Advertisement

Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves

, Volume 54, Issue 6, pp 720–727 | Cite as

Experimental Study on the Dynamic Strain of a Thin-Walled Pipe in the Gas Cloud Explosion with Ignition Energy

  • N. Zhou
  • Q. Yu
  • G. Zhang
  • X. Liu
Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes an experimental study of the flame propagation mechanism for the combustible gas explosion in a closed pipe with a length of 12 m and an internal diameter of 0.125 m, which is carried out for different values of the ignition energy. The results show that an increase in the ignition energy results in greater explosive intensity, maximum peak pressure, and dynamic strain of the thin wall in the whole process. Moreover, the dynamic strain of the thin-walled pipe increases suddenly owing to arrival of a precursor shock wave and then vibrates for a long time, which is induced by the wave reflected back and forth. In addition, there is good agreement between the dynamic strain signals and pressure wave signals. These research results can provide a theoretical basis for industrial explosion accident assessments as well as explosion and shock resistance designs, which provides guidance not only for industrial safety, but also for prevention and mitigation of explosion accidents.

Keywords

detonation pipe gas cloud explosion ignition energy peak pressure dynamic strain 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L. Bernard and G. V. Elbe, Combustion, Flame, and Explosions of Gases (Academic Press, New York, 1961).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. R. Chapman and R. V. Wheeler, “The Propagation of Flame in Mixtures of Methane and Air. Part IV: The Effect of Restrictions in the Path of the Flame Travels,” J. Chem. Soc. 12 (4), 309–312 (1927).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. H. Lee, R. Knystautas, and C. K. Chan, “Turbulent Flame Propagation in Obstacle-Filled Tubes,” Symp. Combust. 20 (1), 1663–1672 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. K. Kumar, “Flammability Limits of Hydrogen–Oxygen Diluent Mixtures,” J. Fire Sci. 3 (4), 245–262 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. S. Ibrahim and A. R. Masri, “The Effects of Obstructions on Overpressure Resulting from Premixed Flame Deflagration,” J. Loss. Prevent. Proc. 14 (3), 213–221 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. R. Masri, S. S. Ibrahim, and N. Nehzat, “Experimental Study of Premixed Flame Propagation over Various Solid Obstructions,” Exp. Therm. Fluid. Sci. 21 (1–3), 109–116 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. H. Oh, H. Kim, and J. B. Kim, “A Study on the Obstacle-Induced Variation of the Gas Explosion Characteristics,” J. Loss. Prevent. Proc. 14 (6), 597–602 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A. A. Vasil’ev and V. A. Vasiliev, “Initiation of Multifuel Mixtures with Bifurcation Structures,” Fiz. Goreniya Vzryva 52 (6), 3–12 (2016) [Combust., Expl., Shock Waves 52 (6), 621–630 (2016)].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. H. Sun, R. Dobashi, and T. Hirano, “Temperature Profile Across the Combustion Zone Propagating Through All Iron Particle Cloud,” J. Loss. Prevent. Proc. 14 (6), 463–467 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. J. Ju, R. Dobashi, and T. Hirano, “Reaction Zone Structure and Propagation Mechanisms of Flames in Stearicacid Particle Clouds,” J. Loss. Prevent. Proc. 11 (6), 423–430 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Thomas, R. Bambrey, and C. Brown, “Experimental Observations of Flame Acceleration and Transition to Detonation Following Shock-Flame Interaction,” Combust. Theor. Model. 6 (4), 573–594 (2001).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    V. P. Korobeinikov and V. A. Levin, “Strong Explosion in a Combustible Gas Mixture,” Fluid. Dyn. 4 (6), 30–32 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Y. Zhou and Z. F. Li, “Flame Front Acceleration of Propane-Air Deflagration in Straight Tubes,” Expl. Shock Wave 2 137–142 (2000).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Lu, J. G. Ning, C. Wang, and B. Q. Lin, “Study on Flame Propagation and Acceleration Mechanism of City Coal Gas,” Expl. Shock Wave 24 (4), 305–311 (2004). [in Chinese].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Hilbert, F. Tap, H. El-Rabii H, and D. Thévenin, “Impact of Detailed Chemistry and Transport Models on Turbulent Combustion Simulations,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 30, 61–117 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. A. Arkhipov, V. E. Zarko, I. K. Zharova, et al., “Solid Propellant Combustion in a High-Velocity Cross-Flow of Gases (Review),” Fiz. Goreniya Vzryva 52 (5), 3–22 (2016) [Combust., Expl., ShockWaves 52 (5), 497–513 (2016)].Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. T. DeLuca, L. Galfetti, F. Maggi, G. Colombo, and L. Merotto, “Characterization of HTPB-Based Solid Fuel Formulations: Performance, Mechanical Properties, and Pollution,” Acta Astronaut. 92 (2), 150–162 (2013).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Yu. Krainov and K. M. Moiseeva, “Combustion Modes of Lean Methane–Air Mixtures in a U-Shaped Burner,” Vest. Tomsk. Gos. Univ., Mat. Mekh. 2 (28), 69–76 (2014).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Petroleum EngineeringChangzhou UniversityChangzhouChina
  2. 2.Tianjin Fire Research InstituteTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations