Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Process Safety and Environmental Protection

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

Experimental study of liquefied gas dynamic leakage behavior from a

pressurized vessel
Xiyan Guo a , Wei Tan a , Liyan Liu a , Cenfan Liu b,∗ , Guorui Zhu a,∗
a
School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
Key Laboratory of Special Equipment Safety and Energy-saving for SMR, CSEI, Beijing, 100029, China

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

Article history: The accidental releases of pressurized liquefied gases from tanks involve violent phase transformation,
Received 24 December 2020 which would generate two-phase releases and flashing jets. To investigate the evolution of leakage
Received in revised form 6 April 2021 behaviors and make an analysis of near-field jet flow characteristics, a small-scale liquefied gas release
Accepted 4 May 2021
experiment has been established. Leakage holes with different length-diameter ratio (LDR) have been
Available online 12 May 2021
used to analyze interactions between the leakage holes and release behaviors. Morphological charac-
teristics of jet expansion angles have been obtained by high-speed camera, and jet velocities have been
Keywords:
measured by particle image velocimetry (PIV). Meanwhile, the depressurization process, variation of
Small scale release experiment
Flashing jet
temperature in the tank and mass outflow rates were obtained. Results show that, despite the LDR is
Two-phase flow varying, expansion angles and jet velocities behavior in the same tendency: decreases in the initial and
Model validation maintains in a stable value for a period. The stable velocity status was worked by the balanced pressure
R134a drop. Thereafter, an empirical two-phase mass outflow rate model is developed based on the experi-
mental data, which is related to the nozzle geometric parameter and upstream pressure, 90 % of the
experimental data are within ±12 % of the prediction. Therefore, the empirical two-phase model can be
supported in the mass flow rate evaluation, especially for the release cases that LDR are smaller than 5.00
but larger than 2.00. The experimental data is beneficial for providing further insight into the prediction
of accidental release and risk assessment for the liquefied gas transportation and storage.
© 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
To address issues of oil over-consumption, greenhouse gas emis-
sions, and pollutant emissions, green and clean fossil fuels such as
liquefied natural gas (LNG) have been proposed widely (Horvat,
2018; Zhu et al., 2020a,b; Chen et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2020; Dan
and Lee, 2014). For convenient transportation and storage, these
liquefied gases are stored as liquid phase in vessels under suffi-
ciently high pressure. However, if such a vessel is damaged due to
flawed material, fatigue, corrosion and so on, cracks or holes may
develop (Deaves et al., 2001; Bellegoni et al., 2021). As results of a
failure of vessel with saturated liquid, a sharp decrease of pressure
and shift of the thermodynamic balance would cause instant boiling
of some portion of the liquid phase (Galeev et al., 2013). Mean-
while, the saturated liquids will vaporize instantaneously when
discharge to the ambient. The vapor can be released with the liquid
∗ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: liucenfan288@163.com (C. Liu), zhuguorui@tju.edu.cn
(G. Zhu).
phase, and two-phase flashing jets will generate. A violent pressure
drop may release enormous evaporated gas and energy, which will
cause an accidental two-phase release. It has a destructive effect
on the vessel, even leads to huge economic losses and catastrophic
consequences to surroundings (Stawczyk, 2003).
To evaluate the degree of accident leakage, factors such as
mass outflow rate, physico-chemical properties, flammability and
toxicity are often studied (Stawczyk, 2003). Since the mass out-
flow rate is a vital element in the prediction of accidental hazard
analysis (Woodward, 2009), various theoretical models have been
researched to gain more accurate prediction results. Based on
the conservation of mechanical energy, the models presented by
Daniel and Joseph (1990) are widely used (Johnson and Cornwell,
2007; Zhu et al., 2020a,b). Besides, these models provide theoret-
ical basises for the latter modified models (Zhu, 2014; Li et al.,
2016; Luo et al., 2006). Khajehnajafi and Shinde (1994) presumed
the transient leakage was a quasi-steady process, and developed
a theoretical model to calculate the mass outflow rate, which can
be applied in the tank-pipe system. Considering depressurization
and phase change was caused by flashing, Britter et al. (2011) pre-
sented a model which can evaluate the mass outflow rate of gas,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.05.005
0957-5820/© 2021 Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Guo et al.
Nomenclature
L Nozzle length (m)
D Nozzle diameter (m)
LDR Length-diameter ratio (-)
Q Mass outflow rate (kg/s)
Cd Discharge coefficient (-)
A Area of the leakage nozzle (m2 )
 Mixed density (kg/m3 )
l Liquid density (kg/m3 )
v Vapor density (kg/m3 )
P0 Tank pressure (Pa)
Pc Critical pressure (Pa)
Patm Atmospheric pressure (Pa)
Fv Percentage of vapor (-)
Cp Specific heat (kJ/kg·K)
T0 Temperature (K)
Tc Critical temperature (K)
H Latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
 Specific heat ratio (-)
M Molar mass (kg/mol)
R Gas constant (J/K/mol)
two-phase and liquid release. The model is suitable for the various-
type ruptures including sharp-edged and “pipe-like” types. Based
on the van der Waals equation of state, Zhou et al. (2018a,b) built
a high-pressure gas leakage model to calculate the gas state prop-
erties, flow parameters and its subsequent jet flame height in the
hydrogen release.
To improve the accuracies of mass outflow rate, many
researchers have conducted near-source region experiments to
obtain more essential release parameters. A laboratory scales
super-critical carbon dioxide pipelines leakage experiment has
been conducted by Li et al. (2016). The mass outflow rates of
leakage holes with different sizes are obtained. Compared with
two typical accidental gas release mathematical models, a mod-
ified model has been addressed. Likewise, a near-field carbon
dioxide vessel leakage experiment was carried out by Teng et al.
(2018). The under-expanded jet structure, jet velocity and other
parameters were measured by varying the release orifices. There-
after, the relations between the under-expanded jet structure and
thermo-hydraulics characteristics were analyzed. Tian et al. (2021)
also conducted a near-filed region carbon dioxide release experi-
ment, and the transient pressure, mass flow rate, wall temperature,
external jet structure and phase transition were studied. Mocellin
et al. (2018) conducted an experimental campaign performed on
carbon dioxide releases to investigate useful parameters used in
the modeling procedures. Thereafter, a source model for multi-
phase CO2 release is illustrated. Zhu et al. (2019) conducted a
laboratory scale superheated liquid release experiment by water,
pressure and temperature inside the tank were measured with
different operating conditions. The characteristics of flashing jets
were obtained by measuring the evolution of droplet diameters
and three-dimensional velocities. However, since liquefied gases
are also highly pressurized as carbon dioxide or water but their
properties are quite different. The parameters for measuring the
accidental release of carbon dioxide or water may not be suitable
for liquefied gases. Besides, to understand the evolution of release
and dispersion better, it’s of great significances to study the rela-
tions between the internal thermal state and external flashing jet.
Therefore, studies on the release and dispersion of pressurized
liquefied gases are also ongoing. Based on the open source tool
OpenFOAM-2.4.0, Zhou et al. (2018a,b) conducted a systematically
numerical study on the spray and thermal characteristics of R404A
21
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27
flashing spray. With high volatility and low saturation temperature,
the mechanism of the flashing spray with volatile cryogen can be
studied. Wang et al. (2017) measured the spray cone angle, droplet
velocity, and temperature of R134a by using the transparent nozzle.
Relations between the internal flow patterns and characteristics of
R134a flashing spray were investigated.
Experimental studies on the pressurized liquefied gases releas-
ing from vessels are increasing. However, studies on the relations
between the thermodynamic state in the tank and flow character-
istics outside are rare. The aim of this work is to investigate the
interactions between the internal thermodynamics and the evo-
lution of outside jet flow. In this study, a small-scale liquefied
gas leakage experiment has been established with leakage holes
in different sizes. Evolutions of jet expansion angles have been
obtained by high-speed camera, and jet velocities have been mea-
sured by particle image velocimetry (PIV). The depressurization
process, variation of temperature in the tank and mass outflow rate
were obtained. Thereafter, an empirical two-phase model, which is
related to the geometric parameter and the upstream pressure is
developed. The experimental data could be used for safety assess-
ment and theoretical model validation in the liquefied gas release.
2. Experiments
2.1. Experimental setup
Combing the security and environmental protection, R134a was
chosen as working fluid in the experiment. With the characteristics
of non-toxic, non-reactive, non-flammable, and non-ozone deplet-
ing (Mustapa et al., 2011), R134a has been widely used (Ohm et al.,
2018). Besides, R134a has a high volatility and at a boiling point of
-26.2 ◦ C under the atmospheric pressure, which can behavior flash-
ing process well. Therefore, it could be used as a substitution of
liquefied gas. Schematic of the experimental setup has been shown
as Fig. 1. The experimental system was constituted by three sub-
systems: (1) leakage system; (2) 2D-PIV system; and (3) recovery
system. The subsystems will be introduced in the following sec-
tions.
2.1.1. Leakage system
Leakage system mainly contains five parts, R134a gas cylinder,
filling machine, leakage tank, sensors and release nozzle. Liquid
R134a was provided by R134a gas cylinder. With the filling machine
(CM200), liquid R134a can be filled into the leakage tank without
backflow. The leakage tank was in a cubage of 2000 mL, which the
working temperature was -20−200 ◦ C, and in a working pressure
range of 0−5 MPa. Two pressure sensors (CYB-20S-DT), in the mea-
surement range of 0−5 MPa, were installed in the upper region in
the tank. Temperature sensor (SBWZ-P) in the measurement range
of -20−50 ◦ C, was fixed vertically in the tank. Besides, weight sensor
(CYB-602ST) in the measurement range of 0−30 kg, was installed
below of leakage tank. Response frequencies of all of the sensors
were 10 kHz, and in the accuracies of 0.3 % FS.
Release nozzle was the core part of the system. According to the
risk based inspection (RBI) (API581−2008) (American Petroleum
Institute, 2000), five different hole sizes were used in this study.
Ratio of hole length to hole diameter (LDR) was chosen to charac-
terize the leakage nozzle, which is defined as:
LDR = L/D
Where, L is the hole length. For all of the holes in the test, hole
length is 4.00 mm, which is equal to the shell thickness of release
tank. D is the hole diameter. The details of leakage nozzle are shown
as Table 1.
X. Guo et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup.
Table 1
Geometry parameters of leakage nozzle.
D (mm) 3.00 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.80
LDR 1.33 2.00 2.67 4.00 5.00
2.1.2. 2D-PIV system
To obtain the flow flied near the leakage nozzle, a two-
dimension particle image velocimetry (2D-PIV) system
(TM4−5M380) has been established. In this study, particles
were the R134a liquid droplets. Double-pulsed Nd:YAG laser,
which was in a 532 nm wavelength and 5 Hz operation frequency,
was used to illuminate the flow flied by a 200 mJ/pulse. Capturing
the light scattered from the particles by a CCD camera (CLB-
B2520 M), which was in a resolution of 2456 × 2056 pixels, 16 Hz
data acquisition rates, 14 bit gray-level outputs. The cooperation
between laser and CCD camera was controlled by a synchronous
controller (MicroPulse725 V5). The interval time between two
laser light pulses, dt, was in a great significance for acquiring
accurate flow field vector information during the image capture
(Liu et al., 2019). Setting the interval time as 0.002 ms, and the
image magnification is 0.03278 mm/pixel. A 32 × 32 pixels inter-
rogation windows size was used as the interrogation windows
during the particles capturing and recording. Simultaneously, a
high-speed camera (FASTCAM) with the resolution of 1024 × 1024
pixels, 20000 fps data acquisition rates was used to capture the
morphology of the flashing. MicroVec and Tecplot software were
employed for data collection and particle image post-processing.
2.1.3. Recovery system
To eliminate the interferential background light, the experi-
ment was conducted in a darkroom. Considering that discharging
too much R134a continuously might dilute the fresh air indoors, a
recovery system was set behind the leakage system.
2.2. Experimental procedure
The experiments were conducted under an ambient room tem-
perature of 30 ◦ C and an atmospheric humidity of approximately
70 %. All operation processes were in the same conditions except
the LDR of leakage nozzle. Guaranteeing that the tank was tight and
all the indicators were on work, the test would start. After exam-
ining the data acquisition of PIV system and leakage system were
22
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27
stable, 1000 g liquid R134a were filled into the leakage tank. Open-
ing the solenoid valve, the release would begin. When the digital
data of tank pressure attained to 0.01 MPa or the data of mass was
constant, the release was completed.
3. Mass outflow rate model
In a leakage accident, there are several different release stages
if the liquid level is higher than the leakage nozzle. The evolution
of release in the storage tank is shown as Fig. 2, it depicted that the
whole release process can be divided into five stages: before the
release, the liquid level was higher than the release nozzle; as leak-
age began, internal liquid released from the tank and liquid level
went down gradually, namely stage I; when leakage proceeded, the
liquid level was close to the height of leakage nozzle, the leakage
medium changed to liquid and gas phase, namely transition stage;
when the liquid level was below the nozzle, the leakage medium
transformed into single gas phase, namely stage II; finally, the leak-
age remained in gas release until completed. In the following, the
release process of stage I and II will be analyzed in details.
3.1. Two phase release model
In a leakage accident, mass outflow rate is a significant factor to
evaluate the severity. Therefore, selecting an appropriate numerical
model is crucial. In the following, two different mass outflow rate
models are analyzed based on the stage I and II mentioned in the
Fig. 2.
Compared with single liquid or gas leakage, the release case of
liquefied gas in the stage I is more complicated, which involves
phase transition. Thus, it needs to be considered as two-phase
release. From Chen et al. (2002), the mass outflow rate can be
calculated by Eq. (1):

