i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Vented explosion overpressures from combustion

of hydrogen and hydrocarbon mixtures

C.R. Bauwens, J. Chaffee, S.B. Dorofeev*

FM Global, Research Division, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, Norwood, MA 02061, USA

article info abstract

Article history: Experimental data obtained for hydrogen mixtures in a room-size enclosure are presented
Received 1 February 2010 and compared with data for propane and methane mixtures. This set of data was also used
Received in revised form to develop a three-dimensional gasdynamic model for the simulation of gaseous
30 March 2010 combustion in vented enclosures. The experiments were performed in a 64 m3 chamber
Accepted 1 April 2010 with dimensions of 4.6
4.6
3.0 m and a vent opening on one side and vent areas of
Available online 21 May 2010 either 2.7 or 5.4 m2 were used. Tests were performed for three ignition locations, at the wall
opposite the vent, at the center of the chamber or at the center of the wall containing the
Keywords: vent. Hydrogeneair mixtures with concentrations close 18% vol. were compared with
Explosions stoichiometric propaneeair and methaneeair mixtures. Pressure data, as function of time,
Hydrogen and flame time-of-arrival data were obtained both inside and outside the chamber near the
Venting vent. Modeling was based on a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) solver created using the
Modeling OpenFOAM CFD toolbox using sub-grid turbulence and flame wrinkling models. A
comparison of these simulations with experimental data is discussed.
ª 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Explosion venting can be used to prevent or minimize damage
to an enclosure by relieving the pressure generated within the
volume and is an important engineering loss prevention
solution. Experimentally, the subject of vented explosions has
been widely studied with research performed over a range of
scales, from laboratory scale tests (see, e.g., [1]) to large-scale
tests (see, e.g., Refs. [2e4]). Factors contributing to the pres-
sure build-up in vented explosions have been extensively
studied [1e8].
Analytical models and empirical correlations have also
been developed (see, e.g., Refs. [8e11]), a number of which
have been included in engineering guidelines [12,13]. These
correlations, however, often have conflicting recommenda-
tions. This is due to the complex nature of the process itself, as
mentioned above, and the influence of other factors that can
affect the peak overpressure, such as size and shape of the
enclosure, the mixture being burned, the type of vent and vent
deployment pressure, congestion or obstacles inside the
chamber and the ignition location.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations of ven-
ted explosions, and the comparison of these simulations with
experimental data [4,14,15], have shown some of the chal-
lenges in adequately modeling the major physical
phenomena. Although there are a few examples of successful
CFD applications for several selected tests, such as [15], it is
not unusual to find CFD predictions that are off the test results
by more than an order of magnitude.
Because of the limited reliability of the current methods for
the prediction of pressure generation during a vented explo-
sion, a research project was initiated with the goals of
generating a parametric set of experimental data as well as
developing and validating a computational code and new

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sergey.dorofeev@fmglobal.com (S.B. Dorofeev).
0360-3199/$ e see front matter ª 2010 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.04.005
2330 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6
engineering tools. The first part was performed for low reac-
tivity stoichiometric methaneeair mixtures [16]. Another
study examined the effect of the RayleigheTaylor instability
on flame propagation [17]. The lean hydrogen mixtures used
in the present study, however, present additional challenges.
This is mainly due to two factors. First, that the Dar-
rieuseLandau (DL) flame instability is enhanced by thermal
diffusion effects, which results in a significant increase in the
flame surface for lean hydrogen mixtures. The second chal-
lenge is the effect of the Lewis number on the rate of change of
the turbulent burning velocity with respect to the turbulent
intensity. Currently, the strength of these effects is not known
well enough to be reliably modeled. Comparisons with stoi-
chiometric methaneeair and propaneeair mixtures illustrate
the significant differences caused by these instabilities and
yield some insight on how to model them.
The objectives of the present work are to (i) examine the
similarities and differences between three mixtures of similar
laminar flame speed, 18% hydrogeneair, 9.5% methaneeair
and 4.0% propaneeair; and (ii) test an extension to the
numerical CFD model developed in the previous study and
identify its capabilities and deficiencies to describe the
physics responsible for the pressure build-up.
2. Experiments
The data presented here were obtained from experiments
performed in a 64 m3 explosion test chamber. The overall
dimensions of the chamber were 4.6
3.0
4.6 m with
a square vent of either 5.4 m2, or 2.7 m2 located on one of the
vertical walls. Four chamber pressure transducers were
mounted to the chamber, one at the center of the wall opposite
the vent, one on the wall containing the vent, and two on a wall
perpendicular to the vent (one on-axis with the center of the
chamber, one off-axis), (see Fig. 1). Twenty flame time-of-
arrival thermocouples, at a height of 1.4 m above the floor of
the chamber, were placed at 0.5 m intervals inside the chamber
Fig. 1 e Chamber geometry and instrumentation, showing: pressure transducers (rectangles), thermocouples (circles) and
blast-wave transducers (triangles).
along two axes and at 1 m intervals outside of the chamber.
Two blast-wave pressure transducers were installed in
a concrete slab outside of the chamber, below the line of
thermocouples at a height of 0.3 m above the ground, 1.17 m
and 3.45 m from the vent. One high speed and four low speed
cameras were used to observe the tests, either directed into the
chamber or directed outside to capture the external explosion.
Data was collected using a 32 channel high speed data acqui-
sition system sampling at a rate of 25,000 scans/s.
The initial mixture was supplied by injecting the pure fuel
through an inlet at the floor of the chamber while mixing fans
within the chamber were used to create a uniform mixture.
The concentration of gas inside the chamber was controlled
using a Cirrus mass spectrometer. The unburned mixture was
contained within the chamber (prior to ignition) using
a 0.02 mm thin sheet of polypropylene. Ignition was supplied
using a carbon rod igniter at one of three locations, either at
the center of the chamber, 0.25 m from the center of the wall
opposite the vent (back ignition) or 0.25 m from the center of
the wall containing the vent (front ignition). The time between
when the mixing fans were stopped and ignition was
controlled to ensure a consistent initial turbulent intensity
(u0 z 0.1 m/s), which was determined in a series of prelimi-
nary tests using measurements from a bi-directional velocity
probe.
In this study three mixture compositions were examined:
18% vol. hydrogeneair, 9.5% methaneeair and 4.0% propane-
eair. For each of mixtures experiments were performed for
the three ignition locations, center, back and front, and two
vent sizes 2.7 m2 and 5.4 m2.
3. Numerical simulations
3.1. Solver details
Numerical simulations were performed using a custom solver
built using the OpenFOAM CFD toolbox [18]. The code is based
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6
on a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) solver of the NaviereStokes
conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy
using a robust, implicit, pressureevelocity, iterative solution
framework, with a fully compressible Pressure-Implicit Split
Operator (PISO) solution method [19]. Sub-grid scale turbu-
lence was modeled using a one-equation eddy viscosity model
[20].
An unstructured grid was used for the current study.
Second order schemes were used in space and time, central
differencing for velocity, a bounded TVD scheme for scalars,
and second order backward differencing for time.
The combustion model is based on a transport equation for
a regress combustion variable b [21]. The transport of the
regress variable is governed by a laminar burning velocity, SL
and a flame surface wrinkling factor, X. The scalar flame
surface wrinkling factor, X, was transported to take into
account the effect of flame wrinkling on the burning velocity.
Flame instabilities in a lean hydrogeneair mixture can
produce a significant increase in the flame’s surface area and
propagation speed. This effect was incorporated into the
model using Eq. (1) below,
X ¼ XI
XT
XRT ;
where XI is the surface wrinkling factor due to the DL flame
instability, XT is the surface wrinkling factor due to turbulence
and XRT is the surface wrinkling factor due to the Ray-
leigheTaylor instability, whose role in vented explosions is
described in [17] and is summarized in the following section.
The form of Eq. (1) suggests that the characteristic length
scales of the three types of wrinkling are different.
The XI term in Eq. (1) may be expressed as [22]:
 1=3
lm
XI ¼ ; (2)
lc
where lm is the maximum unstable scale and lc is the cutoff
wavelength. In a sub-grid model lm  D, where D is the filter
size. Experimentally, the onset of instability is observed for
sufficiently large Peclet numbers, Pe ¼ r/d > Pecl, where r is the
flame radius, d is the flame thickness, and Pecl is the critical Pe
number [23,24]. The cutoff scale is given by:
lc =d ¼ 2pPecl =ncl ;
where ncl is the critical wave number and is of the order of 10.
This yields the following equation for XI:
  1=3 
D cusps yields a transport equation for XRT:
XI ¼ max 1; aI
lc
where aI is a coefficient to account for the uncertainty in lc. In
cases when aI(D/lc)1/3 < 1, flame instabilities are expected to
be resolved on the grid scale and XI ¼ 1. This was the case in
[16] where methaneeair mixtures were used. For an 18%
hydrogeneair mixture at 365 K the cutoff scale has been
estimated as lc ¼ 7 mm [24]. The value of lc for normal initial
temperature, however, is unknown. In the current study the
values of lc ¼ 7 mm and aI ¼ 1.2 were used, and were found to
produce agreement with the initial flame propagation
velocity.
The surface wrinkling factor due to turbulence, XT was
computed using a transport equation taking into account the
2331
generation and removal of flame surface wrinkling. The
equilibrium XT, Xeq* is given by the following turbulent
burning velocity correlation [25]:
1 1
Xeq ¼ 1:04$ðu0 =SL Þ2 ðLT =dÞ6 ; (5)
where u0 is the turbulent intensity, LT is the integral turbulent
length scale and d is the flame thickness. The coefficient of
1.04 in the correlation was determined in the previous study
using methane [17] and is used because the value of the
burning velocity predicted by Bradley’s correlation is only
estimated within a factor of 2. A decrease of the Lewis number
may increase the rate of change of the turbulent burning
velocity with turbulence intensity as suggested in [25,26]. In
the current model, however, this effect was not considered,
and was not observed in the experimental results presented
below. The effect of the Lewis number was solely attributed to
the changes of burning velocity due to the flame instabilities.
3.1.1. Model for flame surface wrinkling due to the
RayleigheTaylor instability
The basic approach taken to model the flame surface wrin-
(1) kling due to the RT instability is to solve an additional trans-
port equation for XRT [17]. The development of the transport
equation requires the specification of generation and removal
rates for the sub-grid wrinkling. Although the process through
which the RT instability grows on a surface with acceleration
is highly non-linear, one can use a linearized theory to esti-
mate the growth and removal rates. The parameters of these
estimates are then adjusted to compensate for non-linear
effects through comparison with experimental data. A general
expression for the linearized growth rate of flame instabilities
is given in [27] includes terms describing the baseline DL
instability with thermal diffusion effects and the RT
instability.
To simplify the problem, we assume the DL and RT insta-
bilities occur at significantly different wavelengths, this
allows the component of the generation rate that varies with
acceleration to be separated:
 1=2
s *
1*
GRT ¼ 2 kRT a$ n ; (7)
sþ1
(3)
where kRT is the unstable wave number associated with the RT
instability, a is acceleration and s is the expansion ratio.
Considering that the removal of flame wrinkling is due to
flame propagation and annihilation of the flame surface at
(4)
dXRT
¼ GRT ðXRT  1Þ  RRT ðXRT  1Þ; (8)
dt
where RRT is the removal rate of the RT flame surface wrin-
kling given by:
RRT ¼ 8sSL kRT =p: (9)
Initial estimates for the constant kRT were obtained using
high-resolution 2D simulations. However, due to the limita-
tions of the linear model, which is only applicable for small
amplitude disturbances, as well as uncertainties in the
calculation of the flame surface acceleration, the values of GRT
and RRT were considered to be constants for a given mixture.
2332 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6
Their values were then calibrated using experimental data for
propane, namely two back wall ignition tests. The values of
GRT and RRT were then computed for the 18 vol. % hydrogen
mixture in accordance with Eqs. (7) and (9) assuming
a constant kRT.
3.2. Mesh geometry, initial and boundary conditions
An unstructured computational mesh was generated for the
64 m3 explosion test chamber geometry matching the major
significant features of the experimental setup (Fig. 2). An
external volume of 50.0
32.0
40 m was also meshed to
capture the venting of burned gas, the external explosions and
to reduce the effect of non-ideal boundary conditions. A cell
size of 5 cm was used in the region inside the chamber and the
area immediately outside the chamber to resolve the external
explosion. This yielded a computational mesh of approxi-
mately 106 cells, the limit for a reasonable study. Simulations
were also performed on a coarser mesh with cell sizes of
10 cm inside the chamber. Flame speeds and maximum
overpressures were found to be within 10% between simu-
lations performed on the two meshes, and grid convergence
was found to be acceptable.
The boundary conditions applied to the geometry were
non-slip adiabatic walls for the chamber walls and ground,
and wave transmissive pressure boundary conditions were
used for the free boundaries to minimize reflections. An
unrestricted open vent was used in the simulations. The
initial level of turbulence u0 z 0.1 m/s was imposed to match
the initial conditions observed in the experiments.
4. Results
4.1. Experimental results
A filtered and unfiltered pressure time history of a 18%
hydrogeneair mixture with center ignition and a 5.4 m2 vent is
shown below in Fig. 3 as an example of a typical pressure time
history for a vented explosion of a hydrogen mixture. An 80 Hz
low pass filter was used to remove the higher frequency
component of the pressure signal and isolate the
Fig. 2 e The geometry of the computational domain used in
the numerical simulations.
overpressures acting at a sufficiently low frequency to present
potentially damaging pressure loads.
Multiple pressure peaks and high-frequency oscillations
are clearly visible in Fig. 3. These peaks originate from the
interactions between various effects such as Helmholtz
oscillations and the external explosion that can result in the
Taylor instabilities that have been previously observed [1,16].
It can also be seen that, immediately following the first peak
related to the external explosion, high frequency acoustics
centered about 700 Hz with a range of 100 Hz, corresponding
to the natural frequencies of major structural components of
the chamber, are also excited.
4.2. Effect of mixture composition
Table 1 gives a summary of flame speed parameters for the
mixtures studied. It is important to note that all three
mixtures have similar values of laminar flame speed, which
typically corresponds to the propagation speed of the flame
observed in the laboratory frame. Despite having similar
flame speeds however, lean hydrogen mixtures have a Lewis
number less than unity and the increased thermal diffusion
amplify the DL flame instability causing lean hydrogen
mixtures to propagate faster. The final column of the table
shows the average speed for the flame front to reach the
thermocouple closest to ignition. While the data in this
column shows that the propane and methane mixtures
initially propagated at their laminar flame speeds it also
shows that hydrogen propagated almost twice as fast as it
laminar flame speed. This result illustrates the need for
a treatment of flame instabilities in modeling hydrogen
deflagrations and provided a value to use in the development
of the model.
The pressure data presented in this section were all taken
from readings of transducer P1 using an 80 Hz low pass filter.
No significant differences were found in the readings between
transducers. Flame velocities were calculated using flame
time-of-arrival data from the line of thermocouples, with the
positive direction toward the vent and negative direction
toward the back wall.
Figs. 4e6 below summarize the results of different
mixtures. The pressure time histories seen in Fig. 4 show
Fig. 3 e Filtered and unfiltered pressure time history for an
18% hydrogeneair mixture ignited with central ignition
and a 5.4 m2 vent.
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6 2333

Table 1 e Summary of flame speed parameters for mixtures studied.

Mixture Laminar burning Expansion ratio, s Flame speed, Average measured initial
velocity, SL (m/s) (s
SL) (m/s) flame speed, U0 (m/s)

4.0% Propane 0.40 8.0 3.2 3.31  0.06

9.5% Methane 0.38 7.5 2.9 2.90  0.14
18% Hydrogen 0.64 5.2 3.3 6.47  0.16

similar behavior between the propane and methane mixtures
with the main difference that the propane peaks occur slightly
earlier due to propane’s higher laminar flame speed. While the
hydrogen mixtures had the same laminar flame speed as the
propane mixtures, the pressure plots show the hydrogen
mixtures produced much earlier pressure peaks and achieved
significantly higher overall pressures than the propane or
methane mixtures. The reason for this can be seen in Figs. 5a
and 6a where the flame velocity as a function of position is
normalized by the theoretical laminar flame speed of the
mixture. In this plot it can be seen that while methane and
propane velocities converge to a single curve the hydrogen
mixtures exhibited a significantly higher flame propagation
speed.
It is important to note, however, that when the hydrogen
velocity is normalized by its initial measured flame speed,
shown in Figs. 5b and 6b, the overall hydrogen velocity curve
matches the methane and propane velocity curves. This
implies that the enhancement of the hydrogen propagation
speed caused by flame instabilities remains more or less
constant throughout the combustion process and the increase
in observed burning velocity can be modeled as a constant
factor.
4.3. Experimental results of hydrogen tests
Fig. 7 shows the pressure time history for an 18% hydro-
geneair mixture with back ignition, for a 2.7 m2 vent (top) and
5.4 m2 vent (bottom). For both vent sizes a strong pressure
transient is generated by the external explosion which is
immediately followed by Helmholtz oscillations.
The pressure time history for the central ignition tests is
shown in Fig. 8. Compared to back-wall ignition, the center
ignition tests show the formation of two distinct pressure
peaks which are separated by approximately 0.2 s. For the
large vent case the pressure within the chamber drops to
atmospheric between the two peaks, however with the small
vent the pressure does not.
For front ignition, shown in Fig. 9, it is clearly seen that the
second peak dominates. This is due to the fact that igniting
the mixture near the vent prevents the formation of an
unburned cloud outside the chamber and virtually eliminates

