Main /
SBEP 2006SBEP(s) for years 2006 - 2007:SBEP on hydrogen release and mixing
SBEP on hydrogen fires or explosions
Deadline for all cases 20.12.2006.SBEP V4 (See D57, pp. 35 - 36)Comments to the table (download documents: HD-Tab.pdf, H2jet.eps, shadow.eps. Keyword SBEP-V4. They have generic title 'Specifications of V4 Document [1,2,3]'): Nozzle diameter, d, is internal orifice diameter No 2: Ø0.75 mm; p = 208 bar; tests HDH3; (only data with axial time dependence of [H2] and velocity + shadow) No 3: Ø0.25 mm; p = 160 bar; tests HD 22-24; tests HDH0 and HDH1 with shadow at 100 and 240 bar (complete data with [H2] and velocity distribution with axial time dependence of [H2] and velocity + 2 shadows) No 4: Ø1 mm; p = 196 bar; tests HDH 13; (only data with axial time dependence of [H2] and velocity + shadow) Data to be presented for comparison with the experiments:
SBEP V5 (See WP3.1_v0.1.doc Benchmarks for evaluation of CFD codes)SBEP V6 (no information; for liquid H2 NCSRD is responsible)It is extended SBEP, i.e. it is optional. SBEP V7 (See D57, pp. 33 - 34)Download documents:
Keyword SBEP-V4. They have generic title 'Specifications of V7 Document [1,2]') Here I just repeat the comments made for HyApproval partners. They are mostly useless for V7 (since V7 is pre-mixed case), but can be, probably, later used by reviewers of HyApproval project. 1. you remember that experimental conditions in Shell tests were: - source 600 g during 0.7 s, temperature -20°C at nozzle by 35 MPa. I think that it would be reasonable to make simulations which can be compared with experimental ones with the aim to increase the credibility of such simulations. Therefore, I think if one is going to make simulation of mitigated scenario, he/she has to start with this test. During the discussion at last meeting it was mentioned, that source with 100 g/s is much more realistic than 600 g / 0.7 s. Therefore, I think that for other cases (mitigated 700 bar and non-mitigated 350, 700 bar) it is better to take - source 100 g/s, temperature at nozzle -20°C by 70 MPa (non-mitigated) - source 100 g/s, temperature at nozzle -20°C by 35 MPa (non-mitigated) - source 100 g/s, 2 s, temperature at nozzle -20°C by 70 MPa (mitigated). Time of 2 sec for isolation was specified in Table 4.2 (Leak source data). 2. Thanks to Les we now have understand the layout for RS and transducer locations. In the attached document you will find Figures 3, 4 and 9. Figures 3 and 4 are the layout and sensor locations for premixed experiments (they coincide with those provided to HySafe). Actually, as I understood, layout for jet release experiments was slightly different (e.g., dispenser was 10 cm shifted), but the exact data are not available. I agree with Les proposal to use the same layout for both type of tests. Thus, Figure 3 and 9 are the layout and sensor locations for jet release experiments (Figure 9 coincide with data provided to HyApproval). SBEP V8 (See D57, pp. 46 - 47)Initial conditions: pressure P = 1.01e5, temperature T = 290 K, concentration 13% H2 in air. Obstacle blockage ratio (BR) = 60% (BR = 1 - (r/R)^2) here r - orifice radius; R - tube internal radius Vent ratio = (r/R)^2 here r - radius of opening in the flange, which was covered by the 1 µm (micron) plastic foil; R - tube internal radius
Remark on foil influence: As a comment from GexCon (OR Hansen) we believe the foil may be of some importance, but mainly for the initial flame development for the more open cases 40% and 100% cases. We thus expect that the flame acceleration will be faster for these cases due to the foil (simulations we did indicated that). SBEP V9 (See D57, pp. 5, 6)It is extended SBEP, i.e. it is optional. Experiments IA1-IA5. Additional information can be obtained directly from Helmut Schneider. |