energies

Article

Evaluating Heat Flux Profiles in Aluminum ReheatingFurnace with Regenerative Burner

Hang Zhang * and Shengxiang Deng

School of Energy Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China;dengsx@csu.edu.com* Correspondence: zhanghang4202@126.com; Tel.: +86-185-0844-9270

Academic Editor: Tapas MallickReceived: 2 March 2017; Accepted: 18 April 2017; Published: 20 April 2017

Abstract: Properly understanding heat flux characteristics is a crucial prerequisite to efficientlyapplying a regenerative burner in an aluminum reheating furnace. A series of experiments wasconducted in this study in order to establish a database of the best available burners accordingto furnace temperature, excess air ratio, and flame combustion mode as they affect heat fluxcharacteristics at the burner plane (Z = 0 mm). A heat flux model was developed to estimate heattransfer in the furnace, and the heat flux proportions of the other two horizontal levels (Z = 400 mmand Z = 750 mm) were investigated. The contour profile of heat flux indicates that total heat flux(THF) and radiation heat flux (RHF) increases with furnace temperature increment (900–1100 ◦C).Low excess air ratio (1.2–1.3, at furnace temperature 1100 ◦C) not only reduced the heat flux gradient,but also contributed to enlarge high THF areas and the maximum RHF. The flameless combustionmode displayed larger average THF and RHF uniformity than that of conventional combustion mode.Therefore, the burning effect of operating condition 1 (gas velocity, 90 m/s; excess air ratio, 1.2;flameless combustion) is better than the other conditions. A change of furnace temperature andexcess air ratio had mildly effect on convection coefficient, but combustion mode was in contrast.The estimated heat flux distribution from the measured heat flux at the whole burner plane wasin agreement with the fitted line of the axis of burner B. Although the intercept of the simulatedequation was slightly underestimated, the error can be eliminated by improving the experimentalconditions. The results presented here similarly apply to all regenerative burners. A comparisonof heat flux among the three horizontal levels indicated that the RHF proportion comprised about80% of the THF at each level, and a slightly increase (21.1 kW/m2) of THF in the high level from thelow levels.

Keywords: heat flux; aluminum reheating furnace; regenerative burner; operating conditions

1. Introduction

Reheating furnace with regenerative system has been widely applied in the non-ferrous metalindustry due to its great advantages, such as high energy efficiency, low pollutant emission and highproduction yield [1,2]. In recent years, the number of regenerative reheating furnace increases rapidlyall around the world. However, fluctuation of temperature and pressure and unknown of combustioncharacteristic at condition of low-oxygen and high-temperature, the result of the regenerative burnerworking principle, restrict the furnace development [3,4]. In order to make full use of this kind of energysaving technology, we must understand and master the combustion characteristics in the furnace.

Total heat flux (THF) is one of the evaluation standards of combustion process, which includesradiation heat flux (RHF) and convection heat flux. Properly understanding heat flux characteristicsin the furnace are of great importance for improving combustion [5,6]. More and more studies aboutheat flux profile in industrial facility, such as circulating fluidized bed boiler [7,8], solar furnace [9],

Energies 2017, 10, 562; doi:10.3390/en10040562 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2017, 10, 562 2 of 15

Bridgman furnace [10], and reciprocating gas engines [11], have been done. Investigation of influencingfactors to heat flux profile is significant work for human controlling combustion process. Severalfactors are critical to the heat flux distribution. Kang et al. [12] experimentally studied the influence ofair co-flow velocities varying on radiation fraction and flame width. The experiment results revealedthat as the velocity increased, the radiation fraction and flame width decreased. Hashimoto andWatanabe [13] numerical investigated the effect of the furnace scale on the heat transfer mechanismof coal particles in furnace. Zhang et al. [14] presented the effects of boiler load on the performanceof heat flux in a 600 MW supercritical boiler. As a result, the heat transfer is a function of severaloperating conditions such as excess air ratio [15,16] and furnace temperature [17]. Sadegh et al. [18]established a comprehensive 1.5-D model for CFB (circulating fluidized bed) furnace, resulting in goodagreement with the measured heat fluxes. The model predicts that the radiation heat increases with anincrease of furnace temperature, and exceeds 70% of total heat flux for all the cases designed.

Experiment method is always the direct and preferred way to investigate heat flux behaviors inreheating furnace. Many experimental studies on heat flux inside reheating furnace have already beenconducted by researchers [19–21] Wikstrom et al. [22] used a model to calculate the transient localsurface temperature and heat flux of the steel slab. The experiment results showed a good agreement tomodel-calculated results. In another work [23], they found that heat transfer intensity and uniformity,inside a semi-industrial test furnace with various industrial regenerative burner, were affected byHiTAC (high temperature air combustion) The convective flux was found to be uniform and as high as30% of the total heat flux to an object surface in the furnace.

In this article, a pair of regenerative burners was tested with different operating conditions. Testdata include temperature, total heat flux, and radiation heat flux. Reporting the raw data and makinga preliminary data evolution were main aims of this article. Different from the previous research work,the distribution of the holes was extensive, so the test data were more comprehensive. In addition, wedealt with measurement error to acquire accurate data. Furthermore, an estimate model of heat fluxdistribution at burner plane was proposed.

2. Experiment Test Facility

2.1. Furnace with Regenerative Burners

A typical fuel-fired aluminum reheating furnace is shown in Figure 1. Orthographic views of thereheating furnace and their dimensions are shown in Figure 2 in addition to other details such as theposition of the regenerative burners, chamber dimensions, height of the crown, and the aluminumliquid height level. The position coordinates of the 14 observation holes at the furnace roof, i.e.,the location where the majority of the data were collected, are explained in Figure 2c. There are alsoseveral observation holes on the wall, which were used to measure wall temperature and heat fluxparameters. The components of molten aluminum are described in Table 1.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 2 of 15

Bridgman furnace [10], and reciprocating gas engines [11], have been done. Investigation of influencing factors to heat flux profile is significant work for human controlling combustion process. Several factors are critical to the heat flux distribution. Kang et al. [12] experimentally studied the influence of air co-flow velocities varying on radiation fraction and flame width. The experiment results revealed that as the velocity increased, the radiation fraction and flame width decreased. Hashimoto and Watanabe [13] numerical investigated the effect of the furnace scale on the heat transfer mechanism of coal particles in furnace. Zhang et al. [14] presented the effects of boiler load on the performance of heat flux in a 600 MW supercritical boiler. As a result, the heat transfer is a function of several operating conditions such as excess air ratio [15,16] and furnace temperature [17]. Sadegh et al. [18] established a comprehensive 1.5-D model for CFB (circulating fluidized bed) furnace, resulting in good agreement with the measured heat fluxes. The model predicts that the radiation heat increases with an increase of furnace temperature, and exceeds 70% of total heat flux for all the cases designed.

Experiment method is always the direct and preferred way to investigate heat flux behaviors in reheating furnace. Many experimental studies on heat flux inside reheating furnace have already been conducted by researchers [19–21] Wikstrom et al. [22] used a model to calculate the transient local surface temperature and heat flux of the steel slab. The experiment results showed a good agreement to model-calculated results. In another work [23], they found that heat transfer intensity and uniformity, inside a semi-industrial test furnace with various industrial regenerative burner, were affected by HiTAC (high temperature air combustion) The convective flux was found to be uniform and as high as 30% of the total heat flux to an object surface in the furnace.

