4.7 Article

Comparison of Measurement Techniques for Temperature and Soot Concentration in Premixed, Small-Scale Burner Flames

期刊

ENERGY & FUELS
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 11328-11336

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b01168

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Energy Agency
  2. Kempe Foundations
  3. Swedish strategic research environment Bio4Energy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optical and intrusive measurement techniques for temperature and soot concentration in hot reacting flows were tested on a small-scale burner in fuel-rich, oxygen-enriched atmospheric flat flames produced to simulate the environment inside an entrained flow reactor. The optical techniques comprised two-color pyrometry (2C-PYR), laser extinction (LE), and tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS), and the intrusive methods included fine-wire thermocouple thermometry (TC) and electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI) particle analysis. Vertical profiles of temperature and soot concentration were recorded in flames with different equivalence and O-2/N-2 ratios. The 2C-PYR and LE data were derived assuming mature soot. Gas temperatures up to 2200 K and soot concentrations up to 3 ppmv were measured. Close to the burner surface, the temperatures obtained with the pyrometer were up to 300 K higher than those measured by TDLAS. Further away from the burner, the difference was within 100 K. The TC-derived temperatures were within 100 K from the TDLAS results for most of the flames. At high signal-to-noise ratio and in flame regions with mature soot, the temperatures measured by 2C-PYR and TDLAS were similar. The soot concentrations determined with 2C-PYR were close to those obtained with LE but lower than the ELPI results. It is concluded that the three optical techniques have good potential for process control applications in combustion and gasification processes. 2C-PYR offers simpler installation and 2D imaging, whereas TDLAS and LE provide better accuracy and dynamic range without calibration procedures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据