UDC 614.849

ESTIMATION OF THE FALLING HEAT FLOW AND DETERMINATION OF SAFE DISTANCES DURING OIL FIRES IN CLASS I TANKS

Published in Problems of risk management in the technosphere · Issue 3, 2026 · Pages 71–82 · Rubric: Fire safety
DOI: https://doi.org/10.61260/1998-8990-2026-3-71-82
Received: 30.03.2026 Accepted: 06.07.2026 Published: 05.10.2026
This article examines the pressing issue of determining safe distances during a fire in a 50,000 m³ vertical steel oil tank under typical winter conditions, taking into account wind loads. This study was conducted against the backdrop of increasingly frequent drone attacks on fuel and energy facilities, creating a real potential for major fires with the risk of cascading accidents. An analysis of statistical data and current threats substantiates the need to refine regulatory approaches to assessing thermal impact. Calculations of incident heat flux were performed using the methodology of Order № 533 of EMERCOM of Russia «On the approval of the methodology for determining the calculated values of fire risk at production facilities», and CFD modeling was conducted using Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS). It was established that the methodology of Order № 533 of EMERCOM of Russia systematically overestimates distances to threshold values: in the near zone (up to 20 m) by 1,4–2,1 times, and at a distance of 40–50 m – by 5–6 times. The main reason is the idealized cylindrical model of the flare, which does not take into account the elevation of the combustion source (wall height 17,8 m) and the associated shading. It was established that comparing two calculation approaches without using in-kind data only allows one to assess their discrepancies, not their absolute accuracy. Two approaches to tactical planning were proposed: a normative (conservative) approach and a risk-based approach (using refined heat flow fields). Safe distances for personnel and the required cooling water flow rates were calculated. The feasibility of experimental validation of CFD models for developing recommendations for reducing safe distances was confirmed.
tank farm, incident heat flux, oil, fire safety, FDS modeling, safe distances, «domino effect», UAV attack, hand-held barrels
Text References
Text (PDF)
Read Download

1. Kozhevin D.F., Radova E.V. Analiz statisticheskih dannyh o pozharah na ob"ektah, vhodyashchih v infrastrukturu neftyanoj promyshlennosti // Problemy upravleniya riskami v tekhnosfere. 2025. № 3 (75). S. 99–110. EDN BUMRDE. DOI:https://doi.org/10.61260/1998-8990-2025-3-99-110

2. Kozhevin D.F., Radova E.V. Analiz pozharov na ob"ektah hraneniya i pererabotki nefti // Pozharnaya bezopasnost': sovremennye vyzovy. Problemy i puti resheniya: materialy Vseros. nauch.-prakt. konf. SPb.: S.-Peterb. un-t GPS MCHS Rossii, 2025. S. 77–81. EDN WSFYNZ.

3. Volkov O.M. Versiya «Domino» na pozhare gruppy RVS-20000 na linejnoj proizvodstvenno-dispetcherskoj stancii «Konda» // Tekhnologii tekhnosfernoj bezopasnosti. 2013. № 3 (49). S. 3. EDN SBDYKX.

4. James I. Chang, Cheng-Chung Lin. A study of storage tank accidents // Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries ed. 2006. P. 51–59. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2005.05.015

5. Sesseng C., Storesund K., Steen-Hansen A. Analysis of 985 fire incidents related to oil and gas production on the Norwegian continental shelf. 2018. P. 1847–1853.

6. Kopylov N.P., Karpov A.V., Fedotkin D.V. Aerodinamicheskie i temperaturnye harakteristiki pozharov v rezervuarah s nefteproduktami // Zashchita okruzhayushchej sredy v neftegazovom komplekse. 2018. № 1. S. 31–34. EDN QHOYKX.

7. Teoreticheskoe i eksperimental'noe issledovanie pozharov v krupnyh toplivnyh rezervuarah i sozdanie innovacionnoj tekhnologii ih tusheniya / N.P. Kopylov [i dr.] // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Matematika i mekhanika. 2022. № 76. S. 131–149. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17223/19988621/76/1

8. Abramov Yu.A., Basmanov A.E. Stohasticheskaya model' nagreva rezervuara s nefteproduktom pod teplovym vozdejstviem pozhara // Pozharovzryvobezopasnost'. 2007. T. 16. № 4. S. 37–42.

9. Kolesnikov E.Yu. O model'noj neopredelennosti pozharnogo riska nazemnogo rezervuara s benzinom // Pozharovzryvobezopasnost'. 2013. T. 22. № 3. S. 38–45.

10. Hafizov F.Sh., Bakirov I.K., Ajtkaleeva B.U. Issledovanie tusheniya pozharov v rezervuare nefteproduktov s ispol'zovaniem penopod"emnika mobil'nogo sredstva tusheniya // Problemy sbora, podgotovki i transporta nefti i nefteproduktov. 2016. № 3 (105). S. 146–159. EDN WZJMZL.

11. Fire Dynamics Simulator (Version 6), User’s Guide. NIST Special Publication 1019. 6th ed. / K. McGrattan [et al.] // Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2024. 524 p. DOI:https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1019

12. Radova E.V. Analiz metodov rascheta ploshchadi razliva i vysoty fakela plameni goryuchih zhidkostej // Sibirskij pozharno-spasatel'nyj vestnik. 2025. № 4 (39). S. 170–181. EDN ZYLEWO. DOI:https://doi.org/10.34987/vestnik.sibpsa.2025.95.51.011

13. Shkitronov M.E., Kozhevin D.F., Mal'chikov K.B. Analiticheskij obzor vliyaniya turbulizacii plameni na velichinu vysoty fakela pozhara // Voennyj inzhener. 2020. № 2 (16). S. 27–32. EDN SRVZLL.

14. Hu L. A review of physics and correlations of pool fire behaviour in wind and future challenges // Fire Safety Journal. 2017. Vol. 91. P. 41–55. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.05.008