检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:刘欣然 杨宝轩 陈威 Liu Xinran;Yang Baoxuan;Chen Wei(Soochow University,College of Energy,Suzhou 215006;Beijing Sun Palace Gas and Thermal Power Co,Bijing 100020)
机构地区:[1]苏州大学能源学院,江苏苏州215006 [2]北京太阳宫燃气热电有限公司,北京100020
出 处:《石化技术》2022年第7期85-89,32,共6页Petrochemical Industry Technology
摘 要:使用单一反应模型(SRM-CR)、分布式活化能模型(DAEM)和最高挥发速率(MVR)模型提取豆科灌木类生物质(Mesquite)的热解动力学常数并建立相应模型,将结果与实验数据进行比较。对比发现DAEM模型在预测热解行为时数据误差最小,其次是MVR模型,最后是SRM-CA模型。然而,DAEM并不能很好地预测烘焙过程中重要的峰值点(VM最高挥发速率点),而MVR方法获得的动力学常数在预估烘焙上限温度和VM挥发速率方面更准确。In this paper,the pyrolysis kinetic constants of legume shrub biomass(Mesquite) were extracted using single reaction model(SRM-CR),distributed activation energy model(DAEM) and maximum volatilization rate(MVR) models. Simulated results were compared with experimental data. It revealed that the DAEM model had the least data error in predicting the pyrolysis behavior,followed by the MVR model and finally the SRM-CA model. However,DAEM did not predict the important peak point(VM maximum volatilization rate point) of the roasting process well,while the kinetic constants obtained by the MVR method were more accurate in predicting the upper roasting temperature and VM volatilization rate.
分 类 号:TK6[动力工程及工程热物理—生物能]
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.145