Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Full Length Article

Shock wave evolution and overpressure hazards in partly premixed gas T

deflagration of DME/LPG blended multi-clean fuel
⁎
Qi Zhanga, Xinming Qiana, Liye Fub, Mengqi Yuana, , Yuying Chena
a
State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
b
Department of Building Services Engineering, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

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

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

Keywords: In order to reveal the shock wave propagation and overpressure hazards of DME (dimethyl ether)/LPG (liquefied
Gas deflagration petroleum gas) blended fuel in the process of partly premixed gas deflagration, both experimental apparatus and
Original premixed zone numerical model for multiple-gas explosion and propagation are established. The results show that the over-
DME/LPG blended fuel pressure in the sharp-dropping overpressure hazards zone are generally more than 200 kPa, and the distribution
Shock wave evolution
range was 5.75–6.75 times of the maximum overpressure hazards zone. The overpressure in the gentle-dropping
Overpressure hazards
overpressure hazards zone is the smallest, but its propagation and influence distance is the largest, which can
cause certain damage to people and buildings in the far field. The participation of DME at lean-fuel concentration
had the greatest effect on the increase of overpressure hazards in the original premixed zone, which could reach
306.6%. The increase of equivalence ratio and the addition of DME fuel both accelerate the superposition of
multiple pressure waves. High overpressure risk is always accompanied by high overpressure evolution speed. As
equivalence ratio increases, the relationship between the average shock wave velocity and the DME blended
ratio was linear, quadratic and cubic, also the flame acceleration mechanism by high burning rate and the flame
deceleration mechanism by low combustion heat successively dominates.

1. Introduction components are derived from petroleum and can be easily converted
into liquid fuel by pressurization at room temperature [1]. LPG has a
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is a general term for hydrocarbon low saturated vapor pressure and is often stored in small-volume
fuel gas with propane and butane as the main active components. These pressure tanks for transportation and usage. Such safe and efficient

⁎
Corresponding author at: Room 303, State Key Laboratory of Explosion Science and Technology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Haidian District, Beijing, China.
E-mail address: myuan@bit.edu.cn (M. Yuan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.117368
Received 13 January 2020; Received in revised form 7 February 2020; Accepted 9 February 2020
0016-2361/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

Nomenclature Yi mass fraction of component i, %

Di, m diffusion coefficient of component i in the mixture, m2/s
LPG liquefied petroleum gas Sct turbulent Schmidt number
DME dimethyl ether Ri mass formation or consumption rate per unit volume due
CFD computational fluid dynamics to chemical reaction of component i, kg/(m3·s)
RNG re- normalization group Mw, i relative molecular mass of component i, mol/kg;
FS full scale k2 reaction constant
MOHZ maximum overpressure hazards zone
SOHZ sharp-dropping overpressure hazards zone Greek symbols
GOHZ gentle-dropping hazards zone
k1 coefficient of heat conduction, W/(m·K) ρ fluid density, kg/m3
E sum energy of internal energy and kinetic energy, J Φ equivalence ratio
T fluid temperature, K μ dynamic viscosity, Pa·s
→
u fluid velocity vector, m/s ε turbulent dissipation rate, J/(kg·s)
g local gravitational acceleration, m/s2 μt turbulent viscosity, Pa·s
k turbulent kinetic energy, J/kg; η the ratio of turbulence to mean flow time scale
Eij component of strain rate, s−1 η0 typical values of η in uniform shear flow
S average characteristic strain rate, s−1 ηi stoichiometric coefficient of component i
Pmax maximum explosion overpressure, kPa λ DME blended ratio
PP overpressure peak, kPa

supply form and LPG's high calorific value and low NOx, CO emissions
make LPG widely used in families and workshops [2,3]. However, once
the pressure tank is damaged or the seal ring is corroded, there will be a
large amount of high-speed gas leakage under high pressure [4]. Be-
cause the density of LPG is higher than that of air, the leaked LPG will
spread rapidly along the ground and form large-scale explosive mixed
vapor cloud in a short time [5]. It can explode when it is ignited by
millijoule level energy, thus causing serious damage to the surround-
ings [6].
In recent years, LPG explosion accidents occur frequently in China.
Among them, the accidents that caused significant adverse con-
sequences include: 1) On June 5, 2017, an explosion at Jinyu petro-
chemical CO., LTD in Linyi, Shandong, killed 10 people and injured 9,
resulting in a direct economic loss of 44.68 million yuan [7]; 2) On
October 10, 2015, an explosion occurred in a snack bar in Wuhu, Anhui,
resulting in 17 deaths and a direct economic loss of about 15.287
million yuan [8]; 3) On June 11, 2013, an explosion occurred in the
canteen of a gas company in Suzhou, Jiangsu, resulting in 12 deaths and
8 injuries, collapse of an office building of about 400 m2 and direct
economic loss of 13.88 million yuan [9].
Understanding the explosion-to-damage mechanism and disaster
evolution characteristics of LPG is of great practical significance for
preventing LPG explosion, maintaining people's life and property safety
and carrying out accident investigation. Scholars have done a lot of
research. Huzayyin et al. studied laminar burning velocity and explo-
sion index of LPG/air and propane/air mixtures under different initial
conditions [10]. Razus et al. studied the basic explosion parameters and
explosion index of LPG, propane and butane in a closed container
[11–14], they also conducted experimental and chemical kinetics si-
mulation studies on LPG and propane burning velocity at various initial
conditions [15,16]. Zhang et al. studied the explosion process of LPG in
a semi-enclosed space based on CFD method, and revealed the influence
of gas concentration and built-in obstacles on the explosion con-
sequences [17]. Schoor et al. revealed the formation and explosion

Fig. 1. Scene of a DME/LPG blended gas deflagration accident (Changping, Beijing).

2
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

evolution of LPG vapor cloud in a typical enclosed parking lot using the 2.16–10.08%) under ambient initial condition of 298 K and 101 kPa
FLACS was conducted in macro and meso scale.
software [18]. Through case analysis of a real LPG explosion acci-
dent in a gas station in Turkey, Turgut et al. concluded the damage 2. Mathematical model
mechanism of LPG explosion on typical building structures such as
foundation, beam plate and column, and found that minor changes in The explosion of blended gas belongs to the category of hydro-
building structure could significantly change the accumulation of dynamics with chemical reaction, which follows the three basic laws of
overpressure [19]. mass conservation, momentum conservation and energy conservation.
These studies mainly focus on LPG fuel itself, so there is always a In addition, the explosion system should obey the law of conservation
lack of research on the explosion characteristics of LPG blended multi- of components.
fuel. At 19:24 PM on July 19, 2019, a deflagration accident involving The mass conservation equation, often called the continuity equa-
LPG/DME (dimethyl ether) blended multi-fuel occurred in a hotpot tion, is expressed as follows:
restaurant located in Huoying sub-district office in Changping, Beijing, ∂ρ
resulting in 3 injuries and wall collapsed. The deflagration scene is + ∇∙ (ρ→
u) = 0
∂t (1)
shown in Fig. 1. DME is the simplest aliphatic ether, with the molecular
formula of CH3OCH3, flash point of 41.4 ℃, spontaneous combustion For a two-dimensional gas explosion model, there are only two di-
temperature of 235 ℃, flammability limit in air of 3.45–26.7%, and rections of x and y, so the continuity equation can be written:
extremely high explosion hazards. DME incorporation sharply increases ∂ρ ∂ρu ∂ρv
the explosion complexity undoubtedly [3]. + + =0
∂t ∂x ∂y (2)
LPG explosion accidents tend to occur in confined space. Due to the
→
where u and v represent the components of u in the x and y direction
strong destructive effect of shock wave, after the weak boundary is
damaged, shock wave, high-kinetic energy fluid and flame tend to ex- respectively, m/s.
pand and spread outwards rapidly, and their spread range is far beyond The essence of momentum conservation is Newton's second law,
the original premixed area, thus evolving into deflagrate-to-combustion commonly known as the Navier-Stokes equation. The momentum
accident or partly premixed gas deflagration accident [20,21]. A large equation of the two-dimensional gas explosion model is expressed in x
number of explosion accidents show that the shock wave propagation and y directions respectively:
area can reach tens or even hundreds of times of the original premixed x direction:
area, and the damage degree and casualties outside the original pre- ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂u ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂u ⎞ ∂p
mixed area are significantly higher than those inside the original pre- (ρu) + (ρuu) + (ρuv ) = μ + μ ⎜ − ⎟
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎝ ∂y ⎠ ∂x (3)
mixed area [22,23]. The shock wave, flame and high-speed fluid
spreading outside the original premixed area will cause secondary fire y direction:
and explosion accidents and even lead to a series of secondary and
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂v ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂v ⎞ ∂p
derivative disasters [24,25]. In fact, the research on the deflagration (ρv ) + (ρvu) + (ρvv ) = μ + μ ⎜ − ⎟− ρg
process outside the original premixed zone has not been discussed ∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎝ ∂y ⎠ ∂y (4)
systematically, however its application in accident investigation and The energy equation is actually the first law of thermodynamics,
emergency safety management is of great practical significance. The which can be expressed as:
attenuation law of deflagration state outside the original premixed area
∂ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞
is the basis to determine the gas explosion hazards [26]. Our previous (ρE ) + ∇∙ [(ρE + p) →
u] = k1 + k1 ⎜ ⎟

studies mainly focused on the flame dynamics of premixed DME/LPG ∂t ∂x ⎝ ∂x ⎠ ∂y ⎝ ∂y ⎠ (5)

blended fuel in closed pipeline [27–30].
In general, RNG k-ε model has higher accuracy for solving high
Flame speed and ignition behavior of LPG and DME can provide
curvature streamline, transonic flow and wall heat transfer. The com-
fundamental understanding to explosion or deflagration phenomenon.
monly used k equation and ε equation based on the Boussinesq hy-
Huang’s team studied the laminar flame speeds of DME/n-C4H10 fuel
pothesis are shown in Eqs. (6) and (7) [54–57].
blends using the outwardly expanding spherical flame and high-speed
schlieren photography over a wide range of equivalence ratios, nitrogen ∂ μ
(ρk ) + ∇∙ (ρk→
u ) = ∇∙ ⎡ t ∇k⎤ + 2μt Eij Eij − ρε
dilution ratios, and DME blending ratios at elevated temperatures and ∂t ⎣ σk ⎥
⎢ ⎦ (6)
pressures in detail. The results show that the DME addition accelerates
the laminar flame velocity appropriately [31,32]. Huang’s team also ∂ μ ε ε2
(ρε ) + ∇∙ (ρε→
u ) = ∇∙ ⎡ t ∇ε⎤ + C1ε 2μt Eij Eij − (C2ε +R) ρ
revealed the ignition delay times of DME/n-C4H10 fuel blends behind ∂t ⎢
⎣ σε ⎥
⎦ k k (7)
reflected shock waves systematically. The results show that the DME k2
addition can promote both the first-stage and overall ignition delay, where μt = ρCμ ε . In the standard k-ε turbulence model, the values of
also the timing at the peak value of H and OH radicals advances as DME Cμ , σk , σε , C1ε and C2ε are 0.09, 1.00, 1.30, 1.44 and 1.92, respectively.
ε2
increases [33–36]. (C2ε +R) ρ k denotes the consumption rate of ε, where, the expression of
Considering the complex physical and chemical mechanism of de- R is shown in equation (8).
flagration of blended fuel, it is very difficult to rely entirely on ex- Cμ η3 (1 − η η0 )
perimental method. With the rapid development of computer simula- R=
1 + βη3 (8)
tion technology, simulation solution has become an important means of
scientific research [37–40]. Meanwhile, the research of gas, dust and where η = Sk ε and S = (2Sij Sij )1 2 ;η0 =4.38; β =0.012 [58]. After RNG
multi-phases explosion by CFD method has become a research hotspot, analysis, the values ofCμ , σk , σε , C1ε , C2ε are 0.0845, 0.7194, 0.7194,
including laboratory scale [41–45] and field scale [46–53] explosions. 1.42, 1.68 [59,60].
In view of this, combined with CFD simulation technology and ex- It is assumed that propane, butane and dimethyl ether all follow one
perimental method, a set of mathematical model and experimental step irreversible reaction. In this paper, the chemical reaction of DME/
platform for deflagration of multiple gas were established. Study on the LPG mixed multiple gas explosion is carried out by combining com-
deflagration shock wave dynamics and overpressure hazards of DME/ ponent transport model and finite rate/vortex-dissipation model. The
LPG blended multi-clean fuel with various DME blended ratios of 0–1, convection–diffusion equation of the components involved in the che-
equivalence ratios of 0.6–1.6 (i.e. the overall fuel concentration of mical reaction is shown in Eq. (9) [61].

