4.7 Article

Skeletal chemical mechanism of high-temperature TEOS oxidation in hydrogen-oxygen environment

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 243-254

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2016.01.025

关键词

TEOS; Chemical mechanism; Mechanism reduction; DRGEP

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF), Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise (CREATE) programme
  2. Huntsman Pigments

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper improves the tetraethoxysilane (TEOS) oxidation mechanism proposed by Nurkowski et al. (2015) [17] by refining the rate parameters of the key reaction channels in the mechanism. A skeletal version of the mechanism is proposed for hydrogen-oxygen environment. The rates of ethylene-loss from (tetra-, tri-, di- and dimethyldi-) ethoxysilane are computed using transition state theory. The energetics of the main pathways are refined by performing detailed ab initio calculations using the CBS-Q technique. An analysis of ethanol formation via silicates is also performed resulting in the addition of 27 new silica species to the model. Thermodynamic properties for these species are calculated via the balanced reactions method. Reasonably good agreement between the improved model and available experimental data is observed. The subsequent elimination of unimportant species and reactions is achieved via a three stage reduction procedure. The first and second stages involve the Direct Relation Graph with Error Propagation (DRGEP) method, whereas the third stage analyses rate of progress of each reaction. The investigated conditions are taken from the experimental studies of TEOS oxidation in oxygen-hydrogen flames. The final skeletal mechanism comprises 70 species and 457 reactions and retains good reproduction of the key model properties across the chosen operating conditions as compared to the full mechanism. (C) 2016 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

4.7
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