Comparison of oxy-fuel combustion kinetic mechanisms of methane by laminar burning velocity under normal conditions

Authors

  • Andrey Rogalev Department of Innovative Technologies of High-Tech Industries, National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute”, Moscow 111250, Russia
  • Sergey Osipov Department of Innovative Technologies of High-Tech Industries, National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute”, Moscow 111250, Russia
  • Vadim Yakovlev Department of Innovative Technologies of High-Tech Industries, National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute”, Moscow 111250, Russia
  • Maxim Kozhemiakin Department of Innovative Technologies of High-Tech Industries, National Research University “Moscow Power Engineering Institute”, Moscow 111250, Russia
  • Dmitry Pisarev
Article ID: 604
134 Views

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18686/cest604

Keywords:

oxy-fuel combustion; normal conditions; laminar burning velocity; verification of kinetic mechanisms; UoS sCO2; OXY-NG; GRI; Skeletal

Abstract

Power energy sector is the largest anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2. Oxy-fuel energy complexes (OFCs) are one of the most effective ways to reduce CO2 emissions. In OFC’s combustion chamber gaseous fuel is burned in a mixture of O2 and CO2 at supercritical pressures up to 300 atm. However, in open sources there are currently no recommendations for designing such combustion chambers, including no recommendations on the choice of a kinetic mechanism for numerical simulation of combustion. In this paper, the kinetic combustion mechanisms GRI 3.0, UoS sCO2 2.0, OXY-NG, and Skeletal were compared using Chemkin 18.2 for oxy-fuel combustion of methane by laminar burning velocity under normal conditions. It is shown that OXY-NG can accurately simulate the laminar burning velocity during oxy-fuel combustion of methane under normal conditions in a wide range of mixture compositions by (α) 0.8–1.4 and (γCO2) 0.65–0.78. For this reason, OXY-NG mechanism is recommended for spatial numerical simulation of oxy-fuel combustion.

Downloads

Published

2026-02-06

How to Cite

Rogalev, A., Osipov, S., Yakovlev, V., Kozhemiakin, M., & Pisarev, D. (2026). Comparison of oxy-fuel combustion kinetic mechanisms of methane by laminar burning velocity under normal conditions. Clean Energy Science and Technology, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.18686/cest604

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2026): In progress

Section

Article

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Andrey Rogalev, Sergey Osipov, Vadim Yakovlev, Maxim Kozhemiakin, Dmitry Pisarev

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

1. US EPA OAR, Global Greenhouse Gas Overview. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-overview (accessed on 6 October 2025).

2. Jansen D, Gazzani M, Manzolini G, et al. Pre-combustion CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2015; 40: 167–187. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.05.028

3. Allam R, Martin S, Forrest B, et al. Demonstration of the Allam cycle: An update on the development status of a high efficiency supercritical carbon dioxide power process employing full carbon capture. Energy Procedia. 2017; 114: 5948–5966. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1731 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1731

4. Kindra VO. Improving the efficiency of oxy-fuel power systems with carbon dioxide working fluid using structural and parametric optimization of thermal circuits. Cand. Moscow Power Engineering Institute, Moscow; 2019.

5. Cision. NET Power Demonstration Plant Wins 2018 ADIPEC Breakthrough Technological Project of the Year. Available online: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/net-power-demonstration-plant-wins-2018-adipec-breakthrough-technological-project-of-the-year-300750163.html. (accessed on 28 November 2025).

6. Osipov S, Sokolov V, Yakovlev V, et al. Comparative analysis of the oxy-fuel kinetic mechanisms by the ignition delay time of methane. Energies. 2025; 18(9): 2155. doi: 10.3390/en18092155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/en18092155

7. Harman-Thomas JM, Hughes KJ, Pourkashanian M. The development of a chemical kinetic mechanism for combustion in supercritical carbon dioxide. Energy. 2022; 255: 124490. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2022.124490 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.124490

8. Harman-Thomas JM, Kashif TA, Hughes KJ, et al. Experimental and modelling study of hydrogen ignition in CO2 bath gas. Fuel. 2023; 334: 126664. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126664 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.126664

9. Harman-Thomas JM, Kashif TA, Hughes KJ, et al. Experimental and modelling study of syngas combustion in CO2 bath gas. Fuel. 2023; 342: 127865. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127865 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127865

10. Harman-Thomas JM, Kashif TA, Hughes KJ, et al. Autoignition of methane and methane/hydrogen blends in CO2 bath gas. Fuel. 2025; 381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2024.133229

11. Harman‐Thomas JM, Ingham DB, Hughes KJ, et al. Role of methyldioxy radical chemistry in high‐pressure methane combustion in CO2. International Journal of Chemical Kinetics. 2023; 55(10): 629–641. doi: 10.1002/kin.21672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/kin.21672

12. Liu Y, Zou C, Cheng J, et al. Experimental and numerical study of the effect of CO2 on the ignition delay times of methane under different pressures and temperatures. Energy & Fuels. 2018; 32(10): 10999–11009. doi: 10.1021/ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.8b02443

13. acs.energyfuels.8b02443

14. Liu Y, Cheng J, Zou C, et al. Ignition delay times of ethane under O2/CO2 atmosphere at different pressures by shock tube and simulation methods. Combustion and Flame. 2019; 204: 380–390. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.03.031 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.03.031

15. Xia W, Peng C, Zou C, et al. Shock tube and modeling study of ignition delay times of propane under O2/CO2/Ar atmosphere. Combustion and Flame. 2020; 220: 34–48. doi: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.06.024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2020.06.024

16. Xia W, Zou C, Yuan Y, et al. Experimental and numerical study on the ignition delay times of methane/propane mixtures diluted in carbon dioxide. Fuel. 2023; 343: 127991. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127991 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.127991

17. Xia W, Huang C, Yang J, et al. Experimental and modeling study of ignition delay times of natural gas with CO2 dilution. Fuel. 2024; 358: 130148. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130148 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2023.130148

18. Smith GP, Golden DM, Frenklach M, et al. GRI mechanism 3.0 (1999). Available online: http://combustion.

19. berkeley.edu/gri-mech/version30/text30.html (accessed on 5 October 2025).

20. Hu F, Li P, Guo J, et al. Evaluation, development, and validation of a new reduced mechanism for methane oxy-fuel combustion. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. 2018; 78: 327–340. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.08.018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2018.08.018

21. Wang S, Wang Z, He Y, et al. Laminar burning velocities of CH4/O2/N2 and oxygen-enriched CH4/O2/CO2 flames at elevated pressures measured using the heat flux method. Fuel. 2020; 259: 116152. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116152 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.116152

22. Khan AR, Anbusaravanan S, Kalathi L, et al. Investigation of dilution effect with N2/CO2 on laminar burning velocity of premixed methane/oxygen mixtures using freely expanding spherical flames. Fuel. 2017; 196: 225–232. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.01.086 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2017.01.086

23. Han X, Ling Z, Zhang G, et al. Experimental and modelling study on the laminar burning velocity correlation of CH4 flames diluted by different diluents. Fuel. 2024; 370: 131860. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2024.131860 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2024.131860

24. Hu X, Yu Q, Liu J, et al. Investigation of laminar flame speeds of CH4/O2/CO2 mixtures at ordinary pressure and kinetic simulation. Energy. 2014; 70: 626-634. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.029