0
Research Papers: Design and Analysis

Structural Response of Piping to Internal Gas Detonation

[+] Author and Article Information
Joseph E. Shepherd

Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125jeshep@caltech.edu

J. Pressure Vessel Technol 131(3), 031204 (Apr 13, 2009) (13 pages) doi:10.1115/1.3089497 History: Received April 28, 2007; Revised December 26, 2008; Published April 13, 2009

Detonation waves in gas-filled piping or tubing pose special challenges in analysis and prediction of structural response. The challenges arise due to the nature of the detonation process and the role of fluid-structure interaction in determining the propagation and arrest of fractures. Over the past 10 years, our laboratory has been engaged in studying this problem and developing methodologies for estimating structural response. A brief overview of detonation waves and some key issues relevant to structural waves is presented first. This is followed by a summary of our work on the elastic response of tubes and pipes to ideal detonation loading, highlighting the importance of detonation wave speed in determining flexural wave excitation and possibility of resonant response leading to large deformations. Some issues in measurement technique and validation testing are then presented. The importance of wave reflection from bends, valves, and dead ends is discussed, as well as the differences between detonation, shock wave, and uniform internal pressure loading. Following this, we summarize our experimental findings on the fracture threshold of thin-walled tubes with pre-existing flaws. A particularly important issue for hazard analysis is the estimation of loads associated with flame acceleration and deflagration-to-detonation transition. We give some recent results on pressure and elastic strain measurements in the transition regime for a thick-wall piping, and some remarks about plastic deformation.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Measured pressure versus time for detonation loading (35)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) Shadow image of a detonation front in 2H2–O2+3N2 at 20 kPa; propagation is left to right. The instability of the front is manifested by the curved and kinked leading shock; the fine-scale density fluctuations behind the front and the secondary shock waves extending into the products at the left of the wave. (b) Cellular pattern on sooted foil created by a detonation in 2H2–O2+2N2 at 20 kPa. The cell size for this mixture is approximately 43 mm and the soot foil is about 150 mm wide (28-30).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Detonation propagation in tube with closed ends: initiation at the left-hand side and propagation from left to right (35)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Measured pressure signals for a detonation propagating at 1267 m/s in the GALCIT large detonation tube (55): (a) transducer 1, (b) transducer 2, and (c) transducer 3 (35)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

The GALCIT large detonation tube facility (55)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Measured strain signals (35) from gauge 10 for three detonation velocities propagating at (a) 1400 m/s, (b) 1478 m/s, and (c) 1700 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Analysis of strain signals from gauge 10: (a) frequency content compared with Tang model and (b) amplification factor from experiments ◇ compared with Tang—and finite element models with simply-supported—and clamped ends (35)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Measured strain signals for a detonation propagating at 2841 m/s in a 40 mm diameter Al specimen (56)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Predicted and measured strain amplification factors for detonations propagating in a 40 mm diameter Al specimen (56)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Detonation propagation (rapid DDT near ignition point) and reflection from a closed end: (a) pressure measurements and (b) strain measurements (63)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Pipe rupture due to overpressure by explosions: (a) Hamaoka-1 NPP (7) and (b) Brunsbüttel KBB (5)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Thin-wall (column 1 of Table 2) tubes with pre-existing flaws; rupture due to propagating detonations (69): (a) 12.7 mm long flaw, (b) 25.4 mm long flaw, and (c) 50.8 mm long flaw

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Crack opening and propagation in thin-wall (column 1 of Table 2) tube under torsion with a pre-existing flaw and detonation loading (57)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Deflagration-to-detonation transition near a closed end: (a) pressure measurements and (b) strain measurements (63)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Plastic deformation of 15% produced in a thin-wall tube (column 3 of Table 2) of mild steel by DDT next to closed end located at the right-hand side. The peak pressure measured at the end was approximately 500 bars twice the computed value for a reflected CJ detonation (87)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In