advertisement

Subscriber access provided by UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS Article Mathematical modeling of a Non-Premixed organic Dust flame in a Counterflow configuration Mehdi Bidabadi, Milad Ramezanpour, Alireza Khoeini Poorfar, Eliseu Monteiro, and Abel Rouboa Energy Fuels, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01478 • Publication Date (Web): 13 Oct 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on October 17, 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 15 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 Mathematical modeling of a Non-Premixed organic Dust flame in a Counterflow configuration Mehdi Bidabadia, Milad Ramezanpoura, Alireza Khoeini Poorfara1, Eliseu Monteirob, Abel Rouboac,d, a School of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Energy Conversion, Combustion Research Laboratory, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran b C3i-Interdisciplinary Center for Research and Innovation, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Lugar da Abadessa, Apartado 148, 7301-901 Portalegre, Portugal c d Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics Department, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States CIENER/INEGI/Engineering Department, School of Science and Technology of University of UTAD, Quinta dos Prados, Vila Real, Portugal ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT: In the present article an analytical approach is employed to study the counterflow non-premixed dust flame structure in air. Lycopodium is assumed as the organic fuel in this paper. First, it is presumed that the fuel particles vaporize in a thin zone to form a gaseous fuel to react with the oxidizer. The reaction rate is presumed to be of the Arrhenius type in first order respect to oxidizer and fuel. Mass conservation equations of dust particles, oxidizer, gaseous fuel and the energy conservation equation for non-unity Lewis numbers of oxidizer and fuel are presented as the governing equations. Boundary conditions are applied for each zone for the purpose of solving the governing equations analytically. The flame temperature in terms of oxidizer and fuel’s Lewis numbers is calculated. Furthermore, the variation of flame position based on the fuel and oxidizer’s Lewis numbers is evaluated. Also, mass fraction and temperature profiles of oxidizer and fuel are presented. In addition, the variation of the ratio of critical extinction values of strain rates as a function of non-unity Lewis numbers of oxidizer and fuel to the unity Lewis numbers of them is investigated. Keywords: Keywords Dust cloud combustion; Counterflow combustion; Non-Premixed dust Flame; Analytical solution; Extinction 1 Corresponding Author: [email protected] Tel: +98 21 77 226 116, Fax: 00982177240488 1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment 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 1. Page 2 of 15 the temperature distribution and flame propagation of micron-sized lycopodium dust cloud with the consideration that the burning rate of a particle is controlled by the oxygen diffusion’s process, was investigated by Rahbari et al.[9]. In another experimental study, Yoshiie et al. investigated the NOx emission in an oxyfuel coal combustion atmosphere, experimentally[10]. Furthermore, rudimentary reaction kinetics for NOx formation studied numerically under oxyfuel coal combustion. Counterflow dust flame is of fundamental research interest since at the centerline of the nozzles gradients only exist in the axial direction. Although these configurations are somewhat more complex to establish experimentally, they have definite advantageous. For instance, studying the effects of equivalence ratio, fuel type, strain rate and etc on extinction, and the influence of positive stretch on the structure of the flame, are the benefits of counterflow configuration [11,12]. In premixed counteflow dust flame, fuel-oxidizer mixture exit from the nozzles and there is a symmetry between two nozzles but in a non- premixed counterflow dust flame, fuel and oxidizer flowing out of the exhaust nozzles separately to mix and react in a position between the two nozzles. In modelling of counterflow combustion, Linan studied the non-premixed gaseous fuel flames structure in a steady state manner by studying the mixing and chemical reaction of two opposed jets of oxidizer and fuel[13]. In another work of gaseous fuel combustion in counterflow structure, Seshadri et al. analyzed the stagnant and counterflow structure of non-premixed flames in the limit of high amount of the non-dimensional activation energy, defining the reaction rate and the results were reported for low values of the stoichiometric mass ratio of fuel to oxygen[14]. In resumption studies on flame propagation modelling in a counerflow structure, a spray fuel is implemented by Wichman and Yang [15]. They considered two streams flowing out of two nozzles towards each other from opposite ways in a counterflow configuration in a spray model. It was assumed that each of the two opposed streams carries a distribution of liquid droplets which after vaporization, oxidizer and fuel convect and diffuse in the direction of the stagnation plane. In another work, a new analysis of spray non-premixed flame in a counterflow configuration was presented by Dvorjetski and Greenberg[16]. For mathematical and analytical modelling of gaseous fuel combustion in a counterflow structure, some efforts are accomplished by Daou and his coworkers. Daou et al. described the effects of strain and heat losses on premixed flame-edges in a two-dimensional counterflow configuration[17]. A thermo-diffusive model was presented with a single Arrhenius reaction and a mathematical description of the flame-edge in the weak-strain limit was proposed. In another study, Daou et al. investigated the effect of volumetric heat-loss on the propagation of counterflow triple flames[18] . NOx formation is of interest in some novel works. Fu et al. investigated the emissions of NOx from pre-vaporized nHeptane and 1-Heptane in a counterflow configuration Introduction The burning rate and burning intensity of combustible solid materials in oxidizer, increase with the rise of the subdivision degree of the material. Flame propagates by way of combustion of dust particles and dust cloud explosions. They are recognized as a serious industrial hazard and threat to property and humans over the past 200 years[1]. A perfect knowledge of the origin and development of dust explosion and its hazards is necessary in industries using combustible dusts[2]. With the development of powder technology, hazard assessment and the administration of precautionary approaches for dust explosions, investigations over prevention and mitigation of dust explosions have become of importance from safety issues point of view[3]. Due to the importance of studies about the explosibility of dusts, significant efforts were implemented but the basic mechanisms involved in the flame spread in dust clouds have not been investigated adequately. Experimental difficulties in the generation of uniform dust suspensions, the fact that particle size dispersions and particle size can affect in a remarkable manner the combustion mechanisms and experimental design challenges and interpretation of experimental results, are the main obstacles in studying the basic mechanisms of flame spread in dust suspensions[3,4]. These difficulties are expressed by Proust when measuring the laminar burning velocities and the maximum flame temperatures for combustible dust-air mixtures (starch dust-air mixtures, lycopodium-air mixtures and sulphur flour-air mixtures)[5]. The tube method and a tomography method are used and the results are compared with those obtained with other devices such as resistors, pyrometers and with theoretical values. He conclude that the observed discrepancies seem mainly to come from the relatively poor efficiency of the burning processes inside the flame front than to heat losses by radiation. Due to the available difficulties in experimental evaluating of dust flames, mathematical modelling are developed. In a study by Rockwell and Rangwala [6] a model of combustible dust-air premixed flames is proposed. Burning velocity, mixture temperature and mass fraction of coal particles were calculated at high concentration of dust cloud. In another work by Rockwell and Rangwala Hybrid Flame Analyzer (HFA) as a new apparatus was developed to investigate the turbulent premixed dust/air flames[7]. TGA method and tube reactor tests are implemented in a work by Ren et al., to study the combustion features of coal gangue under various oxidizers at atmospheric pressure [8]. Due to aforementioned difficulties in experimental modelling of dust flame, mathematically approaches are implemented as substitute. There are some efforts in mathematically modelling of lycopodium dust combustion which in one of them, a two-dimensional analytical model to define 2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Page 3 of 15 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 with partially premixed flames, numerically[19]. Effect of / composition on extinction strain rates of premixed and non-premixed syngas flames in a counterflow configuration is investigated experimentally and numerically in atmospheric pressure by Sahu et al. [20]. In another study by Wang et al., a numerical method is implemented to perceive the flame structure in a , / / / counterflow diffusion flame with different mole fractions of and [21]. It was found that the flame temperature is decreased by thermal and chemical effects of but the effect on flame temperature is low. A mathematical approach is utilized to investigate the counterflow, non-premixed organic dust flame in air in this article. First, it is presumed that the fuel particles vaporize to yield a gaseous fuel to react with the gaseous oxidizer. The governing conservation equations are proposed and solved analytically. The flame temperature with the variation of different Lewis numbers of fuel and oxidizer is proposed. Furthermore, the variation of flame position in terms of oxidizer and fuel Lewis number is evaluated and temperature and mass fraction profiles of fuel and oxidizer are studied. At last, the variation of ratio of critical extinction values of strain rates in terms of non-unity values of oxidizer and fuel Lewis numbers to unity value of them are calculated. Figure 1. 1 Schematic of counterflow combustion of nonpremixed dust flame. In dust cloud combustion, particle vaporization rate states as the produced mass of gaseous fuel per unit volume and time is an essential parameter in controlling the combustion process. The vaporization rate of a particle is obtained through the below relationship[22]: (1 ) where is the constant characteristic time of vaporization, is the dust particles temperature, is the vaporization temperature of dust particles and is the Heaviside function. In addition to the vaporization rate of particles, another parameter which is the heat conduction to mass diffusivity ratio controls the combustion phenomenon. This ratio in non-dimensional form is called Lewis number (Le) and defines as follows: 2. Governing equations In the present study, the counterflow structure is formed by the fuel stream flow (organic particles) from the direction -∞ and the oxidizer stream flow (air) from the direction +∞ toward the stagnation plane between these two steady and axisymmetric streams of oxidizer and fuel (Fig.1).The assumptions of equal velocity for both streams and constant value for specific heat capacity, density and other transport coefficients are considered to reduce the complexity of the analytical approach [14]. It is supposed that dust particles convert into vapor first to form a gaseous fuel with specified chemical structure. Therefore, the heterogeneous combustion is disregarded in this study. Mixing and chemical reaction of oxidizer and gaseous fuel occur simultaneously near the stagnation plane. Flame position which is dependent on the initial conditions, could be on either sides of the stagnation plane. By changing the initial conditions, the flame position moves near the stagnation plane. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of non-premixed flame of organic dust cloud in a counterflow configuration. As mentioned, dust particles vaporize in a thin zone called vaporization front to form a gaseous fuel which Fig. 1 shows this zone. In Fig. 1, the flame position is in the left side of the stagnation plane, which can be assumed in the right side of the plane depending on the initial conditions. (2 ) where , , and are the thermal conductivity of fuel or oxidizer, the density of the mixture, the specific heat capacity of mixture and the characteristic mass diffusivity, respectively. The index can be replaced by subscripts, F or O, which are the symbols for fuel and oxidizer. Furthermore, the combustion procedure is modeled as a one-step overall reaction: ! " # ! → %&'()* +! (3 ) where , and + are symbols for oxidizer, fuel and product, respectively. , # and %&' are values which indicate their stoichiometric coefficients. The velocity field is considered in the following form: 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment 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 ,, -., - where ?, ? and 9 are the heat of reaction, the latent heat of vaporization and heat conduction coefficient 9 (4 ) / / " /. /. 7 89 -. (6 ) ; ; 2222 # # ; # ;# (7 ) (9) / / ? ? 9 " /. /. (10) J K B9M9N OPQRN PU PQRN K L W V X YZ[ PQ PQRN K& PS TPQRN (13) which RN is the mass fraction of fuel at the distance ∞ ,where coming out of the fuel nozzle. It should be noted that for J as the non-dimensional form of temperature, J 0 demonstrates the unburned temperature of fuel or oxidizer when coming out of nozzles at ^ and J J_ denotes the flame temperature at _ . Using the parameters defined in equation (13) for temperature, mass fractions and length, the conservation equations of gaseous fuel, solid particles fuel, energy and oxidizer and substituting them into equations (5), (9), (10) and (12), the equations can be rewritten in their new forms. The definitions of the rate of chemical reaction in equation (5), the vaporization rate of a particle in equation (1) and the Lewis number in equation (2) can be applied in the old form of the conservation equations to make the new form[14,15] . Where is the mass fraction of organic dust particles. In that is the vaporization rate of particle defined in equation (1). The energy conservation equation defined as follows: -. (12) For the purpose of non-dimensionalizing the governing equations, some dimensionless parameters are presented in this study. J, K , K& , K and L are the dimensionless forms of the temperature, mass fraction of gaseous fuel, mass fraction of oxidizer, mass fraction of solid fuel and length, respectively which define as follows: (8 ) / /. /# / # # I /. /. 2.1 Dimensionless form of the governing equations where # and are mass fraction of oxidizer and gaseous fuel, respectively. m= and m> represent molecular weight of oxidizer and fuel, respectively. ; is the molecular weight of the mixture. It is assumed that the diffusion of solid particles is neglected in this study and there is not any heterogeneous combustion, so solid particles do not take part in the combustion process. Based on the above assumptions, the solid particles fuel conservation equation is considered as follows: -. (11) where # , # and I are the diffusion coefficient of the oxidizer component, mass fraction of oxidizer and stoichiometric mass ratio of oxidizer to fuel, respectively. where 0 is the factor of frequency characterizing rate of 222 gaseous fuel oxidation. 1 and # are defined as follows: 1 4DE F G 3 where , E and G are density of dust particle, particle radius and the number of dust particles per unit volume. For uniformly distribution of dust particles in the combustion chamber, the density of mixture is defined in form of " DE F G . F The oxidizer conservation equation is given as below: (5 ) : , respectively. The parameter shown in the " where is the gaseous fuel mass fraction acquired from the vaporization of lycopodium dust particles. is the gaseous fuel diffusion coefficient. is the chemicalkinetic rate which is considered to be of first order with regards to the oxidizer and the fuel[13,23]: 0 # 1 222 # exp 6 @ AB above equation is the combination of heat capacity of dust particles and heat capacity of the gas mixture and can be calculated from the following relation [24,25] : where v and u display the velocity in Y and X directions, respectively. The parameter - is the gradient of velocity in the stagnation plane and shows strain rate of streams. Gaseous fuel conservation equation is given by: -. Page 4 of 15 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Page 5 of 15 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 where L and L_ show the position of vaporization front and flame front, respectively. Incd , c and cF , the reaction and vaporization terms are neglected compared to diffusion and convection terms. In fact, vaporization occurs at L and reaction occurs at L_ , which both of these positions are thin contrary to cd , c and cF , thereby the vaporization term is only present in the vaporization front zone and the reaction term is present only in the reaction front zone. The variable L specifies a position thatT , where vaporization of solid particles occurs at that position. According to the above description and different regions that are considered in this study, boundary and matching conditions are defined as follows: The non-dimensional form of gaseous fuel conservation equation is given by: 1 / K /K K "L " /L /L - (14) ) K K& exp The non-dimensional form of solid particles fuel conservation equation is defined as: L /K K /L - (15) The non-dimensional form of oxidizer conservation equation is defined as follows: /K# 1 / K# L " /L # /L (16) ) K K& exp K 0,K# 0,K 1,J [email protected] → ∞ K 0,K# i,K 0,J [email protected] → "∞ The non-dimensional form of energy conservation equation is shown as below: / J /J a "L K /L /L - (17) B K K& exp 'nQ 'o p m p aL , m 'q 'o 'nS 'o p (21) where i in equation (20) is the initial mass fraction of oxidizer which defines as follows[14]: 7 i (18) #,^ IM^ (22) The square brackets denote the jump condition in the value enclosed by them. The jump condition of interface on a variable for example X is expressed as [X]; in particular , [X]=0 means that X is continuous at the considered domain boundary[22]. As mentioned, vaporization of dust particles occurs in a thin zone which is called vaporization front. In this thin zone, reaction and convection terms are neglected compared to vaporization and diffusion terms in equations (14), (16) and (17): where I# and ; are the number of oxygen’s moles reacting with one mole of fuel under stoichiometric condition and the molecular weight of fuel, respectively. 2.2 Boundary conditions To solve the equations it is necessary to define different zones of counterflow model with their boundary conditions in mathematical form. According to assumption of the problem, three zones could be assumed in this study, which define as follow: Preheat zone cd : ∞ < L ≤ L Post-vaporization zone c :L ≤ L ≤ L_ Oxidizer zone m (20) 0, K ! K# ! J! [email protected] L where is the activation temperature as .The pa8 rameter b is the overall activation energy defining the rate of the one-step irreversible chemical reaction. Also, B as the Damkohler number is defined as follows[14] : B 0I# M^ /; - j klQ (19) / J a K 0 /L - 1 / K 1 " K 0 /L - 1 / K# 0 # /L cF :L_ ≤ L < ∞ 5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment (23) (24) (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 Integrating equations (23), (24) and (25) from LM to Lr and assuming that - 1, the following equation is obtained: a /K /J /K# s t s t aL , s t /L /L /L 0 counterflow structure zones. These equations are defined for Preheat, Post-vaporization and oxidizer zones, so the vaporization and reaction terms are neglected compared to diffusion and convection. 1 / K ) K K& exp /L 1 /K 1 /K# /J ts t s t /L # /L /L 1 / K /K "L 0 /L /L (33) 1 / K# /K# "L 0 # /L /L (34) According to the determination of Preheat, Postvaporization and Oxidizer zones and the boundary conditions related to each of these zones, equation (32) to (34) as governing equations of energy and mass fractions conservation should be analyzed in each of these three zones. (27) 2.3. Governing equations solution (28) 2.3.1 Temperature equation in different zones • Zone∞ ≤ u ≤ uv In the preheat zone, equation (32) as the non-dimensional form of energy conservation equation should be solved to achieve non-dimensional form of temperature profile. The solution of differential equation (32) is as follows: (29) J wEx 6 Integrating equation (29) from L_M to L_r , the following equation is obtained: s (32) By adding both sides of the equation (27) to the relevant sides of equation (28), the following expression is achieved: /J 1 / K " 0 /L /L /J /J "L 0 /L /L (26) The approach employed to yield equation (26) and to derive the equation (21) is a method to achieving the jump condition at L L which is expressed in equation (21). It is assumed that there is a thin zone for flame which is called flame front. This zone is located at L which varies with changes in initial conditions. With regard to the flame structure, there will be a jump condition in this position like as vaporization point. To achieve this expression, vaporization and convection terms are neglected compared to diffusion and reaction terms in equations (14), (16) and (17): /J B K K& exp /L Page 6 of 15 √ L: " 0 (35) The above equation has two unknown parameters A and B. To determine these two parameters, boundary conditions at the exhaust of fuel nozzle and the vaporization zone should be defined as L → ∞ ∶ J 0 z | (36) L L ∶ J J By applying the above boundary conditions to equation (35), A and B are determined and the non-dimensional form of temperature equation in Preheat zone is acquired completely as given below: (30) It should be noted that the same method can be applied on equation (16) to achieve oxidizer part of equation (30). Due to continuity of temperature and mass fraction of fuel and oxidizer at L_ and the obtained expression in equation (30), the boundary conditions at L_ are defined as: 1 /K 1 /K# s ts t /L # /L /J s t, K ! (31) /L K ! J! # [email protected] L_ J √ drl%_~ o} q} drl%_~ Equations (32), (33) and (34) should be solved to obtain mass fraction of fuel and oxidizer and temperature profiles, According to specified boundary conditions in all of the q} √ o } 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Ex 6 √ L: " (37) Page 7 of 15 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 2.3.2 Oxidizer mass fraction equation of different zones • Zoneuv ≤ u ≤ u As in Preheat zone, to obtaining temperature profile in Post- vaporization zone, equation (32) as the nondimensional form of energy conservation equation should be solved to achieve non-dimensional form of temperature profile. The solution of the differential equation (32) is defined as: J wEx 6 √ L: " 0 • Zone ∞ < u ≤ uv , uv < u ≤ u In the Preheat and Post-vaporization zones, there is not any oxidizer. Hence, the amount of mass fraction of oxidizer in these two zones is zero. The oxidizer mass fraction equation in Preheat and vaporization zones is expressed in equation (44): K# 0 (38) A and B are unknown parameters of equation (37). To determine these two parameters, boundary conditions at the flame and vaporization positions should be defined as L L ∶ J J z L L ∶ J J | (39) _ _ By applying the above boundary conditions to equation (38), A and B are determined and the non-dimensional form of temperature equation in Post- vaporization zone is acquired completely as follows: J q Mq} √ √ l%_~ o Ml%_~ o} q Mq} √ √ l%_~ o Ml%_~ o} Ex 6 Ex 6 √ √ L: L_ : " J_ • √ L: " 0 K# werfW klS (40) q √ l%_~ o Md Ex 6 L: 1! L " 0 (45) By applying the above boundary conditions to equation (45), A and B are determined and the non-dimensional oxidizer mass fraction equation in oxidizer zone is obtained completely as follows: (41) √ The above equation has two unknown parameters A and B. To determine these two parameters, boundary conditions at the exhaust of oxidizer nozzle and the flame zone should be defined as L L_ ∶ K# 0 | (46) z L → ∞ ∶ K# i K# A and B are unknown parameters of equation (41). To determine these two parameters, boundary conditions at the flame zone and the exhaust of oxidizer nozzle should be defined in the form of: L → ∞ ∶ J 0 z L L ∶ J J | (42) _ _ By applying the above boundary conditions to equation (41), A and B are determined and the non-dimensional form of temperature equation in post- vaporization zone is acquired completely as follows: J Zoneu ≤ u ≤ ∞ In the oxidizer zone, equation (34) as the non-dimensional form of oxidizer mass fraction conservation equation should be solved to achieve non-dimensional form of oxidizer mass fraction. The solution of differential equation (34) is as follows: • Zoneu ≤ u < ∞ The solution of differential equation (32) is as follows: J wEx 6 (44) dMW W S o dMW S o erf W klS L (47) S o Equations (44) and (47) are the solutions of oxidizer mass fraction conservation equation to achieving nondimensional form of oxidizer mass fraction in Preheat, Post- vaporization and oxidizer zones, respectively. With extracting these equations, oxidizer mass fraction profile would be obtained completely. (43) 2.3.3 Gaseous fuel mass fraction equation in different zones Equations (37), (40) and (43) are the solutions of energy conservation equation to achieving non-dimensional form of temperature in Preheat, Post-vaporization and oxidizer zones, respectively. With extracting these equations, temperature profile would be obtained completely. • Zone∞ ≤ u ≤ uv In the Preheat zone, equation (33) should be solved to achieve the gaseous fuel mass fraction in non-dimensional form. The solution of differential equation (33) is as fol- 7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Energy & Fuels Page 8 of 15 lows: 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 K w erf W klQ L " 0 K 0 (48) Equations (50), (53) and (54) are the solutions of gaseous fuel mass fraction conservation equation to achieving mass fraction of gaseous fuel in a non-dimensional form in Preheat, Post- vaporization and oxidizer zones, respectively. With extracting these equations, gaseous fuel mass fraction profile would be obtained completely. It is found from the solution of energy and mass fractions conservation equations that there are four unknown parameters J_ , L_ , L and K in these extracted equations. It is essential to determining these unknown parameters to complete the solution process. A systems of four equations is required to determinate these four unknowns parameters. These four equations are four boundary conditions that have been defined in vaporization and flame positions which are proposed in equations (26) and (31). Combination of extracted equations of temperature and mass fractions with equations (26) and (31) as four boundary conditions, determine the four unknown values J_ , L_ , L and K . The above equation has two unknown parameters A and B. To determine these two parameters, boundary conditions at the exhaust of solid fuel nozzle and the vaporization zone is defined as: L → ∞ ∶ K 0 z L L ∶ K K | (49) _ By applying the above boundary conditions to equation (48), A and B are determined and the non-dimensional fuel mass fraction equation in Preheat zone is obtained completely as follows: K K 1 " erf W L 2 erf L " 1! 2 (50) • Zoneuv ≤ u ≤ u Similar to the preheat zone, equation (33) should be solved to achieve gaseous fuel mass fraction equation in non-dimensional form. The solution of differential equation (33) is as follows: K w erf W klQ L " 0 Combination of equation (31) as the boundary condition at L_ with the obtained equations for temperature and mass fractions in Post- vaporization and oxidizer zones, yield to equations (49) and (50) as two essential equations to specify the unknown parameters: (51) nQ} erf W nQ} W W klQ L Q o 1 K erf W L erf W L_ 2 2 t previous section. To determine these two parameters, boundary conditions at the flame and vaporization positions should be defined as L L ∶ K K L L ∶ K K (52) _ _ By applying the above boundary conditions to equation (53), A and B are determined and the gaseous fuel mass fraction equation in non-dimensional form in Post- vaporization zone is obtained completely as follows: K Q o MW Q o } Jump condition at u 2.3.4 A and B are unknown parameters of equation (51) as in W (54) 1 # (53) Ex • Zoneu ≤ u < ∞ In oxidizer zone, there is not any gaseous fuel. Therefore, the amount of gaseous fuel mass fraction in these two zones is zero. The mass fraction of gaseous fuel equation in oxidizer zone is expressed in equation (54): i J_ J 1 L s L_ 1 2 √2 √2 Ex L_ Ex L 2 2 J_ √2 Ex L_ 1 2 8 ACS Paragon Plus Environment (55) √2 L 1 2 _ 1 erf W # L_ 2 # t Q o MW Q o } J_ J √2 √2 Ex L_ Ex L 2 2 J_ L (56) Page 9 of 15 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 2.3.5 Jump condition at uv Combination of equation (26) as the boundary condition at L with the obtained equations for temperature and mass fractions in Preheat and Post-vaporization zones, yield to equation (57) and (58) as two of the essential equations to specify the unknown parameters: 2 K D erf W L erf W L_ 2 2 1 L s 2 L t 1 " erf W L 2 L K J_ J 2 D Ex √2 L_ Ex √2 L 2 2 1 L s 2 L t aL √2 1 " Ex L 2 J unity and is the first term of an expansion δ " 1/.Which δ as the reduced Damkohler number is defined as follows: (57) (58) #_ ≡ # ¤L_ , # ¥ 0.276 2.15 " ¦_ ¦_ ¦_ # 1 0.276 " 2.15 ¦#_ ¦#_ (63) ¦#_ 1 " 0.33333L_ # (64) ¦#_ 1 (65) As in equation (18) Damkohler number (D) has an inverse relationship with strain rate (-). Equation (62) shows the ratio of critical strain rate in nonunity Lewis numbers of oxidizer and fuel (-) to critical strain rate in # _ 1 (- : (59) Analysis of Inner structure of flame and critical extinction value which is called reduced Damkohler number, was performed completely previously [13, 14]. The details are not mentioned and the results of previous work [14] to analyze internal form of flame, is used here. The critical extinction value of Damkohler number is defined as follows: 7 ≈ 2_ 2_ " 1.04_F " 0.44_ It is obvious from equation (62) that the value of 7 is dependent on flame position, L_ , flame temperature _ and _ which is also dependent on L_ . The variable #_ in equation (62) is defined as: ¦_ 1 " 0.33333L_ 2.3.6 Flame zone analysis In analysis of flame zone of counterflow diffusion structure, it is considered that the Zeldovich number is large enough to acquire the thin reaction zone. The Zeldovich number is defined as: b?M^ c_ (61) By substituting equation (60) into equation (61), 7 as the critical Damkohler number is obtained as follows: i #_ F exp ~ L_ " 1 _ 7 ≈ 1 4D# _ _ 2_ " 1.04_ (62) " 0.44_F Equations (55) to (58) should be solved simultaneously to determine four unknown parameters. With substitution these identified parameters in mass fractions and temperature equations, the temperature and mass fractions profiles would be achieved completely. Simultaneously solving of these nonlinear systems of equations is possible with use of numerical methods[27]. 8DexpL_ # _ _ exp F i #_ _ _ # _ _ ª « L ¬ 1 - )%* / _ 7 #_ _ _ " L_ L_ (66) Where « and /7 are defined as follows: « (60) where_ Ex¡L_ /√2. is a quantity of the order d 9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment ® ®¯ (67) 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 /7 « 1 2_ " 1.04_ " 0.44_F 1 2_ " 1.04¤_ ¥ " 0.44_ F Page 10 of 15 " 2 " 3.76 → " 2 " 7.52 (68) (69) For combustible mixture of air and gaseous fuel which is formed from vaporization of dust particles, the equivalence ratio of fuel is calculated as follows[6]: 3. Results Present model calculates the temperature, mass fractions of oxidizer and fuel and the critical strain rate for non-unity oxidizer and fuel’s Lewis numbers in a counterflow configuration of organic dust cloud. To quantify the calculations of this study, final equations of temperature and mass fractions in different zones are applied on lycopodium particles as the organic dust cloud. Some of the constants which are applied in equations are showed in Table 1 based on the published data of previous studies [5,6,24]. µ( 17.18RN 1 RN (70) where RN in terms of number of particles G and their radius E is calculated as follows: M^ Table1: Properties of the dust fuel studied. 4 F DE G 3 (71) Another definition for the concentration of fuel is mass particle concentration which is as given below: Property Value °± ;F 1000 [24 [24] 1.357 [6] 0.24 [6] 1.55 ´ 10 [6] 300 assumed ¡-² ±. ³ ¡-² ±. ³ ? ¡-² ± ^ ³ ;-¶¶-E¦¡²¡·G¡G¦E-¦·G 4 ±E DE F G F 3 ; Ref. (72) As shown in Figure 2, the flame temperature is calculated based on the variation of fuel’s Lewis number in different values of mass particle concentrations at # =1. Lewis number is the heat conduction to mass diffusivity ratio. Therefore, by increasing the fuel’s Lewis number, it will reduce the supply fuel mass fraction which will decrease the flame temperature. As seen in Figure 2, the magnitude of flame temperature goes down from 1943 K to 1473 K when the value of fuel’s Lewis number rises from 0.1 to 1.4 ¸% at the value of 100 º for mass particle concentration. Also, ¹ it could be seen that the rise in mass particle concentration ¸% ¸% from 67 º to 100 º increases the quantity of flame tem¹ ¹ perature. The value of J as a known parameter is assumed from the experimental published data of lycopodium flame temperature for particles with 31 micrometer diameter[5]. In combustion of micron-sized organic particles with high concentration of volatile materials, like Lycopodium, the processes of drying, pyrolysis, combustion of volatile materials in the gas phase, and combustion of heterogeneous char, occur in a sequence, along the combustion chamber [26]. In the present study, the aforementioned processes between the preheating and beginning of pyrolysis of lycopodium particles are neglected and it is assumed that lycopodium dust clouds vaporize first to yield a gaseous fuel which is presumed to be methane based on previous works[22 , 24]. The methane combustion equation is as follows [6]: Figure 2. 2 The variation of flame temperature as a function of fuel Lewis number for different values of mass particle concentration. 10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Page 11 of 15 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 The variation of flame temperature and flame position as a function of oxidizer Lewis number in different values of mass particle concentrations at 1.4 are illustrated in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Aforementioned, Lewis number is the ratio of heat conduction to mass diffusivity, so increasing in oxidizer Lewis number will decreases the supply mass fraction of oxidizer which will decreases the flame temperature and moves the flame position toward ¸% the oxidizer nozzle. For 83 º as a constant value of mass ¹ particle concentration, the magnitude of flame temperature goes down from 1690 K to 1458 K and the flame position moves from -0.23 to -0.1 when the quantity of oxidizer Lewis number rises from 0.6 to 1. By increasing in mass particle concentration, the flame temperature increases and flame position moves toward the oxidizer nozzle. The increase of the fuel Lewis number causes the rise of thermal diffusivity compared to mass diffusivity which, as a result, the amount of available fuel would be decreased and the vaporization process would be done faster due to the available heat. Therefore, the flame location would be at the position closer to the fuel nozzle’s location. As can be concluded from Fig.5, for some points, the flame location would be at the positive side or at the right side of the stagnation plane. Due to the lack of theoretical and experimental data on counterflow non-premixed organic dust flames, Fig. 4 also includes the variation of the flame position for nonpremixed methane-air flame in counterflow configuration obtained by Wang et al. [28] for 1for comparison. The comparison of both results shows a similar trend, which allows to validate the developed model qualitatively. Figure 5. 5 The variation of flame position as a function of fuel Lewis number for different values of mass particle concentration. The variation of vaporization front position as a function of oxidizer Lewis number is illustrated in Figure 6. As for Figure 4, with decreasing of oxidizer Lewis number, the supply mass fraction of oxidizer will decrease and the vaporization front position moves towards the oxidizer nozzle. In Fig. 4, the values of flame position in a non-premixed counterflow system studied by Wang et al [28]are shown on the right and above vertical and horizontal axes. Figure 3. 3 The variation of flame temperature as a function of oxidizer Lewis number for different values of mass particle concentration. Figure 6. 6 The variation of vaporization front position as a function of oxidizer Lewis number for different values of mass particle concentration. The variation of flame temperature based on the variation of equivalence ratio for 10, 20 and 50 micrometer as the values of particle radius is investigated in Figure 7. The value of J as a known parameter is assumed from the analytical published data of lycopodium flame temperature[24]. It could be seen that the increasing in equivalence ratio from 1 to 1.6 increases the quantity of flame temperature. By increasing in particle radius, the ratio of contact surface of particle with oxidizer to particle volume decreases and this reduction yield to increasing in required energy for vaporization of particle, which will decrease the flame temperature. Figure 4. The variation of flame position as a function of oxidizer Lewis number for different values of mass particle concentration. The variation of flame position as a function of fuel Lewis number for different values of mass particle concentration is illustrated in Fig. 5. As can be seen, with the increase of the fuel Lewis number, it results in the flame location moves toward the fuel nozzle. 