Engineering layout of fuel tanks in a tank farm

Angan Sengupta
*
, A.K. Gupta
1
, I.M. Mishra
Department of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 24766, Uttarakhand, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 17 December 2009
Received in revised form
21 May 2010
Accepted 22 June 2010
Keywords:
Tank farm
Wind effect
Cross-wind
Safe separation distance
Modied point source model
a b s t r a c t
The present paper deals with the location of tanks in a tank farm, in chemical and allied industries.
Ideally the tanks are so placed and installed that in case of re, the neighbouring tanks could remain safe.
The safe distance of separation among the tanks is calculated in no wind condition, as well as, in the
presence of wind. The paper uses the methods available in literature and modies the point source
model to include the effect of wind vector on the ame height during the calculation of safe inter-tank
distance. It is found that for wind velocity >4 m/s, the modied point source model provides appropriate
inter-tank distance. However, for no wind and with wind velocity <4 m/s, the ShokrieBeylers method
provides safe inter-tank distance.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Tank farm is a synonym of an oil depot, a facility for storage of
liquid chemicals, such as oils, gasoline, diesel, aviation turbine fuel,
solvents, petrochemicals, etc. The tank farm is a piece of land on
which a number of fuel oil or chemical storage tanks are located or
sited together. The storage tanks may also be used to store base
blending components, solvents, additives, acids, caustic, chemicals,
or nished products. They may also be used as blending vessels.
Storage tanks are expensive to build and they require periodic
maintenance to keep them in proper condition when storing
volatile and ammable liquids. It is, therefore, necessary that they
be properly sized and utilized to maximize the return on
investment.
The safety aspects, apart from periodic maintenance, are
extremely important. The recent incident at Jaipur oil depot of
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. where 12 tankers containing 10
5
kl of
diesel and gasoline caught re and the re continued for a week
resulting in several fatalities and about 200 injuries besides damage
to property worth 3 10
3
million INR (w75 million USD) is a case in
point. This re caused very serious environmental pollution around
Jaipur and its adjoining areas. This incident has underlined the
importance of proper layout with safe separation distance to
prevent such hazardous episodes.
The tank farms usually have a number of tanks of equal heights.
However, they may be of varying capacities. Equal height adds to
aesthetics and lends them economic credence in the construction
of access structures, easy movements of operators fromone tank to
another and of re service men during emergency episodes. The
tanks may be laid out in square pitch having safe inter-space
between them. The inter-tank optimum separation distance is
crucial for safe operations, piping design, and maintenance access
and emergency/accident control and mitigation measures. The
desired inter-tank distance depends largely on the materials/
chemicals to be stored and the capacity of the tanks.
The tanks in reneries are generally constructed from steel or
polyethylene or ber glass and are either having xed roofs and/or
oating roofs for storing liquids. Non-steel constructions lower cost
considerably, and make them preferred choice for storing corrosive
and reactive chemicals.
Various regulatory and professional bodies like American
Petroleum Institute (API), National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have sug-
gested standards for such tank layouts in a tank farm. The layout of
tanks as distinct from their spacing, should always take into
consideration the accessibility needed for re-ghting and the
potential value of a storage tank farm in providing a buffer area
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 91 9012390134; 91 9433948999.
E-mail addresses: angan.sengupta@gmail.com (A. Sengupta), akgd30@
indiatimes.com, akgd30@gmail.com (A.K. Gupta), imishfch@iitr.ernet.in
(I.M. Mishra).
1
Scientist and former Head, Fire Research Laboratory, Central Building Research
Institute, Roorkee, India.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ j l p
