Hubbry Logo
BoiloverBoiloverMain
Open search
Boilover
Community hub
Boilover
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Boilover
Boilover
from Wikipedia

A boilover (or boil-over) is an extremely hazardous phenomenon in which a layer of water under a pool fire (e.g., an open-top tank fire) starts boiling, which results in a significant increase in fire intensity accompanied by violent expulsion of burning fluid to the surrounding areas.[1][2] Boilover can only occur if the liquid fluid is a mixture of different chemical species with sufficiently diverse boiling points, although a so-called thin-layer boilover – a far less hazardous phenomenon – can arise from any water-immiscible liquid fuel. Crude oil, kerosene and some diesel oils are examples of fuels giving rise to boilover.

Boilovers at industrial scale are rare but can lead to serious plant damage. Given the sudden and not easily predictable onset of the phenomenon, fatalities can occur, especially among firefighters and bystanders that have not been made to leave the area.

Slopover and frothover are phenomena similar to boilover but distinct from it. A slopover occurs when pouring water over a liquid pool fire, which may result in sudden expulsion of blazing fluid as well as considerable flame growth if the fire is small, as is the case when dousing water over a chip pan fire. A frothover is a situation occurring when there is a layer of water under a layer of a viscous fuel that, although not on fire, is at higher temperature than the boiling point of water.

Features

[edit]
Boilover onset mechanism

The extreme violence of boilovers is due to the expansion of water from liquid to steam, which is by a factor of 1500 or more.[3] In practical storage scenarios, the presence of water under the burning fluid is sometimes due to spurious accumulation during plant operation (e.g., rainwater entering a seam in the tank roof, off-specification products from the source, residual water from an oil reservoir, or humidity condensation) or as a consequence of attempts to extinguish the fire with water.[4] A typical scenario for a tank fire that may eventually result in boilover is an initial confined explosion blowing off the tank roof.[5]

Pure chemical species are not liable to boilover. In order for one to occur, the material must be a mixture of species with sufficiently diverse boiling points. Crude oil and some commercial hydrocarbon mixtures, such as kerosene and some diesel oils, are examples of such materials.[2] The fact that these are stored in large atmospheric tanks in refineries, tank farms, power stations, etc. makes boilover a hazard of interest in terms of process safety.[6][7] During a pool fire, a distillation process takes place in the fuel. Separation of light components from heavier ones occurs thanks to convective fluid motion. An intermediate fuel layer, called the hot zone or heat wave, is formed, which becomes progressively richer in higher-boiling-point species. Its temperature, as well as thickness, progressively increase. Its lower boundary moves downwards towards the fuel–water interface at a speed higher than the overall level of fuel decreases due to the fire burning it. As a result, when the hot zone reaches the water layer, a considerable amount of unburnt fuel may still be present above the water. Upon the water contacting the hot zone, some steam forms. The resulting turbulence promotes mixing of the water into the hot fuel. This can result in rapid water vaporization. The violent expansion of the steam bubbles will push out a significant part of the fuel above it, causing a violent overflow of flaming liquid.[5] In these conditions water may be superheated, in which case part of it goes through an explosive boiling with homogeneous nucleation of steam. When this happens, the abruptness of the expansion further enhances the expulsion of blazing fuel.[8][9][10] Typical hot-zone speeds are 0.3–0.5 meters per hour (1.0–1.7 ft/h), although speeds of up to 1.2 meters per hour (4.0 ft/h) have been recorded.[11]

Apart from the presence of a water layer under the fuel, other conditions must be met for a hot-zone boilover to occur:

  • Since the upper fuel layers, including the hot zone, are at or near their boiling temperature, it is necessary for the boiling point of the fuel to be high enough, such that the hot zone temperature is higher than the water boiling temperature. Both the effect of the static head of fuel above the water and the fact that the hot zone composition is different from that of the initial fuel have to be considered. In general, boilover is possible if the fuel mean boiling point (calculated as a geometric mean of its lower and upper boiling points, i.e. the temperatures at which the mixture, respectively, starts to boil and is completely vaporized) is higher than 120 °C (248 °F):[11]
  • As mentioned above, the composition of the fuel mixture must be sufficiently varied. It has been observed that the gap between Tboil,max and the higher value between Tboil,min and the boiling point of water at the fuel–water interface has to be higher than 60 °C (108 °F):[12]Some sources indicate that the upper range of the boiling temperature has to be above 149 °C (300 °F):[13][14]
  • The fuel viscosity must be sufficiently high to oppose the upwards movement of the steam bubbles. Otherwise, these may flow through the fuel without projecting it out of the blazing tank.[4] Low viscosity may also make it difficult for a stable heavy-components hot zone to form, thanks to more efficient natural convection. Thus, experiments on gasoline (dynamic viscosity ≈ 0.37 cSt) pool fires have shown that boilover does not occur.[15] In general, fuel dynamic viscosity has to be higher at least 0.73 cSt, which is the viscosity of kerosene.[11]

