4.7 Article

Numerical study of lean combustibility limits extension in a reciprocal flow porous media burner for ethanol/air mixtures

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.05.115

关键词

Combustion; Porous media; Lean combustibility limit; Reciprocal flow burner

资金

  1. INNOVA CORFO [13IDL2-18643]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An analytical study by computational simulation in ANSYS FLUENT of a lean mixture of ethanol/air combustion in a porous media burner was performed. A two dimensional mathematical model for filtration combustion was used to estimate the lean combustibility limits (LCL) in a standard one directional porous,burner (SISO) and a reciprocal flow burner (RFB) in order to determine LCL variation. The combustion phenomenon was simulated with the continuum assumption for two different porous media: 80% high porosity 20 [ppi] alumina foam and 40% low porosity 5.6 [mm] diameter alumina spheres for the two reactor types. In the SISO burner with filtration velocity u(g) = [0.1:0.7] [m/s] minimum equivalence ratio values reach Phi(min) = [0.05; 0.054] and Phi(min) = [0.044; 0.048] for alumina foam and spheres, respectively. The results for the RFB operating in the same ug interval indicate that LCL are substantially extended, allowing to incinerate mixtures as low as Phi(min) = [0.021; 0.027] and Phi(min) = [0.016; 0.022] for alumina foam and spheres as porous media, respectively. The SISO reactor configuration allows incinerating lean ethanol/air mixtures, but with the limitation that the combustion wave eventually reaches the reactor outlet and is extinguished. The RFB reactor scheme provides a permanent and stable combustion, considering that for times longer than 6000 [s] alumina foam as a porous medium borders instability as the heated zone approaches the reactor's end. Finally, comparing LCL in both reactors, in RFB they are reduced by 50 66% relative to SISO. (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