Twentieth Symposium(International)on Combustion/TheCombustion Institute, 1984/pp. 17271734
A MATHEMATICAL MIXTURE
FOR
COMBUSTION
MODEL
LEAN
HYDROGENAIRSTEAM
IN
CLOSED
VESSELS
ERDEM A. URAL X.~D ROBERT G. ZALOSH
Factory Mutual Research Corporation 1151 BostonProvidence Turnpike Norwood, Massachusetts 02062
The lean hydrogenairmixture combustion model described in this paper accounts for non adiabatic, axisymmetric, buoyant flame propagation in a sphere or a cylinder. Turbulent burning velocity effects and heat losses associated with fanstirred mixtures, equipment obstructions, and/or a water spray in the vessel are explicitly included in the model. Flame quenching and postcombustion cooldown are also modeled. Calculated results are compared with data from a variety of experiments conducted in vessels ranging in volume from 5 to 2,000 m 3. Comparisons with pressure data recorded during the accidental hydrogen deflagration in the Three Mite Island Unit 2 reactor building are also presented. Results indicate that peak pressures and burn times can be simulated quite well in many cases without using any ar bitrarily adjusted parameter values. In other cases, such as the intermediatescale cylindrical vessel tests, the nominal flame surface area had to be increased by a factor of 23 to achieve good agreement.
Introduction
The hydrogen burn during the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident I has stimulated considerable inter est in lean hydrogenairsteam mixture deflagration phenomena. As described in Ref. 2, pressure de velopment in these deflagrations is often influenced by residual unburned hydrogen and by heat losses during combustion. Several extensive test programs (many described in Ref. 3) have been conducted in recent years in order to develop a large data base for peak pressures, hydrogen burn fractions, and burn completion times. Efforts are underway to use this data base to predict pressure and thermal loads and hydrogen conversion fractions during hypoth esized accidents in nuclear reactor containment buildings. A phenomenological model of lean mixture com bustion and cooldown has been developed to assist in the data analysis and extrapolation. The model differs from most other deflagration models in the combustion literature in that it features buoyant flame propagation, turbulenceaugmented burning velocities, heat losses leading to nonadiabatic pres sure increases, flame quenching and postcombus tion cooldown. In order to include all these com plicated phenomena in the model, many compromises were made between fundamental ver sus empirical formulations. The validity and effec tiveness of these compromises can be ascertained by the comparison of calculated and experimental results presented after a brief description of the
current model. The detailed discussion of the model can be found in Ref. 4.
Model Description
As in most phenomenological deflagration models, the following assumptions are invoked. Burnt and unburnt gases, each with uniform temperature and composition, are assumed to beseparated by a con tinuous flame surface. Pressure is instantaneously uniform throughout the compartment since flame speeds in these lean mixtures are small compared to sound speeds. The energy equations for the un burnt and burnt gases, respectively, are:*
d 
dVu 
9 

dt (M,,uu) + 
.~lh,, + P T 
+ 
Qco = 
0, 
.~aHc
+ .~h,,
=
d _ dVi,
~
(~lbub) + Vff + QLb.
(1)
t2)
Pressure at any time can be calculated using the ideal gas mixture relationship:
_
Mb
+
*Variable definitions are given in the nomencla ture at the end of the text.
1727
1728
EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
Equations (1) and (2) are coupled through the mass burning rate term:
/~1
dM~
dt
dM.
dt
puSTAF.
(4)
In calculating burnt gas composition and energy, all the hydrogen that passes through the flame surface is assumed to be consumed prior to flame extinc tion. This assumption has been motivated by Mi tanfs data5 which showed that 94% of the initial hydrogen is consumed behind the flame front in nearlimit downward propagating premixed hydro gen flames. Experimental confirmation for nearlimit upward propagating mixtures is not available be cause of irregular, noncontiguous flame surfaces.
FlameShapesand SurfaceAreas
Flame surface area and volumes needed in the preceding equations depend on assumed flame ge ometry. Based on experimental observations, ~'6 the problem was separated into two phases: 1) a buoy ant rise phase, and 2) a downward propagation phase, as shown schematically in Fig. 1. During the buoyant rise, flame surface area and burned gas volume are modeled as suggested by Crescitelli et al, 6 as an oblate spheroid. The aspect ratio of the spheroid is given in terms of the buoy ant rise velocity, v, by
=
f pbv
1.5 
0.5
PuSuJ
)
~'.
min {1,
/
a)
uleaard
propagation
t
t
t
t 4
t$
t 6
(5)
The buoyant rise velocity in Eq. (5) is determined by the fireball momentum equation:
1
ddt(Mav)= (Pu  pb)gV~  ~ pu~rr2CDv2.
(6)
In the inertial term in the momentum equation, the induced motion of the unburnt gas in the vicinity of the flame kernel is also taken into account using the virtual mass which is represented as
(7)
Ma =
(l~b"~"Kpu)Vb
where
MilneThomson7 for creeping flow around an oblate
spheroid.
The drag coefficient Co is calculated us
mass coefficient given by
K
is
the
added
ing the correlation: 

Co 
= 
2.7 + 24/Re 
(8) 
as suggested by Cresitelli et al. 6 The location of the flame center can be determined by integrating Eq. (6) twice. The first phase of flame propagation ends when the flame reaches the top of the vessel. During the second phase, burnt gas is assumed to fill the top of the vessel and the downward prop agating flame surface, is assumed to be planar (Fig. 1). The idealized flame geometries in both phases of flame propagation are adjusted as follows. When there are obstructions in the vessel, as in the case of the equipment and structures in a con
tainment building, the flame folds around these ob
jects, effectively increasing the flame surface area. Therefore, a flame surface area correction factor: CA = AF/AG is introduced. Here Ac is the geometric surface area calculated for the flame shapes shown in Figure 1 and AF is the actual flame surface area. Unfortunately AF is strongly affected by geometry of the vessel as well as the objects inside, and there is no universal correlation available. As a first ap proximation (referred to as the nominal value) Ca is taken as the ratio of total solid surface area (in cluding obstructions) to the vessel boundary surface area. Values of CA greater than unity also account for other flame deformation phenomena. These in
clude: flame extensions associated with continuous ignition (using glow plug igniters), cellular flame surfaces associated with preferential diffusion,2 flame
deformation due to vessel penetrations and instru
mentation, and flame stretch due to fireball inter
action with the top wall. Although these effects oc cur at different times, only one overall constant value
of CA is used in the model.
b) dc.mward propsstion
FIG. 1. Two phases of flame propagation.
HeatLosses
The heat loss rate from the burned gas, (~Lb, is
calculated from various convective and radiative contributions as described here. The unburned gas
LEAN HYDROGENAIRSTEAM MIXTURE COMBUSTION
_{1}_{7}_{2}_{9}
heat loss rate, 0Lu, is actually a heat gain rate cal culated from the absorption of radiation emitted by the burned gas as described below. Convective heat transfer to the vessel walls and to the objects inside the vessel is taken into ac count using Newton's cooling law. In these calcu lations vessel walls are modeled as fiat plates while the equipment and structure inside the vessel are represented as uniformly distributed horizontal cyl inders. The heat transfer surface area is allowed to increase in time due to increase in the burnt gas volume. During upward propagation, burnt gases sweep over solid surfaces with a velocity equal to the instantaneous buoyant rise velocity so that forced convection correlations s have been used to calcu late the heat transfer coefficients. During down ward propagation and the cooldown phases, resid ual gas motion is relatively small so that natural convection correlations s are more appropriate. The total rate of heat loss to spray or fog droplets is calculated using the equation:
Qspray = ndVbhsSd(T  Ts).
(9)
Spray droplets are assumed to be monodisperse, uniformly distributed and spherical so that the heat transfer coefficient is calculated using the equation:
hsDs
 = Nus
k
= (2 + 0.459 Prl/3Res ~
~?n(l + B)
B
(lo)
The droplet number density and velocity have
been calculated
correlations for sprays, 9n and for fog. 12 The details
can be found in Ref. 4. To simplify the calculation of the radiative heat exchange among burnt and unburnt gases and all the solid surfaces in the enclosure, it is assumed that reflection and emission from solid surfaces are
negligible. Part of the burnt gas radiation is ab sorbed by the unburnt gases and the rest is ab sorbed by the solid surfaces. The total radiative en ergy leaving the burnt gas is determined by employing the emissivity of the burnt gas, calcu
lated using
fraction of this energy that is absorbed by the un burnt gas is determined using the average trans mittance calculated as in Ref. 14. During the cooldown period following combus tion, steam condenses over the solid surfaces, and possibly also in the gas phase. To account for these phenomena two simple condensation models, i.e., one for gasphase, and one for surface condensation
a subroutine developed by Modak. 13 The
data
using separate
experimental
have been incorporated into the model as described in Ref. 4.
Burning Velocity
The adiabatic burning velocity equation used in the model is:
STAD ~ SLAD + U~AN "l" UtSpr~y~ + ukrr.
(11)
Values for SL^D as a function of hydrogen and steam concentration and unburned gas temperature were calculated from the Liu and MacFarlane cor relations, is As for U~'AN, three alternative options 4 have been included in the model. Results pre sented in this paper (for the Nevada dewar tests)
were based on the equation: t6
turbulent
energy dissipation
PFAN
p0VT
3 UFAN3
2
~e
(12)
where ee is the length scale of the energy dissi pating eddies and is taken from Ref. 17.
The
value of USpray is calculated as one tenth of
the characteristic local spray droplet velocity at the
flame front as computed from the same empirical velocity distributions used in the spray or fog heat transfer algorithm. The rms flameinduced turbu
u~'IT, is based on the un
lent velocity fluctuation,
burned gas velocity, vu, at the flame surface. The isentropic compression relationship used for vu is:
V, 
dP 

vu = 
 
(13) 

~/uAFP dt 
where ~, is the unburned gas ratio of specific heats.
The value of Vu calculated from the preceding equation is multiplied by arms turbulent intensity (typically taken as 0.10) to obtain U~IT~ Since there are heat losses during flame propa gation, the burning velocity is actually less than the
(11). As sug
gested by Crescitelli et al6 and others) s'19 the de
adiabatic value represented
by Eq.
crease is represented by the onestep Arrhenius re action rate relationship:
E 
TAD T] 

ST(T) = STAbexp 
2R 
TADT 
_{J}_{'} 
(14)
A value of 16 kcal/mote is taken for the overall ac tivation energy of the hydrogenair combustion re
action as was recommended cote. is
by Fenn and Cal
Flame Extinction
A flame extinction algorithm is incorporated into the model as a logical extension of the flame tem perature effect on the burning velocity. Since the energy generation rate due to combustion is pro
1730
EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
portional to the burning velocity, the latter has a critical value below which heat generation cannot support the heat loss; at this point the flame is quenched. The extinction algorithm used in the model is based on the FrankKamenetskii formu lation) 9 Accordingly, the critical burning velocity for quenching is
S}
STAD
e_l/2
(15)
m
9 
, 
. 
, 
. 
, 9 
, 
. , 
9 
, 
. 
, 
9 
, 
9 
, 
9 

/\ 
Dry e2/^~, 

/ 
~ 
15z st,.o 

/ 
/ \ ~ 
, 

[ 
/ 
//V\• 
Hydrogen 
8I 

] 
~ 
"~ 
:e:Ps:r:teU re 98 aBa TM 

[ 
II 
.\ 
~. 
30z ste,. 

2 
4 
8 
8 
1 
12 
14 
le 
8 
i 

lll/s 
kFIERIDIIIIO~ (me)' 
i
""
Combustion ends either when this criterion is 
sat 
a 
isfied (incomplete combustion) or when all the 
hy 
a 
drogen is consumed. When quenching occurs, 
the 

burnt and unburnt gases are assumed to mix 
in 
stantly (conserving species mass and energy) and the subsequent cooldown period is calculated for this mixture. The preceding set of algebraic and ordinary dif ferential equations is solved via numerical integra tion based on the trapezoidal method. A time step of 10 milliseconds was found to provide equivalent .results to the more sophisticated predictorcorrec tor integration algorithm. Required CPU times are typically of the Order of 10 s on an IBM 4341 com puter.
Comparisons with Data
Model calculations have been compared with premixed deflagration data obtained in spherical and cylindrical vessels of various dimensions as sum marized in Table I. Vessel volumes span a range of four orders of magnitude. Hydrogen concentrations range from 5 to 12 vol. % and steam concentrations from 0 to 30%. These mixture composition ranges are applicable to nuclear reactor containment de graded core accident scenarios. All calculations, un less otherwise noted, were performed without us ing any adjustable parameters, i.e., with CA set equal to unity. Calculated and measured pressuretime curves for three tests conducted in the 2.3 m diameter
FIG. 2. Effect of steam addition with bottom ig nition (AECL experiments).
AECL sphere are shown in Fig. 2. Peak pressures agree to within 21% of the measured values, while the calculated pressure rise times are 12 s (30 50% smaller) less than the measured values. Dif ferences may be due to extrapolations in the burn ing velocity correlation used in the calculations. There is good agreement in the decay portion of the pressuretime curves thus providing some ex perimental validation of the model heat loss for mulation. Peak overpressure data as a function of (dry) hy drogen concentration are given in Fig. 3 for the four dry, bottom ignition tests in the AECL sphere. The upper solid curve in this figure corresponds to adi abatic pressure, whereas the lower curve is the model predictionl The agreement between experi mental and theoretical results appears to be quite good, particularly near the lower flammable limit where peak pressures are well below the adiabatic, complete combustion value. Similar results have also been obtained with data for central ignition in the Bureau of Mines sphere. Figure 4 shows the comparisons with Sandia ex periments performed in a vertical cylinder with the
TABLE I Summary of the vessel dimensions used in combustion tests
Vessel 
Diameter 
Height 
Volume 

