2008 Ijhe 1

ARTICLE IN PRESS
international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (2008) 1–8
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he
Boundary layer theory approach to the concentration

layer adjacent to a ceiling wall at impinging region of a
hydrogen leakage
M.F. El-Amin*, H. Kanayama

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka-shi,
Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
article info abstract
Article history: In this article, the steady-state concentration boundary layer adjacent to a ceiling wall of
Received 17 April 2008 a stagnation-point flow region resulting from hydrogen impinging leakage is investigated.
Received in revised form Flow in neighborhood of the stagnation point is treated as Hiemenz flow, while the
28 July 2008 concentration equation governs the concentration distribution in the boundary layer. The
Accepted 28 July 2008 assumptions of the boundary layer theory are invoked to simplify both the momentum and
Published online - the concentration equations. Comparison between the CFD simulation and the current
boundary layer approximation shows a good agreement. Both momentum and concen-
Keywords: tration boundary layer thicknesses are estimated as well as local friction factor and local
Hydrogen leakage mass transfer. Also, the study is extended to include some cases of unsteady leakage. The
Partially open space effects of the unsteadiness parameter on the local friction factor and mass transfer rate as
Hiemenz flow well as momentum and concentration boundary layer thicknesses are analyzed.
Boundary layer theory ª 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights
Stagnation-point flow reserved.
Boundary layer thickness
1. Introduction more effective, if the system is modeled correctly and the

