Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry

, Volume 119, Issue 3, pp 1723–1729 | Cite as

Combustion characteristics of Turkish hazelnut shell biomass, lignite coal, and their respective blends via thermogravimetric analysis

  • Züleyha Özlem Kocabaş-Ataklı
  • Firuze Okyay-Öner
  • Yuda Yürüm
Article

Abstract

Thermal behavior and combustion kinetic of coal, hazelnut shell, and coal/hazelnut shell blends at the proper ratio were investigated with thermogravimetric analysis (TG). Four mass ratios (20, 30, 40, 50 mass%) of coal/biomass blends were prepared and oxidized under dynamic conditions from temperature 298 to 1,173 K at different heating rates. TG analysis indicated that the combustion of blended samples divided into two stages namely devolatilization and char oxidation combined with coal combustion step. The influence of biomass blends on thermal and kinetic behavior of coal was studied under non-isothermal conditions. It was found that the thermal degradation temperature of coal was higher than that of blended samples due to the molecular structure strength. Ozawa–Flynn–Wall model was applied to deal with non-isothermal TG data for the evaluation of the activation energy corresponding to the combustions of coal, hazelnut shell, and coal/hazelnut shell blends. The average activation energy changed in the range of 90.9–215.3 kJ mol−1, respectively, depending on blending ratio.

Keywords

Biomass Coal blend Combustion Thermogravimetric analysis Non-isothermal kinetics Activation energies 

References

  1. 1.
    Yi Q, Qi F, Cheng G, Zhang Y, Xiao B, Hu Z, Liu S, Cai H, Xu S. Thermogravimetric analysis of co-combustion of biomass and biochar. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2013;112:1475–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dumanli AG, Tas S, Yürüm Y. Co-firing of biomass with coals. Part 1: thermogravimetric kinetic analysis of combustion of fir (Abies bornmulleriana) wood. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2011;103:925–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quanrum L, Haoquan H, Qiang Z, Shengwei Z, Gouohua C. Effect of inorganic matter on reactivity and kinetics of coal pyrolysis. Fuel. 2004;83:713–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mianowski A, Bigda R, Zymla V. Study on kinetics of combustion of brick-shaped carbonaceous materials. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2006;84:563–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Franceschi E, Cascone I, Nole D. Thermal, XRD and spectrophotometric study on artificially degraded woods. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2008;91:119–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xu Q, Griffin GJ, Jiang Y, Preston C, Bicknell ADGP, Bradbury GP, White N. Study of burning behavior of small scale wood crib with cone calorimeter. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2008;91:787–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yu LJ, Wang S, Jiang XM, Wang N, Zhang CQ. Thermal analysis studies on combustion characteristics of seaweed. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2008;93:611–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suarez AC, Tancredi N, Cesar P, Pinheiro C, Yoshida MI. Thermal analysis of the combustion of charcoals from Eucalyptus dunnii obtained at different pyrolysis temperatures. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2010;100:1051–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ndiema CKW, Manga PN, Ruttoh CR. Influence of die pressure on relaxation characteristics of briquetted biomass. Energy Convers Manag. 2002;43:2157–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang C, Wang F, Yang Q, Liang R. Thermogravimetric studies of the behavior of wheat straw with added coal during combustion. Biomass Bioenergy. 2009;33:50–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biagini E, Barontini F, Tognotti L. Devolatilization of biomass fuels and biomass components studied by TG/FTIR technique. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2006;45:4486–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tas S, Yürüm Y. Co-firing of biomass with coals. Part 2: thermogravimetric kinetic analysis of co-combustion of fir (Abies bornmulleriana) wood with Beypazari lignite. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;107:293–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yorulmaz SY, Atimtay AT. Investigation of combustion kinetics of treated and untreated waste wood samples with thermogravimetric analysis. Fuel Process Technol. 2009;90:939–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barneto AG, Carmona JA, Alfonso JEM, Blanco JD. Kinetic models based in biomass components for the combustion and pyrolysis of sewage sludge and its compost. J Anal Appl Pyrolsis. 2009;86:108–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Demirbaş A. Properties of charcoal derived from hazelnut shell and the production of briquettes using pyrolytic oil. Energy. 1999;24:141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ozawa TA. A new method of analyzing thermodynamic data. Bull Chem Soc. 1965;38:1881–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flynn JH, Wall LA. Structures and thermal analysis of 1,1,6,6-tetraphenylhexa-2,4-diyne-1,6-diol. Therm Anal. 1966;4:323–8.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Doyle CD. Estimating isothermal life from thermogravimetric data. J Appl Polym Sci. 1962;6:639–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Avrami MJ. Kinetics of phase change. I: general theory. Chem Phys. 1939;7:1103–12.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Avrami MJ. Kinetics of phase change II. Transformation-time relations for random distribution of nuclei. Chem Phys. 1940;8:212–24.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Avrami MJ. Kinetics of phase change, III. Granulation, phase change, and microstructure. Chem Phys. 1941;9:177–84.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Flynn JH, Wall LA. A general treatment of the thermogravimetry of polymers. J Res Nat Bur Stand. 1966;70A:487–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ozawa T. Kinetic analysis of derivative curves in thermal analysis. Therm Anal. 1970;2:301–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Demirbaş A. Combustion characteristics of different biomass fuels. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2004;30:219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bakisgan C, Dumanli AG, Yürüm Y. Trace elements in Turkish biomass fuels: ashes of wheat straw, olive bagasse and hazelnut shell. Fuel. 2009;88:1842–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Demirbaş A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel. 1997;76:431–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Siti SI, Norazah AR, Khudzir I. Combustion characteristics of Malaysian oil palm biomass, sub-bituminous coal and their respective blends via thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). Bioresour Technol. 2012;123:581–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gil MV, Casal D, Pevida C, Pis JJ, Rubiera F. Thermal behaviour and kinetics of coal/biomass blends during co-combustion. Bioresour Technol. 2010;101:5601–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramajo-Escalera B, Espina A, García JR, Sosa-Arnao JH, Nebra SA. Model-free kinetics applied to sugarcane bagasse combustion. Thermochim Acta. 2006;448:111–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silva AR, Crespi MS, Ribeiro CA, Oliveira SC, Silva MRS. Kinetic of thermal decomposition of residues from different kinds of composting. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2004;75:401–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sanchez ME, Otero M, Gomez X, Moran A. Thermogravimetric kinetic analysis of the combustion of biowastes. Renew Energy. 2009;34:1622–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Züleyha Özlem Kocabaş-Ataklı
    • 1
  • Firuze Okyay-Öner
    • 1
  • Yuda Yürüm
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesSabanci UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations