Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fuel
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fuel

Modelling methods for co-fired pulverised fuel furnaces
L. Ma b, M. Gharebaghi b, R. Porter b,*, M. Pourkashanian b, J.M. Jones a, A. Williams b
a b

Energy and Resources Research Institute, School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK Centre for Computational Fluid Dynamics, School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Co-firing of biomass and coal can be beneficial in reducing the carbon footprint of energy production. Accurate modelling of co-fired furnaces is essential to discover potential problems that may occur during biomass firing and to mitigate potential negative effects of biomass fuels, including lower efficiency due to lower burnout and NOx formation issues. Existing coal combustion models should be modified to increase reliability of predictions for biomass, including factors such as increased drag due to non-spherical particle sizes and accounting for organic compounds and the effects they have on NOx emission. Detailed biomass co-firing models have been developed and tested for a range of biomass fuels and show promising results. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 30 September 2008 Received in revised form 21 October 2008 Accepted 12 February 2009 Available online 13 March 2009 Keywords: Computational fluid dynamics Co-firing Biomass combustion

1. Introduction Co-firing pulverised coal with biomass offers considerable potential environmentally because of the reduction of sulphur dioxide (SOx), the potential reduction of nitric oxides (NOx) and the reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions [1]. Co-firing also offers a means of extending fossil fuel resources and can be used with a wide range of different of coals ranging from anthracite to lignites, with a wide range of biomass types. The biomass materials that can be used fall into two broad classes; agricultural residues and energy crops, whose properties (moisture, nitrogen content) depend on their history and pre-treatment [1]. In this paper, a theoretical study has been made of co-firing in an industrial test furnace with examples from both classes of biomass and forms an extension of previous co-firing studies, in order to test the applicability of the models [2]. Currently co-firing coal with a limited amount of biomass has been widely implemented in existing coal-fired power plants. Often the amount of biomass added to the normal coal feed is limited in large-scale power plants to 5% on a thermal basis since milling biomass and coal together presents problems that substantially limit its use in unmodified existing coal-fired plants. Larger quantities of biomass can be fired if separate biomass mills and associated burners are installed. This is mainly because of the difficulty of reducing biomass to sufficiently small particles to achieve complete combustion in the combustion chamber.

2. Mathematical modelling Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) models have been widely used to simulate combustion in coal-fired power station combustors [3–5]. At present, CFD models are used as an aid to design rather than as a primary design tool since, some aspects of the work they are not accurate enough, and can be very time consuming. In the case of co-firing there are additional complexities. Details of the CFD models employed are outlined below and then computational predictions are compared to experimental data from a research furnace. 2.1. Governing equations A CFD model has been applied to co-firing of pulverised coal and biomass in a 0.5 MW combustion test facility (CTF). During modelling, attention was focussed on co-firing of two dissimilar fuels, including the combustion of the larger and irregular biomass particles which can result in the milling process as described before [2,6]. The CFD model is formulated using an Eulerian–Lagrange frame of reference, the gas phase combustion is calculated in the Eulerian frame of reference and the motion and combustion of the solid fuel particles are tracked in a Lagrangian reference frame. There is constant exchange of momentum, mass and heat between the combusting gas and solid particles and the exchanges between the two systems appear as source/sink terms in the governing equations for the continuous gas phase flows as well as those for the discrete solid particles. For gas flow, the governing mass, momentum, and energy equations can be typically represented by the following scalar transport Eq. (1):

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 113 343 481; fax: +44 113 246 7310. E-mail address: pmrp@leeds.ac.uk (R. Porter). 0016-2361/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fuel.2009.02.030

@ qUk =@x þ @ðqui Uk À Ck @ Uk =@xi Þ=@xi ¼ SUk

k ¼ 1; . . . ; N

ð1Þ

easy to implement and computationally robust.6. [10]. such as those in combustion systems. 2. The k–e turbulence models provide good solution without excessive computation time. To allow for the effects of deviation of the shape from spherical a particle shape factor (f) was utilized. Some papers [7] indicate a value of 0. The rate of combustion of the soot particles was assumed to be governed by the Magnussen equation [14]. is fairly similar for many coals. Soot formation can also have significant impact on the radiative heat flux in the furnace. area of particle and a scattering factor. For pulverised fuel combustion in CFD.L. some fibrous biomass particles (such as wood) may not be spherical and have a large aspect ratio.85 for the slag at the wall operating temperature and 0. Directly solving the RTE and correct calculation of absorption coefficients and emissivity of the gas and fuel/ash particles is very challenging and therefore various approximations are employed for engineering applications. indicating forward scattering. namely. Soot can be formed from the tar or from the gases.2. Discrete phase particles The motions of the fuel particles in the furnace are tracked in the Lagrangian frame of reference with the particle momentum equation. however there is a penalty of additional computation time. Ma et al. The scattering from the discrete phase particles is not constant throughout burning because the radiative properties of fly ash are different from coal/char particles. In the case of pulverised fuel combustion. The radiative properties of the particles are also dependent upon the refractive index of the particle. For coal particles the real part of the index. For most coals and the non-fibrous materials (palm kernel extract (PKE) and olive waste) considered in this paper the particles are almost spherical and in the case of coal they also melt and they are taken as spherical in the computation. This was done because the DO model is a more detailed and accurate model but more demanding on computational time. In this study the DO model is used whereas in some previous studies the P1 model was employed. Although. such as those concerned in this paper. The gray radiative transfer equation (RTE) at position r in the direction s for an absorbing. The furnace considered in this paper has water cooled walls. s0 ÞdX0 4p ð2Þ where a and rs are the absorption and the scattering coefficient respectively. When two dissimilar solid fuels are involved. The scattering by particles becomes more forward directed for both char and ash particles as the particle dimension increases [8]. emitting. The DO radiation model is more computationally expensive than the P1 model but is suitable for all optical thicknesses. Drag that acts on a non-spherical particle may be formulated as a function of spherical particle Reynolds number and shape factor. / Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454 2449 C and SU are the diffusion coefficient and relevant source terms for the N scalars (Uk) in the system. The build up of slag also affects heat transfer through the walls. It has been applied to pulverised fuel combustion [11] and produces most accurate results if the optical dimension of the medium is large. The DO radiation model approximates the solution to the RTE by discretizing the entire solid angle (4p) into a finite number of solid angles. An overall single-step soot formation model [13] based on the total volatile concentration was used thus a single transport equation is solved for the soot mass fraction. Based on earlier studies [6] and from additional experimental measurements we took the values of the emissivity to be 0. then two sets of such source terms representing the different contributions from the two fuels have to be considered. The transfer of momentum between the gas and the solid particles is thus represented using the drag coefficient CD. The constants used are applicable for the formation of soot from an aromatic precursor. The scattering by discrete particles is determined by the particle reflectivity. for example Backreedy et al. 1 indicates total forward scattering (effectively treated as transmission). representing the exchange of mass. Within each solid angle the intensity is assumed to be constant and the RTE is solved for each direction that corresponds to a solid angle [12]. A range of turbulence models are available that approximate solutions to the flow field when turbulence is present. Radiation also plays a significant part in particle heating up. therefore the thermal resistance at the operating temperature of the wall can define the thermal conductivity of the wall and a fixed temperature on the outer wall of the furnace are used as boundary conditions in the model. sÞ ¼ an2 rT 4 =p Z þ rs = p Iðr. there are problems in calculating the heat loss through the walls of the combustion chamber because often the construction is complex and consists of different materials together with embedded cooling tubes. The factor indicates the scattering properties of a particle. In our work this factor was set to 0. can be expressed as follows (2): dIðr. as described in [6]. 2. n. momentum. In this paper.9 is more appropriate and this value is still subject to some discussion. as discussed in Haider and Levenspiel [15]. the RNG k–e or the full Reynolds Stress model should be considered for flows with strong swirling motions. In brief. ignition and char combustion. [2] and Knaus et al. Heat transfer Radiative heat transfer is the dominant mode of heat transfer in a pulverised fuel combustion chamber and governs temperature and heat flux profiles.3. 2. the P1 model is a first order approximation to the RTE by integration where the radiation intensity is represented by a series of spherical harmonics. Turbulence model Flow fields within combustion chambers are turbulent in nature and the exact solution of the turbulent flow would be too time consuming to solve in CFD. with the variation mostly caused by the imaginary part. the RNG model was implemented to generate realistic predictions of turbulence effects for the furnace investigated. I is the radiation intensity and s’ is the scattering direction vector. Ss. m = n À ik. and scattering medium. the P1 and the Discrete Ordinate (DO) radiation models are often chosen. sÞ=ds þ ða þ rs ÞIðr. the source term SU should include the contributions from the solid particles. The factor (f) is defined as the ratio of the surface area of an equivalent sphere having same surface area of particle and the real particle surface area. sÞUðs. The correct solution of heat transfer and temperature profiles within the furnace can be very difficult and calculation of heat transfer to the outside of the chamber can be problematic. Instead of the standard k–e model. Other boundary and input conditions related to the heat transfer are discussed below. However. This is important to include because the shape significantly influences the aerodynamic behaviour of the particle. It is therefore mathematically simple. A review of the various models used in combustion systems for CFD applications can be found in [9]. current modelling of scattering in CFD used here does not require specification of the refractive index. and heat between the two phases. Increasing the fineness of the angular discretization increases the accuracy of the prediction. There are extensive discussions on the use of radiation models in pulverised coal combustion [10].4.9 for the combusting char. however more powerful computers are available and this is now our first choice. these properties are important. Firstly. C D ¼ ð24=ReÞð1 þ b1 Reb2 Þ þ ½b3 Re=ðb4 þ Reފ ð3Þ .

gas and total volatiles for the four coals were calculated by FG-DVC [6.ox Š½D0 R=ðD0 þ Rފ D0 ¼ C1 ð½ðT p þ T 1 Þ=2Š0:75 =dp Þ ð9Þ ð10Þ b1. Average values for the coals. For biomass.2  1014 sÀ1. (R2) and (R3). is explicitly expressed in terms of the intrinsic chemical and pore diffusion rate. Particle temperature in the furnace is governed by the convective and radiative heat transfer and the heat from char reaction. leads to an activation energy E of 230 kJ molÀ1 and a pre-exponential factor A of 4. The overall char reaction is a function of particle temperature. . gasification reactions with CO2 and steam are slower and more dependent on temperature. the values for devolatilisation rate constants Ad and Ed. The important reactions may be simplified via a global form to: CðsÞ þ CO2 ðgÞ $ 2COðgÞ CðsÞ þ H2 OðgÞ ! COðgÞ þ H2 ðgÞ COðgÞ þ H2 OðgÞ $ CO2 ðgÞ þ H2 ðgÞ ðR6Þ ðR7Þ ðR8Þ Volatiles þ O2 ¼ mCO þ nH2 O CO þ 0:5O2 ¼ CO2 CðcharÞ þ 0:5O2 ¼ CO CO þ 0:5O2 ¼ CO2 ðR2Þ ðR3Þ ðR4Þ ðR5Þ For co-firing the same models are used but there are additional factors in the case of biomass relating to the nature of the biomass particles. the time to ignition increased from 0. respectively).0264 s for a moisture content of 25% thus taking 3. Details regarding the calculation of the chemical rate (including swelling caused by vitrinite components) are given in [6]. The homogeneous volatile reactions.22]. single values were used for coal properties including coal density of 1400 kg mÀ3 and specific heat of 1. For coal chars this model was modified by including a variable char surface area sub-model together with char annealing effects based on the Suuberg [18] annealing model. and oxygen concentration and diffusivity. Moisture in the coal or biomass can be accounted for within CFD models by including