MODELING OF GAS RELEASE FROM AN UNDERGROUND PIPELINE

A Thesis

by

IBRAHIM LOKMANE DAOUDI

Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Chair of Committee, Luc Véchot

Committee Members, Marcelo Castier
Konstantinos Kakosimos
Mahmood Amani
Head of Department, M. Nazmul Karim

December 2018

Major Subject: Chemical Engineering

Copyright 2018 Ibrahim Daoudi

 ABSTRACT

Buried pipelines are one of the major transportation methods for natural gas and other
light hydrocarbons around the world. With that comes the risk of pipeline failure and the
release of the flammable materials, which have caused many incidents in the past
including significant human and economic losses. Thus, understanding the behavior of
underground gas flow and the way it escapes to the atmosphere is necessary for
consequence modeling, in order to have the best possible prevention and mitigation
barriers.

Depending on the conditions, the gas flow regime can be divided into three categories:
diffusion, fluidization, and crater formation. The main objective of this project is to
develop a CFD model that is able to simulate all underground gas flow regimes. The
model was developed using the ANSYS Workbench Software. The dimensions of the
simulated systems were based on the information given by industries in Qatar. The
adopted approach included the Eulerian-Eulerian multicomponent model, the standard
k- turbulence model, and the Gidaspow drag model. The model was configured and
refined by testing the effect of various parameters such as the type of boundary
conditions used, and the effect observed by changing some of the input data.

The configured model was validated against experimental data, with emphasis on testing
its ability to predict the underground gas flow regime, and local methane concentrations.
The model was then used to simulate various scenarios with differing the gas inlet
velocity and soil density values. The results for each simulation were recorded with the
gas underground gas flow regime identified, and then plotted using dimensionless
numbers such as the Reynolds’ and Archimedes’ numbers. The obtained graph helps
identifying the boundaries between each flow regime. The results of one of the
simulations were used as an input for a consequence modeling software, and the threat
zone based on the inputted data was reported.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to show my appreciation and gratitude to my committee chair Dr. Luc
Véchot, and my committee members Dr. Marcelo Castier, Dr. Konstantinos Kakosimos,
and Dr. Mahmood Amani. I would like to thank Dr. Luc for his support from throughout
the life time of the project, for his patience with the hurdles faced, and for his overall
guidance and advice. I would like to thank Dr. Marcelo for his support throughout the
life time of the project, and especially for his enthusiasm and positive energy when I was
having a blue day, along with his suggestions and advices. I would like to thank Dr.
Kakosimos for his massive help with the development of the CFD model with his great
experience with the software, along with the guidance and help to finalize this project. I
would like to thank Dr. Mahmood as well for his support for this project, and for his
words of encouragement. The outcome would not have been possible to me without their
support.

I would like to thank the Mary Kay O’Conner Process Safety Center at Qatar (MKOPSC-
Q) and all its members for their continuous technical and mental support, and for the
center for funding this project and making it possible.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents for their encouragement and support since I
opened my eyes to this world.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... iii

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1

2 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Diffusion of Gas through Soil .......................................................................... 5

2.1.1 Existing Models Describing Underground Gas Diffusion ........................ 5

2.1.2 Experimental Work Involving Underground Gas Flow .......................... 31

2.2 Fluidization ..................................................................................................... 34

2.2.1 Hydrodynamic Model ............................................................................. 36

2.2.2 Transport Phenomena .............................................................................. 37

2.2.3 Numerical Simulation ............................................................................. 38

2.3 Crater Formation............................................................................................. 38

2.3.1 Gasunie Model ........................................................................................ 39

2.3.2 Battelle Model ......................................................................................... 41

2.3.3 Advantica Model ..................................................................................... 43

2.3.4 Accident-Based Model ............................................................................ 44

2.4 CFD Models ................................................................................................... 45

2.4.1 Turbulence Models .................................................................................. 46

2.4.2 Two-Phase Model ................................................................................... 50

2.4.3 CFD-DEM Model ................................................................................... 51

3 Research Objective ................................................................................................ 53

iv
4 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 54

4.1 Stage 1: Literature Review and Identification of the Knowledge Gaps ......... 54

4.2 Stage 2: Design of a CFD Model for the Simulation of Underground Gas
Releases ..................................................................................................................... 54

4.3 Stage 3: Model Validation Using Existing Experimental Data ...................... 57

4.4 Stage 4: Identifying Regimes Boundaries Using the Model .......................... 57

4.5 Stage 5: Using the Model’s Output as an Input for Consequence Modeling . 58

5 Design of a CFD Model for the Simulation of Underground Gas Release ........... 59

5.1 Geometry ........................................................................................................ 59

5.1.1 Phase 1..................................................................................................... 61

5.1.2 Phase 2..................................................................................................... 62

5.1.3 Phase 3..................................................................................................... 63

5.2 Meshing .......................................................................................................... 64

5.3 Model Setup .................................................................................................... 66

5.3.1 General Setup .......................................................................................... 66

5.3.2 Models ..................................................................................................... 66

5.3.3 Materials Setup ........................................................................................ 68

5.3.4 Boundary Conditions Setup .................................................................... 68

5.3.5 Initial Conditions Setup ........................................................................... 68

5.3.6 Running Calculations .............................................................................. 69

5.3.7 Results Example ...................................................................................... 69

6 Model configuriation ............................................................................................. 71

6.1 Mesh Size ....................................................................................................... 71

v
 6.2 Soil Viscosity in the Material Tab .................................................................. 73

6.3 Soil Particle Diameter ..................................................................................... 73

6.4 Type of Inlet Boundary Condition.................................................................. 75

6.5 Primary Phase Selection ................................................................................. 76

6.6 Inlet Velocity .................................................................................................. 78

6.7 Type of Geometry Boundary Condition ......................................................... 80

6.8 Specific Gravity .............................................................................................. 81

6.9 Presence of Soil .............................................................................................. 82

6.10 Material Density.......................................................................................... 82

7 Model Validation................................................................................................... 84

7.1 Setup Adjustment ........................................................................................... 85

7.2 Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 86

7.3 Crater Width Validation Attempt ................................................................... 91

8 Flow regime boundaries ........................................................................................ 94

8.1 Qatar Flow Compared to Experimental Work ................................................ 94

8.2 Simulation Results for Boundary Identification ............................................. 95

9 Consquence modelling using Fluent results ........................................................ 102

10 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 105

11 Recommendations ............................................................................................... 107

12 References ........................................................................................................... 109

13 Appendix ............................................................................................................. 115

13.1 Example of journal file code used for a general simulation with constant
diameter with methane as primary phase ................................................................ 115

vi
13.2 Example of journal file code used for a general simulation with varying
diameter with methane as primary phase ................................................................ 115

13.3 Example of journal file code used for validation including the species model
116

13.4 Example of job file used for the super computer ...................................... 116

vii
 List of Figures
Figure 1 Resulting crater, pipeline full-bore rupture and fire, Andhra Pradesh, India [2] .......... 2

Figure 2 Crater formation and fire after pipeline rupture, New Mexico, USA [4] ...................... 3

Figure 3 Different underground release behaviors for upward release ....................................... 4

Figure 4 Gas concentration data at 1 m from the leak point [6] .................................................. 8

Figure 5 Gas concentration data at 2 m from the leak point [6] .................................................. 8

Figure 6 Gas concentration data at 3 m from the leak point [6] .................................................. 9

Figure 7 Hibi et al. experimental setup[11] .............................................................................. 18

Figure 8 Detailed column illustration[11] ................................................................................. 19

Figure 9 Hibi et al. experimental data compared to models[11] ............................................... 19

Figure 10 Experimental set-up for Okamoto and Gomi [22] .................................................... 24

Figure 11 Methane vol% from experimental and model results [22] ........................................ 25

Figure 12 Propane-air 13-A vol% from experimental and model results [22] .......................... 25

Figure 13 Experimental set-up used to validate Parvini and Gharagouzlou’s model [5] .......... 29

Figure 14 Hydrogen concentration from experimental data and model results [5] ................... 29

Figure 15 Schematic of Yan et al. experimental set-up [25] ..................................................... 33

Figure 16 Experimental results for a flow rate of 24 L/min at different locations [25] ............ 34

Figure 17 different particle fluidization behavior for different scenarios[26] ........................... 35

Figure 18 Cross sectional view of a crater[37] .......................................................................... 38

Figure 19 Example of experimental data on crater size [37] ..................................................... 43

Figure 20 Example of meshed geometry ................................................................................... 55

Figure 21 Stage 2 steps .............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 22 Geometry schematic .................................................................................................. 60

Figure 23 Phase 1 geometry ...................................................................................................... 62

Figure 24 Phase 2 geometry ...................................................................................................... 63

viii
Figure 25 Phase 3 geometry ...................................................................................................... 64

Figure 26 Different mesh sizes for the same geometry ............................................................. 66

Figure 27 Sand volume fraction at the start and after some time .............................................. 70

Figure 28 Different mesh used for mesh independence study ................................................... 72

Figure 29 Sand material tab viscosity comparison .................................................................... 73

Figure 30 Sand volume fraction at 5 s for different particle diameter ....................................... 74

Figure 31 Example of a diverged simulation for sand volume fraction .................................... 76

Figure 32 Sand and methane volume fraction with air as primary phase .................................. 77

Figure 33 Pressure data with air as primary phase .................................................................... 77

Figure 34 Sand and methane volume fraction with methane as primary phase ........................ 78

Figure 35 Pressure data with methane as primary phase ........................................................... 78

Figure 36 Methane volume fraction for different inlet velocity at 5 s ....................................... 79

Figure 37 Methane volume fraction at different time steps with a 10 m/s inlet ........................ 80

Figure 38 Methane volume fraction for different boundary conditions at 5 s ........................... 81

Figure 39 Volume fraction for different gases at 5 s ................................................................. 81

Figure 40 Methane volume fraction dependent on the presence of soil .................................... 82

Figure 41 Methane volume fraction for different density approaches at 5 s ............................. 83

Figure 42 Yan et al. experimental data for 24 L/min flow[25] ................................................. 84

Figure 43 Sensors locations schematic diagram[25] ................................................................. 85

Figure 44 Validation results for Location 1 and Location 2 ...................................................... 87

Figure 45 Validation results for Location 8 and Location 10 .................................................... 87

Figure 46 Validation results for Location 15............................................................................. 88

Figure 47 Methane volume percentage for a 1 phase simulation at Location 1 ........................ 91

Figure 48 Line location in geometry for methane concentration............................................... 92

ix
Figure 49 Soil volume fraction for a velocity inlet of 10 m/s at 5 s .......................................... 93

Figure 50 Soil volume fraction data for Case 1 ......................................................................... 97

Figure 51 Soil volume fraction data for Case 2 ......................................................................... 97

Figure 52 Soil volume fraction data for Case 4 in the horizontal axis ...................................... 98

Figure 53 Soil volume fraction data for Case 4 in the vertical axis........................................... 98

Figure 54 Results from simulations with their respective flow regime ................................... 100

Figure 55 Flash fire threat zone from ALOHA ....................................................................... 103

x
 List of Tables

Table 1 Diffusion models summary .......................................................................................... 30

Table 2 Sensors numbers and locations in the Yan et al. experiment [25] ................................ 33

Table 3 𝑤 values based on soil types [37] ................................................................................. 40

Table 4 Empirical correlation constants value for different conditions [37] ............................. 44

Table 5 Pipeline conditions provided by Qatar industry ........................................................... 60

Table 6 Mesh independence study results ................................................................................. 72

Table 7 Pressure inlet simulation cases and their results ........................................................... 75

Table 8 Volumetric flow rate data and their accompanied flow regime ................................... 95

Table 9 Simulation cases with their respective flow regime ..................................................... 98

xi
 1 INTRODUCTION

Natural gas is one of the most used energy sources in the world, contributing with 21.6%
of the world’s energy supply in 2015. Natural gas is especially important in Qatar, with
the country being the world’s second natural gas exporter in 2016 with 117 bcm.[1] One
of the most common methods of transporting fuel or chemical gases, including natural
gas, is using buried pipelines. While this method has many advantages, it remains
important to control the risks associated to the underground releases of hydrocarbons.

Underground releases may be long duration low flow leaks (e.g. flange leaks or corrosion)
which are harder to detect and may affect the soil and environment. Other types of releases
may lead to high flow discharges (e.g. pipeline rupture due to excessive corrosion or due
to mechanical impact with digging equipment) be more severe. Not only can they affect
the soil and environment, they can form craters around the release point, and the released
gas can pose toxic, fire and explosion hazards to the nearby workers or even public
surrounding the pipeline.

The following historical examples illustrate the potential consequences of pipeline

rupture.

 Andhra Pradesh, India (Figure 1)

On June 27th 2014, at around 5:30 am, a blast occurred in an underground natural gas
pipeline in east Godavari district in the state of Andhra Pradesh in India. The pipeline was
owned by a government company called GAIL (Gas Authority of India Limited). The
cause of the incident was an over pressurized gas supply, which was, according to some
sources, at twice the design pressure. The locals reported that a minor leak had already
been present for days before the incident, and nothing was done to stop it. The state of the
pipeline after the incident also showed that the pipeline was rusty. The explosion resulted
in a crater with a radius of around 7 m. The explosion resulted in a full bore rupture of the
pipeline and a massive spill of gas spread over around 500 m. The cloud ignited and caused
another explosion in the form of unconfined vapor cloud explosion (UVCE), followed by

1
a pool fire that kept burning for hours until the supply ended. The incident led to the death
of 22 people and the injury of 38 others and resulted in significant environmental and
economic losses.[2][3]

Figure 1 Resulting crater, pipeline full-bore rupture and fire, Andhra Pradesh, India [2]

 New Mexico, USA (Figure 2)

On August 19th 2000, at around 5:26 am, a rupture occurred in a 30-inch natural gas
transmission pipeline next to the Pecos River near Carlsbad, New Mexico. The pipeline
was operated by El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG). The released gas ignited resulting
in a fireball and the fire kept burning for 55 minutes. The explosion resulted in a crater
that was about 15.54 m wide and with a length of 34.44 m along the pipeline. A piece of
the pipeline that was 7.9 m long was found at around 87.5 m away from the crater. The
incident led to the death of 12 people who were camping nearby and to property damage
including two nearby suspension bridges for gas pipelines. The total economic loss
estimated by EPNG was $998,296. An investigation into the incident was conducted by
The National Transportation Safety Board in order to identify the cause. According to the
report, the cause of the rupture of the pipeline was due to significant reduction in pipe wall
thickness due to severe internal corrosion. In addition, the corrosion occurred because the
EPNG’s corrosion control program failed to prevent, detect, or control the corrosion.
Furthermore, the ineffective federal inspection on EPNG contributed to the incident.[4]

2
 Figure 2 Crater formation and fire after pipeline rupture, New Mexico, USA [4]

Pipeline release incidents can cause a wide range of consequences. In order to control the
risk associated to pipeline rupture (and effectively design for prevention, mitigation and
emergency response measures), it is of upmost importance to predict the consequences
associated to these events. This requires the understanding of the flow mechanism of the
gas leaking through the ground for given pipeline conditions.

This thesis is contributes to improving the existing methods to predict the consequences
of underground gas releases.

3
 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Determining how to model a natural gas leak through the ground depends heavily on the
flow mechanism of the gas. A simple evaluation of the issue allows us to expect that the
gas leak out of the underground pipeline can be released in three different regimes
depending on the flowrate of the release, orientation of the release and the soil properties
(Figure 3):

 First, a flow rate of gas can be so small that the gas will only diffuse, migrate
through soil pores and will not displace or move soil.
 The second regime may be expected at larger flow rates, for which the gas can start
displacing the soil, lift it and generate mixing. This is known as a fluidization.
 The third regime may be expected at much larger flow rates for which the gas jet
will violently eject the soil up, creating a crater and resulting in an unobstructed
jet flow.

Figure 3 Different underground release behaviors for upward release

The following section summarizes the literature review of the currently available models
(and validation when available) for the prediction of underground gas releases as well as
the published experimental data on underground gas releases from buried pipelines.

4
 2.1 Diffusion of Gas through Soil
2.1.1 Existing Models Describing Underground Gas Diffusion

To date, very few researches have been done on modelling of the underground releases of
gases from buried pipelines. Most of developed models and research have focused on
atmospheric gas dispersion, which is a far-field model, and not giving sufficient attention
to near-field and the behavior of the gas flowing through the ground, although the result
of the near-field model is input to the far-field one and thus greatly affects its quality. If
the near-field model is not correct, neither will be the far-field model.[5]

2.1.1.1 Wakoh and Hirano 1991

According to Wakoh and Hirano [6], understanding the diffusion phenomena of

underground gas is pretty complex, and requires considering the following:

 the diffusion process of leaked gas in soil;

 the outflow volume of gas;
 the gas concentration profile;
 the actual position of the break in the pipeline;
 the time that the leak started.

The author mentions that there are only few studies that considered underground gas
diffusion prior to his paper, including Ohtsuga [7] who made a diffusion model using a
binary gaseous mixture in a cylinder, and Palcoz et al. [8] who used equations representing
mass conversation, Darcy’s law, and Knudson diffusion. However, the authors claimed
that these models were not applicable to dilute concentrations and at points that are at a
long distance from the leak source.

The author derived an equation starting from the convection-diffusion equation, then
performed an experiment to validate the model.

2.1.1.1.1 Assumptions

The assumptions used to develop the model were:

5
  the flow rate of the leaking gas (in this case, propane) remains constant;
 the leak pressure is near atmospheric;
 the gas leaks in a spherical pattern;
 the porosity of the soil and the diffusion coefficient of the gas are constant;
 the soil is homogenous;
 the gravity and the density variations of the gas in the soil are negligible;
 no gas present in the soil before the leak.

2.1.1.1.2 Equations

For a gas diffusing in a spherical matter, its concentration can be written as:[9], [10]

𝑟 𝑥−𝑟 (1)
𝜌= 𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑐
𝑥 2√𝐷𝑡

3𝑄𝑡 1/3
𝑟=( ) (2)
4𝜋𝜀
where:

 𝜌 is the gas concentration;

 𝑟 is the radius of convection face;
 𝑥 is the distance from the leak site;
 𝐷 is the gas diffusion coefficient;
 𝑡 is the lapse of time;
 𝑄 is the leaked gas flow rate;
 𝜀 is the soil porosity.

Combining Equations ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), one obtains:

3𝑄𝑡 1/3 3𝑄𝑡 1/3

(4𝜋𝜀 ) 𝑥 − (4𝜋𝜀 ) (3)
𝜌= 𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑐
𝑥 2√𝐷𝑡

By differentiating Equation ( 3 ) with respect to time, one obtains:

6
 2
3𝑄𝑡 2/3 3𝑄𝑡 1/3
(4𝜋𝜀 ) 𝜏 7/6 𝐷 1/2 𝐿 − (4𝜋𝜀 ) (4)
( ) ( ) = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 ( )
𝐿𝜌0 𝜋 2(𝐷𝜏)1/2

where:

 𝜏 is the time for gas concentration to reach detectable level at measuring point;
 𝜌0 is a specific value of gas concentration that is of interest;
 𝐿 is the distance from the leak site.

2.1.1.1.3 Verification

An experiment was performed in order to validate the developed model. The experiment
was performed in a ground with a depth of 1.3 m of sandy soil and a thinner upper layer
of 0.2 m consisting of conglomerate clay. Three pipelines were buried at a depth of 0.61
m underground with a distance of 1 m between them. Each pipe had a leak hole of a size
6 mm. The pipelines included liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) consisting of 95% propane
and their pressure was kept at around 2.7 kPa. The gas flowrates out of the pipes were 100
ml/s, 200 ml/s, and 300 ml/s and the concentrations were observed 1 m, 2 m, and 3 m
away from the leak point using He-Ne sensors. Figures 4-6 show the results of the
experiment compared to calculated values.

7
Figure 4 Gas concentration data at 1 m from the leak point [6]

Figure 5 Gas concentration data at 2 m from the leak point [6]

8
 Figure 6 Gas concentration data at 3 m from the leak point [6]

2.1.1.1.4 Findings

A set of experimental data was obtained and it was observed that the value of the diffusion
coefficient obtained experimentally was much greater than the one commonly used from
molecular diffusion results.

2.1.1.2 Hibi et al. 2009

According to the authors [11], the mechanism of material transport in the gas zone in soil
is more complicated than in the water zone. This is due to the fact that, unlike the water
zone, in which diffusion, advection, and dispersion are considered, it also includes the
Knudsen diffusion, the difference in molecular weight between components, and the
multi-component gas system, in addition to the previously mentioned parameters, as stated
by Mason et al. [12]. Diffusion has been modeled using different diffusion laws. Various
authors modeled diffusion using Fick’s Law, such as Sleep and Sykes [13]. The law was
used to model binary gas systems in the gas zone of the soil. Fick’s law, however, is not
applicable to a multi-component gas system. Another law that was used to model diffusion
is Blanc’s law [14], which was derived from the Stefan-Maxwell model [15]. Hoeg et al.
[16] used a model based on Blanc’s law to simulate the transport of low concentration

9
substances in a multi-component gas system. However, Blanc’s law is only applicable if
the gases other than the moving gas are stagnant, and that the moving gas is at a low
concentration. The Stefan-Maxwell equations and the dusty gas model can be used to
model multi-component gas system in every concentration range including high
concentration. The Stefan-Maxwell equation was compared with Fick’s law in a one
dimensional binary gas system with low concentration by Baehr and Bruell [17]. It was
found out that both models gave similar results. One of the authors of this paper (Hibi
[18]) compared the dusty gas model to Blanc’s law, and found out that the concentrations
differ, in which the results using Blanc’s law show a higher concentration of the moving
chemical substance. The effect of the Knudson diffusion was also studied by Thorstenson
and Pollock [19], and Massmann and Farrier [20], and they found out that the Knudson
diffusion has a significant influence in the case with a soil permeability lower than 10-14
m2 .

The authors of this paper derived the compound diffusion, which includes the molecular
diffusion, and the Knudson diffusion, and the compound velocity, which includes the two
previous parameters along with the gas pressure gradient and velocity, from the dusty gas
model equations. The authors then verified the model using experimental data obtained
using columns filled with dry sand.

2.1.1.2.1 Assumptions

The assumptions used to develop the model were:

 gas slippage does not occur;

 the gas is slowly moving through the soil;
 the gas is incompressible;
 the porous media is incompressible;
 the gas behaves as an ideal gas;
 dispersion is not considered.

10
2.1.1.2.2 Equations

The gas velocity as described by Darcy’s law is:

𝐾𝑟𝑔 𝑘𝑠 (5)
𝑉𝑔 = − (∇𝑃𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔 𝑔∇𝑧)
𝜇𝑔
Where:

 𝑉𝑔 is the gas velocity in soil [L/T];

 𝑘𝑠 is the intrinsic permeability [L2];
 𝐾𝑟𝑔 is the permeability relative to intrinsic permeability;
 𝜇𝑔 is the viscosity of the mixed gas [M/LT];
 𝑃𝑔 is the gas total pressure [M/LT2];
 𝜌𝑔 is the gas density [M/L3];
 𝑔 is the gravitational constant [L/T2];
 𝑧 is the vertical coordinate positive in the upward direction.

By using Darcy’s law and the continuity equation, the gas flow can be expressed as:

𝜕𝜃𝑔 𝐾𝑟𝑔 𝑘𝑠 (6)

= ∇. [ ∇(𝑃𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔 𝑔𝑧)]
𝜕𝑡 𝜇𝑔
Where:

 𝜃𝑔 is the gas filled porosity;

 𝑡 is time [T].

The density of the mixed gas can be calculated using:

𝜌𝑔 = ∑ 𝐶𝑖 𝑀𝑖 (7)
𝑖

Where:

 𝐶𝑖 is the molar concentration of gas i [mol/L3];

 𝑀𝑖 is molecular mass of gas i [T].

11
The viscosity of the mixed gas is obtained using Equation ( 8 ) which was proposed by
Reid et al. [21]

𝑣 𝑔 𝑔
𝑋𝑖 𝜇𝑖 (8)
𝜇𝑔 = ∑
∑𝑣𝑗=1 𝑋𝑗𝑔 𝜗𝑗𝑖
𝑖=1

Where:

 𝑋 is the molar fraction;

 𝜇 is the viscosity [M/LT].

And,

0.5
𝑀𝑖 1 (9)
𝜗𝑗𝑖 = ( ) =
𝑀𝑗 𝜗𝑖𝑗

The molecular diffusion in a multi-gas system given by the dusty gas law is:

𝑣
𝑋𝑖 𝑁𝑗𝐷 − 𝑋𝑗 𝑁𝑖𝐷 𝑁𝑖𝐷 1
∑ − = ∇(𝑃𝑖 + 𝜌𝑖 𝑔𝑧) ( 10 )
𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑖 𝑅𝑇
𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑖

Where:

 𝑁𝑗𝐷 , 𝑁𝑖𝐷 are the molar fluxes of components j and i respectively [mol/L2T];
 𝜏 is the tortuosity;
 𝐷𝑖𝑗 is the Knudsen diffusion coefficient [L2/T];
 𝑅 is the gas constant [M L2/molKT2];
 𝑇 is the temperature [K];
 𝑃𝑖 is the partial pressure of component i [M/LT2];
 𝜌𝑖 is the gas density of component i [M/L3].

The advection-dispersion equation can be written as:

12
 𝜕𝜃𝑔 𝐶𝑖 ( 11 )
+ ∇. 𝑉𝑔 𝐶𝑖 + ∇. ( 𝑱𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ
𝑖 + 𝑁𝑖𝐷 ) = 0
𝜕𝑡
where:

 𝑉𝑔 𝐶𝑖 is the advection flux;

 𝑱𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ
𝑖 is the dispersion flux.

𝑃𝑖
By substituting 𝐶𝑖 = and 𝜌𝑖 = 𝑀𝑖 𝐶𝑖 into Equation ( 10 ) and rearranging, we obtain:
𝑅𝑇

𝑣
𝑋𝑖 𝑁𝑗𝐷 − 𝑋𝑗 𝑁𝑖𝐷 𝑁𝑖𝐷 𝑀𝑖 𝒈
∑ − = 𝜏𝜃𝑔 (∇𝐶𝑖 + 𝐶) ( 12 )
𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝐷𝑖 𝑅𝑇 𝑖
𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑖

where 𝒈 is the gravity vector with L/T2 dimensions.

By summing both sides of Equation ( 12 ) and rearranging we obtain:

𝑣
𝑁𝑖𝐷 𝜏𝜃𝑔 ( 13 )
−∑ = ∇(𝑃𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔 𝑔𝑧)
𝐷𝑖 𝑅𝑇
𝑖=1

The diffusion flux can be obtained by substituting Equation ( 13 ) into Equation ( 12 ):

𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝑀𝑖 𝒈𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗
𝑁𝑖𝐷 = − 𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 ∇𝐶𝑖 − 𝐶𝑖
𝑅𝑇

𝑣 𝑣
𝑋𝑖 𝐷𝑗 𝐷
− 𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 ∑ ∑ 𝑁
𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝐷𝑘 𝑘 ( 14 )
𝑗=1 𝑘=1
𝑗≠𝑖 𝑘≠𝑖
(𝑘≠𝑗 )
𝑣
𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 𝑋𝑖
− ∑ 𝐷𝑗 ∇(𝑃𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔 𝑔𝑧)
𝑅𝑇 𝐷𝑖𝑗
𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑖

where,

13
 1
𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 =
𝐷𝑗 𝑋 𝑋𝑗 1
{∑𝑣𝑗=1 [(𝐷 ) (𝐷 𝑖 ) + (𝐷 )] + 𝐷 }
𝑖 𝑖𝑗 𝑖𝑗 𝑖
𝑗≠𝑖

The total molar flux 𝑁𝑖𝑇 for a component i is the sum of the advective molar flux and the
diffusive molar flux. The diffusive molar flux 𝑁𝑖𝐹 can be obtained using Equation ( 5 ):

𝐾𝑟 𝑘𝑠 ( 15 )
𝑁𝑖𝐹 = 𝑉𝑔 𝐶𝑖 = −𝐶𝑖 (∇𝑃𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔 𝑔∇𝑧)
𝜇𝑔

By using Equations ( 14 ) and ( 15 ), the total molar flux is obtained:

𝑁𝑖𝑇 = − 𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 ∇𝐶𝑖

𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝑀𝑖 𝒈𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗
−
𝑅𝑇
{

𝑣 𝑣 ( 16 )
𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 1 𝐷𝑗
+ ∑ ∑ 𝑁𝑘𝐷
𝐶 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝐷𝑘
𝑗=1 𝑘=1
𝑗≠𝑖 𝑘≠𝑖
( 𝑘≠𝑗 )

𝑣
𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑐𝑖𝑗 𝐷𝑗 𝐾𝑔 𝑘𝑠
+ ∑ + ∇(𝑃𝑔 + 𝜌𝑔 𝑔𝑧)
𝐶𝑅𝑇 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝜇𝑔
𝑗=1
{ 𝑗≠𝑖 } }

The first term on the right side of Equation ( 16 ) represents the compound diffusion
coefficient 𝐷𝑖∗ , which includes the molecular diffusion and Knudson diffusion, and the
second term represents the compound velocity 𝑉𝑔𝑖∗ which is the advective term that
influences the diffusion by gravity, gas pressure, molecule motion with Darcy’s velocity,
and diffusion fluxes of other components. Equation ( 16 ) can be rewritten as:

14
 𝑁𝑖𝑇 = − 𝐷𝑖∗ ∇𝐶𝑖 + 𝑉𝑔𝑖∗ 𝐶𝑖 ( 17 )

By substituting Equation ( 17 ) into the continuity equation, the advection-diffusion

equation is obtained:

𝜕𝐶𝑖
+ 𝑉𝑔∗ ∇𝐶𝑖 = ∇. (𝐷𝑖∗ ∇𝐶𝑖 ) ( 18 )
𝜕𝑡

By applying the finite element scheme on the left side, Equation ( 18 ) can be approximated
to:

𝑛
𝜕𝐶𝑖
+ 𝑉𝑔∗ ∇𝐶𝑖 = ∑ 𝑘 {𝐶𝑖𝑘 (𝑥𝑘 , 𝑦𝑘 , 𝑧𝑘 , 𝑡 + ∆𝑡) − 𝐶𝑖𝑘 (𝑥𝑘
𝜕𝑡
𝑘=1
∗ ∗ ∗
− 𝑉𝑔𝑥 ∆𝑡, 𝑦𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑦 ∆𝑡, 𝑧𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑧 ∆𝑡, 𝑡)}/∆𝑡 ( 19 )

where:

 𝑛 is the number of nodal points;

 𝑘 is the Sharpe function for the finite element method;
 𝑥𝑘 , 𝑦𝑘 , 𝑧𝑘 is the coordinates of nodal point k;
 ∗
𝑉𝑔𝑥 ∗
, 𝑉𝑔𝑥 ∗
, 𝑉𝑔𝑥 are the velocities in the x, y, and z directions respectively;
 𝐶𝑖𝑘 (𝑥𝑘 , 𝑦𝑘 , 𝑧𝑘 , 𝑡 + ∆𝑡) is the molar concentration of component i at node k and
time = 𝑡 + ∆𝑡 [mol/L3];
 ∗
𝐶𝑖𝑘 (𝑥𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑥 ∗
∆𝑡, 𝑦𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑦 ∗
∆𝑡, 𝑧𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑧 ∆𝑡, 𝑡) is the molar concentration of
∗ ∗ ∗
component i at node k, with 𝑥 = 𝑥𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑥 ∆𝑡, 𝑦 = 𝑦𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑦 ∆𝑡, 𝑧 = 𝑧𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑧 ∆𝑡
and time = t [mol/L3].

In order to solve the right hand side of Equation ( 18 ), finite elements are used to discretize
it. The time is discretized using the Euler method, and the nonlinearities are solved using
Picard iteration.

15
 𝑛
1
( ∫ 𝑘 𝑑𝐴 + ∑ 𝐷
̅𝑖∗𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚 ∫ ∇𝑘 . ∇𝑙 𝑑𝐴)
∆𝑡 𝐴 𝐴
𝑘=1
𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1
× 𝐶𝑖𝑘 (𝑥𝑘 , 𝑦𝑘 , 𝑧𝑘 , 𝑡 + ∆𝑡)

1 ( 20 )
= ∫  𝑑𝐴 𝐶𝑖𝑘 (𝑥𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑥
∗ ∗
∆𝑡, 𝑦𝑘 − 𝑉𝑔𝑦 ∆𝑡, 𝑧𝑘
∆𝑡 𝐴 𝑘
∗
− 𝑉𝑔𝑧 ∆𝑡, 𝑡)

𝑘 = 1, 𝑛
+ ∫ 𝑘 𝑞̅𝑐𝑖
𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1
. 𝒏𝑑 ( )
 𝑖 = 1, 𝑣 − 1
where:

 𝐴 is the volume of the analytic domain [L3];

 𝑚 is the iteration number for nonlinearity;
  is the surface of the boundary [L2];
 𝑞̅𝑐𝑖 is the molar flux of component i at the boundary [mol/ L2T];
 𝒏 is the normal vector of the boundary.

The molar concentration of component 𝑣 at point k can be obtained using the molar
concentration from equation ( 20 ) of components 1 to 𝑣 − 1 subtracted from the total
concentration.

𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1 𝑣−1
𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1
𝑃𝑔𝑘 𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1 ( 21 )
𝐶𝑣𝑘 = − ∑ 𝐶𝑖𝑘
𝑅𝑇
𝑖=1

Obtaining the molar flux 𝑁𝑘𝐷 is required in order to use Equation ( 20 ). The flux can be
obtained by rearranging Equation ( 10 ).

16
 𝑣 𝑣
𝑋𝑗 1 𝑋𝑖
∑ − 𝑁𝑖𝐷 −∑ 𝑁𝐷
𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑖 𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝑗 ( 22 )
𝑗=1 𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑖 𝑗≠𝑖
( )
𝑀𝑖 𝒈
= −∇𝐶𝑖 − 𝐶 . (𝑖 = 1, 𝑣 − 1)
𝑅𝑇 𝑖

Equations ( 13 ) and ( 22 ) are discretized using the Galerkin finite element method.

𝑣
𝑋̅𝑗𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚 1 𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1
∑ + ∫ 𝑘 𝑑𝐴 𝑁𝑖𝑘
𝐷
𝜏𝜃𝑔̅ 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝜏𝜃𝑔̅ 𝐷𝑖 𝐴
𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑖
( )
𝑣
𝑋𝑖𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚 𝐷 𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚+1
−∑ ∫ 𝑘 𝑑𝐴 𝑁𝑗𝑘
̅
𝜏𝜃𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑗 𝐴
𝑗=1
𝑗≠𝑖
( 23 )
𝑛

= − ∑ 𝑘 ∇𝑙 𝑑𝐴∇𝐶𝑖𝑙𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚
𝑙=1

𝑀𝑖 𝒈 𝑘 = 1, 𝑛
− ∫ 𝑘 𝑑𝐴 𝐶𝑖𝑘
𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚
. ( )
𝑅𝑇 𝐴 𝑖 = 1, 𝑣 − 1

𝑣
1 𝐷 𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚
−∑ ∫ 𝑘 𝑑𝐴 𝑁𝑖𝑘
𝐷𝑖 𝐴
𝑖=1
𝑛
𝜏𝜃𝑔 ( 24 )
= (∑ ∫ 𝑘 ∇𝑙 𝑑𝐴𝑃𝑔𝑙𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚
𝑅𝑇 𝐴 𝑙=1

+ 𝜌̅𝑔𝑡+∆𝑡,𝑚 𝑔 ∫ 𝑘 𝑑𝐴) (𝑘 = 1, 𝑛)
𝐴

The molar flux of each component is obtained using equations ( 23 ) and ( 24 ). Then, the
molar concentration is obtained using equation ( 6 ), ( 20 ), and ( 21 ).

17
2.1.1.2.3 Verification

In order to verify the model, a column experiment was designed. The column was 90 cm
long and had a diameter of 50 cm. The column had 5 ports with syringes, in order to take
out gas samples, and 5 pressure gauges, in order to measure the gas pressure. The column
was filled with dry sand with particle size of 0.08-2 mm. Two different gases were injected
into the column, which was already filled with air (containing nitrogen and nitrogen). The
first gas was methane which is lighter than air in terms of molecular weight, and the second
gas was carbon dioxide, which is heavier than air. The gas was inserted through the inlet
with a pressure of around 97 kPa, and the gas flow rate was measured at the outlet using
a flow meter. The pressure of the gas was recorded with the gas pressure gauges. Gas
samples were taken from the port through syringes, and the gas samples were tested using
gas chromatography. The experiment was stopped once the gas reached the last port (port
number 5), and each experiment was repeated twice, using both either methane or carbon
dioxide as the inlet gas. Figure 7 shows the experimental setup, and Figure 8 shows the
structure of the column. An example of the experimental data compared with Blanc’s law
and the dusty gas model for a three component system is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 7 Hibi et al. experimental setup[11]

18
 Figure 8 Detailed column illustration[11]

Figure 9 Hibi et al. experimental data compared to models[11]

19
2.1.1.2.4 Findings

The experimental results were compared with the dusty gas model, and the model was
able to accurately simulate the multi-component and the binary gas systems. The model
was also compared with Blanc’s model, and Fick’s model. The results show that Blanc’s
model results did not match the experimental data except for oxygen, as shown in Figure
9. Thus, Blanc’s model cannot be used to simulate a multi-component gas system with a
wide range of molar concentrations. For a binary gas system, both Fick’s model and the
dusty gas model gave similar results.

2.1.1.3 Okamoto and Gomi 2011

Okamoto and Gomi [22] stated that in order to clarify the diffusion behavior, three things
must be studied, which are as follows:

 the behavior caused by differences in pressure, specific gravity, and concentration.

 the gas and soil composition and the geometric boundary conditions of the ground
 the behavior in a wide area and the behavior in local zones like the zone around
the leakage point.

They have also stated that many studies focused on the dispersion of gas through the
atmosphere, and only a small number on underground gas diffusion. The authors
performed a full-scale experiment, and then used the experimental data to verify the
applicability of an analytical tool on a full-scale level. The analytical tool consisted of the
equation of motion, equation of continuity, and an equation of state.

2.1.1.3.1 Assumptions

The assumptions used in the analytical tool were:

 a volume element is integrated and averaged over a volume larger than the pore
size but smaller than the whole ground;
 low pressure (no soil movement);
 the soil volume is constant;

20
  the present gases are only air and the leaked gas;
 the gas flow is laminar;
 the process is at steady state;
 the gas behaves as an ideal gas.

2.1.1.3.2 Equations

In order to describe the gas motion through the soil, the equation of motion in Cartesian
coordinates is used.

𝜕𝑣⃗ ( 25 )
𝜌 + 𝜌(𝑣⃗. ∇)𝑣⃗ = −∇𝑝 − [∇. 𝜏⃗] + 𝜌𝑔⃗ + 𝐹⃗
𝜕𝑡
where:

 𝜌 is the density of the gas [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ];

 𝑣⃗ is the velocity of the gas [𝑚/𝑠];
 𝑝 is the gas pressure [𝑃𝑎];
 𝜏⃗ is the shear stress [𝑁/𝑚2 ];
 𝑔⃗ is the gravitational acceleration [𝑚/𝑠 2 ];
 𝐹⃗ is the external force per unit volume on the gas.

By assuming that the pores in the soil are crooked tubes with a varying cross sections, and
considering the gas flow to be laminar inside a tube, the average velocity at the direction
of the flow can be expressed as

𝑑 2⁄
𝑣= 32 (− 𝑑𝑝 + 𝜌𝑔) ( 26 )
𝜇 𝑑𝑧

where 𝜇 is the coefficient of viscosity of the gas [𝑃𝑎. 𝑠].

When introducing an air permeability coefficient on an average cross section of the

aforementioned crooked tubes, Equation ( 27 ) is obtained, which is equivalent to Darcy’s
Law.

21
 𝐾 ( 27 )
𝑣⃗𝑠 = 𝜀𝑣⃗ = (−∇𝑝 + 𝜌𝑔⃗)
𝜇
where:

 𝑣⃗𝑠 is Darcy’s velocity [𝑚/𝑠];

 𝜀 is the soil porosity;
 𝐾 is the air permeability coefficient [𝑚2 ].

Equation ( 28 ) represents the mass conservation of the gases considering diffusion and
gas leakage, with i=1 for air and i=2 for leaked gas.

𝜕 ( 28 )
(𝜀𝜌𝐶𝑖 ) + ∇. (𝜌𝐶𝑖 𝑣⃗𝑠 ) = ∇(𝐷𝑖𝑗 ∇𝜌𝐶𝑖 ) + 𝜌𝑖 𝑄𝑖
𝜕𝑡
where:

 𝐶𝑖 is the concentration of the gas with component i in weight %

 𝐷𝑖𝑗 is the Fick’s diffusion coefficient of the gas with component i diffusing in the
air component j [𝑚2 /𝑠];
 𝑄𝑖 is the gas with component i leakage rate [𝐿/𝑠].

By expressing Equation ( 28 ) for the leaked gas (i=2) and with D12=D21=D, Equation ( 29
) is obtained, which governs the change of gas concentration.

𝜕 ( 29 )
(𝜀𝜌𝐶2 ) + ∇. (𝜌𝐶2 𝑣⃗𝑠 ) = ∇(𝐷∇𝜌𝐶2 ) + 𝜌2 𝑄2
𝜕𝑡

The equation of mass conversation for mixed gas is obtaining by summing Equation ( 28
) for the leaked gas and air.

𝜕
(𝜀𝜌) + ∇. (𝜌𝑣⃗𝑠 ) = ∇(𝐷∇𝜌) + ∑ 𝜌𝑖 𝑄𝑖 ( 30 )
𝜕𝑡
𝑖

The equation of state assuming ideal gas behavior can be expressed as:

22
 𝜌𝑖 𝑅𝑇 𝜌𝑅𝑇
𝑝=∑ = ( 31 )
𝑀𝑖 𝑀
𝑖

Where:

 𝑅 is the universal gas constant [𝐽/𝑚𝑜𝑙. 𝐾];

 𝑇 is the absolute temperature [𝐾];
 𝑀𝑖 is the molecular mass of the gas with component i [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ];
 𝑀 is the average molecular weight of the mixed gas [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ].

By substituting Equations ( 27 ) and ( 31 ) into Equation ( 30 ), we obtain

𝜕 𝜀𝑀 𝜌𝐾
( 𝑝) + ∇. { (∇𝑝 − 𝜌𝑔⃗)} = ∇(𝐷∇𝜌) + ∑ 𝜌𝑖 𝑄𝑖 ( 32 )
𝜕𝑡 𝑅𝑇 𝜇
𝑖

Equation ( 33 ) is used in order to convert Equation ( 32 ) into Equation ( 34 ) by using 𝑝′

𝑝 = 𝑝′ + 𝑝𝑜 + 𝜌𝑠 (𝑔⃗. 𝑟⃗) ( 33 )

𝜀𝑀 𝜕 ′ 𝜀𝑝 𝜕 𝜌𝐾
(𝑝 ) + (𝑀) − ∇ [ {∇𝑝′ − (𝜌 − 𝜌𝑠 )𝑔⃗}]
𝑅𝑇 𝜕𝑡 𝑅𝑇 𝜕𝑡 𝜇
( 34 )
= ∇(𝐷∇𝜌) + ∑ 𝜌𝑖 𝑄𝑖
𝑖

where:

 𝑝′ is the pressure difference from the atmospheric pressure;

 𝑝𝑜 is the atmospheric pressure;
 𝑝′ is the position vector from the reference point;
 𝜌𝑠 is the atmospheric density.

The Wilke equation is used to estimate the viscosity coefficient of the mixed gas[23]

𝜇𝑖
𝜇=∑
𝑖,𝑗 𝑥𝑖 ( 35 )
𝑖 1 + ∑𝑗≠𝑖 𝑥
𝑗

where,

23
 0.25 2
𝜇 0.5 𝑀𝑗
{1 + (𝜇 𝑖 ) (𝑀 ) }
𝑗 𝑖
𝑖,𝑗 = ( 36 )
𝑀 0.5
2√2 (1 + 𝑀𝑖 )
𝑗

2.1.1.3.3 Verification

A full-scale experiment was designed with a scale found commonly in chemical plants.
An earthen tank was built with the dimension of 10x10x2-3 m, and a gas leaking point
was placed 1.2 m below the ground surface. Two different gases were used in order to test
the effect of specific gravity on diffusion. The gases used were methane, which has a
specific gravity lower than air, and propane-air 13-A (propane vol% 60%, air vol% 40%)
which has a specific gravity higher than air. The leak rates used were 300-1000 cm3/min
with a pressure of 0.2 kPa. The data were collected using thermal conductivity sensors.
The experimental results were then used to check the applicability of the analytical tool
mentioned earlier.

Figure 10 Experimental set-up for Okamoto and Gomi [22]

24
 Figure 11 Methane vol% from experimental and model results [22]

Figure 12 Propane-air 13-A vol% from experimental and model results [22]

2.1.1.3.4 Findings

The following results were obtained:

 in high concentration zones, methane diffuses upwards, while propane diffuses

downwards;
 in low concentration zones, the trend is not conspicuous and specific gravity
has less impact;
 methane diffuses downwards and propane diffuses upwards despite specific
gravity;
 in low concentration zones, methane rises over the ground surface, while it’s
relatively less notable with the propane-air mixture that is heavier than air;

25
  Darcy’s law and Fick’s law advection and diffusion models can be used on a
full scale underground pipeline.

2.1.1.4 Parvini and Gharagouzlou 2015

According to Parvini and Gharagouzlou [5], most of the work that has been done on
modelling focused on atmospheric gas dispersion. As a result of that, the goal of their
project was to derive consequence models for a gas that leaks from underground pipelines.
The gas used in modelling and later on validating through experiments was hydrogen. The
project involved two phases of modelling, a near-field and a far-field model. The near-
field model was concerned with the diffusion of gas from the pipeline through the pores
of the soil. The outcome of the near-field model was then used as an input to the far-field
model, which was about the dispersion of gas through the atmosphere. The laws used in
order to perform the modelling were Darcy’s law, continuity equation, and concentration
equations.

2.1.1.4.1 Assumptions

The assumptions used to develop the model were:

 the leakage rate is low;

 the ground is porous and stable.
2.1.1.4.2 Equations

According to Darcy’s law, pure flow through a porous medium can be described as:

𝑘 ( 37 )
𝑢 = (− )𝛻𝑃
𝜇
where:

 𝑢 is Darcy’s velocity [𝑚/𝑠];

 𝑘 is the porous environment permeability [𝑚2 ];
 𝜇 is the fluid dynamic viscosity [𝑃𝑎. 𝑠];

26
  𝑃 is the fluid pressure [𝑃𝑎].

Darcy’s two-phase law is obtained by combining Darcy’s law with the continuity
equation.

𝜕 ( 38 )
(𝜌𝜀𝑝 ) + 𝛻. (𝜌𝑢) = 0
𝜕𝑡

By combining Equations ( 37 ) and ( 38 ), one obtains:

𝜕 ( 39 )
(𝜌𝜀𝑝 ) + 𝛻. 𝜌[−(𝑘/𝜇)∇𝑃] = 0
𝜕𝑡
where:

 𝜌 is the fluid’s density [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ];

 𝜀𝑝 is the void fraction, that is, the part of volume occupied by pores .

For a variable saturated porous environment, the component transfer can be expressed
using Equation ( 40 ):

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕
(𝜃𝑐𝑖 ) + (𝜌𝑏 𝑐𝑝,𝑖 ) + (𝑎𝑣 𝑐𝐺,𝑖 ) + 𝛻. (𝑐𝑖 𝑢) ( 40 )
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
= 𝛻[(𝐷𝐷𝑖 + 𝐷𝑒,𝑖 )𝛻𝑐𝑖 ]

with 𝜌𝑏 = (1 − 𝜀)𝜌𝑝 and 𝑎𝑣 = 𝜀 − 𝜃,

where:

 𝜃 is the fluid volume fraction;

 𝑐𝑖 is the gas concentration of gas component i in liquid [𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒/𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑];
 𝑐𝑝 is the absorbed amount to solid particles [𝑚𝑜𝑙𝑒/𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡];
 𝑐𝐺 is the concentration in gas phase [𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠/𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑣𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒].
 𝜌𝑏 is the solid phase density [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ];
 𝜀 is the porosity;
 𝑎𝑣 is the gas volume fraction;

27
  𝐷𝐷 and 𝐷𝑒 denote component dispersion due to mechanical mixture and due to
diffusion and evaporation [𝑚2 /𝑠].

By expanding terms relative to time in Equation ( 40 ), one obtains.

𝜕 𝜕 𝜕
(𝜃𝑐𝑖 ) + (𝜌𝑏 𝑐𝑝,𝑖 ) + (𝑎𝑣 𝑐𝐺,𝑖 )
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
( 41 )
𝜕𝑐𝑖 𝜕𝜃
= (𝜃 + 𝜌𝑏 𝑘𝑝,𝑖 + 𝑎𝑣 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 )𝑐𝑖
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝜀
− (𝜌𝑝 𝑐𝑝,𝑖 − 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 𝑐𝑖 )
𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝑐𝑝,𝑖 𝜕𝑐𝐺,𝑖
with 𝑘𝑝,𝑖 = and 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 = ,
𝜕𝑐𝑖 𝜕𝑐𝑖

where:

 𝑘𝑝,𝑖 is the absorption isotherm;

 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 is the linear evaporation.

Equation ( 40 ) can be written as:

𝜕𝑐𝑖 𝜕𝜃
(𝜃 + 𝜌𝑏 𝑘𝑝,𝑖 + 𝑎𝑣 𝑘𝑔,𝑖 ) + (1 − 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 )𝑐𝑖
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡
𝜕𝜀 ( 42 )
− (𝜌𝑃 𝑐𝑃,𝑖 − 𝑘𝐺,𝑖 𝑐𝑖 ) + ∇. (𝑐𝑖 𝑢)
𝜕𝑡
= ∇. [(𝐷𝐷,𝑖 + 𝐷𝑒,𝑖 )∇𝑐𝑖 ]

In the case of a saturated porous environment, Equation ( 43 ) can be used.

𝜕𝑐𝑖 𝜕𝜀
(𝜀 + 𝜌𝑏 𝑘𝑝,𝑖 ) + (𝑐𝑖 − 𝜌𝑃 𝑐𝑃,𝑖 ) + ∇. (𝑐𝑖 𝑢)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 ( 43 )
= ∇. [(𝐷𝐷,𝑖 + 𝜃𝜏𝐹,𝑖 𝐷𝐹,𝑖 )∇𝑐𝑖 ]

2.1.1.5 Verification

The model was verified using experimental data from work done by Okamoto et al. [24],
who made multiple experiments on hydrogen diffusion through soil. A 10x2x2 m test

28
ground was prepared, and a pipeline was buried at 1.2m below surface. The gas was leaked
with a pressure of 0.2 kPa, with a flow rate of 1000 cm3/min. Figure 13 shows their
experimental set-up, while Figure 14 shows the comparison between the model and the
experimental data.

Figure 13 Experimental set-up used to validate Parvini and Gharagouzlou’s model [5]

Figure 14 Hydrogen concentration from experimental data and model results [5]

2.1.1.5.1 Findings

The authors believe that the model showed “good” agreement with the previously
referenced experimental data. The paper also states other findings considering dispersion
through the atmosphere, which is not the point of interest in this research.

29
2.1.1.6 Diffusion Models Summary

Table 1 shows a summary of the previously mentioned diffusion models.

Table 1 Diffusion models summary

Paper Equations Assumptions

Wakoh and Hirano [6] *Diffusion Convection *the flow rate of the leaking gas
(in this case propane) remains
equation.
constant;
*Gas concentration for
*the leak pressure is near
diffusion in a spherical
atmospheric;
pattern.
*the gas leaks in a spherical
*The radius of the pattern;
convection phase. *the porosity of the soil and the
diffusion coefficient of the gas
are constant;
*the soil is homogenous;
*the gravity and the density
variations of the gas in the soil
are negligible;
*no gas present in the soil
before the leak.
*gas slippage does not occur;
Hibi et al. [11] *Darcy’s law.
*the gas is slowly moving
*Continuity equation.
through the soil;
*Dusty gas model. *the gas is incompressible;
*the porous media is
incompressible;
*the gas behaves as an ideal
gas;

30
 *dispersion is not considered;
*a volume element is integrated
Okamoto and Gomi [22] Equation of motion.
and averaged over a volume
*Darcy’s law.
larger than the pore size but
*Continuity equation. smaller than the whole ground;

*Equation of state *low pressure so the soil is not

(ideal gas). moving;

*the soil volume is constant;
*the present gases are only air
and the leaked gas;
*the gas flow is laminar;
*the process is at steady state;
*the gas behaves as an ideal
gas.

Parvini and Gharagouzlou *Equation of motion. *the leakage rate is low;

[5] *Darcy’s law. *the ground is porous and
stable.
*Continuity equation.

*Component transfer
equation in porous
environment.

2.1.2 Experimental Work Involving Underground Gas Flow

Various experiments were conducted to study the diffusion of gas through soil. However,
many of them were on a small scale, and only a few of them were large enough to emulate
real life conditions.

31
2.1.2.1 Yan et al. 2015

Yan et al. [25] performed an experiment on a larger scale relative to other experiments.
An Earthen tank has been built with the dimensions of 5x5x3 m. A pipeline with a diameter
of 0.2 m and a length of 1 m was then laid on the centerline 0.9 m below the surface. The
pipeline had four 5 mm leak points in different locations, and these points were controlled
by a solenoid valve. Concentration measuring devices were installed at various locations
throughout the soil in order to measure the change of the concentration with time. The
sensor location coordinates are shown in Table 2. The experiment was conducted with
various leak flow rates ranging from 3 L/min to 24 L/min and with various leak point
orientations being upwards, downwards, left and right of the pipeline. The gas used in the
experiment was methane. For higher flow rates, the experiment was conducted only for a
specific period of time, while for the lower flow rates, the system was allowed to reach
steady state. The outcome of the experiment was a set of concentration vs. time data at
different locations from the leak point. The schematic of the experiment is shown in Figure
15. An example of the results from the experiment for a leak rate of 24 L/min is shown in
Figure 16.

32
 Figure 15 Schematic of Yan et al. experimental set-up [25]

Table 2 Sensors numbers and locations in the Yan et al. experiment [25]

Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

X(m) -0.1 0.1 -1.5 1.5 0 -2.1 1.5 1 1 -1 -1 0 0.8 0 0

Y(m) 0 0 0 0 -1.5 2.1 -1.5 1 -1 1 -1 0.8 0 -0.8 0

Z(m) 2 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0

33
 Figure 16 Experimental results for a flow rate of 24 L/min at different locations [25]

2.2 Fluidization

When the leak rate of the underground gas increases, eventually the soil particles would
start moving, and the flow regime would be similar to fluidization. Fluidization can be
defined as the process where solid particles are in a fluid like state, due to the force exerted
on them by a gas or a liquid. Fluidization can be in different forms depending on the
velocity of the exerted fluid on the solids, and on whether the fluid is gas or liquid. Figure
17 shows an example of different particle fluidization behavior for different scenarios.[26]
In the fluidization stage, the soil is moving, but the gas flow rate is not high enough to
displace the soil above the surface level. Most of the literature about fluidization focuses
on process applications, especially chemical reaction engineering, and not much is found
regarding internal underground fluidization. Also, most of the literature found in
fluidization is about a uniform side inlet with multiple release points, and not a single point
of release which is the case for an underground pipeline rupture.

34
 Figure 17 different particle fluidization behavior for different scenarios[26]

According to Alsaydalani et al. [27], there was no recognition of internal fluidization in

the geotechnical literature and no systematic analysis for internal diffusion. In addition,
there are only limited research done elsewhere that concerns granular internal fluidization
subject to a localized flow. The authors mention as well that internal fluidization is
expected to happen for granular and uniform materials, and that other materials, such as

35
clay, would be resistant to it and instead would undergo hydraulic fracture and erosion.
From the literature review Asaydalani et al. [27] performed, they have deduced the
following:

 with a low gas flow rate, no fluidization occurs when the gas flows through the
granular material;
 at the previously mentioned condition, the gas flow might be partially blocked.
According to Massimilla et al. [28], there will be no occlusion if the solid is less
than 30% by total volume;
 Darcy’s law can be applicable at very low gas flow rates, but at higher rates it is
not applicable; [29]
 with an increased flow rate, after some point the soil in contact with the orifice will
start fluidizing. The pressure required to initiate fluidization for an upward flow
can be predicted. For example, Shi et al. [30] and Peng and Fan [31] have proposed
models to predict the required pressure incorporating Ergun’s equation; [32]
 when fluidization starts, a restricted fluidized zone is developed. The zone is
enclosed by a moving layer within stagnant particles. The shape of the zone and
the way it develops are not well known, but they probably depend on the
orientation of the orifice; [33]
 at higher flow rates, at a certain point the fluidized phase will be injected out to the
free surface, and the orifice will become visible. [34]

There are multiple mathematical correlations in the literature that describe fluidization.
However, these correlations have a specific application, and there is a lack of a
universal model that applies to all kinds of fluidization. [35] Philippsen et al. [36]
mention some of the models used to model fluidization including the hydrodynamic
model, transport phenomena, and numerical simulation.

2.2.1 Hydrodynamic Model

Hydrodynamic models describe the following:

36
  the motion and distribution of the solids;
 the gas-solid mixture;
 the particle size;
 the fluid velocity;
 the growth of bubbles;
 the relation between bubble and emulsion phases;
 the mass transfer phenomena;
 the heat transfer phenomena.

The model is controlled by the balance of forces between the particles and the gas velocity.
At low gas velocities, the bed acts as a fixed bed, and when the velocity is higher than the
minimum fluidization velocity, the particles start moving. It is possible to reach the wanted
fluidization regime by changing the gas velocity. The relation between gas velocity and
the pressure drop also characterizes the fluidized bed. The pressure drop increases linearly
with the gas velocity in the case of a fixed bed. This relation continues until the forces
balance between the gas flow and the particles weight. The velocity when that occurs is
called the minimum fluidization velocity. Fluidization is also dependent on the size and
shape of the solid particles. [36]

2.2.2 Transport Phenomena

The heat and mass transfer phenomena occur when there is contact between the different
phases. The heat and mass transfer coefficients become larger with larger contact points
between the phases. The transfer happens in two ways, one of which is the transfer
between the gas and the solid particles, and the other is the transfer between the bed phases
including bubbles, cloud, and emulsion. The second way only occurs in fluidized beds.
Hence, modeling the bubbles hydrodynamics in bubbling fluidized beds is important,
since that bubbles contribute to turbulence that affects the transfer phenomena. [36]

37
2.2.3 Numerical Simulation

Fluidized bed numerical simulation is based on mass conservation, energy conservation,

and momentum equations, along with the equations that describe phase interactions. Some
models were developed to describe gas-solid fluidized beds such as Lattice-Boltzmann,
Discrete Particle Model, and Two Fluid Model. [36]

2.3 Crater Formation

At a certain flow rate, the gas flowrate is high enough to lift the soil on top of the leak
point leading to a crater formation. While modeling gas dispersion in the case of a crater
would be similar to modeling dispersion through the atmosphere, knowing the dimensions
of the crater and the conditions of occurrence is required. Figure 18 shows a cross-
sectional view of the crater dimensions. Various factors affect the size of the crater, such
as the soil type, the pipeline pressure, and the diameter of the pipeline. The event of a
rupture of a high pressure pipeline can be complex, since that the crater size also depends
on factors related to the incident. These factors include the mode of failure, the location
of failure, the relative flow from the pipeline ends, and the misalignment of the ends in
case of a full bore rupture. Thus, some approximations might be needed in order to
estimate the crater dimensions. There are a few models available to predict the crater
dimensions, and most of them are empirical models. [37][38]

Figure 18 Cross sectional view of a crater[37]

38
2.3.1 Gasunie Model

The model is an empirical correlation developed by a Dutch company to find out the
dimensions of the crater. The pipeline diameter, the pipeline underground depth, and a
qualitative description of the soil are required input information to use the model. The
assumptions used in developing the model and the equations developed are shown
below.[37]

2.3.1.1 Assumptions:
 the soil is considered as a homogenous medium;
 the two ends of the pipeline are separated after the rupture;
 the crater formation occurs in two steps: initial soil displacement of the soil
near the pipeline, then the erosion of soil due to gas flow.

2.3.1.2 Equations:
2.3.1.2.1 Crater depth:

For pipeline rupture on the top, the depth can be defined as:

𝐷 = 𝐷𝑝 + 𝐷𝑐 ( 44 )

For a full-bore rupture, the depth can be defined as:

4.3𝐷𝑝 + 𝐷𝑐 , 𝑖𝑓 𝑤 ≤ 0.6
𝑅(𝑤)𝐷𝑝 ( 45 )
𝐷= + 𝐷𝑐 , 𝑖𝑓 0.6 < 𝑤 < 2
0.3
{ 2.2𝐷𝑝 + 𝐷𝑐 𝑖𝑓 𝑤 ≥ 2
where:

 𝐷 is the crater depth;

 𝐷𝑝 is the pipeline diameter;
 𝐷𝑐 is the depth of cover;
 𝑤 is a soil parameter dependent on soil type.

The values of 𝑤 are dependent on the type of soil in use and are shown in Table 3.

39
 Table 3 𝑤 values based on soil types and the corresponding calculated crater angles [37]

Type of soil 𝒘 𝜶𝒄𝟏 𝜶𝒄𝟐

Very dry sand 0.75 60 29

Sand or dry mixed oil 1.10 65 35

Mixed soil or gravel 1.75 70 45

Humid mixed soil, clay or rock 2.70 75 57

Heavy clay 5.00 80 73

The function 𝑅(𝑤) can be computed with:

𝑅(𝑤) = 0.28 + 0.62(5 − 𝑤) − 0.07(25 − 𝑤 2 ) ( 46 )

The crater angles can be computed using:

𝛼𝑐1 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 (𝑤 + 1) ( 47 )

2.8 + 0.5𝑤 ( 48 )
𝛼𝑐2 = 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 [( ) (𝑤 + 1)]
10
2.3.1.2.2 Crater Width:

The crater width 𝐶𝑊 can be obtained using:

(𝑏 − 𝐷)2 ( 49 )
𝐶𝑊 = 2𝑎 √1 −
𝑏2

where 𝑎 and 𝑏 can be obtained with:

40
 𝑏 𝑏 2 ( 50 )
tan 𝛼𝑐1 = √( ) −1
𝑎 𝑏−𝐷

2 ( 51 )
𝑏 𝑏
tan 𝛼𝑐2 = √( ) −1
𝑎 𝑏 − 0.5𝐷

2.3.1.3 Limitations

The model has the following limitations:

 the model neglects the pipeline’s operating pressure, which makes it

overestimate the crater width for low operating pressure, and underestimate the
crater width for high operating pressure;
 the model includes no correlation for the crater length;
 qualitative soil characterization leads to inaccuracy.

2.3.2 Battelle Model

The Battelle model was developed by the Battelle Institute in order to improve the Gasunie
model mentioned above. The model shows an improvement from the Gasunie model by
incorporating the pipeline’s operating pressure into the equations, and by giving a
quantitative description of the soil. The assumptions and equations used to develop the
model are shown below.[37]

2.3.2.1 Assumptions
 the correlations have been derived by considering that the physics governing
crater formation due to a pipeline rupture are similar to the one where a crater
is formed due to a chemical explosion;
 the Gasunie depth correlations are valid and used in this correlation.

2.3.2.2 Equations

For an infinitely long buried explosive with an incompressible fluid as the medium, the
outburst speed can obtained with:

41
 2𝜌𝑄𝑤 ( 52 )
𝑢𝑥 = √
3𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙

where:

 𝑢𝑥 is the outburst speed;

 𝜌 is the gas density;
 𝑄𝑤 is the explosion energy per unit mass;
 𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 is the soil density.

The energy per unit mass of explosion can be obtained with:

𝑐2 ( 53 )
𝑄𝑤 =
2(𝛾 2 − 1)
where:

 𝑐 is the speed of light;

 𝛾 is the specific heat ratio of the gas.

The width of the crater can be obtained with:

𝐷𝑝
𝐷𝑝 (𝐷𝑐 + 2 ) 𝑢𝑥 𝐷𝑝 2 ( 54 )
√
𝐶𝑊 = 2 − (𝐷𝑐 + )
𝑢𝑘𝑟 2

The critical velocity to displace the soil 𝑢𝑘𝑟 can be obtained with:

2𝐴𝑑𝑦𝑛 ( 55 )
𝑢𝑘𝑟 = √
𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙

Where 𝐴𝑑𝑦𝑛 is the work required to displace a unit of volume of mass of soil.

2.3.2.3 Limitations

The model has the following limitations:

42
  the depth calculations use qualitative soil characteristics, while the crater width
calculations use quantitative values;
 the model lacks a correlation for crater length.

2.3.3 Advantica Model

The model was developed by GL Noble Denton, formerly known as Advantica. The
developers conducted a set of 12 experiments using a test rig designed to simulate a
puncture in a buried natural gas transmission pipeline. Three different types of soil were
defined as clay soil, sandy soil, and mixed soil. The operating pressure ranged from 20 –
120 bar and the hole size varied from 25 mm to 80 mm. The dimensions of the craters
formed after each experiment were measured. The developers did not report the crater
width, and reported the recommended separation distance in the case of having parallel
pipelines. However, according to Silva et al. [37] the maximum width of the crater can be
assumed to be twice as much as the separation distance, since that the Advantica
developers stated that the distance has been recorded from the centerline of the first
pipeline to the nearest point on the parallel pipeline. Silva et al. then used the same data
to produce new figures in terms of crater width instead of separation distance as shown in
Figure 19. [39]

Figure 19 Example of experimental data on crater size [37]

43
2.3.3.1 Equations

The Advantica model provided only experimental data resulting from the 12 experiments.
Silva et al. [37] then adding the crater width information by assuming it is double the
separation distance obtained a general equation governing the data by using linear
regression.

𝐶𝑊𝑖 = 𝑛𝑖 𝐷𝑝 + 𝑚𝑖 ( 56 )

The empirical correlation constants (𝑛𝑖 and 𝑚𝑖 ) depend on the type of soil, and the pipeline
operating conditions. Table 4 below shows the list of correlations throughout different
scenarios.[37]

Table 4 Empirical correlation constants value for different conditions [37]

Soil Type Pressure (bar) Diameter (in) Correlation
Sandy soil 20 Any 𝐶𝑊 = 0.3999𝐷𝑝 + 5.4695
40 ≤12.8 𝐶𝑊 = −10−14 𝐷𝑝 + 10.875
>12.8 𝐶𝑊 = 0.3934𝐷𝑝 + 5.7275
60 ≤24.0 𝐶𝑊 = 0.0278𝐷𝑝 + 14.6060
>24.0
𝐶𝑊 = 0.3927𝐷𝑝 + 5.8000
80-150 any
𝐶𝑊 = 0.3999𝐷𝑝 + 5.469
Clay soil 20 ≤36.1 𝐶𝑊 = 0.0237𝐷𝑝 + 6.0135
>36.1 𝐶𝑊 = 0.093𝐷𝑝 + 3.4989
40 ≤36.0 𝐶𝑊 = 0.0258𝐷𝑝 + 5.9839
>36.0 𝐶𝑊 = 0.1445𝐷𝑝 + 1.6881
60 ≤24.0
𝐶𝑊 = 0.0237𝐷𝑝 + 5.9989
>24.0
80 any 𝐶𝑊 = 0.2437𝐷𝑝 + 0.5545
100 any 𝐶𝑊 = 0.3148𝐷𝑝 + 0.1522
150 ≤12.6 𝐶𝑊 = 0.3710𝐷𝑝 + 0.0842
>12.6 𝐶𝑊 = −0.0075𝐷𝑝 + 5.811
𝐶𝑊 = 0.3562𝐷𝑝 + 1.000
Mixed soil ≤80.0 ≤36.1 𝐶𝑊 = 0.0244𝐷𝑝 + 10.276
>36.1 𝐶𝑊 = 0.1946𝐷𝑝 + 4.0742

2.3.4 Accident-Based Model

The model was developed by Silva et al. [37] using reported incident data on which a
crater formation has occurred. The data were collected from 48 different incidents from
various databases. The data was inputted in a linear regression software called
STATISTICA and a correlation between crater width and the pipeline diameter, the

44
operating pressure, the depth of cover, the specific heat ratio of the gas, and the density of
the soil was obtained. The obtained correlation is shown in Equation ( 57 ).[37]

𝐶𝑊 = 33.646 + 0.315𝐷𝑝 + 0.056𝑃 + 3.995𝐷𝑐 − 8.304𝛾

( 57 )
− 0.017𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙

2.4 CFD Models

One of the ways to predict the pattern of gas flow through soil is using Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models. CFD is used to analyze systems involved with fluid flow
and heat transfer and other phenomena such as chemical reactions. CFD has many
applications in the industry such as aerodynamics of vehicles, mixing and segregation
processes, and chemical reactors. The codes of CFD are implemented in three different
elements, the preprocessor, the solver, and the post-processor. In the pre-processor stage,
the system is set-up by defining the geometry and generating the grid for it. Then, the
appropriate physical and chemical models are selected depending on the system that needs
to be simulated. The fluids properties and the boundary conditions are also defined in order
to run the codes. The solution of the equations is defined at nodes in each cell. In general,
the more cells used in the grid, the more accurate the solution is. However, this also can
increase the computational cost, which is the time required by the computer to give a
solution. The second stage is the solver. In the solver stage, the governing equations are
integrated into the solution domain, then the resulting integral equations are converted into
a system of algebraic equations. Finally, the equations are solved by an iterative method.
There are various CFD solvers available such as FLUENT, CFX, and PHOENICS. The
last stage is the post-processor stage. In this stage the results of the simulations are
analyzed and, based on them, some outcomes are recorded.[40] Solving via CFD involves
using the Navier-Stokes equation to determine the fluid properties at a single node at a
single point of time. Then, the data are used as input for other equations such as turbulence
models and drag force models. There are two main approaches for numerical simulations
for solid-gas systems, which is the case of this thesis. The first is called the Two-Phase

45
method which is an Eulerian-Eulerian approach, in which both the solid, and the gas are
considered a continuum, and the particle amount is specified by inputting the volume
fraction of the solid. In addition, other constitutive equations are used from the granular
theory in order to account for the solid behavior. The other main approach is the CFD-
DEM (Discrete Element Method) method, which is an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, in
which the gas is considered a continuum, but the solid is considered a discrete phase. In
this method, the Newtonian equations of motion are solved for each particle using force
balance, while the gas is simulated using Navier-Stokes equation.[41], [42] The CFD-
DEM approach is considered more accurate since it takes into account the particle-particle
and particle-wall collisions, and other particle properties such as elasticity modulus and
stiffness coefficient, unlike the Two-Phase approach which doesn’t include them.[41]
However, the high computation cost associated with CFD-DEM makes it only feasible for
dilute solid-phase flow.[43] Most of the CFD work that has been found in literature
involved fluidization, and none was found directly related to an underground pipeline
release. A general form of the Navier-Stokes equation is shown below.[44]

𝐷 ( 58 )
𝜌 𝐯 = −∇𝑝 + 𝜇∇2 𝐯 + 𝜌𝐠
𝐷𝑡

2.4.1 Turbulence Models

Two-equation turbulence models are used along with the Navier-Stokes equation in order
to simulate fluids. The first equation represents the turbulence kinetic energy 𝑘. The
second one can include any of the following: the dissipation rate of turbulence kinetic
energy 𝜀, the specific dissipation rate 𝜔, the length scale 𝑙, and others. Some of the
turbulence models are shown below. [45]

46
2.4.1.1 The k- Model

The k- model is the most used two-equation model in simulations. It is recommended to
be used for multi-phase flows, and flows with chemical reactions. The model of Lander
and Sharma is as follows:[46]

The kinematic eddy viscosity 𝑡 equation:

𝑘2 ( 59 )
𝑡 = 𝐶𝜇
𝜀

The turbulence kinetic energy 𝑘 equation:

𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝑘 𝜕 ( + 𝑉𝑡 ) 𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝑢̅𝑖 ( 60 )
+ 𝑢̅𝑗 = [ ] − 𝜀 + 𝜏𝑖𝑗
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

The turbulence dissipation 𝜀 equation:

𝜕𝜀 𝜕𝜀 𝜕 ( + 𝑉𝑡 ) 𝜕𝜀 𝜀 𝜕𝑢̅𝑖 𝜀2 ( 61 )
+ 𝑢̅𝑗 = [ ] + 𝐶𝜀1 𝜏𝑖𝑗 − 𝐶𝜀2
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎𝜀 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑘 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝑘
with:

2
𝜕𝑢̅ ( 62 )
𝑉𝑡 = 𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑥 | |
𝜕𝑦
where:

 𝜎𝑘 = 1.0, 𝜎𝜀 = 1.3 are the Prandtl numbers for k and 𝜀;

 𝐶𝜇 = 0.09, 𝐶𝜀1 = 1.44, 𝐶𝜀2 = 1.92 are model constants;
 𝑙𝑚𝑖𝑥 is the mixing length;
 𝜏𝑖𝑗 is Reynolds turbulence stress.

2.4.1.2 Modified k- Model

Various modifications and improvements have been implemented on the k- model. The
most important two are the realizable k- model [47] and the Renormalization Group
(RNG) k- model. [48]

47
The realizable k- model includes Schwartz inequality for shear stresses and satisfying the
realizability constraints on normal Reynolds stresses. In this model 𝐶𝜇 is no longer
constant and instead is calculated using an improved eddy-viscosity equation. The other
constants also differ in value, being 𝜎𝑘 = 1.0, 𝜎𝜀 = 1.2, 𝐶𝜀1 = 1.44, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝜀2 = 1.9. The
model showed improvements for jets, mixing layers, and separating streams, compared to
the standard k- model.

The RNG k- model is improved compared to the standard k- model by having better
ability to predict separating flows and recirculating flows. However, the model fails to
predict flows with acceleration. In this model, 𝐶𝜀2 is no longer constant and instead is
replaced by 𝐶𝜀2 in equation.

𝐶𝜇 3 (1 − /0 ) ( 63 )
𝐶𝜀2 ≡ 𝐶𝜀2 +
1 + 𝛽1 3

with

𝑆𝑘 1 𝜕𝑢̅𝑖 𝜕𝑢̅𝑗
= , 𝑆 = √2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑗𝑖 , 𝑆 = ( + ) ( 64 )
𝜀 2 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖
where:

 𝑆 is the mean strain-rate of the flow;

 𝑆𝑖𝑗 the deformation tensor;
 𝐶𝜇 = 0.085, 𝐶𝜀1 = 1.42, 𝐶𝜀2 = 1.68, 𝜎𝑘 = 𝜎𝜀 = 0.72, 𝛽1 = 0.012, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 0 =
4.38.

2.4.1.3 The k- Model

The k- model is also a widely used model, and is considered superior to the standard k-
 model. The model is able to predict more accurately for boundary layers with adverse
pressure gradients, and is much more accurate for shear flows and separated flows.
However, it still has inaccuracies for predicting boundary free flows such as jets. The most

48
recent version of the k- model was developed by Wilcox and the equations are as
follows:[49]

The kinematic eddy viscosity 𝑡 equation:

𝑘 2𝑆𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑗𝑖 7
𝑡 = ̃ = 𝑚𝑎𝑥 {𝜔, 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚 √ ∗ } , 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚 =
,𝜔 ( 65 )
𝜔
̃ 𝛽 8

The turbulence kinetic energy 𝑘 equation:

𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝑘 𝜕 𝑘 𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝑢̅𝑖 ( 66 )
+ 𝑢̅𝑗 = [(v + σ∗ ) ] − 𝛽 ∗ 𝑘𝜔 + 𝜏𝑖𝑗
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜔 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

The turbulence dissipation 𝜀 equation:

𝜕𝜔 𝜕𝜔 𝜕 𝑘 𝜕𝜔 𝜎𝑑 𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝜔
+ 𝑢̅𝑗 = [(v + σ ) ] − 𝛽𝜔2 +
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜔 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜔 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗
( 67 )
𝜔 𝜕𝑢̅𝑖
+𝑎 𝜏
𝑘 𝑖𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗
with:

𝑎 = 0.52, 𝛽 = 𝛽0 𝑓𝛽 , 𝛽0 = 0.0708, 𝛽 ∗ = 0.09,

( 68 )
∗
𝜎 = 0.5, 𝜎 = 0.6, 𝜎𝑑0 = 0.125
and

𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝜔
0, ≤0
𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗 1 + 85𝜔
𝜎𝑑 = , 𝑓𝛽 = ,
𝜕𝑘 𝜕𝜔 1 + 100𝜔
𝜎𝑑0 , >0 ( 69 )
{ 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗
𝑖𝑗 𝑗𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑖 1 𝜕𝑢̅𝑖 𝜕𝑢̅𝑗
𝜔 = | ∗ 3
|, 𝑖𝑗 = ( − )
(𝛽 𝜔) 2 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑖
where:

 𝐶𝑙𝑖𝑚 is the stress-limiter strength;

 𝑓𝛽 is the vortex-stretching function;

49
  𝜔 is the dimensionless vortex-stretching parameter;
 𝑖𝑗 is the mean-rotation tensor.

