4.7 Article

Ignition delay time and H2O measurements during methanol oxidation behind reflected shock waves

Journal

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
Volume 203, Issue -, Pages 143-156

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.01.036

Keywords

Methanol; Shock tube; Ignition; H2O laser absorption

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-EE0007981]
  2. Louisiana State University (LSU)
  3. National Science Foundation [CBET-1706825]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To improve detailed chemical kinetics models, the oxidation of methanol was investigated behind reflected shock waves in shock tubes. Ignition delay times of methanol-air mixtures, with Ar as diluent, were studied between 940 and 1540 K in a heated shock tube, for pressures up to 14.9 atm and for equivalence ratios of 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0. Water profiles were measured by utilizing a laser absorption technique in the 1350-to-1600-K temperature range, at an average pressure of 1.3 atm and for similar equivalence ratios. The present study shows the ignition delay times of methanol to be in very good agreement with results from the literature (Fieweger et al., 1997), whereas the other conditions have never been investigated before. The ignition delay time data are also in good agreement with modern detailed kinetics mechanisms such as the AramcoMech 3.0 model. The water time-history profiles were modeled using well-known literature mechanisms. Discrepancies were observed between these kinetics mechanisms, and poor predictions were observed for the lower temperatures investigated. Sensitivity and rate-of-production analyses were performed using 3 literature mechanisms (namely, AramcoMech 3.0, Princeton, and JetSurfll). Discrepancies were found among the models when predicting important reactions dominating the oxidation of methanol as well as the rate-of-production of H2O. (C) 2019 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available