4.8 Article

Large eddy simulation of soot formation and oxidation for different ambient temperatures and oxygen levels

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 306, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118094

关键词

Spray A; Soot formation; Soot oxidation; Ambient temperature; Oxygen levels

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. Independent Research Fund Denmark (DFF) [8022-00143B]
  3. MAN Energy Solutions [8022-00143B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the numerical simulation of soot formation and oxidation processes under different ambient conditions. The results showed that ambient temperature and oxygen levels have significant impacts on soot formation, with the formation of soot depending on the precursor substance C2H2 in the fuel-rich region and the oxidation process.
This paper presents the numerical study of soot formation and oxidation processes across different ambient temperatures (900 K, 1000 K, and 1100 K) and oxygen levels (15% and 21% O-2) using large eddy simulation coupled with a two-equation soot model. The predicted ignition delay time, lift-off length and soot distribution show good agreements with the corresponding experimental data. A stronger oxidation of the precursor (C2H2) in the 21% O-2 cases results in a lower C2H2 formed, as compared to the 15% O-2 cases. The increasing ambient temperature leads to the fuel-richer region (roughly equivalence ratio > 1.6) becoming more favorable for C2H2 formation and, consequently, soot formation. This is more apparent in the 15% O-2 cases due to a weaker oxidation of C2H2 via O and OH radicals. As a result, the difference in the soot mass between the 15% and 21% O-2 cases becomes larger as the ambient temperature increases. The effects of ambient temperature and O-2 level on soot sub-processes are investigated. In addition to the flame temperature, OH mass and soot surface area are the dominant parameters in the oxidation processes via OH and O-2 at varying O-2 levels, respectively.

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

4.8
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