0
SPECIAL SECTION PAPERS

Hydrogen–Air–Steam Deflagration Experiment Simulated Using Different Turbulent Flame-Speed Closure Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Holler Tadej

Mem. ASME
Jožef Stefan Institute,
Jamova cesta 39,
Ljubljana SI-1000, Slovenia
e-mail: tadej.holler@ijs.si

Ed M. J. Komen

Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group,
Westerduinweg 3,
Petten 1755ZG, The Netherlands
e-mail: komen@nrg.eu

Kljenak Ivo

Jožef Stefan Institute,
Jamova cesta 39,
Ljubljana SI-1000, Slovenia
e-mail: ivo.kljenak@ijs.si

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received September 30, 2016; final manuscript received December 21, 2017; published online May 16, 2018. Editor: Igor Pioro.

ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci 4(3), 031009 (May 16, 2018) (6 pages) Paper No: NERS-16-1126; doi: 10.1115/1.4039067 History: Received September 30, 2016; Revised December 21, 2017

The paper presents the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) combustion modeling approach based on two combustion models. This modeling approach was applied to a hydrogen deflagration experiment conducted in a large-scale confined experimental vessel. The used combustion models were Zimont's turbulent flame-speed closure (TFC) model and Lipatnikov's flame-speed closure (FSC) model. The conducted simulations are aimed to aid identifying and evaluating the potential hydrogen risks in nuclear power plant (NPP) containment. The simulation results show good agreement with experiment for axial flame propagation using the Lipatnikov combustion model. However, substantial overprediction in radial flame propagation is observed using both combustion models, which consequently results also in overprediction of the pressure increase rate and overall combustion energy output. As assumed for a large-scale experiment without any turbulence inducing structures, the combustion took place in low-turbulence regimes, where the Lipatnikov combustion model, due to its inclusion of quasi-laminar source term, has advantage over the Zimont model.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Kljenak, I. , Bentaib, A. , and Jordan, T. , 2012, “Hydrogen Behavior and Control in Severe Accidents,” Nuclear Safety in Light Water Reactors, B. R. Sehgal , ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 186–227.
Kemeny, J. G. , 1979, Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Amano, Y. , 2015, “The Fukushima Daiichi Accident: Report by the Director General,” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, Report No. GC(59)/14. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1710-ReportByTheDG-Web.pdf
Sathiah, P. , Komen, E. , and Roekaerts, D. , 2012, “The Role of CFD Combustion Modeling in Hydrogen Safety Management—Part I: Validation Based on Small-Scale Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 248, pp. 93–107. [CrossRef]
Sathiah, P. , van Haren, S. , Komen, E. , and Roekaerts, D. , 2012, “The Role of CFD Combustion Modeling in Hydrogen Safety Management— Part II: Validation Based on Homogeneous Hydrogen–Air Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 252, pp. 289–302. [CrossRef]
Sathiah, P. , Komen, E. , and Roekaerts, D. , 2015, “The Role of CFD Combustion Modeling in Hydrogen Safety Management— Part III: Validation Based on Homogeneous Hydrogen-Air-Diluent Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 289, pp. 296–310. [CrossRef]
Sathiah, P. , Komen, E. , and Roekaerts, D. , 2016, “The Role of CFD Combustion Modeling in Hydrogen Safety Management—Part IV: Validation Based on Non-Homogeneous Hydrogen-Air Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 310, pp. 507–519. [CrossRef]
Sathiah, P. , Holler, T. , Kljenak, I. , and Komen, E. , 2016, “The Role of CFD Combustion Modeling in Hydrogen Safety Management—Part V: Validation for Slow Deflagrations in Homogeneous Hydrogen-Air Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 310, pp. 520–531. [CrossRef]
Rakhimov, A. , Visser, D. C. , Holler, T. , and Komen, E. , 2017, “The Role of CFD Combustion Modelling in Hydrogen Safety Management—Part VI: Validation for Slow Deflagration in Homogeneous Hydrogen-Air-Steam Experiments,” Nucl. Eng. Des., 311, pp. 142–155. [CrossRef]
Zimont, V. L. , 1979, “Theory of Turbulent Combustion of a Homogenous Fuel Mixture at High Reynolds Number,” Combust. Explos. Shock Waves, 15(3), pp. 305–311. [CrossRef]
Lipatnikov, A. N. , and Chomiak, J. , 2002, “Turbulent Flame Speed and Thickness: Phenomenology, Evaluation, and Application in Multi-Dimensional Simulations,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 28(1), pp. 1–74. [CrossRef]
ANSYS, 2008, “Fluent 12.0,” ANSYS-Fluent Inc., Canonsburg, PA.
Kotchurko, A. , 2012, “ISP-49 on Hydrogen Combustion,” Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, France, OECD/NEA Report No. NEA/CSNI/R(2011)9. https://www.oecd-nea.org/nsd/docs/2011/csni-r2011-9.pdf
Holler, T. , Jain, V. , and Komen, E. , 2015, “Validation of Two Turbulent Flame Speed Closure Models for Slow and Fast Hydrogen Deflagration,” 16th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Reactor Thermal hydraulics: (NURETH-16), Chicago, IL, Aug. 30–Sept. 4, pp. 749–760. http://glc.ans.org/nureth-16/data/papers/13645.pdf
Kljenak, I. , Kuznetsov, M. , Stern, G. , Matkovič, M. , and Mavko, B. , 2013, “Upward Flame Propagation Experiment on Hydrogen Combustion,” Jožef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Technical Report No. IJS-DP-11231.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

HYKA A2 experimental facility (left) and schematic of the HYKA A2 vessel (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Axial flame front propagation results obtained using both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Radial flame front propagation results obtained using both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Axial flame front velocity results obtained using both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Radial flame front velocity results obtained using both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Pressure history results obtained with both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure increase rate dp/dt results obtained using both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Temperature history results obtained with both Zimont and Lipatnikov combustion models, both with two different thermal boundary conditions

Tables

Errata

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