Modeling of single coal particle combustion in O2/N2 and O2/CO2 atmospheres under fluidized bed condition

doi:10.1007/s11708-020-0685-0

Front. Energy

2021, Vol. 15

Issue (1) : 99-111 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-020-0685-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Modeling of single coal particle combustion in O₂/N₂ and O₂/CO₂ atmospheres under fluidized bed condition

Xiehe YANG¹, Yang ZHANG¹(

), Daoyin LIU², Jiansheng ZHANG¹, Hai ZHANG¹, Junfu LYU¹, Guangxi YUE¹

¹. Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Department of Energy and Power Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
². Key Laboratory of Energy Thermal Conversion and Control of Ministry of Education, School of Energy and Environment, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China

Download: PDF(1176 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

A one-dimensional transient single coal particle combustion model was proposed to investigate the characteristics of single coal particle combustion in both O₂/N₂ and O₂/CO₂ atmospheres under the fluidized bed combustion condition. The model accounted for the fuel devolatilization, moisture evaporation, heterogeneous reaction as well as homogeneous reactions integrated with the heat and mass transfer from the fluidized bed environment to the coal particle. This model was validated by comparing the model prediction with the experimental results in the literature, and a satisfactory agreement between modeling and experiments proved the reliability of the model. The modeling results demonstrated that the carbon conversion rate of a single coal particle (diameter 6 to 8 mm) under fluidized bed conditions (bed temperature 1088 K) in an O₂/CO₂ (30:70) atmosphere was promoted by the gasification reaction, which was considerably greater than that in the O₂/N₂ (30:70) atmosphere. In addition, the surface and center temperatures of the particle evolved similarly, no matter it is under the O₂/N₂ condition or the O₂/CO₂ condition. A further analysis indicated that similar trends of the temperature evolution under different atmospheres were caused by the fact that the strong heat transfer under the fluidized bed condition overwhelmingly dominated the temperature evolution rather than the heat release of the chemical reaction.

Keywords coal oxy-fuel fluidized bed combustion simulation

Corresponding Author(s): Yang ZHANG

Online First Date: 20 July 2020 Issue Date: 19 March 2021

Cite this article:

Xiehe YANG,Yang ZHANG,Daoyin LIU, et al. Modeling of single coal particle combustion in O₂/N₂ and O₂/CO₂ atmospheres under fluidized bed condition[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 99-111.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-020-0685-0
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/Y2021/V15/I1/99

Reaction	Number
$φ V → α 1 CO + α 2 CO 2 + α 3 CH 4 + α 4 H 2 O+ α 5 H 2$	R1
$2 (α + β) α + 2 β C + O 2 = 2 α α + 2 β CO + 2 β α + 2 β CO 2$	R2
$C(s) + CO 2 = 2 CO$	R3
$C(s) + H 2 O = CO + H 2$	R4
$CH 4 + 0 .5O 2 = CO + 2H 2$	R5
$H 2 + 0 .5O 2 = H 2 O$	R6
$CO + 0.5 O 2 = CO 2$	R7

Tab.1 Reaction scheme of combustion model

Number	Coefficients of reaction rate????	Units	Ref.
R1	$w 1 = d m v d t = k m v k = Y 1 k 1 + Y 2 k 2 k 1 = 2.0 × 105 exp (− 1.04 × 108 R u T s) s k 2 = 1 .3 × 107 exp (− 1. 67 × 108 R u T s) s$	kg/s	[³⁰]
R2	$α β = A CO / CO 2 exp (− E CO / CO 2 R T) w 2 = 2 (α + β) α + 2 β Aexp (− E R T) ρ O 2 s$	kg/s	[³⁰]
R3	$w 3 = k s [CO 2], k = 4.605 T exp (− 1.75 × 108 R T)$	kmol/s	[³²]
R4	$w 4 = k s [H 2 O], k = 11 .25 T exp (− 1.75 × 108 R T)$	kmol/s	[³²]
R5	$w 5 = k [CH 4] 0.5 [O 2] 1.25, k = 4 .39 × 1011 T exp (− 1.28 × 108 R T)$	kmol/(m³?s)	[³²]
R6	$w 6 = k [H 2] 0.5 [O 2] 2.25 [H 2 O] − 1, k = 3 .00 × 1016 T − 1 exp (− 1. 67 × 108 R T)$	kmol/(m³?s)	[³²]
R7	$w 7 = k [CO] [O 2] 0.25 [H 2 O] 0 .5, k = 2.24 × 1012 T − 1 exp (− 1. 67 × 108 R T)$	kmol/(m³?s)	[³²]

