4.6 Article

Experimental study and modeling of shock tube ignition delay times for hydrogen-oxygen-argon mixtures at low temperatures

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 32, 期 -, 页码 181-188

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2008.06.014

关键词

Shock tube; Ignition delay time; Hydrogen-Oxygen

资金

  1. Army Research Office
  2. Office of Basic Energy Sources
  3. National Science Foundation [CBET-0649936]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent literature has indicated that experimental shock tube ignition delay times for hydrogen combustion at low-temperature conditions may deviate significantly from those predicted by current detailed kinetic models. The source of this difference is uncertain. In the current study, the effects of shock tube facility-dependent gasdynamics and localized pre-ignition energy release are explored by measuring and simulating hydrogen-oxygen ignition delay times. Shock tube hydrogen-oxygen ignition delay time data were taken behind reflected shock waves at temperatures between 908 to 1118 K and pressures between 3.0 and 3.7 atm for two test mixtures: 4% H-2, 2% O-2, balance Ar, and 15% H-2, 18% O-2, balance Ar. The experimental ignition delay times at temperatures below 980 K are found to be shorter than those predicted by current mechanisms when the normal idealized constant volume (V) and internal energy (C) assumptions are employed. However, if non-ideal effects associated with facility performance and energy release are included in the modeling (using CHEMSHOCK, a new model which couples the experimental pressure trace with the constant V, E assumptions), the predicted ignition times more closely follow the experimental data. Applying the new CHEMSHOCK model to current experimental data allows refinement of the reaction rate for H + O-2 + Ar <-> HO2 + Ar, a key reaction in determining the hydrogen-oxygen ignition delay time in the low-temperature region. (C) 2009 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据