For stage I : Q = Cd · A · 2 (P0 − P) (1)
where, Cd denotes discharge coefficient, which is 0.8; A denotes
the area of the leakage nozzle, m2 ;  denotes the density of leaked
medium, kg/m3 ; P0 denotes the tank pressure, Pa; Pc denotes the
critical pressure, Pa, which can be calculated by Pc = 0.55P0 .
Since the violent pressure drop, pressurized liquefied gas will
flash and generate liquid-gas phase. Therefore, densities of released
fluids need to be considered as the mixed density of liquid and gas
X. Guo et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27

Fig. 2. Evolution of leakage in the tank.

phase. The energy of flashing comes from fluid itself. Once the atmo- where, P0 denotes the tank pressure, Pa; Patm denotes the atmo-
spheric pressure and temperature are constant, the percentage of spheric pressure, Pa;  denotes the specific heat ratio of the vapor.
flashing is decided by the tank temperature. Percentage of vapor Fv 
can be calculated by Eq. (2). ·M
 2  +1
−1
Foe stage II : Q = Cd · A · P0 · (5)
Cp (T0 − Tc ) R · T0 +1
Fv = (2)
H
where, Cd denotes the discharge coefficient, which is 1.0 for circle;
where, Cp denotes the specific heat of the liquid, kJ/kg · K; T0 M denotes the molar mass of R134a vapor, 0.12 kg/mol; R denotes
denotes the temperature of the liquid, K; Tc denotes the critical the gas constant, 8.314 J/K/mol and T0 denotes the vapor tempera-
temperature under the critical pressure, K; which can be calcu- ture, K.
lated by property software (NIST-REFPROP software); H denotes If the ratio of tank pressure to atmospheric pressure satisfies Eq.
the liquid latent heat of vaporization, kJ/kg. (6), it is in the subsonic flow phases, and the mass outflow rate can
Thus, the uniformed two-phase density can be calculated by Eq. be calculated by Eq. (7).
(3).
P0
 2  −1

1 > (6)
= (3) Patm +1
Fv (1−Fv )
+ 
 2  
v l
   −1
Where, l denotes the density of liquid, kg/m3 ; v denotes the 2 · M Patm Patm 
For stage II : Q = Cd · A · P0 · 1− (7)
density of vapor, kg/m3 . ( − 1) R · T0 P0 P0

Combining simultaneous equation from Eqs. (1) to (3), the mass

outflow rate of R134a in the stage I can be calculated under given Combining simultaneous equation from Eqs. (4) to (7), the mass
upstream parameters and nozzle diameters. outflow rate of vapor in the stage II can be calculated.

3.2. Gas phase release model 4. Results and discussion

In the stage II, the leakage medium is single vapor. It’s of great
significance to estimate the flow states, namely, the sonic and the
subsonic flow phases of vapor. If the ratio of tank pressure to atmo-
spheric pressure satisfies Eq. (4) (Xie and Xiang, 2020), it is in the
sonic flow phase, and the mass outflow rate can be calculated by
Eq. (4).
 2  −1
 nozzle is shown as Fig. 3. From Fig. 3, given a release time, the tank
P0
≤ (4)
Patm +1
4.1. Evolution of pressure and temperature in the tank
In the leakage accidents, liquefied gases will jet into the
atmosphere sharply due to pressure drops. Thus, variations of
depressurization in the tank have significant effects to the severity
of the release. The evolution of tank pressure with different leakage
pressure drops faster as the LDR decreases. However, the tenden-
cies of pressure drops are in the same, which are compose of three

23
X. Guo et al.
Fig. 3. Evolution of tank pressures for different leakage nozzles.
Fig. 4. Evolution of temperature in the tank for different leakage nozzles.
parts mainly. In the first part P1 , the pressure drops slowly, but
decays rapidly in the second part P2 and third part P3 . The reason
of this is that tank pressure decreases sharply when the leakage
begins, which makes the liquid in the tank evaporate instanta-
neously. With the generated vapor, the depressurization caused
by release is balanced and the rates of pressure drops are slowly.
As release proceeds, the fluid is decreasing and vaporization rate
can’t support the pressure difference. Thus, the tank pressure is
controlled by pressure drops again. When reaching to the vapor
release stage, reduction rate of pressure increases again.
Evolution of temperature in the tank for different leakage noz-
zles is shown as Fig. 4. From Fig. 4, reduction rates of temperature
are related to the LDR of leakage nozzle: with an increasing LDR,
the reduction rates are going up. However, with the tempera-
ture variation curve, an interesting phenomenon can be observed.
The temperature increases slightly at the beginning of the release,
which is approximately 1 ◦ C. Then, the temperature decreases grad-
ually and goes to be equilibrium. The reason for the temperature
goes up a bit in the initial is caused by the slight thermal stratifica-
tion in the liquid R134a. Due to the violent pressure drop, flashing
and evaporation occur in the tank at the moment release begins.
The initial calm liquid level was destroyed and changed the den-
sity of the liquid in the upper level. Then, there is slight thermal
stratification in the liquid R134a. As hotter R134a moved down-
ward, resulting in temperature increase of the temperature sensor.
24
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27
As the release proceeds, the liquid level decreases and goes below
to the height of sensor. At this time, the temperature undergoes a
rapid decrease due to the transformation from the liquid phase to
the vapor phase, the sensor records the temperature of the vapor.
At this stage, the vapor temperature decrease due to pressure drop.
4.2. Evolution of flashing jet
For leakage nozzles with different LDR, the phase transforma-
tion process is in the same tendency (Zhu et al., 2019). Therefore, the
case of nozzle with a 4.00 LDR was chosen as an example to analyze
characteristics of flashing jet in this study. The energy of pressur-
ized liquefied gas will transfer into the kinetic energy mostly when
it discharges to the atmosphere, then a high-speed jet will gener-
ate. Due to Joule-Thomson (J–T) effect, the volume of liquid will
expand and cause a violent temperature drop. When the tempera-
ture decreases to the condensation point, frost tiers will accumulate
in the leakage nozzle. The process of phase change in the stage
I is more obvious than other two stages, and the flashing jet can
be observed more distinctly. Thus, the evolutions of jet expansion
angles and velocities in the stage I were analyzed.
4.2.1. Jet expansion angle
Jet expansion angle is defined as the angle between two tangent
lines of distinct plume boundaries (Doungthip et al., 2002), shown
as  in Fig. 5. From the evolution of jet expansion angle in the stage I,
expansion angle increases in the initial and maintains in a relatively
stable value, then decreases in the final. In the stage I-1, due to
combined actions of evaporation heat effects and pressure drops,
the liquids are broken and expansion angles are generated. In the
stage I-2, influenced by the relatively stable pressure drops, there
is little change for the value of expansion angle and it keeps at
11◦ approximately. As the liquid level closes to the leakage nozzle
gradually, the residual liquid in the tank can’t support great release
intensity and the angle begins to decrease.
4.2.2. Jet velocity
To obtain the evolution of jet velocity, the flow field closing to
the leakage nozzle was measured by PIV. Due to the maximum field
of view limitations and desired high spatial resolution, the region
where was 60 mm away from the leakage nozzle was determined
as tested flow field. The evolution of jet velocity depends on time
is shown as Fig. 6. From Fig. 6, an interesting phenomenon can be
observed: an obvious breach exists in the front 2 mm of X-axis. This
phenomenon steams from freeze of frosts. Much frosts stick in the
nozzle and move with high-speed jet, which blocks partial laser
light and velocities in these regions are missing. From the contours
of velocity, decrement rate in the central region has attained to
43.53 % in the stage I-1. Then, the velocity maintains in a relatively
stable status in the stage I-2. At stage I-2, pressure drops caused
by release is balanced by the flashed vapor, which makes the sta-
ble velocity. Selecting the point 30 mm away from the nozzle in
the center line of jet as an analysis point, velocity in the balanced
pressure stage was 25 m/s, and the max jet velocity was 42 m/s.
4.3. Mass outflow rate model
Selecting upstream thermal parameters under different leakage
nozzles as inputs, the mass outflow rates calculated by “two-phase
model” and “vapor model” are shown as Fig. 7. Results show that
the data calculated by “two-phase model” in the stage I is less than
the experiment data. However, “vapor model” can illustrate the
mass outflow rate suitably in the stage II. Therefore, the “two-phase
model” in the stage I will be focused in the following.
In the two-phase model, values of discharge coefficient and crit-
ical pressure in the Eq. (1) have significant effects to the mass
X. Guo et al.
Fig. 5. The evolution of jet expansion angle in the stage I (LDR = 4.00).
Fig. 6. The evolution of jet velocity in the stage I (LDR = 4.00).
outflow rate. The flow rate ratio of actual to ideal is expressed by
discharge coefficient Cd , which is related to the upstream pressure
and geometric parameters of leakage nozzle. In the liquid model,
the value of Cd is simplified (Chen et al., 2009), but it is for the
incompressible flow. For the liquefied gas leakage, since the easy-
flashing properties, incompressible assumption is not practicable.
Correspondingly, the value of critical pressure Pc is influenced by
geometric parameters, especially the length of nozzles. Given a
diameter, pressure losses will decrease for the shorter leakage
length. In this study, although the hole length was constant, the
diameter was varying, and the LDR was from 1.33 to 5. There-
fore, fluids release to the ambient with an in-develop fully flowing
(Ward-Smith, 1979), and relations between the critical pressure
and specific LDR need to be investigated. It’s essential to estab-
lish a supplement model in the release cases that fluid flowing
in-developed. Therefore, an empirical two phase model for release
cases that LDR is smaller than 12 was investigated.
The non-dimensional parameter LDR = DL is used to evaluate
the effect of geometric parameters. Using a non-linear curve fitting
method, relationships between the discharge coefficient and criti-
cal pressure can be obtained as Eq. (8), and relationships between
the critical pressure Pc and LDR of leakage nozzle are Eq. (9).
Cd = 0.273+0.968 · P01.333
Pc
L
= 0.068 + 0.194 · ln
P0 D
Combining the Eqa. (8) and (9) into the Eq. (1), the mass out-
flow rate of R134a in the stage I can be calculated under given
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27
upstream parameters and nozzle LDR. Mass outflow rates calcu-
lated by empirical two-phase model are shown as Fig. 7. Results
show that “empirical two-phase model” in the stage I can illus-
trate the time-dependent mass outflow rate suitably. Comparison
between the experiment and empirical two phase model is shown
in Fig. 8. The results show that 90 % of the experimental data are
within ±12 % of the prediction. However, for the nozzle which LDR
is 1.33, 30 % of the tested data are out of prediction, the main reason
is, for the nozzle that LDR is null, it’s very fast for liquid R134a to
flow through the nozzle. In this sense, there is not enough time for
liquid to flash in the nozzle, and the release can be considered liq-
uid. Therefore, the liquid model can be used to calculate the mass
outflow rate if the LDR is less than 2.00 in our experiment. The
empirical two-phase model should be used with caution for con-
ditions outside the present range of variables (Fan et al., 2018).
Overall, “empirical two-phase model” can predict the mass out-
flow rate well when the LDR of release hole is smaller than 5.00
but larger than 2.00, which can be supported in the prediction of
leakage accidents and theoretical model validation.
5. Concluding remarks
(8)
A small scale liquefied gas release experiment has been con-
ducted with a 2000 mL storage tank and five leakage holes with
(9) different length-diameter ratio (LDR). With R134a as experimental
fluid, morphology evolutions of R134a flashing jet have been inves-
tigated with a high-speed camera and particle image velocimetry
(PIV). Thermodynamic state in the tank has been monitored, includ-
25
X. Guo et al. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27

Fig. 7. Mass outflow rate in the experiment and the calculation results from the “empirical two phase leakage model” and “vapor model”.

26
X. Guo et al.
Fig. 8. Comparison between experiment and empirical two phase model.
ing depressurization process, variation of temperature in the tank
and mass outflow rates. The results are as follows:
Results show that, despite the LDR is varying, expansion angles
and jet velocities behavior in the same tendency: decreases in the
initial and maintains in a stable value for a period. The stable veloc-
ity status was worked by the balanced pressure drop. Thereafter,
the applications of a typical two phase mass outflow rates predic-
tion model and a vapor model have been discussed based on the
experimental data. Results show that the data calculated by typi-
cal two phase model is less than the experiment data but “vapor
model” can illustrate the mass outflow rate suitably. Subsequently,
an empirical two-phase model related to the length-diameter ratio
(LDR) of leakage nozzle and the upstream pressure has been estab-
lished. In the empirical two-phase model, 90 % of the experimental
data are within ±12 % of the prediction. Therefore, for release case
that LDR is less than 5.00 the empirical two-phase model can be
supported for the theoretical model validation. However, if the LDR
is decrease to 2.00, it’s recommended to evaluate the mass outflow
rate with liquid model.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful for Internal Project of China Special
Equipment Inspection and Research Institute (2019Youth12).
References
American Petroleum Institute, 2000. Risk Based Resource Document API., pp. 581.
Bellegoni, M., Ovidi, F., Landucci, G., Tognotti, L., Galletti, C., 2021. CFD analysis of the
influence of a perimeter wall on the natural gas dispersion from an LNG pool.
Process. Saf. Environ. Prot. 148, 751–764, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2021.
01.048.
Britter, R., Weil, J., Leung, J., et al., 2011. Toxic industrial chemical (TIC) source emis-
sions modeling for pressurized liquefied gases. Atmos. Environ. 45, 1–25, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.09.021.
Chen, T.K., Xu, J.L., Luo, Y.S., 2002. Experiment study on two-phase critical flow. J.
Eng. Therm. 23 (5), 623–626.
Chen, Q.S., Wegrzyn, J., Prasad, V., 2004. Analysis of temperature and pressure
changes in liquefied natural gas (LNG) cryogenic tanks. Cryogenics 44, 701–709,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2004.03.020.
Chen, Y.Z., Yang, C.S., Shuming, Zhang, et al., 2009. Experimental study of choked
flow of water at supercritical pressure. Front Energy Power Eng. China 3 (2),
175–180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11708-009-0029-6.
Dan, S., Lee, C.J., et al., 2014. Quantitative risk analysis of fire and explosion on the
top-side lng-liquefaction process of lng-fpso. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 92 (5),
430–441, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2014.04.011.
27
Process Safety and Environmental Protection 151 (2021) 20–27
Daniel, A.C., Joseph, F.L., 1990. Chemical Process Safety Fundamentals With Appli-
cation. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, pp. 109–113.
Deaves, D.M., Gilham, S., Mitchell, B.H., et al., 2001. Modelling of catastrophic
flashing releases. J. Hazard. Mater. 88, 1–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-
3894(01)00284-9.
Doungthip, T., Ervin, J.S., Williams, T.F., et al., 2002. Studies of injection of jet fuel at
supercritical conditions. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 41, 5856–5866, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/ie0109915.
Fan, X., Wang, Y., Zhou, Y., et al., 2018. Experimental study of supercritical CO2 leak-
age behavior from pressurized vessels. Energy 150 (May 1), 342–350, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.02.147.
Galeev, A.D., Starovoytova, E.V., Ponikarov, S.I., 2013. Numerical simulation of the
consequences of liquefied ammonia instantaneous release using FLUENT soft-
ware. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 91, 191–201, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.
2012.05.002.
Horvat, A., 2018. CFD methodology for simulation of LNG spills and rapid phase
transition (RPT). Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 120, 358–369, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.psep.2018.09.025.
Johnson, D.W., Cornwell, J.B., 2007. Modeling the release, spreading, and burning of
LNG, LPG, and gasoline on water. J. Hazard. Mater. 140, 535–540, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.10.022.
Khajehnajafi, S., Shinde, A., 1994. Prediction of discharge rate from pressurized vessel
blowdown through sheared pipe. Process Saf. Prog. 13, 75–82, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/prs.680130210.
