Tin-yu LiJi-io ZouYn ZhngChung-chung CoWei LiWen-ho Yun
a.National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory,University of Science and Technology of China,Hefei 230029,China
b.Key Laboratory for Power Machinery and Engineering of MOE,Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai200240,China
Num erical Investigation on 1,3-Butadiene/Propyne Co-pyrolysis and Insight into Synergistic Eff ect on Arom atic Hydrocarbon Form ation
Tian-yu Lia,Jia-biao Zoub,Yan Zhangb,Chuang-chuang Caoa,Wei Lia,Wen-hao Yuanb?
a.National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory,University of Science and Technology of China,Hefei 230029,China
b.Key Laboratory for Power Machinery and Engineering of MOE,Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai200240,China
A num erical investigation on the co-pyrolysis of 1,3-butadiene and propyne is performed to explore the synergistic effect between fuel com ponents on aromatic hydrocarbon formation. A detailed kinetic model of 1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysisw ith the sub-mechanism of aromatic hydrocarbon formation is developed and validated on previous 1,3-butadiene and propyne pyrolysis experiments.Themodel is able to reproduce both the single com ponent pyrolysis and the co-pyrolysis experiments,as well as the synergistic effect between 1,3-butadiene and propyne on the form ation of a series of arom atic hydrocarbons.Based on the rate of production and sensitivity analyses,key reaction pathways in the fuel decom position and aromatic hydrocarbon formation processes are revealed and insight into the synergistic eff ect on aromatic hydrocarbon formation isalso achieved.The synergistic effect results from the interaction between 1,3-butadiene and propyne.The easily happened chain initiation in the 1,3-butadiene decom position provides an abundant radical pool for propyne to undergo the H-atom abstraction and produce propargyl radicalwhich p layskey roles in the formation of aromatic hydrocarbons.Besides,the 1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysis includes high concentration levels of C3 and C4 precursors simultaneously,which stimulates the formation of key arom atic hydrocarbons such as toluene and naphthalene.
1,3-Butadiene,Propyne,K inetic model,Synergistic eff ect,A rom atic hydrocarbon form ation
Aromatic hydrocarbonsand soot are important combustion pollutants due to their carcinogenicity and mutagenicity[1–5].Consequently their formation m echanism s in combustion have attracted special attentions for a long time[1,6–10].In general,the formation of soot is a com plex processw ith severalmajor steps[1], including the form ation of fi rst benzene ring via the combination of sm all C1?C5 unsaturated m olecules, the formation and grow th of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs),the nascent soot formation,the grow th of soot,and the form ation of mature soot. The form ation of the fi rst benzene ring is recognized as the rate-controlling step in the formation of PAHs and soot[1].A series of experimental studies found that many m ixtures containing two or m ore com ponents(at a given ratio)would generatemore aromatic hydrocarbons and soot in comparison w ith any single com ponent under the same condition,such as them ix-tures of methane/ethylene[11,12],ethylene/propane [13,14],1,3-butadiene/propyne[15],toluene/n-heptane [16],and so on.This phenomenon is defined as the synergistic eff ect between fuel com ponents on the formation processes of aromatic hydrocarbons and soot, which shows not only the interaction of different fuel decom position products on soot form ation,but also the diversity of critical pathways of benzene and PAHs formation.Due to the com p lex componentsof transportation fuels,synergistic effect is one of the crucial factors influencing soot em issions[1].Com pared w ith the experim ental study of synergistic eff ect,the m odels and numerical research are rather lim ited,which leads to the lack of the understanding of the cause of synergistic effect.This lack not only aff ects theunderstanding ofaromatics and soot formation m echanism but also m akes the control of soot em issions diffi cult consequently.
