Numerical simulation of gas explosion in underground unventilated kitchen based on FLACS

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.01.0275

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to optimize the anti-explosion design of an underground unventilated kitchen, the finite element model of a house with an underground unventilated kitchen was established in FLACS software. Based on this model, the effect of gas cloud size, ignition position, shape of obstacle, position, and size of obstacle on gas explosion pressure was investigated. The extent of explosion damage to the unventilated kitchen structure was obtained according to simulation results. The results show that when the gas cloud size increases in the unventilated kitchen, the explosion damage to the building is more severe. The maximum pressure peak values are 41.9, 19.5, and 3.25 kPa when ignition is in the kitchen, ventilation shaft, and living room. When an obstacle exists, a greater amount of pressure is generated. The peak pressure is much higher when the obstacle cross-section shape is square than when it is circular and rectangular. The closer the obstacle is to the ignition position, the more intense the pressure peak. With the increase in the obstacle section size, the peak pressure increases continuously. The greatest rise in peak pressure is near the elevator. Shock waves from gas explosions in unventilated kitchens have a greater impact on the floor space than in traditional kitchens.

Key words: FLACS, underground unventilated kitchen, gas explosion, numerical simulation, peak pressure, ignition position, obstacles

CLC Number:

X932爆炸安全与防火、防爆

PENG Shanbi, LI Wei, TANG Ping. Numerical simulation of gas explosion in underground unventilated kitchen based on FLACS[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(1): 215-222.

Figures/Tables 17

Fig.1

Tab.1

Fig.2

Tab.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Tab.3

Tab.4

Fig.9

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.10

Fig.11

References 17

[1]	中国城市燃气协会安全管理工作委员会, 中国燃气安全杂志社,燃气安全与服务微信公众号.全国燃气事故分析报告(2021年全年综述)[R/OL].[2022-09-20]. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/i_D2dwF6yOLgnab9miUI7g.
[2]	湖北省十堰市张湾区艳湖社区集贸市场“6·13”重大燃气爆炸事故调查报告[R/OL].[2021-11-24]. https://yjt.hubei.gov.cn/yjgl/aqsc/sgdc/202109/P020211002415958135749.pdf.
[3]	宋斌. 居民室内燃气爆炸特征及防控措施研究[D]. 成都: 西南石油大学, 2019.
[4]	RYSZARD C, ALEKSANDRA B. Analysis of the safety of residential buildings under gas explosion loads[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2021, 43: DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102815.
[5]	王秋红, 王力文, 蒋军成, 等. 城镇地埋天然气管道泄漏诱发气云爆炸仿真[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2021, 31(9): 75-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.011
	WANG Qiuhong, WANG Liwen, JIANG Juncheng, et al. Simulation study on gas explosion induced by gas leakage of urban buried gas pipelines[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2021, 31(9): 75-82. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2021.09.011
[6]	MISHRA K B, WEHRSTEDT K D. Underground gas pipeline explosion and fire: CFD based assessment of foreseeability[J]. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2015, 24: 526-542. doi: 10.1016/j.jngse.2015.04.010
[7]	王轶宏, 翟越, 李艳, 等. 城市燃气管网泄漏蒸气云爆炸事故风险评估[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2): 194-201. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.0285
	WANG Yihong, ZHAI Yue, LI Yan, et al. Risk assessment of vapor cloud explosion accident of urban gas pipe network under leakage condition[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2): 194-201. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.0285
[8]	李昂, 司俊鸿, 李雪冰. 泄爆门泄爆特性试验及数值模拟研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2020, 30(8): 51-56. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.008
	LI Ang, SI Junhong, LI Xuebing. Experiment and numerical simulation for venting characteristics of explosion venting door[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2020, 30(8): 51-56. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2020.08.008
[9]	ZHANG Shuhao, MA Hongtao, HUANG Xiaomei, et al. Numerical simulation on methane-hydrogen explosion in gas compartment in utility tunnel[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2020, 140: 100-110. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.04.025
[10]	WANG Dan, HUANG Ping, QIAN Xinming, et al. Study on the natural gas diffusion behavior in sewage pipeline by a new outdoor full-scale water cycling experimental pipeline system[J]. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 2021, 146: 599-609. doi: 10.1016/j.psep.2020.11.049
[11]	郭丹彤. 窨井内受限空间可燃气体爆炸特性研究[D]. 北京: 首都经济贸易大学, 2017.
	GUO Dantong. Research on explosive characteristics of combustible gas in wells within the restricted space[D]. Beijing: Capital University of Economics and Business, 2017.
[12]	LI Zhan, CHEN Li, FANG Qin, et al. Experimental and numerical study on CFRP strip strengthened clay brick masonry walls subjected to vented gas explosions[J]. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 2019, 129: 66-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2019.02.013
[13]	于义成. 室内燃气泄漏扩散模拟及爆炸后果分析[D]. 哈尔滨: 哈尔滨工业大学, 2015.
	YU Yicheng. The diffusion simulation and explosion consequence analysis of the indoor gas leakage[D]. Harbin: Harbin Institute of Technology, 2015.
[14]	张云明. 气体爆炸原理与防治技术[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2018: 117-128.
[15]	孙博. 开敞空间可燃气云爆炸研究[D]. 大连: 大连理工大学, 2000.
[16]	BAO Qi, FANG Qin, YANG Shigang, et al. Experimental investigation on the deflagration load under unconfined methane-air explosions[J]. Fuel, 2016, 185: 565-576. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.07.126
[17]	CAO Yong, GUO Jin, HU Kunlun, et al. The effect of ignition location on explosion venting of hydrogen-air mixtures[J]. Shock Waves, 2017, 27(4): 691-697. doi: 10.1007/s00193-017-0712-1

楼层	监测点	坐标
一层	M10	(2.51, 5.11, 5.21)
	M11	(6.01, 5.11, 5.21)
	M12	(6.01, 8.11, 5.21)
二层	M13	(6.01, 6.11, 8.21)

工况编号	气云尺寸: 长×宽×高/ m×m×m	气云覆盖区域	点火坐标	障碍物形状	障碍物位置	障碍物尺寸:长×宽×高/m×m×m
1	1.8×1.8×1.8	厨房局域	(1.91, 2.11, 2.11)	—		无障碍物
2	3×2.5×1.8	厨房顶部所有区域
3	4×4×1.8	厨房顶部所有区域、通风井和客厅部分区域
4	6×5×1.8	厨房顶部所有区域、通风井和客厅顶部局域
5			(5.91, 1.97, 2.11)
6			(5.91, 4.51, 2.11)
7			(1.91, 2.11, 2.11)	长方体	位置1	1.3×1.5×1.2
8				正方体		1.4×1.4×1.2
9				圆柱体		圆柱体直径d=1.58,高度h=1.2
10				长方体	位置2	1.3×1.5×1.2
11					位置3
12					位置4
13					位置1	0.7×0.9×0.5
14						0.9×1.1×0.5
15						1.1×1.3×0.5
16						1.3×1.5×0.5
17				—		无障碍物
18				—		无障碍物

监测点	截面形状
监测点	长方形	正方形	圆形
M1	44.28	45.45	44.13
M2	43.72	45.15	43.72
M3	43.85	45.24	43.76
M4	43.81	44.91	43.47
M5	43.73	44.98	43.36
M6	44.54	46.06	43.91
M7	46.24	48.05	46.16
M8	52.94	57.11	51.25
M9	49.37	53.03	48.00
M10	15.58	15.82	15.64
M11	3.20	3.26	3.21
M12	2.96	3.02	2.97
M13	0.33	0.34	0.34

监测点	障碍物位置
监测点	1号位置	2号位置	3号位置	4号位置	无障碍物
M1	44.28	39.11	37.62	37.83	37.37
M2	43.72	38.85	37.40	37.43	37.05
M3	43.85	38.83	37.34	37.40	37.03
M4	43.81	38.68	37.22	37.24	36.89
M5	43.73	38.77	37.23	37.20	36.89
M6	44.54	38.95	37.56	37.67	37.40
M7	46.24	40.01	38.51	38.16	38.06
M8	52.94	43.64	42.32	42.05	41.90
M9	49.37	41.09	39.93	39.63	39.45
M10	15.58	15.67	15.77	15.73	15.65
M11	3.20	3.19	3.22	3.22	3.20
M12	2.96	2.96	2.99	2.98	2.96
M13	0.33	0.27	0.30	0.28	0.30

监测点	截面尺寸/m×m
监测点	1.5×1.3	1.3×1.1	1.1×0.9	0.9×0.7
M1	44.53	44.12	42.87	39.72
M2	44.10	43.79	42.27	39.49
M3	44.40	44.03	42.19	39.42
M4	43.97	43.67	41.91	39.33
M5	44.00	43.80	42.10	39.40
M6	44.69	44.41	42.98	39.78
M7	46.88	46.35	44.56	40.84
M8	60.49	56.70	49.73	43.69
M9	56.60	53.69	47.78	41.28
M10	15.95	15.72	15.65	15.62
M11	3.38	3.27	3.21	3.19
M12	3.05	2.99	2.97	2.96
M13	0.42	0.36	0.33	0.29