Received: 7 February 2023 | Revised: 17 May 2023 | Accepted: 30 May 2023

DOI: 10.1002/ese3.1500

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Computational fluid dynamic analysis of hydrogen‐

injected natural gas for mixing and transportation
behaviors in pipeline structures

Shuangjie Yan1 | Guanwei Jia1 | Weiqing Xu2,3 | Rui Li4 |

YangHui Lu5 | Maolin Cai2,3
1
School of Physics and Electronics, Henan University, Kaifeng, China
2
School of Automation Science and Electrical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China
3
Pneumatic and Thermodynamic Energy Storage and Supply Beijing Key Laboratory, Beijing, China
4
General Institute of Science and Technology of National Petroleum and Natural Gas Pipeline Network Group Co., Ltd, Langfang, Hebei, China
5
State Power Investment Corporation Research Institute Co., Ltd, Beijing, China

Correspondence
Guanwei Jia, School of Physics and
Electronics, Henan University, Kaifeng
475004, China.
Email: jiaguanwei@henu.edu.cn
Funding information
Science and Technology Research Project
of Pipechina, Grant/Award Number:
WZXGL202104; Science and Technology
Development Project of Henan Province,
Grant/Award Number: 222102220090; The
Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities,
Grant/Award Number: YWF‐21‐BJ‐J‐613;
State Power Investment Corporation
scientific research project,
Grant/Award Number: B1‐
KYB12022QN02; The Beijing Outstanding
Young Scientists Program,
Grant/Award Number:
BJJWZYJH01201910006021; The China
Postdoctoral Science Foundation,
Grant/Award Number: 2021M701096;
National Natural Science Foundation of
China, Grant/Award Number: 51875012
Abstract
The transportation of hydrogen is a weak link in the large‐scale development
of the hydrogen energy industry. Injecting hydrogen into the natural gas
pipeline network for transportation is an efficient way to achieve the large‐
scale, long‐distance, and low‐cost transportation of hydrogen. Hydrogen can
lead to hydrogen embrittlement in natural gas pipelines and cause safety
incidents if hydrogen and natural gas are not mixed uniformly. Therefore, it is
necessary to study the blending process and blending uniformity of hydrogen
and natural gas. In this study, a three‐dimensional model of the hydrogen‐
injected natural gas pipeline was constructed. The effects of hydrogen
injection inlet and turbulator configuration on the mixing process of hydrogen
and natural gas were investigated using a computational fluid dynamics
approach. The results show that increasing the number of hydrogen injection
inlets shortens the distance L98% of uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural
gas. Increasing the radial distance r from the initial hydrogen mixing positions
to the center of the pipeline will shorten the distance for uniform gas mixing
in the pipeline. The addition of turbulator configurations in the pipeline
significantly reduces the distance to uniform gas mixing. Changing the
distance Lturb from the turbulator to the initial mixing position further
shortens the distance between hydrogen and natural gas mixing uniformly.
The results of this study provide a reference for the structural design of the
hydrogen–natural gas mixing pipeline and the gas distribution state during the
mixing process.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Energy Science & Engineering published by Society of Chemical Industry and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Energy Sci. Eng. 2023;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ese3 | 1


2 |
KEYWORDS
computational fluid dynamics, hydrogen distribution, hydrogen‐injected natural gas,
pipeline structure
1 | INTRODUCTION
The increase in fossil energy consumption has led to a
global ecological crisis.1 It is imperative to improve the
energy mix and replace fossil fuels with noncarbon fuels
to achieve carbon neutrality. The Paris Agreement
provides direction and plans for a carbon‐free future
and carbon neutrality. China,2 the United States,3 the
European Union,4 and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change5 are promoting the development of
global renewable energy to reduce carbon emissions.
Hydrogen energy is a potential energy carrier for the
“power‐to‐gas” conversion of renewable energy sources
and a bridge between fossil and renewable energy
sources.6 It is expected that hydrogen will account for
more than 19% of final energy demand by 2050.7
However, the higher transportation cost of hydrogen
energy leading to lower utilization is currently an
important factor limiting its development. According to
the analysis, the transportation cost of hydrogen
accounts for 30%–40% of the final hydrogen selling
price.8 The use of pipelines for the transport of pure
hydrogen allows for low transport costs and high speed,
allowing for the massive transport of hydrogen. However,
each mile of a pure hydrogen pipeline cost is three times
more expensive to build than a natural gas pipeline.9 The
current global mileage of natural gas pipelines in service
has exceeded 1.35 × 106 km. The total mileage of trunk
gas pipelines in China has reached 1.16 × 105 km,10
accounting for 8.6% of the global total. It provides the
basis for the large‐scale and long‐distance pipeline
network transportation and distribution of hydrogen.
Mixing hydrogen with natural gas in a certain volume
fraction and using existing natural gas pipelines to
transport hydrogen is the best method.11 In 2017, the
“HyDeploy” project in the United Kingdom was put
into operation, enabling the small‐scale provision of
hydrogen‐blended natural gas.12 In 2019, Germany's
Avacon increased the volume fraction of hydrogen in
the natural gas pipeline network to 20%. The 2021 project
“Key Technology Research and Application Demonstra-
tion of Natural Gas Hydrogen Mixing,” in which the
State Power Investment Group is involved, is expected to
deliver 4.4 × 106 m3 of hydrogen to Zhangjiakou city
annually. These small‐scale demonstration projects
provide technical and practical experience for the large‐
scale application of hydrogen‐injected natural gas.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
YAN ET AL.
However, injecting hydrogen into natural gas changes
the flow state and thermodynamic properties of the
original gas in the pipeline and affects the gas delivery
state. Nonuniform mixing of hydrogen and natural gas in
the pipeline increases the probability of hydrogen embrit-
tlement. The effect of hydrogen embrittlement on the
whole equipment of the hydrogen mixing natural gas
transmission system, such as compressors,13 pipelines,14
welds,15 valves,16 storage,17 and so on. Eames et al.18
investigated the effect of T‐joint geometry (diameter ratio,
direction of hydrogen injection) and hydrogen injection
rate on the mixing process of natural gas and hydrogen.
The results showed that high hydrogen concentration on
the pipeline wall significantly increases the risk of
hydrogen embrittlement and pipeline rupture. Hydrogen
injection from the bottom side of the pipeline facilitates
hydrogen and natural gas mixing. Baowei and colleagues19
investigated the mixing distribution of hydrogen and
natural gas in the chamber with low‐, medium‐, and high‐
pressure injection modes. Villuendas et al.20 used CFD
methods to simulate the mixing and transport behavior of
natural gas and hydrogen. The gases were well mixed at
20D–30D pipe lengths at the mixing station. The transport
behavior of the gas in pipes of different diameters was also
investigated. Zhou et al.21 took 33 h for the ratio to regain
stability in the pipeline network by changing the hydrogen
mixing ratio (HMR) at the inlet of the pipeline in a natural
gas pipeline system. The propagation rate of the hydrogen
concentration is much lower than the pressure and flow
rate. Kuczyński et al.22 concluded that the content of
hydrogen should not exceed 15%–20% for long‐distance
transport. Dz et al.23 studied the relatively small energy
loss to the natural gas pipeline system caused by the input
of hydrogen mixed with natural gas at the outlet location
of the natural gas pipeline network. Kong et al.24 studied
the effect of the structure of a Kenics static mixer
(KSM) static mixer on the mixing process of hydrogen
and natural gas. The distribution and number of mixer
arrangements were optimized based on the results of the
study. Dell'Isola et al.25 injected hydrogen into natural gas
and analyzed the effect of hydrogen injection on the flow
rate, relative density, specific heat, and speed of sound of
the gas. Li et al.26 investigated the physical properties
of hydrogen mixed with natural gas. To ensure the
stability of the physical properties of the mixtures of
hydrogen–natural gas, the HMR should be controlled
within 30%. Guandalini et al.27 studied the effect of

