You are on page 1of 52

Comparison OF TNT-Equivalency Approach, TNO Multi-Energy Approach and a CFD Approach in Investigating Hemispheric Hydrogen-Air Vapor Cloud Explosions

24 April 2007 A. Beccantini1, A. Malczynski1,2, E. Studer1


1 Commissariat ` lEnergie Atomique, DM2S/SFME/LTMF a 2 Warsaw University of Technology
1

Outline
Introduction Approaches and related problems Point explosion TNT approach 1D point-symmetrical deagration TNO multi-energy approach CFD approach Test problem and its solution Approaches analysis on the test problem Summary, conclusion and future work
2

Outline
Introduction Approaches and related problems Point explosion TNT approach 1D point-symmetrical deagration TNO multi-energy approach CFD approach Test problem and its solution Approaches analysis on the test problem Summary, conclusion and future work
3

Introduction
CEA is working in the design of Generation IV Nuclear Power Plants. Part of the heat produced by the Very High Temperature Gas Reactor is used for hydrogen production.

Introduction (2)
We have an accident, with the formation of a cloud of hydrogen and air. If the combustion occurs, which is the safety distance for the buildings? Which is the safety distance for general public? Problem. How to evaluate the pressure load as function of time and space in real congurations? In open environment, the interesting domain can be huge. There are several complex obstacles. ... 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is not always possible. There exist criteria involving the overpressure and the positive impulse in the free eld.
5

Introduction (3)
Purpose of this work. We analyze three simple approaches for investigating (hydrogen-air) 1D point-symmetric vapor cloud explosions (VCE), i.e. TNT-equivalency approach, TNO-multi energy approach, 1D CFD approach, which provide maximum overpressure and positive impulse. Hypotheses. We deal with ideal gases (calorically or thermally perfect). We suppose that the ame is innitely thin. We only consider one global irreversible reaction. We neglect the viscosity, the species diusion and the thermal diusion ( the Euler equations).
6

Outline
Introduction Approaches and related problems Point explosion TNT approach 1D point-symmetrical deagration TNO multi-energy approach CFD approach Test problem and its solution Approaches analysis on the test problem Summary, conclusion and future work
7

Point explosion
The ow generated by a TNT explosion on the ground is similar to the one generated by a point explosion with the released energy E = 2 mTNT 4.2MJ/kg

In the case of a calorically perfect gas, the solution depends on Variable r t P0 c0 E


8

SI units m s J/m3 kg/m3 J

Meaning distance from the center time unperturbed pressure unperturbed sound speed released energy specic heat ratio

Point explosion (2)


The non-dimensional solution can be expressed as function of r/rref , t/tref , where E rref = (energy-based length) P0 uref = c0 (unpert. sound speed) rref tref = uref The overpressure at the rst shock and the positive impulse can be expressed as
1/3 rP0 DPmax = f 1/3 ; P0 E 1/3 rP0 I+ c0 = f 1/3 ; 1 E P E 3
0 P 0 1 3

(1)

Point explosion and TNT explosion

In TNT experimental diagrams we nd similar expression like (1), but E mTNT

In the TNT equivalency approach for VCE mTNT(kg) = E/(4.2MJ) where E is the chemical energy inside the cloud, (0, 1) is an eciency factor.

10

Homogeneous 1D-point symmetrical de.


We consider a 1D-point symmetrical ame propagating at constant velocity in a homogeneous medium. Problem solved by [Sedov 1959], [Kuhl 1973] The solution is self similar (it depends on r/t).
P/Po

u=0 3 1 D flam D sh 2 1 0

u=0 T0 P0 r/t

2 Dam = K0 = K0, 3

Dsh > c0,

u2 = Dam K0

The lower the ame speed, the larger the ratio Dsh/Dam c0/Dam.

11

TNO-multi energy approach


We restrict our attention to hemispheric VCE. There exist abacuses which give the non-dimensional maximum overpressure, the positive impulse (or the positive duration time) and the shape of the wave as function of the energy-scaled distance and a strength index arising from 1 (weak deagration) to 10 (detonation) These abacuses have been obtained by computing the decaying of the ow generated by the 1D point-symmetric steady ame as the combustion is nished, using the FCT scheme. There exist tables which help in the choice of this index.
12

TNO-multi energy approach (2)

From [Roberts 2004]

13

CFD approach
The Reactive Euler Equations are solved via an operator splitting technique: non-reactive Euler equations + reactive source term. The non-reactive Euler equations for thermally perfect gases are solved using a FV conservative approach; a rst-order discretization explicit in time; TVD-type reconstruction (a second-order reconstruction on density, velocity, pressure, mass fractions using a minmod-type limiter); the shock-shock Riemann-type solver. In the particular case of 1D-geometry, the source term is treated to determine the quantity of gas burnt per time unit dm = u,K0Sf . dt
14

Outline
Introduction Approaches and related problems Point explosion TNT approach 1D point-symmetrical deagration TNO multi-energy approach CFD approach Test problem and its solution Approaches analysis on the test problem Summary, conclusion and future work
15

Test problem
We have a 10 m radius hemispherical cloud. Inside the cloud, there is a stoich. mixture of H2-air (P0 = 0.989 bar, T0 = 283 K, mH2 = 51 kg, E = 6.22E9 J). Outside the cloud, we have air at the same conditions. The combustion is initiated in the center and occurs at constant speed. Experimental results exist (large scale deagration at Fraunhofer Institute of Chemical Technology, with Dam,av = 65 m/s)

16

Test problem solution. Phase 1


30000 t = 10.9 ms t = 21.8 ms

20000

10000 DP (Pa)

-10000

-20000

-30000 0 2 4 r (m) 6 8 10

K0 = 22.6 m/s, Dam 160 m/s, Dam/c0,cloud 0.4


17

Test problem solution. Phase 1 (2)


30000 t = 10.9 ms t = 21.8 ms

20000

10000 DP (Pa)

-10000

-20000

-30000 0 50 100 150 200 250 r/t (m/s) 300 350 400 450

K0 = 22.6 m/s, Dam 160 m/s, Dam/c0,cloud 0.4


18

Test problem solution. Phase 2


30000 t= t= t= t= t= t= t= 32.7 ms 43.6 ms 54.5 ms 65.4 ms 76.3 ms 87.2 ms 98.2 ms

20000

10000 DP (Pa)

-10000

-20000

-30000 0 5 10 15 r (m) 20 25 30 35

K0 = 22.6 m/s, Dam 160 m/s, Dam/c0,cloud 0.4


19

Test problem solution. Phase 3


30000 t = 109 ms t = 120 ms t = 131 ms t = 142 ms t = 153 ms t = 196 ms t = 240 ms t = 284 ms t = 327 ms t = 370 ms

20000

10000 DP (Pa)

-10000

-20000

-30000 0 20 40 60 r (m) 80 100 120

K0 = 22.6 m/s, Dam 160 m/s, Dam/c0,cloud 0.4

20

Test problem solution. Characteristic scales


For slow ames, once the combustion stop, the dimension of the cloud is
rsurf rsurf 1/3

Then the combustion time is


tcombustion = rsurf /Dam

For slow ames, once the combustion stop, the distance last by the precursor shock is racoustic c0 rsurf Dam

The lower Dam, the larger racoustic, the larger tcombustion

21

Outline
Introduction Approaches and related problems Point explosion TNT approach 1D point-symmetrical deagration TNO multi-energy approach CFD approach Test problem and its solution Approaches analysis on the test problem Summary, conclusion and future work
22

Approaches analysis
TNT-equivalency versus CFD
TNT, 100% TNT, 50% TNT, 10% Ko = 43.2 m/s Ko = 33.9 m/s Ko = 22.6 m/s Ko = 11.3 m/s Ko = 5.65 m/s I+ (Pa s) 1e2 1e3 1e1 r (m) 1e2 1e1 r (m) 1e2

1e5

1e3

DPmax (Pa)
23

1e4

K0 = 5.65, 11.3, 22.6, 33.9, 43.2 m/s Dam/c0,cloud = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8

Approaches analysis (2)


The two physical phenomena behave in a dierent way. A TNT explosion immediately releases all the energy in one point. In a 1D-point symmetrical deagration the energy is released in a nite time and, at the end of the combustion, the variation of energy involves a large area (which both vary with the ame speed)

Because of dierent decay of the overpressure, it is impossible to link K0 and a costant value of . Even if were a function of r, it is impossible to link and K0 to t both overpressure and positive impulse curves.
24

Approaches analysis (3)


TNO-multi energy versus CFD
1e5 TNO, 7 TNO, 6 TNO, 5 TNO, 4 TNO, 3 TNO, 2 TNO, 1 Ko = 43.2 m/s Ko = 33.9 m/s Ko = 22.6 m/s Ko = 11.3 m/s Ko = 5.65 m/s

DPmax (Pa)

1e4

1e3 1e2 1e1 r (m) 1e2 1e1 r (m) 1e2

K0 = 5.65, 11.3, 22.6, 33.9, 43.2 m/s Dam/c0,cloud = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8

I+ (Pa s)

1e3

25

Approaches analysis (4)

TNO-multi energy method and CFD are comparable approaches. (TNO-multi energy data have been built using exact and numerical solutions!)

TNO-multi energy does not correctly reproduce the phase 2. Indeed, it does not involve any information concerning the physical properties of the cloud but its chemical energy.

It is possible to establish a correlation between the strength index of the TNO-multi energy method and K0.
26

Approaches analysis (5)


Experiment versus CFD (K0 = 8.5 m/s)
20 experiment numerical solution Ko=8.5 m/s

15

r (m)

10

0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 t (s) 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

27

Approaches analysis (6)


Experiment versus CFD (K0 = 8.5 m/s, r = 5 m)
110000 experiment numerical solution 108000 106000 104000 102000 P (Pa) 100000 98000 96000 94000 92000 90000 88000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 t (s) 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

28

Approaches analysis (7)


Experiment versus CFD (K0 = 8.5 m/s, r = 35 m)
103000 experiment numerical solution 102000 101000 100000 99000 P (Pa) 98000 97000 96000 95000 94000 93000 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 t (s) 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

29

Approaches analysis (8)


Experiment versus CFD (K0 = 8.5 m/s, r = 80 m)
101000 experiment numerical solution 100500

100000

99500

P (Pa)

99000

98500

98000

97500

97000

96500 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 t (s) 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

30

Approaches analysis (9)

TNO-multi energy versus experiment Following the TNO-multi energy approach, the index to take in this case is 1 CFD says that the fundamental velocity to take is 8.5 m/s, which corresponds to the index 3 It follows that TNO-multi energy approach underestimates the overpressure

31

Outline
Introduction Approaches and related problems Point explosion TNT approach 1D point-symmetrical deagration TNO multi-energy approach CFD approach Test problem and its solution Approaches analysis on the test problem Summary, conclusion and future work
32

Summary and conclusion


We have computed the solution of an hemispherical VCE. We have compared 3 existing approaches on this simple VCE. The TNT-equivalency approach is not a good candidate to evaluate the overpressure and the positive impulse in case of deagrations. A part from a region close to the cloud, a correlation can be made between the TNO multi-energy strength factor and the fundamental ame speed. In this 1D problem, this 1D CFD approach gives good results if we take the correct value of the fundamental ame speed (the solution is very sensitive to its value).
33

Future work
Maximum overpressure and positive impulse criteria are derived from tests with high explosives and can be applied with condence only to steep rising shock waves [Galbraith 1998]. Nevertheless we can use 1D CFD results as initial and boundary conditions for multi-dimensional CFD computations (analysis of isolated mechanical structures).

34

Bibliography
[Baker 1983] W E Baker. Explosions in air. 1983 [DOA 1990] U.S. Department of the Army. Structures to Resist the Eects of Accidental Explosions. Army TM 51300. Navy NAVFAC P-397, AFR 88-22. Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. 1990. [Galbraith 1998] K Galbraith. Review of blast injury data and models. HSE Contract Research Report 192/1998. 1998 [Kingery and Bulmash 1984] C N Kingery and G Bulmash. Airblast Parameters from TNT Spherical Air Burst and Hemispherical Surface Burst, Technical Report ARBRL-TR02555, U.S. Army ARDC-BRL, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, April 1984.
35

Bibliography (2)
[Kuhl 73] A L Kuhl, M M Kamel and A K Oppenheim. Pressure Waves Generated by Steady Flames. Fourteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, pages 1201. 1973 [Kustnetzov 2006] M. Kustnetzov, J Grune. Planned HyTunnel experiments at FZK. Proc of 3rd IEF Workshop on velocity measurements in gases and ames, April 5-6 2006, HSL, Buxton, UK, 2006 [Roberts 2004] M W Roberts and W K Crowley. Evaluation of ammability hazards in non-nuclear safety analysis. 14th EFCOG Safety Analysis Workshop. San Francisco, CA. 2004 [Sedov 59] L I Sedov. Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics. Academic Press. 1959
36

QUESTIONS

37

Criteria

DP
max

1111 0000 1111 0000 1111 0000 I+ 1111 0000 1111 0000 1111 0000 1111 0000 1111 0000 1111 0000 1111 0000

38

Point explosion and TNT explosion (2)


1e+07 CFD, Ref 1 CFD, Ref 2 CFD, Ref 3 TNT, Baker TNT, K-B

1e+06 DPmax (Pa)

100000

10000

1000 1 10 r (m) 100 1000

E = 2 6.29 103MJ (twice the chemical energy in the cloud) Baker = [Baker 1983], K-B = [Kingery and Bulmash 1984], x Ref i = x Ref 1/2i1

39

Point explosion and TNT explosion (3)


10000 CFD, Ref 1 CFD, Ref 2 CFD, Ref 3 TNT, Baker TNT, K-B TNT, DOA

I+ (Pa s)

1000

100 1 10 r (m) 100 1000

DOA = [DOA 1990]


40

Homogeneous 1D-point symmetrical deagration


We consider a 1D-point symmetrical ame propagating at constant velocity in a homogeneous medium. Problem solved by [Sedov 1959], [Kuhl 1973] In the case of calorically perfect gases, the solution depends on Variable r t K0 P0 c0 q u b SI units m s m/s J/m3 m/s J/kg Meaning distance from the center time fundamental ame speed unperturbed pressure unperturbed sound speed released heat per unit mass specic heat ratio in unburnt region specic heat ratio in burnt region

41

Homogeneous 1D-point symmetrical de. (2)


We take as 3 reference quantities t, P0 and c0; it follows that the non-dimensional solution can be expressed as function of r q K0 , u, b , 2, c0t c0 c0
P/Po

u=0 3 1 D flam D sh 2 1 0

u=0 T0 P0 r/t

Dam = 2 K0 = K0, 3

Dsh > c0,

u2 = Dam K0

The lower the ame speed, the larger the ratio Dsh/Dam c0/Dam.

42

Test problem: dimensional analysis


We have a 10 m radius hemisphere with inside a stoichiometric mixture of H2-air at almost atmospheric conditions P = 0.989 bar, T = 283 K Inside the cloud (hemisphere) (XH2 , XN2 , XO2 ) = (0.296, 0.556, 0.148) (YH2 , YN2 , YO2 ) = (0.0283, 0.745, 0.2267) R = 398 J/kg/K, = 0.879 kg/m3, c = 405 m/s mH2 = 52 kg, qH2 = 121 MJ/kg (NIST) Q = 6.29 103 MJ, q = 3.42 MJ/kg Outside the cloud (XN2 , XO2 ) = (0.79, 0.21) (YN2 , YO2 ) = (0.767, 0.233) R = 288 J/kg/K, = 1.21 kg/m3, c = 338 m/s
43

Test problem: dimensional analysis (2)


After an Adiabatic Isobaric Complete Combustion (AIBCC), using JANAF tables and supposing to deal with the oneglobal reaction only, we obtain YN2 = 0.745, YH2O = 0.255 Inside 0.878 AIBCC 0.116 (in SI units) where =
i Yi cp,i i Yi cv,i

P (bar) 0.989 0.989

T 283 2510

c 405 1030

R 398 339

1.41 1.24

1.42 1.29

=1+
44

P
T i Yi 0 cv,i()d

Test problem: dimensional analysis (3)


Characteristic scales for velocity Meaning fundamental ame speed ame speed in the laboratory sound speed in the unburnt gas sound speed in the burnt gas sound speed outside
a

Formula K0 Dame = u K0 b cu cb cout

Value
a

405 m/s 1030 m/s 338 m/s

Example (Fraunhofer experiment) Dame,av = 63, Dame,max = 80, K0,av = 8.5, K0,max = 10.5 m/s

45

Test problem: dimensional analysis (4)


Characteristic scales for the distance Meaning energy based length initial sphere radius nal sphere radius acoustic distance
b For D ame,av = 63 m/s,
46

Formula
2Q 1/3 P0

Value 50.3 m 10.0 m


1/3

rsurf
rsurf = rsurf u b

19.6 m 105 mb

racou Dcout rsurf ame

cout /Dame,av = 338/63 = 5.37

Test problem: Mesh renement


4 regularly rened meshes. 20 elements inside the cloud, 600 elements outside (in 3D 6003 200E6 elements). 200 elements inside the cloud, 6000 elements outside (in 3D 60003 200E9 elements). 400 elements inside the cloud, 12000 elements outside (in 3D 120003 2E12 elements). 800 elements inside the cloud, 24000 elements outside (in 3D 240003 10E12 elements). Because of operator splitting error, the results on the coarse mesh are very dierent from the others. CPU time consumption. 6h on a Linux PC for the nest mesh (500000 time steps).
47

Test problem: Sensitivity analysis


DPmax* 0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40 Case 5 Vel 0.8 Dor.

0.30

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 3

0.20

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 2

0.10

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 1

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 0 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 r*

r = r/rhemis DPmax = DPmax /P0

48

Test problem: Sensitivity analysis (2)


PI* 1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Dor.

0.40

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 3

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 2 0.20 Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 1

Case 5 Vel 0.8 Ref 0 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 r*

r = r/rhemis P I = (I + c0)/(rhemisP0)

49

Test problem: Sensitivity analysis (3)


x1.E2 DPmax* 9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00 Case 5 Vel 0.2 Dor.

3.00

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 3

2.00

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 2

1.00

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 1

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 0 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 r*

r = r/rhemis DPmax = DPmax /P0

50

Test problem: Sensitivity analysis (4)


PI* 0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Dor.

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 3 0.20 Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 2

0.10 Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 1

Case 5 Vel 0.2 Ref 0 0.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 r*

r = r/rhemis P I = (I + c0)/(rhemisP0)

51

Test problem: Sensitivity analysis (5)

52