2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.055
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An inter-comparison exercise on CFD model capabilities to simulate hydrogen deflagrations in a tunnel

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The grid model of Case-1 (Table 3) excluding the far field region was used to reduce the computational time because the purpose of this calculation was to only choose the parameters of the spark ignition model that accurately predict the measured TOAs of flame and overpressure buildup due to the flame acceleration in the tent region. The time step size of 1.0 Â 10 À5 s was used for maintaining the CouranteFriedrichseLewy (CFL) [8,26] below approximately 1.2 in this calculation. The EDM constants of A ¼ 10 and B ¼ 0.8 were used for the combustion calculation.…”
Section: Development Of a Spark Ignition Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The grid model of Case-1 (Table 3) excluding the far field region was used to reduce the computational time because the purpose of this calculation was to only choose the parameters of the spark ignition model that accurately predict the measured TOAs of flame and overpressure buildup due to the flame acceleration in the tent region. The time step size of 1.0 Â 10 À5 s was used for maintaining the CouranteFriedrichseLewy (CFL) [8,26] below approximately 1.2 in this calculation. The EDM constants of A ¼ 10 and B ¼ 0.8 were used for the combustion calculation.…”
Section: Development Of a Spark Ignition Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently much focus has been put on explosion of hydrogen, e.g. the tests on deflagrations and detonations of hydrogen in a tunnel model [18] and the following inter-comparison exercise on modelling [5], the numerical work done by Venetsanos et al [19] and Middha and Hansen [20], and the fire exposure test on a composite hydrogen fuel tank in the open by Zalosh and Weyandt [21]. Weerheijm [3] illustrated the possibility of explosion and possible consequences for a large LPG tanker in a tunnel but the tank size is apparently much larger than those in alternative fuel vehicles.…”
Section: Explosion Hazardsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These tankers are much larger in size compared to the fuel tanks of common alternative fuel vehicles. There have also been some experimental tests on deflagrations and detonations in model scale tunnels [4], and the data were later used for an inter-comparison exercise on modelling [5]. However, only several scenarios with hydrogen were investigated.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These statistical indicators were recommended by Chang and Hanna [34] for evaluating air dispersion models. However, they have been used often in different types of scenarios, such as subsonic H 2 jet releases in confined spaces [35], H 2 deflagrations in a tunnel [36], bonfire tests on thermally insulated LPG tanks [37].…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%