evaporation of water from the fuel particle. The rates and yields of the coal and biomass decomposition products In the case of the coals. doubling the size appears to double the time to ignition and obviously for all particle sizes. The dimension of the particle is also important with respect to heating up times. the influence of CO2–H2O on char reactivity was ignored in this study.5. The other corrections used for coal char were not applied to biomass. Thus intrinsic char combustion rate can be expressed as (9): The reaction (R8) takes place in gas phase. including issues surrounding the choice of heat capacity and emissivity for biomass. The devolatilisation rate constant parameters for the release of tar.ox is the molecular weight of oxidant species and Ap. 2.5 longer to reach ignition temperature than for a low moisture particle. b2. for the overall first order step obtained from previous studies [22] on devolatilisation network codes were used.i is the specific internal area of the char particle. are followed by heterogeneous char combustion. it was found that the amount of moisture within the biomass can have a large effect on the time to ignition. f. The effective surface reaction rate includes the effects of both bulk diffusion and chemical reaction rates. A number of the devolatilisation network codes have previously been examined and on this basis we have used the FGDVC and the FG-Biomass codes to determine the devolatilisation of coal and biomass.6. It is also postulated that the H2O reaction with char may have an inhibiting effect on the char– CO2 gasification reaction. A similarity between the coal and biomass sub-models was assumed. The chemical rate R . / Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454 b1 ¼ expð2:3288 À 6:4581f þ 2:4486f 2 Þ b2 ¼ 0:0964 þ 0:5565f b3 ¼ expð4:9050 À 13:8944f þ 18:4222f 2 À 10:2599f 3 Þ b4 ¼ expð1:4681 þ 12:258f À 20:7322f 2 þ 15:8855f 3 Þ ð4Þ ð5Þ ð6Þ ð7Þ ðdmp =dtÞ ¼ fann fmac Ap.The test coals used in this study are similar [23] in nature to those discussed in [6] and consequently the above value was used for all the coals in this study. Larger biomass particles generally follow the same combustion laws as coal particles. For a 1 mm biomass particle heated at 2200 K. Yox is the species concentration of oxidizer. Studies of processes where the mass fraction of CO2 is significantly higher in the combustion zone have indicated that neglecting the effect of CO2/H2O on the char reactivity will lead to inaccurate predictions. The rate of biomass char combustion is slighter higher because the carbon has a less ordered structure.0076 s for moisture content of 5%.68 J kgÀ1 KÀ1.i ½ðqp RT 1 Y ox Þ=M w. an intrinsic char combustion model was used in a similar way to that for coal combustion. to 0. Coefficients can be used to modify the reaction rate for the effect of annealing and maceral content (fann and fmac. due to heating of water within the particle prior to ignition. surface area. Since in coal–air combustion heterogeneous C–CO2 and C–H2O reactions do not play a major role. Mw. b3 and b4 are functions of the shape factor. respectively. D0 (10) is the bulk diffusion coefficient.2450 L. 2. respectively [16]. During the investigation into biomass ignition. although slightly different mechanisms are involved and biomass specific constants that characterize the sub-models have been investigated and employed. chemical reaction rate. A two-step reaction mechanism was used for volatile combustion and the eddy dissipation model used to couple turbulence and chemical reactions. A decrease in temperature from 2200 to 1500 K causes a threefold increase in time to ignition. oxygen plays the role of the dominant oxidant. Discussion regarding the formulation of the coefficients is presented in preceding work [6]. There are studies regarding the char–CO2 and char–H2O gasification reaction in literature [19–21]. Particle combustion An overall devolatilisation step was used to determine the devolatilisation of the coal particle Coal ¼ char þ gases þ tar ðR1Þ The yields of gases and tars combined are known as the volatile matter (VM). The char combustion sub-model is based on Smith’s intrinsic model [17]. This are usually expressed as a heat balance equation as follows (8): mp cp dT p =dt ¼ hAp ðT 1 À T p Þ À fh ðdmp =dtÞHreac þ Ap ep rðhR4 À T p4 Þ ð8Þ Tp and mp are the temperature and mass of the particle. Ma et al. (R4) and (R5): T1 is the temperature in the medium. In coal–air combustion. In comparison to the char reaction with oxygen. Because of the relatively narrow range of coals used here. the higher the temperature of the environment during heating the faster the time to ignition. It is assumed that the oxygen order of the surface reaction is unity under the conditions studied.

Video images were examined to provide estimations of ratio of flame zone radius to particle radius for the suspended biomass particle as it burns. The yields of volatiles (char is the remainder) for the coals were calculated by FG-DVC using the coal composition and the above conditions and these are given in Table 2. The devolatilisation network code FG-DVC was used to derive the values. Pollutant formation The NOx model used in this work incorporates fuel-NO. both routes are considered. woods contain about 70–90% protein and amino acids and this is a reasonable assumption for Miscanthus too. Ma et al. The code permits a number of user-defined sub-routines and this facility was exploited here as detailed above. 4. fixed at a value of 157 kg hÀ1 with a coal flow rate to give an approximately 0. low-NOx. Gas and carbon in ash samples were made at the exit of the furnace. In general. Definition of the physical conditions at which devolatilisation takes place is therefore an important issue and based on our earlier studies [22] the conditions are taken to be 105 K sÀ1 to a temperature of 1773 K in 150 ms. 1.25. The choice of the turbulence model and the 3. The ratios of the primary to secondary to tertiary air flows were typically 1:0. soot and char are converted to HCN and subsequently react to give NO or N2. NO can be formed from the former via the HCN intermediate by the De Soete fuel-N mechanism. The main combustion air is split between the secondary and tertiary registers and was heated to 434 and 529 K. and prompt mechanisms previously used in coal combustion simulations [6. The fuel-N from biomass is in the form of both amino acids and heterocyclic compounds. Computational mesh used in CFD model. To correctly represent the swirling flow in the burner and the furnace. Experimental CTF facility Experimental results from a triple-staged. 2. wood and PKE provided were examined and photographs of these are shown in an earlier BCURA report [23]. via an air-line where the primary air was heated to a temperature of 325 K. thermal. and were based on the measured laboratory value of VM and are for the wood and Miscanthus. but there is little direct experimental information on their behaviour in furnace flames where the heating-up rate is important.5 MW thermal rating. The size distributions can however be handled adequately by the CFD model but there is an issue about the larger sizes of the wood and Miscanthus. The mixtures of biomass and the coals present complex issues in the definition of the size distribution used as input for the CFD model. Simulation results Computational simulation of the furnace was performed using a commercial CFD code. In the devolatilisation model.The key issue is knowledge of the partitioning of the nitrogen between these products. A van Krevelen plot indicated the properties of the fuel in relation to other commonly used fuels [23]. . The model assumes that the fuel-N content of the volatiles.7. olive waste. which resulted in significant increases running and convergence times. / Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454 2451 The reaction rates of biomass have been widely studied using TGA or drop tube reactors. Fuel properties The properties of the coal and biomass are given in Table 1.L. 4. The objective of these simulations is to test the accuracy of the CFD coal combustion model. A first order kinetic rate model has been widely used for all biomass materials. hence due to the amount of proteins and amino acids in biomass. The samples of milled Miscanthus. the ratio provides confirmation of the amount of volatiles associated with the devolatilisation of the biomass particles under flame conditions.75:2.26]. The unburned carbon in ash is in part determined by the amount of char produced at the devolatilisation stage.5 Â 108 J kg molÀ1 have been used and are based on values previously used for the pf wood [16]. Values of A = 6 Â 1013 sÀ1 and E = 2. swirling blades were resolved in the computational mesh. Gascoigne Wood. 1. The biomass calculation of NO employs a method previously used [27] and it is assumed that the ratio of NO produced via HCN and NH3 routes is 1:3. The Biot Number (Bi) determines whether the particles are thermally thin. The pulverised coal was injected some distance upstream of the burner mouth permitting stratification of the coal particles in the burner. was available for each coal studied. FLUENT version 6. Information on the particle size distribution. the same assumption is made for other biomass types. Comparison of experimental and computed results for gascoigne wood coal The first set of simulations and experiments were undertaken using a raw coal. The furnace geometry uses $300.1. The fuel-N in amino acids can be converted into either HCN and NH3.2. The presence of larger irregular sized biomass particles impacts the particle reactivity and aerodynamic behaviour.3. which after further reactions become NO [27]. the Rosin–Rammler parameters. The milled biomass samples vary considerably depending on the type of biomass.000 computational grid cells which are adequate for this calculation and is shown in Fig. The primary air flow rate was Fig. 4. The regime can be defined as Bi < 1 and effectively that means particles of about 250 lm are thermally thin [24].7. The steps employed in the NOx model are given in detail in [6]. measured values are compared to those predicted using the FG-Biomass program. the properties are well known and which has been used in a series of trials in the past. Small variations in the pre-exponential factor had only a small effect. The combustion chamber was provided with a number of ports for radiation measurements. The data are presented in an ‘as received form’ and were used to derive the quantities required by FG-DVC and CFD code. The biomass volatile yields used are given in Table 2. From particle size measurements by electron microscopy it is found that some biomass particles may fall outside that category. Ten particle diameter ranges have been used for the computations presented ranging from 6 to 300 lm with a mean particle diameter of 40 lm. particles are assumed to be spherical and thermally thin and the kinetic expression rate for the biomass (and the coals) is only applicable in this case. Pulverised coal of a known particle size distribution was fed to the burner by a feeder. wall-fired swirl burner of RWE npower were used to validate the CFD model. respectively.

