energies
Article
Numerical Simulations of DDT Limits in Hydrogen-Air
Mixtures in Obstacle Laden Channel
Wojciech Rudy * and Andrzej Teodorczyk






Citation: Rudy, W.; Teodorczyk, A.
Numerical Simulations of DDT Lim-
its in Hydrogen-Air Mixtures in Ob-
stacle Laden Channel. Energies 2021,
14, 24. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/
en14010024
Received: 23 November 2020
Accepted: 21 December 2020
Published: 23 December 2020
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
Copyright: © 2020 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This
article is an open access article distributed
under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY)
license (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/).
Energies 2021, 14, 24. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14010024
Institute of Heat Engineering, Faculty of Power and Aeronautical Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology,
Nowowiejska 21/25, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland; andrzej.teodorczyk@pw.edu.pl
* Correspondence: wojciech.rudy@pw.edu.pl
Abstract: The main aim of this study was to perform numerical simulations of deflagration to
detonation transition process (DDT) in hydrogen–air mixtures and assess the capabilities of freeware
open-source ddtFoam code to simulate and capture DDT limits. The numerical geometry was based
on the real 0.08 × 0.11 × 4 m (H × W × L), rectangular cross-section detonation channel previously
used to experimentally investigate DDT limits in obstacle-filled channel. The constant blockage
ratio (BR) equal to 0.5 was kept for three obstacle spacing configurations: S = H, 2H, 3H. The results
showed that hydrogen concentration limits for successful DDT from simulations are close to the
experimental values, however, the simulated DDT limits range is wider than the experimental one
and depends on the obstacles spacing. The numerical results were analyzed by means of propagation
velocities, overpressures, and run-up distances. The best match between numerical and experimental
DDT limits was observed for obstacles spacing L = 3H and the lowest match for spacing L = H.
The comparison between experimental and numerical results points at the possible application
of ddtFoam in geometry with a relatively low level of congestion. This work results proved that
simulations in such geometry provide numerical flame acceleration velocity profiles, run-up distance,
and recorded overpressures very close to experimentally measured.
Keywords: DDT; hydrogen-air; ddtFoam; DDT limits; obstacle laden tube
1. Introduction
Hydrogen as a carbonless and environmentally friendly fuel is considered as the
future energy carrier. Its properties such as wide flammability limits, high laminar burning
velocity (in air ~2.5 m/s), low ignition energy (in air ~0.02 mJ), and high lower heating value
(~120 MJ/kg) point at a variety of possible hydrogen applications. However, the listed
advantages of hydrogen properties might be also considered as disadvantages from the
safety point of view. In the case of unintended leakage, hydrogen is easier to ignite under
wider concentration conditions, and after ignition, flame will propagate faster. Additionally,
the hydrogen–air flame is inherently unstable and if the conditions are favorable the
hydrogen flame might go through the deflagration to detonation transition (DDT) process.
As the DDT process depends on a variety of parameters (fuel concentration, congestion
presence, and its geometrical configuration), it is crucial to investigate these parameters’
influence to prevent DDT in common use. As the experimental investigation is expensive in
terms of time and cost, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) codes have been developed
to solve complex numerical problems. Nowadays, CFD analysis is applied in many
branches of industry such as aerospace, automotive, power generation, manufacturing,
petrochemical, process safety, turbomachinery, etc. The main advantage of using CFD
simulations is to reduce the time of the designing process and, simultaneously, detailed
numerical models might be used to get a better insight into the process that is difficult to
investigate experimentally. DDT is one of such processes as it combines a wide range of
flame propagation velocities (0–2000 m/s). Therefore, depending on the flame velocity,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2021, 14, 24 2 of 19

the interactions among chemical kinetics, flame, unburned mixture, turbulence, and shock
waves are at a different level of complexity.
DDT process in hydrogen–air mixtures has been extensively investigated experimen-
tally [1–13] and numerically [14–21] over the course of 30 years. The essential condition for
the planar detonation front to propagate stably is the presence of developed cellular struc-
ture, so it is possible to correlate the characteristic cell size width λ with the characteristic
dimension of the channel which might be defined in various ways. For example, based on
the extensive research, Dorofeev et al. [1] provided the critical correlation of L/λ ≈ 7, where
L is the characteristic dimension of the experimental setup that might be interpreted as the
minimum distance for detonation formation. Dimension L is, therefore, correlated with
blockage ratio and obstacle spacing value. The methodology for calculation of the L value
depending on the channel geometry is described in Reference [1]. The criterion was further
confirmed by studying the blockage ratio influence on the DDT in a CH4 –air mixture [10].
It has been also proven that DDT limits are experimental stand scale-dependent as the
lower concentration limit for successful DDT was decreasing with the increase of the scale
of the setup. Sample measurements of lower limits in a 30.5 cm [11], 43 cm [22] diameter
tubes, and 2.3 m high channel [23] gave values of 15%, 13.6%, and 12.5% of hydrogen in
air, respectively. As the cost of experiments increases significantly with the scale of the
experimental setup, the numerical simulations have become attractive, low-cost tools to
investigate flame acceleration and transition to detonation.
One of the recent numerical codes designed and tested in a variety of scales and
hydrogen–air mixtures composition is ddtFoam released by F. Ettner [17,24]. The code is
based on an open-source freeware OPENFoam software. The main advantage of ddtFoam
is its capability to capture the flame acceleration process together with the transition to
detonation based on the dual-source term in the reaction progress transport equation.
First term responsible for the deflagration is based on the Weller [25] gradient combustion
model, while the second term accounts for autoignition delay time. The second term is
especially important as the autoignition delay time is a function of local conditions of
temperature, pressure, and mixture composition. To prevent calculating ignition delay time
in every time step and computational cell, the solver is using pre-calculated table of ignition
delay time (IDT) prepared with Cantera software with detailed reaction mechanism of
O’Conaire [26]. The IDT table is accessed during the simulation and the solver compares
the tabulated IDT (as a function of temperature, pressure, and composition) with the
simulated fluid residence time at specific conditions. If the residence time excess the
precalculated IDT value, the solver activates the second source term in the reaction progress
transport equation. Such an approach significantly reduces the numerical cost of simulation.
Similarly, the combustion products matrix as a function of the initial temperature, pressure,
and composition is precalculated and accessed while the simulation progresses. Some
memory saving modification for this methodology using a multiple regression model was
introduced and tested in the recent paper of Malik et al. [27]. An additional advantage of
ddtFoam is the presence of a shock wave sub-grid model to better capture the progress of
the shock wave induced temperature rise within a single cell. The computational cell in this
model is virtually divided into shocked and non-shocked volumes and IDT is evaluated for
both volumes. Such a combination leads to greater accuracy of the results at course grids.
Up to date, the ddtFoam has been used to investigate the DDT process in mixtures with
hydrogen concentration gradients, large scale experiments with and without adaptive mesh
refinement [28], smooth channels with mixtures of hydrogen-oxygen [27], and channels
with obstacles [29].
One of the first papers by Ettner [17] described the code together with the test 2D
simulations of the flame propagating in hydrogen–air mixture with concentration gradient
in the channel with a variety of blockage ratios. The results showed good agreement with
experiments by means of the velocity profile along the channel and pressures recorded.
Additionally, the code was able to capture phenomena recorded in experiments and highly
resolved simulations like Mach stem formation, DDT due to the shock wave reflection,
Energies 2021, 14, 24 3 of 19

and shock–flame interaction. Another important conclusion was that the rectangular grids
finer than 2 mm did not affect the results apart from the pressure peaks sharpness in
stable detonation mode. Such ddtFoam code advantage arises from the IDT and shock-
wave sub-models implemented and let one use it in large-scale geometries with relatively
coarse grids.
Hasslberger et al. [28] used ddtFoam to simulate a large-scale RUT facility [23] at
the hydrogen concentration close to the lower detonability limit. The approach was to
use a 3D domain with adaptive mesh refinement at the flame surface to increase accuracy
and decrease the computational cost. Two experiments were simulated with very good
agreement with respect to flame acceleration. The first experiment (14% H2 ) was well-
predicted with respect to the detonation transition placement at the reflecting surface. The
second experiment (12.5% H2 ) simulation did not provide a successful transition, however,
the experimental detonation origin was reported [23] to be in the flame brush area rather
than due to the shock wave reflection at the wall.
The main purpose of the ddtFoam design was to address the fact that large-scale
accidents simulations must be performed under resolved grids. Therefore, the sub-grid
modeling of critical phenomena is necessary to provide sufficient accuracy and minimize
the computational time of the simulation. Critical for DDT process phenomena recognized
by Ettner [17] were shock wave reflection and triggering conditions for a successful tran-
sition to detonation. Both were addressed by sub-grid modeling described earlier in this
chapter. As sub-grid modeling demands validation for a variety of scales the present work
might be considered as a next step to validate the code with experimental data and point at
possible, further improvements. The main aim of this study was to assess the capabilities of
ddtFoam code to capture the limits of hydrogen in the air for which successful transition to
detonation might be observed. The numerical results are compared to the experimentally
recorded values measured for three different obstacle spacing configurations with a fixed
blockage ratio of 0.5. The comparison was made for such parameters as pressure profiles,
maximum overpressures, run-up distance, and DDT limits.

2. Experimental Setup Description and Results

The experimental setup has been previously used for the investigation of the scale
effect of the obstacle-filled 2-m-long channel and the results are reported in the paper of
Teodorczyk [30]. The current setup has been extended to 4 m to observe further flame
acceleration, the transition to detonation, and stable detonation. The tube consisted of two
2-m-long sections with dimensions of 0.08 × 0.11 m in cross-section (H × W). The obstacles
were made of aluminum 10 mm thick and 40 mm high, which provided a constant blockage
ratio of 0.5 for all obstacles spacing configurations. The spacing S between obstacles was
equal to H, 2H, 3H. Initial conditions for the H2 –air mixture were T = 295 ± 3K and
P = 0.1 MPa. The hydrogen concentration in air was within 15–55% [vol./vol.], which
corresponds to an equivalence ratio of 0.42–2.92. The total number of experiments was
nearly 300. The number of experiments for each mixture composition and geometrical
configuration was 10–13 for most of the tests, three configurations were tested with 4, 5,
or 7 single experiments. The weak ignition source was a spark plug placed at one end of
the channel at its half-height middle-width. The measurements included 8 PCB 113B24
type pressure sensors (PS1–PS8) with a measurement range of 6.7 MPa and 8 in-house
made ion probes (IP1–IP8). Sensors were placed in pairs along the tube to indicate pressure
wave and the following flame. Velocity profile was measured based on the time-of-arrival
method (ToA). The scheme of the experimental setup is presented in Figure 1. The tube
cross-section for all obstacles spacing considered is presented in Figure 2. An example
graph of the pressure sensors and ion probes profiles is presented in Figure 3 in which each
of 8 colors corresponds to a consecutive set of sensors. The same color scheme applies to
pressure profiles presented in this paper. The clearly visible largest delay between signals
from PS5 and PS6 is due to the most distant (893 mm) placement between both sensors.
More detailed experimental setup description is available in References [30,31].
 Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

Energies 2021, 14, 24 4 of 19

PS5and
PS5 andPS6
PS6isisdue
duetotothe
themost
mostdistant
distant(893
(893mm)
mm)placement
placementbetween
betweenboth
bothsensors.
sensors.More
More
detailed experimental setup description is available in References [30,31].
detailed experimental setup description is available in References [30,31].

Figure
Figure 1. Experimental setup scheme. Setup used for measurements of deflagration to detonation transition process (DDT)
Figure 1.1. Experimental
Experimental setup
setup scheme.
scheme. Setup
Setup used
used for
for measurements
measurements ofof deflagration
deflagration toto detonation
detonation transition
transition process
process (DDT)
(DDT)
limits
limits in
limits in
in H H –air
H22–air mixtures
–airmixtures
2 [31].
mixtures [31]. Distance
[31]. Distance between
Distancebetween pairs
betweenpairs
pairs ofof sensors
of sensors
sensors inin mm.
in mm.
mm.

Figure2.2.2.Detonation
Figure
Figure Detonationtube
Detonation tubecross-section
tube cross-sectionfor
cross-section for
for different
different
different obstacles
obstacles
obstacles spacings.
spacings. Orange
Orange
spacings. point
point
Orange marks
marks
point the
the
marks the
ignition
ignition point position, red rectangle marks first pair of sensors placement: pressure sensor (PS1)
ignition point
point position, red rectangle
rectangle marks
marksfirst
firstpair
pairofofsensors
sensorsplacement:
placement:pressure
pressuresensor
sensor (PS1)
(PS1) and
andion
and ionprobe
probe(IP1);
(IP1); bothsensors
sensorsatat320
320 mmaxial
axialdistance
distancefrom
fromthe
theignition
ignitionpoint.
point.
ion probe (IP1); bothboth
sensors at 320 mm mmaxial distance from the ignition point.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 5 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

Figure 3. Experimental pressure sensors and ion probes profiles for 29.6% H2 in air (φ = 1.0) case S
Figure 3. Experimental pressure sensors and ion probes profiles for 29.6% H2 in air (ϕ = 1.0) case
= H. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the order of sensors position as in Figure 1.
S = H. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the order of sensors position as in Figure 1.
Same colors apply to pressure sensors (top) and ion probes (bottom) at the same position.
Same colors apply to pressure sensors (top) and ion probes (bottom) at the same position.
The main results of the experimental research [31] are summarized in Table 1 and in
The main results of the experimental research [31] are summarized in Table 1 and in
Figure 4 with
Figure 4 with DDT
DDT limits
limits for for all spacings
all spacings andand
withwith the mean
the mean velocities
velocities measured
measured at the at
end the
ofend
theof the detonation
detonation tube. tube. The assumption
The assumption was the
was that thatmixture
the mixture is within
is within the DDT
the DDT limits
limits if
if at least one test proved transition to detonation in any of the repeated experimental
at least one test proved transition to detonation in any of the repeated experimental sets. sets.
Thelimits
The limitsofofDDT
DDTwere,
were,therefore,
therefore, extreme
extreme mixtures
mixtures forfor such
such experimental
experimental sets.What
sets. Whatis is
clear from Figure 4 that with the obstacles spacing increase the DDT limits
clear from Figure 4 that with the obstacles spacing increase the DDT limits get wider and get wider and
simultaneously mean detonation velocities
simultaneously mean detonation velocities increase. increase.