3
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

∂ μ Table 1
(ρYi ) + ∇∙ (ρYi →
u ) = ∇∙ ⎡ ⎛ρDi, m + t ⎞ ∇Yi ⎤ + Ri
⎜ ⎟
Mesh generation scheme and specific parameters.
∂t ⎢⎝ Sc t⎠
⎥ (9)
⎣ ⎦
Item Original Mesh transition Outfield
Taking propane as an example, the following equation is obtained. premixed zone zone

Ri = ± Mw, i ηi k2 [XC3H8 ]0.1 [XO2 ]1.65 (10) Zone length/m 0.6 0.1 8.3
Mesh type Triangular mesh Triangular mesh Quadrilateral mesh
k2 = Ae−Ea RuT (11) Distribution mode Irregular Pave Irregular Pave Regular Map
Mesh interval size/ 1 2 2
where [XC3H8] and [XO2 ]is the molarity of propane and oxygen, mol/m3. mm
Total number of 136,702 8442 207,500
3. Model and validation meshes

3.1. Physical model and mesh generation

verified, the large-scale model is verified [17]. Fig. 4 shows the ex-
perimental apparatus schematic diagram of 3 m-long pipeline. It con-
As shown in Fig. 2, the physical model is a two-dimensional rec-
sists of explosion pipeline, gas system, data acquisition system, ignition
tangular pipe with length and width of 9 m and 0.1 m respectively. The
system and synchronous trigger controller.
left end is closed and the right end is open. The barrier consists of 7
The total length of the pipeline is 3 m, and the gas system mainly
rings with a thickness of 2 mm, with a total length of 0.6 m and a block
includes vacuum pump, LPG cylinder, DME cylinder, high-pressure air
ratio of 45%, which are placed at the leftmost end. The shape of ignition
cylinder, high-precision pressure gauge (measuring range: −100 to
point is semicircle, and the circle point is located in the middle of the
200 kPa, accuracy class: 0.2% FS), explosion-proof fan (rotational
left end cover. In order to meet the research needs, 15 measuring points
speed: 2200 r/min, flow rate: 32 ft3/min, circulating hose with steel
P1–P15 are arranged on the axial center line of the pipeline. Among, the
skeleton (maximum bearing pressure: 0.4 MPa) and various air valves.
first point is 0.45 m away from the ignition point, and the remaining 14
The data acquisition system mainly includes charge amplifier, multi-
points are all 0.6 m apart.
channel data acquisition instrument and KD2004G01 piezoelectric
The original premixed zone is coincident with the obstacle zone,
pressure sensor. As shown in Fig. 4, the four pressure sensors are all
which is filled with the explosive mixture of C3H8/C4H10/CH3OCH3 and
arranged on the pipe wall, and the distance between them and the ig-
air, and the remaining pipe is filled with air, which is called outfield.
nition point is 1.95 m, 2.25 m, 2.55 m and 2.85 m respectively. The
Fig. 2 Physical model of partly premixed gas deflagration
ignition system includes a pair of electrodes and an electric spark
In this paper, Gambit software is used for mesh generation. Gambit
generator. The electrodes are installed close to the starting blind cover,
software is a high quality preprocessor for CFD analysis. Its meshing
the distance between the two tips is 2–3 mm, and the material is high
algorithm can ensure the generation of high quality hybrid meshes in
temperature resistant Fe-Cr-Al alloy. The output voltage and ignition
complex geometric regions. In particular, the hexahedral core tech-
energy of 0–10 J can be adjusted by the electric spark generator. Here
nology integrates the advantages of cartesian mesh and unstructured
10 J is used for experiment and CFD simulation.
mesh, thus greatly saving mesh quantity and improving mesh quality.
The LPG used is provided by Beijing LP Gas company, which is used
In addition, its size function makes the mesh transition and distribution
by 1.6 million users in Beijing. The components of propane and butane
more autonomous [62].
in the gas are 43.2% and 48.9% respectively. Dimethyl ether is pro-
There are repeated oscillations of gas and flame in the original
vided by Beijing Huatong Jingke Gas Chemistry Co., Ltd. with purity of
premixed zone, so unstructured mesh should be selected, while the
99.9%. The equivalence ratio Φ and DME blended ratio λ can be de-
structure of the outfield is regular, so structural mesh should be selected
fined by Eqs. (12) and (13)
[63]. In order to avoid the problem of poor mesh quality or even mesh
matching failure between the two zones, a new mesh transition zone is f a
added, and the triangle unstructured mesh is chosen, such improving Φ=
(f a) st (12)
the mesh quality and the accuracy of simulation results. Table 1 shows
the final meshing parameters after mesh independence validation de- VDME
λ=
tailed in Chapter 3.3. Fig. 3 shows the mesh distribution of different VDME + VLPG (13)
physical zones, and the total number of meshes reach 3526744.
where f and a are the concentrations of the blended fuel and air, and the
3.2. Experimental apparatus subscript “st” represents their stoichiometric concentrations. At the
same time, VDME and VLPG represent the volume of DME and LPG.
Considering risk and complexity of venting explosion experiment
when using the 9 m-length pipeline, as well as the excessive computing 3.3. Mesh independence test and CFD model verification
time consuming, explosion simulation of 3 m-length enclosed pipeline
is considered for the mesh independence test and CFD model verifica- According to the above method, the 1:1 proportional physical model
tion, although the size is variable, the mathematical model, the solving of the experimental apparatus in Fig. 4 is constructed, and three kinds
method, the meshing scheme is identical. Once the small-scale model is of mesh generation with different densities are obtained, which are

Fig. 2. Physical model of partly premixed gas deflagration.

4
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

Fig. 3. Mesh distribution at different zone.

Circulation pipe
External
Reducing Valve
Environment

Pressure Gauge Vacuum Pump Air

DME LPG 50mm
600mm Pressure Sensor P
300mm
150mm

100mm
Circulation fan Ignition
Electrode
AMP
Data Acquisition
System A/D Converter

Ignition controller
Synchronous
trigger controller
Computer
Fig. 4. Experimental apparatus schematic diagram of gas explosion and propagation.

