Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277

www.elsevier.com/locate/jnlabr/cnf

Analysis of the geometric and radiative characteristics

of hydrocarbon pool fires
M. Muñoz, J. Arnaldos, J. Casal, E. Planas ∗
Centre for Studies on Technological Risk (CERTEC), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, ETSEIB, Diagonal 647, Pab. G,
Planta 2, 08028-Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
Received 4 February 2004; received in revised form 1 August 2004; accepted 7 September 2004
Available online 14 October 2004

Abstract
The radiation intensity at a given distance depends mainly on the radiative power and the flame’s size and shape.
Considerable literature describing both experimental and theoretical studies of thermal radiation from flames is
available. Even so, predicting the radiant power of large flames is still subject to considerable uncertainty, because
some parameters associated with large turbulent diffusion flames cannot be determined accurately for a given fire.
A series of outdoor large pool-fire experiments were performed using gasoline and diesel fuels lying above a layer
of water. Five concentric circular pools made of reinforced concrete (1.5, 3, 4, 5, and 6 m in diameter) were used.
The experiments were filmed with at least two video cameras registering visible light (VHS) and a thermographic
camera (IR). In this study, thermographic images were used to determine the flames’ distribution of emissive
power, the mean emissive power, and the flame’s irradiance. The contribution of each part of the flame to the total
radiated energy was analyzed. A method is presented combining the IR images and the visible images; it offers
further insight into the relationship between the heat emitted by the luminous part and the obscured, nonluminous,
part of the flame.
 2004 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pool fire; Burning rate; Flame length; Thermal radiation; Infrared camera; Emissive power

1. Introduction type of accident leads to regulation and implemen-

The processing industries and related activities,
such as the transport of hazardous materials, incur
risks associated with the occurrence of different se-
vere accidents, such as pool fires after accidental fuel
spills. A historical analysis shows that pool fires are
one of the most frequent accidents in the process-
ing industries and in the transport of hazardous sub-
stances [1]. Concern about the potential hazard of this
* Corresponding author. Fax: +34-93-401-7150.
E-mail address: eulalia.planas@upc.es (E. Planas).
0010-2180/$ – see front matter  2004 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.09.001
tation of safety analysis reports, emergency response
planning, and quantitative risk assessment. Detailed
safety assessment requires methods for calculating
the consequences of spills as accurately as possi-
ble [2]. Determining the effects of thermal radiation
from hydrocarbon pool fires usually involves semi-
empirical methods, such as the solid flame model.
Knowledge of the radiative properties of fires is es-
sential to evaluate their thermal hazard.
There is a considerable literature describing both
experimental and theoretical studies of thermal radia-
tion from flames [3–6]. However, most of the studies
have focused on small-scale pool fires, which differ
264 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277

Nomenclature

ax Area of a pixel, matrix element, in the Q∗ Froude-like flame characterization

√
infrared image (m2 ) number = Q/(ρa Cp Ta D 2 gD)
aT Area covered by the flame (m2 ) Re Reynolds number = uw D/νa
a Constant parameter, Eq. (2) r Separation distance between a differen-
b Constant parameter, Eq. (2) tial target (dP 1) and a flame element
Cp Specific heat of fuel (kJ kg−1 K−1 ) (P 2) (m)
c Constant parameter, Eq. (2) T Temperature (K)
D Pool-fire diameter (m) uc Characteristic wind velocity (m/s)
d Constant parameter, Eq. (7) uc = (g ṁ D/ρa )1/3
E Emissive power (kW/m2 ) uw Wind speed (m/s)
Ē Emissive power of the mean flame u∗ Dimensionless wind speed
contours (kW/m2 ) VFOV Vertical field of view (m)
Eav Average emissive power (kW/m2 ) x Distance (m)
e Constant parameter, Eq. (7) y Horizontal position of a wall pixel (m)
fk Fraction of energy radiated by the range
z Vertical position of a wall pixel (m)
of emissive power k
ε Emissivity
Fr Froude number = u2w /gD
ϕ Angle between the normal and the
Fv View factor
joining line r (◦ )
f Constant parameter, Eq. (8)
θ Tilt respect to the vertical (◦ )
g Gravitational acceleration (m/s2 )
g Constant parameter, Eq. (8) ρ Density (kg/m3 )
H Flame height (m) σ Stefan–Boltzmann constant = 5.67 ×
HFOV Horizontal field of view (m) 10−11 kW m−2 K−4
h Constant parameter, Eq. (8) τ Atmospheric transmission
I Intermittency ν Kinematic viscosity (m2 /s)
k Constant parameter, Eq. (1) (m−1 ) Subscript
L Flame length (m)
ṁ Mass burning rate (kg s−1 m−2 ) a Ambient conditions
ṁ∞ Maximum mass burning rate av Average
(kg s−1 m−2 ) c Position of the pool-fire center
m∗ Dimensionless mass burning rate k Number of images in the IR sequence
NT Number of total images in the i Row matrix indices
thermographic sequence j Column matrix indices
qx Radiant heat (kW/m2 ) max Maximum flame height
Qr Total radiated heat (kW) lum Luminous flame
Q Total heat release (kW) soot Sooty flame

significantly from large turbulent fires [7]. Even so,
predicting the radiative characteristics of large flames
is still subject to considerable uncertainty, because
some parameters associated with large turbulent dif-
fusion flames cannot be determined accurately for a
given fire [6]. Large hydrocarbon pool fires produce
large quantities of smoke, which partly surrounds the
fire and decreases thermal radiation. This is known
as the “smoke blockage effect.” At present, calcu-
lations and regulations of fire separation distances
are very conservative, because there is no reliable
method for taking into account the smoke blockage
effect [8]. Furthermore, the significant influence of
soot on the radiation from hydrocarbon fires is well
known [9,10].
In this study, a series of large-scale experiments
on pool fires were carried out and the parameters for
assessing the effects of the fires were determined.
Furthermore, radiative properties of fires were in-
vestigated using a thermographic camera. In the last
decade, thermographic techniques have been used in
fire research [11–13]. Hägglund and Persson [14]
were among the first to use thermographic cameras
to measure the heat radiated from large pool fires.
Qian et al. [12] describe the advantages of using
IR images to measure the distribution of flame tem-
peratures over conventional thermocouples. Hayasaka
et al. [11] have shown that the high-speed thermo-
graphic technique, instead of conventional wide-angle
radiometers, can be used to determine the irradiance
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Table 1
IR camera specifications
Model Agema 570
Detector type Focal plane array, uncooled
microbolometer 320 × 240 pixel
Spectral range 7.5–13 µm
Field of view (FOV) 24◦ horizontal, 18◦ vertical
Measurement accuracy ±2% of the range or ±2 ◦ C
Thermal sensitivity < 0.15 ◦ C
Spatial resolution (IFOV) 1.3 mrad
Measurement range −20–500 ◦ C
300–800 ◦ C
500–1500 ◦ C
View finder Color LCD (TFT)
Digital output 14-bit real-time serial digital
video
Image storage Full dynamics, 14-bit digital
storage
of flames. This technique can be combined with other
methods, such as video image processing and direct
measurement of temperature, to obtain important con-
clusions about the radiative properties of fires. In
this study, this methodology was used to determine
a flame’s shape and also the temperature and emissive
power distributions of the flame.
2. Experimental procedures and instruments
A series of outdoor large-scale pool fire experi-
ments were performed using gasoline and diesel as
fuel lying on top of a layer of water. Five concen-
tric circular pools made of reinforced concrete (1.5,
3, 4, 5, and 6 m in diameter) were used. A set of
thermocouples was fixed at different positions on a
metal structure to determine the flame’s temperature.
The weather conditions were recorded using a mete-
orological station. A complete description of the in-
stallation has previously been published [15–17]. The
experiments were filmed using two video cameras,
which registered visible light (VHS), and a commer-
cial high-speed thermographic camera (IR). The ther-
mographic camera and one of the VHS cameras were
placed together, side by side, perpendicular to the pre-
dominant wind direction during the experiment. The
distance between the pool fire and the cameras var-
ied, depending on the size of the pool fire, and was
such that all the flames were viewed in their entirety
by the infrared camera. The technical specifications
of the thermographic camera are given in Table 1.
3. Burning rate
The burning rate is a key parameter used to define
the characteristics of pool fires. It was calculated us-
265
Fig. 1. Experimental burning rate determined during diesel
and gasoline pool-fire tests with 1.5- and 3-m diameters, re-
spectively.
ing a system of communicating vessels to measure the
weight loss of a small vessel (500 cm3 ) connected by
a flexible tube to the pool fire. A balance connected
to a computer recorded the recipient’s weight every
0.5 s [15]. The mass burning rate was then obtained by
smoothing out the curve and multiplying the weight
loss by the corresponding conversion factor. For ex-
ample, Fig. 1 shows the burning rate as calculated
for one gasoline pool fire and one diesel pool fire.
The fluctuations were caused by changes in the wind;
also, the final increase in the burning rate in the case
of diesel fires is due to “thin-layer boilover,” which
causes the water bed to boil due to the high temper-
ature of the fuel layer [15]. This last effect must be
corrected to evaluate ṁ during this period.
In a previous study, based on an initial series of ex-
periments [15], the mass burning rate was determined
for pool fires with diameters ranging from 1.5 to 4 m.
The influence of the wind on the mass burning rate
during the stationary period was also evaluated. It was
concluded that the influence of the wind was small for
wind velocities lower than 2 m/s.
In this study, measurements presented previously
were combined with data obtained in a second series
of experiments, in which pools (5 and 6 m in diame-
ter) were added to the installation. As the influence of
the wind becomes important when the wind velocity
exceeds 2 m/s, a mass burning rate correlation was
determined for those tests in which the wind velocity
was lower than 1.6 m/s. The results were averaged
and correlated using

 
ṁ = ṁ∞ 1 − e−k D , (1)
derived by Zabetakis and Burgess [18]. Fig. 2 presents
the averaged values, together with the expression re-
sulting from the fit. The values obtained from the re-
gression for the constants are listed in Table 2.
The most important parameter in Eq. (1) is the
mass burning rate at infinite diameter, ṁ∞ , as nor-
266 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Fig. 2. Experimental and correlated burning rates for gaso-
line and diesel pool fires.
Table 2
Correlation parameters for mass burning rate
ṁ∞ k
(kg m−2 s−1 ) (m−1 )
Gasoline 0.083 1.173
Diesel 0.062 0.63
mally, only this parameter can be used to estimate
the combustion velocity in the case of accidental pool
fires. The maximum burning rate was slightly higher
than previously published [15,19,20] and also than
the values yielded by the first series of experiments.
A low value, compared with previously published val-
ues, was found for the constant k  for diesel pool fires;
this means that the limiting velocity is reached at di-
ameters as high as 9 m. In the data analyzed by Hot-
tel [21] and Babrauskas [20], the burning rate reached
a constant value at smaller diameters, of ∼ 5 m. How-
ever, in recent experiments reported by Koseki and
Iwata [22], which used crude oil as fuel, the burning
rate was found to increase for pools of up to 20 m.
This would appear to indicate that the value of the
constant k  is low for those hydrocarbons with a wide
range of volatilities.
4. Length of a flame
The flame’s length was determined by means of
the visible images obtained from the VHS video
recordings. The camera used to determine the tilt and
length of a flame was placed perpendicular to the
predominant wind direction: those tests in which the
wind velocity was constant and perpendicular to the
camera were selected. For each test, a portion of film
corresponding to the stationary state was selected,
digitalized, and divided into a sequence of digital im-
ages at 25 frames per second. A MATLAB algorithm
Fig. 3. Flame height and tilt evolution, obtained from the
videos registered in visible light for a 3-m gasoline pool fire.
Fig. 4. Intermittency corresponding to a 3-m gasoline pool
fire.
was developed to allow the maximum height of the
visible luminous flame to be selected for each frame
in the sequence. For example, Fig. 3 shows the evolu-
tion of a flame’s height and tilt, as obtained from the
video of a gasoline pool fire (diam 3 m). In Fig. 3, the
abscissa indicates the time elapsed since the first im-
age in the sequence was taken. A positive or negative
tilt indicates whether the flame was right or left tilted,
respectively. The evolution of the flame’s height in
Fig. 3 reveals two phenomena typical of large fires:
flame pulsations and instabilities.
Generally, a flame’s length is taken to be either the
maximum visible length or the time-averaged visible
length [23]. In our study we evaluated both the aver-
age and the maximum visible flame lengths by means
of the intermittency criterion, developed by Zukoski
et al. [24] to determine the average height of a flame.
In this work, the intermittency I (L) is defined as the
fraction of time for which the flame’s length is at
least higher than L. Thus, the average length (Lav )
of a flame is defined as the length at which the in-
termittency reaches the value of 0.5. This concept is
represented in Fig. 4, which presents the intermittency
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277 267

Table 3
Correlation parameters for flame length, Eq. (2)
a b c
Medium flame length 7.74 0.375 −0.096
Maximum flame length 8.44 0.298 −0.126

from Fig. 3. According to the definition of intermit-

tency, the maximum length is reached when the inter-
mittency tends to zero (I (L) → 0). Then, the maxi-
mum flame length is evaluated as the length where the
intermittency is 0.05 [25].
The data for both the maximum length and the av-
erage flame length were correlated using
Fig. 5. Results of the correlation of the average flame length.
L  
= a  (m∗ )b (u∗ )c , (2)
D while Fig. 5 compares the experimental and average
where m∗ and u∗ are the dimensionless burning rate flame lengths from correlations. All the correlations
and wind speed, respectively, and are defined as give slightly better estimates for the maximum flame
length than for the average. Even the correlation pro-
ṁ
m∗ = √ , (3) posed by Heskestad [26] overestimates the average
(ρa gD) flame length. Surprisingly, the correlation proposed

uw /uc if uw
uc , by Moorhouse [29] for conical flame shapes (Moor-
u∗ = (4)
1 if uw < uc , house 2) predicts the average flame length better than
that proposed for cylindrical flame shapes (Moor-
where uw is the wind velocity and uc is the char-
house 1).
acteristic wind velocity. Two new correlations were
The maximum flame length was well predicted by
determined through fitting of the experimental data.
all the correlations, except the Thomas 1 and Hes-
The values of the constants a  , b , and c are given in
kestad correlations. The best predictor was Moor-
Table 3.
house’s correlation [29] for a cylindrical flame. The
The experimental measurements were used to
Thomas 2 correlation also gives a good prediction.
evaluate estimates from other correlations developed
Taking this into account, as well as the fact that this
previously. Since observations were made with low
expression is widely used and accepted, it seems to
wind speeds, they were compared with equations
be the best option for calculating the maximum flame
developed under both quiescent and windy condi-
length if no experimental measurements are available.
tions. The commonly cited equation proposed by
A correspondence was observed between the max-
Heskestad [26], and developed for a wide range of hy-
imum and average flame lengths. Thus, a single cor-
drocarbons based on laboratory scale measurements
relation could be used to estimate both dimensions;
in the absence of wind,
from the values in Table 3,
L/D = −1.02 + 3.7(Q∗ )2/5 , (5)
(L/D)max = 1.52(L/D)av
was used for the evaluation. Furthermore, six fre- = 11.76(m∗ )0.375 (u∗ )−0.096 . (6)
quently cited correlations with the form given in
Eq. (2) were also used. The equation parameters This expression correlated as effectively as Eq. (2),
(a  , b , and c ) and the references are listed in Table 4. and resulted in an MNSE of 0.019 and an FB of
The Thomas 1 [28], Thomas 2 [28], and Pritchard and −0.002, which indicate that the maximum flame
Binding [2] correlations were developed for predict- length is 50% longer than the average flame length.
ing the maximum flame length instead of the average
flame length.
The quality of the estimates from correlations 5. Flame tilt
was evaluated using the normalized mean square er-
ror (NMSE) and the fractional bias (FB) (see Ap- The time-averaged flame tilt data were scattered,
pendix A). This method of comparing correlations possibly because the experiments were carried out un-
was used by Rew and Deaves [27] and Rew et der low-wind-speed conditions and the flame tilt was,
al. [19]. The results for the average and maximum in general, low. Under these conditions the flame is
flame length correlations are summarized in Table 5, unstable and is not steadily tilted in the direction of
268 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277

Table 4
Correlation and parameters used to evaluate the experimental flame length data
Correlation name Notes Ref.
Correlation based on Q∗ , Eq. (5)
Heskestad Laboratory-scale data [26]
Valid for a wide range of fuel
Correlation based on m∗ and u∗ , Eq. (2)
a b c
Thomas 1 42 0.61 Wooden crib fires [28]
Thomas 2 55 0.67 −0.21 Wooden crib fires [28]
Moorhouse 1 6.2 0.254 −0.044 LNG pool fires: cylindrical flame shape [29]
representation
Pool-fire dimensions: 12.2 × 15.4 m
Moorhouse 2 4.7 0.21 −0.114 LNG pool-fires: conical flame shape [29]
representation
Pool-fire dimensions: 12.2 × 15.4 m
Mangialavori and Rubino 31.6 0.58 Heptane, hexane, and isobutene pool fires [30]
Pool diameter: 1–6 m
Pritchard and Binding 10.615 0.305 −0.03 HC pool fires, mainly LNG [2]
Maximum flame length
Pool diameter: 6–22 m

