Study designed a high-pressure combustion device, revealing its safety features and functionality for ultra-high-pressure research.
In response to the current limitation where conventional constant volume combustion apparatuses are generally confined to pressure ratings of 5–20 MPa, insufficient for the demands of ultra-high-pressure combustion fundamental research, this study designs and verifies a high-pressure-resistant constant volume combustion apparatus with a rated working pressure of 250 MPa. The strength design and safety factor calculation for the combustion chamber main body were conducted based on the Lame thick-walled cylinder elastic theory. A finite element numerical simulation method was systematically employed to perform static analysis, transient impact response analysis, and high-cycle fatigue-life assessment of the key components of the apparatus. The results indicate that under a 250 MPa design internal pressure load, the maximum circumferential stress at the inner wall of the combustion chamber main body is 328.0 MPa, with a safety factor greater than 1.5, complying with relevant safety codes for high-pressure vessels. Under transient loading simulating combustion impact, the maximum equivalent stress of all structural components is below the material yield strength, with a maximum elastic deformation of less than 0.06 mm, demonstrating excellent structural stiffness and impact resistance. Fatigue assessment with a design-life target of 1.0 × 106 pressure cycles shows that the cumulative damage values for all components are significantly less than 1.0, meeting the reliability requirements for long-term cyclic service. This apparatus integrates functional modules such as high-pressure precision gas mixing, high-energy reliable ignition, high-speed transient parameter acquisition, and safe product collection, providing a stable, controllable, and safe experimental platform for in-depth research on the combustion mechanisms of gaseous fuels under ultra-high-pressure conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: