4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Analysis of transient supersonic hydrogen release, dispersion and combustion

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 44, 期 17, 页码 9089-9099

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.04.158

关键词

CFD; LES; Hydrogen; Dispersion; Turbulent combustion; GASFLOW-MPI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A hydrogen leak from a facility, which uses highly compressed hydrogen gas (714 bar, 800 K) during operation was studied. The investigated scenario involves supersonic hydrogen release from a 10 cm(2) leak of the pressurized reservoir, turbulent hydrogen dispersion in the facility room, followed by an accidental ignition and burn-out of the resulting H-2-air cloud. The objective is to investigate the maximum possible flame velocity and overpressure in the facility room in case of a worst-case ignition. The pressure loads are needed for the structural analysis of the building wall response. The first two phases, namely unsteady supersonic release and subsequent turbulent hydrogen dispersion are simulated with GASFLOW-MPI. This is a well validated parallel, all-speed CFD code which solves the compressible Navier-Stokes equations and can model a broad range of flow Mach numbers. Details of the shock structures are resolved for the under-expanded supersonic jet and the sonic-subsonic transition in the release. The turbulent dispersion phase is simulated by LES. The evolution of the highly transient burnable H-2-air mixture in the room in terms of burnable mass, volume, and average H-2-concentration is evaluated with special sub-routines. For five different points in time the maximum turbulent flame speed and resulting overpressures are computed, using four published turbulent burning velocity correlations. The largest turbulent flame speed and overpressure is predicted for an early ignition event resulting in 35-71 m/s, and 0.13-0.27 bar, respectively. (C) 2018 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据