ARTICLE IN PRESS

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550

www.elsevier.com/locate/pecs

Flame acceleration and transition to detonation in ducts

G. Ciccarellia,, S. Dorofeevb
a
Queen’s University, 130 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7P 2M4
b
FM Global, 1151 Boston-Providence Turnpike, P.O. Box 910, Norwood, MA 02062, USA
Received 15 May 2007; accepted 13 November 2007
Available online 15 February 2008

Abstract

This paper reviews the state of knowledge on flame acceleration and deflagration-to-detonation transition (DDT) in smooth ducts and
ducts equipped with turbulence-producing obstacles. The objective is to bring to light the basic understanding of the phenomenon and its
application to explosion safety. The scope of the review is restricted to homogeneous gas-phase combustion with emphasis placed on
experimental investigation.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: DDT; Flame; Detonation; Shock wave

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
1.1. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
1.2. One-dimensional combustion waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
1.2.1. Steady detonation and deflagration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
1.2.2. Unsteady double discontinuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
1.2.3. One-dimensional description of flame acceleration and DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
2. Deflagration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
2.1. Laminar flames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
2.2. Flame instabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.2.1. Landau–Darrieus instability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.2.2. Diffusive instabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.2.3. Cellular flames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
2.2.4. Instabilities and flame stretch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
2.2.5. Instabilities promoted by confinement and obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
2.3. Turbulent flames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
2.3.1. Scales of turbulence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
2.3.2. Characteristic regimes of turbulent combustion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
2.3.3. Turbulent burning velocities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
2.3.4. Quenching of turbulent flames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
3. Detonation waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
3.1. Historical review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
3.1.1. ZND detonation wave structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
3.1.2. Multi-head detonation wave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 613 533 2586; fax: +1 613 533 6489.
E-mail address: ciccarel@me.queensu.ca (G. Ciccarelli).

0360-1285/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pecs.2007.11.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
500 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550

3.1.3. Single-head spin detonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518

3.2. Cellular detonation wave structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
3.2.1. Critical initiation energy and detonation cell size measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
3.2.2. Cell size correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
3.2.3. Critical tube diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
4. Deflagration-to-detonation transition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
4.1. Phenomenology of DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
4.1.1. Basic studies of DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
4.1.2. Phases of DDT process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
4.2. FA in smooth tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
4.2.1. Process of FA in smooth tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
4.2.2. Run-up distances to supersonic flames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
4.3. FA in obstructed channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
4.3.1. Process of FA in obstructed channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
4.3.2. Characteristic flame propagation regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529
4.3.3. Flame speeds as a function of distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
4.3.4. Criteria for weak and strong FA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
4.3.5. Run-up distances to supersonic flames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
4.4. Onset of detonations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
4.4.1. Types of detonation onset phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
4.4.2. Underlying mechanism Shock Wave Amplification by Coherent Energy Release (SWACER) . . . . . . . . . . . 538
4.4.3. Criteria for onset of detonations in smooth tubes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
4.4.4. Criteria for onset of detonations in channels with obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
4.5. Evaluation of potential for FA and DDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
5. Concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546

1. Introduction Explosions almost universally start by the ignition of a

In most engineering applications, combustion occurs via
deflagration where the molecular transport of heat and
mass are important. Deflagration represents the subsonic
mode of combustion and the chemical reactions occur at
roughly constant pressure. For stoichiometric gaseous
fuel–air mixtures at atmospheric conditions the laminar
burning velocity is typically less than 1 m/s. For turbulent
flames the transport properties are enhanced and as a result
the burning velocity can be significantly higher than the
laminar value. The detonative mode of combustion is
characterized by supersonic front propagation velocities on
the order of a couple of thousand meters per second. In this
mode of combustion, chemical reactions occur as a result
of adiabatic shock heating and therefore the shock wave
and the trailing reaction zone are coupled and propagate at
a constant velocity. For stoichiometric fuel–air mixtures
the pressure ratio across the detonation wave is in the
range of 15–20. This is roughly twice the maximum
possible pressure produced by a deflagration in the same
mixture under adiabatic, constant volume conditions.
Because of the very high overpressures associated with a
detonation wave, historically the study of detonation wave
phenomena has been motivated by industries prone to
uncontrolled explosions. Although a detonation wave can
be initiated directly by the deposition of a large amount of
energy in a very small volume of the mixture, typically such
ignition sources are not present in most industrial settings.
flame from either an electrical spark, or the autoignition of
the mixture in contact with a very hot surface. Under
certain conditions, the flame can accelerate and undergo
transition to a detonation wave. Collectively this process is
often referred to as deflagration-to-detonation transition
(DDT). Strictly speaking the flame acceleration phenom-
enon leading up to detonation initiation is separate from
the actual process of the onset of detonation. The onset of
detonation is a local phenomenon that occurs in a very
small volume of the unburned mixture whose thermo-
dynamic state has been conditioned by the flame accelera-
tion processes that take place over a much larger length
and time scale. Under this DDT scenario the study of the
flame acceleration process is as important as the actual
onset of the detonation event.
There have been significant advances made over the
years in the understanding of the flame acceleration and
DDT processes that are outlined in several excellent review
papers [1–5]. Thanks to high spatial and temporal
resolution Schlieren photography the basic mechanisms
involved in flame acceleration in an obstructed channel
have been identified and the basic DDT process is fairly
well understood. Turbulent combustion plays a key role in
the flame acceleration process, which to this day remains
one of the most intensively studied but least understood
phenomenon in combustion. The problem is made even
more difficult since compressibility effects play an im-
portant role in the latter stage of the flame acceleration and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 501

Nomenclature n1 reaction order of limiting component

nF reaction order for fuel
Latin nO reaction order for oxidant
P pressure
A ¼ l/DR proportionality constant P1 pre-shock pressure
AF elementary area of a flame front P2 post-shock pressure
a parameter of approximation P3 pressure behind reaction front
a1 pre-shock sound speed P pressure
a2 post-shock sound speed Pe Peclet number
a3 sound speed behind reaction front Q chemical energy release
ap sound speed in combustion products R gas constant
ar sound speed in reactants RF flame radius
b parameter of approximation ReT ¼ u0 LT/n ¼ (u0 /SL)(LT/d) turbulent Reynolds
b1, b2, b3, b4, and b5 correlation constants number
BR blockage ratio S obstacle spacing
C constant coefficient S1 second largest of transverse sizes of the volume
cp specific heat capacity at constant pressure confined between two consecutive obstacles
D tube diameter SL laminar burning velocity relative to unburned
Da ¼ (u0 /SL)1(LT/d1) turbulent Damkoehler number mixture
DL molecular diffusivity of limiting component SLeff effective laminar burning velocity relative to
DCJ Chapman-Jouguet detonation velocity unburned mixture
Djet orifice size of a turbulent jet Sn normal propagation velocity of curved flame
Dlim limiting tube diameter for detonation propaga- ST turbulent burning velocity relative to unburned
tion mixture
Dsp propagation velocity of spontaneous reaction T temperature
front T1 pre-shock temperature
d orifice diameter in an obstacle, size of unob- T2 post-shock temperature
structed passage T3 temperature behind reaction front
dc critical tube diameter Tb maximum flame temperature
Ea effective activation energy Tu initial mixture temperature
Ec critical initiation energy of detonation tK Kolmogorov time scale of turbulence
F function as defined tL integral time scale of turbulence
H enthalpy U shock velocity
H1 largest of transverse sizes of the volume u particle velocity
confined between two consecutive obstacles u1 pre-shock particle velocity
h wall roughness u2 post-shock particle velocity
K constant coefficient u3 particle velocity behind reaction front
Ka ¼ (u0 /SL)3/2(LT/d1)1/2 turbulent Karlovitz number ū mean flow speed
k turbulent kinetic energy u0 turbulent fluctuation velocity defined by inte-
kA pre-exponential factor in reaction rate constant gral scale
L characteristic geometrical size V flow speed
Lc detonation cell length W deflagration front velocity in double-discontinuity
Li induction length model
LM Markstein length X, x distance
LT integral length scale of turbulence XD run-up distance to detonation
Le Lewis number XS flame propagation distance where the flame
lK Kolmogorov length scale of turbulence speed reaches the sound speed in the combus-
Ma Markstein number tion products
Mab Markstein number defined relative to burned Y fraction of reactants in mixture of products and
mixture reactants
NF molar concentration of fuel
m parameter of approximation Greek
NL molar concentration of limiting component
NO molar concentration of oxidant a flame stretch rate
n overall order of reaction ac flame stretch rate due to curvature
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
502 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
as flame strain rate due to inhomogeneities of the
flow
b ¼ Ea(TbTu)/RTb2 Zeldovich number
e Rdissipation rate of turbulent energy
1
Gnþ1  0 xn ex dx gamma function
g specific heat ratio
Z parameter of approximation
D thickness of boundary layer
DZND ZND induction length
d laminar flame thickness
k constant coefficient
l detonation cell width
m constant coefficient
n kinematic viscosity
nF stoichiometric coefficient of fuel
nL stoichiometric coefficient of limiting compo-
nent
nO stoichiometric coefficient of oxidizer
DDT processes. Commercial computer programs com-
monly used for explosion safety applications are based on
Reynolds time-averaged conservation equations and simple
combustion models. These codes are missing the essential
physics that are responsible for flame acceleration and
DDT and therefore can only be used for qualitative
information. Computer hardware limitations make direct
numerical simulation impossible at this time because of the
wide spectrum of time- and length-scales associated with
the chemistry and turbulent flow involved in the flame
acceleration phenomenon. Because of the limitations of
computational fluid dynamics in simulating this complex
phenomenon, experts in the field typically rely on experi-
ment-based correlations for quantitative predictions. This
paper presents the state-of-the-art in the field with
emphasis placed on experimental research with application
to industrial explosion safety.
1.1. Applications
The study of detonation phenomena goes back many
years to the pioneering work of Mallard and Le Chatelier
[6]. Working at the School of Mines clearly their interest in
combustion stemmed from the problem of uncontrolled
explosions in coal mines that were very prevalent at the
time. Unfortunately, over a century later, the problem of
coal mine explosions remains a problem for the
industry. In such explosions air in the mine shaft mixes
with methane gas, as well as small amounts of other
hydrocarbon volatiles that are released from the surround-
ing coal. The accidental ignition of the combustible gas
mixture results in a flame that accelerates down the mine
shaft producing damaging overpressures. Coal mine
explosion phenomenon is further complicated by the
lofting of coal dust from the mine floor into the unburned
gas ahead of the flame. In the worst case scenario, where
the shaft size and the combustible mixture conditions are
y dimensionless temperature
r density
r1 pre-shock density
r2 post-shock density
r3 density behind reaction front
rb density of combustion products
ru density of reactants
s ratio of densities of reactants and products
(expansion ratio)
s* critical expansion ratio for effective FA
x dummy variable of integration
t ¼ d/SL characteristic chemical time scale
tCJ induction time corresponding to the CJ detona-
tion post-shock state
ti characteristic induction time
tr characteristic reaction time
w temperature diffusivity
conducive, the deflagration can transition to a detonation
wave.
In the chemical industry there are processes where
combustible gas mixture is transported and processed in
piping and reactors. An example of such a process would
be one that relies on the partial-oxidation reaction. For
cost reasons, industrial process piping is typically designed
to withstand moderate over-pressurisation and cata-
strophic failure is mitigated by the implementation of
explosion venting devices [7]. Much like a mine shaft, the
piping and reactor vessels provide the lateral confinement
that is necessary for flame acceleration to occur and thus
the potential for DDT. The explosion venting devices
typically used are only effective for slow deflagration
phenomenon that occurs in low aspect ratio chambers
under quiescent conditions. These devices are not effective
for limiting the rapid pressure rise associated with fast
flames and detonation waves. As a result, the chemical
process industry has been involved for many years, directly
or indirectly, in the study of the DDT phenomenon from
the initiation prevention perspective. For example, for
explosion prevention it is imperative to know the fuel
composition limits for flame acceleration and detonation
initiation and propagation for a given duct size.
Following the accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2
(TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsyl-
vania, on March 28, 1979 there was a surge in explosion
prevention research, specifically involving hydrogen gas.
During the accident, there was a partial meltdown of the
reactor core that resulted in the production and release of a
large amount of hydrogen gas into the containment
building [8]. Hydrogen gas is produced as a result of
Zircaloy fuel clad oxidation that takes place at elevated
temperatures in a steam atmosphere. During the accident
several pressure spikes were recorded in the containment
building that were attributed to the combustion of the
released hydrogen that mixed with the containment air
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
atmosphere. Fortunately, the pressure rise was not
significant enough to compromise the integrity of the
power plant containment. However, subsequent accident
investigations indicated that if DDT were to occur the
integrity of the containment could be jeopardized. This
prompted many countries with nuclear power plants to
initiate intensive research programs investigating hydrogen
detonation related phenomena. The US Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission initiated such a program with large-scale
detonation studies performed at Sandia National Labora-
tory. One of the most important objectives of the research
was to determine the minimum hydrogen concentration
required to support a detonation on a scale approaching
that of a nuclear power plant and its subcompartments.
The most vulnerable power plants have since been retro-
fitted with equipment, such as igniters and hydrogen
recombiners, that during a severe-accident maintain the
overall containment hydrogen concentration below a
threshold level that detonation initiation and propagation
is not possible. The hydrogen problem remains an
important issue to the nuclear industry worldwide. The
international Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA) recently published a State-of-the-art-report on
flame acceleration and DDT for the nuclear industry [9].
The study of DDT has not been exclusively associated
with explosion safety. Over the last decade there has been a
renewed interest in using the detonation mode of combus-
tion for propulsion purposes. The concept of a pulse
detonation engine (PDE) in its simplest form involves the
initiation of a detonation wave in a tube combustor with
the ignition-end closed and the opposite end open. In an
ideal PDE the detonation wave is directly initiated and
propagates to the open end of the tube producing roughly a
constant volume pressure at the ignition-end. This high
pressure eventually decays as the combustion products
expand out the open-end of the tube. Therefore, the high-
pressure acting on the closed end of the tube produces
thrust for a finite duration. In order to get quasi-steady
thrust, multiple tubes firing at a frequency of roughly
100 Hz is required. The key advantage of a PDE over a
ramjet is that thrust can be produced at zero approach
speed up to hypersonic speeds. The proponents of PDEs
also claim better fuel consumption than both gas turbines
and ramjets over a wide Mach number range. There are
several technical challenges associated with PDEs, includ-
ing: overheating, noise, vibration, as well as air and exhaust
gas management and fuel–air mixing issues. Most im-
portantly, for an air-breathing PDE the challenge is how to
initiate a detonation consistently in a prototypic length
combustor without the use of oxygen sensitizing or a high-
energy initiation source. One of the strategies investigated
involves using low energy ignition and DDT. Various
approaches have been investigated to minimize the run-up
distance required for the detonation to develop. A
comprehensive review of the various PDE design concepts
can be found in Roy et al. [10].
503
Environmental as well as economic concerns associated
with the use of hydrocarbon based fuels for transportation
and power generation has generated significant interest in
the use of hydrogen as an alternative energy carrier.
Hydrogen combustion does not produce any greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide, that are responsible for local
and global environmental concerns. Because of these two
factors there is currently significant interest in the
introduction of hydrogen as an energy carrier of the
future, and as a result the issue of hydrogen safety is once
again at the forefront. The main problem is that hydrogen
has very wide flammability concentration limits, e.g.,
5–75% by volume in air. Any leakage of hydrogen into a
confined space frequented by motor vehicles, such as
tunnels and garages, poses a potential explosion hazard.
This issue is further aggravated by the wide detonability
limits of hydrogen–air mixtures and the propensity for a
flame propagating in a duct to rapidly accelerate due its
very high laminar burning velocity. A review of the
hydrogen safety issue and current research can be found
at the European Community funded Network of excellence
HySafe web site (www.hysafe.org) and at the US Depart-
ment of Energy Hydrogen Program web site (www.hydrogen.
energy.gov).
1.2. One-dimensional combustion waves
Up until the end of the 1950s detonations and
deflagrations were treated theoretically as one-dimensional
(1D) discontinuities. Since the flow associated with each
discontinuity was considered steady, the processes involved
could be analyzed by simple algebraic equations. Today it
is well known that both detonation waves and deflagra-
tions are locally multi-dimensional and unsteady phenom-
ena. However, for propagation inside of a duct, if the
control volume is chosen such that the inlet and outlet
boundaries of the control volume are sufficiently far from
the front, they can be treated as 1D. Consider the steady
1D control volume shown in Fig. 1 where the gas inflow
and outflow are designated as states 1 and 3, respectively.
Based on this steady 1D control volume the inviscid
conservation of mass, momentum and energy are
r1 u1 ¼ r3 u3 , (1.1)
P1 þ r1 u21 ¼ P3 þ r3 u23 , (1.2)
H 1 þ Q þ 12u21 ¼ H 3 þ 12u23 , (1.3)
Combustion front
3 1
Fig. 1. One-dimensional control volume.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
504 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
where r, P, H, u, and Q correspond to density, pressure,
sensible enthalpy, particle velocity relative to the stationary
control volume and energy release per unit mass, respec-
tively. If we treat the gas as ideal H can be expressed as a
function of P and r
g P
H¼ ; (1.4)
g1 r
where g is the ratio of the specific heats. Note, the control
volume shown in Fig. 1 may also contain a shock wave and
the same equations apply. Eqs. (1.1)–(1.4) are used in the
following Sections to analyze detonation waves, deflagra-
tions, and a combination of the two. The analyses serve to
familiarize the non-expert in the field with some of the
detonation and DDT terminology used throughout the
paper, as well as to gain valuable insight into various
aspects of the true unsteady multi-dimensional DDT
phenomenon.
1.2.1. Steady detonation and deflagration
Consider the 1D detonation wave shown in Fig. 2
consisting of an inert planar shock wave followed by an
exothermic reaction zone. The flow velocity is shown in the
reference frame of the shock wave. The chemical reactions
are initiated in the mixture due to the elevated temperature
and pressure condition that exists after the shock wave and
thus the deflagration and the shock wave propagate as a
coupled front. The front propagates at a constant velocity
U with energy released per unit mass Q. The thermo-
dynamic state ahead of the shock, post shock, and at the
end of the reaction zone where chemical equilibrium is
achieved are designated as 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
A complete derivation of the relevant equations and in
depth discussion of the steady 1D analysis of the
detonation wave that follows can be found in Glassman
[11] as well as other basic textbooks in combustion. The
equilibrium Hugoniot, obtained by combining the con-
servation of mass and energy equations, represents all
possible states at the end of the reaction zone for a given
energy release. The equilibrium Hugoniot curve, typically
shown on a P versus 1/r plot, is shown in Fig. 3 with
several key states denoted. In the case of an inert shock
wave, i.e., Q ¼ 0, the Hugoniot curve is shifted down from
the equilibrium Hugoniot and passes through the initial
state 1. The Rayleigh lines shown in Fig. 3 between points
1–2 and 1-c, also commonly referred to as the Michelson
line, are obtained by combining the conservation of mass
Reaction zone Shock wave
u3 U slope does not intersect the Hugoniot curve. The state
Q represented by the point J is commonly referred to as the
P3 P1
ρ3 ρ1
Fig. 2. Structure of one-dimensional detonation wave consisting of shock
wave followed by reaction zone.
2
Rayleigh Line
P/P1
Equilibrium
J
Hugoniot
V
1 P
1
C
1 ρ1/ρ
Fig. 3. Hugoniot curve showing possible equilibrium end states.
and momentum equations. It can be shown that the slope
of the Rayleigh line is proportional to the square of the
magnitude of the front velocity. The intersection of the
Rayleigh line and the Equilibrium Hugoniot curve
represents the final equilibrium state for a given front
velocity. Based on the detonation structure shown in Fig. 2,
since a particle first passes through the inert shock wave
before entering the reaction zone, it is common to show the
post shock state (point 2) that lies on the shock Hugoniot.
Two important states on the equilibrium Hugoniot are
designated by the points V and P. The part of the Hugoniot
curve between points V and P are physically unattainable,
mathematically these states correspond to imaginary values
for the front velocity. Points on the upper (detonation)
branch of the Hugoniot (above point V) represent super-
sonic combustion where there is an increase in pressure and
density across the front. Points on the lower (deflagration)
branch of the Hugoniot (below point P) represent subsonic
combustion with a corresponding decrease in pressure and
density across the front. Point V represents the final state
for an adiabatic constant volume process and point P
represents the final state for a constant pressure process.
The Rayleigh line going through point V has an infinite
slope and thus represents the process by which the entire
mixture ignites at the same time, or effectively an infinite
front velocity. Conversely the Rayleigh line going through
point P has a zero slope which represents the limit of an
infinitely slow combustion wave.
On the upper branch the Rayleigh line is shown to be
tangent to the Hugoniot curve at point J. This state
corresponds to the minimum entropy increase across the
detonation wave, and also represents the minimum possible
detonation velocity since a Rayleigh line with a smaller
CJ detonation state in recognition of the pioneering work
of Chapman and Jouguet in the field of detonation waves
[12,13]. Not only is it the minimum possible velocity but
also at point J the Rayleigh line is tangent to the isentrope
that passes through the point, which can be shown to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
indicate that the flow velocity at the end of the reaction
zone is sonic, i.e., u3=a3, where a is the speed of sound.
This choked state, commonly referred to as the CJ
condition, makes it possible for a detonation wave to
propagate unaffected by any perturbations, that propagate
at the local speed of sound, originating downstream of the
reaction zone. For example, a detonation wave propagat-
ing in a tube away from a closed end is unaffected by the
expansion waves that follow behind the wave in order to
satisfy the zero velocity closed-end boundary condition.
This expansion is centered at the end of the tube and is
commonly referred to as the Taylor expansion fan [14]. For
a given initial thermodynamic state (point 1) there is a
unique CJ detonation wave velocity that is directly
proportional to the square-root of the energy released per
unit mass of the mixture:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
DCJ ffi 2Qðg3 þ 1Þ, (1.5)
where g3 is the ratio of specific heats of the combustion
products (state 3 in Fig. 2). Eq. (1.5) is valid for relatively
high heat release, so that DCJba1.
Experiments in large smooth tubes have shown that
indeed self-sustained detonation waves propagate to within
1–2% of the theoretical CJ detonation velocity. A detailed
review of detonation waves is provided in Section 2.
For a detonation velocity larger than the CJ value, the
Rayleigh line intersects the Hugoniot curve at two points,
one above point J and one between points J and V. Only
the point above J is realizable for a fluid where reaction is
caused by a lead shock, since in order to reach the lower
state a particle must pass through the upper point first
where all the energy available is released. A detonation
with an end state that lies above point J on the Hugoniot is
commonly referred to as being overdriven. For points
above point J the flow at the end of the reaction zone is
subsonic (u3oa3), therefore in order for such a steady-state
detonation wave to exist it must be supported from behind
by a piston traveling at a velocity of u3.
A state between points J and V may be achieved, if a
sequence of consecutive ignitions imposes the reaction
front velocity given by the respective slope of the Rayleigh
line. In this situation, an end state on the Hugoniot curve
between point J and V is achieved from below by a gradual
change of the state along the Rayleigh line starting from
point 1. Such a wave is usually referred to as underdriven
detonation. A transient analog of such an underdriven
detonation wave may be observed during detonation
initiation via the induction time gradient mechanism
discussed in Section 4.4.2.
Recall point P on the Hugoniot does not represent the
end state of a physically possible process but a point just
below point P on the Hugoniot curve represents the end
state for a laminar flame, which has a finite but very small
pressure drop across it and a very slow propagation
velocity. For a faster moving steady turbulent flame, the
end state would lie further down the lower branch of the
Hugoniot curve, the limit being where the Rayleigh line is
505
tangent to the Hugoniot curve at point C. Similar to point
J, this corresponds to a state where the flow velocity at the
end of the reaction zone is sonic (u3 ¼ a3). This is referred
to as the CJ deflagration and represents the maximum
possible velocity for a deflagration wave.
1.2.2. Unsteady double discontinuity
Transition from deflagration to detonation involves an
accelerating flame that produces upstream conditions that
are conducive for the onset of detonation. Let us consider
the unsteady propagation of a flame in a tube where the
ignition end is closed. After ignition the lateral confinement
forces the combustion products to expand in the direction
of the flame propagation and in doing so sets into motion
the unburned gas. The unburned gas motion is produced
by the action of compression waves that are generated at
the flame front and propagate ahead at a velocity equal to
the sum of the local particle and acoustic velocities.
Essentially the flame acts as a porous piston where the
piston velocity is equal to the unburned gas particle
velocity immediately ahead of the flame. For an accelerat-
ing flame, the compression waves coalesce to form a shock
wave that not only sets into motion the unburned gas
ahead of the flame but also raises both the pressure and
temperature. It has been observed experimentally that
before the onset of DDT in a smooth tube a turbulent
flame is always preceded by a shock wave.
The above mentioned universal shock–flame complex
can be easily analyzed if treated as a 1D phenomenon.
Shown in Fig. 4 is the classical unsteady double-disconti-
nuity structure where the deflagration is moving at a
constant velocity, W, preceded by a shock wave moving at
a constant velocity, U.
This double-discontinuity problem has been analyzed
thoroughly over the years by many investigators [15–17].
For initial conditions the unburned gas ahead of the shock
is taken to be at rest and the properties of the unburned gas
bounded by the shock wave and the deflagration are
considered to be uniform. For subsonic deflagration
relative to the burned gas (Woa3) the properties of the
burned gas bounded by the closed end of the tube and the
deflagration products are uniform and at rest. The analysis
involves solving simultaneously the steady 1D conservation
equations for the deflagration and the inert shock wave
along with the perfect gas equation of state. The derivation
of the relevant algebraic equations will not be reproduced
here but can be found in [16,17]. A sample calculation is
Deflagration Shock wave
u3 u2 U
u1 = 0
q W P2
P3, ρ3, a3 P1, ρ1, a1
ρ2
Fig. 4. Double discontinuity model with velocities taken relative to the
stationary tube.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
506 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
20
18
16
W=U
14 P2
12 P3
u/a1
10
8 W = a3 U
6 u2
a3
4 C
a2
2 u3
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
W/a1
Fig. 5. Shock and flame parameters as a function of flame speed for closed
end tube (dashed curves correspond to condition Wu3 ¼ a3).
provided by Adams and Pack [17] for a gas with g ¼ 1.4,
Q ¼ 5.9 MJ/kg, r1 ¼ 1 kg/m3. The calculated values for P2,
P3, U, u2, a3 and a2 as a function of the normalized
deflagration velocity W/a1 are provided in Fig. 5. It is
important to note that in this analysis it is assumed that W
can take on any value.
One of the key findings resulting from the analysis is that
in general the shock wave travels faster than the deflagra-
tion, U4W. A critical flame velocity corresponds to the
condition where the flame velocity equals the speed of
sound in the products (W ¼ a3). For the mixture values
considered in [17] this condition corresponds to a normal-
ized flame velocity of W/a1 ¼ 4.3. This flame velocity is
important because for values less than this the combustion
products remain at rest (u3 ¼ 0) as there is communication
between the flame and the closed end where the gas must be
stationary. For flame velocities above this critical value an
expansion fan must be present to drop the particle velocity
to zero at the closed end. For flame velocities greater than
W/a1 ¼ 4.3 the flame velocity is taken to be W ¼ a3+u3.
This condition implies that the head of the expansion that
travels at a3+u3 follows directly behind the flame but is
unable to overtake it. Furthermore, the burned gas flow
relative to the flame reference frame is sonic, i.e.,
Wu3 ¼ a3. This is justifiable since heat addition to a
subsonic compressible flow drives the flow to a choked
state. Note the solid lines in Fig. 5 are obtained assuming
u3 ¼ 0, which as discussed only applies for W/a1 ¼ 4.3.
The error associated with this incorrect assumption is
represented by the deviation of the solid line from the
corresponding dotted line, which takes into account the
combustion product motion, for W/a144.3.
A second critical flame velocity corresponds to the case
where the flame and the shock wave propagates at the same
velocity, i.e., W ¼ U ¼ 9.1a1. This corresponds to the CJ
detonation state discussed in the context of Figs. 2 and 3.
Since in general U4W, the distance and thus the mass of
the unburned gas between the two discontinuities increases
150
Equilibrium
100 Hugoniot
P/P1
P/P1 J
50 Generalized
Hugoniot
0 (Q-curve)
I
1 P
1
1 ρ1/ρ
Fig. 6. Diagram showing conventional Hugoniot and Q-curve.
with time, i.e., there is an accumulation of mass and energy
between the discontinuities. As a result of this unsteadiness,
the Equilibrium Hugoniot is not capable of describing the
end state 3 for the double-discontinuity structure. Shown in
Fig. 6 is the locus of possible end states (curve C–I–J) for
the double-discontinuity structure with the condition
Wu3 ¼ a3. Oppenheim [15] called this the Q-curve and
Troshin [18] referred to it as the generalized Hugoniot
curve. Note the Q-curve is bounded by the CJ deflagration
and detonation states that also meet this condition. At the
point I on the Q-curve the flow velocity immediately after
the deflagration is zero, i.e., W ¼ a3. Therefore, the
segment of the Q-curve between points I and J represent
the double discontinuity states shown in Fig. 5 between the
two critical normalized flame velocities 4.3 and 9.1. The
lower segment of the Q-curve represents the end states
where the burned gas flow is in the opposite direction of
flame propagation. This corresponds to the case of ignition
at the open end of a tube. The curve segment P–I in Fig. 6
represents the burned gas state corresponding to the case
where the flame propagates at a velocity lower than the
sound speed in the unburned gas, i.e., Woa3 [18]. Recall
point P on the equilibrium Hugoniot represents the end
state for a constant pressure process such as that associated
with an infinitely slow moving flame.
1.2.3. One-dimensional description of flame acceleration and
DDT
Troshin [18] asserts that, according to this simplified
model, the points on curve P–I–J in Fig. 6 represent the
successive states that occur when flame acceleration leads
to transition to detonation in a smooth tube. Specifically,
flame acceleration from a laminar flame up to a choked
flame, sonic relative to the combustion products, proceeds
from point P to I. Flame acceleration continues from I to J
as the choked flame catches up with the preceding shock
wave to form a detonation wave. Although the shock and
flame velocities are the same at point J it does not mean
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
that the flame coalesces with the shock wave [17]. For a
detonation wave the chemical reaction is initiated by the shock
wave and thus the two are intimately coupled. For the double-
discontinuity problem the chemical reactions associated with
the deflagration are diffusion driven and the leading shock
wave is supported by the expansion of the combustion
products. Therefore, for transition to detonation to occur
there must be a switch in the basic mode of combustion.
As pointed out by Adams and Pack [17] this switch can
occur even before state J is attained. As the flame
accelerates the shock wave strengthens and so the post
shock temperature rises. At any given temperature ignition
of the mixture will occur after an induction time, ti, where
the natural log of the induction time is inversely propor-
tional to the temperature via the Arhenius relation
 
Ea
ti / exp ; (1.6)
RT 2
where Ea is the activation energy and R is the gas constant.
This corresponds to the start of chemical reactions at a
distance of Li ¼ (Uu2)ti behind the shock wave, commonly
referred to as the induction length. As the shock strength
increases during flame acceleration and correspondingly ti
decreases, a critical point will be reached where the induction
length equals the distance between the shock wave and the
deflagration. From this point on ignition is triggered by the
shock and thus the shock and the deflagration are coupled
just as in a detonation.
A breakthrough in detonation research occurred when it
was discovered that the deflagration does not simply merge
with the leading shock wave to form a detonation wave,
but instead a localized explosion occurs somewhere
between the deflagration and the leading shock wave that
produces a detonation front that overtakes the original
shock wave. The phenomenon was referred to as the
‘‘explosion in the explosion’’ by Oppenheim [19] and will be
discussed in detail in Section 4.
The Q-curve represents the locus of possible end states
corresponding to a spectrum of flame velocities. The
mechanism required for the flame to achieve such velocities
is not required for the analysis. Each point on the curve
corresponds to a unique flame speed that increases as one
progresses up the curve. The question is what is the
mechanism responsible for the increase in flame velocity?
Troshin points out that in order for a 1D flame to
accelerate the burning velocity (u2W) must also increase.
Using the Adams and Pack [17] example, if we consider the
case where the flame velocity equals the speed of sound of
the burned gas, i.e., W/a1 ¼ 4.3, the unburned gas velocity
relative to the flame is 0.5a1. Taking the speed of sound of
the stationary unburned gas to be 340 m/s this gives a
burning velocity of 170 m/s. This magnitude burning
velocity is 10–50 times the normal laminar burning velocity
for fuel–oxygen mixtures. Such high burning velocities are
possible because the flame surface area is much larger than
that associated with a planar flame. There are various
mechanisms for flame area enhancement including laminar
507
flame instabilities, shock–flame interactions as well as flow
distortion caused by turbulence. Small-scale turbulence
also leads to the enhancement of the transport of mass and
energy across the flame. These flame effects will be
discussed in detail in Section 2.
2. Deflagration
The processes following weak ignition in a combustible
mixture are characterized as deflagrations, which propa-
gate at subsonic speed into fresh, unburnt mixture. Flow
velocities associated with these flames are initially low
making compressible effects negligible in the burnt and
unburnt gases. If initial turbulence is not present in the
flow, the combustion front initiated from weak ignition
appears to be initially laminar, and is known as a laminar
flame. Laminar flame propagation is controlled by the
molecular transport of energy and species, and is discussed
in Section 2.1.
A freely expanding flame is intrinsically unstable. The
initially smooth surface of a laminar flame can become
wrinkled due to Landau–Darrieus instability, which can be
stabilized or destabilized by the thermal-diffusion effects. This
can result in cellular structure of a laminar flame. In cases
when confinement and/or obstacles are present, Richtmyer–
Meshkov (R–M), Kelvin–Helmholtz (K–H), and acoustic
instabilities may develop resulting in further increase of the
flame surface and the reaction rate. Some basic properties of
flame instabilities are discussed in Section 2.2.
Turbulence can be generated in the combustion-induced
flow. Turbulence increases the surface area of the flame and
the transport of local mass and energy. Flame interactions
with turbulence result in a variety of turbulent combustion
regimes, which will be discussed in Section 2.3. Flame
instabilities, its interactions with confinement, obstruc-
tions, and turbulence may result in Flame Acceleration
(FA) and, under certain conditions, in the transition to
detonation. These processes are discussed in Section 4.
2.1. Laminar flames
An essential feature of a combustion process is that it is
sustained by exothermic chemical reaction with the
reaction rate being a strongly increasing function of
temperature. Most combustion systems are characterized
by complicated multi-species chemistry with many elemen-
tary steps. However, as shown in pioneering studies of
Zeldovich, Frank-Kamenetski, and Istratov Ya [20–23]
basic flame properties may be modeled, at least qualita-
tively, by a one-step overall reaction:
nF Fuel þ nO Oxidant ¼ Products þ Q, (2.1)
where Q is heat released, and nF and nO are stoichiometric
coefficients. The reaction rate is governed by an Arrhenius law:
dN F
¼ kA N nFF N nOO eðE a =RTÞ , (2.2)
dt
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
508 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
where NF and NO are molar concentrations of fuel and
oxidant, nF and nO are orders of reaction for fuel and oxidant,
kA is pre-exponential factor, Ea is activation energy, and T is
temperature.
The exponential Arrhenius reaction rate term in Eq. (2.2)
creates difficulties for solving many flame problems.
However, for cases of large activation energies, Ea/RTbb1,
where Tb is the maximum flame temperature, the Arrhenius
rate term in Eq. (2.2) may be approximated by a simple
exponential function. This method is widely used in
combustion theory following the work of Zeldovich and
Frank-Kamenetskii [24]:
eE a =RT  eE a =RT b ey , (2.3)
where y is dimensionless temperature:
E a ðT  T b Þ
y¼ . (2.4)
RT 2b
A laminar flame is obtained when the reaction proceeds
as a subsonic wave propagating in the unburnt mixture by
diffusive transport of mass and energy. Fig. 7 shows
variations of fuel concentration, temperature, and reaction
rate in a laminar flame front.
Thermal conductivity results in heat transport from hot
combustion products into reactants and forms a preheat
zone of characteristic width, d. Because of the strong
increase of the reaction rate with temperature, the reaction
mainly proceeds in a narrow zone where temperature is
close to Tb. The concentration of the reactants, Y, drops
through the reaction zone due to their consumption. The
gradient of the reactant concentration results in a diffusion
flux of reactants and their transport to the reaction zone.
In the limit of large activation energy, the problem of
laminar flame propagation reduces to an eigenvalue
problem with one solution for the laminar burning velocity
SL, which first was provided by Zeldovich and Frank-
Kamenetskii in 1938 [24]. Detailed derivation of the
solution for the laminar burning velocity may be found
in [23,25]. Here we focus on qualitative relationships, ideas
Fraction of Reaction
Y=1 reactants rate Tb
SL σSL
Reactants Temperature Pstcudor
Tu Y=0
Preheat zone, δ Reaction
zone, δ/β
Fig. 7. Schematic of laminar flame structure.
and the main physical concepts to be used in the following
discussion.
Generally there are two characteristic dimensional
parameters of the problem. The first one is a characteristic
reaction time, tr, and the second is the thermal diffusivity
constant, w. Since chemical reaction is localized mainly in a
nearly isothermal reaction zone, the characteristic chemical
time, tr, is defined by the combustion temperature, Tb:
nL nF nO ðE a =RT b Þ
1=tr ¼ kA N N e , (2.5)
NL F O
where nL and NL are stoichiometric coefficient and molar
concentration of the limiting component. For the same
reason of reaction localization, the thermal diffusivity
constant should be taken at the maximum flame tempera-
ture. A general dimensional analysis suggests that the
laminar burning velocity should be written as
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
wðT b Þ
SL ¼ F ðb; Le; sÞ, (2.6)
tr
where F is a function of dimensionless parameters of the
problem: the Zeldovich number, b, Lewis number, Le, and
the ratio of densities between unburnt and burnt gases,
s=ru/rb. The Zeldovich number is given by the following
expression:
E a ðT b  T u Þ
b¼ , (2.7)
RT 2b
where Tu is unburnt gas temperature. The Lewis number is
given by the ratio of mixture thermal diffusivity, w, to the
molecular diffusivity of the limiting component, DL:
Le=w/DL (limiting component is the one with concentra-
tion below its stoichiometric value). The analytical solution
for large activation energy, bb1, yields for the laminar
burning velocity:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 wðT b Þ
SL ¼ 2Gnþ1 Len nþ1 , (2.8)
s b tr
where Rn=nO+nF is the overall reaction order,
1
Gnþ1  0 xn ex dx—Gamma function.
The thermal thickness of the laminar flame (character-
istic width of the temperature gradient) may be estimated
by considering the balance of the heat flux from the
reaction zone with the energy flux at the cold boundary.
This gives the following approximate expression:
rb wðT b Þ wðT b Þ
d¼ ¼ . (2.9)
ru S L sS L
To illustrate the orders of magnitude of the laminar
burning velocity and flame thickness, we take typical values
of s=8, n=1, Le=1, w(Tb)=6  104 m2/s, b=10, and
tr=106 s. With these parameters, Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9)
give for the laminar burning velocity SL=0.4 m/s, for
the thermal thickness of laminar flame d=2  104 m,
and for the characteristic thickness of reaction zone
d/b=2  105 m.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 509

In the area of turbulent combustion, to be discussed in tial development of the L–D instability is not observed.
Section 2.3, another approximate definition is often used Small wavelengths are stabilized by diffusion effects [28].
for the laminar flame thickness: Wavelengths much larger than the laminar flame thickness
n are stabilized at a certain level due to the difference in non-
d¼ , (2.10) linear evolution of convex and concave portions of the
SL
flame front [29]. The Landau–Darrieus instability has been
where n is kinematic viscosity. This is convenient because observed in freely propagating spherical flames [30], and in
the value of n is the main molecular transport coefficient the absence of other factors it results in the increase of the
used in the description of characteristic turbulent flow flame speed with the flame radius, RF, as RF1/3.
parameters. Generally Eq. (2.10) gives values for the flame
thickness that are somewhat smaller than those obtained
2.2.2. Diffusive instabilities
by Eq. (2.9) (with n ¼ 0.2  104 m2/s and SL ¼ 0.4 m/s,
For a slightly wrinkled flame front, in addition to
d ¼ 5  105 m).
unbalanced gas flows associated with the Landau–Darrieus
Eq. (2.8) gives a qualitative description for the depen-
instability, diffusive fluxes may also not be balanced. This is
dencies of the laminar burning velocity on temperature and
illustrated in Fig. 9, where diffusive fluxes of limiting
pressure [23]. As mentioned below, most practical combus-
component are shown with dashed lines (DL), and diffusive
tion systems are characterized by complicated multi-species
fluxes of heat—with solid lines (w). In cases where Leo1, the
chemistry with many elementary steps and quantitative
local combustion temperature, Tb, is increased behind the
aspects of Eq. (2.8) are difficult to discuss, because it is
convex part of the front, e.g., upper left part of Fig. 9, due to
based on 1-step overall global reaction. Qualitatively,
the increased mass diffusion of limiting component and
Eq. (2.8) suggests that the dependence of the laminar
decreased heat loss. This results in the local increase of the
burning velocity on pressure (P) is in the form SLpP(n2)/2
burning velocity. On the contrary, the local combustion
(because 1/trpPn1, and wpP1). The dependence of the
temperature is decreased behind the concave part of the front,
flame thickness is given by dpPn/2. For typical reaction
e.g., lower left part of Fig. 9, resulting in the local reduction of
orders of about n ¼ 2, the burning velocity does not
the burning velocity. All together this leads to further increase
depend on pressure, while the flame thickness is inversely
of the flame wrinkling. The opposite is true for cases where
proportional to pressure.
Le41, which are characterized by a tendency of smoothing
out flame wrinkles, which leads to stable flames.
2.2. Flame instabilities The thermal-diffusive effects were analyzed by Barenblat
et al. [31], Sivashinsky [32], and Joulin and Clavin [33]. It
2.2.1. Landau–Darrieus instability was shown that the onset of instability is actually given by
A planar flame front is intrinsically unstable due to b(Le1)o2. This is equivalent to Leo12/b and close to
gasdynamic effects connected with the expansion of the limit Leo1 for large activation energy, bb1.
combustion products. As illustrated by Fig. 8, if a flame
is slightly curved, the streamlines in the burnt gas converge
2.2.3. Cellular flames
behind the convex part of the front and diverge behind the
The thermal-diffusion effects reveal themselves as
concave parts. This creates an additional ‘‘push’’ for the
stabilizing of destabilizing factors of the underlying Landau–
convex part of the front, which increases the initial
Darrieus instability. This is illustrated by schlieren photos
curvature. This mechanism was revealed independently
of initial stage of flame propagation in Fig. 10 [34,35]. It is
by Landau [26] and Darrieus [27]. According to their linear
seen that unstable cellular flame is developed for mixtures
stability analysis, a planar laminar flame front is unstable
with Leo1 (10% H2/air), while smooth stable flame is
with respect to the Landau–Darrieus (L–D) instability for
all wavelengths of perturbations. In practice, the exponen-

t1 t2>t1 t2>t1 t1
t1 t2>t1 DL DL
χ χ
σSL
SL

Products Reactants Products Reactants

Products Reactants Le<1 Le>1

Fig. 8. Schematic of Landau–Darrieus instability. Flame shapes at two Fig. 9. Schematic of thermal-diffusive instability. Flame shapes at two
moments of time t1 and t2 are shown. moments of time t1 and t2 are shown. Flame propagates from left to right.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
510 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 10. Schlieren photos of initial stage of flame propagation. Upper:
10%H2 in air; middle: 10%H2+5%O2+85%Ar; lower: 70%H2 in air
[34,35].
developed for mixtures with Le41 (70% H2/air). It is
interesting to notice that in the case where Le is close to
unity (10% H2+5%O2+85%Ar) a few large perturbations
are formed on an otherwise smooth flame surface.
Cellular flame propagation has been described by
Markstein [28] and theoretically analyzed by numerous
authors, including Clavin and Williams [36], Joulin and
Clavin [33], Peclet and Clavin [37]. It should be noted that
for expanding flames hydrodynamic instability can be
damped when the characteristic flame radius, RF, is not too
large. This is controlled by the Peclet number, Pe, which is
defined as the ratio of the flame radius to the flame
thickness: Pe ¼ RF/d. The cellular structure (for unstable
flames with Leo1) must appear when the radius became
sufficiently large, so that the Peclet number exceeds a
critical value, Pecr [38].
2.2.4. Instabilities and flame stretch
In the analysis of the effects of flame structure on the
hydrodynamic Landau–Darrieus instability Markstein [28]
suggested that the normal propagation velocity of a curved
flame, Sn, may be expressed as
LM
SL  Sn ¼ SL , (2.11)
RF
where LM is Markstein length and RF is the radius of flame
curvature. The ratio of the Markstein length to the thermal
thickness of the flame is known as the Markstein number,
Ma ¼ LM /d. According to the analysis of Markstein the
flame curvature is the main parameter that defines the
flame structure and the local flame speed. The values of
the Markstein length, or number, are determined experi-
mentally by measuring propagation speed of spherical
flames as a function of the flame radius (see, e.g., [38]).
Karlovitz et al. [39] proposed that it is the flame stretch
rate a ¼ ð1=AF ÞðdAF =dtÞ (where AF is the elementary area
of the flame front) that defines the local flame speed. The
stretch may be created by both the flame curvature (ac) and
inhomogeneities of the upstream flow (strain rate, as), and
yields the following more general version of Eq. (2.11) for
the normal propagation velocity of a stretched flame:
Sn d
1 ¼ Ma a. (2.12)
SL SL
If one separates the effects of curvature and strain rate,
as done by Buckmaster [40], Matalon [41], Chung and Law
[42], and Bradley et al. [43], Eq. (2.12) can be rewritten with
two different Markstein numbers: S L  S n ¼ Mac dac þ
Mas das .
The sign of the Markstein number in Eq. (2.12) defines
the response of a flame element to stretch and strain. For
Ma40 stretch leads to a decrease of the local burning
velocity, while for Mao0 stretch tends to increase the
burning velocity. As shown in detailed studies of Clavin,
Williams and Joulin [33,36,44], positive Ma has a stabiliz-
ing effect on the flame wrinkling process and works against
hydrodynamic instability. It was also shown that within the
framework of the one-step Arrhenius reaction with large
activation energy the parameter b(Le1) defines the value
and even the sign of the Markstein number. Experimen-
tally, flames with negative Markstein numbers, such as lean
hydrogen–air mixtures, are known to be extremely unstable
[45,9]. As it will be discussed in Section 4, flame
acceleration is very pronounced in these mixtures. Qualita-
tively this may be explained by the destabilizing effect of
turbulent flame stretch on flame wrinkling process.
2.2.5. Instabilities promoted by confinement and
obstructions
Flame propagation in an enclosure generates acoustic
waves that, after reflections from walls and obstacles, can
interact with the flame front and develop flame perturba-
tions through a variety of instability mechanisms. Such
instabilities have been observed by Guenoche [46] and
Leyer and Manson [47] in open-ended and closed tubes, by
Kogarko and Ryzhkov [48] in closed spherical chambers,
and by van Wingerden and Zeeuwen [49] and Tamanini
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
and Chaffee [50] in vented enclosures. For rich propane–air
mixtures, van Wingerden and Zeeuwen observed that these
instabilities could result in a peak pressure enhancement
factor of 8. Tamanini and Chaffee observed enhancement
factors of 2–9 for stoichiometric methane–air and propa-
ne–air mixtures.
Flame acoustic instabilities are usually associated with
relatively slow flames in enclosures that are free of
obstacles. Turbulence and turbulence inducing obstacles
have been shown to reduce relative contribution of acoustic
instabilities on flame propagation and pressure build-up
[50]. It has also been shown that such instabilities can be
successfully eliminated by lining the enclosure walls with
materials that can absorb acoustic waves. In the paper by
Teodorczyk and Lee [51], flame acceleration experiments in
tubes with repeated obstacles, with and without an
absorbing material on the tube wall were reported. These
experiments, performed with hydrogen–oxygen mixture,
showed that the presence of an absorbing material reduced
the final flame velocity from 1000 m/s to 100 m/s. These
results would suggest that acoustic-flame instabilities might
in fact not be limited to slow flames in obstacle-free
environments.
The nature of the acoustic-flame instabilities has been
reviewed by Oran and Gardner [52]. Searby and Rochwerger
[53], Joulin [54], Jackson et al. [55], and Kansa and Perlee [56]
studied the mechanism of the instabilities in detail. These
mechanisms include flame distortion caused by the flame-
acoustic wave interaction, and wave amplification caused by
the coherence between the acoustic wave and the exothermic
energy release. The generation of acoustic waves by the rate
of change of heat release and instabilities is also nicely
demonstrated by Al-Shahrany et al. [57].
Generally, if confinement and/or obstructions are pre-
sent, several powerful instabilities may strongly influence
flame propagation. These are the well-known Kelvin–
Helmholtz (K–H) and Rayleigh–Taylor (R–T) instabilities.
The first of these two is associated with shear, and the
second one is develops when a lighter fluid is accelerated
towards a heavier fluid. In compressible flows this
instability is known as Richtmyer–Meshkov (R–M) in-
stability. Both K–H and R–T instabilities are triggered
when the flame is suddenly accelerated over an obstacle or
through a vent.
Finally, sufficient fast flames can produce a shock wave
that can reflect off a surface and interact with the flame. As
shown by Markstein and Somers [58], this can result in
severe flame distortion which can induce flame acceleration
and, in extreme cases, cause transition to detonation
[59,60].
While L–D and diffusive instabilities are relatively weak,
K–H and R–T instabilities represent powerful mechanisms
that are mainly responsible for the increase in flame surface
and generation of turbulence in channels with obstacles.
L–D and diffusive instabilities may only play a role at the
initial stage of flame propagation, or in cases of unconfined
flames. Acoustic instabilities may be important for
511
relatively slow flames in enclosures that are free of
obstacles.
2.3. Turbulent flames
Numerous experimental, analytical, and numerical
studies have focused on the behavior of premixed turbulent
flames. Much detail can be found in comprehensive reviews
on turbulent flames [61–65] and others. Turbulent burning
velocities were systematically measured and correlations
have been suggested by Abdel-Gayed, Bradley, Lau, and
Lawes [66–68], Bray [69], Gülder [70] and more recently by
Shy, Lin, Peng, and Yang [71,72]. These correlations allow
the determination of turbulent burning velocities as a
function of dimensionless parameters characterizing tur-
bulence intensity, scale, and mixture properties. A detailed
review of studies of turbulent flames is beyond the scope of
this paper. Our focus here is on the introduction of the
characteristic scales, turbulent combustion regimes, turbu-
lent burning velocity correlations, and concepts to be used
in the discussion of flame acceleration and transition to
detonation.
2.3.1. Scales of turbulence
In this section, the definitions of the main length and
time scales of turbulence are given. These scales will be
used in the following section for qualitative description of
turbulent combustion regimes. It is known that a gaseous
flow becomes unstable at sufficiently high flow Reynolds
numbers:
Re ¼ uL=n410  100, (2.13)
where u is flow speed, L is the characteristic dimension of
the flow, n is the kinematic viscosity. Flow instability
results in the development of random oscillations in the
flow, which are superimposed on the mean flow variables.
Following Reynolds’ idea one can separate statistical
means of the flow variables and their fluctuations. For
flow speed u this is illustrated by
u ¼ ū þ u0 , (2.14)
0
where ū is mean speed, u is random mean square (r.m.s.)
velocity (by definition the mean of the random velocity
ū0  0). The random mean square velocity is used to
characterize turbulent intensity. The turbulent kinetic
energy is a function of the r.m.s. velocity, and is usually
defined as k=3u0 2/2. In the following discussion we will
assume that u0 is a function of k, and that u0 =k1/2 for
simplicity.
The turbulent Reynolds number ReT is given by
ReT ¼ u0 LT =n, (2.15)
where LT is the characteristic length scale of turbulence
which is associated with the largest dimensions of turbulent
motions (large eddy size). At high turbulent Reynolds
numbers, a balance is quickly established between inviscid
transfer of turbulent energy through intermediate scales
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
512 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550

and its dissipation at the smallest scales. Thus, a wide range [61,73,74]. Such a diagram is usually referred to as the
of scales is an intrinsic feature of fully developed turbulent Borghi diagram, see Fig. 11. Note, that in the description
flows. of turbulent combustion regimes the laminar flame
The largest length LT and time tT scales (integral scales) thickness defined by Eq. (2.10) is usually assumed.
of turbulence are given by Characteristic regimes of turbulent combustion are listed
below:
LT ¼ k3=2 =; tT ¼ k=, (2.16)
totK Laminar flamelet regime.
where e is the dissipation rate of turbulent energy. The
(Kao1, Da41)
smallest scales, named after Kolmogorov, are given by
Chemical reaction remains fast and
3 1=4 1=2 turbulent eddies cannot penetrate
l K ¼ ðn =Þ ; tK ¼ ðn=Þ . (2.17)
into the flame. Burning occurs in
thin laminar flamelets, which are
2.3.2. Characteristic regimes of turbulent combustion stretched and curved by the flow.
Laminar flames in an initially quiescent mixture become Laminar flamelet regime is often
turbulent due to the development of flame instabilities subdivided into wrinkled flamelets
described above, and due to the growth of turbulence in the (u0 ESL) and corrugated flamelets
flame-generated flow. Turbulent motions randomly wrinkle (u0 4SL)
the flame surface resulting in flame area increase. At higher tKototT Thick flames and distributed
turbulent intensities, small eddies can interact with the (Ka41, Da41) reaction zone regime.
flame structure. Flame wrinkling and interactions of small Small scale turbulent eddies
eddies with the flame result in a variety of characteristic penetrate the flame and burning
turbulent combustion regimes. occurs in thick flames. Distributed
The interplay of characteristic scales is the key, which reaction zones are formed when the
defines the combustion regime. The flame itself provides smallest eddies penetrate the inner
the intrinsic length scale d (flame thickness) and the time reaction zone (which is estimated as
scale t=d/SL. Turbulence introduces the length scale, LT, d/b). This is approximately
the time scale, tT, and the smallest Kolmogorov scales, lK described by the condition: lKod/b,
and tK. These quantities define important dimensionless or Ka4b.
parameters known as the turbulent Damköhler number, tTot Well-stirred reactor.
Da, and the turbulent Karlovitz number, Ka: (Ka41, Dao1)
Da ¼ tT =t, (2.18) Turbulence mixes everything much
faster than reaction proceeds. There
Ka ¼ t=tK . (2.19) are no flames in this regime.
Parameters Da and Ka are used to define the character-
istic regimes of turbulent combustion. These regimes may It is convenient to use the expressions for the turbulent
be clearly shown on a diagram where velocity (u0 /SL) and Reynolds, Damköhler, and Karlovitz numbers, which are
scale (LT/d) ratios are used as independent variables given in terms of the variables of the Borghi diagram,
namely the velocity (u0 /SL) and scale (LT/d) ratios:
 0  
u LT
ReT ¼ , (2.20)
ReT=100 Da=1 SL d
Well stirred reactor Border of
100 quenching  1  
u0 LT
Da ¼ , (2.21)
SL d
Thick flames
u'/SL

10  3=2  1=2
u0 LT
Ka ¼ . (2.22)
ReT=1 SL d
Ka=1 Flame
acceleration These expressions clearly show the slopes of the lines
1
in given
Laminar flamelets geometry given by constant Reynolds, Damköhler, and Karlovitz
numbers on the Borghi diagram. Note that among the
following five parameters characterizing the turbulence,
1 10 100 1000 (u0 /SL), (LT/d), ReT, Da, and Ka, only two are independent.
LT / In channels with obstacles, the integral length scale
of turbulence, LT, is primarily controlled by the geometry.
Fig. 11. Borghi diagram of characteristic regimes of turbulent combustion. In such situations, initially a laminar flame propagates
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
through the channel, and then the flame speed increases, as
well as the speed of the flame-generated flow and the
turbulence level. During flame acceleration, the character-
istic combustion regime evolves from laminar flamelets
towards distributed reaction zones, and possibly towards
quenching, as shown schematically in Fig. 11. The border
for quenching is illustrated by the results of direct
numerical simulations by Poinsot et al. [75]. It should also
be noted that because an accelerating flame generates
compression waves, and sometimes a shock ahead of it, the
flame finds itself in reactants that are at elevated
temperature and pressure. In this situation, changes in
the values of SL and d with temperature and pressure
should be taken into account. This effect tends to increase
the length scale ratio and decrease the velocity scale ratio.
Planar Laser Induced Fluorescence (PLIF) images of the
reaction zones for various combustion regimes are pre-
sented in Fig. 12. These images were obtained by Ardey
and Jordan at the Technical University of Munich [76,77].
2.3.3. Turbulent burning velocities
The turbulent burning velocity, ST, is defined as a speed
of propagation of a turbulent reaction zone or turbulent
flame brush relative to the reactants. The structure of the
turbulent reaction zone is defined by the turbulent
combustion regime. The introduction of the turbulent
burning velocity is a simplification, which reduces the
complexity of the turbulent reaction zones, such as shown
in Fig. 12 to a relatively thick turbulent flame that
propagates at a velocity ST. This velocity is defined by
the rate of consumption of the reactants in the turbulent
reaction zone, and, thus, mainly by the state on the Borghi
Fig. 12. PLIF images of flame structure for the various regimes [76,77].
513
diagram. As a first approximation, the turbulent burning
velocity is expected to be a function of the two parameters
characterizing turbulence, e.g., u0 /SL and LT/d, and the
value of the laminar burning velocity. There are also other
parameters characterizing mixture properties in addition to
SL. Among these, the Lewis (or Ma) number is specifically
expected to play a role [68]. It may also be argued, that
parameters characterizing the reaction rate and the
expansion of the combustion products, such as b, s, and
n, may play a role [78]. In general, the turbulent burning
velocity may be expressed as
 0 
ST u LT
¼F ; ; Le; b; s; n . (2.23)
SL SL d
The values of the turbulent burning velocity are
measured experimentally in artificially created turbulent
flows (see, e.g. [43,66,67,71,72]). This data is correlated
with parameters characterizing turbulence and mixture
properties. Here, we present several examples of the
turbulent burning velocity correlations, which are widely
used in models for turbulent flames. Although different
parameters for characterization of turbulence are used in
various studies, all the correlations may be presented in the
following universal form:
 0 b3  b4
ST u L
¼ b1 þ b2 Leb5 , (2.24)
SL SL d
where b1, b2, b3, b4,and b5 are correlation constants. The
values of these constants are presented in Table 1. Gülder’s
[70] correlation applies to wrinkled flames at relatively low
turbulence, e.g., Kao1.5, ReTo3200, while others extend
the range of applicability to relatively high turbulence and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
514 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Table 1
Turbulent burning velocity correlation parameters
Reference b1 b2 b3 b4
Gülder [70] 1 0.7 3/4 1/4
Bray [69] 0 1.8 0.412 0.196
Bradley et al. [68] 0 1.53 0.55 0.15
Shy et al. [71] 1 0.05 0.39 0.61
thick flames, e.g., Ka Leo38, ReT/Le2o6000 [68]; Ka
Leo13, ReT/Le2o25,000 [71].
These correlations, and especially those for high turbu-
lence, show a weak increase of ST/SL with u0 /SL and LT/d.
However, the domains of validity for these correlations in the
Borghi diagram are limited by certain ReT and Ka numbers.
At higher Reynolds numbers ReT41000 [68], an increase of
u0 /SL above 20 may result in decrease of ST/SL. This shows
that the increase of the turbulent burning velocity with
turbulent intensity is limited and the maximum experimen-
tally observed values of ST/SL are of the order of 10 as
discussed in details in [68,71].
The effect of the Lewis number introduced in [68, above],
although conceptually well understood, does not explicitly
reveal itself in the available data, as found by Bray [69] and
Shy et al. [71]. Generally, at relatively high turbulence
ST/SL tends to show a weaker dependency on u0 /SL a
nd LT/d, compared to cases with relatively low turbulence
as in [70]. The compilation of the data obtained at
Leeds University used in [68,69] may also be approxi-
mated by a convenient expression with simple fractions in
exponents:
 0 1=2  1=6
ST u L
/ . (2.25)
SL SL d thermodynamics of the mixture. Gasdynamic choking
The coefficient of proportionality is intentionally
omitted in Eq. (2.25) because of the considerable un-
certainty of its value. This may be illustrated by the fact
that the Leeds data [68] exceed the data of Shy et al. [71] by
a factor of 2 for the same values of ReT and u0 /SL.
2.3.4. Quenching of turbulent flames
Turbulent mixing processes that produce a variety of the
turbulent combustion regimes can also result in local or
global quenching. This quenching can be considered as a
process either due to excessive stretching of flames, or to
intensive mixing of cold unburned gas into the distributed
reaction zones. The flame-quenching process has been
investigated by various authors. These studies included
analysis of Leeds experimental data [43,66,67,79], asymp-
totic studies of stretched laminar flames (see e.g., [80]),
direct numerical simulations (see e.g., [75] and review [65]).
The quenching was addressed in these studies as a result of
flame stretch induced by turbulence. The critical conditions
for flame quenching were determined using experimental
correlations or direct numerical simulations. Recently [78],
an approach was investigated to address the problem of
quenching of products/reactants pockets mixed by turbu-
b5
lence based on the analysis of thermal regimes of the
pocket, and not from the perspective of flame stretch. The
0 critical conditions for thermal quenching appeared to be in
0 general accord with the models and analyses based on
0.3
flame stretch.
0
Other aspects of quenching are connected with ignition
and flame kernels in turbulent flows. These issues were
addressed in studies of Ballal and Lefebvre [81], Checkel
and Thomas [82], and Chomiak [83]. Phillips [84] and
Larsen [85] studied quenching of flames propagating
through critical gaps and holes.
Local quenching may be important to the flame
acceleration process because, under certain conditions, it
can lead to violent secondary explosions and DDT. Global
quenching has been observed for lean flames propagating
in tubes filled with obstacles [86–88]. It has also been
observed when a flame propagates through an orifice into
an unconfined area [89]. In this case, the minimum
quenching diameter increases with the magnitude of the
pressure differential generated across the orifice before the
arrival of the flame front.
3. Detonation waves
The fact that the CJ theory did such an exemplary job at
predicting the measured detonation wave velocity led early
researchers to believe that detonation waves were steady 1D
phenomenon. Further verification of the theory lay in the
important fact that the measured detonation velocity was
found to be independent of the rate of chemical reactions.
The CJ theory predicts that the propagation velocity is
governed by gasdynamic choking that is controlled by the
occurs whereby heat addition, due to chemical energy
release, accelerates the flow from a subsonic velocity
immediately behind the lead shock wave to the speed of
sound at the end of the reaction zone. This is in contrast to
flames where the burning velocity is governed by the rate of
chemical reactions. The CJ detonation velocity and pressure
for hydrogen–air and methane–air mixtures initially at 20 1C
and 1 atm are plotted as a function of equivalence ratio in
Fig. 13. The values in Fig. 13 were obtained from the
chemical equilibrium code STANJAN [90]. Note, in general
the highest CJ pressure corresponds to a mixture slightly
rich of stoichiometric.
3.1. Historical review
3.1.1. ZND detonation wave structure
One of the main problems with the basic CJ theory is
that it does not provide a characteristic length scale, for the
detonation wave. It was not until the work of Zeldovich
[91], von Neumann [92] and Döring [93] who independently
came to the realization that a steady 1D detonation wave
consists of a shock wave followed by a finite length
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 515

2500 30 1 2.5

CJ Detonation Pressure (atm)

CJ Detonation Velocity (m/s)

25 0.9
2000 2
0.8
20

Mach Number

T/T2, P/P2
1500 0.7 1.5
15
1000 0.6 1
10
0.5 Mach number
500 P/P2 0.5
Hydrogen-air 5 0.4 T/T2
Methane-air
0 0 0.3 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Equivalence Ratio Distance from shock (cm)

Fig. 13. CJ detonation velocity as a function of equivalence ratio. Fig. 14. ZND detonation front structure for atmospheric hydrogen–air.

reaction zone that terminates at the CJ state, as described common definition for the induction distance is the
in Section 1.2.1. In recognition of the contributions distance from the shock to the point downstream of
of Zeldovich, von Neumann and Döring the steady 1D the shock where the rate of temperature increase is
detonation structure just described is commonly referred to maximum [94].
as the ZND structure. In the early 1960s, Erpenbeck [96,97] showed mathema-
The ZND structure provides a characteristic chemical tically that the steady-state ZND detonation structure is
length scale for the detonation wave that can be calculated unstable to infinitesimal longitudinal perturbations. The
with knowledge of the chemical kinetics. Finite rate stability analysis performed by Erpenbeck used the
reactions are initiated when the gas temperature and conservation equations linearized about the steady solution
pressure are instantaneously raised by the leading shock and thus did not follow the evolution of the applied
wave to state 2 on the equilibrium Hugoniot curve, see perturbation. The analysis was taken one step further by
Fig. 3. At the end of the reaction zone chemical equilibrium Fikett and Woods [98] who investigated the transient
is achieved and the mixture state is described by the evolution of a 1D, piston supported detonation wave by
point J on the equilibrium Hugoniot curve. The variation performing a numerical study of the time-dependent 1D
of the normalized temperature, normalized pressure and conservation equations. In the analysis the heat capacity is
local flow Mach number in the detonation front for a assumed constant and a single irreversible reaction obeying
hydrogen–air mixture at atmospheric initial conditions is the Arrhenius rate law is considered. The parameters used
provided in Fig. 14. The data is obtained using a computer in the study are similar to those used by Erpenbeck, they
program developed by Shepherd [94] that integrates the include the detonation overdrive, the reduced activation
steady 1D inviscid conservation equations with the de- energy, (Ea/RT1), as well as the normalized chemical energy
tonation post shock state taken as the initial condition. release (Q/RT1) and specific heat ratio that were kept
Essentially the conservation equations are integrated along constant at values of 50 and 1.2, respectively. Both analyses
the Rayleigh line from state 2 to J in Fig. 3. For this showed that for a fixed detonation overdrive there was a
mixture the detonation velocity is 1977 m/s and the post- critical activation energy below which the detonation was
shock temperature and pressure are 1533 1C and 27.7 atm, stable and above which it was unstable. For example, for
respectively. The calculation was performed with the an overdrive of 1.6 the critical reduced activation energy
chemical kinetics mechanism of Konnov [95]. Since the was roughly 45. Conversely, increasing the overdrive tends
reactions follow the Arrhenius rate law, the leading shock to stabilize the detonation wave. For the stable case, after a
wave is immediately followed by an energy neutral short transient associated with the starting of the piston,
induction zone where the thermodynamic properties the shock pressure asymptotes to the steady-state value.
remain roughly constant. During this time chemical For the unstable case, the shock pressure undergoes large
reactions proceed such that free radical species are oscillations about the steady-state value with swings in
produced. Once recombination reactions start to take pressure reaching up to 50% above the steady value. These
affect energy is released and the temperature rises. The swings in shock strength are due to the non-linear coupling
particle velocity after the shock is subsonic and as energy is between the gasdynamics and chemical kinetics.
released it accelerates towards the CJ choking condition
while the pressure drops. The flow Mach number 3.1.2. Multi-head detonation wave
asymptotes to a value of one, therefore, the CJ condition Around the same time that Erpenbeck showed theoretically
cannot be used to define an induction distance. The most that the ZND detonation structure is unstable, experimental
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
516 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 15. Interferograms of detonations in 2H2+O2+0.92Xe at an initial
pressure of (a) 0.075 atm and (b) 0.04 atm [99]. Reused with permission
from Donald R. White, Physics of Fluids, 4, 465 (1961). Copyright 1961,
American Institute of Physics.
evidence started to surface that showed that a detonation
wave was not a planar steady phenomenon as was believed
for many years. One of the first indications that detonation
waves are actually multi-dimensional phenomenon came
from the experimental work of White [99] who used
interferometry to visualize the detonation structure. A couple
of White’s interferograms are reproduced in Fig. 15 in which
it is clear that the gas density behind the shock wave is not
uniform. Based on his observations he concluded that
‘‘turbulence is a common property of detonations’’. The
interferograms in Fig. 15 show the presence of secondary
waves oriented perpendicular to the detonation front, and the
leading shock wave is observed to be slightly curved where
the transverse waves merge with the leading front. White also
noted that as the initial mixture pressure is increased the
number of transverse waves present increases.
The multi-dimensional structure of a detonation wave
was first reported by Denisov and Troshin [100] based on
high-speed streak photographs and soot imprints. They
made a distinction between the previously observed, and
well documented ‘‘single-head spin’’ mode; to be discussed
later; and the so-called ‘‘multi-head spin’’, or ‘‘pulsating’’,
mode. The novelty of the experimental work was the soot
imprint technique that was used to unravel the detonation
wave structure. The soot imprint technique was first used
by Mach and Sommer [101] in the study of shock wave
reflection. When a shock wave reflects obliquely from a
surface, a Mach reflection can result if the angle of
incidence is larger than a critical value that depends on the
shock Mach number and heat capacity ratio [102]. In a
Mach reflection a third shock wave, referred to as a Mach
stem, forms that is perpendicular to the reflecting surface
and propagates parallel to the surface. Shown schemati-
cally in Fig. 16 is the interaction of an incident planar
shock wave, I, with a ramp producing a reflected shock
wave, R, and a Mach stem, M. The three shock waves
intersect at the so-called triple point that moves away from
the reflecting surface as the Mach stem moves along the
I
R
M
Triple point
trajectory s
Fig. 16. Mach reflection producing triple-point configuration, I—incident
shock, R—reflected shock, M—Mach stem, s—slipstream.
B
A
K
K
A
B
Fig. 17. Soot imprint of a detonation wave propagating from left to right
in an 11 mm diameter tube in stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen at
130 mmHg and schematic showing the two triple-point configurations
that produces the imprint lines [100].
surface. In two dimensions the triple point is actually the
projection of a line where three shock waves meet. A
slipstream (shear layer) also extends from the triple point
back into the compressed region between the reflected
shock wave and the reflecting surface. The streamlines on
either side of the slipstream are parallel and the pressure
across the slipstream is equal. Since the pressure across the
slipstream is equal it is clear that the Mach stem is a
stronger shock than the incident shock since the particles
passing through the incident shock wave also pass through
the reflected shock. Note, a double-Mach stem configura-
tion is also possible whereby a second triple-point
configuration forms on the reflected shock some distance
from the primary triple point [102].
The soot, or smoked, foil technique commonly used in
detonation research involves coating a metal or plastic foil
with a thin layer of carbon soot and placing the foil inside
the detonation tube with the sooted side facing inwards.
During the test the detonation wave initiated in the tube
passes over the inside of the foil. As a triple point moves
across the foil, soot is displaced leaving a line that
corresponds to the triple-point trajectory. An example of
such a soot foil obtained by Denisov and Troshin [100] is
provided in Fig. 17. Based on the converging and diverging
lines observed on the imprint they described the structure
of the detonation wave as two triple-point configurations
(ABK in Fig. 17) propagating first towards each other and
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
then away from each other on the detonation front. The
turbulent shear layers extending back from the front can
clearly be seen in White’s interferograms [99]. Denisov and
Troshin used the term ‘‘head’’ to describe a triple point on
the detonation front, so for the detonation wave shown in
Fig. 17 there are two heads. Denisov and Troshin pointed
out that upon collision of the two transverse waves AK, the
unreacted gas immediately behind the shock wave AA
would be raised to a high pressure and temperature
resulting in autoignition after an induction time. Before
the collision of the triple points the shock wave AA is
relatively flat and after the collision the autoignition of the
gas produces a highly curved shock wave traveling faster
than the flatter shock wave before the collision. They point
out that the shock wave AA thus undergoes periodic
variations in velocity that on average equals the CJ
detonation velocity. Denisov and Troshin also point out
that the frequency of the pulsations depends on the
chemical kinetics of the mixture.
By the mid 1960s the structure of a self-sustaining
detonation wave was universally accepted to consist of a
forward moving strong shock wave followed by a reaction
zone that contained transverse waves, as depicted in Fig. 17.
Strehlow and Fernandes [103] showed using an acoustic
model that high frequency perturbations occurring in the
ZND reaction zone are amplified giving rise to transverse
waves propagating parallel to the leading shock wave. The
model was supported by shock tube experiments performed
with combustible gas where a detonation wave was
initiated by reflecting a planar shock wave off the shock
tube end wall. The roughly 1D initiation process resulted in
the spontaneous formation of transverse waves behind the
detonation front.
In the 1960s Strehlow made significant contributions to
the understanding of the detonation wave structure, and
specifically the role of transverse waves [104]. Strehlow
used smoked foils extensively to record the triple-point
trajectories for detonation waves in different fuel–oxygen–
diluent mixtures. A sample of these foils is provided in
Fig. 18. Smoked foils obtained for detonations in stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen: (a) 150 Torr, 50% nitrogen dilution; (b) 120 Torr, no dilution;
(c) 150 Torr, 40% argon dilution [104]. This article was published in Astronautica Acta, Vol. 14, R.A. Strehlow, The nature of transverse waves in
detonations, pp. 539–48, Copyright Elsevier 1969.
517
Fig. 18 for stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen with different
diluents. The smoked foil records show that the triple-point
trajectories form a cellular pattern with varying degree
of uniformity, or ‘‘regularity.’’ Strehlow found that the
addition of at least 40% argon to the hydrogen–oxygen
made the cellular pattern very regular in contrast to the
addition of nitrogen, which tends to make the structure
more ‘‘irregular’’. Similar effects of diluent addition on the
cellular structure regularity were found for ethylene–
oxygen and acetylene–oxygen. In general methane–oxygen
gave much poorer detonation structure regularity. It was
later shown by Ul’yanitskii that the regularity of the
detonation cellular structure correlated qualitatively with
the reduced activation energy [105]. Specifically the higher
the value Ea/RT2, recall T2 is the post shock temperature,
the more irregular the cellular pattern. The reduced
activation energy for argon-diluted mixtures is low because
of the low heat capacity of the argon, relative to say
nitrogen, and thus higher post shock temperature. Erpen-
beck’s 1D stability analysis showed that detonation
stability correlated in the same manner with reduced
activation energy [97]. The detonation cellular structure
observed in a real multi-dimension detonation is simply the
manifestation of the detonation front instability. In some
mixtures the detonation cellular pattern recorded on
smoked foils shows secondary much finer lines commonly
referred to as fine substructure. The substructure emanates
from the triple-point collision site and extends to about
half the cell length. Manzhalei showed a correlation
between the presence of fine structure and the reduced
activation energy, i.e., for mixtures with a reduced
activation energy of less than 6.2 fine structure is absent
and for values greater than 6.5 fine structure appears [106].
By analyzing the nonreactive shock wave interaction that
occurs at the collision of the two triple points the transverse
shock wave Mach number can be approximated. Critical to
this analysis is the included angle between the triple-point
trajectories just before collision that is obtained from the
smoked foil records. For hydrogen–oxygen–argon detonations
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
518 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
the transverse wave Mach number for ordinary detona-
tions was approximated to be 1.25 and for marginal
detonations it was 1.35 [107]. Note a marginal detonation
wave is obtained near the detonability limit where in a
rectangular channel only two triple points exist forming a
single cell across the channel, see Fig. 17. In some
experiments in rectangular channels the width of the
channel is chosen to be smaller than the triple-point
spacing in order to eliminate the transverse wave propaga-
tion in the direction of the smaller dimension. Under this
condition a 2D detonation wave structure is obtained but
the characteristics are different from an ordinary detona-
tion wave obtained in the same mixture in a larger channel.
In a round tube a marginal detonation wave is called a
‘‘spinning wave’’ and is briefly discussed in the next section.
3.1.3. Single-head spin detonation
A detonation wave in a gas mixture near the detonability
limit behaves much differently than the pulsating detona-
tion wave described above. The so-called spinning, or
single-head spin, detonation wave was first reported by
Campbell and Woodhead [108] in 1927 and was studied
extensively by many investigators over the next 40 years.
The spinning detonation wave appeared to be very
different from the 1D detonation wave that was satisfacto-
rily described by the CJ theory. The most outstanding
characteristic observed in the early studies performed in
round tubes is that a luminous head on the detonation
front moves in a helical path where the pitch is roughly
three times the tube diameter [103]. The first theories to
describe the propagation mechanism of a spinning detona-
tion wave were proposed by Manson [109] and indepen-
dently by Fay [110]. These were acoustic theories that
showed that the measured spin detonation frequency was
equal to the natural frequency of (transverse) vibration of
the hot combustion products behind the detonation wave.
It was proposed that the nonuniform combustion at the
detonation front excites a transverse vibration in the wake
gas in the form of a rotating compression wave.
Denisov and Troshin [100] used their soot imprint
technique to investigate the structure of the spinning
detonation front. In a multi-head detonation there are two
or more triple points that collide, in a spinning detonation
there is only a single triple-point with no chance for
collision so it simply rotates circumferentially around the
front. As a result the soot imprint taken of a spinning
detonation only has a single oblique line that repeats itself
periodically in the axial direction, in the actual tube the
triple-point trajectory is a helix. The most complete and
accurate picture of the spinning detonation front was first
provided by Schott [111] who mapped the complex
structure consisting of a non-planar shock wave followed
by a reaction zone with a nonuniform induction distance.
Schott showed that the single-head that rotates over the
front consists of a CJ detonation wave propagating
obliquely to the front. This CJ detonation propagates into
a gas region that is compressed by the weakest portion of
the shock front. The fine transverse structure associated
with the strong detonation is responsible for the ‘‘rope’’-
like thick line that appears on the soot imprint for a
spinning detonation wave [100]. Therefore, a spinning
detonation wave is simply a special case of a multi-head
detonation that occurs for mixtures near the detonability
limits.
3.2. Cellular detonation wave structure
Based on soot imprints, interferograms and Schlieren
photographic evidence obtained for self-sustained detona-
tion waves it is clear that the front is actually an unsteady
3D structure. The instability of the front manifests itself as
perturbations that propagate transversely to the front
propagation direction. These transverse perturbations
include finite amplitude shock waves that stretch from
the leading shock wave deep into the combustion zone
resulting in a discontinuous reaction zone. The presence of
the transverse waves is essential to the propagation of a
self-sustained detonation wave. The schematic in Fig. 19
shows the detonation front structure at several instants in
time as well as the trajectories of the triple points [112]. The
triple-point trajectories trace out a cellular pattern where
the transverse dimension of an individual cell, e.g., ABCD,
is denoted by l and the length of the cell is Lc.
The collision of a pair of neighboring triple points at
point A in Fig. 19 results in the formation of a strong
leading wave that initiates chemical reactions after a very
short induction time. The leading shock wave propagating
through the cell from point A to D decays in strength. It is
common to use Mach reflection terminology in describing
the progression of the leading shock. In the first part of the
cell when the strong leading shock is created from the
triple-point collision it is referred to as the Mach stem. In
λ
Fig. 19. Schematic of the propagation of a cellular detonation front,
showing the trajectories of the triple points (dashed line represent start of
exothermic reactions) [112].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
the latter part of the cell leading up to the triple-point
collision it is referred to as the incident shock. For
marginal detonation waves Strehlow and Crooker [113]
report a centerline shock velocity of roughly 1.6 times the
CJ detonation velocity at the start of the cell and 0.6 times
the CJ detonation velocity at the end of the cell. The
decaying shock wave achieves the CJ velocity in the first
25% of the cell length after which the decay rate is much
slower. Experiments performed by Austin et al. [114]
suggest that the excursions in the shock strength increase
with increased reduced activation energy, in agreement
with numerical predictions [115].
In detonation waves the triple point can take on a
‘‘weak’’ configuration consisting of a single triple point, or
a ‘‘strong’’ configuration where there is a secondary triple
point at the end of the reflected wave corresponding to the
primary triple point, also known as a double Mach
configuration. Fig. 20 shows details of an ideal ‘‘weak’’
triple point propagating along the trajectory AC in Fig. 19.
Specifically it shows various particle paths crossing the
shock front from a reference point relative to the triple
point. All the gas particles above the triple point pass
through the Mach stem and below the triple point pass
through the incident shock. The particles entering just
Shear layer Mach stem
E
Transverse
wave
Incident wave
Fig. 20. Schematic showing particle trajectories relative to the triple point
for a single Mach stem configuration. The shaded area represents the
burned gas region. See Fig. 19 for the location on the detonation front of
the triple-point labeled E.
Fig. 21. Images of detonation propagation from left to right in 2H2+O2+12Ar, Pi ¼ 20 kPa in narrow channel. (a) Schlieren image. The box shows the
location of the corresponding OH fluorescence image shown in (b). (c) Superimposed Schlieren and OH fluorescence images, FLIF image 60 mm high
[118].
519
below the triple point pass through the incident wave and
then the transverse wave. In general, the induction time for
the particles passing through the Mach stem is shorter than
those propagating through the incident and transverse
waves. As a result of this difference in induction time the
shear layer represents a discontinuity in the reaction zone.
For marginal detonation waves that have stronger trans-
verse waves it has been observed experimentally that the
chemical reactions can occur immediately behind the
transverse wave, much like in a single-head spin [116,113].
As the centerline shock wave strength decays through the
cell the induction time increases. As shown in Fig. 19 this
results in a progressive widening of the distance between
the leading shock wave and the start of energy release in
the reaction zone denoted in the figure by dotted lines. By
the end of the cell the shock wave strength decays to a level
where the induction time is very long and the reaction zone
decouples from the shock wave [114]. This leaves a
substantial amount of unburned gas behind the incident
shock wave that takes on a characteristic ‘‘keystone-shaped
region’’ [117]. Simultaneous Schlieren and planar laser
induced fluorescence techniques were used in a narrow
channel (less than 0.5l wide) by Austin et al. [118] to image
both the shock configurations and the OH reaction front.
An example of such images clearly showing the keystone
feature is provided in Fig. 21. The detonation front images
in Fig. 21 were taken in a heavily argon-diluted hydro-
gen–oxygen mixture that exhibit a regular structure. In
such a detonation wave the shock and reaction fronts are
smooth and free of any localized explosions.
Heavily argon-diluted mixtures have a low reduced
activation energy and thus a 1D detonation stability
analysis predicts that such mixtures produce ‘‘stable
detonations’’. In a 1D analysis the terms stable and
unstable correspond to the regularity in the periodicity of
the oscillation observed in the shock velocity and pressure.
Austin et al. extend the use of the term stable and unstable
detonation to describe the regularity of the cellular
structure of an actual detonation wave. The argon-diluted
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
520 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 22. Images of detonation propagation from left to right in 2H2+O2+3.5N2, Pi ¼ 20 kPa in narrow channel. (a) Schlieren image. The box shows the
location of the corresponding OH fluorescence image shown in (b). (c) Superimposed Schlieren and OH fluorescence images, FLIF image 30 mm high
[118].
hydrogen–oxygen mixture in which the stable detonation
shown in Fig. 21 was observed has a reduced activation
energy, Ea/RT2, of roughly 5. This reduced activation
energy value lies just below the neutral stability boundary
corresponding to the CJ Mach number [119]. If nitrogen is
used in place of argon the reduced activation energy is
increased to a value above the neutral stability value and
thus the detonation is expected to be unstable and display
an irregular detonation structure. The simultaneous
Schlieren and planar laser induced fluorescence images
obtained for such a mixture is shown in Fig. 22. There is a
dramatic difference in the structure of the detonation front
compared to the stable detonation wave shown in Fig. 21
that displays a regular cellular structure. As pointed out by
Austin et al. [118] the unstable detonation fronts are
characterized by wrinkling of the shock and OH fronts
over a wide range of spatial scales. The irregularity of the
structure makes it more difficult to discern the keystone
feature that is very evident for the stable case. They showed
that the further the mixture reduced activation energy
deviates from the neutral stability boundary the more
irregular the detonation structure becomes. The most
unstable detonations were obtained in hydrocarbon–oxygen
mixtures diluted with nitrogen. It was also observed that in
the narrow channel the stable detonation waves propa-
gated at a velocity up to 8% below the CJ value and for the
least stable detonations the velocity deficit was less than
3%. This dependency of the detonation velocity deficit is
consistent with observations made in larger tubes by Moen
et al. [120].
Radulescu et al. [121] performed narrow channel
experiments investigating the ignition mechanism in an
irregular structure detonation wave. The experiments were
performed in a narrow channel (o0.25l wide) using
stoichiometric methane–oxygen, which is known to display
a very irregular cell structure. The channel height was
chosen such that only a single triple point existed and thus
the detonation waves are marginal propagating with a
velocity deficit of as much as 20%. Schlieren images show a
very irregular structure similar to the observations made by
Austin et al. [118]. Radulescu et al. observed an unburned
gas ‘‘tongue-like structure’’ extending from the triple point
deep into the burned gas. This is essentially a highly
distorted half of the keystone feature observed by Austin
et al. [118]. The Schlieren images clearly show that the
shear layer extending from the triple point is K–H
unstable. It is proposed that consumption of the unburned
gas in the tongue-like structure occurs via turbulent
combustion at the shear layer as opposed to adiabatic
shock compression. Radulescu et al. also observed local
explosions occurring within the tongue-shaped structure
behind the leading shock. It is argued that the intense
mixing of the hot and cold gases across the shear layer may
lead to the observed explosion.
3.2.1. Critical initiation energy and detonation cell size
measurements
It is of interest to characterize the detonation sensitivity
of a fuel–oxidizer mixture at a given initial condition. The
critical, or minimum, energy required for direct initiation
of a spherical detonation is essentially a measure of the
detonation sensitivity of a mixture at a given initial
thermodynamic condition. Ideally a point energy source
should be used for this measurement such that the
initiation process is independent of the source size and
energy release rate. Experimentally the energy is deposited
into the mixture using an electric spark for fuel–oxygen
mixtures and high explosives for fuel–air mixtures. A
comprehensive set of critical initiation energy data in
fuel–air mixtures at atmospheric conditions was obtained
by Bull et al. [122], see Fig. 23 for a plot of initiation
energy, in grams of tetryl, versus equivalence ratio.
If sufficient energy is instantaneously released at a point
source a reactive spherical blast wave is produced that
decays asymptotically to a CJ detonation wave. If
insufficient energy is released the shock wave and reaction
zone permanently decouple and no detonation is formed.
At the limit, where a critical amount of energy is deposited,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 23. Comparison of critical initiation energy for fuel–air mixtures with
surface energy theory (1 g tetryl ¼ 4520 J) [112].
the shock wave and the reaction zone start to decouple and
enter a quasi-steady period where the shock wave and the
reaction front propagate at roughly the CJ detonation
velocity. This quasi-steady period ends when a localized
explosion occurs in the compressed gas between the shock
and the reaction front [123]. This localized explosion
immediately forms into a multi-head detonation that
quickly sweeps across the compressed gas layer behind
the blast wave.
Zeldovich first theorized that for successful detonation
initiation the time required for the blast wave to decay to the
CJ shock strength must be of the order of the 1D induction
time [124]. This theory predicts that the critical initiation
energy is proportional to the cube of the induction time, e.g.,
the minimum initiation energy corresponds to the most
reactive composition for a mixture at a given initial
thermodynamic condition and increases sharply as one
approaches the lean and rich detonation limits. This is
corroborated by the Bull et al. [122] experimental data
shown in Fig. 23. Note the data follows a U-shaped curve
that is typical of all detonation properties. Lee [112]
developed a series of theories that showed that the critical
initiation energy is proportional to the cube of the
detonation cell width, Ecl3. The solid lines shown in
Fig. 23 are predictions based on Lee’s semi-empirical
‘‘surface-energy theory’’ that requires an experimentally
measured chemical length scale, typically taken to be the
cell width. This semi-empirical relationship is more practical
than the Zeldovich theory as it is based on a measured
chemical length scale and not a theoretical induction
time.
521
Fig. 24. Detonation cell size of fuel–air mixtures at atmospheric pressure,
curves represent l ¼ ADR anchored at stoichiometric condition [112].
The detonation cell width can be considered a funda-
mental property of the combustible mixture that can be
used to characterize the detonability of the mixture.
Strehlow and Engel [125] made detailed measurements of
the spacing between parallel triple-point trajectory lines
which is essentially the detonation cell width l shown in
Fig. 19. They showed that the spacing was governed by the
reactivity of the mixture and that for heavily argon-diluted
fuel–oxygen mixtures the line spacing was proportional to
the CJ detonation induction zone length. Strehlow and
other researchers of the time restricted their cell width
measurements to fuel–oxygen mixtures heavily diluted with
monatomic gases. The main reason for this is that the
cellular imprints for these mixtures are very regular and
thus appealing for investigating the structure of the
detonation front. However, from a practical perspective
most industrial explosion hazards involve fuel–air mix-
tures, for which very little detonation cell size data was
available at the time. The experimental measurement of
detonation cell size in fuel–air mixtures requires a larger
apparatus and a more energetic initiation source, such as
high explosives. Bull et al. [126] reported detonation cell
size data for stoichiometric fuel–air mixtures at initial
pressures up to one atmosphere. The general trend in the
data shows that for a given mixture composition the
detonation cell size decreases with increasing initial
pressure. The following year Knystautas et al. [127]
published a comprehensive set of detonation cell size data
for atmospheric fuel–air mixtures over a wide equivalence
ratio range. Fig. 24 shows a plot of the measured
detonation cell size as a function of equivalence ratio for
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
522 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
atmospheric fuel–air mixtures [112]. The minimum cell size
is typically obtained for a stoichiometric composition
(equivalence ratio equal to one). The cell size increases
rapidly as the mixture becomes leaner or richer, thus the
data takes on a U-shaped curve similar to the critical
initiation energy curve shown in Fig. 23. The effect of
initial temperature on the detonation cell size is not as clear
cut. Detonation cell size data obtained in hydrogen–air–
steam mixtures at atmospheric pressure shows a decrease in
cell size with increasing initial temperature over the range
of 300–650 K [128,129]. The effect of initial temperature is
very pronounced for the leaner mixtures. The opposite
effect of initial temperature on detonation cell size was
observed by Auffret et al. for mixtures of acetylene–
oxygen–argon [130] and ethylene–oxygen–argon [131].
3.2.2. Cell size correlations
Much like for the critical initiation energy no theory
based on first principles exists to predict detonation cell
size. Direct modeling of the detonation phenomenon using
CFD has progressed significantly in the last few decades
but we are still not at a point where the cell size can be
reliably predicted by numerical simulation. Shchelkin and
Troshin [132] first proposed a linear relationship between
the detonation cell width and the ZND induction length
DZND, e.g., l ¼ ADZND. In order to use this relationship the
constant of proportionality A must be established by
anchoring the correlation using a known cell size data
point.
Westbrook and Urtiew [133] calculated the induction
distance for a 1D detonation wave in hydrocarbon–air
mixtures using an 87 equation reaction mechanism. The
induction time tCJ was calculated for a constant volume
reaction with the initial condition corresponding to the CJ
detonation post shock state. The induction time was
defined as the time corresponding to the point of maximum
rate of temperature increase. The induction distance was
calculated by taking the product of this induction time and
the post shock particle velocity relative to the shock wave
DZND ¼ tCJ(Uu1). In the calculation they showed that the
detonation cell size and the reaction zone for stoichiometric
mixtures at atmospheric conditions were correlated by
lffi20DZND for fuel–air mixtures, and lffi35DZND for
fuel–oxygen mixtures. They also compared the calculated
induction distance with the experimental critical initiation
energy and showed a cubic dependency, EcDZND3, as
expected based on the empirical correlation Ecl3 dis-
cussed above.
Shepherd [94] performed 1D detonation induction zone
calculations for hydrogen–air–steam mixtures where the
governing equations were integrated along the Rayleigh
line. In this way a precise history of the gas element
through the detonation front is obtained as shown in
Fig. 14. Shepherd used a 23 equation and 11 species
kinetics model to show that the ratio of the measured cell
size and the calculated induction zone length, i.e., the
proportionality constant A, varies significantly over the full
mixture equivalence range. Using the maximum rate of
temperature rise to define the induction distance he found
that A varied from 5 to 50 over the full equivalence ratio
range. These values of A for hydrogen–air at atmospheric
conditions are consistent with the findings of Ciccarelli
et al. [129]. Ciccarelli et al. [129] also showed that the value
of A changes significantly with initial temperature, e.g., for
initial temperatures of 500 and 650 K the range of A is
20–100. Similar findings were reported by Knystautas et al.
[134] for benzene–air mixtures. These studies indicate that
a correlation involving only the induction distance is not
sufficient. Gavrikov et al. proposed a correlation, where
the proportionality constant A is a function of the stability
parameters, namely the reduced effective activation energy
and the reduced heat release, that gives better results [135].
Although the simple linear correlation is of limited use
for accurately predicting cell size, it does capture the basic
dependency of cell size on the initial thermodynamic
properties of the mixture. In the cell size versus equivalence
ratio plot in Fig. 24 the lines correspond to the correlation
anchored at the stoichiometric condition for each fuel–air
mixture. The induction zone length was obtained from
Westbrook’s calculations [133]. In general the correlation
does a good job of predicting the general trend in cell size
data with mixture composition. The apparent agreement
between the measured cell size and the correlation on the
lean size is deceiving considering the very steep nature of
the curve. The linear correlation can be used satisfactorily
for interpolating between measured cell size data points but
care should be taken in extrapolating existing cell size data.
3.2.3. Critical tube diameter
Experimentally it is found that when a detonation wave
emerges from a round tube into unconfined space contain-
ing the same combustible gas mixture the detonation either
fails or continues as a spherical detonation in the
unconfined volume. This phenomenon was first reported
by Zeldovich et al. [136] in their study of spherical
detonation initiation. They performed experiments in
various gas mixtures in different size round tubes. They
found that for each gas mixture there is a critical tube
diameter below which the detonation wave emerging from
the tube fails and above which a detonation is transmitted
into the unconfined space. They concluded that the critical
tube diameter was related to the 1D detonation wave
induction zone. As we now know, the detonation cell size is
also related to the induction zone length so it is of no
surprise that the critical tube diameter is governed by the
detonation cell size. Experiments performed with oxyace-
tylene mixtures in a round tube by Mitrofanov and
Soloukhin [137] showed that the critical tube diameter
corresponds to the condition where thirteen cells exists
across the tube diameter, i.e., dc ¼ 13l. Knystautas et al.
[138] later showed via an extensive series of experiments
where both the critical tube diameter and the detonation
cell size were simultaneously measured that this correlation
applies for all common fuel–air mixtures and thus can be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
considered a universal detonation property. Desbordes and
Vachon [139] showed that the critical tube correlation
applies for overdriven detonation waves as well. Moen
et al. [120] showed that the dc ¼ 13l correlation does not
apply for detonations that display a regular cellular
structure such as heavily argon-diluted mixtures. For these
mixtures they found experimentally that the critical tube
diameter fell in the range of 13–26l depending on the initial
pressure. Experiments performed by Ciccarelli et al. [140]
with hydrogen–air mixtures at initial temperatures up to
600 K reported critical tube measurements in the range of
18–26lU
As the detonation wave emerges from the tube it
diffracts around the corner and in doing so it decays in
strength. The reduction in shock strength results in a drop
in post shock temperature and a corresponding increase in
the chemical induction time. If the diffraction is severe
enough the leading shock wave decouples from the reaction
zone. The diffraction is most severe for the part of the
detonation wave near the tube wall because of the 901 turn.
As a result that is the first part of the initial planar
detonation wave that fails. As the expansion progresses
further towards the centerline of the tube more of the
detonation front is affected. Eventually the expansion
reaches the centerline of the tube at which point the entire
detonation wave fails. For mixture near the critical
condition re-initiation occurs behind the diffracted shock
wave before the expansion affects the entire detonation
wave leading to complete failure. This re-initiation takes
the form of a local explosion that forms a detonation wave
that sweeps across the shocked gas in the diffracted part of
the detonation wave [141,142]. This local re-initiation
phenomenon is similar to what happens at the critical condi-
tion during direct initiation, as discussed in Section 3.2.1.
Based on photographic and soot foil records Lee [143]
proposed that for regular cellular structure detonation
waves failure occurs globally as a result of overall wave
curvature whereas for irregular cellular structure detona-
tion waves failure is due to local wave diffraction on the
scale of the detonation cell.
There is currently no theory that can predict the critical
tube correlation dc ¼ 13l that is observed experimentally
for irregular cellular structured detonation waves. Over the
years there have been several analytical analyses performed
largely based on applying the Shchelkin criterion [144]
and Whitham’s [145] theory of shock diffraction, e.g., see
Ref. [141]. In such analyses it is assumed that the shock
diffraction proceeds independent of the chemical reactions.
Because of the strong dependence of the induction time
with the shock strength, based on Schelkin’s criterion [144]
local decoupling of the detonation front occurs with a drop
in shock velocity of roughly 10% of the CJ detonation
velocity. Such an analysis neglects the effect of unsteadi-
ness on the induction time. More recently high-resolution
numerical simulations have been used to study the critical
tube diffraction problem. Arienti and Shepherd [146] used
a novel approach to investigate local detonation failure
523
where the temperature time-rate of change of fluid elements
in the flow are tracked through the reaction zone. They
found that decoupling of the shock and the reaction zone
occurs when the Lagrangian derivative of the temperature
vanishes after the passage of the shock. This condition is
satisfied when the energy release rate and the flow
unsteadiness due to the deceleration of the leading shock
wave are balanced. Their calculations indicate that for the
case of failed transmission front curvature does not play a
critical role. It should be pointed out that in these
calculations the detonation cellular structure was sup-
pressed by the choice of appropriate initial conditions.
Clearly this is a simplification to the actual phenomenon.
4. Deflagration-to-detonation transition
4.1. Phenomenology of DDT
4.1.1. Basic studies of DDT
Many of the early detonation studies were performed in
smooth tubes using a weak ignition source. As a result,
detonation initiation was the result of flame acceleration
leading to DDT. In these studies the objective was the
study of the steady detonation wave produced at the end of
the acceleration process. The flame run-up distance
required to form a detonation was considered a property
of the mixture. Considering the mathematical expertize of
the time it was much easier to analyze the steady
propagation of the detonation wave than the transient
flame acceleration phenomenon. This led to the develop-
ment of the CJ theory for detonation waves. Very little was
known about the flame acceleration process, as the study of
turbulence was in its infancy and the concept of turbulent
flame propagation was even less developed at the time.
Chapman and Wheeler [147] were the first to place
obstacles (orifice plates) in a smooth walled tube in order to
promote flame acceleration. Without the orifice plates the
maximum flame velocity achieved in a methane–air mixture
in a 5 cm inner-diameter tube was on the order of 10 m/s.
With the orifice plates placed at one tube diameter spacing
they measured a maximum flame velocity of over 400 m/s.
Due to the limited diameter of the tube they did not
observe transition to detonation.
Shchelkin and his colleagues did very significant work on
DDT in the next few decades [148–150]. Shchelkin
proposed that flame acceleration was governed by turbu-
lent fluctuations in the unburned gas ahead of the flame
that led to an increase in flame area. Since the unburned
gas velocity is related to the flame velocity there is a
feedback loop between the flame velocity and the flame
area that results in efficient flame acceleration. In order to
enhance the turbulence in the unburned gas ahead of the
flame Shchelkin [148] artificially roughened the tube wall
by placing a wire coil helix inside of the tube. The so-called
Shchelkin spiral is commonly used to reduce the detonation
run-up distance in such applications as PDEs [10].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
524 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
In early studies of run-up distances to DDT in smooth
tubes [151–153], flame acceleration and transition to
detonation was characterized by discrete flame velocity
measurements made using flame time-of-arrival instrumen-
tation, or continuous flame and shock velocity measure-
ments using Schlieren streak photography. Introduction of
stroboscopic flash Schlieren photography [154–156] made
it possible to gain significant insights into the phenomena.
The publication of high-resolution stroboscopic Schlieren
photographs taken of the onset of transition to detonation
by Urtiew and Oppenheim [157] represents a milestone in
the study of DDT phenomenon. The photographs were
taken with a light source consisting of a ruby laser with an
extremely short pulse width (o108 s) and ultrahigh
repetition rate (up to 106 frames per second). The
photographs clearly show the initiation of a detonation
from a local explosion within the shock–flame complex, the
so-called ‘‘explosion in the explosion’’. The photographs
show that this local explosion may occur at the flame front
or at the shock front.
An example of detonation initiation occurring at the
flame front is provided in the sequence of photographs in
Fig. 25a. The upper-most photograph shows multiple
shock waves ahead of the highly corrugated turbulent
flame. In the preceding photographs, not shown in the
figure, the curved shock immediately ahead of the flame
originates at the tip of the flame next to the upper wall. The
curved shock reflects off the lower wall producing a Mach
stem and reflected shock wave. In the next photograph
from the top, taken 5 ms later, an explosion occurs at the
upper tip of the flame that develops into a detonation wave
complete with closely spaced transverse waves. This
explosion occurs in an environment of higher pressure
and temperature produced by the passage of the curved
Fig. 25. Stroboscopic Schlieren photographs taken of explosion in the explosion in an equimolar hydrogen–oxygen mixture at initial pressure of
82.7 mmHg in a 1  1.5 in2 channel. Time between frames is 5 ms, distance between marks at bottom lower photograph is 5 cm [157].
shock wave. The detonation wave sweeps across the
channel and overtakes the shock waves ahead. Also evident
is the retonation wave that propagates back into the
combustion products.
An example of a detonation wave formed as a result of
two shock waves coalescing is shown in Fig. 25b. In the
uppermost photograph the flame is just visible on the left
top corner. In the previous frame (not shown) two shock
waves coalesce to form the leading shock wave correspond-
ing to the rightmost discontinuity in the uppermost
photograph. The coalescing of two shock waves forms a
contact discontinuity which in the photograph is located
immediately behind the leading shock wave. In the third
photograph from the top, ignition is observed at the
contact discontinuity adjacent to the upper wall. Note the
contact discontinuity is at an elevated temperature
compared to the unburned gas in any other region ahead
of the flame. A roughly planar detonation wave forms from
the ignition of the discontinuity.
After a nearly a sixty year hiatus since the pioneering
experiments of Chapman and Wheeler [147] the effect of
obstacles on flame acceleration leading to DDT received
significant attention in the early 1980s in connection with
industrial explosion safety. Several papers dealing with
flame acceleration in obstacle-filled tubes were presented at
the First International Specialist Meeting on Fuel–Air
Explosions held in Montreal, Canada in 1981 [158,159]. A
comprehensive study of flame acceleration and DDT in
tubes filled with orifice plates spaced at one tube diameter
was undertaken at McGill University [86,160]. The
influence of fuel type, mixture composition, tube diameter
and orifice plate blockage ratio (defined as the ratio of the
orifice plate blockage area and the tube cross-sectional
area) on the flame velocity was investigated. The results of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
these studies indicated that the transition process requires
that (i) the flame should accelerate to a sufficiently high
speed prior to the onset of detonation, i.e., at least of the
order of the speed of sound in the combustion products;
and (ii) the orifice opening diameter must be sufficiently
large, i.e., of the order of the detonation cell width of the
mixture in the tube.
4.1.2. Phases of DDT process
Following the detailed reviews of characteristic features
of DDT processes by Lee and Moen [2] and more recently
by Shepherd and Lee [3], the DDT phenomena is usually
divided into two separate phases (1) the creation of
conditions for the onset of detonation by processes of flame
acceleration, vorticity production, formation of jets, and
mixing of products and reactants, (2) the actual formation
of the detonation wave itself or the onset of detonation.
Processes in the first phase are particular to the specific
initial and boundary conditions of the problem. Different
physical mechanisms dominate the process of flame
acceleration in obstructed channels, smooth tubes or large
volumes filled with combustible mixtures. However, the
actual formation of the detonation appears to be a more
universal phenomenon.
The following description is divided into three parts, the
first part deals with flame acceleration in smooth tubes, the
second focuses on the same phenomenon in channels
equipped with obstacles, and the third one deals with the
onset of detonation. This is followed by a summary of
the framework that may be used for the evaluation of the
potential for FA and the onset of detonation.
4.2. FA in smooth tubes
4.2.1. Process of FA in smooth tubes
Following weak ignition, the initially smooth surface of
a laminar flame can be wrinkled due to the L–D instability,
which can be stabilized or destabilized by the thermal-
diffusion effects. This can result in the formation of a
cellular flame. With the development of the cellular
instability (see Fig. 10) the flame surface grows and the
flow generated due to the expansion of the combustion
products accelerates. However, the growth of perturbations
arising from the L–D instability is limited, and the flame
surface can only have a slow growth due to this instability.
Thermal expansion of the combustion products produces
movement in the unburned gas. The flow interaction with
the confinement causes an increase of the flame surface.
This results in the moderate increase of the flow velocity
and flame speed relative to a fixed observer. This, initially
laminar, phase of FA was analyzed by Bychkov et al.
[161–163] and Akkerman et al. [164]. The effects related to
the flame surface evolution may lead to a slight decelera-
tion of the flame when the flame reaches the tube walls. The
heat losses to the tube walls may result in additional flame
deceleration [154]. The same effects may also be responsible
for the temporary development of a characteristic ‘‘tulip’’
525
shape of the laminar flame. This is different from a ‘‘tulip’’
shaped turbulent flame described in the following discus-
sion.
It has been demonstrated by Shchelkin [150], Salamandra
et al. [154] and Soloukhin [155] that flame acceleration in
relatively smooth tubes is strongly affected by wall rough-
ness. Fig. 26 shows qualitatively the evolution of the flow
ahead of the accelerated flame. Initially, the flow may
have a smooth axial velocity distribution V(x), as shown in
Fig. 26a. In sufficiently long tubes, the velocity profile is
expected to steepen with time (Fig. 26b) and at some stage
a shock forms ahead of the flame. Depending on the details
of the flame acceleration, the shock may form at the head
of the compression wave, which propagates with the sound
speed, ar, as shown in Fig. 26b, or somewhere closer to the
flame. At the same time the flow interaction with tube walls
results in the formation of a turbulent boundary layer. The
thickness of the layer grows with time. The boundary layer
starts to appear in the compression wave and continues to
grow after the lead shock is formed. At a later stage, a
situation shown in Fig. 26c is developed with the lead
shock and growing boundary layer behind it. Interactions
of the flame with boundary layer results in a significant
increase of the burning rate near the tube walls, and a
characteristic ‘‘tulip’’ flame shape is formed, as first
reported by Salamandra et al. [154]. A sequence of
photographs showing the propagation of a ‘‘tulip-shaped’’
flame is provided in Fig. 27 [165].
While the flame propagates along the tube, turbulence is
also generated in the core flow. All these processes may
result in a variety of flame shapes in the tube depending on
the mixture properties and the tube size. The tulip shape
may be formed and destroyed at a later stage of flame
propagation.
The larger is the roughness of the tube wall, the faster is
the growth of the boundary layer, with other conditions
being the same. For this reason the roughness of the tube
wall is an important parameter that controls the rate of
flame acceleration. In obstructed tubes with relatively small
blockage ratio (BR), i.e., less than roughly 10%, the
characteristic features of the flame acceleration process and
the flame structures are similar to those in smooth tubes.
Obstacles increase the roughness of the tube wall resulting
in relatively fast growth of the boundary layer.
4.2.2. Run-up distances to supersonic flames
In sufficiently long tubes and in typical fuel–air mixtures,
flames accelerate up to the speed of about 600–1000 m/s [2].
If the tube diameter is sufficiently large, as described in
Section 4.4.4, transition to detonation can be observed as
soon as the flame reaches a speed of the order of the sound
speed of the combustion products. In smooth tubes the
onset of detonation is often observed as soon as the flame
reaches a speed of about 600–1000 m/s. Although there are
situations when additional propagation distance is neces-
sary to establish the detonation regime, most of the data

526 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Flame
Δ
b. l.
Flame
Δ
Flame
Flame(t1)
Δ(t1)
b. l.
Fig. 26. Sketch showing development of boundary layer ahead of accelerated flame with time (a, b, and c). Curves V(x) show qualitatively the distribution
of flow velocity ahead of the flame; SW designates shock wave; b. l.—boundary layer; D—boundary layer thickness at flame position. Part ‘d’ shows flame
positions and boundary layers at three different moments of time t1, t2, and t3. Curve D(x) shows boundary layer thickness at flame positions as a function
of distance.
available on the run-up distances refers to the run-up
distance to detonation.
There are some early experimental data on the effects of
tube diameter, initial pressure, and temperature on the run-
up distance to detonation, XD, for tubes without obstacles
[149,151–153,166–168]. These data show a decrease of the
run-up distance with increase of the initial mixture
pressure, P. If such a dependence is expressed in a power
form, i.e., XDpPm, the exponent, m, depends on mixture
properties and lies in the range from 0.4 to 0.8 for various
mixtures for the pressure range from 0.1 to 6.5 bar.
In some of these studies, an increase of the run-up
distance with tube diameter was reported [151,167]. The
ratio of the run-up distance to the tube diameter XD/D was
found to be in the range from 15 to 40. On the contrary,
Bollinger et al. [167] noted that only for rich mixtures of
hydrogen the run-up distance depends on the tube
diameter. Somewhat ambiguous data on the effect of the
tube diameter may be due to the hidden influence of other
factors, such as tube roughness and tube length. In many of
the tests mentioned above the onset of detonation was
ARTICLE IN PRESS
V(x)
V(x)
SW
V(x)
SW
Δ
b. l.
Flame(t2) Flame(t3)
Δ(t3)
Δ(t2) Δ(x)
b. l. b. l.
observed near the end of the tubes. In these cases mixture
pre-compression effects may be important, so it is difficult
to describe the mixture properties as that of the initial
mixture. Also, as it was found by Salamandra et al. [169],
the transition to detonation in short tubes can be facilitated
by the flame interaction with the pressure waves reflected
from tube endwall. In addition, the tube roughness, which
plays an important role, was not always sufficiently
characterized.
More recent studies of Lindstedt and Michels [170] and
Kuznetsov et al. [88,165,171,172] were made in sufficiently
long tubes and with the tube roughness characterized.
These studies give a detailed description of the flame
acceleration process so that flame speed as a function of
distance is available. This data makes it possible to analyze
the effect of mixture properties, tube size and roughness on
the run-up distance to supersonic flames. Such an analysis
was recently presented in [173], where the distance
necessary for the flame to reach a speed equal to the
sound speed in combustion products, ap, was analyzed in
the framework of a simple analytical model.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 527

turbulent velocity correlation of Bradley [43] (see

Fig. 27. Sequence of shadow photographs (0.1 ms between frames)
showing boundary layers ahead of accelerated flame. Flame propagates
from left to right; speed of lead flame edges is about 320 m/s. Boundary
layers are seen as dark regions on the top wall and as lighter regions in the
bottom wall of the channel. Wall roughness is 1 mm; mixture is
stoichiometric H2–O2 at 0.6 bar initial pressure.
ST + V
D V
Boundary layer
X Δ d propane, where turbulence preexists in the mixture at the
Fig. 28. Schematic of the problem.
Fig. 28 shows the schematic of a flame in a tube with
diameter D and wall roughness h at a distance X from the
ignition point, which was the basis for the model in [173]. At
the stage of flame propagation shown in Fig. 28 the boundary
layer is formed ahead of the flame with a thickness D. The
flame propagates in the boundary layer with a turbulent
Eq. (2.25)), and the description for the thickness of the
boundary layer, D, at the flame position along the tube
[165]. The run-up distance, XS, is defined as the flame
propagation distance where the flame speed reaches the
sound speed in the combustion products. This approach
results in the following expression for the run-up distance:
   