In this article, a pair of regenerative burners was tested with different operating conditions. Test data include temperature, total heat flux, and radiation heat flux. Reporting the raw data and making a preliminary data evolution were main aims of this article. Different from the previous research work, the distribution of the holes was extensive, so the test data were more comprehensive. In addition, we dealt with measurement error to acquire accurate data. Furthermore, an estimate model of heat flux distribution at burner plane was proposed.

2. Experiment Test Facility

2.1. Furnace with Regenerative Burners

A typical fuel-fired aluminum reheating furnace is shown in Figure 1. Orthographic views of the reheating furnace and their dimensions are shown in Figure 2 in addition to other details such as the position of the regenerative burners, chamber dimensions, height of the crown, and the aluminum liquid height level. The position coordinates of the 14 observation holes at the furnace roof, i.e., the location where the majority of the data were collected, are explained in Figure 2c. There are also several observation holes on the wall, which were used to measure wall temperature and heat flux parameters. The components of molten aluminum are described in Table 1.

Figure 1. A photograph of the burning aluminum reheating furnace.

Figure 1. A photograph of the burning aluminum reheating furnace.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 3 of 15Energies 2017, 10, 562 3 of 15

Burner A

Burner B

Observationhole on wall

Chi

mne

y 3

475

1300

14

2

5

71011

(c)

(a)

550

(b)

Burner ABurner B

86912

1317

514

475

500

Z=0

300

675

450

200

600

Burner BBurner A

300

250

250 2000 1000

650

Top view

Front view Side view

175 200

900

250250

2425

Chimney

Aluminumliquid level 15

0

Observationhole on wall

Cooling aircube

Figure 2. Orthographic views of the reheating furnace: (a) top view; (b) front view; and (c) side view.

Table 1. The composition of molten aluminum used for these experiment investigations.

Element Cu Mg Si Fe Mn Ni Zn Ca Al wt % 1.638 0.251 10.603 0.78 0.202 0.055 0.916 0.005 85.309

Two HRS-DF1 type regenerative burners (Nippon Furnace Kogyo Kaisha Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) were utilized in this experiment. The pair can be used in both flame and flameless modes with a maximum capacity of 100 kW. The burners were equipped with honeycomb compact regenerators. The burners exchange their function at every cycle: When burner B serves as the combustion burner, burner A works as an outlet and recovers energy from the exhaust gases.

Burner B has two combustion modes: Conventional combustion with preheating of air (F1 mode) and flameless mode (F2 mode). Below 900 °C in the furnace (wall temperature), burner B works in F1 mode with the honeycomb compact regenerators. A gas-air mixture is provided for combustion, as shown Figure 3a. When the wall temperature exceeds 900 °C, burner B works in F2 mode; gas is supplied separately by two fuel nozzles. Figure 3b shows where the air nozzle has a rectangular shape (20 mm × 100 mm). The standard diameter of the fuel nozzle is 4.5 mm. The fuel used for these experiments was LPG (>98%, propane). A schematic drawing of the test furnace in F1 and F2 combustion modes is shown in Figure 3.

Air LPGNozzle F1

Air Nozzle F2

F1 mode

F2 mode

LPG

LPG

(a)

(b) Figure 3. Schematic of regenerative burner manufactured by NFK type HRS-DF1: (a) firing in flame mode with heating up air (F1 mode); and (b) flameless mode (F2 mode).

Figure 2. Orthographic views of the reheating furnace: (a) top view; (b) front view; and (c) side view.

Table 1. The composition of molten aluminum used for these experiment investigations.

Element Cu Mg Si Fe Mn Ni Zn Ca Al

wt % 1.638 0.251 10.603 0.78 0.202 0.055 0.916 0.005 85.309

Two HRS-DF1 type regenerative burners (Nippon Furnace Kogyo Kaisha Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) wereutilized in this experiment. The pair can be used in both flame and flameless modes with a maximumcapacity of 100 kW. The burners were equipped with honeycomb compact regenerators. The burnersexchange their function at every cycle: When burner B serves as the combustion burner, burner Aworks as an outlet and recovers energy from the exhaust gases.

Burner B has two combustion modes: Conventional combustion with preheating of air (F1 mode)and flameless mode (F2 mode). Below 900 ◦C in the furnace (wall temperature), burner B works inF1 mode with the honeycomb compact regenerators. A gas-air mixture is provided for combustion,as shown Figure 3a. When the wall temperature exceeds 900 ◦C, burner B works in F2 mode; gasis supplied separately by two fuel nozzles. Figure 3b shows where the air nozzle has a rectangularshape (20 mm × 100 mm). The standard diameter of the fuel nozzle is 4.5 mm. The fuel used forthese experiments was LPG (>98%, propane). A schematic drawing of the test furnace in F1 and F2combustion modes is shown in Figure 3.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 3 of 15

Burner A

Burner B

Observationhole on wall

Chi

mne

y 3

475

1300

14

2

5

71011

(c)

(a)

550

(b)

Burner ABurner B

86912

1317

514

475

500

Z=0

300

67545

0

200

600

Burner BBurner A

300

250

250 2000 1000

650

Top view

Front view Side view

175 200

900

250250

2425

Chimney

Aluminumliquid level 15

0Observationhole on wall

Cooling aircube

Figure 2. Orthographic views of the reheating furnace: (a) top view; (b) front view; and (c) side view.

Table 1. The composition of molten aluminum used for these experiment investigations.

Element Cu Mg Si Fe Mn Ni Zn Ca Al wt % 1.638 0.251 10.603 0.78 0.202 0.055 0.916 0.005 85.309

Two HRS-DF1 type regenerative burners (Nippon Furnace Kogyo Kaisha Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) were utilized in this experiment. The pair can be used in both flame and flameless modes with a maximum capacity of 100 kW. The burners were equipped with honeycomb compact regenerators. The burners exchange their function at every cycle: When burner B serves as the combustion burner, burner A works as an outlet and recovers energy from the exhaust gases.

Burner B has two combustion modes: Conventional combustion with preheating of air (F1 mode) and flameless mode (F2 mode). Below 900 °C in the furnace (wall temperature), burner B works in F1 mode with the honeycomb compact regenerators. A gas-air mixture is provided for combustion, as shown Figure 3a. When the wall temperature exceeds 900 °C, burner B works in F2 mode; gas is supplied separately by two fuel nozzles. Figure 3b shows where the air nozzle has a rectangular shape (20 mm × 100 mm). The standard diameter of the fuel nozzle is 4.5 mm. The fuel used for these experiments was LPG (>98%, propane). A schematic drawing of the test furnace in F1 and F2 combustion modes is shown in Figure 3.

Air LPGNozzle F1

Air Nozzle F2

F1 mode

F2 mode

LPG

LPG

(a)

(b) Figure 3. Schematic of regenerative burner manufactured by NFK type HRS-DF1: (a) firing in flame mode with heating up air (F1 mode); and (b) flameless mode (F2 mode).

Figure 3. Schematic of regenerative burner manufactured by NFK type HRS-DF1: (a) firing in flamemode with heating up air (F1 mode); and (b) flameless mode (F2 mode).

Energies 2017, 10, 562 4 of 15

2.2. Measurement Program

In most studies on this subject [22,24,25], heat flux is measured using a heat flux meter insertedinto the furnace through specified ports. The heat flux meter utilized in this study has a steel plug inthe tip which measures the rate of heat flow per unit area. An ellipsoidal radiometer [26] and somethermocouples were also used here to record irradiation and temperature information, respectively.The meters and the thermocouples were held inside a water-cooled probe, as shown in Figure 4.The water-cooled probe was inserted into the furnace through the hole at the furnace roof andcalibrated at its surface in order to ensure it was in the correct location prior to the experiment.

The temperature gradient between the heat flux meter steel plug and water-cooled probe surfaceswere measured, then the total heat flux (THF) was calculated as follows [27]:

qT =λ(Ts − Tw)

L(1)

where qT is heat flux incident on the meter; λ is the mean thermal conductivity of the plug surfacebetween the two thermocouples; Tw and Ts are the steel and water-cool probe surface temperatures,respectively; and L is the distance between the measurement surfaces.

The radiation heat flux (RHF) is defined to reflect the heat flux spatial distribution:

qR = εs

(Gr − σT4

p

)(2)

where qR is the radiation flux incident on the meter and εs is the emissivity of the plug surface (equalto 0.98). Gr is the irradiance, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W·m−2·K−4), and Tp isthe temperature measured at the plugs frontal surface.

Convective heat transfer (CHT) coefficient can be calculated according to Equations (3) and (4).

qC = qT − qR (3)

hc =qC

Tf − Tb(4)

where hc is the convective heat transfer coefficient, qC is the convection heat flux, Tf is the temperaturemeasured of the plug frontal surface, and Tb is the temperature measured of the plug back surface.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 4 of 15

2.2. Measurement Program

In most studies on this subject [22,24,25], heat flux is measured using a heat flux meter inserted into the furnace through specified ports. The heat flux meter utilized in this study has a steel plug in the tip which measures the rate of heat flow per unit area. An ellipsoidal radiometer [26] and some thermocouples were also used here to record irradiation and temperature information, respectively. The meters and the thermocouples were held inside a water-cooled probe, as shown in Figure 4. The water-cooled probe was inserted into the furnace through the hole at the furnace roof and calibrated at its surface in order to ensure it was in the correct location prior to the experiment.

The temperature gradient between the heat flux meter steel plug and water-cooled probe surfaces were measured, then the total heat flux (THF) was calculated as follows [27]:

( )s wT

T Tq

L

λ −= (1)

where qT is heat flux incident on the meter; λ is the mean thermal conductivity of the plug surface between the two thermocouples; Tw and Ts are the steel and water-cool probe surface temperatures, respectively; and L is the distance between the measurement surfaces.

The radiation heat flux (RHF) is defined to reflect the heat flux spatial distribution:

( )4R s r pq G Tε σ= − (2)

where qR is the radiation flux incident on the meter and εs is the emissivity of the plug surface (equal to 0.98). Gr is the irradiance, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W·m−2·K−4), and Tp is the temperature measured at the plugs frontal surface.

Convective heat transfer (CHT) coefficient can be calculated according to Equations (3) and (4).

C T Rq q q= − (3)

Cc

f b

qh

T T=

− (4)

where hc is the convective heat transfer coefficient, qC is the convection heat flux, Tf is the temperature measured of the plug frontal surface, and Tb is the temperature measured of the plug back surface.

Figure 4. Structure and function of water-cooled heat flux meter.

2.3. Experiment Uncertainty Analysis

The uncertainties associated with the heat flux meter positions are ±10 mm in the X- and Z-directions and ±2 mm in the Y-direction. The uncertainty of the experimental measurements was calculated based on the combination of the bias error limit, B, and the precision error limit [28], P:

Figure 4. Structure and function of water-cooled heat flux meter.

2.3. Experiment Uncertainty Analysis

The uncertainties associated with the heat flux meter positions are ±10 mm in the X- andZ-directions and ±2 mm in the Y-direction. The uncertainty of the experimental measurementswas calculated based on the combination of the bias error limit, B, and the precision error limit [28], P:

Energies 2017, 10, 562 5 of 15

U =√(B2 + P2) (5)

The precision error limit, which can be determined by repeatedly measuring the variable ofinterest, is related to the standard deviation of the measurements. The standard deviation of themeasuring parameters, σs, is given as follows:

σs =

√√√√√ n∑

i=1(si − s)2

ntotal − 1(6)

The standard deviation of the mean temperature is related to the standard deviation ofmeasurements:

σs =σs√ntotal

(7)

The precision error limit in the mean value can be determined as follows [28]:

p = tσs (8)

where t is a function of the confidence level and degrees of freedom (DOF). At a 95% confidence levelwith a large number of samples (over 30), t equals 2.0. The number of samples taken in this experimentwas more than 100, so the t value was taken as 2.0.

The main source of error in these trials originated in the heat flux meter geometric size andstructure. Air lay also has considerable influence over the stability of the heat flow meter and thus canfacilitate dynamic measurement.

2.4. Experimental Conditions

We ran six other case studies in addition to testing the furnace and regenerative burners describedabove. The first operating condition (OP1) was made for standard work conditions. Burner B workedin F2 mode, furnace temperature was 1100 ◦C, and excess air ratio was 1.2. In other cases, at leastone operating parameter was changed. In OP2 and OP3, furnace temperature was decreased belowthe standard case. In OP4 and OP5, excess air ratio was raised to 1.25 and 1.3, respectively. All fivetests were run in F2 combustion mode with air preheating. The final case (OP6) was performed underreduced furnace temperature (850 ◦C) and in F1 combustion mode without air preheating. The furnacetemperature is an average of the wall temperature measured with five thermocouples: Three along theceiling of the furnace and two at the holes on wall. The furnace temperature was controlled by varyingthe cooling air flow rate. In all cases, the fuel temperature, air temperature, preheating air temperature,and gas velocity were kept constant. Table 2 describes the results of all six cases.

Table 2. Different operating conditions of six cases.

Case Gas Velocity (m/s) Excess Air Ratio Furnace Temperature (◦C) Mode

OP1 90 1.2 1100 F2OP2 90 1.2 900 F2OP3 90 1.2 1000 F2OP4 90 1.25 1100 F2OP5 90 1.3 1100 F2OP6 90 1.2 850 F1

For all cases, fuel and air without preheating temperature is 27 ◦C, and preheating air temperature is 850 ◦C.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 6 of 15

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Heat Flux Profile at Burner Horizontal Plane

The contour profiles function in Origin software (OriginLab Corporation: Northhampton, MA,USA) was used to process the test data for all 14 measurement points, corresponding to observationholes at the furnace roof, in the burner horizontal plane. The average heat flux and maximum heat fluxwere determined based on the results.

3.1.1. Total Heat Flux (THF) Profile

The comparison depicted in Figure 5a–c suggests that the maximum THF were 344.4, 209.3, and270.0 kW/m2 for cases OP1–OP3, respectively. For OP1, the average THF was equal to 287.3 kW/m2;it decreased to 174.0 and 237.6 kW/m2 for OP2 and OP3, respectively. OP1 also had a larger high THFzone compared to OP3 or OP2. The temperature of the chamber wall was high enough to ensure thatthe temperature gradient was too small for the heat flux produced by combustion to be absorbed by thewall. In other words, increasing the furnace temperature makes the burner combustion more effective.

The comparison shown in Figure 5a,d,e suggests that maximum and average THF of OP4 were302.2 and 242.2 kW/m2, respectively. The maximum and average THF of OP5 were 280.4 and218.7 kW/m2. In regards to the heat flux distribution, THF decreased with increase in excess air ratio.Large excess air ratio enlarged the combustion zone, but reduced the flame size. A possible explanationfor the relatively low average and maximum heat flux is the increased incomplete combustion loss andtemperature of the exhaust gas caused by elevated excess air ratio.

The OP6 combustion mode was different from the other five cases, as mentioned above.The maximum and average THF of OP6 was 352.2 and 265.4 kW/m2. The OP6 THF maximumwas larger than that of OP1, but its THF average was lower. Conventional combustion creates anintense flame in a small space, but mild (or even no) combustion at a distance from the flame. Ourresults reveal that F1 combustion mode certainly affected the combustion efficiency, especially whenthere was a small combustion zone and small flame.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 6 of 15

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Heat Flux Profile at Burner Horizontal Plane

The contour profiles function in Origin software (OriginLab Corporation: Northhampton, MA, USA) was used to process the test data for all 14 measurement points, corresponding to observation holes at the furnace roof, in the burner horizontal plane. The average heat flux and maximum heat flux were determined based on the results.

3.1.1. Total Heat Flux (THF) Profile

The comparison depicted in Figure 5a–c suggests that the maximum THF were 344.4, 209.3, and 270.0 kW/m2 for cases OP1–OP3, respectively. For OP1, the average THF was equal to 287.3 kW/m2; it decreased to 174.0 and 237.6 kW/m2 for OP2 and OP3, respectively. OP1 also had a larger high THF zone compared to OP3 or OP2. The temperature of the chamber wall was high enough to ensure that the temperature gradient was too small for the heat flux produced by combustion to be absorbed by the wall. In other words, increasing the furnace temperature makes the burner combustion more effective.

The comparison shown in Figure 5a,d,e suggests that maximum and average THF of OP4 were 302.2 and 242.2 kW/m2, respectively. The maximum and average THF of OP5 were 280.4 and 218.7 kW/m2. In regards to the heat flux distribution, THF decreased with increase in excess air ratio. Large excess air ratio enlarged the combustion zone, but reduced the flame size. A possible explanation for the relatively low average and maximum heat flux is the increased incomplete combustion loss and temperature of the exhaust gas caused by elevated excess air ratio.

The OP6 combustion mode was different from the other five cases, as mentioned above. The maximum and average THF of OP6 was 352.2 and 265.4 kW/m2. The OP6 THF maximum was larger than that of OP1, but its THF average was lower. Conventional combustion creates an intense flame in a small space, but mild (or even no) combustion at a distance from the flame. Our results reveal that F1 combustion mode certainly affected the combustion efficiency, especially when there was a small combustion zone and small flame.

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

Distance in X direction (mm)

THF(kW/m2)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

) 267.0274.6282.2289.8297.5305.1312.7320.3327.9335.5343.2350.8358.4366.0

(a)

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(b)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

THF(kW/m2)

127.5135.5143.4151.4159.3167.3175.3183.2191.2199.2207.1215.1223.0231.0

Figure 5. Cont.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 7 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 562 7 of 15

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(c) Distance in X direction (mm)

THF(kW/m2)

196.5204.4212.3220.2228.0235.9243.8251.7259.6267.5275.3283.2291.1299.0

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(d)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

THF(kW/m2)

224.5232.8241.1249.4257.7266.0274.3282.7291.0299.3307.6315.9324.2332.5

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(e) Distance in X direction (mm)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

THF(kW/m2)

191.0199.3207.7216.0224.4232.7241.1249.4257.8266.1274.5282.8291.2299.5

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(f)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

THF(kW/m2)

250.5259.8269.2278.5287.9297.2306.6315.9325.3334.6344.0353.3362.7372.0

Figure 5. The total heat flux distribution at burner horizontal plane: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

Figure 6 shows the variations in THF with Y distance in two lines placed at X = 350 mm and X = 1250 mm. The THF value of the X = 1250 mm curve decreased with distance along the burner B axis. Changes in combustion mode and excess air ratio had a marked effect on slope of the THF curve while furnace temperature increased, however, some cases showed opposite variations trends (e.g., the X = 350 mm line) compared to the X = 1250 mm curve, such as OP2, OP3, and OP6. This may have been because the line was so near to the exit of the furnace. The other cases were only mildly affected by these changes in terms of total heat flux.

Figure 5. The total heat flux distribution at burner horizontal plane: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4;(e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

Figure 6 shows the variations in THF with Y distance in two lines placed at X = 350 mm andX = 1250 mm. The THF value of the X = 1250 mm curve decreased with distance along the burner Baxis. Changes in combustion mode and excess air ratio had a marked effect on slope of the THF curvewhile furnace temperature increased, however, some cases showed opposite variations trends (e.g.,the X = 350 mm line) compared to the X = 1250 mm curve, such as OP2, OP3, and OP6. This may havebeen because the line was so near to the exit of the furnace. The other cases were only mildly affectedby these changes in terms of total heat flux.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 8 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 562 8 of 15

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

360

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

310

320

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

200

225

250

275

300

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

Tot

al h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

X=1250mm ; X=350mm Linear fit to X=1250mm ; Linear fit to X=350mm

(a) (b)

Tot

al h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

(c)

Tot

al h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

(d)

Tot

al h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

(e)

Tot

al h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

(f) T

otal

hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm) Figure 6. The total heat flux at X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm as function of distance along burner-axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.1.2. Radiation Heat Flux (RHF) Profile

The comparison shown in Figure 7a–c indicates that the maximum RHF were 240.7, 144.5, and 191.6 kW/m2 for OP1, OP2, and OP3, respectively. The average RHF were 237.1, 133.4, and 181.2 kW/m2 for OP1, OP2, and OP3, respectively. High heat flux was located on the combustion zone and decreased evenly with distance; elevated furnace temperature enlarged the high heat flux area and thus improved the combustion. The variations in RHF may have been caused by several factors including differences in the radiation flux caused by furnace temperature.

Compared to OP1, if excess air ratio was increased to 1.25, the maximum and average RHF were dropped to 216.6 and 208 kW/m2, respectively. At even higher excess air ratios, the maximum and average RHF decreased to 194.4 and 186.7 kW/m2. The lower heat flux parameters for OP4 and OP5 were likely caused by slower combustion rate due to increased excess air ratio. An increase of excess air ratio from 1.2 to 1.3 not only decreased heat flux, but also enlarged the heat flux gradient. The high heat flux zone was pushed to the center under these conditions, as well. In general, high excess air ratio caused non-uniform temperature and a fractured combustion route.

The maximum and average RHF were 209.4 and 168.0 kW/m2 for OP6—lower than those of OP1—while the heat flux gradient of OP6 was higher than that of OP1. In effect, the radiation flux distribution of OP1 was more homogeneous than that of OP6. Flameless combustion mode exhibited better burning performance overall in regards to effectiveness and uniformity.

Figure 8 presents changes in the RHF curve along two lines (X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm). For the line X = 1250 mm, the first three cases trended downward. The OP4 and OP5 curves formed ridge-like shapes. Curiously, the curve of OP6 was almost flat. Increasing the furnace temperature enlarged the slope of the curves: For X = 350 mm, OP1 had a high RHF value (close to X = 1250 mm) at burner A; conversely, OP2 and OP3 had a low radiation heat flux at that point. OP4 and OP5 curves formed a small valley shape at the center. The RHF curve of OP6 started high and formed a large slope.

Figure 6. The total heat flux at X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm as function of distance along burner-axis:(a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.1.2. Radiation Heat Flux (RHF) Profile

The comparison shown in Figure 7a–c indicates that the maximum RHF were 240.7, 144.5,and 191.6 kW/m2 for OP1, OP2, and OP3, respectively. The average RHF were 237.1, 133.4, and181.2 kW/m2 for OP1, OP2, and OP3, respectively. High heat flux was located on the combustion zoneand decreased evenly with distance; elevated furnace temperature enlarged the high heat flux areaand thus improved the combustion. The variations in RHF may have been caused by several factorsincluding differences in the radiation flux caused by furnace temperature.

Compared to OP1, if excess air ratio was increased to 1.25, the maximum and average RHF weredropped to 216.6 and 208 kW/m2, respectively. At even higher excess air ratios, the maximum andaverage RHF decreased to 194.4 and 186.7 kW/m2. The lower heat flux parameters for OP4 and OP5were likely caused by slower combustion rate due to increased excess air ratio. An increase of excessair ratio from 1.2 to 1.3 not only decreased heat flux, but also enlarged the heat flux gradient. The highheat flux zone was pushed to the center under these conditions, as well. In general, high excess airratio caused non-uniform temperature and a fractured combustion route.

The maximum and average RHF were 209.4 and 168.0 kW/m2 for OP6—lower than those ofOP1—while the heat flux gradient of OP6 was higher than that of OP1. In effect, the radiation fluxdistribution of OP1 was more homogeneous than that of OP6. Flameless combustion mode exhibitedbetter burning performance overall in regards to effectiveness and uniformity.

Figure 8 presents changes in the RHF curve along two lines (X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm).For the line X = 1250 mm, the first three cases trended downward. The OP4 and OP5 curves formedridge-like shapes. Curiously, the curve of OP6 was almost flat. Increasing the furnace temperatureenlarged the slope of the curves: For X = 350 mm, OP1 had a high RHF value (close to X = 1250 mm) atburner A; conversely, OP2 and OP3 had a low radiation heat flux at that point. OP4 and OP5 curvesformed a small valley shape at the center. The RHF curve of OP6 started high and formed a large slope.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 9 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 562 9 of 15

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(a)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

RHF(kW/m2)

224.8226.0227.3228.5229.8231.1232.4233.6234.9236.2237.5238.9240.2241.5

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(b) Distance in X direction (mm)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)RHF(kW/m2)

116.7118.8120.9123.0125.2127.5129.7132.0134.4136.8139.2141.7144.2146.8

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(c)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

RHF(kW/m2)

170.7172.4174.1175.9177.6179.4181.2183.0184.8186.6188.5190.4192.3194.2

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(d)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

RHF(kW/m2)

203.6204.7205.8207.0208.1209.2210.4211.6212.7213.9215.1216.3217.5218.7

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(e)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

RHF(kW/m2)

175.6177.3179.0180.7182.4184.1185.9187.6189.4191.2193.0194.9196.7198.6

Figure 7. Cont.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 10 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 562 10 of 15

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(f)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

RHF(kW/m2)

135.8141.0146.4152.0157.9163.9170.2176.8183.6190.6197.9205.5213.4221.6

Figure 7. The radiation heat flux distribution at burner horizontal plane: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

208

210

212

214

216

218

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

178

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

Rad

iatio

n he

at f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

X=1250mm ; X=350mm Fit to X=1250mm ; Fit to X=350mm

(a) (b)

(d) (c)

(e) (f)

Rad

iatio

n he

at f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm) Figure 8. The radiation heat flux at X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm as function of distance along burner-axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.1.3. CHT Coefficient of Flame

As convection heat flux changed with furnace temperature and excess air ratio, CHT coefficient of flame should be investigated. No. 6 and No. 8 holes were chosen as the experiment points to calculate CHT coefficient because they were situated at the axis of burner B. Figure 2c describes that No. 6 had a long distance from burner B (1275 mm), while No. 8 hole was closed to burner B, 325 mm.

Figure 9 shows that the CHT coefficients of flameless combustion cases, measured in No. 6 hole, were almost equal to 30 W/m2·k, but conventional combustion was 34.03 W/m2·k. It is obvious that furnace temperature and excess air ratio had a mild effect on convection coefficient. Moreover, CHT coefficients of No. 8 hole are much higher than that of No. 6 hole. In No. 8 hole, OP6 had greatest CHT coefficient. The high values of CHT coefficients at proximal burner for OP6 can be a result of the relatively large convection heat flux in conventional combustion. It was also indirectly indicated that RHF occupy a central position in THF.

Figure 7. The radiation heat flux distribution at burner horizontal plane: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3;(d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 10 of 15

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400

200300

400500

600700

800900

10001100

(f)

Distance in Y

direction(mm

)

Distance in X direction (mm)

RHF(kW/m2)

135.8141.0146.4152.0157.9163.9170.2176.8183.6190.6197.9205.5213.4221.6

Figure 7. The radiation heat flux distribution at burner horizontal plane: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0126

128

130

132

134

136

138

140

142

144

146

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

208

210

212

214

216

218

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

178

180

182

184

186

188

190

192

194

1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

150

160

170

180

190

200

210

220

Rad

iatio

n he

at f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

X=1250mm ; X=350mm Fit to X=1250mm ; Fit to X=350mm

(a) (b)

(d) (c)

(e) (f)

Rad

iatio

n he

at f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2

)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm)

Rad

iati

on h

eat f

lux/

(kW

⋅m-2)

Distance along burner-axis/(mm) Figure 8. The radiation heat flux at X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm as function of distance along burner-axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.1.3. CHT Coefficient of Flame

As convection heat flux changed with furnace temperature and excess air ratio, CHT coefficient of flame should be investigated. No. 6 and No. 8 holes were chosen as the experiment points to calculate CHT coefficient because they were situated at the axis of burner B. Figure 2c describes that No. 6 had a long distance from burner B (1275 mm), while No. 8 hole was closed to burner B, 325 mm.

Figure 9 shows that the CHT coefficients of flameless combustion cases, measured in No. 6 hole, were almost equal to 30 W/m2·k, but conventional combustion was 34.03 W/m2·k. It is obvious that furnace temperature and excess air ratio had a mild effect on convection coefficient. Moreover, CHT coefficients of No. 8 hole are much higher than that of No. 6 hole. In No. 8 hole, OP6 had greatest CHT coefficient. The high values of CHT coefficients at proximal burner for OP6 can be a result of the relatively large convection heat flux in conventional combustion. It was also indirectly indicated that RHF occupy a central position in THF.