Table 5
Comparison between the experimental flame length and the correlations
Heskestad Thomas 1 Mangialavori Pritchard Moorhouse 1 Moorhouse 2 Thomas 2 New
and Rubino and Binding (cylindrical) (conical) correlation
Average flame length
NMSE 0.691 0.491 0.302 0.486 0.156 0.103 0.438 0.027a
FB −0.743 −0.631 −0.495 −0.633 −0.344 −0.257 −0.596 −0.015a
Maximum flame length
NMSE 0.156 0.086 0.038 0.071 0.026 0.051 0.069 0.019b
FB −0.346 −0.222 −0.075 −0.224 0.083 0.172 −0.184 −0.011b
a Medium flame length correlation.
b Maximum flame length correlation.

Table 6
Parameters for the flame tilt correlations, Eq. (7)
d e Notes Ref.
AGA 1 −0.50 LNG pool fires [3]
Thomas 0.7 −0.49 Wooden crib fires [28]
Moorhouse 0.86 −0.25 Cylindrical flames [29]
New correlation 0.96 −0.26 This work

the wind. Usually two types of correlations are used

to predict flame tilt. The first type relates flame tilt to
the dimensionless wind speed (u∗ ),

 ∗ e u∗
1,
cos(θ) = d (u ) (7)
1 u∗ < 1, Fig. 6. Comparison of the flame tilt data.
where d  and e are constants. The values of these
constants for three correlations proposed by other au- for low wind speeds, it predicts that the flame tilt is
thors are listed in Table 6, which includes the values zero. Fig. 6 compares the measurements and the cor-
of a new correlation obtained from the experimen- relations given by Eq. (7) and Table 6. For low wind
tal data. The main drawback to correlation 7 is that velocity, i.e., when u∗  1, the averaged flame tilt was
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277 269

Table 7 imaginary wall (placed in front of the pool), which

Parameters for the flame tilt correlations, Eq. (8) shows the apparent temperature distribution obtained
Correlation name f g h Ref. by the thermographic camera [11]. The temperature
of each element of the wall, i.e., each pixel on the
Johnson 0.7 0.428 0.109 [23]
Pritchard and Binding 0.666 0.333 0.117 [2] thermographic image, could be transformed to emis-
Rew and Hulbert 3.13 0.431 [23] sive power using the relationship
Moorhouse cylindrical 1.9 0.339 0.05 [29] 4 ,
Ei,j = εσ Ti,j (9)
where Ti,j is the temperature (K) of a pixel element, i
Table 8 and j indicate the position of the pixel in the thermo-
Comparison of flame tilt correlations graphic image, as shown in Fig. 7, Ei,j is the emissive
Johnson Pritchard Rew and Moorhouse power (kW/m2 ) of the pixel, ε is the emissivity, and
and Binding Hulbert cylindrical σ the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (kW K−4 m−2 ).
NMSE 1.70 2.40 2.19 3.42 A point on the wall does not necessarily represent the
FB −0.23 −0.54 −0.40 −0.73 real emissive power of the flame behind the wall, but
the approximation is accurate enough for the emissive
power distribution of the flame to be analyzed.
close to 15◦ (cos(θ) = 0.96) and it was found that the The wall temperature depends on the four para-
dependency on the dimensionless wind velocity was meters cited above. In each test the ambient tem-
similar to that found by Moorhouse [29]. perature, relative humidity, and distance between the
The other type of correlation expresses the tilt as a camera and the flame were measured. However, the
function of the Froude and Reynolds numbers, flame’s emissivity had to be estimated. It is a com-
tg(θ)   plex function, which depends on the path length and
= f  Frg Reh , (8) the extinction coefficient of the flame. In a turbulent
cos(θ)
fire, the emissivity varies with position and, due to
where f  , g  , and h are constants given in Table 7 fluctuations of the flame, with time. It is known that
for Johnson’s [23], Pritchard and Binding’s [2] and hydrocarbon pool fires become optically thick at di-
Moorhouse’s [29] correlations. Although these cor- ameters of ∼ 3 m [3,31]. Thus, the following criteria
relations allow the tilt to be determined at low wind were adopted: the emissivity was set to 0.95 for the
velocities, in general they were obtained using data 1.5-m-diameter test, 0.98 for 3 m, and for diame-
corresponding to wind speeds higher than those pre- ters equal to or greater than 4 m the emissivity was
sented here. Thus, none of the correlations led to good set to 1. Only those tests in which the influence of
results in this case. The quality of these correlations the wind was negligible were included in this analy-
is summarized in Table 8. sis. The IR images obtained from the thermographic
camera were exported to MATLAB files as matrices
of temperature using the software provided with the
6. Infrared images thermographic camera. The resulting matrix, based on
the thermographic image, had 320 columns and 240
An infrared camera is a radiometer formed from a rows. For each test, a group of NT images belonging
two-dimensional array of sensors. The signal at each to the stationary state of the test were selected. Fig. 7
sensor is proportional to the radiant heat emitted by a shows a typical example of an instantaneous distrib-
small part of the viewed object. The infrared camera ution of flame temperature, in which a pixel element
transforms signals of the sensors into temperatures by whose center is at the position (i, j ) and whose appar-
specifying the ambient temperature, the relative hu- ent temperature is T(i,jk ) is indicated. The subscript
midity, the distance, and the emissivity of the viewed k, which varies from 1 to NT , indicates the number of
object (in this case the flame). The high response the image in the sequence. The dimension and actual
speed of the sensors means that the resulting thermog- position of a pixel depends on the dimensions of the
raphy outputs are instantaneous images of the flame, vertical and horizontal fields of view. These values are
which are then stored in files as matrices of tempera- functions of the distance between the camera and the
ture. object and are given in the camera lens specifications.
Because the flame is a gaseous object, and tak- Thus, the area of a pixel, ax , is given by
ing into account that flame’s emissivity varies with
position, the temperature obtained from the IR cam- HFOV VFOV
ax = , (10)
era does not represent the real flame temperature. 320 240
However, if the distance between the camera and the where HFOV and VFOV are the horizontal and ver-
flame is large enough, the fire can be replaced by an tical fields of view (m), respectively. Meanwhile, the
270 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Fig. 7. Example of an instantaneous IR image transformed to a temperature matrix.
real pixel position is obtained by taking the pool fire
center, (ic , jc ), as a reference as
HFOV
y = (i − ic ) , vertical and horizontal dimensions were converted to
320
VFOV
z = (j − jc ) , (11)
240
where y and z are the horizontal and vertical pixel po-
sitions (m), respectively. The resulting images of the
temperature distribution were converted to emissive
power distributions using Eq. (9) and by considering
the emissive power of those pixels with an apparent
temperature lower than 600 K to be zero. Though this
limit was initially chosen because of the temperature
range of the IR camera, it is justified by the fact that
those parts of the flame whose emissive powers are
less than 10 kW/m2 (600 K–7 kW/m2 ) do not make
a significant contribution to the heat radiated by the
flame.
7. Emissive power distribution
As the thermographic images are instantaneous
pictures of the flame, and a large pool fire experi-
ences significant variations due to fluctuations of the
flame, each thermographic image gives an instanta-
neous emissive power distribution of the flame, all of
which taken together do not necessarily represent the
mean behavior of the fire. Thus, for each test, an im-
age of the mean emissive power contour was obtained
by averaging the thermographic sequence as follows:
NT
Ei,j
Ēi,j = 1 . (12)
NT
As an example, Fig. 8 shows two typical mean emis-
sive power contours resulting from a 3 m gasoline
pool fire (left) and a 6-m diesel pool fire (right). The
a dimensionless form by dividing by the pool di-
ameter (D). A zone of high radiance appears near
the base, approximately between H /D = 0.1 and
H /D = 0.6; the emissive power values for this zone
vary from 80–100 kW/m2 for pools of 1.5 m in di-
ameter to 120–160 kW/m2 for larger diameter pools.
The flame’s radiant energy distribution was ob-
tained by means of two statistical analyses: one per-
formed on each image in the thermographic sequence,
and the other on the mean emissive power contours.
The analysis was performed by dividing the emis-
sive power into ranges and counting the number of
pixels in each one. The histograms resulting from
the image sequences were averaged and compared
with the histograms obtained from the mean emis-
sive power contours in Fig. 9, which compares the
histogram of the mean emissive power contour with
the average of the histograms obtained from the im-
age sequence for a 1.5-m gasoline pool fire. Fig. 9
reveals that the mean emissive power contours contain
a greater number of low-emissive-power pixels than
the average histograms of the image sequence. More-
over, small quantities of pixels with a high emissive
power and appearing in different positions along the
flame’s length are lost when obtaining the mean emis-
sive power contour. This occurs in all cases due to the
variations between the instantaneous images caused
by the flame fluctuating.
Fig. 10 compares the distribution of the flame area
as a function of the emissive power contour of the
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Fig. 8. Two mean emissive power contours. Left: 3-m gasoline pool fire. Right: 6-m diesel pool fire.
flame for four diesel pool fires with diameters of 1.5,
3, 4, and 6 m. The behavior is very similar for the
four curves, but the emissive power increases when
the pool diameter increases.
Although some information is lost during the av-
eraging process, the mean emissive power contours
could be used to obtain certain mean radiative charac-
teristics of the flames, which cannot be obtained from
the instantaneous images. For example, the emissive
power distribution as a function of the flame height
can be estimated using the mean emissive power
contours. The distribution thus obtained is, however,
slightly lower than the real distribution. To evaluate
the emissive power distribution of the flame, the aver-
aged emissive power (Eav ) is defined as
 
Qr i j Ei,j ax
Eav = =   ∀Ei,j > 0, (13)
aT i j ax
where Qr is the total radiative heat released by the
flame (kW) and aT is the area covered by the flame
(i.e., viewed by the IR camera) (m2 ). Thus, the emis-
sive power of the flame as a function of flame height
was evaluated by dividing the flame into horizon-
tal slices along its axis and evaluating the averaged
emissive power (according to Eq. (13)) for each slice.
Fig. 11 shows the distribution of the averaged emis-
sive power as a function of flame height for 1.5-,
3-, and 4-m gasoline and diesel pool fires. For fires
of more than 3 m, the emissive power distributions
closely approximate the 3-m pool fire curve and it is
difficult to distinguish between the fuels. Similar be-
havior was reported by Koseki and Yumoto [33].
Eq. (13) also allows us to obtain the average emis-
sive power of the flame for its entire area. Fig. 12 was
271
derived by averaging the infrared sequences. Emis-
sive power increases with diameter from 1.5 to 4 m,
whereas for greater diameters, it seems to diminish.
The emissive power of the gasoline pool fires is sig-
nificantly higher than that of the diesel fires for di-
ameters up to 4 m. Emissive power data for several
fuels were reported by Koseki [5], and the values re-
ported for gasoline and diesel are also included in
Fig. 12. These values lie between the averaged val-
ues obtained from the image sequences and those ob-
tained from the mean emissive power contours.
Note that for evaluation of emissive power, the
thermographic camera presents significant advan-
tages with respect to the use of radiometric data. First,
the whole flame can be evaluated, and second, no ex-
tra estimate of the view factor is needed.
8. Radiation to the surroundings
The energy radiated over a target at a certain dis-
tance from the flame wall was calculated by evaluat-
ing the heat radiated by each pixel of the flame wall.
The flame wall was assumed to be placed in the y–z
plane of a coordinate system, the origin of which cor-
responds to the center of the pool fire. Fig. 13 shows
the elements involved in the analysis. The target ob-
ject is located at a certain distance (x) along the axis.
The heat radiated over a differential target with coor-
dinates P 1 = (x, 0, 0) from a point P 2 = (0, yj , zi )
on the flame wall is given by

qx(i,j ) = τ Ei,j Fv(i,j )P 2→dP 1 , (14)
272 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277

Fig. 9. Top: schema showing the method used to derive the histograms: (a) average distribution of the histograms obtained from
the image sequence, (b) mean emissive power contour histogram. Bottom: result corresponding to a gasoline pool fire with a
1.5-m diameter.

Fig. 10. Emissive power as a function of the covered area ob- Fig. 11. Average emissive power distribution as a function of
tained from the mean emissive power contours correspond- the dimensionless height obtained from the mean emissive
ing to diesel pool fires. power contours.
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Fig. 12. Average emissive power for the whole flame as a
function of the pool fire diameter, obtained by averaging the
infrared sequence. The data are compared with the data pub-
lished by Koseki [5].
Fig. 13. Elements involved in calculating the radiative out-
put.
where Fv is the view factor, τ is the atmospheric
transmission, and qx is the radiant heat (kW/m2 ).
The total radiated heat is the sum of the radiated heat
from all the pixels on the flame wall. To make possible
the comparison of the results with data from other au-
thors, τ was considered to be equal to unity; thus the
results are the maximum theoretical values. The view
factor between a pixel and the target is computed from
cos ϕ1 cos ϕ2
Fv(i,j )P 2→dP 1 = ax , (15)
πr 2
where ϕ1 and ϕ2 are the angles between the normal
and the joining line, and r is the distance between P 1
and P 2 (m).
To compare the results with other published data,
only the irradiance evaluated at the dimensionless dis-
tance of five diameters (x/D = 5) is presented in this
study. In all cases the target was placed vertically, but
this study allows for the target to be placed in other
positions. For distances far away from the flame, the
273
Fig. 14. Radiative output as a function of time, obtained from
the IR image sequence, for diesel pool fires.
Fig. 15. Diesel pool-fire and gasoline pool-fire radiation out-
put, obtained from the image sequence at the dimensionless
distance of x/D = 5.
maximum heat flux practically equals that of a target
placed vertically. Fig. 14 shows the irradiance over a
target at x = 5D, obtained directly from the IR image
sequence, for diesel pool fires of 1.5, 3, 4, and 6 m
in diameter. The abscissa represents the time elapsed
since the first image in the sequence was taken. The
horizontal lines indicate the mean values. The mean
values for all the tests are summarized in Fig. 15. The
values are of the same order of magnitude as pub-
lished previously [32]. The radiative output follows a
trend similar to that of the total emissive power of the
flame: it increases until reaching a maximum value
and then decreases. This behavior agrees with the re-
sults published by Koseki [32] for gasoline, kerosene,
and crude oil pool fires, in which it is attributed to the
smoke blockage effect.
The radiative output obtained from the flame con-
tour was ∼ 20% lower than the values obtained by
averaging the thermographic sequence. Although the
flame contours underestimate the radiative output,
they allow us to determine the contribution of each
274 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Fig. 16. Irradiance distribution as a function of the emissive power of the flame.
range of emissive power to the radiative output. The
contribution was evaluated by calculating the frac-
tion of energy radiated by a given range of emissive
power:
 
j i Ei,j Fv(i,j)P 2→dP 1
fk =
q˙
x/D
∀Ek  Ei,j < Ek+1 . (16)
Note that the distribution of energy depends on the
emissive power and on the distance between the tar-
get and the flame. Fig. 16 shows a typical distribu-
tion. The upper part of the graph shows the fraction
of radiated energy expressed as a percentage; the ab-
scissa indicates the emissive power. The lower part
indicates the accumulated distribution. Although the
results vary from test to test, the tendency was sim-
ilar. All the ranges of emissive power contribute an
approximately equal proportion to the radiated en-
ergy. Thus, the upper part of the flame (less radiative
than the lower part and with a lower view factor) con-
tributes the same proportion, due to its extension. This
means that a large part of the energy received by the
target corresponds to that part of the flame that is
partly obscured by soot and appears above a height
of approximately 0.5D.
9. Relationship between the visible images and
the infrared images
With the aim of obtaining the relationship between
the heat emitted by the visible, luminous part of the
flame and that emitted by the obscured, nonluminous
part of the flame, the IR images were superimposed
onto the VHS images. The superimposing process
was carried out in several steps. The VHS images
were digitalized into AVI video files and were then
split into a series of image files. The time elapsed be-
tween two consecutive images was 0.04 s. Though
the time that elapsed between each image in the IR
sequence was variable, this was recorded by the IR
camera to millisecond precision. To synchronize the
two series of images, the correspondence between the
first image in the IR sequence and the first image in
the VHS sequence was determined.
Horizontal and vertical scaled factors were ob-
tained by dividing the length of some visible dimen-
sion in both image series into pixels. The center of the
pool was taken as a reference to align the sequences.
Then, the IR images were scaled properly and su-
perimposed onto the corresponding images from the
VHS sequence. Fig. 17 shows two visible images,
recorded during a 6-m-diameter diesel pool fire test,
superimposed onto the corresponding emissive power
contours.
To differentiate between the luminous and nonlu-
minous parts of the flames, the color of each pixel
in the visible image was expressed in terms of HSB
(hue, saturation, brightness) and the level of bright-
ness (the B part of the color system) was employed. It
was found that a level of brightness of 85%, with re-
spect to the full scale, adequately represents the limit
between the luminous and nonluminous flames. There
is not one unique limit between the two zones, but
rather it depends on the image quality and the dig-
italization process and contains a certain degree of
subjectivity. An example that shows a visible flame
contour and its corresponding luminous and nonlumi-
nous parts is given in Fig. 18.
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277 275

Fig. 17. Two images taken during a diesel pool-fire test where the IR contours were superimposed onto the visible image.

Fig. 18. Typical image of a flame contour (left) and its corresponding visible (center) and nonluminous (right) parts.

Once the images had been superimposed, it was
possible to determine the radiative intensity of each
pixel in the visible images lying inside the flame con-
tour. The distribution of luminous and nonluminous
pixels as a function of the flame emissive power was
determined for several fires. It was found that while
the distribution of emissive power of the luminous
flame depends on the pool diameter, the distribution
of the obscured flame was independent of it. Fig. 19
shows the distribution obtained from analyzing the
superimposed images of 3- and 6-m diesel pool fires.
The top part of the graph shows the distribution of
the obscured flame and the accumulated distribution,
while the distribution of the luminous part and the
inverse accumulated distribution are shown at the bot-
tom. From this we can deduce that ∼ 50% of the
energy radiated by the partly obscured flame origi-
nates in zones with an emissive power of 30 kW/m2
or less. Furthermore, ∼ 20% of the pixels in the partly
obscured area have an emissive power greater than
70 kW/m2 . However, the emissive power of the lu-
minous parts of the flame covers a wide range of
values depending on the luminous intensity and po-
sition. The zones with the greatest luminous intensity
have emissive powers greater than 130 kW/m2 . Ap-
proximately 50% of the total luminous flame was oc-
cupied by pixels with emissive powers greater than
100 kW/m2 . Note that the energy distribution for the
276 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
Fig. 19. Emissive power distribution for the luminous and
nonluminous flame, for 3- and 6-m diesel pool fires.
nonluminous flame is independent of the diameter,
while the energy of the luminous flame increases as
the diameter increases.
Based on the distribution, it was also found that
the average emissive power of the nonluminous flame
is almost constant at 40 kW/m2 , independent of the
fuel type. This value is twice that attributed to the
smoky part of the flame in the pool fire modeling lit-
erature [2,3,27]. Based on this, the emissive power of
the flame can be evaluated as the contribution of two
parts: a luminous part that covers approximately 30
and 45% of the flame, depending on the type of fuel,
and a smoky zone that occupies the remaining part:
E = 0.3Elum + 0.7Esoot diesel, (17)
E = 0.45Elum + 0.55Esoot gasoline, (18)
where Esoot is 40 kW/m2 and Elum ranges between
80 and 120 kW/m2 depending on the fuel and pool
diameter.
10. Conclusions
Large-scale gasoline and diesel pool fire experi-
mental data were analyzed. The burning rate and the
flame dimensions were studied. Thermographic tech-
niques were used to determine the mean emissive
power contour, the emissive power distribution, the
averaged emissive power of the whole flame, and the
radiative output of gasoline and diesel pool fires from
1.5 to 6 m in diameter. From analysis of these data,
we can draw the following conclusions:
1. The maximum burning rate was higher than the
data published by others. The data analyzed here and
the results presented by other authors appear to indi-
cate that this value is reached at larger diameters for
those hydrocarbons that have a wide range of volatili-
ties. As a consequence of the results obtained from the
comparison between the flame length correlations and
the experimental data, it can be concluded that all the
correlations tend to overestimate the average flame
height, but can more accurately predict the maximum
flame height. Care must therefore be taken when se-
lecting the flame shape—cylindrical or conical, for
example—as this could lead to a considerable overes-
timation of the radiation effects. The maximum flame
length was found to be 50% larger than the average
flame length. An equation (Eq. (6)) was found that
correlates both lengths.
2. The flame tilt data were scattered, and because
the flame was not steadily tilted but fluttered around
the wind direction, a simple correlation of the form
given by Eq. (7) was used to approximate flame tilt.
3. The analysis of the mean emissive power con-
tours showed a high radiation zone near the base.
The maximum values found vary considerably from
80–100 kW/m2 for pools with a 1.5-m diameter to
120–160 kW/m2 for larger diameters.
4. The average emissive power of the whole flame
agreed with data published previously (Fig. 12) [5].
However, it was observed that the averaged values ob-
tained from the mean emissive power contours were
10% lower than those obtained when the values of im-
ages were averaged; this discrepancy was due to the
averaging process.
5. The irradiance calculated for gasoline pool fires
was higher than that of diesel fires. The maximum val-
ues found for pool fires with a 3-m diameter were
about 1.7 and 1.0 kW/m2 for gasoline and diesel,
respectively, as measured at a distance of 5D. The
averaged values for gasoline were in agreement with
previously published data [32]. An analysis of the re-
lationship between the flame emissive power and the
irradiance shows that all the ranges of emissive power
contribute in an equal proportion to the radiated en-
ergy.
6. A method to estimate the energy radiated by
the luminous and nonluminous parts of the flame has
been presented. The analysis of the energy distrib-
ution shows that the emissive power of the nonlu-
minous part of the flame is on average 40 kW/m2 .
This suggests that the average emissive power of the
flame can be evaluated as the contribution of two parts
 M. Muñoz et al. / Combustion and Flame 139 (2004) 263–277
(Eqs. (17) and (18)); one luminous part, with an aver-
age emissive power of approximately 80–120 kW/m2
(depending of the type of fuel and pool diameter) and
the other nonluminous part, which has a constant av-
erage emissive power of 40 kW/m2 .
Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the Ministry of Sci-
ence and Technology Commission (Projects PPQ-
2002-00572). The authors also acknowledge financial
support from REPSOL Petróleo, S.A.
Appendix A
To measure the degree of correlation between the
models, the normalized mean square error (NMSE)
and the fractional bias (FB) were used by Rew and
Deaver [27]. The NMSE is a measure of the degree of
correlation and can be used to compare correlations,
while the FB indicates the degree of deviance.
Given n observed values x0 and the corresponding
predicted values xp , the NMSE and FB are defined as
1  (x0 − xp )2
n
NMSE = , (19)
n x0 xp
1
1  x0 − xp
n
FB = 2 . (20)
n x0 + xp
1 [20] V. Babrauskas, Fire Technol. 19 (1983) 251–261.
Negative values of FB indicate that the value has been
overestimated, whereas positive values indicate that it
has been underestimated.
References
[1] E. Planas-Cuchi, H.E. Montiel, J. Casal, Trans. Inst.
Chem. Eng. 75B (1997) 3–8.
[2] M.J. Pritchard, T.M. Binding, in: Symposium on Major
Hazards Onshore and Offshore, 1992, pp. 491–505.
[3] K.S. Mudan, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 10 (1984) 59–
80.
[4] A. Hamins, T. Kashiwagi, R.R. Burch, in: G.E. Totten,
J. Reichel (Eds.), Fire Resistance of Industrial Fluids:
Proceedings, ASTM STP 1284, Indianapolis, June 20,
1995, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1996, pp. 15–41.
[5] H. Koseki, Fire Saf. J. 6 (1999) 115–132.
[6] G.A. Mizner, J.A. Eyre, Combust. Sci. Technol. 35
(1983) 33–57.
[7] L.A. Gritzo, Y.R. Sivathanu, W. Gill, Combust. Sci.
Technol. 139 (1998) 113–136.
277
[8] P. Joulain, Proc. Combust. Inst. 27 (1998) 2691–2706.
[9] J.S. Wu, S.K. Krishnan, K.C. Lin, G.M. Faeth, Refrac-
tive indices of overfire soot in large buoyant turbulent
diffusion flames, Report No. NISTIR 5904, 1996.
[10] G.M. Faeth, Ü.Ö. Köylü, Combust. Sci. Technol. 108
(1995) 207–229.
[11] H. Hayasaka, H. Koseki, T. Tashiro, Fire Technol. 28
(1992) 110–122.
[12] C. Qian, K. Saito, in: J.P. Gore (Ed.), Combustion
Fundamentals and Applications: Joint Technical Meet-
ing, Proceedings, San Antonio, TX, April 23–26, 1995,
pp. 81–86.
[13] H. Hayasaka, in: Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of
the Fourth International Symposium, 1994, pp. 125–
136.
[14] B. Hägglund, L. Persson, The heat radiation from pe-
troleum fires, Report No. FOA C20126-06(A3), Stock-
holm, 1976, p. 33.
[15] J.M. Chatris, J. Quintela, J. Folch, E. Planas, J. Arnal-
dos, J. Casal, Combust. Flame 126 (2001) 1373–1383.
[16] E. Planas, J.M. Chatris, J.A. Vílchez, J. Quintela, J.
Folch, J. Casal, J. Arnaldos, in: Chemical Industrial and
Environment III: Proceedings of European Meeting on
Chemical Industry and Environment, Kraków, Poland,
September 1–3, 1999, vol. 2.
[17] J.M. Chatris, E. Planas, J. Arnaldos, J. Casal, Combust.
Sci. Technol. 171 (2001) 141–161.
[18] M.G. Zabetakis, D.S. Burgess, Research on the haz-
ards associated with the production and handling of liq-
uid hydrogen, Report BM-RI-5707, Bureau of Mines,
Washington, DC, 1961.
[19] P.J. Rew, W.G. Hulbert, D.M. Deaves, Inst. Chem.
Eng. 75B (1997) 81–89.
[21] H.C. Hottel, Fire Res. Abstr. Rev. 1 (1959) 42–44.
[22] H. Koseki, Y. Iwata, Fire Technol. 36 (2000) 24–38.
[23] P.J. Rew, W.G. Hulbert, Development of Pool-Fire
Thermal Radiation Model, HSE Books, Sudbury, Suf-
folk, 1996, p. 99.
[24] E.E. Zukoski, B.M. Cetegen, T. Kubota, Proc. Com-
bust. Inst. 20 (1985) 361–366.
[25] E.E. Zukoski, in: G. Cox (Ed.), Combustion Funda-
mentals of Fire, Academic Press, San Diego, 1995,
pp. 101–219.
[26] G. Heskestad, Fire Saf. J. 5 (1983) 103–108.
[27] P.J. Rew, D.M. Deaves, The Validation and Application
of Pool-Fire Models, SERA 4, 1995.
[28] P.H. Thomas, Proc. Combust. Inst. 9 (1963) 844–859.
[29] J. Moorhouse, I. Chem. Sym. 71 (1982) 165–179.
[30] G. Mangialavori, F. Rubino, in: 7th International Sym-
posium on Loss Prevention and Safety Promotion in
Process Ind., Taormina, Italy, May 1992.
[31] E. Planas, J.M. Chatris, C. López, J. Arnaldos, Fire
Technol. 39 (2003) 261–273.
[32] H. Koseki, Fire Technol. 25 (1989) 241–255.
[33] H. Koseki, T. Yumoto, Fire Technol. 24 (1998) 33–47.