EPA-600/2-75-053
September 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
MAGNITUDE OF S02, NO, C02, AND 02
STRATIFICATION IN POWER PLANT DUCTS
f
55
\
53K
111
CD
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into
five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in
related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed
to develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation from
point and non-point sources of pollution. This work provides the
new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-75-053
September 1975
MAGNITUDE OF S02, NO, C02, AND 02
STRATIFICATION IN POWER PLANT DUCTS
by
A. R. Crawford, M. W. Gregory, E. H. Manny,
and W. Bartok
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
Linden, New Jersey 07036
68-02-1722
Project Officer
H. M. Barnes
Emissions Measurement and Characterization Division
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH LABORATORY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Sciences
Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
- iii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY !
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. 'CONCLUSIONS 4
3. FIELD STUDY PLANNING AND PROCEDURES 35
3.1 Power Plant Boiler Selection 35
3.2 Equipment and Test Procedures 33
3.2.1 Gaseous Sampling and Analysis. 38
3.2.2 Sampling Location Selection 48
3.2.3 Testing Techniques 69
4. FIELD MEASUREMENT RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70
4.1 Stratification Results for Individual Units Tested 70
4.1.1 Widows Creek Unit 5 70
4.1.2 Widows Creek Unit 7 70
4.1.3 E.G. Gaston Unit 5 76
4.1.4 Barry Unit 4 76
4.1.5 Barry Unit 5 . . . 87
4.1.6 Morgantown Unit 1 98
4.1.7 Navajo Unit 1 98
4.2 Development of Contour Diagrams 114
4.2.1 Multiple Regression Analysis 114
4.2.2 Sample Contour Diagrams 130
5. REFERENCES 159
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 160
-------
- iv -
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
1 Exxon Research Stratification Sampling System 39
2 Schematic of Stratification Sampling Probe 42
3 Stratification Sampling Probe - Detail 1 43
4 Stratification Sampling Probe - Detail 2 44
5 Stratification Sampling Probe - Detail 3 45
6 Stratification Sampling Probe - Detail 4 46
7 Stratification Sampling Probe - Detail 5 47
8 Location of Sampling Ports - Widows Creek Unit 5 50
9 Location of Sampling Ports - Widows Creek Unit 7 51
10 Location of Sampling Ports - E. C. Gaston Unit 5 52
11 Location of Sampling Ports - Barry Unit 4 53
12 Location of Sampling Ports - Barry Unit 5 54
13 Location of Sampling Ports - Morgantown Unit 1 55
14 Location of Sampling Ports - Navajo Unit 1 56
15 Widows Creek Unit 5 - Sampling Points (Duct 5A) 57
16 Widows Creek Unit 5 - Sampling Points (Duct 5B) 58
17 Widows Creek Unit 7 - Sampling Points (Ducts 7A and 7B) 59
18 E. C. Gaston Unit 5 - Sampling Points (Ducts 5A and 5B) 60
19 Barry Unit 4 - Sampling Points (Duct 4A) 61
20 Barry Unit 4 - Sampling Points (Duct 4B) 62
21 Barry Unit 5 - Sampling Points (Duct 5A) 63
22 Barry Unit 5 - Sampling Points (Duct 5B) 64
23 Morgantown Unit 1 - Sampling Points (Duct 1A) 65
24 Morgantown Unit 1 - Sampling Points (Duct IB) 66
25 Navajo Unit 1 - Sampling Points (Ducts A, B, C, and D) 67
26 Navajo Unit 1 - Sampling Points (Stack) 68
-------
- v -
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
No.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Title
Morgantown Unit 1 (1A) - 0~ Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (IB) - 0- Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (1A) - CO- Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (IB) - CO Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (1A) - NO Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (IB) - NO Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (1A) - SO Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (IB) - SO Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (1A) - Temperature Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (IB) - Temperature Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (1A) - Velocity Contour
Morgantown Unit 1 (IB) - Velocity Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5 A) - 0. Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5B) - QZ Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5A) - CO Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5B) - CO Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5A) - NO Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5B) - NO Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5A) - S02 Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5B) - SO Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5A) - Temperature Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5B) - Temperature Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5A) - Velocity Contour
Gaston Unit 5 (5B) - Velocity Contour
Pag
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
157
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
-------
- vi -
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
No.
51
52
53
Title
Morgantown
Morgantown
Morgantown
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
1
1
(1A)
(1A)
(1A)
- 0
- 0
- 0
2
2
o
Contour
Contour
Contour
(Rep
(Rep
1)
2)
(Composite)
Page
156
157
158
-------
- vii -
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
1 Stratification Results for SO (PPM) Corrected to a 5
3% 02 Basis
2 Stratification Results for NO (PPM) Corrected to a 6
3% 02 Basis
3 Stratification Results for CO- (%) Corrected to a 7
3% 02 Basis
4 Stratification Results for 0 (%) 8
5 Stratification Results for Velocity (M/S) 9
6 Stratification Results for Temperature (°C) 10
7 Comparison of Estimated Percentages of the Total 12
Observations Lying Within Given Ranges
8 Stratification Results - SO (PPM) Corrected to a 14
3% 02 Basis
9 Stratification Results - NO (PPM) Corrected to a 17
3% 02 Basis
10 Stratification Results - CO (%) Corrected to a 20
3% 02 Basis
11 Stratification Results - 0 (%) 23
12 Stratification Results - Velocity (M/S) 26
13 Stratification Results - Temperature (°C) 29
14 Navajo Unit 1 (In Stack Test at 725 MW) Test Results 33
15 Navajo Unit 1 (In Stack Test at 800 MW) Test Results 34
16 Units Tested in Stratification Program and Start-Up 36
Date of Each Unit
17 Continuous Analytical Instruments in Exxon Van 40
18 Summary of Sampling Locations and Number of 49
Sampling Points
19 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 5 71
20 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 5 72
Standard Deviation in Measurements
-------
- viii -
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No. Title Paee
21 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 5 73
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
22 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 5 74
(Duct 5A) Fraction of Explained Variance
23 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 5 75
(Duct 5B) Fraction of Explained Variance
24 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 7 77
25 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 7 78
Standard Deviation in Measurements
26 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 7 79
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
27 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 7 80
(Duct 7A) Fraction of Explained Variance
28 Stratification Results - Widows Creek Unit 7 81
(Duct 7B) Fraction of Explained Variance
29 Stratification Results - E. C. Gaston Unit 5 82
30 Stratification Results - E. C. Gaston Unit 5 83
Standard Deviation in Measurements
31 Stratification Results - E. C. Gaston Unit 5 84
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
32 Stratification Results - E. C. Gaston Unit 5 85
(Duct 5A) Fraction of Explained Variance
33 Stratification Results - E. C. Gaston Unit 5 86
(Duct 5B) Fraction of Explained Variance
34 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 4 88
35 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 4 89
Standard Deviation in Measurements
36 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 4 90
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
37 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 4 (Duct 4A) 91
Fraction of Explained Variance
38 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 4 (Duct 4B) 92
Fraction of Explained Variance
-------
- ix -
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No.
39
40
Title
Stratification Results - Barry Unit 5
Stratification Results - Barry Unit 5
Page
93
94
Standard Deviation in Measurements
41 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 5 95
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
42 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 5 (Duct 5A) 96
Fraction of Explained Variance
43 Stratification Results - Barry Unit 5 (Duct 5B) 97
Fraction of Explained Variance
44 Stratification Results - Morgantown Unit 1 99
45 Stratification Results - Morgantown Unit 1 100
Standard Deviation in Measurements
46 Stratification Results - Morgantown Unit 1 101
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
47 Stratification Results - Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct 1A) 102
Fraction of Explained Variance
48 Stratification Results - Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct IB) 103
Fraction of Explained Variance
49 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 104
50 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 105
Standard Deviation in Measurements
51 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 106
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
52 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 (Duct 1A) 107
Fraction of Explained Variance
53 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 (Duct IB) 1°8
Fraction of Explained Variance
54 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 (Duct 1C) 1°9
Fraction of Explained Variance
55 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 (Duct ID) HO
Fraction of Explained Variance
56 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 HI
(In Stack Test)
-------
- x -
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No. Title Page
57 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 112
(In Stack at 725 MW) Fraction of Explained Variance
58 Stratification Results - Navajo Unit 1 113
(In Stack at 800 MW) Fraction of Explained Variance
59 Linear Regression Equation Coefficients 116
60 Quadratic Regression Equation Coefficients 120
61 Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients 124
-------
- 1 -
SUMMARY
Exxon Research and Engineering Company has conducted a field
measurement program on utility boilers under EPA sponsorship to determine
the optimum location in the boiler ducting for extracting representative
gas samples for continuous monitoring. Under this contract, Exxon's
mobile sampling/analytical system equipped with continuous monitors has
been used to make measurements on seven fossil fuel-fired power boilers
(six coal-, one coal/oil mixed fuel-fired) ranging in size from 125 to
800 MW. These boilers, including wall and tangentially fired units, had
been recommended by the utility boiler manufacturers as being representative
of their current design practices. Concentration profiles for two
pollutants, S(>2 and NO, and for two stable combustion products, C02 and
02, as well as velocity and temperature profiles were measured to establish
the degree of point-to-point and duct-to-duct stratification of gaseous
species.
The selection of sampling locations and the number of sampling
points were aimed at obtaining representative gas samples. In all tests,
sampling was done downstream of the air preheater (all units tested were
equipped with rotary air preheaters) with one set of measurements performed
8 diameters up in the stack of an 800 MW power boiler. The number of
sampling points at each location was determined by following EPA Method 1
guidelines as specified in the Federal Register.
The results indicate that stratification does exist in the
flue gas ducting of power plant boilers and that single point sampling
is inappropriate for obtaining representative gas samples. However, an
analysis of the data shows that certain sampling techniques can be used
to reduce the significance of gas stratification in obtaining representative
samples.
It has been shown that gas component concentration averages,
gas velocity averages, and gas temperature averages obtained by traversing
the inner 50% of the duct cross section do not differ significantly from
those obtained by traversing the entire duct. Furthermore, it has been
found that sampling from only a limited number of points within the inner
50% usually yields a representative sample. Therefore, it is recommended
that multi-point sampling probes be used. At least two probes of this
type should be used per duct and they should be constructed so that samples
are taken from zones of "equal areas" within the inner 50% of the duct.
Results of the in-stack.tests, as opposed to the in-duet tests, indicate
that stack conditions are extremely uniform and that this should be the
preferred extractive sampling location for gaseous species monitoring,
provided that practical accessibility to such a sampling location is
available.
-------
- 2 -
1. INTRODUCTION
The objectives of continuous monitoring of air pollutant emis-
sions from fossil fuel-fired power plant boilers are two-fold. First,
reliable monitoring records should establish whether the unit under con-
sideration has been in compliance with regulations. Second, continuous
monitoring with direct reading output can signal the occurrence of upset
process conditions that may result in excessive levels of air pollutant
emissions. Such real-time warning is needed to enable the power plant
operator to take immediate corrective action.
Since the advent of EPA emission regulations issued as required
by the Air Quality Amendments of 1970 for stationary sources, there has
been an increased emphasis placed on developing monitoring instrumentation
for air pollutants. EPA established performance standards for new steam
generators exceeding in size 250 million Btu/hr firing rate, and recommended
emission standards to the States for units in the same size category to
help prepare state implementation plans. In general, fossil fuel-fired
power plants raise steam in boilers larger than the above limit, and are
therefore subject to emission regulations. Thus, the emission levels of
gaseous air pollutant species, SO and NO , must be controlled for power
plant installations.
Continuous monitoring of the effluent is much more efficient,
productive, and less time-consuming than laborious grab sampling and wet
chemical analytical methods. The availability of increasingly sophisticated
and reliable monitoring instrumentation is a result of such considerations.
In addition to air pollutants, there is a need for monitoring the concen-
trations of key gaseous components of combustion flue gases, specifically
02 and C02- The Q£ concentration in the flue gas is the measure of the
level of excess air used for combustion (provided the flue gas is not
diluted by air leaks), an important parameter that affects boiler opera-
bility features such as flame stability, corrosion, slagging and thermal
efficiency. The C02-C>2 relationship is a measure of the boiler performance
for a given fuel, and reliable sampling and analytical measurements should
agree with the calculated relationship based on fuel analysis for well
adjusted boiler systems.
All monitoring instrumentation must be supplied with representa-
tive gas samples to make the results acceptable (except for in-stack,
averaging monitors which also must be validated against primary standard
methods based on direct sample extraction). Usually, stratification of
gaseous species in power plant boiler ducts and stacks has been assumed
to be of minor importance, because of the mixing and turbulence of the
high velocity flue gas streams. This has been assumed to be the case,
even though it is well known that the composition of the combustion gases
produced in boiler furnaces is not uniform due to imbalances in air and
-------
- 3 -
fuel supplies to Individual burners or groups of burners. The flow pat-
terns prevailing in power plant furnaces fired with fossil fuels
(particularly with coal or oil fuels) can further enhance the stratifica-
tion of gas compositions. In most power plant boilers, the flue gas
stream exiting from the furnace flows into two or more separate ducts.
Thus, duct-to-duct stratification may complicate the problem of monitoring,
in addition to stratification in individual ducts.
The ultimate goal of this measurement program was to determine
the optimum location in the ducting for extracting representative sample
streams to be supplied to gas monitors. This goal was achieved by
measuring the SC^, NO, CC>2 and C^ concentration profiles in the flue gas
ducting of seven representative fossil fuel-fired utility boilers to
determine the magnitude of gaseous stratification. The lower the degree
of stratification, the easier it will be to obtain representative gas
samples by probing from a minimum number of duct positions. Following
is a list of the units tested in this program:
1. Widows Creek Unit 5 (TVA)
2. Widows Creek Unit 7 (TVA)
3. E.G. Gaston Unit 5 (Southern Electric Generating Company)
4. Barry Unit 4 (Alabama Power Company)
5. Barry Unit 5 (Alabama Power Company)
6. Morgantown Unit 1 (Potomac Electric Power Company)
7. Navajo Unit 1 (Salt River Project)
In addition to gas concentration measurements, it was necessary
to establish the temperature and velocity profiles of the gases being
sampled. These data are needed for measuring flue gas flow rates and
temperatures which are needed for calculating mass emission rates of
pollutants, by combining flow rate, temperature and concentration measurements.
The Exxon mobile sampling/analytical system was used to obtain the required
emissions data.
-------
- 4 -
2. CONCLUSIONS
This section of the report presents the conclusions and recommendations
based on the results obtained in a field program conducted on seven repre-
sentative fossil fuel-fired utility boilers. Tables 1-6 summarize the results
of our stratification tests. As shown, with the exception of Widows Creek
Unit 5, all the units were tangentially fired boilers. Also, all units were
coal fired except for Morgantown Unit 1, which was a mixed fuel unit. Testing
was performed with this boiler firing 75% oil and 25% coal. The units were
tested under normal operating conditions, with the percent of full load
ranging from-a low of 63% during the Barry Unit 5 test to 100% on the Morgan-
town Unit 1 and Navajo Unit 1 tests.
The objective of this study having been the determination of the
extent of the stratification of the gaseous components in boiler flue gas
ducting downstream of the air preheaters, our testing was guided by the
following criteria:
1. The determination of the magnitude of the point-to-point
stratification at a given duct cross section.
2. The determination of the magnitude of the duct-to-duct
stratification.
The magnitude of the point-to-point stratification is used to
help determine the position within the duct cross section where the most
representative gas sample can be withdrawn. In trying to determine
this position, we first calculated the various total duct average
gaseous component concentrations, the total duct average velocity,
and the total duct average temperature. This was done by using the data
obtained from all the sampling points. In an attempt to determine if a partial
traverse of the duet cross section was sufficient to accurately measure gas
component concentrations, the various "inner duct average" gaseous component
concentrations, velocity, and temperature were calculated. These inner duct
averages were determined by calculating the various averages neglecting the
data taken at the outermost sampling points. These values are shown in Tables
1-6. It should be noted that all gaseous component concentrations have been
corrected to a 3% 0? basis to correct for dilution effects. In all the tests
performed, excluding the outermost sampling points means that only the sampling
points within the inner ^50% (by area) of the duct cross section were used in
calculating the averages. Results from the tests performed show that the
total duct averages and the inner duct averages do not differ substantially.
In only one case is the difference greater than 10%. This occurred at the
Gaston Steam Plant where the inner duct 0- average was 10.7% lower than
the total duct 0_ average. This difference was attributed to air leaks.
This indicates tRat sampling confined to traversing the inner 50% of the duct
will allow a determination of the flue gas composition which is very close
to the actual composition. It will be shown later that single point sampling
is inadequate in most instances and it will be necessary to take a composite
sample from three or more points within the inner 50% of the duct cross
section to obtain a representative sample.
-------
Unit
Widows
Creek
No. 5
Widows
Creek
No. 7
E.G. Gaston
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
(Ducts A
and B)
Navajo
No. 1
(Ducts C
and D)
Type
of Firing
Front Wall
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Full
Load
Rating,
MW
125
575
900
350
712
575
800
800
Load
When
Tested,
MW
100
400
850
240
450
575
800
800
Z
Full
Load
80
70
94
69
63
100
100
100
Duct A
Total
Duct
Average
(XA>
1417
2578
1162
1746
2409
1353
438
435
Total
Duct
Standard
Deviation
118
438
183
51
84
53
35
40
Inner
Duct
Average
1414
2545
1211
1751
2446
1358
433
446
Inner
Duct
Standard
Deviation
130
331
254
46
45
52
21
25'
X
Difference
Between
Averages
-0.2
-1.3
+4.2
+0.3
+1.5
+0.4
-1.1
+2.5
Duct B
Total
Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 2
STRATIFICATION RESULTS FOR NO (ppn) CORRECTED TO A 3% 02 BASIS
Unit
Widows
Creek
No. 5
Widows
Creek
No. 7
E.C. Gaston
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
(Ducts A
and B)
Navajo
(Ducts C
and D)
Type
of Firing
Front Wall
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Full
Load
Rating,
MW
125
575
900
350
712
575
800
800
Load
When
Tested,
MW
100
400
850
240
450
575
800
800
2
Full
Load
80
70
94
69
63
100
100
100
Duct A
Total
Duct
Average
-------
Unit
Widows
Creek
No. 5
Widows
Creek
No. 7
E C G t
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
(Ducts A
and B)
Navajo
No. 1
(Ducts C
and D)
of Firing
Front Wall
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Full
Load
MW
125
575
350
712
575
300
800
Load
When
MW
100
400
240
450
575
800
800
%
Load
80
70
94
69
63
100
100
100
Total
Duct
-------
Unit
Widows
Creek
No. 5
Widows
Creek
No. 7
E.G. Gascon
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
(Ducts A
and B)
Navajo
No. 1
(rtMcts c
and D)
of Firing
Front Wall
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Full
Load
MW
125
575
900
350
712
575
800
800
Load
When
MW
100
400
850
240
450
575
800
800
%
Load
80
70
94
69
63
100
100
100
Duct A
Total
Duct
(XA>
7.7
4.3
6.1
5.8
5.0
5.2
5.7
6.5
Total
Duct
Deviation
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.2
0.2
Inner
Average
7.6
4.0
5.6
5.7
4.6
4.7
5.6
6.4
Inner
Duct
Deviation
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.1
0.1
*
Difference
Averages
-1.3
-7.0
-8.2
-1.7
-8.0
-9.6
-1.8
-1.5
Duct B
Total
Duct
(XB>
8.7
4.8
5.6
6.1
7.8
5.4
6.9
6.9
Total
Duct
Deviation
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.1
0.2
Inner
Average
8.7
4.4
5.0
5.9
7.4
5.1
6.8
6.9
Inner
Duct
Deviation
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.1
Z
Difference
Averages
0.0
-8.3
-10.7
-3.3
-5.1
-5.6
-1.4
.0.0
Boiler
(X)
8.20
4.55
5.85
5.95
6.40
5.15
6.5
6.5
%
Difference
X and XA
-6.1
-5.5
+4.3
-2.5
-22.9*
+1.0
-12.3
0.0
*
Difference
X and X_
D
+6.1
+5.5
-4.3
+2.5
+22.9
-1.0
+6.2
+6.2
* On a % excess air basj^s
(i.e., X = U3% vs. X.
this difference would be much smaller
= 130%, X_ - 158%).
-------
STRATIFICATION RESULTS FOR VELOCITY (M/S)
Unit
Widows
Creek
No. 5
Widows
Creek
No. 7
E.G. Gascon
So. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No! 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navaio
No. 1
(Ducts A
and B)
Navajo
No. 1
(Ducts C
and D)
Type
of Firing
Front Wall
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Full
Load
Rating,
MW
125
575
900
350
712
575
800
800
Load
When
Tested,
MW
100
400
850
240
450
575
800
800
%
Full
Load
80
70
94
69
63
100
100
100
Duct A
Total
0uct
Average
(XA>
9.6
6.4
17.1
12.0
5.3
13.8
10.2
9.4
Total
Duct
Standard
Deviation
2.0
2.3
6.5
1.5
1.0
4.5
1.3
1.1
Inner
Duct
Average
9.1
6.4
17.9
11.1
5.6
13.6
10.1
9.2
Inner
Duct
Standard
Deviation
2.0
1.7
4.0
1.0
0.8
3.7
0.9
0.8
%
Difference
Between
Averages
-5.2
0.0
+4.7
-7.4
+5.1
-1.4
-1.0
-2.1
Duct B
Total
Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 6
STRATIFICATION RESULTS FOR TEMPERATURE (°C)
Unit
Widows
Creek
No. 5
Widows
Creek
No. 7
B.C. Gaston
No. 5
Barry
No. It
Barry
No. 5
Morgantovn
No. 1
Nava J o
No. 1
(Ducts A
and B)
Naval o
No. 1
(Ducts C
and D)
Type
of Firing
Front Wall
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Tangential
Full
Load
Rating,
MW
125
575
900
350
712
575
800
800
Load
When
Tested,
MW
100
400
850
240
450
575
800
800
Z
Full
Load
80
70
94
69
63
100
100
100
Duct A
Total
Duct
Average
-------
- 11 -
In determining the magnitude of the duct-to-duct stratification,
first the boiler averages were calculated for the various gaseous
components, the velocity, and the temperature. These averages were then
compared with the averages for the two individual ducts from which sampling
was done. Data obtained from the tests indicate that there is negligible
duct-to-duct stratification. However, the most representative measurements
would be obtained by taking a composite sample from both ducts.
As shown in the previous analysis, our test results indicate
that gas component concentration averages, gas velocity averages, and gas
temperature averages obtained by traversing the inner 50% of the duct cross
section do not differ significantly from those obtained by traversing the
entire duct cross section. This indicates that when measuring emission
levels a substantial reduction in time can be obtained without any signifi-
cant loss in accuracy if only the inner portion of the duct is traversed.
However, even traversing only the inner portion of the duct requires a
significant expenditure of time and energy. The ideal situation would
exist if sampling would only have to be done from a single point within
the duct.
Therefore, to determine if a single sampling location where a
representative sampling could be extracted existed, the following analysis
was made. Consider the two sample statistics, the average (X) and the
standard deviation (CT). These functions contain some useful information
even if nothing is known about the form of the observed distribution.
They contain even more information if certain conditions are satisfied.
Tchebycheff's inequality enables us to state, with no reservations
whatsoever, that more Jzhan (1-1/t^) of the total number of observations (n)
lie within the limits X + tcr (where t > 1) (4). The Camp-Meidell inequality
states that under certain conditions more than (1-1/2.25 t ) of the total
number of observations lie within the limits X + ta. The conditions to
be satisfied are:
(1) The observed distribution has one peak.
(2) The mode is equal to the mean.
(3) The distribution function falls off continuously
on either side of the mode.
If the observations are taken from a controlled process, the Normal Proba-
bility Distribution may be used to give the percentage of observations
within certain limits. Among other things, the concept of control includes
the idea of homogeneous dataa set of observations resulting from meas-
urements made under essentially the same conditions. It is sufficient to
note that if data are obtained under controlled conditions, the form of
curve which will best represent the observed frequency distribution may,
for most practical purposes, be assumed to be that defined by the Normal
Law. The three distributions discussed above are compared in Table 7.
-------
- 12 -
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED PERCENTAGES
OF THE TOTAL OBSERVATIONS
LYING WITHIN GIVEN RANGES
Limits
X + la
X + 20
X + 30
X + 4a
x + 5a
Normal Law
68.3
95.4
99.7
99.994
99.9999
Camp-Meidell * a
Inequality
55.5
88.9
95.1
97.2
98.2
Tchebychef f 's
Inequality
75.0
88.9
93.7
96.2
-------
- 13 -
For the S02, NO, C02, and 02 concentrations, gas velocity^ and
jjas temperature, the_following quantities were calculated: X - 0, X + 0,
X - 20, and X + 20 (X represents the inner duct average reduced to a 3%
02 basis and a represents the inner duct standard deviation) . If a Normal
Probability Distribution is assumed, then for samples taken from the inner
50% of the duct cross section^ we can estimate that more than 95%_of these
observations will lie within X + 20 and more than 68% lie within X + 10.
The percent difference between the + 10 and + 20 range limits and the
total duct average obtained by traversing the entire duct were also
calculated to determine if a single measurement would reasonably represent
the duct average. The results of the calculations are shown in Tables 8-13.
The results can be summarized as follows:
1. S0? Measurements
For most units tested Xgo2 + 20 never differed from the total
duct S02 average by more than +20%. Only the Widows Creek Unit 7 and E.G.
Gaston Unit 5 (Duct A) test results show a significant difference (+27%
and +48%, respectively) .
2. NO Measurements
For all units tested XJJQ + 20 never differed from the total duct
NO average by more than +_19%.
3. C0? Measurements
For all units tested XCQ? + 20 never differed from the total duct
COn average by more than +15%. Also, the measured C02 concentrations
correlate well with the 02 concentrations, exhibiting an inverse relationship.
4. 0^ Measurements
In general, the difference between XQ + 20 and the total duct
02 average was significant for the units tested. Our data shows that the
Barry Unit 5 results exhibit the greatest deviation (+44% on Duct A) .
These significant differences can probably be attributed to air leaks.
5. Velocity Measurements
For all units tested Xygj^ + 2a differed significantly from the
total duct velocity average. As expected, our results indicate that there
is very little variation in our in-stack velocity measurements.
6. Temperature Measurements
For all units tested Xiemp. + 2ff never differed from the total
duct temperature average by more than 20%. Also, since most flue gas
calculations are done on an absolute temperature scale, the absolute
temperature stratification will be less than shown.
-------
TABLE 8
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - S02 (ppm) CORRECTED TO A 3% DZ BASIS
Unit
(Duct A)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xA)
1417
2578
1162
1746
2409
1353
438
Inner Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 8 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - S02 (ppm) CORRECTED TO A 3% 02 BASIS
Unit
(Duct B)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
1094
1823
1007
1660
2174
1182
477
Z Difference
Between
XB and (^ - 2o)
-21.7
-24.9
-15.4
-4.7
-6.0
-6.3
-5.9
xb + 2a
1702
2987
1389
1832
2494
1342
573
Z Difference
Between
.XB and (^ + 2o)
21.8
23.1
16.7
5.2
7.9
6.4
13.0
-------
TABLE 8 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - S02 (ppm) CORKECTED TO A 3% 0,, BASIS
Unit
(Duct C)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xc)
435
Inner Duct
Average
-9.0
xc+ 2a
496
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(xc+ 2a)
14.0
Unit
(Duct D)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 9
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NO (ppm) CORRECTED TO A 3% 0 BASIS
Unit
(Duct A)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
So. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Nava j o
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 9 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NO (ppm) CORRECTED TO A 3% Q BASIS
Unit
(Duct B)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 9 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NO (ppm) CORRECTED TO A 3% 0 BASIS
Unit
(Duct C)
Nava j o
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xc)
333
Inner Duct
Average
»c>
331
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
7
xc- a
324
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc- a)
-2.7
xc+ a
338
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc+ a)
1.5
xc- 2a
317
% Difference
_ Between
Xc andCx,- 2a)
-4.8
xc+ 2a
345
% Difference
Between
Xc and (Xc+ 2o)
3.6
Unit
(Duct D)
Nava jo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
°v
335
Inner Duct
Average
(xd)
331
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
6
xd-a
325
% Difference
Between
X])and(Xd- a)
-3.0
xd+a
337
% Difference
_ Between
Xjj and(Xd+ a)
0.6
X,- 2a
a
319
% Difference
Between
Xp and(Xd- 2a)
-4.8
X,+ 2a
d
343
% Difference
Between
Xjj and(X + 2a)
2.4
-------
TABLE 1°
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - C02 (%) CORRECTED TO A 3% 0^ BASIS
Unit
(Duct A)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Nava j o
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
UA)
16.0
14.4
14.4
16.0
15.3
14.2
15.7
Inner Duct
Average
16.0
14.4
14.6
16.0
15.4
14.3
15.7
Inner Duct .
Standard :
Deviation i
(
-------
TABLE 10 (ContM.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - CO (%) CORRECTED TO A 3% 0 BASIS
Unit
(Duct B)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xB)
15.9
14.5
14.7
15.9
14.3
14.1
15.5
Inner Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 10 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - C02 (%) CORRECTED TO A 3% 0 BASIS
Unit
(Duct C)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xc)
15.5
Inner Duct
Average
-0.6
xc+ 2a
15.8
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(x~c+ 2o)
1.9
Unit
(Duct D)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 11
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - Q (%)
Unit
(Duct A)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. I
Nava j o
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(XA)
7.7
4.3
6.1
5.8
5.0
5.2
5.7
Inner Duct
Average
<*.>
7.6
4.0
5.6
5.7
4.6
4.7 '
5.6
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.1
Xa-a
6.9
3.5
5.4
5.0
3.7
4.3
5.5
% Difference
Between
XA and (Xa - a)
-10.4
-18.6
-11.5
-13.8
-26.0
-17.3
-3.5
xa + o
8.3
4.5
5.8
6.4
5.5
5.1
5.7
Z Difference
Between
X and (X + a)
A &
7.8
4.7
-4.9
10.3
10.0
-1.9
0.0
X - 2a
a
6.2
3.0
5.2
4.3
2.8
3.9
5.4
% Difference
Between
X. and (X - 2a)
A &
-19.5
-30.2
-14.8
-25.9
-44.0
-25.0
-5.3
X + 2a
\
9.0
5.0
6.0
7.1
6.4
5.5
5.8
% Difference
Between
XA and (Xa + 20)
16.9
16.3
-1.6
22.4
28.0
5.8
1.8
-------
TABLE 11 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - (>2 (%)
Unit
(Duct B)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 11 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - 0 (%)
Unit
(Duct C)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(KC)
6.5
Inner Duct
Average
(xc)
6.4
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
0.1
xc- a
6.3
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc- a)
-3.1
xc+ a
6.5
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc+ a)
0.0
xc- 2a
6.2
% Difference
_ Between
zc and(3£- 2a>
-4.6
Xc+ 2a
6.6
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc+ 20 )
1.5
Unit
(Duct D)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 12
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - VELOCITY (M/S)
Unit
(Duct A)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
9.1
6.4
17.9
11.1
5.6
13.6
10.1
Inner Duct!
Standard
Deviation
(0)
2.0
1.7
4.0
1.0
0.8
3.7
0.9
'a'0
7.1
4.7
13.9
10.1
4.8
9.9
9.2
% Difference
Between
XA and (Xa - a)
-26.0
-26.6
-18.7
-15.8
-9.4
-28.3
-9.8
xa * a;
11.1
8.1
21.9
12.1
6.4
17.3
11.0
Z Difference
Between
XA and (Xa + a)
15.6
26.6
28.1
0.8
20.8
25.4
7.8
Xa " 2a
5.1
3.0
9.9
9.1
4.0
6.2
8.3
Z Difference
Between
XA and (Xfl - 20]
-46.9
-53.1
-42.1
-24.2
-24.5
-28.3
-18.6
X + 20
13.1
9.8
25.9
13.1
7.2
21.0
11.9
Z Difference
Between
XA and (Xa + 2o)
36.5
53.1
51.5
9.2
35.8
52.2
16.7
OX
I
-------
TABLE 12 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - VELOCITY (M/S)
Unit
(Duct B)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(V
9.0
6.3
13.3
11.5
4.7
14.7
9.5
Inner Duct
Average
*b>
8.0
6.4
14.0
10.7
5.0
14.5
9.1
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
2.9
1.6
2.7
0.7
0.8
4.0
0.9
\~°
5.1
4.8
11.3
10.0
4.2
10.5
8.2
% Difference
Between
Xfi and (X^ - a)
-43.3
-23.8
-15.0
-13.0
-10.6
-28.6
-13.7
Xb + Cj
10.9
8.0
16.7
11.4
5.8
18.5
10.0
Z Difference
Between
XB -and (^ + a)'
21.1
27.0
25.7
-0.9
23.4
25.9
5.3
xb- 2a
2.2
3.2
8.6
9.3
3.4
6.5
7.3
% Difference
Between
Xfl and (Xb - 2a)
-75.6
-49.2
-35.3
-19.1
-27.7
-55.8
-23.2
Xfa + 2a
13.8
9.6
19.4
12.1
6.6
22.5
10.9
% Difference
Between
XB and (£ + 2
-------
TABU 12 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - VELOCITY (M/S)
Unit
(Duct C)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xc)
9.4
Inner Duct
Average
(xc)
9.2
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
0.8
xc- a
8.4
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc- a)
-10.6
xc+ a
10.0
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc+ a)
6.4
xc- 2a
7.6
% Difference
_ Between
Kc andG£- 2(j)
-19.1
Xc+ 2o
10.8
% Difference
_ Between
Xr and(x+ 2a)
\s C
14.9
Unit
(Duct D)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 13
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - TEMPERATURE (°C)
Unit
(Duct A)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 13 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - TEMPERATURE (°C)
Unit
(Duct B)
Widows
Creek No. 5
Widows
Creek No. 7
Gas ton
No. 5
Barry
No. 4
Barry
No. 5
Morgantown
No. 1
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
-------
TABLE 13 (Cont'd.)
STRATIFICATION-RESULTS - TEMPERATURE (°C)
Unit
(Duct C)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(xc)
130
Inner Duct
Average
<*c>
133
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
5
xc- a
128
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc- c)
-1.5
xc+a
138
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(Xc+ a)
6.2
xc-2a
123
% Difference
_ Between
xc andG£- 2a>
-5.4
xc+ 2a
143
% Difference
_ Between
Xc and(S^+ 20;)
10.0
Unit
(Duct D)
Navajo
No. 1
Total Duct
Average
(V
154
Inner Duct
Average
(xd)
156
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
2
xd-a
154
% Difference
Between
Xp and(Xd- a)
0.0
xd+a
158
% Difference
Between
Xp and(Xd+ a)
2.6
x,- 2a
a
152
% Difference
Between
Xp and(Xd- 2a)
-1.3
xd+2a
160
% Difference
Between
XDand(Xd+ 20)
3.9
-------
- 32 -
In the cases where X + 2a differed significantly from the total
duct average, in most instances a substantial reduction in this difference
could be obtained by extracting a composite sample from the inner portion
of the duct cross section. Consider the following illustrations:
1. E.G. Gaston Unit 5 - Duct A
For the S02 measurements, Xgo2 ± 2a differed from the total duct
S02 average by -39.5 to 47.9%. This means that if single samples are ex-
tracted from the inner portion of the duct approximately 95% of these samples
will show a S(>2 concentration between 703 and 1719 ppm. The total duct SC>2
average concentration is 1162. Therefore, in many cases it can be expected
that a single sample will not result in a truly representative sample.
Our calculations indicate that if n 3-point composite samples are extracted
and analyzed, it can be expected that 95% of them will show a S02 concentration
of 864 to 1208 ppm. These figures are clearly much nearer to the actual S02
concentration in the flue gas (although still inadequate for monitoring purposes)
2. Barry Unit 5 - Duct A
For the 02 measurements, XQ2 +. 20 differed from the total duct
average by -44.0 to 28.0%. Our calculations indicate that if 3-point
composite samples are used rather than single point samples, approximately
95% of the samples will range between -24.0 and 0.0% of the total duct 02
average.
Therefore, it is recommended that composite sampling probes be
used. At least two probes of this type should be used per duct and they
should be constructed so that samples are taken from zones of "equal areas"
within the inner 50% of the duct. Results of the in-stack test indicate
that stack conditions are extremely uniform and that this should be the
preferred sampling location provided that practical accessibility to such
a sampling location is available. Tables 14 and 15 show the results of
the in-stack tests performed on Navajo Unit No. 1.
Based on experience obtained from this program and other Exxon
government sponsored research, the following sampling system is recommended:
After the sample is extracted from the duct, it should pass
through lines heated high enough to prevent condensation before being passed
through a heated filter for a final particulate cleanup. The sample then
would pass through a permeation drying tube for moisture removal before
being sent to the analytical equipment. The line after the dryer would not
have to be heated and should be made of an inert material, preferably Teflon.
It is also recommended that a vent be included before the analytical
equipment so that a high flow rate could be used. This would reduce the
residence time of the gas in the lines and restrict any possible S02
reactions.
-------
TABLE 14
NAVAJO UNIT 1 (IN STACK AT.725 MH) TEST RESULTS
SO 2 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity
(M/S)
Temperature
(°C)
Total Duct
Average
(XT)
553
294
14.6
6.2
31.5
139
Inner Duct
Average
00
549
295
14.6
6.2
33.0
139
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
27
21
0.8
0.2
0.7
2
X - a
522
274
13.8
6.0
32.3
137
% Difference
Between
Xj and. (X - a)
-5.6
-6.8
-5.5
-3.2
2.5
-1.4
X + a
576
316
15.4
6.4
33.7
141
% Difference
Between
Zj, and (X + a)
4.2
7.5
5.5
3.2
7.0
1.4
X - 2a
495
253
13.0
5.8
31.6
135
% Difference
Between
Xj and (X - 20)
-10.5
-13.9
-11.0
-6.5
0.3
-2.9
X + 2a
603
337
16.2
6.6
34.4
143
% Difference
Between
xij. and (X + 2o)
9.0
14.6
11.0
6.5
9.2
2.9
-------
TABLE 15
NAVAJO UNIT 1 (IN STACK TEST AT 800 MW) TEST RESULTS
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity
(M/S)
Temperature
(°C)
Total Duct
Average
(V
554
299
15.5
6.2
41.5
149
Inner Duct
Average
00
551
299
15.5
6.3
43.9
149
Inner Duct
Standard
Deviation
(a)
14
14
0.2
0.3
2.2
1
X - ff
537
285
15.3
6.0
41.7
148
% Difference
Between
Xj and (X -.a)
-3.1
-4.7
-1.3
-3.2
-0.5
-0.7
X + a
565
313
15.7
6.6
46.1
150
% Difference
Between
Xj,' and (X + a)
2.0
4.7
1.3
6.5
11.1
0.7
x - 2a
523
271
15.1
5.7
39.5
147
% Difference
Between
Xj, and (X - 20]
-5.6
-9.4
-2.6
-8.1
-4.8
-1.3
X + 2o
579
327
15.9
6.9
48.3
151
% Difference
Between
XT and (X + 2a)
4.5
9.4
2.6
11.3
16.4
1.3
-------
- 35 -
3. FIELD STUDY PLANNING AND PROCEDURES
3.1 Power Plant Boiler Selection
The selection of representative power plant boilers for the
study of stratification was an extremely important first step in our
program. Exxon's approach to this task was patterned after our
successful practice in selecting power plant boilers for our continuing
field studies of combustion modifications to control NOX and other pollu-
tant emissions (1,2,3). Planning was coordinated in cooperation with the
EPA Project Officer. The major factors guiding this activity were the
following:
1. Boilers representative of current design practices
of major manufacturers had to be selected. A list
of the units tested and the start-up date of each
unit are shown in Table 16.
2. The full cooperation of electric utility boiler
owner-operators had to be assured for conducting
a successful test program.
Operationally, our planning activity consisted of the following
steps:
1. Exxon reviewed the suitability of the candidate boilers.
2. Exxon contacted boiler operators whose units had been
selected on a tentative basis to arrange initial
meetings.
3. Exxon met with the boiler operators. The objectives
of our test program were discussed, and the cooperation
of the boiler operators was requested.
4. While visiting the individual utility companies,
tentative testing schedules were arranged.
5. It was agreed with the cooperating utilities that
Exxon would confirm the test schedule, and transmit
to them detailed test program designs.
We carried out this program by meshing the schedule of the
stratification study with that of our continuing field test program
on emission control under the sponsorship of the Combustion Research
Branch of the Industrial and Environmental Research Laboratory-EPA, RTP.
This approach provided several significant advantages:
-------
- 36 -
TABLE 16
UNITS TESTED IN STRATIFICATION PROGRAM
AND START-UP DATE OF EACH UNIT
Unit Start-Up Date
Widows Creek Unit 5 1954
Widows Creek Unit 7 1961
E. C. Gaston Unit 5 1974
Barry Unit 4 1969
Barry Unit 5 1971
Morgantown Unit 1 1970
Navajo Unit 1 1974
-------
- 37 -
Some of the boilers selected for stratification measure-
ments were also tested for additional measurements with
our standard sample probing system upstream of the air
heaters.
Travel costs were minimized and the time required for
development of the sampling-analytical equipment for
the stratification studies were significantly reduced.
The contacts and discussions with power plant and other
utility company personnel were held at the same time as
those for our emission control field studies. Again,
significant improvements in efficiency, and corresponding
savings resulted.
-------
- 38 -
3.2 Test Procedures
3.2.1 Gaseous Sampling and Analysis
The objective of obtaining reliable gaseous emission data in
field testing boilers requires a sophisticated sampling system. The
basic sampling and analytical system used in this program has already
been described in detail in the Exxon Research and Engineering Company
Report, "Systematic Field Study of NOX Emission Control Methods for
Utility Boilers" (2).
For the present program, modifications were made in the system
to further assure reliable, accurate analyses. The major change was to
replace the refrigerated water knock-out in the sample line with a permeation
type drying tube. This was done to assure that the sample gas was virtually
moisture free. Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of the configuration of
the gaseous sampling and analytical system used in this study. In running
the stratification tests, the gas samples were withdrawn from the duct
through a sintered metal filter which removed all particulates greater
than 1 to 1*2 microns. A heated ceramic core filter was affixed to the
end of the gas sampling tube followed by a Perma Pure Products, Inc.
permeation drying tube which operates on the permeation distillation
principle. All water in the flue gas sample was removed at this point,
thus decreasing the probability of inaccuracy of the results due to
partial absorption of the critical gaseous species in the water which
may condense beyond this point. The permeation drying tubes were purged
continuously with either bottled nitrogen or plant air to remove the
water in the gas sample. Usually, the van was located 100 to 200 feet
from this point and the gas stream flowed through Teflon lines throughout
this distance.
As in our previous field test programs, our analytical van was
equipped with a Thermo-Electron chemiluminescence instrument for NO and
NOX measurements, Beckman non-dispersive infrared analyzers to measure
NO, CO, C02 and S02, a non-dispersive ultraviolet analyzer for N02
measurement, a polarographic analyzer for 02 and a flame ionization
analyzer for hydrocarbon analysis. Data analysis was done using the NO
measurements obtained using the chemiluminescence analyzer and, in general,
measurements obtained using the NDIR analyzer agreed reasonably well.
The measuring ranges of these continuous analyzers are listed in Table 17.
To assure accurate analyses, the instruments were calibrated before each
test with calibration gases in appropriate concentrations with N2 as the
carrier gas. "S" type pitot tubes were used to measure the flue gas
velocity.
Special probes were fabricated to obtain the gas stratification
data required for this study. These probes sampled near isokinetically,
and ensured that sampling would not occur superisokinetically. Isokinetic
sampling is not as important for gaseous sampling as it is for particulates.
However, since the objective of the program was to determine the extent of
flue gas stratification in power plant boiler ducting, care had to be taken
not to disturb stratification conditions if they existed. Therefore, in
-------
FIGURE 1
EXXON RESEARCH STRATIFICATION SAMPLING SYSTEM
Thermocouple
N
Sintere
Filter
d'
Pitot
Tube
CO
co2
NO
so
HYDROCARBONS
N°x & N° I 1
2 Perma Pure Drier
Heated
Filter
3-e^
N
Pump
^200 ft.
Solenoid
Valve
Sampling
Van
Vent
PSI Relief
Valve
U)
VO
-------
- 40 -
TABLE 17
CONTINUOUS ANALYTICAL
INSTRUMENTS IN EXXON VAN
Beckman
Instruments
NO
Technique
2
co2
CO
so2
Hydrocarbons
Thermo Electron
NO/NO
jf.
Non-dispersive infrared
Non-dispersive ultraviolet
Polarographic
Non-dispersive infrared
Non-dispersive infrared
Non-dispersive infrared
Flame ionization detection
Chemiluminescence
Measuring
Range
0-400 ppm
0-2,000 ppm
0-100 ppm
0-400 ppm
0-5%
0-25%
0-20%
0-200 ppm
0-1,000 ppm
0-23,600 ppm
0-600 ppm
0-3,000 ppm
0-10 ppm
0-100 ppm
0-1,000 ppm
0-2.5 ppm
0-10.0 ppm
0-25 ppm
0-100 ppm
0-250 ppm
0-1,000 ppm
0-2,500 ppm
0-10,000 ppm
-------
conducting the stratification measurement program for gaseous species, it
was important to assure that the gas samples were not withdrawn at a super-
isokinetic rate so that the sampling tube itself would not act as a "vacuum
cleaner", and upset stratification patterns in the area of the sampling
nozzle. Subisokinetic sampling rates would not be expected to disturb
stratification patterns. The probes were built in accordance with the
details shown in Figures 2-7. Each probe consisted of an "S" type pitot
tube for the measurement of gas velocity, a thermocouple for measuring
duct gas temperature and a 3/8 inch stainless steel gas sampling tube all
encased in a 1-3/4 inch stainless steel pipe for rigidity. The basic
probe was 12 feet long with an 8 foot extension for use in larger ducts.
The design of the stratification probes was coordinated with
EPA's Industrial and Environmental Research Laboratory, Process Measurement
Branch. The calibration of the "S" type pitot tubes was done in the
wind-tunnel of EPA's Combustion Research Laboratory at Research Triangle Park.
-------
- 1/8" T.C. sheath 13' long/extra 15' of
wire extended from end
SCHEMATIC OF STRATIFICAIIOH SAMPLING PEDB£
-------
One 13'-6", One 14'-0" for front half of probe
This cut to be
X- / I
15"R 9/16" Parallel to axis
' i of tubing
Pitot Tube Detail 1-2 Req'd 3/8" 304 S.S. tubing .035 wall
FIGURE 3
STRATIFICATION SAMPLING PROBE - DETAIL 1
-------
15'-2" for front half of probe
Detail 2
Sample taking tube
1 required 304 S.S. tubing .035 wall
Note: Supply 3 pieces 7'-6" long
of 3/8" S.S. tubing for
extension
FIGURE 4
1
STRATIFICATION SAMPLING PROBE - DETAIL 2
-------
Rear half of probe
Drilled for welding
,in four locations
around tube
Front half of probe
1-3/4" S.S. tubing .065 wall
1-3/4" S.S. tubing
.065 wall
#304 S.S. 1%" ^ 12 THD.
Make male and female pieces
Weld to I.D. of tubing
Ul
I
FIGURE 5
STRATIFICATION SAMPLING PROBE - DETAIL 3
-------
3/8" Drill^
3 places
1/8" Drill
r
1-5/8 *
Detail 4
All holes to fit tubing snuggly
* Chamber one for welding to end of sheath.
Second disk to be slide fitted in sheath.
2 required 304 S.S. 1/8" thick.
FIGURE 6
STRATIFICATION SAMPLING PROBE - DETAIL 4
-------
3/8" Clamping lever
3/8"
4^ _,.
-^ \
Detail 5
1 Required #304 S.S.
Safety Clamp
FIGURE 7
STRATIFICATION SAMPLING PROBE - DETAIL 5
-------
- 48 -
3.2.2 Sampling Location Selection
For our stratification test program, the selection of sampling
locations and the number of sampling points were based on attempts to
obtain representative gas samples. Usually, the preferred locations for
sampling and monitoring are towards the end of long flow paths where the
gases have had an opportunity to mix thoroughly, and velocity patterns
are more uniform. The criteria used to determine this preferred sampling
location is that it be located at least eight stack or duct diameters
downstream and two diameters upstream from any bend, expansion, contrac-
tion, valve, fitting, or any other flow disturbance. For rectangular
ducts, the equivalent diameter is calculated from the expression:
equivalent diameter = 2(length x width)/(length + width)
Unfortunately from this standpoint, the lengths of flue ducts on most
power plant boilers are kept as short as possible to minimize overall
investment costs. Most ducts are fitted into confined spaces requiring
bends and expansion sections which do not lend themselves to obtaining
representative gas samples.
In all of our tests, sampling was done downstream of the air
preheater. One of the disadvantages of sampling downstream of the air
preheater is that an air leakage factor is introduced. However, flue
gas temperature (about 350°F as opposed to 600-750°F upstream of the
air preheater) and pressure conditions at downstream locations offer
advantages for testing and monitoring.
After determining the sampling locations, provisions must be
made to traverse the duct. Guidelines to determine the number of traverse
points required to obtain a representative sample are specified in the
Federal Register (5). The number is based on the location of the sampling
point with respect to upstream and downstream flow disturbances as indicated
above. Since the duct configurations on most of the units tested were not
ideal, it was usually necessary to sample at a maximum number of traverse
points. Also, on some of the boilers tested the number and spacing of
sampling ports frequently prevented obtaining representative samples in
accordance with the procedures outlined in the Federal Register.
As can be seen from Table 18, in most cases we were not able
to adhere strictly to EPA guidelines. In the case of our test on Widows
Creek Unit .5 where a significant deviation occurred because of an insuf-
ficient number of sampling ports, requests were made to plant personnel
to have additional ports installed. The request was refused because,
due to manpower shortage, utility personnel were not available for in-
stalling the additional ports. Figures 8-14 show the location of the
sampling ports on the units tested and Figures 15-26 show the number and
location of- sampling points.
-------
TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND NUMBER OF SAMPLING POINTS
Unit
Widows Creek
Unit 5
Widows Creek
Unit 7
E.G. Gaston
Unit 5
Barry Unit 4
Sampling Location
Barry Unit 5
Morgantown
Unit 1
Navaj o
Unit 1
Downstream of rotary air pre-
heater, just upstream of I.D.
fan
Downstream of rotary air pre-
heater, just upstream of
electrostatic precipitator
Just downstream of the rotary
air preheater
Downstream of electrostatic
precipitator, just upstream
of stack
Downstream of rotary air pre
heater, just upstream of
electrostatic precipitator
Downstream of rotary air pre
heater, just upstream of
electrostatic precipitator
Downstream of rotary air pre-
heater, just upstream of I.D.
fan
Equivalent
Diameter
(ft)
11.6
15.0
13.5
15.3
Distance from Nearest
Disturbance (ft)
Downstream Upstream
14.7
13.4
19.5
Sampling ports located
at the start of an
expansion section
(see Figure 10)
Sampling ports located
at the end of a com-
pression section
immediately before a
90° bend (see Figure
11)
Sampling ports located
at the start of an ex-
pansion section (see
Figure 12)
Sampling ports located
at the start of an
expansion section
(see Figure 13)
^70 'W
Required Number of
Sampling Points
(EPA Guidelines)
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
Actual Number
of Sampling
Points
15
48
30
30
40
48
40
Navajo
Unit 1
(in stack)
350 ft. up stack
25.0
^350
^350
12
12
-------
- 50 -
FIGURE 8
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS
WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5
Fly Ash
Collector
Air
Preheater
Stack
I.D. Fan
-------
FIGURE 9
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7
To Stack
Electrostatic
Fly-Ash
Collector
Sampling
Ports
i
Ln
-------
FIGURE 10
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS - E. C. GASTON UNIT 5
Sampling
Ports
To
Stack
Ui
fo
-------
FIGURE 11
T
14'
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS - BARRY UNIT 4
44'
000000
Flue Gas From
Precipitator
14'
Turning Veins
Ul
UJ
-------
- 54 -
FIGURE 12
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS - BARRY UNIT 5
Sampling Ports
To Electrostatic
Precipitator
To Electrostatic
Precipitator
Flue Gas From
Air Preheater
-------
FIGURE 13
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS - MORGANTOWN UNIT 1
From Furnace
Sampling
Ports
To
Precipitator
Ol
I
-------
- 56 -
FIGURE 14
LOCATION OF SAMPLING PORTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1
Flue Gas
From Boiler
Sampling Ports
-------
FIGURE 15
WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 5A)
3.04m
2.43m _
1.82m _
1.21m -,
0.60m
V
xxx
(__ _ ___ _ ,
X X X i
, x x |
, 1
1 x x x 1
1 1
I * - i
xxx
k
N - -- i ii ii ii -- -
x' 1 I 1
1 0.50m 1.66m 2.93m
[* , T nSm %l
T
CO
oo
iH
1
1
Ln
1
Nominal dimensions - Width - 3.66m
Depth - 3.40m
-------
FIGURE 16
WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 5B)
3.00m-
2.40m-
1.80m-
1.20m-
0.60m-
X
XXX
' X X X I
1
1 1
X X X ,
1 1
1 1
, X X X ,
XXX
*
^ 1 1 f
Xl 0.41m 1.70m 2.86m
If 1 c\l~ M
T
<§
i-n
1
Ol
CX3
Nominal dimensions - Width - 3.61m
Depth - 3.35m
-------
FIGURE 17
2.91m-
2.38m -
1.85m -
1.32m -
0.79m -
0.26m -
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
r |
Xl 0.54m
WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCTS 7A AND 7B)
X X X X X X X
|
X X X X X X X
1
X X XXX X ' X
1
X X XXX X | X
1
1 1
1 x x x x x xx
X X X X X X X
II III II
1.59m 2.59m 3.59m 4.63m 5.66m 6.69m 7.72m
ir
e
H
cs! '
Ui
I vO
1
JL.
\
Nominal dimensions - Width - 8.23m
Depth - 3.18m
-------
FIGURE 18
E.G. GASTON UNIT 5 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCTS 5A AND 5B)
2.23m-
1.82m-
1.42m-
1.01m-
0.60m-
0.20m-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
x x x
1 '
I X X X |
r |
'X X X
I
| X X X 1
1 1
, x x x 1
x x - x
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
0.88m
I
3.70m
I
6.58m
9.46m
I
12.25m
1
8.57m
Nominal dimensions - Width - 13.14m
Depth - 2.43m
-------
FIGURE 19
BARRY UNIT 4 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 4A)
4.06m--
3.32m--
2.60nr -
1.86m-
1.12m--
0.37m- -
X2
X
X
X
X
X
X
^> 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
U_.,. L.
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
~\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
,. .1.-...-
0.46m
1.22m
1.98m
2.37m-
2.80m
3.61m
J
CM
Nominal dimensions - Width - 4.88m
Depth - 4.44m
-------
FIGURE 20
BARRY UNIT 4 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 4B)
A.06m- -
3.32m-
2.60m'-
1.86m-
1.12m -
0.37m--
X
x 1
1
x 1
1
X |
X
1
X
t
1 >' 1
X-L 0.61m
Ui_
xxx
x x x '
1
x x x '
1
x x x 1
I
X X x |
_ 1
x x x
1 1 1
1 1 1
1.42m 2.24m 3.00m
._- 2.36m ._. >d
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
3.76m
J
CT>
CM
Nominal dimensions - Width - 4.88m
Depth - 4.44m
-------
FIGURE 21
BARRY UNIT 5 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 5A)
2.47m-
1.92m-
1.37m-
0.82m'
0.27m-
X2
X X
1
x i x
X , X
1
|
X1 Y
^V
X X
I
S 4 1
' \ \
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
x x
X X
X X
X X
x x
t f
X
-
X
X 1
1
X I
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
. 1
X, 1.07m 2.54m
4.01m 5.48m 6.96m
8.83m
8.43m 9.90m 11.37
T
e
u-i
vO
ON
CO
Nominal dimensions - Width - 12.19m
Depth - 2.74m
-------
FIGURE 22
BARRY UNIT 5 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 5B)
2.47m-
1.92m -
1.37m '
0.82m -
0.27m -
V
X
X
X
X
X
»»
_i» 1
r
I
1
1
1
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
__l
X
_
X
X
X
X
. . .. 1 .-
X
_ __
X
X
X
X
...M ,,!.,
X
X
X
X
X
J ...
X
__
X
X
X
X
: 1.
X
'
X
X
X
X
1_
1
1
1
1
1
1
X
X
X
X
X
1
0.91m 2.39m 3.86m 5.33m 6.80m 8.28m 9.75m 11.22m
8.84m >
7K"
U1
J&
(T.
e-
Noralnal dimensions - Width - 12.19m
Depth - 2.74m
-------
FIGURE 23
2,13m -
1.83m -
1.52m -
1.22m -
0.91m <-
0.61m -
0.30m _
x2
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT 1A)
XXX XX X X X X X X X
xlx x x x x xx xx x ' x
1 1
1 ;
XXX XX XXX XX XX
1 1
XXX XX XXX XX XX
b
X' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
1 0.94m 1.97m 3.00m 4.04m 5.07m 6.09m 7.08m 8.06m 9.07m 10.09m 11.10m 12.12m
Nominal dimensions - Width - 12.50m
Depth - 2.45m
t i
< 0\
H "
1
If
-------
FIGURE 24
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCT IB)
2.13m-
1.83m-
1.52m -
1.22m-
0.91m -
0.61m -
0.30m
X2
I
XX X XXX XXXX XX
x.x x xx x xx x x xlx
1 '
1
1 ,
x|x x xxx xxxx xx
l_ I
XX X XXX XXXX XX
1
^11 1 III 1 1 1 1 II
1 0.43m 1.45m 2.49m 3.51m 4.52m 5.55m 6.52m 7.58m 8.63m 9.62m 10.63m 11.67m
Nominal dimensions - Width - 12.50m
Depth - 2.45m
i
0
CM
CM
1
^
-------
FIGURE 25
NAVAJO UNIT 1 - SAMPLING POINTS (DUCTS A,B.C. AND D)
4.66m
3.62m-
2.58m-
1.58m-
0.50m -
X j
X2
X X X X
"» "^^ -^» *^"" ^^^««B»
X . X X X
1
X . X X X
1
X , X X X
X X X X
b
l_i, , .
X X X X
J
X X X | X
1
X X X | X
1
X X X ' X
X X X X
x T I [ I I I ' I
1 0.42m 1.26m 2.09m 2.93m 3.77m 4.61m 5.45m 6.28m
T
-j
i
5.03m
Nominal dimensions -
Width - 7.01m
Depth - 5.18m
-------
FIGURE 26
NAVAJO UNIT 1 - SAMPLING POINTS (STACK)
Port B
Port C
Port D
-2.69m
2.69m
III h-M
-3.47m -1.56m 1.56m 3.47m
Port A
3.47m
2.69m
1.56m
_L -1.56m
-2.69m
-3.47m
oo
I
Nominal dimension Diameter -7.62m
-------
- 69 -
3.2.3 Testing Te chniques
As the majority of modern power plant boilers split the flue gas
stream into more than one duct, at least two ducts from each boiler were
tested. Two-man test teams were assigned to each duct to position the
probes and to record temperature and velocity readings. A fifth member
of the team remained in the sampling/analytical van to record gas concen-
tration data. The sampling was performed simultaneously from the two
ducts. While one sample was monitored, the other was vented to assure
that a fresh sample would be available when required. Sampling was done
at each point for approximately 1 to 2 minutes. The response time from
the probe tip to the analyzer readout was usually 30 seconds. The probe
from which we were not analyzing was relocated in the duct at that time.
This technique resulted in a substantial reduction in the length of each
test. The length of each test usually lasted 3-5 hours. Also, duplicate
measurements were obtained at each sampling point by repeating each traverse.
The moisture content of the flue gas was measured using the wet/dry bulb
method both at the start and end of each test.
-------
- 70 -
4. FIELD MEASUREMENT RESULTS
4.1 Stratification Results for
Individual Units Tested
In this section the detailed results obtained in testing
individual units are presented. The gaseous concentrations, temperature,
and velocity profiles determined were subjected to statistical analysis
using linear, quadratic, and cubic regression models. These models are
discussed in Section 4.2.1.
4.1.1 Widows Creek Unit 5 (TVA)
Tennessee Valley Authority's Unit 5 at the Widows Creek Steam
Plant was the first boiler to be tested in our program. This unit is a
125 MW, 16 burner, front wall, pulverized coal fired Babcock and Wilcox
boiler. It has a single dry bottom furnace with a division wall, and
the 16 burners are arranged with four burners in each of four rows.
Each row is fed with coal by a separate pulverizer.
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating at
100 MW. Sampling was done downstream of the rotary air preheater just up-
stream of the induced draft fan. The sampling location is shown in
Figure 8. Figures 15 and 16 show the dimensions and locations of the
sampling points for ducts 5A and 5B, respectively. The dashed rectangles
represent the area from which the inner duct averages were calculated.
For duct 5A, this represents the inner 44.9% of the duct and for duct 5B,
this represents the inner 47.6% of the duct. Table 19 shows the differences
between the total duct averages and the inner duct averages for both ducts
5A and 5B. As shown, the differences are negligible. This means that a
traverse of the inner portion of the duct can be used to obtain a repre-
sentative duct average. Table 20 shows the differences between the standard
deviations in the measurements for both the total duct and inner duct meas-
urements. In most cases, the standard deviations decrease or increase
insignificantly. Also, in most cases, the standard deviations are rela-
tively small which indicates that the degree of dispersion in our measure-
ments is relatively small. Table 21 shows that duct-to-duct stratification
is negligible. Tables 22 and 23 show that of all the models tested, a
quadratic model can best be used to express the gas component concentra-
tions, velocity, and temperature as a function of position within the
duct. Also, on a 3% 02 basis, all correlations become negligible, which
implies that the gas component concentrations become independent of
position in the duct cross section.
4.1.2 Widows Creek Unit 7 (TVA)
Tennessee Valley Authority's Unit 7 at the Widows Creek Steam
Plant was the second boiler to be tested in our program. This unit is a
575 MW, twin furnace, tangential, pulverized coal fired Combustion
Engineering boiler. Each furnace has 20 burners (5 in each corner). Unit
7 is equipped with electrostatic precipitators downstream of the air heater
and an ammonia injection system for flue gas conditioning. This unit went
into commercial operation in 1961.
-------
TABLE 19
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5
S02 (ppm)
t.'O (ppni)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
.
Temperature (°C)
Duct 5A
Duct Average Inner 44.9% Ave. % Difference
1417
564
16.0
7.7
9.6
183
1414
563
16.0
7.6
9.1
183
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
-1.3
-5.2
0.0
Duct 5B
Duct Average Inner 47.6% Ave. % Difference
1397
578
15.9
8.7
9.0
172
1398
579
15.9
8.7
8.4
171
+0.1
+0.2
0.0
0.0
-6.7
-0.6
-------
TABLE 20
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5
Standard Deviation*in Measurements
S02 (ppm)
NO (pp:n)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 5A
Total Duct Inner 44.9% % Difference
118
19
0.4
0.9
2.0
3
130
21
0.3
0.7
2.0
3
+9.70
+8.41
-24.39
-26.97
-0.51
-16.95
Duct 5B
Total Duct Inner 47.6% % Difference
144.57
16.70
0.62
0.78
2.61
4.00
151.59
15.47
0.76
0.62
2.86
2.89
+4.86
-7.37
+22.58
-20.51
+9.58
-27.75
* a =1
n-1
-------
TABLE 21
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Boiler Average
1407
571
15.95
8.2
9.3
177.5
Duct 5A
Average % Difference
1417 +0.71
564 -1.23
16.0 +0.31
7.7 -6.10
9.6 +3.23
183 +3.10
Duct 5B
Average % Difference
1397 -0.71
578 +1.23
15.9 -0.31
8.7 +6.10
9.0 -3.23
172 -3.10
-------
TABLE 22
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5 (DUCT 5A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppn)
NO (ppm)
CO, (%)
0, (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.31
0.83
0.73
0.76
0.69
0.50
0.11
0.02
0.08
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.32
0.86
0.76
0.81
0.93
0.54
0.13
0".12
0.24
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
I
^J
-------
TABLE 23
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 5 (DUCT SB)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% Q£ Basis
0.22
0.86
0.71
0.88
0.71
0.84
0.10
0.11
0.00
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% Q£ Basis
0.24
0.87
0.72
0.91
0.90
0.85
0.15
0.14
0.02
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
-------
- 76 -
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating at
400 MW. Sampling was done downstream of the rotary air preheater just up-
stream of the electrostatic fly-ash collector. The sampling location is
shown in Figure 9. Figure 17 shows the dimensions and locations of the
sampling points for ducts 7A and 7B. The dashed rectangle represents the
area from which the inner duct averages were calculated. For both ducts
7A and 7B this represents the inner 49.8% of the duct. Table 24 shows the
differences between the total duct averages and the inner duct averages
for both ducts 7A and 7B. As shown, the differences are negligible. This
means that a traverse of the inner portion of the duct can be used to ob-
tain a representative duct average. Table 25 shows the differences between
the standard deviations in the measurements for both the total duct and
inner duct measurements. In most cases, the standard deviations decrease
or increase insignificantly. Also, the degree of dispersion in our meas-
urements is relatively small in most cases. Table 26 shows that duct-to-
duct stratification is negligible. Tables 27 and 28 show that a cubic
model can best be used to express the gas component concentrations,
velocity, and temperature as a function of position within the duct. Also,
on a 3% Q£ basis, all correlations are reduced significantly.
4.1.3 E.G. Gaston Unit.5^SouthernLElectric Generating Company)
Southern Electric Generating Company's Unit 5 at the E.G. Gaston
Steam Plant was the third boiler to be tested in our program. This unit
is a 900 MW, twin furnace, tangential, pulverized coal fired Combustion
Engineering boiler. Each furnace has 28 burners (7 in each corner).
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating at
850 MW. Sampling was done just downstream of the air preheater (Figure 10),
Figure 18 shows the dimensions and locations of the sampling points for
ducts 5A and 5B. The dashed rectangle represents the area from which the
inner duct averages were calculated. For both ducts 5A and 5B, this
represents the inner 43.7% of the duct. Table 29 shows the differences
between the total duct averages and the inner duct averages for both
ducts 5A and 5B. As shown, the differences are negligible. This means
that a traverse of the inner portion of the duct can be used to obtain
a representative duct average. Table 30 shows the differences between the
standard deviations in the measurements for both the total duct and inner
duct measurements. In most cases, the standard deviations decrease or
increase insignificantly. This table also indicates that in most cases
the degree of dispersion in our data is relatively small. Table 31 shows
that duct-to-duct stratification is negligible. Tables 32 and 33 show
that a cubic model can best be used to express the gas component
concentrations, velocity, and temperature as a function of position
within the duct. Also, on a 3% Q£ basis, all correlations are
significantly reduced.
4.1.4 Barry Unit 4 (Alabama Power Company)
Alabama Power Company's Unit 4 at their Barry Plant was the
fourth boiler to be tested in our program. This unit is a 350 MW,
tangential, pulverized coal fired Combustion Engineering boiler.
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating at
240 MW. Sampling was done just downstream of the electrostatic precipita-
tor. It should be noted that the precipitator was off when the testing
-------
TABLE 24
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7
S02 (ppra)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 7A
Duct Average Inner 49.8% Ave. % Difference
2578
341
14.4
4.3
6.4
141
2545
340
14.4
4.0
6.4
143
-1.3
-0.3
0.0
-7.0
0.0
+1.4
Duct 7B
Duct Average Inner 49.8% Ave. % Difference
2426
386
14.5
4.8
6.3
134
2405
386
14.8
4.4
6.4
139
-0.9
0.0
+2.1
-8.3
+1.6
+3.7
-------
TABLE 25
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7_
Standard Deviation in Measurements
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 7A
Total Duct Inner 49.8% % Difference
437.69
22.81
0.78
0.75
2.25
9.60
330.80
22.61
0.85
0.52
1.66
7.04
-24.42
-0.88
+8.97
-30.67
-26.22
-26.67
Duct 7B
Total Duct Inner 49.8% % Difference
325.35
20.10
0.67
0.55
1.79
12.78
290.50
16.87
0.94
0.32
1.62
8.55
-10.71
-16.07
+40.30
i
-41.82
-9.50
-33.10
00
f
-------
TABLE 26
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7_
Magnitude of the Duct-to-i)uct Stratification
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Boiler Average
2502
3615
14.45
4.55
6.35
137.5
Duct 7A
Average % Difference
2578 4-3.04
341 -6.19
14.4 -0.35
4.3 -5.49
6.4 +0.79
141 +2.55
Duct 7B
Average % Difference
i
2426 ' -3.04
i
386 ' +6.19
i
i
i
14.5 ' +0.35
i
4.8 ' +5.49
i
i
i
6.3 ' -0.79
i
i
i
134 ' -2.55
i
VJ
VO
-------
TABLE 27
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7 (DUCT 7A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
CO, (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.01
0.06
0.43
0.40
0.27
0.65
0.02
0.14
0.15
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.02
0.21
0.49
0.68
0.73
0.78
0.03
0.21
0.21
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.03
0.24
0.50
0.72
0.74
0.82
0.04
0.23
0.23
00
o
-------
TABLE 28
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - WIDOWS CREEK UNIT 7 (DUCT 7B)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppct)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.07
0.32
0.27
0.02
0.12
0.00
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.06
0.29
0.23
0.30
0.50
0.77
0.06
0.32
0.10
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.12
0.40
0.43
0.67
0.65
0.80
0.07
0.32
0.13
00
-------
TABLE 29
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - E.G. GASTON UNIT 5
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%>
o2
-------
TABLE 30
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - B.C. GASTON UNIT 5
Standard Deviation in Measurements
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 5A
Total Duct Inner 43.7% % Difference
182.58
22.29
0.58
0.71
6.46
13.35
253.75
15.09
0.58
0.22
3.98
6.78
+38.98
-32.30
0.00
-69.01
-38.39
-49.21
Duct 5B
Total Duct Inner 43.7% % Difference
86.14
12.43
0.53
0.81
4.76
12.46
92.94
10.97
0.28
0.26
2.77
8.27
+7.89
-11.75
-47.17
-67.90
-41.81
-33.63
00
CO
-------
TABLE 31
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - E.G. GASTON UNIT 5
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Boiler Average
1176
559.5
14.55
5.85
15.15
131.5
Duct 5A
Average % Difference
1162 -1.19
605 +8.13
14.4 -1.03
6.1 +4.27
17.1 +12.87
142 +7.98
Duct 5B
Average % Difference
1190 +1.19
514 -8.13
14.7 +1.03
5.6 -4.27
13.2 -12.87
121 -7.98
t
CO
-------
TABLE 32
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - E.G. GASTON UNIT 5 (DUCT 5A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppra)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
temperature (°C)
I
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.25
0.59
0.67
0.55
0.72
0.74
0.15
0.32
0.46
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.27
0.65
0.74
0.66
0.77
0.78
0.18
0.38
0.52
00
Ln
-------
TABLE 33
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - E.G. GASTON UNIT 5 (DUCT 5B)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppai)
co2 (%)
0, (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.46
0.53
0.63
0.60
0.72
0.82
0.24
0.12
0.34
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.47
0.67
0.69
0.74
0.74
0.84
0.26
0.28
0.41
I
00
-------
- 87 -
was performed. The sampling location is shown in Figure 11. Figures 19
and 20 show the dimensions and locations of the sampling points for ducts
4A and 4B, respectively. The nominal duct dimensions are 16 ft. wide by
14-1/2 ft. deep. The dashed rectangles represent the area from which the
inner duct averages were calculated. For both ducts, this represents
approximately the inner 32% of the duct. Table 34 shows the differences
between the total duct averages and the inner duct averages for both ducts
4A and 4B. As shown, the differences are negligible. This means that a
traverse of the inner portion of the duct can be made to determine a
representative duct average. Table 35 shows the differences between the
standard deviations in the measurements for both the total duct and inner
duct measurements. In most cases, the standard deviations decrease or
increase insignificantly. Also, in most cases the standard deviations
are relatively small which indicates that the degree of dispersion in our
measurements is small. Table 36 shows that duct-to-duct stratification
is negligible. Tables 37 and 38 show that a cubic model can best be used
to express the gas component concentrations, velocity, and temperature as
a function of position within the duct. It is important to note that on
a 3% 0~ basis the correlations are reduced.
4.1.5 Barry Unit 5 (Alabama Power Company)
Alabama Power Company's Unit 5 at their Barry Plant was the
fifth boiler tested in our program. This unit is a 712 MW, twin furnace,
tangential, pulverized coal fired Combustion Engineering boiler.
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating at
450 MW. Sampling was done downstream of the air preheater just upstream
of the electrostatic precipitator. Figure 12 shows the location of the
sampling ports. Figures 21 and 22 show the dimensions and locations of
the sampling points for ducts 5A and 5B, respectively. The nominal duct
dimensions are 40 ft. wide by 9 ft. deep. . The dashed rectangles represent
the area from which the inner duct averages were calculated. For both
ducts, this represents approximately the inner 43% of the duct. Table 39
shows the differences between the total duct averages and the inner duct
averages for both ducts 5A and 5B. As shown, the differences are negligible.
This means that a traverse of the inner portion of the duct can be used to
obtain a representative duct average. Table 40 shows the differences be-
tween the standard deviations in the measurements for both the total duct
and inner duct measurements. The magnitude of standard deviations indicates
that the degree of dispersion in most cases is relatively small. Table 41
shows that duct-to-duct stratification is negligible. Tables 42 and 43
show that a cubic model can best be used to express the gas component con-
centrations, velocity, and the temperature as a function of position within
the duct. Also, on a 3% 0? basis all correlations are reduced.
-------
TABLE 34
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 4
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 4 A
Duct Inner
Average 32.2% Ave. % Difference
1746
359
15.97
5.8
12.02
159
1751
354
16.01
5.7
11.13
160
+0.3
-1.4
+0.3
-1.7
-7.4
+0.6
Duct 4B
Duct Inner
Average 32.0% Ave. % Difference
1742
377
15.85
6.1
11.47
131
1746
373
15.83
5.9
10.61
130
+0.2
-1-1
-0.1
-3.3
-7.5
-0.8
oo
oo
-------
TABLE 35
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 4
Standard Deviation in Measurements
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 4 A
Total Duct Inner 32.2% % Difference
51.29
22.73
0.50
0.61
1.51
19.39
46.39
25.75
0.58
0.66
1.02
7.87
-9 ..6
+13.3
+16.0
+8.2
-32.5
-59.4
Duct 4B
Total Duct Inner 32.0% % Difference
54.47
19.76
0.46
0.59
1.46
6.99
42.91
18.51
0.54
0.52
0.74
5.81
-21.2
-6.3
+17.4
-11.9
-49.3
-16.9
I
CO
-------
TABLE 36
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 4
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Boiler
Average
1744
368
15.91
5.95
11.75
145
Duct 4 A
Average % Difference
1746
359
15.97
5.8
12.02
159
+0.1
-2.4
+0.4
-2.5
+2.3
+9.7
Duct 4B
Average % Difference
1742
377
15.85
6.1
11.47
131
-0.1
+2.4
-0.4
+2.5
-2.3
-9.7
\o
o
-------
TABLE 37
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 4 (DUCT 4A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As
Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.43
0.19
0.27
0.23
0.52
0.69
0.12
0.02
0.31
Quadratic Model
As
Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.52
0.35
0.32
0.26
0.70
0.72
0.19
0.14
0.34
Cubic Model
As
Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.58
0.39
0.36
0.29
0.76
0.79
0.25
0.18
0.44
-------
TABLE 38
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 4 (DUCT 4B)
Fraction of Explained Variance
SO 2 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
CO 2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As
Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.15
0.19
0.07
0.08
0.50
0.73
0.23
0.06
0.16
Quadratic Model
As
Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.52
0.38
0.28
0.40
0.77
0.75
0.26
0.20
0.20
Cubic Model
As
Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.58
0.48
0.28
0.42
0.85
0.79
0.35
0.23
0.25
NJ
I
-------
TABLE 39
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 5
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 5A
Duct Inner
Average 43.6% Ave. % Difference
2409
371
15.26
5.0
5.34
119
2446
374
15.39
4.6
5.61
121
+1.54
+0.81
+0.85
-8.00
+5.06
+1.68
Duct 5B
Duct Inner
Average 43.7% Ave. % Difference
2312
343
14.25
7.8
4.68
117
2334
346
14.50
7.4
4.96
120
+0.95
+0.87
+1.75
-5.13
+5.98
+2.56
Co
I
-------
TABLE 40
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 5
Standard Deviation in Measurements
S02 (ppra)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Duct 5A
Total Duct Inner 43.6% % Difference
83.66
20.99
0.54
0.60
1.01
7.56
45.13
22.52
0.40
0.87
0.77
5.97
-46.06
+7.29
-25.93
+45.00
-23.76
-21.03
Duct 5B
Total Duct Inner 43.7% % Difference
138.34
13.65
0.85
1.22
0.92
11.23
79.62
8.34
0.71
0.82
0.76
9.91
-42.45
-38.90
-16.47
-32.79
-17.39
-11.75
-------
TABLE 41
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 5
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
SO 2 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Boiler
Average
2361
357
14.76
6.4
5.01
118
Duct 5A
Average % Difference
2409
371
15.26
5.0
5.34
119
+2.03
+3.92
+3.39
-21.88
+6.59
+0.85
Duct 5B
Average % Difference
2312
343
14.25
7.8
4.68
117
-2.03
-3.92
-3.39
y-21.88
-6.59
-0.85
I
VO
-------
TABLE 42
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 5 (DUCT 5A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.11
0.11
0.06
0.18
0.24
0.89
0.04
0.03
0.02
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.71
0.52
0.71
0.78
0.30
0.95
0.21
0.12
0.17
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.78
0.53
0.79
0.86
0.32
0.96
0.26
0.13
0.19
)
VO
-------
TABLE 43
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - BARRY UNIT 5 (DUCT 5B)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.30
0.32
0.29
0.25
0.16
0.49
0.24
0.27
0.29
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.61
0.70
0.65
0.64
0.27
0.64
0.34
0.36
0.51
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.70
0.77
0.67
0.67
0.29
0.68
0.56
0.57
0.54
I
VO
-------
- 98 -
4.1.6 Morgantown Unit 1 (Potomac Electric Power Company)
Potomac Electric Power Company's Unit 1 at their Morgantown
Plant was the sixth boiler to be tested in our program. This unit is
a 575 MW, mixed fuel, Combustion Engineering boiler.
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating
at full load, firing 75% oil and 25% coal. Sampling was done just
upstream of the electrostatic precipitator (Figure 13). Figures 23 and
24 shows the dimensions and locations of the sampling points for ducts
1A and IB, respectively. The nominal duct dimensions are 41 ft. wide
by 8 ft. deep. The dashed rectangles represent the area from which the
inner duct averages were calculated. For both ducts this represents
approximately the inner 40% of the cross sectional area. Table 44 shows
that the differences between the total and inner duct averages are
negligible. Table 46 shows that the duct-to-duct stratification is
negligible. Tables 47 and 48 indicate that a cubic model can best be
used to express the gas component concentrations, velocity, and temperatures
as a function of position within the duct. Once again, it is important
to note that on a 3% 02 basis all correlations are reduced significantly.
4.1.7 Navajo Unit 1 (Salt River Project)
Unit 1 at the Navajo Generating Station was the seventh boiler
tested in our program. This unit is an 800 MW, twin furnace, tangentially
fired, Combustion Engineering boiler.
Stratification testing was performed with the unit operating at
800 MW. Sampling was done downstream of the rotary air preheater just up-
stream of the induced draft fan. The sampling location is shown in Figure
14. Figure 25 shows the dimensions and locations of the sampling points
for ducts 1A, IB, 1C, and ID. The dashed rectangles show the area from
which the inner duct averages were calculated. This represents the inner
43% of the duct cross sectional area. Table 49 shows the differences
between the total duct averages and the inner duct averages for all four
ducts. As shown, the differences are negligible. This means that a tra-
verse of the inner portion of the duct can be used to obtain a representa-
tive duct average. Table 50 shows that the standard deviations are
relatively small which indicates that the degree of dispersion in our
measurements is relatively small. Table 51 shows that there is no signifi-
cant difference between the individual duct averages and the boiler averages.
This means that duct-to-duct stratification is negligible. Tables 52, 53,
54, and 55 show that of all the models tested a cubic model can best be
used to express the gas component concentrations, velocity, -and temperature
as a function of position within the duct. Also, on a 3% Q£ basis, all
correlations become negligible.
On this unit, stratification tests were also performed 350 feet
up in the stack. Tests were conducted at both 725 and 800 MW. The posi-
tions of the sampling points are shown in Figure 26. The test results are
shown in Tables 56-58. As can be seen, there is no appreciable difference
between the total and inner duct averages.
-------
TABLE 44
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - MORGANTOWN UNIT 1
S02 (ppm)
MO (ppn)
C02 (%)
0, ('/,)
Velocity (M/S)
i
Temperature (°C)
Duct 1A
Duct Average Inner 40.6%Ave. % Difference
1353
374
14.2
5.2
13.8
143
1358
369
14.3
4.7
13.6
143
+0.4
-1.3
+0.7
-9.6
-1.4
0.0
Duct IB
Duct Average Inner 40.9% Ave. % Difference
1261
419
14.1
5.4
14.7
138
1262
420
14.1
5.1
14.5
137
+0.1
+0.2
0.0
-5.6
-1.4
-0.7
-------
TABLE 45
STRATIFICATION RESULTS -_MORGANTOWN UNIT 1
Standard Deviation ir. Measurements
S02 (ppm)
so (pprc)
CO, («
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Tamporaturc (*C)
Duct 1A
Total Duct Inner 40.6% % Difference
53.37
31.28
0.49
1.10
4.51
10.92
51.72
32.66
0.39
0.44
3.70
8.45
-3.1
+4.4
-20.4
-60.0
-18.0
-22.6
Duct IB
Total Duct Inner 40.9% % Difference
43.92
35.05
0.40
0.93
4.91
9.43
40.37
27.80
0.35
0.70
3.98
8.31
-8.1
-20.7
!
-12.5
-24.7
-18.9
-11.9
o
o
-------
TABLE 46
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - MORGANTOWN UNIT 1
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
02 (%;
Velocity (M/C)
Temperature (°C)
Boiler Average
1307
397
14.15
5.15
14.2
140
Duct 1A
Average % Difference
i
1353 ' +3.5
i
i
i
374 -5 . 8
14.2 +0.4
5.2 +1.0
-------
TABLE 47
STRATIFICATION RESULTS -MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (Duct 1A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppn)
NO (ppm)
CO, (%)
°2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Tetnperatura (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.25
0.25
0.42
0.38
0.52
0.88
0.06
0.12
0.23
Quadratic Model
.As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.61
0.35
0.76
0.76
0.67
0.95
0.07
0.14
0.35
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.68
0.42
0.81
0.83
0.72
0.95
0.07
0.18
0.37
O
M
-------
TABLE 48
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (Duct IB)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.26
0.32
0.29
0.33
0.37
0.68
0.03
0.32
0.08
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
O.A1
0.41
0.44
0.49
0.47
0.72
0.11
0.34
0.15
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.50
0.51
0.80
0.19
0,39
0.16
o
CO
-------
TABLE 49
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity
(M/S)
Temperature
(ec)
Duct 1A
Duct Inner %
Average 43% Ave. Difference
438
310
15.7
5.7
10.2
145
433
313
15.7
5.6
10.1
146
-1.1
1.0
0.0
-1.8
-1.0
0.7
Duct IB
Duct Inner %
Average 43% Ave. Difference
507
310
15.5
6.9
9;5
129
525
308
15.5
6.8
9.1
132
3.6
-0.6
0.0
-1.4
-4.2
2.3
Duct 1C
Duct Inner %
Average 43% Ave. Difference
435
333
15.5
6.5
9.4
130
446
331
15.6
6.4
9.2
133
2.5
-0.6
0.6
-1.5
-2.1
2.3
Duct ID
Duct Inner %
Average 43% Ave. Difference
463
335
15.3
6.9
8.9
154
493
331
15.2
6.9
8.4
156
6.5
-1.2
-0.7
0.0
-5.6
1.3
-------
TABLE 50
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - HAVAJO UNIT 1
Standard Deviation in Measurements
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity
(M/S)
Temperature
(°C)
Duct 1A
Total Inner %
Duct 43% Difference
35
11
0.2
0.2
1.3
12
21
8
0.1
0.1
0.9
12
-40.0
-27.3
-50.0
-50.0
-30.8
0.0
Duct IB
Total Inner %
Duct 43% Difference
44
9
0.2
0.1
1.4
8
24
8
0.1
0.1
0.9
1
-45.5
-11.1
-50.0
0.0
-35.7
-87.5
Duct 1C
Total Inner %
Duct 43% Difference
40
8
0.3
0.2
1.1
10
25
7
0.1
0.1
0.8
5
-37.5
-12.5
-66.7
-50.0
-27.3
-50.0
Duct ID
Total Inner %
Duct 43% Difference
72
10
0.2
0.2
1.9
4
18
6
0.2
0.1
1.5
2
-75.0
-40.0
0.0
-50.0
-21.1
-50.0
-------
TABLE 51
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1
Magnitude of the Duct-to-Duct Stratification
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity
(M/S)
Temperature
(°C)
Boiler
Average
461
322
15.5
6.5
9.5
140
Duct 1A
Average % Difference
438
310
15.7
5.7
10.2
145
-5.0
-3.7
1.3
-12.3
7.4
3.6
Duct IB
Average % Difference
507
310
15.5
6.9
9.5
129
10.0
-3.7
0.0
6.2
0.0
-7.9
Duct 1C
Average % Difference
435
333
15.5
6.5
9.4
130
-5.6
3.4
0.0
0.0
-1.1
-7.1
Duct ID
Average % Difference
463
335
15.3
6.9
8.9
154
-0.4
4.0
-1.3
6.2
-6.3
10.0
I
(-"
o
I
-------
TABLE 52
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (DUCT 1A)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
CO, CO
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.29
0.55
0.05
0.12
0.71
0.25
0.32
0.41
0.05
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.38
0.62
0.42
0.57
0.87
0.41
0.43
0.56
0.12
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.48
0.63
0.58
0.69
0.90
0.76
0.50
0.60
0.37
o
I
-------
TABLE 53
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (DUCT IB)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
»
NO (ppm)
CO 2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.24
0.42
0.32
0.02
0.04
0.13
0.24
0.42
0.31
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.57
0.54
0.55
0.40
0.51
0.25
0.54
0.56
0.35
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.65
0.59
0.63
0.42
0.83
0.42
0.63
0.60
0.43
--
o
00
-------
TABLE 54
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (DUCT 1C)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
»
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.06
0.09
0.14
0.05
0.16
0.24
0.08
0.13
0.26
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.30
0.34
0.59
0.76
0.68
0.68
0.26
0.30
0.43
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.39
0.39
0.61
0.79
0.87
0.80
0.36
0.38
0.46
I
M
O
I
-------
TABLE 55
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (DUCT ID)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.12
O.i02
0.45
0.37
0.58
0.21
0.11
0.18
0.13
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.64
0.20
0.48
0.66
0.72
0.66
0.62
0.45
0.55
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.81
0.55
0.71
0.81
0.87
0.76
0.80
0.57
0.66
-------
TABLE 56
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (IN STACK TEST)
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
725 MW
Average
Total Inner
553 549
294 295
14.6 14.6
6.2 6.2
31.5 33.0
139 139
Standard
Deviation
Total Inner
25 27
18 21
0.8 0.8
0.2 0.2
2.2 0.7
2 2
800 MW
Average
Total Inner
554 551
299 299
15.5 15.5
6.2 6.3
41.5 43.9
149 149
Standard
Deviation
Total Inner
16 14
15 14
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.3
4.1 2.2
1 1
I
M
I-1
M
I
-------
TABLE 57
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (IN STACK AT 725 MW)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.12
0.29
0.03
0.04
0.39
0.02
0.23
0.32
0.04
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.19
0.46
0.18
0.04
0.71
0.08
0.33
0.52
0.19
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.28
0.62
0.26
0.34
0.82
0.10
0.36
0.61
0.29
-------
TABLE 58
STRATIFICATION RESULTS - NAVAJO UNIT 1 (IN STACK AT 800 MW)
Fraction of Explained Variance
S02 (ppm)
NO (ppm)
co2 (%)
o2 (%)
Velocity (M/S)
Temperature (°C)
Linear Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.19
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.11
Quadratic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.26
0.20
0.11
0.04
0.64
0.03
0.17
0.14
0.16
Cubic Model
As Measured 3% 02 Basis
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.33
0.76
0.04
0.22
0.22
0.30
CO
I
-------
- 114 -
4.2 Development of Contour Diagrams
To present the gaseous concentration, temperature, and velocity
profiles measured in the ducts and stacks tested, multiple regression
analyses were done to provide models for developing contour diagrams.
This section presents the details of the analytical techniques used and
contour diagrams produced based on this approach.
4.2.1 Multiple Regression Analysis
A computer program which utilized Exxon's IBM 1130 computer
was used to facilitate the handling of data obtained from our stratification
program. This program is divided into three subprograms:
1. Data reduction program
2. Multiple regression analysis program
3. Contour plotting program
The data reduction program is a modification of the data
reduction program used in Exxon's basic study of NOx formation in flames
(Program VSEDR, developed under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0224). This
program took the raw data and converted the concentration of the gaseous
species to ppm (02 and C02 are converted to percent) and calculated the
gas velocity at the various sampling points. The units of all measured
quantities are metric units (SI) . The data were then printed out in two
tables. For each unit tested one table presents "as measured" values and
the other table presents the values corrected to a three percent 02 basis.
A set of data tables for all of the units tested can be obtained from the
EPA Project Officer.
The multiple regression program made it possible to develop
an unlimited series of regression equations from a single deck of input
data. This one deck could have contained as many as 675 observations on
45 variables. The computer first developed a complete correlation matrix
from the data deck. By means of control cards the computer was then told
which variables were to be considered dependent variables. This information
enabled the computer to develop a sub-matrix from the complete correlation
matrix. The sub-matrix was then used to calculate the first regression
equation using either a direct or stepwise procedure. Additional cards
then specified a new group of variables together with the dependent
variables required for the second equation, and so on. In this manner,
the user of the program was able to specify any desired combination of
variables. To summarize, this program developed equations of the form:
where: y = dependent variable
f . = polynomial of order i
X. = independent variables
-------
- 115 -
For the stratification study, the multiple regression analysis
program used the results of the data reduction program to calculate re-
gression equations giving the gas species concentration, flue gas
velocity, and flue gas temperature as a function of position in the duct,
For this study, the following models were used:
1. Linear model
y = bo + b^ + b2x2
2. Quadratic model
y = bQ + b^ + b2x2 +
3. Cubic model
22 3
y = bo + blxl + b2x2 + b3xl + b4x2 + b5xlx2 + b6xl
22 2
7X2 + b8xlx2 + b9xlx2
Tables 59-61 present the regression equation coefficients for
the three models.
The contour plotting program then used these equations to print
contours of constant y.
-------
- 116 -
Table 59
Linear Regression Equation Coefficients
y = b0+blX;L+b2x2
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct A)
S02 1218.60 -40.47 -54.07
NO 473.37 -3.87 -26.30
C02 13.32 -0.08 -0.73
02 5.80 0.18 0.86
Temperature 188.61 0.12 -2.81
Velocity 8.30 1.51 -0.71
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct B)
S02
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 7 (Duct A)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct A)
S02
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
E. C. Gaston Unit 5 - Linear Model Not Used
1083.20
435.77
11.89
7.49
178.51
13.94
-15.69
2.64
0.16
-0.18
0.64
-2.02
-55.81
-24.36
-0.72
0.82
-4.20
-0.90
2401.20
319.60
14.96
3.15
150.35
4.67
5.29
0.92
-0.19
0.11
-3.15
-0.06
-32.68
-4.52
-0.50
0.44
2.39
1.27
2137.40
351.23
13.26
4.69
128.53
4.56
1.28
0.23
-0.01
0.02
-0.60
-0.01
28.18
-4.51
-0.02
5.86
1.11
-------
b
1373.90
286.92
12.39
6.51
142.06
14.50
b
u 2_
29.05
1.20
0.35
-0.17
5.02
-0.35
b
2
19.50
4.40
0.19
-0.18
3.43
-0.80
- 117 -
Table 59 (Continued)
Linear Regression Equation Coefficients
y = b+bx+bx
Barry Unit 4 (Duct A)
S02
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 4 (Duct B)
S02
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 5 (Duct A)
S02 2082.40 12.83 -15.97
NO 309.56 2.75 0.89
C02 13.16 0.06 0.02
02 5.63 -0.10 -0.01
Temperature 134.21 -2.07 -1.06
Velocity 5.63 -0.12 0.35
Barry Unit 5 (Duct B)
S02 1900.60 -35.01 4.94
NO 274.87 -4.58 0.43
C02 11.80 -0.23 0.03
02 6.85 0.18 -0.06
Temperature 104.87 2.30 -1.17
Velocity 3.93 0.11 0.08
1374.80
309.51
12.56
6.36
132.12
13.03
15.95
-3.87
0.10
0.03
-3.76
0.11
12.53
2.88
0.14
-0.13
3.27
-0.80
-------
- 118 -
Table 59 (Continued)
Linear Regression Equation Coefficients
y = b0+b1x14-b2x2
1022.80
303.39
11.49
6.25
145.92
13.47
0.58
4.52
-0.03
0.01
-2.04
0.69
55.06
21.61
0.70
-0.77
4.07
-2.44
Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct A)
S02 1165.10 -6.88 52.53
NO 297.10 -0.83 24.22
C02 12.64 -0.16 0.67
02 5.22 0.14 -0.71
Temperature 155.50 -2.74 5.20
Velocity 22.03 -0.78 -2.54
Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct B)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct A)
S02 392.99 -7.64 2.51
NO 253.68 3.41 0.01
C02 13.34 0.02 0.01
02 5.70 -0.03 0.02
Temperature 152.33 0.78 -3.82
Velocity 12.73 -0.49 -0.35
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct B)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct C)
S02 362.92 -4.17 0.96
NO 272.97 -0.81 -0.71
C02 12.76 -0.05 -0.05
02 6.51 -0.01 0.01
Temperature 137.89 0.09 -3.18
Velocity 10.10 0.01 -0.29
440.69
232.55
12.36
6.84
122.95
9.96
-6.33
1.64
-0.03
0.01
0.78
0.00
-8.17
2.17
-0.04
0.01
1.58
-0.18
-------
- 119 -
Table 59 (Continued)
Linear Regression Equation Coefficients
y = bxx,
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct D)
S02
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Stack at 725 MW)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Stack at 800 MW)
S02 454.29 -0.21 1.78
NO 244.64 0.42 1.63
C02 12.76 -0.02 -0.03
02 6.22 0.01 -0.01
Temperature 149.03 0.07 0.03
Velocity 4.23 -0.38 -0.92
391.48
259.34
12.29
6.65
155.64
7.12
1.87
0.33
-0.06
0.04
0.44
0.71
-13.71
0.48
-0.04
0.06
-1.17
-0.23
452.05
247.76
11.66
6.17
139.50
3.24
-1.07
-3.78
-0.10
-0.01
-0.07
-0.67
4.67
-3.39
0.10
0.02
-0.10
-0.52
-------
- 120 -
Table 60
Quadratic Regression Equation Coefficients
22
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct A)
SO 2
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct B)
SO 2
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 7 (Duct A)
SO 2
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 7 (Duct B)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
C. Gaston Unit 5 (Duct A)
S02
NO
C02
°2
Temperature
Velocity
1222.10
469.55
12.92
6.67
186.43
14.10
1110.90
436.03
11.65
7.65
178.82
17.06
2397.90
309.95
13.94
4.04
138.81
5.60
2240.80
338.98
13.58
4.47
131.04
2.46
587.87
421.59
9.47
8.34
148.68
16.37
-101.23
-16.59
-0.34
0.02
3.56
-1.36
-79.48
6.32
0.35
-0.58
1.54
-4.33
66.08
5.12
0.27
-0.49
-1.23
-2.33
-40.00
-0.46
-0.22
0.17
-4.33
0.05
77.70
21.46
0.54
-0.41
0.80
1.84
-12.98
-12.48
-0.05
-0.01
-2.89
-5.58
-47.85
-25.31
-0.48
0.84
-5.39
-4.39
-153.11
9.29
0.04
0.22
17.97
4.53
115.85
17.13
0.73
-0.50
27.78
4.79
287.72
70.95
1.89
-2.38
8.59
-4.93
19.17
4.54
0.11
-0.06
-0.84
0.40
19.11
-2.02
-0.08
0.14
-0.24
1.01
-8.91
-0.84
-0.05
0.08
-0.19
0.28
0.29
-0.07
0.0003
0.001
0.04
0.002
-4.10
-1.45
-0.03
0.02
-0.24
-0.03
-9.84
-3.03
-0.16
0.14
0.16
0.96
-2.56
-0.48
-0.08
0.01
0.36
1.22
27.23
-6.59
-0.12
0.11
-4.61
-0.96
-38.33
-9 .50
-0.32
0.26
-7.35
-1.07
-9.34
-1.44
-0.02
0.04
-0.24
-0.86
-3.01
-1.62
-0.06
0.20
-0.30
0.81
0.76
1.61
0.03
-0.03
-0.07
-0.55
8.18
1.74
-0.04
-0.03
-0.22
0.05
7.09
2.18
0.06
-0.08
0.20
-0.07
-9.34
-1.44
-0.02
0.04
-0.24
-0.86
-------
- 121 -
Table 60 (Continued)
Quadratic Regression Equation Coefficients
y = b]
E. C. Gaston Unit 5 (Duct B)
so2
NO
CO 2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 4 (Duct A)
so2
NO
CO 2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 4 (Duct B)
so2
NO
co2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 5 (Duct A)
so2
NO
co2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 5 (Duct B)
S02
NO
CO,
£.
°2
Temperature
Velocity
L+blx +b2x2+
b
"
746.44
362.57
9.95
7.93
93.40
11.14
1319.10
306.12
12.03
6.79
141.65
16.98
1229.20
308.63
11.48
7.60
130.53
15.90
1709.90
250.87
9.76
7.53
128.95
5.10
1606.30
231.45
9.45
8.89
89.91
3.28
b x 2+b x
bi
64.98
16.73
0.59
-0.52
5.47
2.49
106.71
-17.53
0.83
-0.54
3.58
-2.25
182.40
10.18
1.60
-1.44
-5.27
-2.91
144.82
26.08
-3.56
-0.88
-0.77
0.17
104.79
16.23
0.85
-0.78
5.22
0.48
2
2 + 5X1X;
b
^
184.22
80.73
2.48
-2.43
12.13
-6.32
17.07
1.80
0.18
-0.22
6.35
-2.26
11.16
-6.77
-0.09
-0.09
6.17
-1.42
135.91
10.83
-1.81
-0.21
5.02
0.13
22.75
-1.39
0.19
0.02
17.96
-0.22
>
b
-*
-3.50
-0.95
-0.03
0.03
-0.21
-0.12
-18.56
3.06
-0.16
O.'IO
0.05
0.46
-33.84
-4.34
-0.33
0.31
0.57
0.70
-10.11
-1.76
0.13
0.06
-0.12
-0.02
-11.82
-1.69
-0.09
0.08
-0.24
-0.03
b
^
-55.36
-30.92
-0.98
0.92
-4.94
2.10
0.98
-0.70
-0.01
0.02
-0.91
0.32
4.51
1.08
0.07
-0.03
-0.44
0.15
-44.99
-1.16
-0.09
-0.01
-2.60
0.07
-12.38
1.22
-0.03
-0.08
-7.03
0.10
b
J
-7.71
-1.69
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
-0.46
-0.94
2.83
0.03
-0.02
0.55
0.02
-8.44
2.21
-0.03
0.05
-0.44
-0.01
-4.58
-1.09
0.11
0.03
0.17
0.01
2.66
-0.25
-0.01
0.02
0.02
0.002
-------
- 122 -
Table 60 (Continued)
Quadratic Regression Equation Coefficients
y
Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct A)
S02
NO
CO 2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct B)
SO,
NO
C00
°22
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct A)
so2
NO
CO 2
°o
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct B)
so2
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct C)
S02
NO
CO 2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit
S02
NO
1 (Duct D)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
b x -H) x
1 2
b
1043.30
271.50
10.95
6.77
167.38
25.98
956.21
308.85
11.46
6.59
152.84
17.01
409.76
243.81
13.57
5.58
144.49
11.57
404.71
240.77
12.25
6.96
113.49
9.71
310.81
265.51
12.22
6.96
126.44
12.29
296.53
259.17
12.42
6.89
144.54
10.06
2
231 I
r- - T_-n
26.85
6.49
0.30
-0.32
-5.71
-2.75
24.41
8.60
0.08
-0.18
-4.32
-1.17
-25.33
5.40
-0.01
-0.04
-2.79
0.06
-6.58
1.15
0.08
-0.07
4.26
0.80
-1.92
-2.24
-0.04
-0.11
-2.53
0.06
-5.63
-0.03
-0.09
0.07
2.76
-0.06
,x_ +brx. x_
t 2 512
b
204.73
53.83
2.66
-2.47
-0.90
-1.36
116.15
9.64
0.84
-1.20
1.36
-0.85
6.99
7.07
-0.09
0.06
7.58
-0.27
39.38
-5.03
-0.03
-0.05
7.65
-1.54
49.44
7.90
0.54
-0.36
13.83
-2.21
104.66
-1.15
-0.13
-0.24
7.17
-2.05
-3.38
-0.71
-0.04
0.05
0.13
0.16
2.25
0.70
0.02
0.02
0.14
0.13
2.53
0.10
0.01
0.01
0.79
0.02
0.69
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.49
0.04
0.65
0.42
0.00
0.01
0.33
0.08
1.09
0.33
0.003
0.006
0.19
0.05
-85.27
-16.43
-1.05
1.01
-0.20
-0.32
-31.88
-3.98
-0.31
0.40
-0.16
-1.14
-1.05
-1.04
-0.01
0.01
-1.78
0.10
-10.43
1.08
-0.01
0.02
-1.12
0.39
-7.74
-1.31
-0.11
0.07
-3.40
0.24
-22.95
0.77
0.02
0.06
-1.35
0.24
8.51
1.59
0.09
-0.11
1.01
-0.06
2.75
3.58
0.10
0.09
0.51
0.20
0.28
-0.51
-0.04
-0.03
0.66
-0.17
1.88
0.48
0.01
-0.01
-0.08
-0.20
-2.54
-0.54
-0.004
0.004
0.17
0.20
0.05
-0.71
0.003
0.003
-0.42
0.17
-------
- 123 -
Table 60 (Continued)
Quadratic Regression Equation Coefficients
2 2
y = b +b-x -fb2x2+b3x +b^x2 +b5x;Lx2
Navajo Unit 1 (Stack at 725 MW)
so2
NO
CO 2
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Stack at 800 MW)
444.69
240.16
12.57
6.17
139.00
34.56
-1.35
-4.14
0.12
-0.01
-0.12
-0.27
0.91
-7.11
0.13
0.02
-0.29
-0.17
0.76
0.82
-0.19
0.001
0.06
-0.38
2.30
2.30
-0.11
0.001
0.13
-0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
S02
NO
CO,
°2
Temperature
Velocity
443.75
245.92
12.65
6.26
149.20
46.81
-2.25
-0.54
-0.05
0.02
0.09
-0.005
0.54
2.98
-0.03
-0.01
0.06
0.14
1.93
0.39
0.03
-0.01
-0.02
-0.58
1.51
-0.81
0.01
-0.003
-0.03
-0.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
Table 61
Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct A) Cubic Model Not Used
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 5 (Duct B) Cubic Model Not Used
S02
NO
C02
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Widows Creek Unit 7 (Duct A)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
2241.40
319.86
13.82
3.45
136.20
6.54
170.65
-5.38
0.19
0.23
-0.03
-2.66
51.18
-3.73
0.56
0.16
35.22
4.48
-37.08
2.60
-0.02
-0.10
-0.05
0.27
-50.92
8.50
-0.36
0.27
-18.29
-1.42
-25.70
-0.63
-0.09
-0.15
0.96
0.38
2.57
-0.26
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
1.93
-0.40
0.02
-0.02
2.55
0.11
-2.32
-0.08
0.01
0.02
-0.28
-0.05
16.69
0.95
0.04
-0.01
0.37
-0.01
-------
Table 61 (Continued)
Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients
Widows Creek Unit 7 (Duct B)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
E. C. Gaston Unit 5 (Duct A)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
E. C. Gaston Unit
S02
NO
C02
°2
Temperature
Velocity
5 (Duct B)
2293.60
319.22
12.62
5.19
122.45
4.86
564.35
385.15
9.34
8.97
133.47
17.04
691.29
298.36
8.70
9.65
95.23
14.37
X
-51.35
12.57
0.39
-0.34
-4.89
-1.96
108.95
39.71
0.39
-0.64
5.05
3.39
82.78
48.70
1.00
-1.35
2.96
2.25
-109.82
20.79
0.99
-0.23
55.39
5.52
167.23
113.49
2.29
-2.93
42.46
-19.47
273.78
182.39
4.83
-4.73
9.11
-15.50
- J
0.38
-1.64
-0.07
0.06
0.07
0.25
-8.11
-3.47
0.03
0.02
-0.55
-0.22
-4.27
-5.66
-0.06
0.13
0.48
-0.19
f
85.95
-8.34
-0.39
-0.15
-25.15
-2.32
114.01
-46.74
-0.51
0.63
-25.75
20.35
-91.24
-104 . 71
-2.38
2.14
2.71
7.63
7-
67.37
0.41
-0.03
-0.03
-0.87
0.51
-31.16
-12.01
-0.28
0.38
-4.44
-2.00
-28.89
-13.18
-0.43
0.49
-1.75
0.70
0.28
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.18
0.05
.00
.00
0.00
0.01
0.
0.
-0.03
0.20
0.00
0.00
-0.04
0.01
-28.87
-0.75
-0.01
0.12
2.91
0.27
-67.12
5.82
-0.01
0.08
5.24
-5.77
5.61
18.21
0.32
-0.26
-2.53
-0.99
-8.54
-0.02
-0.01
0.01
-0.23
-0.07
0.35
0.81
0.02
-0.02
0.21
0.01
1.18
0.67
0.02
-0.03
-0.08
-0.03
2.35
0.53
0.02
-0.04
0.95
0.00
7.08
-0.02
0.01
-0.01
0.57
0.37
2.33
1.09
0.04
-0.04
0.25
-0.29
-------
y =
Table 61 (Continued)
Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients
Barry Unit 4
S02
NO
(Duct A)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 4
S02
NO
(Duct B)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Barry Unit 5
S02
NO
(Duct A)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
b
1209.20
323.23
12.26
7.10
159.65
16.85
1161.40
272.78
11.26
8.31
118.46
19.64
1646.10
242.78
9.74
8.60
^129.01
4.58
b.
238.15
-29.93
-0.85
-0.38
-25.20
-2.42
358.31
73.72
1.67
-2.61
14.29
-6.06
215.86
35.07
1.78
-1.63
0.90
0.40
b
134.80
-19.11
1.43
-1.11
-3.90
-2.30
-24.99
-0.70
0.19
-0.34
9.92
-5.84
138.27
0.62
1.17
-0.80
-1.01
0.28
b.
-78.14
4.06
0.86
-0.04
13.94
0.68
-124.00
-34.56
-0.27
0.88
-8.47
1.77
-28.15
-3.49
-0.23
0.20
-0.53
-0.03
b
-53.88
6.30
-0.69
0.48
1.43
0.78
16.83
2.58
0.03
0.01
-0.52
1.94
-107.41
6.48
-0.73
0.43
0.98
0.60
25.75
12.36
0.05
0.05
6.37
-0.50
-5.15
-5.49
-0.22
0.18
-3.49
1.11
23.96
-0.84
-0.05
0.05
0.86
-0.27
7.75
0.41
-0.16
0.03
-2.11
0.007
12.24
4.40
-0.02
-0.08
1.32
-0.12
1.11
0.01
0.01
-0.01
0.02
0.00
8.10
-0.84
0.09
-0.07
-0.08
-0.13
-0.16
-0.61
0.00
0.00
-0.16
-0.23
17.08
-1.45
0.15
-0.08
-0.68
-0.19
5.57
-1.58
-0.03
-0.01
-0.46
-0.08
4.41
0.59
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.14
-2.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
-0.03
0.01
0 48
-0.69
0.02
0.00
-0.89
0.19
5.09
1.16
0.02
0.02
0.52
0.12
26
27
0.02
0.02
0.12
0.04
-------
Table 61 (Continued)
Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients
-8 "
Barry Unit
S02
NO
5 (Duct B)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct A)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Morgantown Unit 1 (Duct B)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
1804.70
248.36
9.34
9.02
102.87
3.48
1165.70
355.41
12.66
5.21
167.28
31.64
987.46
308.46
11.99
5.93
152.47
20.29
-102.14
-5.42
0.49
-0.46
-3.03
0.63
-25.58
-23.75
-0.25
0.26
-6.04
-4.08
7.20
-2.00
0.09
-0.15
-0.94
-4.21
126.11
20.79
1.58
-1.08
6.20
-1.65
61.20
-89.20
-0.17
-0.28
1.94
-13.60
59.53
39.76
-1.06
1.14
-1.20
-0.19
3.84
3.28
0.02
-0.03
0.18
0.21
0.68
1.95
-0.04
0.03
-0.96
0.67
-72.55
70.38
-0.08
0.61
-4.01
8.77
40.27
-13.14
1.27
-1.62
-6.82
-2.55
41.83
18.26
0.59
-0.58
1.26
1.35
2.54
-2.05
0.22
-0.19
3.86
0.74
-0.38
-0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.11
-0.14
0.00
0.00
0.07
-0.03
22.40
-15.69
0.07
-0.23
1.24
-2.61
-26.71
-1.72
-0.40
0.52
2.96
0.24
-0.27
-0.03
0.00
-0.01
-0.04
0.00
0.15
-0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.12
-0.83
-0.05
-0.01
0.00
-0.14
-0.06
5.16
0.99
0.07
-0.05
-0.13
-0.01
i
i-1
-14.45^
-4.49 i
-0.19
0.19
-0.11
0.07
4.22
2.55
-0.02
0.02
-0.69
-0.09
-------
Table 61 (Continued)
Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients
e\ r\ tj o ty
Navajo Unit 1
S02
NO
(Duct A)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit
S02
NO
1 (Duct B)
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Duct C)
S02
NO
C02
02
Temperature
Velocity
u
395.42
241.81
13.30
5.59
177.38
10.98
-43.89
7.37
-0.13
0.01
-28.61
0.01
66.00
8.41
0.55
-0.01
-25.23
1.11
j
6.66
-0.50
0.04
0.03
9.96
-0.48
-28.45
-1.85
-0.25
0.10
10.01
-0.53
D
2.84
-0.76
-0.01
-0.08
2.35
-0.14
D
-0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
-1.01
0.01
3.11
0.17
0.02
-0.01
-1.07
0.07
o
-1.15
0.15
0.00
0.01
0.36
-0.02
y
1.00
-0.15
0.02
0.00
-1.05
0.03
399.09
238.70
12.54
6.88
97.08
7.26
-4.92
6.34
-0.09
-0.05
18.72
1.38
25.72
-6.55
-0.29
0.06
24.26
2.49
3.29
-1.86
0.01
0.01
-5.70
-0.30
7.47
1.05
0.06
-0.03
-8.88
-1.04
-10.91
0.79
0.08
-0.02
-0.35
-0.48
-0.47
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.51
0.05
-3.23
0.12
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.11
292.55
275.20
12.34
7.13
131.52
14.12
43.44
-9.95
0.00
-0.26
-5.23
-0.98
9.73
-0.38
0.23
-0.45
0.06
-3.83
-9.83
2.57
-0.01
0.05
2.80
0.15
18.27
1.53
0.03
0.08
5.70
0.46
-14.33
0.99
0.00
0.05
-3.19
0.74
0.66
-0.18
0.00
0.00
-0.31
-0.03
-3.51
-0.31
-0.02
0.00
-1.33
0.03
1.50
-0.13
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.01
0.34
-0.13
0.00
0.01
0.34
-0.12
-1.15
0.15
0.00
0.01
0.36
-0.02
0.28
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.03
-0.08
1.50
-0.13
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.01
1.00
-0.15
0.02
0.00
-1.05
0.03
2.12 °°
-0.27 '
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.16
0.34
-0.13
0.00
0.01
0.34
-0.12
-------
Table 61 (Continued)
Cubic Regression Equation Coefficients
u . . 1. _. U
u -T "
Navajo Unit
S02
NO
co2
0,
1 (Duct D)
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Stack at 725 MW)
S02
NO
C02
°2
Temperature
Velocity
Navajo Unit 1 (Stack at 800 MW)
SO,
NO
co2
°2
Temperature
Velocity
204.01
246.67
11.84
7.19
152.10
10.26
40.02
20.99
0.45
-0.41
0.70
-1.34
166.84
-1.07
0.29
-0.16
-4.13
0.81
0.50
-6.89
-0.17
0.14
0.21
0.11
-16.10
0.09
-0.12
-0.02
2.77
-1.78
-42.70
-0.90
-0.07
-0.07
0.85
1.07
-0.32
0.64
0.02
-0.01
-0.05
0.01
-3.65
0.24
0.01
0.01
-0.41
0.30
1.48
0.30
0.00
-0.01
0.02
-0.07
6.36
-0.35
0.01
0.00
-0.28
-0.08
40.02
20.99
0.45
-0.41
0.70
-1.34
-10.83
-12.84
0.76
0.10
-0.37
0.53
-2.63
-2.19
-0.14
0.21
0.24
2.01
166.84
-1.07
0.29
-0.16
-4.13
0.81
6.18
-3.64
0.23
-0.12
-0.43
0.78
-1.86
7.11
-0.19
0.06
0.10
1.40
444.29
241.07
12.18
6.25
139.25
33.29
-10.83
-12.84
0.76
0.10
-0.37
0.53
6.18
-3.64
0.23
-0.12
-0.43
0.78
-0.34
-0.36
-0.06
0.00
0.00
-0.12
3.22
2.78
-0.05
-0.03
0.08
-0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.24
1.16
-0.09
-0.01
0.04
-0.12
-0.79
-0.52
-0.02
0.02
0.02
^0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
445.20
244.63
12.77
6.13
149.10
45.21
-2.63
-2.19
-0.14
0.21
0.24
2.01
-1.86
7.11
-0.19
0.06
0.10
1.40
1.69
0.36
0.00
0.03
0.01
-0.11
1.03
-0.13
-0.03
0.02
-0.01
-0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.21
0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.28
0.33
-0.56
0.02
-0.01
-0.01
-0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
to
VO
-------
- 130 -
4.2.2 Sample Contour Diagrams
Figures 27-50 present computer printed contour diagrams
developed for two representative boilers tested in this program. The
contours shown are for the No. 1 boiler at the Morgantown station of the
Potomac Electric Power Company and boiler No. 5 at the E. C. Gaston
station of the Southern Electric Generating Company. The coding scales
of the contours and the multiple regression equation used to plot the
contours are given below each contour. As can be seen, the contours
were developed using a quadratic model. Stratification contours developed
by TRW (6), based on data obtained by Exxon in stratification measured
on Widows Creek Unit 7, are based upon a higher order model. These
contours indicate more run to run variation than the second degree model
used in this report. Although the directional trends shown by the higher order
model are similar to those exhibited by the contour diagrams of the quadratic
model, the fine perturbations resulting from the higher order model are
presumably due to short time fluctuations. Therefore, the quadratic
contours based on duplicate traverses of the same duct appear to be the
preferred time average representation of the data. It should also be
noted that the duct dimensions in Figures 27-50 are not drawn to scale
on the contour diagrams. The abscissa scales are considerably
compressed relative to the ordinate scales and, therefore, the actual
stratifications across the duct are less pronounced than suggested by
a visual inspection of the contour diagrams.
Conclusions drawn from the stratification contour diagrams
in Figures 27-50 are as follows:
C02, NO, and S02 concentrations as expected, follow the
02 concentration (i.e., where the 02 concentration is
lowest the concentration of the other species are highest
and vice-versa because of dilution).
02 stratification contours are affected by air heater
leakage and direction of rotation of the air heater as
indicated by the consistent pattern of high Q£ concentration
and higher degree of 02 stratification along duct walls
that correspond to the upstream position of flue gas/air
contact in the air heater.
02 stratification contours can also be affected by leakage
of air into the ductwork (not in the air heater) but
this appears to be minimal in the units tested.
As expected, 02 concentrations are lowest in the center
portions of the duct and increase toward the sidewalls
as affected by either air heater leakage or infiltration
of air into the ducts.
-------
- 131 -
Flue gas temperature stratification is affected by air
heater leakage and the direction of rotation of the air
heater.
Velocity profiles in the flue gas ducts are largely
influenced by the ductwork geometry (ie downward bends
show higher velocity on bottom of duct due to centrifugal
forces.
Temporal variations in stratification contours are minor
as long as boiler load and combustion conditions are held
constant. This is illustrated in Figures 51-53, showing
02 stratification in the same duct for two separate
traverses taken approximately 4-5 hours apart under
identical load and combustion conditions. The stratification
contours are similar for each run and for the composite
stratification contour is based on data obtained from
both traverses.
-------
X
2.450-
1.960
1.470
0.979
0.489H
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
0.000^
C
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 ( 1A
2
> F E D
FED
ED C
E D C
ED C
ED C
E D C
DC B
DC B
DC B
DC B
DC B
DC B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C
C
D C
D C
D C
D C C
i- D
[ D
[ D
[ E DO
[ E
[ E
E
F
K F
).000 2.500
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 4.000
B= 4.500
C= 5.000
D= 5.500
E= 6.000
F= 6.500
G= 7.000
- 132 -
Figure 27
) - 02 CONTOUR (%)
D E F G
C C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F
BB C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
D E F G
D E F G
D E F G
D E F G
E F G
E F G
E F G
E F G
F G
F G
5.000 7.500 10.000 12.500
RESPONSE =
0.67700E 01
-0.32000E 00(X 1)
-0.24700E OKX 2)
0.50000E-OKX 1)(X 1)
0.10100E OKX 2) (X 2)
-0.11000E 00(X 1) (X 2)
-------
MORGANTOWN UNIT
2
- 133 -
Figure 28
1 (IB) - 02 CONTOUR ( %)
2
1
1
0
0
0
.450+ D C B A
ID C B A
I C B A
I C B A
I C B A
I C B A
1C B A
I C B A
.960+ C B A
I C B A
1C B A
I C B A
I C B A
I C B A
I C B A
I C B A
.470+ C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
.979+ C B
I C B
I C
I C
I C
I C
ID C
I D C
.489+ D C
I D
I D
I D
I D
I D
I D 0
IE
.000+ E
0.000 2.500 5.000
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B C
B C
C
C
C
C D
C D
C D
C D
D E
D E
D E
D E
0 E F
E F
E F
E F
7.500 10.000 12
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 4.500
B= 5.000
C= 5.500
E =
F =
6=
5.
5.
6.
000
6.500
7.000
7.500
RESPONSE =
0.65900E 01
-0.18000E OOU 1)
-0.12000E OKX 2)
0.20000E-OKX 1MX
0.40000E OOU 2) (X
-0.90000E-OKX 1)»X
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 134 -
Figure 29
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (1A) - C02 CONTOUR (%)
X 2
2.450+ A B C C B A
IABC CBA
IABC CBA
IABC CBA
IABC D D CBA
IABC D 0 CBA
1
1
0
0
0
.960
.470
.979
.489-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OOOH
(
I A B C D DC
I B C D DC
BCD DC
I B C D E E DC
I B C D E E DC
IB C D E E DC
I C D E E DC
I C D E E DC
C D E E D C
C D E E D C
» C D E E D C
C D E E D C
C D E E D C
CD E E D C B
CD E E D C B
CD E E D C B
CD E E DCS
CD D C B
CD D C B
CD D C B A
CD D C B A
C D D CBA
B C CBA
B C CBA
B C CBA
B C C B A
i- B B A
A B B A
A B B A
A A
A A
A A
'
.
h
. . . . .
J.OOO 2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
A
A
A
A
A
A
____ __.«. Y 1
12.500
COOING OF
CONTOURS
A= 12.000
B= 12.400
C= 12.800
D= 13.200
E= 13.600
F= 14.000
G= 14.399
H= 14.799
RESPONSE =
0.10950E 02
0.30000E 00(X 1)
0.26600E OKX 2)
-0.40000E-OKX 1)(X
-0.10500E OKX 2) (X
0.90000E-OKX 1)(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1
X 2
2.450+ E F
E F
E F
E F
E F
E F
E F
IE F
1.960+ E F
1.470^
0.979H
0.489H
E F
E F
E F
E F
F
F
F
K F
F
F
F
E
i-E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
K E
0.000+ D D
0.000 2.500
COD
- 135 -
Figure 30
( IB) - C02 CONTOUR (%)
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F E
F E
F E
F E
F E
F E
F E
F F ED
E D
E D
E D
E D
E DC
E D C
E DC
E DC
E DC
E D C B
E D C B
E 0 C B
D C B
D C B
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
C B A
- + + + + ^ ^
5.000 7.500 10.000 12.500
ING OF RESPONSE =
COMTOURS 0.11460E 02
A =
B =
i ^ _
D =
E =
F =
G =
10.000 0.80000E-OKX 1)
10.500 0.84000E 00(X 2)
11.000 -0.20000E-OKX 1)(X 1)
11.500 -0.310GOE 00(X 2)(X 2)
12.000 0.10000E 00(X 1)(X 2)
12.500
13.000
-------
- 136 -
Figure 31
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (1A) - NO CONTOUR (PPM)
X 2
2.450+
B
D
1.960H
1.470^
]
]
0.979H
1
0.489-
0.000-
(
B C D
B C D
BCD
C D
C D
C 0
C D
C D
C U
C D
C D
C D
C D
C 0
C D
K C D
[ C D
[ C 0
[ C D
[ C D
[ C D
[ C D
IB C
H B C
[ B C
[ B C
[ B C
[ B C
[ B
[ A B
[ A B
h A B
[ A
I A
[ A
I
r
,
[
r
.
t-
D.OOO 2.500
CODING
CONTOUR
A= 300.
B= 310.
C= 320.
0= 330.
E= 340.
F= 350.
G= 360.
H= 370.
1= 380.
J= 390.
K= 400.
E ED
£ E D
E ED
E ED
E ED
E E D
E ED
E ED
E ED
E ED
E E D
E E D C
E E D C
E E D C
E E D C
E E D C
E E DC
E E DC
D C B
D C B
D C B
D C B
D D C B
D D C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
C C B A
B A
B A
B A
A
A
A
A A
_ ., . 4._ 4. Y 1
5.000 7.500 10.000 12.500
OF RESPONSE =
S 0.27150E 03
000 0.64yOOE OKX 1)
000 0.53830E 02 ( X 2)
000 -0.71000E 00(X 1)(X 1)
000 -0.16430E 02(X 2)(X 2)
000 0.15900E OKX 1HX 2)
000
000
000
000
000
000
-------
- 137 -
Figure 32
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (IB) - NO CONTOUR (PPM)
X 2
2.450+B C
1.960-1
1.47CH
0.979
0.489
B C
B C
C
C
C
C
. C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
i- C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
i- C
C
C
IB
IB
0.000+ B
0.000
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
E F G HI J K
E F G H I J K
E F G H I J K
fc F G H I J K
£ F G H I J K
E F G H I J K
E F G H I J K
E F G H I J K
E F G H I J
E F G H I J
E F G H I J
E F G H I J
E F G H I J J
E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I I
E F G H I I
E F G H
E F G H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G G
E F G G
E F G G
E F G G
E F G G F
D E F F
DBF F
D E F F E
D E F F E
D E F F E
D E ED
D E ED
D E ED
D E ED
D E E DC
D DC
D DC
D D C B
2.500 5.000 7.500 10.000 12.500
CODING OF RESPONSE =
CONTOURS 0.30885E 03
A= 300.000 0.86000E 01U 1)
B= 310.000 0.96400E 01(X 2)
C= 320.000 -0.70000E 00(X 1)(X 1)
D= 330.000 -0.39800E OKX 2)(X 2)
E= 340.000 0.35800E OKX 1)(X 2)
F= 350.000
G= 360.000
H= 370.000
1= 380.000
J= 390.000
K= 400.000
-------
- 138 -
Figure 33
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (1A) - S02 CONTOUR (PPM)
X 2
2.450+ BCD E E
IB C D E I
ICO E
I C D E
ICO E
1C 0 E
1C D E
IDE F F
1.960+ D E F F
IDE F F
IDE F F
IDE F
IDE F
ID E F
0
D
E
E
D
D
I
I
1.470+
I
E
E
0.979
0.489
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D D
I
I
0.000+ B
+
0.000
2.500
4.
5.000
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
F ED
F ED
F E D C
F E D C
F E D C
E DC*
E DC
E DC
E D C B
E D C B
E D C B
-. D C B
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
D C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
B A
B A
+ + + X 1
7.500 10.000 12.500
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A=1000.000
6=1050.000
C=1100.000
0=1150.000
E=1200.000
F=1250.000
G=1300.000
RESPONSE =
0.10433E 04
0.26850E
0.20473E
-0.33800E
-0.85270E
0.85100E
02
03
01
02
01
(X
(X
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 139 -
Figure 34
MORGANTGWN UNIT 1 (IB) - S02 CONTOUR (PPM)
X 2
2.450+6
1.960
1.470+
n
B
I B
0.979+ B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
0.489
B
B
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
(
C
C
C
C
C
C
0
0
C
C
C
C
C
C
D D
C
C
B
B
0.000+
4-
000
A
2.500
5.000
A
7.500
10.000
12
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A=1000.000
6=1050.000
C=1100.000
0=1150.000
E=1200.000
RESPONSE =
0.95621E 03
0.24410E
0. 11615E
-0.22UOOE
-0.31880E
0.27500E
02
03
01
02
01
(X
(X
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 140 -
Figure 35
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (1A) - TEMPERATURE CONTOUR
-------
MORGANTOWN UNIT
X 2
2.450+ G
I G
G
G
G
G
G
- 141 -
Figure 36
1 (IB) - TEMPERATURE CONTOUR (DEG C)
1.960+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.470+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.979+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.489 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.000+
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
G
G
G
F
F
F
F
D
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
E
E
D
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
F
F
F
F
D
D
E
E
E
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
D
D
F
F
F
F
F
E
E
E
0
D
D
e
e
E
e
D
D
C
C
0
D
F
F
E
E
D
D
D
C
C
C
C
0.000
2.500
5.000
7.500
10.000
--+ X 1
12.500
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 120.000
B =
C =
D=
E =
F =
G=
125.
130.
135.
140.
145.
150.
000
000
000
000
000
000
0.
-o.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
RESPONSE
15284E 03
43200E OK
13600E
14000E
16000E
51000E
OK
001
00 (
00(
X
X
X
X
X
1
2
1
2
1
)
)
)
)
)
(
(
{
X
X
X
1)
2)
2)
-------
2.450+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.960+
I
MORGANTOWN UNIT
X 2
: B
C B
C B
C B
C 8
B
8
1.470+
I
I
I
0.979+
I
I
D
D
0.489+D
- 142 -
Figure 37
1 (1A) - VELOCITY CONTOUR (M/S)
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
C
C
0.000+
D
D
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A A
8
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
0.000
2.500
5.000
+
7.500
10.000
+ X 1
12.500
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 10.000
B= 15.000
C= 20.000
D= 25.000
RESPONSE =
-
-
-
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
.25980E
.27500E
. 13600E
.16000E
.32000E
02
OK
OK
00 (
00 (
.60000E-OK
X
X
X
X
X
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
MORGANTOWN UNIT
X 2
2.450+
- 143 -
Figure 38
1 (IB) - VELOCITY CONTOUR (M/S)
1
1
0
0
0
A
A
.960+ A A
I
I
.470 +
I
I
.979+B
I B
I B
I B
I B
I B
I B
I B
.489+ B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
.000+ B
0.000 2.500
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 10.000
B= 15.000
C= 20.000
D= 25.000
A B C
A B C
A B C
A B C
A B C
A B C .
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B - C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B c
5.000 7.500 10.000 12.500
RESPONSE =
0.17010E 02
-0.11700E OKX 1)
-0.85000E OOU 2)
0.13000E OOU 1) (X 1)
-0.11400E OKX 2) (X 2)
0.20000E OOU 1) (X 2)
-------
GASTON UNIT
X 2
- 144 -
Figure 39
5 (5A) - 02 CONTOUR (%)
2.430+
I
I
0
D
1
1
0
0
.944 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.457 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.971 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.485 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D C
D C
0 C
C
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C 8
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
C B
DC B
DCS
D C
0 C
D C
D C
ED C
E D
E D
E D
FED
F t D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
0.000+
0.000
2.628
5.256
7.883
10.511
+ X 1
13.140
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 5.500
B= 6.000
C= 6.500
D= 7.000
E= 7.500
F= 8.000
0
-0
-0
0
0
0
RESPONSE =
83400E 01
41000E 00(X 1)
23800E OKX 2)
20000E-OKX 1MX
83000E 00(X 2) (X
0.40000E-01 (X 1MX
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 145 -
Figure 40
GASTON UNIT 5 (5b) - 02 CONTOUR
X 2
2.430+
I
I
H
D
H
H
D
1
1
0
0
0
.944+
I
IH
IH
I
I
I
I
.457+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.971 +
I
IH
I
I
I
I
I
.485 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.000 +
0.
H
H
H
H G
H G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
H G
H
H
H
H
H
I H
I
I
I
I
000
G
G F
G F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
G F
G
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
2
FED C
ED C
E D C
E D C
E D C 8 B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C B B
E D C SB
ED C
E D C
E D C C
EDO C
E D C C
E D C C
E D C C
ED C C
ED D
FED D
FED D
FED D
F E D D
F E E
G F E E
G F E E
G F F
G F F
H G F F
H G G
H G G
.628 5.256 7.883 10.511 13.140
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A =
B=
C =
D =
E =
F =
G=
H=
1 =
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000
6.500
7.000
RESPONSE =
0.79300E 01
-0.52000E 00(X 1)
-0.24300E OKX 2)
0.30000E-OHX 1)(X
0.92000E 00(X 2)(X
-0.50000E-OKX 1)(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 146 -
Figure 41
GASTON UNIT 5 (5A) - C02 CONTOUR (%)
X 2
2
1
1
0
0
0
.430+
1C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C 0
0
D
D
D
D E
D E
D E
.944+D E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.457+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.971 +
I
I
I
ID
I
I
I
.485 +
I
I
1C
I
I
I
I
.000+8
+
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
0 E
D E
0 E
D E
D
D
D
C D
C D
E F F
E F F
E F G G F
6 F G G F
E F G G
F G G
F G G
F G G
F G H H G
F G H H G
F G H H G
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
E F G G
E F G G
E F G G
E F G G
E F G G
C D E F G G
C
C
0.000
D E F G G F
0 t F F
2.628 5.256 7.883 10.511 13.140
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 9.000
B= 9.
C = 10,
10.
11,
11.
12.
12.
D=
E =
G =
H =
1 =
,500
,000
,500
,000
,500
,000
,500
RESPONSE =
0.94700E 01
0.54000E 00(X 1)
0.18900E OKX 2)
-0.30000E-OKX 1)(X
-0.71000E 00(X 2)(X
-0.20000E-OHX 1)(X
1)
2)
2)
13.000
-------
- 147 -
Figure 42
GASTON UNIT 5 (5B) - C02 CONTOUR (%)
X 2
2.430+ CUE F
I C D E F
1C D E F
IDE F
I D E F G
IDE F G
IDE F G
ID E F G
1.
H
I
0
0
0
I E
I E
I E
I E
I E F
I E F
IE F
.457+E F
I F
I F
I F
I F
I F
IE F
IE F
.971+ E F
I E F
I E F
I E F
I E
I E
I E
I E
.485+ D E
I D E
I D
I D
1C D
I C D
I C D
I C
.000+8 C
0.000
F G H H G
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
G H II H
G H I I H
G H I I
G H I I
G h I I
G H I I
G H I I
G H I I
G H I I
G H I I
G H 1 I
G H I I
G H I I
GUI I
G H I I
F G H I I
F G H I I
F G H I I
F G H I I
F G H I I
F G H II
E F G H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
D C F G
D E F G
2.628 5.256 7.883 10.511 13.140
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 9.500
B= 10.000
C= 10.500
0= 11.000
E= 11.500
F= 12.000
G= 12.500
H= 13.000
1= 13.500
J= 14.000
RESPONSE =
0.99500E 01
0.59000E 00(X 1)
0.24800E OKX 2)
-0.30000E-OKX 1MX
-0.980006 OOU 2) (X
-0.50000E-OKX 1)(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
Figure ~43
X
2.430H
1.944H
1.457
0.971
GASTON UpNIT 5 (
2
h A B
[A B
[ B
[ B
[ B C
[ 6 C
[ B C
[ B C
K B C
B C
B C
B C
8 C
B C
B C
B C
i- B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
i- B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
(5A) - NO CONTOUR (PPM)
B
B
0.485
A
A
D
D
D
I)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
+ A
0.000
B
B
B
B
2.628
C
C
C
C
5.256
C
7.883
C B
C B
C B
B
10.511
- .i. Y 1
13.140
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 450.000
B= 475.000
C= 500.000
D= 525.000
E= 550.000
RESPONSE =
0.42159E 03
0.21460E 02(X 1)
0.71950E 02(X 2)
-0.14500E 01(X 1) (X
-0.25580E 02(X 2)(X
-0.14400E OKX 1) (X
1)
2)
2)
-------
GASTON UNIT
X 2
- 149 -
Figure 44
5 (5B) - NO CONTOUR (PPM)
2.230+
1.783+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.338+
I
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
0.8:92+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.446+
I
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
C
0.000+ A
0.000 2.628
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 400.000
B= 425.000
C= 450.000
D= 475.000
E = 500.000
B
5.256
0.
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
7.883
RESPONSE
36257E 03
16730E 02(
80730E 02(
95000E 00(
30920E 02(
16900E OK
X
X
X
X
X
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
10
(X
(X
(X
B
.511 13.140
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 150 -
Figure 45
GASTON UNIT 5 (5A) - S02 CONTOUR (PPM)
X 2
2.430+ ABC D
I A B C D
1
1
0
0
0
IA
I
I
I
I
I
.944+
I
I
I
I
I
.457 +
I
I
I
IA
.971 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.485 +
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.000 +
0.
BCD D C B
BCD EE DCB
BCDE E DC
BCDE E D C
BCDE E D C
B C 0 E E D C
BCDE ED
BCDE ED
BCDE F F ED
BCDE F F ED
BCDE F F ED
BCDE F F ED
BCDEF FED
BCDEF F E
BCDEF F E
BCDEF F E
B C D E F F E
BCDEF F E
BCDEF F E
BCDEF F E
BCDEF F E
BCDEF F E
ABCDEF F E
ABCDE F F E
ABCDE F F E
ABCDE F F E
ABCDE F F E
ABCDE F F E
ABCDE E
ABCDE E
ABCDE E
ABCDE E
ABCDE E D
A B C D E E D
A B C D D
A B C D D
A B C D D
ABC D D
ABC D D
000 2.628 5.256 7.883 10.511 13.140
CODING OF RESPONSE =
CONTOURS 0.58787E 03
A= 800.000 0.77700E 02(X 1)
B= 850.000 0.28772E 03(X 2)
C= 900.000 -0.41000E OKX 1)(X 1)
D= 950.000 -0.84880E 02(X 2)(X 2)
E = 1000.000 -0.93400E OKX 1)(X 2)
F=1050.000
6=1100.000
-------
2
1
1
0
0
0
GASTON
X 2
.430+ E
I E
I E
I E
I E
I E
I E F
I E F
.944+E F
IE F
IE F
IE F
It F
IE F
IE F
IE F
.457+E F
IE F
I E F
I E F
I E F
I E F
I E F
I E F
.971* E
I E
I E
I E
I E
ID E
I D E
I D E
.485+ D E
I D
I D
1C D
I C D
I C D
I C D
I C
.000+8 C
0.000
- 151 -
Figure 46
UNIT 5 (5B) - S02 CONTOUR (PPM)
F G G F E
F G G F E
F G G F E
F G G F
F G G F
F G H H G F
G H H G F
G H H G F
G H . H G F
G H H G
G H H G
G H H G
G H H G
G H H G
G H H G
G H II H G
G H II H G
G H II H
G H I I H
G H I I H
G H I- I H
G H I I H
G H I I H
G H I I H
F G H I I H
F G H I I H
F G H I I H
F G H I I H
F G H II H
F G H II H
F G H H
F G H H
F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
E F G H H
D E F G H H
D E F G G
2.628 5.256 7.883 10.511 13.140
CODING OF RESPONSE =
CONTOURS 0.74644E 03
A= 700.000 0.64980E 02(X 1)
B= 750.000 0.18422E 03(X 2)
C= 800.000 -0.35000E OKX DIX 1)
D= 850.000 -0.55360E 02(X 2)(X 2)
E= 900.000 -0.77100E OKX 1)(X 2)
F= 950.000
G=1000.000
H=1050.000
1=1100.000
J=1150.000
K=1200.000
-------
- 152 -
Figure 47
GASTON UNIT 5 (5A) - TEMPERATURE CONTOUR (DEG C)
X 2
2.430+ G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
1.944+ G F E D C B A
I G F E D C B A
[ G F
[ G F
I G F
[ G F
I G F
[ G F
1.457+ G F
0.971
G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
K G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
G F
0.485+ G F
]
1
1
1
]
1
]
G F
[ G F
G F
G F
G F
G G F E
F E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
P
E
E
E
E
E
E
0.000+ F E
0.000 2.628 5.256 7.883
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
0 C
D C
D C
10.5
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
11
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
B A
13.140
CODING OF RESPONSE =
CONTOURS 0.14868E
A= 120.000 0.80000E
B= 125.000 0.85900E
C= 130.000 -0.24000E
D= 135.000 -G.28300E
E= 140.000 -0.24000E
F= 145.000
03
00 (X
OKX
OOU
OKX
OOU
1)
2)
1) (X
2) (X
1) (X
1)
2)
2)
G= 150.000
-------
- 153 -
Figure 48
GASTON UNIT 5 (56) - TEMPERATURE CONTOUR (DEG C)
X 2
2.430+
B
0
1
1
0
0
0
A
A
I A
I A
.944+ A
I A
I A
IA
IA
.457 +
.971 +
I
I
IA
IA
I A
I A
I A
.485+ A
I A
I A
I A
I A
I
I
I
.000+
0.000
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C 0 E F
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C 0 E F G
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C 0 E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C 0 E F G H
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F
A B C D E F
2.628 5.256 7.883 10.511 13.140
CODING OF RESPONSE =
CONTOURS 0.93400E 02
A= 100.000 0.54700E OKX 1)
B= 105.000 0.12130E 02(X 2)
C= 110.000 -0.21000E 00(X 1){X 1)
D= 115.000 -0.49400E OKX 2)(X 2)
E= 120.000 -0.60000E-OKX 1HX 2)
F= 125.000
G= 130.000
H= 135.000
-------
GASTON UNIT
X 2
2.430+
1.944
1.457+
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.971+
- 154 -
Figure 49
5 (5A) - VELOCITY CONTOUR (M/S)
B
B
B
C
C
0.485+ C
I C
C
D
I D
0.000+ D
0.000 2.628
E
E
E
5.256
F
F
F
7.883 10.511
13.140
CODING OF
CONTOURS 0
A= 5.000 0
B= 10.000 -0
C= 15.000 -0
D= 20.000 0
E= 25.000 -0
F= 30.000
RESPONSE =
,16370E 02
.18400E OKX 1)
.49300E OKX 2)
.30000E-OKX 1)(X
.16600E OKX 2)(X
.86000E 00(X 1)(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 155-
Figure 50
GASTON UNIT 5 (5B) - VELOCITY CONTOUR (M/S)
X 2
2.430+
I
I
I
I
1.944+
I
1.457+
I
I
0.971
I
I
0.485+
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
I C
I C
0.000+ C
0.000 2.628
D
0
D
5.256
7.883 10.511 13.140
COOING OF
CONTOURS
A =
B =
C =
D =
E =
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
RESPONSE =
0.11140E 02
0.24900E
-0..63200E
-0.12000E
0.21000E
-0.46000E
01
01
00
01
00
(X
(X
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
1)
2)
1)
(X
(X
(X
1)
2)
2)
-------
- 156 -
Figure 51
7
6
4
3
1
0
MORGANTOWN
X 2
.500+ E D
E D
D
D C
D C
D C
D C
D C
.000+ C
C
C
C
C
I C B
I C B
I C B
.500+ C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C
I C
.000+ C
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C
I C
.500+ D
I D
I D
I D
I D
I
I E
I E
.000+ E
,
0.000
UNIT 1 (1A) - 02 CONTOUR (REP 1)
C C D E
C B B C D E
C B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C 0 E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B B C D E F
B B C D E F
B B C 0 E F G
B B C D E F G
B B C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C C D E F G H I
D E F G H I
D E F G H I
0 , E F G H I
D E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I
8.200 16.400 24.599 32.799 41.000
CODING OF RESPONSE =
CONTOURS 0.63028E 01
A= 4.000 -0.76011E-OKX 1)
B= 4.500 -0.62655E 00(X 2)
C= 5.000 0.37289E-02U 1)(X 1)
D= 5.500 0.81249E-OKX 2)(X 2)
E= 6.000 -0.10512E-OKX 1)(X 2)
F= 6.500
G= 7.000
H= 7.500
1= 8.000
-------
Figure "52
MORGANTOWN UNIT 1 (1A) - 02 CONTOUR (REP 2)
X 2
7.500+ F E D C (
I E D C
EDO B 8
E D C b B
D
6.000
4.500H
3.000^
1
1.500H
1
O.OOOH
C
E D C
ED C
D C
D C
K D C
D C
D C
D C
D C
D C B
C B
C B
K C B
C B
C B
C B
I C B
[ C
[ C
[D C
K D C
[ D C
[ D .C
D C
D C
D
D
E D
i- E D
E
E
F E
F E
F
F
G F
K G
).000 8
B B C
B B C
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B B
B A A B
A A B
A A B
A A B C
AA B C
B C
B C
B C
B C
B B C
B B C
B BCD
B BCD
B B CD
C D
C D
C D E
C C D E
C C D E
D E F
D E F
D D E F
D D E F G
E F G
E F G
E E F G H
F G H
F G H
F F G H I
.200 16.400 24.599 32
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
G
G
G
H
H
H
I
I
I
.799
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
I
I
I
F
F
F
F
G
G
H
H
I
I
41
E F
D E F
D E F
D E
F
F
G
i
H
I
+ X 1
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A =
B =
C=
0=
E =
F =
G =
H=
1 =
4.000
4.500
5.
5.
6.
000
500
000
6.500
7,
7.
000
500
RESPONSE =
0.72420E 01
-0.12192E 00(X
-0.87892E 00(X
0.46751E-02U
0.10625E 00(X
-0.93550E-02(X
1)
2)
1) (X 1)
2)(X 2)
1)(X 2)
8.000
-------
MORGAN/TOWN UNIT 1 (1A)
X 2
Figure 53
02 CONTOUR (COMPOSITE)
7
6
4
3
1
0
.500+ ED C
I E D C
I E D C 8
I E D C B
IDC B
IDC B
IDC B
IDC B
.000+ DCS
IDC B
IDC B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
.500+ C B
1 C B
1 C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
I C B
1C B
.000+ C B
I C B
I C
I C
I D C
I D C
I D C
ID C C
.500+ D
I D
I E D
IE D D
I E
I E
IF E E
I F
.000+ F
0.000 8.200 16.400
CODING OF
CONTOURS
A= 4.000
B= 4.500
C= 5.000
D= 5.500
E= 6.000
F= 6.500
G= 7.000
H= 7.500
1= 8.000
C D E
C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
8 C D E
B. C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
B C D E F G
C D E F G
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
C D E F G H
D E F G H I
D E F G H I
D E F G H I
D E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I
E F G H I
F G H I
F G H I
F G H I
_______ _.!.__ _-. __-._.-_ 4. -.___....__ _X V 1
24.599 32.799 41.000
RESPONSE =
0.67724E 01
-0.98969E-OKX 1)
-0.75274E OOU 2)
0.42020E-02(X 1MX 1)
0.93749E-OKX 2MX 2)
-0.99336E-02U 1)(X 2)
-------
- 159 -
5. REFERENCES
1. W. Bartok, A. R. Crawford, A. R. Cunningham, H. J. Hall, E. H. Manny
and A. Skopp, "Systems Study of Nitrogen Oxide Control Methods for
Stationary Sources," Exxon Research and Engineering Company Final
Report GR-2-NOS-69, Contract No. PH 22-68-55 (PB 192-789), November 1969.
2. W. Bartok, A. R. Crawford and G. J. Piegari, "Systematic Field Study
' of NOx Emission Control Methods for Utility Boilers^" Exxon Research
and Engineering Company Final Report No. GRU.4G.NOS.71, NTIS Report No.
PB 210-739, December 1971. '
3. -A. R. Crawford, E. H. Manny and W. Bartok, "Field Testing: Application
of Combustion Modifications to Control NOX Emissions from Utility Boilers,"
Exxon Research and Engineering Company, EPA Report No. EPA-650/2-74-066.
4. "ASTM Manual on Quality Control of Materials," Prepared by ASTM
Committee E-ll, January 1951.
5. Environmental Protection Agency, "Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources," Method 1, Published in the Federal Register,
December 23, 1971, Vol. 36, No. 237, p. 24888.
6. E. F. Brooks, et al., "Continuous Measurement of Gas Composition
from Stationary Sources," TRW Systems Group, EPA Report No.
EPA 600/2-75-012, July 1975.
-------
- 160 -
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the constructive participation
of Dr. H. M. Barnes, EPA Project Officer, in planning the field test pro-
gram. The helpful cooperation of two of the major U.S. utility boiler
manufacturers, Combustion Engineering and Babcock and Wilcox, we're
essential to selecting representative boilers for the field test program.
The voluntary participation of electric utility boiler companies in
making their boilers available is gratefully acknowledged. These utility
companies included the Tennessee Valley Authority, Southern Electric
Generating Company, Alabama Power Company, Potomac Electric Power Company,
and the Salt River Project. The invaluable assistance of Messrs. L. W.
Blanken, R. W. Schroeder, R. J. Johnston, W. Petuchevas, V. S. Engleman,
H. T. Oakley, R. P. Smith and Mrs. M. V. Thompson in these field
studies is also acknowledged.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
t'.tsc read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-75-053
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
MAGNITUDE OF S02, NO, C02,
IN POWER PLANT DUCTS
AND 02 STRATIFICATION
5. REPORT DATE
Seoternhpr 10,75
iep.
6. PE
RFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
A. R. Crawford, M. W. Gregory, E. H. Manny, and
W. Bartok
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
EXXON/GRV.IDJAL.75
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Exxon Research and Engineering Company
Government Research Laboratory
P. 0. Box 8
Linden, New Jersey 07036
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA010
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1722
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Sciences Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A field measurement study was conducted on utility boilers to determine combustion
gas stratification in the ducting. One of the purposes of the study was to determine
the_optimum location for extracting representative gas samples for continuous
monitoring. The results indicate that average gas concentration, velocity, and
temperature, which were measured by traversing the inner 50% of the duct cross
section, do not differ significantly from those obtained by traversing the entire
duct. Also, sampling from only a limited number of points within the inner 50% of
the duct usually yields a representative sample.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Air pollution
Measurement
Field Tests
Continuous Sampling
*Gas Sampling
*Stratification
Chemical ANalysis
*Electric-power plant:
Coal
Oil
Boilers
h.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
j. COSATI Held/Group
13A
HB
70
21D
10B
13A
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
169
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tillspage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
161
------- |