, 1980
MEASUREMENTS OF
HIGH-TEMPERATURE PROCESSES
A SUMMARY REPORT
Prepared by
L. Cooper, M. Shackleton
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
Contract 68-02-2153
Project Officer
W. Kuykendal
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
June 1980
MEASUREMENTS OF HIGH-TEMPERATURE HIGH-PRESSURE
PROCESSES - A SUMMARY REPORT
by
L. Cooper, M. Shackleton
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
Contract 68-02-2153
Project Officer
W. Kuykendal
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North.Carolina 27711
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental 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.
-------
FOREWORD
New energy conversion processes are being developed to utilize coal. The
best time to examine these processes for potential damage to the environment
is during their development cycle. The Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory is engaged in work which examines pollution potential for emerging
coal conversion technologies.
Several of these emerging technologies, for example pressurized fluidized
bed combustion and gasification processes, involve gas streams at high
temperature and pressures which contain particulates. Since these
particulates generally must be removed from the gas stream, hot gas cleaning
devices are also under development. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of
these hot gas cleaning devices, particle measurement and sampling equipment is
needed which can operate in these severe environments. This report examines
some of the problems associated with particle sampling in high temperature and
pressure environments.
11 i
-------
ABSTRACT
The major focus of this program under EPA contract 68-02-2153 was that of
particulate sampling in advanced coal conversion technologies. Work performed
was to assess and develop the technology required to perform high-temperature
high-pressure particulate sampling. In addition to the effort denoted to
development and testing of an HTHP sampler for the EPA/Exxon Miniplant,
experience was gained in design aspects of HTHP sampling equipment and testing
procedures and is highlighted in this report. A background study and planning
effort was directed toward possible future sampling efforts in a coal
gasification facility. A state-of-the-art review of HTHP sampling was also
performed. As a means of documenting the materials collected, a bibliography
of articles, reports and books relating to HTHP sampling was compiled.
Further a mailing list of persons interested in this technology is included in
the report.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreward iii
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables ix
1. Executive Surrmary 1
1.1 An Overview of the Problem 1
1.2 Summary of Work Performed 2
1.3 General Findings and Recommendations 4
2. Introduction 6
2.1 Program Work Activities 6
2.1.1 PFBC Sampler Hardware Development and
Demonstration Tests -. 6
2.1.2 Gasifier Sampling Site Survey 13
2.1.3 Source Assessment Sampler Development
(SASS) 13
2.1.4 Special Purpose Probes 16
2.1.5 State-of-the-Art Review 16
2.2 Near and Far Term Needs for HTHP Sampling .... 16
2.2.1 Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustor .... 18
2.2.2 Coal Gasification Sampling Development . . 20
2.2.3 Other HTHP Particulate Sampling Needs ... 28
3. Survey of Facilities and Equipment 35
3.1 Objectives of Survey 35
3.2 General Findings of the Survey 36
4. Approaches to HTHP Sampling 49
4.1 Continuous Versus Noncontiguous Sampling 49
4.1.1 Optical Systems 49
4.2 Approaches to Extractive Sampling 51
4.2.1 Fixed Probe Concepts -51
4.2.2 Traversing Probe Concepts . ." 51
4.2.3 Prototype Designs 55
4.3 Particulate Collection Devices 55
4.3.1 Impactors, Cyclones, and Filters 55
4.3.2 Suitable for HTHP Application 63
4.3.3 Operation at High-Temperatures and
-Pressures 68
4.4 Sampling Handling and Flow Measurement 68
4.4.1 Isokinetic Sampling Considerations .... 68
4.4.2 Automatic Isokinetic Sampling 69
4.4.3 Other Considerations 69
-------
CONTENTS (Concluded)
4.5 General Findings and Experiences Derived from
Exxon Tests 71
4.5.1 Test Results ~ Phase I and II 71
4.5.2 Experiences Derived from Exxon Testing . . 80
4.6 Beyond Prototype Systems 82
4.6.1 Generalized Sampling Systems 82
4.6.2 Modular Approach 83
4.6.3 Other Desirable Features 84
5 Review of Particular Problems Associated with HTHP
Sampling 85
5.1 PFBC Sampling 85
5.2 Gasifier Sampling 85
5.3 Other Applications 86
6 Conclusions and Recommendations 87
References 89
Appendices
A. High-Temperature, High-Pressure Mailing List - 91
B. Survey of Continuous Particulate Measurement
Devices 110
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 High-temperature, high-pressure (PFBC) sampling
system 8
2 System schematic 9
3 Exploded view of HTHP probe 11
4 HTHP sampling probe and duct interface valve 12
5 Cyclone test apparatus 15
6 Liquid cooled sampling probe 17
7 Tar yield as a function of coal volatile matter ~
pilot gas producer 24
8 Gasification process sampling scheme 27
9 Alternative approaches to tar collection for
gasification sampling system 29
10 Westinghouse fluidized bed gasification process .... 31
11 DOE MERC stirred-bed gasification system 32
12 Fixed probe concepts 52
13 Traversing probe 53
14 Schematic of sliding seal sampling system 57
15 Schematic of concentric tube sampling system 58
16 Schematic of total enclosure sampling system 59
17 Schematic of gasifier sampling system 60
18 Conceptual design of gasifier sampling system 61
19 Generalized cyclone design 64
20 Comparison of cascade impactor stage with cyclone
collection efficiency curve 65
21 Sampling time determination for total mass
collection of 25 milligrams 66
22 Automatic isokinetic sampling probes 70
23 Particle size distribution r- Phase I tests -75
24 Impactor substrates ........... 76
25 Impactor substrate Run 3, Stage 5 ._ . 77
26 Particle photomicrographs, Stage 4 78
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Sampling system capabilities 7
2 Potential Gasifier Sampling Sites 14
3 Summary of Coal Gasification Processes ... 21
4 Typical Coal and Gas Analysis 23
5 Primary Converters-Distribution of Energy into
Products and Byproducts 25
6 Grand Forks Slagging Lurgi Tar Analysis 26
7 Development Problems of HTHP Gasification Samplers ... 30
8 Westinghouse PDU Gas Stream Characteristics 33
9 Morgantown Stirred-Bed Gas Stream Characteristics ... 33
10 Survey of Coal Conversion Demonstration Facilities
and Sampling Equipment 37
11 Summary of Traversing Probe Concepts 56
12 Size Fractionating Points of Some Commercial Cascade
Impactor for Unit Density Spheres 62
13 Phase I Test Conditions 73
14 Structure Temperatures 73
15 Particulate Content . 74
16 Particle Size Distribution 74
17 Concentration of Elements in Flyash SSMS Analysis
(Partial) 79
18 Partial Comparison of Front and Rear Particulate
Catches from Exxon Test Series I and II 81
-------
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
Sampling for participate matter in hostile environments is a technology
that is still in the early stages of development. The need for these
techniques, however, is yet to be fully realized. High-temperature or
high-pressure (HTHP) sampling is integral to the resolution of environmental
concerns resulting from the development of immerging energy conversion
technologies. There are also potential applications for HTHP sampling in
current technologies, including those in the petrochemical industry.
The major focus in this program under EPA contract 68-02-2153,
"Measurements of High-Temperature, High-Pressure Processes," was that of
particulate sampling in advanced coal conversion technologies. Those
technologies of particular interest were pressurized fluidized bed combustion
(PFBC) and coal gasification (CG). Although coal gasification received
attention during this program, far more effort was devoted to PFBC.
At present it has become more and more evident that the successful
development of a pressurized fluidized bed combined cycle power system hinges
on the ability to produce a clean gas stream. The reasons for providing a
clean gas stream are two-fold. First, from an environmental point of view,
low levels of particulate emissions must be achieved so that limits set by the
EPA and state regulatory agencies can be met. Secondly, and more importantly
to the power system developer, the hot gas stream must be sufficiently free of
particulate matter to allow for long turbine life (References 1 and 2). In
general, it cannot be conclusively stated that meeting one criteria
automatically satisfies the other in alt cases. A lot depends on the required
control level of environmental emissions in a given location and the
particular design constraints of the turbine in question. Nevertheless, this
all points to the fact that high-temperature, high-pressure partfculate and
gaseous cleanup systems must be developed to provide for high thermodynamic
efficiency (by cleaning at elevated temperatures and pressures) and long
system life (by maintaining low levels of erosive and corrosive materials).
This report focuses predominately on those aspects related to particulate
collection.
To develop cleanup systems to meet environmental and turbine standards,
it is necessary to perform stream sampling both upstream and downstream of
each cleanup stage. In so doing, the removal efficiency of each stage can be
determined. The measurements must be accurate and comprehensive. Not only
-------
must total stream participate loading be measured but particle size
distribution must be determined. It is well known that the overall efficiency
of various particulate cleanup devices is sensitive to the upstream size
distribution. It is also well known that the particle size distribution
strongly effects the erosion and deposition of turbine components. In
addition, the chemical composition of the particulate is important from the
standpoint of corrosive reactions that can occur within the cleanup system and
on turbine surfaces.
Hence, it is clear that the sampling system must be accurate, reliable,
and allow for post examination of the sample. The system should provide the
capability to survey across the duct to determine nonuniformities in
particulate concentrations and particle size stratification.
The system constraints defined above all point to the selection of an
extractive sampling approach for the purpose of developing advanced power
systems. In situ, laser/optical approaches to particulate measurement are
currently under development (References 1 and 3). Most of these methodologies
are yet to be proven in high-temperature, high-pressure environments. Once
they are fully developed they will be extremely useful tools, but in many
applications their primary function will be for monitoring system upsets on an
operational power system. In addition, their operation is general-ly based on
the principle of optical light scattering to determine an optical diameter.
The more conventional extractive approaches discussed in this report collect
and size particulate matter on the basis of particle aerodynamic diameters.
This parameter directly correlates to the operational function of inertia! and
noninertial cleanup devices (cyclones, barrier filters, and granular beds) and
the turbine itself. In the case of laser/optical devices, the optical
diameter is often difficult to correlate with the aerodynamic particle
diameter. Optical devices offer less flexibility for instance, duct surveys
are more difficult and no portion of the particulate is available for chemical
analysis. Operation of some optical devices depends on maintaining a clean
window in the duct. This can be difficult to sustain for long periods of
operation.
The arguments delineated previously for the selection of an extractive
approach to particulate sampling for the development of PFBC power systems can
easily be extended to the .development of other coal conversion technologies
currently under development such as low-Btu gasification combined power cycle
and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) coal conversion technologies.
1.2 SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED
The purpose of the work performed under EPA Contract 68-02-2153 was to
assess and develop the technology required to perform high-temperature,
high-pressure sampling. Efforts were put forth in several directions. The
major emphasis of this program as mentioned earlier, was upon the development
of HTHP sampling hardware for coal energy conversion technologies. Other
activities included the development of special purpose sampling hardware for
coke oven sampling, a versatile probe for sampling conventional/combustion
processes at the Research Triangle Park, Environmental Protection Agency,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (RTP EPA/IERL) experimental
-------
facilities and the high-temperature calibration of series cyclone trains for
the EPA Source Assessment Sampler (SASS). A detailed description of these
activities can be found in References 4 and 5. Hence, the information in this
report concentrates on the findings of those activities related to coal
conversion technologies.
The major portion of work performed under this contract included the
development of sampling hardware and subsequent testing in a PFBC test rig.
These efforts were eventually brought to fruition at the Exxon Miniplant in
Linden, New Jersey in March 1977. Two test series were performed at duct
conditions of 9 atm and 1350°F. The detailed results of these tests are
described in References 6 and 7.
Valuable experience was gained in the design aspects of HTHP sampling
equipment and testing procedures. These related to probe design, sampling
procedures, and data analysis. The highlights of the information obtained are
explained in more detail in other portions of this report.
In addition to the emphasis placed on PFBC sampling, a background study
and planning effort was directed toward possible future sampling efforts in a
coal gasification facility. A survey was performed to identify likely test
sites and determine what sampling requirements and problem areas would be
encountered. This, in turn, led to a study of how best to sample gas streams
containing tar vapors. Several methods were proposed for separating and
collecting these tars from the solid particulate matter present. A design
exercise led to a proposed system for sampling in a coal gasification process
stream.
Concurrent with the experimental tasks performed at the Exxon Miniplant,
a state-of-the-art (SOA) review of HTHP technology was performed. The
activities carried out under this portion of the program were also varied.
This included a study of practical techniques for measuring stream variables
such as pressure, temperature, and velocity. A comprehensive telephone survey
was carried out to determine the possible future applications and requirements
for HTHP sampling.
The survey also included attention to special sampling problems that
might be expected to occur in practice. The highlights of all of the SOA
efforts are discussed in other sections of this report.
Other SOA review activities included a detailed study of problems
associated with the selection of materials for HTHP probes. Material problems
occurring in the reducing atmospheres found in gasification systems present a
much more severe problem than those associated with oxidizing environments
such as those in fluidized bed combustion applications. Highly corrosive
gases, such as H2S, present at elevated temperatures pose substantial
problems to the HTHP probe designer in selecting metals capable of
withstanding these exposures. A detailed discussion of these problems and
recommended solutions can be found in Reference 4.
Finally as a means of documenting the materials collected, a bibliography
of articles, reports, and books relating to HTHP sampling technology and
-------
selected coal conversion technologies was assembled and is contained as one of
the appendices of this report. In addition, through the various contacts
established in the course of the entire project, a mailing list of interested
persons was prepared. This mailing list is also contained in one of the
appendices of this report.
1.3 GENERAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The major effort conducted under this contract was, as mentioned
previously, a demonstration of the extractive HTHP sampling approach conducted
at the Exxon Miniplant. Test conditions were 9 atm and 1350°F. The major
findings of this portion of the program are summarized as follows.
During the first of two test series, it was demonstrated that the PFBC
test stream could be successfully contained using a concentric tube sliding
seal approach in conjunction with a double gate valve arrangement for sampler
isolation while not in use. Procedures for probe insertion, sampling, and
withdrawl were successfully demonstrated during the different test runs.
Test gases were cooled using a Dowtherm cooling system to a nominal
temperature of 450°F and conventional impactor and filter designs were
used. During the demonstration tests, particulate samples were co-llected both
on a series of seven impactor plates (two runs) and also on a thimble filter
(one run). Repeatability of test data using the two impactor test runs was
judged as good to excellent. Particulate matter was collected during the two
impactor runs over a size range of 0.3 ym to 30 m. This material was
subsequently examined photomicrographically and analyzed chemically. Results
of this analysis yielded no unexpected results.
A second test series was conducted to examine the possible occurrence of
alkali metal condensation during sample cool down prior to collection. The
sampling probe was reconfigured so that the sample first passed through a
scalping cyclone and total filter combination at test stream conditions.
Subsequently, the sample was cooled by the Dowtherm cooling system followed by
a second total filter. If alkali metal condensation had occurred then it was
expected that the downstream filter catch would show a larger alkali metal
content. Chemical analysis failed to show any significant alkali metal
condensation effects although these limited results were by no means
conclusive.
The Exxon results demonstrated that the methods developed and the results
produced proved wholly satisfactory for this application. Had the technology
been demonstrated at the time, cyclones calibrated for high-temperature,
high-pressure operation would have proven more versatile and eliminated the
need for cooling prior to collection.
The experience of the Exxon sampling program especially with regard to
hardware development and the results of the SOA survey pointed to various
conclusions regarding the universality of future sampler designs. Owing to
the wide range of test stream conditions including temperature, pressure, gas
composition, particulate loading, stream velocity, and duct diameter the
impact upon standardization of design is great. It was found that design
-------
requirements tend to be nonstandard, thus sampler designs require custom
design approaches in response to the particular set of above mentioned
parameters.
These broad design requirements inevitably lead to new engineering
problems and a consequential custom engineered system. Based on experience
gathered during this program, the costs of engineering, designing,
calibrating, and acceptance testing of these systems is deemed to be high. As
a result, the development costs of one-of-a-kind systems are high with
subsequent cost reduction occurring on duplicate systems if they are required.
Some new approaches to HTHP sampling system design were identified.
Future systems can conceivably be built at lower cost with greater versatility
and safety by using a "total enclosure" design approach in which the traveling
probe is totaly isolated, thus eliminating the need for sliding seals. As
mentioned previously, it was concluded that HTHP cyclones need to be developed
and tested as a means of increasing the allowable sampling time over that of
impactors. Where a cooling system may be required to condense water and acid
constituents, a water mist approach may prove simpler and less subject to
maintenance problems than the Dowtherm system used at Exxon.
In addition to these improvements, new forefronts of research- and
development were identified. The next challenging problem confronting HTHP
sampler developers is that of coal gasification emissions sampling. Problems
such as separation and collection of tars, selection of probe materials
compatible with corrosive, reducing atmospheres, and explosion hazards must be
overcome.
These aforementioned problems are not simple and will be overcome only
through diligent research and development programs. It is difficult to
foresee the process developers or other members of the private sector bearing
the full costs of development for advanced HTHP sampling systems. The burden,
therefore, falls on government agencies to provide the necessary research and
development funds that are required to bring these systems into common
application.
-------
SECTION 2
INTRODUCTION
This section describes the work performed under this program and
identifies the near and far term needs for HTHP sampling in the future.
2.1 PROGRAM WORK ACTIVITIES
The primary purpose of the program conducted under EPA Contract
68-02-2153 was to develop techniques and evaluate problems associated with
sampling at high temperature and pressure. Strong emphasis was placed upon
techniques required for sampling in coal conversion systems such as PFBC and
low- and high-Btu CG systems. The results of all contracted efforts are
described in References 4, 5, 6, and 7. The paragraphs that follow provide a
brief explanation of the various tasks undertaken during this 3-year program.
The reader is encouraged to consult the aforementioned references to obtain
detailed descriptions of these activities.
2.1.1 PFBC Sampler Hardware Development and Demonstration Tests
During the period of performance of this program, a major .effort was
devoted to engineering, designing, and building a prototype sampling system
for primary application in a PFBC. The design and engineering of such a
system is by no means simple, and constituted a major portion of the efforts
put forth by the project team.
Table 1 shows the general capabilities of the PFBC probe designed to
operate at the Exxon Miniplant at Linden, New Jersey. The nominal operating
conditions at Exxon were 9 atm and 1350°F. The general configuration of the
sampling system is shown in Figure 1. Here the following components shown
schematically in Figure 2 include: .
The sample probe assembly including the sample collection system (a
choice of a seven-stage University of Washington Mark III cascade
impactor and final filter or a thimble filter assembly alone)
A Dowtherm cooling system used to cool the sample to a nominal
temperature of 450°F so that a conventional impactor design could
be used since no SOA high-temperature, high-pressure collection
device was available
-------
TABLE 1. SAMPLING SYSTEM CAPABILITIES
Sample Environment
Temperature
Pressure
t Gas Constituency
CO
C02
NO
S02
H20
NOX
H2S
trace organics
trace inorganics
Stream Velocity
Particulate Grain Loadings
Particulate Size Range
(for classification)
Duct Size
Sampling System Configuration
Traverse Capability or Penetration
of Nozzle into Duct or Vessel
Access Process Port Requirements
650'C - 1000°C (1200°F - IBOO'F)
300 - 2000 kPa (3 - 20 atm)
Concentrations- subject to further
investigation, dependent on process
sampled
Stream Constituency Analysis
2-46 m/s (8 - 150 fps)
0-34.3 g/rr,3 (0-15 gr/ft3)
(subject to further consideration
and actual process characteristics)
0.2 - 26 microns (Notes: Larger
particulates may be acceptable in
most cases of total mass determination.
or if classified, they may be amenable
to "scalping" anead of classification
device)
Variable depending on probe; std.
is 20.3 cm (8 in.) l.D. minimum
Modular, so as to allo* in-situ or
extractive sampling by cool eel probe
Approximately 46 cm (18 in.) either
in-situ or extractive configuration
(some dependence on internal config-
uration of duct or vessel). Can be
extended by relatively minor hardware
modification (longer probe, chamber
extension, spool piece, etc.)
. Standard: 10.2 cm (4 in.) IPS
minimum, 136 kg (300 It.) flange
access through 10.2 cm (4 1n.)
IPS alloy gate value (Note:
Smaller ports may be acceptable
if special probe assembly is used)
Particulates, gases (inorganic and
organic, trace elements, trace
organics)
-------
00
Probe Drive
Hydraulic Cylinder
Microswitches For
Transverse Control
Dowtherm Coolant
Systems And Controls
Inner Tubular Housing
i V
Hydraulic Lines
Outer Tubular control Umbilical
Housing
Dowtherm Coolant
Supply And Return
Sample Line
Control Console
Hydraulic
Supply System
Control Valve
And Operator
Figure 1. High-temperature, high-pressure (PFBC) sampling system.
-------
Enclosure
1 (valves R housings)
L__
Motor
. 1 driven
| valve
Hand
valve
5
Sample
Inlet
Heat
tracing
1 _____ J
To vent
Impinqer
train
To vent
Back
pressure
regulator
Flov/ control
oven
Figure 2. System schematic.
-------
0 A hydraulic actuator system that was required to overcome the blowoff
loads created by use of the concentric traversing tube design (see
Section 4)
A flow control oven that includes orifice and metering valves to
maintain the flow at 450°F
A trace organic module containing a chemical solvent (XAD-2) to
remove trace organics present
Trace metal impinger train that contains selected chemical reactants"
to condense out various trace species
Various control consoles to monitor the systems and measure stream
and system parameters
The fully assembled probe is depicted in Figure 3.
Field tests were first conducted during March and early April 1977 at the
Exxon Miniplant. The sampling location for demonstration purposes was
downstream of the secondary cyclone and upstream of the final cleanup device
which at that time was proposed to be a Ducon granular bed filter. Test
procedures were developed to ensure safety for the operators and good data
reproducibility. Standard EPA Level 1 Environmental Assessment cleaning
procedures were utilized for the purpose of post-test washing of all probe
components to collect deposited materials.
Two test series were conducted. The first test series began in March
1977 with the second series taking place several weeks later after some
modified internal parts were fabricated. The purpose of the first series
(which consisted of three test runs) was to demonstrate that the general
approach taken with respect to stream containment and sample collection was
viable. The second test series was conducted to investigate whether alkali
metal compounds present in the flyash could have been condensing out of the
extracted flow due to the gas stream cooling to 450°F prior to collection.
Alkali metal compounds are particularly corrosive to turbine blades.
During the first test series the probe was configured as shown in
Figure 4(a) (where a thimble filter could be substituted for the cascade
impactor also). In the second test series the probe was configured as shown
in Figure 4(b). Here a scalping cyclone and high-temperature filter (saffil
alumina) were used to capture the bulk of particulate material present in the
test stream. The sample stream containing gaseous components and fines then
passed through the cooler and a multiple choke system designed to reduce the
pressure while minimizing stream cooling due to super-sonic expansion. The
sample line was then heat traced before entering a backup filter located
external to the main housing. The objective was to chemically analyze the
trace metal composition of the high- and low-temperature filters to determine
if condensation had occurred. The pertinent results of both test series are
discussed in Section 4.5 of this report. The reader is referred to
Reference 2 for a detailed discussion of the hardware and the test results.
2.1.2 Gasifier Sampling Site Survey
During the early phases of the program a potential secondary sampling
demonstration was identified namely at a pilot-scale coal gasification site.
At that point in the program the purpose was to identify particular problems
10
-------
Figure 3. HTHP sampling probe and duct interface valve.
-------
Normal
Cooler
£
Process Flow
Condensation Test
Scalping 732° C
Cyclone Filter
u
Process Flow
Impactor
Sample Flow
(a)
(Or Filter) Throttling
Valve
Choked
Orifices
(b)
Control
Valve
I
1
Cooler
^
i
i
204° C
(400° F)
Filter
Sample
Flow
Figure 4. Probe configuration.
-------
associated with sampling in a coal gasification facility. It was conceived at
that time that if sampling requirements could be met with a new or modified
probe, preparations for gasification sampling could be started under this
program.
A site survey as well as a telephone survey was conducted to identify
potential sampling locations, determine what the sampling requirements are,
and to identify what special problems require solutions. After the survey was
completed a work plan was prepared outlining a proposed program for sampling
at alternative sites yet to be determined. Several potential sites suggested
are shown in Table 2.
Upon completion of the survey it became evident that the scope of a
complete program for building a gasifier sampling probe and conducting a
sampling demonstration test would be beyond the funds available under the
existing program. The problems identified with sampling at a gasifier require
a major engineering and design effort to construct a new probe system. A
major problem in terms of sampling at a gasifier is that of developing a means
of condensing vaporous tars for analysis while keeping them separate from the
particulate material. Other problems peculiar to sampling in a gasifier
include the selection of materials that will be compatible with a highly
corrosive, reducing atmosphere and that of producing an explosion-proof
sampling system.
Since such an air ambitious program was not possible within the funds
available, it was decided that two of the problem areas be addressed under the
SOA review portion of this program. A study was conducted to explore various
means of collecting and separating tars from a gasification stream. Some of
these findings are discussed elsewhere in this report. A second effort
undertaken in the SOA review was that of examining the problems of material
compatibility in a gasification environment. This study was performed from a
metallurgist point of view. The complete findings of both of these studies
are found in Reference 4.
2.1.3 Source Assessment Sampling System Development (SASS)
A development task was undertaken to make improvements to the EPA's
recognized Level 1 Environmental Source Assessment Sampling System, the SASS.
Several modifications were made that gave improved performance, better
maintainability, and extended cyclone operating range. The aspect that most
related to HTHP technology was that of the development of a calibration test
facility designed to calibrate cyclones at elevated temperatures up to
400°F. A rotating dust table, dust pickup mechanism, and dispersion system
was conceived and developed under this task. A standard SASS cyclone train
consisting of three cyclones was calibrated at a temperature of 400°F. A
schematic of the test rig is shown in Figure 5. The complete details of this
effort are discussed in References 4 and 5.
2.1.4 Special Purpose Probes
Two special purpose probes were constructed for particular applications.
Both of these probes were based upon the basic SASS design and were modified
13
-------
TABLE 2. POTENTIAL GASIFIER SAMPLING SITES
Category
Facility
Developers/Sponsors Gasifier Type
Temperature Pressure
(F) (psia)
1. P<300 psia, T<1800 F,
gas composition re-
latively low tar con-
centrations
t Westinghouse
Waltz Mill
C02 Acceptor
P<300 psia, T<1800 F,
higher tar, particu-
late, sulfur loading
in product gas
Stirred bed
G.E. Gas
Schenectady, N.Y.
t Union Carbide
Ash Agglomer-
ation
P>300, T<1800
ERDA
Consolidation Coal
CO./ERDA, AGA
U.S. Bureau of
Mines
G.E./EPRI
Battelle/ERDA
Multiple fluid
beds with dolo-
mite regenera-
tor step
Fluidized bed
using dolomite/
limestone as
acceptor for C0?
and H2S
1400-1800 150-240
1500-1550 150-300
1000
300
Fixed bed reactor
with agitator
Moving fixed bed 1000-1100 170-350
reactor with coun-
tercurrent flow
Two fluidized beds 1600-1800 120
4.
t Bi-Gas
Homer City
Hi-Gas
Synthane
Grand Forks
Energy Research
Center
P>300, T>1800
t U-Gas
Bituminous Coal Re-
search/OCR-AGA
IGT/ERDA
U.S. Bureau of
Mines
ERDA
IGT/ERDA
Two-stage entrained 1800
beds, upflow con-
figurations
1000-1500
Two-stage fluid bed
hydro-gasifier;
electrothermal/
Oxygen/steam-iron/
steam-air bed char
gasifier for H^
Fluid bed reactor
Lurgi-slagging
design
Fluidized bed re-
actor, ash-
agglomeratino
gasifier
600-1200 1000-1500
1100
500-1000
400-1500 400
1900
300-350
14
-------
en
AIH
M1IO-
MIN
CVO.OCM
COlLtCTKM
CUP
CONTROL PANEL
Figure 5. Cyclone test apparatus.
-------
to operate at elevated temperatures. Both probe designs utilized a water
cooled jacket to maintain probe integrity. One of the probes shown in
Figure 6 was designed to operate in a variety of applications on experimental
combustion facilities located at the EPA Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratories at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. A description of the
probe itself and operational procedures are contained in Reference 4.
The second probe was of a similar but simplified water-cooled design and-
was specifically developed to evaluate the environmental pollutants emanating
from coke ovens during open door conditions.
2.1.5 State-of-the-Art (SOA) Review
Whereas the primary focus of the overall program was upon the PFBC
sampling effort, the secondary emphasis was placed upon the SOA review. The
major elements of the SOA review included:
A survey of facilities to determine near and far term HTH? sampling
needs
A study of techniques for measuring pressure, temperature, and
velocity in a particle laden stream
A study of means for collecting and separating tars and solid
particulate in a coal gasification stream
A survey of problems related to selection of materials compatible
with coal conversion environments
A bibliography of information relating to HTHP sampling system
technology
Most of the detailed findings for the second, third, and fourth studies
are contained in Reference 4. Some aspects, particularly related to tar
separation, are updated in this report. The results of the facility survey
are contained in Section 3 of this report.
In summation, the various elements that comprise the entire program were
very comprehensive in nature. The major thrust of the program was directed
toward PFBC probe development and field demonstration and comprised about 60
percent of the total effort.
2.2 NEAR AND FAR TERM NEEDS FOR HTHP SAMPLING
There is a current need for sophisticated extractive particulate sampling
equipment. Because this equipment is not generally available the-required
sampling is accomplished using modifications of equipment designed for
conventional environments and through simplified "homebuilt" devices which may
not yield accurate results. These approaches can provide order-of-magnitude
results that may be adequate for obtaining preliminary data but will not serve
for the more refined development of coal conversion technologies that will be
attempted soon.
16
-------
Figure 6. Liquid cooled sampling probe.
-------
The primary reason the required sampling equipment is not currently
available is that developing precision equipment for application in the severe
environments of the coal combustion zone is extremely expensive. Furthermore,
applications of this sampling equipment are generally limited to those few
test sites doing research on advanced coal conversion processes. Thus, there
is no viable current market for the equipment. For these reasons industry
will not sponsor development and, therefore, if it is to be available its
development will have to be sponsored by the government.
2.2.1 Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion
One of the most significant application areas for HTHP extractive
particle sampling equipment is associated with the development of pressurized
fluidized bed combined cycle powerplants. Potentially the process can utilize
a wide variety of coal types at high thermodynamic efficiency (40 percent) and
do so while controlling SOX and NOX without expensive add-on devices.
Major test facilities operating research PFBC systems are the CURL
facility in Leatherhead, England, the EPA/Exxon Miniplant in Linden,
New Jersey and the PFBC installed at Curtiss Wright Corporation in Woodbridge,
New Jersey. A new and larger facility is being built under International
Energy Association (IEA) sponsorship at Grimethorpe in England. American
Electric Power Corporation, in conjunction with Stal Laval, a Swedish turbine
manufacturer, is preparing preliminary designs for a utility-sized PFBC to be
built in Ohio. Each of these facilities will have continuing needs for
reliable extractive particle sampling equipment as process development
continues and the hot gas cleaning problem is addressed over the next several
years.
In the combined cycle process, coal is burned in a pressurized, fluidized
bed of sorbent material such as dolomite or limestone. The bed is fluidized
by injecting compressed air under and through the bed. The dolomite or
limestone is injected into the bed in sufficient quantity to react with the
sulfur gases released through this combustion of coal. Steam tubes are
located within the bed and water is passed through these tubes at a rate such
that the combustion temperature is controlled at 800 to 900°C. This
relatively low combustion temperature limits production of thermal NOX.
Most proposed PFBC systems are designed to operate at between 10 and
20 atm of pressure. The hot, high-pressure gases leaving the bed contain the
gaseous combustion products and large quantities of particulate flyash. This
HTHP gas stream is expanded across a gas turbine to drive the compressor and
generate electrical power in the second of the two cycles comprising the
combined cycle system. Development of methods to protect the gas turbine from
particulate erosion and corrosion represent the major tasks required before
commercialization of this advanced coal combustion technology can take place.
Reference 1 discusses the levels of cleanup required by various turbine
manufacturers.
To more fully understand the system, particle sampling is needed at
several locations within the process. These locations include sampling within
the bed, before and after one or more stages of cyclone separation, upstream
18
-------
and downstream the fine particle removal device, and downstream of the
turbine. Commercially available low-temperature, low-pressure equipment is
suitable only for sampling downstream of the turbine.
The high temperatures and pressures combined with erosive and corrosive
contaminants present in the operating environment create severe design and
materials limitations to the design of the sampling system. These factors
create problems in construction, sealing, cooling, and require the use of high
performance materials. Major design constraints for an HTHP particle sampler
are listed:
Severe environment Temperature, pressure, corrosives
Flow stream problems -- Tortuous paths
Confined space Limits work space
Variation in particle concentration -- Affects sampling time and
capacity
Safety For operators
Cost -- Must be affordable
As a result of the high pressure and temperature conditions, gas
distribution piping is costly and long straight sections ideal for particulate
sampling are seldom available. In addition, the sampling locations are often
cluttered with other equipment, structures, and piping. These conditions
require that the sampler be capable of isokinetic operation while also being
compact so that it can be installed where needed. For isokinetic sampling at
locations with a less than ideal flow distribution, the sampler must have the
capability to sense and be adjusted to changes in flow velocity and must
posses a high degree of transverse and angular mobility.
At the locations where sampling is needed, the particle mass
concentration can vary over several orders of magnitude. This means that the
sample quantities collected, the collection time, and the volume sampled or a
combination of these parameters must be capable of being varied if a single
design is to be used at different locations.
A gas leak failure of the system could pose a potentially lethal hazard
to nearby operating personnel. For this reason, the sampler must be rugged,
reliable, and be designed with operator safety as a major consideration. It
is highly desirable, if not mandatory, that the sampler be capable of remote
operation. This is probably the least expensive and most positive way to
ensure operator safety.
Cost is another design constraint. A review of the technical constraints
above should provide some understanding of why estimated costs of this
equipment have been high. This is especially true when the order quantities
are limited to one or two prototypes. As a result of several design efforts
to date at Acurex, the predicted costs for HTHP samplers have been reduced.
These reductions are a result of refinements in design concepts leading toward
simplification of hardware. Once the initial development costs are completed
and the design concept is demonstrated, additional copies of the most simple
probes should find application in other PFBC facilities at costs only somewhat
above those of more conventional sampling equipment.
19
-------
2.2.2 Coal Gasification Sampling Development
Coal gasification is basically an old technology that is receiving
renewed attention as an efficient means of extracting a gaseous fuel from coal
and using it either to the site of gasification or transporting the gas via
pipeline to be burned offsite. Gaseous fuel burned onsite in turbines or
boilers is usually of the low-Btu variety (100 to 300 Btu/scf) while high-Btu
gas (800 to 1000 Btu/scf) produced through a methanization process would be ~
used as a substitute pipeline fuel for natural gas.
The basic differences between the two process types is governed by the
operating temperatures and pressures and by whether the gasification bed is
air blown or oxygen blown. High-Btu gasification processes tend to be oxygen
blown and operate at extremely high temperatures and pressures. Reference 8
presents the significant features of more than 20 operating coal gasification
processes located in the U.S. Table 3, taken from Reference 9, presents a
comparision of 19 coal gasification processes. The typical operating
temperatures and pressures for each facility are shown. The operational
ranges for gasification system dictate the need for high-temperature,
high-pressure or at the least, high-temperature sampling approaches.
Operating pressures for some high-Btu gasification processes are enormous
even compared to PFBC sampling applications and dictate that special means of
pressure containment be used. For example, it is highly unlikely that a
pressure housing such as that used at the Exxon PFBC, (concentric tubes
separated by a sliding seal) be applicable at pressures as high as 1200 psi.
Sealing requirements would be untenable in any event. Also, the blowoff loads
would be extreme and would require a very large hydraulic actuation system to
traverse the probe. Alternatives to these approaches are discussed in
Section 4 of this report.
The needs for using in process HTHP particulate sampling systems in
gasification processes with which the authors of this report concur are
identified by the authors of Reference 8. They are as follows:
To measure particulate carryover from the reactor bed
To determine the chemical composition of the particulate leaving the
bed
To determine the concentration of mositure, tars, trace elements,
etc., at various points in the'process
To determine particulate levels prior to the methanization step (for
high-Btu applications) to prevent catalyst poisoning
To determine particulate level and composition upstream of the
turbines (for low-Btu applications)
To evaluate the performance and aid in the design of particulate
cleanup devices
Many of the above needs and requirements are shared with PFBC
applications. One requirement that is unique to sampling applications in coal
gasifiers is that of sampling tars.
20
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF COAL GASIFICATION PROCESSES
IDENTIFIER
BATTELI-E
CLEHCF.RY
WILPUTTE
NLiS
R-M
HERC
CE
1CT
FMC
BATTELLE
8CR
UF.ST
PERC
CONOCO
BI.W
CE
OCCIDENTAL
TEXACO
BCR
LOCATION
Rtchland, Wash.
Shoemakersvl 1 le , Pa.
Klngaport, Tenn.
Carey, Ohio
Worcester, Mass.
Morgantovn. U.Va.
Schenectady. N.Y.
Chicago. 111.
Prlncetovn, N.J.
Columbus, Ohio
Monroevllle. Pa.
Madison, Pa.
Brucetown, Pa.
Rapid City, S.D.
Alliance, Ohio
Windsor, Conn.
Lave me, Ca 1 .
Hont e Bel lo , Ca 1 .
Homer City, Pa .
TYPE OK
BED
Fixed
Fined
Fixed
Fl>ed
Fixed
Fixed
Fixed
FluldUed
FluldUed
FluldUed
Fluldlzed
Fli.'ldUed
FluldUed
FluldUed
F.n t ra Ined
Entrained
Entrained
Entrained
Ent ra Incd
TEMP.
°F
1500
1000
1200
10)0
1050
1200
1200
1200
1500
1800
laoo
1750
1750
1500
1 700
1700
1500
I5DO
1750
PRFSS:
psn:
5
1
15
1
1.5
125
100
1000
30
100
300
175
100D
150
35
15
50
300
1700
AIR OR
°7
Air
Air
Air
Air
Both
Air
Air
°2
Air
Air
Roth
Air
°2
(Air)
Bot h
Air
Air
°2
°2
i.n. COM.
FT TON /DAY
3
10 24
-
-
10.5 90
3.S 27
3
2.5 72
6 2.5
3 25
-
3 15
5 75
3.3 30
9 850
30 2840
1
2
9
O /AIR STTAM
I.B/IIR TOM/MR SAKl'I.lNi:
- Impart" r
Nu
No
Only to Satisfy P.PA
11.5 T/Hr 1.35 From Cyclone
3037 0.25 High Temperature Filter
No
1720 0.21 Crab Sample
No
No
- Planning
Yes
From Scruhber
n 1 .6 From Cyclone
30 T/llr 30 Tried, Filter Plugged
with Tar
372 T/Hr 35 No
No
No
Planning
OPERATING
Yes
Yen
Yes
Yes
Nu
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mid '76
Yea
Yes
Designing
Yes
Yes
I-ate '76
-------
During the gasification process trapped volatile materials in the coal is
released. Foremost among the variables affecting the quantities of tars and
other volatiles released are the operating pressure and temperature and the
coal type. Table 4 shows the relative quantities of tars and ash present in
four different coal types. Also as shown in Figure 7 the tar yield is
directly related to the percentage of volatiles present. It has also been
shown that in practice prolonged exposure to high temperatures in the bed
increases the tar yield. Table 5 shows the relative yield of gas, volatiles,-
and solids that are produced in several operating gasifiers. Acurex conducted
a separate survey of gasification facilities to determine process development
problems relating to tar production. These are discussed in further detail in
Section 3 of this report.
Basically, tars in the off gas present two major problems. First, as
system pressures and temperatures drop the tars may condense on the walls of
the process ducts or clog turbine passages. In addition, the tars themselves
present a health hazard to those who are exposed, whether at the process plant
or through pipeline application. These tars are known to be highly carcinogenic
and breathing their vapors or skin contact should be avoided entirely. On the
positive side, these tars are combustible; hence, their energy content cannot
be ignored.
Consequently, the presence of tars in the gasification process requires
measuring systems to identify their relative quantities and properties within
the process. At the same time, the process developer needs to understand the
quantities and size distributions of particulate to satisfy the needs and
requirements stated earlier. These simultaneous requirements demand that a
HTHP sampling system designed for gasifier application have the capability of
collecting and separating tars and particulates simultaneously. This is a
difficult requirement to fulfill in that throughout most of the gasification
process the tars are in a vapor phase. This means that if the tars are in a
vapor phase in the process duct they must first be condensed into a liquid
phase within the sampler. Unfortunately, the tars present in coal
gasification processes are very complex in molecular structure and do not
possess a single condensation temperature. Table 6 shows a percentage
breakdown of tars from the Grand Forks gasifier. Bear in mind that these are
broad classifications and that literally thousands of different molecular
species are present.
Condensation of the tar vapors forms a tar mist .of very fine particles.
The condensation of tar mist must take place downstream of the solid
particulate collection device otherwise one will obtain clogging in the probe
cyclones and a resultant catch which is a combination of tars and solid
particulates.
The proposed sequence of events that must take place within the probe are
shown in Figure 8. Here the solid particles are collected at the system
temperature and pressure so that the tars remain in a vapor phase. After the
solid particulate is removed the temperature is reduced below the condensation
temperature of the lowest fractions to be collected.
22
-------
TABLE 4. TYPICAL COAL AND GAS ANALYSIS
Coal rank
Origin
Dry coal analysis,
wt, %
C
N
0
H
S
Ash
Volatile matter
Fired carbon
Heating value
Btu/lb
Free swelling
Index
Coal ash softening
Temp, °F
Typical gas analysis
CO
N2
CO 2
CH4
Higher H/C
H2S
NH3
N2 + inerts
HHV. Btu/Scf
Anthracite
Pennsylvania
85.5
2.0
1.7
0.9
0.7
9.2
4.8
86.0
13,450
0
+2,700
Air 02
24.1 38.4
18.4 41.9
6.6 18.6
0.5 0.7
.0.5
0.1
50.3 0.4
142 266
Low vol . A
bituminous
Pocahontas
80.5
4.1
2.8
1.0
0.7
10.9
16.4
72.7
13,850
3
*~
Air
25.4
14.6
6.8
0.9
0.1
0.11
0.27
51.8
141
High vol . A
bituminous
W. Virginia
83.8
5.2
4.1
1.5
0.7
4.7
30.1
65.2
14,855
8
+2,700
Air
25.6
13.8
6.4
1.8
0.3
0.12
0.05
51.9
152
High vol. C
bituminous
Ohio
67.0
4.7
6.3
1.1
4.0
16.9
37.1
- 46.0
12,195
4
2,360
Air 02
25.4 39.2
12.3 31.4
4.6 16.2
1.7 3.3
0.1 0.8
0.30 1.1
0.05 0.1
55.3 7.9
139 286
23
-------
14
12
O>
O>
^ 10
O
u
c
c
O
en
oi
QJ
S_
fO
Legend
D Anthracite (1P1)
O LVA bituminous (1P1)
O HVC bituminous (3 pts)
A HVA bituminous (14 pts)
10 20 ' 30
Coal volatile matter, % by wt.
40
Figure 7. Tar yield as a function of coal volatile
matter -- pilot gas producer.
24
-------
TABLE 5. PRIMARY CONVERTERS -- DISTRIBUTION OF ENERGY
INTO PRODUCTS AND BYPRODUCTS
?ro:e 6 «
Koppe ri-Totze'*
Texaco
U-CAS
BI-GA3
CCj-Acceptsr
KYGAS-Oxyger.
Syr.ihane
Union Carbide ' Eartelle
W i rif. 1 e r
V.' e 1 1 r~, a ~ - G il u e h a
Lu.-f i
COED
TO5COAL
Carre::
ri-COAL
csr
SCR
Ca 9
95
95
96
95
94
95
71
96
96
80
72
65
25
6
35
10
10
20
Percent o! Ounsut
Tan J. Oils
-
--
--
--
3
4
--
18
16
2C
IS
15
"5
7 i
55
Enerrv
Char*. Ash.
i> Fe siiue
5
5
4
5
6
>
25
4
4
20
10
15
i c.
76
60
15
5
25 .
25
-------
TABLE 6. GRAND FORKS SLAGGING LURGI TAR ANALYSIS3
Constituents Pet
Saturated hydrocarbon 10.3
Nonvolatile residue 7.7
Phenol/cresol/xylenol 22.4
Indanol 1.0
Dibenzofuran 3.78
Hydroxyanthracene 1.01
Indanes 0.22
Naphthol 3.93
Indenes 0.96
Pyridines 1.81
Quinolines 1.35
Naphthalene 4.76
Acenaphthene/biphenyl 0.37
Fluorene/acenaphthalene 1.76
Phenanthrene/anthracene 0.85
Oihydropyrene 0.81
Pyrene/fluoranthene 0.49
Chrysene 0.49
Benzenes 1.78
Indole . 0.23
Carbazole 0.21
Benzocarbazole 0
Benzofuran 5.16
Benzonapthofuran 2.30
Performed by mass spectrometry
26
-------
SAMPLE EXTRACTION FROM
PROCESS DUCT
SOLID PARTICULATE
COLLECTION
APPROPRIATE TEMPERATURE
AND PRESSURE REDUCTION
TAR
COLLECTION
LIGHT OIL AND
WATER COLLECTION
SAMPLE GAS
VENTING OR ANALYSIS
Figure 8. Gasification process sampling scheme.
27
-------
This forms a fine tar that is difficult to coalesce by impingement or
other inertia! approaches (see Reference 4). Consequently, other means must
be used to collect the tars. Several approaches to tar collection were
studied during this program. A detailed discussion of these methods is
presented in Reference 4. A further discussion of these approaches is also
contained in Section 5 of this report. These approaches included:
Inertia! separators
Filters
Electrostatic precipitators
Packed beds
Scrubbers
The selection and development of one of these tar collection devices is
critical to the development of a HTHP sampling system for gasification
application. The suggested approach (recommended by University of California
at Berkeley researchers) is to use a packed bed of inert ceramic material
filled with pyridine, CH(CHCH)2N, as a tar solvent. The pyridine can later
be evaporated away. Several collection schemes seem viable using both an ESP
and/or a packed solvent bed. Figure 9 shows three possible tar collection
schemes. The configuration upstream of the tar collectors is the same in all
three cases. It consists of collecting the particulate at high temperature
and pressure and then rapidly chilling the gas to condense the tar vapors to
form a mist. Chilling to a point just above the condensation temperature for
water (at the local P) should be sufficient. Scheme 1 uses a packed bed
scrubber in series with an ESP to collect the tars. This arrangement presumes
that a packed bed will not be able to remove all the submicron tar mist.
Thus, the ESP design effort will be simpler since the operating regime is
confined to submicron particles. The filter downstream will collect any
residual materials. The gas can then be passed through an impfnger train (not
shown) to remove any condensibles not removed upstream such as light oils. In
Scheme 2 the ESP is replaced entirely by the packed bed. Finally, Scheme 3
shows the ESP as the primary collection device and would be used along only if
the packed bed approach proved ineffective.
