4.7 Article

Model of fragmentation of limestone particles during thermal shock and calcination in fluidised beds

Journal

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
Volume 187, Issue 3, Pages 244-251

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2008.02.016

Keywords

Fragmentation; Limestone particles; Thermal shock; Calcination; Modelling

Funding

  1. European Community [RFC-CR-03001]
  2. CERTH/ISFTA, Ptolemais, Greece

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fragmentation of limestone due to thermal shock and calcination in a fluidised bed was studied through experiments and modelling. The time for heating was estimated by model calculations and the time for calcination by measurements. Fragmentation due to thermal shock was carried out by experiments in a CO(2) atmosphere in order to prevent the effect of calcination. It was found to be much less than fragmentation due to calcination. Average particle sizes before and after fragmentation are presented for several types of limestone. The effects of particle size and gas composition on the primary fragmentation were studied through experiments. Increasing the fluidisation velocity increased the tendency to fragment. The evolution of the particle size distribution (PSD) of limestone particles due to thermal shock and during calcination (or simultaneous calcination and sulphation) were calculated using a population balance model. Fragmentation due to thermal shock is treated as an instantaneous process. The fragmentation frequency during calcination is presented as exponentially decaying over time. In addition to the final PSD, this model also predicts the PSD during the calcination process. The fragmentation was practically found to end after 10 min. Furthermore. a population balance method to calculate the particle size distribution and amount of limestone in fluidised beds in dynamic and steady state, when feeding history is known, is presented. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available