OpenFOAM® pp 357-372 | Cite as

Numerical Modeling of Flame Acceleration and Transition from Deflagration to Detonation Using OpenFOAM®

  • Reza Khodadadi Azadboni
  • Jennifer X. WenEmail author
  • Ali Heidari


The present numerical investigation aims to study the dynamics of deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) in inhomogeneous and homogeneous mixtures. Modeling discontinuities, such as shocks and contact surfaces, in high-speed compressible flows require numerical schemes that can capture these features while avoiding spurious oscillations. For the numerical model, two different solution approaches, i.e., the pressure-based and density-based methods, have been adopted using the OpenFOAM® CFD toolbox. A reactive density-based solver using the Harten–Lax–van Leer-contact (HLLC) scheme has been developed within the frame of OpenFOAM®. The predictions are in reasonably good qualitative and quantitative agreement with the experiments (Boeck et al. in The GraVent DDT Database, 2015 [3]). The DDT phenomena have two major stages; flame acceleration (FA), during which the flow is in the subsonic regime, and the transition-to-detonation stage, in which the combustion wave undergoes a transition to the supersonic state. The present study indicates that it is viable to use the pressure-based algorithm for studying FA, but a density-based method is required for modeling DDT.



This work is a part of the SafeLNG project funded by the Marie Curie Action of the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union.


  1. 1.
    Ersen, K. K. (2004). Gas explosions in process pipes. Dissertation, Telemark University College, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thomas, G.O. (2012). Some observations on the initiation and onset of detonation. J Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 370(1960):715–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boeck, L. R., et al. (2015). The GraVent DDT Database. In: 25th International Colloq. on the Dynamics of Explosions and Reactive Systems (ICDERS), Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weller, H.G., Tabor, G., Gosman, A.D. & Fureby, C. (1998). Application of a flame-wrinkling LES combustion model to a turbulent mixing layer. Proc. Combust. Inst. 27:899–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batten, P., Leschziner, M.A., Goldberg, U.C. (1997). Average-state Jacobians and implicit methods for compressible viscous and turbulent flows. J. Comput. Phys. 137(1):38–78MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sod, G. A. (1978). A Survey of Several Finite Difference Methods for Systems of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Conservation Laws. J. Comput. Phys. 27:1–31MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenshields, C., Weller, H., Gasparini, L., and Reese, J. (2010). Implementation of semi-discrete, non-staggered central schemes in a colocated, polyhedral, finite volume framework, for high speed viscous flows. Int J Numer Meth Fl, 63(1):1–21Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    OpenFOAM® Ltd. Accessed 2015
  9. 9.
    Issa, R. (1985). Solution of the implicitly discretised fluid flow equations by operator-splitting. J. Comput. Phys. 62(1):40–65MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurganov, A., and Tadmor, E. (2000). New high-resolution central schemes for nonlinear conservation laws and convection – diffusion equations. J. Comput. Phys. 160(1):241–282MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kurganov, A., Noelle, S., and Petrova, G. (2000). Semidiscrete central-upwind schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws and hamilton – jacobi equations. J. Comput. Phys, 160:720–742Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khodadadi Azadboni, R., et al. (2013). Evaluate shock capturing capability with the numerical methods in OpenFOAM®. J Therm Sci. 17(4):1255–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Leer, B. (1974). Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme, II: monotonicity and conservation combined in a second order scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 17:361–370Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borm, O., Jemcov, A., Kau, H.P. (2011). Density based Navier Stokes solver for transonic flows. In: Proceedings of 6th OpenFOAM® workshop, penn state university, USAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khodadadi Azadboni, R., et al. (2017). Numerical modeling of deflagration to detonation transition in inhomogeneous hydrogen/air mixtures. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., 49: 722–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilke, C. R. (1950). Diffusional properties of multicomponent gases. J Chem. Eng. Prog. 46(2):95–104Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heidari, A. and Wen, J. X. (2017). Numerical simulation of detonation failure and re-initiation in bifurcated tubes. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 42 (11):7353–7359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grinstein, F., Margolin, L., Rider, W. (Eds.), (2007). Implicit Large Eddy Simulation: Computing Turbulent Flow Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xiao, H.H, Houim, R.W., Oran, E.S. (2015). Formation and evolution of distorted tulip flames. J. Combust. Flame, 162(11):4084–4101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khodadadi Azadboni, R., Heidari, A., Wen, X. J. (2018). A computational fluid dynamic investigation of inhomogeneous hydrogen flame acceleration and transition to detonation. J. Flow Turbulence Combust., 1–13. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reza Khodadadi Azadboni
    • 1
  • Jennifer X. Wen
    • 2
    Email author
  • Ali Heidari
    • 1
  1. 1.Fire, Explosion and Fluid Dynamics Research Team, School of Mechanical & Automotive EngineeringKingston University LondonKingstonUK
  2. 2.Warwick FIRE, School of EngineeringUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations