4.7 Article

The combustion of solid paraffin wax and of liquid glycerol in a fluidised bed

期刊

FUEL
卷 199, 期 -, 页码 447-455

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.02.045

关键词

Fluidised bed combustion of a liquid fuel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two fuels were burned in electrically heated beds of alumina sand, fluidised by air. The fuels were: (i) paraffin wax, which is a solid containing 100% volatile matter and (ii) glycerol, a liquid, whose potential as a fuel needs assessing. The bubbling fluidised beds were held in the range 400-900 degrees C. Pieces of paraffin wax burned like a plastic, so when fed on top of a bed, the wax floated and generated clouds of soot. Soon, it then sank into the bed. When the sand was below similar to 800 degrees C, combustion occurred noisily in exploding bubbles leaving the bed. In beds hotter than similar to 800 degrees C, combustion proceeded in bubbles fairly low in the bed and was controlled by the mixing of hydrocarbon vapours (from the wax) with the fluidising air. If wax were fed half way up a bed, bubbles of hydrocarbon vapours were quickly produced; they ascended and mixed with the fluidising air. In a bed below 800 degrees C, combustion mainly occurred noisily in bubbles just after leaving the bed, but in a hotter bed, there was quieter burning in smaller bubbles, before they reached the top of the bed. Glycerol behaved similarly, when fed into the middle of a bed. Thus bubbles of glycerol vapour were formed; they mixed with air ascending the bed as either bubbles or percolating between particles. Again bubbles exploded noisily at the top of a bed below 800 degrees C. With the bed above 800 degrees C, glycerol burned inside smaller bubbles below the bed's upper surface. No soot was observed when burning glycerol in such a hot bed, yielding CO and CO2 as the only products of combustion. It appears that burning glycerol cleanly in a hot fluidised bed is a feasible proposition. (C) 2017 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

4.7
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