4.4 Article

Laminar Burning Speeds and Flammability Limits of CH4/O2 Mixtures With Varying N2 Dilution at Sub-Atmospheric Conditions

期刊

COMBUSTION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 195, 期 8, 页码 1910-1929

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00102202.2021.2006191

关键词

Laminar flame velocity; burning speed; methane; flammability; CH4/O-2

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the effects of nitrogen dilution and pressure reduction on the laminar flame speed and flammability limits of methane/oxygen mixtures. The results show that the laminar flame speed increases with decreasing nitrogen content and decreasing pressure. The upper flammability limit is pressure-sensitive while the lower flammability limit remains stationary for different pressure levels.
This paper presents experimentally determined laminar burning speeds (S-L) of premixed methane/oxygen/nitrogen mixtures at subatmospheric conditions obtained by using the constant-pressure spherical flame method. The goal of the conducted experiments was to investigate the effects of nitrogen dilution and pressure reduction on the laminar flame speed and flammability limits of methane/oxygen mixtures. Nitrogen content was varied between 3.1 and 79.3 volume percent. S L at a target pressure of 0.5 bar was investigated. Actual pressure levels ranged between 0.506 and 0.568 bar. Experiments at 1 bar were conducted as a benchmark case of the setup compared to results from literature. The laminar flame speed is found to increase with decreasing nitrogen content and decreasing pressure. The obtained results show good agreement with simulated data using the several chemical reaction mechanisms within 4.8% for near stochiometric mixtures. The upper flammability limit (UFL) is shown to be pressure-sensitive while the lower flammability limit (LFL) remains stationary for both pressure levels compared to reference data at 1 bar. Furthermore, the LFL is shown to stay at 6% vol methane content, independent of nitrogen dilution ratio.

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

4.4
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