75 Calculated (FG-Biomass) 90.5–69.96 64.80 Calculated (FG-DVC) 55. / Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454 South African 5.54 – – Fig.9 80.15 30.1 54.56 12.1 58.13 75.80 Value given by RWE npower 55.44 L.36 1.74 27.48 PKE 9. daf) for the coals and biomass studied in the project. (b) CRE data at 1350 °C [30] and (c) calculated from [31.93 Table 2 Volatile yields BS method (wt%.42 1.43 0.61 Miscanthus 8.75 18.32 0.60 24.05 26.57 16.15 36.2452 Table 1 Coal and biomass properties BS method (% as received).01 1.50 0.34 85.91 – – 84.48 50.44 Russian 5.4 77.00 17.56 0.005 0.47 (a) 57.54 0.72 18.21 1.08 26.83 20. Ma et al.43 37.45 69.76 12.2 (c) Value given by RWE npower 76.9–60.81 5.58 93.22 Olive waste 6.19 65.112 0.92 0.79 2. .64 VM (daf) 86.34 0. Coal Gascoigne Wood Russian South African Biomass Milled wood PKE Olive Miscanthus VM (daf) 35.62 44. (a) Provided by Stephenson.01 67.13 Milled wood 7.22 3.78 63.83 26.4 18.41 7.26 6.51 5.56 42.42 5.91 2.99 4.8 46.32].70 1. Coal Inherent moisture ash VM FC C H N S Cl K GCV MJ/kg NCV MJ/kg Gascoigne Wood 4. 2.47 25.71 80.08 0.5 (c) 48.42 5.05 47. (a) View of the contours of static temperature for Gascoigne Wood coal and (b) flame attachment detail for Gascoigne Wood coal.47 12.11 43.

3. A photograph of this flame provided by RWE npower is shown in Fig.74 4.0 100. 800. / Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454 2453 Fig. A. A close match was not found between the measured and predicted values.5 Axial Distance from the Quarl Face. accuracy ±3%). The expansion angles are the same as is the general flame shape. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend.0 700. The general view of the simulated flame in the furnace is shown in Fig. Surface incident radiation measurements and computation (Gascoigne Wood) as a function of distance from the burner.29] on flame temperatures measurements.5 0 0.96 0.15–5 lm.5 1 1. red 1650 °C. and flame shape.5 3 3. Table 3 Comparison of simulation data and measured data. These results are shown in Fig.5 5.11 3.0 Measurement CFD 4 4.80 6. Information was provided by RWE npower on the radiant fluxes in the furnace obtained using a Medtherm heat flux transducer (H 201. A. there is reasonably good agreement with actual temperatures (for a similar coal. Fuel Gascoigne Wood coal Russian coal Russian/PKE S. 4.35 1.0 400. With respect to the predicted temperatures. kW/m2 600. and there was information available from related investigations [28.0 200.0 300. 4 together with the computed values.L.8 4. 3a. coal/Olive waste (15%th) Calc NO ppm (dry) 300 296 316 292 288 250 276 Measured NO ppm (dry) 325 325 321 312 319 242 230 Calc C in ash (Mass%) 1. There are a number of possible factors that may contribute to the inaccuracies.0 Surface Incident Radiation.56 Measured C in ash (Mass%) 3. the reader is referred to the web version of this article. not Gascoigne Wood) shown by comparing Figs. 2a and the detailed near-burner structure in Fig.0 0.0 3. Ma et al. coal/wood (20%th) S.29] reproduced with permission.0 500. There was experimental data available from RWE npower for this flame on the incident flux to the furnace wall.785 5. There is good agreement on the position of flame attachment. A. African coal S. ignition. optical range 0. The flame shape was determined using a densitometer to obtain a quantitative measurement of the flame shape and intensity as a function of the distance from the flame. This information was compared with our computed data. 2b.) devolatilisation model determine the flame stability (flame holding) and the flame shape. yellow 1580 °C and blue/green 1450 °C.9 7. m Fig.29 3. (a) Photograph of flame and (b) measured temperature field of [28.5 2 2.4 4. coal/Miscanthus (20%th) S.16 Calculated exit T (K) 1606 1578 1612 1620 1541 1574 1603 Measured exit T (K) 1597 1407 1488 1424 1527 1470 1539 . 2b and 3b.