Table
Table 1. 1.
DDTDDT limits
limits observed
observed experimentally
experimentally inin 4-m
4-m long
long tube
tube [30,31].
[30,31].
DDT Limits S=H S = 2H S = 3H
DDT Limits S=H S = 2H S = 3H
% H2 in air 27.4–38.6 25.0–50.0 20.0–50.0
% H2 in air 27.4–38.6 25.0–50.0 20.0–50.0
Energies 2021, 14, 24 6 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 19

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Cont.
 Energies 2021, 14, 24 7 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19

(c)
Figure
Figure 4. Mean
4. Mean velocities
velocities recorder
recorder for deflagration
for deflagration experiments
experiments (green (green dots)
dots) and and experiments
experiments with
DDT (red dots) for three obstacles configurations: (a) S = H, (b) S = 2H, (c) S = 3H [31]. (c)
with DDT (red dots) for three obstacles configurations: (a) S = H, (b) S = 2H, S = 3H [31].
CJ—Chap-
manCJ—Chapman Jouguetvelocity,
Jouguet detonation detonation velocity,
ap—speed ofasound
p —speed of sound ainr—speed
in products, products,
of asound
r —speed of sound in
in reactants.
reactants.
Whiskers Whiskers to
correspond correspond to theand
the minimum minimum
maximum and velocities
maximumrecorded
velocitieswithin
recordedthewithin theinves-
mixture mixture
tigated. DET—case with successful transition to detonation, DEFL—case with deflagration
investigated. DET—case with successful transition to detonation, DEFL—case with deflagration only. only.

3. Numerical
3. Numerical Simulations
Simulations Description
Description
Numerical simulations
Numerical simulations were were performed
performed with
with thethe
useuseof of ddtFoam
ddtFoam code
code initially
initially de-de-
scribed
scribed in in
thethe Introduction
Introduction chapter.
chapter. TheThe ddfFoam
ddfFoam solves
solves thethe unsteady
unsteady and
and compressible
compressible
Navier-Stokes equations density-based. Harten, Lax and
Navier-Stokes equations density-based. Harten, Lax and van Leer (HLLC) Riemann van Leer (HLLC) Riemann
scheme [32] is used to solve convective terms with multidimensional
scheme [32] is used to solve convective terms with multidimensional slope limiters [33,34] slope limiters [33,34]
suitable for compressible high Mach number. More details of the
suitable for compressible high Mach number. More details of the numerical code schemes numerical code schemes
cancanbebe found in References [17,24,33]. The numerical domain was 2D representing the
found in References [17,24,33]. The numerical domain was 2D representing the
longitudinal cross-section of the experimental detonation tube channel. The numerical
longitudinal cross-section of the experimental detonation tube channel. The numerical
channel was, therefore, 4 m in length and 0.080 m in height. The numerical mesh was
channel was, therefore, 4 m in length and 0.080 m in height. The numerical mesh was
orthogonal and structural and contained approximately 320,000 cells, 1 mm by 1 mm each.
orthogonal and structural and contained approximately 320,000 cells, 1 mm by 1 mm each.
In total, 36 simulations were performed for various hydrogen in air concentrations in
In total, 36 simulations were performed for various hydrogen in air concentrations in the
the range of 15–65% H in air, which corresponds to equivalence ratio 0.42–4.42. Initial
range of 15–65% H2 in air,2 which corresponds to equivalence ratio 0.42–4.42. Initial tem-
temperature and pressure were set to 293 K and 101,325 Pa, respectively. The walls were
perature and pressure were set to 293 K and 101,325 Pa, respectively. The walls were con-
considered as non-slip and adiabatic. The numerical ignition spot was in a form of 25 mm
sidered as non-slip and adiabatic. The numerical ignition spot was in a form of 25 mm
radius area patch filled in with hot combustion products. The center of the ignition spot
radius area patch filled in with hot combustion products. The center of the ignition spot
was at the same position as in experiments, at the center of the channel height at one end of
was at the same position as in experiments, at the center of the channel height at one end
the tube. During the simulations, temperature and pressure numerical sensors were placed
of at
thethe
tube.
same During
positiontheassimulations, temperature
in experiments. and pressuretable
The pre-calculated numerical sensors
of ignition delaywere
time
placed at the same
was prepared position
based on theasdetailed
in experiments.
reactionThe pre-calculated
mechanism table of[26]
of O’Conaire ignition delay
and Cantera
time was prepared
software based
calculations on For
[35]. the detailed
turbulence reaction mechanism
modeling, k-omegaofSST O’Conaire [26] and
(Shear Stress Can-
Transport)
tera software calculations [35]. For turbulence modeling, k-omega
turbulence model has been chosen. This modeling approach combines the advantages of SST (Shear Stress
Transport)
k-ε and k-ω turbulence model
as in regions haswalls
near beenitchosen.
behavesThis
likemodeling approach
k-ω and switches tocombines
k-ε in a free thestream
ad-
vantages
region. Wall function utilized was OPENFOAM built-in function KqRWallFunction in
of k-ε and k-ω as in regions near walls it behaves like k-ω and switches to k-ε and
a free stream region. Wall function utilized was OPENFOAM built-in
omegaWallFunction appropriate for high re-flows. Turbulent kinetic energy k and specific function KqRWall-
Function
dissipationand omegaWallFunction
rate ω were initialized appropriate
according fortohigh re-flows.
Ettner’s Turbulent
settings kinetic
[17]. The timeenergy
step of
k and
the simulation was adaptive according to Courant-Friedlich-Lewy (CFL) condition The
specific dissipation rate ω were initialized according to Ettner’s settings [17]. at the
time step of the
maximum simulation
possible valuewas adaptive
of 0.5. accordingtime
The simulation to Courant-Friedlich-Lewy
of a single case was around (CFL) 70 con-
h on a
dition
28 CPU at the maximum possible value of 0.5. The simulation time of a single case was
workstation.
around 70 h on a 28 CPU workstation.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 8 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

4. Results
4. Results
The numerical results were postprocessed in a similar way as in experiments by
The numerical results were postprocessed in a similar way as in experiments by re-
recording pressure sensors indications (via ToA method) and extracting velocity profiles of
cording pressure sensors indications (via ToA method) and extracting velocity profiles of
the shock wave along the tube. Further postprocessing was done by extracting contour
the shock wave along the tube. Further postprocessing was done by extracting contour
diagrams of pressures and temperature along the channel, which indicated the placement
diagrams of pressures and temperature along the channel, which indicated the placement
of the transition to detonation that defined the numerical detonation run-up distance
of the transition to detonation that defined the numerical detonation run-up distance
(RUD). Typical contours of pressure and temperature during the transition to detonation
(RUD). Typical contours of pressure and temperature during the transition to detonation
process are presented in Figure 5.
process are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Transition to detonation due to the shock wave reflection at the obstacle for case 50% H2
Figure 5. Transition to detonation due to the shock wave reflection at the obstacle for case 50% H2
and S = 3H.
and S = 3H.
The following sections describe the obtained numerical results divided with respect
The following sections describe the obtained numerical results divided with respect to
to the spacing between obstacles. The comparison included selected pressure profiles,
the spacing between obstacles. The comparison included selected pressure profiles, flame
flame velocities, and run-up distances.
velocities, and run-up distances.
4.1. Case S = H
4.1. Case S = H
For this geometry, 10 simulations were performed with 15–55% H2 in air. The sample
For this geometry, 10 simulations were performed with 15–55% H2 in air. The sample
experimental and numerical pressure profiles with deflagration along the channel are pre-
experimental and numerical pressure profiles with deflagration along the channel are
sented in Figure 6. The simulation time has been shifted to make an easier comparison
presented in Figure 6. The simulation time has been shifted to make an easier comparison
between corresponding sensors. The reason for the time difference was mainly due to the
between corresponding sensors. The reason for the time difference was mainly due to the
specific spark release system used which was not always activated at the same time as the
specific spark release system used which was not always activated at the same time as
data acquisition system. In Figure 6, one can observe that corresponding numerical and
the data acquisition system. In Figure 6, one can observe that corresponding numerical
experimental pressure profiles are very similar especially for sensors placed at the further
and experimental pressure profiles are very similar especially for sensors placed at the
further part of the tube where the mixture burns in a fast deflagration regime. The leading
 Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, 24 9 of 19

part of the tube where the mixture burns in a fast deflagration regime. The leading shock
wave wave
shock preceding the larger
preceding pressure
the larger peak peak
pressure at theatflame front front
the flame mightmightalso be alsovisible there.
be visible
Further
there. pressure
Further oscillations
pressure are due
oscillations aretodue thetoshock wave wave
the shock reflections propagating
reflections propagatingin the
inpost-combustion
the post-combustion products. In the case
products. In theof the
case first
of part of the
the first tube
part ofwhere
the tube flame accelerates,
where flame
the match between
accelerates, the match simulation and experiment
between simulation is less visible.
and experiment This
is less suggests
visible. Thisfurther
suggests nu-
mericalnumerical
further investigation and testing
investigation andoftesting
the combustion model that
of the combustion works
model thatinworks
a slowindeflagra-
a slow
tion regime regime
deflagration of combustion. Figure Figure
of combustion. 7 shows a comparison
7 shows between
a comparison pressure
between profiles
pressure show-
profiles
ing stable
showing detonation.
stable detonation.In thisIn case, both,both,
this case, numerical
numericaland experimental
and experimental detonation frontfront
detonation peak
peak pressures,
pressures, are within
are within the range
the range of 2–2.5
of 2–2.5 MPa.MPa. However,
However, in somein some experiments,
experiments, peakpeakpres-
pressures reached
sures reached 3.5–4.0
3.5–4.0 MPa. MPa. Figure
Figure 8 shows
8 shows the the velocities
velocities measured
measured forconsidered
for all all considered sim-
simulations in case
ulations in case S =SH = together
H together withwith experimental
experimental values.
values. BasedBased on onthatthat graph,
graph, oneonecan
can distinguish numerical cases with and without DDT. It can
distinguish numerical cases with and without DDT. It can be derived that for case S = H, be derived that for case
Sthe
= H, the numerical
numerical DDT DDT limitslimits
are ofare20% of and
20%50% and of50% of hydrogen
hydrogen inThe
in air. air. The postprocessed
postprocessed sim-
simulations
ulations andand experimental
experimental datadata
werewere further
further usedused to define
to define the RUDthe RUD profile.profile.
In the Incasetheof
case of experiments,
experiments, the RUD thewasRUD was defined
defined as the distance
as the distance from thefrom the ignition
ignition point topoint to the
the first sen-
first
sor,sensor,
which which
recorded recorded detonation.
detonation. As theAs the place
exact exact for
place thefor the transition
transition to detonation
to detonation might
might
happen happen at a slightly
at a slightly shorter shorter distance,
distance, the RUD the graphs
RUD graphs are equipped
are equipped with negative
with negative whisk-
whiskers
ers covering the distance to the previous sensor. In the case of simulations, the
covering the distance to the previous sensor. In the case of simulations, therun-up
run-up
distance
distancewaswasdefined
definedas asthethedistance
distancetotothe thepoint
pointwhere
wherethe thetransition
transitiontotodetonation
detonationtook took
place. The comparison between experimental and numerical
place. The comparison between experimental and numerical RUD is presented RUD is presented in Figure
in Figure9.
One can notice that numerical RUD values are much shorter
9. One can notice that numerical RUD values are much shorter than experimental, and the than experimental, and the
curve
curvehashasaacharacteristic
characteristicU-shape.
U-shape.For Forthethestoichiometric
stoichiometricmixture,mixture,the theratio
ratioofofnumerical
numerical
totoexperimental
experimental RUD is close to 2. However, one needs to bear in mind thatininthe
RUD is close to 2. However, one needs to bear in mind that thecase
caseofof
SS==H, the significant velocity deficit is observed due to the cyclic
H, the significant velocity deficit is observed due to the cyclic detonation attenuation detonation attenuation
and
andre-initialization
re-initializationtype typeofofpropagation,
propagation,so-called
so-calledquasi-detonation.
quasi-detonation.Therefore, Therefore,ititcannot
cannot
bebe ruled out that in experiments, the detonation was initiated and extinguishedshortly
ruled out that in experiments, the detonation was initiated and extinguished shortly
after,
after,and
andsensors
sensorsdid didnotnotrecord
recordit.it.

Figure6.6.Experimental
Figure Experimental (top)
(top) and
and numerical
numerical (bottom)
(bottom) pressure
pressureprofiles
profileswith
withdeflagration
deflagrationforforcase
caseS
= H. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as in Figure 1. Same colors
S = H. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as in Figure 1. Same colors
apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +2.5 ms for better visibility.
apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +2.5 ms for better visibility.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 10 of 19
Energies
Energies 2021,
2021, 14,
14, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 10
10 of
of 19
19

Figure
Figure7.7. Experimental
7.Experimental
Experimental(top) (top) and
(top)and numerical
andnumerical
numerical (bottom)
(bottom) pressure
pressure profiles
profiles with
with detonation
detonation for case S=
Figure (bottom) pressure profiles with detonation for for
casecase
S = SH=
H
H and
and 29.6%
29.6% HH22 in
in air.
air. Sequence
Sequence of
of sensors
sensors activation
activation corresponds
corresponds to
to the
the sensors
sensors position
position as
as in
in
and 29.6% H2 in air. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as in Figure 1.
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Same
Same colors
colors apply
apply toto sensors
sensors in
in the
the same
same position.
position. Simulation
Simulation time
time shifted
shifted +4.3
+4.3 ms
ms for
for
Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +4.3 ms for better visibility.
better
better visibility.
visibility.

Figure
Figure8.8. Propagation
8.Propagation velocity
Propagationvelocity as
velocity as aa function
as a function of
of mixture
mixture composition for S = H. Simulation results
Figure function of mixture composition
composition for
for SS==H.
H.Simulation
Simulationresults
results
(line)
(line) and
and experimental
experimental results
results (dots)
(dots) [31].
[31].
(line) and experimental results (dots) [31].
Energies 2021,14,
Energies2021, 14,24x FOR PEER REVIEW 1111ofof1919

Figure9.9. Run-up
Figure Run-up distances
distances for
forSS==HHspacing
spacinggeometry. Experimental
geometry. data
Experimental whiskers
data cover
whiskers the dis-
cover the
tance range of possible transition to detonation placement.
distance range of possible transition to detonation placement.

4.2.
4.2.Case
CaseSS==2H
2H
For
Forthis
this geometry, 13 13simulations
simulationswere were performed
performed forfor 15–67%
15–67% of Hof2 inHair.
2 inThe
air.sample
The
sample
pressure profile along the channel for simulation and experiment with DDT for 29.6%for
pressure profile along the channel for simulation and experiment with DDT H2
29.6% H2=in
in air (φ airis(ϕ
1.0) = 1.0) isinpresented
presented Figure 10.inOne Figure 10. that
can see Onethecan see that to
transition the transitiontook
detonation to
detonation
place between took4thplace between
(1.28 m from4th (1.28 mand
ignition) from 5thignition) and 5th
(1.6 m from (1.6 mpressure
ignition) from ignition)
sensor
pressure
while in sensor while in itthe
the simulation wassimulation
very closeittowasthevery close to(0.96
3rd sensor the 3rd sensor
m from (0.96 mInfrom
ignition). both
ignition).
cases, the In both cases,
transition the transition
to detonation to detonation
was recorded was recorded
with high pressure peak with reaching
high pressure5 MPa
peak reaching and
in simulation 5 MPa 4.5 in
MPa simulation and 4.5 MPa
in the experiment. Suchinpeak the experiment.
is very often Suchobserved peakinisexperi-
very
often observed in experiments in which the sensor is close enough to
ments in which the sensor is close enough to the hot spot where initial, locally overdriven the hot spot where
initial, locally
detonation is overdriven detonation
generated. Further is generated.
sensors indicationsFurther
are very sensors
similarindications are very
for both, simulation
similar for both, simulation and experiments and pressure peaks,
and experiments and pressure peaks, are within 1.5–2.3 MPa range. Figure 11 shows are within 1.5–2.3 MPa
the
range.
sampleFigure
pressure11 shows
profilestheof sample pressureand
the simulation profiles of the simulation
experiment and experiment
with deflagration. In the ex-
with deflagration.
periment, one canInsee thethe
experiment,
leading shock one can
wave seepreceding
the leading theshock
flamewave
frontpreceding
pressure peak the
flame front pressure peak similar to in case S = H. The shock wave
similar to in case S = H. The shock wave in the experiment is generated before 4 sensor in the experiment
th is
generated before 4th sensor (0.96 m from ignition), while a similar shock
(0.96 m from ignition), while a similar shock wave is visible in simulation around the 6th wave is visible in
simulation
sensor (2.49 around
m from the ignition).
6th sensorSimilarly,
(2.49 m from ignition).
as in Similarly,
the previous case,asthe
in the
slow previous case,
deflagration
the slow deflagration pressure profiles are not represented in simulations
pressure profiles are not represented in simulations as well as the fast deflagration. Figure as well as the
fast deflagration. Figure 12 presents a comparison of velocities
12 presents a comparison of velocities measured in experiments and simulations. Basedmeasured in experiments
and simulations. Based on that graph, one may define the numerical DDT limits for S = 2H,
on that graph, one may define the numerical DDT limits for S = 2H, which are very close
which are very close to 18% and 62.5% of H2 in air. The experimental and numerical RUD
to 18% and 62.5% of H2 in air. The experimental and numerical RUD is presented in Figure
is presented in Figure 13. Similar to in case S = H, the numerical RUD curve for S = 2H is
13. Similar to in case S = H, the numerical RUD curve for S = 2H is U-shaped, however, the
U-shaped, however, the experimental RUD seems to be closer to the numerical one with
experimental RUD seems to be closer to the numerical one with a value of around 1.5 m
a value of around 1.5 m for near stoichiometric composition. Similarly, as in S = H, we
for near stoichiometric composition. Similarly, as in S = H, we cannot exclude that the
cannot exclude that the detonation took place earlier, but the limited number of sensors
detonation took place earlier, but the limited number of sensors did not allow us to record
did not allow us to record the exact place of that process.
the exact place of that process.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 12 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19

Figure10.
Figure 10. Experimental
Experimental (top)
(top) and
and numerical
numerical(bottom)
(bottom)pressure
pressureprofile
profilewith
withdetonation
detonationforfor
case S=
case
2H and 29.6% H2 in air. The sequence of sensor activation corresponds to the sensors position as in
SFigure 10. 29.6%
= 2H and Experimental
H2 in air.(top)
Theand numerical
sequence (bottom)
of sensor pressure
activation profile with
corresponds detonation
to the for case as
sensors position S=
Figure
2H and 1.29.6%
SameHcolors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +1 ms for bet-
2 in air. The sequence of sensor activation corresponds to the sensors position as in
in Figure 1. Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +1 ms for
ter visibility.
Figure 1. Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +1 ms for bet-
better visibility.
ter visibility.

Figure 11. Experimental (top) and numerical (bottom) pressure profiles with deflagration for case
S = 2H. 11.
Figure Sequence of sensors
Experimental activation
(top) corresponds
andnumerical
numerical to the
(bottom) sensors
pressure position
profiles as deflagration
with in Figure 1. Same
for
Figure
colors 11. Experimental
apply to sensors (top)
in the and
same position. (bottom)
Simulationpressure
time profiles
shifted with
+5.5 ms deflagration
for for case
case
better visibility.
S = 2H. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as in Figure 1. Same
S = 2H. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as in Figure 1. Same colors
colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +5.5 ms for better visibility.
apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted +5.5 ms for better visibility.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 13 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19

Figure 12.Propagation
Propagation velocityasas a functionof
of mixturecomposition
composition forSS==2H.
2H. Simulationresults
results
Figure 12. Propagation velocity
Figure 12. velocity as aa function
function of mixture
mixture composition for
for S = 2H. Simulation
Simulation results
(line) and experimental results (dots) [31].
(line)
(line) and
and experimental
experimentalresults
results(dots)
(dots)[31].
[31].

