Sei sulla pagina 1di 31

An Intercomparison Exercise

on the Capabilities of CFD Models


to Predict Distribution and Mixing
of H2 in a Closed Vessel
E. Gallego, E. Migoya, J.M. Martín-Valdepeñas, A. Crespo, J. García (UPM),
A.Venetsanos, E. Papanikolaou (NCSRD), S. Kumar (BRE), E. Studer (CEA),
O.R. Hansen (GexCon), Y. Dagba (INERIS), T. Jordan (FZK), W. Jahn (FZJ),
S. Høiset (N-H), D. Makarov (UU), J.Piechna (WUT)
SBEPs in HySafe /1

• Standard Benchmark Exercise Problems


 SBEPs
• Objectives:
– establishing a framework for validation of
codes and models for simulation of
problems relevant to hydrogen safety,
– identifying the main priority areas for the
further development of the codes/models.
SBEPs in HySafe /2

• SBEPs are enriched from the variety of codes, models,


approaches, user experience and points of view from industry
and research agents participating in the network

• Selection criteria for SBEPS:


– Relevance to hydrogen safety of the phenomena explored in the
tests
– Availability of the experimental data
– Feasibility and their possibility to be used for validating codes and
models

• A first experiment on hydrogen release, mixing and


distribution was selected and identified as SBEP-V1
Description of the
experiment
• Based on experiments performed by Shebeko et al. on H2
distribution for a subsonic release of hydrogen in a closed
vessel (“Regularities of formation and combustion of local hydrogen-air
mixtures in a large volume”, Chemical Industry, 21, 1988)
• Vessel dimensions:
– height 5.5 m
– diameter 2.2 m
– volume 20.046 m3
D=5.5 m
• Initial conditions  vessel filled with quiescent air:
– temperature 20C
– pressure 760 mm Hg (101325 Pa).
• Hydrogen released vertically upward at a rate of 4.5 litres
per second during 60 seconds (0.27 m3 total):
D=2.2 m – injection tube diameter 10 mm
– hydrogen release velocity 57.3 m/s
– release orifice located on the vessel axis, at 1.4 m under the top
of the vessel, connected to a supply vessel, whose pressure was
about 150 atm
– After the release, the sensors were measuring during 250 min
Numerical visualisation
of the experiment /1

• Hydrogen released
vertically upward
during 60 seconds
(0.27 m3 total):
– injection tube diameter 10 mm
– hydrogen release velocity
57.3 m/s
– release orifice located on the
vessel axis, at 1.4 m under the
top of the vessel, connected to a
supply vessel
– After the release, the sensors
were measuring during 250 min

• Sensors located along


the central axis of the
vessel
Video: GexCon
Numerical visualisation
of the experiment /2

• Hydrogen released
vertically upward
during 60 seconds
(0.27 m3 total):
– injection tube diameter 10 mm
– hydrogen release velocity
57.3 m/s
– release orifice located on the
vessel axis, at 1.4 m under the top
of the vessel, connected to a
supply vessel
– After the release, the sensors
were measuring during 250 min

• Sensors located along


the central axis of the
vessel Video: UU
Organisations and
codes participating
Participant Organisations Codes
BRE, Building Research Establishment, UK JASMINE 3.2
CEA, Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique, France CAST3M
DNV, Det Norske Veritas AS, Norway FLACSv8.0
FZK, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Germany GASFLOW-II
FZJ, Research Centre Juelich, Germany CFX-5.7
GXC, GexCon AS, Norway FLACSv8.1
INR, Institut National de l'Environnement Industriel
PHOENICSv3.5
et des Risques (INERIS), France
NCSRD, National Centre for Scientific Research
ADREA-HF
“Demokritos”, Greece
NH, Norsk Hydro ASA, Norway FLACSv8.0
UPM, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain CFX-4.4
UU, University of Ulster, UK FLUENTv6.1.18
WUT, Politechnika Warszawska, Poland FLUENTv6.1
RESULTS…
• Important remark: all details of the experimental results were
known to the modellers before the submission.
– Further, some results were received after the deadline, with full
access to the results predicted in time by other modellers!
– Little can be said about prediction capabilities from the
simulation performed!

• Being a first exercise, the main interest was in learning


about the strength and limitations of the models to
simulate the phenomena.

• The predictive power of each team will be tested against blind


simulations,
 a new SBEP currently under development.
Absolute velocity along the
vessel axis at 30s after the
beginning of release
6.0
BRE
CEA
FZK
5.5 GXC
Distance from the bottom (m)

NCSa
NCSb
NH
5.0
UPM
UUa
UUb
4.5 FZJ

4.0

3.5
0 2 4 6 8 10
Absolute velocity (m/s)
Absolute velocity along the
vessel axis at 30s after the
beginning of release

• FZK modelled a source orifice with 10 x the original


diameter and, in order to conserve the hydrogen
release, a velocity 1/100 the original.
– This explains the different velocity pattern.

• UU oscillating behaviour of vertical velocity is due to


visualisation peculiarity.
– Unstructured grid, with centres of the control volumes
positioned at different distances from the vertical axis, with
lightly different vertical component of velocity.
– Brought all together on the vertical axis, they make
impression of "wiggles“.
Relevant phenomena for
the modelling and
interpretation of results
• Highly convective region associated to the hydrogen jet,
where the ambient gas is entrained and mixes with the
hydrogen.
• Recirculation flow due to the impingement of the jet on
the ceiling, that generates wall jets and also produces
entrainment and mixing with ambient gas.
• Natural convection due to non-uniform density
distribution because of variable H2 concentration, and maybe
also due to non-adiabatic walls.
– Because of the variable density and stratifications, there is also a
possibility of wave-like motions that have been detected by some
models.
• Mass diffusion, which will be turbulent in the first stages, and
maybe laminar in the last ones.
Overall findings /1

• Comparison between numerical results and


experimental data should only be performed once a
grid-convergence study has been made:
– Important to model turbulence  to demonstrate that the
computed results are driven by turbulence and not by
numerical diffusion due to a coarse grid.
– In general, if the grid is not too coarse, the evolution of gas
concentration with different grids is very similar.
• General tendency of calculated concentrations
 higher than measured in the region above the
source and lower below the source.
Volume fractions along the
vessel centreline (2 min
after the end of release)
Volume fractions along the
vessel centreline (50 min
after the end of release)
0.08
BRE
BRE-A
0.07 CEA
DNV
0.06 FzJ
FzK
Volume fraction H2

0.05 GexCon
INERIS
0.04 NCSRD(a)
NCSRD(b)
UPM
0.03 UU(a)
UU(b)
0.02 WUT
Experimental
0.01

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from the top (m)
Volume fractions along the
vessel centreline (100 min
after the end of release)
0.06
BRE
BRE-A
CEA
0.05 DNV
FzJ
FzK
Volume fraction H2

0.04 GexCon
INERIS
NCSRD(a)
0.03 NCSRD(b)
UPM
UU(a)
0.02 UU(b)
WUT
Experimental
0.01

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from the top (m)
Volume fractions along the
vessel centreline (250 min
after the end of release)
0.040
BRE
BRE-A
0.035 CEA
DNV
FzJ
0.030 FzK
GexCon
Volume fraction H2

INERIS
0.025 NCSRD(a)
NCSRD(b)
UPM
0.020 UU(a)
UU(b)
WUT
0.015 Experimental

0.010

0.005

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from the top (m)
Overall findings /2

• 2 min after the end of the release:


– calculated concentration almost double than the
measurement in the top gauge
– For some models, no hydrogen was numerically
found in the region below the source, whereas
some H2 was registered at the first gauge below
the source
– Possible reasons:
• Too coarse grid for the source region
• Experimental asymmetry of the exit flow?
• Description of the jet not sufficiently accurate
• No information about the measurement equipment and
other objects influencing the jet inside the vessel
Volume fractions along the
vessel centreline (2 min
after the end of release)
Ratio between calculated
(Cp) and measured (C0)
concentrations (2 min
after the end of release)
10.00
BRE
BRE-A
NCSa
NCSb
FZJ
1.00 FZK
GXC
UUa
Cp / Co

UUb
CEA
WUT
0.10 DNV
UPM
INR
Cp / Co = 1
Cp / Co = 2
Cp / Co = 1/2
0.01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from top (m)
Overall findings /3

For longer times:


• The gradual increase with time in the measured
concentrations in the lower part of the vessel is seen
by all the models;
– the agreement between experiments and models can even
be improved by choosing an appropriate Prandtl number
• However, the fact that the measured concentrations
are identical for the three lower measuring positions
is not reproduced in the calculation results
• Approximate mass-balance estimates, made from
the calculated concentrations at the gauge points,
indicate a loss-of-mass in some models
0.040
BRE
BRE-A
0.035 CEA

250 min
DNV
FzJ
0.030 FzK
GexCon

Volume fraction H2
INERIS
0.025 NCSRD(a)
NCSRD(b)
UPM
0.020 UU(a)
UU(b)
WUT
0.015 Experimental

0.06 0.010
BRE
BRE-A
0.005 CEA
0.05 DNV
0.000 FzJ
0 1 FzK 2 3 4 5 6
Volume fraction H2

0.04 GexCon
Distance from the top (m)
INERIS
NCSRD(a)

100 min
0.03 NCSRD(b)
UPM
UU(a)
0.02 UU(b)
0.08 WUT
BRE Experimental
BRE-A
0.07 0.01 CEA
DNV
0.06 FzJ
0.00 FzK
Volume fraction H2

0.05 0 1 2 GexCon 3 4 5 6
INERIS from the top (m)
Distance
0.04 NCSRD(a)
NCSRD(b)
0.03 50 min UPM
UU(a)
UU(b)
0.02 WUT
Experimental
0.01

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Distance from the top (m)
Ratio between calculated
(Cp) and measured (C0)
concentrations (250 min
after the end of release)
10.000

1.000
Cp / Co

0.100

BRE BRE-A NCSa


0.010 NCSb FZJ FZK
GXC UUa UUb
CEA WUT DNV
UPM INR Cp / Co = 1
Cp / Co = 2 Cp / Co = 1/2
0.001
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Distance from top (m)
Results by model
types /1

• Using standard k- model with adiabatic walls as thermal


boundary condition, and different CFD codes, a first group of
four partners (BRE-A, FZJ, NCSRDa, and UPM) got very similar
results:
– Predicted concentration levels overestimated near the top of the
vessel and underestimated near the bottom
• In one calculation (BRE-A) with flow initially turbulent, once the
hydrogen release finished, the flow eventually became laminar,
and was a diffusion dominated problem:
– This raised the issue of whether a single turbulence model, e.g. the
'standard k- model', is suitable for both the turbulent initial
release and later diffusion dominated phases
(WUT proposes to use k- model for the first stages and a k- for
the diffusion stage)
Results by model
types /2

• GexCon, FZK and DNV applied standard k- turbulence


models getting better predictions with different boundary
conditions:
– FZK used adiabatic walls but assumed different conditions at the
source artificially: same mass flow rate but 100 times lower
velocity. Under these conditions hydrogen has more time to mix
with the surrounding air before it reaches the vessel top
– GexCon simulated wall heat transfer with a cold draft downwards
established along the walls (in test simulations ignoring the wall
temperature very little gas migrated to the lower parts of the
vessel with the laminar diffusivity)
– Any kind of non-symmetry in temperature or external heat
source/sink will contribute to better mixing, as observed in the
experiments
Results by model
types /3

• Using a 1D transient pure diffusion model, CEA


obtained general trends similar to the previous
group.
– Also, underestimation of the time-evolution of hydrogen
enrichment in the lower part of the vessel.
– Some flattening of the profiles close to the injection level,
attributed to the presence of the injection pipe in the grid.
• The results of the pure 1D diffusion model show that
some other phenomena have an effect on the
experimental distribution of hydrogen.
Results by model
types /4

• With LVEL turbulence model NCSRDb and INERIS got very


different results
• INERIS results underestimate the total hydrogen mass inside
the tank:
– A filling tube was modelled from the bottom of the tank
 The PHOENICS version used, does not allow the setting of the inlet
condition as a volume source
 concentration data not at the axis but at a radius close to the tube wall
 The LVEL model, combined with the friction on the tube wall accelerates
the hydrogen diffusion at the top of the tank

• Better results could be obtained by using volume source with


laminar inlet velocity profile as the NCSRDb results show.
Results by model
types /5
• RNG-LES, unstructured grid, and adiabatic wall boundary
conditions was used by UU (previous paper)
• The model reproduced more realistic transport of hydrogen to
the bottom compared to the most of the RANS models applied
– Still differences with experimental data  possibly due to non-
uniformity of the vessel wall temperature (the vessel was located
at open air)
– Convective transport dominates over “turbulent” diffusion transport
even at times long after the release was completed  assuming
transport of hydrogen mainly by diffusion in such kind of problems
seems not valid.
– Residual chaotic velocities are as high as about
• 0.10 m/s at 50 min after the release,
• 0.08 m/s at 100 min and
• 0.05 m/s at 250 min
Conclusions about
the models
• It is difficult to compare the combined effects of turbulence model
(LES RNG, RANS k-e standard), grid (structured vs. unstructured),
size of the grid, time steps...
• An appropriate choice of turbulence model must be made: turbulent
flow becomes laminar in a relative short time
• Using different Prandtl turbulent numbers during the diffusion can
improve the results
• Grid-convergence study  important to demonstrate that the
computed results are driven by physical phenomena and not by
numerical diffusion or inadequate grid resolution
• Mass balance problems occurred when the time steps were too
high.
– Shorter time steps and stricter convergence criteria could probably
guarantee the mass conservation.
Conclusions about
the experiments
• Experiments were not ideal 
– Reproducibility was not reported.
– Temperature at release exit was not reported.
– Temperature at the walls was not monitored.
– Information on the uncertainty of the measured data not
reported.
– Concentration values at the three lowest sensors suspiciously
identical.
– Sensors above the source were hit by the jet and maybe not
calibrated for such conditions…
– These issues certainly provide recommendations to
experimentalists and future SBEPs.
• A better control of the boundary conditions is a necessary
aspect in order to produce experimental data for benchmark
exercises. This has to be a requirement for further SBEP
exercises.
Final
Conclusions

• In summary, this SBEP has provided a very useful


comparison of the performance of different
models, which could hardly be possible to conduct
by any single partner alone
• The reasons for hydrogen transport down to the
bottom of the vessel remain a gap of knowledge.
To improve our understanding of slow hydrogen
movement in a closed vessel, further research on
flow decay during long periods of time is needed
Many thanks

• To other colleagues who contributed to the


calculations and the discussions of the results:
• S. Miles (BRE),
• T. Elvehøy (DNV),
• J. Travis (FZK),
• W. Jahn (FZJ),
• V. Molkov (UU)
• A. Teodorczyk (WUT)
• To the HySafe Network of Excellence of the VI
Framework Research Programme of the European
Commission.

Potrebbero piacerti anche