EPA-600/2-75-037
August 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
"FIST EVALUATION OF
CAT-OX HIGH EFFICIENCY
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
Indiistrial Environmenta! Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triafigie Park, N,C, 27711
-------
EPA-600/2-75-037
TEST EVALUATION OF
CAT-OX HIGH EFFICIENCY
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
by
E.M. Jamgochian, N. T. Miller, and R. Reale
The Mitre Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
Contract No. 68-02-0650
ROAPNo. 21ACZ-003
Program Element No. 1AB013
E PA Project Officer: C. J. Chatlynne
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
August 1975
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into five
series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface
in related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY STUDIES series. This series describes research
performed to develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment
and methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation
from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the
control and treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental
quality standards.
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The general objective of the test program was to measure the per-
formance of the high-efficiency Research-Cottrell electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) located at the Wood River Power Station in East
Alton, Illinois. The overall efficiency of the precipitator was
measured as a function of steam generator and ESP operating condir-
tions. Of particular interest was the efficiency of the precipi-
tator as a function of particle size over the range from 0.01 p.m
to 5 um. In addition, fly ash resistivity, gas concentrations,
coal analyses, and fly ash analyses were determined. The measured
results were compared with those generated by an idealized computer
simulation model developed by the Southern Research Institute.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
CONCLUSIONS 1
INTRODUCTION 4
MEASUREMENT PROGRAM 6
Test Conditions 6
Parameters and Measurement Methods 10
TEST RESULTS 16
Mass Loading and Precipitator Efficiency 16
Particle Size Distribution and Fractional Efficiency 21
In Situ Resistivity Measurements 25
Sulfur Trioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Water Vapor
Measurements 32
Coal and Fly Ash Analysis 33
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF COMPUTER SIMULATION 43
APPENDICES
I. Catalytic Oxidation Precipitator Performance at
Wood River Power Station 49
II. Flue Gas Composition and Volume Flow Measurements 77
III. ESP Inlet and Outlet Ducts 89
IV. Conversion Factors 95
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Number
1 ESP Efficiency vs. Current Density 19
2 ESP Efficiency vs. Current Density 19
3 ESP Efficiency vs. Load 19
4 ESP Efficiency with 4th Section Off 20
5 ESP Efficiency During Soot Blowing 20
6 ESP Efficiency for Low Sulfur Coal 20
7 Fractional Efficiencies for the Cat-Ox
Precipitator 24
8 Comparison of Optical and Impactor Data 27
9 dM/d Log D Versus Geometric Mean Diameter
for 103 MW Load Tests 28
10 dM/d Log D Versus Geometric Mean Diameter
for 85 MW Load Tests 29
11 dM/d Log D Versus Geometric Mean Diameter
for 70 MW Load Tests 30
12 Inlet Mass Distribution Calculated from Cascade
Impactor Data 31
13 Resistivity as a Function of Temperature by
the Electric Field-Current Density Method 34
14 Comparison of Computer Simulated and
Measured ESP Efficiencies 44
15 Comparison of Computed and Measured Size
Fractional Efficiencies for 10 Microamperes
Per Square Foot Current Density 45
16 Comparison of Computed and Measured Size
Fractional Efficiencies for 20 Microamperes
Per Square Foot Current Density 46
17 Comparison of Computed and Measured Size
Fractional Efficiencies for 30 Microamperes
Per Square Foot Current Density 47
18 Inlet Mass Distribution Calculated from
Cascade Impactor Data 53
19 Inlet Particle-Size Distribution 54
20 Fractional Efficiencies for the Wood River
Precipitator 56
21 Resistivity as a Function of Temperature by the
Electric Field-Current Density Method for
the Wood River Catalytic Oxidation Project
Tests 60
22 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 2 for the Low Sulfur Test
Conditions 61
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Number
23 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 4 for the Low Sulfur Test
Conditions 62
24 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 5 for the Low Sulfur Test
Conditions 63
25 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 8 for the Low Sulfur Test
Conditions 64
26 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 2 for the High Sulfur Test
Conditions 65
27 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 4 for the High Sulfur Test
Conditions 66
28 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 5 for the High Sulfur Test
Conditions 67
29 Voltage vs. Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 8 for the High Sulfur Test
Conditions 68
30 Actual Efficiency from Inlet and Outlet Dust
Loading Measurements with All Data Points
Included 70
31 Actual Efficiency from Inlet and Outlet Dust
Loading Measurements with Soot Blowing,
Non-Isokinetic and Fourth Electrical
Section Points Removed 71
32 Computed and Measured Size Fractional
Efficiencies for 10 Microamperes per
Square Foot for the Cat-O^E>Tests. The
region identified as lower limit region
is that corresponding to acid condensation
in the measurement system 72
33 Computed and Measured Size Fractional
Efficiencies for 20 Microamperes per
Square Foot for the Cat-O^Tests. The
region identified as lower limit region
is that corresponding to acid condensation
in the measurement system 73
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Number
34 Computed and Measured Size Fractional
Efficiencies for 30 Microamperes.
per Square Foot for the Cat-Ox ""Tests.
The region identified as lower limit
region is that corresponding to acid
condensation in the measurement system 74
35 Test #14 Strip Chart Showing Transition From
Low Sulfur to High Sulfur Coal 81
36 Gas Volume Flow Versus Load for Traverses 86
37 Gas Volume Flow Versus Load for Rakes 87
38 Point 1 - Input Electrostatic Precipitator
(Left Side Facing Power Plant) 91
39 Point 1 - Input Electrostatic Precipitator
(Right Side Facing Power Plant) 92
40 Point 3 - Output Electrostatic Precipitator 93
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
1 Electrostatic Preclpitator Test Program 7
2 Breakdown and Repair of Unit 4 Steam Generator 8
3 Parameters Measured During Test Program 11
4 Measurement Methods 12
5 ESP Mass Loading and Efficiency at Various
Operating Conditions 17
6 Fractional Efficiency from SRI Diffusional
and Optical Data 23
7 Fractional Efficiencies from MRI Impactor Data 26
8 Measured SO-j Concentrations and Mass Flow 35
9 Average 303 Concentrations and Mass Flow 36
10 Comparison of 803 and S02 Concentrations 37
11 Water Vapor Measurements 38
12 Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Coal - As
Received Basis 39
13 Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Coal - Dry
Basis 40
14 Chemical Content of Fly-Ash Sampled at ESP Inlet 42
15 Fractional Efficiency Data 55
16 Comparison Between the Resistivity Determined by
Each Method at a Current Density of 0.2
A/cm2, Test Date 10/1/73 59
17 Flue Gas Composition at Economizer and Input/Out-
put of ESP 79
18 Flue Gas Composition for Repeat Tests 80
19 Pressure and Temperature Measurements at
Economizer and Stack Using Rakes 83
20 Gas Volume Flow at Economizer and Stack
Using Rakes 84
21 Comparison of Traverse and Rake Volume Flow
Measurements 85
22 Conversion Factors 96
ix
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this paper was performed jointly by the MITRE
Corporation, the Southern Research Institute (SRI), and the Midwest
Research Institute (MRI), under the sponsorship of Mr. G. S.
Haselberger and Mr. R. C. Lorentz of the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory (RTF), Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Illinois Power Company made
its facilities available, and the Wood River Power Station supervi-
sory and operating personnel fully cooperated in the establishment
of the proper test operating conditions. Mr. D. Korneman provided
the supervisory interface.
Mr. G. B. Nichols headed up the SRI field team and Messrs. W. H.
Maxwell and R. C. Tussey, Jr., the MRI field team. Dr. R. Statnick
of the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (RTP) provided
consultation on testing techniques, participated in the first week
of field testing, and was subsequently responsible for reduction of
the impactor data. Mr. J. McCain of SRI, in addition to performing
the condensation nuclei and optical particle sizing, provided con-
sultation on the impactor measurements.
In addition to the basic MITRE team consisting of Mr. E. M.
Jamgochian, program task leader, Mr. N. T. Miller, and Mr. R. Reale,
periodic field support was provided by Mr. J. Findley, Mr. J. Miller,
and Mr. R. W. Spewak. Mr. J. Elliott assisted in the reduction of
the gas concentration and gas volume flow data. Mr. G. Erskine
initially proposed this program and also participated in some of
the field tests.
x
-------
CONCLUSIONS
In the normal mode of operation for the Unit 4 steam generator-,
(i.e., 103 MW load, high-sulfur coal, and ESP functioning auto-
matically), the total ESP efficiency was measured to be in the
99.43 to 99.70 percent range, indicating that the ESP was operating
either at or close to the design efficiency (99.6 percent). A
change to low-sulfur coal (1.11 percent S, as received) under these
same operating conditions showed no signifcant loss in efficiency.
A decrease in load from 103 MW to 70 MW, with a corresponding de-
crease in gas volume flow from an average of 308,000 SCFM to 203,750
SCFM, resulted in a decrease of ESP efficiency as opposed to the
expected increase in efficiency. An explanation of this result
cannot be made based on the available data; more data are required,
particularly at the lower load levels, to provide a definitive
statistical result.
The ESP efficiency is nearly constant for ESP current densities from
22 2
55 uA/ft (automatic) to 30 [juA/f t , increasing slightly at 30 |o.A/f t .
2
Between 30 and 20 |jLA/ft , the efficiency begins to drop, reaching
a value ranging from 96.18 percent to 97.31 percent at a current
2
density of 10 |JiA/ft . Conversely, the fly ash penetration increased
2
to values of 2.69 percent to 3.82 percent at 10 (JiA/ft from values
2
of 0.17 percent to 0.22 percent at 30 jiA/ft . Therefore, on the
average, penetration increased by a factor of approximately 16 for
a factor of 3 decrease in current density.
With the fourth section of the ESP off, a loss in efficiency of
one percent with a corresponding tripling of the fly ash penetration
was observed. This result shows the effect of having a smaller
precipitator, shorter in length by approximately 10 feet (25 percent
of total length).
-------
Soot blowing using only the wall blowers had no discernible effect
on ESP efficiency or outlet grain loading; however, soot blowing
using the retractable blowers dropped the efficiency by 0.3 to 0.6
percent and caused approximately a doubling of the fly ash pene-
tration.
The data involving measurement of particle size efficiency resulted
in some difficulties. One problem was contamination of impactor
data at the precipitator outlet by condensation of H2SO,. In
addition, similar contamination was observed in the condensation
nucleii apparatus; however, good results were obtained with the
Climet optical counter in the 1.5 fj.m to 0.46 urn size range. A
drop in efficiency from 99.85 to 96.80 percent from the large
particle size to the small particle size was determined for the
ESP in the automatic mode of operation.
Even though the CN results were contaminated by H«SO, condensation,
a lower limit of efficiency was determined in the diffusional size
range from 0.01 jam to 0.15 fun. The ESP efficiency was greater
than 97 percent over this range.
The resistivity measurements of the low-sulfur coal were approximately
the same as for the high-sulfur coal, corroborating the high ESP
efficiency obtained during the low-sulfur .coal test. The resistivity
may have been dominated by surface conductivity in the presence
of high concentrations of water vapor and SCL.
The ESP efficiencies determined from the measured data were com-
pared to efficiencies determined by the SRI ESP computer systems
model. In a comparison of total efficiency versus gas volume flow,
the measured data verified the validity of the simulation model at
the lower current densities, but deviated from the model at the
-------
higher current densities. Comparisons were also made of measured
fractional efficiencies and computed efficiencies. There was general
agreement between the measured and computed data.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The general objective of the test program was to measure the per-
formance of the high-efficiency Research-Cottrell electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) located at the Wood River Power Station in East
Alton, Illinois. This precipitator is integrated with the flue
gas output of the 100 MW Unit 4 steam generator to remove partic-
ulate matter from the flue gas stream prior to entering the Cat-OxQv
sulfur dioxide control process. The precipitator has a design
efficiency of 99.6 percent and a design output grain loading of
„ . , _.. maintenance requirements.
Although the test evaluation that was performed is pertinent to the
future planned testing of the Cat-Oxv!-/ process, the primary
objective of this program was to evaluate the electrostatic precip-
itator itself as a control device with regard to ESP performance
characteristics that have not been extensively measured in the past.
Of particular interest was the efficiency of the precipitator as a
function of particle size over the range from 0.01 |u.m to 5 |jum. In
addition, precipitator parameters were measured in order to compare
them with the results obtained for an idealized computer simulation
model of an electrostatic precipitator that had been developed by
the Southern Research Institute (SRI) for the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) under a separate contract.
The test program was a joint effort among The MITRE Corporation,
the Southern Research Institute, the Midwest Research Institute
(MRI), and the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
(Research Triangle Park) of the Environmer.tal Protection Agency.
In addition, the Illinois Power Company cooperated throughout the
Cat-OxvS/ is a proprietary term and registered trademark of
Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc.
-------
program by making facilities available and by operating the steam
generator at specific test conditions. MITRE was responsible for
the overall test program, with subcontractor effort provided by
SRI. Test support provided by MRI was under a separate Task Order
contract currently in effect with EPA.
-------
MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
The test program as it was actually carried out is shown in Table 1.
Fifteen tests were performed under various test conditions over a
period of approximately three weeks. The objectives of the tests
were to determine the performance of the ESP as a function of steam
generator load, coal sulfur content, soot blowing, and ESP current
density. A separate test was performed with the last section of the
ESP turned off. The first test performed was for equipment checkout
and calibration. As can be seen in Table 1, some of the tests were
conducted out of sequence from the original plan, due to the follow-
ing reasons:
a. Additional test time was required to .obtain a reliable
particle count in the diffusional particle size range
at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator.
Therefore, an additional test day was added on Saturday,
15 September 1973, and the test was identified as Test
15 as an add-on to the original 14 scheduled tests.
b. Unit 4 developed a series of problems starting Sunday
night, 16 September 1973, and was not back on-line
until Wednesday, 19 September 1973. In order to make
up the lost test days, two tests were conducted on 19
September, and the test originally scheduled for Friday
of that week was performed on Saturday. Table 2 outlines
the difficulties encountered with the Unit 4 steam
generator and the subsequent scheduling of load.
TEST CONDITIONS
Tests were conducted at several operating .conditions of the steam
generator and ESP (see Table 1). For each test, the steam generator
was operated at one of three loads, 103 MW, 85 MW, and 70 MW. The
majority of the tests were conducted at 103 MW and 70 MW, with a
single test at 85 MW. With a few exceptions, each test consisted
of two runs under identical operating conditions of approximately
four hours duration per run. The purpose of the second run was
to indicate reproducibility of test results and to provide data
redundancy when required* For "those tests that required measurements
-------
TABU 1. ELECTROSTATIC PRKCIP1TATUR TEST PROCRAH
TEST
NO.
1
2
3
15
8
4
5
6
7
9
to
11
12
13
14
HUH
NO.
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
I
2
X
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
DATE
(1973)
S.pc. 11
(Nl|hC)
12
13
(Da.)
14
(Day)
15
(Day)
16-19
19
ity
ESP performance ac intervedlate load
ESP performance at low load
ESP performance et law load and current denaicy
ESP per fo nun CM at low load *nd current denelty
ESP performance et low load and current denelty
Convareioit to low-aulfur coal
ESP performance with low-eulfur coal
CoUecUng plate rapping condition, and dlacharga nipt vibration condition, conatant throughout teat program.
-------
TABLE 2. BREAKDOWN AND REPAIR OF UNIT 4 STEAM GENERATOR
DATE
DAY
STATUS
9/16/73
9/17/73
9/18/73
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
9/19/73
Wednesday
Superheaters on unit 4 fall
Unit 4 taken down for repair
Unit 4 under repair
Additional trouble developed with
oil feed pump which controls boiler
feed pump as Unit 4 load was brought
up
10:09 PM: Load raised to 10 megawatts
10:14 PM: Load reached 50 megawatts
11:05 PM: Precipitator turned on
12:00 AM: Load held at 50 megawatts
6:00 AM: Load at 90 megawatts
6:30 AM: Load at 103 megawatts
6:45 AM: Coal mill 4C sheared pin
Load dropped to 81 megawatts
7:15 AM: Load at 88 megawatts
with mills 4A, B, D
operational
7:45 AM: 150,000 CFM of gas added
to raise load to 100
megawatts
8:00 AM: Work commenced to fix mill
4C
8:15 AM: Load at 100 megawatts with
mixture of coal and gas
10:25 AM: Gas cut off and mill 4C
brought on line
10:50 AM: Unit 4 on line at 103 mega-
watts burning coal only
8
-------
at the output of the precipitator, the steam generator was brought
to the specified load condition approximately four hours prior to
the start of measurements in order to allow the ESP to stabilize
at the required test conditions. In most cases, the four-hour
pre-soak condition was satisfied except for some of the low-load
tests, where load demands on Illinois Power prevented dropping of
the load at the specified time of 8:00 p.m. so that measurements
could be started at midnight and ended at 7:00 a.m. when the load
had to be brought back up again in order to meet the increased
daytime demand. The test could not be slipped to satisfy the four-
hour pre-soak condition because of the fixed end time.
For all tests except one, the coal burned was obtained from the
Arch Minerals Company out of mines located in southwestern Illinois.
The sulfur content of the Arch Minerals coal was approximately 3.6
percent sulfur (by weight). One low-sulfur test was conducted with
a special episode coal that had a sulfur content of approximately
1.1 percent. The changeover to low-sulfur coal was initiated on
Saturday, 29 September, to assure that the bunkers were purged of
the higher sulfur coal and that the ESP would have ample time
(more than 24 hours) to stabilize to low-sulfur conditions.
Finally, with regard to boiler operating conditions, a single test
was performed with the soot blowers on. Two types of soot blowers
are utilized on Unit 4; wall blowers located on the boiler walls
and retractable blowers used to clean the superheaters. During
the first run of this particular test, the retractable blowers
were cycled continuously and during the second run, the wall blowers
were cycled continuously. Therefore, the two soot blowing runs
were conducted under different operating conditions and were not
repeatability runs.
-------
The precipitator consists of two identical units in parallel, each
of. which has four sections in series. During Test 3, the fourth
section of each of the parallel units was de-energized, providing
the equivalent of a shorter length precipitator.
2
The ESP was operated at four average current densities: 55 jiA/ft ,
30 (j.A/ft , 20 |j.A/ft , and 10 (jtA/ft . The first of these current
densities is the average value for normal automatic operation of-
the ESP at which it has been set to achieve the design goal per-
formance. For this case, the current density is not identical
between all plates of the precipitator; however, for the three
other current densities, the plate voltages were set to achieve
uniform current density between all plates of the precipitator.
The ESP was operated at each of these four current densities for
both the 103 MW and 70 MW loads.
PARAMETERS AND MEASUREMENT METHODS
Table 3 shows the parameters that were measured during each of
the tests and identifies the contractor responsible for each type of
measurement. MITRE measured flue gas concentrations and gas volume
flow, collected coal samples, and recorded gauge board readings
and secondary voltage: during some of the tests when SRI was not
present. SRI measured in situ resistivity, particle size distribu-
tion in the diffusional and optical regions, ESP volt-ampere char-
acteristics, and secondary voltage. MRI performed tha mass loading
measurements, impactor measurements, and gaseous SO. measurements
and analyzed the ash samples.
Table 4 shows the measurement methods employed, the sampling fre-
quency, the sampling locations, and the purpose of each type of
measurement. The measurements of primary interest were the mass
loading and particle sizing measurements. Mass loading was measured
10
-------
TABLE 3. PARAMETERS MUUiURKD DURING TKST PROGRAM
TEST
HO.
1
2
3
15
8
4
S
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
RUM
HO.
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
DATE
(1973)
Sept. 11
(Hlght)
12
13
(Day)
14
(Day)
15
(Day)
16-19
19
(Day)
19
(Day)
20
.Day)
21
Day)
22
(Day)
24-25
Night)
25-26
Hlght)
26-27
Hlght)
27-28
Hlght)
28-29
Hight)
29
Oct. 1
(Day)
WEEK
lat
1
2nd
V
f
3
,
\
i"
.
'
4th
MITRE
GAS CONCENTRATION
SO, C02 U2 H20
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
GAS VOL. FLO
ap SP r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MANUAL
GB CS SV
X
X
1C
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
;
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SRI
MANUAL
SV IR CN CL
X
X
f
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
(Inl
X
(Inl
X
Out]
X
Out
x
X
(Out]
X
[Out]
X
X
»t)
X
it)
X
et)
X
ct
x
X
Let)
X
et
MRI
ML
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
MANUAL
I SO.,
X
X
X
X
X
X
y
Y
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
AS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
LEGEND
£P Differential Pressure
SP Static Pressure
T Css Temperature
GB Gauge Board Readings
CS Coal Samples
SV Secondary Voltage
IR In-Sltu Resistivity
CM Condensstion Nuclei
CL Cllnet Counter
XL Mass Loading
I Inpactor
A3 Ash Samples
11
-------
10
TABLE 4. MEASUREMENT METHODS
ITEM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MEASURED VARIABLE
Gas Concentrations
Gas Volume Flov
Gauge Board Readings
Coal Samples
Secondary Voltage
Fly Ash Resistivity
Dlffuslonal Particle
Sizing (.01 urn-. 15 urn)
Submicron Particle
Sizing (0.4 um-1.5 |im)
Submicron Particle Sizing
(0.3 Ji»- Slim)
Mass Loading
Gaseous SOj
Ash Samples
SAMPLING METHOD
Time-Shared Gas Meas. Subsystem
DuPont S(>2 Analyzer
Bendlx O>2 Analyzer
Beckman 02 Analyzer
MSA H20 Vapor Analyzer
H_0 vapor by Silica Gel Method
(Obtained during Mass Loading)
Flow Measurement Subsystem
with Temp./Pres. Rakes
Manual Traverse
(Obtained during Mass Loading)
Manual Recording of IP
Instrumentation .
Cyclone Collector
Voltage Dividers and
Precision Voltmeter
In-Situ Point- to-Plane
Resistivity Probe
Diffusion Battery and
Condensation Nuclei
Counter
Climet Optical Particle
Counter
Brinks Impactor
Andersen Model III
Impactor
Modified EPA Train
In-Stack Thimble
Controlled Condensation
with Adapted EPA SO.
Train
Fly Ash obtained during
Mass Loading
FREQUENCY
Continuous
One/ Run/Location
Continuous/Location
. One/Run/Location
Two/Run
One/Run
One/Hr.
Two/Run
One/Test
One/Test
One/Run
One/Run
One/Run
One/Run
One/Run/Location
One/Run
LOCATION
Time Shared:
Economizer
Input ESP
Output ESP
Input ESP
Output ESP
Economizer
Stack
Input ESP
Output ESP
Outputs of
each Coal Mill
(A, B, C, D)
Secondary of
High Voltage
Transformers
Input ESP
Input ESP
Output ESP
Input ESP
Output ESP
Inlet ESP
Outlet ESP
Inlet ESP
Outlet ESP
Inlet ESP
Outlet ESP
Inlet ESP
PURPOSE
Determine molecular weight of gas;
correlation of S02 and S03 con-
centrations; H20 vapor concentration
and conditioning of fly ash
resistivity
Determine mass flow of particulates
and flue gases
Control and measurement of steam
generator and ESP operating conditions
Ultimate and proximate analysis to
determine constituents including
sulfur content
Measurement of Voltage-Current
relationship
Effect of resistivity on. ESP
performance
Distribution and ESP efficiency versus
particle size
Distribution and ESP efficiency
versus particle size
Mass distribution and ESP efficiency
versus particle size
Mass loading and overall ESP
efficiency
Measurement of SO- concentration and
conditioning of fly ash resistivity
Analysis of fly ash chemical
composition; correlation with resis-
tivity measurements
-------
at the inlet and outlet of the precipitator using a modified EPA
train at the inlet and an in-stack filter at the outlet. In order
to obtain two runs during a single test day, only half of the
available ports could be sampled during each run. Therefore,
alternate ports were sampled during each run at the inlet. The
same procedure was not possible at the outlet, because one of
the ports had to be dedicated to the condensation nuclei (CN)
equipment, which was too bulky and heavy to move around. The mass
sample was integrated over either 21 or 18 points at the inlet,
depending on the particular run, and over 12 points at the outlet
during each run (see Appendix III).
Particle size measurements were made using three different methods
covering the 0.01 [am to 5 urn size range. The Brinks impactor was
used for measurements at the inlet of the precipitator over the
0.4 pm to 5 Jim size range. The sample was collected at a single
port by inserting the impactor in the duct and allowing it to
reach the flue gas temperature before a sample was drawn. Sampling
was anisokinetic, as the particles of interest were less than 5 \aa.
in size. The sampling time for most cases was approximately 20
minutes.
The Andersen Model III impactor was used at the precipitator outlet
over the 0.3 jam to 5 \ua. size range because of the lower particle
density and, consequently, longer integration time required. The
integration time for most tests was approximately 180 minutes. As
was the case with the Brinks impactor, the Andersen impactor was
inserted in the duct and allowed to reach the gas temperature prior
to sampling. One Brinks and one Andersen sample were taken for
each run.
