17th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION ON

17th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE & EXHIBITION

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG 17)
ON LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG 17)

LNG SHIP INSULATION EXPERIMENTS USING

LARGE LNG POOL FIRE BOUNDARY
<Title
of of
Presentation>
<Title
Presentation>
CONDITIONS
By:
By:<Author
<AuthorName>,
Name>,<Organization>
<Organization>
By: Thomas Blanchat, Charles Morrow, and Michael Hightower
<Date>
<Date>
Sandia National Laboratories
April 17, 2013

Program objective:
Improve understanding of large LNG spills and
the impact on hazards to the public
Large LNG Pool Fires:
Goal is to reduce uncertainty
in thermal hazard predictions
for large-scale LNG pool fires
(~100 m).
Cascading Damage:
Goal is to assess cryogenic
and thermal damage to an
LNG ship from a spill event.

LNG pool fire test

Synergy between testing and

simulation.
CFD simulation of LNG pool fire,
512 CPUs, 2.5 M elements

Experiment (land based)

Large LNG Pool Fire Testing

Conduct scaled fire height to diameter tests in controlled
conditions

Construct a large experimental area to conduct up to 100m in

diameter LNG pool fires on water
Conduct large-scale LNG pool fire tests (30m, 70m, and 100m
diameter) to determine large LNG pool fire hazards, including:
Large pool fire behavior, physics, and characteristics
Surface emissive power (flame radiant energy)
Fuel vaporization rate (pool size)
Flame height and diameter (view factor)
From the test data obtained, obtain data to improve existing fire
models to enable better estimates of LNG pool fire properties and
behavior at scales of interest (up to 500 m diameter) with
complicated conditions and geometries

Fire Dynamics at Large Scale

JP8 2 m (SNL)

JP8 3 m (SNL)

JP8 20 m (China Lake)

????

LNG - 10 m SNL 2005

LNG - 35 m 1987 Montoir 1987

LNG ~200 m

Methane has unique chemical reaction pathways resulting in an order of

magnitude less soot production.

Construction

LNG experiment site West view 9-6-2008

Large Scale Test

Configuration

Urethane foam and

carbon mesh

polyurethane foam and concrete lined reservoir 5.2 m liquid depth

aluminum cover with insulating concrete

aluminum discharge plugs mate with SS pipe flange/elbows
reinforced concrete pipes (91 m long) connect to spill diffuser
6 ton winches open plugs

Large Scale Test Configuration

S

E
W

N (340)
1250 m3 capacity LNG reservoir
120 m diameter water pool (2 m depth,
lined)
3 discharge pipes (15 in, 24 in, 36 in)
spill diffuser at pool center
11 m3 capacity LN2 trailer (inertion)

Instrument towers (12) 110 m, 160 m, and

210 m (from pool centerline)
Data Acquisition Systems (5)
Reservoir
Liquid level (1 pressure, 1 floats)
Temperature (8 TCs)
Pool
Spill Area (overhead video (2)
Heat flux to surface (13 DFTs)
Water temperature (36 TCs)
Plume
Height (12 cameras) (4 high speed, 2
infrared)
Spectrometers (4) (400-800 nm, 13004800 nm)
Heat flux (radiometers: narrow-angle
(28), wide-angle (12)
Meteorology
3D ultrasonic wind speed/direction (4)
ambient pressure/temperature/RH (1)

LNG Fire Dynamics at Large Scale

LNG - 10 m

LNG - 21 m SNL

LNG - 83 m SNL

SNL 2005

2/2009

12/2009

For the 10 m test:

Spot SEPave ~190 kW/m2
(opticallythin, radiation vector
not saturated)

The pool diameter does not determine the flame width on open water.

Surface Emissive Power vs. Pool Diameter

Heavy Hydrocarbons Compared to LNG (with large scale test data)

Dpool
(m)
10
21
83*

On Land

SEP
(kW/m2)
190
277
286
LNG Test #1

Test
Scale

Accident
Scale

@SS (390-510s)
Dpool 21 1 m
Wflame 22 3 m
Hflame 35 3 m
Burn Rate 0.15 0.01
kg/m2s
Wind Speed 4.8 0.8 m/s

LNG Test #2
@SS (250-300s)
Dpool 83 4 m
Wflame 56 12 m
Hflame 146 8 m
Wind Speed 1.6 0.2 m/s

1000

Dpool (m)

LNG Cargo Tank Insulation Fire Damage Testing and Relief Valve
Capacity Analysis

Test Scope
Perform experiments to address the concern that cryogenic insulation
(installed to preserve the cold conditions of LNG cargo) could degrade in the
event of a large-scale LNG spill and fire.
The degradation of the insulation systems could cause initially undamaged
tanks to become damaged, resulting in additional spills and larger and/or
longer fires.

Methodology

Review cargo tanker details that are susceptible to flame impingement and thermal
insult
Capture the critical physics (to 1st order) and simplify construction details to allow
representative testing between various types
Obtain or determine thermal properties for prototypic materials

Small sample measurements of density, specific heat, thermal conductivity or data from manufacturer
Obtain prototypic insulation materials

Perform insulation decomposition tests

Various cargo types (Moss and membrane) with various insulation systems
Comparable tests at medium scale
Data from tests will be used to develop/validate models for thermal simulations to inform of damage
potential at prototypic scale

Cargo Tank Insulation

Systems

PUF/PRF composite panel

Polystyrene panel
Polyurethane panel

Moss-type tanker

Membrane-type tanker

Test Apparatus

Test Assembly Enclosure

(stainless steel members,
Pyrotherm wall panels)

Lamp Assembly (1 MW potential)

Test Enclosure

Test Assembly X-section

(1 m x 1 m x ~2 m deep)
4 lamp holder assembly (1.2 m x 1.2 m)

No96

Composite

insulation mask (heated area 864 mm x

864 mm)
steel plate representing Moss weather
cover or membrane outer hull (~16 mm,
5/8)
gap representing hold space or ballast
space (~1300 mm)
insulation system (membrane or Moss,
~300-500 mm thick)
Al tank (38 mm wall thickness, LN2 filled)
top exhaust, N2 purge

MKIII
Outer hull
steel plate

Inner hull
steel plate

Insulation
system

Radiant
heat lamp
array

Polystyrene

Air gap
LN2 tank

GTT (Membrane)
Panel Fabrication

MK III polyurethane foam panels

No96 perlite-filled
plywood boxes

Moss Panel
Fabrication
PUF/PRF
Composite
Polystyrene

500

500
SL2

SL1

400

300

PL1

PL2

PL3

PL4

PL5

PL6

300

5
200

200

100

100

height (mm)

height (mm)

SL3

400

-100

-100

-200
-200

-300

-300

-400
-400

-500
-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

100

width (mm)

200

300

400

500

-500
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320
depth (mm)

Steel plate
and mask
Watercooled
radiometer
Lamps

Test
Assembly
inside
enclosure
(removable
partial top for
inserting test
panel)

Typical Test Data and Insulation Thermal Response

Pre-test Cooldown

Thermal Exposure and Insulation Response

Summary of Test Results

The following key observations were made:
1. The steel plate acting as a weather cover or outer hull temperature approached
1100C and the insulation layers closest to the steel plate have reached 800C near
the end of the test.
2. In general, there was negligible heat flux into the aluminum tank that represents the
cargo tank during any of the tests. Only after the thermal front passed through the
layer closest to the aluminum tank was there an increase in flux.
3. The heat flux value shown into the LN2 tank were obtained using heat flux gauges
attached to the tank and by evaluating the change in the liquid nitrogen boil-off rate
in the LN2 tank.
4. Actual heat flux data for each insulation system tested is proprietary.

Potential for Overpressure or Thermal Damage to

Adjacent Cargo Tanks - Moss
In a 40 minute exposure, all of the styrene will vaporize.
Radiative heat flux from the ~1100C weather cover is greatly reduced
due to smoke production.
Participating media heat transfer and free convection heat transfer
analysis for a Moss LNG cargo tank, support a heat flux estimate of up to
10 kW/m2 onto the cargo tank.
There is a minimal likelihood of a Moss LNG cargo tank being damaged
from a fire due to vapor over pressurization.

Potential for Overpressure or Thermal Damage to

Adjacent Cargo Tanks - Membrane
The outer hull steel and the inner hull steel will see temperatures close to
1000C and 600C, respectively, significantly reducing structural integrity.
However, the heat flux into the LN2 tank was very low, and the thermal
wave for both membrane insulation systems had not reached the LN2
tank at the end of the nominal 40 minute thermal tests.
Pressure may rise in the inter-hull space (without venting, 1.5 barg in 30
min), slow enough that relief valves can protect this space.
Expansion of gases from thermally-decomposing materials will increase
pressure internal to the insulation systems; this pressure increase may
exceed the relief and venting capacity of this volume.
It is likely that membrane tanks will distort during a large fire, based on
softening of the inner hull and pressure buildup from vaporization of the
insulation system producing pressure sufficient to deform the membrane.
However, we believe that distortion of the inner and outer hulls will be the
larger cascading damage driver, not the thermal and pressure integrity
performance of the cargo tank insulation system.

Summary
All insulation systems showed some degradation, and some showed better performance
than others. The smallest heat flux at the aluminum tank containing liquid nitrogen (a
surrogate for the LNG cargo tank) was ~0 kW/m2. The largest heat flux at the aluminum
tank was ~5 kW/m2.
The following key observations were made:
1. Heat flux of ~5 kW/m2 will not cause high temperature/direct damage of the cargo
tank.
2. LNG fire-induced boil off does not exceed the venting capacity of the cargo tank
relief valves.
3. LNG-induced fire heat flux creates high temperatures (~1000-1100C) on the ship
steel.
4. All insulation systems will see degradation and reduction in mechanical strength .
5. LNG-induced high insulation temperature will lead to material pyrolysis,
degradation, and flue gas formation.

Questions?