大尺度氢气云爆燃压力波形成机制及灾害效应判定

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2025-0100

化工进展 ›› 2025, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (8): 4709-4719.DOI: 10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2025-0100

• 过程系统工程的模拟与仿真 • 上一篇

大尺度氢气云爆燃压力波形成机制及灾害效应判定

翟宇航¹^,²(), 丛立新²(), 韩冰¹, 王启林¹, 邹慧传²

^1.国家市场监管重点实验室(气瓶安全技术)，大连锅炉压力容器检测研究院有限公司，辽宁大连 116012
^2.哈尔滨工业大学(威海)海洋工程学院，山东威海 264209

收稿日期:2025-01-15 修回日期:2025-04-14 出版日期:2025-08-25 发布日期:2025-09-08
通讯作者: 丛立新
作者简介:翟宇航（2000—），男，硕士研究生，研究方向为流体力学。E-mail：2380319765@qq.com。
基金资助:
国家市场监管重点实验室（气瓶安全技术）开放课题(2023K03);山东省自然科学基金(ZR2014EEM048)

Formation mechanism of large-scale hydrogen cloud deflagration pressure waves and determination of disaster effects

ZHAI Yuhang¹^,²(), CONG Lixin²(), HAN Bing¹, WANG Qilin¹, ZOU Huichuan²

^1.Key Laboratory of Gas Cylinders Safety Technology for State Market Regulation, Dalian Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspection Testing Institute Co. Ltd. , Dalian 116012, Liaoning, China
^2.School of Ocean Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology (Weihai), Weihai 264209, Shandong, China

Received:2025-01-15 Revised:2025-04-14 Online:2025-08-25 Published:2025-09-08
Contact: CONG Lixin

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

通过热力学、燃烧动力学和气体动力学分析，提炼出物理与数学模型，然后应用计算流体力学（CFD）方法对3种约束下的加氢站氢气/空气爆燃过程进行求解，通过与以往实验结果进行对比，验证了数学模型的有效性。本文研究了不同约束类型的加氢站中氢气泄漏爆炸过程。结果表明：火焰形状受到约束的影响较大，建筑物可以阻碍火焰的发展。根据爆燃超压场变化趋势将爆燃过程分为超压积聚期与超压释放期。提出了爆燃压力组合波形成机制，包括火焰层层燃烧，产生的能量层层积累，叠加的能量以超压冲击波的形式向外释放，进而在顶部约束诱导下形成网状结构超压组合冲击波。依据超压准则对氢气爆炸事故进行风险评估。全约束形式下爆燃强度最大，超压冲击波超过了200kPa，在0~8.29m范围内可造成人员死亡。

关键词: 氢, 爆炸, 数值模拟, 超压冲击波, 灾害效应

Abstract:

Through thermodynamic, combustion dynamics, and gas dynamics analyses, a physical and mathematical model is refined. The CFD method is employed to simulate the hydrogen/air deflagration process in hydrogen refueling stations under three constraint configurations. Validation against previous experimental results confirm the effectiveness of the mathematical model. This study investigates the impact of hydrogen leakage explosion accidents in hydrogen refueling stations with different constraint types. The results indicate that the flame shape is significantly influenced by the constraints. The development of the overpressure field can be divided into an overpressure accumulation phase and a release phase. A mechanism for the formation of combined deflagration pressure waves is proposed: the flame burns layer by layer, with the energy produced accumulating layer by layer. The superimposed energy is released outward in the form of overpressure shock waves, which under the induction of the top constraint, form a mesh-like structure of combined overpressure shock waves. Risk assessment based on overpressure criteria demonstrates that detonation intensity peaks under full constraint, with overpressure shock waves exceeding 200kPa. This hazardous condition poses fatal risks to personnel within 0—8.29 m.

Key words: hydrogen, explosions, numerical simulation, overpressure shock wave, disaster effects

中图分类号:

X932

翟宇航, 丛立新, 韩冰, 王启林, 邹慧传. 大尺度氢气云爆燃压力波形成机制及灾害效应判定[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4709-4719.

ZHAI Yuhang, CONG Lixin, HAN Bing, WANG Qilin, ZOU Huichuan. Formation mechanism of large-scale hydrogen cloud deflagration pressure waves and determination of disaster effects[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2025, 44(8): 4709-4719.

图/表 19

参考文献 25

[1]	KAMRAN Muhammad, Marek TURZǏŃSKI. Exploring hydrogen energy systems: A comprehensive review of technologies, applications, prevailing trends, and associated challenges[J]. Journal of Energy storage, 2024,96(15): 112601.
[2]	赵永志, 蒙波, 陈霖新, 等. 氢能源的利用现状分析[J]. 化工进展, 2015, 34(9): 3248-3255.
	ZHAO Yongzhi, MENG Bo, CHEN Linxin, et al. Utilization status of hydrogen energy[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2015, 34(9): 3248-3255.
[3]	WANG Xueyan, ZOU Xiong, GAO Wei. Flammable gas leakage risk assessment for methanol to hydrogen refueling stations and liquid hydrogen refueling stations[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2024, 54: 1286-1294.
[4]	MORADI Ramin, GROTH Katrina M. Hydrogen storage and delivery: Review of the state of the art technologies and risk and reliability analysis[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2019, 44(23): 12254-12269.
[5]	LI Hao, CAO Xuewen, LIU Yang, et al. Safety of hydrogen storage and transportation: An overview on mechanisms, techniques, and challenges[J]. Energy Reports, 2022, 8: 6258-6269.
[6]	毕明树, 姚敏. 内置障碍物诱导下的开敞空间球形气云爆炸冲量的研究[J]. 含能材料, 2006, 14(1): 8-11.
	BI Mingshu, YAO Min. Explosion impulse of spherical vapor cloud built-in barriers[J]. Chinese Journal of Energetic Materials, 2006, 14(1): 8-11.
[7]	KIM Woo Kyung, MOGI Toshio, DOBASHI Ritsu. Flame acceleration in unconfined hydrogen/air deflagrations using infrared photography[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2013, 26(6): 1501-1505.
[8]	LI Mingzhi, LIU Zhenyi, CHEN Lang, et al. Flame propagation characteristics and overpressure prediction of unconfined gas deflagration[J]. Fuel, 2021, 284: 119022.
[9]	李艳超, 毕明树, 高伟. 耦合火焰自加速传播的氢气云爆炸超压预测[J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2021, 41(7): 33-38.
	LI Yanchao, BI Mingshu, GAO Wei. Theoretical prediction of hydrogen cloud explosion overpressure considering self-accelerating flame propagation[J]. Explosion and Shock Waves, 2021, 41(7): 33-38.
[10]	JIANG Yuting, LI Yanchao, ZHOU Yonghao, et al. Investigation on unconfined hydrogen cloud explosion with external turbulence[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(13): 8658-8670.
[11]	ZBIKOWSKI M, MAKAROV D, MOLKOV V. LES model of large scale hydrogen-air planar detonations: Verification by the ZND theory[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2008, 33(18): 4884-4892.
[12]	ZHANG Qi, LI Dong. Comparison of the explosion characteristics of hydrogen, propane, and methane clouds at the stoichiometric concentrations[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2017, 42(21): 14794-14808.
[13]	鲍麒, 方秦, 张亚栋, 等. 充气薄膜对开敞空间气体爆炸试验的影响分析[J]. 工程力学, 2017, 34(7): 232-240.
	BAO Qi, FANG Qin, ZHANG Yadong, et al. The influence of film on the unconfined gas explosion tests[J]. Engineering Mechanics, 2017, 34(7): 232-240.
[14]	陈强峰, 王西明, 汤敏华, 等. 基于FLACS的掺氢燃气站场事故后果评估[J]. 消防科学与技术, 2022, 41(7): 937-941.
	CHEN Qiangfeng, WANG Ximing, TANG Minhua, et al. Accident consequence assessment of hydrogen-doped gas station based on FLACS[J]. Fire Science and Technology, 2022, 41(7): 937-941.
[15]	LI Yongjun, WANG Zhirong, SHI Xuemeng, et al. Safety analysis of hydrogen leakage accident with a mobile hydrogen refueling station[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2023, 171: 619-629.
[16]	LÜBCKE H, SCHMIDT St, RUNG T, et al. Comparison of LES and RANS in bluff-body flows[J]. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 2001, 89(14/15): 1471-1485.
[17]	FELTEN F, FAUTRELLE Y, Y Du TERRAIL, et al. Numerical modelling of electromagnetically-driven turbulent flows using LES methods[J]. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2004, 28(1): 15-27.
[18]	SHIH Tsan-Hsing, LIOU William W, SHABBIR Aamir, et al. A new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows[J]. Computers & Fluids, 1995, 24(3): 227-238.
[19]	DIMOTAKIS Paul E, DEBUSSY Francois D, KOOCHESFAHANI Manoochehr M. Particle streak velocity field measurements in a two-dimensional mixing layer[J]. The Physics of Fluids, 1981, 24(6): 995-999.
[20]	WILLERT C E, GHARIB M. Digital particle image velocimetry[J]. Experiments in Fluids, 1991, 10(4): 181-193.
[21]	YU Xing, YAN Wenjing, LIU Yi, et al. The flame mitigation effect of vertical barrier wall in hydrogen refueling stations[J]. Fuel, 2022, 315: 123265.
[22]	KIM Hyunjoon, Myungeun EOM, KIM Byung-In. Development of strategic hydrogen refueling station deployment plan for Korea[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020, 45(38): 19900-19911.
[23]	WANG Fangnian, XIAO Jianjun, JORDAN Thomas. GASFLOW-MPI analysis on deflagration in full-scale hydrogen refueling station experiments: H₂-air premixed cloud and high-pressure H₂ jet[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2022, 47(32): 14725-14739.
[24]	李少鹏, 陈国华, 赵杰, 等. 开敞空间可燃气云爆炸冲击波超压及灾害动力响应研究评述[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2019, 15(11): 11-17.
	LI Shaopeng, CHEN Guohua, ZHAO Jie, et al. Review of research on shock wave overpressure and disaster dynamic response of flammable vapor cloud explosion in unconfined space[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2019, 15(11): 11-17.
[25]	李玉星, 尹渊博, 王雅真, 等. 甲烷爆炸对建筑物内外压力场分布的影响[J]. 化工学报, 2020, 71(11): 5337-5351.
	LI Yuxing, YIN Yuanbo, WANG Yazhen, et al. Effect of methane explosion on distribution of pressure field inside and outside buildings[J]. CIESC Journal, 2020, 71(11): 5337-5351.