2.4.2 Two-Phase Model

As stated earlier, the Two-Phase model is an Eulerian-Eulerian approach to simulate

multi-phase flow. In this model, both the solid and the fluid are treated as a continuum.
The model assumes that the solid behaves as a pseudo-fluid, and the granular features are
obtained using granular theory equations and user input for particle properties. The main
equations for an isothermal system are shown below.[50]

Continuity equations:

𝛼𝑔 + 𝛼𝑠 = 1 ( 70 )

𝜕 ( 71 )
(𝛼 𝜌 ) + ∇. (𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑔 ) = 𝑆𝑔𝑠
𝜕𝑡 𝑔 𝑔
𝜕 ( 72 )
(𝛼 𝜌 ) + ∇. (𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑠 ) = 𝑆𝑠𝑔
𝜕𝑡 𝑠 𝑠

Momentum equations:

𝜕
(𝛼 𝜌 𝑢
⃗⃗ ) + ∇. (𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑔 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑔 )
𝜕𝑡 𝑔 𝑔 𝑔
( 73 )
= −𝛼𝑔 ∇𝑃𝑔 + ∇𝛼𝑔 . 𝑔 + 𝛼𝑔 𝜌𝑔 𝑔 + 𝛽(𝑢
⃗⃗𝑠 − 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑔 )
+ 𝑆𝑔𝑠 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑠

𝜕
(𝛼 𝜌 𝑢
⃗⃗ ) + ∇. (𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑢 ⃗⃗𝑠 )
⃗⃗𝑠 𝑢
𝜕𝑡 𝑠 𝑠 𝑠
( 74 )
= −𝛼𝑠 ∇𝑃𝑠 + ∇𝛼𝑠 . 𝑠 + 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑔 + 𝛽(𝑢
⃗⃗𝑠 − 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑔 )
+ 𝑆𝑠𝑔 𝑢
⃗⃗𝑠

Gas phase stress sensor:

50
 𝑇 2 ( 75 )
𝑔 = 𝜇𝑔 [∇𝑢⃗⃗𝑔 + (∇𝑢⃗⃗𝑔 ) ] − 𝛼𝑔 𝜇𝑔 (∇𝑢⃗⃗𝑔 )
3

Solid phase stress sensor:

2 ( 76 )
𝑠 = 𝜇𝑠 [∇𝑢⃗⃗𝑠 + (∇𝑢⃗⃗𝑠 )𝑇 ] − 𝜇𝑠 (∇. 𝑢⃗⃗𝑠 ) + 𝑠 . ∇. 𝑢⃗⃗𝑠
3
Solid shear viscosity and bulk viscosity:

4 𝜃𝑠 0.5
𝜇𝑠 = 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑝 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 (1 + 𝑒𝑠𝑠 ) ( )
5 𝜋
𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑝 √𝜃𝑠 𝜋
+ [1
6(3 − 𝑒𝑠𝑠 )
2 𝑃𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
+ (1 + 𝑒𝑠𝑠 )(3𝑒𝑠𝑠 − 1)𝛼𝑠 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 ] + 𝑠 ( 77 )
5 2√𝐼2𝐷
4 𝜃𝑠 0.5
= 𝛼𝑠 𝜌𝑠 𝑑𝑝 𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 (1 + 𝑒𝑠𝑠 ) ( )
3 𝜋
Radial distribution function:

1 −1
𝛼𝑠 3
( 78 )
𝑔0,𝑠𝑠 = ⌈1 − ( ) ⌉
𝛼𝑠,𝑚𝑎𝑥

where:

 𝛼 is the volume fraction;

 𝑆 is the source term;
 𝛽 is the drag coefficient;
 𝑠 is the bulk viscosity;
 𝑑𝑝 is the surface to volume mean diameter [𝑚].

2.4.3 CFD-DEM Model

The CFD-DEM model, as stated earlier, is an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach, where the

fluid is treated as a continuum while the solid is considered a discrete phase, and the model
equations are applied to each particle individually. In the early stages, the number of

51
particles was several thousands, however, now it is possible to simulate 50,000 to 100,000
particles with a single CPU. This approach is still probably not feasible for very large
domains where particles exceed millions. The CFD-DEM is computationally expensive,
but it predicts results more accurately compared to the Two-Phase model. The equations
used in CFD-DEM for the gas are similar to the ones used in the Two-Phase model
(Equations ( 71 ), ( 73 ),( 75 )). For the solid particles, these two following equations are
used.[51]

Translational and rotational motion equations of each single particle:

𝑁
𝑑𝑣𝑎
𝑚𝑎 = −𝑉𝑎 ∇𝑝𝑔 + 𝐹𝑑 + 𝑚𝑎 𝑔 + ∑(𝐹𝑎𝑏,𝑛 + 𝐹𝑎𝑏,𝑡 )
𝑑𝑡 ( 79 )
𝑏=1

𝑁
𝑑𝑤𝑎 ( 80 )
𝐼𝑎 = ∑(𝑅𝑏 𝑛𝑎𝑏 × 𝐹𝑎𝑏,𝑡 )
𝑑𝑡
𝑏=1

with the drag force calculated by:

(𝑢𝑔 − 𝑣𝑝 )𝑉𝑝 𝛽 ( 81 )
𝐹𝑑 =
(1 − 𝜀𝑔 )
where:

 𝐹𝑎𝑏,𝑛 , 𝐹𝑎𝑏,𝑡 are the normal and tangential force components respectively;
 𝑆 is the source term;
 𝛽 is the phase momentum exchange coefficient.

52
 3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

The proper prediction of the consequences of underground pipeline releases requires the
understanding of the flow mechanism of the gas leaking through the ground from the
buried pipelines. There is currently a clear lack of a universal model that is capable of
modeling underground gas release from diffusion (low flow pipeline releases) to crater
formation (high flow releases). In addition, all the available crater formation prediction
tools are mostly empirical correlations with various assumptions and limitations. Hence,
there is a need to understand the underground gas release phenomena in a more
fundamental level.

The principal objective of the project is to model the underground releases of hydrocarbon
from a buried pipeline.

The proposed work includes the following steps:

 Review of the current state-of-the-art approaches on the modeling of underground

gas releases;
 Development of a Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) based model that aims to
model the gas flow through the ground for different gas flow rates (from low to
high flow);
 Study of the effect of the gas release rates and soil properties on the release regime,
namely the movement or displacement of the soil;
 Model validation using existing experimental data;
 Identification of the pipeline release rates corresponding to the underground flow
regimes boundaries (diffusion, fluidization and crater formation);
 Utilization of model output for consequence modeling.

53
 4 METHODOLOGY

This research involved modelling work shown in the 5 stages listed below.

4.1 Stage 1: Literature Review and Identification of the Knowledge Gaps

This part aims to review historical major accident cases that involve underground releases
to identify a necessary scope and limits of the model, which should be able to predict all
potential industrial-scale incidents. The review also includes a study of existing
underground gas release models and existing experimental data. The investigation of
previous work includes the study of diffusion, fluidization effect and crater formation and
the identification of the models’ limitations. This is followed by identifying the knowledge
gaps, and the possible areas of improvement. The typical dimensions and conditions of
buried natural gas pipelines were noted from previous incidents, from experimental papers
such as Acton et al. [39], and from the local industry in Qatar. This data can be used in
order to have a realistic model when simulating an underground gas release.

4.2 Stage 2: Design of a CFD Model for the Simulation of Underground Gas
Releases

The underground gas flow was simulated using a CFD software named ANSYS
Workbench. The three main steps prior to a simulation are geometry, meshing, and model
setup

 Geometry:

In this stage, the model is setup first using data given by the industry on the used buried
transportation pipeline, which includes the pipe diameter, orifice size, operating pressure,
soil type, and pipe depth. The dimensions of the data are then represented by a geometry
created using ANSYS DesignModeler. The geometry was set to be a 2-dimensional
geometry with two bodies, where the top body represented the atmosphere, and the bottom
body where the pipeline lied in represented the soil. A detailed step by step geometry setup
is shown in section 5.1.

 Meshing:

54
The system is divided into a number of nodes varying in size based on location, being
finer around the inlet, the pipeline, and the interface, and coarser in other locations. This
is done by using the ANSYS Meshing software. The modeling equations are solved in
each node. An example of the previously mentioned geometry after being meshed is
shown in Figure 20. A detailed step by step description for the meshing procedure is shown
in section 5.2.

Figure 20 Example of meshed geometry

 Model set-up:

The methodology for the CFD Model Set-Up is shown in Figure 21. In the model set-up,
various parameters are used as input and various applicable models to the given scenario
are chosen, such as the multiphase model, the turbulence model, and the granular viscosity
model. In the multiphase model, different phases are set-up for air, soil, and methane. For
the turbulence model, the k- turbulence model is selected. For the granular viscosity, the
Gidaspow model is selected. After inputting boundary conditions and initiating the flow,
the simulation can start running and showing results. Details about the choice of models
and running the calculation procedure are presented in section 5.3.

55
 Figure 21 Stage 2 steps

After results are obtained for the first scenario, various parameter are changed to evaluate
their effect on the results compared to the original case. The parameters studied are:

 Mesh size: in which various meshing approaches for the designed geometry are
examined including different mesh sizes and attempting to use the “Sphere of
influence” option;
 Soil viscosity: in which the soil viscosity in the material tab is checked to
determine if it has an effect on the results;
 Soil particle diameter: in which the soil particle diameter are examined and
compared for the case of having a constant diameter versus a varying particle size
distribution, using the population balance model;
 Type of inlet boundary condition: the choices of inlet pressure or inlet velocity as
boundary conditions are compared;
 Primary phase selection: in which the choice of the primary phase selected (either
air or methane) is examined, and based on the results, the primary phase is selected;
 Inlet velocity: in which the effect of having a different range of velocity values
ranging from 2x10-2 m/s to 15 m/s is evaluated;

56
  Type of geometry boundary condition: in which the option for using symmetry
versus the outlet boundary condition for the side of the geometry in the
atmospheric body will be assessed;
 Specific gravity: in which the effect of using fluids other than methane, including
hydrogen, ethane, and propane is assessed;
 Presence of soil: in which the difference between having the soil present in the
simulation versus having no soil in it, along with its effect on the methane flow is
studied;
 Material density: in which the air and methane density values are varied between
constant, and using a model such as ideal gas. The results are then compared.

4.3 Stage 3: Model Validation Using Existing Experimental Data

The model is validated using experimental data found in literature review. For the
diffusion flow regime, the model is validated using the work by Yan et al. [25] for the case
of a gas leak flow rate of 24 L/min. The geometry, mesh, and setup inputs were changed
to match conditions provided in their paper. The simulation is run for a time period similar
to the experiment. The results from the simulation are compared with the existing
experimental data, in order to infer the accuracy of the model.

4.4 Stage 4: Identifying Regimes Boundaries Using the Model

In this stage, the setup uses conditions provided by the industry in Qatar. First, the gas
volumetric flow rate for Qatar is estimated and compared to the recorded gas volumetric
flow rate provided in the experimental data in the literature. Then, the effect of the fluid
velocity and the soil density is studied, and reported in dimensionless form, using
Reynolds’ number to represent the fluid velocity and Archimedes’ number to represent
the soil density. The developed model is executed for various velocity values, starting
from very small, with the expectation that no soil movement will be observed (diffusion).
The velocity is then slowly increased until noticing a clear soil motion (fluidization). The
velocity is again increased until a clear opening from the hole in the pipeline to the
atmosphere is seen (crater formation). The velocity ranges in which a change of regime is

57
observed are recorded. The velocity values ranged from 0.1 m/s to 50 m/s. The same
procedure is done using different soil density values ranging from 1000 kg/m3 to 1600
kg/m3. All the results are compiled in a graph represented by the previously mentioned
dimensionless numbers.

4.5 Stage 5: Using the Model’s Output as an Input for Consequence Modeling

The output mass flow rate is taken from one of the simulated cases as an example, and
then used as an input to the Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA)
software, which is a software used for consequence modeling.[52] The source is assumed
as a single continuous release point. The threat zone of the possibility of a flash fire will
is plotted from the outcome of ALOHA.

58
 5 DESIGN OF A CFD MODEL FOR THE SIMULATION OF UNDERGROUND
GAS RELEASE

The simulation of underground gas release from a buried pipeline is done using the
software ANSYS Workbench 18.1 which includes ANSYS DesignModeler, ANSYS
Meshing, and ANSYS Fluent. Each one of them was used for setting up the model in three
consecutive steps: geometry, meshing, and setup.

5.1 Geometry

The first step of simulating a real case scenario is to have our system and domain represent
the conditions and dimensions observed in real cases. Since there are plenty of different
possibilities of a buried pipeline dimensions, the one most relevant to the local industry in
Qatar was chosen. An industrial company in Qatar provided us with the information shown
in Table 5. These dimensions will be used in the geometry used setting up the model. Since
that the pipeline diameter was not given, the diameter used was obtained by choosing the
median diameter from the experimental work of Acton et al.[39] which was 0.61 m. The
geometry in this project went through various phases with different levels of capability to
use the software. There are three main geometry setups that were used throughout the
project represented by phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3. Phase 1 and phase 2 are very similar
and the only difference is that in phase 2 more constrictions on the geometry were used
and more accurate dimensions were used, due to a better understanding of using the
software. Phase 1, and phase 2 geometry were used in the investigation, and testing stages.
Phase 3 is a replica of the experimental work done by Yan et al. by utilizing the
information given in their description. Phase 3 was used in the model validation stage. The
software used to create all the geometry is ANSYS DesignModeler. In all the geometry
cases, the system is assumed to be a two dimensional system, since that whatever happens
in the third dimension will be the same due to symmetry. This also will simplify the
problem and potentially lower the computational cost for running the simulations. The 2D
system is divided into two equally sized sections, the top being the atmosphere domain,
and the bottom being the soil domain. In the soil domain, the pipeline is located at exactly

59
the center of the horizontal axis (x axis), while the depth varies along the vertical axis (y
axis) depending on the phase. A section on the top of the pipeline is also selected as the
inlet source of the gas. A schematic diagram of the system can be seen in Figure 22.

Figure 22 Geometry schematic

Table 5 Pipeline conditions provided by Qatar industry

Parameter Value

Pipeline Depth 1 to 1.5 m

Operating pressure 80 bar

Operating temperature 15 to 35 oC

methane 83%, ethane 5%, nitrogen 5%,

Gas composition CO2 3%, H2S 2%, propane 1.5%, butane
0.5%

Pipeline thickness 32.6 mm

Hole sizes of interest 0.75’’, 2’’, 4’’, full bore rupture

60
5.1.1 Phase 1

The whole dimensions of the system are 10 m in the x – axis and 4 m in the y – axis. First,
a rectangle is drawn on the positive x and y directions starting from the point (0,0) which
is the bottom left corner of the rectangle. Using the same drawing tool, another rectangle
is drawn starting from the top left corner point of the previously drawn rectangle, leading
to two rectangles drawn on top of each other sharing one side (Top of the first one, and
bottom of the second one). Afterwards, the circle option is chosen, the center of the circle
is approximately put on the middle of the x – axis, and at approximately 0.8 m in the y –
axis (1.2 m below surface). The point was approximated by using the coordinates on the
bottom right corner of the software. The circle is then drawn. From the “Modify” tab,
using the split option, two points on top of the pipeline were used to approximately split
the pipeline into two sections, the inlet hole, and the pipeline wall. The value was
approximated to 0.1 m for the inlet section by using the coordinates on the bottom right
corner of the software. In order to put an exact value for a part of the already drawn
geometry, the dimensions option is selected. The general dimension option is chosen and
used on three sides of the drawn rectangles. The value of horizontal side is fixed to 10 m
represented by H1. The value of the vertical side of each triangle is 2 m represented by
V2, and V3, adding the total vertical length to 4 m. For the pipeline, the dimensions option
is used to fix the diameter of the pipeline to 0.61 m represented by D4. A schematic
diagram of the geometry is shown in Figure 23. The second part of the geometry creation
is to create a surface from the sketch drawn. Using the “Modeling” tab, the sketch drawn
is first selected and by using the surface from sketch option, the surface is generated, and
two bodies are identified (soil, and atmosphere) with the pipe being hollow circle not part
of the soil body. With this, the geometry is done, and ready for meshing.

61
 Figure 23 Phase 1 geometry

5.1.2 Phase 2

The only difference between phase 1 and phase 2 is that phase 2 has more dimensions to
assure a better accuracy of the geometry after understanding the software better. The
sketching steps are exactly as stated in the previous section up until the dimensions part.
In this geometry, four more dimensions are added in order to ensure that the location of
the pipeline, and the hole size are exact and not approximated. A vertical dimension
between the bottom of the geometry and the center of the circle is added to ensure the
center is 0.8 m above the bottom line, which is represented by V6. A horizontal dimension
between the left side of the geometry and the center of the circle is added to ensure the
center is 5 m away from it, being exactly at the middle, which is represented by H5. To
control the hole size, two horizontal dimensions were added from each point of the split
inlet to the side of the circle. By ensuring that both of them are equally distanced from the
side, the hole size would be in the center, and would be the length left from the circle
diameter after subtracting the dimensions. In the case, the dimensions were both 0.255 m
in order to have the hole size at exactly 0.1 m. The dimensions are represented by H7 and
H8. Other dimensions (H1, V2, V3, D4), are exactly as mentioned in phase 1. A schematic

62
diagram of the geometry of phase 2 is shown in Figure 24. The modeling steps to create
the surface body are exactly as mentioned in phase 1.

Figure 24 Phase 2 geometry

5.1.3 Phase 3

The geometry in this phase is used to validate the model using the experimental work done
by Yan et al. [25]. In this case, all the steps were identical to the previous phase with the
only difference being the values of the dimensions, in order to represent the information
given in the paper. The pipe diameter D4 is 0.2 m, the distance from the bottom to the
center of the pipeline V6 is 1.1 m (pipe depth 0.9 m), and the hole size is 5 mm (H7, and
H8 are 0.0975 m). Other dimensions (H1, V2, V3, H5), are exactly as mentioned in phase
2. A schematic diagram of the geometry of phase 3 is shown in Figure 25. The modeling
steps to create the surface body are exactly as mentioned in the previous phases.

63
 Figure 25 Phase 3 geometry

5.2 Meshing

The next step after creating the geometry is to divide our domain to cells generating a grid.
The meshing process is done by using ANSYS Meshing. The system is divided into nodes,
and the CFD codes will run at each of these nodes. The size of the nodes and the number
of the nodes affects the accuracy of the solution, and the computational time it takes to get
results. Thus, choosing the optimal mesh size would generate good accuracy with the
lowest possible computational time. The size of the mesh is not usually uniform
throughout the geometry. It is usually finer around the point of release and interfaces, and
coarser around other locations when the flow is already established.

In order to do meshing, the first step is to import the geometry into ANSYS meshing,
which is done automatically when using ANSYS Workbench. First, in order to make the
process organized, different sections of the geometry are named. The named sections
were:

 Inlet, which is the opening on top of the pipeline;

 Pipe wall, which is the rest of the pipeline other than the opening;
 Imaginary wall, which is the bottom of the geometry;

64
  Outlet, which is the top of the geometry;
 Soil, which is the lower half of the geometry;
 Atmosphere, which is the upper half of the geometry;
 Interface, which is the line separating the soil body and the atmosphere body;
 Symmetry, which are the lines on the sides of the geometry.

Many different mesh sizes were investigated in the project, which is discussed in the next
chapter. Figure 26 shows the different approaches that were adopted. In order to make
Mesh (A), the sizing option is selected, then it was applied four times on different locations
as follows:

 For the inlet, element size selected was 6x10-3 m;

 For the pipe wall, element size selected was 2x10-2 m;
 For the interface, element size selected was 2x10-2 m;
 For the soil and atmosphere bodies, element size selected was 5x10-2 m.

The element size is different in different regions in hopes of having higher accuracy in
areas where the flow is establishing, where the possibility of error would be higher if the
element size is big, since the whole node would be considered one point for the
calculations. The next step is generating the mesh, and the mesh would be created. For
Mesh (A), the size obtained is 21,452 nodes. Another option was used for the example of
Mesh (C). In order to get the sphere-like mesh, a new point is created which is intended
to be the center of the sphere. The coordinates of the points where (5,2.5). Then, going
back to mesh sizing option, the soil and atmosphere bodies are selected. Then, the “Sphere
of Influence” mesh sizing type is selected. The previously defined point was set as the
center. The options also requires inputting the radius, and the element size, which were
2.5 m and 2x10-2 m respectively.

65
 Figure 26 Different mesh sizes for the same geometry

5.3 Model Setup

After the meshing process, the meshed geometry is inserted into ANSYS FLUENT. The
final step before running the calculations, is to decide which models are required for the
solution, and to provide the necessary input data to solve the equations.

5.3.1 General Setup

Some of the general settings for running the simulation involved having the solver type as
pressure-based, and the velocity formulation being absolute. The 2D space is set as planar,
and the time is set as transient, which reflects the case we have in our hands. Finally, the
gravity value is selected to be -9.81 m/s2 in the y direction.

5.3.2 Models

In the models section, various models that are enabled in order to be used for the
simulation calculations. The ones that are of concern to this project are the multi-phase
model, energy model, viscous model, species model, and population balance model.

In the multi-phase option, the number of phases and the model type is selected. In this
project, the number of phases differed based on the time of the simulation ranging from

66
one phase to three phases depending on the wanted simulation. After the number of phases
is selected, the Eulerian type is selected based on the literature review. The CFD-DEM
option is not chosen due to the massive domain of the case, which would not make it
feasible to be done in a reasonable manner, due to the huge number of particles and the
massive time it would require to solve equations for each of them. Afterwards, the phases
are selected in order to input additional information to each phase. The three phases are
air, soil, and methane. For air and methane, no changes are added since they are gas phases.
For soil, the granular option is enabled, since it is a solid phase. For the soil properties, the
diameter was set as a constant diameter of 1 mm. For the granular viscosity, the
Gidaspow[53] model was selected, since it showed better agreement with experimental
data compared to Symlal-Obrien[54]. [55] In addition, for the granular bulk viscosity, the
Lun et al.[56] model was chosen, being the only available model in Fluent. Finally, the
packing limit was left as default as 0.63, which the value for the assumption that the soil
particles are spherical, but was changed in many simulations depending on the case.

The energy model enables the user to enable the energy equation. This option was enabled
or disabled depending on the simulation. It is a requirement to be used in the case of a
density that is not constant.

The viscous model is used to choose type of the flow (Laminar or turbulent), and to choose
the turbulence model needed for the simulation. The model chosen is the k- model, since
it is the most widely used model, and the case of this project does not fall into its
weaknesses.[45]

The species model is used when there is a material that is used in the simulation, but the
amount is too small for it to be considered a phase. The details of this model are shown in
Chapter 7.

The population balance model is used in order to have a particle size distribution of the
soil particles and not a fixed diameter. The method used is the discrete method, since
particle range is known, and the span of the particle sizes is 2-3 orders of magnitude from
each other. The use of this model is shown in Chapter 6.

67
5.3.3 Materials Setup

All the materials included in the simulation cases need to be added including all fluids and
solid. Both air and methane are available in the Fluent database with their respective data.
For the soil, a user defined material is added as a fluid since this is an Eulerian-Eulerian
approach, and the soil density is required as input. The soil is assumed to be sand and
density chosen for this project is 1600 kg/m3. [57] In the case of the energy balance
equation being enabled, the user must specify the model for calculating density since it is
no longer constant for the fluids. Various models are available including ideal gas and
Peng-Robinson.

5.3.4 Boundary Conditions Setup

The types of boundary conditions in the domain, and any other required information for
specific boundaries must be added in order for the equations to be solved. The type of
boundary conditions is stated below for the named selections from the meshing section.

 For the inlet, velocity, pressure, and mass flow inlet types were chosen for different
stages of the project and with various values;
 For the pipe wall and the imaginary walls, the type of boundary is “wall”;
 For the outlet, the boundary type selected is a pressure outlet, and is set to 0 barg
in all stages of the project, since the outlet is in the atmosphere;
 For the interface, the boundary type “interface” was chosen;
 For symmetry, “symmetry” boundary type was selected.

5.3.5 Initial Conditions Setup

Since that the simulations that are run are transient, initial conditions must also be added
to solve the equations. After initializing the simulation, various parameters are patched
based on the case simulated, such as the sand volume fraction in the soil body (which
differed based on the phase of the project) and in the atmosphere body (which is zero).
The same procedure is done for air and methane volume fraction values in the soil and
atmosphere body, with methane being always zero at the start of the simulation, and air

68
being the rest of the volume fraction. This can be done through code that is used for Fluent.
An example of code used for simulations is shown in the Appendix.

5.3.6 Running Calculations

The final step before running the calculations is to choose the time step size, the number
of time steps, the time step method, and the max iterations per time step. There are two
time step methods, either a fixed time step or an adaptive time step. The adaptive time step
allows setting a range of time step sizes and the software chooses the time step size based
on the residuals. The lower the residuals are the higher the time step size the software uses
bounded by the user’s input. In addition, the ending time is chosen to decide when the
simulation ends. The fixed time step method has only one time step size and it runs based
on the number of time steps inputted. Throughout the project, the time step size ranged
from as low as 1x10-5s to as high as 1 s. In general, having a smaller time step size
increases the accuracy, but increases the computational time significantly. Thus, it is
important to try to find the optimum time step size with good accuracy. The maximum
iterations per time were chosen to be 100 throughout the project. After all the previous
information is set, running calculations can start and the software starts generating and
recording data. In order to speed up the calculation time, the Fluent case file is sent to the
Supercomputer “Raad”, available at Texas A&M University at Qatar, and multiple
simulations are run simultaneously. The job file used for the supercomputer is shown in
the Appendix.

5.3.7 Results Example

Figure 27 shows the results of a simulation that has been done using the model set-up
using ANSYS Fluent. The results are shown from the beginning of the simulation to 5
seconds flow time from the start of release. In this case, the following conditions were
used:

 Pipeline depth: 1.2 m

 Pipeline diameter: 0.61 m
 Methane velocity: 10 m/s

69
  Soil type: sand
 Orifice size: 0.1 m
 Soil volume fraction: 0.63

Figure 27 Sand volume fraction at the start and after some time

Various changes were done to the set-up throughout the project, which are shown in
Chapter 6.

70
 6 MODEL CONFIGURATION

In order to ensure the performance of the model, to use it for validation and boundary
identification later on, various parameters were changed and investigated throughout the
project, and due to the results of the investigated parameters, various configuration
changes were done. The parameters that were investigated are as follows:

 Mesh size;
 Soil viscosity in the material tab;
 Soil particle diameter;
 Type of inlet boundary condition;
 Primary phase selection;
 Inlet velocity;
 Type of geometry boundary condition;
 Specific gravity;
 Presence of soil;
 Material density.

6.1 Mesh Size

As seen in Figure 26, various mesh sizes were used during the lifetime project, in order to
obtain the best possible outcome. Mesh (B), and Mesh (C), are both approaches where a
finer mesh is present in the middle area, which is the area where the gas flow would be.
In Mesh (B), a change in the geometry was added and instead of having two boxes
representing the atmosphere, and soil bodies, six boxes were used, three for the
atmosphere boy and three for the soil body. The middle boxes were then set at a smaller
mesh sizing compared to the others boxes since it’s the area where the flow would be. The
issue with this approach was a technical issue, since that Fluent did not allow for the
vertical lines to be assumed as interfaces, and hence the simulations could not be run. In
order to overcome the technical issue, another approach was using the sphere of influence
option, which is represented by Mesh (C). The details on how to make Mesh (C) are shown
in section 5.2. The technical issue from Fluent was no longer present, however, all the

71
simulations that were run using Mesh (C) diverged, and the mesh size was not used for
simulations. In order to make sure that the results obtained were independent of the mesh
size, and that the simulations gave acceptable results, a mesh independence study was
conducted. The study was done using element sizes of 8, 5, and 2 cm in the areas that were
not at the inlet or the interface. The meshed geometry of each element size is shown in
Figure 28. For the mesh independence study, the residual error value of 10-4 was
considered acceptable, [58] and it was checked for the continuity equation and for a
parameter of interest, which is the methane volume fraction. In general, decreasing the
element size increased the simulation time required to reach the solution. Table 6 shows
the results obtained for the mesh independence study and from the table, Mesh (A) gave
an acceptable error with a reasonable running time for a single simulation. Thus, Mesh
(A) was selected to be used for the rest of the project.

Figure 28 Different mesh used for mesh independence study

Table 6 Mesh independence study results

Simulation
Element Number of Continuity Methane volume
Mesh time to reach
size (cm) nodes residuals fraction residuals
5s

Mesh (E) 8 ~12,000 ~10-3 ~10-8 ~6 hrs

Mesh (A) 5 ~21,000 ~10-4 ~10-9 ~8 hrs

Mesh (D) 2 ~99,000 ~10-4 ~10-9 ~36 hrs

72
 6.2 Soil Viscosity in the Material Tab

In the Material tab in Fluent, once a material is selected, there is a slot for viscosity, in
case the material selected is a fluid. In the Two-Fluid approach, our soil is considered a
fluid, and hence a value of viscosity needs to be inputted. In this case, the soil material is
sand, and there is not value for viscosity for it since it is a solid. However, there is the
granular bulk viscosity that is setup in the phases tab, which is obtained by the drag model
mentioned earlier in 5.3.2. Two different viscosities were used to test if the value affects
the solution or not which were 1x10-2 Pa.s and 1x10-3 Pa.s respectively. Figure 29 shows
the results at the same time step for both viscosities, and the results show that the solutions
are identical. Hence, the viscosity in the material tab is not taken into account, and the
granular bulk viscosity is the one used for calculations by the software.

Figure 29 Sand material tab viscosity comparison

6.3 Soil Particle Diameter

As specified in Chapter 5, the sand particle diameter has to be specified in the phases tab.
However, the only available options are a constant diameter or a user defined function,
where the user can write their own code. In order to have a varying sand particle diameter,
and to observe its effect on the simulation results, the population balance model is used.
The population balance model is not available in Fluent by defaults and it has to be

73
activated. After the model is activated, various options are available. The one chosen for
this simulation is the discrete model, since it allows having multiple bins, and it is used
when the particle size range is known, with the span of the particle size range being 2-3
orders or magnitude. According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the sand
size ranges from 0.05-2 mm[59]. The number of bins (divisions between the minimum
and maximum values) is chosen to be four. The phase chosen is phase-2 which is the sand
phase. The minimum particle size value is inputted, then the ratio exponent is set to be
5.33 in order to obtain the maximum particle size value. Using the population balance
model also requires adding additional initial conditions, which are setting the values for
each bin in the soil particle size distribution. The size of bins is assumed to be identical
with 25% for each quarter. Figure 30 shows the results obtained for sand volume fraction
for an inlet flow of 10 m/s at 5 seconds. It seems that the effect of the flow is clearer on
the soil surface in the case of a varying diameter, due to the presence of many smaller
particles. The sand cloud in the atmosphere also appear to be denser, but not significantly.
The use of the population balance model also increases the residuals, which is expected
due the introduction of an additional equation to solve. The population balance model was
not used in the rest of the project due to the associated error, and due to the interest of
other parameters for the simulations. The change of the code used for Fluent is shown in
the Appendix.

Figure 30 Sand volume fraction at 5 s for different particle diameter

74
 6.4 Type of Inlet Boundary Condition

The two main inlet boundary conditions that were studies are pressure inlet and velocity
inlet. Using a pressure inlet is probably more useful for the industry since that the pipeline
pressure is known, compared to the velocity inlet which is not necessarily known.
However, using the pressure inlet boundary condition has shown multiple issues during
simulations, and most of them diverged, either immediately or after some short time less
than 5 seconds. Table 7 shows some of the pressure values that were investigated and
whether they diverged or not. Figure 31 shows the results obtained from a diverged
simulation for sand volume fraction. On the other hand, using a velocity inlet showed a
much better stability for the solutions, through a wide range of velocity values, from 0.1
m/s to 50 m/s, and all the simulations converged and gave results. As a result of that, the
velocity inlet was chosen to be used throughout this project.

Table 7 Pressure inlet simulation cases and their results

Case # Inlet pressure (kPa) Result

1 8 Diverged immediately

2 10 Diverged after 0.5 s

3 15 Diverged after 1.6 s

4 25 Diverged after 2.3 s

5 50 Converged to 5 s

6 100 Converged to 5 s

7 2000 Diverged after 1.2 s

75
 Figure 31 Example of a diverged simulation for sand volume fraction

6.5 Primary Phase Selection

The presence of three phases, including air, sand, and methane, grants a decision to choose
which phase is the primary phase and which other phase is secondary. Since the sand is a
solid and is not part of the flow, it is selected as a secondary phase. The choice between
air and methane seems to be relevant to the phase that is dominant in the inlet stream. For
example, Figure 32 and Figure 33 show the results obtained from a 10 m/s methane inlet
with air as the primary phase. The results clearly seem incorrect despite the fact that the
simulation converged. On the other hand, Figure 34 and Figure 35 show the results
obtained for the same velocity inlet, and the results seem to be reasonable, and the pressure
data seem to be correct, based on the soil density, and volume fraction. Similarly, in other
simulations where air was the inlet with traces of methane, the simulation diverged when
methane was chosen as the primary phase, and gave reasonable results with air being

76
chosen as the primary phase. So, it is apparently necessary to choose the dominant material
in the inlet as the primary phase for this kind of simulations.

Figure 32 Sand and methane volume fraction with air as primary phase

Figure 33 Pressure data with air as primary phase

77
 Figure 34 Sand and methane volume fraction with methane as primary phase

Figure 35 Pressure data with methane as primary phase

6.6 Inlet Velocity

Since the velocity-inlet was chosen to be used as the boundary condition, different
velocities were used to check for the ability of the model to show different results. Four
different velocity values were checked being, 2x10-2m/s, 5 m/s, 10 m/s, and 15 m/s. Figure
36 shows the results obtained for methane volume fraction at around the 5 seconds mark.
The results that appear are expected since that with a higher inlet velocity, more methane
can be seen in the atmosphere, and hence the model was able to predict such behavior.
However, it was concerning that the methane does not reach to the top of the boundary,

78
which is only 2 m high. One longer simulation was run in order to check if the methane
reaches the outlet eventually. Figure 37 shows the methane volume fraction at different
times with an inlet velocity of 10 m/s. From the figure, it is clear that the methane does
reach the top eventually, but it would be expected for it to reach sooner. Also, it can be
seen from the figure that the side of the geometry, that the methane is trapped on the side
of the atmosphere and not able to escape because of the symmetry boundary condition.

Figure 36 Methane volume fraction for different inlet velocity at 5 s

79
 Figure 37 Methane volume fraction at different time steps with a 10 m/s inlet

6.7 Type of Geometry Boundary Condition

Due to the gas being trapped by the side due to the symmetry boundary condition, which
means that both sides are mirror images of each other. Instead, the sides on the atmosphere
body were changed to the pressure-outlet boundary condition, while the sides in the soil
body were kept as symmetry. Figure 38 shows the results obtained from each case, and
shows that the gas is able to escape from the sides by using the pressure-outlet boundary
condition. Thus, the pressure-outlet boundary condition is used for the rest of the project.

80
 Figure 38 Methane volume fraction for different boundary conditions at 5 s

6.8 Specific Gravity

In order to find out the reason of the lag of methane from reaching the top, different
materials lighter and heavier than methane were used. The materials used were ethane and
propane, which are both heavier than methane, and hydrogen, which has a lower specific
gravity than methane. Figure 39 shows the gas volume fraction for each gas at 5 seconds
with a 10 m/s inlet velocity. The results visually did not answer the question of the lag
cause, and all the gases did not reach the top.

Figure 39 Volume fraction for different gases at 5 s

81
 6.9 Presence of Soil

Another approach to discover the reason behind the methane lag to the top was having the
same simulation, but without the presence of soil, to see if the gas will reach to the top
faster. This was done by removing the soil phase and having only the methane and air
phases left. Figure 40 shows the flow of methane at 10 m/s, and in the case of no soil, the
gas does reach to the top quickly. This leads to the conclusion that the sand cloud that is
formed affects the gas dispersion in the atmosphere, and diverts the gas to go more
horizontally than vertically, however, the gas does reach the top eventually. The fact the
soil cloud might affect the gas dispersion in the atmosphere might be significant to safety,
because, when the gas is flowing with no soil, the methane concentration is above its
Higher Explosive Limit (HEL). Thus, it would be considered a safe area near the release
since methane will not ignite. However, the results of the simulation show that some of
the methane is between its Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) (5%) and its HEL (15%),[60]
which means that the possibility of methane igniting is present, and such safety concerns
must not be overlooked.

Figure 40 Methane volume fraction dependent on the presence of soil

6.10 Material Density

Finally, the methane and air density values were considered constant, and the possibility
of using an equation of state to obtain them was checked. To do so, first the energy
equation is enabled. Then, for each material the equation of state in the materials tab is
chosen. Both ideal gas, and Peng-Robinson equations were tested. The initial temperature

82
has to also be specified in the boundary conditions. Figure 41 shows the results obtained
for assuming ideal gas behavior compared to a constant methane density. The results are
not massively different, but it shows the model’s ability of simulating using non-constant
density. However, using non-constant density increases the residuals, which is expected
since more equations come into place.

Figure 41 Methane volume fraction for different density approaches at 5 s

83
 7 MODEL VALIDATION

In order to check the performance of the model, it has to be validated against experimental
data. The experimental data that is chosen for validation for this project is the one shown
in Figure 42 provided by Yan et al. [25] for a flow of 24 L/min. It is the only available
experimental data on the same scale of geometry with the data points available, and also
the most recent work that has been found. Figure 43 shows a schematic representation of
the locations of the sensors. The work by Acton et al. [39] could not be used since that the
provided information were pressure data, which does not work properly using the current
model as stated in section 6.4, and even by converting them to velocity, they all converted
to a supersonic velocity since the flow was choked.

Figure 42 Yan et al. experimental data for 24 L/min flow[25]

84
 Figure 43 Sensors locations schematic diagram[25]

7.1 Setup Adjustment

Some adjustments are required to the setup, to match the conditions of the experimental
work. First, the geometry is adjusted to match the geometry described by Yan et al.[25],
shown in Figure 15. The adjusted geometry has already been mentioned in Section 5.1.3
and shown in Figure 25. Afterwards, the meshing process has to be done. The original
mesh does not work because the mesh size at the inlet was bigger than the orifice size
provided by Yan et al., which is 5 mm. The inlet edge sizing is selected to be 1x10-4 m,
and the resulting mesh had 21780 nodes. The inlet in the experimental work was 97.5%
vol% air, and 2.5% vol% methane. The issue with this flow with the current model, is the
fact that the methane amount is too small to represent its own phase. In addition, using
methane as the primary phase causes divergence, and air was switched to be the primary
phase since it is the dominant phase in the inlet. Some adjustments that are made in the
setup include setting the porosity to 0.13 in the soil body. The value of porosity is the

85
average porosity taken from the experimental data. Similarly, the soil density was taken
from the average of the experimental data and changed in the materials tab to 1380 kg/m3.
The soil permeability was kept as default, and the soil particle size was left as 1 mm, since
that the data is not provided and the type of soil is not mentioned in the experimental work.
Simulations were attempted with having three phases, but most of them diverged, and the
rest gave unreasonable results. This is probably due to the small amount of methane, and
hence, the “Species” model was activated. First, a mixture has to be defined in the
materials section, from the available materials that have already been defined. The mixture
defined is a mixture of methane and air. The mixture is then selected in the species model.
The third phase is removed and the mixture is considered as the primary phase, while the
soil remain as the secondary phase. After setting up the model, the simulations then can
be started. However, another issue with the validation is the duration of the experiment
which is in hours. With the current model, reaching 5 seconds using a time step of 1 ms
takes around 8 hours of computing in the super computer. So, it would take months to
reach the same time frame as the experimental data by using the same time step size. By
raising the time step to 1 s the simulation time is much shorter, to around three days, but
the residual error becomes much larger. In an attempt to simulate the case using a 1 s time
step the simulations diverge almost immediately. In order to overcome this error, the
simulation was first run with a small time step (1 ms) for the first 10 seconds, then the
final data file at the 10 s mark was used as the initial condition, for the case where the time
step is 1 s. The simulation was run to a solution time of 10,710 s, with the data recorded
every 100 seconds. The journal file used for Fluent is shown in the Appendix.

7.2 Results and Discussion

The locations with the coordinates from Table 2 and shown in Figure 42 were located in
the geometry using the point option in the CFD-Post 18.1 software, which is used for post
processing. Locations 1, 2, and 15 are on the same plane as the geometry (since y=0) and
the coordinates for the points were as follows: Location 1 (4.9,0), Location 2 (5.1,0), and
Location 15 (5,2). For Locations 8,9,10, and 11, since these locations do not fall on the
2 + 𝑦 2 , and
2D geometry plane (y0), the values were obtained by setting 𝑥 = 𝑟 = √𝑥𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑒𝑥𝑝

86
by this Locations 9 and 11 are omitted since they give identical locations to 8 and 10. The
coordinates for Location 8 are (7,1.5) and for Location 10 (3,1.5). The results of the
simulations are shown in Figure 44 for Location 1 and 2, Figure 45 for Location 8 and 10,
and Figure 46 for Location 15. The experimental points were obtained from Figure 42 Yan
et al. experimental data for 24 L/min flow with the help of “Web Plot Digitizer” software.

Figure 44 Validation results for Location 1 and Location 2

Figure 45 Validation results for Location 8 and Location 10

87
 Figure 46 Validation results for Location 15

The normalized mean square error (NMSE) can be obtained using:

1 (𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 − 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙)2
𝑁𝑀𝑆𝐸 = ∑ ( 82 )
𝑁 ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 ∗ ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙
𝑖

The relative error can be obtained using:

|𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑| ( 83 )
𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 % = 𝑥100
𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙

Figure 44 shows the results obtained for Location 1, and Location 2, compared with
experimental data. The simulation results for both locations lie on top of each other, since
that the locations are mirror images of each other. Hence, the results should be identical
since the system is symmetrical. In the experimental data there is a clear lag of when the
concentration starts increasing, while the model is unable to predict such lag. The NMSE
value obtained is 1.8x10-1. The lower the NMSE value the more the model is considered
well performing both in space and time[61]. The average relative error value is really high
due to the first three points which represent the lagging. If the first three points are omitted
the average relative error is 4.6%. There are many factors that contribute towards the error

88
including the high residuals due to the use of a large time step (1 s), and the assumptions
that were used in the model and soil properties that have been mentioned. The reason of
the inability to predict the lagging might be due to the fact that the experimental work has
no known bottom, since the gas can go as low as the soil permeates. On the other hand,
the wall at the bottom of the geometry limits the gas diffusion, and allows it is
concentration to rise much sooner.

Figure 45 shows the results obtained for Location 8, and Location 10, compared with
experimental data. The simulation results for both locations also lie on top of each other,
since that the locations are mirror images of each other. Again, there is a clear lag between
the simulation results and the experimental data, similar to the previous case. The NMSE
value for Location 8 is 3.5 and the NMSE value for Location 10 is 5.3, which are both
higher than the values for Location 1 and Location 2. In addition to the previously
mentioned probable causes of error, the error here might be due to assumption of the x
value that is not represented in the model’s geometry due to the fact that it is a 2-
dimentional geometry. In addition, the model assumes the soil to be uniform in all
directions which might not be realistic in the actual soil that the experiment is based on.

Figure 46 shows the results obtained for Location 15 compared with experimental data.
The difference here is the most noticeable compared to the other cases. The experimental
data give a larger value compared to the predicted simulation results. The NMSE value
obtained for Location 15 is 2.53. In addition to the previously mentioned possible error
causes, the difference between the experimental data and the simulation results might be
due to a sensor error in the experimental work. That is mentioned by Yan et al. [25] stating
that the sensor in Location 15 was covered by a small amount of soil, to prevent the effect
of air during the experiment (at 2.7 hours mark), which caused some instability in the
obtained results. Which also indicates, that before putting the soil into the sensor, the
results might have been affected by the air flowing into the sensor.

Overall, the model was able to simulate the diffusion behavior, without being able to
predict the lagging observed in the experimental work. In addition, despite the differences

89
in the predicted concentration values, the values were in the same order of magnitude, and
if the results were shifted to include the lagging the results would have been much closer.
The values of NMSE also show that the model after being normalized, has the same trend
with the experimental data. Despite the model shortcomings, it is believed that it can be
reasonably used to predict the gas flow regime behavior, and the concentration increase
trend. The species model also increases the error observed in the residuals, and it is
believed that the model would have a better prediction of data with having methane as the
primary phase, with having a methane inlet instead of it being a species. However, more
investigation should be done in the future into the model validation, possibly with using
generated experimental data, or by allowing the simulation to go on for months with a
small time step while checking the results periodically.

In an attempt to validate the model and check if a lag is observed, the soil phase was
removed and the soil body was kept as zone with a porosity of 0.13. By doing so, the
system is then limited to a single phase and the multiphase model is turned off. Figure 47
shows the results obtained at Location 1. It is clear that there is a slight lag seen here
compared to the previous results. However, the concentration values are much smaller
than expected by the experimental data. There is a possibility that by using this approach
and varying other parameters such as the soil permeability which is not known, that model
might show a closer agreement with the experimental data. However, due to the time frame
of the project, this can be done in a future phase.

90
 Figure 47 Methane volume percentage for a 1 phase simulation at Location 1

7.3 Crater Width Validation Attempt

It was not possible to validate the crater formation width using the experimental data by
Acton et al. directly, due to the previously mentioned issue of using the pressure value as
an inlet, since it diverges. However, by comparing a simulation of an inlet of 10 m/s with
their lowest pressure value of pressure (20 bar) for sandy soil and for a pipeline diameter
of 0.61 m, using the correlation in Table 4, the crater size obtained was not that different.
The crater width obtained using the correlation is 0.38 m. The crater width obtained from
Fluent results using the CFD-Post software at a line 0.2 m below the surface (as seen in
Figure 48) to avoid its instability was 0.41 m at 4.97 s as shown in Figure 49. Since the
crater width is changing with the time steps, the crater width was taken at different time
steps. The average crater width obtained for these time steps is around 0.4 m. The reason
of the similarity between using the Advantica model and Fluent might be due to the fact
that the pressure contribution to crater width is minor for the case of sandy soils as shown
in Figure 19, and the crater width were to be extrapolated for lower pressure values it
would give similar results.

91
Time step (s) Crater width (m)

3.56 0.41

3.76 0.41

4.06 0.40

4.26 0.35

4.56 0.39

4.77 0.46

4.97 0.41

Figure 48 Line location in geometry for methane concentration

92
Figure 49 Soil volume fraction for a velocity inlet of 10 m/s at 5 s

93
 8 FLOW REGIME BOUNDARIES

After validating the model, the model is used to attempt to identify the boundaries between
the gas low regimes, diffusion, fluidization, and crater formation. In order to do so, various
simulations are run using different parameters. In order to have a useful representation of
the data, it is converted using dimensionless numbers, which would allow other cases
different than the model setup to be comparable. The two main factors that should be taken
into account are the fluid information and the soil information. The fluid information,
which is varies in this chapter by changing the fluid velocity is represented using the
Reynolds number. The soil information varies using different soil densities and is
represented using the Archimedes number. This representation is used to identify
fluidization regimes as indicated by Yan[35]. Thus, the same approach is used to identify
𝑅𝑒
the underground gas flow regime by plotting vs. 𝐴𝑟 1/3 . In addition, the conditions
𝐴𝑟 1/3

given in Qatar can be compared to the already existing experimental work, to predict the
possible flow regime.

8.1 Qatar Flow Compared to Experimental Work

The volumetric flow rate of the gas flow in Qatar is estimated based on the data given in
Table 5, then the results are compared to the volumetric flow rates obtained in the literature
from experimental data. The following equations are used in order to estimate the
volumetric flow rate:[62]

First, checking if the flow is choked or not by using:

𝛾
𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑘𝑒𝑑 2 𝛾−1 ( 84 )
=( )
𝑃0 𝛾+1

where 𝛾 is the specific heat ratio of the gas.

Since that the pressure value is large (80 bar), the flow is choked, and hence, the following
equation is used to obtain the mass flow rate:

94
 𝛾
𝛾𝑀 2 𝛾−1 ( 85 )
𝑄𝑚 = 𝐶0 𝐴𝑃0 √ ( )
𝑅𝑇0 𝛾 + 1

Where 𝐶0 is the discharge coefficient assumed to be 0.61.

The volumetric flow rate can be obtained by obtained by dividing the mass flow rate with
density:

𝑄𝑚 ( 86 )
𝑄𝑣 =
𝜌

The following table shows the final results using Qatar conditions, combined with the
experimental data:

Table 8 Volumetric flow rate data and their accompanied flow regime

Source Volumetric flow rate m3/s Gas flow regime

Wakoh and Hirano[6] 1x10-4 – 3x10-4 Diffusion

Okamoto and Gomi[22] 5x10-6 – 1.67x10-5 Diffusion

Yan et al.[25] 5x10-5 – 4x10-4 Diffusion

Acton et al.[39] 0.14 – 1.49 Crater Formation

Qatar industry 0.086 – 2.45 -

From Table 8 it can be seen that the volumetric flow rate obtained for the given Qatar
conditions is around 4 orders of magnitude higher than diffusion. The range is closer to
volumetric flow rate that causes crater formation. Hence, it is expected the conditions that
were given in Table 5 would results in a crater formation.

8.2 Simulation Results for Boundary Identification

One of the main objectives of the project is to find the boundaries of the underground gas
flow regimes, with associated flow and soil conditions. Twenty six simulations were run
with varying value of velocity from 0.1 m/s to 50 m/s, and with varying the soil density

95
values from 1000 kg/m3 to 1600 kg/m3. The flow regime was identified for each case, and
then the case point is plotted using the dimensionless numbers mention earlier, Reynolds
number and Archimedes number. On the same graph, the experimental data of Yan et
al.[25] and Acton et al.[39] were also plotted. Note that the experimental data for Acton
et al.[39] is shown as a single point since all of them have the same velocity from
calculation, which is the sonic velocity due to the flow being choked. The value for particle
diameter was assumed to be 1 mm for all cases, and the soil initial volume fraction was
assumed to be 0.63 (the value used when assuming spherical particles). Table 9 shows the
details of all the simulated cases, and Figure 54 shows the obtained graph. The Reynolds
number and the Archimedes number can be expressed as follows:

𝑑𝑝 𝑣𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 ( 87 )
𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇
( 88 )
𝑑𝑝3 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 (𝜌𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙𝑑 − 𝜌𝑓𝑙𝑢𝑖𝑑 )𝑔
𝐴𝑟 =
𝜇2

In order to identify the kind of underground gas flow regime, the CFD-Post software was
used. A user location is inserted at 0.2 m below the surface, in order to avoid any instability
on the surface. Then, the soil volume fraction data is collected over the x-axis, and based
on the observed result the flow regime is decided, which is observed at around 5 seconds
after initial release. If the drop and fluctuation of the soil volume fraction is small on top
of the release point (x=5 m), then the case is considered diffusion, as shown in Figure 50.
Here, the drop in the small volume fraction is simply due to the methane passing through,
and since it is small were believe it has a minimal effect on the soil. On the other hand,
when the soil volume fraction is clearly different than the initial 0.63, but not close to zero,
the case is considered fluidization. Figure 51 shows an example of a case deemed as
fluidization. Finally, if the soil volume fraction above the release point reaches close to
zero, the case is considered crater formation, which is represented by Figure 52. A vertical
line was also drawn on top of the release point to ensure the presence of a crater, and is
shown in Figure 53, where clearly the soil volume fraction around the release point (y=1.1

96
m) are close to zero, while the soil volume in the atmosphere (y>2 m) is higher, due to the
presence of the soil cloud.

Figure 50 Soil volume fraction data for Case 1

Figure 51 Soil volume fraction data for Case 2

97
Figure 52 Soil volume fraction data for Case 4 in the horizontal axis

Figure 53 Soil volume fraction data for Case 4 in the vertical axis

Table 9 Simulation cases with their respective flow regime

Soil density Inlet velocity

Case # Flow regime
(kg/m3) (m/s)

98
Case 1 1600 0.1 Diffusion

Case 2 1600 1 Fluidization

Case 3 1600 5 Fluidization

Case 4 1600 10 Crater

Case 5 1600 25 Crater

Case 6 1600 50 Crater

Case 7 1000 0.1 Diffusion

Case 8 1000 1 Fluidization

Case 9 1000 5 Fluidization

Case 10 1000 10 Crater

Case 11 1200 0.1 Diffusion

Case 12 1200 1 Fluidization

Case 13 1200 5 Fluidization

Case 14 1200 10 Crater

Case 15 1400 0.1 Diffusion

Case 16 1400 1 Fluidization

Case 17 1400 5 Fluidization

Case 18 1400 10 Crater

Case 19 1000 0.5 Diffusion

Case 20 1200 0.5 Diffusion

99
Case 21 1400 0.5 Diffusion

Case 22 1600 0.5 Diffusion

Case 23 1000 3 Fluidization

Case 24 1200 3 Fluidization

Case 25 1400 3 Fluidization

Case 26 1600 3 Fluidization

Figure 54 Results from simulations with their respective flow regime

100
From Figure 54 it is clear that the flow regime is affected by the methane inlet velocity.
Starting from diffusion at lower velocity values, followed by fluidization at higher velocity
values, then eventually into crater formation at even higher velocity values, represented
by a higher Reynolds number. On the other hand, changing the soil density values, did
give different results in general, but it did not change the flow regime for the cases that
were simulated, for the same velocity. According to the model results with the current
setup, the change from the diffusion to the fluidization behavior occurs at an inlet gas
velocity value between 0.5 m/s and 1 m/s. The change from the fluidization behavior to
the crater formation behavior seems to take place between an inlet gas velocity value of 5
m/s and 10 m/s. One of the drawbacks of this boundary identification approach is the fact
that the decision of the flow regime is done in a qualitative manner, which does not allow
having a clear line boundary between the regimes. However, the transition between each
regime is most probably not a fine line with having an unstable regime, such as a flow
where the soil might fluidize next to the hole, but it would diffuse through the upper parts
towards the atmosphere. Adding many more simulations, which results in adding more
points to Figure 54, would make the boundaries between the different underground gas
flow regimes clearer, by having more velocity values, more soil density values, and
possibly varying soil particle diameter.

101
 9 CONSQUENCE MODELLING USING FLUENT RESULTS

A leak of methane can have severe consequences as observed by the previously mentioned
incidents, since that the gas is flammable. Finding out the potential consequences of an
underground gas leak is necessary in order to design prevention or mitigation barriers that
are effective. The results out of a simulation can be used as an input for consequence
modelling. For example, for a gas release of 10 m/s, the mass flow rate through the surface
can be obtained, and then used as an input for dispersion models. In order to do so, CFD-
Post software is used. The mass flow option is not directly available, and has to be setup
by the user. The “massFlowInt” function is selected, which integrates the value of a
selected variable at a specific location, by a weighing function using the mass flow rate at
each point. The variable selected is the methane volume fraction so that only the methane
flow rate is obtained, and the location selected is the soil surface (the interface). The code
the is written is “massFlowInt(Phase 1.Volume Fraction)@interface contact_region trg”.
The value obtained is 93.6 kg/s at 5 s.

The value is then used in the Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA)
software, which is used for consequence modelling.[52] First, the chemical needs to be
identified in ALOHA by going to setup, then selecting methane from the pure chemicals
list. The next step is setting up the atmospheric data. The wind is assumed to be blowing
with a speed of 5 m/s from the east, measured at 2 m elevation. The ground roughness is
selected to be open country, and the sky is assumed to be clear with no clouds. The air
temperature is assumed to be 40 oC and the humidity is assumed to be at 50%. Next the
source data need to be inputted. The option chosen is direct, since that the mass flow has
been integrated. The mass flow rate is inputted, and the maximum leak duration is applied
which is 60 minutes. Figure 55 shows the results obtained for a flash fire using the
Gaussian dispersion model.

102
 Figure 55 Flash fire threat zone from ALOHA

Figure 55 shows that the yellow threat zone with 10% of methane’s lower explosive limit
(LEL) reaches up to around 650 m away from the release point. While, the red threat zone
with 60% or above of methane’s LEL, reaches up to 250 m away from the release point.
The yellow threat zone has no actual consequence and is set as default by ALOHA. The
red threat zone is the zone where flash fire might occur, and it has to be taken care of while
evaluating the risk. The same procedure can be done for various simulations to obtain their
associated potential consequences. The approach used using ALOHA is however an
incorrect representation of what happens on the surface, since that the major difference is
that the flow is spread into a wider area, leading to a smaller velocity of release compared
to the used direct point release. ALOHA doesn’t have the capability of simulating a case
where an area of release is given with a specific mass flux. The ALOHA approach was

103
just shown for the sake of an example, and for actual consequence modeling, software
able to model an area of release such as Phast should be used.

