Kumud Ajmani

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Daryl A. Edwards

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A CFD Analysis of Hydrogen Leakage During

On-Pad Purge in the ORION/ARES I Shared Volume

NASA/TM—2011-217020

July 2011
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Kumud Ajmani

ASRC Aerospace Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio

Daryl A. Edwards

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

A CFD Analysis of Hydrogen Leakage During

On-Pad Purge in the ORION/ARES I Shared Volume

NASA/TM—2011-217020

July 2011

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135
Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2011-217020 1 

A CFD Analysis of Hydrogen Leakage During On-Pad 

Purge in the ORION/ARES I Shared Volume 

Kumud Ajmani 

ASRC Aerospace Corporation 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Daryl A. Edwards 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

Abstract 

A common open volume is created by the stacking of the Orion vehicle onto the Ares I 

Upper Stage. Called the “Shared Volume”, both vehicles contribute to its gas, fluid, and thermal 

environment. One of these environments is related to hazardous hydrogen gas. While both 

vehicles use inert purge gas to mitigate any hazardous gas buildup, there are concerns that 

hydrogen gas may still accumulate and that the Ares I Hazardous Gas Detection System will not 

be sufficient for monitoring the integrated volume. This Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) 

analysis has been performed to examine these topics. Results of the analysis conclude that the 

Ares I Hazardous Gas Detection System will be able to sample the vent effluent containing the 

highest hydrogen concentrations. A second conclusion is that hydrogen does not accumulate 

under the Orion Service Module (SM) avionics ring as diffusion and purge flow mixing sufficiently 

dilute the hydrogen to safe concentrations. Finally the hydrogen concentrations within the Orion 

SM engine nozzle may slightly exceed the 1 percent volume fraction when the entire worse case 

maximum full leak is directed vertically into the engine nozzle. 

Nomenclature 

CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics 

cm centimeter 

cm2

 square centimeters 

e exponent 

F Fahrenheit 

H2 hydrogen 

in.2

 square inches 

IU Instrument Unit 

K Kelvin 

kg/m3

 kilogram per cubic meter 

kg/min kilogram per minute 

kg/s kilogram per second 

lb/ft3

 pounds per cubic foot 

lbm/min pounds mass per minute 

scfm standard cubic feet per minute 

scim standard cubic inches per minute 

scmm standard cubic meters per minute 

SM Service Module 

T temperature 
NASA/TM—2011-217020 2 

1.0 Introduction and Objectives 

Previously a CFD analysis had been performed on the shared Orion/Ares I volume in order to 

examine thermal effects and mixing. From this initial work, it became relatively easy to explore the 

hydrogen leakage topic. As with the previous CFD analytical work, this analysis utilizes the software 

FLUENT (ANSYS, Inc.) which has the ability to model the effects of different gas species. 

Objectives of the CFD analysis are: 

 Objective 1.—Determine if the Orion Service Module needs to implement a hazardous 

gas detection function at its vents. 

 Objective 2.—Determine the interaction of the hydrogen gas with the purge flows in the 

shared volume and identify areas of potential hydrogen accumulation. 

 Objective 3.—Determine if the concentration (by volume) of the hydrogen gas exceeds 

the safety margin of 1 percent volume fraction at any location (over a given time-period) in 

the shared volume. 

2.0 CFD Model Development

This section describes the CFD model developed, the assumptions, and solution parameters 

to study the extent and concentration of hydrogen gas in the ORION/ARES shared volume. 

2.1 Model Geometry 

The geometry of interest is the “shared volume” between the Orion SM and Ares I IU. Figure 1 

shows a cut-away view of the bounding surfaces of the shared volume as modeled with the FLUENT 

code. It is worth noting that most of the interior obstructions (e.g., solar arrays, antennae, avionics 

boxes, and piping/conduits) are not included in the model. Compared to the overall volumes, these 

items present a very small fraction of this volume and are not expected to significantly influence the 

gas flow paths or the gas velocity magnitudes for the purposes of this analysis. 

Figure 1.—Surface geometry for shared volume for SM/IU. 

Orion Purge Inflow

Through Avionics Ring

Several Locations (80% of Orion Purge)

Ares I Purge Duct

Inflow at Many Openings

Orion Vents

(2 of 3 Locations Shown)

Ares I Vents

(3 of 4 Locations Shown)

Orion Purge Inflow

Through Annular Gaps 

(20% of Orion Purge)
NASA/TM—2011-217020 3 

2.2 Assumptions 

1. Hydrogen Leak Location.—Hydrogen will exist in the Liquid Hydrogen tank and internal 

to tubes/piping at the top of the tank. The geometry is shown graphically (but not to scale) 

in Figure 2. For the purpose of this analysis, the leak location is assumed to be around the 

valve and bolted flanges/fittings near the center of the tank. In the analytical model, the 

leak is modeled as an annular opening with total area of 0.2046 in.2 (1.32 cm2

) in the 

surface of the hydrogen tank. The area of this opening was chosen so as to provide the 

same order of inflow velocity as the surrounding purge flow. 

Figure 2.—General configuration used for hydrogen leakage. 

Ares I Upper Stage LH2 Tank

Bolted Flange

Connection

Bolted Flange

Connection

Assume all H2 leakage 

comes from the bolted 

flanges within this 

area.
NASA/TM—2011-217020 4 

2. Hydrogen Leak Amount.—The nominal leak rate used for this analysis is 1400 scim. The 

source of this value is Table 14 of CxP72034B, Ares I Systems Requirements Document. 

It is considered the leakage limit during propellant loading and first stage flight operations 

for hydrogen leakage into the Instrument Unit. 

3. Hydrogen Leak Direction Orientation.—Since the actual mechanism of the hydrogen 

leak is extremely difficult to characterize, the nature of the leak was deemed to be 

bounded by two configurations for the inflow of the hydrogen into the shared volume. 

 Configuration 1.—Hydrogen flows in a direction normal to the top most point of the 

tank and vertically into the engine nozzle. This would represent the worst case for 

hydrogen accumulation within the engine nozzle. 

 Configuration 2.—Hydrogen flows in a direction tangential to the top surface of the 

tank in a direction normal to the axis of the vehicle. This is thought to represent the 

most likely case for hydrogen spreading into the SM’s annular space between the SM 

radiators and the fairings. 

The real-world nature of the hydrogen leak is somewhere in between these two configurations 

modeled by the CFD analysis. 

4. Purge Flowrates.—Nominal nitrogen purge flowrates are 150 lbm/min (68.04 kg/min) 

through the Ares I IU purge duct and 100 lbm/min (45.36 kg/min) through the Orion SM. 

For this analysis, the general purge flow distribution for Orion uses an 80 and 20 percent 

split (Avionics Ring openings and Propulsion System Assembly openings). Final Orion 

purge flow split will likely be significantly different than these values, but since the total 

flowrate remains the same with all Orion openings into the shared volume above the 

Orion-Ares I gap and the flow in Ares is the dominating flow, it is not expected to have any 

significant impact on the results. The purge flowrates for both vehicles will operate over a 

range of values and will not be expected to operate at the nominal flowrate at all times. For 

example, purge flowrates are expected to vary from 90 lbm/min to 100 lbm/min (40.82 to 

45.36 kg/min) for Orion. A conservative analysis would target the low end of this range. 

However, since a separate computer run has already been performed using a 10-times 

increase in hydrogen leak rate, it was decided to not perform another computer run for the 

lower purge flow as its results would be enveloped by this larger relative change in 

hydrogen flow rate. 

5. Purge Temperatures.—Thermal variations in the purge flow temperature and 

environmental heating is not included in this analysis. Again, these are perceived to be an 

insignificant influence on the hydrogen gas motion. A secondary analysis with warm/cold 

inflow temperature for the Hydrogen gas shows that this assumption is indeed 

conservative. 

6. No Other Gas Inflows.—Inflow of external air or leakage of any other fluid into the shared 

volume is considered as zero. This assumption is expected to produce a conservative 

result as any further fluid constituents would only serve to lower the hydrogen 

concentration values. 
NASA/TM—2011-217020 5 

2.3 Input Flow Conditions 

The flow-rates for the various fluids entering the shared volume are: 

 Purge flow of nitrogen through SM inlets = 100 lbm/min (45.36 kg/min) or 1356 scfm 

(38.40 scmm) 

 Purge flow of nitrogen through IU inlets = 150 lbm/min (68.04 kg/min) or 2034 scfm 

(57.60 scmm) 

 Hydrogen maximum leak flow rate = 1400 scim or 0.81 scfm (0.0229 scmm) which 

equates to approximately 0.004237 lbm/min (0.001922 kg/min) 

 Based on hydrogen density = 0.005231 lbm/ft3

 (0.0838 kg/m3) using standard conditions 

of 67.4 F (293 K) at standard atmospheric pressure 

Note: The volumetric flow rate of the nitrogen purge gas at 3390 scfm (96.0 scmm) is more than 

three orders of magnitude greater than the specified maximum hydrogen leak rate of 0.81 scfm 

(0.0229 scmm). 

Since the scope of the current analysis did not permit a detailed modeling of the heat-transfer 

on the surface of the hydrogen tank, multiple cases of this analysis were performed to evaluate 

the effect of the leaking gas’s temperature. For the purpose of this analysis, the hydrogen 

properties used as CFD code inputs for the two temperature conditions are summarized in the 

following table. 

TABLE 1.—HYDROGEN PROPERTIES 

Characteristic Cold hydrogen, 

100 K (–280 F) 

Warm hydrogen,

300 K (80 F) 

Units 

Density 0.2456 0.08188 kg/m3 

0.01533 0.005112 lb/ft3

Volumetric flowrate 0.000691 0.002040 m3/min 

0.024409 0.072047 ft3/min 

Mass flowrate 187.5 188.2 kg/min 

413.37 414.90 lbm/min 

Hydrogen mole fraction 2.297e-4 2.306e-4 ----------- 

2.4 FLUENT Solution Parameters

The commercial code FLUENT was used as the CFD tool to perform the computations for the 

geometry and flow conditions described above. A summary of the primary parameters for the 

CFD solution are listed below: 

 1.4 million nodes 

 Green-Gauss node-based solution, incompressible flow formulation 

 SIMPLE pressure-velocity coupling, steady-state solution 

 Realizable k-epsilon turbulence model 

 Four-species mixture model (non-reacting) 

 SM Purge Flow is 95 percent nitrogen, 5 percent oxygen (oxygen is used as a tracking 

species for analytical purposes) 

 IU Purge Flow is 95 percent nitrogen, 5 percent methane (methane is used as a tracking 

species for analytical purposes) 

 Second-order accurate spatial discretization for all equations 

 Solve for continuity, momentum, energy, k-epsilon and species 

 Fixed mass-flow rate at all inflow boundaries (nitrogen purge and H2 inflow as specified at 

given temperature) 
NASA/TM—2011-217020 6 

 SM Avionics Ring, 18 holes at 3.0 in. (7.62 cm) diameter = 83.6 lbm/min (37.92 kg/min) 

 SM eyelid = 0.0873 lbm/min (0.0396 kg/min) 

 SM Radiator Gaps: Top/Bottom = 6.627 lbm/min (3.006 kg/min) each; 

Mid = 2.831 lbm/min (1.284 kg/min) 

– The gaps between the radiator panels are modeled as circumferential gaps; one at the 

top, one in the middle, and one at the bottom. These circle the outer surface of the SM 

as rings. 

 IU holes = 67.98 kg/min flowing through 44 holes at 0.75 in. (1.905 cm) diameter 

 Fixed back-pressure at all outflow vents (SM and IU) 

3.0 FLUENT Results

3.1 Vertical Injection of Hydrogen 

The FLUENT code was run for configuration 1 in which H2 leaking into the shared volume at 

80 F (300 K) is in a direction aligned with the long axis of the vehicle. As discussed in Section 2.1, 

this configuration represents the worst case scenario for H2 accumulation in the SM engine 

nozzle. A cold hydrogen gas case was not run in this vertical configuration as it would not yield 

worst case results due to the cold gas tendency to go downward first and then spread outward 

causing some of the gas to go beyond the engine nozzle opening. A summary of the primary CFD 

results is given below: 

 Excellent convergence for mass-flow rate imbalance of purge flows. 

 Difference between inflow and outflow is approximately 1.0e-6 kg/s 

(roughly 0.00005 percent) 

 Convergence of species mass-concentration for H2 “stalls” near 1.0e-4 (see Fig. 3) 

– Possibly “unsteady” flow effects in primary flow (IU cavity) 

Figure 3.—Convergence history for vertical injection. 
NASA/TM—2011-217020 7 

Figure 4.—Contours of mole fraction of Hydrogen in shared volume. 

Figure 4 shows contours of mole fraction of the leaked hydrogen gas in a cross-sectional plane 

of the shared volume. The effect of the vertical injection is that most of the hydrogen accumulates in 

the engine nozzle, and a very low concentration of H2 is seen in the IU cavity. A small fraction of the 

H2 gas makes its way past the SM/IU gap and there is almost no H2 in the annular area between the 

SM radiator and the vehicle outer surface. 

To help demonstrate that the analysis is properly accounting for the hydrogen, the exiting 

hydrogen mole fraction was compared to the incoming hydrogen mole fraction. For a steady state 

condition where purge flowrates and hydrogen leakage rates are constant, the values would be 

expected to be nearly identical. In this case, the circulating flows create a condition where a true 

steady state cannot be analytically achieved, causing the mole fraction values to be not identical. 

Yet, the values still provide insight into how well the analysis is accounting for the hydrogen 

molecules and where they are flowing. For this vertical injection case, the average mole fractions of 

H2 exiting the three SM and four IU vents were computed as 0.665e-4 and 3.56e-4, respectively for 

an overall average of 2.32e-4 for all seven vents (compares favorably to the 2.306e-4 warm case 

input value). Note: For these conditions (approximately ambient temperatures and pressure), the 

mole fraction and the volume fraction can be considered as the same numerical value. The 

maximum concentration of H2 in the SM engine nozzle is around the 1 percent level (yellow to 

orange colors) except in the area near the leak where H2 levels go above the 1 percent safety 

limit—however, this is to be expected in the vicinity of the leak. 

Figure 5 shows velocity vectors in a cross-sectional plane of the shared volume. The vectors 

are scaled by the velocity magnitude in the flow. The IU cavities between the conical adapter and 

the SM engine nozzle show very strong recirculation of the purge flow. The area enclosed by the 

engine nozzle also shows some weak vortical structures around the H2 injection location. 

Previous CFD analysis has shown that a degree of mixing occurs between the SM and IU purge 

gases within the shared volume. To help visualize this mixing, particle tracing was performed to 

follow the route of various particles through the shared volume. Figure 6 shows particle traces 

representing the path traversed by a few particles that enter the domain through the SM avionics 

ring vents. While none of these particular particle traces actually exited through the IU vents, some 

did enter the IU volume. It can be concluded that some of the purge flow that enters the domain via 

the SM will eventually exit the domain via the IU vents. For this analytical run, total flow rate at the IU 

and SM vents was computed as 146.94 and 103.06 lbm/min (66.65 and 46.75 kg/min), respectively. 

This agrees very well with the incoming flow-rates of 150 and 100 lbm/min (68.04 and 45.36 kg/min) 

at the IU and SM purge inlets, respectively. 

Approximate Vent

Locations (Vertically)
NASA/TM—2011-217020 8 

Figure 5.—Velocity vectors (colored by velocity magnitude) in shared volume. 

Figure 6.—Particle traces representing SM avionics ring flow into the shared volume. 

Vents

(7- places)

Purge Inflow

(many places)

View from Top
NASA/TM—2011-217020 9 

3.2 Tangential Injection of Hydrogen 

Simulating the hydrogen leak at a tangential direction was used for three cases. The 

tangential “orifice” was located at radius = 1.8 in. (4.572 cm) with height = 0.01809 in. 

(0.04595 cm) for an area of 0.2046 in.2 (1.32 cm2) which is the same area as the vertical injection 

case. First case is the base case which is used to compare with the vertical leak direction in 

Section 3.1. The second case explores the temperature effect of the leaking hydrogen gas by 

assuming it is cold and consequently at a greater density (less buoyant). The third case is used to 

examine the situation of a hydrogen leak rate that far exceeds the specified maximum limit. 

3.2.1 Baseline Case 

The FLUENT code was run for configuration 2 where the H2 is leaking into the shared volume 

in a plane normal to the long axis of the vehicle (tangential to the topmost point of the H2 tank). As 

discussed in Section 2.2 assumption 3, this configuration represents the scenario for maximum H2

spreading into the SM portion of the shared volume. Results show the overall exit flow at the IU 

and SM vents to be 146.9 and 103.1 lbm/min (66.63 and 46.77 kg/min), respectively. Now 

checking the flow of hydrogen, the average mole fraction of H2 exiting the (three) SM and (four) IU 

vents was 1.113e-4 (note this is 67 percent higher than “vertical” injection) and 3.216e-4 

(10 percent lower than “vertical”), respectively, for an overall average of 2.315e-4 exiting the 

seven vents (incoming value is 2.306e-4). This result confirms the horizontal leak mechanism as 

being the worse case for hydrogen reaching into the SM portion of the shared volume. 

Figure 7 illustrates the variation of H2 concentration in the computed volume over time which 

occurs due to the oscillating nature of the purge flow in the IU cavity. The set of six contour plots 

shows that a quasi-steady solution may be assumed between 35000 and 45000 time-steps. The

results at 35000 steps show that there is some spread of H2 into the IU cavity. However, as the 

Figure 7.—Variation of hydrogen concentration over time at T = 80 F (300 K). 

HYDROGEN VOLUME FRACTION 

AT X=0 CROSS-SECTIONAL PLANE (TRANSVERSE LEAK)
NASA/TM—2011-217020 10 

solution approaches a quasi-steady state at 45000 steps, the H2 concentration in the cavity drops 

to trace amounts. The maximum volume fraction of H2 at the quasi-steady state (45000 steps) is 

well below the safety margin of 1 percent volume fraction of H2. 

It may also be noted that there does not seem to be any significant qualitative differences in 

the spread of H2 into the SM shared volume due to either tangential injection or vertical injection 

(compare Fig. 7 with Fig. 4 in Section 3.1). This is possibly because the strong vortical flows 

(shown in Fig. 5) created by the comparatively high flow rates of the IU and SM purge flows tend 

to dominate the overall flow pattern in the regions outside of the SM engine nozzle. 

3.2.2 Off Design Case—Cold Hydrogen Leak 

In order to study the effect of variation in temperature of the leaking H2, an off-design case 

representing “cold” flow was simulated with the FLUENT code. The H2 gas was injected 

“tangentially” into the shared volume at a temperature of –280 F (100 K). The leak simulation was 

initiated from a converged solution representing the baseline purge flow (without any leak). 

Figure 8 shows a time-history of the H2 mole-fractions for the cold flow case. For this case, the 

heavier H2 spreads more slowly into the volume and shows lower concentrations of H2 in the SM 

engine nozzle region when compared to the warm case (see Fig. 7). The overall exit mass 

flowrate at the IU and SM vents is 146.5 and 103.5 lbm/min (66.445 and 46.95 kg/min), 

respectively. Checking where the hydrogen is flowing, the average mole fractions of H2 exiting the 

(three) SM and (four) IU vents were 6.92e-5 (38 percent lower than “baseline”) and 3.55e-4 

(10 percent higher than “baseline”), respectively. The overall average hydrogen mole fraction 

exiting all seven vents is 2.325e-4 while the incoming value is 2.306e-4. 

Figure 8.—Variation of hydrogen concentration over time at T= –280 F (T = 100 K). 

HYDROGEN VOLUME FRACTION 

AT X=0 CROSS-SECTIONAL PLANE (TRANSVERSE LEAK)
NASA/TM—2011-217020 11 

3.2.3 Off Design Case—10x Hydrogen Leak Flow Rate 

As observed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2.1, the maximum concentration (by volume) of H2 in the 

shared volume was computed to be well below the safety limit of 1 percent concentration of 

hydrogen by volume for the nominal maximum H2 flow rate of 0.81 scfm (0.0229 scmm). An 

off-design case was conceived with a significantly increased hydrogen flow-rate of 8.1 scfm 

(0.229 scmm), which is an order of magnitude increase in maximum leak rate, to determine if the 

H2 concentration would perhaps exceed the 1 percent safety limit in the shared volume. This is 

more an examination of the design’s robustness than an actual case. The results would also 

envelope any impacts from operating at the low range of the nitrogen purge flowrates. 

Figure 9 shows the variation of H2 concentration in the computed volume for the 10 times leak 

flow-rate. The results show that there is considerably more H2 in the IU cavity for this case with 

some H2 making its way into the SM annular region. While the volume fraction of H2 exceeds the 

1 percent margin within the SM engine nozzle, the remaining volumes of the IU and SM have 

hydrogen concentration values still under the 1 percent limit. 

It is worth noting that an increased hydrogen concentration value will be detected at the vents 

by the Hazardous Gas Detection System, yet still be under the 1 percent limit. The SM engine 

nozzle is still under the 4 percent concentration value for becoming an actual hazard and the 

environment is still nitrogen purged to prevent a flammable mixture from developing (assumes 

there is no simultaneous oxygen leak). The average mole fraction of H2 exiting the three SM and 

four IU vents were 0.765e-3 and 3.4e-3, respectively, for an overall average of 2.27e-3 for all 

seven vents (compared to the input H2 mole-fraction of 2.306e-3). 

Figure 9.—Variation of Hydrogen concentration over time, 10 times leak rate. 

HYDROGEN VOLUME FRACTION 

AT X=0 CROSS-SECTIONAL PLANE (TRANSVERSE LEAK)
NASA/TM—2011-217020 12 

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

A CFD simulation of H2 leakage into the Orion/Ares shared volume has been completed with 

the FLUENT code. The entry of the leaking gas into the shared volume can be successfully 

“bounded” by assuming that the H2 flows either horizontally along the vehicle axis or normal to the 

vehicle’s long axis. At the nominal designed max hydrogen leak rate of 1400 scim (0.0229 scmm), 

the concentration of the H2 gas does not exceed the safety margin of 1 percent accumulation (by 

volume) at any location in the shared volume. A CFD simulation with an off-design leak flow-rate 

using 10 times the maximum specified flowrate, does show that the safety-margin could be 

exceeded within the SM engine nozzle, but not elsewhere in the shared volume. 

The CFD modeling approach developed during this work provides reasonable insight into the 

physical behavior of leaking H2 in the presence of background purge flow. In the absence of any 

experimental data, the modeling approach can be used as a viable independent validation and 

verification tool to perform detailed parametric studies for similar configurations or flow conditions. 

Objective 1.—Determine if the Orion Service Module needs to implement a hazardous gas 

detection function at its vents. 

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY 

[Hydrogen Concentration (volume fraction) exiting vehicle vents.] 

 Vertical Tangential 

 Baseline, 

percent 

Baseline, 

percent 

Cold, 

percent 

10X Leak, 

percent 

Orion SM vents 0.0068 0.0113 0.0070 0.0770 

Ares IU vents 0.036 0.0327 0.0361 0.3461 

Results show that in all cases the concentration of hydrogen exiting the Ares IU vents is 

greater than the concentration exiting the SM vents. Therefore, it can be concluded that the 

Ares IU Hazardous Gas Detection System will be monitoring the worse case and there is no need 

to add monitoring capability at the Orion SM vents. 

Objective 2.—Determine the interaction of the hydrogen gas with the purge flows in the 

shared volume and identify areas of potential hydrogen accumulation. 

Hydrogen diffuses rapidly and is entrained in the purge flows as they find their way to the exit 

vents. Hydrogen concentrations can build up in the SM engine nozzle to a level higher than the 

rest of the shared volume, especially if the leak gets directed into the engine nozzle. By running 

the off-nominal case of a hydrogen leak rate ten times the maximum specified rate, it was 

determined that the concentration in the SM engine nozzle can exceed the 1 percent limit, but 

does remain below the 4 percent hazardous value. This would indicate that the SM engine nozzle 

can be considered a potential location for hydrogen accumulation during off-nominal conditions. 

Objective 3.—Determine if the concentration (by volume) of the hydrogen gas exceeds the 

safety margin of 1 percent volume fraction at any location (over a given time-period) in the 

shared volume. 

Under the worse case, the hydrogen concentration in the SM engine nozzle may slightly 

exceed the 1 percent volume fraction safety limit in the vicinity of a directed hydrogen leak. 

However, it is concluded that under the nominal maximum hydrogen leak rate, there will be no 

accumulation of hydrogen that would violate the safety limit at any other location beyond the 

vicinity of the leak source. It is recommended that the analysis be re-performed as the designs 

evolve in order to assess the need for development of mitigation strategies. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-07-2011 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A CFD Analysis of Hydrogen Leakage During On-Pad Purge in the ORION/ARES I Shared 

Volume 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Ajmani, Kumud; Edwards, Daryl, A. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 644423.02.36.07.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17685 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2011-217020 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 14, 15, 16, 18, and 34 

Available electronically at http://www.sti.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

A common open volume is created by the stacking of the Orion vehicle onto the Ares I Upper Stage. Called the “Shared Volume”, both 

vehicles contribute to its gas, fluid, and thermal environment. One of these environments is related to hazardous hydrogen gas. While both 

vehicles use inert purge gas to mitigate any hazardous gas buildup, there are concerns that hydrogen gas may still accumulate and that the 

Ares I Hazardous Gas Detection System will not be sufficient for monitoring the integrated volume. This Computational Fluid Dynamics 

(CFD) analysis has been performed to examine these topics. Results of the analysis conclude that the Ares I Hazardous Gas Detection 

System will be able to sample the vent effluent containing the highest hydrogen concentrations. A second conclusion is that hydrogen does 

not accumulate under the Orion Service Module (SM) avionics ring as diffusion and purge flow mixing sufficiently dilute the hydrogen to 

safe concentrations. Finally the hydrogen concentrations within the Orion SM engine nozzle may slightly exceed the 1 percent volume 

fraction when the entire worse case maximum full leak is directed vertically into the engine nozzle.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Compartments; Purging; Safety; Hydrogen; Computational fluids dynamics; Simulation 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

18 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18