Comparative Study on Different Treatments of Coal Devolatilization for Pulverized Coal Combustion Simulation

Jiangkuan Xing,Kun Luo,Haiou Wang,Zhengwei Gao,Tai Jin,Jianren Fan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.9b04434
IF: 4.6541
2020-01-01
Energy & Fuels
Abstract:Currently, volatile matter is generally treated as a postulate substance or a mixture of light gases and tar with given proportion in pulverized coal combustion (PCC) simulation. Whether those treatments can well characterize the PCC or not remains unknown. Here, current different coal devolatilization treatments are numerically evaluated under the configuration of laminar stagnation PCC (Xia, M.; et al. Proc. Combust. Inst. 2017, 36, 2123- 2130). The results show that the one-step model fitted from the Chemical Percolation Devolatilization model prediction together with detailed components and mechanism could give the best prediction of the PCC characteristics. Different detailed volatile components give similar predictions on the gas and particle properties with a slight difference in the CO mass fraction due to their different components fractions. The simplified global mechanism cannot reproduce the PCC characteristics such as those of the detailed mechanisms, with earlier particle ignition and much higher gas temperature and mass fractions of production species. Assuming the volatile matter is pure methane is not reasonable with obvious discrepancies on the particle and gas properties compared with those of the optimal treatments even when a detailed mechanism is used. Devolatilization model also plays a significant role with the two-step model giving a lower flame location, lower NOx, and higher polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons emissions compared with those of the optimal treatment. The generality of the above conclusions will be further verified on more realistic configurations in the future, such as the benchmark coal flames in the Coal and Biomass Conversion (CBC) workshop.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?