4.7 Article

Experimental investigation on the self-ignition behaviour of coal dust accumulations in oxy-fuel combustion system

期刊

FUEL
卷 160, 期 -, 页码 245-254

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2015.07.050

关键词

Critical ignition temperature; Oxygen rich; Hot oven; Hot plate; O-2/CO2 ambient; Kinetic parameters

资金

  1. European FP7 project RELCOM
  2. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the oxy-coal combustion, the accumulation of coal dust in the system has a fire risk of self-ignition. Therefore, understanding the ignition dynamics of coal dust deposits in oxygen-enriched environment is essential for the prevention of fire and dust explosion. In this work, both hot-oven and hot-plate tests were conducted to study the self-ignition behaviour of coal dusts in O-2/CO2 ambient with O-2 mole fraction from 21% to 50%. Three coal dusts: Indonesian Sebuku coal, Pittsburgh No. 8 coal and South African coal were tested with different sizes. Experimental results revealed that the self-ignition risk increased significantly with the increasing O-2 mole fraction: reducing both the critical ignition temperature (10 degrees C in hot-oven test and 40 degrees C in hot-plate test) and the ignition delay time. Comparatively, the inhibiting effect of CO2 was found to be small for self-ignition. In addition, a modified Frank-Kamenetzkii analysis was proposed to explain all measured critical ignition temperatures, and the genetic algorithm was used to determine kinetic parameters of the one-step global reaction. The analysis showed that as the coal maturity/rank increased, both the self-ignition risk and the sensitivity to oxidation decreased, along with the decreasing apparent activation energy and pre-exponential factor. Such trend did not change with the ambient oxygen condition for all three coal dusts. These results improve our understanding of the self-ignition behaviour and the fire risk of coal dust in the oxy-fuel combustion system. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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