8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
1/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
2/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
3/46
* We know a great deal about thermal breakdown in c& we know a lot about reactor design
* But during the pyrolysis of coal (& other solid fuelsour observations are affected by experimental design
* Normal reactor design concepts do not work (directin the case of pyrolytic (i.e. thermal) breakdown.
The problem is
* Thermal decomposition products (of coals) are reacdifficult to keep track of theprimary - secondary - tertiary reaction products
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
4/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
* yields & structures of products depend on howproducts are removed (or not) from parent coal partic& from the reaction zone therefore
* different reactor and/or sample configurations,under similar experimental temps & pressures
can give different resultsIn this paper We try to superpose what we know of thermal
breakdown ONTO how reaction products areaffected by experimental design parameters
We aim to explore the value of bench scaleexperiments in investigating fuel behaviour inlarger scale pilot & industrial plant
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
5/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
we will also explore how
similar concepts are required to observeimportant phenomenasuch as
* the effect of heating rate during pyrolysis* effect of solvent type on coal dissolution* effect of time-at-temperature on thegasification reactivity of charswe will review some of these cases
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
6/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Meanwhile(as inANYscientific experiment)
..we require data on the behaviour of solid fuelto beindependent
(or as independent as possible)
from the experimental method (design)
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
7/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Let us begin by looking atinitial thermal breakdown in coals
in shortwe need to knowHow experimental design(including reactor design)
can affect product yields and quality
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
8/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
9/46
Coal Elemental C%, dafT1 (
C) T 2 ( C)
Can a 54.2 250 310Burning Star 75.5 220 310Linby 83.0 205 310Point of Ayr 85.4 220 325
Cortonwoodb
87.2 250 340Cynheidre c 95.2 - -
These esr data show the onsetof extensive covalent bond
scission reactions from about310 - 340 Cdepending on coal rank
Fowler, Bartle & Kandiyoti,Carbon27 (1989) 197
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
10/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
These experiments were carried out between 19
In another set of experiments(Many years later: 2000-2002)
we observed the following,which could be directly linkedto our earlier esr experiments
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
11/46
Atmospheric pressure wire mesh reactor
Heating ratevariable between
1 C s -1 &10,000 C s -1
Multistage heatingto pre-set temps.
Max. Temp 2,000 C
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
12/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
13/46
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
50 100 150 200Time s)
Tmp
aue(C
Temp-1
Temp-2Temp(Mean)
1 /s
1000 /s
Heating patterns in the wire-mesh reactorFast- hold -Slow hold
Or slow-hold-slow-hold
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
14/46
20
25
30
3540
45
50
55
60
65
70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120Hold Time s)
E
ra
Yed(ma
,d
1000(400)1(400)
Heat coal particles at 1 C s-1
OR at 1,000 C s-1
to 400 Cthen extract the chars with NMP
Coal A
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
* NOTE: The internally released extractable mateis stable at 400 C during at least two-minutes
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
15/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Thus internally released extractable material
a. may be extracted by a good solvent during liquefacb. or if the temperature is raised without solvent
we get dry pyrolysis
more on pyrolysis a little further on
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
16/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Let us see how such information
may help us explain observations fromcoal liquefaction experiments
We have an unusual liquefaction reactordesign:
removes extracts from the reaction zone assoon as they are released from the parentcoal particle
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
17/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
The flowing-solvent reactor assembly
Xu & Kandiyoti Energy and Fuels 10 (1996) 1115
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
18/46
Xu & Kandiyoti Energy & Fuels 10 (1996) 1115
Temperature and power control history5 C s
-1
to 450 C with 400s holdingSolvent flow rate : 0.9 ml s-1 at 70 bar
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
19/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
20/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
21/46
During liquefaction, we can recover large amounts ofextract above 350 - 375C in a good solvent
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
But not in
dry pyrolysis
In dry pyrolysis, bond scissionis similar BUT material releasedfrom the solid matrix remainswithin the coal particlesand at 400C the extractables are stable for minutes
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
22/46
---------------------------------------------------HRate Holding Medium Weight Loss C s-1 time(s) 350 C 450 C---------------------------------------------------
PoA vitrinite:1,000 150 Helium 3.3 20.5 (2)*5 400 Tetralin 28.8*** 77.6 (2)5 400 Q/P** 38.0 73.8 (2)
5 400 Quinoline --- 72.7 (2)5 400 Hexadecane 12.5 27.3 (2)PoA whole coal:5 400 Tetralin 24.6 82.5 (4)5 400 Quinoline 39.5 74.7 (2)5 400 Hexadecane --- 24.0 (1)---------------------------------------------------* Number of repeated runs used for calculating the average value** Q/P: quinoline/phenanthrene (2.5:1 w/w) mixture.*** Holding time: 500 seconds. The weight loss from 100 s experiments under
the same conditions was 29.2 %, within experimental error.All data: (% w/w daf basis)
Conversions in the Flowing Solvent Reactoronversions in the Flowing Solvent Reactorsolvent flow rate of 0.9 ml solvent flow rate of 0.9 ml s-1 at 70 bar(g)t 70 bar(g)
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
23/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
& what happens when flowing-solventreactor results are compared with extracti
in closed bomb (i.e. batch) reactors ??
so for a good solvent that is not a donor solvent, thconversions are close to those of a donor-solvent
in the flowing solvent reactor
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
24/46
Gibbins, Kimber, Gaines & Kandiyoti, R., Fuel 70, (1991), 380
a. Effect of solvent type on conversion. Flowing-solvent reactHeating at 5 C s-1; solvent flow rate: 0.9 ml/s at 70 barb. Flowing Solvent & Mini-Bomb reactors.
