4.7 Article

Investigating regularities of gas hydrate ignition on a heated surface: Experiments and modelling

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 78-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2021.01.028

关键词

Gas hydrate; Conductive heating; Ignition; Ignition delay time; Experiment; Modelling

资金

  1. Ministry of Sci-ence and Higher Education of Russia [075-15-2020-806, 13.1902.21.0014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This numerical study investigates interrelated heat transfer processes during conductive heating of methane gas hydrate ignition with chemical reactions and exothermic and endothermic phase transformations. The study establishes the dependencies of the main characteristic - ignition delay time on heating surface temperature, sample heating rate, activation energy, and pre-exponential multiplier of fuel vapor oxidation reaction. The research reveals the limiting values of the main parameters of the energy source for steady implementation of ignition conditions.
Interrelated heat transfer processes are numerically studied under conditions of chemical reactions and exothermic and endothermic phase transformations at methane gas hydrate ignition in the course of conductive heating. The dependences of the main characteristic of the process - the ignition delay time on the heating surface temperature, the sample heating rate, the activation energy of the fuel vapour oxidation reaction and the pre-exponential multiplier of the fuel vapour oxidation reaction are established. The limiting values of the main parameters of the energy source, under which the ignition conditions are implemented steadily, are revealed. It is shown that as the heater surface temperature increases, the ignition delay times decrease non-linearly. Self-preservation of the gas hydrate leads to an increase in the ignition delay time. The effect of self-preservation depends on the initial temperature of the heater. (c) 2021 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