numerical scheme is verified. It will be very useful if the
Hydrogen as a new energy source attracts the interest of numerical results could compare with the available experi-
researchers as a new fuel instead of fossil fuel. The expected mental data even in the basic simplified phenomena. There-
extensive usage of hydrogen in various industrial applications fore, numerical simulation can be confidently grown in
increases the possibilities of its accidental release in hydrogen a variety of research work.
infrastructure such as storage, bulk transportation and Long exposure of containment materials to hydrogen
distribution, production and utilization. Hydrogen leakage is causes a phenomenon known as hydrogen embrittlement
dangerous when it mixes with air since it poses the risk of fire in materials which may result in cracking and a hydrogen
or explosion. On the other hand, to ensure the highest degree leakage. Hydrogen leakage can be divided into two classes: in
of safety when performing hydrogen-related experiments, the first class, hydrogen can leak rapidly through tiny openings
highly well prepared expensive facilities are required. So, in a high-pressure storage, and this kind of leak has
using computations and numerical simulation is safer and a combustion behavior. In the second class hydrogen leak is
* Corresponding author. Permanent address: Department of Mathematics, Aswan Faculty of Science, South Valley University, Egypt.
Fax: þ81 928023226.
E-mail address: elamin@mech.kyushu-u.ac.jp (M.F. El-Amin).
0360-3199/$ – see front matter ª 2008 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
Please cite this article in press as: El-Amin MF, Kanayama H, Boundary layer theory approach to the concentration layer
adjacent to a ceiling wall at impinging region of a hydrogen leakage, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2008),
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (2008) 1–8
unignited slow leak which may occur from leaky fittings, o-ring space. They discussed the conditions of dispersion and the
seals or vents on hydrogen vehicles, buildings, storage facili- relationship with the outside environment. The same authors
ties containing hydrogen or other hydrogen-based systems. [15] introduced some numerical experiments of the concen-
The present problem is concerned to the second class. Swain tration distribution in a partially open space. They reported
et al. [1] have discussed a method for classifying the leaks of that there is a concentration boundary layer adjacent to the
hydrogen and reported risks incurred by hydrogen escaping ceiling wall of the partially open space and the unsteady
from containers and conduits. A review of postulated mecha- concentration boundary layer approaches the steady-state
nisms of spontaneous ignition was presented by Astbury and case at about time in between 40 and 80 s depending on the
Hawksworth [2]. They highlighted on the gaps in information leakage flow rate.
of postulated ignition mechanisms of the above-mentioned The concept of the boundary layer theory is to simplify the
classes of hydrogen leaks which are worthy of further study. equations of fluid flow by dividing the flow field into two areas:
In the first class of hydrogen leakage, a classic turbulent jet one inside the boundary layer, where viscosity is dominant
flame models can be used (cf. Refs. [3,4]). In Ref. [3], measure- and the majority of the drag experienced by a body immersed
ments were performed on large-scale, vertical flames to in a fluid is created, and one outside the boundary layer where
characterize the dimensional and radiative properties of an viscosity can be neglected without significant effects on the
ignited hydrogen jet. The equations for the calculation of leak solution. This allows a closed-form solution for the flow in
flow rates in various leak regimes under different conditions both areas, which is a significant simplification over the
were developed in Ref. [4]. The evaluation of leak flow rate solution of the full Navier–Stokes equations. The majority of
from compressed hydrogen dispensing systems and related heat and mass transfer to and from a body also takes place
components was reported by Schefer et al. [5]. Houf within the boundary layer, again allowing the equations to be
and Schefer [6] introduced evaluations of the flame length and simplified in the flow field outside the boundary layer.
heat flux profile which of the primary interest for determining In the current work, we introduce a steady-state boundary
the consequences from the leak site. Swain et al. [7] introduced layer analysis to model and evaluate concentration boundary
an experimental investigation into the ignition of leaking layer adjacent to a ceiling wall of a stagnation-point flow area
hydrogen. The aim of their work was to determine how close resulting from the hydrogen impinging leakage. This kind of
an ignition source must be to a hydrogen leak to cause ignition flow is defined as a stagnation-point flow which is known as
of the leak. This distance was then compared to the maximum Hiemenz flow and is treated using the classical boundary layer
distance at which 4% hydrogen concentration could be found theory. The concentration distribution in the boundary layer
in the leaking hydrogen plume. Experimental investigation on is governed by the concentration equation. Comparison
the hypothetical scenario of dispersion and explosion of high- between the CFD simulation [15] and the current boundary
pressurized hydrogen gas which leaks through a large-scale layer approximation shows a good agreement as well as our
break in piping and blows down to atmosphere was conducted recent CFD simulation. Both momentum and concentration
by Takeno et al. [8]. Through these experiments, it was clarified boundary layer thicknesses are estimated as well as local
that the explosion power depends not only on the concentra- friction factor and local mass transfer are given. The study is
tion and volume of hydrogen/air pre-mixture, but also on the extended to include some cases of unsteady leakage as decay
turbulence characteristics before ignition. with time or growth with time. The effects of the unsteadiness
In the second class of hydrogen leakage, the buoyancy can parameter on the local friction factor and mass transfer rate
significantly affect the concentration decay and trajectory of as well as momentum and concentration boundary layer
the leak. Houf and Schefer [9] presented analytical and thicknesses are analyzed.
experimental investigations of small-scale unintended
releases of hydrogen. They have presented calculations from
the model and experimental results to explain the behavior of 2. Steady leakage
slow leaks over the Froude number range of interest and
comparisons between the measured slow leak concentration During running a full simulation for a hydrogen leakage in the
fields and predictions from the slow leak engineering model. ceiling wall model of a partially open space, which remains
Agarant et al. [10] have introduced CFD modeling of hydrogen the next problem, the behavior of the concentration boundary
releases and dispersion in hydrogen energy station. Swain layer adjacent to the ceiling wall attracted our attentions. As
and Swain [11] have investigated the influence of building shown in Fig. 1, the contours of the concentration can be
geometry and passive ventilation on the formation of observed as a boundary layer adjacent to the ceiling wall and
combustible hydrogen gas clouds using CFD simulation. They behaves as Hiemenz flow. The interesting region in this study
evaluated leakage rates and time for leaking hydrogen that is the stagnation-point flow regime as indicated in Fig. 1. The
can be ventilated from a properly designed building without analysis for other regions such as far region boundary layer
producing a sizable quantity of combustible fuel–air mixture. remains as the next point of our research.
Swain et al. [12] have reported that hydrogen leaks can be Hiemenz flow is a two-dimensional flow of a fluid
simulated using helium to predict the concentrations of the impinging normal to a plane near a stagnation point as shown
gas found near the ceiling after the initial transients disap- in Fig. 2. Its solution was first given by Hiemenz [16] who
pear. CFD simulation for safety verification of hydrogen demonstrated that the Navier–Stokes equations governing the
fueling stations was introduced by Kikukawa [13]. flow can be reduced to an ordinary differential equation of
Matsuura et al. [14] presented a numerical simulation of third order by means of a similarity transformation. In fact,
leaking hydrogen dispersion behavior in a partially open the problem of stagnation-point flow has been extended in
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (2008) 1–8 3
Stagnation-point regime Concentration boundary layer It is remarkable that, for the traditional boundary layer
Ceiling Wall assumptions, the constant concentration at the wall almost
means that the wall provides a constant quantity of mass. On
the other hand, from the observation of CFD results, it is
Far boundary
Far boundary
reported that the highest concentration is at the highest point

of the boundary layer i.e. on the ceiling wall due to the high
buoyancy effect. So, for the case under study and for matching
the boundary condition at the wall of the boundary layer we
will consider it as a constant concentration Cw.
Nozzle Inlet
Concentration free jet Concentration wall jet At the freestream boundary ðy/NÞ, the potential solution,
the velocity distribution takes the form,
Fig. 1 – Simulation of the concentration boundary layer.
u ¼ ax; v ¼ ay (6)
Using the Bernoulli equation the corresponding pressure

distribution follows as,
various ways (cf. for example Refs. [17–20]) especially in the
1
case of heat transfer. P ¼ Pw ra2 x2 þ y2 (7)
2
The conservation equations for mass, u and v momentum
and concentration of the two-dimensional steady-state Hie-
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
menz boundary layer flow are: a
C ¼ CN þ ðCw CN Þerf y (8)
vu vv 2D
þ ¼0 (1)
vx vy where Pw is pressure at the wall.
Using boundary layer flow assumptions, therefore, the
governing equations of the stagnation-point flow can be
vu vu vP v2 u
ru þ rv ¼ þ m 2 (2) rewritten in the form,
vx vy vx vy
vu vv
þ ¼0 (9)
vx vy
vv vv vP v2 v
ru þ rv ¼ þ m 2 (3)
vx vy vy vy
vu vu v2 u
u þ v ¼ a2 x þ n 2 (10)
vx vy vy
vC vC v2 C
u þv ¼D 2 (4)
vx vy vy
vC vC v2 C
where u and v are the velocity components in the x and y u þv ¼D 2 (11)
vx vy vy
directions, respectively. r is the density of hydrogen, D is the
mass diffusivity of the hydrogen, P is the pressure, C is the Using the stream function, j,
concentration of the hydrogen, and m is the dynamic viscosity vj vj
u¼ ;v ¼ (12)
of the hydrogen. vy vx
For stagnation-point flow, the boundary conditions of the
with the similarity transformations,
boundary layer are, rffiffiffi
a j C CN
u ¼ 0; v ¼ 0; C ¼ Cw at y/0; u ¼ ax; C ¼ CN at y/N (5) h¼y ; FðhÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi; fðhÞ ¼ (13)
n x an Cw CN
where a is a constant.
The new coordinate h can be thought of as stretched
distance from the wall or boundary layer thickness. The gov-
x
erning Eqs. (9) and (10) are transformed into a set of non-
Ceiling Wall
dimensional ordinary differential equations:
y F000 þ FF00 F02 þ 1 ¼ 0 (14)
C
u
f00 þ ScFf0 ¼ 0 (15)

u
The boundary conditions (5) become
Fð0Þ ¼ F0 ð0Þ ¼ 0; fð0Þ ¼ 1;
(16)
F0 ðNÞ ¼ 1; fðNÞ ¼ 0
These follow from the impermeability of the wall (from

vðx; 0Þ ¼ 0 it follows F(0)) and from the no-slip condition (from
u(x,0) ¼ 0 it follows F0 (0)). At large distance from the wall
v
ðh/NÞ the velocity u(x,y) should pass over smoothly into that
Fig. 2 – Hiemenz flow model. of the inviscid flow u ¼ ax, which leads to F0 ð0ÞðNÞ ¼ 1. Also,
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
from the definition of f(h) and the boundary conditions of 1

Matsuura et al. [15] (r=0.5)
concentration at the wall and the outer flow lead to f(h ¼ 0) ¼ 1 0.9
Hiemenz flow Model
and fðh/NÞ ¼ 0. 0.8 CFD (x=0.0)
CFD (x=0.01)
Also, the non-dimensional freestream potential solution 0.7
CFD (x=0.02)
takes the form, 0.6
F¼h (17) ( ) 0.5

0.4
0.3
rffiffiffiffiffi!
Sc 0.2
f ¼ erf h (18)
2 0.1
0
Primes denote the differentiation with respect to h. Eqs. (14) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
and (15) with boundary conditions (16) describe the Hiemenz
boundary layer flow. It is interesting to note that F and f in
Fig. 3 – Comparison between non-dimensional
these equations depend only on h and are independent of x.
concentration of CFD and the current Hiemenz flow model.
Sc ¼ n=D is the Schmidt number, and is used to characterize
fluid flows in which there are simultaneous momentum and
mass diffusion processes. Physically, it relates the relative
thickness of the hydrodynamic layer and mass transfer the velocity of the hydrogen vanishes at the wall, but at some
boundary layer. depth of the boundary layer from the wall the flow speed must
The velocity and pressure distribution inside the boundary equal that of the potential flow. The shear stress imparted
layer is given by the form, onto the wall as a result of this loss of velocity and can be
pffiffiffiffiffi written as,
u ¼ axF0 ðhÞ; v ¼ anFðhÞ (19)

