2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2010.03.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ignition delay in hydrogen–air and syngas–air mixtures: Experimental data interpretation via flame propagation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The reduced-chemistry predictions are in excellent agreement with detailed-chemistry predictions until temperatures decrease below about 900 K, where the need for further study of both computational and experimental results has been discussed widely in the literature [12,13,14].…”
Section: Validation Of the Reduced Mechanismsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…The reduced-chemistry predictions are in excellent agreement with detailed-chemistry predictions until temperatures decrease below about 900 K, where the need for further study of both computational and experimental results has been discussed widely in the literature [12,13,14].…”
Section: Validation Of the Reduced Mechanismsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…As a result, the ignition delay measured experimentally in shock tubes is not that corresponding to homogeneous autoignition but rather the ratio of the tube radius to the flame speed [9]. Although more work is required to further clarify the nature of these low-temperature shock-tube processes, that is not the intention of the present paper.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…The propagation of the forming combustion front into the unreacted mixture determines the time of the defl agration distribution of the fl ame τ d , which can be much smaller than the kinetic time of the spontaneous ignition of a mixture τ k at the given temperature when the progress of the process is determined entirely by thermally equilibrium gas-phase chemical reactions [9]. In Fig.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%