Organization 
Reference 
shape 
(m) 
(m) 
(m3) 
AECL 
20 
Sphere 
2.29 
2.29 
6.3 
Bureau of Mines 
21 
Sphere 
3.66 
3.66 
25.7 
EPRI/NRC/EG&G 
22 
Sphere 
15.85 
15.85 
2,085. 
Sandia 
23 
Cylinder 
1.22 
4.27 
5.0 
EPRI/Acurex 
24 
Cylinder 
2.1 
5.2 
18.0 
TMI 
1 
Cylinder 
35.6 
57.6 
57,300. 
LEAN HYDROGENAIRSTEAM MIXTURE COMBUSTION
1731
5OO 

400 

# 

 

o 

_8200 
~X)~\r 
~ 
FMRCEPRIModel 

E 

8 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
111 
12 
HydrogenCor+centretlon(Volume %)
FIG. 3. Observed (circles) and predicted coneen tration effect on hydrogen burn for AECL experi ments (P0 = 98 kPa, To = 373 ~ no steam, bot tom ignition).
40o
Sandia Data(Po = 90 kPa, To = 293"k)
Spark
9 GlowPlug(PartialPressure)
:~ GlowPlu(;(GasChromatogrpahy)
igniter located on the axis 0.91 m above the vessel bottom. Two sets of calculations are given in this figure. The curve marked CA = 1 corresponds to peak pressures calculated without any adjustable parameters, while the second curve (CA = 2) is cal culated using an increased flame surface areal These two curves appear to reasonably bracket the data (for burn fraction as well as peak pressure) within the experimental accuracy of the hydrogen concen trations. AECL and Sandia have performed fanon/off data comparisons. The fans in each facility produced an average turnover of 56 vessel volumes per min ute. The fanson experiments produced markedly higher pressures and burn completeness than the
equivalent fansoff tests in lean mixtures, while having less effect in richer mixtures. Figure 5 dis plays the measured and calculated overpressures for 7% hydrogen mixtures with and without fanin duced turbulence. The agreement is as good with fan turbulence as it is in the static mixture. EPRI/Acurex tests involved a 2.1 m diameter, 5.2 m high, cylindrical vessel equipped with water sprays. For the same initial composition the peak combustion overpressure was higher when the spray
was on. Comparisons shown
in Fig. 6 demonstrate
that the peak pressures calculated for CA = 3 were very close to experimental values for both sprayon and sprayoff cases. The calculated cooldown with the sprays is significantly faster than the measured cooldown. This may be due to an underestimated characteristic spray drop size or overestimated droplet number density which are influenced by agglomeration and runoff effects in these test con figurations. The largestscale hydrogenairsteam combustion tests were performed recently in a. 16 m diameter spherical dewar at the DOE Nevada test site.
15% 
Steam 

