4.3 Article

Investigation of optimal falcon parameters for clean asphaltite concentrate

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2022.2118262

Keywords

Asphaltite; falcon concentrator; gravity separation; ash; sulfur

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to remove ash and sulfur content from asphaltite using a Falcon Concentrator. The experiments showed that the optimal ash and sulfur contents were achieved under specific particle size, centrifugal force, and water pressure conditions, leading to a significant improvement in the combustibility and quality of the asphaltite.
Asphaltite is a solid fuel formed due to the metamorphism of oil separated from its reserves by tectonic movements. The most critical components that determine solid fuel quality are ash and sulfur. Proximate and ultimate analyses were performed to determine asphaltite's ash and sulfur content. The ash content was 45.16%, and the sulfur content was 5.81%. Ash and sulfur in asphaltite are generally very fine-grained disseminated. Therefore, it is complicated to remove the asphaltite. This study aimed to remove asphaltite's ash and sulfur content with Falcon Concentrator. In the experiments, the solid rate of 30% and the feed rate of 1.5 L/min were kept constant. The effects of different particle sizes, various centrifugal forces, and different water pressure on ash and sulfur removal were investigated. Combustible and separation efficiencies ash and sulfur removal efficiencies were calculated for each concentrate. Optimum ash (24.26%) and sulfur (2.74%) contents were obtained in -150 mu m particle size, 3 psi water pressure, and 300 G centrifugal force. It was determined that the feed's higher heating value of 4426 kcal/kg increased to 5708 kcal/kg in the clean asphaltite. It was concluded that the Falcon concentrator effectively reduced asphaltite's ash and sulfur content.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available