The hazards posed by a hot-zone boilover are significant for several reasons. At industrial scale, hydrocarbon tanks can contain up to hundreds of thousands of barrels of fluid. If a boilover occurs, the amount of blazing liquid erupting from the tank can therefore be huge.[16][17] Ejected blazing fluids can travel at speeds up to 32 kilometres per hour (20 mph)[14] and attain distances well in excess of the limits of secondary containment bunding, often hundreds of meters or in the order of ten tank diameters downwind.[16][17] Bunding, however, remains an important measure to reduce fire spread.[18] Moreover, since boilover inception is sometimes unpredictable —either in terms of time to onset or whether it will occur at all (because the presence of water in the tank bottom may not be a known factor)— the impact on the firefighters that have intervened to control the fire can be deadly. In some cases, simple bystanders were caught in the blaze and perished.[16]

Tank fires that appear to be relatively stable may burst into massive boilovers several hours after the fire starts, as it occurred in the Tacoa disaster.[19] Failure to appreciate the hazards posed by a water layer underneath the fuel has been a significant contributing cause to the aftermath of boilover accidents, in terms of human and material losses. Uncertainty surrounding the time to boilover onset adds unpredictability that further complicates the efforts of the firefighting services.[20][21] Mathematical models for boilover have been developed that predict the time necessary for boilover to initiate, among other things.[22]

Notable accidents

[edit]

The following are some notable accidents in which a standard, or hot-zone, boilover occurred:

  • 20 January 1968, Shell refinery, Pernis, The Netherlands – Water emulsion and hot crude oil mixed and produced frothing, vapor release and boilover. The fire spread thirty acres (120,000 m2), destroying several refinery units and 80 tanks.[23]
  • 26 June 1971, Czechowice-Dziedzice oil refinery, Poland – A 33-meter (108 ft)-diameter crude oil tank was hit by lightning, which caused a roof collapse and an open-top tank fire. After extended firefighting and a decrease in the fire intensity, boilover occurred, spewing flaming liquids up to 250 meters (820 ft) away. A nearby tank exploded due to ignition of flammable vapors inside. Thirty-three people died.[24]
  • 19 December 1982, Ricardo Zuloaga thermal power plant in Tacoa, Vargas, Venezuela – In the Tacoa disaster more than 150 people, including journalists and bystanders not involved in fighting the fire, died when a massive boilover developed from a fuel oil tank. It is the worst tank fire ever occurred worldwide.[19]
  • 30 August 1983, Amoco oil refinery, Milford Haven, Wales – An open-top tank fire occurred at a crude storage tank. Filled with more than 46,000 tons of oil, the flaming storage tank experienced multiple boilovers, spreading the fire into the four-acre (16,000 m2) containment dyke. However, the fire did not propagate further. In all, 150 firefighters and 120 fire appliances were needed to tackle the blaze. While six firefighters were injured during the two-day fire, no one was killed.[25]
[edit]

Thin-layer boilover

[edit]
Thin-layer boilover onset mechanism

A thin-layer boilover[a] occurs in one of two situations:

  • When the fuel layer is thin, such as in the case of spillage on a wet surface. In this case the boilover onset time is very short, typically about one minute.[27]
  • When, regardless of the thickness of the fuel layer, distillation does not occur and a heat wave is not formed. In such a situation, for a boilover to occur, the fuel has to burn down until its warmer top layer reaches the fuel–water interface.[26][28][29]

In a thin-layer boilover, the size of the flames increases upon boilover onset, and a characteristic crackling sound is produced.[27] However, due to the little amount of fuel left, this phenomenon is far less hazardous than a standard boilover.[citation needed] The study of thin-layer boilover is of interest in the context of in-situ burning of oil spills over water.[30]

Slopover

[edit]
Firefighters demonstrating slopover. Length of the sequence: 2.4 seconds. 1 kg of cooking oil and 1 liter of water.
A demonstration of chip pan fire slopover: Oil is heated and ignites, a small amount of water is poured on the fire and a violent plume of flames rises to the room ceiling.

A slopover is a phenomenon similar to boilover, although distinct from it. It occurs when water is poured onto the fuel while a pool fire is occurring. If the fire is small enough, the water that instantly boils in contact with the fire or with the lower layers of blazing liquid (which are themselves not on fire but may be hotter than the water boiling point) can extend the flames, especially in the upwards direction.[2][31]

In industrial-scale tank fires, there is no noticeable effect when water is doused on the fire,[2] although water sinking to the bottom of the tank may contribute to a later boilover.[32] However, at smaller scale, slopovers pose significant hazards. Trying to extinguish a chip pan or cooking oil fire with water, for example, causes slopover, which can harm people and spread the fire in the kitchen.[33] Serious burn incidents have also occurred during Mid-autumn Festival celebrations, where boiling candlewax and pouring water on it for entertainment has become a habit.[34]

Frothover

[edit]

A frothover occurs when a water layer is present under a layer of a viscous oil that is not on fire and whose temperature is higher than the water boiling point.[31] An example is hot asphalt loaded into a tank car containing some water. Although nothing may happen at first, water may eventually superheat and later start to boil violently, resulting in overflow.[2]

Fire protection

[edit]

Water is generally unsuitable for extinguishing liquid fires. In the context of boilovers and slopovers, the fuel is generally lighter than water. At industrial scale, this means that water applied to an open-top tank fire will sink to the bottom of the tank, which can cause boilover at a later stage. At small/domestic scale, assuming the water can find its way down through the fuel, use of water may cause the content of the vessel to spill over and spread the fire. If water does not sink efficiently to the bottom, then a violent slopover may occur. This makes water both inefficient as an extinguishing agent and potentially very hazardous.[32]

Industrial-scale storage sites

[edit]
Tanks in a refinery

Hot-zone boilovers of large tanks are relatively rare events. However, they can be extremely disruptive. Therefore, prevention and control are very important.[17]

Boilover can be prevented by regularly checking for and draining water in the tank bottoms.[14]

In terms of plant layout, intertank distances would have to exceed five tank diameters in order to prevent escalation to adjacent tanks. In most cases, it is not feasible to design for such an arrangement.[17]

Open-top crude oil tank fires can be tackled using firefighting foam at rates of 10–12 L/(min × m2). However, it is not clear if these rates are adequate to minimize the potential for a boilover event, especially in cases where foam attack is initiated long after the inception of the tank fire. It has been suggested that foam firefighting should be started within 2–4 hours from ignition.[35]

Thermal radiation during a boilover is considerably higher than during the pool fire that precedes it. Although the event is short-lived, emergency response activities, for which tenable levels of thermal radiations are typically 6.3 kW/m2, cannot be safely accomplished, so operations should take place from a safe distance.[17]

Some approaches are available to assess the probability of and the proximity to boilover in tank fires. An estimation can be made a priori from the distillation curve and the properties of the fuel, with the aid of mathematical formulas, including the ones given above. However, this approach requires knowledge of the depth of the water layer at the bottom of the tank. Further, it does not consider the potential for a layer of water–fuel emulsion being present above the water. Progression of the hot zone can be monitored by using vertical strips of intumescent paint applied to the tank walls, or applying a water jet to the walls to assess at what height it starts boiling. Use of thermographic cameras or pyrometers has also been proposed. However, uncertainty regarding the presence and depth of a water or a water–fuel emulsion layer remains, and unpredictability about boilover onset cannot be completely dispelled.[20][21] Draining the product from the tank may reduce accidental consequences, because less fluid would be subject to boilover. However, pumping out product may also reduce the time to boilover onset.[36]

See also

[edit]

Explanatory notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
A boilover is a highly hazardous phenomenon in fire safety, characterized by the violent expulsion of burning crude oil or other liquid hydrocarbons from a storage tank, triggered by the rapid vaporization of water beneath the fuel layer. This event occurs when heat from the surface fire penetrates the liquid, superheating the water at the tank bottom—often from condensation, rain, or accumulated firefighting runoff—causing it to expand into steam at a ratio of approximately 1,700:1, which forcefully ejects hot oil droplets and creates a massive fireball. Boilovers are most prevalent in open-top or fixed-roof tanks containing crude oil, which has a wide boiling point range allowing lighter fractions to burn off first and form a descending "hot zone" of denser residue. The mechanism typically unfolds over several hours of sustained burning: initial of volatile components generates intense radiant , which conducts downward through the column at rates of 1.5–2.5 meters per hour, eventually reaching the interface and inducing of bubbles that disrupt the fuel layer. Multiple boilovers can occur sequentially if residual pockets remain, exacerbating the incident. Conditions favoring boilover include tanks with poor drainage, full-surface involvement in the , and types like crude that separate into layers during heating; it is rare in refined products unless contaminated with . A related but distinct variant happens in spills on open , where direct heating leads to similar explosive burning, relevant to marine spill response and in-situ cleanup strategies. Boilovers pose severe risks to personnel, , and the environment, as ejected burning oil can travel up to 10 tank diameters downwind, igniting adjacent structures or and complicating efforts. relies on rapid intervention, such as applying high-expansion at rates of 4–12 liters per minute per square meter within the first 2–4 hours to cool and smother the , or designing tanks with draw-off systems and single-tank to contain spread. Regulatory standards, including those from OSHA and NFPA, emphasize pre-planning and monitoring for accumulation to prevent escalation.

Introduction

Definition

A boilover is a violent expulsion of burning liquid from a pool fire, resulting from the explosive and steam expansion of a layer beneath the as it reaches its . This phenomenon typically occurs in open-top storage tanks or pools containing water-contaminated , such as crude oil, , or diesel, which exhibit a wide range of due to their multi-component composition. The primary hazards of a boilover include the potential for rapid fire spread over large areas, as well as the ejection of flaming liquid that can reach distances of up to hundreds of meters at speeds approaching 32 km/h. These ejections pose severe risks to nearby structures, personnel, and the environment by intensifying and facilitating secondary ignitions. Unlike standard pool fires, which involve steady burning with gradual consumption, a boilover requires the specific interaction between water and layers, leading to a sudden and dramatic overflow of burning material rather than controlled . Related but less intense phenomena, such as slopover and frothover, represent milder stages of fuel-water interaction without the full explosive violence.

Historical Background

The boilover phenomenon in oil tank fires was first documented in the early 20th century, with one of the earliest recorded incidents occurring at the Associated Oil Company tank farm in , on September 14, 1924, where lightning ignited a tank, leading to boilover that spread the fire to adjacent tanks and caused significant destruction. Early 20th-century reports often described such events in dramatic terms, focusing on the sudden ejection of burning oil, but lacked systematic analysis of the underlying water-fuel interactions. By the 1950s, as the expanded, boilover gained formal recognition in fire engineering literature through studies of large-scale tank fires, including the 1955 Whiting, Indiana refinery disaster, which destroyed 67 tanks over eight days and highlighted the risks of prolonged burning in water-contaminated crude oil storage. Key milestones in boilover research emerged in the , driven by oil companies investigating water-fuel interactions to improve fire suppression tactics. For instance, Mobil Oil Corporation conducted extensive large-scale tests between 1964 and 1967 on tanks up to 7.6 meters in diameter, examining sub-surface water injection and its role in triggering or mitigating boilover during crude oil . A notable incident at the Shell refinery in , on January 20, 1968, involved a hot oil-water emulsion causing frothing and boilover across multiple tanks, underscoring the need for better predictive understanding and catalyzing further industry-wide studies. In the , following such major accidents, initial predictive models were developed to estimate boilover timing based on fuel layer thickness and rates, aiding emergency response planning for open-top tank fires. The evolution of boilover knowledge shifted from anecdotal incident reports to rigorous scientific analysis in the 1980s, with laboratory simulations enabling controlled replication of the phenomenon. The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Mineralölwissenschaft und Kohlechemie (DGMK) in Germany performed key experiments on foam extinguishment over areas up to 500 m², quantifying factors like "specific extinguishing time" that influenced boilover suppression. By the 1990s, this accumulated research informed international fire codes, such as updates to NFPA 11, which incorporated data from 1960s-1980s tests to standardize foam application rates and evacuation protocols for crude oil tank fires. Prior to the 1960s, many boilover events were misattributed to explosions or structural failures rather than the boiling of subsurface water layers, delaying targeted mitigation strategies.

Mechanism and Characteristics

Physical Processes

The physical processes of boilover commence with the combustion of a liquid hydrocarbon , such as crude oil, overlying a water sublayer in a or pool. Heat generated by the surface —primarily through and —is conducted downward into the fuel layer, causing progressive of its volatile components. Lighter fractions vaporize and burn at the surface, while denser residues accumulate below, establishing a hot zone where temperatures exceed 120°C. This zone forms due to the selective driven by the fuel's broad boiling range, which sustains the process over time. As burning continues, the hot zone thickens and migrates downward through the at a pseudo-constant rate of 1.5–2.5 m/h in large-scale fires, proportional to the surface burning rate and influenced by of heavier components. conduction within the fuel layers governs this migration, approximated by Fourier's as the q=[k](/page/K)Δ[T](/page/Temperaturegradient)δq = \frac{[k](/page/K) \Delta [T](/page/Temperature_gradient)}{\delta}, where kk is the conductivity of the , ΔT\Delta T is the across the layer, and δ\delta is the thickness of the intervening fuel . The downward progression ceases only when the hot zone reaches the fuel-water interface, typically after several hours of burning in full-scale tanks (e.g., ~8 hours), though small-scale tests with crude oil may occur in 20–30 minutes. Upon contact with the water layer, the hot zone superheats the beyond its (to 100–120°C), initiating rapid phase change. of vapor bubbles at the interface leads to explosive growth, as the water converts to with a volume expansion factor of approximately under atmospheric conditions. This expansion, Vsteam1700×VwaterV_{\text{steam}} \approx 1700 \times V_{\text{water}}, generates a violent pulse and upward , ejecting burning droplets and causing the characteristic boilover eruption. The process is exacerbated by Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities at the interface, promoting turbulent mixing and further bubble coalescence. Rates and behaviors vary between small-scale experiments (lower propagation rates, shorter times) and large-scale tank fires (higher rates, longer durations).

Key Features and Conditions

Boilover in fires manifests through several distinct observable features that signal its progression. A prominent indicator is the formation of a hot zone, appearing as a visible discoloration in the layer due to convective currents and bubble formation. As the event culminates, there is a sudden and dramatic increase in intensity, characterized by the ejection of burning as a massive fireball or "flaming Niagara" effect, accompanied by a radial spread of flames that can extend up to 10 tank diameters downwind and 5 . This expansion-driven ejection propels ignited oil waves over bund walls, potentially covering areas as large as 1.6 hectares. For boilover to occur, specific prerequisite conditions must be met, primarily involving the - interface and properties. A critical requirement is the presence of a layer or pockets beneath the burning , which, upon heating, undergoes rapid . The must exhibit residues with points exceeding 120°C in to enable violent , with relatively high kinematic (e.g., comparable to or greater than ) to facilitate bubble generation and retention. Additionally, sufficient depth is necessary, typically greater than 0.5 m in standard large-scale scenarios, allowing to propagate downward at rates of 1.5–2.5 m/hour until reaching the layer, often within about 8 hours for sizable s. Warning signs provide opportunities for early detection during operations. Increased bubbling or seething at the edges indicates the approach of the hot zone to the interface, while measurable gradients via probes show a vanishing profile as the nears , with interface rising toward 100–120°C. Thermal imaging or heat-sensitive paints can further reveal hot zone buildup, though reliability varies; audible cues like generation and noises may occur but are not always dependable. The severity of a boilover is influenced by several key factors, particularly fuel type and tank dimensions. Heavier fuels like crude oil, with wide boiling ranges and higher water content, are more prone to intense events compared to lighter fuels such as gasoline, which rarely exhibit full boilover due to rapid evaporation. Tank size plays a dual role: larger diameters reduce ejection intensity and shorten onset time but enable greater flame spread distances, exacerbating potential damage to adjacent structures.

Types of Boilover

Standard Boilover

Standard boilover, also known as full-scale or classic boilover, occurs in storage tanks containing relatively deep layers of (typically several meters in depth, sufficient for hot zone formation), where a prolonged phase allows the formation of a dense hot zone that descends through the fuel to reach underlying . This process, driven by the burning of lighter fractions, can last for hours and results in massive overflow of burning fuel, potentially covering extensive areas beyond the tank confines. It is most commonly observed in crude oil or heavy oils that contain significant water contamination, either as a bottom layer or dispersed pockets, which upon heating generate that violently ejects the superheated fuel. The timeline of a standard boilover begins with the formation of , which typically develops over 2 to 4 hours after fire initiation as heat penetrates downward through the layer. This is followed by a rapid ejection phase lasting from seconds to a few minutes, during which expansion propels the upward in a piston-like manner, creating a dramatic "fireball" or cascading overflow. In terms of scale and impact, ejection velocities can reach up to 32 km/h, enabling the burning to spread several diameters away and posing a high of igniting adjacent tanks within the same area. The resulting pool fire from this overflow can cover areas on the order of hectares, significantly escalating the fire's intensity and complicating suppression efforts.

Thin-Layer Boilover

Thin-layer boilover refers to a rapid and violent ejection of burning fuel caused by the boiling of a water sublayer beneath a very shallow layer of hydrocarbon fuel (typically a few centimeters or less in depth, without substantial fuel distillation). Thin-layer boilover is generally less hazardous and on a smaller scale compared to standard boilover. This variant is characterized by a quick onset, typically within a few minutes, depending on fuel layer thickness and pool size, due to direct heating at the fuel-water interface, distinguishing it from the more prolonged standard boilover process. Unlike standard boilover, which involves a migrating hot zone and extended heating, thin-layer boilover features no such migration, instead relying on immediate steam generation upon contact between the superheated water (reaching about 120°C) and the burning fuel layer. The mechanism initiates through heterogeneous boiling nucleation at the fuel-water interface, where heat from the combustion rapidly superheats the water, leading to explosive and fuel ejection without the need for a developed hot layer in the fuel. This direct interfacial heating results in a burst of that disrupts the fuel layer, causing localized splashing and temporary flame enlargement, though the event typically terminates burning abruptly after the ejection. Hazards associated with thin-layer boilover include intense splashing of hot water and , potential formation of fireballs, and the risk of ground fires from ejected burning droplets, but the scale remains smaller than in standard boilover, limiting it to local spillover rather than broad fire intensification. The ejection intensity correlates linearly with fuel layer thickness, with initial bursts producing sharper flame height increases that weaken in subsequent events. This phenomenon commonly occurs in contexts such as spills on surfaces or partially drained storage tanks containing lighter hydrocarbons like diesel, , or crude oil mixtures, where thin layers form over underlying . Experimental observations in small- to large-scale pools (0.08 to 6 meters in diameter) confirm its prevalence with multi-component s that support interfacial without deep layers.

Slopover

Slopover is a fire phenomenon characterized by the extension of and temporary overflow of burning liquid when water is applied to a small, contained pool of hot, ignited , such as or similar low-viscosity liquids. This event typically occurs in confined settings where the is already burning, leading to a sudden displacement of the ignited material beyond its original boundaries without complete expulsion from the container. Unlike more fire behaviors, slopover results in a brief surge of that can spread the to nearby surfaces but is generally limited in scale and duration. The mechanism of slopover begins when water contacts the hot surface of the burning fuel, which is usually above 100°C, causing the water to rapidly flash into steam. This steam generation creates an emulsion or froth within the fuel, agitating it and displacing the burning liquid outward over the edges of the container, often accompanied by a temporary intensification of the flames. The process relies on the density difference between water and the lighter fuel, allowing water to sink and vaporize beneath the surface, but it does not involve deep penetration or prolonged heating waves. In typical cases, this reaction happens almost immediately upon water application, within seconds to minutes, and is exacerbated if the fuel has been heated for a short period after ignition. Common scenarios for slopover include domestic incidents, such as attempts to extinguish a fire with , where reaches ignition temperatures around 350–400°C. In these cases, even a small amount of —such as from a or extinguisher—triggers the overflow, potentially spreading flames to cabinets or and causing burns or . Small industrial spills, like those involving heated lubricants or fuels in workshops, also present risks if untrained personnel apply during initial response efforts. training emphasizes avoiding water in these situations, recommending instead smothering with a or to prevent escalation. Slopover differs from boilover in that it requires the external addition of to an actively burning pool, results in shorter-duration overflows on a smaller scale, and does not depend on a pre-existing water layer beneath the . While boilover involves internal water accumulation leading to more violent eruptions, slopover is a surface-driven reaction that poses immediate but localized hazards in everyday settings.

