CFD simulations of the refueling of long horizontal H2 tanks with tilted injector

Martin, J.; Nouvelot, Q.; Ren, V.; Lodier, G.; Vyazmina, E.; Ammouri, F.; Carrere, P.

doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.111

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The experimentally measured hydrogen temperatures in two thermocouples (TCs) inside the tank at 3000 s were 49 C, underestimating the temperature gradient by 43%. In the same study [30], the results obtained with the use of the k-ω SST model provided simulated temperatures of 40 • C and 35 • C, respectively, underestimating the temperature gradient by 78%. This led the authors to the conclusion that the model is "disqualified" for refuelling simulations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…In 2014, Galassi et al [12] concluded that the difference between the modified k-ε and SST model is about 10% in the calculated temperature profiles, but no details were provided. In 2023, Martin et al [30] tested different models (k-ε, k-ω SST, SAS, and RSM) and concluded that the RSM model was the best to represent the behaviour of the cold jet affecting the internal tank walls and to reproduce thermal stratifications inside the tank during the fuelling. The experimentally measured hydrogen temperatures in two thermocouples (TCs) inside the tank at 3000 s were 49 C, underestimating the temperature gradient by 43%.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

CFD Simulations of Hydrogen Tank Fuelling: Sensitivity to Turbulence Model and Grid Resolution

Xie,

Makarov,

Kashkarov

et al. 2023

Hydrogen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CFD modelling of compressed hydrogen fuelling provides information on the hydrogen and tank structure temperature dynamics required for onboard storage tank design and fuelling protocol development. This study compares five turbulence models to develop a strategy for cost-effective CFD simulations of hydrogen fuelling while maintaining a simulation accuracy acceptable for engineering analysis: RANS models k-ε and RSM; hybrid models SAS and DES; and LES model. Simulations were validated against the fuelling experiment of a Type IV 29 L tank available in the literature. For RANS with wall functions and blended models with near-wall treatment, the simulated average hydrogen temperatures deviated from the experiment by 1–3% with CFL ≈ 1–3 and dimensionless wall distance y+ ≈ 50–500 in the tank. To provide a similar simulation accuracy, the LES modelling approach with near-wall treatment requires mesh with wall distance y+ ≈ 2–10 and demonstrates the best-resolved flow field with larger velocity and temperature gradients. LES simulation on this mesh, however, implies a ca. 60 times longer CPU time compared to the RANS modelling approach and 9 times longer compared to the hybrid models due to the time step limit enforced by the CFL ≈ 1.0 criteria. In all cases, the simulated pressure histories and inlet mass flow rates have a difference within 1% while the average heat fluxes and maximum hydrogen temperature show a difference within 10%. Compared to LES, the k-ε model tends to underestimate and DES tends to overestimate the temperature gradient inside the tank. The results of RSM and SAS are close to those of LES albeit of 8–9 times faster simulations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%