate ignition led to the jet fire of low mo-
mentum and away from the pipe the spilled gas burned in form of a
pool fire.
For methane pool fires of such a size no measurements have
been carried out so far. The measured thermal radiation from
largest size LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) pool fire (d ¼ 35 m) was
much higher 270 kW/m2 than the corresponding hydrocarbon fires
of kerosene, diesel and alike fuels (~25e40 kW/m2) (Woodward
and Pitbaldo, 2010; Mudan, 1984; DECHEMA, 2012).
Since methane burns cleanly and soot absorption is not signif-
icant a higher flame temperature (1500 K) led to a higher value of
thermal radiation. In the present incident this probably was the
most disastrous reasons for casualties and serious burn injuries
(Fig. 12). For a methane pool fire (d ¼ 200 m, H ¼ 400 m and
b ¼ 200 m) a minimum safety distance 2.4 km (EN 1473) from the
pool rim (flame outer surface) was found. Even the conservative
estimation by considering an arbitrary pool of methane (d ¼ 50 m,
H ¼ 250 m, b ¼ 50 m) leads to a safety distance value of ~1 km.
If assumed a pool fire of d ¼ 200 m burned with a rate of 0.2 kg/
m2.s a total burn time for 2
106 kg of fuel is more than 5 min. That
is clearly disastrous when all the populated areas were assumed to
lie within the unsafe limit i.e. either engulfed or stayed in the
Fig. 11. Pool fire of methane formed on whole site.
531
proximity of fire.
Thus, the above estimated hazardous distance covers entire
residential areas posing a higher thermal radiation and causing
significant fatalities and serious burn injuries.
5. CFD modelling of dense gas dispersion
5.1. Fuel
In the present CFD model Natural Gas (NG) called as fuel
mixture to define variable densities was selected as a fuel which
has the properties listed in Table 1. In general NG consists of mainly
methane which is lighter (0.66 kg/m3) than air (1.185 kg/m3) and
assumed to be dispersed via a buoyant plume. In reality, NG nor-
mally has 85e90 % methane and rest ethane, propane and butane
and some other heavier components. When considered the pres-
ence of the constituents other than methane in such proportions
making an overall density of fuel to be 1.8 kg/m3 making it heavier
than air. Clearly, a dense-than-air cloud will be formed settling the
heavier and reactive components close to the ground surface. The
concentration of this dense gas was assumed to vary exponentially
with time (see Section 5.4) and reaches its maximum value in
t ¼ 1 s. The dispersion of this gas in air is governed by an additional
scalar transport equation.
5.2. Geometry and grids
CFD modelling was done for a scenario of dense gas release from
an opening of 0.5 m diameter to mimic the full bore rupture of the
steel pipe. Fig. 13 shows the same. This opening was located at 5 m
below the ground level in a cylinderical crater having a diameter
and a height both of 7 m, respectively. The dispersed fuel vapors
were collected in a cylindrical area (diameter D ¼ 500 m and height
L ¼ 25 m).
Unstructured grids (Fig. 14) were generated with details of cell
sizes as given in Table 2. The smallest cell size was 0.25 m with a
total number of grids of 56,265. Additional simulations were per-
formed with refined grid and total number of elements of 415,488
to verify the grid dependency of the solution.
5.3. Boundary conditions
As shown in Fig. 13 the inlet (release velocity) was defined at the
pipe opening located in the crater which was said to be adiabatic
532 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Fig. 12. Fatalities due to pool fire thermal radiation.

Table 1 wall. Ground was defined as adiabatic wall and the surrounding as
Properties of fuel used in the simulations. open pressure, respectively (Table 2).
Fuel Density LFL LFL
3
kg m Volume % kg m3
5.4. Governing equations
a
Natural Gas (FuelMixture ) 1.8 4 0.03
a
(Gant and Ivings, 2005). The following conservation equations were solved for the
dispersion predictions (Ferziger and Peric, 2006; ANSYS, 2013)
Mass Conservation:
 
vr v rUj
þ ¼0 (10)
vt vxj

Momentum Conservation:
 
vðrUi Þ v rUj Ui vp vtij
þ ¼ þ þ rgi ði ¼ 1; 2; 3………Þ (11)
vt vxj vxi xj

Scalar Conservation:
Fig. 13. Schematic of CFD model for dispersion.
  !
vðrfÞ v rUj f v vf
þ ¼ G þ qf (12)
vt vxj vxj vxj

where r denotes mixture density; U is the component of hydro-

dynamic velocity; p is the pressure and tij is the viscous stress
tensor components and gi is the ith component of the external
force; f stands for scalar variable i.e. gas concentration and tem-
perature; G is diffusivity of scalar f; qf is the source or sink of scalar
f. In addition to above set of equations perfect gas law states:

R
p¼r T (13)
M

where p, T and M are defined as pressure, temperature and molar

mass. R is perfect gas constant ¼ 8.314 J/(mol K).
The dense gas concentration C (kg/m3) was assumed to follow
an exponential function of time (t) as follows

C ¼ Cmax ð1  expðt=TÞÞ (14)

where Cmax is the maximum concentration ¼ 1.8 kg/m3, t ¼ flow

time and T is time constant ¼ 1 s.

5.5. Turbulence model

For modelling turbulence keu based Shear Stress Transport

(Ansys, 2013; Ferziger and Peri
c, 2006) (SST) model was used which
considers the following relation between turbulent viscosity (mt)
Fig. 14. Plan and elevation of grids used in CFD model. and turbulent kinetic energy k
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542 533

Table 2
Mesh and boundary conditions used in the simulations.

Part Inlet Carter Ground Atmosphere

Dispersion model
No. of cells 7 268 6622 7209
Boundary Inlet mass flow Adiabatic Adiabatic Relative
conditions (Velocity: 100 m/s & 250 m/s) no-slip wall no-slip wall pressure

Part Inlet Ground and Obstacles Open Out

Obstacle model
No. of cells 2054 24,684 7118 2060
Boundary Inlet Velocity Adiabatic Adiabatic Adiabatic
conditions (1 m/s) no-slip wall no-slip wall Relative pressure

Part Inlet Pan wall Ground Atmosphere

Pool fire model

No. of cells 3441 1440 5580 19,821
Boundary Inlet mass flow Adiabatic Adiabatic Adiabatic
conditions (8 and 125 kg/s) no-slip wall no-slip wall Relative pressure

k in graphical form in Fig. 17 where a slight increase of concentration

mt ¼ r
u
where u is the turbulent eddy frequency (s1). The choice of SST
model was based on the fact that it can handle larger grids (larger
time steps) for low Reynold number near wall flow calculations.
Additionally, it does not require complex non-linear damping
functions as in case of standard keε model. That makes the SST
model accurate and robust for flows of the order of industrial scale.
Table 3 also lists different sub-models.
5.6. Solution methodology
The time dependent transport equations were solved with
second order backward Euler method with five coefficient loop it-
erations. The total simulation time was 2 h with initial time step of
t ¼ 10 s for 1 h and 30 s for next 1 h. A convergence criteria of 104
was enforced for solution accuracy (Ansys, 2013).
5.7. Results and discussion
5.7.1. Diameter and thickness of vapor cloud
The diameter and thickness of vapor cloud (dispersed gas) were
predicted on the basis of LFL (0.03 kg/m3) and 0.5LFL (0.015 kg/m3)
(Gant and Ivings, 2005) of fuel mixture having an average density of
1.8 kg/m3. CFD predicted dispersion diameter for two release rates
are shown in Fig. 15. As is evident from Fig. 15 for both release rates
the dispersion diameter was found to be ~300 m. This is due to the
arrival of steady-state conditions (release rate being equal to the
evaporation rate) and the independence of dispersion diameter to
release rates. When considered 0.5LFL the dispersion diameter
(Fig. 16) increases to 500 m which probably is the reliable limit
based on the observed extent of damages (Fig. 6). In case of release
rate of 250 m/s the cloud shape appeared more uniformly distrib-
uted. For both criterias of LFL and 0.5LFL the previously measured
and present predictions of concentration vs. distance is also shown
Table 3
Sub-models used in the simulation.
Turbulence Buoyancy Combustion Radiation
(15) can be seen for all heights. This is due to the location of prediction
at the center of crater. This steep jump widens as the height in-
creases which can also be seen in Fig. 18.
In Fig. 19 the CFD predicted thickness of gas clouds are depicted
for the two release rates. In both cases steady state maximum
thickness of the cloud was found to be 25 m (close to the origin of
leak) and a minimum of 1 m at the periphery of the domain. For
such scenarios the maximum spill diameter of 500 m and a
maximum height of 25 m, respectively, can be established.
The distribution of fuel concentration normal to the leak di-
rection (z) is shown in Fig. 20. The jet like profile at close to the
source of leakage (x ¼ 5 m) gradually flattened with increased
downwind distances (x ¼ 490 m). For 0.5LFL the most flattened
curve can be selected which recommends the dispersion diameter
of about 500 m.
5.7.2. Effect of higher density
The scenario close to the release point for 100 m/s in Fig. 18
shows a wall effect of the formed (after pipeline rupture) crater
forced the released gas to disperse on the opposite to the direction
of release. Therefore, probably the residential areas were largely
covered by the spilled gas.
In Fig. 21 CFD predicted extent of LFL for an arbitrary dense gas
having a density of 4 kg/m3 is exhibited. If assumed the same LFL
like natural gas the iso-surface and contour plots clearly indicate
that it crosses the present computational domain making the
dispersion diameter >500 m.
5.7.3. Effect of surrounding conditions
The present simulations were carried out for stable weather
conditions (Pasquill stability class F) (Woodward and Pitbaldo,
2010) as the incident occurred early in the morning (before the
sunrise) and the on site images (Figs. 10 and 11) also suggest that
wind was not that strong for most of the time (except Fig. 10(c)).
Moreover, the stable weather conditions favored to produce a worst
case scenario thus making it a reliable approximation. However,
considering the higher release rates the turbulence intensity at the
inlet was specified as 10%.
Chemistry

Dispersion model
5.7.4. Explosion overpressure estimation
Shear Stress Transport yes e e e
Obstacle model As mentioned in Section 5.7.1 considering the 1/2 LFL a hemi-
keε yes e e e spherical cloud of (d ¼ 500 m) a total source mass of
Pool fire model (density
0.5
volume ¼ 1.8
0.5
(4/3)
3.14
(250)3 ¼ 59

keε yes Eddy Discrete Single 106 kg) and equivalent source energy of (source mass source energy
dissipation transfer step
capacity ¼ 59
106
55
106 ¼ 3.2
1015 Jules). When utilizes
534 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Fig. 15. CFD predicted LFL (0.03 kg/(m3)) isosurfaces of gas for two release rates.

Fig. 16. CFD predicted contours of gas concentrations for two release rates.

multi energy method as discussed in the section with a explosion written as follows.
strength of 6 and 7 (Fig. 9) overpressure values of 50e100 kPa result.
  
The corresponding safety distance from explosion overpressure for
such gas pipelines should not be less than ~1 km for the populated
MG ¼ exp 〈 ln CC 〉m
p
(16)

regions (Table 4).


2

5.8. Model validation

VG ¼ exp 〈 ln
Cm
Cp 〉 (17)

Because of the novelty of scenario and unavailability of experi-
mental data on the same the developed model was validated only
against the far field LFL predictions. As shown in Fig. 17 LFL were
over predicted close to the source of spill due to the crater and wall
effects. A major part of initial gas momentum was lost on wall
increasing the higher downwind concentration above and near to
the carter. However, for the far downwind locations model pre-
dicted the LFL very nicely. This is due to the negligible effects of near
source conditions and steady dispersion of gas at far distances.
Furthermore, the model results were also compared with the
widely used models for dispersion modelling. In Fig. 22 the geo-
metric variance (VG) is plotted against the geometric mean bias
(MG) for existing and present models (Woodward and Pitbaldo,
2010). Generally, all the dispersion models are said to be vali-
dated when VG is below 2 and within the curve. MG and VG can be
where Cm and Cp are the measured and predicted concentrations,
respectively.
Here, only far field measured data from Coyote test (Woodward
and Pitbaldo, 2010) was taken for the estimation VG and MG. It can
be seen in Fig. 22 that present model fulfills the criteria of model
validation quite well even though the scenarios were not exactly
the same as in measurements. Hence, the model can be useful for
scenario selection and consequence determination for under-
ground gas pipeline risk assessment.
6. CFD modelling of effects of obstacles
The interaction of atmospheric boundary layer with the obsta-
cles (Fig. 23) on the flow path has an important contribution to-
wards turbulence and combustion enhancement and finally
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542 535

Fig. 17. Measured and CFD predicted gas concentrations vs. distance at different ver-
tical locations. Fig. 20. CFD predicted normal distances (z) vs. gas concentrations at different hori-
zontal locations.

obstacles (cylinder d1 ¼ 0.2 m and l1 ¼ 25 m) (Fig. 24). These ob-

stacles provide VBRs of 0.08% and 0.125%, respectively. Unstruc-
tured grids were generated with a total volume of 800 thousand (16
obstacles) to 1 million cells (25 obstacles). The atmospheric power
wind profile for the stable weather conditions was chosen as inlet
condition (u0 ¼ 1 m/s) according to the expression written below:

u1 ¼ u0 ðz1 =z0 Þ0:14 (18)

All other sides of the cube were said to be open atmospheric
condition except bottom which was defined as adiabatic wall. All
the obstacles were specified as wall of adiabatic and of no-slip
nature. Incompressible form of transport equations for mass, mo-
mentum and energy (Eqs. (9)e(11)) were solved using keε turbu-
Fig. 18. CFD predicted gas concentrations on the center plane and close to the crater lence model with buoyancy term. The equations for the same are
and leak origin.
given below:
 . 
speeding up the flame velocity. In the previous investigations (SCI,
mt ¼ Cm r k2 ε (19)
2014) it revealed that pine trees did not increase the flame velocity
as strongly as the deciduous trees did. Therefore, it was probably
where the value of constant Cm is 0.09.
one of the probable source of turbulence enhancement.
The satellite images show that the affected areas had significant
meff ¼ mt þ m (20)
number of vegetations. Mostly, coconut trees which if densely
distributed can increase the overpressure to a great extent. In order The buoyancy production term in kε turbulence model
to see how a uniformly spaced array (to mimic the on site coconut
trees) of obstacles affect the flow field two more simulations were m dr
Pkb ¼  t gi (21)
performed on to a cuboid of 25 m side and 16 and 25 equally spaced rsP dxi

Fig. 19. CFD predicted gas concentrations on the center plane over the whole domain for two release rates.
536 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Fig. 21. CFD predicted LFL isosurface (left) and contour plot (right) of concentrations of a gas having a density of 4 kg/m3.

Table 4
Safety distances from overpressure and thermal radiation. Limiting values are 2 kPa
and 1.5 kW/m2, respectively.

Item Dy (km) Dy (km)

Semi-empirical model CFD model

From overpressure 0.4 1

From radiation 2.4 2.5

Fig. 23. Schematic of an obstacle model for studying effects of VBRs on atmospheric
boundary layer.

buoyant vortices as can be seen in Fig. 25(a). However, multiple

Fig. 22. Validation of present CFD model. Also showing the data for existing model.
Transient simulations were carried out up to a total time of 20 s
with a time step of t ¼ 0.025 s.
6.1. Results
The effect of low congestion at a distances of 4 m and 21 m from
the inlet are shown in form of velocity contours in Fig. 25. The inlet
atmospheric boundary layer maintains it profile uniformity until it
passes through the first row of obstacles. After striking the obsta-
cles flow looses its momentum and zones of low velocities created
and depending on the flow rate small and large vortices around the
obstacle were formed. This difference in velocities becomes even
greater after passing through the subsequent rows of obstacles and
reached to its maximum (for the considered domain) value after
the last row. Lower congestion generated equal strength large
small vortices were generated when the VBRs were increased from
0.08 to 0.125 (Fig. 25(b)). Increased number of vortices clearly de-
scribes turbulence enhancement due to the increased density of
obstacles. Since turbulence is a function of characteristic (inlet)
velocity obstacles will play even stronger role when this is
increased. When imagined that the laminar flame of propane
travels through the unburnt cloud settled around the presence of
such congested environment it clearly gives an ideal way for mixing
and igniting the available cloud and helps the flame to propagate
faster. A chain of such obstacles will further enhance the combus-
tion and turbulence via feedback/looping mechanism.
In Fig. 26 the effects of level of congestion on turbulence
enhancement at three different vertical locations are shown. The
carry over nature of turbulence by the forward obstacle seem to
diminish with increase in height. This is possibly due to the fact that
high initial turbulence at inlet at higher vertical locations. For
instance at z ¼ 24 m the higher VBR Fig. 26(b) created loss of mo-
mentum more than the lower ones Fig. 26(a). For both obstacle
densities turbulence was enhanced at the heights of interests <5 m.
Fig. 27 shows the instantaneous developing flow at t ¼ 5 s and at
z ¼ 1 m above the ground surface for the two VBRs. Flow separa-
tions become greater and scattered in case of higher VBR. That
clearly describes the effect of turbulence enhancement due to
increased occupancy of trees. The presence of organized vortices
around the trees will certainly help to form a source of good mixing
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542 537

Fig. 24. Geometry, grids and boundary conditions for obstacle model.

Fig. 25. CFD predicted velocity contours at two axial locations before first and after last row of obstacle for two VBRs (left: 0.08 and right: 0.125).

Fig. 26. CFD predicted velocity contours at two normal locations before first and after last row of obstacle for two VBRs (left: 0.08 and right: 0.125).
538 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