0.25 Hydrogen
Methane
Overpres s u re (bar)

0.20 Propane

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

-0.05
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
T i me (s)

0.15
Hydrogen
Overpres s u re (bar)

Methane
0.10 Propane

0.05

0.00

-0.05
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Time (s)

Fig. 4 e Pressure time history plots comparing hydrogen, Fig. 5 e Velocity normalized by laminar flame speed (top)
methane and propane mixtures for center ignition with and initial flame speed (bottom) for hydrogen, methane
a 2.7 m2 vent (top) and back-wall ignition with a 5.4 m2 and propane mixtures for center ignition with a 2.7 m2
vent (bottom). vent.
2334 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6

40 0.25
Hydrogen Experiment
Methane Simulation
0.20

Overpressure (bar)
30 Propane

0.15
U/F S

20
0.10

10 0.05

0.00
0

20
0.06

Overpressure (bar)
15
0.04
U/U0

10
0.02
5

0.00
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Distance from Ignition (m) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Time ( s )
Fig. 6 e Velocity normalized by laminar flame speed (top)
Fig. 8 e Pressure time history plots for lean hydrogeneair
and initial flame speed (bottom) for hydrogen, methane
mixtures for center ignition with a 2.7 m2 vent (top) and
and propane mixtures for back ignition with a 5.4 m2 vent.
a 5.4 m2 vent (bottom).

the pressure transient associated with the external explosion.

develop as well as the increased the amount of unburned gas
However, this ignition location appears to amplify the effect of
which is consumed inside the chamber as opposed to outside.
acoustics on the second pressure transient. This is likely due
The effect of ignition location for both large and small
to the larger flame area in the chamber at the time acoustics
vents can readily be seen in the results above. Two different
peaks developed in the tests and their intensities varied
depending on the ignition location. As the ignition takes place
Experiment
0.3 farther from the vent the pressure transient associated with
Simulation
Overpressure (bar)

the external explosion increased in amplitude due to a larger

cloud of unburned gas outside of the chamber as well as
0.2
a larger flame surface area at the time of the external explo-
sion. As the ignition location moved towards the vent the
0.1 amplitude of the second peak increased due to an increased
amount of gas remaining inside the chamber and larger flame
surface area at the time acoustics develop.
0.0

0.15
4.4. Performance of CFD model
Overpressure (bar)

0.10
The results of the simulations are shown in Figs. 7e9 in
0.05 comparison with the test data. For all vent sizes and ignition
locations the initial pressure build-up and general shape of
0.00 the pressure time history, outside of the pressure transients,
was captured well by the model.
-0.05 For the back-wall ignition tests for the both small vent as
well as large vent the CFD model performs well, showing good
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
agreement with the general shape and maximum pressures
Time (s)
observed. The pressure peaks generated by the external
Fig. 7 e Pressure time history plots for lean hydrogeneair explosion are captured due to the implementation of the
mixtures for back-wall ignition with a 2.7 m2 vent (top) and RayleigheTaylor instability model as seen in back ignition
a 5.4 m2 vent (bottom). propane tests in a previous study [17].
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6
0.20
Experiment
Simulation
Overpressure (bar)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.04
Overpressure (bar)
0.02
0.00
-0.02
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Time ( s )
Fig. 9 e Pressure time history plots for lean hydrogeneair
mixtures for front ignition with a 2.7 m2 vent (top) and
a 5.4 m2 vent (bottom).
For the center ignition tests, particularly for the large vent
case, the CFD simulation produces the two distinct pressure
peaks seen in the experiments. In fact, for the large vent, the
simulation reproduces all of the main features of the pressure
trace as well as some small details. This is different from the
performance of the same model for propane tests in the
previous study. It is possible that the values of GRT and kRT,
which were obtained from back ignition propane tests,
perform better for the higher magnitude of acceleration
generated in center ignition, hydrogen cases but not propane.
With the smaller vent the agreement was not as good,
particularly after the external explosion where the simulation
significantly over-predicts the pressure prior to the second
peak.
With front ignition it is seen that, while the simulations
reproduce the overall shape of the pressureetime history, the
model does not capture the pressure transient associated with
acoustics in the chamber. This is likely due to the inability of
the model to predict the structural response of the chamber;
no structural response model was used in the simulations so
the walls of the chamber responded as fixed ridged walls. This
prevents a coupling to develop between acoustics and the
structure, which wrinkles the flame surface, causing it to
consume the remaining gas faster, creating the pressure
transient.
It should be noted that a physics-based model was used in
this study. For methaneeair [16] and propaneeair [17]
mixtures, one coefficient was needed to calibrate the turbu-
lent burning velocity correlation and another two were
needed for the generation and removal rates in the
2335
RayleigheTaylor model [17]. These underlying coefficients,
however, were not changed for the current study. The lean
hydrogen mixtures used in this study presented an additional
challenge. In lean hydrogen, the DL instability is enhanced by
thermal diffusion effects which result in a significant increase
of the flame surface. The governing parameter for this insta-
bility, such as the cutoff scale, was not known for the mixture
tested. Thus, the corresponding XI ¼ 2 was estimated from
experimental data for the initial flame speed. The effect of the
Lewis number on the rate of change of the turbulent burning
velocity with turbulent intensity posed another problem.
However, for the test conditions and hydrogen mixture used
this effect was not present. It may, however, play a role for
other conditions and mixture compositions. This emphasizes
that more detailed data on basic properties of lean hydrogen
flames are required for the development and validation of
numerical models for the description of hydrogen flames in
general and in vented explosions in particular.
1.0 1.2
5. Conclusions
Experiments were performed in FM Global’s 64 m3 chamber
for 18% vol. hydrogeneair, 9.5% methaneeair and 4.0% pro-
paneeair mixtures for two ignition locations and two vent
sizes. These experiments showed that, despite having similar
laminar flame speeds, the hydrogen mixtures propagated at
flame speeds significantly higher than the methane and
propane mixtures. Due to the higher propagation speeds of
the hydrogen flames, significantly higher pressures were
generated during the vented explosions when compared to
the methane and propane mixtures.
Using the results of the hydrogen experiments, a numer-
ical CFD model was tested and its capabilities and deficiencies
were identified. It was found that the model gave a good
prediction of initial pressure build-up for all ignition locations
and vent sizes and predicted maximum overpressures well for
back and center ignition tests. The primary difference seen
between experiments and simulations for front ignition was
likely due to the structural response of the chamber itself and
would require further modeling to capture. It was also shown
that there is a need for more detailed information on basic
properties of lean hydrogen flames to be used for predictive
explosion simulations, particularly at different concentra-
tions. Further studies are necessary to explore improvements
of the model and to validate the model over a wide repre-
sentative range of test conditions.
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this paper was funded by FM Global
and performed within the framework of the FM Global Stra-
tegic Research Program on Explosions and Material Reactivity.
The authors are thankful to Franco Tamanini for many helpful
discussions of the measurement techniques and test results.
The technical assistance of Mike Gravel and Kevin Mullins in
preparing and conducting the tests is greatly appreciated.
2336 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 3 6 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 2 3 2 9 e2 3 3 6

references [14] Watterson JK, Connel IJ, Savill AM, Dawes WN. A solution
adaptive mesh procedure for predicting confined explosions.
Int J Numer Methods Fluids 1998;26:235e47.
[15] Molkov V, Makarov D, Puttock J. The nature and large eddy
[1] Cooper MG, Fairweather M, Tite JP. On the mechanisms of
simulation of coherent deflagrations in a vented enclosure-
pressure generation in vented explosions. Combust Flame
atmosphere system. J Loss Prevent Process Ind 2006;19:121e9.
1986;65:1e14.
[16] Bauwens CR, Chaffee J, Dorofeev S. Experimental and
[2] Zalosh RG. Gas explosion tests in room-size vented
numerical study of methaneeair deflagrations in a vented
enclosures. Proceedings of the 13th loss prevention
enclosure. In: Sixth international symposium on fire safety
symposium, Houston; 1979, pp. 98e108.
science, September, 2008, Germany.
[3] van Wingerden CJM. On the venting of large-scale
[17] Bauwens CR, Chaffee J, Dorofeev SB. Effect of instabilities and
methaneeair explosions. In: Sixth international symposium
acoustics on pressure generated in vented propaneeair
of loss prevention and safety promotion in the process
explosions. In: 22nd international colloquium on the dynamics
industries, 19e22, June 1989, Oslo.
of explosions and reactive systems, 2009, Minsk, Belarus.
[4] Bimson SJ, Bull DC, Cresswell TM, Marks PR, Masters AP,
[18] Weller HG, Tabor G. A tensorial approach to computational
Prothero A, et al. An experimental study of the physics of
continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques.
gaseous deflagration in a very large enclosure.In: Fourteenth
Comput Phys 1998;12(No. 6):620e31.
international colloquium on the dynamics of explosions and
[19] Issa RI. Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow
reactive systems, 1ste6th, August 1993, Coimbra, Portugal.
equations by operator-splitting. J Computat Phys 1986;62:
[5] Harrison AJ, Eyre JA. External explosions as a result of
40e65.
explosion venting. Combust Sci Technol 1987;52:91e106.
[20] Fureby C, Tabor G, Weller HG, Gosman AD. A comparative
[6] Solberg DM, Papas JA, Skramstadt E. Observations of flame
study of subgrid scale models in homogeneous isotropic
instabilities in large scale vented gas explosions. In: 18th
turbulence. Phys Fluids 1997;9(No. 5):1416e29.
International symposium on combustion. Waterloo, ON: The
[21] Weller HG, Tabor G, Gosman AD, Fureby C. Application of
Combustion Institute; 1980. p. 1607e14.
a flame-wrinkling LES combustion model to a turbulent
[7] Tamanini F, Chaffee JL. Combined turbulence and flame
mixing layer. In: 27th International symposium on
instability effects in vented explosions. In: Seventh
combustion. Boulder, CO: The Combustion Institute; 1998. p.
international symposium on loss prevention and safety
899e907.
promotion in the process industries, 1992, Taormina, pp. 38-
[22] Bychkov V. Importance of the Darrieus-Landau instability for
11/38-19.
strongly corrugated turbulent flames. Phys Rev E 2003;68.
[8] Tamanini F. Characterization of mixture reactivity in vented
[23] Bradley D, Sheppard CGW, Woolley R, Greenhalgh DA,
explosions. In: Fourteenth international colloquium on the
Lockett RD. The development and structure of flame
dynamics of explosions and reactive systems, 1ste6th,
instabilities and cellularity at low Markstein numbers in
August 1993, Coimbra, Portugal.
explosions. Combust Flame 2000;122:195e209.
[9] Bradley D, Mitcheson A. The venting of gaseous explosions in
[24] Bradley D, Lawes M, Liu K, Verhelst S, Woolley R. Laminar
spherical vessels. Combust Flame 1978;32:221e55.
burning velocities of lean hydrogeneair mixtures at
[10] Molkov VV. Innovative vent sizing technology for gaseous
pressures up to 1.0 MPa. Combust Flame 2007;149:162e72.
deflagrations. In: Sixth international symposium on fire
[25] Bradley D, Lau AKC, Lawes M. Flame stretch rate as
safety science, July, 1999, France.
a determinant of turbulent burning velocity. Philos Trans
[11] Molkov VV, Dobashi R, Suzuki M, Hirano T. Modeling of
Roy Soc Lond Ser A 1992;338:359e87.
vented hydrogen-air deflagrations and correlations for vent
[26] Driscoll JF. Turbulent premixed combustion: flamelet
sizing. J Loss Prevent Process Ind 1999;12:147e56.
structure and its effect on turbulent burning velocities. Prog
[12] VDI 3673. Pressure venting of dust explosions. Verein
Energy Combust Sci 2008;34:91e134.
Deutcher Ingenieure; 1995.
[27] Zeldovich YB, Barenblatt GI, Librovich VB, Makhviladze GM.
[13] NFPA 68. Standard on explosion protection by deflagration
Mathematical theory of combustion and explosion. New
venting. 2007 edn. Quincy, MA 02269: National Fire
York: Consultants Bureau; 1985.
Protection Association; 2007.