| Chapter 6 | |
Detonations |
|
| Links to contents | foreword | Chapters 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | animations | acknowledgements | references | comments | |
A detonation is the most devastating form of gas explosion. Unlike the
deflagration, a detonation does not require confinement or obstructions
in order to propagate at high velocity. Particularly in an unconfined situation,
the behaviour of a detonation is quite different from a deflagration. A
detonation is defined as a supersonic combustion wave (i.e. the
detonation front propagates into unburned gas at a velocity higher than
the speed of sound in front of the wave). The gas ahead of a detonation
is therefore undisturbed by the detonation wave. In fuel-air mixtures at
atmospheric pressure, the detonation velocity is typically 1500 - 2000
m/s and the peak pressure is 15-20 bar.
Transition to detonation, propagation and transmission of detonation
waves, depend strongly on the reactivity of the gas cloud.
The objective of this chapter is:
Detonation waves were observed experimentally more than 100 years ago.
Chapman and Jouguet were the first to present a theory describing this
supersonic combustion wave, propagating at a unique velocity. The C-J (Chapman-Jouguet)
theory (Fickett and Davis, 1979) treats the detonation wave as a discontinuity
with infinite reaction rate. The conservation equations for mass, momentum
and energy across the one-dimensional wave gives a unique solution for
the detonation velocity (CJ-velocity) and the state of combustion products
immediately behind the detonation wave. Based on the CJ-theory it is possible
to calculate detonation velocity, detonation pressure etc. if the gas mixture
is known. The CJ-theory does not require any information about the
chemical reaction rate (i.e. chemical kinetics).
| Table 6.1. | CJ-pressure and CJ-detonation velocity for some fuel-air mixtures.
Initial conditions 25°C and 1.013 bar (Baker et al. 1983). |
|
Hydrogen |
Ethylene |
Propane |
Methane |
|
|
CJ-Pressure (bar) |
15.8 |
18.6 |
18.6 |
17.4 |
|
CJ-Velocity (m/s) |
1968 |
1822 |
1804 |
1802 |
During World War II, Zeldovich, Döring and von Neumann improved
the CJ-model by taking the reaction rate into account. As shown in Figure
6.2 the ZND-model describes the detonation wave as a shock wave, immediately
followed by a reaction zone (i.e. flame). The thickness of this zone is
given by the reaction rate. The ZND-theory gives the same detonation velocities
and pressures as the CJ-theory, the only difference between the two models
is the thickness of the wave.

| Figure 6.1. | CJ detonation velocity and pressure for ethylene-air. |
An actual detonation is a three-dimensional shock wave followed by a reaction zone. The leading shock consists of curved shock segments. At the detachment lines between these shock segments, the shock wave interacts in a Mach stem configuration. A two-dimensional illustration of the actual structure is given in Figure 6.2.


| Figure 6.2. | ZND structure and pattern of an actual structure of a detonation front. The characteristic length scale of the cell pattern, the cell size, l, is shown in the figure. |
The size of the fish shell pattern generated by the triple point (Mach
stem) of the shock wave is a measure of the reactivity of the mixture representing
a length scale characterising the overall chemical reaction in the wave
(Lee, 1984). This length scale, l, is often
the cell size or the cell width. The more reactive the mixture, the smaller
the cell size. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 show the detonation cell size versus
fuel concentration for several fuel-air mixtures.

| Figure 6.3. | Cell size vs. fuel concentration for acetylene, ethylene and hydrogen in air (25°C and 1 atm) (Shepherd et al., 1991). |

| Figure 6.4. | Cell size vs. fuel concentration for ethylene, propane and methane in air (25°C and 1 atm) (Shepherd et al., 1991). |
The cell size is measured experimentally and there are some variations
in the reported results. Variations of a factor of two is not uncommon.
The cell size, l, is a parameter which is
of practical importance. The transition from deflagration to detonation,
propagation and transmission to detonation, can to some extent be evaluated
based on the knowledge of the cell size of the mixture. This will be discussed
in the following sections.
6.2 Rarefaction Wave Behind Detonation
Front
So far we have discussed the detonation pressure (i.e. CJ-pressure)
of a detonation front. After the detonation front (CJ-plane) the combustion
products will expand. This expansion will depend on the boundary conditions.