Im 
Fan On 
Hydrogen = 7% 

Central Ignition 
Temperature = 373"E Pressure  98 IcPa 

~.~\~ 
/ 
e 
FMRCEPRi 

: 
1 M~ 

} 
= 
1 
ta 
'f 
\\ 
I 
\./k 
~ 
ignlt~o~ 

+ 

8 

0 
I 
1 
i 
I 
I 
I 
I 
2 
1 
6 
I 
,I 
12 
,4 
,8 
,8 
211 

4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
TIMEAFTERIIITION •=) 
HydrogenConcentration(Volume %)
FIG 4. Model comparison with Saudia data (23).
FIG. 5. Model comparison with AECL data with and without faninduced turbulence.
1732
EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
i
"~::
FIG. 6. a. Acurex experiment 1.2 (no sprays) (Ref. 24). b. Acurex experiment 3.4 (sprays discharging 1.1 gpm through 9 nozzles) (Ref. 24).
Comparisons with these largescale data indicate that calculations for CA equal to 1.5 and 2 seem to nicely bracket the data. The average deviation in the peak pressures calculated with CA equal to 2 was about 10% higher than the measured values. A sample comparison is given in Fig. 71 Calculations have been made for the Three Mile Island burn by representing the containment build ing as a single vertical cylinder with the same vol ume and height/diameter ratio as the actual con tainment. The containment temperature, pressure, hydrogen, and steam concentrations as well as fan circulation are all inferred from plant data de scribed in Ref. 1. The primary unknown in the cal culations was the flame surface area correction fac tor needed to simulate the complex containment internal geometry. A nominal value of 4.1 for CA was estimated from the equipment surface area in ventory in the TMI containment. A value of 3.5 for CA provided the most reasonable fit to data as shown in Fig. 8.
Summary
and Conclusions
Comparisons
between
the calculated
mea
data have pro
and
sured pressure and burn fraction
SEL'~I(~ AFTER ll~lTl6g 

Z;.2 
12.2 
E.I 
17.4 
~P I 
,i?.ii 
12. 
T/.I 
I~,1 
lIP/*II 

 
C~ILA~ 
(C754) 

SpraYs Came On 

~ 
~ 
~~',~l 
' 
",:~ 
" 
1~" 
"l~s 
" 
"1~ 
" 
"1~ 
I 

5ECOl~ 
AFTER 1349 
HOtl~ 
ON ~3/29/79 

FIG. 8. Calculated pressure 
spike (XHe : 
7.5%, 
Xa~o = 5.5%, CA = 3.5) compared with TMI data.
vided some important insights into the validity of the model formulation and the appropriate values of the input parameters used in the model. In par ticular, the compilation of results shown in Fig. 9 indicate that the model can calculate peak pres sures that (with only a few exceptions) agree quite well with the measured values over the entire range of lean hydrogensteam concentrations and vessel configurations. However, in certain cases, this agreement does require specific values of the em pirical surface area correction factor, CA, which de pend on vessel configuration. For spherical vessels with diameters of 24 m, this agreement can be obtained with CA equal to 1.0, i.e., without any adjustments. For much larger spheres, and/or for cylindrical vessels values of CA in the range 23 are needed to obtain this agreement, as indicated in Fig. 9. The larger values of CA are due to the ob
* 
9 

&S ILl 
, 
9 
, 

&! 

1. I. 

I~ 
111 
m 
,

.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
9
~=~.~.~
. t~lE (CA.Z.In, mF~llm

,
i
/
1
~'
' ~
~
x
NEVADA
8
~*
,,.s oom
Hydrogen
31
a
TI~
~II
m
(SEC{~[~)
~
m
9
,
M
9
'
Im
FIG. 7. Code comparisons with largescale Ne vada Test P4.
gl
~
Ikl.~u
~
Ntm*
~D
9
~ 
9 
§ 
§ 
o 

alB 
+m 

i/, IW m "1 d .~+dg 
E! 
AI 
9 
I 
, 
I 
, 
I 
, 
t 
9 
i 
9 

FIG. 9. Comparison of calculated peak overpressures. 
and 
measured 
1732
EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
i
"~::
FIG. 6. a. Acurex experiment 1.2 (no sprays) (Ref. 24). b. Acurex experiment 3.4 (sprays discharging 1.1 gpm through 9 nozzles) (Ref. 24).
Comparisons with these largescale data indicate that calculations for CA equal to 1.5 and 2 seem to nicely bracket the data. The average deviation in the peak pressures calculated with CA equal to 2 was about 10% higher than the measured values. A sample comparison is given in Fig. 71 Calculations have been made for the Three Mile Island burn by representing the containment build ing as a single vertical cylinder with the same vol ume and height/diameter ratio as the actual con tainment. The containment temperature, pressure, hydrogen, and steam concentrations as well as fan circulation are all inferred from plant data de scribed in Ref. 1. The primary unknown in the cal culations was the flame surface area correction fac tor needed to simulate the complex containment internal geometry. A nominal value of 4.1 for CA was estimated from the equipment surface area in ventory in the TMI containment. A value of 3.5 for CA provided the most reasonable fit to data as shown in Fig. 8.
Summary
and Conclusions
Comparisons
between
the calculated
mea
data have pro
and
sured pressure and burn fraction
SEL'~I(~ AFTER ll~lTl6g 

Z;.2 
12.2 
E.I 
17.4 
~P I 
,i?.ii 
12. 
T/.I 
I~,1 
lIP/*II 

 
C~ILA~ 
(C754) 

SpraYs Came On 

~ 
~ 
~~',~l 
' 
",:~ 
" 
1~" 
"l~s 
" 
"1~ 
" 
"1~ 
I 

5ECOl~ 
AFTER 1349 
HOtl~ 
ON ~3/29/79 

FIG. 8. Calculated pressure 
spike (XHe : 
7.5%, 
Xa~o = 5.5%, CA = 3.5) compared with TMI data.
vided some important insights into the validity of the model formulation and the appropriate values of the input parameters used in the model. In par ticular, the compilation of results shown in Fig. 9 indicate that the model can calculate peak pres sures that (with only a few exceptions) agree quite well with the measured values over the entire range of lean hydrogensteam concentrations and vessel configurations. However, in certain cases, this agreement does require specific values of the em pirical surface area correction factor, CA, which de pend on vessel configuration. For spherical vessels with diameters of 24 m, this agreement can be obtained with CA equal to 1.0, i.e., without any adjustments. For much larger spheres, and/or for cylindrical vessels values of CA in the range 23 are needed to obtain this agreement, as indicated in Fig. 9. The larger values of CA are due to the ob
* 
9 

&S ILl 
, 
9 
, 

&! 

1. I. 

I~ 
111 
m 
,

.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
9
~=~.~.~
. t~lE (CA.Z.In, mF~llm

,
i
/
1
~'
' ~
~
x
NEVADA
8
~*
,,.s oom
Hydrogen
31
a
TI~
~II
m
(SEC{~[~)
~
m
9
,
M
9
'
Im
FIG. 7. Code comparisons with largescale Ne vada Test P4.
gl
~
Ikl.~u
~
Ntm*
~D
9
~ 
9 
§ 
§ 
o 

alB 
+m 

i/, IW m "1 d .~+dg 
E! 
AI 
9 
I 
, 
I 
, 
I 
, 
t 
9 
i 
9 

FIG. 9. Comparison of calculated peak overpressures. 
and 
measured 
_{1}_{7}_{3}_{4}
EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
and Spray Curtains, ASME Paper 76WA/FE 40, 1976.
11. ALPERT, R. L., AND MATHEWS, M. K:, Calcu
12.
lation of Large Scale Flow Fields Induced by
Droplet Sprays, FMRC Report J.I. OEJ4.BU, RC79BT14, December 1979.
CAMP, A.
Program
SemiAnnual Report, AprilSeptember 1981, (M.
Berman, Ed.), NUREG/CR2481, SAND82 0006, February 1982, pp. 292312.
L.,
LWR
Safety Research
13. MODAK, A. T., Fire Research, V. 1,
pp.
339
361, 1979.
14. GROSSHANDLER,W. L., Int. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer, 23, 14471459, 1980.
15. Liu, D. D. S., AND MACFARLANE,R., Com bustion and Flame, 49, pp. 5972, 1983.
16. BATCHELOR, G. K., The Theory of Homoge
neous Turbulence, Cambridge University Press, London, 1953.
17. GUNKEL, A. A., AND WEBER, M. E., AICHE Journal, 21, 931949, 1975.
18, FENN, J. B., AND CALCOTE,H. F., Fourth Sym
p. 231,
Institute,
posium (International) on Combustion,
The Combustion
1953.
19. FaANKKAMENETSKI1,D. A., Diffusion and Heat Transfer in Chemical Kinetics, p. 365, Plenum Press, 1969.
20. TAMM, H., KUMAR, R. K., AND HARRISON, W.
C., Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on the Impact of Hydrogen on Water
Reactor Safety, pp. 6,33649, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 1982, also EPRI Report NP 2955, 1983.
21. FURNO, A. L., COOK, E. B., KUCHTA, J.
M.,
AND BURGESS, D. S., Thirteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, pp. 593599,
The Combustion Institute 1971.
22. THOMPSON,L. B., Private Communication (1983). The test results to be published as an EPRI NRC Report in 1985.
23. BENEDICK,W. B., CUMMINGS,J. C.,
AND PRAS
SINOS, P. G., Proceedings of the Second Inter national Workshop on the Impact of Hydrogen on Water Reactor Safety, pp. 665679, Albu
24.
querque,
New Mexico, October 1982.
et al, Hydrogen Combustion and
Control Studies in Intermediate Scale, EPRI NP
TOROK, R.,
2953,
Project 19327,
Final Report,
1983.
Mult mai mult decât documente.
Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.
Anulați oricând.