logo

SCIENCE CHINA Technological Sciences, Volume 60 , Issue 5 : 678-691(2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-016-0603-2

Experimental investigation of flame propagation characteristics in the in-line crimped-ribbon flame arrester

More info
  • ReceivedSep 1, 2016
  • AcceptedDec 12, 2016
  • PublishedMar 31, 2017

Abstract

An experimental system that consisted of gas mixing equipment, a sensor detection system, a data acquisition device, and an electric spark ignition device was set up to investigate fuel/air deflagration flame propagation and quenching processes through a crimped-ribbon flame arrester in an enclosed horizontal pipe. Deflagration suppression experiments showed that when the concentration of flammable gas was close to the stoichiometric ratio, the evolution processes of explosion pressure for the propane-air and ethylene-air premixed gases in the pipe diameter (DN32–DN400) were similar and could be divided into four stages: isobaric combustion, slow pressure rise, quick pressure rise, and pressure oscillation. However, the explosion duration of the hydrogen-air premixed gas was relatively short, and the peak explosion pressure was high. The pressure rose quickly after the isobaric combustion stage. Therefore, the process can be divided into three stages in the pipe diameter (DN15–DN150). Deflagration speed results indicated that the propane-air flame speed initially increased and eventually decreased along with increases in the pipe diameter (DN32–DN400); however, the ethylene-air flame speed gradually increased with the increase of the pipe diameter (DN80–DN400). No notable pattern of change in the hydrogen-air flame speed was observed in the pipe diameter (DN15–DN150). The maximum propane-air flame speed occurred at 5% concentration. The maximum flame speed for ethylene-air and hydrogen-air happened when the mixture was close to stoichiometric ratio. Under the conditions of the same size of experimental tube configuration and the same ignition distance but different pipe lengths, or the same pipe length but different ignition distances, experimental results showed that the flame arrester successfully stopped the flames at high flame speed and low explosion pressure, but failed at low flame speed and high explosion pressure.


Funded by

General Administration of Quality Supervision

Inspection and Quarantine of China Scientific Project(2011QK083,Shenyang Science,Technology Project (Grant No. F14-048-2-00)


Acknowledgment

This work was supported by General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of China Scientific Project (Grant No. 2011QK083) and Shenyang Science and Technology Project (Grant No. F14-048-2-00).


References

[1] Grossel S S. Deflagration and Detonation Flame Arresters. New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2002. 5–14. Google Scholar

[2] Howard W B. Flame arresters and flashback preventers. Plant/Oper Prog, 1982, 1: 203-208 CrossRef Google Scholar

[3] Howard W B. Process safety technology and the responsibility of industry. Chem Eng Prog, 1988, 84: 25–33. Google Scholar

[4] Beauvais R, Mayinger F, Strube G. Turbulent flame acceleration-mechanisms and significance for safety considerations. Int J Hydrogen Energ, 1994, 19: 701-708 CrossRef Google Scholar

[5] Lietze D. Limit of safety against flame transmission for sintered metal flame arrester elements in the case of flashback in fuel gas/oxygen mixtures. J Loss Prevent Proc Indust, 1995, 8: 325-329 CrossRef Google Scholar

[6] Desai V M. A flare deflagration incident at Rohm and Haas. Proc Saf Prog, 1996, 15: 166-167 CrossRef Google Scholar

[7] Britton L G. Using maximum experimental safe gap to select flame arresters. Proc Saf Prog, 2000, 19: 140-145 CrossRef Google Scholar

[8] Lietze D. Crimped metal ribbon flame arrestors for the protection of gas measurement systems. J Loss Prevent Proc Indust, 2002, 15: 29-35 CrossRef Google Scholar

[9] Bauer P. Experimental investigation on flame and detonation quenching: applicability of static flame arresters. J Loss Prevent Proc Indust, 2005, 18: 63-68 CrossRef Google Scholar

[10] Kakutkina N A, Korzhavin A A, Rychkov A D. Burning-through of porous flame arresters with a channel flame-arrester element. Combust Explos Shock Waves, 2009, 45: 266-273 CrossRef Google Scholar

[11] Asano S, Ikeda S, Kagawa T, et al. Visualization of behaviors of a propagating flame quenching for hydrogen-air gas mixture. J Vis, 2010, 13: 107-119 CrossRef Google Scholar

[12] Okawa Y, Youn C, Kagawa T. A study of the characteristics of flow rate and extinction in a flame arrester with radial slit structure. J Loss Prevent Proc Indust, 2012, 25: 242-249 CrossRef Google Scholar

[13] Sun S C, Bi M S, Liu G, et al. A pilot study of flame arrester performance test methods (in Chinese). CIESC J, 2014, 65: 441–450. Google Scholar

[14] Jiang L F, Liu H, Liang H. Optimization of flame arrester structure of explosion-proof valve with flame arrester for diesel engine. Appl Mech Mater,, 2014, 511-512: 595-598 CrossRef Google Scholar

[15] Wilson R P, Flessner M. Design criteria for flame arresters. J Loss Prevent Proc Indust, 1979, 12: 86–95. Google Scholar

[16] Cubbage P. Flame Traps for Use with Town Gas/Air Mixtures. London: Gas Gouncil, 1959. 30–47. Google Scholar

[17] Palmer K N. The quenching of flames by perforated sheeting and block flame arresters. In: IChemE Proc. Symposium on Chemical Process Hazards with Special Reference to Plant Design. London: Institution of Chemical Engineers, 1960. 51–57. Google Scholar

[18] Palmer K N, Tonkin P S. The quenching of propane-air explosions by crimped-ribbon flame arresters. In: Proceedings of the IChemE Symposium. London: Institution of Chemical Engineers, 1963. 15–20. Google Scholar

[19] Palmer K N, Rogowski Z W. The use of flame arresters for protection of enclosed equipment in propane-air atmospheres. In: IChemE Proc. Third Symposium on Chemical Process Hazards with Special Reference to Plant Design. London: Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1968. 76–85. Google Scholar

[20] Heidermann T, Davies M. In-line flame arrester application limits and matrix concept for process plant safety from flash back of thermal combustion units. In: AIChE Spring Meeting and Global Congress on Process Safety. Orlando, 2006. 353–378. Google Scholar

[21] Rogowski Z, Ames S. Performance of metal foam as a flame arrester when fitted to gas explosion relief vents. Fire Research Note 931. Herts: Fire Research Station, 1972. Google Scholar

[22] Rogowski, Z W. Manual for testing flame arresters. Herts: Fire Research Station, 1978. Google Scholar

[23] Thomas G, Oakley G. On practical difficulties encountered when testing flame and detonation arresters to BS 7244. Process Saf Environ, 1993, 71: 187–193. Google Scholar

[24] Wilson R P, Attalah S. Design Criteria for Flame Control Devices for Cargo Venting Systems. U.S. Coast Guard Report CG-D-175-75, Department of Transportation, Washington DC, 1975. 1–54. Google Scholar

[25] Kersten C, Förster H. Investigation of deflagrations and detonations in pipes and flame arresters by high-speed framing. J Loss Prevent Proc Indust, 2004, 17: 43-50 CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] ISO 16852 Standard. Flame arresters-performance requirements, test methods and limits for use. Belgian Standards, 2008. Google Scholar

[27] CCPS. Guidelines for Engineering Design for Process Safety. New York: Center for Chemical Process Safety, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1993. 374–375. Google Scholar

[28] Palmer K N, Tonkin P S. The quenching of flames by crimped ribbon flame arresters. Fire Research Note 438. Herts: Fire Research Station, 1960. Google Scholar

[29] Langford B, Palmer K N, Tonkin P S. The performance of flame arresters against flames propagating in various fuel/air mixtures. Fire Research Note 486. Herts: Fire Research Station, 1961. Google Scholar

[30] Palmer K N, Tonkin P S. The quenching of flames of various fuels in narrow apertures. Combust Flame, 1963, 7: 121-127 CrossRef Google Scholar

[31] Botha J P, Spalding D B. The laminar flame speed of propane/air mixtures with heat extraction from the flame. Proc R Soc A-Math Phys Eng Sci, 1954, 225: 71-96 CrossRef ADS Google Scholar

[32] Palmer K N, Tonkin P S. The quenching of flames by flame arresters in a large-scale ducting system. Fire Research Note 506. Herts: Fire Research Station, 1962. Google Scholar

  • Figure 1

    The experimental system schematic diagram.

  • Figure 2

    The crimped ribbon arrester.

  • Figure 3

    Explosion pressure time histories for different specifications flame arrester of 4.2% C3H8-air. (a) D=32 mm; (b) D=80 mm; (c) D=400 mm.

  • Figure 4

    Explosion pressure time histories for different specifications flame arrester of 6.6% C2H4-air. (a) D=32 mm; (b) D=80 mm; (c) D=400 mm.

  • Figure 5

    Explosion pressure time histories for different specifications flame arrester of 28.5% H2-air. (a) D=15 mm; (b) D=32 mm; (c) D=150 mm

  • Figure 6

    Formation process of Mach wave.

  • Figure 7

    Pressure wave pass through the flame arrester.

  • Figure 8

    The reflection of pressure wave against the wall.

  • Figure 9

    Formation process of rarefaction waves against the narrow channel.

  • Figure 10

    Flame speed values of various fuels in different pipe diameter.

  • Figure 11

    Effect of concentrations on flame speed in DN150 pipe with various fuels.

  • Figure 12

    Relation between pipe length and position of ignition point.

  • Figure 13

    Experimental results of flame speed.

  • Figure 14

    Explosion pressure results for various gases.

  • Figure 15

    Flame detector signals.

  • Table 1   Type of flame arresters

    Item

    Explosion group

    D (mm)

    L1/D

    1

    IIA

    32 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    50

    2

    IIA

    80 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    50

    3

    IIA

    100 (Section 3.4)

    40, 50

    4

    IIA

    150 (Sections 3.2, 3.3)

    50

    5

    IIA

    400 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    50

    6

    IIB3

    32 (Section 3.1)

    50

    7

    IIB3

    80 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    50

    8

    IIB3

    100 (Section 3.4)

    40, 50

    9

    IIB3

    150 (Section 3.3)

    50

    10

    IIB3

    400 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    50

    11

    IIC

    15 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    30

    12

    IIC

    32 (Sections 3.1, 3.2)

    30

    13

    IIC

    100 (Section 3.4)

    40, 50

    14

    IIC

    150 (Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3)

    30, 50

  • Table 2   Flame speed results with propane arresters; all flames arrested

    Dimension

    Maximum value (m/s)

    Minimum value (m/s)

    Average value (m/s)

    32 mm

    33

    14

    24

    80 mm

    55

    36

    44

    150 mm

    91

    71

    80.6

    400 mm

    28

    9

    16.9

  • Table 3   Effect of run-up length on propagation speed and overpressure

    Run-up length (mm)

    Propagation speed (m/s)

    Detonation

    Overpressure (MPa)

    304.8

    4.572

    No

    0.047

    1828.8

    76.2

    No

    0.111

    5791.2

    121.92

    No

    0.333

    7315.2

    2243.328

    Yes

    14.09

  • Table 4   Flame speed results with ethylene arresters; all flames arrested

    Dimension

    Maximum value

    (m/s)

    Minimum value

    (m/s)

    Average value

    (m/s)

    80 mm

    71

    49

    59.45

    400 mm

    122

    88

    102.9

  • Table 5   Flame speed results with hydrogen arresters; all flames arrested

    Dimension

    Maximum value

    (m/s)

    Minimum value

    (m/s)

    Average value

    (m/s)

    15 mm

    181

    149

    162.84

    32 mm

    112

    82

    95.92

    150 mm

    113

    86

    98.23

  • Table 6   Experimental conditions

    Item

    Case category

    Ignition distance

    (mm)

    Pipe length

    (mm)

    1

    Case-A

    40

    50

    2

    Case-B

    40

    40

    3

    Case-C

    50

    50

Copyright 2020 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备17057255号       京公网安备11010102003388号