This paper is part II in a series of two. Ash behaviour modelling of the gasi®cation of four biomass fuels is compared with pilot-scale experiments carried out in a pressurised ¯uidised bed gasi®er at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) and an atmospheric test rig of Termiska Processer AB (TPS).
The ash chemistry in fluidised bed gasification of biomass fuels. Part II: Ash behaviour prediction versus bench scale agglomeration tests
- Publisher
- Elsevier Science
- Year
- 2002
- Weight
- 324 KB
- Volume
- 43
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0140-6701
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
ities, property-estimation methods, dispersion modelling, and correction to the k-¢ model. Considerable differences were found in fuelvapour distribution when using different models, The LIF measurements and the numerical simulations were compared in terms of the fuel-vapour distribution. The simulation results were found to be very sensitive to the initial SMD, in particular in the presence of air swirl. Inaccuracies in the estimated SMD, therefore, constitute th e primary accuracy limitation of the simulation. By adjusting the SMD, in many cases good agreement between measurement and simulation could be obtained. Remaining discrepancies that cannot be attributed to SMD adjustments are supposed to originate either from a turbulencemodelling error and the occurrence of secondary droplet breakup, which was not modelled, or, on the other hand, to the error by assuming a proportionality between LIF intensity and fuel oil concentration.
02/01419 Method and apparatus for gas manufacture from carbonaceous materials
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
This paper is part I in a series of two describing the modelling of the ash-chemistry of seven biomass fuels under reducing, pressurised conditions in ¯uidised bed gasi®cation by means of thermodynamic multi-phase multi-component equilibrium (TPCE) calculations. The fuels considered were Salix, a Sc
ities, property-estimation methods, dispersion modelling, and correction to the k-¢ model. Considerable differences were found in fuelvapour distribution when using different models, The LIF measurements and the numerical simulations were compared in terms of the fuel-vapour distribution. The simula