NUREG/CR-4138

SAND85-0135

R3

Data Analyses for

Nevada Test Site (NTS)

Premixed Combustion Tests

A. C. Ratzel

May 1985

Sandia National Laboratories

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Operated by

Sandia Corporation

for the

U.S. Department of Energy

Prepared for

Division of Accident Evaluation

and

Division of Engineering Technology

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555

NRC FIN Nos. A1246, A1270
1~,

4
Abstract

* This report provides results from an in-depth analysis of twenty-one of the twentyfour premixed large-scale combustion experiments sponsored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and conducted by EG&G at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These experiments were performed

in a 2048 cubic meter spherical vessel (hydrogen dewar) with mixtures of hydrogen,

steam, and air ignited by glow plugs or heated resistance coils. Hydrogen concentrations

ranged from 5 to 13% (by volume) and steam concentrations from 4 to 40%. Several

tests also incorporated spray systems and/or fans which enhanced the combustion rate

and significantly altered the postcombustion gas cooling.

In this work, data provided by EPRI from. instrumentation designed to characterize the. thermal environment in the dewar during and following combustion have been

evaluated. The data reduction package SMOKE has been used to process data from

thin-film gauges, Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gauges, capacitance calorimeters, gas and wall thermocouples, arid pressure sensors. Local measurements..of the heat

transfer are provided from the calorimetry, and global averages are inferred from the

pressure. Instrumentation "goodness" for each test is assessed based on the raw data

and on comparisons of. local and global results. Graphical and tabular results- are pro-.

vided for. each test, and .trendh observed from the results are reported. This information

should be useful for benchmarking existing computer codes used in modeling~nuclear

containment and associated safety-related equipment response to. degraded-core~accidents and for improving combustion and heat transfer models Currently used in these

-computer Simulations.

.11

Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Experimental Facility and Instrumentation 3

2.1 NTS Dewar ..................... ......... 3

2.2 Analyzed Instrumentation .......................... 8

2.3 'Test Procedures ....... ............ . . ...... . .......... . 18

3 Data Analysis 19

3.1 SMOKE Description ....................................... 19

3.1.1 SMOKE Data Preprocessing ............................ 21

3.1.2 SMOKE.Data Processing .............................. 22

4 Initial Conditions and Combustion Data 31

5 Results 35

5.1 Assessment of Instrumentation Performance ................ 35

5.2 Gas Pressure Results ................ . ..... ............ ..... 47

5.2.1 Comparative Pressure Profiles ..... ..... ................ 47

5.2.2 Peak Gas Pressure Results ............................. 53

5.2.3 Combustion Duration ........ ...... ............... .. 54

5.3 Gas Temperature Results ...... . .. . . . . ............... . . 54

5.4 Wall Temperature Results . ................................. 55

5.5 Heat Transfer Results . . . ................ ....

5.5.1 Results from Calorimetry ....... ............. .......... 57

5.5.2 Results Inferred from Pressure Measurements ............... 62

5.5.3 Comparison of Local and Global Heat Transfer .. ..... 65

6 Summary - Closing Remarks 69

7 References 72

A Tabular Results for Premixed Combustion Tests 75

B Comparative Graphical Results 87

B.1 Comparative Results from Standard Tests .... ........ .. .... 87

B.2 Comparative Results from Steam-laden Tests .... . . .... ........ 97

B.3 Comparative Results from Tests with Sprays-on .................. 107

C Graphical Results for Each Premixed Combustion Test 115

V
,f
List of Figures

1 Hydrogen dewar located attest cell C, Nevada Test Site ..... ....... 4

2 Mechanical schematic of the EPRI/EG&G Nevada Test Facility...... 5

3 Igniter types and locations in the NTS dewar .6... ............... 6

4 Data acquisition and control at the dewar (taken from Reference [21) 7

5 Coordinate system used to define instrumentation locations in the de(war 11

6 Schematic of pressure instrumentation locations in the dewar ........ 11

7 Schematic of thermocouple instrumentation locations in the dewar . . . 12

8 Schematic of heat flux instrumentation locations in the dewar ....... 12

9 Schematic of instrumentation and equipment placements on the equipment platform ......................................... 14

10 Post-test photograph of the thin-film gauges used at NTS . ..... . . ... 16

11 Schematic of SMOKE operation ........................... 20

12 Comparison of data for pressure sensor P102 (test NTSP16) before and

after using the rational-function fit .......................... 23

13 Comparison of data for total slug calorimeter H104 (test NTSP16) before

and after smoothing using the Hanning filter option ............... 23

14 Schematic of pressure data processing when steam condensation is unimportant ........................................... .... 25

15 Typical heat flux record for Schmidt-Boelter gauge1 H503 (test NTSP16) 29

16 Combustion completeness for NTS premixed combustion tests ........ 32

17 "Marginal" pressure signals for-sensor P102. . ... ......... . .... 36

18 Comparative pressure sensor responses for Sandia (P105) and EPRI

(P101, P102, P103) gauges . . . ........................ 38

19 Comparative wall thermocouple response for test NTSP16 . ....... 40

20 Total thin-film temperature rise histories during different tests . ...... 41

21 Measured temperatures for slug calorimeter H104 for .tests NTSP15 (A)

and NTSP16 () ....... ..... ..... . . . . ............... . 42

22 Computed surface heat fluxes for slug calorimeter H1104 for tests NTSP15

(A) and NTSP16 (B) ..................................... 42

23 Photograph of brass flat-plate calorimeter, taken after testing ...... .. 44

24 Temperature profiles for the three thermocouples inside the aluminum

cube, measured from test NTSP16 . . ........... ..... ....... .. 44

25 Comparison of Schmidt-Boelter gauges H502 and H504 for test NTSP16 46

26 Comparison of pressure profiles, for tests NTSP09 and NTSP9P ........ 48

27 Comparative pressure profiles for three 6% (nominal) hydrogen combustion tests having different, ignition sites and with fans operative ........ 50

28 Comparative pressure profiles for three 6% (nominal) hydrogen combustion tests having different ignition sites and with spray systems operative 50

29 Comparative pressure profiles for three 8% (nominal) hydrogen combustion tests having different precombustion steam concentrations . . . . . 51

vii
30 Comparative pressure profiles for three 6% (nominal) hydrogen combustion tests showing the effects of sprays and fans ............ ...... 52

31 Comparative pressure profiles for two 13% (nominal) hydrogen combustion tests with and without sprays and fans ........................ 52

32 Peak pressure ratios for the. NTS premixed combustion tests ........ 53

33 Peak gas temperature ratios for the NTS premixed combustion tests 56

34 Comparisons of 3-mil thermocouple responses for tests NTSP20 (A) and

NTSP21 (B) .............. .............................. 56

35 Local and global total peak heat flux comparisons from the NTS premixed combustion tests ........... ........................... 66

36 Local and global total energy deposition comparisons from the standard

and steam-laden NTS premixed combustion tests ..... ............. 68

37 Local total energy deposition results from the sprays-on NTS premixed

combustion tests ........... ............................. ... 68

Figures in Appendix B

B.A Gas pressure profiles for standard tests ......................... ... 87

B.2 Peak pressure ratios for standard tests . . ................. 88

B.3 Combustion duration inferred from pressure results (standard tests) . . 88

B.4 Gas thermocouple profiles for standard tests.. ................... 89

B.5 Dewar wall thermocouple profiles for standard tests ................. 90

B.6 Heat transfer profiles from H232 for standard tests .......... ....... .91

B.7 Heat transfer profiles from H503 (standard tests) ................ 92

B.8 Total heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (standard tests). 93

B.9 Radiative heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (standard tests). 94

B.10 Total heat transfer results from standard tests ...... .............. 95

B.11 Heat transfer results inferred from pressure sensors (standard tests) 96

IB.12 Gas pressure profiles for steam-laden tests ...... ................. 97

B.13 Peak pressure ratios for steam-laden tests ................. ....... 98

B.14 Combustion duration inferred from pressure results (steam-laden tests). 98

B.15 Gas thermocouple profiles for steam-laden tests ...... .............. 99

B.16 Dewar wall thermocouple profiles for steam-laden tests. .. ............. 100

B.17 Heat transfer profiles from H232 for steam-laden tests .............. 101

B.18 Heat transfer profiles from H503 and H106 (steam-laden tests) ...... .102

B.19 Total heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (steam-laden tests)... 103

B.20 Radiative heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (steam-laden tests) 104

viii
B.21

B.22

B.23

B.24

B.25

B.26

B.27

B.28

B.29

B.30

Total heat transfer results from steam-laden tests. . . . . .. .. . ...

Heat transfer results inferred from pressure sensors (steam-laden tests)

Gas pressure profiles for tests with sprays-on............ .......

Peak pressure ratios for tests with sprays-n ....... . .... . ......

Combustion duration inferred from pressure results (sprays-on tests)

Gas thermocouple profiles for sprays-on tests ...................

Dewar wall thermocouple profiles for sprays-on tests........... ...

Heat transfer profiles from H232 for tests with sprays-on ..........

Heat transfer profiles from H503 (sprays-on) .... ........

Total heat transfer results from tests with sprays-on..........

105

106

107

108

..-108

* 109

110

111

112

113

Figures in Appendix C

C.1

C.2

C.3

C.4

-Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSPO1

Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP01 ...

Gas pressure and gas and wall.temperatures for test NTSP9P

Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP9P . . .

C.5 Gas pressure and ga!i and wall temperatures for test NTSP09 . . .

C.6 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP09 .......

C.7 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for-test NTSPOO

C.8 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSPOO ........

C.9 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP04 ...

C.10 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP04 .... . .

C.11 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP13 .

C.12 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP13.......

C.13 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP15 . . .

C.14 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test.NTSP15 .......

C.15 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP07 . . .

C.16 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP07 . ......

C.17 Gas pressure and'gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP03 .

C.18 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP03 .......

C.19 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP06 . . .

C.20 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP06 .......

C.21 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP12 . . .

C.22 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP12 .......

C.23 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP14 . . .

C.24 Heat flux-and energy deposition results for test NTSP14.......

C.25 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP05 .

C.26 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP05 . . . . . .

• .. 116

... . 117

. . . 118

119

• . . 120

.. . 121

. . . 122

.. . 123

124

. .. 125

. . . 126

. .. 127

. . . 128

S. . 129

. . . 130

.. . 131

132

.. . 133

. . . 134

.... 135

.... 136

. .. 137

.. . 138

. . . 139

... 140

141

ix
C.27 Gas pressure and. gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP16......

C.28 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP16............

'C.29 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP08........

C.30 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP08..........

C.31 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP20......

C.32 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP20.. ......

C.33 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP22......

C.34 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP22..

C.35 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP11........

C.36 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test'NTSP11. . . .... ...

C.37 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP02. ....

C.38 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP02...........

C.39 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP18 ........

C.40 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP18 .............

C.41 Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP21

C.42 Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP21..........

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156,

157

a

X
List of Tables

1 Instrumentation, for Quantifying the Thermal Environment ...... . . 8

2 Evaluated Instrumentation from NTS Tests . ........... .10

3 Location and Orientation of Schmidt-Boelter Gauges ............. 14

4 SMOKE Data Processing Computer Codes ...................... 22

5 Initial Conditions for Premixed Combustion Tests ................. 33

6 Combustion Parameters for Premixed Tests 34

7 Local Peak Radiative and Total Heat Flux Ratios ....... ....... 58

8 Peak Radiative and Total Heat Flux Ratios Inferred from the Pressure . 63

9 Radiative and Total Energy Deposition Ratios Inferred from the Pressure 64

Tables in Appendix A

A.1 Instrumentation Status- During Hydrogen Behavior Test Series...... 76

A.2 Pressure and Thermocouple Instrumentation Status During Equipment

Survival Test Series ................... ............... 77

A.3 Calorimetry Instrumentation Status During Equipment Survival Test

Series ..... ..... . ... ... . .. ......... . .... .......... 78

A.4 Peak Gas Pressure and TemperatureResults ................... 79

A.5 Combustion Duration Results . . . . ......... .............. 80

A.6 Gas Thermocouple Results . .................. 81

A.7 Peak Heat Flux Results Inferred from Pressure Signals . ........ . 82

A.8 Peak Total Heat Flux Results from SNLA Gauges and from Wall Thermocouples ........ .... ............ ..... ... .. . .. . 83

A.9 Peak Heat Flux Results from Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter Gauges 84

A.10 Postcombustion Global Energy Deposition Inferred from Pressure Signals . ................................................ 85

A.11 Total-Energy Deposition Results from Calorimetry ................. 86

.xi

Acknowledgements

This work was performed in support of the Hydrogen Burn Survival and Hydrogen

Behavior Programs at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. J. Haugh of

EPRI and J. E. Shepherd of Sandia provided technical and background data on the

testing procedures and on the instrumentation used in the NTS experiments. J. E.

Shepherd, S. N. Kempka, and A. W. Reed were involved in the development of the

SMOKE data analysis package.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the following persons who reviewed

the original draft of this document and who provided constructive changes and suggestions which have been incorporated in this work.

J. C. Cummings - SNLA

J. T. Hitchcock - SNLA

D. W. Larson - SNLA

B. W.:Marshall Jr. - SNLA

J. E. Shepherd - SNLA

C. C. Wong - SNLA

W. S. Farmer - NRC

K. I. Parczewski -NRC

C. G. Tinkler - NRC

P. Worthington - NRC

J. Haugh - EPRI

Xliii

Nomenclature`

Symbols

A

Cv

F,

P

q

Q

.R

t

At

T

T1/2

V

X

Greek

.Oag

aw.

p

a.

T

Subscripts

.all

AIC

C

-C

g

m

mp.

of f

ref

R

RU

qT

T

T1/ 2

w

Dewar surface area

Gas specific. heat at constant volume

Correction factor for sapphire (Eq.(3))

Gas pressure

Heat flux

Energy deposition

Gas constant

Time

Time interval

Temperature

Temperaturelthreshold (T, + To))/2

Dewar volume

Depth into dewar wall

[m2]

[J/kg-K]

[kPa]

[W/cm 2 ]

[J/cm2]

[kPa-m3 /kg-K]

Is]

[s]

[K]

(K]

[me] •

Im2/s]

[kg/im 3]

[W/m 2 -.K 4 ]

Gas absorptance

Dewar wall thermal diffusivity

Emittance

Gas density

Stefan-Boltzmann constant

Transmittance

Pertaining to the entire test

Pertaining to adiabatic isochoric combustion

Sapphire cover

Convective component

Gas

Maximum condition

Pertaining to time interval between time of peak

pressure and time of the measured maximum

Baseline value

Pertaining to peak pressure

Reference condition

Radiative component.

Uncorrected radiative component

.Pertaining to time of pressure-inferred peak total flux

Total

Pertaining to the temperature threshold

Dewar wall

Initial precombustion condition

xv

Executive Summary

This report provides results from an in-depth analysis of twenty-one of the twentyfour premixed combustion experiments sponsored by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and conducted

by EG&G at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These tests were performed to study combustion processes in a large-scale vessel and to evaluate associated safety-related equipment

response to the resulting thermal environments. The experiments were performed in a

2048 cubic meter spherical vessel"(hydrogen dewar) with mixtures of hydrogen, steam,

and air ignited by glow plugs or heated resistance coils. Hydrogen concentrations

ranged from 5 to 13% (by volume) and steam Concentrations from 4 to 40%. Several

tests also incorporated spray systems and/or fans which enhanced the.combustion rate

and significantly altered the postcombustion gas cooling. .Additional tests (to be reported elsewhere) addressed the effects. of. localized combustion from diffusion flames

which were generated by, ignition of streams of steam-hydrogen mixtures injected into

the dewar.

In this work, data provided by EPRI from instrumentation associated with estimating:the thermal environment in the dewar during and following combustion have been

evaluated. Data from the representative- safety-related equipment. installed in the' dewar to assess equipment ýsurvi-'al issues have not been~reviewed. Further, this work has

been restricted to the analysis of only those data records which were provided to Sandia on computer tapes. The data reduction package SMOKE has been used to process

data from thin-film gauges and capacitance calorimeters (Sandia supplied), Gardon

and Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gauges (EPRI. supplied), gas and wall thermocouples

(EPRI supplied), and pressure sensors (Sandia and EPRI supplied). Local estimates

of the heat transfer are obtained from the calorimetry, and global averages are .inferred

from the pressure. Instrumentation "gocodness" for each test-has been assessed based

6n reviews of the raw data and on comparisons of local and global results.

Graphical and tabular results are provided for each test, and 'trends observed from

the results are reported. Overall conclusions about the the instrumentation and associated performance are as follows:

" Pressure signals from the different sensors'are reasonably consistent and can

be used to provide global estimates of postcombustion total and. radiative heat'

transfer.

" Global estimates of the gas temperature inferred from the gas pressure compare

well with measured temperatures from the 3-mil thermocouples. Results from the

32-mil thermocouples do not follow the early transients associated with combustion but they do agree well with the 3-mil data and pressure-inferred temperatures

for the late-time cool-down period.

xvii
* Early-time total heat flux. results from Sandia-supplied thin-film gauges and. capacitance calorimeters are generally comparable with the EPRI-supplied total

calorimetry for the lean (< 8%) hydrogen concentrations. The total calorimetry results deviate significantly for those, experiments (at higher concentrations)

conducted near the end of testing. The global estimates of total heat transfer

rate from the pressure are typically less than the local measurements for lean

combustion and higher for precombustion concentrations above 10% hydrogen

... (by volume). Results obtained from most of the calorimetry for the severe combustion tests are suspect, due. to deterioration of the gauges' (resulting from the

cumulative testing) and/or insufficient cooling.

* Total energy deposition results from the EPRI-supplied calorimetry are generally

consistent with the global results inferred-from the pressure data. The thinfilm energy deposition results are. typically 30-50% lower than either the-global

pressure-inferred or local. results obtained from EPRI calorimetry.

* Sandia-su'plied calorimetry for estimation of the local radiative heat transfer

were inoperable for most of the,:testing,. and data from EPRI-supplied radiative

calorimetry could not be reduced given uncertainties in the. calibration and the

correction terms to account for the sapphire cover plates. For postcombustion

times, global estimates of radiative heat transfer inferred from the pressure appear

to be -:30-50% of the total heat transfer inferred from the pressure for the, lean

combustion tests... For initial hydrogen concentrations > 8%, the radiative transfer

dominates the early postcombustion cooling mechanism in the absence of sprays,

especially. for tests with large initial steam: concentrations.

The information provided: in this report should be useful for benchmarking exist-

.ing computer codes. used in modeling nuclear containment response to degraded-core

accidents.and also for. resolving issues •pertaining to functionability of safety-related

equipment in containment during such accidents. The results obtained from this.study,.

coupled with results obtained from intermediate-scale combustion testing (e.g., such as

from the FITS and VGES facilities, at Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque), should also

be, useful in future modeling , activities to upgrade the combustion and heat transfer

models currently used in reactor safety-computer simulations.

xviii
1

1 Introduction..

Over the time period of July 1983 through January 1-984, two series of premixed

combustion experiments were conducted by EG&G at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). This

work, sponsored, by the. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Elec-

-tric Power Research Institute (EPRI), was performed ;to study combustion processes

in a large-scale vessel (Hydrogen Behavior Test Series 1) and to. evaluate associated.

safety-related equipment response to the resulting -thermal environments .(Equipment

Survival Test Series:2). Personnel from Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,

N.M. (SNLA), in support of the Hydrogen Behavior and Hydrogen Burn Survival Programs, were also directly involved in this venture, providing technical guidance and

fielding instrumentation for testing, Twenty-four lombustion experiments were perfor•nedin a 2048 cubic meter spherical vessel (hydrogen dewar 15.85 m in diameter),

with mixtures of hydrogen; steam, and air ignited by. glow plugs and heated resistance

coils. Hydrogen. concentrations for these tests ranged from 5 to 13% (by volume) and

steam concentrations from, 4 to 40%. Several tests: -also incorporated, spray systems

and/or'fans which enhanced the combustion rate and significantly altered the post- combustion gas cooling., Additional tests (to be.: reported ,elsewhere). addressed the

effects of localized combustion from diffusion flames which were generated by ignition"

of streams of steam-hydrogen mixtures injected- into the dewar.

An enormous quantity of data was obtained from this formidable testing program

which could be used to: better quantify combustion environments. Available data included, for examplei, gas pressure data, gas and wall thermocouple data, calorimetry

data, and. data from instrumentation, mounted on/within safety-related equipment exposed to the combustion environments in the dewar; Unfortunately •given.the financial,

and manpower constraints imposed on the undertaking, much of the data"have received only limited attention, from EPRI. The exception being that, for. equipment

which became inoperative- or performed in an unsatisfactory manner during testing,

EPRI personnel have attempted to determine so irces of possible failure modes> Similarly, significant attention has been• given to evaluating the electrical cables that charred

during., the more severe premixed combustionrtests.

In response to NRC requests for assistance in interpreting and assessing the results

obtained from the NTS testing, program, we have conducted an in-depth analysis of

the data. In this work, data provided by EPRI from. instrumentation designed to

characterize, the.thermal environment in the dewar. during and following combustion

have been evaluated. Data-from therepresentative safety-related equipment installed.

in the dewar to assess equipment survival issues have not been reviewed. Further, this

work has been restricted to, the analysis of those data records which were provided to

Sandia on computer tapes... These data represent but a fraction of the available data

recorded at NTS; nonetheless, the data provide a reasonable base from which estimates

for the thermal environment (i.e., gas state and associated heat transfer) in the dewar

can be obtained.
2 1 . INTRODUCTION

The data reduction package SMOKE, developed at SNLA to an.alyze data from,

premixed combustion experiments in confined vessels, has been used in this work.

This suite of computer codes had been previously used to analyze data obtained from

intermediate-scale combustion-experiments conducted at the Fully Instrumented Test

Site (FITS) at SNLA. Additional computer codes have been added to SMOKE during this study to preprocess (and manipulate) the NTS data to desired formats and

to model instrumentation not previously analyzed by SMOKE. The instrumentation

evaluated in this work includes thin-film gauges and capacitance calorimeters (SNLA

supplied), Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gauges (EPRI supplied), gas and wall

thermocouples (EPRI supplied), and pressure sensors (SNLA and EPRI supplied). Local estimates of the heat transfer are provided for the calorimetry, and global averages

are inferred from the pressure. Instrumentation "goodness" for each test has been assessed based on reviews of the raw data and on comparisons of local and global results.

A description of the NTS test facility and the instrumentation' evaluated in this

study are presented, and a description of the data analysis tool SMOKE is presented.

Graphical and tabular results are provided for each of the twenty-one premixed combustion tests for which data were provided, and overall trends observed from the' results

are reported. Overall conclusions about, the "goodness" of the instrumentation and

the associated performance are also given. The information provided in this report

should be useful for benchmarking existing computer codes used in modeling nuclear

reactor containment response to degraded-core accidents and also for resolving issues

pertaining to functionability of safety-related equipment in containments during.such '

accidents. The results obtained from this study, coupled with results obtained from

intermediate-scale combustion testing (e~g., such as from the'FITS and VGES facilities at Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque), should also be useful in future modeling

activitiesto upgrade the combustion and heat transfer models currently used in reactor

safety computer simulations. o
3

2 :Experimental Facility and Instrumentation:

2.1 NTS Dewar

The premixed and continuous-injection combustion experiments Were performed in

an existing facility located at testcell C, Nevada Test Site (NTS). This spherical test

vessel, shown in Figure 1, has a diameter of•15.85 m (2048 m3 volume) and-a design

pressure of -• 700 kPa. The dewar is comprised of two concentric 'stainless steel spheres,

each. 19 mm thick with an intermedi ate layer of perlite insulation .- 1.0 m thick. The

facility had previously beenused as a hydrogen dewar and required renovation prior to

commencement of the testing (details on these modifications are-included in the EPRI

final report on the NTS work: [1]1) In addition, the facility was modified to include

the following:

* a heated-water spray system in the vessel, consisting of 16 or.17 Sprayco model

A 1713A hollow cone nozzles (each rated: at 15 gpm) with the necessary control

system and manifolding

* a boiler to generate 2.1 kg/s steam at 1000 kPa for.vessel and gas preheating

Sa. hydrogen-steam manifold -system and mixing chamber (outside the dewar)

to deliver specified mixtures. of combustible gas for premixed and continuousinjection combustion testing

* -two mixing fans in the vessel, each rated at,2.4 m3/s. (5000 cfm), to be used for

. pretest equilibration and during some tests

e an air compressor. (rating of 0.28 m3 /s (600 cfr)) to supply air, to the mixing

fans and primary spray pump air motors as well as for post-test purge and refill

operations.

* a gas sampling system for pre- and post-test evaluations of the gas uniformity

and combustion completeness.

In addition, hydrogen was supplied from gas cylinders in a tube trailer; 'after mixing

with steam, it was injected into the dewar through a nozzle -. 2.0 m in diameter above

the bottom either as a diffuse stream or as a jet depending upon the test configuration.

A schematic of the facility, taken from [2], is provided in Figure 2. Additional details

on the facility and on the features of the important systems incorporated for testing

(in particular, the water spray system and gas sampling system) are given in [1] and

[2].

1lNumbers in brackets are the-references cited in this work and are given in the References Section.
4 .. 2 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION:

• ~ ~ ~ .... ... •"....... .:

• : . .

. . '. . . ":. '-

Figure 1: Hydrogen'dewar located at test cell C, Nevada Test Site.
2.1 NTS Dewar .

system

header

fans

Feedwater

Steam/i-12 mixing chamber

H2 control system

H2 tube trailer

Figure 2: Mechanical schematic of the EPRI/EG&G Nevada Test Facility
6 2 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

The premixed combustion tests were initiated using ignition sources typical of those

currently being installed in nuclear reactor containments for deliberate ignition safety

systems. Six General Motors (GM) glow plugs andsix Tayco coil igniters were mounted

in the vessel as shown in Figure 3. The ignition sources were positioned to allow for

combustion initiation on the central vertical axis of the sphere at the top, bottom, or

center of the dewar and also along the vessel walls. Each ignition device was a hot

surface (temperatures - 1000-1400 K, depending on the input voltage) and each could

be independently operated. For most of the premixed combustion testing, bottom

ignition was utilized, although there are redundant tests in which the ignition site was

changed to assess the effects of initiation location on combustion completeness and

severity. Note that in this work, the general location of ignition (i.e., bottom, top,

etc.) will be provided for each test as opposed to the particular igniter. For the latter

specifications, the reader will need to consult [1].

Elevalion View Plan View (equalov)

-16(

210"

285"

0. GM glow plugs 5 - Tayco ignilers

Figure 3: Igniter types and locations in the NTS dewar
2.1 : NTS Dewar: . 7

A NEFF Instrument Corporation "System 720" data acquisition system was. used

to record and process data from each test. Figure 4 shows the data acquisition and

control functions used in the test program. Included in this schematic is the remote6

unit, located at the top of the dewar, which was connected to the NEFF computer

located in the manned trailer near the site. All data processing was performed on-site

by EG&G and EPRI personnel. The data provided to Sandia for analysis was transformed from measured signals (e.g., millivolts) to appropriate temperatures, pressures,

and heat fluxes. Two sampling rates were used to record signals from several of the

instrumentation. SNLA requested and received data traces recorded at the slower sampling rates which were used in this data evaluation. Again, for additional information

on the data acquisition system, the r:eader should consult References [1-3].

- (256 K bytes)k ;HPj.2623A 6DEC VTIOO Micro Computer r DEC RL02 Dlgi-Data E1A2

Graphics- Video Term. Disk (OMb) 9-Tracki Ha rdcopy TaeDc

Terminal DE R0

S NEFF 620

Gas Sampling Local Gas Sampling

System Controls Controller/ System Monitors

Callb. Gases 4 Acquisition

I N2 02 Temperature

S L IC T4 N2 H2 Pressure

3 02 Temperature 3 02 Concentra~tloion

3 H2 Concentration ,

S SYSTEM CONTROLS NEFF 620

REMOTE CONTROLLER/ DEWAR GAs/sTEAM MONITORS

SAMPLE SEL. 14 'ACQUISITION I H2 PRESS I I- TUBE TRAILER PRESS

I TUBE TRAILER TEMP.

DEWAR SYSTEM 2 STEAM FLOW

CONTROL FUNCTIONS! 2 STEAM TEMP, PRESS.

HYDROGEN FLOW 4 FLAME FRONT MONITORS 1 1 H, STEAM RELEASE.

STEAM FLOW ACT. 3 PROPAGATION ARRAY - PT. TEMP.

MIXING CHAMBER 1 4 WORDS-64 LOCATIONS

PURGE AIR/VENT 3 (64 BINARY DATA PTS.) BULK MEASUREMENTS

AIR FANS .: I 16 TYPE K TC's(.032")

WATER SPRAY- 3 3 PRESSURE TD's

IGNITORS 12 4 BIDIR. VEL. PROBES

BIDIR. VEL. I LIQUID LEVEL

PROBES I EQUIPMENT SURVIVABILITY 12 IGNITORS

WATER DUMP 2 6 HEAT FLUX TO'i

25 CONTROL MONITORS 6 STRAIN GAGES (18)

25 TYPE K TC LEADS MOUNTED)

12 VAC/PRESS TUBES B FAST TC'S (.003)

Figure 4: Data acquisition. and control at the dewar (taken from Reference [2])
8 2 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

2.2 Analyzed Instrumentation

A significant quantity of instrumentation was installed in the dewar for the purposes

of (1) providing data pertinent to quantifying combustion phenomena and (2) providing

equipment-specific response data in combustion environments. Since the intent of this

work has been to quantify the thermal environment in the dewar during and following

combustion, only instrumentation included in the dewar for characterizing the environment has been evaluated (results pertinent to equipment functionability/survivability

have been previously addressed in References [4-6] and will be included in the EPRI

final report [7]). In Table 1, the instrumentation for this characterization is given along

with a breakdown of what data were actually made available to Sandia for analysis.

