Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Energy Institute

journal homepage: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-the-energy-
institute

Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a

1 MWth pulverized coal-fired furnace
Falah Alobaid*, Jan-Peter Busch, Alexander Stroh, Jochen Stro
€hle, Bernd Epple
€t Darmstadt, Institut Energiesysteme und Energietechnik, Otto-Berndt-Straße 2, 64287 Darmstadt, Germany
Technische Universita

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biogenic residues upgraded by torrefaction are well suited for co-firing in existing thermal power plants
Received 5 June 2019 due to their increased net calorific value, their improved grindability and their good characteristics
Received in revised form regarding storage and transport. In this work, torrefied and pelletized biomass (coniferous wood
18 July 2019
sawdust) and hard coal (Columbian Calenturitas) were co-combusted in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
Accepted 25 July 2019
furnace. The mixture of both fuels (torrefied biomass and hard coal) was co-grinded at two ratios with a
Available online xxx
thermal share of biomass of 3.8% and 7.3% using the same coal mill. For comparison purpose, experiments
on pure hard coal combustion (only coal) were carried out, too. Despite torrefaction, the throughput of
Keywords:
Biomass the mill was sharply reduced at higher biomass shares and the average grain size of pulverized fuel was
Torrefaction increased. However, both fuel blends were co-combusted without any difficulty. Compared to mono-
Pulverized coal combustion of the hard coal, no significant differences were detected, neither in the flue gas emis-
Co-combustion sions nor in the char burnout. Gas measurements in the flame profile show higher levels of released
1 MW pulverized coal-fired furnace volatile matter close to the burner, resulting in a higher oxygen demand.
© 2019 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In 2010, the European Commission claimed three main energy policy objectives to be achieved in 2020: 1) to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions to 20% compared to 1990 levels, 2) to increase the renewables integration into electrical grid to 20% and 3) to improve the energy
efficiency to 20%. However, the increased expansion of intermittent renewable electricity generation into the electrical grid (mainly wind
power and photovoltaics) can lead to an undesirable paradox situations: (1) at times of low demand and high renewable electricity output or
(2) high demand and low renewable electricity output. Conventional thermal power plants are necessary for the compensation of daily and
seasonal load variations. Due to the uncertainty of supply and demand, technical and economic challenges during the operation of these
plants arise recently. Existing thermal power plants have to be retrofitted with optimised components and control circuits to improve their
operation mode as well as to extend their fuel ranges to cover other fuels such as biomass [1]. In Germany for example, the electricity mix
and its development clearly shows that the use of hard coal and lignite thermal power plants will continue to play an important role, as long
as no profitable energy storage systems in large scale are available. Although the share of renewables is steadily increasing and has
accounted a record in 2018 for over 40 percent of the public net electricity generation, larger part of the electricity has generated by the base-
load brown and hard coal-fired thermal power plants and will continue to do so in the future, considering the planned nuclear power phase-
out by 2022 [2]. The electricity share previously covered by nuclear energy will only be partially replaced by renewables in order not to
endanger the security of supply. The co-combustion of biomass in existing coal-fired thermal power plants reduces the share of fossil fuels in
gross electricity generation and thus the greenhouse gas emissions.
Biomass provides a clean energy source that can improve the economy, the independence and the self-sufficiency in energy supply [3].
Under the term biomass, a wide range of materials such as wood, agriculture activities, by-products of plant and animal origin, food and
industrial wastes is included. The main difference between biomass and traditional fossil fuels (e.g. coal or natural gas) is that the biomass is
formed in a period of several years, while coal is formed in a period of several millions of years. Biomass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: falah.alobaid@est.tu-darmstadt.de (F. Alobaid).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
1743-9671/© 2019 Energy Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
2 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

during the growing/lifetime period, while the same amount is released during the natural decomposition of biomass. This maintains the
carbon cycle without increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is widely believed to be associated with the
global warming [4]. The biomass can be converted into a mixture of gases (synthesis gas), liquid (bio-oil) and/or solid (bio-char). The overall
amount of these components depends on the conversion mechanism used. Here, it is distinguished between thermochemical, physio-
chemical and bio-chemical processes [5]. The pyrolysis, also known as devolatilization, is the first step in thermochemical conversion.
When the biomass devolatilizes, its structure is altered, resulting in formation of gaseous substances, tar and char. The thermochemical
conversion can end either with complete oxidation, where the gaseous substances are combusted or without oxidation with unburned
gaseous substances (i.e. gasification process).
The thermochemical process of biomass by combustion or gasification represents currently an effective technology to convert the
biomass into useful energy for large-scale commercial use [6]. Compared to coal, biomass has clearly lower density and calorific value.
Furthermore, the biomass is characterised by higher moisture and volatile contents, which in turn increase the difficulty of biomass co-
combustion in the existing coal-fired thermal power plants [7]. The carbonisation of biomass, also known as torrefaction process, in-
creases the energy density of raw biomass. Torrefaction is a mild form of pyrolysis that is used for pre-treatment of biogenic fuels, increasing
their storage and transport properties as well as their grindability in existing coal mills. These upgraded biogenic fuels, can be co-fired in
existing thermal power plants, reducing the overall CO2 emissions from fossil sources [8,9]. During the torrefaction process, the biomass is
heated in absence of oxygen to temperatures of 200e300
C for 15e90 min. Long-chain lignocellulosic molecules are destroyed, releasing
low calorific gases and water (as steam) from the solid biomass, resulting in an increased mass-related energy density of the biogenic
material. Here, the released water and low calorific volatile components reduce the mass by approximately 30%, while the calorific value of
the torrefied biomass decreases by approximately 10%. Compared to raw biomass, the torrefied biomass becomes hydrophobic, which
simplifies its storage. Furthermore, the torrefied biomass has a high energy density that is similar to that of coal [10e13]. The torrefaction
process reduces the effort required for integration of torrefied biomass into existing thermal power plants. This also applies to logistics
outside the thermal power plant site as well as to the conveyor systems from coal mine to the combustion chamber. Instead of long organic
fibers, the particles of the torrefied biomass become smaller and isolated, which in return results in lower energy demand for the grinding
process compared to untreated raw biomass. In the case of co-firing in available large-scale thermal power plants, it makes sense to perform
the grinding process of the torrefied biomass in the existing coal mills [10,14,15]. Since the thermal efficiency of modern coal-fired power
plants is greater than that of pure biomass power plants, improved energy efficiency can be achieved by using biomass as co-firing fuel [16].
Depending on the biomass used and the torrefaction conditions, the net calorific value increases during the torrefaction process with a high
dependency on the temperature. The effect is stronger for wooden biomass than for non-wooden biomass. Some typical values are 12%
increase at 230
C and up to 46% at 280
C. With increasing the energy density, the profitability for transport is increased significantly
[10,17e21]. Prior to the integration of torrefied biomass in existing thermal power plants, assessment of co-combustion properties such as
ignitability and flame stability of this fuel mixture should be carried out. Furthermore, emission limits, safety requirements and lifetime of
thermal power plant components (e.g. the increased corrosion rate due to the high chlorine content in the torrefied biomass compared to
coal) should be investigated, too. Many thermogravimetric studies and laboratory-scale experiments (e.g. electrically-heated drop-tube
furnace or fluidized bed reactor) show the capability of this technology (recently published works, among others: [22e28]). Additionally,
several process and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) numerical simulation models for the co-combustion of torrefied biomass with coal
have been developed [29e33]. Furthermore, few studies demonstrated the biomass co-combustion (even without torrefaction) in existing
coal-fired power plants using completely new or modified burners as well as new mill systems. For example, Smajevic et al. [34] performed
trial runs at the Kakanj Power Station Unit 5 with a power output of 110 MWel using two mixtures of brown coal and sawdust (mass-related
ratio of biomass od 5% and 7%). The results confirm the feasibility of using 7% of sawdust in combination with brown coal without the risk of
efficiency loss and with the benefits of emissions reductions. Furthermore, it was shown that no modification to the existing coal transport
system and boiler equipment is necessary. Zuwala et al. [35] performed co-firing tests using sawdust and bio-waste with hard coal at
Skawina Power Plant in Poland (1500 MWth of thermal power). The fuel mixtures with biomass mass-related ratio of 9.5% and 6.6% were co-
combusted successfully. However, in the previous works the biomass fuel is grinded separately from the coal and injected into the pul-
verized fuel pipework upstream or at the burners. Only very few experiments for torrefied biomass co-combustion using the existing coal
burners and exiting coal mills in pilot plant or industry-scale exist (more than 100 kW of thermal power), namely Molcan et al. (2009),
Ohliger et al. (2011) and recently Ndibe at al. (2015) [36e38].
The aim of this work is to investigate experimentally the co-combustion of torrefied biogenic residues with hard coal in an existing 1
MWth pulverized coal-fired furnace. Biogenic residues were torrefied in a laboratory scale reactor and in semi-industrial scale unit. Ther-
mogravimetric analysis (TGA) and entrained-flow reactor experiments to determine the reaction kinetic parameters and to describe the
burnout behaviour of the torrefied biogenic residues were carried out. Finally, experiments in a 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion
chamber have been performed, showing the technical feasibility of the co-grinding and the co-combustion of torrefied biogenic residues
with hard coal at semi-industrial scale. The objectives of this work are summarized as:

1) The co-combustion of torrefied biogenic residue (coniferous wood sawdust) and hard coal in a semi-industrial scale firing system at 3.8%
and 7.3% thermal shares of torrefied biomass are studied using the existing coal burner and exiting coal mill. Experiments were carried
out using the 1 MWth thermal combustion test furnace at the Institute for Energy Systems & Technology at Technische Universita €t
Darmstadt.
2) Focus of interest is the co-grinding behaviour of coal and torrefied biomass blends. Depending on the grinding conditions, the particle
size distributions are different form the case of grinding each fuel separately and may lead to coarser particle size distributions after the
mill. Larger particles can result in higher carbon monoxide emissions and reduction of char burnout. Different reaction kinetics during
the co-combustion can cause changes in the concentrations of the species in the flame profile and thereby to the risk of higher corrosion
in the furnace.
3) Providing the literature with detailed measurements for co-combustion of torrefied biogenic residues and hard coal, including flue gas
emissions, fuel and char burnout behaviour and flame profile. The gas species such as O2, CO, CO2 and SO2 were sampled and analysed

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

for the flame zone and combustion chamber outlet. Fly and coarse ashes were collected and its unburned carbon was analysed. These
measurements can be used for the validation of CFD models.

2. Material and methods

€t Darmstadt, used for co-

This section describes the experimental setup of the combustion chamber test facility at Technische Universita
combustion of torrefied coniferous wood sawdust with hard coal.

2.1. 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber

The 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber was erected at Technische Universita €t Darmstadt in 2010 as part of the calcium
carbonate-looping (CCL) process (a post-combustion CO2 capture method using limestone as solid sorbent) [39]. A detailed computer-aided
design (CAD) model of the 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber is illustrated in Fig. 1. Furthermore, a simplified process flow
diagram (PFD) of the combustion chamber test facility is shown in Fig. 2. The combustion chamber constructed as a two-pass boiler and
equipped with a top swirl burner, designed for a maximum thermal power of 1 MWth. The four meters long radiation part of the combustion
chamber (below the burner) is constructed as a regular hexagon with a distance of 1100 mm between two opposite walls and 1218 mm
between corners as shown in Fig. 3. Each wall of six finned tubes is welded at the corners to the next wall using web plates. In these six web
plates, several openings are provided for measuring instruments. The internals of the web plates are refractory lined, avoiding the direct
radiation heat. In addition, two flame detectors directly underneath the burner, two thermocouples (1900 mm below the burner throat) and
a pressure measurement opposite to the two flame detectors are installed. The radiation part is followed by a lower cylindrical shape part
that is refractory lined with a circular inner diameter of 750 mm. The flue gas leaves the first path to the second path via a transition section
that has a rectangular cross-section. The second path is completely refractory lined and contains eight tube bundle heat exchangers for the
flue gas cooling. After passing the gas cooler, the flue gas stream enters into a fabric filter at temperature of about 200e250
C. The fabric
filter is periodically cleaned by compressed air blasts. The ash is discharged from the filter through a rotary valve to a disposal container. The
nearly almost ash-free flue gas enters the induced draught fan via a venturi flowmeter into the stack. Gas concentrations (CO, CO2, O2 and
SO2) are measured continuously downstream of the fabric filter via a commercial gas sampling probe from ABB after further dust and
humidity removal.
Pressurized water, mixed with a non-freeze liquid (Antifrogen L®) is used for cooling. The cooling water is supplied at temperatures of
110
C and at a pressure of 16 bar. In order to remove the radiation heat from the upper part of the furnace, the cooling fluid is split into two
parts, each flowing through three walls in a serial way, resulting in up to 160
C return flow water temperature. Another tube branches point

Fig. 1. Detailed CAD model of the 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
4 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Simplified PFD of the 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber.

