4.7 Article

Experimental and numerical studies on the gas velocity deviation in a 600 MWe tangentially fired boiler

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 110, 期 -, 页码 553-563

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.08.185

关键词

Cold-state modeling; Gas velocity deviation; Tangentially fired boiler; Pulverized coal combustion; Numerical simulation

资金

  1. Shanghai Economic and Information Technology Commission [15XI-1-25]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a comprehensive method containing cold-state modeling experiment, cold-state numerical simulation, and hot-state numerical simulation is employed to analyze the aerodynamic field in a 600 MWe tangentially fired pulverized boiler. To investigate the non-uniformity characteristics of flow field distribution in the horizontal flue under deep air-staged condition by this method, a major attention is paid to the gas velocity deviation in front of the final super-heater. Experiments at the cases of various yaw angles of separate over-fire air (SOFA) are carried out under a cold model of the large utility boiler with a roughly 1:28 scale. And the cold model is equipped with 3D-printed nozzles arranged in the four corners. Moreover, the corresponding cases are conducted by cold-state numerical simulation in the cold model furnace, and hot-state numerical simulation in the original furnace. The results show that the experimental data are in general agreement with simulated results in the cold modeling furnace. And through comparison of velocity profile at the same dimensionless furnace height, the results of cold state model show the similar characteristics of gas velocity distribution that presented in the hot-state situation of the original furnace. Thus, through reasonable cold-state modeling, a detailed velocity distribution can be obtained to give a good insight into the gas velocity deviation characteristics in the horizontal flue. (C) 2016 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