Comparison and Analysis of Different Standards for Determining Dust Resistivity

被引:1
|
作者
Jin, Xin [1 ]
Zhong, Shengjun [1 ]
Li, Weiye [2 ]
机构
[1] Northeastern Univ, Sch Met & Mat, 11,Lane 3,Wenhua Rd, Shenyang 110004, Peoples R China
[2] Northeastern Univ, Sch Informat Sci & Engn, Shenyang 110004, Peoples R China
关键词
Dust Resistivity; Electrostatic Prevention; Electrostatic Precipitators; Measurements;
D O I
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.508.110
中图分类号
T [工业技术];
学科分类号
08 ;
摘要
Accurate measurement of dust resistivity is important practically for electrostatic prevention and design of electrostatic precipitators. The test result of dust resistivity depends on the standard used. There are three standards widely used for determination of dust resistivity: IEC 1241-2-2, BS 5958-1 and ASME PTC28 4.05. Experimental devices are designed and constructed according to these standards. The schematics of test principles and circuits of different standards are introduced. Experimental results show that dust resistivity values determined by different standards are quite different, and in some cases the difference is even in 1 similar to 2 orders of magnitude. The test results according to IEC standard are the highest, while the results using ASME standard are the lowest. The methods given by IEC standard and BS standard are normally used in electrostatic prevention, while method given by ASME standard is applied to the design of electrostatic precipitators. It is necessary to choose the appropriate standard according to the application of dust resistivity.
引用
收藏
页码:110 / +
页数:2
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of different digestion methods for elemental analysis of airborne dust and dust deposition
    Lumpp, R.
    Klein, M.
    Bieber, E.
    Bunzel, F.
    Eckermann, U.
    Frels, C.
    Guenther, W.
    Hagemann, C.
    Koch, C.
    Olschewski, A.
    Temme, C.
    GEFAHRSTOFFE REINHALTUNG DER LUFT, 2012, 72 (1-2): : 64 - 71
  • [2] COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR DETERMINING THE ALKALI RESISTIVITY OF DISSOLVING PULP
    RYDBERG, J
    PAPERI JA PUU-PAPER AND TIMBER, 1983, 65 (04): : 278 - 280
  • [3] Comparison of coal mine dust size distributions and calibration standards for crystalline silica analysis
    Page, SJ
    AIHA JOURNAL, 2003, 64 (01): : 30 - 39
  • [4] DETERMINING FORMATION WATER RESISTIVITY FROM CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
    MOORE, EJ
    SZASZ, SE
    WHITNEY, BF
    JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY, 1966, 18 (03): : 373 - &
  • [5] Comparison of different methods for determining diabetes
    Bozkurt, Mehmet Recep
    Yurtay, Nilufer
    Yilmaz, Ziynet
    Sertkaya, Cengiz
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 2014, 22 (04) : 1044 - 1055
  • [6] Comparison of standards for determining efficiency of three phase induction motors
    Renier, B
    Hameyer, K
    Belmans, R
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENERGY CONVERSION, 1999, 14 (03) : 512 - 517
  • [7] Comparison between Different Apparent Resistivity Definitions of CSAMT
    Hou, Dongyang
    Xue, Guoqiang
    Zhou, Nannan
    He, Yiming
    Chen, Wen
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING GEOPHYSICS, 2019, 24 (01) : 119 - 127
  • [8] A comparison and critique of different scat-analysis methods for determining carnivore diet
    Klare, Unn
    Kamler, Jan F.
    Macdonald, David W.
    MAMMAL REVIEW, 2011, 41 (04) : 294 - 312
  • [9] On health safety standards and comparison of different risks
    Demin, V.F.
    Golikov, V.Ya.
    Ivanov, E.V.
    2001, Atomnaya Energiya (90):
  • [10] COMPARISON OF CAESIUM FREQUENCY STANDARDS OF DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION
    ESSEN, L
    PARRY, JVL
    HOLLOWAY, JH
    MAINBERGER, WA
    REDER, FH
    WINKLER, GMR
    NATURE, 1958, 182 (4627) : 41 - 42