Upload
others
View
7
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONCOMPARISON OF NUMERICAL SIMULATION METHOD OF COAL GASIFICATION
煤气化数值模拟方法的比较煤气化数值模拟方法的比较
ChangzhengChangzheng EngineeringEngineering Co.,LimitedCo.,LimitedChangzhengChangzheng Engineering Engineering Co.,LimitedCo.,Limited航天长征化学工程股份有限公司航天长征化学工程股份有限公司
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
CONTENTSCONTENTS
The main content of this project is to study numerical simulation methods of the process of coal gasification and compare the different modelsprocess of coal gasification and compare the different models.
1.�Literature�Survey�and�Models�Summary1.�Literature�Survey�and�Models�Summary
2.�Simulation�and�Models�Comparison�2.�Simulation�and�Models�Comparison�
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
SIMULATION�AND�MODELS�COMPARISONSIMULATION�AND�MODELS�COMPARISON
1.�Physical�and�chemical�process�of�coal�gasification�1.�Physical�and�chemical�process�of�coal�gasification�2 R ti M d l2 R ti M d l2.�Reaction�Models2.�Reaction�Models
3.�Reaction�Rate�Parameters3.�Reaction�Rate�Parameters
4 V l tili ti4 V l tili ti M d lM d l4.�Volatilization4.�Volatilization Model�Model�
5.�Particle�Model5.�Particle�Model
6 T b l M d l6 T b l M d l6.�Turbulence�Model�6.�Turbulence�Model�
7.�Radiation��Model7.�Radiation��Model
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
LITERATURE�SURVEYLITERATURE�SURVEY
Have retrieved a large number of literatures in CNKI ,SCI, EI database and Japanese NEDO website ,Japanese CRIEPI reports , and finally 50 literatures which consists of 40 references and 10 reduced references are selected.
Language Quantity classification Quantity Aera Quantity Age Quantity Article-level Quantity
Chinese 9 Jonrnal papers 29 Japan 14 1950 1 SCI 22
English 30 Report 6 China 14 1970 1 EI 6
Japanese 11 Web page 6 America 11 1980 2 Chinese 5p p gCore Journals
Conference papers 5 Australia
5 1990 6
Dissertation 3 Taiwan 2 2000 23
Books 1 Italy 1 2010 11
Korea 1 other 6
England 1
Other 1
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
1.�Physical�and�chemical�process�of�coal�gasification�1.�Physical�and�chemical�process�of�coal�gasification�
Volatilization
Oxidation reaction of carbon particles
Gasification reaction of carbon particles
Gas reaction
Two phase flow of solid particles and gas. Two phase flow of solid particles and gas.
Heat transfer Mainly for the radiation and convection heat
t f
Volatile
Gasification
transfer
In additionThe change of carbon particles size andThe change of carbon particles size and
shape; The deposition and dissolve of ash ;The interactions of particles
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
2.�Reaction�Models2.�Reaction�Models
Equilibrium model assume that all reactionsEquilibrium model assume that all reactions will eventually be balance, and it can easily predict gas composition and temperature through solving the equilibrium equations. But h ilib i i diffi l hi i i
Equilibrium model
the equilibrium is difficult to achieve in practice so the model can not fully reflect performance in the actual process of coal gasification.
Dynamic model Dynamics model considers the specific dynamic behavior of the reaction It includesdynamic behavior of the reaction . It includes zero dimensional model, one-dimensional model, small room model and multidimensional model. And multidimensional model is usually used in coal gasification simulation.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
The reaction models of carbon particles included:
N�order�reaction�model�N�order�reaction�model� LL--H�reaction�modelH�reaction�model
In a high pressure condition, the gasification gas easily gathered around carbon particles to prevent the effect of the gasification reaction. Using the N order model tends to estimate reaction velocity
i l I d t b tt fl t thi ki d f h L H
Random�Pore�reaction�model�Random�Pore�reaction�model�
excessively. In order to better reflect this kind of phenomenon, L-H reaction model can be used.
The model can consider both the reaction constant and the particle structure parameters for different kinds of carbon.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Effective�rate�modelEffective�rate�model
As temperatures rise, main factors dominatingreaction rate move in the "Chemical Reaction",“Pore Diffusion", and “Bulk Diffusion” orderly.Therefore, besides the influence of reaction rateTherefore, besides the influence of reaction rateitself , the reaction rate of carbon particlegasification also will be affected by thesurrounding concentration diffusion (bulkdiffusion) and Pore diffusion. So effectivediffusion) and Pore diffusion. So effectivereaction rate should be the minimum of the three,or using the Effectiveness Factor to integratereaction rate of the three.
