4.7 Article

Interaction between thermal cracking and steam reforming reactions of aviation kerosene

期刊

FUEL PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY
卷 167, 期 -, 页码 655-662

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2017.08.013

关键词

Thermal cracking reaction; Catalytic steam reforming reaction; Interaction; Heat transfer; Hydrocarbon

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [9164114]
  2. Tsinghua University [20131089265]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heat transfer and reaction behavior of aviation kerosene were investigated numerically and experimentally at a supercritical pressure. A global thermal cracking and catalytic reforming reaction model were modified and developed based on the experimental data. A set of surrogate components for aviation kerosene was built and its thermodynamic properties were predicted. Interactions among heat transfer, cracking and catalytic steam reforming reactions were simulated in a micro-channel reactor. Comparison between calculation and experiment showed that the numerical model can predict the wall and outlet fuel temperatures with an error not exceeding 5%. The conversion rate of kerosene and water were also in good agreement with experimental data. Heat transfer deterioration phenomenon can be observed when fuel contains water. Fuel with catalytic steam reforming reactions had the advantage of weakening the heat transfer deterioration and obvious promotion in heat sink. Heat transfer process can be divided into four sub-regions: entrance, gasification, transition and interactive reaction regions. The two kinds of reactions occurring in the reaction region significantly improve the heat sink of hydrocarbon fuel. Interactions between cracking and reforming reactions illustrated that the reaction region were considerably moved ahead due to the existing of steam reforming reactions, resulting in lower fuel temperature which led to a lower rate of thermal cracking and conversion. Thermal cracking reaction was inhibited by catalytic steam reforming reactions.

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