Other problems that must be overcome in developing the entire system are
highlighted in Table 7. Finally, to illustrate typical sampling conditions
Figures 10 and 11 and Tables 8 and 9 are presented. These figures and tables
present the operating conditions and required sampling locations at the
Westinghouse fluidized bed gasification'process and the DOE Morgantown stirred
bed gasification system.
In summary, there exists the requirement to develop gasification sampling
systems and difficult development problems lie ahead.
2.2.3 Other HTHP Particulate Sampling Needs
Applications for special purpose high-temperature, high-pressure samplers
exist in a few areas other than PFBC and gasifiers. Two applications recently
identified were sampling in the exhaust of an MHD channel and an application
at a catalytic cracking plant to determine interstage cyclone efficiency
28
-------
r
SAMPLE
L.
LJ i_f i r
=ffl=K
CYCLONE TRAIN
V !c
/ i
CONDENSER
FINAL
PARTICULATE 1
FILTER 1
1
1.
PACKED BED/
SOLVENT BATH
2.
ESP
OR
T^^TN333*" ANALYSIS
FILTER IF REQUIRED
=
FILTER
A-19005
]=
FILTER
3.
ESP
>==
FILTER
Figure 9. Alternative approaches to tar collection for gasification sampling system.
-------
TABLE 7. DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS OF HTHP GASIFICATION SAMPLERS
Problem
Reason
Solution
Cyclones must be operated
at high temperature and
pressure (1000°F, 25 atm
typ.)
Cyclone size variations
with temperature, pres-
sure, flowrate
Isokinetic sampling
Cyclone accessability
t Maintain pressurized
environment exterior
to cyclone bodies
Maintain cyclone train at
hiqh temperature (1000°F)
Collection of heavy
hydrocarbon species (tars)
Sample pressure, temper-
ature reduction prior to
adsorption cartridge
Flowrate control
Determination of actual
cyclone and sample gas
flow rates
t Sample transport
t Coolant requirements
Variations in impinger
flowrate
In-probe catalytic
effects
Corrosion, erosion at
high temperature and
pressure
Particulate removal must be
performed initially. Tempera-
ture and pressure reductions
allow heavy HC species to
condense
Require a known cut size for
modified cyclone designs
Isokinetics must be maintained
for particulate sampling
Cyclone system integral to the
probe must be accessible for
disassembly/sample collection
Avoid large pressure differ-
tial between outside and in-
side of cyclones
Avoid condensation of heavy
hydrocarbon species (tars)
in cyclones
Collection must be performed
prior to XAD-2 adsorption
XAD-2 must be operated at
20°C, atmospheric pressure
Control gas flows to cyclones
and absorber/impinger com-
ponents
Maintain proper cyclone flow-
rates. Knowledge of total
sample volume
Maintain sample flow through
the system
Maintain probe structural
integrity
May affect chemical absorp-
tion efficiency
Maintain sample chemical
integrity between process ex-
traction and final analysis
Effects on final design may be
different than at lower temper-
atures and pressures
Smaller actual flow rate require-
ments (due to increased pressure
allow smaller cyclone sizes.
Cyclone train can be made inte-
gral to the probe body
Calculations available to demon-
strate cut size variation with
pressure (none), temperature
(small), and flowrate (moderate)
Isokinetics achieved as in present
system with change of probe nozzle
Provisions made for probe dis-
assembly and cyclone removal.
Time requirements are not critical
Utilize exterior pressure system
or pressure equalization line to
sample source
Requires possible heating/cooling.
Electrical heating probably most
applicable in contained pressur-
ized environment
Collection by temperature reduc-
tion at high pressure. Efficient
collection chamber design is re-
quired
Throttle valve, pressure regulator,
critical orifice utilized for pres-
sure reduction. Temperature re-
duction by oven and gas cooler
Utilize flow control valve and
critical orifice in controlled
temperature environment
Use of orifices and/or gas flow
meter with temperature and pres-
sure measurement taken to compute
other system location flowrates
Source pressure adequate - no
pumping required -
Coolant circulation in probe body
may be required
Impinger bottle nozzle size
variation may be required
Study warranted to determine
probe/sample interactions at
HTHP
Choose appropriate materials to
alleviate corrosion. Analyze
erosion problems at HTHP
30
-------
200-3'>i) Ib/hr
part Kuldte
OEVOLAIlLl/tK
coj)
I ,600"f
IS Aim
Sjniple _UKdl ion ?
\ ,400"F - 1 .600 F, IS Aim
Chjr
?.000CF
IS Atm
S It."din ,ini1 .11 r
Gasifier
\
Ic Loc.it ion I
I .41)0 'F - I .600'
15 Atm
Cyclone
Product q.is
6.000 Ib/hr
ISO Btu/itf
Quench
vessel
f MIL'S
tar. 011
f mes
Typical transport duct
Kl'f rjc tory
18" Sch 80 pipe
6" 10
Ash
Figure 10. Westinghouse fluidized bed gasification process.
-------
Primary sample location 1 Alternate lample location 2
£>S\ Crushed coa
CO
ro
Cyclone
Ash
Pressure
letdown
orifice
Mufflers
To stack
Figure 11. DOE MERC stirred bed gasification system.
-------
TABLE 8. WESTINGHOUSE PDU GAS STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic
Value
Temperature
Pressure
Stream velocity
Approximate gas
composition
Particulate loading
Cyclone outlet
Cyclone inlet
1,400 °F to 1,600°F
225 psig
22 to 23 fps
CO: 17.5%, C02:9%, H2:13r0
H20:8%, CH4:2.5%, N2:50% (mole %)
8 gr/acf to 20 gr/acf
100 gr/acf
TABLE 9. MORGANTOWN STIRRED BED GAS STREAM CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic
Value
Temperature
Pressure
Stream velocity
Approximate gas composition
(dry basis, mole percent)
Particulate loading:
Gasifier outlet
Cyclone outlet
Tar and oil loading
Gasifier outlet
Moisture content
1200°F nominal with excursions to 800°F
150 psig nominal, 300 psig maximum
29 to 40 fps
CO: 16:2 percent, C02: 13.5 percent,
H2: 16.7 percent, H2S: 0.5 percent,
CH/j: 2.5 percent, N2: 50 percent
10 gr/acf
1 gr/acf
17 gr/acf
10 to 20 percent
33
-------
where a cyclone train was specified for catalyst removal upstream of a turbine
gas expander.
Particle sampling in the MHD gas stream does not involve high pressures
but does involve high temperatures. At the sampling location, temperatures
were stated to be as high as 1370°C. The MHD exhaust also contains
corrosive alkali seed material in addition to the gaseous and particulate
products of coal combustion. These corrosives in combination with the extreme
temperatures, present severe material selection problems for sampler design.
One must be concerned about contaminating the sample collected through contact
with the sampler probe itself. As MHD development continues, particle
samplers will need to be adapted so that characteristics of particles in the
MHD gas stream can be characterized.
Catalytic petroleum crackers operate at pressures of 2 to 3 atmospheres
and exhaust temperatures of nominally 600°C. In the process the hot,
high-pressure gas stream containing particles of catalyst is passed through a
turbine device known as an expander. This step removes a portion of the
energy in the gas stream and contributes in large part to making the process
cost effective.
Catalyst contained in the gas stream is removed using several, stages of
cyclone separation. This removal recovers some of the catalyst material and
is needed to protect the expander from erosion. Since the catalyst particles
are originally large ( 1000 m) those small particles that leave the cracker
are generated by grinding action between each other. Thus, they tend toward a
larger size fraction capable of removal by inertia! separation. Even so, such
separation requires good cyclone performance to ensure turbine expander life
of greater than 2 years.
To obtain the needed level of performance up to four cyclones in series
are used. To monitor performance of these cyclone stages and help in
improving designs to lower the fraction of particles released to the
atmosphere through the turbine expander it is desirable to be able to measure
particle concentration in the HTHP region of the ducting. A small market
would exist for inexpensive general purpose samplers capable of operation in
this application. However, the incentive for the petroleum industry or for
cyclone manufacturers to pay for development of such equipment is lacking.
34
-------
SECTION 3
SURVEY OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
As a part of the SOA review task of the overall program, a survey of
potential HTHP sampler users was conducted. The reasons for conducting this
survey were several. In the paragraphs that follow, the objectives of the
survey will be discussed along with a discussion of the general findings.
3.1 OBJECTIVES OF SURVEY
The formal telephone survey was conducted over a period of 1 year
beginning in April 1976. This formal survey was followed by more informal
inquiries which continued until the end of the program; however, only the
formal portion is reported here."
The first objective of the survey was to contact facilities involved in
advanced coal conversion technologies to learn the goals and objectives of
each of these programs from the standpoint of process development. Included
in the inquiries was a determination of the operational environmental
conditions at the locations where particulate sampling would be likely to
occur. This included information such as the range of temperatures,
pressures, and velocities that could be encountered.
Another objective was to determine what need, if any, currently existed
or would exist in the future for particulate sampling within the process
stream. In addition, information was sought as to whether particulate
sampling would (1) be a necessity in terms of a tool for process development
or (2) a means of acquiring additional information for determining process
mass and energy balances. Inquiries relating to ground rules that might be
imposed for sampling at a particular facility were also made. This would
relate to safety requirements such as explosion proofing, typical constraints,
and allowable shutdown periods for operation of the facility. Questions were
posed as to whether any special problems such as sampler plugging and
corrosive and/or erosive conditions that might inhibit sampling attempts.
Another objective was to determine what types of sampling had been done
to date, the results that were obtained, and where the sampling equipment was
obtained. Also, if sampling had actually be done (whether gaseous or
particulate), what problems had occurred. If types of equipment were
suggested or identified, inquiries were made to the manufacturers to determine
their applicability to HTHP sampling conditions. General inquiries to experts
in the field of coal conversion instrumentation were also made.
35
-------
Finally, inquiries were made to identify process developers that might
have an immediate sampling need which could be filled as part of the EPA
program. This included inquiries to coal gasification developers who might
have provided the opportunity to sample at their facility.
3.2 GENERAL FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY
Several members of the Acurex staff were involved in conducting the
survey. The complete survey results are too extensive to cover in detail.
Each phone contact was documented with a typewritten telephone memorandum and
filed chronologically. These memorandum fill four 1-inch loose leaf
notebooks. To condense this voluminous quantity of material, Table 10 was
constructed. In this table, an effort was made to summarize some of the high
points of the information that was collected. In addition to Table 10, a list
of contacts was established that includes some persons that were not contacted
directly during the survey, but who contacted us or attended conferences
related to HTHP technology. This list is presented in Appendix A.
Without going into details of specific contacts, the results of the
survey can be summarized as follows.
At the time of the survey, .very few of the process developers, were aware
of the EPA-sponsored HTHP program that is the subject of this report. Most
became interested, however, once the purpose of the program was explained.
Many asked to receive additional information regarding the equipment that was
under development.
During the period of the survey, most of the process developers were in
the early stages of shaking down their facilities and bringing the systems up
to desired performance specifications. In most cases, the processes had not
been developed to the point where final stage cleanup devices had been brought
online. In a few cases, the process was currently operating on a substitute
fuel such as fuel oil or natural gas to test various operational characteristics
of the process. In these specific instances, there was little immediate interest
in performing in-process HTHP sampling. They did express the desire to perform
particulate sampling at some point in the future once the final cleanup devices
had been installed. This would naturally become a necessity to evaluate the
performance of the final cleanup systems before the turbine stage could be
installed.
Evaluation of final cleanup devices was the primary use to which HTHP
sampling would be put as expressed by the developers. The second most often
cited need for HTHP sampling was stated to be to establish mass and energy
balances within the process. Where the latter need was expressed, HTHP
sampling was of more near term importance to the process developer. For
example, the viability of some processes depends upon the return of
particulate captured in the first and second stage process cyclones to the
reactor bed.
Naturally, one means of establishing quantities of particulate leaving
and returning to the reactor is by virtue of particulate sampling. A few
process developers even expressed the desire to be able to sample particulate
36
-------
TABLE 10. SURVEY OF COAL CONVERSION DEMONSTRATION FACILITIES AND SAMPLING EQUIPMENT
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
4/12/76 A. D. Little
4/12/76 ERDA
4/16/76
4/20/76
Radian
Exxon/Linden
00
4/22/76 ERDA
4/23/76 ERDA
4/27/76 Mitre
4/30/76 EPRI
P. Levins
G. Manning
Gene Cavanaugh
R. Hoke
F. Crim
G. Manning
M. Sluyter
J. Shang
M. Gluckman
4/30/76
Gilbert Associates W. Szwab
EPA in-house sampling
task
Telecon to get acquainted
with George Manning of
Advanced Power Group of
ERDA
Low Btu Gasification EA
Exxon pretest survey
HTHP Sampling
(Acurex-funded)
HTHP Sampling
(Acurex-funded)
Combustion Power Granular
Bed Filter program
Telecon to identify
potential coal sampling
sites
ERDA Sampling Survey
P. Levins will discuss the ADL role in the
EPA In-house sampling program during a visit
to RTP during week ending 5/16. Suggested
a mutual visit.
Manning Interested In capability of sampling
inlet conditions to turbines. Would like to
be Invited to second sampling session at
Exxon. Will assist Acurex 1n getting into a
gasifier plant.
Radian has not gotten Into their EA to any
great extent. Favors open communication.
Pretest survey to be held at end of May.
Facility available for sampling on
December 1976.
Interested In continuous mass monitor In
HTHP environment for process control to
protect turbine
Involved In MHD development. Must sell
uniqueness of HTHP sampler over conventional
sampler. Suggest visit to John Dlx, Coal MHD
program at UTS I. Suggests we keep Sluyter
informed of HTHP progress.
Chairman of Panel reviewing Combustion Power
GBF program. Interested in hot particle
collection. Indicates other possible
sampling sites (FBC program at Rivesville,
West Virginia, and PFBC program at Argonne).
"No operational full scale gasifier In the
U.S.A. at present." Gave list of small
scale gasification plants and contacts.
Briefed him on HTHP program
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
4/30/76 ERDA
4/30/76 Radian
5/3/76 ERDA
5/3/76 EPA/North Carolina
co 5/4/76 Westinghouse/
0° Waltz Mill
5/5/76 Westinghouse/
Waltz Mill
5/5/76 Radian
5/6/76 Westinghouse
Research Labs
5/11/76 Radian
5/12/76 ERDA/Pittsburgh
5/12/76 Spectron
T. K. Lau
G. Cavanaugh
G. Weth
W. Kuykendal
D. Keairns
D. Archer
G. Cavanaugh
Brian Lancaster
F. Mesich
D. Nakles
M. Fanner
Instrumentation for
gasifiers and FBC's
Followup on Cavanaugh1s
visit to RTP
Recent progress related
to HTHP work
More info on Weth call
Westinghouse gasifier
facility at Waltz Mill
Westinghouse gasifier
Radian's ERDA contract to
make gasifier
measurements
Status of
gasification plant and
sampling
Radian's ERDA and EPA
contracts
Inquiry about HTHP program
Laser-doppler velocimeter
Brief discussion of HTHP program
Radian's Low Btu/EA still in planning stage.
Discussed manner by which Acurex HTHP-TLE
will interact with Radian's EA Radian
experts to work with Lurgi plant in
Yugoslavia.
Curtiss Wright and GE have turbine cleanup
contracts Leeds and Northrup and Spectron
are developing particulate instrumentation
Bill gave some background on L & N and
Spectron contracts
Operates at 225 psi and 1600°F to 2100°F.
They are interested in sampling for gases
and particulates
Interested in sampling upstream of cyclone
gave physical data ~ will relay needs to
ERDA
Got organization roles straight -- any future
work should be coordinated with Rhodes and
Kuykendal
They will be using a simple approach but want
to consider Acurex technology
Have interest in SASS train general info
on ERDA activities
He was interested in finding out more about
HTHP work
Description of apparatus will be testing
at Argonne FBC
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Sumnary
OJ
5/13/76 Leeds & Northrup S. Katy
5/14/76 Westinghouse/ D. Archer
Waltz Hill
5/19/76 GE Schenectedy J. Peterson
5/20/76 Curtiss-Wright C. E. Irion
5/21/76 Leeds & Northrup Or. Muly
5/27/76 Caltech R. Flagin
5/28/76 MIT J. Howard
5/28/76 ERDA/Pittsburgh J. Biordi
6/1/76 Univ. of North Dakota Gene Baker
6/1/76
6/1/76
EPRI
Caltech
6/1/76 Exxon Miniplant
Don Teixeria
George Gavales
M. Nutkis
Laser device to measure
particulate size
distribution
Arrangements for trip
ERDA hot gas cleanup
contract
ERDA hot gas cleanup
contract
L & N ERDA contract
to measure particulates
Discuss Academic contacts
Discussion of MIT coal
gasification work
Probe sampling reports
Project Liquite
HTHP sampling problems
Cool Pyrolysis Research
Field sampling
General info on program suggested a call
to Dr. Muly
ERDA not very interested in joint program
with EPA
Will be testing at Exxon interested in
sampling during tests ~ suggested we talk
to GE gasifier people
Will be using CW PFBC, 6 atm, 1350°F to
1700°F, using Rover turbine interested
in HTHP work
Will be testing at Argonne Labs can
measure to lu size over a 2-foot path
testing to begin in 8 to 9 months
Suggested I call Howard (MIT), Gavoles
(Caltech), England (JPL) and Teixeira (EPRI)
Has been doing sampling using water injection
-- plans to sample at 100 atm - suggested
call to J. Biordi at ERDA, Pittsburgh
They will send reports interested in
Acurex flame sampling work
General info on operating conditions
2500 psi, 950°F high grade solid fuel
Suggested we call KVB or UCB
Doing sampling at one atm. Using gas
chromatograph and spectograph.
Discussed details of dimensions and valves
required
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date Facility
6/4/76 JPL
Person
Contacted
E. England
Subject
Sampling data
Sumnary
Flame and Combustion, and Coal-Fired
atm
6/4/76 G. E. Schenectedy
6/8/76 Pitsburgh & Midway
6/8/76 Acurex/EPA
6/10/76 PAMCO
6/14/76 Stone & Webster
Boston, MA
6/17/76 Texaco Res. Lab.,
Montebello, CA
Texaco Develop. Corp.
New York, NY
6/17/76 Bureau of Mines,
Morgantown, W.VA
6/17/76 Atomics International
Div/Rockwell
International Corp.
P. Palmer, Project
Engineer, Power
Cycles and fuel
J. Piatt, Tech.
info officer
N. Jaffe
J. Ward, Plant Mgr.
R. C. Stone
Dr. Slinger
J. Moranque, V.P.
R. Casmer,
Hardware Eng.
A. Kohl
GE/EPRI Gasifier Project:
GE-GASD
PAMCO's fuel processing
plant to process low
sulfur solid fuel from
coal and liquid
feedstock
Additional info on PAMCO
fuel processing plant
from H. Fisher, ERDA
Obtain sampling
information for PAMCO's
solvent Refined Coal
Pilot Plant
Curtis Wright Fluidized
Bed Combustor Gas-
Turbine Project
Pilot Scale Gasifiers
at Montebello
BuMines gasifier
Pilot Coal Gasification
Plant at Morwalk Harbor
Station, CO, Light &
Power Company
furnace sampling. Problems with fuel rich
regions, NO reduced by C.
Lurgi type gasifier operational, 170 psia
1100°F, eventually 350 psia and 300°F with
spray part. Add-on. Receptive to
sampling-ports available at top of bed.
50 to 100 ton/day plant operating at
1500 psig and 850°F. Have sampled using
refinery techniques (grab).
Obtained Project Report and Fisher suggested
contact J. Ward, PAMCO regarding sampling
techniques
Sampling for process control, sample gases
passed thru gas chromotograph. Liquids
filtered and fractional distillation
performed; interim reports forwarded.
Curtis to build small g.t. rig to test
blade material also conceptual design
(1977) for 500 MW utility.
No technical information published on
gasifiers pressure and temperature as high
as 2500 psia and 3000°F
ERDA funded. 100 to 300 psig, 1100°F to
1300°F. Sampling with Lear Siegler and
Bendix gas chromatograph.
Project stopped but smaller scale plant to
be built at Rockwell test facility, Canoga
Park, CA in preliminary design
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Sumnary
6/18/76 U.S. Bureau of Mines, H. Chambers
Pittsburgh, PA
6/18/76 Fluor Eng., J. M. Moe
Los Angeles, CA
6/18/76 Atomics International C. Trilling
Div./Rockwell
International Corp.
' 6/22/76 Argonne Labs
6/29/76 Radian Corp.
7/2/76 U.S. Bureau of Mines
Synthane Coal
Gasification Plant
7/2/76 Battelle
Dr. N. O'Fallon
G. Cavanaugh
Dr. J. Strakey
W. Corder
7/2/76 USBM Synthane Plant Dr. J. Starkey
Hydrane Gasification
Plant
Texas Eastern Transmission
Co. Coal Gasification
years plant at
Four Corners, NM
Molten Salt Gasification
Plant
Article "Monitoring Coal
Energy Processes" in
Processes" in Industrial
Research, June 1976,
. co-authored by O'Fallon
Six Lurgi gasifiers
installed in Yugoslavia
Synthane Coal Gasification
Plant
Ask Agglomeration Gasifier
Interest in sampling
program and fact finding
One stage process operating at 1000 psi and
900°C. Gas chromatograph of H2, CH4, CO,
C02, C2Hs, H20, H2S, C3H8. Problems with
particulate plugging report to be sent.
Design of 26 units at 500 psia, 700°F
completed. Construction delayed 2 to 3
due to funding problems.
Intermittent operating experience with pilot
plant 1 atm at 1700°F to 1900°F under
contract to ERDA to build 5-ton/hr pilot
plant (startup late 1977) at 1 to 20 atm
and 1700°F to 1900°F
To send copy of Argonne report to be
completed in next few months
Plant operates at 300 to 350 psi, interested
in sampling (grab)
Plant to produce high-Btu pipeline gas from
coal. Gas cleanup by cyclones followed by
scrubbers sampling with gas chromatograph
downstream of scrubbers. No interest in
outside help with sampling.
Plant has two fluidized beds; one gasifier
and one combustor at 100 psi and 1600°F.
Interested in both gaseous and particulate
sampling.
Had not started to gasify coal. Doing their
own sampling.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
7/2/76 Battelle ash W. Corder
agglomeration gasifier
7/2/76 Morgantown Energy A. Liberatore
Research Center
7/2/76 Curtis-Wright E. Garruto
7/6/76 C02 Acceptor Plant T. Holen
7/6/76 Bi-gas D. Hull
7/9/76 Radian 6. Cavenaugh
7/9/76 McDowell-Wellman R. Wellman
7/23/76 GE Gasifier J. Wang
Schenectady
7/26/76 U.C. Berkeley B. Macknick
8/3/79 C02 Acceptor T. Holen
8/3/76 Energy Research Center R. Ellman
Grand Forks
8/5/76 Curtiss-Wright
D. Weller
Interest in sampling
program and fact finding
Interest in sampling
program and fact finding
Guidance in sampling at CW
Interest in sampling
program and fact finding
Interest in sampling
program and fact finding
Plans to sample at CO2
acceptor
Wellman-Galusha gasifiers
HTHP Sampling
ERDA-sponsored tar
characterization program
Sampling interest and
sampling plans by Radian
Interest in sampling
program
Sampling interest
Will be fully operational in about 2 months
1800°F and 100 psi have been doing gas
sampling themselves; will be interested in
sampling ahead of turbine
Are currently sampling at four locations for
particulate and gases having problems
with tar condensates
Receptive to an EPA-funded sampling program
(95 psia, 1700°F)
Have done some sampling at 150 psi and 1500°F
particulate clogging problems interest in
gasifier overhead sampling
Sampling for gases, 1500 psi, 1700°F.
