4.7 Article

Effect of vent area on vented deflagration of hydrogen-methane-air mixtures

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 46, 期 9, 页码 6992-6999

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.11.123

关键词

Explosion venting; Hythane; Vent area; Overpressure; Flame

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51704079]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the effect of vent area on the deflagration of hydrogen-methane-air mixtures in a vertical duct, finding that the nondimensional vent coefficient had varying impacts on flame evolution and pressure buildup. Different K-v values led to differences in pressure distribution inside and outside the duct, with external explosions affecting internal deflagrations to a lesser extent at higher K-v values.
In this study, experiments on the vented deflagration of hydrogen-methane-air mixtures were performed in a vertical rectangular duct with a vent at its top end. A nondimensional vent coefficient (K-v) was employed to characterize the effects of vent area (A(v)) on flame evolution and pressure buildup within and outside the duct. The maximum internal overpressure was attained near the duct bottom for a certain K-v. As K-v was increased from 2.2 to 11.9, the maximum internal overpressure near the vent and at the center of the duct increased monotonically; however, a nonmonotonic trend was observed at the duct bottom. Helmholtz oscillations of the internal flame and overpressure were observed in the tests for low Kv, and acoustic oscillations of the internal overpressure with a frequency of similar to 1200 Hz appeared in all tests. The maximum external overpressure first increased and then decreased with an increase in K-v. The external explosion induced a pressure peak in the duct, and the effect of external explosion on the venting of the internal deflagrations was weakened as K-v > 7.8. (C) 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据