Combustion Laboratory Unit

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 36

COMBUSTION LABORATORY UNIT

Combustion Laboratory Unit

NOTE:

Every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this manual is accurate;
however no labiality is accepted for errors. Should an error be discovered please inform the
company in writing, giving full details. Any experimental results given are for guidance only and
are not guaranteed as exact answers that can be obtained for a given apparatus; due to the
complex variables applicable to most experiments.

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 2


2.1 Schematic Diagram ..................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Burner Lamborghini (Model: Twin 13-E) .................................................................. 3
2.3 Combustion & Observation Chamber ......................................................................... 3
2.4 Control ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.5 Instrumentation ........................................................................................................... 3

3. SUMMARY OF THEORY ............................................................................................ 4


3.1 The effects of air-fuel ratio on combustion, heat transfer and flue gas losses ............ 4
3.2 Comparison between practical and theoretical flue gases .......................................... 5
3.3 Comparison between two liquid fuels......................................................................... 6
3.4 Comparison between two gaseous fuels ..................................................................... 8
3.5 Heat balance ................................................................................................................ 10
3.6 Energy balance ............................................................................................................ 11
3.7 Insulation of water jacket ............................................................................................ 11
3.8 Flame radiation and heat transfer ................................................................................ 12

4. GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURE ................................................................... 13


4.1 Start-up procedure ....................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Shutdown procedure ................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Guide for gas analyzer ................................................................................................ 13

5. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ............................................................................ 14


5.1 Experiment 1 ............................................................................................................... 14
5.2 Experiment 2 ............................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Observations ............................................................................................................... 16

6. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE .................................................................................. 17

APPENDIX A Experiment Data Sheet


APPENDIX B Typical Experimental Result
APPENDIX C Sample Calculations

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

1 INTRODUCTION:

The EES® Combustion Laboratory Unit is floor mounted designed for students to
study many aspects of combustion using a small scale unit which will be easily
understood and controlled, based on an industrial dual fuel burner. The unit comes with
the burner, combustion chamber, control panel and instruments, all at a convenient
working height. Students shall vary the fuel and air flow rate over a wide range and their
effect on flame characteristics, and combustion efficiency may be reduced. With a flue
gas analyzer, the composition of the fuel gas may then be determined and related to the
air to fuel ratio.

EES 1
Combustion Laboratory Unit

2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION:

Floor standing combustion unit capable of burning light boiler fuel oil, L.P.G or main gas
of diesel fuel over a wide range of fuel flow rates and air-to-fuel ratios. Burner firing into
a water cooled combustion chamber with provision for flame observation and gas
sampling.

2.1 Schematic diagram:

EES 2
Combustion Laboratory Unit

2.2 Burner Lamborghini (Model: Twin 13-E):

Technical Light oil Fuel gas


Specifications
Output 80.7 to 163.8 kW 80.7 to 163.4kW
3
Fuel consumption 6.8 to 13.8 Kg/h.m 8.1 to 16.4 Kg/h.m3
Self-aspiration fuel Calibration pressure 12 kg/cm2
pump
Gas pressure 12-23 mbar
Electrical power 220v – 50Hz
supply
Motor at 2860rpm 170 to 185W
Condenser 6.3 uF
Ignition transformer 10kV 30mA
Flame control UV sensor
Air adjustment Manual
Nozzle 1.75 o 3.5 all type as long as 60 solid
cone

2.3 Combustion & Observation Chamber:

Cylindrical chamber 460 x 910mm long with water-cooled walls. Fitted with
observation ports, water-cooled sampling probe.

2.4 Control:
Manual control for air, oil, gas and cooling water

2.5 Instrumentation:

The unit is fitted with necessary sensors with digital indicator for measuring flow
rate of air, oil, gas and cooling water, temperature of cooling water and pressure
of gas.

EES 3
Combustion Laboratory Unit

3 SUMMARY OF THEORY:

3.1 The effects of air-fuel ratio on combustion, heat transfer and flue gas losses:

The effects of air/fuel ratio are important theoretically and practically in the
whole: field of fuel utilization, since this ratio controls the completeness or
otherwise of the combustion reaction, the flame temperature and the quantity of
working fluid flowing through a system. A clear yet simple demonstration of the
effects is of obvious benefit and many of the readings taken may be treated at
higher levels in a satisfying theoretical manner. The following procedure yields
useful results, the quoted fuel of kerosene being replaceable by others to the same
effect.

The ignition procedure is followed and steady conditions established on kerosene.


The fuel flow rate is set to 9 kg/h (20 Ib/h) with the stoichiometric quantity of air.
This provides the maximum flame temperature and establishes the water flow rate
to use to keep outlet temperatures in the 60 ºC to 80 ºC range. This water flow rate
is now kept constant as is the kerosene flow rate. A series of readings are now
obtained for air flows corresponding to air/fuel ratios from 11:1 to 19:1. At each
air/fuel ratio, steady conditions are allowed to develop and then readings are taken
of water temperatures, flue gas temperature, the flow rates of air, fuel and water.
A flue gas analysis at each setting completes the picture, and the heat transferred
to the walls and lost up the flue can now readily be calculated in the normal
fashion. The results may be expressed absolutely or, as in Figure. 2 and 3, by
reference to results under stoichiometric conditions (graphs obtained at fuel flow
rate of 7kg/h). Extra value may be gained from the experiment by noting
variations in flame conditions at each setting.

Figure 1: effect of air/fuel ratio on Figure 2: effect of air/fuel heat


heat transfer to water-cooled walls of loss. Loss at stoichiometric ration
unit. Transfer at stoichiometric ratio = = 100
100

EES 4
Combustion Laboratory Unit

3.2 Comparison between practical and theoretical flue gases:

The analyses of fuels and flue gases are of particular importance industrially since
these are the basic parameters upon which the calculation of air requirements for
combustion and assessment of combustion efficiency are based. All too often,
such analyses are performed by the student completely out of context with no
chance of applying his results to an actual situation and thus assessing their true
value. Since the Combustion Laboratory Unit offers accurately controllable
combustion conditions which bear a strong resemblance to industrial practice,
these analyses can be made and utilized under realistic conditions. A suitable
experimental procedure using kerosene is as follows. The same procedure is
applying to all other fuels.

A sample of the kerosene to be burnt in the Unit is taken and analyzed for carbon
and hydrogen in the standard manner. A typical analysis is 86.0% carbon and
14.0% hydrogen and it is suggested that, if analysis cannot be performed, these
figures are used if none more reliable are available. From this, the student can
determine the stoichiometric quantity of air needed, which should be about 14.7:1
w/w, and the dry flue gas analysis which will show a carbon dioxide content,
depending upon fuel composition, of about 15.3%. The student should prepare a
range of flue gas analyses from stoichiometric air/fuel ratio up to, say, a ratio of
19:1 and down to a ratio of, say, 10:1. The excess air calculations for gas analysis
are quite standard but the latter, air deficiency calculations; require some
assumptions to be made. A convenient one in this case is to assume that, at each
air/fuel ratio, the hydrogen content of the kerosene burns preferentially; then the
carbon burns to carbon monoxide, then the carbon monoxide uses whatever
remains of the oxygen to convert as far as possible to carbon dioxide. This is a
gross simplification which happens to be reasonably accurate to about 5%
deficiency, and the study of what really happens in terms of combustion can be
extended for more advanced students.

The student now has his own fuel and flue gas analyses and is ready to apply them
to the Unit. The running conditions of experiment 1.2 are equally appropriate to
this experiment and, if sufficient time and personnel are available, both
experiments could run together. The Unit is operated at a constant fuel flow rate
and the air flow rate varied to cover the ratio range 10:1 to 19:1, allowing steady
conditions to be reached at each setting before taking readings of the flue gas
analysis.

From stoichiometric ratio upwards (excess air), there should be a very strong
similarity and preferably coincidence between the actual and theoretical flue gas
analyses. Under fuel-rich conditions, a considerable divergence of actual and
predicted analyses must be expected due to the simplicity of assumptions made in
the predictions. Figure4 shows the sort of results to be expected and the results
should indicate the accuracy or otherwise of the students analytical technique and
subsequent calculations. A more complete study may be pursued by advanced
students, in which exhaust solid emissions as well as gases are analyzed. This
requires quite sophisticated analytical techniques such as chromatography rather
than the more usual common equipment, but the real story of combustion,

EES 5
Combustion Laboratory Unit

particularly fuel-rich, is quite complex. Order-of-magnitude calculations are all


that may be expected from most undergraduates in this context.

Figure 3: Comparison of theoretical and practical gas analyses on kerosene

It must be stressed that, for good results from this experiment, the Unit should be
previously thoroughly checked for air leakage at all sources, such as the sight
glasses and the ignition port. Any incidental air ingress will have an adverse effect
on the results but a "Before and after" demonstration of results is most worthwhile
to show how misleading many industrial gas analyses may be. This may be done
in a controlled fashion by allowing air in leakage through the ignition port or a
sight glass port, with extreme caution, and noting the resultant flue gas analysis.
The exercise may be extended by calculation to show the manner of assessment of
air in leakage rate.

3.3 Comparison between two liquid fuels:


The design of the combustor is such that a range of distillate liquid fuels can
successfully be burnt, as well as gaseous fuels. Such an arrangement means that
the combustion characteristics of fuels may readily be compared. In this particular
experiment, the visual characteristics of kerosene and gas oil (or diesel fuel) are
compared. Again, the running conditions of experiment 1.2 are appropriate.

Kerosene is burnt at a range of air/fuel ratios from about 10:1 to about 19:1. At
each ratio, steady conditions are allowed to develop although for visual
observation of flame condition this is not as critical as when making quantitative
measurements. The noise level, flame type and steadiness, with any other
characteristic are noted. The kerosene fuel is replaced by gas oil and similar
observations made over a similar range of air/fuel ratios. The type of observation
is indicated in Tables 1 and 2. Conclusions should be drawn about the effect of
differences of characteristics upon performance in the Unit, perhaps checking the
conclusions with a few relevant heat transfer measurements.

EES 6
Combustion Laboratory Unit

TABLE 1: Effect of air / fuel ratio on kerosene combustion

Air/Fuel ratio Flame and Combustion Conditions


10.9:1 General noise level high. Flame bluish, relatively steady, indications of
unburnt carbon.
12.7:1 General noise level lower, but regular vibration of low amplitude noted.
Flame blue and fluttering a little.
14.1:1 Blue transparent flame, even and good quality. Generally quiet.
17.1:1 Flame blue but flickering. Cyclic vibration present.
19.2:1 Cyclic vibrations increased. Flame had irregular yellow tips, generally
unsteady.

Stoichiometric air fuel ratio = 14.7:1

TABLE 2: The effect of air / fuel ratio on gas oil combustion

Air/Fuel ratio Flame and Combustion Conditions


10.0:1 Flame long and luminous. Vibration and general noise levels very high, in
excess of that for kerosene. Tending to instability.
12.4:1 Flame shorter but luminous. More noise than in kerosene combustion.
14.4:1 Conditions at optimum. Yellowish flame. Noisy.
17.2:1 Vibrations. Yellowish flame with deep yellow tips.
19.6:1 Yellow tips to flame more in evidence. Regular high frequency vibrations.
22.0:1 More yellow tips. Cyclic vibrations of large amplitude. Unstable flame.

Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio = 14.4:1.

EES 7
Combustion Laboratory Unit

3.4 Comparison between two gaseous fuels:


Since the combination burner can deal adequately with gaseous fuels, a similar
comparison of two such fuels should be performed, preferably two with widely
differing characteristics. Towns gas (a mixture of gases made from coal or oil)
and a bottle hydrocarbon gas (e.g. propane) have very different properties
chemically, physically and with respect to combustion and the following refers to
a comparison of these two, as shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3: Some points of comparison of approximate properties (figures do vary with


gas quality).

Towns Gas Commercial Propane


Specific gravity (air = 1) 0.5 1.5
Calorific value, kJ/m3 18650 89400
Btu/ft3 500 2400
Stoichiometric air/fuel w/w 9:1 16:1
CO2 %, dry stoichiometric 12.0 13.8

The comparison cannot be as direct as the liquid fuels, since the gases have very
different calorific values, densities, air requirements, inflammability limits, etc.,
but a useful comparison can be mane and valid conclusions drawn.
The gas properties vary according to source and purity, and it is suggested that
accurate data be obtained from the gas supplier for experimental purposes. The
properties of bottled gas may vary slightly as the gas is used, the lighter
constituents being given off first and progressively heavier materials later. For
extremely accurate experiments this situation may be avoided by using liquid
withdrawal bottles, the liquefied gas being fed to a vaporizer before use. This is a
standard technique and the bottled gas supplier will be able to furnish details. The
care to be taken when working with gaseous fuels cannot be stressed too highly.

Since Towns gas and Propane have such widely differing properties (e.g. calorific
value), the investigation of their combustion characteristics has to be carried out
at different flow and heat release rates to make full use of the Unit. Therefore a
good basis to choose the flow rates for observation is that of best observing
conditions.

The Unit is ignited following standard procedure and steady conditions are
achieved on Towns gas. The suggested settings for starting are a gas flow of about
8 kg/h (17 Ib/h) and stoichiometric air rate. Where the gas flow meter is calibrated
for something other than Towns gas, the conversion makes an informative
calculation. As a guide, if the rotameter is calibrated for propane, a setting of 14
kg/h (30 Ib/h) is equivalent to about 8 kg/h (17 Ib/h) Towns gas. A water flow of
680 kg/h (1500 Ib/h) at this setting gives a temperature rise of about 30 ºC,
although within limits this figure is not critical. The air flow rate can now be
varied over a wide range of air/fuel ratios, making observations as with the liquid
fuels experiment.

The fuel is now changed over to propane, for which a flow rate of 7kg/h (15 Ib/h)
is useful, although it may be found necessary to vary this somewhat during the

EES 8
Combustion Laboratory Unit

experiment to obtain a full range of values. A full discussion of this is worthwhile.


A full range of observations is now made as before.

As well as drawing up a table in the form of Tables 4 and 5, note should be made
of flame stability at the extremes of the air/fuel ratio range and this ratio
compared with the theoretical inflammability limit. Some conclusion may be
drawn about the quality of air and fuel mixing by the combustor, with resultant
emphasis on the accuracy and relative merits of visual observations and
quantitative measurements for combustion efficiency and on instability and safety
aspects. The results here may be complemented by noting water jacket and flue
temperatures and flue gas analyses.

TABLE 4: Effect of air/fuel ratio on town gas flame condition

Air/Fuel ratio Flame and Combustion Conditions


22.3:1 Flame open and unsymmetrical. Gradually dying and breaking up.
18.0:1 Transparent flame with blue root. Showing some major movement.
14.7:1 Stable flame. Symmetrical.
10.0:1 Stable non-luminous flame with complete blue central zone.
8.8:1 Flame still compact.
7.8:1 Stable flame but long and floppy. Becoming luminous.
Rich limit Unsteady with much vibration, ultimately extinguishing.

TABLE 5: Effect of air/fuel ratio on propane flame condition

Air/Fuel ratio Flame and Combustion Conditions


10.0:1 Flame unstable accompanied by major oscillations and vibration.
12.5:1 Flame stable but large and luminous.
15.6:1 Flame still luminous with evidence of 3-dimensional movement.
17.8:1 Flame unsymmetrical.
20.8:1 Instability and rapid flame root fluctuations.
50.0:1 This condition achieved at low fuel rate – flame is stable and obviously
fuel-air mixing is poor here, masking the true effects. Prime example of
taking visual observation as sole criterion of quality, leading to erroneous
results.

EES 9
Combustion Laboratory Unit

3.5 Heat Balance:


A heat balance provides a useful way of determining plant efficiency and of
impressing the interchangeability of various forms of energy. A simple heat
balance can be performed as follows.

The Unit is ignited according to the Instruction Manual and allowed to achieve
steady state conditions with the chosen fuel at or near stoichiometric air/fuel ratio.
It is suggested that a little excess air be used for the first balance, since this
simplifies the flue loss calculation. This, of course, may be subsequently altered
to simulate various plant conditions. The water flow rate is adjusted to give a high
outlet temperature, of the order of 80 ºC. Care must be taken here, with constant
observation.

At steady conditions, measurements are taken of everything which would


contribute to the heat gain or loss of the system, these being mainly the flow rate
and calorific value of the fuel, fuel temperature, air flow rate and temperature,
heat to cooling water, flue gas temperature and composition, and the heat loss
from the surface of the Unit to the atmosphere. Flue gas temperature must be
measured accurately with, say, a suction pyrometer. Losses from the Unit surfaces
may be assessed by reference to standard tables of heat losses or, in the case of
more advanced students, by working from first principles. Table 6 gives an
example of a heat balance performed with propane as the fuel. The unaccounted
difference of 1.95% is within the limits of experimental error and well within the
limits to be expected in industrial circumstances.

TABLE 6: Heat Balance

INGOING OUTGOING
MJ/h MJ/h
Heat input from propane 351 Heat to cooling water 213
Heat in air 3 Heat to exhaust gases 128
____ ___
354 346
Unaccounted 8

EES 10
Combustion Laboratory Unit

3.6 Energy Balance:


To be strictly accurate, a heat balance in itself is not complete, since heat is but a
form of energy which is capable of being changed into other forms of energy. An
energy balance would be a better way of assessing the performance of the Unit,
rather than a heat balance. When stable conditions have developed following
ignition, the Unit is in a steady flow condition and an application of the steady
flow energy equation is appropriate. In effect, this means performing the heat
balance and adding to it the energy gains and losses by air and flue gas velocities,
potential energy due to the height of the intake and exhaust, etc. These terms and
the whole equation are explored in standard text books. Readings are taken under
the conditions employed for the heat balance and, when all the energy factors
have been converted to a common basis, the significance or otherwise of the extra
factors will be apparent. A discussion around these factors can be most
illuminating, pointing out why a heat balance is quite satisfactory in many
industrial circumstances and comparing the situation for the Unit with, say, a gas
turbine where the velocity energy is most significant.

3.7 Insulation of the water jacket:

A simply arranged modification which produces many facets of investigation is


the external insulation of the annular water jacket. The experimental procedure
consists basically of setting some steady conditions with the Combustion
Laboratory Unit in standard form then, for the same fuel, air and water flow rates,
noting any changes which insulation of the shell produces. It is suggested that two
schemes could be used - (a) fastening a woven asbestos cloth around the annular
section; (b) draping a fibrous blanket, e.g. fiberglass, over the section. For this
experiment, a relatively high fuel rate is used at near- stoichiometric condition
with high water outlet temperatures to amplify any variations and, consequently,
the experiment may need to be closely supervised. An experiment outlined here
gives an indication of the results to be expected.

After ignition in the recommended fashion, a kerosene flow rate of 9 kg/h (20
Ib/h) was set, with air at 134 kg/h (295 Ib/h) and cooling water at 680 kg/h (1500
Ib/h). When steady conditions had developed, the water outlet temperatures were
recorded, as were the surface temperatures of the stainless steel annular jacket. An
asbestos woven cloth was then carefully fitted over the annular section and
fastened fairly tightly. For the same flow rates at steady conditions, the water
outlet temperatures were again recorded, along with the temperatures of the
outside of the cloth covering and, where possible, the temperatures of the steel
skin under the cloth. Following this, the cloth was replaced by a loose fibrous
cover about 25mm thick and similar temperature measurements made.

It was found that the final water temperatures varied surprisingly little, in the
order of 2°C only. The outermost surface temperatures varied from 75°C above
inlet for the bare surface, to 45°C for the asbestos cloth, to 30°C above inlet for
the fibrous mat.

The problems and parameters which can be investigated here are, for example, (a)
to determine the thermal conductivity of the insulators - this is easy for the tight-
fitting cloth, but not for the loose-fitting fibrous mat because of accurate

EES 11
Combustion Laboratory Unit

temperature determination on the surfaces; (b) to discuss the small change of


water outlet temperature - reference to the heat balance should give the clue to
this and to the maximum possible increase; (c) to correlate theoretical and
practical results - an interesting exercise in heat transfer calculations.

This experiment provides practice in a range of measurements and application of


theoretical knowledge. Temperatures must be measured very carefully and in the
proper place, flow rates must be kept steady because of the small temperature
changes and the significance of measurements appreciated.

3.8 Flame radiation and heat transfer:

An experiment suitable for more advanced students is the study of flame radiation
characteristics in an environment akin to an industrial setting. The essence of such
an experiment is to measure the heat transfer to the water-cooled walls of the Unit
with a non-luminous flame in the combustion chamber and then with a luminous
flame. The variation can be achieved either by using a gaseous fuel for the former
and a liquid fuel for the latter, or by varying the combustion conditions for one
fuel to give first a non- luminous and then a luminous flame. In an experiment
under change-of-fuel conditions, a non-luminous gas flame gave cooling water
temperatures some 5 to 12°C lower than equivalent heat release rates with a
luminous fuel flame. Whichever method is adopted for achieving the desired
variations, there are inevitably changes of mass flow rate and of flame
temperatures even for similar heat release rates. The complications which such
changes bring are the reasons for stating that the experiment is appropriate to
advanced students with the necessary theoretical knowledge to attempt the
sorting-out of the various contributing factors.

A figure for the emissivity of the luminous flame may be deduced and, since the
Unit has sight glasses opposite one another, the values could be checked by
Schmidt-method measurements.

EES 12
Combustion Laboratory Unit

4 GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURE:

4.1 Start-up Procedure:

1. Supply the water to combustion unit and adjust it to 25L/min.


2. Switch on the ventilation if experiment is conducted in enclosed area.
3. Remove the cover of gas analyzer point.
4. Select the fuel switch to diesel or LPG (depends on the experiment).
5. Switch on the power supply.

4.2 Shutdown Procedure:

1. Switch off the burner.


2. Switch off the power supply.
3. For experiment 2, disconnect LPG supply after experiment for safety purpose.
4. Allow the system to cool down to ambient temperature before turning off the
water supply.
5. Switch off ventilation.
6. Put back the gas analyzer point cover when the system is cooled down to
ambient temperature.

4.3 Guide for gas analyzer:

1. Switch on the gas analyzer.


2. Allow it to stabilize for 30 seconds. The gas analyzer needs 30 minutes to
warm up.
3. Make sure there is no blockage to the air flow from the pump at the bottom.
4. Insert the probe into the gas analyzer point when the combustion is at steady
state.
5. The gas analyzer will measure the combustion product composition.
6. Press “8 - Emissions” to view the emission data.
7. Press “9 - Efficiency” to view the measured and calculated parameters.
8. Press “1 – Print” to print the data.
9. Remove the probe from the flue.
10. Allow the gas analyzer to purge the sample gas for 5 minutes before taking the
next reading.

Note:

1. The gas analyzer is purged when the O2 reading is approximately 20.9% and
the CO reading is 0ppm.
2. Only switch off the gas analyzer when the unit is purged.

EES 13
Combustion Laboratory Unit

5 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES:

5.1 Experiment 1:

Objective:

1. To determine the type of flame at different air / fuel ratio.


2. To determine the product of combustion at optimum air / fuel ratio.
3. To determine the heat transfer balance for water in and out.

Procedure:

1. Adjust the blade damper (BD) to 0° (100% opening).


2. Adjust the air damper (DA) to 1 (the smallest opening).
3. Switch on the burner.
4. The burner will auto setting and running.
5. Observe and comment on the combustion condition.
6. Let the equipment run for 10 minutes to reach steady state.
7. Determine the product of combustion by using the gas analyzer.
8. Record all the relevant temperature and flow readings.
9. Repeat the experiment with different air flow rate by adjusting the blade
damper and air damper.
10. Switch off the burner.

Note:

1. Make sure there is no LPG in the system (refer to pressure gauge)


2. Press the reset button if the red light is on (on the burner)
3. The equipment cannot be started if there is no water supply and T2 (water out
temperature is more than 70°C
4. Increase the air flow by increasing the opening of BD and DA if there is
visible smoke coming out from the exhaust

EES 14
Combustion Laboratory Unit

5.2 Experiment 2:

Objective:

1. To observe the type of flame at different air flow rate.


2. To determine the product of combustion at different air flow rate.
3. To determine the heat transfer balance for the water in and out.

Procedure:

1. Select the fuel switch to LPG.


2. Switch on the power supply.
3. Adjust the blade damper (BD) to 0º (100% opening).
4. Adjust the air damper (DA) to 1 (the smallest opening).
5. Switch on the burner.
6. The burner will auto setting and running.
7. Observe and comment on the combustion condition.
8. Let the burner run for 4 minutes to reach steady state.
9. Determine the product of combustion by using gas analyzer.
10. Record the all the relevant temperature and flow readings.
11. Continue the experiment with different air flow rate by adjusting the blade
damper and air damper.
12. Switch off the burner.

Note:

1. Press the reset button if the red light is on (on the burner).
2. The equipment cannot be started if there is no water supply and T2 (water out
temperature) is more than 70°C
3. Increase the air flow by increasing the opening of BD and DA if there is
visible smoke coming out from the exhaust
4. Always check for gas leak

EES 15
Combustion Laboratory Unit

5.3 Observations:

Specific heat of water at constant pressure, Cp = 4.185 kJ/Kg °C


Density of water at 1 atm and ρw = 1000 kg/m3
Density of air at 1 atm and 25°C,ρa = 1.19 kg/m3
Density of LPG at 1 atm and 25°C,ρLPG = 2.30 kg/m3
Density of diesel at 1 atm and 25°C,ρLPG = 827 kg/m3

Water inlet Water outlet Air in Exhaust gas Water


A temperature, T1 temperature, T2 temperature, temperature, T4 flowrate,
(°C) (°C) T 3 (°C) (°C) FT1(L/min)

Diesel flowrate, LPG flowrate, FT3 Gas Pressure drop,


A FT2 (ml/min) (L/min) pressure, DPT1
PT1(mbar) (Pa)

EES 16
Combustion Laboratory Unit

6 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE:

1. Always isolate the equipment from the electrical supply when carrying out
maintenance on the equipment
2. Always disconnect the fuel from the equipment.
3. Ensure that safety notices are placed on the equipment supply advising personnel that
the equipment is being worked on, inspected and should not be operated.
4. Check the operation of any protective devices, such as an ELCB so that it operates in
accordance with its specifications thus ensuring the safety of all operational personnel
working on the equipment. Any malfunction of the device must be corrected by a
qualified electrician before returning the equipment back to a service condition.

EES 17
Combustion Laboratory Unit

APPENDIX A
Experiment Data Sheet

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Specific heat of water at constant pressure, Cp = 4.185 kJ/Kg °C


Density of water at 1 atm and ρw = 1000 kg/m3
Density of air at 1 atm and 25°C,ρa = 1.19 kg/m3
Density of LPG at 1 atm and 25°C,ρLPG = 2.30 kg/m3
Density of diesel at 1 atm and 25°C,ρLPG = 827 kg/m3

Water inlet Water outlet Air in Exhaust gas Water


A temperature, T1 temperature, T2 temperature, temperature, T4 flowrate,
(°C) (°C) T 3 (°C) (°C) FT1(L/min)

Diesel flowrate, LPG flowrate, FT3 Gas Pressure drop,


A FT2 (ml/min) (L/min) pressure, DPT1
PT1(mbar) (Pa)

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

APPENDIX B
Typical Experimental Results

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

SAMPLE RESULTS

EXPERIMENT 1:
DIESEL = 168 ml/min

Result obtained from panel:

Water inlet Water outlet Air in Exhaust gas Water


A temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, flowrate,
T1(°C) T2(°C) T3(°C) T4(°C) FT1(L/min)
1 29.9 57.2 32.1 767 25.0
3 29.5 57.6 31.5 774 24.9
5 29.5 57.4 32.0 775 25.0

Diesel LPG Gas Pressure


A flowrate, FT2 flowrate, pressure, drop, DPT1
(ml/min) FT3 (L/min) PT1(mbar) (Pa)
1 168 0 0.3 98.5
3 167 0 0.3 25.8
5 168 0 0.3 4.3

Result obtained from gas analyzer:

A=1

stack gas 863 °C


ambient gas 34 °C
O2 7.4 %
CO 0 ppm
CO2 10 %
XAIR 54 %
EFF 57.8 %
DRY LOSS 42.2 %
WET LOSS 0 %
Uco loss 0 %
prs.in WG 0.06
NO ppm 58
Nox ppm 59
NO2 ppm 1
ref %O2 20.9

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

A=3 A=5

stack gas 869 °C stack gas 871 °C


ambient 34 °C ambient gas 34 °C
gas O2 7.6 %
O2 7.9 % CO 0 ppm
CO 0 ppm CO2 9.8 %
CO2 9.6 % XAIR 57 %
XAIR 61 % EFF 56.5 %
EFF 55.8 % DRY LOSS 43.5 %
DRY 44.2 % WET LOSS 0 %
LOSS Uco loss 0 %
WET 0 % prs.in WG 0.04
LOSS NO ppm 57
Uco loss 0 % NOx ppm 59
prs.in WG 0.04 NO2 ppm 2
NO ppm 49 ref %O2 20.9
NOx ppm 51
NO2 ppm 2
ref %O2 20.9

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

EXPERIMENT 2:
LPG = 38 L/min

Result obtained from panel:

Water inlet Water outlet Air in Exhaust gas Water


A temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, flowrate,
T1(°C) T2(°C) T3(°C) T4(°C) FT1(L/min)
1 28.9 47.9 30.0 573 26.5
3 28.5 48.1 30.5 557 25.6
5 30.2 50.4 32.1 612 25.4

Diesel LPG Gas Pressure


A flowrate, FT2 flowrate, pressure, drop, DPT1
(ml/min) FT3 (L/min) PT1(mbar) (Pa)
1 0 38 226.1 87.6
3 0 37 226.3 22.7
5 0 36 226.1 2.7

Result obtained from gas analyzer:

A=1

stack gas 705 °C


ambient 32 °C
gas
O2 10.5 %
CO 22 ppm
CO2 5.9 %
XAIR 101 %
EFF 55.6 %
DRY 44.4 %
LOSS
WET 0 %
LOSS
Uco loss 0 %
prs.in WG 2.81
NO ppm 37
NOx ppm 42
NO2 ppm 5
ref %O2 20.9

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

A=3 A=5

stack gas 711 °C stack gas 729 °C


ambient 32 °C ambient 34 °C
gas gas
O2 10.6 % O2 10.8 %
CO 24 ppm CO 27 ppm
CO2 5.8 % CO2 5.7 %
XAIR 104 % XAIR 107 %
EFF 54.5 % EFF 52.8 %
DRY 45.5 % DRY 47.2 %
LOSS LOSS
WET 0 % WET 0 %
LOSS LOSS
Uco loss 0 % Uco loss 0 %
prs.in WG 2.8 prs.in WG 0.02
NO ppm 36 NO ppm 31
NOx ppm 42 NOx ppm 38
NO2 ppm 6 NO2 ppm 7
ref %O2 20.9 ref %O2 20.9

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Determination of air flow rate:

A 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5


k 4.1 4.7 5.5 6.4 7.6 9.0

A 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0


k 10.6 12.6 15.0 18.2 22.9

Air flow rate across damper, q (dm3/s) = k√∆p

Where,
A = number indicated at the damper
∆p = pressure drop across damper, Pa

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

APPENDIX B
Sample Calculations

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

DIESEL combustion, heat balance calculations:

When A = 1,
After calibration, diesel flowrate = 182.5 ml/min

Diesel flow rate, (G) = 182.5 ml/min convert to m3/s times diesel density
= 3.04E-6 m3/s x 827 kg/m3
= 0.002515 kg/s

Diesel Lower Heating Value (LHV) = 42.7 x 103 kJ/kg

Hcombustion = G x LHV

Hcombustion = 0.002515 x (42.7 x 103) kW


= 107.39 kW

Cpwater = Heat capacity of water air density at 25 °C


= 4.185 kJ/kg.K

Gwater = 0.417 kg/s Tout = 57.2°C, Tin = 29.9°C

Hwater = Gwater x Cpwater (Tout - Tin)

Hwater = 47.6 kW

Volume 1 kg mol of ideal gas @ 25°C:

V25 = 22.4 [(25+273.15)/ 273.15]


= 24.465 m3/mol

Oxygen mol fraction in air, (kO2) = 0.21

Qa = air flow rate

Qa  k P k = 4.1 (coefficient of damper)

Qa = 4.1√98.5
=40.69 dm3/s ~~ 0.04069 m3/s

ma = mass flow rate of air inlet

ma = (Density of air) ρa x (air flow rate) Qa


= 1.19 kg / m3 x 0.04069 m3/s
= 0.048423 kg/s

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Mair = ma / 28.84
= 0.048423 / 28.84
= 0.001679 kg.mol/s

MN2 = mass flow rate of nitrogen inlet

MN2 = 0.79 x 0.001679 kg.mol/s


= 0.001326 kgmol/s

MOx in = mass flow rate of oxygen inlet

MOxin = 0.21 x 0.001679 kg.mol/s


= 0.0003526 kgmol/s

Assume diesel is cetane C16H34

µd = 226 kg / mol

G
Diesel flow rate, MD = –––––> MD = 1.11E-5 kgmol/s
226

Assume nitrogen inlet flow rate = outlet flow rate

Total number kg mol in-come = kg mol diesel + kg mol air

MT = Mair + MD

CALCULATIONS:

Diesel reactant C16H34 flow rate: MD = 1.11E-5 kg mol / s

Ideal stoichiometric reaction: 2C16H34 + 49O2 = 32CO2 + 34H2O

24.5 kg mol O2 is required to react with 1 kg mol of diesel.

Kg mol required to react with diesel in conditions when Mox = 24.5 x MD

MOx = 2.74 x 10-4 kg mol/ s

1 kg mole of C16H34 gives 17 kg mol of H2O

Mwater = 17 MD; Mwater = 1.89 x 10-4 kg mol / s (Produced water vapors)

1 kg mole C16H34 gives 16 kg mole of carbon dioxide.

Mcarbon-dioxide = 16 MD; Mcarbon-dioxide = 1.78 x 10-4 kg mol / s (Produced carbon dioxide)

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Oxygen outlet rate: Moxout = Moxin – Mox; Moxout 7.99 x 10-5 kg mol / s

Nitrogen outlet rate: MNout = 0.001326 kgmol/s

Flue gas temperatures, Tf =767°C

Specifying datum temperature T0 = 32.1

∆T = Tf - T0 = 734.9

CpN2 = 30.85 kJ / kg mol K


CpO2 = 32.62
CpCO2 = 48.27
CpH2O = 37.53

Enthalpy gone with flue gases rate:

Hflue = (CpN2. MNout + CpO2. Moxout + CpCO2. Mcarbon-dioxide + CpH2O. Mwater) ∆T

Hflue = 43.52 kW

Hcombustion = 107.39 kW VS Hflue + Hwater = (43.52+ 47.6) = 91.12 kW

% diff = ((107.39 – 91.12)/ 107.39 ) x 100

= 15.15%

Efficiency = 84.9%

After calculation for three set of data,

A Qair (m3/s) Efficiency (%) Efficiency from gas


analyzer (%)
1 0.04069 84.9 57.8
3 0.03860 84.7 56.5
5 0.03110 77.7 55.8

In conclusion, when air flowrate decreasing, the efficiency of combustion decreasing.

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

LPG combustion and heat balance calculations:

When A = 1

LPG is roughly accepted as a combination of 30% propane and 70% butane.

Heat combustion at 25°C and constant pressure for propane and butane is:-

Propane C3H8 (gas), µ = 44

Propane = 488.527 Kcal/mol


= 11079.2 Cal/g
= -2045.443 x 103 kJ/kmol

Butane C4H10 (gas), µ = 58

Butane = 630.246 Kcal/mole


= 10843.9 Cal/g
= -2638.714 x 103 kJ/kmol

LPG gas molecular weight @ 25°C => MW (LPG) = 0.3(44) + 0.7(58) = 53.8kg/kg mol

ρLPG = (0.3 x 1.874) + (0.7 x 2.484) = 2.3 kg/m3

ma = mass flow rate of air


= 0.04566 kg/s

mass flow rate of LPG gas is flowrate x correction factor

Tact P0
correction factor, K = G x
To Pact

where G = specific gravity of metered gas


To = absolute temperature, 294 K
Po = 14.7 psi

2280 293 14.7


Qf = 1.928  x Lpm convert to m3/s
3600  1000 293 17.98

= 9.73E-4 m3/s

Mf = Qf x ρLPG

= 2.24 x 10-3 kg/s

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

k P
Qa 
1000

Qa = 0.03837 m3/s

Oxygen mol fraction in air KO2 = 0.21

Flue (product) gases temperature; Tf = 573°C

Cooling mass flow rate: mw = 0.4417 kg/s

Inlet water temperature: Tin = 28.9°C

Outlet water temperature: Tout = 47.9°C

MOxin = 3.33 x 10-4 kgmol/s (oxygen inlet flow rate)

0.3  2.24 x10 3


Propane reactant flow rate: Mp =
44
= 1.53 x 10-5 kgmol/s

Butane reactant flow rate: MB = 2.70 x 10-5 kgmol/s

Kg mol O2 theoretically (by stoichiometry) to react with 1 kg mol of propane: 5

Kg mol O2 required reacting with propane

For specified conditions:

MOxp = 5.Mp MOxp = 7.63 x 10-5 kgmol/s

Kg mol O2 theoretically (by stoichiometry) to react with 1 kg mol butane: 13/2

Kg mol O2 required to react with butane for specified conditions:

13
MOxB = MB MOxB = 1.75 x 10-4kg mol /s
2

Product flue gas composition

1kg mole of C3H8 gives 4 kg mol of H2O

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Products (flue gas) composition (based on stoichiometry)

1 kg mole of C3H8 gives 4 kg mol of H2O and 3 kg mol of CO2

Mwp = 4 x Mp Mwp = 6.10 x 10-5 kg mol/s (produced water vapor)

Mcdp = 3 x Mp Mcdp = 4.58 x 10-5 kg mol/s (produced carbon dioxide)

1 kg mole of C4H10 gives 4 kg mole of CO2 and 5 kg mol of H2O

MwB = 5 x MB MwB = 1.35 x 10-4 (produced water vapor)

McdB = 4 x MB McdB = 1.08 x 10-4 (produced carbon dioxide)

Oxygen outlet rate: MOxout = MOxin – MOx (consumed)


MOxout = 8.08 x 10-5 kgmol/s

Nitrogen outlet rate MNout = 0.00125 kgmol/s

Heat reactions (heat generation)

Propane reacts with oxygen, heat rate of reaction is

Hp = ∆HP.Mp Hp = -31.20 kW

Butane reacts with oxygen,

HB = ∆HB.MB HB = -71.74 kW

Total rate of combustion generated heat: Hcombustion = 102.43 kW

Specifying datum temperature T0 = 30 ∆T = Tf – T0 = 543

CpN2 = 30.85
CpO2 = 32.62
CpCO2 = 48.27
CpH2O = 37.53

Enthalpy gone with flue gases rate:

Hflue = [(CpN2. MNout) + (CpO2. MOXout) + (CpCO2. Mcdp) + (CpCO2. McdB) + (CpH2O. Mwp)
+ (CpH2O. MwB)]∆T

= 30.41 kW

EES
Combustion Laboratory Unit

Enthalpy of outlet water

∆Te = Tout – Tin ∆Te = 19.0

Hwater = Cpw.mw. ∆Te Hwater = 35.12 kW

Hwater + Hflue = 65.53 kW

Hcombustion = 102.43 kW ======VS====== Hwater + Hflue = 65.53 kW

% differ, ∆ = [(102.43 – 65.53)/ 102.43] x 100%


= 36.0 %

Efficiency = 64%

A Qair (m3/s) Efficiency (%) Efficiency from gas


analyzer (%)
1 0.03837 64.0 55.6
3 0.03700 62.0 54.5
5 0.02465 56.6 52.8

In conclusion, when air flowrate decreasing, the efficiency of combustion decreasing.

EES

You might also like