1 / 28

Simulation of the efficiency of hydrogen recombiners as safety devices

Simulation of the efficiency of hydrogen recombiners as safety devices. Ernst-Arndt Reinecke, Stephan Kelm, Wilfried Jahn, Christian Jäkel, Hans-Josef Allelein. International Conference on Hydrogen Safety September 12-14, 2011, San Francisco, CA. Overview.

caraf
Download Presentation

Simulation of the efficiency of hydrogen recombiners as safety devices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Simulation of the efficiency of hydrogen recombiners as safety devices Ernst-Arndt Reinecke, Stephan Kelm, Wilfried Jahn, Christian Jäkel, Hans-Josef Allelein International Conference on Hydrogen Safety September 12-14, 2011, San Francisco, CA

  2. Overview Simulation of the efficiency of hydrogen recombiners as safety devices • Passive auto-catalytic recombiner (PAR) • Goal of the numerical study • Scenario investigated • Model approach • Results

  3. Unintended H2 release inside confined space

  4. Passive auto-catalytic recombiner (PAR)

  5. Commercial PARs in Nuclear Power Plants Vendors • AECL, Canada • AREVA, France/Germany • NIS, Germany Source: Siempelkamp

  6. Operational boundary conditions NPP containment • large temperature and density gradients • large natural convection loops • large geometry (20,000-70,000 m³, typical length scales 5-50 m) • steam-inertized in early accident phase Typical H2 and FC applications • significant smaller scales • different thermal hydraulic conditions PAR applicability ? NPP H2 & FC GOAL:

  7. Scenario

  8. Experiment Source: CEA • GARAGE facility at CEA/France • single vehicle private garage (~40 m³) • concentration measurement at ~60 pos. Test 1: He release (~2 g/s) for ~2 min data recently published:Gupta et al., Int J Hydrogen Energy 34 (2009) 5902–5911

  9. Release scenario and measurement locations

  10. Approach Scenario based on GARAGE experiment (CEA) • Simulation of the helium release and distribution scenario and validation against experimental data • Replace helium by hydrogen and verify the calculated distribution • Add a PAR to the scenario and compare mitigated/unmitigated scenario

  11. Model approach

  12. Coupled Modeling Approach Micro Scale Meso Scale Macro Scale REKO-DIREKT(in-house) ANSYS CFX

  13. Output: T, yi, m natural convection Chimney chemical (catalytical) reaction mass/heat transfer Catalystsection Input: T, yi, p PAR model: REKO-DIREKT

  14. REKO-DIREKT REKO-DIREKT  CFX- Outlet gas temperature- Outlet gas composition- Mass flow through PAR REKO-DIREKT  CFX T / °C yH2 / Vol.-% CFX  REKO-DIREKT- Inlet gas temperature- Inlet gas composition- Pressure

  15. Results

  16. Unmitigated release - setup • Physical Model: • Half Symmetry • RANS equations • Ideal gas equation of state • Isothermal • SST-model incl. buoyancy prod. & dissipation • Injection • He: 240 g (1,99 g/s) • H2: 120 g (0,99 g/s) • Wall functions at inner walls • Vent: Outlet Boundary

  17. Helium/Hydrogen concentration profiles

  18. Mitigated release - setup • Physical Model: • Half Symmetry • RANS equations • Ideal gas equation of state • SST-model incl. buoyancy prod. & dissipation • Injection • H2: 120 g (0,99 g/s) • Wall functions at inner walls • Fixed Wall Temperature • Temperature dependent properties • No heat radiation • Vent: Outlet Boundary

  19. 120 s 240 s 800 s Comparison mitigated/unmitigated scenario

  20. Comparison mitigated/unmitigated scenario

  21. Details mitigated scenario

  22. PAR model details

  23. Flammable cloud volume histories

  24. Performance (estimates) Processor • 1 CPU Quadcore I7-860, 2.8 GHz • Open Suse Linux 11.3 • CFX 12.1 Calculation time (1200 s) • unmitigated scenario: ~10 d • mitigated scenario: ~40 d • REKO-DIREKT: ~6 min • more time steps • more gas components (H2+O2+N2+H2O)

  25. Conclusions

  26. Conclusions (1/2) Goal • investigate the applicability of PAR from NPP containment to typical H2&FC application • significant differences in operational boundary conditions • first study based on GARAGE experiment, performed with ANSYS-CFX and REKO-DIREKT Results • H2 injection of 1.5 m³, flammable cloud was removed within 10 minutes • hot exhaust plume promotes the transport of hydrogen rich gas mixture towards the PAR inlet

  27. Conclusions (2/2) Next steps • parameter variation • injection rate, location, and direction • PAR design and number • geometry of the enclosure • consideration of possible PAR ignition scenarios • validation against mitigation experiments in new multi-compartment facility, currently under construction at JÜLICH

  28. Thank you for your attention !

More Related