Figure 13. Run-up distances for S = 2H spacing geometry. Experimental data whiskers cover the
Figure 13.
Figure 13. Run-up
Run-up distances
distances for
for SS==2H
2Hspacing
spacinggeometry. Experimental
geometry. data
Experimental whiskers
data cover
whiskers thethe
cover
distance range of possible transition to detonation placement.
distance range of possible transition to detonation placement.
distance range of possible transition to detonation placement.
4.3. Case S = 3H
4.3. Case
4.3. Case SS == 3H
For this geometry, 12 simulations were performed for 15–65% H2 in air. The sample
For
For this
this geometry,
geometry,12 12simulations
simulationswere wereperformed
performedfor for15–65%
15–65%H H22 in
in air.
air. The
Thesample
sample
pressure profile along the channel for simulation and experiment with a detonation in
pressure
pressure profile
profile along
along the
the channel
channel for for simulation
simulation and
and experiment
experiment withwith aa detonation
detonation in in
mixture 29.6% H2 in the air is presented in Figure 14. Transition to detonation in the ex-
mixture
mixture 29.6% H22 in in the
theair
airisispresented
presentedininFigure
Figure14.14.Transition
Transition
to to detonation
detonation in the
in the ex-
periment took place between 4th (1.28 m from ignition) and 5th (1.6 m from ignition) sen-
experiment
periment took took place
place between
between 4th4th (1.28
(1.28 m from
m from ignition)
ignition) andand
5th 5th
(1.6 (1.6
m fromm from ignition)
ignition) sen-
sor while in the simulation it was very close to the 3rd sensor (0.96 m from ignition). In
sensor while
sor while in the
in the simulation
simulation it was
it was very
very close
close to the
to the 3rd3rd sensor
sensor (0.96
(0.96 mm from
from ignition).
ignition). In
both
In bothcases,
cases, the transition
the transition totodetonation
detonation was
was recorded
recorded with
with high pressure
high pressure peak
peakreaching
reaching
both cases, the transition to detonation was recorded with high peak reaching
3.5 MPa. Further sensors indications of detonation front are similar for both, simulation
3.5 MPa. Further sensors indications of detonation front are similar for both, simulation
Energies 2021, 14, 24 14 of 19

Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19

3.5 MPa. Further sensors indications of detonation front are similar for both, simulation
and
andexperiments
experiments and pressure pressure peaks,
peaks,arearewithin
within 1.8–2.5
1.8–2.5 MPa MPa range.
range. Similarly,
Similarly, as in as in S
case
case
= HSand= HSand = 2H,S= 2H,
the the simulations
simulations underpredict
underpredict overpressures
overpressures for slowfordeflagration.
slow deflagration.
Figure
Figure
15 shows15 shows a comparison
a comparison between
between experimental
experimental and numerical
and numerical casescases
withwith deflagration.
deflagration. Nu-
Numerical pressure profiles for the initial stage of flame propagation
merical pressure profiles for the initial stage of flame propagation (first five sensors) (first five sensors) do
do differ
differ comparedtotothe
compared theexperiments;
experiments;however,
however, the maximum overpressures
overpressuresseem seemtotobebe
consistent.
consistent.Further
Furtherpressure
pressureprofiles
profiles(last
(lastthree
threesensors)
sensors)match
matchbetter
betterwithwithexperimental
experimental
ones
onesby bymeans
meansofofthe theoverpressure
overpressurevalues
valuesandandshape.
shape.InInsimulations,
simulations,however,
however,the thefurther
further
pressure peaks due to the shock wave reflections from the walls are
pressure peaks due to the shock wave reflections from the walls are not so apparent. Fig- not so apparent.
Figure
ure 1616 shows
shows a comparison
a comparison of velocities
of velocities measured
measured in experiments
in experiments and simulations.
and simulations. Based
Based on that graph, one may define the numerical DDT
on that graph, one may define the numerical DDT limits for S = 3H, whichlimits for S = 3H, which are very
are very close
close
to 18%to 18%
and 55%and 55%
of H2ofinHair.
2 inThe
air.experimental
The experimental and numerical
and numerical RUD RUD is presented
is presented in
in Figure
Figure 17. Similar
17. Similar to inS case
to in case S=H
= H and S =and
2H,Sthe
= 2H, the numerical
numerical RUD curveRUDfor curve
S = 3Hfor is
S =U-shape
3H is
U-shape type with a minimum between 30–40% H , which means
type with a minimum between 30–40% H2, which means that for less reactive mixtures,
2 that for less reactive
mixtures,
the flamethe flame
needs to needs to propagate
propagate further tofurther
provide to sufficient
provide sufficient
conditionsconditions
to generate to generate
hot spots
hot spots and stable detonation
and stable detonation front. front.

Figure14.
Figure 14. Experimental
Experimental (top)
(top) and
and numerical
numerical (bottom)
(bottom)pressure
pressureprofile
profilewith
withdetonation
detonationforfor
case S=
case
3H and 29.6% H2 in air. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as in
S = 3H and 29.6% H2 in air. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as
Figure 1. Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted −1.0 ms for
in Figure 1. Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted −1.0 ms for
better visibility.
better visibility.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 15 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Figure15.
Figure 15.Experimental
Experimental(top)
(top)and
and numerical
numerical (bottom)
(bottom) pressure
pressure profile
profile with
with deflagration
deflagration for
for case
caseS
= 3H and 15% H2 in air. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position ascase
in
S = 3H and 15% H2 in air. Sequence of sensors activation corresponds to the sensors position as inS
Figure 15. Experimental (top) and numerical (bottom) pressure profile with deflagration for
=Figure
3H and 1. 15%
SameHcolors apply
2 in air. to sensors
Sequence in theactivation
of sensors same position. Simulation
corresponds time
to the shifted
sensors −5 ms as
position forinbet-
Figure 1. Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted −5 ms for better
ter visibility.
Figure 1. Same colors apply to sensors in the same position. Simulation time shifted −5 ms for bet-
visibility.
ter visibility.

Figure 16. Propagation velocity as a function of mixture composition for S = 3H. Simulation results
(line) and
Figure experimentalvelocity
16. Propagation
Propagation results (dots) [31]. of mixture composition for S = 3H. Simulation results
asaafunction
function
Figure 16. velocity as of mixture composition for S = 3H. Simulation results
(line) and experimental results (dots) [31].
(line) and experimental results (dots) [31].
Energies 2021, 14, 24 16 of 19
Energies 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19

Figure17.
Figure 17. Run-up
Run-up distances
distances for
for SS ==3H
3Hspacing
spacinggeometry.
geometry.Experimental
Experimentaldata
datawhiskers
whiskerscover the
cover the
distance range of possible transition to detonation placement.
distance range of possible transition to detonation placement.

5.5. Discussion
Discussion
The
Thenumerical
numericaland andexperimental
experimentalDDT DDTlimits
limitsvalues
valuesarearesummarized
summarizedin inTable
Table2.2.The
The
lower DDT limits obtained numerically are very similar for all considered
lower DDT limits obtained numerically are very similar for all considered geometries and geometries and
very
veryclose
closeto
to20%
20%HH22 in
in air.
air. The
The upper
upperDDT
DDTlimits
limitsininsimulations
simulationsdiffer
differand
andare
arein
inthe
therange
range
of
of50–62.5%
50–62.5%H H22 depending
dependingon onthe
theobstacle
obstaclespacing.
spacing.TheThebest
bestmatch
matchbetween
betweenexperimental
experimental
and
and numerical
numerical limits
limits isis for
for case
caseSS== 3H,
3H, which
which isisalso
alsoconfirmed
confirmedby bymeans
meansof ofthe
theRUD
RUD
comparison
comparison(see (seeFigure
Figure17).17).TheThemaximum
maximumoverpressures
overpressuresrecorded
recordedwerewerealso
alsosimilar
similarand
and
within 1.8–2.5 MPa range for both, experiments and simulations, in case
within 1.8–2.5 MPa range for both, experiments and simulations, in case S = 3H. The worst S = 3H. The worst
match
match isisobserved
observed for forcase
caseSS== H. H.This
Thiseffect
effectmight
mightbe beexplained
explainedby bymeans
meansof ofthe
thecyclic
cyclic
initiation
initiation and attenuation of real detonation front in a more congested configuration.This
and attenuation of real detonation front in a more congested configuration. This
type
typeof ofcyclic
cyclicprocess
processcalled
calledquasi-detonation
quasi-detonationisisaaresult
resultof ofmore
moredense
densecongestion,
congestion,which
which
leads
leadsto tohigher
highermomentum
momentumlosses, losses,diffraction
diffractionofofthe
thedetonation
detonationwavewavebehind
behindthetheobstacle,
obstacle,
and,
and, therefore, lower mean detonation velocity observed in experiments comparingtotothe
therefore, lower mean detonation velocity observed in experiments comparing the
ideal
idealC-JC-Jvelocity.
velocity.

Table2.2.DDT
Table DDTlimits
limitsmeasured
measuredexperimentally
experimentally[31]
[31]and
andobtained
obtainednumerically
numerically(this
(thiswork).
work).
S = HS = H S=S
2H= 2H SS
= 3H
= 3H
DDT Limits
DDT Limits
Exp. Exp. Num.Num. Exp.Exp. Num.
Num. Exp.
Exp. Num.
Num.
Lower
Lower limitlimit
[% H[%
2 ] H2] 27.4 27.4 20 20 25 25 18.0
18.0 22.7
22.7 20
20
Upper limitlimit
Upper [% H[%
2 ] H2] 38.6 38.6 50 50 50 50 62.5
62.5 5050 55
55

Simultaneously,such
Simultaneously, suchdetonation
detonationbehavior
behaviorisisnot
notobserved
observedininnumerical
numericalsimulations
simulations
as the implemented adiabatic flow model is less sensitive to the heat
as the implemented adiabatic flow model is less sensitive to the heat and momentumand momentum
losses, which
losses, which are
are of
ofimportance
importance in inreal
realreactive
reactiveflow.
flow. Additionally,
Additionally,simulations
simulationsdo donotnot
include some effects of the channel geometry (for lower obstacles spacing) on
include some effects of the channel geometry (for lower obstacles spacing) on initiation, initiation,
cellularstructure
cellular structuredevelopment,
development, and
and further
further stable
stable propagation
propagation or attenuation
or attenuation of detona-
of detonation.
In the case of lower obstacles spacing, the interaction of obstacles on real 3-dimensional
Energies 2021, 14, 24 17 of 19

detonation front structure is the strongest, which has been confirmed by experiments.
In less congested geometries, the detonation is more prone to develop and propagate
stably, which is expressed by higher mean experimental velocities and wider DDT limits.
Simultaneously, in less congested geometries, the transition to detonation was observed
due to the reflection at the obstacles surface [31], which is the main mechanism triggering
detonation in simulations. Due to that fact one might conclude that ddtFoam is more
suitable to simulate geometries with a relatively low level of congestion and for more
congested geometries the code will provide conservative results with some safety margin.
Considering the flame acceleration process, pressure profiles, and overpressure values
along the congested channel, it must be concluded that these parameters are well repre-
sented for all the considered geometrical configurations, especially for the fast deflagration
propagation regime. RUDs are numerically predicted as a U-shaped curve with the best
match to the experimental curve for S = 3H configuration. Discrepancies might be ob-
served in stable detonation front velocity, which is overpredicted with respect to ideal C-J
detonation, and the change between deflagration and detonation regime of combustion is
very sharp. These features arise from the implemented specific autoignition model. The
main ‘trigger’ to switch simulation to detonation is the sufficiently low ignition delay time.
Therefore, numerical detonation once initiated will propagate if the unburned mixture
will be available independently on the channel blockage ratio. This code feature does not
seem to be critical as properly predicted flame acceleration process together with over-
pressures and RUD are of greater importance. The ddtFoam code is not equipped with
a numerical mechanism attenuating initially stable detonation, as a result, the numerical
quasi-detonation process is not possible to be observed. This fact is especially visible in
comparison between experimental and numerical results for case S = H. That code feature
might be one of the future code improvement subjects. Additionally, the numerical model
is not able to predict cellular detonation front structure; therefore, it omits all the effects
arising from this characteristic detonation dimension. This feature might be also a subject
for further code development.

6. Conclusions
The main aim of this work was to perform numerical simulations of the DDT process
and assess the ddtFoam code capabilities to predict DDT limits observed in experiments in
an obstacle-laden tube. Three different geometrical configurations have been considered
which correspond to the experimental setup: S = H, 2H, 3H. The numerical DDT limits were
wider than experimental with the largest discrepancies observed for the lowest spacing
S = H. Such feature is expected as walls in simulations were considered as adiabatic and
did not include heat and momentum losses effects caused by more congested channels. In
more congested channels, so-called quasi-detonation was observed in experiments, which
was expressed by significantly lower than ideal C-J mean detonation velocity along the
channel. Additionally, in experiments for S = H within the DDT limits, detonation was
not always observed (green points in Figure 4). This witness the randomness of the real
DDT process itself, especially in more congested geometry. The results of the simulations
together with the discussed ddtFoam code features point at its main possible application
as a robust, engineering tool for hydrogen–air DDT process simulation in geometries with
a relatively low level of congestion. As the presented work indicates, simulations in such
geometries provide close to experimental results with respect to flame acceleration velocity
profiles, run-up distance, and overpressures.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.R. and A.T.; data curation, W.R.; formal analysis, W.R.;
investigation, W.R.; methodology, W.R.; project administration, W.R.; resources, W.R.; software, W.R.;
supervision, A.T.; validation, W.R.; visualization, W.R.; writing—original draft, W.R.; writing—review
and editing, A.T. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This experimental research presented in this paper was funded by the Dean of Faculty of
Power and Aeronautical Engineering, grant number 504/03263/1131/42.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 18 of 19

