Issue
Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering,
Vol.35, No.5, 1065-1072, 2018
Effect of slag viscosity model on transient simulations of wall slag flow in an entrained coal gasifier
The viscosity-temperature relation of slag determines its behavior inside an entrained flow coal gasifier. However, existing prediction models give results with large variations among them. We investigated the influence of different viscosity models in the prediction of the steady and transient behaviors of slag flow on the wall of a gasifier undergoing gas temperature changes. Five viscosity models adopted showed differences in the temperature (T250) at 25 Pa.s as large as 97 K for the selected slag composition, which was used as the interface temperature between the solid and liquid slag. When the predicted viscosity and corresponding T250 increased, the solid slag became thicker and the dynamic response of the slag became slower. In contrast, the differences in the liquid slag thickness were small. The influence of T250 predicted was dominant, compared to that of different viscosity curves of the liquid slag.
[References]
  1. Smoot LD, Smith PJ, Coal combustion and gasification, Springer Science & Business Media (2013).
  2. Kaneko TK, Bennett JP, Sridhar S, J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 94(12), 4507, 2011
  3. Shannon GN, Rozelle PL, Pisupati SV, Sridhar S, Fuel Process. Technol., 89(12), 1379, 2008
  4. Song WJ, Sun YM, Wu YQ, Zhu ZB, Koyama S, AIChE J., 57(3), 801, 2011
  5. Higman C, Tam S, Chemical Reviews, 114, 1673, 2013
  6. Duchesne MA, Macchi A, Lu DY, Hughes RW, McCalden D, Anthony EJ, Fuel Process. Technol., 91(8), 831, 2010
  7. Oh M, Brooker D, De Paz E, Brady J, Decker T, Fuel Process. Technol., 44, 19, 1995
  8. Vargas S, Straw and coal ash rheology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Technical University of Denmark (2001).
  9. Wang J, Liu HF, Liang QF, Xu JL, Fuel Process. Technol., 106, 704, 2013
  10. Mills KC, Yuan L, Jones RT, J. South. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., 111, 649, 2011
  11. Seggiani M, Fuel, 77(14), 1611, 1998
  12. Yong SZ, Ghoniem A, Fuel, 97, 457, 2012
  13. Bi DP, Guan QL, Xuan WW, Zhang JS, Fuel, 150, 565, 2015
  14. Monaghan RFD, Ghoniem AF, Fuel, 91(1), 61, 2012
  15. Urbain G, Trans. J. Br. Ceram. Soc., 80, 139, 1981
  16. Reid WT, External corrosion and deposits: Boilers and gas turbines, Fuel and Energy Science Series; American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York (1971).
  17. Watt J, Fereday F, J. Inst. Fuel, 42, 99, 1969
  18. Browning GJ, Bryant GW, Hurst HJ, Lucas JA, Wall TF, Energy Fuels, 17(3), 731, 2003
  19. Kalmanovitch DP, Frank M, An effective model of viscosity for ash deposition phenomena, Proceedings of mineral matter and ash deposition from coal, 22 (1988).
  20. Mills K, Estimation of physicochemical properties of coal slags and ashes, ACS Publications (1986).
  21. Vargas S, Frandsen F, Dam-Johansen K, Department of Chemical Engineer-ing, Technical University of Denmark, CHEC Report (1997).
  22. Kondratiev A, Jak E, Fuel, 80, 1989, 2001
  23. Saxen H, Zhang X, Neural-network based model of blast furnace slag viscosity, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Application of Neural Networks, 167 (1997).
  24. Duchesne MA, Bronsch AM, Hughes RW, Masset PJ, Fuel, 114, 38, 2013
  25. Seggiani M, Fuel, 78(9), 1121, 1999
  26. Yong SZ, Gazzino M, Ghoniem A, Fuel, 92(1), 162, 2012
  27. Ye I, Ryu C, Fuel, 150, 64, 2015
  28. Kim M, Ye I, Ryu C, Fuel, 196, 532, 2017
  29. Kim CO, Kim RG, Wu Z, Jeon CH, Korean J. Chem. Eng., 33(6), 1767, 2016
  30. Lee HH, Lee JC, Joo YJ, Oh M, Lee CH, Appl. Energy, 131, 425, 2014
  31. Yang ZW, Xue YL, Wu YX, Wang Z, Li Z, Ni WD, Chem. Eng. Process., 74, 131, 2013
  32. Mills KC, Rhine JM, Fuel, 68, 193, 1989
  33. Mills KC, Rhine JM, Fuel, 68, 904, 1989
  34. Zhang B, Shen Z, Han D, Liang Q, Xu J, Liu H, Appl. Therm. Eng., 112, 1178, 2017
  35. Ye I, Oh J, Ryu C, Energies, 8, 3370, 2015