4.7 Article

Laminar burning velocities of H2/CO/CH4/CO2/N2 -air mixtures at elevated temperatures

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 44, 期 23, 页码 12188-12199

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.03.103

关键词

Syngas; Laminar burning velocity; Linear correlation; Temperature exponent

资金

  1. Government of India
  2. Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Limited (CTIL), Cummins India Limited

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The laminar burning velocity of nine different syngas compositions has been measured at elevated temperatures (350-650 K) for various equivalence ratios using an externally heated diverging channel method. The measured values are compared with the predictions of two detailed kinetic models (GRI 3.0 and FFCM-1). The predictions of FFCM-1 for various syngas (H-2/CO/CH4/CO2/N-2) mixtures accurately capture the fundamental combustion characteristics, and GRI 3.0 mechanism overpredicts the laminar burning velocity for fuel rich syngas compositions. Temperature exponents mildly decrease with increase in equivalence ratio for mixtures investigated in the present work. Two correlations, one using linear regression, and another, a linear equation model is proposed to predict the laminar burning velocity accurately for various syngas compositional modifications. The developed linear model can be used for direct calculation of laminar burning velocities of different syngas compositions. Similarly, a temperature exponent correlation and its comparison with present measurements and simulations are also presented. The efficacy of the proposed models is evaluated through a detailed comparison with the literature. The model provides an excellent matching for following syngas compositions; 0.05 < X-H2 < 0.50, 0.08 < X-CO < 0.50, 0 < X-CH4 < 0.13, 0 < X-CO2 < 0.50, 0 < X-N2 < 0.65, for an equivalence ratio of phi = 0.7-1.25, and mixture temperature from 300 to 650 K. (C) 2019 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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