Graphical Abstract Figure
Graphical Abstract Figure
Close modal

Abstract

Present energy consumption and environmental conditions have motivated researchers to explore renewable and alternative energy sources for cooking. Biohythane is a renewable fuel, that can be prepared by purifying biomethane and biohydrogen along with CO2, generated from the anaerobic digestion of biological sources like food waste and cow dung. The current research aims to analyze the combustion performances of biohythane in a double-layered porous radiant burner (PRB) made of silicon carbide and ceramic matrix. The experiment was conducted in the PRB by varying the input fuel range (thermal load) of 200–400 kW/m2, and the biohydrogen percentage of 5–20 in the biohythane for lean fuel–air mixture conditions. It was observed that the PRB performed steadily within the equivalence ratio of 0.55–0.76 and offered radiation efficiency of 41.39–89.93%, CO of 11–84 ppm, and NOX of 4–6.1 ppm. As the biohydrogen percentage increases from 5–20 in the biohythane, the temperature, radiation efficiency, and NOX have increased but the CO has decreased. Further, the temperature and NOX emission have increased due to the increase in thermal load and equivalence ratio, but the CO emission has increased with the increase in thermal load only and decreased due to the increase in equivalence ratio in the PRB. Moreover, the radiation efficiency has increased due to the increase in equivalence ratio only. Overall, the PRB offers efficient combustion of biohythane in the range of a low fuel–air combination.

1 Introduction

The demand for energy in the residential and commercial sectors is growing in tandem due to the worldwide human population growth. According to the World Energy Outlook Report (2023), the total energy demand in the world will increase from around 630 exajoules (EJ) in 2022 to 670 EJ by 2030 in the stated policies scenario. This refers to an annual growth rate of 0.7% on average, which is about half the rate at which energy demand has increased over the last decade. Demand will continue to grow between 2030 and 2050, with a 16% rise in emerging markets From 2030 to 2050, demand will still be rising, with a 16% increase in emerging markets and developing countries more than compensating a 9% decline in developed economies [1]. Currently, around 80% of global energy demand is met by fossil fuel combustion, with the rest coming from various sources such as nuclear and renewable energy [2,3]. The combustion products of fossil fuels like COX, SOX, and NOX are primary factors of air pollution, which may worsen global warming.

In this regard, biohythane, a renewable fuel, becomes a potentially attractive step to reduce carbon emissions. Biohythane is a mixture of biomethane and biohydrogen. Both can be produced by anaerobic digestion from biological sources like food waste and cow dung, but each technique needs a separate atmosphere, supplements, and suitable additives that can improve the gas formation by increasing the microbial activity during the fermentative process [4].

Multiple European countries, notably Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Italy, and Spain have started mixing hydrogen (H2) into natural gas (100% methane) pipelines [5]. The majority of the proposed H2 blending activities are focused on blending H2 into the natural gas pipeline at a concentration of less than 20%. The characteristics of fuel (density, heating value) will vary when the hydrogen mixes with natural gas resulting in variable characteristics (combustion stability, combustion temperature, emissions) during the combustion. The American Gas Association (AGA) first proposed the assessment methods for different gas interchangeability, which was eventually promoted to be, used globally [6]. The indicators should be adjusted depending on different national conditions and gas devices to prevent possible replacement and serious accidents in certain scenarios [7,8]. Assessing the tolerance of combustion devices to the additional H2 is one of the issues with the hydrogen blending strategy. Several types of equipment in residential homes must be checked and upgraded to accept H2 in the natural gas pipeline. The maximum permissible H2 addition fraction in the pipeline network is 3 vol% to ensure proper transmission of natural gas–H2 mixtures [9] according to the American Gas Association [6] for fuel interchangeability. It has been found that a maximum of 30 vol% of natural gas may be interchanged with H2 for conventional domestic natural gas appliances assuming port diameters of less than 3.5 mm [10]. The 25 vol% H2 can be mixed with natural gas for an oven burner without any impact on burner material as well as a flashback [11]. The 17 vol% H2 in the natural gas–H2 mixtures will not cause any difficulties for end-use appliances like burners, boilers, etc. [12]. The combustion performance of the cooktop burner has not been considerably affected due to the addition of around 15% H2 in the natural gas, but the addition of H2 of around 20 vol% in the natural gas pipeline causes a flashback in the cooktop burner [13]. In North America, 10 vol% H2 mixed with natural gas has been transported in the existing natural gas pipeline. Transportation of H2 in the natural gas pipeline is less expensive than converting H2 to diesel, methane, or gasoline [14]. Different features of combustion performance, such as flashback, flame temperature, combustion efficiency, CO and NOX emissions, combustion noise, etc., were explored in these experiments. Different burners tolerate H2 in natural gas to a variable level. This variation depends on the type of burner, operating condition, and other factors. Although considerable testing has been performed, the previous research has mainly concentrated on the phenomenon observation of blending H2 into existing conventional burners (CB).

In the medium-scale cooking stove CB, combustion is characterized by free flame. In free flame combustion, convection is the primary mode of heat transport, which is less effective [15]. The reaction zone is very thin in the CB of Bunsen type, which leads to incomplete combustion. Due to lesser heat transport and incomplete combustion, CB is inefficient in terms of energy use and also produces high CO and NOX emissions [16,17]. In the CB, a significant amount of heat and exhaust gas has vanished into the environment. To deal with challenges that arise during combustion in CB, another alternative, combustion in porous media (PMC) has been proposed. In PMC, the exhaust heat can be captured and used to preheat the incoming fuel–air combination so that the combustible mixture's temperature will rise above the adiabatic flame temperature. Such a type of flame is called “excess enthalpy flame,” and this process of combustion is called “excess enthalpy combustion.” This excess enthalpy combustion mechanism is used within porous media (PM) [18]. It helps the recirculation of heat in the upstream region of the PM to preheat the fuel–air. Apart from preheating the incoming premixed air–fuel mixture, the heat transports in PM occur in three modes (conduction, radiation, and convection) due to its thermal properties and larger volumetric area. Thus, porous radiant burner (PRB) performs with better thermal efficiency and lower emissions [15].

Some researchers have investigated the combustion performances of H2 mixed with other flammable gases in the PRB. Huang et al. [19] investigated the performance of the porous media burner, operated on three low calorific fuels, including low H2 content and high H2 content fuel with the H2/CO ratios of 0.2 and 0.7, respectively. It has been found that the change in fuel does not affect the performance of the burner. Francisco et al. [20] developed a porous burner to test several mixtures of CH4 and syngas, keeping the adiabatic flame temperature constant for all fuel compositions. The experiment was carried out for syngas mixtures with the H2/CO ratio of 0.3 and CH4 between 0 and 100%. The stability limits of the burner have not changed significantly for syngas mixtures having less than 60% CH4, but the higher concentration of CH4 has enhanced the stability range of the burner. Pollutant emissions have been observed to drop significantly due to the increases in H2 content in syngas mixtures. In another study, the same group of the research team observed the same pattern for the combustion of syngas mixtures and CH4 in a porous burner in a confined heated environment like the previous study of the open environment [21]. Alavandi and Agrawal [22] studied the combustion of H2-syngas and CH4 in a two-section porous burner consisting of SiC-coated carbon foam of 10 and 2 PPI. The percentage of CH4 was changed from 100–0% and the rest was equally split between H2 and CO in the fuel mixtures. It has been found that the developed porous burner is capable of burning syngas fuels and emitting less CO and NOX for syngas compared to pure CH4. In another study, Samiran et al. [23] studied the combustion characteristics of various syngas mixtures with H2/CO ratios of 1.2 and 3 in a premixed swirl flame combustor. They have observed that the higher percentage of H2-rich fuel mixture emits less NOX compared to other syngas mixtures. Similarly, Ouimette and Seers [24] reported that the syngas with a higher percentage of H2 emits less NOX emission. However, Lee et al. [25] found that the fuel with a high H2 percentage (80% H2) emits more NOX. Some researchers studied the emission characteristics for pure CH4, syngas (H2:37.5%, CO:37.5%, CH4:5%, CO2:20%), syngas–biogas blend (H2:18.8%, CO:18.8%, CH4:52.5%, CO2:10%) in a jet-wall stagnation flame setup and found that at some thermal input the syngas and syngas–biogas blend emit less NO compared to CH4 [26]. Qian et al. [27] proposed and numerically studied a divergent porous media combustor to enhance the flammability and ηrad of H2–air combustion. It has been reported that the divergent porous combustor increases the blow-out limit by 186% and radiation efficiency (ηrad) by 70% compared to the straight combustor. Zangeneh and Alipoor [28] numerically studied the flame stability of an H2–air mixture in a conical porous burner. It has been found that the flame location moves to the downstream region and also increases the length of the preheating zone in the porous burner due to the increase of the firing rate at the fixed burner cone angle. Arrieta et al. [29] studied the combustion behavior of CH4–syngas in a porous burner. The CH4 was used as the pilot fuel and the H2–CO ratio was varied. It was found that the temperature profile and flame stability were not significantly affected by the addition of H2-rich syngas to CH4. However, the CO and NOX were significantly reduced. Maznoy et al. [30] also observed the same pattern that the addition of H2 and H2–CO to natural gas reduced the CO and NOX without affecting the ηrad (40–50%) and also expanded the radiation mode to the lean region for the Ni–Al porous burner operated in the internal combustion mode. Gauthier et al. [31] also found that the CO2, CO, and NOX are reduced due to the gradual replacement of natural gas to H2 in the porous burner. However, the flame gets unstable when the H2 percentage exceeds 80% in the natural gas/H2 blend. Recently Habib et al. [32] experimented with the CH4/H2 blend in a porous burner to study the flame stability in the burner due to the imposed oscillation on the fuel flow. It was observed that the stable combustion of CH4 (90%)–H2 (10%) occurred at a low equivalence ratio (φ) of 0.25.

From the literature review, it is clear that most of the studies have analyzed NG/H2 blend combustion in conventional gas appliances. Some researchers have carried out on synthetic gas combustion in PRB. There is very little work on the combustion performances of NG/H2 and CH4/H2 blend in the PRB and no work is reported on the performance of the double-layered PRB with biohythane (biomethane + biohydrogen). The biohythane can be maintained by purifying the biomethane and biohydrogen along with CO2, which are generated from the anaerobic digestion of biological sources like food waste and cow dung. The performance of the PRB might change due to the contamination in the biohythane. So the present work focuses on the biohythane combustion in the double-layered PRB made of SiC foam and ceramic matrix at the thermal load (TL) of 200–400 kW/m2 operated in submerged mode. Moreover, the study evaluates the impact of operating parameters like TL and φ on combustion stability limit, temperature distribution, ηrad, CO, NOX emission, etc.

2 Methodology

2.1 Test Fuel.

Biomethane (CH4) and Biohydrogen (H2) were produced separately by the anaerobic co-digestion of cow dung + food waste, and sludge solution as the inoculums on a 1:3 volume basis in two different reactors. The unpurified CH4 and H2 along with CO2 were yielded in the reactors. After that, these unpurified gases were passed through the refinement and mixing column, where they were purified up to ∼99% of H2 and CH4. The details of the H2 and CH4 production and purification processes were explained in the earlier works [3335]. The composition of CH4 and H2 in the unpurified and purified gas stream is presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Composition of biomethane and biohydrogen

Compositions
UnpurifiedPurified
ComponentH2 (%)CH4 (%)CO2 (%)H2 (%)CH4 (%)CO2 (%)
Biomethane66.2432.7598.430
Biohydrogen32.8562.2798.870
Compositions
UnpurifiedPurified
ComponentH2 (%)CH4 (%)CO2 (%)H2 (%)CH4 (%)CO2 (%)
Biomethane66.2432.7598.430
Biohydrogen32.8562.2798.870

The required composition of H2 and CH4 in biohythane was obtained from the refinement and mixing column by regulating the gas flowrate with a rotameter and flow control valve and stored in a biohythane storage tank. The important properties of CH4 and H2 are presented in Table 2 [36].

Table 2

Properties of CH4 and H2 [36]

ParametersCH4H2
Density (kg/m3)0.71230.084
Wobbe Index, W (MJ/m3)50.8348.15
Low calorific value (MJ/kg)
(MJ/m3)
48.79
34.753
120
10.08
Laminar burning velocity (m/s)0.32.5
ParametersCH4H2
Density (kg/m3)0.71230.084
Wobbe Index, W (MJ/m3)50.8348.15
Low calorific value (MJ/kg)
(MJ/m3)
48.79
34.753
120
10.08
Laminar burning velocity (m/s)0.32.5

Although the calorific values of CH4 and H2 are considerably different, their Wobbe index values are very close, as shown in Table 2. If the Wobbe Index difference between two types of gas is less than ± 5–10%, then they can be interchanged in a gas application [37]. So a portion of CH4 may be replaced with H2 without affecting the heat output of conventional combustion equipment. So in this study H2 enrichment tests were conducted by reducing the CH4 flowrate by 5, 10, 15, and 20% by volume, and an equal amount of H2 was substituted in the same percentage to test the combustion feasibility of PRB. The biohythane containing H2 (5–20%) and CH4 (95–80%) were monitored by regulating the gas in a chromatograph (GC-2010, CIC, Baroda) using nitrogen as a transporter with 99.9995% purity. The flowrates of CH4 and H2 for the considered biohythane are presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Flow rates of V˙H2 and V˙CH4 at different biohythane