参数	加氢机	背部建筑物	顶盖	支撑柱
长/m	0.8	8	8	0.6
宽/m	0.4	8	8	0.6
高/m	1.8	5.4	0.4	5

参数	加氢机	背部建筑物	顶盖	支撑柱
长/m	0.8	8	8	0.6
宽/m	0.4	8	8	0.6
高/m	1.8	5.4	0.4	5

空气组分质量分数		氢气云团组分质量分数		温度/K	压力/Pa	点火半径/m	点火能量/J	点火时间/s
O₂	H₂	O₂	H₂	温度/K	压力/Pa	点火半径/m	点火能量/J	点火时间/s
0.23	0	0.2233	0.0283	300	101325	0.01	1	0.0001

空气组分质量分数		氢气云团组分质量分数		温度/K	压力/Pa	点火半径/m	点火能量/J	点火时间/s
O₂	H₂	O₂	H₂	温度/K	压力/Pa	点火半径/m	点火能量/J	点火时间/s
0.23	0	0.2233	0.0283	300	101325	0.01	1	0.0001

ΔP/kPa	对建筑的破坏	ΔP/kPa	对人体的伤害
6~15	受压面门窗玻璃大部分破碎	20~30	轻微受损
15~50	窗框损坏，墙体出现裂缝	30~50	中度损伤
50~70	木建筑厂房房柱折断，房架松动	50~100	重度损伤
70~100	砖墙倒塌
100~200	防震钢筋混凝土破坏，小房屋倒塌	>100	人员死亡
200~300	大型钢架结构破坏

大尺度氢气云爆燃压力波形成机制及灾害效应判定

Formation mechanism of large-scale hydrogen cloud deflagration pressure waves and determination of disaster effects

