Numerical model investigates particle mixing and ash separation in a rotating cone burner for biomass fuel, highlighting key operational parameters.
In biomass pellet combustion, the formation of ash layers on particle surfaces severely hinders combustion reactions and heat transfer, while the key parameters governing particle motion behavior and ash pre-separation in rotating cone burners remain insufficiently understood. To address these challenges and to optimize particle mixing and ash separation performance, this study adopts a combined numerical approach. The discrete element method (DEM) coupled with the Hertz–Mindlin (no-slip) contact model is employed to simulate particle motion and mixing dynamics, while a separate cold-state computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model based on the Realizable k-ε turbulence model and the discrete phase model (DPM) with Rosin–Rammler particle size distribution is established to investigate ash separation mechanisms. The Lacey mixing index is used to quantify mixing uniformity, and grid independence verification is performed to ensure numerical reliability. Key findings reveal that the rolling regime (rotational speed: 1.7–11 r/min), a uniform particle size of 25 mm, and a cone inclination angle of 45° collectively optimize particle mixing. Rotational speed is identified as the dominant factor affecting mixing effectiveness. Furthermore, an optimal secondary-to-primary air ratio of approximately 7:3 (within the tested range) balances enhanced centrifugal separation with flow field stability by mitigating backflow and excessive turbulence. This work not only fills the knowledge gap regarding the coupled effects of operational and structural parameters on particle behavior in rotating cone burners but also provides novel, quantitative guidance for the rational design and parameter tuning of such burners to improve combustion efficiency and operational stability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: