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 ...
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
- Page 61 and 62: Bibliographic revision the stretche
- Page 63 and 64: Bibliographic revision burning velo
- Page 65 and 66: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 67 and 68: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 69 and 70: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 71 and 72: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 73 and 74: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 75 and 76: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 77 and 78: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 79 and 80: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 81 and 82: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 83 and 84: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 85 and 86: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 87 and 88: Experimental set ups and diagnostic
- Page 89 and 90: Chapter 4 CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL AN
- Page 91 and 92: Chapter 4 4.1 Laminar burning veloc
- Page 93 and 94: Chapter 4 4.1.1.1 Flame morphology
- Page 95 and 96: Chapter 4 P i = 1.0 bar, Ti = 293 K
- Page 97 and 98: Chapter 4 Figure 4.5 shows schliere
- Page 99 and 100: Chapter 4 P i = 2.0 bar, T i = 293
- Page 101 and 102: Chapter 4 Sn (m/s) 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5
- Page 103 and 104: Chapter 4 5 ms 10 ms 15 ms 20 ms 25
- Page 105 and 106: Chapter 4 behaviour of the curves r
- Page 107 and 108: Chapter 4 1.50 Sn (m/s) 1.25 1.00 0
- Page 109 and 110: Chapter 4 0.5 0.4 φ =1.0 Su (m/s)
- Page 111: Chapter 4 variation of the normaliz
- Page 115 and 116: Chapter 4 The values of laminar bur
- Page 117 and 118: Chapter 4 Pressure (bar) 7 6 5 4 3
- Page 119 and 120: Chapter 4 0.5 0.4 φ=1.2 Su (m/s) 0
- Page 121 and 122: Chapter 4 0.3 φ=0.8 Su (m/s) 0.2 0
- Page 123 and 124: Chapter 4 a minimum pressure to exp
- Page 125 and 126: Chapter 4 Notice the similar behavi
- Page 127 and 128: Chapter 4 A very good agreement bet
- Page 129 and 130: Chapter 4 ( ) Q = h T − T (4.21)
- Page 131 and 132: Chapter 4 tel-00623090, version 1 -
- Page 133 and 134: Chapter 4 are tested and discussed.
- Page 135 and 136: Chapter 4 7 500 Pressure (bar) 6 5
- Page 137 and 138: Chapter 4 Pressure (bar) 7 6 5 4 3
- Page 139 and 140: Chapter 4 4.2.3.4 Quenching distanc
- Page 141 and 142: Chapter 4 10000 Quenching distance
- Page 143 and 144: Chapter 5 CHAPTER 5 EXPERIMENTAL ST
- Page 145 and 146: Chapter 5 30 10 25 8 Pressure (bar)
- Page 147 and 148: Chapter 5 30 Piston position (mm) 2
- Page 149 and 150: Chapter 5 5.1.1.4 In-cylinder press
- Page 151 and 152: Chapter 5 estimation of various par
- Page 153 and 154: Chapter 5 TDC 1.25 ms 2.5 ms 3.75 m
- Page 155 and 156: Chapter 5 Piston position (mm) 500
- Page 157 and 158: Chapter 5 tel-00623090, version 1 -
- Page 159 and 160: Chapter 5 From figure 5.15 is possi
- Page 161 and 162: Chapter 5 From figure 5.16 is obser
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