lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574

Contents lists avai

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ j lp

Engineering layout of fuel tanks in a tank farm

Angan Sengupta*, A.K. Gupta 1, I.M. MishraDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee 24766, Uttarakhand, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 December 2009Received in revised form21 May 2010Accepted 22 June 2010

Keywords:Tank farmWind effectCross-windSafe separation distanceModified point source model

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ91 9012390134; þ91E-mail addresses: angan.sengupta@gmail.com

indiatimes.com, akgd30@gmail.com (A.K. Gu(I.M. Mishra).

1 Scientist and former Head, Fire Research LaboratoInstitute, Roorkee, India.

0950-4230/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2010.06.016

a b s t r a c t

The present paper deals with the location of tanks in a tank farm, in chemical and allied industries.Ideally the tanks are so placed and installed that in case of fire, the neighbouring tanks could remain safe.The safe distance of separation among the tanks is calculated in no wind condition, as well as, in thepresence of wind. The paper uses the methods available in literature and modifies the point sourcemodel to include the effect of wind vector on the flame height during the calculation of safe inter-tankdistance. It is found that for wind velocity> 4 m/s, the modified point source model provides appropriateinter-tank distance. However, for no wind and with wind velocity< 4 m/s, the ShokrieBeyler’s methodprovides safe inter-tank distance.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Tank farm is a synonym of an oil depot, a facility for storage ofliquid chemicals, such as oils, gasoline, diesel, aviation turbine fuel,solvents, petrochemicals, etc. The tank farm is a piece of land onwhich a number of fuel oil or chemical storage tanks are located orsited together. The storage tanks may also be used to store baseblending components, solvents, additives, acids, caustic, chemicals,or finished products. They may also be used as blending vessels.Storage tanks are expensive to build and they require periodicmaintenance to keep them in proper condition when storingvolatile and flammable liquids. It is, therefore, necessary that theybe properly sized and utilized to maximize the return oninvestment.

The safety aspects, apart from periodic maintenance, areextremely important. The recent incident at Jaipur oil depot ofIndian Oil Corporation Ltd. where 12 tankers containing 105 kl ofdiesel and gasoline caught fire and the fire continued for a weekresulting in several fatalities and about 200 injuries besides damage

9433948999.(A. Sengupta), akgd30@

pta), imishfch@iitr.ernet.in

ry, Central Building Research

All rights reserved.

to property worth 3�103million INR (w75million USD) is a case inpoint. This fire caused very serious environmental pollution aroundJaipur and its adjoining areas. This incident has underlined theimportance of proper layout with safe separation distance toprevent such hazardous episodes.

The tank farms usually have a number of tanks of equal heights.However, they may be of varying capacities. Equal height adds toaesthetics and lends them economic credence in the constructionof access structures, easy movements of operators from one tank toanother and of fire service men during emergency episodes. Thetanks may be laid out in square pitch having safe inter-spacebetween them. The inter-tank optimum separation distance iscrucial for safe operations, piping design, and maintenance accessand emergency/accident control and mitigation measures. Thedesired inter-tank distance depends largely on the materials/chemicals to be stored and the capacity of the tanks.

The tanks in refineries are generally constructed from steel orpolyethylene or fiber glass and are either having fixed roofs and/orfloating roofs for storing liquids. Non-steel constructions lower costconsiderably, and make them preferred choice for storing corrosiveand reactive chemicals.

Various regulatory and professional bodies like AmericanPetroleum Institute (API), National Fire Protection Association(NFPA), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have sug-gested standards for such tank layouts in a tank farm. The layout oftanks as distinct from their spacing, should always take intoconsideration the accessibility needed for fire-fighting and thepotential value of a storage tank farm in providing a buffer area

A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 569

between process plant and public roads, houses, etc., for environ-mental reasons. The location of tanks relative to process units mustbe such as to ensure maximum safety from possible accidents.Fig. 1a, b shows schematic representation of tanks in a tank farmlaid out in square and triangular pitch.

Primary requirements for the layout of refinery tanks farms aresummarizedas follows (Digrado&Throp,1995;Long&Gardner, 2004):

1. Inter-tank spacing and separation distances between tank andboundary line and tank and other facilities are of fundamentalimportance.

2. Suitable roadways should be provided for approach to tanksites by mobile fire-fighting equipment and personnel.

3. The fire water system should be laid out to provide adequatefire protection to all parts of the storage area and the transferfacilities.

4. Bunding and draining of the area surrounding the tanks should besuch that a spillage from any tank can be controlled to minimizesubsequent damage to the tank and its contents. They should alsominimize the possibility of other tanks being involved.

5. Tank farms should preferably not be located at higher levelsthan process units in the same catchment area.

6. Storage tanks holding flammable liquids should be installed insuch away that any spill will not flow towards a process area orany other source of ignition.

A key safety consideration for tank farm siting, spacing, andlocation is the separation of non-compatible materials by the use ofan internal bund or dike wall within the tank farm. Providing bundor dike checks the flow of the spilled oil to the neighbouring areas.Thus in case of fire engulfing the tank farm, the fire is confined to itsorigin. The bunds, however, need to be designed to have sufficient

Fig. 1. (a) Top view of a tank farm square pitch layout. (b) Top view of a tank farmtriangular pitch layout.

strength towithstand the pressure that may be created in the eventof an oil spillage and the capacity to store the spilled liquid.

Somemethods are available in literature formodeling inter-tanksafe distance in a tank farm. However, these methods do not takeinto account the effect of cross-wind which is important from firespread point of view. The present paper deals with the assessmentof various methods to estimate the safe separation distancebetween two storage tanks in a tank farm, from the fire spreadpoint of view. A modification is proposed to the point source modelto incorporate the effect of wind velocity on the flame tilt and firespread. The estimated separation distance is also compared withthe values given by various regulatory bodies and prescribed bystandards and reported in the present paper.

2. Models to estimate the safe inter-tank spacing

Following methods are generally used for the determination ofsafe inter-tank spacing:

(a) Point source model.(b) ShokrieBeyler’s method.(c) Mudan’s method.

Using these methods, the heat flux at various distances,between a tank on fire and the adjacent (target) tank is calculated.The distance at which the heat flux becomes equal to 4.732 kW/m2

(1500 BTU/h/ft2) (Daniel, Crowl, & Louvar, 2002; Lees, 1995; SFPEHandbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995) is considered tobe the safe inter-tank distance. No material is expected to ignitewith a heat flux lower than 4.732 kW/m2.

2.1. Point source model

In this model, it is customary to model the flame by a pointsource located at the center of the real flame in order to predict thethermal radiation field of flames. The point source model (SFPEHandbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 1995) is the simplestconfigurational model of a radiant source. Fig. 2 shows the sche-matic diagram of two tanks for using point source model. Thecritical value of incident heat flux, defined as the minimumvalue ofthe heat flux which can ignite the fuel in the target tank is given as

_q00r ¼ Qr cos q4pR2

�kW=m2

�(1)

R

D

Hf/2

L

Hf

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of a tank on fire for point source model.

H

A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574570

Here, Qr is obtained

Qr ¼ lQ (2)

Here, l can be determined as

l ¼ ð0:21� 0:0034� DÞ (3)

And D is the diameter of tank (m).Q is the total heat released by fire and can be estimated as

follows:

Q ¼ h� _m00 � p4D2 � DHc (4)

where, h is the combustion efficiency. _m00 is calculated from the

F12;H ¼ B� 1=s

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiB2 � 1

p tan�1

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiðBþ 1Þðs� 1ÞðB� 1Þðsþ 1Þ

s� A� 1=s

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiA2 � 1

p tan�1

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiðAþ 1Þðs� 1ÞðA� 1Þðsþ 1Þ

s

F12;V ¼ 1p$s

tan�1�

hffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffis2 � 1

p�� hp$s

tan�1

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffis� 1sþ 1

rþ Ah

p$sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiA2 � 1

p tan�1

ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiðAþ 1Þðs� 1ÞðA� 1Þðsþ 1Þ

s

F12 ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiF212;H þ F212;V

q(11)

regression rate curve (Drysdale, 1985). Regression rate is thevolumetric loss of liquid per unit pool surface area, and is given asfollows:

_m00 ¼ rðRNÞ60;000

þ Q 00E

DHV(5)

Here, r is the fuel density, RN is the regression rate, Q 00E is the

external incident radiative heat flux and DHV is the heat of vapor-ization. The value of 60,000 in equation (5) is only to convertregression rate from mm/s to m/min.

R and cos q in equation (1), are given as follows:

R ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�Hf

2

�2

þL2

s(6)

where, Hf is the flame height (m) above the tank. The flame heightis obtained from Heskestad relationship (Heskestad, 1984) as givenbelow:

Hf ¼ 0:235Q2=5 � 1:02D (7)

and, cos q is given as

cos q ¼ LR

(8)

where, L is the inter-tank separation distance measured from thecenter of the source tank to the edge of the target tank.

Substituting values of all the parameters in equation (1) andcalculating _q00r for various distances, for each of the configurations,one can obtain the safe distance corresponding to the critical heatflux, _q00rc which is generally taken as equal to 4.732 kW/m2 (Danielet al., 2002; Lees, 1995; SFPE Handbook of Fire ProtectionEngineering, 1995).

2.2. Shokri and Beyler’s method

Shokri and Beyler (SFPE Handbook of Fire ProtectionEngineering, 1995) have developed a method for prediction ofradiative heat flux from pool fires. A relationship has been devel-oped to correlate the experimental data of flame radiation to

external targets in terms of average effective emissive power of theflame. The flame is assumed to be a cylindrical blackbody anda homogeneous radiator with an average emissive power.

The radiative heat flux is given as

_q00r ¼ E � F12 (9)

The emissive power is given as

E ¼ 58� 10�0:00823D (10)

where, D is the diameter of pool (m). The view factor (F12) isa function of the target location, flame height and pool diameter;and lies between 0 and 1. The shape factor is determined asfollows:

where,

A ¼ h2þs2þ12s

B ¼ 1þs22s

s ¼ 2LD

h ¼ 2Hf

D

Here, Hf (m) is given by equation (7).Substituting values of all the parameters in equation (9) and

calculating _q00r for various distances, for each of the configurations,one can obtain the safe distance corresponding to_q00rc ¼ 4:732 kW=m2.

2.3. Mudan’s method

Mudan (Mudan, 1984) has also presented a method for esti-mating thermal radiation from pool fires. The thermal radiationintensity to an element outside the flame envelope is given by thefollowing equation:

_q00r ¼ E � F12 � s (12)

The effective emissive power is given by

E ¼ 140 expð�0:12DÞ þ 20½1� expð�0:12DÞ� (13)

F12 can be determined in the same manner as has been done incase of Shokri and Beylermethod. Transmissivity (s) varies between0 and 1 and can be determined as follows (Daniel et al., 2002; Lees,1995).

s ¼ 2:02� ðPw � xÞ�0:09 (14)

where, Pw is partial pressure of water vapour in air (Pa) and x is thepath length (m).

The flame height correlation used in this method is based on thecorrelation of average mean visible flame height, Hf, of turbulentdiffusion flames developed by Thomas (Attalah and Donald, 1970;Mudan, 1984; Thomas, 1963). The flame is assumed to be cylin-drical in shape and Hf is given as

A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 571

H ¼ 42� D�

_m00ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffip!0:61

(15)

fra � g � D

2.4. Modification of point source model

As a result of movement of air in the atmosphere, i.e. in thepresence of wind, the flame does not remain vertical any more. Theflame gets tilted as shown in Fig. 3 and its spread and heat transferfrom the flame to the target tank gets affected by wind velocityvector. The point source model which is applicable to verticalflames under no wind condition, therefore, becomes invalid underwindy conditions. Hence, the model requires modification toaccommodate the effect of wind. The flame tilt (f) is calculated asfollows:

cos f ¼�1 for u* � 11=

ffiffiffiffiffiu*

pfor u* � 1

(16)

where, f is the flame tilt with vertical as shown in Fig. 3 and is givenby the American gas association (AGA) (SFPE Handbook of FireProtection Engineering, 1995).

u* is the dimensionless speed and is given by

u* ¼ u

ðg _m00D=rvÞ1=3(17)

where, g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2), rv is the fuelvapour density (kg/m3) and _m00 is the mass burning rate per unitpool area (kg/m2/s).

The height of the tilted flame can be calculated by the rela-tionship given by Thomas (1963).

Hf ¼ 55� D

_m00

ra �ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffig � D

p!0:67

��u*��0:21

(18a)

Moorhouse has proposed a relationship for tilted flame for LNG(Mudan, 1984) as

Hf ¼ 62� D�

_m00

ra �ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffig � D

p!0:254

��u*��0:044

(18b)

R

D

H

L

Wind

Lcorr

Hf

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram for tank on fire under cross-wind condition.

The corrected inter-tank safe distance, Lcorr, is obtained as

Lcorr ¼ L��Hf

2sin f

�(19)

R ¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi�Hf

2

�2

þL2corr

s(20)

cos q ¼ LcorrR

(21)

Q, Qr, _q00rc and l are calculated as in equation (1). _m00 is calculated by

equation (5). Equations (19)e(21) may be used to estimate the safedistance of separation under cross-wind conditions.

3. Results and discussions

In order to illustrate the usefulness of the three methods asdescribed above and to compare the results obtained from them,a computer code has been developed to calculate safe distance ina tank farm. The set of data that have been used to determine safeinter-tank separation distance under wind and no wind conditionsare as follows:

Case I: gasoline is stored in the tanks. The relevant data for thetanks and the materials are given as follows:

1. D¼ 10 m2. DT¼ 10 m3. H1¼H2¼7 m4. h¼ 15. r¼ 7900 kg/m3

6. cp¼ 510 J/kg/K7. hg¼ 620W/m2/K8. Kg¼ 0.15W/m/K9. QE

00 ¼ 190W/m2 (Solar Radiation Handbook, 2008)

Case II: LNG is stored in the tanks. The relevant data for the tanksand the materials are given as follows:

1. D¼ 10 m2. DT¼ 10 m3. H1¼H2¼7 m4. h¼ 15. r¼ 424 kg/m3

6. cp¼ 2340 J/kg/K7. hg¼ 75W/m2/K8. Kg¼ 0.031 W/m/K9. QE

00 ¼ 190W/m2 (Solar Radiation Handbook, 2008)

Table 1 provides calculated values of various parameters whichhave been obtained using the calculated with the help of computercode. It is found that the flame height calculated by Thomasmethod(Thomas, 1963) is lower than that calculated by Heskestad method

Table 1Rate of burning and flame heights under no wind conditions.

Gasoline LNG

Volume of source tank¼ 549.78 m3 Volume of source tank¼ 549.78 m3

Volume of target tank¼ 549.78 m3 Volume of target tank¼ 549.78 m3

Regression rate¼ 3.8 mm/min Regression rate¼ 6.6 mm/min_m00 ¼ 0:04384 kg=m2=s _m00 ¼ 0:046147 kg=m2=sTotal heat radiated¼ 28,360.986 kW Total heat radiated¼ 31,894.4531 kWFlame height (Heskestad)¼ 18.24 m Flame height (Heskestad)¼ 19.61 mFlame height (Thomas)¼ 13.75 m Flame height (Moorhouse)¼ 151.24 m

Table 2Comparison of values of safe separation distancewith various standards andmodels.

Regulatory bodies Rim to rim distancebetween tanks (for class e I fuel) (m)

NFPA 3.33EPA 30.48BN-DG-C01J plant

layout-storage tanks10e15

API 15Point source model Gasoline: 13.6

LNG: 14.6ShokrieBeyler method Gasoline: 16.25

LNG: 20.35Mudan’s method Gasoline: 12.5

LNG: 15

14.6

, 4.7

261

20.35

, 4.727

15, 4.

7304

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Distance from Rim (m)

Rad

iative H

eat F

lu

x (kW

/m

^2)

Point Source: ; Shokri-Beyler: ; Mudan’s Method:

Fig. 5. Radiative heat flux versus distance of separation from rim in no-wind conditionfor LNG.

A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574572

(Heskestad, 1984) in the case of gasoline. In the case of LNG, flameheight as calculated by Heskestad method provides a lower valuethan that by Moorhouse (Mudan, 1984).

Table 2 shows the calculated results obtained using the abovemethods. Figs. 4 and 5 show the incident heat flux at variousdistances and the safe distance between the tanks when a tank ison fire under no wind condition, for gasoline and LNG, respectively.It is clear that under no wind condition, heat flux decreases with anincrease in distance of separation between the tanks. While Shok-rieBeyler method gives the highest value of safe distance, pointsource and Mudan’s methods give very close values, but lower thanthat given by ShokrieBeyler method. It may be seen from Table 2,that the values of the safe distances as proposed by differentstandards are widely different; the most conservative and thehighest estimate being that given by EPA, while the lowest is that ofNFPA (NFPA-30, 2001, Chap. 4). The value recommended by API isnear to that estimated by point source model and the Mudan’smethod for LNG fire. For gasoline, the values obtained by pointsource model and ShokrieBeyler method are nearer to API value.

13.6,

4.72

2

12.5,

4.731

16.25

, 4.729

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Distance from Rim (m)

Rad

iative h

eat F

lu

x (kW

/m

^2)

Point Source: ; Shokri-Beyler: ; Mudan’s Method:

Fig. 4. Radiative heat flux versus distance of separation from rim in no-wind conditionfor gasoline.

From Table 2, it is observed that LNG storage tanks require largerseparation distance than that for gasoline, in the absence of windeffect. This is obvious since LNG (flash point¼�148.89 �C) is moreflammable than gasoline (flash point¼�42.7 �C).

02

46

810

121416

1820

2224

262830

3234

3638

404244

4648

5052

5456

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Distance from Rim (m)

Rad

iative H

eat F

lu

x (kW

/m

^2)

Wind Speed (m/s): 4 ; 6 ; 8 ;10 ; 12

Fig. 6. Radiative heat flux versus distance of separation from rim in cross-windcondition for gasoline, using modified point source model.

02468

101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance from Rim (m)

Rad

iative H

eat F

lu

x (kW

/m

^2)

Wind Speed (m/s):4 ; 6 ; 8 ; 10

Fig. 7. Radiative heat flux versus distance of separation from rim in cross-windcondition for LNG, using modified point source model.

A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574 573

Figs. 6 and 7 show the variation of incident radiative heat fluxwith distance, while incorporating the wind effect for gasoline andLNG, respectively. Table 3 gives the values of safe distance ascalculated by modified point source model, incorporating the effectof wind on flame.

It is seen from Table 3 that the height of the flame decreaseswith an increase in the wind speed while the tilt angle with respectto vertical axis increases with an increase inwind speed. As a resultof the decrease of flame height, it is expected to have a decrease inthe safe distance between the two tanks. But due to tilting of theflame, the safe distance is increasing up to a wind speed of 8 m/s.Thereafter, it starts decreasing, due to flattening of the flame.

Thus from Figs. 6 and 7, it is clear that the wind speed of 8 m/s isthe critical speed, for which we require maximum safe distance ofseparation. Beyond this speed of the wind the flame becomesalmost flat thus radiating less heat at a particular location.

The square pitch layout of the tanks in the tank farm requiresmore area per tank, than that required for the triangular pitch.However, the tank farm layout in square pitch is better for passagein between the tanks and for smooth maintenance and controlwork.

Table 3Variation of safe distance with wind speed (modified point source model).

Fuel Wind speed (m/s) Flame height (m) Tilt angle (�) Safe distance (m)

Gasoline 4 9.53 60.62 12.236 8.76 66.38 14.428 8.24 69.70 18.52

10 7.86 71.92 17.5912 7.51 73.54 12.71

LNG 4 10.63 54.17 13.556 9.76 61.45 13.608 9.19 65.55 19.36

10 8.77 71.92 14.25

4. Conclusions

The layout of a tank farm for storage of volatile and flammablesubstances is very important. Although somemethods are availablefor determining the minimum distance of separation of one tankfrom the other, these methods do not take into account the effect ofwind on the flame height and fire spread. The point source modelhas been modified to incorporate the effect of wind velocity on theflame height and fire spread.

Shokri and Beyler method gives a higher safe distance incomparison to othermethods under nowind condition. The radiativeheat flux increases under windy condition, the safe distance ofseparation between the tanks will, therefore, also increase. Themodified point source model can be used for determining thisincreased safe distance. However, for wind speed below 4 m/s, thesafe distance of separation estimated by ShokrieBeyler’s methodmay be maintained between the tanks. For wind speed above 8 m/s,safe distance of separation decreases, as the flame gets almost flat-tened at this condition. Thus, modified point sourcemodel, proposedin this paper should be used for tank farm layout, when the windspeed, in general, remains above 4 m/s. It is found that square pitchmay be used for tank farm layout from safety point of view.

Nomenclatures

cp: specific heat of fuel (kJ/kg/K).D: diameter of the pool or source tank (m).DT: target tank diameter (m).E: emissive power (kW/m2).F12: view factor.g: acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2).h0: difference in height of the two tanks (m)¼H1�H2.DHc: heat of combustion of fuel (kJ/kg).Hf: flame length/height (m).hg: convective heat transfer coefficient of fuel (W/m2/K).HR: Hf� h0 (m).DHV: heat of vaporization (kJ/kg).H1: height of source tank (m).H2: height of target tank (m).Kg: thermal conductivity of fuel (W/m/K).L: inter-tank distance measured from the center of source tankto the edge of target tank (m).Lcorr: corrected distance to obtain q (m)._m00: mass burning rate per unit pool area (kg/m2 s).Pw: partial pressure of water vapour in air (Pa).Q: total heat produced by the fire (kW).QE

00: incident radiative heat flux from external source (such as

sun) (kW/m2).Qr: total radiative energy output from the fire (kW)._q00rc : critical value of incident heat flux (taken as 4.732 kW/m2).R: hypotenuse from flame center to target tank top edge (m).RN: regression rate (mm/min).u: wind speed (m/s).u*: dimensionless wind speed as given in equation (17).x: path length (m)¼ (hypotenuse of fire elevation fromground)� (radius of fire).l: fraction of total heat which is radiated.h: efficiency of combustion.f: flame tilt angle from vertical axis (�).q: angle between the normal to the target and the line of sightfrom the target to the point source location.r: density of fuel (kg/m3).ra: air density (kg/m3).rv: fuel vapour density (kg/m3).s: transmissivity of air.

A. Sengupta et al. / Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (2011) 568e574574

References

Attalah, S., & Donald, S. A. (1970). Safe separation distances from liquid fuel fires. InCentral States Section of the Combustion Institute meeting on disaster hazards heldat NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas (pp. 47e56).

Daniel, A., Crowl, J., & Louvar, F. (2002). Chemical process safety e fundamentalswith applications. In B. Goodwin (Ed.) (2nd ed..).Prentice Hall internationalseries.

Digrado, D. B., & Throp, A. G. (1995). The aboveground steel storage tank handbook.Wiley.

Drysdale, D. (1985). An introduction to fire dynamics (2nd ed.). Wiley.Heskestad, G. (1984). Engineering relations for fire plumes. Fire Safety Journal, 7,

25e32.

Lees, F. P. (1995) (2nd ed.).Loss prevention in process industries, Vol. 3 ButterworthHeinemann.

Long, B., & Gardner, B. (2004). Guide to storage tanks and equipment. Wiley.Mudan, S. K. (1984). Thermal radiation hazards from hydrocarbon pool fires.

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 10, 59e80.NFPA-30. (2001). Aboveground tank installation for tank storage. Quincy, Massa-

chusetts: National Fire Protection Association.SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering. (1995) (2nd ed.). Quincy. Massachu-

setts: National Fire Protection Association.Solar radiation handbook. (2008). Typical climatic data for selected radiation stations.

A joint project of Solar Energy Center, MNRE, Indian Metrological Department.Thomas, P. H. (1963). The size of flames from natural fires. In 9th International

combustion symposium. Pittsburgh, PA: Combustion Inst.