Figure 8. The radiation heat flux at X = 1250 mm and X = 350 mm as function of distance alongburner-axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.1.3. CHT Coefficient of Flame

As convection heat flux changed with furnace temperature and excess air ratio, CHT coefficient offlame should be investigated. No. 6 and No. 8 holes were chosen as the experiment points to calculateCHT coefficient because they were situated at the axis of burner B. Figure 2c describes that No. 6 had along distance from burner B (1275 mm), while No. 8 hole was closed to burner B, 325 mm.

Figure 9 shows that the CHT coefficients of flameless combustion cases, measured in No. 6 hole,were almost equal to 30 W/m2·k, but conventional combustion was 34.03 W/m2·k. It is obvious thatfurnace temperature and excess air ratio had a mild effect on convection coefficient. Moreover, CHTcoefficients of No. 8 hole are much higher than that of No. 6 hole. In No. 8 hole, OP6 had greatestCHT coefficient. The high values of CHT coefficients at proximal burner for OP6 can be a result of the

Energies 2017, 10, 562 11 of 15

relatively large convection heat flux in conventional combustion. It was also indirectly indicated thatRHF occupy a central position in THF.Energies 2017, 10, 562 11 of 15

30.76 30.62 30.7 30.02 29.31

34.0336.73 37.15 36.85 37.3 36.67

51.53

OP 1 OP 2 OP 3 OP 4 OP 5 OP 6 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

h c (

w/K

*m2 )

No.6 hole No.8 hole

Figure 9. The convection heat transfer coefficient variation of six cases.

3.2. Nonlinear Surface Fitting of THF Profile at Burner Horizontal Plane

THF at the 14 measuring points were nonlinear surface-fitted to obtain an expression of the THF distribution at the burner horizontal plane. We used different equations for the fitting and then selected the best equation by comparison. Table 3 lists the THF equation of THF profiles at the burner plane in each operating condition. The R-sq (adj) values of the equations, i.e., their respective fitting degree, are given in Table 3. A polynomial equation was applied to describe flameless combustion and a Lorentz equation was used for the conventional combustion mode.

Table 3. Total heat flux equation of different operating conditions of six cases.

Heat Flux OP Equation Form R-sq (adj)

THF

OP1

Q = Q0 + A1 x + A2 x2 + A3 x3 + A4 x4 + A5 x5 + B1 y + B2 y2 + B3 y3 + B4 y4 + B5 y5

0.911 OP2 0.897 OP3 0.881 OP4 0.913 OP5 0.876 OP6 Q = Q0 + A/((1 + ((x − xc)/w1)2) × (1 + ((y − yc)/w2)2)) 0.958

Note: Coefficients of each equation are shown in the Appendix A.

An observation hole on the wall located opposite of combustion burner B measured the heat flux at the burner axial plane. Six points were chosen from the axis and their Cartesian coordinates were defined: (x = 1250, y = 200), (1250, 400), (1250, 600), (1250, 800), (1250, 1000), and (1250, 1200).

Figure 10 shows the THF of simulated and measured changes along the axis of burner B in different cases, as well as the fitting line about the measured points. The simulated and fitted line had almost the same slope as the equation; the fitting line was just slightly higher than the simulated line. The low values of intercept of the simulation results may be a result of scattered observation points at the whole burner plane (i.e., points that were not focused on the burner axis or combustion zone). It is therefore reasonable to attribute the intercept error to experimental errors. Said error could be eliminated if the observation points at the burner axis were increased, but, in general, the simulated results of each operating condition agreed with measured values.

Figure 9. The convection heat transfer coefficient variation of six cases.

3.2. Nonlinear Surface Fitting of THF Profile at Burner Horizontal Plane

THF at the 14 measuring points were nonlinear surface-fitted to obtain an expression of the THFdistribution at the burner horizontal plane. We used different equations for the fitting and then selectedthe best equation by comparison. Table 3 lists the THF equation of THF profiles at the burner plane ineach operating condition. The R-sq (adj) values of the equations, i.e., their respective fitting degree, aregiven in Table 3. A polynomial equation was applied to describe flameless combustion and a Lorentzequation was used for the conventional combustion mode.

Table 3. Total heat flux equation of different operating conditions of six cases.

Heat Flux OP Equation Form R-sq (adj)

THF

OP1

Q = Q0 + A1 x + A2 x2 + A3 x3 + A4 x4 + A5 x5 + B1 y + B2y2 + B3 y3 + B4 y4 + B5 y5

0.911OP2 0.897OP3 0.881OP4 0.913OP5 0.876

OP6 Q = Q0 + A/((1 + ((x − xc)/w1)2) × (1 + ((y − yc)/w2)2)) 0.958

Note: Coefficients of each equation are shown in the Appendix A.

An observation hole on the wall located opposite of combustion burner B measured the heat fluxat the burner axial plane. Six points were chosen from the axis and their Cartesian coordinates weredefined: (x = 1250, y = 200), (1250, 400), (1250, 600), (1250, 800), (1250, 1000), and (1250, 1200).

Figure 10 shows the THF of simulated and measured changes along the axis of burner B indifferent cases, as well as the fitting line about the measured points. The simulated and fitted line hadalmost the same slope as the equation; the fitting line was just slightly higher than the simulated line.The low values of intercept of the simulation results may be a result of scattered observation pointsat the whole burner plane (i.e., points that were not focused on the burner axis or combustion zone).It is therefore reasonable to attribute the intercept error to experimental errors. Said error could beeliminated if the observation points at the burner axis were increased, but, in general, the simulatedresults of each operating condition agreed with measured values.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 12 of 15

Energies 2017, 10, 562 12 of 15

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

340

345

350

355

360

365

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

290

300

310

320

330

340

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

Q'1=344.02+0.01533⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9846

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

Simulated ; Measured ; Fit to measured

(a)

Q1=341.22+0.01524⋅y

Q'2=208.99-0.01476y+2.74⋅10-5⋅y2

R-sq(adj)=0.9952

Q2=209.14-0.01968y+2.89⋅10-5⋅y2

(b)

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

(d) (c)

Q'3=275.46-0.00126y+1.59⋅10-5⋅y2

R-sq(adj)=0.9971

Q3=275.60-0.00817y+1.98⋅10-5⋅y2

Q'4=300.72+0.02411⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9914

Q6=258.61+0.09435⋅y

Q5=292.47+0.03077⋅y

Q4=297.34+0.02445⋅y

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

Q'5=292.25+0.03511⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9818

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

(f) (e)

Q'6=259.01+0.10089⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9953

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm) Figure 10. Heat flux as function of the distance along burner B axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.3. Heat Flux Proportion at Three Horizontal Levels

Heat flux distributions on the burner horizontal plane (Z = 0 mm) are known to fluctuate with increase in height from Z = 0 mm, so we researched these fluctuations under standard operating conditions (OP1). Two horizontal planes were set up away from the burner horizontal plane; horizontal plane height was 0, 300, and 550 mm for the burner plane, middle plane, and high plane, respectively. The No. 10 hole was selected as the observation point to measure heat flux, because it was situated in the middle between burner B and burner A.

Figure 11 shows where RHF accounted for about 80% of THF. By comparison among the three horizontal planes, the 550 mm plane had the maximum THF of 303.1 kW/m2. The RHF of the 550 mm plane was also the largest. In other words, heat flux is easier to concentrate at the furnace top when the combustion burner works properly.

Z=0mm

Z=300mm

Z=550mm

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

(287.1)

(284.2)

Heat flux(kw/m2)

(16.3%)

(16.9%)(83.1%)

(83.7%)

(21.3%)

Convection heat flux Radiation heat flux

(78.7%) (303.1)

(burner plane)

Figure 11. The heat flux measured from three height levels at No. 10 hole with standard operating condition.

Figure 10. Heat flux as function of the distance along burner B axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4;(e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.3. Heat Flux Proportion at Three Horizontal Levels

Heat flux distributions on the burner horizontal plane (Z = 0 mm) are known to fluctuate withincrease in height from Z = 0 mm, so we researched these fluctuations under standard operatingconditions (OP1). Two horizontal planes were set up away from the burner horizontal plane; horizontalplane height was 0, 300, and 550 mm for the burner plane, middle plane, and high plane, respectively.The No. 10 hole was selected as the observation point to measure heat flux, because it was situated inthe middle between burner B and burner A.

Figure 11 shows where RHF accounted for about 80% of THF. By comparison among the threehorizontal planes, the 550 mm plane had the maximum THF of 303.1 kW/m2. The RHF of the 550 mmplane was also the largest. In other words, heat flux is easier to concentrate at the furnace top whenthe combustion burner works properly.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 12 of 15

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

340

345

350

355

360

365

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

205

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

275

280

285

290

295

300

305

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

295

300

305

310

315

320

325

330

335

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0

290

300

310

320

330

340

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

Q'1=344.02+0.01533⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9846

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

Simulated ; Measured ; Fit to measured

(a)

Q1=341.22+0.01524⋅y

Q'2=208.99-0.01476y+2.74⋅10-5⋅y2

R-sq(adj)=0.9952

Q2=209.14-0.01968y+2.89⋅10-5⋅y2

(b)

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

(d) (c)

Q'3=275.46-0.00126y+1.59⋅10-5⋅y2

R-sq(adj)=0.9971

Q3=275.60-0.00817y+1.98⋅10-5⋅y2

Q'4=300.72+0.02411⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9914

Q6=258.61+0.09435⋅y

Q5=292.47+0.03077⋅y

Q4=297.34+0.02445⋅y

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

Q'5=292.25+0.03511⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9818

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm)

(f) (e)

Q'6=259.01+0.10089⋅y

R-sq(adj)=0.9953

Hea

t flu

x/(k

W⋅m

-2)

Burner B axis distance/(mm) Figure 10. Heat flux as function of the distance along burner B axis: (a) OP1; (b) OP2; (c) OP3; (d) OP4; (e) OP5; and (f) OP6.

3.3. Heat Flux Proportion at Three Horizontal Levels

Heat flux distributions on the burner horizontal plane (Z = 0 mm) are known to fluctuate with increase in height from Z = 0 mm, so we researched these fluctuations under standard operating conditions (OP1). Two horizontal planes were set up away from the burner horizontal plane; horizontal plane height was 0, 300, and 550 mm for the burner plane, middle plane, and high plane, respectively. The No. 10 hole was selected as the observation point to measure heat flux, because it was situated in the middle between burner B and burner A.

Figure 11 shows where RHF accounted for about 80% of THF. By comparison among the three horizontal planes, the 550 mm plane had the maximum THF of 303.1 kW/m2. The RHF of the 550 mm plane was also the largest. In other words, heat flux is easier to concentrate at the furnace top when the combustion burner works properly.

Z=0mm

Z=300mm

Z=550mm

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

(287.1)

(284.2)

Heat flux(kw/m2)

(16.3%)

(16.9%)(83.1%)

(83.7%)

(21.3%)

Convection heat flux Radiation heat flux

(78.7%) (303.1)

(burner plane)

Figure 11. The heat flux measured from three height levels at No. 10 hole with standard operating condition.

Figure 11. The heat flux measured from three height levels at No. 10 hole with standardoperating condition.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 13 of 15

4. Conclusions

An experimental evolution of heat flux distribution in a reheating aluminum furnace with a pairof regenerative burners was conducted in this study. The main objective was to comprehensivelyinvestigate the heat flux characteristics in a typical furnace based on experimental data. Ultimately, wesought to develop a combustion model that can be utilized to accurately simulate heat transfer in thefurnace. Our most important observations can be summarized as follows.

• The maximum and average THF increased (64.5% and 65.1%) as furnace temperature increasedfrom 900 to 1100 ◦C. Increasing the excess air ratio from 1.2 to 1.3 at 1100 K furnace temperatureenlarged the maximum and average THF (22.8% and 23.4%), the high THF area and reducedthe flame volume. Conventional combustion resulted in lower average THF (8.3%) and smallercombustion space than flameless combustion.

• The maximum and average RHF were enhanced (25.6% and 30.8%) by elevated furnacetemperatures (900 to 1100 ◦C), and 23.8% and 27.0% by magnified excess air ratio (1.2 to 1.3).Although an increase in excess air ratio contributed to the maximum RHF, it also caused the heatflux gradient to enlarge. The RHF distribution of flameless combustion was more homogeneousthan that of conventional combustion.

• A variation of furnace temperature and excess air ratio had mildly effect (above 20%) on convectioncoefficient, but combustion mode was in contrast (51.4%).

• The estimated model of the heat flux distribution from the measured heat flux at the whole burnerplane agreed with the fitted line of the axis of burner B.

• The RHF of three horizontal levels occupied about 80% of the total heat flux. Heat flux tended toconcentrate on the top of the furnace.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (No. 51276023)and NSFC International Cooperation and Exchange (No. 513101410) for supporting this work. The authors alsowish to thank YeChiu Metal Resource Recycling (China) Ltd (Suzhou, China).

Author Contributions: Hang Zhang and Shengxiang Deng conceived and designed the experiments; Hang Zhangperformed the experiments; Shengxiang Deng contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; Hang Zhang wrotethe paper.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. The coefficient of THF heat flux equation with different operation conditions.

Coefficient OP1 OP2 OP3 OP4 OP5 Coefficient OP6

q0 244.6823 134.0883 190.4299 201.068 176.2513 q0 250.34332A1 −2.22729 −1.35071 −1.79064 −1.80963 −1.43322 A 126.79834A2 0.00594 0.00366 0.0048 0.0049 0.0038 xc 1214.22684A3 −6.6 × 10−6 −4.2 × 10−6 −5.4 × 10−6 −5.6 × 10−6 −4.3 × 10−6 w1 417.5452A4 3.11 × 10−9 2 × 10−9 2.55 × 10−9 2.68 × 10−9 2.12 × 10−9 yc 1022.544A5 −5.2 × 10−13 −3.4 × 10−13 −4.3 × 10−13 −4.6 × 10−13 −3.6 × 10−13 w2 443.1504B1 0.05254 0.04959 0.04932 0.05302 0.05323B2 −6.8 × 10−6 6.3 × 10−6 −1.3 × 10−6 −1.3 × 10−6 1.8 × 10−6

B3 −8.8 × 10−5 −4.7 × 10−5 −6.7 × 10−5 −7.3 × 10−5 −6.2 × 10−5

B4 2.1 × 10−7 1.1 × 10−7 1.6 × 10−7 1.7 × 10−7 1.5 × 10−7

B5 −1.2 × 10−10 −6.2 × 10−11 −8.9 × 10−11 −9.7 × 10−11 −8.2 × 10−11

References

1. Steinboeck, A.; Wild, D.; Kugi, A. Energy-efficient control of continuous reheating furnaces. IFAC Proc. Vol.2013, 46, 359–364. [CrossRef]

2. Marion, M.; Hirz, R.P.; Grote, F.; Weber, S.; Winning, G.; Adler, W.; Bender, W. Increase of energy efficiency ofreheating furnaces in forging mills. Stahl Und Eisen 2008, 128, 29–33.

Energies 2017, 10, 562 14 of 15

3. Xing, F.; Kumar, A.; Huang, Y.; Chan, S.N.; Ruan, C.; Gu, S.; Fai, X.L. Flameless combustion with liquid fuel:A review focusing on fundamentals and gas turbine application. Appl. Energy 2017, 197, 28–51. [CrossRef]

4. Mahdi, Y.; Ann, F.; Thierry, G. Impact of size and temperature on the hydrodynamics of chemical combustion.Appl. Energy 2015, 157, 416–421.

5. Bhuiyan, A.A.; Blicblau, A.S.; Sadrul Islam, A.K.M.; Naser, J. A review on thermo-chemical characteristics ofcoal/biomass co-firing in industrial furnace. J. Energy Inst. 2016, in press. [CrossRef]

6. Chiara, G.; Giovanni, C.; Leonardo, T. Numerical investigation of oxy-natural-gas combustion in asemi-industrial furnace: Validation of CFD sub-models. Fuel 2013, 109, 445–460.

7. Zhang, R.Q.; Yang, H.R.; Hu, N.; Lu, J.F.; Wu, Y.X. Experimental investigation and model validation of theheat flux profile in a 300 MW CFB boiler. Powder Technol. 2013, 246, 31–40. [CrossRef]

8. Xu, L.J.; Cheng, L.M.; Cai, Y.; Liu, Y.Q.; Wang, Q.H.; Luo, Z.Y.; Ni, M.J. Heat flux determination based on thewaterwall and gas–solid flow in a supercritical CFB boiler. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 99, 703–712. [CrossRef]

9. Roldán, M.I.; Monterreal, R. Heat flux and temperature prediction on a volumetric receiver installer in asolar furnace. Appl. Energy 2014, 120, 65–74. [CrossRef]

10. Robin, P.M.; Shaun, M.F.; Zuzana, G.; Juraj, L. An experimental-numerical method for estimating heattransfer in a Bridgman furnace. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2014, 67, 61–71.

11. Gimelli, A.; Muccillo, M.; Sannino, R. Optimal design of modular cogeneration plants for hospital facilitiesand robustness evaluation of the results. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 134, 20–31. [CrossRef]

12. Kang, Y.H.; Wang, Q.H.; Lu, X.F.; Ji, X.Y.; Wang, H.; Guo, Q.; Chen, Y.; Yan, J.; Zhou, H.L. Experimental andtheoretical study on radiative heat transfer characteristics of dimethyl ether jet diffusion flame. Fuel 2015,158, 684–696. [CrossRef]

13. Hashimoto, N.; Watanabe, H. Numerical analysis on effect of furnace scale on heat transfer mechanism ofcoal particles in pulverized coal combustion field. Fuel Process. Technol. 2016, 145, 20–30. [CrossRef]

14. Zhang, D.L.; Meng, C.W.; Zhang, H.; Liu, P.Y.; Li, Z.H.; Wu, Y.X.; Lu, J.F.; Zhou, W.; Ran, S.M.; Zhang, D.H.Studies on heat flux distribution on the membrane walls in a 600 MW supercritical arch-fired boiler.Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 103, 264–273. [CrossRef]

15. Fan, Q.W.; Hui, S.E.; Zhou, Q.L.; Chen, X.; Zhao, Q.X.; Xu, T.M. Experimental study on the heat fluxdistribution of a laboratory-scale wall-fired furnace. Energy Fuels 2010, 24, 5369–5377. [CrossRef]

16. Silva, R.C.; Krautz, H.J. Experimental studies on heat transfer of oxy-coal combustion in a large-scalelaboratory furnace. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 82, 82–97. [CrossRef]

17. Wang, J.M.; Xu, P.; Yan, H.J.; Zhou, J.M.; Li, S.X.; Gui, G.C.; Li, W.K. Burner effects on melting process ofregenerative aluminum melting furnace. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2013, 23, 3125–3136. [CrossRef]

18. Sadegh, S.K.; David, P.; Fredirk, N.; Filip, J. Heat transfer in a 4-MWth circulating fuildized bed furnaceoperated under oxy-fired and air-fired conditions: Modeling and measurements. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control2015, 37, 264–273.

19. Erfan, K.; Mahdi, P.; Mohammad, H.P. Effects of excess air and preheating on the flow pattern and efficiencyof the radiative section of a fired heater. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 105, 537–548.

20. Karimi, H.J.; Saidi, M.H. Heat transfer and energy analysis of a pusher type reheating furnace using oxygenenhanced air for combustion. J. Iron Steel Res. 2010, 17, 12–17. [CrossRef]

21. Jang, J.H.; Lee, D.E.; Kim, C.M.; Kim, M.Y. Prediction of furnace heat transfer and its influence on the steelslab heating and skid mark formation in a reheating furnace. Iron Steel Inst. J. Int. 2008, 48, 1325–1330.[CrossRef]

22. Wikstrom, P.; Blasiak, W.; Berntsson, F. Estimation of the transient surface temperature, heat flux and effectiveheat transfer coefficient of a slab in an industrial reheating furnace by using an inverse method. Steel Res. Int.2007, 78, 63–70. [CrossRef]

23. Rafidi, N.; Blasiak, W. Heat transfer characteristics of HiTAC heating furnace using regenerative burners.Appl. Therm. Eng. 2006, 26, 2027–2034. [CrossRef]

24. Bideau, P.L.; Ploteau, J.P.; Glouannec, P. Heat flux estimation in an infrared experimental furnace using aninverse method. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2009, 29, 2977–2982. [CrossRef]

25. Sankar, G.; Rao, A.C.; Seshadri, P.S.; Balasubramanian, K.R. Techniques for measurement of heat flux infurnace waterwalls of boilers and prediction of heat flux—A review. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2016, 103, 1470–1479.[CrossRef]

Energies 2017, 10, 562 15 of 15

26. Murthy, A.V. Characterization of an ellipsoidal radiometer. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 2003, 108,115–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27. Li, A.; Gao, X.P. A method to calculate wall heat fluxes of electrical equipments based on overdeterminedlinear equation. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2011, 114, 428–443. [CrossRef]

28. Holman, S.W. Discussion of the Precision of Measurements: With Examples Taken Mainly from Physics and ElectricalEngineering; Brunton Press: Louisville, CO, USA, 2007.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).