of air with the fuel gas and finally to enhance the combustion. In the 7.3. Eddy dissipation combustion model
present simulations the initial turbulence was low as the inlet ve-
locity of air was kept 1 m/s and the temperature was 293 K. Also In turbulent flows, mixing time is dominated by the eddy
early morning time (5e6 AM) of the incident suggests that the properties and, therefore, the reaction rate is proportional to a
velocity of air replicates the relatively stable weather conditions mixing time defined by the turbulent kinetic energy, k, and dissi-
and corresponds to atmospheric stability class F. Evidently, such pation, ε.
weather conditions prevail the formation of a large cloud which
remain sticking to the ground and subsequent congestion in form of k
rate  (23)
trees provides extra necessary turbulence to increase the flame ε
velocity. The important observation was that the irregular distri- In many cases the reaction rates are fast compared to reactant
bution of obstacles enhances the mixing much more than the mixing rates and can be considered as mixing controlled combus-
regularly spaced ones. tion. In the eddy dissipation concept model, the rate of progress of
elementary reaction k, is determined by the smallest of the two
7. CFD modelling of methane pool fires following two expressions:
Reactants limiter
Two simulations for methane pool fires (d ¼ 8 m and 35 m) were
performed to estimate the thermal radiation emitted from them. ε ½I
Rk ¼ A min 0 (24)
The pool sizes were chosen so that they represent 1.) crater as a k nkI
source and 2) the largest methane (LNG) pool fire experiment that where [I] is the molar concentration of component I and I only
has ever been performed. The geometry and grids are shown in includes the reactant components.
Fig. 28. The outer domain sizes were modified according to the pool Products Limiter
size. About 1 million hybrid control volumes were generated with a !
P
minimum cell size of 0.05 m. The solved transport equations were ε ½IW
same as written in Eqs. (10)e(13), respectively. Steady-state cal- Rk ¼ AB P P 00 I (25)
k P nkI WI
culations were performed with the following sub-models.
where P loops overall product components in the elementary re-
action k. The products limiter is disabled when the model coeffi-
7.1. keε turbulence model cient B is set to a negative value. For both single step and multi-step
reaction schemes the value of B set to 1 (ANSYS, 2013).
The equations and descriptions are same as in Section 7.

7.4. Discrete transfer radiation model

7.2. Single step chemistry
The combustion of methane follows the single step chemical
reaction as written below.
CH4 þ 2O2 /CO2 þ 2H2 O
The inbuilt single step Arrhenius reaction description for
methane was used in the CFD code with an activation energy of
30 kcal/mol and pre-exponential factor of 8.3eþ6 s1.
Discrete transfer radiation model assumes that the flame gases
behave like grey gas and scattering is isotropic. The radiation in-
tensity, In, along rays leaving from the boundaries using the equa-
tion of transfer:
(22)
Ivðr;sÞ ¼ In0 expð  ðkan þ ksn ÞsÞ þ Ibn ð1  expðka sÞÞ þ ksn I n (26)
where:

Fig. 27. CFD predicted velocity contours 1 m above ground for two VBRs (left: 0.08 and right: 0.125).
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542 539

Fig. 28. Geometry, mesh and boundary conditions for pool fire model.

In0: Radiation intensity leaving the boundary; In: Mean radiation

intensity. n: Frequency; r: Position vector; s: Path length; k:
Absorption coefficient; ks: Scattering coefficient; IB: Blackbody
emission intensity; In: Spectral radiation intensity which de-
pends on position (r) and direction (s); S: Radiation intensity
source term.

The spectral incident radiation G can be obtained by integrating

I over solid angle at discrete points. The radiative heat flux qr can be
determined by using the homogeneity assumption to extend the
solution to the entire domain.
Soot model: Soot is modelled by Magnussen soot model. It is
based on the assumption that soot is formed from a gaseous fuel in
two stages where the first stage represents formation of radical
nuclei and second stage represents soot particle formation from
these nuclei. Transport equations are solved for the specific con-
centration of radical nuclei (mol/kg) and for soot mass fraction.
Fig. 29. CFD predicted flame temperatures and gas mass fractions at the center plane
(d ¼ 8 m).
7.5. Results

CFD predicted steady-state temperatures and fuel mass frac-
tions for pool fires of methane originated from carter of d ¼ 8 m and
a large pool fire of d ¼ 35 m are shown in Figs. 29 and 30. It can be
seen that increasing the pool size extends the zones of higher
temperatures (1500 K) near to the base of pool surface. The better
consumption of methane in case of d ¼ 35 m (right of Fig. 30)
proves this. As a result of less radiative losses due to small soot
absorption much higher flame temperatures (300 K - 500 K higher)
than corresponding liquid hydrocarbon pool fires were predicted
by CFD. That obviously enhances the average SEP as shown in Fig. 31
to 270 kW/m2 which is 2e3 times higher than the liquid pool fires.
Higher SEP leads to larger safety distances (Dy) for a cylindrical fire
of diameter d and height H as described in Eqs. (7) and (8). The
same have been shown in Figs. 31, 32 and 33. Considering the LNG
pool fire thermal radiation norm according to EN 1473 (for no skin
burn injury for sufficiently long duration exposure) for a largest
pool fire (d ¼ 35 m) of methane both measured and computed
values suggest that for such underground gas transportation
pipelines the safety distances should not be less than
12.5d ¼ 12.5*35 ¼ 437.5 m.
Extrapolating above outcome of Dy~12.5d to a pool of d ¼ 200 m
provides a safety distance of 2.5 km which seem to be realistic for
540 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542

Fig. 30. CFD predicted flame temperatures and gas mass fractions at the center plane
(d ¼ 35 m).
Fig. 33. Measured and CFD predicted irradiance E vs. non dimensional distance Dy/d of
LNG (methane) pool fires according to the EN 1473.

the scenarios that were demonstrated above (Table 4). Though,

more post incident records will help to establish much better and
precise estimations. Nevertheless, the above assessments are not
against the current know-hows on LNG pool fires (Woodward and
Pitbaldo, 2010; Schaelike et al., 2011; DECHEMA, 2012).

