Comparative Analysis of Danger Zone Ranges Determined for LNG in the Coastal Area

Agnieszka Kalbarczyk-Jedynak 1 , Dorota Stochła 1 ,  and Marek Patsch 2
  • 1 Maritime University of Szczecin,, Szczecin, Poland
  • 2 University of Žilina,, Žilina, Slovak Republic


The analysis of danger zone ranges for LNG in the coastal area is an important task on account of, inter alia, the safety of human life. It is not an easy process, which is why we consider an danger situation for various weather conditions in the function of constant wind speeds and for various wind speeds in constant weather stability. Pasquill weather stability scale and Beaufort scale with regard to terrain roughness were adopted for the analysis. Both scenarios were considered in the example of Q-flex type vessels in the Świnoujście terminal for two methods of LNG release, i.e. related to a sudden explosion and slow release caused by a leak. The analysis was conducted and considered for the values in the top and bottom flammability limit. Modelling of the danger zone range was analysed with DNV PHAST software, version 7.11. In the process of comparison of the situation related to the risk of explosion in the function of various weather stabilities according to Pasquill scale and constant wind speeds, the values of 1.5 m/s and 5 m/s were adopted, corresponding to 1 and 3 wind force on the Beaufort scale. Those speeds correspond to the water conditions featuring tiny ripples and small waves, the crests of which start to break. The adopted weather stabilities analysed for wind speed equal to 1.5 m/s are A, B, D. A-type stability signifies the least stable atmospheric conditions, and D-type means neutral conditions. In turn, for the wind speed of 5 m/s B, D and F parameters in Pasquill scale were selected. Furthermore, ranges for variable wind speed values were analysed for the selected Pasquill stability.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alava, J. and Calle, N. (2017). Pipelines imperil Canada's ecosystem. Science, 355(6321), p. 140.

  • Bernatik, A., Senovsky, P. and Pitt, M. (2011). LNG as a potential alternative fuel - Safety and security of storage facilities. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 24(1), pp. 19-24.

  • Luketa-Hanlin, A. (2006). A review of large-scale LNG spills: Experiments and modelling. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 132(2-3), pp. 119-140.

  • Pitblado, R., Baik, J. and Raghunathan, V. (2006). LNG decision making approaches compared. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 130(1-2), pp. 148-154.

  • Qi, R., Ng, D., Cormier, B. and Mannam, M. (2010). Numerical simulations of LNG vapor dispersion in Brayton Fire Training Field tests with ANSYS CFX. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 183(1-3), pp. 51-61.

  • Raj, P. and Lemoff, T. (2009). Risk analysis based LNG facility siting standard in NFPA 59A. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22(6), pp. 820-829.

  • Sedlaczek, R., (2008), Boil-Off in Large and Small Scale LNG Chains, Diploma Thesis, Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics. Available at: [Accessed 22 Jan. 2018].

  • Singh, R. and Lou, H. (2017). Safety and Efficiency Enhancement in LNG Terminals. In: M. Khosrow- Pour, ed., Natural Resources Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, Pennsylvania: IGI Global, pp. 1584-1596.

  • Wang, K., Liu, Z., Qian, X. and Huang, P. (2017). Long-term consequence and vulnerability assessment of thermal radiation hazard from LNG explosive fireball in open space based on full-scale experiment and PHAST. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 46, pp. 13-22.

  • Zalosh, R. (2016). Flammable Gas and Vapor Explosions. In: M. Hurley, ed., SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering, 5th ed. New York: Springer, pp. 2738-2765.

  • Zhao, J., Huang, H., Li, Y., Jomaas, G., Wang, H. and Zhong, M. (2017). Quantitative risk assessment of continuous liquid spill fires based on spread and burning behaviours. Applied Thermal Engineering, 126, pp. 500-506.


Journal + Issues