Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Revisiting the dispersion safety factor (DSF) for vapor clouds of liquefied T
flammable gases (LNG and propane)
⁎
Alba Àgueda, Joan Subirana, Elsa Pastor, Adriana Miralles Schleder1, Eulàlia Planas
Center for Technological Risk Studies (CERTEC), Department of Chemical Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya – BarcelonaTech, Av. Eduard Maristany, 16,
08019 Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The concept of the Dispersion Safety Factor (DSF) was introduced by Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014) and has been
FLACS revisited in this work. The DSF is defined as the ratio between the flammable region of the vapor cloud (set at a
CFD simulation concentration equal to the low flammability level (LFL)) and the corresponding visible boundary of the cloud.
Wind velocity We have used a computational fluid dynamics model (FLACS v.10.4) to simulate the dispersion of two liquefied
Relative humidity
flammable fuels (LNG and propane). DSF results have been analyzed using main effects and interaction plots,
Visible cloud
and a complementary metric (DSF50) has been introduced in order to establish more conservative threat areas in
flammable vapor cloud scenarios. We have observed an interaction between relative humidity and wind velocity
for DSF in the low-to-medium range of RH and wind velocity values. Four regression models have been proposed
for the computation of DSF and DSF50 for LNG and propane dependent on ambient wind velocity and relative
humidity. Contour plots have been prepared to be used as a practical tool, because through the reading of these
plots the DSF (and DSF50) can be obtained immediately given wind velocity and relative humidity data.

1. Introduction under pressure (~8 atm) at ambient temperature, or refrigerated at

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has become over the last years an im-
portant energy source in domestic households, industry and power
plants, and its use has also raised in transport sector (heavy duty and
waste collection trucks, and buses). LNG is considered a more sustain-
able fuel than coal or diesel, and offers the opportunity to diversify the
energy sector (Kumar et al., 2011). The use of liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) as an energy source is also increasing. LPG is mainly used for
residential and commercial purposes (cooking, heating, and powering
certain household appliances and vehicles) (myLPG.eu, 2018), although
LPG demand in the chemical sector has been growing in the last years
(Brook and Chodorowska, 2005). LNG is mainly methane with a small
percentage of higher, less volatile hydrocarbons. In this paper we have
adopted the following composition for LNG: 95% methane and 5%
ethane. LPG is basically composed of propane and butane. Since the
main component is propane, we have based our study on propane ex-
clusively.
LNG and LPG are usually transported and stored as liquefied gases
since their volume is reduced by a factor of greater than 600 (Kumar
et al., 2011). LNG is usually liquefied at ambient pressure by cooling to
the boiling point (111.7 K for methane). LPG can be liquefied either
approximately the boiling point (231 K for propane (Vílchez et al.,
2014)) under atmospheric pressure.
LNG density at its atmospheric boiling point is 1.5 times the density
of air, but at 273 K and 1 atm it has a lower density (0.7 g/L). Propane
density, by contrast, is greater than air's density at 273 K and 1 atm
(2.4 g/L) (Vílchez et al., 2014). Methane is flammable in air in the
range from 5 vol% (low flammability limit - LFL) to 15 vol% (upper
flammability limit - UFL) at 20 °C and 1 atm (Vílchez et al., 2013).
Propane is flammable between 2.1 vol% and 10.1 vol% (20 °C; 1 atm)
(Vílchez et al., 2014).
When there is an LNG or refrigerated propane spill a quick vapor-
ization occurs. A boiling pool is formed on the ground and if the pool is
bunded a slower vaporization rate follows as the ground cools (Ivings
et al., 2007). The result is a cold cloud which condenses the water vapor
in the atmosphere making it visible; given the density of LNG at its
boiling point, it is low lying on the ground most of the time. If there is
no ignition point the cloud will dilute, otherwise a flash fire can be
produced (National Association of State Fire Marshals, 2005). Other
combustion events, such as a pool fire or an explosion, are also possible.
In the case of a release of pressurized LPG, the depressurization origi-
nates a flash vaporization, which may entrain some liquid droplets. A

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: eulalia.planas@upc.edu (E. Planas).
1
Present address: Department of Industrial Engineering, Sao Paulo State University – UNESP. Geraldo Alckmin, 519, 18409-010 Itapeva, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104748
Received 7 November 2019; Received in revised form 13 February 2020; Accepted 1 April 2020
0925-7535/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Àgueda, et al.
portion of the liquid may evaporate and the other one may form a pool
which might continue vaporization by absorption of heat from the
ground. Hazardous events associated with pressurized propane releases
include flash, pool and jet fires; BLEVE and fireballs may also even
occur (Vílchez et al., 2014). Other hazards related with the use of li-
quefied gases are cryogenic effects and rapid phase transitions (RPT),
i.e. a rapid vaporization causing a shock wave that can produce struc-
tural damages (Ivings et al., 2007; Luketa-Hanlin, 2006).
1.1. Levels of concern (LOC)
In the chemical industry, different levels of concern (LOC) are de-
fined when a flammable vapor cloud occurs. A flammable level of
concern is a threshold concentration of fuel in the air above which a
flammability hazard may exist (Jones et al., 2013). The Low Flamm-
ability Limit (LFL) can be used as a simple LOC to determine the area
where a fire might occur. However, other LOCs can be defined if we
take into consideration that:
(1) Concentration levels estimated using mathematical models or
measured with experimental equipment are time-averaged, thus
instantaneous concentrations can be greater than values modeled/
measured (which are implicitly smoothed);
(2) During an experimental test only spatially discrete measurements
can be made. Therefore, the spatial variation of the dispersion is not
completely described and higher or lower concentrations may be
present in locations that were not monitored.
This implies that LOCs based on a fraction of the LFL have to be set
if a conservative approach has to be followed for fire protection. In this
context, it is worth noting that US regulations for LNG facilities (49 CFR
193) (PHMSA, 2011) have the objective to assure that the fire and
explosion hazards keep inside the facility boundaries in the event of a
loss of containment. The area within these boundaries is defined as the
“exclusion zone” and is quantitatively established by considering a
concentration in air 50% of the LFL (i.e. 2.5% v. for methane) (NFPA,
2015). For LPG utilities, according to NFPA 59 Utility LP-Gas Plant Code
(NFPA, 2017), no specific LOC area is defined but it is established that
flammable gas detection systems shall alarm at 25% of the LFL.
The method used in the Catalan regulation (Generalitat de
Catalunya, 2015) for flammable clouds defines two different LOC areas:
the “intervention area” and the “alert area”. The “intervention area” is
defined as the area where the consequences of the accident produce a
level of damage that requires the use of protection measures, but it does
not define a mortality area (i.e. threat level of 100% LFL) (Generalitat
de Catalunya, 2015). The “alert area” represents the zone where the
consequences of the accident produce effects that, despite being evident
among the population, do not justify the application of protection
measures, except for critical population groups. In the case of
Table 1
Dispersion safety factor (DSF) expressions obtained by Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014).
Authors (year) Flammable fuel Variables and values considered in the experimental design
−1
Vílchez et al. (2013) LNG Spill rate: 10, 40, 60, 100 kg·s
Wind speed: 2, 10 m·s−1
Ambient temperature: 15˚C, 35˚C
Relative humidity (RH): 5, 10, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90%
Surface roughness: 0.1, 0.001, 0.0001
Atmospheric stability: A, B, C, E, F
Vílchez et al. (2014) Propane Spill rate: 10, 100 kg·s−1
Wind speed: 2, 10 m·s−1
Ambient temperature: 15˚C, 35˚C
Relative humidity (RH): 5, 10, 25, 50, 70, 80, 85, 90%
Surface roughness: 0.1, 0.001, 0.0001
Atmospheric stability: A, B, C, E, F
* Most conservative models: The highest DSF values were selected in the low RH range.
2
Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748
flammable vapor clouds, the “alert area” is established at a threat level
of 10% of the LFL (the same concentration level for the detector systems
to trigger an alarm according to the Catalan regulation). Generalitat de
Catalunya (2015) sets 50% of the LFL as the threshold level associated
with the “intervention area”.
The ALOHA hazard modeling program (Jones et al., 2013) is used
widely to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies. By default this
software uses 60% of the LFL as a “red” threat zone and 10% of the LFL
as the “yellow” threat zone, the red zone representing the worst hazard.
In this study we have adopted the LFL itself and 1/2 fraction of the
LFL (50%) to establish two LOC zones based on two facts: (1) FLACS
should be used with a safety factor of 2 (i.e. 50% LFL) to compensate for
a number of uncertainties, as stated in US DOT (2011); (2) Values re-
viewed here as normally used to establish threat areas in flammable
vapor cloud dispersion scenarios cover a wide range (e.g. 60%, 50%,
25% or 10% of the LFL).
1.2. Dispersion Safety factor (DSF)
Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014) examined release scenarios of liquefied
LNG and propane in the form of a pool. They studied the relationship
between the flammable region of the subsequent vapor cloud and the
corresponding visible boundary of the cloud. They proposed a Disper-
sion Safety Factor (DSF) given by the following expression (Eq. (1)):
XLFL
DSF =
XVIS (1)
where:
XLFL is the downwind length of the flammable cloud, established by
the lower flammability limit (LFL) contour [m].
XVIS is the downwind length of the visible cloud [m].
The DSF factor is an interesting indicator in the event of an emer-
gency in the chemical industry or during the transportation of flam-
mable materials. According to Eq. 1, if the DSF is less than unity, this
indicates that the flammable region is located within the visible
boundary of the vapor cloud. On the contrary, when it is greater than
unity, the flammable region expands beyond the contour of the visible
cloud. Therefore, if we can visually estimate the downwind length of
the visible cloud ( XVIS ) and we can also estimate the value of the DSF
factor (DSF ), then the downwind length of the flammable cloud ( XLFL )
can be calculated according to Eq. 1 and a safety area can be estab-
lished.
The studies performed by Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014) for LNG and
propane clouds dispersion proposed several expressions for the DSF as a
function of the relative humidity (RH) of the ambient air only (see
Table 1). In both studies the calculations of LFL and visible lengths
( XLFL and XVIS , respectively) were done by using output data obtained
from the DEGADIS model, a 1D integral model quick to run and freely
available (Vílchez et al., 2013). According to some validations of the
Expression Range of applicability
DSF = 2 − 0.0196·RH uw ≤ 2 m s−1
RH > 10%
DSF = 5.71 − 0.0019·RH − 1.16lnRH RH > 10%
Most conservative*
DSF = 3.1 − 0.024·RH uw ≤ 2 m s−1
RH > 10%
DSF = 10.2 − 2.06·lnRH RH > 10%
Most conservative*
A. Àgueda, et al.
DEGADIS model made by Hanna et al. (1993), it has a good perfor-
mance simulating plume centerline concentrations with relative mean
biases of about ± 30–50% but it cannot predict correctly time varia-
tions and it has a low sensitivity with field roughness.
Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014) defined a set of target pool scenarios
based on several input variables that affect dispersion (i.e. spill rate,
wind speed, ambient temperature, relative humidity, surface roughness
and atmospheric stability) (Table 1), then modeled the scenarios with
DEGADIS considering a steady-state release. They estimated the con-
tour of the visible cloud by considering the condensation of atmo-
spheric humidity. When the surrounding air temperature reached the
dew point temperature (Tdewpoint ) (dependent on the ambient tempera-
ture (T ) and relative humidity (RH )), it was assumed that condensation
took place and a boundary for the visible cloud could be set. Tdewpoint can
be calculated as shown in Eq. 2 (Bosen, 1958).
RH 0.125
Tdewpoint = ⎡ ⎤ ·[112 + 0.9·T ] + 0.1·T − 112
⎣ 100 ⎦ (2)
where:
Tdewpoint : Dew point temperature [°C]
T : Ambient temperature [°C]
RH : Relative humidity [%]
An output file with temperature data of the surrounding air (Tm ) as a
function of the downwind distance was obtained from DEGADIS si-
mulations and these data were used to set XVIS according to the con-
dition: Tm = Tdewpoint . DEGADIS simulations gave also an output file of
the gas concentration as a function of the downwind distance, so these
data were used to establish XLFL .
Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014) considered only two wind speed values
in their experimental design (2 and 10 m/s; see Table 1). They pre-
sented two expressions for each fuel and pointed out that one of them
was specific for low wind velocities (uw ≤ 2 m/s). The other model was
identified as the most conservative one because data used to obtain the
regression equation were filtered by considering the highest values of
DSF data due to the scattering in the low RH range.
Although it is interesting to easily model the DSF, the selection
criterion used to establish significant data for each set was somehow
arbitrary, and the statistical analysis performed by these authors was
also limited. For example, they could not study in detail the influence of
wind velocity because only two values were taken into consideration.
This paper provides new DSF expressions for vapor cloud disper-
sions of LNG (i.e. 95% methane and 5% ethane) and refrigerated pro-
pane in the context of a hazardous scenario where there is a spreading
and evaporating pool. Furthermore, two DSF values are presented per
fuel: (1) DSF, based on LFL concentrations; (2) DSF50, based on 50%
LFL concentrations. A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tool has
been used to estimate downwind distances included in DSF definition.
1.3. Ability of FLACS to simulate gases dispersion
We have used a CFD code, the Flame Acceleration Simulator
(FLACS) (v.10.4), to gather information about XLFL and XVIS needed to
compute Dispersion Safety Factors according to Eq. 1. Several authors
have already studied the ability of FLACS to simulate the transport and
the turbulent dispersion of gases or aerosols after they are released into
the atmosphere. For instance, Hanna et al. (2004) evaluated the FLACS
model performance for different obstructed field experiments (Kit Fox,
MUST, and Prairie Grass) and wind tunnel data from an L-shaped
building involving tracer gas releases (see Hanna et al. (2004) for de-
tails about these tests). Hansen et al. (2010) studied LNG leaks com-
paring the data obtained in several large-scale field tests and wind-
tunnel tests with their simulations. More specifically, they analyzed the
entire set of 33 experiments included in the “Validation database for
evaluating vapor dispersion models for safety analysis of LNG facilities”
(Coldrick et al, 2009). Middha et al. (2009, 2010) studied the dispersion
and explosion of hydrogen jet releases and Ichard et al. (2018) reported
3
Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748
a methodology to perform 3D CFD FLACS computations of pressurized
liquefied gas releases, and they used it to simulate the Desert Tortoise
test series conducted by the Lawrence National Laboratory in 1983 with
liquefied ammonia (Goldwire et al., 1985).
Hansen et al. (2010) got good predictions for unobstructed tests and
for wind-tunnel obstructed tests, but they did not get a good adjustment
for large-scale obstructed tests probably because the release of LNG
could not be well characterized with the model. Hanna et al. (2004),
Middha et al. (2009, 2010) and Ichard et al. (2018) considered they had
achieved acceptable results. Most of the validations reported followed
the guides of Ivings et al. (2007, 2016) for the quantitative evaluation
of the performance of the model.
In 2010 the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
from the US (PHMSA, 2010) required the calculation of additional
statistical performance measures (SPMs) in addition to those specified
in the LNG Model Evaluation Protocol (MEP) (Ivings et al., 2007). One
of these additional SPMs is the Distance Safety Factor to the Lower
Flammability Limit, computed as shown in Eq. (3) and abbreviated here
as DSFLFL _MEP to avoid confusion with the Dispersion Safety Factor
defined in Eq. 1. This metric compares the predicted distance to the LFL
( x p, LFL ) with the measured distance to the LFL ( x m, LFL ).
x p, LFL
DSFLFL _MEP =
x m, LFL (3)
Recent works of dispersion models validation already incorporate
DSFLFL _MEP values. For example, Witlox et al. (2013) report values for
PHAST model, and US DOT (2011) include values for FLACS model.
Values reported by US DOT (2011) indicate that FLACS shows good
agreement for DSFLFL _MEP with the exception of obstructed field tests
from the Falcon trials (see Brown et al. (1990) to get a comprehensive
description of the tests).
Although several studies suggest that FLACS can be considered a
suitable model to accurately simulate the dispersion of gases, to the best
of the authors’ knowledge, there is no information available in the lit-
erature on quantitative values of statistical performance measures for
the visible cloud length. Therefore, since this is a key parameter for the
calculation of the Dispersion Safety Factor as defined in Eq. (1), first of
all we have used several field-scale experiments to validate the use of
FLACS to determine the visible cloud length. Afterwards an analysis of
significance has been performed to check which of the input variables
used to define the release scenario (i.e. pool leakage rate, ambient
temperature, relative humidity and wind velocity) are significant for
the DSF value. Finally, two DSF values per fuel have been modeled
(DSF, DSF50) considering, according to the previous results, only sig-
nificant and easily measurable variables (i.e. relative humidity and
wind velocity). A comparison of our results against those from other
authors has been included too.
This paper aims to contribute to improving emergency response and
safety analysis at liquefied flammable gas facilities when NG or re-
frigerated propane are released and originate a pool. Decision-makers
have a more accurate tool to establish a LOC area based on the visible
extent of the vapor cloud and the value of the DSF, which is dependent
on two atmospheric variables.
2. Methodology
2.1. FLACS evaluation
The FLACS dispersion model is a commercial CFD product limited to
modeling single-phase (gaseous) flow. Therefore, the FLACS software
package contains a pool spread sub-model that predicts the spread of,
and evaporation from, a flammable liquid (US DOT, 2011). In this
paper this sub-model has been used to simulate target scenarios.
Specific experiments have been selected from the literature ac-
cording to the availability of visible cloud length values or the possi-
bility to estimate this metric based on photographs. One test (Burro 8)
A. Àgueda, et al. Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Table 2
Input data used in FLACS validation tests.
Test Burro 8 Maplin 27 Maplin 29 Maplin 39 Maplin 43 Maplin 56

Fuel LNG LNG LNG LNG LPG LNG

Ambient temperature [K] 306.1 287.58 289.8 289.85 290 284.59
Wind velocity [m/s] 1.8 5.5 7.4 4.1 5.5 5.1
Relative humidity [%] 4.7 57 52 63 70 83
Pasquill atmospheric stability class D D D D D D
Pool ground Water Water Water Water Water Water
Pool leakage rate [kg/s] 113.3 22.6 29 33.2 19.2 17.7
Duration [s] 107 160 225 60 330 80

of the Burro trials performed by Lawrence Livermore National Table 4

Laboratory in 1980 and 1981 (Morgan et al., 1984), and 5 tests (Maplin Input variables used in all the simulations.
27, 29, 39, 56, 43) of the Maplin Sands trials performed by Shell Re- Variable Unit Value
search in 1980 (Puttock et al., 1982; Colenbrander and Puttock, 1983)
have been used. In the simulations we have used the input data pre- Pasquill atmospheric stability class – D
Radius of leakage area m 5
sented in Table 2. The sea temperature was assumed to be 283 K, lower
Type of soil – Rural*
than the ambient temperature in all tests. Solar radiation W·m−2 250
The simulation volume domain extended 10 m in the z-direction Ground temperature K 283
(from the ground level) for all field tests. In the x- and y-directions, the Surface roughness over the pool m 0.005
distances varied depending on the field test to be simulated; they ex-
tended between 80 and 400 m in the x-direction, and between 500 and * At present it is the only option available in FLACS.
1050 m in the y-direction.
Ideally, FLACS evaluation experiments should cover a wide range of Stokes (RANS) turbulence model (Gexcon, 2018).
conditions: different release sizes, wind speeds, humidity, atmospheric A radius of 5 m for the leakage area was set following best practice
stability, solar insolation, ground surface conditions etc. However, as guidelines included in the FLACS User’s Manual (Gexcon, 2018) to get a
shown in Table 2, all the selected experiments were conducted over circular shape for the spill. The type of soil was fixed as rural (the only
water in Pasquill class D conditions. This implies that there is some option available in FLACS at present). A moderate value for solar ra-
uncertainty as a result, but this is the best we could do given the limited diation (250 W·m−2) was set, the ground temperature was set at 283 K
data (photographs plus measured concentrations) available on large- and the surface roughness over the pool was set at 0.005 m (default
scale LNG releases. value in FLACS).

2.2. Dispersion Safety Factor: Experimental framework 2.2.2. Simulations configuration

A constant release period starting 5 s after the beginning of the si-
2.2.1. Experimental design mulation was defined with a duration of 30 s. This starting time was
We used the FLACS simulator to study LNG and refrigerated pro- chosen so that a well-established wind field could be reached, according
pane vapor clouds dispersions of evaporated fuel from pools in the open to the FLACS User’s Manual (Gexcon, 2018). After the constant release
atmosphere. We established a general full factorial design and 4 factors period, a linear decrease in the release rate during the next 1 s was
(pool leakage rate, ambient temperature, wind velocity and relative defined, simulating an almost instantaneous closure of the fuel supply
humidity) were considered. The different levels assigned to each factor (Fig. 1). Two levels of constant pool leakage rate were selected: 15 and
are specified in Table 3. 120 kg/s, similar to the minimum and maximum values of the simu-
The dispersion runs simulated included all combinations of the lated field tests used to validate FLACS (see Table 2).
different factor levels from Table 3 except for the relative humidity, i.e.
we simulated with FLACS 2·2·6 = 24 dispersion scenarios per fuel.
Relative humidity levels were employed afterwards for dewpoint tem-
perature calculations. Therefore, a total of 336 (=14·24) results of DSF
could be calculated a priori per fuel.
Other main variables set in the simulations are presented in Table 4.
A neutral atmospheric stability (Pasquill class D) was considered.
Vílchez et al. (2013) had previously observed that the atmospheric
stability was not a significant factor affecting the DSF value. Once the
Pasquill class is chosen, FLACS automatically creates profiles for velo-
cities and turbulence parameters at the boundaries where there is an
external wind field. FLACS considers the Reynolds Averaged Navier-

Table 3
Factors and levels considered in the experimental design.
Factor Unit Levels

−1
Pool leakage rate kg·s 15, 120
Ambient temperature ˚C 5, 40
Wind velocity m·s−1 2, 4.5, 7, 10, 15, 25
Relative humidity % 4.9 (LNG)/3.5 (propane), 5, 5.5, 10, 20, 30, 40,
50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 99, 100
Fig. 1. Simulated time-dependent pool leakage rates.

4
A. Àgueda, et al.
The simulation domain was discretized using a Cartesian grid with
an orthogonal base x, y and z; where the x-direction was parallel to the
wind direction, y-direction was horizontal and z-direction was vertical.
The simulation volume domain extended 910 m in the x-direction
(10 m before the release point (x = 0 m) and 900 m after the release
point), 160 m in the y-direction (centered at the release point) and 10 m
in the z-direction (from the ground level). The simulation domain was
set using a grid with a core region and a refined region near the release
point. Grid cells of 1 m × 0.5 m × 0.13 m were used near the release
point. Then the grid resolution was smoothly increased to a coarse grid
resolution of 66.7 m × 6.14 m × 1.54 m (LNG) and
51.94 m × 6.14 m × 1.53 m (propane) in order to save computational
time. We followed guidelines provided in the FLACS User Guide to
minimize grid-dependence.
A wind boundary condition for the outer boundaries of the simu-
lation domain was defined at the upper and lower boundaries of the y-
direction (parallel boundaries). For the x-direction, a wind boundary
condition was set at the lower boundary (inflow) and a nozzle condition
was set at the upper boundary (outflow). For the z-direction, a wind
boundary condition was set at the upper boundary (parallel boundary)
and a nozzle condition was set at the lower boundary together with a
wall (ground). All these conditions were set according to the best
practice guidelines included in the User’s Manual of the FLACS software
(Gexcon, 2018).
2.2.3. Criteria used to set XVIS and XLFL
The two terms included in the definition of DSF, XVIS and XLFL , were
determined following similar procedures.
To obtain XVIS we used Eq. 2 to calculate the dew point temperature
given the ambient temperature and the relative humidity. Once the dew
point temperature was set, XVIS was defined as the maximum downwind
length that had a temperature equal to the calculated dew point tem-
perature at the lowest available height (0.06 m; half the height of the
cells on the ground) and 35 s after the beginning of the simulation
period (see Fig. 2 for an example). A characteristic time of 35 s was set
because we considered it would be operational and representative of
the instant when the leakage would stop.
We used the output variable ERLFL of FLACS to establish XLFL . This
output variable denotes a fuel concentration measure, but it gives this
measure compared to the LFL concentration. Thus, when calculating
DSF values we were interested in ERLFL values equal to 100%.
However, when calculating DSF50 we were interested in ERLFL values
Fig. 2. Example of temperature contour plot obtained with FLACS to extract XVIS (242 K was calculated to be the dewpoint temperature corresponding to the ambient
conditions of the test). XVIS = 52.18 m.
5
Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748
equal to 50%.
To establish XLFL we used the same procedure as with XVIS , i.e. we
determined the maximum downwind length at the lowest possible
height (0.06 m) that 35 s after the beginning of the simulation had an
ERLFL equal to 100% or 50%, depending on the DSF value of interest
(see Fig. 3 for an example).
2.3. Statistical analyses
FLACS model performance to estimate visible cloud length was
evaluated using the FAC2 indicator, which shows whether the simu-
lated values are within a factor of 2 of the experimental data. For ex-
ample, if we consider the XVIS variable we are evaluating if the ratio
shown in Eq. 2 falls within these two limits:
1
≤ XVISexperimental/XVISFLACS ≤ 2
2 (2)
This factor is commonly used for CFD validation purposes (e.g.
Hanna et al., 2004; Ivings et al., 2007; Coldrick et al., 2009, Ivings
et al., 2013; Schleder et al., 2015).
Other statistical analyses were performed using the Minitab® soft-
ware. We generated main effects plots and matrices of interaction plots
to check which factors, among those included in the experimental de-
sign, were significant in the DSF model.
DSF data were fitted with a quadratic model to allow for the de-
tection of curvature in the response surface. To better understand the
effect of the significant factors, contour plots of modelled DSF versus
the significant factors were plotted.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. FLACS validation
Pool tests simulated to validate FLACS model were from Maplin
Sands (Maplin 27, 29, 39, 56, 43) (Blackmore et al., 1982) and Burro
series (Burro 8) (Koopman et al., 1982).
Fig. 4 shows the relation between XVIS data measured in the ex-
periments or estimated according to photographs (Vílchez et al., 2013),
and data obtained in the simulations. All available data fits in a factor of
2, indicating a relatively good agreement between simulations and
experiments. Thus, we can conclude that the use of FLACS to determine
visible downwind lengths is suitable for pool vaporization and cloud
A. Àgueda, et al. Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Fig. 3. Example of contour plot obtained with FLACS to retrieve XLFL . XLFL = 55.47 m.

dispersion scenarios.
3.2. Variability of the visible and LFL distances, and the dispersion Safety
factor
Boxplots are presented in Fig. 5 to show the variability of the values
obtained for the different distances required to compute the two DSF
values included in this paper (i.e. DSF and DSF50). The medians for the
two LFL distances (50%, 100%) show a reasonable tendency, i.e. lower
XLFL values were observed over a higher LOC concentration value. The
variability of the visible distance is quite similar for both fuels, showing
in both cases a skewed distribution. Similar median XVIS values (59.4 m
and 58.11 m for LNG and propane, respectively) were observed al-
though larger XVIS values were obtained for LNG (maximum
XVIS = 793.9 m). This is probably due to the difference in the boiling
temperature of both fuels (111.7 K for methane and 231 K for propane
at normal conditions). The fuel increases its temperature after being
vaporized at the expense, to a certain level, of the condensation of
water from the environment. So, since the difference between boiling
temperature and ambient temperature is larger in LNG than in propane,
LNG visible clouds extend longer than propane clouds.
The boxplots from Fig. 6 show the variability of the DSF values
obtained for both fuels and Table 5 shows mean and median values. The
distribution of this metric is clearly skewed to the right (see in Table 5
that all median values are lower than mean values); so, DSF values
lower than median values are closer together than DSF values higher
than median values. Median values were close to 1 in all cases (range of
median values: 1.02–1.32) and, as expected according to the definition

Fig. 4. Comparison between the downwind length of visible vapor cloud experimentally obtained and that established performing FLACS simulations. Six field
experiments were tested (Maplin 27, 29, 39, 56, 43, Burro 8). FAC2 confidence limits are indicated as red dashed lines.

6
A. Àgueda, et al.
Fig. 5. Boxplots of visible length and maximum downwind lengths to the 100% and 50% LFL concentration estimated after FLACS simulations for: a) LNG; b)
Propane.
of the DSF shown in Eq. 1, DSF median (and mean) values increase as
the LOC concentration decreases. Larger DSF and DSF50 values were
computed for propane than for LNG probably due to the differences in
the visible distance.
3.3. Effect of the different factors for DSF
A sensitivity analysis was done to determine the factors that sig-
nificantly affect the value of DSF. The results are presented in the form
of main and interaction effects plots.
3.3.1. Lng
As it is shown in Fig. 7, for LNG the most significant factors in the
value of DSF are the relative humidity and the wind velocity. Note that
the main effects subplots for pool leakage rate and ambient temperature
factors show almost horizontal lines, thus both levels of the factors
affect the DSF in the same way. Nevertheless, main effects are present
for wind velocity and relative humidity, because both lines are not
horizontal. The magnitude of the RH effect is greater than the wind
effect since the slope of the line is steeper.
Fig. 8 indicates an interaction between wind velocity and relative
humidity, because wind velocity lines in the lower most subplot are not
parallel to each other. However, this interaction is only present for RH
values that are within the range 10–50%. Out of this range wind ve-
locity lines are quite parallel. Then, within the 10–50% RH range, wind
velocities ≥ 7 m/s give the highest DSF values and depend on the RH
value, whereas wind velocities < 7 m/s give similar DSF values over
the complete RH range of analysis.
Fig. 6. Boxplots of DSF and DSF50 for: a) LNG; b) Propane. DSF = DSF50 = 1 is indicated as a vertical dashed red line.
7
Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748
Table 5
Median (mean) values of DSF, DSF50 [-] according to the type of fuel.
DSF value Fuel
LNG Propane
DSF 1.02 (1.41) 1.14 (1.85)
DSF50 1.18 (2.22) 1.32 (2.83)
3.3.2. Propane
According to the main effects plot shown in Fig. 9, relative humidity
and wind velocity are also the most significant factors for propane DSF
values under the conditions tested in this paper.
In the case of propane the interaction between wind velocity and
relative humidity is more difficult to observe. We have to consider that
values obtained for the DSF cover a wide interval (see the lower most
subplot in Fig. 10; y-axis range: 0–16) and that the visible length could
not be calculated in 56 instances (17% of the total scenarios considered
for this fuel) because dew point temperatures calculated to determine
XVIS were lower than those obtained in the simulation. This situation
was observed mainly for the combinations that included a high leakage
rate (120 kg·s−1; 77% of the affected cases), medium-to-high wind
velocities (> 7 m/s; 80% of the affected cases) and low relative hu-
midity (< 20%; 82% of the affected cases). The reason why we ob-
tained these results could be because a visible cloud would not be ob-
served under these conditions or because the grid was too coarse to
observe the closest points to the release point, where the temperature
would be the lowest one. Because of this fact, in the low RH interval
(< 20%) data means plotted in Fig. 10 may include only 1 out of 4
possible DSF values, so the behavior of the data shown in this interval
A. Àgueda, et al. Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Fig. 7. Main effects plot of different factors (leakage rate, ambient temperature, wind velocity and relative humidity (RH)) for DSF in LNG pool dispersions. The
reference line represents the overall mean.

will not be discussed due to the small amount of data. A mesh refine-
ment study would be valuable to determine if this problem could be
solved.
We do therefore base our plot analysis only on the RH interval be-
tween 20 and 100%. Within this range, wind velocity lines are not
parallel up to an RH value of 70%. So, within the 20–70% RH range
wind velocities ≥ 7 m/s give the highest DSF values and a high
variability, whereas wind velocities < 7 m/s give similar DSF values
over the complete RH range of analysis.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis of ambient relative humidity input for DSF values
The effect of humidity on vapor clouds dispersion has been studied
by several authors (e.g. Liu et al., 2019) and ambient humidity has been
found to enhance cloud buoyancy due to heat release by the con-
densation and solidification of water.
In the present work ambient humidity was not modelled in the
dispersion simulations and the predicted temperature field was used to
assess condensation through an empirical formula (Eq. 2). However, to
take into account phase transition of water vapour, relative humidity in
air can be specified in fact in the pool model implemented in FLACS
through a string line in the scenario file (Gexcon, 2018). We have
performed a sensitivity analysis to quantify the relative importance of
the inclusion of this string on the final results for DSF.
According to the results presented in Table 6, there are little dif-
ferences in DSF values. Moreover, differences could be assumed as part

Fig. 8. Interaction plots of different factors (leakage rate, ambient temperature, wind velocity and relative humidity (RH)) for DSF in LNG pool dispersions.

8
A. Àgueda, et al. Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Fig. 9. Main effects plot of different factors for DSF in propane pool dispersions. The reference line represents the overall mean.

of the uncertainty associated with the predictions and the estimation of
distances.
The simplification considered in this work is qualitatively in
agreement with the results from Liu et al. (2019). They observed, at low
wind velocities, that the downwind distance of a flammable hydrogen
cloud did not change with increasing relative humidity (values tested:
50%, 75%, 100%) although the visible cloud did. This implies that DSF
values would decrease with increasing relative humidity, in accordance
with our results.
3.5. DSF and DSF50 models for LNG and propane
A multiple linear regression analysis was carried out to obtain ex-
pressions that can easily be used to determine DSF and DSF50. As
shown in section 3.3, DSF is essentially dependent on the relative hu-
midity (RH ) and the wind velocity (u w ), so depending on the type of
fuel (LNG or propane), the expressions presented in Tables 7 and 8 were
determined to calculate DSF factors.
We used contour plots to provide a two-dimensional view of DSF
data. DSF values were displayed as a function of relative humidity and
wind velocity, and similar DSF values were represented on the x-y plane
by contour lines.
It is worth considering a limiting value of 1 regarding DSF values.
The scenarios where DSF is > 1 are critical in the event of an emer-
gency because this implies that XLFL > XVIS . Under these conditions, the
use of the DSF makes sense in order to establish safety areas. On the
other hand, when DSF < 1 it implies that the flammable region falls
within the visible cloud and a safety area could be easily established by

Fig. 10. Interaction plots of different factors for DSF in propane pool dispersions.

9
A. Àgueda, et al. Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of ambient relative humidity consideration on DSF values.
Leakage rate [m/s] Tamb [˚C] Wind velocity [m/s] Relative humidity [%] Air humidity consideration* XLFL (m) XVIS (m) DSF DSF relative difference

120 5 15 10 A posteriori 68.45 24.54 2.79 1%

A priori 67.90 24.00 2.82
120 5 2 60 A posteriori 58.40 58.54 0.99 2%
A priori 40.90 40.30 1.01

* A posteriori: Air humidity was not modelled in the dispersion simulations and the predicted temperature field was used to assess condensation through an
empirical formula dependent on relative humidity. A priori: Relative humidity in air is set in FLACS to take into account phase transition of the water vapour.

Table 7 considering only the visible cloud.

DSF regression for LNG pools’ vaporization. General expression: Fig. 11 shows the relationship between DSF, relative humidity and
DSF (or DSF 50) = a + b·u w + c·RH + d·u w 2 + e·RH 2 + f ·u w·RH (Units: RH wind velocity for both fuels. It can be seen that DSF values less than 1
[%]; u w [m·s−1]). Overall applicability range: u w 2–25 m/s; RH 4.9–100%. are present in a wider area for LNG vapor clouds than for propane. This
Coefficients DSF DSF50 indicates that special caution has to be paid with vapor clouds of pro-
pane because ambient conditions under which the flammable cloud will
a 1.7102 1.662 expand beyond the visible cloud are more abundant. However, ac-
b 0.1847 0.4779
c −0.04135 −0.06737
cording to our results, it seems that under ambient conditions typically
d −0.003436 −0.009565 observed in temperate regions (60–70% RH, and 2 m/s wind velocity)
e 0.000304 0.000532 both fuels will present DSF values lower than 1. Blackmore et al. (1982)
f −0.001460 −0.002919 qualitatively observed similar results for LNG and propane; they stated
Std. Dev. ± 0.46 ± 0.91
that the downwind visible edge of LNG clouds extended beyond the
R-sq (adj.) 83.47% 81.41%
position where the gas had diluted below the flammable concentration,
and the opposite was found for propane plume.
Table 8 Fig. 12 shows the relation of DSF50 with RH and wind velocity for
DSF regression for propane pools’ vaporization. General expression: LNG and propane. In the calculation of DSF50 only XLFL varied ac-
DSF (or DSF 50) = a + b·u w + c·RH + d·u w 2 + e·RH 2 + f ·u w·RH (Units: RH cording to the corresponding flammability level used, and XVIS took the
[%]; u w [m·s−1]). Overall applicability range: u w 2–25 m/s; RH 20–100%. same values used for DSF calculation. Thus, by definition, greater DSF
values have to be achieved as the flammability level decreases. This is
Coefficients DSF* DSF50
shown in both figures; note that, in comparison with the results ob-
a 3.237 3.746 tained for DSF, DSF50 values less than 1 cover a smaller area of the
b 0.3451 0.8616 plots and the area associated with high DSF50 values (e.g. > 6) in-
c −0.0742 −0.1162
creases as the flammability level decreases. This is because DSF50 is a
d −0.004176 −0.01396
e 0.000469 0.000747 more conservative option than DSF.
f −0.002750 −0.005359
Std. Dev. ± 0.75 ± 1.85
R-sq (adj.) 75.04% 64.27% 3.6. Comparison of DSF models
* To improve regression results 5 data points (7 m/s; 30–70% RH) were
excluded; they had very large residuals.
In this section we compare the results obtained in this work for DSF
against those obtained by Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014). As it was pre-
viously mentioned, the experimental design performed by the former
authors included only two levels for the wind velocity factor (2 and
10 m/s). This limited their analysis because the behavior of the DSF

Fig. 11. Contour plots of DSF against relative humidity and wind velocity for pool vapor clouds of: a) LNG; b) Propane. The RH interval in b) begins at 20% RH due to
missing data in the low range (RH < 20%). The model predicts values < 0 in the white region (not applicable).

10
A. Àgueda, et al. Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748

Fig. 12. Contour plots of DSF50 against relative humidity and wind velocity for pool vapor clouds of: a) LNG; b) Propane. The RH interval in b) begins at 20% RH due
to missing data in the low range (RH < 20%). The model predicts values < 0 in the white region (not applicable).

between these two levels and beyond 10 m/s could not be studied.
According to our results, obtained including 6 levels for the wind ve-
locity factor, the DSF factor depends both on the RH and the wind
velocity, particularly in the interval 2–10 m/s, where steeper slopes of
the contours are observed (see Fig. 11).
Considering only the results associated to a wind velocity of 10 m/s
for comparison reasons, according to Fig. 13 Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014)
determined that it was possible to obtain DSF values < 1 for LNG
vapor clouds if the relative humidity was greater than ~ 53%, and for
propane the RH had to be greater than ~ 86%. These results are similar
to those obtained in the present work for propane, but the number is
somewhat different for LNG (~57.5%). However, differences observed
between fuels are similar, i.e. propane vapor clouds behave more cri-
tically because under a wider range of RH values the flammable length
can be beyond the visible length.
3.7. Exemplifying case
In this subsection we will show how the Dispersion Safety Factor
would be used. We base our exemplifying case in the Maplin 39 test
because we have all the information needed available. For Maplin 39
test we could estimate XVIS and in the literature there is the corre-
sponding experimental XLFL value (Blackmore et al., 1982), which will
be used to compare it with our calculated value.
If we use wind velocity and relative humidity data from Table 2
(4.1 m/s and 63%, respectively), we can apply the coefficients from
Table 7 to the expression included in the caption of the same table to
compute DSF for LNG (DSF = 0.63). Now, by multiplying the estimated
visible distance of the cloud (200 m; see Fig. 4) by 0.63, we get
XLFL = 127 m. This value is in accordance with the one presented by
Blackmore et al. (1982), i.e. 130 ± 20 m.
4. Conclusions
The dispersion safety factor (DSF) is a useful tool to determine
safety areas in emergency situations where leaks of LNG or refrigerated
propane occur, and a flammable cloud is originated by the evaporation
and dispersion of the fuel in a pool. DSF values less than 1 indicate that
the flammable region is located within the visible boundary of the
vapor cloud. From an operational point of view, these situation would
be desirable since it would mean that the hazard is limited to the
opaque condensed vapor cloud and does not extend longer invisibly.
In this work a CFD tool (FLACS software) has been used to de-
termine DSF factors. A simplification has been assumed, i.e. ambient
humidity has not been modelled in the dispersion simulations and the
predicted temperature field has been used to assess condensation

Fig. 13. DSF against relative humidity at wind velocity according to the expressions obtained in this work at a wind velocity of 10 m/s and using the most
conservative models from Vílchez et al. (2013, 2014): a) LNG; b) Propane. Dashed red lines indicate the RH level associated with a DSF = 1.

11
A. Àgueda, et al.
through an empirical formula. However, it seems that this simplifica-
tion to does not affect DSF results significantly. The results obtained
with FLACS show that, in the case of LNG, the DSF can be less than 1 if
RH > 60%, regardless of the wind speed. Also, when the wind velocity
is nearly 2 m/s, DSF takes values greater than 1 until RH > 30%.
Vílchez et al. (2013) determined that the DSF was less than 1 when
RH > 53% but they did not take into account the wind velocity, al-
though it plays an important role mostly at the low range. The results
obtained for propane show that it is more difficult to obtain a DSF < 1
and it can only be achieved if RH > 85% independently of the wind
velocity.
Future work should include studying the dynamic behavior of the
dispersion of the cloud and the pool. More specifically, we should study
the dependency of the DSF on the characteristic time used to set visible
and LFL distances. A Dispersion Safety Factor defined in the same way
could be used for the dispersion of certain toxic gases such as ammonia;
we should relate then AEGLs (Acute Exposure Guideline Levels) (in-
stead of LFL values) with the visible cloud to determine safety areas.
The behavior of jet releases could also be studied.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness [Project CTQ2017-85990-R, funded with FEDER
funds].
References
Blackmore D.R., Eyre, J.A., Summers, G.G., 1982. Dispersion and combustion behaviour
of gas clouds resulting from large spillages of LNG on the sea. Trans. I. Mar. E. 94.
Paper No. 29.
Bosen, J.F., 1958. An approximation formula to compute relative humidity from dry bulb
and dew point temperatures. Mon. Weather Rev. 486.
Brown C.T., Cederwall, R.T. Chan, S.T., Ermak, D.L., Koopman, R.P., Lamson, K.C.,
McClure, J.W., Morris, L.K., 1990. Falcon Series data report: 1987 LNG vapor barrier
verification field trials. Gas Research Institute and US Department of Transportation.
doi:10.2172/6633087.
Brook, P., Chodorowska, N., 2005. LPG storage systems, atmospheric vs. pressurized. UK:
Foster Wheeler Energy Limited. Gastech.
Coldrick, S., Lea, C.J., Ivings, M.J., 2009. Validation database for evaluating vapor dis-
persion models for safety analysis of LNG facilities, guide to the LNG model valida-
tion database. Fire Protect. Res. Found.
Colenbrander, G.W., Puttock, J.S., 1983. Dense gas dispersion behaviour: Experimental
observations and model development, 4th International Symposium on Loss
Prevention and Safety Promotion in the Process Industries, Harrotage, England,
September 12-12.
National Association of State Fire Marshals, 2005. Liquefied natural gas: an overview of
the LNG industry for fire marshals and emergency responders, 1st ed. Hildebrand and
Noll Associates Inc.
de Catalunya, Generalitat, 2015. Pla d’emergència exterior del sector químic. de
Catalunya (PLASEQCAT).
Gexcon AS, 2018. FLACS v.10.7 User’s Manual.
Goldwire Jr., H.C., McRae, T.G., Johnson, G.W., Hipple, D.L., Koopman, R.P., McClure,
J.W., Morris, L.K., Cederwall, R.T., 1985. Desert Tortoise series data report: 1983
Pressurized ammonia spills. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCID-, pp.
20562.
Hanna, S.R., Chang, J.C., Strimaitis, D.G., 1993. Hazardous gas model evaluation with
field observations. Atm. Environ. 27A (15), 2265–2285.
Hanna, S.R., Hansen, O.R., Dharmavaram, S., 2004. FLACS CFD air quality model per-
formance evaluation with Kit Fox, MUST, Prairie Grass, and EMU observations. Atm.
12
Safety Science 128 (2020) 104748
Environ. 38 (28), 4675–4687.
Hansen, O.R., Gavelli, F., Ichard, M., Davis, S.G., 2010. Validation of FLACS against ex-
perimental data sets from the model evaluation database for LNG vapor dispersion. J.
Loss Prev. Process Ind. 23 (6), 857–877.
Ichard, M., Hansen, O.R., Melheim, J., 2018. 6.2. Releases of pressurized liquefied gases:
Simulations of the Desert Tortoise test series with the CFD model FLACS.
Ivings, M.J., Jagger, S.F., Lea, C.J., Webber, D.M., 2007. Evaluating vapor dispersion
models for safety analysis of LNG facilities. The Fire Protection Research Foundation.
Available from: https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Fire-statistics-and-
reports/Research-reports/Hazardous-materials/Evaluating-Vapor-Dispersion-
Models-for-Safety-Analysis (accessed 19 October 2018).
Ivings, M.J., Lea, C.J., Webber, D.M., Jagger, S.F., Coldrick, S., 2013. A protocol for the
evaluation of LNG vapour dispersion models. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 26 (1),
153–163.
Ivings, M.J., Gant, S.E., Jagger, S.F., Lea, C.J., Stewart, J.R., Webber, D.M., 2016.
Evaluating vapor dispersion models for safety analysis of LNG facilities. Fire Protect.
Rese. Found.
Jones, R., Lehr, W., Simecek-Beatty, D., Michael Reynolds, R., 2013. ALOHA® (areal lo-
cations of hazardous atmospheres) 5.4.4. technical documentation. U.S. Dept. of
commerce, NOAA technical memorandum NOS OR&R 43 Seattle, WA: Emergency
Response Division. NOAA, pp. 96.
Koopman, R.P., Cederwall, R.T., Ermak, D.L., Goldwire Jr., H.C., Hogan, W.J., McClure,
J.W., McRae, T.G., Morgan, D.L., Rodean, H.C., Shinn, J.H., 1982. Analysis of Burro
series 40–m3 LNG spill experiments. J. Hazard. Mater. 6, 43–83.
Kumar, S., Kwon, H.T., Choi, K.H., Lim, W, Cho, J.H., Tak, K., Moon, I., 2011. LNG: an
eco-friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development. Appl. Energy 88 (12),
4264–4273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.035.
Liu, Y., Jianjian, W., Lei, G., Wang, T., Lan, Y., Chen, H., Jin, T., 2019. Modeling the
development of hydrogen vapor cloud considering the presence of air humidity. Int.
J. Hydrog. Energy 44, 2059–2068.
Luketa-Hanlin, A., 2006. A review of large-scale LNG spills: Experiments and modelling.
J. Hazard. Mater. 132 (2–3), 119–140.
Middha, P., Hansen, O.R., Storvik, I.E., 2009. Validation of CFD-model for hydrogen
dispersion. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22 (6), 1034–1038.
Middha, P., Hansen, O.R., Grune, J., Kotchourko, A., 2010. CFD calculations of gas leak
dispersion and subsequent gas explosions: Validation against ignited impinging hy-
drogen jet experiments. J. Hazard. Mater. 179 (1–3), 84–94.
Morgan, D.L., Morris, L.K., Chan, S.T., Ermak, D.L., McRae, T.G., Cederwall, R.T.,
Koopman, R.P., Goldwire, H.C., McClure, J.W., Hogan, W.J., 1984. Phenomenology
and modeling of liquefied natural gas vapor dispersion, Lawrence Livermore Notional
Laboratory, Report No. UCRL – 53581.
myLPG.eu, What is LPG? www.mylpg.eu (accessed 17 December 2018).
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), 2015. NFPA 59A, Standard for Production,
Storage, and Handling of Liquefied. Natural Gas (LNG).
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), 2017. NFPA 59, Utility LP-Gas. Plant Code.
PHMSA, 2011. Part 193 – Liquefied natural gas facilities: Federal safety standards. 49 CFR
Ch. I (10-1-11 Edition), 512-531.
PHMSA, 2010. Liquefied natural gas facilities: obtaining approval of alternative vapor-gas
dispersion models, US Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation, Docket No.
PHMSA-2010-0226, Federal Register, vol. 75, No. 168, pp. 53371-53374, 31 August
2010. Available from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/08/31/
2010-21588/liquefied-natural-gas-facilities-obtaining-approval-of-alternative-vapor-
gas-dispersion-models, accessed 19 October 2018.
Puttock, J.S., Blackmore, D.R., Colenbrander, G.W., 1982. Field experiments on dense gas
dispersion. J. Hazard. Mater. 6, 13–41.
Schleder, A.M., Pastor, E., Planas, P., Martins, M.R., 2015. Experimental data and CFD
performance for cloud dispersion analysis: The USP-UPC project. J. Loss Prev. Process
Ind. 38, 125–138.
US Department of Transportation (DOT), 2011. Final Decision. PHMSA Docket No. 2011-
0101. Available from: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=PHMSA-2011-
0101-0017, accessed: 10 February 2020.
Vílchez, J.A., Villafañe, D., Casal, J., 2013. A dispersion safety factor for LNG vapor
clouds. J. Hazard. Mater. 246–247, 181–188.
Vílchez, J.A., Villafañe, D., Casal, J., 2014. Predicting the flammable region reach of
propane vapor clouds. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 29 (1), 1–7.
Witlox, H.W.M., Harper, M., Pitblado, R., 2013. Validation of PHAST dispersion model as
required for USA LNG sitting applications. Chem. Eng. Trans. 31.