EPA-600/2-76-004
January 1976
tnvironiriental Protection Technology Serie
UN FOUNDRY CUPOLA RECUPERATIVE
EMISSION CONTROL DEMONSTRATION
Indostrfal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research-and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection "Agency, have been grouped into
five series. These five broad categories were established to
facilitate further development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in
related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed
to develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental degradation from
point and non-point sources of pollution. This work provides the
new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
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 endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-004
IRON FOUNDRY CUPOLA
RECUPERATIVE EMISSION
CONTROL DEMONSTRATION
by
James F. Turner, HI
Flynn and Emrich Company
3001 Grantley Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21215
Contract No. 68-02-0286
ROAP No. 21ARO-002
Program Element No. 1AB013
EPA Project Officer: Robert C. McCrillis
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
January 1976
11
-------
ABSTRACT
It has been established that it is technically feasible to
use the sensible and/or latent heat from exhaust gases of
cupolas. The main drawback to such schemes in this country
was that recuperative heat exchangers were not justifiable
due to fuel costs. The increase in the cost of coke, however,
appears to now make such systems feasible.
This investigation was into the possibility of using a dry,
solid-media, heat exchanger for producing hot blast air for
the cupola. Economic advantages in the form of reduction
in fuel costs, operating costs, and air pollution equipment
costs were expected. Data on the operation of the cupola
and heat exchanger were to be analyzed with and used to refine
a computer model. The refined model was then to be used
to extend the results to other size systems.
The system was never made operational due to problems in
interfacing the operation of the cupola, heat exchanger and
air pollution control systems. This report outlines system
design deficiencies and presents the results of the work
on the computer model and a description of the test equipment
selected.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract
Number 68-02-0286 by the Flynn and Emrich Co. under the
sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
List of Figures v
List of Tables vi
Acknowledgements vii
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Introduction 2
III Design Deficiencies 6
IV Computer Model 7
V Measurements 16
VI Test Procedure 26
VII References 27
VIII Appendices 28
A. Pacer Cupola - Compublock Listing 29
B. Pacer data list 33
C. Conversion Factors 44
IV
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Dry Media Heat Exchanger Schematic 5
2 Pacer Compublock Scheme 8
3 Water Vapor Enthalpies - Keenan
and Kaye Data Fit at 14.7 P.S.I. 12
4 Water Vapor Enthalpies - Pacer
Data Base at 14.7 P.S.I. 13
5 Water Vapor Enthalpies - Pacer
Data Base and Keenan and Kaye
at 14.7 P.S.I. 14
6 Water Vapor Enthalpies - Pacer and
Keenan and Kaye Data Base at 14.7 P.S.I. 15
7 Schematic of Test Points 25
v
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Operating Condition 4
2 Afterburner Sequence 9
3 Equipment 19
4 Equipment Costs 22
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The majority of this report was authored by York Research
Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut 06906, on a subcontract
from Flynn and Emrich Company. Special appreciation is ex-
tended to Mr. Frank Govan, President of York Research Corpora-
tion and Messers. Bruce Ranck and Dennis Martin for their
assistance and cooperation.
Mr. Robert C. McCrillis of the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, is the Project Officer.
vii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The demonstration project was terminated due to unforeseen
difficulties encountered while interfacing the cupola/ heat
exchange and air pollution control systems. The major pro-
blem was caused by an underestimation of the exhaust gas
volume. As a result ductwork was underdesigned. This caused
two difficulties. First, the smaller diameter ductwork re-
sulted in a larger than expected pressure drop allowing a
portion of the exhaust gases to escape through the charging
door. Second, the undersized duct presented a smaller than
designed cross-sectional area to the flow resulting in a
high gas velocity. The combustion of the CO content of the
gas occurred, therefore, beyond the refractory lined duct
and caused damage to the steel ductwork.
A second and related design error occurred in the placement
of the cross-over ducting from the cupola to the heat exchanger,
The distance was insufficient to allow combustion to occur
even if the ductwork were of the proper dimensions.
Lengthy delays were also a cause for terminating the project.
These delays were caused by the necessity of replacement
of the exhaust fan and damaged ductwork and construction
difficulties. These delays, damage, and interfacing problems
led to a decision that for the system to work as intended,
major revamping would be necessary. Any such revamping would
far exceed the budget allotted by Flynn and Emrich and the
decision to terminate the project was made on this basis.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
Flynn and Emrich Company, a medium-sized grey iron foundry,
was faced in early 1970 with a problem confronted by all
foundries, namely, the necessity of installing expensive
pollution control devices to meet local air pollution regu-
lations. Pollution control for foundries is invariably an
expensive proposition due to four inherent properties of
foundry effluent; namely, high temperature, grain loading,
and high volume and small particle size. These three factors
require that a temperature reduction mode be incorporated into
the control system and that the control device itself be highly
efficient. High efficiency usually limits choice to baghouses,
electrostatic precipitation or high pressure drop scrubbers,
all of which are expensive in initial, operational and main-
tenance cost. While recognizing the fact that a pollution
control system does not have a return on investment the manage-
ment of Flynn and Emrich realized that a heat recovery system
included in a pollution control system does and thereby helps
to reduce the cost of the entire system.
There were a number of advantages to be considered in utilizing
a recuperative heat exchanger. First, there are the advantages
of hot blast operation which are already well documented.
Foremost of these from an economic standpoint is a reduction
in coke usage per ton of iron melted. Reduction of the coke
usage up to twenty percent is common. Also, with the tem-
perature reduced the actual volume of air to be treated by
the air pollution control device is reduced. Since pollution
control costs are directly proportional to volume, a reduction
in cost can -also be affected.
With these possible benefits in mind Flynn and Emrich inves-
tigated various heat recovery .systems then available. The
most promising solution appeared to be a system proposed
by Combustion Equipment Associates Inc. (CEA). A descrip-
tion and general design criteria of the CEA system can be
found in the EPA report entitled, "Iron Foundry Cupola Recupera-
tive Emission Control Demonstration - Design Manual." (1)*
In brief, the system utilized a dry-media heat exchanger.
The dry media material was ceramic spheres. The exhaust
gases were mixed with infiltrated air from the charging door
and then combusted in an afterburner. The gases, whose maximum
temperature is limited to 155QOF by water sprays, proceeded
to the heat exchanger. A water quench follows and the gases
pass through a pair of cyclones and then a baghouse. The
*Numbers in parenthesis refer to the references which are
listed in SECTION VII, REFERENCES.
-------
gases then exit to the atmosphere. Table 1 lists pertinent
design data.
The heat exchanger itself consists of three basic compart-
ments: a hot flue gas section, where the hot exhaust air
from the cupola comes into contact with the heat exchange
media, thus cooling the exhaust; a blast air compartment
where the ambient air enters, picks up temperature from the
heated media and then exits as the hot blast; and a transport
compartment where the ceramic spheres having transferred
energy to the hot blast air are transported back to the hot
flue gas section.
The fine mesh ceramic spheres are transported down through
the trays as seen in Figure 1. The trays have specified
openings and are used to allow the spheres to collect in
a fluidized bed with a controlled retention time. The upward
flow of the air not only is used to fluidize the bed but
also enables the spheres to drop through the opening in the
trays to the trays beneath.
-------
Table 1. OPERATING CONDITIONS
Melt rate - max (tph) 15*
Blast air temperature (deg.F) 920
Metal to coke ratio 7.5
Flow from afterburner (ACFM) 63,500
Temperature (deg.F) 2,000
First water quench (deg.F) 1,550
Heat exchanger exit (deg. F) 860
Second water quench (deg. F) 540
*A list of factors for conversion from non-metric
to metric units is provided in Appendix C.
-------
CUPOLA EXHAUST
OUTLET
MEDIA DEFLECTION CONE
PERFORATED TRAY CONE
6 TOTAL .PER TRAY
LEVEL 30% OPEN, I in.
DIAMETER HOLES
CUPOLA EXHAUST
INLET
FLOW FEEDER PIPE
(6 TOTAL)
' ' '' '
HOPPER MEDIA
DEPTH CONTROL
HOT BLAST
AIR OUTLET
AIR SUPPLY FROM
CONTROL AIR BLOWER
TRAY PRESSURE
TRAY CONTROL
MEDIA NOZZLE
DROP CONTROL
HOT BLAST
AIR INLET
AIR SUPPLY FROM
CONTROL AIR BLOWER
ENTRAPMENT
ANNULUS
SET POINT
DAMPER
Figure I. Dry media heat exchanger schematic.
-------
SECTION III
DESIGN DEFICIENCIES
There was basically only one design parameter inaccuracy which
was the overall reason for termination of the project. The
exhaust gas flow rate from the cupola was underestimated
to the extent that the entire system was not operational.
This is a rather common error associated with foundry design.
The underestimation of the exhaust flow resulted in a corres-
ponding underestimation of the fan requirements and ductwork
specifications. Since the fan could not pull the entire flow,
exhaust gases were exiting from the charging door to the at-
mosphere. That air which did go through the ductwork was
not combusted completely due to the lack of infiltrated air.
This allowed combustion to occur past the refractory lined
duct causing damage to the unprotected ducts. Also the lack
of infiltration by itself increased the temperature of the
exhaust flow above that which had been calculated.
A larger fan was installed but it also was not large enough
to prevent gases from escaping through the charging door.
Infiltration again was not as much as it should have been,
resulting in higher temperatures and delayed combustion.
Also, since the flow through the ductwork was higher than
originally designed the velocity of the gases was increased.
Retention time in the refractorylined ductwork was drasti-
cally lessened further aggrevating delayed combustion.
From experience with other foundry air pollution systems
it appears that underestimating the flow is the primary design
fault. It should always be studied carefully, therefore,
before assigning a set value. If at all possible the flow
should be measured before installing any air pollution equip-
ment. Knowing the flow and temperature of the exhaust stream
allows for a more accurate calculation of the amount of in-
filtration necessary to reduce the flow to a given tempera-
ture. Also, the burnout time of the combustible gases can
be determined and the proper dimensions of the associated
refractorylined ducts calculated.
-------
SECTION IV
COMPUTER MODEL
One of the main purposes of this test program was to demon-
strate the effectiveness of a computer model developed by
the Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of the model
was to develop a mass and energy balance on the entire cupola
and heat exchanger system. It was anticipated that the model
would be verified by the data collected at Flynn and Emrich.
The verified model would then have been used to extrapolate
the results over a range of system sizes and operating para-
meters .
At the inception of the contract between Flynn and Emrich
and EPA, York Research Corporation was given the job of checking
over the model and determining the cost per run. York Research
Corporation's system analysts, after reviewing the PACER™
model, determined that there were three problem areas. These
areas were:
1. Afterburner modeling
2. Temperature - enthalpy calculations
3. Underestimation of cost per computer run
The computer model of the cupola was originally developed by
A.T. Kearney and Company for a different project. '^) Catalytic
Incorporated modified the model by changing some of the con-
stants in the reaction equation which were giving incorrect
answers.(•*' In addition to these changes Catalytic set the
READ and WRITE statements in a format that would allow the
model to fit in the PACER™ program as developed by Paul
Shannon of Dartmouth College.^'The model of the system was
divided into many compublocks as shown in Figure 2. Each
block is a subroutine in the PACER™ program system. .With a
data listing specifying the order of the compublocks and
the initial conditions for each block the program would be
run to enable a foundry engineer to predict the size of a
system best suited to his needs.
The problem with the afterburner modeling was that the compu-
block used would only calculate mass balances. Since the
model was required to balance both mass and energy/ this
was insufficient. Thus, it was decided to utilize a compublock
which would calculate both mass and energy balances. To deter-
mine if the integration of this compublock with Catalytic's
data list was possible a list involving the proposed compublock
was created and studied. This revealed that the proposed substi-
tution would be overloaded by the magnitude of the quantity
of combustibles to be reacted. This overloading was solved by
reacing each component in the cupola exhaust (i.e. H2/ CO, CH4)
in more than one compublock. The reaction sequence is listed
in Table 2.
-------
122 fCO-l 1 123 fCO-2
FtUIWZED BED
MAKE UP AIR
AMBIENT
At* AOOmON
'MOT AM WITHDRAW
-------
Table 2. AFTERBURNER SEQUENCE
% Conversion
Component Compublock in Compublock
H2 H2 100
CH4 CH4-1 50
CH4 CH4-2 100
CO CO-1 25
CO CO-2 33
CO CO-3 50
CO CO-4 100
-------
It was also discovered that the temperature-enthalpy relation-
ships were incorrect for temperatures over 1700°F. Since
a large part of the calculation time is spent in the PACER™
data base it is important that the enthalpies are correct.
In correcting the water vapor enthalpies the following proce-
dure was utilized:
1. The water vapor enthalpies in the data base .were listed.
2. Data from the Keenan and Kaye "Gas Tables" * ' were fitted
to a fourth order polynomial.
3. Liquid enthalpies in the data base were listed.
4. Determined heat of vaporization.
5. The fourth order polynomial was adjusted for the heat
of vaporization.
6. Testing of adjusted enthalpy contents.
Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5 show the difference between the original
PACER™ data and that generated by the Keenan and Kaye tables.
The first constant of the polynomial was adjusted such that
an enthalpy difference of 17465.4 BTU/lb mole was obtained
between liquid and vapor enthalpies at 212°F. This is demon-
strated in Figure 5.
The third problem area involved in the computer model was
that of cost. It was evident that the original cost estimate
($5-10) for a complete computer run was substantially below
actual cost ($150). It was decided to investigate methods
of reducing this cost. This investigation showed that the best
way for doing so would involve modelling the fluidized bed
heat exchanger more accurately. There are two modelling options
for reducing the cost. The first option involves splitting the
present compublock into two, allowing flue gas and ceramic balls
to be used as two streams. One stream would be used to model
the top half and would include the flue gas exchanger and the
ceramic balls. The cold blast air and ceramic balls would be
included in the other stream which would model the bottom half
of the heat exchanger. By reducing the extremes of the inlet
temperatures to the heat exchanger compublock in this manner it
is reasonable to expect that the temperatures will converge
before the 200 iteration limit is reached as is the case with the
present method. Exercising this option would mean replacing
the three compublocks presently used with seven. Although the
use of more compublocks tends to increase the cost, the
corresponding decrease in calculation time more than offsets
it.
The second option for cost reduction is the same as the above
except that a by-pass stream would be added which would model
10
-------
the amount of air moving between the sections of the heat
exchanger. By modeling the components of the heat exchanger
individually rather than treating it as a black box, the time
required for iterative calculations is decreased.
Evaluation of these options and selection of the better one would
have required several computer runs. To economize, it was decided
that this could be accomplished simultaneously with the analysis
of field data. Since no field data was taken, this evaluation
was not undertaken either.
In summary the deficiencies in the computer model have been
studied and corrected. The model must still be verified
and adjusted by field tests. It is highly recommended that
this be done.
A printout of the cupola compublock and PACER™ data list can
be found in Section VIII - Appendices.
11
-------
30
25
O
o
X
UJ
-I
o
Z
i
00
-I
20
15
10
10
20
OEG. F X 100
Figure 3. Water vapor enthalpies- Keenan 8 Kaye data fit at 14.7 PS.I.
12
-------
to
O
X
IU
_l
O
ID
10 15
OEG F*X 100
25
Figure 4. Water vapor enthalpies - Pacer data base at 14.7 P.S.I.
13
-------
7'
O
O
x
1U
-J
O
2
i
00
_1
X
00
PACER DATA BASE
KEENAN 8 KAYE
10 15
20
DEG F°x 100
25
Figure 5. Water vapor enthalpies-Pacer data base and Keenan S Kaye at 14,7 P.S.
14
-------
30 i
25 •
20
o
o
x
UJ
I
m
m
15 ••
10 •
5
CQ
in
DEG F°xlOO
Figure 6. Water vapor enthalpies-Pqcer and Keenan ft Kaye at 14.7 PS. 1.
15
-------
SECTION V
MEASUREMENTS
Of vital importance in verifying the computer model is the
accuracy of the data. This is especially important_since
the PACER™ model is a steady state condition model. Actual
cupola operation is, of course, not steady state. It is
necessary, therefore, to be able to collect a large amount
of data as nearly simultaneously as possible to avoid mixing
data from different conditions of cupola operation. In a
model study of this type it is necessary to measure numerous
properties throughout the entire system and to be able to
collect as much data as is possible in a short time period.
The equipment that was to be used for this study was picked
for its ability to satisfy the above requirements and it
is felt that the equipment selection was an important result
of the study.
Table 3 lists the various streams that were to be monitored,
the physical properties of those streams to be measured and
the method of measuring. Table 4 concerns the cost of the
equipment purchased and the supplier or manufacturer. That
equipment supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency,
Flynn and Emrich and York Research Corporation is also noted,
Figure 6 shows the positions of the various points to be
modelled. Since certain equipment was especially important
in this study a brief listing of their specification is pro-
vided.
16
-------
Doric Digitrand Recorder
Description Model/Option No. Price
Digitrand Multipoint Data
Logger (60 pt) 210-60 $ 3395.00
Group Function Select 01 495.00
Point Ship Pinboard 03 395.00
Remote Control 21 295.00
$ 4580.00
Th2 first thirty channels were set aside for temperature
inputs while the remainder were for recording the electrical
signals from the velocity pressure and static pressure trans-
ducers. Special equipment to control the pressure readings
into the recorder were as follows.
Description Purpose
Gelman Sequential Valve Assem-
blies Sequence pressures to DP Cells,
24 Volt D.C. Power Source Power step switches and timing
circuit.
5 Post Relay Switch Send pulse to step switches
and valves.
Electronic Timing Circuit To cut 30 second pulse from
recorder to three seconds.
30 Second Time Switch To activate recorder to scan.
Parametrics Aluminum Oxide Hygrometer Model 1000
Description Part No. Price
1 Hygrometer 1101 $ 2475.00
4 High Humidity Probes P2H 1480.00
3 Water Cooled Sample Cells • CS-3 300.00
1 Sample Cell SC 50.00
4 Matching Calibration M 350.00
250 Cable C+250 50.00
4 Cable Connectors 40.00
$ 4745.00
17
-------
Cardinal Tip Scale
The self contained full load tip scale comes with the following:
a. 20,000 Ib capacity
b. Remote digital printout
c. Recording of weight every two minutes
d. Flip switch for final weight when metal dumps
Cost $10,500
Infrared Thermometer
Description Part No. Price
Infrared Thermometer IT-7A $ 1575.00
Air Purge Fitting 95.00
$ T670.00
18
-------
Table 3. EQUIPMENT
Material
Inlet air
to heat
exchanger
Phys ical
Properties
Temperature
Pressure
Flow Rate
Humidity
Recording
Point (S)
Temp-1
Pres-1
Flow-L
Ambient
Outlet blast Temperature Temp-2
from heat Pressure Pres-2
exchanger Flow Rate Flow-2
Outlet air
from blast
cyclone
Dust from
Cyclone 1
Make up
blast air
Temperature Temp-3
Pressure Pres-3
Dust Rate SCL-1
Temperature Temp-4
Pressure Pres-4
Flow Rate Flow-3
Humidity Ambient
Total blast Temperature Temp-5
air to Temp-6
cupola Pressure Pres-5
Flow Rate Flow-4
Humidity HO-1
Oxygen En- Temperature Temp-20
richment to Pressure Pres-14
Cupola Flow Rate Flow-7
After-
burner in-
let air
Temperature
Flow Rate
Humidity
Temp-23
Flow-8
Ambient
After- Flow Rate Flow-12
burner Composition
natural gas Heating Value Comp-6
Method for Measuring
C/A Thermocouple
Leeds & Northrup DP Cell
Fan Evaluator & Hayse
DP Cell
Weather Service
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
4' Annubar & Hayse
DP Cell
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
Bucket & Scale
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
24" Annubar & Hayse
DP Cell
Weather Service
C/A Thermocouples
L & N DP Cell
24" Annubar & Hayse
DP Cell
Hygrometer
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
Orifice Plate & Hayse
DP Cell
Hot Wire Anemometer
Hot Wire Anemometer
Weather Service
Gas meter
Gas company
19
-------
Table 3 (continued). EQUIPMENT
Material
Cooling
water to
cupola
Flue Gas
Physical
Properties
Temperature
Pressure
Flow Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Flow Rate
Composition
Humidity
Recording
Point (S)
Temp-18,
Temp-19
Pres-15,
Pres-16
Flow-11
Temp-7,
Temp 8
Pres-6
(Flow-6)
(Flow-5)
(HO-3)
Comp-1
HO-2
Ball Tem-
perature
from bot-
tom of
exchanger
Temperature Temp-13
Water quench
before heat
exchanger Flow Rate
Dust from
cyclone
Dust Rate
Outlet flue Temperature
of spray Pressure
quench(heat Flow Rate
exchanger
inlet)
Humidity
Heat
exchanger
bypass
Exit flue
from heat
exchanger
Temperature
Pressure
Flow Rate
Temperature
Pressure
Flow Rate
Flow-9
SCL-2
Temp-9
Pres-7
(Flow-6)-
(Flow-5)-
(P-8&P-9)
HO-3
Temp-10,11
Pres-8,9
(Pres-8)-
(Pres-9)
Temp-15
Pres-11
(Flow-6)~
(P-8&P-9)
Method for Measuring
C/A Thermocouples
Pressure Gauge
Brooks-Meinecke Water
Meter
C/A Thermocouples
L & N DP Cell
By differences
Automatic Gas Analyzers
Hygrometer & Cooling Cell
C/A Thermocouple
Badger Water Meter
Barrel & Scale
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
By Difference
Hygrometer & cooling cell
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
Hayse DP Cell
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
By difference
20
-------
Table 3 (continued). EQUIPMENT
Material
Physical
Properties
Recording
Point (S)
Media trans-Temperature Temp-12
port air Pressure Pres-10
Flow Rate Flow-5
Tray Control Temperature Temp-21
Air Upper Pressure Pres-17
Section Flow Rate Flow-13
Tray Control Temperature Temp-22
Air Lower Pressure Pres-18
Section Flow Rate Flow-14
Water quench
after heat
exchanger Flow Rate
Air flow
before
cyclone
Air flow
after fan
Dust from
cyclone
Metal
charge
Outlet
metal
Slag
Temperature
Pressure
Particulate
Flow Rate
Humidity
Flow-10
Temp-16
Pres-12
Comp-5
Flow-6
HO-4
Temperature Temp-17
Pressure Pres-13
Particulate (Comp-5)-
SCL-3
Dust Rate
Charge Rate
Composition
Flow Rate
Temperature
Compositon
Flow Rate
Composition
Total Elec-
trical Power Flow Rate
SCL-3
SCL-4
Comp-2
SCL-5
Temp-21
Comp-3
Inputs-
Outputs
Comp-4
Wa H-l
Method for Measuring
C/A Thermocouples
L & N DP Cell
Fan Evaluator & Hayse
DP Cell
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
6" Annubar & Hayse DP
Cell
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
6" Annubar & Hayse
DP Cell
Badger Water Meter
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
York Sampling Train
Annubar & Hayse DP Cell
Hygrometer & Cooling Cell
C/A Thermocouple
L & N DP Cell
York Sampling Train
Barrel & Scale
Cupola load scale
Cupola load scale and operator
Recording scale
Infrared thermometer
F & E Laboratory
By difference
F & E Laboratory
Demand Watt Meter
21
-------
Table 4. EQUIPMENT COSTS
to
to
Equipment
Water Pressure Gauge
Stepping Switch
Quantity Company
Part No.
2
1
Infrared Thermometer 1
24 VDC Power Supply 1
Relay Switch 1
Water Meter 1
Outlet Metal Wt. Scale 1
Multipoint Recorder 1
Annubar 2
Annubar 1
Annubar 1
Annubar 1,
Annubar 1
Rotameter
Mechanical Timer
1
1
Ashcroft Gauges 1000 2" Gauge Brass 1/4" N.P.T,
Automatic Elec- RV-66V PW 156315-GF HC
trie Co.
Barnes Engineer-
ing Co. IT-7A
Baynton Elec- (NJE) QR 36-4
tronics Corp.
Baynton Elec- (Line Electric) RL15D 5 POT-6V-
tronics Corp.
Brooks Instru- 3310-528
ment
Cardinal Scale Self contained full load tip
& Mfg. scale
Doric Scientific 60 Channel Digitrend 210
Corp.
Ellison Instru- 732-B/S-6 inch
ment
Ellison Instru- Installed as control equip.
ment
Ellison .Instru- 762-303-SS-46 inch
ment
Ellison Instru- 742-316 SS-24 inch
ment
Ellison Instru- 762-303 SS-48 inch
ment
Fisher & Porter 10A1135MH
Hayden Co., A.W. R2700-1 cycle/30 sec-115 VAC
1 stack
Equipment
Cost
$ 10.00
46.43
1670.00
149.00
DC 11.75
1217.00
10500.00
4580.00
160.00
463.00
219.00
463.00
60.00
15.00
-------
Table 4 (continued). EQUIPMENT COSTS
N)
CO
Equipment Quantity
Thermocouples 23
Thermocouples 2
Recording Hygrometer 1
Demand Watt Meter 1
Natural Gas Meter 1 '
Thermocouple Wire 1500 ft.
Thimble Holders 4
Alundum thimbles 4
S02 Analyzer 1
CO Analyzer 1
C02 Analyzer 1
02 Analyzer, 1
Sequential Valve
Assem. 3
0-2" DP Cell 2
0-25" DP Cell 4
Particulate Train 1
Hot Wire Anemometer 1
Inlet Metal Wt.
Scale 1
Calibrated Orifice
Plate
Dust Scale 1
Company
Part No.
Omega Engineer- 1 ft. AB CAIN-18-G-12
ing Inc.
Omega Engineer- 3 ft. AB CAIN-18-G-12
ing Inc.
Parametries 1101
Public Service
Co.
Public Service .Installed as control equipment
Co.
Thermo Electric 1500 EA/G-16K, 500
Western Preci- D-1021
pitation
Western Preci- D-1022 Type RA-98
pitation
EPA Mobile Trailer
EPA Mobile Trailer
EPA Mobile Trailer
EPA Mobile Trailer
EPA(Gelman)
EPA(Hayse)
EPA(Leeds &
Northrup)
York Research
York Research
12 Part Valve Assembly
252
1911
Test Equipment
Test Equipment
Flynn & Emrich Installed as control equipment
Flynn & Emrich Installed as control equipment
Flynn & Emrich Installed as control equipment
Equipment
Cost
$ 529.00
46.00
4520.00
600.00
300.00
716.00
21.48
-------
Table 4 (continued). EQUIPMENT COSTS
Equipment
Barrels
Water Meter
Copper tubing
Temp., pres., &
Flow rtaps
Timing Circuit
Quantity Company
Part No.
1 Flynn & Emrich Installed as control equipment
2 - See Specs-, for special equip.
38/50 ft.
rolls Lee Dopkin Inc. See Specs, for special equip.
See Specs, for special equip.
1 - See Specs, for special equip.
TOTAL
Equipment
Cost
150.00
228.00
285.00
50.00
$27009.66
to
-------
to
TEMP 7
PRES 6
TEMP II
PRE3 9
H,0 FLOW-IO
FLOW 6
COMP 5
HO-4
TEMP 19
PRES 16
N.6. FLOW 12
FLOW 8
TEMP 23
/"PRES 14
°2<\ TEMP 20 >
\_ FLOW 7
TEMP IS
PRES IS
FLOWTl
TEMP 6
\ \ [TEMP 16
16 \ \X I PRES 12
TEMP 21
PRES 17
FLOW 19
TEMP 22
PRES 18
FLOW 14
FLOW 4
TEMP B,6
PRE3 6
TEMP 12
PRES 10
FLOW 3
Figure 7. Schematic of test points.
-------
SECTION VI
TEST PROCEDURES
The following test procedure was developed for conducting
a test at a given heat and material load on a cupola-heat
exchanger system. This procedure would cover a two to three
hour set condition which must be. held by the cupola.
A. Record initial electric, gas and water meter readings.
B. Tare barrelf.
C. Start the following recording equipment:
1. Gas analyzers
2. Hygrometer
3. Scale printout
4. Multipoint recorder
D. Have cupola operator record metal temperature and time
periodically.
E. Have operator record charge composition, weight and time
when loading cupola.
F. Conduct particulate test.
G. Measure air flows with hot wire anemometer.
H. Change barrels on the hour.
I. Record water, gas and electric meters on the hour.
J. Record final meter readings, stop recorders, inform oper-
ation that the test has ended, weigh barrels.
26
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. Coursey, J., J.F. Turner, III. Iron Foundry Cupola
Recuperative Emission Control Demonstration. Flynn
and Emrich Company. Baltimore, Maryland, EPA-650/2-
74-004 Environmental Protection Agency, Raleigh,
North Carolina, January 1974. 51 p.
2. Systems Analysis of Emissions and Emissions Control in
the Iron Foundry Industry. A.T. Kearney and Company,
Inc. Chicago, Illinois. Contract CPA 22-69-106.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, February, 1971.
3. Catalytic Cupola - Regenerator System Model VIA Pacer.
Catalytic, Inc. 1515 Mockingbird Lane, Charlotte,
North Carolina 28209. Contract 68-02-0241, Task 12,
Final Report (unpublished). Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
August 1972, 101 p.
TM
4. PACER-"1 User Manual, Digital Systems Corp. PO Box 936,
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755.
5. Keenan, J.H. and J. Kaye. Gas Tables. New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966, p. 108-111.
-------
SECTION VIII
APPENDICES Page
A. Pacer Ti4 Cupola-Compublock Listing 29
B. Pacer™ Data List 33
C. Conversion Factors 44
28
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPUBLOCK LISTING
10 TECHNICAL & ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY OF DRY MEDIA HEAT EXCHANGE SYS
TEM;
20 YORK RESEARCH - ECONOMIC STUDY OF MODEL WITH REACT4>
30 6,5,1010,,!,,200;0,6*1,0,1,0,0,0,0,1,1>
40 DUST,H20,N2,02,CO,C02,H2,S02,CH4>
45 H20/,,-11810.125/,,,,1788.69,-!7.053540051,.08273004293,
46 -7.15556!45-5,1.2978699-8,-352.3583 11 41 ,-.04613628209;
50 DUST,1,85/-67IO.,24.2/,,,-6710.,24.2/,1,6,9>
60 l,HEXCHC,QEXCHR,l,-2,42,-43;
70 2,HEXCHG,DUCT-I,2,-3,4,-5;
80 3,MIXER4,BLWOFF,3,-6,-7;
90 4,MIXER4,FAN,7,8,-9;
100 5,HEXCHG,DUCT-2,9,-10,11,-12;
110 6,CUPLA4,CUPOLA,10,-13;
120 7,HEXCHG,DUCT-3,13,-l4,15,-l6;
130 8,MIXER4,ABURNER,14,17,18,-!19;
140 J9,REACT4,:-!2 ,1 19,-12G,
145 40,REACT4,CH4,!20,-I2I;
150 41,REACT4,CH4,121,-122;
155 42,REACT4,CO-I,122,-123;
160 43,REACT4,CO-2,123,-124;
165 44,REACT4,CO-3,124,-125;
167 45,REACT4,CO-4,I25,-126;
170 !2,HEXCHG,DUCT-4,126,-23,24,-25;
180 !3,SPLIT4,CYCLON,23,-26,-27;
190 14,HEXCHG,DUCT-5,27,-28,29,-30;
200 I5,MIXER4,QUENCH,28,31,33,-32;
210 I6,CONTR1,QUENCH,32,-34,-33;
220 17,DEWPT1,DEWPT,34,-35;
230 18,HEXCHG,DUCT-6,35,-36,37,-38;
240 19,MIXER4,BYPASS,36,-39,-40;
250 20,MIXER4,FAN,39,41,-42;
260 21,MIXER4,FAN,43,44,-45;
270 22,HEXCHG,DUCT-7,45,-46,47,-48;
280 23,MIXER4,BYPAbS,40,46,-49;
-------
290 24,MIXER4,QUENCH,49,50,52,-51 I
300 25,C()NTRI ,QUENCH,51 ,-53,-52;
310 26,DEWPT1,DEWPT,53,-54;
320 27,HEXCHG,DUCT-8,54,-55,56,-57;
330 2R,SPLIT4,CYCLON,55,-58,-59;
340 29,C()MPR4,FAN,59,-60;
350 30,SPLIT4,BAGHSE,60,-61,-62>
360 I,1,*|1,,487.936;
370 2,2,,311.,8.3,24.7;
380 3,.125,.875;
390 4,1.;
400 5,2,,31 I.,7.82,21.7;
410 7,2,,311.,!.395,50.2;
420 8,1;
425 39,7,1.,,-298.,-57797.9,0,1,0,-.5,0,0,-!;
430 40,9,.5,,-298.,-191759,0,2,0,-2,0,1,0,0,-I;
o 435 41,9,1.0,,-298.,-191759,0,2,0,-2,0,1,0,0,-I;
440 42,5,.25,,-298.,-67636.1,0,0,0,-.5,-I,I;
445 43,5,.33,,-298.,-67636.1,0,0,0,-.5,-I,1;
450 44,5,.50,,-298.,-67636.1,0,0,0,-.5,-!,1;
455 45,5,1.0,,-298.,-67636.1,0,0,0,-.5,-1,1;
460 12,2,,311.,18.9,10.79;
470 13,,,-1,0,,.057;
480 14,2,,311.,15.27,56.3;
490 15,I*
500 16,1032003,1116.4944,,-.9,,7031006;
510 18,2,,311.,10.15,11.67;
520 19,1,0;
530 20,1;
540 21,1;
550 22,2,,311.,8.8,34.95;
560 23,1;
570 24,1;
580 25,1051003,560.9389,,-.9,,1050006;
590 27,2,,311.,7.05,34.5;
-------
u>
600 28,,, -1,0, ,.6721
610 29, 1.01, .7, .6,
620 30, ,-1 ,0,, 1 .>
630 1 ,, -.23,-.! ;
640 2,, -.05;
650 5,, -.05;
660 6,, -1.133;
670 7,, -.05;
680 12, -.02;
690 13, -.05;
700 14, -.02;
710 18, -.OJ ;
720 27, -.05;
730 28, -. 1 ;
740 30, -. I5>
750 1 ,,60. ,16. 13,,
760 4,, 60. ,14.7,,,
770 8, ,60. ,14. 7,,,
780 1 1 ,,60,14.7,,,
790 15, ,60. ,1.4. 7,,
800 17, ,60. ,14.7,,
810 18,, 60., 14. 7,,
820 24, ,60. ,14.7,,
830 29, ,60. ,14. 7,,
840 31 ,,60. ,14.7,,
850 37, ,60. ,14. 7,,
860 41, ,60. ,14. 7,,
P62 42,1,1507.823,
864 0,14173.211 ,0,
1.4,1 ;
,,138.8,27942,8443.4;
,138.8,27942,8443.4;
, . 0 1 , . 0 1 , . 0 1";
,138.8,27942,8443.4;
,,160., 32200, 9730;
,,100., 19350., 5870;
,8*0,379;
,,160., 32200, 9730;
,,320. ,64400,19460;
,,2350;
,,160. ,32200,9730;
,,4., 775, 234;
14.517,0,0,290.9926,3263.407,44574.26,2368.7406
88.605,0;
866 @ STREAM 42 VALUES FROM PAUL'S FINAL REPORT
870 44, ,60. ,14. 7,,
880 47, ,60. ,14.7t,
8y>0 50, ,60. , 14.7, ,
900 56, ,60. ,14.7,,
910 42, ,1550. ,14.5
45., 9700. ,2930. ;
160. ,32200., 9730. ;
5247.56;
1 60., 32200., 9730. ;
, , 290, 2900 , 45000 , 24 00 , , 1 4000 , , 90»
-------
920 I,.0001,13*.001»
930 6,,7500.,42. ,25.,1800.,200.,0.,800.,1200.,2*0.,136.,2*0,.993,.03,
940 3*0.,30000.,0,7.5,0,.065,.006,.93,0,60.,850.,2800. ,3*0,5.3333>
950 1,2,2,2,3,2,4,2,5,2,6,2,7,2,8,2,39,2,40,2,41,2,42,2,43,2,44,2,45,2,
2,2,
960 13,2,14,2,15,4,16,5,17,2,18,2,19,2,20,3,21,1,22,1,23,1,24,2,
970 25,3,26,1,27,I,28,1,29,1,30,1>
980 CUPLA4,218M>
990 ***EOF
u>
to
-------
APPENDIX B
PACER;™ DATA LIST
SUBROUTINE CUPLA4
INCLUDE KOMMON
C WATER C(X)LED CUPOLA MODEL
C REVISION OF KEARNEY'S BRICK LINED CUPOLA MODEL
C JULY 1972
C BY BRAYTON 0. PAUL
C CATALYTIC INC.
C 1515 MOCKINGBIRD LANE
C P.O. BOX 11402
C CHARLOTTE, N. C. 28209
C ****************************************************
DIMENSION BB1(69),KK1(9)
EQUIVALENCE (KK1(1),KI),(KK1(2),K2),(KK1(3),K3),(KK1(4),K4),
*(KKI(5),K5),(KKI(6),K6),(KK1(7),K7),(KK1<8),KP),(KKI(9),K9)
DATA BBI/
*.0225f.023,.1,.002t.0195,.012,.024,.5,-.02,-.0155,-.0225,
*-.0325,-.042,-.025,-.002,-.0325,-.025,-.038,0.,.032,.0325,.0345,
*. 006,. 0.1 5,. 007,. 006,. 006,. 006,. 006,. 000,-. 006,-. 006,-.006,
*. 001 2,. 0005,. 0005 ,. 0005,. 0012,. 001 2,. 0030 ,. 0 000, -. 001 2, -. 001 2,
*-.000?,
*.45,.06,1.06,.43,
*.01,.02,.03,.00,
*.54,.08,.75,.00,
*.55,.94,.80,.57,
*1.,2.,3.,4.,5.,6.,7.,8.,9./
DATA V,Y/2000.,100./
YY=FETPAR(125)
CALL STOPAR(125,1.0)
CALL STOPAR(125,YY)
DO 606 K10=l,60
IF (EP(KIO+4I)) 606,605,606
605 EP(KIO+41)=BB1(K10)
606 CONTINUE
Kll=0
DO 630 K10=l,9
-------
IF (EP(K10+IOI )) 630,630,629
629 KI1=KU + 1
630 CONTINUE
IF (KM ) 631,631,633
631 DO 632 K10=l,9
632 EP(KIO+10I)=BB1(K10+60)
GO TO 635
633 IF (K11-9) 640,635,635
640 WRITE (OUT,634) KII,NE
634 FORMAT(5H ONLYI6,29H OF THE 9 REQUIRED COMPONENTS/
*49H HAVE BEEN NAMED IN EXTENDED PARAMETERS,EQUIPMENTI6)
000 KVOID=1
. GO TO 999
635 DO 600 K10=l,9
600 KK1(K10)=EP(KIO+.101 )
A1=STRMI(1,6)*14.0032
2 IF (EP(20)) 3,3,9
3 IF (EP(2I)) 4,4,7
4 IF (EP(22)) 16,16,5
5 IF (EP(23)) 17,17,6
6 EP(20)=EP(22)*EP(23)
EP(21)=Al/33.33333/EP(23)
GO TO 21
7 IF (EP(22)) 18,18,8
8 EP(20)=Al*EP(22)/33.33333/EP(21)*2000.
GO TO 15
9 IF (EP(21)) 10,10,14
10 IF (EP(22» 11,11,13
11 IF (EP(23)) 19,19,12
12 EP(22)-EP(20)/EP(23)
13 EP(21)=EP(22)*AI/33.33333/EP(20)*2000.
GO TO 15
14 EP(22)=33.33333*EP(21)*EP(20)/AI/2000.
15*EP(23)=EP(20)/EP(22)
GO TO 21
-------
Ul
16 WRITE (OUTf.7!6) NE
716 FORMATC66H EXTENDED PARAMETER 20 (BLAST AIR TO COKE RATIO) MISSING
*,EQUIPMENTI6)
GO TO 1000
17 WRITE (OUT,717) NE
717 FORMAK53H EXTENDED PARAMETER 22 (TOTAL COKE) MISSING,EQUIPMENTI6)
GO TO 1000
18 WRITE (OUT,718) NE
718 FORMAT(62H EXTENDED PARAMETER 21 (METAL TO COKE RATIO) MISSING,EQU
*IPMENTI6)
GO TO 1000
19 WRITE (OUT,719) NE
719 FORMATU9H EXTENDED PARAMETER 19 (CHARGE) MISSING, EQUIPMENTS)
GO TO 1000
21 IF(EP(27)-1.) 46,46,45
46 EP(27) a EP(27)*A1
4501 = (EP(27)/14.0032+STRMI(1,K4+6))*2.206*FETVAR(5,K4,2)
H4 = STRMH1 ,K2+6)*2.206*FETVAR(5,K2,2)
E2 = STPMH1 ,K3+6)*2.206*FETVAR(5,K3,2)
EP( 112)=STRMI(1 ,5)*STRMI( I ,6)*2.206*1.8/1000.
IF(EP(16)+EP(17)+EP(18)+EP(19)-1.01) 49,52,52
49 DO 601 Kl0=16,19
601 EP(K10)=EP(K10)*EP(20)
52 F5=EP(16)+EP(I7)+EP(1R)+EP(19)
X= EP(5)-fEP(6)+EP(7)+EP(8) + EP(9) + EP(10)+EP(11 ) + EP(12)
YY=EP(20)/X
DO 602 K!0=5,12
602 EP(K10)=EP(K10)*YY
IF ((EP(13) + EP(14) + EP(15))-1.01) 47,54,54
47 DO 603 KI 0=13,15
603 EP(K10)=EP(K10)*EP(20)
54 S9=0.0
C8=0.0
U8=0.0
S2=0.0
-------
DO 604 K10=5,15
S9=S9+EP(KIO)*EP(KIO+37)
C8=C8+EP( K1 0)*EP( K1 0+48)
U8=U8+EP(K10)*EP(K10+59)
S2=S2+EP(KIO)*EP(K10+70)
604 CONTINUE
IF (S9-(.0040000*EP(20))) 55,55,57
55 WRITE(()UT,500) S9
56 S9 = .004*EP(20)
57 CONTINUE
500 FORMAT (•' S9 = ',F7.2,' S9 SET TO .004 * EP(20)')
03 = O.I - ,86*EP(18) - 1.14*59 - ,4I*U8
V3 = (03.- 10.03*EP(37) - 1450.*EP(38))/(2.66*EP(26))
HI = 5.72*EP(37) + 5I9.*EP(38) + H4
V4 = ,667*H1/EP(26)
H = .I11*HI
V6 = EP(23) - V3 - V4 - C8/EP(26)
Cl = 1.55*H1 + 4.66*V6*EP(26)
IF(EP(35)+EP(36)-1.0J)62t62,63
62 X4 = (EP(20)*4.65/(EP(34)*6.)**1.75)*(EP(35) + EP(36))
GO TO 64
63 X4=EP(35)+EP(36)
EP(35)=EP(35)/X4
EP(36)=EP(36)/X4
64 CONTINUE
C2 = 1.38*03-3.66*V6*EP(26)
S5 = 2.14*S9+.5*EP(23)*EP(24)+X4*(.6*EP(35)+.2*EP(36))
U5=.03*EP(24)*EP(23)+X4*.6*EP(36)
SI = EP(25)*EP(23) + .0076*EP(37) + 1.34*EP(38)
EP(32) = (X4+EP(24)*EP(23)+ 2.14*S9 + 1,29*U8)
DO 607 K.10=I6J9
C2=C2+EP(K10)*EP(K10+70)
S5=S5+EP(Kl0)*EP(K10+74)
U5=U5+EP(K10)*EP(K10+78)
EP(32)=EP(32)+EP(K10)*EP(K10+82)
-------
607 CONTINUE
EP(32)=1.02*EP(32>
S3 = 6.59E-9*EP(32)*(IOO.*U5/S5)**2.65
EP(32) = EP(32) + S3
S4 = 2.*(SI -»• 52 - S3)
Rl = ,OI56*EP(32)
EP(31) = EP(20)+C8-S9-U8-RI+S2
X=2000./EP(31 )
B3 = (Al + EP(27) + EP(37))/(EP(34)*EP(34)*0. 785398)
D3 = . 0625* (B 3/32. 8 - 3.)
