Estimation of peak pressure for sonic-vented hydrocarbon explosions in spherical vessels

Epstein, Michael; Swift, Ian; Fauske, H.K.

doi:10.1016/0010-2180(86)90027-1

Cited by 31 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, usually a constant (averaged) turbulence factor is applied. This is a simplification stemming from the conclusion by Epstein et al [24], who attempted to employ a variable turbulence factor in their analysis: "it seems best to employ a constant turbulence correction factor and gain the corresponding simplicity, rather than to carry more elaborate equations through a train of numerical computations whose accuracy is also limited to only a narrow range of experimental conditions".…”

Section: Experimental Database For Validation Of the Correlationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Hydrogen–air deflagrations: Vent sizing correlation for low-strength equipment and buildings

Molkov

Bragin

2015

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t This paper aims to improve prediction capability of the vent sizing correlation presented in the form of functional dependence of the dimensionless deflagration overpressure on the turbulent Bradley number similar to our previous studies. The correlation is essentially upgraded based on recent advancements in understanding and modelling of combustion phenomena relevant to hydrogeneair vented deflagrations and unique large-scale tests carried out by different research groups. The focus is on hydrogeneair deflagrations in low-strength equipment and buildings when the reduced pressure is accepted to be below 0.1 MPa. The combustion phenomena accounted for by the correlation include: turbulence generated by the flame front itself; leading point mechanism stemming from the preferential diffusion of hydrogen in air in stretched flames; growth of the fractal area of the turbulent flame surface; initial turbulence in the flammable mixture; as well as effects of enclosure aspect ratio and presence of obstacles. The correlation is validated against the widest range of experimental conditions available to date (76 experimental points). The validation covers a wide range of test conditions: different shape enclosures of volume up to 120 m 3 ; initially quiescent and turbulent hydrogeneair mixtures; hydrogen concentration in air from 6% to 30% by volume; ignition source location at enclosure centre, near and far from a vent; empty enclosures and enclosures with obstacles.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Database For Validation Of the Correlationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Hydrogen–air deflagrations: Vent sizing correlation for low-strength equipment and buildings

Molkov

Bragin

2015

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The overpressure consequences of deflagration in an (assumed) unvented vessel can be estimated with Eq. (6-27) (mislabeled as [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] in the reference) from Epstein and Burelbach (1998a): Epstein and Burelbach (1998a) calculated overpressure using a density ratio of 6.89 for a stoichiometric H 2 /air mixture and an effective adiabatic exponent of 1.08 that was based on typical hydrocarbon-air mixtures (Epstein et al 1986). Van Wylen and Sonntag (1973) presented adiabatic exponents of 1.4 for H 2 , 1.32 for CH 4 , 1.12 for propane, 1.09 for butane, 1.33 for water vapor, 1.28 for CO 2 , and 1.4 for air.…”

Section: Transient Global Release Mixed-layer Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hydrogen Gas Retention and Release from WTP Vessels: Summary of Preliminary Studies

Gauglitz

Bontha

Daniel

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 What is an appropriate mixing metric/requirement that corresponds to adequate gas release and can this requirement be used as an alternative to conducting gas release testing? Do the simulants used in previous gas release testing adequately represent actual waste at plant conditions and what is the most suitable simulant for any planned gas release testing? What is the quantity of hydrogen that could be retained and released during normal, abnormal, and post-design-basis event operations for a range of imperfect mixing conditions (i.e., how much margin is allowed in targeting complete bottom clearing and complete vessel motion)? What is the quantity of hydrogen that can be retained and released in low-solids vessels? What is the margin in the current hydrogen generation rate estimates?Specific test and analysis objectives were identified for each of these questions and subsequently documented in a test plan; however, no technical activities were completed under the test plan for addressing these technical questions. iv S.2 Results and Performance Against Success CriteriaSuccess criteria were developed for each testing and analysis objective and documented in the project test plan; however, no technical activities were completed on the objectives under the test plan. Accordingly, no results are available to compare against the success criteria.

show abstract

“…The nomenclature used is the same as given in [19]. This equation can be readily integrated to give an expression defining the vessel pressure Pk in terms of the dimensionless burn volume.…”

Section: Flame Speed Derivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developments in explosion protection

Swift¹

1988

Plant/Oper. Prog.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Estimation of peak pressure for sonic-vented hydrocarbon explosions in spherical vessels

Cited by 31 publications

References 3 publications

Hydrogen–air deflagrations: Vent sizing correlation for low-strength equipment and buildings

Hydrogen–air deflagrations: Vent sizing correlation for low-strength equipment and buildings

Hydrogen Gas Retention and Release from WTP Vessels: Summary of Preliminary Studies

Developments in explosion protection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About