United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA-600/S7-84-024cj Sept. 1984
Project  Summary
Evaluation  of  Low  Emission
Coal  Burner  Technology  on
Industrial  Boilers:  Third Annual
Report  (1981)

B.A. Folsom, A.R. Abele, F.B. Jones, and J.L Reese
  This  report summarizes the third
year's effort under EPA Contract 68-
02-3127. The objective of the program
is to conduct a field evaluation of the
distributed mixing burner (DMB) on an
industrial size boiler. The DMB concept
provides for controlled mixing of coal
with combustion air to minimize NO*
emissions, while maintaining an overall
oxidizing environment in the furnace to
minimize slagging and corrosion. Major
accomplishments in 1981 included
completion of baseline host boiler tests,
completion of prototype DMB tests in a
burner test facility, and installation of
the DMBs in the host boiler.
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle
Park, NC, to announce key findings of
the research project  that is fully
documented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).

Introduction
  For the last several years.  Energy and
Environmental Research Corporation has
been working with the EPA to develop a
low N0« pulverized coal burner. This
distributed mixing  burner (DMB) controls
the mixing of coal with combustion air to
minimize NO,emissions, while maintain-
ing an overall oxidizing environment in
the furnace to minimize slagging, fouling,
and corrosion. DMBs have been tested at
firing rates up to about 100 x 106 Btu/hr*
"Readers more familiar with the metric system may
use the factors listed at the back of this Summary to
convert the nonmetric units used here.
in single- and four-burner arrays in two
research furnaces. The tests covered
wide ranges of burner adjustments and
operating conditions. When coal was
fired in the research furnaces under
optimum conditions, NO,  levels less
than 0.15  lb/106  Btu  were obtained.
However, the DMB performance has not
been evaluated in a commercially operated
steam generator. The objective of this
program is to evaluate the DMB concept
on two commercially operated industrial-
size boilers. The goal is to attain NO*
emission levels less than 0.2 lb/106 Btu
for new boilers, without adverse effects
on boiler operability and durability,
thermal efficiency,  and the emission of
other pollutants. The field evaluation
involves:  1) translation  of development
burner test data into a practical prototype
DMB, 2) verification of prototype burner
performance through testing in a research
furnace, 3) construction  and installation
of these burners in the  field boiler and
evaluation of their  performance under
typical operating conditions, 4) documen-
tation of the results, and 5) input to the
parallel utility field evaluation (EPA
Contract  68-02-3130). The program is
being conducted in nine tasks. Table 1
lists the tasks and progress achieved.
  In Task 1 all of the basic elements of the
program were planned,  including boiler
selection, burner design, and establish-
ment of a measurements plan. The host
site boiler was selected, and negotiations
with the operators  completed so that a
firm schedule for the remaining aspects
of the study  could be established.
The  final  burner design was established

-------
Table 1.    Program Status Summary
       Task
       Program
  Field
Evaluation
 Second
Prototype
 Burner
Evaluation
Task 1 • Program Definition
  Host Boiler Selection


  Burner Engineering Design


  Analytical Measurements Plan



Task 2 - Prototype Construction and
   Testing

  Prototype Burner Tests


  Host Burner Tests

Task 3 - Boiler Baseline Evaluation
Task 4 - Burner Installation

Task 5 - Performance Evaluation


Task 6 - Industry Coordination


Task 7 - Restoration

Task 8 - Data Analysis

Task 9 - Guideline Manual
   Boiler inventory
   evaluated
   Design criteria
   identified
   Measurements protocol
   completed
   Two panel meetings
   were held
Selected

Prototype DMB
designed
Sampling system
constructed and
installed
                                       Completed

                                       Completed
                                       Completed
                                       Completed
                                       Scheduled
                                       for 1982
                                       April 1984

                                       In progress

                                       September 1984
Selected
                               Scheduled
                               for 1982
when the boiler was selected. Prototype
burners (including all controls) were then
constructed, installed  in  EPA's  large
watertube simulator (LWS) furnace, and
evaluated using several coals as part of
Task 2.  In addition,  the commercial
burners used in the host site boiler were
also evaluated in the LWS so that a one-
to-one comparison of operating charac-
teristics could be determined, and
potential problems identified.
  The Task 3 boiler baseline evaluations
of the host unit establish normal operating
characteristics and the  potential  for
reducing NO. emissions by  utilizing
various combustion modification  tech-
niques associated wth  operating  point
changes. After the baseline  characteri-
zation, the low NO. coal burners and all
support systems are installed on the host
boiler in Task 4. The burner and burner
systems then undergo checkout testing to
ensure their ability to perform similarly to
the original burners.
  After Task 4, the low emission burner
system  is ready for extensive evaluation
in Task 5. The  retrofit boiler  is operated
over a sufficient  range  of  operating
conditions consistent with the operational
steam requirements to define the multi-
burner optimization of emissions so that
the operating point can be established. A
long-term evaluation (18 months) is then
conducted with the boiler operating
under a normal duty cycle. After this task,
the boiler/burner system  is  inspected
and the condition of all systems docu-
mented. Task 7 involves the restoration of
the boilers.
  The  remaining Tasks 6  and  8 are
accomplished concurrent with all of the
other tasks. Lastly, the final  report. Task
9, involves integrating the overall effort
into a  concise summary illustrating the
application of the technology to a wide
variety of coal-fired industrial boilers.
  Originally the  program  involved field
evaluation of DMBs on two industrial size
boilers. Work on the initial field evaluation
has been in  progress for 3 years. The
boiler  is Pearl Station, a 215,000 Ib/hr
unit owned  and operated  by Western
Illinois Power  Corporation (WIPCO).
DMBs have been installed in the WIPCO
unit and testing began in 1982. Due to the
complexity of the burner  installation at
WIPCO and the resultant high cost, only
one field installation will be completed.
Work on the second field evaluation will
proceed  only through  prototype burner
testing in the LWS.
  The  progress on each  task listed  in
Table  1  was achieved over the last  2
  years. Major accomplishments in 1981
  include:

     • Completion of the prototype burner
       tests for the WIPCO unit (Task 2).
     • Completion of the baseline field test
       of the WIPCO unit (Task 3).
     • Installation of the DMBs at WIPCO
       (Task 4).

  Prototype Burner Tests
    The DMB concept involves staging the
  combustion process to minimize NOx
  emissions while  maintaining an  overall
  oxidizing atmosphere in the furnace to
  avoid  furnace  slagging  and corrosion.
  NOx  production  from  fuel nitrogen
  compounds is minimized  by driving  a
  majority of  the compounds into the gas
  phase under fuel-rich conditions and
  providing a stoichiometry/temperature
  history which maximizes the decay of the
  evolved nitrogen compounds  to N2.
  Thermal NO, production is also minimized
  by enthalpy loss from the fuel-rich zone,
  which reduces peak temperatures.
     Figure  1 shows the DMB concept
  schematically. Staging  is  achieved  by
  arranging the components for three-zone
  combustion. In the first zone, pulverized
  coal  (transported by the  primary air)
  combines with the inner secondary air to

-------
                         Tertiary Air
       Inner
    Secondary Air
            X
 Coal and .
Primary Air
                                Very Fuel Rich
                                Zone (Average
                              Stoichiometry 4O%)
           Progressive Air Addition Zone
            (Overall Stoichiometry 70%)
                               Final Air Addition Zone for Burnout
                                 (Overall Stoichiometry 120%)
 Figure 1.   DMB concept.
form a very fuel-rich  (30 to 50 percent
theoretical air) recirculation zone which
provides flame stability. The coal devola-
tilizes, and fuel nitrogen compounds are
released to the gas phase. Outer secon-
dary air is added in the second burner
zone, where Stoichiometry increases to
about 70 percent theoretical air. This is
the optimum range for reduction of bound
nitrogen compounds to N2. Air to complete
the combustion process is  supplied
through tertiary ports  outside the burner
throat. This allows substantial  residence
time in the burner zone for decay of bound
nitrogen compounds to N2 and radiative
heat transfer to reduce  peak temperatures.
The tertiary ports surrounding the burner
throat provide an overall oxidizing
atmosphere in the burner zone.
  A prototype DMB was designed to meet
the requirements of the intital host boiler.
The  design involved  integrating  DMB
design parameters  (based on previous
tests), the characteristics of the host
boiler, and Foster  Wheeler burner
components. Figure 2  shows the central
portion of the burner without the tertiary
air ports.
  Prototype burner tests in the LWS were
initiated in December 1979. These tests
utilized Utah bituminous coal, which was
used as a baseline fuel in previous burner
                                    Perforated Plate
                                      Air Hoods
                  Inner
                 Register

                    Outer
                   Register
            Coal Inlet
                                                                    Cast Refractory
                                                                        Exit
Figure 2.
Prototype DMB based on Foster Wheeler mechanical components (tertiary ports not
shown/.

-------
tests. Later testing used the host boiler
coal.  The tests were directed toward
evaluating burner performance  under
unstaged conditions (with the tertiary air
ports closed). Some testing was also
conducted under staged conditions.
However,  testing was halted when the
LWS  furnace walls (which  had already
exceeded their design life) deteriorated.
Analyses of these data showed that the
operability, flame shape,  smoke, and CO
emissions for the prototype DMB were
comparable to  the Foster Wheeler
intervane boiler, as installed at the host
site; however, NOX emissions were much
lower (as expected).
  The LWS was rebuilt with several
design changes to make burner perform-
ance  in the LWS more representative of
burner performance in field units as well
as to facilitate testing. The original LWS
was cooled on all surfaces, resulting in a
thermal environment  significantly cooler
than that typically found in field operating
boilers, such as WIPCO's host boiler. To
produce a thermal environment compar-
able to that found in the WIPCO furnace,
the new LWS was partially lined with
insulating refractory.
  The prototype burner was retested in
the new LWS under  both unstaged and
staged conditions. The  NOX emissions
from these tests were nearly identical to
those from the old LWS. However, the CO
emissions were substantially lower and in
the  range of CO  emissions  from the
baseline  field test  at  WIPCO.  These
results suggest that  the NO* emissions
from the DMB are insensitive to furnace
thermal  environment over the  range
investigated. Thus, NOX  emissions from
the  DMBs operated in the  field  are
expectd to be in the same range as those
from  the  LWS if  comparable  operating
conditions can be achieved. The results of
these tests were discussed in the Second
Annual Report (1980).
   During the third year (ending November
1981), the prototype  burner tests in  the
new  LWS were  continued, to  identify
optimum  operating  conditions.  These
tests showed that operation at the burner
design point resulted in flame instability.
As the combustion air was diverted from
the burner throat to the tertiary air ports,
the flame became unstable at a  burner
zone stoichiometry of 85 percent theoret-
ical air while the  design point was 70
percent theoretical air.  (NOTE:  Burner
zone stoichiometry, expressed as percent
of  theoretical air  requirements,  is  the
ratio of  the air supplied through  the
burner throat to  the air required for
stoichiometric combustion  of the fuel.)
Stability limits were observed with some
of the development DMBs, and perform-
ance was improved by adjusting nozzle and
exit geometry.
  Based on the original program plan, the
next step would have been to modify the
prototype burner geometry, retest it in the
LWS,  and thus iteratively search for
conditions that optimize performance.
However,  this  would have delayed the
field installation of the DMBs by about a
year (due  to  WIPCO's outage schedule).
The alternative was to  incorporate  a
proven burner configuration known to be
stable under staged operating conditions
and to confirm burner performance in the
LWS  while preparing  for the field
installation. Foster Wheeler's controlled
flow burner has been operated in Japan
with burner  zone stoichiometries com-
parable  to the DMB, but using overfire
(instead of tertiary) air ports. Thus it was
decided to  incorporate the Foster Wheeler
geometry  into  the DMB. This modified
prototype  DMB was tested  in the LWS
under unstaged and staged conditions.
The unstaged tests verified that flame stabi-
lity and shape were satisfactory over the
WIPCO boiler operating range. Thus the
DMBs can be  operated  unstaged if  a
problem develops with the tertiary air port
system. The staged tests covered a range
of operating  conditions and burner set-
tings. Flame stability at the burner design
point was satisfactory, and NOX emissions
were comparable to the original prototype
DMB  tests.  After the  LWS tests, the
modified prototype DMB was tested in
another research furnace, the medium
tunnel (MT), to evaluate the effects of
furnace  design on burner performance.
  NO, and CO emissions measured in the
LWS and MT with an Indiana coal similar
to that fired at WIPCO are compared in
Figure 3.  In  the MT, NOx emissions are
higher and CO emissions are lower than
in the LWS. The differences between
Prototype  2 performance in the LWS and
MT may be due to thermal environment
and furnace  confinement. The effects of
thermal environment on  NOX emissions
from  Prototype 1 were evaluated by
testing in the old and new LWS and were
reported in the  Second Annual  Report
(1980). The geometries for these furnaces
are almost identical: the  primary differ-
ence is thermal insulation in the new LWS
which reduced the cooled surface area by
a factor of about two. NOX emissions from
Prototype  1 in the old and new LWS were
comparable.  This indicates  that NOX
emissions were unaffected by thermal
environment over the range investigated.
Of course, as furnace cooling is reduced
further, NOX emissions would be expected
to increase due to thermal NOxformation.
  The smaller size of the MT narrowed
and elongated the flame, perhaps altering
the mixing of the tertiary air. Since the
basis of the low NOX  emissions  of the
DMB is delayed mixing of the tertiary air,
this may have affected NOX emissions.
  One key objective  of the  prototype
burner tests was to verify that all aspects
of the burner performance meet the host
boiler requirements. Table 2 compares
the requirements of the WIPCO unit with
the performance of Prototype 2  in the
LWS. The LWS furnace  geometry  is
similar in  shape to the WIPCO furnace.
The flame length in the LWS was 19 ft
which is shorter than the WIPCO furnace
depth,  20.6 ft. Thus, rear wall  flame
impingement should not be a problem at
WIPCO. The flame was stable over the
WIPCO load and excess air ranges, and
flame stability was not affected by small
changes in burner settings or burner zone
stoichiometry.  The flame scanning and
ignition system operation was compatible
with commercial standards.
  Windbox-to-furnace pressure drop
with the secondary sleeves open full was
in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 in. HzO.  This is
less than  the 3.5 in.  pressure drop
required  by  the original equipment
intervane burner. If required, the  secon-
dary sleeves may be closed to increase
the pressure drop and to direct more air to
the tertiary ports.
  CO emissions and carbon content of
the particulate were slightly greater than
the values measured during  the WIPCO
baseline test. However, these parameters
are sensitive to furnace design, and the
differences are insignificant.
  The  prototype  burner tests  were
conducted using a 2 x 2 array of tertiary
air  ports spaced symmetrically around
the  burner throat. Due to structural
problems,  a different array of tertiary air
ports will be used at WIPCO. The WIPCO
ports operate with the same air velocity
and distribute the air around each burner.
Thus the specific design details are not
expected to affect burner performance
significantly.
  NOx emissions  with the design fuel
(Indiana coal) were 0.22 lb/106 Btu at the
optimum full-load operating point. This is
very close to the  program goal  of 0.2
lb/106 Btu. The differences between the
prototype burner tests in the LWS and the
field  operating  DMBs  at WIPCO are
expected to affect NOx emissions. These
differences include:
The precise effects of these differences
cannot be evaluated based  on existing
data. Minimum NOX emissions  for  the   .
DMBs operating at WIPCO are expected  m
to be in the range of  0.2  to 0.3  lb/106  ^

-------
 900



 7*00



 500



[5001-
L


,4OO'



i3OO



 200



 700
    0
         T.A. = Theoretical Air
                                          300
                                          250
                                          ISO
                                          100
                                           SO
                  i      i      i
                Fuel = Indiana Coal
                O MTSRt = 120% T.A.
                  15.4 MW
                  (52.4 x 10s Btu/hr)
                • LWSSfa= 126% T.A.
                  20.2 MW
                                                         *<•$*
                                                                  GD
     50    60    70     80    90    1OO     SO    60     70    80     90    100
                              Burner Zone Stoichlometry. % T.A.


Figure 3.    Comparison of Prototype 2 performance in the L WS and MT with Indiana coal.
Table 2.   Prototype 2 Performance Summary

  Parameter
           Requirement
Btu/hr, if the operating conditions tested
in the research furnaces can be achieved.

Boiler Baseline Evaluation
  The  objective of the Task 3 boiler
baseline evaluation is to  evaluate the
performance of the host boiler with the
original equipment burners. The data are
used to establish the operating require-
ments for the DMBs and to determine the
baseline boiler performance and emis-
sions for assessing the net change due to
retrofitting the DMBs.
  The baseline tests were  conducted in
four series: burner modification tests, 30-
day baseline tests,  effluent  stream
analysis, and  a  thermal efficiency  test.
The burner modification tests involved
monitoring burner and boiler performance
and emissions as the operating conditions
and emissions were  adjusted over the
maximum  possible ranges. As part  of
these tests, operating limits were estab-
lished.  After  the burner  modification
tests, boiler performance and emissions
were monitored for 30 days while the
operators  met the normal duty cycle.
Results of  the burner modification and
30-day  baseline tests are  discussed in
this report. The effluent stream analysis
and thermal efficiency test involved  a
comprehensive assessment of burner/

         Demonstrated Performance
Flame Shape
Flame Stability


Ignition

Flame Scanning

Pressure Drop

Efficiency

Tertiary Air
Ports
Control System
/I/O,
Compatible with host furnace
Stable over host load range;
insensitive to burner settings
Compatible with commercial system
Compatible with commercial system
Less than/equal to host burner
Equal to/better than host burner
Locations compatible with host furnace

Compatible with commercial standards
Program goal: 0.2 lb/106 Btu
    Flame length: 19 ft
    Minimum load less than 50 percent MCR*
    Stability insensitive
    Confirmed
    Confirmed
    1.5 to 2.5 in. H£>
    CO = 70 ppm; carbon in ash =4.4percent
    Ports redesigned for
    field evaluation


    0.22 lb/10e Btu at design point
    Sensitive to excess air and burner zone
    stoichiometry
    Insensitive to load
'Maximum Continuous Rating.
Parameter
Number of Burners
Number of Tertiary Air Ports
Fuel
Furnace Depth., ft
Thermal Environment, Q/A,
Btu/hr-ft1
Prototype
Tests in
LWS
1
4
Indiana
22
^lOO.OOO
WIPCO DMB
Field Evaluation
4
12
Varies
20.6
"130.OOO

-------
boiler performance and emissions,
including an EPA Level 1 environmental
assessment at the  nominal full-load
operating point. Results of these tests will
be presented in a later report.
  Measurements conducted  during the
burner modification and 30-day baseline
tests followed the measurements proto-
col, discussed in the  Second Annual
Report  (1980).  Detailed results are
discussed in the full Third Annual Report
(1981) and are summarized below. Table
3 summarizes the emissions at nominal
conditions, during  both the 30-day
baseline test and  the effluent stream
analysis. During the 30-day baseline test,
boiler operating conditions were selected
by the operators. During the effluent
stream analysis, the boiler was operated
at nominal operating conditions. Boiler
operating conditions were similar during
each of the three test series. The average
load measured during  the  30-day test
was 18.5 MW, showing that the  unit
operates primarily at or near full-load.
The excess air was slightly higher during
the 30-day baseline test and the effluent
stream  analysis,  but this higher excess
air did  not significantly affect boiler
emissions.  Combustion efficiency, mea-
sured by carbon utilization,  was nearly
constant for all three test series. NOX and
CO emissions during the 30-day baseline
test and effluent stream analysis were
very close to  the baseline emissions
measured during the burner modification
tests. SO a SO 3, and paniculate emissions
varied due to changes in the sulfur and
ash  content of the coal.  Hydrocarbon,
HCN, and NH3 emissions were all very
low. The low CO and  hydrocarbon
concentrations are comparable to those
observed on other Foster Wheeler boilers
of similar design.  The baseline NOX
emissions are  about 15 percent higher
than had  been previously  estimated by
Foster Wheeler for this type of boiler.
  Operating conditions  and  burner
adjustments evaluated during the burner
modification test included load (firing
rate), excess air, core air valve settings
and register positions. The effects of load
and  excess air on  NOX emissions are
shown in Figures 4 and 5. CO emissions
were essentially constant at about 40
ppm (@ 0%  Oa  dry) over the  ranges
evaluated. Burner  adjustments had no
significanteffect on NOx or CO emissions.
  Results of the 30-day test are summa-
rized in Figure 6. The boiler operated at
nearly full-load during this period, and
the measured performance was compar-
able to that observed during the burner
modification tests.

DMB Field Evaluation
  The  WIPCO  host boiler has been
retrofitted with  DMBs. The burner,
tertiary air ports, and control system were
installed in the spring and summer  of
1981. For the remainder of the third year
(ending November  1981), the  burners
Table 3.    Nominal Boiler Operating Conditions and Emissions
                                           Test Series and Dates
                                  Burner
                                Modification
                                   Tests
                                (6/30/80 to
                                 7/12/80)
              30-Day
           Baseline Test
              Average
            (7/15/80 to
             8/17/80)
  Effluent
  Stream
  Analysis
(3/22/81 to
 3/27/81)
Boiler Operating
Conditions:
  Load. MWe                        20.3
  Excess Air, %                       18.9
  Carbon Utilization, %                 99.54

Emissions:
  /VOx @ O% Oz, ppm                 826
  CO@0%Ot,ppm                   41
  SOz @ 0% Oz, ppm                 3364
  S03 @ 0% On, ppm                  22
  CO2 @O%Oi,%                    18.9
  O2@0%02,%                      3.4
  Hydrocarbons @ O% Oz, ppm            1
Total Paniculate @ O% Oz               7.98
  gr/scf
               18.5
               20.5
               99.36


              847
               37
              3299
               25
               18.5
                3.6
                1
                5.93
   19.7
   23.2
   99.67


  807
   32
  4289
   35
   18.1
   4.0
    4
    9.83
Paniculate/ ash in coal
HCN @ O% Oa ppm
NH3 @ 0% Oz. ppm
0.965
NM*
NM
0.828
NM
NM
0.812
*NM = Not measured.
"J ppm is detection limit.
 were operated with the tertiary air ports
 closed (only leakage air passing through).
 Performance optimization tests under
 staged conditions are scheduled to begin
 during the fourth year.
   The DMBs installed  at WIPCO are
 based on the design of Prototype 2 which
 was tested in the LWS. The registers, coal
 nozzle,  and burner  exit are  identical
 except that the materials of construction,
 fasteners,  etc.,  for the WIPCO burners
 have been upgraded to  Foster Wheeler
 commercial standards for field operating
 equipment. The tertiary air port array at
 WIPCO is  designed to match the tertiary
 air velocity used  in the prototype  test;
 however, due to the multiburner config-
 uration  and structural constraints, the
 number and location of ports  are  con-
 siderably different.
   The desired tertiary air port arrangement,
 which  included nine ports, interfered
 with buckstays, windbox trusses, and
 pulverizer air supply ducts. Also,  it
 critically weakened  the  hopper support
 tubes. After considerable  analysis and
 discussion, the compromise port arrange-
 ment shown  in Figure 7 was  selected.
 This arrangement distributes the tertiary
' air  around and between  the burners
 while minimizing structural problems.
 The  ports above the burners are the
 maximum  sizS that will clear the buckstay.
 The  port  in  the  center is reduced  in
 diameter to allow clearance for its control
 mechanism between the burner registers.
 The  ports along  the sides  have been
 moved  to allow free  flow  into the
 pulverizer ducts. The  bottom  of the
 windbox has been lowered to  provide a
 plenum for installation of the lower ports.

 Conclusions and Future  Efforts

 Conclusions
   Based on the work conducted during
 this third year  of the program, the
 following conclusions have been reached:
  1.  Prototype Burner Tests
    The prototype burner tests in the LWS
     demonstrated that the DMB meets all
     requirements  of the  host boiler. NO*
     emissions were 0.22 lb/106 Btu. This
     is close to the program goal of 0.2
     lb/106 Btu.
  2.  Boiler  Baseline Evaluation
     The host boiler performance was
     found to be  typical of pre-"NSPS
     pulverized-coal-fired boilers. NO*
     emissions  during  a  30-day test
     averaged 0.95 lb/106 Btu. No signifi-
     cant NOx reduction could be achieved
     by low excess  air firing  or burner
     adjustments.

-------
     BOO
     850
  •6

  O
     ao°
     7BO
  i
     700
     650
                      O
           D
                                             NO, Load Correlation
                                             N0, = 2.30 Load ^ 595.1
Note: All data corrected to 18% excess air.
     Minimum load test fa) not included in
     correlation.

I        I        I        \        I
                 70
                         75
       80     85

         Load. % of full
                                                 90
                    95
                                        100
                                                                           105
Figure 4.    Effect of load on NO*.
      950 -
      9OO
   I

   O
      8OO
   i
      750
      700
                                NO, Excess Air
                                Correlation
                    NO, = 9.30 Excess Air + 657.7
                                              O
           Note: All data corrected to 1OO% load.
                 Test at minimum load fl3) not
                included in correlation.
                                          I
                         W
        15
    20

Excess Air.'
25
30
35
                                                                           40
Figure. S.   Effect of excess air on NO*
 3. DMB Field Evaluation
   The  DMBs  were  installed in the
   host boiler in the spring of 1981. To
   accommodate the structural constraints
   imposed by the existing windbox/
   furnace, it was necessary to modify
   the tertiary  air port array from the
   configuration tested in the LWS. The
   burners are  now operating satisfac-
   torily with the tertiary air ports closed.
               Future Efforts
                Future efforts will focus on two
               principal objectives:  field evaluation of
               the DMBs installed  in the WIPCO host
               boiler; and  development  and research
               furnace tests of a prototype DMB based
               on the DMB design criteria.
                The DMBs have been installed in the
               WIPCO furnace and are now operating
               unstaged. At a future outage, tubewall
thickness will be measured throughout
the furnace to establish  a baseline for
corrosion rate measurements. Following
the outage, the DMBs will be tested over a
range of operating conditions and burner
settings to establish an optimum balance
of flame  stability, efficiency, and emis-
sions. The initial operating point will be
the optimum settings established during
the LWS tests of Prototype 2. Due to the
difference between the LWS and WIPCO
furnaces,  it  is expected that some
adjustments of burner settings may be
required.  Burner performance, boiler
performance, and  emissions  will be
measured over the full range of operating
parameters  and burner settings as
specified in the measurements protocol.
Once the optimum operating  point is
established the boiler operators will be
trained to  operate the  unit.  After  the
training program, the  operators will run
the unit over the normal duty cycle while
burner performance, boiler performance,
and  emissions are monitored. At  the
conclusion  of the testing period, the unit
will be restored as required by the boiler
owner. Also, furnace tubewall thickness
will be measured to evaluate the rate of
corrosion.
  During the LWS tests of Prototype 1,
the flame stability at  the burner design
point was unacceptable.  Due to a  time
constraint on the burner installation at
WIPCO, a decision was made to alter the
burner exit geometry to that of Foster
Wheeler's controlled flow burner, since
burners with this geometry have adequate
flame stability under reducing conditions
with overfire air ports.  However, this
geometry is not necessarily optimum for
DMB operation. Consequently, a second
series  of prototype burner tests will be
conducted  to optimize performance
under DMB conditions. This will involve
making iterative modifications to  the
nozzle and throat geometry, and evaluat-
ing flame stability, efficiency, and
emissions in the LWS.

Conversion Factors
  Readers more familiar with metric
units may  use the  following  factors to
convert nonmetric units used in this
Summary to their metric equivalents:
                                           Nonmetric
                                               Times    Equals Metric
Btu/hr
Btu/hr-ft2
ft
gr/scf
in.
Ib/IO* Btu
Ib/hr
2.93
11.35
0.305
2.29
2.54
430
0.455
Wt
kJ/hr-m2
m
ff/m3
cm
ng/J
kg/hr

-------
            so

CO @ 0% 0»   60
 ppm
            4O\
            20

        1000/0

/V0,@0%0» 9OO,
           80O

           70O

         5/6OO,
 Ot.%
 Boiler Load.
  MW.
  4

  3

25/2


  2O


  IB
     1111111111111111111111111111 r
          iiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
               iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiii
                                              Std Dev =7.1 ppm
                                                 - 36.75 ppm
                                              Std Dev = 39.4 ppm
                                              Avg = 849 ppm
                                                       Std Dev = 0.3 ppm
                                                           = 3.6%
                                                       Std Dev = 0.8 ppm
                                                        Avg= 18.5 MW
              IB 17 1921 232530311 35  7 9  11  13 15 17
                   July                  August

 Note: Boiler shut down July 25-30, 1980. fof unscheduled outage unrelated
     to 30-day test.
 Figure 6.    30-day baseline test results.

-------
                 4 Pans,
                 8.0 in. Die
Lowered Windbox
    Bottom
Figure 7.   Final compromise port arrangement.
  B. Folsom, A. Abele, F. Jones, and J, Reese are with Energy and Environmental
    Research Corp., Irvine, CA 92714.
  G. Blair Martin is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
  The complete report,  entitled "Evaluation of Low Emission  Coal Burner
    Technology on Industrial Boilers: Third Annual Report (1981)," (Order No. PB
    84-220 284; Cost: $13.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
         National Technical Information Service
         5285 Port Royal Road
         Springfield, VA 22161
         Telephone: 703-487-4650
  The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
         Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                                                                        *USGPO:  1984-759-102-10678

-------
8
«>
CO
8
        5'
     Qb

     25

     il
     O


     *.
     01
     N>
     O)
     00
m
31
      TJ
      O
      CO
?  •

9
CO
W
                 T) 0°^
                   1 Tl
                    m
                    m
                    co i

-------