| Figure 6.5. | Pressure-distance profile for a detonation propagation in a tube with a closed end (i.e. closed at x = 0). |
The expansion of the combustion products forming a detonation wave propagating
in a tube (i.e. one-dimensional propagation) is illustrated in Figure
6.5. The tube is closed at x = 0 and propagates from left to right. When
the detonation is at x = L, the tail of the expansion wave will be located
at approximately x = L/2 which means that the tail of the expansion wave
propagates at half of the detonation velocity for this boundary condition.
The expansion process between the wave front (CJ-conditions) and tail of
the expansion wave can be approximated as being isentropic.
In this case the pipe is closed at x = 0. The boundary condition at
x = 0 is therefore gas velocity equal to zero (u = 0 m/s). For this boundary
condition the pressure will expand to P »
0.4 PCJ. Note that this pressure is approximately
the same as the constant volume combustion pressure. This pressure will
be constant from x = 0 to the tail of the rarefaction wave (i.e. x »
L/2).
For other boundary conditions, u ¹ 0
m/s, the pressure will vary with the boundary conditions. The mode of propagation
for the detonation, i.e. spherical or planar mode, will influence the expansion
slope behind the wave.
6.3 Deflagration to Detonation
Transition (DDT)
When a deflagration becomes sufficiently strong, a sudden transition
from deflagration to detonation can occur. This has been observed in several
experiments, especially in those involving very reactive mixtures, such
as near-Stoichiometric acetylene-air, hydrogen-air or fuels with oxygen-enriched
atmospheres.
There are also some examples of deflagration to detonation transition
in fuel-air mixtures with moderate reactivity.
i) In one CMR experiment (Hjertager et al. , 1988) in the 10 m long
wedge-shaped vessel with Stoichiometric propane-air, 100% top confinement
and circular obstructions, transition to detonation was observed. This
experiment shows that a propane-air explosion initiated with a weak ignition
source, can accelerate to a detonation in less than 10 m, if sufficient
confinement and obstructions are present.
ii) Moen et al. (1985 and 1989) have observed transition to detonation
due to jet flames. In one test they reported transition to detonation in
a lean mixture of acetylene-air (5% C2H2) in an essentially
unconfined situation. The transition to detonation was caused by a jet-flame
shooting into the unconfined cloud. These experiments demonstrated that
detonations can be induced in an unconfined fuel-air cloud with moderate
reaction rates as long as the size of the cloud is large.
iii) British Gas experiments (Acton et al., 1990) in a pipe rack geometry
also showed transition to detonation for propane-air. Transition to detonation
occurred after 15 m. This experiment showed that in relatively "open"
situations, such as a pipe bridge, the geometry can support flame acceleration
to detonation.
These experiments show that transition to detonation can be obtained
by flame acceleration due to obstacles and confinement or if a jet flame
is shot out from an opening in a confined volume into an unconfined cloud.
The mechanism of transition to detonation is not fully understood. Presently
there is no theory which can predict conditions for deflagration to detonation
transition. We have only a qualitative understanding of the phenomenon;
it is likely that local explosions within explosions cause transition to
detonation. The size of these localised explosions must be of the order
of 10 times the cell size (Moen, private comm.).
From a practical point of view, it is important to recognise that transition
to detonation will cause extremely high pressures in the area where the
transition takes place.
Figure 6.6 shows a pressure-time profile from an experiment where transition
to detonation occurred. The first pressure rise at t = 2510 µsec.
is the shock wave which compresses the unburned gas. The pressure continues
to rise after the shock wave, and subsequently a transition to detonation
occurs. Due to this pre-compression, the detonation pressure in the transition
process is much higher than the pressure in a stabilised detonation wave
(i.e. CJ-pressure).

