Fuel 261 (2020) 116433

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Full Length Article

Dynamic hazard evaluation of explosion severity for premixed hydrogen–air T

mixtures in a spherical pressure vessel
⁎ ⁎
Yun Zhanga, Weiguo Caoa, , Chi-Min Shub, , Mengke Zhaoa, Cunjuan Yua, Zhaobian Xiea,
Jinhu Lianga, Zhiqiang Songa, Xiong Caoa
a
School of Environmental and Safety Engineering, North University of China, Taiyuan 030051, PR China
b
Department of Safety, Health, and Environmental Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Yunlin 64002, Taiwan, ROC

G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

Experiment Volume fraction: 30%

Explosion overpressure Fireba ll development

Simulation
Volume fraction: 30%

Explosive reaction
Technological mechanism of
premixed hydrogen-
approaches air mixtures has
been discussed

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To evaluate dynamic explosion severity levels of premixed hydrogen–air mixtures, pressure sensors were used to
Dynamic explosion severity levels test explosion pressure in a spherical pressure vessel (inner diameter: 0.34 m). ANSYS Fluent 19.0 three-di-
Premixed hydrogen–air mixtures mensional software was used to simulate the explosion process. The results revealed that when the hydrogen
Initial pressure volume fraction was 30 vol%, the explosion pressure and pressure rise rate reached maximum values at 1.0 atm.
Multi-dimensional transient explosion
As the initial pressure increased, the explosion pressure, and pressure rise rate increased gradually. At initial
parameters
Explosion reaction mechanism
pressures of 1.0, 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 atm, the peak pressure levels were 0.85, 0.87, 0.92, and 0.99 MPa and the
pressure rise rates were approximately 198, 241, 302, and 558 MPa/s, respectively. The initial pressure exerted
greater effects on the pressure rise rate than did the explosion pressure. The simulation results were consistent
with the experimental findings. Moreover, the simulation yielded multi-dimensional transient explosion para-
meters—such as turbulent kinetic energy distribution—that are difficult to obtain in experiments. The findings
pertaining to the physical experiments, numerous simulations, and influence of initial pressure on the explosion
reaction mechanism of premixed hydrogen–air mixtures were discussed.

1. Introduction alleviate the negative effects of climate change, various green energy
solutions, including hydrogen gas, have been proposed as alternatives
Extensive burning of hydrocarbon fuels engenders considerable to fossil fuels for internal combustion engines. However, hydrogen oc-
concentrations of greenhouse gases, leading to climate change. To casionally engenders explosion accidents because of its large

⁎
Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: caoweiguoiem@nuc.edu.cn (W. Cao), shucm@yuntech.edu.tw (C.-M. Shu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116433
Received 12 August 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 14 October 2019
0016-2361/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhang, et al.
combustion limit range (4–75 vol%), tendency to have a negative
Joule–Thomson coefficient, and low ignition energy (0.02 mJ) [1].
Therefore, investigating the hydrogen explosion process are helpful to
not only raise awareness of this hazard but also provide valuable data
for reducing or preventing harmful accidents.
Because of its low energy density, hydrogen is generally stored in
metal hydride storage and high-pressure storage systems. However,
metal hydride storage systems have latent risks due to the instability of
the metal constituting such systems. For example, Cheng et al. [2] and
Chen et al. [3] have studied explosions caused by hydrogen storage
materials releasing hydrogen at high temperature; they have found that
hydrogen release increased the potential explosion damage incurred by
a combustion system. Accordingly, high-pressure storage technology is
an optimal alternative. Nevertheless, high-pressure hydrogen storage
systems involve a risk of leakage, which causes spontaneous combus-
tion. Mironov et al. [4] investigated dynamic hydrogen diffusion
combustion under spontaneous and forced ignition conditions; they
observed that under conditions of large-scale hydrogen emissions, the
flame front velocity of hydrogen could reach 220 m/s, resulting in se-
verely damaging shock waves.
Hydrogen leakages that result in spontaneous ignition are serious.
However, hydrogen explosions caused by strong external ignition have
been even more serious [5–8]. Thus, to better understand the hazards of
hydrogen explosions, researchers had conducted considerable experi-
mental studies to investigate explosion behaviors. For instance, Im-
amura et al. [9] and Schefer et al. [10] have studied hazards in hy-
drogen explosions and established empirical formula for predicting
flame configuration, temperature increase, and heat flow trajectory
dynamics. Groethe et al. [11] have investigated on hydrogen–air de-
flagration enhancement by placing an obstacle in a hemispherical ex-
perimental device (volume: 300 m3); and they found that the obstacle
did not increase the deflagration combustion rate when the blocking
percentage is 11%. Moreover, Zheng et al. [12,13] and Zhang et al. [14]
have probed the flame propagation velocity of multicomponent gas
mixtures at a relatively high blocking rate. They have discovered that
the flame velocity increased with the blocking rate; however, this as-
sociation did not cause a deflagration-to-detonation transition. Flame
propagation of premixed hydrogen–air mixtures was discovered to be
more intense under pure–oxygen conditions. Zhang et al. [15–17] have
analysed the detonation propagation behaviour of multicomponent gas
mixtures in spiral obstacles. They have collectively examined the be-
haviors of those mixtures and the dual effects of spiral obstacles–of
varying roughness–on the promotion and inhibition of detonation flame
characteristics. Cao et al. [18,19] have experimentally investigated the
severity of hydrogen explosions for different hydrogen volume fractions
and reduced the destructibility of explosions through explosive release.
However, the research results were not consistent with the calculations
of the European standard EN 14994 [20], indicating that current safety
standards and specifications on hydrogen explosions require further
improvement. Additionally, formulating a universal law governing such
explosions is difficult because of inconsistencies in results and differ-
ences in experimental devices between studies as well as the limited
availability of testing data [21].
Computerized numerical simulation has rapidly developed as a
supplemental analysis approach, thus saving practical experimental
costs. Besides, the simulations can provide insight into hydrogen ex-
plosion mechanisms by analysing parameters that are unmeasurable in
experiments. For example, such simulations enable modelling multi-
dimensional transient reaction processes (using parameters including
explosion flame propagation velocity, gas flow propagation velocity,
and explosion temperature field distribution) and capturing pressure
field distributions within an entire explosion range [22–26]. Molkov
et al. [27,28] and Li et al. [29] have modelled hydrogen combustion
using the large eddy simulation method, yielding a relatively consistent
computational fluid dynamics model for gaseous explosions. Liu et al.
[30] simulated hydrogen ignition using the Euler equation and a
2
Fuel 261 (2020) 116433
detailed chemical reaction mechanism. However, the mechanism or
factors affecting of spontaneous combustion were not thoroughly ana-
lysed. Subsequently, Lee et al. and Wen et al. [31–33] have numerically
simulated and mainly solved the Navier–Stokes (N–S) equation by using
unsteady two-dimensional (2D) axial symmetry and a highly detailed
multicomponent chemical reaction mechanism to simulate combustion
kinetics. In our previous study [34], a hydrogen–methane–air explosion
and its dynamic process of release under closed conditions were ana-
lysed. The experimental and simulation results revealed that the sec-
ondary explosion under oxygen deficiency conditions was larger, and
the reaction mechanisms were preliminarily discussed. However, due to
limitations in experimental conditions and tools, the gas explosion
process under conditions of relatively high pressure was not studied,
and a simulation process was used to resolve the N–S equation under 2D
conditions. The potential effects of the gas flow field during the ex-
plosion process were not discussed in detail.
This study first investigated the change law of explosion pressure of
spherical pressure vessels for premixed hydrogen–air mixtures at the
initial pressures of 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 atm. Considering numerical re-
searches that can provide parameters which cannot be obtained in ex-
periments, ANSYS Fluent three-dimensional (3D) software was used for
a numerical simulation of the multi-dimensional transient reaction
process. The reaction mechanism of hydrogen at the different initial
explosion pressures was also investigated. The findings of this study can
improve knowledge about dynamic hydrogen explosion processes and
may serve as a reference in reducing hydrogen hazards.
2. Experimental
Fig. 1 displays the gas explosion test device and a spherical pressure
vessel with an inner diameter of 0.34 m. The device comprises several
parts: A sphere (including the ignition system) with a maximum pres-
sure of 2 MPa, gas premix system, pressure recording device, and syn-
chronous control system. Before the test was started, the explosive
vessel was pumped to create a vacuum. First, hydrogen and air were
premixed through a gas mass flow meter (range: 0–500 mL/min, and
uncertainty: ± 0.5%) and stored in a premixed cylinder. Then, the
premixed gas was injected into the explosive ball until the required
pressure required for testing was attained. After 20 min (to ensure the
gas was static or flowed slowly), an electrostatic ignition of 100 mJ was
administered using an electrostatic generator. A synchronous100 mj
control system was adopted to govern the pressure measurement of the
device. The data pertaining to the hydrogen explosions at various
fractions are summarized in Table 1. All the experiments were con-
ducted at room temperature, that is, at approximately 20–30 °C, with a
humidity value of ca. 20–30%.
3. Numerical simulation
3.1. Geometric model
A geometric model was established in accordance with the actual
experimental sphere, as shown in Fig. 2. The experimental sphere had
ignition electrodes, and the geometric model was an irregular sphere
with ignition electrodes instead of a regular sphere. To reflect the dy-
namic changes that occurred during the simulated explosion more ef-
ficiently, dynamic tracking and data collection were conducted for
pressures at the centre point of the ignition position and the positions R
(sphere radius, 0.17 m), 2R/3, and R/3.
3.2. Mesh model
The ANSYS Fluent 3D software was used to replicate the explosion
process of premixed hydrogen, as shown in Fig. 3. A tetrahedral mesh
was used to divide the geometric model area, and all wall areas were
successfully generated. To ensure the grid independence and the
Y. Zhang, et al. Fuel 261 (2020) 116433

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of spherical pressure vessel.

Table 1
Hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and air volume fraction data.
Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Air (oxygen + nitrogen)
(vol.%) (vol.%) (vol.%) (vol.%)

10 18.9 71.1 90
20 16.8 63.2 80
28.6 15.0 56.4 71.4
30 14.7 55.3 70
40 12.6 47.4 60
50 10.5 39.5 50
60 8.4 31.6 40
70 6.3 23.7 30

Fig. 3. Structural mesh of computational domain.

convergence of the calculation results, five different grids were calcu-

Fig. 2. Geometric model of computational domain.
lated. The optimal number of elements was 366,988 because any fur-
ther increase in the number of elements had a negligible effect on the
calculation results. Each time step in the simulation involved 20
iterations, and the calculation residual of each time step was less than
0.001, which ensured the convergence of the calculation results.
An ignition patch (volume: 524 mm3; temperature: 1200 K) was
gradually applied to ignite the premixed hydrogen–air mixtures. In the
simulation, a particularly large ignition patch resulted in a short flame
propagation time, engendering a time scale error. Furthermore, a lower
temperature resulted in a longer flame propagation process or even
prevented this process. Thus, to ensure calculation result convergence
and accuracy, simultaneously verifying the mesh independence, time

3
Y. Zhang, et al.
step, ignition patch, and temperature was emphasised and executed in
this study.
3.3. Numerical methods
ANSYS Fluent 3D software was used to simulate the explosions of
premixed hydrogen–air mixtures. Mass, energy, momentum, and spe-
cies transport conservation equations constituted the governing equa-
tions, details of which can be found in a previous publication [35].
Scale-adaptive simulation turbulence models, other than the Reynolds-
averaged N–S model [36,37], were adopted to simulate the explosions
of the premixed hydrogen–air mixtures. The equations used in the si-
mulation were expressed previously by [38]. Moreover, a flame front
propagation model was established by solving the transport equation of
density-weighted average reaction process variables [34]. These equa-
tions were detailed in previously [39].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Dynamic explosion process of premixed hydrogen–air mixtures
The maximum pressure (Pmax) and explosion index (Kg) are con-
stitute characteristic parameters representing ignition and explosion
severity. They are essential for accurate hazard evaluation [40]. The
explosion index Kg can be calculated with respect to the maximum
pressure rise rate (dP/dt)max:
dP 4πR 3
Kg = ⎛ ⎞ 3 ⎛ ⎞
⎝ dt ⎠max ⎝ 3 ⎠
where t is the time; P is the explosion pressure; and R is sphere radius.
In this study, experiments were conducted on premixed hydro-
gen–air mixtures at the following hydrogen volume fractions: 10, 20,
28.6, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 vol%, as shown in Fig. 4.
P and (dP/dt) initially increased with the hydrogen volume fraction
increased, and then decreased as the volume fraction continued to in-
crease. At very low hydrogen volume fractions, the oxygen concentra-
tion was insufficient to sustain a reaction. Accordingly, P and (dP/dt)
were primarily affected by the hydrogen volume fraction. Furthermore,
a heat transfer analysis revealed that the number of molecules available
for combustion increased with the hydrogen volume fraction; hence,
the total heat released and the relative strength of the entire combus-
tion process increased. P and (dP/dt) thus enhanced the combustion
process and attained a maximum value. The optimal hydrogen volume
fraction (30 vol%) was slightly larger than the equivalent ratio fraction
(28.6 vol%). At higher hydrogen volume fractions, the quantity and
density of oxygen in the confined space were insufficient for
(a) Explosion pressure (P)
Fig. 4. Experimental explosion severities (pressure and pressure rise rate) of hydrogen–air mixture at different volume fractions. (a) explosion pressure (P), (b)
pressure rate rise (dP/dt).
Fuel 261 (2020) 116433
combustion, and fewer hydrogen molecules participated in the com-
bustion; additional increases in the hydrogen fraction thus resulted in
decreases in the explosion pressure. At 30 vol%, Pmax and (dP/dt)max
were 0.85 and 199 MPa/s, respectively. Consequently, according to Eq.
(1), the maximum explosion index was 53.83 MPa·m/s.
The numerical simulation of the dynamic explosion process was
conducted using Fluent 3D software to observe the three-dimensional
transient explosion process. This simulation revealed the field dis-
tribution of the explosion pressure, airflow propagation velocity, and
explosion temperature. It also enabled further analysis of the influence
of various other parameters on the severity of dynamic explosion pro-
cess. Fig. 5 presents the simulation results regarding the influence of
four parameters on the dynamic explosion process: explosion tem-
perature spatial distribution, gas flow velocity, explosion pressure, and
turbulent kinetic energy. Compared with existing test methods, the
present study’s methods yielded more detailed data about the explosion
process. For example, this study determined that the timing of the
maximum values of various parameters was not consistent. Specifically,
gas flow velocity reached its maximum level 5 ms after ignition,
whereas pressure, turbulent kinetic energy, and flame temperature
reached their maximum levels 7, 12, and 12 ms after ignition, respec-
tively (Fig. 7).
At the initiation of combustion, the entire reaction system tem-
perature and flame propagation speed were low (Fig. 5). The flame
front extended outside position R/2 from the centre of the sphere in
3 ms (Fig. 5(a)). Apart from the local turbulence zone affected by the
ignition electrode, the combustion gas exhibited a laminar flow in all
directions inside the sphere (Fig. 5(b)). As the reaction progressed, the
(1) gas continued to spread, gradually filling the entire sphere. After 5 ms,
the maximum gas flow speed was 200 m/s. the gas flow commenced to
be restrained by the spherical wall surface and then forms reflection.
Turbulence gradually dominated the combustion process, thus resulting
in an increase in turbulent kinetic energy. In theory, turbulent kinetic
energy is related to turbulence velocity and fluid quality, which can be
used to estimate turbulence intensity [41]. Within 5 ms of ignition, the
turbulent kinetic energy level was low (Fig. 5(c)), and the evolution of
turbulent kinetic energy lagged behind the change in airflow velocity.
12 ms after ignition, the maximum turbulent kinetic energy value was
reached 150 m2/s2.
The temperature and pressure inside the sphere also increased. The
inner wall pressure reached a maximum of 0.90 MPa at 7 ms (Fig. 5(d)).
Furthermore, the flame front reaches the boundary at 5 ms after igni-
tion (Fig. 5(a)), the flame temperature rises further during a later time
and reaches the maximum value at 12 ms. Moreover, the explosion
pressure reached the maximum value of 1.12 MPa at 16 ms (Fig. 5(d)),
indicating that the chemical reaction in the sphere were continuing and
(b) Pressure rise rate (dP/dt)
4
Y. Zhang, et al. Fuel 261 (2020) 116433

(a) Spatial distribution of explosion temperature

(b) Spatial distribution of gas flow velocity

(c) Spatial distribution of turbulent kinetic energy

(d) Spatial distribution of explosion pressure

Fig. 5. Simulation graphs during explosion process of hydrogen–air mixtures. Volume fraction: 30%.

the hydrogen was not completely exhausted. establishing heat transfer by radiation required time. Under the con-
The temperature reached a maximum value above 2000 K at 12 ms straint of the wall surface, the gas flow and pressure wave were re-
after the pressure reached its maximum value. This was because flected to the centre of the sphere. When the airflow velocity and

5
Y. Zhang, et al.
(a) Different volume fractions
Fig. 6. Simulation explosion pressure history of hydrogen–air mixture. (a) different volume fractions, (b) different distances from central position. Volume fraction:
30%.
pressure wave reached 12 and 16 ms, respectively, the maximal values
of 180 m/s and 1.12 MPa were observed again at the centre of the
sphere. The pressure at the centre of the sphere was considerably higher
than the maximum wall pressure obtained previously, indicating the
limitations in existing methods of testing maximum wall pressure
(using a wall pressure sensor). Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the
change in explosion pressure under different experimental conditions.
4.2. Explosion pressure results under ambient pressure
Fig. 6 presents simulated explosion pressure levels for the hydro-
gen–air mixtures. Comparing the explosion pressure–time curves for
different hydrogen volume fractions in the simulation (Fig. 6(a)) and
experimental (Fig. 4) measurements conducted at the vessel’s wall
surface revealed that experimental and simulation results were con-
sistent. When explosion pressure increased, the error between the si-
mulation and experiment was within 10%, and the pressure change in
the pressure testing point on the wall of the vessel was basically con-
sistent. At the same hydrogen volume fraction, the simulated maximum
explosion pressure was slightly higher than its experimental counter-
part; this was primarily due to the complete and uniform mixing of
hydrogen and air in the simulation. As the hydrogen volume fraction
increased, the error between the simulation and experiment decreased
gradually, further indicating the reliability of the simulation in mod-
elling the hydrogen explosion process.
(a) Experiment
Fig. 7. Explosion pressure history of hydrogen–air mixture at different initial pressures. Volume fraction: 30%. (a) experiment, (b) simulation.
6
Fuel 261 (2020) 116433
(b) Different distances from central
position. Volume fraction: 30%
Fig. 6(b) presents the dynamic change in pressure at the positions R
(the wall), 2R/3, R/3, and 0 from the centre of the sphere ignition
during the simulation process. Before the explosion pressure at different
locations reached the first maximum peak, the maximum value of ex-
plosion pressure gradually increased with an increase at the distance
from the ignition centre. The increasing trends of explosion pressure at
different locations were consistent. The reflection of the vessel interior
in terms of pressure oscillation. The pressure curves at different posi-
tions were observed after the explosion pressure reached its first peak.
The second explosion pressure peaks at R, 2R/3, R/3, and 0 were 0.77,
0.79, 1.01, and 1.12 MPa, respectively. The pressures at R/3 and 0 were
higher than the maximum wall pressure in the experiment. In Fig. 6(b),
the box with the black dotted lines demarcating the region between
13.3 and 18.8 ms indicates the explosion pressures at R/3 and 0, which
were greater than the maximum wall pressure. During this period, the
system was in its most violent phase. As the reaction time progressed,
the pressure oscillation gradually synchronized, and the peak pressure
in the vessel stabilized at 0.7 MPa.
4.3. Effect of initial pressure on explosion severity
To further evaluate the influence of initial pressure on explosion
severity, pressure values of 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0 atm were deliberately se-
lected to probe the severity of explosion on the basis of the above study
with initial pressure of 1.0 atm. At 30 vol%, the explosion pressure
(b) Simulation
Y. Zhang, et al.
Fig. 8. Experimental pressure rise rate history of hydrogen–air mixtures at
different initial pressures.
increased gradually with the initial reaction pressure (Fig. 7); the peak
explosion pressure obtained from the simulation was slightly higher
than that obtained from the experiment, consistent with the hydrogen
explosion pressure curves at different hydrogen volume fractions under
standard atmospheric pressure. Relative to the history of the (dP/dt) of
the hydrogen–air mixtures at different initial pressures (Fig. 8), the rate
of change of explosion pressure due to the change in initial pressure
increased slightly. However, the rate of (dP/dt) increase was larger. In
the experiment, when the initial pressure reached 2 atm, Pmax and (dP/
dt)max increased to 1.0 atm and 558 MPa/s, respectively.
Based on the Arrhenius equation and the Lewis theory of molecular
collision [42,43], the average relative velocity of molecules A and B
that effectively collide during the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen is
