English

A Comparative Study of Ignition Delay of Cracked Kerosene/Air and Kerosene/Air over a Wide Temperature Range

• WANG Yijun ,
• ZHANG Dexiang ,
• WAN Zhongjun ,
• LI Ping ^, ,
• ZHANG Changhua

• Institute of Atomic and Molecular Physics, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, P. R. China

Corresponding author: LI Ping, lpscun@scu.edu.cn

• Received Date: 21 June 2018
  Accepted Date: 27 July 2018
  Revised Date: 26 July 2018
  Available Online: 15 June 2019
• Fund Project:

  The project was supported by the National Key R & D Program of China (2017YFB0202400, 2017YFB0202401)

Abstract: Kerosene is an ideal endothermic hydrocarbon. Its pyrolysis plays a significant role in the thermal protection for high-speed aircraft. Before it reacts, kerosene experiences thermal decomposition in the heat exchanger and produces cracked products. Thus, to use cracked kerosene instead of pure kerosene, knowledge of their ignition properties is needed. In this study, ignition delay times of cracked kerosene/air and kerosene/air were measured in a heated shock tube at temperatures of 657–1333 K, an equivalence ratio of 1.0, and pressures of 1.01 × 10⁵–10.10 × 10⁵ Pa. Ignition delay time was defined as the time interval between the arrival of the reflected shock and the occurrence of the steepest rise of excited-state CH species (CH*) emission at the sidewall measurement location. Pure helium was used as the driver gas for high-temperature measurements in which test times needed to be shorter than 1.5 ms, and tailored mixtures of He/Ar were used when test times could reach up to 15 ms. Arrhenius-type formulas for the relationship between ignition delay time and ignition conditions (temperature and pressure) were obtained by correlating the measured high-temperature data of both fuels. The results reveal that the ignition delay times of both fuels are close, and an increase in the pressure or temperature causes a decrease in the ignition delay time in the high-temperature region (> 1000 K). Both fuels exhibit similar high-temperature ignition delay properties, because they have close pressure exponents (cracked kerosene: τ_ign∝P^-0.85; kerosene:τ_ign∝P^-0.83) and global activation energies (cracked kerosene: E_a = 143.37 kJ·mol^-1; kerosene: E_a = 144.29 kJ·mol^-1). However, in the low-temperature region (< 1000 K), ignition delay characteristics are quite different. For cracked kerosene/air, while the decrease in the temperature still results in an increase in the ignition delay time, the negative temperature coefficient (NTC) of ignition delay does not occur, and the low-temperature ignition data still can be correlated by an Arrhenius-type formula with a much smaller global activation energy compared to that at high temperatures. However, for kerosene/air, this NTC phenomenon was observed, and the Arrhenius-type formula fails to correlate its low-temperature ignition data. At temperatures ranging from 830 to 1000 K, the cracked kerosene ignites faster than the kerosene; at temperatures below 830 K, kerosene ignition delay times become much shorter than those of cracked kerosene. Surrogates for cracked kerosene and kerosene are proposed based on the H/C ratio and average molecular weight in order to simulate ignition delay times for cracked kerosene/air and kerosene/air. The simulation results are in fairly good agreement with current experimental data for the two fuels at high temperatures (> 1000 K). However, in the low-temperature NTC region, the results are in very good agreement with kerosene ignition delay data but disagree with cracked kerosene ignition delay data. The comparison between experimental data and model predictions indicates that refinement of the reaction mechanisms for cracked kerosene and kerosene is needed. These test results are helpful to understand ignition properties of cracked kerosene in developing regenerative cooling technology for high-speed aircraft.

Key words:
• Cracked kerosene
•  /  Kerosene
•  /  Ignition delay time
•  /  Heated shock tube

• 1. [1]

     Huang, H.; Spadaccini, L. J.; Sobel, D. R. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power. 2004, 126, 284. doi: 10.1115/1.1689361

  2. [2]

     Zhong, F. Q.; Fan, X. J.; Yu, G., Li, J. G. Sci China, Ser. E. 2009, 52, 2644. doi: 10.1007/s11431-009-0090-8

  3. [3]

     Fry, R. S. J. Propul. Power 2004, 20, 27. doi: 10.2514/1.9178

  4. [4]

     Liu, S.; Zhang, B. M. Sci. Technol. 2011, 15, 526. doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2010.08.001

  5. [5]

     甯红波, 李泽荣, 李象远.物理化学学报. 2016, 32, 131. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB201512151Ning, H. B.; Li, Z. R.; Li, X. Y. Acta Phys. -Chim. Sin. 2016, 32, 131. doi: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB201512151

  6. [6]

     Puri, P.; Ma, F. H.; Choi, J. -Y.; Yong, V. Combust. Flame 2005, 142, 454. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2005.06.001

  7. [7]

     Xu, S. L.; Liao, Q. Proc. Eng. 2015, 99, 338. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.544

  8. [8]

     Castaldi, M.; Leylegian, J. C.; Chinitz, W.; Modroukas, D. Development of an Effective Endothermic Fuel Platform for Regeneratively-Cooled Hypersonic Vehicles. In the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Sacramento, CA, USA, July 9–12, 2006. doi: 10.2514/6.2006-4403

  9. [9]

     Zhang, C. H.; Li, B.; Rao, F.; Li, P.; Li, X. Y. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2015, 35, 3151. doi: 10.1016/j.proci.2014.05.017

  10. [10]

      Rao, F.; Li, B.; Li, P.; Zhang, C. H.; Li, X. Y. Energy Fuel. 2014, 28, 6707. doi: 10.1021/ef500585m

  11. [11]

      Yong, K. L.; He, J. N.; Zhang, W. F.; Xian, L. Y.; Zhang, C. H.; Li, P.; Li, X. Y. Fuel 2017, 188, 567. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.09.054

  12. [12]

      He, J. N.; Gou, Y. D.; Lu, P. F.; Zhang, C. H.; Li, P.; Li, X. Y. Combust. Flame 2018, 192, 358. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.02.002

  13. [13]

      Zhukov, V. P.; Sechenov, V. A.; Starikovskiy, A. Y. Fuel 2014, 126, 169. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.02.036

  14. [14]

      Davidson, D. F.; Zhu, Y.; Shao, J.; Hanson, R. K. Fuel 2017, 187, 26. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2016.09.047

  15. [15]

      Akih-Kumgeh, B.; Bergthorson, J. M. Combust. Flame 2011, 158, 1037. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.10.021

  16. [16]

      Liang, W. K.; Law, C. K. Combust. Flame 2018, 118, 162. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2017.10.003

  17. [17]

      Ji, W. Q.; Zhao, P.; He, T. J.; He, X.; Farooq, A.; Law, C. K. Combust. Flame 2016, 164, 294. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.11.028

  18. [18]

      Kalyan, K.; Andreas, G.; Friedrich, D. Fuel 2018, 222, 859. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2018.02.064

  19. [19]

      Malewicki, T.; Gudiyella, S.; Brezinsky, K. Combust. Flame 2013, 160, 17. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.09.013

  20. [20]

      Dooley, S.; Won, S. H.; Chaos, M.; Heyne, J.; Ju, Y. G.; Dryer, F. L.; Kumar, K.; Sung, C. -J.; Wang, H. W.; Oehlschlaeger, M. A.; et al. Combust. Flame 2010, 157, 2333. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.07.001

  21. [21]

      Narayanaswamy, K.; Pitsch, H.; Pepiot, P. Combust. Flame 2016, 165, 288. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2015.12.013

  22. [22]

      Egolfopoulos, F. N.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Z. Combust. Flame 1997, 109, 237. doi: 10.1016/S0010-2180(96)00152-6

•