Advanced

Structure of premixed ammonia plus air flames at atmospheric pressure: Laser diagnostics and kinetic modeling

Brackmann, Christian LU ; Alekseev, Vladimir LU ; Zhou, Bo LU ; Nordström, Emil LU ; Bengtsson, Per-Erik LU ; Li, Zhongshan LU ; Aldén, Marcus LU and Konnov, Alexander LU (2016) In Combustion and Flame 163. p.370-381
Abstract
The structure of premixed ammonia air flames, burning at atmospheric pressure under strain-stabilized conditions on a porous-plug burner, has been investigated using laser-diagnostic methods. Profiles of OH, NH, and NO were acquired by laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and quantitative concentrations of OH and NO were retrieved using a concept for calibration versus absorption utilizing the LIF-signal itself, whereas NH concentrations were evaluated employing a saturated fluorescence signal. In addition, temperatures and relative oxygen concentrations were measured by rotational Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Spectroscopy (CARS). The new experimental data for flames with equivalence ratios of 0.9, 1.0, and 1.2 were used to validate and rank the... (More)
The structure of premixed ammonia air flames, burning at atmospheric pressure under strain-stabilized conditions on a porous-plug burner, has been investigated using laser-diagnostic methods. Profiles of OH, NH, and NO were acquired by laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and quantitative concentrations of OH and NO were retrieved using a concept for calibration versus absorption utilizing the LIF-signal itself, whereas NH concentrations were evaluated employing a saturated fluorescence signal. In addition, temperatures and relative oxygen concentrations were measured by rotational Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Spectroscopy (CARS). The new experimental data for flames with equivalence ratios of 0.9, 1.0, and 1.2 were used to validate and rank the performance of four contemporary detailed kinetic models. Simulations were carried out using experimental temperature profiles as well as by solving the energy equation. Two models of the same origin, developed by Mendiara and Glarborg (2009) and by Klippenstein et al. (2011), in most cases showed good agreement in terms of radical concentrations, however, the model of Mendiara and Glarborg had better prediction of temperatures and flame front positions. The model by Shmakov et al. (2010) had comparable performance concerning radical species, but significant discrepancies appeared in the prediction of flame front positions. The model of Duynslaegher et al. (2012), in addition to the flame front positions, deviated from experiments or other models in terms of NH and NO concentrations. A sensitivity analysis for the Mendiara-Glarborg mechanism indicated that remaining uncertainties of the rate constants implemented in the recent H/N/O models are difficult to scrutinize unambiguously due to experimental uncertainties. (C) 2015 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Ammonia, Premixed combustion, Laminar flames, Laser Diagnostics
in
Combustion and Flame
volume
163
pages
370 - 381
publisher
Elsevier
external identifiers
  • wos:000367278600029
  • scopus:84949908725
ISSN
0010-2180
DOI
10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.10.012
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
da8ad324-17f3-42dd-b157-5cd4a4d74030 (old id 8761693)
date added to LUP
2016-02-22 12:28:01
date last changed
2017-09-24 03:56:21
@article{da8ad324-17f3-42dd-b157-5cd4a4d74030,
  abstract     = {The structure of premixed ammonia air flames, burning at atmospheric pressure under strain-stabilized conditions on a porous-plug burner, has been investigated using laser-diagnostic methods. Profiles of OH, NH, and NO were acquired by laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and quantitative concentrations of OH and NO were retrieved using a concept for calibration versus absorption utilizing the LIF-signal itself, whereas NH concentrations were evaluated employing a saturated fluorescence signal. In addition, temperatures and relative oxygen concentrations were measured by rotational Coherent Anti-stokes Raman Spectroscopy (CARS). The new experimental data for flames with equivalence ratios of 0.9, 1.0, and 1.2 were used to validate and rank the performance of four contemporary detailed kinetic models. Simulations were carried out using experimental temperature profiles as well as by solving the energy equation. Two models of the same origin, developed by Mendiara and Glarborg (2009) and by Klippenstein et al. (2011), in most cases showed good agreement in terms of radical concentrations, however, the model of Mendiara and Glarborg had better prediction of temperatures and flame front positions. The model by Shmakov et al. (2010) had comparable performance concerning radical species, but significant discrepancies appeared in the prediction of flame front positions. The model of Duynslaegher et al. (2012), in addition to the flame front positions, deviated from experiments or other models in terms of NH and NO concentrations. A sensitivity analysis for the Mendiara-Glarborg mechanism indicated that remaining uncertainties of the rate constants implemented in the recent H/N/O models are difficult to scrutinize unambiguously due to experimental uncertainties. (C) 2015 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  author       = {Brackmann, Christian and Alekseev, Vladimir and Zhou, Bo and Nordström, Emil and Bengtsson, Per-Erik and Li, Zhongshan and Aldén, Marcus and Konnov, Alexander},
  issn         = {0010-2180},
  keyword      = {Ammonia,Premixed combustion,Laminar flames,Laser Diagnostics},
  language     = {eng},
  pages        = {370--381},
  publisher    = {Elsevier},
  series       = {Combustion and Flame},
  title        = {Structure of premixed ammonia plus air flames at atmospheric pressure: Laser diagnostics and kinetic modeling},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.10.012},
  volume       = {163},
  year         = {2016},
}