1-methylnaphthalene solvent; solvent/coal ratio in m-b: 4/1
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Flowing solvent reactor Mini-bomb reactor
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
25/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
The type of solvent thus has a determinanteffect on the course of the liquefaction process
BUT SO DOES THE CHOICE OF REACTOR
Using non-donor (good) solvents in theflowing solvent reactorhas a far less dramatic effect: becauseextract free-radicals dissolve in excess solve& are greatly diluted
This shows us how results can be affected by experimental des
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
26/46
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
27/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
let us now examine the effect of reactor desigon the results of pyrolysis/gasification experime
but first we need to think about ?-happensduring pyrolysis
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
28/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
during dry pyrolysis at 400 C, most of the extractables are still
intact within the coal particleWhen the temperature is raised further,- some of the lighter components evaporate- most of the extractables crack, producing lighter t
& light gases-but a significant amount of the extractablesrecombines to form char
That is why we get 50-60 % char during dry pyroly
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
29/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
We need to keep an eye on two key parameters
1. Effect of heating rate2. Trajectory of the volatiles
D t t f Ch i l E i i * I i l C ll L d
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
30/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Effect of heating rate on tar and total volatile yieldLinby coal, atmospheric pressure He, 700C, 30 s hold
Fuel68 (1989) 895
Particle size:106-152 m
Heating rate range:1 C s-1 - 1000 C s-1
We thinkthe effectis due to1. Rapid volatiles ejection2. FR quenching by native
hydrogen
D t t f Ch i l E i i * I i l C ll L d
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
31/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
Products of pyrolysis are reactive
Tarsmayre-polymerise to char and/orcrack to gas.
Product distributions thus (also) dependon extents of volatiles/solid contact
* The outcome of experiments depend on how volatiles areremoved from the reaction zone* Char gasification reactivity depends on mode of pyrolysifast/slow heating? tars removed/condensed on char?
& what happens when particles are stacked toge
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
32/46
Resistance heating ofthe high-pressure
reactor tube6 mm id&8 mm id
Fuel 66, (1987), 1413Fuel 77, (1998), 1411
Hot-Rod fixed-bed
reactor
800 C & 100 baror
1,000 C & 40 bar
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
33/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
34/46
Department of Chemical Engineering Imperial College London
and at high pressure?Comparing yields between the
(i) wire mesh reactor &(ii) a fluidized bed reactor
In experiments carried out at 1,000C
& 1 30 bars pressureThe designs of the high-pressure rigs are
somewhat different
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
35/46
High-Pressure Wire-Mesh Reactor
160 bar at 850Cor
40 bar & 2,000Cat 1 10,000C s-1
steam injectioncapability
5 mg sample
p g g p g
Messenbock, Dugwell & KandiyotiEnergy and Fuels 13 , (1999), 122
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
36/46
to product recovery
High-PressureFluidized-BedReactor System
1,000 C & 30 bars
Body: Incoloy 800HTsample injected as
a single slugMegaritis, Zhuo,Messenbock, Dugwell, &Kandiyoti,Energy & Fuels 12, (1998), 144
p g g p g
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
37/46
1
9
8
6
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
13
14 2
4
16
17
12
15
13
18
19
20
21
48 mm o.d. ; 32 mm i.d.504 mm long
Creep Rupture Limit:1000 hr at 1,000 C at 40 bar
Megaritis, Zhuo,Messenbock, Dugwell, &Kandiyoti,Energy & Fuels 12, (1998), 144
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
38/46
Megaritis, Zhuo, Messenbock, Dugwell, & Kandiyoti, E & F 12, (1998), 14
Pyrolysis of Daw Mill (UK) coal1,000 C between 1 30 barfluidized-bed (FBR) & wire-mesh (WMR) reactors
conversions tar yields
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
39/46
Megaritis, Zhuo, Messenbock, Dugwell, & Kandiyoti, E & F 12, (1998), 1
CO2-gasification of Daw Mill (UK) coal1,000 C between 1 30 barfluidized-bed (FBR) & wire-mesh (WMR) reactors
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
40/46
in CO2 gasification
differences show up betweenbetween reactors approximating
* single particle behaviour (+ fast heatin&
* stacked particles ( + slow heating)
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
41/46
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
42/46
.we have seen that* experimental design also affects thegasification reactivities of chars
* condensed pyrolysis tars in H-R reacan deactivate residual chars
* time of exposure (due to slow heatincan also deactivate chars
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
43/46
1 10 100 1000 100000.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
C
o m
b u s t
i o n
R e a c t
i v i t y R
m a x
( % / m i n
. , d a
f )
Heating Rate ( oC/s )
0 s 10 s
60 s
Combustion Reactivities; Chars from pyrolysis runDaw Mill(UK) coal: 1000C in atmospheric pressure He
We observe significant loss of reactivityin the first 10 s, even at 1,000C
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
44/46
At 950 1000 C, chars deactivate by as much as a facto3 within ~ 10 s
Unless particles are consumed quickly, OR the temperatuincreased, char consumption will be much slower after 1
Char deactivation must be quantified and taken intoconsideration in kinetic and reactor modelling
What does this mean for existing kinetic models of coalgasification which contain time-independent reaction rateconstants?
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
45/46
summing up
* these examples all arise from the reactivity ofproducts formed during thermal breakdown
* test reactor design must therefore attempt totake account of changing sample properties(moving targets); we always need informationon how these properties change
* When attempting to generate data to mimic(larger) pilot or plant scale equipment, we arereally trying to match data from two moving
targets [test reactor and real system]
Department of Chemical Engineering * Imperial College London
8/10/2019 RafaelKandiyoti.presentation
46/46
Thank you for your attention