Ash Deposition in Co-firing Three-Fuel Blends Consisting of Woody Biomass, Peat, and Lignite in a Pilot-Scale Fluidized-Bed Reactor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ash deposition behaviors of co-combustion of three-fuel blends of white pine pellet (WPP), peat pellet (PP), and crushed lignite (CL) coal were studied on a pilot-scale bubbling fluidized-bed combustor operated at 40% excess air ratio. Reference tests with individual fuel (pine, peat, or lignite) and two-fuel blends of lignite and pine or peat were also performed and discussed in this study. Fly ash deposits were collected with an air-cooled probe installed in the freeboard zone of the reactor. The collected deposits were comprehensively characterized by X-ray fluorescence (XRF), X-ray powder diffraction (XRD), ion chromatography (IC), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for their chemical compositions, mineralogical compositions, Cl/S concentrations, and morphology, respectively. As a very interesting finding from this work, co-combustion of the three-fuel blends at 50% lignite/25% peat/25% pine resulted in a higher ash deposition rate than co-combustion of two-fuel blends of either 50% lignite/50% peat or 50% lignite/50% pine. In contrast, co-combustion of three-fuel blends at 20% lignite/40% peat/40% pine resulted in the lowest deposition rate and the least deposition tendency among all of the combustion tests with various mixed fuels or individual fuels. The greatly decreased ash deposition tendency of co-firing three-fuel blends of 20% lignite/40% peat/40% pine might be accounted for by the formation of more minerals containing CaO, MgO, Al 2 O 3, and SiO 2 with high ash melting points and high crystallinity. The chemical compositions of deposits obtained from the co-combustions of three-fuel blends were apparently enriched with the elements Si and Al and depleted of the elements P, S, and K.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".