4.6 Article

Thermal radiation in oxy-fuel flames

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2011.05.018

关键词

Oxy-fuel combustion; Radiation; Particle; Gas; Scattering; Soot

资金

  1. Vattenfall AB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work investigates thermal radiation in oxy-fuel flames, based on experiments and modelling. Experiments were conducted in a 100 kW test facility in air and oxy-fuel combustion atmospheres, using two different types of fuels, lignite and propane. In-flame measurements of gas composition, temperature and total radiation intensity, were performed and used as input to radiation modelling to examine the influence of oxy-fuel conditions on gas and particle radiation characteristics. In the modelling, the spectral properties of CO(2) and H(2)O are treated by means of a statistical narrow band model and particle radiation is modelled for both scattering and non-scattering particles. Experiments on the propane flame show that the flame radiation conditions are drastically influenced by the recycling conditions. With OF 27 conditions (27% oxygen in the feed gas) and dry recycling, the temperature is slightly lower compared to air-fired conditions, but the emitted intensity is significantly increased. Modelling shows that this is mainly caused by a significantly increased soot radiation. Propane flame images show that the presence of soot in oxy-fuel conditions varies strongly with recycling conditions. The contribution due to an increased emission by CO(2) is of minor importance. In the lignite experiments similar flame temperatures were kept during air and oxy-fuel combustion (OF 25 conditions with dry recycling). The measurements show that the intensity levels in both flames are similar which is due to a strong particle radiation in both environments. The modelling reveals that the dominance by particle radiation contra gas radiation is closely related to whether the particles are scattering or non-scattering. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据