A comparison study into low leak rate buoyant gas dispersion in a small fuel cell enclosure using plain and louvre vent passive ventilation schemes
Ghatauray, TS, Ingram, JM and Holborn, PG (2018). A comparison study into low leak rate buoyant gas dispersion in a small fuel cell enclosure using plain and louvre vent passive ventilation schemes. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
|Authors||Ghatauray, TS, Ingram, JM and Holborn, PG|
Hydrogen, producing electricity in fuel cells, is a versatile energy source, but with risks associated with flammability. Fuel cells use enclosures for protection which need ventilating to remove hydrogen emitted during normal operation or from supply system leaks. Passive ventilation, using buoyancy driven flow is preferred to mechanical systems. Performance depends upon vent design, size, shape, position and number. Vents are usually plain rectangular openings, but environmentally situated enclosures use louvres for protection. The effect of louvres on passive ventilation is not clear and has therefore been examined in this paper. Comparison ‘same opening area’ louvre and plain vent tests were undertaken using a 0.144 m3 enclosure with opposing upper and lower vents and helium leaking from a 4 mm nozzle on the base at rates from 1 to 10 lpm, simulating a hydrogen leak. Louvres increased stratified level helium concentrations by typically in excess of 15 %. The empirical data obtained was also used in a validation exercise with a SolidWorks: Flow Simulation CFD model, which provided a good qualitative representation of flow behaviour and close empirical data correlations.
|Keywords||hydrogen safety; Passive ventilation; Buoyant gas; Louvre vent; Helium; SolidWorks Flow Simulation CFD; 09 Engineering; 03 Chemical Sciences; Energy|
|Journal||International Journal of Hydrogen Energy|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI)||doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.065|
|24 Sep 2018|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||03 Sep 2018|
|Accepted||09 Aug 2018|
|Accepted author manuscript|
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Accepted author manuscript
0views this month
0downloads this month