nnn

© All Rights Reserved

28 vues

nnn

© All Rights Reserved

- Combustible Metals
- Gherghel Cristian F 201004 M.a.sc
- petroleum coke utilization for cement kiln firing
- FMDS0604
- EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PREMIXED FLAME OSCILLATIONS IN PRESSURES ABOVE ATMOSPHERIC
- October's Cozy Newsletter
- 8796658201
- Microsoft Word - Ventilation of Dom Nat Gas Appliances
- Effects of Diluents on Knock Rating of Gaseous Fuels
- CBEMS 45A F13: Practice Final
- Various Methods for the Determination of the Burning Gupta
- Camphor
- Braithwaite.pdf
- 026MAR
- science chapter 5 - the air around us
- Chapter 2
- Mandal Thermomechanics of transient oblique compaction shock reflection from a rigid boundaryGonthier Paper Shock Waves
- 3d Modelling of Diesel and HCCI Engine Combustion
- Cp in Combustion
- Constructii_2013_Vol.14_No.1_ID2013140110

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Original Russian Text

and Detonations

D. Bradleya , M. Lawesa , and M. Mansourb

UDC 536.46

Translated from Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 3949, SeptemberOctober, 2012.

Original article submitted September October 14, 2011.

initial linear increase with the fan speed and RMS turbulent velocity. The line then bends over to

form a plateau of high values around the maximum attainable burning velocity. A further increase

in fan speed leads to the eventual complete quenching of the ame due to increasing localised

extinctions because of the ame stretch rate. The greater the Markstein number, the more readily

does ame quenching occur. Flame propagation along a duct closed at one end, with and without

baes to increase the turbulence, is subjected to a one-dimensional analysis. The ame, initiated

at the closed end of the long duct, accelerates by the turbulent feedback mechanism, creating a

shock wave ahead of it, until the maximum turbulent burning velocity for the mixture is attained.

With the conning walls, the mixture is compressed between the ame and the shock plane up

to the point where it might autoignite. This can be followed by a deagration to detonation

transition. The maximum shock intensity occurs with the maximum attainable turbulent burning

velocity, and this denes the limit for autoignition of the mixture. For more reactive mixtures,

autoignition can occur at turbulent burning velocities that are less than the maximum attainable

one. Autoignition can be followed by quasi-detonation or fully developed detonation. The stability

of ensuing detonations is discussed, along with the conditions that may lead to their extinction.

Keywords: turbulent deagrations, autoignitions, detonations, ame quenching.

DOI: 10.1134/S0010508212050048

INTRODUCTION

In the deagration to detonation transition (DDT)

in a duct that is closed at one end, the turbulent feedback mechanism accelerates the turbulent ame [1].

The turbulence can arise naturally through the development of a turbulent boundary layer, or it can occur

more rapidly through the introduction of appropriate

obstacles, such as cross cylinders [2] and Shchelkin spirals [3]. Eventually, after a sucient length of ducting,

the turbulent burning velocity ut attains a maximum

value utm , which depends upon the mixture. This maximum value arises because, despite the increased ame

a

LS2 9JT, UK; d.bradley@leeds.ac.uk.

b

King Abdullah University of Science

and Technology, Saudi Arabia.

526

localised increasing stretch rates lead to ame extinctions. The value of ut for a given mixture enables the

strength of the shock wave, generated in the reactants

by the increasing gas velocity ahead of the ame due to

the rate of expansion of the burned gas, to be found.

The limiting mixture in which the reactants between

the shock and the ame can just autoignite depends

upon the attainment of the maximum turbulent burning velocity (utm ) for the mixture [4]. Anything less will

result in no autoignition. The attainment of utm thus

becomes the necessary condition for the autoignition of

the limiting mixtures. For more reactive mixtures, the

autoignition can occur with values of ut that are significantly smaller than utm .

Experiments in fan-stirred bombs have shown localised ame extinctions and utm to depend upon the

0010-5082/12/4805-0526

Fig. 1. Shock wave generation by the ame: an explosion in the explosion occurs between the ame

and the shock wave.

involved in the strain rate and laminar burning velocity

expressions, and the Karlovitz stretch factor [5]. The

key theoretical step is the generation, based on these

considerations, of an expression for utm . This, when

combined with the steady-state one-dimensional shock

theory, gives the associated shocked pressures and temperatures [4]. With this approach, the temperature and

pressure ratios at the shock are ultimately expressed in

terms of the values of utm normalised by the speed of

sound in the cold reactants ahead of the shock. The

value of the autoignition delay time of the mixture

at the shocked temperature and pressure determines

whether or not autoignition will occur. The Zeldovich

criterion [6] and the heat release excitation time inuence the nature of any localised transition to detonation.

Limitations to any analytical approach lie in the

limited data available at high temperatures and pressures for laminar burning velocities, Markstein numbers, and autoignition delay times. In addition, it is

dicult to obtain turbulent ame extinction data for reactive mixtures. However, it is usually the less reactive

mixtures that are of interest in the study of marginal

detonations. The one-dimensional analysis cannot predict the details of any transition to detonation. However, criteria are developed for, on the one hand, strong

ignition with stable detonation and, on the other hand,

weak ignition with unstable detonation.

1. FLAME PROPAGATION

ALONG A DUCT

The conguration for the studies of autoignition in

a duct is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 1. The ame

initiated at the closed end of the long duct accelerates

by the turbulent feedback mechanism, creating a shock

wave ahead of it. This acceleration, together with the

conning walls, can compress the mixture between the

ame and the shock plane to the point where it autoignites. When this occurs and gives rise to a detonation, it is termed a deagration to detonation transition

(DDT). The one-dimensional steady-state theory in [4]

relates the turbulent burning velocity to the strength

of the leading shock prior to autoignition. The theory

527

the mean gas velocity ahead of the ame, the ratios

of pressure, temperature, and gas velocity at the shock

wave, and the autoigniton delay time of the mixture as

functions of pressure and temperature. Conditions at

the upstream side of the planar shock wave and those

immediately behind the shock are indicated by the subscripts 1 and 2, respectively. The ratio of the ame

speed Sf to the burning velocity ut is given by the formula

Sf /ut = (A/b),

(1)

area of the ame front associated with ut , and is the

ratio of unburned to burned gas density in constantpressure combustion at p2 [4].

For calculating the conditions across the shock

wave, it is convenient to use a dimensionless parameter c, to express the dimensionless volumetric expansion

due to combustion at the post-shock elevated temperature T2 and pressure p2 [4]:

c=

+1

A ut

.

( 1)

b a1

2

(2)

The rst three terms on the right comprise the gas velocity along the duct ahead of the ame normalised by

a1 , which is the speed of sound in the cold mixture

ahead of the shock wave. The ratio of specic heats in

the shock is . For the duct with a rectangular cross

section in [7], it was estimated from measurements of

the schlieren images that A/b = 1.44. For ducts with

transverse cylindrical rod baes, A/b 3.5 [4]. The

gas velocity of the reactants into, and relative to, the

shock wave u1 is numerically equal to the shock velocity

along the duct because there is no gas velocity ahead of

the shock wave; the Mach number M1 = u1 /a1 is given

by the formula [4]

M1 = c/2 + (1 + c2 /4)1/2 .

(3)

duct is [4]

Sf

2c

.

=

a1

( 1)( + 1)

(4)

u2 /u1 (u2 is the gas velocity relative to the shock wave

toward the ame and away from the shock) are expressed in terms of and M1 in [4]. These three ratios

and M1 for = 1.4 are shown in Fig. 2. The ratios

ut /a1 and Sf /a1 , from Eqs. (2) and (4), are also shown

for = 2.62, which is appropriate to the conditions in

[7], as also was A/b = 1.44.

528

Bradley et al.

the shock (from the one-dimensional theory) for =

1.4: Sf /a1 for = 2.62 and ut /a1 for = 2.62 and

A/b = 1.44.

2.1. Factors Aecting the Maximum Value

of the Burning Velocity

Measurements of the turbulent burning velocities

in fan-stirred explosion bombs show that initially they

increase linearly with the RMS turbulent velocity u [5,

8]. The curves for these relationships then bend over to

form a plateau of high values of ut before they decrease,

provided the fan speed can be increased suciently. The

increasing fan speed leads to increasing localised ame

extinctions due to the high rate of ame stretching, until the ame is completely quenched. It was found in [5]

that the greater the Lewis number, the more readily did

ame quenching occur. It is not always possible to attain suciently high values of u to quench ames if the

mixture has a relatively high laminar burning velocity

ul . For hydrogenair mixtures, only the leaner mixtures

could be quenched by this technique [9]. This is not necessarily a limitation in the present context, as there is

often little doubt that a particularly reactive mixture

will autoignite and detonate: it is the less reactive ones

on the borderline of autoignition that are of most concern. But whereas increasing turbulence can eventually

decrease the burning velocity and ame speed to the

point of extinction in a fan-stirred bomb, the feedback

mechanism operating for ame propagation along the

duct will hold these at values close to the maximum

attainable value for the mixture.

The measured values of ut /u and the onset of ame

extinctions have both been expressed in terms of the

Karlovitz stretch factor (Ka), and the strain rate Markstein number of the mixture (Masr ) [9]. The former can

be regarded as a ratio of a chemical to eddy lifetime

ames with Masr = 4.

Ka =

l u

,

ul

(5)

the kinematic viscosity. The reciprocal of u / is the

eddy lifetime, i.e., the RMS strain rate, where is the

Taylor length scale. The turbulent Reynolds number

based on this scale is related to that based on a rather

1/2

more practical integral length scale L by Re = 4ReL .

It is readily shown that [10]

Ka = 0.25(u /ul )2 Re0.5

.

L

(6)

against Ka is shown in Fig. 3. This is for an ethanol

air mixture, equivalence ratio 0.8, Masr = 4, initial

pressure 0.5 MPa, and temperature 358 K, with the

measurements made as described in [11]. The plotted

points are taken from the average of ve explosions. The

plateau of fairly uniform high values of (ut /ul )m , close

to the maximum value, extends from about Ka = 0.75 to

1.25. There was an increasing uctuation in the values

of ut /ul as Ka increased, and there was a rapid general fall in values as amelet merging possibly increased

and localised ame extinctions developed increasingly

rapidly, until complete ame quenching ensued. The

probability of the ame, once established, continuing to

propagate was measured by increasing the fan speed in

a fan-stirred bomb, up to the point of ame quenching,

over a number of explosions under identical conditions.

These studies covered mixtures of CH4 , C3 H8 , and isooctane with air and very lean hydrogenair mixtures,

all in the pressure range of 0.11.5 MPa, and at room

temperature [9].

These results and a survey of measurements of

ut /ul in fan-stirred bombs suggest that the maximum

bounding values of Ka as a function of Masr for

a propaneair mixture [4] (triangles), iso-octaneair

mixture [4] (squares), and ethanolair mixture (diamond); the bold curve shows the results calculated

by Eq. (7).

of an initially established explosion ame continuing to

propagate was in the region of Ka 0.8 (in what follows, indicated by Ka0.8 ). It was found that the values

of Ka0.8 could be expressed in terms of Masr as

Ka0.8 (Masr + 4)1.8 = 34.4 at 3.0 Masr 11.0. (7)

Equation (7) gives a value of Ka0.8 = 0.81 for the

ethanolair explosion of Fig. 3, within the limits of the

plateau of values of ut /ul close to (ut /ul )m . Whether

it was generally true that the values of ut /ul at Ka0.8

were close to those of (ut /ul )m was explored, by measuring the values of Ka at the lower and upper bounds of

the plateau for mixtures with dierent values of Masr .

The resulting limiting values of Ka are plotted against

Masr as two bounds in Fig. 4 (dotted curves). The gure also shows the results calculated by Eq. (7) and

the experimental data [4]. The results of Fig. 4 show

that the values of Ka0.8 in the range of Masr studied

lie between the lower and upper bounds of the plateau.

Consequently, the values of ut /ul at Ka0.8 are close to

(ut /ul )m . It is interesting that the lower bound of the

plateau is less aected by Masr than the upper bound.

This is probably due to the increased rate of burning

in stretched laminar amelets at lower values of Masr .

The increasing values of Ka at the upper bound with decreasing Masr are probably due to the increasing stretch

rates for ame extinction [10].

2.2. Determination of (ut /ul )m

The approach in [4] was largely based on the theoretical analysis of [10]. The present approach employs

a comprehensive correlation of experimental turbulent

529

(ut /ul )m with the parameters Masr and ul L/.

burning velocity data over wide ranges of fuels, equivalence ratios, and pressures up to 3 MPa. The selected

mean ame surface associated with ut was that giving

the mass rate of burning when it was multiplied by ut

and the density of the unburned mixture. The value of

ut is given by [11, 12]

ut /u = Ka ,

(8)

where the constants and can be found from rstorder expressions in Ma. More generally, the values of

and are given for positive and negative values of

Ma as follows [12]:

0.022(30 Masr )

for Masr > 0,

=

0.0311(30 Masr ) for Masr < 0,

(9)

0.0105(Masr 30)

for Masr > 0,

=

0.0075(Masr + 30) for Masr < 0.

In those cases where sucient turbulence is generated

for the ame to attain (ut /ul )m , unlike the situation in

a fan-stirred bomb, the value of u cannot be increased

further. Were it to increase, it would reduce ut , and

hence u , by the feedback mechanism.

A useful re-formulation of Eq. (6), that introduces

ut is

1/2 2/3

ut

ut Ka ul L

=

.

(10)

ul

u 0.25

The values of Ka0.8 are found from Eq. (7) for the appropriate values of Masr for the mixture behind the

shock. When these are substituted into Eqs. (8) and

(9), they yield ut /u at (ut /ul )m . From the known values of ul and for the mixture, we can nd ul L/ at

530

and temperatures (dashed curves) across the shock

wave for dierent values of Masr and ul L/ (ul /a1 =

0.001, = 4, and A/b = 3.5).

from Eq. (10). Such values are plotted against Masr for

ul L/ = 1 000, 5 000, and 10 000 in Fig. 5. Clearly, the

values of (ut /ul )m are increased by low values of Masr ,

particularly when these are negative, and by high values of ul L/. It must, however, be pointed out that the

data in Fig. 5 have been extended beyond the bounds

of the original experimental correlations.

SHOCK STRENGTH, AND AUTOIGNITION

It can be seen from Fig. 2 that the shock pressure and temperature ratios are determined by ut /a1 .

With the values of (ut /a1 )m expressed in terms of Masr

and ul L/ as in Fig. 5, the maximum value of ut /a1 ,

indicated by (ut /ul )m , can be found from the product

(ut /ul )m (ul /a1 ) if ul /a1 is known. From Fig. 2, with

this value of ut /a1 and the specied values of and A/b,

it is then possible to evaluate the maximum attainable

ratios of pressures (p2 /p1 )m and temperatures (T2 /T1 )m

as functions of Masr and ul L/. This is demonstrated

by Fig. 6, for three dierent values of ul L/ at ul /a1 =

0.001. Similarly, Fig. 7 shows these shock ratios for

three dierent values of ul /a1 at ul L/ = 1000. For

both gures, = 4 and A/b = 3.5.

Bradley et al.

and temperatures (dashed curves) across the shock

wave for dierent values of Masr and ul /a1 (ul L/ =

1 000, = 4, and A/b = 3.5).

(p2 /p1 )m and (T2 /T1 )m are lower values of Masr with

higher values of ul L/ and ul /a1 . In practice, an increase in ul L/ and ul /a1 implies high values of ul

and L. The last implies a larger duct, which also enables

the duct to accommodate the critical size of detonation

cells.

The use of the maximum values of (ut /ul )m ,

(p2 /p1 )m , and (T2 /T1 )m is important for identifying the

limit conditions for autoignition. This has been demonstrated for CH4 air and H2 air mixtures in [4]. For

more reactive mixtures, autoignition would be induced

at lower values of ut /ul < (ut /ul )m . In such cases, the

analysis is reversed. The starting point is now the values

of p2 and T2 at which the induction time is short enough

for autoignition to occur before the shocked reactants

are consumed by the ame, or at which the ame speed

attains the ChapmanJouguet (CJ) speed [13]. It is

then possible to infer the value of ut /a1 that must be

attained to create the pressure and temperature ratios

for autoignition from Fig. 2.

TO DETONATION

4.1. Hot Spot Autoignition

In practice, autoignition and a transition to either a

quasi-detonation or a self-sustaining detonation is more

complex. The reactant mixture is not homogeneous

and is very sensitive to localised hot spots comprised

of gradients of increased reactivity [6]. The complexity of the transition to a detonation wave is apparent

from the high speed schlieren photographs in the seminal studies of Urtiew and Oppenheim [7]. For example,

localised autoignition within the boundary layer of the

duct wall can create a localised shock wave that, importantly, triggers earlier autoignition. The autoignition

front then propagates at a higher speed than the turbulent ame, sweeping through the reactants before penetrating the leading shock and generating a self-sustained

detonation there. At the same time, it triggers transverse waves and creates triple wave interactions. It is

instructive to summarise the details of autoignition at

a hot spot.

The strength of the pressure wave generated at a

single spherical hot spot is determined by the associated autoignitive propagation velocity relative to the

unburned mixture ua given by

dr

,

(11)

di

where r is the distance along the gradient and i is the

induction time. Here, we shall assume the composition

to be homogeneous and the heterogeneity to arise entirely from temperature gradients. Hence, we have

1

1

di

dT

ua =

.

(12)

dr

dT p

ua =

di

dT

a

=a

,

(13)

=

ua

dr

dT p

where a is the speed of sound in the unburned mixture.

It is shown in [14] that the amplitude of the associated autoignitive pressure pulse, when normalised by

the mean pressure, is of the order of 2 . The values of

(di /dT )p at a given p and T are conveniently expressed

in terms of the local global activation energy E in the

form

di

E

= i

.

(14)

dT p

RT 2

For values of close to unity, the pressure pulse is strong

and the autoignitive propagation speed resonates with

the speed of sound. The chemical reaction wave becomes coupled with the acoustic wave, further strengthening it in a localised developing detonation. This does

not necessarily propagate outside the hot spot. This

regime is usually associated with low values of i , E/R,

and dT /dr.

The residence time of the acoustic wave in a hot

spot of radius r0 is approximately r0 /a. The duration of the heat release is measured by the excitation

531

energy from that associated with i [ms] in Eq. (14)

[16]. The strengthening of the amplitude of the pressure pulse by the unloading of chemical energy into the

acoustic wave can be quantied approximately by expressing the number of excitation times [16, 17] that

can be contained within the hot spot residence time

r0 /a given by

(15)

= r/ae .

Direct numerical simulations of autoignition and developing detonations [16, 17] at individual hot spots have

included computations of i and e with detailed chemical kinetics and have enabled the values of and to

be obtained over ranges of dierent conditions. Some

results of the simulations are shown in terms of and

in Fig. 8. As suggested above, the detonation development depended not only upon the value of , but

also upon that of . The gure shows the upper and

lower limits of the developing detonation regime, indicated by u and l . These form a peninsula with a long

toe, within which detonations could develop within the

hot spot, but not necessarily continue to propagate outside it. It was found in [18] that the values of close to

unity and high values of were necessary for detonation

to continue outside a single hot spot.

Outside the peninsula, regimes of supersonic and

subsonic autoignitive wave propagations are indicated,

respectively, as domains I and II in Fig. 8. An instantaneous thermal explosion is represented by values of

close to zero outside the peninsula. In this regime,

when < 1, the reaction wave is faster than the acoustic wave, there is no coupling between them, and the

maximum pressure ratio is less than in a detonation.

4.2. Quasi-Detonations and Developed Detonations

Initial hot spot autoignitions in the highly turbulent ow eld created by transverse cylindrical, or other,

obstacles may not create shock waves strong enough to

establish a coherent detonation [2, 19]. A stochastic

regime is created, intermediate between those of a turbulent ame and a developed detonation. This regime

of quasi-detonations possesses characteristics of both its

neighbours. Shocks are generated that interact with

ames, overall ame speeds are high, but less than the

ChapmanJouguet values. Flames extinguish and reignite, autoignitive propagations develop, and some of

them, aided by shock reections, develop into detonations that also then may decay.

Pressure uctuations arising from such extinctions

and re-ignitions of ames and detonations can be attenuated by diraction around obstacles [2]. Just beyond this regime, detonations appear when local conditions in un-reacted material allow a spontaneous wave

532

Bradley et al.

spots: u and l are the limits of the peninsula

for developing detonation within the hot spot; domains I and II are regimes of supersonic and subsonic wave propagation, respectively; the horizontal

dotted shading indicates the strong ignition regime.

strong enough to become a detonation that can propagate outside the gradient [19]. Even in the absence of a

completely developed detonation, the quasi-detonation

regime can have high ame speeds, strong shocks with

violently uctuating pressures, and be highly damaging.

There is great variety in the details of the establishment of stable detonations. Once established, their integrity is threatened through the possible disruption of

the coupling of the leading shock and the ensuing chemical kinetics. The one-dimensional analysis can predict

when autoignition and detonation are initiated, but not

the details of the associated transformation. Indeed,

a purely one-dimensional planar detonation is unstable

to transverse waves that are inevitably generated. It is

only stabilised by the establishment of a complex threedimensional structure, in which transverse waves interact with the leading shock. Shock waves are reected

from the duct walls, and triple points are created at

the intersection of incident and reected shock waves.

A Mach stem is formed as the intersection is forced away

from the wall. The paths of intense combustion close to

the triple point create a cellular structure. The shock

reections cause the leading shock front to pulsate quite

strongly in the direction of propagation, alternating between strong Mach stems and weaker incident shocks.

In spite of these complexities, the CJ velocities and

the CJ equilibrated state are eventually attained, and

a stochastic steady, one-dimensional representation of

detonation waves would seem to be attainable [20].

Autoignition and subsequent development of a detonation have been classied into two contrasting mechanisms, one involving a strong explosion, and the other

involving a weak multi-spot explosion [21, 22]. A strong

explosion is characterised by a practically instantaneous

establishment of a continuous pressure front at small

values of both (di /dT )p and . A weak explosion is

characterised by the slower growth of hot spots at dispersed locations and larger values of both (di /dT )p

and . Furthermore, in weak or mild ignitions, there is

even less overall coherence in the pressure pulses when

i /e is variable and large. This is because at the larger

values of i /e the power pulses of the separate hot spots

are no longer uniformly spread, and the heat release is

spiky, leading to instabilities in the reaction zone [23].

In terms of Fig. 8, which is for individual hot spots,

it would appear that strong and stable detonations are

favoured by small (though not zero) values of and .

Within the peninsula, the strong ignition regime is associated with an extended toe of the peninsula, from

about = 8 to about 2 (or even less), with values of

lying between 2 and 7. This is indicated by the horizontal dotted shading in Fig. 8.

It also has been proposed that the product (E/R)(i /e ) provides a gure of merit for the stability of an established detonation [24, 25]. This is on

the ground that, as E/RT increases, because of the sensitivity of i to temperature [see Eq. (14)], the reaction

zone begins to de-couple from the shock front and the

shock velocity drops below the CJ value [26, 27]. In

addition, as i /e increases, as already mentioned, instabilities develop in the reaction zone. Clearly, smaller

values of (E/R)(i /e ) are associated with more stable detonations, and larger values with unstable detonations. From Eqs. (13)(15), it follows that

1

E i

d ln T

= ()

.

(16)

RT e

dr

The last term is the reciprocal of the reactivity gradient.

The equation shows that there is a relationship between

this proposed gure of merit on the left and the present

criteria for strong ignition and stability, based upon low

values of and associated with the toe of the peninsula in Fig. 8. In this strong ignition regime, with low

values of E/RT and values of close to unity, the detonation front appears at, stable, and one-dimensional.

The transverse waves are strong enough, along with the

triple points, to form a regular cellular pattern [27, 28].

However, these transverse waves have no signicant role

in the propagation, which depends upon the main shock

front [29]. Strong ignition and stability also are associated with overlapping of individual power pulses at

small values of i /e , thus, contributing to the overall

stability.

In addition to the problems of tracing the birth of a

detonation, there are problems of identifying whether it

might survive or perish. Strong ignitions are the more

likely to preserve their integrity and survive. Weak ignitions are more likely to disintegrate, with decoupling

of the reaction zone from the shock. Any venting of

the gases behind the shock front will tend to reduce the

pressure and the gas velocity ahead of the ame front

that drives the shock. If the venting is initiated with a

limiting mixture, with ut /ul = (ut /ul )m , the detonation

will fail. If it is not a limiting mixture, the ame might

accelerate back to its original speed that was capable of

inducing autoignition. As already described, the structure of the transverse waves is a factor in maintaining

the detonation.

There have been few studies on whether an established detonation can survive sideways and upwards

venting. Radulescu and Lee [29] have contributed one

of the few studies in this area. They used a Shchelkin

spiral in a duct for rapid creation of a sustained detonation. This detonation propagated into a length of

the duct with porous walls. The propagation velocity

decreased when it reached this part of the duct. Although transverse waves tended to stabilise the detonation, they were unable to overcome the losses due to

the mass divergence into the wall, leading to a curved

shock front. Unstable detonations were found to propagate over shorter distances than stable ones, before

they eventually failed. Of course, the higher the maximum turbulent burning velocity, the more potential

compensation there can be for wall venting and pressure

drop. Another cause of detonation failure is a reduction in mixture reactivity as the propagation proceeds,

through changes in the equivalence ratio of the mixture

in the direction of propagation. Decreases in ul /a1 and

ul L/, associated with a fall in ul , would tend to decrease (p2 /p1 )m and (T2 /T1 )m , rendering autoignition

more dicult. In addition, although would decrease,

the increase in would probably be more signicant.

Kessler et al. [30] have numerically simulated the

progress of detonations in which the gradients of equivalence ratio were perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The computations traced the collisions between triple points and transverse waves. At high values

of E/R, signicant temperature uctuations developed

across the induction zone, which broadened until the

reaction zone decoupled from the leading shock and the

detonation failed. At low values of E/R, all the detonations survived. Triple point reections and collisions

533

of the detonation wave, but also the propagation speed

and, for high values of E/R, the quenching behaviour.

With regard to the gradients of the equivalence ratio,

it was nevertheless possible, at high values of E/R, for

a detonation to survive and propagate through a mixture of which a signicant proportion was insuciently

reactive to support a detonation on its own.

Another important practical issue requiring further

work is the extent to which a fully developed conned

detonation might continue to propagate through the

same mixture, but outside the connement. This is relevant to various industrial hazards, such as the Bunceeld explosion in UK [31, 32].

CONCLUSIONS

A simple one-dimensional analysis relates the pressure and temperature ratios across the leading shock,

ahead of a turbulent ame in a duct, to the turbulent burning velocity normalised by the speed of sound

ahead of the shock. A feedback mechanism causes the

ame to accelerate initially, but the turbulent burning

velocity can reach a maximum value due to the onset

of localised extinctions, a consequence of the increasing

ame stretch rate. It has been shown that the plateau

of burning velocity values close to the maximum value is

attained when the probability of an initially established

explosion ame continuing to propagate is close to 0.8.

This maximum value of the turbulent burning velocity

for a given mixture determines the maximum pressure

and temperature ratios at the shock front. The way

the autoignition delay times vary with these determines

whether autoignition will occur and, with it, a possible

detonation.

The limiting mixtures for autoignition are those

that just autoignite at the maximum pressure and

temperature ratios. More reactive mixtures will autoignite at lower ratios and at turbulent burning velocities smaller than the maximum value. The onedimensional analysis provides a useful guide to the probability of autoignition, although its accuracy is limited

by the availability of burning and autoignition data for

various mixtures.

In practice, autoignition does not occur uniformly,

but at hot spots, and the circumstances of this process inuence the onset of any detonation. Between

the regimes of very high burning velocities and of developed detonations is an important regime of quasidetonations. The conditions governing the development

of a detonation and its stability, or otherwise, have been

identied and discussed. Finally, these have been re-

534

Bradley et al.

The authors acknowledge with gratitude the help

they have received from discussions with Elaine Oran,

Slava Babkin, and Gary Sharpe.

REFERENCES

1. G. Ciccarellia and S. Dorofeev, Flame Acceleration and

Transition to Detonation in Ducts, Prog. Energ. Combust. Sci. 34, 499550 (2008).

2. J. Chao and J. H. S. Lee, The Propagation Mechanism

of High Speed Turbulent Deagrations, Shock Waves

12, 277289 (2003).

3. R. P. Lindstedt and H. J. Michels, Deagration to Detonation Transitions and Strong Deagrations in Alkane

and Alkene Air Mixtures, Combust. Flame 76, 169181

(1989).

4. D. Bradley, M. Lawes, and K. Liu, Turbulent Flame

Speeds in Ducts and the Deagration/Detonation Transition, Combust. Flame 154, 96108 (2008).

5. R. G. Abdel-Gayed, D. Bradley, M. N. Hamid, and

M. Lawes, Lewis Number Eects on Turbulent Burning Velocity, in Twentieth Symp. (Int.) on Combustion

(The Combustion Inst. Pittsburgh, 1985), pp. 505512.

6. Ya. B.Zeldovich, V. B. Librovich, G. M. Makhviladze,

and G. I. Sivashinsk, On the Development of Detonation in Non-Uniformly Preheated Gas, Astronautica

Acta 15, 313321 (1970).

7. P. A. Urtiew and A. K. Oppenheim, Experimental Observations of the Transition to Detonation in an Explosive Gas, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A295, 1328 (1966).

8. V. P. Karpov and E. S. Severin, Eects of MolecularTransport Coecients on the Rate of Turbulent

Combustion, Fiz. Goreniya Vzryva 16 (1), 4551

(1980) [Combust., Explos., Shock Waves 16 (1), 4146

(1980)].

9. D. Bradley, M. Lawes, K. Liu, and R. Woolley, The

Quenching of Premixed Turbulent Flames of Iso-Octane,

Methane and Hydrogen at High Pressures, Proc. Combust. Inst. 31, 13931400 (2007).

10. D. Bradley, P. H. Gaskell, X. J. Gu, and A. Sedaghat,

Premixed Flame Modelling: Factors Inuencing the

Turbulent Heat Release Rate Source Term and the Turbulent Burning Velocity, Combust. Flame 143, 227

245 (2005).

11. D. Bradley, M. Lawes, and M. S. Mansour, Correlation of Turbulent Burning Velocities of EthanolAir,

Measured in a Fan-Stirred Bomb up to 1.2 MPa, Combust. Flame 158, 123138 (2011).

12. D. Bradley, M. Lawes, and M. S. Mansour, Measurement of Turbulent Burning Velocities in Implosions at

High Pressures, Proc. Combust. Inst. 33, 12691275

(2011).

and Ducts, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A A370, 389714

(2012).

14. D. Bradley and G. T. Kalghatgi, Inuence of Autoignition Delay Time Characteristics of Dierent Fuels on

Pressure Waves and Knock in Reciprocating Engines,

Combust. Flame 156, 23072318 (2009).

15. A. E. Lutz, R. J. Kee, J. A. Miller, H. A. Dwyer,

and A. K. Oppenheim, Dynamic Eects of Autoignition Centers for Hydrogen and C1,2 -Hydrocarbon Fuels, Proc. Combust. Inst. 22, 16831693 (1988).

16. X. J. Gu, D. R. Emerson, and D. Bradley, Modes of

Reaction Front Propagation from Hot Spots, Combust.

Flame 133, 6374 (2003).

17. D. Bradley, C. Morley, X. J. Gu, and D. R. Emerson,

Amplied Pressure Waves during Autoignition: Relevance to CAI Engines, SAE Paper No. 2002-01-2868.

18. D. Bradley, X. J. Gu, and D. R. Emerson, Modes of Reaction Front Propagation from Hot Spots in Flammable

Gaseous Premixtures, in Proc. Fourth Int. Seminar on

Fire and Explosion Hazards 2004, Ed. by D. Bradley,

D. Drysdale, and V. Malkov (FireSERT, University of

Ulster, 2004), pp. 819828.

19. E. G. Oran and V. N. Gamezo, Origins of the

Deagration-to-Detonation Transition in Gas-Phase

Combustion, Combust. Flame 148, 447 (2007).

20. M. I. Radulescu, G. J. Sharpe, C. K. Law, and J. H. S.

Lee, The Hydrodynamic Structure of Unstable Cellular

Detonations, J. Fluid Mech. 580, 3181 (2007).

21. V. V. Voevodsky and R. I. Soloukhin, On the Mechanism and Explosion Limits of HydrogenOxygen Chain

Self-Ignition in Shock Waves, in Tenth Symp. (Int.) on

Combustion (The Combustion Inst., Pittsburgh, 1965),

pp. 279283.

22. J. W. Meyer and A. K. Oppenheim, On the ShockInduced Ignition of Explosive Gases, in Thirteenth

Symp. (Int.) on Combustion (1971), pp. 11531164.

23. M. I. Radulescu, Hoi Dick Ng, J. H. S. Lee, and

B. Varatharajan, The Eect of Argon Dilution on

the Stability of Acetylene/Oxygen Detonations, Proc.

Combust. Inst. 29, 28252831 (2002).

24. M. Short and G. J. Sharpe, Pulsating Instability of

Detonations with a Two-Step Chain-Branching Reaction Model: Theory and Numerics, Combust. Theory

Modelling 7, 401416 (2003).

25. Z. Liang, R. Browne, R. Deiterding, and J. E. Shepherd,

Detonation Front Structure and the Competition for

Radicals, Proc. Combust. Inst. 31, 24452453 (2007).

26. J. M. Austin, F. Pintgen, and J. E. Shepherd, Reaction

Zones in Highly Unstable Detonations, Proc. Combust.

Inst. 30, 18491857 (2005).

27. J. E. Shepherd, Detonation in Gases, Proc. Combust.

Inst. 32, 8398 (2009).

28. V. N. Gamezo, D. Desbordes, and E. S. Oran, Formation and Evolution of Two-Dimensional Cellular Detonations, Combust. Flame 116, 154165 (1999).

29. M. I. Radulescu and J. H. S. Lee, The Failure Mechanism of Gaseous Detonations: Experiments in Porous

Wall Tubes, Combust. Flame 131, 2946 (2002).

30. D. A. Kessler, V. N. Gamezo, and E. S. Oran, GasPhase Detonation Propagation in Composition Gradients, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A A370, 567596 (2012).

535

final Report of the Major Incident Investigation

Board, Vols. 1 and 2, (Bunceeld Major Incident Investigation Board, 2008); Crown copyright,

http://www.bunceeldinvestigation.gov.uk.

32. D. Bradley, G. A. Chamberlain, and D. D. Drysdale,

Large Vapour Cloud Explosions, with Particular Reference to that at Bunceeld, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A

A370, 544566 (2012).

- Combustible MetalsTransféré pargh0stj0k3r
- Gherghel Cristian F 201004 M.a.scTransféré parSaksham Patel
- petroleum coke utilization for cement kiln firingTransféré parvvijaybhan
- FMDS0604Transféré parHenry Suarez
- EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF PREMIXED FLAME OSCILLATIONS IN PRESSURES ABOVE ATMOSPHERICTransféré parmohammadmalek
- 8796658201Transféré parMohamadMostafavi
- Microsoft Word - Ventilation of Dom Nat Gas AppliancesTransféré parkhaledi10
- Effects of Diluents on Knock Rating of Gaseous FuelsTransféré parRajiv Srivastava
- October's Cozy NewsletterTransféré parJohn Corcoran
- CBEMS 45A F13: Practice FinalTransféré parFUSION Academics
- Various Methods for the Determination of the Burning GuptaTransféré parpraveen
- CamphorTransféré parDamo Daran G
- Braithwaite.pdfTransféré parLjupco Gorgievski
- 026MARTransféré parMrutunjay Patra
- science chapter 5 - the air around usTransféré parpremasarthy
- Chapter 2Transféré parPradeep Kumar
- Mandal Thermomechanics of transient oblique compaction shock reflection from a rigid boundaryGonthier Paper Shock WavesTransféré parbumbanirban
- 3d Modelling of Diesel and HCCI Engine CombustionTransféré pardjermounimohamed
- Cp in CombustionTransféré parAbhishek Mehta
- Constructii_2013_Vol.14_No.1_ID2013140110Transféré parmagda_adina
- combustionTransféré pargopalbarathi
- vol2no8Transféré parRamona Mihaela Verdes
- tile wasteTransféré parKhosro Sane
- Jet ControlsTransféré parJabez Richards
- Chapter 1Transféré parwandee2393
- Efficiency of the Engine of Great Porte and Detection of Anomalies in the Operation of the Piston-Cylinder System through the Monitoring in Real TimeTransféré parIJAERS JOURNAL
- M994_19.PDFTransféré pardanzan1
- Liquefaction Of GasTransféré parhanisshi
- LhvTransféré pardijayof87
- 1Transféré parHarshvardhan Gangurde

- 2013 Timothy Dickeson Ielts High Score VocabularyTransféré parmaxman110
- shockwavesTransféré parMustafa
- cnf guideTransféré parMustafa
- Week8_Assignment-8 Solutions.docxTransféré parMustafa
- Spanner ChartTransféré parRajesh Nair
- i-octane-t0Transféré parMustafa
- lipatnikovTransféré parMustafa
- Sample Title Page and Spine Sept2017Transféré parMustafa
- Startup ChillerTransféré parMustafa
- best dayTransféré parDeesho Deesho Deesho
- Price ListTransféré parDeesho Deesho Deesho
- vibrationpart2presentation-131203204559-phpapp02Transféré parMustafa
- 13074843-PliersTransféré parMustafa
- Proper Use of Pipe WrenchesTransféré parLeonard
- 214859093-best-day-of-my-lifeTransféré parMustafa
- coaster 30 PTransféré parMustafa

- FlameArresters_CEP_Dec2013.pdfTransféré paraysegul
- Combustion Theory (Fa Williams 2nd Ed 1985)Transféré parlilycai45
- ETL Flame Arrester GuideTransféré parSantanu Karar
- S. F. Son- Energetic Materials Combustion Laboratory (EMCL)Transféré parAlarmak
- Protego- DetonatorTransféré parShah Mohammad Aasim
- Gesamt EnglischTransféré pardzung
- Evaluating Vapor Cloud Explosions Using a Flame Acceleration Method 7 42Transféré parralph1949
- Guide Overfill PreventionTransféré parashumishra007
- Modelling of Deflagration Establishing Material Data Into ANSYS Autodyns Powder Burn Model (2)Transféré parAli Javed
- Flammability Characteristics of Combustible Gases and VaporsTransféré parrohl55
- FSA Technical Guidance Rev (ADCO)Transféré paroarriesgado
- Near-Field Explosion Effects on Reinforced Concrete Columns: An Experimental InvestigationTransféré parFarouk Siba
- Explosions in Methane O2 N2 Mixtures in VesselsTransféré parCarlos Rivera Montes
- Dust Explosion Scenario PaperTransféré parShishir_Kadam_2138
- IRTB-Module-03-PG-01.2017Transféré parAdam Thimmig
- ProtegoTransféré parHakim Yahiaoui
- Ec Type CertificatesTransféré parHai Pham Van
- PDE Tech.pdfTransféré pardagger21
- Blast Resistant Design with Structural Steel.pdfTransféré parMatthieu
- Part 9 - Fire FightingTransféré parJohnSmith
- FC1 Flash Cards 1 NeboshTransféré parShaun
- Pressure Relief, Flares, Flame Arrestors.pdfTransféré parRenan
- gesamt_KA_1_GB - Válvula corta chama para tanque.pdfTransféré parCarlos Bernussi
- The Objective of This Discussion is Best Achieved by Classifying Explosives According to the Generally Accepted ClassificationsTransféré parchandanarw
- Fluent 6.0 Staff Training Combustion and DPMTransféré parZakMan
- Combustible Dust Explosions and Fires-ATEX_ Staubexplosion German Pellet MillTransféré parIvan Briscoe
- Fire and ExplosionTransféré parhiperion42
- Classification Thresholds EUDSD EUCLP GHS PurpleBookTransféré parbta0615
- Laminar Flamelet Concepts in Turbulent CombustionTransféré parMohamad Adzariat
- 12-Fire Protection Considerations for Venting in Industrial and Storage BuildingsTransféré parGaston Melgratti