Tab.2 Coefficients of chemical reaction rate

Fig.1 Schematics of coal particle combustion model under FB conditions.

Name	Unit	Value
T_b	K	1073
e_mf	–	0.44
e₀	–	0.4
L₀	m	3.3 × 10⁴
U_g	m/s	0.27
l_g	W/(m?K)	0.07
c_p,_g	J/(kg?K)	1190 (N₂ atmosphere)
	J/(kg?K)	1260 (CO₂ atmosphere)
r_g	kg/m³	0.3 (N₂ atmosphere)
	kg/m³	0.5 (CO₂ atmosphere)
P_r	–	0.8
$D O 2$ (in N₂)	m²/s	2.2 × 10⁻⁴
D_CO (in N₂)	m²/s	2.2 × 10⁻⁴
$D C O 2$ (in N₂)	m²/s	1.65 × 10⁻⁴
$D O 2$ (in CO₂)	m²/s	1.7 × 10⁻⁴
D_CO (in CO₂)	m²/s	1.7 × 10⁻⁴
T_par,0	K	293
r_par	m	0.003, 0.006
ΔH_vap	J/kg	2.26 × 107

Tab.3 Values of model parameters

	$ρ par,0$ $/ (kg ? m − 3)$	$λ par,0$ $/ (W ? (m ? K) − 1)$	$c p, 0$ $/ (J ? (kg ? K) − 1)$
Anthracite coal	1498	0.4	998
Bituminous coal	1583	0.7	1046
Sub-bituminous	1662	0.5	1049
Lignite coal	1503	0.4	1211

Tab.4 Thermal properties of fuels

Tab.5 Proximate and ultimate analyses of fuel samples

Fig.2 Comparison of computed and experimental temperature.

Fig.3 Comparison of computed particle temperature evolution with and without the devolatilization model (Schima wood).

Fig.4 Temperature evolution with respect to time of different types of fuels in the O₂/CO₂ atmosphere (r_p = 6 mm).

Fig.5 Comparison of carbon conversion for different fuel types at 30 vol% O₂ and r_p = 6 mm in CO_2.

Fig.6 Comparison of carbon conversion of different O₂ fractions in N₂ and CO₂ of Anthracite coal at r_p = 6 mm.

Fig.7 Comparison of oxidation and gasification reaction rates in the O₂/N₂ and O₂/CO₂ atmospheres (Oxidation: C+ O₂ = aCO+ bCO₂. Gasification: C+CO₂ = 2CO).

Fig.8 Comparison of temperature evolution in O₂/N₂ and O₂/CO₂ atmospheres (Anthracitic coal, r_p = 6 mm).

Fig.9 Comparison of carbon conversion in O₂/N₂ and O₂/CO₂ atmospheres (Anthracitic coal, r_p = 6 mm).

Fig.10 Non-dimensional heat ratio as a function of time (Anthracitic coal, r_p = 6 mm).

Fig.11 Mole fraction of volatiles as a function of time in H-zone (Anthracitic coal).

A	Surface area/m²
c_i	Mass concentration of species i/(kg·m^–3)
c_p	Heat capacity at constant pressure/(J·(kg?K)^–1)
C	Amount of carbon in the coal/%
D	Gas diffusion coefficient/(m²·s^–1)
h	Overall heat transfer coefficient between particle and atmosphere/(W·(m²?K)^–1)
h_g	Heat transfer coefficient between reaction sheet and atmosphere/(W·(m²?K)^–1)
h_in	Heat transfer coefficient between particle and reaction sheet/(W·(m²?K)^–1)
H	Amount of hydrogen in the coal/%
k_pyro	Rate constant of devolatilization/(kg·s^–1)
k_vap	Rate constant of vaporization/(kg·s^–1)
L₀	Initial pore length/m
MW_c	Carbon molecular weight/(kg·mol^–1)
m	Mass/kg
m_v	Mass of volatiles/kg
N	Amount of nitrogen in the coal/%
Nu	Nusselt number (-)
O	Amount of oxygen in the coal/%
Pr	Prandtl number (-)
Q_r	Heat release rate of heterogeneous reaction/(J·s^–1)
Q_h	Heat transfer between the fuel particle and environment/(J·s^–1)
Q*	Non-dimensional heat ratio (-)
Re	Reynolds number (-)
R_u	Universal gas constant
r	Radius/m
r_ef	Radius of evaporation layer/(m·s^–1)
S	Amount of sulfur in the coal/%
S_r	Source term/(kg·(m³?s)^–1 or W·(m³?s)^–1)
Sc	Schmidt number (-)
Sh	Sherwood number (-)
s	Volume-specific surface area/m^–1
T	Temperature/K
t	Time/s
U_g	Fluidization velocity/(m·s^–1)
U_mf	Minimum fluidization velocity/(m·s^–1)
V	Particle volume/m³
v	Gas viscosity/(m²·s^–1)
v_i,j	Stoichiometric coefficients of species i in reaction j (-)
w_h_,j	Rate of j homogeneous reaction/(10³mol·(m³?s)^–1)
w_s_,j	Rate of j heterogeneous reaction (10³mol·(m³?s)^–1)
X_c	Carbon conversion rate (-)
ΔH_h,_j	Reaction heat of j homogeneous reaction/(J·(kmol)^–1)
ΔH_s,_j	Reaction heat of j heterogeneous reaction/(J·(kmol)^–1)
ΔH_vap	Vaporization heat/(J·kg^–1)
φA	Mass fraction of ash (-)
φC	Mass fraction of carbon (-)
φM	Mass fraction of moisture (-)
φV	Mass fraction of volatiles (-)
ΔM	Consumption rate of char/(kg·s^–1)
[i]	Mole concentration of species i/(mol·m^–3)
α_i	Stoichiometric coefficient of species i in the devolatilization reaction (-)
β_g	Mass transfer coefficient between reaction sheet and atmosphere/(m·s^–1)
β_in	Mass transfer coefficient between particle and reaction sheet/(m·s^–1)
ε	Emissivity (-)
ε_mf	Bed voidage at the minimum fluidization state (-)
ε₀	Porosity of char (-)
λ	Thermal conductivity/(W·(m?K)^–1)
μ	Dynamic viscosity/(N?s·m^–2)
ρ	Mass density/(kg·m^–3)
σ	Stefan-Boltzmann constant/(W·(m²?K⁴)^–1)
$ψ$	Structural parameter of the char (-)
Δt	Time-step/s
par	Particle
rs	The reaction sheet
b	Fluidized bed
ps	Particle surface
∞	Infinity far boundary
0	Initial state

1	H Wang, J He. China’s pre-2020 CO2 emission reduction potential and its influence. Frontiers in Energy, 2019, 13(3): 571–578 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-019-0640-0
2	W Wang, Z Li, J Lyu, H Zhang, G Yue, W Ni. An overview of the development history and technical progress of China’s coal-fired power industry. Frontiers in Energy, 2019, 13(3): 417–426 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-019-0614-2
3	M Kanniche, R Gros-Bonnivard, P Jaud, J Valle-Marcos, J M Amann, C Bouallou. Pre-combustion, post-combustion and oxy-combustion in thermal power plant for CO2 capture. Applied Thermal Engineering, 2010, 30(1): 53–62 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2009.05.005
4	C Kunze, H Spliethoff. Assessment of oxy-fuel, pre- and post-combustion-based carbon capture for future IGCC plants. Applied Energy, 2012, 94: 109–116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.01.013
5	D Y C Leung, G Caramanna, M M Maroto-Valer. An overview of current status of carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014, 39: 426–443 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093
6	F Kazanc, R Khatami, P Manoel Crnkovic, Y A Levendis. Emissions of NOx and SO2 from coals of various ranks, bagasse, and coal-bagasse blends burning in O2/N2 and O2/CO2 environments. Energy & Fuels, 2011, 25(7): 2850–2861 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef200413u
7	R Khatami, C Stivers, K Joshi, Y A Levendis, A F Sarofim. Combustion behavior of single particles from three different coal ranks and from sugar cane bagasse in O2/N2 and O2/CO2 atmospheres. Combustion and Flame, 2012, 159(3): 1253–1271 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2011.09.009
8	R Khatami, C Stivers, Y A Levendis. Ignition characteristics of single coal particles from three different ranks in O2/N2 and O2/CO2 atmospheres. Combustion and Flame, 2012, 159(12): 3554–3568 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2012.06.019
9	J Riaza, R Khatami, Y A Levendis, L Álvarez, M V Gil, C Pevida, F Rubiera, J J Pis. Single particle ignition and combustion of anthracite, semi-anthracite and bituminous coals in air and simulated oxy-fuel conditions. Combustion and Flame, 2014, 161(4): 1096–1108 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2013.10.004
10	P Piotrowska, M Zevenhoven, K Davidsson, M Hupa, L E Åmand, V Barišić, E Coda Zabetta. Fate of alkali metals and phosphorus of rapeseed cake in circulating fluidized bed boiler. Part 2: cocombustion with coal. Energy & Fuels, 2010, 24(8): 4193–4205 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef100482n
11	P Piotrowska, M Zevenhoven, K Davidsson, M Hupa, L E Åmand, V Barišić, E Coda Zabetta. Fate of alkali metals and phosphorus of rapeseed cake in circulating fluidized bed boiler. Part 1: cocombustion with wood. Energy & Fuels, 2010, 24(1): 333–345 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef900822u
12	B Leckner, A Gómez-Barea. Oxy-fuel combustion in circulating fluidized bed boilers. Applied Energy, 2014, 125: 308–318 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.03.050
13	S Seddighi K, D Pallarès, F Normann, F. Johnsson Progress of combustion in an oxy-fuel circulating fluidized-bed furnace: measurements and modeling in a 4 MWth boiler. Energy & Fuels, 2013, 27(10): 6222–6230 https://doi.org/10.1021/ef4011884
14	Y Tan, L Jia, Y Wu, E J Anthony. Experiences and results on a 0.8 MWth oxy-fuel operation pilot-scale circulating fluidized bed. Applied Energy, 2012, 92: 343–347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.037
15	L Duan, H Sun, C Zhao, W Zhou, X Chen. Coal combustion characteristics on an oxy-fuel circulating fluidized bed combustor with warm flue gas recycle. Fuel, 2014, 127: 47–51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.06.016
16	M Varol, R Symonds, E J Anthony, D Lu, L Jia, Y Tan. Emissions from co-firing lignite and biomass in an oxy-fired CFBC. Fuel Processing Technology, 2018, 173: 126–133 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2018.01.002
17	R Hernberg, J Stenberg, B Zethraus. Simultaneous in situ measurement of temperature and size of burning char particles in a fluidized bed furnace by means of fiberoptic pyrometry. Combustion and Flame, 1993, 95(1-2): 191–205 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(93)90061-7
18	T Joutsenoja, P Heino, R Hernberg, B Bonn. Pyrometric temperature and size measurements of burning coal particles in a fluidized bed combustion reactor. Combustion and Flame, 1999, 118(4): 707–717 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-2180(99)00028-0
19	C Bu, B Leckner, X Chen, D Pallarès, D Liu, A Gómez-Barea. Devolatilization of a single fuel particle in a fluidized bed under oxy-combustion conditions. Part A: experimental results. Combustion and Flame, 2015, 162(3): 797–808 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.08.015
20	M Lupion, I Alvarez, P Otero, R Kuivalainen, J Lantto, A Hotta, H Hack. 30 MWth CIUDEN oxy-cfb boiler–first experiences. Energy Procedia, 2013, 37: 6179–6188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.547
21	J Lyu, H Yang, W Ling, L Nie, G Yue, R Li, Y Chen, S Wang. Development of a supercritical and an ultra-supercritical circulating fluidized bed boiler. Frontiers in Energy, 2019, 13(1): 114–119 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-017-0512-4
22	L Garcia-Gutierrez, F Hernández-Jiménez, E Cano-Pleite, A Soria-Verdugo. Improvement of the simulation of fuel particles motion in a fluidized bed by considering wall friction. Chemical Enginee-ring Journal, 2017, 321: 175–183 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.03.109
23	S Zhu, M Zhang, Y Huang, Y Wu, H Yang, J Lyu, X Gao, F Wang, G Yue. Thermodynamic analysis of a 660 MW ultra-supercritical CFB boiler unit. Energy, 2019, 173: 352–363 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.01.061
24	S C Saxena. Devolatilization and combustion characteristics of coal particles. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 1990, 16(1): 55–94 https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(90)90025-X
25	P R Solomon, M A Serio, E M Suuberg. Coal pyrolysis: experiments, kinetic rates and mechanisms. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, 1992, 18(2): 133–220 https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-1285(92)90021-R
26	J S Chern, A N Hayhurst. Does a large coal particle in a hot fluidised bed lose its volatile content according to the shrinking core model? Combustion and Flame, 2004, 139(3): 208–221 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2004.08.010
27	F Scala, R Chirone. Fluidized bed combustion of single coal char particles at high CO2 concentration. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2010, 165(3): 902–906 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.09.059
28	F Scala, R Chirone. Combustion of single coal char particles under fluidized bed oxyfiring conditions. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 2010, 49(21): 11029–11036 https://doi.org/10.1021/ie100537a
29	I Guedea, D Pallarès, L I Díez, F Johnsson. Conversion of large coal particles under O2/N2 and O2/CO2 atmospheres—experiments and modeling. Fuel Processing Technology, 2013, 112: 118–128 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.02.023
30	C Bu, B Leckner, X Chen, A Gómez-Barea, D Liu, D Pallarès. Devolatilization of a single fuel particle in a fluidized bed under oxy-combustion conditions. Part B: modeling and comparison with measurements. Combustion and Flame, 2015, 162(3): 809–818 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2014.08.011
31	J Salinero, A Gómez-Barea, D Fuentes-Cano, B Leckner. Measurement and theoretical prediction of char temperature oscillation during fluidized bed combustion. Combustion and Flame, 2018, 192: 190–204 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2018.02.005
32	P Nikrityuk, B. Meyer Gasification Processes: Modeling and Simulation. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2014
33	S Bhatia, D Perlmutter. A random pore model for fluid-solid reactions: I. Isothermal, kinetic control. AIChE Journal, 1980, 26(3): 379–386 https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690260308
34	J S Chern, A N Hayhurst. A model for the devolatilization of a coal particle sufficiently large to be controlled by heat transfer. Combustion and Flame, 2006, 146(3): 553–571 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2006.04.011
35	R Loison, F Chauvin. Rapid coal pyrolysis. Chemical Industry (Paris), 1964, 91 (in French)
36	P N Rowe, K T Clayton, J B Lewis. Heat mass transfer from single sphere in an extensive flowing fluid. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, 1965, 43: 14–31
37	J M Herrin, D. Deming Thermal conductivity of US coals. Journal of Geophysical Research–Solid Earth, 1996, 101(B11): 25381–25386 https://doi.org/10.1029/96JB01884
38	D J Maloney, E R Monazam, S D Woodruff, L O Lawson. Measurements and analysis of temperature histories and size changes for single carbon and coal particles during the early stages of heating and devolatilization. Combustion and Flame, 1991, 84(1–2): 210–220 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-2180(91)90049-H
39	L Duan, L Li, D Liu, C Zhao. Fundamental study on fuel-staged oxy-fuel fluidized bed combustion. Combustion and Flame, 2019, 206: 227–238 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.combustflame.2019.05.008

[1]	Siqi LIU, Yanqing NIU, Liping WEN, Yang LIANG, Bokang YAN, Denghui WANG, Shi’en HUI. Experimental studies of ash film fractions based on measurement of cenospheres geometry in pulverized coal combustion[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 91-98.
[2]	Yonghong YAN, Liutao SUN, Zhengkang PENG, Hongliang QI, Li LIU, Rui SUN. Effects of pyrolyzed semi-char blend ratio on coal combustion and pollution emission in a 0.35 MW pulverized coal-fired furnace[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 78-90.
[3]	Rong YAN, Zhichao CHEN, Shuo GUAN, Zhengqi LI. Influence of mass air flow ratio on gas-particle flow characteristics of a swirl burner in a 29 MW pulverized coal boiler[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 68-77.
[4]	Md Tanvir ALAM, Baiqian DAI, Xiaojiang WU, Andrew HOADLEY, Lian ZHANG. A critical review of ash slagging mechanisms and viscosity measurement for low-rank coal and bio-slags[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 46-67.
[5]	Wantao YANG, Yang ZHANG, Lilin HU, Junfu LYU, Hai ZHANG. An experimental study on ignition of single coal particles at low oxygen concentrations[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 38-45.
[6]	Zhuo LIU, Jianbo LI, Mingming ZHU, Xiaofeng LU, Zhezi ZHANG, Dongke ZHANG. Effect of oil shale semi-coke on deposit mineralogy and morphology in the flue path of a CFB burning Zhundong lignite[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 26-37.
[7]	Jinzhi CAI, Dan LI, Denggao CHEN, Zhenshan LI. NO_x and H₂S formation in the reductive zone of air-staged combustion of pulverized blended coals[J]. Front. Energy, 2021, 15(1): 4-13.
[8]	Dengji ZHOU, Jiarui HAO, Dawen HUANG, Xingyun JIA, Huisheng ZHANG. Dynamic simulation of gas turbines via feature similarity-based transfer learning[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(4): 817-835.
[9]	Junping GU, Yuxin WU, Liping WU, Man ZHANG, Hairui YANG, Junfu LYU. Design and application of a novel coal-fired drum boiler using saline water in heavy oil recovery[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(4): 715-725.
[10]	Buqing YE, Rui ZHANG, Jin CAO, Bingquan SHI, Xun ZHOU, Dong LIU. Thermodynamic and economic analyses of a coal and biomass indirect coupling power generation system[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(3): 590-606.
[11]	Bojie WANG, Wen WANG, Chao QI, Yiwu KUANG, Jiawei XU. Simulation of performance of intermediate fluid vaporizer under wide operation conditions[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(3): 452-462.
[12]	Junjie LI, Yajun TIAN, Xiaohui YAN, Jingdong YANG, Yonggang WANG, Wenqiang XU, Kechang XIE. Approach and potential of replacing oil and natural gas with coal in China[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(2): 419-431.
[13]	Shaozhi ZHANG, Xiao NIU, Yang LI, Guangming CHEN, Xiangguo XU. Numerical simulation and experimental research on heat transfer and flow resistance characteristics of asymmetric plate heat exchangers[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(2): 267-282.
[14]	Yeo Beom YOON, Byeongmo SEO, Brian Baewon KOH, Soolyeon CHO. Heating energy savings potential from retrofitting old apartments with an advanced double-skin façade system in cold climate[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(2): 224-240.
[15]	Feng CHEN, Changchun WU. A novel methodology for forecasting gas supply reliability of natural gas pipeline systems[J]. Front. Energy, 2020, 14(2): 213-223.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed