4.5 Article

The free radical mechanism of the effects of different metal materials on hydrogen explosion

Journal

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY & FUELS
Volume 7, Issue 6, Pages 1544-1554

Publisher

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d3se00022b

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of magnetic materials on hydrogen explosion was investigated through experiments and simulations. It was found that aluminium wires inhibit hydrogen explosion when the volume fraction of hydrogen is below 20%, while nickel wires promote it. On the other hand, when the volume fraction of hydrogen is above 25%, aluminium wires promote hydrogen explosion while nickel wires inhibit it. In general, the ferromagnetic nickel wires have a better effect in inhibiting and promoting hydrogen explosion compared to aluminium wires, due to the induced magnetic field generated during the explosion process that influences key radicals in the chain reaction.
To investigate the effect of magnetic materials on hydrogen explosion, experiments on the effect of antimagnetic aluminium wires and ferromagnetic nickel wires on hydrogen explosion are carried out, using CHEMKIN-PRO software to simulate the free radical chain reaction process during hydrogen explosion. The results show that aluminium and nickel wires inhibit and promote the hydrogen explosion when the volume fraction of hydrogen is below 20% and above 25%, respectively. In general, the ferromagnetic nickel wires inhibit and promote the hydrogen explosion better than the aluminium wires. The ferromagnetic nickel wires are able to generate an induced magnetic field during the explosion process, which further influences the key radicals such as center dot H, center dot O, and center dot OH in the hydrogen explosion chain reaction, thus resulting in the inhibition and promotion of hydrogen explosion by the nickel wires being stronger than that of the aluminium wires.

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