Experimental Investigation of Reaction Confinement Effects on Coke

Subscriber access provided by CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Article

Experimental Investigation of Reaction Confinement Effects on Coke Yield in Coal Pyrolysis Jeffrey LeBlanc, John F. Quanci, and Marco J. Castaldi Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b00699 • Publication Date (Web): 15 Jul 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on July 27, 2016

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Energy & Fuels is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

1

Experimental Investigation of Reaction Confinement

2

Effects on Coke Yield in Coal Pyrolysis

3

Jeffrey LeBlanca, John Quancib, Marco J. Castaldi*,a

4 5 6 7 8

a

Combustion and Catalysis Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, The City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, NY 10030 b

Suncoke Energy Inc., 1011 Warrenville Road, 6th Floor, Lisle, IL 60532 USA *Corresponding author fax: (212) 650-6660, phone: (212) 650-6679, email: [email protected]

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ACS Paragon Plus Environment

1

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 2 of 27

25

Abstract

26

The pyrolysis of agglomerating coal was analyzed by thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) coupled to

27

micro-gas chromatography (µGC) to determine the effects of reactor confinement on solid product

28

yield, tar evolution and gas composition. The primary volatile products generated from pyrolysis are

29

studied using two TGA crucibles with height to width aspect ratios of 0.11:1.0 and 2.0:1.0 for heating

30

rates of 1, 3 and 10 K min-1. Mass balances were determined from measurements of the solid residual,

31

gaseous flow rates and tar products captured via glass impingers. The measurements resulted in mass

32

balance closures greater than 99%. The higher aspect ratio confinement provided a zone where the

33

residence time of volatile species was extended to 0.35 seconds from 0.04 seconds for the low aspect

34

ratio confinement. The extended residence time was found to increase the solid yield by 0.6 to 5.7 % for

35

the low and mid ranged volatile material coals by secondary tar reactions which form coke. There was a

36

trend of increasing solid yield with a decreasing heating rate because of the shorter residence time of the

37

released volatile material at the higher heating rates. A decrease in tar production by 2.1-2.5 % was

38

observed in the higher aspect ratio confinement. The differences in product evolution between the two

39

confinements were determined to be due to reactions occurring in the range of 783 to 848 K which

40

produce hydrogen, methane and coke. In the confinement of higher aspect ratio, hydrogen production

41

increased by 10% and 30% for low and mid VM coals, respectively, along with a 40% increase in

42

methane production for both coals. The higher productions of methane, hydrogen and solid residual

43

between 820 and 1100 K for increased residence time of 0.27-0.35 seconds are due to demethylation

44

and recombination reactions during the formation of char from recondensed tar products.

45

Keywords

46

Pyrolysis; Coal; Coke making; Thermochemical Conversion; TG-GC

47

Introduction


2

Page 3 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

48

Global steel production is forecasted to grow at an average rate of 1% year-1 until 2020. In those

49

years, iron blast furnaces will rely on metallurgical coke for operation and remain the primary route for

50

iron making. In the last 20 years, the coke making industry has seen the establishment of the largest,

51

most productive and lowest emission coke making plants in history.1 The development of horizontal

52

heat recovery ovens offers the added benefit of heat recovery from the volatile products and low

53

emissions thus being more economically efficient and environmentally friendly. However, traditional

54

vertical by-product coke ovens have slightly higher solid product yields. It is expected that the

55

secondary reactions of escaping volatile products at the solid-gas interfaces is responsible for the

56

improved yield. Therefore, it is desirable to investigate the effects of confinement reflecting the

57

different coke oven geometries on secondary reactions to increase the coke yield from horizontal heat

58

recovery configurations.

59

Coal science pertaining to coke making has been studied for 50 years and has unveiled a substantial

60

understanding of the coal pyrolysis mechanism.2-29 It is accepted that reactions within the coal particle

61

or bed are dominated by free-radical pathways.30 Yet, the mechanistic and empirical understanding of

62

free radical mechanisms in coal pyrolysis is not sufficient to predict tar and gaseous product

63

distributions accurately for the current environmental and heat recovery optimization requirements.3

64

Therefore, models which predict depolymerization and devolatilization of coal based on the coal’s

65

molecular constituents have been built.3-10 Mechanistically free radicals are generated in two ways,

66

from homolytic breaking of covalent bonds that form two radicals, shown in Equation 1, and by β-

67

scission forming smaller radicals and/or unsaturated bonds, shown in Equation 2.30

68

− ↔ − Ċ + Ċ

Equation 1

69

− ↔ = + ∙

Equation 2

70

Between temperatures of 673 and 823 K, the coal reaches a semi-melted state called the metaplast. In

71

the condensed phase of the metaplast, hydrocarbons decompose through free-radical mechanisms

72

producing fragments of coal molecules.30-32 Evaporation of volatile fragments formed in the metaplast ACS Paragon Plus Environment

3

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 4 of 27

73

govern the rate of tar devolatilization and impact solid yield.4 Char formation occurs simultaneously in

74

the metaplast state which produces carbon dioxide, water and methane as by-products. The pool of H,

75

CH3, and C2H5 radicals developed from free radical abstraction (removal of an atom or group from a

76

molecule by a radical) and β-scission reactions in the metalplast react to form hydrogen and light

77

hydrocarbons.6,11,33 The end of tar production is determined by the availability of hydrogen donors in the

78

condensed phase.10 Resolidification of the metaplast yields methane, hydrogen and coke via

79

condensation reactions between aromatic clusters.

80

Volatile products released from the condensed phase are presumed to continue to react via free-radical

81

mechanisms while diffusing through the particle bed and/or near hot solid-gas interfaces. The impact of

82

the bed diffusion lengths (i.e. confinement) on tar yield has been speculated10 yet never quantified or

83

linked to a commensurate difference in solid and/or gas product. The use of various the confinements to

84

elucidate secondary pyrolysis in the gas phase and solid-gas interface were first presented in 2013.13 To

85

our knowledge, the technique has not been used to explain the rate and nature of secondary reactions of

86

volatile species which increase solid yield. Previous experiments investigating these reactions involved

87

varying pressure in wire mesh heating experiment.14, 23 In earlier works, researchers varied the gas flow

88

through a packed bed.34,

89

volatile residence time had little effect on pyrolysis yields, but changes in volatile residence time at

90

constant pressure were very important. Relevant classes of thermochemical secondary reactions for

91

volatiles diffusing through a coal bed are shown below. The cleaving of alkyl functional groups from tar

92

products (where R is an aromatic moiety) and the breaking of a C-C bridge between aromatic moieties

93

are important steps in secondary reactions.

94

− − ↔ − Ċ + ′ − Ċ

95

Reactions portrayed in Equations 1, 2 and 3 form aromatic radicals which may proceed through

96

bimolecular recombination. In this step, hydrogen may be formed by condensation or graphitization.

97

− + ′ − ↔ − ′ +

35

The conclusion was that increases in ambient gas pressure at constant

Equation 3

Equation 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment

4

Page 5 of 27

98

1 2 3 99 4 5 100 6 7 101 8 9 102 10 11 12103 13 14104 15 16 105 17 18 19106 20 21107 22 23 108 24 25 26109 27 28 29 110 30 31 32111 33 34112 35 36 37113 38 39114 40 41115 42 43 44116 45 46 47117 48 49 50118 51 52119 53 54120 55 56 57121 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

Also, demethylation by abstraction may occur to form methane. − + ′ − ↔ − ′ +

Equation 5

Equations 4 and 5 could be modes of forming polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) or large graphitized coke species. During chemical growth, PAH may form dimers, trimmers and tetramers by collision without producing a gas species.36 PAH growth may cause char species to re-condense from the gas phase into the solid product. These secondary reactions are recognized to be important for determining product distribution between solid, liquid and gas species from coal pyrolysis. An investigation of secondary reactions of volatile species occurring at solid-gas interface using various pyrolysis confinements will allow the products of these reactions to be measured. Furthermore, a scaling factor may be derived to assess the extent of secondary reactions of escaping volatile products at the solid-gas interfaces in commercial coke ovens leading to possible design modifications to increase the solid yield.

Two different confinements were utilized to provide insight into the secondary reactions as a function of increased residence time in the solid-gas interface. In a confinement of smaller aspect ratio (0.11:1.0), rapid removal of volatile species is favored leading to minimal secondary reactions. The volatile species in a confinement with a larger aspect ratio (2.0:1.0) were not immediately carried away by the inert sweep gas therefore experienced increased residence time at the solid-gas interface. The literature does not have TG-GC, GC-MS or product distribution data of volatile species stagnated in the solid-gas interface for various residence times.

In this study, three United States agglomerating coals used in commercial coke making are analyzed by TG-GC to better understand the relationship between the residence times of volatile species for heating rates relevant for coke production, 1-10 K min-1. The variation of the geometric aspect ratio of the pyrolysis confinement enables the investigation of solid product yield dependence with the residence time of volatile products immediately above the reacting solid. The investigation includes measuring the


5

Energy & Fuels

122

1 2 3 123 4 5 6 124 7 8 125 9 10 11126 12 13127 14 15128 16 17 18129 19 20130 21 22 131 23 24 25132 26 27 28133 29 30 134 31 32 33135 34 35136 36 37 137 38 39 40138 41 42139 43 44 45140 46 47141 48 49142 50 51 52143 53 54144 55 56 145 57 58 59146 60

Page 6 of 27

tar and gas products at different residence time to discern the secondary reactions. The residence time variation provides unique insight on the product formation and the gaseous and tar compositions. Materials and Methods Coals. The three agglomerating coals in this study, obtained by Suncoke Energy, are used in the commercial production of metallurgical coke. The proximate analyses and carbon percent of the coals are shown in Table 1. The principal difference between the chosen coals is the composition of the volatile matter (VM). Therefore, the coals in this work are referred to as low, mid and high VM coal. The coals vary widely in VM however only range between 79.6 and 84.4 % carbon. The samples were tested as-received and not demineralized. The impact from minerals is negligible in regard to the investigation. The samples were crushed via a mortar and pestle and sieved to a uniform particle size of 44 ± 7 µm. The samples were analyzed as a 6.5 mm x 1 mm pellet formed using a press and dye system. TG-GC and GC/MS System. The experimental set-up used for investigation was a Netzsch Luxx simultaneous thermal analyzer 409PC close coupled to an Inficon 3000 µGC, equipped with a thermal conductivity detector (TCD). This system is shown in Schematic 1. The coal sample size was 40 mg. A vertically oriented sweep gas of research grade argon (Airgas AR R300) was maintained constant at 30 mL min-1. The effluent of the TGA was connected to a quarter-inch passivated (Silcotek SilcoNert2000) stainless steel tube heated to 548 K constituting an inert, heated sample transfer line and has been shown to have no impact on the sample.37 The heated transfer line routed the TGA effluent to a series of impingers (SKC Midget Impinger, 225-35-1) which served as a condensation train operating at 273 K and 1.0 bar. Any uncondensed gaseous effluent that exited the train was analyzed by the µGC-TCD. Gas sampling from the TGA effluent stream was performed at a frequency of 3 minutes providing very good temperature resolution of the evolved chemical species. The gaseous species that were identified and quantified were hydrogen, methane, ethylene and ethane. The 14 m OV-1 column of the Inficon 3000 micro-GC is capable of measuring C3 and C4 order hydrocarbons but, these species either are not present in the gas product or below detection limits of 100 ppm. The solid coal samples were subjected ACS Paragon Plus Environment

6

Page 7 of 27

147

1 2 3 148 4 5 149 6 7 150 8 9 10151 11 12152 13 14 153 15 16 17154 18 19155 20 21 22156 23 24157 25 26158 27 28 29159 30 31160 32 33 161 34 35 36162 37 38163 39 40 41164 42 43165 44 45166 46 47 48167 49 50168 51 52169 53 54 55170 56 57171 58 59 172 60

Energy & Fuels

to a constant heat rate of 1, 3 and 10 K min-1 up to 1373 K in the TGA. Commercial coke making processes operate at temperature up to 1400 K.1 For each test, the temperature was held isothermally at 1373 K until the differential weight loss (DTG) reached and remained at zero. Tar collected from the series of impingers were measured gravimetrically and subsequently dissolved in 20 mL acetone to prepare a solution for chemical characterization. A 2 µL of solution was injected into an Agilent 7890B Gas Chromatography Instrument (GC), equipped with as an Agilent 5977A Mass Selective Detector (MSD). An Agilent HP-5MS, (30 m x 250 µm ID x 0.25 µm film thickness) column was used for separation of the tar compounds and directly connected to the MS. The GC oven was held at 303 K for 18 min then heated at 2 K min-1 ramp to 493 K with three 10 minute isotherms at 373, 403, and 453 K and a 30 minute isotherm at 493 K. The MS ion source temperature was maintained at 200 ºC. The Agilent Chemstation software was used to identify the chemical compounds throughout the chromatograms by matching the mass spectra of the sample with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) database. Confinements. Two different confinements, shown in Schematic 2, were utilized to observe how volatile species interact as a function of increased residence time above the reacting solid residual. These configurations provide insight into the secondary reactions during devolatilization. The confinement with a smaller aspect ratio of 0.11:1.0 (14.3 mm in diameter and 1.6 mm in height), designated as the “pan,” was designed to favor rapid removal of devolatilization products leading to minimal secondary reactions. The confinement with a larger aspect ratio of 2.0:1.0 (6.5 mm in diameter and 13 mm in height), designated as the “cup,” creates a zone above the sample where the volatile species evolving are not swept away by the sweep gas. The region above the sample creates the opportunity for secondary reactions to affect the product distribution. The Biot numbers of each confinement is between 0.04 and 0.11 indicating a uniform temperature distribution (more description in Supporting Information). This means the solid-gas interface reaction monitored are occurring at the sample temperature. The space above the sample in the cup confinement was 10 mm and the approximated residence time is 0.35 seconds (calculation shown in Supporting Information). It is ACS Paragon Plus Environment

7

Energy & Fuels

173

1 2 3 174 4 5 175 6 7 176 8 9 10177 11 12178 13 14 179 15 16 17180 18 19181 20 21 22182 23 24 25183 26 27 28184 29 30185 31 32186 33 34 35187 36 37188 38 39189 40 41 42190 43 44191 45 46 192 47 48 49193 50 51194 52 53 54195 55 56196 57 58197 59 60

Page 8 of 27

important to consider that the reaction of volatile species do not only occur in the crucible while stagnated above the sample but also in space outside of the crucible and both reaction sets determine the amounts of each gas species observed by the GC. However, reactions in space outside the crucible have equal possibility for experiments with each crucible i.e. the main difference is residence time near solidgas interfaces. The tests were repeated in triplicate for each coal, heating rate and confinement to obtain representative statistical values. A statistical t-test using a 95% confidence interval was used to determine significant difference between the two conditions. The p-value is used to show the significance level, a lower p-value means greater significance. The averages and p-values for gaseous products reported are based on nine repetitions at 3 K min-1 for each confinement. The reported p-value is the resultant value from a statistical t-test between the pan and cup confinement.

Mass balance. Excellent work previously reported in the literature performed on coal pyrolysis reached a 95% mass closure on pyrolysis products in an encapsulated pyrolysis unit.14 Similar balances were obtained in an entrained flow reactor for more rapid heating conditions.15 However, in many other reports on coal pyrolysis, the tar and water yields were determined by difference (i.e. not measured) and more often the mass balance was not reported. In this work, the masses of solid, condensable (tar and water) and gaseous products were measured and closed to 99.2% or better for three agglomerating coals. The procedure used is identical to that used in recently published work.38 The solid product was directly measured as the residual mass in the TGA. The volumetric rate of inert gas was measured via a flow meter (Alicat M-100). The volumetric rate of the gas produced during the pyrolysis reactions was calculated using the µGC measurements and argon as an internal standard. The gas sampling was performed downstream of the condenser at normal temperature and pressure. The gas densities at normal temperature and pressure were used to calculate the total mass. Tar, tar aerosols, and water were collected in the condensation unit and measured gravimetrically. The measurement of condensable yield fluctuated by 30-50% depending on coal with the high VM coal resulting in the greatest variability. Reviews of similar processes for efficient on-stream tar capture demonstrated the use of condenser ACS Paragon Plus Environment

8

Page 9 of 27

198

1 2 3 199 4 5 200 6 7 201 8 9 10202 11 12203 13 14 204 15 16 17205 18 19206 20 21 22207 23 24208 25 26 27 28209 29 30210 31 32211 33 34 35212 36 37213 38 39 214 40 41 42 43215 44 45 216 46 47 48217 49 50218 51 52 53219 54 55220 56 57 58 59221 60

Energy & Fuels

trains.39-41 A cooling rate of 150 K s-1 immediately downstream of the heated and insulated transfer line was determined by iteration and found to be critical for tar capture. The impinger design was such that the internal tube ended in a nozzle so that the tar products impact the chilled inner wall of the glass tube container. A solvent was not used for tar capture in this work. The use of solvents to capture tar is recommended to suppress polymerization and oxidation reactions amongst captured tar species yet this was determined to be unnecessary in our system due to negligible reaction extent at 273 K.39 The main disadvantage of using a solvent is the step of solvent removal which adds uncertainty to the measured yields and composition. The average product distributions for three agglomerating coals are given in Table 2. These product distributions were compared to other works with high mass closure who reported cumulative tar yields between 20 and 32% for bituminous and subbituminous coals 15-17 and cumulative condensable yields of 18.3-23.7% for lignite.14

Tar Evolution Profile. The collection of tar via the impingers gave an overall aggregate mass that could only be measured at the completion of each test. By measuring the distribution between solid, tar and gas the aggregate may be divided to reflect its time-dependent evolution. This was done using the gas and solid residual measurements to determine the amount of tar released at the corresponding temperatures which can also be representative of time through heating rates utilized. () = () − ()

Equation 6

where rsolid is the rate of solid consumption (measured by DTG), rgas is the rate of gas production (measured by micro-GC) and rtar is the rate of tar production (by-difference) which are all known as a function of temperature. The critical aspect is that the total amount of tar that is projected evolving over time matches the measured amount, thus fixing the total mass evolved during the test. The equation below illustrates how the total measured mass was reconciled with that obtained via the time dependent calculation

∑&% () = !! "#$#

Equation 7


9

Energy & Fuels

222

1 2 3 223 4 5 224 6 7 225 8 9 10226 11 12227 13 14 228 15 16 17229 18 19230 20 21 22231 23 24232 25 26233 27 28 29234 30 31235 32 33 236 34 35 36237 37 38238 39 40 41239 42 43240 44 45241 46 47 48242 49 50243 51 52244 53 54 55245 56 57246 58 59 60