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment 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 Figure 7. The variation of flame temperature as a function of equivalence ratio for different values of particle radius. Page 12 of 15 Figure 9. Mass fraction profiles of oxidizer and fuel for different values of mass particle concentrations. Temperature profiles of fuel and oxidizer for three values of oxidizer Lewis number as a function of distance from the nozzle to flame position are illustrated in Figure 8. As shown in this figure, the temperatures of fuel and oxidizer which are located on the left and right sides of maximum temperature, respectively, Increase gradually to reach the flame temperature. Also increasing in oxidizer Lewis number from 0.6 to 1 will decreases the flame temperature and moves the flame position toward the oxidizer nozzle. For the purpose of observing the effect of non-unity Lewis numbers on critical strain rate, the ratio of critical strains rates for non-unity Lewis numbers of oxidizer and fuel to critical strain rate for # _ 1 is illustrated in Figures 10 and 11 for different values of activation temperature . The variation of ¯ based on the variation of fuel Lewis number for three quantities of which are 30000, 35000 and 40000 is shown in Figure 10. This figure implies that at # 1 decreases when the ¯ fuel Lewis number grows. For instance, the magnitude of goes down from 28 to 0.6 when the quantity of fuel Lew¯ is number rises from 0.2 to 1.4 at 40000. Also, The increase of associates with an increase in . With the ¯ reduction in magnitude of fuel Lewis number, the magnitude of L_ as the flame position rises which increases significantly the exponentially term of equation (66). This increase is superior to the reduction in magnitude of the Figure 8. Temperature profiles of fuel and oxidizer for different values of oxidizer Lewis number. 9 term9¯ª The profiles of gaseous fuel mass fraction which is formed by vaporization of solid particles and oxidizer mass fraction as a function of distance from the nozzles to flame position for different values of mass particle concentrations are depicted in Figure 9. In the right side of profile which is relevant to oxidizer mass fraction, it could be seen that with rising in mass particle concentration, the maximum value of oxidizer mass fraction decreases, because an increase in mass particle concentration will decreases α as the initial mass fraction of oxidizer. The initial mass fraction of oxidizer from the nozzle to flame position, decreases gradually which is also valid for fuel. By increasing in value of mass particle concentration, gaseous fuel mass fraction in vaporization point decreases and moves toward the oxidizer nozzle. kl » '¼ ¯ , resulting in an increase of the ratio . In Fig.8 the obtained results are compared with the methane-air non premixed counterflow combustion of Seshadri et al. [14] due to the lack of any experimental/numerical data on non-premixed counterflow dust flames. The comparison shows once again that the same trend is obtained, which reinforces the qualitatively validation of the developed model. In Fig. 8, the values of flame position in a non-premixed counterflow system studied by Seshadri [14] are illustrated on the right vertical axes. Figure 10. 10. Critical strains rates ratio for non-unity Lewis numbers of fuel to critical strain rate for # _ 1. 12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Page 13 of 15 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 The variation of ¯ Nomenclature based on the variation of oxidizer Lew- is numbers for three values of which are 10000, 18000 and 25000 is shown in Figure 11. This figure implies that at 1 decreases when the oxidizer Lewis number ¯ grows. For instance, the magnitude of ¯ 30 to 0.28 when the quantity of oxidizer Lewis number rises from 0.4 to 1.4 at 25000. Also, The increase of associates with an increase in . By increasing in magni- resulting in a decrease of the ratio ¯ . 9 kl » '¼ C Mixture specific heat capacity ¯ tude of oxidizer Lewis number, the magnitude of L_ as the flame position goes down which decreases significantly the exponentially term of equation (66). This decrease pro9 Strain rate 0 goes down from motes the reduction in magnitude of the term ¯ª - Heat capacity of dust particles Characteristic mass diffusivity of fuel or oxidizer Damkohler number F Gaseous fuel Molecular weight of mixture ;# Molecular weight of oxidizer G creases when the oxidizer or fuel Lewis number grows. Number of dust particles per unit volume Heat of reaction E Solid particle radius S Latent heat of vaporization Solid fuel Activation temperature _ Flame temperature Vaporization temperature of dust particles K Dimensionless form of the mass fraction of gaseous fuel K Dimensionless form of the mass fraction of solid fuel K& RN # ¯ Molecular weight of fuel Q ? In this study, counterflow diffusion flame of organic dust particles in air is studied analytically. Counterflow structure in this study is that organic particles as fuel stream flow from the direction -∞ and the oxidizer stream flow (air) as the oxidizer stream flows from the direction +∞ to the stagnation plane, which is constructed between two steady, axisymmetric streams of oxidizer and fuel. It has been assumed that the fuel particles vaporize first in a thin zone. After the vaporization, a gaseous fuel forms to react with the oxidizer. The reaction rate is considered to be of the Arrhenius type in first order respect to oxidizer and fuel. The conservation equations of dust particles, gaseous fuel, oxidizer and energy for the non-unity Lewis numbers of oxidizer and fuel are presented. Boundary conditions are applied to each zone for the purpose of solving analytically the governing equations. It has been shown that increasing in Lewis numbers of oxidizer and fuel will decreases the flame temperature and increasing in oxidizer Lewis number will moves the flame position toward the oxidizer nozzle. Also it has been shown that by increasing in particle radius the flame temperature decrease. At last it has been shown that de- Critical Damkohler number m ;_ 4. Conclusion Heat conduction coefficient B 7 Figure 11. The ratio of critical strains rates for non-unity Lewis numbers of oxidizer to critical strain rate for # _ 1. Heat capacity of the gas 9 , Frequency factor characterizing rate of gaseous fuel oxidation Z Dimensionless form of the mass fraction of oxidizer Mass fraction of fuel at the distance ∞ Mass fraction of the solid fuel Mass fraction of the oxidizer Mass fraction of the gaseous fuel Secondary coordinate axis 13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Energy & Fuels (5) C. Proust, “Flame propagation and combustion in some dustair mixtures,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 89–100, 2006. Greek Symbols 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 ωÀ Vaporization rate of a particle τÀÂÃ Constant characteristic time of vaporization ω> λ ρ ρÆ ρÃ The density of the reactant mixture Density of gas Dimensionless form of the temperature θÀ ϑ= Le (8) J. Ren, C. Xie, X. Guo, Z. Qin, J.-Y. Lin, and Z. Li, “Combustion characteristics of coal gangue under an atmosphere of coal mine methane,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 3688–3695, 2014. Dust particle density θ θ> (7) S. R. Rockwell and A. S. Rangwala, “Influence of coal dust on premixed turbulent methane–air flames,” Combust. Flame, vol. 160, no. 3, pp. 635–640, 2013. Thermal conductivity of fuel or oxidizer Reduced Damkohler number ϑ (6) S. R. Rockwell and A. S. Rangwala, “Modeling of dust air flames,” Fire Saf. J., vol. 59, pp. 22–29, 2013. Rate of the chemical-kinetic δ (9) A. Rahbari, A. Shakibi, and M. Bidabadi, “A two-dimensional analytical model of laminar flame in lycopodium dust particles,” Korean J. Chem. Eng., pp. 1–6, 2015. (10) Yoshiie, R., Kawamoto, T., Hasegawa, D., Ueki, Y., & Naruse, I. (2011). Gas-phase reaction of NOx formation in oxyfuel coal combustion at low temperature. Energy & Fuels, 25(6), 2481-2486. Stoichiometric mass ratio of oxidizer to fuel (11) G. Irvin and Y. Richard, “Combustion,” Academic Press, Burlington, 4th Edition, 2008. Dimensionless form of flame temperature Dimensionless form of vaporization temperature (12) R. Ghoddoussi, “An Investigation on Thermal Characteristics of Premixed Counterflow Flames Using Micro-thermocouples.” PhD thesis, 2005. Number of oxygen’s moles reacting with one mole of fuel (13) A. Linan, “The asymptotic structure of counterflow diffusion flames for large activation energies,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 1, no. 7, pp. 1007–1039, 1974. Lewis number Thermal conductivity of fuel or oxidizer (14) K. Seshadri and C. Trevino, “The influence of the Lewis numbers of the reactants on the asymptotic structure of counterflow and stagnant diffusion flames,” Combust. Sci. Technol., vol. 64, no. 4–6, pp. 243–261, 1989. Subscript p f O s v Page 14 of 15 (15) I. S. Wichman and M. Yang, “Double-spray counterflow diffusion flame model,” Strain, vol. 2, p. 2, 1998. gas (16) A. Dvorjetski and J. B. Greenberg, “Influence of non-unity Lewis numbers and droplet loading on the extinction of counter-flow spray diffusion flames,” Proc. Combust. Inst., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1047– 1054, 2000. Flame Oxidizer Dust particle Vaporization (17) R. Daou, J. Daou, and J. Dold, “Effect of heat-loss on flameedges in a premixed counterflow,” Combust. Theory Model., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 221–242, 2003. REFERENCES (18) R. Daou, J. Daou, and J. Dold, “The effect of heat loss on flame edges in a non-premixed counterflow within a thermo-diffusive model,” Combust. Theory Model., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 683–699, 2004. (1) R. Eckhoff, Dust explosions in the process industries: identification, assessment and control of dust hazards. Gulf professional publishing, 2003. (19) X. Fu, S. Garner, S. Aggarwal, and K. Brezinsky, “Numerical study of NO x emissions from n-Heptane and 1-Heptene counterflow flames,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 879–888, 2012. (2) K. L. Cashdollar, “Overview of dust explosibility characteristics,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 183–199, 2000. (20) A. B. Sahu and R. V Ravikrishna, “Effect of H2/CO composition on extinction strain rates of counterflow syngas flames,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 4586–4596, 2015. (3) O.-S. Han, M. Yashima, T. Matsuda, H. Matsui, A. Miyake, and T. Ogawa, “Behavior of flames propagating through lycopodium dust clouds in a vertical duct,” J. Loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 449–457, 2000. (21) L. Wang, Z. Liu, S. Chen, C. Zheng, and J. Li, “Physical and chemical effects of CO2 and H2O additives on counterflow diffusion flame burning methane,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 7602– 7611, 2013. (4) W.J. Ju, R. Dobashi, and T. Hirano, “Reaction zone structures and propagation mechanisms of flames in stearic acid particle clouds,” J. loss Prev. Process Ind., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 423–430, 1998. 14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment Page 15 of 15 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 (22) A. Haghiri and M. Bidabadi, “Modeling of laminar flame propagation through organic dust cloud with thermal radiation effect,” Int. J. Therm. Sci., vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1446–1456, 2010. (26) S.A. Mostafavi, S. Salavati, H. B Dizaji and M. Bidabadi “Pyrolysis and combustion kinetics of lycopodium particles in thermogravimetric analysis,” Journal of Central South University, Vol 22, no. 9, pp 3409-3417,2015. (23) F. E. Fendell, “Ignition and extinction in combustion of initially unmixed reactants,” J. Fluid Mech., vol. 21, no. 02, pp. 281–303, 1965. (27) R. L. Burden and J. D. Farires, “Numerical Analysis, 9-nd Ed,” Boston, USA, 2011. (24) K. Seshadri, A. L. Berlad, and V. Tangirala, “The structure of premixed particle-cloud flames,” Combust. Flame, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 333–342, 1992. (28) H. Y. Wang, W. H. Chen, and C. K. Law, “Extinction of counterflow diffusion flames with radiative heat loss and nonunity Lewis numbers,” Combust. Flame, vol. 148, no. 3, pp. 100–116, 2007. (25) Y. Huang, G. A. Risha, V. Yang, and R. A. Yetter, “Effect of particle size on combustion of aluminum particle dust in air,” Combust. Flame, vol. 156, no. 1, pp. 5–13, 2009. 15 ACS Paragon Plus Environment