13
-------
A diffusion battery and CN counter were used for particle siee
distribution measurements in the 0.01 |im to 0.15 \m. range. As
the equipment for CN measurements is bulky and not readily moved
and measurements are time consuming, it was possible to sample
only the inlet or the outlet during any particular test. CN
measurements were only performed for the 103 MW load condition,
as shown in Table 3. Table 3 also identifies the tests performed
to characterize the ESP inlet and outlet.
In conjunction with the CN measurements and, therefore, for the
same tests, particle size distributions were obtained over the
0.4 (jim to 1.5 urn range using the Climet optical counter. The
optical counter provided a data overlap with the impactor measure-
ments.
High fly ash resistivities can cause excessive sparking or reverse
corona, thereby limiting precipitator performance. Therefore, an
in situ point-to-plane resistivity probe was used to measure re-
sistivity at the ESP inlet. The point-to-plane probe is designed
to collect the fly ash electrostatically in the duct and, to measure
the fly ash resistivity•in the duct under actual flue gas conditions,
Since both temperature and composition of the flue gas can have
significant influence on the fly ash resistivity, depending on the
conductivity mechanism, an in-the-duct measurement of this type,
which measures resistivity under actual flue gas conditions, has
advantages over a method that depends on laboratory analysis of the
sample.
The flue gas constituents that may influence fly ash resistivity
are water vapor and S0_. Therefore, as shown in Table 4, these
gases were measured, as well as S02, CO , and 0 . Gaseous S03 was
manually measured at the inlet and outlet of the ESP using the
14
-------
method of controlled condensation, and water vapor was measured
manually using the technique associated with "Method 5 - Determination
of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources " (Federal Register,
Vol. 36, No. 27, December 1971). The other gases, including water
vapor, were measured by a continuous measurement system that was
sequentially time-shared during each run among the economizer, the
ESP inlet, and the ESP outlet.
The fly ash collected during the mass loading measurements at the
inlet to the precipitator was retained for chemical analysis. The
purpose of the analysis was to correlate the chemical composition
of the fly ash to the resistivity.
Gas volume flow was measured manually at the inlet and outlet of
the ESP while making the mass loading measurements. In addition,
a check was made of the gas volume flow by measurements at the
economizer and the stack using a continuously recording flow mea-
surement system*
Gauge board readings of the steam generator and ESP operating con-
ditions were recorded periodically. Examples of the parameters
recorded are generator load, steam flow, coal flow, barometric
pressure, and ESP plate currents. The continuous gas measurement
system measured the excess air by recording 0 content of the flue
gas at the economizer. The precipitator plate voltages were mea-
sured by means of a precision voltmeter and voltage dividers that
were installed across the secondary of the transformer prior to
the test program.
Coal samples were obtained by a cyclone collector at the outlet of
each of the four pulverizer mills. Samples collected during each
run were subsequently combined by riffling and were packaged into
moisture-proof bags for ultimate and proximate analysis.
15
-------
TEST RESULTS
The detailed results of the test measurements are reported in
*
Appendices I and II, and in the MRI data report. Appendix I
includes a report on the work performed by SRI and Appendix II
incorporates the data collected by MITRE. The significant results
from these sources are reported in the following sections.
MASS LOADING AND PREGIPITATOR EFFICIENCY
The Cat-Ox*^ electrostatic precipitator has been designed to operate
under normal operating conditions for the Unit 4 steam generator with
an efficiency of 99.6 percent. Deviations from normal operating
conditions will affect the ESP efficiency and, as discussed previ-
ously, many of these conditions were investigated. Table 5 shows
the results of the measurements for the various test conditions in
terms of the mass loadings, mass flow, and ESP efficiency. Four of
the data points out of the 24 measured are erroneous and are so in-
dicated in Table 5. In one case, the sampling probe was leaky; in
the second case, sampling was anisokinetic; and in the third and
fourth cases, water apparently contaminated the filter used in
the thimble.
In the normal mode of operation for the Unit 4 steam generator (i.e.,
103 MW load, high-sulfur coal, and the ESP functioning automatically),
the efficiency was measured to be 99.70 percent in the second run.
These two measurements indicate that the ESP was operating either at
the design efficiency or close to it.
Tussey, R. C., Jr. and W. H. Maxwell, "Cat-Ox Demonstration Particulate
Study, Electrostatic Precipitator Evaluation, Manual gas, Mass Sampling
Analysis," MRI Project No 3585-C, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228, Task 35.
16
-------
v TABLE 5. ESP MASS LOADING AND EFFICIENCY AT VARIOUS OPERATING CONDITIONS
TEST RUN *
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
1A-2
OPERATING CONDITIONS
LOAD
103
103
103
103
103
103
85
70
70
70
70
103
FUEL*
HIGH SULFUR
3.SAI wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.48% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.38* wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.44% we.
HIGH SULFUR
3.46% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.671 wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.56% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.68% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.81% we. '
HIGH SULFUR
3.75% wt.
HIGH SULFUR
3.60% wt.
LOU SULFUR
1.11% wt
PLATE
CURRENT
AUTOMATIC
(55 MA/ft2)
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
20 vA/Jt2
10 HA/ ft2
30 MA/ft2
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
30 llA/ft2
20 llA/ft2
10 llA/f t2
AUTOMATIC
SPECIAL
SOOT BLOW
4TH SECTION OFF
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
MASS LOADING
GR/DSCF
1.6406
0.0148
1.6459
0.0089
1.3025
0.0208
1.2929
0.0159
1.4312
0.0081
1.4748
0.0045
1.2860
0.0125
1.3086
0.0150
1.4489
0.0554
1.3277
0.0357
1.4020
0.0031
1.3687
0.0023
2.3658
1.4372
0.0140
1.2311
0.0101
1.0265
0.0302
1.1870
0.0088
1.2843
0.0351
1.3063
0.0121
1.3465
0.0123
1.2982
0.0211
1.2161
0.0277
0.9030
0.0038
0.8444
0.0049
GR/ACF
0.9870
0.0092
0.9950
0.0054
0.8127
0.0128
0.8230
0.0098
0.9118
0.0051
0.9168
0.0028
0.7987
0.0077
O.B057
0.0093
0.9033
0.0351
0.8179
0.0226
0.8649
0.0020
0.8226
0.0015
1.4689
0.9163
0.0087
0.7600
0.0061
0.6426
0.0183
0.7057
0.0054
0.7580
0.0216
0. 8049
0.0075
0.8096
0.0076
0.7706
0.0133
0.7190
0.0173
0.5504
0.0023
0.5114
0. 0030
Ib/RR
3629.11
36.79
4031.30
21.88
2989.71
51.80
2998.22
40.27
3247.51
20.14
3333.57
11.54
3085.08
31.37
3061.56
38.25
3246.70
141.91
3118.33
94.23
3106.46
8.08
3056.38
6.23
4356.20
2708.30
30.32
1931.38
15.48
1626.41
47.48
1731.44
14.86
1915.80
58.18
2089.63
20.11
2130.74
19.91
2038.85
34.73
1812.58
47.70
2008.13
9.48
1911.69
12.41
EFFICIENCY
99.10
99.46
98.40
98.77
99.43
99.70
99.03
98.85
96.18
97.31
99.78
99.83
(Leaky Probe)
99.03
(88X Iiokinetlc)
99.18
97.06
(Green Filter)
99.26
97.27
(Green- Filter)
99.07
99.09
98.38
97.72
99.58
99.42
For coal analyils, see Table 12 end 13.
17
-------
Figures 1 through 6 present plots of the ESP collection efficiency
and penetration as a function of the steam generator and ESP operating
conditions. Where available, both the first and second runs at each
test condition are plotted to show the spread in the data. Figure 1
shows the collection efficiency and penetration versus current den-
sity at the 103 MW load for the high- sulfur coal. The average sulfur
content of the coal was measured to be 3.58 percent. The average gas
volume flow at 103 MW was approximately 308,000 SCFM. The data show
that the collection efficiency remains nearly constant from a current
2 2
density of 55 f-iA/f t to 30 fiA/f t , and then begins dropping at some
2 2
point after 30 (a.A/ft . At the lowest current density of 10 (xA/f t ,
the efficiency ranged from 96.18 percent to 97.31 percent. Converse-
ly, the penetration, which is 1 - collection efficiency, increased
2
to values in the range of 2.69 to 3.82 percent at 10 fjtA/ft from
2
values in the range of 0.17 to 0.22 percent at 30 |j.A/ft . Therefore,
on the average, the penetration increased by a factor of approximately
16 for a factor of 3 decrease in current density.
Figure 2 shows the ESP efficiency versus current density at the
70 MW load. The curve is similar to that obtained for the 103 MW
load; however, as discussed previously, two of the data points at the
higher current densities were lost, so the spread in the data is not
indicated. At this lower load, the average gas volume flow is
approximately 203,750 SCFM, which should theoretically result in a
precipitator efficiency equal to or higher than that of the 103 MW
case (see discussion in Section 4.0). This expected increased
efficiency was not observed at the higher current densities, but was
2 2
observed at the 20 fiA/ft and 10 fJiA/ft current densities. The
anticipated results may have been obscured by the loss of data points
and the need to obtain sufficient data to indicate a statistical
trend. Conversely, existing analytical expressions do not define all
of the significant phenomena occurring in commercial precipitators.
18
-------
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
103 Ml, HIGH SULFUR COAL
100
60 50 40 30 20 10
CURRENT DENSITY - yA/ft2
95
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
70 MW, HIGH SULFUR COAL
60 50 40 30 20 10
CURRENT DENSITY -
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
9
55 |iA/f t , HIGH SULFUR COAL
0 100
1 99
2 ,98
Tl
3H 97
3
B
4 §96
5 95
\
882 ISOKINETIC
100 90 80 70
LOAD - MM
(Xi
FIGURE 1
ESP EFFICIENCY VS.
CURRENT DENSITY
FIGURE 2
ESP EFFICIENCY VS.
CURRENT DENSITY
FIGURES
ESP EFFICIENCY
VS. LOAD
-------
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
103 MH, HIGH SULFUR, 55 |iA/f t
N3
O
ion
99
i 98
&
H'
0
H
| pc, Q7
j W y/
i H
g
3i ae.
O yo
O
QC
i
<
J
^*
p
i
H
<
c
s
s
\
j
1
3
3,
5
V
s>
>
I
p
£
t-
c.
b
0
i
s
^
)
z
•>
H
J
1
^
r
i
•*.
I
3|1
i
M
PLl
A
C
OPERATING CONDITIONS:
103 MW,' HIGH SULFUR 55
J.UU
QQ
COLLECTION EFFICIENCY - 7.
vo AD vo vo v
_^ 01 c> ^j oo v
i
i
k
^
§
H
--*
2
H
PL,
O
0
=^^
^,
p
IR,
IK,
':
>
tn
BOI:
SUPER-
UEATE
LER
El
u
1
2
3
A
5
OPERATING ^CONDITIONS:
103 MW, 55 jiA/ft2
J.UU
QQ
. on
i 70
§g
W ^
§s
M
S 96
i
i
H
E
t
5
c
^- —
3
9
rf
I
3
|
3
— — — ,
\i
ID
fi
t
J
q
j
c!
9
•-I
3
>5
B
U
:**
•
!
z
o
H
3|
3-B
:B
0,
FIGURE 4
ESP EFFICIENCY WITH
4TH SECTION OFF
FIGURES
ESP EFFICIENCY DURING
SOOT BLOWING
FIGURE 6
ESP EFFICIENCY FOR
LOW SULFUR COAL
-------
Figure 3 demonstrates the slight drop in efficiency at the 70 MW load,
The 85 MW load point is not reliable because it was sampled anisoki-
netically.
Figure 4 shows the effect of shutting off the fourth section of the
ESP, which is equivalent to a precipitator approximately ten feet
shorter (25 percent of total length). The results indicated a loss
in ESP efficiency of approximately 1 percent, with a corresponding
tripling of the fly ash penetration.
Figure 5 shows the effect of soot blowing on precipitator efficiency.
During the first run, the retractables on the superheater were
energized and, during the second run, the wall blowers on the boiler
were energized. The wall blowers had no discernible effect on the
precipitator efficiency or on the grain loading; however, the re-
tractables dropped the efficiency 0.3 to 0.6 percent and caused
approximately a doubling of the fly ash penetration. This may rep-
resent a worse than normal case for soot blowing because the blowers
were cycled continuously during the sampling.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the precipitator efficiency for the
low-sulfur and high-sulfur coals. The low-sulfur coal, as discussed
earlier, was approximately one percent by weight. As can be seen,
there was no significant loss in efficiency for the low-sulfur coal.
