Busting Hydrogen Myths

SAND2008-2569C
Presentation Start
9/11/07 1 Sandia National Laboratories

Hydrogen Behavior – Myth Busting
Jay Keller,
Sandia National Laboratories
II International Forum: Hydrogen Technologies

for the Developing World
Moscow, Russia
April 21-33, 2008

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to recognize the following people for

their contribution to the science discussed in this
presentation.
Bénard, Pierre; Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

Groethe, Mark; SRI International
Houf, Bill; Sandia National Laboratories
Moen, Chris; Sandia National Laboratories
Schefer, Bob; Sandia National Laboratories
Andrei V. Tchouvelev; Tchouvelev & Associates

Hydrogen Myths
D Hindenburg
¾ Hydrogen Caused the Disaster
D Hydrogen Molecular Diffusivity is 3.8 times that of CH4
¾ Therefore it diffuses rapidly and mitigates any hazard
D Hydrogen is 14.4 times lighter than air
¾ Therefore it rapidly moves upward and out of the way
D We do not know the flammability limits for H2
D Hydrogen heats upon expansion
¾ This is the cause of auto-ignition (Joule-Thomson Effect)

Hydrogen Myths
D We just do not understand hydrogen combustion behavior
¾ Hydrogen release is different than other fuels
¾ Radiation is different than other fuels
D Hydrogen hazards can be compared favorably to
experiences with other hydrocarbon fuels
¾ Less dangerous than gasoline, methane …
D Hydrogen is toxic and will cause environmental harm
¾ “… We need to be indemnified against a hazardous toxic hydrogen
spill …” – Generic Insurance Company

Hydrogen Myths
D Hindenburg

Lets get this out of the way!
Hindenburg Disaster
D 36 out of 97 died mostly
trapped by the fire of
fabric, diesel fuel, chairs,
tables … (not hydrogen)
D The craft did not explode
but burned – and while
burning stayed aloft
(Hydrogen was still in the
nose)
D The craft fell to the
ground tail first – the nose
was still full of hydrogen
D Radiation from the flame was red, orange
and yellow – hydrogen flames emit in the
near UV ~304 to 350 nm (OH* lines), 680 nm
to 850 nm (vibrationally excited H2O), and
~0.5 to 23 mm (water bands)
Lets get this out of the way!
Hindenburg Disaster (Cont’d)
D The covering was coated with cellulose nitrate
or cellulose acetate -- both flammable
materials. Furthermore, the cellulose material
was impregnated with aluminum flakes to
reflect sunlight. -- Dr. Addison Bain
D A similar fire took place when an airship with

an acetate-aluminum skin burned in Georgia
– it was full of helium!
D “I guess the moral of the story is, don’t paint

your airship with rocket fuel.”
-- Dr. Addison Bain
Courtesy of Dr. Addison Bain and the National

Hydrogen Association
Hydrogen Myths
D Hindenburg

Small Unignited Releases: Momentum‐
Dominated Regime
Data for round turbulent jets
1/Xcl_CL Decay_all.qpam
25.0
He (Pitts,1991)
CH4 (Pitts,1991)
C3H8 (Pitts,1991)
CH4 (Present study)
H2 (Present study)
D In momentum-dominated
20.0
regime, the centerline
decay rate follows a 1/x
15.0
dependence for all gases.
CH
D The centerline decay rate
cl
4
1/X
C H
3 8 for mole fraction
10.0
increases with increasing
gas density.
5.0
He
H
2 D The decay rate for H2 is
significantly slower than
methane and propane.
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
X/d
z/d

Buoyancy effects are characterized by
Froude number
Horizontal H2 Jet (dj=1.9 mm)
Fr=99
Fr=99
Fr=99 D Time-averaged H2 mole
fraction distributions.
D Froude number is a
0.8
measure of strength of
Fr=152 momentum force
Mole Fraction
Fr=152
Fr=152 relative to the buoyant
0.6
force
0.4 D Increased upward jet
curvature is due to
Fr=268 0.2
increased importance
Fr=268 of buoyancy at lower
Fr=268 Froude numbers.

