4.6 Article

Time scale analysis of the homogeneous flame inhibition by alkali metals

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 38, 期 2, 页码 2371-2378

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2020.06.030

关键词

Homogeneous flame inhibition; Alkali metals; Laminar flames

资金

  1. Total company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A time scale analysis was conducted to identify the main parameters controlling the gas phase chemical interaction of alkali metal inhibitors with the flame chemistry. It was found that a simplified 2-step inhibition cycle can capture the essential features of this interaction, and that the cycle is auto-catalytic, explaining the high efficiency of alkali metals in inhibiting flames even at low concentrations. The time scales associated with this inhibition cycle were linked to the free flame termination time scale via a non-dimensional parameter characterizing the efficiency of an inhibitor at promoting radical scavenging.
A time scale analysis of the homogeneous flame inhibition problem is carried out to identify the main parameters controlling the gas phase chemical interaction of the alkali metal inhibitors with the flame chemistry. First, kinetic sub-models for the interaction of alkali metals with the flame are analyzed to show that a simplified 2-step inhibition cycle can capture the essential features of this interaction. Second, it is shown that this cycle is auto-catalytic, which explains the high efficiency of alkali metals in inhibiting flames even at low concentrations. Third, the time scales associated to this inhibition cycle are linked to the free flame termination time scale via a non-dimensional parameter characterizing the efficiency of an inhibitor at promoting radical scavenging. It is shown that this parameter accounts for the main trends observed in the literature and can also be used to provide estimates for the chemical flame suppression limit. (c) 2020 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