ICHS4, San Francisco, September E. Papanikolaou, D. Baraldi Joint Research Centre - Institute for Energy and Transport Comparison of modelling approaches for CFD simulations of high pressure H 2 releases

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Outline 1.Notional nozzle concept 2.Notional nozzle approaches investigated 3.Experimental description 4.Simulations set up 5.Results 6.Conclusions 7.Ongoing work

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Notional nozzle concept Under-expanded jet release Level 1: “reservoir” conditions Level 2: real orifice Level 3: notional nozzle location Does not necessarily exist in a physical sense Assumptions made: atmospheric pressure uniform velocity profile Need for reasonable computer run-times, for engineering applications The jet flow of a high pressure unintended release is complex: a supersonic region in the near field and a subsonic region downstream. Numerical modelling of the near field is quite demanding Replacement of the actual release nozzle by a notional, occupying an area with the same flow rate as the actual one

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Notional nozzle approaches investigated 1.Birch et al. (1984) Conservation of mass, isentropic change, ideal gas, temperature at notional nozzle equal to atmospheric 2.Birch et al. (1987) Conservation of mass, conservation of momentum, isentropic change, ideal gas, temperature at notional nozzle equal to atmospheric 3.Ewan and Moodie (1986) Conservation of mass, isentropic change, ideal gas, temperature at notional nozzle equal to the one at the actual release nozzle 4.Schefer et al. (2007) Conservation of mass, conservation of momentum, isentropic change, real gas (Abel-Noble equation of state), temperature at notional nozzle equal to atmospheric Notional nozzle approaches that take into account the conservation of energy have been also proposed such as Yücel & Ötügen (2002), Molkov et al. (2009) and Xiao et al. (2011)

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Experimental description High momentum horizontal (free-surface) H 2 experiments in the HYKA test facility of the Institute for Nuclear and Energy Technologies of FZK Selected experiment for investigation: H 2 release from 1 mm diameter at stagnation pressure of 98.1 bar and stagnation temperature of 14.5 ºC H 2 concentration and flow velocity were measured on the jet symmetry axis at 1.5 m and 2.25 m from the release

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Simulations set up: conditions at the actual and notional nozzle Pressure (kPa) Density (kg/m 3 ) Temperature (K) Sonic Velocity (m/s) Ideal gas* Real gas* (Abel-Noble) Table 1: Conditions at the release (actual nozzle) Approach Diameter (10 -3 m) Area (10 -5 m 2 ) Density (kg/m 3 ) Temperature (K) Velocity (m/s) Birch (1984)* Birch (1987)* Ewan&Moodie* Schefer Table 2: Conditions at the notional nozzle * A discharge coefficient equal to 0.91 was used to match the calculated mass flow rate to the experimental

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Simulations set up: dispersion calculations ANSYS-CFX version notional nozzle approaches “real” pipe with diameter equal to the experimental (D=1mm) and length equal to 10D to evaluate the level of accuracy with a coarse mesh (shock region not resolved) Equations of mass, momentum and energy (total enthalpy) conservation 4 commonly used turbulence models: standard k- , SST, RNG k-  and baseline k-  (BSL) All simulations run as transient cases for 5 s High resolution scheme for discretization of advection terms 2 nd Order Backward Euler for discretization of transient terms Ideal gas law for the notional nozzle cases, Redlich Kwong equation for the “real” pipe cases Inlet with boundary conditions for velocity and temperature from the notional nozzle approaches or a given mass flowrate (equal to the experimental) for the “real” pipe cases. All simulations had a common incoming level of turbulence (intensity of 5%) assigned to the inlet

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Simulations set up: dispersion calculations Computational domain: 15 m × 10 m × 10 m Minimum and maximum timestep was s and s for the notional nozzle cases and s and for the “real” pipe cases Unstructured mesh: nodes for notional nozzle cases and nodes for “real” pipe cases Solution domain for all cases

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Results: H 2 concentration at 1.5 m and 2.25 m from the release MEV: Mean Experimental Value STD: Standard Deviation 30% - 50% over or under prediction of MEV Comparison between approaches In general, Birch 1987, Schefer and “real” pipe cases perform better Comparison between turbulence models General tendency for higher predictions with k- , followed by RNG k- , BSL and lastly SST

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Results: Flow velocity at 1.5 m and 2.25 m from the release Comparison between approaches Majority of predictions lie within the 30% over/under prediction of MEV Highest values predicted by approaches with highest release velocity (Schefer, Birch 1987) Comparison between turbulence models General tendency for higher predictions with k- , followed by either RNG k-  or BSL and lastly SST

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Results: Contour plots of H 2 concentration – Birch 1984 & Birch 1987 Case: Birch84 – BSL H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch84 – k-  H 2 mass in flammable cloud: 1.51 g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch84 – RNG H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch84 – SST H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch87 – BSL H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch87 – k-  H 2 mass in flammable cloud: 0.73 g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch87 – RNG H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Birch87 – SST H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m m

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Results: Contour plots of H 2 concentration – Schefer and Ewan Case: Schefer – BSL H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.11 m 3 Case: Schefer – k-  H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.16 m 3 Case: Schefer – RNG H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Schefer – SST H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3 Case: Ewan – BSL H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.21 m 3 Case: Ewan – k-e H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.34 m 3 Case: Ewan – RNG H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.23 m 3 Case: Ewan – SST H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.18 m 3

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Conclusions The conclusions are relevant to the selected experiment, the available data and the simulations’ set up. To make general comments, more experimental conditions should be investigated Birch 1987 and Schefer approaches produce more accurate results for the H 2 concentration Including the conservation of momentum in the approach increases the accuracy of the results The coarse mesh of the “real” pipe cases produced accurate enough results for both H 2 concentration and flow velocities on the symmetry axis Further investigation is necessary on both axial and radial distances from the release

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Ongoing work Assessment of approaches with: different initial conditions (stagnation properties, release diameter) both axial and radial experimental measurements of H 2 concentration and flow velocity Effect of: Grid resolution. Grid independence for notional nozzle approaches. Turbulence intensity at the source (5%, 10%). Discretization schemes

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Thank you for your attention

ICHS4, San Francisco, September Results: Contour plots of H 2 concentration – Schefer and “real” pipe Case: Schefer – BSL H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: 0.11 m 3 Case: “real” pipe – BSL H 2 mass in flammable cloud: g Flammable volume: m 3