Influence of buoyant force is quantified
by the dimensionless Froude number
D Jets from choked flows (Mach 1.0) are Simulation of H2 Leak
Frden = 1000
typically momentum-dominated.
Y/D
D Lower source pressures or very large
pressure losses through cracks lead to g
subsonic, buoyancy-dominated plumes. 0.08 m.f.

0.07 m.f.
Densimetric Froude Number for
6 Various Diameter Leaks
10
Mach No. = 1.0
105 Mach No. = 0.5
Momentum
Mach No. = 0.25 X/D
Dominated Simulation of H2 Leak
Mach No. = 0.10
104 Frden = 100
Fden
1000 Y/D g
100 Transition
10
Mach No. = 0.01
Mach No. = 0.001
Buoyancy
1 Dominated
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Dia (mm)
Frden = Uexit /(gD(ρamb- ρexit)/ρexit)1/2 X/D

Ricou and Spalding entrainment law (J. Fluid Mechanics, 11, 1961)
Small Unignited Releases: Buoyancy Effects
D Data for round H2 Jets (dj=1.91 mm)
1/Xcl_H2 & Pitts.qpam
50
Re=2384,Fr=268
Re=1353,Fr=152
Re=884,Fr=99
Re=520,Fr=58
H2 (Houf)
D At the highest Fr, 1/XCL
40 CH4 (Pitts)
increases linearly with
axial distance, indicating
momentum dominates.
30
D As Fr is reduced
CL
Increasing Fr buoyancy forces become

1/X
20 increasingly important
and the centerline decay
rate increases.
10
CH D The transition to
4
buoyancy-dominated
regime moves upstream
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 with decreasing Fr.
x/d

Hydrogen Myths
D Hindenburg
D We do not know the flammability limits for H2Hydrogen
heats upon expansion

Choked & Unchoked Flows at 20 SCFM
Tank Pressure = 3000 psig, Hole Dia. = 0.297 mm
Exit Mach Number = 1.0 (Choked Flow)
D Correlations based on experimental data
H2 Mole Fraction D Start Intermediate Region
Fr ~ O(104)
0.2 ¾ x/D = 0.5 F1/2(ρexit/ρamb)1/4
D End Intermediate Region
R(m)
0 ¾ x/D = 5.0 F1/2(ρexit/ρamb)1/4

D F = Exit Froude No.
- 0.2 = U2exit ρexit/(gD(ρamb- ρexit))
0 0.5 X(m) 1.0 1.5
Start Transition Region -> x = 6.3 m

Flowrate = 20 scfm, Hole Dia. = 9.44 mm
Exit Mach Number = 0.1 (Unchoked Flow)
Fr ~ O(100)
D Assuming gases at 1 Atm, 294K
(NTP)
¾ Red – 10.4%
Start of ¾ Orange – 8.5%
Transition
¾ Green – 5.1%
Region (x = 0.3 m)
¾ Blue – 2.6%
H2 Concentration Data from: *(Chen and Rodi, 1980)
Dr. Michael Swain
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 X(m)
Fuel Cell Summit Meeting
June 17, 2004
Hydrogen Myths
D Hindenburg

Flammability Limits for H2
Upward Flame Propagation
Tube Dimensions, Firing Limits, percent Water Vapor Reference

