开口阻塞比对粉体抑制甲烷爆炸的影响研究

郑立刚; 李刚; 王亚磊; 朱小超; 窦增果; 杜德朋; 余明高

doi:10.11883/bzycj-2018-0228

开口阻塞比对粉体抑制甲烷爆炸的影响研究

doi: 10.11883/bzycj-2018-0228

郑立刚^{1, 3,},
李刚^{1, 3},
王亚磊^{1, 3},
朱小超^{1, 3},
窦增果^{1, 3},
杜德朋^{1, 3},
余明高^2, ,

1.
河南理工大学煤炭安全生产河南省协同创新中心，河南焦作 454003
2.
重庆大学煤矿灾害动力学与控制国家重点实验室，重庆 400044
3.
河南理工大学瓦斯地质与瓦斯治理国家重点实验室培育基地，河南焦作 454003

基金项目: 国家自然科学基金（51674104，51874120）；中国博士后科学基金(2013M540570)；河南理工大学创新型科研团队（T2018-2）

详细信息

作者简介:
郑立刚（1979－　），男，博士，教授，zhengligang97@163.com

通讯作者:
余明高（1963－　），男，博士，教授，博士生导师，mg_yu@126.com

中图分类号: O389
计量
- 文章访问数: 5194
- HTML全文浏览量: 1436
- PDF下载量: 42
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2018-06-26
- 修回日期: 2018-08-22
- 刊出日期: 2019-11-01

Effect of blockage ratios on the characteristics of methane/air explosions suppressed by dry chemicals

ZHENG Ligang^{1, 3
,},
LI Gang^{1, 3},
WANG Yalei^{1, 3},
ZHU Xiaochao^{1, 3},
Dou Zengguo^{1, 3},
DU Depeng^{1, 3},
YU Minggao^{2
, ,}

1.
The Collaborative Innovation Center of Coal Safety Production of Henan Province, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454003, Henan, China
2.
State Key Laboratory of Coal Mine Disaster Dynamics Control, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
3.
State Key Laboratory Cultivation Base for Gas Geology and Gas Control, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454003, Henan, China

摘要

摘要: 为了研究开口阻塞比φ对粉体抑爆特性的影响，采用质量浓度C为0、80、160、240 g/m³的Al (OH)₃和NaHCO₃粉体，分别抑制具有不同φ（0、0.2、0.4、0.6、0.7、1.0）值的5 L管道内甲烷/空气预混气爆炸。实验结果表明：火焰的破碎度随粉体抑爆效率的增大而增大；最大超压峰值p_max、爆燃指数K_st由燃烧速率和泄爆速率共同决定。φ=0.7是每条爆炸特征参数曲线的拐点。随着φ值增加，超压峰值下降率δ先增大后减小，在0.4和0.6之间达到最大；总体上，Al (OH)₃和NaHCO₃两种粉体的抑爆效率相近。但在某些阻塞比下，阻塞比引起的低湍流影响着粉体颗粒的沉降行为，使得Al (OH)₃抑爆效率优于NaHCO₃。当粉体质量浓度从80 g/m³增加到240 g/m³时，热阻增加，火焰的热量不能扩散到粒子云的中心，不利于内部粒子的吸热分解，致使浓度效应越来越弱。
- 开口阻塞比 /
- 粉体质量浓度 /
- 抑爆 /
- 瓦斯爆炸
Abstract: To investigate the effect of blockage ratios (φ) on the inhibited flame, an experimental study was performed to suppress the methane-air explosions in a 5 L duct with the blockage ratios φ = 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 1.0 under BC and Al(OH)₃ inhibitors with the mass concentrations C = 0 g/m³, 80 g/m³, 160 g/m³ and 240 g/m³. The results indicated that the flame fragmentation increased with the improvement of the suppression efficiency. The maximum explosion pressure (p_max) and the deflagration index of the explosion (K_st) were dominated by the combustion rate and the discharge rate. Furthermore, φ = 0.7 was the inflection point of p_max and K_st curves. The drop rate in the P_max (δ) firstly increased and then decreased as the blockage ratio increased. And the maximum δ_max was achieved at the blockage ratio between 0.4 with 0.6. In general, the suppression efficiency of Al(OH)₃ and NaHCO₃ powders was comparable. However, the low turbulence caused by certain blocking ratios impacted the sedimentation of inhibitor particles, which made the suppression efficiency of Al(OH)₃ better than that of NaHCO₃. There was an increasing heat resistance as the powder concentration increased from 80 g/m³ to 240 g/m³, which blocked the penetration of heat from the flame into the interior of particle cloud and disabled interior particles’ thermal decomposition, leading to a weakening concentration effect.
- blockage ratios /
- powder concentration /
- explosion suppression /
- methane explosion

HTML全文

图 1 实验系统示意

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of experimental system

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 样品的粒度分布

Figure 2. Particle size distributions of samples

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 不同工况的火焰结构

Figure 3. Comparison of flame structures with different experimental conditions

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 四种开口阻塞比下的火焰传播速度

Figure 4. The flame tip velocity under four blockage ratios with different powder concentrations

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 NaHCO₃质量浓度C=0 g/m³时封闭端爆炸参数

Figure 5. The explosion parameters at the lower end with C=0 g/m³

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 NaHCO₃抑制时封闭端超压峰值及最大升压速率

Figure 6. The p_max and (dp/dt)_max at the lower end with NaHCO₃

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 封闭端超压峰值下降率

Figure 7. The drop rate of p_max at the lower end as a function of the blockage ratio

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 NaHCO₃与Al(OH)₃粉体抑爆机理示意

Figure 8. Mechanism illustration of the methane explosion suppression by NaHCO₃ and Al(OH)₃ powders

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 不同工况下超压峰值下降率增值的比较

Table 1. Comparison of the increment in the drop rate of p_max with different experimental conditions

粉体	φ	(δ\|_C₌₁₆₀−δ\|_C₌₈₀)/%	(δ\|_C₌₂₄₀−δ\|_C₌₁₆₀)/%
NaHCO₃	0	9.4	3.5
	0.2	12.3	7.3
	0.4	15.7	2.1
	0.6	13.9	11.2
	0.7	18.3	13.9
	1.0	3.7	2.7
Al(OH)₃	0	5.1	9.5
	0.2	10.1	16.8
	0.4	16.2	1.1
	0.6	9.6	3.1
	0.7	12.1	8.7
	1.0	3.5	1.3

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(27)

[1]	余明高, 杨勇, 裴蓓, 等. N₂双流体细水雾抑制管道瓦斯爆炸实验研究 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2017, 37(2): 194–200. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2017)02-0194-07. YU Minggao, YANG Yong, PEI Bei, et al. Experimental study of methane explosion suppression by nitrogen twin-fluid water mist [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2017, 37(2): 194–200. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2017)02-0194-07.
[2]	张培理, 杜扬. 油气爆炸的氮气非预混抑制实验 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2016, 36(3): 347–352. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2016)03-0347-06. ZHANG Peili, DU Yang. Experiments of nitrogen non-premixed suppression of gasoline-air mixture explosion [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2016, 36(3): 347–352. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2016)03-0347-06.
[3]	JIANG H, BI M, GAO W, et al. Inhibition of aluminum dust explosion by NaHCO₃ with different particle size distributions [J]. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2017, 344: 902–912. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2017.11.054.
[4]	范宝春, 李鸿志. 惰性颗粒抑爆过程的数值模拟 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2000, 20(3): 208–214. FAN Baochun, LI Hongzhi. Numerical simulations of explosion suppression by inert particles [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2000, 20(3): 208–214.
[5]	文虎, 王秋红, 邓军, 等. 超细Al(OH)₃粉体浓度对甲烷爆炸压力的影响 [J]. 煤炭学报, 2009(11): 1479–1482. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9993.2009.11.009. WEN Hu, WANG Qiuhong, DENG Jun, et al. Effect of the concentration of Al(OH)₃ ultrafine powder on the pressure of methane explosion [J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2009(11): 1479–1482. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0253-9993.2009.11.009.
[6]	ZHENG L G, ZHENG K, PAN R K, et al. Inhibition of the premixed CH₄/air deflagration by powdered extinguishing agents [J]. Procedia Engineering, 2014, 71: 230–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.04.033.
[7]	喻健良, 闫兴清. 硅酸铝棉对火焰速度和爆炸超压的抑制作用 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2013, 33(4): 363–368. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2013)04-0363-06. YU Jianliang, YAN Xingqing. Suppression of flame speed and explosion overpressure by aluminum silicate wool [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2013, 33(4): 363–368. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2013)04-0363-06.
[8]	周佩杰, 王坚, 陶钢, 等. 泡沫材料对冲击波的衰减特性 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2015, 35(5): 675–681. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2015)05-0675-07. ZHOU Peijie, WANG Jian, TAO Gang, et al. Attenuation characteristics of shock waves interacting with open and closed foams [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2015, 35(5): 675–681. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2015)05-0675-07.
[9]	邵昊, 蒋曙光, 李钦华, 等. 真空腔体积对真空腔抑制瓦斯爆炸性能的影响 [J]. 采矿与安全工程学报, 2014, 31(3): 489–493. DOI: 10.13545/j.issn1673-3363.2014.03.025. SHAO Hao, JIANG Shugang, LI Qinhua, et al. Influence of vacuum chamber volume on gas explosion suppression [J]. Journal of Mining and Safety Engineering, 2014, 31(3): 489–493. DOI: 10.13545/j.issn1673-3363.2014.03.025.
[10]	胡俊, 浦以康, 万士昕, 等. 柱形容器开口泄爆过程中压力发展特性的实验研究 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2001, 21(1): 47–52. HU Jun, PU Yikang, WAN Shixin, et al. Experimental investigations of pressure development during explosion vent from cylindrical vessels [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2001, 21(1): 47–52.
[11]	任少峰, 陈先锋, 王玉杰, 等. 泄压口比率对气体泄爆过程中的动力学行为的影响 [J]. 煤炭学报, 2011, 36(5): 830–833. DOI: 10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2011.05.033. REN Shaofeng, CHEN Xianfeng, WANG Yujie, et al. Effect of pressure-orifice ratio on dynamic behavior during gas venting [J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2011, 36(5): 830–833. DOI: 10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.2011.05.033.
[12]	尤明伟, 蒋军成, 喻源, 等. 等泄压比条件下连通容器泄爆实验研究 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2012, 32(2): 221–224. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)02-0221-04. YOU Mingwei, JIANG Juncheng, YU Yuan, et al. Experimental study on premixed flammable gas explosion venting in linked vessels under the same effective vent area [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2012, 32(2): 221–224. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2012)02-0221-04.
[13]	陈东梁, 孙金华, 刘义, 等. 甲烷/空气预混气体火焰的传播特征 [J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2008, 28(5): 385–390. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2008)05-0385-06. CHEN Dongliang, SUN Jinhua, LIU Yi, et al. Propagation characteristics of premixed methane-air flames [J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2008, 28(5): 385–390. DOI: 10.11883/1001-1455(2008)05-0385-06.
[14]	XIAO H, WANG Q, HE X, et al. Experimental study on the behaviors and shape changes of premixed hydrogen–air flames propagating in horizontal duct [J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2011, 36(10): 6325–6336. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.02.049.
[15]	CLANET C, SEARBY G. On the " tulip flame” phenomenon [J]. Combustion and Flame, 1996, 105(1/2): 225–238. DOI: 0010-2180(95)00195-6.
[16]	LV X, ZHENG L, ZHANG Y, et al. Combined effects of obstacle position and equivalence ratio on overpressure of premixed hydrogen–air explosion [J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2016, 41(39): 17740–17749. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.07.263.
[17]	CASTELLANOS D, CARRETO-VAZQUEZ V H, MASHUGA C V, et al. The effect of particle size polydispersity on the explosibility characteristics of aluminum dust [J]. Powder Technology, 2014, 254(2): 331–337. DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2013.11.028.
[18]	HUANG D, WANG X, YANG J. Influence of particle size and heating rate on decomposition of BC dry chemical fire extinguishing powders [J]. Particulate Science and Technology, 2015, 33(5): 488–493. DOI: 10.1080/02726351.2015.1013591.
[19]	王秋红, 邓军, 罗振敏, 等. 超细氢氧化镁粉体抑制甲烷-空气混合物爆炸效能研究 [J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2014, 24(12): 33–37. DOI: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2014.12.006. WANG Qiuhong, DENG Jun, LUO Zhenmin, et al. Research on effects of methane explosion suppression by ultrafine magnesium hydroxide powder [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2014, 24(12): 33–37. DOI: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2014.12.006.
[20]	OMAR Dounia, OLIVIER Vermorel, THIERRY Poinsot. Theoretical analysis and simulation of methane/air flame inhibition by sodium bicarbonate particles [J]. Combustion & Flame, 2018, 193: 313–326. DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.03.033.
[21]	RALLIS C J, GARFORTH A M. The determination of laminar burning velocity [J]. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 1980, 6(4): 303–329. DOI: 10.1016/0360-1285(80)90008-8.
[22]	徐跃萍, 郭景坤, 黄校先, 等. 无团聚ZrO₂-Y₂O₃陶瓷超细粉的制备及微观结构表征 [J]. 硅酸盐学报, 1991(3): 269–273. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0454-5648.1991.03.001. XU Yueping, GUO Jingkun, HUANG Xiaoxian, et al. Preparation and microstructure characteristics of free-agglomerate ultrafine ZrO₂-Y₂O₃ ceramic powder [J]. Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society, 1991(3): 269–273. DOI: 10.3321/j.issn:0454-5648.1991.03.001.
[23]	冯拉俊, 刘毅辉, 雷阿利. 纳米颗粒团聚的控制 [J]. 微纳电子技术, 2003, 40(7): 536–539. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4776.2003.07.158. FENG Lajun, LIU Yihui, LEI Ali. The controlling of nanoparticle agglomerates [J]. Micronanoelectronic Technology, 2003, 40(7): 536–539. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4776.2003.07.158.
[24]	ECKHOFF R K. Influence of dispersibility and coagulation on the dust explosion risk presented by powders consisting of nm-particles [J]. Powder Technology, 2013, 239(17): 223–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2013.02.007.
[25]	李国栋, 熊翔, 黄伯云. 纳米粉体大气环境团聚机理及无团聚纳米粉体的制备 [J]. 中南大学学报(自然科学版), 2004, 35(4): 527–531. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7207.2004.04.002. LI Guodong, XIONG Xiang, HUANG Boyun. Agglomerate mechanism of nanometer powders in atmosphere and methods of preparation of nan-agglomerate nanometer powders [J]. Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), 2004, 35(4): 527–531. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-7207.2004.04.002.
[26]	RANGANATHAN S, ROCKWELL S R, PETROW D, et al. Radiative fraction of dust entrained turbulent premixed flames [J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2017, 51: 65–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2017.11.009.
[27]	RANGANATHAN S, PETROW D, ROCKWELL S R, et al. Turbulent burning velocity of methane–air–dust premixed flames [J]. Combustion and Flame, 2018, 188: 367–375. DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.10.015.