0
Research Papers

Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulation of Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in a Full-Scale Konvoi-Type Pressurized Water Reactor

[+] Author and Article Information
Josef Hasslberger

Lehrstuhl für Thermodynamik,
Technische Universität München,
Garching 85748, Germany
e-mail: hasslberger@td.mw.tum.de

Peter Katzy, Lorenz R. Boeck, Thomas Sattelmayer

Lehrstuhl für Thermodynamik,
Technische Universität München,
Garching 85748, Germany

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 13, 2016; final manuscript received June 14, 2017; published online July 31, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Asif Arastu.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 3(4), 041014 (Jul 31, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1103; doi: 10.1115/1.4037094 History: Received September 13, 2016; Revised June 14, 2017

For the purpose of nuclear safety analysis, a reactive flow solver has been developed to determine the hazardous potential of large-scale hydrogen explosions. Without using empirical transition criteria, the whole combustion process including deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) is computed within a single solver framework. In this paper, we present massively parallelized three-dimensional explosion simulations in a full-scale pressurized water reactor (PWR) of the Konvoi type. Several generic DDT scenarios in globally lean hydrogen–air mixtures are examined to assess the importance of different input parameters. It is demonstrated that the explosion process is highly sensitive to mixture composition, ignition location, and thermodynamic initial conditions. Pressure loads on the confining structure show a profoundly dynamic behavior depending on the position in the containment. Computational cost can effectively be reduced through adaptive mesh refinement (AMR).

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Breitung, W. , and Royl, P. , 2000, “ Procedure and Tools for Deterministic Analysis and Control of Hydrogen Behavior in Severe Accidents,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 202(2–3), pp. 249–268. [CrossRef]
Manninen, M. , Silde, A. , Lindholm, I. , Huhtanen, R. , and Sjvall, H. , 2002, “ Simulation of Hydrogen Deflagration and Detonation in a BWR Reactor Building,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 211(1), pp. 27–50. [CrossRef]
Dimmelmeier, H. , Eyink, J. , and Movahed, M.-A. , 2012, “ Computational Validation of the EPR Combustible Gas Control System,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 249, pp. 118–124. [CrossRef]
Hsu, W.-S. , Chen, H.-P. , and Lin, H. C. , 2014, “ Hydrogen Behavior in a Large-Dry Pressurized Water Reactor Containment Building During a Severe Accident,” Tenth International Symposium on Hazards, Prevention and Mitigation of Industrial Explosions, Bergen, Norway, June 10–14.
Daudey, N. , and Champasith, A. , 2014, “ Accidental Hydrogen Release Inside a Nuclear Power Plant: CFD Modelling and Consequence Analysis,” Tenth International Symposium on Hazards, Prevention, and Mitigation of Industrial Explosions, Bergen, Norway, June 10–14.
Kim, J. , and Hong, S.-W. , 2015, “ Analysis of Hydrogen Flame Acceleration in APR1400 Containment by Coupling Hydrogen Distribution and Combustion Analysis Codes,” Prog. Nucl. Energy, 78, pp. 101–109. [CrossRef]
Dorofeev, S. B. , Sidorov, V. P. , Kuznetsov, M. S. , Matsukov, I. D. , and Alekseev, V. I. , 2000, “ Effect of Scale on the Onset of Detonations,” Shock Waves, 10(2), pp. 137–149. [CrossRef]
Sonnenkalb, M. , 2001, “ Unfallanalysen für DWR vom Typ KONVOI (GKN-2) mit dem Integralcode MELCOR 1.8.4,” GRS, Köln, Germany, Report No. GRS-A-2954.
Kumar, R. , Koroll, G. , Heitsch, M. , and Studer, E. , 2000, “ Carbon Monoxide–Hydrogen Combustion Characteristics in Severe Accident Containment Conditions,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, Report No. NEA/CSNI/R(2000)10. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2000/csni-r2000-10.pdf
Koroll, G. , and Mulpuru, S. , 1988, “ The Effect of Dilution With Steam on the Burning Velocity and Structure of Premixed Hydrogen Flames,” Symp. Combust., 21(1), pp. 1811–1819. [CrossRef]
Liu, D. , and MacFarlane, R. , 1983, “ Laminar Burning Velocities of Hydrogen-Air and Hydrogen-Air Steam Flames,” Combust. Flame, 49(1–3), pp. 59–71. [CrossRef]
Favre, A. , 1965, “ Equations des gaz Turbulents Compressibles,” J. Méc., 4(4), pp. 361–390.
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Toro, E. , Spruce, M. , and Speares, W. , 1994, “ Restoration of the Contact Surface in the HLL-Riemann Solver,” Shock Waves, 4(1), pp. 25–34. [CrossRef]
Dinkelacker, F. , Manickam, B. , and Muppala, S. , 2011, “ Modelling and Simulation of Lean Premixed Turbulent Methane/Hydrogen/Air Flames With an Effective Lewis Number Approach,” Combust. Flame, 158(9), pp. 1742–1749. [CrossRef]
O'Conaire, M. , Curran, H. J. , Simmie, J. M. , Pitz, W. J. , and Westbrook, C. K. , 2004, “ A Comprehensive Modeling Study of Hydrogen Oxidation,” Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 36(11), pp. 603–622. [CrossRef]
Goodwin, D. , Malaya, N. , Moffat, H. , and Speth, R. , 2009, “ Cantera: An Object-Oriented Software Toolkit for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynamics and Transport Processes,” Cantera, accessed June 22, 2017, http://www.cantera.org
Ettner, F. , Vollmer, K. G. , and Sattelmayer, T. , 2014, “ Numerical Simulation of the Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Inhomogeneous Mixtures,” J. Combust., 2014, p. 686347.
Hasslberger, J. , Ettner, F. , Boeck, L. R. , and Sattelmayer, T. , 2013, “ 2D and 3D Flame Surface Analysis of Flame Acceleration and Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Hydrogen-Air Mixtures With Concentration Gradients,” 24th International Colloquium on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems (ICDERS), Taipei, Taiwan, July 28–Aug. 2. http://www.icders.org/ICDERS2013/PapersICDERS2013/ICDERS2013-0065.pdf
Hasslberger, J. , Boeck, L. R. , and Sattelmayer, T. , 2015, “ Numerical Simulation of Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Large Confined Volumes,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 36, pp. 371–379. [CrossRef]
Breitung, W. , Dorofeev, S. , Kotchourko, A. , Redlinger, R. , Scholtyssek, W. , Bentaib, A. , L'Heriteau, J.-P. , Pailhories, P. , Eyink, J. , Movahed, M. , Petzold, K.-G. , Heitsch, M. , Alekseev, V. , Denkevits, A. , Kuznetsov, M. , Efimenko, A. , Okun, M. , Huld, T. , and Baraldi, D. , 2005, “ Integral Large Scale Experiments on Hydrogen Combustion for Severe Accident Code Validation-HYCOM,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 235(2–4), pp. 253–270. [CrossRef]
Movahed-Shariat-Panahi, M. , 2012, “ Recommendation for Maximum Allowable Mesh Size for Plant Combustion Analyses With CFD Codes,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 253, pp. 360–366. [CrossRef]
Dorofeev, S. B. , Sidorov, V. P. , Dvoinishnikov, A. E. , and Breitung, W. , 1996, “ Deflagration to Detonation Transition in Large Confined Volume of Lean Hydrogen-Air Mixtures,” Combust. Flame, 104(1), pp. 95–110. [CrossRef]
Breitung, W. , Chan, C. , Dorofeev, S. , Eder, A. , Gerland, B. , Heitsch, M. , Klein, R. , Malliakos, A. , Shepherd, J. , Studer, E. , and Thibault, P. , 2000, “ Flame Acceleration and Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Nuclear Safety,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, Technical Report No. NEA/CSNI/R(2000)7. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0313/ML031340619.pdf
Vollmer, K. , Ettner, F. , and Sattelmayer, T. , 2012, “ Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Hydrogen-Air Mixtures With a Concentration Gradient,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 184(10–11), pp. 1903–1915. [CrossRef]
Boeck, L. R. , Hasslberger, J. , and Sattelmayer, T. , 2014, “ Flame Acceleration in Hydrogen/Air Mixtures With Concentration Gradients,” Combust. Sci. Technol., 186(10–11), pp. 1650–1661. [CrossRef]
Grune, J. , Sempert, K. , Kuznetsov, M. S. , and Jordan, T. , 2013, “ Experimental Investigation of Fast Flame Propagation in Stratified Hydrogen–Air Mixtures in Semi-Confined Flat Layers,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 26(6), pp. 1442–1451. [CrossRef]
Dorofeev, S. B. , Kuznetsov, M. S. , Alekseev, V. I. , Efimenko, A. A. , and Breitung, W. , 2001, “ Evaluation of Limits for Effective Flame Acceleration in Hydrogen Mixtures,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 14(6), pp. 583–589. [CrossRef]
Liang, Z. , Sonnenkalb, M. , Bentaib, A. , and Sangiorgi, M. , 2014, “ Status Report on Hydrogen Management and Related Computer Codes,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France, Report No. NEA/CSNI/R(2014)8. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2014/csni-r2014-8.pdf

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Initial one-dimensional vertical concentration gradients in the containment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Case 1: explosion of homogeneous mixture visualized by pressure field (bar) and flame front (white); X¯H2=17.5%; ΔXH2=0%; ignition location 1: (a) 300 ms (left) and 400 ms (right) after ignition, (b) 450 and 460 ms, and (c) 470 and 480 ms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Case 1: dynamic pressure recordings at probing locations P1–P5 compared to AICC pressure; X¯H2=17.5%; ΔXH2=0% (homogeneous); ignition location 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Case 2: explosion of gradient mixture visualized by pressure field (bar) and flame front (white); X¯H2=17.5%; b = 0.1; ΔXH2=10%; ignition location 1: (a) 100 ms (left) and 140 ms (right) after ignition, (b) 150 and 155 ms, and (c) 160 and 165 ms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Case 2: explosion of gradient mixture visualized by hydrogen mole fraction (%) and flame front (white); X¯H2=17.5%; b = 0.1; ΔXH2=10%; ignition location 1: (a) 100 ms (left) and 140 ms (right) after ignition, (b) 150 and 155 ms, and (c) 160 and 165 ms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Case 3: explosion of gradient mixture visualized by pressure field (bar) and flame front (white); X¯H2=15%; b = 0.1; ΔXH2=10%; ignition location 1: (a) 200 ms (left) and 265 ms (right) after ignition, (b) 285 and 290 ms, and (c) 295 and 300 ms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Case 4: explosion for bottom ignition visualized by pressure field (bar) and flame front (white); X¯H2=17.5%; ΔXH2=0% (homogeneous); ignition location 2: (a) 200 ms (left) and 250 ms (right) after ignition, (b) 275 and 280 ms, and (c) 285 and 290 ms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Ignition (purple) and pressure probe locations (blue) (see color figure online)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sectional view of the Konvoi-type pressurized water reactor model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Case 5: explosion at elevated initial conditions visualized by pressure field (bar) and flame front (white); X¯H2=17.5%; ΔXH2=0% (homogeneous); ignition location 2: (a) 100 ms (left) and 150 ms (right) after ignition and (b) 200 and 250 ms

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Case 3: adaptively refined regions (red) on the left and pressure field (bar) on the right at 300 ms after ignition; X¯H2=15%; b = 0.1; ΔXH2=10%; ignition location 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Case 3: burnout evolution for varying mesh resolutions; X¯H2=15%; b = 0.1; ΔXH2=10%; ignition location 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Case 3: dynamic pressure recordings at probing locations P1–P5 for varying mesh resolutions; X¯H2=15%; b = 0.1; ΔXH2=10%; ignition location 1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Dynamic pressure recordings at probing locations P1–P5 for cases 2, 4, and 5

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In