Note that testing was divided into two parts (referred to in this work as the Hydrogen

Behavior and Equipment Survival Test Series) and that some of the instrumentation

was available only for the latter test series.

Table 1: Instrumentation for Quantifying the Thermal Environment

Type of Instrumentation SourceI Number of Channelsl Test

Total Sandia. Series*

Pressure Sensors

Capacitance S 2 2 1 & 2

Strain Gauge E 3 0-3 1 & 2

Dewar Temperature

Gas Temperature (3-mil) E 8 0-3 1 & 2

Gas Temperature (32-mil) E 3 0-2 1 & 2

Wall Temperature (32-mil) E 7 0-2 1 & 2

Total Heat Flux

Gardon Gauge E 1 1 1

Schmidt-Boelter Thermopile Gauge E 5 5 2

Thin-film Gauge S 1 1 1& 2

Copper Slug Calorimeter, S. 1 1 1 & 2

Brass Flat-Plate Gauge S * 3 3 2

Aluminum Cube .. S 3 3 '2

Radiative Heat Flux

Gardon Gauge E 1-2 1-2 1 & 2

Schmidt-Boelter Thermopile Gauge E 2 2 2

Thin-film Gauge S 1 1 4 & 2

Copper Slug Calorimeter E 1 1 1 & 2

* Instrumentation provided by SNLA (S) or EPRI/EG&G (E)

Total available from testing and quantity provided to Sandia * Hydrogen Behavior (1) and/or Equipment Survival (2) Test Series

j1
2.2 'Analyzed Instrumentation 9

A listing of the pressure, temperature, and heat flux instrumentation: for which

data were provided for SNLA evaluation is given in Table 2 alongwith their respective

locations in the Cartesian coordinate frame established by EPRI/EG&G.2 The coordinate system origin is assumed. to be centered in the dewar as shown in Figure 5.

Figures 6,;7, and 8 provide schematic representations of the different instrumentation

locations (defined in Table 2) as seen in elevation and plan views. A complete listing

and appropriate discussion of the instrumentation is also included in Reference [1].

Brief descriptions of each type of instrumentation which was evaluated are provided

in the following subsections. Further discussion of this instrumentation, pertinent to

the modeling used in the data analysis, is provided in Section 3.

Pressure Sensors

Three sensors manufactured by Setra (models 270 and 204) were selected by EG&G

and EPRI for pressure measurement. Two of these gauges were rated for 0-100 psi

(gauges P101 and P102) and; one for 0-50 psi (P103) pressure measurement, with

frequency response quoted to range between 20 and 330 Hz, respectively. Initially, one

of these gauges (P101) was installed in the dewar and two of the gauges were installed,

outside of the dewar at the ends of 6.35 mm O.D. thin-wall tubing which extended

into the containment. The latter installation technique was used to thermally protect

the sensing elements. Following failure of the internally mounted sensor (early in the

Hydrogen Behavior Series), all three Setra sensors were mounted outside the dewar

for the Equipment Survival tests in communication with the gas .through tubing which

ranged in length between - 6.0 and 12.0 in [1].

In addition, Sandia supplied two strain-gage type pressure transducers manufactured by Precise Sensors, both of which were mounted inside the dewar. The transducers were of the same design (model 141-3) and both had response characteristics on the

order of 1.0 kHz, but with two different sensitivities (0-100 psi (P104) and 0-200 psi

(P105) full-scale ranges). These gauges were designed to operate without active water

or air cooling. Felt-metal thermal, protection was installed in front of each gauge sensing element to minimize thermal effects on gauge performance. Errors were estimated

to be - 1.4 kPa (0.2 psi) in reading the pressure and 0.001 mV (out of a full-scale

output of 25 mV) in controlling and reading the voltage.

2 For the Hydrogen Behavior Tests, 3. E. Shepherd initially requested a limited quantity of data records

which could be used to compare With the SNLA-provided instrumentation results. For the latter

tests performed in the Hydrogen Behavior Series and:for'all tests of the Equipment Survival Program,

additional instrumentation records were requested and received. In April 1984, upon initiation of this

data evaluation work, additional data for gas and wall thermocouples and for the EPRI pressure sensors

were requested. These data were not provided, since the data recording system had been previously

dismantled.
10 2 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

Table 2: Evaluated Instrumentation from NTS Tests

Instrumentation Source Test Location in Dewar*

Designation SNLA/EPRI Seriest (x,y,z) Figure/Symbol

Pressure Sensors

P101

P102

P103

P104

P105

Gas Temperature (3-mil)

T101

T102

T105

Gas Temperature (32-mil)

T114

T118

T151

Wall Temperature (32-mil)

T120

T121

Gardon Gauges

H105 (R)

H106 (T/R)§

Schmidt-Boelter Gauges

H501 (R)

H502 (T)

H503 (T)

H504 (T)

H505 (R)

H506 (T)

H507 (T)

Thin-film Gaugeý

H231 (R)

H232 (T)

Copper Slug Calorimeterl

H103 (R)

H1104 (T)

Brass Flat-Plate Gauges

T501, T502, T503 (T)

Aluminum CubeS.

T504, T505, T506 (T)

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

SNLA

SNLA

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

EPRI

SNLA

SNLA

SNLA

SNLA

SNLA

SNLA

2

1&2

2

1&2

1.

2

1&2

2

l&2

1

1&2

l&2

0,0721

-5,-5,0

-5,-4j20

-1,-1,26

16,0,6

16,0,-20

6/

6/

6/

6/

6/

6/

1

2

3

4

5

6

1,-2,19

-1,-1,1

.-10,-15,19

7/;1

7/ 2

7/ 3

9,0,21

20,0,0

-5,-5,6

7/

7/

7/

4

5

6

1 & 2 -2,-3,26

1 & 2 -18.4,1,18.4

1 & 2 1,3,25.5

1 & 2 0,3,25.5

7/ 7

7/ 8

8/

8/

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1,-2.5,2

1,-2.5,2

1,-2.5,2

14.5,-2.5,2

-4.5,-2.5,2

74.5,-2.5,2

-4.5,-2.5,2

8/3

8/ 4

8/ 5

8/ 6

8/ 7

8/ 8

8/ 9

8/ 10

8/ 11

8/ 12

8/ 13

8/ 14

1 & 2 2,4,25

1 & 2 1,4,25

1 & 2 14,-3,21

1 & 2 14,-4,21

2 -3,-2.5,2

2 -3.5,-2.5,2

i l

8/ 15

Hydrogen Behavior (1) and/or Equipment Survival (2) Test Series

Approximate coordinate locations (Figure 5) are given in units of feet. Instrument positions

are shown in Figures 6-8; numbers after the figure numbers locate the instrumentation

t Radiative (R) or Total.(T) instrumentation

§ Gauge H106 was re-configured from a total to a radiative .gauge prior to NTSP08
2.2-.. Analyzed Instrumentation 1*1

Elvalion View Plan View (equator)

1w65

Figure 5: Coordinate system used to define instrumentation locations in the dewar :

Eevation View Plan View tequalor)

106,

01

285'

Figure 6: Schematic of pressure instrumentation locations in the dewar; see Table 2 for

identification of specific sensors
12 2 -EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

Elevation View Plan View (equator)

105"

285'

Figure 7: Schematic of thermocouple instrumentation locations in the dewar; see Table

2 for identification of specific sensors

Elevation View Plan View (equator)

51"

12 ,2

Catwalk 36'

6 40 6

Ladders 1

- 16'

628''

Figure 8: Schematic of heat flux instrumentation locations, in the dewar; see Table 2

for identification of specific sensors. :,Filled symbols are total calorimeters and-open

figures are radiative., calorimeters. The equipment platform was actually directly under

the catwalk but. has been moved in plan view to facilitate review of instrumentation

placements

p
2.2 Analyzed Instrumentation 13•

Temperature Measurement Instrumentation

Chromel-alumel thermocouples obtained from Omega Engineering, Inc., were used

to measure gas and wall temperatures in the dewar. Quick-response (quoted at 1 Hz),

3-mil and more durable 32-mil (with much slower response characteristics) grounded

sheathed: thermocouples were used for measuring the gas temperatures. In addition,

32-mil thermocouples were mounted to the dewar walls.

Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter Thermopile Gauges

Two Gardon gauges, obtained from Medtherm Corporation, were installed near the

top of the dewar and used throughout both test series. These gauges operate in the

following manner [8]: heat is absorbed in a thin metallic circular foil and is conducted

radially to the copper heat sink attached to the periphery of the foil; the difference

in temperature is taken between the center and edge of the foil and related to the

heat transfer rate. Initially, one of the gauges was configured as a total gauge and

one as a radiative gauge by inclusion of a sapphire cover. During the latter part of

the first test series, prior to test NTSP08, the total Gardon gauge was reconfigured

to be a radiative calorimeter. Apparently, air-purge features to limit condensation on

the sapphire cover were not incorporated for the radiative gauges. The two Gardon

gauges were not water-cooled for tests in the Hydrogen Behavior Series; water-cooling

was made available during the Equipment Survival Test Program [9].1

Seven'Schmidt-Boelter gauges (five configured as total and two as radiative gauges)

were used in the Equipment Survival test series. These gauges operate as capacitance

calorimeters, with heat being absorbed at the front surface and. being transferred to a

plane upon which a thermopile is mounted. The measured temperature difference is

then related to the heat flux. The gauges were installed on the equipment platform

interspersed between the safety-related equipment tested by EPRI/EG&G as. shown in

Figure 9. All Schmidt-Boelter gauges were water-cooled, and the radiatixve gauge sapphire covers Were also air-purged to reduce condensation. The specific gauge locations

on the platform, as well as their orientation, are given in Table 3.

3Several discussions with J. Haugh of EPRI on these matters resulted following initial data processing.

His review of the experimental log books and of photographs taken at various stages of testing were

used to resolve uncertainties about gauge water-cooling and the other mentioned uncertainties.
14 2 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

Table 3: Location and Orientation of Schmidt-Boelter Gauges

Instrumentation Configuration. Locationl Orientations

H501 Radiative B Up

H502 Total B Up

H503 Total B Down

H504 Total C Up

H505 Radiative A Down

H506 Total A Up

H507 Total A Down

t A 1 4 If 1, . Ufl , a.1 1ll.V +~ JiL

a

B = B location (near dewar centerline)

C = C location (closest to dewar wall near off-axis rake)

S Instrumentation views top (Up) or bottom (Down) of dewar

HYDROGEN / STEAM SOURCE

1 2 3fD 4 8 0

DFF-AXI CENTRAL

RAKE ACCESS. ACCESSý RAKE

zo 4 1.

2.

3.

4.

6.

S.

7.

8.

LIMITORCUE -NAMCO-ALLEN I BRADLEY 9.

RELIANCE FAN HOTOR 10.

'C* HEAT FLUX GAGE II.

'BARTON DP 12.

ASCO SOLENOID VALVE 13.

ROSEMOUNT OP 14.

VALCOR SOLENOID VALVE Is.

FOXBORO DP Is.

VERITRAK OP

VERITRAK THERMAL MODEL

*B" HEAT FLUX GAGES

WESTINGHOUSE PENETRATION

SANDIA FLAT PLATE CALORIMETER

SANDIA CUBE CALORIMETER

'A' HEAT FLUX GAGES

BARTON OP

IT.

IS.

I9.

20.

21.'

22.

23.

24.

25.

I ROSEMOUNT GP

FOXBORO GP

VERITRAK AP

ROSEMOUNT RTD

MINCO ATO

RdF RTO

CONAX PENETRATION

CONAX R7D (PASSIVE)

CONAX TIC (PASSIVE)

Figure 9: Schematic of instrumentation

platform

and equipmeht placements on the equipment
2.2 ý. Analyzed Instrumentation 15.

Thin-film Gauges

Sandia provided two thin-film heat flux gauges which were installed -near the top of

the dewar and which operated during all tests in the dewar. The thin-film gauges were

developed by J. E. Shepherd [10] and ware fabricated at SNLA. These types of gauges

had previously been used in combustion work at the Sandia Fully Instrumented Test

Site (FITS) and had been shown to be robust and responsive devices (i.e., fractions

of a millisecond response times) for measuring the highly transient heat transfer rates

associated with combustion [11]. Each gauge consisted of a 300-Angstrom- thick platinum resistance element vapor-deposited. on the polished front surface of a synthetic

glass ceramicMACOR substrate - 100rmm (4.0 in) in diameter and - 50,mm (2.0 in)

thick. The front surfaces were covered with a protective coating of A1'40 3 and then with

a layer of highly absorptive, spectrally flat NEXTEL paint. The MACOR substrate

was mounted in a protective stainless-steel housing'with only the front surface exposed.

One of -the thin-film gauges was configured as a radiative calorimeter by. including a

6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick sapphire window over the sensing element and evacuating the

space between the cover and MACOR surface. An electrical =heater unit was- also provided for the radiative gauge to maintain the sapphire cover at elevated temperatures

to limit steam condensation effects. Figure 10 provides post-test photographs of the

total and radiative thin-film gauges after removal from the dewar.

The gauges operated in the following manner. A constant current of 10 mA was applied to the resistance element, and the voltage drop across the element was monitored.

From the voltage drop, the resistance of the sensing element could be determined,

and from previously calibrated resistance-temperature characteristics, the gauge front

surface temperature could be determined. These calibration data were provided by

Sandia and were7 included in the data processing work performed on-site using the

NEFF computer system.

Copper Slug Calorimeters

Two capacitance (slug) calorimeters, developed by. J..E. Shepherd and fabricated

at Sandia [10,11], were provided for radiative and total heat flux measurements during

the two test series. These calorimeters consisted of aI35;5 - m (1:4 in) diameter copper

(OFHC) disk mounted on ao nMACOR insulating substrate. Each froni surface was

coated with NEXTEL paint, and the sensing element was a Chromej-ahimel intrinsic

thermocouple, constructed by brazing the 10- mil thermocouple wires to the back surface

of the disk. The radiative and total calorimeter disks were 0.5 mm and 1.4 mm (0.019

and 0.056 in) thick, respectively. As with the thin-film radiative gauge, one of the slug

gauges was configured as a radiative calorimeter by including a 6.35 mm (0.25 in) thick

sapphire window over the sensing element and evacuating the space between the cover

and copper surface. This calorimeter also included an electrical heater unit to limit

condensation on the sapphire. The protective housing for the slug calorimeters was

comparable to that of the thin-film gauges,. shown in Figure 10.
16 12 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

A: Front View of Thin-Film Gauges

B: Side View of Thin-Film Gauges

Figure 10: Post-test photographs of the thin-film gauges used at NTS
2.2 Analyzdd Instrumentation 17

Brass Flat-Plate Gauge

A flat-plate:calorimeter, comprised ofa.:0.5 mm (0.020 in) .thick, .061 m (6.0 in)

square brass plate fastened to a 12.7 mm (0.50 in). thick rigid felt insulation, was provided by' the Hydrogen Burn Survival (HBS) Program at Sandia for measurement of

the total heat flux. This type of calorimeter had previously been used in equdipment survival studies conducted at FITS [12] and atthe Central Receiver Test Facility (CRTF)

at Sandia [11]. Three 5-mil chromel-alumel thermocouples were mounted to. the back

surface of the brass using epoxy. The front surface of the calorimeter was coated with

NEXTEL black paint. This.gauge was installed on the equipment platform (see Figure

9) for use during the Equipment SurvivalTest series.

Aluminum Cube;

The hollow cube calorimeter, provided by the HBS Program at Sandia to measure

total fluxes, was a 0.1 m (4.0 in) cube fabricated out of 3.2 mm (0.125 in), thick aluminum. As with the flat-plate calorimeter, this type of. capacitance calorimeter had

previously been used in equipment survival studies conducted at FITS and at the CRTF

at-Sandia> [12,13]. The exterior surface was black anodized-and three chromel-alumel

thermocouples were epoxied near the centers of three interior surfaces (orientation of

top and two sides When installed in the dewar). The thermocouple wires were fed

through .a 25 mm (1.0 in) diameter. hole on the NTS-configured downward-facing surface, which was then covered with tape. The cube was positioned on the equipment

platform near the center rake above the gas injection source (see Figure 9).
:.. 18 2 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY AND INSTRUMENTATION

2.3 Test Procedures

Typical operating procedures for the premixed combustion tests were as follows:

* The dewar was first preheated (if required) by injection of steam and by spraying

heated liquids into the dewar. All tests occurred at saturated conditions, with

temperatures ranging from - 300 K to 360 K. Spray systems and fans were operated to bring the environment to a quasi-uniform heated state. The environment

was monitored using pressure sensors and gas and wall thermocouples. The intent was to increase the dewar wall temperatures prior to testing to minimize

condensation effects.

* After the vessel reached the desired preheat conditions, hydrogen and steam mixtures were introduced into the dewar from the mixing chamber. Spray systems

and fans remained on to mix the gas. Pretest gas sampling from three (of six total) points in the dewar was used to verify that uniform gas mixing had occurred

prior to initiation of combustion. In addition,. gas and wall temperatures were

monitored.

e Following quasi-equiilibration of the gas and walls of the dewar, the spray systems

and fans'were turned off (unless the test called for the systems to: be operative), a

delay (,- 10 minutes) allowed for further equilibration, and then the desired ignition source was initiated., Combustion normally began some 20-80 seconds later

(time for hot sources to heat-up and ignite the local concentrations of hydrogen).

* Upon completion of the test, gas sampling was performed to estimate combustion

completeness and uniformity. The dewar gas was then purged and replaced with

ambient air in preparation for subsequent testing.

Note that for some of the lean hydrogen combustion tests, local conditions around

the ignition sources were not immediately conducive for combustion or that combustion

would be limited only to upward propagation.4 In these instances, different igniters were

triggered or spray systems and/or fans were operated again to facilitate, combustion.

Further, in one of the continuous-injection tests, the initial mixture of hydrogen and

steam could not be ignited. Upon completion of the gas injection, the fans were used to

mix the gases, resulting in a premixed combustion environment which was then ignited

(test NTSP08 as designated in this work). For additional discussion on operating

procedures used in the testing, see Reference [1].

4 Such situations were expected by the NRC; tests were specified by the NRC during pretest condition

selection meetings to better assess these combustion initiation and completeness uncertainties.
19

3 Data Analysis

The data analysis work performed at SNLA was restricted, to operating on those

data records which were provided on computer tapes. As indicated in the previous

section, the raw data recorded for each piece of instrumentation were processed by

EPRI/EG&G into temperature, pressure, and heat flux results some of which were

then written onto tapes for SNLA use. These data were processed using pretest series instrumentation calibrations, and do not account for variations which might have

occurred as a result of the instrumentation being exposed to the severe environments.

In this worki the results provided by EPRI/EG&G are assumed to be correct, and no

attempt has been made to modify the signals based on post-test calibrations or .based

on our interpretations: as to' how the instrumentation actually functioned (instead of

how it was expected to operate).

The data analysis activities consisted of three major parts as described below:

e Data preprocessing -"Taking the data files provided on computer tape, reducing

the number of time-signal pairs to usable quantities by eliminating redundant and

off-scale data and reorganizing the data into forms more compatible for SNLA

analysis.

40 Data processing - Smoothing or fitting the data, if necessary, and then operating

on the data using SMOKE, a suite of computer codes developed at SNLA.

e Data interpretation - Analyzing the data and results obtained from SMOKE processing and comparing results from different -tests to determine instrumentation

"goodness" and the applicability of the results.

In this section, the preprocessing and processing steps defined above are discussed.

The results and our assessment of the data are provided in Section 5. Included in this

section is a description of SMOKE and of the modeling theory used in the SMOKE data

analyses. These descriptions are intended to be cursory. For additional information,

the reader should consult the SMOKE' documentation- 414].

3.1 SMOKE Description

SMOKE is a suite of computer codes developed at SNLA to expedite the analysis

and interpretation of data from confined premixed combustion experiments. This data

analysis package includes computer codes for organizing the data, processing the data,

and presenting results. It was initially developed for analyses of data from FITS and

VGES to provide estimates of the peak heat fluxes (radiative and total) and cumulative energy depositions from different calorimetersas well as those inferred from the

pressure signals. Modifications to the computer codes were performed to generalize the

algorithm, and-,to allow for analyses of the Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter gauges, the
20 3: DATA ANALYSIS

HBS instrumentation, and the wall and gas thermocouple data. In addition,: preprocessing computer codes were modified and created to organize the data records into

SMOKE-compatible formats. p

A schematic of the flow sequence Of SMOKE, as utilized in the NTS data analyses, is

given in Figure 11. Discussion of the preprocessing and processing activities performed

in SMOKE are given in the following two sections.

Iinitial Conditionsl ,.. . Instr umentatio"n"

IniialCon is Generate Input Data Files for

and Combustion and Geometry Parameters [ FParticular Test Defniio ParametersDefinition

"Process Raw Data Provided from

NTS to Take Form Necessary for

Data Reduction Using Codes

LTRANS8 & ASSEMBLE

I Review Plots from]

Perform Smoothing or Curve Review Pt, fro

Fitting on Raw Data if Needed SMOOT to deter- I mine if Fits Are Using SMOOTH Reasonable

Perform Data Analysis Using the - If RequiedModiY

Processing Codes: MERGE, t an

PRESS, THIN, SLUG, GARDON, Re-apply SMOOTH

HBSWAL, and GASTEMP or Designate Data

__ as. Bad

Cross-Plot Results from PRESS,

THIN and SLUG Using PLOTHC

Review Tabulated Review Plotted

Summary Results •-Summary Results

Figure 11: Schematic of SMOKE operation
3.1 SMOKE Description2 ': :`21

3.1.1 SMOKE Data Preprocessing

Data preprocessing in SMOKE:was accomplished in two steps: (1) selective "culling"

of the time-data pairs and subsequent arrangement into formats required for use in

SMOKE processing computer codes and (2) smoothing or fitting of calorimetry data to

reduce signal noise and curve fitting of the pressure data to provide smooth signals and

first derivatives needed for the pressure signal processing. In addition, subsidiary data

input files containing the precombustion conditions in the dewar, estimates of.combustion completeness, and geometry specifications were generated, during preprocessing as

shown in Figure 11.

The computer tapes provided by EPRI/EG&G consisted of data records for 6 to

35 pieces of instrumentation depending upon the test. Typically, over 2000 time-data

.pairs were providedtper instrument for test durations ranging between 400 and 1000

seconds following completion of combustion (typical sampling rates of 0.04 seconds

and greater). Much of the data were redundant or oscillated about some mean value.

Since much of the data was, therefore, unimportant for quantifying the postcombustion

environment, a data "culling" computer code,.TRANS8, developed by 3. Shepherd, was

utilized to select 200-500 time-data pairs appropriate for analyses.

The TRANS8 code operates as follows: it reads all the, data pairs,:locates the minimum and maximum values, and counts and orders the .number of different incremental

values between adjacent data. TRANS8 then selects a minimum increment for, the

data,' such that less than 500 data pairs are available for analysis and writes these

data pairs to files. In addition, TRANS8 provides histograms of the data incremental

distributions and plots of the selected data. If the data are found to be too sparse (in

.-this work, less than. 20 good time-data pairs), then TRANS8 omits the data file. This

latter feature of TRANS8 served as the initial assessment of data "goodness".

Following the "culling" exercise .of TRANS8, the plotted data files were reviewed,

and obviously "bad" data records were omitted. At this point, data were judged bad

only if (1) they were phys'ically incorrect (i.e., negative temperatures, pressures, etc.,)

or (2) if the data were so 'noisy or oscillated so much that future processing would

be meaningless. Data considered to be "good" in this exercise were then ordered into

SMOKE-compatible formats using the code ASSEMBLE. This operation combined the

different data pairs into 12 data files with each. file having common time frames (using

linear interpolation). For cases where data Were bad, null files were generated and

"flags" were provided internal to the data sets to prevent further data analysis.

The data files generated by ASSEMBLE which contained gas temperature data or

Gardon, thin-film, and Schmidt-Boelter gauge data were then ready for SMOKE processing. For all other data sets; additional data preprocessing using the computer code

SMOOTH was available if needed. SMOOTH is an interactive code which operates on.

the data using smoothingfilters or a rational-function fit. The smoothing filter used in

this work was a Hanning filter of user-specified width. The rational-function fit allows

the user to specify the orders of the numerator and denominator polynomials comprising the curve fit. This latter option is particularly useful for obtaining continuous data
22 3 DATA.:ANALYSIS

-,and first derivatives for the data. Details on the "smoothing" options in SMOOTH are

given in [14].

In the NTS data analysis work, all pressure- signals were preprocessed using the

rational-function fit, since smooth, continuous first derivatives were needed to estimate the total heat transfer rates following combustion. Only the pressuredata for

times after the peak pressure were fit, since pressure signal processing in SMOKE is

only for postcombustion times. The usual rational-function fit used was a third order polynomial for the numerator and a second order polynomial f0f the denominator.

A comparison of typical pressure data before and after smoothing with the rationalfunction fit is given in Figure 12. All other signals which were preprocessed using

SMOOTH were treated with a Hanning smoothing filter with half-widths ranging between 2 and 10 data points. A typical 'before and after' data file for a total slug

calorimeter data set (using a half-width Hanning filter of three) is shown in Figure 13.

3.1.2 SMOKE Data Processing

SMOKE data processing was initiated upon completion of the smoothing and curve

fitting operations. The data processing was. performed using the seven computer codes

listed in, Table 4.

Table 4: SMOKE Data Processing Computer Codes

Computer Instrumentation Processed

Code or Major Purpose

MERGE Performs AIC calculation l and creates

files needed by other processing codes

PRESS Pressure Sensors

THIN Radiative and Total Thin-Film Gauges_

SLUG Radiative and Total Slug Calorimeters

GARDON Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter Gauges

HBSWAL Brass Flat-Plate, Aluminum Cube,

and Wall Thermocouples

GASTEMP Gas Thermocouples

Adiabatic Isochoric Combustion calculation
3.1.: SMOKE Description 23

340

a:D

0n

,of

C)i

295 -

250 1-

205- -

- .1

t

TEST NTSP16

0 Signal

--- Smoothed Signal Using

Ratioial Function Fit

160

115

I• -

20 30 40

TIME ( S

50 60 70 80

)

Figure 12:

after using

Comparison of data for

the rational-function fit

pressure sensor P102 (test NTSP16) before. and

700

650

.600

y 550

.450

. 400

350

. 0 20 40 60 8

lIME ( S)

0 100 10 140 160

Figure 13: Comparison of data for total slug calorimeter H104

and after smoothing using the Hanning filter option

(test NTSP16) before
24 3. DATA ANALYSIS

Brief descriptions of the important computer codes of SMOKE which process the

data are given below. In addition, cursory descriptions of the modeling theory and

of the associated pertinent assumptions incorporated in these analyses are provided.

Reference [14] provides additional details on the modeling procedures of SMOKE.

MERGE

MERGE locates the pertinent precombustion data, test geometry, and instrumentation data for a given test and orders them into files compatible for usage by other

SMOKE computer codes. In addition, an adiabatic isochoric combustion (AIC) calculation is performed in MERGE using the precombustion data and combustion completeness estimates. These results are used in the pressure data processing work and

provide upperbound gas pressure,. gas temperature, and energy deposition estimates

for comparison with the measured and processed data.

PRESS

PRESS processes pressure data for up to three sensors. Included in PRESS are

subroutinesfor estimating the gas thermophysical properties, for computing gas absorptances and emittances, and for computing the vesselWall temperatuires. "Hot-wall"

(i.e., no condensation) and "cold-wall" (i.e., wall condensation is occurring) analysis

options are also included to account for steam mass transfer effects after completion of

combustion.

PRESS locates the maximum pressure and computes from the pressure signal an

average gas temperature. "Global" (i.e., average) estimates of the postcombustion

radiative transfer and total energy transfer from the gas to the vessel walls are also

obtained from PRESS. The associated average wall heat-up is estimated using the

total heat flux as the heat input and solving the one-dimensional transient conduction

problem for a slab (assuming an insulated back boundary and a constant slab thermal

diffusivity a,). Estimates of combustion duration are also obtained from the pressure

signal processing, based on the time from combustion initiation to the peak pressure

and to the time of maximum total heat transfer from the gas.

Data processing in PRESS is based on the following modeling theory, For a closed

vessel, information about the global heat transfer rate following combustion can be

inferred from the pressure-time records, as first suggested by Means and Ulrich [15].

The global heat transfer rate is proportional to the time derivative of the pressure, and

the radiative loss.rate is related to the absolute pressure (through the temperature). A

schematic of the important steps followed in pressure signaliprocessing is provided in

Figure 14 for tests in which steam corldensation effects are unimportant. For this case,

the gas concentration is assumed constant and is obtained from an AIC calculation.

The average gas temperature is then calculated. from the pressure using the; ideal gas

equation of state. The total heat transfer rate (qT) is the product-of the pressure

derivative, the vessel volume-to-area ratio (V/A), the gas specific heat (C,-), and the
3.1 : ':SMOKE Description 25

Measure Gas Pressure (P)

Gas Concentrations (xi)

Obtained from AIC Calculation

Mean Gas Temperature (Tg) Estimate dt

from Ideal-Gas Law from Pressure.

Compute Gas Emittance (Eg) Total Heat Trans

and Gas Absorptance (ag) RateI

from E.W.B. Model qT =-- V )

fer

P

Radiative Heat Transfer

Rate

qR= T4 

-ag 4T

Radiative Energy Deposition

QR = fqRdt

--. n ~ al

Wall Temperature Change

Obtained from

T 1 T

8x 2 -- aw dt

Tota

Total Energy Deposition

QT =f qTdt

Figure 14: Schematic of pressure data processing when steam condensation'is unimportant
26 3 DATA ANALYSIS

gas constant (R):

aT- R A dt(1

The radiative heat transfer (qR) is the difference between the energy emitted from

the gas and that reabsorbed by the gas from the walls, as given by Eq.(2).

qR = E9 T4 - a uT4 (2)

The dewar walls are assumed to be radiatively black surfaces. The gas emittance (Eg)

and absorptance (as) are computed using an exponential wide-band (E.W.B.) model

[16] and depend on the gas composition, gas temperature (and wall temperature for

the absorptance), gas pressure, and a characteristic radiating beam length. This length

is equal to two-thirds the dewar diameter.

When steam condensation effects are negligible, the difference between the total

and radiative heat transfer is the convective heat transfer rate. The analysis is more

complicated when condensation occurs on the vessel walls during a test. Specifically,

the time rate of change of the mass of the steam must be included in the derivative of

the state equation and the total heat transfer rate. Since the steam concentration is not

measured during testing, the condensation rate must be inferred from the pressure using

the extended Chilton-Colburn analogy [17] to relate the mass transfer and convective

heat transfer coefficients. This analysis is based on the classic film analysis of diffusion

and accounts for the thermal interaction of the mass flux with the diffusive heat flux.

Since the state, conservation, and rate equations are coupled, they must be solved

simultaneously. Note that the analogy assumes saturation conditions; when the wall is

superheated relative to the gas, the previously described "hot-wall" model is utilized.

A more detailed description of this procedure is given in [14].

PRESS was not modified for the NTS analyses to account for water spray evaporation, and hence, heat transfer results are not provided for the tests with sprays

operative. Similarly, estimates of the gas and wall average temperatures during the

postcombustion cool-down are omitted since these results would be obtained from an

analysis which couples the heat and mass transfer energy exchanges.

THIN

THIN operates on the data obtained from the total and radiative thin-film gauges.

The thin-film gauges are modeled as one-dimensional devices, with temperature variations perpendicular to the gauge front surfaces. The platinum temperature is assumed

equal to that of the front surface of the MACOR. This insulating substrate is large

enough that it allows the calorimeter to be modeled as a semi-infinite medium for the

times associated with combustion and with the early gas cooling (typically 20-100 s).'

Using the thermal properties of the MACOR and the front-surface temperatures, the

surface heat flux is calculated from the numerical solution to. the conduction problem

in a one-dimensional semi-infinite slab [14]. It is also assumed that the MACOR is

"cold" (relative to the combustion gases) during testing so that radiation heat losses
3.1 SMOKE Description '27:

from the blackened gauges are negligible. Therefore, energy deposition results can be

obtained for the thin-film gauges by integration of the heat fluxes.

When the thin-film gauge is configured as a radiative calorimeter, additional processing is required to account for the sapphire cover. A significant fraction of the

radiation from the steam component of the combustion products occurs in the. 6.3 pm

vibrational band and the r'tational band for gas temperatures less than 1000 K 116].

Since the sapphire is nearly opaque for wavelengths greater than 6.0 Jm, the fraction

of radiative heat flux attenuated by the cover must be accounted for. This absorbed

fraction is computed in PRESS using the E.W.B. model [16] and can vary between

0.30 and 0.90 during gas cool-down. The correction factor F, is-applied according to

Eq.(3),1 where qR and qRu are the corrected radiative flux and the radiative flux computed without accounting for the cover, respectively, and r, is the effective sapphire

transmittance for wavelengths less than 6.0 pm (T,= 0.80).

qRU qqu (3) .: r•(1 - F0)(3

Note that the sapphire transmittance depends upon the cover cleanliness and probably

varied during a test series.

SLUG

The computer code SLUG operates on the data obtained from the total and radiative

copper slug calorimeters. The copper slug calorimeters are modeled as one-dimensional

devices, with temperature variations perpendicular to the gauge front surfaces. The

thermal model consists of the copper slug with an insulating air gap of 25 mm (1.0 in)

and a MACOR backing material 51 mm (2.0 in) thick. The back surface of the MACOR

is assumed to be adiabatic. Back surface thermocouple data from the copper are

used in the finite-difference- inverse thermal conduction computer code SODDIT [18],

which has been included in SLUG as a subroutine package. From these analyses, front

surface temperatures and absorbed fluxes are computed. When the slug calorimeter

is configured as a radiative gauge, the sapphire cover effects are accounted for in the

same manner as described above for thin-film data processing.

The slug calorimeters operate as one-dimensional devices for only the early part of

a test. Further, these gauges tend to heat-up rapidly leading to significant radiative

and convective heat losses. Thus, energy deposition results from'the slug calorimeters

are typically very low and, although computed by SLUG, will not be provided in this

work.
28 3 DATA ANALYSIS

HBSWAL

The computer code HBSWAL, developed for the NTS data analysis, processes data

from the HBS flat-plate and hollow-cube calorimeters and from the wall thermocouples.

HBSWAL models each of these instruments as a one-dimensional slab and uses SODDIT

to estimate the surface total heat fluxes from the thermocouple data.

The flat-plate calorimeter is modeled as a composite of 0.5 mm (20 mil) of brass

with an insulating felt backing 3.2 mm (0.125 in) thick (actual thickness of felt is 12.7

mm). The back of the 3.2 mm insulating layer is assumed to be perfectly adiabatic.

The aluminum cube is configured as a composite of aluminum and an insulating layer

of air 38 mm (1.5 in) thick.5 As indicated in Section 2, thermocouple data are measured

at the interior surfaces of the aluminum and brass and are used in solving the inverse

conduction problem for each calorimeter. Measurements from each thermocouple are

analyzed individually, instead of using a single average temperature. Note that in this

work, all thermocouple mounts are assumed to be perfect (i.e., the epoxy used for

fastening does not alter the thermocouple response for the calorimeter).

HBSWAL also processes the wall thermocouple data, assuming that the dewar wall

acts a calorimeter with heat flow perpendicular to the surface. The stainless-steel back

surface is modeled as adiabatic, and the front surface temperature is measured. A

numerical direct conduction calculation is performed to obtain the net surface heat

flux into the dewar.

As with the slug calorimeters, the instruments modeled in HBSWAL heat-up significantly during postcombustion times, and thus heat losses from the front surfaces

become important. The ýenergy deposition results obtained from the integration of

the total surface fluxes are low as a result, and do not accurately reflect the actual

gas-cooling phenomena. The heat flux data. obtained from processing the cube and

.flat-plate calorimeters and the wall thermocouples are assumed to be accurate only for

the very early times of the tests (through and beyond times of combustion).

GASTEMP

Program GASTEMP processes the gas thermocouple data to locate the maximum

temperature and to determine the time from combustion initiation to the time of peak

temperature. The latter quantity can be regarded as a measure of the local combustion duration. In addition, GASTEMP determines the time (AtT,, 2 ) at which the gas

temperature is greater than the average of the initial and peak temperatures (referred

to as T1/ 2). This time, and the associated temperature T1/ 2, provide a measure of the

severity of the thermal environment.

5 It is assumed that gas flow into the cube through the instrumentation feed-through is negligible and

that all surfaces heat-up uniformly, thus avoidingsignificant internal natural convection effects.
3.1 SMOKE Description 29

GARDON

Program GARDON was developed specifically for the NTS work to process the

EPRI/EG&G-provided Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter gauges to obtain peak heat flux

and energy depositions. The peak heat fluxes are taken directly from the data records.

The energy deposition results are obtained from Eq.(4), where q is the provided heat

flux data and qoff is a baseline flux estimated from the late-time gauge response (see

Figure 15).

Q(t) 0(q(t) - q0fof(t)) dit (4)

10

C\J

2

U

Fw

I

-J

F-0

IV)

S

LI)

8

6

4

2

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

IrE (S)

300

Figure 15: Typical heat flux record for Schmidt-Boelter gauge H503 (test NTSP16)
30 3 DATA ANALYSIS

At times 100-300 seconds after completion of combustion, depending on the particular test, the gas pressure and gas temperature are essentially constant, suggesting

that the cooling process is nearly completed. The Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter gauges

still typically measure a fixed heat flux associated with the difference between the

cooler sensing location and the surface. This baseline flux probably varies during testing; however, since temperature data are not available at the sensing location for this

determination, it has been assumed that the baseline. value is constant.

It should be noted that the radiative and total gauge signals are processed identically

in GARDON. The radiative results provided by EPRI/EG&G supposedly accounted

for the sapphire cover through the calibration factors. In reviewing the manner in which

Medtherm calibrated the radiative gauges, we believe that the resulting radiative data

are in error. The Medtherm calibration procedure [19] uses a blackbody source which is

not representative of the steam-radiating spectrum. A significant fraction of the steam

radiation is from radiating bands for which the sapphire cover is nearly• opaque as

was described -previously. To correctly quantify the radiative calorimeter. response, one

would need to use calibration data for the gauge response without the cover, and then

correct for the attenuation effects using Eq.(3). Unfortunately, there are no calibration

factors for the gauges configured without the sapphire covers. Further, the pre- and

post-test calibration data for the radiative gauges varied so significantly (as great as

50% differences) [1], that recalibration of the gauges without the cover would not help

significantly. Thus, although the radiative Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter gauges were

processed by SMOKE, there will be no presentation of these results.
31.

4 Initial: Conditions and CombUstion Data.

The EPRI/EG&G premixed combustion test program con'sisted of twenty-four tests using various mixtures of hydrogen (5 to 13%'by Volume)and steam (4 to40% ):. Datawere provided 'to SNLA for twenty-one of these tests. In two of the tests forwhich no data were received,- there was either no combustion or the combustion completeness was

so low that the tests were repeated with sprays/fans operative to affect more complete burning. For the third test for which no data: were provided, the data acquisition system was inoperative necessitating a :'repeat' experiment.6 6

* Nominal precombustion data (i.!e., initial conditions) :and co-mbustion parameters (e.g., combustion completeness) for the twenty-one tests are provided-in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The tests from the two series have, been grouped :for presentation in increasingseverity (i.e., increasing hydrogen concentration)according to the following:

* Tests tion conditions with sprays operative are grouped together regardless' of other precombus- (designated asJ'Tests with sray System Operative')

o' Tests in which the dewar was heated, to allow for gas mixtures with steam con- centrations greater than 10% (by volume), are grouped together (designated as 'Steam-Laden Tests')

* Tests in which the dewai was maintained at ambient conditions so that the steam concentration was nominally 5% (by volume), are grouped together (designated

as 'Standard Tests')

In these tables, the tests are designated as 'NTS - P - xx', with the"`P' specifying that the test, was a premixed combustion experiment and with 'xx' conforming to the EPRI/EG&G numbering system. The d atess povided for each test refer to dates given with the data:records, and may not be-the actual test date.

EPRI..[201. Initial conditions 

A description and'combustion parameters ýwere provided by L. Thompson of of the manner. in which ýthe combustion completeness was

computed from gas sample results§ is given in Reference [1-1. These data were assumed to be correct. and were used as provided unless it was found during SMOKE processing that the measured peak pressure was. greater than the peak pressure obtained from

an adiabatic isochoric combustion (AIC) calculation. In these situations, the initial hydrogen concentration, the steam concentration, and/or the Combustion. complete- ness must be in error, since the AIC values are theoretical maximums' obtained by

'Nominal precombustion conditions for test NTSP06 were identical to a test in which there was no combustion except that the fans were operative. Nominal precorabu~tion conditions for test NTSP18 were identical to a test in whbih the combustion completeness was 8% except that sprays were operative. Test NTSP13 was equivalent to a test performed-with out the data acqIuisition system. operative. 7

with 

EPRJ/EG&G designated duplicate tests (I.e., tests with, the sameý initial conditions) in a given series a prime. The prime notation is omitted in' this work, and the`6nly repeated test, designated as' P9' by EPRI, is referred: to as NTSP9P.
32 4 INITIAL CONDITIONS AND COMBUSTION DATA

neglecting heat-losses during, combustion. The combustion completeness was modified in these cases as indicated inTable 6 so that the AIC peak pressure would be greater (arbitrarily between 10-15°Y greater) than the measured values.' Figure 16 shows the combustion completeness data for the twenty-one tests plotted against initial hydrogen concentration. 9 Note also that suspended liquid volume percentage data, used in the AIC calculations when the spray system was operative, are provided in Table 6. These values were computed assuming that the spray-droplet fall distance was 10 m, that the droplet residence time in the dewar was known% (based on terminal velocity estimates for the spray droplets), and that each Sprayco-1713A nozzle provided 3.4 m3 /hr (15 gpm) water flow. Seventeen nozzles were assumed to be operative tests except for test NTSP02, for all sprays-operative in which sixteen nozzles, were' used.

0~

0

Z

0

Fun)

120 -

I

100

80

60

40

20

0

Figure 16:

2 4 6 8 10 HYDROGEN 12 14 CONCENTRATION (%)

Combustion completeness for NTS premixed combustion tests

'Discrepancies between the.measures maximum pressures and the AIC pressures were noted for three

tests (see Table 6) of the Hydrogen Behavior Series. , These lean combustion tests were performed early in'the test program during which testing procedures were still being checked. out. Measurement of

precombustion conditions and gas sampling procedures were improved during later testing, so that even

for lean combustion tests, comparisons of the AIC and measured peak pressures were more consistent. 9 Figure 16 would be quite different if top ignition tests NTSP06 (no fans) and NTSP18 (no sprays) were

included. These data have been omitted, since no other data:from these tests were evaluated.
33

Table 5:; Initial, Conditions for Premixed Combustion Tests

Test Test Test H2 in Designation Date Seriest PO To H2 H20 Dry Air

kPa K• % %

Standard Tests

NTSP01 04 AUG 83 1 97.4 .302.7 5.3 4.2 5.5

NTSP9P 01 DEC 83 2 89.6 302.7 6.0 4.6 6.3

NTSP09 10 NOV 83 2. 91.6 301.8 6.1' 4.2.1 6.4

NTSPOO 23 JUL 83 1 91.6 303.0 6.-6 4.51: -: 6.9

NTSP04 09 AUG`83 1 97.4 305.2 7.7 4.8 8.1

NTSP13 19 DEC 83 2 97.4 303.9 7.8 4.4 8.2

NTSP15 22 DEC;83 2 109.3 303.4 9.9 4.2 _10.3

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 29 AUG 83 1 93.5 325.2 5.5 14.3 6.4

NTSP03 10 AUG 83 1 95.4 325.7 5.8 14.4 7.0

NTSP06 17 AUG 83 1 87.6 323.0 6.0 13.7 7.0

NTSP12 17 NOV 83 2 92.6 339.7 6.9 28.3 9.6

NTSP14 06 DEC 83 2 93.5 347.1 8.1. 38.7 13.2

-NTSP05 18 AUG 83 1 87.6 340.8 7.8 31.3 11.4

NTSP16 20 DEC 83 2 101.3 342.7 10.1 29.5 14.3

NTSP08 12 SEP 83 1 130.6 348.0 11.1 27.2 :15.2

NTSP20 12'JAN 84 2 104.2 342.0 12.9 27.8 17.9

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 25 JAN 84 2 93.5 325.5 5.2 14.5 6.1

NTSP11 15 NOV 83 2 93.5 304.6 5.8 4.9 6.1

NTSP02 12 AUG 83 1 88.6 324.1 5.8 416.8 7.0

NTSP18 09 JAN 84 2 105.2 342.2 6.6 27.3 9.1

NTSP21 23 JAN 84 2 102.3 341.3 13.2 27.4 18.2

? Tests from series 1 (1) are partof Hydrogen Behavior; Tests from: series 2

(2) are part of Equipment Survival
34 4 INITIAL CONDITIONS AND COMBUSTION DATA

Table 6: Combustion Parameters for Premixed Tests

Test Test Test Ignition Mixing Combustion. Suspended

Designation Date Seriest Locationl Fans Completeness* Liquid Volume

(On/Off) % %

Standard Tests

NTSP01 04 AUG 83 1 B Off 32./32. .0000

NTSP9P 01 DEC 83 2 B Off 53./53. .0000

NTSP09 10 NOV 83 2 B Off 60./60. .0000

NTSPOO 23 JUL 83 1 B Off 66./66. .0000

NTSP04 09 AUG 83 1 B Off 100./100. .0000

NTSP13 19 DEC 83 2 B Off 100./100. .0000

NTSP15 22 DEC 83 2 B Off 100./100. .0000

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 29 AUG 83 1 2E On 45./37. .0000

NTSP03 10 AUG 83 1 C On 50./44. .0000

NTSP06 17 AUG 83 1 T On 54./54. .0000

NTSP12 17 NOV 83 2 B Off 58./58. .0000

NTSP14 06 DEC 83 2 B Off 94./94. .0000

NTSP05 18 AUG 83 1 B Off 100./100. .0000

NTSP16 20 DEC 83 2 B Off 100./100. .0000

NTSP08 12 SEP 83 1 B On 100./100. .0000

NTSP20 12 JAN 84 2 B Off 100./100. .0000

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 25 JAN 84 2 1E Off 31./31. .0011

NTSP11 15 NOV 83 2 T Off 58./58. .0011

NTSP02 12 AUG 83 1 C Off 70./43. .0010

NTSP18 09 JAN 84 2 T Off 69./69. .0011

NTSP21 23:JAN 84 2 B On 100./100. .0011

Tests from series 1 (1) are part of Hydrogen Behavior; Tests from series 2

(2) are part of Equipment Survival

Ignition at Bottom (B), Center (C), Top (T), or by 1 or 2 Igniters on the Wall

at the Equator (1E, 2E)

" Combustion completeness (CC) values used in Sandia data analysis/Values

provided by EPRI
35

5 Results

In this section, summary results from the different- instrumentation are provided

for the twenty-one premixed combustion tests. As a part of this effort, the different

instrument performances are assessed, and results from instrumentation which operated

effectively are compared. Although representative results are given in this section, the

majority of the results are given in three appendices. These appendices are organized

as follows:

9 Appendix A - Summary Tabular Results

e Appendix B - Comparative Graphical Presentation of Results

9 Appendix C - Graphical Results for Individual Tests

Appendices A and B provide comparative tabular and graphical results for the different

tests, respectively, while Appendix C provides comparative graphical results for each

test from different instruments operating in that test. Appendix C is intended to

provide the important temperature, pressure, and heat transfer characteristics needed

for studying the different tests individually.

5.1 Assessment of Instrumentation Performance

Evaluation of the instrumentation performance was a two-step process, as indicated

previously in Section 3. The data records were initially evaluated during the SMOKE

preprocessing work to eliminate data that were overly "noisy" and/or which were phys- ically incorrect (i.e., negative temperatures, pressures, etc.). The second assessment

of the instrumentation was performed following SMOKE processing, when the results

from different instrumentation were compared (1) for the particular test and (2) with

results fiom other similar tests. This latter, assessment was continuously reviewed and

updated as information about the instrumentation became available.10 Thefollowing

instrumentation assessment represents our best estimates for the quality and:usefulness

of the results obtained:.from this work.

Instrumentation performance for tests of the Hydrogen Behavior Series is given in

Appendix A in Table A.1 and for tests of the Equipment Survival Series in Tables'A.2

and A.3." The tests are arranged in the order in which they were performed, so that

trends associated with instrumentation operability can be seen more easily, It should

1

0 important background information needed for the instrumentation assessment was provided by J. Haugh

of EPRI, R. Torok of Astron' and J. Shepherd of SNLA who were' involved with the, instrumentation

procurement and installation. FRequent discussions with these individuals led to explanation s to

how and why instrumentation failed. Additionally, visual and "hands-on" inspection of the SNLA

instrumentation following completion of testing provided supporting evidence as to the causes for

- instrumentation deterioration and/or failure.

"Tables and figures start, from unity in each of the appendices. A letter prefix is used to specify;the

appendix where the figure or table:is located (e.g., Table A.3 or Figure B-.6).
•36 5 RESULTS

also be noted that test severity generally increased with each test. Instrumentation

status for each test is classified as "good",' "marginal", or "bad"." "Good" instrumentation provides believable signals which are consistent with other sensors and with

data from other tests. "Good" implies that (1).the instrument signal quality is believable and (2) that results obtained from signal processing are reasonable. Results

for "bad" instrumentation have poor signal quality; signals and inferred results from

"bad", records are not provided. "Marginal" suggests that the instrument signal is generally reasonable, although it may deviate from other data. Similarly, an instrument

response is termed "marginal" if results obtained from signal processing deviate from

expected trends or from results obtained from other sensors. Results from SMOKE

processing are given for "marginal" instrumentation to provide a sufficient data base;,

caution should be exercised when using these results. Examples of marginal pressure

signals .from sensor P102 are given in Figure 17.1 Results inferred from these data are

used since no other pressure data were available from these tests.

Summary descriptions sof the instrumentation operability/usefulness are provided

in the following sections.

Pressure Sensors

At least one pressure sensor was available for analysis for each of the twenty-one

tests. For the early tests of the Hydrogen Behavior Series, only Sandia-provided pres-i

sure sensor data are available. Sensor P104 located at the top of the dewar failed

early in testing prior to the third premixed experiment; data from P105 appears to

be accurate through test NTSP08. Following completion of this series,. the Sandia

pressure sensors were :replaced and more thermally massive housings (with internal

water cooling) were provided to'shield these sensors for the Equipment Survival Tests.

Nonetheless', both SNLA pressure sensors failed for all tests of the second test series.

Failure has been attributed to either failures in the electrical connections and/or to

diaphragm overheating. 14

The Setra pressure sensors appear to have operated; effectively for tests in the Equipment Survival Series. Water vaporization.:in the cooling lines for P102 appears to have

been the odnly major problem en'countered in operating these sensors, and once cor-

.

2The instrumentation status for radiative calorimeters H105, H106, H501, and H505 are based only on

data signaltrace. Uthe Given the calibration problems described in Section 3, SMOKE-processed results

will not'be' provided for these instruments.

n

3 it is believed that there was water in the pressure lines for these tests. When combustion occurred, the

associated heat-up led to water vaporization which led to erroneous signals near the pressure peaks.

Thisi problem was uncovered after test NTSP16 and the water in the lines was purged: there after.

Note also that the P102. pressure signals were modified prior to. smoothing (see Figure 14) to be more

consistent with the signals recorded. (but not provided) for P101 and P103.

'

4The SNLA pressure transducers were positioned at the 'top of the dewar (P104) and in the lower part of

the* dewar (P105) for the Equipm Ient Survival Tests (see Figuure 6). P105 had previou sly been positioned:<

in the upper, part of the dewar on the off,-axis rake for the Hydrogen Behavior Tests, and had functioned

for 7 of the 8 premixed'tests of that series.,
5.1 :Assessment of Instrumentation Perfoirmance • 37

rected, the three gauge signals were nearly coincident '(e.g., see pressure traces of tests

NTSP20 and NTSP21 in Appendix C). Data for these gauges, psrovided in the EPRI

data books [21] for tests of the Hydrogen Behavior Series, 'also appear to be consistent,

although the initially unprotected gauge P102 did fail during testing. Afterward, this

gauge was positioned outside the dewar and attached to the end of a tube extending

into the dewar as described in Section 2.

There is some uncertainty as to which type of gauge functioned better (i.e., with

better accuracy). Although the data are sparce,.*coimparisons of the performances of

P105 and the Setra transducers are available for test NTSP05, and for comparable

tests NTSP04. and NTSP13. As seen in Figure 18, the P105 pressure signals decay

more rapidly than do the Setra sensor signals. This suggests (1) that the thermal input

is affecting the SNLA sensor, or (2) that the pressure response of the Setra sensors is

,delayed by the long lengths of tubing between the gauge and dewar gas. Since there

are no additional data for comparison to resolve this uncertainty, the results obtained

from both types of gauges have been accepted as correct without further modification

to the signals. Note that the pressure-inferred total heat fluxes for times following

combustion would tend to be higher for. P105 than: for'P.10 , P102 and P103, since the

heat transfer rate is related to the pressure gradient..

4

FS

U)

3:5

3

2-5

NTSP15 (1b/47)

T I,rN{rs16 (10/,30 •) .. ,•

I I : ' .. I : . ,

2

1.5

*;1I -5 5 I I I I I

0 .5 10 "

TIME -AFTER- START

15 20 25

OF'COMBUSTION (!S)

30

.Figure;.17: "Marginal" pressure signals for sensor P102. Values in parentheses are the

precombustion hydrogen concentration/steam concentration.
38 5 RESULTS

3

(A

(A

8L

Z75

2.50

2.25

2

1.75

tSO

125

I

-10 0 10

TIME AFTER

20 30 40

START OF COMBUSTION S5

50

3.5

LiJ

z

Q

V.)

z

3

2.5

2

J! I ̧ I ! !

-10 0 10 20 30 40

TIME AFTER.START OF COMBLJSTION (S)

Figure 18: Comparative pressure sensor responses for Sandia (P105)

P102,. P103) 'gauges"

50

and EPRI (P101,
5.1 Assessment of Instrumentation Performance 39

Gas Thermocouples

The gas thermocouples appear to have operated well for most of the tests in the

Equipment Survival Test Series. Gas thermocouple data were provided only for two

tests, NTSP05 and NTSP08, of the Hydrogen Behavior Tests; for these tests the'thermocouples also appear to have functioned. Most of the thermocouples installed directly

above the gas injection source for the Equipment Survival Tests, including T151, failed

during the continuous-injection experiments which were performed near the end of testing. In general, the 3-mil gas thermocouples compared well during and after combustion. The 32-mil gas thermocouples also functioned, providing late-time postcombustion gas temperatures which were comparable with 3-mil thermocouple measurements.

Wall Thermocouples

Data for two wall thermocouples were available for 11 tests in the Equipment Survival Test Series and for 2 tests in the Hydrogen Behavior, Series. Although the two

thermocouples were both installed near the top of the dewar, their responses were usually quite different. Typical responses for these instruments are shown in Figure 19 for

test NTSP16. T120 increased in temperature more rapidly during combustion, and also

typically measured lower temperatures than T121. The peak heat fluxes inferred from

T121 were generally lower than for T120, occurring at times 20-40 s after the times of

peak pressure. Causes for these discrepancies are unresolved, and it must be assumed

that .(1) the thermocouples were mounted to the walls differently or (2) different local

heat sinks' seriously altered the thermocouple responses. In general, results from T120

are assumed to-be more representative of the wall response, based on global estimates

of the wall response computed from the pressure signals.

Thin-film Gauges

The-total thin-film gauge provided "good" results for 3 of the Hydrogen Behavior

Tests andfor all 12 of the Equipment Survival Tests. Failures during the firsttest series

are attributed to problems with the electrical connections to the gauge. The radiative

thin-film gauge-,yielded "good" results for- only one test, NTSP04.- Problems were

encountered thiroughout testing- (1)in maintaining the vacuum between the. sapphire

a nd the MACOR and:(2) in heating the gauge-to limit.I condensation effects. Radiative

thin-film signals were recorded for nearly all tests; data processing indicated that the

gauge was not bperating as intended. Post-test inspection of the gaugesihdicate that if

the electrical connection and heater problems had been resolved during testing, "good"

radiative and total heat transfer data would have been obtained for all tests since the

gauge sensing elements and- the MACOR were undamaged,.
40 5 RESULTS

420

TEST NTSP16

410 -

400 / -

,/ T121

S390 /

380

• 370 -

-50 0 50 •0 W0 200 250 3

lME AFTER START OF COMBUSTK)N (S)

Figure 19: Comparative wall thermocouple response for test NTSP16

In general, the total thin-film gauge functioned as expected for the Equipment

Survival tests. It measured peak heat fluxes consistent with the other calorimetry.

However, the sampling rates at NTS were probably not sufficient for the thin-film gauge

for tests where the initial hydrogen concentration was > 8%; peak heat fluxes for these

tests probably were not recorded (i.e., heat flux estimates from the thin-film gauge

for the most severe premixed combustion tests are low). The true (actual) maximum

heat fluxes were not recorded due to undersampling. Note again that these data were

probably recorded by the NEFF data acquisition system [1], but that we had requested

only those data recorded at the slower sampling rate. In addition, the thin-film gauge

underpredicted the total energy deposition. The data processing model (semi-infinite

solid, thermal conduction model with constant properties) was not appropriate for

late times > 100 seconds after combustion. Further, the surface heat losses were not

accounted for in the analyses. This omission was particularly important for the more

severe tests since the gauge surface temperature increased significantly (see Figure 20).
5.1 .: Asse .ssment of Instrumentation Performance .44

160

140

Y

120

uLJ

n- 100

LJ

:i 8o

G 40

I. -

KNTSP20 (13/27 -%

- jNTSP.16 (10/307.) -------------------- ----.----.-- _--...

- NTSP1•(7/28% NTSP07(5.5/14 %)

I A

zLu

0

-20 0 20 40

TIME AFTER START OF

60 -80

COMBUSTION (S )

100

Figure 20:.: Total thin-film temperature rise histories during differenttests. Values in

parentheses are the precombustion hydrogen cioncentraLion/steam concentration.

Copper Slug Calorimeters

The SNLA totalslug calorimeter (H1.04) was included .in the dewar for both test

series"and provided "good" or "marginal" results for all tests. Results were judged -::to be "marginal". for cases where the signal Was overly noisy or where the. measured

slug temperatures were not, conitinuous, since .such Signals weri.. difficult to process

and since the- results were difficulttdt assess.' 5 As an example, Figure 21 provides

typical "marginal"..(A) and .."go6d" (B) H¶104 temperature histories: for tests. NTSP15

and NTSP 16, respectively. ý'When .the data for tests .with "marginal"ý traces (e.g. :test

NTSP16) wereprocessed, anomolous heat flux results following: completion bof combustion were computed (see Figure 22). Note that the slug temperatures became greater

than the surrounding gas after combustion, and consequently, the direction of heatfiow:

reversed. Because of these correspondingly negative.;fluxes, seen in Figure 22, the slug

gauge configuration could not' be used to calculate energy deposition.

?.'We believe that the total:slug gauge functioned for all tests, and that the strange variations in the

signals may well have been the result of local local fluctuations in the environmeint around the sensor.

.Unfortunately, there were no other S insors inthe vi inity of. the slug :caorimeter (see Figure 8) to

verify/dispute this conjecture. In addition, signals such as are shown in Figure 15-A had not been

recorded in prior FITS testing_[10,.-
C

42 5 RESULTS

650 650

600 600

H104

550 550 H0

500 500

0::

450 450

1-400 400

350 TEST NTSP15 TEST NTSP16

300 300

-50 0 50 100 150 200 -50 0 50 100 ]50 200

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S) TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

Figure 21: Measured.temperatures for slug calorimeter H104 for tests NTSP15 (A) and

NTSP16 (B)

12 10

A TEST NTSP15 .TB .TEST NTSP16

10

8

8i

66

X 4 4 -•4 HI04 4H044

-2

2

0

-2

I I I I -2 II

-20 0 20.40 50 80 100. - 20 0, 20 40 50 80 100

lIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S) TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

Figure 22: Computed surface heat fluxes for slug calorimeter H104 for testsý NTSP15

(A) and NTSP16 (B)
5.1 Assessment of Instrumentation Performance 43

The radiative slug calorimneter (H103) signals appeared to be "good" prior to processing;, after SMOKE• rrocessing, most H103 signals.were judged to be "bad". This

is believed to be due to the f11lowing problems. As with the radiative thin-film gauge,

the heater unit for the.slug"calorimeter was inoperative for nearly all tests. In addition,

the vacuum was not maintained between the sapphire and MACOR, and further, the

sapphire surface was heavily coated with contaminants by the conclusion of testing. In

general, the variation in cover optical properties, as well as the problems associated

with condensation, precluded obtaining radiative results for all but one (NTSP04) of

the tests.;,

Brass Flat-Plate Calorimeter

The flat-plate calorimeter data were inconsistent; all results inferred from this

calorimeter were judged to be. "bad,' Post-test inspection of this gauge revealed that

the brass plate had separated from the -insulation., The thermocouples were visible

from the side and therefore were also in direct communication .with the hot combustion

gas. This confirmed suspicions about the gauge operability which arose during the

interpretation of SMOKE-processed results. Figure 23 provides a view of the damage:

incurred by the flat-plate gauge; this photograph was taken after completion of testing.

Aluminum Cube Calorimeter

The aluminum cube functioned for most of the tests of the Equipment Survival

.Series. Thermocouples were mounted -to the top (T505) and two of the side (T504,

T506) -interior surfaces. The top and the side thermocouples T504 and T505 yielded

consistent' temperature profiles, although thethermocouple attached to the top surface

tended to lag and be slightly cooler than the side thermocouple. Much lower temperatures were measured from thermocouple T506.for all tests. The post-test inspection

showed that this thermocouple had become unfastened from the cube interior surface

andd was measuring the 'internal gas temperature near the wall. Typical temperature

profiles' for the three cube thermocouples are shown in Figure 24 for test NTSP16.

Results from processing the good thermocouple data were generally consistent with

other calorimetry for the lean combustion tests. However, peak heat flux results from

T505 were typically less than results from T504. It is thought that a water layer

was. deposited on the cube top surface prior to combustion (from the sprays used in

preconditioning the gas), and that the water served as an insulating layer during the

early times of a test. Post-test inspection of the cube also showed that the black

anodized surface had deteriorated (in fact, it was almost -completely removed). It is

postulated that the computed peak heat fluxes for the later tests are low, since the

surface deterioration probably occurred as the thermal environment severity increased

and as a result of the wetting of the surfaces' before testing. -This type of surface

deterioration: had not 'been encountered in either the VGES or FITS combustion test.

programs [12,13].
44 ý .5 . RESULTS

Figure 23: Photograph of brass flat-platecalorimeter, taken after testing

4:

Li

500

475

450

425

400

375

350

325

300

-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S.)

Figure 24: Temperature profiles for the three thermocouples inside the aluminum cube,

measured from, test NTSP16
5.1 Assessment of Instrumentation Performance s%45ý

Schmidt-Boelter and Gardon Gauges

Two Gardon gauges were provided for both test series and seven Schmidt-Boelter

thermopile gauges were included for the Equipment Survival Test Series: As has been

indicated previously, results from the radiative gauges (1 or 2 Gardon gauges and 2

Schmidt-Boelter gauges) are omitted given that the calibration data did not correctly

account for the steam environment and also given the' calibration shifts during testing

Gardon gauge H106 was a total calorimeter for Hydrogen Behavior test NTSPOO

through test NTSP08. and then afterward was replaced with a radiative gauge. H106

functioned well for the first 7 tests (data were not provided for the first test), and

overall, it provided consistent, believable signals. H106, although iuncooled, required

no baseline heat flux adjustment for the 6 lean combustion: tests in which it operated.

The energy depositions computed for H106 are also consistent, except for test NTSP06,

when for late :times (> 80 s) the heat flux fell. below zero; (see results in Appendix C).

This probably occurred because' the gauge overheated during this test, the most severe

test for which H106 was configured as a total gauge.

Five Schmidt-Boelter thermopile gauges were configured as total calorimeters. Water cooling was provided for each of these gauges, although the flow rates were probably

not sufficient for the most severe tests. In particular, H504 operated ineffectively for

most tests due to insufficient cooling.16 Figure 25 shows a comparison, of 'upwardoriented gauges H502 and H504 for test NTSP16 -The gauge heating in H504 is reflected in the lower peak heat flux level and in the negative heat fluxes shortly after

completion of combustion. Although heat fluxes and energy depositions. are provided

for H504 for some of the tests, these data are questionable for all but the very'lean

combustion tests.

Total gauges H502 and H503 operated for nearly all of the Equipment Survival Tests,

while gauges H506 and H507 provided'erratic and/or bad results for the latter half of,

thetests. Typically, the downward-oriented gauges, (H503, H507) recorded higher heat

'fluxes than -did the upward-facing calorimeters'(H502,.1506). It was also noted that

the-baseline fluxes for, H506 and H507 were., typically greater than for H502 and H503.

Baseline'fluxes for H507,i.inparticular, were large, ranging from 1.0-1.2 W/cm2 for the

most severe tests.

• 16In a working meeting held at- SNLA .June 19, 1984, the EPRI calorimetry status was reviewed *by

personnel from EPRI, Westinghouse, and Sandia. The cooling problem was discussed, and it was

hypothesized that H504, located at position C on the Equipment Platform (see Figure 9), was not

cooled sufficiently or possibly not cooled at all. Water cooling to the different gauges on the Equipment

Platform came from a location near the dewar center rake. The insulated tubing length to position

*A on the Equipment Platform was - 8-10 m, while the length to H504 and to position..B was -.• 14.

im. In addition, it was suggested that while the'flow'rates might have been sufficient, there could have

been a blockage in the lines at the H504 gauge connection that would have limited cooling. Additional

comments on this problem are included in Reference 11].
46 5 RESULTS

6

4

x

Lii

r

2

0

-2

-4

-20 0 20

TIME AFTER

40 60

START OF COMBUSTION

80

(S)

100

Figure 25: Comparison of Schmidt-Boelter gauges H502 and H504 for test NTSP16
5.2 Gas Pressure Results 47

-5.2 .Gas Pressure Results,

Gas pressure profiles, peak pressure results, and combustion duration obtained from

the pressure are presented-in this section. Gas and wall temperature data and heat

transfer results inferred from the pressure are discussed in .the following sections in

conjunction with the 'measured quantities. Pressure results.. for each of the tests are

given in Appendix C: (1) for:times associated with combustion and (2). for the duration

of the experiment. Additional pressure results are given in Appendices A and B, and

specific references to these data are cited below..

5.2.1 Comparative Pressure Profiles

Representative comparative pressure profiles for the three classes of tests (i.e., stan'-

dard, steam-laden,, and sprays-on) are given in Figures B.1, B.12, and B.23 of Appendix

B, respectively. Trends from these figures are typical. of what has been seen in smallscale combustion tests conducted by Sandia at VGES [22] and FITS [23], and by personnel from Whiteshell, EPRI and Acurex [24.,25]. That is, lean combustion tests tend

to be incomplete, With slow burning and associated small pressure increases. Termination ofthe combustion is difficult to assess, for siuch tests, and the pressure traces

typically exhibit a "roll-over'" with a slow initial decay associated with continued local

burning. However, the transition between combustion gas heating and post-combustion

gas coolingis less distinct for the NTS tests than for tests conducted in.'smaller test

* .vessels such as the FITS facility. Comparative results -for nominal 10% hydrogen-air

deflagrations for these two test -vessels, in particular, demonstrate. the importance of

scale for post-combustion times [26] .

As the hydrogen concentrations increase, the peak pressures increase and the times

to peak pressure decrease. As 'noted previously in Figure 16' nearly a1lif the hydrogen.

was burn'd. for NTS tests> in which the initial volume concentration was greater than

ý7-8%. For higher initial hydrogen concentirations', the pressure rise i's nearly linear, followed by anexponential-like decay.o: The "'roll-over" phenomenon is absent, suggesting.

that combustionris completed almost coincident' with .the time of peak pressure. In the following paragraphs, important observations from comparisons of tests from

the three different test types are presented along with illustrative figures. Included in

these presentatio ns are: (1) comparisons of pressure profiles for 'redundant tests;. (2),

effects of ignition site; (3) effects of added steam; and (4) effects of sprays and fans.

Pressure Profiles for Redundant Tests,

The premixed combustion tests included only two sets. of tests which were redun-

'dant, tests NTSP09 and NTSP9P and tests NTSP04' and NTSP13. 1 7 Comparison "of

pressure profiles for' the latter tests have been provided previously in Figure 18. The

17Tests are referred to as redundant if the initial nominal hydrogen and steam concentrations, the location

.of ignition, and the status of the'fans and sprays.during. testing are identical. Combustion completeness

need not be comparable, just the precombustion conditions...
- 48 5 RESULTS

pressure responses are similar, and the reported differences for these 8% hydrogen combustion experiments can probably be attributed to the different instrumentation. The

6% hydrogen combustion tests NTSP09 and NTSPOP, on the other hand, are quite

different, as seen in the pressure profiles recorded for P103, given in Figure 26. The

combustion process is obviously quite different, although the combustion completeness

values used in this work were similar (53% for NTSP9P and 60% for NTSP09).18

Good agreement should be expected for redundant tests as the hydrogen concentration and combustion completeness increase. Use of the lean-combustion data to infer

phenomena is more difficult, since the combustion is not well-characterized. The data

base from the NTS premixed combustion tests is probably not sufficient, by itself, for

developing burn correlations for hydrogen concentrations less than 8%.

2

0

1.6

14

12

-25 0 25 50 75 100 15 1

1•ME AFTER STA OF COMBlON ( S)

175 200

Figure 26: Comparison of pressure profiles for tests NTSP09 and NTSP9P

Effects of Ignition Site on Combustion

Fourteen of the twenty-one premixed combustion experiments were performed with

combustion initiated at the bottom of the dewar. Of the remaining seven tests, five

were performed in the Hydrogen Behavior Series, and all seven had precombustion hydrogen concentrations less than 7% by volume. For these cases, the ignition location

1

8Also note that combustion in test NTSP09 was initiated by an inadvertant spark (from bare wires)

while a glow plug was used to initiate combustion in NTSP9P 11].
5.2 Gas Pressure Results 49ý

is important since downward combustion isimited for. lean hydrogen concentrations.

:Combustion ocompleteness and pressure rise can vary substantially for tests of comparable initial gas states but with different ignition locations.

Comparisons of the pressure profiles are provided: in Figures 27 and 28 for six 6%

(nominal) hydrogen combustion tests. Fans were operative for the tests compared in

Figure 27 and: sprays were: operative for the tests of Figure 28.'9. Differences between.

comparable fans-on tests NTSP06 (top ignition) and NTSPO3 (center ignition) are

slight. Center ignition for.;the case of sprays-on (test -NTSP02), however, tends-to produce more complete combustion and associated higher pressures than does top ignition

(NTSP11). For both sprays- and fans-on cases, ignition 'at the wall appears to produce less complete combustion ,and smaller pressure increases; this may have occurred

more because' the combustion was incomplete than because of where combustion was

initiated. The initial concentrations differed for these tests; at the lean concentrations,

this would also affect the 'combustion 'completeness. As indicated in the redundant

test section, there were not enough tests performed to fully assess the importance of

ignition site on lean combusti'n phenomena. For quiescent tests in which the hydrogen

precombustion concentrations are above 8-9%, combustion initiation location should.

be less important, since :upward and downward flame- propagation are- expected. -

Effects of Added Steam

The addition of steam to the precombustion gas reduces the severity of the combustion, since steam serves, as a heat. sink and inert 'diluent during combustion. The

resulting peak pressures and temperatures are correspondingly lower for tests in which

the same quantities of. hydrogen are burned. This was seen previously in Figure 17,

which compares pressure signals for two 10% hydrogen combustion tests having precombustion steam concentrations of 4 and 30%, respectively. Similar trends are shown

in Figure 29,: which compares the pressures from three 8% hydrogen combustion tests.

Four of the: five tests shown in these two. figures were reported as complete combustion' tests, while test NTSP14 was''determined to be 94% complete. The addition,,of

steam reduces the degree of combustion and, 'for the 39% Steamtest, also modifies the

pressure profile during -combustion.

The addition of steam Would also be expected to affect the postcombustion cooling,

since steam is the radiating source. Similarly, steam condensation .during cooldown

would tend to be more significant for mixtures having larger initial steam concentrations. The cool wall and equipment'. surfaces.would tend to be more 'wetted', 'i'e.,

thermally shielded, during the steam-laden combustion tests.

'

9 Note that for these lean combustion tests, the combustion occurs in the presence of turbulence generated

through either fans or sprays. As indicated previously (footnote 6), a test comparable to test NTSP06

without fans-on was performed and there was no appreciable combustion; that is, downward combustion

was not possible without enhanced turbulence. A test comparable to test NTSP18 also was less than

40% complete, requiring a repeat test with sprays-on. The use of fans and/or sprays affects more robust

and correspondingly: more complete combustion.
.50 5 RESULTS

2

64

t8

U4

12

I

-20 0 20 40 6D 80

ThE AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S )

100

Figure27: Comparative pressure profiles for three 6% (nominal) hydrogen combustion

tests having different ignition sites and with fans operative. Values in parentheses are

hydrogen concentration/steam concentration/ignition site.

2.2

61:

0z

2

1.8

1.6

14

1.2

NTSP02 (6/14/CENTER)

I.NTSP11 (6/5/TOP)

p, NTSP22 (5/15/W&L AT EQUATOR)

I

-20 0 20 40 60 80- 100

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S)

Figure 28: Comparative pressure profiles for three 6% (nominal) hydrogen combustion tests having different ignition sites and with spray systems operative. Valu-es'in

parentheses are hydrogen concentration/steam concentration/ignition site.
5.2 Gas Pressure Results 51 •:

3NTSP04 (5 7.).

2.5 -(31,•) NTSP z 2

_NTSP14 (39 -7"

-20 0 20 40 . W 0 100

T11W AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

Figure 29: Comparative pressure profiles for three 8% (nominal) hydrogen combustion

tests having different precombustion steam concentrations. Numbers in parentheses

are the steam concentrations.

Effects of Sprays and Fans

Sprays and fans enhance the rate of combustion for lean mixtures of hydrogen.

This is shown in Figure 30, which compares pressuree profiles from' three 6% hydrogen

combustion tests. For the NTS configuration of fans and sprays, sprays are found to

promote' more turbulence and correspondingly more rapid combustion than do fans.

Such trends are less apparent for more severe combustion tests such as are shown in

Figure 31. In this comparison of two 13% hydrogen combustion tests, the burn durations are nearly identical as are the:pressure maxima. The major differences between

these tests occur following completion of combustion, when evaporation of the sprays

leads to more rapid cooling. This trend is also seen in the pressure decays of tests

NTSP1I and NTSP06, shown in Figure 30.

Overall, these examples show that sprays-do not reduce the severity of the actual

combustion, and, in fact, probably enhance the burning due to increased turbulence.

Benefits. from sprays result from the additional cooling mechanism of spray droplet

evaporation. From the comparisons of tests with and without fans, it -is not apparent

that the fans in the NTS dewar modified the postcombustion cooling processes. They

did, however, enhance the combustion of lean hydrogen-air-steam mixtures.
52 5 5 RESULTS

2

z

0

0)

9

z

1.8

1.6

14

1.2

1 -.jI I I"

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

Figure 30: Comparative pressure profiles for three 6%: (nominal) hydrogen combustion

tests showing the effects of sprays and fans. NTSP11 and NTSP06 are top ignition

tests and NTSP9P is a bottom ignition test.

4.

LId

Or1)

0.-

z

0

3.5

3

2.5

2

1

-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

TiME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (5)

70 80

.Figure 31: Comparative pressure profiles for two-13% (nominal) hydrogen combustion

tests with and-without sprays and fans
5.2 Gas Pressure Results. 53

5.2.2 Peak Gas Pressure Results

Measured peak pressure data for the tests are included in Table A.5 of Appendix

A along with computed AIC (theoretical maximum) values. Figure 32. shows peak

pressure ratios (measured and AIC calculations) for the tests as a function of hydrogen

consumed.2 0 These results are also shown in Appendix B in Figures B.2, B.13, and

B.24 for standard, steam-laden, and sprays-on tests, respectively. All tabulated and

plotted values were taken from the data provided by EPRI, except for tests NTSP08,

NTSP20, and NTSP21. For these large hydrogen concentration combustion tests, the

data were not sampled sufficiently often (sampling times > 0.04 S) to record the peak.

The peak results reported here are SNLA estimates based on extrapolation of the

recorded results; typical corrections.varied between 5-15 kPa.

5

1-1

z

0

C/)

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

_ AIC Estimate

o3 Measured (P102, P103, or PI05)

E0.

' . I I

.1

S0 .2 4 6 8

H -YDROGEN COMBUSTED

10 12 14

(%)

Figure 32: Peak pressure ratiosfor the NTS premixed combustion tests

"'Hydrogen consumed is defined as the product of the initial hydrogen concentration and the SNLA

assumed combustion completeness. This value is also used in Appendix B in the graphical presentation

of combustion duration and peak pressure.for the three types of tests.
54 5 RESULTS

5.2.3 Combustion Duration

Combustion duration results inferred from the pressure signals are included in Table

A.5 of Appendix A and are also plotted in Figures B.3, B.14, and B.25 of Appendix

B for the three different test types. Combustion duration is defined in this work as

the time interval from combustion initiation to either (1) the time of peak pressure

(duration referred to as Atp) or (2) the time of peak total heat flux inferred from the

pressure (duration referred to as Atq,). The combustion initiation time (to) is that

time at which the gas pressure surpasses 5% of the total pressure increase measured

for a test. 21 These values are also given in Table A.5 for each test.

Combustion duration is usually defined in terms of the time to peak pressure, especially for complete combustion tests. For lean hydrogen combustion, this time can be

quite long, especially if fans and sprays are not operating. The pressure roll-over for

lean combustion, is indicative that combustion is still in progress, and that the effects of

continued energy release associated with combustion are being offset somewhat by heat

transfer from the combustion gases to the dewar. Once combustion is completed, the

pressure time rate of change would be expected to decrease, continuously. Location of

the time of peak pressure is difficult for lean combustion and probably is not a correct

time scale for combustion. Instead, it is suggested that the time of the peak heat flux

inferred from the pressure is a more representative measure of combustion termination.

Note that Atp and AtqT differ significantly for the lean tests performed at NTS, but

for initial hydrogen concentrations above 7%, the two combustion duration values are

nearly coincident. This would be expected, since for non-lean hydrogen combustion,

the pressure increase and subsequent decrease is steep and the peak pressure defines

the transition.

5.3 Gas Temperature Results

Gas temperature results from thermocouple data are provided in Table A.6 of Appendix A, and temperature profiles are compared in Figures BA, B.15, and B.26 of

Appendix B for standard, steam-laden, and sprays-6n tests, respectively. Additionally, "global" peak gas temperature ratios (Tm/To) obtained from the pressure signal

processing are given in Table A.4, and comparisonsof the global and measured temper-.

ature profiles for standard and steam-laden tests are provided in Appendix C. These

comparisons are not provided for sprays-on tests, given the limitations of SMOKE for

modeling spray evaporation, as indicated in Section 3.

The peak temperature ratios (Tm/To) obtained for the 3-mil thermocouples (Table

A.6) compare well with the maximums inferred from the pressure data and with the

upperbound AIC values as shown in Figure 33. The times associated with the measured peaks are also consistent with the times of the measured peak pressure, although

2 1Note that combustion duration'defined in this manner omits the early-time combustion which occurs

essentially at constant pressure (isobaric portion of combustion). More accurate estimations o f the

combustion duration could be obtained from the video tapes recorded for each test.
5.4 Wall Temperature Results 55

the thermocouple peaks generally occurred •slightly earlier. Differences between the

thermocouple time of peak and the time of peak pressure (At,,mp) are given in Table

A.6. The.32-mil thermocouples were not sufficiently sensitive to follow the transients

associated with gas heating during combustion and early postcombustion cooling. This

is noted from review of the temperature profiles (Appendix C), the measured peaks,

and the times of these peaks relative to the time of peak pressure (Appendix A). The

late-time temperatures from the 32-mil thermocouples are consistent with data from

the- 3-mil thermocouples, nonetheless, as shown in the comparative gas temperature

figures in Appendix C.

The severity of the environment resulting from combustion can be measured not

only by the peak gas temperature, but also by some characteristic time period during

which the gas temperature is greater than some Specified threshold. In this work, the

temperature threshold (specified as T1/ 2) is defined as the average of the initial and

maximum gas temperatures. Table A.6 provides the threshold temperatures and the

duration (AtTw, 2 ) for which the gas temperature is greater than T1/ 2 for the different

tests. This time includes both the combustion and postcombustion periods.of the experiment. These times are useful for comparing tests which have similar precombustion

conditions and different ignition sources and also to assess the effects of fans/sprays

on the gas cooling. It is important that comparisons of AtT,/, be made for tests with

similar T1/ 2 values to provide consistency. Figure 34 shows such a comparison for gas

temperature results from tests NTSP20 and NTSP21. The shorter time AtT,/2 for test

NTSP21 points out the advantages associated with spray-cooling.

Overall, comparisons of the average gas temperature inferred from the pressure and

the measured temperatures for the standard and steam-laden tests are quite good (see

figures of Appendix C). The average gas temperature results for the postcombustion

times are typically bracketed by the 3-mil and 32-mil data. The average gas temperature profiles.tend to follow the 3-mil data very closely at early times; measured

gas temperatures are not appreciably greater nor are the temperature decay rates different. This indicates that, at least for the NTS premixed combustion tests, global

estimates of the gas temperature and.pressure should be sufficient for characterizing

the environment.

5.4 Wall Temperature Results

Comparative- walltemperature results are provided in Figuresr B.5, B.16, and B.27 of

Appendix B for representative standard, steam-laden, and sprays-on tests, respectively.

In addition, results from thermocouples T120 and T121 are compared with average

wall temperature estimates obtained during pressure signal processing in Appendix C.

Average wall temperature estimates are omitted for sprays-on tests, given limitations

in SMOKE pressure processing for these cases.
56 5. RESULTS

5

0

-.

£-j

z

.0

Z

4.5

4

3

2.5

2

1.5

I

0 2 4 6 8

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( )

10 12 .14

Figure'33: Peak gas temperature ratios for the NTS premixed combustion tests

LU

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

-20 0 20 40' 60 -

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S)

80 0 20 .40 60

TIW AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

Figure 34: Comparisons of 3-mil thermocouple responses for tests NTSP20 (A) and

,NTSP21 (B)
5.5 Heat Transfer Results 57.

It is apparent from the figures in the appendices that thefmocouples T120 and. T121.

respond differently. Thermocouple T120 appears to follow the combustion' better; the,

initial temperature profiles are steeper and the time. to peak temperature is earlier

than for T121. These effects are reflected in the heat flux results inferred from the

wall thermocouples and are discussed in the next section'. The temperature profiles for

T120 are -also more consistent with the average wall temperature estimates, although

the magnitudes are ofte1n quite different. 22 The early peak and subsequent cooling

seen in the average wall and T120 profiles for the. more severe tests occur because the

stainless steel dewarthermal diffusivity is low. At the early times of the experiment,.

the hieat absorbed at the surface remains near the surface. At late times, the heat into

the wall is reduced and the heat is also diffused into the wall. The temperature response

of T121. is so different that it is suspected that it must have been mounted (1) on the

wall differently, or perhaps (2) to some object on the wall which was not stainless steel.

It was believed initially that differences in the local thermal environment at various

ele;vations in the dewar could be determined by review of the thermocouple traces from

the seven wall".thermocouples. Before significant time and. effort- is directed towards

this end, the specific thermocouple mounts should be reviewed, and the data should be

cross-plotted given the above-discussed discrepancies in T120 and T121 signals.

5.5 Heat Transfer Results

-5.5.1 R6sults from Calorimetry

Comparative peak heat flux results and computed energy depositions obtained from

the calorimetry are given in Tables A.8 and A.9 and Table A.11 of Appendix A, respectively. These results are also plotted for each of the three classes of tests in Figures

B.10, B.21, "and B.30 of Appendix BW Representative heat flux and 'energy deposition

profiles for total thin-film gauge H232 (Figures B.6, B.17, and B;28) and for SchmidtBoelter gauge H503 '(Figures B.7; B':18, and B.29) are' also provided in Appendix B.

These figures compare gauge responses for tests 'of the same class (e.g., 3 tests fr'om the'

steam-laden series), but of different severity. Additional heat transfer: profiles'(fluxes,

and depositions) for selected Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter gauges and for the thin-film

gauge are provided for all tests in Appendix C.

22Wall heat-up during combustion is modeled in SMOKE assuming a uniform heating rate. The -energy.

deposition during this 'time is taken as the product of the AIC energy deposition, and the fraction

obtained from subtracting the ratio of the measured peak pressure and the AIC peak pressure from

unity. This assumed heat' input can be thought of as a correcting procedure necessary for reduction of

the AIC pressure to the measured pressure level. Once combustion is terminated, the total heat in'put

to the-wall is equivalent to the beat losses from the gas. Note that for the lean tests where the pressure

'rolls-over', the total heat, flux. following combustion is initially low. The wall temperature for these

cases tends to decrease. for a short time 'and then increase (e.g., see Figure C.15-C of Appendix C).

This discontinuity in the wall temperature profile does not occur .if the combustion actually terminates

at the time of peak pressure, as is expected for the non-lean tests.
58- 5 RESULTS

Heat Flux Results from Calorimetry

In general, the peak heat fluxes from'the different calorimeters increased with increasing initial hydrogen concentration as would be expected. This results from enhanced convective heat transfer induced by combustion and from increased radiative

heat transfer from the steam (that was initially in the vessel and that was produced

during combustion). The combustion of gas mixtures with larger initial hydrogen concentrations yields elevated gas temperatures during and following combustion. This in

turn leads to larger'radiative heat transfer from the gas. The dramatic increase in the

radiative flux, qRi, can be estimated from the peak gas temperatures, Tmi, for two: tests

using Eq.(5):

qR2 T.2

(5)

It is assumed inEq.(5) that the steam emittances would be comparable for tests having approximately the same precombustion steam concentration. Table 7 provides

estimated increases in the peak radiative heat flux using Eq.(5) for representative tests

from the three test classifications. In addition, measured total peak heat flux ratios

are provided for Schmidt-Boelter gauge H503, thin-film gauge H232, slug calorimeter

H104, and from the aluminum cube thermocouple T504 or T505' Reference fluxes are

taken for the tests from each class with the lowest initial hydrogen concentration.

Table 7: Local Peak Radiative and Total Heat Flux Ratios

Test H* H20* Radiative Flux Total Flux Ratios

Name (%) (%) Ratio qr/ qT,,,

qR/qR,,,t H232 H503 H104 T504/T505§

Standard'Tests§

NTSP9P 6.0 4.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NTSP13 7.8 4.4 7.4 5.64 4.76 5.64 4.33

NTSP15 9.9 4.2 14.9 7.49 9.12 7.49 11.2

Steam-Laden Tests -

NTSP12 6.9 28.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NTSP16 10.1 29.5 7.31 9.54 3.18 3.85 4.21

NTSP20 12.9 27.8 13.3 19.9 5.99 3.38 10.1

Tests withSprays

NTSP11 5.8 4.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NTSP18 6.6 27.3 1.18 1.83 1.92 0.88 1.42

NTSP21 13.2 27.4 11.5 :2.0 .10.6 3.36 13.1

t From Eq.(5); peak gas temperatures (T101 or T102) taken from Table A.6 of

Peak total heat fluxes taken from Tables A.8 and A.9 of Appendix A

§Results from T505 used only for sprrays-on tests

Appendix A
5.5 Heat Transfer Results :59:

The increases in the heat flux ratios are dramaticJfor each of the classes of comparative tests. Radiative fluxes are shown to increase by factors of 10 and more as

the initial hydrogen concentration increases -from 6% to 13%.0 Similar increases are

also shown for the different total calorimeters. The "marginal" performances of H503

and H104.for the 13% hydrogen combustion tests are also evident from the lower than

expected total flux ratios provided. , .