Fig. 3. Swirl burner and upper part of the finned-tube walls of 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber.

into the eight tube bundle heat exchangers for flue gas cooling in co-current flow direction with the flue gas. Fuel dosing for the indirect
firing is realised from a feed tank using a pneumatic transport system. Via a dosing screw and a rotary valve, the required mass flow of fuel is
fed into the transport tube, which goes to the burner. There, additional auxiliary air is supplied, depending on the power setting. The primary
air fan provides the auxiliary air, as well as additional axial air, swirl air and secondary air. All air flows enter the burner at ambient
temperatures.

2.2. Burner setup

The swirl burner, illustrated in Fig. 3, is mounted on top of the 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber. The solid fuel with transport
air, auxiliary air, axial air, swirl air and natural gas (for start-up) enter the multiple concentric parts of the burner from different sides.
Auxiliary air, transport air and solid fuel are mixed inside the burner. More specifically, the mixing occurs with swirl air and axial air inside
the combustion zone for stabilization of the flame. The refractory lined burner throat has twelve concentric openings for secondary air,
which is used for cooling and air staging. The area directly below the burner is provided with refractory shaped bricks, which protect the
burner from the direct radiation heat of the flame. For the start-up, natural gas is supplied to the centre nozzle of the burner. After electrical
ignition and flame stabilization, the furnace is heated with a maximum thermal power of 500 kW for over 30 min, until a temperature of
600
C, before the solid fuel flow is introduced. The time ramp of the solid fuel mass flow rate and the reduction of the natural gas mass flow
rate is about ten minutes. A minimum flame (thermal power of 5 kW) of natural gas is maintained during coal operation for a better flame
stability.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

2.3. Gas and ash sampling

Downstream the fabric filter in the flue gas path, a stationary gas extraction probe is continuously monitoring the concentrations of flue
gas species CO, CO2, SO2 and O2. All analyzation modules are located behind a filter and a condensate trap, measuring the dry flue gas
without particles. In addition to the continuous measurement of the concentrations of the flue gas species downstream the fabric filter, a
movable gas extraction probe can be inserted into the combustion chamber through several ports via stuffing boxes for the radial mea-
surements of CO, CO2, SO2 and O2 concentrations inside the flame. The maximum immersion depth is 400 mm from the outer wall of the
combustion chamber. The movable gas extraction probe consists of an inner ceramic tube an outer metallic tube (made of high-
temperature-resistant steel X8CrNi25-21, 1.4845); both are connected and sealed from the furnace with Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
parts. The use of ceramic and PTFE parts in the gas sampling system reduces the chemical reactions between the sampling probe and the
corrosive components from the flue gas (e.g. HCl). After extraction, the gases are cooled inside the ceramic tube by convection and then flow
through the extraction probe to a particle filter and finally via a heated tube to a mobile and continuous gas analysis. The gas analyzation
hardware is identical to one installed downstream the fabric filter in the flue gas path, although varying measuring ranges (for detail, see
Table 1).
Several ash samples were collected at the outlet of the fabric filter at the end of each measuring phase. From each sample, a repre-
sentative sample was prepared for analytical purposes. In order to obtain a representative sample, the ash samples were passed through a
rifle splitter. The latter is a mechanical equipment to divide a sample in two parts. The division is repeated several times until the repre-
sentative sample is achieved. The loss on ignition test was carried out to measure unburned char content in the ash. In few cases, the char
content was determined by elementary analysis to verify the results on loss on ignition.

2.4. Instrumentation

For the installation of measuring instruments at the combustion chamber, there are 31 ports (see Fig. 4). Instruments for temperature and
pressure measurements as well as two flame monitors are installed in the web plate of the combustion chamber walls. The thermocouples
measuring the furnace temperatures are placed in two ports at 1900 mm below the burner throat, at two corners of the furnace and 120

apart from each other. The other ports at 600 mm, 900 mm, 1200 mm and 1500 mm below the burner throat were used for the movable gas
extraction probe. In these ports, a stuffing box was used for a gas-tight mounting of the extraction probe. Thus, the radial movement starting
209 mm from the furnace centreline all the way to the wall (609 mm from the centreline) was possible, which is equivalent to an immersion
depth of 400 mm. At the beginning of a measurement, the movable gas extraction probe was inserted at the maximum immersion depth of
400 mm from the outer wall and then it is gradually moved with steps of 100 mm. The measuring time at each location is depended on the
operating conditions in the combustion chamber, but it was set at least five minutes. The measurements were repeated several times in
order to obtain representative mean values from the individual measurements.

2.5. Fuels

In this work, two fuels have been investigated. The main fuel is hard coal from the Columbian mine “Calenturitas”, which was sieved to a
maximum size of 8 mm before the grinding process (limit of the grinding mill). This hard coal is characterised by lower sulphur content and
a high calorific value. For this reason, the coal is often used in commercial thermal power plants. For co-firing, torrefied and pelletized
sawdust from coniferous wood of the Swedish island Gotland was selected. The sawdust was torrefied in a pilot scale rotary drum reactor by
Swedish AB Torkapparater at 260
C for approximately 30 min [40]. Hot flue gas from a nearby biomass furnace is used for heating the rotary
drum reactor that has a capacity of up to 1000 kg of torrefied biomass per hour. At the inlet and at the outlet of the rotary drum reactor,
rotary valves and transport screws keep the atmosphere inert, while cooling the torrefied product before contact with the air oxygen in
order to prevent the self-ignition of the hot torrefied biomass. In the last step, the sawdust was pelletized directly after the torrefaction
process. Proximate and ultimate analyses yield the results that are shown in Table 2 for hard coal and torrefied biomass. The torrefied
biomass has more than double amount of volatiles (~79%) than hard coal (~35%). The oxygen mass fraction in the torrefied biomass is also by
factor three higher than in the case of hard coal. However, the net calorific value of the torrefied biomass (19.2 MJ/kg) is lower compared to
the one of hard coal that it is 24.5 MJ/kg. Other properties are in a similar range.
Both fuels were mixed on a mass-related ratio of 20:1 and 10:1 before grinding process (coal to biomass). Based on the thermal share of
biomass, these ratios are 3.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The size reduction in the mill is achieved by rotating grinding elements. Rotor and
classifier speeds were kept constant all time. As the maximum electric rotor current is limited, the time necessary for grinding a given mass
of fuel can be measured, resulting in the maximum mass flow rate of different ratios through the mill. Both fuels were mixed by above
mentioned ratios and grinded together in a classifier mill. Fuel samples were taken from the feed tank. The particle size distribution (PSD)
was determined using a Hosokawa Alpine air jet sieve as depicted in Fig. 5.

Table 1
Characteristic of gas analysis.

Extraction place Gas component Measuring principle Measuring range

Flue gas path CO NDIR sensor 0e5 vol.-%

Flue gas path CO2 NDIR sensor 0e30 vol.-%
Flue gas path O2 Paramagnetic oxygen analyser 0e100 vol.-%
Flame profile CO NDIR sensor 0e30 vol.-%
Flame profile CO2 NDIR sensor 0e20 vol.-%
Flame profile O2 Paramagnetic oxygen analyser 0e30 vol.-%

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
6 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Longitudinal and cross section of the radiation part of the 1 MWth pulverized coal combustion chamber.

Table 2
Proximate and ultimate analyses for the fuels used.

Component Unit Hard Coal “Calenturitas” Torrefied biomass

Moisture wt.-% 6.3 4.3

Volatiles wt.-%, wf 34.5 78.8
Ash wt.-%, wf 11.2 0.4
C wt.-%, wf 81.3 57.5
H wt.-%, wf 5.5 7.3
N wt.-%, wf 1.8 0.1
S wt.-%, wf 1.2 e
O (by difference) wt.-%, wf 10.2 35.0
Net calorific value MJ/kg 24.5 19.2

Fig. 5. Particle size distribution of the fuel mixtures (coal in black line, 20:1 mixture in red line, 10:1 mixture in green line, 1:1 mixture in grey line and pure torrefied biomass in
orange line). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article).

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

2.6. Experiment configuration

Several experiments were performed using mixtures of hard coal and torrefied biomass. For comparison purposes, experiments using
hard coal-only were also carried out. All test runs begin with a start-up phase until the temperatures of the cooling water reached constant
value of 60
C. The temperatures in the combustion chamber evolve depending on the slagging of the finned-tube walls. All experiments
were achieved using identical air and fuel mass flow rates. The mass flow rates and the test conditions, listed in Table 3 and in Table 4,
correspond to 500 kW thermal power using the design coal of the combustion chamber. With the Calenturitas hard coal, the thermal power
is slightly reduced to 483 kW. By substituting hard coal with torrefied biomass and its corresponding lower calorific value, the power
reduces further to 474 kW and 469 kW for 3.8% and 7.3%, respectively. Also, as the oxygen demand of the torrefied biomass is higher, the air
ratio during co-combustion is slightly higher.
The start-up procedure of the combustion chamber is summarized as follows:

 The combustion chamber is first warmed up with a natural gas flame. An electric spark is used for the flame ignition. The thermal power
is increased to 250 kW until the flame is stabilized.
 The ignition is followed by a heating-up phase for 30 min, in which the thermal power of the natural gas flame is slowly raised to
500 kW with regard to thermo-mechanical restraint transients of the combustion chamber material. During the heating-up phase, the
temperature of the radiation part of the combustion chamber increases to about 600
C and the temperature of the cooling medium
rises simultaneously to approximately 60
C.
 When the temperature at the top part of the combustion chamber exceeds 600
C, the natural gas is switched over to solid fuel. Within
ten minutes, the fuel mass flow rate of the solid fuel increases, while the natural gas mass flow rate decreases, so that a thermal power of
500 kW can be maintained. However, a slight mass flow rate of natural gas (5 kW of thermal power) is still supplied to support the flame.
 After another ten minutes, a quasi-stationary operating point is achieved. However and due to the large thermal storage capacity of the
refractory lined walls in the convective part (second path) of the combustion chamber, a stationary operating point can be reached after
one day of operation.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Grinding process

By adding the torrefied biomass to the hard coal, the mass flow rate through the grinding mill is significantly reduced. The capacity of the
grinding mill is limited by the maximum motor current of 30 A. For hard coal-only, approximately 350 kg/h can be grinded with the given
rotor and classifier speeds (approximately 142 kg/h is required to operate the combustion chamber at it designed thermal power). By
replacing 5% of the hard coal by torrefied biomass (mass-related ratio), the mass flow rate through the mill drops to around 300 kg/h. With
20% share of the torrefied biomass (mass-related ratio), the mass flow rate is further decreased to approximately 200 kg/h. Grinding tor-
refied biomass-only, the mass flow rate through the mill is reduced to 100 kg/h. The reduction in the mass flow rate through the mill could
be an issue, when torrefied biomass is co-combusted in existing thermal power plants. It might not be possible to operate the power plant
with torrefied biomass share at full load, without changes in the grinding mills. However, the full load with a high share of torrefied biomass
would require additional fuel anyway, that would lead to a higher volume flow in the boiler and the whole flue gas path respectively.
Accordingly, the co-firing might not be done at full load anyway without large modifications.
The average particle size distribution also increases by adding torrefied biomass into the mill. In Fig. 5, the particle size distribution is
shown for Calenturitas hard coal, the two fuel mixtures used with ratios 20:1 and 10:1 respectively, an equal share of both fuels, and finally
pure torrefied biomass. The grinding mill was operated with the same settings for all fuel mixtures. The addition of torrefied biomass to the
hard coal shifted the particle size distribution towards larger particles. The larger particles were mainly torrefied sawdust fibers, which are
of elongated shape. All particles, including particles of 5 mm and longer pass the classifier to the feed tank and then to the experimental test
rig. Fuel samples were collected from the fuel feed tank for analysing. Fig. 6 shows these fibers for the10:1 mixture in the sieve residue of a

Table 3
Air and fuel mass flow rates.

Component Unit Mass flow

Axial air kg/h 274

Swirl air kg/h 241
Transport air kg/h 136
Auxiliary air kg/h 61
Secondary air kg/h 99
Purge air flame monitors kg/h 39
Fuel kg/h 71

Table 4
Test conditions.

Parameter Unit Hard coal 20:1 mixture 10:1 mixture

Biomass thermal share % 0 3.8 7.3

Thermal power kW 483 478 474
Air ratio e 1.33 1.34 1.36

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
8 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 6. Sieve residue of 300 mm sieve for 10:1 mixture of hard coal and torrefied sawdust pellet.

300 mm sieve. This increase of large and elongated particles is also observed in work of [38]. In the work of [36] on the other hand, the
biomass is grinded individually and mixed with the coal in the burner. In this case, the entire distribution of the particle size distribution of
the torrefied biomass shifts toward larger diameters. Compared to the industrial conditions, where the diameter of most coal particles is
below 250 mm, slightly coarser particle size distributions are obtained from the mill in this work.
Higher shares up to 30% (mass-related ratio) are possible using the existing configuration of the 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired furnace.
However, the transportation of the coarser particle size distributions (PSD) after the grinding process into the burner represents here the
main challenge.

3.2. Flue gas emissions

The most important concentrations of the flue gas species such as carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2)
and oxygen (O2) were carried out behind the fabric filter in the flue gas path via stationary gas extraction probe. The analyzation modules are
installed behind a filter and a condensate trap, measuring dry flue gas concentrations.
For the combustion of hard coal, the fuel mass flow rate, the combustion chamber temperatures, the concentrations of O2, CO2 and CO at
the combustion chamber outlet over the time course of one hour are illustrated in Fig. 7. The data is representative for a stationary operating
point of hard coal combustion in the combustion chamber and the curves are plotted with the help of a moving average filter over a period of
three minutes. The concentration of CO at the combustion chamber outlet referred to 6% oxygen concentration. At the time period between
30 min and 45 min, there was a slight reduction in the fuel mass flow rate, which results in a reduction in the flue gas temperature (between
880
C and 970
C) and a change in the flue gas emissions.
In Fig. 8, the concentrations of O2, CO2, CO and SO2 at the combustion chamber outlet over the time course of one hour are presented for
the co-combustion of hard coal and torrefied biomass (a mass-related ratio of coal to biomass is 20:1). In addition, the fuel mass flow rate
and the combustion chamber temperatures are shown in the same Figure. The curves are plotted employing a moving average filter over a
period of three minutes for a stationary operating phase of one hour. The concentrations of SO2 and CO at the combustion chamber outlet
referred to 6% O2 concertation. After 20 min and after 40 min, a short-term decrease in the fuel supply can be observed, which in turn leads
to a sudden increase in the oxygen concentration at the combustion chamber outlet, to a sudden increased in the carbon monoxide con-
centration at the combustion chamber outlet and to a decrease in the furnace temperatures. Compared to the measurement performed with

Fig. 7. Measured data for the combustion of hard coal (representative presentation of 6 measurements).

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 9

Fig. 8. Measured data for the co-combustion of hard coal and torrefied biomass (mass-related ratio of coal to biomass is 20:1) (representative presentation of 3 measurements).

hard coal, the furnace temperatures were slightly higher. However, this temperature increase is not related to the fuel blend and was mainly
caused by the increase of the ash deposits on the radiation part of the combustion chamber.
In Fig. 9, the fuel mass flow rate, the combustion chamber temperatures, the concentrations of O2, CO2, CO and SO2 at the combustion
chamber outlet over the time course of one hour are illustrated for the torrefied biomass co-combustion with hard coal at mass-related ratio
of 1:10. The furnace temperatures were again higher than in the other two experiments (i.e. hard coal as well as co-combustion of torrefied
biomass with hard coal at mass-related ratio of 1:20). The concentrations of SO2 and CO at the outlet of the combustion chamber referred to
6% oxygen concertation. At the time period between 25 min and 30 min, an exceptionally supply of fuel mixture to the combustion chamber
is taken place due to dosing tank refilling from the storage tank. Although the increased fuel supply was sufficiently short and could not be
seen in the averaged plot of the fuel, the concentration of carbon monoxide in the flue gas increases sharply, but soon it changed to the
previous level again.
Figs. 10 and 11 show the average concentrations of oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide, plotted against the
combustion chamber temperature during the stationary conditions from all experiments. This includes mono-combustion of hard coal, co-
combustion of hard coal and torrefied biomass with 20:1 mass-related ratio of coal to biomass as well as co-combustion of hard coal and
torrefied biomass with 10:1 mass-related ratio of coal to biomass. As temperatures in the combustion chamber vary depending on the length
of the operation and the thickness of dust layers on the furnace walls, all results are shown in relation to the mean temperature of the
combustion chamber during the experimental phase. With increasing the combustion chamber temperature, the carbon dioxide concen-
tration increases, while the concentration of oxygen slightly decreases and the concentration of carbon monoxide reduces sharply by more
than a third since the combustion of volatiles and the char burnout are considerably improved. A change in the CO concertation in the flue

Fig. 9. Measured data for the co-combustion of hard coal and torrefied biomass (mass-related ratio of coal to biomass is 10:1) (representative presentation of 3 measurements).

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
10 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 10. Concentrations of CO2 and O2 in the flue gas based on 6% oxygen concertation at the fabric filter outlet (Black: hard coal; Red: 20:1 mixture; Green: 10:1 mixture). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article).

Fig. 11. Concentrations of CO and SO2 in the flue gas based on 6% oxygen concertation at the fabric filter outlet (Black: hard coal; Red: 20:1 mixture; Green: 10:1 mixture). (For
interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article).

gas due to the co-combustion can not be inferred from the measurement results. The measured concentrations for carbon dioxide and
oxygen correspond to the expected values from the combustion calculation for the complete combustion of the fuel (see Table 5). The
increase in oxygen for higher biomass shares is due to the higher oxygen content of the biomass. The measured concentration for sulphur
dioxide is significantly lower than the expected value from the combustion calculation and is unaffected by the combustion chamber
temperature and the biomass share. The differences between individual measurements were probably caused by the differences in the
sulphur content of the hard coal in various big-bags. Molcan et al. (2009) have also reported the fluctuations in the sulphur dioxide con-
centration during the co-combustion experiments. In their study, pelleted sawdust with South African hard coal were co-combusted in 3
MWth combustion chamber test facility. The sulphur dioxide concentration varied between 447 and 896 mg/m3 (based on 6% O2 at the flue
gas outlet) and a consistent trend was not recognizable with increasing the biomass share. In the work of Ndibe et al. (2015), the release of
sulphur dioxide in the case of co-combustion of hard coal with torrefied spruce wood was significantly lower than can be expected from the
combustion calculation for the fuel. The authors attributed this to alkaline ash constituents of the biomass, where part of the sulphur was
embedded into the ash.
A comparison between the measured concentrations in Figs. 10 and 11 (oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide)
and the theoretical values for a complete combustion can be found in Table 5. It can be shown that the results of the co-combustion ex-
periments fit only the coal experiments, although a linear relationship is not necessarily true over the whole temperature range.

3.3. Char burnout

Due to the low temperatures in the combustion chamber, the amount of unburned carbon in the fly ash as well as in the coarse ash is
high. The loss on ignition tests and elemental analyses on fly ash samples show an averaged mass fraction of unburned carbon of
approximately 29% (see Table 6).
The higher mass fraction of unburned carbon in the fly ash samples can be attributed to the narrow dimensions of the combustion
chamber in combination with the water-cooled walls in the radiation part. As a result, the combustion heat is quickly absorbed by the cold
water, resulting in a reduced degree of char burnout. Similar challenges have been reported by Ref. [38], where up to 30% unburned carbon
in the ash have been measured in their 3 MWth pilot plant. In the refractory lined combustion chamber of [36] (no water-cooled walls), lower
mass fraction of unburned carbon can be achieved. Despite of this, but the obtained results did not reproduce the reality since the thermal
power plants have a water-cooled walls in the radiation part as well as in the convective part. The main difference is here that the average

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 11

Table 5
Theoretical concentration of the flue gas species for complete combustion.

Species Unit Hard coal 20:1 mixture 10:1 mixture

CO2 Vol.-% 13.9 13.8 13.7

O2 Vol.-% 5.3 5.4 5.6
SO2 (6% O2) mg/m3 2156 2074 2055

Table 6
Unburned carbon in fly ash samples.

Test Number Fuel Temperature of Combustion Chamber
C Loss on Ignition wt.-% Carbon Content (Elemental Analysis) wt.-%

2 Hard coal 912 31.1 29.5

5 20:1 946 27.5 27.4
6 20:1 962 e 26.4
7 20:1 962 27.0 e
8 10:1 973 31.2 22.7
11 Hard coal 973 e 28.6
12 Hard coal 757 e 38.9

wall temperature in real thermal power plants is approximately 400
C, while it is in this work considerably lower (about 150
C). For future
experiments, it is recommend increasing the temperature of the cooling water to 300 or 400
C combined with a pressure increase to about
200-250 bar. A less attractive alternative would be to insulate the radiation part of the combustion chamber with a refractory lining or
bulkhead in order to increase the temperature and thus to reduce the amount of unburned carbon in the fly ash.
Fig. 12 shows that the degree of fuel burnout in the fly ash is improved with increasing the combustion chamber temperature. The degree
of fuel burnout is determined as follows:
 
mA;fly ahs mC;fly ash
DFuel Burnout ¼ 100%  *
mraw mC;raw

Here, mA and mC are the mass fraction of ash and fixed carbon in the samples.
The degree of fuel burnout for larger ash particles (coarse ash) can not be determined easily. The coarse ash accumulates in the transition
section between the first path and the second path of the combustion chamber, which in turn results in a reduced free cross-section and
consequently higher flue gas velocity. Due to the high flue gas velocity, the coarse ash is only partially transported to the fabric filter.
Discharging the coarse ash from the transition section requires an additional ash sampling system and extensive changes to the re-
fractory lined walls. This system is not considered for the present work, but would be the top priority for the next future measurements.
While the particle size increases with the biomass share, many of these coarser particles will not follow the flue gas path into the fabric filter,
but will accumulate at the bottom of the furnace (transition section). However, the particles collected in the fabric filter show better burnout
and lower carbon content at higher furnace temperatures. No dependence on the torrefied biomass share can be detected.

3.4. Flame profile

The measurement of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and oxygen concentrations was carried out using the movable
gas extraction probe at position 1 (600 mm), position 2 (900 mm) and position 3 (1200 mm). Here, the dry flue gas concentrations were

Fig. 12. Degree of fuel burnout against the temperature of the combustion chamber.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
12 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

measured behind a condensation trap. Fig. 13 shows the measured concentrations in the flame profile at the three sampling positions,
plotted over the radial distance to the middle of the combustion chamber (furnace centre line). The distance between the outer wall and the
centre of the combustion chamber is 609 mm (see Fig. 4). If the measured values of individual points were recorded several times, averages
were formed from the individual tests.
At position 1 (600 mm), the co-combustion of the torrefied biomass reduces the overall oxygen concentrations despite the higher overall
air ratio. Compared to hard coal, the higher oxygen consumption in the upper part of the combustion chamber could be explained by faster
pyrolysis of the torrefied biomass, which released larger amount of carbon monoxide that could further react with oxygen to form carbon
dioxide. Also, the lack of oxygen inside the flame leads to increase the carbon monoxide concentration.
At position 2 (900 mm), there is no measurement available for the pure hard coal combustion. However, the measurements for the co-
combustion of the torrefied biomass show an oxygen transport into the flame by mixing fluid flows. While there are only small amounts of
oxygen of around 1 vol.-% at this part of the flame, the carbon monoxide is fully burned. In the peripheral areas of the combustion chamber,
the oxygen concentration decreases due to the char burnout. This explains why a very low CO concentration is present. The transport
processes also equalize the carbon dioxide distribution inside the furnace.
At position 3 (1200 mm), the overall oxygen concentrations are low. Only 400e600 mm from the centre of the combustion chamber,
oxygen concentrations reach up to 2 vol.-%. The formation of carbon monoxide increases again, especially for the combustion of hard coal-
only. Close to the burner, the biggest differences were observed (higher oxygen demand). This may be linked to higher share of volatile
components in the torrefied biomass compared to the hard coal. Another reason might be the faster release of these volatile components

Fig. 13. Gas species mmeasurements in the flame profile of the coal combustion chamber.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx 13

from the torrefied biomass. In this zone (close to the burner), the lack of oxygen could increase corrosion, especially for higher shares of
torrefied biomass. Due to Boudouard reaction, the fixed carbon reacts with CO2 to form CO, resulting in a slightly decrease of CO2 con-
centration inside the flame. Another rise in CO concentrations at the lower end of the furnace occurs in all cases. This is due to the fact that
the char oxidation takes place in this area of the furnace, as explained in the previous section.
According to Fig. 13, the following key findings can be concluded. At upper measuring positions, the oxygen was completely consumed in
all experiments inside the flame. Higher concentrations of CO were measured inside the flame, which are decreased towards the outside. In
the outer region of the combustion chamber, up to 8 vol.-% oxygen concentration was measured. Further down in the combustion chamber,
the oxygen continued decreasing, reaching nearly constant values across the entire cross section. The CO concentrations initially decreased
and rose again as the flame progressed.

4. Conclusion

Experimental measurements for co-combustion of torrefied biomass with hard coal were carried out. Two thermal shares of torrefied
biomass (3.8% and 7.3%), in addition to pure hard coal were combusted in the 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired furnace. During the experiments,
the flue gas emissions, fuel and char burnout behaviour, flame profile, fly and coarse ashes were measured or sampled and finally evaluated.
From this work, the following conclusions can be obtained:

 At thermal shares of 3.8% and 7.3%, no additional equipment was necessary compared to coal-only combustion. However, the oxygen
was completely consumed in all experiments inside the flame combined with higher concentrations of carbon monoxide. Near the outer
wall of the combustion chamber, the oxygen concentration increases, while the carbon monoxide decreases.
 The particles after the grinding process were coarser and maximum mass flow through the mill was significantly reduced. The higher
the torrefied biomass share, the bigger particles were in the PSD. The grinded biomass particles were of elongated shape and on average
larger than coal.
 The difference in emissions and char burnout between co-combustion and coal-only combustion was very small. In all cases, the furnace
temperature had a higher influence on combustion than the co-combustion of the torrefied biomass. Close to the burner, the co-
combustion of torrefied biomass increases the oxygen demand and might increase the corrosion around the burner throat.
 The relatively high amount of unburned carbon in the fly ash samples in case of co-combustion and coal-only combustion is due to the
narrow dimensions of the combustion chamber in combination with the water-cooled walls (relatively cold water with a temperature of
160
C) in the radiation part. Accordingly, fast heat absorption takes place and thus lower temperature in this part is measured.
 Quantitative measurements on physical and chemical characteristic of torrefied biomass and hard coal co-combustion are provided,
which are of high relevance for the validation of CFD models.

In future works, the 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired furnace will be modified. First, additional ash sampling system for discharging the
coarse ash from the transition section will be installed. Second, it is recommended increasing the temperature of the cooling water to 300 or
400
C (e.g. pressure 200 bar or higher) in order to increase the temperature and thus to reduce the amount of unburned carbon. The
thermal shares of torrefied biomass will be increased to higher ratio (more than 10% thermal share) and the co-combustion with German
brown coal will be investigated, too.

Acknowledgement

This work is part of the research project “Torrefaction”, funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi,
support number 03KB043) as part of the funding program “Biomass energy use”. The authors would like to thank BMWi, Mainova
AG, Kraftwerk Mehrum GmbH, Fives Pillard Deutschland GmbH and AB Torkapparater for financial and technical support. This paper is
based on the dissertation of Dr.-Ing. Jan-Peter Busch, entitled “Die Torrefizierung biogener Reststoffe für die Mitverbrennung in
Kraftwerksfeuerungen”.

References

[1] F. Alobaid, N. Mertens, R. Starkloff, T. Lanz, C. Heinze, B. Epple, Progress in dynamic simulation of thermal power plants, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 59 (2017) 79e162.
[2] J.-F. Hake, W. Fischer, S. Venghaus, C. Weckenbrock, The German energiewendeehistory and status quo, Energy 92 (2015) 532e546.
[3] €
M. Kaltschmitt, W. Streicher, Energie aus biomasse. Regenerative Energien in Osterreich, Springer, 2009, pp. 339e532.
[4] IPCC, Summary for policymakers, in: T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013, pp. 1e30.
[5] R.C. Brown, Thermochemical Processing of Biomass: Conversion into Fuels, Chemicals and Power, Wiley, 2019.
[6] ~o, A Review on Torrefied Biomass Pellets as a Sustainable Alternative to Coal in Power Generation, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40 (2014)
L. Nunes, J. Matias, J.J.R. Catala
153e160.
[7] H. Spliethoff, C. Wolf, Co-combustion of Solid Biofuels in Coal-Fired Power Plants, Encycl. Sustain. Sci. Technol. (2017) 1e24.
[8] A. Stelle, Qualifizierung torrefizierter biogener Reststoffe für den Einsatz in Kraftwerksfeuerungen, 2014.
[9] J.-P. Busch, Die Torrefizierung biogener Reststoffe für die Mitverbrennung in Kraftwerksfeuerungen, Go € ttingen: cuvillier, 2016, pp. 1e182.
[10] P. Bergman, A. Boersma, R. Zwart, J. Kiel, Torrefaction for Biomass Co-firing in Existing Coal-Fired Power stations, Energy Centre of Netherlands, 2005, pp. 1e71. ECN-C-
05-013.
[11] J. Bourgois, R. Guyonnet, Characterization and analysis of torrefied wood, Wood Sci. Technol. 22 (1988) 143e155.
[12] D. Medic, M. Darr, A. Shah, B. Potter, J. Zimmerman, Effects of torrefaction process parameters on biomass feedstock upgrading, Fuel 91 (2012) 147e154.
[13] € rnbom, Biomass torrefaction, in: 2nd World Conf on Biomass for Energy, Industry and Climate Protection. Rom,
R. Zanzi, D. Tito Ferro, A. Torres, P. Beaton Soler, E. Bjo
Italien, 2004, pp. 859e862.
[14] D. Eseltine, S.S. Thanapal, K. Annamalai, D. Ranjan, Torrefaction of woody biomass (Juniper and Mesquite) using inert and non-inert gases, Fuel 113 (2013) 379e388.
[15] M. Phanphanich, S. Mani, Impact of torrefaction on the grindability and fuel characteristics of forest biomass, Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2011) 1246e1253.
[16] A. Uslu, A.P.C. Faaij, P.C.A. Bergman, Pre-treatment technologies, and their effect on international bioenergy supply chain logistics. Techno-economic evaluation of
torrefaction, fast pyrolysis and pelletisation, Energy 33 (2008) 1206e1223.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008
14 F. Alobaid et al. / Journal of the Energy Institute xxx (xxxx) xxx

[17] B. Arias, C. Pevida, J. Fermoso, M.G. Plaza, F. Rubiera, J.J. Pis, Influence of torrefaction on the grindability and reactivity of woody biomass, Fuel Process. Technol. 89 (2008)
169e175.
[18] T.G. Bridgeman, J.M. Jones, I. Shield, P.T. Williams, Torrefaction of reed canary grass, wheat straw and willow to enhance solid fuel qualities and combustion properties,
Fuel 87 (2008) 844e856.
[19] J.J. Chew, V. Doshi, Recent advances in biomass pretreatment e torrefaction fundamentals and technology, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (2011) 4212e4222.
[20] M.J. Prins, K.J. Ptasinski, F.J.J.G. Janssen, Torrefaction of wood - Part 2. Analysis of products, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 77 (2006) 35e40.
[21] C.-T. Wu, F.-C. Lin, The properties of torrefied biomass from six major bamboos in Taiwan, in: International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology,
Society of Wood Science and Technology, Beijing, 2012.
[22] E. Rokni, X. Ren, A. Panahi, Y.A. Levendis, Emissions of SO2, NOx, CO2, and HCl from co-firing of coals with raw and torrefied biomass fuels, Fuel 211 (2018) 363e374.
[23] H. Ullah, G. Liu, B. Yousaf, M.U. Ali, Q. Abbas, C. Zhou, Combustion characteristics and retention-emission of selenium during co-firing of torrefied biomass and its Blends
with high ash coal, Bioresour. Technol. 245 (2017) 73e80.
[24] A. Toptas, Y. Yildirim, G. Duman, J. Yanik, Combustion behavior of different kinds of torrefied biomass and their blends with lignite, Bioresour. Technol. 177 (2015)
328e336.
[25] C. Ndibe, J. Maier, G. Scheffknecht, Combustion, cofiring and emissions characteristics of torrefied biomass in a drop tube reactor, Biomass Bioenergy 79 (2015) 105e115.
[26] L. Cao, X. Yuan, L. Jiang, C. Li, Z. Xiao, Z. Huang, et al., Thermogravimetric characteristics and kinetics analysis of oil cake and torrefied biomass blends, Fuel 175 (2016)
129e136.
[27] Z. Liu, W. Hu, Z. Jiang, B. Mi, B. Fei, Investigating combustion behaviors of bamboo, torrefied bamboo, coal and their respective blends by thermogravimetric analysis,
Renew. Energy 87 (2016) 346e352.
[28] X. Meng, R. Sun, W. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Yan, X. Ren, Effects of corn ratio with pine on biomass co-combustion characteristics in a fixed bed, Appl. Therm. Eng. 142 (2018)
30e42.
[29] J. Li, X. Zhang, H. Pawlak-Kruczek, W. Yang, P. Kruczek, W. Blasiak, Process simulation of co-firing torrefied biomass in a 220 MWe coal-fired power plant, Energy
Convers. Manag. 84 (2014) 503e511.
[30] J. Li, A. Brzdekiewicz, W. Yang, W. Blasiak, Co-firing based on biomass torrefaction in a pulverized coal boiler with aim of 100% fuel switching, Appl. Energy 99 (2012)
344e354.
[31] A. Stroh, F. Alobaid, J.-P. Busch, J. Stro€hle, B. Epple, 3-D numerical simulation for co-firing of torrefied biomass in a pulverized-fired 1 MWth combustion chamber, Energy
85 (2015) 105e116.
[32] F. Alobaid, J.-P. Busch, J. Stro€hle, B. Epple, Investigations on torrefied biomass for co-combustion in pulverized coal-fired furnaces, VGB PowerTech 92 (2012) 50.
[33] F. Alobaid, Numerical Simulation for Next Generation Thermal Power Plants, Springer, 2018.
[34] I. Smajevi c, A. Kazagic, M. Musi c, K. Becic, I. Hasanbegovic, S. Sokolovi
c, et al., Co-firing Bosnian Coals with woody biomass: experimental studies on a laboratory-scale
furnace and 110 MWe power unit, Therm. Sci. 16 (2012) 789e804.
[35] J. Zuwala, M. Sciazko, Full-scale co-firing trial tests of sawdust and bio-waste in pulverized coal-fired 230 t/h steam boiler, Biomass Bioenergy 34 (2010) 1165e1174.
[36] C. Ndibe, S. Grathwohl, M. Paneru, J. Maier, G. Scheffknecht, Emissions reduction and deposits characteristics during cofiring of high shares of torrefied biomass in a
500kW pulverized coal furnace, Fuel 156 (2015) 177e189.
[37] A. Ohliger, D. Christ, P. Heil, M. Fo €rster, R. Kneer, Biomasse-Torrefizierung und anschließende Mitverbrennung in Luft- und Oxyfuelatmosph€ are. 25 Deutscher Flam-
mentag, VDI Verlag, Karlsruhe, 2011, pp. 365e370.
[38] P. Molcan, G. Lu, T. Le Bris, Y. Yan, B. Taupin, S. Caillat, Characterisation of biomass and coal co-firing on a 3 MWth combustion test facility using flame imaging and Gas/
ash Sampling Techniques, Fuel 88 (2009) 2328e2334.
[39] A. Galloy, Experimentelle Untersuchungen an einer Carbonate Looping Versuchsanlage mit 1 MW thermischer Leistung, Technische Universita €t Darmstadt, 2014.
[40] J. Karlsson, Evaluation of Torrefaction Pilot Plant in Klintehamn, Gotland, 2013.

Please cite this article as: F. Alobaid et al., Experimental measurements for torrefied biomass Co-combustion in a 1 MWth pulverized coal-fired
furnace, Journal of the Energy Institute, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joei.2019.07.008