Page 10 of 27

Results and Discussion TG and DTG of Coal. Figures 1a-b show the TG profile of two coals heated in the pan and cup confinement at 3 K min-1. The errors shown are the standard deviations based on repeated tests as discussed in the experimental section. The error arises primarily from the variation in the coal from sample to sample. For each coal the solid product yield is greater in the cup confinement than in the pan confinement demonstrating the effects of increased residence time. The low and mid VM coals have the same residual mass in the cup even though have different VM content. This illustrates that confinement is a very important consideration in evaluating TG data because the system can have considerable mass transfer limitations which is manifested in the product distribution. The TG profiles for each coal and condition resemble the well-known result for coal pyrolysis.13,16 The major peak observed between 643 and 900 K in the differential thermogravimetry (DTG) plot in Figures 1a-b represents the primary devolatilization. The maximum rate of mass loss increases with increasing VM as expected. The maximum rate of mass loss shifts to lower temperatures as VM increases which also has been shown previously by experiment using TGA46-47 and is aligned with an increase in fluidity shown by the Gieseler test.19 Metaplast resolidification occurs between 820 and 1100 K and yields gaseous products (later shown). For all coals, the DTG asymptotically approaches zero during resolidification signifying that coke is produced. Low and Mid VM Coals. A statistical t-test using a 95% confidence interval in Figures 1a-b shows the residual mass difference between confinements for the low and mid VM coals is significant. The effect of confinement on solid yield was observed to be greater for the mid VM coal than the low VM coal. In Figure 1a-b, the separation of the TG curves in the different confinements occurs between 790 and 820 K for each coal. This corresponds closely to the solidification temperatures measured by the Gieselier test which are 778 K for the low VM coal and 768 K for the mid VM coal. In Figures 1a-b, the magnitude of the DTG (rate) measurement between 820 and 1100 K is higher in the pan as compared to the cup. These effects on solid yield for low and mid VM coals are due to tar species being retained at


10

Page 11 of 27

247

1 2 3 248 4 5 249 6 7 250 8 9 10251 11 12252 13 14 253 15 16 17254 18 19255 20 21 22256 23 24257 25 26258 27 28 29259 30 31260 32 33 261 34 35 36262 37 38263 39 40 41264 42 43265 44 45266 46 47 48267 49 50268 51 52269 53 54 55270 56 57271 58 59 272 60

Energy & Fuels

the solid-gas interface due to the increase of the residence time of volatile products with each other and the solid interface. Figure 2a-b shows the calculated time dependent production profile of tar and gas for low and mid VM coals at 3 K min-1 in each confinement. Tar production initiates at 500 K. Tar is the only product until 750 K and continues to evolve until 900 K. To precisely discriminate between gas production and condensable production is one of the main findings of this work. The total gas production in Figure 2 ab does include CO and CO2 evolution. Gas production begins at 750 K for both coals and confinements. Gas production is observed to be higher in the cup compared to the pan for the low and mid VM coals. This finding is consistent with alkyl cleavage of volatile species that partition into lighter gases (thus higher production) and heavier molecules that recondense with a commensurate reduction in tar measured. This increased gas production between 790 and 820 K indicate secondary reactions during the increased residence time in the cup confinement. Table 3 shows the average product distributions in percent by mass for the low and mid VM coals heated at 3 K min-1 per confinement. There is a 2.1 % and 2.3 % decrease in tar production in the cup as compared to the pan for the low and mid VM coals, respectively. Results from GC-MS characterization (shown Supporting Information) show more speciation in the tar from the cup than the pan. The cup confinement produced tar with a lower molar H/C ratio (1.50) than in the pan (1.55). Furthermore, the cup yields more pyrene, indene, indanol, and naphthalene derivatives indicating PAH growth at the solid-gas interface during the increased residence time. At increased residence time, PAH products at the solid-gas interface in the cup are likely integrated into the solid product during pyrolysis. Figure 3 shows the evolution profiles of methane, C2 hydrocarbons (ethane and ethylene, separate evolutions shown in Supporting Information) and hydrogen during pyrolysis at 3 K min-1 for the mid VM coal in both confinements. The hydrogen production is higher in the cup compared to the pan in the temperature range of 750 K to 1140 K. Hydrogen gas is produced from recombination reactions (Equation 4) during PAH growth near the solid-gas interface and integration of tar into the coke product.44 The production rate of methane is 68% higher from the cup than from the pan and occurs at a ACS Paragon Plus Environment

11

Energy & Fuels

273

1 2 3 274 4 5 275 6 7 276 8 9 10277 11 12278 13 14 279 15 16 17280 18 19281 20 21 22282 23 24283 25 26284 27 28 29285 30 31286 32 33 287 34 35 36288 37 38289 39 40 41290 42 43291 44 45292 46 47 48293 49 50294 51 52295 53 54 55296 56 57297 58 59 298 60

Page 12 of 27

lower temperature. Throughout the tar evolution sequence the concentration of hydrogen donor species in the metaplast decreases i.e. the parent molecule loses saturated and cycloalkane functional groups and becomes more aromatic which has been measured by NMR.10,38 This decreases the hydrogen abstraction reactions within the metaplast and shifts the reaction preference towards demethylation during the combination of large aromatic clusters. It is apparent that the early onset of demethylation in the cup leads to a higher methane and solid yield than the pan. The two main methane forming reactions are thermal cracking of bridges and alkyl groups (Equation 1 and Equation 3) and the demethylation associated with moderate temperature crosslinking10 (Equation 5). Therefore, the higher hydrogen and methane production during increased residence times can be linked to the increased PAH and solid yields in the cup. Table 4 shows the average total production of gaseous products in the pan and cup confinements for low and mid VM coals. For the mid and low coals, hydrogen production is 10 and 30% higher in the cup compared to the pan, respectively. The C2 hydrocarbon production is higher in the pan than the cup and occurs at a higher temperature (Figure 3). This is aligned with an overall reduction of H/C ratio of the volatiles generated. Due to the high coking propensity of C2 hydrocarbons33, it is possible C2 hydrocarbon involvement in coke forming reactions above 760 K decrease their overall C2 production in the cup. The mechanism of how paraffin species are incorporated into PAH and coke species are discuss elsewhere.33, 36 The greatest difference is the yield of ethane and methane between confinements for the low and mid VM coal. The pan confinement forms more ethane and less methane than the cup for the low and mid VM coals. The reduction of ethane production in the cup only accounts for 10 and 20% of the increased methane production for the low and mid VM coals, respectively. Therefore, approximately 80-90% of the increase in methane comes from the demethylation of the volatile species during coke formation. Ethylene production between 700 and 900 K appears unaffected by increased residence time for the low and mid VM coal. This indicates that ethylene is less impacted by the secondary solid producing reactions at the solid-gas interface. In summary, an increase in methane and hydrogen production and a decrease in ethane production are considered a resultant of the reactions which form ACS Paragon Plus Environment

