Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

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

CFD modeling of large-scale flammable cloud dispersion using FLACS

Ankit Dasgotra, G.V.V. Varun Teja, Ankit Sharma, Kirti Bhushan Mishra∗
Technological Risk Research and Analysis Group TRAG, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 247667,
Uttarakhand, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The number of accidents in oil and gas refineries/storage terminals are increasing worldwide. Such events are
CFD models disastrous to both human beings and infrastructure. It is therefore necessary to utilize the best methods to study
FLACS worst-case scenarios associated with a process and/or plant. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models are
Flammable cloud dispersion appropriate to perform 3D modeling of major events with all necessary details. The present work reports the 3D
Explosion
CFD modeling of large-scale flammable cloud dispersion in a real configuration. The most widely approved CFD
code for dispersion and explosion simulation FLACS (Flame Acceleration Simulator) is used to simulate the gases
released with different flow rates in storage terminals. It was assumed that leak began near the pipes supplying
fuel to the storage tank. The flow rate, surrounding condition and release duration were varied to study their
influence on overall vapor cloud size i.e. diameter, height and explosive strength. Depending on the extent of LFL
and UFL (Lower and Upper Flammability Limit) total flammable volumes of the clouds were predicted. It was
found that such detailed modeling helped to understand the dispersion behavior much better than the phe-
nomenological models. The strategic decisions on gas detectors layout can also be made for loss prevention and
control. The simulation of worst-case scenario provided guidelines for pre- and post-incident mitigation mea-
sures.

1. Introduction identify the potential hazards in case of an accidental release of fuel

Fuels obtained from refinement of crude oil continue to be the major
sources of energy for transportation and power generation. These fuels
constitute diesel, petrol, cleaner burning natural gas and petroleum gas
which is now being used extensively in liquefied forms. To keep up with
the growing needs of energy, many import, process and refinement
facilities are proposed and are expected to be set up in India. With the
growing number of facilities, there are increasing concerns about po-
tential hazards these facilities pose (Hightower et al., 2004; Qi et al.,
2010; Mishra et al., 2014; Woodward and Pitbaldo, 2010; Hansen,
2010). These hazards may vary from exposure to hazardous chemicals,
fire and explosion. One of the major hazards from accidental leak of
fuel is the formation flammable vapor cloud which drifts downwind
direction (Qi et al., 2010). If any ignition source is present and the
vapor cloud is within the flammable range, then it could ignite and lead
to a fire or a vapor cloud explosion. The recent accidents occurred in
Buncefield (2005), Puerto-Rico, USA (2009) and Jaipur, India (2009)
have raised concerns for detailed scientific investigation to develop
appropriate safety measures for future plants (Mishra et al., 2014).
To ensure work place and public safety in surrounding areas, every
facility has the need to use a validated consequence model to study and
from any part of the facility. There are several consequence models
developed which can be grouped under three categories, Gaussian
models, Integral models and CFD models. Integral models such as
HEGADIS (Heavy Gas Dispersion) and DRIFT models have been widely
used because they do not require much computational time and are
easy to use too (Woodward and Pitbaldo, 2010). But these models are
limited to free-field dispersion with no obstructions and are generally
not applicable to the geometries we encounter in real life situations.
Today, the increased computational capacities have made it possible to
utilize detailed 3D CFD models over phenomenological models. CFD
models work by solving 3D Navier-Stokes equations without any scaling
constraint. It allows simulation over real geometries including terrains
with obstructions, transitions, varying boundary and atmospheric
conditions.
FLACS is a specialized CFD tool for safety applications. It is one of
four CFD codes that published validations for LNG dispersion
(Woodward and Pitbaldo, 2010; Hansen et al., 2007, 2010; Arntzen,
1998; Flacs, 2015). As a part of analysis in this work modeling of a
large-scale flammable vapor cloud dispersion are performed using
FLACS and the effects of obstructions, transitions (transition from
subsonic combustion (deflagration) to supersonic combustion

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kirti.fme@iitr.ac.in (K.B. Mishra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.01.001
Received 27 February 2017; Received in revised form 29 November 2017; Accepted 2 January 2018
0950-4230/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Dasgotra, A., Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2018.01.001
A. Dasgotra et al.
(detonation)) and atmospheric conditions on dispersion of vapor cloud
are studied. The three dimensional models of real plants are constructed
and respective physics and boundary conditions are imposed to predict
the diameter and height of cloud constituting within flammability
limits. Such estimation finally help to establish realistic total volume of
vapor cloud that actually contributes towards explosion overpressure.
2. Objective
The present work demonstrates the capability of CFD simulations to
predict the characteristics of flammable vapor cloud dispersion in a
large region (Mishra et al., 2014). Since experiments for such scenarios
are not realizable 3D modeling and results on flammable volume above
the ground level provide very useful information for assessing the risks
to the people, nearby infrastructure and environment.
Typical accidents involving dispersion and explosion that may occur
in fuel storage terminals are reconstructed in this work. Due to several
complexities e.g. atmospheric conditions and congestion due to plant
items and vegetation present in a plant it is very difficult to assess the
vapor cloud characteristics correctly with semi-empirical models. As a
result of improper estimation of vapor cloud dimensions the equivalent
explosive source is also not correctly calculated. Since correct estima-
tion of this explosive potential is necessary to make decisions on land
use planning for a plant it is necessary that all the best possible methods
are used to develop an appropriate explosive mass. Prediction of this
explosive mass correctly in worst-case incident by CFD models is the
main aim of this article. The findings of this work can be used for the
present and future plants for qualitative and quantitative risk assess-
ment studies.
3. Background
The rest of the paper has been divided into two parts. The first part
referred to as case I describes the scenario of dense gas dispersion oc-
curring in real-scale storage terminal (Fig. 1). All essential components
are considered and 3D models for the same are created. The second part
referred to as case II of the paper deals with the Jaipur oil terminal fire
which broke out on 29 October 2009 at 7:30 p.m. (IST) at the Indian Oil
Corporation (IOC) tank holding 8000 kL of oil, in Sitapura industrial
area on the edges of Jaipur, Rajasthan, causing deaths of 12 individuals
and harming more than 200 (Web1, 2017). A number of studies and
reports are published on this incident (Mishra et al., 2013, 2014; IOC
Fire Accident Investigation Report, 2011). However, CFD modeling and
simulation work on this incident to study dispersion of fuel have not
been performed yet. Thus, for the study of dispersion of vapor cloud at
IOCL, Jaipur Terminal is also considered to reconstruct the incident.
Fig. 2 shows the actual and modeled layouts of the facility. A com-
prehensive study on the parameters influencing vapor cloud
Fig. 1. The geometry used for modeling of typical oil storage/tankage facility.
2
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
characteristics were carried out with CFD simulation in (Mishra, 2015;
Pontiggia et al., 2011). The important findings are listed below.
1) The vapor density of released substance is crucial for the total vapor
cloud characteristics.
2) The variable wind boundary conditions helped cloud to mix and
spread much faster than the atmospheric boundary layer equations.
3) The presence of obstacles on the cloud path altered the overall
dispersion extent and appearance.
4) The characteristics of cloud formed in cases of ground and elevated
releases were different.
5) The reduction in gravitational acceleration also changed the cloud
characteristics.
For modeling and simulation of the above cases FLACSv10.4 code
(Flacs, 2015) has been used. It is an effective code to simulate high
momentum jet leaks and subsequent gas dispersion in a model of an
offshore module. Simulations of dispersion with high momentum jet
leaks requires hours of CPU usage due to short time-steps and duration
of long leak. In FLACSv10.4 the high momentum jet is modeled as
conserving the flow of mass and momentum. By assuming isenthalpic
expansion, it is possible to calculate the expansion of a sonic flow
analytically. In summary, FLACS code has built-in facilities as handling
realistic gas dispersion scenarios with external wind fields, various
types of leak sources and wall-functions. A modified version of FLACS
code has been used to simulate release of gas from high pressure pi-
pelines, taking non-ideal gas effects into account. These results showed
that the lower flammability limit of gas-air mixture reaches its most
remote downstream position relatively early, before drawing in addi-
tional air somewhere. Due to the above features FLACS was chosen to
simulate the considered scenarios in this work. Apart from the valida-
tion studies of various large-scale dispersion tests FLACS has also been
used as an accidental scenario investigation tool by many authors in the
past (Hansen et al., 2007, 2010; Arntzen, 1998; Flacs, 2015).
4. Modeling methodology
FLACS mainly consists of three software parts: Computer Aided
Scenario Design (CASD), Flacs Simulator, Flowvis (Flow Visualization).
CASD is used to prepare the input data that defines a FLACS simulation,
is basically a preprocessor. This comprises geometry model, computa-
tional grid, porosities, and scenarios. Flowvis, the postprocessor is a
program for visualizing results from simulations of gas dispersion and
gas explosion. In present simulations also in first part, all 3d model of
the plant was built and boundary conditions were imposed on different
parts. The mass and momentum equations were solved and results were
visualized using Flowvis.
A. Dasgotra et al.
Fig. 3. 2D cut plane of vapor cloud dispersion at height of 1 m from ground.
4.1. Geometry
4.1.1. Case 1: model for dense gas dispersion simulation
The model is made of approximately same dimensions as the actual
facility without any scaling. The objects of box and cylinder type are
used for construction of different plant items. The heights of dykes were
assumed to be of 5 m and boundary wall as 6 m. The tanks were ap-
proximated to be of proportion Height H = 1.25* Diameter(d) of tank.
The relative positions and dimensions of dykes, walls, tanks and
buildings are mapped from the data available through wikimapia
(Web1, 2017). The built model is shown in Fig. 1.
4.1.2. Case 2: reconstruction of IOCL Jaipur accident 2009
The similar approach as above was followed here too. The variety of
items e.g., building, control room, car parking, pump house and piping
were created to replicate the actual plant. The leak origin was specified
as shown in Fig. 2 where the fuel was being fed into the nearby tank.
4.2. Grid and porosities
To study the grid dependency of predicted LFL distances different
3
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. 3D model of IOCL Jaipur facility showing the the possible
leak origin.
grid volumes were constructed. The finer the grid, the more computa-
tionally difficult it is to solve the simulation. Thus, the domain was
divided uniformly into 200 control volumes along X, Y and Z direction.
For case II i.e. Jaipur incident simulation the whole domain was de-
scretized into 640000 control volumes. The selection of grid plays a
great role in the solution of a CFD simulation. However, considering the
large domains (∼ km) in present simulations the smaller size grids are
not feasible to construct. Depending on the accuracy demanded from
simulation results optimum grids were selected. It was found that fur-
ther refinement than the selected grid did not improve the results by
±10%.
4.3. Scenario settings
FLACS allows to define various initial and boundary conditions for
simulation. For this the wind speed is set to 2 m/s initially. The at-
mosphere is considered stable with relative turbulence set to 0. Setting
relative turbulence to zero help achieving zero/calm wind conditions
similar to that prevail in most of the accidental sites. The temperature
and pressure are set to 20° C and 0.1 MPa. The roughness of ground was
set to 0.0002 m. Propane was allowed to leak at various mass flow rates
A. Dasgotra et al.
Fig. 4. 2D cut plane of vapor cloud dispersion at height of 3 m from ground.
Fig. 5. 2D cut plane of vapor cloud dispersion at height of 5 m.
through an area of 5 m2. The leak sizes were assumed based on the size
of the pipe transferring fuel to the tank. The size of the leak was chosen
according to the pipe diameter 2.5 m and orientation of leak was of Jet
type in Y direction. The fuel leaks from t = 10 s to t = 3600 s at defined
mass flow rates. Propane was used prior to octane as a dispersing fuel in
order to study the difference in behavior between them.
In case II, octane leaks occurring at various mass flow rates from an
area of 1 m2 are simulated. Two cases as the fuel leaks from t = 20 s to
t = 1800 s (tmax = 2000 s) at mass flow rate of 50 kg/s and fuel leaks
from t = 10 s to t = 900 s (tmax = 1000 s) at mass flow rate of 25 kg/s
are considered. The reasons for selecting octane as a fuel are to re-
produce the leak of gasoline vapors and to simulate dense vapor cloud
dispersion in a real-scale plant. As in the Jaipur and Buncefield in-
cidents the leaked media was gasoline hence it has been selected as a
fuel in this particular case.
4
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
5. Validation studies
FLACS has already been well validated and approved as a CFD code
for risk assessment studies for variety of gas dispersion cases. In
(Hansen, 2010; Flacs, 2015) the large-scale experiments (China Lake,
Burro, Coyote) conducted in the USA were reproduced with FLACS and
good agreement between measured and predicted values was obtained
for different atmospheric conditions. An extensive validation work on
the applications of FLACS has already been done before and reported in
(Hansen et al., 2007, 2010; Flacs, 2015) this is not repeated here.
6. Results and discussion
6.1. Case I: release of dense gas in a model oil and gas storage facility
The results for the 50 kg/s case are shown in Figs. 3–5 for different
heights i.e., 1 m, 3 m and 5 m, respectively, from ground. The blue and
red color represent the lower and upper flammability limits for
A. Dasgotra et al. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Contour plot of vapor cloud at t = 77 s from the start of leak.

Fig. 7. Contour plot of vapor cloud at t = 1084 s from the start of leak.

propane. The maximum height of the pancake shaped cloud was found
to be 5 m. The fuel leak lasts for 1 h and forming a large thick vapor
cloud which can disperse throughout the facility. It is important to
mention that the height of cloud in case of more dense gas (octane
vapors) was higher than in case of less dense one (propane) as will be
shown in next section. The average diameter of vapor cloud in all cases
were found to be between 590 and 755 m with an average height of
about 2 m. Total estimated volume of pancake shaped cloud con-
sidering the time averaged diameters and heights for the considered
cases were between 1.3*106 m3 to 3.9*106 m3. Such large vapor cloud
sizes were realistic from the recent accidents perspective e.g.,
Buncefield, 2005, Puerto-rico 2009 and IOCL, Jaipur, 2009 (Mishra
et al., 2014, 2013). They provide useful information on the con-
sideration of total loss of content for the determination of source term
following which potential mitigation measures can be decided.
6.2. Case II: reconstruction of IOCL Jaipur accident 2009
For case II, two cases of 50 kg/s and 100 kg/s leaking from a 1 m2
origin were simulated for different times so that the total escaped mass
remains similar. These results were obtained for calm weather condi-
tions representing the worst-case. The calm weather helps cloud to

5
A. Dasgotra et al.
settle on the ground and accumulate. It then drifts slowly in the di-
rection of wind covering the wider area of the plant. In case of strong
wind the cloud will generally be carried away posing less threat of
accumulation. The dispersion scenarios with 50 kg/s at different times
in IOCL Jaipur plant has been shown in Figs. 6–8. The blue and red
colors show LFL and UFL, respectively for octane vapors. It is evident
from Figs. 6–8 that the cloud covers the whole plant in 1084 s (depicted
at 1 m above ground). In case of 100 kg/s the cloud crossed the
boundary of the plant and reached outside. The vapor cloud diameters
in both the investigated cases were predicted to be between 800 and
900 m.
The large diameters of vapor cloud corresponds well to previously
reported data on accidents e.g. Buncefield and others (Mishra et al.,
2014, 2013). In case of a worst-case the typical size of the vapor cloud
in a comparable facility should not be considered less than 500 m. Such
information on overall explosion potential of flammable cloud are vital
for safer plant and process design.
7. Conclusions and future work
Three-dimensional CFD simulations of a dense gas dispersion in a
real oil and gas storage facility were performed to study the overall
volume of the accumulated flammable cloud representing the worst-
case scenarios that have been observed in the recent incidents. The
simulation results revealed that in all cases the average cloud diameters
was in the range of 500 m–1000 m, for relatively calm weather condi-
tions. Furthermore, it was found that the heights of octane cloud was
much higher than propane cloud leading to larger total volume. The
presence of major obstacles (tanks, pipings, buildings etc.) alter the
cloud shape and size significantly. Such detailed information on pos-
sible scenarios is crucial for the risk assessor and safety professionals to
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Fig. 8. Contour plot of vapor cloud dispersion at t = 2000 s from
the start of leak.
make strategic decisions on locating the gas detectors, control room,
pump house etc. and on pre and post-incident mitigation measures. This
work is being further extended to study the various scenarios of gas
explosions and resulting overpressures from them in the above facil-
ities.
References
Arntzen, B.J., 1998. Modelling of Turbulence and Combustion for Simulation of Gas
Explosions in Complex Geometries. PhD Thesis. NTNU, Norway.
Flacs v10, 2015. 4r2 Users Manual. Confid. report. Gexcon AS, Bergen, Norway.
Hansen, O.R., 2010. Validation of FLACS against experimental data sets from the model
evaluation dtabase for LNG vapor dispersion. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 23, 857–877.
Hansen, O., Melheim, J., Storvik, I., 2007. CFD-modeling of LNG dispersion experiments.
AIChE Spring Natl. Meeting. https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/s07/techprogram/
P77795.HTM.
Hightower, M., Gritzo, L., Luketa-Hanlin, A., Covan, S., Tieszen, S., Wellman, G., Irwin,
M., Kaneshige, M., Melof, B., Morrow, C., Ragland, D., 2004. Guidance on Risk
Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over
Water. DTIC Document SAND2004–6258.
IOC Fire Accident Investigation Report, 2011. Oil Industry Safety Directorate, India.
Mishra, K.B., 2015. CFD model for large hazardous dense cloud spread predictions, with
particular reference to Bhopal disaster. Atmos. Environ. 117, 74–91.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., Krebs, H., 2013. Lessons learned from recent fuel storage
fires. Fuel Process. Technol. 107, 166–172.
Mishra, K.B., Wehrstedt, K.D., Krebs, H., 2014. Amuay refinery disaster: the aftermaths
and challenges ahead. Fuel Process. Technol. 198, 198–203.
Pontiggia, M., Landucci, G., Busini, V., Derudi, M., Alba, M., Scaioni, M., Bonvicini, S.,
Cozzani, V., Rota, R., 2011. CFD model simulation of LPG dispersion in urban areas.
Atmos. Environ. 45, 3913–3923.
Qi, R., Ng, D., Cormier, B.R., 2010. M. Sam Mannan, Numerical simulations of LNG vapor
dispersion in brayton fire training field tests with ANSYS CFX. J. Hazard Mater. 183,
1–3 51-61.
https.//www.wikimapia.org/.
Woodward, J., Pitbaldo, R., 2010. LNG Risk Based Safety: Modeling and Consequence
Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc ISBN: 9780470317648.