4.7 Article

Study of NOx emission characteristics in CH4/air non-premixed flames with exhaust gas recirculation

期刊

ENERGY
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 119-127

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.08.023

关键词

EGR (exhaust gas recirculation); Non-premixed combustion flames; NOx emission

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2012R1A2A2A01013884]
  2. INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2012R1A2A2A01013884] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the characteristics of NOx emissions for CH4/air non-premixed flames using EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) methods were investigated using the AI-EGR (air-induced-EGR) and FI-EGR (fuel-induced-EGR) methods. For the fundamental experiment, coaxial non-premixed flames were verified using the non-premixed mode in a changeable EGR hybrid combustion system. For the numerical simulation, the 2-D commercial FLUENT program was used to verify the distributions of the flame temperature and mole fraction of the NOx emissions. Additionally, the swirling non-premixed flames were tested to investigate a practical combustion system. Based on experimental results, the reduction rates of El(NOx) for the FI-EGR method and the AI-EGR were approximately 29% and 28% for an EGR ratio of 20% and 25%, respectively, which represented the maximum range needed to generate a stable flame. Based on numerical results, the FI-EGR method was determined to be more effective than the AI-EGR method in reducing NOx emission because the high temperature region and the OH distribution region of the FI-EGR method were narrower. According to the results from the swirling flames, the reduction rates of EINOx for the FI-EGR method and the AI-EGR were approximately 49% and 45% for an EGR ratio of 15% and 25%, respectively. (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