ML20040B390
| ML20040B390 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1982 |
| From: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040B388 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201260003 | |
| Download: ML20040B390 (75) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
AN ANALYSIS OF HYDROGEN CONTROL MEASURES AT MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION Revision 2 January 22, 1982 Remove and insert pages according to the following tabulations:
Remove these pages:
Insert theca pages:
Volume 1 Chapter 2 Table of Contents (Page 2) 2.2-1 2.2-1 2.6-2 2.6-2 2.7-2 2.7-2 2.8-2 2.8-2 2.9-1 2.9-1 2.9-2 2.9-2 Volume 2 Insert Tabs 2H, 2I, 2J, 2K Apperidix 2H, 21, 2J, 2K Volume 3 6.2-3 6.2 3 6.2-4 6.2-4 8201260003 8:0122 DR ADOLK 05000369 p
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Appendix 2H - ComDustion Control Studies:
Project Report Appendix 21 - Ignitor Performance:
Interim Project Report Appendix 2J - Combustion Phenomena:
Interim Project Report 2
Appendix 2K - Hydrogen Mixing and Distribution:
Preliminary Project Report i
i Revision 2
2.2 HALON INTERING O
2.2.1 Purpose Quickly inerting a containment with Halon after a serious accident to prevent hydrogen combustion is not a new concept.
The Maritime Administration of the Department of Commerce funded a three year program in the mid-1970's to study the use of Halon 1301 in the reactor containment of a nuclear powered ship.
The concept was found to be completely suitable and would have been the system of choice had such reactors been built.
However, due to the differences in size and design of the containments, it was not known whether a Halon system would be feasible for an ice condenser containment.
To answer this question, Atlantic Research Corporatien conducted a feasibility study on the use of Halon 1301 in an ice condenser containment.
2.2.2 Summary Three major considerations were to be addressed in the study:
- 1) preliminary design of a Halon inerting system, 2) evaluation of the potential for inerted mixture combustion to be initiated by a postulated localdetonation, and 2
- 3) evaluation of the effects of a change in water chemistry due to Halon decom-position and solubility.
This project was conducted based on experimental data available in the literature and that obtained from the studies associated with the Maritime Administration project.
It became evident early in the project that very little information was available on the corrosion effects of Halon 1301 and of low concentrations of hydrogen bromide and bromide ions.
To assist in addressing the third consideration, corrosion studies were conducted at the Singleton Engineering Materials Laboratory.
Chemical conditions were 2.2-1 Rerision 2
_ =.
chromatograph was used to determine the vessel atmosphere constituents at the conclusion of each test.
Test results are pre ented in Appendix 2H.
Static and transient tests were conducted in Phase 2.
The igniter assembly was located near the bottom of vessel for all tests.
Static tests were con-ducted without water fog and with watar fog at two different droplet sizes and concentrations.
Transient tests were conducted with hydrogen injection and with hydrogen / steam injection.
Comparisons were made with similar tests in Phase 1, both with and without sprays.
Vessel atmosphere constituents were determined with a gas chromatograph after each test.
Results of the Acurex tests are presented in Appendix 2H.
Test results demonstrated that both the ignitor location and the presence of water fogs affect the characteristics of hydrogen deflagrations.
These tests demonstrated that:
1)
For an enclosed vertical compartment with hydrogen injected near the bottom, higher ignitor locations appear to result in a higher pressure rise.
2)
The addition of steam, war-er sprays, or water fogs reduce the pressure 2
rise resulting from hydrogen combustion.
Although the presence of a water fog results in a pressure reduction, containment analyses discussed in Chapter 4 show that adequate safety margin is present without a pressure suppressant system.
Therefore, further research on the effect of water fog is not being pursued.
Additionally, results of the ignitor location tests appear to be consistent with existing knowledge on hydrogen combustion.
Therefore, additional research on ignitor location effects is not anticipated.
O 2.6-2 Revision 2
Anticipated tests are very similar to those conducted in Phase 1.
j Data has been ottained on glug plug performance in varioJs hydrogen-steam air mixtures.
The glow plug has ceen operated at 12 and 14 volts in quiescent and turbulent canditions.
These test results are consistent with the Fenwal tests 2
discussed in section E.1 and agree reasonably well with the Shapiro-Moffette flammability curve.
iests are currently underway with an AC ignitor developed by Tayco Engineering, Inc.
These tests should be completed by February 1, 1982. An interim report is included in Appendix 2I.
O 2.7-2 Revision 2
with fans and grating.
Tests are to be conducted with both items individually and jointly.
Fan flow is varied from zero to a combined maximum of approximately i
3000 cfm.
The grating consists of a 1/4 inch plate perforated with 1 inch diam-eter holes, resulting in a blockage of 50%.
Plates are located one third ar;d two thirds the vessel height, f.jdrogen concentrations are varied from 6 to 20 v/o.
In Phase 4, a pipe approximately one foot in diameter and 20 feet long is attached to the sphere.
Tests are to be conducted with uniform and non-uniform hydrogen concentrations varying from 6 to 20%.
Ignition will be in the pipe and in the sphere.
These tests provide data on the effects of flame prcpagation i
from one geometry into another, as well as the effects of propagation from one concentration to another.
fest results obtained to date appear to confirm that steam and turbulence have competing effects on itydrogen combustion.
Steam tends to reduce the iate and degree of combustion, while turbulence promotes rapid and more complete combustion. Additional turbulence testing is underway, with the pipe-sphere 2
tests to follow. Completion of all testing is anticipated around mid-February, 1982. An interim report is included in Appendix 2J.
4 1
0 2.8-2 Revision 2
l
' {~'
2.9 HYDROGEN MIXING AND DISTRIBUTION 2.9.1 Purpose Concerns have been expressed regarding the potential for localized accumulation of hydrogen at detonable concentrations.
Previous ana!yses have shown that as a result of the mixing induced by tee air return fans and the steam-hydrogen l
jet itself, the formation of detonable concentrations is precluded.
Additionally, the design of the hydrogen mitigation system assures that the released hydrogen starts burning once a flammable concentration is reached.
i However, to provide additional assurances that localized hydrogen accumulation will not occur, tests are being conducted by the Har. ford Engineering Develop-ment Laboratory (HEDL) to verify the mixing characteristics of the air return fans and the steam-hydrogen jet.
2.9.2 Summary O
Tests are being conducted at HEDL's Containment Systems Test Facility (CSTF).
This facility has a height of 67 feet and a diameter of 25 feet.
Volume of the facility is approximately 3 x 104 cubic feet.
The CSTF has been modified to resemble a sin:plified ice condenser containment.
A schematic of the modified CSIF is shown in Figures 2.9-1 and 2.9-2.
Atmospheric temperature and hydrogen concentration are being measured as a function of time at various locations. Additional measurements include flow velocity and water vapor concentration.
The test program includes tests with and without the air return fans.
In addition, the injection rate of the jet will be varied. Although a majority of the tests are being conducted with helium, tests will be conducted with hydrogen to assure applicability of the helium tests.
2 0
2.9-1 Revision 2
All testing has been completed.
Results appear to indicate that the lower compartment is well mixed; thus precluding the formation of pockets containing significantly higher concentrations of hydrogen.
More specifically, the data appears to show that:
1)
The air return fans minimize the peak concentration and the maximum concentration difference within the test compartment.
2)
Test compartment mixing is not strongly dependent on the orientation of the source jet.
Final data reduction and analysis is anticipated to be complete by February 1, 1982. A preliminary project report is included in Appendix 2K.
O O
2.9-2 Revision 2 Entire Page Revised
1
!o i
l 4
i i
1 i
J 4
4 APPEtIDIX 2H COMBUSTION C0fiTROL STUDIES i
PROJECT REPORT i o l
l l
i
\\
-_--.----._---.--.--,..,-,,-,,--------..,-.-.---..---._,_._,.-.,,.,,,n_
.n,
I l
i
!'O I
i i
EFFECT OF IGNITOR LOCATION AND WATER 4
FOGS ON HYDROGEN COMBUSTION WITHIN AN ENCLOSED COMPARTMENT i
I l
{
PROJECT REPORT December, 1981 Prepared by:
i F. G. Hudson, Duke Power Company K. K. Shiu, American Electric Power R. C. Torok, Acurex Corporation J. J. Wilder, Tennessee Valley Authority Project Conducted by:
O Acurex Corporation 485 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California i
i Project Sponsors:
American Els:tric Power Service Corp.
Duke Power Company Electric Power Research Institute Tennessee Valley Authority O
l t
s v
,-nw-,.----w
.--,w
---k,---m,
-,--,,--------,,m-
,, ---- m - - -. -
s-,
x-e w=--
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS l
- 1. 0 Introduction
{
2.0 Test Facility 3.0 Test Matrix and Procedures 4.0 Test Results 5.0 Conclusions Appendix Gas Chromatagraphy Analysis I
i l
i l
1
?
I I
i l
l
\\
I
1
'O Section 1 Introduction Approximately ten hours into the accident at Three Mile Island, a hydrogen burn occurred inside the containment. Although this burn posed no real threat to the TMI containment, it did create interest in hydrogen combustion and its effects on containment structures.
The operating license applications for McGuire and Sequoyah Nuclear Statioris contributed to the growth of this interest into a major safety concern, especially for ice condenser containments.
The individual and joint activities of the three utilities owning ice condenser stations (American Electric Power, Duke Power Company, and the Tennessee Valley Authority) are well documented in various licensing submittals or licensing proceedings and will not be repeated here.
However, when the three utilities decided to install a distributed ignition system as a hydrogen mitigation system, the question of ignitor location within a compartment arose.
Additionally, concurrent with the design of a distributed ignition system, several independent organizations suggested coupling a water fog system with the distributed ignition system to act as a pressure suppressant during combyction.
To investigate the effect of ignitor location W hydrogen combustion withia a compartment, the three utilities, in conjunction with the Electric hwer Research Institute, con-tracted with Acurex Corporation to conduct a series of tests.
These tests were conducted at the SRI International Explosives Test Site near Livermore, California.
Although analyses had shown a pressure supprer.sant was not necessary for ice condenser containments, the utilities believed that investigating the effect of water fogs on hydrogen combustion could be of some potential interest to the
i l
I l
l industry.
Therefore, an investigation of water fog effects on hydrogen combustion j
was added to the Acurex project.
This report presents the results of that i
project.
4 i
i
}
)
J 1
i I
f 1O i
i 1
i i
1 1
1 1
l l
1 i
4
' O I
i
__,-----m-,,.%.m,-,--
m
,m.-
,m,,-c---,-----m.---.-%,_,..-.
l l
O Section 2 Test Facility 2.1 TEST VESSEL AND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS The test vessel selected for this project has a volume of approximately 630 3
ft.
Vessel dimensions are:
internal diameter - 7 ft., overall height - 21 ft., and " barrel" height - 17 ft. Auxiliary mechanical systems provide the ability to:
- 1) inject hydrogen or a hydrogen / steam mixture into the lower portion of the test vessel, 2) supply a water spray or microfog from the upper portion of the test vessel, 3) obtain pre-test and post-test vessel atmosphere samples, and 4) provide a means of premixing the vessel atmosphere for quiescent tests. Additionally, the capability to ignite the vessel atmosphere from the top, middle or bottom of the vessel was provided. A schematic of the test vessel and its auxiliary mechanical systems is presented in Figur: 2-1.
A propane-fueled boiler suppiled steam for the facility.
This steam served as a parameter for several tests, as well as to preheat the test vessel to the desired temperature.
The steam flowrate was monitored with an annular flow sensor and a differential pressure gauge. When steam was not required as a test parameter, the boiler was isolated from the test vessel after preheating was completed.
Bottled hydrogen served as the hydrogen source for the test vessel.
The hydrogen flowrate was monitored with a rotameter and controlled with a control valve.
l
I 1
!O A three horsepower electric motor and gear pump supplied water to the test vessel spray nozzles. A bypass loop was included to control the flowrate.
]
Utilizing a closed loop spray system, i.e., recirculating the spray watar, avoided the potential problems associated with accumulating large volumes of water within the vessel.
For the Phase 1 tests, a single Sprayco 1713 nozzle, l
15 gpm flowrate, was mounted at the top of the test vessel.
A manifold containing i
nine Sr,rayco Et63-7604 pinjet nozzles was mounted at the top of the test vessel i
i for the Phase 2 tests. Depending on the pressure drop across the nozzles, the i
total spray flowrate for the Phase 2 tests varied from 1.1 to 1.4 gpm.
The l
spray manifold was constructed so as to provide an even spray distrinution throughout the test vessel.
i.
I An air-operated fan was mounted inside the test vessel to assure a well mixed 4
1 vessel atmosphere prior t5 the quiescent tests.
Use of an air-operated fan l
eliminated the potential of an electrical malfunction resulting in a spurious i
ignition.
The fan's air exhaust was vented outside the test vessel to avoid diluting the vessel atmosphere.
}
Two 4 inch butterfly valves located at the top and near the bottom of the test 3
vessel allowed the vessel to be purged following the completion of each test.
A squirrel-cage blower attached to the lower butterfly valve provided the j
motive force for purging the vessel.
The vessel contents were vented to the atmosphere through the upper butterfly valve.
The vessel was not vented until 4
1 post-test samples were obtained.
J O
i i
- O Vessel atmosphere sample taps were located near the top and near the bottom of the test vessel.
A remotely operated solenoid valve isolated each of the two sample lines from the test vessel. When a solenoid valve was open, the vessel j
atmosphere sample was pumped threJgh a cold trap to remove water.
The sample i
then passed through a silica gel trap to remove any remaining meisture.
The sample
]
then flowed through a gas meter into a glass sample bottle. A sample was extracted from the sample bottle by a syringe and injected into a gas chromatograph.
j (A detailed discussion of the gas analysis methodology is presented in Appendix A).
Two ignitor assemblies supplied by Duke Power Company were mounted inside the test vessel.
The ignitors were located on the vessel centerline at either the top, middie or near the bottom of the test vessel.
Only two ignitor locations were occupied at one time.
The top ignitor location was not used during the Phase 1 tests requiring sprays or during any of the Phase 2 tests since an ignitor assembly located at the top effectively created a significant spray / fog maldistribution within the test vessel.
- 2. 2 INSTRUMENTATION The test vessel was instrumented to provide the following information:
vessel atmosphere temperature, vessel wall temperature, flame front propagation, and i
vessel pressure.
Three mil Type K thermocouples were used to measure temperatures and detect flame front propagation.
Strain gauge pressure transducers and piezoelectric pressure transducers were used to measure vessel pressures. A schematic of the test vessel instrumentation is presented in Figure 2-2.
O
_ =_
i l
O As just mentioned, 3 mil thermocouples were used to measure temperatures and detect flame front propagation.
Male Type K thermocouple jacks were used as j
attachment points for the 3 mil thermocouple junctions to increase the robust-j ness of the thermocouple.
The junctions were located between the jacks with the leads attached directly to the jacks.
Vessel wall temperature thermo-couples were welded directly to the vessel wall.
I To determine the flame front propagation pattern within the vessel, a special electronic circuit was developed.
This circuit Jsed a high input impedance operational amplifier comparator to detect the temperature rise in the 3 mil 4
l Type K thermocouples located within the vessel.
A schematic diagram of the i
flame front detector circuit is shown in Figure 2-3.
Five circuits were used, t
]
each circuit monitoring seven thermocouples located in a vertical array within the vessel. The 5 x 7 grid was located vertically on a plane formed by the i
diameter and centerline of the test vessel as shown in Figure 2-2.
i i
When one of the thermocouples in the grid was exposed to the flame front, the 4
thermocouple output voltage would rise and trigger the comparator.
This, i1 4
turn, placed a signal at one input point of the digital-to-analog converter.
The output from the DAC was then recorded.
Since the input signals from the thermocouples could be considered as binary bits, every voltage that was generated by the DAC corresponded to a discrete combination of hot thermocouples.
Thus, by comparing the output voltage against time, the instant that the flame front arrived at each location could be determined, and a map derived showing flame front propagation.
i
'O i
O Two types of pressure transducers were used.
Bell and Howell CEC Model 1000 strain gauge pressure transducers were used for static and slow response conditions.
These were powered by CEC 1-183 strain gauge signal conditioners located within a CEC 1-080 power supply chassis.
To record high frequency transient pressure pulses, PCB Piezoelectronics Model 111A24 piezoelectric pressure transducers were used.
These transducers were powered by a Model 484B10 power supply.
Two recording systems were used for data acquisition.
A twenty eight channel FH teoe recordar, EMI Model 7000C, was used to record all potentially fast response data.
Frequency response of the unit was 10kHz or greater. An Autodata 9 datalogger recorded relatively slow response signals and served as a backup to the FM tape recorder.
O
o
.O O
FIGURE 2-1 TEST FACILITY f1ECilAfilCAL ECilEMATIC i
B,ast mall Pr. pane Vent j
2 9g
- m.,,,, _
f g
,5 g
/
0 L.,
g<;;,
=
e h
0 f
y-z;-
0
.//
Purnp
[]
p/
~>,
0 c.,
=
a o
s...ii.,
~
esf W = ::: 'c e
=
w v 7
Le,.,-
i FIGURE 2-2 TEST FACILITY INSTRUMENTATION SCHEMATIC O
4 F
Flame front r age e
i f earmcoucle WT Wall the m couple
$r0 e
i sr0 Strain gauge pressure transducer PID Pic PiercelectrtC pressure transducer STG 5tratn gauge SG 5 Itca gel -ater trap OTG 099 Cry gas reter GB Glass bottle Ignitor GC Gas chromatograph F
F F
F F
O r
F F
F F
GB WT i
O I
- len tor vr
$G
- 5,G
[
Punp y
I l
'l I
l f gnitor G8
~<
'?
i 9o r
,3 5
t-Ge Injection j nottle i
O 9
FIGURE 2-3 FLAME FRONT DETECTOR CIRCUIT O
+15v 30k TH( M COUPtt J
N h
) X Ll0 y
3290 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 out 20
.'I O O O O O 0 1 0.C?av 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.157f 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.3144 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.6271 h
h 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.255v 3290 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.51CV 81 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.C20v 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5.C97v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1CV Tsce G-g Cad 0-ICY Output 290
~
. a'l, 82 A
3290 Ana ng s
=
DAC g
r Ns 3290 0
OV Section 3 Test Matrix and Procedures 3.1 TEST MATRIX The test program was designed to investigate the effects of ignitor location and water fogs / sprays on hydrogen combustion.
Test parameters were selected based on degraded core analyses conducted by American Electric Power, Duke Power Company, and TVA.
Flowrates for steam and hydrogtn were scaled by the ratio of test vessel volume to the combined lower compartment and deadended compartment volumes of an ice condenser containment.
These scaled flowrates l
were derived from the average steam and maximum hydrogen release rates dur-ing the hydrogen generation portion of an S D accident sequence.
Containment 2
response analyses conducted by the aforementioned utilities indicated that 160 F was a maximum atmospheric temperature that would be encountered in the lower and deadended compartments at the onset of hydrogen generation.
Hydrogen or hydrogen / steam mixtures were injected into the lower portion of the test vessel since many subcompartments within an ice condenser containment are accessed from the bottom.
Spray nozzle flowrates were determined by the desired mean droplet diameter.
The Sprayco 1713 spray nozzle, a model used in cor.tainment spray systems, was operated at a AP of 40 psi.
This provided a flowrate of 15 gpm and is the designed operating condition in a containment spray application. Vendor supplied information indicated that the number mean droplet diameter at this flowrate is 200p.
Based on studies conducted by Factory Mutual Research
O Corporation, the Sprayco 2163-7604 nazzle was selected for use in the water fog tests.
Measurements taken at Factory Mutual Research Corporation 1 indicated that when operated at AP's of 20 psi and 30 psi the resulting number mean droplet diameters were 11p and 8p, respectively.
The total fog flowrates from the test vessel's nine nozzle manifold were 1.1 gpm and 1.4 gpm, respectively.
Tests outlined in Table 3-1 were intended to investigate the effect of ignitor location on combustion.
Both hydrogen and hydrogen / steam mixtures were injected to account for the potential variation in the transient conditions within an ice condenser containment.
Tests with sprays were included to account for the presence of subcompartment sprays in some containment designs.
As mentioned earlier, the steam and hydrogen flowrates of 2.1 and 0.035 lbm/ min were based 3
on transient analyses.
Tests 1.6 and 1.7 were conducted with the hydrogen flowrate arbitrarily increased by a factor of three.
Test 1.11 was conducted to observe the effect of a lower preheat on combustion characteristics.
The duration of tests was determined by the time required to cbtain the same relative hyurogen mass injected in the test vessel as is calculated in the previously mentioned degraded core analyses.
All tests were conducted with the test vessel atmosphere initially saturated.
1Zalosh, Robert G., " Water Fog Inerting of Hydrogen Air Mixtures," Factory Mutual Research Corporation, September, 1981.
O V
l
O The water fog test matrix is presented in Table 3-2.
Quiescent tests were conducted as a basis of comparison to observed results of the dynamic tests.
The basis for all remaining test parameters was discussed above.
3.2 TEST PROCEDURES Two types of tests were conducted:
quiescent and dynamic. A known amount of hydrogen was injected into the test vessel for the quiescent test prior to energizing the ignitor assembly.
The dynamic tests consisted of injecting hydrogen or hydrogen / steam into the vessel with the ignitur assembly pre-energized.
For all tests, the test vessel was pre-heated to the desired temperature and tne instrumentation and data acquisition system was checked and calibrated.
After the completion of each test, the test vessel fan was turned on and a post-test sample obtained.
Subsequently, the test vessel was purged.
Test procedures varied slightly for the quiescent and dynamic tests.
For the quiescent tests, the vessel fan was turned on after completing the pre-test activities mentioned above.
A known amount of hydrogen was injected into the vessel and a pre-test sample was obtained. The vessel fan was then turned off and, if required, vessel sprays actuated.
At this point, the data acquisition system and the ignitor assembly were energized.
For the dynamic tests, the ignitor was energized after completion of pre-test activities.
If necessary, vessel sprays were then actuated.
The data acquisition system was energized prior to the initiation of hydrogen injection.
O
TABLE 3-1 Ignitor Location Test Matrix ^
Ignitor flydrogen flow (Ibm / min)
Steam Flow (lbm/ min)
Spray Flow Test location 0.035 0.105 2.1 15 apm 1.1 Top X
X 1.2 Top X
1.3 Bottom X
X X
1.4 Bottom X
X 1.5 Bottom X
1.6 Bottom X
X
- 1. 7 Bottom X
1.8 Center X
X X
1.9 Center X
X 1.10 Center X
1.11 Bottom X
X X
- Test vessel was preheated to 160 F for all tests except 1.11.
Test 1.11 was performed with 120 F preheat.
j
O O
O TABLE 3-2 Water Fog Test Matrix
- Hydrogen Hydrogen Flow (1bm/ min)
Steam Flow (lbm/ min)
Fog Nozzle Pressure (psi)
Test #
v/o 0.035 0.105 2.1 20 30 2.1 5.0 2.2 7.5 2.3 10.7 2.4 10.7 X
- 2. 5 10.7 X
2.6 7.5 X
1 l
2.7 7.5 X
l 2.8 X
X 2.9 X
X X
j 2.10**
X X
2.11 X
X 2.12 X
X 2.13 X
X X
- Test vessel was preheated to 160*F for all tests.
Ignitor located near the bottom.
- Vessel mixing fan was operating.
O Section 4 Test Results 4.1 DEFLAGRATION CHARACTERISTICS Based primarily on pressure and flame front detector data, two distinct types of deflagrations occurred.
These deflagrations were termed " discrete" and
" intermittent". A " discrete" deflagration was characterized by a rapid pressure and temperature rise.
The duration of the burn appeared to be dependent on the fraction of the vessel volume that could support a propagating hydrogen flame.
By comparison, an " intermittent" deflagration appeared as repeated burns accompanied by much slower and lower pressure / temperature rises.
Observed deflagrations were further categorized as " major" or " minor". A " major" deflagration, whether discrete or intermittent, occurred throughout the test vessel.
A " minor" deflagration, on the other hand, was localized in nature.
Pressure and temperature histories typical of a major-discrete deflagration are presented in Figure 4-14.
" CENTERLINE T1" and " CENTERLINE T4" are centerline thermocouples located near the top and bottom of the test vessel.
" VESSEL PRESSURE 2" is a strain gauge pressure transducer located in the lower portion of the test vessel. As seen in the figure, the test mixture ignited approxi-mately twenty seconds into the test.
The periodic disturbances in the two temperature traces were caused by the datalogger scanning these channels.
Tre flame front detector output for the same test is presented in Figure 4-15.
The five data channels correspond to the five vertical columns of transducers shown O
I
'O in the inset figure; each channel receiving the output of seven flame detectors.
The size of each step is determined by the combination of detectors that triggered.
A fullscale reading indicates that all seven detectors within a channel have triggered.
Of the channel outputs presented in Figure 4-15, only channel 5 was not reading fullscale.
The flame front detector data indicated that approximately 95% of the flame front detectors triggered.
This, therefore, was classified a " major" and " discrete" deflagration.
Figures 4-5 and 4-6 present temperature, pressure, and flame front detector data typical of major intermittent deflagrations.
The flame front detector data in Figure 4-6 indicate that all channels were triggered, signifying that a major deflagration occurred.
Temperature data in Figure 4-5 shows a sharp, but not extremely large, temperature increase that remained relatively constant for several minutes before starting to slowly decay.
This indicates that intermit-tent deflagrations were occurring.
Note that near the end of this particular test, a major discrete burn occurred.
Minor intermittent burning is demonstrated by the temperature, pressure and flame front detector data presented in Figures 4-21 and 4-22.
Flame front detector data, Figure 4-22, indicate that few flame detectors were triggered during this test.
This characterizes a "ninor" deflagration.
The temperature and pressure data in Figure 4-21 show the small and gradual increases characteristic of intermittent burning.
Figure 4-3 also provides temperature and pressure histories indicating minor intermittent deflagrations.
Note that near the end of this test, several minor discrete deflagrations occurred.
l l
1
O
- 4. 2 INSTRUMENTATION UNCERTAINTY Test data was primarily test vessel pressure / temperature histories and flame front detector output.
Additionally, vessel atmosphere constituents were deter-mined via a gas chromatograph.
To prcperly evaluate the test data, it was necessary to know the errors associated with the instrumentation used.
Sources of error in the thermocouple data were:
thermocouple material and junction uncertainty, thermocouple amplifier error, test facility offset errors due to electrical ground loops, tape recorder input and playback error, analog to digital conversion errors and plotter inaccuracy.
Standard Type K thermo-couple error estimates were 2.2 C from 0 to 278 C and 3/4% above 278 C, ANSI Standard C96.1.
The low temperature range error corresponded to approximately 13* when peak temperatures were around 100 C.
The estimated gain error for each of the three signal amplifiers was 1%.
Errors associated with the analog to digital conversion and plotter inaccuracies were considered negligible.
Therefore, using the root-mean-square method, the total random error for low temperature cases was approximately,
[32 + 12 +12 +12]h = 3.5%
and for high temperature cases,
[(3/4)2 +12 + 12 + 12 ]h = 1. 9*
1 0
I O
Pressure data were obtained from two strain gauge pressure transducers mounted at the top and near the bottom of the vessel.
Although data from the piezoelectric pressure transducers were recorded, tne observed pressure transients i
did not warrant use of the piezoelectric instead of the strain gauge pressure transducers.
Sources of error in the pressure data were:
transducer error, i
f the transducer amplifier error, and the same tape recorder amplifier errors encountered in the thermocouple data.
The manufacturer's estimated error for the transducer was.25% of full range.
This corresponded to 0.5% of the signal resulting from a large AP, i.e., a major deflagration, and 2.5% for a small AP.
Using the root-mean-square method, the total random error for high AP cases sas approximately, i
i
[(h)2 + 12 + 12 + 12]h = 1.8%
1 and for low AP cases,
[2.52 + 12 + 12 + 12]h = 3.0%.
Calibration and test gas chromatograms were analyzed using the peak height method.
Water vapnr corrections were made to convert dry gas sample analyses to actual test vessel conditions.
Uncertainty estimates for the resulting gas constituent volume percentages were based on the repeatability of sample analyses.
Normalized mean peak heights were calculated from the analyses of each test run.
The ratio of the largest O
deviation from the mean to the mean for each test run was used as an estimate i b
O of the gas analysis uncertainty.
The mean estimated uncertainties were approximately 10% for the hydrogen analysis and 20% for the oxygen analysis.
Problems encountered with the gas chromatograph's thermal conductivity detecter were suspected as being a primary cause of scatter in the data.
Discussions with the manufacturer indicated that filament oxidation was hampering performance.
4.3 IGNITOR LOCATION TEST SERIES Tests were conducted by varying the ignitor location in three test environments:
hydrogen injection, hydrogen / steam injection, and hydrogen / steam injection with sprays.
Two additional tests were conducted with the hydrogen flowrate arbitrarily increased by a factor of three.
The final test of this series was conducted with a reduced vessel pre-heat.
A summary of the results obtained from this test series is presented in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
I Figures 4-2, 4-4, and 4-10 provide the pressure histories from ignitor location tests without steam or spray (tests 1.2, 1.5, and 1.10).
At lean hydrogen con-centrations, flame propagation is only upwards.
With this in mind, it was anti-cipated that while localized burning was occurring in the vicinity of the top ignitor, the hydrogen concentration would increase throughout the remainder of the vessel. When the flammability limit for downward propagation was reached, a major discrete deflagration would occur. This appeared to be the sequence of events in test 1.2 with minor intermittent deflagrations beginning at 300 seconds followed by a major discrete deflagration at 580 seconds.
The maximum pressure rise was expected to be smaller for the center ignitor location (test 1.10) than the top location because of the increased vessel volume that would be O
l
-ww--
-m-c
---v
r'%
=
-- > - - - - - - ~
e -
O exposed to upward propagating flames at lean concentrations.
Table 4-1 shows that the pressure rise was lower by approximately a factor of three.
Minor intermittent deflagrations began around 220 seconds and continued throughout the test.
The lowest ignitor location was expected to produce an even milder pressure rise since a substantial portion of the vessel would be exposed to upward propagating flames.
However, as Figure 4-4 shows, that was not the case.
Apparently, the relative locations of the injection port and the lowest ignitor location precluded the ignitor from igniting hydrogen early in the test.
The major discrete deflagration that occurred at 450 seconds indicated that the injection flow apparently bypassed the ignitor until most of the vessel contained a flammable mixture. The resulting deflagration produced a higher pressure rise than that attained by the top ignitor for two apparent reasons:
- 1) The top ignition was preceeded by localized deflagrations; thus reducing the mass of hydrogen within the vessel; 2) Flames propagate slower downward than upward; thus allowing more time for heat transfer.
Figures 4-1, 4-3, and 4-9 show that results from the tests with hydrogen / steam injection (tests 1.1, 1.4, 1.9) were similar to those obtained from the hydrogen injection tests.
It was anticipated that the hydrogen / steam injection tests would yield milder pressure increases.
This was due to steam impeding the combustion process as well as acting as a diluent; thus reducing the flame propagation velocity. This would result in increased heat transfer and decreased temperatures / pressures.
Additionally, adding steam increased the injection velocity from approximately 0.7 ft./sec. to 5.7 ft./sec.
This was believed to increase mixing within the vessel and thus allow deflagraticos to occur at leaner O
O hydrogen concentrations.
Table 4-1 indicates that the peak pressures at the three ignitor locations were reduced with steam added to the injection flow.
The most dramatic change was with the bottom ignitor location.
Apparently, the increased mixing provided by the steam flow allowed the lowest ignitor to function as discussed previously.
The top ignitor provided the largest pressure rise, with the center end bottom ignitors being approximately a factor of three less.
The addition of a water spray was expected to create some amount of turbulence within the vessel that would enhance mixing and allow combustion to occur at leaner hydrogen concentrations.
It was also anticipated that a water spray would act as a dispersed heat sink; thus further reducing temperatures and pressures.
Table 4-1 shows that the addition of water spray, tests 1.3 and 1.8, O
did reduce the maximum pressure.
The bottom ignitor yielded only a very slight pressure rise with no corresponding flame front detector activity.
- However, post-test atmosphere analysis indicated that combustion had occurred.
Thece deflagrations must have been very localized near the ignitor and apparently relied upon spray induced turbulence for a continual supply of lean hydrogen mixtures.
Figure 4-8 shows that the center ignitor provided a series of minor discrete burns.
The pressure rise was slightly higher than obtained from the bottom ignitor.
Test vessel design did not allow a spray test to be conducted with the upper ignitor location.
Two tests were conducted with the hydrogen flowrate arbitrarily increased by a factor of three.
One test was conducted with hydrogen injection, test 1.7, and the se" nd with hydrogen / steam injection, test 1.6.
The bottom ignitor was used O
1 1
hO for both tests. Comparing tests 1.7 with 1.5 and 1.6 with 1.4 shows that the transients were similar to their low flow counterparts, with the exception of ignition occurring earlier in the transient.
In test 1.7, ignition occurred slightly earlier than the 150 second ignition expected from a higher flow rate (see Figure 4.7).
It is possible that the increased injection velocity had a slight effect on mixing within the vessel.
This woula allow an ignitable mixture to reach the ignitcr earlier.
This would also explain the slightly lower pressure rise from test 1.7 since less hydrogen would be present within the vessel at ignition. Note that the high flowrate pressure rise was 85% of the low flowrate prc 3ure rise and that the high flowrate ignition time was 85%
of the anticipated 150 second ignition time. Adding steam to the high hydroger, flowrate, test 1.6, yielded deflagrations similar to the low flowrate counterpart, test 1.4, but a pressure rise essentially identical to that obtained from test
\\
- 1. 7.
Figure 4-5 shows that ignition occurred at approximately 100 seconds, one third of the 300 second ignition time for test 1.4.
The ensuing intermittent deflagrations were mcre severe in test 1.6 because the higher hydrogen flowrate apparently resulted in a higher energy release rate. Why these intermittent deflagrations were not followed by repeated discrete deflagrations as seen in test 1.4 is uncertain.
One possible explanation is that with vessel atn.osphere temperatures in excess of 400 F for over one third the duration of test 1.6, a fraction of the water collected at the tank bottom from vessel pre-heating was vaporized during the intermittent burning.
This could have caused the defla-grations to be very localized, similar to those obtained in test 1.3.
- Thus, hydrogen could have built up in the vessel while the steam was slowly condensing until an ignitable mixture was once again obtained.
The result would be a lull p
in flame front detector activity followed by a major discrete deflagration.
V l
5 j
l Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show such character'stics.
Some credence is lent to this possibility by noting that the post-test water concentration from tast 1.6 was 50% larger than that obtained from test 1.4.
One test was conducted, 1.11, with the vessel pre-heat reduced to 120 F from 160 F.
The results obtained were very similar to those obtained from 1.3, an identical test with a 160 F vessel pre-heat.
A very slight pressure rise occurred with no corresponding flame front detector activity observed.
This indicated that the burn, as in test 1.3, was very localized.
4.4 WATER F0G TEST SERIES Tests were conducted to investigate the effects of a water fog on hydrogen a
combustion.
The fog nozzle, Sprayco Model 2163-7604, created different fog characteristics depending on the pressure drop across the nozzle.
Tests were conducted with two different fogs.
Based on data obtained from Factory Mutual Research Corporation, a 20 psi AP yielded a fog with a number mean droplet diameter of 11u, while a 30 psi aP yielded a number mean droplet diameter of 8p.
Two types of tests were conducted:
quiescent and dynamic.
The dynamic tests were conducted with and without steam.
All tests utilized the bottom ignitor. A summary of the results obtained from this series of test is presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4.
O
O 4.4.1 QUIESCENT TEST SERIES To provide a baseline of information for evaluating the dynamic fog tests, a series of quiescent tests were conducted.
Nominal hydrogen concentrations of 5, 7.5, and 10% were selected. Table 4-4 indicates that the completeness of combustion for those tests without fogs (tests 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) was approximately 30%, 90%, and 99%, respectively. This data agrees reasonably well with published data.
The temperature and pressure histories of these three tests are presented in Figures 4-11, 4-12, and 4-13.
Further tests with 5% hydrogen were not con-I ducted.
Repeating these tests with fogs present, a significant decrease in pressure rise was anticipated. f w to the large surface area present within a fog, the fog was expected to act as a dispersed heat sink; resulting in reduced temperatures and pressuies.
However, as Table 4-3 indicates for the 7.5% hydrogen tests, 2.6 and 2.7, the observed pressure rises were slightly higher.
Table 4-4 shows that the completeness of combustion increased from approximately 90 to greater than 99%. This indicated that these particular fogs acted very much like sprays for lean hydrogen concentrations. The turbulence created by the fog flow l
apparently enhanced the completeness of combustion; thus intressing the pressure rise. The heat sink effect of the fogs was evident from the slightly lower temperatures (compare Figure 4-12 with Figures 4-17 and 4-18). The fogs had no apparent effect on the peal fressure rise in the 10% tests, 2.4 and 2.5.
O 4.4.2 DYNAMIC TEST SERIES Hydrogen injection tests 2.8 and 2.12 were identical to test 1.5 except that fogs were included.
Results from 2.8 and 2.12 indicated only minor intermittent deflagrations (see Figure 4-23).
The observed pressure rise was an order of magnitude lower than that observed in test 1.5.
It would be reasonable to assume that a great deal of the pressure reduction was due to fog flow induced mixing, which allowed a flammable mixture to reach the ignitor earlier.
Note that the effect of adding steam to test 1.5 (test 1.4) was minor intermittent burning early in the transient with a pressure rise of 2.3 psi; the same effect observed in tests 2.8 and 2.12 (see Figure 4-3).
Figure 4-19 shows a pressure history typical of that obtained from hydrogen / steam injection tests with fog present, tests 2.9 and 2.13.
The observed pressure rises were similar to that obtained in test 1.4, hydrogen / steam injection with no spray.
In both cases, with and without fog present, ignition occurred at approximately 300 seconds.
However, in test 1.4 the result was minor intermit-I tent deflagrations eventually becoming minor discrete deflagrations.
Tests 2.9 and 2.13 provided minor discrete burns immediately upon ignition.
As a result, it appears that more hydrogen was consumed in the fog tests than in the non-i fog tests.
This would also appear to indicate that a major contribution from the generation of fog in this test series was to provide uniform mixing within the vessel.
J l
One test was conducted with the hydrogen flowrate arbitrarily increased by a i
factor of three in the presence of a fog, test 2.11.
Figures 4-21 ana 4-22 show s
I O
the pressure history and flame front detector activity obtained from this test.
This test provided an indication of the heat sink effect of a fog as well as its effect as a source of turbulence. Note on Figure 4-21 that ignition occurred approximately 20 seconds into the test, while in test 1.7, an identical test without fog, Figure 4-7 shows that ignition did not occur until 130 seconds into the test.
This difference in ignition time could be accounted for by the mixing created by the fog.
The heat sink effect was apparently demonstrated since the peak temperature of test 2.11 remained around 200 F, while the peak temperature in test 1.7 hovered around 400 F.
In test 2.11, fog produced turbulence apparently prevented a major discrete burn by inducing intermittent deflagrations early, thus precluding the relatively high hydrogen concentrations needed for a major discrete deflagration.
Additionally, the fog acted as a heat sink during the resultant intermittent deflagrations; thus minimizing pressure and temperature increases.
Comparing test 2.11 with test 2.12, an identical test with the lower hydrogen flowrate, the deflagration character-istics were similar with the high flowrate test having an earlier ignition.
Finally, data on the effect of fan induced turbulence was obtained when the mixing fan was accidently actuated prior to test 2.10.
The result was that ignition occurred earlier (see Figure 4-20) than in a similar test without the fan coerating (see Figure 4-23). Other than the ignition time, the results of both tests were relatively similar; minor intermittent deflagrations with very slight pressure rises.
1 O
i O
c TABLE 4-1 i
l Summary of Test Results:
Ignitor Location Test Series i
Max. AP Test #
Test Characteristics Ignitor Location (psi)
Deflagration Characteristics i
1.1 Low l1, steam Top 13 Minor, major intermittent 2
1.2 Low 11 Top 20 Minor intermittent, major discrete 2
j 1.3 Low l1, 3 team, spray Bottom 1
Minor intermittent 2
1.4 Low l1, steam Bottom 4.5 Minor intermittent, minor discrete 2
1.5 Low fl Bottom 28 Major discrete, minor intermittent 2
1.6 liigh H, steam Bottom 24 Major intermittent, major discrete 2
1.7 liigh H Bottom 23.5 Major discrete, minor intermittent 2
1.8 Low l1, steam, sprav Center 2.7 Minor discrete 2
1.9 Low l1, steam Center 4
Minor intermittent 2
1.10 Low H Center 6
Minor intermittent 2
1.11 Same as 1.3, lower preheat Bottom 1
Minor intermittent 1
i l
u
l TABLE 4-2 Test Vessel Atmosphere Constituents:
Ignitor Location Test Series Test #
Post-Test H (v/o)
H 0(v/o) 0 (V/0) 2 2
2 1.1 11.0 17.6 8.9 1.2 2.6 23.8 15.1 1.3 6.5 19.8 6.1 1.4 7.9 21.0
- 5. 7 1.5 2.1 38.2 12.2 1.6 10.9 32.1 6.5 1.7 12.7 37.6 1.7 1.8 7.9 30.1 7.2 1.9 3.6 46.1
- 5. 2 1.10 0.4 36.3 5.7 1.11 3.5 27.8 2.6 O
l O
1 I
!O TABLE 4-3 l
Summary of Test Res'11ts: Water Fog Test Series i
Max. AP l
Test #
Test Characteristics (psi)
Deflagration Characteristics 2.1 Quiescent, 5 v/o H 8
Minor discrete 2
2.2 Quiescent, 7.5 v/o H 36 Major discrete 2
i 2.3 Quiescent, 10.7 v/o H 48 Major discrete 2
1 2.4 Quiescent, 10.7 v/o H, fog 30 47 Major discrete 2
2.5 Quiescent, 10.7 v/o H, fog 20 50 Major discrete 2
2.6 Quiescent, 7.5 v/o H, fog 20 40 Major discrete 2
2.7 Quiescent, 7.5 v/o H, fog 20 39 Major discrete 2
2.8 Dynamic, low H, fog 20 2
Minor intermittent 2
1, 2.9 Dynamic, low H, fog 20, steam 5
Minor discrete 2
2.10 Dynamic, low H, fog 30, fan 1
Minor intermittent 2
i 2.11 Dynamic, high Hz, fog 30 2.9 Minor intermittent
]
2.12 Dynamic, low H, fog 30 1
Minor intermittent 2
i 2.13 Oynamic, low H, steam, fog 30
- 1. 6 Minor discrete 2
i I
!O 4
i
}
l 1
i i
i
+
4
)
f t
4 i
O O
O TABLE 4-4 Test Vessel Atmosphere Constituents: Water Fog Test Series Test #
Pre-Test Post Test il(V/0)
II 0 (v/o) il(V/0)
H 0(v/o) 0 (V/0) 2 2
2 2
2 2.1 4.7 25.6 3.4 33.2 11.5 2.2 7.8 26.1 0.9 43.2 10.0 2.3 10.2 24.9 (0.1 40.4 10.9 2.4 9.7 23.8 (0.1 44.9 8.7 2.5 10.2 25.4 (0.1 40.4 9.2 2.6
- 7. 2 32.9 (0.1 47.6 8.4 2.7
- 7. 6 29.4 (0.1 41.6 11.4 2.8 3.3 30.1 6.8 l
2.9 6.2 45.5 5.1 2.10 2.8 49.2 2.7 2.11 13.5 35.1 (0.1 2.12 (0.1 37.0 9.2 l
l 2.13 3.7 45.4 3.7 l
O O
O i
FIGURE 4-1 1
TEST 1.1 i
I VESSEL PRESSURE 1
_co
^
-50
^
0 A 330 -
d M
4
-40 b
w 4
A 200 -
-30 W
p A
m
^
D i
w
-20 M
,,FI N FFI 3
- 10 m
O
-o O
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 TIME (SEC) i i
(d) 3801VH3dN31 (DISd) 3anSS3ad G
e e
h o,
O, N.
g C
O O
c o
e c
w D
e n
e e
t t
t 9
o I
t I
f f
a
'a
,O e
e
_O
,. O 3
3 e
e
-e
-s O
O
_O
_O e
e e
o
-o
-O O
O O
O
-o
-o O
U c
8W 8b g
nm
-v
, ~.
t (J es ed
}
e5 8
sc L
s F
~
~
c I
O w
-o
-O D
D I.
O I
O
. o,
-oW L
w w
d e
e o
e
-a a
g H
m m
W e
W
~
o z
g
=
a a
-a=
y
~
w y
_8 s
m z
m W
w b,.
U
-o
.e O
O O
O O
O O
O C
O O
C O
O O
O O
O O
O O
CO Q
v N
v n
c2 n
(a) annivaaawal (va.N) aanssaaa o
mNv $NDHi mb p G~[m M Mwd c.
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 2
0 0
0 5
0 1
1 8
4 2
1 1
5 0
0 0
0 0
3 3
l 1
1 i(I b"
0 0
I 0
0 2
2 1
U 1
k 0
0
.0
.0 1
1 1
1 l
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 l
1 i
0 0
i0 0
0 9
\\
~
_ f
]
0 0
0 i0 0
A 10 0
)
)
u.
I C
3 C
0 4
E 0 E 7l 0
4 7S 1
7S E
l
(
(
RT m_1l E
US W
GE E
0 I T 0
M F
0 0 M m
l 6
6 I
I T
T
]
[
0 0
0 0
l 5
l 5
[
T 0
0 0
0 l
4 1
4 W
E 0
R 0
2 0
T 3
U 0
3 S
E S
0 E
N 0
0 R
0 I
2 L
P 2
R L
E 00 E
0 T
1 0
S N
1 S
E 6
E C
ii0 V-
-O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
5 0
5 0
5 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
2 0
7 5
2 0
8 6
4 2
1 1
1 1
Gv WZDHs5gmEyH
^ A$ $
mwZm j.
(a) aanivaaanal (otsa) aanssaaa g
C O
C C
O O
C N
o O
c c
O c
o e
a C3 Y
Q C
'f M
N C
o e
t
?
f O
i 1
9 f
?
I
- O a
a o
e-O
_O
~
u o
o
-e o
O O
O
_O e
e i
I
/
e o
-O
-O J
Q Q
>=
O
-OO g,
-oc e
j m
u nu 4 =.
e
_s W
_gW om n ce.
Q yg
=w v
v i
C c
ge ge s
s O
c
-o
-o C
C O
O
-O o
V W
v e
o e
g s
a g
m W
m e
W Z
-o e
g
_a N
~
n N
a
~
m a
W
-O W
-8 s
m z
m W
W u
o o
O C
O O
O O
o o
e o
o o
O O
O O
C C
o o
O C3 v
N y
n N
O V
(3) aanivasanal (vax) aanssaua
~
l, 1
('
FIliURE 4-5 1EST 1.6 CENTERLINE T2 1000 G
- 1600 g 800 -
v v
W w
Z
-1200 D
600 -
D H
H 400_
- 800 m
N I
h 200-Inpaw Anu[
l
- 400 H
,a!
1
.-.c 0i i
i 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 000 000 TIME (SEC) l VESSEL PRESSURE 1 400
- 60 g
-50 g
a an-Z u)
-40 b
w Z 200-
-30 D
5 u)
- 20 U) b d
100 -
E N-k-30
..--_a: < i;rt
_. _.. ~ _
A 0
-0 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 600 000 TIME (SEC)
O C~)
U m
FIGURE 4-6 FLAftE FRONT ACTIVITY TEST 1.6
!-l/
' 1 ii_ l @l ft
& l W).i.
l.
. @,,... fill!'.L*!
jl li I U l l.
fild'lM!llijft' CIWif1EL 1
~
.L
.. i.
i a
l
- 1.
j..
.l..
_t.
n J.
..L.
..m
.l.
...~.]T,, ').,. l.,l, l.1.l. _ _ _{ 1_
~]
c' rrmuunsw.n y
.x
. i.
l CHAfif1EL 2 2.
c.
lil 1
i
.l.....
L i
y 123si5 a
,,., /t
// g g N f
..! u i
a.
.. l S
m F F F F F 4
i.
.J j.
is a.
p e
sL a
.s All
..a J..:
.'....J...i a.
T..'.-..a 4
a.fl '_'
'"~"'
. 1
- s...p.l'.
.,i
.. t ell
..t..
4..
. l.:
ui e '.1.
- .1)
._._.'._l. _. _. _. _. _. '
t a. 1.... _
a.
,. _._'._,7h,J.-..
- 8. ' 4 ' 6J.....l.
.3l0
,..~!.'
"1 8:s.h..L
. L' fi l1
- 3. '.a b.,y' d.l.... '1.
- s..
j...).'....
..a b ap.
F F F F F
.j 11.
f.
..l..J..!
1
'.'d.
j
- 1. J.
4 8
8 L
-1
.J
.I a.. l _a
- i..
a.
J 4
eg ie 4 ;!..Es..'I 4;,'t..'
..A t
.1
.; l- ~
' h MiM' i 5 l'.
5
.a s.
....L.
~
M
. di.'
.l~
.... i.
H.bJ M
~ WI...
EllA!111EL 3 4
..l !...
. l.
- 1..'
F F F F F
.l.,. 7 4
+
.i 2
a.
i.
/
L.
s
- j. d.l :1.
I!
.j..
>U}
/
s
. g..
- l' i.
d.L:;.
1; 4.
4
- a..h
. ;.L L.. _..
.m. 4.
..i.
F F F F F
_ ~ _.
......,.q.,,
).
_..,),.,_,
7.I....
C
. s...
l
- i. i
.. ).
....f i
I 4.....4..f
.: 1.
r r
r r r
..l_.
j..
CllAfif1EL '1
. mL,,ggjpa rrgij p g iin i,
e
.c I.l:q
..l 9
l 7
a a.
A
. l.. ;
3.
1 J.
a
.g
..i.
(
(
(
(
f 4:
J.4J
. e i 1.
I..
.i....,...l._.s.
6
._J.
.2.
'.A o
l-7-,
. 7.;
,q. g.-
r r a
9r hD I
CllAttilEL 5 l
l 1
i F!T l l l nittv2i:*.2e,tiniaansa, sins,ata
,1 1
lllllllllll lllI l' l I i1 aiii8 aI8
' I I
II ll 1
' i'
O O
O FIGURE 4-7 TEST 1.7 CENTERLINE T2 1000
~
800 -
C v
l' D
600-
-1200 H
D H
y 400-
[
- 800 A
200 -
I21 l
/7AMV,]W
-400 E
h W
hv _, f.,5
___ - - + +
H 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 000 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE 1 gg
_ gg
')~
-50
^
O A 300-Z W
-40 v
A W
% 200 -
- 30 W
D Z
W D
W
-20 W
100 -
1
- 10 A
0 --.__
-o 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 000 TIME (SEC)
--e (DISd) 3HOSS3Hd 8
9 e
c e f
f f
f O
Y
[
l d
_8u h
b) 8 a
=
jr l
i
_O L
o O
P.
_8o 6j e
m e8 ao 1
Rw w
O 3$
SW e
82 O
n-.e b
.s
~
y w
C
~
y,
.D n
(Aww J
e 8
w J
Ex.1
-E 2
C a
C
\\
w
\\
o i
i i
i O
D O
D C
D O
N N
O (VdN) 3HOSS3Hd
....__._..__._m.m Ib i
I (DISd) 3HGSS3'dd 4
I o
c o
I e
{
cJ
-e 4
o t
t i
f
'o i
M
~
I O
- O.
i i
1
.i g
I o
L o,
t l
I o
I O
t a
f
(
i I
6 o
- o, I
c a
o 1
-O U
i e
i 9m O
N 8W e- (n I
1 w
CH v
i O in l
oW
- r. 3
,i
-H l
M c
h Y
i
-o l
f I
I e
i I
-o l
't l
l W
Z 1
o i
-o i
D M
k M
M I
y c
C "h
b i
d i
o W
-o i
w t
MW l
1
-o a
i i
i i
i i
o e
o c
o e
o l
C OJ.
O N
4 OJ i
t I
(VdN) 3HOSS3Hd l
l r
l
.. ~.. -,,. - - -,. -,. - -, - -. - -. -, - -,.-..- -.,..-- - --. -.
--.---.~mwa
--am.
an.."-a--u.anam--maxan-u..a anu._o,_.m-uu uw
.s=u m_aa_p
_sma n_
.na_
u i
a (DISd) 3aflSS3ad i
!O I
i o
e e
~
c e e i
e e
t
- o m
t i
l 1
I e
F o
6J
~
6 O
-9 j
r-o
_o l
O
~
i L
1 c
1 1 -
,,. o i
O l
1, e
-t
-o e
m e
?
l 5
c Q
eb
.h W nm r
l w"
l v
i cc e t
i D (#1 y
Q t
ow n
l Y
~o i
m O
1 o
y c
l j_'
o
-o
~
t i
r Ed L
i o
l
-o l
1
)
M U) i y3 W
e e
-o CJ
}
b
.i
\\
J e
j W
-o~
y}
U)
W i
L
-o i
i i
i i
1 O
C O
C C
C e
l C
M C
N O
N 1
m
-e m
C (van) aanss3aa t
l l
i i
h i
-2
__,_.__,--_-,.__m._____
- m., _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _,,,_. _.,, _ _. _., _ _
O O
O FIGURE 4-11 TEST 2.1 CENTERLINE T4 1000 G
-1600 p 800 -
6 v
W M
Z
-1200 D
600-3D h
400-
-800 A
l CL.
amu 200,
l gi g
m man m am anu m a sammmmmmmmenaamamme s see
-400 g
I I
I I
I g
I H
i g
g 0-0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE I 150 -
- 20 Q 125 -
3 CL.
~
[
$ 100 -
- 15 v
75 -
N d
i,
- 10 m
50-L,'~%
M' T
N L
=
4
_1; u___
- 3. --
3
- 1.
a5 -
g 0-
< -0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00 90 100 TIME (SEC)
FIGURE 4 12 TEST 2.2 CENTERLINE T1 1000-m b
- 1600 b 800 -
g g
D 600-l
- 1200 O
D I-D 5
400-
~ 000 5
Y)
\\ wb' '/kmM k
l y
200-
-400 7
N
-,,is mec = -
f.:1
'h 0=
.v 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
CENTERLINE T4 1000 m
m
- 1600 b 800 -
g g
M
~
bq h
600-ggf,gg 1
- p 03 400-
-800 W
j g
- i. )
y 2 0 0 -]m __ _ - - =,
-400 y
W h
W 0=
H 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE 1
_ gg
^
G
{
-50 M 300 -
M v
-40 kJ Z 20d-
-30 D
'Q
-20 m
g 100 -
(n
- 10 W
A b
0 10 NO NO 40 TIME (SEC)
FIGURE 4-13 TEST 2.3 O
CENTERLINE T2 1000-mb j
b m
-1600 800 -
g
,a g
Z
'D
- 1200 D
600 -
h
D H
H h
400-
'r,% --- 800 N
k2 b
S h'~ 3,ldEI M S dT + T I E f N ll
-400 b
200 -
ELL h
I 0
i 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
CENTERLINE T4 1000 m
m b
-1600 b 800 -
g g
n i
~
h./
600 -
i D
M 400 -
l
- 800 g
W W
L 2
22-
-4%
[.n.y, hr,.,., c.y rd o" v l n
,)
L1Tii' i u W
I.
e b
y o
H 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE 2 g
_gg m
m s
O
{
-oO Z 300 -
Z
\\
-40 1
v W
% 200 -
-30 9
D 100 -
_)
]
-10 O,
f0 O
to 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
Me -
CIGURE 4-14 TEST 2.4 O
CENTERLINE T1 1000 --
m m
b b
)
-1600 800 -
l g
- 1200 D
600 -
O H
H 400 -
4
-800 fY' W
N
.h 200 -
" -400 b
m t
m
-. =, -
- = m -- -
9 9
0 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
CENTERLINE T4 1000 m
m h
- 1600 b l
B00 ~
bh w
w
{
~
D 600 -
-1200 H
'g Du Z
400 -
- 800 g
200 -
- 400 0
J m
H 0-H 0
l0 NO N0 40 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE 2
_ gg i
m l
0 m
-50 M 300-v
- 40 D.1 ct; 200 -
- 30 D
=
~
(n
~s
-20 H
100 -
N h,
[
e J/
- 10 0
1 0-
~
0
~
O 0
10 20 30 40 TI.'(E (SEC)
)
O FIGURE 4-15 FLAME FRONT ACTIVITY TEST 2.4 llj' I
i i
i!'
f.
-)
)
{
C H A tif1 E L 1 4
e
..j.
i l
~
12345 CHAtit1EL 2 I,.;
~
//i \\\\
f r F r r r 4
la
.I 7
.......a...
F F r F F
I..
g
.a
. 4 p
l; r,-
i CHAfitlEL 3
' l.
~
L
- +
i g
g
.4
...\\
r e r r r 7
. f.
CHAtitJEL fl b5
-i
~
~
F F F F F
i O
I I
pF 1 u:
i l !.i j
x-CHAfitlEL 5
... w.._
l l
i I
.t.
n
FIGURE 4 16 TEST 2.5 O
CENTERLINE T1.
