4.7 Article

An experimental investigation on oscillating length scale of gas pipeline leakage flame restricted by parallel sidewalls

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 215, 期 -, 页码 252-258

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.01.044

关键词

Gas leakage flame; Parallel sidewalls; Oscillating length scale; Fire plume

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [51976051, 51776060, 51606057]
  2. Key R&D Program of Guangdong Province in China [2019B111102003]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018T110625, 2016M590580]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [PA2019GDQT0014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work focuses on studying the oscillating length scale of gas pipeline leakage flame restricted by parallel sidewalls with various separation distances. A series of experiments are conducted with 3, 6 and 10 mm nozzles and propane is used as fuel. Results show that reduction of the sidewall separation distance hinders the air entrainment, and provokes significant enlargement of the oscillation amplitude. Besides, the oscillating length scale of propane jet fire is also found to increase with the fuel flow rate. Finally, a new physical model, based on the scaling analysis of the fuel flow field and previous work, is proposed to characterize the variation of oscillating length for the restricted propane jet fire. The results obtained in this work and in previous studies, correlate with a better agreement using the present model than a previous suggested model. This work is not only a significant supplement to the flame oscillation instability physics from previous results for the flame restricted by parallel sidewalls, but also can provide some scientific basis to the design and management on the gas fuel energy storage and transportation systems in the cities to reduce the possible fire thread to the surrounding buildings. (C) 2020 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据