Josue MelguizoGavilanes amp Luc Bauwens University of Calgary 4 th International Conference on Hydrogen Safety San Francisco CA USA September 1214 2011 Motivation Possible use of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation ID: 1022723
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Shock-initiated ignition for hydrogen mi..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Shock-initiated ignition for hydrogen mixtures of different concentrationsJosue Melguizo-Gavilanes, & Luc BauwensUniversity of Calgary4th International Conference on Hydrogen SafetySan Francisco, CA USA September 12-14, 2011
2. MotivationPossible use of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation.Hydrogen: burns without releasing CO2 + buoyant + detonates easily = ??? Hydrogen storage and handling remains an issue (i.e. risk of detonation)We need: Improved understanding of relevant scientific issues.
3. ObjectivesRelevant Scientific IssuesClarification of the physics of shock-initiated ignition and detonation waves.Study how chemical kinetics affect the ignition dynamics of combustible mixtures.Relationship with deflagration to detonation transition (DDT).Advance the understanding of the role played by chain-branching and its key features on DDT.
4. BackgroundTwo modes of combustion: Deflagrations and Detonations.Deflagration: subsonic combustion waveDetonation: supersonic combustion wave (reacting shock wave). First experimental evidence of detonations in 1881 by Berthelot & Vieille and by Mallard & Le Châtelier.First theory in 1905 by Chapman and Jouguet, independently.
5. BackgroundTwo means of initiating a detonation Direct Initiation & deflagration to detonation transition (DDT).DDTOrdinary, relatively slow flame, accelerates and suddenly turns into a much destructive detonation wave.Difficult outstanding problem in combustion science.Most likely means of initiating a detonation in an accidental explosion.
6. The ProblemNumerical simulation of ignition behind a shock moving into combustible mixture.Ignition behind leading shock, evolution and appearance of a detonation Sequence of events identified in many DDT scenarios.Simulations Short & Dold (1996), Sharpe & Short (2004-2007), Sharpe & Maflahi (2006), Melguizo-Gavilanes et. al (2010) and others.
7. Formulation: Governing equations & chemistryOne dimensional Euler’s equations for reactive, inviscid, non-conducting flowsThree-steps: Initiation, branching and termination heat release associated with termination only
8. Formulation: Initial and Boundary ConditionsLeft boundary: Fresh incoming combustible mixtureConditions ahead of the shock given by:Right boundary: Inert/burnt mixtureλ1=1 & λ2=0 λ1=0 & λ2=0
9. Formulation: ChallengesInitial conditions are singular at t=0, shock separates uniform supersonic flow of unburnt mixture from burnt/inert mixtureNon-existence of initial domain where chemistry takes place (shocked unburnt mixture) on spatial (x) grid
10. Formulation: TransformationTransforming the problem from x and t as independent variables to and t yields a finite domain at t=0
11. Formulation: Initial ConditionsNormal GridTransformed gridNormal grid
12. Formulation: Initial ConditionsMs=0.7011, ps=ρs=Ts=1.0, us= ub=0, Tb=4.0 Plot of pressure at t=0Plot of temperature at t=0
13. Formulation: Boundary ConditionsLeft Boundary Condition: Fresh incoming combustible mixture Right Boundary Condition: Burnt/inert mixtureDomain Length: On left, η < 0, smaller than the opposite of the speed of the shock. On right ηmax greater than the local speed of sound.λ1=1 & λ2=0 λ1=0 & λ2=0
14. Numerical SchemeShock Capturing SchemeEssentially Non-Oscillatory for space integration and Runge-Kutta for time integration (2nd Order Accurate)Flux limiting near shocksParallelized using MPI (Message Passing Interface)Proper implementation requires a careful derivation of the CFL conditionShort-time asymptotics is used to derive our initial conditions
15. Results: Hot Spot Formationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 1: Hot spot formation for Q=2 at times t = 7.131, 7.727, 8.372, 8.714, and 9.071. Left: Pressure profiles. Right: Temperature profiles.
16. Results: Hot Spot Formationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 2: Hot spot formation for Q=6 at times t = 7.131, 7.573, 7.727, 7.883, and 8.042. Left: Pressure profiles. Right: Temperature profiles.
17. Results: Hot Spot Formationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 3: Hot spot formation for Q=8 at times t = 6.989, 7.276, 7.423, 7.573, and 7.727. Left: Pressure profiles. Right: Temperature profiles.
18. Results: Transition to Detonationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 4: Transition to detonation for Q=2 at times t = 10.649, 11.538, 12.501, 13.545, 14.675, 15.901, 17.228 and 17.932. Left: Pressure profiles. Right: Temperature profiles.
19. Results: Transition to Detonationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 5: Mass fraction profiles for Q=2 at times t = 10.649, 11.538, 12.501, 13.545, 14.675, 15.901, 17.228 and 17.932.
20. Results: Transition to Detonationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 6: Transition to detonation for Q=6 at times t = 8.206, 8.372, 8.714, 9.071, 9.442, 10.230, 11.084, 12.009 and 13.012. Left: Pressure profiles. Right: Temperature profiles.
21. Results: Transition to Detonationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 7: Mass fraction profiles for Q=6 at times t = 8.206, 8.372, 8.714, 9.071, 9.442, 10.230, 11.084, 12.009 and 13.012.
22. Results: Transition to Detonationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 8: Transition to detonation for Q=8 at times t = 8.043, 8.372, 8.714, 9.442, 10.230, 11.084, and 12.009. Left: Pressure profiles. Right: Temperature profiles.
23. Results: Transition to Detonationγ=1.4, TB=0.9, EB=8.0, TI=3.0, EI=20 and 102,400 grid pointsFigure 9: Mass fraction profiles for Q=8 at times t = 8.043, 8.372, 8.714, 9.442, 10.230, 11.084, and 12.009.
24. ConclusionsThe scenario of shock-induced ignition was analyzed using a three-step chain-branching kinetic scheme which attempts to model properly the key feature of hydrogen mixtures.Results show that as the heat release is increased: - ignition takes place faster. - the location where the secondary shock forms, and a fully developed detonation appears occurs closer to the contact surface. - The pressure and temperature maxima for both stages of the process, hot spot formation, and transition to detonation, attain higher values.For all cases simulated, except for Q = 2, transition to detonation took place before merging of the resulting structure with the leading shock.
25. ConclusionsThe approach proposed was shown to be effective to tackle the difficult problem of shock-induced ignition. The propagation of pressure and temperature disturbances, their steepening into a secondary shock, and subsequent transition to detonation was properly captured by our current framework.
26. AcknowledgementsWork supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the H2Can Strategic Network
27. References[1] Sharpe, G.J. and Short, M. (2007) Ignition of thermally Sensitive Explosives between a Contact Surface and a Shock. Physics of Fluids, 19:126102.[2] Short, M. and Quirk, J.J. (1997) On the non-linear stability and detonability limit of a detonation wave for a model three step chain-branching reaction, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 339:89.[3] Sharpe, G.J., Maflahi, N. (2006) Homogeneous explosion and shock initiation for a three-step chainbranching reaction model, J.Fluid Mech., 566:163.[4] Clarke, J.F., Nikiforakis, N.N. (1999) Remarks on diffusionless combustion, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 357:3605.[5] Melguizo-Gavilanes, J., Rezaeyan, N., Lopez-Aoyagi, M. and Bauwens, L. (2010) Simulation of shock-initiated ignition, Shock Waves, 20:467.[6] Bedard-Tremblay,L.,Melguizo-Gavilanes,J. and Bauwens, L. (2009) Detonation structure under chain-branching kinetics with small initiation rate, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, 32:2339.[7] Melguizo-Gavilanes, J., Rezaeyan, N., Tian, M. and Bauwens, L. (2010) Shock-induced ignition with single step Arrhenius kinetics, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36:2374.