Engineering topics

Mohmand, Jamal A.

Publications and source records attributed to Mohmand, Jamal A..

3 records

DOE OSTI2023

High Energy Arcing Fault (HEAF) Photometrics 2022 Test Report

High Energy Arcing Faults (HEAFs) are hazardous events in which an electrical arc leads to the rapid release of energy in the form of heat, vaporized metal, and mechanical force. In Nuclear Power Plants, these events are often accompanied by loss of essential power and complicated shutdowns. To confirm the probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) methodology in NUREG/CR-6850, which was formulated based on limited observational data, the NRC led an international experimental campaign from 2014 to 2016. The results of these experiments uncovered an unexpected hazard posed by aluminum components in or near electrical equipment and the potential for unanalyzed equipment failures. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), in support of the NRC work, collaborated with NIST, BSI, KEMA, and NRC to support the full-scale HEAF test campaign in 2022. SNL provided high speed visible and infrared video/data of ten tests that collected data from HEAFs originated on copper and aluminum buses inside switchgears and bus ducts. Part of the SNL scope was to place cameras with high-speed data collection at different vantage points within the test facility to provide NRC a more complete and granular view of the test events.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Refueling Infrastructure Scoping and Feasibility Assessment for Hydrogen Rail Applications

The feasibility and component cost of hydrogen rail refueling infrastructure is examined. Example reference stations can inform future studies on components and systems specifically for hydrogen rail refueling facilities. All of the 5 designs considered assumed the bulk storage of liquid hydrogen on-site, from which either gaseous or liquid hydrogen would be dispensed. The first design was estimated to refuel 10 multiple unit trains per day, each train containing 260 kg of gaseous hydrogen at 350 bar on-board. The second base design targeted the refueling of 50 passenger locomotives, each with 400 kg of gaseous hydrogen on-board at 350 bar. Variations from this basic design were made to consider the effect of two different filling times, two different hydrogen compression methods, and two different station design approaches. For each design variation, components were sized, approximate costs were estimated for major components, and physical layouts were created. For both gaseous hydrogen-dispensing base designs, the design of direct-fill using a cryopump design was the lowest cost due to the high cost of the cascade storage system and gas compressor. The last three base designs all assumed that liquid hydrogen was dispensed into tender cars for freight locomotives that required 7,500 kg of liquid hydrogen, and the three different designs assumed that 5, 50, or 200 tender cars were refueled every day. The total component costs are very different for each design, because each design has a very different dispensing capacity. The total component cost for these three designs are driven by the cost of the liquid hydrogen tank; additionally, delivering that much liquid hydrogen to the refueling facility may not be practical. Many of the designs needed the use of multiple evaporators, compressors, and cryopumps operating in parallel to meet required flow rates. In the future, the components identified here can be improved and scaled-up to better fit the needs of heavy-duty refueling facilities. This study provides basic feasibility and first-order design guidance for hydrogen refueling facilities serving emerging rail applications.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2021

Validation and Comparison of HyRAM Physics Models

The Hydrogen Risk Assessment Models (HyRAM) software version 3 uses a real gas equation of state rather than the Abel-Noble equation of state that is used in 2.0 and previous versions. This change enables the use of HyRAM 3 for cryogenic hydrogen flows, whereas the Abel-Noble equation of state is not accurate at low temperatures. HyRAM 3.1 results were compared to experimental data from the literature in order to demonstrate the accuracy of the physics models. HyRAM 3.1 results were also compared to HyRAM 2.0 for high-pressure, non-cryogenic flows to highlight the differences in predictions between the two major versions of HyRAM. Validation data sets are from multiple groups and span the range of HyRAM physics models, including tank blowdown, unignited dispersion jet plume, ignited jet flame, and accumulation and overpressure inside an enclosure. Both versions 2.0 and 3.1 of HyRAM are accurate for predictions of blowdowns, diffusion jets, and diffusion flames of hydrogen at pressures up to 900 bar, and HyRAM 3.1 also shows good agreement with cryogenic hydrogen data. Overall, HyRAM 3.1 improves on the accuracy of the physical models relative to HyRAM 2.0. In most cases, this reduces the conservatism in risk calculations using HyRAM.

08 HYDROGEN↗