given as presented in Eq. (2):
1/2 1/2
8k T 8k T 8k T
v¯r = (v¯A2 + v¯B2 )1/2 = ⎛ B r + B r ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎛ B r ⎟⎞
⎝ πm A πmB ⎠ ⎝ πμm ⎠ (2)
where kB is the Boltzmann constant; Tr is the reaction temperature; μm
is the equivalence to mass μ = mAmB/(mA + mB); and v̄A and v̄ B are the
motion velocities of molecules A and B, respectively.
The number (ZAB) of collisions of molecules A and B at a unit time
and unit volume can be obtained as presented in Eq. (3):
1/2
2 ⎛ 8kB Tr ⎞
ZAB = πrAB ⎜ ⎟ NA NB
⎝ πμm ⎠ (3)
where rAB is the sum of radius of molecules A and B; and NA and NB are
the number of molecules A and B in unit volume, respectively.
At a certain reaction temperature, the distance between molecules
decreases as the initial pressure of the reaction system increases. Eqs.
(2) and (3) indicate that the number of molecules colliding increases
gradually and the chemical reaction rate is thus accelerated; conse-
quently, Pmax increases. Fig. 9 confirms that the peak explosion pressure
increases linearly with the initial pressure.
In the closed reaction system, the increase in the initial reaction
pressure accelerated the chemical reaction rate and promoted the in-
crease in explosion pressure. While the increase in the explosion pres-
sure further expedited the chemical reaction. Accordingly, the total
chemical reaction rate increased and (dP/dt) exhibited the law of ex-
ponential growth due to the coupling effect of initial pressure and ex-
plosion pressure. When the initial pressure increased from 1.0 to
2.0 atm, the maximum value of the explosion pressure increased by
1.16 folds and the maximum value of (dP/dt) increased by 2.82 folds
(Fig. 9). From the perspectives of flame propagation, as the initial
pressure increased, the flame propagation speed was higher and com-
bustion duration was shorter. A possible explanation for this is that
7
Fuel 261 (2020) 116433
hydrodynamics and diffusional-thermal instability would result in the
self-accelerative propagation of a spherically expanding flame, conse-
quently enhancing an explosion. Similar phenomena have been ob-
served by Hu et al. [44], Xie et al. [45], and Cai et al. [46]. Therefore, in
industrial applications where hydrogen is stored under high pressure,
the risk of human errors or operating accidents is extraordinarily high.
Thus, the explosion process of hydrogen must be thoroughly under-
stood.
5. Conclusions
This study was evaluated the explosion severity of various premixed
hydrogen–air mixtures. The results reveal the following:
When the initial reaction pressure was 1 atm, P and (dP/dt) in-
creased with the hydrogen volume fraction increased, attained a max-
imum value, and then decreased at higher volume fraction amounts.
Moreover, the dynamic explosion process of premixed hydrogen–air
mixtures was revealed. The pressure, turbulent kinetic energy, and
flame temperature attained maximum levels later than the gas flow
velocity did. Under the wall constraint, the airflow and pressure wave
were reflected to the centre of the sphere. The air velocity and pressure
wave, in turn, attained a maximum value at the centre of the sphere
again. The peak pressure at the centre of the sphere was notably higher
than the experimental peak wall pressure, indicating the limitations of
existing methods of evaluating the dynamic explosion severity.
On the stage of increasing explosion pressure, the simulation results
reproduced the experimental process well. The pressure changes at the
pressure test points of the vessel wall were consistent, which indicated a
reliable result. The hydrogen explosion process can be reproduced and
analysed through simulation with confidence. Combined with the
pressure of the simulation process, the prominent pressure oscillation
was observed in the pressure curves at different positions due to the
reflection inside the vessel after the explosion pressure attained its first
peak. Between 13.3 and 18.8 ms, the explosion pressure of R/3 and 0
was always greater than the maximum value of the wall pressure. As the
reaction time progressed, the pressure oscillation period gradually
synchronized, and the maximum value of the pressure in the vessel
stabilized at 0.7 MPa.
An increase in the initial reaction pressure led to a decrease in the
distance between molecules. The number of molecules that collides
increased, which expedited the chemical reaction rate and promoted an
increase in the explosion pressure. Subsequently, increasing the ex-
plosion pressure expedited the chemical reaction rate, which increased
the total chemical reaction rate. The rate of explosion pressure in-
creased due to the coupling effect of the initial pressure and explosion
pressure. Therefore, in industrial applications where hydrogen is stored
under high pressure, the risk of human errors or operating accidents is
extremely high. Thus, the explosion process of hydrogen must be
thoroughly understood.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper
Acknowledgements
This work was greatly supported by the Natural Science Foundation
of China (11802272), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
(2019M651085), the Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province
(201801D121285), the Cultivation Programs for Young Scientific
Research Personnel of Higher Education Institutions in Shanxi Province
(1912200059MZ), and the Scientific and Technological Innovation
Programs of Higher Education Institutions in Shanxi (201802079 and
2017152).
Y. Zhang, et al.
(a) Explosion pressure and pressure rise rate
peak vs. initial pressure
Fig. 9. Experimental explosion behaviors of hydrogen–air mixtures at different initial pressures. (a) explosion pressure and pressure rise rate peak vs. initial pressure,
(b) rate of explosion severity vs. initial pressure.
References
[1] Crowl DA, Jo YD. The hazards and risks of hydrogen. J Loss Prev Process Ind
2007;20:158–64.
[2] Cheng YF, Meng XR, Ma HH, et al. Flame propagation behaviors and influential
factors of TiH2 dust explosions at a constant pressure. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:16355–63.
[3] Chen SH, Tang Y, Yu HS, et al. The rapid H2 release from AlH3 dehydrogenation
forming porous layer in AlH3/hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) fuels
during combustion. J Hazard Mater 2019;371:53–61.
[4] Mironov VN, Penyazkov OG, Ignatenko DG. Self-ignition and explosion of a 13-MPa
pressurized unsteady hydrogen jet under atmospheric conditions. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:5749–62.
[5] Li YC, Bi MS, Li B, et al. Effects of hydrogen and initial pressure on flame char-
acteristics and explosion pressure of methane/hydrogen fuels. Fuel
2018;233:269–82.
[6] Li YC, Bi MS, Li B, et al. Explosion hazard evaluation of renewable hydrogen/am-
monia/air fuels. Energy 2018;159:252–63.
[7] Zhang C, Wen J, Shen XB, et al. Experimental study of hydrogen/air premixed flame
propagation in a closed channel with inhibitions for safety consideration. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2019;44:22654–60.
[8] Shen XB, Zhang C, Xiu G, et al. Evolution of premixed stoichiometric hydrogen/air
flame in a closed duct. Energy 2019;176:265–71.
[9] Imamura T, Hamada S, Mogi T, et al. Experimental investigation on the thermal
properties of hydrogen jet flame and hot currents in the downstream region. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33:3426–35.
[10] Schefer RW, Houf WG, Williams TC, et al. Characterization of high-pressure, un-
derexpanded hydrogen-jet flames. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:2081–93.
[11] Groethe M, Merilo E, Sato Y. Large-scale hydrogen deflagrations and detonations.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2007;32:2125–33.
[12] Zheng K, Yu MG, Liang YP, et al. Large eddy simulation of premixed hydrogen/
methane/air flame propagation in a closed duct. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2018;43:3871–84.
[13] Zheng K, Yu MG, Zheng LG, et al. Effects of hydrogen addition on methane-air
deflagration in obstructed chamber. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 2017;80:270–80.
[14] Zhang Q, Wang YX, Lian Z. Explosion hazards of LPG-air mixtures in vented en-
closure with obstacles. J Hazard Mater 2017;334:59–67.
[15] Zhang B, Liu H, Yan BH. Effect of acoustically absorbing wall tubes on the near-limit
detonation propagation behaviors in a methane-oxygen mixture. Fuel
2019;236:975–83.
[16] Zhang B, Liu H. The effects of large scale perturbation-generating obstacles on the
propagation of detonation filled with methane–oxygen mixture. Combust Flame
2017;182:279–87.
[17] Zhang B, Liu H, Yan BH. Investigation on the detonation propagation limit criterion
for methane-oxygen mixtures in tubes with different scales. Fuel 2019;239:617–22.
[18] Cao Y, Guo J, Hu KL, et al. Effect of ignition location on external explosion in
hydrogen–air explosion venting. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:10547–54.
[19] Cao Y, Guo J, Hu KL, et al. The effect of ignition location on explosion venting of
hydrogen–air mixtures. Shock Waves 2017;27:691–7.
[20] NFPA 68. Standard on explosion protection by deflagration venting. Quincy,
