| Literature DB >> 28867824 |
Tosin Onabanjo Somorin1, Athanasios J Kolios1, Alison Parker2, Ewan McAdam2, Leon Williams3, Sean Tyrrel2.
Abstract
Fuel blending is a widely used apEntities:
Keywords: Combustion; Faecal ash; Fuel blending; Nano-membrane toilet; Non-sewered sanitary systems; Soil conditioner
Year: 2017 PMID: 28867824 PMCID: PMC5473169 DOI: 10.1016/j.fuel.2017.05.038
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Fuel (Lond) ISSN: 0016-2361 Impact factor: 6.609
Fig. 1Graphical representation of the bench-scale fixed bed downdraft combustor test rig [6]. (1) Suction Fan, (2) Exhaust Port, (3) Ash Agitator, (4) Fuel Bed (Grated Surface), (5) Air Supply Line, (6) Rotameter, (7) Fuel Inlet Gate, (8) Primary Air Inlet, (9) Upper Combustor Temperature, (10) Lower Combustor Temperature, (11) Combustion (Bed) Temperature, (12) Heater Temperature/Air Igniter, (13) Ash Collector and (14) Ash Rotor.
Fig. 2Co-combustion temperature curve as defined in this study. F1 -start of experiment and introduction of wood pellet, F2 -Ignition point, F3–5 -introduction of blended samples or raw dry feedstocks, F6 -end of experiment. Zone A -ignition delay period; Zone B -flame propagation period; Zone C -onset of char burn out and final stages of combustion, also devolatilisation and combustion of new fuel; Zone D -complete burn out stage.
Proximate and ultimate composition of the raw feedstocks (WD100 and FC100).
| Samples | Moisture Content | Proximate Analysis | Ultimate Analysis | HHV (MJ/kg) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volatile Matter | Fixed Carbon | Ash Content | Carbon | Hydrogen | Nitrogen | Oxygen* | |||
| FC100 | 73.90 ± 4.38 | 82.00 ± 1.11 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 18.33 ± 1.27 | 47.12 ± 1.18 | 6.51 ± 0.40 | 5.74 ± 0.00 | 22.30 ± 0.66 | 23.39 ± 0.13 |
| WD100 | 9.00 ± 0.18 | 99.10 ± 0.00 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.72 ± 0.00 | 50.68 ± 1.78 | 6.64 ± 0.14 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 41.88 ± 0.65 | 18.12 ± 2.42 |
| FC100 | 77.60 | ||||||||
| FC90 | 70.40 | ||||||||
| FC80 | 66.50 | ||||||||
| FC70 | 64.70 | ||||||||
| FC60 | 55.00 | ||||||||
| FC50 | 47.60 | ||||||||
FC100- 100% Human Faeces, WD100- 100% Wood Dust; Oxygen*: 100 – (wt% of C, H, N and ash), FC90 -10:90 wood dust: raw human faeces, FC80 -20:80 wood dust: raw human faeces, FC70 -30:70 wood dust: raw human faeces, FC60 -40:60 wood dust: raw human faeces, FC50-50:50 wood dust: raw human faeces.
Fig. 3Combustion temperature curves for co-combustion of FC50 at 12–18 L/min.
Co-combustion performance for FC50 at 12–18 L/min air flow rates.
| Samples | Air Flow Rate (L/min) | Fuel Burn Rate (g/min) | Carbon Conversion Efficiency (%) | LHVgas | MCE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FC50 | 12 | 3.45 | 91.0 | 0.245 | 89.3 |
| 14 | 3.71 | 97.5 | 0.228 | 89.8 | |
| 16 | 4.24 | 69.6 | 0.193 | 90.5 | |
| 18 | 5.02 | 59.5 | 0.144 | 90.7 |
Fig. 4a–f: Combustion temperature curves and the cumulative carbon conversion efficiencies for combustion of (a) FC50, (b) FC60, (c) FC70, (d) FC80, (e) FC100 and (f) WD100 at air flow rate of 14 L/min.
Co-combustion performance analysis for the blended fuels.
| Samples | Air Flow Rate (L/min) | Fuel Burn Rate (g/min) | Carbon Conversion Efficiency (%) | LHVgas (MJ/kg) | MCE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP100 | 14 | 4.20 | 82.7 | 0.46 | 82.5 |
| FC50 | 3.75 | 83.7 | 0.23 | 89.8 | |
| FC60 | 3.73 | 76.1 | 0.17 | 89.9 | |
| FC70 | 3.18 | 77.1 | 0.08 | 95.5 | |
| FC80 | 4.07 | 69.2 | 0.21 | 87.0 | |
| FC100 | 3.77 | 86.1 | 0.45 | 79.3 | |
| WP100 | 4.48 | 79.7 | 0.33 | 84.1 | |
| FC50 | 16 | 4.49 | 75.8 | 0.26 | 86.7 |
| FC60 | 3.91 | 75.8 | 0.17 | 89.8 | |
| FC70 | 3.59 | 71.6 | 0.11 | 93.4 | |
| FC80 | 2.75 | 65.1 | 0.11 | 91.5 | |
| FC100 | 3.55 | 84.6 | 0.28 | 83.9 | |
| WP100 | 4.51 | 85.9 | 0.44 | 84.0 | |
| FC50 | 18 | 4.42 | 88.5 | 0.55 | 82.2 |
| FC60 | 4.12 | 69.4 | 0.14 | 90.7 | |
| FC70 | 4.11 | 63.1 | 0.12 | 91.5 | |
| FC80 | 3.37 | 64.0 | 0.11 | 91.5 | |
| FC100 | 4.04 | 78.4 | 0.29 | 86.0 |
Repeated co-combustion performance analysis for FC50 & WD100 at 12 L/min.
| Samples | Air Flow Rate (L/min) | Peak Combustion Temperature (°C) | Fuel Burn Rate (g/min) | Carbon Conversion Efficiency (%) | MCE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FC50-1 | 12 | 538 | 2.98 | 81.2 | 88.4 |
| FC50-2 | 524 | 3.03 | 78.4 | 91.3 | |
| WD100-1 | 650 | 3.93 | 91.2 | 86.6 | |
| WD100-2 | 577 | 4.21 | 99.2 | 82.9 | |
| COV-FC50 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | |
| COV-WD100 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |
| RMS ERROR | 37 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Fig. 5a-b: Repeated combustion analysis for (a) FC50 and (b) WD100. Temperature curves (CT) and the cumulative carbon conversion (CCE) efficiencies as a function of time and at air flow rate of 12 L/min.
Fig. 6Ash composition analysis for the raw feedstocks and some of the blended fuel.