Frothover

Frothover refers to the overflow of a hot, viscous, non-burning , such as asphalt, from a when underlying boils and produces that displaces the liquid over the rim. This phenomenon is distinct from fire-related events, occurring in scenarios where no is present, and is often triggered by the introduction or presence of in contact with the heated viscous . The mechanism begins when , typically at the bottom of the due to differences, reaches its from the of the overlying viscous or asphalt, which is maintained at temperatures exceeding 100°C (212°F). The resulting bubbles rise through the viscous layer, incorporating air and to form a frothy mixture that expands and exerts upward , leading to a steady overflow rather than a violent eruption. No ignition or burning occurs in this process, as the energy comes solely from the phase change of water to . Frothover commonly arises in tank cars or atmospheric storage tanks holding viscous hydrocarbons during heating to maintain fluidity, such as in asphalt production or transport. Risks are heightened during unloading, loading, or cleaning operations if residual water is not fully removed, allowing inadvertent mixing. The primary hazards involve buildup from the frothing, which can cause uncontrolled spills of the viscous material, potentially contaminating surrounding areas or equipment. While the absence of fire reduces immediate ignition risks, the presence of an external ignition source could lead to secondary s from the spilled hot liquid. This contrasts with slopover, a burning variant involving flame extension during active fires.

Notable Incidents

Major Accidents

One of the earliest documented major boilover incidents occurred on January 20, 1968, at the Shell Pernis refinery in the , where a water-in-oil in a slops , heated over two weeks during cold weather, boiled over, spreading the across 30 acres and destroying 80 tanks along with several refinery units. On June 26, 1971, at the Czechowice-Dziedzice in , multiple boilovers developed during a in a 33 m diameter crude oil cone-roof tank ignited by lightning; the primary boilover, occurring 5 hours after ignition, propelled flaming liquid up to 250 m away, resulting in 33 firefighter fatalities and over 85 injuries. The 1982 Tacoa disaster in , on December 19, stands as the deadliest tank in history, initiated by an explosion in a at the Tacoa Power Plant; a subsequent boilover , caused by water flashing to steam and expanding 1,700 times in volume, engulfed responders in a massive fireball, killing over 150 people—primarily firefighters and plant workers—and injuring hundreds more. At the Milford Haven refinery in the on August 30, 1983, a in a 78 m diameter floating-roof crude oil tank led to a series of boilovers starting 13.5 hours after ignition, when accumulated water and rainwater caused the roof to sink and hot-zone formation; while no fatalities occurred, the events spread to adjacent tanks, causing extensive damage to the facility and underscoring delays in foam application that exacerbated the spread. No major boilover incidents in large-scale oil fires have been reported since 1983, attributable to improved prevention measures such as enhanced water exclusion protocols and suppression technologies. Comprehensive analyses of global accidents through 2013 and beyond confirm no additional major boilover events in large-scale fires, crediting advancements in safety protocols. In the and beyond, laboratory-simulated boilover events have been conducted at reduced scales to support and , demonstrating phenomena like hot-zone formation without real-world hazards.

Case Studies and Lessons Learned

The 1971 boilover at the Czechowice-Dziedzice Refinery in Poland exemplifies the dangers of undetected accumulation in crude oil storage . The incident involved a 33-meter-diameter cone-roof where a sub-layer at the bottom vaporized suddenly after five hours of burning, triggering a violent ejection of burning oil that spread the fire to adjacent and resulted in 33 fatalities. This root cause underscored the critical need for rigorous detection and removal protocols, leading to industry recommendations for mandatory draining of from prior to storage to mitigate boilover risks. In the 1982 Tacoa power plant incident in , a chain of boilovers was initiated by an in one fuel oil tank, where undrained water vaporization caused hot oil to eject and ignite an adjacent tank due to their close proximity on a hillside. The burning oil from the first boilover spread rapidly to the neighboring tank, exacerbating the fire and contributing to over 150 deaths among responders. This event highlighted the hazards of insufficient spacing between tanks, prompting updates to NFPA and guidelines that now emphasize greater separation distances in storage terminals to prevent escalation from boilover spread. The 1983 boilover at the refinery in the demonstrated how delays in response can intensify boilover consequences. Insufficient initial supplies and logistical challenges postponed effective application for approximately 22 hours, allowing a hot zone to develop and trigger multiple boilovers that ejected fiery oil over 1.6 hectares, damaging nearby infrastructure. Analysis revealed that the delayed intervention enabled the water layer to heat sufficiently for violent , worsening the spread; key lessons include the necessity of applying within two hours of ignition to disrupt hot zone formation and avert escalation. Broader insights from these incidents reveal the amplifying role of weather conditions, particularly , in boilover propagation. Strong can carry ejected burning oil up to 10 tank diameters downwind and five , significantly extending the fire's reach beyond the source and complicating suppression efforts. Following the incidents, boilover research evolved toward predictive modeling, with early empirical correlations in the giving way to simulations by the 2000s to forecast hot zone progression and time to boilover based on properties and tank . Recent advancements incorporate findings from the LASTFIRE project (2016), a collaborative effort by oil companies to refine boilover prediction. The project estimated hot zone descent rates at 1.5-2.5 meters per hour, predicting boilover onset around eight hours for typical crude oil fires, and stressed that rapid application remains the primary mitigation despite modeling limitations in variable conditions. These insights have informed updated risk assessments, emphasizing probabilistic boilover occurrence in full-surface crude fires.

Prevention and Fire Safety

Strategies for Fuel Storage

Effective strategies for preventing boilover in industrial storage emphasize minimizing accumulation and ensuring rapid suppression to avoid the heating of layers beneath the , which can lead to violent steam expansion. design plays a crucial role in facilitating removal and reducing the risk of boilover. Installation of draw-off valves at the lowest points enables targeted extraction of without disturbing the layer, a practice recommended to maintain integrity during routine . Operational practices further mitigate risks by addressing water ingress and fuel management proactively. Regular sediment and water removal through draw-off procedures prevents buildup, with monitoring advised to stop drainage if fuel temperatures approach 100°C to avoid premature heating. Avoiding overfilling maintains safe space, reducing the chance of spills that introduce during deliveries, while the use of -fuel separators in transfer lines helps isolate and remove emulsions before they enter the main storage. For fire suppression, foam application is the primary method to extinguish full-surface fires before boilover conditions develop, typically within 2-4 hours of ignition. Recommended rates are 10–12 L/min/ using fixed monitors for large tanks, ensuring even coverage without excessive that could exacerbate the event. Direct streams should be avoided, as they can introduce additional and trigger slopover or frothover precursors to boilover. Site-specific measures for large storage facilities include perimeter dikes designed to contain potential boilover ejections, which can project burning fuel up to 10 times the . These dikes should be robust, with one per bund preferred for boilover-prone crudes to limit escalation, and regularly inspected for integrity.

Modern Technologies and Regulations

Modern technologies for mitigating boilover in oil storage tanks include thermographic imaging systems that detect hot zones forming beneath the fuel surface during fires. These cameras, such as those operating in the mid-infrared spectrum at 3.9 µm, enable non-contact through flames, allowing early identification of heat accumulation that precedes boilover. Similarly, drone-mounted thermal imaging has emerged in the for remote monitoring of tank farms, providing real-time hotspot detection in hazardous areas without risking personnel, as demonstrated in responses to large-scale incidents like the Deqiao Storage fire. Intumescent coatings applied to tank walls offer passive protection by expanding and charring upon exposure to heat above 350°C, forming an insulating barrier that delays structural failure and heat transfer to adjacent tanks. These epoxy-based formulations are particularly suited for oil storage environments, enhancing corrosion resistance while providing fire endurance. Automated foam suppression systems further advance response capabilities by reducing response times and minimizing water introduction that could exacerbate boilover. Regulations governing boilover risks emphasize proactive and . The NFPA 30 Flammable Liquids Code restricts storage of boilover-prone liquids, such as certain crude oils, in fixed-roof tanks exceeding 150 ft (45 m) in diameter unless equipped with approved prevention measures, including high-level detection devices to avoid overfill and water ingress. In the , the Seveso III Directive (2012/18/EU) mandates comprehensive s for upper-tier establishments handling hazardous substances, incorporating boilover scenarios in safety reports and emergency plans for chemical storage sites to prevent major accidents. Recent developments from the LASTFIRE , established by oil companies, have refined guidelines post-2016 through large-scale testing (up to 6 m tanks), recommending rapid foam application rates of 10-12 l/min/m² via monitors to extinguish fires before hot zone formation, typically within 2-4 hours. These guidelines advocate assuming boilover potential in all full-surface crude oil tank fires and using thermal imaging or heat-sensitive paints for hot zone assessment during incidents. (CFD) simulations complement training by modeling boilover consequences, such as radiative heat flux, to predict outcomes and inform emergency response strategies without physical testing. The adoption of these technologies and standards has contributed to a decline in boilover incidents since the , with enhanced early detection and rapid suppression reducing the probability through better site-specific planning and equipment maintenance, as evidenced by fewer large-scale losses in global loss databases.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.