Additional trends from the cal6rimetry are provided by a review of the results in

the appendices. The comparative total heat flux profiles shown in Appendix B for,

H503 and H232 are quite similar. The measured total Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter

peak fluxes also compare reasonably well with the computed thin-film fluxes for most

of the lean hydrogen combustion tests (see Tables A.8 and A.9iof Appendix A). Data

from these instruments differ more for tests conducted after "test NTSP15, performed

on December 22, 1983.23 For the latter tests conducted at NTS, there is some concern

that the total Schmidt-Boelter gauges were not functioning as expected, since the: peak

heat fluxes were low (compared to average estimates inferred from the pressure). This

may have occurred because, the gauges were not water-cooled sufficiently'ý,In addition,

as indicated in the thin-film gauge assessment section, the data recording. rates may

have been too slow for the most severe (13%) hydrogen combustion tests, and the peaks

may not have been recorded. Post-test calibrations for the total Schmidt-Boelter gauges

performed by Medtherm [19' and for the thin-film gauge performed at SNLA- revealed

that calibration shifts were less than 10% and such deviations would not account for

the reduced peak fluxes.

Generally, the downward-oriented Schmidt-Boelter gauges. (11503 and H507) mea-,

sured larger fluxes than did the upward-oriented gauges (H502-and H506). Given that

these gauges were located on the equipment platform near the vertical center of the

dewar, this result was somewhat surprising. The upward-oriented gauge responses may

have been .:affected by the equipment on the platform. The radiant exchange with the

equipment would have been less than with the gas. Similarly, the forced convective

heat transfer induced by combustion might also have been limited by the obstructing

equipment. Heat fluxes measured by H507 (downward-oriented) located above the injection source were greater typically than the fluxes measured by downward-oriented

gauge H503, located near the dewar vertical centerline (see Figures 8 and 9). These

flux profiles and the total peak fluxes were probably in better agreement than is indicated, for example, in Table A.9 of Appendix A, since the tabulated peak fluxes do not

account for the baseline flux correction. Typically, this correction- was greater f6r H507

(see Table A.9 of Appendix A). Heat flux results from the upward-oriented gauges 11502

and H506 were generally' comparable and did not indicate location dependence. Re2 Four-continuous injection combustion tests were performed prior to the last four premixed combustion

tests (NTSP18, NTSP20, NTSP21, and NTSP22). The more severe thermal loading on the instrumentation from' the continuous-injection. tests led to failures of gauges H506 and H507 and has been

postulated to have affected the performance of the other Schmidt-Boelter and Gardon instrumentation. ThermocoupleT15i, :above the injection source, failed during the continuobus-injection combustion

tests, and thetotal slug calorimeter (Hi04) results were marginal for two of the last four tests.
60

605 RESULTS

suits from the downward-oriented gauge 1504 Should not be Compared with the-other

Schmidt-Boelter gauge results, except for the lean hydrogen combustion experiments,

given the gauge cooling problems described previously.

It is difficult to assess the performance of Gardon gauge H106 usedin the Hydrogen

Behavior tests, since there are so little other calorimetry data available for comparison.

Overall, the data appear consistent for six of the seven tests for. which data were

provided. The peak heat fluxes were typically higher than-were the .pressure-inferred

fluxes as would be expected given the location of the gauge at the top of the dewar

(Figure 8)and" that the tests were lean combustion experiments. The measured peaks

compared well with heat fluxes computed from the total-slug calorimeter H104, which

operated for most of the, tests in which H106 was a total gauge.

Peak heat, flux results'from the slug calorimeter H1104 and from thermocouple H504

1inside the aluminum cube were consistent, generally, with the'thin-film and', EPRIprovided calorimetry. results. Peak heat -fluxes from T505 (thermocouple mounted to

the top surface of the aluminum cube) were typically lower- than'T504 results for, the

more sever6e8ests. and were comparable to T504 results for lean combustion experiments

(see Table A'.8of Appendix A). The differences may be attributed to (1) differences

-in the thermocouple mounts, '.(2) differiences in the, aluminum exterior surfaces' during

testing, and/or (3) different exterior surface 'water layers prior-to testing. in the latter

case, the top surface of the cube was probably more thoroughly wetted by.,the.sprays

used in pretest gas conditioning"than, were the side walls. This layer would serve as an

additional insulating layer during testing.'

Peak heat flux resul:ts computed from Wall thermocouple T120 were generally consistent wvith other calorimetry results. The peak flux results from,.T121, on the other hand,

were generaly lower than those computed for T120 or measured by" other calorimetry

in the dewar.. In addition, the times of peak heat.flux for T121 were typically 20-40

seconds after -.the time' of peak pressure. For all other instrumentation, the times of

peak heat flux 'geierally occurred prior to the time of peak pressure or at worst, within

1-3 seconds afterthe peak. The times of peak heat flux are given'in Tables A.8 and

A.9 of Appendix A' in terms of the difference (denoted by 'Atmp tM - t•) betwen

the ,time corresponding to the instrumentation peak heat flux and the time of peak

pressure. For. T121, At.,p was always positive and was aalso usually large, indicating

that the time 'of peak heat flux occurred late' in the test. It was also typically positive

for T120 for the'. more severe combustion tests, when the peak, heat flux estimates were

lower than measured-by the 6ther'instrumentation.

As a final comment, it should be noted that Atmp approached zero for most of the

calorimetry for tests where the initial hydrogen concentration was > 8%, indicating

that the combustion was over at the time of peak pressure. For the lean combustion

experiments when sprays and. fans were not operated, At ,,ý was large and negative,

indicating, that the instruments, were measuring local: combustioný-induced heat'-fluxes.

The peaks associated .with these measurements were 'also typically greater than those

computed frornthe pressure data after combustion was termina ted.
5.5 Heat Transfer .Results6 61

Energy Deposition Results from'Calorimetry

Energy deposition results were computed for the calorimeters by integrating the

heat flux measurements. Comparative total! results are included for the Gardon and

Schmidt-Boelter instrumentation and for the thin-film gauges in Appendices A and

B. The heat flux measurements from the other instrumentation were not corrected to

account for gauge heatup (and associated increased heat losses), and thus the integrated

fluxes were not .true measures of the energy deposition from the gas. Note that for the

thin-film and EPRI-provided gauges, late-time baseline fluxes were used in Eq.(4). This

correction was necessary since the gas was in quasi-equiliblriuim with the dewar, but

not with-the cooler thin-film gauge and water-cooled EPRI calorimetry.

Energy depositions.for H503 and H232 are provided in Table A.11 of Appendix

A. Tabulations of the energy, deposition are given' for the duration of the experiment

: )' :-(QTaiiand for-times after the•time0of peak pressure (QTr). The difference between the

two depositions provides an estimate of the energy lost from the gas 'during combustion.

Further, QT, tab-ulations for the calorimetry can.be :compared with the global estimates

inferred from the postcombustion pressure decays. Upperbound estimates for energy

deposition are also provided for each test,. ,These depositions were obtained using AIC

results (denoted by subscript 'AIC') for the final gas state and the preco"bustio'n

conditions -(subscript '01) for the initial state, as shown in Eq. (6):, .

QAIC - [(PC T)A C - (CT) 0]. (6)

It is assumed in-this upperbound'estimate of the average energy deposition that all of

the energy released as a result of combustion can be absorbedlby the-dewar and that

the-gas can be cooled to its initial state..Infact, the pressure and temperature profiles te J.at.hep '; ie

indicate that the .gas state remains elevated for lrng timesaftierf"ombustion; Energy

depositions computed from -the calorimeters would'be expected to be lowerthan, QAIC.

:This is generally found' to: be the case (see Table A.11 of:Appendix Aa~nd Figures B.10,

B.21, and B.30 of:Appendix B).24 "

The comparative plots of Appendix B show that nearly -ýalPobf jth-e' heat -removal

from the gas (to the d&War) occurred in the first .50-100 seconds after initiation of

combustion. The energy deposition profiles approach some asymptote 'at late times,

after which the gas and dewar walls are in:equilibrium. Additional cooling for these

late times occurs because the vessel is losing heat, to the surroundings. In addition, the

,energy depositions increase significantly-with increasing hydrogen concexitration; this

energy removal from the gas is sen in- the initial slopes of the, energy deposition curves.

-:This should be expected given the dramatic increases in the heat fluxes with :increasing

hydrogen concentration and in' the subsequent accelelerated heat-flux decays following

Combustion.

24Energy deposition results for' Gardon gauge H1106 and Schmidt-Boelter gauge H507 exceed the upper-.

bound value QAIr, for a numberi of the *tests. H106 was not water-coo-ed and the late time heat fluxes

may. have, been high as a result. -H507 measured .the largest heat' fluxes-,of the five total Schmidt--Boelter

gauges and also required the largest baseline flux correction.
62 5 RESULTS

• Finally, it is Should be noted that the computed thin-filmenergy depositions are 30-

50% less than results from the Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter gauges. It is believed that

the thin-film depositions are low because the assumptions used in processing the data

(see THIN in Section 3.1.2) become invalid for times > 100 seconds after initiation of

combustion. The computed heat fluxes would thus. be low for late times, and the energy

depositions would be correspondingly reduced. The semi-infinite solid assumption is,

however, appropriate for early times, and thus the peak fluxes reported for ga'uge H232

would be expected to be accurate.

5.5.2 Results Inferred from Pressure Measurements

In addition to measuring gas pressure, pressure sensors can be used as global heat

flux, measuring devices, when the data analysis procedures outlined in Section 3are

applied. In -this section, representative heat transfer results obtained from pressure

signal processing are provided.: Comparative peak total .and radiative heat flux results

and computed postcombustion energy depositions inferred from the pressure signals are

given in Tables A.7 and A.10 of Appendix A, respectively. These results are also plotted

for the standardand steam-laden tests in Figures B.11 and B.22 of Appendix B and

with the calorimetry results. in Figures B.10 and B.21. Representative postcombustion

total heat flux and energy deposition profiles (Figures B.8 and B.19) and radiative

fluxes and depositions (Figures B.9 and B.20) are also provided in Appendix B for

the standard and steam-laden tests. Additional heat transfer profiles inferred from the

pressure are provided in Appendix C. These results, are ,usually plotted with "good"

calorimetry, results to provide&comparisons between local measurements and average

estimates of heat-transfer for each test. Note that pressure-inferred total heat transfer

results are not computed for tests with sprays-on, given the limitations- of SMOKE

(see Section 3.1.2). Radiative depositions from sprays-on tests are included in Table

A.10; these values.were computed assuming that the gas composition did not change

following combustion. Radiative results for these tests are provided only for comparison

with standard'and steam-laden test results; they, should.not be used except for this

comparison.

Heat Flux Results Inferred from the Pressure

In general, the pressure-inferred, heat flux results are consistent, as indicated1in the.

comparative plots and in the tabulations. Results inferred from lean-combustion tests

would be expected to be lower than calorimeter results, since average estimates would

not account for the nonuniformities. associated with localized combustion.2 5 Pressureinferred results for complete combustion tests would be expected to be consistent with

2,The calorimetry were located in the upper part of the dewar, generally near the centerline. Videos

of the lean-combustion tests in the dewar indicate that local Combustion occurred in the-vicinity of

the instrumentation; calorimeter measurements thus would be expected to be greater than the global

estimates.
:5.5 :Heat Transfer Results 63

heat- flux measurements; previous work using experimental. data from intermediatescale facilities [11] has demonstrated good: agreement between pressure-inferred results'

and calorimetry measurements.

The pressure-inferred peak heat flux results and the postcombustion heat flux profiles for the standard and, steam-laden tests are representative of the. phenom'ena measured by the different calorimeters. Increasing the hydrogen concentrationý (i.e,: combustion severity) results in :increased peak fluxes. The peak fluxesbecome quite -large

(> 25 W/cm'), unlike the calorimeter measurements, for the most severe tests. The

dramatic increases in the peak fluxes are demonstrated in Table 8 for representative

standard and steam-laden tests. Fluxes from tests NTSP9P and NTSP12 are used as

reference conditions in the standard-and steam-laden test comparisons, respectively.

Table 8: Peak Radiative and Total Heat Flux Ratios Inferred from the'Pressure

Test H2/H20*. .qR qT- Total-Ratio Radiative Ratios

Name .(%) W/cm2 W./cm 2 TqTTf t . qR/q-•.k qq/qcY, qT/qTr 

Standard

NTSP9P :.6.0/4.6 0.14 0.41 1.0 1.0 0.34 0.52

NTSPOO 6.6/4.5 0.-62 2.03 4.95 4.43 0.31 0.45

NTSP13 7.8/4.4 3.06 5.79 14.1- 21.9 0.53 1.13

.NTSP15. 9.9/4.2 5.94 10.6 25.8 42.4 0.56: - 1.27

Steam-Laden

NTSP12- 69/28.3 -0.55 1.35 1.0 1.0 0.41 0.69

-NTSP05 7.8/31.3 . 2.61 6.31 4.67 4.75 0.41 0.69

% NTSP16§ _10.1/29.5 6.75 9.65 7.15 .i 12.3 0.70 2.33

NTSP08 11.1/27:2 12 ,3- 21.2, 1,5.7 - 22.4 0.58 1.38

NTSP20 12.9/27.8 15.3 25.4 18.8 29.9: 0.60 1.50

* Precombustion hydrogen and steam concentrations

t NTSP9P and NTSP12 fluxes used as reference conditions-.-

t.qc , - qR in this-w~ork .

§ Results taken from marginal signal P102 (see Figure 17)

The flux ratios q and qd/qn7 4 vary by factors of" •.4-.40 for the tests consid-

- ered. The increases in peak flux are not. linear as can be seen in the peak heat flux.plots

of Figures B.11.and B.22. The curves Shown on these figures are "eye-ball" estimates

of the trends. The peak heat flux increase would be expected to be more substantial

(than a linear. increase, for example), given that the heat transfer is by, coupled convective and radiative exchange; the.-latter mechanism has been shown previously to be

proportional to the gas temperature raised to the fourth power.

It is also apparent:-from Table 8 that the relative importance of radiative heat

transfers increases with test hydrogeni concentration, and further, that the. radiative

mechanism dominates. for the most severe tests at- early. times. after combustion. For

the lean combustiohftests, the average gas temperatures computed'from the pressure
64

6,5 RESULTS

are 

trations 

low and 

> 

convection dominates as the transfer mechanism. For hydrogen concenimportant 

:8% and. steam concentrations <5%, radiative transfer becomes the more energy exchange mechanism. For the steam-laden 

(--- 30%) serves as 

tests, the additional steam

a diluent (i.e., heat sink) and reduces the peak temperatures. seen for It is

drogen concentrations 

these tests that the, radiative mechanism does not become dominant until hymechanism 

in excess of 9-.10% are reached. Although the radiative transfer

mechanisms 

becomes dominant for the most severe tests, the convective/condensation

near the maximum 

still are important, providing 30-45% of the heat removal from the gas conditions.

Energy Deposition Results Inferred from the Pressure

ilar 

Trends from the pressure-inferred postcombustion energy deposition results are simcombustion 

to those reported for the total calorimetry. The initial energy deposition following

energy deposition 

is large, increasing significantly with increasin g combustion severity. The

100-150 

profiles shown in Appendices B and C typically reach asymptotes seconds after cbompletion of combustion. These' times are somewhat than larger the 'leveling-off' 

position profiles 

times reported for: H503 and H232. The radiative energy de- are similarto 

expected.

the total energy depositions, only lower, as would be

Table 9: Radiative and Total Energy Deposition Ratios Inferred from the Pressure

Name( 

Test QR QTTotal Ratios Radiative Ratios (W/cm.) .(W/cm 2

Standard ) QT/QA'ic7t QT/QT,2,. QR/QRj QR/QT QR/QG

NTSP9P 

NTSPO0 23.6 

15.7 48.5 0.47 1.0 1.0 0.33 0.49

NTSP13 71.3 

71.8 0.67 2.03 2.02 0.33 0.49

NTSP15 92.8 

144.2 0.70 4.09 6.09 0.49 0.96

Steam-Laden

197.9 0.67 5.60 7.93 0.47 0.89

NTSP12 

NTSP05 

26.9 

53.6 

52.6 0.58 1.0" 1.0 0.51 1.04

NTSP16 114,1 

108.6 0.61 2.06 1.99 0.49 0.96

NTSP08 190.5 

f,155.0 0.60 2.95. 4.24 0:70 2.85 234.3 0.65 NTSP20 1 63.6 . 4.45 7.08 0.81 4.26

Precombustion hydrogen 

218.9 0.64 : 4.16 6.08 0.75 3.00 and steam concentrations given in Table 8 € QAIG was computed from Eq.(6) a:nd is tabulated 

t NTSP9P and NTSP12 

inTable A.10 of Appendix A . Q fluxes used as reference conditions t: = QTR -. QR in this work'

Table 9, shown above, provides comparative 

results 'radiative and total energy deposition from representative., standard and steam-laden, combustion the6 energy deposition comparisons~ f Q¢/Q, are similar tests.:: Trends from to those reported for-the peak heat fluxes in Tables 7: andý 8. As the combustion Severity increases, thhe radiative and
5.5 6Heat Transfer Results 65

total depositions increase by factors of 2-8 over the reference test energy depositions.

Such increases are particularly important when assessing equipment survival issues

since the: energy deposition is a direct measure of the thermal loadingg.

The addition of steam to the precombustion gas mixture affects the mechanisms of

postcombustion gas cooling. The radiative transfer mriechanismris shown to be much

more important than thelconvective mechanism for the more severe steam-laden tests

(hydrogen concentrations > 10%), while the two mechanisms have nearly equal importance for the most severe standard-test performed at NTS. These generalizations

are demonstrated in the QR/QT and QR/QC ratios. The inc'reased dominance of the

radiative mechanism is attributedto: (1) the increased gas emittance due to the larger precombustion steam concentrations; and (2)S ma-ler -t:otaenergy depositions for the

steam-laden tests. These points are demonstrated' in compaIring the .pressure-inferred

energy depositionsfor tests NTSP15 and NTSP16, two 10% hydrogen-combustion tests.

The total energy depositions for these tests were.- 200. Jcm2 and 150 J/cm2 , respectively, while the radiative depositions were nearly the, same (', 90 J/cm 2 and

110 J/cm2, respectively). It is believed that steam condensation is more important for

tests with higher initial steam concentrations, and that this mechanism leads to more

rapid gas cooling after combustion. The radiative component would be.expected to be.

correspondingly reduced; h6wever, -the increased, gas emittance somewhat Offsets this

reduction.

Finally, the ratio of the pressure-inferred total postcombustion energy depositionr:to

the upperbound AIC energy is approximately 0.6-0.7 for :most tests. Exceptions would

be for the lean-combustion experiments (e.g., test NTSPgP) when the combustion

duration is so long that significant gy transfer occurs prior to the time of peak

pressure. The energy deposition during combustion is not computed from the pressure;

however, from the Pm/PAIC ratios (refer to footnote 22), we would estimate that - 15%

of the AIC energy is lost to the vessel walls during combustion for non-lean tests, and

greater percentages are possible for tests in which the initial hydrogen concentration is

<6 .7%. Note also that the energy depositionratiosco mputed from the pressure signals

are comparable to the ratios which would be obtained from the calorimetry for times

after the time of peak pressure. The calorimetry factors QTr/QAIC and QT.,,/QAlc can

be-computed. from results in Table.A.11 of Appendix A.

5.5.3 Comparison of Local and Global Heat Transfer

Total peak heat fluxes from the calorimetry (i.e., local) and inferred from the pressure (i.e., global) are compared in Figure 35 for the 21 premixed combustion exper-.

iments. The curve is a "best estimate" of the pressure-inferred results. The shaded

region is provided to bound the representative "good" and "marginal" :calorimetry

results which are also plotted.

The calorimetry results and global estimates are typical of what would be expected

for the lean combustion tests (< 6% hydrogen cormbusted). The pressure-inferred peak

fluxes are generally less than the calorimetry peaks. The scatter in the calorimetry
66 5665RESULTS

30 .

Inferred from the Pressure. Data

25 - 0 Thin-Film Gauge

V Copper Slug Calorimeter

-- Aluminum Cube Calorimeter

o 20 - Gardon Gauge 11106

U 0 Schmidt-Boelter Gauge 11502

A Schinidt-Boelter Gauge 11503

10 -----

0 2 4 6 10 12 14

HF-YDROGEN COMBUSTED.(%)

Figure 35: Local and global total peak heat flux comparisons from the NTS premixed

combustion tests

results might also be expected since localized (and incomplete) combustion in the dewar

would lead to location-dependent flux measurements.

It would be expected that the local effects would diminish as the combustion severity increases, since the combustion should be more uniform. Unfortunately, this is

not seen from the results plotted in Figure 35. The large variance in the calorimetry

peak fluxes for the latter tests should probably be attributed to the deterioration of

the instrumentation as a result of the cumulative testing. Problems such as surface

deterioration of the aluminum cube, insufficient water-cooling for the Schmidt-Boelter

gauges, insufficient data~recording rates, etc.,.have been discussed throughout the preceding sections. It is believed that the calorimetry peak heat fluxes are too low for the

most severe tests, and that the pressure-inferred estimates are probably more representative of the phenomena. This is based on the argument that the radiative flux,.which

should dominate for the most severe combustion tests, is predicted to be > 15 W/cm.,

and that the early-time convection should be large given the combustion-induced tur-
5.5 Heat Transfer Results 67

bulence. Therefore the average peak total fluxes would be expected to be at least 20-25

W/cm2 , and local -fluxes perhaps as great as 30-40'W/cm. 2

Similar trends can be noted from the total energy deposition results shown for

standard and steam-laden tests in Figure 36. The shaded region becomes progressively

larger with increased hydrogen consumption. The energy depositions shown for the

calorime~try are for the duration of the experiments, while the pressure-inferred results

are for postcombUstion times only. It would have. been expected, therefore, that the

calorimetry depositions would have been greater for all conditions considered, although

this is obvious]y not the case. The deterioration of the calorimetry performance in the

most severe (13%) combustion test can be seen again from this figure, since the energy

depositions shown for this, test are actually less than for the 10% and 11% hydrogen

combustion experiments.

Energy depositions measured by the calorimetry for the sprays-on tests are shown

in Figure 37. Comparisons of global depositions are not provided, owing to the limitations of the SMOKE pressure signal processing. For this case, the shaded region

provides an estimate (which is only, a best guess and which has not been verified) of

what might be expected when sprays are operative. The different calorimeters measured essentially the same total heat fluxes for the most severe test (NTSP21). Given

the rapid decay of the gas pressures and temperatures (measured by thermocouples),

the Schmidt-Boelter instrumentation probably did not overheat (leading to erroneous

measurements). Similarly, given the short time interval of interest (when sprays are

operative), the semi-infinite solid approximation for the thin-film was valid so that

these results also are probably reasonable.. Note that the upperbound of the shaded

region is less than would be expected for the standard and steam-laden tests, given the

significant gas. cooling obtained from the evaporation of the sprays.

One of the goals in the assessment of the .NTS premixed combustion data was to

determine if local phenomena were considerably different from global estimates for the

phenomena in such a large-scale test vessel. Unfortunately, this issue cannot be resolved

based on the data which have been reported in this work. Instrumentation operability

has been shown to be questionable for most of the total heat flux instrumentation for at

least a few of the tests. In addition, most operable total instrumentation were located

in the same vicinity, so that the measurements would have been expected to have been

comparable if the instrumentation had functioned as intended. Radiative data, which

could be used to:characterize local phenomena, also were not obtained. It remains

to be seen whether local effects can be characterized, using the remaining wall and

gas thermocouple data which were not provided to SNLA. At: this time, based on the

comparisons presented in this and previous sections, it must be recommended that the

global results be used. for bounding the experiments and for benchmarking computer

simulations.
• 68'. 65 RESULTS

350

U~

z

2

300

- Upperbound Estimate from• AIC Calculation

- - -Inferred from Pressure Data

f] Thin-Film Gauge

S.Gardon Gauge 11106

0 Schmidt-Boelter Gauge 11502

/ Schmidt-Boelter Gauge 11503

.250

200

150

100

50

0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 4

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED (7.)

Figure 36: Local and global total energy deposition comparisons,

and steam-laden NTS premixed combustion tests

from the standard

z

0

-LJ

F350

300

250

200

109

100

•50.:

0

0

Figure 37:

combustion

2 4. 6 8 10

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED (7.)

Local total energy' deposition results from

tests

12• 14

the esprays-on NTS premixed
69

6. .Summary -. Closing Remarks

This report provides 'results from an in-depth analysis of twenty-one premixed combustion experiments conducted in the 2084 m3 spherical hydrogen dewar located at

the Nevada Test Site. These tests, funded jointly by EPRI and the NRC, were performed to study combustion processes in a large-scale vessel and to evaluate associated

safety-related equipment response to the resulting thermal environments. Hydrogen

concentrations in these tests ranged from 5 to 13% (by volume) and steam concentrations from 4 to 40%. Several tests also incorporated spray systems and/or fans which

enhanced the combustion rate and significantly altered the postcombustion gas cooling.

.Data provided by EPRI from instrumentation associated withestimating the-thermal environment in the dewar during and following combustion have been evaluated in

this work. Data from the representative safety-related equipment installed in the dewar to assess equipment.survival issues have not been reviewed. Further, this work has

been restricted to the analysis of only those data records which were provided to Sandia on computer tapes. The data reduction package SMOKE has been used to process

data from thin-film gauges and capacitance calorimeters (Sandia supplied), Gardon

and Schmidt-Boelter heat flux gauges (EPRI supplied), gas and wall thermocouples

(EPRI supplied), and pressure sensors (Sandia and EPRI supplied). Local estimates of

the heat transfer were obtained from the calorimetry, and global averages were inferred

from the pressure. Instrumentation "goodness" for each test has been assessed based

on reviews of the raw data and on comparisons of local and global results.

Overall conclusions about the "goodness" of the instrumentation and the associated

performance are as follows:

Instrumentation Assessment

* Pressure signals from the different sensors were reasonably consistent for the different tests. Multiple pressure measurements for a given test were also comparable. However, the EPRI/EG&G-provided sensors typically measured slower pressure decays (following completion of combustion) than did the SNLA-provided

gauges for the few tests in which comparisons were possible. Since the global

total heat transfer depends on the time rate of change of the pressure, the total

heat fluxes and energy depositions computed -from EPRI/EG&G-provided sensors

might not be conservative (i.e., provide upperbounds for the heat transfer).

0 Global estimates of the gas temperature inferred from the gas pressure compared

well with measured temperatures from the 3-mil thermocouples. Results from

the 32-mil thermocouples did not follow the early transients (as expected due

to thermal inertia effects) associated with combustion but they agreed with the

3-mil data and pressure-inferred temperatures for the late-time cool-down period.

o Results were inconsistent from the two. wall thermocouples for which data were

provided. It is believed that one thermocouple (T120) responded as would be'
70 6 SUMMARY - CLOSING REMARKS

expected in the dewar. T120 measurements also compared reasonably well with.

global wall temperature estimates obtained from the pressure signal processing.

0 Sandia-supplied total thin-film and slug calorimetry functioned for nearly all tests.

Problems with the electrical connections for the thin-film gauge led to failures

during some of the early tests. Once corrected, the gauge operated effectively for

the remainder of the tests. The slug calorimeter provided "good" or "marginal"

signals for all tests.

" EPRI-provided total Schmidt-Boelter gauges functioned for most of the 12 tests

of the Equipment Survival Testing Program for which they were installed in the

dewar, although problems with the water cooling for these gauges may have been

responsible for their poor performance during the most severe tests. In addition,

the uncooled total Gardon gauge appeared to have operated effectively for 7 of

the .8 tests in the Hydrogen Behavior TestSeries for which it was installed in the

dewar.

* The Sandia HBS flat-plate calorimeter failed early in the testing. The results from

this calorimeter were inconsistent, and all results were assumed to be "bad". The

HBS aluminum cube calorimeter provided reasonable flux results for the 12 tests'

for which it was installed in the dewar.

" Sandia-supplied calorimeters for estimation of the local radiative heat transfer were inoperable for most of testing, and data from EPRI-supplied radiative

calorimetry could not be reduced given uncertainties in the calibration and the

correction terms to account for the sapphire cover plates.

Assessment of Heat Transfer Results

Early-time total heat flux results from the Sandia-provided calorimetry (thin-film

gauge, slug, and cube calorimeters) were generally comparable with the EPRIsupplied total calorimetry (Schmidt-Boelter and Gardon gauges) for the tests

where the hydrogen concentration was < 8%. The total calorimetry results deviated significantly for those experiments at higher concentrations conducted near

the end of testing. These deviations have been primarily attributed to instrumentation deterioration.

* The global estimates of total heat transfer rates inferred from the pressure signals

were typically less than the local measurements for lean combustion andhigher

for tests in which the precombustion concentrations were above 10% hydrogen.

These global results are believed tobe more accurate than the calorimetry results

for the non-lean combustion experiments.

* Total energy deposition results from the EPRI-supplied calorimetry were gener-.

ally consistent with the global results inferred from the pressure data for lean

combustion tests. The depositions computed from the calorimetry, signals were
71

probably low for the most severe combustion experiments. performed at the end

of the testing.

* The'thin-film energy deposition results Were typically 30-50% lower than either

the global pressure-inferred or local results obtained from EPRI calorimetry for

tests in which sprays were inoperative. When. sprays were operating, the thinfilm gauge results were comparable'to the EPRI-calorimetry. Discrepancies in

the thin-film energy deposition estimates are attributed to shortcomings in resolving the late-time gauge responsebecause of the assumptions used in the data

*processing..

* Global estimates of radiative heat transfer inferred from.the pressure for lean

combustion tests were - 30-50% of the total heat transfer inferred from the pressure. For initial hydrogen concentrations > 8%,"the radiative transfer became

*more dominant, especially for the steam-laden c'ombustion tests. This was reflected in both the radiative peak heat fluxes and in the postcombustion energy

depositions.

-Local versus'global issues cannot be resolved from the data provided in this report,

given the problems with instrumentation performance during the course of testing.

Further, the heat transfer instruments were all located either at- the top of the dewar

or on the equipment platform; results fro M- these instruments would be expected to be

comparable. Since there are additional wall and gas thermocouple data for locations

throughout the dewar, local conditions may still be quantifiable if the data can be

obtained. It is expected, however, that characterization of the local environment will be

difficult for this large-scale experiment, and the global data inferred from the pressure

may have to suffice.

Overall, the global (and some. of the local) results provided in this report should be

useful for benchmarking existing "global" computer simulations used in modeling nuclear containment response to degraded-core accidents. The data inayals'obie helpful

for resolving issues pertaining to functionability of safety-related equipment in containment during.such accidents. Caution should be exercised when applying the global

results for lean hydrogen-air combustion, given the nonuniform and incomplete combustion processes. The results obtained from this study, coupled with results obtained

from intermediate-scale combustion tests (e.g,, such as from the FITS and VGE$ facilities at Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque), should also be useful in future modeling

activities to upgrade the combustion and heat transfer models currently used in reactor.

safety computer simulations.
72 7 REFERENCES

7: References

1. R. T. Thompson, et al., Large-Scale Hydrogen Combustion Experiments, Electric

Power Research Institute Report NP-3878, in preparation.

2. L. Thompson and T. Auble, Large Scale Hydrogen, Combustion and Control Program at the Nevada Test Site, Draft Test Plan, September, 1982.

3. Presentation Materials from Design Review of the EPRI Large-Scale Hydrogen

Combustion and Control Program at the Nevada Test Site, held in Las Vegas,

Nevada, January 6 and 7, 1983.

4. G. Sitter, Quick-Look Status Report on EPRI.Hydrogen Burn Equipment Tests,

(RP-2168-3), Electric Power Research Institute memorandum, dated December

19j1983.

5. G. Sliter, Second Quick-Look Status Report on EPRI Hydrogen Burn Equipment Tests, '(RP-2168-3), Electric Power.Research Institute memorandum, dated

February 17, 1984.

6. G. Sliter, Third Quick-Look Status Report on EPRI Hydrogen Burn Equipment

Tests, (RP-2168-3), Electric Power Research- Institute memorandum, dated July

18, 1984.

7. J. Achenbach, R. B. Miller, and V. Srivnivas, Large-Scale Hydrogen Burn.Equipment Experiments, prepared by Wesinghouse Electric Corp. Nuclear Technology

Division for EPRI, in review.

8. Medtherm Corporation Catalog on Thermal Instrumentation, L. Jones, President, P.O. Box 412, Huntsville, Alabama 35804.

9. Personal communication with J. Haugh of EPRI,ý November, 15, 1984.

10. J. E. Shepherd, Sandia Instrumentation and Computer Codes Supplied for EPRI

Tests at NTS, memorandum dated April 19, 1983.

11. S.iN. Kempka, A. C. Ratzel, A. W. Reed, an d J. E. Shepherd, Postcombustion

Convection in an Intermediate-Scale Vessel, Proceedings of the Joint ASME/ANS

Conference on the Design, Construction, and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants,

Portland OR, August 5-8, 1984.

12. W. H. McCulloch, et al., Hydrogen Burn Survival: Preliminary Thermal Model

and Test Results, Sandia'National Laboratories Report SAND82-1150 (NUREG/

CR-2730),. August, 1982..
73

13. E. H. Richards and J. J. Aragon,.Hydrogen-Burn Survival Experiments at Fully

Instrumented Test Site :(FITS), Sandia National Laboratories Report SAND83-

1715 (NUREG/CR-3521), August, 1984.

14. A. C. Ratzel, S. N. Kempka, J. E. Shepherd, and A. W. Reed, SMOKE: A Data

Reduction Package for Analysis of Combustion Experiments, Sandia National

Laboratories Report SAND83-2658, June, 1985.'

15. J. D. Means and R. D. Ulrich, Transient Convective Heat Transfer During and

After Gas Injection into Containers, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer, 97, No.2,

1975, pp. 2 8 2- 2 8 7 .

16. D. K. Edwards, Molecular Gas Band Radiation, Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol.'

12, Academic Press, New York, 1976.

17. R. B. Bird, W. E. Stewart, and E. N. Lightfoot, Transport Phenomena, John

Wiley and Sons,.Inc., New York, 1960.

18. B. F. Blackwell, SODDIT Users' Manual, Sandia National Laboratories Report,

in preparation.

19. Information on Calibration Procedures and Calibration Data for Gardon and

Schmidt-Boelter Gauges Used in NTS tests, Received from Medtherm Corporation Inc., August, 1984.

20. Initial Conditions and Combustion Completeness Estimates for Premixed Combustion Tests provided by L.Thompson of EPRI, March 29, 1983.

.21. Preliminary Data Plots for NTS Tests, (3 Volumes), compiled by EPRI/EG&G

for an: in-house review prior to an' April 2-3, 1984 .NRC/EPRI meeting, copy

provided to J. E. Shepherd, SNLA, April, 1984.

22. W. B. Benedick, J. C. Cummings, and P. G. Prassinos, Experimental Results from

Combustion of Hydrogen:Air Mixtures in an Intermediate Scale Tank, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Impact of Hydrogen on Water

Reactor Safety, Albuquerque, N. M., October 3-7, 1982.

23. S. F. Roller and S. M. Fallacy, Medium-Scale Tests of H2 :Air:Steam Systems,

Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Impact of Hydrogen

on Water Reactor Safety, Albuquerque, N. M., October 3-7, 1982.

24. H. Tamm, R. K. Kumar, and W. C. Harrison, A Review of Recent WNRE Experiments on Hydrogen Combustion, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Impact of Hydrogen on Water Reactor Safety, Albuquerque, N.

M., October 3-7, 1982.
74 7 REFERENCES

25. R. C. Torok, K. Siefert, and L. B. Thompson, Hydrogen Control Tests in Intermediate Scale, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Impact

of Hydrogen on Water Reactor Safety, Albuquerque, N. M., October 3-7, 1982.

26. A. C. Ratzel and J. E. Shepherd, Heat Transfer Resulting from Premixed Combustion, accepted for publication in symposium volume of 23rd ASME/AIChE

National Heat Transfer Conference, Denver CO, August, 1985
75

Appendix A

A Tabular Results for Premixed Combustion Tests

Tabular results for the twenty-one premixed combustion tests conducted at NTS are

provided in this appendix. Tests are separated into three categories for presentation:

standard tests, steam-laden tests, and tests with the spray systems operative. The

standard tests are those in which the initial gas temperature is low (approximately 300

K) and the steam concentration is correspondingly low (< 5%). Steam-laden tests have

precombustion gas temperatures which range from 320-350 K, and the saturated steam

concentration varies accordingly between 15-40%. For tests in which spray systems are

operative, it is believed that 16 or 17 Sprayco 1713A hollow cone nozzles were operative,

each providing 15 gpm of water spray.

A listing of the tables included in this appendix is provided below:

Table Title

A.1 Instrumentation Status During Hydrogen Behavior

Test Series

-A.2 Pressure and Thermocouple Instrumentation Status

during Equipment Survival Test Series

A.3 Calorimetry Instrumentation Status During Equipment

Survival Test Series

AA4 Peak Gas Pressure and Temperature Results

A.5 Combustion Duration Results

A.6 Gas Thermocouple Results

A.7 Peak Heat Flux Results:Inferred from Pressure Signals

A.8 Peak Total Heat Flux Results from SNLA Gauges and

from Wall Thermocouples

A.9 Peak Heat Flux Results from Gardon and

Schmidt-Boelter Gauges

A.10 Postcombustion Global Energy Deposition Inferred

from Pressure Signals

A.11 Total Energy Deposition Results from Calorimetry
Table A.1: Instrumentation Status During Hydrogen Behavior Test Series

Instrument NTSPO0 NTSP01 NTSP04 NTSP03 NTSP02 NTSP06 NTSP05 NTSP07 NTSP08

Designation 7/28/83 8/4/83 8/9/83 8/10/83 8/12/83 8/17/83 8/18/83 8/29/83 9/12/83

Pressure Transducers

P102 U U U U. U U G -U G

P104 B M B B B B M B B

P105 G G G G G G G G B

Slug Calorimeters

H103 B B G B B B B B B

G104 G G M G G M M G M

Thin-Film Gauges

H231 B B G B B B B B B

H232 B.. B B B -G B B G G

Gardon Gauges

H105o U B G B B B G M G

H100 U G 'G G G G G G G

Wall Thermocouples

T120 U U U U U U G U G

T121 U U U U U U G U G

Gas Thermocouples

T101 U U U U U U G U G

T105 U U_ U U U U G U G

T114 U U U U U U G U G

Tl18 U U U U U U G U G

Only signal quality is evaluated for since no SMOKE processing was performed

1H106 was a total gauge through test NTSP07 and for NTSP08 was a radiative gauge

For test NTSP08, only the signal quality is evaluated, i.e.; no SMOKE processing

'U' -Data not provided by EPRI (i.e., data are "unavailable")

'G'- Data are "good",- signals processed

'M' -Data are "marginal" - signals processed

'B' - Data are "bad" - signals not processed

0

0•

0 %15
Table A.2: Pressure and Thermocouple. Instrumentation Status During Equipment Survival Test Series

Instrument NTSP09 NTSP11 NTSP12 NTSP9P-- NTSP14 NTSP13 NTSP16 NTSP15 NTSP18 NTSP20 NTSP21 NTSP22

Designationt 11/10/83 11/15/83 11/17/83 12/1/83 12/6/83 12/19/83 12/20/83. 12/22/83 1/9/84 1/12/84 1/23/84 1/25/84

Pressure Transducers

P101 B B B :G G U U G G. G G

P102 G G B B, G B .-M M - G G G P10 G G- G -G G •G• U U v G G G

Wall Thermocouples

T120.., G U G G M G M G G M G G

T121 G U G G G. G G G M M M M

-Gas Thermocouples

T.l01 G U G M G G G. G G: G G G

T102 G .G G G G G G G G M G CG

T105 G U G G,,. G', G G G G G G G

T118 G U G 0 " G."C G G CM G G•

.T1 G U G G G G G G G B B B

Pressure Instrumentation P104 and P105 were found to be "bad". for all. tests of this series

'U' Data not provided by EPRI (i.e., data are "unavailable")

'G,' -:Data are "good" - signals processed

'M' - Data are "marginal" - signals processed

'B' - Data are "bad" - signals not processed

-4

-4
Table A.3: Calorimetry Instrumentation Status DuringEquipment Survival, Test Series

Instrument NTSP09 NTSP11 NTSP12 NTSP9P NTSP14 NTSP13 NTSP16 NTSP15 NTSP18 NTSP20 NTSP21 NTSP22

Designationt 11/10/83 11/15/83 11/17/83 12/1/83 12/6/83 12/19/83 12/20/83 12/22/83 1/9/84 1/12/84 1/23/84 1/25/84

Total Slug Calorimeter

H104 G G G G M M G M G M M G

Total Thin-Film Gauge

H1232 G G G G G G G G G G G G

Aluminum Cube Calorimeter

T504: B G G M G M M G G G B B

T505 B G' G G B G G G G G M G

Total Schmidt-Boelter Gauges

'H502 G G G G G G G G B G G B

H503 G G G G G G G G G G G G

H5041 G M B B B B B M G B G G

H506 G G G G G G. 'M G M B B B

M6507 G G G G G B M B B G G

Radiative Schmidt-Boelter and Gardon Gaugest

H106 'G M M M B B. B B B B B B

kH501, G M G G G G G G B M M B

.H505 G G G G Q G *G G G C G G

'- The following instrumentation were found to be "bad" for all tests: T501, T502, T503, T506, H103, H105, and H231

Only the signal quality is evaluated for radiative gauges since no SMOKE processing was performed

'G' - Data are "good" -: signals processed

'M' - Data are "marginal" - signals processed

'B' - Data are "bad" - signals not processed

0

0

C,'

0

C12

C,'
Table A.4: Peak Gas Pressure and Temperature Results

Test H2 H20 CC- ' /PO T /To

Name % % % P101 -P102 P103 P105 AICt P101 P102 P103 Pi05 AIC1

Standard Tests

NTSP01 5.3 4.2 32. NA NA NA 1. 8 1.63 NA NA NA.:, 1.5 1.64

NTSP9P 6.0 4.6 53. 1.69 B 1.64 B 2.14 1.72 B -1.67 B 2.18

NTSP09 6.1 4.2. 60. B 1.81 1.83 B 2.31 B 1.85 1.87 B .. 2.35

NTSP00 6.6 4.5 66. NA NA NA 2.22 2.53 NA NA NA 2.27 2.59

NTSP04 7.7 ., 4.2 100. NA "NA NA 3.19 .3.51 NA NA NA 3.32 3.65

NTSPI3 ... 7.8 4.4 100. 3.13 B 3.14 B 3.55 3.27 B 3.28 B 3.70

NTSP15 9.9 4.2 100. NA 3.61 NA B 4.14 NA 3.81 NA B 4.35

Steam-Laden Tests NTsP07 5.5 14.3 45. NA NA NA 1.66 1.82 NA NA -NA 1.69 1.84

NTSP03 5.8 .A 14.4 50. NA "NA NA 1.78 1.94 NA NA NA ,1.81 1.97

NTSP06 6.0 13.7 54-' NA NA NA 1.84 2.06 NA Nk NA .1.87 2.10

NTSP12 6.9 28.3 58. B B 1.85 B 2.18 B B' 1.90 B 2.23

NTSP14. 8.1 38.7 94. 2.i6 2.14 2.16 B 2.99W 2.25 2.23. 2.125 B . 3.10

NTSP05 7.8 31.3 100. NA 2.66 NA 2.63 3.10 NA' 2.66: NA 2.63 3.23

NTSP16 10.1 29.5 100. NA 3.2 NA B 3.62'. NA 3.38 NA B 3.81

NTSP08 11.1. :27.2 100. NA 3.61 NA B 3.80 NA- 3.84 NA B 4.02

NTSP20 12.9 27.8 100. 3.85 3.87 3.87 B 4.22 4:13 4.14 4. 14* B 4.51

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22. 5.2 14.5 31. 1.36 1.36 1.36 B 1.46 1.35 1.35 1.35 "$ B 1.44

NTSP11 5.8 4.9 58. B i.95 1.96 B. 2.12 B 1.96 1.97 B 2.12

' NTsPO2 5,8. 14.3 70. NA NA NA 2.15 2.22 NA NA N 2.16. 2.23

NTSP18 6.6 *. 27.3 69. 2.09 2.10 2.09 B 2.26 2.1.1 2.12 2.11 B 2.28

NTSP21 13.2 27.4 100. . 3.88 3.91 3.91 B 4.25 4.09 4.12 4.12 B 4.47

Combustion completeness value (CC) ,assigned by Sandia

t Result from adiabatic isochoric combustion calculation

'NA' - Data not providedby EPRI or instrumentation not included in test

'B' - Data are "bad" -4CCD
00

0

Ta~ble A.5: Combustion Duration Results

-Test H 2 H 2 0 CC* Ignt/ t0 Atp (s) - Atq- (s)

Name % -% % Fans. (s) P101 P102 P103 P105 P101 P102 P103 P105

Standard Tests

NTSP01 5.3- 4.2 32. B/N 22.5 NA NA NA 52.9 NA NA NA 88.5

NTSP9P 6.0 -4.6 53. B/N" 30.7 -46.8 B 44.8 B 58.0 . B 57.6 B

NTSP09 6.1 4.2 60. B/N 179.8 B1: 36.4 .36.8 B B 36.4 36.8 B

NTSP00 6.6 4.5 -66. B/N 21.3.. NA" NA N-A 15.2 NA NA . NA 15.2

NTSP04 7.1 4.2 10. -B/N 22.2 NA NA -NA 5.7 NA NA NA 7.0

NTSP13 7.8 4.4 100. B/N 28.4 6.4 B 6.4 B 7.6- .B -. 7.6 B

NTSP15 9.9 4.2 100. B/N 29.2. NA 3.6 NA B NA 6.0 NA B

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 5.5 14.3 45. 2E/F 25.7 NA" NA NA; 14.4 NA NA NA 23.4

NTSP03 5.8 14.4 50. .C/F 22.1 NA ý.NA NA 12.3 NA NA NA -- 15.6

NTSP06 6.0 13.7 54. T/F 21:7 NA NA. NA -14.8 NA. NA NA. 18.0

NTSP12 6.9 28.3 58. B/N 33.1 B 1 B24.0r B B .B 27.2 B

NTSP14 8.1 38.7 94. B/N 23.2 16.8 16.8 17.2 B 19.2 '19.6 19.6' B

NTSP05 7.8 31.3 100. B/N 22.9 NA 11.5' NA . 11.1 NA 12.7 NA 12.7

NTSP16 101. 29.5 100. B/N 29.9 NA 4.4 NA B NA 4.4 NA B

NTSP08 11.1 27.2 100. B/F 1053.0 NA 2.80 NA B NA 2.8 NA B

NTSP20 12.9 27.8 100. B/N, 70.4. 2.1 2.1..- 2.1: B 2.1 2.1 .2.1 B

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 5.2' 14.5 31. 1E/N: 21.5 8.4 8.4 8.4 B NC- NC NC B

NTSP11' 5.8 4.9 58. T/N 28.5 B 4.8 -5.2 B B NC 'NC -B

NTSP02 5.8 14.3 70. C/N 24.2 NA NA NA 4.1 NA NA NA NC

NTSP18 6.6 27.3 69. T/N 191.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 B NC NC NC B

NTSP21 13.2 27.4 100. B/F 30.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 B. NC :NC NC. B

Combustion completeness value (,cC) assigned by: Sandia

t Ignition at Bottom (B), Center (C), Top (T), or by 1 or 2 igniters on wall at Equator (1E, 2E)

?:Fans operative (F) or inoperative (N)

'NA' - Data not provided by EPRI or, instrumentation not included in test

ý'NC' - Results not obtained from data analysis since sprays are not modeled in SMOKE

'B' - Data are "bad"

(Z?.

L0

co0

P0
Table A.6: Gas Thermocouple Results

Test TAic/Tot Tm/To Atmp (s) T1/2 • (K) AtT,, 2 (s).

Name T101 T105 T118 T101 T105 TIl8 T101 T105 T118 Tl01 T105 T118

T102* T151* T102* T151* T102" T151' T102 T.151

Standard Tests

NTSP01 .1.64

NTSP9P 2.18

NTSP09 2.35

NTSPO0 2.59

NTSP04 3.65

NTSP13 3.70

NTSP15 4.35

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 1.82

NTSP03 1.97

NTSP06 2.10

NTSP12 2.23

NTSP14' 3.10

NTSP05 3.23

NTSP16 3.81

NTSP08 4.02

NTSP20 4.51

Tests with Spray Systen

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

1.94 1.82 1.55 -28.9* -28.5 24.3 444. 427. 386. 56.4* 93.6 120.0

1.92 1.97 1.74 -8.4 -2.4 6.0 441. 448.*• 414. 97.6 64.8 103.6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA -NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA: NA NA

3.20 3.38 2.74 -1.7 -1.7 10.0 637. 665. 568. 48.8 25.2 60.8

3.81 4.05 3.04 0.4 -0.4 6.4 730M 767. 613. 15.2 16.0 55.6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA -NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2.11* 2.03 1.82 0.9* -13.9 8.5 529.* 515. 479. 31.6" 33.6 74.4

2.25* 2.38 1.84 5.3* -1.7 10.7 564.* 586. 493. 29.66 46.0 55.6

2.8 2.95 2.59 -7.8 -7.9 0.8 647. 672. 611. 41.8 ,40.6 59.9

3.47" 3.46 . 2.39 -0.4" -0.4 17.2 765.* 765. 582. 13.2" 17.2 60.8

3.92 3.99. 3.33 .- 0.8 0.2 0.8 855. 869. 754. 32.5 29.5 31.0

4.02 4.24 2.78 -0.3 -0.1 12.0 859. 895. 646. 25.2 22.8 48.0

n Operative

1,47* 1.06 1.05. -0.:4 -0.8 2.4 401" 335. 334. 6.8' 36.0 49.2

2. 10" NA NA. -0.7" NA NA 472.* NA NA. 6.8* NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

2.19. 2.17 1.78* 0.0" -2.4 10.0* 545.* 543. 475.* 11.6* 16.4 25.2*

3.87" 3.19 . 2.55 0.8 4.4 6.4 830.* 714. 606. 10.5" 20.4 25.2

NTSP22

NTSPl1

NTSP02

NTSP18

NTSP21

1.44

2.12

2.23

2.28

4.47

Results provided for instrument T102 or T151

f Maximum temperature ratio obtained from an adiabatic isochoric combustion calculation

Gas temperature - T1 / 2 = (Tm + To)/2.

'NA' - Data not provided by EPRI or instrumentation not included in test 00
00NDJ

Table A.7: Peak Heat Flux Results Inferred from Pressure Signals

Test H 2 H 2 0 CC. qT (W/cm2 ) qR (W/cm 2 )

Name % % % P101 P102 P103 P105 P101 P102 P103 P105

Standard Tests

NTSP01 5.3 4.2 32. NA NA NA 0.16 NA NA NA 0.08 H

NTSP9P 6.0 4.6 53. 0.41 B 0.41 B 0.16 B 0.14 B

NTSP09 6.1 4.2 60. B 0.68 0.76 B B 0.23 0.24 B

NTSPOO 6.6 4.5 66. NA NA NA 2.03 NA NA NA 0.62

NTSP04 7.7 4.2 100. NA NA NA 8.02 NA NA NA 3.33

NTSP13 7.8 4.4 100. 5.73 B 5.79 B 13.03 B 3.06 B

NTSP15 9.9 4.2 100. NA 10.58 NA B NA 5.94 NA B

Steam-Laden Tests -

NTSP07 5.5 14.3 45. NA NA NA 0.72 NA NA NA 0.24

NTSP03 5.8 14.4 50. NA NA NA 1.22 NA NA NA 0.35

NTSP06 6.0 13.7 54. NA NA NA 1.20 NA NA NA 0.37 0

NTSP12 6.9 28.3 58. B B 1.35 B B B 0.55 B

NTSP14 8.1 38.7 94. 2.41 2.36 2.36 B 1.31 1.25 1.28 B

NTSP05 7.8 31.3 100. NA 4.10 NA 6.31 NA 2.81 NA 2.61

NTSP16 10.1 29'5 100. NA 9.65 NA B NA 6.75 NA B

NTSP08 11.1 27.2 100. NA 21.24 NA B NA 12.34 NA B

NTSP20 12.9 27.8 100. 26.17 25.63 25.39 B 15.08 15.27 15.34 B

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 5.2 . 14.5 31. NC NC NC B 0.07 .0.07 0.07 B

NTSP11 5.8 4.9 58. B NC NC B B 0.33 0.34 B

NTSP02 5.8 14.3 70. NA NA NA NC NA NA NA 0.77

NTSP18 6.6 .27.3 69. NC NC NC B 0.96 0.98 0.96 B

NTSP21 13.2 27.4 100. NC NC NC B 14.49 '14.92 14.94 B 0

Combustion completeness value (CC) assigned by Sandia

'NA' - Data not provided by EPRI or instrumentation not included in test

'NC'- Total results not obtained from data analysis since sprays are not modeled in SMOKE

'B' - Data are "bad"
Table A.8: Peak Tot~al Heat Flux Results from SNLA Gauges and from Wall Thermocouples

Test q" (W/crn2

): Atmp (s)

Name H232 H104 T504 T505 T120 T121' H232 1H104 T504 T505. T120 T121

Standard'Tests .

NTSP01' B 0.40 NA NA NA NA ..- B -45.9 NA NA. NA NA

NTSP9P 0.74 1.50 1.01 0.97 1.49 0.94 -38.5 -37.9 -7.1 -7.1' :33.7 6.3

NTSP09 1.06 1.29 B B 2.84 1.34 -28.8 -14.6 B B -9.7 9.9

NTSPOO B 0.99 NA NA NA. NA- B -w6.4 NA NA NA NA

NTSP04: B B NA 'NA Nk: NAks B B NA NA 'NA NA

NTSP13 5.37 8.46 4.38-' 4.43 8.21 3.34 -0.8 8,2 -1.5 -2.7. 5.1 41.6

NTSP15 10.29 11.23 11.28 13.61 10.61 6.34 -1.2 .'7.9 -1.7 -1.7: 5.0 38.1

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 0.49 0.71 NA' NA NA NA 0.1 -8.6 NA NA NA NA

NTSP03 B 2.68 NA NA 'NA NA B -1.0 NA NA NA NA

NTSP06 B .1.34 NA NA. NA NA B 14.9 NA NA NA NA

NTSP12 0.92 2.18 1.93 2.16 1.83 1.06 -19.1 -119.-13.4 0.2 -12.4 22.4

NTSP14 1.86 3.78 2.90 B 3.46 .2.02 0.7 i"6.8 0.7 B 2.0 46.1

NTSP05 B 6.69 NA,' NA 14.43 5.35 B. -3.6 NA NA, 4.5 29.6

NTSP16 8.78 8.4 8.12 4.40 6.93 5.49 -2.8 8.2 '-1.0 -1.0 4.5 36.5

NTSP08 12.11 10.48 NA NA *8.96 9.52 *-0.8 2.0 NA NA 14.3 34.5

NTSP20 18.34 *7.38 19.4 8.12 .10.04 :6.93 -0.1 4.2 0.4 -0.8 4.1 36.7

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 0.53 0.80 B 0. 46 0.91 0.29 -1.5 4.3 B -2.7 4.5 47.3

NTSP11 1.39 2.37 2.49 1.55 NA NA -2.3 -0.7 -3.8 -1.2 NA NA

NTSP02 2.09- 3.35- NA NA: NA NA -1.2 -1.0 NA NA:' :NA NA

NTSP18 2.54 2.08 2.211 2.20. 5.56 0.76 -2.8. 4.2 -1.0 -1.0 - 8.2 32.6

NTSP21 16.74 7.97 " B 20.27 13.06 3.24 0.4 46.6 B -0.5 7.1 29.2

'NA' - Data not provided by EPRI or instrumentation not included in test

'B' - Data are "bad"
Table A.9: Peak Total Heat Flux Results from Gardon and Schmidt-Boelter Gauges

Test qof (W/cM2 ) qT (W/cm2) Atm,, (s)

Name H106 H502 H503 H506 H507 H106 H502 H503 H506 H507 H106 H502 H503 H506 H507

Standard Tests

NTSP01 0.0 NA NA NA NA 1.74 NA NA NA NA -49.7 NA NA NA NA

NTSP9P R 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.07 R 0.83 1.06 0.85 1.29 R -37.7 -30.5 -10.1 -17.3

NTSP09 R 0.06 0.08 0.055 B R 0.85 0.87 1.09 B R 0.8 -27.2 -15.2 B

NTSPoo NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NTSP04 0.0 NA NA NA NA 10.9 NA NA NA NA -1.5 NA NA NA NA

NTSP13 R 0.12 0.085 0.045 0.175 R 4.43 5.05 4.46 6.78 R -2.0 -1.6 -2.4 0.4

NTSPI5 R 0.2 0.15 0.10 0.325 R 8.28 9.67 9.74 11.17 R -0.8 -0.8 -1.2 -1.2

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 -0.01 NA NA NA NA 0.84 NA NA NA NA -6.1 NA NA NA NA

NTSP03 0.0 NA NA NA NA 1.36 NA NA NA NA -6.5 NA NA NA NA *0

NTSP06 0.0 NA NA NA NA 1.32 NA NA NA NA -4.9 NA NA NA NA

NTSP12 R 0.35 0.38 0.263 0.625 R 2.31 2.60 1.90 3.56 R -15.1 -19.1 -5.9 1.1

NTSP14 R 0.575 0.625 0.385 0.85 R 3.32 3.22 1.61 5.18. R -12.1 5.9 1.9 -2.1

NTSPO5 0.0 NA NA NA NA 6.51 NA NA NA NA -7.9 NA NA NA NA

NTSP16 R 0.65 0.675 0.35 0.95 R 5.70 8.28 5.58 10.57 R 2.0 -0.8 -2.0 -0.4

NTSP08 R NA NA NA NA R NA NA NA NA R NA NA NA NA (

NTSP20 R 0.70 0.75 B B R 7.11 15.58 B B R 0.8 1.6 B B

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 R 'B 0.275 B 0.25 R B 0.75 B 0.61 R B 0.1 B 4.9

NTSP11 R 0.21 0.04 0.09 0.04 R 1.76 1.45 2.79 1.40 R 2.5 0.1 -0.3 -0.7

NTSP02 -0.05 NA NA NA NA 3.58 NA NA NA NA -1.7 NA NA NA NA

NTSP18 R B 0.75 0.075 B R B 2.78 2.26 B R B -0.4 4.4 B

NTSP21 R 1.70 1.075 B 1.20 R 8.94 15.39 B 12.96 R 0.4 0.4 B -0.1

'NA' - Data not provided by EPRI or instrumentation not included in test

'R' - Gauge is configured as a radiative device

'B' - Data are "bad"
Table A.10: Postcombustion Global Energy Deposition Inferred from Pressure Signals

Test 

H2 

H

2 0 CCt QAIct tpe' QTp (J/Cm

2 ) QR.* (J/cm

2

)

Name % % % J/cm2 (s) P101 P102 P103 P105 P101 P102 P103 P105

Standard Tests

NTSP01 5.3 4.2 32. 42.8 75.9 NA NA NA 27.1 NA NA NA 9.0

NTSP9P 6.0 4.6 53. 75.8 76.5 34.8 B 35.3 B 14.5 B 11.7 

B

NTSP09 6.1 4.2 60. 89.7 216.4 B 46.8 48.5 B B 16.3 15.7 

B

NTSPOO 6.6 4.5 66. 107.4 36.5 NA NA NA 71.8 NA NA NA 23.6

NTSP04 7.7 4.2 100. 203.0 27.9 NA NA NA i39.2 NA NA NA 68.7

NTSP13 7.8 4.4 100. 206.5 34.8 144.0 B 144.2 B 70.6 B 71.3 

B

NTSP15 9.9 4.2 100. 296.1 32.8 NA 197.9 NA B NA 92.8 NA 

B

Steam-Laden Tests

NTSP07 5.5 14.3 45. 57.7 40.1 NA NA NA 38.1 NA NA NA 13.4

NTSP03 5.8 14.4 50. 69.2 34.4 NA NA NA 49.7 NA NA NA 17.9

NTSP06 6.0 13.7 54. 71.7 36.5 NA NA NA 48.4 NA NA NA 15.

NTSP12 6.9 28.3 58. 91.4 57.1 B B 52.6 B B B 26.9 

B

NTSP14 8.1 38.7 94. 172.6 48.1 73.3 72.7 73.0 B 47.7 45.7 47.2 

B

NTSP05 7.8 31.3 100. 178.1 34.9 NA 101.6 NA 108.6 NA 72.0 NA 53.6

NTSP16 10.1 29.5 100. 259.0 34.8 NA 155.0 NA B NA 114.1 NA 

B

NTSP08 11.1 27.2 100. 362.0 1055.8 NA 234.3 NA B NA 190.5 NA 

B

NTSP20 12.9 27.8 100. 342.8 72.5 217.0 218.0 218.9 B 161.9 162.7 163.6 

B

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 5.2 14.5 31. 28.8 29.9 NC NC NC B 1.4 1.4 1.4 

B

NTSP11 5.8 4.9 58. 74.8 33.5 B NC NC B B 4.9 4.5 

B

NTSP02 5.8 14.3 70. 83.2 28.3 NA NA NA NC NA NA NA 8.4

NTSP18 6.6 27.3 69. 108.4 196.0 NC NC NC B 13.2 14.3 12.9 

B

NTSP21 13.2 27.4 100. 332.7 32.9 NC NC NC B 110.3 113.6 112.3 

B

t Combustion completeness value (CC) assigned by Sandia

t Maximum global. energy deposition that could be removed from gas based on AIC calculation

Integrated heat flux for times after the peak pressure is reached (i.e., postcombustion energy deposition)

**Estimated time of peak pressure 

00

'NA' 

- Data not provided by EPRI or instrumentation not included in test

'NC' 

- Total results not obtained from data analysis since sprays are not modeled in SMOKE

'B' 

- Data are "bad"
Table A.11: Total Energy Deposition Results from Calorimetry do

Test Tet QAICt Q I QT."VC' Jc' t T : 1 (J/cm2 ) ... QTP! (J/crn2 ),

Name (J/cm2 ) H232 H106 H502 H503 H506 H507 .H232 H106 H502 H503 H506 H507

Standard Tests

NTSP01 42.8 B 66.2 NA NA NA NA B 30.5 NA NA NA NA

NTSP9P .75.8 38.5 R 65.7 71.5 54.9 83.2 18.03. R 41.6 33.5 27A. 48.1

NTSP09 89.7 50.7 R 66.7 52.8 50.5 B 22.65 R 46.1. 30.5 30.7 B

NTSPOO 107.4 B NA NA NA NA B NA.. NA NA NA

NTSP04 203.0 B 216.6 NA NA NA NA B13 177.4 NA NA NA NA

NTSP13 206.5 113.3 R 148.7 149.0 92.0 160.4 90.18 R 131.2 124.1 72.0 134.9

NTSP15 296.1 148.1 R 185.1 204.5 136.3 249.7 122.6 R 164.4 163.2 113.7 227.3

Steam-Laden Tests

,'NTSP07 57.7 22.9 41.2. NA NA NA NA .18.5 33.7 NA NA NA. NA

NTSP03 69.2 B 62.0 NA NA NA NA B 50.4 NA NA NA NA

NTSP06 71.7 B 26.5 NA NA NA NA B 11.6 NA NA NA NA

NTSP12 91.4 33.0 R 131.0 102.3 83.3 158.9 15.7 R 105.6 60.5 58.5 118.7

NTSP14 178.1.. 54.9 R 85.6 122.8 98.3 186.6 33.9 R 62.9 101.0 76.7 137.2.

NTSP05 172.6 B 205.1 NA NA NA NA B 145.9 NA NA NA NA

NTSP16 259.0 141.0 R 164.7 161.0 34.4 B 112.3 R 167.0 126.6 20.4- B

NTSP08 362.0 186.5 R NA NA - NA NA 171.2 R NA NA NA NA

NTSP20 342.8 172.6 R' 83.8 109.2 B B 158.6 R 104.8 ,148.9 B B1

Tests with Spray System Operative

NTSP22 28.8 9.2 R B 6.4' B 10.1 5.7. R B 7.4 B." 10.2

NTSP11 74.8 28.1 R 48.8 33.4 61.1 50.8 21.6 R 59.3 29.0 66.4 38.6

NTSP02 83.2 29.1 52.4 NA NA NA NA 23.4 41.8 NA NA NA NA

NTSP•8 108.4 38.2 R,;. B 48.4 24.7 B 24.8 R B 46.3 19.5 B

NTSP21, 332.7 '13.9.5 'R 130.6 135.0 B 141.6 126.1 R 125.4 121.5 B 141.6 Cz•

: Maximum global energy deosition that could be removed from' gas based on AIC calculation

Integrated heat flux for the combustion and postcombustion times of interest

$ Integrated heat flux for times after the peak pressure is reached (i.e., postcombustion energy deposition) 'NA' -,Data not provided by EPRI or instrumentation not included in test c..

'R'- Gauge is configured as a radiative device

'B' - Data are "bad"
87

Appendix B'

B Comparative Graphical Results

Comparative graphical results are given in this appendix for pressure rise, combustion duration, heat transfer rates, and energy depositions. In addition, measured

gas and wall temperature profiles for representative tests: are compared. The data are

provided in three different sets, Standard, Steam-Laden, and Sprays-on tests.: Included

in this presentation are comparative time histories of results as well as summary plots

*of some of the important data tabulated in Appendix A.

B.1 Comparative Results from Standard Tests

4

0

V

Q

:0

Z,

3.5

3

2.5

2

. I I

1.5

20 -20 0 20 40 60

lIME AFTER START, OF COMBUSTION

80

(S)

100

Figure B.A: Gas pressure profiles'for standard tests. Numbers in parentheses are initial

hydrogen concentrations.
88 AB COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

diE

,V 2 3 4 5 6

...YDROGEN COMBUSTED (X

Figure B.2: Peak pressure ratiosfor standard tests

80

V)

0

60

K.>. -j Comh~mst loll I) tral (11io~ Base on

0 C::'(o!IblisI io DralI )ii tonB Ids( I (I on,

0

0

All Ignitions'al. l1o1t0111m

40

20.

0.

"0 " 1 4 5 5 7 8 9 1U

HYDROGEN COWMUSTED (%•)

Figure B.3:, Combustion duration inferred from pressure results (standard tests)
B,. Comparative Results from Standard Tests 89

A4

0 I0

3

2.,5

2

1.5

-25 0 25 '50 75 00 125 150 175

TME AFEP START- OF COMEUSION. ( S)

200

0

I

'3.5

3

2

1.5

1.

-25 0 25 50 75 100 25 150

TIME AFTER START OF, COMBUSTKON (S)

175 200

Figure BA: Gas thermocouple profiles for standard tests., Numbers in parentheses are

initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: 3-mil thermocouple results

B: 32-mil thermocouple results
90G B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

60

50

BE

H

40

20

10

0

80

70

-60

~50

40

s30

LJ I-- 20

10

0

-25 0 25 :_ 50 75 100 125 150

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( )

175 200

Figure B.5: Dewar wall thermocouple profiles for standard tests. Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: Thermo~o~uple..T120 r°esults

B: Thermocouple T121 results -
B.A1 : Comparative Results from Standard Tests -91 '

10

.8

X 6

LO

4

01

-20 0 20 40 60 8o

11nE AFTER, START OF COMBUSTION ( S)

100

140

" 60

40

" 20

* 0

0 50 100 150 -200 250

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

300

Figure B.6: Heat transfer profiles from H232 for standard tests. Numbers in parentheses

are initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
92 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RES ULTS

110

()

t

0

-20. 0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF.COMBUSTION ( S)

200

.175

CN

OR

125

75

50

25

0

,0 5 - 100 150 200 - 250

TIME AFTER START CF COMBUSTION ( S)

300

Figure B.7: Heat transfer profiles from H503 (standard tests). Numbers in parentheses

are initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
B.1 .Comparative Results from Standard Tests 93

12

10

33J

x

Dý

I

8

ij4

2

0

200

175

11nW AFTER ThE OF PEAK PRESSLRE (S)

i50

S 125

.. 75

'50

~25ý

0

0 50 100 150 200.: :250

TvIE AFTER TIE OF PEAK FPRESSLRE (S)

300

Figure B.8: Total heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (standard tests). • Numbe"rs

in parentheses are initial hydrogen concentrations..

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition"
94 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

6

5

4N

X

3-

0-20

0 20 40 :, 60 80

TICE AFTER TLC OF PEAK PRESSURE ( S )

100

100

N

80

60

40

20

* 0..

50 100 150 200 250

TIMdE AFTER TvE OF PEAK PRESSLRE (S)

30o

Figure, B.9: Radiative heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (standard tests).

Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: Radiative heat flux

B: Radiative energy deposition
B.1 Comparative Results from Standard Tests 95,

0- inferred from tie Pressure Dat,

0 Thin-Film Gauge

0 Copper Slug CaloriMte.er

X Aluminum Cube Calorimet.'r

V ýGardon Gauge 11106:

A Schmidt-Boclter Gauge 11502

V Schmidt-Boelter Gauge 11503

.-- I

04

MU8

6

4

2

a 0

0

0

x

0

0

-A I

V

A

0

o

0

I 2 a3 4 5 6

FlYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( %

7 a 9 ID

".300

I::

0

t.

250 1-

200

-Upperbouind '.i i•lmliate from AIC Calculation

0 Inferred froiP Iress sure Data

- O Thin-Film (Gauge

V Gardon Gauge I I106

A Schimidt-I3oelher. (auge 11502

V Schmidti:Botlter (.auge11503

•v t

S12B

S I - I I I I I I " 1

50.

0

.0 1 2 .3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1)

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( %)

Figure B.10: Total heat transfer results from standard tests

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
', 96' B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

I

C14

_U

XJ

8

6

4

2

A 0 Peak Total Heat Flux

Inferred froin the Pressure Data

0OPeak Radiative Ifeat Flux

Inferred from the P)ressure Data

o/

7

'17

73

• -r8".- , ,•

I

0

300

250

0 1 2 3- 4 5

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED

6

(7.)

7 8 9 V,

P

0 Upperbound Estinmat.e froni AIC Calculation

- 0 Total Energy D)eposition

Inferred from the Pressure Data r

A Radiative Energy !)eposition

_ Inferred from the Pressure Data

z

0

z

LUJ

200

i ~ I I0

50

I I 0

0 I 2 3 4 .5 6 7 8 9 1

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED (7.)

Figure B.11: Heat transfer results inferred from pressure sensors (standard tests)

A- Heat.flux

B: Energy deposition.
B.2, 'Comparative Results from Steam-laden -Tests 97

B.2 Comparative Results fromn Steam-laden Tests

4

0-0

CLi

LiJ

cr

0

z

3.5

3

2.5

2

t5

I

-20 0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

Figure B.12: Gas pressure-profiles for steam-laden tests. Tests shown are:30% (nominal)

steam by volume. Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen concentrations.
98 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

5

-i

z

4

3.5

3

25

2

I

0 2 4 6 8

0YDROGEN COM -JS1 ( )

10 12

Figure B.13: Peak pressure ratios for steam-laden tests

30

25

V)

0

I~

U)

20 1-

O~ollibuton lDural.uoo Ilaseol onl

0 I~~iliiic to I'ressulre'-lierred Q7.T I *0 Fll~s oil

0

0

0*

Ignition al. loo (TI), ( encer (C ), or al. Waill

on dic I~liiiator (E). All O1ther Ignuit.ions at loti~oirn

10 [

5

0

0 2 4 6 8

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( )

10 1? 114

Figure B.14: Combustion duration inferred from pressure results (steam-laden tests)
B.2 Comparative Results. from. Steam-laden Tests 99

0.

II

4,5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

15

I

-25 0 25 50 75 100 '5 150

11E AFTER START OF. COMBUSTION ( S)

175 200

3

0

iLi

ft)

2.75

2.50

225

2

1.75

1.50

t25

-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 ' 150

TIIvlE AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

175 200

Figure B.15: Gas thermocouple profiles for steam-laden tests. Tests shown are 30%

(nominal) steam by volume. Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: 3-mil thermocouple results

B: 32-mil thermoCo0ple.results
100 -B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

80

LU

LU

60

40

20

00

-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S)

175 200

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

-25 0 25 50 75 100 -25 1150 T75

TIfMEAFTER START-OF COMBUSTION ( S)

200

Figure B.16: Dewar wall thermocouple profiles for steam-laden tests. Tests shown

are 30% (nominal)steam by volume. Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen

concentrations.

A: Thermocouple T120 results

B: ThermocoupleT121 results
B.2. Comparative Results from Steam-laden Tests 101

20

17.5

LA.*

10

7.5

5

2-5

0 Li

-20 0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S )

100

(N

C)

C

-J

0

200

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

0 T50 100 150 200 250

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (5S)

300

Figure B.17: Heat transfer profiles from H232 for steam-laden tests. Tests shown

are 30% (nominal) steam by Volume. Numbers in parentheses. are initial hydrogen

concentrations.

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
102 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

(N

x

I-4

0

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

-20 0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S )

100

n--

I-.-

120

100

so

60

40

20

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S )

300

Figure B.18: Heat transfer profiles "from H503 and H106 (steam-laden tests). Tests

shown are 30% (nominal) steam by volume. Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen concentrations.

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
B.2 Comparative Results from Steam-laden Tests 103

25

~20

415

10

F_ 5

0

250

-20 0 20 40 60 80

TlE AFTER TME OF PEAK PRESSLRE ( S)

100

)

0

0

0

200

100

50

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

TE AFTER TME OF PEAK PRESSURE ( S)

.300

Figure B.19: Total heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (steam-laden tests).

Tests shown are 30% (nominal) steam by volume. Numbers in parentheses are initial

hydrogen concentrations.

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
104 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

14

0212

10

XD8

LJ

I-4

0

.200

20 0 20 40 60 80

TLE AFTER TME OF PEAK PFESSURE ( S)

(',j

175

150

125

75

50

25

0

0 50 100 150 200 250

TLC AFTER TME OF PEAK PRESSURE ( S )

300

Figure B.20: Radiative heat transfer profiles from pressure sensors (steam-laden tests).

Tests shown are 30% (nominal) steam by volume. Numbers in parentheses are initial

hydrogen concentrations.

A: Radiative heat flux

B: Radiative energy deposition
B;2 Comparative Results from Steam-laden Tests 105

30

25

20

10

Li

-4

o Inferred from the iPressure Data

0 Thin,-Fili( Gauge

-c Copper Slug Calorimeteer

X Alumliiuinn Cubc Caluri,,iet-r

V Gardonn Gauge 11 IN lo

A Schmidt-locletr Gauge 11502

V :Schniidi-Boehter Gauge 11503 O 0

0 V

v A

A

0

00

: • 0 

0 ':'--.: , - I:. . A

_U

Q

0A

0

400

300

0 2 4 6 8

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ()

I 

I

10 2 14

" 400

,350

300

250

200

[ -lpperbounnd EI'Airn aI~c froMn AJC a util

o lInferred fronil IPressur .Iata

O,1inini-Filnin Gauge

V(Gardoii Gauge 11106

A Schmiidt-Boelter Gauge- 11502

V SchrnidL-Boelter: Gauge 11503

0

V

0

Xo 0

0~D 0

150

io00

50

0

0 2 4 6, 8

HYDROGEN COMU-TED ( .)

10 12 14

Figure B.21: Total heat transfer results from steam-laden tests

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
106 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

.30

25

20

CN4

x1

5

0

400

350

o Peak Total llea:t Flux /3

Inferred from the Presstire Data

OI1eak Radiative l leai Flux 0

Inferred from the Pressure Data

0/

/o /77 •/

, o

0

t~r~ I I

I | m I

0 2 4 6 8

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( )

.10 12 14

z

0

0

z

1AU

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

o UIpperbound Estiimiatc frout AIC Calculation

O Total Energy Deposition

hInerred from the Pressure Data

A Radiative Energy D)eposition .

.Inferred from the Pressure Data

0*

/0

• /

- - 0r ....

S .• _ I 16 .- ' I I I

0

0 2 4 6 8

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( )

10 12

Figure B.22: Heat transfer results inferred.from pressure sensors (steam-laden tests)

A: Heat flux

B: Energy deposition
B.3 Comparative Results from Tests with Sprays-on 10i

B.3 Comparative Results from Tests' with Sprays-on

4

0-

0~

LUJ

V)

'(Y

CL

z

z

3.5

3

2:5

2

1.5

1

-20 0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S )

100

Figure B.23: Gas pressure profiles for tests with sprays-on. Numbers in parentheses

are initial hydrogen/ initial steam concentrations.
108 B. COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

ae

-J

g

I

0

45

4

.3.5

3

2.5

2

15

I

0 2 4 6 8

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED()

10 - 12 4

Figure B.24: Peak pressure ratios for tests with sprays-on

a

A-n

z

6

4

2

1J ('om,, lnslion I)urat.ion IBalse(d oil

O "~Tl'ic. to I,

E (oliliisl ion I)uration Ilasegd oi

.. inle to It,, (Vans on)

Ignition al. Top) (T'), cenIer (C), or at, Wall

on, the E(qiator ('). All Other Ig.itions at Iotton,

I I I I I I

0

0 2 4 6 a

HYDROGEN COMBUSTED ( .)

0O 12 I'

Figure B.25: Combustion duration, inferred from pressure results (sprays-on tests).
B3.3 Comparative Results from Tests with Sprays-on 109

4

0

z

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

I~

• -20 0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S)

0

'N

2.75

2.50

-2.25

2

B

1.75 -

... .. ....

NTSP21 (13/27 %)

1.50- N

NTSP22 (5/14 \

ITSP18 (6.6/'28,%)

125

I .

• 1

20 0 20 . 40 60 . 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION. ( S.)

100

Figure B.26: Gas thermocouple profiles for sprays-on tests. Numbers in parentheses

.are initial hydrogen/initial steam concentrations.-

A: 3-mil thermocouple results

.,B:- 32-mil thermocoupleresults

!'

' 4 .f: ,
11t0 B COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

60

50

-j

401-

NTSP21 (13/27 7.)

II --.-. - . ........... /NTSP1 (6.6/28 %.)

/

. . I I II

20 F

10 F

-20

40,

0 20 40 60 80

TIE AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S )

100

35 1-

Y_

LJ

30

25

20

15

10

5

. .° ............. . .

NTSP21 (13/27 %)

NTSP18 (6.6/28 %)

, . - NTSP22 (5/14

1

v

-20 .0 20 40 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION ( S)

I 

I

100

Figure B.27: Dewar wall thermocouple profiles for sprays-on -tests.; Numbers in parentheses are initial hydrogen/ initial steam, concentrations.-

A: Thermocouple T120 results'

B: Thermocouple T121 results
B.3 Comparatiye" Results :from :Tests With Sprays-on 111

20

17.5

15

x

-J

U10

7.5

5

2.5

0

-•20- " -0 20 - - 40 60 80.

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

100

140 -

NTSP21 (13/27 t) B

0

I100 - /

80 -

60

40

20

0

J .NTSP18 (6.6/28 %) NTSP11 (6/5 %)

S - - . NTSP22 (5/14 7.)

I I ~I'. I I

0 0 20 40 60 80 10 120 140 *0

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTIO (S)

180 200

Figure B.28: Heat transfer profiles from H232 for'tests with sprays-on. Numbers in

parentheses are initial hydrogen/initial steam concentrations. -. -

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
ý112 112B. COMPARATIVE GRAPHICAL RESULTS

14

12

x

I8

6

4

2

0

-20 0 20 40- 60 80

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

100

140

L.B

C-)

-J

I0

I-.

120 1-

NTSP21 (13/27 %)

/-

7

80 -

60 -

I NTSP18 (6.6/28 %)

... . . . .. -------------- ..........

/ .~~ - NTSP2ý2(5/14% - T.)16/~

40

.20

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 No 10

TIME AFTER START OF COMBUSTION (S)

180 200

Figure B.29' Heat transfer profiles from H503 (sprays-on). Numbers in parentheses are

initial-•hydrogen/initial steam concentrations.

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
B.3 Comparative Results from Tests with Sprays-on 113:.

20

0 Thin-Filnm Gauge. 17.5 - • Copper Slug Calorimueter

E Aluniuiinui Cube. Calorimaeter

15 VC-ardun Gauge 11106

ASchlnidt-lloelter Gauge 1-1502

2. Schilidt-Hoelter Gauge 11503.

v

7.0

t- 5 V0

0

02 6 12 A )

HYDROGEN COMBUSrED (v)

400

upperbound Estimate from A IC, Calculation

0 T0lin-Fih.l Gauge

C14V Cardon Gauge I1106 I

300 A Schmidt-I30 , Iter Gauge 11502

V SChmidt-BoI*lter Gauge 11503

S250

0."

a

V

2 200 A

ID O

50 7B

0 • 9 1 .. I1I .

02 4, 6 'a "ID 12 14 HYDROGEN COM3BUSTF_ X .

Figure B.30: Total heat transfer results from tests with sprays-on

A: Total heat flux

B: Total energy deposition
/I
115

Appendix C

C Graphical Results for Each Premixed Combustion Test

Graphical results for the twenty-one premixed combustion tests conducted at NTS

are provided in this appendix in the same order given in the tables of Appendix A.

Included are gas pressure and gas and wall temperature data obtained from "good"

instrumentation. In addition, local total heat flux and energy deposition results are

presented for representative "good" Gardon, Schmidt-Boelter and thin-film gauges. Instrumentation "goodness" designations, as defined in the text (Section 5), are tabulated

in Tables A-1 - A-3 of Appendix A.

Global (also referred to as average) results obtained from 'the pressure signal processing are also provided in graphical form for comparison purposes. These results

include estimates of the gas and wall temperatures and also radiative. and total heat

transfer rates and energy depositions.. The global estimates of radiative:and total heat

transfer are provided only for times following the time of peak pressure (i.e., assumed

time of completion of combustion) given the limitations of SMOKE for modeling the

actual combustion phenomena (see Section 4). Comparative global results inferred

from pressure data processing are not provided for tests in which the spray systems

were operative, since the effects of sprays are not accounted for in SMOKE. Results

obtained from processing pressure transducers P105 (Hydrogen Behavior series) and

P103 (Equipment Survival series) -are used if these signals are "good". Otherwise,

results from transducer P102 are provided for comparison purposes.
116 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP1 - 5.3% H2 /4.2% H20

'so'

130

120

ilo

90

80

140

120

110

90

0 100 20O

TNE ( S)

300: 400 500

500

450,

425

p400

3375

~3w

325

3w0

310I

0

308w306

.04

~302

300

- AVERAGE ES11MATE USiNG P105 DATA

I0 1000T 500 TME S

0 100 200

TME(S

300 4W00 500X

Figure C.1: Gas pressure and gas andmwall temperatures for test NTSP01

A: Gas pressure during combustion.

:B: Gas pressure for entire test.

C: Gas temperature. inferred from pressure

D: Wall temperature inferred from pressure
117

NTSPO1 -• 5.3% 12 /4.2% HO20

2

1.75

150

-" 1.25

XD0,75

~0-0

0

70

60

.50

1 40

20

10

0.

0 50 100

TME (S)

150 200 250 0

0 s0 100 e 200 250, 300 350

TME (S)

Figure C.2: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP01

A: Heat flux (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)
-118 C- GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP9P -,6.0% H 2 / 4.6% H20

20M 200

140

120

100

800

60

140

20

100

8o

60

40

20 30 40 50 60

TME (S)

70 80 90 100

600

550

- .500

ýO 450

~400

.320

C " -.

315

312.5 / T121

S310

307.5 7: ,.-

I 3M -.------ •,OF / /~... ......

-. o3 6 -'I ..? . ...

USriC P103 DATA 305 /

-~ 300 I

200 250 300 0 50 100

TME (S)

300

0 50 100 '150

TIME (S)

150 200 250 300

FigureC.3: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatfires for test NTSP9P

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test"

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)

D. Wall temperature (measured and. inferred from pressure)
119

NTSP9P - 6.0% H2 / 4.6%• 120

V

.0.8

0.6

0.4

A

*Q H232 -

. "FERRED FROM

P103 DATA

TOTAL.

RAD~ATrVE

11 All I

40

v 30

. 20

10

0

0.21

0

0 25 50 75

TME (SI

100 125 . 150 175 200 .

12

v0.6

0.4 ̧

0.2

0

70

50

~40

10

20

0 25 50 : 75 ,

TME (S)

25 50 175 200 0 100 200 300 400 500

T 4E(S)

Figure C.4:- Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP9P

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge: and inferredfrom, pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

,C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter g6uges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)'
120 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP09 -,6.1% H2 / 4i2%1 Hj0

200

w0

o 140

120

200

iso

o 140

S120

~100

sBo

60

50 200 250 300

T S)

170 1o 0 190 200 210 220 -23 240 2W0

TME ( S )

350 400 450

600

550

500

~450

400

~350

325

320

315

310

250 300

2 T' 256 300 350

TME :(5)

400 4W0 W' 200 250 300 350

T.E (5)

400 '450

Figure C.5: Gas pressure and gas and-wall temperaturesfor test NTSP09

A: Gas pressure during combu'stion

.B:. Gas pressure for entire: test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred. from pressure).

D: Wall temperature. (measured and inferred from pressure)
.,'1121

NTSP09 - 6.1% H2 ,/-4.2% H20

146

U21-

1

0.8 F

F232 A

NUfEM FROM P103 DATA

RAATV

.......

,! , T-- ...... - .'-

0.6 I

OA

02 F

0

150 175 200 225 250

TIME (S.)

275 300 =25 350

0

C'-

14

0.8

0.6

OA /~ 0.4 /H503.

0.2 ./

0

150 175 200 225 250

TIME (S)

80

70

-50

S20

275 300- 325 3W0 0 1' 1- 1 I" 1 1 150 200 260 o300 =0

TIME (S) 4 460 500 50

Figure C.6: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP09.

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
122 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSPOO - 6.6% H2 / 4.5% H20

-220

200

180

220

200

"40 140

120

80

700

650

600

550

450

~400

80

1 20 30 40 50 60 70

Tre (S)

80 90 0 50 CS)

TKE (S)

150 200 250 300

314

312

~309

306

-104

302

300

350

300

0 50 00 1s 0

TKC ( )

200 250 300 0 50 100

TME (S)

150 200 250 300

Figure C.7: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSPOO

A: Gas pressure during combustionB: Gas. pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature inferred from pressure

D: Wall temperature inferred from pressure
123•ii•

NTSPOO - 6.6% :H1 /4.5% H20

2

M0.5

'0

8o

70

-~50

440

~30

20

10

0 50 100

TME (S)

150, 200 250 300

0 '

0 350

Figure C.8: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSPOO

A: Heat flux inferred from pressure

B: Energy deposition inferred from pressure
124_ C:GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP04 -7.7%:11./.4.8% 1120

350

300

250

200

150

100

350

.3O

250

200

ID0

0 50 100 )0

TME (S )

200 250 30M

1100

1000,

900

S800

67M

3600

~500

330

325

320

310

.,305

3M0

400

300

0 50 100 150 200 2610 300 0. 50 100 150

TME (S) TME (S)

200 250 3

Figure C.9: Gas. pressure and gas and wall temperatures

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas& temperature inferred from pressure

D: Wall temperature inferred from pressure

for test NTSP04
125

NTSP04 - 7.7%,H2 / 4.8% 1H20

Z4.

2

0

0 20 40 W 8l0DE 120 . 0 SO

TME (S)

250

C14

0 a : I I' I

0 .50 100

TME (S-)

150 200 250 300

Figure C.10: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP04

A: Heat flux (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)
126 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP13 - 7.8% H12 / 4.4% H20

300

250

._-200

2oa

300

~200

150

50 &.

. 0 50 100

TIE ( (S)

150 200 250

1ooo

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

360

350

340

/ T121 ".. -.

/ ~T120-

S / A•AVRAE ESTMATE USNJG P103 DATA.

II ,I I . ..

• 320

310

.300

-0 50 100

t& (s)

150 200 250 300 0 50 100

TE(s)

150 200 250 3W0

Figure C.11: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP13

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B:, Gas,pressure for.entire test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)

D: Wall temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)
127

NTSP13- 7.8% H 2 / 4.4%. H 2 0

6

4

H232~

IWE;RM FROM P103 DATA

T. TOTAL"DATIVE

K'; , "j~t~~j

140

z

Q so

00 60

~40

20

A

1

I

OTk_

0 0

0 25 50 75 IDO

TvE (S)

125 150 V5 200 0 100 200

TLE (S)

300 400 500

6

5

4

I

0

120

- 100

z

Q 80

S60

40

z

Lii

20

a 0 25 50 . 75 100 125 150

ThE (,S)

175 200 0 100 200 300 400 500

TwE (S)

Figure C.12: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP13

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

C: Heat flux. (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
128 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP15-- 9.9% H2 /4.2% 1120':.

450

40O

350

300

2500

450

400

300

250

200

150

100

20 30 40

TME (S)

50 60 70 80 0 50 100

TKE (S)

50 200 250 300

1200

1000

800

600

400

380

370 / N T121 u /

AVERAGE ESTV•ATE uSNG P102 DATA

320

310

300 20O

o 50 o00

TME (S)

150 200 250 300 0 50 100

TME (S)

50 200 250 300

Figure C.13: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP15

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)

D: Wall temperature (measured and inferred from pressure).
129

NTSP15:.- 9.9% H 2 I 4.2% H 20

12

10

8

1-

250

200

150

DO

50

4

2

0

0 25 50 75 100

TME (S) )

125, 10. 175 200

10 250

8 200 H150

4 ID I

2 I , , ,

0 25- 50 -. 75 ' 00 125 15 175 20 0 15D 20 250

IME (S). TME(E),( S

Figure C.14: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP15

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

300. 30 40
130 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP07 - 5.5% H2 / 14.3% H20• / Fans

30 180

160

100

80 80

5500

}

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 50 100 150 200 250

TME (S) TLE (S)

.3,2

500

450

~400

IF

- AVERAGE ESTIMATE USING P1M05 DT

. . C .

331

.330

328

327

326

325

I310 1-

.3001

0 50 100 150

TME (S)

200 250 300 M24

0 50

TME (S)

150 200 250

Figure C.15: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP07

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature inferred from pressure

D: Wall temperature inferred from pressure
131

NTSP07 - 5.5% H2 / 14.3% H20 /,Fans

50

I0.8

0.4

02

.*~30

~20

0 0

0 20 40 60 80 00 120 140 10

Tree (S)

0.8

OA

0.2

50

120

0

0 20 40 0 80 1 120 MO ,U5o

TME(s)

0 50 100 10

TME ( S)

200 250 300

Figure C.16: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP07

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure) "

B: Energyd•eposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

C: Heat flux (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)

D: Energy deposition (Gardon gauge. and inferred from pressure)
132 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP03 - 5.8% H2 / 16.8% 110/Fans

200

180

140

20

800

I

6000

550

4500

~400

18(

180

1460

120

120

80 ' I' ': I . I

0 50. 100 150 200 250 .300

TE (S)

334

332

330

328

326

300 324

0 -50 100 -150 200 TIME .(S.) - 250 3w0

TE()

Figure"GC.7': Gas pressure and.,gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP03

A: Gas pressure:during combustion

B::Gas pressure fOr entire test

C: Gas temperatiureinferred from pressure,,..

D.:Wall temperature inferiedftrom pressure . .....
133

NTSP03 - 5.8% H: / 16.8% H20 / Fans

I2

12

OS

0.6

CA

02

0

0 20 40 60 0 w 10 w 140 M0

TUE (S)

70

50

50

20

0

0 50 10

TME ( S

150 200 250 300

Figure C.18: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP03

A: Heat flux (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)
134 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP06 - 6.0% H 2 / 13.7% H12 /-.Fans

"180

3120

U00

120

100

50

650

80

v 20 30 40 50. 60 70 0 50 100

TLE (S) TLE (S)

150 200 2W0 300

•500

S450

400

350

3M0

33M

330

:321

326

M24

322

0 50 M0 10 200 250 300 0 5

TME ( )

100 150 200 2W0 300

TIME (S)

Figure C.19: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP06

A: Gas pressure during. combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

.C: Gas temperature inferred from pressure

D: Wall temperature inferred from pressure
135

NTSP06 - 6.0% H2 /. 13.7% H12 / Fans

.DJ

12

0.75

0.50

0.25

0

-0.25

0 20 40 60 80

TIME (S)

w uo 140 ~0

50

401-

301-

B ~~TOT, fl INFIE04U FROM ....... P105 DATA

H106 i,.....

/RAD)ATIVE INFERRED FROM P105 DATA

¢IlI I l

20 1-

0 ii i I I I I I

0 50 100. TK ( S 150. 200 250 300

Figure C.20: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP06

A: Heat flux (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (Gardon gauge and inferred from pressure)
136 C GRAPHICALRESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED :COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP12 - 6.9%.,H2 / 28.3% H 20

200 200

160

140

120

8O

60

140

P103

80

20 30 40 50 60 70

TNE (S.)

80 90 100 I _ 0 50 100 150 TME (S) 200 250 300

800

760

600

400

300

W55

S 350 ~ 1 0 -----

345-

S3425/

3-DATA

2 N0 30 0 T5 10E 

TME (S)

0 50 100 150S

. . E (S)

200 10 200 250 -300

Figure C.21: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP12

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B:. Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred'from pressure)

D: Wall temperature (measuredland inferred from pressure)
137

NTSP12 - 6.9% 12./ 28.3% H2 0

1.4

12

0.5

0.6

OA

.02

0

50

50

30

0

0 25 50 75 100

TIME (S)

125 150 175 200 0 50 Do 150 200 M350 25M 300 40

TME (S)

25

M

2

15

140

120

100

"80

60

20

.0 6 I IIi~- I

00 '. - DO 125 150 175 .200 0 50 0 150 , 200 250 300 350 400

TME (,S)" TME (S)

Figure C.22: Heat flux,, arnd energy depositioni-results for test NTSP12

.:,A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred from.pressure) .B: Energy .depositi6n. (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure),

C:"Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: .Energy' deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)-
138 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP14 - 8.1% H2 / 38.7% H20

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

800700

,•.700

' 600

500

~400

-- 220

200

180

0

160

140

100

80

380

375

370

360

355

350

345

0 50. 100 150

TME. (S)

I I 3 200 250 .300

300

0 50 100 ':150 200

TNE (S)

250 300 100 _ - 10

TME (S)

Figure C.23: Gas pressure and gas >and wall temperatures, for test NTSP14

*A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for :entire test

C:. Gas temperature (measured and inferred'from pressure) -

D: Wall temperaturen(measured and inferred frm, pressure)-i
139

NTSP14 8.1% "2- /.38.7% H20

2.5

2

t5

0.5

0

80

70

~50

z

0

~30

~20

z

LiJ

I.

IB TOTAL

/."."/ • • . RADIATIVE .

{ S/ INFEIRRED FROM P103 DATA

E

10

.0

0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150

TME. (S)

V5 20 50 100 150 200 250

TIME: (s) % 300 350 400

3

Z5

2

140

120:

X)

1,00

. 80

60

U40

L 2 0

)

I

0 0

0 25 50 75 1)0

TME':(S')

25 150 V5 200 0 - 50 W00 150 200

TME (S)

250 30 4

Figure C.24:' Heat-flux and energy -deposition results-for test' NTSP14

A: Heatflux (thin-film gauge and; inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred! from pressure) -

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
140 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP05 - 7.8% H2 / 31.3% H20

20O

175

125

v 20 30 40

TWE (S),

50 50 70 80

1W

9W

900

S5oo

400

440

~40

3350

360

0 50 v0 W5

TWE (S)

200 2W0 3W 0 W v 2W0 2W0 30

The (S)

Figure 0.25: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP05

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)

D: Wall temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)
141v

NTSP05; ý-.7.8%H 2 :/ 31.3% H 20.

7

• 6

i 5

4

•+C2 

i " ,: ::' 2

250

'200

B

... .H106

,'TO0TAL WEýRRE FFROM P105 ýDTAý

RAIJIAliV rERRD FROM P105 DATA

iooj50

0 0

0 20 40 60 80

TME (s )

1DO 20 .140 W- 0 50 100 150

TME (S )

200 250 30

7

6

4

3

. 0.

.250

200

mo

50

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 20 140 W

TME (S)

.0 50 100 150

TME (,S)

200 250 ,3W0

Figure C.26: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP05

A: Heat flux (Gardon gauge and inferred" from P105)

B. Energy deposition (Gardon gauge and inferred fromP105)

C: Heat. flux -(Gardon gauge .and inferred from P102)

D: Energy deposition :(Gardon gauge and inferred from P 102).
142 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACHIPREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP16 -10.1% H2 / 29.5% H20

U)J

350

300

250

200

150

1W0

0 50. 100 150

.TE (S)

200 250 30

1000

1600

-400

i

200

0 50 100 150

TME (S)

'200 250 300 0 50 100 .50

TME s)

200 250 . 300

Figure C.27. Gas. pressure -and gas and wall. temperatures for test NTSP16

A: Gas pressure during combustion,

•,:B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred from pressure).

D: Wall. temperature -,(measured and ififerred from pressure)
143

NTSP1.6 - 10..i% / 2 9.5% 1K 0

10 200

175

N

x

B

4

:2!

125.

100

75

50

ýTOTAL I1~fE~aE FROM

P102 DATA

V P102 DATA

0 I C 1I1-;

"1.

w • 0

0 0 100 m 200 250 300 '--m

TIME(S

400

" ~C ̧

200

81

H503

//H502.

150

125

100

.75

50

25

2

0 0

0 -25, 50 75 1

TME (S)

DO 125. 150 15 200 100 0 , -200 2.50"

T.IME (S) .

Figure C.28: Heat flux and energy-deposition results for test: NTSP16

A: :Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred.from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from, pressure)

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
144 •C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACHPREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

" NTSPO8- 11.1%H12 /.272% H 20/' Fans&

500

450 400

-200

TE (S)

"00

gao

aoo

400

480

, 420

4

,

00

~300

340

.MO 320

.WV VW 11W

NWE (S) TNE (S) MO :120 0

Figure C.29: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP08

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire- test

C: Gas temperature (measured and inferred from~pressure)

D:'Wall temperature (measured and inferred from pressure)
" :145

NTSPO8 - .11.1% 'H 2 /ý27.2ý% 1120 -/,Fans

201-

#1

A

H232FROM PI02 DATA

• H232 •. • . .. . ..

10

5

+;0 t

K4O low low

TwE S

110 12D

260

200

EDO.

1~000 0•5•0 1(S TME(,s) 2W0 2WD U

Figure C.30: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test ,NTSP08

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)
'146 ;C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP20" - 12.9% H2 / 27.8% H20

. '!

A B0

400 400

350 P10. 350

-~ P102

00 .. 7- 'TP103

25025

1000

TME (S) -,: TIME (3S)

CD 0

420

T1100

,420. - ,

12000

100 VAVA ESTMATE USNG DATA 0103 

Figure C.-31: Gas pressure and ga~sandl wall temperature~s for test=,NTSP2O

, :Ai:Gas pressure during combustion. -:•. . B:..Gas pressure for:.enire test. . .. --- ...- 

Ci: Gas temperature (measured and infered frmpressure) -

D: Wall temperature (measured and inferred from-pressure)."-
147

NTSP20: 12.9%-H// 2 27.8% 1H20

250

200

>20;

10

z

• RRM FROM Pim c)ATA

. TO"k J Ii• "

50

0 1

50 100 50 200" TIME (S)

250 300 350 40

x

20

17.5

15

12.5

•10'

75

5

25

0

.. :. ., 80.. ! F.6_. . .

100 110 120 50 10 - 0 200 250 300 "350 400

-I• (S)

eo 70 W.'.: 90)

Figure C.32: Heat flux and energy deposition resultls.for test NTSP20

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge and inferred frompressure)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge and inferred from pressure)

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
148 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP22 - 5.2% H 2 / 14.5% H 20 / Sprays

140

130

1.20

110

140

130

120

110

90

5 20 25 30 35, 40 45 50 5,5

TUE (S)

0 20 40 60 80 s 00 120

TMIE (S)

wo0 ý w

475

450

425

400

3375

~350

325

300

332

331

330

329

327-

32M

325

0 20 40 60 80 I00 120

TME (S) ,

140 .10 0 20 40 60 80

TNE (Sý).

100 20 140 r60

Figure C.33: Gas. pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP22

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for..entire test

C: Gas temperature

D: Wall temperature
149

NTSP22 -5.2% H 2 / 14.5% .120 / Sprays.

0.8

3:

0.6

0.4

0.2

C14

vSI•

1(0 TME (S)

0.8

r'

0.6

O.4

0.2

14

S10.

4

2

0 0

0 20 40 60 8o 20 140 150

TME (S)

0. 50 100 TIME (S) 150 200 250

Figure C.34: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP22

A: Heat flux (thin-film. gauge)

B: Energy :deposition (thin-film gauge)

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
150 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP11 - 5.8% H2 / 4.9% HO Sprays

Iý

200

IS0

200

160,

140

.120

s0 so 20 25 30 35 40

ThE (S)

45 50 55 60 0 20 40 60 I 0 10 20 140

TME (S)

700

650

6W0

550

p500

1450

~400

I ,.

I{

-.0 20 40 60 o -r 20 10. r50

TME (S)

Figure C.35: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures forI test NTSP11

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature
151 --

NTSPI1 - 5.8% H2 / 4.9% H 20 / Sprays

:5

2

1.75

t50

1.25

1

0.75

0.50

0.25

0

30

25

20

10

40

0

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 TME (S)0 50 100

TME ()

150 200 250 300

0**

60

60

.40

~30

.20

.O.5

0

0

0 25 50 75 100

TME (S)

,125 150 175 200 1 0 100 1

TME (S)

Figure C.36: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP11

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge)*

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter. gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
152 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP02 - 5.8%-H2 / 16.8% 1120 / Sprays

200

1W0

120

100

SO-

... 20 25 30 35

TNE (S)

0 45 - 50 55.. 90

200

,I0

140

W00

80

I

0 20 40 60 80

TME (s)

1 10 20 140 W0

Figure C.37: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP02

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test
153

NTSPO2- 5.8% H2 / 16.8% H2Q / Sprays

50

.40

30

0

4

0 20 40 60 80

TME (S)

100 12: 140 SO

Z5

2

1.5

"7

0 L

20 40 66 . .. . 80 00 120

TME (S)

Figure G.38: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP02

A: Heat flux (thin-film and GardOn gauge)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film and Gardon gauge)
1154 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP18 - 6.6% H2 / 27.3% H120/ Sprays

240

220

200

18

jo

100

8400

200

-'600

500

4W.

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

IDO

B

P102

- - I 1 1 I 1

185 190 65 200 205 210 215 220 225

TNE (S)

160 10 200 220 240 260 260 300 320

TME (S)

340

.350

375

.370

365

.360

355

350

345

.340 150 175 200 225 250 275 .300 325 350

TME (S) 150 200 250 300

TME (S)

350 400 4W5

Figure C.39: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures for test NTSP18

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for entire test

C: Gas temperature

D: Wall temperature
155

NTSP18 - 6.6% H 2 / 27.3% H20 / Sprays

50

(N

I40

v 30

20

__

0

W5 200 250 300 350 TME (S) 400 4W0 5W0 M

3

40

I2

n1.

0.5

0

230

1n 0

0

150 175 200 225 250

TME (s)

300 5 350 150 200 250 300 (S0 TMee (s) 400 4W0 5WO =

Figure C.40: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP18

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge)

C: Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
156 C GRAPHICAL RESULTS FOR EACH PREMIXED COMBUSTION TEST

NTSP21 - 13.2% H2 / 27.4% H20 / Sprays-& Fans

400

350

~300

250

1•00

IDO

S1000

~600

20 25 .30 35 40 45 50 55 60

TME (S )

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

'lOO

400

390

380

370

.360

350

340

3230

320

0 20 40 60 80 W00 0 140 1W0

TME' (S )

400

200

0 20 40 60 80 -00 120

TWv (S)

140 1W0 50 100 150 200 250 300

ThE ( S

Figure C.41: Gas pressure and gas and wall temperatures fortest NTSP21

A: Gas pressure during combustion

B: Gas pressure for. entire test

C: Gas temperature

D:, Wall temperature
157

NTSP21 - 13.2% H2 / 27.4% H20 / Sprays & Fans

20

17.5

12.5

10

5

140

1 20

IDO

60

40

20

0

20

17.5

0

0 20 ' 40 60 80 100 120

TkE (S)

140 160

0N

12.5

10

7.5

5

•,140

20

IM

~40

.20

0 20 40 60 s0 100 120 140

T. (S S)

0 0

I50 • • 0 . l50 100

... vE (S)

150 200 250 300

Figure C.42: Heat flux and energy deposition results for test NTSP21

A: Heat flux (thin-film gauge)

B: Energy deposition (thin-film gauge)

C:Heat flux (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)

D: Energy deposition (Schmidt-Boelter gauges)
'A
159

Distribution:

U.S. Government Printing Office

Receiving Branch (Attn: NRC Stock)

8610 Cherry Lane

Laurel, MD 20707

275 copies for R3

U. S. Bureau of Mines (1)

Pittsburgh Research Center

P. 0. Box 18070

Pittsburgh, PA 15236

Attn: M. Hertzberg

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (7)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC :20555

Attn: G. A. Arlotto

R. T. Curtis

W. S. Farmer

J. T. Larkins

L. C. Shao

K. G. Steyer

P. Worthington

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (5)

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555

Attn: B. S. Burson

M. Silberberg

J. L. Telford

T. J. Walker

R. W. Wright

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (6)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555

Attn: J. K. Long

J. F. Meyer

R. Palla

K. I. Parczewski

G. Quittschreiber

D. D. Yue

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (6)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555

Attn: V. Benaroya

W. R. Butler

G. W. Knighton

T.M. Su

Z. Rosztoczy

C. G. Tinkler

U. S. Department of Energy (2)

Operational Safety Division

Albuquerque Operations Office

P.O. Box 5400

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Attn: J. R. Roeder, Director

Dr. M. Peehs

Acurex Corporation (1)

485 Clyde Avenue

Mountain View, CA 94042

Applied Sciences Association, Inc. (1)

P. 0. Box 2687

Palos Verdes Pen., CA 90274

Attn: D. Swanson

Argonne National Laboratory (1)

9700 South Cass Avenue

Argonne, IL 60439

Attn: H. M. Chung

Astron (1)

2028 Old Middlefield Way

Mountain View, CA 94043

Attn: Ray Torok

Battelle Columbus Laboratory (2)

505 King Avenue

Columbus, OH 43201

Attn: P. Cybuiskis

R. Denning

Bechtel Power Corporation (1)

P. 0. Box 3965

San Francisco, CA 94119

Attn: R. Tosetti
160

Bechtel Power. Corporation (1)

15740 Shady Grove Road

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Attn: D. Ashton

Brookhaven National Laboratory (2)

Upton, NY 11973

Attn: R. A. Bari

T. Pratt

Duke Power Co. (2)

P. 0. Box 33189

Charlotte, NC 28242

Attn: F. G. Hudson

A. L. Sudduth

EG&G Idaho (1)

Willow Creek Building, W-3

P. O. Box 1625

Idaho Falls, ID 83415

Attn: Server Sadik

Electric Power Research Institute (1)

3412 Hillview Avenue

Palo Alto, CA 94303

Attn: J. J. Haugh

K. A. Nilsson

G..Sliter.

G. Thomas.

Factory Mutual Research Corporation (1)

P. 0. Box 688

Norwood, MA 02062

Attn: R. Zalosh

Fauske & Associates (1)

627 Executive Drive

Willowbrook, IL 60521

Attn: R. Henry

General Electric Co. (1)

175 Curtner Avenue

Mail Code N 1Ci57

San Jose, CA 95125

Attn: K. W. Holtzclaw

General Physics Corporation (1)

1000 Century Plaza

Columbia, MD 21044

Attn: Chester Kupiec

Los Alamos National Laboratory (4)

P..O. Box 1663

Los Alamos, NM 87545

Attn: H. S. Cullingford

R. Gido

G. Schott

J. Travis

University of Michigan (1)

Department of Aerospace Engineering

Ann Arbor, MI 47109

Attn: Martin Sichel

Mississippi Power & Light (1)

P. 0. Box 1640

Jackson, MS 39205

Attn: S. H. Hobbs

Northwestern University (1)

Chemical Engineering Department

Evanston, IL 60201

Attn: S. G. Bankoff

NUS Corporation (1)

4 Research Place

Rockville, MD 20850

Attn: R. Sherry

Offshore Power System (2)

8000 Arlington Expressway

Box 8000.

Jacksonville, FL 32211

Attn: G. M. Fuls

D. H. Walker

Power Authority State of NY (2)

10 Columbus Circle

New York, NY 10019

Attn: R. E. Deem

S. S. Iyer

*

'U

'I
161

Purdue'University (1)

School of Nuclear Engineering

West Lafayette, IN 47907 ...

Attn: T. G. Theofanous

Sandia National Laboratories (10)

Directorate 6400

P. 0. Box 5800

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Attn: R. Cochrell

Sandia National Laboratories (20)

Organization 6427

P. 0. Box 5800

Albuquerque, NM 87185

Attn: G. Shaw

Dr. Roger Strehlow (1)

505 South Pine Street

Champaign, IL 61820

TVA (1)

400 Commerce

W9C157-CD

Knoxville, TN 37902

Attn: Wang Lau

Thompson Associates (1)

639 Massachusetts Avenue

Third Floor

Cambridge, MA 02139

Attn: Timothy Woolf

.UCLA (1)

Nuclear Energy Laboratory

405 Hilgard Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90024

Attn: I. Catton

Westinghouse..Corporation (3)

P. 0. Box 355

Pittsburgh, PA 15230

Attn: N. Liparulo

J. Olhoeft

V. Srinivas

Westinghouse Hanford Company (3)

P. 0. Box 1970

Richland, WA 99352

Attn: G. R. Bloom

L. Muhlstein

R. D. Peak

University of Wisconsin (1)

Nuclear Engineering Department

1500 Johnson Drive

Madison, WI 53706

Attn: M. L. Corradini

Australian Atomic Energy Commission (1)

Private Mail Bag'

Sutherland, NSW 2232

AUSTRALIA

Attn: John W. Connolly

Director of Research, Science & Education (1)

CEC

Rue De La Loi 200

1049 Brussels

BELGIUM

Attn: B. Tolley

AEC, Ltd. (2)

Whiteshell Nuclear Research Establishment

Pinawa, Manitoba, CANAkDA

Attn: D.' Liu

H. Tamm

McGill University (3)

315 Querbes

Outremont, Quebec

.CANADA H2V 3W1

Attn: John H. S. Lee

CNEN NUCLIT'(1)

Rome, ITALY

Attn: A. Morici
162

Battelle Institut E. V. (1)

Am Roemerhof 35

6000 Frankfurt am Main 90

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: Dr. Werner Baukal

Gesellschaft fur Reakforsicherheit

(GRS) (1)

Postfach 101650

Glockengasse 2

5000 Koeln 1

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: Dr. M. V. Banaschik

Gesellschaft fur Reaktorsickerheit

(GRS mbH) (2) .

8046 Garching

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: E. F. Hicken

H. L. Jahn

Institute fur Kernenergetik

und Energiesysteme (2)

University of Stuttgart

Stuttgart

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: G. Froehlich

M. Buerger

Kernforschungszentrum Karlsruhe (3)

Postfach 3640

75 Karlsruhe

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: , Dr. S. Hagen

Dr. J. P. Hosemann

Dr. M. Reimann

Kraftwerk Union (2)

Hammerbacherstrasse 12 & 14

Postfach 3220

D-8520 Erlangen 2

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: Dr. K. Hassman

Technische Universitaet Muenchen (1)

D-8046 Garching

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Attn: Dr. H. Karwat

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (1)

Tokai Research Establishment:

Nuclear Safety Research* Center Division of

Nuclear Safety Research

Tokai, IBARAKI, 319-11

JAPAN

Attn: Dr. Kunihisa Soda

Swedish State Power Board (1)

E1-Och Vaermeteknik

SWEDEN

Attn: Eric Ahlstroem

AERE Harwell (3)

Didcot

Oxfordshire OXll ORA

UNITED KINGDOM

Attn: J. Gittus, AETB (2)

J. R. Matthews, TPD

Berkeley Nuclear Laboratory (1)

Berkeley GL 139PB

Gloucestershire

UNITED KINGDOM

Attn: J. E. Antill

British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd. (1)

Building 396

Springfield Works*

Salwick, Preston

Lancs

UNITED KINGDOM

Attn: W. G. Cunliffe

National Nuclear Corp. Ltd. (1)

Cambridge Road

Whetestone, Leicester, LE83LH

UNITED KINGDOM,

Attn: R. May

Simon Engineering Laboratory (1)

University of Manchester

M139PL,

UNITED KINGDOM

Attn: Prof. W. B. Hall

*
163

UKAEA Safety & Reliability Directorate (3)

Wigshaw Lane, Culcheth

Warrington WA34NE

Cheshire

UNITED KINGDOM

Attn: J.:G. Collier (2)

S. F. Hall

UKAEA AEE Winfrith (1)

214/A32,,

Dorchester

Dorset Dt2 8DH UNITED KINGDOM

Attn: A. J. Wickett

6440

6442

6447

6447

6447

8513

8523

8523

3141

3151

D. A. Dahlgren

W. A. von Riesemann

D. L. Berry

V. J. Dandini

D. B. King,

W. J. McClean

K. D. Marx

B. R. Sanders

C. M. Ostrander (5)

W. L. Garner

Sandia Internal:

1131

1510

1512

1512

1513

1513

1513

1513

1520

1530

1540

2513

2513

6400

6410

6411

6412

6420

6422

6425

6427

6427

6427

6427

6427

6427

6427

W. B. Benedick

J. W. Nunziato

J. C. Cummings

J. E. Shepherd

M. R. Baer

S. N. Kempka

D. W. Larson

A. C. Ratzel (10)

D. J. McCloskey

L. W. Davison

W. C. Luth

0. B. Crump, Jr

J. E. Kennedy

A. W. Snyder

J. W. Hickman

S. E. Dingman

A. L. Camp

J. V. Walker

D. A. Powers

W. J. Camp

M. Berman

J. T. Hitchcock

B. W. Marshall, Jr.

L. S. Nelson

M. P. Sherman

S. R. Tieszen

C. C. Wong

NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER (Assignedby TIDC. add Vol. No., if tany

12.841

'NRCM 3 3201.,3202 102. . BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/CR-41-38 SN 503

SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE.

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. LEAVE BLANK

Data Analyses for Nevada Test Site (NTS)

Premixed Combustion Tests

A 4. DATE REPORT COMPLETED

MONTH YEAR

SAUTHOR IS) April 1985

6. DATE REPORT ISSUED

Aý. C. Ratzel, III MONTH YEAR

May 1985

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (IncludeZ,ip Code) 8. PROJECT/TASK/WORK UNIT NUMBER

Sandia National Laboratories 9. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

P.O. Box 5800, Organization 1513

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 A1246, A1270

10. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (Include Zip Code) 11a. TYPE OF REPORT. Divisions of Accident Evaluation and Engineering Technical

Technology ,

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research b. PERIOD COVERED (1n-1-iu, dWtJ

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington,. D.C. 20555

12. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

13. ABSTRACT [200 words or leu)

This report provides results from an in-depth analysis of twenty-one premixed

large-scale combustion experiments sponsored by the NRC and EPRI and conducted by EG&G at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These experiments were performed in a 2048 m3

spherical vessel (hydrogen dewar) with'mixtures of hydrogen, steam, and air ignited .by glow plugs or heated resistance coils. Hydrogen concentrations ranged from 5 to 13%

(by volume) and steam concentrations from 4 to 40%. Several tests also incorporated

spray systems and/or fans which enhanced the combustion rate and significantly altered

the postcombustion gas cooling.,

Data provided by EPRI from instrumentation designed to characterize the thermal

.environment in the dewar during and following combustion have been evaluated. The

data reduction package SMOKE has been used to process data from thin-film gauges,

*immtnercial heat flux gauges, capacitance calorimeters, gas and wall thermocouples, and

.pressure sensors. Local measurements of the heat transfer are provided from the

calorimetry, and global averages are inferred from the pressure. Instrumentation "goodness" for each test is assessed based on the raw data and on comparisons of local

and global results. Graphical and tabular results are provided for each test, and

?rends observed from the results are reported.

14. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS - a. KEYWORDS/DESCRIPTORS

Premixed Combustion Experiments

NTS Hydrogen Dewar

Environment Characterization

Data Analysis

b. IDENTIFIERSIOPtN.ENDED TERM'

15. AVAILABILITY

STATEMENT

Unlimited

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

(This pege)

Unclassified

(Tha report) . - I

Unclassified

17. NUMBER OF PAGES

B1. PRICE

a.

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: i 98.-O-576.037/20,026