4.7 Article

Experimental and modelling study of hydrogen ignition in CO2 bath gas

Journal

FUEL
Volume 334, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126664

Keywords

SupercriticalCO2; Hydrogen; Ignition Delay Time; Shock Tube; Chemical Kinetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, the ignition delay times of hydrogen in a high concentration of CO2 bath gas were measured, and two chemical kinetic mechanisms were compared. The results showed that the UoS sCO2 2.0 mechanism outperformed AramcoMech 2.0 in simulating hydrogen ignition delay times in CO2 bath gas. Further validation should focus on the importance of OH time-histories.
Direct-fired supercritical CO2 power cycles, operating on natural gas or syngas, have been proposed as future energy technologies with 100 % carbon capture at a price competitive with existing fossil fuel technologies. Likewise, blue or green hydrogen may be used for power generation to counter the intermittency of renewable power technologies. In this work, ignition delay times (IDTs) of hydrogen were measured in a high concentration of CO2 bath gas over 1050 - 1300 K and pressures between 20 and 40 bar. Measured datasets were compared with chemical kinetic simulations using AramcoMech 2.0 and the University of Sheffield supercritical CO2 (UoS sCO2 2.0) chemical kinetic mechanisms. The UoS sCO2 2.0 mechanism was recently developed to model IDTs of methane, hydrogen, and syngas in CO2 bath gas. Sensitivity analyses were used to identify important reactions and to illustrate the trends observed among various datasets. The performance of both mechanisms was evalu-ated quantitatively by comparing the average absolute error between the predicted and experimental IDTs, which showed UoS sCO2 2.0 as the superior mechanism for modelling hydrogen IDTs in CO2 bath gas. The importance of OH time-histories is identified as the most appropriate next step in further validation of the kinetic mechanism.

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