-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
RMG Database incomplete for Liquid Phase Kinetics #305
Comments
Dear all, |
IIRC the liquid_oxidation root level database was an aborted attempt (by me) to reproduce in entirety some other rule-based system for estimating liquid hydrocarbon autoxidation. I'm afraid I forget whose - it was many years ago that I did it. It was an experiment that I think was never finished, never tested, and never used, and so eventually deleted to reduce confusion. It was before we added solvation corrections to RMG and all the work by @ajalan on liquid oxidation. Have people been finding a use for the liquid_oxidation database? |
Poking around the source folder, maybe I got it further than I remember. I don't think we ever tested (and certainly haven't published) a model built using it though. |
Dear Dr. West, I remember from my early fiddlings with RMG that I obtained sensible looking liquid oxidation schemes that covered hydroperoxide decomposition, forming predominantly alcohols, aldehydes and ketones. I would say that back then it definitely worked. |
OK, following this up some more, I just end up being more and more perplex.... The condition file and RMG dictionary from the historic run are - with a changed file ending (!!!! txt -> png) attached below. (Change the file ending to txt and it should show.) |
@DetlevCM do you have any of the other output files from this run? If any of them include the git hash of the version that was used to run it in the header, eg something like
then please share that with us too. One thing to note is that input file uses the normal @ajalan (and other RMG-Java devs) don't suppose anything springs to mind as to why hydroperoxides no longer decompose? |
Unfortunately it doesn't have a hash - none of the RMG builds I created from zipped downloads have one, sorry. This is the start of the logfile: On the liquid_phase library: The beginning of the log is below:
|
Do any of the files (log, or chemkin) list the reaction family that generated the reactions that now seem to be missing? |
Unfortunately, I don't think I can see any reaction family that is mising. We initially did some products tracing - and found a difference between iso and normal alkanes in the ratio between aldehydes and ketones. A newer build then stopped producing the ketones - just aldehydes and the discrepancy disappeared. Since it again changed.... I would think it is an interaction somewhere in the datbase - but where and how I unfortunately do not know. |
Another comment - I'm running a scheme at 500K with an error tolerance of 0.05 andnow have the odd ketone and some alcohols, BUT with species numbers of 3500 and hihger they formed very late. Something that is more present in today's modern database is the formation of larger molecules from radicals combining. |
OK, I just had a stupid little idea...tried something... not quite getting there but this may be related: A low error tolerance model became huge - with 300 species the RMG wesite also fails to visualise the scheme... (no output file produced), however on the smaller ones, some alcohols form and a lot of C20 polymers form. (Some would be expected.) I then started to limit RMG - maximum of 15 carbon atoms. No more C20 polymerisations. Next I limted RMG to 15C and 2O atoms per molecule - I get some molecuels with 3 oxygen atoms.... (See #308 ) Then I looked at the manual - for RMG 3.3 and 4.0.0 - the species limits. Well, there is a minor mistake in the 3.3 manual... the example says maximum carbon atoms is 100 while the text says it is 30. I wonder if the bug could be there? I have also provided a slide from the 2013 IASH prensentation by Mikael SIcard, which shows a breakdown of the products formed from liquid phase decomposition. |
OK, I did some more digging on the liquid phase aspect and I may have found an answer? Or maybe not... I ran RMG 3.3. - and obtained the desired breakdown products. Visualizing the scheme and looking through it I found the following: This looks very much like a hydroperoxide decomposition - and in my experience RMG often writes reactions backwards... (backwards relative to forward being determined by the dominant reaction rate) I also obtain H2O2 <=> 2 HO. which I believe I no longer see. This possibly directly links back to Ehsan's question here: #306 |
Ok, I did some investigating: I took my version from December 2014, removed the radical recombination reactions and dropped in the radical recombination reactions from version 3.3. instead. Results:
A hydroperoxide decomposition does occur - but not significant enough. (And in the case of our models at 423K it doesn't happen.) I'm a tad perplexed... but the modern database is definitely missing smaller hydrocarbons - initial input is C10, RMG3.3 produces <C10 hydrocarbons, RMG4.0.1+ does not... |
OK, I did a bit fo a followup recently and tried my damnest to get RMG 4.0.1 (or later) to produce some hydroperoxide decomposition. I raised the temperature, increased the pressure... no go... I'm truly perplexed as to why RMG no longer predicts the production of species which we know to form as a result of autoxidation... |
Dear All,
tracking things down, like the expected hydroperoxide decomposition, I found that apparently the liquid_oxidation kinetics groups are not considered when RMG runs as it only searches through RMG_Database.
Is there a specific reason why liquid phase reactions were removed?
Looking through prior versions, it appears that liquid phase reactions were removed from the main RMG database from version 3.2 - while they are present prior in RMG 3.0 and 3.1.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: