Analysis of Burro series 40-m3 lng spill experiments

Koopman, R.P.; Cederwall, R.T.; Ermak, D.L.; Goldwire, H. C.; McClure, J.W.; McRae, Thomas G.; Morgan, David L.; Rodean, Howard C.; Shinn, J.H.

doi:10.1016/0304-3894(82)80034-4

Cited by 99 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Spreading is driven by gravity and the actions of waves are not modeled. Results were compared to the Esso [Feldbaur et al 1972] and Burro [Koopman 1982] series of experiments. The difference between experimental and computed results for evaporation rate varied from 1 -48%, with eight out of ten cases within 14%.…”

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Burro Tests -1980 [Koopman et al 1982, a&b] [Koopman et al 1978] The Burro tests were performed by LLNL and the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake, California, and sponsored by the U.S. DOE and the Gas Research Institute. A total of eight LNG releases onto water were performed, with spill volumes ranging from 24 to 39 m 3 , spill rates of 11.3 -18.4 m 3 /min, wind speeds from 1.8 to 9.1 m/s, and atmospheric stability conditions from unstable to slightly stable.…”

Section: Maplin Sands Tests -1980mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water.

Report¹,

Hightower²,

Gritzo³

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While recognized standards exist for the systematic safety analysis of potential spills or releases from LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) storage terminals and facilities on land, no equivalent set of standards or guidance exists for the evaluation of the safety or consequences from LNG spills over water. Heightened security awareness and energy surety issues have increased industry's and the public's attention to these activities. The report reviews several existing studies of LNG spills with respect to their assumptions, inputs, models, and experimental data. Based on this review and further analysis, the report provides guidance on the appropriateness of models, assumptions, and risk management to address public safety and property relative to a potential LNG spill over water. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors received technical, programmatic, and editorial support on this project from a number of individuals and organizations both inside and outside Sandia National Laboratories. We would particularly like to express our thanks for their support and guidance in the technical evaluations and development of this report.The U.S. Department of Energy was instrumental in providing coordination, management, and technical direction. Special thanks go to DOE personnel in the Office of Oil and Natural Gas, DOE Office of Fossil Energy, for their help in supporting the modeling, analysis, technical evaluations, and risk guidance efforts.To support the technical analysis required for this project, the authors worked with many organizations, including maritime agencies, LNG industry and ship management agencies, LNG shipping consultants, and government intelligence agencies to collect the background information on ship and LNG cargo tank designs, accident and threat scenarios, and LNG ship safety and risk management operations needed to assess LNG spill safety and risk implications.The following individuals were especially helpful in supporting our efforts, providing information, coordinating contacts, and reviewing technical evaluations. Capt. Dave Scott -U.S. Coast Guard Dr. Robin Pitblado -Det Norske Veritas Eric Linsner -PRONAV Ship Management Mike Edens -Office of Naval Intelligence Richard Hoffmann -Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chris Zerby -Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionTo help in technically reviewing this report, the DOE commissioned an External Peer Review Panel to evaluate the analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented. The Peer Review Panel consisted of experts in LNG spill testing and modeling, fire modeling, fire protection, and fire safety and risk management. The panel's comments and suggestions were extremely valuable in improving the technical presentation and organization of the report. The authors would like to thank the following members of the External Peer Review Panel for their valuable comments, suggestions, and directions. 10 TABLES 12 FOREWORDThe Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that domestic natural gas production is expected to increase more slowly th...

show abstract

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Maplin Sands Tests -1980mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water.

Report¹,

Hightower²,

Gritzo³

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the vapor dispersion scenario, vaporization is mainly controlled by heat transfer from the water to the LNG pool. The FERC recommended a film boiling heat flux of 85 [kW/m²] as a reasonable value, which was obtained in the Burro series tests (Koopman et al, 1982). In the pool fire scenario, vaporization is controlled by heat transfer from both water and fire to the LNG pool.…”

Section: Spread Of An Unconfined Evaporating Lng Pool On Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, a fully developed pool fire was not achieved. At the same time as the Maplin Sands tests, the Burro series tests were conducted independently by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) at NWC (Koopman et al, 1982). The main objective of the Burro series was to obtain extensive data on LNG vapor dispersion under a variety of meteorological conditions.…”

Section: Review Of Experiments On Large-scale Lng Spillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequence Analysis of Large-Scale Liquefied Natural Gas Spills on Water

Oka¹

2010

Natural Gas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The experiments showed that in environmental temperature, when methane content in liquefied natural gas was not less than 40% along with a few mole present n-butane, the explosive boiling may occur. But from Koopman et al (1982) and Goldwire et al (1983) reports, the explosive boiling may occur when methane content in liquefied natural gas as high as 90%. Dahlsveen et al (2001) conducted a process for liquefied natural gas injection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Study on Cryogen Injection Into Water

Zhang¹

2017

Appl. Ecol. Env. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Explosive boiling is a hyperactive boiling phenomenon, which is characterized by transient high heat flux. There are still few researches on the experimental comparative analysis on explosive boiling inducing by different cryogen liquid injection into water. In this paper, to advance our understanding of LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas), LN 2 (Liquefied Nitrogen) and LC 3 H 8 (Liquefied Propane) injection into water process, a visualization experimental system is built. Visualized results show that LNG and LN 2 injection processes undergo a similar boiling, that is explosive boiling, which is characterized by bubbles cloud that strengthens heat transfer rate. LC 3 H 8 injection into water triggers subcooled flow boiling. There is no significant breaking on the liquid cryogen column and without bubbles cloud. The maximum heat transferring flux can be over 1.9 MW/m 2 in the condition of LNG injection into unconfined water and under the pressure of 7 bars. In order to investigate the determinant factors for explosive boiling occurring, instability of Rayleigh-Taylor, Kelvin-Helmholtz, Weber number and Marangoni convection are analyzed and used to explain the differences of maximum pressure and its occurring time in different experimental conditions such as injection depth into water, injection pressure, water temperature and injecting fluid. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that if the relative velocity between cryogen and surrounding fluid is high enough, the breaking of liquid column or droplets will be defined by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability and Weber number. And in subcooling mixture or pure substance injection process, the periphery of the vapor film near the head of column is considerably stronger than other regions in the effect of Marangoni convection at the beginning of column floating upwards or the ending of column going downwards. All of these can be seen as the key factors to improve heat transfer capacity and trigger explosive boiling.

show abstract

Analysis of Burro series 40-m3 lng spill experiments

Cited by 99 publications

References 5 publications

Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water.

Guidance on risk analysis and safety implications of a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) spill over water.

Consequence Analysis of Large-Scale Liquefied Natural Gas Spills on Water

Experimental Study on Cryogen Injection Into Water

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About