vu pffiffiffiffiffi
sw ¼ m ¼ rax anF00 ð0Þ (22)
vy y¼0
1 h n i
P ¼ Pw ra2 x2 þ F2 þ 2F0 (20)
2 a Therefore, the local friction factor which is a non-dimensional
which upon differentiation with respect to x becomes quantity as a function of Reynolds number is given by,
sw 1
vP Cf ¼ 1 2 ¼ 2Rex 2 F00 ð0Þ (23)
¼ ra2 x (21) 2
ruN
vx
where Rex ¼ ðxuN =nÞ ¼ ðax2 =nÞ is the Reynolds number.
The complete derivation can be found in a number of text-
For the case under study the local friction factor becomes,
books as Schlichting and Gersten [21].
1
In order to get the physical insight, the system of ordinary Cf ¼ 2:46518 Rex 2 (24)
differential Eqs. (14) and (15) along with the boundary condi-
From Eq. (24), one can note that the local friction factor has the
tions (16) are integrated numerically by means of the fourth-
largest value with small Reynolds number and is reducing
order Runge–Kutta method with shooting technique. The step
gradually as Re increase. The value of the skin-friction
size, Dh ¼ 0:01, is used while obtaining the numerical solution
Cf ¼ 2:46518Re1=2
x has a good agreement with the data in
with hmax ¼ 4 and five-decimal accuracy as the criterion for
Ref. [21].
convergence. The kinematic viscosity of the hydrogen is
Also, the quantity of great interest in mass transfer prob-
n ¼ 1:05 104 m2 =s and the hydrogen diffusion coefficient in
lems is the local mass flux which is given by,
air is D ¼ 6:1 105 m2 =s therefore the corresponding Schmidt
rffiffiffi
number becomes Sc ¼ 1.72. vu a 0
jw ¼ D ¼ DðCw CN Þ f ð0Þ (25)
The non-dimensional concentration distribution in the vy y¼0 n
boundary layer is plotted in Fig. 3. This figure shows a good
agreement between the current boundary layer approach using
Hiemenz flow model and the CFD simulation which was intro-
duced in Ref. [15] as well as some selected results at x ¼ 0.0,
x ¼ 0.01, x ¼ 0.02 (inside the stagnation-point flow region) from
our recent CFD simulation related to Fig. 1. The CFD results are
non-dimensionalized and re-scaled to be comparable with the
boundary layer theory results. Also, one can note that the high-
est concentration value found close to the wall and decreases
gradually to vanish at the free boundary of the boundary layer.
Below we will introduce an estimation of the boundary layer
thickness. Non-dimensional velocity profile is shown in Fig. 4. It
is interesting to observe the no-slip velocity on the wall which
grows gradually to the maximum velocity on the free boundary.
The hydrogen layer moving along the ceiling wall will incur
a shear stress on that wall. The no-slip condition dictates that Fig. 4 – Non-dimensional velocity profile.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
In non-dimensional form the Sherwood number represents films in Garmo et al. [24], while Eq. (34b) for the stagnation-
xkC xjw 1
point boundary layer. For the case under the study, d=dC < 1
Shx ¼ ¼ ¼ Re2x f0 ð0Þ (26) indicates that mass diffusion is a bit stronger than viscous
D DðCw CN Þ
diffusion in the hydrogen boundary layer adjacent to the
where kC ¼ jw =ðCw CN Þ is mass transfer coefficient. For the ceiling wall as shown in Fig. 5.
case under study the Sherwood number becomes,
1
Shx ¼ 0:70275 Re2x (27a)
3. Unsteady leakage
Eq. (27a) can be given in a more popular form in terms of
Schmidt number Sc and Reynolds number Re as follows:
In reality, hydrogen leakage is mostly unsteady, for example
1 1
Shx ¼ 0:59 Re2x Sc3 (27b) when hydrogen leaks from storage the pressure inside
decreases gradually and therefore the flow rate decays with
One can deduce an expression similar to Eq. (27b), with
time which in turn may cause time-dependent variation in the
numerical factor 0.332 in Ref. [22] instead of 0.59. It is
freestream velocity as a kind of unsteadiness in the flow field.
noteworthy that the expression used in Ref. [22] for a zero-
In this case, the freestream field can be expressed as [25],
incidence boundary layer while Eq. (27b) for the stagnation-
1 1
point boundary layer which is treated here. This relation u ¼ axð1 lt0 Þ ; v ¼ ayð1 lt0 Þ ; t0 ¼ at (35)
illustrates a gradual increase of Sherwood number as Re Using the Bernoulli equation the corresponding pressure
increases. distribution follows as,
The momentum boundary layer thickness d can be
1 2 2
estimated as the velocity has come to within 1% of its final P ¼ Pw ra2 ð1 lt0 Þ x þ y2 þ l x2 y2 (36)
2
value [21]. Thus at u ¼ 0:99uN (i.e. at F0 (h) ¼ 0.99), the non-
dimensional variable h ¼ hd ¼ 2:4 [21], and in the current where l is a parameter denoting the unsteadiness in the
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
calculations h ¼ hd ¼ 2:38. Using the relation h ¼ y a=n one freestream velocity, t0 is the dimensionless time and the
may consider the distance from the wall y ¼ d as a momentum constant a verifies the relation a ¼ ðvuN =vxÞt0 ¼0 .
boundary layer thickness, therefore, One can note the difference between the formula given for
rffiffiffi rffiffiffi the freestream velocities in the case of steady leakage and the
n n
d ¼ h0:99 ¼ 2:38 (30) case of unsteady leakage. The freestream velocity in the case of
a a
unsteady leakage equals the freestream velocity in the case of
Or may one can write, steady leakage multiplied by 1=ð1 lt0 Þ, where, jlj < 1 (i.e. 1
d 1
< l < 1). In fact, this choice of the unsteadiness parameter
¼ 2:38 Rex 2 (31) describes both of decay and growth of the flow rate with time of
x
the unsteady leakage. Of course, the case of decaying of the
Using the same way we can calculate the concentration
flow rate with time is the more realistic which may match the
boundary layer thickness dC as a value of y for which
case of leakage from storage. The case of growth with time of
ðCw CÞ=ðCw CN Þ ¼ 0:99 [22]. Therefore, one can write,
the flow rate is also considered in the analysis because it may
C CN Cw C happen under particular conditions or at least for the sake of
fðhÞ ¼ ¼1 ¼ 0:01 (32)
Cw CN Cw CN completeness of the analysis. For more convenience let’s
steady
Thus, for the current calculation the concentration boundary denote the steady freestream velocity by uN and for the
unsteady
layer thickness dC as a value of the y for which the non- unsteady freestream velocity by uN and re-write the
unsteady steady
dimensional concentration function fðhÞ ¼ 0:01, and in the relation as, uN ¼ ð1=ð1 lt0 ÞÞuN . It is noteworthy that
current calculations h ¼ hdC ¼ 2:43. Using the definition of the case l ¼ 0 is corresponding to the steady case. The ratio
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi unsteady steady
h ¼ y a=n the concentration boundary layer thickness takes uN =uN is plotted in Fig. 6 against the dimensionless
the form, time with various values of l, considering the independent
rffiffiffi rffiffiffi
n n
dC ¼ h0:01 ¼ 2:43 (33)
a a
Or one can write,

dC 1
¼ 2:43Rex 2 (34a)
x
Eq. (34a) can be rewritten in a more popular form in terms of
Schmidt number Sc and Reynolds number Re, as follows:
dC 1 1
¼ 2:92Re2x Sc3 (34b)
x
One can deduce an expression similar to Eq. (34b), with

numerical factor 5 in Ref. [23] and 3.3 in Garmo et al. [24]
instead of 2.92. It is noteworthy that the expression is used for
zero-incidence boundary layer in Ref. [23] and for a diffusive Fig. 5 – Momentum and concentration boundary layer
boundary layer in studies involving diffusive gradients in thin thicknesses.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
variable t0 taking the values from 0 to 1. From Fig. 6, we note

that as t0 increases (i.e. the positive unsteadiness parame-
unsteady steady
terlþve tends to one) the ratio uN =uN tends to infinity
(which means the flow rate growth with time depending on the
value of l), while as the positive lþve tends to zero the ratio
unsteady steady
uN =uN tends to one (steady leakage i.e. constant flow
rate). Using the mathematical expression ‘‘lim’’ we can write
unsteady steady unsteady
limt0 /1;lþþve /1 ðuN =uN Þ ¼ N and limt0 /1;lþve /0 ðuN =
steady
uN Þ ¼ 1. On the other hand, the same figure indicates that
for increasing of t0 , as the negative unsteadiness parameter lve
unsteady steady
tends to 1 the ratio uN =uN tends to a small value less
than one and almost equals 0.5 (which means the flow rate
decays with time depending on the value of l), while as the
unsteady steady
negative lve tends to zero the ratio uN =uN tends to
one (steady leakage). Again we can use a similar mathematical Fig. 7 – Variations of velocity profiles with different values
unsteady steady
expressions limt0 /1;lþve /1 ðuN =uN Þ ¼ 0:5 and limt0 / of l.
unsteady steady
1; lve /0ðu N = uN Þ ¼ 1.
After describing the time-dependent freesteam velocity
above, we will introduce the corresponding governing
unsteady equations as,
rffiffiffi
vu vv a 1=2 j 1=2 C CN
þ ¼0 (1) h¼y ð1 lt0 Þ ; FðhÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffið1 lt0 Þ ; fðhÞ ¼ (42)
vx vy n x an Cw CN
The velocity distribution within the boundary layer is given

by the form,
vu vu vu vP v2 u
r þ ru þ rv ¼ þ m 2 (37) 1 pffiffiffiffiffi 1=2
vt vx vy vx vy u ¼ axð1 lt0 Þ F0 ðhÞ; v ¼ anð1 lt0 Þ FðhÞ (43)
Substituting similarity transformations (42) into the

vv vv vv vP v2 v boundary layer governing Eqs. (1), (40) and (39),
r þ ru þ rv ¼ þ m 2 (38)
vt vx vy vy vy h
F000 þ FF00 F02 þ 1 þ l 1 F0 F00 ¼ 0 (44)
2
vC vC vC v2 C
þu þv ¼D 2 (39) h
vt vx vy vy f00 þ ScFf0 lSc f0 ¼ 0 (45)
2
Including the boundary layer assumptions, momentum Eqs.
The boundary conditions (5) become
(37) and (38) become,
vu vu vu vuN vuN v2 u Fð0Þ ¼ F0 ð0Þ ¼ 0; fð0Þ ¼ 1; F0 ðNÞ ¼ 1; fðNÞ ¼ 0 (16)

þu þv ¼ þ uN þn 2 (40)
vt vx vy vt vx vy The system of ordinary differential Eqs. (44) and (45) along
The boundary conditions can be expressed in the form, with the boundary conditions (16) are integrated numerically
by means of the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method with
1
u ¼ 0; C ¼ Cw at y/0; u ¼ axð1 lt0 Þ ; C ¼ CN at y/N (41)
We apply the following transformations,
unsteady steady
Fig. 6 – The ratio uN =uN against the dimensionless Fig. 8 – Variations of concentration distributions with
time with various values of l. different values of l.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
concentration over the wall of the current study, one can

attribute the reduction of the mass transfer rate to the high
momentum inside the boundary layer.
Both of the momentum boundary layer thickness d and the
concentration momentum boundary layer thickness dC can be
estimated in same manner, as shown in Section 2. We can use
1=2
the formula ðd=xÞ ¼ h0:99 Rex to estimate the momentum
1=2
boundary layer thickness and the formula ðdC =xÞ ¼ h0:01 Rex
to estimate the concentration boundary layer thickness.
1=2
Both of the momentum boundary layer thicknesses Rex ðd=xÞ
1=2
and the concentration boundary layer thicknesses Rex dC =x
are plotted in Fig. 10. It is interesting to observe, from this
figure, that the unsteadiness parameter has a slight effect
(thick) on the momentum boundary layer thickness, while it
Fig. 9 – The local friction factor and the mass transfer rate has a clear effect (thick) on the concentration boundary layer
with different values of l. thickness.
4. Conclusions
shooting technique. Velocity profiles and concentration
distributions with different values of the unsteadiness Through this paper, the steady-state boundary layer Hiemenz
parameter l are plotted in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. Fig. 7 flow is used to model the concentration boundary layer
shows that an increase in the unsteadiness parameter adjacent to a ceiling wall of a stagnation-point flow area
enhances the velocity close to the wall up to hy1:5, while the resulting from hydrogen impinging leakage. Momentum and
opposite is true for h > 1:5. Also, the unsteadiness parameter concentration boundary layer thicknesses are estimated as
enhances the concentration distribution in the boundary layer well as local friction factor and local mass transfer in terms of
as shown in Fig. 8. This can be interpreted as explained above Sherwood number. Comparison between the CFD simulation
that increasing the unsteadiness parameter means increasing [15] and the current boundary layer approximation shows
the flow rate from the source of leakage, which in turn a good agreement as well as our recent CFD simulation. Also,
enhances both concentration and velocity fields in both free- the study is extended to include some unsteady-state cases as
stream and in the boundary layer regions. leakage decay or growth with time. The effects of the
Using Eqs. (23) and (26) for the local friction factor and the unsteadiness parameter on the local friction factor and mass
mass transfer rate, respectively, they can be calculated with transfer rate as well as momentum and concentration
various values of the unsteadiness parameter l. The local boundary layer thicknesses are analyzed.
friction factor and the mass transfer rate are plotted against l
in Fig. 9. From this figure, it can be seen that the unsteadiness
parameter enhances the local friction factor while reduces the references
mass transfer rate. This may be attributed to the increasing of
the flow rate of the leakage which in turn increases the flow
over the surface and therefore enhances the local friction [1] Swain MR, Grilliot ES, Swain MN. Risks incurred by hydrogen
escaping from containers and conduits. In: Proceedings of
factor. Keeping in mind the meaning of constant
the 1998 US DOE hydrogen program review, NREL/CP-570–
25315; 1998.
[2] Astbury GR, Hawksworth SJ. Spontaneous ignition of
hydrogen leaks: a review of postulated mechanisms. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(13):2178–85.
[3] Schefer RW, Houf WG, Bourne B, Colton J. Spatial and
radiative properties of an open-flame hydrogen plume. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2006;31(10):1332–40.
[4] Schefer RW, Houf WG, Williams TC, Bourne B, Colton J.
Characterization of high-pressure, under-expanded
hydrogen-jet flames. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(12):
2081–93.
[5] Schefer RW, Houf WG, San Marchi C, Chernicoff WP,
Englom L. Characterization of leaks from compressed
hydrogen dispensing systems and related components. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2006;31(9):1247–60.
[6] Houf WG, Schefer RW. Predicting radiative heat fluxes and
flammability envelopes from unintended releases of
hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(1):136–51.
[7] Swain MR, Filoso PA, Swain MN. An experimental
Fig. 10 – Momentum and concentration boundary layer investigation into the ignition of leaking hydrogen. Int J
thicknesses with different values of l. Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(2):287–95.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116
ARTICLE IN PRESS
[8] Takeno K, Okabayashi K, Kouchi A, Nonaka T, Hashiguchi K, [16] Hiemenz K. Die Grenzschicht an einem in den
Chitose K. Dispersion and explosion field tests for 40 MPa gleichfaermigen Flfissigkeitsstrom eingetauchten geraden
pressurized hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32(13): Kreiszylinder. Dingl Polytech J 1911;326:321–410.
2144–53. [17] Ariel PD. Hiemenz flow in hydromagnetics. Acta Mech 1994;
[9] Houf WG, Schefer RW. Analytical and experimental 103:31–43.
investigation of small-scale unintended releases of [18] Gué Gan A, Huerr P, Schmid PJ. Optimal disturbances in
hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(4):1435–44. swept Hiemenz flow. J Fluid Mech 2007;578:223–32.
[10] Agarant V, Cheng Z, Tchouvelev A. CFD modeling of [19] Matunobu Y. Structure of pulsatile Hiemenz flow and
hydrogen releases and dispersion in hydrogen energy temporal variation of wall shear stress near the stagnation
station. In: Proceedings of the fifteenth world hydrogen point. II. J Phys Soc Jpn 1977;34(1):326–9.
energy conference; 2004. [20] Davis J, Yadigaroglu G. Direct contact condensation in
[11] Swain MR, Swain MN. Passive ventilation systems for the Hiemenz flow boundary layers. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2004;
safe use of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1996;21(10): 47(8–9):1863–75.
823–35. [21] Schlichting H, Gersten K. Boundary layer theory. 8th ed.
[12] Swain MR, Filoso P, Grilliot ES, Swain MN. Hydrogen leakage Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2000.
into simple geometric enclosures. Int J Hydrogen Energy [22] Incropera FP, Dewitt DP, Bergman TL, Lavine AS.
2003;28(2):229–48. Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. 6th ed. USA: John
[13] Kikukawa S. Consequence analysis and safety verification of Wiley & Sons; 2007.
hydrogen fueling stations using CFD simulation. Int J [23] Welty JR, Wicks CE, Wilson RE, Rorrer G. Fundamentals of
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(4):1425–34. momentum, heat and mass transfer. 4th ed. USA: John Wiley
[14] Matsuura K, Kanayama H, Tsukikawa H, Inoue M. Numerical & Sons; 2001.
simulation of leaking hydrogen dispersion behavior in [24] Garmo ØA, Razi Naqvi K, Røyset O, Steinnes E. Estimation of
a partially open space. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(1): diffusive boundary layer thickness in studies involving
240–7. diffusive gradients in thin films (DGT). Anal Bioanal Chem
[15] Matsuura K, Tsukikawa H, Inoue M, Kanayama H. Global 2006;386:2233–7.
dispersion control of accidentally leaking hydrogen in [25] Devi CDS, Takhar HS, Nath G. Unsteady mixed convection
a partially open space. APCOM’07 in conjunction with flow in stagnation region adjacent to a vertical surface. Heat
EPMESC XI, December 3–6, 2007, Kyoto, Japan. Mass Transfer 1991;26:71–9.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.116

2008 Ijhe 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2008 Ijhe 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE IN PRESS

international journal of hydrogen energy xxx (2008) 1–8

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Boundary layer theory approach to the concentration

M.F. El-Amin*, H. Kanayama

article info abstract

1. Introduction more effective, if the system is modeled correctly and the

reported that the highest concentration is at the highest point

Using the Bernoulli equation the corresponding pressure

f00 þ ScFf0 ¼ 0 (15)

These follow from the impermeability of the wall (from

from the definition of f(h) and the boundary conditions of 1

F¼h (17) ( ) 0.5

Or one can write,

One can deduce an expression similar to Eq. (34b), with

variable t0 taking the values from 0 to 1. From Fig. 6, we note

The velocity distribution within the boundary layer is given

Substituting similarity transformations (42) into the

vu vu vu vuN vuN v2 u Fð0Þ ¼ F0 ð0Þ ¼ 0; fð0Þ ¼ 1; F0 ðNÞ ¼ 1; fðNÞ ¼ 0 (16)

We apply the following transformations,

concentration over the wall of the current study, one can

You might also like