4.5 Article

Numerical simulation of waste tyres gasification

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 460-468

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X15573656

关键词

Gasification; biomass; syngas; cold efficiency; reactive flow

资金

  1. Masdar Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gasification is a thermochemical pathway used to convert carbonaceous feedstock into syngas (CO and H-2) in a deprived oxygen environment. The process can accommodate conventional feedstock such as coal, discarded waste including plastics, rubber, and mixed waste owing to the high reactor temperature (1000 degrees C-1600 degrees C). Pyrolysis is another conversion pathway, yet it is more selective to the feedstock owing to the low process temperature (350 degrees C-550 degrees C). Discarded tyres can be subjected to pyrolysis, however, the yield involves the formation of intermediate radicals additional to unconverted char. Gasification, however, owing to the higher temperature and shorter residence time, is more opted to follow quasi-equilibrium and being predictive. In this work, tyre crumbs are subjected to two levels of gasification modelling, i.e. equilibrium zero dimension and reactive multi-dimensional flow. The objective is to investigate the effect of the amount of oxidising agent on the conversion of tyre granules and syngas composition in a small 20kW cylindrical gasifier. Initially the chemical compositions of several tyre samples are measured following the ASTM procedures for proximate and ultimate analysis as well as the heating value. The measured data are used to carry out equilibrium-based and reactive flow gasification. The result shows that both models are reasonably predictive averaging 50% gasification efficiency, the devolatilisation is less sensitive than the char conversion to the equivalence ratio as devolatilisation is always complete. In view of the high attained efficiency, it is suggested that the investigated tyre gasification system is economically viable.

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

4.5
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