4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Shock tube ignition measurements of iso-octane/air and toluene/air at high pressures

期刊

PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMBUSTION INSTITUTE
卷 30, 期 -, 页码 1175-1182

出版社

COMBUSTION INST
DOI: 10.1016/j.proci.2004.08.004

关键词

iso-octane; toluene; shock tube; ignition delay times; high pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ignition delay times were measured in a shock tube for iso-octane/air and toluene/air at conditions similar to those found in homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) engines. Initial reflected shock conditions spanned the following ranges: temperature 855-1269 K, pressure 14-59 atm, and equivalence ratios Phi of 0.5 and 1 in synthetic air. Ignition delay times were measured using sidewall pressure via piezo-electric transducers and confirmed with OH* and CH* emission measurements. The iso-octane ignition delay times are in excellent agreement with existing measurements by Fieweger et al. [Proc. Combust. Inst. 25 (1994) 1579; Combust. Flame 109 (1997) 599] and modeling by Ogink and Golovitchev [SAE Technical Paper Series, 2001, Paper No. 2001-01-3614]. No comparable high-pressure data exist for toluene/air, and modeling by Pitz et al. [U.S. Sections of the Combustion Institute 2nd Joint Spring Meeting, 2001, Paper 253] and Dagaut et al. [Fuel 81 (2002) 173] significantly over-predicts the toluene/air ignition delay times at Phi = 1. The large pressure range of the current measurements permits determination of the pressure dependence of ignition delay time at the temperatures and pressures of direct interest in HCCI engine simulations. Detailed examination of the pressure-time profiles shows evidence of significant pre-ignition energy release in both the iso-octane/air and toluene/air systems. Using current detailed mechanisms, the rate of this energy release is not correctly predicted either in iso-octane/air or toluene/air at temperatures above 850 K. (c) 2004 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

4.6
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