Matteo Pietraccini, Audrey Santandrea, Pierre-Alexandre Glaude, Anthony Dufour, Olivier Dufaud
{"title":"将有机粉末的热解和燃烧解耦以确定层流火焰速度","authors":"Matteo Pietraccini, Audrey Santandrea, Pierre-Alexandre Glaude, Anthony Dufour, Olivier Dufaud","doi":"10.1002/cjce.25362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Determining the laminar flame speed of dusts is far from straightforward. A strong dependency on the experimental setup and the data treatment's high complexity makes it a true challenge. This work compares three complementary experimental setups to measure the laminar flame speed of organic dust (here, cellulose): a modified Hartmann tube, a 20 L sphere, and a micro-fluidized bed (MFB) burner. The first two consider the flame propagation phenomenon in its globality, which means that numerous steps are involved simultaneously (particle heating, pyrolysis, oxidation, radiative transfer, flame stretching), while the third one decouples pyrolysis and combustion, to focus mainly on the oxidation rate. An MFB was conceived to generate pyrolysis products and burn them in a laminar flame. Unstretched flame velocities determined with the first two setups were consistent and equal to 22.0 and 26.6 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. Using Silvestrini's equation, values ranging between 14.0 and 33.4 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup> were obtained according to the dust concentration. With the MFB burner, the flame speed was much higher (135–155 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup>), due to the higher temperature of the fresh mixture and the fact that only the oxidation of the pyrolysis gases is considered. A numerical simulation (Chemkin) confirmed these results since the range 135 to 231 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup> was obtained for equivalence ratios of 0.6 and 1.2, respectively. The discrepancy between the laminar flame speed determined in the sphere or in the tube and that obtained in the MFB highlights the significant influence of particle heating and pyrolysis during a dust explosion.</p>","PeriodicalId":9400,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering","volume":"102 10","pages":"3345-3357"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decoupling pyrolysis and combustion of organic powders to determine the laminar flame speed\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Pietraccini, Audrey Santandrea, Pierre-Alexandre Glaude, Anthony Dufour, Olivier Dufaud\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cjce.25362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Determining the laminar flame speed of dusts is far from straightforward. A strong dependency on the experimental setup and the data treatment's high complexity makes it a true challenge. This work compares three complementary experimental setups to measure the laminar flame speed of organic dust (here, cellulose): a modified Hartmann tube, a 20 L sphere, and a micro-fluidized bed (MFB) burner. The first two consider the flame propagation phenomenon in its globality, which means that numerous steps are involved simultaneously (particle heating, pyrolysis, oxidation, radiative transfer, flame stretching), while the third one decouples pyrolysis and combustion, to focus mainly on the oxidation rate. An MFB was conceived to generate pyrolysis products and burn them in a laminar flame. Unstretched flame velocities determined with the first two setups were consistent and equal to 22.0 and 26.6 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup>, respectively. Using Silvestrini's equation, values ranging between 14.0 and 33.4 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup> were obtained according to the dust concentration. With the MFB burner, the flame speed was much higher (135–155 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup>), due to the higher temperature of the fresh mixture and the fact that only the oxidation of the pyrolysis gases is considered. A numerical simulation (Chemkin) confirmed these results since the range 135 to 231 cm ∙ s<sup>−1</sup> was obtained for equivalence ratios of 0.6 and 1.2, respectively. The discrepancy between the laminar flame speed determined in the sphere or in the tube and that obtained in the MFB highlights the significant influence of particle heating and pyrolysis during a dust explosion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9400,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering\",\"volume\":\"102 10\",\"pages\":\"3345-3357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25362\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cjce.25362","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
确定粉尘的层流火焰速度绝非易事。对实验装置的强烈依赖性和数据处理的高度复杂性使其成为一项真正的挑战。这项研究比较了测量有机粉尘(此处为纤维素)层流火焰速度的三种互补实验装置:改良哈特曼管、20 L 球体和微流化床(MFB)燃烧器。前两种方法考虑了火焰传播的整体现象,这意味着同时涉及多个步骤(颗粒加热、热解、氧化、辐射传递、火焰拉伸),而第三种方法则将热解和燃烧分离开来,主要关注氧化速度。构想中的 MFB 可生成热解产物并在层流火焰中燃烧。前两种设置测定的未伸展火焰速度一致,分别等于 22.0 和 26.6 cm ∙ s-1。使用西尔维斯特里尼方程,根据粉尘浓度得出的数值在 14.0 到 33.4 cm ∙ s-1 之间。使用 MFB 燃烧器时,火焰速度要高得多(135-155 cm ∙ s-1),这是因为新鲜混合物的温度较高,而且只考虑了热解气体的氧化作用。数值模拟(Chemkin)证实了这些结果,因为当等效比分别为 0.6 和 1.2 时,结果范围为 135 至 231 cm ∙ s-1。在球体或管道中确定的层流火焰速度与在 MFB 中获得的层流火焰速度之间的差异凸显了粉尘爆炸过程中颗粒加热和热解的重要影响。
Decoupling pyrolysis and combustion of organic powders to determine the laminar flame speed
Determining the laminar flame speed of dusts is far from straightforward. A strong dependency on the experimental setup and the data treatment's high complexity makes it a true challenge. This work compares three complementary experimental setups to measure the laminar flame speed of organic dust (here, cellulose): a modified Hartmann tube, a 20 L sphere, and a micro-fluidized bed (MFB) burner. The first two consider the flame propagation phenomenon in its globality, which means that numerous steps are involved simultaneously (particle heating, pyrolysis, oxidation, radiative transfer, flame stretching), while the third one decouples pyrolysis and combustion, to focus mainly on the oxidation rate. An MFB was conceived to generate pyrolysis products and burn them in a laminar flame. Unstretched flame velocities determined with the first two setups were consistent and equal to 22.0 and 26.6 cm ∙ s−1, respectively. Using Silvestrini's equation, values ranging between 14.0 and 33.4 cm ∙ s−1 were obtained according to the dust concentration. With the MFB burner, the flame speed was much higher (135–155 cm ∙ s−1), due to the higher temperature of the fresh mixture and the fact that only the oxidation of the pyrolysis gases is considered. A numerical simulation (Chemkin) confirmed these results since the range 135 to 231 cm ∙ s−1 was obtained for equivalence ratios of 0.6 and 1.2, respectively. The discrepancy between the laminar flame speed determined in the sphere or in the tube and that obtained in the MFB highlights the significant influence of particle heating and pyrolysis during a dust explosion.
期刊介绍:
The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering (CJChE) publishes original research articles, new theoretical interpretation or experimental findings and critical reviews in the science or industrial practice of chemical and biochemical processes. Preference is given to papers having a clearly indicated scope and applicability in any of the following areas: Fluid mechanics, heat and mass transfer, multiphase flows, separations processes, thermodynamics, process systems engineering, reactors and reaction kinetics, catalysis, interfacial phenomena, electrochemical phenomena, bioengineering, minerals processing and natural products and environmental and energy engineering. Papers that merely describe or present a conventional or routine analysis of existing processes will not be considered.