Interested in method of measuring char.
Under ERDA contract -- not sure if they will
be sampling at C02 acceptor
Identified three operational units in
Penn/Ohio region
Sampling for condensed tars, 10 to 20 atm,
300°F to 600°F
Discussed funded program to determine vapor
pressure and condensation temperatures of
CO tars
Radian will make trace element mass balances
for process streams under ERDA contract
GFERC has interest in particulate sizing on
the four-stage condenser
Desire opacity, NOX, SOX, particulate,
etc., measurements
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
8/26/76 Energy Research Center R. Ellman
Grand Forks
CO
8/30/76 U.C. Berkeley
9/3/76 Environmental
Systems Corp.
9/9/76 Steams-Rodger
9/10/76 Riley-Stoker
9/10/76 GFERC
9/15/76 Bi-gas
9/20/76 GFERC
9/20/76 C02 Acceptor
9/20/76 Westinghouse/Waltz
Mill Gasifier
9/23/76 Sandia Corp
9/24/76 Riley-Stoker
B. Macknick
B. Nuspliger
B. Scheck
S. Johnson
R. Ellman
0. Hull
R. Ellman
T. Holen
Suresh Tendulkar
D. Hartley
B. Lisauskas
GFERC operational status
and Ellman contact with
ERDA
Tar characterization
study for ERDA
PILLS devices
ERDA, FBC award
Tar collection techniques
Interest in HTHP
Progress update on Bi-gas
Sampling in GFERC
Status of C02 acceptor
Tar collection at Waltz
Mill
Sandia ERDA Project
Tar properties
ERDA has not responded to Ellman yet. GFERC
currently operating at 200 psi. Current
sampling needs are low.
Methods of tar collection, storage, and
handling summarized. Possible consulting
arrangement discussed.
General discussion of product line
Followup call to determine HTHP sampling
needs
Tars form fine mists they used millipore
filters to remove them
They have run for 3 to 4 hours on lignite at
200 psi will go to 400 psi in October
Still not operating on coal; expects to be
coal fired in late October
Ellman to call Grua for impact to his
decision
Discussed sampling operational problems tar
problems
Tars are in the 8 to 10 percent of coal feed
range ESP's are effective in removing
mist from CG lines; property data lacking
Funded to provide diagnostic equipment
assessment for coal-fired combustion
processes
Separate by size using cascade impactors;
molecular wts = 300 to 800 Ib/lb-mole; also
gave gas properties
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
10/4/76
10/6/76
10/6/76
Energy Research Center Dr. M. F. Scharff
Morgantown
Energy Research Center R. Ellman
Grand Folks
ERDA
Oak Ridge
10/7/79 U.C. Berkeley
10/12/76 ERDA
11/22/76 GFERC
11/30/76 GFERC
A. Sidparo
B. Macknick
C. Grua
10/26/76 Energy Research Center R. Ellman
Grand Forks
10/28/76 Energy Research Center R. Ellman
Grand Forks
R. Ellman
R. Ellman
Instrumentation
development for
Morgantown FBC
Ellman discussions with
with Grua re Acurex
sampling
ERDA funding of FBC unit
to be built at Univ. of
West Virginia by
Reynolds, Smith, and
Hills Co.
Support of gasifier tar
studies
Acurex sampling at GFERC
C. Grua's comments to
N. Jaffe re HTHP
sampling with EPA
Sampling at GRERC
Sampling work
recommendation
Tar problems at GFERC
In-bed measurements of specie, flow, and
thermodynamic data are critical to FBC
development
Not currently feasible due to intermittent
operation
Unit is 500 psi, 700° to 1000° steam
produced by 10 to 90 tons/hr coal.
system design is preliminary.
Cleanup
Macknick to provide state-of-art exchange
Inquired as to availability by GFERC site by
sampling
ERDA/EPA expected to be cooperative. Acurex
should submit a WR which addresses:
(1) Design and (2) sampling locations of
HTHP
Sampling spec: 200 psi, producer gas 300°F
to 400°F, no evidence of tar (may be a
fine mist). Relocate sampling equipment for
convenience.
Agreed that it did not make sense to submit
a work recommendation at this time
Compared the effectiveness of scrubber and
side stream sampler. Will be making another
run at 200 psi, if successful will run at
400 psi.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
12/15/76 Molten Salt C. Trilling
Gasification Plant
12/22/76 GFERC
en
0. Mioduzewski
12/27/76 Battelle, Ash W. Corder
Agglomeration Gasifier
12/28/76 Bi-Gas
12/29/76 Jaycor
12/30/79 Westinghouse/Waltz
Mill Gasifier
1/4/77 GE (Schenectedy)
1/13/77 McDowell-Wellman
D. Hull
M. Scharff
S. Tendulkur
Dr. Ralph Wood
Dr. Steven
Brzozowski
Wallace Hamilton
1/18/77 Magna Corp, Santa Fe Jerry Lambert
Springs, CA
Tar problems
HTHP update
Tar problems
Tar problems
Instrument developments
Tar problems
Development of a Particle
Impact Probe
Wellman-Galusha Gasifiers
Corosometer
They don't think they have a tar problem at
operating temps (1700°F to 1900°F) yet
they nave seen some evidence of tar
accumulation. He was interested in
particulate plugging problems.
Particularly interested in production rates
of water, tars, particulates, and gases.
Will provide us with tar samples.
Haven't started operating gasification leg
yet. Not sure if a tar problem exists.
Have just started operating on coal. No tar
problems observed yet. Feels that high temps
will crack tars (1700°F/3200°F reactor
temperatures).
Suggested we contact GE on impact probe and
Magna Co. on corosometer
Currently accumulating tars in quench phase.
They are interested in being able to sample
for tars especially after combustor/
gasifier leg is operational.
Can measure velocity and momentum of
particles down to 635 micrometers. In
erosion field 15,000 to 20,000 impacts per
second.
Attempts to sample producer gas derived from
bituminous coal in Wellman-Galusha gasifiers
have failed due to tar accumulation
This instrument measures corrosion and
erosion in gas and liquid streams. Widely
used; including coal gasification units.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (continued)
Date
Facility
Person
Contacted
Subject
Summary
cr>
1/18/77 Riley-Stoker Tom Walsh
1/19/77 Morgantown Energy C. C. Shale
Research Center
1/20/77 Holstein Army Arsenal Clarence Berryman
Gasifier, Kingsport,
Tennessee
1/20/77 American Natural Gas- Dr. Fred Jones
1/21/77 Stearns-Rodgers
(Denver)
Bob Scheck
1/25/77 Fluidynamic Devices, Richard Wirth
Limited
1/26/77 U.C. Davis Bob Williams
1/26/77 Pittsburg and Dr. Perussel
Midway Coal Co.
Information on their
gasifier
Sampling of Stirred Bed
Producer Gasifier
Gasifier Sampling
American Natural Gas Test
Program at Riley-Stoker
HTHP Sampling and Gas
Cleaning
Sampling at Exxon
Blue Diamond Gasifier
Sampling needs at SRC
plant
The unit is a full scale Riley-'-Morgan design.
7500 Ibs/hr with air and 1300 Ib/hr with
oxygen. Cleanup train will be required to
clean up tars.
Sampling attempts thus far have been
unsuccessful due to the inability of their
system to maintain high enough temperature
to avoid tar plugging. Biggest problem is
between cyclone and two-stage venturi
scrubber.
They own a Chapman (Wilputte) gasifier for
producing low Btu gas. They do in-house gas
sampling periodically. Unit has been
operating for 25 years.
Evaluating the performance of lignite coal.
Sampling will be done at 600°F. Radian
involved. American Natural Gas is also
involved in an FBC test at Foster-Wheeler.
Stearns-Rodgers is doing E&A at Argonne Labs
PFBC. He wants to be kept Informed on HTHP
sampling and gas cleaning.
A special probe has been developed to measure
accurately low velocity flows (8 fps).
Operates on fluidic amplification principle.
Their walnut shell gasifier produces complex
tar/matter. Other fuels are corn cobs, tree
pruning and wood chips. Efforts to sample by
condensing and filtering the tars have been
unsuccessful.
They currently use a powdered coal slurry and
are in the process of converting to coal
liquifaction operation. Perussel indicated
they are "clean" from an EA standpoint since
they have a closed system.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 10. (concluded)
Date
2/1/77
2/8/77
Facil ity
Hydrocarbon Research
Grand Forks Research
Person
Contacted
Harold Stotler
Robert Ellman
Subject
Sampling work on new
EPA program
Slagging Lurgi gasifier
Summary
Evaluating fuel conversion cleanup.
volve sampling in about a year.
A recent run at 400 psi resulted in
May
slagging
Center
2/9/77 Synthane
2/11/77 Morgantown Energy
Research Center
2/14/77 GE (Schenectedy)
2/17/77 U.C. Berkeley
2/17/77 EPA
3/4/77
3/11/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
Robert Lewis
Al Moore
Clem Thoennes
Walt Jiles
Brian Macknick
Bruce Henshel
Facility sampling plans
Gasifier stream
characteristics
HTHP samplings and hot
filtration application
Concept evaluation on tar
collection
Exxon PFBC Sampling plans
Bi-gas, Homer City, PA D. E. Hull, et al. Sampling requirements
Stearns-Rodgers
Argonne Labs
MERC
R. Crawford, et al. Sampling requirements
J. Montagna
A. Moore
Sampling of Steams-
Rodger s PFBC unit
ERDA sampling of alkali
metals in MERC
16" gasifier
problems. Their sampling system is producing
good results without tar plugging.
Early design stage for sampling system by
Lummis Co. based on a lab scale system.
Anticipate tar problems.
Varying particulate loadings may make
measurement difficult. Light oil separation
from water may not be possible.
They are presently reviewing HTHP sampling
capabilities. Current materials evaluation
work is being performed at Exxon.
Throttling was identified as a viable
technique for condensing tars. A light oil/
water separation technique was identified.
Tar collection concepts were reviewed.
Cyclones will be used to evaluate the
granular bed with three cut sizes below 1 urn.
Particulate to be removed at 1600°F, 10 atm.
Present interest in solid sampling process.
Sampling activities will come later.
PFBC facility for Argonne will require
sampling hardware yet to be developed.
An RFP for bed and process sampling will be
issued for the unit to be completed in 1980.
Sampling to be performed downstream of
scrubber and hot gas cleanup atomic emissions
spectrometer to be used for sodium and
potassium detection. Currently need a
technique to separate particulate and tars.
-------
and slag in the reactor itself, a task that is beyond the current state of the
art.
Several process developers mentioned problems that they anticipated would
occur or had actually occurred during sampling attempts. A very limited
number of developers had attempted particulate sampling using very rudimentary
devices such as fixed probes and single filter traps. At the time of the
survey, no one had produced an operational particulate sampling system of the
nature of that developed under this EPA-sponsored program. The results that
had been obtained by the process developers in their attempts to sample were
not clearly definitive. Most of those who attempted sampling had encountered
problems associated with particulate plugging, tar condensation (in
gasifiers), and acid gas condensation. Some of the gasifier developers who
had not yet attempted in-process sampling at the time did express deep concern
about the problems that they anticipated once sampling was a requirement to
continue process development. Most of their concern centered about problems
relating to tar condensation, probe material survival, and safety
considerations. Many mentioned problems of tar condensation that had occurred
within the process itself during normal operation.
Finally, the conversation often got to the point where the process
developers asked the approximate cost of developing a sampling system that
would meet the needs of their particular process. The response to the high
cost of HTHP probe development was generally that the process developer would
not be able to provide the required funds. In nearly all cases the developer
responded that they would need to request the funds from the funding agency.
That is to say, the cost of sampler development had not been anticipated or
included in the development funds that were currently available.
48
-------
SECTION 4
APPROACHES TO HTHP SAMPLING
In this section we will consider some of the general aspects of selecting
an HTHP sampling system and its requisite components. These discussions are
based upon information surveyed from the literature from direct contact with
manufacturers and other users and from experience gained from direct sampling
activities during this program.
4.1 CONTINUOUS VERSUS NONCONTINUOUS SAMPLING
In selecting a sampling system for application to a high-temperature,
high-pressure technology the first question that must be posed is that of the
exact purpose and intent for which the sampler is to be used. At "the present
time all of the coal conversion technologies discussed in this report
(fluidized bed combustion, coal gasification, and MHD) are in a state of
development. Many different problems are yet to be resolved; however, one
very significant problem that has come to the forefront in all of these
technologies is that of particulate control.
In the evaluation of particulate collection devices for coal conversion
systems it is necessary to take samples both upstream and downstream of the
collection system to establish its performance. The information most
frequently desired is that of total particulate concentration, particulate
size distribution, and particulate matter chemical composition.
Two general classes of particulate sampling systems are available, those
that operate on a continuous basis (more commonly referred to as monitoring
devices) and those that operate noncontinuously or intermittently. Monitoring
devices generally do not possess the capability of physically extracting a
sample of the particulate for chemical -analysis. Continuous devices tend to
be nonintrusive or in situ devices while noncontinous sampling systems tend to
be intrusive or extractive devices. That is, they are inserted into the flow
and physically remove a sample. A good example of a noncontinuous extractive
sampling system would be the one developed under this program for use at the
PFBC at Exxon. Similarly, a good example of a continuous in situ monitoring
device would be an optical sampler based upon laser optical scattering.
4.1.1 Optical Systems
Several optical systems are currently under development by both the EPA
and DOE. At this point in their development, these optical devices have not
been useful as instruments for evaluating the performance of particulate
49
-------
collection systems and other portions of advanced coal conversion systems, but
may adequately serve as monitors to determine system upsets and perform
estimates of particulate loading levels and size distribution. A brief survey
was performed under this contract to evaluate the availability of SOA
particulate monitoring systems for application to HTHP systems. The purpose
of the survey was, in part, to determine if any of these systems could have
been used in conjunction with the PFBC probe during the Exxon tests to compare
the performance of both. No such attempt was made however. The results of
this survey are presented in Appendix B. A more detailed discussion of
optical systems for use in HTHP stream can be found in Reference 3.
For particle size distribution determinations, extractive samplers
separate the particulate using inertial devices (cyclones or impactors) that
directly correlate to the so-called aerodynamic diameter of the particles.
Size classification by aerodynamic diameter is particularly useful in
evaluating particulate collection devices that depend upon aerodynamic
impaction behavior as their means of particle capture. Consequently,
correlations between the operation of these particle collection devices and
particulate sampling by an extractive sampler are direct.
On the other hand, optical systems tend to measure an effective optical
diameter. This diameter depends, upon the optical light scattering properties
and the shape of the particle. The particle diameter that is measured is not
aerodynamic, and some assumptions must be made to compare optical aerodynamic
data (Reference 16). Consequently, the usefulness of optical diameter as a
means of determining particulate removal system performance is of less than
optimum value.
Other problems must be resolved before optical systems will come into
more general usage as monitoring devices. The operation of these systems
often depends upon the use of one or more optical windows located on the side
of the duct through which a laser beam and scattered light must pass. The
successful operation of the device depends upon keeping the windows optically
clean. This may be a significant problem over long operational periods with
constant exposure to corrosive gases, slag, tars, and sticky particulate
matter. The windows can be recessed from the duct wall and a purge stream
applied as a possible means of keeping them clean.
Another problem associated with optical monitors operating in
high-temperature streams is that the background radiation of the hot gases may
interfere or tend to mask the optical signals received by the monitoring
system. Also optical systems may be limited to use in situations" with light
particulate loadings. If more than a single particle occupies the measurement
volume at one time the measurement is invalid. Also high dust loadings can
attenuate the light beam and thus limit its use.
In summary, optical systems and extractive systems tend to be
complimentary and not competitive measurement devices at present. The
extractive approach allows physical and chemical analysis of the sample while
optical monitors can provide process developers with on-line evaluation of
system upsets and approximate particulate loadings and size distributions.
50
-------
Future improvement of extractive and optical systems will determine whether
the two approaches will tend to become more competitive as analytical aids in
process component development.
4.2 APPROACHES TO EXTRACTIVE SAMPLING
This section discusses two topic areas: the design concepts appropriate
to fixed position sampling and, secondly, various means of designing the
pressure containment vessel for traversing probe applications.
4.2.1 Fixed Probe Concepts
The question of whether fixed or movable probes are used depends upon the
application. For most R&D work the flowfield must be surveyed, consequently,
traversing probes are required, whereas, fixed probes may be used where
surveys are not required. Figure 12 shows two different fixed probe designs.
Figure 12 illustrates a probe which is truly fixed into a port plate at one
position in the duct. It will be shown that such an arrangement has limited
application. Since the probe is continuously exposed to the duct environment
it is subject to erosive and corrosive attack, and such failure of the probe
may lead to damage of downstream components.
In addition, some means of keeping the probe free of particulate matter
while not in use must be provided or probe clogging will occur. Two possible
methods of accomplishing this include maintaining a constant external gas flow
purge while the probe is not in operation. This requires large quantities of
purge gas. A second approach is to turn the probe using a rotating seal, so
that the probe is facing downstream while it is not in operation. An external
valve must be provided to allow a sample to be withdrawn. After some period
of probe use, the sample tube should be cleaned which would require shutdown
of the process stream for probe removal. Consequently, the completely fixed
probe, although simplest in concept, lacks practicality for particulate
sampling. Is is more appropriate for gas sampling systems free of particles.
A retractable-fixed probe design is shown in Figure 12(b). In this
design the probe is either entirely withdrawn from the duct or fixed at a
single point in the duct when in use. Once inserted into the duct, positive
sealing occurs. Purge gas is only required during probe insertion and
extraction. When the probe is not in use and retracted, it is protected from
the hot gases by the closure of a gate valve. This type of fixed probe is
much more practical than a completely fixed version yet is somewhat less
costly than a traversing system.
When it is necessary to survey the duct a traversing system must be
used. Various approaches to a traversing design are considered in the
following paragraphs.
4.2.2 Traversing Probe Concepts
Several approaches to traversing probe systems were considered during the
course of this program. Three basic alternatives are shown in Figures 13,(a)
(b), and (c).
51
-------
I
I
(a) Completely fixed probe
To particulate
collection device
en
ro
Gate valve
1
1 1
A
T
/'
Vt
n
'/>
i
'//tt///
T/f/f/i/,
/
. j
\f
r\
V
A
/ >
1
'/////f////f/ff/i
7J////fff/Jf//f/l
'fff//lff///ffff///
m
m\ \
nj 1
xfl-'
m\f////ff////////
\
^ s
IN
6c
'ff////ff//////fffi
i
b2
i
* f//i //(ll/f //(*/i
il
/- Seal
/
/
n
1 1
II
1 r
vf/f//rr/if////\ i//r//f/ff//rr///\
y *"
/
^- Drive mechan
(b) Retractable-fixed probe
To particulate
col lection device
Figure 12. Fixed probe concepts.
-------
Closure plate
Sliding seal ^ j-jple collection
Traverse
Valve
Gate valve
Gas stream
Closure
plate
Probe
Sample collection
device
Valve
(b)
Closure plate
Flexible line
Sample collection
device
Traverse track
(internal)
Pressure containment
vessel
(O
Figure 13. Traversing probe.
53
-------
Sliding Seal
Figure 13(a) shows a traversing probe concept termed the sliding seal
concept. The principal advantage of this approach is that the physical size
and weight of the system are considerably reduced over that of other
approaches considered. The main .pressure housing can be made of minimum
size. The sample probe tube must be rigid and straight to its juncture with
the particle collection device to avoid particle deposition.
This requires that the particle collection device slide with the probe.
Having the particulate collector external permits easy access. The sample
collection enclosure can be a pressure vessel itself or the walls of the
sample collectors can act as the pressure vessel. Also, because the diameter
of the sliding tube is likely to be small, the blowoff loads and the actuation
requirements are minimized.
On the negative side, the sliding tube and seal are exposed to hot
corrosive gases and particulate matter. Sealing surfaces can quickly degrade
under such conditions leading to a system leak. Various means can be devised
to protect the seal and metal surfaces such as purge systems and telescoping
shields over the sample tube.
Concentric Tube
The traversing probe concept shown in Figure 13(b) is termed the
concentric tube. In some respects it is similar to the sliding seal concept.
In this configuration, the sample collection device is contained within the
inner shell that acts as the pressure vessel. The sliding metal to seal
surface is easier to maintain in that a wiper can be employed at the forward
end of the inner tube to keep particulate and corrosive materials off of the
outer surface of the inner shell. The concentric tube type of design was
employed for the Exxon PFBC probe.
The principal disadvantages of this design are that the size and weight
of the system tend to be large. Also, because of the relatively large
diameter of the inner shell the blowoff loads generally will require the use
of a hydraulic or motor driven traversing mechanism.
Total Enclosure
The third approach shown in Figure"13(c) is called the total enclosure
concept. Here the pressure vessel is fixed and the sample tube and collection
device move on a track within the vessel. No sliding seals are required and
since no movable surface passes through the pressure vessel, there are no
blowoff loads to overcome during traverse. Consequently, the traversing can
be done manually using a chain drive or rack and pinion mechanism.
The major disadvantage of the third concept is that of size and weight.
Since the vessel diameter is the largest of the three, the wall thickness and,
therefore, overall weight may be the largest. In general, however, the total
enclosure concept will be shorter than the concentric tube concept.
54
-------
Table 11 summarizes the various advantages and disadvantages of each of
the three concepts. Depending upon the particular application each of the
three approaches may be most advantageous in a given circumstance. In
general, however, the total enclosure approach seems to offer several
attractive advantages.
4.2.3 Prototype Designs
To illustrate the application of each of the design concepts Figures 14,
15, and 16 are presented. These schematics show three different PFBC
applications in which each of the respective design concepts was selected.
All major system components are identified.
In addition, Figure 17 is presented to show a schematic of the total
enclosure approach applied to a gasifier sampling system. Figure 18 shows a
conceptual design of the same gasifier sampling system.
In summary, the total enclosure approach seems to offer the most
flexibility in design concept. Internal components may be selected so that
different sampler configurations can be achieved depending upon the
application. For applications where sampling at a fixed location is
permissible the semifixed concept offers the most practical approach.
4.3 PARTICULATE COLLECTION DEVICES
Several techniques are available for use in a sampling probe to collect
and classify the particulate by size. These methods include cyclones,
impactors, filters, impingers, diffusion batteries, and electrostatic
precipitators (ESP). In designing a sampling system for use in a HTHP
application, a selection of the most appropriate particulate collection device
must be made. The discussion that follows is limited to the first three
devices, in that they are most commonly used in conventional extractive
samplers and can be adapted to use at HTHP conditions. This is not to say
that the other devices mentioned or others not mentioned might not be
appropriate in a given situation. For example, the ESP may provide the best
means of collecting fine tar mist when sampling at a coal gasification
facility. This is discussed further in Section 5.3. The reader is referred
to Reference 9 for a discussion of particulate collection devices applied to
HTHP sampling conditions.
4.3.1 Impactors, Cyclones, and Filters
As mentioned previously, three different types of particulate collection
devices will be considered here as the most likely to be selected for near
term HTHP sampling systems.
Impactors generally consist of multiple stages of plates, each containing
a number of progressively smaller holes arranged in series for collection of
particles by aerodynamic diameter. Each plate contains a number of holes
through which the particulate laden stream flows in a jet-like manner. The
gas jet impinges perpendicular upon the plate immediately downstream of the
orifice plate. As the flow continues downstream, the holes in each stage are
55
-------
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF TRAVERSING PROBE CONCEPTS
Concept
Advantages
Disadvantages
Sliding seal
Concentric tube
Simple in concept
Light weight
Smallest envelope
required for probe
insertion/removal
Seal is on a cold
clean surface
Sample collection
device can be en-
closed in pressure
environment
Total enclosure
No sliding seals
required
No power assisted
transverse required
Reasonable envelope
required for probe
insertion/removal
o Seal is on probe; it
sees the hot corro-
sive environment.
Not practicable for
high temperature
environments, there-
fore seal must be
protected and cooled.
Heavy pressure chamber
Requires long envelope
for probe extraction
extraction and removal
Seal diameter relatively
large -- blow-off
loads significant
requiring power
assisted traverse
(hydraulic, or
electric drive)
Pressure chamber may be
larger in diameter
than concentric tube
Overall weight large
56
-------
tn
Probe rotational lever
with slip seal
Heating/cool ing
element
Flow control valve
niter
Gas
environmental
cell
Orifice
flowmcter
To Staub tube and
thermocouple measurement
Systems (control module)
Probe
(see detail)
1)1tlr
Traverse screw and motor
Quick break-down sample
environmental chamber,
cyclone and filter (with
heating and cooling capability)
Figure 14. Schematic of sliding seal sampling system.
-------
. Process Duct
en
oo
Enclosure
(Pressure Boundary)
Control Valves
Flexible Line
rmrinnmnnnnr
1Heater
Heat Tracing
Vent
Flow
Controls
Organic
Collector
Trace
Metals
Impingers
Figure 15. Schematic of concentric tube sampling system.
-------
S-type nitot tube
Oven
heat inn
clement.
CJl
UD
Heatinn element (oven)
Flow control' valve
Filter
Backpressure regulator
Oven temp.
-&«
^-
£. -%J$ ff- !
/^ -/ 71 /
flri rii-p I In'.-jniPi f-r
Flnw con Irul oven
Disconnects
To nas samnlo 01 rt,
ris rouuirod
seo I inure
Figure 16. Schematic of total enclosure sampling system.
-------
Shutoff valves
Tar collector (ESP)
Guide rail and trans-
verse drive
Cyclone package
Cooler
Heaters and Insulation
Heat trace
Keter valve (throttle)
N2 purge JIX}O
Secondary
tar and
moisture collector
To vent system
Figure 17. Schematic of gasifier sampling system.
-------
-countcion noatxcT otf
*-LOC« * \ \ ^njCTCLONE P«CH«,E \ \-t»» COLLECT
Figure 18. Conceptual design of gasifier sampling system.
-------
made progressively smaller and the jet velocity becomes progressively
greater. In this manner, particulate of smaller size are collected on each
stage. A filter is usually placed downstream of the final stage to collect
the residual particulate. Table 12 presents a list of commercially available
impactors designed for conventional operation. The 059* cut points of each
stage are shown.
TABLE 12. SIZE FRACTIONATING POINTS OF SOME COMMERCIAL CASCADE
IMPACTORS FOR UNIT DENSITY SPHERES
Modified Andersen U. of W. E.R.C.
Brink Mark III (Pilat) Tag
Stage
0.85 LPM 14 LPM 14 LPM 14 LPM
Scalping 18-.0 ym
cyclone
0
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
11.0
6.29
3.74
2.59
1.41
0.93
0.56
14.0 ym
8.71
5.92
4.00
2.58
1.29
0.80
0.51
39.0 ym
15.0
6.5
3.1
1.65
0.80
0.49
11.1 ym
7.7
5.5
4.0
2.8
2.0
1.3
0.9
0.6
Cyclones are also inertial collection devices. A cyclone works
on the principle of selective sizing through the use of centrifugal
forces. In fact, impactors also use the same effect. In a cyclone, a jet
of particle laden gas is directed to enter the cylindrical body of the
device in a tangential fashion. The momentum of the stream causes the jet
to form a spiraling vortex that travels down the inner surface to the
funnel-like bottom of the device. The vortex then reverses direction and
*Particle diameter for which the collection efficiency of a given stage is
50 percent
62
-------
spirals upward along the centerline with the flow exiting at the top. A
sketch of a typical cyclone is shown in Figure 19.
The largest of the particles present are thrown to the outer walls and
fall to the bottom of the funnel and are collected in a cup. The fact that
large quantities of particulate matter can be collected in the cap is
one of the principal advantages of cyclones over impactors. A series of
cyclones that are progressively smaller in size can be used to size
particles. In general, cyclones are not capable of as small size cuts as
impactors and also the size, cut collection efficiency characteristics are
generally not as sharp as impactors. A comparison of cyclone and impactor
collection efficiency are shown in Figure 20. Again, a final filter is used
downstream of the last cyclone stage to collect the residual material.
In some applications, it may not be necessary to classify particulate by
size during the test. Filters can be used in cases where only the particulate
loading is desired, or when the particulate is of such character that it can
be sized optically after collection. Two problems can result in using filters
for particulate collection: "blinding" of the filter due to overloading and
lack of a suitably efficient filter which can survive at high temperatures.
These problems will be discussed further in the following paragraphs.
4.3.2 Suitability for HTHP Application
In some instances, the selection of a particular collection device may
not be wholly governed by the collection efficiency or sharpness of the size
cut of the device. For example, the pressure housing design of the sampler
may dictate the use of a small diameter device such as an impactor or filter
instead of a bulkier multiple cyclone system. For example, for the type of
sampler design used in the Exxon tests described here, the blowoff loads are
proportional to the I.D. of the outer sampler housing. This demands the use
of a small diameter device such as an impactor train.
Another important factor governing the selection of a sample collection
device is that of the quantity of sample required. For instance, the quantity
of particulate that can be collected with an impactor is limited. Once the
impactor becomes overloaded with particulate matter, the data can become
obscurred by various phenomena. If the stage loading becomes too great, the
particulate already collected can become scoured away by the action of
particulate continuing to impact the previously collected material. This
scouring action can also cause fracture of the already collected material, and
the smaller fractured particles can become reentrained back into the system
and be collected on lower size cut stages.
Similarly, the use of filters limits the length of time (or amount of
sample collected) by virtue of the filter becoming overloaded with
particulate. As more particulate is collected, the pressure drop across the
filter rises abruptly until the flow is essentially stopped. Once such a
condition is reached, there is a great danger of tearing the filter element.
The nonograph presented in Figure 21 is useful in quickly calculating the
time required to collect 25 milligrams of material. At heavy dust loading
63
-------
Gas out
Gas
Bc=Dc/4
De=Dc/2
Hc=Dc/2
L =2D
C C
s =D /e
Z =2D
c c
J =arbitrary,
usually D /4
Section A-A
Dust ou
Figure 19. Generalized cyclone design.
64
-------
X
u
z
z
o
1.0 1.5 2.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER / D50
3.0 3.5
3630236
Figure 20. Comparison of cascade impactor stage with cyclone
collection efficiency curve (Reference 16).
65
-------
0.001
1000
0.01
GRAIN LOADING (GRAINS/ACF)
O.'l !) I
5 10
5 100
1.0 0.50.40.3 0.2 O.I 0.05 ° °4 0. 03°'°2 0.01
SELECTED FLO* RATES (ACFM)
Figure 21. Sampling time determination for total mass collection of 25 milligrams.
-------
conditions, the use of a filter or impactor may be severely impaired by the
very short sampling time to reach an overloaded condition. That is to say, to
make the sampling time of reasonable length in a high dust loading condition,
some means of reducing the loading to the impactors or filters must be found.
One approach is to utilize a "scalping" cyclone ahead of the impactor train or
filter. The cyclone is designed to take out large size particulate and reduce
the particulate loading seen by the collection device. Such an approach is
effective in reducing an overloading condition in the upstream stages of an
impactor train.
Another criteria for selection is the ability of the device to be
insensitive to changes in flowrate through the sampling system. Depending
upon the local duct velocity, to maintain isokinetic conditions, the flow
through the sampler may be adjusted. Changes in flowrate will affect the
performance or any inertial collection device. That is to say, if the device
has been designed and calibrated at a given operational flowrate, then
excursions from that flowrate will change the size cuts of each impactor or
cyclone stage. In general, cyclones are more sensitive to deviations in
flowrate, and therefore such changes should be avoided (Reference 16). One
means of keeping the flowrate constant'while maintaining isokinetic sampling
conditions is to change the inlet size. This is most commonly done by using
inlet nozzles of various sizes.
Another criteria for selection of a particulate collection device for an
HTHP application is its suitability for use based upon environmental
considerations. For example, it is common practice to coat each stage of an
impactor train with a substrate material (such as grease) to ensure initial
adhesion to the collection surface. Most of these materials cannot be used at
temperatures much beyond 400°F. Therefore, if one were to attempt to sample
at high temperature conditions, the selection of a suitable substrate material
may become problematic.
Another example is the selection of a filter material that can survive at
high temperatures. It is difficult to find a commercially available filter
material that can be used at temperatures above 1000°F. On the other hand,
if the stream is cooled prior to particulate collection, certain species may
condense. Depending on the stream sampled, the amount of cooling, and the
pressure level, condensation of water vapor, alkali metal compounds, and acid
gases can result. The presence of these materials in the particulate
collection device can obscure the chemical composition of the sample, plug the
collection device, or destroy the collector.
A variety of ceramic fiber insulation materials have been tested for
filtration applications. Most of those available in mat form are capable of
high efficiency collection of fine particles. This is true also of the
ceramic paper materials. Properly supported, the fine diameter ( ~3vim)
fibers in these materials will provide absolute filter performance if suitable
thickness is used in the filter. Most of the materials contain binders which
should be burned out prior to weighing the filter before use to collect a
sample. Some also contain shot or beads of ceramic material that remain from
the fiber manufacturing process. These beads do not impair filtration
performance but may interfere with microscopic interpretation of the dust
67
-------
sample. Of the materials which are commercially available, those produced by
ICI and known as SAFFIL fibers tend to contain the least amount of ceramic
shot and are therefore a first choice as high temperature absolute filter
materials. Sufficient data to select candidate filter materials for test
applications is contained in Reference 18.
4.3.3 Operation at High-Temperatures and -Pressures
Cyclones offer the greatest promise for operation at duct conditions
in HTHP applications. Experience in calibrating cyclones or impactors at HTHP
conditions is lacking, however. Systems must be constructed to calibrate
these devices at typical temperature and pressure conditions to fully define
their expected performance. There are existing test facilities that have been
used for hot filtration testing (at Acurex and Westinghouse) that could be
used to perform both high-temperature and high-pressure calibration of sampler
collection devices.
Operation at off-calibration conditions can be predicted based upon
theoretical considerations of the.variations in collection mechanisms with
temperature and pressure. Properties of gases at high temperatures and
pressures can be found in Reference 9.
4.4 SAMPLE HANDLING AND FLOW MEASUREMENT
In this section source general considerations regarding the choice of
design features upon sample collection are discussed. These include the
effects of isokinetic sampling, flowfield measurement, flow conditions within
the probe, and material compatibility.
4.4.1 Isokinetic Sampling Considerations
To accurately sample in a particulate laden stream, a representative mass
of particles must be withdrawn from the gas at the same velocity as the
particles are flowing in the gas stream. This condition, where the velocity
at the probe inlet face is equal to the local stream velocity, is known as
isokinetic sampling. The theoretical aspects of isokinetic sampling are
discussed in- References 10 and 11.
To sample under isokinetic conditions, two approaches have been used.
The first is to use inlet nozzles of various sizes for different stream
velocities while the flowrate through the sampler remains constant. In
addition, a continously variable two-dimensional inlet nozzle could be used to
avoid changing the nozzle size every time a new location in the duct is to be
sampled. This approach has not be in common use. Cyclone performance is
particularly sensitive to changes in flow and individual cyclone cut points
vary with velocity, therefore, the rate of sample extraction should be nearly
constant.
The second approach to maintaining isokinetic conditions is to use a
fixed inlet nozzle and vary the flowrate through the sampler. Within a narrow
range this can be done even for cyclone operation, but if the flowrate
variation is considerable cyclone operation will be affected. This can be
68
-------
overcome by using a bypass flow system so that the cyclone always receives a
constant volume flow. This becomes complex and difficult in that each leg of
the bifurcated stream must be measured individually and particulate biasing
could occur. For high-pressure applications no pump is required, instead an
orifice/valve combination can be used to throttle the flow to atmospheric
conditions.
4.4.2 Automatic Isokinetic Sampling
To determine the stream velocity for isokinetic sampling by ordinary
means it is necessary to determine the stream dynamic pressure differential,
stream static pressure and temperature. The latter two quantities, along with
gas composition information, are necessary to determine the gas density so
that the velocity can be obtained through the Bernoulli equation.
Potentially, there are automatic approaches to sampling isokinetically.
Figure 22 shows three of these approaches. In Figure 22(a), the approach is
conventional in that the stream differential pressure, pressure, and
temperature are obtained.- These are input to an analog logic circuit or
minicomputer that determines the required sampler flowrate and the flow
controller is set accordingly. The approaches shown in Figure 22(b) and 22(c)
do not require that the stream density be determined. The principal of
operation requires that the static pressure of the stream be determined by a
field probe. At the same time the static pressure at the inlet port is also
measured. When the static pressures at each location are equal, the
velocities are also equal and isokinetic conditions will exist.
In developing an isokinetic flow control system, whether manual or
automatic, it is necessary to select differential pressure transducers that
are sufficiently precise to maintain isokinetic conditions to within 10
percent. One can compute the required transducer sensitivity by calculating
the allowed error signal which will produce a predetermined error in the
velocity.
4.4.3 Other Considerations
When making measurements near bends in ducts or downstream of sudden
expansions or contractions, care should be taken in locating the sample
extraction site. Ideally, the sampling location should be 8 to 10 duct
diameters downstream and two diameters upstream of such flow disturbances to
ensure that the stream is nearly uniform and well mixed. As piping costs are
high, long straight runs ideal for particulate sampling may not be available.
When this is the case, flow baffles followed by flow straighteners may be used
to promote uniform distribution of the velocity and particulate fields.
In designing the internal flow system of the sampler, care should be
taken to examine the distribution of temperature and pressure. That is, as
the gas flows through the probe it should not be subjected to any sudden
changes of temperature or pressure. For example, if locally within the probe
the flow undergoes an abrupt pressure drop, local supersonic flow conditions
might occur. Should this occur the flow will expand locally to supersonic
Mach numbers and a sharp drop in local stream static temperature will occur.
69
-------
Thermocouple
Isokinetic
Capture
Stream tube
rzi
S-Type Probe
Sampling
Probe
a) Analytical feedback
Static Ports
Sampling Probe
Static Ports
Field Probe
b) Null balance
Pneumatic Pressurization
Two-Dimensional
Sampling Probe
Static Port
c) Variable inlet
Static Ports
Field Probe
Figure 22. Automatic isokinetic sampling probes.
70
-------
This may cause a phase change of some of the chemical species which may be
present. Such design precautions require careful calculation and examination
of the flow system in the design phase.
Finally, in selecting materials for the probe care should be taken that
they are compatible with the gaseous species present. For example, special
care should be taken in selecting nonmetallic materials for seals and valve
seats. Many of these nonmetallic materials are subject to attack by various
gases present or acids formed through the combination of acid gases and
condensed water vapor. Reference 17 discusses materials for use in HTHP
environments.
4.5 GENERAL FINDINGS AND EXPERIENCES DERIVED FROM EXXON TESTS
The following discussion presents a review of the test results obtained
from the two test series conducted at the Exxon Miniplant. A more detailed
discussion of the entire test program is contained in Reference 6. After
reviewing the" general results of the sampling tests performed at the Exxon
PFBC at Linden, New Jersey, a discussion follows that points to some
experiences that were encountered prior to and at the time of the tests. This
discussion is presented in an effort to show the types of problems that may be
encountered in future HTHP testing so that others may learn from our
experiences.
4.5.1 Test Results -- Phase I and II
In Section 2.1 of this report the activities and hardware development
leading to the actual testing was discussed. A detailed discussion of the
equipment, including drawings, is contained in Reference 6.
To reiterate, two different test series were conducted: Phase I and
Phase II. During the Phase I tests the objectives were to demonstrate that
the sampling approach taken was a viable one from the standpoint of data
accuracy and repeatability and that the sampling system was safe and reliable
in use. During test Phase I three sampling runs were made: one (Run 2) using
a thimble filter to collect the total particulate catch and two additional
tests (Runs 2 and 3) using a cascade impactor -(containing seven stages)
followed by a final filter. The following types of data were recorded during
the Phase I tests:
Particulate size distribution
Particulate chemical composition
Particulate shape
Particulate concentration
Process temperature and pressure
Moisture content
Structural temperatures (valves and probe housing)
Trace element samples
Organic samples
71
-------
Phase I Tests
Table 13 shows the test conditions present during the three runs
comprising Phase I testing. The bed temperature was typically 300°F higher
than the duct temperatures at the sampling location. Typical wall
temperatures recorded during Run 1 are shown in Table 14. The total
particulate concentration from the other test runs are shown in Table 15.
Here the most accurate reading (1.58 g/m^) comes from Run 1 where the bulk
filter was used. This is because a longer sampling period was used and bulk
filter catches are less subject to cumulative errors associated from weighing
the catches from the eight stages of particulate catch in test Runs 2 and 3.
A weight breakdown by impactor stage plus final filter particulate collected
during Runs 2 and 3 is presented in Table 16. A cursory examination of this
table shows that the predominance of particulate collected was in the 1-10 ym
range.
Figure 23 summarizes the results of Runs 2 and 3 of Phase I testing.
Particulate distributions ranged from 0.3 to 30 ym in aerodynamic diameter.
These curves were constructed directly..from the D$Q cut points of the series
impactors used. A temperature correction for the operating temperature of
450°F was applied based on theoretical considerations. The effect of
pressure on the operation of the series impactors was determined to be small
based on theoretical considerations. The repeatability of the data as
exhibited by Figure 23 was deemed to be good for a first demonstration.
Figure 24 shows the particulate collected on the substrate material during
Run 3. A closer examination of stage 3 in Figure 25 shows the classic
"pyramids" of particulate collected.
The particulate sample from Run 2 was subsequently examined using a
scanning electron miscrscope. An example of the particulate is shown in
Figure 26. From this photo it is evident that the particulate is somewhat
fused together so it is difficult to correlate the physical size to the
impactor cut size. The samples were chemically analyzed using a dispersive
X-ray fluorescence analyzer. Later a SSMS examination was performed in the
analysis of Phase II results and Phase I, Run 1, results as will be explained
below.
Phase II Tests
A total of four test runs were made during Phase II of testing. The
samples from Run 3 of Phase II were retained for SSMS analysis. Table 17
shows the results of the SSMS analysis from Run 3 of Phase II. Examination of
the table shows that the quantities of material obtained on the downstream
filter were inadequate to make a meaningful comparison to the quantities
contained in the scalping cyclone and upstream filter. This was because the
upstream filter removed a great bulk of particulates. In addition the
downstream filter was subject to some contamination as will be discussed
later. To resolve the problem of lack of sufficient sample quantity a
comparison was made with the chemical composition of the bulk filter catch
from Run 1, Phase I. Since the test conditions were virtually identical the
results should be, it was reasoned, equally valid.
72
-------
TABLE 13. PHASE I TEST CONDITIONS
Date
Time
Ambient temperature
Bed Conditions
Temperature
Pressure (gage)
Ca/Sulphur Ratio
Excess Air
"Coal
Dolomite
Flowrate - sm /m1n (scfm)
Average Duct Velocity -
m/s(ft/sec)
Run: 11
3-31-77
3:30 p.m.
18°C (64DF)
900°C (1650°F)
912 kPa (9 atm)
1.25
301
Champion
Pfzlzer
14(544)
2.0(6.7)
12 13
4-1-77 4-1-77
10:30 a.m. 2:40 p.m.
2TC (70'F) 19°C (67eF)
900eC (1650°F) 900'C (1650°F)
912 kPa (9 atm) 912 kPa (9 atm)
1.25 1.25
30t 30S
Champion Champion
Pfzlzer Pfzlzer
14(546) 14(546)
1.9(6.3) 2.0(6.7)
TABLE 14. STRUCTURE TEMPERATURES
Time
0
10 min
20 min
60 min
Valve-
Probe
Side
64°C(147°F)
71°C(159°F)
69°C(157°F)
88°C(190°F)
Inner Outer
Probe Probe
Housing Housing
56°C(133°F) 56°C(133°F)
55°C(131°F) 68°C(154°F)
56°C(133°F) 75°C(167°F)
N/A N/A
73
-------
TABLE 15. PARTICULATE CONTENT
Date:
Time:
Particle Catch:
(grams)
Filter
Impactor
Residue
.Total
Sample Volume:
m'tscf)
Particle Content:
(g/m'Mgr/scf)
Particle content:
(g/rr'Kgr/scf)
(Anisokinetic
Correction Applied)
TABLE 16.
Run 11
3-31-77
1530
3.2515
-
1.8565
5.108
3.22(122.5)
1.58(0.64)
1.60(0.65)
PARTICLE SIZE
Run 12
4-1-77
1030
-
0.0554
0.0334
0.0884
0.082(3.13)
1.06(0.43)
1.08(0.44)
DISTRIBUTION
Run 12
Stage
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Filter
°50 Weight
Microns Collected
26.0 0.0076
12.0 0.0080
4.3 0.0171
2.1 0.0139
1.2 0.0022
0.6 0.0036
0.3 0.0020
(LOOK)
0.0554 grams
I Total I Weight
Weight Smaller Collected
13.7 86.3
14.4 71.8
30.9 41.0
25.1 15.9
4.0 12.0
6.5 5.4
3.6 1.8
1.8
0.0093
0.008
0.0221
0.0215
0.0135
0.0081
0.0039
0.0028
Run 13
4-1-77
1500
-
0.0892
0.0595
0.1497
0.132(5.03)
1.13(0.46)
1.16(0.47)
Run 13
I Total I
Weight Smaller
10.4
9.0
24.8 .
24.1
15.1
9.1
4.4
3.1
89.6
80.6
55.0
31.7
16.6
7.5
3.1
0.0892 grams
74
-------
100
to
60
40
20
10
PERCENTAGE UNDERSIZE (BY WEIGHT)
20 30 40 SO 60 70 60
90
5
5
1.0
06
0.6
04
o.:
00 60 TO 60 SO 40 30
PERCENTAGE OVERSIZE
20
10
Figure 23. Particle size distribution -- Phase I tests,
75
-------
j EXXON-HTHP
I 4/1/77 j
RUN 3
| EXXON-HTHP j
I 4/1/77 j
RUN 3
Figure 24. Impactor substrates,
76
-------
Figure 25. Inipactor substrate Run 3, Stage 5.
-------
1000X
! 10 microns
3000X
'-««-l 3 microns
Figure 26. Particle photomicrographs, Stage 4.
73
-------
TABLE 17. CONCENTRATION OF ELEMENTS IN FLYASH SSMS ANALYSIS (PARTIAL)
ID
Element
K
Na
Rb
A1
SI
Fe
Ca
Mg
T1
Sr
Ba
An
All
P
Cu
Zr
Nt
Cr
Pb
Cyclone
(ppm)
8.200
1.310
< 70
67
. /
164.000
94.000
30.000
20.000
11.400
2,430
810
710
276
248
160
120
< 90
85
TEST i
Front
(ppm)
8.850
2.500
< 68
94.000
82.600
13.400
19.000
17.800
1,950
555
694
223
165
140
100
< 140
75
n - PHASE II
Rear
(ppm)
15.1
< 135. *
< .43 *
< 62 *
64.2
<2510. *
60.
< 6.6 *
38.
7.1
.6
< 5.0
( 1 A
^ 1 . H
< 224. *
< 1.5 *
< 2.1 *
5.8
< 13.1
< 4.0 *
Rear Blank
(ppm)
5.4
91.
.13
6.4
1210.
2.36
7.3
5.9
3.1
1.15
1.5
68.
.91
.64
.29
6.4
1.2
PHASE I
Bulk Filter
(ppm)
16.250
3.560
866
8 a
o
Major
310.000
36.300
44.000
28.600
10.600
1.320
1.080
213
C 1 J
1.880
142
334
348
366
86
Notes: < - natural background limited detection limit
<* - blank limited detection limit
-------
To reiterate the major objective of the Phase II tests was to determine
if alkali metal compounds would condense out of the stream if the sample was
cooled to 450°F. Table 18 shows a summary of the results obtained from
Phase II tests. The results are shown in a dimensionless form, normalized by
the iron and magnesium content of the coal.
A comparison is made of the ratio of nondimensional quantities caught
"hot" and caught "cold." These results showed no consistent evidence of
alkali metal condensation occurring as a result of sample cool down. The
results are not totally conclusive, however, and the amount of data is
limited. To avoid future uncertainties arising over whether the sample can be
cooled prior to collection, it is advised that in most future test programs
the particulate be collected at duct conditions. This will require the
development of particulate collection devices that can be operated and
calibrated at high-temperature and -pressure.
In summary, the Exxon tests produced good results and demonstrated that
the sampler design worked well. In the course of obtaining these positive
results several considerations and experiences were identified that require
discussion.
4.5.2 Experiences Derived from Exxon Testing
In the course of planning and performing the tests at the Exxon Miniplant
the following problem areas were identified.
Probe alignment problems were encountered during the first test phase.
Such problems can be expected when the probe is very long and the clearances
through the isolation valves are tight. The S-type pitot probe tube was
damaged during insertion. Hydraulic actuation makes the danger of such damage
greater since all "feel" is gone.
Double gate valves were used for probe isolation during the Exxon tests.
It is felt that a double valve approach is safer and increases system
reliability. During Phase I testing, some problems were encountered from the
leakage past the valves. The problem was narrowed down to the fact that
particulate was accumulating in the bottom of the value seat with the gate
moving down vertically into the seat. The problem was solved by rotating the
valve so that the particulate did not accumulate in the bottom of the valve
seat.
During the condensation tests (Phase II), a flow control valve was
located upstream of the downstream (cold) filter which was outside of the
probe housing. A problem was encountered when the heat tracing on the tube
downstream of the valve was unable to compensate for temperature reduction due
to the throttling effects of the valve. As a result, the catch in the
downstream filter was contaminated with sulfuric acid condensate because of
the sudden drop in temperature. A subsequent analysis of sulfuric acid
condensation limits bore out this conclusion. In addition, the throttling
valve seat material was apparently attacked by the sulfuric acid that further
contaminated the downstream filter. As a result in future tests care should
be taken to ensure that abrupt temperature drops do not occur and that all
80
-------
TABLE 18. PARTIAL COMPARISON OF FRONT AND REAR PARTICULATE
CATCHES FROM EXXON TEST SERIES I AND II
K
Fe
Na
?₯
S1
Fe
Ca
FT
Ma
Fe
Sr
Fe
Ba
FT
K
Rg
Na
Mg
SI
Hg
Fe
Mg
Ca
Mg
Sr
Ba
M?
Phase I Tests
Bulk Filter
0.45
0.10
8.54
1.23
0.79
0.04
0.03
0.57
0.12
10.84
1.27
1.56
0.05
0.04
Phase II Tests
Cyclone Front Filter
0.27
0.04
3.13
0.67
0.38
0.03
0.02
0.72
0.11
8.25
2.63
1.75
0.07
0.06
0.66
0.19
6.16
1.42
1.33
0.04
0.05
0.50
0.14
4.64
0.75
1.07
0.03
0.04
Ava.
0.47
0.12
4.65
1.05
0.86
0.04
0.04
0.61
0.13
6.45
1.69
1.41
0.05
0.05
Ratio
0.96
0.83
1.84
1.17
0.92
1.00
0.75
0.93
0.92
1.68
0.75
1.11
1.00
0.80
81
-------
valve seat materials be carefully selected for compatibility with the species
present.
Finally, the question of safety cannot be overemphasized in HTHP
sampling. Fortunately, no severe safety problems occurred during the Exxon
tests. It should be recalled that if large system leaks were to occur the
gases escaping would accelerate to supersonic velocities upon expansion. Not
only are the hot escaping gases dangerous but the erosive effects of the
particulate exiting at these high velocities could be disastrous to persons or
equipment in the area.
In future tests at coal gasification facilities, the safety problems are
even greater. In addition to the problems already mentioned, if a leak
occurred the danger of an explosion is very real. Also, many of the
constituents present may be carcinogenic depending upon the sampling location
in the process.
4.6 BEYOND PROTOTYPE SYSTEMS
The sampling system designed and tested in this program exemplified the
prototype approach. The design of the probe hardware utilized approaches
employed to ensure proper operation in a first-of-a-kind sampling exercise.
Now that the general approach has been demonstrated at least at an PFBC
facility we can look to some of the questions affecting the development of
more general purpose sampling equipment designed to meet a wider variety of
applications. It should be emphasized that to some extent this discussion is
premature in that prototype sampling systems have not yet been demonstrated in
coal gasification or MHD applications.
4.6.1 Generalized Sampling Systems
One might conjecture that it would be valid to assume that a general
purpose HTHP sampling system could be constructed that would serve a wide
variety of purposes. Indeed such systems as the SASS are used in a variety of
ways in conventional sampling applications. This approach is not entirely
viable for HTHP coal conversion system applications.
For example, temperatures and pressures may vary from 1000 to 3000°F
and 1 to 100 atm depending upon the application. The wide range of
temperatures (and for that matter pressures) will dictate when the probe
surfaces must be protected by cooling, since the temperature, pressure and
velocity strongly affect the heat transfer coefficient. Therefore, over a
wide range of conditions the cooling requirements may be drastically
different. Also the pressure level (and for that matter temperature) will
dictate the pressure vessel design considerations. Consequently, from the
standpoint of pressure and temperature, the system would have to be
considerably overdesigned with respect to cooling (if required at all, in many
applications) and pressure vessel strength.
82
-------
Gaseous constituents would greatly dictate the choice of materials.
Gases present in reducing environments are considerably more corrosive to
metal parts than those found in oxidizing environments. These also combine
with operating temperature and pressure levels in selecting probe materials.
Consequently, material for a generalized probe would be of an exotic nature to
cover the most extreme conditions.
Other considerations would tend to thwart the design of a general purpose
sampling system. If a general purpose sampler is designed it must be capable
of traversing over a wide variety of duct sizes ranging from a few inches to
several feet. This is a particularly awkward situation that confronts a
generalized system approach. If a probe is designed to traverse a maximum
5-foot duct it is likely to be oversized to sample in a one foot duct.
Constraints such as the total available external operating envelope are likely
to restrict the use of an oversized probe system in many applications.
Duct velocity and particulate loading are other parameters which make the
generalized design approach difficult. If the probe and particulate
collection devices are designed for some maximum anticipated condition then
when sampling conditions at the opposite end of the spectrum, nozzle sizes,
isokinetic considerations, and sampling times are likely to become untenable.
For example, if the particulate collection device is designed to collect
particulate at a high dust loading and high velocity condition in a matter of
a few minutes of sampling time, then it might take hours to collect a
representative sample at a low dust loading, low velocity condition.
Based upon the arguments delineated above it is easy to see why each HTHP
sampling application demands a custom approach to some extent. It is
therefore unlikely that a single sampling system can be used in all or even
most PFBC applications for example. This is not to say that a given probe
design can only be used in a single application, facility, or location in the
process stream. It is also likely that a given design can have multiple
uses. But it is impractical to consider the generalized design approach for
HTHP applications. This explains one of the inherent reasons that costs for
producing a HTHP sampling system are high.
4.5.2 Modular Approach
There is another approach to the design and fabrication of HTHP sampling
systems that offers a means of reducing costs. Rather than consider a
generalized design approach, a modular approach can be taken. In the modular
approach the design aspects of each of the major sampling system components
(probe housing, traversing mechanism, collection devices, cooling system, flow
control system, etc.) can be refined to a point where sampler design can be
simplified.
Design guides for each of the major systems would be developed,
calibrated, and tested separately. Principals would be defined for
extrapolating these designs to other situations. For example, a comprehensive
program to develop and calibrate HTHP cyclones over a wide range of operating
conditions would allow the designer to quickly select a design applicable to
his particular set of conditions. Similarly, for coal gasification
83
-------
applications a program could be developed to perfect a tar collection device
with design parameters identified so that the probe designer could match his
application. In this manner, each new application would become less of a new
development program and more of a predictable design exercise. A modular
approach could not be full proof to the point where acceptance tests would not
be required, however.
To some extent the modular approach was demonstrated during the Exxon
tests. The internal and external configuration of the probe was modified from
the original using the impacter train to the Phase II configuration that
employed the scalping cyclone and dual filter arrangement. This was a good
example of the versatility of the modular approach.
4.6.3 Other Desirable Features
In the course of the period of performance of this contract at least two
process developers expressed the desire to have one or both of two automatic
features. These were (1) an automatic isokinetic capability and (2) an
automatic traversing capability. In both cases the reasons for these desired
features were to (1) improve system accuracy (2) lessen sampling time and (3)
reduce the number of required operators.
For long term process development situations at least one process
developer felt that the trade of the cost of automatic systems would be cost
effective in terms of reducing the operator labor required. This will not
always be the case. But once the automatic systems are developed their use
may become cost competitive in a wider variety of applications.
84
-------
SECTION 5
REVIEW OF PARTICULAR PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH HTHP SAMPLING
In the previous sections several problem areas pertaining to HTHP
sampling were discussed. In this section a few of those areas will be
reviewed and elaborated upon. Based upon the current state of HTHP sampling,
some recommended solutions to these problems are offered.
5.1 PF3C SAMPLING
Two areas defined as potential problem areas based upon direct experience
gained in this program are (1) pressure containment and (2) condensation
effects.
A satisfactory means of containing high pressure levels ensuring safety
and ease of operation remains a problem. Based upon the experience gained in
actual tests and studies performed during the period of this contract, a
proposed means of pressure containment has evolved. In future sampler designs
where traversing is required, it is proposed that the best means of containing
high pressures is by use of the total enclosure concept as discussed in
Section 4.2. The elimination of all sliding seals and power-driven traversing
mechanisms make this approach very attractive. The technique remains to be
proven in practice, however. There are potential problems relating to
maintenance of the internal components, and these must be put to test in
practice.
Some problems of probe condensation effects were encountered during the
Exxon tests. At times, controlled condensation might be desirable to remove
water vapor or acid gases. The question of alkali metal condensation remains
open to discussion. Special care should be taken in analyzing and designing
the internal flow system so that pressure and temperature distributions can be
determined beforehand. If abrupt temperature drops are unavoidable, then flow
passages should be adequately heat traced to avoid condensation. The best
approach is to collect the particulate at stream conditions then drop the
pressure and temperature after collection.
5.2 GASIFIER SAMPLING
The problem areas discussed in Section 5.1 pertain equally to gasifier
sampling. In fact, these problems are accentuated in some gasification
processes. As discussed earlier, the operational pressure levels in some high
Btu gasification processes far exceed those in PFBC processes. Therefore,
85
-------
pressure containment is a very difficult problem for sampling in gasification
facilities.
In addition, as discussed previously, condensation of volatiles from the
gasification process presents a problem not only from the standpoint of
collecting samples, but also as it relates to the pressure containment
problem. For example, sliding seal approaches (see Section 4.2) may prove
untenable in gasifier environments. The seals would be subject to attack from
the acid gases present, and tar condensation could foul sliding seal
surfaces. Hence, it appears that the best approach to pressure containment
for gasifier sampling is the total enclosure approach. Again, this
recommendation is subject to verification by test.
Of course the other major problem confronting the design of a gasifier
sampling system is that of collecting tar mist separate from the solid
particular matter. Some of these problems were discussed in Section 2.2.
Reference 4 discusses the various approaches considered to collect the tar
mist once it has been condensed from the stream. Again, the approach would be
to maintain the sample at the process stream temperature and pressure where
the volatiles are in a vapor state, collect the solid particles, then drop the
temperature and pressure to form a tar mist and subsequently collect the tar
mist. Most of the devices (scrubbers, impingers, cyclones, filters, etc.) for
collecting the tar mist mentioned in Section 2.2 and discussed in detail in
Reference 4 are not efficient and are subject to plugging. The exception
would be the ESP that has been successfully used to collect tars in large
industrial applications. The condensation properties of tars must be better
defined to properly design a small ESP collector. Work sponsored by DOE has
been underway for some time at the University of California at Berkeley to
characterize the chemical and condensation properties of gasification tars
(DOE Contract DE-AC01-79ET14-884, Dr. J. M. Prausnitz -- UCB).
5.3 OTHER APPLICATIONS
Two other possible applications for HTHP sampling were mentioned in this
report: MHD exhaust sampling and catalytic cracker sampling. Both of these
areas present new challenges for HTHP sampling technology.
For MHD sampling the major problem is sampling at high temperature
(2200°F) in an erosive environment. Also the application calls for a fixed
probe approach. The recommended solution was to make the sample tube and
cyclone collection device of ceramic material. The ceramic would be
temperature and erosion resistant. The ceramic fabrication approach offers
promise for other applications also. However, ceramics are subject to thermal
shock failure and means must be devised to avoid such a consequence. Again,
prototype development of a ceramic system should go far to prove the concept.
The other application, sampling at a catalytic cracker, is a lower
temperature application. Here ceramic fabrication techniques are not
required. Although fixed point sampling is the only requirement the high
velocity erosive environment dictates that the probe be removed from the
stream while not in operation. Here the proposed solution as discussed in
Section 4.2 is to use the semifixed housing design approach.
86
-------
SECTION 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The scope of the program undertaken was very comprehensive. The major
effort that of the demonstration of HTHP sampling at the Exxon Miniplant was
successful. The design and testing of this apparatus provided valuable
insight into some of the problems of HTHP sampling.
The design, analysis, and testing of an HTHP sampling system can be an
expensive proposition. The system components are complex and constant
attention must be placed upon compatibility the process stream constituents
and safety aspects. Short cut approaches to HTHP sampling are not advised.
In addition to the conclusions drawn above, the other portions of the
program especially the SOA review led to several conclusions. At the time of
the survey of process developers not many had begun to consider their needs
for HTHP particulate sampling. As their systems approach further states of
development especially with respect to cleanup devices, a clearer list of
sampling requirements will develop.
Some special problems were identified during the SOA review. One problem
that must receive further attention is that of development of system
components for coal gasification sampling. The selection of materials
compatible with gaseous constituents poses only one problem. Tar separation
and collection presents another problem area which must be addressed prior to
taking the next big step to coal gasification sampling. Perhaps a
conservative approach would be to develop a sampling system designed for
operation at an atmospheric gasifier. After a successful demonstration
further development for sampling at both high temperature and pressure could
be considered. Safety considerations for gasifier sampling should receive
foremost attention to ensure the safety of the operators and the plant
equipment. Perhaps a separate program aimed at the issue of safety for this
application is appropriate.
Another area that requires further attention is that of modularization of
design. For most applications the HTHP sampler design tends to be customized
to the particular application. However, certain components such as pressure
vessels, impactors, cyclones filters, ESPs, etc., could be designed and
laboratory tested as individual components. Once these basic components are
developed, deviations for particular applications would become more routine.
This modular approach in which separate components would be designed, proof
tested, and calibrated offers the best solution towards reducing total system
costs to future users.
87
-------
To bring HTHP sampling into more common usage, further cost reductions
must be achieved. Although process developers may decide to develop sampler
technology and carry the burden of the system development costs government and
private research agencies (DOE, EPA, EPRI, IEA, etc.) also have specific needs
for such equipment. These organizations will probably carry out the
technological development of these systems to the point where most of the
costs have been absorbed prior to sale to the user.
Finally, there appears little doubt that emerging coal conversion
technologies (PFBC, coal gasification and liquification, MHD, etc.) will
require on-line HTHP extractive particulate sampling within the next 1 to 2
years. Development of advanced HTHP sampling systems need to get underway now
so that they will be available at the time they are needed. The corresponding
development of particulate cleanup systems are the pacing item with regard to
when these sampling systems will be needed. The completion of this program is
only the beginning of the development path outlined above.
88
-------
REFERENCES
i. Meyer, Jr., P., and M. S. Edwards. Survey of Industrial Coal Conversion
Equipment Capabilities: High-Temperature, High-Pressure Gas
Purification. ORNL/TM-6072, June 1978.
2. Sverdrup, E. F., P. H. Archer, M. Merguturic. The Tolerance of Large Gas
Turbines to 'Rocks,1 'Dusts,' and Chemical Corrodants. EPA-600/9-78-004,
March 1978.
3. Coleman, H. W., et al. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Interim
Report: Diagnostic Assessment for Advanced Power Systems, SAND 77-8216,
March 1977.
4. Cooper, l., et al. Measurement of High-Temperature, High-Pressure
Processes: Annual Report, EPA-600/7-78-011, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, January 1978.
5. Blake, D. E. Source Assessment Sampling System: Design and
Development. EPA-600/7-78-018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
February 1978.
6. Masters, W., R. Larkin, L. Cooper, and C. Fong. Sampling System for
High-Temperature, High-Pressure Processes. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/7-78-158, August 1978.
7. Masters, W., R. Larkin, and L. Cooper. A Particulate Sampling System for
Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustors. Paper presented by L. Cooper at
the West German Workshop on Particulate Technology in March 1978.
8. Dravo Corporation. Handbook of Gasifiers and Gas Treatment Systems.
FE-1772-11, Pittsburgh, Penn., February 1976.
9. Szwab, W., W. H. Fisher, and B. N. Murthy. Technical Support for Coal
Conversion and Utilization: Techniques for Particulate Sampling and
Measurement from Gasifiers at High-Temperatures and High-Pressure.
FE-2220-5, December 1976.
10. Vitols, V. Theoretical Limits of Errors Due to Anisokinetic Sampling of
Particulate Matter. IAPCA Journal, February 1966.
11. Parker, G. J. Some Factors Governing the Design of Probes for Sampling
in Particle and Drop Laden Streams. Atmospheric Environment, 1968.
12. Survey of Coal Conversion Demonstration Facilities and Sampling Equipment
- Telephone Survey conducted in 1976 and 1977 documented in this report.
13. O'Fallon, N. M., and L. G. LeSaye. Coal Conversion Instrumentation.
Industrial Research/Development, June 1978.
89
-------
14. Cooper, B. R. Research Challenge: Clean Energy from Coal. Physics
Today, August 1978.
15. Kuykendal, W. B. Instrumental Techniques for Industrial Source
Particulates. Presented at the West German Workshop on Particulate
Technology, March, 1978.
16. Smith, W. B., P. R. Cavanaugh, R. R. Wilson. Technical Manual: A Survey
of Equipment and Methods for Particulate Sampling in Industrial Process
Streams. EPA 600/7-78-043, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March
1978.
17. Hull, J. Materials for Use in High-Temperature/Pressure Hostile
Environments. EPA 600/9-78-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
September 1977.
18. Shackleton, M. A. High-Temperature, High-Pressure Particulate Control
with Ceramic Bag Filters. EPA 600/7-78-194, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1978.
90
-------
APPENDIX A
HIGH-TEMPERATURE, HIGH-PRESSURE MAILING LIST
91
-------
HTHP MAILING LIST
N. Abuaf
Brookhaven National
Upton Long Island
New York, 11973
Laboratory
Richard L. Adams
Wheelabrator-Frye Inc.
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Jeffery C. Alexander
M.I.T.
Room 36-323
Cambridge, MA 02139
Gerald L. Anderson
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60616
Herman B. Anderson, Jr.
General Services Administration
Region 3, PBS
Technical Field Office
7th & D Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20407
Dr. John W. Anderson
Rexnord, Inc.
1914 Albert Street
Racine, WI 53404
Larry W. Anderson
Acurex/Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94042
Stig Andersson
STAL Laval
S-61320 Finspong
Sweden
Francis M. Alpiser
Chemical Environmental Engineering
EPA III - AHMD-SIP
Sixth and Walnut
Curtis Building MS-3A-H11
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Jim Abbott
EPA
IERL-RTP
Research Triangle Park, NC
D. H. Archer
Westinghouse
Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Ted Atwood
Process Engineering
Department of Energy
Room 504
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
- B -
W. D. Bachalo
Spectron Development Labs
3303 Harbor Blvd.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Roland Beck
Department of Energy
7374 S. Forest
Whittier, CA 90602
Robert W. Bee
Consultant
126 Hopeland Lane
Sterling, VA 21170
Albert J. Bevolc
Associate Physicist
US Department of Energy
Ames Laboratory
A205 Physics
Ames, IA 50011
Dr. Suresh P. Babu
Institute Gas Technology
3424 S. State Street
Chicago, Illinois 60616
E. T. Barrow
Ministry of the Env.
Air Resources Branch
44880 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario MS5 128
Canada
27711
92
-------
Walter A. Baxter
Environmental Elements Corp.
P. 0. Box 1318
Baltimore, MD 21230
K. Bekofske
General Electric Co.
CR&D -
P. 0. Box 8
Schnectady, NY 12301
Michael Beltran
Beltran Assoc., Inc.
1133 E. 35th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11210
Paul A. Berman
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
P. 0. Box 9175, Lester Branch
Philadelphia, PA 19113
Dr. Samuel Bernstein
Flow Research Co.
P. 0. Box 5040
Kent, WA 98031
Prem Sagar Bhardwaja, PhD
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Charles E. Billings
Environmental Engineering Science
740 Boylston Street
Chestnut, MA 02167
Samuel 0. Biondo
Federal Power Commission
825 N. Capitol Street, N.E., Room 5008
Washington, D.C. 20426
David Blake
Acurex/Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94042
Dale Blann
Acurex/Aerotherm
3301 Woman's Club Drive
Raleigh, NC 27611
Frederic L. Blum
Research-Cottrell Inc.
P. 0. Box 750
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
B. H. Bochenek
U. S. EPA
401 M. Street, S.W. (A-134)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dr. R. Boerieke
General Electric Co.
Building 2, Room 712
One River Road
Schnectady, NY 12345
Dr. R. H. Boll
Babcock and WiIcox
Research Center
P. 0. Box 835
Alliance, OH 44601
Mr. Wi Hi am L. Brangers
U. S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
Abeerdeen Proving Grounds, MD
Ed Brooks
TRW
One Space Park Drive
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Robert F. Brown
Research-Cottrell
P. 0. Box 750
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
21010
Warren L. Buck
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue.,
Argonne, IL 60439
Building 308
Charles L. Burton
Combustion Engineering
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, CT 06095
John R. Bush
Research-Cottrell
P. 0. Box 750
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
93
-------
Chris Busch
President
Spectron Dev. Lab.
3303 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92606
Jeffery Bradley
Researeh Associate
University of Wisconsin
at MiIwaukee
3200 N. Cramer Street
Milwaukee, WI 53201
Beth A. Brown
Aspen Systems Corporation
20010 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD 20767
Bruce Boggs
Amax
5020 S. Atlanta Rd.
Smyra, GA 30080
S.E,
Walt Badalski
Argonne National Lab.
9700 Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
Joan Biodi
PERC
4800 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Eugene Baker
Univ. of N. Dakota
Grand Forks, ND 58201
- C -
John J. Casey
Sr. Marketing Engineering
Fluidyne Engineering Corp.
5900 Olson Memorial Highway
Minneapolis, MN 55422
Gilbert K. C. Chen
Monsanto
800 North Lindbergh Blvd.
St.Louis, MO 63166
John F. Cobianchi
J. P. Stevens & Company, Inc.
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dr. Hugh Coleman
Sandia Laboratories
P. 0. Box 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87115
John Colton
TRW
7600 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22101
James Colyar
Process Engineering
Cogas Development Company
P. 0. Box 8
Princeton, NJ 08540
Peter Costanza
Staff Scientist
Textile Research Inst.
P. 0. Box 65
Princeton, NJ 08540
Steven R., Cross
Buell-Envirotech
253 N. Fourth Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
Robert A. Chronowski
MITRE Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, VA 22101
Robert Carlson
Acurex/Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94042
Captain Jesse B. Cabellon
U. S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
Abeerdeen Proving Grounds, MD
Dr. Seymour Calvert
Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
4901 Morena Blvd, Suite 402
San Diego, CA 92117
21010
94
-------
Dr. R. L. Carpenter
Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental
Research Institute
P. 0. Box 5890
Albuquerque, NM 87115
Captain James W_. Carroll
U. S. Army Environmental
Hygiene Agency
Abeerdeen Proving Grounds, MD 21010
Gregory H. S. Cheng
Environeering, Inc.
4233 N. United Parkway
Schiller Park, IL 60176
C.K.H. Choi
TRW Energy Systems Group
Building R4/Room 2136
One Space Park Dr.
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Dr. David F. Ciliberti
Westinghouse R&D Center
Beulah Road, Bldg. 501-3E29
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Neil H. Coates
Mitre Corp./Metrek Div.
1820 Dolly Madison Blvd.
McLean, VA 22101
Leland Collins
Mech. Eng. Dept.
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305
Steven D. Colome
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
Glenn Coury
Coury & Associates, Inc.
7400 W. 14th Avenue
Lakewood, CO 80214
Rufus Crawford
Steams-Roger Eng. Co.
P. 0. Box 5888
Denver, CO 80217
T. E. Ctrvtnicek
Monsanto-Dayton Labs
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, OH 45407
John S. Cvicker
Foster-Wheeler Energy Corp,
110 S. Orange Avenue
Livingston, NJ 07039
Fred Cox
Menardi Southern
1201 W. Francisco Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90502
Irving Carls
Argonne National Lab.
9700 Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
ton. Corder
Battelle-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Dr. Stanley Canada
G.E.
P.O. Box 8
Schnectady, NY 12301
John C. Dempsey
Program Manager
U.S. Department
WPR Division
Washington, D.C,
- D -
of Energy
20545
Mark N. Director
Head, Gas Physics Section
Atlantic Research Corp.
5390 Cherokee Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Thomas Donnelly
Donaldson Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1299
Minneapolis, MN 55440
95
-------
Frederick J. Dudek
UOP, Inc. Air Correction Div.
P. 0. Box 1107, Tokeneke Road
Darien, CT 06820
John M. Ducan
Shell Development
P. 0. Box 2463 -- One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas 77001
Alberta M. Dawson
Sala Magnetics, Inc.
247 Third Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
- E -
Sally Edler
Bendix Environmental & Process
Instruments Division
1400 Taylor Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21204
Heinz L. Engelbrecht
Wheelabrator-Frye Inc.
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Joseph Epstein
MHD Division
U.S. Department of Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
George Erskine
Mitre Corp./ Metrek Division
1820 Dolly Madison Blvd.
McLean, VA 22101
Robert Ellman
Department of Energy
Grand Forks Energy Res. Ctr.
Grand Forks, ND 58202
- F -
H. N. Frock
Leeds & Northrup
Dickerson Road
North Wales, PA 19454
B. P. Faulkner
Allis-Chalmers Corp.
P. 0. Box 512
Milwaukee, WI 53201
William Fedarko
U.S. Department of Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20545
Paul L. Feldman
Research-Cottrell
P. 0. Box 750
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
Lewis K. Felleisen
EPA, Region III
Curtis Building
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Paul E. Fredette
Midland-Ross Technical Center
P. 0. Box 907
Toledo, OH 43691
Max Friedman
Chemico Air Pollution Control Co,
One Penn Plaza
New York, NY 11801
David Ferrell
CE Power Systems
1000 Prospect Hill Rd
Windsor, CT 06095
Dale Furlong
Buell Emission Control Division
Envirotech Corp.
200 N. Seventh Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
James Facet
Facet Enterprises
434 W. 12 Mile Road
Madison Hts., MI 48071
Robert Frumerman
Frumerman Associates
5423 Darlington Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15217
96
-------
Oliver Foo
Mitre/Metrek Division
Westgate Research Park
McLean, VA 22101
- - 6 -
John A. Garbak
Montgomery County
Dept. of Env. Protection
6110 Executive Blvd., Room 340
Rockville, MD 20852
Peter Gelfand
Buell Emission Control Div.
Envirotech Corp.
200 N. Seventh Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
James A. Gieseke
Battelle-Columbus Labs.
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
W. Giles
General Electric Co.
Corporate R&D
P. 0. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301
Dr. Simon L. Goren
National Science Foundation
Engineering Division
Washington, D.C. 20550
John S. Gordon
TRW.
Energy Systems Planning Div.
7600 Colshire Drive
McLean, VA 22101
Eugene Grassel
Donaldson Company
P. 0. Box 1299
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Michael W. Gregory
Exxon Res. & Dev.
1600 Linden Avenue
Linden, NJ 07036
Ulrich Grimm
MERC
U.S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgantown, WV 26537
Robert Gugger
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
One Passaic Street
Wood Ridge, NJ 07075
Nigel Guilford
Ontario Res. Foundation
Sheridan Park
Mississauga, Ontario L5K 1B3
Michael Gurevich
U.S. Department of Energy
1900 S. Eads Street
Arlington, VA 22202
Karl-Axel Gustavsson
Bahco Ventilation
Bahco Systems, Inc.
P. 0. Box 48116
Atlanta, GA 30362
Adi R. Guzdar
Foster-Miller Association
135 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02176
John A. Garbak
Environmental Engineering
Montgomery County
1909 Hyannis Ct. No. 202
McLean, VA 22101
John Gefkin
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/Advanced Power Systems
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Gerald M. Goblirsch
Mechanical Engineering
Department of Energy
Grand Forks Energy Research Center
Box 8213 University Station
Grand Forks, ND 58202
97
-------
Masood Ghassemi
TRW, Bldg. R4., Rm. 1128
One Space Park Dr.
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Stanely S. Grossel
Process Design Section
HoffmaR-LaRoche, Inc.
Nutley, NJ 07110
Edw. Garruto
Curtiss-Wright Corp.
One Passaic Avenue
Wood Ridge, NJ 07075
Dr. Wn. Goldberger
Battelle-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Michael Gluckman
EPRI
3412 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
- H -
H. J. Hall
H. J. Hall Associates
Cherry Valley Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
Mark S. Hanson
Battelie-Northwest
P. 0. Box 999
Rich land, WA 99352
Michael J. Hargrove
C-E Power Systems
1000 Prospect Hill Road
Windsor, CT 06095
G. 0. Haroldsen
Allied Chemical Corporation
550 Second Street
Idaho Falls, ID 83401
Andrew Harvey
Foster-Miller Associates
135 Second Avenue
Waltham, MA 02154
Wi Hi am J. Havener
Waltz Mill Site Box
Westinghouse
Madison, PA 15663
158
J. H. Hedberg
Aerojet Energy Conversion Company
P. 0. Box 13222
Sacramento, CA 95813
K. H. Hemsath
Surface Division
Midland-Ross Corporation
P. 0. Box 907
Toledo, OH 43691
Howard E. Hesketh
Southern Illinois University
School of Eng.
Carbondale, IL 62901
R. C. Hoke
Exxon Research and Engineering
P. 0. Box 8
Linden, NJ 07036
D. G. Ham
Battelie-Northwest
Battelle Blvd.
Rich land, WA 99352
John D. Holmgren
Westinghouse
Waltz Mill Site, Box
Madison, PA 15663
158
Dr. Donald J. Holve
Stanford University
Mechanical Engineering
Stanford, CA 94305
Dr. Chao-Ming Huang
TVA Energy Research
1320 Commerce Union Bank Bldg.
Chattanooga, TN 37401
Gordon Huddleston
Montana Energy and MHD
Research and Dev. Inst.,
P. 0. Box 3809
Butte, MT 59701
Inc.
98
-------
Jacques Hull
Acurex/Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA
94042
Don Holve
Stanford University
MechanJcal Engineering
Stanford, CA 94305
C. Frederick Hansen
Ames Research Center
NASA, Div. 229-3
Moffet Field, Ca 94033
Robert Hosemann
PG&E
77 Beale Street
San Francisco, CA 94106
Francine Hakimian
Librarian
Mcllvaine Co.
2970 Maria Avenue
Northbrook, IL 60062
Daniel Hartley
Sandia Laboratories
Livermore, CA 94550
Donald Hull
Phi Hips Petrol euro
P.O. Box 25
Homer City, PA 15748
Thomas Ho Ten
Stearns-Roger
Conoco Coal Dev. Co.
Rapid City, SD 57701
Herbert I. Hollander
Gi Ibert Associates
P.O. Box 1498
Reading, PA 19603
- J -
Albert A. Jonke
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
I. L. Jashnani
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
One Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140
Dr. Fred Jones
American Natural Service Co,
One Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48226
- K -
Yale G. Kardish
Peabody Air Resources Equip. Co,
P. 0. Box 5202
Princeton, NJ 08540
William M. Kelly
Environmental Elements Corp.
P. 0. Box 1318
Baltimore, MD 21203
Richard A. Kennedy
Mitre/Metrek Division
1820 Dolly Madison Bovd.
McLean, VA 22101
C. E. Irrion
Curtiss-Wright Corp.
One Passaic Avenue
Wood Ridge, NJ 07075
Frank J. Kiernan
Aerojet Energy Conversion
99 Clinch Avenue
Garden City, NY 11530
Richard N. Kniseley
Department of Energy
Ames Laboratory, DOE
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Dr. Charles E. Knox
Uniglass Industries
1440 Broadway
New York, NY 10018
Co
99
-------
Arthur L. Kohl
Rockwell International/
Atomics International Division
8900 DeSoto Avenue
Canoga Park, CA 91304
John J. Kov.ach
MERC -
Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 880
Morgan town, W. VA 26505
William Krisko
Donaldson Co., Inc.
P. 0. Box 1299
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Andres Kullendorff
Atal-Laval Turbin AB
S-61220 Finspong, Sweden
T. Kumar
Occidental Research Corporation
1855 Carrion Road
LaVerne, CA 91750
William B. Kuykendal
IERL-RTP
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Henry F. Keller
Carrier Corporation/
Research Division
Carrier Parkway
Syracuse, NY 13201
Mike Klett
Process Engineering
Gilbert Associates
P. 0. Box 1498
Reading, PA 19603
Harry Krokta
The Ducon Company, Inc.
147 E. Second Street
Mineola, NY 11501
Hank Kolnsberg
TRC, Inc.
125 Silas Deane Hwy.
Wethersfield, CT 06109
Dale Keairns
Westinghouse
Waltz Mill Site Box
Madison, PA 15663
158
T. Kalina
G.E.
P.O. Box 8
Schnectady, NY
12301
- L -
Norman R. LaMarche
General Electric
1 River Road
Building 23, Room 355
Schenectady, NY 12345
George Lamb
Textile Research Institute
P. 0. Box 625
Princeton, NJ 08540
William T. Langan
Buell Emission Control Division
Envirotech Corporation
200 N. Seventh Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
Robert Langley
Inex Resources, Inc.
7475 W. Fifth Avenue
Lakewood, CO 80226
C. E. Lapple
Chemical Engineering Department
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Benjamin Linsky
A Different Air Skyline
1360 Anderson
Morgantown, WV 26505
C. E. Lombardi
Teller Environmental Systems, Inc.
10 Faraday Street
Worcester, MA 01605
100
-------
£. T. Losin
A11 is-Chalmers
MiIwaukee, WI
Corporation
53201
F. E. Lukens
Western Arcadia
4115 W. Ogden Avenue
Chicago, IL 60623
Bruno Loran
Ralph M. Parsons co.
100 W. Walnut Street
Pasadena, CA 91124
Vance Leak
U.S. Dept. Interior
P.O. Box 1660
Twin Cities, MN 55111
Dr. Phi lip Levins
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
One Acorn Park
Cambridge, MA 02140
- M -
Andrej Macek
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/Advanced Power Systems
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Dr. Ray F. Maddalone
TRW Defense and Space Systems Group
Building 01/2020
One Space Park Drive
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
Dr. Lidia Manson
TRW
Bldg. 01-2161
One Space Park Drive
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
William Masters
Acurex/Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA
94042
I. Matsunga
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
875 North Michigan Ave., Ste.
Chicago, IL 60611
Sigvard Mats
Flakt Inc.
1500 E. Putnam Avenue
Old Greenwich, CT 06870
Mike May
Babcock and Wilcox Company
20 S. Van Buren
Barberton, OH 44203
J. T. McCabe
Mechanical Technology
968 Albany-Shaker Road
Latham, NY 12110
J. D. McCain
Southern Research Institute
2000 9th Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
Joseph E. McGreal
United States Steel Research
"B" Street
Penn Hills, PA 15235
James R. Melcher
MIT
Room 36-313, 50 Vassar Street
Boston, MA 02139
Dr. Arthur G. Metcalfe
Solar Turbines International
Mail Zone R-l, Box 80966
San Diego, CA 92138
Richard Mitchell
Inex Resources, Inc.
7475 W. Fifth Avenue
Lakewood, CO 80226
Mark H. More Hi
Amax Coal Company
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
2100
101
-------
John M. Morris
Air Pollution Division
Rexnord Inc.
P. 0. Box 13226
Louisville, KY 40213
Andy Murphy
Acurex/Aerotherm
3301 Woman's Club Drive
Raleigh, NC 27611
Keshava S. Murthy
Battelie-Columbus Labs.
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Ron Miller
PSM Sales Rexnord
7675 Maple Avenue
Pennsauken, NJ 08109
Wi lliam McCarthy
Chemical Engineering
US/EPA - OEMI
Waterside Mall
Washington, D.C. 20460
George B. Manning
Department of Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
Dr. Jim Meyer
Research Engineering
Oak Ridge National Lab.
P. 0. Box "X"
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
M. Miller
Fluidyne Engineering Corporation
5240 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22151
John C. Montagna
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
R. H. Moore
Battelie-Northwest
Battelle Boulevard
Rich land, WA 99352
Samuel J. Moore
Carrier Corp/Research
Carrier Parkway
Syracuse, NY 13201
Div.
William E. Moore
Fossil Energy/Adv. Power Systems
Department of Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
Tom Mosure
US/EPA
Environmental Research Inf. Center
26 W. St. Clair
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Larry Micha lee
Code 64270 NARF
NAS North Island
San Diego, CA 92135
Henry Modetz
EPA, Region IV
230 S. Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604
M. MacCafferty
IEA Coal Research
Technical Information Service
14/15 Lower Grosvenor Place
London SWIW OEX
England
Capt. Joseph A. Martone
USAF, BSC
DET 1, HC ADTC
Tyndall AFB, FL 32403
John Miles
Phillips Petroleum
P.O. Box 25
Homer City, PA 15748
Rich McMillan
Foster-Wheeler Energy Research Ctr.
12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livigston, NJ 07039
102
-------
- N -
Leonard M. Naphtali
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/CCN
20 Massachusetts Avenue
.Washington, D.C. 20545
Charles K. Neulander
General Electric Company
P. 0. Box 8, Building K-l
Schnectady, NY 12301
G. S. Newton
Lovelace Biomedical
Environmental Research Institute
P. 0. Box 5890
Albuquerque, NM 87115
James C. Napier
Solar Turbines International
P. 0. Box 80966
2200 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92138
David V. Nakles
Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
Schenley Park
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
- 0 -
Thomas E. O'Hare
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, Long Island, NW 11973
Dr. Morris S. Ojalvo
National Science Foundation
Engineering Division
Washington, D.C. 20550
John M. Ondov
Lawrence Livermore Lab.
P. 0. Box 808
Livermore, CA 94550
Dr. H. H. Osborn
C-E Air Preheater Co.
P. 0. Box 372
Wellsville, NY 14895
Dr. Nancy O'Fallon
Argonne Natl. Lab.
Applied Physics Dept., Bldg. 316
9700 Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
- P -
Subhash S. Pate!
Hittman Associates, Inc.
9151 Rumsey Road Building
Columbia, MD 21045
Dr. Ronald G. Patterson
Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
4901 Morena Boulevard, Suite 402
San Diego, CA 92117
Dr. Richard D. Parker
Air Pollution Technology, Inc.
4901 Morena Blvd., Suite 402
San Diego, CA 92117
Walter Podolski
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, Illinois 60439
James B. Padden
Facet Filters
434 W. 12 Mile Road
Madison Heights, MI 48071
Joseph R. Polek
Catalytic, Inc.
1500 Market Street, CSW-10
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Duane H. Pondius
Southern Research Inst.
2000 9th Avenue S.
Birmingham, AL 35205
Wm Penson
Battelle-Columbus
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
Jerry Peterson
G.E.
P.O. Box 8
Schnectady, NY 12301
103
-------
Lyle Pollack
Phi Hips Petroleum
154 RB 1
Bartlesville, OK 74004
John Piatt
Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Company
(PAMCO)
P.O. Box 199
DuPont, WA 98327
Peter Palmer
G.E.
P.O. Box 8
Schnectady, NY
12301
- Q -
Sandra Quinlivan
TRW
Bldg. R4, Rm. 1120
One Space Park Drive
Redondo Beach, CA 90278
- R -
Ronald Renko
Development Engineering
C-E Air Preheater
Wellsville, NY 14895
D. L. Reid
Battelle-Northwest
P. 0. Box 999
Rich land, WA 99352
George Rey
Office of R & D (RD-681)
Env. Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
George Rinard
Research Engineer
Denver Research Inst.
Denver, CO 80208
Stephen N. Rudnick
Harvard School of Public Health
665 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02115
E. Radhakrishnan
Battelle-Columbus Labs.
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Madhav B. Ranade
Research Triangle Institute
P. 0. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
David L. Raring
Sonic Development Corporation
3 Industrial Avenue
Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458
Dr. Richard Razgaitis
Ohio State University
206 W. 18th Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43221
R. B. Reif
Battelle-Columbus Labs.
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
Frank G. Rinker
Midland-Ross
P. 0. Box 907
Toledo, Ohio 43691
Thomas 0. Robertazzi
Facet Enterprises
6521 Arlington Boulevard
Falls Church, VA 22042
David R. Rubin
U.S.D.A., Rural Electrification Admin
Agriculture South Building
14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
Mr. Jean V. Remillieux
Air Industrie
19, Avenue DuBonnet
92401 Courbevoie
France
George L. Roberts
Vice President
Universal Transport Systems, Inc.
2665 Marine Way
Mountain View, CA 94040
104
-------
James Ronning
Curtiss-Wright Corp.
One Passaic Avenue
Wood Ridge, NJ 07075
- S -
William A. Standstrom
Institute of Gas Technology
3424 South State Street
Chicago, IL 60616
Gene Schaltenbrand
C-E Preheater Company
P. 0. Box 387
Wellsville, NY 14895
Robert Scheck
Steams-Roger
P. 0. Box 5888
Denver, CO 80217
Martin Schi Her
CSI Engineering
P. 0. Box 1515
Fairfield, CT 06430
J. W. Schindeler
John Zink Company
P. 0. Box 7388
Tulsa, OK 74105
Dr. Schnittgrunt
Consolidated Aluminum
2302 Wei don Way
St. Louis, MO 63178
H. F. Schulte
Rexnord, Inc.
1914 Albert Street
Racine, WI 53404
Gernot Mayer Schwinning
Lurgi Apparate-Technik GmbH
Postfash 1, Gwinner Street
6000 Frankfort am Main-2
West Germany
Dr. David S. Scott
Dept. of Mech Engineering
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4
Canada
Stanley J. Selle
Grand Forks Energy Res. Ctr.
Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 8213, University Station
Grand Forks, ND 58202
Michael Shackleton
Acurex/Aerotherm
485 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94042
J. K. Shah
Surface Division
Midland-Ross Corporation
P. 0. Box 907
Toledo, OH 43691
Jer-Yu Shang, Ph.D
Mitre Corp./Metrek Division
Westgate Research Park
McLean, VA 22101
W. J. Sheeran
General Electric Company
Corporate R&D
P. 0. Box 43
Schenectady, NY 12301
Dr. Thomas S. Shevlin
3M Company
3M Center, P. 0. Box 33221, Bldg. 230
St. Paul, MN 55138
Dr. Gajendra H. Shroff
Bechtel Power Corporation
15740 Shady Grove Road
Gaithersburg, MD 20760
Dr. A. P. Sikri
U.S. Department of Energy
Gas & Shale Technology
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
105
-------
A. A. Smith
Babcock and Wilcox Ltd.
Woodall-Duckham House
Crawley, Sussex,
United Kingdom
Dr. Donald W. .Smith
HAVEG Industries
900 Greenbank Road
Wilmington, DE 19808
Wallace B. Smith
Southern Research Inst.
2000 9th Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35205
John H. Smith son
Department of Energy
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
Herbert W. Spencer, III
Western Precipitation Division
Joy Manufacturing
4565 Colorado Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90039
John Spriggs
Donaldson Company, Inc
P. 0. Box 1299
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Dr. C. J. Stairmand
Babcock and Wilcox Ltd.
Woodall-Duckham House
Crawley, Sussex
United Kingdom
Richard C. Stone
Stone & Webster Engineering Company
P. 0. Box 2325
Boston, MA 02107
William M. Swift
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Avenue, Bldg. 205
Argonne, IL 60439
Ronald D. Synder
Buell Emission Control Division
Envirotech Corporation
200 N. Seventh Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
Robert K. Schaplowsky
Chemist
Aerojet
7767 LaRivera Drive No.
Sacramento, CA 95826
219
David Shaw
Professor
State University of NY/Buffalo
4232 Ridge Lea Road
Buffalo, NY 14226
G. F. Schiefelbein
Battelle-Northwest
Battelle Boulevard
Rich land, WA 99352
Jer Yu Shang
Professional Engineering
4524 Andes Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
Kevin J. Shields
Hittinaw Associates,
9190 Red Branch Road
Columbia, MD 21045
Inc.
Jack Siege!
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/Advanced Power Systems
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
Theodore B. Simpson
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/Advanced Power Systems
20 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20545
Gregory W. Smith
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
Walter Steen
Chemical Engineering
US EPA
IERL-RTP
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
106
-------
G. E. Stegen
Battelle-Northwest
Battelle Boulevard
Rich land, WA 99352
David Stelman
Rock well/Atomies Int. Div,
8900 DeSoto Avenue
Canoga Park, CA 91304
Ed Stenby
Project Engineering
Stearns-Roger
P. 0. Box 5888
Denver, CO 80217
E. F. Sverdrup
Westinghouse
Beulah Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Dean Simeroth
California Air
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, CA
Resources Board
95812
A.V. Slack
SAS Corporation
Wilson Lake shores
Sheffield, AL 35660
Richard A. Schwartz
Koch Engineering Co., Inc.
161 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
Franklin Smith
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
W. Szwab
GiIbert Associates
P.O. Box 1498
Reading, PA 19603
Max Souby
Univ. of N. Dakota
Grand Forks, ND 58201
Harold Stotler
Hydrocarbon Res., Inc.
334 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ 07960
A. G. Sliger
Pullman-Kellogg
16200 Park Row
Industrial Park Ten
Houston, TX 77079
- T -
F. Gale Teats
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
Yung Kwang Ti
Research Associates
University of Wisconsin
3200 N. Cramer Street
Milwaukee, WI 53201
C. Tien
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13210
R. F. Toro
Recon Systems, Inc.
Cherry Valley Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
Richard H. Tourin
NY State Energy Research
and Development Authority
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Norman R. Troxel
Research-Cottrell, Inc.
P. 0. Box 750
Bound Brook, NJ 08805
at Milwaukee
Keh C. Tsao
University of Wisconsin
College of Engineering
3200 N. Cramer Street
Milwaukee, WI 53211
at MiIwaukee
107
-------
Alex lurchine
Proctor and Gamble
7162 Reading Road
Cincinnati, OH 45222
Suresh P. Tendulkar
Westinghouse .
Waltz Mill Site, Box 158
Madison, PA 15663
C. M. Thoennes
General Electric Company
Building 2, Room 712
One River Road
Schnectady, NY 12345
Dr. Jim Trolinger
Spectron Development Labs
3303 Harbor Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
S. I. Taub
IU Conversion Systems, Inc.
Joshua Road and Stenton Avenue
P.O. Box 331
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Charles Trilling
Rockwell/Atomics International
P.O. Box 319
Canoga Park, CA 91304
F. Munro Veazie
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation
Technical Center
Granville, OH 43023
Geza Verities
Westinghouse
1500 Chester Pike, Building A703
Eddystone, PA 19013
John A. Verrant
Donaldson Company, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1299
Minneapolis, MN 55440
S. N. Vines
University of VA, Chemical Eng. Dept,
Thornton Hall
Charlottesville, VA 22901
G. J. Vogel.
Argonne National Lab.
9700 S. Cass Avenue
Argonne, IL 60439
D. V. Vukovic
Faculty of Technology and Metallurgy
Belgrade University
1100 Beogard, Karnegijeva 4,
P.O.B. 494
Yugoslavia
- U -
V. S. Underkoffler
Manager, Combustion and Advanced Power
Gilbert Associates, Inc.
525 Lancaster Avenue
Reading, PA 19603
- V -
V. A. Varady
UOP Process Division
UOP Plaza
Des Plaines, IL
E. S. Van Valkenburg
Leeds and Northrup Company
Dickerson Road
North Wales, PA 19454
- W -
Gordon L. Wade
Combustion Power Company
1346 Willow Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Donald E. Wambsgans, II
District of Columbia
Dept. of Environmental Services
Room LL-3
614 "H" Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Walter Wolowodivk
Foster-Wheeler Dev. Corp.
12 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, NJ 07039
108
-------
Peter Waldstew
Physical Chemist
RDR
P. 0. Box 33128
District Heights,
MD 20028
Andrew Wallo
Env.-Scientist
1605 Craig Street
Sterling, VA 22170
Phillip C. White
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/Advanced Power Systems
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Stephen Wander
Department of Energy
400 First Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Val E. Weaver
Department of Energy
Fossil Energy/Advanced Power Systems
20 Massachusetts. Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Frank Weiskopf
Environmental Elements Corp.
P. 0. Box 1318
Baltimore, MD 21203
Clyde L. Witham
SRI International
333 Ravenswood
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Thomas Walsh
Riely-Stoker
P.O. Box 547
Worcester, MA
01613
David Weller
Curtiss-Wright Corp.
One Passaic Avenue
Wood Ridge, NJ 07075
D. E. Woodmansee
G.E.
P.O. Box 8
Schnectady, NY 12301
Dr. John S. WiIson
Department of Energy/MERC
P.O. Box 880
Morgantown, WV 26505
- Y -
Dr. H. C. Yeh
Lovelace Biomedical and Environmental
Research Institute
P. 0. Box 5890
Albuquerque, NM 87115
- Z -
Dr. Karim Zahedi
President
EFB, Inc.
94 Francis
Brook line,
Street
MA 02146
John H. Zarnitz
N.Y.C. Dept. of Air Resources
7044 Manse Street
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Dr. F. A. Zenz
The Ducon Company
147 East Second Street
Mineola, LI, NY 11501
August H. Zoll
Curtiss-Wright Corporation
Power Systems
Wood Ridge, NJ 07075
Stephen H. Zukor
Department of Energy
OGST
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20545
Irena M. Zuk
Interdevelopment, Inc.
Suite 104,
Rutherford B. Hayes Bldg.
2361 South Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Arlington, VA 22202
109
-------
APPENDIX 8
SURVEY OF CONTINUOUS PARTICULATE MEASUREMENT DEVICES
B.I SUMMARY
This investigation surveys the state-of-the-art of continuous particulate
monitoring devices applicable to high-temperature and high-pressure (HTHP)
processes. The study determined that continuous particulate monitoring of
HTHP-process streams, involving fluidized bed combustion and coal
gasification, are relatively new frontiers for particulate sampling
technology. No commercial monitoring device is currently available that can
meet this need; however, research efforts are underway to develop the
technology.
Instrumentation based on electro-optics is very attractive for this
future need. In addition to the electro-optical devices, the IKOR continuous
monitor, based on the principle of contact charge transfer, also .is a
potential candidate for HTHP monitoring.
B.2 INTRODUCTION
The deficiencies of existing monitoring equipment is a hindrance to
process control and environmental protection in the development of advanced
coal and energy conversion systems, (e.g., fluidized bed combustors and coal
gasifiers).
In particular, Argonne National Laboratories has concluded (Reference
3-1) that coal-fired processes (both existing and proposed) require
instrumentation development for the monitoring of:
0 Mixed phase flowrates of dense phase solids mass flow, dilute phase
solids mass flow, and dirty gas flow
On-line composition of streams (containing solids, liquids, and
gases) and vessels (containing solids and liquids)
Level detection of oil/water interfaces occurring in coal conversion
processes and of fluidized-bed heights
Rapidly fluctuating temperatures, in the 1500°F to 3000°F range
Continuous particulate sampling is also essential to the determination of
on-line process conditions. The importance of this sampling is underscored
for HTHP streams, which can corrode or erode exposed equipment surfaces such
as turbine blades.
110
-------
This investigation presents a brief survey of the state-of-the-art of
continuous particulate monitoring equipment. Information sources include
current literature and equipment manufacturers.
The coal energy conversion industry encompasses a variety of processes
which can span a wide range of operating conditions. This survey considers
the sampling environment defined below, which is representative of technology
currently under development.
Temperature: 1200°F to 2000°F
Pressure: 3 to 100 atm
Flow velocity: 10 to 100 ft/sec
Particulate size: <60ym
Particulate loading: 0.04 to 4.4 gram/m^
Factors which create hostile environments for particulate monitoring equipment
are:
The existence of high temperature and high pressure
Corrosive, abrasive, and highly flammable nature of the constituents,
while nonuniform flow profiles complicate the determination of
particulate loading.
B.3 DISCUSSION
The current state of particulate detection technology is comprised of
continuous monitoring and noncontinuous sampling. Virtually all of the
hardware for measurements at modest temperatures and pressures falls in the
latter category. Typical techniques consist of sample extraction, sample
conditioning, sample collection (filters, impactors and cyclones) and
subsequent weighing of this sample in a gravimetric balance. Reference 2
presents a survey of the existing noncontinuous HTHP sampling techniques.
As mentioned previously, the requirement for continuous monitoring
equipment is critical to the development and subsequent commercialization of
advanced coal energy systems. This document presents an overview of the
state-of-the-art of continuous particulate monitoring at HTHP, which is still
in the very initial stages of development. As such, the approach here looks
at the existing continuous particulate monitoring techniques and presents
their status for HTHP application. The field of continuous monitoring divides
into two categories: extractive and nonextractive sampling. A discussion of
these is presented below.
B.3.1 Extractive Continuous Monitoring
The methods studies using the extractive monitoring approach were based
upon:
The Piezo-electric effect
'Beta wave attenuation
Contact charge transfer (tribo-electric effect)
111
-------
B.3.1.1 Piezo-Electric Effect
Instruments using this method are called piezo-electric microbalances.
The heart of the microbalance is a quartz crystal, which acquires a
particulate sample deposition by impaction (see Figure B-l). This alters the
natural frequency of vibration of the crystal, and the shift in frequency
correlates with the particulate mass. Reference 3 presents a detailed
discussion of this technique.
At the particulate loadings of interest for HTHP process stream
measurements, this technique is essentially a noncontinuous one.
Piezo-electric microbalances monitor low concentrations at ambient
conditions. Dr. Wallace of Berkeley Industries (Reference 4) advised that the
current limit for these instruments is a frequency shift of 2000 Hz. This
implies a mass concentration of about 150 pg/m3 for 30 minutes without
overloading the crystal. In addition, the frequency response of the crystal
is very sensitive to both pressure and temperature, an undesirable trait for
HTHP application. As such, this technique was deamed not suitable for HTHP
process steam monitoring.
3.3.1.2 Beta-Wave Attenuation
Figure B-2 presents a Beta-wave radiation attenuation instrument and its
use as an emissions mass monitor. Differences in Beta-wave transmission
between the clear and loaded portions of a filter tape determine the radiation
attenuation due to the presence of particulate. The particulate mass is
directly related to this attenuation. A detailed discussion of this technique
is presented in Reference 3.
A recent investigation conducted by C. H. Gooding (Reference 5) found the
GCA instrument based on Beta-attenuation to be inaccurate. He, along with
others, have stressed that further work is needed to improve conversion from
Beta-attenuation to particulate mass. Besides this, the current temperature
limit for filter tapes is about 600°F, and the high pressure is likely to
pose a serious gas leakage problem. Hence, this method was also judged
unsuitable for HTHP requirements.
8.3.1.3 Contact Charge Transfer (Tribo-Electric Effect)
If a particle can be made to hit or slide along a surface, it will
usually transfer electrical charge to the surface. This creates a voltage
potential which will cause a current (10"7 to 10~8 amps, typically) within
conducting materials. This is one example of the tribo-electric effect
(Reference 3). Figure B-3 illustrates the use of the IKOR continuous monitor,
which is based on this principle.
Two companies produce(d) particulate sampling equipment based on this
principle: IKOR and KONITEST* (German). IKOR markets both an extractive and
a nonextractive sampler. This type of monitor holds promise for application
to HTHP process stream monitoring.
112
-------
Appro x irately
150 1 i ters/minute
Approximate!/
1 liter/-inute
Figure B-1.
Piezo-electric microbalance (quartz) particulate
sampling train.
113
-------
Approximately
60 liters/-inute
Valve
Flowreter Puro
Figure B-2. Beta-wave attenuation particulate sampling train.
114
-------
Figure B-3.
IKOR continuous particulate mass monitor
based on contact charge.
115
-------
According to the equipment specifications, the IKOR probe can detect mass
concentrations from 1 x 10'4 grains/scf to 100 grains/scf for particles
between 0.1 and 100 ym in size. Mr Gruber of IKOR (Reference 6) stated that
the IKOR samplers have been used at high temperatures (2000°F) and low
pressure (ambient) and low temperatures and high pressures (350 psi). He
further indicated that the corrosive environment of these process streams
interest will not damage a suitable probe material, such as Titanium.
of
Studies recently conducted (Reference 7) show that with the IKOR
continuous monitor particulate concentration readings are a strong function of
flow velocity. Further testing and evaluation are needed to resolve this
problem.
B.3.2 Nonextractive Continuous Monitoring
Since HTHP process streams are corrosive, abrasive and volatile in
nature, nonextractive monitoring is preferable to minimize the potential of
system leaks, which could be hazardous. In this category the discussion will
center on methods using electro-optics.
8.3.2.1 Electro-Optical Methods
This field of the particulate sampling technology is currently receiving
much attention. A variety of instrumentation is under development to
determine the size, number density, mass concentration and velocity of the
particulates. These techniques, in which the particulates are illuminated by
a beam of light (e.g., laser or LED), divide into the two categories listed
be 1 ow:
Light absorption
Light scattering
Instruments based on the former principle are opacity meters, or
transmissometers. They rely upon correlations of opacity versus mass
concentration, and are classified as "crude" techniques; hence, this
investigation did not concentrate on them in detail. However, they appear to
be useful for determining relative changes in particulate loading as an aid to
process control.
Instrumentation based on light scattering are sophisticated diagnostics
approaches that may be capable of resolving particulate size distributions as
well as loading densities. These devices rely on application of the MIE
Theory (References 8 and 9), which describes the scattering of electromagnetic
radiation from particles. For a description of the theory and its
applications, the reader is referred to recent investigations by Coleman,
et al., (Reference 10).
*Not in production since 1968.
116
-------
Applications of light scattering for diagnostics has burgeoned into a
vast technology which continues to expand. It is neither possible nor
desirable to present a comprehensive review in this study. What is presented
is a discussion of techniques which have the greatest potential application to
HTHP processes. These are based upon
Photography
Holography
Visibility
Intensity Ratio
Diffraction
Photography is the simple camera technique using a spark or pulsed laser
light source (Figure B-4). References 11 and 12 provide details of specific
systems. Advantages of the photographic technique are insensitivity to
refractive index, applicability to heavy particle loading densities, optical
simplicity, the ability to resolve size and shape for particles greater than 2
micrometers in diameter, and real time information gathering. However, the
method suffers from a limited sensitivity to small particles and narrow
depth-of- fields at large magnifications. Furthermore, data reduction is an
extremely time-consuming process.
Figure B-5 illustrates the formation of a hologram by the splitting and
subsequent coalescence of a laser beam. Light scattering causes a phase shift
in the light passing through the flowfield. Hence, when this beam recombines
with the reference beam, the phase difference creates an interference
pattern. McCreath and Beer (Reference 13) present the analysis relating this
pattern to particle size. Holography has little or no depth-of-field
restriction and assures that magnification of particles along the optical axis
is uniform. It can measure particle sizes >5ydiameter. However, this method
requires complex equipment and painstaking adjustment; moreover, size
information cannot be obtained in real time.
The visibility technique is an application of the fact that a particle
will modulate as well as cause a Doppler-shift in the frequency of a laser
beam. Figure B-6 shows a typical system used to obtain visibility
information. A laser beam is split into two equal beams, which are focused
and intersect in the region of interest (called a measurement volume).
Interference of these beams form a fringe pattern, which produces a modulated
and shifted signal when perturbed by a particle traversing this volume. The
particle diameter determines the maximum and minimum of this signal
(Reference 14).
Hodkinson (Reference 15) first proposed to determine particle size by
using the scattered light intensities from two, or more, directions (i.e.,
0]_, £'2, ..., On; Figure B-7). In particular, this method (the intensity
ratio technique) is an application of the relationship between the ratio of
two such intensities, their 3-j's, and the particle size. Gravatt
(Reference B-16) extended this technique to cover a range of refractivities,
while Hirleman, et a!., (Reference 7) have developed a two-ratio modification
of the technique. The intensity ratio(s) technique is able to provide real
117
-------
.., . -a..'..
'. a
. . . ; -\
. . V <
*
Camera
Process
Stream
Figure B-4. Photography technique.
118
-------
Laser Beam
.'.;:/.;: Flow
.'.- '..'" Cross-section
Reference Beam
Figure B-5. Holographic technique.
119
-------
Transmitter
Optics
Collection
Optics
Photodetector
Laser
ro
CD
Signal Processor
(determines Doppler
Frequency of
Scattered Li«jht)
Measurement
Volume
c
-------
PARTICLE
Z direction of propagation of linearly polarized
incident light
E - direction of electric vector
K direction of magnetic vector
Fdirection of scatter to the point of observation (P)
Figure B-7. Scattering of electromagnetic radiation.
121
-------
time information and apparently is not overly sensitive to either particle
shape or refractivity. However, it is limited to loading densities low enough
to provide single-particle signals.
The diffraction technique determines the size distribution of particles
within the cylindrical volume formed by a laser beam passing through a
flowfield; this method uses the total Fraunhofer diffraction pattern from the
particles within the volume. McCreath and Beer (Reference 13) and
Swithenbank, et al.5 (Reference 18) describe the technique and present
experimental results. The method is optically simple, provides real time
information, and is insensitive to particle shape. Its drawbacks are that it
is limited to particle diameters >2y, requires large measurement volume, and
is a line-of-sight rather than a point measurement technique. This method
also requires a prior assumption as to the shape of the size distribution
curve.
With the exception of the diffraction technique, any of the above methods
can supply information to determine loading densities. Number densities are a
function of size distribution and flowrate through a known volume. However,
since particles may be porous or hollow, conversion of number densities to
mass densities is uncertain. In fact, the only reliable method to determine
mass loadings is to withdraw a sample arid weigh it.
The electro-optical monitoring technology is an attractive candidate for
HTHP application. However, there are some challenging hurdles to be
overcome. The "window" concept is a key issue and its applicability needs to
be demonstrated in terms of sealing the window area for leaks and for keeping
the window clean from tar and slag deposits. One current proposal is to use
either a quartz or sapphire window.*
Another method proposed is to eliminate the window altogether. Instead,
the light source is housed in a sealed containment vessel outside of the flow
duct. A hole is cut in the duct wall to allow for beam transmission. Hot
gases are kept from entering the containment vessel by continuously
pressurizing the vessel with an inert gas.
Secondly, the ability of these techniques to overcome some of the HTHP
sampling environment aspects must be demonstrated, especially to background
light radiation** interference from the hot gases, and the opacity of the
stream itself.
*These windows are well known to "fog-up" (crystallize) at high
temperatures; however, this is not likely to be a serious problem
for this application if sapphire is used. Quartz is not recommended
over 1500°F.
**Initial estimates show that gas radiation is not likely to be a
problem but wall radiation is a potential source of interference.
122
-------
8.3.2.2 Manufacturers
There are currently four major manufacturers of this type of equipment,
all of whom were contacted during this study.
1. Environmental Systems Corporation (ESC), Knoxville, Tennessee,
Dr. Hal Schmitt (PILLS System).
2. Particle Measuring Systems, Inc. (PMS), Boulder Colorado. Dr. Bob
Knollenberg (ASAS System).
3. Spectrom Development Labs (SDL), Tullahoma, Tennessee. Dr. Mike
Farmer (MORPHOKINETOMETER System).
4. . Leeds and Northrup Company (L&N), North Wales, Pennsylvania.
Dr. Emil C. Muly (Microtract System).
All of these manufacturers produce equipment which have the capability to
monitor particle size and mass density in the range of interest. In addition,
the Spectron device has the capability of measuring particle velocity using
the laser doppler system. However, at this time all of these manufacturers
lack experience in applying their technology to the problem of HTHP process
stream monitoring. Both Spectron Labs and Leeds & Northrop are currently
under contract to DOE to develop a suitable optical system under test
conditions at Argonne National Laboratory. Sandia Laboratory (Livermore,
California) is also under contract to DOE to evaluate several optional devices
under bench test conditions. However, work is just getting underway at the
time of this study.*
B.4 CONCLUSIONS
This state-of-the-art survey indicates that continuous particulate
monitoring of high temperature and pressure process streams is a new frontier
for sampling technology. No commercial particulate monitoring instrument is
currently available which can meet this need. However, efforts are underway
to develop the technology.
This investigation indicates that the optical particulate monitoring
technique appears to be very attractive for this need. Some of the key issues
that need to be addressed are:
Applicability of the "window" concept
-- Sealing the window area for leaks
-- Keeping the window clean from slag and tar deposits
Integrity of window glass (quartz or sapphire) under the
HTHP environment
*Significant testing has occurred since this section was written.
The reader should contact the manufacturers for the status of
their development program.
123
-------
Ability to accurately monitor in the presence of
-- High velocity and high levels of opacity
-- Radiation interference from the walls
The results of current DOE contract efforts of Spectron Labs, Leeds, &
Northrup, and Sandia Laboratories should provide answers to some of these
questions. In addition to the optical techniques, the IKOR continuous
monitor also appears to be a potential candidate for HTHP monitoring. The
key issues that need to be resolved for this device are:
Choice of probe material
Dependence of mass concentration readings on flow velocity
Here again some actual tests should be undertaken to address these
issues. It is also recommended that light transmissometer technology be
looked at in greater detail for possible application to HTHP monitoring
needs.
124
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
1. O'Fallon, N. M., et al. Monitoring Coal Energy Processes.
Industrial Research, June 1976.
2. Blann, D. H. Measurement Methods at High-Temperature and Pressure.
Paper presented at the Symposium on Particulate Control in Energy
Processes, San Francisco, California, May 11-13.
3. Instrumentation for Environmental Monitoring. Air, Part 2, Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory, U.S., Berkeley, July 1976.
4. Personal communications with Dr. Don Wallace of International
Biophysics Corporation (Celesco), Irvine, California, August 1976.
5. Gooding, G. H. Wind Tunnel Evaluations for Particulate Sizing
Instruments. EPA/2-76-073, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
March 1976.
6. Personal communications with Mr. Arnold Gruber of IKOR Incorporated,
Burlington, Massachusetts, August 1976.
7. Gotterba, J. Characterization and Optimization of the EPA High Mass
Flowrate Aerosol Generator. Aerotherm Report 75-209, Acurex
Corporation, July 1976.
8. Van de Hulst, H. C. Light Scattering by Small Particles. John Wiley
and Sons, 1957.
9. Kerker, M. The Scattering of Light and Other Electromagnetic
Radiation. Academic Press, 1969.
10. Coleman, H. W., et al. Interim Report: Diagnostics Assessment for
Advanced Power Systems. SAND 77-8216 (UC-90f), Sandia Laboratories,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 1977.
11. Cadle, R. D. The Measurement of Airborne Particles. John Wiley and
Sons, 1975.
12. Hotham, G. A. Sizing Aerosols in Real Time by Pulsing UV Laser
Machine. Aerosol Measurements, NBS Special Publication 412, p.
97-126, 1974.
13. McCreath, C. G. and J. M. Beer. A Review of Drop Size Measurement in
Fuel Sprays," Applied Energy 2: 3-15, 1976.
14. Farmer, W. M. Measurement of Particle Size, Number Density and
Velocity Using a Laser Interferometer. Applied Optics 11: 2603,
2612, 1972.
125
-------
15. Hodkinson, J. R. Particle Sizing by Means of the Forward Scattering
Lobe. Applied Optics 5: 839-844, 1966.
16. Gravatt, C. C. Light Scattering Methods for the Characterization of
Participate Matter in Real Time. Aerosol Measurements, NBS Spee-ial
Publication 412, p. 21-32, 1974.
17. Hirleman, E. D., et al. Development and Application of an Optical
Exhaust Gas Particulate Analyzer. Laboratories for Energiteknik Resport
RE76-3, Technical University of Denmark, 1976.
13. Swithenbank, J., et al. A Laser Diagnostic Technique for the Measurement
of Droplet and Particle Size Distribution, AIAA Paper No. 76-69, 1976.
126
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Measurement of High-Temperature
High-Pressure Processes -- A Summary Report
5. REPORT DATE
June 1980
6.-PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Final Reoort 79-353
Pro.iect 723"
7. AUTHOR(S)
L. Cooper and M. Shackleton
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Corporation
Energy & Environmental Division
485 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94042
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract 68-02-2153
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research & Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The major focus of this program under EPA contract 68-02-2153 was that of
particulate sampling in advanced coal conversion technologies. Work performed
was to assess and develop the technology required to perform high-temperature
high-pressure particulate sampling. In addition to the effort denoted to
development and testing of an HTHP sampler for the EPA/Exxon Miniplant,
experience was gained in design aspects of HTHP sampling equipment and testing
procedures and is highlighted in this report. A background study and planning
effort was directed toward possible future sampling efforts in a coal
gasification facility. A state-of-the-art review of HTHP sampling was also
performed. As a means of documenting the materials collected, a bibliography
of articles, reports and books relating to HTHP sampling was compiled.
Further a mailing list of persons interested in this technology is included in
the report.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl P'ield/Croup
Particulate samp!ing
High-temperature
High-pressure
Extractive sampling
Pressurized fluidized
combustion
Gasification
bee
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report}
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
13"
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
PREVIOUS EDI TION IS OBSOLETE
127
------- |