Etude de la combustion de gaz de synthèse issus d'un processus de ...

Etude de la combustion de gaz de synthèse issus d'un processus de ... Etude de la combustion de gaz de synthèse issus d'un processus de ...

tel.archives.ouvertes.fr
from tel.archives.ouvertes.fr More from this publisher
27.12.2013 Views

Experimental and numerical laminar syngas combustion 1.4 1.2 Su/S 0 u 1.0 0.8 φ 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Karlovitz number Figure 4.22 – Evolution of the laminar burning velocity versus Karlovitz number for fluidized bed syngas-air mixture at different equivalence ratios and 1.0 bar. The linear behavior of the normalized burning velocity with Karlovitz number supports tel-00623090, version 1 - 13 Sep 2011 that the Markstein number is independent of the Karlovitz number as it was verified by Aung et al. (1997). Also the generally low Karlovitz numbers obtained for all the typical syngas compositions and equivalence ratios indicates small influence of stretch rate on the syngas-air flames. As it was pointed out by Aung at al., (1997) and Bradley et al., (1996) the Markstein length is a fundamental property of premixed laminar flames and it is necessary to measure it precisely. Table 4.2 shows Markstein lengths and Markstein numbers for syngas-air mixture at various equivalence ratios. If Ma0, It is in the stable regime (Law, 2006). If Ma=0, the flame is neutrally stable, and S u = S 0 u at all values of stretch rate. Table 4.2– Markstein lengths and Markstein numbers versus equivalence ratio of syngas-air mixtures at 1.0 bar and 293 K. Eq. Updraft Downdraft Fluidized bed Ratio L b L u Ma L b L u Ma L b L u Ma φ=0.6 -2×10 -3 -4.1×10 -4 -1.55 -9×10 -4 -1.9×10 -4 -1.4 n.d. n.d. n.d. φ=0.8 -7×10 -4 -1.3×10 -4 -1.21 -4×10 -4 -7.4×10 -5 -0.84 -4×10 -4 -7.5×10 -5 -0.5 φ=1.0 -7×10 -4 -1.2×10 -4 -1.39 -5×10 -4 -8.7×10 -5 -1.17 8×10 -4 1.4×10 -4 1.18 φ=1.2 -5×10 -4 -8.9×10 -5 -0.90 -4×10 -4 -7.4×10 -5 -0.94 n.d. n.d. n.d. Updraft and downdraft syngas shows to be in the preferential diffusion instability regime as the Markstein number is negative for all cases. The flame can be seen to be neutrally stable for fluidized bed syngas somewhat between φ=0.8 and φ =1.0 as the Markstein number changes from a negative to a positive value. 108

Chapter 4 4.1.1.6 Comparison with other fuels The experimental values of the syngas are compared in Fig. 4.23 with those for other fuels obtained by other workers. The laminar burning velocity of typical syngas compositions besides its lower heat of reaction is not dissimilar to that of methane especially the downdraft syngas case, although somewhat slower than propane. For lean mixtures (φ=0.6) the burning velocity of methane is the same as the updraft syngas while the burning of propane is equal to the downdraft syngas. For stoichiometric mixtures S of downdraft and updraft typical syngas–air mixtures is 0 u respectively 15% and 42% slower than those of methane–air mixtures, being lower for other equivalence ratio. tel-00623090, version 1 - 13 Sep 2011 In the case of propane, it is observed an increasing difference of the laminar burning velocity of the typical syngas mixtures from lean to rich mixtures. For φ=1.2. 0 S u is 25% and 75% slower for downdraft and updraft cases, respectively. For these results contributes the fact that the syngas stoichiometric air–fuel ratio ranges between 1.0 (downdraft) to 1.2 (fluidized bed) compared with the value of 9.52 for the methane and 23.8 for the propane. Thus, the energy content per unit quantity of mixture (air + fuel) inducted to the chamber is only marginally lower when using syngas, compared with the corresponding common gas fuels. S 0 u (m/s) 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Updraft Downdraft Methane Propane 0.1 0 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Equivalence ratio Figure 4.23 – Comparison of laminar burning velocity for different fuels: syngas (this work). Methane (Gu et al., 2000) and Propane (Bosschaart and Goey, 2004) 109

Chapter 4<br />

4.1.1.6 Comparison with other fuels<br />

The experimental values of the syngas are compared in Fig. 4.23 with those for other<br />

fuels obtained by other workers. The <strong>la</strong>minar burning velocity of typical syngas<br />

compositions besi<strong>de</strong>s its lower heat of reaction is not dissimi<strong>la</strong>r to that of methane<br />

especially the downdraft syngas case, although somewhat slower than propane.<br />

For lean mixtures (φ=0.6) the burning velocity of methane is the same as the updraft<br />

syngas while the burning of propane is equal to the downdraft syngas. For<br />

stoichiometric mixtures S of downdraft and updraft typical syngas–air mixtures is<br />

0 u<br />

respectively 15% and 42% slower than those of methane–air mixtures, being lower for<br />

other equivalence ratio.<br />

tel-00623090, version 1 - 13 Sep 2011<br />

In the case of propane, it is observed an increasing difference of the <strong>la</strong>minar burning<br />

velocity of the typical syngas mixtures from lean to rich mixtures. For φ=1.2.<br />

0<br />

S<br />

u<br />

is 25%<br />

and 75% slower for downdraft and updraft cases, respectively. For these results<br />

contributes the fact that the syngas stoichiometric air–fuel ratio ranges between 1.0<br />

(downdraft) to 1.2 (fluidized bed) compared with the value of 9.52 for the methane and<br />

23.8 for the propane. Thus, the energy content per unit quantity of mixture (air + fuel)<br />

inducted to the chamber is only marginally lower when using syngas, compared with<br />

the corresponding common gas fuels.<br />

S 0 u (m/s)<br />

0.5<br />

0.4<br />

0.3<br />

0.2<br />

Updraft<br />

Downdraft<br />

Methane<br />

Propane<br />

0.1<br />

0<br />

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2<br />

Equivalence ratio<br />

Figure 4.23 – Comparison of <strong>la</strong>minar burning velocity for different fuels: syngas (this work).<br />

Methane (Gu et al., 2000) and Propane (Bosschaart and Goey, 2004)<br />

109

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!