Bulk Diffusion Pore diffusion
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
3.�Reaction�Rate�Parameters3.�Reaction�Rate�Parameters
Summarizing the reaction rates of several literatures, including heterogeneousreaction between solid C with O2 ,H2O, and CO, and homogeneous gasreactions totally eight reactionsreactions, totally eight reactions.
We found great difference, that might because of the various using conditions,as shown in the tables.
3 sets of parameters were selected for the following work.
Literature Pressure Coal Gasifier Type
Article 3 5.9MPa Bitumite Industrial opposed multibuener coal-water slurry entrainerd flow pp ygasifier, The four hedgeing nozzle
Article 10,2 2.0MPa Bitumite A two-stage entrained flow coal gasifier, Dry powder,The four tangential nozzle
Article 13 2 4MPa Lignite coal water slurry entrainer flow gasifier The four tangential nozzle
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Article 13 2.4MPa Lignite coal-water slurry entrainer flow gasifier, The four tangential nozzle
Article 17 2.0MPa Bitumite Dry powder, The four tangential nozzle
4.�Volatilization4.�Volatilization Model�Model�
a) Transient evaporation model
b) Simple Reaction Rate Kinetic model
c) One step reaction modelc) One-step reaction model
d)Kobayashi model Reaction Parameter
A ( 1/s) E (kJ/mol)
One-step reaction 2.021x103 3.11x107
Kobayashi model 2x105 1.046x108
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
5.�Particle�Model5.�Particle�Model
1. Euler-Euler two-phase flow modelWhile this method works and the load is low, but the method is rarely
used in coal gasification. The possible reason might be that the pulverizedcoal gasification is similar to combustion of diesel particle simulation ,somost researchers continue the simulation method.
2. Euler-Lagrange modelBasically most literatures use this method.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
6.�Turbulence�Model�6.�Turbulence�Model�
1.RANSIncluding k-epsilon,Realizable k-epsilon, k-omega,SST, RSM etc.Including k epsilon,Realizable k epsilon, k omega,SST, RSM etc.
Throughout most of the literatures, the standard k - epsilon is a betterchoice.
2.LES model In recent years, with the improvement of computer performance, the
usage of LES calculation increased considerablyusage of LES calculation increased considerably
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
7.�Radiation��Model7.�Radiation��Model
1.P1Generally literatures choose P1 radiation model, this is mainly affectedy y
by the traditional internal engine combustion simulation. Since there areCO2, CH4, and water vapor with high absorption, gas optical thickness isbigger. So using P1 is a reasonable choice.
2.DOIn general the DO model calculation load is high, but it is easy to
consider gray body and absorption spectrum. g y y p p
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
SIMULATION�AND�MODELS�COMPARISONSIMULATION�AND�MODELS�COMPARISON
1.�Introduction�of�the�object�model1.�Introduction�of�the�object�model
i f hi f h3.�Comparison�of�turbulence�model3.�Comparison�of�turbulence�model2.�Comparison�of�mesh2.�Comparison�of�mesh
5 Comparison of combustion reaction model5 Comparison of combustion reaction model
4.�Comparison�of�4.�Comparison�of�particleparticle--phase�phase�ModelModel
5.�Comparison�of�combustion�reaction�model5.�Comparison�of�combustion�reaction�model
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
1.�Introduction�of�The�Object�Model1.�Introduction�of�The�Object�Model
A literature with detailed simulation and experimental data are selected as anobject model That is Japanese CRIEPI 2T/d scale gasifier
jj
object model. That is Japanese CRIEPI 2T/d scale gasifier.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
The model have four entrances in combustion chamber, and two entrancesff fin reduction chamber. Different components of gas and particles get into the
furnace with different flow rate , and exported from the upper outlet.
C l I lCoal Inlet
Coal Inlet
OutletCoal Inlet
Air Inlet
Air Inlet
Outlet
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
2.�Comparison�of�Mesh2.�Comparison�of�Mesh
In the mesh comparison part, the cold flow field without reaction andparticle phase was calculated. Specific settings are shown as table 1, eight setsof mesh information are shown as table 2.
T bl 2 G idMesh name Mesh representation Number of
elmentsNumber of nodes
total01 Hex 1126140 1092816
totalless Overall thinning hex 666560 644860
number Unit
Material air
Entrance velocity in A - 28.68 m/s
Table1 Calculation conditions Table2 Grid
totalless Overall thinning hex 666560 644860
addcircle Circumferential encryptedhex
2356380 2300576
addhig Axial encrypted hex 1748940 1698624
yA cross section Entrance velocity in B -B cross section
33.63 m/s
Relative static pressure at outlet
0 Pa
addrad Radial encrypted hex 1999980 1962336
addbou Radial encrypted with add boundary layer addition hex
1999980 1962336
at outletWall No Slip Wall
Turbulence Model Realizable k-ε
totaltra1 Tetra 1209227 385023
totaltra2 Tetra encrypted 4568968 1115953
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
total01 Totalless
addhig
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
addcircle
addrad addbou
totaltra1 totaltra2
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
totaltra2
C i d l i l i di ib i f h i d liComparing and analyzing velocity distribution of the section and centerlineof the section is shown in the following pictures. Conducting qualitative andquantitative analysis according to the calculation results of different mesh size.
Out Section Section Section
Section SectionMiddle Axis
Section Section
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Comparison�of�velocity�contour�for�A�- A�section�of�8�kinds�of�mesh�methods.
total01 totalless addcircle addhig
addrad addbou totaltra1 totaltra2
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司There is no big difference of the hex mesh results, but the tetra mesh results are not very good.
Comparison�of�velocity�contour�for�B�- B�section�of��8�kinds�of�mesh�methods.
totalless addcircle addhigtotal01 totalless addcircle addhig
addrad addbou totaltra1 totaltra2
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
There is no big difference of the hex mesh results, but the tetra mesh results are not very good.
From velocity results we can see that there is a great difference with between tetra From velocity results, we can see that there is a great difference with between tetramesh and hex mesh, the resolution of tetra mesh is not accurate.
When the number of hex mesh is less, the symmetry of velocity is poor, and theresults become more accurate when hex mesh is encrypted in all directions.yp
The division of boundary layer mesh has little influence on the result of the main flow. Considering the calculation results and efficiency, we choose mesh division method
of radial encryption finally.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
3.�Comparison�of�Turbulence�Model3.�Comparison�of�Turbulence�Model
The turbulence models compared are show in table 3 In table 4 it is the calculation
pp
The turbulence models compared are show in table 3. In table 4, it is the calculation conditions.
Table3 Turbulence information Table4 Calculation conditions
Type Turbulence ModelKe-REA Realizable k-ε
number Unit
Material airKe-RNG RNG k-ε
ke-STA Standard k-ε
Kw Standard k-w
Entrance velocity in A - A cross section
28.68 m/s
Entrance velocity in B - B cross section
33.63 m/s
Kw-SST SST k-w
RSM-LPS Linear Pressure-stain Reynolds Stress
LESwale LES WALE
Relative static pressure at outlet
0 Pa
Wall No Slip Wall
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
C i f l it t f A A ti f 7 ki d f t b l d lComparison of velocity contour for A - A section of 7 kinds of turbulence models.
Ke-REA Ke-RNG ke-STA Kw
Kw-SST RSM-LPS LESwale
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
C i i f l it t f B B ti f 7 ki d f t b l d lComparision�of�velocity�contour��for�B�- B�section�of�7�kinds�of�turbulence�models.
Ke-REA Ke-RNG ke-STA Kw
Kw-SST RSM-LPS LESwale
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Comparison�of�velocity�contour��for�outlet�section�of�7�kinds�of�turbulence�models.
Ke-REA Ke-RNG ke-STA Kw
Kw-SST RSM-LPS LESwale According to the contours, the symmetry of velocity distribution of Realizable k- ε model
and RSM_LPS model is better The velocity distribution of standard k- ε model shows more gently The velocity distribution of standard k- ε model shows more gently. The result of LES model is good too, but its computational load is big. Overall, realizable k-ε is a more appropriate choice in terms of computational load and
convergence difficulty.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
4.�Comparison�of�Particle4.�Comparison�of�Particle--phase�Modelphase�Modelpp pp
DPM��unsteady�model�and�steady�model�are�compared.��The�settings�are�as�below.
number UnitMaterial Carbon particles p
Particle flow at 1.3 entrance on A‐A section
1.792 g/s
Particle flow at 2.4 entrance on A A section
1.157 g/sA-A section
Particle flow at entrance on B-B section
2.719 g/s
Flow velocity at entrance on A-A section
28.68 m/ssectionFlow velocity at entrance on B-B section
33.63 m/s
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Unsteady, residence�time�distribution�of�different�particle�size�from�the�entrances�of�the�combustion�chamber.
particle size 0.08mmparticle size 0.04mmparticle size 0.02mm
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Unsteady, residence�time�distribution�of�different�particle�size�from�entrances�of the reduction chamberof�the�reduction�chamber
particle size 0.08mmparticle size 0.04mmparticle size 0.02mm
According to the residence time distribution of particles ,we found that the larger particle size is, the longer residence time becomes. The larger particles from the combustor chamber concentrate in the lower part of the furnace, the smaller particles from the reduction chamber are difficult to enter the lower partsmaller particles from the reduction chamber are difficult to enter the lower part of the furnace due to the influence of gravity and airflow direction.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Steady, residence�time�distribution�of�different�particle�size�from�the�entrances�of�the�combustion�chamber.
particle size 0.08mmparticle size 0.04mmparticle size 0.02mm
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Steady, residence�time�distribution�of�different�particle�size�from�entrances�of�the�reduction�chamber.
particle size 0.08mm
From�residence�time�distribution�is�
particle size 0.04mmparticle size 0.02mm
similar.�And�from�the�average�particle�concentration�of�four�vertical�sections,�we�can�see�that�the�concentration�predicted by unsteady model is largerpredicted�by�unsteady�model�is�larger�than�that�of�steady�model.�
But�which�one�is�better�needs�to�be�validated.Average particle concentration of four vertical sections
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
5.�Comparison�of�reaction�model�5.�Comparison�of�reaction�model�pp
The equilibrium model and reaction kinetics model are compared.