1000 --
m m
b
- 1600 b 800-y g
- 1200 D
600 --
D H
H Y
400-
,If Y
~ 000 m
e 200 -
v%- 400 m
v, w
H H
0_,
0 10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)-
CENTERLINE T4 1000 m
m U
I:
- 1600 v
v 800 -
g g
V)
- 1200 D
600 -
D H
's 400 -
-800 y
l 7
200 -
- 400 7
m y
H H
0 b
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE 2
_ gg n
mO
- s
- 50
$ 300 -
W
- 40 I
v Cz.3
% 200 -
- 30 d
o 5
]
N.s
- 20 m
y 100 -
]
c' j
- 10 O
A
~
~
~
0,
-o 0
10 20 30 40 TI',[E (SEC) r
FIGURE 4-17 TEST 2.6
/'
k CENTERLINE T1 1000 g
v
- 1600 v
800 -
g g
D 600 -
- 1200 D
D D
5 400 -
-800 y
%/\\(k w
s N
b b
200-0,.
x,_
-- a = ;
(IJU,p-400 g
g i
i i
0 10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
CENTERLINE T4 1000 mb m
800 -
- 1600 b g"
g D
600 -
- 1200 D
D 5
400 -
~ 800 5
N W
b 200 -
-400 b
c
-_f y
- + -- f g
H I
0.,
H 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE 2 400-
- 00
^<
O
- 50
'4 300 -
v
- 40 O
I 200 -
[
- 30 o
m a
- 20 d
100 -
m N.,
]
e
- 10 A
0,
[
-0 0
10 20 30 40 O
TruE (SeC) 9
- FIGURE 4-18 TEST 2.7 O
CENTERLINE T1 1000 mb m
-1600 b 800 -
g D
600 -
-1 00 g
H L
400 -
- 800 4.s m
u m
W M
l
V - 4 00 O
p 200 -
b me L
7
..w y
0-H 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
CENTERLINE T4 1000 mo m,.
v
-1600 O 800 -
g g
D 600 -
- 1200 O
H O
u
/,\\
's 400 -
-800
(;
m 4
r 200 -
- 400 0
0
- E 10 0,
H 0
10 20 30
- 40 TIME (SEC)
VESSEL PRESSURE'2
-60 m
m
-50 Z 300 -
v
-40 O
Z 200 -
- 30
'd o
h 100 -
-20
)
w g
C A
~j
- 10 O
7 Os 0,
_o 0
10 20 30 40 TIME (SEC)
a m_.m._hJ.h_n_.s 4
hm.
Mh.wa,#
4--
h6s_.,_
4A-k.G4._
mWs ek 4-m-E AWim.
-.e-..*-.s-_--a_a.a_..
masme_
aw.
=-.m.u,-
aa__
4 I
I (DISd) SanSS3ad Ih b
O c
C i
}
CJ
~
~
D C c
\\
l f
I i
9 C J, tr e
i p'
_C M
O g
b
-3 i
o
_C r
- l O
1 (P
c i
l
-o i
1
-9 i
~
g 3, e C
o,.,
[
q e
- C (n m
o w
3 w
4 c:: H OM 4
4 CW j
- r. =
o= e H l
i 1
1 w
p
=0 4
h 4-E h
i
-5 a
i i
o
?
1
-0 l
1 N
r 4'
W
{
m e
-O 4
- D n
i cn in i
W e
l g
-cc:
C4 J
(
W
-8 en
.l M
W o
i O
D O
C C
e O
C N
O 0-c CJ
~
~
~
(vdN) aanssaua t
.,. -._ _ _ _ _ ____ - - - - -,..- _ _ _- ~ _,,--...- -. -.. _--- _ _ _,-...._. - -.,.-.-. _,_ - - - - - v.
a.-_,---,,n
I FIGURE 4-20 FLAME FRONT ACTIVITY I
TEST 2.10 i
....... J.....
n..m n w.
m mew v.v..
Hi
.,,,vn i!l!
}
H:!r :j
-l
,1l l!-l.
LL M 1
- hlJ-ii!
i t
.n - !-
i t:
r rr 1-lt l
t tt i CHAUltgL.1
~
i
)
,. r.-
k-(
rt.,
'-+,:f4
--~h
'?
m t-' r Pq ;. 1..
.. t
+- F t i-t--
~ $~ -yi
,.,_r
= - 3.:{.@:rr M.. "
g 7.--
-t- ---t rt-~".
,1,2 3 t
-"q -
- -+-,-,,- r
< f -'
- " ~ T i5
- a s,,c _"[ R.
-.~ _ _.
- r
\\
WNW~MR_..
v:
.,,,-* N,g,r n.
3:gr r,. 3.,. ':r_,r.r.~m W _ * *p._-
3..~.
r 7,.:0M..J n.a, N2b..a,n,p#',
..._a, 4
r r
r r r
O.,_
CHANNEL 2
+,_p,_.g 7.,1_
4
,,.. ;.+
....u g.
q
.u 2
u a u 4-4
.+r
. -- - v.. v _-.-. - -r.F..,+. __r+ t._pv,g
_v...__-.
r
..h_
-+ - r r-n- - N- _
r
.-r.r,*_5
+
9 9
y-y f r r r
r r*-- -t -+
rd--
vr- -
r r--
Tr t
i 1
~
.. i n.
- r p
- p
-,, angpg,r :gr,,1.rp.rr:.p-g g:y*7 p., gTH.,.F.&r-"44
,7.
r
,!,!!+>q.*#g,crzrn
_t. !
T
~~--'". 4.. 'F.,q.
r.v,.7rr -Ma T+".,rr_- +.,+a rtr,-i*.M,,'..,i-"-d..
E9" IE6*~ *
*I 2 CHANNEL 3 r
.. ~. ~..- F,.,.
-,_,. 7._
e
.p-,--4-.,-
.t
_-I -**~~
- q..r,e-M_,.,....-I-], "
e'-
y.
,---i,-'--
t 3-e
-t,
- 'r..,r-
~
e j
'.TEfff;I
['T L
-..{
..,.E g r*.m 7 a,x'trc: Ir:tr x[.,}Trd?
.TTI I
! l-4-1-. 7 I
j 7, x.x*.c 22,. 4..a*..o
- tit
- r;.y tuu!.unn tru_ta.,auttu pnhinr - ~7 m "4N",-r.4 CHANNEL 4 e,.T._4_r., py r
r r
r r
.,, r - p..,r y.--
-j T"tro g e, r.
...+._,...+,p.,_.y, p
_ y.t--14,_-t->
,r r
+
..t.m,3 7 +-+- t"-t-t v r e,,, rt,+ rr;;t rt *,+
4 pp
,y
.v.
t...tm,.
3 g.q_
9..
..p
.9 p
..y.
g.4 9.
499 7 77.,.7 y
,.. 79 y 9 21,_ -. _"_.
1 T
~ IL-" f" r
' T Trr t T"-"T1 J,1-+ 1.,',tTTTtT' I i
i m_
r 7'
O, ",rS.I'T ~_1
]'..,.t.M3.-T,_Ff?.TF'l AEIL r
4e.
.., 4 TFELT:
n:ntr.22.;.;rn r:.g 7r
,.'p.41... $r.',I.LT..T,qF".FE
- rEF. F.F.LT..T- *.,+_. 4xr.nr.nzn=tr.1:!:r. :..l,:_.,.
O,
_r.
..aanr: r.rr.:,:
r r
CilANNEL 5
<? r j s.,.,,, T-4,**
Mr? t'T.T f gPP' p;lZ_TI" -
[* L
- vn,4*t-t--
e-,,.,, 1,,
..r v,,.,,..-,,,,...,,, v, r,... r.,c.,
v 4.-., -.
'T p.,-. pt }.t,_r-t r"O E Hy t -I t T -F~ t - * -'rt r- -++ 4 t -t-
- y - t -t-t-t t-r t-e-,-+
tv 3, --
t r,, pr -
t-
< e r
. ;T"t rp' *1r4-' '_I tt-N ;-'-*--- r
--p '"7-r :
T s
.__..m,...._,-.--.m
7 d
a r
(a) 3aniva3aN31 (alsa) 3anss3ad C
O O
O O
O o
O e
O O
O c
O t1 CJ OJ C
t1 L,'
C O
e e
O O
g C
wI
- r!
3,:
O
\\
O
-O
[*, _
-O O
O
- es -
O O
4s
-O
-O y
b y
37 k
S 3
_2 O
k I,
-r Lp-N ~
R.'
m e
8 "
a O Q
]
O(
a ss e-O0 W
,r
-O N
d, -
aw in U
,f
= m v
C W d
fg i
w 3,
O$
k
.D" p
-O-F
-o TrE
'H l
"F r
D-
S s
ac n
n I
N I
- W=
e=
O O
e 4
-O
~
-O e-rt.f CD W
R N
4 O
~
J O
O
-O
-O
~%-
J
~
~
-Q W
w w
en Z.
Cn W
W g
}
,~
O i
i i
i i
i r-r n -
O O
D O
D O
c O
O c
O C
O C
O c.
N O
6 c
N d
O!
O
.N 0
-s
(
\\
(3) 3HD1VH3dK31 (VdN) 3Hass3Md
l
_. -. ~.... -. - -.. -..
l i
l I
h i
i FIGURE 4 22 i
FLAME FRONT ACTIVITY TEST 2.11 i
i i
i i
L L
q
..=.-.._.:
...... =..
t
- [ ~f 123845 i
-1 I
I
- - {/.
CllANNEL 2
~
Ul'
~~~
~ l
~'
kl
- 5th
,'/ ', ' '
i
~
r r
[
i
..g.
4 2
-4 s
t r
r r
r r
.i Pp;'.E......p...Z~p
~
~
~
'L' Try.; g..'I. EJ.' -.E.....
.._I s.
j
.. y.. ' {..
.{
f (.
. 2 4.a.
l 4
4
.}.+ 4 i
r r
r r r I
p y,
.l LilnifitLL J 5
,p
'9 L
- it
- r t
l. _l.
. [..[.
- f... l..[
- g
..r
- E ;
, q
- a r
r r
r r 1
7-CliANNEL 4 L lintunnaisumsensam o i
.==.=. :
. _ c. q...... -._..... ;... :._ z.j. m. y.
3 L
.a.
~.{
'f~
- .E :
r r
r r r O,
~~
CllANNEL 5 r
r 4
i
..l.. -. _
3
..............3 i
J l
k 5
h l
I
O FIGURE 4-23 FLAME FR0tlT ACIIVITY TEST 2.12
.l
_ 4. nn _
_- *....-e-..
., -,...,. n n n, -,.
%[C
-y((
~
~
.'.M.~f.
.l
---,__ b4
'[-
...h ( [
t -e -,hhh }bI%
}.} -jI - r3*d tzstrn =:=
- Dp---
- n ---
12345 h
l --
-te t.,
r.p:ra,.r Tfr CllANNEL 2 ha m.. t4-r r -, e r-15M t r-a Jt#:'**-
E*
uLI:-: fz q.,F;::j: T LpiT'E
~-l=q*t 41 %
'.r:; 11pstj:jM'ta%Tp Fr*hg ii.;4 '.
g.p:xp:p}:
r r
r r
r iq3,-A.,21]gq: ]
- g_
.rpphq;'.._
r p-
-4 r.
p"' 3:n= ~*$r i:p.1.*pinH3 t:3~ 3~:,x>33~n.
- 33u-_==i-._. x
- - = r,i.nirn 3; pff1976: 7. g.,.,, g,, gggf.,gg-y;;=
gg g.g CilANNEL 3 gg
.Sqx:T::
3jjgx:::::: += 11T 91FFlx r r r r T i aqqrppp
_1
._ _. + :
~
- -+...
- T
. _. g_ :-
T =:r 7 7 : :~
g p-et~:t ~,a r
-_ga.fy:7 c _'- -
- q. :::n.g~ 4 22:
(
xd
'~M,5 '+ =J-T '"t~
l
- Tr
~ :: -
- ==
r r r
r r rn r
nirir
._.'.._...-..g,.
- J
" r"
m
'.":p~"f qT,n
_. :.. +tt:j fj:p{-
{ipf... q ;T:.J:.. T.. '.';; j i; f) J 'f,.q.p jM,".,....
- td:f..j.:t:
CilANNEL 4 t
7 a.
7, r.1
.t.,__
.,_ _,...,,.y
.q.,,.7.,.
.g.. 3 g. 7 7.
.., _r g{
7-y, 7.. p
.j..q.
9..
r y
y y y
-t- -'7
' T;qJ:ry;_p7
- p ;,, 7pqy,q 7typ
_; ; 7_; ;7;p:, E
_'g),
~2-1 ~' ~ ~"T,E ~"=~ #:a-':
'1 TI:]'I:
tr$t.'rr':I -6~ ~'3#..dx~
~ ' - '
~ ~ ' - '
' ~
I%
'~
2qmT
.T
~'
3 CllANNEL 5 r
'l ~tbI t.
,...,.,7. $f.t.1:
4
- 2. ;g
.,d pn,c.,,t: 7T.U_. Lt,.j$pI':jm. ;,:-T..$
- .i,
- . 1,, T 71i T
'I 4
t
[-)
_,_g,
,, m; _n-31
- a p-, r-, -- -- 1..,... r
-r
- g..,.
,7, j m-
O Section 5 Conclusions
)
1.
Location of an ignitor within the test vessel does affect the characteristics of hydrogen deflagrations.
Lowering the ignitor location produces milder pressures during hydrogen combustion.
This appears to be a result of
{
increasing the fraction of the vessel volume exposed to upward propagating flames in lean hydrogen concentrations.
The addition of steam and water sprays also reduced the pressure rise.
However, the lower ignitor locations still produced milder pressures than the top location.
2.
Fogs were thought to reduce the pressure rise resulting from hydrogen combustion.
This was the case for dynamic tests, but not for quiescent s
tests. Water fogs apparently enhance the rate of combustion.
Thus, heat transfer is not as significant in quiescent tests causing the deflagration to be more like an adiabatic deflagration.
For dynamic tests, water fogs promote mixing and allow ignition to occur earlier, resulting in lower energy release rates.
l t
i i
I i
.n,-
,, - - - - -,.,, - -. -, -, - ~ - -.,
_----,_,w.
4 APPENDIX A 4
Gas Chromatography Analysis Test vessel samples were obtained through nonheated % inch stainless steel probes located near the top and bottom of the vessel (See Figure 2-1.).
Each probe was connected to the inlet of a Thomas diaphrag.n pump.
Vessel isolation was provided by solenoid valves.
A inch stainless steel line conn 6cted the discharge of each pump to a stainless steel condenser coil submerged in an ice bath.
Tarred silica gel columns we,'e located at the outlet of the condenser coil to remove any remaining moisture.
inch stainless steel tubing carried the sample from the silica gel columns, through a dry gas meter, and into a 250 O
t mil glass bulb.
Thermocouples monitored the inlet and outlet pressures of the gas meter.
Solenoid valves isolated the sample bulb. When the sample was j
collected, the : ample lines were purged.
i Sample analysis was conducted by using a Carle Model 8700 gas chromatograph.
Instrument specifications are presented in Table A-1.
This unit was equipped with a thermal conductivity device.
The output was recorded with a Linear j
Instruments Model 252 dual pin recorder.
All samples and calibration standards
~
were analyzed using repeat injections.
A ten foot by 1/8 inch 0. D. stainless 1
steel column packed with Molecular Seive 13x, 80/100 mesh operating at 195 F, was used to separate the component gases.
The gas chromatograph operating conditions are presented in Table A-2.
Calibration standards consisted of several known concentrations of hydrogen (0.595%, 5.12%,13.19%,18.27%,
I e
,______-~.-------.__--.__.-..---r
.r.-.,-..,
i I
i balance nitrogen) and oxygen (5.0%, 18.1%, balance nitrogen).
These standards l
were analyzed at the beginning and end of each sampling day.
I i
l i
1 I
i 1
i l
4 1
I
\\
l J
i l
)
' O I
i I
t I
i I
t i
i i
l l
J l
1 i
i
\\
I l
O l
l
-. ~.
~:-
TA3LE A-1 GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY SPECIFICATIONS l
Sensitivity Variable, two level detector sensitivity switch Attenuatcr Eleven step binary type,1024 to 1 Detectors Dual chamber, 100 1 volume with 8-10K, 0.013 dia, matched thermistors Power Requirements 115V, 60 fiz Temperature Control Ambient to 200 C O
O I
1 I
O TABLE A-2
(
GAS CHROMAT0 GRAPHY OPERATING CONDIT0NS i
l l
Argon Carrier Gas Flow 20 ml/ min @ 25 psi Oven Temperature 90 C Column 10' 55 tubing with molecular sieve 13x, 80/100 mesh I
Detector Temperature Low Position Attenuation Variable 3
)
I J
1 I
l 1
I i
i i
i l
l 4
L.
l l
li O I
l l
l 1
l APPENDIX 21 i
IGNITOR PERFORMANCE INTERIM PROJECT REPORT M
.-.---...;.-.~.
~ ~. -
. ~..
O CCMBUSTION EEHAVICR STUDY OF GLCW PLUG IGNITOR IN HYDROGEN-AIR-STEAM MIXTUPES I
i f
I i
i INTERIM PROJECT 9.EPORT i
{
Decembe:- 1981 i
1, 4
I
%(b l
t J
}
I
}
Prepared by:
I. K. Shiu, American Electric Power F. G. Hudson, Duke Power Comrany J. J. Wilder Tennessee 7 alley Authority 1
i i
Proje2t conducted by:
t
'4hiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment l
Project Sponsors:
American Electric Power Service Corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
+
[ \\
Duke Power Company
\\ms Electric Power Research Institute l
i Ontario Hydro j
Tennessee Valley Authority
l
...._=--..-:.i....,-----..-~...~...--~-....-.......~-------
1
~
I I,
i I
4 I
i TABLE CF CONTENTS i
l i.0 Introduction j
l 2.0 Experimental Setup I
30 Insertraentation i
l 1
3.1 Pressure Measurements
.i j
3.2 Flame Arrival Detection i
l 33 Chemical Analysis 1
I j
4.0 Experimental Rer,cits I
I 4
)
l 4
1 4
l 4
T l
i i
4 l
k 6
i s
1 1
j I
6 e
e 9
i t
p
~_-
..u.al.a +-
.'d...
.x... u
~... -
...... - - ~. ---
n
-.-a i
t I
m
\\
d 8
1.0 RCDUCTICN IllT g
l Cne of the research efforts undertaken at 'dhiteshell Nuclear Research f
Establishment pertains to investigating the effectiveness of the glow I
plug igniter in a more detailed and comprehensive manner and of other f
potential igniter types. This report prese7ts the GM AC Model 7G pow i
j plug igniter test results observed to date.
"i 2.0 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 1
2 A 17-11tre quasi-spherical vessel with a pressure rating of 600 lb/in
)
(4 MPa) was used in this study. Figure 1 shows schematically the 1
l Vessel and the ccmponents used in these experiments. The vessel has a l
pair of 3 9-in. (100 :ss) diameter viewports on a horizontal axis for i
flame visualization and photograohy.
I i
l There are two 3/4-in. (1.9 cm) pipes welded to one of the convex a
walls. Cne of these is used for gas injection and sampling. A branch l
fece this pipe is connected to a strain gauge (Data Instruments, Incorporated Model 33-101) for measuring the static pressure before and after ignition tests. The other 3/u-inch pipe is not used in
{
these experiments and was capped. The other convex wall has a 600 I
j lb /in2 (4 MPa) safety rupture disk.
+
f s
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the gas supply system. All lines are standard 1/4-in. (6 mm) stainless steel tubing. Steam is provided l
from distilled water in a 100 ml flask heated by a hot water bath.
3 The vessel and gas piping are electrically trace heated to 176-212 ?
1 (80-100 C) to prevent steam condensation inside. Eight I
.-.r.
>L:.....J. - -... 1.. n.
Wh s...
.x.Le....Ji
- .AI.d..
- .
w :.-..
s..
1 l
1 chromel-alumel (type K) thermocouples attached to the outside vessel
{
and pipe surfaces are used to scnitor this temperature.
t 30 INSTRUMENTATICN t
the instrumentation is shown in Figure 1.
Specific components described below are numbered in the figure for clarity.