Massachusetts, USA: National Fire Protection Association; 2013.
[21] Wang K, He YR, Liu ZY, et al. Experimental study on optimization models for
evaluation of fireball characteristics and thermal hazards induced by LNG vapor
cloud explosions based on colorimetric thermometry. J Hazard Mater
2019;366:282–92.
[22] Bind VK, Roy S, Rajagopal C. A reaction engineering approach to modeling dust
explosions. Chem Eng J 2012;207–208:625–34.
[23] Di Sarli V, Di Benedetto A, Russo G. Large eddy simulation of transient premixed
flame–vortex interactions in gas explosions. Chem Eng Sci 2012;71:539–51.
Fuel 261 (2020) 116433
(b) Rate of explosion severity vs. initial
pressure
[24] Li HT, Chen XK, Shu CM, et al. Experimental and numerical investigation of the
influence of laterally sprayed water mist on a methane-air jet flame. Chem Eng J
2019;356:554–69.
[25] Ugarte OJ, Akkerman V, Rangwala AS. A computational platform for gas explosion
venting. Process Saf Environ Prot 2016;99:167–74.
[26] Sezer H, Kronz F, Akkerman V, et al. Methane-induced explosions in vented en-
closures. J Loss Prevent Proc Ind 2017;48:199–206.
[27] Molkov V, Makarov D, Schneider H. LES modelling of an unconfined large-scale
hydrogen–air deflagration. J Phys D: Appl Phys 2006;39:4366–76.
[28] Molkov V, Verbecke F, Makarov D. LES of hydrogen-air deflagrations in a 78.5-m
tunnel. Combust Sci Technol 2008;180:796–808.
[29] Li GQ, Du Y, Wang SM, et al. Large eddy simulation and experimental study on
vented gasoline-air mixture explosions in a semi-confined obstructed pipe. J Hazard
Mater 2017;339:131–42.
[30] Liu YF, Tsuboi N, Sato H, et al. Direct numerical simulation on hydrogen fuel jetting
from high pressure tank, Proceedings of the 20th International Colloquium on the
Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems, Montreal, Canada; 2005.
[31] Lee HJ, Park JH, Kim SD, et al. Numerical study on the spontaneous-ignition fea-
tures of high-pressure hydrogen released through a tube with burst conditions. Proc
Combust Inst 2015;35:2173–80.
[32] Lee BJ, Jeung IS. Numerical study of spontaneous ignition of pressurized hydrogen
released by the failure of a rupture disk into a tube. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2009;34:8763–9.
[33] Wen JX, Xu BP, Tam VHY. Numerical study on spontaneous ignition of pressurized
hydrogen release through a length of tube. Combust Flame 2009;156:2173–89.
[34] Rao GN, Zhang Y, Cao WG, et al. Experimental and numerical studies of premixed
methane-hydrogen/air mixtures flame propagation in closed duct. Can J Chem Eng
2018;96:2684–9.
[35] Zhang Y, Jiao FY, Huang Q, et al. Experimental and numerical studies on the closed
and vented explosion behaviors of premixed methane-hydrogen/air mixtures. Appl
Therm Eng 2019;159:113907.
[36] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering appli-
cations. AIAA J 1994;32:1598–605.
[37] Egorov Y, Menter FR. Development and application of SST-SAS turbulence model in
the DESIDER project. Adv Hybrid RANS-LES Model 2008:261–70.
[38] Menter FR, Egorov Y. The scale-adaptive simulation method for unsteady turbulent
flow predictions. Part 1: theory and model description. J Flow Turbul Combust
2010;85:113–38.
[39] Zimont V, Polifke W, Bettelini M, et al. An efficient computational model for pre-
mixed turbulent combustion at high Reynolds numbers based on a turbulent flame
speed closure. J Gas Turbines Power 1998;120:526–32.
[40] Cao WG, Qin QF, Cao W, et al. Experimental and numerical studies on the explosion
severities of coal dust/air mixtures in a 20-L spherical vessel. Powder Technol
2017;310:17–23.
[41] Li J, Li QQ, Wang YT, et al. Fundamental flame characteristics of premixed H2–air
combustion in a planar porous micro–combust. Chem Eng J 2016;283:1187–96.
[42] Lewis JC, Van Kranendonk J. Intercollisional interference effects in collision-in-
duced light scattering. Phys Rev Lett 1970;24:802–4.
[43] Lewis JC, Van Kranendonk J. Theory of intercollisional interference effects. I. in-
duced absorption. Can J Phys 1976;50:2881–901.
[44] Hu EJ, Huang ZH, He JJ, et al. Experimental and numerical study on laminar
burning velocities and flame instabilities of hydrogen–air mixtures at elevated
pressures and temperatures. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:8741–55.
[45] Xie YL, Wang JH, Cai X, et al. Self-acceleration of cellular flames and laminar flame
speed of syngas/air mixtures at elevated pressures. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2016;41:18250–8.
[46] Cai X, Wang JH, Zhao HR, et al. Flame morphology and self-acceleration of syngas
spherically expanding flames. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2018;43:17531–41.