Combustible Dust Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify dust explosion & reactivity hazards

Flammable Gas & Vapor Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify explosion hazards for vapor and gas mixtures

Chemical Reactivity Testing

Laboratory testing to quantify reactive chemical hazards, including the possibility of material incompatibility, instability, and runaway chemical reactions

DIERS Methodology

Design emergency pressure relief systems to mitigate the consequences of unwanted chemical reactivity and account for two-phase flow using the right tools and methods

Deflagrations (Dust/Vapor/Gas)

Properly size pressure relief vents to protect your processes from dust, vapor, and gas explosions

Effluent Handling

Pressure relief sizing is just the first step and it is critical to safety handle the effluent discharge from an overpressure event

Thermal Stability

Safe storage or processing requires an understanding of the possible hazards associated with sensitivity to variations in temperature

UN-DOT

Classification of hazardous materials subject to shipping and storage regulations

Safety Data Sheets

Develop critical safety data for inclusion in SDS documents

Biological

Model transport of airborne virus aerosols to guide safe operations and ventilation upgrades

Radioactive

Model transport of contamination for source term and leak path factor analysis

Fire Analysis

Model transport of heat and smoke for fire analysis

Flammable or Toxic Gas

transport of flammable or toxic gas during a process upset

OSS consulting, adiabatic & reaction calorimetry and consulting

Onsite safety studies can help identify explosibility and chemical reaction hazards so that appropriate testing, simulations, or calculations are identified to support safe scale up

Mechanical, Piping, and Electrical

Engineering and testing to support safe plant operations and develop solutions to problems in heat transfer, fluid flow, electric power systems

Battery Safety

Testing to support safe design of batteries and electrical power backup facilities particularly to satisfy UL9540a ed.4

Hydrogen Safety

Testing and consulting on the explosion risks associated with devices and processes which use or produce hydrogen

Spent Fuel

Safety analysis for packaging, transport, and storage of spent nuclear fuel

Decommissioning, Decontamination and Remediation (DD&R)

Safety analysis to underpin decommissioning process at facilities which have produced or used radioactive nuclear materials

Laboratory Testing & Software Capabilities

Bespoke testing and modeling services to validate analysis of DD&R processes

Nuclear Overview

Our Nuclear Services Group is recognized for comprehensive evaluations to help commercial nuclear power plants operate efficiently and stay compliant.

Severe Accident Analysis and Risk Assessment

Expert analysis of possible risk and consequences from nuclear plant accidents

Thermal Hydraulics

Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions

Environmental Qualification (EQ) and Equipment Survivability (ES)

Testing and analysis to ensure that critical equipment will operate under adverse environmental conditions

Laboratory Testing & Software Capabilities

Testing and modeling services to support resolution of emergent safety issues at a power plant

Adiabatic safety calorimeters (ARSST and VSP2)

Low thermal inertial adiabatic calorimeters specially designed to provide directly scalable data that are critical to safe process design

Other Lab Equipment (DSC/ARC supplies, CPA, C80, Super Stirrer)

Products and equipment for the process safety or process development laboratory

FERST

Software for emergency relief system design to ensure safe processing of reactive chemicals, including consideration of two-phase flow and runaway chemical reactions

FATE

Facility modeling software mechanistically tracks transport of heat, gasses, vapors, and aerosols for safety analysis of multi-room facilities

Blog

Our highly experienced team keeps you up-to-date on the latest process safety developments.

Process Safety Newsletter

Stay informed with our quarterly Process Safety Newsletters sharing topical articles and practical advice.

Resources

With over 40 years of industry expertise, we have a wealth of process safety knowledge to share.

Recent Posts

Verification of GOTHIC Room Heatup Analysis by Alternate FATE Calculation

Posted by The Fauske Team on 08.15.17

By: Matthew Kennedy, Nuclear Engineer & Dr. Sung Jin Lee, Sr. Consulting Engineer, Fauske & Associates, LLC

Modern engineering frequently utilizes complex computer modeling as a tool to aid in design and analysis. The mathematical representation, assumptions, and numerical schemes are often only known by the individual developers and not readily transparent to the end user. The potential pitfall of using FATE_Manual_vol_8-1.jpgcomplex codes arises from the temptation to assume the results are accurate because output was provided and the software did not provide any error or warning messages. This is, in-fact, the point where engineers need to be most cautious to ensure that they fully understand the underlying physics. This often involves independent verification using alternate software tools, hand calculations, and expert review.

Recently, Fauske & Associates, LLC (FAI) supported a customer request to verify room heatup results, under buoyancy dominated flows, from a standard code used in the nuclear industry for containment analysis (GOTHICTM, owned and licensed by the Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI). This was done using FAI’s internally developed FATE (Facility Flow, Aerosol, Thermal, and Explosion) software package for the prediction of environmental conditions within a facility. Prediction of environmental conditions within a compartment is an important consideration when designing and locating safety equipment. Ensuring that safety system components are designed and manufactured to survive within the expected environmental conditions is a critical first step to ensuring the safe operation of the facility.

In the nuclear industry, GOTHIC is a standard engineering tool used to predict environmental conditions that develop in a compartment due to the combined effects of heat sources, heat sinks, and flows in and out of the compartment boundaries. It contains many useful correlations and features to model buoyancy dominated flows. In the loss of ventilation scenario analysis, the compartment was subdivided in order to predict the local gas temperatures where critical components are located. This introduces a large source of complexity when attempting to analyze and use the results to make informed decisions. When sub-nodalizing a volume in GOTHIC, a question that must be resolved is: Are the results predicting buoyancy driven flows or are small numerical differences between the sub-compartment densities generating “phantom” flows? Answering this question is crucial when attempting to use the results to make predictions and inform decisions regarding the safe operation of a facility.
The FATE software, developed under FAI’s nuclear QA program and recognized by a Department of Energy (DOE) technology innovation award, is a flexible, fast-running code capable of modeling a wide range of engineering problems for processes and facilities. It was designed to model heat and mass transfer, fluid flow, and aerosol behavior within a facility and has been used in a broad variety of applications, from post-Fukushima hydrogen assessments to DOE facility safety analysis. The code can simulate common components such as heat exchangers, pumps, fans, filter trains, valves, dampers, blow-out panels, downcomer vents and rupture disks. It is an independently developed code which contains alternate models for the flow and heat transfer phenomena occurring in a facility, which makes it an ideal tool to independently verify results generated from other models.

The analyzed scenario is an environmental prediction, i.e. transient temperature, of a facility compartment with a large heat source (diesel generator, pump, motor, etc.) which is activated to perform a safety function. In the scenario, it is assumed that all forced ventilation of the compartment has failed, due to a loss of electrical power. In order to provide cooling to the compartment, doors are propped open to provide buoyancy driven flow through communication with the relatively cooler outside environment. The following list provides the critical modeling inputs which were included in the analysis. The models were essentially identical in regards to this input list with the exception of the compartment volume nodalization. The total compartment volume was identical but GOTHIC requires the compartment volume to be sub-nodalized to best predict the temperature distribution in the compartment and the buoyancy driven flow at the open boundary conditions, whereas FATE assumes a single compartment volume.


               • Compartment Volume                     • Boundary Flow Area (Propped Open Doors)
               • Ambient Air Temperature                • Initial Compartment Temperature
               • Initial Heat Sink Temperature          • Area and Thickness of Structural Heat Sinks


Figure 1 compares the average gas temperature in the compartment predicted by the two models. FATE predicted a maximum room temperature of approximately 160oF, whereas GOTHIC predicted a maximum of approximately 150oF (based on the sub-nodalized volume with the higher temperature). In general, both models show the same general trend for the average gas temperature. The differences in temperature are mainly attributable to differences in heat source modeling during the initial (prior to doors being propped open) portion of the transient. In the original transient analysis, the main heat source (equipment) was allowed to increase from an ambient condition to full operating temperature over a period of time (linearly ramped). For convenience (quick turnaround) the verification model simply used the full operating temperature as a boundary condition during this initial time period. Therefore, during the early part of the transient, the simplified model as expected predicts a higher average gas temperature. This difference can be seen in Figure 1 and the initial difference persists throughout the entire transient. It is interesting to note that at the end of the simulation, the constant heat load was nearly identical (approximately 2% difference) to the fixed and variable heat loads in the original model, again providing further confidence that both models were predicting similar heat losses via the structural heat sinks and propped open doors.

Figure 2 depicts the thermal wave which moves through a large structural heat sink, such as a concrete wall in the compartment. As expected, the results show that the inner surface of the wall begins to increase in temperature as the room gas temperature increases. A temperature profile through the heat sink develops as the transient progresses. The results show that the temperature gradient fully penetrates to the outside of the concrete wall over the 24 hour analysis period. This aligns well with expectations for heat transfer through a large thick concrete heat sink.

Figure 3 shows flow predictions for uni-directional and countercurrent flow contributions which occur simultaneously at the propped open doors. As expected, due to the buoyancy driven nature of the problem, the flow across the boundary is dominated by counter-current flow. The treatment of this flow boundary condition is considerably different between the two codes. GOTHIC only models uni-directional flow through a junction; therefore, for natural convection, two junctions are required to ensure that correct counter-current flow is achieved. The challenge in that case comes from specifying the correct loss coefficients for each junction to mimic the counter-current flow. FATE, on the other hand, uses an established and experimentally verified counter-current flow correlation [Epstein, 1988]. Flow across the boundary (via open doors) is the dominant heat loss mechanism; therefore, the reasonable agreement in gas temperature (Figure 1) provides confidence that the two models give consistent results for buoyancy driven flow. The original calculation write-up did not include details such as the strength of the counter-current flow through the doors or the magnitude of heat losses to the walls and ceiling. The FATE results provide detailed accounting of heat flows and the relative importance of various heat removal paths and provide confidence in the GOTHIC calculation.

In summary, FAI experts used an independent tool to verify room heatup results and provide confidence that the original analysis is accurately predicting the heat generation, buoyancy driven flows, and heat loss through structural heat sinks. This allows engineers to appropriately design safety system and components, and supports operations so they can make informed decisions regarding the safe operation of the facility under off-nominal conditions.


Figure 1: Comparison of Compartment Gas Temperature

Figure 2: FATE Temperature Penetration through Large Structural Heat Sink

Figure 3: FATE Counter-current and Uni-directional Flow Rates through the Junction

References
     Epstein, M., 1988, “Buoyancy-Driven Exchange Flow Through Small Openings in Horizontal Partitions,” ASME                            Journal of Heat Transfer, Vol. 110, pp. 885-893, November.

 

For more information, or to discuss, contact Matthew Kennedy, Fauske & Associates, LLC, 630-323-8750 or kennedy@fauske.com

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PROCESS SAFETY NEWS

 #heatup analysis #nuclear software

 

Topics: FATE, nuclear, nuclear software

cta-bg.jpg

Is My Dust Combustible?

A Flowchart To Help You Decide
Download Now