Physics�Model
Th di i l M d l
coalMoisture(wt%) 4.2
Table Properties of CoalSettings:
Three-dimensional�Model
Steady
Realizable k-ε
( )
Fixed Carbon(wt%) 56.2
Volatile Matter(wt%) 30.9
Ash(wt%) 8 7Realizable�k ε
Standard�Wall�Function
Compressible�Fluid
Ash(wt%) 8.7
HHV(KJ/kg) 30000
C(wt%) 76.3
DPM
DO Model
PDF FR/EDM
H(wt%) 5.31
O(wt%) 7.31
N(wt%) 1.54PDF�or�FR/EDM
S(wt%) 0.46
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Settings:
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
When�using�reaction kinetics model,�chemical�reaction�and�one�set�of�rate�parameters�are�considered�as�follow:p
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
The temperature distribution of the two models, shows the temperature is lower when equilibrium model is used.
Temperature�distribution�of�A-A�section
Pdf model Reaction model
Temperature�distribution�of�B-B�section
Pdf model Reaction model
Pdf model
Reaction model
Temperature�distribution�of�vertical�center��section
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
p
Th l i i i ilThe�velocity�distribution is�similar.
Pdf model Reaction model Reaction modelPdf model
Velocity�distribution�of�A-A�section Velocity�distribution�of�A-A�section
Pdf model
Reaction model
Velocity��distribution�of�vertical�center��section
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
55、、Comparison�of�reaction�models�Comparison�of�reaction�models�
The particle concentration distribution is similar Particles entered from A A section do
pp
The particle concentration distribution is similar. Particles entered from A-A section do rotational motion in the furnace . Particles entered from B-B section smash together and move along with air flow.
Pdf model Reaction model Reaction modelPdf model
Pdf model
Particle�concentration�distribution�of�A-A�section Particle�concentration�distribution�of�A-A�section
Reaction model
Particle�concentration�distribution�of�vertical�center�section
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Counting average temperature of horizontal sections along furnace height, thencompare the results with the experimental data.
The temperature variation curves are similar. Temperature increases quickly andp p q yreaches the peak value in the combustion zone, then anther peak in reduction zone,and then temperature decreases quickly after combustion of coal.
But Quantitatively, equilibrium model underestimates the temperature while reactionkinetics model overestimates the temperaturekinetics model overestimates the temperature.
2600
1800
2000
2200
2400
mpe
ratu
re(k
)
Pdf Model
1000
1200
1400
1600
Gas
Tem Reaction Model
Experimental�dataTemperature�variation�curve�along�with�the�height�of�furnace�for�different�combustion�model
0 2 4 6
Gasifier Height(m)
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
Contrast of syngas compositions at the outlet of gasifier. Reaction kinetics model gives relatively accurate results except water vapor. E ilib i d l i th lt th t l ti l diff t f th Equilibrium model gives the results that are relatively different from the
experimental results.
Comparison�of�product�gas�composition�between�model�and�experimental�result
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
CONCLUSIONS�/OUTLOOKCONCLUSIONS�/OUTLOOK1. Physical models and parameters which are often used for coal gasification have been researched.
2. Numerical simulation models are compared and studied on the basis of Japanese CRIEPI’s 2T/D gasifer.
3. Mesh comparison is conducted and economical and effective mesh is selected.p
4. Turbulence models and particle models are compared and the suitable turbulence model are selected.
5 C i f ilib i i d l d i ki i d l h h5. Comparison of equilibrium reaction model and reaction kinetics model shows, the temperature variation curves are similar to the experiment, but the temperature value is very different. Equilibrium model underestimates the temperature while reaction kinetics model overestimates the temperature.reaction kinetics model overestimates the temperature.
6. Composition of syngas simulated by reaction kinetics model is less different from the experiment.
7. Other models like volatilization model, radiation model and other reaction models will be compared. And the systemic results of comparison will be used as an guidance for numerical simulation of coal gasifier.
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司
中国运载火箭技术研究院中国运载火箭技术研究院China Academy of Launch vehicle TechnologyChina Academy of Launch vehicle Technology
航天工程公司航天工程公司