4.7 Article

PAHs and and soot formation in laminar partially premixed co-flow flames fuelled by PRFs at elevated pressures

Journal

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
Volume 206, Issue -, Pages 363-378

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.05.007

Keywords

PAH; Soot; PRF; Backpressure; LIF; LII

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51636003, 51506111]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFCO202700]
  3. Swedish Energy Agency through CECOST China collaboration project
  4. China Scholarship Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and soot formation characteristics in laminar jet flames fuelled by primary reference fuels (PRFs) at elevated pressures. Qualitative PAHs and quantitative soot profiles were acquired by using laser-induced fluorescence and laser-induced incandescence, respectively. The backpressure of flames ranged from 1 bar to 5 bar. Proper flames with the volume fraction of iso-octane in PRFs varying between 0% and 100% and flame equivalent ratio varying between 3.0 and 11.4 were stabilised in a pressurised chamber. The effects of backpressure, equivalent ratio and iso-octane ratio on PAHs and soot formation were evaluated. PAHs and soot formation can be promoted by increasing iso-octane ratio, equivalent ratio and backpressure. The data suggest that PAHs with large molecular size are more sensitive to the increase of backpressure compared with those with small molecular size. Backpressure played a positive role in the growth of PAHs size. The averaged soot volume fraction showed an approximate power-law relation with pressure. The measured averaged soot volume fraction was proportional to p(n). Pressure exponent n was 1.34-2.17, 1.41-2.12 and 1.56-2.20 at equivalent ratios of 6.2, 8.5 and 11.4, respectively. (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