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 19

参考文献 25

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

ΔP/kPa	对建筑的破坏	背部约束破坏范围/m	顶部约束破坏范围/m	全约束破坏范围/m
6~15	受压面门窗玻璃大部分破碎	20.7~28.66	20.79~29.21	21.73~29.62
15~50	窗框损坏，墙体出现裂缝	10.85~20.7	12.41~20.79	13.68~21.73
50~70	木建筑厂房房柱折断，房架松动	7.29~10.85	9.44~12.41	11.24~13.68
70~100	砖墙倒塌	2.7~7.29	7.09~9.44	8.29~11.24
100~200	防震钢筋混凝土破坏，小房屋倒塌	0~2.7	0~7.09	4.49~8.29，0~2.95
200~300	大型钢架结构破坏	—	—	2.95~4.49

ΔP/kPa	对人体造成的损伤	背部约束破坏范围/m	顶部约束破坏范围/m	全约束破坏范围/m
20~30	轻微受损	15.29~18.54	16.03~18.78	17.04~19.75
30~50	中度损伤	10.85~15.29	12.41~20.79	13.68~17.04
50~100	重度损伤	2.7~10.85	7.09~12.41	8.29~13.68
>100	人员死亡	0~2.7	0~7.09	0~8.29

[1]	李艳平, 杨涛, 王洪勋, 张城, 温国胜, 韩治成, 蓝公家, 严大洲. 三氯氢硅在氢气氛中的热分解及还原体系的反应分子动力学模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4322-4330.
[2]	李卡, 夏宇轩, 吴晓琴, 易兰, 罗浩. 双层多孔介质燃烧反应器的孔隙尺度计算流体动力学模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4381-4393.
[3]	李增, 赵云鹏, 李宇慧, 柳楠, 朱春梦, 石孝刚, 高金森, 蓝兴英. 基于CFD模拟的催化裂化沉降器跑剂异常诊断[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4430-4442.
[4]	李浩东, 沈胜强, 陈亮. 氨氢燃烧余热利用耦合氨裂解制氢过程数值模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4443-4453.
[5]	王兆霖, 张志刚, 周静, 高琛, 彭克臣, 姜敏迪, 奚溪, 徐胜利, 刘红. Gyroid三周期极小曲面换热构件流动换热特性[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4454-4462.
[6]	张建伟, 阴苗苗, 董鑫, 冯颖. 基于振荡射流的撞击流反应器混合特性数值模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4488-4499.
[7]	王雅彬, 赵碧丹, 徐繁, 兰斌, 王军武. 基于结构双流体模型的循环流化床全回路模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4500-4512.
[8]	王蓝欣, 李飞, 钱亚男, 田于杰, 申峻, 王维. 固定床反应器不同水分煤热解数值模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4513-4525.
[9]	安澍, 马永丽, 丰雷, 张紫浩, 刘明言. 网式水基泡沫发泡过程CFD模拟[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4545-4555.
[10]	杨嘉聪, 程光旭, 贾彤华, 姜召. 煤制甲醇与绿氢高效耦合新工艺模拟及技术经济分析[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4657-4668.
[11]	黄灵军, 朱卿宇, 张宇, 孙维祺, 窦东阳, 王启立. 进化响应面驱动的CO₂加氢制甲醇工艺与氢网络同步优化[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(8): 4688-4700.
[12]	周颖, 白保华, 蒲田, 周恩泽, 胡建清, 张松林, 周红军, 徐春明. 零碳产业园的构建与示范[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(7): 4282-4286.
[13]	张若琛, 王家瑞, 王斯民, 张早校. 微米级湿颗粒的动态碰撞行为及能量耗散机制[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(7): 3718-3726.
[14]	石秦川, 王施媛, 李培雅, 路书涵, 王波, 王家慧, 杨福胜, 王斌, 杨生春, 方涛. 氢在有机液态储氢载体中的溶解度研究进展[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(7): 3816-3827.
[15]	张鹏飞, 赵广乐, 赵阳, 莫昌艺, 任亮. 劣质蜡油中氮化物的分布、结构及其加氢转化规律分析[J]. 化工进展, 2025, 44(7): 3828-3837.