XS g 1 D
¼ ln g þK , (4.1)
D C k h
where k, K and C are constants (independent of mixture
composition) taken to be: k ¼ 0.4; K ¼ 5.5; and C ¼ 0.2
[165,171]; D/hd can be expressed through the blockage
ratio: D/h=2/(1(1BR)1/2); and g=D/D is given by
"  1=3 #1=ð2mþ7=3Þ
ap d
g¼ , (4.2)
Zðs  1Þ2 SL D
where SL is the laminar burning velocity; d=n/SL is the
laminar flame thickness; n the kinematic viscosity; Z and m
are two unknown parameters, which were determined using
the set of experimental data [88,165,170–172]: Z=2.1 and
m=0.18. The model was shown to describe the experi-
mental data with an accuracy of prediction for the run-up
distances of about 725%.
According to Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2) the dimensionless run-
up distance, XS/D, is a function of the tube diameter due to
the term d/D in Eq. (4.2). Fig. 29 shows, as an illustration,
the dimensionless run-up distances for stoichiometric
mixtures of methane, propane, ethylene, and hydrogen
with air versus tube diameters computed from Eqs. (4.1)
and (4.2). Fig. 29 shows that in smooth tubes the run-up
distances in methane and propane mixtures are about twice
as high as that in ethylene and hydrogen mixtures. This is
why there is no data available on the run-up distances for
these mixtures in smooth tubes. There is some data on FA
in ‘‘turbulent gas/air mixtures’’ of hydrogen, methane, and
time of ignition [174]. The data cannot be compared this
data directly with the model predictions. However, if one
assumes that the preexisting turbulence leads to the
increase of the initial burning velocity to some effective
200
180 BR = 0.01 H2 BR<0.1
C2H4 BR<0.1
160
C3H8 BR<0.1
140 CH4 BR<0.1
XS/D model

120
velocity ST relative to the unburned mixture and with a 100
velocity ST+V in the laboratory frame, where V is the flow 80
speed ahead of the flame. The burning velocity in the core of 60
the flow is lower than the value of ST in the boundary layer. 40
The thickness of the boundary layer grows with time while 20
the flow interacts with the wall, resulting in an increase of the 0
0.01 0.1 1 10
boundary layer thickness as measured at various flame
D, m
positions along the tube, as shown in [165,171].
The model utilizes a general expression for the flow Fig. 29. Run-up distances over tube diameter as a function of tube
balance in the tube with two unknown parameters, the diameter for BR ¼ 0.01.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
528 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550

value, SLeff, such a comparison suggests that SLeff ¼ 2.5SL.
This is a reasonable value and so the ‘‘turbulent’’ data [174]
is also well described by the model.
4.3. FA in obstructed channels
4.3.1. Process of FA in obstructed channels
Qualitatively, the mechanism for flame acceleration in
obstructed channels is well understood. The processes
involved in FA in obstructed channels is shown in Figs. 30
and 31 using shadow photographs taken of the flame at
different times [34,35].
Initially a smooth, or wrinkled, laminar flame develops
depending on the mixture properties. This is due to the
L–D instability, which can be stabilized or destabilized by
the thermal-diffusion effects. While the cellular instability
(if developed as in Fig. 30) provide slow growth of the
flame surface with flame propagation, obstacles located
along the path of the expanding flame can cause rapid
increase of the flame surface. Thermal expansion of the hot
combustion products produces movement in the unburned
gas. The flow around the obstacles leads to a rapid increase
of the flame surface (see Figs. 30 and 31). This effect results
in the further increase of the flow velocity, flame speed
relative to a fixed observer, and flame surface. This
feedback loop can result in continuous flame acceleration
(note that this loop is not connected to any turbulence
effect). In addition to ‘‘geometrical’’ increase of the flame
surface, K–H and R–M instabilities lead to additional
flame surface increase.
A novel technique was used by Johansen and Ciccarelli
[175] to visualize the development of the unburned gas flow
field ahead of the flame propagating in a square duct
equipped with 2D obstacles. Before ignition at the closed
end of the duct, helium gas is injected between adjacent
obstacles, as shown in Fig. 32a. This creates a pocket of
low-density gas mixture consisting of the test gas and
helium. Once the test gas is ignited on the left end of
the duct, a flow is induced in the entire duct causing the
helium-diluted gas to be convected downstream. At the

Fig. 30. Sequence of shadow photographs of flame propagation in 10% H2–air mixture with BR ¼ 0.6 [34,35]. Channel width is 80 mm. Combined from
images taken from three different windows along the channel. Times after ignition in ms are shown on the right.

Fig. 31. Sequence of shadow photographs of flame propagation in 70% H2–air mixture with BR=0.6 [34,35]. Channel width is 80 mm. Combined from
images taken from three different windows along the channel. Times after ignition in ms are shown on the right.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Helium
i) Unburned Jet Unburned
Gas Gas
ii)
iii) Vflame
iv) Vflame
Fig. 32. Unburned gas flow field visualization: (a) schematic showing helium gas injection ahead of the flame front, and (b) a sequence of Schlieren images
employing this technique [175].
same time undiluted test gas is convected into the volume
originally occupied by the helium-diluted gas. The sudden
onset of flow produces a pair of laminar vortices on the
downstream edge of each obstacle, as shown schematically
in Fig. 32a and in the Schlieren photographs provided in
Fig. 32b. These eddies grow into large recirculation zones
that eventually occupy the volume between adjacent
obstacles on the same side of the duct. In time, a turbulent
shear layer develops separating the recirculation zone and
the core flow as seen in the bottom photograph in Fig. 32b.
If the flame reaches a eddy in its early development phase,
e.g., for obstacles near the ignition end, the flame is
entrained into the vortex and subsequently burns it out, see
the uppermost Schlieren photographs in Figs. 30 and 31. If
the flame reaches an vortex after the shear layer has
developed the flame propagates in the core flow and then
burns into the recirculation zone. At a later stage of flame
propagation, a significant randomization of the flow ahead
of the flame can occur. This results in the development of
intense turbulence in the flow as shown in the upper-most
photo in Fig. 33.
Turbulence increases the local burning rate by increasing
both the surface area of the flame and the transport of local
mass and energy. An overall higher burning rate, in turn,
produces a higher flow velocity in the unburned gas. This
‘‘turbulent’’ feedback loop can result in further acceleration
of the propagating flame. At the same time, the ‘‘geometrical’’
increase of the flame surface continues to play a role. The
increase of the burning velocity, ST, with turbulence level is
generally limited and saturation of ST is usually reached at a
level of 10–20 times the laminar burning velocity, SL [68,71].
Further increase of turbulence intensity can cause local
quenching of the combustion process, which results in a
decrease in the effective energy release rate.
529
Vunburned = 0 m/s
0 ms
Vunburned
10 ms
14 ms
18 ms
Depending on mixture properties and boundary condi-
tions, the interaction of the flame with turbulence in the
unburned gas can lead to either weak FA resulting in
relatively slow unstable turbulent flame regimes, see
Fig. 33, or to strong FA resulting in fast flames propagating
with supersonic speed relative to a fixed observer,
see Fig. 34.
The slow unstable turbulent flames that are shown in
Fig. 33 propagate through highly turbulent media at
conditions close to quenching. Often incomplete combus-
tion is observed, or the reaction quenches globally at some
stage of flame propagation. Also these flames often move
back and forth, locally consuming unreacted material left
behind as shown in Fig. 33.
The fast turbulent flames, e.g., as shown in Fig. 34,
which result from strong FA are supersonic combustion
waves consisting of a lead shock, or a system of shocks,
followed by a turbulent flame brush. Although the burning
rate in the flame brush is controlled by the molecular
transport of energy and species typical of deflagrations,
overall energy release rate is high enough to result in the
supersonic flame propagation relative to a fixed observer.
The flame speed in this regime is often close to the sound
speed in combustion products [86,160], although there are
cases of unstable propagation with strong velocity oscilla-
tions [45,88]. Under appropriate conditions, a transition
from this fast turbulent deflagration regime to detonation
can be observed.
4.3.2. Characteristic flame propagation regimes
It was first shown by Lee et al. [86] and Peraldi et al.
[160] that several characteristic flame propagation regimes
exist for tubes filled with orifice plates. A typical data set
for propane–air at atmospheric conditions in different size
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
530 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 33. Shadow photographs showing structure of slow deflagration in
10% H2–air mixture with BR ¼ 0.6 [34,35]. Flame tong propagates trough
the central part of the channel (with a speed of about 100 m/s relative to
fixed observer) leaving unreacted material behind. Then flame propagates
back through partially unreacted material. Channel width is 80 mm. Left
boundary is 1.6 m from ignition, times after ignition in ms are shown on
the right.
tubes with similar blockage ratio orifice plates is provided
in Fig. 35. Based on the measured terminal flame velocity,
four propagation regimes were observed: the quenching,
the choking, the quasi-detonation and the CJ detonation
regimes.
Fig. 34. Shadow photographs showing structure of fast deflagration in
70% H2–air mixture with BR=0.6 [34,35]. Turbulent flame is preceded
with system of shocks. Channel width is 80 mm. Left boundary is 2.4 m
from ignition. Top and bottom images are taken in the same test (times
after ignition in ms are shown on the right), and average speed of flame
propagation is about 800 m/s.
In the quenching regime the flame accelerates for a
certain distance and is then extinguished. As suggested in
[86], this regime features flame propagation as a result of
the sequential ignition of the gas in the connected
‘‘chambers’’ created by the higher blockage ratio orifice
plates. Ignition in a chamber occurs as a result of the jetting
of the combustion products from the preceding chamber
into the unburned gas contained in the following chamber.
Lee et al. [86] proposed that flame propagation terminates
in a chamber when quenching occurs as a result of the
mixing time being shorter than the chemical time. In more
recent studies [34,35], this quenching behavior was
observed in channels with BR=0.9. However, for BR of
0.6 and 0.3 there was no jetting observed, instead chamber-
to-chamber combustion was observed and the flame
structure corresponded to that shown in Fig. 33, where
local quenching of the flame is observed. Such a behavior
resulted in incomplete combustion and/or global flame
quenching.
If flame quenching does not occur the flame typically
accelerates to a steady velocity on the order of the speed of
sound of the combustion products, e.g., 600–1000 m/s. In a
smooth tube a flame that accelerates to such velocities
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 35. Variation of the terminal flame velocity with mixture composition
for the propane–air system [160].
normally transits to a detonation. However, in an obstacle-
laden tube turbulence can sustain the flame at such a
velocity indefinitely, Lee et al. refers to this as the choking
regime. At these high velocities compression waves form
ahead of the turbulent flame brush, see Fig. 34. Unlike in a
smooth tube where the flame and shock structure is
relatively orderly, in an obstacle-laden tube the shock
waves ahead of the flame undergo periodic reflections off
the obstacles and the tube wall and thus are dispersed in all
directions (see Fig. 25 and photographs by Teodorczyk et
al. [176,177]). Chue et al. [178] proposed that this complex
shock–flame structure can be modeled as a CJ deflagration.
They argue that in the choked regime flame propagation is
governed more by the mixture energy content than the
turbulent transport rates. Their argument is supported by
experimental observations that the final steady flame
velocity does not vary with tube diameter and wall
roughness.
If the orifice plate diameter is larger than the mixture cell
size (dXl) then DDT can occur [160]. For propane–air in a
5 cm tube, see Fig. 35, this criterion is not satisfied and thus
there is no detonation propagation regime. The detonation
produced in the 15 cm and 30 cm tubes propagates at a
531
substantial velocity deficit compared to the CJ detonation
velocity, this is referred to as the ‘‘quasi-detonation’’
regime. The results show that the larger the blockage ratio
the more significant the velocity deficit. Experiments
performed by Gu et al. [179] with orifice plate spacings of
0.5, 1, and 2 tube diameters showed that the velocity deficit
is inversely proportional to the orifice plate spacing. In
smooth tubes a very small velocity deficit, typically 1–2%,
is incurred by the detonation due to boundary layer effects.
Therefore, one may deduce that the much larger velocity
deficit observed in obstacle-filled tubes is due to enhanced
momentum and heat losses associated with the significant
wall roughness [179]. However, for large blockage ratio
orifice plates it has been observed that the velocity deficit is
due to the detonation wave failing and re-initiating as it
propagates through the orifice plates [176]. Detonation re-
initiation occurs as a result of shock reflection off the
orifice plate face or the tube wall [176]. If the orifice plate
diameter is more than the critical tube diameter (dX13l)
then the detonation wave propagates at roughly the CJ
velocity. Recall the critical tube diameter criterion implies
that the detonation wave propagates independent of the
tube wall boundary.
The terms ‘‘chocked flame’’ or ‘‘choking regime’’ are
often used to characterize fast flames in ducts with
obstacles that travel at a speed just below the isobaric
sound speed in the combustion products. There is
considerable uncertainty in the understanding of the
propagation mechanism of a high-speed turbulent defla-
gration in an obstacle-laden tube and in the meaning of
the term ‘‘choking’’. It should first be pointed out that the
larger the blockage ratio (up to about BR ¼ 0.75), the
more distinctive is the choking regime [88]. This regime is
also more pronounced for orifice plate obstacles, than with
less regular obstacle configurations, as suggested by Chao
and Lee [180]. Although there may be a dependence of the
fast flame propagation velocity on the obstacle geometry,
this fast flame regime can be distinguished from quasi-
detonation by a relatively low strength lead shock which is
not sufficient to cause mixture autoignition, as shown by
Teodorczyk et al. [176,177]. According to the authors of
[176,180,177], the mechanism responsible for ignition in
high-speed deflagrations is turbulent mixing of hot
combustion products and reactants promoted by the
obstacles. It is also suggested [176,180,177] that a regular
turbulent flame is too slow to be responsible for the fast
burning rate required for the propagation at high super-
sonic speeds.
Another point of view concerning the fast flame
propagation mechanism was suggested by Veser et al.
[181]. They argued that the relatively low burning velocity
of a regular turbulent flame (i.e., STE 10SL) can provide
the required burning rate because of the development of
sufficiently large flame surface area (see the flame brush in
Figs. 30, 31, and 33). Moreover, 3D numerical simulations
of flame propagation with constant prescribed turbulent
burning velocity, ST, in a tube with orifice plate obstacles
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
532 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
[181] showed that the surface of the flame adjusts itself in
such a way that the flame surface is higher for lower ST
values and vise versa. This results in similar values of the
flame speed in the laboratory frame (close to ap).
What effect is responsible for the observation that the
flame speed is close to the isobaric sound speed in combustion
products? What is the meaning of term choking? Chao and
Lee [180] argued that in a tube with orifice plate obstacles, a
high-speed flame propagates as consequence of the sequential
venting of the combustion products through choked orifices
and subsequently travels at the local sound speed of the
combustion products. The emphasis on the orifice plates,
however, cannot explain some of their experimental data
[180], where pronounced choked flames were observed with
an array of cylindrical obstacles. Chao and Lee [180] go
further suggesting that the choking regime with orifices
cannot be considered to be an actual propagation regime,
since the mechanism is controlled by gasdynamic jetting and
not by turbulent combustion.
From the point of view suggested by Veser et al. [181],
the turbulent flame brush surface increases during flame
propagation in an obstacle field following the ignition at
the closed end of a duct. This results in an increase of the
speed of the leading tip of the flame in the laboratory
flame. The flow velocity of the combustion products in the
direction of flame propagation relative to a fixed observer,
u3, reaches a maximum at the flame tip and decreases to
zero at some distance behind the flame. As soon as the
combustion products flow velocity reaches the local sound
speed, the flow behind the flame tip is choked. Any
pressure perturbations generated due to the combustion
processes behind the surface where the difference between
the local flow speed, u3, and its maximum at the flame tip is
equal to the local sound speed, cannot reach the flame tip.
Thus, these perturbations cannot contribute to any further
increase of the flame surface area. As a result, the turbulent
flame brush located between the lead flame tip and the
sonic surface propagates as a whole with both the speed
and the flame surface being nearly constant. This explana-
tion is similar to the one suggested by Chao and Lee [180],
in the sense that it is the flow of combustion products
behind the lead flame tip that is chocked in the high-speed
turbulent flames, although without the emphasis on the
orifice plates. The important difference is that Veser et al.
[181] suggest that turbulent combustion does play a role in
the propagation mechanism of a choked flame by affecting
the surface area of the turbulent flame brush, i.e., the flame
area is higher for lower values of ST and vise versa.
Therefore, the structure of the high-speed flame, such as
shown in Fig. 34, appears to be affected by the range of
values of ST for a given mixture. Spatial distribution of
flow velocities and local sound speeds behind the flame tip
depends on the flame structure. Because the choking occurs
when the difference of flow velocities (as explained above)
equates to the local sound speed, the maximum flow speed
at choking conditions in its turn depends on wave structure
and on ST. Consequently, the actual propagation velocity
and its deficit, as compared to the value of ap, is expected
be mixture-specific for a given geometry in accordance with
the experimental observations [88].
4.3.3. Flame speeds as a function of distance
A series of experimental studies were made recently by
Kuznetsov et al. investigating the behavior of turbulent
flames in mixtures based on hydrogen fuel [88], and
hydrocarbon fuels [182]. It was found that in tubes containing
different configurations of obstacles, a well-defined difference
in flame behavior can be observed between slow, subsonic
flames and fast combustion phenomena such as choked
flames and detonations. Figs. 36 and 37 show flame
propagation velocities versus distance along the tubes with
BR=0.3 and 0.6 for hydrogen–air mixtures. Figs. 38 and 39
show similar plots for hydrocarbon mixtures.
The data presented in Figs. 36–39 show that flame
acceleration results in one of three different propagation
regimes: slow subsonic flame, fast supersonic flame (choked
flame), and quasi-detonation. It is seen that in some cases
of slow flames global quenching is observed. Generally this
is in qualitative accord with the classification suggested by
Peraldi et al. [160]. The most pronounced difference is
observed between cases of slow and fast flames. This is true
for all mixtures and blockage ratios tested in [88,182]. The
difference between fast flames and quasi-detonations is not
very well defined for BR=0.3. It was found [88,182] that
for large BR of 0.6 and 0.9 more unstable slow regimes
resulted as compared to BRo0.6. Global quenching was
not observed for BRp0.1. Constant velocity fast flames,
i.e., chocked flames, were not observed for BRp0.1.
2000
174 mm 80 mm
BR=0.3 (air)
10%H2 10%H2
11%H2 13%H2 520 mm
1600 12%H2 10%H2
13%H2 13%H2
15%H2
17.5%H2
1200
v, m/s
800
Fast flames
400
Slow flames
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
x/D
Fig. 36. Flame velocities for lean hydrogen–air mixtures versus dimen-
sionless distance along tubes of 174, and 520 mm id, and square channel of
80  80 mm2 cross section (BR ¼ 0.3).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 533

1600 1000
H2- air C3H8-air
BR = 0.6 Quasi-detonations D=174 mm
BR=0.6
800 Fast flames
1200
80 mm 174 mm
10%H2 10%H2

Flame Velocity (m/s)

11%H2 11%H2
13%H2 15%H2 600
25%H2
v, m/s

520 mm 45%H2
800 10%H2
11%H2
Fast flames 2%
400
2.2%
3%
400 4.03%
200 6.5%
Slow flames 7%
7.5%
Slow flames
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 4 8 12
x/D Distance (m)

Fig. 37. Flame velocities versus distance in obstructed tubes filled with Fig. 39. Flame velocities versus distance in propane–air mixtures in
hydrogen–air mixtures in tubes of 174, and 520 mm id, and square channel 174-mm tube (BR ¼ 0.6).
of 80  80 mm2 cross section (BR ¼ 0.6).
well below the sound velocity in reactants. This means
that an energy release rate, defined by the flame surface
2500
2% area, chemistry and turbulence, remains limited in cases
C3H8-air
2.2% D=174 mm of weak FA, and the flame is not able to generate signi-
2.5%
3%
BR=0.3 ficant compression waves during the process. In the
2000 4.03% Quasi-detonations cases of strong FA, the energy release rate appears
6.5%
7% to be high enough that the flames are able to generate
7.5% strong compression and shock waves ahead, resulting in
Flame Velocity (m/s)

8%
1500
1000
Fast flames
500
Slow flames
0
0 4
Distance from Ignition Point (m)
Fig. 38. Flame velocities versus distance in propane–air mixtures in
174-mm tube (BR ¼ 0.3).
Instead continuous FA was observed, making the flame
behavior similar to that in smooth tubes.
While there is a sharp difference between cases of slow
and fast flames, there is also a difference in the process of
flame acceleration itself, but not the final steady propaga-
tion regime, which can be characterized as weak or strong.
In the cases of weak FA a significant increase of a flame
speed from initial values characteristic to the laminar
flame is observed, but the propagation velocity remains
fast supersonic deflagrations and, possibly, transition to
detonation.
The possibility of transition from fast deflagrations to
detonations is controlled by processes that are typical of
fast flames and detonations, including shock waves and
chemical reactions induced by compression. The critical
condition for the onset of detonation includes the affect of
the mixture detonation sensitivity, such as the detonation
cell width. These critical conditions will be discussed in
Section 4.4. As distinct from the onset of detonations, the
nature of the boundary between weak FA and strong FA
cannot depend on processes typical of strong deflagrations
8 12
and detonations. The ‘‘decision’’ on whether a flame
accelerates strongly or not occurs at rather low, subsonic
flame speeds. The important mechanisms for this stage of
FA are basically the turbulent transport of energy and
species typical for slow deflagrations. Characteristic para-
meters of the mixture detonation sensitivity, i.e., the
detonation cell width, is not an important contributor to
the critical condition for strong FA.
4.3.4. Criteria for weak and strong FA
Dorofeev et al. [45] analyzed the experimental data on
FA in hydrogen combustibles obtained by Sherman et al.
[183,184], Dorofeev et al. [185,186], Ciccarelli et al. [187],
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
534 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550

and Kuznetsov et al. [88]. A set of parameters was
considered that can influence the flame-unburned gas flow
feedback mechanism in obstructed ducts. Among these are
parameters given by properties of the mixture and
geometry, such as; the laminar burning rate and flame
thickness (i.e., SL and d), the gas expansion ratio (i.e., ratio
of reactant density to product density, s), characteristic
sound speeds, ratio of specific heats, Lewis number,
Markstein number, and Zeldovich number. These para-
meters, which can be determined a priori, define a sort of
potential for flame acceleration. It was found that a
sufficiently large mixture expansion ratio is necessary for
the development of fast flames.
The experimental data [88,183–187] are summarized in
Fig. 40 in the form of a graph with the expansion ratio and
the Markstein number defining the mixture initial state (see
[45] for details). The data points denoted by black circles
correspond to tests that resulted in strong FA and data
points denoted by gray circles correspond to weak FA. It is
seen that the critical mixture expansion ratio depends on
the value of Ma number (see Section 2.2.4), which is
defined relative to burnt mixture Mab. While a variation of
the critical s with negative Mab is seen in the plot, the
critical s was nearly constant for positive Mab. This was
suggested to be due to the similar values of Zeldovich
numbers, b, for all mixtures with positive Mab, and a
strong variation of b for negative Mab.
In order to increase the range of b for mixtures with
positive Mab, hydrogen fuels were amended in analysis [45]
with hydrocarbons from Peraldi et al. [160]. Figs. 41 and 42
show the combustion regimes as a function of expansion
ratio, s, and b. It is seen that the critical s increases with b
for mixtures with positive and negative Mab. Correspond-
ing critical conditions were suggested in the form: s4s*
(b, LT/d), where b, is the Zeldovich number, LT is the
integral scale of turbulence and d is the laminar flame
thickness. It was also found that for a sufficiently large-
scale ratio, LT/d, exceeding two orders of magnitude, the
critical conditions become independent of scale and can be
reduced to a function of the mixture composition only
s4s*(b).
The correlations presented in Figs. 41 and 42 show
qualitatively that the critical expansion ratio for strong FA
increases with dimensionless activation energy. It should be
noted that the values of b and Mab, depend on the model
used for their extraction, e.g., in [45] these values were
extracted using experimental laminar flame velocity mea-
surements. One should use the same model to apply data of
Figs. 41 and 42 to back-calculate the critical mixture
composition for strong FA. It should be noted that the
difference in the critical condition between stable and
unstable flames, see Figs. 41 and 42, may also include the
Lewis number effect. This effect was not addressed in
sufficient detail in [45], because of uncertainty in the model
used for determination of b.
Probably the most convincing experimental argument
for the importance of the expansion ratio as a parameter
characterizing a potential for strong FA was presented by
Alekseev et al. [188]. In a series of tests FA was studied in
obstructed tubes with variable venting on the lateral
surface of the tubes. In these tests the natural expansion
of the combustion products, quantified by the mixture

6 6
Ma < 0
slow flames
choked flames
5 5 and detonations

4 4
σ

3 3

2 2
slow flames
choked flames
and detonations

1 1
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 3 4 5 6
Mab β

Fig. 40. Resulting combustion regime as a function of expansion ratio, s, Fig. 41. Resulting combustion regime as a function of expansion ratio s
and Mab. Black points—fast (strong FA) and gray points—slow and b for mixtures with Mabo0. Black points—fast (strong FA) and gray
combustion regimes (weak FA). points—slow combustion regimes (weak FA).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 535

9 generated flow of the unburned gas and the flame itself.

Turbulence generated in the flow ahead of the flame
8 CH - fuels interacts with the flame. Initially, this interaction results in
a positive feedback through increase of the flame surface,
flow speed, and turbulence level. At a certain stage, the
7
Ka-number may become greater than unity, and mixed
reactants/products pockets may be formed in the flow.
6 Then, if quenching of the largest mixed pockets dominates
(left-hand side of Eq. (4.3) less than unity), all mixed
5 pockets are quenched, the overall rate of energy release is
σ

suppressed, and the positive feedback is destroyed. If

4 re-ignition of the largest mixed pockets dominates, mixing
3 Ma > 0
H2 mixtures slow flames
choked flames
2 and detonations
+- 8% deviation
1 The critical conditions given by Eq. (4.3) are plotted in
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
β Figs. 43 and 42. The first observation is that the order of
Fig. 42. Resulting combustion regime as a function of expansion ratio s
and b for mixtures with Mab40. Black points—fast (strong FA) and gray
points—slow combustion regimes (weak FA).
expansion ratio, and the combustion product venting were
the competing processes. It was found that to provide
conditions for strong FA in vented tubes s should be
increased in proportion to the loss of expansion due to
venting of combustion products. This observation suggests
that s as a measure of expansion is an important parameter
for description of the critical conditions for strong FA.
The effect of the dimensionless activation energy b on
the critical conditions for strong FA was related by
Dorofeev et al. [45] with quenching of products/reactants
pockets mixed by turbulence. Qualitatively, a high b
of products and reactants by turbulence does not affect
significantly the rate of energy release, and the positive
feedback is sustained. This argument supports the view
that the critical conditions defined by Eq. (4.3) may be
interpreted as the borderline between the cases of weak and
strong FA.
12 Fig. 43, which can be compared with experimental data in
magnitude and the actual values for the critical mixture
expansion ratio are close to those obtained experimentally.
The general trend and the order of magnitude of the
function of s on b, presented in Fig. 43 are very similar to
those given in Figs. 41 and 42.
It is seen that the model predicts reasonable values and
correct trends for the critical boundary between the cases
of weak and strong FA. A detailed comparison would
require a more reliable estimate for the mixture properties
such as s, b, n, and Le.
n=1
11
Le = 0.3
9
Le = 1
7 Le = 2
σ

provides a stronger ability of turbulent mixing to quench 5

locally the combustion process. More recently this problem
was revisited [78] with more detailed analysis of quenching 3
for a range of sizes of products/reactants pockets mixed by 1
turbulence. It was found that the critical conditions for 6 9 12 15
quenching/re-ignition of the largest mixed eddies appear to β
be independent of any parameters characterizing turbulence:
Le = 1
s2 b2 ðb=2  1Þn e1b=2 11
¼ 1, (4.3) n = 0.5
6Len Gnþ1 m 9
n=1
where mE20 is a constant. Only mixture properties, such as 7 n=2
s, b, n, and Le, affect the thermal regime of the largest mixed
σ

pockets. This is a remarkable result, which shows that 5

mixture properties may prescribe certain types of flame 3
behavior in various turbulent flows. It was also shown [78]
that all mixed pockets are expected to be quenched in sub- 1
critical mixtures (the left-hand side of Eq. (4.3) less than 6 9 12 15
β
unity) in any turbulent flows with KaX1.
If one considers the process of flame acceleration, its Fig. 43. Critical conditions for quenching and re-ignition of the largest
effectiveness depends on the feedback between flame mixed pockets expressed as s versus b for various n and Le [78].
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
536 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Both the model and the data show that the critical
mixture expansion ratio increases with b and Le. This
means that unstable mixtures (Leo1) and mixtures with
low dimensionless effective activation energy (such as lean
hydrogen mixtures at high initial temperatures) will show
strong FA in compositions with low energy content (s of
about 2 and more). At the same time, stable mixtures and
mixtures with high dimensionless effective activation
energy (such as rich methane mixtures at low initial
temperatures) can only sustain strong FA in compositions
with high-energy content (s of about 7 and more).
4.3.5. Run-up distances to supersonic flames
If strong FA and the development of fast deflagrations
are possible, an important problem to be solved is the
evaluation of the minimum run-up distance for the
development of such fast combustion waves. Most of
the studies of FA and DDT are related to the problem
of the run-up distance in one way or another. While
in smooth tubes it is not always possible to distinguish
the run-up distances to supersonic flames and to
detonation, in obstructed channels, these are often
distinguishable (see, for example, Fig. 38). Historically,
the run-up distances to detonation was of prime interest in
most of the DDT studies mentioned above, including
[86,88,148,160,170,174].
Veser et al. [181] were the first who specifically addressed
the run-up distances to supersonic flames. The problem of
the minimum run-up distance for the flame acceleration to
supersonic combustion regimes in tubes with obstacles was
studied both experimentally and numerically in [181].
Experiments were made in an explosion tube equipped
with orifice plate obstacles. The tube was 12-m long with
internal tube diameter of 0.35 m. Blockage ratios of the
orifice plates were 0.3, 0.45, 0.6 and 0.75. Various mixtures
of hydrogen were used in the tests. In addition, data from
Ciccarelli et al. [187] and Kuznetsov et al. [88,182] were
used in the analysis.
A simple model was proposed by Veser et al. [181], which
describes the evolution of the flame shape in a channel
containing obstacles with relatively high BR. The model
assumes that the flame has the shape of a deformed cone,
which stretches until the moment when the speed of the
flame tip reaches the sound speed with respect to the
combustion products. The position of the flame tip at this
moment gives an estimate for the run-up distance. Then the
flame cone cannot stretch any further and moves down the
tube at a quasi-steady velocity. An illustration of the flame
shape in a tube with orifice plates is shown in Fig. 44 that
can be compared with photographs taken of the flame
shown in Figs. 30 and 31.
The dimensionless flame acceleration distance was
determined in the model, taking into account mixture
properties, such as the laminar burning velocity, SL, the
ratio of densities between products and reactants, s, and
the sound speed in the combustion products, ap. It was
assumed that for relatively high BR, the turbulent burning
Turbulent flame brush
ST
Ω U
R
X
Fig. 44. Schematic for estimation of flame surface O in tube with orifice
plates.
velocity reaches its maximum saturation value of the order
of STE10SL at an initial stage of FA, from that point
on flame acceleration is mainly due to the increase of
the surface of the turbulent flame brush as it is shown in
Figs. 30, 31 and 44. The dimensionless flame acceleration
distance was expressed as a function of BR:
X S 10S L ðs  1Þ 1  BR
a , (4.4)
R ap 1 þ b  BR
where R is tube radius, and a and b are unknown
parameters of the model. The scaling of the run-up dis-
tance with mixture properties as in Eq. (4.4) was evaluated
using a wide range of experimental data [88,182,187] and
results of 3D numerical simulations in the range of BR
from 0.3 to 0.75. It was shown that the grouping on the
left-hand side of Eq. (4.4) collapses the data to within
725%. The effect of BR given by the right-hand side of
Eq. (4.4) was found to correlate well with the data for a ¼ 2
and b ¼ 1.5, for the BR range of 0.3–0.75.
Recently, Card et al. [189] investigated flame acceleration
and DDT in fuel–air mixtures at initial temperatures up to
573 K and pressures up to 2 atmospheres. The fuels
investigated include hydrogen, ethylene, acetylene and
JP-10 aviation fuel. The experiments were performed in a
3.1-m long, 10-cm inner-diameter heated detonation
tube equipped with equally spaced orifice plates. It was
found that hydrocarbon fuels successfully correlated with
Eq. (4.4). Hydrogen mixtures at high temperatures of 473 K
and especially 573 K did not show satisfactory correlation,
although the high temperature hydrogen data of Ciccarelli
et al. [187] were correlated successfully in [181].
Ciccarelli et al. [190] studied the influence of obstacle size
and spacing on the initial phase of flame acceleration in an
obstacle-laden tube. It was found that for various
propane–air mixtures the correlation given in Eq. (4.4)
collapsed the run-up distance data to within 750%. It was
also found that for a BR of 0.6 and 0.75 the run-up
distance decreases slightly with obstacle spacing, S, while
for BR ¼ 0.43 the opposite trend is observed. For the
larger blockage ratio orifice plates it is proposed that flame
folding is the key mechanism for the early stage of the
flame acceleration process. It was also shown that the
optimum flame acceleration corresponds to the condition
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 537

where the predicted length of the unburned gas recircula- 90 H2 BR<0.1

C2H4 BR<0.1
tion zone downstream of the orifice plate is roughly equal 80
D=1m C3H8 BR<0.1
to the orifice plate spacing. It is argued that if the 70 CH4 BR<0.1
recirculation zone is short compared to the plate spacing, 60 H2 BR>0.3

a portion of the flame would come into contact with the
tube wall and flame area would be compromised. If the
plate spacing is too small the recirculation zone would
extend completely between the plates compromising the
core flow expansion and contraction which is responsible
for flame folding.
Cases when the obstacle spacing, S, is not equal to the
tube diameter, D, were not analyzed by Veser et al. [181],
however, the same approach to the estimation of the flame
surface with D6¼S would require the term b  D/S instead of
b in the right-hand side of Eq. (4.4). This would result in a
weak increase of XS/D with S/D. In the range of S/D from
0.5 to 1.5, the change of XS/D would be within 720%,
which is a small variation considering the uncertainty range
of the model. In the sense that the effect of S/D is weak,
this extension is in agreement with the data [190].
Sorin et al. [191] studied run-up distances to DDT, XD,
in mixtures of hydrocarbons and hydrogen with air, which
were sensitized by increased oxygen content in oxidizer,
compared to that in air. Tests were made in a 26 mm
diameter tube equipped with a Shchelkin spiral. It was
clearly shown that the measured XD was significantly
different from the run-up distances to supersonic flames,
XS. An attempt was made to correlate XD and XS using
Eq. (4.4), which showed the ratio XDDT/XS to vary from
3.4 to 6.8. The laminar burning velocities necessary for the
evaluation of XS was calculated using the PREMIX code.
There were no details of the status of validation of this
model. Unknown SL for the mixtures used in [191] make it
difficult to make reliable conclusions concerning the
accuracy of correlation (4.4).
In summary, Eq. (4.4) provides a simple scaling relation
for the run-up distances to supersonic flame, which takes
into account the duct geometry, i.e., tube diameter and BR,
and mixture properties i.e., laminar burning velocity,
expansion ratio and isobaric sound speed in the combus-
tion products. The accuracy of the predictions of Eq. (4.4)
is estimated to be within a factor of 2. In cases where the
value of SL is unknown, i.e., at elevated initial tempera-
tures or sensitized mixtures, one should be cautious with
estimates based on Eq. (4.4).
A comparison of the run-up distances predicted using
Eqs. (4.1) and (4.2) (BRp0.1) with those predicted by
Eq. (4.4) (BRX0.3) for stoichiometric mixtures of methane,
propane, ethylene, and hydrogen with air is presented in
Fig. 45. It is seen that the run-up distances in smooth tubes are
significantly higher than the run-up distances in obstructed
tubes. This is qualitatively in accord with the observations that
FA is strongly promoted by the obstructions. In the range
of BR between 0.1 and 0.3, neither of the two models
is applicable. For practical applications, one may ‘‘bridge’’
the range of BR from 0.1 to 0.3 as shown by dashed lines
in Fig. 45.
XS/D model
50 C2H4 BR>0.3
C3H8 BR>0.3
40
CH4 BR>0.3
30
20
10
0
00.1 0.1 1
BR
Fig. 45. Run-up distances over tube diameter as a function of BR for
D ¼ 1 m.
4.4. Onset of detonations
4.4.1. Types of detonation onset phenomena
As soon as the first phase of the DDT phenomena—the
creation of conditions for the onset of detonation—is
accomplished through flame acceleration in a duct, the
actual formation of the detonation wave itself or the onset
of detonation becomes possible. The key feature associated
with the onset of detonation is the formation of localized
explosion somewhere in the mixture [157], which is pre-
conditioned by compression and/or by turbulent mixing of
products and reactants. Although the processes of the
onset of detonation can be observed in a wide variety of
situations, it can be classified into two categories:
1. Detonation initiation resulting from shock reflection or
shock focusing;
2. Onset of detonation caused by instabilities and mixing
processes:
a. instabilities near the flame front;
b. flame interactions with a pressure wave, another
flame or a wall;
c. explosion of a previously quenched pocket of
combustible gas;
d. pressure and temperature fluctuations in the flow and
boundary layer.
The first category essentially involves a direct initiation
process where the shock strength is sufficient to auto-ignite
the gas and promote detonation. For cases of flame
acceleration in ducts where the shock is produced by an
accelerating flame, this process becomes much more
probable when the shock interacts with a corner or a
concave wall that can produce shock focusing. Shock
initiation is an important mechanism in maintaining the
propagation of quasi-detonations in a channel or a tube
filled with obstacles [160,176,192]. It has also been found to
be very efficient in promoting detonation onset for flames
propagating towards an orifice, a corner, or a concave wall
[193–199]. Fig. 46 shows an example of the onset of
detonation triggered by Mach reflection of a shock wave
diffracting around an obstacle.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
538 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
Fig. 46. Shadow photographs showing onset of detonation resulting from
Mach reflection of lead shock of fast deflagration. Reflection at the top
wall occurs when the shock enters from obstructed channel into a wider
volume.
The second category of the detonation onset processes is
considerably more complex because it involves a variety of
instabilities and mixing processes. It can be easily isolated
for DDT in smooth tubes where the onset of detonation
can occur ahead of the turbulent flame brush, near the lead
shock, inside the flame brush [158], in the boundary layer
[155,171], or resulting from the interaction between the
flame front with a reflected shock wave [60]. Fig. 25a shows
an example of the onset of detonation inside the flame
brush. Fig. 47 shows example of the onset of detonation at
the boundary layer.
4.4.2. Underlying mechanism Shock Wave Amplification by
Coherent Energy Release (SWACER)
Although the onset of detonation occurs through a
variety of seemingly unrelated phenomena, there is
increasing evidence that these phenomena may be con-
trolled by a single underlying mechanism. It has been
suggested by Zeldovich et al. [200] in their theoretical study
on spontaneous flames, and by Lee et al. [201] and
Yoshikawa [202] in the experimental study on photoche-
mical initiation of detonation, that induction time gradi-
ents associated with temperature and concentration
nonuniformities can led to detonation initiation. It was
further suggested by Lee and Moen [2], Shepherd and Lee
[3], and by Zeldovich and colleagues [203,204] that the
induction time gradients may be ultimately responsible for
a wide range of detonation initiation observations. The
proposed mechanism is based on the formation of an
induction time gradient that can produce a spatial time
sequence of energy release. As illustrated schematically in
Fig. 48, if a gradient of induction time, ti, with distance, X,
is created the sequential ignition of portions of the mixture
results in formation of spontaneous flame, which propa-
gates through the mixture at a speed of Dsp ¼ (dti/dX)1.
This spontaneous flame can then produce a compression
wave as shown schematically in Fig. 49. In the case of a
coherence between the energy release in spontaneous flame
propagating at speed Dsp and gasdynamic process, i.e.,
characterized by the speed of sound, the compression wave
is gradually amplified into a strong shock wave that can
auto-ignite the mixture and produce DDT. This process,
commonly referred to as the SWACER mechanism, was
used by Lee et al. [201] and Yoshikawa [202] to explain the
photo-initiation of gaseous detonations, where detonation
develops without an action of strong shock from an
external source.
Because temperature and concentration gradients are
formed by a wide variety of processes, the SWACER
mechanism is believed to be an underlying mechanism for a
wide variety of detonation phenomena including:
(1) direct detonation initiation that is due to the tempera-
ture gradient behind the leading shock,
(2) detonation initiation that is due to shock focusing,
(3) DDT in tubes that is caused by the temperature
gradient in the boundary layer or between a fast flame
and the leading shock,
(4) DDT that is due to pre-compression at the end of a
channel by a slow flame,
(5) DDT in rough or obstacle-filled tubes,
(6) jet initiation caused by temperature and concentration
gradients in the flame/vortex structure,
(7) DDT in multi-phase systems resulting from the
temperature relaxation caused by the particles.
Although some cases in the list above (direct initiation,
shock focusing, DDT in obstacle filled tubes) involve
strong shocks, it was observed (see, e.g., [2–4]), that at
nearly critical conditions a secondary explosion occurs
behind the initial decaying shocks. This secondary explo-
sion initiates from the ignition of pre-conditioned gas with
an induction time gradient. The explosion develops into
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 539

Fig. 47. Shadow photographs showing onset of detonation triggered by complicated interactions of pressure waves with the lead part of the flame near the
boundary layer. The origin of the detonation wave in the second frame seems to be located at a distance from the bottom wall (assumed to be in the center
of the spherical wave).

Numerous calculations and analysis have been presented

Dsp = (dτi /dX)-1
in the literature to demonstrate the SWACER or Zeldovich
gradient process. These include the early studies by
Zeldovich et al. [200,203,204], Lee et al. [201], Yoshikawa
[202] and those by Yoshikawa, Thibault and Hassam that
Induction were discussed in the review papers [2,3]. More recent
calculations have been performed by Clark [205], Frolov
τ

time
et al. [206], Dorofeev et al. [207–209], Nikiforakis and
Clarke [210], Gelfand et al. [211], Short and Dold [212],
Sequential
Dold et al. [213], Smijanovski and Klein [214], Khokhlov
ignition
et al. [215,216], Bartenev and Gelfand [217], Blumental
X
et al. [218], He and Clavin [219], Gu et al. [220] and
others. These authors have established a strong theoretical
Fig. 48. Schematic illustration of spontaneous flame concept. foundation for the amplification process in the different
modes of propagation of autoignitive fronts, and have
demonstrated the role of the SWACER or Zeldovich
gradient mechanism for various DDT and direct initiation
Reaction front
problems.
In spite of the number of SWACER calculations that can
be found in the literature, few of these can be directly and
Spontaneous
flame
Shock convincingly linked to a particular experimental result.
wave This is particularly true for problems involving turbulent
t

mixing for which calculations usually assume a sponta-

Reaction length
Compression wave
Sensitized mixture Unperturbed mixture
X
Fig. 49. X–t diagram illustrating propagation of spontaneous flame,
formation of compression and shock wave, and reaction front, which is
initially due to spontaneous flame and transforms then to shock induced
reaction front. Characteristic reaction length increases as the wave
propagates from sensitized region with induction time gradient to
unperturbed, less sensitive, mixture.
coupled shock–flame structure through the SWACER
mechanism, overtakes the lead shock and results in the
onset of detonation.
neous formation of a temperature or concentration
gradient or both. The actual formation of such gradients
involves a variety of turbulent mixing and combustion
mechanisms. These mechanisms introduce additional
instabilities that must be addressed by the calculations in
order to be truly predictive. Such difficulties have recently
been addressed by Khokhlov et al. [216], who investigated
the very difficult problem of DDT caused by shock–flame
interaction. This type of DDT, which has been observed by
Thomas et al. [60], involves a Meshov–Richmeyer in-
stability, where the reflected shock interacts with the flame
front. The severe flame distortion produced by this
instability then produces K–H instabilities, which increase
the flame area and the rate of combustion. The very high-
resolution calculations of Khokhlov et al. [216] are able to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
540 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
resolve these instabilities and capture the DDT process that
occurs inside a temperature gradient. These Navier–Stokes
calculations remain limited in that they do not directly
account for the fine-scale turbulent mixing. Nevertheless,
they represent one of the most successful efforts so far to
isolate the SWACER mechanism for a particular experi-
mental DDT observation. Fig. 50 shows an example of hot
spot ignition near the flame brush simulated numerically in
[216]. Fig. 51 shows a map of induction time and
spontaneous flame speed in this hot spot. This illustration
suggests that the SWACER mechanism was responsible for
the onset of detonations in these simulations. Following
the pioneering study of Khohlov et al. [216], highly
resolved simulations were made for various initial and
Fig. 50. Hot spot ignition near the flame brush simulated numerically in
[216].
Fig. 51. Map of induction time (left) and spontaneous flame speed (right) in a hot spot [216].
boundary conditions. This work is summarized and
reviewed by Oran and Gamezo in [5].
Studies of the SWACER mechanism described above
show that several factors could be important for sponta-
neous formation of a detonation. First, a local distribution
of mixture properties (autoignition delay time) in the
sensitized region should provide coupling of chemical and
gasdynamic processes that results in the formation of an
explosion wave (coupled shock/reaction zone structure)
[200,210,212]. Second, this wave should survive propagat-
ing from the sensitized to the unperturbed, less sensitive,
mixture [207–209,215]. Finally, the explosion wave should
adjust itself to the chemical length scale, i.e., reaction zone
length, of the ambient mixture as shown in Fig. 49. The
latter gives a measure of the minimum size of the sensitized
region that is necessary for detonation formation. Such a
measure of the minimum size could be useful for establish-
ing a necessary criterion for the onset of detonation.
Numerical and analytical studies have been made to
determine the minimum size of the sensitized region that is
necessary for detonation formation. Critical conditions for
detonation formation in locally sensitized mixtures were
studied. The sensitized region was modeled by temperature
distributions, addition of a fast reactive component
[207–209], and mixed products and reactants [215]. The
problem of explosion wave propagation through reactivity
gradients was studied also analytically as a separate
problem by Kryuchkov et al. [221].
The main results from the studies looking into the
minimum size of the sensitized region may be summarized
as follows: a characteristic size of the sensitized region
should exceed a minimum value for the onset of a
detonation; this minimum size depends on the properties
of the mixture surrounding the sensitized region; a
characteristic length scale for this process is of the order
of 10l (l is detonation cell width of the surrounding
mixture). Details of the detonation formation process may
influence the minimum size. A decrease of the volumetric
energy content in the sensitized region (e.g., for tempera-
ture nonuniformities, where the density decreases with
temperature) results in the minimum size increase. In the
opposite case of the detonation onset in a locally
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
pre-compressed region (e.g., for autoignition from shock
reflections), detonation onset is facilitated. In cases of
detonation formation as an expanding wave (e.g., spherical
symmetry), the minimum size was found to be increased
due to curvature effects. A combination of the above
factors is typical for DDT events. It is hardly possible,
thus, to obtain a universal criterion for minimum size of
the sensitized region for the onset of detonations. An
estimate suggested in [208,209] assumed that a detonation
is developed initially as a planar wave, volumetric energy
content is uniform, and typical fuel–air mixtures are
considered. With these assumptions, the minimum macro-
scopic size of sensitized mixture for detonation onset was
estimated to be about 7l. The results of these numerical
studies were obtained using 1D calculations of detonation
formation in nonuniform mixtures. Limitations of 1D
models limit the reliability of their predictions, especially
their quantitative predictions. In view of this, it is
important to mention recent experimental results,
which generally confirm the main conclusions of these
calculations.
A series of experiments was made by Kuznetsov et al.
[222] to study the critical condition for propagation of
explosion waves through reactivity gradients. Propagation
of a detonation wave from a donor mixture through a
gradient region to a less reactive acceptor mixture was
studied. The length of the donor mixture, the width of the
gradient region Dx, and the reactivity of acceptor mixture
were varied in the tests. It was shown, that a critical
sensitivity gradient (Dl/Dx)* (Dl is the difference in cell
sizes between acceptor and donor mixtures) may be
defined, which determines the possibility of detonation
decay in the gradient region. Detonations decayed in the
gradient region, in the cases of (Dl/Dx) 4 (Dl/Dx)*. It was
found that the critical value of (Dl/Dx)* depends
significantly on the difference in energy densities of donor
and acceptor mixtures. The more energetic was the donor
mixture compared the acceptor one, the sharper (greater
(Dl/Dx)*) was the critical gradient. Extrapolation of the
experimental results to the uniform energy density resulted
in critical values of (Dx/Dl)*E10. This data, thus, appears
to be in qualitative accord with the results of numerical
calculations described earlier in this section. The critical
values of the gradient determined experimentally for
hydrogen–air mixtures also appeared to be in a reasonable
quantitative agreement with the calculations.
Another aspect of the numerical and analytical predic-
tions for the minimum size of a gradient region for
detonation initiation concerns the effect of symmetry
(initiation of spherical detonations). Results of turbulent
jet initiation experiments [223–229] have shown a signifi-
cant difference in critical initiation conditions between
cases of detonation onset directly in the jet of combustion
products and initiation influenced by confining structures.
This difference was especially addressed in tests [227,228].
These studies have shown that the minimum requirement
for initiation of spherical detonations by turbulent jet, in
541
the absence of confining structure effects, may be expressed
as Djet424l, where Djet is the orifice size of the initiating
jet. This is about 3 times as much as what should be
expected with presence of strong confining structures
(about 10l), where development of initially planar detona-
tions is possible.
This data supports the results of the analyses of the main
features of spontaneous onset of detonations in a sensitized
mixture. They show once more that some minimum size of
the sensitized, or gradient, region is required for detonation
onset; and that 10l is the order of magnitude for the
minimum size; and that this size can vary from several
l to several tenths of l depending on particular conditions.
In such a situation, experimental data and their correla-
tions, which are described in the following section, becomes
important in order to derive criteria for the onset of
detonations.
Available criteria for onset of detonations are based on
comparing characteristic geometrical sizes with the chemi-
cal length scale of the mixture l. The definition of
characteristic geometrical sizes of an enclosure is necessary
to formulate necessary criteria for the onset of detonations.
This size should be large enough compared to l to allow
the onset of detonations. In the following sections, these
criteria will be considered separately for smooth and
obstructed channels.
4.4.3. Criteria for onset of detonations in smooth tubes
Once the minimum flame speed, which is of the order of
the sound speed in the combustion products, is established
in a smooth tube, the onset of detonation becomes
possible, if the tube diameter exceeds a certain minimum
value. It was Kogarko and Zeldovich [230] who proposed
that the onset of the single spin would represent an
approximate criteria for the onset of detonation. Studies of
Peraldi et al. [160] and Guirao et al. [231], however, showed
that the minimum tube diameter, D, for the onset of
detonation should be greater than the detonation cell width
of the mixture: D4l. More recently, much attention was
given to the problem of whether the hydraulic diameter pD
or the actual diameter D, should be used to relate
confinement dimensions to the detonation cell structure.
The limiting tube diameter for detonation propagation is
defined as Dlim ¼ l/p, with the single-head spin detonation
mode as the limiting propagation regime. Peraldi et al.
[160] and Guirao et al. [231] argued that the minimum size
for the onset of detonation as a result of DDT is larger and
is given by D4l. The results of experimental study of
Lindstedt and Michels [170], in agreement with Kogarko
and Zeldovich, showed that D4l/p should be used as a
criterion for the onset of detonation in smooth tubes.
The difference between the results [160,231] and [170]
may be explained by the fact that relatively insensitive
mixtures in a long tube (200 tube diameters) were used by
Lindstedt and Michels [170]. In this situation, DDT was
observed at the end of the tube in part of the mixture that
was more compressed and heated during the process of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
542 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
flame acceleration than in cases of DDT in beginning or in
the middle of the tube. Thus the detonation cell size of the
mixture, where DDT was observed, might be significantly
smaller than the cell size of original mixture. If the onset of
detonation is observed at the initial part of the tube as it is
more typical in sensitive mixtures, the effect of pre-
compression is less significant, and the cell size of the
mixture at the time of the onset of detonation is close to the
original cell size. Although this explanation may remove
the contradiction in the results described here, for practical
purposes, the more conservative criterion D4l/p should
be used.
Critical conditions for the onset of detonations in a very
sensitive mixture such as stoichiometric hydrogen–oxygen
and relatively large tubes were considered by Kuznetsov
et al. [165,171]. In these cases an important problem to
be solved is the determination of where the onset of
detonation occurs, rather than can it be expected or
not. Part of the problem is related to the minimum
run-up distance to supersonic flames as described in
Section 4.2.2. As soon as fast deflagration is developed,
the onset of detonation is possible. However, it is not
always the case that the onset of detonation is observed
immediately after the flame reached the supersonic speed.
There are cases when additional flame propagation
distance is required for the onset of detonation to occur,
even in a sensitive mixture such as stoichiometric hydro-
gen–oxygen [165,171].
Kuznetsov et al. [165], suggested that the flow ahead of
the flame results in formation of the turbulent boundary
layer. This boundary layer not only plays an important role
in the flame acceleration, as described in Section 4.2.2, but
also controls the scale of turbulent motions in the flow. The
maximum scale of the turbulent pulsations given by the
boundary layer thickness at flame positions along the tube
was estimated using a simple model with an accuracy of
about a factor of 2. This scale controls the characteristic
nonuniformity size, or the size of pre-conditioned regions
of mixture that can trigger the onset of detonation. The
latter was shown in Section 4.4.2 to be 4l by an order of
magnitude for detonation onset to be possible.
It was found [165], that in very sensitive mixtures (l5D)
the onset of detonation was observed as soon as the scale of
the turbulent pulsations increased during flame accelera-
tion up to about 15 times the local detonation cell size, or
about 10 times the cell size of the initial mixture. This
observation was shown to be valid over a wide
range of the detonation cell widths from 0.1 to 10 mm
within the limits of accuracy of the cell size data. Although
these results give a reasonable criterion for the onset of
detonation in very sensitive mixtures and smooth tubes, in
many tests presented in [165] the difference between the
run-up distance to supersonic flame and to detonation was
not clearly distinguished. For this reason additional
experimental data is required to evaluate the range of
applicability of the detonation onset criteria proposed
in [165].
As a conservative approach for practical applications,
the requirement of the minimum flame speed (or run-up
distance to supersonic flames as described in Section 4.2.2)
and the minimum scale requirement D4l/p may be used
as a set of two necessary conditions for DDT in smooth
tubes.
4.4.4. Criteria for onset of detonations in channels with
obstacles
Minimum tube diameter criterion (d4l). The results of
the detailed study of DDT in tubes with orifice plates by
Peraldi et al. [160] and Guirao et al. [231], suggested that
the size of unobstructed passage d, has to be 4l to observe
the onset of detonation. Follow-on studies of DDT in tubes
and channels with obstacles [86,176,177,88,232] have
shown that the critical value of d/l appeared to depend
on the obstacle configuration. The critical ratio d/l
increases with decrease of obstacle spacing (from 4.28d to
1.07d [176,177]) and with increase of BR (from 0.1 to 0.75
[88]). DDT is easier achieved for smaller BR and for larger
distances between obstacles. Variations of the critical d/l
can be quite large, ranging from 0.8 to 5.1 for BR from 0.3
to 0.6. The critical ratio d/l was found to decrease further
to 0.7 for Shchelkin spirals [170]. This data shows that the
transverse size of the channel is not the only defining
parameter for onset of detonation.
Minimum scale requirement (L/l-criterion). A different
approach was also suggested, which requires the minimum
distance L for detonation formation [207–209]. The size L
should give a measure of the possible macroscopic size of
the sensitized mixture in which detonations might originate
and develop. Originally, such a criterion was formulated as
L47l, where L was defined as a characteristic size of a
room filled with combustible mixture, or the size of a
mixture cloud.
Despite a general agreement of the L47l criterion with
experimental data, definitions for the characteristic size L
used in [233,234] were not always unambiguous, especially
for practical applications. An appropriate definition of L
for chains of connected rooms or tubes with obstacles was
derived in [186]. For a channel with repeating obstacles the
characteristic size L is given by
ðH 1 þ S 1 Þ=2
L¼ , (4.5)
1  d=H 1
where H1 and S1 are two largest transverse sizes of the
volume confined between two consecutive obstacles, e.g.,
channel height and distance between obstacles, and d is the
size of unobstructed passage. For tubes with repeated
obstacles this yields:
ðD þ SÞ=2
L¼ , (4.6)
1  d=D
where D is tube diameter, and S is the obstacle spacing.
Eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) may be applied to channels and tubes
with BR40.1.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550 543

Table 2
Experimental data used in L/l-correlation for onset of detonations

Data source Label Blockage ratio, Tube or channel Initial Mixture type Equivalence ratio,
BR size, mm temperature, K f

Chan et al. [235] a1 0.31 280 373 H2/air/H2O

Ciccarelli et al. [187] b1 0.43 273 300 H2/air o1
Ciccarelli et al. [187] b2 0.43 273 500 H2/air o1
Ciccarelli et al. [187] B3 0.43 273 650 H2/air o1
Ciccarelli et al. [187] b4 0.43 273 400 H2/air/H2O o1
Ciccarelli et al. [187] b5 0.43 273 500 H2/air/H2O o1
Ciccarelli et al. [187] b6 0.43 273 650 H2/air/H2O o1
Kuznetsov et al. [88] c1 0.1 80 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] C2 0.3 80 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] c3 0.6 80 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] d1 0.09 174 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] d2 0.3 174 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] d3 0.6 174 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] d4 0.9 174 293 H2/air o1
Sherman et al. [184] f1 0.33 1830 293 H2/air o1
Sherman et al. [184] f3 0.33 150 293 H2/air o1
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g1 0.6 350 293 H2/air o1; 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g2 0.6 350 293 H2/O2/N2 1
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g3 0.3 350 293 H2/air 1
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g6 0.6 350 293 H2/air/CO2 .5
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g7 0.6 350 293 H2/air/CO2 1
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g8 0.6 350 293 H2/air/CO2 2
Kuznetsov et al. [88] g9 0.6 350 293 H2/air/CO2 4
Teodorczyk et al. [176] m1 0.44 16  57  50 293 H2/air o1
Teodorczyk et al. [176] m2 0.44 16  57  100 293 H2/air o1
Lee et al. [86] m3 0.43 50 293 H2, CH-fuels/air o1
Lee et al. [86] m4 0.43 150 293 H2, CH-fuels/air o1
Lee et al. [86] m5 0.43 300 293 H2, CH-fuels/air o1
Teodorczyk et al. [177] m6 0.44 65  52  32 293 H2, CH-fuels/air o1
Teodorczyk et al. [177] m7 0.44 65  52  64 293 H2, CH-fuels/air o1
Teodorczyk et al. [177] m8 0.44 65  52  128 293 H2, CH-fuels/air o1
Dorofeev et al. [185] r1 0.6 2250 293 H2/air o1
Dorofeev et al. [185] r2 0.3 2250 293 H2/air o1
Dorofeev et al. [185] r3 Room 10.5  6  2.3 m3 293 H2/air o1
Dorofeev et al. [186] r4 Room 10.5  6  2.3 m3 375 H2/air/H2O p1
Dorofeev et al. [186] r5 0.3 2250 375 H2/air/H2O p1
Dorofeev et al. [186] r6 0.3 2250 293 H2/air/CO2 o1
Dorofeev et al. [186] r7 Room 10.5  6  2.3 m3 293 H2/air/CO2 o1
Dorofeev et al. [236] ri Room 15  6  2.3 m3 293 H2-injection p1
Sherman et al. [183] S1 0.6 406 383 H2/air 41
Sherman et al. [183] S2 0.3 406 383 H2/air/H2O 41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] t1 0.6 520 293 H2/air o1;41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] T3 0.3 520 293 H2/air o1;41
Kuznetsov et al. [88] t4 0.1 520 293 H2/air o1;41
Dorofeev et al. [186] v1 0.3 46 293 H2/air o1
Dorofeev et al. [186] v2 Room 210  120  50 293 H2/air o1

A considerable database on limiting conditions for DDT
was used in [186] to correlate the characteristic geometrical
size L with the cell size l. A partial summary of the data is
given in Table 2. The results from the experiments listed in
Table 2 are shown graphically in Fig. 52 as GO and NO
GO data with L/l and L as the independent parameters.
Those tests that resulted in DDT are shown as black solid
symbols and a gray solid symbol is used for those tests for
which DDT did not occur.
A good correlation is observed for L/lE7 as the
necessary condition for DDT within the accuracy of the
cell size data over a wide range of scales. The deviation
from the general borderline L/lE7 is within 730%, which
is much smaller than inaccuracy of the cell size data
estimated by a factor of 2. The data presented in Fig. 52
that corresponds to a variety of different geometrical
configurations shows that the L/l47 correlation for
predicting DDT is applicable. This correlation can be
used as necessary criterion for onset of detonations within
the range of mixtures, initial conditions and scales used in
this correlation. It should be mentioned, however, that
possible uncertainties in the determination of L and
especially l should be taken into account in practical
applications.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
544 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550

100 comparison of the critical conditions in mixtures with

No DDT, BR<0.5 regular and irregular structure was made. The critical
No DDT, BR>0.5
& rooms
conditions for the onset of detonations (expressed both in
5
DDT, BR<0.5 terms of hydrogen concentrations and detonation cell
DDT, BR>0.5
& rooms
widths l) were shown to be strongly influenced by the
3
L = 7λ regularity of the detonation cellular structure of the test
2
λ accuracy limits mixtures. The critical values of the cell sizes in Ar- and He-
diluted mixtures have been found to be significantly smaller
than those in air mixtures and oxygen mixtures with N2
L/λ

10 dilution for the same tube and obstacle geometry. This

means that systems with highly regular detonation
5
cellular structures are much less capable of undergoing
DDT compared to irregular ones with the same values of
3
the detonation cell sizes. The difference in the critical
conditions between regular and irregular systems was
2 shown to have the same trend in the case of DDT and in
the problems of self-sustained detonation propagation
[238].
1
100 2 3 5 1000 2 3 5 10000
Geometrical size L, mm
4.5. Evaluation of potential for FA and DDT

Fig. 52. Summary of detonation onset conditions. Resulting explosion The combustion processes that follow weak ignition in a
mode as a function of L/l ratio and geometrical size L. Only cases of fast combustible mixture are very complex as illustrated by the
deflagrations and DDT are shown [186].
description of FA and DDT presented here. A detailed
description of all these processes is extremely difficult at
% CH4 % H2 present because of the complicated interactions of com-
18 90
pressible flow, turbulence, and chemical reactions, which
16 80 should be described at high spatial and temporal resolu-
slow tion. As a result, our knowledge of FA and DDT is
slow
14 70 fast essentially based on experimental data. Analysis of the
fast existing data permits the formulation of a framework of
12 60
ideas and criteria that can be used to evaluate initial and
DDT 50 boundary conditions under which FA and DDT may be
10
possible. It is important to note that only necessary
8 fast 40 DDT conditions for FA and DDT can be suggested at the
present time. Thus, in many situations we can suggest that
6 slow 30 effective flame acceleration and DDT is extremely unlikely,
but it is much more difficult to predict whether these will
4 20
actually occur. The criteria for the evaluation of the
fast
2 10 potential for FA and DDT listed below are based on the
slow
experiments conducted to date and are still the subject of
0 0 ongoing research.
174 mm 520 mm 80 174 350 520
1. FA follows weak ignition of combustible gas in ducts
Tube diameter, mm with or without obstacles. Obstructions provide the
Fig. 53. Composition limits for slow flame, fast flames, and DDT in most effective environment for FA. However, there are
hydrogen–air and methane–air mixtures in different tubes. Vertical scale in cases when FA is weak and supersonic combustion
the plots corresponds to vol% of fuel in air. DDT limits are shown for regimes cannot be developed.
tubes with BR ¼ 0.3. 2. In order for FA to be strong, a sufficiently large
expansion ratio s ¼ ru/rb must exist between the
Applicability of the L47l criterion was evaluated in unburned and burned gas. The critical expansion ratio
more recent studies of DDT in tubes with obstacles depends on the mixture composition and initial tem-
[232,237]. Kuznetsov et al. [237] showed that this correla- perature and pressure as described in Section 4.3.4.
tion is valid for insensitive methane–air mixtures in 3. If the expansion ratio is sufficiently large, the transverse
sufficiently large tubes. size of the duct should be at least two orders of
An interesting aspect of the critical conditions for the magnitude larger than the laminar flame thickness for
onset of detonation was addressed in [232], where a strong FA to be possible. This limitation may be
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
important, especially for rich mixtures of hydrocarbons
due to relatively large flame thickness.
4. If strong FA is possible (expansion ratio and scale
exceed critical values), a sufficiently large run-up
distance is necessary for actual development of super-
sonic combustion regimes as described in Sections 4.2.2
and 4.3.5. The minimum run-up distances depends on
mixture properties (such as the laminar burning velocity,
laminar flame thickness, and isobaric sound speed in
combustion products) initial conditions, and duct size.
5. Supersonic combustion regimes should be developed before
the conditions for the onset of detonation can be reached.
6. If the supersonic combustion regime is developed, then
detonation initiation may only occur if the physical size
of a duct or mixture volume is sufficiently large
compared with a length that characterizes the reactivity
of the mixture. The usual choice of the reactivity length
scale is the detonation cell size l, which is a function of
mixture composition and thermodynamic conditions.
Results of numerous DDT experiments presented in
Section 4.4 have demonstrated that the physical dimen-
sion of the compartment or duct has to be greater than
some multiple of the cell width in order for DDT to be
possible. This leads to the necessary criteria for DDT
a. dXl, where d is the transverse dimension of the
unobstructed passage in a channel with obstacles;
b. LX7l, where L is a more general characteristic size
defined for interconnected rooms or channels with
various configurations of obstacles (see Eq. (4.5));
c. DXl/p, where D is internal diameter of a smooth tube.
As an illustration of the framework of criteria described
above, Fig. 53 shows the combustion regimes that can be
observed in sufficiently long tubes equipped with 0.3 BR
orifice plates filled with methane–air and hydrogen–air
mixtures at initial 300 K and 1 bar. It is seen that within the
flammable range, there is a region of mixture compositions
where only slow flames are possible. Inside of this region,
fast flames can be formed and within the region of fast
flames there is a region where DDT is possible. It is
important to note that the boundaries between combustion
regimes are not simply fixed concentration values, but they
are functions of physical scale as shown in Fig. 53. It is also
important to note that the fast flame and DDT boundaries
depends on the initial thermodynamic state of the mixtures,
e.g., temperature and pressure, that are not taken into
account in Fig. 53. Geometrical details can be also
important. DDT limits for BR ¼ 0.6, e.g., are significantly
narrower than those shown in Fig. 53, e.g., no DDT was
observed in methane–air mixtures in 174 and 520-mm tubes
with BR ¼ 0.6 [237].
5. Concluding remarks
We have presented a review of the state of knowledge on
flame acceleration and DDT in smooth ducts and ducts
equipped with obstacles. The laminar flame, which
545
follows weak ignition in a combustible mixture, is
described as intrinsically unstable combustion phenomen-
on. The instabilities of the flame and its interactions
with confinement and obstructions result in growth of the
flame surface and the burning rate. Eventually the flame
becomes turbulent and proceeds through a sequence of
turbulent combustion regimes with generally increasing
speed relative to a fixed observer. This process, which is
referred to as flame acceleration, under certain initial and
boundary conditions may trigger a local explosion some-
where in the flow, which in turn may result in the onset of
detonation.
There are many spatial and temporal physical scales that
are involved in the processes of flame and detonation
propagation. These scales are given by chemistry, turbu-
lence, and confinement. The interplay of these scales
control major features of the combustion regimes and
thresholds for various transition phenomena, such as onset
of instabilities, flame structure, onset, and structure of
detonations. The wide range of the scales involved makes it
extremely difficult to resolve all the phenomena involved
from first principles. However, it is the comparison of
scales that give us a way to approach a number of practical
problems.
The prediction of flame acceleration and DDT in
a duct is very important for estimating potential
explosion hazards. Considering the present state of knowl-
edge it is very difficult to predict in detail this very
complicated phenomenon. The basic elements of the
processes of flame acceleration and DDT have been
understood for many years. Now we are able to add a
more quantitative framework for evaluation for the
potential of flame acceleration and DDT. At the same
time a range of uncertainties still exists in such an
evaluation.
Critical conditions for strong flame acceleration and
DDT described in Section 4 are formulated as only
necessary criteria. At the present time, it is only possible
to specify the necessary conditions for FA and DDT.
Uncertainties in the determination of the critical condi-
tions, including critical values of mixture expansion ratio,
uncertainties in the detonation cell size data, the laminar
burning velocity, and the laminar flame thickness must be
taken into account in practical applications. There are
issues in respect to changes of thermodynamic state of
unburned mixture during flame acceleration, which can
change the critical conditions, both for flame acceleration
and DDT, and should also be taken into account in
practical applications.
Acknowledgments
Authors are grateful to I. Matsukov, V. Alekseev and
M. Kuznetsov, who took many excellent shadow photos
used in this paper. One of us (SD) is thankful to FM
Global for the support provided for preparing this review.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
546 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
References
[1] Oppenheim AK, Soloukhin RI. Experiments in gasdynamics of
explosions. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 1973;3:31–58.
[2] Lee JHS, Moen IO. The mechanism of transition from deflagration
to detonation in vapour cloud explosion. Prog Energy Combust Sci
1980;6:359–89.
[3] Shepherd JE, Lee JHS. On the transition from deflagration to
detonation. In: Hussaini MY, Kumar A, Voit RG, editors. Major
research topics in combustion. Berlin: Springer; 1991.
[4] Gelfand BE, Frolov SM, Nettleton MA. Gaseous detonations—a
selective review. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1991;17:327–71.
[5] Oran ES, Gamezo VN. Origins of the deflagration-to detonation
transition in gas phase combustion. Combust Flame 2007;
148:4–47.
[6] Mallard E, Le Chatelier H. Recherches Experimentales et Theori-
ques sur la Combustion des Melanges Gaseoux Explosifs. Ann
Mines 1883;8(4):274–568.
[7] Bradley D, Mitcheson A. The venting of gaseous explosions in
spherical vessels. Combust Flame 1978;32:221–55.
[8] Henrie JO, Postma AK. Analysis of the Three Mile Island (TM-2)
hydrogen burn. In: Second international meeting of nuclear reactor
thermal hydraulics, Santa Barbara, CA January 1983.
[9] OECD Nuclear Energy Agency. Flame acceleration and deflagra-
tion to detonation transition in nuclear industry. State of the Art
Report NEA/CSNI/R report 7, 2000.
[10] Roy GD, Frolov SM, Borisov AA, Netzer DW. Pulse detonation
propulsion: challenges, current status, and future perspective. Prog
Energy Combust Sci 2004;30(6):545–672.
[11] Glassman II. Combustion. 3rd ed. New York: Academic Press;
1996.
[12] Chapman DL. On the rate of explosions in gases. Phil Mag 47 Ser.
5, No. 284,1899. p. 90–104.
[13] Jouguet E. On the propagation of chemical reactions in gases. J Pure
Appl Math 1947;1(Series 6):347.
[14] Taylor GI. The dynamics of the combustion products behind plane
and spherical detonation fronts in explosives. Proc Roy Soc Lond A
1950;200:235–47.
[15] Oppenheim AK. Gasdynamic analysis of the development of
gaseous detonation and its hydraulic analogy. Proc Combust Inst
1953;4:471–80.
[16] Taylor GI, Tankin RS. In: Emmons HW, editor. Fundamentals
of gasdynamics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1958.
p. 622–86.
[17] Adams GK, Pack DC. Some observations on the problem of
transition between deflagration and detonation. Proc Combust Inst
1959;7:108–819.
[18] Troshin YaK. The generalized Hugoniot adiabatic curve. Proc
Combust Inst 1959;7:789–98.
[19] Meyer JW, Urtiew PA, Oppemheim AK. On the inadequacy of
gasdynamics processes for triggering the transition to detonation.
Combust Flame 1970;14:13–20.
[20] Zeldovich YaB. Chain reactions in flames—approximate theory of
flame velocity. Kinet Katal 1961;2:305.
[21] Istratov AG, Librovitch VB. On theory of flame speed in systems
with chain reactions. Zh Prikl Mat Teckhn Fiz v 1962;8(1):68–75.
[22] Frank-Kamenetskii DA. Diffusion and heat transfer in chemical
kinetics. New York: Plenum Press; 1969. p. 445.
[23] Zeldovich YaB, Barenblatt GI, Librovich VB, Makhviladze GM.
Mathematical theory of combustion and explosion. Moscow:
Nauka; 1980.
[24] Zeldovich YaB, Frank-Kamenetskii DA. A theory of thermal
propagation of flames. Acta Phys—Chem URSS IX 1938;2:348.
[25] Bush B, Fendell FE. Asymptotic analysis of laminar flame
propagation for general lewis numbers. Combust Sci Technol
1970;1:421.
[26] Landau LD. Theory of slow combustion. Zh Exp Teor Fiz
1944;14:240.
[27] Darrieus G. Unpublished works presented at La Technique
Moderne (1938) and at Congres de Mechanique Appliquee Paris,
1945.
[28] Markstein GH. Nonsteady flame propagation. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon Press; 1964.
[29] Zeldovich YaB. An effect which stabilizes the curved front of a
laminar flame. J Appl Mech Tech Phys 1966;7:68.
[30] Gostintsev YuA, Istratov AG, Shulenin YuV. Self-similar propaga-
tion of a free turbulent flame in mixed gas mixtures. Combust Expl
Shock Waves 1988;24:563.
[31] Barenblat GI, Zeldovich YaB, Istratov AG. Diffusive-thermal
stability of a laminar flame. Prikl Mekh Fiz 1962;2:21.
[32] Sivashinsky GI. Diffusional-thermal theory of cellular flames.
Combust Sci Technol 1977;15:137.
[33] Joulin G, Clavin P. Linear stability analysis of nonadiabatic
flames—diffusional-thermal model. Combust Flame 1979;35:139.
[34] Matsukov I, Kuznetsov M, Alekseev V, Dorofeev S. Photographic
study of the characteristic regimes of turbulent flame propagation,
local and global quenching in obstructed areas. Report No. 315/
20088504/INR, prepared for FZK-INR, 1998.
[35] Matsukov I, Kuznetsov M, Alekseev V, Dorofeev S. Photographic
study of unstable turbulent flames in obstructed channel. In:
Proceedings of the 17th international colloquium on the dynamics
of explosions and reactive systems, July 25–30, 1999, Heidelberg,
Germany, ISBN 3-932217-01-2, Universitat Heidelberg, 1999.
[36] Clavin P, Williams FA. Effects of molecular diffusion and thermal
expansion on the structure and dynamics of premixed flames in
turbulent flows of large scale and low intensity. J Fluid Mech
1981;116:252–82.
[37] Peclet P, Clavin P. Influence of hydrodynamics and diffusion upon
the stability of laminar premixed flames. J Fluid Mech 1982;124:
219–37.
[38] Gu XJ, Haq MZ, Lawes M, Woolley R. Laminar burning velocity
and Markstein lengths of methane–air mixtures. Combust Flame
2000;121:41–58.
[39] Karlovitz B, Denission JR, Knapschaffer DH, Wells FE. Studies on
turbulent flames. Proc Combust Inst 1953;4:613–20.
[40] Buckmaster JD. The quenching of two-dimensional premixed
flames. Acta Astronaut 1979;6:741.
[41] Matalon M. On flame stretch. Combust Sci Technol 1983;31:169.
[42] Chung SH, Law CK. An invariant derivation of flame stretch.
Combust Flame 1984;55:123.
[43] Bradley D, Gaskell PH, Gu XJ. Burning velocities. Markstein
lengths, and flame quenching for spherical methane–air flames: a
computational study. Combust Flame 1996;104:176–98.
[44] Clavin P, Joulin G. Premixed flames in large scale and high intensity
turbulent flow. J Phys Lett 1983;44:L-1.
[45] Dorofeev SB, Kuznetsov MS, Alekseev VI, Efimenko AA, Breitung
W. Evaluation of limits for effective flame acceleration in hydrogen
mixtures. J Loss Prevent Process Ind 2001;14(6):583–9.
[46] Guenoche H. The detonation and deflagration of gas mixtures. Rev
Inst Franc Petrole 1949;4:48.
[47] Leyer JC, Manson N. Development of vibratory flame propagation
in short closed tubes and vessels. Proc Combust Inst 1971;13:551–7.
[48] Kogarko SM, Ryzhkov DL. A study of the amplification of
compression waves during combustion. Sov Phys Tech Phys
1961;31:211.
[49] Van Wingerden CJM, Zeeuwen JP. On the role of acoustically
driven flame instabilities in vented gas explosions and elimination.
Combust Flame 1983;51:109–11.
[50] Tamanini F, Chaffee JL. Turbulent vented gas explosions with and
without acoustic waves. Proc Combust Inst 1992;42:1845–51.
[51] Teodorczyk A, Lee JHS. Detonation attenuation by foams and wire
meshes lining the walls. Shock Waves 1995;4(4):225–36.
[52] Oran ES, Gardner JH. Chemical-acoustic interactions in combus-
tion systems. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1985;11:253–76.
[53] Searby G, Rochwerger D. A parametric acoustic instability in
flames. J Fluid Mech 1991;231:529–54.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
[54] Joulin G. On the response of premixed flames to time dependent
stretch and curvature. Combust Sci Technol 1994;97:219.
[55] Jackson TL, Macaraeg MG, Hussaini MY. The role of acoustics in
flame/vortex interactions. J Fluid Mech 1993;254:259–603.
[56] Kansa E, Perlee HE. Constant-volume flame propagation: finite-
sound-speed theory. Report of investigations 8163, United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1976.
[57] Al-Shahrany AS, Bradley D, Lawes M, Liu K, Woolley R. Darrieus-
Landau and thermo-acoustic instabilities in closed vessel explosions.
Combust Sci Technol 2006;178:1771–802.
[58] Markstein GH, Somers LM. Cellular flame structure and vibratory
flame movement in N-butane–methane mixtures. Proc Combust Inst
1953;4:527–35.
[59] Scarincini T, Lee JH, Thomas GO, Brambrey R, Edwards DH. In:
Kuhl AL, et al., editors. Dynamics of heterogeneous combustion
and reacting systems, vol. 152. Washington, DC: AIAA progress in
astronautics and aeronautics; 1993. p. 3–24.
[60] Thomas GO, Sands CJ, Brambrey RJ, Jones SA. Experimental
observations of the onset of turbulent combustion following
shock–flame interaction. In: Proceedings of the 16th international
colloquium on the dynamics of explosions and reactive systems,
Cracow, 1997. p. 2–5.
[61] Peters N. Laminar flamelet concepts in turbulent combustion. Proc
Combust Inst 1986;2:1231–50.
[62] Clavin P. Dynamic behavior of premixed flame fronts in laminar
and turbulent flows. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1985;11:1–59.
[63] Bradley D. How fast can we burn? Proc Combust Inst 1992;25:
247–62.
[64] Libby PA, Williams FA, editors. Turbulent reacting flows. London:
Academic Press; 1994.
[65] Bray KNC. The challenge of turbulent combustion. Proc Combust
Inst 1996;26:1–26.
[66] Abdel-Gayed RG, Al-Khishali KJ, Bradley D. Turbulent burning
velocities and flame straining in explosions. Proc R Soc Lond A
1984;391:393–414.
[67] Abdel-Gayed RG, Bradley D. Criteria for turbulent propagation
limits of premixed flames. Combust Flame 1985;62:61–8.
[68] Bradley D, Lau AKC, Lawes M. Phil Trans Proc R Soc Lond A
1992;338:359–87.
[69] Bray KNC. Studies of turbulent burning velocities. Proc R Soc
Lond A 1990;431:315–35.
[70] Gülder OL. Turbulent premixed combustion modelling using fractal
geometry. Proc Combust Inst 1990;23:83.
[71] Shy SS, Lin WJ, Peng KZ. High intensity turbulent premixed
combustion: general correlations of turbulent burning velocities in a
new cruciform burner. Proc Combust Inst 2000;28:561–8.
[72] Yang SI, Shy SS. Global quenching of premixed CH4/air flames:
effects of turbulent straining, equivalence ratio, and radiative heat
loss. Proc Combust Inst 2002;29:1841–7.
[73] Borghi R. In: Bruno C, Casci C, editors. Recent advances in
aerospace science. NY: Plenum Press; 1985. p. 117.
[74] Williams F. Combustion theory. 2nd ed. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin
Cummings; 1985.
[75] Poinsot T, Veynant D, Candel S. Quenching processes and premixed
turbulent combustion diagrams. J Fluid Mech 1991;228:561–606.
[76] Ardey N. Structure and acceleration of turbulent hydrogen–air-
flames within obstructed confinements, PhD thesis, Technical
University of Munich; 1998.
[77] Jordan M. Ignition and combustion of premixed turbulent jets, PhD
thesis, Technical University of Munich; 1999.
[78] Dorofeev S. Thermal quenching and re-ignition of mixed pockets of
reactants and products in gas explosions. Proc Combust Inst
2007;31:2371–9.
[79] Bradley D, Lawes M, Liu Kexin, Woolley R. The quenching of
premixed turbulent flames of iso-octane, methane and hydrogen at
high pressures. Proc Combust Inst 2007;31:1393–400.
[80] Libby P, Liñan A, Williams F. Strained laminar flames with non-
unity Lewis numbers. Combust Sci Technol 1983;34:257.
547
[81] Ballal DR, Lefebvre AH. The influence of flow parameters on
minimum ignition energy and quenching distance. Proc Combust
Inst 1975;15:1473.
[82] Checkel MD, Thomas A. Turbulent combustion of premixed flames
in closed vessels. Combust Flame 1994;96:351–70.
[83] Chomiak J. Flame development from an ignition kernel in laminar
and turbulent homogeneous mixtures. Proc Combust Inst Pitts-
burgh 1979;17:25.
[84] Phillips H. The save gap revisited. In: Kuhl AL, et al., editors.
Dynamics of explosions, vol. 114. Washington DC: AIAA progress
in astronautics and aeronautics; 1988. p. 77–96.
[85] Larsen O. A study of critical dimensions of holes for trans-
mission of gas explosions and development and testing of a
Schlieren system for studying jets of hot combustion products,
Thesis for the degree of Cand Scient, University of Bergen, Norway,
1998.
[86] Lee JH, Knystautas R, Chan CK. Turbulent flame propagation in
obstacle-filled tubes. Proc Combust Inst 1985;20:1663–72.
[87] Knystautas R, Lee JHS, Peraldi O, Chan CK. Transmission of a
flame from a rough to a smooth wall tube. In: Bowen JR, et al.,
editors. Dynamics of explosions, vol. 106. Washington DC: Progress
in Astronautics and Aeronautics; 1986. p. 37–52.
[88] Kuznetsov M, Alekseev V, Bezmelnitsyn A, Breitung W, Dorofeev
S, Matsukov I, Veser A, Yankin Yu. Effect of obstacle geometry on
behavior of turbulent flames, Report No. FZKA-6328, Forschungs-
zentrum Karlsruhe/Preprint No. IAE-6137/3, RRC ‘‘Kurchatov
Institute,’’ 1999.
[89] Thibault P, Liu YK, Chan CK, Lee JH, Knystautas R, Guirao C, et
al. Transmission of an explosion through an orifice. Proc Combust
Inst 1982;19:599–606.
[90] Reynolds WC. The element potential method for chemical
equilibrium analysis: implementation in the interactive program
STANJAN. 3rd ed. Mechanical Engineering Department, Stanford
University; 1986.
[91] Zeldovich YaB. On the theory of the propagation of detonation in
gaseous systems. J Exp Theor Phys 1940;10(5):543–68.
[92] von Neumann J. Progress report on the theory of detonation waves.
Office of scientific research and development, Report No. 549, 1942.
24p.
[93] Döring W. On the detonation process in a gas. Annal Phys 5e Folge
1943;43:421–36.
[94] Shepherd JE. Chemical kinetics of hydrogen–air–diluent detona-
tions. In: Bowen JR, editor. Dynamics of explosions, vol. 106.
Washington DC: Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics; 1986.
p. 263–93.
[95] Konnov AA. Detailed reaction mechanism for small hydrocarbons
combustion. Release 0.4. /http://homepages.vub.ac.be/akonnov/S.
[96] Erpenbeck JJ. Stability of steady state equilibrium detonations. Phys
Fluids 1962;5:604–14.
[97] Erpenbeck JJ. Stability of steady state equilibrium detonations. Phys
Fluids 1964;7(5):684–96.
[98] Fikett W, Woods WW. Flow calculation for pulsating one-
dimensional detonations. Phys Fluids 1966;9(5):903–16.
[99] White DR. Turbulent structure of gaseous detonations. Phys Fluids
1961;4(4):465–80.
[100] Denisov YN, Troshin YK. On the mechanism of detonative
combustion. Proc Combust Inst 1961;8:62–3.
[101] Mach E, Sommer J. Akademie der Eissenschaften, Wien, Math.-
Naturw-Klasse Sitzungsberichte Teil II; 1877. p. 101–30.
[102] Hornung H. Regular and Mach reflection of shock waves. Ann Rev
Fluid Mech 1986;18:33–58.
[103] Strehlow RA, Fernandes FD. Transverse waves in detonations.
Combust Flame 1965;9:109–19.
[104] Strehlow RA. The nature of transverse waves in detonations.
Astronautica Acta 1969;14:539–48.
[105] Ul’yanitskii VY. Role of flashing and transverse wave collisions in
the evolution of a multifront detonation wave structure in gases.
Fizika Goreniya I Vzryva 1981;17(2):227–32.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
548 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
[106] Manzhalei VI. Fine structure of the leading front of a gas
detonation. Fizika Goreniya I Vzryva 1977;13(3):402–4.
[107] Strehlow RA. Multi-dimensional detonation wave structure. Astro-
nautica Acta 1970;15:345–57.
[108] Campbell C, Woodhead DW. The ignition of gases by an explosion
wave I: carbon monoxide and carbon mixtures. J Chem Soc
1926;301:3010–21.
[109] Manson N. Propagation des detonations et des deflagration dans les
mélanges gazeux. Compt Rend 1946;222:46.
[110] Fay JA. A mechanical theory of spinning detonation. J Chem Phys
1952;20(6):942–50.
[111] Schott GL. Observation of the structure of spinning detonations.
Phys Fluids 1965;8:850–65.
[112] Lee JHS. Dynamic parameters of gaseous detonations. Ann Rev
Fluid Mech 1984;16:311–36.
[113] Strehlow R, Crooker A. The structure of marginal detonation
waves. Acta Astronautica 1974;1:303–15.
[114] Austin JM, Pintgen F, Shepherd JE. Lead shock oscillation and
decoupling in propagating detonations. 43rd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, AIAA-2005-1170, 2005.
[115] Gamezo VN, Desbordes D, Oran ES. Two dimensional reactive flow
dynamics in cellular detonation waves. Shock Waves 1999;9:11–7.
[116] Subbotin VA. Two kinds of transverse wave structures in multifront
detonation. Fizika Goreniya I Vzryva 1975;11(1):96–102.
[117] Pintgen F, Eckett CA, Austin JM, Shepherd JE. Direct observation
of reaction zone structure in propagating detonations. Combust
Flame 2003;133(3):211–29.
[118] Austin JM, Pintgen F, Shepherd JE. Reaction zones in highly
unstable detonations. Proc Combust Inst 2005;30:1849–57.
[119] Lee HI, Stewart DS. Calculation of linear detonation instability:
one-dimensional instability of plane detonation. J Fluid Mech
1990;216:103–32.
[120] Moen IO, Sulmitras A, Thomas CO, Bjerketvedt D, Thibault PA.
Influence of cellular regularity on the behaviour of gaseous
detonations. In: Bowen JR, et al., editors. Dynamics of Explosions,
vol. 106. Washington DC: AIAA Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics; p. 220–43.
[121] Radulescu MI, Sharpe GJ, Lee JHS, Kiyanda CB, Higgins AJ,
Hanson RK. The ignition mechanism in irregular structure
detonations. Proc Combust Inst 2005;30:1859–67.
[122] Bull DC, Elsworth JE, Hooper G. Initiation of spherical detonation
in hydrocarbon–air mixtures. Astronautica Acta 1978;5:997–1008.
[123] Lee JHS. Initiation of gaseous detonation. Ann Rev Phys Chem
1977;28:75–104.
[124] Zeldovich I, Kogarko SM, Simonov NI. Experimental investigation
of a spherical gas detonation. Sov Phys Tech Phys 1956;1(8):
1689–713.
[125] Strehlow RA, Engel C. Transverse waves in detonations: II.
Structure and spacing in H2–O2, C2H2–O2, C2H4–O2 and CH4–O2
systems. AIAA J 1969;7(3):492–6.
[126] Bull DC, Elsworth JE, Shuff PJ, Metcalfe E. Detonation cell
structures in fuel/air mixtures. Combust Flame 1982;45:7–22.
[127] Knystautas R, Guirao C, Lee JHS, Sulmistras A. Measurement of
cell size in hydrocarbon–air mixtures and predictions of critical tube
diameter, critical tube initiation energy and detonability limits. In:
Bowen JR, editor. Dynamics of shock waves, explosions, and
detonations, vol. 94. Washington, DC: AIAA Progress in Astro-
nautics and Aeronautics; 1983. p. 23–37.
[128] Ciccarelli G, Ginsberg T, Boccio J, Economos C, Sato K, Kinoshita
M. Detonation cell size measurements and predictions in hydro-
gen–air–steam mixtures at elevated temperature. Combust Flame
1994;99:212–20.
[129] Ciccarelli G, Ginsberg T, Boccio J. The influence of initial
temperature on the detonability characteristics of hydrogen–air–
steam mixtures. Combust Sci Tech 1997;128:181–96.
[130] Auffret Y, Desbordes D, Presles HN. Detonation structure of
C2H4–O2–Ar mixtures at elevated initial temperature. Shock Waves
1998;9:107–11.
[131] Auffret Y, Desbordes D, Presles HN. Detonation structure and
detonability of C2H2–O2 mixtures at elevated initial temperature.
Shock Waves 2001;11:89–96.
[132] Shchelkin KI, Troshin YK. Non-stationary phenomena in the
gaseous detonation front. Combust Flame 1963;7:143–51.
[133] Westbrook CK, Urtiew PA. Use of chemical kinetics to predict
critical parameters of gaseous detonations. Fizika Goreniya I
Vzryva 1983;19(6):65–76.
[134] Knystautas R, Lee JHS, Shepherd J, Teodorczyk A. Flame
acceleration and transition to detonation in benzene–air mixtures.
Combust Flame 1998;11:424–36.
[135] Gavrikov AI, Efimenko AA, Dorofeev SB. A model for detonation
cell size prediction from chemical kinetics. Combust Flame
2000;120(1):19–33.
[136] Zeldovich YB, Kogarko SM, Simonov NN. An experimental
investigation of spherical detonation in gases. Sov Phys Tech Phys
1956;1:1689.
[137] Mitrofanov VV, Soloukhin RI. The diffraction of multifront
detonation waves. Sov Phys Dokl 1964;9:1055.
[138] Knystautas R, Lee JHS, Guirao C. The critical tube diameter for
detonation failure in hydrocarbon–air mixtures. Combust Flame
1982;48:63–83.
[139] Desbordes D, Vachon M. Critical diameter of diffraction for strong
plane detonations. In: Bowen JR, et al., editors. Dynamics of
explosions, vol. 106. Washington, DC: AIAA Progress in Astro-
nautics and Aeronautics; 1986. p. 131–43.
[140] Ciccarelli G. Critical tube measurements at elevated initial mixture
temperatures. Combust Sci Tech 2002;174:173–83.
[141] Soloukhin RI, Ragland KW. Ignition process in expanding
detonations. Combust Flame 1969;13:295–302.
[142] Edwards DH, Thomas GO, Nettleton MA. The diffraction of a planar
detonation wave at an abrupt area change. J Fluid Mech 1979;95:79–96.
[143] Lee JHS. Dynamics of exothermicity. In: Bowen R, editor.
Combustion science and technology book series, vol. 2. New York:
Gordon Breach Publishers; 1996.
[144] Shchelkin KI. Two cases of unstable combustion. Sov Phys JETP
1959;9:415.
[145] Whitham GB. A new approach to the problem of shock dynamics.
Part I. Two dimensional problems. J Fluid Mech 1957;2:145.
[146] Arienti M, Shepherd JE. A numerical study of detonation
diffraction. J Fluid Mech 2005;529:117–46.
[147] Chapman WR, Wheeler RN. The propagation of flame in mixtures
of methane and air. J Chem Soc (London) 1926:2139.
[148] Shchelkin KI. Influence of tube roughness on the formation and
detonation propagation in gas. J Exp Theor Phys 1940;10:823–7.
[149] Shchelkin KI, Sokolik AS. The effect of chemical presentation on
the initiation of the detonation wave. Acta Physicochim URSS
1937;7:589–96.
[150] Shchelkin KI. Occurance of detonation in gases in rough-walled
tubes. Sov J Tech Phys 1947;17(5):613.
[151] Laffitte P, Dumanois P. Influence of pressure on the formation of
the explosive wave. Compt Rend Acad Sci Paris 1926;183:284.
[152] Lafitte P. Influence of temperature on the formation of explosive
waves. Compt Rend Acad Sci Paris 1928;186:951.
[153] Egerton A, Gates SF. Further experiments on explosion of gaseous
mixtures of acetylene, of hydrogen, and of pentane. Proc Roy Soc A
1927;114:152.
[154] Salamandra GD, Bazhenova TV, Naboko IM. Formation of
detonation wave during combustion of gas in combustion tube.
Proc Combust Inst 1959;7:851–5.
[155] Soloukhin RI. Deflagration to detonation transition in gases. Soviet
Prikladn Mech i Techn Phys (Appl Mech Tech Phys) 1961;4:128.
[156] Salamandra GD, Bazhenova TV, Zaicev SG, Soloukhin RI, et al.
Some methods for investigation of fast-running processes. Moscow:
AN SSSR; 1962.
[157] Urtiew PA, Oppenheim AK. Experimental observation of the
transition to detonation in an explosive gas. Proc of Roy Soc A
1966;295:1328.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
[158] Moen IO. The influence of turbulence on flame propagation in
obstacle environments. First international specialist meeting on
fuel–air explosions, Montreal, 1981: University of Waterloo Press
SM study no. 16, 1982. p. 101–13.
[159] Wagner HGg. Some experiments about flame acceleration, First
international specialist meeting on fuel–air explosions, Montreal,
1981: University of Waterloo Press SM study no. 16, 1982.
p. 101–35.
[160] Peraldi O, Knystautas R, Lee JHS. Criteria for transition to
detonation in tubes. Proc Combust Inst 1986;21:1629–37.
[161] Bychkov V, Petchenko A, Akkerman V, Eriksson L-E. Theory and
modeling of accelerating flames in tubes. Phys Rev E 2005;72:046307.
[162] Bychkov V, Akkerman V. Explosion triggering by an accelerating
flame. Phys Rev E 2006;73:066305.
[163] Bychkov V, Akkerman V, Fru G, Petchenko A, Eriksson LE. Flame
acceleration at the early stages of burning in tubes. Combust Flame
2007;150:263–7.
[164] Akkerman V, Bychkov V, Petchenko A, Eriksson L-E. Accelerating
flames in cylindrical tubes with non-slip at the walls. Combust
Flame 2006;145:206.
[165] Kuznetsov M, Alekseev V, Matsukov I, Dorofeev S. DDT in a
smooth tube filled with a hydrogen–oxygen mixture. Shock Waves
2005;14(3):205–15.
[166] Campbell GA, Rutledge PV. Detonation of hydrogen peroxide
vapor. Inst Chem Eng Symp Series No 33. Inst Chem Eng London;
1972. p. 37.
[167] Bollinger LE, Fong MC, Edse R. Experimental measurements and
theoretical analysis of detonation induction distance. Am Rocket
Soc J 1961;31:588.
[168] Bollinger LE, Laughrey JA, Edse R. Experimental detonation
velocities and induction distances in hydrogen–nitrous oxide
mixture. Am Rocket Soc J 1962;32:81.
[169] Salamandra GD, Bazhenova TV, Zaicev SG, Soloukhin RI, et al.
Some methods for investigation of fast-running processes. Moscow:
AN SSSR; 1963.
[170] Lindstedt RP, Michels HJ. Deflagration to detonation transitions
and strong deflagrations in alkane and alkene air mixtures. Combust
Flame 1989;76:169–81.
[171] Kuznetsov M, Matsukov I, Alekseev V, Breitung W, Dorofeev S.
Effect of boundary layer on flame acceleration and DDT. In: CD-
ROM. Proceedings of 20th international colloquium on the
dynamics of explosions and reactive systems, Montreal, Canada,
2005.
[172] Kuznetsov M, Singh RK, Breitung W, Stern G, Grune J, Friedrich
A, Sempert K, Veser A. Evaluation of structural integrity of typical
DN15 tubes under detonation loads. Report Forschungszentrum
Karlsruhe, December, 2003.
[173] Dorofeev SB. Run-up distances to supersonic flames in smooth
tubes. In: CD-ROM. Proceedings of the 21st international
colloquium on the dynamics of explosions and reactive systems,
Poitiers, France, 2007.
[174] Bartknecht W. Explosions. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer;
1981.
[175] Johansen C, Ciccarelli G. Characterization of the flow field ahead of
a flame propagating in an obstructed channel. In: CD-ROM.
Proceedings of the 21st colloquium on the dynamics of explosions
and reactive systems, Poitiers, France, 2007.
[176] Teodorczyk A, Lee JHS, Knystautas R. Photographic study of the
structure and propagation mechanism of quasidetonation in rough
tubes. In: Kuhl AL, et al., editors. Dynamics of explosions, vol. 133.
Washington, DC: AIAA Progress of Astronautics and Aeronautics;
1990. p. 223–40.
[177] Teodorczyk A, Lee JHS, Knystautas R. Propagation mechanism of
quasi-detonations. Proc Combust Inst 1988;22:1723–31.
[178] Chue RS, Clarke JF, Lee JHS. Chapman-Jouget deflagrations. Proc
Roy Soc London 1993;441:607–23.
[179] Gu LS, Knystautas R, Lee JHS. Influence of obstacle spacing on the
propagation of quasi-detonation. In: Kuhl AL, et al., editors.
549
Dynamics of explosions, vol. 104. Washington, DC: AIAA Progress
of Astronautics and Aeronautics; 1988. p. 230–47.
[180] Chao J, Lee JHS. The propagation mechanism of high speed
turbulent deflagrations. Shock Waves 2003;12:277–89.
[181] Veser A, Breitung W, Dorofeev SB. Run-up distances to supersonic
flames in obstacle-laden tubes, IV ISHPMI. J Phys IV France
2002;12(7):333–40.
[182] Kuznetsov M, Alekseev V, Yankin Yu, Dorofeev S. Slow and fast
deflagrations in hydrocarbon–air mixtures. Combust Sci Technol
2002;174(5–6):157–72.
[183] Sherman M, Berman M, Beyer R. Experimental investigation of
pressure and blockage effects on combustion limits in H2–air–steam
mixtures. Report SAND 91-0252, 1993.
[184] Sherman M, Tieszen S, Benedick W. The effect of obstacles and
transverse venting on flame acceleration and transition to detona-
tion for hydrogen–air mixtures at large scale. US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-5275, SAND 85-1264, 1989.
[185] Dorofeev SB, Sidorov VP, Dvoinishnikov AE, Breitung W.
Deflagration to detonation transition in large confined volume of
lean hydrogen–air mixtures. Combust Flame 1996;104:95–110.
[186] Dorofeev SB, Sidorov VP, Kuznetsov MS, Matsukov ID, Alekseev
VI. Effect of scale on the onset of detonations. Shock Waves
2000;10(2):137–49.
[187] Ciccarelli G, Boccio J, Ginsberg T, Finfrock C, Gerlach L, Tagawa
H, Malliakos A. The effect of initial temperature on flame
acceleration and deflagration-to-detonation transition phenomenon.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-6509, BNL-
NUREG-5251, 1998.
[188] Alekseev VI, Kuznetsov MS, Yankin YuG, Dorofeev SB. Experi-
mental study of flame acceleration and DDT under conditions of
transverse venting. J Loss Prevent Process Ind 2001;14(6):591–6.
[189] Card J, Rival D, Ciccarelli G. DDT in fuel–air mixtures at elevated
temperatures and pressures. Shock Waves 2005;14(3):167–73.
[190] Ciccarelli G, Fowler CJ, Bardon M. Effect of obstacle size and
spacing on the initial stage of flame acceleration in a rough tube.
Shock Waves 2005;14(3):161–6.
[191] Sorin R, Zitoun R, Desbordes D. Optimization of the deflagration
to detonation transition: reduction of length and time of transition.
Shock Waves 2006;15(2):137–45.
[192] Chan CK, Greig DR. The structures of fast deflagrations and quasi-
detonations. Proc Combust Inst 1988;22:1733–9.
[193] Ciccarelli G, de Witt B. Detonation initiation by shock reflection
from an orifice plate. Shock Waves 2006;15(3–4):259–65.
[194] Borisov AA, Gelfand BE, Skachkov GI, et al. Selfignition of
gaseous mixtures by focusing of reflected shock waves. Chimiches-
kaya Phisika 1988;7(12):1387.
[195] Borisov A, Gelfand B, Skatchkov G, et al. Ignition of gaseous
combustible mixtures in focused shock waves, current topics in
shock waves. In: Proceedings of the 17th ISSW, AIP, NY, 1990.
p. 696–701.
[196] Chan CK, Lau D, Thibault PA, Penrose JD. Ignition and
detonation initiation by shock focusing. In: 17th International
symposium on shock waves and shock tubes, Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, July 17–21, 1989; AIP Proceedings
208, 1990. p. 161–6.
[197] Gelfand BE, Frolov SM, Medvedev SP, Tsyganov SA. Three cases
of shock wave focusing in a two phase combustible medium, shock
waves, proceedings, Sendai, Japan, 1991, vol. II. Berlin: Springer;
1992. p. 837–42.
[198] Achasov OV, Labuda AA, Penzijakov OG, Pushkin RM. Shock
waves initiation of detonation in semiclosed cavity. Chimicheskaya
Phisika 1993;12(5):714–6.
[199] Rose M, Roth P, Uphoff U. Ignition of reactive gas by focusing
of shock wave. In: Proceedings of the 16th ICDERS, Krakow, 1997.
p. 554–6.
[200] Zeldovich YaB, Librovich VB, Makhviladze GM, Sivashinsky GI.
On the development of detonation in a non-uniformly preheated
gas. Astronautica Acta 1970;15:313–21.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
550 G. Ciccarelli, S. Dorofeev / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34 (2008) 499–550
[201] Lee JHS, Knystautas R, Yoshikawa N. Photochemical initiation
and gaseous detonations. Acta Astronautica 1978;5:971–2.
[202] Yoshikawa N. Coherent shock wave amplification in photo-
chemical initiation of gaseous detonations, PhD thesis, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada, 1980.
[203] Zeldovich YaB, Gelfand BE, Tsyganov SA, Frolov SM, Polenov
AN. Concentration and temperature non-uniformities (CTN) of
Combustible mixtures as a reason of pressure generation, vol. 114.
Washington DC: AIAA Progress of Astronautics and Aeronautics;
1988. p. 99–123.
[204] Zeldovich YaB. Regime classification of an exothermic reaction with
non-uniform initial conditions. Combust Flame 1990;39:211–4.
[205] Clark JF. Fast flames, waves and detonations. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 1989;15:241–71.
[206] Frolov SM, Gelfand BE, Tsygonov SA. Spontaneous combustion
regimes. Sov J Explos Combust Shock Wave 1992;28(5):13–27.
[207] Dorofeev SB, Kochurko AS, Chaivanov BB. Detonation onset
conditions in spatially nonuniform combustible mixtures. Preprint
IAE4871/13, Moscow, Atominform, 1989.
[208] Dorofeev SB, Kochurko AS, Efimenko AA, Chaivanov BB.
Evaluation of hydrogen explosion hazard. Nucl Eng Design
1994;148(2):305–10.
[209] Dorofeev SB, Sidorov VP, Dvoinishnikov AE, Breitung W.
Deflagration to detonation transition in large confined volume of
lean hydrogen–air mixtures. Combust Flame 1996;104:95–110.
[210] Nikiforakis N, Clarke JF. Numerical studies of the evolution of
detonations. Math Comput Model 1996;24:149–64.
[211] Gelfand BE, Medvedev SP, Polenov AN, Khomik SV, Bartenev
AM. Basic selfignition regimes and conditions for their realization in
combustible gas mixtures, combustion. Explos Shock Waves
1997;33(2):127–33.
[212] Short M, Dold JW. Corrections to Zeldovich’s ‘‘Spontaneous
Flame’’ and the onset of detonation via nonuniform preheating. In:
Kuhl AL, et al., editors. Dynamic aspects of explosion phenomena,
vol. 154. Washington, DC: AIAA Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics; 1993. p. 59–75.
[213] Dold JW, Short M, Clark JF, Nikiforakis N. Accumulating
sequence of ignitions from a propagating pulse. Combust Flame
1995;100:465–73.
[214] Smijanovski V, Klein R. Flame front tracking via in-cell reconstruc-
tion. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on
hyperbolic systems, SUNY, Stony Brook, June 1994.
[215] Khokhlov AM, Oran SE, Wheeler JC. A theory of deflagration-to-
detonation transition in unconfined flames. Combust Flame
1997;108:503–17.
[216] Khokhlov AM, Oran ES, Thomas GO. Numerical simulation of
deflagration-to-detonation transition: the role of shock–flame
interactions in turbulent flames. Combust Flame 1999;117:323–39.
[217] Bartenev AM, Gelfand BE. Weak and strong ignition within the
scope of spontaneous flame concept. Proc Combust Inst
1994;25:61–4.
[218] Blumental R, Fieweger K, Komp KH, Adomeit G. Gas dynamic
features of self ignition of nondiluted fuel/air mixtures at high
pressure. Combust Sci Technol 1996;137:113–4.
[219] He L, Clavin P. Numerical and analytical studies of the initiation of
combustion wave by hot pockets. In: Desileri J, Wiley J, editors.
Experimental, modelling and computation in flow, turbulence and
combustion, vol. 1, 1996. p. 137–57.
[220] Gu XJ, Emerson DR, Bradley D. Modes of reaction front
propagation from hot spots. Combust Flame 2003;133:63–74.
[221] Kryuchkov SI, Dorofeev SB, Efimenko AA. Critical conditions for
detonation propagation through mixture with decreasing reaction
rate. Proc Combust Inst 1996;26:2965–72.
[222] Kuznetsov MS, Alekseev VI, Dorofeev SB, et al. Detonation
propagation, decay, and reinitiation in nonuniform gaseous
mixtures. Proc Combust Inst 1998;27:2241–7.
[223] Schildknecht M, Geiger W, Stock M. Flame propagation and
pressure buildup in a free gas–air mixture due to jet ignition. In:
Kuhl AL, et al., editors. Dynamics of shock waves, explosions, and
detonations, vol. 94. Washington, DC: AIAA Progress in Astro-
nautics and Aeronautics; 1985. p. 474–90.
[224] Moen IO, Bjerketvedt D, Jenssen A, Thibault PA. Transition to
detonation in a large fuel–air cloud. Combust Flame 1985;61:
285–91.
[225] Moen IO, Bjerketvedt D, Engenbretsen T, Jenssen A. Transition to
detonation in a flame jet. Combust Flame 1989;75:297–308.
[226] Carnasciali F, Lee JH, Knystautas R, Fineschi F. Turbulent jet
initiation of detonation. Combust Flame 1991;84:170–80.
[227] Bezmelnitsyn AV, Dorofeev SB, Yankin YuG. Direct comparison of
detonation initiation by turbulent jet under confined and unconfined
conditions. In: Proceedings of the 16th international colloquium on
dynamics of explosions and reactive systems. Cracow, Poland, 1997.
p. 222–5.
[228] Bezmelnitsyn AV. Experimental study of conditions for detonation
initiation by a jet of combustion products. PhD dissertation, RRC
‘‘Kurchatov Institute,’’ Moscow, 1998.
[229] Pfahl UJ, Shepherd JE. Jet initiation of deflagration and detonation
in stoichiometric H2–O2–N2 mixtures. GALCIT report FM 99-1.
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 1999.
[230] Kogarko SM, Zeldovich YaB. Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 1948;63:553.
[231] Guirao CM, Knystautas R, Lee JH. A summary of hydrogen–air
detonations for reactor safety. Sandia National Laboratories/
McGill University, Report NUREG/CR–4961, 1989.
[232] Kuznetsov MS, Alekseev VI, Dorofeev SB. Comparison of critical
conditions for DDT in regular and irregular cellular detonation
systems. Shock Waves 2000;10(3):217–23.
[233] Dorofeev SB, Sidorov VP, Breitung W, Kotchourko AS. Large-scale
combustion tests in the RUT facility. In: Proceedings of the 14th
international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technol-
ogy. Lyon, France, vol. 10, 1997. p. 275–83.
[234] Sidorov VP, Dorofeev SB. Influence of initial temperature, dilution,
and scale on DDT conditions in hydrogen–air mixtures. Arhivum
Combustionis 1998;18:87–103.
[235] Chan CK, Dewit WA. Deflagration-to-detonation transition in end
gases. Proc Combust Inst 1996;26:2679–84.
[236] Dorofeev SB, Sidorov VP, Breitung W. Explosions resulted from the
accidental release and ignition of hydrogen at dynamic conditions.
Second international specialist meeting on fuel–air explosions.
Bergen, Norway, 1996. p. 3.36–3.48.
[237] Kuznetsov M, Ciccarelli G, Dorofeev S, Alekseev V, Yankin Y, Kim
TH. DDT in methane–air mixtures. Shock Waves 2002;12:215–20.
[238] Dupre G, Joannon J, Knystautas R, Lee JH. Unstable detonations in
the near-limit regime in tubes. Proc Combust Inst 1991;23:1649–58.