4.7 Article

Numerical study of fluid flows and heat transfer of aviation kerosene with consideration of fuel pyrolysis and surface coking at supercritical pressures

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.12.050

关键词

Regenerative cooling; Hydrocarbon fuel; Pyrolysis; Turbulent heat transfer; Thermophysical property

资金

  1. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [R1100300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11372277]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model has been developed and applied for numerical studies of fluid flows and heat transfer of the aviation kerosene RP-3 with consideration of both fuel pyrolysis and surface coking in a circular cooling tube at a supercritical pressure of 5 MPa. A detailed pyrolytic chemical reaction mechanism, which contains 18 species and 24 elementary reactions, and a modified kinetic model for considering the surface coking reactions are incorporated in the CFD model. The effects of the surface heat flux and inlet flow velocity on the complex physicochemical process of supercritical pressure turbulent heat transfer of RP-3 are examined. Results reveal that the endothermic fuel pyrolysis improves the convective heat transfer by two means: providing extra heat absorption through the endothermic chemical reactions and thus decreasing the bulk fluid temperature, and increasing the flow velocity and consequently increasing the convective heat transfer coefficient. The equivalent surface heat flux from the endothermic chemical reactions can contribute to around 70% of the total surface heat flux at the high fluid temperature region. As the aviation kerosene RP-3 is thermally decomposed, the main surface coking precursors, propene and aromatics, are produced. As a result, carbon deposition accumulates on the interior surface of the cooling tube, particularly at a low inlet flow velocity and/or a high surface heat flux. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. 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