vapour & fire control testing of foamglas® pfs system (gen

Walker House, George Street,

Aylesbury, Bucks, HP20 2HU, United Kingdom. Tel: (01296) 399311 Fax (01296) 395669

Web: www.resprotint.co.uk

Vapour & Fire Control Testing

of FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) on LNG and LPG

Final Report

2014

Vapour and Fire Control Testing of FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) on LNG and LPG

RPI Ref: P1262 2 February 2014

Final Report

REVISION RECORD

ISSUE DATE ORIGINATOR REVIEWED APPROVED DESCRIPTION

DRAFT 09.12.13 KM PW Issued for Review

REV 1 - KM PW Revised incorporating client

comments

FINAL 21.02.14 KM PW



Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Falck Emergency Services UK, also trading as Resource Protection International

(RPI), an Independent Specialist Fire Consultants, was appointed by Total Oil

Company to undertake a series of tests. The tests evaluated the effectiveness

of passive firefighting systems, in suppressing LNG and LPG fires and vapours.

Resource Protection International (RPI) was commissioned by Total to

undertake this series of tests in October 2013 and the tests were undertaken at

the Centro Jovellanos, Asturias, Spain, during the week commencing Monday

14 October 2013. The testing team was led by Paul Watkins of RPI.

Four tests were conducted and the results of the tests featuring the use of the

passive material (FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)) were compared to the

baseline data obtained from the reference tests. FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen

1) is effective in concrete LNG containment pits, as demonstrated by the test

results: under the ideal experimental conditions, it was apparent that there was

a significant reduction in radiant heat and a relatively short fire control time.

The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the series of tests that

were conducted by RPI, outlining all observations and subsequent conclusions.

It should be noted that the conclusions may be updated and/or revised further,

following a more detailed analysis of the results.

Based on what has been observed so far, with the test work having been

undertaken, it is possible to make some general statements about the potential

applicability of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) under testing. It should

be noted that any findings of the experiments were based on experimental

conditions; thus, any practice should be adjusted to the varying conditions.

1. LNG and LPG reference tests were performed, in order to compare

the test results with regards to the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen

1) with baseline results.

2. During the continuous discharge of the LNG, the vapour cloud

appeared larger than when the LNG flow was stopped. This occurred

when LNG was released and a fraction of the discharged LNG

flashed directly, without creating the pool. Thus, the LNG vapour

largely derived from the flashed LNG. This did not occur when the

LNG flow was stopped and the only source of the LNG vapour was

the evaporating pool. This was confirmed by observing the size of

the white vapour cloud during both phases.

3. FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was effective in reducing radiant

heat flux. The observation and experiment results demonstrate that

the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) controls fire gradually after

ignition.

4. With regards to FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1), only the top of

the cubes were damaged. It was also observed that the bottom

layer of the polyethylene green bags was protected.

5. FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) provided a consistent coverage,

which helped to reduce the flame size of the LNG and LPG and

ensured that the fire was in a steady state within a short space of

time. This result can be explained by the fact that the burning rate

was significantly lessened by reducing the exposed area of the LNG

or LPG pool.



Final Report

6. FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) does not depend on any

additional procedure or supplemental application during the fire.



Final Report

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 3

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 6

2 THE TEST SITE AND INSTRUMENTATIONS .......................................... 8

2.1 LNG test pit ................................................................................. 8

2.2 LPG test pan and delivery system ................................................... 9

2.3 Heat Flux Gauges ....................................................................... 11

2.4 Cooling system ........................................................................... 12

2.5 Gas Detection ............................................................................ 12

2.6 Meteorological station ................................................................. 13

2.7 Data acquisition.......................................................................... 13

2.8 Visual Records ............................................................................ 14

2.9 Other Logistics ........................................................................... 14

3 TEST PROGRAMME ........................................................................ 15

3.1 Reference tests .......................................................................... 15

3.2 FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) tests ......................................... 15

4 TEST PROCEDURE ......................................................................... 15

4.1 Procedure of reference tests ........................................................ 16

4.2 Procedure of FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) tests ...................... 16

5 THE EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND RESULTS ........................................ 18

5.1 Test 1: LNG reference test-1 ........................................................ 18

5.2 Test 2: LNG test using FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) ................ 23

5.3 Test 3: LPG reference test ........................................................... 27

5.4 Test 4: LPG Test using FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) ................ 31

6 COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH THE REFERENCE TESTS .................. 34

6.1 Test 2:LNG test incorporating the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) 34

6.2 Test 4: LPG test incorporating the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) 37

7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 39



Final Report

1 INTRODUCTION

The release of flammable gases, such as Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) or

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), may result in the formation of a flammable

vapour cloud that is often dense, depending on the ambient conditions

(particularly wind speed and direction). If this cloud encounters a source of

ignition within the surrounding environment, a fire may occur and this might

have catastrophic consequences for nearby facilities. The characteristics of the

resulting fire are dependent upon the release conditions and the environment

into which the vapours are released. Various scenarios may occur, including

flash fires, fireballs, pool or jet fires or even vapour cloud explosions, if the

cloud is released into a congested area.

LNG and LPG pool fires emit high thermal radiation, which may prevent

firefighters approaching and extinguishing the fire. Expansion foams and dry

chemicals are the conventional methods used to control and suppress vapour

clouds and fire resultant from LNG and LPG. Expansion foams are used to

reduce radiant heat to a level where the LNG/LPG pool fires are controlled, thus

allowing firefighters to approach and extinguish the fire, using dry chemicals.

