Modelling as an Aid to Biomass Combustion in Plant Design

https://doi.org/10.22146/ajche.50841

Michael R.I Purvis(1), Gilbert Lim(2*), Susan A. Races(3), Carlita M. Salazar(4), Raymond Girard R. Tan(5), Stanley Santos(6)

(1) Department of Mechanical and Design Engineering UniversityofPortsmouth,UNITEDKINGDOM
(2) Department of Mechanical and Design Engineering UniversityofPortsmouth,UNITEDKINGDOM
(3) Department of Chemical Engineering De La Salle University-Manila, PHILIPPINES
(4) Department of Chemical Engineering De La Salle University-Manila, PHILIPPINES
(5) Department of Chemical Engineering De La Salle University-Manila, PHILIPPINES
(6) chool of Chemical Engineering, Engineering Campus Universiti Sains Malaysia, Seri Ampangan Nibong Tebal, 14300, Penang, MALAYSIA Tel: 604-593 7788 Fax: 604-5941013
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Solid biomass materials are recognized as a sustainable energy source worldwide. In particular, lump biomass has considerable potential for exploitation as fuel in small- size underfeed stokers. The paper considers the design features of the underfeed stoker and its advantages in the burning of biomass. Some expe. i nental results are given to indicate the plant parameters to be modelled. An initial modelling approach is described for single-particle solid fuel combustion to predict flow patterns using the FLUENT Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) code. Predictions are compared against available experimental results showing reasonable qualitative and quantitative agreement. The paper concludes with information on the constraints on the modelling study and proposals for new work.

Keywords


Biomass, modelling, plant design, and underfeed stoker.

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Abbas, T., Costen, P. G., and Lockwood, F. C. (1996). Solid fuel utilisation: From coal to biomass. The Combustion Institute, 26th Symposium (International) on Combustion, 3041-58. 
  2. Blackham, A. U., Smoot, L. D., and Yousefi, P. (1994). “Rates of oxidation of millimetre- size char particles: Simple experiments," Fuel, 73, 602–12. 
  3. Bruch, C., Peters, B., and Nussbaumer, T. (2003). "Modelling wood combustion under fixed-bed conditions," Fuel, 82, 729-38. 
  4. Eaton, A. M., Smoot, L. D., Hill, S. C., and Eatough, C. N. (1999). "Components, formulations, solutions, evaluation and application of comprehensive combustion models," Programme in Energy and Combustion Science, 25, 387-436. 
  5. FLUENT, Inc. (1998). FLUENT users guide. Sheffield, U.K. FLUENT, Inc. (1998). GAMBIT users guide. 
  6. Sheffield, U.K. Purvis, M. R. I., Tadulan, E. L., and Tariq, A. S. C. (2000). "NO emissions from the underfeed combustion of coal and biomass." J. Institute of Energy, 73, 495, 70–7. 
  7. Purvis, M. R.I., Tadulan, E. L., and Tariq, A. S. (2000). “NO, control by air staging in a small biomass-fuelled underfeed stoker," Int. J. Energy Research, 24, 917-33.
  8. Santos, S. O. (2002). "The development of an underfeed stoker for biomass combustion," Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical and Design Engineering, University of Portsmouth, U.K. 
  9. Solomon, P. R., Serio, M. A., and Suberg, E. M. (1992). "Coal pyrolysis: Experiments, kinetic rates, and mechanisms," Progress in Energy and Combustion, 18, 133-220. 
  10. Yang, Y. B., Yamauchi, H., Nasserzadeh, V., and Swithenbank, J. (2003). “Effects of fuel devolatilisation on the combustion of simulated solid wastes in a packed bed." Fuel. Online: <www.sciencedirect.com> Accessed: 30 May 2003. 



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/ajche.50841

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 31 | views : 15

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.