104
 10 CONCLUSION

Identifying the risk associated with underground natural gas releases has been of interest
to the Qatar industry. Due to the flammability of natural gas, the risks associated with it
can be severe and the loss of life and property is evident from previous incidents. The
underground gas flow regime is not constant and it depends on the gas flow rate, ranging
from diffusion for low flow rates where the soil does not move, to fluidization when the
soil starts moving at higher flow rates, eventually to free jet when a crater is formed at
even higher flow rates that completely displace the soil. A literature review study has been
done to identify all the available integral and empirical models that are used to model each
of the flow regimes. A CFD model was developed with the aim for it to be able to model
all the kinds of flow regimes. The model was setup using ANSYS Workbench 18.1 and
the steps included, designing the geometry, creating the grid, and finally using ANSYS
Fluent to setup the relevant applicable models to underground gas releases. Several
geometry dimensions were chosen based on the conditions provided by the Qatari
industry.

Various parameters were tested using the model in order to see their effect, and optimize
the model’s performance. From the configuration, it was noted that the model performs in
a more stable manner using velocity as an inlet boundary condition, as opposed to pressure
where many simulations diverged. Another finding was the choice of the primary phase,
in which it seems that choosing the dominant phase in the inlet boundary condition as the
primary phase gives better results. One of the key findings was that the methane cloud did
not expand as much vertically as it did horizontally, which was resulted from the sand
cloud the formed in the atmosphere, and blocked the gases way vertically. This might
result in overlooking risks associated to the possibility of methane igniting near the surface
due to the assumption that it is not between its upper and lower flammability limits.
However, it is evident from the results that some of the methane near the surface is in the
flammability range and the possibility of ignition is present.

105
The model was validated against experimental data for a diffusion flow regime. The results
were compared at different points across the geometry. The data on mirror locations were
identical since that the model is symmetrical. There was a difference between the model
and the experimental data, especially presented by a lag in the concentration in the
experimental data that the model was not able to predict. However, the NMSE values, and
having the concentration values in the same order of magnitude with the experimental
data, and the model following a similar trend to the experimental data, it was concluded
that the model is able to predict the underground gas flow regime and the methane
concentration in a reasonable manner. However, due to the large residuals associated with
the numerical results, more investigation should be done on this matter.

The information given by the Qatar industry was converted into a gas volumetric flow
rate. The data was then compared to the gas flow rate data provided by previous
experimental work. It was found out that the Qatar gas flow rate lies closer to crater
formation, and is around four orders of magnitude higher than the diffusion cases. Twenty
six cases were simulated with different inlet gas velocity, and different soil density, and
the flow regime associated with each of them. The data was then plotted in the same plot
in order to identify the boundaries of each regime.

Finally, one of the simulations was taken as an example to apply consequence analysis.
The CFD-Post software was used to obtain the mass flow rate of methane from the
simulation, and then the mass flow rate was used as an input into the consequence
modeling software ALOHA. The results that were obtained from ALOHA based on the
written assumptions were reported.

106
 11 RECOMMENDATIONS

The following points are recommended as future work for this project:

 Designing an experiment to observe the gas flow through soil. It is suggested to

have a small box as a starting stage, filled with soil with known properties, and
with a pipeline that passes through the box from the bottom at a known depth. The
pipeline would be connected to a methane gas cylinder, and by using a pressure
regulator, the methane flow rate can be varied with a known orifice size. Some
methane sensors should be planted into the soil to measure the concentration of
methane. It is recommended that the box is made from a clear material, such as
plastic or glass, in order to observe the gas flow regime during the experiment. The
experiment should be done at a safe location taking into considerations the risks
associated with methane. Starting with a non-flammable gas for the experiments
would be ideal. There might be a potential issue associated with the visual
observation of the soil movement depending on the size of the container in the
experiment. It is recommended to either perform the experiment using small
containers in the beginning and then increasing the size of the container to 1 m3
for example, and then compare the results between the two experiments and study
the scalability of this experiment. The other option is to have motion sensors also
installed in the soil to monitor whether the soil is moving or not during the
experiment. The available models can then be compared to the obtained
experimental data, including the model developed in this project;
 Studying the effect of wind in the atmospheric body on the formed methane and
soil cloud, and how it would affect the simulation results. This can be done by
choosing one of the side in the atmospheric body and switching it from an outlet
to an inlet, with the air velocity of interest;
 Having a mixed stream instead of pure methane as an inlet to the simulations, and
including other possible consequences such as the toxicity associated with
hydrogen sulfide, present in natural gas streams;

107
 Having more simulations with varying soil particle size, including different
distributions, and recording the effect of it on the concentrations data and on the
flow regime if any;
 Running more simulations with different velocity values and soil density values,
to obtain a clearer boundary line between different underground gas flow regimes;
 Comparing the collected integral and empirical models from the literature review
with each other, and with the developed model;
 Attempting to run simulations using CFD-DEM approach, starting possibly with a
small geometry and a limited number of particles, then scaling the geometry up to
real case scenarios and allowing the simulations to run for as long as possible.
Then, the results should be compared for both the small geometry and the larger
geometry with the Two-Phase model;
 Including bodies that would obstruct the flow, and recorder their effect on the
results, since it is more realistic considering soil might contain large rocks that are
not easily movable.

108
 12 REFERENCES

[1] Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, “Energy statistics,” 2017.

[2] K. B. Mishra and K. D. Wehrstedt, “Underground gas pipeline explosion and fire:
CFD based assessment of foreseeability,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 24, pp. 526–
542, 2015.

[3] A. Ranjan, “22 wouldn’t have died in pipeline blast had GAIL installed safety
features_ Probe report _ The Indian Express,” The Indian Express, 2014. [Online].
Available: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/22-would-not-have-
died-in-pipeline-blast-had-gail-installed-safety-features-as-it-had-promised-probe-
report/. [Accessed: 05-Oct-2017].

[4] P. A. Report, “Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Fire Near Carlsberg, New Mexico,
August 19, 2000,” Nat. Transp. Saf. Board, 2003.

[5] M. Parvini and E. Gharagouzlou, “Gas leakage consequence modeling for buried
gas pipelines,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 37, pp. 110–118, 2015.

[6] H. Wakoh and T. Hirano, “Diffusion of leaked flammable,” vol. 4, pp. 260–264,
1991.

[7] H. J. Ohstsuga, “No Title,” Japan Gas Assoc., no. 91, p. 32, 1971.

[8] M. Palcoz, J. Kriegler, and E. Farkas, “No Title,” Energietechnik, no. 305, p. 32,
1985.

[9] S. J. Farlow, Partial Differential Equations for Scientists and Engineers. 1982.

[10] J. Crank, the Mathematics of Diffusion. 1975.

[11] Y. Hibi, K. Fujinawa, S. Nishizaki, K. Okamura, and M. Tasaki, “MULTI-

COMPONENT MIGRATION IN THE GAS PHASE OF SOIL : COMPARISON
BETWEEN RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS AND SIMULATION BY DUSTY
GAS MODEL,” Japanese Geotech. Soc., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 569–581, 2009.

109
[12] E. A. Mason, A. P. Malinauskas, and R. B. Evans, “Flow and diffusion of gases in
porous media,” J. Chem. Phys., vol. 46, no. 8, pp. 3199–3216, 1967.

[13] B. E. Sleep and J. F. Sykes, “Modeling the transport of volatile organics in variably
saturated media,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 25, pp. 81–92, 1989.

[14] B. E. Poling, J. M. Prausnitz, and J. P. O’Connel, The Properties of Gases and

Liquids, 5th editio. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001.

[15] C. F. Curtiss and J. O. Hirschfelder, “Transport properties of multicomponent gas

mixtures,” J. Chem. Phys., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 550–555, 1949.

[16] S. Hoeg, H. F. Schöler, and J. Warnatz, “Assessment of interfacial mass transfer in

water-unsaturated soils during vapor extraction,” J. Contam. Hydrol., vol. 74, no.
1–4, pp. 163–195, 2004.

[17] A. L. Baehr and C. J. Bruell, “Application of the Stefan‐Maxwell Equations to

determine limitations of Fick’s law when modeling organic vapor transport in sand
columns,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1155–1163, 1990.

[18] J. G. Society, “Formulation of a Dusty Gas Model for Multi ­ Component,” Soils
Found., vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 419–432, 2009.

[19] C. Thorstenson and W. Pollock, “Gas Transport in Unsaturated Zones:

Multicomponent Systems and the Adequacy of Fick’s Laws,” Water, vol. 25, no. 3,
pp. 477–507, 1989.

[20] J. Massmann and D. F. Farrier, “Effects of atmospheric pressures on gas-transport

in the vadose zone,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 777–791, 1992.

[21] R. C. Reid, J. M. Prausnitz, and B. E. Poling, The Properties of Gases and Liquids,
4th editio. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1987.

[22] H. Okamoto and Y. Gomi, “Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
Empirical research on diffusion behavior of leaked gas in the ground,” J. Loss Prev.
Process Ind., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 531–540, 2011.

110
[23] D. E. Wilson, R. E. Montgomery, and M. R. Sheller, “A mathematical model for
removing volatile subsurface hydrocarbons by miscible displacement,” Water. Air.
Soil Pollut., vol. 33, pp. 231–255, 1987.

[24] H. Okamoto, Y. Gomi, and H. Akagi, “Movement Characteristics of Hydrogen Gas

Within the Ground and Its Detection at Ground Surface,” J. Civ. Eng. Sci., vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 49–66, 2014.

[25] Y. Yan, X. Dong, and J. Li, “Experimental study of methane diffusion in soil for
an underground gas pipe leak,” J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng., vol. 27, pp. 82–89, 2015.

[26] D. Kunii and O. Levenspiel, Fluidization Engineering, vol. 1, no. c. 1991.

[27] M. O. A. Alsaydalani and C. R. I. Clayton, “Internal Fluidization in Granular Soils,”

J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng., vol. 140, no. 3, p. 04013024, 2014.

[28] L. Massimilla and G. Volpicelli, “Flow of fluid-particle suspensions from liquid-

fluidized beds,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 194–199, 1963.

[29] R. K. Niven, “Physical insight into the Ergun and Wen and Yu equations for fluid
flow in packed and fluidised beds,” Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 527–534,
2002.

[30] Y. F. Shi, Y. S. Yu, and L. T. Fan, “Incipient Fluidization Condition for a Tapered
Fluidized Bed,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 484–489, 1984.

[31] Y. Peng and L. T. Fan, “Hydrodynamic characteristics of fluidization in liquid-solid

tapered beds,” Chem. Eng. Sci., vol. 52, no. 14, pp. 2277–2290, 1997.

[32] S. Ergun, “Fluid flow through packed columns,” Chemical Engineering Science,
vol. 48, no. 2. pp. 89–94, 1952.

[33] J. E. van Zyl, M. O. A. Alsaydalani, C. R. I. Clayton, T. Bird, and A. Dennis, “Soil

fluidisation outside leaks in water distribution pipes – preliminary observations,”
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. - Water Manag., vol. 166, no. 10, pp. 546–555, 2013.

111
[34] R. K. Niven and N. Khalili, In situ fluidisation by a single internal vertical jet, vol.
36, no. 2. 1998.

[35] W.-C. Yan, Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems. New York,
2003.

[36] C. G. Philippsen, A. C. F. Vilela, and L. D. Zen, “Fluidized bed modeling applied

to the analysis of processes: Review and state of the art,” J. Mater. Res. Technol.,
vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 208–216, 2015.

[37] E. P. Silva, M. Nele, P. F. Frutuoso e Melo, and L. Könözsy, “Underground parallel

pipelines domino effect: An analysis based on pipeline crater models and historical
accidents,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 43, pp. 315–331, 2016.

[38] N. D. G. B. N. Leis, S. M. Pimputkar, “Line Rupture and the Spacing of Parallel

Lines,” p. 41, 2002.

[39] M. R. Acton and N. W. Jackson, “DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR

PARALLEL PIPELINES,” pp. 1–11, 2010.

[40] H. Versteeg and W. Malalasekra, An Introduction to Computational Fluid

Dynamics: The finite-volume method. 2007.

[41] L. Zhou, L. Zhang, W. Shi, R. Agarwal, and W. Li, “Transient Computational Fluid
Dynamics/Discrete Element Method Simulation of Gas–Solid Flow in a Spouted
Bed and Its Validation by High-Speed Imaging Experiment,” J. Energy Resour.
Technol., vol. 140, no. 1, p. 012206, 2017.

[42] F. Alobaid and B. Epple, “Improvement, validation and application of CFD/DEM

model to dense gas-solid flow in a fluidized bed,” Particuology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp.
514–526, 2013.

[43] A. Bakshi, C. Altantzis, R. B. Bates, and A. F. Ghoniem, “Eulerian-Eulerian

simulation of dense solid-gas cylindrical fluidized beds: Impact of wall boundary
condition and drag model on fluidization,” Powder Technol., vol. 277, pp. 47–62,

112
 2015.

[44] R. B. Bird, W. E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007.

[45] C. D. Argyropoulos and N. C. Markatos, “Recent advances on the numerical

modelling of turbulent flows,” Appl. Math. Model., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 693–732,
2015.

[46] B. E. Launder and B. I. Sharma, “Application of the energy-dissipation model of

turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc,” Lett. Heat Mass Transf.,
vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 131–137, 1974.

[47] T.-H. Shih, W. W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, and J. Zhu, “A NEW kt EDDY
VISCOSITY MODEL FOR HIGH :REYNOLDS NUMBER TURBULENT
FLOWS,” Compurers Fluids, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 227–238, 1995.

[48] V. Yakhot, S. A. Orszag, S. Thangam, T. B. Gatski, and C. G. Speziale,

“Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion
technique,” Phys. Fluids A, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 1510–1520, 1992.

[49] D. Wilcox, Turbulence Modelling for CFD, Third. DCW Industries, Inc., 2006.

[50] Y. Wu, D. Liu, J. Ma, and X. Chen, “Effects of gas-solid drag model on Eulerian-
Eulerian CFD simulation of coal combustion in a circulating fluidized bed,”
Powder Technol., vol. 324, pp. 48–61, 2018.

[51] D. Liu, C. Bu, and X. Chen, “Development and test of CFD-DEM model for
complex geometry: A coupling algorithm for Fluent and DEM,” Comput. Chem.
Eng., vol. 58, pp. 260–268, 2013.

[52] “ALOHA Software.” [Online]. Available: https://www.epa.gov/cameo/aloha-

software. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2018].

[53] D. Gidaspow, R. Bezburuah, and J. Ding, “Hydrodynamics of circulating fluidized

beds: Kinetic theory approach,” 7th Fluid. Conf., pp. 75–82, 1992.

113
[54] M. Syamlal, W. Rogers, and T. J. O`Brien, “MFIX documentation theory guide,”
vol. 1004, no. December, 1993.

[55] J. Lundberg and B. M. Halvorsen, “A review of some exsisting drag models

describing the interaction between phases in a bubbling fluidized bed,” Proc. 49th
Scand. Conf. Simul. Model. Oslo Univ. Coll. Oslo, Norw., pp. 7–8, 2008.

[56] C. K. K. Lun, S. B. Savage, D. J. Jeffrey, and N. Chepurniy, “Kinetic theories for

granular flow: inelastic particle in couette flow and slightly inelastic particle in a
general flow field,” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 140, pp. 223–256, 1984.

[57] T. Engineering Toolbox, “Densities of Common Materials.” [Online]. Available:

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/density-materials-d_1652.html. [Accessed:
25-Jun-2018].

[58] LEAP CFD Team, “Tips & Tricks: Convergence and Mesh Independence Study,”
2012. [Online]. Available:
https://www.computationalfluiddynamics.com.au/convergence-and-mesh-
independent-study/. [Accessed: 25-Jul-2018].

[59] United States Department of Agriculture, “USDA Textural Soil Classification,”

Soil Mechanics Level I Module 3 - USDA Textural Soil Classification. pp. 1–53,
1987.

[60] “Lower and Upper Explosive Limits for Flammable Gases and Vapors ( LEL / UEL
),” p. 22.

[61] “NMSE.” [Online]. Available:

https://rem.jrc.ec.europa.eu/RemWeb/atmes2/20b.htm. [Accessed: 01-Jul-2018].

[62] D. A. Crowl and J. F. Louvar, Chemical Process Safety: Fundamentals with

Applications, Third Edit. Prentice Hall.

114
 13 APPENDIX

13.1 Example of journal file code used for a general simulation with constant
diameter with methane as primary phase

/file/read-case /lustre/projects/Case1.cas

/solve/initialize/initialize-flow

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () mp 0.63

/solve/patch phase-3 soil () mp 0.37

/solve/patch phase-3 atmosphere_ () mp 1

/solve/dual-time-iterate 10000 100

/file/write-data Case_1

exit

yes

13.2 Example of journal file code used for a general simulation with varying
diameter with methane as primary phase

/file/read-case /lustre/projects/Case1.cas

/solve/initialize/initialize-flow

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () bin-0-fraction 0.25

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () bin-1-fraction 0.25

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () bin-2-fraction 0.25

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () bin-3-fraction 0.25

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () mp 0.63

/solve/patch phase-3 soil () mp 0.37

115
/solve/patch phase-3 atmosphere_ () mp 1

/solve/dual-time-iterate 10000 100

/file/write-data Case_1

exit

yes

13.3 Example of journal file code used for validation including the species model

/file/read-case /lustre/projects/Case_exp.cas

/solve/initialize/initialize-flow

/solve/patch phase-2 soil () mp 0.87

/solve/patch phase-2 atmosphere_ () mp 0

/solve/patch phase-1 soil () species-0 0

/solve/patch phase-1 atmosphere_ () species-0 0

/solve/dual-time-iterate 16000 100

/file/write-data Case_exp

exit

yes

13.4 Example of job file used for the super computer

#!/bin/bash

#SBATCH -J Case_1

#SBATCH -p l_long

#SBATCH --gres=craynetwork:0

116
#SBATCH --qos ll

#SBATCH --time=24:00:00

#SBATCH -N 1

#SBATCH --ntasks-per-node=24

#SBATCH --output=e_ansys_sim.%j

#SBATCH --error=o_ansys_sim.%j

#SBATCH --hint=nomultithread

## Get job Stats

echo "Starting at "`date`

echo "SLURM_JOBID="$SLURM_JOBID

echo "SLURM_JOB_NODELIST"=$SLURM_JOB_NODELIST

echo "SLURM_NNODES"=$SLURM_NNODES

echo "SLURMTMPDIR="$SLURMTMPDIR

echo "working directory = "$SLURM_SUBMIT_DIR

# Load Ansys Module

module use /lustre/sw/xc40ac/modulefiles

module load ansys/182

117
# Load Intel Compiler if needed for simulation

# module swap PrgEnv-cray/5.2.82 PrgEnv-intel

# Start Simulation

echo "Starting Simulation.."

fluent 2ddp -gu -nm -t8 -i j_fluent_v1.jou >f_Case_1.out

echo "Ending at "`date`

echo "Simulation Ended"

118