12

Page 13 of 27

299

1 2 3 300 4 5 301 6 7 302 8 9 10303 11 12304 13 14 305 15 16 17306 18 19307 20 21 22308 23 24309 25 26310 27 28 29311 30 31312 32 33 313 34 35 36314 37 38315 39 40 41316 42 43317 44 45318 46 47 48319 49 50320 51 52321 53 54 55322 56 57323 58 59 324 60

Energy & Fuels

the increase in the solid product in the cup confinement from entrapped tar. These reactions are likely thermal cracking of tar species (Equation 1, 2 or 3) followed by bimolecular recombination (Equation 4) into solid products which are responsible for the increase in solid yield in the cup. High VM Coal. Figure 4 shows the TG profile for the high VM coal heated in the pan and cup confinement at 3 K min-1. The effect of confinement on solid yield for the high VM coal is statistically insignificant. This is in agreement with the results for highly volatile bituminous coals (VM of 36.5-41.9 wt. %) studied in various confinements.45 The ineffectiveness of the confinement on the high VM is attributed to the increased release rates resulting in a residence time too short for the secondary reactions to be observed. The rate constant for secondary tar reactions (for example Equations 1-5) between 773 and 873 K is on the order of 103 s-1.29 The residence time in the cup for the mid and low VM coal is approximately 0.35 seconds which is sufficient to observe impacts of secondary reactions. The secondary reactions occur to a minimal or insignificant extent for the high VM coal where the residence time is only 0.22 seconds. The minimum residence time of 0.27 seconds (cup confinement for low VM coal at 3 K min-1) is required to observe a significant extent of secondary volatile reactions within this temperature range. Therefore, the phenomena observed in the low and mid VM are not observed for the high VM coal and this experimental configuration developed can discriminate classes of reactions that have close characteristic times. The insignificant effect of confinement, despite the increase tar concentration, for high VM coals is hereby attributed to increase volatile release rates. Table 5 shows the average product distributions in percent by mass for the high VM coal heated at 3 K min-1 per confinement. The difference in solid yield between the confinements is insignificant. Gas production is only slightly higher in the pan than in the cup confinement. From GC/MS analysis (shown Supporting Information), the molar H/C ratio of the tar in of the pan (1.55) is lower than the cup (1.57) which is the opposite finding with the lower VM coals. The H/C of the tar product decreased from the pan to cup for the lower VM coals due to an increase in secondary reactions such as PAH growth or cracking. Table 6 shows the average total production of gaseous products in the pan and cup confinements for high VM coal. The pan confinement results in 35% higher hydrogen production than the cup. The difference of ACS Paragon Plus Environment

13

Energy & Fuels

325

1 2 3 326 4 5 327 6 7 328 8 9 10329 11 12330 13 14 331 15 16 17332 18 19333 20 21 22334 23 24335 25 26336 27 28 29337 30 31338 32 33 339 34 35 36340 37 38341 39 40 41342 42 43343 44 45344 46 47 48345 49 50346 51 52347 53 54 55348 56 57349 58 59 350 60

Page 14 of 27

hydrogen measured in tar only accounted for about a third of the increase hydrogen in the pan. Methane yield from the pan and cup are the same. Heating rate. Figure 5a shows the TG of the mid VM coal heated at 1 and 10 K min-1 in both confinements. The effect of confinement on the solid residual persists at heating rates of 1 to 10 K min-1. Figure 5b shows the DTG of the mid VM coal heated at 1 and 10 K min-1 in both confinements. The residence time of volatile species in the cup nominally decreases by the same factor at which the heating rate increases. Therefore, for the cup confinement the residence time ranges from 0.11 and 1.0 seconds for the 1 and 10 K min-1 cases, respectively. Table 7 shows the solid yield differences between the cup and pan confinements for the low and mid VM coals at 1, 3 and 10 K min-1. The difference in solid yield in the cup is inversely proportional to heating rate (i.e. it increases as the heating rate decreases). The extents of secondary reactions decrease due to increased transport rates. The secondary reactions incorporate tar products into the solid product via cracking reactions which produces more gas. The DTG increases by a factor of 10 and shifts by 40 K to a higher temperature as the heating rate increases. This shift to a higher temperature with increasing heating rate agrees with accounts in literature using TGA46, 47 and other apparatuses such as wire-mesh reactors, electrical strip furnaces23 and prediction in FLASHCHAIN.5 The shift to higher temperature is attributed to a delay in the onset of the metaplast5 caused by a negative relationship of heating rate and low temperature crosslinking reactions.10 In the case of secondary tar reactions, a faster tar evolution rate would decrease the residence time of chemical species above the sample. The separation of the TG curves of each confinement shown in Figures 5a occurs between 790 and 820 K for the mid VM coal heated at 1 and 10 K min-1. This shows that at vastly different release rates (from 1, 3 and 10 K min-1) the temperature of separation due to reaction at the gas-solid interface in the cup confinement consistently occurs within a 30 K temperature span for the mid VM and low VM coal, respectively. This confirms the temperature range of secondary reactions in the cup confinement (Equation 4) is between 790 and 820 K which again is near the solidification temperature determined by the Gieselier test. Conclusion. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

14

Page 15 of 27

351

1 2 3 352 4 5 353 6 7 354 8 9 10355 11 12356 13 14 357 15 16 17358 18 19359 20 21 22360 23 24361 25 26362 27 28 29363 30 31364 32 33 365 34 35 36366 37 38 39367 40 41 42368 43 44369 45 46 47 370 48 49 50371 51372 52 53373 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

