Advertisement

On the Validity of the Constant Volume Assumption in Shock Tube Experiments

  • J. Melguizo-Gavilanes
  • L. Bauwens

Introduction

Induction time is an important measurement obtained in shock tube experiments, for use in calibration or validation of chemical kinetic schemes. Typically, these times are taken as representative of spatially uniform, constant volume combustion induction times. The actual process that happens in the shock tube is clearly more complex, however. In a first approximation, the flow might be described as being one-dimensional, inviscid and reactive, behind an incident or reflected shock, although in reality, multi-dimensional and viscous effects will play a role [1, 2]. The constant volume assumption may yield good results when dealing with highly diluted mixtures at relatively high post-shock temperatures [3]. However in other circumstances, such as more reactive mixtures at low post-shock temperatures, strong spatial pressure gradients may be present, potentially leading to significant uncertainties or inaccuracies. Assessing the actual accuracy of the constant volume assumption or alternatively improving the means used in validating kinetic schemes will require at the very least a one-dimensional simulation of the reacting flow in shocked mixture. Although the required simulations are one-dimensional, they are not straightforward, because the initial conditions are singular in the sense that at the instant when chemistry is triggered by the passage of the shock into the reactive mixture, there is no simulation domain containing reactive mixture, and that domain subsequently grows as the shock propagates. We have developed techniques that handle these difficulties, mainly in the context of the deflagration-to-detonation scenario [4]. The full unsteady problem is described by the reactive Euler’s equations, which are transformed from its original formulation, in which space x and time t are used as independent variables to η = x/t and t. This transformation effectively overcomes the non-existence of the initial physical domain. Chemistry is modeled using a three-step chain-branching mechanism originally proposed by Short & Quirk [5].

Keywords

Shock Tube Induction Time Incident Shock Thermal Explosion Detonation Initiation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belford, R.L., Strehlow, R.A.: Shock tube technique in chemical kinetics. Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 20, 247 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gaydon, A.G., Hurle, I.R.: The shock tube in high-temperature chemical physics. Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shultz, E., Shepherd, J.: Validation of detailed reaction mechanisms for detonation simulation. Explosion Dynamics Laboratory Report FM99-5 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melguizo-Gavilanes, J., Rezaeyan, N., Lopez-Aoyagi, M., Bauwens, L.: Shock-induced ignition with single-step Arrhenius kinetics. Shock Waves (2010), doi:10.1007/s00193-010-0255-1Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Short, M., Quirk, J.J.: On the non-linear stability and detonability limit of a detonation wave for a model three-step chain-branching reaction. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 339, 89 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu, S.J., Aslam, T., Stewart, D.S.: High resolution numerical simulation of ideal and non-ideal compressible reacting flows with embedded internal boundaries. Combust. Theor. Model. 1, 113–142 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Melguizo-Gavilanes
    • 1
  • L. Bauwens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical & Manufacturing EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations