See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267643923

DME as a Potential Alternative Fuel for Gas Turbines: A Numerical Approach to

Combustion and Oxidation Kinetics

Conference Paper · January 2011

DOI: 10.1115/GT2011-46238

CITATIONS READS

8 1,366

4 authors, including:

Roda Bounaceur Michel Moliere

French National Centre for Scientific Research UTBM & Université de Lorraine
129 PUBLICATIONS   3,669 CITATIONS    131 PUBLICATIONS   983 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fuel Cells View project

Electricity storage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roda Bounaceur on 30 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2011
GT2011
June 6-10, 2011, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

GT2011-

DME as a potential alternative fuel for gas turbines:

A numerical approach to combustion and oxidation kinetics

Pierre A. Glaude, René Fournet, Roda Bounaceur

LRGP, Nancy-Université, CNRS
1, rue Grandville - BP 20451 - 54001 NANCY Cedex – France

Michel Molière
GE Energy Product-Europe,
20 avenue de Maréchal Juin, BP 379, 90007 Belfort, France

ABSTRACT validated mechanism taken from the literature and already

Many investigations are currently carried out in order to
reduce CO2 emissions in power generation. Among
alternative fuels to natural gas and gasoil in gas turbine
applications, dimethyl ether (DME; formula: CH3-O-CH3)
represents a possible candidate in the next years. This
chemical compound can be produced from natural gas or
coal/biomass gasification. DME is a good substitute for gasoil
in diesel engine. Its Lower Heating Value is close to that of
ethanol but it offers some advantages compared to alcohols in
terms of stability and miscibility with hydrocarbons. While
numerous studies have been devoted to the combustion of
DME in diesel engines, results are scarce as far as boilers and
gas turbines are concerned.
Some safety aspects must be addressed before feeding a
combustion device with DME because of its low flash point
(as low as -83°C), its low auto-ignition temperature and large
domain of explosivity in air. As far as emissions are
concerned, the existing literature shows that in non premixed
flames, DME produces less NOx than ethane taken as parent
molecular structure, based on an equivalent heat input to the
burner. During a field test performed in a gas turbine, a
change-over from methane to DME led to a higher fuel nozzle
temperature but to a lower exhaust gas temperature. NOx
emissions decreased over the whole range of heat input
studied but a dramatic increase of CO emissions was
observed.
This work aims to study the combustion behavior of DME in
gas turbine conditions with the help of a detailed kinetic
modeling. Several important combustion parameters, such as
the auto-ignition temperature (AIT), ignition delay times,
laminar burning velocities of premixed flames, adiabatic
flame temperatures, and the formation of pollutants like CO
and NOx have been investigated. These data have been
compared with those calculated in the case of methane
combustion. The model was built starting from a well
used to predict the behavior of other alternative fuels. In
flame conditions, DME forms formaldehyde as the major
intermediate, the consumption of which leads in few steps to
CO then CO2. The lower amount of CH2 radicals in
comparison with methane flames seems to decrease the
possibility of prompt-NO formation. This paper covers the
low temperature oxidation chemistry of DME which is
necessary to properly predict ignition temperatures and auto-
ignition delay times that are important parameters for safety.
INTRODUCTION
Due to higher energy prices and environmental concerns,
there is currently an increasing interest for alternative fuels in
boilers, diesel engines and gas turbines. Oxygenated fuels as
alternatives to natural gas or to conventional petrol-based
fuels may be of interest, but important aspects such as
availability, production costs, energy content have to be
examined. The main point is the behavior of such fuels in
combustion process such as automotive engines or gas
turbines [1]. If the first one has been widely explored (e.g.
[2][3]), the latter one has been scarcely investigated. Among
oxygenated fuels, dimethyl ether (DME) is often considered
as a potential alternative to diesel fuel featuring a high cetane
number (>55). It could become a promising transportation
fuel, especially in China. It prevents also soot formation since
it involves no carbon-carbon bond and has a high oxygen
content. DME can be produced from natural gas, coal or
biomass gasification through synthesis gas. Physical and
thermochemical properties are listed in Table 1 which
compares DME to methane, ethanol, another oxygenated
compound with the same chemical formula, and conventional
gasoil. DME is physically similar to liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) and can be injected in a combustion chamber as a
liquid spray. Its lower heating value is slightly higher than
that of ethanol which has the same C and O contents.

1 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

 Table 1: Physical, combustion and safety properties of different fuels
Fuel methane
Formula CH4
-1
Molecular weight (g mol ) 16.04
-3
Density (g cm ) 0.00072
Normal boiling point (°C) -162
-1
Lower heat value (kJ g ) 47.79
Carbon content (%wt.) 74
Sulfur content (ppm) ca. 7–25
AIT (°C) 650
Flash point (°C) - -83
Explosion limits in air (%vol.) 5-14
Data taken from [1] and [2] when no other indication.
a
Values per cm3 of vapor at standard temperature and pressure. b Density at 1 atm and -25°C, c from [4]
If their explosion limits in air are also close, DME has
however a relatively low auto-ignition temperature (235°C
against 360°C in the case of ethanol), nevertheless close to
that of diesel oil. The flash point of DME is also very low (-
83°C against 12.8°C for ethanol). This is 56°C above the its
freezing point (-139°C). This value is in line with that of the
components of LPG (propane -104°C, n-butane -60°C) and
comparable to that of 1-butene (-80°C),
In the last decade, many studies have been devoted to DME
combustion. Ignition delay times have been measured in
shock tubes [5][6] (Figure 1) and in a rapid compression
machines [7]. The thermal decomposition and the low
temperature oxidation in a plug flow reactor between 550 and
850 K under 12-16 bar [8][9] was investigated. The low
temperature was also studied in a jet-stirred flow reactor
under 10 bar, between 550 and 1100 K for lean and
stoichiometric mixtures [10][11]. It appeared that DME can
feature a low temperature behavior similar to those of
alkanes, with cool flames and low temperature ignitions in the
Negative Temperature Coefficient (NTC) zone, a temperature
range where the reactivity decreases when the temperature
increases. Numerous flame studies have been performed. The
structures of laminar premixed flat flames have been
investigated under atmospheric [12] and low pressure
[13][14][15] using synchrotron vacuum UV photoionization
and electro-impact ionization. The structure of a counterflow
flame was analyzed using laser diagnoses [16].
Adiabatic burning velocities of DME/air mixtures have been
measured at 298 K and atmospheric pressure by Daly et al
[17] in a constant volume spherical bomb. Using the
stagnation flame burner configuration with digital particle
imaging velocimetry, Zhao et al. [18] obtained significantly
higher values (Figure 2). Jomass [19] measured burning
velocities of spherical flames in a pressurized chamber up to
20 atm, while Qin et al [20] investigated the flame speed in a
spherical bomb up to 10 atm. More recently, Wang et al. [21]
measured laminar flame speeds in a counterflow
configuration at atmospheric pressure with a good agreement
with previous studies in spherical bombs. Flames speeds for
DME ethanol gasoil
CH3OCH3 CH3CH2OH C14H30
46.07 46.07 198.4
a b
0.661 0.785 0.856
-24.9 78 125–400
28.62 26.87 41.66
52.2 52.2 87
0 0 ca. 250
235 ca. 360 250
c
12.8 > 62
3.4-17 3-19 0.6-6.5
DME were found to be faster than that of methane, close to
that of ethane. Zheng et al [22] studied the ignition of DME in
hot air in a counterflow configuration, under pressures from 1
to 3 atm, as a function of the dilution of the fuel by nitrogen.
Frye et al. [23] compared the relative emissions of propane, n-
butane, and DME in atmospheric premixed flame. DME
demonstrated reduced CO production while differences in NO
production were less striking. In the worst case, DME
produced a similar amount of NO as propane and n-butane.
At constant energy release, NO production was similar to
propane and n-butane despite the higher flow rate of DME.
The authors concluded that DME is a viable alternative utility
fuel. More recently, Cheol-Hong et al. [24] investigated the
NOx emission characteristics of DME in laminar co-axial jets
and counterflow non premixed flames and compared the
flame structure and NOx emissions to those of C2H6. In the
co-axial jet case, the combustion of DME had the
characteristics of a partial premixed flame and had a shorter
flame and lower NOx emissions as compared to C2H6. The
major cause of lower NOx emissions from DME may be the
short flame length and the activation of the reburning
chemistry of NO. The computational results of the DME
counterflow non-premixed flame revealed that the overall
NOx reaction path of the DME flame is similar to that of the
C2H6 flame, but that the DME non-premixed flame has a
distinct NO reduction mechanism associated with reburning
NO chemistry in the fuel-rich region because of fast pyrolysis
and oxidation reactions in comparison to that of the C2H6
flame. In addition, the level of prompt NO in the primary
zone is decreased due to the scavenging of hydrocarbon
radicals by the active oxidizing radicals stemming from the O
atom of the ether structure. The synergetic effect of DME
mixed in flame with methane, ethane, propane and ethylene
on the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and soot
formation was investigated by Yoon and al. [25].
Investigating counterflow diffusion flames, they found that
DME decreased the formation of PAH and soot when mixed
with alkanes, but increased the amount of these pollutants
when mixed with ethylene. This effect was explained by the
2 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
role of the methyl radicals yielded by DME in PAH and soot
production through the formation of propargyl C3H3 radical
responsible for the aromatic ring formation. This is not
counter-balanced by the oxygen amount brought by DME.
Extensive studies on DME performance in engines have been
performed. DME behavior has been studied in diesel engines
[26], in SI engines[27] and in HCCI conditions [28]. Most
work has been devoted to the latter engine type, for which
DME seems to be a very suitable fuel. However, an increase
of the emission of unburned compounds such as
formaldehyde has been measured in comparison to
conventional fuels [29]. The spray combustion process has
been compared numerically to that of n-heptane by Yu et al. It
was found that DME has a much higher vaporization rate than
n-heptane and that the vaporization rate of the DME droplet is
extremely sensitive to the interphase relative velocity. This
suggests that these dissimilar evaporation characteristics of
DME droplets could greatly influence the auto-ignition and
pollutant formation in the turbulent spray combustion of high
speed direct-injection diesel engines. Furthermore, DME
ignites in fuel rich region while n-heptane does only close to
stoichiometry. The higher concentration of OH radical in the
fuel rich region should also lead to a decrease of the amount
of soot.
Contrary to rich context of engine, studies in gas turbines are
very scarce. Test results reported by Basu [31] have shown
that emissions properties and other combustion parameters,
including dynamic pressures and metal temperatures were
comparable to natural gas. DME could then feed existing gas
turbines that burn natural gas. Kobayashi et al [32] tried to
select the best nozzle burner for feeding a turbine with DME.
Since DME has a low auto-ignition temperature and a higher
combustion velocity compared with other gas fuels, a shorter
premixing length and a higher speed than for natural gas are
required to prevent flash-backs and limit the formation of
NOx in the burning zone. Eighteen different burner
configurations were tested to obtain a low NOx and high
efficiency combustion system. The optimal configuration
found was finally a coaxial jet nozzle burner. Lee et al. [33]
reported test results obtained with a combustor similar to that
of a GE 7EA gas turbine, designed and built by down-scaling
one of the ten 7EA combustors. When comparing DME
combustion to methane combustion, it was found that the fuel
nozzle temperature was slightly higher with DME but the gas
temperature at the exit of the combustion chamber was lower
by about 100°C whatever the power input. Both effects were
explained by a shorter flame length and more heat transfer at
the walls when burning DME. As far as emissions are
concerned, DME led to higher CO but lower NOx amounts.
When the heat input increases from 35 kW up to 60 kW, CO
goes from 18 ppm to 4 ppm in the exhaust gases with DME,
while methane causes almost no emission. On the same power
range, NOx increases from 17 to 42 ppm when burning
methane, and from 15 to 33 ppm with DME. A more unusual
application of DME was proposed by Cocco et al. [34] for
feeding a chemically recuperated gas turbine (CRGT) GE
LM6000 equipped with water injection for DeNOx in which
the exhaust heat serves to perform a wet reforming of DME
into syngas. The authors simulated the energy balance with
3 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
natural gas and DME fuelling. It was shown that thanks to the
exhaust energy recovery enabled by both the DME/water
vaporization and the thermal reforming of DME upstream of
combustion, the efficiency of the DME fuelled turbine was
dramatically improved. For the highest water/DME molar
ratio allowed by this simulation, the power output of the
CRGT was considerably higher than that of the reference unit
without CRGT, with a 8% decrease of the specific CO2
emissions and a 54% efficiency (a relative increase of 32%
with respect to the reference gas turbine).
In line with previous works on alternative fuels in gas turbine
conditions [35][36], the present study aims to investigate the
combustion behavior of DME using a detailed kinetic
modeling. Important combustion parameters, such as auto-
ignition temperature (AIT), ignition delay times, laminar
burning velocities of premixed flames, adiabatic flame
temperatures, and the formation of pollutants are investigated.
Although the complexity of the turbulent combustion in gas
turbine is not really taken into account in this work, kinetic
calculations of well defined parameters will allow
comparisons between the alternative fuel to methane taken as
the reference fuel.
MODELING APPROACH
Several kinetic models for the oxidation and the combustion
of DME have been proposed in the literature. A first one
validated against jet stirred reactor results was proposed by
Dagaut et al. [10]. Curran et al. developed a mechanism
validated against plug flow reactor [8] and laminar flame
results [12]. Based on the latter, a new one was proposed by
Zhao et al. [9] which includes updated sub-mechanisms for
the reactions of small species (H2, CO) and a validation
against further experimental data.
In order to be consistent with previous works [35][36], to
allow comparisons to methane combustion and to include
NOx chemistry, we chose to use the model developed by
Konnov [37] which is based on a mechanism validated for
many C1 and C2 hydrocarbons and oxygenated compounds. It
includes nitrogen oxides chemistry and has been validated
against ignition delay times, products mole fraction in
reactors and flame speeds for many reactants. DME chemistry
is not included in the mechanism by Konnov, and was then
added from Zhao et al. [9] which can be taken as the “state of
the art” chemistry for DME. This sub-mechanism takes into
account reactions in the low temperature range (i.e. below
800 K) that involves the formation of hydroperoxides
responsible for specific behaviors such as cool flames or auto-
ignition. These reactions increase the reactivity at low
temperature and decrease the calculated AITs or ignition
delay times. It is well known that the oxidation of
hydrocarbons at low temperature follows a general scheme
described by the following reactions:
The final mechanism contains 139 species that are involved in
1251 reactions. Since the sub-mechanisms for small species
from Konnov were not that used by Zhao et al. to validate
their DME mechanism, it was necessary to check again the
validity of our new mechanism against some typical
experimental data. Simulations were performed using the
CHEMKIN II software suite [38] that allows the simulation
of several kind of chemical reactors. Auto-ignition delay
times of a DME/air mixture in shock tube conditions have
been simulated in stoichiometric conditions under 13 and 40
bar and results are reported in figure 1. The model simulates
satisfactorily the experiments of [5], even if the low
temperature reactivity is a little bit overestimated at the lower
pressure. The NTC behavior is rather well reproduced in
terms of temperature level and range.
Figure 2: Experimental measurements and simulation of DME
laminar burning velocities at 298K under 1 atm.
Since combustion in gas turbines implies medium pressures
conditions, results of [20] up to 10 atm were also simulated.
Figure 3 summarizes the experiments and the modeling as a
function of equivalence ratio for pressures of 2 and 6 atm
while figure 4 presents the evolution of the experimental and
simulated burning velocities for mixtures of equivalence ratio
0.7 and 1. The model captures well the impact of an
increasing pressure that decreases the flame speed, even if the
burning velocities are a little bit overestimated for the leanest
mixtures. The impact of pressure is dramatic between 1 and 5
atm and less sensitive for higher pressures. The model was
used also to simulate the DME laminar premixed flame
studied by Cool et al. [13]. The results were satisfactory but
are not presented here. The positive results generated by the
above multi-criteria validation approach make us consider the
mechanism robust enough to address the modeling of DME
combustion in gas turbine conditions and to investigate the
different combustion parameters.

Figure 1: Comparison of simulated and experimental [5] auto-

ignition delay times in shock tube of a stoichiometric DME/air
mixture under 13 and 40 bar.

Adiabatic laminar burning velocities at 298 K under

atmospheric pressure were also successfully simulated, as
presented in figure 2. Results from the literature [17]
[18][19][20][21] are well reproduced, within the experimental
uncertainties of a few cm/s in experimental data, even if the
model slightly overestimates the flame speeds of lean
mixtures. The maximum flame speed is reached for an
equivalence ratio of 1.15, which is a little bit higher than that
of alkane flames (between 1.05 and 1.1).

Figure 3: Experimental measurements [20] and simulation of

DME laminar burning velocities at 298K under 2 and 6 atm.

4 Copyright © 2011 by ASME


Figure 4: Experimental measurements [20] and simulation of
DME laminar burning velocities at 298K as a function of the
pressure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Auto-Ignition Temperatures (AIT)
AITs have been calculated by mimicking the Standard
ASTM E 659-78 which considers that there is auto-ignition if
a flame is visible at last 10 minutes after the loading of the
reagents in a glass cylinder of 500 cm3. Calculations assume a
constant volume and typical heat losses through glass walls
(h=19 W.m-2.K-1). Calculations have been performed to
determine the auto-ignition temperature of DME/air mixtures
under pressures from 1 up to 15 atm, as a function of the
equivalence ratio. Figure 5 presents the values for
equivalence ratios of 0.3, 1, and 2. Note that for φ=0.3, no
auto-ignition could be found at atmospheric pressure, but
occurred only above 2 atm. All the calculated AIT data are
comprised in a rather narrow range of 15K. It is also
noteworthy that these simple “0D” calculations give semi
quantitative trends when some parameters vary, although they
do not capture the extreme complexity of the experiments
(heat and matter transfers).
5 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
Figure 5: AIT of DME in air as a function of pressure for
various equivalence ratios.
The AIT of DME found in the literature is 508 K (235°C) at 1
atm, as shown in Table 1. The simulations agree remarkably
with this value. Another interesting specificity of DME is the
very low sensitivity of AITs to the pressure and to the
equivalence ratio. While AITs of ethanol decrease by more
than 150K when going from 1 atm to 15 or from an
equivalence ratio of 0.3 to 2 [36], the value for DME remain
very close to 510 K whatever the conditions. The AIT data for
DME is however low in comparison with those of classical
gaseous fuels for gas turbines but not substantially lower than
that of liquid fuels (diesel or naphtha). Ethanol value is more
than 130K higher. If DME can be compared for many
properties to LPG, it is different for ignition since propane
and butane AITs are between 480 and 420°C (i.e. higher that
the temperature of hot walls around the process) while DME
will lead very easily to an ignition.
Auto-Ignition Delay Times
Calculations have been performed to determine the auto-
ignition delay times of DME/air mixtures. Calculations were
based on adiabatic constant pressure conditions. Their order
of magnitude is also an important safety parameter in case of
accidental leakage or unexpected mixing with air in a pipe
(e.g. during a purge).
Figure 6 and 7 shows the ignition delay data calculated at 300
and 400°C as a function of the initial pressure and of the
equivalence ratio. As shown in figure 6, ignition delay times
vary strongly with equivalence ratio at low pressure but
become less sensitive to this parameter for higher pressure.
An interesting feature at 300°C is the unusual variation of the
ignition delay time with pressure. In very lean mixtures, the
longest delay time is obtained at 1 atm, but when the
equivalence ratio increases, the atmospheric delay times drop
off and become shorter than that obtained at 10 and 15 atm.
Note that the shorter ignition delay time is obtained at 5 atm,
and the longest at the highest pressure (15 atm), whatever the
equivalence ratio. This effect is explained by the low
temperature chemistry where the reactions producing
branching agents are in competition with bimolecular
termination steps. The higher reactivity in the studied range is
obtained under 5 atm for the various equivalence ratios and
lie between 0.25 and 0.3s. When the initial temperature
increases to 400°C, the delay time decreases strongly with the
equivalence ratio with typical values of around 0.1s at
atmospheric pressure and below 0.01s above 5 atm. The
shape of the curves and their relative position reflect a more
usual behavior, with the highest pressure leading to the
shorter ignition times. At 15 atm, the ignition times of DME
is around 10 ms or even shorter. In these conditions, the risk
of auto-ignition event must be seriously taken into account in
safety analyses.

Figure 6: Ignition delay times as a function of equivalence ratio
for DME/air mixture as a function of equivalence ratio for initial
temperature of 300°C.
Figure 7: Ignition delay times as a function of equivalence ratio
for DME/air mixture as a function of equivalence ratio for initial
temperature of 400°C.
Laminar burning velocities
Laminar premixed flames have been calculated in the
conditions that prevail at the inlet of a E-class gas turbine
combustors, i.e. at around 11.5 atm with a DME/air mixture
temperature in the range of 623 K (350°C). Calculations were
performed for a freely propagating flame of a length of
10 cm. Figure 8 shows the laminar burning velocities (UL) of
DME and methane as a function of equivalence ratio. This
figure clearly shows that UL for DME exhibits a maximum for
an equivalence ratio of about 1.15. The position of the
maximum is in agreement with previous experimental data
[20][21]. The corresponding value of UL is found equal to 92
cm/s in our model. This value can be compared to a
maximum burning velocity of 52.5 cm/s in the case of the
methane flame obtained for an equivalence ratio of 1.05. As
shown previously in the case of ethanol [36], the oxygenated
compounds reach their maximum burning velocity for higher
6 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
equivalence ratios than do hydrocarbons. In the same
conditions of pressure, initial temperature and equivalence
ratio, the laminar flame velocity found for ethanol with our
model is 95.5 cm/s, very close to that for DME. The high
burning velocity of these oxygen compounds in comparison
to natural gas or other light hydrocarbons contained in LPG
leads to revisit the design of the fuel nozzles [32].
Figure 8: Laminar burning velocities of DME and methane
premixed flames as a function of equivalence ratio under a
pressure of 11.5 atm, for an initial temperature of 623 K
Flame temperature
The adiabatic flame temperatures of DME and methane-air
mixtures have been calculated for several equivalence ratios
at P =11.5 atm and Tinit = 623 K. Figure 9 shows that the
general evolution of flame temperature is consistent with that
of the laminar burning velocities as described above. Indeed,
all curves exhibit a maximum. Adiabatic flame temperatures
were also calculated at the thermodynamic equilibrium by a
minimization of the Gibbs energy algorithm [39]. The values
(not displayed in figure 9) are very close (difference below
30 K) and show that the thermal equilibrium is reached in the
flame at a distance of 10 cm from the burner in these
conditions.
The shape of the flame temperature curve of DME as a
function of the equivalence ratio was found to be similar to
that of methane. A shift of 80 to 120 K was found between
the two series, the difference being a little bit larger in the
case of the richer mixtures. For both fuels, the maximum
temperature is obtained for the equivalence ratio of 1.05.
Figure 9: Flame temperature of laminar premixed flames of
DME and methane, as a function of equivalence ratio.
Formation of pollutants
As a preamble, it must be stressed that this section, which
involves laminar, premixed flames aims to allow a general
comparison between methane and DME flames taking the
equivalence ratio as key parameter but is not intended to
reflect the actual emissions of gas turbines for which an
elaborated CFD-chemistry coupling would be required to
cover highly turbulent flames.
The amount of CO and NOx at the exit of a laminar premixed
flames has been calculated. Figure 10 shows the amount of
carbon monoxide formed as a function of the equivalence
ratio for DME and methane flames.
For DME, the carbon monoxide mole fraction varies from
20 ppm at φ = 0.5 to about 12.8 % for φ = 1.7. At
stoichiometric conditions, the mole fraction of CO is
approximately 1.7 %. These amounts are slightly above the
equilibrium values (e.g. 1.4% for stoichiometric mixture),
illustrating the slow oxidation of CO to CO2 even in lean
conditions. The chemical equilibrium is reached thus for very
long residence times in the burned gases. The amounts found
with the methane flame are always lower. For φ = 1, the
methane flame produces 0.9% of CO. The CO ratio between
DME and methane flames is a factor of 3 at φ = 0.5 and a
factor of 1.2 at φ = 1.7. These results tend to be in qualitative
agreement with the test field of Lee et al. [33], which showed
large amounts of CO in the combustion gases when switching
the gas turbine feed from methane to DME.
7 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
Figure 10: Formation of carbon monoxide in laminar premixed
flames of DME and methane in air as a function of the
equivalence ratio.
Figure 11 shows the formation of NO in the same conditions
as in figure 8. The formation of other nitrogen oxide species
such as NO2 and N2O is always negligible at high temperature
with a molar fraction always lower than 1 ppm. In the DME
flame, the maximum of NO corresponds to a mole fraction of
5600 ppm and is located at φ = 0.85. The amount of NO
decreases very deeply when the equivalence ratio moves
towards both leaner or reacher mixtures. For φ = 0.5, the
DME flame yields 42 ppm of NO, and 40 ppm for φ = 1.7. In
comparison, a methane flame produces a smaller amount of
NO whatever the equivalence ratio, reflecting the higher
flame temperature developed when burning DME. The
amounts of NO are 5 ppm, 3230 ppm and 32 ppm for
equivalence ratios of 0.3, 1, and 1.7, respectively. The
relative difference between DME and methane flames is the
largest for lean mixtures, when the thermal NOx is the main
formation route of NO. The NO amount at the equilibrium
has been also plotted in figure 11. Contrary to the flame
temperature and the formation of CO, it appears in this case
that the amount of NO is far from the equilibrium value for
many equivalence ratios. For φ < 1.3, the amount of NO is
lower than at equilibrium, the difference increasing when the
mixtures become leaner. For φ = 0.5, the difference reaches
two orders of magnitude. In this range of equivalence ratios,
the formation of NO is limited by the kinetics even if the
temperature is the same in laminar premixed flame as at the
thermochemical equilibrium. The typical residence time in the
flame is indeed too short to reach the equilibrium. For φ > 1.3,
we observe the opposite trend: the simulated amount of NO in
the flame is higher than at the equilibrium by a factor of 3 for
φ = 1.7. This is mainly due to alternative NO formation
pathways such as prompt-NO involving CH radicals and the
NNH route.

Figure 11: Formation of NO in laminar premixed flames of
DME and methane in air as a function of the equivalence ratio.
DME decomposition scheme
The main pathways involved in the combustion of DME in
laminar premixed flames have been reviewed by means of
reaction path analysis. Figure 12 shows the routes of
consumption of DME at an equivalence ratio of 1, under 11.5
atm and at a location in the flame corresponding to a
temperature of 1200 K. As shown in this figure, the
consumption of DME is mainly due to H-abstraction by free
radicals (R•) leading to •CH2OCH3 free radicals. These
radicals react by β-scissions to give formaldehyde and methyl
radicals. The latter one leads to a C2 pathway, similar to that
existing in methane oxidation to formaldehyde through a
reaction with HO2 radicals. Formaldehyde finally gives
carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It is noteworthy that the
consumption of DME quickly yields formaldehyde. The
consequence is a decrease of the overall reaction time by
comparison with alkane combustion.
Figure 12: Main ways of consumption of DME in a laminar
premixed flame at φ =1, P=11.5 atm and T = 1200 K.
CONCLUSION
The combustion of DME was studied by means of a detailed
8 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
kinetic modeling. The existing model for methane combustion
was extended to DME by using a sub-mechanism taken from
the most recent works. The new model was successfully
validated against experimental results found in the literature.
Combustion properties of DME were determined in air, in
conditions that are close to gas turbine operation.
Among the results, we can note that contrary to methane and
ethanol that have been previously studied, auto-ignition
temperatures are not very sensitive to the pressure and the
equivalence ratio. AITs are virtually unaffected and tend to
remain around 508K (235°C).
The laminar flame velocities of premixed flames of DME lie
between 15 cm/s and 93 cm/s for equivalence ratios ranging
from 0.4 to 1.5 at 11.5 atm and 623K. The maximum is
located at φ =1.15 which is consistent with the literature. The
temperatures of DME flames are slightly higher than that of
methane flames.
As far as the formation of NO is concerned, there is no large
difference between the mole fraction calculated in DME and
in methane flames. This result is consistent with the fact that
the adiabatic flame temperature of DME is only slightly
higher than that of methane. However, the NO values
calculated for DME flames substantially differ from those
calculated at equilibrium even if the flame temperatures are
similar. These results, that do not intend to simulate gas
turbine clearly show that NO formation is limited by the
kinetics.
The analysis of the different pathways for the consumption of
DME shows that this molecule is prone to quickly react with
oxygen to form formaldehyde, which is the main reason for
the higher reactivity of DME than methane and larger
alkanes.
REFERENCES
[1] Kohse-Höinghaus K., Oßwald P., Cool T.A., Kasper
T., Hansen N., Qi F., Westbrook C.K., Westmoreland
P.R., 2010, "Biofuel combustion chemistry: from
ethanol to biodiesel", Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 49, 3572
-3597.
[2] Agarwal, A.K., 2007, "Biofuels (alcohols and
biodiesel) applications as fuels for internal combustion
engines", Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 33, 233-271.
[3] Lapuerta M., Armas O., Rodríguez-Fernández J.,
2008, "Effect of biodiesel fuels on diesel engine
emissions", Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 34, 198-223.
[4] Jones, J.C., 2001, “Uncertainties in the flash point of
dimethyl ether”, J. Loss Prevent. Proc., 14, 429-430.
[5] Pfahl, U., Fieweger, K., Adomeit, G., 1996, "Self-
ignition of diesel-relevant hydrocarbon-air mixtures
under engine conditions". Proc. Combust. Inst., 26,
781-789.
[6] Cook, R.D., Davidson, D.F., Hanson, R.K., 2009,
"Shock tube measurements of ignition delay times and
OH time-histories in dimethyl ether oxidation", Proc.
Combust. Inst., 32, 189-196.
[7] Mittal G., Chaos M., Sung C., Dryer F.L., 2008,
"Dimethyl ether autoignition in a rapid compression
 machine: Experiments and chemical kinetic
modeling", Fuel Process. Technol., 89, 1244-1254.
[8] Curran H.J., Fischer S.L., Dryer F.L., 2000, "The
reaction kinetics of dimethyl ether. II: Low-
temperature oxidation in flow reactors", Int. J. Chem.
Kinet., 32, 741-759.
[9] Zhao, Z., Chaos, M., Kazakov, A., Dryer, F.L., 2008
"Thermal decomposition reaction and a comprehensive
kinetic model of dimethyl ether", Int. J. Chem. Kinet.,
40, 1-18.
[10] Dagaut P., Daly C., Simmie J.M., Cathonnet M., 1998,
"Oxidation and ignition of dimethylether from low to
high temperature (500-1600 K): Experiments and
kinetic modeling", Proc. Combust. Inst., 27, 361-369.
[11] Dagaut, P., Luche, J., Cathonnet, M., 2001, "The low
temperature oxidation of DME and mutual
sensitization of the oxidation of DME and nitric oxide.
Experimental and detailed kinetic modeling",
Combust. Sci. Technol., 165, 61-84.
[12] Kaiser E. W., Wallington T. J., Hurley M. D., Platz J.,
Curran H. J., Pitz W. J., Westbrook C. K.,
"Experimental and Modeling Study of Premixed
Atmospheric-Pressure Dimethyl Ether −Air Flames",
2000, J. Phys. Chem. A, 104, 8194-8206.
[13] Cool T. A., Wang J., N. Hansen, P. R. Westmoreland,
F. L. Dryer, Z. Zhao, Kazakov A., Kasper T., Kohse-
Hoinghaus K., 2007, "Photoionization mass
spectrometry and modeling studies of the chemistry of
fuel-rich dimethyl ether flames", Proc. Combust. Inst.,
31, 285-293.
[14] Wang, J., Chaos, M., Yang, B., Cool, T.A., Dryer,
F.L., Kasper, T., Hansen, N., Oßwald, P., Kohse-
Höinghaus, K., Westmoreland, P.R., 2009,
"Composition of reaction intermediates for
stoichiometric and fuel-rich dimethyl ether flames:
Flame-sampling mass spectrometry and modeling
studies", Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 11, 1328-1339.
[15] Lin, Z.K., Han, D.L., Li, S.F., Li, Y.Y., Yuan, T.,
2009, "Synchrotron photoionization mass spectrometry
study of intermediates in fuel-rich 1,2-
dimethoxyethane flame", J. Chem. Phys., 130, art. no.
154306.
[16] Brackmann, C., Bood, J., Aldén, M., Pengloan, G.,
Andersson, Ö., 2006, "Quantitative measurements of
species and temperature in a DME-air counterflow
diffusion flame using laser diagnostic methods"
Combust. Sci. Technol., 178, 1165-1184
[17] Daly C.A., Simmie J.M., Wurnel J., Djeballi N.,
Paillard C., 2001, "Burning velocities of dimethyl
ether and air" ,Combust. Flame, 125, 1329–1340.
[18] Zhao Z., Kazakov A., Dryer F.L., 2004,
"Measurements of dimethyl ether/air mixture burning
velocities by using particle image velocimetry"
Combust. Flame, 139, 52-60.
[19] Jomaas G., 2005, "An experimental study on the
laminar burning velocities and stability boundaries of
outwardly propagating spherical flames", M.S.E.
Thesis, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
9 Copyright © 2011 by ASME
[20] Qin, X., Ju, Y., Sung, C.-J., 2005, "Measurements of
burning velocities of dimethyl ether and air premixed
flames at elevated pressures", Proc. Combust. Inst., 30,
233-240.
[21] Wang, Y.L., Holley, A.T., Ji, C., Egolfopoulos, F.N.,
Tsotsis, T.T., Curran, H.J., 2009, "Propagation and
extinction of premixed dimethyl-ether/air flames",
Proc. Combust. Inst., 32, 1035-1042.
[22] Zheng, X.L., Lu, T.F., Law, C.K., Westbrook, C.K.,
Curran, H.J., 2005, "Experimental and computational
study of nonpremixed ignition of dimethyl ether in
counterflow", Proc. Combust. Inst., 30, 1101-1109.
[23] Frye, C.A., Boehman, A.L., Tijm, P.J.A., 1999,
"Comparison of CO and NO emissions from propane,
n-butane, and dimethyl ether premixed flames", Energ.
Fuel, 13, 650-654.
[24] Cheol-Hong, H., Chang-Eon, L., Kee-Man, L., 2009,
"Fundamental studies of NOx emission characteristics
in dimethyl ether (DME)/air non-premixed flames",
Energ. Fuel, 23, 754-761.
[25] Yoon, S.S., Anh, D.H., Chung, S.H., 2008,
"Synergistic effect of mixing dimethyl ether with
methane, ethane, propane, and ethylene fuels on
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon and soot formation",
Combust. Flame, 154, 368-377.
[26] Ying, W., Genbao, L., Wei, Z., Longbao, Z., 2008,
"Study on the application of DME/diesel blends in a
diesel engine", Fuel Process. Technol., 89, 1272-1280.
[27] Lee, S., Oh, S., Choi, Y., 2009, "Performance and
emission characteristics of an SI engine operated with
DME blended LPG fuel", Fuel, 88, 1009-1015.
[28] Arcoumanis, C., Bae, C., Crookes, R., Kinoshita, E.,
2008, "The potential of di-methyl ether (DME) as an
alternative fuel for compression-ignition engines: A
review", Fuel, 87, 1014-1030.
[29] Huang C., Yao M., Lu X., Huang Z., 2009, "Study of
dimethyl ether homogeneous charge compression
ignition combustion process using a multi-dimensional
computational fluid dynamics model", Int. J. Therm.
Sci., 48, 1814-1822.
[30] Yu, Y., Kang, S., Kim, Y., Lee, K.-S., 2008,
"Numerical study on the characteristics of
vaporization, ignition, and turbulent combustion
processes in dimethyl ether (DME)-fueled engine
conditions"; Energ. Fuels, 22, 3649-3660.
[31] Basu, A. “Use of DME as a Gas Turbine Fuel” ,
ASME 2001-GT-0003, ASME TurboExpo 2001, New
Orleans, June 4-7, 2001
[32] Kobayashi N., Inoue H., Koizumi H., 2003, "Robust
design of the coaxial jet cluster nozzle burner for DME
(dimethyl ether) fuel", ASMEE Turbo Expo 2004, June
16-19, Atlanta, USA, GT2003-38410.
[33] Lee, M.C., Seo, S.B., Chung, J.H., Joo, Y.J., Ahn,
D.H., 2009, “Industrial gas turbine combustion
performance test of DME to use as an alternative fuel
for power generation”, Fuel, 88, 657-662.
[34] Cocco, D., Tola, V., Cau, G., 2006, “Performance
evaluation of chemically recuperated gas turbine
 (CRGT) power plants fuelled by di-methyl-ether nitric oxide oxidation by ethane at low temperatures",
(DME)”, Energy, 31, 1446-1458. Combust. Flame, 141, 191-199.
[35] Glaude P.A., Fournet R, Bounaceur R., Molière M., [38] Kee R.J., Rupley F.M., Miller J.A.,1993, in Sandia
2010, “Adiabatic flame temperature from biofuels and Laboratories Report, S 89-8009B.
fossil fuels and derived effect on NOx emissions”, [39] Morley, C., 2005, Gaseq, Chemical equilibria in
Fuel Process. Technol., 91, 229-235. perfect gases, v. 0.79, http://www.gaseq.co.uk.
[36] Glaude P.A., Fournet R, Bounaceur R., Molière M.,
2010, “Ethanol as an alternative fuel in gas turbines:
Combustion and oxidation kinetics”, ASME
TurboExpo 2010, Glasgow, June 14-18, GT2010- .
22338.
[37] Konnov, A.A, Barnes F.J., Bromly J.H., Zhu J.N.,
Zhang D.K., 2005, "The pseudo-catalytic promotion of

10 Copyright © 2011 by ASME

View publication stats