0950-4230/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2010.06.016
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574
between process plant and public roads, houses, etc., for environ-
mental reasons. The location of tanks relative to process units must
be such as to ensure maximum safety from possible accidents.
Fig. 1a, b shows schematic representation of tanks in a tank farm
laid out in square and triangular pitch.
Primary requirements for the layout of renery tanks farms are
summarizedas follows (Digrado&Throp, 1995; Long&Gardner, 2004):
1. Inter-tank spacing and separation distances between tank and
boundary line and tank and other facilities are of fundamental
importance.
2. Suitable roadways should be provided for approach to tank
sites by mobile re-ghting equipment and personnel.
3. The re water system should be laid out to provide adequate
re protection to all parts of the storage area and the transfer
facilities.
4. Bunding and draining of the area surrounding the tanks should be
such that a spillage from any tank can be controlled to minimize
subsequent damage to the tank and its contents. They should also
minimize the possibility of other tanks being involved.
5. Tank farms should preferably not be located at higher levels
than process units in the same catchment area.
6. Storage tanks holding ammable liquids should be installed in
such a way that any spill will not owtowards a process area or
any other source of ignition.
A key safety consideration for tank farm siting, spacing, and
location is the separation of non-compatible materials by the use of
an internal bund or dike wall within the tank farm. Providing bund
or dike checks the ow of the spilled oil to the neighbouring areas.
Thus in case of re engulng the tank farm, the re is conned to its
origin. The bunds, however, need to be designed to have sufcient
strength to withstand the pressure that may be created in the event
of an oil spillage and the capacity to store the spilled liquid.
Some methods are available in literature for modeling inter-tank
safe distance in a tank farm. However, these methods do not take
into account the effect of cross-wind which is important from re
spread point of view. The present paper deals with the assessment
of various methods to estimate the safe separation distance
between two storage tanks in a tank farm, from the re spread
point of view. A modication is proposed to the point source model
to incorporate the effect of wind velocity on the ame tilt and re
spread. The estimated separation distance is also compared with
the values given by various regulatory bodies and prescribed by
standards and reported in the present paper.
2. Models to estimate the safe inter-tank spacing
Following methods are generally used for the determination of
safe inter-tank spacing:
(a) Point source model.
(b) ShokrieBeylers method.
(c) Mudans method.
Using these methods, the heat ux at various distances,
between a tank on re and the adjacent (target) tank is calculated.
The distance at which the heat ux becomes equal to 4.732 kW/m
2
(1500 BTU/h/ft
2
) (Daniel, Crowl, & Louvar, 2002; Lees, 1995; SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995) is considered to
be the safe inter-tank distance. No material is expected to ignite
with a heat ux lower than 4.732 kW/m
2
.
2.1. Point source model
In this model, it is customary to model the ame by a point
source located at the center of the real ame in order to predict the
thermal radiation eld of ames. The point source model (SFPE
Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995) is the simplest
congurational model of a radiant source. Fig. 2 shows the sche-
matic diagram of two tanks for using point source model. The
critical value of incident heat ux, dened as the minimumvalue of
the heat ux which can ignite the fuel in the target tank is given as
_
q
//
r
=
Q
r
cos q
4pR
2
_
kW=m
2
_
(1)
Fig. 1. (a) Top view of a tank farm square pitch layout. (b) Top view of a tank farm
triangular pitch layout.
R
D
H
H
f
/2
L
H
f
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a tank on re for point source model.
A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 569
Here, Q
r
is obtained
Q
r
= lQ (2)
Here, l can be determined as
l = (0:21 0:0034 D) (3)
And D is the diameter of tank (m).
Q is the total heat released by re and can be estimated as
follows:
Q = h _ m
//

p
4
D
2
DH
c
(4)
where, h is the combustion efciency. _ m
//
is calculated from the
regression rate curve (Drysdale, 1985). Regression rate is the
volumetric loss of liquid per unit pool surface area, and is given as
follows:
_ m
//
=
r(R
N
)
60; 000

Q
//
E
DH
V
(5)
Here, r is the fuel density, R
N
is the regression rate, Q
//
E
is the
external incident radiative heat ux and DH
V
is the heat of vapor-
ization. The value of 60,000 in equation (5) is only to convert
regression rate from mm/s to m/min.
R and cos q in equation (1), are given as follows:
R =

_
H
f
2
_
2
L
2

(6)
where, H
f
is the ame height (m) above the tank. The ame height
is obtained from Heskestad relationship (Heskestad, 1984) as given
below:
H
f
= 0:235Q
2=5
1:02D (7)
and, cos q is given as
cos q =
L
R
(8)
where, L is the inter-tank separation distance measured from the
center of the source tank to the edge of the target tank.
Substituting values of all the parameters in equation (1) and
calculating _ q
//
r
for various distances, for each of the congurations,
one can obtain the safe distance corresponding to the critical heat
ux, _ q
//
rc
which is generally taken as equal to 4.732 kW/m
2
(Daniel
et al., 2002; Lees, 1995; SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, 1995).
2.2. Shokri and Beylers method
Shokri and Beyler (SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection
Engineering, 1995) have developed a method for prediction of
radiative heat ux from pool res. A relationship has been devel-
oped to correlate the experimental data of ame radiation to
external targets in terms of average effective emissive power of the
ame. The ame is assumed to be a cylindrical blackbody and
a homogeneous radiator with an average emissive power.
The radiative heat ux is given as
_
q
//
r
= E F
12
(9)
The emissive power is given as
E = 58 10
0:00823D
(10)
where, D is the diameter of pool (m). The view factor (F
12
) is
a function of the target location, ame height and pool diameter;
and lies between 0 and 1. The shape factor is determined as
follows:
where,
A =
h
2
s
2
1
2s
B =
1s
2
2s
s =
2L
D
h =
2H
f
D
Here, H
f
(m) is given by equation (7).
Substituting values of all the parameters in equation (9) and
calculating _ q
//
r
for various distances, for each of the congurations,
one can obtain the safe distance corresponding to
_ q
//
rc
= 4:732 kW=m
2
.
2.3. Mudans method
Mudan (Mudan, 1984) has also presented a method for esti-
mating thermal radiation from pool res. The thermal radiation
intensity to an element outside the ame envelope is given by the
following equation:
_
q
//
r
= E F
12
s (12)
The effective emissive power is given by
E = 140 exp(0:12D) 20[1 exp(0:12D)[ (13)
F
12
can be determined in the same manner as has been done in
case of Shokri and Beyler method. Transmissivity (s) varies between
0 and 1 and can be determined as follows (Daniel et al., 2002; Lees,
1995).
s = 2:02 (P
w
x)
0:09
(14)
where, P
w
is partial pressure of water vapour in air (Pa) and x is the
path length (m).
The ame height correlation used in this method is based on the
correlation of average mean visible ame height, H
f
, of turbulent
diffusion ames developed by Thomas (Attalah and Donald, 1970;
Mudan, 1984; Thomas, 1963). The ame is assumed to be cylin-
drical in shape and H
f
is given as
F
12;H
=
B 1=s
p

B
2
1
_ tan
1

(B 1)(s 1)
(B 1)(s 1)

A 1=s
p

A
2
1
_ tan
1

(A 1)(s 1)
(A 1)(s 1)

F
12;V
=
1
p$s
tan
1
_
h

s
2
1
_
_

h
p$s
tan
1

s 1
s 1
_

Ah
p$s

A
2
1
_ tan
1

(A 1)(s 1)
(A 1)(s 1)

F
12
=

F
2
12;H
F
2
12;V
_
(11)
A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 570
H
f
= 42 D
_
_ m
//
r
a

g D
_
_
0:61
(15)
2.4. Modication of point source model
As a result of movement of air in the atmosphere, i.e. in the
presence of wind, the ame does not remain vertical any more. The
ame gets tilted as shown in Fig. 3 and its spread and heat transfer
from the ame to the target tank gets affected by wind velocity
vector. The point source model which is applicable to vertical
ames under no wind condition, therefore, becomes invalid under
windy conditions. Hence, the model requires modication to
accommodate the effect of wind. The ame tilt (f) is calculated as
follows:
cos f =
_
1 for u
*
_ 1
1=

u
*
_
for u
*
_ 1
(16)
where, f is the ame tilt with vertical as shown in Fig. 3 and is given
by the American gas association (AGA) (SFPE Handbook of Fire
Protection Engineering, 1995).
u* is the dimensionless speed and is given by
u
*
=
u
(g _ m
//
D=r
v
)
1=3
(17)
where, g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s
2
), r
v
is the fuel
vapour density (kg/m
3
) and _ m
//
is the mass burning rate per unit
pool area (kg/m
2
/s).
The height of the tilted ame can be calculated by the rela-
tionship given by Thomas (1963).
H
f
= 55 D
_
_ m
//
r
a

g D
_
_
0:67

_
u
*
_
0:21
(18a)
Moorhouse has proposed a relationship for tilted ame for LNG
(Mudan, 1984) as
H
f
= 62 D
_
_ m
//
r
a

g D
_
_
0:254

_
u
*
_
0:044
(18b)
The corrected inter-tank safe distance, L
corr
, is obtained as
L
corr
= L
_
H
f
2
sin f
_
(19)
R =

_
H
f
2
_
2
L
2
corr

(20)
cos q =
L
corr
R
(21)
Q, Q
r
, _ q
//
rc
and l are calculated as in equation (1). _ m
//
is calculated by
equation (5). Equations (19)e(21) may be used to estimate the safe
distance of separation under cross-wind conditions.
3. Results and discussions
In order to illustrate the usefulness of the three methods as
described above and to compare the results obtained from them,
a computer code has been developed to calculate safe distance in
a tank farm. The set of data that have been used to determine safe
inter-tank separation distance under wind and no wind conditions
are as follows:
Case I: gasoline is stored in the tanks. The relevant data for the
tanks and the materials are given as follows:
1. D=10 m
2. D
T
=10 m
3. H
1
=H
2
=7 m
4. h =1
5. r =7900 kg/m
3
6. c
p
=510 J/kg/K
7. h
g
=620 W/m
2
/K
8. K
g
=0.15 W/m/K
9. Q
E
//
=190 W/m
2
(Solar Radiation Handbook, 2008)
Case II: LNGis stored in the tanks. The relevant data for the tanks
and the materials are given as follows:
1. D=10 m
2. D
T
=10 m
3. H
1
=H
2
=7 m
4. h =1
5. r =424 kg/m
3
6. c
p
=2340 J/kg/K
7. h
g
=75 W/m
2
/K
8. K
g
=0.031 W/m/K
9. Q
E
//
=190 W/m
2
(Solar Radiation Handbook, 2008)
Table 1 provides calculated values of various parameters which
have been obtained using the calculated with the help of computer
code. It is found that the ame height calculated by Thomas method
(Thomas, 1963) is lower than that calculated by Heskestad method
R
D
H
L
Wind
L
corr
H
f
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram for tank on re under cross-wind condition.
Table 1
Rate of burning and ame heights under no wind conditions.
Gasoline LNG
Volume of source tank =549.78 m
3
Volume of source tank =549.78 m
3
Volume of target tank =549.78 m
3
Volume of target tank =549.78 m
3
Regression rate =3.8 mm/min Regression rate =6.6 mm/min
_ m
//
= 0:04384 kg=m
2
=s _ m
//
= 0:046147 kg=m
2
=s
Total heat radiated =28,360.986 kW Total heat radiated =31,894.4531 kW
Flame height (Heskestad) =18.24 m Flame height (Heskestad) =19.61 m
Flame height (Thomas) =13.75 m Flame height (Moorhouse) =151.24 m
A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 571
(Heskestad, 1984) in the case of gasoline. In the case of LNG, ame
height as calculated by Heskestad method provides a lower value
than that by Moorhouse (Mudan, 1984).
Table 2 shows the calculated results obtained using the above
methods. Figs. 4 and 5 show the incident heat ux at various
distances and the safe distance between the tanks when a tank is
on re under no wind condition, for gasoline and LNG, respectively.
It is clear that under no wind condition, heat ux decreases with an
increase in distance of separation between the tanks. While Shok-
rieBeyler method gives the highest value of safe distance, point
source and Mudans methods give very close values, but lower than
that given by ShokrieBeyler method. It may be seen from Table 2,
that the values of the safe distances as proposed by different
standards are widely different; the most conservative and the
highest estimate being that given by EPA, while the lowest is that of
NFPA (NFPA-30, 2001, Chap. 4). The value recommended by API is
near to that estimated by point source model and the Mudans
method for LNG re. For gasoline, the values obtained by point
source model and ShokrieBeyler method are nearer to API value.
FromTable 2, it is observed that LNG storage tanks require larger
separation distance than that for gasoline, in the absence of wind
effect. This is obvious since LNG (ash point =148.89

C) is more
ammable than gasoline (ash point =42.7

C).
Table 2
Comparison of values of safe separation distance with various standards and models.
Regulatory bodies Rim to rim distance
between tanks (for class e I fuel) (m)
NFPA 3.33
EPA 30.48
BN-DG-C01J plant
layout-storage tanks
10e15
API 15
Point source model Gasoline: 13.6
LNG: 14.6
ShokrieBeyler method Gasoline: 16.25
LNG: 20.35
Mudans method Gasoline: 12.5
LNG: 15
1
4
.
6
,

4
.
7
2
6
1
2
0
.3
5
,
4
.7
2
7
1
5
, 4
.
7
3
0
4
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from Rim (m)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
v
e

H
e
a
t

F
l
u
x

(
k
W
/
m
^
2
)
Point Source: ; Shokri-Beyler: ; Mudans Method:
Fig. 5. Radiative heat ux versus distance of separation from rim in no-wind condition
for LNG.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from Rim (m)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
v
e

H
e
a
t

F
l
u
x

(
k
W
/
m
^
2
)
Wind Speed (m/s): 4 ; 6 ; 8 ;10 ; 12
Fig. 6. Radiative heat ux versus distance of separation from rim in cross-wind
condition for gasoline, using modied point source model.
1
3
.6
,
4
.7
2
2
1
2
.5
,
4
.7
3
1
1
6
.2
5
,
4
.7
2
9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance from Rim (m)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
v
e

h
e
a
t

F
l
u
x

(
k
W
/
m
^
2
)
Point Source: ; Shokri-Beyler: ; Mudans Method:
Fig. 4. Radiative heat ux versus distance of separation from rim in no-wind condition
for gasoline.
A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 572
Figs. 6 and 7 show the variation of incident radiative heat ux
with distance, while incorporating the wind effect for gasoline and
LNG, respectively. Table 3 gives the values of safe distance as
calculated by modied point source model, incorporating the effect
of wind on ame.
It is seen from Table 3 that the height of the ame decreases
with an increase in the wind speed while the tilt angle with respect
to vertical axis increases with an increase in wind speed. As a result
of the decrease of ame height, it is expected to have a decrease in
the safe distance between the two tanks. But due to tilting of the
ame, the safe distance is increasing up to a wind speed of 8 m/s.
Thereafter, it starts decreasing, due to attening of the ame.
Thus fromFigs. 6 and 7, it is clear that the wind speed of 8 m/s is
the critical speed, for which we require maximum safe distance of
separation. Beyond this speed of the wind the ame becomes
almost at thus radiating less heat at a particular location.
The square pitch layout of the tanks in the tank farm requires
more area per tank, than that required for the triangular pitch.
However, the tank farm layout in square pitch is better for passage
in between the tanks and for smooth maintenance and control
work.
4. Conclusions
The layout of a tank farm for storage of volatile and ammable
substances is very important. Although some methods are available
for determining the minimum distance of separation of one tank
fromthe other, these methods do not take into account the effect of
wind on the ame height and re spread. The point source model
has been modied to incorporate the effect of wind velocity on the
ame height and re spread.
Shokri and Beyler method gives a higher safe distance in
comparisonto other methods under nowindcondition. The radiative
heat ux increases under windy condition, the safe distance of
separation between the tanks will, therefore, also increase. The
modied point source model can be used for determining this
increased safe distance. However, for wind speed below 4 m/s, the
safe distance of separation estimated by ShokrieBeylers method
may be maintained between the tanks. For wind speed above 8 m/s,
safe distance of separation decreases, as the ame gets almost at-
tened at this condition. Thus, modied point source model, proposed
in this paper should be used for tank farm layout, when the wind
speed, in general, remains above 4 m/s. It is found that square pitch
may be used for tank farm layout from safety point of view.
Nomenclatures
c
p
: specic heat of fuel (kJ/kg/K).
D: diameter of the pool or source tank (m).
D
T
: target tank diameter (m).
E: emissive power (kW/m
2
).
F
12
: view factor.
g: acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s
2
).
h
/
: difference in height of the two tanks (m) =H
1
H
2
.
DH
c
: heat of combustion of fuel (kJ/kg).
H
f
: ame length/height (m).
h
g
: convective heat transfer coefcient of fuel (W/m
2
/K).
H
R
: H
f
h
/
(m).
DH
V
: heat of vaporization (kJ/kg).
H
1
: height of source tank (m).
H
2
: height of target tank (m).
K
g
: thermal conductivity of fuel (W/m/K).
L: inter-tank distance measured from the center of source tank
to the edge of target tank (m).
L
corr
: corrected distance to obtain q (m).
_ m
//
: mass burning rate per unit pool area (kg/m
2
s).
P
w
: partial pressure of water vapour in air (Pa).
Q: total heat produced by the re (kW).
Q
E
//
: incident radiative heat ux from external source (such as
sun) (kW/m
2
).
Q
r
: total radiative energy output from the re (kW).
_ q
//
rc
: critical value of incident heat ux (taken as 4.732 kW/m
2
).
R: hypotenuse from ame center to target tank top edge (m).
R
N
: regression rate (mm/min).
u: wind speed (m/s).
u*: dimensionless wind speed as given in equation (17).
x: path length (m) =(hypotenuse of re elevation from
ground) (radius of re).
l: fraction of total heat which is radiated.
h: efciency of combustion.
f: ame tilt angle from vertical axis (

).
q: angle between the normal to the target and the line of sight
from the target to the point source location.
r: density of fuel (kg/m
3
).
r
a
: air density (kg/m
3
).
r
v
: fuel vapour density (kg/m
3
).
s: transmissivity of air.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance from Rim (m)
R
a
d
i
a
t
i
v
e

H
e
a
t

F
l
u
x

(
k
W
/
m
^
2
)
Wind Speed (m/s):4 ; 6 ; 8 ; 10
Fig. 7. Radiative heat ux versus distance of separation from rim in cross-wind
condition for LNG, using modied point source model.
Table 3
Variation of safe distance with wind speed (modied point source model).
Fuel Wind speed (m/s) Flame height (m) Tilt angle (

) Safe distance (m)

Gasoline 4 9.53 60.62 12.23
6 8.76 66.38 14.42
8 8.24 69.70 18.52
10 7.86 71.92 17.59
12 7.51 73.54 12.71
LNG 4 10.63 54.17 13.55
6 9.76 61.45 13.60
8 9.19 65.55 19.36
10 8.77 71.92 14.25
A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 573
References
Attalah, S., & Donald, S. A. (1970). Safe separation distances from liquid fuel res. In
Central States Section of the Combustion Institute meeting on disaster hazards held
at NASAs Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas (pp. 47e56).
Daniel, A., Crowl, J., & Louvar, F. (2002). Chemical process safety e fundamentals
with applications. In B. Goodwin (Ed.) (2nd ed..).Prentice Hall international
series.
Digrado, D. B., & Throp, A. G. (1995). The aboveground steel storage tank handbook.
Wiley.
Drysdale, D. (1985). An introduction to re dynamics (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Heskestad, G. (1984). Engineering relations for re plumes. Fire Safety Journal, 7,
25e32.
Lees, F. P. (1995) (2nd ed.).Loss prevention in process industries, Vol. 3 Butterworth
Heinemann.
Long, B., & Gardner, B. (2004). Guide to storage tanks and equipment. Wiley.
Mudan, S. K. (1984). Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool res.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 10, 59e80.
NFPA-30. (2001). Aboveground tank installation for tank storage. Quincy, Massa-
chusetts: National Fire Protection Association.
SFPE handbook of re protection engineering. (1995) (2nd ed.). Quincy. Massachu-
setts: National Fire Protection Association.
Solar radiation handbook. (2008). Typical climatic data for selected radiation stations.
A joint project of Solar Energy Center, MNRE, Indian Metrological Department.
Thomas, P. H. (1963). The size of ames from natural res. In 9th International
combustion symposium. Pittsburgh, PA: Combustion Inst.
A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 574