Thermal load (kW/m2)5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)
2000.0891.6980.1851.6680.2891.6380.4021.608
3000.1332.5500.2772.4960.4342.4630.62.412
4000.1783.3960.3703.3360.5793.2820.8043.216
Thermal load (kW/m2)5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)V˙H2 (LPM)V˙CH4 (LPM)
2000.0891.6980.1851.6680.2891.6380.4021.608
3000.1332.5500.2772.4960.4342.4630.62.412
4000.1783.3960.3703.3360.5793.2820.8043.216

2.2 Experimental Setup and Instrument Details.

The schematic of the experimental setup with the PRB and photograph of the experimental setup is shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The body of the PRB is made of mild steel of 2.5 mm thickness to provide stability. It consists of two parts: the combustion zone (CZ), and preheating zone (PZ). The CZ with a porosity of 90% was found to be the optimal and most effective in terms of thermal efficiency [38]. So SiC foam with a thickness of 20 mm, a porosity of 90%, and 10 PPI have been taken for the development of CZ in the burner. The PZ is made of ceramic of thickness of 15 mm with numbers of straight holes of diameter 1 mm and porosity of 11%. The diameter of both SiC and ceramic is 80 mm. The detailed composition and physical properties of ceramic and SiC foam are presented in our earlier work [39]. A gap of 15 mm is maintained between ceramic and SiC foam to increase the flame stability range [40]. Ceramic wool of thickness 25 mm is used to cover the body of the PRB to reduce heat loss.

Fig. 1
Schematic of the experimental setup and PRB
Fig. 1
Schematic of the experimental setup and PRB
Close modal
Fig. 2
Photograph of the experimental setup
Fig. 2
Photograph of the experimental setup
Close modal

The biohythane and air are supplied at a pressure of 1.25 bar through their respective rotameters (Make FLOWPOINT, India) to reach the PRB through the mixing tube. Several baffles are designed in the mixing tube of diameter 25 mm and a length of 120 mm, for proper mixing of air and biohythane before reaching the PRB. The interior and surface temperatures were measured by K-type and R-type thermocouples. The output data of the thermocouples were collected by a data acquisition system (Make: CHINO, Model: KR 2000, China). The K-type thermocouples are placed at the base of PZ, and PZ, whereas R-type thermocouples are kept at the interface of PZ and CZ, the base of CZ, CZ, and the top of CZ, indicated by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3. A chimney was built in the asbestos sheet (cross-section and height of 380 × 380 and 650 mm) and kept at the top of PRB to ensure proper and uniform exhaust gas collection. After that, the exhaust gas was cooled by a water-cooled stainless steel tube. Then, the gas was collected for emission measurement by a multi-gas analyzer (AVL-444 model, AVL India Pvt., India). On one side of the chimney, a quartz window was installed for optical access to the combustion in the PRB.

Fig. 3
Position of thermocouples in PRB
Fig. 3
Position of thermocouples in PRB
Close modal

2.3 Parameter Definitions.

The combustion equation of biohythane and the definition of φ are defined in Eqs. (1) and 2, respectively. The ηrad and TL are the two important factors for the analysis of the performance of PRB and are defined in Eqs. (3) and 4, respectively [41].
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
where α is the H2 mole fraction, ε is the SiC emissivity (0.9), σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (5.67 × 10−8 W/m2K4), Tsurf is the PRB surface temperature, Tsurr is the surrounding temperature, ABS is the Surface area of PRB (m2), LCV is the lower calorific value of fuel (kJ/m3), V˙CH4 is the volumetric flowrate of CH4 (m3/s), V˙H2 is the volumetric flowrate of H2 (m3/s).

2.4 Experimental Procedure.

The flame was initially ignited on the porous medium's surface at the high φ for the particular flowrate of 5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4. To achieve the necessary φ for submerged combustion, the flowrate of fuel was kept constant while the airflow rate was adjusted for the TL of 200–400 kW/m2. As the airflow rate increased, the flame eventually propagated from the burner's outlet to the inlet. When the temperature fluctuation stayed within 10 K for at least 30 min, the burner was considered stable [39]. At that time, the flashback (the φ at which the flame front reached the position of thermocouple T2 (as shown in Fig. 2) at the particular TL) and blow-off (the φ at which the flame floated on the surface of the PRB at the particular TL) were absent. The PRB operated steadily at the φ range of 0.55–0.76 for considered 5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4 fuels. When the PRB offered stability, the temperatures at axial positions, CO, and NOX emissions were assessed at the TL of 200–400 kW/m2 and ηrad is calculated using Eq. (3).

2.5 Experimental Uncertainty.

For the experimental study, the uncertainty in the assessment of the dependent parameter is critical. The degree of uncertainty related to variables is shown in Table 4.

Table 4

Uncertainty related to variables

VariablesUncertainty
Flowrate of fuel and air±0.01
NOX±2 ppm
CO±2 ppm
Temperature (thermocouple)±2 °C
VariablesUncertainty
Flowrate of fuel and air±0.01
NOX±2 ppm
CO±2 ppm
Temperature (thermocouple)±2 °C
The total uncertainty related to the calculation of ηrad is anticipated with the sequential perturbation technique [42]. The uncertainty in radiation efficiency (δηrad) occurs due to the measurement of surface temperature, surrounding temperature, surface area of the burner, and volume flowrate. The δηrad is calculated using Eqs. (5) and (6)
(5)
(6)

For 20H280CH4, (V˙H2 = 1.34 × 10−5 m3/sec and V˙CH4 = 5.36 × 10−5 m3/sec), the Tsurf = 1431 K, Tsurr = 300 K, and ABS = 0.005 m2, the uncertainty in temperature at the burner surface (x1) = 2.20 × 10−3, the uncertainty in temperature of surrounding (x2) = −2.03 × 10−5, the uncertainty in surface area of the burner (x3) = 1.57 × 10−2, the uncertainty in volume flowrate of fuel (x4) = −5.08 × 10−2, the δηrad = ±0.005, and the relative uncertainty in ηrad (δηrad/ηrad) = ±1.93%.

3 Results and Discussions

The temperature in the axial direction of PRB, ηrad, emissions (CO and NOX), etc., were analyzed within this stable φ of 0.55–0.76 at the TL of 200–400 kW/m2 for considered 5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4 fuels.

3.1 Temperature in the Axial Direction.

Temperatures of the burner at various axial positions were collected to better understand the flame location and combustion stability of the burner. The temperatures in the axial direction of the PRB at the TL of 200–400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.55–0.76 for considered biohythane (5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4) are shown in Figs. 47.

Fig. 4
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 5H295CH4: (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Fig. 4
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 5H295CH4: (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Close modal
Fig. 5
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 10H290CH4 (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Fig. 5
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 10H290CH4 (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Close modal
Fig. 6
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 15H285CH4 (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Fig. 6
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 15H285CH4 (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Close modal
Fig. 7
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 20H280CH4 (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Fig. 7
Axial temperature distribution in PRB for 20H280CH4 (a) φ = 0.55, (b) φ = 0.65, and (c) φ = 0.76
Close modal

At the TL of 200–400 kW/m2, the temperature at the interface of PZ and CZ (position 3 in Fig. 3) was found in the range of 1210–1268 °C, 1235–1294 °C, 1260–1318 °C for 5H295CH4, 1220–1278 °C, 1245–1304 °C, 1270–1328 °C for 10H290CH4, 1230–1288 °C, 1255–1314 °C, 1280–1338 °C for 15H285CH4 and 1240–1298 °C 1265–1324 °C, 1290–1348 °C for 20H280CH4 at the φ of 0.55, 0.65, and 0.76, respectively. From the temperature graph (Figs. 47), the continuous increase in temperature is observed up to position 3 and after that, it slowly decreases towards the downstream region of PRB (positions 4, 5, and 6 in Fig. 3) for all the cases of TL and φ of biohythane. So it confirms that the combustions of biohythane have stabilized at the interface of PZ and CZ (reaction zone). This type of combustion is called submerged combustion.

The effect of H2 addition in biohythane on burner surface temperature at a fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76 is shown in Fig. 8. The temperature of PRB increases with the increase of H2 percentage in biohythane (5H295CH4 < 10H290CH4 < 15H285CH4 < 20H280CH4) because the adiabatic flame temperature of H2 is more compared to CH4.

Fig. 8
Effect of H2 addition in bohythane on burner surface temperature at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Fig. 8
Effect of H2 addition in bohythane on burner surface temperature at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Close modal

The pattern of axial temperatures at all positions (as shown in Fig. 3) increased with the increase in TL for a fixed type of fuel and φ because more amount of heat flux (increase in the energy input) was released at higher TL compared to the lower TL. Also, the temperature at various axial positions increased due to the increase in φ at the particular TL of biohythane, because the airflow rate is high at lower φ needing more energy to heat the air compared to higher φ.

3.2 Radiation Efficiency.

During the combustion, the surrounding temperature was found between 25 °C and 29 °C. An average surrounding temperature of 27 °C has been considered for the calculation of ηrad. Equation (1) indicates that the ηrad is exponentially related to surface temperature and linearly related to the volume flowrate of fuel. Therefore surface temperature is a key factor in determining the ηrad. The ηrad of PRB for 5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4 within the TL of 200–400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.55–0.76 are shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9
Radiation efficiency of PRB for (a) 5H295CH4, (b) 10H290CH4, (c) 15H285CH4, and (d) 20H280CH4
Fig. 9
Radiation efficiency of PRB for (a) 5H295CH4, (b) 10H290CH4, (c) 15H285CH4, and (d) 20H280CH4
Close modal

At the fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76, the effect of H2 addition in biohythane on ηrad is shown in Fig. 10. The ηrad of PRB has increased with the increase in H2 percentage in biohythane (5H295CH4 < 10H290CH4 < 15H285CH4 < 20H280CH4) because of the increase in the temperature of PRB (as discussed in Sec. 3.1).

Fig. 10
Effect of H2 addition in biohythane on radiation efficiency at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Fig. 10
Effect of H2 addition in biohythane on radiation efficiency at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Close modal

The ηrad has increased with the increase in φ at the particular TL for particular biohythane, because the airflow rate is high in lower φ (as explained in Sec. 3.1), resulting in less burner temperature.

It appears that at particular biohythane and φ, the ηrad has found maximum at lower TL and follows a decreasing tendency as the TL increases because, with the increase in TL, the rise of flue gases enthalpy surpasses the rise of radiant flux power. It has been found that the radiant flux power changes from 0.68 kW to 0.75 kW due to the change in burner surface temperature from 1010 °C to 1040 °C (because of the change in TL from 200 to 300 kW/m2) at fixed φ of 0.55 for 5H295CH4. The magnitude of variations in radiant flux power due to the temperature change is marginal (0.07 kW), resulting in lower ηrad at higher TL.

Table 5 shows the ηrad of different PRBs operated on biohythane, natural gas, biogas, natural gas-hydrogen blend, and synthesis gas. The patterns can be noted: (i) with the increase in TL, ηrad decreases (ii) the ηrad in the present case is found to be more than the previous studies [29,30,38], due to the operating parameter (TL and φ), burner configuration, fuel composition, combustion mode, etc.

Table 5

Radiation efficiency of different PRBs fuelled with various fuels

AuthorsBurner configuration And fuel compositionCombustion modeTL (kW/m2)φRadiation efficiency (%)
Present caseDouble-layer flat PRB. PZ: Ceramic, porosity = 11% CZ: SiC foam, porosity = 90% Biohythane: 5H295CH4:
H2 = 5%, CH4 = 95%
10H290CH4:
H2 = 10%, CH4 = 90%
15H285CH4:
H2 = 15%,CH4 = 85%
20H280CH4:
H2 = 20%, CH4 = 80%
Submerged5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
2000.7682.384.887.889.90
3000.7660.061.963.865.9
4000.7649.050.552.053.5
Arrieta et al. [29]Double-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Alumina Ceramic, porosity = 3%
CZ: SiC foam, porosity = 90% Fuel:
NG:
SG:
(NG = 50%, H2 = 30%,
C0 = 20%)
SubmergedNGSG
3000.8517.518.5
5000.8514.114.7
Maznoy et al. [30]Cylindrical PRB.
Porous nickel-aluminum intermetallic alloy
Fuel:
NG:
NG–H2 Blend:
H2 = 30%, NG = 70%
SG:
NG = 40%, H2 = 40%, C0 = 20%
BG:
NG = 50%, CO2 = 50%
InternalNGNG–H2SGBG
1600.945.948.944.937.6
26042.544.842.130.2
42038.739.137.127.4
Devi et al. [38]Double-layer flat
PRB.
PZ: Alumina, porosity = 7%
CZ: SiC foam, Porosity = 90% Raw biogas: CH4 = 43–56%,
CO2 = 34–38%
SubmergedRaw biogas
4400.9733
88021
AuthorsBurner configuration And fuel compositionCombustion modeTL (kW/m2)φRadiation efficiency (%)
Present caseDouble-layer flat PRB. PZ: Ceramic, porosity = 11% CZ: SiC foam, porosity = 90% Biohythane: 5H295CH4:
H2 = 5%, CH4 = 95%
10H290CH4:
H2 = 10%, CH4 = 90%
15H285CH4:
H2 = 15%,CH4 = 85%
20H280CH4:
H2 = 20%, CH4 = 80%
Submerged5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
2000.7682.384.887.889.90
3000.7660.061.963.865.9
4000.7649.050.552.053.5
Arrieta et al. [29]Double-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Alumina Ceramic, porosity = 3%
CZ: SiC foam, porosity = 90% Fuel:
NG:
SG:
(NG = 50%, H2 = 30%,
C0 = 20%)
SubmergedNGSG
3000.8517.518.5
5000.8514.114.7
Maznoy et al. [30]Cylindrical PRB.
Porous nickel-aluminum intermetallic alloy
Fuel:
NG:
NG–H2 Blend:
H2 = 30%, NG = 70%
SG:
NG = 40%, H2 = 40%, C0 = 20%
BG:
NG = 50%, CO2 = 50%
InternalNGNG–H2SGBG
1600.945.948.944.937.6
26042.544.842.130.2
42038.739.137.127.4
Devi et al. [38]Double-layer flat
PRB.
PZ: Alumina, porosity = 7%
CZ: SiC foam, Porosity = 90% Raw biogas: CH4 = 43–56%,
CO2 = 34–38%
SubmergedRaw biogas
4400.9733
88021

3.3 Emissions.

Figure 11 shows the NOX emission for 5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4 within the TL of 200–400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.55–0.76.

Fig. 11
NOx emission of PRB for (a) 5H295CH4, (b) 10H290CH4, (c) 15H285CH4, and (d) 20H280CH4
Fig. 11
NOx emission of PRB for (a) 5H295CH4, (b) 10H290CH4, (c) 15H285CH4, and (d) 20H280CH4
Close modal

At the fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76, the effect of H2 addition in biohythane on NOX is shown in Fig. 12. It has been found that NOX emission in the PRB increases with the increase of H2 percentage in biohythane. As explained earlier, the temperature of PRB increases due to the addition of H2 percentage in biohythane because of an increase in adiabatic flame temperature. Moreover, the NOX generation has enhanced due to the increase in the concentration of radicals OH, H, and O as the increase in H2 percentage in fuels.

Fig. 12
Effect of H2 addition in biohythane on NOX at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Fig. 12
Effect of H2 addition in biohythane on NOX at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Close modal

Moreover, at the particular type of biohythane, the NOX has increased with the increase in TL and φ due to the increment of temperature in the PRB with the increase in φ and TL (as discussed in Sec. 3.1).

Table 6 shows NOX emission (corrected to 3% O2) for different PRBs operated on biohythane, biogas, natural gas, synthesis gas, and natural gas-hydrogen blend. The pattern shows that with the increase in TL, NOX emission increases. The present PRB emits less NOX (maximum, 6.1 ppm) compared to previous works due to the operating parameter (TL and φ), burner configuration, fuel composition, combustion mode, etc.

Table 6

NOX emission for different PRBs fuelled with various fuels

AuthorsBurner configuration and fuel compositionCombustion modeTL (kW/m2)φNOX emission, ppm (3%O2)
Present caseDouble-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Ceramic, porosity = 11%
CZ: SiC foam, porosity = 90%. Biohythane: 5H295CH4:
H2 = 5%,CH4 = 95% 10H290CH4:
H2 = 10%,CH4 = 90% 15H285CH4:
H2 = 15%,CH4 = 85% 20H280CH4:
H2 = 20%,CH4 = 80%
Submerged5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
2000.764.74.95.15.3
3000.765.15.35.55.7
4000.765.55.75.96.1
Maznoy et al.[30]Cylindrical PRB. Porous nickel–aluminum intermetallic alloy
Fuel:
NG:
NG–H2 Blend: H2 = 30%, NG = 70%
InternalNGNG–H2SGBG
4200.955252020
SG:
NG = 40%, H2 = 40%, C0 = 20%
BG:
NG = 50%, CO2 = 50%
Devi et al. [38]Double-layer flat PRB. PZ: Alumina,
porosity = 7%
CZ: SiC foam, Porosity = 90%
Raw biogas:
CH4 = 43–56%,
CO2 = 34–38%
SubmergedRaw biogas
4400.973.4
8808.2
AuthorsBurner configuration and fuel compositionCombustion modeTL (kW/m2)φNOX emission, ppm (3%O2)
Present caseDouble-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Ceramic, porosity = 11%
CZ: SiC foam, porosity = 90%. Biohythane: 5H295CH4:
H2 = 5%,CH4 = 95% 10H290CH4:
H2 = 10%,CH4 = 90% 15H285CH4:
H2 = 15%,CH4 = 85% 20H280CH4:
H2 = 20%,CH4 = 80%
Submerged5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
2000.764.74.95.15.3
3000.765.15.35.55.7
4000.765.55.75.96.1
Maznoy et al.[30]Cylindrical PRB. Porous nickel–aluminum intermetallic alloy
Fuel:
NG:
NG–H2 Blend: H2 = 30%, NG = 70%
InternalNGNG–H2SGBG
4200.955252020
SG:
NG = 40%, H2 = 40%, C0 = 20%
BG:
NG = 50%, CO2 = 50%
Devi et al. [38]Double-layer flat PRB. PZ: Alumina,
porosity = 7%
CZ: SiC foam, Porosity = 90%
Raw biogas:
CH4 = 43–56%,
CO2 = 34–38%
SubmergedRaw biogas
4400.973.4
8808.2

Figure 13 shows the CO emission for 5H295CH4, 10H290CH4, 15H285CH4, and 20H280CH4 at TL of 200–400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.55–0.76.

Fig. 13
CO emission of PRB for (a) 5H295CH4, (b) 10H290CH4, (c) 15H285CH4, (d) 20H280CH4
Fig. 13
CO emission of PRB for (a) 5H295CH4, (b) 10H290CH4, (c) 15H285CH4, (d) 20H280CH4
Close modal

The CO formation is highly attributed to the carbon content present in the biohythane and incomplete combustion. The increase in H2 percentage from 5H295CH4 to 20H280CH4 causes the reduction in carbon from 1.80 to 1.71 gm leading to the reduction in CO emission from 0.18 to 0.12 mg (48 to 33 ppm) at the constant TL of 400 kW/m2 and fixed φ of 0.76. At the fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76, the effect of H2 addition in biohythane on CO is shown in Fig. 14. The CO emission reduces with the increase in H2% in biohythane, mainly due to three reasons. First, the increase in H2 percentage causes the flame to get less carbon, which reduces the CO generation. Second, the increase in H2 percentage increases the concentration of radicals OH, H, and O, which enhances the oxidation of CO to CO2, thereby reducing the CO generation. Finally, the H2 addition offers a high-temperature atmosphere for better CO oxidization and reduces CO generation [43].

Fig. 14
Effect of H2 addition in biohythane on CO at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Fig. 14
Effect of H2 addition in biohythane on CO at fixed TL of 400 kW/m2 and φ of 0.76
Close modal

At the particular biohythane, the CO emission follows a rising trend due to the increase in TL because the flow velocity of the air–fuel mixture increases, resulting in a shorter residence time for the exhaust gas in the CZ of the burner. However, it has been observed that the CO emissions are high at lower φ within the TL of 200–400 kW/m2. Because the airflow velocity is higher at lower φ, it does not provide CO sufficient time to oxidize to CO2 before leaving the PRB [44]. So the CO emissions are decreased with the increase in φ (for low φ = 0.55–0.76) TL of 200–400 kW/m2. Similar observations were found also from other PRBs [29,44,45].

Table 7 shows CO emission (corrected to 3% O2) for different PRBs operated on biohythane, natural gas–hydrogen blend, and LPG at low φ and TL. The pattern shows that the CO emission increases with the increase in TL, but the CO emission decreases with the increase in φ at a lower range of φ (0.55–0.76) at TL = 200–400 kW/m2.

Table 7

CO Emission for different PRBs fuelled with various fuels

AuthorsBurner configuration and fuel compositionCombustion modeTL (kW/m2)φCO emission, ppm (3% O2)
Present caseDouble-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Ceramic,
porosity = 11%
CZ: SiC foam,
porosity = 90%.
Biohythane in accordance with Table 3 
Submerged5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
2000.7625201511
30035302521
40047433834
Gauthier et al.[31]One layer PRB:
NiCrAl foam
Porosity = 90%.
NG:
NG/H2 blend:
NG = 80%
H2 = 20%
Submerged80NG20H2
3000.646.2
0.733.9
Muthukumar and Shyamkumar [45]Double-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Ceramic matrix,
porosity = 40%
CZ: SiC foam,
Porosity = 90%
LPG:
SubmergedLPG
2600.5441
0.725
Keramiotis et al. [45]Double-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Alumina matrix,
CZ: SiSiC foam,
SG:
CH4 = 47%, H2 = 20, CO = 33%
SubmergedSG
2000.5564
0.6637
0.7618
AuthorsBurner configuration and fuel compositionCombustion modeTL (kW/m2)φCO emission, ppm (3% O2)
Present caseDouble-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Ceramic,
porosity = 11%
CZ: SiC foam,
porosity = 90%.
Biohythane in accordance with Table 3 
Submerged5H295CH410H290CH415H285CH420H280CH4
2000.7625201511
30035302521
40047433834
Gauthier et al.[31]One layer PRB:
NiCrAl foam
Porosity = 90%.
NG:
NG/H2 blend:
NG = 80%
H2 = 20%
Submerged80NG20H2
3000.646.2
0.733.9
Muthukumar and Shyamkumar [45]Double-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Ceramic matrix,
porosity = 40%
CZ: SiC foam,
Porosity = 90%
LPG:
SubmergedLPG
2600.5441
0.725
Keramiotis et al. [45]Double-layer flat PRB.
PZ: Alumina matrix,
CZ: SiSiC foam,
SG:
CH4 = 47%, H2 = 20, CO = 33%
SubmergedSG
2000.5564
0.6637
0.7618

4 Conclusion

The current experimental work has been performed to find out the combustion performance of biohythane in the developed double-layered PRB. It was revealed that the PRB performed steadily within the φ of 0.55–0.76 for the combustion of biohythane at the TL of 200–400 kW/m2. The double-layered PRB offered better combustion with a maximum ηrad of 89.93% and the maximum NOX and CO emission of 6.1 ppm and 84 ppm respectively within the TL of 200–400 kW/m2, φ of 0.55–0.76 for the considered biohythane. As the H2 percentage increased from 5–20% in the biohythane, the temperature, ηrad, and NOX emission increased, but the CO emission decreased. Further, the temperature and NOX emission increased due to the increase in TL and φ, but the ηrad increased due to the increase in φ only. Moreover, the CO emission increased due to the increase in TL, but CO decreased with the increase in φ. These findings conclude that the PRB must be designed to further enhance the combustion stability and reduce NOX emission when more amount of H2 is added to biohythane. Overall, the newly developed PRB offers efficient combustion for biohythane at the TL of 200–400 kW/m2.

Conflict of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and supporting the findings of this article are obtainable from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Nomenclature

V˙CH4 =

volumetric flowrate of CH4 (m3/s)

V˙H2 =

volumetric flowrate of H2 (m3/s)

Greek Symbols

 δηrad =

uncertainty in radiation efficiency

ηrad =

radiation efficiency

φ =

equivalence ratio

Abbreviations

Ar =

argon

BG =

biogas

CaO2 =

calcium peroxide

CaCO3 =

calcium carbonate

COX =

carbon oxide

CO =

carbon monoxide

CO2 =

carbon dioxide

CH4 =

methane

CZ =

combustion zone

N2 =

nitrogen

NG =

natural gas

NOX =

nitrogen oxide

PPI =

pores per inch

ppm =

parts per million

PZ =

preheating zone

LCV =

lower calorific value of fuel (Kj/m3)

LPM =

liters per minute

SG =

synthesis gas

SiC =

silicon carbide

SOX =

sulfur oxide

References

1.
IEA
,
2023
,
World Energy Outlook 2023
,
IEA
,
Paris
. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023
2.
Abe
,
J. O.
,
Popoola
,
A. P. I.
,
Ajenifuja
,
E.
, and
Popoola
,
O. M.
,
2019
, “
Hydrogen Energy, Economy and Storage: Review and Recommendation
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
44
(
29
), pp.
15072
15086
.
3.
Pashchenko
,
D.
,
2018
, “
First Law Energy Analysis of Thermochemical Waste-Heat Recuperation by Steam Methane Reforming
,”
Energy
,
143
, pp.
478
487
.
4.
Ormaechea
,
P.
,
Castrillón
,
L.
,
Suárez-Peña
,
B.
,
Megido
,
L.
,
Fernández-Nava
,
Y.
,
Negral
,
L.
,
Marañón
,
E.
, and
Rodríguez-Iglesias
,
J.
,
2018
, “
Enhancement of Biogas Production From Cattle Manure Pretreated and/or Co-Digested at Pilot-Plant Scale Characterization by SEM
,”
Renewable Energy
,
126
, pp.
897
904
.
5.
Zhao
,
Y.
,
Hickey
,
B.
,
Srivastava
,
S.
,
Smirnov
,
V.
, and
McDonell
,
V.
,
2022
, “
Decarbonized Combustion Performance of a Radiant Mesh Burner Operating on Pipeline Natural Gas Mixed With Hydrogen
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
47
(
42
), pp.
18551
18565
.
6.
Chen
,
Z.
,
Qin
,
C.
, and
Duan
,
P.
,
2018
, “
Lifted Flame Property and Interchangeability of Natural Gas on Partially Premixed Gas Burners
,”
Case Studies in Ther. Eng.
,
12
, pp.
333
339
.
7.
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Qin
,
C.
,
Xing
,
H.
, and
Liu
,
P.
,
2013
, “
Experimental Research on Performance Response of Domestic Gas Cookers to Variable Natural Gas Constituents
,”
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
,
10
, pp.
41
50
.
8.
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Gao
,
W.
,
Yu
,
Y.
,
Wang
,
M.
, and
Chen
,
C.
,
2016
, “
Primary Air Ratio Change and Gas Interchangeability Index Correct for Domestic Gas Cooker Burning Multi-Source Natural Gases
,”
J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
,
35
, pp.
276
282
.
9.
Öney
,
F.
,
Veziro
,
T. N.
, and
Dülger
,
Z.
,
1994
, “
Evaluation of Pipeline Transportation of Hydrogen and Natural Gas Mixtures
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
19
(
10
), pp.
813
822
.
10.
Jones
,
D. R.
,
Al-Masry
,
W. A.
, and
Dunnill
,
C. W.
,
2018
, “
Hydrogen-Enriched Natural Gas as a Domestic Fuel: An Analysis Based on Flash-Back and Blow-off Limits for Domestic Natural Gas Appliances Within the UK
,”
Sustainable Energy & Fuels
,
2
(
4
), pp.
710
723
.
11.
Zhao
,
Y.
,
McDonell
,
V.
, and
Samuelsen
,
S.
,
2019
, “
Experimental Assessment of the Combustion Performance of an Oven Burner Operated on Pipeline Natural Gas Mixed With Hydrogen
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
44
(
47
), pp.
26049
26062
.
12.
Haeseldonckx
,
D.
, and
D’haeseleer
,
W.
,
2007
, “
The Use of the Natural-Gas Pipeline Infrastructure for Hydrogen Transport in a Changing Market Structure
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
32
(
10–11
), pp.
1381
1386
.
13.
Zhao
,
Y.
,
McDonell
,
V.
, and
Samuelsen
,
S.
,
2019
, “
Influence of Hydrogen Addition to Pipeline Natural Gas on the Combustion Performance of a Cooktop Burner
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
44
(
23
), pp.
12239
12253
.
14.
Timmerberg
,
S.
, and
Kaltschmitt
,
M.
,
2019
, “
Hydrogen From Renewables: Supply From North Africa to Central Europe as Blend in Existing Pipelines–Potentials and Costs
,”
Appl. Energy
,
237
, pp.
795
809
.
15.
Mishra
,
N. K.
,
Mishra
,
S. C.
, and
Muthukumar
,
P.
,
2015
, “
Performance Characterization of a Medium-Scale Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cooking Stove With a Two-Layer Porous Radiant Burner
,”
Appl. Therm. Eng.
,
89
, pp.
44
50
.
16.
Pantangi
,
V. K.
,
Mishra
,
S. C.
,
Muthukumar
,
P.
, and
Reddy
,
R.
,
2011
, “
Studies on Porous Radiant Burners for LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) Cooking Applications
,”
Energy
,
36
(
10
), pp.
6074
6080
.
17.
Mishra
,
N. K.
, and
Muthukumar
,
P.
,
2018
, “
Development and Testing of Energy Efficient and Environment Friendly Porous Radiant Burner Operating on Liquefied Petroleum Gas
,”
Appl. Therm. Eng.
,
129
, pp.
482
489
.
18.
Weinberg
,
F. J.
,
1971
, “
Combustion Temperatures: The Future?
,”
Nature
,
233
(
5317
), pp.
239
241
.
19.
Huang
,
R.
,
Cheng
,
L.
,
Qiu
,
K.
,
Zheng
,
C.
, and
Luo
,
Z.
,
2016
, “
Low-Calorific Gas Combustion in a Two-Layer Porous Burner
,”
Energy Fuels
,
30
(
2
), pp.
1364
1374
.
20.
Francisco
,
R. W.
, Jr
,
Rua
,
F.
,
Costa
,
M.
,
Catapan
,
R. C.
, and
Oliveira
,
A. A. M.
,
2010
, “
On the Combustion of Hydrogen-Rich Gaseous Fuels With Low Calorific Value in a Porous Burner
,”
Energy Fuels
,
24
(
2
), pp.
880
887
.
21.
Francisco
,
R. W.
, Jr
,
Costa
,
M.
,
Catapan
,
R. C.
, and
Oliveira
,
A. A. M.
,
2013
, “
Combustion of Hydrogen Rich Gaseous Fuels With Low Calorific Value in a Porous Burner Placed in a Confined Heated Environment
,”
Exp. Therm. Fluid. Sci.
,
45
, pp.
102
109
.
22.
Alavandi
,
S. K.
, and
Agrawal
,
A. K.
,
2008
, “
Experimental Study of Combustion of Hydrogen–Syngas/Methane Fuel Mixtures in a Porous Burner
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
33
(
4
), pp.
1407
1415
.
23.
Samiran
,
N. A.
,
Ng
,
J. H.
,
Mohd Jaafar
,
M. N.
,
Valera-Medina
,
A.
, and
Chong
,
C. T.
,
2016
, “
H2-Rich Syngas Strategy to Reduce NOx and CO Emissions and Improve Stability Limits Under Premixed Swirl Combustion Mode
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
41
(
42
), pp.
19243
19255
.
24.
Ouimette
,
P.
, and
Seers
,
P.
,
2009
, “
NOx Emission Characteristics of Partially Premixed Laminar Flames of H2/CO/CO2 Mixtures
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
34
(
23
), pp.
9603
9610
.
25.
Lee
,
M. C.
,
Seo
,
S. B.
,
Chung
,
J. H.
,
Kim
,
S. M.
,
Joo
,
Y. J.
, and
Ahn
,
D. H.
,
2010
, “
Gas Turbine Combustion Performance Test of Hydrogen and Carbon Monoxide Synthetic Gas
,”
Fuel
,
89
(
7
), pp.
1485
1491
.
26.
Watson
,
G. M.
,
Munzar
,
J. D.
, and
Bergthorson
,
J. M.
,
2014
, “
NO Formation in Model Syngas and Biogas Blends
,”
Fuel
,
124
, pp.
113
124
.
27.
Qian
,
P.
,
Liu
,
M.
,
Li
,
X.
,
Xie
,
F.
,
Huang
,
Z.
,
Luo
,
C.
, and
Zhu
,
X.
,
2020
, “
Combustion Characteristics and Radiation Performance of Premixed Hydrogen/Air Combustion in a Mesoscale Divergent Porous Media Combustor
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
45
(
7
), pp.
5002
5013
.
28.
Zangeneh
,
V.
, and
Alipoor
,
A.
,
2021
, “
Stability Study of Hydrogen-Air Flame in a Conical Porous Burner
,”
Energy
,
215
, p.
119140
.
29.
Arrieta
,
C. E.
,
García
,
A. M.
, and
Amell
,
A. A.
,
2017
, “
Experimental Study of the Combustion of Natural Gas and High-Hydrogen Content Syngases in a Radiant Porous Media Burner
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
42
(
17
), pp.
12669
12680
.
30.
Maznoy
,
A.
,
Pichugin
,
N.
,
Yakovlev
,
I.
,
Fursenko
,
R.
,
Petrov
,
D.
, and
Shy
,
S. S.
,
2021
, “
Fuel Interchangeability for Lean Premixed Combustion in Cylindrical Radiant Burner Operated in the Internal Combustion Mode
,”
Appl. Therm. Eng.
,
186
, p.
115997
.
31.
Gauthier
,
S.
,
Lebas
,
E.
, and
Baillis
,
D.
,
2007
, “
SFGP 2007-Natural Gas/Hydrogen Mixture Combustion in a Porous Radiant Burner
,”
Int. J. Chem. React. Eng.
,
5
(
1
), pp.
1
10
.
32.
Habib
,
R.
,
Yadollahi
,
B.
,
Saeed
,
A.
,
Doranehgard
,
M. H.
, and
Karimi
,
N.
,
2021
, “
On the Response of Ultralean Combustion of CH4/H2 Blends in a Porous Burner to Fluctuations in Fuel Flow—An Experimental Investigation
,”
Energy Fuels
,
35
(
10
), pp.
8909
8921
.
33.
Deheri
,
C.
, and
Acharya
,
S. K.
,
2020
, “
An Experimental Approach to Produce Hydrogen and Methane From Food Waste Using Catalyst
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
45
(
35
), pp.
17250
17259
.
34.
Deheri
,
C.
, and
Acharya
,
S. K.
,
2021
, “
Effect of Calcium Peroxide and Sodium Hydroxide on Hydrogen and Methane Generation During the Co-Digestion of Food Waste and Sow Dung
,”
J. Cleaner Prod.
,
279
, p.
123901
.
35.
Deheri
,
C.
, and
Acharya
,
S. K.
,
2022
, “
Purified Biohythane (Biohydrogen+Biomethane) Production From Food Waste Using CaO2+CaCO3 and NaOH as Additives
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
47
(
5
), pp.
2862
2873
.
36.
Deheri
,
C.
, and
Acharya
,
S. K.
,
2023
, “
Experimental Investigation of Biohythane Performance on Thermal Barrier-Coated Compression Ignition Engine
,”
ASME J. Energy Resour. Technol.
,
145
(
1
), p.
011702
.
37.
Sun
,
M.
,
Huang
,
X.
,
Hu
,
Y.
, and
Lyu
,
S.
,
2022
, “
Effects on the Performance of Domestic Gas Appliances Operated on Natural Gas Mixed With Hydrogen
,”
Energy
,
244
, p.
122557
.
38.
Devi
,
S.
,
Sahoo
,
N.
, and
Muthukumar
,
P.
,
2020
, “
Experimental Studies on Biogas Combustion in a Novel Double Layer Inert Porous Radiant Burner
,”
Renewable Energy
,
149
, pp.
1040
1052
.
39.
Dash
,
K.
, and
Samantaray
,
S.
,
2022
, “
Lean Premixed Combustion of Raw Biogas Interchangeability in a Porous Radiant Burner Operated in the Submerged Mode
,”
ASME J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl.
,
14
(
9
), p.
091015
.
40.
Gao
,
H. B.
,
Feng
,
X. B.
, and
Qu
,
Z. G.
,
2017
, “
Combustion in a Hybrid Porous Burner Packed With Alumina Pellets and Silicon Carbide Foams With a Gap
,”
J. Energy Eng.
,
143
(
5
), p.
04017032
.
41.
Dash
,
K.
,
Acharya
,
S. K.
, and
Samantaray
,
S.
,
2024
, “
Combustion of Raw Biogas/Hot Air in a Porous Radiant Burner and Performance Prediction Using a Machine Learning Algorithm
,”
ASME J. Therm. Sci. Eng. Appl.
,
16
(
6
), p.
064502
.
42.
Kline
,
S. J.
,
1963
, “
Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments
,”
Mech. Eng.
,
75
, pp.
3
8
. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1572261549103675008
43.
Zhen
,
H. S.
,
Cheung
,
C. S.
,
Leung
,
C. W.
, and
Choy
,
Y. S.
,
2012
, “
Effects of Hydrogen Concentration on the Emission and Heat Transfer of a Premixed LPG-Hydrogen Flame
,”
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy
,
37
(
7
), pp.
6097
6105
.
44.
Muthukumar
,
P.
, and
Shyamkumar
,
P. I.
,
2013
, “
Development of Novel Porous Radiant Burners for LPG Cooking Applications
,”
Fuel
,
112
, pp.
562
566
.
45.
Keramiotis
,
C.
,
Katoufa
,
M.
,
Vourliotakis
,
G.
,
Hatziapostolou
,
A.
, and
Founti
,
M. A.
,
2015
, “
Experimental Investigation of a Radiant Porous Burner Performance With Simulated Natural Gas, Biogas and Synthesis Gas Fuel Blends
,”
Fuel
,
158
, pp.
835
842
.