Applying expansion foam to the surface of LNG can reduce radiant heat from a

fire: this is because the water drained from the foam forms a frozen layer,

which acts as an insulation blanket, reduces the evaporation rate and

subsequently decreases radiant heat. The application of these methods

depends on a number of factors, such as foam application rate, the location of

the generator and the LNG/LPG containment design. Recently, there have been

a number of studies conducted, as attempts to fill the gaps increased the need

for LNG/LPG field experiments involving expansion foams.

Various materials, such as the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (FOAMGLAS® is a

registered trademark of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation in the United States

and various other countries), have been introduced in the last decade, in order

to suppress fires resulting from flammable gases and reduce the effect of

radiant heat on nearby objects by reducing the size of the fire. In addition, the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System is free of the disadvantages associated with

traditional fire-fighting foams and thus can help overcome the various

difficulties that fire fighters face in using high expansion foam, such as:

1. The requirement of large quantities of water, foam and dry chemicals to

ensure complete control and extinguishment of large LNG/LPG fires.

2. The necessity for the continuous application of high expansion foam, as

the foam blanket can be weakened by fire and it may be necessary to

replace it with a new one.

FOAMGLAS® PFS System is a non-flammable ‘dry foam’ material that acts as a

floating barrier in insulating the surface of a burning liquid. The density of

FOAMGLAS® PFS System is less than one third of the density of LNG (115

kg/m3 (+/-15%)) and it has a completely closed cell structure, in order to

prevent the absorption of LNG/LPG during contact. FOAMGLAS® PFS System

can be easily arranged in the shape of the containment of the spill.

The work undertaken in this report was performed by Resource Protection

International (RPI). Data was recorded, with regards to investigating the

performance of FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in suppressing and

controlling the fires of LNG/LPG. To date, relatively few experimental

investigations have been undertaken, particularly in terms of LPG fire control.

During the week commencing Monday 14 October 2013, RPI carried out a

programme of tests, which were sponsored by Total Oil Company. The tests

were performed at Centro Jovellanos, Asturias, Spain.



Final Report

The principal objectives of the experimental programme, as outlined in this

report, were to investigate the effectiveness of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System

(Gen 1) on the reduction of radiant heat flux pertaining to LNG/LPG pool fires.

There was also a further aim to investigate the effectiveness of the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in suppressing the evolution of vapour from

pools of the aforementioned hydrocarbons. Specifically, the purpose of the

experiments was to obtain data on LNG/LPG fires and vapours, including

vapour thermal radiative output and fire size, in terms of the use of the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1).

In order to achieve the above objectives, four tests were conducted; in which

radiant was measured using four TG-9000-9F radiometers, manufactured by

Vatell. Vapour concentration was measured using Crowcon Gasman gas

detectors calibrated for methane (for the LNG tests) and propane (for the LPG

tests). In addition, weather conditions, including wind speed, wind direction,

temperature and humidity, were continuously measured throughout the

duration of the tests.

The Centro Jovellanos (CJ) industrial/marine fire training facility was used as a

base for the tests. The CJ facility LNG pit (with dimensions of 2m x 2m x 1.2m

depth) was used for the LNG tests, while a specially fabricated stainless steel

pan, with delivery system, was used for the LPG tests. The dimensions of the

pan were 1m x 1m x 0.6m depth.

Measurements of radiant heat without use of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System

(Gen 1) were recorded for both LNG and LPG, in order to compare the results

with the measurements gained when the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

was used. General observations and the test results clearly indicated a

reduction in radiant heat when the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was

used, which was evident by a decrease in flame size.

The purpose of this report is to deliver the results of the experiment and any

observations. RPI reserve the right to modify the contents of the report, based

on the on-going analysis of the test results.



Final Report

2 THE TEST SITE AND INSTRUMENTATIONS

The tests were carried out at Centro Jovellanos, Asturias, Spain. The test site

comprised of an LNG storage facility, an LNG release system and an LNG test

pit, into which the LNG was discharged. The experiments were monitored from

a control room located to the south of the LNG test pit, approximately 100m

from the LNG release point. All sited instrumentation was wired back to the

control room, using appropriate cables. The data generated during the tests

were recorded on a computer, which was also located in the control room.

During the tests, all personnel, with the exception of look-outs, were positioned

near the control room.

Figure 1: The Test Site at Centro Jovellanos, Asturias, Spain

Figure 2: LNG Storage and Delivery System

2.1 LNG test pit

A diagram of the LNG pool fire test pit is shown in Figure 3: the dimensions of

the pit were 2m x 2m x 1.2m depth. The pit was constructed from concrete and

was reinforced with weld mesh and rebar.

LNG Test

Pit

LNG storage

Vessel

Supply line



Final Report

Figure 3: The LNG Test Pit

2.2 LPG test pan and delivery system

A square stainless steel pan was used for the LPG tests, as shown in Figures 4

and 5 below. The dimensions of the pan were 1m x 1m x 0.6m depth. The LPG

was delivered to the test pan using a special delivery system that was

fabricated particularly for this purpose, as shown in Figure 6. Two LPG cylinders

(12.5kg) were emptied into the test pan at the same time and were easily

replaced, in order to achieve the desired level of LPG liquid. Each cylinder outlet

pipe was fitted with a manually operated valve and the outlets from the two

cylinders were manifolded together, into a single long discharge pipe. The

discharge pipe was mounted horizontally, at a height of about 0.5 m above

ground, and was orientated towards the LPG test pan.

Figure 4: LPG Test Pan

1m high (removable) safety fence around the pit

Walls 150mm

thick, reinforced with weld mesh and RE-BAR

Grade

150mm

LNG Pit 2m x 2m x 1.2m deep



Final Report

1 m

0.6

m1

m

1 m

LPG Test Pan

LPG Test Pan

Figure 5: LPG Test Pan

Figure 6: LPG Delivery System



Final Report

2.3 Heat Flux Gauges

During the experiments, four heat-flux gauges were used to measure the rate

of heat flux from the fire. The heat flux gauge used was type TG9000-9F,

manufactured by the Vatell Corporation (as seen in Figure 7). The gauges are

water cooled, when constructed as a radiometer: convective heat flux is

blocked from reaching the sensor by a window: this allows radiation only to be

measured. This type of gauge has a maximum operating temperature of 200°C,

regardless of the heat flux applied. The heat flux gauges had a 120° field of

view and were tilted downwards, at an angle of 12o below the horizontal line,

so that they pointed towards the base of the flame: this allowed the

approximate maximum radiant heat flux at each location to be recorded.

In the experiments, the gauges were calibrated in accordance with the

manufacturer’s recommendations and instructions and the output of the heat-

flux gauge was measured in mVs. The gauge is designed to provide an

approximate output signal of 10 mV, when exposed to the specified heat flux

range. A conversion factor was obtained, so that the measured voltages were

converted to ‘true’ heat flux, in W/cm².

Each heat flux gauge was mounted on a tripod stand located at height of 1.2m

above the base of the flame. The gauges were placed at the corners of the LNG

pit, at a distance of 5m from the pit. With regards to the LPG tests, two gauges

were used and were located at a distance of 2m away from two sides of the

test pan. The gauges were water-cooled, in order to avoid damaging them.

Before each of the tests, all cables from the heat flux gauges to the data

loggers and from the data loggers to the computers were checked, as was the

water cooling system. The heat flux gauges were cleaned, as they were

exposed to vapour clouds, smoke and dry chemicals on a number of occasions.

The results of the tests were analysed, in order to obtain measurements of

radiant heat flux, using the calibration data supplied with each of the heat flux

gauges. The results obtained confirmed that there was no deterioration of the

heat flux gauges, in terms of them being exposed to dry chemicals or vapour

clouds.

Figure 7: Heat Flux Gauge Type TG9000-9F



Final Report

2.4 Cooling system

Water cooling was recommended to prevent damage to the heat-flux gauges,

in the event of them being exposed to fire for long periods of time. A water

cooling system was provided, consisting of two cooling water pumps, rubber

tubes and two water tanks. The water tanks and pumps were located close to

the control room, approximately 100m from the LNG pit/LPG pan, and the

rubber tubes close to the pit were protected by thermal protective material.

2.5 Gas Detection

There are two types of gas detectors that may have been used to measure LNG

and LPG gas concentration in the air during the experiment: point gas detectors

and portable gas detectors. Point gas detectors, such as the ’Searchpoint

Optima Plus’ model, are designed for industrial application, in terms of the

detection of any methane leaks and the concentration of the gas. The use of

this type of detector involves suction of the gas by applying a vacuum into the

cell of the gas detector. While it was possible to install the gas detector directly

within the field for the experiment, this configuration is not flexible, due to the

size and the weight of this type of gas detector. The movement of LNG/LPG

vapour dispersion is very dynamic, depending on wind speed and direction;

thus, it is important to set up the gas detector in order to ensure easy

relocation. As a result, it is recommended that all gas detectors are placed

together, with the measurement cells connected with tubes of at least 30m in

length. The tubes should also be of the same type and length, in order to

increase accuracy. This type of gas detector is relatively expensive and the set-

up is complicated. However, an advantage is that the concentration profile can

be easily obtained in the form of (time/concentration).

The second type of gas detector is the portable gas detector, and it was this

type that was used in the experiments. The application of portable gas

detectors includes measuring gas concentration at certain points where the

point gas detectors are not available, in addition to ensuring the safety of the

person conducting the experiment. Portable gas detectors have the capability

to store data, using their built-in memory. The disadvantages of this type of

detector are that the power is disconnected when the reading reaches over-

range, in order to avoid damage to the sensor, and the reading is produced in

the form of peaks.

Fourteen gas detectors were used to investigate the effectiveness of

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in suppressing the evolution of vapour from

the LNG and LPG pools. The detectors used were Crowcon Gasman personal

gas detectors, as shown in Figure 8, and were mounted on pole stands. They

were located in the downwind direction of the LNG pit/LPG pan, at various

distances. The vapours were measured with and without the use of




Final Report

Figure 8: Crowcon Gasman Gas Detector

2.6 Meteorological station

Ambient conditions during the tests, particularly wind-speed, may have had an

effect on the measurement of heat flux and the evaporation rate of LNG/LPG;

thus, a meteorological station was used to monitor such conditions. Wind-speed

and direction, humidity, barometric pressure and temperature were measured.

The temperature and humidity sensors and the 3-cup anemometer, featuring a

wind vane, were positioned 1.5m above ground.

Figure 9: The Meteorological Station

2.7 Data acquisition

Radiant heat flux was one of the most important measurements obtained from

the pool-fire tests. For all experiments, data were recorded using the data

logger MS6D, as shown in Figure 10. Two data loggers were used and each was

connected to two heat-flux gauges. The voltage output from each test was

measured in millivolts (mVs) and the conversion factor for the sensor was

applied, in order to yield heat flux in W/cm2. The data loggers for each of the



Final Report

heat flux gauges were located as close to the gauges as possible and were

covered with a protective lid, in order to shield them from the flames. The

signal from the data loggers was transmitted to the control room by Ethernet

cables, which were protected by thermal resistant sleeves where they were

likely to be exposed to fire or radiant heat.

Figure 10: Data Logger MS6D

2.8 Visual Records

Two digital video cameras were used to produce visual recordings of the tests.

The cameras were positioned to the side and either upwind or downwind of the

test pit/pan, in order to provide different views, in accordance with the

requirements of each test. These cameras can be linked to a computer, so that

individual frames may be downloaded for analysis.

2.9 Other Logistics

Cables

Cables were required for the heat flux gauges and data and power supply and it

is estimated that 400m of cable was used.

Tripods

Tripods were utilised to position heat flux gauges, gas detectors and the

weather station and it is estimated that twelve tripods were used.

Fire Resistance Insulation

This was required to protect the cables, wires and water cooling tubes close to

the LNG pit and the LPG pan. Fire resistant insulation sleeves were used.



Final Report

3 TEST PROGRAMME

The total experimental programme consisted of four individual tests. Radiant

heat flux and the vapour concentration of the LNG and LPG pools were

measured before and after the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was applied.

Vapour concentration (%LEL) was measured downwind, using Crowcon Gasman

detectors placed at various distances from the LNG test pit and the LPG test

pan. The distances were subject to change, depending on the direction of the

wind. The gauges were placed at the corners of the LNG pit, at a distance of

5m from the pit. With regards to the LPG tests, two gauges were used and

were located at a distance of 2m away from two sides of the test pan.

3.1 Reference tests

As the main aim of the experimental programme was to evaluate the

performance of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in suppressing fire

pertaining to LNG and LPG fuels, it was also necessary to conduct tests without

the incorporation of this system (reference tests), in order to collect baseline

data that could be compared against the measurements taken when the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was used. Thus, two reference tests were

conducted: one for the LNG and one for the LPG. A further reference test for

the LNG was conducted in the LPG pan, in order to compare the radiant heat

associated with LNG with that of the LPG. In terms of the concentration of the

vapour cloud, this was measured after the discharge of the LNG/LPG liquid.

The fuel was then ignited and radiant heat flux was measured.

3.2 FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) tests

Two FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) tests were performed: the LPG test was

conducted in the LPG pan and the LNG test was conducted in the LNG pit. In

both tests, the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was placed into the test

pit/pan and vapour concentration was measured, upon the discharge of the

LPG/LNG. The fuel was then ignited and radiant heat flux measured. The fire

was extinguished using dry powder.

Test

No. Type of Test Product

LNG Tests

1

Measured radiant heat flux and vapour

concentration without product (LNG reference

test-1) in the LNG test pit.

None

2 Measured vapour concentration and heat flux

with the use of the product.

FOAMGLAS® PFS

System (Gen 1)

LPG Tests

3 Measured heat flux and vapour concentration

without the use of the product. None

4 Measured vapour concentration and heat flux

with the use of the product.

FOAMGLAS® PFS

System (Gen 1)

4 TEST PROCEDURE

Radiant heat flux from the LNG/LPG pool fires, with and without the use of the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1), was recorded. Vapour concentration

measurements for the LNG/LPG fuels were also taken before and after

application of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1).

With regards to the tests conducted in the LNG pit, four heat flux gauges were

placed at the corners of the LNG pit and seven gas detectors were placed close



Final Report

to the pit, in order to measure vapour concentration. The detectors were

located at various distances, in a downwind direction, to cover the majority of

the area where the vapour cloud was dispersed. For the LPG tests, two heat

flux gauges and six gas detectors were used and were placed close to the LPG

pan. Weather conditions were recorded for all tests. Two camcorders were used

to record the events of the tests and the size of the flames from the fires.

The test procedures are set out below.

4.1 Procedure of reference tests

All equipment was checked, ensuring that the heat flux gauges were located at

a distance of 5m from the edge of the LNG test pit and 2m from the LPG pan,

in the case of LPG tests. Atmospheric conditions were recorded, the data-

loggers were checked (for recording data) and the cooling system was ready.

The cooling pumps were activated and it was ensured that the water flowed

through the heat-flux gauges at the minimum required flow rate of

60mL/minute.

The gas detectors were switched on.

The data loggers began to record data and baseline data.

For the LNG test, the fuel was released until there was a 750 kg ≈ 1.5 m3 pool

of fuel in the test pit.

For the LPG test, the fuel was released until there was a 37.5kg (0.7 m3) pool

of fuel in the test pan.

Measurements of vapour concentration (%LEL) were taken downwind for 15 to

20 minutes.

The gas detectors were moved to a safe area.

The LNG or LPG was ignited and the resulting fire was allowed to achieve

steady burning conditions.

Radiant heat flux data were collected for 5 to 15 minutes.

The fire was extinguished.

A further 3 minutes of data were collected after the final extinguishment of the

fire.

The data loggers were then switched off.

4.2 Procedure of FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) tests

The test began with the placement of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in

the LNG test pit or the LPG test pan, when the test pit/pan was completely

empty.

All equipment was checked, ensuring that the atmospheric conditions were

being recorded and that the data loggers were ready to record the data. The

heat-flux gauges were located at the designated distances from the edge of the

test pit or the test pan and the gas detectors were ready.

The gas detectors were switched on.

Data logging began and 3 minutes of baseline data were collected.

In terms of the LNG, the fuel was released on top of the FOAMGLAS® PFS

System (Gen 1) layer, until there was a 750 kg ≈ 1.5 m3 pool of fuel in the pit.

For the LPG, the fuel was released on top of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen

1) layer until there is a 37.5 kg (0.7 m3) pool of fuel in the pan.

Measurements of vapour concentration (%LEL) were taken downwind.

The measurement continued for a time period of at least 15 minutes.

The gas detectors were moved to a safe area.

The LNG or LPG was ignited and time allowed for the resulting fire to achieve

steady burning conditions.

Radiant heat flux data was recorded for at least 30 minutes.

The final step was the extinguishing of the pool fire after being controlled (or

suppressed) by the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1). This step was completed



Final Report

by applying dry chemical for a few seconds, until the pool fire was completely

extinguished.

A further 3 minutes of data were collected after the final extinguishment of the

fire. The data loggers were then switched off.



Final Report

5 THE EXPERIMENTAL WORK AND RESULTS

A summary of each of the tests is provided below. There are notes on each

individual test, along with a schematic diagram of the test set-up and details of

any test in which the set-up or procedure differed. The radiant heat flux data

were analysed using the calibrations supplied by the manufacturer and the

measured data were converted into radiant heat flux measurements using the

calibration parameters provided for each of the heat flux gauges. The

concentration of the vapour taken into account was the peak point, the highest

concentration measured, over measurement prior to ignition. The charts below

show the heat flux measured by each of the gauges. Further data relating to

flame size and behaviour were produced through an analysis of the video

records.

5.1 Test 1: LNG reference test-1

The test began with the discharge of a certain quantity (750 kg ≈ 1.5 m3) of

LNG liquid into the pit, forming a depth of approximately 6 inches of LNG liquid

(this assumption is based upon previous preparatory tests and takes into

account the initial boiled-off quantity of LNG liquid). Gas detectors were place

as shown in Figure 11. Gas concentration was measured for approximately 22

minutes. The gas detectors were then removed and the LNG was ignited, in

order to measure radiant heat flux for a period of approximately 6 minutes.

The fire was then extinguished, using dry chemical. The table below features

the timeline of the test.

Tim (min) Action

0:00 Data logging began

01:00 Cooling pumps started

03:00 Gas detectors switched on

05:00 LNG valve opened and 750kg of LNG liquid discharged into the pit

17:00 LNG valve closed

27:00 Gas detectors moved to a safe place

30:00 LNG ignited

36:00 The fire was extinguished, using a dry chemical

Weather conditions were constantly measured for the duration of the test and

the average values for these are shown in the table below.

Wind Speed

(m/s) Wind Direction

Temperature

(oC)

Humidity

(%)

0 to 0.4 South 16.2 95

The gas detectors were placed as shown in the diagram below. As soon as the

LNG liquid touched the concrete base of the pit, it vaporised. A visible white

condensate cloud was then produced, as the very cold vapour condensed the

water content in the air. The white vapour cloud was observed to disperse in all

directions, as a result of the very low wind speed. White cloud formation is



Final Report

largely dependent upon the humidity of the ambient air, so it may or may not

represent the actual size of an LNG cloud. After several minutes, the water

spray curtains were turned on, in order to disperse the cloud, while the LNG

continued to be released into the test pit. Figure 12 below features a

photograph depicting the test.

B

AE

C

D G

F4m

2m

6m

2m

2m

2m

The Test Pit

2x2m

Figure 11: Diagram showing the layout of the gas detectors for test 1

(the reference test-1)

Figure 12: LNG is released into the test pit and gas concentration is

measured



Final Report

The figure below shows the LEL % peak points.

Figure 13: Gas detector measurements for the LNG reference test-1

(test 1)

The diagram below shows the layout of the radiometers.

The Test Pit

2x2m

5m

5m

5m

5m

5m

5m

R2D1

R1D1 R1D2

R2D2

D2D1

LNG

Storage

Tank

PC

LNG Discharge Line

R1D1

R2D1

R1D2

R2D2

Radiometers

D1

D2Dataloggers

N

Figure 14: Layout of Equipment for the measuring of radiant heat flux

60.7

45.48 50.99

64.49

42.11 46.1 47.25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B C D E F G

Gas

co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

%LE

L)

Gas detectors



Final Report

Figure 16 below shows the radiant heat flux measurements and it is apparent

that the highest measurement was recorded by radiometer R2D1: this was due

to changing wind conditions (speed and direction), as the wind-speed in Test 1

(the reference test) was between 0 to 0.4 m/s towards the south. Although

wind speed was relatively low, it was demonstrated that the wind does have a

bearing on the radiant heat flux received by the radiometers: it causes the

flame to change position and thus affects the distance between the flame and

the radiometer. This subsequently resulted in a lower surface emissive power

and view factor, which, in turn, had an effect on the radiant heat flux received

by the radiometer.

As can be seen in the photograph below, the flame was almost vertical, due to

the low wind speed. The height of the flame was less than 10m.

Figure 15: Radiant heat being measured during the LNG pool fire

reference test (test 1)



Final Report

Figure 16: Radiant heat measurement for test 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2 4 6 8

Rad

ian

t H

eat

Flu

x (

kW

/m

2)

Time (min)

R1 D1 R2 D1 R1 D2 R2 D2



Final Report

5.2 Test 2: LNG test using FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was placed into the LNG pit, as

demonstrated in Figure 17. A quantity (750 kg ≈ 1.5 m3) of LNG liquid was

discharged into the pit and gas concentration measured for 18 minutes, upon

the release of the LNG. The LNG was then ignited and radiant heat flux was

measured for 22 minutes, at a distance of 5m from the pit. The radiometers

were then moved to a distance of 2m from the pit and radiant heat flux

recorded for a further 16 minutes.

The table below displays the timeline of the test:

Tim (min) Action




06:00 LNG valve opened, in order to discharge 1.5 m3 of LNG

liquid into the pit

14:00 LNG valve closed


26:00 LNG ignited

38:00 Radiometers moved 2m away from the test pit

54:00 The fire was extinguished using a dry chemical

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was placed in the LNG pit, as seen in the

photograph below: the first layer comprised of 9x8 blocks, while the second

layer was about 10% of the bottom layer (5x2 blocks).

Figure 17: FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)



Final Report

The average values of the weather conditions were as follows:

Wind Speed

(m/s) Wind Direction

Temperature

(oC) Humidity (%)

0 to 1 WNW to N 18 78

In this test, six gas detectors were used (A, B, C, D, E and G), with their layout

as in Figure 18 below. The gas concentration recorded varied between the

detectors, in accordance with changes in wind direction.

B

A

E

C

D

G

4m

The Test Pit

2x2m1m

1m

1m

1m

2m

Figure 18: Diagram showing the layout of gas detectors for LNG

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) test (standard configuration)

Figure 19: LNG is released into the test pit and gas concentration is

measured



Final Report

Figure 20: Measurements of the gas detectors for the LNG FOAMGLAS®

PFS System (Gen 1)

Figure 21 shows the size of the LNG flame, which was considerably decreased,

while Figure 22 highlights the variation in radiant heat flux over time.

Figure 21: The LNG flame 15 minutes after ignition

41.88

57.84

50.49

43.48 42.22

32.43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B C D E G

Gas

co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

% L

EL)

Gas detectors



Final Report

Figure 22: Heat flux measurements pertaining to the use of FOAMGLAS® PFS

System (Gen 1)

Figure 23 shows the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1), after the fire was

extinguished by dry chemical.

Figure 23: shows the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) after the fire

was extinguished, using a dry chemical.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Rad

ian

t H

eat

Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

Time (min)

R1 D1 R2 D1 R1 D2 R2 D2

Radiometers moved to 2m



Final Report

5.3 Test 3: LPG reference test

The LPG tests were performed in a specially fabricated pan, with delivery

system. The pan measured 1m x 1m x 0.6m depth and the quantity of LPG

used in each test was about (37.5 kg ≈ 0.07m3). Two radiometers (R1 D1 and

R2 D1) were used to measure radiant heat flux, and these were positioned as

in the diagram below. LPG was measured using five Crowcon Gasman gas

detectors calibrated for propane. The locations of the gas detectors and

radiometers were as shown in the diagrams below.

The detectors are at 0.2m distance

from the pan and 0.7m height

1 x 1 Steel Pan AC

B

D

E

Figure 24: Layout of the gas detectors (LPG reference test).

2m

2m

R2 D1

R1 D1

1 x 1 Steel

Pan

N

Figure 25: Layout of the radiometers (LPG reference test)



Final Report

A quantity of LPG (37.5 kg ≈ 0.07m3) was discharged into the test pan, and

gas concentration was measured for about 19 minutes. The LPG was then

ignited and radiant heat flux was measured for about 8 minutes, at which point

the LPG was consumed and the fire burnt out.

The table below shows the timeline of the test

Tim (min) Action




09:00 LPG valve opened

24:00 LPG valve closed


31:00 LPG ignited

38:00 LPG consumed and fire self-extinguished

Three LPG cylinders were used to form the LPG liquid pool, as seen in the

photograph below.

Figure 26: LPG discharged into the test pan

Average weather conditions during the test were as follows:

Wind Speed

(m/s)

Wind

Direction

Temperature

(oC)

Humidity

(%)

1 S to SSW 20 93



Final Report

The figure below shows the gas concentration measurements for the LPG

reference test:

Figure 27: Gas concentration measurements for the LPG

reference test

Figure 28 displays the LPG flame from the LPG reference test.

Figure 28: LPG flame (reference test)

Figure 29 below shows the variation in radiant heat flux. Looking at the figure,

it is apparent that the measurements from radiometer R1 D1 were higher than

25

40.74 40.53 41.89

48.63

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B C D E

Gas

co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

% L

EL)

Gas detectors



Final Report

those from radiometer R2 D1. This was due to the wind blowing in a southerly

direction, tilting the flame towards radiometer R1 D1.

Figure 29: The radiant heat measurement for LPG reference test.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 2 4 6 8 10

Rad

ian

t H

eat

Flu

x (k

W/m

2)

Time (min)

R1 D1 R2 D1



Final Report

5.4 Test 4: LPG Test using FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

The FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was placed in the test pan, as seen in

Figure 30, and 37.5kg of LPG liquid was discharged into the pan. Gas

concentration was measured for 14 minutes, and a spot measurement of 40%

LEL was undertaken. The LPG was then ignited and radiant heat was measured

for 64 minutes. The gas detectors location was as shown in the diagram below

and the radiometers were placed as in the LPG reference test.

The table below shows the timeline of the test

Tim (min) Action




09:00 LPG valve opened

29:00 LPG valve closed


31:00 LPG ignited

95:00 Data logging ceased

134:00 Fire was extinguished, using water

Figure 30: FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) placed in the LPG

test pan



Final Report

1 x 1 Steel

PanA

C

B

D

E

Detectors A, B and D were at

0.2m from the pan and at 0.7m

height

Detector E was on the ground

N

1m

Figure 31: Layout of gas detectors for FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

test

Average weather conditions during the test were as follows:

Wind Speed

(m/s)

Wind

Direction

Temperature

(oC)

Humidity

(%)

1 S to SSE 20 91

Figure 32: Gas concentration measurements for the LPG test

(FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

36.35

50.44

149.95

70.15

87.13

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

A B C D E

LPG

vap

ou

r co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

% L

EL)

Gas detectors



Final Report

Figure 33: LPG flame 6 minutes after ignition

Figure 34: Radiant heat flux measurements for the LPG test

incorporating FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Rad

ian

t H

eat

Flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

Time (min)

R1 D1 R2 D1



Final Report

6 COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH THE REFERENCE TESTS

A total of four experiments were conducted, in order to determine the

effectiveness of the passive firefighting material (FOAMGLAS® PFS System

(Gen 1)) in suppressing LNG and LPG fires and vapours. All the tests were

conducted in the LNG firefighting training facility at Centro Jovellanos, Asturias,

Spain. For each LNG test, the LNG was discharged into a concrete pit; thus,

LNG vapour was produced, as a result of the phenomenon of vapourisation.

With regards to the LPG test, the LPG was discharged into a steel pan specially

manufactured for this purpose. The experiments also focused on the effects of

the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) on LNG/LPG flame length; thus, all

experiments were recorded, using digital cameras.

The changes in LNG/LPG radiant heat were the main focus of these

experiments. Therefore, radiant heat flux was measured at various distances

from the test pit/pan. In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1), the data collected from the tests were

compared to the baseline data from the reference tests. This section outlines

the comparison of the tests conducted with and without the use of


6.1 Test 2:LNG test incorporating the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen

1)

In tests 1 and 2, the LNG was continuously released from the LNG storage tank

into the test pit, through an insulated discharge line, until there was an

approximate 750 kg ≈ 1.5 m3 pool of fuel in the test pit. Initially, the LNG was

in the form of a vapour, until the discharge line was completely cooled down.

The gas detectors in test 2 were closer to the test pit than in test 1, as shown

in the previous section. Vapour produced from the evaporation of the fuel pool

dispersed downwind, and vapour cloud and cloud concentrations were

measured at various points, using gas detectors. The unit of measurement was

% LEL (note that 100% LEL is equal to a 5% v/v methane concentration in the

air).

An analysis was conducted, in order to study the effect of the FOAMGLAS® PFS

System (Gen 1) on the reduction of radiant heat pertaining to LNG fires. The

data collected from the four radiometers in tests 1 and 2 were averaged and

compared, as shown in Figure 35. This figure shows how, during the first few

seconds of the ignition of the LNG in test 2, radiant heat flux was at almost the

same level as in the reference test: this was due to the fact that the LNG

vapours that were already in the pit burned during this period. However, after 5

minutes, the flame visible above the pit became stable, remaining not much

higher than 4-5 feet above the pit. Thus, heat radiation came only from this

part of the fire. After 5 minutes, radiant heat flux for test 2 became stable, at

around 1 kW/m2; this infers an approximate radiant heat reduction of 80%,

when compared to average radiant heat flux in the reference test.



Final Report

Figure 35: Comparison of radiant heat flux measurements in test

2 and test 1

The figure below shows a comparison of the height of the flame in tests 1 and

2.

Figure 36: Comparison of LNG flame size in test 2 and test 1

During the reference test experiment, average wind speed was considerably

low (almost 0 m/s), while, in test 2, average wind speed was between 0 and 1

m/s, in a northerly direction. Figure 37 shows the comparison of the results of

test 1 (the reference test) and test 2 (using the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen

1)). The high concentration reading in test 2 was largely due to low wind speed

and the short distance between the test pit and the gas detectors. In test 1,

the LNG steadily spread out from the test pit in all directions, while, in test 2,

the LNG largely travelled towards detector B. This explains the high

measurements recorded by detector B in test 2.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Rad

ian

t h

eat

flu

x (k

W/m

2 )

Time (min)

LNG reference test FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)



Final Report

Despite the high LNG measurements recorded by the gas detectors in test 2, it

was observed that the size of the vapour cloud, when using the FOAMGLAS®

PFS System (Gen 1), was considerably less than the size of the vapour cloud in

the reference test. This may have been due to the fact that the spaces between

the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) units were the only avenue by which the

LNG vapour could disperse into the atmosphere. In the reference test, vapours

were generated and then moved upwards, over the entire surface area of the

LNG pool. The FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) on the surface of the LNG pool

in test 2 blocked the flow of the vapour, with such vapours flowing through the

spaces between units of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1).

Figure 37: Comparison of gas concentration measurements in test 2

and test 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

A B C D E G

Gas

co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

% L

EL)

Gas detectors

Without Foamglas With Foamglass



Final Report

6.2 Test 4: LPG test incorporating the FOAMGLAS® PFS System

(Gen 1)

During the LPG experiments, it was observed that the fire control time was

significantly short; within a few seconds of ignition, the height of the flame was

reduced by approximately 90%. The flame above the test pan became stable

within a few seconds and remained not much higher than two feet. In addition,

the LPG flame did not cover the whole surface area of the test pan. The fire

lasted for about two hours, and was then extinguished using water. In terms of

the unmitigated LPG, the fire lasted for only seven minutes for the same

quantity of LPG and under similar weather conditions. It should be noted that

the lower portion of the polyethylene bags were not completely burned: only

the exposed outer portion of the units of the FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

were discoloured and damaged.

Figure 38 below shows the significant reduction in radiant heat flux: there was

an approximate 90% reduction in this, when compared to the LPG reference

test.

Figure 38: Comparison of radiant heat flux measurements in test 3 and

test 4

Figure 39: Comparison of LPG flame size in test 3 and test 4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Rad

ian

t h

eat

flu

x (k

W/m

2)

Time (min)

Reference Test FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)



Final Report

Gas detectors were placed so that the LPG vapours could be measured. LPG

vapour, at atmospheric pressure and temperature, is 1.5 to 2 times heavier

than air and would normally settle at ground level. The LPG vapours were not

visible, however, and thus vapour cloud size could not be evaluated. In test 6,

the gas detectors were placed relatively close to the LPG test pan and wind

speed was slightly higher than in the reference test.

LPG vapour concentration data were utilised, in order to assess the

effectiveness of FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in suppressing the dispersion

of LPG vapour. The comparison was undertaken by comparing the maximum

value of each gas detector, and Figure 40 below outlines the comparison of the

vapour concentration measurements of test 6 and the LPG reference test.

Figure 40: Comparison of gas concentration measurements in test 3

and test 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

A B C D E

Gas

co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

% L

EL)

Gas detectors

Without Foamglas With Foamglas



Final Report

7 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Four tests were conducted, in order to investigate the effectiveness of LNG and

LPG dispersion and pool fire suppression methodology incorporating the use of

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1). The FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) was

placed in the LNG test pit or the LPG test pan, into which a certain quantity of

LNG or LPG was discharged. The vapour concentration of LNG/LPG was

measured for a period of time and then the fuel was ignited, in order to allow

for the measurement of radiant heat flux. The principal instruments used in the

series of tests outlined in this report were designed to measure radiant heat

flux from the LNG and LPG pool fires and the gas concentration of LNG/LPG. In

addition, photographic and meteorological data were obtained.

Radiant heat data collected from the tests pertaining to the FOAMGLAS® PFS

System (Gen 1) were compared to the baseline data collected from the

reference tests, for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) in suppressing pool fires (taking into account

the various weather conditions for each individual test).

The FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) significantly reduced radiant heat

pertaining to both the LNG and LPG pool fires. This assertion is based on the

experimental results, including the pool fire measurements and videos and

photographs. In addition, it was observed that the FOAMGLAS® PFS System

(Gen 1) provided a coverage layer that helped to stabilise the fire, with no

fluctuation; it also significantly reduced flame size. Furthermore, the

FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1) brought the LPG/LNG fires under control

within a few seconds of ignition. The table below features a summary of the

tests and the comments noted during the experiments.

With a view to providing a better understanding of future LNG and LPG fire and

vapour concentration suppression research and delineating the important

information to be gathered, the following recommendations are suggested:

1. Hydrocarbon (H/C) IR cameras may be used to observe the actual

dispersion of invisible vapours. LPG vapour is not visible and the

hydrocarbon camera is able to capture the propane or butane cloud,

enabling the observation of the movement of the cloud and the

measuring of cloud size.

2. The use of point gas detectors to obtain a continuous gas concentration

profile, rather than peak measurements.

3. Radiometers can be moved as close as possible to the fire while cooling

is provided.



Final Report

Report

Ref. Test Date

Material

Used Fuel

Vapour Measurement

(min)

Radiant Heat Measurement

(min)

Radiant Heat Reduction

(%) Compared to

Ref Test

Comments

Test 1 15.10.2013 Reference Test

LNG 22 6 -

The average radiant heat flux recorded by

all radiometers was approximately 5 kW/m2

Test 2 16.10.2013

FOAMGLAS®

PFS System (Gen 1)

LNG 18 22 80%

The LNG flame gradually decreased, and only became steady after a period of

more than 4 minutes. Consequently, average radiant heat flux decreased from 5 kW/m2 to approximately 1 kW/m2.

Test 3 15.10.2013 Reference Test

LPG 20 6 - The average radiant heat flux recorded by

all radiometers was approximately 14 kW/m2

Test 4 15.10.2013 FOAMGLAS® PFS System (Gen 1)

LPG 14 64 90%

In the first few seconds upon ignition of the LNG, the fire was large. This was due to the LNG vapours that are burnt at the top of the pit during this phase.

The LPG flame was considerably reduced

Radiant heat dropped to 0.5 kW/m2 in the first 5 minutes and then slightly increased to 1.5 kW/m2, when it became steady.

vapour & fire control testing of foamglas® pfs system (gen

Documents