| Figure 6.6. | Pressure-time profile from a pressure transducer located close to an area of transition to detonation (Engebretsen, 1991). |
In an accident situation where transition to detonation has occurred,
localised damage can be observed. One example is an accidental explosion
inside a pipe. At one particular position the pipe was expanded radially,
as shown below:

| Figure 6.7. | Transition to detonation in a pipe. A case history. |
In this case the pipe was able to withstand CJ-pressure, but the pressure
at the location where the transition to detonation took place represented
a force exceeding the strength of the pipe.
6.4 Propagation and Transmission
of Detonation Wave
From the CJ-theory, the detonation velocity and pressure can be predicted,
not depending on the geometrical conditions. However, the propagation and
transmission of a detonation are limited by geometrical conditions. The
limited conditions are controlled by the sensitivity of gas mixtures and
length scale of the geometry. As discussed in section
6.1, the cell size is a length scale characterising the reactivity
of the mixture. By using these two length scales, the conditions for successful
propagation and transmission can be evaluated.

| Figure 6.8. | Requirements for successful propagation of a planar detonation in pipes and channels. |
Figure 6.8 shows detonation propagation limits within pipes and channels.
We see that a pipe is more supportive of detonation propagation than a
channel.

| Figure 6.9. | Requirements for successful transmission of a planar detonation into an unconfined three-dimensional spherical detonation wave. |
Figure 6.9 shows requirements for a successful planar detonation transmission
from a pipe or channel into an unconfined situation (i.e. three-dimensional
spherical detonation wave). In order to make a successful transmission,
there is a need for more cells than for the planar propagation mode. The
information in Figure 6.9 is useful in evaluating the possibility for transmission
of a detonation from a confined area, like a building, ventilation duct,
culvert etc. into an unconfined situation.
The requirement for propagation in an unconfined cloud is shown in Figure
6.10.

| Figure 6.10. | Limit for propagation of detonation waves in an unconfined fuel-air cloud. |
6.5 Estimating Detonation Loads
To estimate the CJ-values for gas mixtures the STANJAN-program can be
used. This may be acquired from Prof. W.C. Reynolds at Stanford University
(see STANJAN in the References).
The probability of occurrence of a detonation in fuel-air mixtures depends
strongly upon the type of fuel. Very reactive fuels, such as hydrogen,
acetylene or ethylene, may detonate in an accident situation. For accident
situations involving such fuels, detonations should be regarded as a possible
scenario.
Other fuels are less likely to detonate. In particular no data exist
on detonations involving pure methane-air. Generally, however, in large
gas clouds with a high degree of confinement and/or with a high density
of obstructions, detonations cannot be ruled out.
Presently the most effective way of mitigating the occurrence of a detonation
is to avoid situations where the deflagration can accelerate to a condition
where transition from deflagration is possible, i.e. high pressure deflagrations.
The CJ-detonation pressure can be calculated by codes like STANJAN.
Such data can be used for stable detonation waves. However, in the event
of transition from deflagration to detonation, pressure spikes much higher
than the CJ-values (see Figure 6.6) appear.
Propagation and transmission of detonation waves depend mainly on the
cell size (i.e. type of fuel and fuel concentration) and geometrical conditions.
By operating with geometrical dimensions (d, w, h) smaller than the limits
indicated in Figures 6.8-6.10, it is very unlikely that a stable detonation
will occur.
The cell size as a measure of detonability is not an exact number. In
the literature a variation of a factor of two is often found. When using
cell sizes for estimation of limiting conditions for successful propagation
or transmission, they should be regarded as approximate values. Hence safety
factors should be used.
| Links to contents | foreword | Chapters 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | animations | acknowledgements | references | comments |