Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Vortrag (5) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (5) (entfernen)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (5)
Schlagworte
- Hasard assessment (2)
- Modeling (2)
- Release (2)
- Consequence modelling (1)
- Experimental campaigns (1)
- Gas dispersion (1)
- Hydrogen (1)
- LH2 (1)
- Liquid Hydrogen (1)
- RPT (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (5)
For hazard Assessment purposes we need models to predict what would happen in case of an accident.
The challenge in hazard assessment consists not only in choosing the right model, but beforehand to define the correct scenario .If models can be found for the physical effect to be simulated, the validation of these models is the next challenge.
Even if experimental data can be found it should always be checked, if these data are correct, even if in general experimental data are considered as “failsafe” or “the absolute truth”.
For hazard Assessment purposes we need models to predict what would happen in case of an accident.
The challenge in hazard assessment consists not only in choosing the right model, but beforehand to define the correct scenario. For hydrogen applications the validity of the models has to be checked, as well as the kind of scenario to assume for accidental releases of hydrogen. Open questions on these topics will be adressed and the newly founded competecne centre for Hydrogen Saftey at BAM will be presented.
Experimental investigation of the consequences of release of liquified hydrogen onto and under water
(2022)
Large-scale experiments have been performed to investigate the possible consequences of realistic amounts of liquified hydrogen (LH2) encountering water. The tests were performed at the Test Site Technical Safety of the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) in Horstwalde, Germany.
The experiments aimed at investigating that upon contact with water, the evaporation rate of LH2 can be that high that physical explosions or even rapid phase transitions (RPTs), could occur. RPTs can generate air and underwater blast pressures which could damage adjacent plant or structures (which has been demonstrated when releasing LNG).
The tests were performed in a 10 m x 10 x 1.5 m basin filled with water. LH2 releases with mass flows ranging from approximately 0.25 kg/s to approximately 0.8 kg/s were established releasing directly from a trailer carrying LH2. The LH2 was released through a 46 m long flexible double vacuum insulated transfer line (inner diameter 39 mm). The releases occurred from a height of 50 cm above the water surface pointing downwards, 30 cm under the water surface pointing downwards and 30 cm under the water surface pointing along the water surface. The release system allowed for an initial phase to release flashed LH2 into the air before redirecting the flow towards the water surface for liquid release. A thermocouple inserted near the nozzle is used to indicate the presence of LH2 at the nozzle. The nozzle could be moved up and downwards relative to the water surface and also moved into the water. The release system was purged with helium before starting a release. A mouthpiece at the end of the release line as well as a manually operated valve at the trailer were used to vary the release rate.
The temperature of the water and the air was measured at multiple locations. The temperature of the air was also measured at H2 concentration probe locations. In addition, the temperature in the filling line was measured (1 at the outlet and 1 further down into the filling line). The pressure in the filling line was also measured at 3 locations, one located directly at the outlet. The release rate was determined based on the weight loss rate of the road tanker. To this end the trailer was placed onto load cells. Special blast pressure sensors were used to measure the shock waves generated by the rapid evaporation or other phenomena both in the water and in the air. At several locations the gas concentration development in time was measured. Heat radiation was measured at 3 distances from the point of release. High speed, Infra-Red (IR) cameras and normal cameras were used to record events and to follow the gas cloud behaviour in time. This includes cameras mounted on a drone and an underwater camera. Two weather stations were used to measure wind speed, wind direction, temperature and humidity during all tests performed.
All investigated release configurations resulted in a very chaotic LH2-water mixing zone, causing considerable evaporation and resulting in minor over pressures. The main phenomenon observed was an ignition of the released gas cloud, resulting in significant blast wave overpressures and heat radiation to the surroundings. The ignition occurred in all under-water releases and in about 90 % of the releases above the water surface. The location of the ignition occurred in free air at some distance from the instrumentation and release location.
Hazardous substances with a boiling point close to ambient temperatures will evaporate at higher vapour pressures, so that the evaporation takes places in the smooth transition between the evaporation at boiling point and below boiling point, representing the transition between two different physical phenomena. Whilst the evaporation at boiling point is driven by the available heat flux, the evaporation below boiling point is driven by the concentration gradient between the pool surface and the ambient air. Available evaporation models usually focused on the correct description of the mass transfer coefficient for temperatures below boiling point. A formulation of the correct equation for the mass flow is rarely documented. Whilst the mass transfer coefficient formulation is more or less equivalent in most models, the main difference occurs in the formulation of the mass flow equation. In Fact two types of models can be identified: the models with a linear pressure term and the models with a logarithmic pressure term. Whilst the logarithmic formulations result in an infinite mass flow near boiling point, which is not plausible, the linear formulations reach (different) finite values. Due to a lack of published experimental data it was not possible to determine whether the linear approach is conservative, under predicting or more or less accurate close to the boiling point.
To evaluate the accuracy of each type of formulation, test series on liquid pools have been carried out at BAM for substances like Water, Ethanol, Cyclohexane, and Acetone. The tests were done under ambient conditions with a heatable, 90 cm diameter pool, so that the vapour pressures investigated ranged from 0 to close to 1 bar. The experimental data showed that neither of the linear nor the logarithmic formulation of the evaporation models is able to predict correctly the mass flow close to the boiling point. The logarithmic approach heavily over predicts the mass flow, while the linear approach is not conservative anymore when the vapour pressure exceeds 0.7 bar.