Agglomerating coal pyrolysis was studied by TG-GC with online tar capture at appropriate heating rates for coke making up to 1373 K. The mass balance between solid, condensable and gas products were closed to >99% for the three agglomerating coals. The use of confinement with varying aspect ratios demonstrated an increase in the solid production for low and mid VM coals heated at 1 and 3 K min-1. This exhibited the time dependence of secondary coke forming reactions near the gas-solid interface. The residence time of volatile products above the sample was varied using confinement and heating rate from approximately 0.01 seconds (in the pan at 10 K min-1) to 1.0 seconds (in the cup at 1 K min-1). The increased residence time results in increased methane, hydrogen and solid production and decreased tar and ethane production for the low and mid VM coals. This provided insight into the classes of reactions occurring between volatile coal pyrolysis products near solid-gas interfaces. Large tar species at the solid-gas interface thermally decompose between 790 and 820 K. The effect of these reactions is minimal for high VM coal and increased heating rates. Supporting Information Available. Deconvoluted C2 hydrocarbon (ethane and ethylene) evolution at three heating rates for the Mid VM coal, Residence Time Calculations, Biot Number Calculations, List of identified compounds from GC/MS analysis of tar for three coals in two confinements. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org. Funding Sources The authors gratefully acknowledge Suncoke Energy for the financial support and collaboration for this research. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the Combustion and Catalysis Lab in Chemical Engineering Department of City College of New York for their collaboration in the experiment of this research. References


15

Energy & Fuels

374

1 2 3 375 4 5 376 6 7 8 377 9 10 11 12378 13 14379 15 16 17 18380 19 20381 21 22 23382 24 25 26383 27 28 29384 30 31 385 32 33 34 35386 36 37387 38 39 40 41388 42 43389 44 45 46 390 47 48 49391 50 51 52392 53 54 55393 56 57 58 59 60

(1)

Page 16 of 27

Diez, M. A.; Alvarez, R.; Barriocanal, C. Coal for metallurgical coke production: predictions of

coke quality and future requirements for cokemaing. International Journal of Coal Geology. 2002, 50(1), 389-412. (2)

van Heek, K. H. Progress of coal science in the 20th century. Fuel. 2000, 79(1), 1-26.

(3)

Niksa, S. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid

coal devolatilization kinetics. 3. modeling the

behavior of various coals. Energy and Fuels. 1991, 5, 673-683. (4)

Niksa, S.; Kerstein A. R. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid coal devolatilization kinetics. 1.

formulation. Energy and Fuels. 1991, 5, 647-665. (5)

Niksa, S. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid coal devolatilization kinetics. 2. impact of operating

conditions. Energy and Fuels. 1991, 5, 665-673. (6)

Niksa, S. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid coal devolatilization kinetics. 4. predicting ultimate

yields from ultimate analysis alone. Energy and Fuels. 1991, 8, 659-670. (7)

Niksa, S. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid coal devolatilization kinetics. 5. interpreting rate of

devolattilization for various coal types and operating conditions. Energy and Fuels. 1994, 8, 671-679. (8)

Niksa, S. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid

coal devolatilization kinetics. 6. predicting the

evolution of fuel nitrogen from various coals. Energy and Fuels. 1995, 9, 467-478. (9)

Niksa, S. FLASHCHAIN theory for rapid coal devolatilization kinetics. 7. predicting the release

of oxygen species from various coals. Energy and Fuels. 1996, 10, 173-187. (10)

Solomon, P. R.; Hamblen, D. G.; Carangelo, R. M.; Serio, M. A.; Deshpande, G. V. General

model of coal devolatilization. Energy and Fuels. 1988, 2, 405-422.


16

Page 17 of 27

394

1 2 3 395 4 5 6 396 7 8 397 9 10 11 12398 13 14399 15 16 17400 18 19 20401 21 22402 23 24 25 26403 27 28404 29 30 31 405 32 33 34406 35 36 37407 38 39 40408 41 42 43409 44 45410 46 47 48 49411 50 51412 52 53 54 55413 56 57414 58 59415 60

(11)

Energy & Fuels

Gavalas, G. R.; Cheong, P. H.; Jain, R. Model of coal pyrolysis. 1. qualitative development. Ind.

Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1981, 20, 113-122. (12)

van Krevelen, D. W. Coal--typology, physics, chemistry, constitution. Amsterdam: Elsevier,

1993. Print. (13)

Leblanc, J.; Marinov, N.; Quanci, J.; Castaldi, M. J. A kinetic investigation of coal conversion to

metallurgical coke: influence of particle size, density and porosity, AIChE Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA, Nov 5, 2013. (14)

Suuberg, E. M.; Peters, W. A.; Howard, J. B. Product composition and kinetics of lignite

pyrolysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Process Des. Dev. 1978, 17, 34-46. (15)

Chen, J.C.; Niksa, S. Coal devolatilization during rapid transient heating. 1. Primary

devolatilization. Energy and Fuels. 1992. 6 (3), 254-264. (16)

Bautista, J.R.; Russel, W.B.; Saville, D.A. Time-resolved pyrolysis product distributions of

softening coals. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1986, 25 (4), 536-544. (17)

Oh, M.S.; Peters, W.A.; Howard, J.B. An experimental and modeling study of softening coal

pyrolysis. AIChE J. 1989, 35, 775-792. (18)

Juntgen, H. Review of the kinetics of pyrolysis and hydropyrolysis in relation to the chemical

constitution of coal. Fuel. 1984, 63, 731-737. (19)

van Krevelen, D. W. Coal--typology, physics, chemistry, constitution. Amsterdam, Oxford, New

York: Elsevier; 1981. (20)

Fletcher, T. H.; Kerstein, A. R.; Pugmire, R. J.; Grant, D. M. Chemical percolation model for

devolatilization. 2. temperature and heating rate effects on product yields. Energy and Fuels. 1990, 4, 54-60. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

17

Energy & Fuels

416

1 2 3 417 4 5 6 418 7 8 419 9 10 11 12420 13 14421 15 16 17 18422 19 20423 21 22424 23 24 25 26425 27 28426 29 30 427 31 32 33 34428 35 36429 37 38 39 40430 41 42 43431 44 45432 46 47 48 49433 50 51434 52 53 54 55435 56 57436 58 59 60

(21)

Page 18 of 27

Deshpande, G.V.; Solomon, P.R.; Serio, M.A. Crosslinking reactions in coal pyrolysis. Prepr.

Pap.-Am. Chem. Soc. Div. Fuel Chem. 1988, 33 (2), 310-321. (22)

Solomon, P.R.; Serio, M.A.; Despande, G.V.; Kroo, E. Cross-linking reactions during coal

conversion. Energy and Fuels. 1990. 4 (1), 42-54. (23)

Anthony, D. B.; Howard, J. B. Coal devolatilization and hydrogasification. AIChE J. 1976, 22,

625. (24)

Solomon, P.R.; Serio, M.A.; Carangelo, R.M.; Bassilakis, R. Analysis of the Argonne premium

coal samples by thermogravimetric fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Energy and Fuels. 1990, 4, 319-333. (25)

Cramer, B.; Eckhard, F.; Gerling, P.; Krooss B. M. Reaction kinetics of stable carbon isotopes in

natural gas-insights from dry, open systems pyrolysis experiments. Energy and Fuels. 2001, 15, 517532. (26)

Pather, T. S.; Al-Masry, W. A. The influence of bed depth on secondary reactions during slow

pyrolysis of coal. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 1996, 37, 83-94. (27)

Tromp, P. J. J. Coal pyrolysis, Thesis, Univ. Amsterdam, 1987.

(28)

Lohman T. W. Modelling and parameter estimation of reaction kinetics in coal pyrolysis. J. Inv.

Ill-posed Problems. 1998, 7 (5), 463-480. (29)

Serio, M. A.; Peters W. A.; Howard J. B. Kinetics of vapor-phase secondary reactions of prompt

coal pyrolysis tars. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1987, 26, 1831-1838. (30)

Poutsma, M. L. Free-radical thermolysis and hydrogenolysis of model hydrocarbons relevant to

processing of coal. Energy and Fuels. 1990, 4, 113-131.


18

Page 19 of 27

437

1 2 3 438 4 5 439 6 7 8 440 9 10 11441 12 13 14442 15 16 17443 18 19444 20 21 22445 23 24 25446 26 27 28447 29 30 448 31 32 33 34449 35 36450 37 38 39 40451 41 42452 43 44453 45 46 47 48454 49 50455 51 52 456 53 54 55 56457 57 58458 59 60

(31)

Energy & Fuels

Sundaram, M. K.; Froment, G. F. Modeling of thermal cracking kinetics. 3. radical mechanisms

for the pyrolysis of simple paraffins, olefins and their mixtures. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam. 1978, 17, 174-182. (32)

Willems, P. A.; Froment G. F. Kinetic modeling of the thermal cracking of hydrocarbons 1.

calculation of frequency factors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1988, 27, 1959-1966. (33)

Reyniers, G. C.; Froment, G. F.; Kopinke, F. D.; Zimmermann, G. Coke formation in the

thermal cracking of hydrocarbons. 4. modeling of coke formation in naphtha cracking. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1994, 33, 2584-2590. (34)

Dryden, I. G. C.; Sparham, G. A. Carbonization of Coals under Gas Pressure, B.C.U.R.A

Monthly Bulletin, 27, 1, 1963. (35)

Howard, J. B.; Peters, W. A.; Serio, M. A. Coal Devolatilization Information for Reactor

Modeling Final Report, EPRI Project, 1981. (36)

Frenklach, M. Reaction mechanism of soot formation in flames. Physical Chemistry Chemical

Physics. 2002, 4, 2028-2037. (37)

Senkan, S.; Castaldi, M. J. Formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in methane

combustion: comparative new results from premixed flames. Combustion and Flame. 1996, 107, 141150. (38)

Jones, K.; Ramakrishnan, G.; Uchimiya, M.; Orlov, A.; Castaldi, M. J.; LeBlanc, J.; Hiradate, S.

Fate of higher-mass elements and surface functional groups during the pyrolysis of waste pecan shell. Energy and Fuels. 2015, 29, 8095-8101. (39)

Neeft, J. A. P.; Knoef, H. A. M.; Zielke, U.; Sjöström, K.; Hasler, P.; Simell, P. A.; Dorrington,

M. A.; Thomas, L.; Abatzoglou, N.; Deutch, S.; Greil, C.; Buffinga, G. J.; Brage, C.; Suomalainen, M. ACS Paragon Plus Environment

19

Energy & Fuels

459

1 2 3 460 4 5 6 461 7 8 462 9 10 11463 12 13 14464 15 16 17465 18 19 20466 21 22 23467 24 25 26468 27 28 29469 30 31 470 32 33 34 35471 36 37472 38 39 40 41473 42 43474 44 45 46 475 47 48 49 50476 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 20 of 27

Guideline for sampling and analysis of tar and particles in biomass producer gases. Energy Project ERK6-CT1999-20002. Version 3.3 (40)

Miljevic, B.; Modini, R. L.; Bottle, S. E.; Ristovski, Z. D. On the efficiency of impingers with

fritted nozzle tip for collection of ultrafine particles. Atmospheric Environment, 2009, 43(6), 13721376. (41)

Ringer, M.; Putsche, V.; Scahill, J. Large-scale pyrolysis oil production: a technology

assessment and economic analysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2006). (42)

Boyer, A. F. Assoc. Techn. de L'Indus du Gaz en France 69th Congr., (1952) 653.

(43)

van Krevelen, D. W.; Chermin, H. A. G; Dormans, H.N.M.; Huntjens, F. J. Brennstoff-Chem.

1958, 39, 77. (44)

Stein, S. E.; Griffith, L. L.; Billmers, R.; Chen, R. H. Pyrocondensation of anthracene. J Org.

Chem. 1987, 52, 1582-1591. (45)

Shi, L.; Liu, Q. Guo, X.; He, W.; Liu, Z. Pyrolysis of coal in TGA: Extent of volatile

condensation in crucible. Fuel Processing Technology. 2014, 121, 91-95. (46)

Van Krevelen, D.W.; Huntjens, F.J.; Dormans, H.N.M. Chemical structure and properties of

coal: XVI. Plastic behavior on heating. Fuel. 1956, 35, 462-475. (47)

Van Krevelen, D.W.; Dormans, H.N.M.; Huntjens, F.J. Fuel. 1959, 38, 165-182.

Figure Captions


20

Page 21 of 27

(a) 0.00 100

-1

95

Rate of Mass Loss (% min )

Percent of Initial Mass (%)

-0.05

-0.10 90

-0.15 82.4 % -0.20

85 -0.25 80

TG - Cup - Low VM DTG - Cup - Low VM TG - Pan - Low VM DTG - Pan - Low VM

78.6 %

75 400

600

800

1000

-0.30

-0.35 1400

1200

Temperature (K)

(b) 0.0

-0.2

90 82.4 %

-0.3

85 TG - Cup - Mid VM DTG - Cup - Mid VM TG - Pan - Mid VM DTG - Pan - Mid VM

80

-0.4

-1

-0.1

95


100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21477 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44478 45479 46 47480 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

77.4 % 75 400

600

800

1000

1200

-0.5 1400

Temperature (K)

Figure 1. (a) TG and DTG of Low VM heated at 3 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement (b) TG and DTG of Mid VM heated at 3 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement


21

Energy & Fuels

(a)

0.0025

Tar - Cup Tar - Pan Gas - Cup Gas - Pan

-1

-1

Rate of Evolution (mg mgcoal min )

0.0030

0.0020

0.0015

0.0010

0.0005

0.0000 500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Temperature (K)

(b)

0.004

-1

-1

Rate of Evolution (mg mgcoal min )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21481 22482 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44483 45484 46485 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 22 of 27

Tar - Cup Tar - Pan Gas - Cup Gas - Pan

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000 500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Temperature (K)

Figure 2. (a) Tar and gas evolution of Low VM heated at 3 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement (b) Tar and gas evolution of Mid VM heated at 3 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement


22

Page 23 of 27

-1

Rate of Production (mg min mg of coal )

0.0010

C2s - Cup C2s - Pan Methane - Cup Methane - Pan Hydrogen - Cup Hydrogen - Pan

-1

0.0008

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

0.0000 700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

Temperature/ K

Figure 3. Hydrogen, methane, and C2 hydrocarbons (ethane and ethylene) evolution measured by gas chromatography from Mid VM heated at 3 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement

-0.4 80 68.9 % -0.6 70

TG - Cup - High VM DTG- Cup - High VM TG - Pan - High VM DTG - Pan - High VM 400

600

-1

-0.2 90


0.0

100


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21486 22 23487 24488 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46489 47 48490 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

68.3 % 800

1000

1200

-0.8 1400

Temperature (K)

Figure 4. TG and DTG of High VM heated at 3 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement


23

Energy & Fuels

100


95

90

85 82.1% 81.1%

Pan - 1 K min-1

80

Pan - 10 K min-1

78.7%

Cup - 1 K min-1

76.4%

-1

75

Cup - 10 K min

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1200

1400

Temperature (K)

0.0 -0.2 -1


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21491 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 492 44 45493 46 494 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 24 of 27

-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1.0 Pan - 1 K min-1

-1.2

Pan - 10 K min-1 Cup - 1 K min-1

-1.4

Cup - 10 K min-1

-1.6 400

600

800

1000

Temperature (K)

Figure 5. (a) TG of Mid VM heated at 1 and 10 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement (b) DTG of Mid VM heated at 1 and 10 K min-1 in pan and cup confinement Table of Content Graphics Table 1 Proximate analysis on a dry basis and ranks of three agglomerating coals

Low VM

VM

Ash

FC

C%

18.93

7.332

73.73

84.42


24

Page 25 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

Mid VM

28.02

7.446

64.53

82.32

High VM

38.94

7.107

53.95

79.58

Table 2 Pyrolysis product distribution for three coals heated at 3 K min-1 Solid (%)

Tar and Water (%)

Gas (%)

Low VM

78.6 ± 2.3

11.8 ± 2.9

9.4 ± 1.6

Mid VM

77.4 ± 1.7

15.2 ± 3.8

7.3 ± 0.79

High VM

68.3 ± 1.5

25.5 ± 7.4

5.5 ± 0.68

Table 3 Average product distributions in percent by mass of the low and mid VM coals studied in two confinements heated at 3 K min-1 Solid (%)

Tar and Water (%)

Gas (%)

Low VM Coal - Pan

78.6 ± 2.3

11.8 ± 2.9

9.4 ± 1.6

Low VM Coal – Cup

82.4 ± 0.92

9.7 ± 4.9

12.9 ± 0.84

Mid VM Coal – Pan

77.4 ± 1.7

15.2 ± 3.8

7.3 ± 0.79

Mid VM Coal – Cup

82.4 ± 0.98

12.9 ± 4.0

11.1 ± 1.2

Table 4 Total production of gas species (mg/mg of initial coal mass) at 3 K min-1 in each confinement for the low and mid VM coal and the p-value between the different conditions Low VM - Low VM - Mid VM - Mid VM Pan Cup Pan Cup Hydrogen 5.6×10-3

7.3×10-3

p-value

1.2×10-2

Methane

6.6×10-3

p-value Ethane p-value

9.4×10-3

4.7×10-3

0.55 6.9×10-3

0.10 0.9×10-3

5.2×10-3

9.6×10-3 0.26

0.6×10-3

1.2×10-3

2.9×10-2

0.7×10-3 9.0×10-4


25

Energy & Fuels

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Ethylene

2.0×10-4

p-value

2.0×10-4

2.0×10-4

0.84

Page 26 of 27

2.0×10-4 0.78

Table 5 Average product distributions in percent by mass of the high VM coal per confinement heated at 3 K min-1 Solid (%)

Tar and Water (%)

Gas (%)

High VM Coal – Pan

68.3 ± 1.5

25.5 ± 7.4

5.5 ± 0.68

High VM Coal – Cup

68.9 ± 1.3

23.0 ± 7.9

5.0 ± 0.98

Table 6 Total production of gas species (mg/mg of initial coal mass) at 3 K min-1 in each confinement for the high VM coal and the p-value between the different conditions High VM - High VM Pan Cup Hydrogen 7.0×10-3

5.2×10-3

p-value

5.6×10-5

Methane

1.3×10-2

p-value Ethane

0.66 0.9×10-3

p-value Ethylene

1.3×10-2

1.0×10-3 0.3277

2.0×10-4

p-value

3.0×10-4 1.4×10-3

Table 7 Difference in solid yield between cup and pan for the low, mid and high VM coal at 1, 3, and 10 K min-1 Heating Rate, K min-1

Mid VM (%)

Low VM (%)

High VM (%)

1

5.7

5.4

3.7

3

3.2

1.8

0.7

10

2.4

0.6

0.6


26

Page 27 of 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Energy & Fuels

Scheme 1 Schematic of TG-GC system used for pyrolysis study

Scheme 2 On the left, the short (pan) confinement used in TGA pyrolysis experiments is shown, and on the right, the tall (cup) confinement used in TGA pyrolysis experiments is shown


27

Experimental Investigation of Reaction Confinement Effects on Coke

Recommend Documents