Among them ixturesw ith synergistic eff ect,the 1,3-butadiene/propyne m ixture is a typical one since it presents a combination of odd C-atom s and even C-atom s.The synergistic eff ect between the two fuelswas recently reported by Poddaret al.[15]in the aromatic hydrocarbon form ation process under pyrolytic conditions.They found that the production of aromatic hy-drocarbons in the 1,3-butadiene/propyneco-pyrolysis experiments was much higher than that in any single com ponent pyrolysis experim ents performed by the sam e group[15,17,18].Sim ilarly to other fuelm ixtures w ith synergistic effect,there isno analysiswork on this system to explore the reason leading to the synergistic eff ect between 1,3-butadiene and propyne since there is no kineticmodelof1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysis.
In this work,a kinetic model of 1,3-butadiene/ propyne co-pyrolysis is developed w ith consideration of both the fuel decom position sub-mechanism s and the sub-mechanism ofaromatic hydrocarbon formation. Validation on previous 1,3-butadiene and propyne pyrolysis experiments is performed to ensure the reliability of the m odel.Num erical simulation is carried out for the co-pyrolysis experim ent reported by Poddaret al.[15],while the rate of production(ROP)and sensitivity analyses are performed to reveal the key form ation pathways of aromatic hydrocarbons.Thiswork provides insight into the synergistic effect between fuel com ponents.
The developm ent of the kinetic m odel of 1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysis originates from our recent aromatic hydrocarbon models[10,19–22].The sub-m echanism of 1,3-butadiene developed in thiswork m ainly contains the isomerization,unimolecular decom position,addition,H-atom abstraction reactions. The sub-mechanism of propyne mainly includes the isomerization,addition and H-atom abstraction reactions.The sub-mechanism of aromatic hydrocarbon formation includes two sets of reactions,i.e.formation reactionsofmonocyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsand formation/grow th reactions of PAHs.In the present model,the formation reactions of benzene mainly include the C4+C2 and C3+C3 pathways.The C4+C2 pathway which belongs to the even C-atom m echanism include the addition of acetylene to vinyl acetylene and 1,3-butadienyl radical,and the rate constants experimentally investigated by Chanmugathaset al.[23] and theoretically investigated by M illeret al.[24]are adopted in thismodel,respectively.The C3+C3 pathway which belongs to the odd C-atom mechanism include the self-combination of propargyl radical and the reactions of propargyl radical w ith propyne(pC3H4) and allene(aC3H4).M illeret al.[24]investigated the self-combination of propargyl radical theoretically and their recommended rate constant is used.The reactions of propargyl radical w ith propyne and allene are taken from themodel of D’Annaet al.[25].The formation pathways of toluenemainly include the C3+C4 and C1+C6 pathways[26].As for the form ation pathway of indene,the rate constant of addition of acetylene to benzyl radical is adopted from the theoretical investigation of Vereeckenet al.[27].The rate constant ofaddition of propargyl radical to benzene isestimated in thiswork,and the rate constant of reaction between cyclopentadienyl radical and cyclopentadiene is adopted from the theoretical calculation result of Cavallottiet al.[28].The formation pathway of naphthalene includes the hydrogen-abstraction/carbon-addition (HACA)pathways[29,30]and the reaction between vinylacetyleneand phenyl radicalw ith the rate constant recommended in themodelof Blanquartetal.[31].The reaction of propargyl radicalw ith benzyl radical form s methylindenyl and H-atom and 1-methyleneindan-2-yl radical decomposes to naphthalene and H-atom subsequently.The rate constant of the two reactions are adopted from the theoretical investigation ofM atsugiet al.[32].The presentsub-mechanism of aromatic hydrocarbons has been validated from a lot of experimental data[10,19–22].The finalmodel consistsof 278 species and 1705 reactions.
The thermodynam ic data aremainly taken from the thermodynam ics database[33]or our previousm odels [10,19–22],while the transport data are taken from the Chem kin transport database[34]or our previousmodels [10,19–22].For the shock tube pyrolysis experiments, the simulation is performed w ith the closed homogeneous batch reactor module in the Chem kin-Pro software[35].For the flow reactor pyrolysis experiments, the simulation is performed w ith the p lug flow reactor module in the Chem kin-Pro software[35].In the flow reactor experim ents,Thom aset al.[17]and Poddaret al.[15,18]only provided the information of residence time which is 0.3 s.Therefore in the simulation,the inlet axial velocity is set as 30 cm/s,while the starting and ending axial positionsare set as0 and 9 cm,respectively.As a result,the residence time in the simulation is also 0.3 s which is consistent w ith the experimental condition.
A.M odel validation on single com ponent pyrolysis
The presentmodel is validated on the shock tube pyrolysis data of 1,3-butadiene and propyne reported by Hidakaet al.[36,37],the flow reactor pyrolysis data of 1,3-butadiene by Thomaset al.[17],and the flow reactor pyrolysis data of propyne by Poddaret al.[18]. The 1,3-butadiene shock tube pyrolysis was performed for 6%1,3-butadiene and 94%argon at 50 Torr[37], while the propyne shock tube pyrolysis was performed for 4%propyne and 96%argon at 1.7?2.6 atm[36]. The two fl ow reactor pyrolysis experim ents[17,18]are actually the single com ponent experiments for the 1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysisexperiment reported by the sam e group[15].The experim ental conditions of three flow reactor pyrolysis experiments[15,17,18]are listed in Table Iw ith PY-C4,PY-C3,and CO-PY de-noting the 1,3-butadiene pyrolysis,propyne pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis experim ents.
FIG.1 Simulated results(lines)of(a)1,3-butadiene,(b) acetylene,(c)m ethane,(d)p ropyne,(e)allene,and(f)benzene in the shock tube pyrolysis of 1,3-butadiene com pared w ith the experim ental data(symbols)reported by Hidakaet al.[37].
TABLE I Conditions of three flow reactor pyrolysis experiments[15,17,18].P=1 atm,t=0.3 s.
The simulated results of the shock tube pyrolysis of 1,3-butadiene and propyne are com pared w ith the experimental results[36,37]in FIG.1 and 2,respectively. From the two figures it can beobserved that the present m odel has a generally good performance in capturing the trends of fuel decom position and product form ations for both 1,3-butadiene and propyne.
FIG.3 and 4 show the comparison of the simulated results and experim ental data for the PY-C4 case reported by Thomaset al.[17]and the PY-C3 case reported by Poddaret al.[18],respectively.In order to be consistent w ith the work of Thomaset al.[17]and Poddaret al.[18],the term“%Fed C as C in given products”,i.e.the percentage in the total fed carbon for given products,is adopted here instead of the conventionally used“mole fraction”,and this can elim inate the influence of C-atom numbers in diff erent species.
FIG.2 Simu lated results(lines)of(a)propyne,(b)allene, (c)methane and(d)acetylene in the shock tube pyrolysis of propyne com pared w ith the experim ental data(symbols) reported by Hidakaet al.[36].
FIG.3 Simulated results(lines)of(a)1,3-butadiene,(b) acetylene,(c)methane,(d)benzene,and(e)toluene in the PY-C4 case com pared w ith experim ental data(symbols)reported by Thomaset al.[17].
As shown in FIG.3 and 4,the present model well predicts the decomposition of fuels and the formation of products in both PY-C4 and PY-C3 experiments. For the PY-C4 case,the ROP analysis is perform ed at 1173 K when the products have already been abundantly produced.According to the ROP analysis,51% of 1,3-butadiene decom poses to ethylene and vinyl radical via the H-atom attack reaction(Eq.(1)),while theβ-C-H scission of vinyl radical leads to the formation ofacetylene.10%of 1,3-butadiene decomposes to ethylene and acetylene via the unim olecular decom position reaction(Eq.(2)),which contributes 13%to the production of acetylene.8%of 1,3-butadiene is consumed via the H-atom abstraction reaction bymethyl radical (Eq.(3))to produce 1,3-butadien-2-yl(iC4H5)radical and methane,which dom inates the formation of both products.iC4H5radicalmainly suffers theβ-C-H scission reaction to produce vinylacetylene(Eq.(4)),which is also the dom inant form ation pathway of vinyl acetylene.Besides,9%of 1,3-butadiene can be isomerizedto 1,2-butadiene via Eq.(5).1,2-Butadiene can further decom pose to propargyl radicaland methyl radical through Eq.(6),which is them ost im portant chain initiation reaction in the pyrolysis of 1,3-butadiene.The simulated results of two aromatic products in the PYC4 case,i.e.benzene and toluene,are also presented in FIG.3.The m ain pathway of toluene form ation is the addition reaction between propargyl radical and 1,3-butadiene.The benzene formation is controlled by several pathways,including the isomerization of fulvene,the decom position of toluene,self-combination of propargyl radical,and so on.
FIG.4 Simulated resu lts(lines)of(a)propyne,(b)acetylene,(c)methane,and(d)benzene in the PY-C3 case compared w ith the experim ental data(symbols)reported by Poddaret al.[18].
For the PY-C3 case,the ROP analysis is also performed at 1173K when the productshavealready abundantly produced.The ROP analysis shows that 59% of propyne form s allene via the isomerization reaction (Eq.(7)),which contributes 98%to the production of allene.It is noticed that the unimolecular decomposition of allene producing propargyl radical and H atom is them ain chain initiation reaction in the PY-C3 case, however this reaction is much m ore diffi cult to happen than Eq.(6)in the PY-C4 case.Therefore the propyne pyrolysis is less abundant w ith free radicals com pared to the 1,3-butadiene pyrolysis.The H-atom attack reaction(Eq.(8))consumes 17%of propyne to form methyl radicaland acetylene,which dom inates the formation of acetylene in the PY-C3 case.Only 25%of the generated methyl radical form s ethane via the selfcombination reaction,while 32%and 28%of methyl radical is consum ed via themethyl radical attack reactions on propyne and allene(Eq.(9)and Eq.(10)),respectively.Propargyl radical and methane can be produced from Eq.(9)and Eq.(10),which contribute 98% to the production ofm ethane and 63%to the production of propargyl radical.Different from the PY-C4 case,the reactions of propargyl radical w ith propyne and allene contribute 97%to the formation of benzene in the PY-C3 case.
FIG.5(a)Simulated results(lines)of 1,3-butadiene and propyne in the CO-PY case com pared w ith the experim ental data(symbols)reported by Poddaret al.[15].(b)Simulated results(lines)of m ethane in the CO-PY,PY-C4,and PYC3 cases com pared w ith the experim ental data(symbols) reported by Poddaret al.[15],Thomaset al.[17],and Poddaret al.[18].
B.Analysis of synergistic eff ect in co-pyrolysis
As shown in FIG.5?7,the present model well captures the decomposition of the two fed fuels and the formation of methane,ethylene,acetylene,benzene, and toluene in the CO-PY case.For the two aromatic species benzene and toluene,the synergistic eff ect between 1,3-butadiene and propyne on their formation is investigated.Sim ilar to Poddaret al.[15],theweighted sum for a specific species is calculated from its yield values in the PY-C4 and PY-C3 cases at the same tem-perature:
FIG.6 Simulated results(lines)of(a)ethylene and(b) acetylene in the CO-PY,PY-C4 and PY-C3 cases com pared w ith the experim ental data(symbols)reported by Poddaret al.[15],Thomaset al.[17],and Poddaret al.[18].
where 0.429 and 0.571 are the fractions of propyne and 1,3-butadiene in the total fed carbon in the CO-PY case,respectively,whileYC4andYC3are theyield values from the PY-C3 and PY-C4 cases,respectively.Thus the weighted sum denotes the production of a specific species in the CO-PY case if there is no synergistic eff ect or other interactions between 1,3-butadiene and propyne.Themain reaction network in theCO-PY case is presented in FIG.8.
In the CO-PY case,the ROP analysis is performed at 1173 K when the fuels are consum ed and the productsare produced abundantly.The ROP analysisshows that 29%of 1,3-butadiene decom poses to ethylene and vinyl radical via the H-atom attack reaction(Eq.(1)), while almost all vinyl radical decom poses to acetylene and H atom.19%of 1,3-butadiene in the CO-PY case is consumed to produce iC4H5radical via the H-atom abstraction reaction by methyl radical(Eq.(3)). iC4H5radical further decom poses to vinyl acetylene and H atom via the unim olecular decom position reaction(Eq.(4)),which contributes 83%to the production of vinyl acetylene.12%of 1,3-butadiene form s 1,2-butadiene via the isomerization reaction,and alm ost all 1,2-butadiene decom poses to propargyl radical and methyl radical subsequently,which contributes 33%to the production of propargyl radical.For the consum ption of the other fuelpropyne,the isom erization reaction Eq.(7)only contributes 27%to the consumption of propyne in the CO-PY case,instead of 60%in the PYC3 case.The H-atom attack reaction Eq.(8)becomes the most im portant consumption pathway of propyne w ith a contribution of 38%.The reason that Eq.(8) becomes more important than Eq.(7)in the CO-PY case is that the 1,3-butadiene pyrolysis system ismore abundant in radicals com pared w ith the propyne pyrolysis system,especially for H atom,according to the discussion above.This reveals the interaction between1,3-butadiene and propyne in the fuel decom position processes.
FIG.7 Simulated results(lines)of(a)benzene and(b) toluene in the CO-PY,PY-C4 and PY-C3 cases com pared w ith the experimental data(symbols)reported by Poddaret al.[15],Thom aset al.[17],and Poddaret al.[18].The hollow starsand corresponding line in each figure represents the sim luated and experim ental weighted sum values calculated from Eq.(1).
FIG.8 M ain reaction network in the CO-PY case.The arrow thickness is proportional to the carbon flux of the corresponding reaction pathway.
As the sim p lest arom atic hydrocarbon,benzene has attracted great attention due to its im portant role in soot formation[1].As shown in FIG.7(a),the concentration level of benzene in the CO-PY case ismuch higher than that in the PY-C4 case and com parable to that in the PY-C3 case.As a result,the yield of benzene in the CO-PY case ishigher than theweighted sum of those in the PY-C4 and PY-C3 cases,dem onstrating the synergistic eff ect between 1,3-butadiene and propyneon the formation ofbenzene.Thisphenomenon can be analyzed using the ROP analysis,together w ith the sensitivity analysis of benzene and propargyl radical at 1173 K(FIG.9).The ROP analysis indicates that benzene is dom inantly produced from the addition reaction of propargyl radical to propyne(Eq.(11),57%) andallene(Eq.(12),17%)in the CO-PY case due to the high concentration levels of propyne and allene.
According to the sensitivity analysis in FIG.9,the isomerization reaction of1,3-butadiene to 1,2-butadiene (Eq.(5))has the m aximum positive sensitivity coefficient to the formation of both benzene and propargyl radical in the CO-PY case.This reveals the interaction between 1,3-butadiene and propyne in the form ation of benzene.In the PY-C4 case,both propyne and allene can hard ly be produced[17],thus themain formation pathway of benzene is only the self-combination of propargyl radical,leading to a low concentration levelof benzene.In the PY-C3 case,allene is greatly produced from the isomerization ofpropyneand propargyl radical can be produced from the H-atom abstraction reactions of p ropyne,and allene,leading to a high concentration level of benzene.But it is recognized the production of propargyl radical in the PY-C3 case is not very effective due to the lack of free radicals.In the CO-PY case, the radical pool ismore abundant than the PY-C3 case due to the effective chain initiation reaction sequence (Eq.(5)and Eq.(6)),and propargyl radical can be readily produced from Eq.(6)and the H-atom abstraction reactions of propyne and allene.As a result,the synergistic eff ect on the formation benzene can be observed in the CO-PY case.
FIG.9 Sensitivity analyses of(a)benzene and(b)propargyl radical in the CO-PY case.
As shown in FIG.7(b),the yield of toluene in the CO-PY case is much higher than those in the PY-C4 and PY-C3 cases,aswell as the weighted sum,indicating a great synergistic eff ect between 1,3-butadiene and propyne on the formation of toluene.ROP and sensitivity analyses are also performed to investigate the origin of this synergistic effect.The ROP analysis shows that toluene is dom inantly produced from the effective pathway of propargyl radical+1,3-butadiene(Eq.(13)) in the PY-C4 and CO-PY cases,while the form ation of toluene in the PY-C3 case has to rely on the addition ofm ethyl radical to benzene(Eq.(14),97%)since on ly negligib le 1,3-butadiene can be produced[18].The sensitivity analysis of toluene at 1173 K for the CO-PY case(FIG.10)shows that reactions producing propargyl radical all have positive sensitivity coeffi cient,indicating the im portance of propargyl radical to the formation of toluene.As discussed above,the production of propargyl radical is stimulated in the CO-PY cases due to the interaction of 1,3-butadiene and propyne, leading to the synergistic eff ect on the formation of toluene through the typical C3+C4 pathway.On the other hand,the origin of toluene from 1,3-butadiene and propargyl radical in the PY-C4 and CO-PY cases makes it be formed at much earlier stage(~1050 K) than that(~1150 K)in PY-C3 cases.
It is concluded that the reactions involving propargyl radicals p lay crucial roles in the synergistic eff ects between 1,3-butadiene and propyne on the form ation of benzene and toluene.However in the experimental work of Poddaret al.[15,18]and Thomaset al.[17], Free radicals were not able to be detected like propargyl radical due to the lim itation of gas chrom atography used in their work[1].Novel diagnostic methods such assynchrotron vacuum ultraviolet photoionizationmass spectrom etry[2,38–40]can detect these crucial reactive interm ediates and w ill benefi t the experimental investigations on synergistic effect.
FIG.10 Sensitivity analysis of toluene in the CO-PY case.
As the sim plest PAHs,indene and naphthalene are two key species in the form ation of grow th p rocesses of PAHs.FIG.11 shows the simulated peak values of the two PAHs in the three pyrolysis cases togetherw ith the experim ental data[15,17,18].As observed from the experim ental and simulated results,both the two PAHs have the highest yields in the CO-PY cases,indicating the synergistic effects between 1,3-butadiene and propyne on their form ation.The synergistic effect on the form ation of indene ismainly caused by the enhanced formation of indene through the addition of propargyl radical to benzene(Eq.(15))in the CO-PY case due to the stimulated production of propargyl radical and benzene.The main reason for the synergistic eff ect on the formation of naphthalene is the reaction between phenyl radical and vinyl acetylene(Eq.(16)). This reaction isonly im portant in the CO-PY case since the PY-C4 case produces less phenyl radical and the PY-C3 case lacks of vinyl acetylene.
FIG.11 Simulated results(solid colum ns)of(a)indene and (b)naphthalene in the CO-PY,PY-C4,and PY-C3 cases com pared w ith the experimental data(slash columns)of(c) indene and(d)naphthalene reported by Poddaret al.[15], Thomaset al.[17]and Poddaret al.[18].
A detailed kinetic m odel of 1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysis w ith the sub-m echanism of arom atic hydrocarbon formation is developed.The simulated yield profi les of fuels,decom position products and several aromatic hydrocarbons capture the experim ental data of single com ponent pyrolysis and co-pyrolysis well. The ROP and sensitivity analysesare performed to understand the key reaction pathways in the fuel decomposition and arom atic hydrocarbon formation processes which provide insight into the synergistic effects between 1,3-butadieneand propyneon aromatic hydrocarbon form ation.1,3-Butadiene ism ainly consumed by the H-atom attack reaction to form ethylene and vinyl radical,while the unimolecular decom position of its isomerization product 1,2-butadiene to propargyl radical and methyl radical is themost im portant chain initiation pathway.Propyne ismainly consum ed via the isomerization reaction to form allene,the H-atom attack reaction to form acetylene and methyl radical,and the H-atom abstraction reactions to form propargyl radical. It is notable that in the PY-C3 case the last two reactionsaresuppressed due to the lack of free radicals.The synergistic effect on the formation of benzene,toluene, indene and naphthalene is concluded to result from the interaction between 1,3-butadiene and propyne.On one hand,the easily happened chain initiation in the 1,3-butadiene decom position provides an abundant radical pool for propyne to undergo the H-atom abstraction reaction and produce propargyl radical which p lays a key role in the formation of benzene,toluene and indene.On the other hand,the 1,3-butadiene/propyne co-pyrolysis includeshigh concentration levelsofC3 and C4 precursors simultaneously,which stimulates the formation of key aromatic hydrocarbons such as toluene and naphthalene greatly.
This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(No.51476155, No.51622605,No.91541201),the National Key Scientific Instrum ents and Equipm ent Developm ent Program of China(No.2012YQ22011305),the National Postdoctoral Program for Innovative Talents (No.BX201600100),and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation(No.2016M 600312).
[1]C.S.M cEnally,L.D.Pfeff erle,B.Atakan,and K. Kohse-H¨oinghaus,Prog.Energy Combust.Sci.32,247 (2006).
[2]F.Qi,R.Yang,B.Yang,C.Q.Huang,L.X.Wei,J. W ang,L.S.Sheng,and Y.W.Zhang,Rev.Sci.Instrum. 77,084101(2006).
[3]B.Yang,Y.Y.Li,L.X.Wei,C.Q.Huang,J.Wang, Z.Y.T ian,R.Yang,L.S.Sheng,Y.W.Zhang,and F. Qi,Proc.Combust.Inst.31,555(2007).
[4]Y.Y.Li,L.D.Zhang,Z.Y.Tian,T.Yuan,J.Wang, B.Yang,and F.Qi,Energy Fuels 23,1473(2009).
[5]Y.Y.Li,L.D.Zhang,Z.Y.Tian,T.Yuan,K.W. Zhang,B.Yang,and F.Qi,Proc.Combust.Inst.32, 1293(2009).
[6]H.Richter and J.B.Howard,Phys.Chem.Chem.Phys. 4,2038(2002).
[7]L.D.Zhang,J.H.Cai,T.C.Zhang,and F.Qi,Combust.Flam e 157,1686(2010).
[8]Y.Y.Li,J.H.Cai,L.D.Zhang,T.Yuan,K.W.Zhang, and F.Qi,Proc.Combust.Inst.33,593(2011).
[9]Y.Y.Li,L.D.Zhang,Z.D.Wang,L.L.Ye,J.H.Cai, Z.J.Cheng,and F.Qi,Proc.Combust.Inst.34,1739 (2013).
[10]W.H.Yuan,Y.Y.Li,P.Dagaut,J.Z.Yang,and F. Qi,Combust.Flam e 162,3(2015).
[11]J.F.Roesler,S.Martinot,C.S.M cEnally,L.D.Pfeff erle,J.L.Delfau,and C.Vovelle,Combust.Flam e 134,249(2003).
[12]S.Trottier,H.Guo,G.J.Smallwood,and M.R.Johnson,Proc.Combust.F lam e 31,611(2007).
[13]J.Y.Hwang,S.H.Chung,and W.Lee,Proc.Combust. Flam e 27,1531(1998).
[14]J.Y.Hwang,W.Lee,H.G.Kang,and S.H.Chung, Combust.Flam e 114,370(1998).
[15]N.B.Poddar,S.Thom as,and M.J.Wornat,Proc. Combust.Inst.34,1775(2013).
[16]B.C.Choi,S.K.Choi,and S.H.Chung,Proc.Combust.Inst.33,609(2011).
[17]S.Thom as and M.J.Wornat,Proc.Combust.Inst.32, 615(2009).
[18]N.B.Poddar,S.Thomas,and M.J.Wornat,Proc. Combust.Inst.33,541(2011).
[19]H.F.Jin,A.Frassoldati,Y.Z.Wang,X.Y.Zhang,M. R.Zeng,Y.Y.Li,F.Qi,A.Cuoci,and T.Faravelli, Combust.Flam e 162,1692(2015).
[20]W.H.Yuan,Y.Y.Li,P.Dagaut,J.Z.Yang,and F. Qi,Combust.Flam e 162,22(2015).
[21]H.F.Jin,J.H.Cai,G.Q.Wang,Y.Z.Wang,Y.Y. Li,J.Z.Yang,Z.J.Cheng,W.H.Yuan,and F.Qi, Combust.Flam e 169,154(2016).
[22]W.H.Yuan,Y.Y.Li,G.Pengloan,C.Togb′e,P.Dagaut,and F.Qi,Combust.Flame 166,255(2016).
[23]C.Chanmugathas and J.Heicklen,Int.J.Chem.K inet. 18,701(1986).
[24]J.A.M iller and S.J.K lippenstein,J.Phys.Chem.A 107,7783(2003).
[25]A.D’Anna,A.D’A lessio,and J.Kent,Combust.Sci. Technol.174,279(2002).
[26]S.J.K lippenstein,L.B.Harding,and Y.Georgievskii, Proc.Combust.Inst.31,221(2007).
[27]L.Vereecken and J.Peeters,Phys.Chem.Chem.Phys. 5,2807(2003).
[28]C.Cavallotti,D.Polino,A.Frassoldati,and E.Ranzi, J.Phys.Chem.A 116,3313(2012).
[29]H.Wang and M.Frenklach,Combust.Flam e 96,163 (1994).
[30]H.Wang and M.Frenk lach,Combust.Flame 110,173 (1997).
[31]G.Blanquart,P.Pepiot-Desjardins,and H.Pitsch, Combust.Flam e 156,588(2009).
[32]A.M atsugi and A.M iyoshi,Int.J.Chem.K inet.44, 206(2012).
[33]E.Goos,A.Burcat,and B.Ruscic,Ideal Gas Thermochem ical Database w ith Updates from Active Therm ochem ical Tables,ftp://ftp.technion.ac.il/ pub/supported/aetdd/thermodunam ics(2005).
[34]J.A.M iller,J.P.Senosiain,S.J.K lippenstein,and Y. Georgievskii,J.Phys.Chem.A 112,9429(2008).
[35]Reaction Design,Chemkin-Pro 15092,San Diego (2009).
[36]Y.Hidaka,T.Nakamura,A.M iyauchi,T.Shiraishi, and H.Kawano,Int.J.Chem.K inet.21,643(1989).
[37]Y.Hidaka,T.Higashihara,N.Ninom iya,H.M asaoka, T.Nakamura,and H.Kawano,Int.J.Chem.K inet.28, 137(1996).
[38]B.Yang,P.Osswald,Y.Y.Li,J.Wang,L.X.Wei, Z.Y.Tian,F.Qi,and K.Kohse-H¨oinghaus,Combust. Flame 148,198(2007).
[39]P.Osswald,H.G ldenberg,K.Kohse-H¨oinghaus,B. Yang,T.Yuan,and F.Qi,Combust.Flam e 158,2 (2011).
[40]F.Qi,Proc.Combust.Inst.34,33(2013).
ceived on March 12,2017;Accepted on May 10,2017)
?Author to whom correspondence shou ld be addressed.E-m ail: yuanw h@sjtu.edu.cn,Tel.:+86-21-34204115
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS2017年3期