• Title/Summary/Keyword: predicted deviation

Search Result 292, Processing Time 0.016 seconds

A basic study on explosion pressure of hydrogen tank for hydrogen fueled vehicles in road tunnels (도로터널에서 수소 연료차 수소탱크 폭발시 폭발압력에 대한 기초적 연구)

  • Ryu, Ji-Oh;Ahn, Sang-Ho;Lee, Hu-Yeong
    • Journal of Korean Tunnelling and Underground Space Association
    • /
    • v.23 no.6
    • /
    • pp.517-534
    • /
    • 2021
  • Hydrogen fuel is emerging as an new energy source to replace fossil fuels in that it can solve environmental pollution problems and reduce energy imbalance and cost. Since hydrogen is eco-friendly but highly explosive, there is a high concern about fire and explosion accidents of hydrogen fueled vehicles. In particular, in semi-enclosed spaces such as tunnels, the risk is predicted to increase. Therefore, this study was conducted on the applicability of the equivalent TNT model and the numerical analysis method to evaluate the hydrogen explosion pressure in the tunnel. In comparison and review of the explosion pressure of 6 equivalent TNT models and Weyandt's experimental results, the Henrych equation was found to be the closest with a deviation of 13.6%. As a result of examining the effect of hydrogen tank capacity (52, 72, 156 L) and tunnel cross-section (40.5, 54, 72, 95 m2) on the explosion pressure using numerical analysis, the explosion pressure wave in the tunnel initially it propagates in a hemispherical shape as in open space. Furthermore, when it passes the certain distance it is transformed a plane wave and propagates at a very gradual decay rate. The Henrych equation agrees well with the numerical analysis results in the section where the explosion pressure is rapidly decreasing, but it is significantly underestimated after the explosion pressure wave is transformed into a plane wave. In case of same hydrogen tank capacity, an explosion pressure decreases as the tunnel cross-sectional area increases, and in case of the same cross-sectional area, the explosion pressure increases by about 2.5 times if the hydrogen tank capacity increases from 52 L to 156 L. As a result of the evaluation of the limiting distance affecting the human body, when a 52 L hydrogen tank explodes, the limiting distance to death was estimated to be about 3 m, and the limiting distance to serious injury was estimated to be 28.5~35.8 m.

Application of multiple linear regression and artificial neural network models to forecast long-term precipitation in the Geum River basin (다중회귀모형과 인공신경망모형을 이용한 금강권역 강수량 장기예측)

  • Kim, Chul-Gyum;Lee, Jeongwoo;Lee, Jeong Eun;Kim, Hyeonjun
    • Journal of Korea Water Resources Association
    • /
    • v.55 no.10
    • /
    • pp.723-736
    • /
    • 2022
  • In this study, monthly precipitation forecasting models that can predict up to 12 months in advance were constructed for the Geum River basin, and two statistical techniques, multiple linear regression (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN), were applied to the model construction. As predictor candidates, a total of 47 climate indices were used, including 39 global climate patterns provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and 8 meteorological factors for the basin. Forecast models were constructed by using climate indices with high correlation by analyzing the teleconnection between the monthly precipitation and each climate index for the past 40 years based on the forecast month. In the goodness-of-fit test results for the average value of forecasts of each month for 1991 to 2021, the MLR models showed -3.3 to -0.1% for the percent bias (PBIAS), 0.45 to 0.50 for the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and 0.69 to 0.70 for the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), whereas, the ANN models showed PBIAS -5.0~+0.5%, NSE 0.35~0.47, and r 0.64~0.70. The mean values predicted by the MLR models were found to be closer to the observation than the ANN models. The probability of including observations within the forecast range for each month was 57.5 to 83.6% (average 72.9%) for the MLR models, and 71.5 to 88.7% (average 81.1%) for the ANN models, indicating that the ANN models showed better results. The tercile probability by month was 25.9 to 41.9% (average 34.6%) for the MLR models, and 30.3 to 39.1% (average 34.7%) for the ANN models. Both models showed long-term predictability of monthly precipitation with an average of 33.3% or more in tercile probability. In conclusion, the difference in predictability between the two models was found to be relatively small. However, when judging from the hit rate for the prediction range or the tercile probability, the monthly deviation for predictability was found to be relatively small for the ANN models.