4.7 Article

Development of a pyrolysis model for corrugated cardboard

Journal

COMBUSTION AND FLAME
Volume 160, Issue 11, Pages 2595-2607

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.06.001

Keywords

Solid combustion; Burning rate; Thermal degradation kinetics; Thermophysical properties; Lignocellulosic materials; Engineered materials

Funding

  1. FM Global
  2. NIST-ARRA program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current study outlines a general approach to construct a one-dimensional pyrolysis model based on milligram-scale and bench-scale test data collected systematically to isolate a specific process in each test. This approach is demonstrated by developing a model of burning for corrugated cardboard. Thermogravimetric analysis and differential scanning calorimetry were conducted on pulverized cardboard to determine the thermal degradation mechanism, the enthalpy of decomposition reactions, and the heat capacities of apparent species. Data collected in pyrolysis-combustion flow calorimetry tests were analyzed to assign a heat of combustion to the volatiles evolved from each reaction. Bench-scale tests were conducted with a cone calorimeter on samples in a horizontal orientation to observe the flaming combustion of this material at external heat fluxes ranging from 20 to 80 kW m(-2). Condensed phase temperature data was collected in these tests to measure and infer thermal transport properties and to characterize property changes associated with thermal degradation through an iterative inverse analysis. All the parameters determined through analysis of the milligram-scale and bench-scale tests were used to construct a one-dimensional pyrolysis model that predicted the average mass loss and heat release rates from cone calorimeter tests to within, on average, 17% and the times to ignition to within 2 s. (c) 2013 The Combustion Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. 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