“0.5-1-1” scheme (high density), “1-2-2” scheme (medium density) and

“2-4-4” scheme (low density). Taking the “0.5-1-1” scheme as an ex-
ample, the mesh interval size of the original premixed zone, the mesh 270
2-4-4 scheme 1-2-2 scheme
transition zone and the main development zone are 0.5 mm, 1 mm and
0.5-1-1 scheme experimental value
1 mm respectively. Fig. 5 shows the simulated values of the maximum 260
Relative error=34.08 %
explosion overpressure at each measuring point and the average re-
250
lative errors to the experimental values under different mesh schemes
when Φ = 1 and λ = 0.3. 240
It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the variation trend of the maximum
explosion overpressure calculated under the three mesh schemes along 230 simulated value - experimental value
Relative error=
the axial direction is consistent with the experimental results, and with 220
experimental value

the increase of the mesh density, the simulated results are closer to the Relative error=11.91 % Relative error=8.37 %
experimental values, with the average relative errors of 34.08%, 210
11.91% and 8.37%, respectively. When the mesh density increases from
200 196.312 198.05
medium density to high density, the simulated values no longer change
significantly, which means that the mesh independence is verified. 190 simulated results are close to
From the perspective of engineering application, the relative error of 182.192 the experimental results, and
the calculation results of medium and high density mesh is within the 180 the relative error decreases gradually

acceptable range, and the larger mesh size can reduce the calculated 171.39
170
time [25]. Therefore, the medium density mesh, i.e. “1-2-2” scheme, is 1.95 2.10 2.25 2.40 2.55 2.70 2.85
selected here.
Fig. 5. Simulated values and the average relative errors at different mesh
schemes.

5
Q. Zhang, et al.
4. Results and discussion
For explosion phenomenon, shock wave propagation process and
overpressure damage are one of its most important properties, and also
the basis of explosion protection and safety research [26]. Our previous
study found that the peak overpressure has a significant continuous
growth stage, and then it decays under the influence of the reflected
shock wave and the reverse flow field in the tail space when the pre-
mixed gas explosion occurs in the closed space [27]. However, as for
partial premixed gas explosion in venting pipeline, the propagation
mechanism and attenuation law of shock wave are bound to change
significantly.
Fig. 6. Temporal and spatial distribution of overpressure field when λ = 0.3 (a) Φ = 0.6, (b) Φ = 1.0, (c) Φ = 1.2, (d) Φ = 1.6.
6
Fuel 268 (2020) 117368
4.1. Pmax attenuation and overpressure hazards zone
Weidou et al. investigated on China's LPG consumption market and
found that LPG/DME (below 30% content) blended fuel had been
widely used in households cooking and heating [64]. Fig. 6 shows shock
wave propagation and overpressure distribution at different times when
λ = 0.3 under different equivalence ratios. Fig. 7 records Overpressure
dynamics characteristics and Pmax evolution under the effect of DME
blended ratio.
It is known in Fig. 6 that the maximum pressure inside the obstacle
does not always appear in the shock wave front, and the structural
evolution order of the shock wave front is finger shape, umbrella shape
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

Fig. 7. Overpressure-time history curves of each points under various λ and Φ.

7
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

Fig. 7. (continued)

8
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

and plane shape. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that, unlike the propagation
characteristics of the continuous increase of Pmax of wholely premixed
gas deflagration in a closed space [27,30], the Pmax of partly premixed
gas deflagration with an open end gradually attenuates along the axial
distance, and the peak overpressure (PP, i.e. the maximum value of
Pmax) appears in the original premixed zone (i.e. P1 measuring point),
which means that during the partly premixed gas deflagration, the
explosion severity and overpressure hazards of the original premixed
zone is the greatest. Fig. 8 shows Pmax evolution along the axis direction
and the distribution of three overpressure hazard zones classified by
evolution characteristics under various λ and Φ.
It is seen in Fig. 8 that Pmax sharply drops to a certain value and then
drops gently along the axial direction except for Φ = 0.6 with λ = 0,
which tells three overpressure hazard zones as described below.
(1) Maximum overpressure hazards zone (MOHZ). This zone is coin-
cident with the initial gas premixed zone with a length of 0.6 m
symbolled by l1, PP appears in this zone.
(2) Sharp-dropping overpressure hazards zone (SOHZ). The length of
this zone is expressed as l2. Overpressure in this zone shows a rapid
decaying trend, however it is generally above 200 kPa, which is
enough to cause death and collapse of buildings. At the same time,
l2 is several times of l1, which will cause extensive damage in this
zone. Therefore, investigation of the length relationship between
the above two zones is beneficial to further understanding of partly
premixed gas deflagration.
(3) Gentle-dropping hazards zone (GOHZ). The length of this zone is
expressed as l3. The overpressure in this area is relatively minimum,
but its propagation and influence distance is the maximum (l3 ≫ l2).
In the absence of obstacles, its attenuation speed is so small that it
causes unpredictable damage to people and buildings in the far
field.
Eq. (14) is the expression of the length coefficient between Sharp-
dropping overpressure hazards zone and maximum overpressure ha-
zards zone.
α = l2 l1 (14)
To some extent, the value of α can reflect the casualties and
buildings damage of gas deflagration accidents. When Φ = 0.6–1.6,
l2 = 3.45–4.05, therefor α = 5.75–6.75, with the change of the
equivalence ratio, α increased slightly. The length of SOHZ reaches at
least 5.75 times of the length of MOHZ. In the real explosion scene, with
the increase of the scope size of MOHZ, the scope size of SOHZ will
increase dramatically.
Under stoichiometric and rich-fuel concentration, the effect of λ on
Pmax attenuation law is negligible. At lean-fuel concentration (i.e.
Φ = 0.6), Pmax at the axial measuring point basically increases with the
rising λ. When Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0, Pmax reaches the minimum and less
than 150 kPa, and there is no SOHZ, which can be explained by the
insufficient explosive power of pure LPG.

0.6 4.05 0.6 4.05

600 1000
Sharp-dropping Gentle-dropping Gentle-dropping
550 overpressure hazards zone 900
Sharp-dropping
overpressure hazards zone overpressure hazards zone overpressure hazards zone
500
800
l1 l3 l1 l3
450
l2 700 l2
Pmax (kPa)

Pmax (kPa)

400
600
350
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.3 500 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0
300 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.3
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.5
250 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.7 400 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.5
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=1.0 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.7
200 300 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=1.0
Initial gas Initial gas
premixed zone premixed zone
150 200

100 100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Distance (m) Distance (m)

0.6
(c) 4.05 0.6
(d) 4.65
1000 900
Sharp-dropping Gentle-dropping Sharp-dropping Gentle-dropping
900 overpressure hazards zone overpressure hazards zone 800 overpressure hazards zone overpressure hazards zone
l1 l3
800
l1 l3 700 l2
700 l2
Pmax (kPa)

Pmax (kPa)

600
600
500
500 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0
ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.3 400 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.3
400 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.5 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.5
ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.7 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.7
ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=1.0 300
300 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=1
Initial gas Initial gas
200 premixed zone 200 premixed zone

100 100
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

Fig. 8. Axial attenuation law of Pmax and overpressure hazards partition under various λ and Φ.

9
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

Ȝ(DME)=0 4.3. Oscillation characteristics of multiple discontinuous pressure waves

71
84
49
1000 Ȝ(DME)=0.3 produced by obstacles

05
942.4
941.4
940.6

922.4
29

07
Ȝ(DME)=0.5

889.7

66

883.4

68
856.2

852.7
Ȝ(DME)=0.7
There are always a variety of equipment and objects at the actual

68
Ȝ(DME)=1.0

774.5
800 explosion accident site, which play an important role in the propagation

04
712.2
2
695.4
process of shock wave [65–68]. From Fig. 7, it can be clearly found that

47
09

645.3
643.0

21
the overpressure curves in the original premixed zone is always ac-
3

587.6
2
572.7

600
14

companied by the appearance of multiple overpressure extremes under

27
523.4

39
500.7

481.1
various equivalence ratio and DME blended ratio, which is actually one
discontinuous pressure wave after another caused by the repeated vi-
400
bration of flame between obstacles, and they will disappear rapidly.
32
306.4

Except for the two cases (Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0, 0.3) with the minimum
explosion power, the multiple discontinuous pressure waves are quickly
64

200
140.8

superimposed between P1 and P2 measuring points. In the case of

0
0.6
Fig. 9. Distribution and evolution of PP with λ under different Φ.
4.2. The evolution law of overpressure peak—PP
Fig. 9 shows the distribution and evolution of PP with λ under dif-
ferent Φ.
It can be seen in Fig. 9 that under different equivalence ratios, PP
initially increased and later decreased with λ grew. This means that
during the increasing process of λ, high combustion rate and low
combustion heat, two contradictory factors, successively dominated,
and the effect due to low combustion heat would appear earlier with
the increase of Φ.
When Φ equals 0.6, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.6, the range of PP were
140.864–572.723 kPa, 643.009–941.484 kPa, 587.621–942.471 kPa,
and 481.139–883.407 kPa, respectively, corresponding to growing rate
of the maximum to the minimum being 306.6%, 46.4%, 60.4% and
83.6%, respectively. Obviously, DME incorporation at lean-fuel condi-
tion had the greatest effect on the increase of overpressure risk peak in
the original premixed area. It is worth noting that PP increases to an
extreme when λ goes from 0 to 0.3, reaching 117.5% when Φ = 0.6,
35.3% when Φ = 1.0, 32.3% when Φ = 1.2 and 36.9% when Φ = 1.6,
respectively.
Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0.3, the superposition position is between P2-P3
measuring points, while in the case of Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0, the super-
1.0 1.2 1.6 position position is between P7 and P8 measuring points, which reaches
5.8 times of the conventional distance. Fig. 10 shows the overpressure
history curve of each measuring point in the axial direction when
Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0.
The 8 measuring points of P1–P8 in Fig. 10 record the whole process
of multiple discontinuous pressure wave oscillation, propagation and
superposition. Each colored circle marked in the figure represents the
appearance of a discontinuous pressure wave. There are 6 distinct
discontinuous pressure waves at P1 and P2, and the marked circles with
the same color at different measuring points represent the same pres-
sure wave. There are 4 obvious discontinuous pressure waves at P3,
here the 3rd–5th pressure wave is superimposed into one pressure
wave. The P4 measuring point is reduced to 3 obvious discontinuous
pressure waves, here the 1st–2nd pressure waves are superposed into
one pressure wave. There are only 2 discontinuous pressure waves left
at P5, P6 and P7 measuring points. From P8, the multiple discontinuous
pressure waves developed into a typical shock wave with only one
overpressure extreme value.
In fact, in the case of gas explosion with obstacles, there will always
be multiple discontinuous pressure waves. However, with the increase
of fuel/air equivalence ratio and the incorporation of highly active fuels
(such as CH3OCH3, H2, etc.), the chemical reaction rate of the explosion
system increases rapidly, accelerating the propagation speed of sub-
sequent discontinuous pressure waves, which makes multiple pressure
waves can finish catching up and superposition in a very short distance
and time, thus forming a single shock wave. It is precisely because of

area featured with area featured with

multiple shock waves a single shock wave
150
superposition of
fluctuating rise
multiple shock waves
125 due to flame
oscillation
100
Overpressure (kPa)

75

50

25

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Fig. 10. Overpressure-time history curves of measuring points in the axial direction when Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0.

10
Q. Zhang, et al. Fuel 268 (2020) 117368

the superposition effect of pressure wave that the danger of gas ex-
700
Nonlinear cubic function
plosion in the premixed area with obstacles is greatly increased; at the
same time, it is also one of the important driving forces to maintain the 680 Deceleration y=692.9-74.54x+61.81x2-10.71x3 R2=0.963
long-term and long-distance overpressure hazards.
660
Nonlinear quadratic function
y=628.98+35.02x-26.58x2 R2=0.994
4.4. Shock wave propagation velocity 640
y=635.59+12.49x-14.28x2 R2=0.998
Fig. 11 shows the axial evolution of shock wave propagation velo- 620
city under various λ and Φ. Linearly increasing function
It can be seen from Fig. 11 that in the process of partly premixed gas 600
Acceleration
deflagration, the shock wave propagates at supersonic speed and shows
a trend of continuous attenuation as the distance increases. Specifically, 580 y=550.37+58.42x R2=0.992
the propagation velocity first decreases rapidly, then increases slightly ĭ=0.6 Fitting curve of ĭ=0.6
and then decreases slowly with the increase of distance. This phe- 560 ĭ=1.0 Fitting curve of ĭ=1.0
ĭ=1.2 Fitting curve of ĭ=1.2
nomenon is basically consistent with the attenuation law of over- ĭ=1.6 Fitting curve of ĭ=1.6
pressure and the distribution positions of each stage are basically co- 540
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
incident, which means that the hazards of high overpressure is always
accompanied by the evolution speed of severe overpressure disasters.
From quantitative analysis with statistical significance, Fig. 12 shows Fig. 12. Effects of λ on shock wave average propagation velocity at different Φ.
the evolution of the average propagation velocity of shock wave with λ
at different Φ. (1) When Φ = 0.6 and λ = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, the average pro-
It can be seen from Fig. 12 that the average propagation velocity pagation velocity of shock waves is 549.62 m/s, 567.26 m/s,
shows a completely different law with λ under different Φ. 583.10 m/s, 589.39 m/s, and 608.53 m/s. The average propagation

20
(a) 800 16 825
19 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0 15 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.3 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.3 775 800
18 14 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.3
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.5 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.5
17 750 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.5 775
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.7 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=0.7 13
16 ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=1.0 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.7
ĭ=0.6, Ȝ=1.0 725

Propagating velocity (m/s)

12
Propagating velocity (m/s)

15 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=1.0 750

14 700 11
13 10 725
675
Time (ms)
Time (ms)

12
11 9 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0 700
650
10 8 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.3
9 625 7 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.5 675
8 600 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=0.7
6 650
7 ĭ=1.0, Ȝ=1.0
6 575 5
625
5 550 4
4 3 600
3 525
2
2 575
500 1
1
0 475 0 550
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Distance (m) Distance (m)
(c) (d)
16 825 16 825
15 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0 15 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0
ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.3 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.3 800 800
14 14 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.3
ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.5 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.5 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.5
13 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.7 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=0.7 775 13 775
ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.7
ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=1.0
Propagating velocity (m/s)

Propagating velocity (m/s)

12 ĭ=1.2, Ȝ=1.0 12
750 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=1 750
11 11
10 725 10 725
Time (ms)

Time (ms)

9 700 9 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0 700

8 8 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.3
7 675 7 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.5 675
6 6 ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=0.7
650 650
ĭ=1.6, Ȝ=1
5 5
625 625
4 4
3 600 3 600
2 2
575 575
1 1
0 550 0 550
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

Fig. 11. Axial evolution of shock wave propagation velocity under various λ and Φ.

11
Q. Zhang, et al.
velocity increases linearly with the rising λ. At this time, the flame
acceleration mechanism due to high DME combustion rate plays a
leading role.
(2) When Φ = 1.0 and λ = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, the average pro-
pagation velocity of shock wave is 628.79 m/s, 637.60 m/s,
639.73 m/s, 640.09 m/s and 637.58 m/s. And when Φ = 1.2 and
λ = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, the average propagation velocity of
shock wave is 635.54 m/s, 637.97 m/s, 637.33 m/s, 635.89 m/s,
and 630.81 m/s. Average propagation velocity has a quadratic
function relationship with λ, which is specifically manifested as the
shock wave propagation velocity first increases and then decreases
with the increase of λ, and the entire velocity variation interval is
less than 12 m/s. At this time, the flame acceleration mechanism
due to high combustion rate and the flame deceleration mechanism
due to low combustion heat are mutually restrained to be basically
in equilibrium.
(3) When Φ = 1.6 and λ = 0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 1, the average pro-
pagation velocity of shock wave is 693.20 m/s, 673.96 m/s,
672.86 m/s, 665.48 m/s, and 669.76 m/s, the average propagation
velocity has a cubic function relationship with λ. Its specific man-
ifestation is that the average propagation velocity generally de-
creases with the increase of λ. At this time, the flame deceleration
mechanism due to low combustion heat is dominant.
Meanwhile, the average propagation speed of shock wave basically
showed a gradual increase trend as the equivalence ratio increased,
which is mainly because when the high-concentration fuel in the ori-
ginal premixed zone is ejected, the concentration decreases under the
dilution of external air to reach near the optimal explosion concentra-
tion.
5. Conclusions
(1) According to the characteristics of shock wave attenuation, the
shock wave propagation region of partly premixed gas deflagration
is divided into MOHZ, SOHZ and GOHZ. The overpressure of SOHZ
is generally above 200 kPa, and its influence range reaches
5.75–6.75 times of MOHZ. And SOHZ is the main place for building
damage and casualties. The overpressure of GOHZ is the smallest,
but the distance of its propagation and influence is the largest,
which can cause certain damage to people and buildings in the far
field.
(2) In the original premixed zone, the overpressure hazards first in-
creases and then decreases with the increase of DME blended ratio.
In the case of lean-fuel condition, DME incorporation has a more
obvious enhancement effect on the overpressure hazards. The ex-
istence of obstacles leads to the oscillation of flame and thermal
fluid, resulting in multiple discontinuous pressure waves. With the
increase of equivalence ratio and the DME incorporation, the che-
mical reaction rate of the explosive system increases rapidly, ac-
celerating the superposition and coincidence of multiple pressure
waves.
(3) The average propagation velocity has a linearly increasing, quad-
ratic function and cubic relationship with λ when Φ = 0.6,
Φ = 1.0, 1.2 and Φ = 1.6 respectively. When Φ = 0.6, the flame
acceleration mechanism due to high DME combustion rate plays a
leading role. When Φ = 1.0 and 1.2, the flame acceleration me-
chanism due to high combustion rate and the flame deceleration
mechanism due to low combustion heat are mutually restrained to
be basically in equilibrium. When Φ = 1.6, the flame deceleration
mechanism due to low combustion heat is dominant.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qi Zhang: Methodology, Software, Writing - review & editing.
Xinming Qian: Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project
12
Fuel 268 (2020) 117368
administration. Liye Fu: Data curation, Validation, Visualization.
Mengqi Yuan: Conceptualization, Supervision. Yuying Chen:
Investigation, Writing - original draft.
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 financially supported by the National Key Research
and Development Program of China (Grant no. 2017YFC0804700),
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 51834007).
References
[1] Stawczyk J. Experimental evaluation of LPG tank explosion hazards. J Hazard Mater
2003;96:189–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(02)00198-X.
[2] Rockall J, de Calan B. DME opportunities in LPG gas markets. Second Int. DME
Conf. London, 2006, p. 15–7.
[3] Anggarani R, Wibowo CS, Rulianto D. Application of dimethyl ether as LPG sub-
stitution for household stove. Energy Procedia 2014;47:227–34. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.egypro.2014.01.218.
[4] Zhang R, Chen G, Huang S. Multiphase mixture flow model and numerical simu-
lation for leak of LPG underground storage tank(II) Numerical simulation and va-
lidation. Huagong Xuebao/J Chem Ind Eng 2008;59:2168–74.
[5] Bozkurt M, Kulahci Y, Zor F, Kapi E. Burn injuries related to liquefied petroleum
gas-powered cars. J Burn Care Res 2008;29:897–901. https://doi.org/10.1097/
BCR.0b013e31818b9e29.
[6] Wiekema BJ. Vapour cloud explosions - an analysis based on accidents. Part I J
Hazard Mater 1984;8:295–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3894(84)87027-2.
[7] Xu X. Explosion rocks petrochemical plant in east China. XINHUANET 2017. http://
www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-06/05/c_136340281.htm.
[8] Chen B. Restaurant blast kills 17 in Anhui. ChinaOrgCn 2015. http://www.china.
org.cn/china/2015-10/10/content_36780839.htm.
[9] Explosion causes building collapse in China, killing 11 people;state media cite gas
leak. Glob NWES 2013. https://globalnews.ca/news/634527/explosion-causes-
building-collapse-in-china-killing-11-people-state-media-cite-gas-leak/.
[10] Huzayyin AS, Moneib HA, Shehatta MS, Attia AMA. Laminar burning velocity and
explosion index of LPG–air and propane–air mixtures. Fuel 2008;87:39–57. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.04.001.
[11] Razus D, Oancea D, Brinzea V, Mitu M, Movileanu C. Experimental and computed
burning velocities of propane–air mixtures. Energy Convers Manage
2010;51:2979–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2010.06.041.
[12] Razus D, Brinzea V, Mitu M, Oancea D. Explosion characteristics of LPG–air mix-
tures in closed vessels. J Hazard Mater 2009;165:1248–52. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.082.
[13] Razus D, Brinzea V, Mitu M, Oancea D. Temperature and pressure influence on
explosion pressures of closed vessel propane–air deflagrations. J Hazard Mater
2010;174:548–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.09.086.
[14] Razus D, Movileanu C, Brinzea V, Oancea D. Closed vessel combustion of propy-
lene–air mixtures in the presence of exhaust gas. Fuel 2007;86:1865–72. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2006.12.009.
[15] Razus D, Brinzea V, Mitu M, Oancea D. Burning velocity of liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG)-air mixtures in the presence of exhaust gas. Energy Fuels 2010;24:1487–94.
https://doi.org/10.1021/ef901209q.
[16] Razus D, Brinzea V, Mitu M, Movileanu C, Oancea D. Burning velocity of propa-
ne−air mixtures from pressure−time records during explosions in a closed sphe-
rical vessel. Energy Fuels 2012;26:901–9. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef201561r.
[17] Zhang Q, Wang Y, Lian Z. Explosion hazards of LPG-air mixtures in vented en-
closure with obstacles. J Hazard Mater 2017;334:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2017.03.065.
[18] Filip VDS, Middha P, Eric VDB. Risk analysis of LPG (liquefied petroleum gas) ve-
hicles in enclosed car parks. Fire Saf J 2013;57:58–68.
[19] Turgut P, Arif Gurel M, Kadir Pekgokgoz R. LPG explosion damage of a reinforced
concrete building: a case study in Sanliurfa, Turkey. Eng Fail Anal 2013;32:220–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.04.004.
[20] Liu L, Zhang Q. Flame range and energy output in two-phase propylene oxide/air
mixtures beyond the original premixed zone. Energy 2019;171:666–77. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.058.
[21] Li D, Zhang Q, Ma Q, Shen S. Comparison of explosion characteristics between
hydrogen/air and methane/air at the stoichiometric concentrations. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40:8761–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.05.038.
[22] Xu JD, Xu SL, Yang GY. Experimental study on mine gas explosion diffusion. Coal
Sci Technol 2004;32:55–7.
[23] Xu L, Wang DM, Zhang W. Statistical analysis of coal mine gas burning accidents.
Coal Technol 2014;33:33–5.
[24] Cheng C, Sun F, Zhou X, Niu H, Liang D. Experimental and numerical analysis of
Q. Zhang, et al.
secondary disasters induced by oxygen rich combustion within a tunnel. Min Sci
Technol 2011;21:897–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mstc.2011.06.019.
[25] Bjerketvedt D, Bakke JR, van Wingerden K. Gas explosion handbook. J Hazard
Mater 1997;52:1–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3894(97)81620-2.
[26] Ma Q, Zhang Q. Deflagration characteristics of hydrogen-air mixture beyond the
original premixed fuel region. Fuel 2019;251:413–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2019.04.066.
[27] Chen Y, Zhang Q, Li M, Yuan M, Wu D, Qian X. Experimental study on explosion
characteristics of DME-blended LPG mixtures in a closed vessel. Fuel
2019;248:232–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.03.091.
[28] Zhang Q, Qian X, Chen Y, Yuan M. Deflagration shock wave dynamics of DME/LPG
blended clean fuel under the coupling effect of initial pressure and equivalence ratio
in elongated closed space. J Clean Prod 2019;119572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.119572.
[29] Chen Y, Qian X, Zhang Q, Fu L, Yuan M. Study on the effects of initial pressure and
temperature on the explosion characteristics of DME-blended LPG mixtures in an
obstructed confined pipeline. Fuel 2019;257:116047https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2019.116047.
[30] Zhang Q, Chen Y, Fan T, Yuan M, Liu Z, Huang P, et al. Flame dynamics and
flammability limit of DME(30%)/LPG blended clean fuel in elongated closed pi-
peline under multi-factors. Fuel 2019;254:115731https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.
2019.115731.
[31] Huang Z, Wang Q, Yu J, Zhang Y, Zeng K, Miao H, et al. Measurement of laminar
burning velocity of dimethyl ether–air premixed mixtures. Fuel 2007;86:2360–6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.01.021.
[32] Wu H, Hu E, Yu H, Li Q, Zhang Z, Chen Y, et al. Experimental and numerical study
on the laminar flame speed of n-butane/dimethyl ether–air mixtures. Energy Fuels
2014;28:3412–9.
[33] Jiang X, Zhang Y, Man X, Pan L, Huang Z. Experimental and modeling study on
ignition delay times of dimethyl ether/n-butane blends at a pressure of 2.0 MPa.
Energy Fuels 2014;28:2189–98.
[34] Jiang X, Zhang Y, Man X, Pan L, Huang Z. Shock tube measurements and kinetic
study on ignition delay times of lean DME/n-butane blends at elevated pressures.
Energy Fuels 2013;27:6238–46.
[35] Jiang X, Tian Z, Zhang Y, Huang Z. Shock tube measurement and simulation of
DME/n-butane/air mixtures: Effect of blending in the NTC region. Fuel
2017;203:316–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.04.121.
[36] Hu E, Jiang X, Huang Z, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Man X. Experimental and kinetic studies
on ignition delay times of dimethyl ether/n-butane/O2/Ar mixtures. Energy Fuels
2013;27:530–6. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef301617j.
[37] Kosinski P. Numerical investigation of explosion suppression by inert particles in
straight ducts. J Hazard Mater 2008;154:981–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2007.11.002.
[38] Di Sarli V, Russo P, Sanchirico R, Di Benedetto A. CFD simulations of dust disper-
sion in the 20L vessel: Effect of nominal dust concentration. J Loss Prev Process Ind
2014;27:8–12.
[39] Zhang Q, Qian X, Yuan M, Zhao L, Zhao Y, Fan T, et al. CFD investigation on
diffusing dynamics of respirable dust coupled with multiple sources on a longwall
face: a case study from meso-scale. Powder Technol 2019;345:43–53. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.powtec.2018.11.109.
[40] Zhang Q, Qian X, Yuan M, Zhao L, Zhao Y, Fan T, et al. CFD investigation on
diffusing dynamics of respirable dust coupled with multiple sources on a longwall
face: a case study from meso-scale. Powder Technol 2019;345. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.powtec.2018.11.109.
[41] Di Sarli V, Sanchirico R, Russo P, Di Benedetto A. CFD modeling and simulation of
turbulent fluid flow and dust dispersion in the 20-L explosion vessel equipped with
the perforated annular nozzle. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2015;38:204–13. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.09.015.
[42] Song Y, Zhang Q. Multiple explosions induced by the deposited dust layer in en-
closed pipeline. J Hazard Mater 2019;371:423–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2019.03.040.
[43] Song Y, Zhang Q, Wang B, Li J. Numerical study on the internal and external flow
field of dust explosion venting. Int J Therm Sci 2019;145. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijthermalsci.2019.106008.
[44] Song Y, Zhang Q. The quantitative studies on gas explosion suppression by an inert
rock dust deposit. J Hazard Mater 2018;353:62–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
13
Fuel 268 (2020) 117368
jhazmat.2018.03.052.
[45] Song Y, Zhang Q. Quantitative research on gas explosion inhibition by water mist. J
Hazard Mater 2019;363:16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.09.059.
[46] Both A, Atanga G, Hisken H. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
CFD modelling of gas explosions : Optimising sub-grid model parameters
2019;60:pp. 159–173.
[47] Wang K, Shi T, He Y, Li M, Qian X. Case analysis and CFD numerical study on gas
explosion and damage processing caused by aging urban subsurface pipeline fail-
ures. Eng Fail Anal 2019;97:201–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.
01.052.
[48] Hansen OR, Kjellander MT, Martini R, Pappas JA. Estimation of explosion loading
on small and medium sized equipment from CFD simulations. J Loss Prev Process
Ind 2016;41:382–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2015.12.004.
[49] Kang HS, Cheon NO H, Kim SB, Kim MH. Application of the developed CFD analysis
methodology to H2 explosion accidents in an open space. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:1306–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.09.148.
[50] Hansen OR, Kjellander MT, Pappas JA. Explosion loading on equipment from CFD
simulations. J Loss Prev Process Ind 2016;44:601–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jlp.2016.06.001.
[51] Xiao J, Breitung W, Kuznetsov M, Zhang H, Travis JR, Redlinger R, et al. GASFLOW-
MPI: a new 3-D parallel all-speed CFD code for turbulent dispersion and combustion
simulations: Part I: Models, verification and validation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42:8346–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.01.215.
[52] Li J, Hao H. Internal and external pressure prediction of vented gas explosion in
large rooms by using analytical and CFD methods. J Loss Prev Process Ind
2017;49:367–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2017.08.002.
[53] Tauseef SM, Rashtchian D, Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. A method for simulation of vapour
cloud explosions based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD). J Loss Prev Process
Ind 2011;24:638–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2011.05.007.
[54] Mansour NN, Kim J, Moin P. Near-wall k-epsilon turbulence modeling. AIAA J
1989;27:1068–73.
[55] Yang Z, Shih T-H. New time scale based k-epsilon model for near-wall turbulence.
AIAA J 1993;31:1191–8.
[56] Mohammadi B, Pironneau O. Analysis of the k-epsilon turbulence model 1993.
[57] Lew AJ, Buscaglia GC, Carrica PM. A note on the numerical treatment of the k-
epsilon turbulence model. Int J Comut Fluid Dyn 2001;14:201–9.
[58] Lötstedt P, Carlbom P. Stability and non-normality of the k-ε equations. J Comput
Appl Math 1997;83:11–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0427(97)00024-1.
[59] Papageorgakis GC, Assanis DN. Comparison of linear and nonlinear RNG-based k-
epsilon models for incompressible turbulent flows. Numer Heat Transf Part B
Fundam 1999;35:1–22.
[60] Guo S, Zhao J. Numerical simulation of three-dimensional spray combustion flow
field by RNG k-epsilon turbulent model. Hangkong Dongli Xuebao/J Aerosp Power
2005;20:807–12.
[61] ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide. Canonsburg, Pennsylvania: ANSYS Inc.;
2016. doi: 10.1016/0140-3664(87)90311-2.
[62] Fluent and Gambit - Introduction and General Information 2008. https://www.me.
psu.edu/cimbala/learning/fluent/gambit_introduction.htm.
[63] Rhee SH, Joshi S. Computational validation for flow around a marine propeller
using unstructured mesh based Navier-Stokes solver. JSME Int J Ser B Fluids Therm
Eng 2005;48:562–70.
[64] Fleisch TH, Basu A, Sills RA. Introduction and advancement of a new clean global
fuel: the status of DME developments in China and beyond. J Nat Gas Sci Eng
2012;9:94–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2012.05.012.
[65] 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.
[66] Lee SY, Watts J, Saretto S, Pal S, Conrad C, Woodward R, et al. Deflagration to
detonation transition processes by turbulence-generating obstacles in pulse deto-
nation engines. J Propuls Power 2015;20:1026–36.
[67] Kindracki, Kobiera, Rarata, wolanski. Influence of ignition position and obstacles on
explosion development in methane-air mixture in closed vessels. J Loss Prev Process
Ind 2007;20:551–61.
[68] Wang C, Huang F, Kwasi E, Dong X. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries Effect of concentration and obstacles on fl ame velocity and overpressure
of methane-air mixture 2016;43:302–10.