The resistivity measurements showed no significant increase in fly
ash resistivity, substantiating the results obtained for efficiency.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY
As shown in Table 4, measurements were performed using cascade im-
pactors, a Climet optical particle counter, and diffusion batteries
with CN counters to obtain particle size distributions. For the
majority of the tests (see Table 3), the impactor measurements were
21
-------
performed by MRI and the optical and CN counter measurements by SRI.
Impactor measurements on Tests 3 and 4 were repeated because initial
results were unsatisfactory. The makeup tests were performed by SRI.
Due to the concentration limits for operating optical counters and
CN counters and problems with condensation and coagulation in the
sampling lines and diffusion batteries, it is necessary to dry and
dilute the sample aerosol before it reaches these areas. Because of
the difference in particle concentration at the inlet and outlet of
emission control devices, the required dilution factor at the outlet
is normally much smaller than at the inlet. During these particular
tests, the outlet data were influenced by condensation of H~SO, in
the sampling systems. T-he number of particles counted by the CN
counters included macro-molecular droplets of H_SO,, as did the mass
accumulated on the outlet impactor stages. There was no evidence
that the optical counter data were affected because the H~SO, drop-
lets were far too small ( 0.002 Jim) to be detected optically.
Sufficient data were obtained to permit calculation of lower limits
for the fractional efficiencies in the size ranges covered by diffu-
sional methods (CN counting). This was accomplished by assuming that
all the particles counted at the outlet were of uniform size and
dividing those by the number of particles of that size at the inlet
to yield the maximum penetration for that size.
Table 6 and Figure 7 show the fractional efficiency calculated from
the optical and diffusional data. The part of the curve calculated
using diffusional data (0.01 to 0.15 (Jim diameter) is a lower limit
of efficiency. The efficiency calculated from the optical data (0.4
to 1.5.urn diameter) represents an accurate measure of precipitator
performance.
22
-------
TABLE 6. FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY1 FROM SRI DIFFUSIONAL AND OPTICAL DATA*
Test No.
Date
Power
Supply
Settings
Size (um)**
0.015
0.037
0.078
0.11
0.135
0.46
0.68
1.0
1.25
1.4
1.5
3
9/14
Automatic
4th
Section
Off
95
97.7
96.8
93.2
94
97.8
98.8
98.7
99.2
99.75
99
£
9/19
Automatic
97.9
99.1
98.6
97.1
97.5
96.8
98.6
98.9
99.55
99.55
99.85
5
9/20
20 uA/ft2
Efficiency %
90
95.5
93.5
87
88
96.3
98.6
99.3
99.65
99'. 8
99.7
6
9/21
10 uA/ft2
82
92.3
88
76
78
91.3
96.2
98.2
98.8
99.4
99.4
7
9/22
30 uA/ft2
98.5
99.35
99
98
98.2
98.1
99.4
99.6
99.83
99.8
99.85
* Operating conditions: 103 MW, high-sulfur coal (3.49% weight average,
as received, for tests indicated).
** Efficiency data in the size range 0.01 - 0.15 urn (diffusional data)
are lower limits.
23
-------
0.01
1.0
x-x
^
S3
3 50
H
t2
H
w
PH
90
9_9
99.9
*$
A * £ ft 8 S •
° * • 0 ° o °
• x * °
D X • •
x D
n x X
D
D
. DIFFUSIONAL DATA , OPTICAL DATA
'I
« TEST #3, 10/14/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, AUTOMATIC, 4th SECT. OFF
0 TEST #4, 10/19/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, AUTOMATIC
2
X TEST #5, 10/20/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 20|oA/£t
D TEST #6, 10/21/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 10 p.A/ft2
A TEST #7, 10/22/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 30 ^A/ft2
99.9
99
90 8
•
- o
w
o
H
50 •*
w
53
O
H
O
3
o
o
1.0
o:m
0.01 0.10 1.0 10'
PARTICLE DIAMETER (urn)
FIGURE?
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES FOR THE CAT-OX PRECIPITATOR
-------
Precipitator efficiency versus particle size, based on the impactor
data obtained by MRI, are shown in Table 7. In general, the efficien-
cies calculated are lower than would have been expected, verifying
SRI's conclusion that the impactor measurements at the precipitator
outlet had been contaminated by the presence of H2SO^. However, the
mechanism by which the contamination occurred has not been determined.
The impactor had been given adequate soaking in the flue gas prior to
initiation of sampling to bring the impactor up to flue gas tempera-
ture. The flue gas temperature was at approximately 325°F, which is
above the dew point for the concentrations of SCX, measured, indicating
that the H«SO, probably did not exist in the duct as a mist.
Figure 8 shows a comparison of the optical data and the impactor data
for those tests where both measurements were taken. The optical data
show much higher ESP efficiencies for the three current densities at
which the precipitator was operated. Assuming that the optical data
are accurate, this comparison graphically demonstrates the likely
contamination of the impactor data.
The particle size distribution obtained by MRI at the inlet and out-
let of the precipitator from the impactors are shown in Figures 9,
10, and 11. The outlet data appear to have been contaminated by
H^SO, condensation. The data has been cut off at 5 (Jjn because
sampling was not performed isokinetically. The mass distribution
at the precipitator inlet for the makeup tests performed by SRI are
shown in Figure 12.
IN SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
Both the parallel-disc measurement technique and the electric field-
current density technique were used to measure in situ resistivity.
The procedures and advantages of these techniques are discussed in
25
-------
TABLE 7. FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES FROM MRI IMPACTOR DATA*
to
Test
No.
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
Date
9/20
9/21
9/22
9/25
9/26
9/27
9/28
9/29
10/1
Load
(MW)
103
103
103
85
70
70
70
70
103
Goal
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
sulfur
Plate Current
(pA/ft2)
20
10
30
Automatic
Automatic
30
20
.10
Automatic
Particle Diameter, Geometric Mean
4 2 1 0.8
97
87
98
99
99
97
99
99
98
.05
.91
.89
.61
.04
.96
.28
.24
.79
96.08
89.92
97.97
99.65
98.02
97.75
97.95
98.26
98.19
91.89
85.73
96.90
99.30
96.39
94.78
97.08
94.51
95.79
90.03
84.44
95.80
98.93
95.11
92.67
95.71
93.14
95.15
(vim) **
0.4
85.44
85.61
91.73
97.32
89.33
62.67
88.65
98.66
94.33
* Data reduction for particle size distribution was performed by EPA.
** Efficiencies generally lower due to contamination of impactor stages by H_SO, condensation.
-------
EFFICIENCY (%)
CO
W
lOOn
99-
98-
97-
96-
95-
94-
93-
92-
91-
90-
89-
88-
87-
se-
es-
84-
(
\ Ay^rt^y 20 2
\7f*f* ^~ A30^/ft2
if s'**~
I l^f ^ X 20 ^/ft2
X I / 10 |iA/f t2 X"*
FA/
// /
if /
F /
1 '''
M x
1 /
/ 0xx X^N
' / ^
\f El 10 |iA/f t2
' / LEGEND: — — SRI OPTICAL DATA
/ / — — — MRI IMPACTOR DATA
El / OPERATING CONDITIONS: 103 MW, HIGH SULFU1
/
/El
31234 5
PARTICLE DIAMETER, GEOMETRIC MEAN (ym) _.
FIGURE 8
COMPARISON OF OPTICAL AND IMPACTOR DATA
27
-------
10.0
O 5-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.44%wt.)*, 20 uiA/ft
r .* 5-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.44% wt.), 20 jxA/ft2
O 6-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.46% wt.), 10 fiA/ft2
• 6-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.46% wt.), 10 (iA/f t2
V 7-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.67% wt.), 30 |iA/ft2
7-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.67%wt.), 30 |j.A/f t
1.0
O
- £3
Q
o
o
T3
S3
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
14-1, LOW SULFUR (1.11% wt.),
AUTOMATIC
14-2, LOW SULFUR (1.11% wt.)s
AUTOMATIC
(DATA REDUCTION PERFORMED
BY EPA)
*As received
INLET
ESP
OUTLET
ESP
I
0.01
I
0.1 1.0
GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER (vim)
10.0
FIGURE 9
dM/d LOG D VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER FOR 103 MW LOAD TESTS
28
-------
10.0
1.0
0
9 0.1
13
se
0.01
O.OOll-
0.0001
0.01
A 9-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.567, wt.)*, AUTOMATIC
09-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.56% wt.), AUTOMATIC
(DATA REDUCTION PERFORMED BY EPA)
*As received
INLET
ESP
OUTLET A-
ESP
0.1 1.0
GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER (ym)
10.0
FIGURE 10
dM/d LOG D VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER FOR 85 MW LOAD TESTS
29
-------
10.0
r A 10-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.68% wt.)*, AUTOMATIC
O 10-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.68% wt.), AUTOMATIC
O 11-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.81% wt.), 30 ^A/f t^
O 11-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.81% wt.), 30
A 12-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.75% wt.),
20 Z
1.0
o
3
s
-d
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
• 12-2, HIGH SULFUR (3.75% wt.), 2
20 H.A/f t
• 13-1, HIGH SULFUR (3.60% wt.),
10
13-2, HIGH SULFUR
(3.60% wt.), 10 (jiA/ft
(DATA REDUCTION
BY EPA)
*As received
- INLET
ESP
OUTLET
ESP
I
I
0.01
0.1 1.0
GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER (urn)
10.0
FIGURE 11
dM/d LOG D VERSUS GEOMETRIC MEAN DIAMETER FOR 70 MW LOAD TESTS
30
-------
10 r~
A TEST 4, REPEATED, 10/30/73, '103 MW, HIGH SULFUR
O TEST 4, REPEATED, 10/30/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR
D TEST 4, REPEATED, 10/31/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR
X TEST 3, REPEATED, 11/1/73, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR
,1.0'
A
O
V)
I
W
x x or
w *
* .10
A O
O °
X
D O
O
D°
J I I
1.0 10 100
PARTICLE DIAMETER (ym)
FIGURE 12
INLET MASS DISTRIBUTION CALCULATED FROM CASCADE IMPACTOR DATA
31
-------
r
Appendix I. The test conditions at the Cat-Ox^' precipitator were
such that the parallel-disc method did not provide useful data for
the high-sulfur coal tests, but did provide good data for the low-
sulfur test. Therefore, only the electric field-current density
data could be used to compare the resistivities of the high-sulfur
and low-sulfur coals. These results are shown in Figure 13 as a
function of measurement temperature. Resistivity was only measured
during the 103 MW load tests. The results show that the resistivity
of the low-sulfur coal was approximately the same as that of the
higher sulfur coal. As a result, the low-sulfur coal did not have
a significant effect on the precipitator efficiency.
SULFUR TRIOXIDE, SULFUR DIOXIDE, AND WATER VAPOR MEASUREMENTS
Table 8 shows the SO. concentrations and mass flow for each test
run at both the inlet and outlet of the precipitator. The values
in Table 8 that are identified with asterisks are lower in value
than the detectable limit of the analytical technique that was
employed. In the majority of the cases, the S0_ concentrations at
the outlet of the precipitator were lower than at the input, indi-
cating that the SO., was being removed by some mechanism. This is
verified by Table 9, which shows the average values of the S0_
concentrations and mass flow for the 103 MW and 70 MW loads and
the high- and low-sulfur coals. All values greater than the de-
tectable limit are averaged. The results show that, on the average,
the S0~ concentrations were two to five times lower at the outlet
of the precipitator. Possible speculation is that the SO., was re-
moved by absorption on the fly ash.
A comparison of the SO- and SO* concentrations is shown in Table 10.
The SO. measurements are discussed further in Appendix II. For the
high-sulfur tests, the S02 concentrations averaged 2267 ppm and,
32
-------
for the low-sulfur test, the average S02 concentration was 424 ppm.
The S03 concentration on the average was 0.7 percent of the S02
concentration at the ESP inlet and 0.3 percent of the S02 concentra-
tion at the ESP outlet.
The water vapor measurements for each test using two different
techniques are shown in Table 11. MRI used silica gel in a midget
impinger to absorb the water vapor as part of the mass sampling
train (Method 5, Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 247, Dec. 1971).
The moisture was determined from the change in weight of the impinger
and the quantity of gas passed through the impinger. In the technique
used by MITRE, the flue gas was pumped through a heated line approx-
imately 100 feet in length to an MSA water vapor analyzer that
measured the amount of moisture by spectral photometric absorption
with continuous strip chart recording. The MRI measurements average
9.2 percent by volume at the ESP inlet and 8.1 percent by volume at
the outlet. MITRE1s readings were generally lower, averaging 73
percent of the MRI readings. The reasons for this difference are
not understood at this time. However, this was the first use of the
MSA instrument by MITRE, so more operational experience is required
to determine its accuracy. The MRI measurements using the standard
method should be regarded as the reference data.
COAL AND FLY ASH ANALYSIS
The results of the coal analyses for each test are shown in Table
12 on an "as received basis" and in Table 13, on a "dry basis."
Both ultimate and proximate analyses were performed. The sulfur
content on an "as-received basis" averaged 3.58 percent, varying
from 3.38 to 3.81 percent for the high-sulfur coal. The correspond-
ing value for the single low-sulfur test was 1.11 percent sulfur by
weight. The ash content was 10.64 percent for the high-sulfur coal
and 6.45 percent for the single low-sulfur test. The sulfur and
33
-------
fc
H
10
12
10
11
10
10
10'
A HIGH SULFUR - E-j
O LOW SULFUR - E-j
O
o
330 340
TEMPERATURE °F
350
FIGURE 13
RESISTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE BY
THE ELECTRIC FIELD-CURRENT DENSITY METHOD
34
-------
TABLE 8. MEASURED SO., CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS FLOW
TEST
NO.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-2
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
OPERATING CONDITIONS
LOAD
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
103
85
85
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
103
103
COAL
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
LOW SULFUR
LOW SULFUR
SPECIAL
SOOT BLOWING
RETRACTABLES
WALL BLOWERS
4th SECTION OFF
4th SECTION OFF
—
__
__
—
—
„_
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
"
PLATE
CURRENT
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
20 UA/ft2
20 (iA/ft2
10 uA/ft2
10 tiA/ft2
30 MA/ft2
30 UA/ft2
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
30 pA/f t2
30 (lA/ft2
20 pA/ft2
20 (iVft2
10 |jA/f t2
10 , A/ft2
AUTOMATIC
AUTOMATIC
S03 CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
9.1
5.0*
—
5.1*
27.9
5.6
47.7
3.5
21.1
8.1
15.8
.9
2.9
15.4
6.0
5.9*
9.8
23.7
13.0
1.7
17.9
6.8*
10.7
5.3
5.9*
4.7
4.7
6.4*
5.9*
5.1*
25.1
1.6
18.5
6.1
5.0
5.8*
21.5
1.8
8.7
5.6
19.5
1.9
7.8*
1.4
4.4*
5.4*
9.3
2.9
(Ib/DSCF)
1.89 x 10"!
1.02 x 10
—
1.05 » 10"6
5.78 x 10"!
1.16 x 10""
9.86 x 10"!
.71 x 10
4.36 x 10"!
1.68 x 10~b
3.27 . 10:'
.19 x 10 6
.59 x «:'
3.18 x 10 *
1.24 x 10"*
1.23 * 10"6
2.02 x 10"!
4.89 x 10
2.70 x 10"!
.35 x 10~°
3.69 x 10"'
1.4 x If6*
2.21 x 10"!
1.09 x 10"°
1.21 x 10"!*
.98 x 10~°
.97 x 10"!4
1.31 x 10~"
1.23 x 10"!*
1.05 x 10"6
5.18 x 10"!
.33 x 10"6
3.83 x 10"!
1.26 x 10~6
1.04 x 10"'
1.20 x 10~"
4.44 x 10"!
.38 x 10""
1.81 x 10"'
1.16 x 10"'
4.04 x 10"!
.38 x 10"°
1.61 x 10"!*
.28 x 10"°
.90'x 10"!*
1.12 x 10"'
1.93 x 10"!
.60 x 10~"
MASS
FLOW
(Ib/Hr.)
29.27
17.72*
—
18.14*
92.88
20.25
160.08
12.61
69.27
29.21
51.75
3.91
9.91
55.97
20.31
21.90 *
31.69
87.76
44.40
6.47
57.24
25.79*
34.40
20.51
15.60*
12.63
12.80
19.83*
13.51*
11.27 *
57.46
3.63
39.12
14.82
10.86
13.92 *
49.73
4.44
20.05
13.11*
44.42
4.37
16.80 *
3.37
14.01
19.65 *
30.59
10.61
NOTE:
*At detectable limit of analytical method.
35
-------
TABLE 9. AVERAGE SO- CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS FLOW
LOAD
103
103
70
COAL
HIGH SULFUR
LOW SULFUR
HIGH SULFUR
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
S03 CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
16.5
8.0
9.3
2.9
14.7
2.9
(Ib/DSCF)
3.4 x 10"6
1.7 x 10"6
1.9 x 10~6
0.6 x 10~6
3.4 x 10"6
0.5 x 10"6
S03 MASS FLOW
(Ib/Hr.)
54.7
29.5
30.6
10.6
36.9
6.1
36
-------
TABLE 10. .COMPARISON OF SO, AND SO. CONCENTRATIONS
TEST
NO.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-2
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
503
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
9.1
5.0*
5.1*
27.9
5.6
47.7
3.5
21.1
8.1
15.8
0.9
2.9
15.4
6.0
5.9*
9.8
23.7
13.0
1.7
17.9
6.8*
10.7
5.3
5.9*
4.7
4.7
6.4*
5.9*
5.1*
25.1
1.6
18.5
6.1
5.0
5.8*
21.5
1.8
8.7
5.6*
19.5
1.9
7.8*
1.4
4.4*
5.4*
9.3
2.9
S02
CONCENTRATION
(PPM)
2405
2280
2229
2235
2310
2274
2235
2235
2190
2220
2025
2138
2190
2190
2175
2280
2250
2250
2235
2235
2280
2235
2295
2295
2265
2325
2305
2325
2370
2385
2400
2400
2355
2400
2400
2250
2115
2175
458
390
S03/S02
(Percent)
0.4
1.3
2.1
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.5
1.1
0.6
0.1
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
::
1.1
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
—
2.4
37
-------
TABLE 1L HATER VAPOR MEASUREMENTS
TEST NO.
2-1
2-2
3-1
3-2
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
9-1
9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-2
AVERAGE
LOCATION
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
INLET
OUTLET
H20 VAPOR
HRI
« Vol.)
12.4
7.9
10.5
8.0
8.1 .
8.4
8.6
8.1
7.9
8.1
9.1
8.4
8.3
8.8
8.7
9.5
8.3
6.5
8.7
6.0
10.1
6.4
13.1
3.4
9.6
6.7
7.8
6.7
9.5
5.4
9.0
10.6
10.0
11.0
9.4
9.3
8.8
9.3
9.2
10.0
7.4
10.0
8.2
8.8
8.8
9.1
8.6
9.2
8.1
MITRE
(% Vol.)
~
__
—
_ _
—
__
—
5.1
5.0
5.5
5.6
5.2
5.6
5.3
6.8
5.8
4.9
5.1
6.5
6.1
6.3
6.6
6.1
5.7
6.5
6.5
6.8
6.9
7.2
6.6
6.1
5.3
6.4
6.8
5.9
6.1
COMPARISON
MITRE/MRI
::
—
—
„_
__
__
__
^_
0.78
0.57
0.91
0.60
0.39
1.64
0.55
0.74
0.73
0.53
1.20
0.67
0.59
0.66
0.55
0.60
0.69
0.73
0.73
0.75
0.97
0.66
0.69
0.60
0.70
0.79
0.73
38
-------
TABLE 12. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL - AS RECEIVED BASIS
Test
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I 11
12
13
1 14
15
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
Carbon
(% Wt.)
66.23
67.96
66.90
66.3.6
66.83
66.24
66.11
66.84
66.87
67.05
, 66.54
67.05
72.71
67.25
Hydrogen
(Z Wt.)
5.12
4.67
5.24
5.04
5.18
5.19
5.13
5.21
5.26
5.26
5.23
5.11
5.48
5.16
Nitrogen
(% Wt.)
0.99
1.06
1.02
1.03
1.02
1.09
0.99
0.95
0.99
0.89
0.99
1.00
1.21
0.99
Sulfur
(% Wt.)
3.54
3.48
3.38
3.44
3.46
3.67
3.62
3.56
3.68
3.81
3.75
3.60
1.11
3.51
Oxygen
(% Wt.)
13.26
12.76
12.32
13.03
12.95
13.34
12.76
13.13
12.83
12.59
12.59
12.84
13.04
12.73
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
Moisture
(% Wt.)
3.62
3.65
3.69
3.77
4.02
4.21
3.61
4.10
3.60
3.61
3.50
3.55
4.19
3.65
Ash
(% Wt.)
10.86
10.07
11.14
11.10
10.56.
10.47
11.39
10.31
10.37
10.40
10.90
10.40
6.45
10.36
Volatile
Matter
(% Wt.)
37.56
37.86
37.73
37.54
37.84
38.20
37.49
38.35
38.19
38.01
37.82
37.91
34.48
38.06
Fixed
Carbon
(% Wt.)
47.96
48.42
47.44
47.59
47.58
47.12
47.51
47.24
47.84
47.98
47.78
48.14
54.88
47.93
Heat of
Combustion
(Btu/lb)
12,114
12,096
12,113
12,006
12,077
12,136
11,991
12,088
12,202
12,211
12,065
12,210
12,813
12,066
CO
Average High Sulfur •= 3.58% by weight
Average High Sulfur Ash = 10.64% by weight
-------
TABLE IS PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COAL - DRY BASIS
Test
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
Carbon
(Z Wt.)
68.72
70.53
69.46
68.96
69.63
69.15
68.59
69.70
69.37
69.56
68.95
69.52
75.89
69.80
Hydrogen
(% Wt.)
4.90
4.43
5.02
4.80
4.93
4.93
4.91
4.96
5.04
5.04
5.02
4.89
5.23
4.93
Nitrogen
(Z Wt.)
1.03
1.10
1.06
1.07
1.06
1.14
1.03
0.99
1.03
0.92
1.03
1.04
1.26
1.03
Sulfur
(Z Wt.)
3.67
3.61
3.51
3.57
3.60
3.83
3.76
3.71
3.82
3.95
3.89
3.73
1.16
3.64
Oxygen
(Z Wt.)
10.41
9.88
9.38
10.05
9.78
10.02
9.89
9.89
9.98
9.74
9.81
10.04
9.73
9.85
Ash
(Z Wt.)
11.27
10.45
11.57
11.55
11.00
10.93
11.82
10.75
10.76
10.79
11.30
10.78
6.73
10.75
PROXIMATE
Volatile
Matter
(Z Wt.)
38.97
39.29
39.18
39.01
39.42
39.88
38.89
39.99
39.62
39.43
39.19
39.31
35.99
39.50
ANALYSIS
Fixed
Carbon
(Z Wt.)
49.76
50.26
49.25
49.44
49.58
49.19
49.29
49.26
49.62
49.78
49.51
49.91
57.28
49.75
Heat of
Combustion
(Btu/lb)
12,569
12,554
12,577
12,476
12,583
12,669
12,440
12,605
12,658
12,668
12,502
12,659
13,373
12,523
Average High Sulfur =3.72% by weight
Average High Sulfur Ash = 11.06% by weight
-------
ash content on a "dry basis" were approximately four percent higher
than on the "as received basis," in accordance with the moisture
content of the coal.
The chemical content of the fly ash for certain critical elements
and for total sulfates for samples collected at the ESP inlet are
shown in Table 14. The fly ash consisted of three components from
the sampling train: (1) the dry catch in the cyclone, (2) the fly
ash collected on the fibreglass filter, from which it was carefully
removed for analysis; and (3) the acetone rinse of the sampling
probe. The sampling probe, the cyclone, and the filter were heated
to approximately 350 F. The total sulfate content was determined
to average 3.8 percent for the high-sulfur coal tests and 1.7 percent
for the single low-sulfur coal test.
-------
TABLE 14. CHEMICAL CONTENT OF FLY-ASH SAMPLED AT ESP INLET
Test
Number
2
3
4
5
6
7
/
9
10
11
12
13
14
C
(% Wt)
2.76
2.21
1.63
1.28
3.09
1 1 L
4. • J.H
1.94
2.20
1.06
0.75
1.50
3.74
H
(% Wt) (%
0.39
0.12
0.70
0.51
0.36
OAA
. HU
0.60
0.70
0.46
0.61
0.35
0.47
N
Wt)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Al
(% Wt)
6.7
6.5
6.4
8.2
9. 2
UL
• **
8.4
8.5
6.6
6.8
.7.9
9.5
Ca
(% Wt)
1.73
1.76
1.90
2.46
2.29
OCQ
• DO
2.15
2.23
1.80
1.72
1.82
1.42
Fe
(% Wt)
9.0
8.3
8.2
7.9
8.0
81
. J_
9.5
9.7
9.3
9.6
9.0
4.7
Li
(% Wt)
0.0071
0.0071
0.0077
0.0074
0.0063
0.0070
0.0075
0.0074
0.0068
0.0054
0.0086
Mg
(% Wt)
0.045
0.029
0.038
0.062
0.052
On/i a
• UHS
0.053
0.058
0.043
0.046
0.043
0.041
K
(% Wt)
1.22
0.99
1.22
1.29
1.21
1-1 c
. J-J
1.36
1.44
1.13
1.30
1.19
1.37
Si
(% Wt)
11.6
11.4
12.0
12.6
12.7
1^1
JL3 » X
13.6
13.1
12.2
13.5
12.9
12.6
Na
(% Wt)
0.29
0.39
0.52
0.48
0.39
OA^
• O J
0.42
0.41
0.37
0.37
0.29
0.27
Sulfate
(% Wt)
3.2
1.7
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.0
5.2
3.7
4.6
7.1
1.7
to
-------
COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF COMPUTER SIMULATION
The SRI ESP computer systems model was utilized to project the
variation in efficiency expected for a variation in volume flow
rate. The results of the computer simulation with the experimental
data superimposed are shown in Figure 14 for the four levels of
current density employed in the test program. The computer simulation
curves are based on the Deutch exponential collection efficiency
equation, which has been substantiated experimentally for ideal
2
operating conditions. The field measured data for the 10 jxA/ft
current density approximates the theoretical curve; however, as
the current density is increased, the field measured data system-
atically deviate from the theoretical curves such that the efficien-
cies at the larger gas volume flow rates become higher than at the
smaller gas volume flow rates. The implication is that the computer
simulation program does not account for some of the phenomena that
can cause slight changes in efficency at the high levels of performance
being obtained. These phenomena are complex and may possibly be
related to the effect of ion density on the electric field, diffusion
charging, and non-uniform gas flow.
The computer model does not include factors to account for particle
re-entrainment. Therefore, the model is primarily useful for extra-
polating the gross behavior of precipitators, rather than the absolute
efficiency of a particular ESP unit. The result of neglecting re-
entrainment primarily influences the computed versus measured per-
formance in the particle sizes greater than 1 pa. Therefore, the
computer simulation for 10, 20, and 30 microamperes per square foot
was run for size-fractional efficiencies in this range. The results
of this simulation are shown, together with the size-fractional
efficiency as determined by measurement, in Figures 15, 16, and 17.
The break in the predicted simulation curve results from the unavail-
ability of a suitable theory to explain the transition from the
region where field charging dominates to the region where diffusional
43
-------
99.9
99.0
u
H
90.0
0.0
AUTOMATIC
10 >A/f t
MEASURED:
• AUTOMATIC
A 30 |iA/ftZ
D 20 |iA/f t'
O 10
I
COMPUTER
SIMULATION
100
200 300 400
VOLUME FLOW RATE, ACFM
500
FIGURE 14
COMPARISON OF COMPUTER SIMULATED AND MEASURED ESP EFFICIENCIES
44
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
§
H
O
99
90
TEST 6-1, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, '10
O COMPUTER SIMULATED
A MEASURED
• LOWER JLIMIT REGION
(ACID CONDENSATION)
I
0.01
J_
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE SIZE, ym
10.0
FIGURE 15
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED SIZE FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR 10 MICROAMPERES PER SQUARE FOOT CURRENT DENSITY
45
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
e
&
M
U
§
M
M
I
O
99
TEST 5-2, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 20
O COMPUTER SIMULATED
A MEASURED
90 - A
i-LOWER LIMIT REGION.-
(ACID CONDENSATION)
I
OPTICAL*]
0.01
0.1 1.0
PARTICLE SIZE, ym
10.0
FIGURE 16
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED SIZE FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR 20 MICROAMPERES PER SQUARE FOOT CURRENT DENSITY
46
-------
77.777
99.99
EFFICIENCY (%)
VO
VO
•
VO
COLLECTION
VO
VO
90
0
0.
TEST 7-1, 103 MW, HIGH SULFUR, 30 (iA/ft2
O COMPUTER SIMULATED
A MEASURED
<(
•\ -/
\ /*/
\ »/7
, V-^4//
/ f
^ J \
*LOWER LIMIT REGION-*) f«- OPTICAL-*)
(ACID CONDENSATION)
1 1
01 0.1 1.0 10.
PARTICLE SIZE, \a*
FIGURE 17
COMPARISON OF COMPUTED AND MEASURED SIZE FRACTIONAL
EFFICIENCIES FOR 30 MICROAMPERES PER SQUARE FOOT
CURRENT DENSITY
47
-------
charging dominates. In the lower limit region of the measured data,
the experimental points represent the lowest possible level of
efficiency. Consequently, the measured data in this region are not
a true measure of the efficiency and have been connected to the
optically measured data to show, in general, that the form of the
curve agrees with theory.
48
-------
APPENDIX I
CATALYTIC OXIDATION PRECIPITATOR PERFORMANCE
AT THE WOOD RIVER POWER STATION
Final Report
to
THE MITRE CORPORATION
McLean, Virginia
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
2000 Ninth Avenue South
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
May 14, 1974
SORI-EAS-74-009
3155-IF-A
49
-------
PROGRAM SCOPE
This report describes the results of a test program conducted
jointly with The MITRE Corporation, Midwest Research Institute,
and The Southern Research Institute to evaluate the performance
of an electrostatic precipitator that removes fly ash from the
flue gas prior to entering the Cat-OxCS/ process for removal
of sulfur dioxide. The Southern Research Institute conducted
the particle size distribution tests in the submicron size
range, rechecked the supermicron particle size distribution with
impactors at one test condition, conducted resistivity tests,
and measured the precipitator secondary voltage and current
characteristics. SRI also utilized the precipitator computer
systems model to predict the precipitator performance based on
the inlet particle size distribution and the electrical conditions
determined for the installed precipitator. Midwest Research and
MITRE conducted the remainder of the tests.
50
-------
TEST RESULTS
The results of the SRI tests are discussed individually in the
following sections of this report, together with a short dis-
cussion of the test procedures.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION MEASUREMENTS
Tests were performed, using cascade impactors, a Climet optical
particle counter, and diffusion batteries with condensation
nuclei (CN) counters, to measure particle size distributions
and fractional efficiencies at different precipitator operating
conditions.
A Brink six-stage impactor with precollector cyclone and backup
filter was used to measure mass distributions at the inlet.
Greased, prebaked foils were used as impaction substrates. An
Andersen Model III stack sampler with backup filter was used
at the outlet. Glass fiber "bullseye" substrates were used
with the Andersen. The outlet data were obscured by the conden-
sation of H-SO, upon the impaction substrates.
Due to the concentration limits for operating optical counters
and CN counters and problems with condensation and coagulation
in the sampling lines and diffusion batteries, it is necessary
to dry and dilute the sample aerosol before it reaches these areas.
Because of the difference in particle concentration at the inlet
and outlet of emission control devices, the dilution factor at
the outlet is normally much smaller than that at the inlet. At
this installation, the outlet data were influenced by condensation
of H«SO, in the sampling systems. The number of particles counted
by the CN counters included macro-molecular droplets of H^SO,,
as did the mass accumulated on the outlet impactor stages. There
was no evidence that the optical counter data were affected.
51
-------
Sufficient data were obtained to permit calculation of lower limits
for the fractional efficiencies in the range of sizes covered by--
diffusional methods. This was done by assuming that all the par-
ticles counted at the outlet were of uniform size and that dividing
by the number of particles of the size at the inlet yields the
maximum penetration for that size.
Figure 18 summarizes the inlet mass distribution data as calculated
using the Brink impactors. Figure 19-shows the inlet particle size
distribution expressed on a cumulative basis.
Table 15 and Figure 20 show the fractional efficiency calculated
from the optical and diffusional data. The part of the curve
calculated using the diffusional data (0.01 to 0.15 |o.m diameter),
is a lower limit as described above. The efficiency calculated
from the optical data (0.4 to 1.5 [am diameter) represents actual
precipitator performance.
IN SITU RESISTIVITY MEASUREMENTS
The resistivity of the fly ash was determined by measurements made
with the SRI point-to-plane in situ resistivity instrumentation.
This device is used to electrostatically collect a dust layer
while the dust is maintained at flue gas conditions.
The point-to-plane probe lends itself to two types of measurement,
commonly referred to as the parallel-disc method and the electric
field-current density methods. The parallel-disc measurement is
very similar to that described in the A.S,M.E. Power Test Code
Number 28. After the dust-laden electrode volt-ampere charac-
teristic is recorded, a measurement disc is lowered to contact
the dust layer. A pressure on the order of ten grams per square
52
-------
O-
„«_>
a
I
W
A 10/30/73
O 10/30/73
n 10/31/73
x ||/ 1/73
£
A
O
x a
x x a
x o
* 0
D
A O
x
a
o
o
o
I I
10 10 100
PARTICLE DIAMETER (H
Figure 18 Inlet Mass Distribution Calculated from Cascade
Impactor Data
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
53
-------
icT
N
Q
Ul
id*
LU
a
O
B
a.
O
O
z
Ul
10*
A A DIFFUSIONAL DATA
O OPTICAL DATA
A
A
'E IOT|- A
O
I
•I 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER (ym)
Figure 19 Inlet Particle-Size Distribution
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
54
-------
TABLE 15 FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY DATA
Power
Supply
Settings
Date
Size (urn)
0.0151
0.037
0.078
0.11
0.135
0.46
0.68
1.0
1.25
1.4
1.5
Automatic
4th
Section
Off
9/14
Automatic
9/19
20 yA/ft2
9/20
10 yA/ft2
9/21
30 yA/ft ^
9/22
Efficiency %
95
97.7
96.8
93.2
94
97.8
98.8
98.7
99.2
99.75
99
1. Efficiency data in
data) are lower limits
. 97.9
99.1
98.6
97.1
97.5
96.8
98.6
98.9
99.55
99.55
99.85
the size range
90
95.5
93.5
87
88
96.3
98.6
99.3
99.65
99.8
99.7
0.01-0.15 (jjn
82
92.3
88
76
78
91.3
96.2
98.2
98.8
99.4
99.4
(diffusional
98.5
99.35
99
98
98.2
98.1
99.4
99.6
99.83
99.8
99.85
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
55
-------
in
O\
c
z
PI
31
PI
ID
S
H
rl
q
q
3^
z
2 o
I— iO
£
Ul
z
Ul
a.
8
<7>
C7»
. A no
A A "*i^
£± £A w f^j
A ° * A 8 S»
O A A A A "' D
• P • i-,
_ X ^ u
D X • •
X a
a x x
o
D
,.
, DIFFUSIONAL DATA , , OPTICAL DATA ,
1 1 1 • 1
• 10/14/73
0 10/19/73
X 10/20/73
D 10/21/73
A 10/22/73
*
O)
a>
3
~F
•^b-
>
CJ
2;
Ul
f
In uT
u.
Ul
O
1
O
u
0
.01 .10 _ _ • t v 1.0 10 '
PARTICLE DIAMETER
Figure 20 Fractional Efficiencies for the Wood River Precipitator
-------
centimeter is supplied by a spring. The resistivity is determined
by measuring the resistance of a known geometrical configuration
of the dust (cylindrical solid). The resistivity is determined
just prior to electrical flashover between the parallel discs.
The electric field-current density method is dependent upon the
Ohms Law relationship that the electric field in a medium is
proportional to the current density and the resistivity. The
corona current from the point electrode flows through flue gas
in the form of ions. If there were no dust deposit on the electrode
system, the electrical conditions would be determined only by the
flue gas constituents. However, if there were a dust layer on the
collection electrode, the corona current flow through the layer
would cause a voltage drop across the layer, which results in a
shift in the electrical conditions. This shift in the voltage-
current characteristics of the point-to-plane probe provides the
data for the resistivity measurements.
Each method of measurement has potential problems. The parallel-
disc measurement is made by contacting a metal electrode with the
dust layer. This disturbs the surface and compresses the dust.
Variation in contact area and compaction can lead to variations
in the resistance of a given sample.
The electric fieId-current density (E vs j) measurement technique
more nearly duplicates the behavior of a precipitator in that the
dust layer is undisturbed and the electron transfer mechanism at
the dust surface is duplicated. There is some problem with the
dust thickness determination for the technique.
57
-------
The conditions at the Wood River Plant were such that the parallel-
disc method did not provide useful data for the high-sulfur coal
tests. Therefore, only the electric fieId-current density (E-j)
data are included. The low-sulfur tests did provide good parallel-
disc measurements as well as E-j data. The relative values for
the two methods for a current density of 0.2 uA per square centimeter
are shown in Table 16.
The results of the electric field-current density resistivity measure-
ments are plotted as a function of temperature in Figure 21.
PRECIPITATOR SECONDARY VOLTAGE AND CURRENT MEASUREMENTS
The operating voltage and current conditions were determined at
regular intervals during the test program. A set of high megohm
voltage dividers (10,000:1) was installed on selected power sets
in the precipitator. These dividers were used to provide voltages
proportional to the secondary voltage between the corona and collect-
ing electrodes. Voltage-current curves are included in Figures 22
through 29 for the test conditions that were established at the
Cat-OxQ9 test site.
The operating voltages and currents were set for each test condition
and monitored at hourly intervals. These conditions remained con-
stant during the test interval except for some minor variations
when operating in the automatic mode.
58
-------
TABLE 16. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE RESISTIVITY DETERMINED BY EACH METHOD AT
A CURRENT DENSITY OF 0.2 A/cm , TEST DATE 10/1/73
Test Number Temperature Parallel Disc Resistivity Electric Field-Current Density
1 330 2.3xl010 ohm-cm 6.1xl010 ohm-cm
2 335 3.1xl010 ohm-cm S.OxlO10 ohm-cm
3 340 2.5xl010 ohm-cm 7.5xlOL° ohm-cm
4 335 4.1xl010 ohm-cm 1.6xl010 ohm-cm
59
-------
10
12
10
II
g
>
I-
UJ
tt io'°
A HIGH SULFUR - E-j
O LOW SULFUR - E-j
o
o
330
340
350
TEMPERATURE °F
Figure 21
Resistivity as a Function of Temperature
by the Electric Field-Current Density
Method for the Wood River Catalytic
Oxidation Project Tests.
60
-------
o.e
0.7
0.6
M
8 0.5
4J
g 0.4
3
o
8
0)
0.3
0.2
O.I
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Applied Voltage, kV
Figure 22 Voltage vs Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No, 2 for the Low Sulfur Test Conditions
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
61
-------
0.8
0.7
0.6
M
0)
0.5
•M
s
3
t)
ID
1
U
0)
(0
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
I
I
I
I
I
10
20
50
kV
Figure 23
30 40
Applied Voltage,
Voltage vs Current Characteristics for Power
Supply No. 4 for the Low Sulfur Test Conditions
60
70
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
62
-------
O.B
0.7
0.6
0.5
w
a
0)
4J
2
3
u
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I -
10 20
_| | \ |_
30 40 SO 60
Applied Voltage, kV
70
Figure 24 Voltage vs Current Characteristics for Power Supply
No. 5 for the Low Sulfur Test Conditions
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
63
-------
0.8
0.7
0.6
m
0)
M
0)
2
9
o
§
u
01
to
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
I
I
I
10
20 30 40
Applied Voltage, kV
50
60
70
Figure 25 Voltage vs Current Characteristics for Power Supply
No. 8 for the Low Sulfur Test Conditions
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
64
-------
0.8
0.7
0.6
to 0.5
a
0)
0.4
0.3
0)
en
0.2
O.I
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Applied Voltage, kV
Figure 26 Voltage vs Current Characteristics for Power Supply
No. 2 for the High Sulfur Test Conditions
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
65
-------
o.e
0.7
0.6
0) 0.5
M
0)
g
14
3
o
8
-------
0.6
0.7 -
0.6
n
s
0.5
•P
I
0.4
u
0)
M0.3
0.2
O.I
10
_J I I
20 30 40
Applied Voltage, kV
SO
60
70
Figure 28 Voltage vs Current Characteristics for Power Supply
No. S for the High Sulfur Test Conditions
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
67
-------
o.e
0.7
0.6
0.5
01
2
-------
COMPUTER SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
The SRI electrostatic precipitator computer systems model was
utilized to project the variation in efficiency that would be
expected for a variation in volume flow rate. The electrical
conditions utilized for this projection were for current densities
of 10, 20, and 30 microamperes per square foot and automatic
conditions. These results are shown, together with the reported
efficiency data, in Figures 30 and 31.
The trend in efficiency as a function of volume flow rate as suggest-
ed by the computer projection is realistic even though the computer-
model does not include factors for particle re-entrainment. There-
fore, at this time, the model is primarily useful for extrapolating
the gross behavior of precipitators, rather than for definitively
determining the overall efficiency of a unit.
Neglecting re-entrainment primarily influences the computed versus
measured performance in the particle sizes greater than one micro-
meter (1 fim), since re-entrained particles are expected to occur
in size bands 1 fim and larger. Therefore, the computer simulation
for 10, 20, and 30 microamperes per square foot was run for size
fractional efficiencies in this range. The results of this simu-
lation are shown, together with the size fractional efficiency as
determined by particle size instrumentation for this size band,
in Figures 32, 33, and 34. The size measurements for 0.15 |j.m and
smaller represent lower limit values and, therefore, are shown as
dotted lines.
69
-------
99.9
AUTOMATIC
99.0
§
H
i
9 AUTOMATIC
A 30 uA/ft2
D 20 (iA/ft2
O 10 |jA/f t2
^COMPUTER
SIMULATION
90.0
HS High Sulfur
LS Low Sulfur
SB Soot Blowing
4S 4th Section Off
NI Non-lsokinetic
0.0
100 200 300 400 500
Volume Flow Rate, acfm
Figure 30 Actual Efficiency from Inlet and Outlet Dust
Loading Measurements With All Data Points
Included.
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
70
-------
99.91
AUTOMATIC
99.01
M
u
• AUTOMATIC
A 30 (JiA/f t2
D 20 (lA/f t2
O 10 |JLA/f t2
I, COMPUTER
SIMULATION
90.01
0.01
100 200 300 400 500
Volume Flow Rate, acfm
Figure '31 Actual Efficiency from Inlet and Outlet Dust
Loading Measurements With Soot Blowing,
Non-Isokinetic and Fourth Electrical
Section Points Removed.
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
71
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
u
III
5
99
90
O TEST 6-1 PREDICTED
A. 10 uA/ft2 MEASURED
•* LOWER LIMIT REGION
0.01
O.I
1.0
10.0
PARTICLE SIZE, Jim
Figure 32 Confuted and Measured Size Fractional Efficiencies-.
for 10 Microamperes per Square Foot for the Cat-OxQy
Tests. The region identified as lower limit region
is that corresponding to acid condensation in the
measurement system.
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
72
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
5
S
3
tu
99
90
O TEST 6-2 PREDICTED
A 20jiA/ft2 MEASURED
-•LOWER LIMIT REGION
0.01
Figure 33
O.I
1.0
IChO
PARTICLE SIZE, pm
Computed and Measured Size Fractional Efficiencies...
for 20 Microamperes per Square Foot for the Cat-Ox®
Tests. The region identified as lower limit region
is that corresponding to acid condensation in the
measurement system.
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
73
-------
99.999
99.99
99.9
o
u .
o
t
u
99
90
O TEST 7-1 PREDICTED
A 30|iA/ft2 MEASURED
*- LOWER LIMIT REGION-"•)
0.01
Figure 34
O.I
PARTICLE SIZE, Jim
1.0
10.0
Computed and Measured Size Fractional Efficienciea.-
for 30 Microamperes per Square Foot for the Cat-OxQ*
Tests. The region identified as lower limit region
is that corresponding to acid condensation in the
measurement system.
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE
74
-------
DISCUSSION OF EFFICIENCY TESTS
The projections for the various current density conditions are shown
with the complete test efficiencies in Figure 30. Each test con-
dition is shown by each data point. Figure 31 is a repeat of Figure
30, with only selected data points shown. The soot blowing tests,
with the fourth field deenergized, and those tests with isokinetic
variations greater than 10 percent are removed.
2
The 10 (j.A/ft condition shows trends that are in agreement with
theoretical expectations, but as the current density is increased,
the trends are progressively at odds with theory. Theory predicts
an increased collection efficiency with decreasing gas flow rate.
We find no explanation for the observed behavior for the higher
current density tests. Some possible explanations include:
• varying plant operating conditions
• varying coal characteristics
• insufficient stabilization time between test condition
changes
• variation in test procedure
It is not possible to determine which of these factors may have
contributed to the problem during this test program.
75
-------
APPENDIX II
FLUE GAS COMPOSITION AND VOLUME
FLOW MEASUREMENTS
77
-------
FLUE GAS COMPOSITION
Flue gas concentrations were measured continuously and recorded on
strip charts. The flue gas measurement system was time-shared
between three locations—the economizer, the ESP input, and the ESP
output. The gases measured were S02» C0«, 0«, and H-0. The boiler
excess air was set by measurement of 0- at the economizer. Diffi-
culties were experienced with the H_0 vapor analyzer during the
initial tests so that good data were not obtained until Test 6.
The reduced results from the strip charts are summarized in Table
17 for the main part of the test program and in Table 18 for the
repeat tests. Figure 35 shows a portion of the strip chart record-
ing of the S0~ concentration during the gradual conversion from
low-sulfur coal to high-sulfur coal in Test 14.
78
-------
TABU 17. FLUK CAS COMPOSITION AT KUWOHIZt.K AMU INPUT/OUTPUT 0V I.SI'
T«»t
NuMboi*
»2
V/1J
n
9/14
115
9/15
IB
9/19
»4
9/19
15
9/20
16
9/21
17
9/22
»9
9/24-25
110
9/29-26
»11
9/26-27
112
9/27-28
113
9/26-29
11*
10/1
Kun Nuahur
11
(10l03un-2llODu)
12
(3:30p«^7:45pB)
»1
(10i05»«-l:13o.)
(2:15p»-l!l5pi)
Slncln Buu
(10i30«»-:>i30p»)
Single Kuti
li
(llOOon-SlOODB)
12
(6i57p»-9!3S».)
(1
(9l56«-ll20Da)
12
(2l20pn-6l45p»)
11
(10i05«i»-12:32pm)
12
(Ii33p»-5l00|»)
11
(9iSOu-ltOODa)
12
(2lOOpm-5lOOpn)
li
(12,26«-3,05a.)
12
(4l20*B-6i58>»)
11
12
<4:00a»-7!02«.)
11
(12iOiu-4iao»)
12
(4il5u-7il2u)
•1
(12lOOn-3l30u)
12
Ol52m.-6i55.ii)
11
<12lOO«-3lOO«»)
«2
(3iSS«B-6!20««)
»1
(10l20t»-ll20DB)
" ••
Ul5Sp»-3i57pa)
so,
Input Output
bcunonliur KSP LSP
(ppo) (pp«) (|lp»)
2561 U05 I860
2533 2280 1725
2276 2229 1525
2415 2215 1538
2371) ' 2165 2250
24VO 2340 22'ij
2469 2310 2274
2445 • 2235 2233
2385 2190 2220
2325 2025 2138
2123 2190 2190
2400 2173 2280
2430 2250 2230
2400 2235 2233
2468 2280 2233
2320 2295 2295
2430 226J 2325
2320 2305 2323
2395 2370 2385
2635 2400
2685 2400 2355
2610 2400 2400
2305 2230
2385 2115 2175
480 438
420 390
C02
Input Output
KcuitUBlxcr bSP LSI'
<» (Z) (Z)
15.4 14.9 12.4
lb..' 14.3 11.9
15.1 13.9 11.4
14.8 13.8 11.4
15.7 14.0 11.0
11.1 14.7
15.5 14.8 14.8
13.5 14.8 14.7
14.6 14.6 14.6
13.0 14.2 14.2
15.2 14.8 14.6
15.3 14.5 *14.6
15.2 14.5 14.5
14.0 14.1 14.2
14.5 14.5
14.5 14.7 14.0
15.3 14.8 15.0
15.6 14.8 15.0
15.7 14,8 15.0
14.3 14.7 14.2
15.0 14.7 14.5
15.7 14.6 14.7
15.5 14.7 14.9
14.7 14.7 14.7
14.9 14.3 14.2
"2
Input 'Hjt,>iU
l.cuiumlnur Car t.sl'
(I) (W (»)
1.7 6.0 10.1
J.7 j.O 10. J
4.J 6.2 11.7
4.1 6.5 11.8
3.8 3.7 10. »
3.8 i.li
3.7 5.2 5.5
3.5 5.6 5.6
3.2 4.4 1.5
3.7 5.8 5.6
4.0 5.0 5.4
3.9 5.4 5.5
4.1 5.8 5.8
4.2 5.9 5.8
4.7 6.1 6.2
4.5 6.1 6.2
4.2 5.7 5.6
3.6 5.9 5.3
3.7 5.9 5.8
3.5 5.9 5.7
3.6 5.7 6.0
3.7 5.9 5.4
3.6 5.8 5.5
3.6 5.8 3.6
3.5 5.8 5.3
4.0 5.3 5.8
"2°
Ini'UL 'i,,[|ut
UumaUir I-S1' 1 •
(Z) (Z) (Z)
--
—
-
—
5.5 5.1
3.9 5.0 5.3
4.8 5.6
6.2 5.2 5.0
6.7 5.3 6.U
7.2 5.8
5.2 4.9 5.1
6.8 6. 6.1
6.5 6.3 6.6
7.1 6.1 5.7
8.2 6.5 6.3
8.0 6.8 6.9
7.6 7.2
7.9 6.6
11.2 6.1 J.]
7.3 6.4 6.8
Cu
so,
••mplttl at input to it«ck instui
bagan incr««»in| aft«r 3(57 p.B,
id of KSP output during Toati 2, 3 and
aa aliown iu Figure 35.
79
-------
TABLE 18. FLUE GAS COMPOSITION FOR REPEAT TESTS
Test
Number
*4 (R)
10/30
*4 (R)
10/31
#3 (R)
11/1
Run Number
Single Run
(l:15pnt-4:15pn)
Single Run
(10:00am-5:30pm)
Single Run
(8:20am-12:35pm)
SO,
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
2618 2430 2400
2409 2205 2295
2SS9 2334 2175
co2
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
(X) (X) (X)
15.5 14.8 14.8
15.6 14.8 14.8
15.6 14.6 14.4
°2
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
(X) (X) (X)
3.5 5.5 5.6
3.3 5.4 4.9
3.3 5.4 5.0
H20
Input Output
Economizer ESP ESP
(X) (X) (X)
6.7 7.1 7.0
7.2 6.0 5.25
7.1 7.7 7.8
-------
2100
1800
1500
8 1200
H
8
CM
o
CO
900
600
300
4:47 PM 4:17 PM
3:47 PM
TIME
FIGURE 35
TEST #14 STRIP CHART SHOWING
TRANSITION FROM LOW SULFUR
TO HIGH SULFUR COAL
81
-------
GAS VOLUME FLOW
The gas volume flow was measured at the economizer and stack, using
a continuous measurement system consisting of pressure-temperature
rakes and pressure sensors. The dynamic pressure, static pressure,
and temperature were recorded continuously on strip charts and
atmospheric pressure was recorded manually. The recorded data from
the strip charts are shown in Table 19 and the reduced results, in
Table 20.
Limited manual calibrations were performed during some of the tests.
These consisted of traverses in the unoccupied ports and manometer
measurements of the rake outputs. The results are summarized in
Table 21.
The MRI manual gas volume flow measurements at the inlet and outlet
of the precipitator are plotted in Figure 36 as a function of load.
Also shown are the limited manual traverses obtained at the econo-
mizer and stack. The MRI measurements at the inlet and outlet of
the precipitator were, on the average, higher than those obtained at
the stack and economizer by MITRE. The discrepancy can be partially
explained by the limited number of points traversed at all of the
locations and the difference in instrumentation used.
Figure 37 shows the rake measurements of gas volume flow versus
load at the economizer and stack. The rake measurements were
generally lower than the calibration measurements, indicating again
that full traverses are required in order to obtain good calibration
data.
82
-------
TABLE 19. PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS AT ECONOMIZER AND STACK USING RAKES
Test
Number
2
9/13
3
9/1A
15
9/15
8
9/19
4
9/19
5
9/20
6
9/21
7
9/22
9
9/24-25
10
9/25-26
11
9/26-27
12
9/27-28
13
9/28-29
14
10/1
Run
Number
1
2
1
2
Single
Single
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
ECONOMIZER (511.14 ft2)
Dynamic Static
Pressure Pressure Temperature
(in.h20) (ln.H20) (°F)
711.2
707.9
738.4
737.5
698.9
.067 -4.8 750.3
.021 -5.3 759.7
.020 -5.2 757.8
.033 -5.5 751.3
.038 -5.5 741.6
.037 -5.4 754.1
.026 -5.4 748.1
.023 -5.4 744.1
.024 -5.4 743.5
.016 -3.5 710.5
.014 -3.5 702.5
.008 -2.5 683.5
.007 -2.5 686.8
.011 -2.6 681.7
.011 -2.6 688.7
.005 -2.6 687.4
.006 -2.6 686.6
.008 -2.6 679.9
.007 -2.6 686.7
.015 -5.3 755.7
.018 -5.3 760.8
STACK (444.66 ft2)
Dynamic Static Atmospheric
Pressure Pressure Temperature Pressure
(in.H20) (lnH20) (°P) (in. Hg)
311.7 29.56
312.7
315.7 29.67
312.8 29.68
318.9 29.74
.045 -.82 299.0 29.71
.022 -.59 307.9 29.65
.024 -.59 308.9 29.64
.021 -.50 308.9 29.75
.024 -.51 311.0 29.73
.037 -.50 309.6 29.76
.025 -.46 309.4 29.69
.027 -.49 312.4 29.78
.020 -.48 314.3 29.77
.015 -.51 306.3 29.59
.017 -.54 304.5 29.60
.014 -.50 301.2 29.73
.016 -.52 297.8 29.73
.011 -.52 297.5 29.83
.017 -.52 304.6 29.85
.014 -.51 304.4 29.80
.015 -.50 303.5 29.75
.011 -.53 304.8 29.62
.014 -.54 306.1 29.62
.022 -.55 308.2 29.68
.021 -.44 312.4 29.62
83
-------
TABLE 20. GAS VOLUME FLOW AT ECONOMIZER AND STACK USING RAKES
Test
4-1
4-2
5-1
5-2
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
8
9-1
' 9-2
10-1
10-2
11-1
11-2
12-1
12-2
13-1
13-2
14-1
14-2
Load
(mw)
1C
)3
85
I
7
0
103
ECONOMIZER
Velocity Volume Flow Volume Flow
(fpm) (acfm) (scfm)
872.14 445,783.84 189,429.28
850.61 434,778.85 185,024.52
1090.91 557,605.24 239,284.45
1164.70 595,325.82 257,358.22
1153.46 589,581.43 252,572.32
966.39 493,958.43 212,152.09
904.01 462,076.07 199,729.89
925.72 473,172.00 204,558.37
1549.95 792,239.74 340,388.53
747.09 381,867.80 169,510.20
697.01 356,267.04 159,288.69
519.54 265,557.63 121,543.05
487.14 248,997.35 113,635.63
607.52 310,527.48 142,795.63
609.70 311,643.20 142,531.51
413.46 211,335.94 96,601.88
452.11 231,091.79 105,527.50
520.38 265,987.23 121,638.99
488.73 249,808.46 113,562.80
739.28 377,872.84 161,265.01
811.66 414,869.57 175,953.27
STACK
Velocity Volume Flow Volume Flow
(fpm) (acfm) (scfm)
704.36 313,200.08 213,903.70
736.43 327,460.44 223,276.68
687.74 305,811.23 209,337.06
737.22 327,814.20 223,631.37
912.75 405,864.59 277,667.33
751.48 334,152.44 228,149.93
781.30 347,412.33 236,981.55
673.55 299,498.94 203,733.45
1000.85 445,039.76 307,956.24
583.55 259,482.92 177,262.44
618.90 275,198.06 188,490.34
558.59 248,383.44 171,630.31
596.32 265,157.82 184,034.14
493.84 219,590.93 152,982.07
615.60 273,733.52 189,057.50
560.87 249,396.56 172,009.23
580.85 258,280.93 178,051.59
498.90 221,838.65 151,990.03
562.98 250,332.58 171,216.99
704.27 313,160.04 214,030.77
692.99 308,143.32 . 209,090.21
84
-------
TABLE 21. COMPARISON OF TRAVERSE AND RAKE VOLUME FLOW MEASUREMENTS
Test
2-1
3-2
3-1
5-2
15
Location
And Load
(mw)
Stack
103
Stack
103
Economizer
103
Stack
Economizer
103
Stack
103
TRAVERSE (MANOMETER)
Velocity
(fpm)
855.65
889.32
1263.94
848.70
Volume Flow
(acfm)
380,474.04
395,444.76
646,049.68
377,379.00
Volume Flow
(scfm)
255,603.98
266,347.31
277,452.36
257,470.95
RAKE (MANOMETER)
Velocity
(fpm)
836.63
683.86
679.70
759.11
Volume Flow
(acfm)
372,015.56
304,084.11
302,234.27
337,545.90
Volume Flow
(scfm)
249,929.79
204,813.42
206,066.99
227,662.02
RAKE (BAROCEL)
Velocity
(fpm)
754.44
1085.29
Volume Flow
(acfm)
335,471.07
554,735.43
Volume Flow
(scfm)
228,854.80
241,377.95
oo
en
-------
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
> 230
180
170
160
150
OUTLET ESP
220
210
200
190
"
i
$(
/J
OUTLET ESP
MRI DATA
INLET ESP
MRI DATA
ECONOMIZER
TEST 3-1
MITRE TRAVERSE,
STACK —^
TEST 5-2 >
MITRE TRAVERSE
/STACK TEST 3-2
MITRE TRAVERSE
V
STACK
TEST 2-1
MITRE TRAVERSE
INLET ESP
60
70
80
90
LOAD - MW
100
110
FIGURE 36
GAS VOLUME FLOW VERSUS LOAD FOR TRAVERSES
86
-------
1
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
STACK
TEST 3-2
MITRE TRAVERSE
STACK
TEST 5-2
MITRE TRAVERSE
STACK
TEST 2-1
MITRE TRAVERSE
STACK
ECONOMIZER
60
70 80 90 100
LOAD - MW
FIGURE 37
GAS VOLUME FLOW VERSUS LOAD FOR RAKES
110
87
-------
APPENDIX III
ESP INLET AND OUTLET DUCTS
89
-------
Cross-sections of the two inlet ducts to the electrostic precipitator
and the single outlet duct are shown in Figures 38, 39, and 40. The
access ports and the sampling points are also indicated.
90
-------
14' 5 5/8"
\o
6'
8
9
10
11 12
6" D.SCH 40 FLANGED PIPE PORTS
tr1
13
FIGURE 38
POINT 1-INPUT ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
(LEFTSIDE FACING POWER PLANT)
14
7"
-------
VO
N)
•^
c.
c
c
c
>
)
D
1-
1
-3
C_
o
o
o
1
1
1
4-
2
ID
C
c
c
c
•
t
)
)
)
h
3
_D
14
C
c
c
c
J
H
I
)/
)
)
)
u
h
t
_l
d
c
c
c
J
H
!
)
)
>
h
D
c
c
c
c
(
)
>
)
h
5
I]
[_
c
c
c
J
H
>
>
)
u
r
r
— ^
j
i
*.
Ci
T
>*
0
T
T
T
u
1
71//'
t
3
2
1
6" D. SCH 40 FLANGED PIPE PORTS
FIGURE 39
POINT 1-INPUT ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
(RIGHT SIDE FACING POWER PLANT)
-------
VD
c
(
<
)
5
D
C
C
C
>
)
>
C
c
c
)
>
3
C
C
c
)
)
)
A
c
c
(
)
>
3
C
C
c
>
)
5
,
C
c
(
>
)
">
u
c
c
c
5
>
>
L
^
1
7'
I
J
!
i
10'
i
r/8
>
6" D. SCH 40 FLANGED PIPE PORTS
FIGURE 40
POINT 3-OUTPUT ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
-------
APPENDIX IV
CONVERSION FACTORS
95
-------
TABLE 22. CONVERSION FACTORS
ENGLISH METRIC
1.0 ft. 0.305 m.
1.0 Ib. 0.454 kg.
1.0 grain 6.5xlO"3 kg
1.0 Btu 1055 joules
°C
1.0 °F °F - 32
96
1.8
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT
(Please read Instructions on the reverse
DATA
before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-75-037
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Test Evaluation of Cat-Ox High Efficiency
Electrostatic Precipitator
6. REPORT DATE
August 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
E. M. Jamgochian, N. T. Mil ler, and R. Reale
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
M75-51
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
The Mitre Corporation
Westgate Research Park
McLean, Virginia 22101
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ACZ-003
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0650
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13; TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 9-12/74
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT,pne rep0rfgives results of 2i test program to measure the performance of
the high efficiency Research-Cottrell electrostatic precipitator (ESP) located at
the Wood River Power Station, East Alton, Illinois. The overall efficiency of the
ESP was measured as a function of steam generator and ESP operating conditions.
Of particular interest was the efficiency of the ESP as a function of particle size over
the range from 0.01 to 5 jum. In addition, fly ash resistivity, gas concentrations,
coal analyses, and fly ash analyses were determined. The measured results were
compared with those generated by an idealized computer simulation model.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Air Pollution
Electrostatic
Precipitators
Efficiency
Measurement
Fly Ash
*Flue Dust
Electrical
Resistivity
Gases
Concentration
(Composition)
Coal
Chemical Analysis
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
20C
07D
21B 21D
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
107
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
PA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
97
------- |