8. Validity of different models

For validating the different models described in this paper

following steps were followed:

1. Grid independent study.

2. Comparison with earlier experiments.
3. Comparison with earlier models.

8.1. Dispersion model

Fig. 31. Measured and CFD predicted SEP vs. d of LNG (methane) pool fires.
To the authors best knowledge for the present scenario no
experimental data are available. Hence, the experimental data from
large LNG spill tests were utilized for qualitative validation apart
from the grid independent study. The same are shown in Figs. 17, 20
and 22. It can be seen in Fig. 17 that for far-field predictions (which
is the main objective of this paper) the model performs really well
against the experimental data. Moreover, the profiles shown in
Fig. 20 also agree with the dense plume trajectories reported before
e.g. in (Woodward and Pitbaldo, 2010) which utilized an integral
based dispersion model. So validation against the experimental
data and matching with qualitative plume profiles with earlier
models led to a firm basis for further reporting the data.

8.2. Obstacle model

For the considered configuration there are no experimental data

available therefore only grid independent study and qualitative
observation on obstacle induced turbulence on an atmospheric
boundary layer flow were the sources of assuring the validity.

8.3. Pool fire model

For validation of pool fire model apart from the grid indepen-
Fig. 32. Measured and CFD predicted irradiance E vs. non dimensional distance Dy/d of dent study carried out by the author the experimental data listed in
LNG (methane) pool fires. (Mishra; Vela, 2009; Schaelike et al.) are taken. Since large scale
 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542
LNG pool fires (diameter ¼ 35 m) for which the measurements are
available represent the methane pool fires more closely hence in
Figs. 31e33 only data for LNG are shown. For further details on
systematic validation please refer to (Mishra, 2010; Vela, 2009;
Schaelike et al., 2011).
9. Applicability of different models
In the context of the present disaster following phenomenons,
i.e. dispersion of a dense gas, vapor cloud explosion, jet and pool
fire thermal radiation were found critical to analyze. CFD modelling
were done for gas dispersion and pool fires which caused most of
the fatalities. They are discussed below together with the applica-
bilities of different models to predict the extent of hazard.
9.1. Dense gas dispersion
It demonstrated the capabilities of 3D CFD based models to
predict the extent of dense gas dispersion on a flat terrain. Such CFD
predictions are compared/validated against the standard experi-
ments and already developed models (Figs. 17, 20 and 22). Figs. 17
and 22 show that the CFD models are much more realistic than the
semi-empirical, integral, phenomenological models e.g. DEGADIS,
PHAST, Safesite etc. which were used for such estimations before.
At the expense of little computational effort much better image of
possible hazards can be produced with the help of CFD models. On
one side where the existing models can only provide qualitative
information on LFL extents on flat terrain at the same time CFD
models are capable of including the proper flow descriptions,
irregular terrain, effects of obstacles, variable boundary conditions
and instantaneous releases. Hence, CFD models can add quality as
well as reliability to the existing models and enable better assess-
ments of risks than as were done before.
9.2. Vapor cloud explosion
The overpressure generated due to the explosion can be esti-
mated by different semi-empirical and phenomenological models as
described in Section 4.2. Out of the four different models discussed
both BakereStrehlow and TNO Multi Energy model gives the best
estimations of overpressures. The reason behind such better pre-
diction is that it counts the essential physical (blockage, congestion)
and chemical (combustion, laminar flame speed) processes. CFD
modelling for vapor cloud explosion was not done in the present
work. Instead curves denoting respective explosion strength (based
on total energy of the hemispherical vapor cloud) were selected and
the overpressure were estimated accordingly (see also Section 5.7.4).
9.3. Jet and pool fire thermal radiation
For both jet and pool fires the equations for predicting the
thermal radiation are same except the equation for estimating the
flame lengths. Jet fires have more local effects whereas pool fire
extends its influence to several hundred meters away from the
source. In the considered accident the most disastrous event was
the formation of a large pool fire of methane and engulfment of
nearby residential areas. Therefore, along with semi-empirical
models CFD modelling were also carried out. Both the approaches
i.e. semi-empirical and CFD yield a minimum safety distance to the
public from such gas pipelines should not be less than 2.5 km.
Though, CFD models were much more detailed, realistic and certain
than the semi-empirical models.
The overall scientific knowledge that this work bring is to add
CFD models in future hazard and risk assessment studies on gas
pipelines in order to demonstrate the safety of public,
541
infrastructure and environment in much more realistic manner.
10. Additional details on modelling
The following additional informations concerning modelling
and simulation may be helpful:
1. Software used: Ansys v14, ICEM CFD (mesh generator), CFX (pre
and post processing and solver).
2. Computational time:
Dispersion model: On an 8 GB machine with 4 parallel pro-
cessing it took 30 min to get the steady-state solution.
Obstacle model: In a cluster of 32 CPUs (8 GB each) it took 2 h to
get the results for transient case.
Pool fire model: In a cluster of 32 CPUs (8 GB each) it took 8 h to
get the results for at least 20 s.
3. Approximation:
For dispersion model time step was varied between 10 and 30 s
for initial 1 h and then for the next 1 h.
For obstacle model a time step size of 0.025 s was used for a total
simulation time of 20 s.
For pool fire model a time step size of 0.001 s was used for a total
simulation time of 20 s.
4. Accuracy:
For all simulations a target criteria of 1e-4 was imposed for all
residuals.
For all transient runs second order Backward Euler method was
used. Five coefficient loop iterations were selected for each time step.
11. Conclusions and future work
The foreseeability of an underground natural gas pipeline ex-
plosion and fire incident was investigated with the help of CFD
modelling. As a reference case recent pipeline explosion incident
took place in India was considered. CFD predicted the overall
diameter of dispersed dense gas to be about 300 m. Such an esti-
mation is consistent with the on-site post incident realities and
tellings of the victims. An explosion overpressure of 50e75 kPa was
deduced based on the damage characteristics of structures and
nearby parked vehicles. Thermal radiation emitted from jet and
pool fires of natural gas was found to be the major source of fa-
talities rather than the explosion overpressure. The effects of
congestion on the enhancement of overpressure was demonstrated
for a test cube with two VBRs representing the coconut trees pre-
sent on site. Although, this level of congestion can improve the level
of mixing and turbulence to a small extent though can not be totally
ignored. An approximation of LNG (methane) pool fire (d ¼ 200 m)
led to the fact that a minimum safety distance of ~2.5 km (EN 1473)
from thermal radiation should be taken into consideration for such
buried pipelines passing over residential areas.
Gas pipelines transporting flammable or toxic substances close
to the residential/populated areas require significant reviews con-
cerning selection of major hazard scenarios, consequences and
resulting risk values from them. If not all at least the risk to the
public should be estimated by considering the consequences that
arose from practical incidents such as one discussed in this article.
References
American Institute of Chemical Engineers/Center for Chemical Process Safety, 1994.
Guidelines for Evaluating the Characteristics of Vapor Cloud Explosions, Flash
Fires, and BLEVEs. Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute
of Chemical Engineers.
542 K.B. Mishra, K.-D. Wehrstedt / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 24 (2015) 526e542
ANSYS ICEM CFD and ANSYS CFX-13, 2013.
Baker, Q.A., Tang, E.A., Scheier, Silva, G.J., 1996. Vapor cloud explosion analysis.
Process Saf. Prog. 15, 106e109.
Berger, E., April 26e30, 2009. EN 1473 and other EN LNG standards the European
Norms and standards for the LNG Industry. In: AIChE Spring Meeting, April
2009, 9th Topical Conference on Natural Gas Utilization. Tampa, Florida. http://
www.allriskengineering.com/library_files/AIChe_conferences/AIChe_2009/
data/papers/P145032.pdf.
Quelltermberechnung bei strungsbedingten Stoff- und Energiefreisetzungen in der
Prozessindustrie Methodenbersicht und industrielle Anwendung, 2012.
DECHEMA, Frankfurt am Main, ISBN 978-3-89746-135-2.
European Standard EN 1473, 1997e11. Installation and Equipment for Liquefied
Natural Gas Design of Onshore Installations (English Version), DIN EN 1473.
Reccomendations of the German Commission for Plant Safety (KAS-18), Federal
Pollution Control Act (Bundes-immissionsschutzgesetz), 2013.
Ferziger, J.H., Peri
c, M., 2006. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, third ed.
Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, Germany.
http://www.firstpost.com/india/andhra-massive-explosion-in-gail-pipeline-near-
ongc-site-14-dead-1591091.html.
Gant, SE, Ivings, MJ, CFD Modelling of Low Pressure Jets for Area Classification, HSL/
2005/11.
http://www.gexconus.com/doc//olav/LPS_Houston_Hansen_2007.pdf.
http://www2.gexcon.com/calculators/new/TNTMethod.php.
Gmez-Mares, M., Munoz, M., Casal, J., 2010. Radiant heat from propane jet fires. Exp.
Therm. Fluid Sci. 34, 323e329.
Hanlin, A.L., 2006. A review of large-scale LNG spills: experiments and modeling.
J. Hazard. Mater. A132, 119e140.
Hanna, S.R., Chang, J.C., 2001. Use of the Kit Fox field data to analyze dense gas
dispersion modeling issues. Atmos. Environ. 35, 223e142.
Hanna, S.R., Hansen, O.R., Ichard, M., Strimaitis, D., 2009. CFD model simulation of
dispersion from chlorine railcar releases in industrial and urban areas. Atmos.
Environ. 43, 262e270.
Johnson, D.M., 2014. Characteristics of the Vapour Cloud Explosion Incident at the
IOC Terminal in Jaipur. GL Noble Denton Report Number: 11510.
Khabeev, N.S., 1999. Simulation of vapour explosions. Appl. Energy 64, 317e321.
Koopman, R.P., Ermak, D.L., 2007. Lessons learned from LNG safety research.
J. Hazard. Mater. 140, 412e428.
Liu, X., Godbole, A., Lua, C., Venton, P., 2014. Source strength and dispersion of CO2
releases from high-pressure pipelines: CFD model using real gas equation of
state. Appl. Energy 126, 56e68.
Luketa-Hanlin, A., Koopman, R.P., Ermak, D.K., 2007. On the applicatio1 of compu-
tational fluid dynamics codes for liquefied natural gas dispersion. J. Hazard.
Mater. 140, 504e517.
Mannan, S., 2005. Lee's Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Hazard Identifi-
cation, Assessment and Control, Third ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,
ISBN 0-7506-7858-5.
Mishra, K.B., 2010. Experimental Investigation and CFD Simulation of Organic
Peroxide Pool Fires (TBPB and TBPEH). In: BAM Dissertation Series 63.
View publication stats
Bundesanstalt fue Materialforschung und -pruefung, Berlin.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., 2012. Dispersion characteristics of flammable liquids:
a CFD study. In: Proceedings of 4th International Congress on Computational
Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS). IIT Hyderabad, 10e12 December, India.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., 2013. Diffusive burning characteristics of peroxy-
fuels. Fuel 113, 158e164.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., 2014. Spill-over characteristics of peroxy-fuels: two-
phase CFD investigations. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29, 186e197.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., Krebs, H., 2013. Lessons learned from recent fuel
storage fires. Fuel Process. Technol. 107, 166e172.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., Krebs, H., 2014. Amuay refinery disaster: the after-
maths and challenges ahead. Fuel Process. Technol. 119, 198e203.
Mudan, K.S., 1984. Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool fires. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci. 10, 59e80.
NFPA 59A, Standard for the Production, Storage, and Handling of Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG), 2013 Edition, National Fire Protection Association.
PHMSA Calendar Year 2009 Annual Reports for Gas Transmission and Gathering,
Gas Distribution and Hazardous Liquid; PHMSA Calendar Year 2009 npms
submissions for LNG Plants. Pipeline Safety Awareness, US Department of
Transportation.
Qi, R., Ng, D., Cormier, B.R., Mannan, S., 2010. Numerical simulations of LNG vapor
dispersion in Brayton Fire Training Field tests with ANSYS CFX. J. Hazard. Mater.
183, 51e61.
Raj, P.K., 2008. A review of the criteria for people exposure to radiant heat flux from
fires. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010 (159), 61e71.
Schaelike, S., Wehrstedt, K.D., Schoenbucher, A., 2011. CFD simulation to predict the
thermal radiation of large LNG pool fires. In: 5th European Combustion Meeting
ECM-2011. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, pp. 1e6.
Buncefield Explosion Mechanism Joint Industry Project: Phase II Dispersion and
Explosion Characteristics of Large Vapour Clouds, vol. 1 and 2, 2014. SCI,
Berkshire, UK. SCI Ref: ED024.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/gail-pipeline-explosion-in-ap-kills-15/
article6156994.ece.
http://www.newindianexpress.com/photos/nation/GAIL-Explosion-Takes-16-Lives/
2014/06/28/article2304789.ece.
Van den Berg, A.C., 1989. The multi-energy method: a framework for vapor cloud
explosion blast prediction. J. Hazard. Mater. 12, 1e10.
van den Bosch, C.J.H., Weterings, R.A.P.M., 2005. Methods for the Calculation of
Physical Effect: Due to Releases of Hazardous Materials (Liquids and Gases)
Yellow Book, CPR 14E, Director-general of Labour. TNO, The Netherlands.
Vela, I., 2009. CFD Prediction of Thermal Radiation of Large, Sooty, Hydrocarbon
Pool Fires (PhD thesis). University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
www.wikimapia.org.
Woodward, J.L., Pitbaldo, R., 2010. LNG Risk Based Safety: Modeling and Conse-
quence Analysis, AIChE. John Willey and Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-31764-8.
Xie, Q., Tua, R., Jianga, X., Lia, K., Zhou, X., 2014. The leakage behavior of supercritical
CO2 flow in an experimental pipeline system. Appl. Energy 130, 574e580.