4.7 Article

Experimental and kinetic modeling study of the low- and intermediate-temperature oxidation of dimethyl ether

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 162, 期 4, 页码 1113-1125

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.10.003

关键词

Dimethyl ether; Low-temperature oxidation; Molecular-beam mass spectrometry; Kinetic modeling; Chain branching

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 686]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [U1332208, 51127002]
  3. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  4. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent experiments on low-temperature oxidation of dimethyl ether (DME) at atmospheric pressure reveal much lower fuel conversion than the predictions of all published models. Consistent with previous measurements, the present work on DME oxidation in a laminar flow reactor between 400 and 1160 K at atmospheric pressure also confirmed this behavior. To reduce the gap between model predictions and experimental results, both regarding key oxygenated species and fuel conversion, an extended and updated kinetic model of DME oxidation was developed from the widely used model of Z. Zhao, M. Chaos, A. Kazakov, F.L. Dryer, Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 40 (2008) 1-18. The development of the model focused on the reaction sequences that affect the low-temperature oxidation reactivity. In particular, the reactivity of DME oxidation in the low-temperature regime and at atmospheric pressure can now be predicted. This is possible upon the inclusion of an additional, chemically-activated pathway of CH3OCH2 reaction with O-2, as well as of the new decomposition chemistry of OCH2OCHO radical, investigated theoretically in this work. The present model was examined against species concentrations in DME oxidation from low to intermediate temperatures and shock tube ignition delay times. It shows satisfactory performance in reproducing the respective literature data. (C) 2014 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