4.7 Article

Development of a new premixed burner for biomass gasifier generated low calorific value producer gas for industrial applications

Journal

ENERGY
Volume 279, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2023.128140

Keywords

Garden waste; Premix burner; Conventional burner; Degree of recirculation; Pilot flame

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper focuses on the design of an efficient premix burner for low calorific value producer gas. The performance of the proposed premix burner is compared with a conventional burner on a 10 kg/h capacity downdraft gasifier. The premix burner shows better flame stability, higher flame temperatures, lower emissions, and higher thermal efficiency.
The present paper deals with the design of an efficient premix burner design for low calorific value producer gas as a fuel. The proposed premix and the existing available conventional burner are tested and operated on a 10 kg/h capacity downdraft gasifier with garden waste feed. The premix burner (PB) has dual slits swirl vane for airfuel mixing along with a bluff body each at an angle of 32 degrees and 45 degrees, designed based on simulation results from numerical simulations. Its performance is compared with a conventional burner (CB). Flame temperature variation at different axial and radial distance for both the burners was studied. Flame temperature variation with & lambda; (Ratio of actual air/fuel by stoichiometric air/fuel) are determined. The average NOx and CO emissions for PB are found to be 55% and 70% lower than the CB under nearly identical conditions. PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter emissions are 65% lower in PB than CB during a stable flame time (15-120 min). The thermal efficiency for PB mode was 55% and that for CB it was 26%. PB showed a better flame stability, higher flame temperatures, lower emissions and higher thermal efficiency as compared to the CB.

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