I i
4 i
An ionisation gap probe (No.1) coated with sodium bicarbonate 1
(NaHCO ) is supp rted by a 1/8 in. (3 mm) steel rod (No. 2) at about 3
l 1.58 in.
(4 cm) below the upper wall for detecting flame ar:ival.
[
The support rod is mounted on the bottom flange.
i a
A similar rod (No. 2A) screwed to a strong magnet (No. 7) is used to support the following: a.010 in. sheathed K-type thermocouple (No.
- 3) to measure gas temperature, an ionisation gap probe (No. 4) to deter-nine ignition and the GM AC M3 del 7G glow plug (No. 5). The ion probe and thermocouple are located approximately.32 in. (8 mm) above the glow plug and at an angle of 45 away fran the central axis. Two type K thermocouples (No. 3A) have been spot welded to the bottom i
surface of the glow plug to deter-nine its temperature history. As seen from Figure 3, this assembly is bound with hign temperature tape I
i and inserted into the vessel suon that the glow plug is horizontal, I.
about.39 in. (1 cm) above the lower edge of the viewport to permit flame photography, t
A small fan (No. 6) with aluminum blades 2.76-in. diameter (70 mm) b mounted on a magnet (No. 7) is available for forced convective flow l
t l
j ex periments. All of the electrical wires (No. 8) pmetrate the flange I
a..
.a..
..',; :a.a. r 1. -; :..
.~1 e.
.. w. ~. d n' w..
- .~.
....1.........
.,......~c..
i i
i 1
l N
via Conax fittings (No. 9). A Kistler 603B1 piezoelectric transducer (No.10) is flush-aounted on the flange to measure the pressure transients. A slow response 1/16" type K thermoccuple 'not shown in figure 1) located near the lower vessel wall level is used to measure initial and final gas temperatures.
Although the two thermocouples, which are spot welded to the bottom surface of the glow plug, are Jimilar, they do show a somewhat different response time, as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
The nigner of
- he two glow plug temperatures is consistently used for glow plug surfesce temperature evaluations.
O The thermocouple for gas temperature is clearly too slow to prcperly V
determine the peak temperature. However it does provide clear indication of ignition. Maximum gas temperature is more reliably obtained from the application of the ideal gas law based on the more accurate pressure measurement of *.no strain gauge pressure tranducers.
3.1 Pressure Measura.ments A Data Instrument, Incorporated, Model 101-25 strain gauge transducer is used to maasure the initial partial pressures and the final pressure. This transducer is connected to a Data Instrument Ndel (RS-100) digital readout system calibrated to cettet thany,.02 lb/in (0.133 kPa).
....-r
...u.
.. - un:..... w-.
da a.
2 w....
. :....::.ni'/.:z. = =?50: wha
.:.a~..
OV Since the strain gauge transducer aill recced up to 25 lb/in absolute (170 kPa), it also serves as added confirmation of pressure history measurement.
For fast pressure transients, a Kistler 603B1 piezoelectric pressure trar.:Jduc er, flush-counted on the flange and connected through a Kistler 504E charge amplifier to the recorder, is used for pressure measurements.
3.2 Flame Arrival Detection The two ic,nisation gap probes, used to detect flame arrival, are connected directly to the recorder. Although in principle they can be used for flame speed determination, the slow recorder speed limited their use to confirming combustion.
i The gap probes are operated at 200V do.
Each probe has a single RC coupling circuit. Since hydrogen flames produce few icns, the prebes are coated with sodium bicarbonate to provide detectable signals.
The central probe tends to pick up 60 H: noise : sore readily than the upper probe as a result of its close location to the 60 Hs power source for the glow plug. However, the ccmbustion wave signals were still strong enough, even for lean mixtures,to determine flame arrival.
6
(.,/
i l
.-......,.--..3._.m....u...~,...s...
.. -.... -.. ~....<- :
m. w... a :. :.
a.x. :u....
2.:s..c.:. ~.....
.. a 1.a:n.~
..a.ms M Oa 1
l 1
i, a
3 3 Chemical Analysis i
Partial pressure data have been used as the principle method in deter : lining initial concentrations due to its reliability and consistency. Also, wnen ava11aDie, the mass spectrometer has been I
used to measure gas concentrations before and after ignition. Like most commercial systems, this device does not measure steam conc entration. Nonetheless, the extent of cmbustion can be readily evaluated by comparing the hydrogen / nitrogen ratios before and after ignition.
f 4.0 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Most tests were performed with quiescent hydrogen-air-steam mixtures using a 147 ac supply to the glow plug. A limited number of tests have also been d7ne with a 171 ac supply and with the fan on.
I k
Typical measurements made in each test are cresented in Figure 6.
i i
ihef include tne two-time traces of the ionimation probes, glow plug i
1 surface temperattare, and the pressure data.
l The extent of reaction can be estimated frem three different i
measurements: (a) mass spectrometry analyses before and after 1
l reaction, (b) static pressure measurements before and after ignition, l
and (c) peak pressure measurements. From the mass spectrometer measurements, the extent of reaction is defined as follows:
f extent of reaction =
(H /N ) initial 2 2 b
=
i a.M
- w. c 2.< a c. =.. JU.* s :. ~-L::% -
~%'
h=
i. a..., a...
J w..
u...~
j 1
i 1
I The estimate of extent of reaction from static pressure is based on the fact that there are two = oles of gas after ccebustion for every three moles of fuel and oxidiser reacted. The following fomula for the extent of reaction can be derived:
i 9(?
/Pfinal) - 1
~ initial extent of reaction H x (D
/Pfinal) 2
' in itial 4
'dhere H is the volume faction of hydrogen prior to ecmbustion.
i Because the differences in pressure are s=all, the calculated results t
J are very sensitive to the measured pressures.
1 i
1 Figure 7 sumart es the results of the experiments. Ignition criterion is defined as detection of flame arrival by the upper j
ionization probe. For marginal ignition, the pressure gd temperature rise were small and often barely recorded. For a pressure rise less j
than 1.8 lb/in (12 kPa) but with a detection of flame arrival by the apper ionization, ignition is defined as marginal. It can be seen l
that the ignition region limit is similar to flamability limit curves.
t I '
Figure 7 depicts the ignition limits of hydrogen air nixtures in
, t i ;
various steam concentrations. Majority of the data points are for i
static mixtures; turbulent mixture tests are still being conducted.
j The range of steam concentratio.1 investigated varies from 0 to about 4
i i
' i t
t
..,..+.......;..-,..-.w---n-c.;j.-.--
- - +.... - -
. 3 a.
.c 1
s..
. u..
L...
.x. ux ~
-..a....w r,..L.a : '..a : 'id %... *n: :i % u u1.'2-2..' %
- =. ' t-
- :.^ O V.
m,:.e7" v
i I
i 60 percent. At about 55-percent steam ecricentration, only marginal ignition was observed for a hydrogen mixture of 20 percent. The initial pressure for these tests was essentially atmospheric, and the 2
maximum pressure observed was about 54.7 lb/in s (372 kPa).
The surface temperature of the ignitor at which ignition occurred was i
recorded for each test. The results are presented in Figure 8.
It is obvious that as the steam concentration increases, so does the I
i ignition surface temperature. The maximum temperature obsweed was i
about 1560 F (850 C).
?reliminary evaluation of the experimental data indicates that results ob tained:
( a) are consistent with glow plug data fecm Fenwal and (b) are consistent with other hydrogen-air-steam mixture data with l
other ignition sources.
J i
/
4 1
i i
s
- ees y.-...
- e-.
o.,
, m y.3 a,
, fs m no..
% a.
a k@
\\x
/
/
/ /
\\\\
i h
t
/3 l
s g-4 i
c' s
~
ELECTRICAL WIRES
~~
iiN I
l v
I THE SCHEMATICS OF THE INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE IGNITION EFFICIENCY TEST USING A GM AC NO. 7 l
GLOW PLUG IN A 17-LITRE VESSEL.
i l' O FIGURE 1
_ - =. _
i r
.!O i
l i
f VESSEL X
i y
?
l X
I l
steam strain X
gauge X
1 sample O
M H 2 mercury h X
air vaccum guage i
X O
i i
vacuum l
pump I
~
G AS SUPPLY SYSTEM l
FIGURE 2
r n
1 t
I Y
O-p, ww. ;. u".n. < ;
. mr e a.a y, a i'{lw,K %...!.a.;. w m. -
a-
<g
... J',. xQ,1.,.',Ia
~
- c. -
.f.y,*.T';.
,v.
. u. 2,
.t
.%.'.: ;3.f. :.
p;., 5,5,
e...
~
.~. 'fi
't
,, !:'a,iJ(;<4@3
, '..,' "if W
cd.h?'s&.
u ut w
' 't 3 mys fl-
\\Ui. -
1 N fthW.3'.f ll
' ~
- 'i n f@o;rP,.70.:. P;il,. -
- e
~&d;si
- %w.,I.i.::p' $.V.-Q:!.l'.fp't Elf.c
\\,.. %WJ..
s
- c "n
AfU.'.'. <t.
5.>t 0,11A"M' 'w a?,Q.K.}qp)>.l*9]4 31;.1%;d.?.Q.::i t& a
.y.,23:. tvrt$
u::...5 g:.
c
' L a p.R:?i % o... n.3 4
g
%gg l 4.;g? pf p y. w g W m,iai! Ngy c
tc g %s ~wa .ydn @xjg C%;j..
JF@%2v t, w t
e.er(l; 3
,a n
W Gv%gy?i a....
C v!j grl:h.,
( x, k
i Ed;., tdghe 'Y, t C.,. <
ggay@h,
~..n
"~fb3i a-.
em.s Ny. a w.
c
\\
\\
- s
, n%,e%v.c...m
,,...wf e
mA
+
n THE GM AC No.7 THERMAL GLOW PLUG EQUlPPED WITH DETECTORS FOR TESTING THE IGNITION EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY.
FIGURE 3
I i
OO
GLOW PLUG RESP 0flSE CURVE CASE #18 AIR OflLY fl0 FAft
_=
-l-
- :.l:
. 4 :-
..p-
._r....
- l":
' ' j :'
r s.._... -
l 1000
.[
~ l..
s..-
' ~
1.
1-I
- i L
. !'.:.;.t:: i:
hanrie1: 3 l.-. _:-
j _
l1-
-I-
-I' i.
..i _.
..l... _..
e.
t--
._-t_
e t.-
.1 t
1' 8
l.
'l...
..g
~.~"*i-B..
.f..
'g.
300 -
__ }, _
.p,??.-
~
t r--
g
- .p..
j--t---
. l'..
i 4
e_...._
i
_.!_H."lt
.. C.ha1nel 5, ?
.i.
.t 14
._.,. t q,t.
..I.._
i,.
t s.,.
.t
{
2
- . l,::.. ;--
1-m L _ ".
.:h:
.a i
- i.
s
. J h
.. j s
..g.-
i;..
j.
.j:::].. 8 g-
,"j
-lF i' ii t :l-p-
~ l---
w A
- s Mi:
"l-
"p. "l'-- r:--
n
.;_..c:: ; -
-t-c r
- .p-I c,
- r.
, -4J j.. l.
..j-
- 1, f
g
. j..
- !c
- l - j..._
q!.
I j:
- .i.
. i.
- ,j..
,s..
t l
l
__.j.- I :.
v/ 4o9, 7_-
t l
.i:
8-u
_ u_
+. -.
.pI
_v. c.
p
.- l:.
..jn :::
..j..
u
.i..
- I::---
' f
-j L
~ !.. l ";
i
- }i I
l'
_d._....
-r I
,: l ;
- .l 4:.,j.:
1..
- 4. "'.:
i ::f.;
p:
8 i
j i.,
i r:
. 9 -
- j;
" y"-
.:. l....
8 8
.i..
.,i.
200 -
u-u
',....l
. d.p.:.... i..- I.n.
r
.4...
j.
.r.. ~- i.
... i.
.. ;..i
- i:
l
-i.
l..,.
.l
.i:
..p.
j..
,.y
.l i.:
..j...._ j.
.' l.
l i-r 4..
.. ).:
- 4..
1 t
3--
10 20 30 40 Time Sec 4
i i
v)
FIGURE 4, -
l l
f 1
l
GLOW PLUG RESP 0flSE CURVE O
CASE #19
' b AIR AllD STEAM NO FAtl i
- l
.4-
"Is f.
?;:
,i' j:
h..
- E-
..'I'
. I '.'
.l-
-":g :-
- .... f..
. l l
- t-j
.. p.'
...t.
i
'[.
- ~
i-j-
- I, F, ' i :-
,-l- _ I
- l'
' l j
l.
.l.
i i
....j'.
... l..'
.. L...
- l'
- f.
1000 l-
-1
,i.
....l...Channel 43 i_ ! c;.
-l i".
i.
i-
_j.. -;-
r
.:l l:
l
..p:
.. j..
8
-l:
.. j...
-:-t-1:
I
._..j :..
1q
.. ;.i. ;..
l.
,j
.:l.
i.
r 1
I '-
. t-
.t-
- i-s ~-
u-y --
y.
... s :
- r' 8
I t.
r:
l
- .- J ' '.-
800 _
.._',!.._ i -.
.. h..
'. r.
' l _-
..i.
g.
l i.
- :j'.
..l.
i i
u
..l 1...
. );.
fl.... /l _.
..[
j.
.. ;...:.l :
p.
G annel,. _ J._g 5-l I.....i.. 1
_i. e......
, c
. _. _, _. _.. p..
o
.p _
i
..l..
I
. l 1
l i
j i
... l..
l
.r....
...i...
..l... l.. ;..:..
w
-I
.. I.:
e-l i
j.
2
..l.
l..
i cr
.F R 600 ---i- - :- i.
l'
~+- -- ~ ' '-b:.'
--t:
T- '
~~!". ~ ~ ~ ' - " ~:~~-"'"'
' - ' ~ '
+
..;. if
..l-
. b.
.:.l.:_
.j _:.
d i !.L-j+- --+' }
.__L j~
- i-[ ;
d I
i
[
...;. _. l.. '.
.. r.
- i
-i-
.I-
.j ;.
.i
=_I_[' :.;_
1.
i.
g
...p..
p y
- 9...
. j..
g 1
400 A
!~
i -._j _
l-
.9..:... '
_.a -
i i
i.
i.
4.-
...i.
.j..
j..
. g..
... g.
_.l..
g.-
. p.,
.. _..l + ].. ;
l,
- p a.
m
. I:
-1:-
f:-
- l
-l-
- l g--
.4-i-
- ....l....g -
i
.....i... :.3
.;. r -
......i....
-.4
..T.
i.
..l
.1-t-
~
l 200 e
l
- )-
H.-.
.i ;
l:
= l j.
t i
..g...
.. g..
.. g... _.,..
j..
. g.-
g-i i..
--r l..-i--------._._-
i 8-
- i-
- lc
- i..
.. i.
. l..
..l.:
- j.;.
i
'i
..l..,
t.:.
i-I r
rr
- .l.
1 L. i~.
l c
6 i
10 20 30 40 Time Sec 4
l FIGURE 5 l
c*
l CENTRAL IONIZATION PROGE l
cn 1
h6 1 tow f i
0 -1 Y
5d M
.i
!!J 8 '
c:
9_
c.
m
~ UPPER IONIZATION PCODE x t-9d I
I; ~,,
%z _ - _ _,
nj s 0 t
E
)
9
-l
, il v
-2!
10 boU
,s wW
- GLOW PLUG SURFACE gh g TEMPERATURE cc m l$
I f
I i
i f
i v 2 ~ STRAIN GAGE O
".2 1
O k
O 0 -- 97.2 hPa (ABSOLUTE) s y
I I
I I
I i
a:
D g
5 PIEZOELECTRIC 4
PRESSURE TRANSDUCER a-3 m
to 2
O l
(
0 27 2G 25 24 23 22 21 i
TIME AFTER TURNING ON THE POWER / SECONDS Q
HCURE 6 OBSERVED TRANSIENTS IN TME IGNITER EFFICIENCY TEST.
A GM AC NO. 7 CLOW PLUG OPERATED AT 14 VAC IN A 12.G%-
HYDROGEN / 20.5%-STEAM UlXTURE IN A 17-LITRE VESSEL.
-e
+
~
a 5o l
l I
l l
LT.o
/7 IGNITED MARGINALLY NO GAS OPERATING O
IGNITED IGNITION CONDITION VOLTAGE e
G O
STATIC 12 VCLTS E
5 O
STATIC 14 VOLTS i
V 7
7 TUREULENT 14 VOLTS to 5
PROPOSED LIMITS FOR STATIC MIXTURES o
a si 15
. PROPOSED LIMITS FOR TURBULENTII, d
MIXTURES
\\
1 i
i 7
E s
j I
's
'Aj 3-
=3 N
/
E 2
O
/
C' 2 7. s e t-l Ch a'I y ?,,,,
a y
,, ay >/
m sr o
a 2
,, M '
Z 5
2a i.
q 8
m Y.0 A
l
'v
'9 ~
~
33 5
5 0
9" 8
3 '
/ 3
2 n
3i.
D o
2.
y
,p.
p
, 32.29 I 5 ty2.
23 V
O I
I I
I O
10 20 3C 40 50 60 STEAM CONCENTRATION (%- BY VOLUME)
FIGLTE 7 THE IGNITION LIMITS OF HYDROGEN / AIR / STEAM MIXTURES
)
USING A GM AC MODEL NO.7 THERMAL GLOW PLUG LOCATED AT THE CENTRE OF A 17-LITRE OUASI-SPHERICAL VESSEL.
O 900
~
1600 a
a o
N Q
s 0
0*^
1500 a
o
+
0 800 y
c
~
a
+
l%o u
P
~
2
~
+
ta a
H
./300 700 -
3 a
h 14V quie scen t x
b o
morginal eomb.
_. (200
~
o with f ans
~
+-
12V 600 10 20 30 40 50 STC A M CONC EN TR ATION, v/o FIGURE 8
O
.m_aJsak--.mn,,AAm mma--x
-a--
-k m
aA. - -
m-_m
-m u-t 4
mg--,
-2u-
-a-A a--a a
,-w--m i
i i
1 APPENDIX 2J COMBUSTION PHENOMENA INTERIM PROJECT REPORT l
1 I
l l
1 i
I t
O l
l k
a-6.
~~-x : = " ~ ----.-
-~
~
i STUDY CF HYtROGEN CCMBUSTION g
NEAR LCWER FLAMMABILITY LIMITS I
INTERIM PROJECT REPORT i
DECEMBER, 1981 l
Prepared by:
I a
i l
K. K. Shiu, American Electric Power l
F. G. Hudson, Duke Power Company
[
i I
J. J. Wilder, Tennessee Valley Authority j
l l
i
'l
(
Project Conducted at:
L Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment Project Sponsors:
}
American Electric Power Service Corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Duke Power Company f
Electric Power Research Institute
. (
Tennessee 7 alley Authority 2
l Ontario Hydro l
l 1
I 1
)
1 i
I J
l i
g I
1 l
I i
i i
f J
r b
}
i i
l
.4
.~.
- _. _ _ - ~., _ _. _ _ _ _.., _ _ _.
a;.
L.
~. _ __
CONTENTS 1.
INTRODUCTION i
1 2.
DESCRIPTION AND INSTRUMENT CION CF S T FACILITY 2.1 Description of Test Facility 2.2 Instrumentation 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 31 Preparation of the Mixt;, ire 32 Sampling 33 Turbulent Combustion Experiments 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Combustio1 at Low Concentrations 4.2 Combustion at Relatively High H Concentrations 2
43 Effect of Turbulence 4.4 Effect of Turbulence with Steam Addition 4.5 Effect of '.fydrogen Concent:ations with Turbulence 4.6 Effect of Steam Addition and Turbulence on Ccabustion with Central Ignition O
4.7 Effect of Ignitor Location 4.8 Temperature Effects on Flammability Limits r
5.
CCNCLUSIONS TABLES AND FIGUEES l
l k
i i
O i
--~
~,
-.~.-..
w w
.g
-J 2,~
- J%
~.. - - - _.
_e--_
I a
i f
(,,,,/
1.
INTRODUCTION s
l This report provides preliminary information en che t
Whiteshell ccmbustion study currently underway at the Contalment Test Tacility at Whitesnell Nuclear Research Establisnment. Included in this repcrt are static and turculent test results obtained for varying pre-mixed hydrogen mixtures. Data on the effects of turbulence are
, j also presented.
l 2.
DESCRIPTION AND INSTRCMENTATION OF THE TEST FACILITY
2.1 DESCRIPTION
OF THE TEST FACILITY t
The test configuraticn consists of two test volumes: a sphere and a pipe which may be interconnected. The I
dimensions of the two vessels are shown in Table 1 For the series of experiments reported here only the Sphere is used, Figure 1.
The pipe / sphere geometry experiments are being conducted at the test facility.
1 The sphere has three largt4 openings and several small ones. The smaller openir.gs are used for mounting instruments and measurement probes. The sphere is j
insulated and trace heated with steam. The temperature of the spherg can be maintained at any desired value up
/}
to about 275 F (135 C).
Steam is injected into the
, (s, -
sphere through one of the pcrts when it is required. A 4
i view of the sphere is shown in Figure 1.
Two fans driven by air motors are mounted diametrically opposite to each other as shown in Figure 2.
Some of the fan characteristics are shown in Table 2.
i 2.2 INSTRUMENTATION i
A schematic of the instrumentation within the sphere is
+
i shown in Figure 3 The transient pressures during combustion were measured by three pie:celectric type
{
transducers with a rise time of 2 microseconds and a f
Rosemount capacitance transducer with a response ttse I
of 0.2 seconds. The piezo-transducers were mounted
}
flush with the inner surface of the flanges. A resistance temperature detector was emplnyed to monitor the steady state temperature of the gases. It was not intended for fast transient measurements.
3 A spark ignition source was used for all the tests performed in this facility. The use of a spark made it easier to instrument these expertsents.
j t.
The passage of the flame front was detected by two seven point ion probes mounted approximately in the f-s radial direction cpposite to each other as shown in f
Figure 3 The departure reem the radial direction was T
6 i
1 i-
.m
..~.
a __
_-an____
_ ~ - *-. _ *.: sm_
l l
2 V[
slight, so for all practical purposes the crientation of the probes can be assumed radial. Each of the seven points consisted of two electrodes of.04 inches (1 mm)
I diameter bare wires separated by.08 ir.ches (2 mm) gap. The ion proces for these experi=ents were l
developed of Liu et. al. and details are preser.ted in l
reference (1).
The signals from the piezoelectric transducers and ion I
probes were processed by an analog to digital convertor with a scan time of 1.5 millisecond per scan. For low hydrogen concentration experiments this was considered j
adequate. A two channel transient recceder was 1
available for any se'ected two channels, if required.
i i
l All the transducer and probe amplifiers were counted as close to the vessel as practically possible in purge i
boxes and explosion proof casing so that the cables connecting the transducers and the amplifiers were not j
excessively long.
i j
The gases in the sphere before and after combus+1on j
were measured using a gas checmatograph employing a Hydrogen Transfer System (HTS). The details of the l
chromatograph, its calibration, and sampling technique are given in reference (2). A schematic of the sampling loop is shown in Figure 4.
s I
3 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE i
i 31 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURE
(
First, the vessel was egacuated to a sufficiently I
low pressure, 0.73 lb/in (5 kPa absolute). Next, j
hydrogen was introduced to the appropriate partial j
press.nc, followed by the introduction of steam and air to their partial pressures. The gases l
were further mixed by turning on the fans for j
about 30 seconds prior to the initiation of any
{
test.
I j
3.2 SAMPLING j
Before any sampling was initiated at least two calibration mixtures were run through the gas i
chromatograph (GC) several times to ensure the i
proper performance of the GC.
Only when the GC l
measurements were repeatable, was the sampling loop activated. The sampling lines run frem the
}
sphere to the control room and are steam trace j
heated all the way to the injection pcrt.
f)\\
L I
i J
t m....-_._,...
..-...~.7-._,.77.--._,..c......
~
w <.s u
.- ~.
- - w w <
- w
- w.L.n w i % h.s The sampling line was thoroughly flusned by the mixture in the sphere for at least 5 minutes to ensure that the sample passing through the GC was the same as that in the sphere. Two samples were normally taken and, if the two GC measurements agreed with each other and also with the amount of hydrogen introduced by the partial pressure method within the limits of accuracy, it was assumed that the consti;uents were in the right amount to carry out the te 5t.
The same procedure was repeated for sampling the combustion products. The products were mixec by turning on the fans before sampling.
Table 3 snows the precision of the gas chromatograph. The accuracy shown represent the upper limits. However, the measurements tended to be much more accurate than what the numbers indic ate.
For example, a calibration mixture with 9.625 hydrogen was measured by the partial pressure method and by the GC within 2 2%.
0 i
33 TURBULENT CCMBUSTION EXPERIMENTS l
In this case the fans were turned on for a short time (* 1 minute) before ignition and were kept operating during the test. Though the fan speed can be varied, the present series of experiments (n) have been done at a constant fan speed of about f
1500 rpm.
F Measurements of the turbulence created by the fan i
have been made in the open atmosphere simulating i
conditions prototypic of those in the sphere. The j
results are shewn in Figure 8.
The turbulent l
intensities, which can be represented by the root mean square of the difference between the local velocity squared and the mean velocity squared, i
indicate the degree of local fluctuations in the j
velocity ccznponents at that particular location.
For instance, at a location ten inches away from the fan in the axial direction and zero inches away from the central axis, the RMS velocity is abcut 9 5 feet per second, whereas at the same axial distance, but at a radial location four I
inches away, the RMS velocity increases to 10.5
{
feet per second, which indicates an increase in j
the degree of turbulence of the second location.
1 I
t
! a
-...,,g.-
- b
m
.u e, __
_ 1~ L =- m. u ar2 ba -~ ~i O-W # '=
0
\\
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 CCMBUSTION AT LOW CCNCENTRATIONS Combustion of hydrogen at low cencentrations of around 55 hydrogen by volume is chwacterized by low burning velocities and a low degree of burn completeness. Cnly about 20% of hydrogen is burned. Figure 5 shows the pressure time history for a 5% H., in air and steam-air mixtures. In In this case, it appears that ccmbustion is dominated by buoyancy effects. The fireball initiated at the bottom moves upward at a speed greater than the burning velocities of the mixture i
and no downward propagation is possible. Thus for low initial hydrogen concentrations only a small
[
fraction is burned. Larger concentrations result i
in correspondingly increased amounts of hydrogen burned and higher peak pressures. Once the fireball reaches the top, it is quenched and the i
pressure in the system decays.
the middle curve of Figure 5 shcws the pressure
[
time history of 5% hydrogen with 155 steam added.
The behavior seems to be.?tnilar to the dry case
(
except that the peak pressure in the system is lower. The extent of conbustion is virtually the j
same and the reduced pressure can be attributed to i
the increased heat capacity of the mixture due to l
the presence of steam. This results in reduced j
flame temperatures and thus in reduced peak j
pressures. The behavior of a 305 steam case is l
similar to '. hat of a 155.
4.2 CCMBUSTION Ar RELAT1*ELY HICH H, CONCENTRATIONS i
The extent of cccibustion at higher hydrogan l
concentrations, arcund 8% by volume, is cheacterised by 100% burning. The pressure peaks are 22ch higher than the 55 tests depicted in Figure 5 as can ce expected. Figure 6 shows I
ccmbustion at 8% H. Addition of 155 steam has not altered the shkpe of the curve very much. The reduction in peak pressure, as explained earlier, I
j is due to increased heat capacity of the mixture l
yielding lower flame temperatures. Combustion in l
both dry and 155 steam case resulted in 100%
1 hydregen consumption.
N l
bO
)
.,.~.-
-...u.
..~
.a
~==.a.-...:.-~
.. - ~..
i l
(p S
The bottom curve of Figure 6 is for 30% steam addition. In this case only about 381 H., was burned and the peak pressure is about 25% that of the fully burned case. Larger quantities of steam I
appear to reduce the burning velocity of the l
mixture by decreasing the flame temperature and increasing the radiation loss from flame to steam.
As the burning velocity is reduced, the combustion is again governed by buoyancy effects and downward i
flame propagation is negligible.
I l
These findings agree with the findings of Liu et l
al (3) that moderate (0-15%) steam additions do j
not affect significantly the degree of combustion for bottom ignition.
'l l
4.3 EFFEC'" CF TURBULENCE 1
j It has been well established that turbulence j
enhances the rate and degree of combustion.
l Recent investigations of Abdel-Gayed et al (4) have shown that turbulence effects are large even yy for hydrogen. Preliminary results from these I
tests appear to confirm their conclusion. This is f
illustrated in Figure 7 by plotting pressure as a function df time for the combustion of 5.5%
hydrogen-air mixture with and without fan. The 1
dashed curve is for the quiescent mixture. The I
degree of burn is only 265, showing the deminance of buoyancy. The correspcading pressure rise is only a small fraction of the calculated adiabatic i
pressure rise. Wnen turbulence is produced by 1
turning on the fans, the rate of ecmbustion is increased drastically and nearly 83% of the t
hydrogen initially present is burned. The peak i
pressure observed is close to the adiabatic pressure expected for 83% burn.
'"he peak pressure measured is 15.2 psi (105 kPa) and the pressure i
calculated for adiabatic burning is 18.6 psi (128 i
}
kPa). The adiabatic pressure rise is 6.1 psi (42 kPa) with 26% burn and the measured is about 3 5 l
psi (24 kPa).
i l
A furt'ler comparison of combustion with and without turbulence is shown in Figure 9 which is t
for 7% hydrogen. Data for both 7% and 81 (figure 9A) hydrogen cases show complete combustion with or without fan turbulence. For bottos ignition seven percent hydrogen with quiescent burning
.g.
- - s.
_ _ >-_=__ _w. maw _ -dim:.d wwk _^
-4h., L a x.
1 O
O appears to be the minimum goncentrgtion for complete combustion at 212 F (100 C).
All other i
concentrations above 7% resur, in complete burning. This value is lower than the 8.5%
hydecgen limit for complete embustion at 86 F (30 C).
Increase in initial temperature results in an apparent shift in the downward propagation limit, thus allowing more complete ccabustion.
Figure 10 is a sumary of several tests with and without turbulence. The mixtures were ir,nited 4
l either at the top or at the bottom as shown.
j For cases with the fan in operation, data j
consistenty revealed more complete comoustion and a noteable increase in combustion peak pressure.
I f
The lowest concentration at which the downward propagation could be achieved in a quiescent i
mixture was observed to be 8.5% hydregen for top ignition.
l 4.4 EFFECT CF TUREULENCE WITH STEAM ADDITION l
{
Figure 11 shows the effect of added steam when j
l turbulence is present. Normally, 30% steam would N
exhibit limiting effects on combustion of the mixture when no turbulence is present (see Figures p
5 and 6).
But as can be seen feca Figure 11, its i
l affect on combustion in the presence of turbulence 1
is minimal. The peak pressure with steam is l
reduced due to the increased heat capacity of the j
mixture.
t l
Steam and turbulence have competing effects en combustion; whereas the addition of steam tends to l
reduce the rate and degree of canoustion, I
turbulence promotes rapid ar.d more complete l
ccmb ustion.
4.5 EFFECT OF HYDROGEN CCNCENTRATIONS WITH TURBULENCE 1
1, As the hydrogen concentration is increased from 5.5% to 8%, canbustion pecgresses from a partially l
burned to a !bily burned situation. The rate of j
ccmbustion also appears to increase with j
conc entration.
i e
,f Figure 12 presents the resulting pressure rise as j
a function of time for various hydrogen j
concentrations with turbulence. It can be noted j
that as the concentration is increased, the time a
i to reach maximum pressure is shortened.
O u,
a I
I
(
. - -..., - _ _.. -, - _..,.,...,..... ~... ~.. _
.,. 3,,y.
...--.._.c,-
~~
y...-_..
~_ _
w :-. __ -
Though most of the results presented here tre for bottom ignition, it is expected that similar arguments hold true for central ignition.
4.6 EFFECT OF STEAM ADDITION AND TURBULDiCE ON COMBUSTICN WITI! CENTRAL IGNITICN Figure 13 shows the relative effects of steam and turbulence on the rate of burning. At 7%
hydrogen in air the pressure rise at first is slow indicating that the fireball is moving upwards.
When it reaches the top, the downward propagation starts and the entire combustion occurs in about 12 seconds. Hydrogen was nearly fully burned.
Addition of 155 steam to such a =1xture almost completely suppressed combustion. The pressure rise was trivial, indicating that only very little hydrogen was burned. Gas chromatography measurements showed that less than 0.5% hydrogen was consumed. The apparent difference in combustion behavior between what is shown on Figure 13 and Figure 5 can be ascribed to principally a hydrogen concentration difference and possibly the difference in igniter location.
The effect of steam disappeared once the fans were yO turned on indicative of the ability to promote combustion by turbulence.
4.7 EFFECT OF IGNITOR LCCATION j
Ignitor location affects the degree and rate of burn significantly in lean quiescent mixtures.
This is illustrated in Figures 14 and 15 Figure i
14 show: the difference between central and bottoa ignition with 8.5% hydrogen at rocm tgmoerature 8
and Figure 15 with 7% hydrogen at 100 C.
It is j
clear from the figures that bottom ignition i
results in faster ccabustion at these I
conc entrations. This is in contrast to combustion l
at hydrogen concentrations in excess of 10% where l
central ignition will exhibit faster ccmbustion i
than bottom ignition due to the diminishing i
effects of buoyancy. For a spherical vessel, with j
central ignition the flame will propegate in all directions over a distance of the radius of the shere; whereas for bottom ignition at 10% hydrogen I
the fla:e will prepogate over twice the distance
}
of the radius.
l l
t l
1 o
mew = r
-e.
==*=a*A ee
- e e et.a.gr.s r=*gre
- MMhP%F% '" ** ' "
* 9 (9 f 888 % F"o * % } N tis _*t> 4 **
%# M '84W #
4 9
4944*
4Nha =
- e
+
~. An
>Ma'hS ~ -A - 3d5a '.
kw1wah., bra X : >~. e.... & c.n m I
I Iq a
4.3 TEMPERATURE EFFECTS CN FLAMMABILITY LIMITS I
l Though the purpose of the present series of experiments has not been one of establishing the j
limits of propagation, it does in a way shed some light on the process that must be taking place.
I Figure 16 shows the combustion peak pressures l
plotted against hydrogen concentration. For l
quiescent mixtures, the pressure rise is abrupt l
above about 8% hydrogen suggesting that the nature I
of flat.2e propagation or combustion has changed.
Agreement between the present data and the data of I
Furno et al (5) is good.
l Figure 17 is similar to Figure 16 except that it is orawn for bottom ignition. Here also tne l
thresnold concentration is around 8% hydrogen.
This can be compared with Figure 10.
The shift to the left of threshold ccncentration at elevated temperature is obvious. A test was conducted to
}
establish if indeed the downward propagation limit has shifted to 7%. A mixture containing 7%
l hydrogen was ignited at the top. The mixture j
failed to ignite even after several attempts under quiescent conditions. However, the mixture could be ignited down to 5.5% wnen fans were turned on.
Using the information provided in references (6)
I and (7) and assuming that the flannabill?.y limit
{
for downward propagation as 95, the value for the downward limit at 100, estimated C 1.s about l
3.5% hydrogen, agreeing with present work. The downward propagation in the sphere experiments, whart ignited at the center or bottom, may not necessarily be related to the propagation limit.
l The propagation under these cceditions may be due l
to some turbulence er circulation currents set up l
by the moving flame.
Figure 18 shows that combustion is possible even at 5.7% when turbulence is present. From these it cculd be inferred that the absolute limit of propagation is the limit for upward propagation.
i l
l 5.
CONCLUS!ONS 6
i The following conclusi5ns can be made from the present l
investigations.
2 i
1.
For small quantities of steam addition, the nature
}
and degree of combustion is not affected very =uch with bottom ignition. Only at higher steam conc entrations, around 30% or above would steam v
l
.i 1
i I. -
.,..,.._2.,,_..__.-___
-..,y l
s..
._/.c-S.;.,_ a E 5. m L w _,a,,;.r...c _.Q w._,
i 1
begin to have significant effects on ecmbustion.
}
2.
Turbulence increases the rate and degree of burn in I
almost all cases.
I 3
Bottom ignition results in the hignest degree of burn and is more effective in establishing a flame even at very low hydrogen concentrations, with or without fans.
l 4.
Central ignition ccanbystion is :nore susceptible to i
the influence of steam in lean mixtures than bottom j
ignition combustion.
1 5.
For low steam concentrations, around 15%, steam effects if any are not significant in the presence of turbulence.
l f
REFERENCES I
1.
Liu, D. D. S. et al, " Development of Instrument for Combustion Studies:
Part I, Test of Ioni::ation Probes for CTF Applications",
t WNRE-512-1, (1981).
y l
2.
Howe, P. T. and Myers, M.
E.,
"On-Line Gas Analysis for the Containment Test Facility", WNRE Report, WNRE-217.
3 Liu, D. D. S. et al, "Canadia'n Hydrogen Combustion Studies Related to Nuclear Reactor Safety Assessment", paper 80-33, Western States
}
Section/The Combustion Institut3, 1980, 1980 Fall Meeting at Los Angeles, Calif, Oct. 20-21 (1980).
4.
Abdel-Gayed, R. G. and Bradley D., Sixteenth bebustion (International) Symposium pp. 1725-1735, (1976).
f 5.
Furno, A. L. et al, "Some Observations of Near Limit Flames", 13th i
Combustion Symposium, pp. 593-599, (1971).
I 6.
Shapiro, 2. M. et al, " Hydrogen Flammability Data and Aoplication to PWR Loss-of-Coolant Accident", Bottis Plant, Pittsburgh, 5
WAPD-SC-545, 1957.
i
.i 7.
Edmundson, H and Heap, M. P., "The Burning Velocity of l
i Hydrogen-Air Flames", Combustion and Flame, 16, 161 (1971).
t t
l l
.f
...-__-..,,,.,.73..,,..-,..,....-...-
.,,=,;...-.
.w-ka a<.ol <.wa., u.n w., w..,
_a n..,,,,,.. n.,
a..,.,.
~~ ~ -------- _ +~ a-.~ _
(
}
IABLE 1 i
C7 7ESSEL OLVENSICNS
}
Sphere Interconnecting Pipe t
i 1
Internal diameter (ft) 7.5 0 95 i
Length (ft) 19.7 f
'dall thickgess (inch) 2.14
.67 7olume (ft )
223 17.7 j
Design pressure (psi) 1450 1450 l
i t
I l
1 e
n iI I
a 1
i h
6'I t
(
l I
i 0
4 h
I 1
- .e.~ ~
.-~a.
.-*-o m m-,
.s...se.n e p,.
..a
,,,..mm
,y__,..._
e
=
.s-
__w__..
_v_-
< _ _ e,au.x;;
_, w.
.,. _ _. _. a._w
__u__.
l i
TABLE 2 FAN DETAILS Air Motor Speed 1850 RPM (Max)
Motor Horse Power 0.22 Fan Tip Diameter 16 inches No. of Blades on the Fan 4
Fan Capacity 1500 CFM at 1100 RPM Continuously Variable speed Motor l
l I
l i
s t
t t
e i
I 4
9
+
)
4 a
1 9
- y
,s.
~, m, e =* w * * *
- y t '<-= ~ -are ~
- s = =
~3[p=~m m = ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
- v e~ - w s~~
ee - me. - - - -
a e m
_ 4., anaGw ~wu ara ~
-m_ _ - - = n ~ :~ + ~G-* *~ "~-" '"'-"'"" "
1 i
i i
TABLE 3 l
4' Cociconent Concentration Range Precision (2M Volume %
Volume %
4 H
0.5 - 2.0 0.2 2
4 1
H 0 - 30 1.2 i
4 2
}
}
O O - 21 1.6 2
j N
70 ~ 90 2*1 2
H0 3-8 0.7 2
i t
i 1
l 8
j E71351.29 i
I 4
f 1,
1 I
1 l
a 1
l l
i i
.j I
l 1
.l 4
I i
t i
1 i
J
-l l.
i 4
s I
4
- r. - -.
---.7,~~~~--,--
. - -.c r.- r--
-~- -- - -
- ---~~
y_ _.
_m 7
A 1
@%p,d>
- J
-A
.,...a x,.. M,
y
~
d
(
,N g I
- 7. j '- j
.gh,.; :!-
a s
h
,,j e.
'5 i.
3 O
O 1 4 * ',,. #
.MI
,i.%i"-
.i~. 3,.
IL U" _
Glij H4 ~ ~4 '
2
,i ;q ~ -e f
- EF
-EM4
. 7,.g' P
c
' Y SA
.:;-g y;
j 1
g i,
-rz r.
- u..,;
w.-
j'.fg.,J.Y
7
,e VIEW OF THE SPH E RE Figur e - 1 i
i l
O l
L, I
i Rear fan elld w-p I I l
t
- l lI I
L'M_t steam port e
eAw p w.
Air motor
[\\ ront f an F
i l
ARRANGEMEN' OF FANS Figure - 2 O
O ho G.C I Ipz1
(
s PZ3
_ stocra
/
/
I P,1 T 8
PZ2 IP2 8
,Ig 8 O
Ig B, lg C Ignitors I P1, l P2 - lon Probes P Z 1, 2,3 - Piezo ele e t ric IP Process Pressure SCHEMATIC OF INSTRU MENTATION Figure -3 O
-m.
-+
. SCHEMATIC OF GAS SAM PLING LOO P
\\
i sphere i
4 i
1 I I tl sampling valves i
Experimental Area
'IE
- : : _"_t i i ll Sampling pump l '
.f g
Control room y
,p
. Air fi l l Vent
. i i
2
- c,_ _ _ j,,,
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ s, _ _ _ g _ _ _ _ m _ _ __ _.aj i,.__ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _.
i i
s i
, i w__
i i i
___________,j t i
- r_ _.
i r - -- - _
i i water Li micro _ valve flowmeter i s i l to W
s i I vont m
l '
ri 1 8
'i s Gas i l Trace heat Catitira tionh I
mixtures m b
Chromatograph
4 lines i
+ t><:
l M
+
Shut off Argon He valves 4
4 4
Figure - 4 l
4
8, l
l 74 liydroDen - 5%
i I
Te m p.
10 0*C Bottom ignition i
co 3
I 20 E
E i
3 g 16 i
[3 dry (< 20 % Burn) 2 isx S t e a m(<20% Burn)
,o l2 o8 -
1 4
30% Steam 0
i 1
i e
i i
0 2
4 6
8 10 Time Af ter Ignit son, sec.
COMBUSTION t4E AR LOWE R LIMIT FOR UPWARD Ft. A MF PROPAG AT ION
"'U~
O O
O f
250 l
Te m p.
_10 0*C 30 200 i
o Bottom ignition l
f Fan of f 3
i
'15 0
/ Air
,^,
Dry H2
'\\
20 O
l
..-~~'
g
/
l n.
o 5
-100
/
\\y\\
3
- I 15 7,5:ea m 4
s.
10 4
3 0 *L S t e a m
'N.
50 N
"%-... N.
..%..~
~
O e
i e
i e
i e
i i
O 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time Atter Ignliion, sec.
EFFECT OF STE Ata ADDITION Figure -6
8, PSI 15 100 h.
I
\\
s 1
H 5. 5 1.
g
\\
Air
_94. 5 %
T e n n p.' _1 G O*C 75 Bottom ignition C
n.
\\
10 I
\\.
a.
3*
en e
e 4
\\
5 50 l
t F a n o n,8 3 */. b u r n O
l c
.O Fa n o f i, 2 6 */. b u rn S
N
~..
.a o 25 -
v g
-~~ ___
\\,
p
/
~~~,~~s.,
m
/
/
'~~._~~~w_
- N...
.\\
y
~~~
/
/
/
/
/
i 0
1 O
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 I8 20 22 Time Af ter Ignition.sec.
EFFECT OF INITI AL TURBULE NCE ON H BURN 2
Figure-7
i 1
i j
]
.I j
4 i
14 i
i Fan speed _1300'R PM t
13
]
1.2 t
i t
9 I
/
I i
t 1)
/
m s
/
s Ain./
/
e
/
i
,/
0 10 8!n.
E o
0.( Rad ia l) s e
-e_
/
I
/
i
,/
y " ".- --6 a
4
,e
- s. ',.. -
)
W 9
s'
,s' l
y..
i 8
12 in.
I W
I 7
2 4
6 8
10 12 Axial Distance From Fan, inch t
i FA N TURBULENCE Figure -8 l
\\
i t
O O
O i.
t 250 p3; H y d ro g e n 7 */,
Mothane _.1 */.
30 Air 9 3 -/.
2M Tomp.
10 0*C
~ Bot tom ignition o
c.
t 2
?
.s150 Fa n-o n
, 20 o
6 n.
o O
k c 100
}
.o
/ an-of f F
i k
o
, 10 E
o U
50 N. N,, N i
- ):
O i
i e
i i
i 0
2 4
6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time Af te r Ignition, sec.
i EFFECT OF IrJITI AL TURDULEf4CE ON COMBUSTION Figure-9
-m
O O
O EFFECT OF FAN TURBULANCE ON H COMBUSTION '
2 njo S Pe cie s cone (vk)
H 8
"[
/
2 m
g js C H, O
"5 II O O
2 3
AIR 92 5
Temp.
100 C l
w g
u Fan o f f
\\
Fan at 1500 RPM
~
m i
~
o
\\
2 O3
-i s
moa
- E ov2 1
i I
i I
0 l
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time After Ignition, sec. (Bottom ignition) i Figure - 9A
o w
w m
c.
o 0
5 a
C) v h
C w
. C.
.O C
G C
~
O.9 c
a C
o.: =
C O e.o
~
.O C
E 3
- c. o c e
E~
a c
a 7
0 O o g
.t H C H m
g m
O O
O an V
c 4 a c
~
c C
Z W
f c-o O
O c:
Z c
O Z-c CIq C.
C'.
o c
c m
C Z
4 4
t' O
s
.c h4 O
s 1
\\ \\.,
~
\\.
\\
N
~
\\N.~
4*
N r
{
N N
4 o
N
g N
r i
o t
c i
3 I
I I
I T
O O
o o
O
~I m
o o
e a
m n
n edMa ajnssa2d Mead uo!;snqwoo
_y
i O
P*
w O
'~
CJ e
I
./
i O
y
~
m E
/
8 E C
/
C G..0 j
- a 9
- b y
Q
/
3 O
o O
/
0 C o
.o.
n.
o c3
/
7 "
i.
E
/
= L 0 o
/
m m
E j
4 E e o a 0 e
/
4 >' c
.o
/
m l
l U
a
/
Z M
M f
w T
M
/
g g
4 I
J y
n
/
O g
O C
/
- .0 6
>=
Q
/
.I
/
= 3 O
/
m.
e,*
/
/
b
/
.o 4
I w
/
4 m
/
/
0 6
y
/
o
/
/
U
/
/
w w
/
/
w
/
/
/
./
/
l l
N I\\
i
- n.
N." %..._
'*%."'~~~~
_'--="*.%
~* *
.o.
-. = -. -... %
I I
I I
I I
I O
O O
O n
o DdX '0JnSS3Jd JG AQ UO!4SnqWO3
=
8 PSI
~
T e mp. _100*C 250 -
8/92 11 # A I' 2
-. - 7/ 9 3 H / Air 2
5.5 / 94.5 H 2/ Air Fan a t 1500 r p m
. 30 Bott m ignition 200 n
A.
ar o
/... ------... %... N. - -
u a
- 150 6
a.
.- '20 oe
/
O c
o
-10 0 l
/
/
.O f
E
/
0
/
. 10 u
f i
/
50 I
/
/
~
/
/
/
8
/
,/
,/
0 O
.2
,.4
.6
.8 1
12 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Time Af ter Ignition, sec.
i EFFECT OF CONC [f1Til ATION AT CONSTANT F A N S PE E D_
Figure - 12
O O
250' PSI 7 7. H2 in Air 7P H + 15 7. S t e a m 2
7'% H3 + 15 7. S t o d m with f an at 1500 R PM 30 200
' C ontral lanition a
A.
.s i
s.a
- 150 f
t '.
n.
l \\
20 6
I
\\
C I
\\
O n
r I
\\
c s
.C 100 - a
's I
N M
s a
l s
o a
s s
E 8
N O
I s
v s
s 10 s
I s 's 50
~
~~~~~~~__~
n s
_j,
~'~~_r__
s i
O i
i e
i i
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
~
Time Af ter Ignition, sec.
\\.
REL ATIVE EFFECTS OF STE AM AND TURBULENCE Figure - 13
O PSI 25 175
/ \\
I s
I g
I s
i i
s 150 I
\\
g I
'\\
20 I
s
+
s I
N s a
I
's a.12 5 f
s a
s,.
s I
g%.
o
]
6
=
I a
15 o l00 d
+
w
/
L g
o
/
O e
~
c 75
/
o
/
10
- r
/
3
. /
A
/
'/
o 50
/
Fryd roge n
_ a. 5 */.
v
,/.
o
/
Temperature 30 C
/'f
_ Con tral Ignition 5
a.
I 25 Bottom ignition 1
I
/
/
/
0
./
0 2
4 6
8 10 12 14 16 Time Af ter Ignition, sec.
l EFFECT OF IGNITION SITE ON COM BU STION Figure - 14
O C
C Lo m
m m
CL i
cn i
k l
o
- n
.u i
$ 0 C) t%
i i
c o
m 2i I
i E
/
>o I >
/
,o
/
/
.a.
t c
/
o j
U W
2
/
o j
c
/
n *o 4
/
V
/
O w
/
j
~
- Q O
g
/
O
_a
~
E
/
2
.o
/
o C
/
E o
m l
- m*
O
/
u tad
\\
w N,
w w
% s
\\
s s s
v i
~
% N N s s
N I
I e
i t
o O
C O
o o
l O
n o
4 m
odM 'eJnssoJd asao uot asnqwo) l
4 i
l j
PSI 40 J
250 l
?
/
2 200 30 4
=
/
e k
o i
.M I
o n.
c.150 i.
u C
20 O
o n
.O i
~
aa100
.D E
ou Fan at 1500 rpm o-l' 10
... Fa n o f f Temp. 30*c 50 -
Contral Ignifica t
o.
e e
e e
a e
a
.8 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 12 14 Jt Y Dit O G E t1 CON CENTR ATION. %
Figure - 16
PSI s
50 300 40 4
1 o
L
.3 00 200 3
0 E'
T o
20 c
.a Te rn pe r a t u re _ 3 0* C 100
{
Bottom ignition u
10 a
i 0
i i
i 4
6 8
10 12 14 HydroDon Concent ratio n, vol. %
i C O PA B U S T IO N OF HYDROGEN NE AR FLAMMABILITY LIMITS Figure - 17
I 0
0 0
S 3
2 1
P 8
1 O
e ru g
i F
4 i
C n
0 o
0 i
1 t
N i
n i
O n
e I
o p
IT l
p n m
N o
a e
G T
F T
I P
e 3
O T
H T
,c I
e W
s n
N i
2 2
2 H
o O
i I
H 4
H T
t O
i n
S
- 4 7
D l
t I
1 8
7 5
R
/
/.
1 r
e M
2 e
O t
f A
C e
T m
N i
T F
l i
i t
B R
l i
T i
i 1
7 u
_ O 0
0 0
0 0
0 5
0 2
5 0
1 1
~ o s: ? c.
0> 0
!.$'Eou 2 Y-a
O a
i APPENDIX 2K HYDR 0 GEN MIXING AND DISTRIBUTION PRELIMINARY PROJECT REPORT O
I..
a -.
t
),)
('
J i
l HYDROCEN MIXING AND DISTRIBUTICN IN CONTAINMENT ATMOSP.4ERES i
i I
1 l
PRELIMINARY PROJECT REPORT DECE.5 ER 1981 l
Prepared by:
1 J. J. Wilder, Tennessee Valley Authority F. G. Hudson, Duke Pcwer Company I
K. K. Shiu, American Electric Power 1
I
{ -
Project Conducted by:
(j Hanford Engineering Developmant Laboratory i
1, Project Sponsors:
I American Electric Power Service Corporation Duke Pcwer Company j
Electric Power Research Institute Tennessee Valley Authority e
i i
l s
l 1
l l
i I
I i
i t
l l
i i
i i
l 1
i i
1 l
TABLE CF CCNTENTS i
1.0 INTRODUCTICN 1
1 2.0 TEST FACILITY i
l j
30 TEST MATRIX I
4.0 TEST RESULTS 1
5.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSICNS i
l l
1 i
1 4
l 1
4 i
4 i
i l
-. ~. _ - _
w-
)
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
4 l
The objective of this program was to measure hydrogen mixing and i
distribution in a simplified scaled light water reactor subcompartment. The test matrix for this program was designed to characterize hydrogen distribution in a typical lower compart. ment
]
region of an ice condenser containment under two different release conditions. The test vessel used for these tests was modified to g
geometrically simulate the icwer compartaent volume and the associated q
flow paths into and out of that region. Hydrogen and steam release rates used.n these tssts were scaled to model a small break loss of
)
coolant event based on analytical studies (MARCH computer code analysis of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant) performed for the NRC by Battelle Columbus.
The test results presented in section 4.0 are based on preliminary results provided by G. R. Bloom and L. D. Muhlestein of the Hanford l
Engienering and Esvelopment Laboratory. This report has been prepared j
by the utilities.
I 2.0 TEST FACILITY The Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory Containment Systems Test Facility (CSTF) houses a carbon steel test vessel 25 feet in O) dia=eter, 67 feet in overall height, which encloses a volume of 30,000 f t). The vessel has standard elliptical disked heads at the top and j
bottom and models a scaled down L*4R containment building with minimal j
interior structures.
Hydrogen mixing in the upper compartment of an ice condenser containment is expected to be very good. Upper containment sprays j
will induce turbulent mixing of the gas and the upper compartment geometry should prevent stratification or stagnant regions in'that i
large open area. This program, therefore, is focused on the lower compartment where hydrogen frem a degraded core event would be expected to be released.
I For the purposes of these tests, geometric similarity was retained j
between the test compartment and the lower compartment of an ice
}
condenser containment. Dimensions of the compartment constructed in l
the CSTF vessel are shown in Figure 8.
By comparison, the ice j
condenser crano wall diameter is 83 feet and the CSTF outsida diameter t
is 25 feet. The height to diameter ratio of the test compar: ment is j
equal to that for the plant. The linear scaling factor between the j
test compartment and the plant compartment is 0 3 lj The high velocity jet nossle shown on Figure 8 was located in one i
l 1
corner of the test compartment directed horizontally 60 degrees away j
from the center of the vessel at a height of approximately 5 feet from
]
the floor. This location was chosen because the majority of the G
reactor coolant system piping in an ice condanser plant is located in the bottom half of the lower compartment. The corner location was e
___.m.m.s._.-.,__..,_.
~
,~ _.._w.-
-w-m.
e I
1
)
chosen to be conservative. The second hydregen release location was pocitioned vertically upward at approximately the 140 degree position on Figure 8 to be geometrically similar to the location of an ice condenser plant's pressure relief tank rupture disk.
3.0 TEST MATRIX
}
31 SCALING As mentioned above, this test program was geometrically modeled to simulate hydrogen releases in the lower compartment of an ice condenser containment. The test I
parameters: hydrogen and steam flow rates, forced air flow f
into and out of the compartment, and release locations and I
sizes, also had to be modeled so that the iesults of these 1
tests could be integrated into the full scale degrxdcd core
]
accident analysis.
I g
Modeling is aaid to be ideal if all dimensionless groups characterizing the event (including geometric scale factors) a i
are identical in the model and the prototype. 'Icuever, in complex models it is often difficult or impossible to select model test parametera so that all diser.clonless groups are f']
identical to those of the prototype. For this reason non-s[/
ideal nodeling is often used. In such non-ideal models, sic 1.11tude for one or more of the dimensionless g-oups is compromised so that experiments can be carried out to i
e"aluate the dominant controlling phenomena.
'4 hen non-ideal j
models are used, it is obviously impcrtant that the dominant j
parameters be identified, and that test conditions be selected to yield parsneters which are essentially the same in the prototype.
HEDL, with the help of their consultant, Dr. Arlin Postma, examined the dominant mixing processes and identified the following four dominant mixing processes in the ice condenser annular volume for the release conditions under
}
consideration; 4i 1.
High speed horizontal jet mixing f
2.
High speed vertical jet mixing
]
1 3
Fan induced recirculating air flow and 1
}
4 Natural convection flows along surfaces j
It was detsreined that in modeling these mixing processes f.
that the following criteria would be met.
f"%
/
i i
/
WJ
.4 i
e' e9d a s e, w e ee mmee tawaygh4*=** **N gr*NN r8*=8* 4*rt-N*99WMeP9 ********;v=***w s* *-
- =,*.y e *= #ym m e *c==
-=9t*'*yN,==%-
b) 4 l
1.
Preserve the similarity of the densimetric Freude numbers. The densimetric Trcude number is the ratio of momentum forces to buoyancy forces.
2.
Preserve geometric similarity.
3 Preserve scaled relative times which is required because of competing mixing processes.
4.
Preserve density ratios of jet to ambient atmosphere.
One other important factor in =od411ng these tests was the substitution of helium for hydrogen.
~he reason for a substitute gas was that safety requirements at Hanford would not allow hydrogen combustion at tnis facility. Helium was selected because it has nearly the same buoyancy in air or nitregen as hydrogen and exhibits similar mixing j
characteristics. The thermal conductivity of helium is near that of hydrogen and the same ther=al-conductivity type concentration monitoring equipment was used for both gases, thus, eliminating the need to reinstrument the test compartment for the one hydrogen test. The hydrogen test was conducted in an oxygen reduced atmosphere to confirm test results using helium as a simulant.
32 Mixing Tests The mixing test matrix is given in Table I.
Hydrogen or helium concentrations, gas velocities and te=perature profiles were measured during simulation of the two hydrogen release scenarios. Mixing and distribution were determined from the concentration, velocity, and temperature profiles.
The four preliminary tests, HM-P1 through HM-P4, were designed to determine the separate and combined effects of natural and forced convection air recirculation. Natural convection air velocities were measured at near ambient and at an elevated containment gas temperature of 150 F.
Forced air recirculation and gas velocity in the compartment were measured in both ambient and elevated temperature Cases.
Mixing tests HM-1 through HM-5 were all simulations of a steam-hydrogen release from a two inch pipe break. Tests HM-1 and HM-2 were cases without the air recirculation normally provided during an accident scenario ter an ice condenser lower containment region. Tests HM-3 and HM-4 were conducted with the modeled air recirculation flows. Tests HM-1 and HM-3 we-t conducted with helium-steam release rates g
arbitrarily set at one half the refererae release rate to (d) determine the effect of reduced jet mixing in the test ecmpartment volume. Mixing test FM-5 was identical to tesc
4.m.N
~
5 HM-4 with the difference that hydrogen was used as the source gas and nitrogen was used as the containment gas.
This test was conducted to determine whether helium was a valid simulant for hydrogen in these tests.
The final two tests HM-6 and HM-7 simulated a vertical hydrogen steam jet release directed upwced from a location geometrically similar to that of a pressure relief tank (PRT). The helium-steam source rates were identical to those of tests HM-3 and HM-4 re:pectively. These flow estes taken from an S D type event were considered representative 2
of the releases from a 2-inch pipe break as will as a rupture of the PRT rupture disk.
4.0 TEST RESULTS TestsHM-P1andHM-P3demonstrategthedifferenceinnatural convection created by ambient (85 F) and elevated gas temperatures (150 F) in the lower compartment. When comparing the effect of natural convection forces in the ambient air test HM-P1 with test HM-P3 the local average air velocity in the lower and upper volume increased by a factor of four when the g
compartment was heated to 150 F.
Tests HM-P2 and HM-P4 were conducted with ambient and elevated gas temperatures respectively n
with the added parameter of scaled forced air recirculation. In
(
h these forced air recirculation tests, ambient air case HM-P2 and elevated air case HM-P4, natural convection effects were the most significant in the bottom of the test compartment. The local air velocities in these two tests were of the same order of magnitude with the elevated temperature case being slightly higher.
i Hanford experienced failure of several of their gas velocity probes in the middle region of the tast compartment on test HM-i P3 They could not repair them in time to keep the tests on schedule so they elected to proceed with the test series.
Hanford felt that sufficient gas velocity information was available from the remaining probes to describe the gas mixing i
process.
l The helium and hydrogen concentrations in these tests were sea;ured by 12 thermal conductivity analyzers. Ten of the l
analyzers were located in the lower compartment and two in the upper compartment. The analyzers required a constant gas flow I
rate of 150 ce per minute. The gas sample was cooled, the l
condensate separated, and the gas dried prior to being injected into the analyzers. The concentrations presented in Figures 1 through 7 have not been corrected for steam and are therefore 3
conservative.
l
?
O i
1,
_...-,.._m.---,.___-m,m.m~._.-.,,r
~.... -,
_. _.. -. - ~,
o
- ~..
.a
. L - - -- b'.5;.,4Mh!.,n.
..s_
- :._ a _
i S
e l
}
There is a modeling time scale of approximately 3 33 to 1 from i
the test to the plant case. Test helium transien*,s will happen j
three times faster in the test compartment; thersfore, one should j
multiply the time scale of Figures 1 through 7 by 3 33 to predict transients in the plant containment.
Helium concentration trtnsients for ten test compartment points I
are presented in Figures 1 through 7 for tests HM-1 through HM-7 l
respectively. During the helium-steam release in tests H51 and j
HM-2, the maximum concentration difference between all j
measurement points in the test compartment was 2 vol % He.
Following the helium-steam release, the test compartment, unlike
)
the plant, developed a vaccum as the steam in the compartment condensed. This reverse migration coupled with the lack of a i
mixing mechanism from either the fans or the jet itself created a
}
concentration difference of 7 vol % He for test HM-2.
This was j
the largest difference observed in any test. Hanford did not j
believe that this portion of the test was in any way prototypic l
)
of the plant. Th1 maximum concentration difference occurred approximately two minutes after the jet release was stopped.
l t
I Mixing tests HM-3 and HW 4 both exhibited good distribution of the helium during and after the source was terminated. The maximum difference in the test compartment at any time was less than 2 percent for both tests.
The hydrogen concentration transients for test dM-5 is presented I
in Figure 5.
The hydrogen release rate was 0.66 lb/ min or about I
27% lower than the modeled release rate of 0.9 lb/ min due to problems with the hydrogen flowmeter. The low hydrogen flow rate j
is not considered serious since the hydrogen concentration data i
l can be normalised for comparison purposes and the jet mixing Froude number for test HS5 was near that calculated for test HM-
}
4.
I The hydrogen concentration transient in Figure S is identical to l
the helium concentration transient reported for test HM-4 if the l
concentration data is normalised. The data was normalized by
}
dividing the concentration at any time by the peak concentration
}
for the test. Comparison of the hydrogen and helium concentration transients demonstrates that the curves are identical in every detail. The agreement between the test e
I results of tests HM-4 and HM-5 demonstrates that helium is a valid simulant for hydrogen.
j During test HW6 the helium flow rate was too high by a factor of two during the ninth minute of a 10 minute release.
Extrapolation of the helium concentration transient prior to the l
inadvertant high helium release rate leads to a prediction of a peak helium concentration of 6%.
J l
I l
~
i I
4
\\,,,h 7
1 Comparing vertical and horizontal helium-steam release tests
]
(HM-6 to EM-3 and EM-7 to RK-4) to each other shows relatively close agreement. The peak helium concentration of test HM-3 was 5.5 volume percent helium and the corrected peak for EM-6 was 6 j
volume percent.
I i
The =aximum observed helium concentration difference between points in the test compartment during the source release was 1.9 volume percent helium during test EM-6 and was 1 3 volume percent helium during test EM-3 Tests HM 4 and HM-7 also had similar helium concentration transients. The peak helium concentration was 10.8 volume percent for both tests. The maximum helium concentration difference between points was 2.8 volume percent helium in tests EM-7 and 1.5 volume percent during test HM-3 The conclusion from these test results is that jet orientation plays an j
observable but minor role in the gas mixing process and the resulting gas concentration transients.
5.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS From the preliminary test results we have der.wn the following
,,_,i conclusions concerning hydrogen mixing:
b, 1.
Helium is a valid simulant for hydrogen in these hydrogen mixing and distribution tests.
2.
The test compartment volume is well mixed with less than 1 volume % concentratio.1 difference between points within 20 minutes after stopping the hydrogen-steam or helium-steam source for all cases.
t 3
In all cases with forced air recirculation, the concentration difference between points was less than 1 volume percent within 5 minutes after stopping the source gas.
4 The air recirculation fans minimize both the peak helium concentration and the maxi =um helium concentration difference between points in the test compartment.
5.
Test compartment volume gas mixing is not strongly dependent on source jet release orientation.
I (J
en map.e **,==
a%
4=
ae e e mee-+
- ee e-
=
=-->w
+
r eaus+e e
T TABLE 1 11, MIXING TEST MATRIX l
i
~
Hectro.
Orientation lie or 11 i
bokN$dmen I
Test Cont.
Flow Source Source Flow Rake hI86" I
Gas Temp (g )
[
No.
Gas _
(CFM)
Gas Gas Jet (Ib/ min)'
(Ib/ min)
F 85 L
l IH-P1 Air 0
I l
IH-P2 Air 3700 85 Iti-P3 Air 0
150 150 IH-Pil Air 3700 i
IH-1 Air 0
lle-Steam florizontal 0.9 27 150 l
l
)
IH-2 Air 0
!!e-steam llorizontal 1.8 54 150 3,-
]
IH-3 Air 3700 lle-steam liorizontal 0.9 27 150 IH li Air 3700 lie-steam florizontal 1.8 54 150
'l lH-5 N
3700 ll -steam llorizontal 0.66 54 150 2
2 IH-6 Air 3700 lie-steam Vertical 0.9 27 150 IM-7 Air 3700 lie-steam vertical 1.8 54 150 4
\\
a 1
l
,---,e-*---wwwrw ym.y=e--
+-ven---,-ce,-w-m-y e w en-w -
7 e-e3r aaw vr v 5 w,-e-m-w e+-
y - i w-e r
--e
= w mm -bve
+w TVe----'-+1 r-+=*
7v-- - * -vi-----r?-- - - -e
+ - - --
-i---e----
~--
e r
6 i
i
\\
vh j
' e O
i i
I a
t (I) t i
m.
r I
P e
i 4
w.
f
^
t
. m 6
6 i
e l
i f
+
y 6
w (E1 s
=y 1
A9.
a m
I E-l C
.1 1
h I
p_
/
I I
y
~
{}
G e
I V
~
if) e m
W Q '" ~
(A-a P
)
C.
3 3-f r--
Q_
\\Il a
i y
> l.;n m
i u
=
\\))
i m
6
- / I 'l
/_
6 b
R l'
L._
- (, I -
L._s e
m i
p.
_s
.R _
/7 T
A t
3
/
4,
~
/ -/.
le!
L u
Y,/
e i
I
~
f n
o L_)
e
,/
y y
1
~
f
%d I
f c
U) i T
- \\
\\
E a
N
=
i
~.
y
^\\m _%
T-
- h...
m i
t,! ~
~
E oi 6
i e
M 1
A D
H i
l
~C '
l c
b=
6,
C"I l
8 6
I I
9 l
t 8
i I
9 9
I f
,e i
1
%d i
)
p.
.T N N
.I
-.-L_
t
d j.-. _.. -
@ _T].O C N7 % W._
_. r _ ___ -
l
4 4
w
(""%)
xj --
\\
j 1
I I
a
.- C)
P f
s
, a 8
i s t
4 i
t i
t c
O N
f 4
I 6
I e
4 f
<o Z
... _ _ _ _ y_
_ _ _. t.-
d g-3 m
J
= a_
m.
a LLl.
{
c
=
r%
r W.
G)
Z.
O-
,=
v_
z s
- ~'
~~
)
(
)
...-.b.
L
=
L c
44 (w/
~
f,i e,d
(
- - - ----a--
L.
.g -
g y e _-
A a
C N
t c
^"
/
y v
i 4-*='='un 3
e*-
e's g
s
>//
m
~'"~':~
/ //
==
7 s
y/
- 2
+
=
y)
___ '~
~
'D x
N d
-~_W e
i w
4 I
\\4-m
(\\j-
{
~
t
'N' M
\\
E l
N.
r---
l
~
l N
e e
a L.
i
=
i O
i t
t i
t t
t 4
6 0
4 4
m W
i g
- ' t.D ~....
' t m
N
~~
Im h
I.
l.
(j
.:. i-
_ WnI.131CIN2OM3E e
h I
e b
l
\\b s
a 4
n
.
W d
N h
b Q
e g
2 m
W-f '.d, C
f_
s to N
i a
i
'i -
r e
I
- w
'N l
Q N
i H
t
'x-A 6
I e
0h g
8 g
0 1
4 f
i a
e a
i 1
l I
l 1
CD 03 -'
C T
N c)
(-)
i HDB3H-tN3DR'5d u
}-_
._._ j
_r 1
l l
m i
t l
[,T i
\\]
l
._..4
_...J i
C m
i I
.J i
t 9
4
+
w i
x e
i y
i C
\\
.e cm i
ay=,
- g
+
x i
i a
N r
W-C i
m
.a
.n
=
w C
o i
u W
z i
em y
=
i i
e 5.
i s
i N
I 7
(~]
5-G ---H ".
5 i
,i y._ ~s 5,~_J.
~
_ m_
a,.,
9 a
I W.
.J.
t_.?.
J c
-m
=
v l
9..__H._q y
11 cn 5
L ll Z
X 2/
/
.o m._
U Y
i b
\\
T A
m C
z u
M
.4 y
d w
a i
_ _ _ __ _4 e
G 4
o b
s
.9 i
i 6
i
._.1 y
C-
..4 W--
.G W
4 W
..- - O..
(q
. __ m.... _ _ _. _. _.-;
y m_
.. _. L
,v,,
...__...._.__.i
_....u____._..:... NO E. Sa _.E.N. ; 0 Lj d
___ p _.. _ _
._..J
.a
}...
_ _.}
.1
. t _.
_....t._..
l
-- p
__g...__
. p.. _.
__7_-___,_..
i u~..
7_..
(
x
,u w
1 r
. _e -
i
_m i
1
- i l
t 6
e i
i 1
0 1
i
'A i i t
I-I i
a 6
?
?
9 g
_w s
-r:
i
- g3 i
m_.
m..
i j
l 6 --
t e
4 i
i s.
i i
I T
i
,b t
i Z-
-Q
- w a
~~
u a
s
' ' _ ' ~ '
ip-8
,.___O_.__ _ _ _ _
lfi i
u_ _
i--
e
. =. _ _
z._
__.._.3.
u
__._.g._
__.. g _
l
[
~
, ~,.
g _. p.f_..__,
w
- . _... a I
-_.t_.. 2 _. -_
o v...
m..
4
_.Q j
at3 p.__
.__._ _ _. h. 1-... {3_
_m.
- g...__
g i
w-9 w
- O ---- -
3 p
fi cn C
j e
o h-i
, s' i
,u H-
_d r
x_
~
xx
,en.
~x e
m I
y M
t
[N
.W
-Q; a
xN
.._. I p
_ _ _ _.. _ _. i l
t t --
.. l'
~
O
. p._ _
+ ___...__ _ _.
u i
g, i
r i
i j
p C. _._.
,__..___.._.e._
.y e --
o
._. y w __ __ _._ _.. g
.__5.._..__t i
-L._..._.
4....
--- :: ' :::N390dGAH: :_LN2003d I
l l
p.
i i
_.. _ _ s
4 r
t i
___f j.y,_
..__.I.
i i
__.t---
N
+,\\
_.-.=.
tm, r
O I
C M
i 8{r r
L...
g
- s. H-G 4
)
i N
i j
1 j
~
i i
i i
I w
- {n s
3 y
~..
w 4
6 r
y j
r--
<:r i
i oc J
l 3
i 6-.
'. l.D l
A,,
a_,. -
s m
m a
o_
_ F-
=
()
l l
.D_,
i
.g_H
,=
s
.H -
u t.
.2 _
(,,.
.._ y. _
e
.y..
.l
,o_
-. _s
_.bJ
.~.
i i
_ __. _. Z ____ _l a
y co
_.... H p
. g _.
,o a
A i
U
. cr)..
=
l e
a t-
~
-3 t
t_
i V/
if i
j w
o y
{.
O e
W E
t.
m_
. ~ ~.
u,
~
,u
\\
y
.x
,+
s l
xx g.. _..
1 N
s
-. N
.. m.
auo i
~
i m
u 1
S
_. _ _- _. g g
e v.
g.._.
_g
.Xr -. ---. _.. - _-._._, Q. u. L I
L.-.----.
q ;.
L...
4
...n_._.
c....._;
u.____......
.w....___........._... i.... _....>._..
..__..t.
-- WOI 13H :.1.N3083d
\\
\\
.s s
_ _ _..{
y __ _..._... f q
\\
bi i
O i
i i
e.n P
\\
L i
i
.t i
i w
l
- N 8
g I
5 i
)*
D s
5
- cn i
y s
1 1
6~~~~1 i
r.
e--
i :.____._ C
- i
..___m..
..._.__r.
1 g.
Z l
- i_n_
..__.y__
tp
___z..._
w-m a
Q
=
._.__._. u.
o e
- ~
._-_g-3 "e
_. _.. y G
g gy
,e rnj H --
. - _ -.,J
-.T_ _. 2
.q i
w
(
=
v
.i
.o-
_ G.J _a a
e t
.{ M.
,j m __ _-
[
w w-
=
-4_
b_
g.__.
au i
Ql i
~-
l e-a a
t
- ,f
.5 M
w S
=
~
0 x -
a.
.L e.
~.
i w
i
-:=
t u
K t
B
-,. m x
.a u
N
~N
_-..g._
_q g
t i
a l
__ _ q
._g w
I I
I
.. g).. __ -
g g
gy g
g i
..I...-
,c^;
N
-m
_ _N. __
t t
_. 7._-
p
~.....
'l, lx--WnI72H :.LN2383d i
Q O
cs
%d TEST COMPARTMEN T SCllEMATIC care biettL gw ANNutAR na
\\
,,o
/
CisMP AHI ME N t
, y.,.d j
/
a,
' 5},' 'jk s
,,s kh ;
t,. 'N '.T,.
,s.
/
d 49 fa p-
-3gpg _ -.. -..-.
't (
m :, '
N W %,k S'
'a =
m.w3.y, y >
,7 j
3#
i c, I.\\ A
. rut r
s DLOWt t.
Y.
' #*s+
,{;, h N
s OfCE
- /,;Q c
w C A44 -
F
. x
~-]
i
~
3 f,;..w s es Clif VtE&tt
,(. ;
i
/
N.s
/
WAIL h, - - - - -
2h f34
't 230*
- ~ M t' '~ *
/
g g ggg,
/
p*.'
Ithi fi',,y; - - 5.
16 >ft COMP Ahl MLN I - f
- [
6*
HLMOVAbit R ADIAL W ALLS
- tr.78 w
' ', f)-[
NO22tJ e3ggg.
- 6thSOR LOCAlf0N SIEEL BAHH81R Figure 8
(")
system.
Selection of the glow plug as the DIS ignition source precludes further study of electromagnetic emissions and their effect on instru-mentation.
(Section 2.3) 4.
Catalytic combustors are an effective means of hydrogen removal.
How-ever, environmental effects of catalyst performance indicate significant support systems would be required to assure combustor performance.
As a result of these demonstrated concerns, further study is precluded.
(Section 2.4) 5.
In order to significantly affect the lower flammability limit of hydro-gen, a micro-fog consisting of relatively large droplets must have a 1
larger density then.) fog with smaller droplets.
(Section 2.5) i
\\
In addition to the results mentioned above, data obtained from the remaining research projects appear to indicate the following:
2 1.
Ignitor location does have an effect on the characteristics of hydrogen deflagrations.
However, the observed results appear to be consistent with existing knowledge on combustion phenomena.
Other tests show that with sufficiently small droplets, a micro-fog does reduce the pressure rise resulting from hydrogen deflagrations.
(Section 2.6).
2.
Operation of glow plug hydrogen ignitors at 14 volts provides sufficent 1
margin for effective operation over a broad range of environmental conditions.
Results generally agree with Shapiro-Moffette flammability 2
/3 V
curve.
(Section 2.7) 6.2-3 Revision 1
3.
Steam and turbulence produce competing effects on hydrogen combustion.
Steam tends to minimize combustion, while turbulence tends to enhance 2
combustion. (Section 2.8) 4.
Due to the inherent characteristics of a discharge jet, combined with the operation of the air return fans, localized accumulations of large 1
hydrogen concentrations will not occur within an ice condenser con-tainment.
(Section 2.9)
In undertaking a project which requires one to work at the edge of known technology without specific guidelines or design requirements, the best conclusion that can be obtained is one in which knowledgeable engineering personnel, applying the best tools available to them, reach what they con-sider to be a reasonabie solution that has a high probability of being Q
4
,V successful. Duke Power considers that such a stage has been reached with regard to protection of the McGuire containment from the effects of nuclear accidents which lie outside the station design basis.
Additional investment in either research or analysis is extremely unlikely to change the hydrogen mitigation system itself or our conclusions concerning its effectiveness.
l l
l O
I 6.2-4 Revision 2 l