YAN ET AL.
hydrogen injection on the components, density, velocity of
fluid, and pressure distribution of natural gas. Hydrogen
injection enhances the gas perturbation in the pipeline
network and the density of the gas decreases. The effect of
hydrogen injection on the pressure drops in the pipeline
network is negligible (the difference is less than 0.1%).
Abd et al.28 studied the effect of different HMRs on the
transport properties of natural gas. Hydrogen mixing
reduces the density of natural gas; a 10% HMR records an
11.78% reduction in the density of natural gas. Hydrogen
mixing increases the pressure loss on the transport
pipeline; a 10% HMR leads to a 5.39% increase in the
pressure drop of the gas. Zhang et al.29 investigated the
effect of different HMRs on the natural gas transmission
process. The results showed that hydrogen mixing can
reduce the frictional resistance of the pipeline. The higher
the HMR, the higher the volume flow rate at the outlet.
The pressure drop of the pipeline increases with the
increase of the HMR. Liu et al.30 compared and analyzed
the mixing effect of KSM‐type static mixer, S‐shaped static
mixer, orifice plate static mixer, and venturi static mixer
on different gas sources of natural gas. The best mixing
effect had been found in the KSM‐type static mixer. Kong
et al.31 showed that the addition of an SK‐type static mixer
in the manifold can significantly reduce the distance of
uniform gas mixing. The addition of a mixer improved the
mixing efficiency of natural gas. Most studies on hydrogen
mixing with natural gas have focused on the effects
of hydrogen mixing on gas properties and transport
FIGURE 1 Hydrogen injection pipeline structure configuration. NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 3
processes. There is a lack of studies on the mixing process
and mixing uniformity of hydrogen and natural gas.
The physical properties of natural gas and hydrogen are
different, and the mixing process is complicated. Further
study of the mixing process and mixing uniformity of
hydrogen and natural gas can provide data reference and
guidance for natural gas–hydrogen mixing projects. The
number of hydrogen inlets, the initial mixing positions of
hydrogen, and the installation positions of turbulators
in the pipeline were changed. The effect of the pipeline
structure on the mixing process and mixing uniformity of
hydrogen and natural gas was investigated. Shortening the
distance for uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural
gas can reduce hydrogen aggregation during hydrogen‐
blended natural gas delivery.
2 | GEOMETRIC M ODEL
To study the influence of pipeline structure on the mixing
process of hydrogen and natural gas, two types of mixing
pipeline models are constructed. The structural configura-
tion of the pipeline is shown in Figure 1. Type A adjusts the
number of hydrogen injection inlets (NHIIs) and the initial
mixing positions of hydrogen; Type B is to add turbulators
on the basis of Type A and adjusts its installation position
accordingly. Hydrogen is injected into the natural gas
pipeline through a 90° bend pipeline. When the NHII = 1,
the initial mixing position of hydrogen is set at the center of
 20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 | YAN ET AL.

the natural gas pipeline; When NHII ≥ 2, the initial mixing natural gas. The calculation formula of the density ρ of
positions of the hydrogen are uniformly distributed in a the mixed hydrogen and natural gas is
circle around the center of the pipeline. The initial mixing
position of the hydrogen is adjusted by adjusting the radial Pop + P
RT i Mi
distance r from the hydrogen pipeline to the center of the ρ= Y
, (1)
natural gas pipeline. Each hydrogen injection port corre- i

sponds to a circular cylinder, and the three turbulator

models designed are shown in Type B in Figure 1. The
installation position of the turbulators is adjusted by
changing the distance Lturb from the turbulator to the initial
mixing position. The hydrogen injection into the pipeline is
mainly concentrated in the area 0–150 mm from the initial
mixing position. The turbulator was adjusted to vary
between Lturb = 50 and Lturb = 150 mm from the initial
mixing position. To mix the hydrogen and natural gas
sufficiently, the length of the pipeline is set to 22D, where D
is the diameter of the natural gas pipeline. The diameter of
the single hydrogen injection inlet is d1 = 80 mm, and
the diameter of the turbulator is D1 = 40 mm. The HMR in
the pipeline is controlled by adjusting the diameter d of the
hydrogen injection inlet. The diameter of the hydrogen
injection inlet is dn = (1/n)1/2 × d1, where n is the NHIIs.
Lmix indicates the mixing distance between hydrogen and
natural gas in the pipeline; L98% represents the distance to
where ρ is the density of mixed gas, kg/m3; Pop is the
working pressure of the mixed hydrogen gas, Pa; P is
the local relative pressure with respect to Pop, Pa; R is the
molar gas constant, J/(mol K); T is the gas temperature,
K; Yi is the mass fraction of gas i, and Mi is the relative
molecular mass of gas i.
The compression factor z of the gas mixture is
calculated as
Pr Vr
z = Zc , (2)
Tr
where z is the compression factor of the gas mixture, Zc is
the critical compression factor, Pr is the comparison
pressure, Vr is the comparison volume, and Tr is the
comparison temperature.
The viscosity of the gas mixture μ is calculated as

iM=1 x i μi M 1/2
98% uniformity of mixing of hydrogen and natural gas in the

iM=1 x i M 1/2
pipeline. The specific parameters of the pipeline structures i
μ= , (3)
are shown in Table 1. A total of 21 monitoring cross‐sections i
were taken at 1D millimeter intervals in the pipeline from
the initial mixing position. Thirty‐three monitoring points where μi is the kinetic viscosity of gas i, N s/m2; and xi is
are set up within each cross‐section, which are uniformly the volume fraction of gas i.
distributed around the center of the pipe (the black dots in Component transport equation:
the section are the monitoring points).
 (ρYi ) 
+ div(ρ u Yi ) = div(Di grad Yi ), (4)
t
3 | COMPUTATIONAL M ODEL
where Di is the diffusion coefficient of component i,

3.1 | Mathematical equation s/m2; and u is the vector velocity of the fluid, m/s.
The distribution of hydrogen and natural gas in the
When hydrogen and natural gas are mixed, the volume of pipeline is predicted by solving the component transport
the mixed gas is the sum of the volumes of hydrogen and equation.

TABLE 1 Model parameters.

Species Parameter NHII: one NHII: two NHII: four NHII: eight
Natural gas pipeline Pipeline diameter(D/mm) 300
Hydrogen injection inlet configuration Inlet diameter (d/mm) 80 56.6 40 28.3
Radial distance (r/mm) 0 40, 70, 90, 110
Turbulator configuration Turbulator diameter (D1/mm) 40
Distance to initial mixing position 50, 100, 150
(Lturb/mm)
Abbreviation: NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
 20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
YAN ET AL. | 5

The flow of mixed hydrogen and natural gas in the  (ρT )  (ρvi T )  (ρνj T )  (ρvk T )
+ + +
t x y z
   
pipeline follows the continuity equation, momentum
  k  T    k  T 
  +  
   y  c p  y 
equation, and energy equation. The expression is as follows:
x  cp x 
The continuity equation is the equation of mass = (8)

  k  T 
conservation. Any fluid problem must satisfy the law of
  + ST ,
 z  c p  z 
conservation of mass. The sum of the masses flowing
+
out per unit time is equal to the masses reduced within
the control body due to density change at the same
time interval. The velocity and density within the flow where k is the heat transfer coefficient of the gas,
are solved by the continuity equation. Continuity w/(m2 k); cp is the specific heat capacity of the gas
equation: mixture, J/(kg K); T is the temperature, K; ST is the
internal heat source of the fluid, w/m3.
ρ  (ρvi )  (ρvj )  (ρvk ) The velocity values and HMRs of the gases at
+ + + = 0, (5)
t x y z different positions in the pipeline are counted through
33 monitoring points. The velocity COV32 is the ratio of
where x is the distance from the initial mixing position, the standard deviation to the mean value, which reflects
m; vi, vj, and vk are the components of the velocity vector the flow distribution of the mixed gases in the pipeline,
in the x, y, and z directions. and the formula is

 (vi − v¯)2 ,
The flow velocity and turbulence intensity in the fluid
n
domain are predicted analytically by solving the conser- s 1 1
COV = = (9)
vation of momentum equation. Momentum conservation v¯ v¯ n − 1 i =1
equation:
where n is the number of monitoring points selected in
 (ρvi ) p the cross‐section, vi is the velocity of the monitoring
t
+ div(ρvi v¯i ) = div(μ grad vi ) − x
+ Si,
point, m/s; v is the average value of the velocity over the
 (ρvj ) p
t
+ div(ρvj v¯j ) = div(μ grad vj ) − y
+ Sj, monitored section, m/s.
 (ρvk ) p The mixing uniformity is used to evaluate the
t
+ div(ρvk v¯k ) = div(μ grad vk ) − z
+ Sk ,
mixing of hydrogen and natural gas in the pipeline.
(6)
The greater the mixing uniformity, the more uniformly
the hydrogen and natural gas are mixed. Celik et al.33
where v¯i, v¯j, and v¯k are the fluid velocity vectors, m/s; were the first to propose the use of mixing uniformity
vi, vj, and vk are the components of velocity in the x, y, (mixing index) to evaluate the degree of mixing of a
and z directions, m/s; Si, Sj, and Sk are the generalized mixture. Montante et al.34 and Zhuang et al.35 used a
source terms for momentum conservation, N/m3, mixing uniformity greater than 95% to determine
whether the gas in the vessel was well mixed. With
 vj
Si = Fx +

x (μ ) + ( μ ) + (μ )
 vi
x

y x

x
 vk
x
reference to industry standards, it is considered that the
gas is well mixed with a uniformity of mixing U ≥ 95%.
 
+ x
(λ div( v )), Therefore, the mixing uniformity U ≥ 98% is used in
 vj this study to determine whether the hydrogen and
Sj = Fy +

x (μ ) + ( μ ) + ( μ )
 vi
x

y y

x
 vk
y natural gas are uniformly mixed in the pipeline. The
(7)
  gas mixing uniformity U is calculated by the following
+ y
(λ div( v )),
formula:
 vj
Sk = Fz +

(μ ) + ( μ ) + (μ )
 vi    vk

 
1 n  ci − c¯ 2
x z y z x z

 ,

n i =1  c¯ 

+ z
(λ div( v )), U=1− (10)

where Fx, Fy, and Fz are the components of the volume force
in the x, y, and z directions, and λ is the second viscosity. where ci the HMR at the monitoring points, and c is
The mixed transport of hydrogen and natural gas the average value of the HMR at the monitoring cross‐
obeys the equation of conservation of energy sections.

6 |
3.2 | Boundary conditions
Methane accounts for more than 90% of all components
of natural gas.36 As far as the work in this manuscript is
concerned, it is possible to use methane instead of
natural gas for the analytical study. Methane is injected
at the natural gas inlet. The inlet of hydrogen and natural
gas was set to the velocity inlet, and the outlet was set to
the outlet flow boundary. The natural gas pipeline inlet
velocity is set to 8 m/s (flow rate: 1891.0 m3/h). The HMR
was adjusted by controlling the velocity of the hydrogen
inlet. The specific values are shown in Table 2. The initial
turbulence parameters at the inlet of the natural gas
pipeline and the hydrogen injection pipeline are the
same. The inlet turbulence intensity is set to 5% and
the turbulence viscosity ratio is set to 10. The turbulence
intensity of the return flow at the outlet is 5% and the
turbulence viscosity ratio of the return flow is 10.
The turbulator surface and natural gas pipeline walls
were set to be smooth, adiabatic, and with nonslip
standard walls. The initial temperature of the wall is set
to 300 K. The heat flux of the wall and the heat exchange
coefficient of the wall are both 0. The temperature of
both hydrogen and natural gas is set to 300 K. During the
mixing of hydrogen and natural gas, the flow field of the
gas in the pipeline changes in a complex way. Simulation
of the mixing process is computationally complex and
large. The geometry of the model and the computed fluid
domain have mirror symmetry. Setting the boundary of
the natural gas pipeline as a symmetric wall boundary
can reduce the computational effort. Using the compo-
nent transport model, the calculation was solved using
the Simplec algorithm. The pipeline was set up and filled
with methane before hydrogen injection. Hybrid initial-
ization was used to assign initial values to the computed
fields before starting the calculation. A sufficient number
of iterations was set to bring the calculation to a
steady state.
TABLE 2 Boundary condition parameters.
Name Numerical value
Operating pressure (Pa) 101,325
3
Natural gas flow (m /h) 1891.0
Natural gas inlet 8 Turbulence models
velocity (m/s)
Hydrogen flow (m3/h) 99.52 (5%); 210.11 (10%); 472.75
(20%); 810.42 (30%)
Hydrogen inlet velocity 5.5 (5%); 11.6 (10%); 26.1 (20%);
(m/s) 44.8 (30%)
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
YAN ET AL.
The effects of four turbulence models (standard k−ε
model, renormalization group k–epsilon model, standard
k−ω model, and shear stress transfer k–omega model) on
the simulation results are investigated with other
boundary conditions unchanged. Taking the model with
HMR = 10% and NHII = 2 as an example, Table 3
presents simulation results obtained using different
turbulence models. From Table 3, it can be seen that
the errors of the simulated values of the HMR at the
outlet position are less than 5% using different turbu-
lence models. When utilizing the standard k–ε model, the
HMR at the pipeline outlet is 9.87%, exhibiting a
deviation of merely 1.3% from theoretical values and
thus possessing minimal error. The turbulence model is a
standard k–ε turbulence model suitable for gas mixing
calculations, which reduces the computational effort
while maintaining the accuracy of the calculation.
Consequently, the standard k–ε model is chosen as the
final turbulence model.
3.3 | Mesh irrelevance testing
The quantity and quality of mesh partitioning are crucial
to the simulation calculation process. The mesh division
not only determines the accuracy and convergence of
the calculation results but also places a demand on the
hardware performance of the computer. There will be
errors in the simulation, resulting in a slightly lower
HMR at the exit position compared to the theoretical
calculation value. The accuracy of the calculation, the
turbulence model, and the solution algorithm will cause
errors. But the quality of mesh division is the main cause
of error. The tetrahedral and hexahedral meshing
methods were chosen for meshing the calculation area.
The walls of the model and the area around the turbulent
flow device were locally meshed to provide a relatively
accurate calculation of the flow processes at the
boundaries. The mesh division of the pipeline is shown
in Figure 2.
It is generally believed that the smaller the mesh size
and the more meshes there are, the more accurate the
TABLE 3 Simulative results of different turbulence models.
Simulated Theoretical
value value Error (%)
Standard k−ε model 0.0987 0.1 1.3
RNG k−ε model 0.0969 3.1
Standard k−ω model 0.0986 1.4
SST k−ω model 0.0977 2.3
 20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
YAN ET AL. | 7

FIGURE 2 Mesh division.

TABLE 4 Verification of mesh irrelevance (HMR = 10%).

Average skew Average quality
Mesh Number of Number of factor of factor of HMR at the
Type characteristics nodes units the mesh the mesh outlet (%)
Eight NHII Sparse 49,161 189,752 0.21379 0.76382 9.86
Medium 102,061 384,984 0.20926 0.75607 9.85
Dense 211,286 816,936 0.20616 0.76165 9.85
Eight Sparse 167,506 818,685 0.22543 0.82467 9.85
NHII + turbulator
Medium 322,189 1,635,790 0.22371 0.83309 9.86
Dense 676,889 3,537,757 0.22102 0.83886 9.90
Abbreviations: HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.

results of simulation calculations. However, an excessive 4 | R ES ULT S AN D DI S C US S I ON

number of meshes leads to little improvement in
computational accuracy and also reduces the efficiency
of the computer. It is important to balance the
computational accuracy with the number of meshes. A
pipeline model with a 10% HMR was chosen as a
representative. The mesh irrelevance was verified for
three meshing methods: sparse, medium, and dense. The
results are shown in Table 4. Increasing the number of
meshes has little effect on the outlet HMR. The error
between the simulated and theoretical values of the HMR
is within 1.5%, which is in accordance with the standard.
The evaluation coefficients are in the range of 0–1. The
closer the skew factor is to 0, the better the quality of
the mesh. The closer the quality factor is to 1, the higher
the quality of the mesh. The skewness and mesh quality
were evaluated for the meshes. All three specifications
met the requirements, and the mesh irrelevance was
verified. In this study, meshes of medium size were
selected. For the model of Type A, the mesh size was set
to 20 mm. For the model of Type B, the mesh size was set
to 10 mm, and local mesh encryption was carried out on
the turbulent part.
4.1 | Effect of hydrogen injection inlet
configuration on mixing uniformity
The hydrogen and natural gas in the pipeline were
subjected to turbulence and concentration differences for
diffusion and eventual uniform mixing. In the mixing
process of hydrogen and natural gas, the pipeline
structure is the main factor that affects the mixing
process. Changing the number of hydrogen inlets and the
initial mixing positions of hydrogen, the HMRs were 5%
(A), 10% (B), 20% (C), and 30% (D). The variation of the
distance L98% for uniform mixing of hydrogen and
natural gas in the pipeline is shown in Figure 3. When
the initial mixing positions of hydrogen are close to the
center of the pipeline (r = 40 and 70 mm), the distance
L98% of gas mixing uniformly in the pipeline decreases
and then increases with the increase of the number of
hydrogen inlets. As the NHII increases, the effect of
mixing with multiple inlets is similar to that of blending
with a single inlet. Therefore, by continuing to increase
the NHIIs, the distance L98% for uniform mixing of

8 |
F I G U R E 3 Influence of hydrogen inlet configuration on the distance of gas mixing uniformity. (A) HMR: 5%, (B) HMR: 10%, (C) HMR:
20%, and (D) HMR: 30%. HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
hydrogen and natural gas increases instead. When the
initial mixing positions of hydrogen are far from the
center of the pipeline (r = 90 and 110 mm), the distance
of gas mixing uniformity first decreases and then
gradually smooths out with the increase of the number
of hydrogen inlets. Increasing the proportion of blended
hydrogen, the distance L98% required for uniform
blending of hydrogen and natural gas increases. In
general, the distance L98% for uniform gas mixing is
effectively reduced by appropriately increasing the
number of hydrogen inlets compared to single‐inlet
hydrogen injection.
The initial mixing position of hydrogen is an
important factor affecting the mixing process of hydro-
gen and natural gas in the pipeline. The variation of the
distance of gas mixing uniformly in the pipeline at
different inlets of hydrogen injection for r = 40, 70, 90,
and 110 mm is investigated. At r = 40 mm, the distance
for uniform gas mixing in the pipeline increases when
the number of hydrogen inlets exceeds five or six.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
YAN ET AL.
Increasing the radial distance r can shorten the distance
of uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural gas in the
pipeline. The radial distance r increases and the distance
between the hydrogen pipe to the wall of the natural gas
pipeline becomes smaller. The injection of hydrogen into
the natural gas pipeline increases the probability of
contact between the hydrogen and the wall of the
pipeline. The collision of hydrogen with the wall of the
natural gas pipeline increases the disturbance of gas in
the pipeline. The increased perturbation facilitates faster
and more uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural gas.
Therefore, with the increase of radial distance r, the
distance between hydrogen and natural gas mixing
uniformly in the pipeline gradually decreases. The
shortest distance to achieve uniform mixing of hydrogen
and natural gas in the pipeline is achieved when the
radial distance r = 110 mm. At four HMRs, the distance
to achieve uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural gas
in the pipeline is relatively short for NHII = 8 and the
radial distance r = 110 mm. With the increase of HMR,