D4 = 280./EP(22) - 16.
EP(l22)=(E2/28.+C2/44.+Cl/28.+H/2.+S4/64. )*.01073*(EP(29)+460. )/U
*.7
EP(123)= 520.*EP( I22)/(EP(29)+460.)
D5 = 56. - 29.2/(EP(34)*EP(34)*0.785398*X)
D6=D3*EP(123)*X
w D7 =(.5*D6-H.25*D4+.25*D5)/X
^ EP(32) = EP(32) - D7
A5=0.0
DO 608 KIO=I ,NOCOMP
608 A5=A5+STRMI(I ,K IO+6)*FETVAR(5 ,K 1 0,2)
A5=A5*2.206
06=EP(27)*5.08
EP(lll) = I4.45*((EP(23)- V4)*EP(26) - C8) + 60.*EP(37) + P470.*EP
*(38)
EP(II3) = 12.74*EP(I8) + 2.05*RI +13.1*59 + 3.02*U8
EP(II5) = (EP(30) - 60.)*.4I72/X
EP(II7) = 2.16*.75*(.45*EP( 16) +. 06*EP( 1 7 ) +. 1 1 *EP( I 8) + .43*EP ( I 9 ) )
G4=2.54*EP(37)
G5=446.*EP(38)
W1 1=EP(20)+F5+A5+06+EP(23)+G4+G5+X4
W2=E2+C2+C1+H+S4
IF(S5-XX) 27,27,28
27 CS=S5
-------
GO TO 29
28 CS=XX
29 Q6=.82*U5-.44*CS
EP(1I8)=2.898*H1
EP(II6)=(EP(30) - 60.)*.32I*EP(32)/1000.-Q6
TOTFLO=0.0
PHASE=I.O
PRESS=STRMI(1,4)+EPC(4)
HPERM=0.0
TEMP=(EP(29)+459.69)/1.8
DO 611 K10=l.NOCOMP
611 COMP(K10)=STRMI(1,K10+6)
COMP(K1)=D7/(FETVAR(5,K1,2)*2.206)
COMP(K2)=0.0
C()MP(K4)=0.0
COMP(K5)=Cl/(FETVAR(5fK5,2)*2.206)
w COMP(K6)=C2/(FETVAR(5fK6,2)*2.206)
C()MP(K7)=H/(FETVAR(5fK7,2)*2.206)
COMP(K8)=S4/(FETVAR(5fK8t2)*2.206)
COMP(K9)=0.0
DO 612 K.10=1,NOCOMP
STRMO (I , K1 0+6) =C()MP (K1 0)
612 TOTFLO=TOTFLO+COMP(K10)
CALL BESTKV
CALL FLASH
CALL SHGAS
CALL SHLIQ
DO 613 K10=l,NOCOMP
613 HPERM=HPERM+FDV(K10)*HGAS(K10)+FDL(KIO)*HLIQ(K10)
STRMO(1,2)=PHASE
STRMO(1,3)=TEMP
STRMO(1,4)=PRESS
STRMO(I,5)=HPERM/TOTFLO
STRMO(1,6>=TOTFLO
EP(119)-HPERM*2.206*1.8/1000.
-------
EPU20) - 4.346*C1
EP(M4) « EP(III) + EP013) + EP(I12)
DO 614 KIO=I,N()COMP
614 COMP(KIO)=0.0
COMP(K2)=I.O
TOTFLO=I.O
TEMP=(EP(28)+459.69)/l.8
PRESS=1.
CALL BESTKV
CALL FLASH -
CALL SCPL
CALL SCPG
A10=FDV(K2)*CPG(K2)+FDL(K2)*CPL(K2)
EP(I24)=EP(2)*EP(3)*EP(4)*A10/I8000.
EP(I2I) = EP(IU) - EP(1I5) - EP(I17) - EPU16) - EPU18) - EP( I 19
*) - EPU20) - EP( 124)
w R5=EP(9)+EP(10)+EP(I I)
*- R6=EP(7)+EP(12)
W6=(W2*X)/100
Z=EP(I14)/I00
IF (EP(33)) 609,609,999
609 CALL EJECT
WRITE(OUT,131)
131 FORMAT (////70(/-/)//5X/ /MATERIAL BALANCED//2X" INPUTS'/33X/LBS/ 7
*XXLBS PER T()N/6X/PERCENT//3IXf2(/PER HR'^X)/)
YY=EP(20)*X
ZZ=EP(20)*Y/WII
WRITECOUT, I32)EP(20) tYY.,ZZ
132 FORMAKI3H METAL CHARGEIOX,2( Fl 5. 0), Fl 5.2 )
YY=EP(6)*X
ZZ=EP(6)*Y/WM
WRITE(OUT,I33)EP(6),YYtZZ
133 FORMAT (9H PIG IRON14X,2(Fl5.0),FI5.2)
YY=R5*X
ZZ=R5*Y/WI1
-------
WRITE(OUT,134)R5,YY,ZZ
134 FORMAT (8H RETURNS!5X,2(FI5.0),F15.2)
YY=EP(8)*X
ZZ=EP(I2)*Y/',V1I
WRITE(OUT,135)EP(8),YY,ZZ
135 FORMAT (12H STEEL SCRAP I I X,2(FI5.0),Fl5.2)
YY=EP(5)*X
ZZ=EP(5)*Y/W11
WRITE(OUT,136)EP(5),YY,ZZ
136 FORMAT (11H IRON SCRAPI2X,2(Fl5.0),Fl5.2)
YY=R6*X
ZZ=R6*Y/W11
WRITE(()UT,137)R6,YYfZZ
137 FORMAT (12H FERROALLOYS 11X,2(Fl5.0),F15.2)
YY=EP(23)*X
ZZ=EP(23)*Y/W11
WRITE(OUT,138)EP(23),YY,ZZ
138 FORMAT (/5H COKE18X,2(F15.0)fFl5.2)
YY=G4*X
ZZ=G4*Y/WM
C WRITE(()UT,I39)G4,YY,ZZ
139 FORMAT (I2H NATURAL GAS I 1X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY=G5*X
ZZ=G5*Y/W11
C WRITE(OUT,140)05,YY,ZZ
140 FORMAT (9H FUEL OILI4X,2(Fl5.0),F15.2)
YY=F5*X
ZZ=F5*Y/W11
WRITE(OUTf141)F5,YY,ZZ
141 FORMAT (/19H FLUX AND ADDITIVES4X,2(F15.0),Fl5.2)
YY=A5*X
ZZ=A5*Y/WI1
WRITE(OUT,l42)A5,YYfZZ
142 FORMAT (/4H AIR19X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY=06*X
-------
ZZ=06*Y/W1 I
WRITE(OUTf143)06,YY,ZZ
143 FORMAT (7H OXYGEN16X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY=X4*X
ZZ=X4*Y/WI 1
C WRITE(OUT,I44)X4,YY,ZZ
144 FORMAT (/I4H CUPOLA LINING9X,2(F1 5.0)fFl5.2)
YY=W11*X
WRITE(OUT,145)W1I,YY,Y
145 FORMAT (/17H TOTAL INPUT MTLS6X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY=V
ZZ=Y*EP(31)/Wl I
WRITE(OUT,I46)EP(3I),YY,ZZ
146 FORMAT (//2X8H OUTPUTS//12H MOLTEN IRON 11X,2(Fl5.0),F15.2 )
YY=EP(32)*X
ZZ=EP(32)*Y/WII
WRITE(OUT,147) EP(32),YY,ZZ
147 FORMAT (/5H SLAG1PX,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY= D7*X
ZZ= D7*Y/W11
WRITE(OUT,148) D7,YY,ZZ
148 FORMAT(/15H EMISSIONS DUST8X,2(Fl5.0),FI5.2)
YY=W2*X
ZZ= W2*Y/W11
WRITE(()UT,l4y) W2,YY,ZZ
149 FORMAT (/IOH TOP GASES13X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY= E2*X
ZZ= E2*Y/W2
WRITE(()UT,I50) E2tYYtZZ
150 FORMAT (9H NITROGEN14X,2(Fl5.0),FI 5.2)
YY= C2*X
ZZ= C2*Y/W2
WRITE(OUT,151) C2,YY,ZZ
151 FORMAT(15H CARBON DIOXIDE8X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY=C1*X
-------
ZZ=CI*Y/W2
WRITE(()UT,152) Cl,YY,ZZ
152 FORMAT (16H CARBON MONOXIDE7X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
YY= H*X
ZZ= H*Y/W2
WRITE(OUT,I53) H,YY,ZZ
153 FORMAT (9H HYDROGENI4X,2(Fl5.0),F15.2)
YY= S4*X
ZZ= S4*Y/W2
WRITE(OUT,154) S4tYY,ZZ
154 FORMAT (15H SU><5«GOXIDE8X,2(F15.0),F15.2)
WRITE(()UT,265)
265 FORMAT(//70('-')///5X12HHEAT BALANCE//2X1 IH INPUT HEAT 13X,'B.T.U.
*S.',9X,'PERCENT')
WRITE«)UT,270)
270 FORMAT (26X9H(000/HR.))
ZZ= EP(I 11)/Z
WRITE(OUT,280) EP(111),ZZ
280 FORMAT (/15H POTENTIAL HEAT/1 OH OF FUELIOX,Fl5.0,F15.2)
ZZ= EP(112)/Z
WRITE(OUT,290) EP(II2),ZZ
290 FORMAT(/14H SENSIBLE HEAT/ 15H OF THE BLAST5X,Fl5.0,F15.2)
ZZ= EP(II3)/Z
WRITE(OUT,300) EP(113),ZZ
300 FORMAT (/20H HEAT FROM OXIDATION/16H OF MN, FE, SI4X, FI5.0.F15.
*2)
WRITE(OUT,310) EP(114), Y
310 FORMAT (/19H TOTAL INPUT HEAT1X,FI5.0,FI5.2)
WRITE(OUT,320)
320 FORMAT (//2X12H OUTPUT HEAT)
ZZ= EP(115)/Z
WRITE(OUT,330) EP(1I5),ZZ
330 FORMAT (/20H HEATING AND MELTING/1 OH OF IRON1OX,FI5.0, F15.2)
ZZ= EP( 11 6)/Z
WRITE(OUT,340) EP(116),ZZ
-------
340 FORMAT (/13H HEAT CONTENT/14H OF THE SLAG6X,F15.0,FJ5.2)
2Z= EP(II7)/Z
WRITE(OUT,350) EP(I17),ZZ
360 FORMAT (/14H DECOMPOSITION/11H OF WATER9X,FI5.0,FI5.2)
ZZ* EP(118)/Z
WRITE(OUT,360) EP(1IR),ZZ '
350 FORMAT (/I3H CALCINING OF/I2H LIMESTONE8X,FI5,0,FI5.2)
ZZ= EP
-------
APPENDIX C
CONVERSION FACTORS
Environmental Protection Agency policy is to express all
measurements in agency documents in metric units. When
implementing this practice will result in undue cost or
lack of clarity, conversion factors are provided for
the non-metric units used in a report. Generally, this
report uses British units of measure. For conversion
to the metric system, use the following conversions:
To convert from
BTU/lb-F
BTU/min
BTU/lb
cfm
°F
ft
gal.
gpm
hp
in. we
Ib
lb/ft3
oz/in2
psig
To
J/kg-K
W
J/kg
m /sec
°C
m
m3
m^/sec
W
N/m2
kg
kg/m3
N/m2
N/m2
Multiply by
4184.
17.573
2326
.0004719
5/9 (°F-32)
.3048
.003 x 785
.00006309
745.7
248.84
0.454
16.018
430.922
6,894.757
44
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
T; REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-004
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Iron Foundry Cupola Recuperative Emissio
Control Demonstration
7. AUTHOR(S)
James F. Turner, m
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
n January 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING OR6ANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Flynn and Emrich Company
3001 Granttey Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21215
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboral
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ARO-002
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0286
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 6/72-10/75
. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
tory
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES E PA- 650/2-74-004 is the design manual for this demonstration.
16. ABSTRACT ^^ report gives results of a project intended to demonstrate the use of a
dry, solid-media heat exchanger for the production of hot blast air for the cupola
as an integral part of the air pollution control system. Economic advantages — in the
form of reduction in fuel costs , operating costs , and air pollution control equipment
costs — were expected. Data on the operation of the cupola and heat exchanger were
to be analyzed with, and used to refine, a computer model. The refined model was
then to have been used to extend the results to other operations. The system never
became operational because of problems in interfacing the operation of the cupola,
heat exchanger, and air pollution control systems. The report outlines system
design deficiencies , presents the results of the work completed on the computer
model, and describes the test equipment selected.
r
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a- • DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution Mathematical Models
Iron and Steel Test Equipment
Industry Energy
Foundries Conservation
Furnace Cupolas Latent Heat
Heat Exchangers Sensible Heat
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Particulates
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COS ATI Field/Group
13B 12A
14B
11F
07D,20M
13A
21. NO. OF RAGES
22. PRICE
------- |