{"title":"Role of the deflagrative burning on the quenching limits for gaseous hydrogen detonation confined by an inert compressible layer","authors":"H. Watanabe, V. Robin, A. Chinnayya","doi":"10.1007/s00193-026-01262-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A simple formulation to model deflagrative burning behind a detonation front was proposed to determine the dynamics near criticality for stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen mixture. Two different combustion mechanisms, auto-ignition and deflagrative burning, were separately activated based on local temperature. When the temperature was below the crossover temperature of the chain-branching reaction <span>\\(T_{\\text{ B }}\\)</span>, deflagration was selected. Conversely, an auto-ignition source term was utilized when the local temperature was above <span>\\(T_{\\text{ B }}\\)</span>. This study examined the significance of deflagrative burning on the quenching limit for gaseous detonation in a layer of stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen semi-confined by nitrogen. With the inclusion of the deflagrative burning model, the propagation limit was significantly extended and the dynamics of a marginal detonation, i.e., higher velocity deficit compared to that given by Zel’dovich, von Neumann, and Döring model with curvature, was reproduced. The proper mass flux for deflagrative burning to reproduce the quenching limit ranged from one to two times the laminar value at post-shock state relevant to the lowest velocity at the near-limit condition, i.e., near the end of the cell. The contribution of deflagrative burning became more important near the limit (peaks of 30%, with a mean of 15%), whereas it was negligible at the supercritical condition far away from the limit. Therefore, the pivotal role of deflagrative burning in reproducing the dynamics of detonation near the limit was highlighted. In addition, the present finding reinforces the detonation paradox that inviscid simulations predict a different trend from that observed in experiment, as in Radulescu (Combust. Flame 195:151-162, 2018).\n\n</p></div>","PeriodicalId":775,"journal":{"name":"Shock Waves","volume":"36 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shock Waves","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00193-026-01262-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MECHANICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A simple formulation to model deflagrative burning behind a detonation front was proposed to determine the dynamics near criticality for stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen mixture. Two different combustion mechanisms, auto-ignition and deflagrative burning, were separately activated based on local temperature. When the temperature was below the crossover temperature of the chain-branching reaction \(T_{\text{ B }}\), deflagration was selected. Conversely, an auto-ignition source term was utilized when the local temperature was above \(T_{\text{ B }}\). This study examined the significance of deflagrative burning on the quenching limit for gaseous detonation in a layer of stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen semi-confined by nitrogen. With the inclusion of the deflagrative burning model, the propagation limit was significantly extended and the dynamics of a marginal detonation, i.e., higher velocity deficit compared to that given by Zel’dovich, von Neumann, and Döring model with curvature, was reproduced. The proper mass flux for deflagrative burning to reproduce the quenching limit ranged from one to two times the laminar value at post-shock state relevant to the lowest velocity at the near-limit condition, i.e., near the end of the cell. The contribution of deflagrative burning became more important near the limit (peaks of 30%, with a mean of 15%), whereas it was negligible at the supercritical condition far away from the limit. Therefore, the pivotal role of deflagrative burning in reproducing the dynamics of detonation near the limit was highlighted. In addition, the present finding reinforces the detonation paradox that inviscid simulations predict a different trend from that observed in experiment, as in Radulescu (Combust. Flame 195:151-162, 2018).
提出了一个简单的公式来模拟爆轰锋后的爆燃燃烧,以确定化学计量氢-氧混合物在临界附近的动力学。两种不同的燃烧机制,自燃和爆燃燃烧,分别根据当地温度激活。当温度低于支链反应的交叉温度\(T_{\text{ B }}\)时,选择爆燃。相反,当局部温度高于\(T_{\text{ B }}\)时,使用自燃源项。本文研究了在氮半封闭的化学计量氢-氧层中,爆燃燃烧对气体爆轰淬火极限的意义。引入爆燃燃烧模型后,传播极限得到了显著的扩展,再现了与Zel’dovich、von Neumann和Döring模型相比有曲率时更高的速度亏缺的边缘爆轰动力学。为了再现淬火极限,爆燃燃烧的适当质量通量为与近极限条件下(即靠近电池末端)的最低速度相关的后激波状态层流值的一到两倍。在极限(峰值为30)附近,爆燃燃烧的贡献变得更加重要%, with a mean of 15%), whereas it was negligible at the supercritical condition far away from the limit. Therefore, the pivotal role of deflagrative burning in reproducing the dynamics of detonation near the limit was highlighted. In addition, the present finding reinforces the detonation paradox that inviscid simulations predict a different trend from that observed in experiment, as in Radulescu (Combust. Flame 195:151-162, 2018).
期刊介绍:
Shock Waves provides a forum for presenting and discussing new results in all fields where shock and detonation phenomena play a role. The journal addresses physicists, engineers and applied mathematicians working on theoretical, experimental or numerical issues, including diagnostics and flow visualization.
The research fields considered include, but are not limited to, aero- and gas dynamics, acoustics, physical chemistry, condensed matter and plasmas, with applications encompassing materials sciences, space sciences, geosciences, life sciences and medicine.
Of particular interest are contributions which provide insights into fundamental aspects of the techniques that are relevant to more than one specific research community.
The journal publishes scholarly research papers, invited review articles and short notes, as well as comments on papers already published in this journal. Occasionally concise meeting reports of interest to the Shock Waves community are published.