Advertisement

Technical Physics Letters

, Volume 45, Issue 12, pp 1209–1211 | Cite as

Combustible Gas Cylinder Detonation upon Incident Shock Focusing

  • P. Yu. Georgievskiy
  • V. A. Levin
  • O. G. SutyrinEmail author
Article
  • 11 Downloads

Two-dimensional interaction of a shock in air with elliptic area (two-dimensional gas bubble) filled with propane-oxygen mixture with addition of heavy gas is numerically studied using Euler’s equations. Propane combustion is modeled with one-stage Arrhenius kinetics. Three different ignition regimes are found: direct detonation initiation by sufficiently strong shock, detonation near the triple point formed during weaker shock refraction and detonation at the focusing point of even weaker shock. The latter regime is observed only for significantly elongated bubbles. Detonation initiation regime dependence on shock Mach number and bubble diameter ratio is determined. It is shown that due to bubble elongation, critical Mach number may be significantly lowered in comparison with direct initiation.

Keywords:

shock wave gas bubble shock-bubble interaction shock focusing cumulation gas detonation combustion. 

Notes

FUNDING

This study was performed in Institute of Mechanics of Lomonosov Moscow State University using the equipment of the shared research facilities of HPC computing resources of MSU with partial financial support of Council for Grants of the President of the Russian Federation (project no. MK-3012.2019.1) and Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project no. 18-01-00793).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    N. Haehn, D. Ranjan, C. Weber, J. Oakley, D. Rothamer, and R. Bonazza, Combust. Flame 159, 1339 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    F. Diegelmann, V. Tritschler, S. Hickel, and N. Adams, Combust. Flame 163, 414 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. Diegelmann, S. Hickel, and N. Adams, Combust. Flame 174, 85 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Diegelmann, S. Hickel, and N. Adams, Combust. Flame 181, 300 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P. Yu. Georgievskiy, V. A. Levin, and O. G. Sutyrin, Shock Waves 25, 357 (2015).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Ray, R. Samtaney, and N. Zabusky, Phys. Fluids 12, 707 (2000).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Yu. Georgievskii, V. A. Levin, and O. G. Sutyrin, Tech. Phys. Lett. 42, 936 (2016).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ThermodynamicTables (Thermodynamic Res. Center Texas, A&M Univ., College Station, TX, 1998).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Westbrook and F. Dryer, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 10, 1 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Yu. Georgievskiy
    • 1
  • V. A. Levin
    • 1
  • O. G. Sutyrin
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Mechanics of Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations