4.5 Article

Study on the inhibition influence on gas explosions by metal foam based on its density and coal dust

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2018.09.009

Keywords

Gas explosion; Metal foam; Density; Coal dust; Explosion suppression and isolation

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC0805201]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51504251]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of Heilongjiang of China [QC2015054]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Mining Response and Disaster Prevention and Control in Deep Coal Mine, China [KLDCMERDPC16102]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Metal foam is another type of material that can inhibit gas explosion flames and pressure waves. However, there are continuous explosions and coal dust explosions in the coal mine; thus, research on metal foam's inhibition performance under the environment of coal dust and its destructive characteristics after the explosion are necessary. We studied the suppression influence and destruction of metal foam used as a gas explosion transfer device designed for this research. First, a barrier performance experiment was conducted using metal foam whose density ranged from 0.33 to 0.54 g/cm(3). Then, we examined the deformation and damage characteristics of different-density metal foams after the explosion. The experimental results demonstrate that the ability to suppress the explosion is better when the volume density of the metal foam is high. There is no obvious damage or deformation when the density is heavier than 0.5 g/cm(3); thus, it could be resistant to the impact of the secondary explosion. Second, 5-100 g of coal dust was added in the pipe, and the inhibition performance of the metal foam was reduced. Especially, 50 g of coal dust can raise the explosion overpressure and flame speed. The quality of coal powder can reduce the barrier performance in a specified range.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available