86(12–13):1959–65. 1994. We would like to thank BCURA for the award of the research grant that provided funding for this project and to SuperGen-Bioenergy for useful information.86(17–18):2672–8. Fuel 1999.178(4):763–87. Prog Energy Combust Sci 1987. [23] Williams A. [12] Raithby GD. / Fuel 88 (2009) 2448–2454 (a) Accuracy of calculation of absorption and emission by combustion gases within the furnace.5 mm in diameter and these particles preferentially fall to the bottom of the furnace. Carbon burnout of pulverised coal in power station furnaces. It has been possible to deal with complex particle sizes and shapes in a reasonable manner. Combust Flame 2008.86(15):2283–90. Computations of NOx were respectable as were the calculations of the unburned carbon in ash. Harris DJ. Lisbon.28(2):2141–62.153(1–2):270–87. Hjertager BH. [2] Backreedy RI et al. Symp (Int) Combust 2000. Menguc MP. Vuthaluru HB. [27] Ma L et al. Proc Combust Inst 2005. Modelling the combustion of pulverized biomass in an industrial combustion test furnace. It is our intention to revisit the issue of radiation modelling in a future project. Fuel 1996. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 1986. Mathematical modelling of semi-anthracite combustion in a single burner furnace. Co-firing coal/biomass and the estimation of burnout and NOx formation – Report B 79. Fuel 2005. J Heat Transfer-Trans Asme 1990. Levendis YA. and the values used. Drag coefficient and terminal velocity of spherical and nonspherical particles. [5] Vuthaluru R. Report No PGB 48. [17] Smith IW. It proves that it is possible to predict the behaviour of the biomass in the coal flame. The comparison between calculated and measured values of NO. Shah NG. [19] Hampartsoumian E et al. The P-1 model for thermal radiation transfer: advantages and limitations. (e) Simplification to scattering properties may have a large effect on the surface flux. [30] Cahill P. together with the correct handling of the associated fluid flow and heat transfer processes are vital. A Finite-Volume method for predicting a radiant-heat transfer in enclosures with participating media. Single-coal-particle combustion in O2/N2 and O2/ CO2 environments. 5.29(11):1649–54. In: Seventh international conference on technologies and combustion for a clean environment. Energy Fuels 2008. [21] Bejarano PA. Powder Technol 1989. [31] Man CK et al. Ehrburger P. The biomass particles are heterogeneous and certain slower burning particles do not burn out completely especially if larger than 0.87(7): 633–9. shape and drag coefficient of the particles. The results of modelling the CTF with a single coal. Fuel 2007. A gray approximation of the RTE is used. Beer JM. Arauzo I. There are considerable uncertainties in the absolute values of devolatilisation rates and yields under the heating conditions that prevail in this study.30(2):2955–64. Coal Research Establishment. Gascoigne Wood. Chui EH. Modelling coal combustion: the current position.2454 L. [29] DTI Report. Pourkashanian M. The coal and biomass models produced a satisfactory prediction of the combustion properties. [13] Khan IM. . Fuel 2007. [15] Haider A. 1997. Fuel 2005. Rizvi SMA. editors. Symp (Int) Combust 1982. Jones J. We are extremely grateful to Dr. Fuel 2008. A major inference is that devolatilisation is the process responsible for the major release of mass. Portugal. Pourkashanian M.13(2):97–160.22(1):306–16. Further improvements to radiative properties are being examined and it is hoped that better agreement will be found to calculated values. [26] Jones JM et al.82(15–17):2069–73. In: Fourth international EPRI conference.92(1–3):105–21. 2007. Comparison of radiative characteristics for fly ash and coal. Jones JM. displayed reasonable agreement with the experimental results were obtained although there is still some uncertainty about the radiation data. (c) Devolatilisation parameters may be incorrect causing flame properties to be incorrectly modelled and affecting heat flux calculations.16(1):719–29. Surface complexes on carbon during oxidation and gasification. editors. Attention has been drawn to the importance of accurate data on the specific heats of the coals and in particular of the biomass particles. In: Afgan NH.75(3):289–94. especially in the burner region. Discussion and conclusion A number of calculations have been performed and model predictions have been compared with the available measurement data and experimental observations. The combustion rates of coal chars: a review. 2003. Modelling NOx formation in coal particle combustion at high temperature: an investigation of the devolatilisation kinetic factors. Symp (Int) Combust 1977. [9] Viskanta R. there is some evidence that similar effects have been observed in furnace measurements in other research institutions possibly due to the complex geometry where the burner enters the furnace. p. Comparative predictive experience of coal firing. Concurrent measurements of temperature and soot concentration of pulverised coal flames. [4] Pallares J. Impact of co-firing coal and biomass on flame characteristics and stability. Combust Sci Technol 2006. 269. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. [28] Lu G et al. [3] Stephenson PL. Peter Stephenson at RWE npower for information and helpful discussions. Fundamental issues in control of carbon gasification. References [1] Williams A. Portugal. On mathematical modeling of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot formation and combustion. Lisbon.87(7):1133–40. [6] Backreedy RI et al. Fuel Process Technol 2006.200(C2): 79–87. Jones AR. Acknowledgements We are grateful RWE npower for information obtained on their Combustion Test facility at Didcot. [18] Suuberg EM. Scripta Publishing Company. USA. Fuel 2007. Greeves G. 1973. [22] Williams A et al. It is concluded that the non-spherical wood particles burn rapidly for all sizes up to 1 mm long studied here and the rate is determined by the size. 1991. Radiation heat transfer in combustion systems. [20] Roberts DG.58(1):63–70. [7] Lockwood FC. the absorption coefficient is highly dependent on wavenumber and errors may be introduced by the gray approximation. Combustion of a single particle of biomass. In: Fourth international conference on technologies and combustion for a clean environment. although greater sophistication is required to account for different fuel types (agricultural residues versus energy crops and wood) and this is being addressed by current research under the SuperGen-Bioenergy project. Ma et al. Results of devolatilisation tests.19(1):1045–65. The effects of coal quality on power plants. Levenspiel O. Combust Sci Technol 1993. Coal characterisation for NOx prediction in air-staged combustion of pulverised coals.84(17):2190–5. Heat transfer in flames. A method for calculating the formation and combustion of soot in diesel engines. [8] Boothroyd SA. [10] Knaus H et al. The combustion of coal and some other solid fuels. Char gasification in mixtures of CO2 and H2O: competition and inhibition. [16] Backreedy RI et al. 1989. Co-firing pulverised coal and biomass: a modeling approach.84(17):2196–203. [11] Sazhin SS et al. [14] Magnussen BF. Integration of CFD codes and advanced combustion models for quantitative burnout determination. Charleston SC. Fuel 2002. [32] Man CK et al. [24] Yang YB et al. Fuel 2003. In: Lahaye J.78(10):1171–9. Cheltenham. [25] Backreedy RL et al. in BCURA Report. (b) Simplifications to the furnace geometry required to establish acceptable computation times. Comparison of different radiative heat transfer models and their applicability to coal-fired utility boiler simulations. Modelling pulverised coal combustion using a detailed coal combustion model. Reactivity of coal chars gasified in a carbon dioxide environment.81(5):605–18. Vollander SJ. Williams A. carbon in ash and gas exit temperature is shown in Table 3. Studies on power station grade coals for low NOx burners. Proc Inst Mechan Eng Part C: Mechan Eng Sci 1986. Prediction of unburned carbon and NOx in a tangentially fired power station using single coals and blends. 2003.112(2):415–23. Modelling of a wall fired furnace for different operating conditions using FLUENT. (d) Incorrect measurement of the radiant flux near the burner.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful