4.7 Article

DEM study on the mixed feeding process of coal and cylindroid biomass particles in a screw feeder

期刊

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 2543-2554

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2021.05.031

关键词

Screw feeder; Mixed feeding; Non-spherical particle; DEM

资金

  1. Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51736002]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20180386]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study focused on the complex mixed feeding process of coal and cylindroid biomass particles in a screw feeder using the discrete element method (DEM). Results show that higher biomass feeding ratio and screw rotational speed can enhance the stability of the mixed feeding process, while too high feeding rate may cause particles to be hindered. The stability of biomass blending ratio is better at higher biomass feeding ratios.
The complex mixed feeding process for the binary mixture of coal and cylindroid biomass particles in a screw feeder was numerically studied by the discrete element method (DEM). The effects of biomass feeding ratio, feeding rate, and screw rotational speed on the feeding performance were investigated with the continuity, uniformity, and stability of the mixed feeding process being emphatically discussed. The results reveal that the stability of real-time mass flow rate and biomass blending ratio performs better at higher biomass feeding ratios. A larger variability of real-time biomass blending ratio is found at low feeding rate, while increasing the feeding rate reduces the stability of real-time mass flow rate and the too high feeding rate would cause some cylindroid biomass particles being hindered by the front wall surface of the hopper. Moreover, increasing the screw rotational speed significantly increases the stability of the mixed feeding process. (c) 2021 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. 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

4.7
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