4.7 Article

Combustion kinetic modeling using multispecies time histories in shock-tube oxidation of heptane

期刊

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
卷 158, 期 4, 页码 645-656

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.12.016

关键词

Combustion kinetics; Shock tube; Modeling; Uncertainty analysis

资金

  1. US Air Force Office of Scientific Research AFOSR [FA9550-07-1-0168, FA9550-08-1-0040]
  2. US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences [DE-SC0001198]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, species time histories have been measured during n-heptane oxidation behind reflected shock waves [D.F. Davidson, Z. Hong, G.L. Pilla, A. Farooq, R.D. Cook, R.K. Hanson, Combust. Flame 157 (2010) 1899-1905]. The highly precise nature of these measurements is expected to impose critical constraints on chemical kinetic models of hydrocarbon combustion. In this paper, we apply the Method of Uncertainty Analysis using Polynomial Chaos Expansions (MUM-PCE) [D.A. Sheen, X. You, H. Wang, T. Lovas, Proc. Combust. Inst. 32 (2009) 535-542] to demonstrate how the multispecies measurement may be utilized beyond simple model validation. The results show that while an as-compiled, prior reaction model of n-alkane combustion can be accurate in its prediction of the detailed species profiles, the kinetic parameter uncertainty in the model remains to be too large to obtain a precise prediction of the data. Constraining the prior model against the species time histories within the measurement uncertainties led to notable improvements in the precision of model predictions against the species data as well as the global combustion properties considered. Lastly, we show that while the capability of the multispecies measurement presents a step-change in our precise knowledge of the chemical processes in hydrocarbon combustion, accurate data of global combustion properties are still necessary to predict fuel combustion. (C) 2011 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