Burning Burning Characteristics of Characteristics of Carbonized Chars Carbonized Chars

from RDF, Scrap Tire, from RDF, Scrap Tire, and Their Blends and Their Blends

  H. H. HAYKIRI-ACMAHAYKIRI-ACMA , S. , S. YAMANYAMAN, S. KUCUKBAYRAK, S. KUCUKBAYRAK

Istanbul Technical Univ., Chem. Eng. Dep., Istanbul, TURKEY

VALENCİA 2015

Outline of the Outline of the presentationpresentation

IntroductionIntroduction

MaterMateriials And Methodsals And Methods AnalysesAnalyses

-Proximate Analysis-Proximate Analysis -Structural Analysis-Structural Analysis -Thermogravimetric Analysis-Thermogravimetric Analysis Results Results aand Dnd Diiscussscussiionon ConclusionConclusion

VALENCİA 2015

The Properties of The Properties of SampleSample

VALENCİA 2015

Refuse Derived FuelRefuse Derived Fuel RDF RDF

VALENCİA 2015

VALENCİA 2015

Scrap Tire

MATERIALS AND METHODSMATERIALS AND METHODSAnalyses

VALENCİA 2015

7

Samples were first dried in an oven and then ground to a particle size which is not bigger than 250 µm. while the higher heating values were determined by calorimeter

Proximate analyses were performed according to ASTM standards

Elemental analyzer was used to get the ultimate analysis results of the samples.

Analyses

Results Results aand Dnd Diiscussscussiionon

VALENCİA 2015

VALENCİA 2015

RDF Scrap Tire

Proximate Analysis (%, as received)

Moisture 4.2 0.8Volatiles 79.6 66.8

Ash 14.9 6.1Fixed Carbon* 1.3 26.3

Higher Heating Value (MJ/kg) 23.3 35.3

Elemental Analysis (%, dry basis)

C 62.2 77.5H 8.0 6.9N 0.6 0.4S 0.2 0.9

O* 13.4 8.2

VALENCİA 2015

AnalysisAnalysis Char SamplesChar Samples

R200R200 R400R400 R500R500 S200S200 S300S300 S400S400 S700S700

Proximate Analysis (%, Proximate Analysis (%, as received)as received)

MoistureMoisture 1.91.9 0.70.7

VolatilesVolatiles 73.773.7 61.461.4

AshAsh 18.918.9 10.110.1

Fixed CarbonFixed Carbon 5.55.5 27.827.8

Higher Heating Value Higher Heating Value (MJ/kg)(MJ/kg) 27.827.8 30.430.4 11.911.9 37.437.4 37.037.0 34.734.7 28.728.7

Elementel AnalysisElementel Analysis

CC 62.462.4 65.465.4 79.179.1 78.778.7 77.177.1 73.373.3

HH 8.18.1 8.38.3 7.07.0 6.76.7 5.75.7 0.90.9

NN 0.60.6 0.50.5 0.30.3 0.20.2 0.30.3 0.30.3

SS 0.30.3 0.40.4 0.90.9 0.90.9 0.90.9 1.11.1

OO 6.36.3 2.52.5

Sample Cell : Alumina (cylindrical)Sample Cell : Alumina (cylindrical) Amount of Amount of samplesample : : 110 mg0 mg original samples original samples Particle sizeParticle sizes of samples of sample : -250 µm : -250 µm ( 60 ( 60

mesh)mesh) Atmosphere : Atmosphere : Dynamic Dry Air (Dynamic Dry Air ( ml/min) ml/min) Heating : Heating : TThe sample he sample waswas heated in a heated in a

cylindrical alumina crucible from ambient cylindrical alumina crucible from ambient toto 900°C900°C with a linear heating rate of with a linear heating rate of 440 0 °C°Cmin-1. min-1.

DTG curves were derived from the TGA DTG curves were derived from the TGA resultsresults

Thermogravimetric Experiments

Combustion Conditions

VALENCİA 2015

TGA ,DTA and DTG thermograms under dry air

VALENCİA 2015

VALENCİA 2015

Burning Profiles of Untreated Scrap Tire and Refuse Derived Fuel

VALENCİA 2015

Burning Profiles of Chars Obtained at 200°C for Scrap Tire and at 400°C for RDF Burning Profiles of Chars Obtained at 200°C for Scrap Tire and at 400°C for RDF

VALENCİA 2015

The burning profiles of the char blendsThe burning profiles of the char blends

Conclusion

VALENCİA 2015

SScrap tire and RDF need different carbonization crap tire and RDF need different carbonization temperatures in order to get carbonized temperatures in order to get carbonized biochars that have the highest values of higher biochars that have the highest values of higher heating values. That is, the carbonization heating values. That is, the carbonization temperatures of 200°C and 400°C are the temperatures of 200°C and 400°C are the optimum temperatures for scrap tire and RDF, optimum temperatures for scrap tire and RDF, respectively. respectively. CCarbonization temperatures are quite limited arbonization temperatures are quite limited compared to the studies reported in literature, compared to the studies reported in literature, the variations in the results of chars such as the variations in the results of chars such as volatiles, fixed carbon, and carbon are not so volatiles, fixed carbon, and carbon are not so obvious. obvious. CComparison of the burning profiles of ST and RDF in the omparison of the burning profiles of ST and RDF in the forms of either untreated biomass or carbonized char revealed forms of either untreated biomass or carbonized char revealed that serious differences exist in the burning characteristics that serious differences exist in the burning characteristics with respect to the burning rates, onset- and end- temperatures with respect to the burning rates, onset- and end- temperatures of burning. of burning.

Thank You Thank You for Your for Your Attention!Attention!

VALENCİA 2015