油页岩热解的FG-DVC模型

doi:10.3969/j.issn.0438-1157.2014.06.048

化工学报 ›› 2014, Vol. 65 ›› Issue (6): 2308-2315.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.0438-1157.2014.06.048

油页岩热解的FG-DVC模型

王擎, 王锐, 贾春霞, 任立国, 王浩添, 闫宇赫

油页岩综合利用教育部工程研究中心(东北电力大学), 吉林省吉林市 132012

收稿日期:2013-09-13 修回日期:2013-12-18 出版日期:2014-06-05 发布日期:2014-06-05
通讯作者: 王擎
作者简介:王擎（1964- ），男，博士，教授
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金项目（51276034）。

FG-DVC model for oil shale pyrolysis

WANG Qing, WANG Rui, JIA Chunxia, REN Liguo, WANG Haotian, YAN Yuhe

Engineering Research Centre of Oil Shale Comprehensive Utilization (Northeast Dianli University), Ministry of Education, Jilin 132012, Jilin, China

Received:2013-09-13 Revised:2013-12-18 Online:2014-06-05 Published:2014-06-05
Supported by:
supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51276034).

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为研究油页岩结构与热解反应性之间的关系，在TG-FTIR分析仪上对甘肃油页岩在不同升温速率条件下（5、20、50℃·min^-1）进行了热解实验研究，对CH₄、CO、CO₂、H₂O和页岩油进行了定量分析，并采用非线性最小二乘拟合方法求解各组分析出的动力学参数，同时采用基于燃料化学结构的FG-DVC模型对各组分的析出过程进行了模拟。结果表明：油页岩的脱挥发分过程主要发生在200～600℃之间；油页岩中有机质所含官能团以脂肪烃为主；由于各官能团活性不同，导致气态产物的析出有先后顺序；由非线性最小二乘拟合方法获得的各种产物析出的活化能E分布在188～239 kJ·mol^-1之间，而指前因子A在10⁹～10¹³ s^-1之间；各产物的FG-DVC模拟结果与实验数据较为相符，这说明用FG-DVC模型来描述甘肃油页岩的热解脱挥发分过程是比较合适的。

关键词: 油页岩, 热解, TG-FTIR, 气体, 动力学, FG-DVC模型

Abstract: To study the relationship between the structure of oil shale and its pyrolysis, a series of experiments for Gansu oil shale was performed at heating rates of 5, 20, 50℃·min^-1 using a TG-FTIR (Thermogravimetric Analysis-Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy) analyzer. The CH₄, CO, CO₂, H₂O and tar produced by pyrolysis were quantitatively analyzed. The kinetic parameters were calculated with a nonlinear least-squares curve-fitting method. The FG-DVC (Functional Group-Depolymerization Vaporization Crosslinking) model, which was established based on the structure of fuel, was employed to quantitatively predict the product yields of pyrolysis. The results showed that devolatilization reaction taken mainly place at temperature rangeof 200-600℃. Aliphatic hydrocarbon was predominant organic functionalgroup in shale oil. The initial temperature for release of gaseous products had different order due to various activities of functional groups. The calculated activation energy (E) was basicly between 188-239 kJ·mol^-1, and the pre-exponential factor (A) was between 10⁹-10¹³ s^-1. Good agreement was observed between the model prediction and TG-FTIR experimental results for the oil shale studied, indicating that the pyrolysis process of Gansu oil shale could be well described by the FG-DVC model.

Key words: oil shale, pyrolysis, TG-FTIR, gas, kinetics, FG-DVC model

中图分类号:

TK16

王擎, 王锐, 贾春霞, 任立国, 王浩添, 闫宇赫. 油页岩热解的FG-DVC模型[J]. 化工学报, 2014, 65(6): 2308-2315.

WANG Qing, WANG Rui, JIA Chunxia, REN Liguo, WANG Haotian, YAN Yuhe. FG-DVC model for oil shale pyrolysis[J]. CIESC Journal, 2014, 65(6): 2308-2315.

参考文献 27

[1]	Qian Jialin(钱家麟), Yin Liang(尹亮). Oil Shale-Petroleum Alternative(油页岩-石油的补充能源)[M]. Beijing: China Pertochemical Press, 2008: 1-2
[2]	Adnan A H, Omar A A, Moh'd A H, Rajab A H. Heating rate effect on fractional yield and composition of oil retorted from El-lajjun oil shale [J]. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 2010, 89(2): 236-243
[3]	Mohammad A H, Omar A A, John R, Sam K, Adnan A H, Khalid T, Abdurrahman S, Richelieu B. Effect of demineralization and heating rate on the pyrolysis kinetics of Jordanian oil shales [J]. Fuel Processing Technology, 2011, 92(9): 1805-1811
[4]	Jamal M N. The influence of grain size on the products yield and shale oil composition from the pyrolysis of Sultani oil shale [J]. Energy Conversion and Management, 2008, 49(11): 3278-3286
[5]	Anthony D B, Howard J B. Coal devolation and hydrogastification [J]. AIChE Journal, 1976, 22(4): 625-656
[6]	Hillier J L, Fletcher T H. Pyrolysis kinetics of a green river oil shale using a pressurized TGA [J]. Energy & Fuels, 2010, 25(1): 232-239
[7]	Wang Qing, Wang Haigang, Sun Baizhong. Interactions between oil shale and its semi-coke during co-combustion [J]. Fuel, 2009, 88(8): 1520-1529
[8]	Niksa S. Predicting the devolatilization behavior of any coal from its ultimate analysis [J]. Combustion and Flame, 1995, 100(3): 384-394
[9]	Grant D M, Pugmire R J, Fletcher T H, Kerstein A R. Chemical model of coal devolatilization using percolation lattice statistics [J]. Energy Fuels, 1989, 3(2): 175-186
[10]	Solomon P R, Hamblen R M, Carangelo R M, Serio M A, Deshpande G V. General model of coal devolatilization [J]. Energy and Fuels, 1988, 2(4): 405-422
[11]	Solomon P R, Hamblen D G, Yu Z Z, Serio M A. Network models of coal thermal decomposition [J]. Fuel, 1990, 69(6): 754-763
[12]	Serio M A, Charpenay S, Bassilakis R, Solomon P R. Measurements and modeling of lignin pyrolysis [J]. Biomass and Bioenergy, 1994, 7(1-6): 107-124
[13]	Jong W D, Nola D G, Venneker B H, Spliethoff H, Wójtowicz M A. TG-FTIR pyrolysis of coal and secondary biomass fuels: determination of pyrolysis kinetics parameters for main species and NOx precursors [J]. Fuel, 2007, 86(15): 2367-2376
[14]	Hillier J L. Pyrolysis kinetics and chemical structure considerations of a Green River oil shale and its derivatives [D]. Utah: Brigham Young University, 2011
[15]	Zhang Lili(张丽丽). The study of Tongchuan oil shale pyrolysis behavior [D]. Xi'an: Northwest University,2012
[16]	Li Shaohua(李少华), Bai Jingru(柏静儒), Sun Baizhong(孙佰仲), Hu Aijuan(胡爱娟), Wang Qing(王擎). Effect of heating rate on the pyrolysis characteristics of oil shales [J]. Chemical Engineering (China) (化学工程),2007,35(1): 64-67
[17]	Yan J W, Jiang X M, Han X X, Liu J G. A TG-FTIR investigation to the catalytic effect of mineral matrix in oil shale on the pyrolysis and combustion of kerogen [J]. Fuel, 2013, 104: 307-317
[18]	Wang Hui(王辉), Jiang Xiumin(姜秀民), Yuan Dequan(袁德权), Wan Peng(万鹏). Pyrolysis of coal water slurry volatile matter by using FG-DVC model [J]. Journal of Chemical Industry and Engineering(China)(化工学报), 2006, 57(10): 2428-2432
[19]	Xie Fangfang(谢芳芳), Wang Ze(王泽), Song Wenli(宋文立), Lin Weigang(林伟刚). FTIR analysis of oil shales from Huadian Jilin and their pyrolysis [J]. Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2011, 31(1): 91-94
[20]	Cui Zhigang(崔志刚). N2O formation mechanism research of oil shale and shale char in fluidized bed combustion [D]. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2010
[21]	Sun Shaozeng(孙绍增), Zeng Guang(曾光), Wei Lai(魏来), Zhao Zhiqiang(赵志强), Qian Juan(钱娟). Quantitative analysis and study on pyrolysis component of typical anthracite [J]. Fuel & Chemical Processes(燃料与化工), 2011, 42(4): 1-4
[22]	Campbell J H, Gallegos G, Gregg M. Gas evolution during oil shale pyrolysis(Ⅱ): Kinetic and stoichiometric analysis [J]. Fuel, 1980, 59(10): 727-732
[23]	Huss E B, Burnham A K. Gas evolution pyrolysis of various Colorado oil shales [J]. Fuel, 1982, 61(12): 1188-1196
[24]	Suuberg E M, Sherman J, Lilly W D. Product evolution during rapid pyrolysis of Green River formation oil shale [J]. Fuel, 1987, 66(9): 1176-1184
[25]	Solomon P R, Serio M A, Suuberg E M. Coal pyrolysis: experiments, kinetic rates and mechanisms [J]. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 1992, 18(2): 133-220
[26]	Zhang Y Z, Xu X D, Zuo Y. Experiments and modelling of coal pyrolysis under fluidized bed conditions [J]. Journal of Thermal Science, 1999, 8(3): 202-206
[27]	Solomon P R, Colket M B. Coal devolatilization [J]. Symposium (International) on Combustion, 1979, 17(1): 131-143

油页岩热解的FG-DVC模型

FG-DVC model for oil shale pyrolysis

PDF (PC)

可视化

被引次数

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献 27

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	毕丽森, 刘斌, 胡恒祥, 曾涛, 李卓睿, 宋健飞, 吴翰铭. 粗糙界面上纳米液滴蒸发模式的分子动力学研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(S1): 172-178.
[2]	于宏鑫, 邵双全. 水结晶过程的分子动力学模拟分析[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(S1): 250-258.
[3]	金伟其, 吴月荣, 王霞, 李力, 裘溯, 袁盼, 王铭赫. 化工园区工业气体泄漏气云红外成像检测技术与国产化装备进展[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(S1): 32-44.
[4]	金正浩, 封立杰, 李舒宏. 氨水溶液交叉型再吸收式热泵的能量及分析[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(S1): 53-63.
[5]	程成, 段钟弟, 孙浩然, 胡海涛, 薛鸿祥. 表面微结构对析晶沉积特性影响的格子Boltzmann模拟[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(S1): 74-86.
[6]	肖明堃, 杨光, 黄永华, 吴静怡. 浸没孔液氧气泡动力学数值研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(S1): 87-95.
[7]	吴雷, 刘姣, 李长聪, 周军, 叶干, 刘田田, 朱瑞玉, 张秋利, 宋永辉. 低阶粉煤催化微波热解制备含碳纳米管的高附加值改性兰炭末[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(9): 3956-3967.
[8]	范孝雄, 郝丽芳, 范垂钢, 李松庚. LaMnO₃/生物炭催化剂低温NH₃-SCR催化脱硝性能研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(9): 3821-3830.
[9]	陈美思, 陈威达, 李鑫垚, 李尚予, 吴有庭, 张锋, 张志炳. 硅基离子液体微颗粒强化气体捕集与转化的研究进展[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(9): 3628-3639.
[10]	郑佳丽, 李志会, 赵新强, 王延吉. 离子液体催化合成2-氰基呋喃反应动力学研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(9): 3708-3715.
[11]	汪林正, 陆俞冰, 张睿智, 罗永浩. 基于分子动力学模拟的VOCs热氧化特性分析[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3242-3255.
[12]	曾如宾, 沈中杰, 梁钦锋, 许建良, 代正华, 刘海峰. 基于分子动力学模拟的Fe₂O₃纳米颗粒烧结机制研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3353-3365.
[13]	李锦潼, 邱顺, 孙文寿. 煤浆法烟气脱硫中草酸和紫外线强化煤砷浸出过程[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3522-3532.
[14]	张瑞航, 曹潘, 杨锋, 李昆, 肖朋, 邓春, 刘蓓, 孙长宇, 陈光进. ZIF-8纳米流体天然气乙烷回收工艺的产品纯度关键影响因素分析[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3386-3393.
[15]	杨越, 张丹, 郑巨淦, 涂茂萍, 杨庆忠. NaCl水溶液喷射闪蒸-掺混蒸发的实验研究[J]. 化工学报, 2023, 74(8): 3279-3291.