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the Dean of Faculty of Power and
Aeronautical Engineering for financial support and the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical
Computational Modelling (ICM), the University of Warsaw, for sharing HPC computational resources
within the grant no. G71-17.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dorofeev, S.B.; Sidorov, V.P.; Kuznetsov, M.S.; Matsukov, I.D.; Alekseev, V.I. Effect of scale on the onset of detonations. Shock
Waves 2000, 10, 137–149. [CrossRef]
2. Dorofeev, S.B.; Kuznetsov, M.S.; Alekseev, V.I.; Efimenko, A.A.; Breitung, W. Evaluation of limits for effective flame acceleration
in hydrogen mixtures. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2001, 14, 583–589. [CrossRef]
3. Kellenberger, M.; Ciccarelli, G. Advancements on the propagation mechanism of a detonation wave in an obstructed channel.
Combust. Flame 2018, 191, 195–209. [CrossRef]
4. Cross, M.; Ciccarelli, G. DDT and detonation propagation limits in an obstacle filled tube. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2015, 36,
380–386. [CrossRef]
5. Li, Q.; Kellenberger, M.; Ciccarelli, G. Geometric influence on the propagation of the quasi-detonations in a stoichiometric H2 -O2
mixture. Fuel 2020, 269, 117396. [CrossRef]
6. Teodorczyk, A.; Lee, J.H.S.; Knystautas, R. Propagation mechanism of quasi-detonations. Symp. Combust. 1989, 22, 1723–1731.
[CrossRef]
7. Teodorczyk, A. Fast deflagrations, deflagration to detonation transition (DDT) and direct detonation initiation in hydrogen-air
mixtures. First Eur. Summer Sch. Hydrog. Saf. 2006, 2, 15–24.
8. Rudy, W.; Kuznetsov, M.; Porowski, R.; Teodorczyk, A.; Grune, J.; Sempert, K. Critical conditions of hydrogen-air detonation in
partially confined geometry. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2013, 34, 1965–1972. [CrossRef]
9. Kuznetsov, M.S.; Alekseev, V.I.; Dorofeev, S.B. Comparison of critical conditions for DDT in regular and irregular cellular
detonation systems. Shock Waves 2000, 10, 217–223. [CrossRef]
10. Kuznetsov, M.; Ciccarelli, G.; Dorofeev, S.; Alekseev, V.; Yankin, Y.; Kim, T.H. DDT in methane-air mixtures. Shock Waves 2002, 12,
215–220. [CrossRef]
11. Kogarko, S.M.; Zeldovich, Y.B. Doklad. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR NS63. 1948. Available online: https://catalyst.library.jhu.
edu/catalog/bib_2560400 (accessed on 1 September 2020).
12. Rudy, W.; Dziubanii, K.; Zbikowski, M.; Teodorczyk, A. Experimental determination of critical conditions for hydrogen-air
detonation propagation in partially confined geometry. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2017, 42, 7366–7373. [CrossRef]
13. Rudy, W.; Zbikowski, M.; Teodorczyk, A. Detonations in hydrogen-methane-air mixtures in semi confined flat channels. Energy
2016, 116, 1479–1483. [CrossRef]
14. Khokhlov, A.M.; Oran, E.S.; Thomas, G.O. Numerical simulation of deflagration-to-detonation transition: The role of shock-flame
interactions in turbulent flames. Combust. Flame 1999, 117, 323–339. [CrossRef]
15. Gamezo, V.N.; Ogawa, T.; Oran, E.S. Deflagration-to-detonation transition in H2 -air mixtures: Effect of blockage ratio. In
Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition,
Orlando, FL, USA, 5–8 January 2009; p. 440.
16. Boeck, L.R.; Hasslberger, J.; Sattelmayer, T. Flame Acceleration in Hydrogen/Air Mixtures with Concentration Gradients. Combust.
Sci. Technol. 2014, 186, 1650–1661. [CrossRef]
17. Ettner, F.; Vollmer, K.G.; Sattelmayer, T. Numerical Simulation of the Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition in Inhomogeneous
Mixtures. J. Combust. 2014, 2014, 1–14. [CrossRef]
18. Ettner, F.; Sattelmayer, T. ddtFoam. Available online: https://sourceforge.net/projects/ddtfoam/ (accessed on 1 March 2020).
19. Boeck, L.R.; Berger, F.M.; Hasslberger, J.; Ettner, F.; Sattelmayer, T. Macroscopic Structure of Fast Deflagrations and Detonations in
Hydrogen-Air Mixtures with Concentration Gradients. In Proceedings of the 24th International Colloquium on the Dynamics of
Explosions and Reactive Systems (ICDERS), Taipei, Taiwan, 28 July–2 August 2013; pp. 1–6.
20. Ogawa, T.; Oran, E.S.; Gamezo, V.N. Numerical study on flame acceleration and DDT in an inclined array of cylinders using an
AMR technique. Comput. Fluids 2013, 85, 63–70. [CrossRef]
21. Kessler, D.A.; Gamezo, V.N.; Oran, E.S. Simulations of flame acceleration and deflagration-to-detonation transitions in methane-air
systems. Combust. Flame 2010, 157, 2063–2077. [CrossRef]
22. Tieszen, S.R.; Sherman, M.P.; Benedick, W.B.; Lee, J.H. Detonation Cell Size measurements in H2-air-H2 O Mixtures. In Proceedings
of the10th International Colloquium on Dynamics aof Explosions and Reactive Systems, Berkeley, CA, USA, 4–9 August 1985.
23. Dorofeev, S.B.; Sidorov, V.P.; Dvoinishnikov, A.E.; Breitung, W. Deflagration to detonation transition in large confined volume of
lean hydrogen-air mixtures. Combust. Flame 1996, 104, 95–110. [CrossRef]
24. Ettner, F.A. Effiziente numerische Simulation des Deflagrations—Detonations—Übergangs. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universität
München, Munich, Germany, 2013.
Energies 2021, 14, 24 19 of 19

25. Weller, H.G.; Tabor, G.; Gosman, A.D.; Fureby, C. Application of a flame-wrinkling LES combustion model to a turbulent mixing
layer. Symp. Combust. 1998, 27, 899–907. [CrossRef]
26. Conaire, M.O.; Curran, H.J.; Simmie, J.M.; Pitz, W.J.; Westbrook, C.K. A comprehensive modeling study of hydrogen oxidation.
Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 2004, 36, 603–622. [CrossRef]
27. Malik, K.; Żbikowski, M.; Bak, ˛ D.; Lesiak, P.; Teodorczyk, A. Numerical and experimental investigation of H2 -air and H2 -O2
detonation parameters in a 9 m long tube, introduction of a new detonation model. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2019, 4, 8743–8750.
[CrossRef]
28. Hasslberger, J.; Boeck, L.R.; Sattelmayer, T. Numerical simulation of deflagration-to-detonation transition in large confined
volumes. J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 2015, 36, 371–379. [CrossRef]
29. Heidari, A.; Wen, J.X. Numerical simulation of flame acceleration and deflagration to detonation transition in hydrogen-air
mixture. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy. 2014, 39, 21317–21327. [CrossRef]
30. Teodorczyk, A. Scale effects on hydrogen-air fast deflagrations and detonations in small obstructed channels. J. Loss Prev. Process.
Ind. 2008, 21, 147–153. [CrossRef]
31. Rudy, W.; Teodorczyk, A. DDT limits in H2 -air mixture ina tube filled with obstacles. In Proceedings of the 27th ICDERS, Beijing,
China, 28 July–2 August 2019; p. 277.
32. Toro, E.F.; Spruce, M.; Speares, W. Restoration of the contact surface in the HLL-Riemann solver. Shock Waves 1994, 4, 25–34.
[CrossRef]
33. OpenFOAM, User Guide, Version 2.1.1. Available online: http://www.openfoam.org (accessed on 1 March 2019).
34. OpenFOAM Wiki, Limiters. 2010. Available online: https://openfoamwiki.net/index.php/OpenFOAM_guide/Limiters
(accessed on 1 March 2019).
35. Goodwin, D.; Moffat, H.; Speth, R. Cantera: An Object-Oriented Software Toolkit for Chemical Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and
Transport Processes. Available online: www.cantera.org (accessed on 1 June 2018).