Twentieth Symposium(International)on Combustion/TheCombustion Institute, 1984/pp.

1727-1734

A MATHEMATICAL M O D E L FOR LEAN H Y D R O G E N - A I R - S T E A M

MIXTURE C O M B U S T I O N IN C L O S E D V E S S E L S
ERDEM A. URAL X.~D ROBERT G. ZALOSH
Factory Mutual Research Corporation
1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike
Norwood, Massachusetts 02062

The lean hydrogen-air-mixture combustion model described in this paper accounts for nonadiabatic, axisymmetric, buoyant flame propagation in a sphere or a cylinder. Turbulent burning
velocity effects and heat losses associated with fan-stirred mixtures, equipment obstructions,
and/or a water spray in the vessel are explicitly included in the model. Flame quenching
and post-combustion cooldown are also modeled. Calculated results are compared with data
from a variety of experiments conducted in vessels ranging in volume from 5 to 2,000 m3.
Comparisons with pressure data recorded during the accidental hydrogen deflagration in the
Three Mite Island Unit 2 reactor building are also presented. Results indicate that peak
pressures and burn times can be simulated quite well in many cases without using any arbitrarily adjusted parameter values. In other cases, such as the intermediate-scale cylindrical
vessel tests, the nominal flame surface area had to be increased by a factor of 2-3 to achieve
good agreement.
current model. The detailed discussion of the model
can be found in Ref. 4.

Introduction

The hydrogen burn during the Three Mile Island

Unit 2 accident I has stimulated considerable interest in lean hydrogen-air-steam mixture deflagration
phenomena. As described in Ref. 2, pressure development in these deflagrations is often influenced
by residual unburned hydrogen and by heat losses
during combustion. Several extensive test programs
(many described in Ref. 3) have been conducted in
recent years in order to develop a large data base
for peak pressures, hydrogen burn fractions, and
burn completion times. Efforts are underway to use
this data base to predict pressure and thermal loads
and hydrogen conversion fractions during hypothesized accidents in nuclear reactor containment
buildings.
A phenomenological model of lean mixture combustion and cooldown has been developed to assist
in the data analysis and extrapolation. The model
differs from most other deflagration models in the
combustion literature in that it features buoyant
flame propagation, turbulence-augmented burning
velocities, heat losses leading to non-adiabatic pressure increases, flame quenching and post-combustion cooldown. In order to include all these complicated phenomena in the model, many
compromises were made between fundamental versus empirical formulations. The validity and effectiveness of these compromises can be ascertained
by the comparison of calculated and experimental
results presented after a brief description of the

Model Description
As in most phenomenological deflagration models,
the following assumptions are invoked. Burnt and
unburnt gases, each with uniform temperature and
composition, are assumed to beseparated by a continuous flame surface. Pressure is instantaneously
uniform throughout the compartment since flame
speeds in these lean mixtures are small compared
to sound speeds. The energy equations for the unburnt and burnt gases, respectively, are:*
d
dVu
9
dt (M,,uu) + .~lh,, + P T + Qco = 0,
d

(1)

_ dVi,

.~aHc + .~h,, = ~ (-~lbub) + V --ff + QLb. t2)

Pressure at any time can be calculated using the
ideal gas mixture relationship:
_ Mb

*Variable definitions are given in the nomenclature at the end of the text.

1727

1728

EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS

Equations (1) and (2) are coupled through the mass

burning rate term:
/~1

dM~
dM.
. . . . . . .
dt
dt

puSTAF.

(4)

In calculating burnt gas composition and energy, all

the hydrogen that passes through the flame surface
is assumed to be consumed prior to flame extinction. This assumption has been motivated by Mitanfs data5 which showed that 94% of the initial
hydrogen is consumed behind the flame front in
near-limit downward propagating premixed hydrogen flames. Experimental confirmation for near-limit
upward propagating mixtures is not available because of irregular, non-contiguous flame surfaces.

The buoyant rise velocity in Eq. (5) is determined

by the fireball momentum equation:

ddt(Mav)=

Ma

f
/

a)

pbv )
~'.
PuSuJ

u l e a a r d propagation

t4

t$

t6

(l~b "~" Kpu)Vb

(5)

(7)

where K is the added mass coefficient given by

Milne-Thomson7 for creeping flow around an oblate
spheroid. The drag coefficient Co is calculated using the correlation:
Co = 2.7 + 24/Re

Flame surface area and volumes needed in the

preceding equations depend on assumed flame geometry. Based on experimental observations, ~'6 the
problem was separated into two phases: 1) a buoyant rise phase, and 2) a downward propagation
phase, as shown schematically in Fig. 1.
During the buoyant rise, flame surface area and
burned gas volume are modeled as suggested by
Crescitelli et al, 6 as an oblate spheroid. The aspect
ratio of the spheroid is given in terms of the buoyant rise velocity, v, by

(6)

In the inertial term in the momentum equation, the

induced motion of the unburnt gas in the vicinity
of the flame kernel is also taken into account using
the virtual mass which is represented as

Flame Shapes and Surface Areas

= min {1, 1.5 - 0.5

(Pu - pb)gV~ - ~ pu~rr2CDv2.

(8)

as suggested by Cresitelli et al. 6 The location of the

flame center can be determined by integrating Eq.
(6) twice. The first phase of flame propagation ends
when the flame reaches the top of the vessel.
During the second phase, burnt gas is assumed
to fill the top of the vessel and the downward propagating flame surface, is assumed to be planar (Fig.
1). The idealized flame geometries in both phases
of flame propagation are adjusted as follows.
When there are obstructions in the vessel, as in
the case of the equipment and structures in a containment building, the flame folds around these objects, effectively increasing the flame surface area.
Therefore, a flame surface area correction factor: CA
= AF/AG is introduced. Here Ac is the geometric
surface area calculated for the flame shapes shown
in Figure 1 and AF is the actual flame surface area.
Unfortunately AF is strongly affected by geometry
of the vessel as well as the objects inside, and there
is no universal correlation available. As a first approximation (referred to as the nominal value) Ca
is taken as the ratio of total solid surface area (including obstructions) to the vessel boundary surface
area. Values of CA greater than unity also account
for other flame deformation phenomena. These include: flame extensions associated with continuous
ignition (using glow plug igniters), cellular flame
surfaces associated with preferential diffusion, 2 flame
deformation due to vessel penetrations and instrumentation, and flame stretch due to fireball interaction with the top wall. Although these effects occur at different times, only one overall constant value
of CA is used in the model.

Heat Losses
b)

dc.mward props|stion

FIG. 1. Two phases of flame propagation.

The heat loss rate from the burned gas, (~Lb, is

calculated from various convective and radiative
contributions as described here. The unburned gas

LEAN HYDROGEN-AIR-STEAM MIXTURE COMBUSTION

heat loss rate, 0Lu, is actually a heat gain rate calculated from the absorption of radiation emitted by
the burned gas as described below.
Convective heat transfer to the vessel walls and
to the objects inside the vessel is taken into account using Newton's cooling law. In these calculations vessel walls are modeled as fiat plates while
the equipment and structure inside the vessel are
represented as uniformly distributed horizontal cylinders. The heat transfer surface area is allowed to
increase in time due to increase in the burnt gas
volume. During upward propagation, burnt gases
sweep over solid surfaces with a velocity equal to
the instantaneous buoyant rise velocity so that forced
convection correlations s have been used to calculate the heat transfer coefficients. During downward propagation and the cooldown phases, residual gas motion is relatively small so that natural
convection correlations s are more appropriate.
The total rate of heat loss to spray or fog droplets
is calculated using the equation:
Qspray = ndVbhsSd(T -- Ts).

(9)

Spray droplets are assumed to be monodisperse,

uniformly distributed and spherical so that the heat
transfer coefficient is calculated using the equation:
hsDs
- - = Nus
k
= (2 + 0.459 Prl/3Res ~

~?n(l + B)
B

Burning Velocity

The adiabatic burning velocity equation used in

the model is:
STAD ~- SLAD + U~AN "l" UtSpr~y~ + ukrr.

(11)

Values for SL^D as a function of hydrogen and

steam concentration and unburned gas temperature
were calculated from the Liu and MacFarlane correlations, is As for U~'AN, three alternative options 4
have been included in the model. Results presented in this paper (for the Nevada dewar tests)
were based on the turbulent energy dissipation
equation: t6
PFAN 3 UFAN3
. . . .
p0VT
2 ~e

(12)

where ee is the length scale of the energy dissipating eddies and is taken from Ref. 17.
The value of USpray is calculated as one tenth of
the characteristic local spray droplet velocity at the
flame front as computed from the same empirical
velocity distributions used in the spray or fog heat
transfer algorithm. The rms flame-induced turbulent velocity fluctuation, u~'IT, is based on the unburned gas velocity, vu, at the flame surface. The
isentropic compression relationship used for vu is:
V, dP
vu = - ~/uAFP dt

(lo)

The droplet number density and velocity have

been calculated using separate experimental data
correlations for sprays, 9-n and for fog. 12 The details
can be found in Ref. 4.
To simplify the calculation of the radiative heat
exchange among burnt and unburnt gases and all
the solid surfaces in the enclosure, it is assumed
that reflection and emission from solid surfaces are
negligible. Part of the burnt gas radiation is absorbed by the unburnt gases and the rest is absorbed by the solid surfaces. The total radiative energy leaving the burnt gas is determined by
employing the emissivity of the burnt gas, calculated using a subroutine developed by Modak. 13 The
fraction of this energy that is absorbed by the unburnt gas is determined using the average transmittance calculated as in Ref. 14.
During the cooldown period following combustion, steam condenses over the solid surfaces, and
possibly also in the gas phase. To account for these
phenomena two simple condensation models, i.e.,
one for gas-phase, and one for surface condensation
have been incorporated into the model as described
in Ref. 4.

1729

(13)

where ~, is the unburned gas ratio of specific heats.

The value of Vu calculated from the preceding
equation is multiplied by arms turbulent intensity
(typically taken as 0.10) to obtain U~IT~
Since there are heat losses during flame propagation, the burning velocity is actually less than the
adiabatic value represented by Eq. (11). As suggested by Crescitelli et al6 and others) s'19 the decrease is represented by the one-step Arrhenius reaction rate relationship:

ST(T) = STAbexp

E TAD-- T]
2R TADT J '

(14)

A value of 16 kcal/mote is taken for the overall activation energy of the hydrogen-air combustion reaction as was recommended by Fenn and Calcote. is
Flame Extinction

A flame extinction algorithm is incorporated into

the model as a logical extension of the flame temperature effect on the burning velocity. Since the
energy generation rate due to combustion is pro-

1730

EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
m

portional to the burning velocity, the latter has a

critical value below which heat generation cannot
support the heat loss; at this point the flame is
quenched. The extinction algorithm used in the
model is based on the Frank-Kamenetskii formulation) 9 Accordingly, the critical burning velocity
for quenching is
S}

e_l/2

Combustion ends either when this criterion is satisfied (incomplete combustion) or when all the hydrogen is consumed. When quenching occurs, the
burnt and unburnt gases are assumed to mix instantly (conserving species mass and energy) and the
subsequent cooldown period is calculated for this
mixture.
The preceding set of algebraic and ordinary differential equations is solved via numerical integration based on the trapezoidal method. A time step
of 10 milliseconds was found to provide equivalent
.results to the more sophisticated predictor-corrector integration algorithm. Required CPU times are
typically of the Order of 10 s on an IBM 4341 computer.
Comparisons with Data
Model calculations have been compared with
premixed deflagration data obtained in spherical and
cylindrical vessels of various dimensions as summarized in Table I. Vessel volumes span a range of
four orders of magnitude. Hydrogen concentrations
range from 5 to 12 vol. % and steam concentrations
from 0 to 30%. These mixture composition ranges
are applicable to nuclear reactor containment degraded core accident scenarios. All calculations, unless otherwise noted, were performed without using any adjustable parameters, i.e., with CA set equal
to unity.
Calculated and measured pressure-time curves
for three tests conducted in the 2.3 m diameter

/\

/\~

/ //V\

i "

15z s t , . o

....... , ......
H y d r o g e n - 8I

" ~

:e:Ps:r:teU re 98 aBa TM

.\

II

~.

30z s t e , .

a
2

8
lll/s

1|

12

14

le

|8

AECL
Bureau of Mines
EPRI/NRC/EG&G

Sandia
EPRI/Acurex
TMI

kFIER IDIIIIO~ (me)'

FIG. 2. Effect of steam addition with bottom ignition (AECL experiments).

AECL sphere are shown in Fig. 2. Peak pressures
agree to within 21% of the measured values, while
the calculated pressure rise times are 1-2 s (3050% smaller) less than the measured values. Differences may be due to extrapolations in the burning velocity correlation used in the calculations.
There is good agreement in the decay portion of
the pressure-time curves thus providing some experimental validation of the model heat loss formulation.
Peak overpressure data as a function of (dry) hydrogen concentration are given in Fig. 3 for the four
dry, bottom ignition tests in the AECL sphere. The
upper solid curve in this figure corresponds to adiabatic pressure, whereas the lower curve is the
model predictionl The agreement between experimental and theoretical results appears to be quite
good, particularly near the lower flammable limit
where peak pressures are well below the adiabatic,
complete combustion value. Similar results have also
been obtained with data for central ignition in the
Bureau of Mines sphere.
Figure 4 shows the comparisons with Sandia experiments performed in a vertical cylinder with the

TABLE I
Summary of the vessel dimensions used in combustion tests
Organization

Dry e2/^~,

(15)

STAD

Reference

Vessel
shape

Diameter
(m)

Height
(m)

Volume
(m3)

20
21
22
23
24
1

Sphere
Sphere
Sphere
Cylinder
Cylinder
Cylinder

2.29
3.66
15.85
1.22
2.1
35.6

2.29
3.66
15.85

6.3
25.7
2,085.

4.27

5.2
57.6

5.0

18.0
57,300.

LEAN HYDROGEN-AIR-STEAM MIXTURE COMBUSTION

5OO

400

#
|

_8200

~X)~\r

FMRC-EPRIModel

10

111

12

Hydrogen Cor+centretlon(Volume %)

FIG. 3. Observed (circles) and predicted coneentration effect on hydrogen burn for AECL experiments (P0 = 98 kPa, To = 373 ~ no steam, bottom ignition).

40o

Sandia Data(Po = 90 kPa, To = 293"k)

Spark

9 Glow Plug (Partial Pressure)

:~ Glow Plu(; (GasC h r o m a t o g r p a h y )

igniter located on the axis 0.91 m above the vessel

bottom. Two sets of calculations are given in this
figure. The curve marked CA = 1 corresponds to
peak pressures calculated without any adjustable
parameters, while the second curve (CA = 2) is calculated using an increased flame surface areal These
two curves appear to reasonably bracket the data
(for burn fraction as well as peak pressure) within
the experimental accuracy of the hydrogen concentrations.
AECL and Sandia have performed fan-on/off data
comparisons. The fans in each facility produced an
average turnover of 5-6 vessel volumes per minute. The fans-on experiments produced markedly
higher pressures and burn completeness than the
equivalent fans-off tests in lean mixtures, while
having less effect in richer mixtures. Figure 5 displays the measured and calculated overpressures for
7% hydrogen mixtures with and without fan-induced turbulence. The agreement is as good with
fan turbulence as it is in the static mixture.
EPRI/Acurex tests involved a 2.1 m diameter,
5.2 m high, cylindrical vessel equipped with water
sprays. For the same initial composition the peak
combustion overpressure was higher when the spray
was on. Comparisons shown in Fig. 6 demonstrate
that the peak pressures calculated for CA = 3 were
very close to experimental values for both spray-on
and spray-off cases. The calculated cooldown with
the sprays is significantly faster than the measured
cooldown. This may be due to an underestimated
characteristic spray drop size or overestimated
droplet number density which are influenced by
agglomeration and runoff effects in these test configurations.
The largest-scale hydrogen-air-steam combustion
tests were performed recently in a. 16 m diameter
spherical dewar at t h e DOE Nevada test site.

Im

~.~\~

FMRC-EPRi

1 M~
ta

--

1731

15% Steam
Fan On
Central Ignition

'f \ \

Hydrogen = 7%
Temperature = 373"E
Pressure - 98 IcPa

\./-k

~.....

ignlt~o~

+
8

I
5

1
6

i
7

I
8

I
9

10
Hydrogen Concentration (Volume %)

11

12

FIG 4. Model comparison with Saudia data (23).

,I

12

,4

,8

,8

211

TIMEAFTERIIITION =)

FIG. 5. Model comparison with AECL data with

and without fan-induced turbulence.

1 7 3 2

EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
SEL'~I(~

-Z;.2

-i

-12.2

E.I

17.4

AFTER l l ~ l T l 6 g
,i?.ii
12.|

T/.I

~P..I

I~,1

lIP/* II

"-~::
-

C~ILA~

(C75-4)

SpraYs Came On

FIG. 6. a. Acurex experiment 1.2 (no sprays) (Ref.

24). b. Acurex experiment 3.4 (sprays discharging
1.1 gpm through 9 nozzles) (Ref. 24).
Comparisons with these large-scale data indicate that
calculations for CA equal to 1.5 and 2 seem to nicely
bracket the data. The average deviation in the peak
pressures calculated with CA equal to 2 was about
10% higher than the measured values. A sample
comparison is given in Fig. 71
Calculations have been made for the Three Mile
Island burn by representing the containment building as a single vertical cylinder with the same volume and height/diameter ratio as the actual containment. The containment temperature, pressure,
hydrogen, and steam concentrations as well as fan
circulation are all inferred from plant data described in Ref. 1. The primary unknown in the calculations was the flame surface area correction factor needed to simulate the complex containment
internal geometry. A nominal value of 4.1 for CA
was estimated from the equipment surface area inventory in the TMI containment. A value of 3.5 for
CA provided the most reasonable fit to data as shown
in Fig. 8.
Summary and Conclusions

Comparisons between the calculated and measured pressure and burn fraction data have pro&S

-.

~-~',~l

5ECOl~

'

AFTER 1349

",:~

"

1~"

"l~s

"

"1~

"

"1~ I

H O t l ~ ON ~ 3 / 2 9 / 7 9

FIG. 8. Calculated pressure spike (XHe : 7.5%,

Xa~o = 5.5%, CA = 3.5) compared with TMI data.
vided some important insights into the validity of
the model formulation and the appropriate values
of the input parameters used in the model. In particular, the compilation of results shown in Fig. 9
indicate that the model can calculate peak pressures that (with only a few exceptions) agree quite
well with the measured values over the entire range
of lean hydrogen-steam concentrations and vessel
configurations. However, in certain cases, this
agreement does require specific values of the empirical surface area correction factor, CA, which depend on vessel configuration. For spherical vessels
with diameters of 2-4 m, this agreement can be
obtained with CA equal to 1.0, i.e., without any
adjustments. For much larger spheres, and/or for
cylindrical vessels values of CA in the range 2-3 are
needed to obtain this agreement, as indicated in
Fig. 9. The larger values of CA are due to the ob-

~ = ~ . ~ . ~
-

.................. t ~ l E (CA.Z. I n , m F ~ l l m

'~
~'.. ~

gl

Ikl.~u ~

Ntm* ~ D

ILl

&!

NEVADA
8 ~* H y d r o g e n

,,.s oom

alB

.....x

I~

i/,
m

111

31

a
TI~

~II

' Im

(SEC{~[~)

FIG. 7. Code comparisons with large-scale Nevada Test P-4.

"1

+m

IW
1. I.

.~+dg

E!

AI

FIG. 9. Comparison of calculated and measured

peak overpressures.

1 7 3 2

EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS
SEL'~I(~

-Z;.2

-i

-12.2

E.I

17.4

AFTER l l ~ l T l 6 g
,i?.ii
12.|

T/.I

~P..I

I~,1

lIP/* II

"-~::
-

C~ILA~

(C75-4)

SpraYs Came On

FIG. 6. a. Acurex experiment 1.2 (no sprays) (Ref.

24). b. Acurex experiment 3.4 (sprays discharging
1.1 gpm through 9 nozzles) (Ref. 24).
Comparisons with these large-scale data indicate that
calculations for CA equal to 1.5 and 2 seem to nicely
bracket the data. The average deviation in the peak
pressures calculated with CA equal to 2 was about
10% higher than the measured values. A sample
comparison is given in Fig. 71
Calculations have been made for the Three Mile
Island burn by representing the containment building as a single vertical cylinder with the same volume and height/diameter ratio as the actual containment. The containment temperature, pressure,
hydrogen, and steam concentrations as well as fan
circulation are all inferred from plant data described in Ref. 1. The primary unknown in the calculations was the flame surface area correction factor needed to simulate the complex containment
internal geometry. A nominal value of 4.1 for CA
was estimated from the equipment surface area inventory in the TMI containment. A value of 3.5 for
CA provided the most reasonable fit to data as shown
in Fig. 8.
Summary and Conclusions

Comparisons between the calculated and measured pressure and burn fraction data have pro&S

-.

~-~',~l

5ECOl~

'

AFTER 1349

",:~

"

1~"

"l~s

"

"1~

"

"1~ I

H O t l ~ ON ~ 3 / 2 9 / 7 9

FIG. 8. Calculated pressure spike (XHe : 7.5%,

Xa~o = 5.5%, CA = 3.5) compared with TMI data.
vided some important insights into the validity of
the model formulation and the appropriate values
of the input parameters used in the model. In particular, the compilation of results shown in Fig. 9
indicate that the model can calculate peak pressures that (with only a few exceptions) agree quite
well with the measured values over the entire range
of lean hydrogen-steam concentrations and vessel
configurations. However, in certain cases, this
agreement does require specific values of the empirical surface area correction factor, CA, which depend on vessel configuration. For spherical vessels
with diameters of 2-4 m, this agreement can be
obtained with CA equal to 1.0, i.e., without any
adjustments. For much larger spheres, and/or for
cylindrical vessels values of CA in the range 2-3 are
needed to obtain this agreement, as indicated in
Fig. 9. The larger values of CA are due to the ob-

~ = ~ . ~ . ~
-

.................. t ~ l E (CA.Z. I n , m F ~ l l m

'~
~'.. ~

gl

Ikl.~u ~

Ntm* ~ D

ILl

&!

NEVADA
8 ~* H y d r o g e n

,,.s oom

alB

.....x

I~

i/,
m

111

31

a
TI~

~II

' Im

(SEC{~[~)

FIG. 7. Code comparisons with large-scale Nevada Test P-4.

"1

+m

IW
1. I.

.~+dg

E!

AI

FIG. 9. Comparison of calculated and measured

peak overpressures.

1734

EXPLOSIONS/DETONATIONS

and Spray Curtains, ASME Paper 76-WA/FE40, 1976.

11. ALPERT, R. L., AND MATHEWS, M. K:, Calculation of Large Scale Flow Fields Induced by
Droplet Sprays, FMRC Report J.I. OEJ4.BU,
RC79-BT-14, December 1979.
12. CAMP, A. L., LWR Safety Research Program
Semi-Annual Report, April-September 1981, (M.
Berman, Ed.), NUREG/CR-2481, SAND820006, February 1982, pp. 292-312.
13. MODAK, A. T., Fire Research, V. 1, pp. 339361, 1979.
14. GROSSHANDLER,W. L., Int. J. of Heat and Mass
Transfer, 23, 1447-1459, 1980.
15. Liu, D. D. S., AND MACFARLANE, R., Combustion and Flame, 49, pp. 59-72, 1983.
16. BATCHELOR, G. K., The Theory of Homogeneous Turbulence, Cambridge University Press,
London, 1953.
17. GUNKEL, A. A., AND WEBER, M. E., AICHE
Journal, 21, 931-949, 1975.
18, FENN, J. B., AND CALCOTE, H. F., Fourth Symposium (International) on Combustion, p. 231,
The Combustion Institute, 1953.

19. FaANK-KAMENETSKI1,D. A., Diffusion and Heat

Transfer in Chemical Kinetics, p. 365, Plenum
Press, 1969.
20. TAMM, H., KUMAR, R. K., AND HARRISON, W.

C., Proceedings of the Second International

Workshop on the Impact of Hydrogen on Water
Reactor Safety, pp. 6,33-649, Albuquerque, New
Mexico, October 1982, also EPRI Report NP2955, 1983.
21. FURNO, A. L., COOK, E. B., KUCHTA, J. M.,
AND BURGESS, D. S., Thirteenth Symposium
(International) on Combustion, pp. 593-599,
The Combustion Institute 1971.
22. THOMPSON,L. B., Private Communication (1983).
The test results to be published as an EPRINRC Report in 1985.
23. BENEDICK, W. B., CUMMINGS, J. C., AND PRASSINOS, P. G., Proceedings of the Second Inter-

national Workshop on the Impact of Hydrogen

on Water Reactor Safety, pp. 665-679, Albuquerque, New Mexico, October 1982.
24. TOROK, R., et al, Hydrogen Combustion and
Control Studies in Intermediate Scale, EPRI NP2953, Project 1932-7, Final Report, 1983.