| Literature DB >> 35531551 |
Shuai Guo1, Qiyao Yang1, Honglin Liang1, Deyong Che1, Hongpeng Liu1, Baizhong Sun1.
Abstract
Blending sewage sludge (SS) with Zhundong coal (ZDC) for combustion in coal-fired power plants is a recent approach that can alleviate the shortage of high-quality coal resources and achieve the harmless treatment of SS, while also having a significant influence on combustion and ash slagging. Due to the high content of alkali and alkaline earth metals (AAEMs) in ZDC, its combustion ash has a strong likelihood of slagging. This study aims to investigate the effect of blending SS with ZDC on combustion and ash slagging. Thermogravimetry (TG) results indicate that blending with SS could lower the ignition and burnout temperatures of ZDC. With an increase in the ratio of sludge, the comprehensive combustion index (S) first increases and then decreases, showing that blending SS with ZDC in an appropriate proportion could improve the overall combustion. Through the analysis of the interaction, it is confirmed that SS and ZDC could complement each other during co-combustion due to their different components. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) was used to test the ash components of different blending ratios (10-30%) and combustion temperatures (800-1100 °C). Slagging indices including alkali acid ratio (B/A), silicon ratio (G), and silica-alumina ratio (SiO2/Al2O3) were also calculated. The results suggest that the slagging behavior of ZDC is greatly reduced even if the blending ratio is only 10%. However, with an increase in the blending ratio, the effect on slagging gradually weakens. Considering the dual influence of SS blending on combustion and slagging, this study assumes the optimal blending ratio of 20%. Influenced by the components of the combustion ash, B/A and SiO2/Al2O3 are more suitable for evaluating the slagging tendency of ash; however, there is great deviation in the results for G. This research is beneficial to coal-fired power plants for the selection of operation parameters during co-combustion with SS. This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 35531551 PMCID: PMC9071929 DOI: 10.1039/c9ra04243a
Source DB: PubMed Journal: RSC Adv ISSN: 2046-2069 Impact factor: 4.036
The proximate and ultimate analysis for ZDC and SS
| Sample | Proximate analysis (%) | Ultimate analysis (%) | Heating value | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cad | Had | Oad | Nad | Sad | Mad | Vad | Aad | FCad |
| |
| ZDC | 64.52 | 3.20 | 15.02 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 11.96 | 27.28 | 5.82 | 54.94 | 24 360.16 |
| SS | 18.03 | 2.85 | 13.81 | 2.07 | 0.60 | 3.84 | 32.66 | 58.80 | 4.70 | 8200.29 |
Fig. 1TG and DTG analysis for ZDC and SS combustion: (a) ZDC; (b) SS.
Fig. 2TG and DTG analysis for sample S2 combustion at different heating rates: (a) TG; (b) DTG.
Fig. 3TG and DTG analysis for samples S1–S5 combustion at different blending ratios: (a) TG; (b) DTG.
The combustion characteristic parameters of samples S1–S5 at a heating rate of 30 °C min−1
| Heating rate (°C min−1) | Sample |
|
|
| (d | (d |
| SI, 10−5 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | S1 | 392 | 745 | 509 | 8.97 | 6.55 | 5.84 | 4.49 | 5.14 |
| S2 | 391 | 716 | 514 | 9.04 | 6.80 | 5.91 | 4.51 | 5.62 | |
| S3 | 391 | 682 | 527 | 8.83 | 6.83 | 5.77 | 4.28 | 5.40 | |
| S4 | 383 | 678 | 525 | 8.10 | 6.14 | 5.52 | 4.03 | 4.95 | |
| S5 | 237 | 646 | 310 | 6.12 | 2.50 | 10.90 | 8.33 | 4.22 |
The combustion characteristic parameters of sample S3 at different heating rates
| Sample | Heating rate (°C min−1) |
|
|
| (d | (d |
| SI, 10−5 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S3 | 10 | 399 | 540 | 474 | 6.60 | 4.31 | 4.14 | 3.49 | 3.31 |
| 20 | 395 | 624 | 504 | 7.63 | 5.69 | 4.89 | 3.83 | 4.46 | |
| 30 | 391 | 682 | 527 | 8.83 | 6.83 | 5.77 | 4.28 | 5.41 | |
| 40 | 384 | 780 | 539 | 9.31 | 6.87 | 6.32 | 4.50 | 5.57 |
Fig. 4The fitting curves obtained for sample S5 combustion using: (a) FWO method; (b) FM method.
The Em for samples S1–S5 combustion at different conversion rates using FWO method
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | |
| 10 | 101.93 | 119.90 | 112.61 | 106.47 | 129.38 |
| 20 | 95.70 | 103.30 | 105.55 | 112.64 | 137.03 |
| 30 | 74.69 | 75.81 | 79.43 | 91.76 | 135.03 |
| 40 | 55.72 | 57.23 | 60.18 | 63.33 | 104.53 |
| 50 | 38.42 | 39.97 | 43.01 | 50.14 | 96.77 |
| 60 | 31.36 | 32.75 | 34.78 | 38.45 | 102.10 |
| 70 | 27.95 | 28.44 | 33.27 | 33.20 | 118.55 |
| 80 | 27.20 | 27.59 | 29.66 | 32.96 | 138.42 |
| 90 | 25.81 | 25.38 | 26.86 | 30.05 | 167.13 |
The Em for samples S1–S5 combustion at different conversion rates using FM method
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | |
| 10 | 100.76 | 124.03 | 111.89 | 107.68 | 130.29 |
| 20 | 98.33 | 112.24 | 109.57 | 115.74 | 142.21 |
| 30 | 90.26 | 97.29 | 99.04 | 104.36 | 137.25 |
| 40 | 78.81 | 82.28 | 84.84 | 90.66 | 124.60 |
| 50 | 67.49 | 69.24 | 73.21 | 77.22 | 110.75 |
| 60 | 57.83 | 58.99 | 61.29 | 66.21 | 112.96 |
| 70 | 48.80 | 51.01 | 54.51 | 57.66 | 134.62 |
| 80 | 43.10 | 44.57 | 48.06 | 50.90 | 152.44 |
| 90 | 40.50 | 39.62 | 42.91 | 45.39 | 186.27 |
Fig. 5The average activation energies for samples S1–S5 combustion.
Fig. 6ΔDTG for the combustion of samples S2–S4 at: (a) 30 °C min−1; (b) 10–40 °C min−1.
Ash components for samples S1–S5 combustion at different temperatures
|
| Sample | Alkaline oxide content (%) | Total (%) | Acidic oxide content (%) | Total (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CaO | Fe2O3 | MgO | Na2O | K2O | SiO2 | Al2O3 | P2O5 | TiO2 | ||||
| 800 | S1 | 25.3 | 6.94 | 9.17 | 3.69 | 0.26 | 45.4 | 13.8 | 11.4 | 0.29 | 0.52 | 26.01 |
| S2 | 14.8 | 8.68 | 5.52 | 2.92 | 1.31 | 33.2 | 27.4 | 13.9 | 2.85 | 0.72 | 44.87 | |
| S3 | 10.8 | 9.47 | 4.10 | 2.45 | 1.76 | 28.6 | 31.4 | 14.7 | 4.07 | 0.75 | 50.92 | |
| S4 | 8.62 | 9.94 | 3.48 | 2.25 | 1.96 | 26.3 | 34.9 | 15.8 | 4.87 | 0.79 | 56.36 | |
| S5 | 4.66 | 9.99 | 2.45 | 1.14 | 2.48 | 20.7 | 40.7 | 18.0 | 6.55 | 0.81 | 66.06 | |
| 900 | S1 | 27.0 | 7.16 | 9.31 | 2.80 | 0.30 | 46.6 | 13.6 | 11.3 | 0.26 | 0.47 | 25.63 |
| S2 | 15.1 | 9.07 | 5.42 | 2.54 | 1.20 | 33.3 | 27.6 | 13.9 | 3.17 | 0.74 | 45.41 | |
| S3 | 11.1 | 9.48 | 4.13 | 2.26 | 1.72 | 28.7 | 33.0 | 15.0 | 4.26 | 0.77 | 53.03 | |
| S4 | 8.72 | 9.70 | 3.53 | 2.05 | 2.01 | 26.0 | 35.0 | 15.5 | 4.91 | 0.78 | 56.19 | |
| S5 | 4.66 | 9.75 | 2.47 | 1.26 | 2.39 | 20.5 | 40.9 | 17.6 | 6.56 | 0.81 | 65.87 | |
| 1000 | S1 | 26.8 | 7.45 | 9.16 | 2.10 | 0.24 | 45.8 | 14.5 | 11.6 | 0.32 | 0.57 | 26.99 |
| S2 | 15.4 | 9.27 | 5.38 | 2.24 | 1.06 | 33.4 | 28.8 | 14.3 | 3.84 | 0.77 | 47.71 | |
| S3 | 11.0 | 9.33 | 4.05 | 2.56 | 1.63 | 28.6 | 33.6 | 15.4 | 5.13 | 0.77 | 54.9 | |
| S4 | 8.65 | 9.78 | 3.52 | 2.17 | 1.98 | 26.1 | 36.0 | 15.9 | 5.30 | 0.75 | 57.95 | |
| S5 | 4.74 | 10.2 | 2.30 | 1.24 | 2.37 | 20.9 | 38.9 | 16.3 | 6.00 | 0.85 | 62.05 | |
| 1100 | S1 | 29.1 | 9.47 | 8.62 | 1.31 | 0.14 | 48.6 | 16.0 | 12.0 | 0.42 | 0.68 | 29.1 |
| S2 | 13.6 | 9.33 | 3.36 | 1.96 | 0.85 | 29.1 | 26.5 | 12.4 | 2.68 | 0.72 | 42.3 | |
| S3 | 10.3 | 9.87 | 3.05 | 1.94 | 1.63 | 26.8 | 30.2 | 13.2 | 4.21 | 0.78 | 48.39 | |
| S4 | 8.42 | 9.86 | 2.73 | 1.90 | 1.87 | 24.8 | 32.7 | 14.0 | 4.52 | 0.79 | 52.01 | |
| S5 | 4.60 | 9.99 | 1.86 | 1.08 | 2.23 | 19.8 | 35.4 | 13.9 | 5.06 | 0.82 | 55.18 | |
Fig. 7B/A for the co-combustion ash at different temperatures and blending ratios.
Fig. 8G for the co-combustion ash at different temperatures and blending ratios.
Fig. 9SiO2/Al2O3 for the co-combustion ash at different temperatures and blending ratios.