cm end Content
Diameter Length Lower Higher
7.5 150 Closed 4.15 75.0 Half-saturated 356
5.3 150 Open 4.19 74.0 Dried 94
5.3 150 Ņ 4.12 Horizontal Flame Propagation
74.2 Ņ 94
5.3 150 Ņ 4.17 74.8 Ņ 94
5.0 150 Opencm 4.00 72.0end Dried 133 Content
4.8 150 Ņ Diameter 4.00Length 73.8 Ņ Lower Higher38
4.5 80 Closed 4.10 ----- Ņ 56
7.5 150 Closed 6.5 ----- Half-saturated 356
4.5 80 Ņ 3.90 ----- Ņ 57
5.0 150 Ņ 6.7 ----- Ņ 356
2.5 150 Ņ 7.15 Propagation in a Spherical Ves
----- Ņ 356
2.5 150 Open 6.2 ----- Saturated 271
Downward Flame Propagation 2.5 ----- Ņ Capacity,71.4
----- cc Firing
------- Limits, percent
273 Water Vap
0.9 150 Ņ 6.7 65.7 end
Saturated Lower Higher
276 Content
Not stated Closed 9.2 ---- Saturated
Tube Dimensions, Firing Limits, percent Water Not
Vapor
stated Reference Ņ 8.5 67.5 Ņ
cm end Content1,000 Ņ 8.7 75.5 Ņ
Diameter Length Lower Higher 810 Ņ 5.0 73.5 Ņ
21.0 31 Open 9.3 ---- Saturated
350 63 Ņ 4.6 70.3 Ņ
8.0 37 Closed 8.9 68.8 Half-saturated
35 324 Ņ 9.4 64.8 Ņ
7.5 150 Ņ 8.8 74.5 Ņ 356
7.0 150 Ņ ----- 74.5 Saturated 115
6.2 33 Open 8.5 ---- Partly dried 95
6.0 120 Ņ 9.45 ---- Ņ 325
Flammability Limits for H2
Upward Flame Propagation

cm end Content
Diameter Length Lower Higher
5.3 150 Open 4.19 74.0 Dried 94
D78 Horizontal Flame Propagation
D78 investigations of hydrogen flammability
investigations of hydrogen
5.3 150 Ņ 4.12 74.2 Ņ 94
5.3
5.0
150
150
Ņ
Closed
4.17
4.15
flammability
74.8
74.5
Ņ
Half-saturated
94
356
limits
limits were
5.0
were identified
150
identified between
Opencm between 1920
Tube Dimensions,
4.00
1920 and
and 1950.
Firing
1950.
72.0end Dried
Limits, percent Water Vapor
133 Content
Reference
4.8 150 Ņ Diameter 4.00Length 73.8 Ņ Lower Higher38
DHydrogen
4.5
4.5
80
80
Closed
DHydrogen flammability
flammability limits
Ņ
7.5
5.0
4.10
limits are
3.90 are well
150
well
150
-----
Closed
-----
Ņ
Ņ
Ņ
6.5
6.7
56
-----
57
-----
Half-saturated
Ņ
356
356
2.5 Propagation in a Spherical Ves
150 Ņ 7.15 ----- Ņ 356
established.
established. 2.5 150 Open 6.2 ----- Saturated 271
Downward Flame Propagation 2.5 ----- Ņ Capacity,71.4
Water Vap
----- cc Firing
------- Limits, percent
273
0.9 150 Ņ 6.7 65.7 end
Saturated Lower Higher
276 Content
Not stated Closed 9.2 ---- Saturated
Tube Dimensions, Firing Limits, percent Water Not
Vapor
stated Reference Ņ 8.5 67.5 Ņ
cm end Content1,000 Ņ 8.7 75.5 Ņ
Diameter Length Lower Higher 810 Ņ 5.0 73.5 Ņ
21.0 31 Open 9.3 ---- Saturated
350 63 Ņ 4.6 70.3 Ņ
8.0 37 Closed 8.9 68.8 Half-saturated
35 324 Ņ 9.4 64.8 Ņ
7.5 150 Ņ 8.8 74.5 Ņ 356
7.0 150 Ņ ----- 74.5 Saturated 115
6.2 33 Open 8.5 ---- Partly dried 95
6.0 120 Ņ 9.45 ---- Ņ 325
What is a Reasonable Flame
Stabilization Limit?
Volume
Fraction
unignited jet footprint
D Which volume fraction contour is relevant:

