Article
pubs.acs.org/EF
Ignition Delay Time Measurements on CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar Mixtures for
Kinetic Analysis
J. C. Shi,†,‡ W. Ye,†,¶ B. X. Bie,†,¶ X. J. Long,†,§ R. T. Zhang,† X. J. Wu,† and S. N. Luo*,†,‡
†
The Peac Institute of Multiscale Sciences, Chengdu, Sichuan 610031, People’s Republic of China
Key Laboratory of Advanced Technologies of Materials, Ministry of Education, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, Sichuan
610031, People’s Republic of China
¶
School of Science, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430070, People’s Republic of China
§
College of Physical Science and Technology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610064, People’s Republic of China
‡
S Supporting Information
*
ABSTRACT: Ignition delay times of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures are measured using a shock tube at 1350−1950 K and 4−18
atm. Equivalence ratios of 0.5 and 1 and CH3Cl blending ratios ranging from 0 to 1 are explored. Correlations for the measured
delay times are obtained through multiple linear regression. Increasing the blending ratio facilitates ignition, but this effect
becomes saturated at a blending ratio of ∼0.2. Two existing chemical kinetic models for CH4/CH3Cl mixtures are examined
against the measurements, and a modified chloromethane−Polimi−kin model incorporating the Aramco 2.0 model is proposed
and validated through comparison with these new data. Based on the proposed model, sensitivity analysis, peak concentration
analysis, and reaction pathway analysis are carried out to provide further insight into the ignition process of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar
mixtures.
1. INTRODUCTION
The expected crude oil shortage and environmental issues
associated with fuel processing and consumption demand
cleaner fuels. As a clean energy source with large reserves,
natural gas is usually considered as an alternative to crude oil.1
One promising pathway of converting CH4 to heavy hydrocarbons involves a two-stage process using CH3Cl as
intermediate.2−4 Moreover, incineration is one of the most
effective technologies for hazardous waste disposal, and the
efficiency of incineration is significantly influenced by the
presence of CH3Cl,5 resulting in increased emission of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and soots.6 Thus, it is
desirable to understand in detail CH3Cl oxidation and its effects
on oxidation of hydrocarbons, such as CH4.
As an important combustion property, ignition delay time is
widely used for establishing or validating chemical kinetics
models. Using shock tubes, Takahashi et al.7 and Shin et al.8
measured ignition delay times of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures.
Their experimental results indicate that a small amount of
CH3Cl promotes CH4 ignition. However, the effect of CH3Cl
fraction on CH4 ignition is essentially untouched. Current
chemical kinetics models9−12 for ignition of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/
Ar mixtures lack sufficient experimental constraints. Therefore,
a more systematic investigation of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar
mixtures with varying CH3Cl fractions, equivalence ratios,
and pressure−temperature conditions is necessary. In this
study, ignition delay times of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures are
measured under a wide range of temperatures (T = 1350−1950
K), pressures (P = 4, 8, and 18 atm), equivalence ratios (ϕ =
0.5 and 1.0), and CH3Cl blending ratios (χCH3Cl = 0−1). The
equivalence ratio, ϕ, depends on both CH4 and CH3Cl, and the
definitions of equivalence ratio and CH3Cl blending ratio will
© 2016 American Chemical Society
be presented in the next section. A modified chemical kinetics
model based on the chloromethane−Polimi−kin (CPK)
model10,12 is proposed and demonstrates successful comparison
with these experimental data. This modified model is further
used to provide some kinetic insights into ignition of CH4/
CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures.
2. EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
Ignition experiments are conducted with a 50 mm bore diameter shock
tube (Figure 1). The driver section (3.26 m in length) and driven
section (4.52 m in length) are separated by a mylar diaphragm. The
diaphragm is ruptured by a cross-shaped resistance wire, which is
heated by capacitor discharge upon firing. The shock tube is evacuated
to below 10 Pa by a vacuum pump (VP2200, Value Mechanical &
Electrical Products Co.) prior to firing. Three incident shock wave
speeds are measured with four piezoelectric pressure transducers
(113B24, PCB Piezotronics), which are located at 971, 571, 271, and
11 mm from the shock tube endwall. Each incident shock wave speed
is calculated through dividing the distance between adjacent pressure
transducers by the corresponding time interval between incident shock
wave arrivals. The endwall incident shock wave speed (Vendwall) is
obtained by extrapolating the three measured incident shock wave
speeds to the endwall. The temperature (T5) and pressure (P5) behind
the shock wave reflected from the end wall (region 5) are calculated
using Gaseq,13 with Vendwall, the initial driven section pressure (P1), and
thermodynamic data of initial species in the driven section as input. A
gas mixture is prepared in a 15 L stainless storage cylinder. The
stainless storage cylinder is first evacuated to less than 10 Pa. Then, the
concentration of each species in the gas mixture is determined
according to Dalton’s law of partial pressures, and each constituent gas
Received: June 16, 2016
Revised: September 2, 2016
Published: September 8, 2016
8711
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
Figure 1. Schematic of the shock tube experiments (PMT: photomultiplier).
Figure 2. (a) Representative pressure and OH* emission histories (τ: ignition delay time). (b) Comparison of the delay times obtained from this
work and the literature for CH4. (c) Comparison of the delay times obtained from present and literature measurements on CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar
mixtures.
is injected into the stainless storage cylinder. The injected partial
pressure of each constituent gas is monitored by a pressure transmitter
(CYYZ15, Beijing Star Sensor Technology Co., Ltd.). The resultant
gas mixture is allowed to sufficiently diffuse and mix for more than 10
h, and the concentration of each species in the as-prepared gas mixture
is further confirmed by a gas chromatograph (7890B GC System,
Agilent).
The OH* emission at 307 nm is acquired by a narrow bandpass
filter with a full width at half-maximum of 10 nm (307FS10-25,
Andover) and a photomultiplier (CR131, Hamamatsu Photonics).
Both pressure and OH* emission signals are recorded by digital
oscilloscopes (HDO6104, Teledyne LeCroy). Representative pressure
and emission histories are shown in Figure 2a. The sharp rise in
intensity in the OH* emission signals the onset of ignition, and the
ignition onset is determined as the intersection between the baseline
and the downward extrapolation of the rising edge (t1). Ignition delay
time (τ) is defined as the time interval between the sharp rise at t0 in
the end wall pressure (P5) upon shock wave reflection by the end wall
and the ignition onset (t1). The slow rise in the pressure history during
the period of t0−t1 is due to the effect of boundary layers14 and is
considered during chemical kinetics modeling. Figure 2b compares the
ignition delay times obtained from this work and from the literature7
for 2% CH4/4% O2/94% Ar at P5 = 4 atm, and the agreement is
excellent. Figure 2c shows comparison of the ignition delay times
obtained from present shock tube and literature7 measurements on 2%
CH4/0.1% CH3Cl/4% O2/93.9% Ar at P5 = 4 atm, and these two sets
of data agree well with each other.
The standard root-sum-squares method is employed to calculate the
uncertainty in measured ignition delay time.15,16 The uncertainty in
the arrival time difference between two neighboring pressure
transducers is estimated to be 2 μs, and that in ϕ is ∼6%. The
uncertainty in ignition delay time is approximately 20%. A detailed
description of uncertainty analysis is provided in the Supporting
Information. The CH3Cl blending ratio χCH3Cl is defined as
χCH Cl =
3
nCH3Cl
nCH3Cl + nCH4
(1)
where nCH3Cl and nCH4 are the molar fractions of CH3Cl and CH4,
respectively. The stoichiometry for CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures is
determined by the following reaction
⎛2
1
3⎞
CH4 + ⎜ + ⎟O2
⎝m
m
2⎠
⎛
⎛
1⎞
2⎞
→ ⎜1 + ⎟CO2 + HCl + ⎜1 + ⎟H 2O
⎝
⎝
m⎠
m⎠
CH3Cl +
(2)
where m is the molar fraction ratio of CH3Cl to CH4. The equivalence
ratio of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures is defined as
ϕ=
2
m
+
3
2
actual O2 used
(3)
The gas mixtures used in this study are listed in Table 1. Two
equivalence ratios, ϕ = 0.5 and 0.1, and five different blending ratios
for each equivalence ratio are examined. In total, we investigate
ignition of 10 mixtures under different pressure and temperature
conditions. The purity for CH3Cl and CH4 is >99.9%, and that of O2
and Ar is higher than 99.99%. All above reactants are provided by
Chengdu Xiyuan Chemical Co., Ltd.
3. CHEMICAL KINETICS MODELING
Chemical kinetic simulations are performed using the Senkin
subroutine17 in the Chemkin II package18 assuming a constant
volume adiabatic model. Due to the ubiquitous presence of
boundary layers, nonuniform pressure and temperature rising
from incident shock attenuation and boundary layer growth are
considered in the simulation by employing the option of
8712
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
Table 1. Compositions of Fuel Mixturesa
combines the CPK model and the Aramco 2.0 model.25−28
Details will be presented in the next section.
mixture
χCH3Cl
ϕ
CH4(%)
CH3Cl (%)
O2 (%)
Ar (%)
M100
M90
M80
M50
M0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.000
0.923
0.842
0.571
0.000
0.000
0.103
0.210
0.571
1.333
4.000
4.000
4.000
3.997
3.999
95.000
94.974
94.948
94.861
94.668
M100
M90
M80
M50
M0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.000
1.846
1.684
1.143
0.000
0.000
0.205
0.421
1.143
2.667
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
4.000
94.000
93.949
93.895
93.714
93.333
a
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Measurements and Correlation. Ignition delay times
of fuel-lean and stoichiometric CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures
with CH3Cl blending ratios χCH3Cl = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 1 are
measured at P5 = 4, 8, and 18 atm. In the discussion below, P
and T denote P5 and T5, respectively, for convenience. Ignition
delay times exhibit a strong Arrhenius dependence on
temperature. Therefore, through multiple linear regression,
ignition delay times of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures are
correlated with P, T, and ϕ at a given blending ratio as
τ = AP aϕb exp(Ea /RT )
The percentages refer to molar ratios. ϕ is equivalence ratio.
(4)
where A and a are correlated parameters; ignition time (τ) is in
μs; pressure (P) is in atm; temperature (T) is in K; ϕ is the
equivalence ratio; Ea is the overall activation energy in
kcal mol−1; and R is the universal gas constant (1.986
cal mol−1 K−1).
Figure 3 shows examples of the measurements and
corresponding correlations, with ϕ = 0.5 and 1 and P = 4, 8,
and 18 atm, for χCH3Cl = 0.5 (Figure 3a) and χCH3Cl = 0 (neat
CH4, Figure 3b). The residual-square parameters, R2, are all
above 0.973, indicating that the correlations can adequately
describe the measured ignition delay times. The correlated
parameters for the representative CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures
explored in this study are summarized in Table 2.
4.2. Evaluation and Modification of Chemical Kinetics
Models. A prerequisite for a useful chemical kinetics model of
a binary-fuel mixture is its capability to predict ignition delay
times of individual fuels in the mixture. We thus evaluate two
existing models, the Leylegian and CPK models, by comparing
their predictions against our measurements for neat CH4 and
CH3Cl. The calculated ignition delay time is determined as the
time interval between time zero and the intercept of the
extrapolated OH curve with the baseline. While the calculated
ignition delay times from the Leylegian model agree well with
the measurements on neat CH4 at P = 4, 8, and 18 atm (M100,
ϕ = 0.5; Figure 4a), the CPK model underestimates
considerably these ignition delay times (Figure 4b). Because
of the fluctuations in experiments, the experimental data in
Figure 4a,b at 4 atm are more complex than that of the higherpressure cases. For the ignition of neat CH3Cl (M0, ϕ = 0.5) at
the same pressures, the Leylegian model overestimates the
volume as a function of time (VTIM).14 In this study, a
pressure rise of 8%/ms is considered if the measured ignition
delay time is more than 1 ms (Figure 2a).
Two chemical kinetics models [Leylegian model9 and
chloromethane−Polimi−kin (CPK) model10−12] for CH4/
CH3Cl oxidation are first considered. The Leylegian model
originates from a kinetic model used in the simulation of
CH3Cl oxidation (the Wang model),19 which consists of
reaction chemistry of the C/H/O system for C1−C2 species,
reactions of chlorinated species, and reactions involving
chlorinated C2 species. The reaction chemistry for C1−C2
species is a modified version of GRI-Mech 1.2.20 The reactions
of chlorinated species are mainly from Bozzelli and coworkers,21,22 and the reactions of chlorinated C2 species are
from Tsang.23 Compiled from the Wang model and expanded
with some elementary reactions involving heavily chlorinated
C1−C2 species, the Leylegian model consists of 82 species and
505 elementary reactions. CPK model is compiled from the
C1C3HT1412 module of the POLIMI mechanism,24 H2/CO
mechanism,24 Kinetics−HCl−Cl2 module,12 and vco9410
module.11 The C1C3HT1412 module contains the reactions
involving oxidation and pyrolysis of C1−C3 species. The H2/
CO mechanism involves the reactions for syngas. The HCl−Cl2
module consists of reactions of Cl and HCl from Pelucchi et
al.12 The vco9410 module contains the reactions for oxidation
and pyrolysis of CH3Cl and chlorinated species.
We also develop a modified CPK model, referred to as the
chloromethane−Polimi−Aramco−kin (CPAK) model, which
Figure 3. Comparison of the measured and regressed ignition delay times at different pressures: (a) ϕ = 0.5, M50 and (b) ϕ = 1, M100. Symbols,
measured; lines, regressed.
8713
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
Table 2. Summary of Correlated Parameters
A
mixture
M100
M90
M80
M50
M0
9.819
2.827
4.277
1.574
0.607
×
×
×
×
×
a
−4
10
10−4
10−4
10−4
10−4
−0.746
−0.722
−0.681
−0.731
−0.667
±
±
±
±
±
b
0.034
0.065
0.064
0.050
0.051
0.367
0.325
0.373
0.172
0.127
±
±
±
±
±
0.056
0.110
0.105
0.089
0.089
Ea (kcal/mol)
R2
±
±
±
±
±
0.990
0.973
0.978
0.988
0.985
46.8
49.6
47.4
50.2
52.3
0.7
1.6
1.2
1.0
1.3
Figure 4. Comparison of the experimental data with the predictions by the Leylegian and CPK models for neat CH4 and neat CH3Cl at ϕ = 0.5: (a)
Leylegian model, CH4; (b) CPK model, CH4; (c) Leylegian model, CH3Cl; and (d) CPK model, CH3Cl. Symbols, measurements; lines, predictions.
Figure 5. Comparison of the measurements with the predictions of CPAK model for CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures with χCH3Cl = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and
1: (a) P = 4 atm, ϕ = 0.5; (b) P = 8 atm, ϕ = 0.5; (c) P = 18 atm, ϕ = 0.5; (d) P = 4 atm, ϕ = 1; (e) P = 8 atm, ϕ = 1.0; and (f) P = 18 atm, ϕ = 1.
Symbols, measurements; lines, calculations using CPAK model.
Therefore, to better predict ignition delay times of CH4/
CH3Cl mixtures, the CPK model is modified as follows: (i) Its
H2/O2 submodel is completely replaced by the H2/O2 reaction
set of Kéromnès and co-workers.29 (ii) For the elementary
reactions of C1−C3 submodel common to the CPK model and
the Aramco 2.0 model,25−28 the reaction rates in the CPK
ignition delay times (Figure 4c), but the CPK model
predictions are in accord with the measurements (Figure 4d).
These comparisons suggest the deficiency of the CPK model in
describing the elementary reactions of nonchlorinated species
for CH4/CH3Cl mixtures.
8714
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
Figure 6. Measured and predicted ignition times as a function of χCH3Cl for CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at different ϕ, P, and T conditions.
Symbols, measurements; lines, calculations using CPAK model.
model are replaced by those in the Aramco 2.0 model. (iii) The
remaining elementary reactions for hydrocarbon species in the
Aramco 2.0 model but not included in the CPK model are
added to the CPK model. The modified CPK model is referred
to as the chloromethane−Polimi−Aramco−kin (CPAK)
model. The CPAK model consists of 557 species and 4592
elementary reactions.
Figure 5 shows the comparison between the measured
ignition delay times and the predicted values by the CPAK
model of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures for T = 1350−1950 K;
P = 4, 8, and 18 atm; equivalence ratio ϕ = 0.5 and 1.0; and
CH3Cl blending ratio χCH3Cl = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 1. The
excellent agreement attests to the accuracy of the CPAK model.
The experimental results demonstrate that the presence of
CH3Cl promotes CH4 ignition by reducing the ignition delay
time, consistent with previous studies.7,8 The influence of
CH3Cl fraction or blending ratio is illustrated in Figure 6. With
increasing blending ratio, ignition delay time decreases. The
boosting effect of CH3Cl on ignition begins to saturate for
χCH3Cl > 0.2.
4.3. Chemical Kinetics Analysis. To gain insight into
ignition of CH4/CH3Cl mixtures, sensitivity, peak concentration, and reaction pathway analyses are conducted.
Sensitivity analysis of ignition of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar
mixtures is conducted first to single out important elementary
reactions in ignition. Sensitivity of a particular reaction is
defined as16
S=
τ(2ki) − τ(0.5ki)
1.5τ(ki)
Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis for CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures with
different χCH3Cl at T = 1700 K, P = 8 atm, and ϕ = 0.5.
O + OH is the most important elementary reaction for
expediting ignition of CH4/CH3Cl mixtures. O2 + H = O + OH
and O2 + H (+M) = HO2 (+M) play a unique role in different
combustion conditions.30 At high temperatures, O2 + H = O +
OH is usually the most important elementary reaction in the
oxidation of all types of hydrocarbon (including hydrogen). At
lower temperatures, O2 + H = O + OH becomes less
important, while O2 + H (+M) = HO2 (+M) becomes more
important. Because the temperature in this study is above 1350
K, O2 + H = O + OH is more important than O2 + H (+M) =
HO2 (+M). With increasing χCH3Cl, sensitivity (S) of R5
increases dramatically to its peak at χCH3Cl = 0.2 then deceases
sharply. The second most important elementary reaction is
R2781: CH3Cl = CH3 + Cl; its sensitivity also peaks at χCH3Cl =
0.2. The third most important elementary reaction is R91: CH3
+ O2 = CH2O + OH, with its sensitivity peak located at χCH3Cl =
0.2.
(5)
where ki is the pre-exponential factor of the ith reaction. That
is, ignition delay times are obtained from the CPAK model by
varying the prefactor values (0.5k, 1.5k, and 2k) for calculating
S.
Figure 7 shows sensitivity (S) values of key reactions in
ignition of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures for different χCH3Cl at
T = 1700 K, P = 8 atm, and ϕ = 0.5. The reaction R5: O2+H =
8715
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
Because the C−Cl bond dissociation energy (83 kcal/mol)31
of CH3Cl is lower than that of C−H bond (105 kcal/mol)32 of
CH4, reaction R2781 yields reactive CH3 and Cl radicals before
unimolecular decomposition of CH4. The CH3 radicals abstract
O from O2 and HO2, producing more reactive O radicals as
well as OH radicals. The most inhibiting elementary reaction
for ignition of CH4/CH3Cl mixtures is reaction R44: CH4 + H
= CH3 + H2, which involves elimination of H radicals. The
second most inhibiting elementary reaction is reaction R194:
2CH3(+M) = C2H6(+M). This elementary reaction reduces
CH3 radicals and produces nonreactive C2H6. The reactions
R46: CH4 + OH = CH3 + H2O and R2791: OH + CH3Cl =
CH2Cl + H2O reduce active OH radicals and produce final
product H2O. Sensitivity values for these four elementary
reactions reach their maximums at χCH3Cl = 0.2, except in neat
CH4. Sensitivity analysis of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures with
different ϕ at P = 8 atm, T = 1700 K, and χCH3Cl = 0.5 is shown
in Figure 8. The sensitivity values for ϕ = 0.5 and 1.0 are
Figure 9. Sensitivity analysis for CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T =
1700 K; ϕ = 0.5; χCH3Cl = 0.5; and P = 4, 8, and 18 atm.
CH2O, and chlorinated species (Cl, HCl, and CH2Cl) are
analyzed (Figure 10). Figure 10a illustrates peak concentration
as a function of blending ratio χCH3Cl for O, OH, H, CH3, and
CH2O in fuel-lean CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T = 1700 K
and P = 8 atm. The peak concentrations of O, OH, H, CH3,
and CH2O decrease moderately with increasing χCH3Cl.
However, the peak concentrations of Cl, HCl, and CH2Cl
increase nonlinearly with increasing χCH3Cl (Figure 10b); such
an increase is dramatic for χCH3Cl ≤ 0.2 and slows at larger
blending ratios. For stoichiometric CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T = 1700 K and P = 8 atm, the peak concentrations
follow a similar trend for fuel-lean mixtures (Figure 10c,d).
Reaction pathway analyses of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures
are presented in Figure 11, conducted at 20% fuel
consumption.33 Figure 11a illustrates the reaction pathways of
fuel-lean (ϕ = 0.5) CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T = 1700 K
and P = 8 atm, for CH3Cl blending ratios of 0, 0.5, and 1. Neat
CH4 is mainly consumed by H-abstraction reactions from O
(17.3%), H (17.7%), and OH radicals (62.5%), producing CH3
radicals. The main products of CH3 radicals are CH2O (31.0%),
HCO (11.8%), and C2H6 (39.5%). Mixed with CH3Cl at χCH3Cl
= 0.5, the consuming pathway of CH4 changes markedly. CH4
is mainly consumed by O (7.2%), H (9.1%), OH (27.6%), and
Cl radicals (55.9%). Cl radicals from CH3Cl decomposition
facilitate the H abstraction of CH4 and thus its ignition. The
resultant CH3 radicals are further converted to C2H4 (40.8%),
CH2O (6.0%), and C2H6 (44.4%). Thus, the existence of
chlorine in CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures stimulates the
formation of C2H4, increasing the possibility of forming
PAHs and soots.34,35 The production of CH2O (31.0%) and
CHO radicals from CH3 radicals substantially decreases. Neat
CH3Cl is mainly decomposed into CH3 (38.7%) and CH2Cl
(60.7%) radicals. CH3 radicals are further consumed, yielding
C2H6 (25.1%) and C2H4 (62.4%); 34.5% CH2Cl radicals are
converted to C2H4. Mixed with CH4, CH3Cl is also mainly
decomposed into CH3 radicals (54.4%) and CH2Cl radicals
(45.5%). CH3 radicals are mainly converted into C2H6 (56.0%)
and C2H4 (36.9%), and 58.2% of CH2Cl is converted to C2H4.
Figure 11b shows reaction pathways of stoichiometric CH4/
CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T = 1700 K and P = 8 atm. Neat
Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis for CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T =
1700 K, P = 8 atm, χCH3Cl = 0.5, and ϕ = 0.5 and 1.
similar. Therefore, ϕ has negligible effects on the sensitivity of
the elementary reactions. Sensitivity analysis of CH4/CH3Cl/
O2/Ar mixtures under different pressures at T = 1700 K, ϕ =
0.5, and χCH3Cl = 0.5 is shown in Figure 9. The sensitivity
coefficients for elementary reactions are comparable except for
R2781: CH3 = CH3 + Cl and R43: CH3+H(+M) = CH4(+M),
for which the rate constants are pressure-dependent. When the
pressure increases from 4 to 18 atm, the absolute sensitivity
coefficient of R2781: CH3 = CH3+Cl decreases by 15% and
that of R43: CH3 + H(+M) = CH4(+M) increases by 106%.
As shown in Figures 7−9, chlorine-related elementary
reactions play important roles in the oxidation of CH4/
CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures. For different blending ratios, the most
important chlorine-related elementary reaction for promoting
ignition, R2781: CH3 = CH3 + Cl, has its sensitivity coefficient
peaked at χCH3Cl = 0.2. However, for different equivalence ratios
and pressures, the sensitivity coefficients of chlorine-related
elementary reactions are nearly unchanged.
To further understand the effects of small radicals and
species on ignition of CH4/CH3Cl mixtures, the peak
concentration of small radicals such as O, OH, H, CH3,
8716
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
Figure 10. Concentrations of key species in fuel-lean and stoichiometric CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures with varying χCH3Cl at T = 1700 K and P = 8
atm: (a) H, O, OH, CH3, and CH2O radicals for ϕ = 0.5; (b) Cl, HCl, and CH2Cl species for ϕ = 0.5; (c) H, O, OH, CH3, and CH2O radicals for ϕ
= 1; and (d) Cl, HCl, and CH2Cl species for ϕ = 1.
Figure 11. Reaction pathways of fuel-lean (ϕ = 0.5) and stoichiometric (ϕ = 1) CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at T = 1700 K and P = 8 atm with
χCH3Cl = 0, 0.5, and 1: (a) fuel-lean CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures with χCH3Cl = 0, 0.5, and 1 and (b) stoichiometric CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures
with χCH3Cl = 0, 0.5, and 1. Black fonts, CH4, M100; green fonts, CH4, M50; red fonts, CH3Cl, M0; blue fonts, CH3Cl, M50.
CH3Cl decomposes into CH3 radicals (53.5%) and CH2Cl
radicals (46.1%). CH3 radicals are further converted to C2H6
(48.4%) and C2H4 (35.5%), and 58.7% of CH2Cl radicals are
converted to C2H4.
As shown in Figure 11, the reaction pathways of CH4/
CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures at ϕ = 0.5 and ϕ = 1 are similar. CH4 is
mainly consumed via H abstraction reactions. Before chlorine is
introduced, CH4 is consumed by small nonchlorinated radicals
(O, H, OH). When CH3Cl is involved in the ignition of CH4,
the H abstraction reaction by Cl radical becomes a dominant
channel for CH4 consumption. In addition, upon introducing
CH3Cl into the ignition of CH4, the production of nonsaturated species C2H4, yielded from CH3, is prompted. The
main products from CH3Cl reactions are CH3 and CH2Cl.
CH4 is mainly consumed by H-abstraction reactions, yielding
CH3 radicals. The proportions of the consuming pathway of
CH4 abstracted by O, H, and OH radicals are 14.1%, 26.5%,
and 56.1%, respectively. CH3 radicals are further consumed,
yielding CH2O (24.6%), HCO radicals (15.1%), and C2H6
(43.4%). Mixed with CH3Cl, the proportions of CH4 abstracted
by O, H, OH, and Cl radicals are 2.6%, 4.7%, 13.0%, and 79.2%,
respectively. The main consuming products of CH3 radicals are
C2H4 (34.7%), CH2O (11.1%), and C2H6 (49.3%). Neat
CH3Cl decomposes into CH3 radicals (37.6%) and CH2Cl
radicals (62.3%). CH3 radicals are further converted to C2H6
(22.0%) and C2H4 (64.1%), and the conversion ratio of CH2Cl
radicals to C2H4 is 31.3%. Blended with CH4 at χCH3Cl = 0.5,
8717
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
well-to-wheel analysis and transition strategy development. Energy
Policy 2005, 33, 579−594.
(2) Ranzi, E.; Dente, M.; Rovaglio, M.; Faravelli, T.; Karra, S. B.
Pyrolysis and chlorination of small hydrocarbons. Chem. Eng. Commun.
1992, 117, 17−39.
(3) Zhang, D.; Wei, Y.; Xu, L.; Du, A.; Chang, F.; Su, B.; Liu, Z.
Chloromethane conversion to higher hydrocarbons over zeolites and
SAPOs. Catal. Lett. 2006, 109, 97−101.
(4) Gamero, M.; Aguayo, A. T.; Ateka, A.; Pérez-Uriarte, P.; Gayubo,
A. G.; Bilbao, J. Role of shape selectivity and catalyst acidity in the
transformation of chloromethane into light olefins. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2015, 54, 7822−7832.
(5) Brukh, R.; Barat, R.; Mitra, S. The effect of waste concentration
on destruction efficiency during incineration. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2006,
23, 383−392.
(6) Frenklach, M. Production of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in
chlorine containing environments. Combust. Sci. Technol. 1990, 74,
283−296.
(7) Takahashi, K.; Inomata, T.; Moriwaki, T.; Okazaki, S. The
addition effect of CH3Br and CH3Cl on ignition of CH4 by shock
wave. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 1988, 61, 3307−3313.
(8) Shin, K. S.; Park, K.; Kim, K. The addition effect of CH3Cl on
methane ignition behind reflected shock waves. Bull. Korean Chem. Soc.
2001, 22, 330−332.
(9) Leylegian, J. C.; Zhu, D. L.; Law, C. K.; Wang, H. Experiments
and numerical simulation on the laminar flame speeds of dichloromethane and trichloromethane. Combust. Flame 1998, 114, 285−293.
(10) Pelucchi, M.; Cavallotti, C.; Frassoldati, A.; Ranzi, E.; Faravelli,
T. Theoretical calculation of the rate coefficient for CH3Cl + M = CH3
+ Cl + M and kinetic modeling of chloromethane pyrolysis and
oxidation. Private communication, 2016.
(11) Porro, G. Kinetic modeling of methyl chloride pyrolysis and
combustion. Master thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, 2015;
http://hdl.handle.net/10589/112041.
(12) Pelucchi, M.; Frassoldati, A.; Faravelli, T.; Ruscic, B.; Glarborg,
P. High-temperature chemistry of HCl and Cl2. Combust. Flame 2015,
162, 2693−2704.
(13) Morley, C. Gaseq, version 0.76, 2005; http://www.gaseq.co.uk.
(14) Chaos, M.; Dryer, F. L. Chemical-kinetic modeling of ignition
delay: considerations in interpreting shock tube data. Int. J. Chem.
Kinet. 2010, 42, 143−150.
(15) Petersen, E. L.; Rickard, M. J. A.; Crofton, M. W.; Abbey, E. D.;
Traum, M. J.; Kalitan, D. M. A facility for gas- and condensed-phase
measurements behind shock waves. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2005, 16,
1716−1729.
(16) Zhang, Z.; Hu, E.; Pan, L.; Chen, Y.; Gong, J.; Huang, Z. Shocktube measurements and kinetic modeling study of methyl propanoate
ignition. Energy Fuels 2014, 28, 7194−7202.
(17) Lutz, A. E.; Kee, R. J.; Miller, J. A. SENKIN: A Fortran program
for predicting homogeneous gas phase chemical kinetics with
sensitivity analysis; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM,
1988.
(18) Kee, R. J.; Rupleyand, F. M.; Miller, J. A. Chemkin-II: A Fortran
chemical kinetics package for the analysis of gas-phase chemical
kinetics; Sandia National Laboratories: Albuquerque, NM, 1989.
(19) Wang, H.; Hahn, T. O.; Sung, C. J.; Law, C. K. Detailed
oxidation kinetics and flame inhibition effects of chloromethane.
Combust. Flame 1996, 105, 291−307.
(20) Frenklach, M.; Wang, H.; Yu, C. L.; Goldenberg, M.; Bowman,
C. T.; Hanson, R. K.; Davidson, D. F.; Chang, E. J.; Smith, G. P.;
Golden, D. M.; Gardiner, W. C.; Lissianski, V. GRI1.2; http://www.
me.berkeley.edu/gri_mech/.
(21) Ho, W.; Yu, Q.-R.; Bozzelli, J. W. Kinetic study on pyrolysis and
oxidation of CH3Cl in Ar/H2/O2 mixtures. Combust. Sci. Technol.
1992, 85, 23−63.
(22) Ho, W.; Barat, R. B.; Bozzelli, J. W. Thermal reactions of
CH2Cl2 in H2/O2 mixtures: implications for chlorine inhibition of CO
conversion to CO2. Combust. Flame 1992, 88, 265−295.
When CH4 is involved in the ignition of CH3Cl, the main
products of CH3Cl are still CH3 and CH2Cl as in neat CH3Cl
ignition. The branching ratio of CH3 from CH3Cl increases by
∼15% for ϕ = 0.5 and ∼16% for ϕ = 1, and that of CH2Cl
decreases by ∼15% for ϕ = 0.5 and ∼16% for ϕ = 1. Although
the total production of C2H6 from CH3Cl increases by ∼20%
for ϕ = 0.5 and ∼18% for ϕ = 1, that of C2H4 from CH3Cl
remains nearly constant (∼45% for ϕ = 0.5 and ∼44% for ϕ =
1).
5. CONCLUSIONS
Ignition delay times of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar mixtures are
measured at temperatures of 1350−1950 K; pressures of 4, 8,
and 18 atm; equivalence ratios of 0.5 and 1.0; and CH3Cl
blending ratios of 0−1. Increasing χCH3Cl leads to reduced
ignition delay time, but this effect becomes saturated
approximately at χCH3Cl > 0.2. The Leylegian and chloromethane−Polimi−kin models under- or overestimates ignition
delay times; a modified model incorporating the Aramco 2.0
model, i.e., the chloromethane−Polimi−Aramco−kin or CPAK
model, is proposed and validated through comparison with the
measurements. Based on the CPAK model, sensitivity, peak
concentration, and reaction pathway analyses are conducted.
R2781: CH3Cl = CH3 + Cl is a most important reaction for
promoting ignition of CH4/CH3Cl mixtures, and its sensitivity
peaks at χCH3Cl = 0.2. The peak concentrations of small radicals
such as O, OH, H, CH3, and CH2O decrease moderately with
increasing χCH3Cl, but the corresponding values of Cl, HCl, and
CH2Cl increase nonlinearly with increasing χCH3Cl. Reaction
pathway analysis shows that CH3Cl stimulates the formation of
C2H4 in CH4/CH3Cl mixtures.
■
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
S Supporting Information
*
The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the
ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466.
Measured ignition delay times of CH4/CH3Cl/O2/Ar
mixtures and the detailed description of the uncertainty
analysis (ZIP)
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: [email protected], [email protected].
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is supported by the 973 Project of China
(2014CB845904) and the Scientific Challenges Project of
China. We thank Dr. M. Pelucchi at Politecnico di Milano for
sharing the CPK model before publication. L. Lu, D. Fan, X. M.
Zhou, and J. Wang at PIMS are thanked for their kind help with
constructing the shock tube facility, and X. Zhang and L. Pu for
their help with experiments.
■
REFERENCES
(1) Hekkert, M. P.; Hendriks, F. H. J. F.; Faaij, A. P. C.; Neelis, M. L.
Natural gas as an alternative to crude oil in automotive fuel chains
8718
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719
Article
Energy & Fuels
(23) Tsang, W. Mechanisms for the formation and destruction of
chlorinated organic products of Incomplete Combustion. Combust. Sci.
Technol. 1990, 74, 99−116.
(24) Ranzi, E.; Frassoldati, A.; Grana, R.; Cuoci, A.; Faravelli, T.;
Kelley, A. P.; Law, C. K. Hierarchical and comparative kinetic
modeling of laminar flame speeds of hydrocarbon and oxygenated
fuels. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2012, 38, 468−501.
(25) Burke, U.; Metcalfe, W. K.; Burke, S. M.; Heufer, K. A.; Dagaut,
P.; Curran, H. J. A detailed chemical kinetic modeling, ignition delay
time and jet-stirred reactor study of methanol oxidation. Combust.
Flame 2016, 165, 125−136.
(26) Burke, S. M.; et al. An experimental and modeling study of
propene oxidation. Part 2: Ignition delay time and flame speed
measurements. Combust. Flame 2015, 162, 296−314.
(27) Burke, S. M.; Metcalfe, W.; Herbinet, O.; Battin-Leclerc, F.;
Haas, F. M.; Santner, J.; Dryer, F. L.; Curran, H. J. An experimental
and modeling study of propene oxidation. Part 1: Speciation
measurements in jet-stirred and flow reactors. Combust. Flame 2014,
161, 2765−2784.
(28) Metcalfe, W. K.; Burke, S. M.; Ahmed, S. S.; Curran, H. J. A
hierarchical and comparative kinetic modeling study of C1 - C2
hydrocarbon and oxygenated fuels. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 2013, 45,
638−675.
(29) Kéromnès, A.; Metcalfe, W. K.; Heufer, K. A.; Donohoe, N.;
Das, A. K.; Sung, C.-J.; Herzler, J.; Naumann, C.; Griebel, P.; Mathieu,
O.; Krejci, M. C.; Petersen, E. L.; Pitz, W. J.; Curran, H. J. An
experimental and detailed chemical kinetic modeling study of
hydrogen and syngas mixture oxidation at elevated pressures. Combust.
Flame 2013, 160, 995−1011.
(30) Pilling, M. J. Low-Temperature Combustion and Autoignition;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1997.
(31) Atkinson, R.; Baulch, D. L.; Cox, R. A.; Hampson, R. F., Jr.;
Kerr, J. A.; Troe, J. Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for
atmospheric chemistry: supplement III. IUPAC subcommittee on gas
kinetic data evaluation for atmospheric chemistry. J. Phys. Chem. Ref.
Data 1989, 18, 881−1097.
(32) Tsang, W.; Hampson, R. F. Chemical kinetic data base for
combustion chemistry. Part I. Methane and related compounds. J.
Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1986, 15, 1087−1279.
(33) Weber, B. W.; Kumar, K.; Zhang, Y.; Sung, C.-J. Autoignition of
n-butanol at elevated pressure and low-to-intermediate temperature.
Combust. Flame 2011, 158, 809−819.
(34) Kazakov, A.; Wang, H.; Frenklach, M. Detailed modeling of soot
formation in laminar premixed ethylene flames at a pressure of 10 bar.
Combust. Flame 1995, 100, 111−120.
(35) Appel, J.; Bockhorn, H.; Frenklach, M. Kinetic modeling of soot
formation with detailed chemistry and physics: laminar premixed
flames of C2 hydrocarbons. Combust. Flame 2000, 121, 122−136.
8719
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01466
Energy Fuels 2016, 30, 8711−8719