Van den Schoor F, Hermanns R T E, van Oijen J A, Verplaetsen F, de Goey L P H
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Celestijnenlaan 300A, 3001 Heverlee, Leuven, Belgium.
J Hazard Mater. 2008 Feb 11;150(3):573-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.05.006. Epub 2007 May 10.
Different methods, both experimental and numerical, to determine the flammability limits are compared and evaluated, exemplified by a determination of the flammability limits of methane/hydrogen/air mixtures for hydrogen fuel molar fractions of 0, 0.2, 0.4 and 0.6, at atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature. Two different experimental methods are used. The first method uses a glass tube with visual observation of the flame, whereas the second method uses a closed spherical vessel with a pressure rise criterion to determine whether flame propagation has occurred. In addition to these experiments, the flammability limits are determined numerically. Unsteady planar and spherically expanding flames are calculated with a one-dimensional flame code with the inclusion of radiation heat loss in the optically thin limit. Comparison of the experimental results with the results of the planar flame calculations shows large differences, especially for lean mixtures. These differences increase with increasing hydrogen content in the fuel. Better agreement with the experimental results is found for the spherically expanding flame calculations. A limiting burning velocity of 5 cm/s is found to predict the upper flammability limit determined with the tube method very well, whereas the limiting flame temperature approach was found to give poorer agreement. Further analysis indicates that the neglect of flame front instabilities is the probable cause of the large differences between experimental and numerical results at the lower flammability limit.
本文以大气压和环境温度下,氢气燃料摩尔分数分别为0、0.2、0.4和0.6的甲烷/氢气/空气混合物的可燃极限测定为例,对用于确定可燃极限的不同方法(包括实验方法和数值方法)进行了比较和评估。使用了两种不同的实验方法。第一种方法使用带有火焰视觉观察的玻璃管,而第二种方法使用具有压力上升标准的封闭球形容器来确定是否发生了火焰传播。除了这些实验之外,还通过数值方法确定了可燃极限。使用一维火焰代码计算非稳态平面火焰和球对称膨胀火焰,并考虑光学薄极限下的辐射热损失。将实验结果与平面火焰计算结果进行比较,发现存在很大差异,尤其是对于贫燃料混合物。这些差异随着燃料中氢气含量的增加而增大。球对称膨胀火焰计算结果与实验结果的吻合度更好。发现5 cm/s的极限燃烧速度能够很好地预测用玻璃管法确定的可燃上限,而极限火焰温度方法的吻合度较差。进一步分析表明,忽略火焰前沿不稳定性可能是导致在可燃下限处实验结果与数值结果存在较大差异的原因。