4.7 Article

An ignition delay time and kinetic study of 2-methyltetrahydrofuran at high temperatures

期刊

FUEL
卷 186, 期 -, 页码 758-769

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.08.104

关键词

Ignition delay time; 2-Methyltetrahydrofuran; Kinetic model

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61235003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Kinetic analyses were performed based on the experimental results of ignition delay times of 2-methyltetrahydrofuran (2-MTHF) using shock tube technique at temperatures of 1050-1800 K, equivalence ratios of 0.5-2.0, fuel mole concentrations of 0.25-1.0%, and pressures of 1.2-10 atm. A new kinetic model of 2-MTHF oxidation named Mech III was established according to the analysis of simulation using two published models (Mech I from Ravi Fernandes group and Mech II from Battin-Leclerc group) and the experimental data in this work. Comparison between simulation and experimental data indicated that Mech II shows remarkable under-prediction while Mech I gives a good agreement with ignition delay times under most conditions except for underprediction on fuel-rich mixtures at relative low temperature around 1250 K. Sensitivity analysis indicated that both models underestimated ignition delay times for the reactions of C-0-C-4 molecules, so Mech III was formed by introducing such reactions and can demonstrate improved simulation performance under all conditions. Reaction pathway analysis of Mech III showed that 2-MTHF is mainly consumed through fuel decomposition at high temperatures (around 1550 K), and H-atom abstraction reactions at lower temperatures (around 1250 K), respectively. The comparative experimental and kinetic study between 2-MTHF and 2-methylfuran (MF) indicated that 2-MTHF has higher ignition delay times under the same conditions in this work, while the disparity decreases as the temperature increases, and 2-MTHF produces less soot precursors under high temperature conditions. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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