¾ lean flammability limit? … 4% or 8%
¾ detonation limit? … 18%
¾ a fraction of the lowest lean flammability limit?
… 1%
D Ignition of hydrogen in turbulent jets
occurs around 8% as measured by
Swain.
¾ This is consistent with the downward
propagating limit of 8%

Hydrogen Myths
D Hindenburg

Joule‐Thomson Effect
High-pressure H2 Jet
P1 Patm
D For initial compressed gas pressure of 14
MPa, the estimated temperature rise is
approximately 6 C.
D A rapidly expanding gas can increase D At pressures up to 250 MPa, the maximum
or decrease in temperature. estimated coefficient is 0.53 K/MPa. Thus,
at H2 storage pressures of 100 MPa, the
maximum temperature rise would be
D The direction and magnitude of
temperature change is determined by 53 C, (gas temperature is only ~75C).
the Joule-Thomson coefficient.
D Definition:
μJT = (δT/ δP)H = (∆T/ ∆P)H Given the H2 auto-ignition
D Above the inversion temperature, the temperature of 585 C, Joule-
expanding gas temperature rises.
Thomson heating is
D The inversion temperature of H2 is insufficient to cause ignition
between 28 and 200 K (depending on
pressure); at ambient temperature the
expanding H2 increases in temperature.
Hydrogen Myths
D “Hydrogen hazards can be compared favorably to

Hydrogen jets and flames are similar to
other flammable gases
Xr_vs_tau_all_04/23/04.qpaf
0.3
CO/H2
D Fraction of chemical energy

CH4
0.25 C3H8
C2H4
Present Data
CH4 (d=1.91 mm) D Converted to thermal radiation
Radiant Fraction
0.2 H2 (d=1.91 mm)

H2 (d=7.94 mm)
0.15
H2 "
D Radiation heat flux distribution
0.1 D Jet length
0.05 L*_vs_Fr_All_04/27/05.qpaf3
10 2
0
1 10 100 1000
Flame residence Time (ms)

C*_vs_x/Lvis_all.qpa2 L*=13.5Fr
2/5
/(1+0.07Fr
2
)
1/5
1.2 Fuel S (kW) L*=23

C2H4 11.2
C2H4 20.2
CH4 12.5
1.0 CH4 6.4
C2H2 18.1
C2H2 56.5
L*
Fit to data 10
0.80 Data FromPresent H2H2data:
Large-Scale Tests
Listed Below:
d=1.905 mm
d=7.938 mm (5 sec) H2 choked (d=7.94 mm)
0.60 (10sec)
C*
(20sec) H2 unchoked (d=7.94 mm)

(5sec) H2 choked (d=5.08 mm)
(10sec) H2 (d=1.91 mm)
0.40 (20sec) CH4 (d=1.91 mm))
CH4 (Kalghatghi)
C3H8 (Kalghatghi)
0.20 H2 (Kalghatghi)
Buoyant regime (d=1.91 mm)
1.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0.0 0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
x/L Fr
vis
H2 Flame Radiation
0.15
OH
H O
D Orange emission
Emission (arb. units)
2
0.10
Blue
Continuim
due to excited
0.05 H2O vapor
D Blue continuum
0.00
0 200 400 600 800 1000 due to emission
Wavlength (nm)
from OH + H =>
OH
H2O + hν
8
H O
2
Emission (arb. units)
D UV emission due
6
4
to OH*
2
D IR emission due
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
to H2O vibration-
Wavelength (nm)
rotation bands
H2O emission in IR accounts
for 99.6% of flame radiation
Hydrogen jets and flames are similar to
other flammable gases
Xr_vs_tau_all_04/23/04.qpaf
0.3
CO/H2
D Fraction of chemical energy

CH4
0.25 C3H8
C2H4
Present Data
CH4 (d=1.91 mm) D Converted to thermal radiation
Radiant Fraction
0.2 H2 (d=1.91 mm)

H2 (d=7.94 mm)
0.15
H2 "
D Radiation heat flux distribution
0.1 D Jet length
0.05 L*_vs_Fr_All_04/27/05.qpaf3
10 2
0
1 10 100 1000
Flame residence Time (ms)

C*_vs_x/Lvis_all.qpa2 L*=13.5Fr
2/5
/(1+0.07Fr
2
)
1/5
1.2 Fuel S (kW) L*=23

C2H4 11.2
C2H4 20.2
CH4 12.5
1.0 CH4 6.4
C2H2 18.1
C2H2 56.5
L*
Fit to data 10
0.80 Data FromPresent H2H2data:
Large-Scale Tests
Listed Below:
d=1.905 mm
d=7.938 mm (5 sec) H2 choked (d=7.94 mm)
0.60 (10sec)
C*
(20sec) H2 unchoked (d=7.94 mm)

(5sec) H2 choked (d=5.08 mm)
(10sec) H2 (d=1.91 mm)
0.40 (20sec) CH4 (d=1.91 mm))
CH4 (Kalghatghi)
C3H8 (Kalghatghi)
0.20 H2 (Kalghatghi)
Buoyant regime (d=1.91 mm)
1.0
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0
0.0 0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
x/L Fr
vis
Thermal Radiation from Hydrogen
Flames
0.2
H2 lab
Alejandro_Fig.1,qpa
D Previous radiation data for
H2 T#1
H2 T#2 nonsooting CO/H2 and CH4 flames
correlate well with flame
H2 T#3
CH4 Turns & Myhr
0.15 CH4 lab
residence time.
CO/H2 Turns & Myhr
Radiant Fraction
0.1
D Sandia’s H2 flame data is a factor
of two lower than the
hydrocarbon flame data.
0.05
Alejandro_Fig.2.qpa
0.2
Xr:H2 lab
Xr:H2 T#1
Xr:H2 T#2
0 Xr:H2 T#3
1 10 100 1000 Xr:CH4 T&M
0.15 CH4 lab
Residence Time (ms) Xr:CO/H2 T&M
Radiant Fraction
D Radiation heat flux data collapses
on singe line when plotted against 0.1
product τG x ap x Tf4 .
D ap (absorption coefficient) is 0.05
factor with most significant

impact on data normalization 0 13
10 14 10 15 10 16
D Plank mean absorption coefficient for
10
τg x a p x (T f ) 4 (ms m -1 K 4 )
different gases must be considered

Hydrogen Myths

Comparisons of NG and H2 Behaviors
D Assume 3.175 mm (1/8 inch) dia. hole
Comparison of Blow-Off Velocities
for Hydrogen and Natural Gas D Unignited jet lower flammability limits
8000 ¾ LFL H2 - 4% mole fraction
7000
¾ LFL NG - 5% mole fraction
D Flame blow-off velocities for H2 are
6000
Hydrogen Gas much greater than NG
Velocity (m/sec)
5000 D Flow through 1/8” diameter hole is

4000
choked
¾ Vsonic = 450 m/sec for NG (300K)
¾ Vsonic = 1320 m/sec for H2 (300K)
3000
H2 Sonic Velocity
2000
NG Sonic Velocity
D Hole exit (sonic) velocity for NG is
1000
Methane Gas greater than NG blow-off velocity
¾ No NG jet flame for 1/8” hole
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 D Hole exit (sonic) velocity for H2 is much
Jet Diameter (mm) less than blow-off velocity for H2
¾ H2 jet flame present for 1/8” hole
3.175 mm (1/8 inch) diameter hole

Dominated Regime
1/Xcl&1/Ycl_vs_z/d.qpa4
XCH4
1 XH2
0.8
Mole Fraction
0.6 D Decay rate for H2 mole

fraction is slower than
0.4
CH4.
X
H2
X
0.2 C H4
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
x/d

Unignited jet concentration decay
distances for natural gas and hydrogen.
Distance on Jet Centerline to Lower Flammability Limit

for Natural Gas and Hydrogen
Tank Pressure Hole Diameter Distance to 5% Mole Distance to 4% Mole Fraction.

Fraction Natural Gas Hydrogen
18.25 bar (250 psig) 3.175 mm (1/8 inch) 1.19 m (3.90 ft) 4.24 m (13.91 ft)
1.587 mm (1/16 inch) 0.59 m (1.93 ft) 2.12 m ( 6.95 ft)
207.8 bar (3000 psig) 3.175 mm (1/8 inch) 3.92 m (12.86 ft) 13.54 m (44.42 ft)
1.587 mm (1/16 inch) 1.96 m ( 6.43 ft) 6.77 m (22.21 ft)
Distance to the lower flammability limit for hydrogen

is about 3 times longer than for natural gas

Effects of surfaces ?
DWhile both
flammable
envelopes lengths
are increased, the
H2
increase is more
pronounced for CH4
jets than H2 jets
D“Transient puffs”
seems to lead to a
larger temporary
increase of extent CH4
of horizontal H2
surface jets
Small Unignited Releases:
Ignitable Gas Envelope
H2 Jet at Re=2,384; Fr = 268 CH4 Jet at Re=6,813; Fr = 478
D H2 flammability
0.8
limits: LFL
4.0%; RFR 75%
D CH4
flammability
Mole Fraction
0.6
limits: LFL
5.2%; RFR 15%
0.4
0.2
Radial profiles in H2 jet, d =

1.91 mm, Re = 2384

Is there a myth about the
minimum ignition energy?
DLower ignition
energy of H2 is
the lowest of
the flammable
gases at
stoichiometry
¾ Over the
flammable
range of CH4
(∼below 10%),
however, H2 has
a comparable
ignition energy.

Hydrogen Myths

Some people just do not get it!
DH2
¾is not toxic,
¾it is environmentally benign
¾We just borrow it -- (2H20 + E -> 2H2 + O2; then
2H2+O2 -> 2H2O + E)
DH2 is a fuel and as such has stored
chemical energy
¾It has hazards associated with it
• It is no more dangerous than the other fuels that
store chemical energy
• IT IS JUST different; -- WE UNDERSTAND THE
SCIENCE
We will learn how to safely handle H2 in the

commercial setting just as we have for our
hydrocarbon fuels.
Publication list
(1) Houf and Schefer, “Predicting Radiative Heat Fluxes and Flammability Envelopes from Unintended Releases
of Hydrogen,” accepted for publication Int. Jour. of Hydrogen Energy, Feb. 2006.
(2) Schefer, Houf, San Marchi, Chernicoff, and Englom, “Characterization of Leaks from Compressed Hydrogen
Dispensing Systems and Related Components,” Int. Jour. of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 31, Aug. 2006.
(3) Molina, Schefer, and Houf, “Radiative Fraction and Optical Thickness in Large-Scale Hydrogen Jet Flames,”
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, April, 2006.
(4) Houf and Schefer, “Rad. Heat Flux & Flam. Env. Pred. from Unintended Rel. of H2,” Proc. 13th
Int. Heat Tran. Conf., Aug., 2006.
(5) Schefer, Houf, Williams, Bourne, and Colton, “Characterization of High-Pressure, Under-Expanded Hydrogen-Jet
Flames,” submitted to Int. Jour. of Hydrogen Energy, 2006.
(6) Houf and Schefer, “Predicting Radiative Heat Fluxes and Flammability Envelopes from Unintended Releases of
Hydrogen,” 16th NHA Meeting, Washington, DC, March 2005.
11.3 m
(6) Schefer, R. W., Houf, W. G., Bourne, B. and Colton, J., “Turbulent Hydrogen-Jet Flame Characterization”, Int. Jour.
of Hydrogen Energy, 2005.
(7) Schefer, R. W., Houf, W. G., Bourne, B. and Colton, J., “Experimental Measurements to Characterize the Thermal and
Radiation Properties of an Open-flame Hydrogen Plume”, 15th NHA Meeting, April 26-30, 2004, Los Angeles, CA.
(8) Schefer R. W., “Combustion Basics,” in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Guide to Gas Safety, 2004.
(9) P. Bénard (2007), Chapter 3 – Hydrogen Release and Dispersion - Release of hydrogen - section a.1, , Biennial Report
on Hydrogen Safety, HySafe.
(10) B. Angers, A. Hourri, P. Bénard, P. Tessier and J. Perrin (2005), “Simulations of Hydrogen Releases from a Storage
Tank: Dispersion and Consequences of Ignition”. International Conference on Safety 2005, Sept 8-10, 2005, Pisa, Italy.
(11) A.V. Tchouvelev, P. Bénard, V. Agranat and Z. Cheng (2005), “Determination of Clearance Distances for Venting of
Hydrogen Storage”. International Conference on Safety 2005, Sept 8-10, 2005, Pisa, Italy (NRCAN, AUTO 21).
(12) Tchouvelev A., P. Bénard, D. R. Hay, V. Mustafa, A. Hourri, Z. Cheng, Matthew P. Large, Quantitative Risk
Nighttime photograph of ~40 MPa Comparison of Hydrogen and CNG Refuelling Options, Final Technical Report to Natural Resources Canada for the
large-scale H2 jet-flame test (dj = 5.08mm, Codes and Standards Workshop of the CTFCA, August 2006 (194 pages).
(13) Bénard, P., Tchouvelev, A., Hourri, A., Chen, Z., Angers, B. High Pressure Hydrogen Jets in a Presence of a Surface.
Lvis = 10.6 m) from Sandia/SRI tests. Proceedings of International Conference on Hydrogen Safety, San Sebastian, Spain, September 2007.
(14) Tchouvelev, A.V., Howard, G.W. and Agranat, V.M. Comparison of Standards Requirements with CFD Simulations
for Determining of Sizes of Hazardous Locations in Hydrogen Energy Station. Proceedings of the 15th World
Hydrogen Energy Conference, Yokohama, June 2004.

Presentation End

Toss‐up
DIn practice, most of a hydrogen jet close to the release
point is ignitable, and significant regions of the jet have
ignitable concentrations higher than 10%
¾ A hydrogen jets thus remains more likely to ignite than natural
gas.
DFor a slow and uniform build-up of hydrogen, however,
the risks remain comparable provided detectors are
used, depending on the location of the ignition source
with respect to the leak
¾ The low minimum ignition energy issue remains, overall, a
concern.

Jet Ignition Probability
• Methane jet into ambient air (Birch et. al., 1981)

Birch_Fig1a_18th.qpa
7
C mean = 0.548
6
C rms = 0.0836
0% of distribution lies
within flammability limits
• Probability distributions
5
r/D=0.0 quantify intermittent nature
Probability
4
3
of turbulent flows.
2
1
Birch_Fig1c_18th.qpa
LFL RFL 8
C mean = 0.121
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 7 C rms = 0.00787
Methane Concentration (mole fraction) within flammability limits
6
5
r/D=1.5
Probability
4
3
z/D=10 2
Birch_Fig1d_18th.qpa
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
C = 0.041
mean Methane Concentration (mole fraction)
80 C = 0.0553
rms
within flammability limits
60
r/D=1.8 Flammability Factor is defined as
Probability
40
the cumulative probability of a
potentially flammable mixture
20
occurring at a given point.
0
-5 0 5 0.00 0.05 0.10
Methane Concentration (mole fraction)

0.15 0.20
r/D 9/11/07 39 Sandia National Laboratories

Dominated Regime
Radial profiles in H2 jet, d=1.91 mm, Re = 2384
j1017t22slmfrmas.qpa2 j1017t22slmfrnorm.qpa14
0.14 1.10
x/d=10 x/d=10
x/d=25 1.00 x/d=25
x/d=50 x/d=50
0.12 x/d=75
x/d=75
0.90
x/d=100 x/d=100
0.80
0.10
0.70
Mass Fraction
0.08
0.60 2
Y/Y =exp(-59* η )
cl
Y/Y
cl
0.50
0.06
0.40
0.04 0.30
0.20
0.02
0.10
0.00 0.00
-0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
-20 -10 0 10 20
y (mm) y / (z-z )
0
Radial profiles of H2 mass fraction collapse onto a single curve in

agreement with CH4 jet data.
Momentum‐Dominated Jets are within
the Ignition Region
Flow between exit and 4% mole fraction (LFL) remains in jet momentum dominated regions
Choked flow conditions
Unignited Jet Separation Distance Length Scales
Pressure = ~20 MPa (~3000 psig)

Hole Flowrate Xmax - Distance to Start of
Diameter 4% mole fraction Intermediate Region
3.175 mm (1/8 inch) 9.718x10-2 Kg/sec 14.80 m (48.55 ft) 20.7 m (67.9 ft)
(2,463 ft3/min)*
(615.9 ft3/min)*
(154.1 ft3/min)*
*@NTP = 21o C (70o F), 101 kPa (14.7 psia)
Xmax H2 Mole Fraction

• Start Intermediate Region
x/D = 0.5 F1/2(ρexit/ρamb) 1/4
F = Exit Froude No. = U2exit ρexit/(gD(ρamb- ρexit))

Busting Hydrogen Myths

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Busting Hydrogen Myths

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SAND2008-2569C

9/11/07 1 Sandia National Laboratories

II International Forum: Hydrogen Technologies

April 21-33, 2008

9/11/07 2 Sandia National Laboratories

The author wishes to recognize the following people for

Bénard, Pierre; Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières

9/11/07 3 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 4 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 5 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 6 Sandia National Laboratories

D A similar fire took place when an airship with

D “I guess the moral of the story is, don’t paint

Courtesy of Dr. Addison Bain and the National

9/11/07 9 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 10 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 11 Sandia National Laboratories

subsonic, buoyancy-dominated plumes. 0.08 m.f.

Frden = Uexit /(gD(ρamb- ρexit)/ρexit)1/2 X/D

Increasing Fr buoyancy forces become

9/11/07 13 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 14 Sandia National Laboratories

0 ¾ x/D = 5.0 F1/2(ρexit/ρamb)1/4

Start Transition Region -> x = 6.3 m

9/11/07 16 Sandia National Laboratories

Tube Dimensions, Firing Limits, percent Water Vapor Reference

Tube Dimensions, Firing Limits, percent Water Vapor Reference

unignited jet footprint

D Which volume fraction contour is relevant:

9/11/07 19 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 20 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 22 Sandia National Laboratories

D Fraction of chemical energy

0.2 H2 (d=1.91 mm)

Flame residence Time (ms)

1.2 Fuel S (kW) L*=23

(20sec) H2 unchoked (d=7.94 mm)

D Fraction of chemical energy

0.2 H2 (d=1.91 mm)

Flame residence Time (ms)

1.2 Fuel S (kW) L*=23

(20sec) H2 unchoked (d=7.94 mm)

factor with most significant

9/11/07 26 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 27 Sandia National Laboratories

5000 D Flow through 1/8” diameter hole is

9/11/07 28 Sandia National Laboratories

0.6 D Decay rate for H2 mole

9/11/07 29 Sandia National Laboratories

Distance on Jet Centerline to Lower Flammability Limit

Tank Pressure Hole Diameter Distance to 5% Mole Distance to 4% Mole Fraction.

Distance to the lower flammability limit for hydrogen

9/11/07 30 Sandia National Laboratories

Radial profiles in H2 jet, d =

9/11/07 32 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 33 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 34 Sandia National Laboratories

We will learn how to safely handle H2 in the

9/11/07 36 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 37 Sandia National Laboratories

9/11/07 38 Sandia National Laboratories

• Methane jet into ambient air (Birch et. al., 1981)

-5 0 5 0.00 0.05 0.10

Methane Concentration (mole fraction)