YAN ET AL.
the radial distance r becomes the main factor affecting
the distance L98% of gas mixing uniformity. Selecting a
suitable NHII and increasing the distance r from the
hydrogen pipeline to the center of the natural gas
pipeline can be very effective in shortening the distance
between hydrogen and natural gas mixing uniformly in
the pipeline.
4.2 | Effect of turbulator configuration
on the distance of mixing uniformity
During the mixing of hydrogen and natural gas, the
hydrogen is mainly concentrated in the area between 0
and 150 mm from the initial mixing position. To further
reduce the mixing distance between hydrogen and
natural gas, turbulators were added in the pipeline at
Lturb = 50, 100, and 150 mm. The turbulator enhances
the turbulence intensity of the gas in the pipeline and
enhances the mixing efficiency of hydrogen and natural
F I G U R E 4 Influence of turbulator configuration on the distance of gas mixing uniformity. (A) HMR: 5%, (B) HMR: 10%, (C) HMR: 20%,
and (D) HMR: 30%. HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 9
gas. The radial distance r = 110 mm from the initial
mixing position of hydrogen to the center of the natural
gas pipeline is the relatively shortest distance for
uniform mixing of gas. At r = 110 mm, the NHIIs in
the pipeline and the installation position of the
turbulators are adjusted. The variation of the distance
L98% required for uniform mixing of hydrogen and
natural gas for HMRs of 5% (A), 10% (B), 20% (C), and
30% (D) is shown in Figure 4. With the addition of the
turbulator, the disturbance of the gas in the pipeline is
enhanced compared to the absence of the turbulator.
The distance between hydrogen and natural gas
uniformly mixed in the pipeline is significantly reduced
with the installation of turbulators. By changing the
installation position of the turbulator in the pipeline,
the distance between hydrogen and natural gas can be
further reduced.
As seen in Figure 4, with the addition of a turbulator,
the distance between hydrogen and natural gas mixing is
significantly reduced. However, when the NHII is 1, if

10 | YAN
the turbulator is installed in an inappropriate position,
it will increase the distance for uniform mixing of
hydrogen and natural gas. With an HMR of 5% and
turbulators set to Lturb = 50 and 50 mm, the hydrogen
and natural gas mix uniformly over a longer distance
than without turbulators. The distances of gas mixing
uniformly are 19.4D and 20D, respectively. The distance
of gas mixing uniformly without the turbulator is 16.9D.
However, with the addition of turbulators at a distance of
100 mm from the initial mixing position, the distance of
uniform gas mixing was 58.8% of the distance without
the addition of turbulators. At NHII = 1, HMR is 10%,
turbulators are added at 50 mm from the initial mixing
position, and the distance of uniform gas mixing is 19D.
The distance of uniform gas mixing without the
turbulator is 16.4D. The distance of uniform hydrogen
and natural gas mixing is slightly farther than that
without the turbulator. The turbulator was added under
the above three conditions, the distance between the
hydrogen and the natural gas is mixed uniformly is
slightly further than without the turbulator, and the
turbulator caused very little disturbance to the flow of
hydrogen in the pipeline. The gas flows through the
turbulator and there is no significant turbulence of the
gas in the pipeline. Due to the pressure and inertia forces,
the hydrogen gas flows through the turbulator and
continues to flow forward at a greater velocity. The
hydrogen in the pipeline slowly spreads from the center
of the pipe to the surrounding area. Due to the low
turbulence intensity of the gas in the pipeline, the mixing
of hydrogen and natural gas in the pipeline is slow.
Therefore, the distance between hydrogen and natural
gas mixing uniformly is slightly farther than when the
turbulator is not added. With mixing ratios of 20% and
30%, the addition of turbulators reduces the distance for
uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural gas. At NHII =
1, the addition of turbulator shortens the distance of gas
mixing uniformity. When the turbulators are set at
Lturb = 150 mm and Lturb = 50 mm, respectively, the gas
mixing uniformity distance is the shortest. At NHII = 2,
the turbulator was set at Lturb = 150 and 50 mm, the
shortest distance for uniform gas mixing.
In single‐pipe hydrogen injection mixing, changing
the position of the turbulator has the greatest effect on
the mixing of hydrogen and natural gas. As the NHIIs
increase, the distance between the uniform mixing of
hydrogen and natural gas decreases. The influence of the
turbulator installation position on the mixing process of
hydrogen and natural gas is reduced. By choosing the
suitable number of hydrogen inlets and the installation
positions of the turbulator, the distance between the
hydrogen and natural gas mixing uniformly in the
pipeline can be effectively shortened.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
4.3 | Hydrogen‐injected natural gas
pipeline
4.3.1 | Visualization
To visualize the mixing process of hydrogen and natural
gas in the pipeline, the mixing process with an HMR of
10%, four‐inlet hydrogen injection and eight‐inlet hydro-
gen injection is taken as an example. The distribution of
hydrogen gas inside the pipeline with different structures
is shown in Figure 5. As can be seen in Figure 5A,C, the
distance of uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural gas
in the pipeline is shortening as the radial distance r
increases from 40 to 110 mm. At the radial distance
r = 110 mm, the distance L98% of the hydrogen and
natural gas mixing uniformly is the shortest. For four‐
inlet hydrogen injection, the shortest distance for
uniform gas mixing is 9.83D. For eight‐inlet hydrogen
injection, the shortest distance for uniform gas mixing is
7.02D. Figure 5B,D indicates that the distance for
uniform gas blending is significantly reduced by the
addition of the turbulator. Adjusting the distance Lturb
from the turbulator to the initial mixing position, the
distance L98% for uniform mixing of hydrogen and
natural gas is changing. With four‐inlet hydrogen
injection, the turbulator has the shortest distance for
uniform gas mixing at Lturb = 50 mm, which is 2.95D.
With eight‐inlet hydrogen injection, the turbulator is set
to Lturb = 125 mm and the shortest distance for uniform
gas mixing is 1.99D. The distance over which the uniform
mixing of hydrogen and natural gas mix uniformly is
longer with eight hydrogen injection inlets compared to
four. The addition of the turbulator creates a more
intense disturbance of the gas in the pipeline with eight‐
inlet hydrogen injection. As a result, the distance
required for uniform gas mixing during eight‐inlet
hydrogen injection is shorter.
4.3.2 | Distribution of blending uniformity
At NHII = 8, the effect of radial distance r and turbulator
position variation on the distance L98% of gas uniform
mixing is shown in Figure 6. As can be seen in Figure 6A,
the distance r from the turbulator to the initial mixing
position increases and the distance between hydrogen
and natural gas mixing uniformly decreases. The
distance L98% between the hydrogen and natural gas
mixed uniformly in the pipeline increases with the
increase of the HMR. From Figure 6B, it can be seen that
at HMR = 5%, 10%, and 20%, the distance L98% of uniform
gas mixing first decreases, then increases, and then
decreases with the increase of Lturb. When HMR = 30%,
 20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
YAN ET AL. | 11

F I G U R E 5 Distribution of hydrogen at 10% HMR in the pipeline. (A) NHII: 4, (B) NHII + NTurb: 4, (C) NHII: 8, and NHII + NTurb: 8.
HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.

F I G U R E 6 Influence of pipeline configuration on gas mixing uniformity distance. (A) NHII: 8 and (B) NHII + NTurb: 8. HMR,
hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.

the distance L98% for uniform mixing of hydrogen and
natural gas decreases and then increases with the
increase of Lturb. Increasing the HMR in the pipeline,
the distance between even hydrogen and natural gas
mixing increases.
4.3.3 | Distribution of hydrogen
Setting the NHIIs as 8, r = 110 mm, and HMRs as 5% (A),
10% (B), 20% (C), and 30% (D). Changing the distance Lturb
from the turbulator to the starting mixing position, the

12 | YAN
relationship between the hydrogen distribution in the
pipeline and the cross‐sectional position is shown in
Figure 7. Because of the presence of the turbulator, the
flow velocity and direction of the gas in the pipeline are
disturbed when the gas hits the turbulator. The HMR in
the pipeline changes drastically near the turbulator. As the
blending distance Lmix increases, the HMR in the pipeline
gradually stabilizes around the initially set mixing ratio.
During the gas mixing process, the HMR in the pipeline
has been stabilized, but the gas has not been mixed
uniformly at this location. The HMR in the pipeline in
Figure 7A reaches 5% at Lmix = 2D. The mixing uniformity
of the gas at Lmix = 2D is 96.8% (Lturb = 50 mm), 95.7%
(Lturb = 100 mm), and 98% (Lturb = 150 mm), respectively.
The mixing uniformity of hydrogen and natural gas
reaches 98% at 2.75D (Lturb = 50 mm), 2.76D (Lturb = 100
mm), and 1.98D (Lturb = 150 mm). In the simulation
process, the HMR in the simulated pipeline is slightly
smaller than the theoretically calculated value of the HMR
because of the error. The errors between the HMR and the
F I G U R E 7 Distribution of hydrogen in the pipeline. (A) HMR: 5%, (B) HMR: 10%, (C) HMR: 20%, and (D) HMR: 30%. HMR, hydrogen
mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
theoretical values calculated from the simulations in this
study are less than 2%. The simulation results are within
the error tolerance. Increasing the HMR, the inlet velocity
of hydrogen increases, and the disturbance of the gas when
it hits the turbulator is more violent. As the HMR
increases, the HMR in the pipeline needs longer distances
to stabilize.
4.3.4 | Changes in turbulent dissipation rate
The turbulence intensity of the gas mixture in the pipeline
can be expressed in terms of the turbulent dissipation rate.
Setting the NHIIs as 8, r = 110 mm, changing the HMR in
the pipeline to 5% (A), 10% (B), 20%(D), and 30% (D),
respectively. The relationship between the turbulent
dissipation rate and the location of the monitored cross‐
section is shown in Figure 8. With the addition of a
turbulator in the pipeline, the original flow rate and
direction of the gas are disturbed. Due to the disturbance of

YAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 8 Turbulent dissipation rate in the hydrogen mixing pipeline. (A) HMR: 5%, (B) HMR: 10%, (C) HMR: 20%, and (D) HMR:
30%. HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
the turbulator, a low flow velocity zone is formed behind
the turbulator. Therefore, the turbulent dissipation rate
of the gas in the vicinity of the turbulator increases rapidly
and then decreases rapidly. There is a small fluctuation
between 1D and 2D from the mixing center that finally
stabilizes around 1000 m2/s3. The closer the turbulator is to
the initial mixing position, the greater the turbulent
dissipation rate of the gas near the turbulator. In this
study, the HMR in the pipeline was adjusted by increasing
the inlet velocity of the hydrogen. Therefore, by increasing
the HMR, the flow rate of the gas in the pipeline increases,
and the fluctuation of the turbulent dissipation rate caused
by the turbulent flow device increases. The inclusion of
turbulators in the pipeline disturbs the flow rate and
direction of flow of the gas in the pipeline. The addition of
turbulators enhances the turbulence intensity of the
gas in the pipeline and improves the mixing efficiency
of hydrogen and natural gas. The distance between
hydrogen and natural gas mixing uniformly is significantly
reduced.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 13
4.3.5 | Velocity COV distribution
Velocity COV reflects the state of change of the gas
velocity in the pipeline; the larger the value of velocity
COV, the more chaotic the distribution of velocity in the
pipeline. Setting the NHIIs as 8, r = 110 mm, changing
the HMR in the pipeline to 5% (A), 10% (B), 20% (C), and
30% (D), respectively. The relationship between the
velocity COV and the position of the cross‐section is
shown in Figure 9. As the gas in the pipeline flows
through the turbulator, the flow field of the gas in the
pipeline is disturbed. The velocity change of the gas in
the pipeline is complicated, the turbulence intensity of
the gas is increased, which improves the diffusion mixing
efficiency of hydrogen and natural gas. The gas flows
through the turbulator, a low flow velocity region is
formed in the area of 1D–2D behind the turbulator. The
disturbed gases converge behind the turbulator and
continue to flow forward at a higher velocity. The
velocity COV first decreases between 1D–3D and then
 20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
14 | YAN ET AL.

F I G U R E 9 Sampling cross‐section velocity COV. (A) HMR: 5%, (B) HMR: 10%, (C) HMR: 20%, and (D) HMR: 30%. COV, ratio of the
standard deviation to the mean value; HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.

increases rapidly. The velocity COV does not decrease as
the mixing distance increases because the velocity of the
gas in the pipe is disturbed by the turbulator. The final
velocity COV fluctuates at a higher level.
4.3.6 | Pressure drop analysis
The flow of gas in the pipeline is influenced by the
structure of the pipeline, the roughness of the pipeline
wall, temperature changes, flow rate changes, and so on.
The pressure of the gas in the pipeline decreases as the
mixing distance increases. With a hydrogen injection inlet
number of eight and r = 110 mm, the difference between
the average pressure in the monitored section and the inlet
pressure in the pipeline is calculated. Changing the HMR
in the pipeline to 5% (A), 10% (B), 20% (C), and 30% (D),
respectively. The pressure drop in the pipeline versus the
blending distance is shown in Figure 10. Because of the
disturbance of the turbulators, a zone of relatively low
pressure is formed behind the turbulators, and the pressure
drop in the pipeline at the turbulators increases. The gases
converge behind the turbulator, the pressure of the gas
in the pipeline increases, and the pressure drop in the
pipeline decreases. As the mixing distance increases,
the pressure of the gases in the pipeline decreases,
and the pressure drop increases. The pressure drop of
the gas in the pipeline is smallest when the HMR is 5% and
the distance Lturb = 50 mm from the turbulator to the
initial mixing position is set. The pressure drop of the gas
in the pipeline is highest when the turbulator is 150 mm
from the initial mixing position. At an HMR of 10%, the
turbulator is set to Lturb = 150 mm, and the pressure drop
in the pipe is minimal. The maximum pressure drop in the
pipe is achieved when the turbulator is set to Lturb = 100
mm. The pressure drops in the pipeline with an HMR of
20% are the opposite of that with an HMR of 10%; with the
turbulator at Lturb = 100 mm, the pressure drop in the
pipeline is minimal. At Lturb = 150 mm, the pressure drops
in the pipeline are at maximum. At an HMR of 30%, the

YAN ET AL.
F I G U R E 10 Pressure drops in the hydrogen mixing pipeline. (A) HMR: 5%, (B) HMR: 10%, (C) HMR: 20%, and (D) HMR: 30%. COV,
ratio of the standard deviation to the mean value; HMR, hydrogen mixing ratio; NHII, number of hydrogen injection inlet.
pressure drop in the pipeline is similar for turbulators at
Lturb = 50 and 100 mm. At Lturb = 150 mm, the pressure
drop in the pipeline is the highest.
When the gas flows through the turbulator, the flow rate
and flow direction of the gas in the pipeline changes. Under
the influence of the turbulator, the gas in the pipeline forms
a low flow velocity and low‐pressure region behind the
turbulator. Because of the restriction of the pipe wall, the
gas in the pipeline continues to flow forward after
converging on the other side of the turbulator. The turbulent
dissipation rate of the gas in the pipeline increases rapidly in
the vicinity of the turbulator. The velocity of the gas
decreases in the region between 1D and 2D from the initial
mixing position. The gas flow continues at a higher velocity
after convergence behind the turbulator. As a consequence,
the velocity COV increases rapidly around the distance 3D
from the initial mixing position. The pressure drop of the
gas at the turbulator position increases and the pressure
drop of the gas in the pipeline after the gas convergence
decreases. The pressure loss in the pipeline gradually
increases as the mixing distance increases.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 15
5 | CONCLUSIONS
The effect of different pipeline structures on the mixing
process of hydrogen and natural gas is investigated.
Changing the NHIIs, the initial mixing position of
hydrogen, and the installation position of turbulator,
pipeline models of different structures were constructed
for simulation. The mixing process of hydrogen and
natural gas in the pipeline, the distribution, and the
change of mixing uniformity were obtained. The details
are as follows:
1. Increasing the NHIIs shortens the distance L98% of
hydrogen and natural gas mixing uniformly in the
pipeline. After increasing the NHIIs to a certain
number, further increases do not significantly shorten
the distance of hydrogen and natural gas blending
evenly. The distance of uniform mixing of gas in the
pipeline grows with the increase of HMR.
2. The radial distance r from the initial hydrogen mixing
positions to the center of the natural gas pipeline is an

16 | YAN
important factor affecting the uniformity of the
mixing of hydrogen and natural gas. The distance
L98% required for uniform mixing of hydrogen and
natural gas in the pipeline is shortened by increasing
the radial distance r. When the radial distance
r = 110 mm, the distance L98% needed for uniform
mixing of hydrogen and natural gas in the pipeline is
the shortest.
3. The addition of a turbulator in the pipeline disturbs the
flow rate and direction of the gas in the pipeline. The
addition of the turbulator significantly reduces the
distance for uniform mixing of hydrogen and natural
gas in the pipeline. The distance for uniform mixing of
hydrogen and natural gas is reduced by about half.
Adjusting the distance Lturb from the turbulator to the
initial mixing position can further reduce the distance
L98% for uniform gas mixing. When the NHIIs are
greater than 4, the effect of turbulator position change
on the mixing effect of hydrogen and natural gas is
reduced.
4. After the gas flows through the turbulator, the gas
flow in the pipeline is disturbed, creating a low flow
rate and low‐pressure region behind the turbulator.
Affected by the turbulator, the HMR fluctuates
violently near the turbulator. The turbulent dissipa-
tion rate of the gas increases rapidly at the turbulator.
The pressure drop in the pipeline increases in the
vicinity of the turbulator.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Science and Technology Research Project of Pipechina
(No. WZXGL202104), This work was supported by the
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2021M701096),
the Beijing Outstanding Young Scientists Program
(BJJWZYJH01201910006021), the Science and Technology
Development Project of Henan Province (222102220090),
and State Power Investment Corporation scientific
research project (B1‐KYB12022QN02).
ORCID
Guanwei Jia http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3752-8522
Weiqing Xu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2488-1928
REFERENCES
1. Qin P, Xu H, Liu M, et al. Assessing concurrent effects of
climate change on hydropower supply, electricity demand,
and greenhouse gas emissions in the upper Yangtze River
basin of China. Appl Energy. 2020;279:115694.
2. NDRC.Medium‐ and Long‐Term Plan for the Development of
the Hydrogen Energy Industry (2021‐2035). NDRC; 2022.
3. Cell F. Road map to a US hydrogen energy: reducing
emissions and driving growth across the nation. Fuel Cells
Bull. 2020;11:12.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ET AL.
4. Cuevas F, Zhang J, Latroche M. The vision of France,
Germany, and the European Union on future hydrogen
energy research and innovation. Engineering. 2021;7(6):
715‐718.
5. NNSFC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has
Released its Latest Report on Climate Change: Mitigating
Climate Change. NNSFC; 2022.
6. Davis M, Okunlola A, Di Lullo G, Giwa T, Kumar A.
Greenhouse gas reduction potential and cost‐effectiveness of
economy‐wide hydrogen‐natural gas blending for energy end
uses. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2023;171:112962.
7. Andy M. The Future of Hydrogen. USEPA; 2022.
8. Pluvinage G, Capelle J, Meliani MH. Pipe networks transport-
ing hydrogen pure or blended with natural gas, design and
maintenance. Eng Fail Anals. 2019;106:104164.
9. Mahajan D, Tan K, Venkatesh T, Kileti P, Clayton CR.
Hydrogen blending in gas pipeline networks—a review.
Energies. 2022;15(10):3582.
10. Liu B, Liu X, Lu C, Godbole A, Michal G, Teng L.
Decompression of hydrogen—natural gas mixtures in high‐
pressure pipelines: CFD modelling using different equations
of state. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2019;44(14):7428‐7437.
11. NEA. China Natural Gas Development Report. NEA; 2022.
12. Isaac T. HyDeploy: the UK's first hydrogen blending deploy-
ment project. Clean Energy. 2019;3(2):114‐125.
13. Kermani NA, Petrushina I, Nikiforov A, Rokni M. Metal alloys
for the new generation of compressors at hydrogen stations:
parametric study of corrosion behavior. Renew Energy.
2017;116(pt a):805‐814.
14. Nguyen TT, Bae KO, Jaeyeong P, Nahm SH, Baek UB. Damage
associated with interactions between microstructural char-
acteristics and hydrogen/methane gas mixtures of pipeline
steels. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47(73):31499‐31520.
15. Sun Y, Cheng YF. Hydrogen permeation and distribution at a
high‐strength X80 steel weld under stressing conditions and
the implication on pipeline failure. Int J Hydrogen Energy.
2021;46(44):23100‐23112.
16. Zhao XL, Zhang CX, Zhang YJ, Hui WJ, Zhao XM. Hydrogen‐
induced delayed fracture of Cu‐containing high‐strength bolt
steel. J Iron Steel Res Int. 2023;30(2):375‐383.
17. Zafra A, Álvarez G, Belzunce J, Alegre JM, Rodríguez C.
Fracture toughness of coarse‐grain heat affected zone of
quenched and tempered CrMo steels with internal hydrogen:
fracture micro mechanisms. Eng Fract Mech. 2021;241:107433.
18. Eames I, Austin M, Wojcik A. Injection of gaseous hydrogen
into a natural gas pipeline. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47(61):
25745‐25754.
19. Fan B, Pan J, Yang W, Zhu Y, Chen W. Effects of hydrogen
blending mode on combustion process of a rotary engine
fueled with natural gas/hydrogen blends. Int J Hydrogen
Energy. 2016;41(6):4039‐4053.
20. Villuendas T, Montañés C, Gómez A, Alarcón AC,
Storch de Gracia MD, Sánchez‐Laínez J. Advancing in the
decarbonized future of natural gas transmission networks
through a CFD study. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47(35):
15832‐15844.
21. Zhou D, Wang C, Yan S, et al. Dynamic modeling and
characteristic analysis of natural gas network with hydrogen
injections. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2022;47(78):33209‐33223.

YAN ET AL.
22. Kuczyński S, Łaciak M, Olijnyk A, Szurlej A, Włodek T.
Thermodynamic and technical issues of hydrogen and methane‐
hydrogen mixtures pipeline transmission. Energies. 2019;12(3):569.
23. Dz A, Sy A, Dh A, et al. Modeling and simulation of the
hydrogen blended gas‐electricity integrated energy system and
influence analysis of hydrogen blending modes. Energy.
2021;239:121629.
24. Kong M, Feng S, Xia Q, Chen C, Pan Z, Gao Z. Investigation of
mixing behavior of hydrogen blended to natural gas in gas
network. Sustainability. 2021;13(8):4255.
25. Dell'Isola M, Ficco G, Moretti L, Jaworski J, Kułaga P,
Kukulska‐Zając E. Impact of hydrogen injection on natural
gas measurement. Energies. 2021;14(24):8461.
26. Li J, Su Y, Yu B, Wang P, Sun D. Influences of hydrogen
blending on the Joule–Thomson coefficient of natural gas.
ACS Omega. 2021;6(26):16722‐16735.
27. Guandalini G, Colbertaldo P, Campanari S. Dynamic modeling
of natural gas quality within transport pipelines in presence of
hydrogen injections. Appl Energy. 2017;185:1712‐1723.
28. Abd AA, Naji SZ, Thian TC, Othman MR. Evaluation of
hydrogen concentration effect on the natural gas properties and
flow performance. Int J Hydrogen Energy. 2021;46(1):974‐983.
29. Zhang H, Li J, Su Y, Wang P, Yu B. Effects of hydrogen
blending on hydraulic and thermal characteristics of natural
gas pipeline and pipe network. Oil Gas Sci Technol. 2021;76:70.
30. Liu Q, Liu Y, Li S, et al. Analysis of the static mixer effect on
natural gas mixing process in a pipeline. Flow Meas Instrum.
2022;85:102146‐102161.
20500505, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1500 by Sungkyunkwan University, Wiley Online Library on [02/07/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
| 17
31. Kong L, Su L, Zhou X, Chen L, Liu Q. Accuracy guarantee for
determining the calorific value for dual gas sources. Flow Meas
Instrum. 2019;65:233‐239.
32. Su Y, Li J, Guo W, et al. Prediction of mixing uniformity of
hydrogen injection in natural gas pipeline based on a deep
learning model. Energies. 2022;15(22):8694.
33. Celik B, Beskok A. Mixing induced by a transversely
oscillating circular cylinder in a straight channel. Phys
Fluids. 2009;21(7):073601.
34. Montante G, Coroneo M, Paglianti A. Blending of miscible
liquids with different densities and viscosities in static mixers.
Chem Eng Sci. 2016;141:250‐260.
35. Zhuang Z, Yan J, Sun C, Wang H, Wang Y, Wu Z. The
numerical simulation of a new double swirl static mixer for
gas reactants mixing. Chin J Chem Eng. 2020;28:2438‐2446.
36. Ozturk M, Dincer I. Development of renewable energy system
integrated with hydrogen and natural gas subsystems for
cleaner combustion. J Nat Gas Sci Eng. 2020;83:103583.
How to cite this article: Yan S, Jia G, Xu W, Li R,
Lu Y, Cai M. Computational fluid dynamic analysis
of hydrogen‐injected natural gas for mixing and
transportation behaviors in pipeline structures.
Energy Sci Eng. 2023;1‐17. doi:10.1002/ese3.1500