Li, K., Zhou, X., Tu, R., et al., 2016. An experimental investigation of supercritical CO2
accidental release from a pressurized pipeline. J. Supercrit. Fluids 107, 298–306,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.supflu.2015.09.024.
Liu, Y.P., Wang, X.S., Zhu, P., et al., 2019. Experimental study on gas jet suppressed by
water mist: a clean control technique in natural gas leakage incidents. J. Clean.
Prod. 223, 163–175, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.107.
Luo, J.H., Zheng, M., Zhao, X.W., et al., 2006. Simplified expression for estimating
release rate of hazardous gas from a hole on high-pressure pipelines. J. Loss
Prev. Process Ind. 19, 362–366, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.06.029.
Mocellin, P., Vianello, C., Salzano, E., Maschio, G., 2018. Pressurized CO2 releases in
the framework of carbon sequestration and enhanced oil recovery safety analy-
sis: experiments and model. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 116, 433–449, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.03.018.
Mustapa, A.N., Manan, Z.A., Azizi, C.Y.M., et al., 2011. Extraction of ␤-carotenes from
palm oil mesocarp using sub-critical R134a. Food Chem. 125, 262–267, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.042.
Ohm, T.I., Chae, J.S., Zhang, M.Y., Moon, S.H., 2018. Effect of burner types and steam
injection methods on thermal destruction of waste refrigerants (hfc-134a). Pro-
cess Saf. Environ. Prot. 121, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2018.10.001.
Stawczyk, J., 2003. Experimental evaluation of LPG tank explosion hazards. J. Hazard.
Mater. 96, 189–200, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00198-X.
Teng, L., Li, Y.X., Hu, Q.H., et al., 2018. Experimental study of near-field structure and
thermo-hydraulics of supercritical CO2 releases. Energy 157, 806–814, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.195.
Tian, G.Y., Zhou, Y., Huang, Y.P., et al., 2021. Experimental study of accidental release
behavior of high-pressurized CO2 vessel. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 145, 83–93,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.07.051.
Wang, X.S., Chen, B., Wang, R., et al., 2017. Experimental study on the relation
between internal flow and flashing spray characteristics of R134a using straight
tube nozzles. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 115, 524–536, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.08.040.
Ward-Smith, A.J., 1979. Critical flowmetering: the characteristics of cylindrical noz-
zles with sharp upstream edges. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 1 (3), 123–132, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0142-727X(79)90028-6.
Woodward, J.L., 2009. Validation of two models for discharge rate. J. Hazard. Mater.
170 (1), 219–229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.04.126.
Xie, Q.Y., Xiang, L., et al., 2020. Mutual effects between dynamic leakage behavior
and the pressure/temperature in a LNG tank with external heat fluxes. J. Loss
Prev. Process Ind. 63, 104029, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104029.
Zhang, Y.X., Zhu, J.L., Peng, Y.M., et al., 2020. Experimental investigation of LNG
release underwater and combustion behavior under crosswinds. Process Saf.
Environ. Prot. 134, 239–246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2019.12.019.
Zhou, K., Liu, J., Wang, Y., et al., 2018a. Prediction of state property, flow parameter
and jet flame size during transient releases from hydrogen storage systems. Int.
J. Hydrog. Energy. 43, 12565–12573, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.
04.141.
Zhou, Z.F., Lu, G.Y., Chen, B., 2018b. Numerical study on the spray and thermal char-
acteristics of R404A flashing spray using OpenFOAM. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
117, 1312–1321, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.10.095.
Zhu, D.Z., 2014. Example of simulating analysis on LNG leakage and dispersion.
Procedia. Eng. 71, 220–229, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.04.032.
Zhu, X.L., Song, Z., Pan, X., et al., 2019. Pressure-decay and thermodynamic charac-
teristics of subcooled liquid in the tank and their interaction with flashing jets. J.
Hazard. Mater. 378, 120578, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.04.061.
Zhu, J.L., Zhang, Y.X., Liu, S.N., et al., 2020a. Experimental research on natural gas leak-
age underwater and burning flame on the water surface. Process Saf. Environ.
Prot. 139, 161–170, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2020.03.038.
Zhu, G.R., Guo, X.Y., Yi, Y., et al., 2020b. Experiment and simulation research of evolu-
tion process for LNG leakage and diffusion. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 64, 104041,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104041.