skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management

Authors:
ORCiD logo; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Fossil Energy (FE), Oil and Natural Gas (FE-30)
OSTI Identifier:
1361006
Grant/Contract Number:
FE0013565
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Published Article
Journal Name:
Journal of Applied Volcanology
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 6; Journal Issue: 1; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-05-31 09:26:30; Journal ID: ISSN 2191-5040
Publisher:
Springer Science + Business Media
Country of Publication:
Country unknown/Code not available
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Dietterich, Hannah R., Lev, Einat, Chen, Jiangzhi, Richardson, Jacob A., and Cashman, Katharine V. Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management. Country unknown/Code not available: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1186/s13617-017-0061-x.
Dietterich, Hannah R., Lev, Einat, Chen, Jiangzhi, Richardson, Jacob A., & Cashman, Katharine V. Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management. Country unknown/Code not available. doi:10.1186/s13617-017-0061-x.
Dietterich, Hannah R., Lev, Einat, Chen, Jiangzhi, Richardson, Jacob A., and Cashman, Katharine V. Wed . "Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management". Country unknown/Code not available. doi:10.1186/s13617-017-0061-x.
@article{osti_1361006,
title = {Benchmarking computational fluid dynamics models of lava flow simulation for hazard assessment, forecasting, and risk management},
author = {Dietterich, Hannah R. and Lev, Einat and Chen, Jiangzhi and Richardson, Jacob A. and Cashman, Katharine V.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1186/s13617-017-0061-x},
journal = {Journal of Applied Volcanology},
number = 1,
volume = 6,
place = {Country unknown/Code not available},
year = {Wed May 31 00:00:00 EDT 2017},
month = {Wed May 31 00:00:00 EDT 2017}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1186/s13617-017-0061-x

Save / Share:
  • Cited by 2
  • Common energy crisis has modified the national energy policy which is in the beginning based on natural resources becoming based on technology, therefore the capability to understanding the basic and applied science is needed to supporting those policies. National energy policy which aims at new energy exploitation, such as nuclear energy is including many efforts to increase the safety reactor core condition and optimize the related aspects and the ability to build new research reactor with properly design. The previous analysis of the modification TRIGA 2000 Reactor design indicates that forced convection of the primary coolant system put on anmore » effect to the flow characteristic in the reactor core, but relatively insignificant effect to the flow velocity in the reactor core. In this analysis, the lid of reactor core is closed. However the forced convection effect is still presented. This analysis shows the fluid flow velocity vector in the model area without exception. Result of this analysis indicates that in the original design of TRIGA 2000 reactor, there is still forced convection effects occur but less than in the modified TRIGA 2000 design.« less
  • Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model simulations of urban boundary layers have improved so that they are useful in many types of flow and dispersion analyses. The study described here is intended to assist in planning emergency response activities related to releases of chemical or biological agents into the atmosphere in large cities such as New York City. Five CFD models (CFD-Urban, FLACS, FEM3MP, FEFLO-Urban, and Fluent-Urban) have been applied by five independent groups to the same 3-D building data and geographic domain in Manhattan, using approximately the same wind input conditions. Wind flow observations are available from the Madison Squaremore » Garden March 2005 (MSG05) field experiment. It is seen from the many side-by-side comparison plots that the CFD models simulations of near-surface wind fields generally agree with each other and with field observations, within typical atmospheric uncertainties of a factor of two. The qualitative results shown here suggest, for example, that transport of a release at street level in a large city could reach a few blocks in the upwind and crosswind directions. There are still key differences seen among the models for certain parts of the domain. Further quantitative examinations of differences among the models and the observations are necessary to understand causal relationships.« less
  • A turbulent reacting flow computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model involving a droplet size distribution function in the discrete droplet phase is first built for selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) processes using urea solution as a NOx removal reagent. The model is validated with the experimental data obtained from a pilot-scale urea-based SNCR reactor installed with a 150 kW gas burner. New kinetic parameters of seven chemical reactions for the urea-based NOx reduction are identified and incorporated into the three-dimensional turbulent flow CFD model. The two-phase droplet model with the non-uniform droplet size is also combined with the CFD model to predictmore » the trajectory of the droplets and to examine the mixing between the flue gas and reagents. The maximum NO reduction efficiency of about 80%, experimentally measured at the reactor outlet, is obtained at 940{degree}C and a normalized stoichiometric ratio (NSR) = 2.0 under the conditions of 11% excess air and low CO concentration (10-15 ppm). At the reaction temperature of 940{degree}C, the difference of a maximum of 10% between experiments and simulations of the NO reduction percentage is observed for NSR = 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. The ammonia slip is overestimated in CFD simulation at low temperatures, especially lower than 900{degree}C. However, the CFD simulation results above 900{degree}C show a reasonable agreement with the experimental data of NOx reduction and ammonia slip as a function of the NSR. 31 refs., 3 figs., 6 tabs.« less
  • A comprehensive benchmarking is being performed between three multimedia risk assessment models: RESRAD, MMSOILS, and MEPAS. Each multimedia model is comprised of a suite of modules (e.g., groundwater, air, surface water, exposure, and risk/hazard), all of which can impact the estimation of human-health risk. As a component of the comprehensive benchmarking exercise, the saturated-zone modules of each model were applied to an environmental release scenario, where uranium-234 was released from the waste site to a saturated zone. Uranium-234 time-varying emission rates exiting from the source and concentrations at three downgradient locations (0 m, 150 m, and 1500 m) are comparedmore » for each multimedia model. Time-Varying concentrations for uranium-234 decay products (i.e., thorium-230, radium-226, and lead-210) at the 1500-m location are also presented. Different results are reported for RESRAD, MMSOILS, and MEPAS, which are solely due to the assumptions and mathematical constructs inherently built into each model, thereby impacting the potential risks predicted by each model. Although many differences were identified between the models, differences that impacted these benchmarking results the most are as follows: (1) RESRAD transports its contaminants by pure translation, and MMSOILS and MEPAS solve the one-dimensional advective, three-dimensional dispersive equation. (2) Due to the manner in which the retardation factor is defined, RESRAD contaminant velocities will always be faster than MMSOILS or MEPAS. (3) RESRAD uses a dilution factor to account for a withdrawal well; MMSOILS and MEPAS were designed to calculate in-situ concentrations at a receptor location. (4) RESRAD allows for decay products to travel at different velocities, while MEPAS assumes the decay products travel at the same speed as their parents. MMSOILS does not account for decay products and assumes degradation/decay only in the aqueous phase.« less