4.1 Article

Thermal decomposition reaction and a comprehensive kinetic model of dimethyl ether

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL KINETICS
Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 1-18

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/kin.20285

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The unimolecular decomposition reaction of dimethyl ether (DME) was studied theoretically using RRKM/master equation calculations. The calculated decomposition rate is significantly different from that utilized in prior work (Fischer et al., Int J Chem Kinet 2000, 32, 713-740; Curran et al., Int J Chem Kinet 2000, 32, 741-759). DME pyrolysis experiments were performed at 980 K in a variable-pressure flow reactor at a pressure of 10 atm, a considerably higher pressure than previous validation data. Both unimolecular decomposition and radical abstraction are significant in describing DME pyrolysis, and hierarchical methodology was applied to produce a comprehensive high-temperature model for pyrolysis and oxidation that includes the new decomposition parameters and more recent small molecule/radical kinetic and thermochemical data. The high-temperature model shows improved agreement against the new pyrolysis data and the wide range of high-temperature oxidation data modeled in prior work, as well as new low-pressure burner-stabilized species profiles (Cool et al., Proc Combust Inst 2007, 31, 285-294) and laminar flame data for DME/methane mixtures (Chen et al., Proc Combust Inst 2007, 31, 1215-1222). The high-temperature model was combined with low-temperature oxidation chemistry (adopted from Fischer et al., Int I Chem Kinet 2000, 32, 713-740), with some modifications to several important reactions. The revised construct shows good agreement against high- as well as low-temperature flow reactor and jet-stirred reactor data, shock tube ignition delays, and laminar name species as well as flame speed measurements. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available