EPA-600/2-76-077a
March 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY OF A
UTILITY BOILER BAGHOUSE:
Sunbury Steam-Electric Station
Industrial 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 pertormed 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 policy 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 Informa-
tion Service, Springfield. Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/2-76-077a
March 1976
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY
OF A UTILITY BOILER BAGHOUSE
SUNBURY STEAM-ELECTRIC STATION
by
Reed W. Cass and Robert M. Bradway
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
Contract No. 68-02-1438
ROAP No. 21ADM-032
Program Element No. 1AB012
EPA Project Officer: James H. Turner
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
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures v
List of Tables xii
Acknowledgments xiv
Conversion Factors for British and Metric Units xv
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
IV Sunbury Steam Electric Station 9
V Equipment and Methods 27
VI Results 43
VII References 71
Appendixes
A Particle Size Distribution Curves 73
B Differential Size Distribution Curves 135
\.
C Fractional Efficiency/Penetration Curves 167
D Condensation Nuclei Counter System Data" 199
iii
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Appendixes Page
E Condensation Nuclei Counter Chart Recordings 205
F Coal Analysis 221
G Baghouse Pressure Drop Chart Recording 225
H Gaseous Measurements 227
iv
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Location of Dust Removal Equipment and Sampling Ports 11
2 Sunbury Steam Electric Station Baghouse 1A 18
3 Gas Flow Through Baghouse Compartments During Normal
Operation and Cleaning 21
4 1A Baghouse Pressure Differential History 25
5 Location of Baghouse Inlet Test Ports and Sampling Points 28
6 Location of Baghouse Outlet Test Ports and Sampling Points 30
7 Correlation Between the Outlet Mass Concentrations Deter-
mined by the Aerotherm High Volume Stack Sampler and the
Inertial Impactors 35
8 Condensation Nuclei Counter System Components 37
9 Removal Efficiency as a Function of Particle Size for Runs
with Used Bags 48
10 Removal Efficiency as a Function of Particle Size for Runs
with New Bags 49
11 Fly Ash from 1-A Baghouse Hopper Number 2, March 26, 1975;
Scanning Electron Micrograph; 1000 Magnification at 20 kV 60
12 Fly Ash from 1-A Baghouse Hopper Number 2, March 26, 1975;
Scanning Electron Microgrpah; 2000 Magnification at 20 kV 60
13 Fly Ash from 1-A Baghouse Hopper Number 2, March 26, 1975;
Scanning Electron Micrograph;' 5000 Magnification at 20 kV 60
14 Fly Ash from 1-A Baghouse Hopper Number 2, March 26, 1975;
Scanning Electron Micrograph; 10,000 Magnification at 20 kV 60
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No.
15 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 1 74
16 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 1 75
17 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 2 76
18 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 2 77
19 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 3 78
20 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 3 79
21 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 4 80
22 . Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution-for Run 4 81
23 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 5 82
24 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 5 83
25 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 6 84
26 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 6 85
27 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 7 86
28 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 7 87
29 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 8 88
30 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 8 89
31 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 9 90
32 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 9 91
33 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 10 92
34 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 10 93
35 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 11 94
36 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 12 95
37 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 12 96
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No.
38 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 13 97
39 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 13 98
40 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 14 99
41 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 14 100
42 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 15 101
43 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 15 102
44 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 16 103
45 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution.for Run 16 104
46 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 17 105
47 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 17 106
48 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 18 107
49 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 18 108
50 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 19 109
51 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 19 110
52 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 20 111
53 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 20 112
54 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 21 113
55 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 21 114
56 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 22 115
57 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 22 116
58 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 23 117
59 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 23 118
60 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 24 119
vii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
61 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 24 120
62 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 25 121
63 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 25 122
64 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 26 123
65 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 26 124
66 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 27 125
67 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 27 126
68 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 28 127
69 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 28 128
70 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 29 129
71 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 29 130
72 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 30 131
73 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 30 132
74 Inlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 31 133
75 Outlet Cumulative Particle Size Distribution for Run 31 134
76 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 1 136
77 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 2 137
78 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 3 138
79 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 4 139
80 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 5 140
81 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 6 141
82 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 7 142
83 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 8 143
viii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No., ' Page
84 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 9 144
85 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 10 145
86 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 11 146
87 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 12 147
88 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 13 148
89 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 14 149
90 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 15 150
91 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 16 151
92 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 17 152
93 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 18 153
94 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 19 154
95 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 20 155
96 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 21 156
97 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 22 157
98 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 23 158
99 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 24 159
100 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 25 160
101 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 26 161
102 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 27 162
103 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 28 163
104 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 29 164
105 Differential Particle Size Distribution fpr Run 30 165
106 Differential Particle Size Distribution for Run 31 166
ix
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No.
107 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 1 168
108 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 2 169
109 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 3 170
110 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 4 171
111 Penetration/Efficiency as a Fuiiction of Size for Run 5 172
112 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 6 173
113 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 7 174
114 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 8 175
115 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 9 176
116 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 10 177
117 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 12 178
118 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 13 179
119 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 14 180
120 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 15 181
121 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 16 182
122 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 17 183
123 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 18 184
124 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 19 185
125 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 20 186
126 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 21 187
127 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 22 188
128 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of size for Run 23 189
129 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 24 190
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
130 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 25 191
131 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 26 192
132 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 27 193
133 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 28 194
134 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 29 195
135 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 30 196
136 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 31 197
137 CNC Chart Recording for Run 26 206
138 CNC Chart Recording for Run 27 207
139 CNC Chart Recording for Run 28 210
140 CNC Chart Recording for Run 29 213
141 CNC Chart Recording for Run 30 216
142 CNC Chart Recording for Run 31 219
}
143 Baghouse Pressure Drop Chart Recording for Run 2 226
xi
-------
TABLES
No. ' Page
1 Sunbury Test Plan 7
2 Expected Effects of Varied Parameters on the Fabric Filter 8
3 Western Precipitation Design Conditions for Sunbury Steam
Electric Station 12
4 Sunbury Steam Electric Station Bag Filter Installation
Cost Breakdown 13
5 Estimated Operating and Maintenance Costs of the Sunbury
Steam Electric Station Baghouses 16
6 Results of Physical Characterization Tests on Fabric
Filter Bags 19
7 Sequence of Events Occurring During Normal Cleaning Cycle 22
8 Results of Runs Made With Prefilter on Andersen 34
9 Capabilities of the Mobile Stack Gas Analyzer's
Instrumentation 42
10 Results of Particulate Sampling At Sunbury Steam'
Electric Station 44
11 Penetration and Outlet Concentration 45
12 Particle Size Measurements at Sunbury Steam Electric Sta-
tion with Andersen and University of Washington Impactors 46
13 Inlet and Outlet Mass Median Diameters 47
14 Summary of CNC Measurements Made With In-Stack Diluter 51
15 Average Inlet and Outlet Particle Concentrations Measured
by the CNC 54
xii
-------
TABLES (continued)
No.
16 The Average Properties of the Components of the
Pulverized Feed 55
17 Summary of Monitored Variables 56
18 Desired and Observed Parameters for Each Run 57
19 Analysis of Selected Coal and Fly Ash Samples From
Boiler No. 1A 59
20 Results of t-tests 61
21 Values of the Case 1 Variables Used in the Multiple
Regression Analysis 63
22 Values of the Case 2 Variables Used in the Multiple
Regression'Analysis 64
23 Values of the Case 3 Variables Used in the Multiple
Regression Analysis 64
24 Results of Multiple Regression Analyses 65
25 Condensation Nuclei Counter System Data 200
26 Sunbury Coal Analysis 222
27 Gaseous Measurements 228
xiii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The many contributions of Dr. James H. Turner, Environmental Protection
Agency Project Officer, are gratefully appreciated. The cooperation of
Mr. Noel H. Wagner of the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company and
Mr. Daniel T. Sachse and the staff of the Sunbury Steam Electric Station,
especially Mr. Paul F. Wottrich and Mr. Harry F. Spagnola, made this
program possible.
Several members of the GCA/Technology Division staff made significant
contributions to the field program. They include Messrs. Stephen Brenan,
Peter Gravallese, Robert Hall, David Hobart, John Langley, Lyle Powers,
James Sahagian and Roger Stern.
The GCA Project Administrator was Mr. Norman Surprenant.
xiv
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR BRITISH AND METRIC UNITS
To convert from
ฐF
ft.
ft.2
ft.3
ft./min. (fpm)
3
ft. /min.
in.
2
in/
oz.
oz. /yd.
grains
2
grains/ft.
grains/ft.
Ib. force
Ib. mass
lb./ft.2
in. H-O/ft./min.
Btu
To
ฐC
meters
meters
meters
centimeters /sec.
3
centimeters /sec.
centimeters
2
centimeters
grams
2
grams /meter
grams
2
grams meter
3
grams /meter
dynes
kilograms
2
grams /centimeter
cm. H?0/cm/sec.
calories
Multiply by
f (ฐF-32)
0.305
0.0929
0.0283
0.508
471.9
2.54
6.45
28.34
33.89
0.0647
0.698
2.288
4.44 x 105
0.454
0.488
5.00
252
To
centimeters
2
centimeters
centimeters
meters/sec.
3
meters /hr.
meters
2
meters
grains
2
grams /centimeter
New tons
grams
2
grams /meter
2
Newtons /meter /cm/sec.
Multiply by
30.5
929.0
28,300.0
5.08 x 10
1.70
2.54 x 10
6.45 x 10
438.0
3.39 x 10
0.44
454.0
4,880.0
490.0
_____
-3
-2
-4
T
-3
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The test results show that a fabric filter installed on a boiler burning
anthracite silt and petroleum coke is an effective means of controlling
particulate emissions. The mean emission rates for the normal total mass
tests with the new and used bags were 0.0058 and 0.0045 pounds per million
Btu, respectively. These emission rates are well within Pennsylvania's
maximum of 0.105 pounds per million Btu.
The baghouse operated for 2 years with the original bags with only slight
problems and without appreciable bag failures. The characterization tests
(physical properties) performed on samples of the 2-year-old fabric and
new fabric found the used fabric to be nearly as strong as the new. At
the end of 2 years, the pressure drop across the baghouse at full load was
a nearly constant 2.5 in. HO which was v?ell within the maximum allowable
pressure drop of 5.0 in. HO.
Statistical analysis of the results of the used bags tests showed that the
purposely altered operating parameters listed below had no significant
effect on either the particle penetration through the baghouse or the out-
let mass concentration. Hox^ever, significant differences in the penetra-
tion and outlet concentration were found when the results of the normal
tests with the used bags and new bags were compared. Also, there were
significant differences in the outlet concentrations when the normal new
bag tests were compared with the abnormal new bag tests. The purposely
altered operating parameters included:
-------
The ash and sulfur content of the coal
The boiler steam flow
The number of compartments in service
The time interval between cleaning cycles.
A multiple regression analysis of the test results indicated that the
particulate penetration through the baghouse and the outlet mass concen-
tration for the grouped results of normal tests with the new bags and
for the grouped results of all the tests were most dependent upon the in-
let mass concentration and the pressure drop across the baghouse. How-
ever, the penetration and outlet concentration for the grouped results
of normal tests with the used bags were indicated to be most dependent
upon the moisture content of the fuel and the baghouse face velocity.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that extreme caution be exercised when sampling a source
with a high SO., concentration with an Andersen impactor using glass sub-
strates. When sampling an effluent with a high S0_ concentration, pre-
liminary measurements should be made to determine if an anomalous weight
gain problem exists and what modifications need to be made to compensate
for the problem. Also, when sampling with an impactor, an effort should
be made to eliminate sampling through a gooseneck nozzle because of the
significant losses in the probe. In addition, the Andersen cyclone pre-
collector should only be used when the size cutoffs of the Andersen im-
pactor 's top two or three stages are not of interest because the cyclone
collects significant amounts of particles which would impact on these
stages. Also, there is a need for a combination of impactors to be used
when performing a fractional efficiency type of evaluation on a control
device which would allow simultaneous influent and effluent sampling and
thereby reduce the effects of temporal variations.
More work needs to be done in three basic areas to perfect a submicron
particle counting and sizing technique using the condensation nuclei
counter (CNC) and diffusion denuder (DD). First, the condensation nuclei
counter needs to be redesigned for field use to eliminate sensitivity due
to variations in temperature and static pressure. Second, the problems of
conditioning the sample to provide a sample to the CNC which is represen-
tative of what is within the stack need more consideration. It is felt
that effecting a dilution in the stack is the best way to obtain a repre-
sentative sample. Third, an accurate method to verify the CNC field mea-
surements needs to be developed.
3
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The work reported in this publication represents one phase of a program
whose purpose is to characterize the performance of several industrial
size fabric filter systems. 'Although fabric filtration technology has
been successfully applied to a wide variety of industrial processes,
there are several areas where baghouse filters have not been or are just
beginning to be utilized.
One of the recent applications is that for the control of particulate
emissions from coal-fired utility boilers. The potential for the use
of baghouses on boiler flue gases is very large. Only recently, however,
has the successful application in this area, which represents a signifi-
cant advancement in the state-of-the-art, been demonstrated.
APPROACH
The performance of a fabric filter was characterized by determination of
the particulate removal efficiency as a function of total mass and par-
ticle size. The total mass efficiency was determined by collecting mass
samples before and after the baghouse. The fractional efficiency, defined
as the measured change in the particulate concentration as a function of
particle size that results from the filtration process, was determined by
upstream and downstream sampling using inertial and diffusional sizing
-------
techniques. Tests were performed at several different boiler and baghouse
operating conditions to determine what parameters, if any, would affect a
significant difference in fabric filter performance.
The first phase of the baghouse performance characterization was to gain
knowledge of the installation through a pretest survey and to use this
knowledge to formulate a test plan. During the pretest survey it was
learned that three types of variables could be readily changed; namely,
fuel mixture, boiler load and baghouse operation. Later it was found
that the baghouse was to have all its bags replaced, so this was incor-
porated as a test parameter.
The test plan shown in Table'1 was designed so that each series of abnor-
mal tests was bracketed with normal tests to ascertain that measured dif-
ferences were the results of controlled changes and not because of changes
in normal operation. Sufficient normal tests were included in the test
plan to statistically define the mean values and the range of variability
occurring during normal operations. Table 2 shows the expected effects
on baghouse operation made by the various changes. Although it was pre-
ferred that all the variables except those designated in the test plan
should remain constant, this was not always possible. Therefore, it was
necessary to obtain coal samples, plant log sheets and plant chart record-
ings to define the conditions for each test. Additionally, the EPA Control
Systems Laboratory trailer provided instrumentation for monitoring the flue
gas for sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen.during
several of the tests.
-------
Table 1. SUNBURY TEST PLAN
Date
1-8-75
1-9-75
1-10-75
1-11-75
1-13-75
1-14-75
1-15-75
1-16-75
1-17-75
1-18-75
2-4-75
2-5-75
2-6-75
2-7-75
2-8-75
2-10-75
2-11-75
2-12-75
2-12-75
2-13-75
2-14-75
3-20-75
3-21-75
3-22-75
3-23-75
3-24-75
3-25-75
3-26-75
3-27-75
3-28-75
3-29-75
Run
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Boiler
load
Full3
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
3/4
3/4
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full.
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Full
Fuel
mixture
Normalb
Normal
Normal
Normal
Max. Cokec
Max . Coke
Normal
Min. Coked
Min . Coke
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Max. Coke
Max. Coke
Normal
Min. Coke
Min. Coke
Normal
Baghouse 1A operation
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
% hr between cleaning cycles
% hr between cleaning cycles
Normal
two (2) compartments off
two (2) compartments off
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Bag age
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
5 days
6 days
7 days
8 days
9 days
10 days
aFull = 410,000 pounds steam/hour, 955ฐF, 1,350 psig.
bNormal = 20% Coke, 80% Anthracite mixture of No. 5 Buck with Silt.
CMax. Coke = 35% Coke, 65% Anthracite mixture of No. 5 Buck with Silt.
dMin. Coke = 15% Coke, 85% Anthracite mixture of No. 5 Buck with Silt.
-------
Table 2. EXPECTED EFFECTS OF VARIED PARAMETERS ON THE FABRIC FILTER
Test condition
Maximum coke
Minimum coke
3/4 load
1/2 hour between
cleaning cycles
2 compartments off
New bags
Air to cloth
ratio
acfm/ft^
NCa
NC
decreased
NC
increased
NC
Cleaning
frequency,
compartments /hr
NC
NC
NC
decreased
NC
NC
Cloth
loading,
Ib/ft2/hr
decreased
increased
decreased
NC
increased
NC
Pressure
drop,
"H20
decreased
increased
decreased
increased
increased
decreased
NC = No change expected.
-------
SECTION IV
SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
PLANT DESCRIPTION
The Sunbury Steam Electric Station of the Pennsylvania Power and Light
Company is located on the west bank of the Susquehanna River in Shamokin
Dam, Pennsylvania. The station capacity of approximately 402 MW is gen-
erated by four steam turbines. Turbine units 1 and 2, which are rated at
r\ _. - >
87.5 MW each, are supplied by four anthracite-fired Foster Wheeler boil-
ers which were placed in commercial operation in 1949 and 1950. Each
boiler is rated at 410,000 pounds steam/hour with a superheated steam
outlet temperature and pressure of 955ฐF and 1,350 psig. The boilers
burn a mixture of 15 percent to 35 percent petroleum coke with the re-
mainder made up of anthracite silt and No. 5 buckwheat anthracite. The
anthracite silt and No. 5 buckwheat are obtained from culm banks and
strip mines located^in-Northeastern Pennsylvania. The normal fuel con-
sumption -is 41 tons/hour/unit^with an exhaust gas volume of approximately
125,000 scfm per~BbTler-. Originally, particulate was removed from the
flue~~gas by a combination mechanical-electrostatic collector. However,
the collectors were unable to remove the desired amount of particulate
primarily due to the high resistivity of the low sulfur anthracite fly
ash. After extensive studies of the anthracite fly ash collection prob-
lem, including the operation of a Western Precipitation pilot plant bag
filter, Western Precipitation bag filters were installed on the anthracite
burning boilers. Since the four baghouses are identical, only one was
tested. The fabric filter selected (1A boiler) was placed in service on
February 10, 1973.
-------
The location of dust removal equipment for each boiler is shown in Fig-
ure 1. After leaving the boiler economizer, the flue gas is drawn through
a regenerative air heater and mechanical dust collector by an induced
draft (ID) fan. The mechanical dust collector removes about 70 percent
of the particulate. Upon leaving the ID fan, the flue gas flows through
horizontal and vertical ducting into the inlet manifold of the baghouse.
A hopper is located at the end of the horizontal run to remove any dust
which settles out of the gas stream. The flue gas in the inlet manifold.
flows through the compartment inlet dampers, the compartment hopper sec-
tion, and finally up through the thimble plate to the bag interiors.
After the flue gas passes through the filter cake and bag, it discharges
from the compartment via the outlet dampers and outlet flue. From the
outlet flue, the cleaned gas flows through a breeching, and then exha-usts
to atmosphere through a stack. The stack extends 150 feet above the
boiler roof which is 150 feet above grade.
BAGHOUSE DESCRIPTION
The Western Precipitation design conditions for the bag filters are pre-
sented in Table 3. The total cost of the installation of the four bag
filters including the needed additional ash slurry handling system was
approximately $5.5 million with the baghouses themselves accounting for
about 60 percent of the total cost. A detailed breakdown of the installa-
tion cost is presented in Table 4. The yearly operating and maintenance
costs breakdown estimated by the Sunbury Steam Electric Station Plant
Superintendent is given in Table 5. These costs, excluding complete bag-
house bag replacement material and labor costs, for the four baghouses
for 1973 and 1974 were $0.037 and $0.036 per acfm based on the design
flow rate of 222,000 acfm per baghouse. Table 5 shows that the mechanical
maintenance costs have been increasing while the electrical maintenance
costs have been decreasing. This is believed to reflect some electrical
problems during and after start-up and wearing of the collapse air fans
as they get older. The approximate dimensions of each baghouse are
10
-------
BLANK OFF PLATES (
ECONOMIZER
AIR HEATER
SAMPLING LOCATION
SAMPLING
LOCATION
MECHANICAL
COLLECTOR
AIR
FROM
FORCED DRAFT
FAN
INDUCED
DRAFT FAN
Figure 1. Location of dust removal equipment and
sampling ports
11
-------
Table 3. WESTERN PRECIPITATION DESIGN CONDITIONS
FOR SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
Design conditions
Process
Suspended material
Fuel
Gas:
Source
Volume
Temperature
Pressure
Pressure drop
Moisture
Inlet grain loading
Steam boilers
Fume and fly ash
Coal (anthracite)
Steam boiler
222,000 acfm per filter
270 to 350ฐF
Positive
5 inches HO
15.5%
2 grains per cubic foot
Source: Western Precipitation Division of Joy
Manufacturing Co. Operating Instructions for
Therm-o-Flex Filters for Pennsylvania Power and
Light Company, Sunbury, Pennsylvania.
Actual cubic feet per minute.
12
-------
Table 4. SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION BAG FILTER
INSTALLATION COST BREAKDOWN
Expenditure description'
Western Precipitation contract
Four baghouses
Design and engineering - baghouse
Design and engineering - hopper enclosures
Vacuum cleaning system
Extra platforms, caged ladders, etc.
Supplements and contingencies
Subtotal - Western Precipitation contract
Land and land rights
Subtotal - land and land rights
Structures and improvements
Foundation - baghouse
Clearing site
Ash lines
Seal water line
Electric conduit cable
Storm drain and .sewer line
Grading (crushed stones)
Pump house
Foundation
Superstructure
Drainage system
Light and power system
Heating system
Precipitator roof alterations
Subtotal - structures and improvements
Material
cost, $
1,266,985
30,415
95,105
37,800
2,000
6,600
40,000
6,500
16,500
3,700
17,500
Labor
cost, $
1,020,000
43,820
21,205
45,900
9,200
500
87,200
6,900
3,000
7,000
37,000
7.90C
2,700
1,600
32,600
Total
cost, $
2,286,985
493,400
69,740
74,235
116,310
161,030
3,201,700
1,500
1,500
83,700
9,200
500
87,200
6,900
5,000
13,600
77,000
14,400
19,200
5,300
50,100
372,100
13
-------
Table 4 (continued).
SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION BAG FILTER
INSTALLATION COST BREAKDOWN
Expenditure description
Boiler p];int equipment
Ash removal system - bag filter
Piping and fittings
High capacity intake and accessories
Electrical connections
Ash slurry systems
Piping, valves and fittings
Slurry tank and accessories
Pumps and drives
Electrical connections
Raw water pump
Foundations
Pumps and drives
Piping, valves and fittings
Electrical connections
Booster pumps
Foundation
Pumps and drives
Piping, valves and fittings
Electrical connections
Mechanical hoppers - expansion
Multiclones in mechanical collectors -
replacement
Piping for extended mechanical hopper
Air piping, valves and fittings
Platforms and walkways
Subtotal - boiler plant equipment
Material
cost, $
190,000
50,200
1,500
175,000
11,400
57,000
500
7,700
15,400
28,500
2,500
4,400
24,600
12,500
3,500
26,400
700
6,800
21,500
Labor
cost, $
135,000
37,000
1,000
113,400
4,600
26,300
400
7,000
7,000
16,700
900
10,500
7,900
15,000
1,500
59,400
51,000
3,900
10,500
40,900
Total
cost, $
325,000
87,200
2,500
288,400
16,000
83,300
900
14,700
22,400
45,200
3,400
14,900
32,500
27,500
5,000
85,800
51,000
4,600
17,300
62,400
1,190,000
14
-------
Table 4 (continued). SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION BAG FILTER
INSTALLATION COST BREAKDOWN
Expenditure description
Accessory electric equipment
Conduit
Power cable
Control cable
Subtotal - accessory electric equipment
Miscellaneous power plant equipment
Coivjiiunication - public address system
Subtotal - miscellaneous power plant
equipment
Overhead
Engineering and supervision - indirect
Contract engineering
Engineering and supervision - direct
Civil
Mechanical
Electrical
Cost analysis and inspection
Allowance for funds used during
construction
Temporary construction power
Construction supervision
Removal cost
Salvage recovered
Subtotal - overhead
Total construction costs
Material
cost, $
4,000
7,900
23,500
200
Labor
cost, $
11,000
10,900
14,400
100
Total
cost, $
15,000
18,800
37,900
71,700
300
300
109,400
15,000
75,000
85,800
37,000
64 , 500
240,000
6,000
10,000
23,100
3,000
(Credit)
662,800
5,500,100a
JBulk of payment was made October 1971 through October 1973.
15
-------
Table 5. ESTIMATED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS OF THE
SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION BAGHOUSES
Cost description
Collapse fans power consumption
Air compressor power consumption
o
Complete bag replacement
Boiler 1A
Material
Labor
Boiler 2A
Material
Labor
Boiler 2B
Material
Labor
Instrument Department labor
Mechanical Maintenance labor
Electrical Maintenance labor
Construction Department labor
Total costs, $
Total costs for designed acfm, $
1973 co-",
$
18,600
insignificant
950
2,130
7,410
3,950
33,040
0.0372
1974 cost,
$
18,600
insignificant
48,000
11,000
950
5,840
3,800
2,350
90,540
0.1020
First 6 months
1975 cost,
$
9,300
insignificant
48,000
11,000
48,000
11,000
450
6,270
2,910
136,930
0.1542
Costs incurred
through
June 1975,
$
46,500
insignificant
48,000
11,000
48,000
11,000
48,000
11,000
2,350
14,240
14,120
6,300
260,510
0.2934
*a
Boiler IB baghouse is still operating with the original filter bags.
-------
80 feet long, 40 feet wide and 62 feet high, including the dust hopper.
Each baghouse is divided into 14 compartments which are arranged in two
rows with 7 compartments per row. The physical layout of the baghouse
is shown in Figure 2. The bags are arranged in each compartment in six
rows with 15 bags per row. The six rows are divided into two sections
by a walkway. Each filter bag is 30 feet long and 12 inches in diameter
and has seven anti-deflation rings wbich prevent choking during cleaning.
The bags are tensioned to their normal operating tension of 50 pounds by
a spring. The total number of bags per bag filter is 1,260 with a total
filter area of 115,668 square feet and an active filter area of 107,406
square feet. The active area is defined as the filter area in use when
one compartment is out of service due to cleaning. At the baghouse de-
sign flow of 222,000 acfm, the total and active filter areas result in
a face velocity of 1.919 ft/min and 2.067 ft/min, respectively.
Each baghouse compartment contains 90 bags fabricated by Menardi-Southern
Company from Teflon-coated fiberglass cloth. The manufacturer's specifi-
cations for the fabric material are as follows:
Weight =9.5 oz/yd2
Thread count = 54 x 30
Weave =3x1 twill
Frasier permeability at 0.5 in. 1^0 = 75 cftn/ft
Mullen burst strength = 595 psi.
Samples of new and used bags that were examined at GCA appeared to be
identical except that the new fabric was woven with a left-hand diagonal
while the used fabric was woven with a right-hand diagonal. Since this,
in effect, produces only a mirror image, there is no reason to expect
any difference in fabric performance.
The results of the physical characterization tests performed on the new
and used bags are presented in Table 6. These tests show that the used
bags' air permeability is much less than that for a new bag which is
probably due to dust particles lodged in the fabric interstices.
17
-------
OUTLET FLUE
OUTLET DAMPERS
manual
ACCESS DOORS
SWEEP
VALVE
COLLAPSE
AIR
FANS
Figure 2. Sunbury Steam Electric Station baghouse 1A
18
-------
Table 6. RESULTS.OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION TESTS ON FABRIC FILTER BAGS
\ฃ>
Test description
ASTM D 1910, Sample weight, oz/sq yd
ASTM D 1777, Sample thickness, rails
Range
Average
ASTM D 737, Air permeability, cfm/uq ft at V HO AP
Range
Average
ASTM D 1602, Breaking strength and elongation
Breaking strength, Ib
Warp: Range
Average
Fill: Range
Average
Elongation at break, percent
Warp: Range
Average
Fill: Range
Average
Average energy to break, inch-lb
Warp:
Fill:
Average:
Flexural rigidity-beam method,
(KT3)lb/sq In. per inch of width
As received
Warp:
Fill:
Average:
Adjusted for difference in aasป
Warp:
Fill:
Average:
New bag
11.0
10.3 - 13.0
11.2
49.5 - 58.0
54.3
187 - 200
197
82 - 93
87
3.1 - 3.9
3.5
2.6 - 2.8
2.6
3.4
1.1
2.3
0.41, 0.47
0.73, 0.73
0.58
0.41, 0.47
0.73, 0.73
0.58
Used bag 01
16.9
15.6 - 18.6
16.9
0.7 - 1.5
1.1
137 - 200
166
111 - 132
121
3.6 - 3.9
3.8
2.8 - 2.9
2.9
3.2
1.8
2.5
1.5 , 2.1
3.0 , 2.4
2.2
0.98, 1.4
1.9 , 1.6
1.5
Used bag 12
13.5
13.7 - 14.7
14.2
1.1 - '2.1
1.6
123 - 167
152
86 - 142
.. I"
2.1 - 3.6
3.2
1.9 - 2.2
2.1
2.4
1.2
1.8
1.5, 1.1
1.9, 2.0
1.6
1.2, 0.89
1.6, 1.6
1.3
Used bag ill,
vacuum cleaned
.11.5
12.8 - 14.8
13.6
28.0 - 31.4
30.5
194
117
3.4
2.0
3.4
1.2
2.3
Used bag J2,
vacuum cleaned
11.3
11.7 - 13.0
12.5
35.7 - 44.1
40.0
186
134
3.2
2.3
2.9
1.5
2.2
-------
The tests also show that the strength of the fabric even after 2 years'
use is not substantially reduced, indicating that very little damage or
wear has occurred. It was also found that the used fabric was not as
flexible as the new medium, presumably due to the particles in the inter-
stices of the fabric. With respect to the increases in the breaking
strength of the cleaned fabric (warp direction) and the used fabric (fill
direction), it is suspected that the increased breaking strength in the
warp direction after cleaning was due to the removal of some of the abra-
sive dust particles. The greater breaking strength of the fabric in the
fill direction was attributed to the interstitial deposition of particles
which acted as strengthening agents by suppressing the relative motion of
the fibers within the yarn.
Dust is removed from the bags by reversing the gas flow through a com-
partment. This is accomplished by first closing the compartment inlet
damper and then opening the collapse air damper which connects the com-
partment inlet to the suction of a collapse air fan rated at 12,500 cfm
at 300 F. The collapse air fan draws the cleaned gas from the outlet
manifold through the compartment and through the collapse air damper and
exhausts the collapse air into the inlet manifold. Figure 3 shows the
damper positions and the gas flow during normal filtering and cleaning.
The dust which is removed from the bags accumulates in the hopper and is
periodically removed by a pneumatic conveying system. The dust in the
pneumatic conveying system is combined with water to form an ash slurry
which is pumped to a settling basin.
During normal operation, it takes approximately 33 minutes to complete a
cleaning cycle, which consists of the sequential cleaning of each of the
14 baghouse compartments and two sweep cleanings of the collapse air duct.
These cleaning cycles are continuous with the completion of one cycle
coinciding with the initiation of the next cycle. Each cleaning cycle's
sequence of events and its time intervals are ptesented in Table 7.
20
-------
I-GAS INLET DAMPER-OPEN
2-GAS INLET DAMPER -CLOSED
3-BAG COLLAPSING DAMPER-OPEN
4-BAG COLLAPSING .DAMPER-CLOSED
5-OUTLET DAMPER-OPEN
cc
UJ
H
_J
U.
00
O
y
A
/
1
1 .^
^^--^.
*v
) \
i
0
1 ^-^
o
i/ CO
1 ฐ
CD
L . ,._ , ,.
FROM
I.D. FAN
Figure 3. Gas flow through baghouse compartments during
normal operation and cleaning
21
-------
Table 7. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OCCURRING DURING NORMAL
CLEANING CYCLE
Elapsed
duration,
0 -
2.0 -
16.0 -
17.0 -
68.0 -
69.5 -
81.0 -
83.0 -
122.0 -
205.0 -
244.0 -
327.0 -
366.0 -
449.0 -
488.0 -
571.0 -
610.0 -
693.0 -
732.0 -
815.0 -
855.0 -
935.0 -
980.0 -
1063.0 -
1102.0 -
1185.0 -
time
seconds
2.0
16.0
17.0
68.0
69.5
81.0.
83.0
122.0
205.0
244.0
327.0
366.0
449.0
488.0
571.0
610.0
693.0
732.0
815.0
855.0
935.0
980.0
1063.0
1102.0
1185.0
1224.0
Event in cleaning cycle
Compartment #1 gas inlet damper closing
Settling
Collapse air damper opening
Reverse flow through Compartment #1
Collapse air damper closing
Settling
Compartment #1 gas inlet damper opening
All compartments filtering
Compartment #2 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #3 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #4 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #5 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #6 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #7 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Collapse air duct sweep value open
All compartments filtering
Compartment #8 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #9 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
22
-------
Table 7 (continued). SEQUENCE OF EVENTS OCCURRING DURING
NORMAL CLEANING CYCLE
Elapsed
duration,
1224.0 -
1307.0 -
1346.0 -
1429.0 -
1468.0 -
1551.0 -
1590.0 -
1673.0 -
1712.0 -
1795.0 -
1835.0 -
1915.0 -
time
seconds
1307.0
1346.0
1429.0
1468.0
1551.0
1590.0
1673.0
1712.0
1795.0
1835.0
1915.0
1960.0
Event in cleaning cycle
Compartment #10 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #11 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #12 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #13 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Compartment #14 in cleaning mode
All compartments filtering
Air sweep cleaning of collapse air duct
All compartments filtering
23
-------
The ability of the bag collapse and reverse flow type of cleaning to
accomplish adequate cleaning was determined by studying the time history
of the pressure drop across the baghouse, which is presented in Figure 4.
Insufficient cleaning would be indicated by a rapid increase in the pres-
sure drop across the baghouse to the 5" H~0 pressure drop limitation of
the induced draft fans. Although there is a steady increase in pressure
drop with time, the increase is very gradual. Extrapolating the line o.f
best fit drawn through all the points of Figure 4, excluding the February
and March 1973 points, the 5" HO limiting pressure drop across the bag-
house will not be exceeded for several years. If the bag life were found
to be shortened by chemical aging or other factors, it might be practical
to reduce the cleaning energy and let the pressure drop increase more
steeply. The reduced cleaning energy savings, however, would have to be
weighed against the increased power consumption of the induced draft fan
caused by the higher pressure drop.
Transient variations in the pressure drop across each baghouse were re-
corded on circular charts at Sunbury, a sample copy of which is presented
in Appendix G. It should be noted that the trace for boiler IB baghouse
was purposely displaced to indicate a pressure drop of 5" H-O, when the
actual pressure drop across the baghouse was 0" H~0, to avoid overlapping
the traces. The pressure oscillations which caused the traces to have a
thick band-like appearance were caused by compartment cleaning, and the
changes which caused the band to shift to higher or lower pressure drops
were the results of changes in the amount of combustion air reflecting
changes in load.
24
-------
03
O
in
V)
03
O
c
Q.
<
^-LINE OF BEST FIT
y=l.780-t-0.028X
I I I
-NOTE=
LINE OF BEST FIT DOES NOT
INCLUDE 2/73 AND 3/73 POINTS
I I I
I I I I I
23456789 10 II 12 123456789 10 It 12 123
1973
1974
*-I975-
DATE
Figure 4. 1A baghouse pressure differential history
-------
SECTION V
EQUIPMENT AND METHODS
The baghouse at the Sunbury Steam Electric Station was evaluated for the
total particulate penetration and the particle penetration as a function
of size. Total mass samples and size-classified samples were collected
before and after the baghouse. A condensation nuclei counter and diffu-
sion denuder were used to determine the penetration of submicron parti-
cles. Flue gas composition was monitored by an instrumented EPA trailer.
In addition, pulverized coal samples were extracted from the feed line
between the pulverizer and the boiler.
Since most of the sampling methods employed x^ere straightforward, they do
not require extensive descriptions. Only the novel or unusual techniques,
including some designed by GCA, will be described in detail.
MASS MEASUREMENTS
The baghouse inlet mass concentration was determined by collecting a
TM
sample isokinetically utilizing a RAG Staksamplr. The locations of
the inlet sampling ports in relation to upstream and downstream dis-
turbances are shown in Figure 5. It was possible to sample only four
of the six inlet ports because of the proximity of one of the baghouse
compartment dust hoppers. The vertical distance from the top of the
sample port nipple to the point of .contact with the hopper was 6 feet,
thus preventing use of the 8-foot probe, the latter being required
because the duct was 5 feet deep and the port nipples were 2 feet long.
27
-------
EXISTING
BOILER ROOM
WALL
BLANKOFF
PLATE
COLLAPSE AIR
DAMPERS
INLET DAMPERS
CLEANOUT
HOPPERS
f-
t 1
: ~T~
.' "o
N i
i tf>
\ i
4 + 4-
4-4- 4-
44 4
4 -f f
4-4 +
- 1"' 0"
4-
4
4
4
4
1
pf:v.
II <0
J'LJL*
FLOOR
*"
INLET BREECHING CROSS SECTION
Figure 5. Location of baghouse inlet test ports and sampling points
28
-------
It was also impossible to insert the 8-foot probe at an angle because of
other outside interfering structures. The exact locations of the inlet
points sampled are also illustrated in Figure 5. Each inlet sample point
was sampled for 5 minutes, requiring a total sample time of 110 minutes.
Initially, it had been planned to sample for the same time duration at
the inlet as at the outlet to account for any temporal variations in
loading. This plan was modified to shorten the exposure of the sampling
crew to the flue gas escaping from the positive pressure inlet duct. The
excessive leakage of flue gas into the working space required that res-
pirators be worn while changing ports.
The outlet mass concentration was determined by isokinetically sampling
with an Aerotherm High Volume Stack Sampler which is basically the same
as the RAG Staksamplr except that it is designed to sample at flow rates
3
up to 6 acfm. The higher flow rate of the Aerotherm makes it especially
suitable for sampling gas streams with low dust loadings because the in-
crease in mass collection rate decreases the time required to collect a
weighable sample. In Sunbury, however, it was the mass collected on the
impactor stages which dictated the sampling time necessary. The location
of the outlet sampling ports in relation to upstream and downstream dis-
turbances is shown in Figure 6 along with the array of sampling points.
All eight sampling ports were sampled during the first few tests with the
bottom points on ports 1 and 8 purposely omitted because of vacuuming
dust off the duct floor at these points during a previous compliance
test. The results of two Aerotherm tests (Runs 2 and 3) were negated
when unexplainably high outlet mass concentrations coincided with inad-
vertent sampling of the bottom points on ports 1 and 8. For the majority
of the testing program the points in ports 2 through 7 were sampled at
10 minutes per point for a total sample time of 300 minutes.
29
-------
OUTLET
TEST PORTS
1 ^\ ' "
TO STACK-* ! \
h
>X
n 1 A M l-f Pi F F -S
Dl_MNr\Urr
PLATE
r~ Y i " T i M P nnnpp *-
tAlol INo tJUILtn ^
ROOM WALL
^N
M
X
X
0
L
D
0
U
C
T
W
0
R
K
N
EXPANSION
JOINTS
.FLOOR
T
3 o
1
- '
in
r 1
4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-
4- 4- 4- 4- 4- + 4-
4-
4.
4-
~T~
JL.
t
u>
OUTLET BREECHING CROSS SECTION
Figure 6. Location of baghouse outlet test ports and sampling points
30
-------
IMPACTOR MEASUREMENT^
The penetration of particles through the bag filter as a function of
size and the inlet and outlet particle size distributions over the
range of approximately 0.5 ym to 20 ym were determined using inertial
impactors. The two types of impactors used were the Andersen Mark III
Stack Sampler and the University of Washington (U of W) Mark III Source
Test Cascade Itnpactor.
The baghouse inlet was sampled with an Andersen Impactor with a cyclone
precollector. The sample was withdrawn isokinetically from the middle
point in port No. 4. Both inlet and outlet ports were arbitrarily num-
bered from north to south. The purpose of the precollector was to remove
the larger particles, thus preventing the overloading of the upper impac-
tor stages and permitting a longer impactor sampling time. The results
of the first few tests indicated that the maximum sampling time would be
approximately 3 minutes. During the first 21 tests, two impactor runs
were made per day. When the inlet cumulative size distribution curves
were plotted for the first 21 runs, it was observed that the size distri-
bution curves were'nearly vertical for the larger particles, indicating
that the cyclone precollector was collecting a large portion of the par-
ticles which would normally have been impacted on the upper impactor
stages. In an attempt to determine what portion of the particles were
being removed from the upper stages by the precollector, an extra inlet
impactor sample was taken during each of the remaining runs. The extra
impactor sampled through a 90ฐ gooseneck nozzle instead of the cyclone
precollector. Upon examination of the cumulative size distribution
curves for runs 22 through 31, it was evident that there wasn't a con-
sistent difference between the size distribution measured by the Andersen
with the precollector and by the Andersen with the gooseneck nozzle. The
mean percentage of the mass caught in the impactor precollector for tests
22 through 31 was 34.88 with a standard deviation of 9.34, while the mean
31
-------
percentage of the mass caught in the impactor gooseneck nozzle for the
same series of tests was 33.22 with a standard deviation of 5.39. There-
fore, it was impossible to determine the portion of particles that would
have impacted on the upper impactor stages if they were not collected by
the cyclone precollector. It appeared that the gooseneck nozzle removes
approximately the same fraction of the sample as the cyclone precollector.
Two cascade impactors sampled the baghouse effluent simultaneously during
each run. These samples were extracted from the middle points of the
ports rather than by traverse. It was necessary to change ports once
during each run to allow the Aerotherm sampler to make a complete tra-
verse. Usually, the two impactors sampled three ports the first, ports
No. 3 and 4 and the second, ports No. 4 and 5. Prior to initiation of
sampling, the gas velocities at the sampling points were measured and
averaged to determine the impactor nozzle flow rate needed for isokinetic
sampling.
, Both Andersen and U of W impactors were used to sample the baghouse
effluent. Originally, only Andersen impactors were used, but after the
T
t1 J first few runs, it'was noticed that the substrate weight gains were much
greater than would be expected based on visual inspection. It was sus-
pected that the unusual weight gains were related to gas adsorption on
the Andersen glass fiber substrates. In order to test the theory that
the substrates were gaining weight other than from fly ash, an impactor
was loaded and run with two substrates on each impactor stage. When the
substrates were weighed, both the top substrate, which was nearest the
incoming gas stream, and bottom substrate on each impactor stage gained
weight indicating an anomalous (with respect to particulate) weight gain.
Subsequently, all Andersen impactors were loaded with two sets of impac-
tor substrates so that the anomalous weight gain could be corrected for
by subtracting the weight gained by the bottom substrate from the weight
gained by the top substrate. To gain more conclusive evidence of anomalous
32
-------
weight gains, a 47-mm type A (for manufacturer's specifications, see
reference 5) glass fiber filter was placed on the impactor inlet causing
the impactor to sample particle-free flue gas. All the impactor sub-
strates continued to gain weight, indicating that the anomalous weight
gains were presumably due to gas ad- or absorption. The Andersen with
a prefilter was also run when loaded with two sets of substrates to
determine if the same weight was gained by both of the substrates on a
stage. The results presented in Table 8 show that the weight gained by
the top substrate on each impactor stage was always greater. Therefore,
when the weight gained by the bottom substrate is subtracted from the
top substrate, not all the anomalous weight gain is accounted for, and
the mass concentrations determined by the outlet Andersen impactors are
higher than actual. Figure 7 shows the relationship between mass con-
centration as determined by impactor and total mass sampler. The high
percentage of impactor mass concentrations, which were greater than the
Aerotherm mass concentrations, shows that all the anomalous weight gain
was not corrected for. Recent investigations by Smith et al. have
found that most of the anomalous weight gains xvere the result of sulfate
uptake on the substrates.
A second approach to the anomalous weight gain problem was to sample .
with a University of Washington Mark III impactor which does not employ
glass fiber substrates as impaction surfaces. The U of W impactor uses
stainless steel inserts coated with grease as the impaction surfaces.
Initially, the inserts were coated with Dow Corning high vacuum grease
which was recommended by the impactor manufacturer. The Dow Corning
grease was unsatisfactory because the greased inserts lost weight during
sampling which was probably due to decomposition of the grease during
the long (6-hour) exposure time to the hot stack gases. After some
experimentation, inserts coated with polyethylene glycol and dried
in a 300ฐF oven overnight were found to be satisfactory. The correla-
tion betx^een the outlet mass concentrations determined by the Aerotherm
33
-------
Table 8. RESULTS OF RUNS MADE WITH PREFILTER ON ANDERSEN
to
Ron 7
Stije
Prfiiilter
0
1
2
3
4
5
t
7
F
Sobscr.tc vui^ht gain, grans
Top
0.005/
O.OCiS
C.OOli
O.CGJ3
0. G026
0.0020
O.C018
O.CG16
0.0001
O.OCCS
Soltoin
Xo
Double
Subปtracc
To? Bottom
Run 17
Preflltcr
0
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
F
Substrate wcic.lK ^Jln, j;r.i^.s
O.OOiS
O.C063
O.or.G.'.
0.0(1^2
O.Ofli.3
0.0021
0.0017
0.0012
0.0010
0.0000
0.0033
0.00^
0 . 00 1 8
0.0020
0.0010
0.0008
0.0005
0. OOH6
0.000?
Top - Button
0 . 00 10
o.nois
0.00.14
0.0023
0.0011
0.0009
0.0007
0.0004
0.0003
Run 1H
Prcfiltcr
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
Top
o.oaj?
O.OC5I)
0.(ilV'.7
n.aai.2
0.002S
O.U02i
0.0020
0.0018
0.0013
0.0019
Sot ton
0.0024
0.0024
O.UUl'J
0.0016
0.0017
0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
0.0000
gain, grans
0.0026
0.0023
0.0023
0.0012
0.0011
0.0004
0.0004
0.0001
0.0019
Rjn 20
Pref liter
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
0.0031
0.0063
0.0023
0.0053
0.0045
0.0033
0.0022
0.0017
0.0014
0.0002
O.C036
0.0026
O.C015
O.C013
0.0009
0.0013
0.0009
O.C011
O.C005
loj - Sotto=
O.C027
0.0035
0.0033
0.0027
0.0024
O.CC09
O.OOC3
O.C003
O.CCC3
-------
0.005 -
0.004 -
in
c
o
w
O>
2 0.003
CE
2
UJ
2
O
O
ซ=
o:
u
r
o
o:
bJ
0.002
0.001
QOOO
LINE OF PERFECT CORRELATION
D
Q 0
QsANDERSEN IMPACTOR LOADED WITH ! SET Or SUBSTRATES
A^ANDERSEN IMPACTOR LOADED WITH 2 SETS OF SUBSTRATES
Oa-UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON IMPACTOR
0.001
0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.008
INERTIAL IMPACTOR MASS CONCENTRATION, Qroins/dscf
0.007
0.008
Figure 7. Correlation between the outlet mass concentrations determined by the Aerotherm
High Volume Stack Sampler and the inertial impactors
-------
sampler and the U of W impactor is also shown in Figure 7. The large
percentage of U of W impactor mass concentrations, which were lower than
Aerotherm mass concentrations, indicates that there might have been some
grease deterioration.
/
CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER MEASUREMENTS
The penetration of submicron particles through the baghouse was deter-
mined by sampling the effluent stream before and after the baghouse with
a Condensation Nuclei Counter (CNC) and a Diffusion Denuder (DD). The
particle concentration was measured by a Rich Model 100 CNC and the par-
ticle sizing was determined using a DD with the CNC. The CNC measures
particles of 0.0025 ym and larger diameter in the concentration range
of 1,000 to 300,000 particles/cc. The theoretical upper size limit
g
measurable by the CNC has been estimated to be 0.3 to 0.5 urn.
When sampling an aerosol that has a very large number of submicron par-
ticles, it is often necessary to dilute the sample stream so the con-
centration is within the CNC's measurement range. In addition, when
sampling a hot, corrosive flue gas, substantial cooling and dilution of
the sample stream must be accomplished to protect the CNC internal gas
passages. Diluters provided the necessary cooling without subsequent
condensation which results in the removal of submicron particles.
Four diluter designs were employed, all requiring dilution of a metered
sample stream with a metered amount of filtered air. The measured flow
rates enable calculation of the dilution of the sample stream.
The pump diluter shown in (a) of Figure 8 draws a sample through an
orifice into the diluter body where the sample flow mixes with a regu-
lated flow of filtered dilution air. The major portion of the diluted
sample is drawn through an orifice by a pump and exhausted, while the
36
-------
Mr UILU1LK CALIBRATED
__ ORIFICE
nil 11TFH' - L j . ...,,. ,u -- -11- "
UILUILU<0_- '-.ซ mi IITFR
SAMPLE I
TO CNC ^
X^* I
[CALIBRATED ฉVALVE
IpRIFlCE
r r~ 'Ln FILTER
PUMP 1"
<-SAMPLE
AIR
(b)AIR EJECTOR DILUTER
DILUTED
SAMPLE*
TO CNC
CALIBRATED
no i PI rr
CT
CALIBRATED
, . nniripr
AIR 1 i, it
EJECTOR -~ *
1 1
SAMPLE
FILTERED
COMPRESSED AIR
Figure 8. Condensation nuclei counter system components
37
-------
(c) IN-STACK D1LUTER
DILUTED
TO CNC
DILUTION AIR
CALIBRATED
ORIFICE
JUJL
ivi r \- c <
IR *
FILTER
r A i i
~ T_
OO AT
1
L
cr n
I
y
~i_
L_
-*
(
-*>TO CALIBRATED
ORIFICE AND PUMP
SAMPLE
(d) CAPILLARY TUBE DILUTER
DILUTED
SAMPLE "
TO CNC
CALIBRATED
CAPILLARY
TUBE
' LSS5TJ ""I^- SAMPLE
PINCH CLAMP
FILTER
DILUTION
AIR
Figure 8 (continued). Condensation nuclei counter
system components
38
-------
remaining flow is drawn either directly to the CNC or through more
diluters. This diluter is capable of providing a maximum dilution of
approximately 375 to 1.
The air ejector diluter shown in (b) of Figure 8 is limited to a maxi-
mum dilution of approximately 10 to 1. Its main value is its ability
to extract a sample from a low pressure location and to discharge the
diluted sample at about atmospheric pressure. The CNC will not operate
properly when the pressure of the sample entering the CNC is too far
below atmospheric, ~2 in. HO. In the air ejector diluter, the sample
is drawn through an orifice by an air ejector in which the sample stream
and a filtered compressed air stream are mixed before discharge through
an orifice which meters the combined flow.
During the first two series of tests, the baghouse effluent sample was
drawn sequentially through a heated probe, the pump diluter, and the
air ejector diluter into the CNC. Extremely high particle concentra-
tions led to experiments to assure that the concentrations being found
were representative of the concentrations in the duct. It was thought
that extraneous particles might be entering the dilution system via the
dilution air supply, the compressed air supply or a vacuum leak. When
particle entry was checked by sampling with the dilution system sample
inlet plugged, it was found that particle entry was not a problem. It
was also thought that particles might be generated in the heated probe.
Particle generation was checked by installing a filter holder with a
type A glass fiber filter on the inlet of the sampling probe. The same
concentrations were measured with and without the prefliter, thereby
indicating particle generation. It was also found that the particle
generation in the probe was a function of the temperature to which the
probe was heated. To alleviate the particle generation problem which
was believed to be caused by a condensation/evaporation type of mecha-
nism, an in-stack diluter was designed. The main advantage of the
in-stack diluter is that the undiluted sample is exposed to a minimal
39
-------
length of tubing before being diluted. This should result in a repre-
sentative sample of the stack gas.
The in-stack diluter which is illustrated in (c) of Figure 8 draws a
sample through a calibrated orifice into the diluter body where the
sample flow mixes with a filtered and heated flow of dilution air. A
diluted sample flow is extracted from the combined flow of sample gas
and dilution air with its flow measured by a calibrated orifice. The
remaining flow passes through a calibrated orifice and a pump. The
range of dilutions the diluter is capable of providing is approximately
5 to 1 to 17 to 1.
During the third group of tests, the in-stack diluter and the air ejector
diluter were used in series to condition the sample for the CNC. With
this arrangement, the sample was withdrawn from the stack through a cali-
brated orifice and mixed with dilution air in the in-stack diluter. A
diluted sample was extracted from the in-stack diluter and drawn through
a calibrated orifice into the air ejector diluter. In the air ejector
diluter the diluted sample was mixed with compressed air and discharged
through a calibrated orifice. The air ejector diluter discharge was
sampled and metered by the CNC. The in-stack diluter was also connected
directly to the CNC. When this was done, very low concentrations were
measured; this was thought to be caused by condensation resulting from
insufficient dilution. When the air ejector diluter was used, the hot,
diluted sample from the in-stack diluter was diluted before condensation
occurred.
A capillary tube diluter, capable of providing a 12 to 1 dilution, is
shown in (d) of Figure 8. A capillary tube meters the sample flow which
is combined with regulated filtered dilution air in a tee. The combined
sample and dilution flow is measured by the CNC rotometer. The capillary
>
tube diluter was used primarily to vary the sample flow rates through
the DD to provide sizing data.
40
-------
The DD is made of three closely spaced (0.097 cm) concentric cylinders
on which diffused particles are collected. The d,-n, which is the par-
ticle diameter removed in the DD with 50 percent efficiency, is depen-
dent upon the flow rate through the DD. The DD is most applicable for
particle sizes ranging from 0.01 to 1 ym diameter.
Particle sizing was accomplished by first sampling with the CNC alone
which furnished concentration data for particles >^ 0.0025 ym. Next, the
approximately 50-cc/sec flow to the CNC was first passed through the DD,
where particles smaller than 0.015 ym were retained. Finally, a 5-cc/sec
flow was first passed through the DD, where particles smaller than 0.048
ym were retained. The capillary tube diluter allowed a 5-cc/sec sample
to be drawn through the DD, with the remaining 45-cc/sec flow required
by the CNC provided by dilution air.
GASEOUS MEASUREMENTS
The sampling and analyses of the baghouse effluent for gaseous components
was performed by Research Triangle Institute personnel utilizing the Na-
tional Environmental Research Center's Mobile Stack Gas Analyzer Trailer.
The stack gases were monitored for oxygen, carbon dioxide, and sulfur
dioxide over the duration of the tests.
The Trailer's instruments monitored a continuous flow of conditioned flue
gas samples. Particulate was removed from the sample stream by an in-
stack filter before passing the gas through a heated Teflon tube to main-
tain its temperature at 250ฐF. Residual moisture in the sample stream
was removed by cooling the gas to approximately 34ฐF. A portion of the
dried sample gas was pressurized and distributed to each of the instrument
analyzers. The capabilities of the on-board analyzers are presented in
Table 9. Each instrument was calibrated according to procedures given in
the Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 177, Part II, Page 32864. In addi-
tion to the instruments in Table 9, iron constantan thermocouples measured
gas temperatures with an accuracy of ฑ 2ฐF.
41
-------
Table 9. CAPABILITIES OF THE MOBILE STACK GAS
ANALYZER'S INSTRUMENTATION9
Gas component
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Type of analysis
Paramagnetic
Nondispersive
infrared
Nondispersive
infrared
Nondispersive
infrared
Chemiluminescent
Ranges
3
3
3
3
3
Range levels
0-5/10/25%
0-5/10/20%
0-500/1000/
2000 ppm
0-1000/2000/
4000 ppm
0-200/2000/
20,000 ppm
Approximate
sensitivity
0.05/0.1/0.25%
0.05/0.1/0.2%
5/10/20 ppm
10/20/40 ppm
2/20/200 ppm
COAL SAMPLING
At approximately the half-way point of each run, samples were collected
of each of the three fuel components: petroleum coke, anthracite silt
and anthracite number 5 buckwheat. A separate sampling of the pulverized
mixture of the above constituents (the actual boiler feed) was also per-
formed. The samples of petroleum coke, anthracite silt and anthracite
number 5 buckwheat were collected by catching the coal in plastic bags
as it dropped through the rotary table feeders which convey the coal from
the bins to the ball mills where the coal is pulverized. It took about a
minute to collect each sample from the rotary table feeders. The pulver-
ized boiler feed was extracted from the air suspension of pulverized coal
which was blown from the pulverizer directly into the boiler. The pul-
verized sample was collected with a sampler devised by Sunbury personnel. .
It consisted of a probe, a cyclone separator and a cloth bag system which
operated for 30 minutes. The coal air mixture passed through the probe
and into the cyclone where the pulverized coal was separated from the air
and the air exhausted through a cloth bag.
42
-------
- 2/
SECTION VI
RESULTS
The 31 tests run at the Sunbury Steam Electric Station (S.E.S.) were
broken down into three phases. The f_irst phase was designed to study
the effect of varying the fractions of anthracite silt, petroleum coke
and anthracite number 5 buckwheat in the fuel mixture to the boiler.
The first phase encompassed runs 1 through 10 which were performed from
January 8, 1975, through January 18, 1975. The second series of tests,
runs 11 through 21, were designed to study the effect of reducing the
boiler load and varying the baghouse operation. The second phase of
testing was conducted from February 4, 1975, through February 14, 1975.
The final phase, runs 22 through 31, which was designed to study the
effect of operating with all new bags and varying the fuel mixture as
in the first. series of tests, was performed over the period from March 20,
1975, through March 29, 1975.
The inlet and outlet particulate mass concentrations determined by the
total mass and cascade impactor sampling techniques are presented in
) Table 10.1 The particulate mass penetration andx^emission rate ^f or' each
run are also presented in Table 10. The mass penetration was calculated
from the inlet and outlet total mass concentrations, and the emission rate
was calculated from the outlet total mass concentration and Sunbury S.E.S.
logs and chart recordings data. The mass penetration and the total mass
sample outlet concentration statistics for all the runs, runs 1 through 31,
are presented in Table 11. These data show that the average particulate
penetration and mean outlet concentration for the new bags were 1.7 times
and 1.45 times greater, respectively, compared to the used fabric.
43
-------
Table 10.. RESULTS OF PARTICULATE SAMPLING AT
SUNBURY STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
Run No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Bachousc Inlet
concentration, gralnsAlscf
san:pKปr
3.6296
2.6596
2.8082
4.1235
2.6851
2.5243
3.1661
2.2977
2.4280
3.2935
2.6673
2.0891
2.6020
2.8845
2.6728
2.4403
2. 5053
1.8291
2.8942
2.2016
1.6694
1.3822
3.2646 .
2.0503
3.0946
2.3859
1.3477
3.0022
2.0174
2.0843
2.21R1
run A
2.6154
2.2244
2.0680
1.0839
2.5708
1.6296
2.0869
2.5095
1.9984
2.0685
2.5278
1.5471
1.9184
1.4442
1.3356
2.8056
1.9631
1.2430
1.2809
1.3857
2.2743
2.3328
1.7175
2.0914
1.6780
1.8363
1.8289
1.3270
1.6922
1.7849
2.5772
run B
-
1.3184
2.2677
3.5096
1.3776
2.8180
2.1190
1.3616
1.9855
2.0120
2.1174
2.0761
2.5280
3.3717
1.3409
1.0743
1.9043
2.0925
1.9564
1.8968
1.3782
1.7426
1.4863
2.2034
1.6408
1.8807
1.8489
1.8423
1.8105
1.9178
2.3589
run C
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
.
_
.
.
-
.
-
.
,
.
.
1.9390
1.8851
2.7331
2.4440
1.6942
1.8929
1.1209
2.1041
1.5965
2.8530
Baghousc ouclcc
concentration, gralns/dscf
sampler
0.0022
E
E
0.0013
0.0017
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
0.0015
0.0016
0.0033
0.0017
0.0020
0.0015
0.0016
0.0013
0.0016
0.0013
0.0016
0.0018
0.0019
0.0031
0.0028
0.0029
0.0025
0.0022
0.0022
0.0022
0.0023
0.0020
0.0022
A
0.0046
0.0272
0.0075
0.0059
0.0028ฐ
0.0077
0.0029ฐ
0.0024D
0.0020ฐ
0.0014ฐ
S
0.0018D
0.0040D
0.0018ฐ
5
S
0.0026D
0.0019ฐ
0.0020ฐ
0.0024ฐ
0.0032ฐ
0.0016W
0.0014W
0.0015W
0.0019W
0.0033W
0.0002W
0.0009W
0.0012W
o.ooio"
0.0011W
ฃ
0.0051
0.0146
0.0084
0.0064
0.0025ฐ
0.0060
P
0.0019ฐ
0.0029ฐ
S
Lw
LW
0.0010W
0.0021W
0.0004V
0.0019W
PD
PD
0.0002H
Pฐ
O.OOll"
0.0029ฐ
0.0037ฐ
0.0035ฐ
0.0029ฐ
0.0035ฐ
0.00293
0.0016ฐ
0.0024ฐ
0.0026ฐ
0.0020ฐ
Mass
percent
0.06
-
-
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.05
O.OC
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.22
0.09
0.14
0.08
0.09
0.16
0.07
0.11
0.10
0.10
KaMsLun r licet
miifa ntu
0.0047
-
-
0.0028
0.0039
0.0031
0.0031
0.0031
0.0035
0.0041
0.0101
0.0044
0.0047
0.0035
0.0037
0.0033
0.0038
0.0031
0.0037
0.0044
0.0044
0.0074
0.0063
0.0058
0.0056
0.0047
0.0051
0.0049
0.0054
0.0044
0.0047
Calculated from the Inlet and outlet total mass u.ttnplcr concentrations.
NOTE: E - Excluded because of apparent vacuuming of the duct floor during BAmple collection.
D m Double substrates per stage.
P - Impactor with prcflltrr.
S - Substrates stuck together.
L ซ SubKtrntcfl lost weight.
W University of Washington Impactor.
44
-------
Table 11. PENETRATION AND OUTLET CONCENTRATION
Runs
All, normal and abnormal;
new and used bags3
Normal
Norma 1
a
with used bags
with new bags
Penetration,
percent
Mean
0.08276
0.06889
0.11667
Standard
deviation
0.03963
0.03018
0.05610
Outlet concentration,
grains/dscf
Mean
0.00195
0.00181
0.00262
Standard
deviation
0.00056
0.00063
0.00038
Does not include Runs no. 2 and no. 3 which were discounted because of
apparent vacuuming of the outlet duct floor.
y
The inlet and outlet mass median diameters (tnmd) for the inlet and outlet
impactors for each run are listed in[Table 12j The impactor A mmd values
for runs 25 and 26 appear unreasonable; even though no traceable error
has been found, it is suspected that the mmd values are excessively large.
The inlet and outlet mmd statistical summaries for runs 1 through 31 are
presented in Table 13. These data show that the mmd values for the filter
effluents are,- on the average, smaller than those for the inlet dust. Ex-
cluding the two questionable mmd values, the average outlet mmd was roughly
19 percent lower than that for the filter inlet.
The particle size distribution curves from which the mass mediam diameters
were determined are presented in ^Appendix A.. The differential size dis-
tribution curves for the inlet and outlet impactors for each run are pre-
sented inTAppendix B. The differential size distribution curves, con-
structed in the manner described by Smith et al., were used to calculate
the removal efficiency for six' different size categories. The fractional
efficiency curves are presented in ,Appendix C.' The relationship between
removal efficiency and particle size for used and new bags are graphed in
45
-------
Table 12. PARTICLE SIZE MEASUREMENTS AT SUNBURY
STEAM ELECTRIC STATION WITH ANDERSEN
AND UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON CASCADE
IMPACTORS
Run No.
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Baghouse inlet
mmd , urn
Impactor
run A
5.8
7.6
6.0
7.0
U
4.7
5.7
4.6
4.2
5.3
10.0
7.2
11.0
7.3
11.5
U
6.0
8.4
3.3
5.3
6.8
13.0
6.2
7.9
5.6
10.0
8.4
5.5
U
6.1
7.5
Impactor
run B
-
5.8
7.9
U
4.6
4.8
5.3
5.7
4.6
4.3
14.2
U
U
5.8
7.2
5.6
6.3
7.6
3.2
6.6
1.7
6.5
5.5
6.2
10.0
12.0
7.7
8.8
14.0
8.8
6.2
Impactor
run C
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
.
-
-
.
.
6.6
4.6
U
3.1
7.4
8.0
6.6
6.0
5.7
9.0
Baghouse outlet
mmd , ura
Irapactor
A
6.7
4.9
5.3
7.0
3.3ฐ
4.7
4.4ฐ
5.9ฐ
9.4ฐ
6.6ฐ
S
3.6ฐ
4.8ฐ
5.7D
S
S
10. 0D
6.4W
7.5ฐ
6.6ฐ
7.4ฐ
4.8W
2.3W
5.5W
24.0W R
22.0W R
UW
6.0M
2.1W
0.8W
U
2.5W
Impactor
B
7.5
1.3
5.7
8.5
n
4.2ฐ
4.4
P
5.3ฐ
11.5D
S
LM
LW
2.4W
7.7"
5.0W
UW
PD
Pฐ
uw
PD
UW
8.6ฐ
4.2ฐ
4.6ฐ
1.4D
6.0ฐ
12. 0D
5.8ฐ
3.2ฐ
7.4ฐ
n
7.7ฐ
NOTE: U = Point unattainable.
D * Double substrates per stage.
P Impactor with prefilter.
S - Substrates stuck together.
L - Substrates lost weight.
W University of Washington impactor.
R mmd seem!) unreasonable.
46
-------
Figures 9 and 10. The impactor data show that the fractional efficiencies
for the new bags are slightly higher than those for the used bags. This
finding contradicts what would be expected based upon the higher mass effi-
ciencies determined for the used bags. The difference might have been
caused by the Andersen impactor substrate problems described previously.
Furthermore, the shapes of the curves of Figures 9 and 10 are somewhat
distorted for the larger particle sizes because of the use of the Andersen
cyclone precollector at the baghouse inlet. The cyclone collects a sig-
nificant number of particles in the 8 to 10 pm range that would ordinarily
deposit on the upper impactor stages. This results in an incorrectly low
estimate of removal efficiencies for the larger particles. Aside from the'
cascade impactor problem, however, it is believed that seepage and inter-
mittent sloughing off of dust in the form of agglomerated particles may
also constitute a significant fraction of the total effluent.
Table 13. INLET AND OUTLET MASS MEDIAN DIAMETERS
Runs
All, normal and abnormal;
new and used bags
Normal with used bags
Normal with new bags
Inlet mmd, jam
Mean
6.9
7.1
7.0
Standard
deviation
2.5
2.7
2.3
Outlet mmd, pm
Mean
6.3, (5.6a)
5.7
6.4, (4.9b)
Standard
deviation
4.3, (2.5a)
1.8
5.9, (2.2b)
Impactor A data for runs 25 and 26 excluded.
Impactor A data for run 25 excluded.
detailed listing of the condensation nuclei counter (CNC) measurements
is presented in Appendix D. It was determined that the measurements made
with the dilution system prior to the introduction of the in-stack diluter
were inaccurate due to particles being generate4 in the sampling probe.
-------
O NORMAL RUNS EXCEPT THOSE WITH ONE SET OF SUBSTRATES
D NORMAL RUNS WITH ONE SET OF SUBSTRATES
A ABNORMAL RUNS EXCEPT THOSE WITH ONE SET OF SUBSTRATES
c
41
O
LJ
2
UJ
o.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
O.G
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
C.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01,
] X ABNOR
-1 CURVE
" CURVE
ONE S
NOTE'
-
~
-1
._.
._
.-...1 .::
J...I....
._.
L
I ..
j1
VIAL RUNS WITH ONE SET OF SUBSTRATES I
BASED ON AVERAGE OF ALL USED BAG RUNS \
BASED ON AVERAGE OF ALL RUNS EXCEPT THOSE WITH
ET OF SUBSTRATES AND RUN 16
CURVES ARE BELIEVED TO BE BIASED TOWARD LOWER
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR B/j.m AND LARGER PARTICLES
BECAUSE OF USE OF A CYCLONE PRECOLLECTOR ON THE
INLET SAMPLER. :
,. i . i .... i . : !!. : '
: i i . .1 .}..:.-
I O - i I ~
A
L
r
- 1
: j
. . 1
a.:. ..:..:
j:. .-(.:.
, /:-
}VW
... ;. .x
r~
.^iik
:\
c
u. .::
- -C
:-;:!:
.-:: ::.:
....
i
. . .
T '
I
... . !
p
m
...ia.
.. . i -. i.. Y . j ,.- i .
i
3 ! I-' I - ' - I:-"-. 1 :-
_j rij_
: i
... , . .
::: I::;-
V-;i :;. .: T.t|r:- ::;.
....
.--.:
---- --c
- j
;-- I:::
.. . ,...
-i -
T'
:=r~a
:
^\-
1 :::-.:. j._-.j... I ..;..: . ,i ': .. ! ::.
\.--\:~. :.-:
J>-. ',
il::.|:.|:i^
.._
':
....
^
T"
^.:.;.:^:r:.!--
>::^ri:: ::> :' :
-A-
/A
i *
vliLZ
\- i
t
... -; jj -.-
Q] . ...
.... .J.... ....
3
j
S.
A " ::
: . Q . ' .
--
TT
i
j: '. ..
- - ; i
- - : j
- ^j --- 1 -
^-.K-j,::::)::"
L. -I- T". . - A ' i : '
-1 ::
.A.
. . ' ' . .
,.A, .._,
^rf^-1^-'
f
_-
"
*^
...T...
" Y '
1
i A
i j = ! -7 ! T
\ 1
;j
h
. ' ;
: xl
;: A
_
::"
-:).:: :-.
......
f
i > '
'/
* -:.
... .: '.
:-'i ::
~i
: ': i . : .
<:- : i i- '
-::: - -...}. j.;: ::.
.::; ::*.
~
t
: 1
: ! ::.
- i::::
i .
/
. ..:
-.
:*H -
.ZJJ..J. .
,&,-
4-:.:
jf.
^J\
-e-
T
::::
.-:-
... i .. .
;_: -::
..-.
11: nv
;;. i .^i_-:
-. r
i .. .
:::;| ::
::;-N
:-.-
....
-r."
".:
. .
--
-j;
,
,(
I
.-:. .
. .
,
i
--
:.;
1 -
i .
1
1
..|:.
( :
1
, ! '
ซ! ^
7
, J
1 I i
1 V 3 V 5 1? 7 V 9 10 II \Z >i 1'
90.0
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
99.1
99.2
99.3 ^
99.4 g
99.5 tj
a
99.6
O
99.T Z
UJ
O
UJ
99.8 U.
b.
Ul
39.90
99.91
99.92
99.93
99.94
99.95
99.96
99.97
93.98
^99.99
PARTICLE SIZE,/iff!
Figure 9. Removal efficiency as a function of particle size
for runs with used bags
48
-------
O NORMAL RUNS
A ABNORMAL RUNS
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
c
1>
o
0)
Q.
Z
O
1-
cr
UJ
z
UJ
Q.
O.I
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
O.OI
!
.._
! ,
;
~~
v
^
^
-.-<
.
--j <
;;
lr-
.
;:::
_NOTE^ CURVES ARE BELIEVED TO DE BIASED TOWARD LOWER -
,., REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR 6/tm AND LARGER PARTICLES
BECAUSE^ OF USE OF A CYCLONE PRECOLLCCTOR ON THE"."
~] ~ ', ; . ::!: !! ! ~~
\ .
t .
" '
t
V>"
)>_
i
T""1
j
:::..-.
-i -
.!
! ..
g
.
-
; ... )k- i
-ฃฑ^
j
* r
)
i
_
.::_
.
. i
' ". .
.. '!.
;; ;"
::; : <
..!;:.:<
.... (
^
i
i
-r-rf-rrrr
".T
-::
.::.}:.
. _ . | -. .
...
'
::"! :.:
.:::
t
V.
N^'/
A
i
i
i
-:i
:::;::..
.-:
- ,
C
:.::!:::.
!
:.:!::.-
!'i:
:;i:
vi *ป,
L .
;.:.
. ..| ...
. .
...<
i
i.
i
.:_.
L^:
:::| :.
r "
.
. -^i
t
'
....
1
< .
r
I
' A_
^
.:: :::.:(!
...)....
i
:^
rr
..
-
-
T
-l-U_y
xl
.. .
i_:
> i
i
iปh-
^r^ ;::
':.\:.L
r
dp
_ .4
?_L_
;i
--:: ;-
,:::::
... 1..
...}.::
rr
,
-
1
fT
;;
|
: C
..-^
.::'..
-c
x .
j
^
.i. .(
|
ป
S '
.. ;.
...i. ~
-~
:::.!:.
.,
1
-
\
-q
:::.
:
.-/:
-I
i
- -j-~
>
. i .
r
^
1:.
'/i '
ซ*
t
T
~H~~
~ ^~
:::!|: ::
:;;:;::..
. ., .
i
...
...'!:: :
-.-
>
i
i -
--
---
. :.!. ..
....
-
-
-~
'...'
!
-_ 1.
_....
i
i
1
f
-f-|
: i
::: 1.:.
:::! .
... ...
....
'i':
-
I
1
'
.-'
1-4-
-
-- -
.. .i
1
'
:::-
-:.
i
. .1
TT :~
99.0
99.1
99.2
99.3
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.9!
99.92
99.93
99.94
99.95
99.96
99.97
99.98
-------
Therefore, these data are excluded from Table -14 which presents the CNC
data summations. Copies of the CNC chart recordings (concentration versus
real time) when the in-stack diluter was utilized are presented in Appen-
dix E. Average inlet and outlet particle concentrations and estimates of -
penetration are given in Table 15. The CNC sizing measurements on the
filter effluent indicate that the particles were all _>_ 0.015 ym. There
were no successful baghouse inlet sizing measurements with the CNC/DD
system.
Several other variables were monitored in addition to the particulate mea-
surements. The monitored variables included fuel composition, boiler load
and pressure drop across the baghouse. The fuel composition was determined
for each run by analyzing daily samples of pulverized boiler feed, petro-
leum coke, anthracite silt and anthracite number 5 buckwheat. Complete
fuel analyses are presented in Appendix F. The moisture, ash and sulfur
contents of the pulverized feed ranged from 1.6 to 4.2 percent, 16.0 to
31.6 percent, and 1.2 to 3.2 percent, respectively. The average properties
of the components of the pulverized feed arc presented in Table 16. The
boiler load was determined from the Sunbury Steam Electric Station chart
recordings of the boiler steam flow which ranged from 360,000 to 410,000
Ibs/hr for the full load runs. The pressure drop across the baghouse,
which ranged from 2.0 to 3.6 "H20 for the used bags and 0.4 to 0.7 "H20
for the new bags, was also determined from the Sunbury chart recordings.
The averaged daily values of the pulverized feed properties, boiler load,
and the pressure drop across the baghouse are summarized in Table 17.
Although it was intended to regulate certain variables during each test,
ideal control could not always be obtained. Table 18 presents the desired
test characteristics for each run and the observed characteristics. In
addition, the stack gases were monitored for oxygen, carbon dioxide, and
sulfur dioxide by the Mobile Stack Gas Analyzer Trailer during several
tests. These measurements are presented in Appendix H. Elemental analyses
of selected coal and fly ash samples were made using atomic absorption (AA).
50
-------
^lUs
>*"
Table 14. SUMMARY OF CNG MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH
IN-STACK DILUTER
Run no.
26
27
28
Time
17:33
17:45
18:08
18:15
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:10
12:15
12:25
12:33
12:45
13:00
13:13
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:23
14:41
15:00
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
Inlet concentration,
particles/cc
Outlet concentration,
particles/cc
92,000
1,250,000
185,000
105,000
88,000
124,000
153,000
124,000
114',000
116,000
93,000
74,000
91,000
67,000
42,000
74,000
54,000
96.000
93,000
71,000
87,000
47,000
69,000
85,000
2,500,000
2,300,000
520,000
258,000
DD flow,
cc/sec
50
51
-------
Table 14 (continued). SUMMARY OF CNG MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH
IN-STACK DILUTER
Run no.
28
29
Time
12:37
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:40
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
15:00
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
Inlet concentration,
particles/cc
,
Ou.tlet concentration,
particles/cc
272,000
258,000
50,000
111,000
101,000
59,000
121,000
64,000
70,000
158,000
103,000
70,000
27,000
36,000
45,000
48,000
52,000
91,000
37,000
49,000
62,000
62,000
55,000
66,000
62,000
66,000
58,000
54,000
DD flow,
cc/sec
52
-------
Table 14 (continued). SUMMARY OF CNC MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH
IN-STACK. DILUTER
Run no.
29
30
Time
15:00
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
10:45
11:00
11:15
11:30
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:55
14:30
14:45
15:CO
15:10
15:25
15:33
15:40
16:17
16:28
17:02
17:11
17:15
17:18
17:21
Inlet concentration,
particles/cc
Outlet concentration,
particles/cc
43,000
43,000
40,000
37,000
48,000
40,000
65,000
80,000
83,000
86,000
90,000
100,000
100,000
97,000
80,000
72,000
62,000
71,000
98,000
58,000
104,000
126,000
116,000
130,000
111,000
111,000
,93,000
102,000
DD flow,
cc/sec
50
50
50
50
50
50
53
-------
Table 14 (continued). SUMMARY OF CNC MEASUREMENTS MADE WITH
IN-STACK DILUTER
Run no.
30
Time
17:25
17:28
17:29
17:37
17:50
12:04
12:30
12:55
13:10
13:24
13:40
13:55
14:10
14:25
14:35
14:48
15:05
Inlet concentration,
particles/cc
9,500,000
7,600,000
6,700,000
5,600.000
3,400,000
3,600,000
6,200,000
5,600,000
5,800,000
6,600,000
5,500,000
3,800,000
Outlet concentration,
particles/cc
111,000
111,000
111,000
111,000
115,000
DD flow,
cc/sec
50
50
50
50
Table 15. AVERAGE INLET AND OUTLET PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS
MEASURED BY THE CNC
Run no.
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average inlet
concentration,
particles/cc
5,800,000
Average outlet
concentration,
particles/cc
408,000
88,000
332,000
52,000
88,000
*
Estimated
penetration,
percent
7.0
1.5
5.7
0.9
1.5
Based on run no. 31 inlet concentration.
54
-------
Table 16. THE AVERAGE PROPERTIES OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE PULVERIZED FEED
Coal
description
Petroleum
coke
Anthracite
silt
Anthracite
No. 5
buckwheat
As received
Total moisture,
percent
Standard
Mean deviation
7.0 1.7
17.7 1.5
13.7 2.2
Dry basis
Volatile matter,
percent
Standard
Mean deviation
12.0 1.1
7.4 0.6
7.8 0.8
Fixed carbon,
percent
Standard
Mean deviation
87.0 1.4
61.2 4.4
72.1 3.0
Ash,
percent
Standard
Mean deviation
1.0 1.4
31.4 4.6
20.1 3.1
Sulfur,
percent
Standard
Mean deviation
4.8 0.9
0.6 0.2
0.7 0.3
Heating value,
Btu per pound
Standard
Mean deviation
15,296 339
9,776 769
11,728 557
Cn
Ui
-------
Table 17. SUMMARY OF MONITORED VARIABLES
Run no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Pulverized feed
As received
Moisture,
%
2.9
3.1
4.2
3.1
3.0
2.6
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.6
1.7
3.0
2.7
3.2
2.4
2.8
2.6
1.8
2.3
3.5
3.6
4.1
3.5
2.7
3.2
3.6
2.7
3.3
Dry basis
Ash,
%
18.5
19.8
23.6
25.1
23.6
21.1
31.6
29.5
22.6
23.0
19.7
16.0
18.8
18.7
22.2
20.6
23.5
19.0
21.6
22.2
21.7
20.7
22.3
22.6
20.6
23.2
18.3
21.1
23.8
23.1
22.0
Sulfur,
%
2.1
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.2
3.2
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.4
1.6
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.5
2.0
Average
boiler
steam load,
1000 Ibs/hr
400
405
410
395
400
410
410
400
400
370
360
325
325
310
390
390
375
400
400
380
375
370
380
410
380
400
400
410
370
390
400
Baghouse
pressure drop,
in. H20
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
3.6
3.5
2.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
56
-------
Table 18. DESIRED AND OBSERVED PARAMETERS FOR EACH RUN
Run
No.
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Pulverized feed
Desired
ash,
percent
24
24
24
24
20
20
24
26
26
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
20
20
24
26
26
24
Observed
ash,
percent
18.5
19.8
23.6
25.1
23.6
21.1
(3J.T6V
29.5
22.6
23.0
19.7
16.0
18.8
18.7
22.2
20.6
23.5
19.0
21.6
22.2
21.7
20.7
22.3
22.6
20.6
23.2
18.3
21.1
23.8
23.1
22.0
Desired
sulfur,
percent
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.4
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.4
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.7
Observed
sulfur,
percent
2.1
2.3
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.2
3.2
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.4
1.6
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.5
2.0
Desired
steam flow,
1000 Ibs/hr
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
300
300
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Observed
steam flow,
1000 Ibs/hr
400
410
400
395
400
410
410
400
400
370
360
325
325
310
390
390
375
400
400
380
375
3/0
380
410
380
400
400
410 '
370
390
400
Desired
face
velocity,
f t/min
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.42
2.42
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
Observed
face
velocity,
ft/rain
2.02
2.11
2.03
2.07
2.18
2.21
2.03
2.05
2.07
2.08
1.88
1.82
1.69
1.64
2.05
2.05
1.95
2.07
2.45
2.36
2.01
2.10
2.02
1.96
2.01
2.05
2.22
2.15
1.95
1.99
2.05
57
-------
The results of these analyses are presented in Table 19. Along with the
AA analyses, some samples were examined by scanning electron microscopy
and X-ray fluorescence. Photomicrographs at four magnifications of one
fly ash sample are shown in Figures 11, 12, 13 and 14. The elemental
analyses for the fly ash sample based upon X-ray fluorescence indicated
Al, Si, S, K, Ti and Fe as primary components.
The effect of purposely altered variables was studied by performing two
sample t-tests on the mean penetration and outlet concentration values
for the normal runs versus each pair of abnormal runs for both the used
bags and the new bags and for the normal runs with new bags versus the
normal runs with used bags. These comparisons were made to determine
if the null hypothesis that the means are equal would be accepted or
rejected at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 confidence levels. The designation
of a run as normal or abnormal was based on the Sunbury Test Plan presented
in Table 1, in which the normal runs were those with full boiler load, nor-
mal fuel mixture and normal baghouse operation.
The results of the t-tests are presented in Table 20. Table 20 shows that
the effect of varying the fuel mixture, load, and baghouse operation had no
statistically -significant effect at the 0.10 level on either the outlet con-
centration or the penetration when the used bags were studied. However,
varying the fuel mixture exerted a significant effect at the 0.10 level on
the outlet concentration when the new bags were used. Significant differ-
ences in the outlet concentrations were also displayed at the 0.10, 0.05
and 0.01 levels and in the penetrations at the 0.10 and 0.05 levels when
the normal runs for the new bags were compared with the normal runs for the
used bags. The significant differences cited above are believed to be
caused by the reduced fly ash holdings for the new bags as indicated by the
lower pressure drop of 0.7 in. HO for the new bags as compared to 2.7 in.
EjO for the used bags.
Multiple regression analyses were used to identify which of the indepen-
dent variables might (a) explain the variability in selected dependent
58
-------
Table 19. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED COAL AND FLY ASH SAMPLES FROM BOILER NO. 1A
Z Ash
Ash analysis
% Loss on ignition
7. Moisture
7. Silica (Si02)
7, Iron oxide (Fe203)
7. Aluminum oxide (Al,0_)
7. Calcium oxide (CaO)
7. Titanium oxide (Ti02>
% Potassium oxide (K20)
7. Sodium oxide (Na-0)
Coal samples
3/22/75
22.65
-
-
54.75
18.77
19.29
Trace
1.19
0.94
0.15
3/24/75
21.83
-
-
57.65
17.29
18.52
Trace
1.19
0.98
0.14
3/26/75
21.15
-
-
55.80
18.79
18.72
Trace
1.19
0.80
0.16
3/28/75
22.14
-
-
57.30
17.29
18.52
Trace
1.19
0.78
0.14
Fly ash samples
3/22/75
-
3.89
0.39
47.91
26.76
18.95
Trace
1.43
0.12
0.05
3/24/75
-
5.27
0.50
44.62
23.70
18.66
Trace
1.40
0.16
0.05
3/26/75
-
4.17
0.12
45.22
28.91
18.95
Trace
1.29
0.11
0.05
3/28/75
-
2.69
0.17
47.60
28.27
19.23
Trace
1.31
0.11
0.05
VO
-------
Figure 11. Fly ash from 1-A .bag-
house hopper number 2,
March 26, 1975; scan-
ning electron micro-
graph; 1000 magnifi-
cation at 20 kV
Figure 12. Fly ash from 1-A bag-
'house hopper number 2,
March 26, 1975; scan-
ning electron micro-
graph; 2000 magnifi-
cation at 20 kV
Figure 13. Fly ash from 1-A bag-
house hopper number 2,
March 26, 1975; scan-
ning electron micro-
graph; 5000 magnifi-
cation at 20 kV
Figure 14. Fly ash from 1-A bag-
house hopper number 2,
March 26, 1975; scan-
ning electron micro-
graph; 10,000 magnifi-
cation at 20 kV
60
-------
Table 20. RESULTS OF t-tests
Description
of type of run
of sample 1
Normal runs ,
with used bags
Normal runs ,
witli used bags
Normal runs ,
with used bags
Normal runs ,
with used bags
Normal runs ,
0
with used bags
Normal runs
with new bags
Normal runs
witli new bags
Normal runs
with new bags
Description
of type of run
of sample 2
Type A abnormal runs
with used bags
Type B abnormal runs
with used bags
Type C abnormal runs
with used bags
Type D abnormal runs
with used bags
rt
Type E abnormal runs
with used bags
Type A abnormal runs
with new bags
Type B abnormal runs
with new bags
Normal runs ,
with 'used bags
Accept or reject the null hypothesis that
the sample 1 and sample 2 means arc equal
Outlet concentration
At 0.10
level
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
reject
reject
reject
At 0.05
level
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
reject
At 0.01
level
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
reject
Penetration
At 0.10
level
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
reject
At 0.05
level
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
reject
At 0.01
level
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
accept
Normal runs were those runs in which no parameters were purposely varied.
Does not include runs 2 and 3 because of suspected vacuuming of the duct floor on the outlet.
cType A abnormal runs were those runs designed to have a fuel mixture containing maximum
sulfur and minimum ash.
Type B abnormal runs were those runs designed to have a fuel mixture containing maximum ash
and minimum sulfur.
Type C abnormal runs were those runs at reduced load (approximately 3/4 designed load).
Type D abnormal runs were those runs during which there was 1/2 hour between cleaning cycles.
Normally, when one cleaning cycle would end, the next would begin.
^Type E abnormal runs were those runs during which two of the fourteen compartments were taken
out of service.
61
-------
variables and (b) indicate to what extent each of the measured independent
variables might explain the variability. The dependent variables selected
were the baghouse particulate penetration, the baghouse outlet particulate
concentration and the mass median diameter of the particles in the baghouse
effluent. The regression analyses were made on the series of normal runs
with the used bags, the normal runs with the new bags, and on all the runs.
Runs 2 and 3 were excluded from all analyses because of suspected pick up
of dust from the duct floor due to sampling nozzle proximity. The values
of the dependent and independent variables used in the regression analysis
(7^ ,.^
for each series of runs are presented in Tables 21, 22, and 231 The list
of variables analyzed and their contributions toward explaining the varia-
tion in the dependent variables are presented in Table 24.
Table 24 shows that for the complete series of tests (Case 1) most of the
variability in penetration is explained by the inlet concentration (48.58
percent), most of the variability of the outlet concentration is explained
by the baghouse pressure drop (45.55 percent) and most of the variability
of the outlet mmd is explained by the number of compartments in use (9.93
percent).
For the series of normal runs with the used bags (Case 2) 99.45 percent of
the variation in penetration is explained by the moisture content of the
fuel (63.04 percent), sulfur content of the fuel (11.89 percent), inlet
mass median diameter (mmd) (7.90 percent), ash content (3.80 percent) and
face velocity (2.12 percent).
For the normal runs with the used bags, most of the variability of the
penetration is explained by the moisture content (63.40 percent), most of
the variability of the outlet concentration is explained by the face veloc-
ity (32.26 percent) and most of the variability of the outlet mmd is also
explained by the face velocity (56.31 percent).
*
For the normal runs with the new bags (Case 3) most of the variability of
the penetration is explained by the inlet concentration (81.60 percent),
62
-------
Table 21. VALUES OF THE CASE 1 VARIABLES USED IN THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
U)
Run
No.
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Kc.in
Standard
deviation
Tnlot
concentration,
gr/dscf
3.6296
4.1235
2.6?,51
2.5243
3.1661
2.2977
2.4280
3.2026
2.6678
2. cm
2.6020
2.8845
2.6728
2.4403
2.5058
1.8291
2.8942
2.2016
1.6694
1.3822
3.2646
2.0503
3.0946
2.3359
1.3477
3.0022
2.0174
2. 034 3
2.2181
2.5328
0.6346
Oi.Clct
concentration,
gr/dncf
0.0022
0.0013
0.0017
0.0014
0.0014
0.0014
0.0015
0.0016
0.0033
0.0017
0.0020
0.0015
0.0016
0.0013
0.0016
0.0013
0.0016
0.0018
0.0019
0.0031
0.0028
0.0029
0.0025
0.0022
0.0022
0.0022
0.0023
0.0020
0.0022
0.0020
0.0006
Penetration,
7.
0.06
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.12
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.08
0.11
0.22
0.09
0.14
0.08
0.09
0.16
0.07
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.04
Jnlct
flvnd ,
pm
5.8
7.0
4.6
4.7
5.5
5.1
4.4
4.8
11.9
7.2
11.0
6.5
9.1
5.6
6.1
8.0
3.2
5.9
3.4
8.2
5.4
7.0
5.6
9.6
8.0
6.8
9.2
6.7
7.5
6.4
1.4
Ovltlut
mrr.d,
urn
7.1
7.7
3.7
4.5
4.4
5.6
10.4
6.6
6.1
3.6
3.4
6.6
5.0
6.1
10. 0
6.4
7.5
6.6
7.4
6.4
3.1
5.0
5.8
11.5
12.0
5.9
2.6
2.4
4.4
6.1
2.5
Kui-1
moisture ,
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.6
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.6
1.7
3.0
2.7
3.2
2.4
2.8
2.6
1.8
2.3
3.5
3.6
A.I
3.5
2.7
3.2
3.6
2.7
3.3
2.9
0.5
Fuel
ash,
7.
18.5
25.1
23.6
21.1
31.6
29.5
22.6
23.0
19.7
16.0
18.8
18.7
22.2
20.6
23.5
19.0
21.6
22.2
21.7
20.7
22.3
22.6
20.6
23.2
18.3
21.1
23.3
23.1
22.0
22.0
3.1
Flic; I
sulfur ,
7.
2.1
1.7
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.2
3.2
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.4
1.6
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.8
0.4
Steam
flow,
1000 Ibs/hr
400
395
400
410
410
400
400
370
360
325
325
310
390
390
375
400
400
380
375
370
380
410
3SO
400
400
410
370
390
400
384
26
Face
velocity.
ft/oin
2.02
2.07
2.13
2.21
2.03
2.05
2.07
2.03
1.R8
1.82
1.69
1.64
2.05
2.05
1.98
2.07
2.45
2.36
2.01
2.10
2.02
1.96
2.01
2.05
2.22
2.15
1.95
1.99
2.05
2.04
0.16
Baphouse
pressure
drop.
2.8
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.7-
2.7
2.7
3. ft
3.5
2.S
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2.0
1.0
per hour
23
23
28
2&
25
2$
25
:s
:s
:s
:s
2S
28
U
14
:s
2S
:s
:s
23
23
28
25
28
:s
23
:s
:s
23
27.0
3.6
*Caie 1 ii the entire aerie* of test* Including the normal and abnormal run* with the new and used bags, except rune 2 and 3 which vere discounted
bซc*u>* of uipectwl vacuuaing of thซ outlet duct floor during canpiing.
-------
Table 22. VALUES OF THE CASE 2 VARIABLES USED IN THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
No.
1
4
7
10
11
12
15
18
21
Mean
Standard
deviation
ijr/dscf
3.6296
4.1235
3.1661
3.2926
2.6678
2.0891
2.6728
1.8291
1.6694
2.7933
0.8349
0.0022
0.0013
0.0014
0.0016
0.0033
0.0017
0.0016
0.fJ013
0.0019
0.0018
0.0006
7.
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.03
T^1
5.8
7.0
5.5
4.8
11.9
7.2
9.1
8.0
3.4
7.0
2.5
uซ
7.1
7.7
4.4
6.6
6.1
3.6
5.0
6.4
7.4
6.0
1.4
7.
2.9
3.1
3.4
3.0
2.5
2.1
3.0
2.4
1.8
2.7
0.5
18.5
25.1
31.6
23.0
19.7
16.0
22.0
19.0
21.7
21.9
4.5
7.
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.2
3.2
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.8
0.6
1000 Ibs/hr
400
395
410
370
360
325
390
400
375
380
26
ft/nin
2.02
2.07
2.03
2.03
1.88
1.82
2.05
2.07
2.01
2.00
0.09
3ปshouปe
pressure
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.6
0.2
per hour
23
28
23
28
23
23
28
23
23
28
0
*Caปe 2 U the series of normal runs with the used bags, except runs 2 and 3 which were discounted because of suspected vacuuming of the outlet duct floor
during lanpling.
Table 23. VALUES OF THE CASE 3 VARIABLES USED IN THE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Run
No.
22
23
24
25
23
31
Hean
Standard
deviation
Inlet
concentration,
grAJ'icf
1.3f>22
3.2W6
2.0503
3. 094 6
3.0022
2.2181
2.5020
0.7378
Outlet
concentration,
gr/d-ic f
0.0031
0.0028
0.0029
0.0025
0.0022
0.0022
0.0026
0.0004
Penetration,
7.
0.22
0.09
0.14
0.08
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.06
Inlet
mmd ,
urn
8.2
5.4
7.0
5.6
6.8
7.5
6.8
1.1
Outlet
trand ,
pro
6.4
3.1
5.0
5.8
5.9
4.4
5.1
1.2
Fuel
moisture,
7
2.3
3.5
3.6
4.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
0.6
Fuel
ash,
7.
20.7
22.3
22.6
?0.6
21.1
22.0
21.5
0.8
Fuel
sulfur,
7.
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.4
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.2
Stoam
flow,
1000 llis/hr
370
380
410
380
410
400
392
17
Face
veloc i ty,
Ct/min
2.10
2.02
1.96
2.01
2.15
2.05
2.05
0.07
Baghiiuse
pressure
drop,
"ii2U
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.1
Co~7'3rtrปents
cleaned
per hour
28
23
28
28
:s
2S
28
0
*Ca*e 3 i* the >erle> of normal run* with the new bagซ.
-------
Table 24. RESULTS OF MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSES
Variable
Inlet concentration
Inlet mass median
diameter (mmd)
Moisture content
of fuel
Ash content
of fuel
Sulfur content
of fuel
Steam flow
Face velocity
Number of compartments
cleaned per hour
Baghouse pressure drop
Variability of the dependent variable explained by the independent variable, percent
Case la
Penetration
48.58
< 1
1.56
< 1
< 1
< 1
2.68
< 1
20.51
Outlet
concentration
< 1
< 1
< 1
3.14
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
45.55
Outlet
mmd
< 1
1.76
2.49
< 1
< 1
3.43
5.75
9.93
< 1
Case 2b
Penetration
< 1
7.90
63.40
3.80
11.89
4.54
2.12
same for
all runs
5.50
Outlet
concentration
17.43
5.37
< 1
9.39
16.76
10.37
32.26
same for
all runs
7.73
Outlet
mmd
16.50
9.84
2.41
< 1
6.58
6.08
56.31
same
for
all
runs
1.98
Case 3C
Penetration
81.60
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
same for
all runs
17.75
Outlet
concentration
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
1.04
11.89
5.68
sane for
all runs
81.27
Outlet
c=d
< 1
40.41
2.65
56.45
< 1
< 1
< 1
sa^e
for
all
runs
< 1
t-n
Case 1 is the entire series of tests including the normal and abnormal runs with the new and used bags, except runs 2 and 3 which
were discounted because 01 suspected vacuuming of the outlet duct floor during sampling.
Case 2 is the series of normal runs with the used bags, except runs 2 and 3 which were discounted because of suspected vacuuming
of the outlet duct floor during sampling.
cCase 3 is the series of normal- runs with the new bags.
-------
most of the variability of the outlet concentration is explained by the
baghouse pressure drop (81.27 percent) and most of the variability of the
outlet mmd is explained by the ash content of the pulverized boiler feed
(56.45 percent).
The multiple regression analysis also calculated the constant and the co-
efficients of the independent variables for the line of best fit through
the data points. Equations (1), (2), and (3) were constructed for all
the runs except runs 2 and 3 and include normal and abnormal conditions
for the new and used bags. Runs 2 and 3 were omitted because of suspected
vacuuming of the duct floor during sampling. The standard error of each
coefficient has been included to show the variability and, therefore, in-
dicate the precision of the coefficient.
Equation (1) explains 73.33 percent of the variations in the penetrations.
penetration (%) = 0.1607
- (0.0270 ฑ 0.0083)(inlet concentration, grains/dscf)
- (0.0186 ฑ 0.0107)(moisture, %)
+ (0.0455 ฑ 0.0293)(face velocity, ft/min)
- (0.0246 ฑ 0.0055)(baghouse pressure drop, "H-0). (1)
Equation (2) explains 48.69 percent of the variations in the outlet
concentrations.
concentration (grains/dscf) = 0.00333
- (0.00003 ฑ 0.00003)(ash, %)
- (0.00035 ฑ 0.00008)(baghouse pressure drop, "HO). (2)
Equation (3) explains 23.36 percent of the variations in the outlet mass
median diameters.
66
-------
mass median diameters (ym) = 3.7163
- (0.1405 ฑ 0.1933)(inlet mmd, ym)
- (0.7548 ฑ 0.6175)(moisture, %)
+ (0.0171 ฑ 0.0180)(steam flow, 1000 Ibs/hr)
+ (0.2406 ฑ 2.5765)(face velocity, ft/min)
- (0.1483 ฑ 0.0782)(number of compartments cleaned per hour). (3)
Equations (4), (5), and (6) are constructed from all the runs except
runs 2 and 3 with the system operating normally using the used bags.
Equation (4) explains 99.5 percent of the variations in the penetrations.
penetration (%) = 1.2093
- (0.0053 ฑ 0.0024)(inlet mmd, ym)
- (0.0250 ฑ 0.0111)(moisture, %)
- (0.0021 ฑ 0.0010)(ash, %)
- (0.0525 ฑ 0.0125)(sulfur, %)
+ (0.0007 ฑ 0.0003)(steam flow, 1000 Ibs/hr)
- (0.4727 ฑ 0.1080)(face velocity, ft/min)
- (0.0907 ฑ 0.0474)(baghouse pressure drop, "HO). ' (4)
Equation (5) explains 99.32 percent of the variations in the outlet
concentrations.
concentration (grains/dscf) = 0.03700
+ (0.00052 ฑ 0.00010)(inlet concentration, grains/dscf)
- (0.00019 ฑ 0.00004)(inlet mmd, ym)
- (0.00010 ฑ 0.00002)(ash, %)
- (0.00165 ฑ 0.00024)(sulfur, %)
+ (0.00002 ฑ 0.00000)(steam flow, 1000 Ibs/hr)
- (0.01611 ฑ 0.00204)(face velocity, ft/min)
*
- (0.00283 ฑ 0.00084)(baghouse pressure drop, "H20). (5)
67
-------
Equation (6) explains 99.70 percent of the variations in the outlet mass
median diameters.
mass median diameter (ym) = 0.8982
+ (1.1320 ฑ 0.1227)(inlet concentration, grains/dscf)
- (0.2498 ฑ 0.0433)(inlet mmd, ym)
- (2.3952 ฑ 0.2316)(moisture, %)
- (0.4629 ฑ 0.2439)(sulfur, %)
+ (0.0368 ฑ 0.0050)(steam flow, 1000 Ibs/hr)
+ (5.2412 ฑ 2.1313)(face velocity, ft/min)
- (5.3960 ฑ 0.9032)(baghouse pressure drop, "HJD). (6)
Equations (7), (8), and (9) are constructed for the runs with the system
operating normally using the new bags.
Equation (7) explains 99.35 percent of the variations in the penetrations.
penetration (%) = 0.3825
- (0.0550 ฑ 0.0038)(inlet concentration, grains/dscf)
- (0.2200 ฑ 0.0243)(baghouse pressure drop, "H20). (7)
Equation (8) explains 99.88 percent of the variations in the outlet
concentrations.
concentration (grains/dscf) = 0.00188
+ (0.00025 ฑ 0.00000)(sulfur, %)
+ (0.00002 ฑ 0.00000)(steam flow, 1000 Ibs/hr)
- (0.00151 ฑ 0.00000)(face velocity, ft/min)
- (0.00475 ฑ 0.00000)(baghouse pressure drop, "H20). (8)
Equation (9) explains 99.51 percent of the variations in the outlet mass
median diameters.
68
-------
mass median diameter (ym) = 10.6406
+ (0.6543 ฑ 0.0600)(inlet mmd, urn)
+ (0.2518 ฑ 0.0763)(moisture, %)
- (0.5415 ฑ 0.0355)(ash, %). (9)
When using the numbers generated by the multiple regression analysis,
several factors should be considered. First, although the statistical
analyses were made on a substantial number of data sets 29 for Case 1,
9 for Case 2, and 6 for Case 3 the above quantities are minimal for
statistical analysis. Accordingly, the greatest confidence in the results
of the analyses is placed on Case 1, because it has the most data sets.
Second, the extent to which the independent variables could be changed
was limited because of the nature of the installation tested. Therefore,
the range over which parameters were varied should be kept in mind when
using the results of the analysis to predict what might occur in another
system. Third, the analytical procedure is designed so that, when two or
more of the independent variables explain the same variability of a depen-
dent variable, the procedure will select only one of the variables to which
to attribute all of the common influence, thereby overshadowing the other
variable(s). Finally, the accuracy of the mmd values used in the analyses
is somewhat questionable because of the impactor problems described pre-
viously in Section V.
The multiple regression analyses produced the expected results in most
cases. Table 24 shows, for Cases 1 and 3, a strong dependency of pene-
tration and outlet concentration on baghouse pressure drop; and Equations
(1), (2), (7), and (8) predict a decrease in penetration and outlet con-
centration for an increase in baghouse pressure drop. It has been docu-
mented that penetration and outlet concentration decrease as fabric
filter pressure drop increases when the increase in baghouse pressure
11 12
is caused by an increased cloth loading. ' At Sunbury, the major
differences in cloth loadings were due to renewal of the 2-year-old bags.
69
-------
Table 24 also shows, for Cases 1 and 3, a strong dependency of penetra-
tion on inlet concentration, but no dependency of outlet concentration
On inlet concentration; and Equations (1) and (7) predict a decrease in
penetration for an increase in inlet concentration. These relationships
support previous studies which showed that the outlet concentration is
13
relatively unaffected by the inlet concentration. For Case 1, the
relatively small effects attributed to the independent variables in ex-
plaining the outlet mmd's indicates that they are only slightly affected
by the changes made. In Case 3, however, the strong dependence of outlet
mmd's on the inlet mmd seems reasonable because, when the new bags had
very little cloth loading, some of the inlet particles may have been able
to pass through the fabric. This is supported by Equation (9) which pre-
dicts an increase in outlet mmd for an increase in inlet mmd. In Case 2,
the high dependency of penetration on the moisture content of the fuel
and the lack of dependency on the inlet concentration is difficult to
explain. When the penetration is plotted against the inlet concentration
and moisture content of the fuel for Case 2, two very similar curves re-
sult. It is, therefore, theorized that the moisture content of the fuel
overshadowed the effect of the inlet concentration, causing the analysis
to give unexpected results. Also, in Case 2, the high dependencies of
outlet concentration and outlet mmd on face velocity were unexpected, and
since the strong dependence is not evident in Case 1, it is thought to be
due to coincidence rather than a real effect. The strong dependence of
outlet mmd on ash content of the fuel is also believed to be caused by
coincidence because of the absence of dependency in Case 1.
70
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. Janoso, R.P. Baghouse Dust Collector on a Low Sulfur Coal-Fired
Utility Boiler. Paper presented at Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, June 9-13, 1974.
2. Wagner, N.H. and D. C. Housenick. Sunbury Steam Electric Station
Unit Numbers 1 and 2, Design and Operation of a Baghouse Dust
Collector for a Pulverized Coal-Fired Utility Boiler. Paper
Presented at the Pennsylvania Electric Association Engineering
Section, Power Generation Committee Spring Meeting, Shawnee, Pa.
May 17-18, 1973.
3. Aerotherm High Volume Stack Sampler Operating and Service Manual,
Aerotherm Division. Acurex Corporation, Mountain View, California.
4. Harris, D. B. and J. H. Turner. Particulate and S0?/S0o Measurements
Around an Anthracite Steam Generator Baghouse. Particulate and
Chemical Processes Branch Control Systems Laboratory Office of
Research and Development Environmental Protection Agency National
Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
November 8, 1973.
5. Geltnan 1969 Catalog, Gelman Instrument Company, P.O. Box 1448,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
6. Smith, W. B., K. M. Gushing, G. E. Lacey, and J. D. McCain. Particu-
late Sizing Techniques for Control Device Evaluation. Southern
Research Institute. Report No. EPA 650/2-74-102-a. August 1975.
7. Instrument Instruction Manual for Condensation Nuclei Monitor Model
Rich 100, Environment/One Corporation, Schenectady, New York.
8. Telephone Conversation with Mr. Ernie Demetrie, Environment/One
Corporation, Schenectady, New York.
71
-------
9. Bissette, Leon. Mobile Stack Gas Analyzer Trailer System Description
and Operating Manual. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Prepared for National Environmental Research Center.
August 1975.
10. Smith, W. B., K. M. Gushing, and J. D. McCain. Particulate Sizing
Techniques for Control Device Evaluation. Southern Research Insti-
tute. Report No. EPA 650/2-74-102. October 1974.
11. Billings, C. E. and J. E. Wilder. Handbook of Fabric Filter
Technology, Volume I, Fabric Filter Systems Study: GCA/Technology
Division. Department A, Clearing House, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Springfield, Va. 22151, Contract CPA-22-69-38, PA-200-648.
December 1970.
12. Dennis, R. and J. E. Wilder. Fabric Filter Cleaning Studies. GCA/
Technology Division, Bedford, Mass. Control Systems Laboratory,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. Report No. EPA 650/2-75-009.
January 1975. -
13. Dennis, R. Collection Efficiency as a Function of Particle Size,
Shape and Density: Theory and Experience. J Air Poll Control
Assoc. 24(12):1156-1163, December 1974.
72
-------
APPENDIX A
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
73
-------
100
2 5 10 20 40 GO 80 SO 05 "3
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 15. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 1
74
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 16. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 1
75
-------
100
O INUCT RUN A
D IIJLCT RUN
5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 95 ?8
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 17. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 2
76
-------
100
! \ * OUTLCT IWPACTOH A
CUTLCI IIJPACIOR (I
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 18. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 2
77
-------
100
O INLCT RUM A
1 D INLCT HUH
2 5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 95 ?3
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 19. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 3
78
-------
100
* OUTLCT IMPACTOH A
A OUTtCT IMPACTOR D
2 D 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 20. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 3
79
-------
100
O INLCT RUM A
D INLCT RUM 8
2 0 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 21. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 4
80
-------
100
* OUTltT IWPACTOH A
OUTttl IMPACTOR 0
2 5 10 20 40 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 22. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 4
81
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 ?S
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 23. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 5
82
-------
100
L X OUTLET IMP1CTOH A
' A OUTLET IMPACTOR D
2 5 10 20 -10 CO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 24. Outlet cumulative particle, size distribution for run 5
83
-------
100
r O INLCT RUM ป
: D INLCT RUN a
20 40 60 80 90 95 ฃ>9
PERCENTAGE OF MASS-LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 25. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 6
84
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 93 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 26. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 6
85
-------
100
O INLCT RUH A
D INLCT RUN
5 10 20 -10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 27. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 7
86
-------
loo
V)
1
/
-
~
_
_..
^
/
"
J
xiL_
"
T
\
|
....
-
/ i i : j ' i
X i '<;:'= ;..!".
/
/
x
_ "-,,
.
. _.
\ ' i i _.''!
i I
\.
I
~
__
. . -._.
-.-j-l-J--
1 :
-~
~
-
-
_.
1
4
-
i
-)-{-
' '!
-
i
....
-
\
r'
._.
.
"
- -
X OUTLET IMPtCTOH A
1
O.I
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 93 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 28. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 7
87
-------
100
~ O INLCT RUM A
I D IHLCT nun e
2 5 10 20 -10 GO 80 90 05 ?3
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 29. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 8
83
-------
AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER, MICROMETERS
0 - _ c
- 0 0 c
... _ ^-
A"'
. ..-:..
' t
PER
-----
: ; :
^ ;
..
.....
--
_^_
-
_s^
X
...
_.
I
.
_
~
-
__.
~Yt
//
;&\ :
J>
/
. ..i
;
i
- i
....
j
-
...
i
/C^
'/
I
"!-
i
.__
.......
:
i
-^
>
-
-
,
^
A
...
^
i
}
k
i
!
i-
....
X OUTLET IMPACTOK A
A OUTLCT IMPACTOR 0
i
> 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 99
CENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 30. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 8
89
-------
100
O INLCT RUM A
D INLCT Run
5 10 20 1O CO 80 00 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 31. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run !
90
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 32. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 9
*
91
-------
100
Z 5 10 20 40 GO 80 90 95 ?8
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 33. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 10
92
-------
AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER. MICROMETERS
b o c
_
1
.. .j ...
T
.
/
X
I
~Jป
/-
1 .
i_ .
|
- -
1
" L.
1 " .
^
/*
-
....
...
._
-
.J
t
i
-
.._
/
...
I^ 2
y
f
^
j/"i t
r
"TT/~
- V
/
...
-
/
1 !
"1
\ \
\
-
\
I
'
i
_
__
-
S
*s
^
.
.X
' 1 1 J
1
.' ; i
; i
i
\
t
\
\
!
_.
...
-
._
'_[
-
i
1
--
~
-
...
-
_..
-
._.
X 0
.
imtT IWPACtOH A
1
2 5 10 20 40 CO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 34. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 10
93
-------
100
O INLCT RUM A
O INLCT RUM B
2 5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 9'J ?3
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 35. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 11
94
-------
roo
O INLCT RUM A
D IliLCT RUN S
2 S 10 20 00 GO 80 SO 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS' LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 36. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 12
95
-------
AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER. MICROMETERS
P - - c
O O c
; ^ _t | ^^ i ^ ' n IL_^
! 1
1
-1
i
_.
1
. . ,
: 1
1
r
1
_L .. _
t '.
;.
---*=
'
i
c~r
^
L
_.
: r-
1 . ;
: i I
> t
i. i
;
: i. : '
.
; i '
i
tf
4
i ,
>
)
/ !
/
/r , i
X
-f-
,_ i
1 '
' j _ -J =.X :.A ., .
. .
;:
:,.
:
,L__
! -^X! :
^
,
!
"' " " "
:
... i . .
! i
. f r .
! L
t
1
j
1 '
li
--'/: '. -
/!:{!
i
1 i
...
i
\
i
|
1
'
. . .
_i_
:
r
i
-
/
] L
1 I
I
'
1
-
I
-
1 OUTLET IMPRCTOH A
1
2 5 10 20 10 CO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS.LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 37. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 12
96
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 ?3
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 38. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 13
97
-------
100
OUUlT ItXPACtOR A
A OU11CT IUPACTOR B
(UW)
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 39. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 13
93
-------
v>
ic, 10
Ul
5
O
o
S
*
U
s
5
0
2
z
o
d
<
x
/
1_D_
r^
3
: : :
I ;
''"'/
^:
-----
l
: ' . .j
X
X y
/
/
cn
f
I
i :
| '
i
i
.
V,
T^
/
f":
i
f
(-?1
//
/ '
.__._
^
._ .
i
A
/ ,>
f .S
J
.. ;_:
t
T
/:/
s
..__..
-~
, '
i
I
$
;
_. .
1
j
!
i
...j.._.|
O 1NLCT (
D INLCT 1
1
1U)I A
-------
AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER. MICROMETERS
b o c
1
. : 1 .
- --
-_.
1 !
^
.-
^- *"
i
1
--
_...
. . t
.
^ป
_
,x
|
../
fr
....
-
..
-
...
...
i
_
...
.ฃ.
r
/
/
L-^
"I"' >& 1
J XL' 7
/
L
'
--
7
r
i
i i
...
...
~i~
__j_
:
i t
,
_!__
-4-
-
~
L
/
/
--
-
....
/
A
/-
._.
^
., X
>-*"*(
i
1
t
l_~L~
! 1
1
...
...
-
u_
^
.
..-.
3
~}
,
I
^
_
^x
\
_
1 OUUCT IMPACTOR Jk
A OUlltT IUPACTOR B
(UW)
1
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 41. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 14
100
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 P'j 23
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 15. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run
74
-------
100
O INLCT nun *
D WUCT RUN e
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 42. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 15
101
-------
100
CO
a:
ui
I-
u
5
O
K
O
2
ป
K.
LJ
H
LJ
O
<
I
O
c:
ui
10
znnz
1.0
i
O.I
A OUUCT IUPACTOR H
(UW)
1
5 10 20 40 GO 80 00 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 43. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 15
102
-------
100
O INLCT RUN A
O INLCT BUN
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 ?8
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 44. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 16
103
-------
100
5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 45. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 16
104
-------
100
O INUCT nun ป
D INLtT BOH 8
2 5 10 20 -10 GO 80 9O 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 46. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 17
105
-------
100
CO
ฃ 10
H
UJ
5
O
C
o
5
K
\jJ
H
U
2
<
O
o
<
z
s
o 1.0
Ul
<
O.I
..1.
.. ^ j
"T"
1. .
X OUTLCT IMPACTOB *
Z 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 47. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 17
106
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 00 95 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 48. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 18
107
-------
100
O'JILtT IMPACTOR ป (OW)
O.I
t
!
i
i
i :
' :
r ;
i : '
i
i
i
2 5 10 20 40 GO 80 90 95 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 49. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 18
108
-------
100
O INLCT RUN A
D IIJLCT RUM 8
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 00 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 50. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 19
109
-------
100
2 0 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 51. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 19
110
-------
100
O INLCT RUM A
D IIJLCT BUN B
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 52. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 20
111
-------
100
M
cc
LJ
H
U
2
o
cr
o
Ul
H
u
<
o
o
o
cc
Ul
1.0
O.I
!'"'"' -r-T-. -"r ;-r-
^ ___[_: _L :'';
"I'
. X : ^_:.
/ ! i
"/ r--r
..LI
_j k t
' J I
.... ,._. J
X CU^LtT IWPACTOR ป (UW>
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 53. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 20
112
-------
100
,..._., ._ - . . _ r
O 1NLCT RUM A
D INLCT BUM
2 5 10 20 40 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 54. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 21
113
-------
100
w i. X OUTLCT IMPACTOR A
: A OuUCT IUP/.CTOR t
(UW)
5 10 20 10 GO 80 SO 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 55. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 21
114
-------
100
O IM.CT RUN A
D li.Ltt f>u:< P (NO CYCLONE)
+ IMIT RUS C
! II !-.! 'I
5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 9'j ?3
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 56. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 22
115
-------
100
2 0 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 57. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 22
116
-------
100
O IKLCT RUN *
D li.UCT nun P (NO CYCl.ONEl
H\1H C
5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 58. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 23
117
-------
100
- Jt OUUtT IMPACTOR A (OW)
' A OUTltT IMTACTOR 8
5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 59. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 23
118
-------
ioo
O INLCT RUN A
D It.ui nun P (NO CYCLONE)
'. + HUH RU* C
1 I * i -. : ', ' ป ' I ' i
Z 5 10 20 40 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 60. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 24
119
-------
100
X OylLtT IMP1CTOR ป (UW)
OUTltT IMrACTOR B
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 61. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 24
120
-------
100
O IKLCT RUM A
D U.LC1 Diri P (NO CYCLONE)
4- IIซUT CUN e
! I ! ; i ! !
i i:I 1 1->
2 5 10 20 -10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 62. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 25
121
-------
100
X OU1LCT IMPACTOB A (UW)
A OUTltT IUTACTOR B
2 5 10 20 40 CO 80 90 05 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 63. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 25
122
-------
100
O IM-tT RUN A
D H.U1 PU-'i P (NO CYCLONE)
f It.llt KUH C
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 64. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 26
123
-------
100
X OUTLCT IMPACTOR A (UW)
OUTltT lUFACIOR 8
5 10 20 10 GO 80 30 95 99
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 65. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 26
124
-------
100
c:
LJ
2
o
K
O
2
e"
iu
H
LJ
5
o
o
<
I
o
a:
LJ
10
1.0
O.I
;
_...
.: -i
- i
. |
: j .
.
.: ^ : :
.
:
.
: i :
: j ;
' \fj
, '/s/
G/CJ
-7-r-;
i ;
I
i
i
t
1
!
: 1
^ i' !
/ ' /* '
i-C^ ; ' :
JJP i ' ; :
Xjy '
fry/ 1
: i SfyT J : - - .
..;' r^'-Af
]_ "1 /p^/' :
/
fzd
:
: xf/- /
,
F^f--
k 4- ;
r
r*
:_.
' : J :- :-
i
i 1 '
~"1
- -
L_JL
1 ซ
: ! : 1
i i ... .j
~r j
1 ' 1
i
f -
c
i
t
; 1 :
i li
1 I
-_
i
i
j
f
' ! i
;
-4'-- 1
i
: i :
,
^
'
i ;
j
' ! i
._.
i
j
i
i
i
1 '
i
..._i
.
!
t
J._
"ป-,
~~~
:
-__-_ -
; O IM.C.T RUM A
...i-j O "'LCI nun 9 (HO CYCL
1 ! 4- iMtT CUN c
i I : i i
ONE)
10
20
GO
60 SO
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 66. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 27
125
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 ?8
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 67. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 27
126
-------
100
O IM.CT RUM i
D IMU PUN 8 (NO CYCLONE)
f IM.IT SUN C
L
2 S 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 68. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 28
127
-------
AERODYNAMIC DIAMETER, MICROMETERS
b o c
.____
-
.: :i
;
i
:
' 1 ;
i
1
i .
; . ! ' :
. .
i
! i
.-.
._
^
.
.
,
L
i . .
(*
.
. ! . ' J
; j
: ' !
i :
t :
i
i
1 .
: i :
' i
1
i
,
" r ',
. i ;
! ;
i :
.--X
1
1
j
!
I '/ \ '
!/
XJ 1 A
) t
__ ./J A. ! -
r T^/ i
1 x/
:
A
./
- A -
'. ~~j77
J
-! i AJ_:J
:
. i
1 t
-
i
!
(
! --.-
I :
j
i.. ;_:
i '
t
1
t ;
' I i
._.
: i
j "
rj T :
i. i
..
;
!__. ....
I
tH,
\
-. --J-
U_...
.
<
: ^
;
j-^
i
X OUtLtT IMPACTOR A (U
A OUTIIT lurACTOK 1
1 1
ซf)
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 69. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 28
128
-------
100
O
UJ
Ul
5
O
K.
O
s
c
UJ
H-
UJ
O
O
!0
O
-------
100
-ftt-r ; :
~C. i /_._;._ .--.-I.
/r:f. T. r
X OU1HT IUPACTOR A (UW)
A OUTltT IKFACTOK B
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 71. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 29
130
-------
100
|_ j D H.U! nun t (HO CYCLONE)
i ! 4- IMlt RUK C
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 30 95 28
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 12. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 30
131
-------
100
2 5 10 20 10 GO 80 90 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 73. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 30
132
-------
100
O INLtT RON A
INLET Buw OtNO CYCLONE)
4- iNitT BUN c
j '
2 5 10 20 40 GO 80 SO 95 98
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 74. Inlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 31
133
-------
100
X OUlLtt IMPACTOS A (UW)
OUTllT lUTACTOK 0
2 5 10 20 40 GO 80 90 95 93
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 75. Outlet cumulative particle size distribution for run 31
134
-------
APPENDIX B
DIFFERENTIAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
135
-------
U)
....,... , .. ... .
..:.! A .UL
X OUTLET IUPACTOK *
A OUTLET IMPACTOR t
O INLtT BUN. A
0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1.0 10
dM/d log D. grolซป/ ซcl
Calculated geometric mean of the back up filter size cutoff (assumed to be
0.01 pirn) and the size cutoff of the last iropa;tor stage.
Figure 76. Differential particle size distribution for run 1
-------
> > ' * 7 I ft
I } ซ S ซ 7 ป!
U)
:"T"n r""ri"7 Q'^O ~':'"-;
_ .:..;_u
i . . i : M
- ! |-i I--
'|X OUTLET IMPACTOB A
OUTLET IMPACTOfl
;!O INLET RUN.*
KUN 8
|i| ;:d.;;y:
0.01
0.000)
0.01
JM/d loo 0.
Figure 77. Differential particle size distribution for run 2
-------
J 4 1 I 7 I 1 f
oo
rj.-fesjjiii!:: :;.:!:,!::<;
...... r,.T.T,7.J .
' i-i-ilx OUTLET IUPACTOH A
, f , _ OUTLET IMPACTCS B
.'i>;..'. .....'.'.!.'. :JJ.,!o INLET KUN.A
.- l': !. j.:.1 ;;.; QJNLCT
. 4_, ,_ป_,..,._
I . .........
0.0001
0.001
0.01 CU
dM/d loo O.Qfoint/lcf
Figure 78. Differential particle size distribution for run 3
-------
ป00 r
CO
VO
i ;;!;::T;:T: ,
..ij;;.,!....]....;..]..,. .jJ^j J...i.j_:i_i..^^...._
....,. -,-,- :i::;-:r-rr.:"-rrp
..,,.,_ ,.|.;!1^ ......l.j. ^(.j,
.....U..i . '...(. i-:J.-4..:..'..J-:-i-
'. i .'!..! I ..: i ' ' : j i I I M ::.... I : I : ' ill
. . ...............
-i- I t l.i i j :-,
. ' ' ' ' 'i ' " '
-f-i-l ' : 1 ' ' ' '
X OUTLET IMPACTOS A
A OUTLET IMPACTOR 8
RUN. A
O INLET RUK 3
0.01
0.0001
0.001
0.0) 0.1
dM/d log 0, gralni/tcf
Figure 79. Differential particle size distribution for run 4
-------
OUTLET IUPACTOH 8
O IKLtT RUN. A
RUK B
0.01 Li1
0.0001
0.01 0.1
dM/d too D . orpin*/ tcf
Figure 80. Differential particle size distribution for run 5
-------
100
5
O
Oฃ
U
5
5 10 ,,
5 J
u ป
2 .
o
9 '
04
t
>
t
1
0.01
M. ..,,.,., ,:-,.,,
OUTLCT
A OUTLET IMTACTOB
RUN. A
QIKLET nun a
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D . grolnt/ icf
Figure 81. Differential particle size distribution for run 6
-------
1 ' -l-t
ni-ifi""1
I I'!.! . :..,..,.. i
j~-.|....| H-I--!-! f-i-i -;)-..,-;
..;-I--.-.(-.; ,-,.. ;!;;;:
. .
I .
rr :.::].:;:;:::
O INLET RUN. A
D INLET RUN B
.[.:. I ' ' ' ' !
i l.|.i.|,... i<|..j.' li.i'* I. -> > t i-iii i , . -
0.0001
0.001
0.01
dM/d log D, grolni/>cf
Figure 82. Differential particle size distribution for run 7
-------
too
u>
::i;j. ...
.,.|,.;. ..:....) :;J ;:;...,...
o.oi
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d loo 0. grotni/tcf
Figure 83. Differential particle size distribution for run 8
-------
0.01
0.0001
loo 0. flrolnj/icf
Figure 84. Differential particle size distribution for run 9
-------
too
J 4 ป (Till
-P-
Ul
1:1:1 !!:;::
O INLET RUN.
D INLET DUN a
0.01
0.0001
0.01
dM/d log 0,
Figure 85. Differential particle size distribution for run 10
-------
too
7
I
1
2
O
at
ซJ
5
3 1/3
< ซ
s ;
y 5
3
ฃ >
o
2 '
Oi
0.01
:!ฑ
a ป i i T tปi t i ซ > ซ T ซ11
.
! ..'. i .nrr nnr.1: j: j.. i ..:.T.
Tt-rH-1-Ht
L-J.-.J: fJlijt;
:;.U :; ; ;
; T
,J,.-.
:!- .1 : -!- - -- ;\ -I;!-- -:-- i-r ( ; ;.-r- r 'j-f J - 'i t r
;::ir[=j-!^^--t=J^^
:r
1' ; 1 I rl'i::i
_LJ:
O lr
-------
-; ^:i_j.i;r
.J.L.'jJ_LLL
0.01
0.0001
log D. 8foioป/ปcf
Figure 87. Differential particle size distribution for run 12
-------
00
rTTTp..:;..-j -. (J ^.i
t}-|""L-'--fii!-r:-:
,).... .a.. ,..j..,..4..j ; .t-^.i
-4-hhfr- I! =i::
rt ^!- -
i :_L'-_:: ; .:.. _^
rpv. T'~. * ^
J ,.,i._ .'
0.0)
0.0001
O.OJ OJ
dM/d log 0 . gtalni/
10
Figure 88. Differential particle size distribution for run 13
-------
100
: .
' '
OUTLET IMPACTOW
A OUTLET IMPACTOR .
O INLET RUN.*
QlNLZT RWH B
0.01
0.0001
0.01 OJ
log 0 grolni/ปcf
Figure 89. Differential particle size distribution for run 14
-------
100 T
} 1 5 < ป 1 1
Ul
o
f I 4 5 ซ 7 lปl
~::rr
H-I
IT. I :;::T:I: -W ฑ^:i^qrtjl
-"- i-H-'l-H fnrr-H-r T-'-HH-r
: iฐ : . ,"\~> \~
I I i ! : :
r ..,.,
I -I . . I . , ,. .
O INLET HUN. A
D INLET RUN I
JW)
0.01
0.0001
0.001
JlU;.LUi:^ilLii
O.OJ OJ
dM/d log 0, orolni/tcf
Figure 90. Differential particle size differential for run 15
-------
:{tH'H^:HH:
I .! I . ' i :
-i j-i-j-'-r1- -
! : . i ' ' ' t rV
....... ..,..;.__ , . ,,^.
ItMLJIii
A OUTLET IMPACTOa 8 (UW)
O INLET RUN. A
O INLET RUN 8
HI r.jii;; :
rH4H^!i:
18.1
0.01
0.0001
0.01 OJ
IOQ 0 . grain*/ ปef
Figure 91. Differential particle size distribution for run 16
-------
100
I 1 1 ? 1 7 I I
> i 5 ซ r 11
Ln
N)
j.ij ....j... j ...L ^^.. . i
.jp|4^r!^:;::|i.:.j.., r'-^-H'ij
. .!. '. I O INLET RUN. A
'; ..m INLET RUN a
0.01
0.000!
0.001
0.01 OJ
dM/d log D. 0ralnt/ief
Figure 92. Differential particle size distribution for run 17
-------
' 1 t 1 .It'.'
i i';!'';.-
:-::rT-:i'Ti.:.i
^n-,-\. .-,.
rrrrfa-rt-;::-
....UU -ii.Q;
0.01
0.0001
0.001
rfM/d log 0 ,. graioi/ icf
Figure 93. Differential particle size distribution for run 18
-------
) > ซ 7!I
1 4 J T I I)
41 I 7 I
;.!; il ,;.! ; ;'..'.'i
........... ,)...-; ; vl-r-j
..; .; i . i . .' :. i. ;.
ii::::: H'! lihii'i: ! ^li1 if-
I!!'
X OUTLET. IUPซCTOซ *
A OUTLET IMPACTOR 8
O INLCT RUN. A
QlNLCT RUS I
0.01
0.0001
0.01 OJ
dM/d too ฐซ Oralnป/icf
Figure 94. Differential particle size distribution for.run 19
-------
ป 4 1 ซ 7 I t 1
Cn
!:! : I :: :.:!.::.! .1 ! i|.l
-ฑ7;.. T!-J::::I;::'|-:-"}'T-r-n-'^
...i. 4-i-'-*-4J,..!.)-...-. . ^.. i... ..i ; , i
-
;3-:irfLLj|::::i:"|""- ''-1"' :: l
^vrT^ t . !'^i'"!'"l"n~"r_;~c"'T
- -l^-t -"-ft-:- i-l 'tV^-l-l-'- - - r1-'- r
7.1 -14-! !)-; ,.,,:)... -r-.-r-jj-i-r
^i -rj-IT"! :;-!frrtHTT
.1....... .i.i. .., - -.I.-
-H -l-l-i I :-l:lil i:!:-.-..!-!--
-ri.r|t!!i!!;i;i';:j. ;r!.
: I I ' I: li !r: " , ' ! ;
'
0.01
0.0001
log 0 . orolnt/ปcf
Figure 95. Differential particle size distribution for run 20
-------
O>
,-- I t i 4 > ป 1 f I
IOQ MIEE:
f 3 4 ( < T 1 t > 45171 t f
X OUTLET IWPACTOR A
OUTLET IMPACTOR * (UW)
^
ง
O.OOOJ
0.01
dM/d loo 0 .
iiMiI'-'lLii^lEEDZLIIlL
""' \JO~ JO
Figure 96. Differential particle size distribution for run 21
-------
l-n
100
JO
vป !
o
CK
\J
s \a
< >
5 ;
y ซ
1
2 '
o
2 ซ
04
nip:
r"'
t;
0.01
f J 4 1 T ป!
TJ7
:,,
HI1J1:
I I < t I T 111
iff:
:.U
-AtU-
T-:
"r:
i
Ttf
-t I"
: 1
rn
ii.
1-i
1!
i;
rrn-Tmi-'fm:::
.|_r .,.,,3,. | ....
-THH-t-H-- -
-r\-<-"\"-
:;tST[.;i!f:!i;;i
-f^-JU^
= .!:. , ,.,|
!..(_.
t 1 4 f < 1 ป!
!!.;!!::,;:::
'I .'I! I'll'!
:J_.I; J-l iiii:!;iii::.|:.-j j.,: -;. .j -i 1' .j i. j- -i -i-:
iLi."}:!. j.|! iiHiil:.' ' ' ^' ': '^^'i-
.......i- _4.. !;-; T-I 'i;;;:1:
__.. j;. .;:
rkr{7:^-::'!:":i:1''^^^T^^:I/^"~T7^
:- i i ! !- - -i -\ r ~ l-l-^ h1- 1-4- -; i'-r-l t-r; '- )' i ' '-'-!-
..... J...-4 J ..| j.. ;.! :;.,j.| | 4-J-l..[..a.j | j ., ,4...- ...,.J ...4 ,v .. ^ : ,J ....- -U-...,.,.. ^ J ...
-'- = ... I I 1... . . ' , _ ;; ,.-... . i. I .-_!... ... I . .. ' - - . i . t W ^1 ITic-* I..K...VMH - /
,.| ljt:,T.-; r -----, ! -
!'''! 7' '"'"" ~i ; ; ', >', ""
a;Uu.
i-ll
.1:
1 ! ' I :
rt^iv
i ! '''!."
.. .j., ,.,.,..
i ! i '.:
..; i : :; .:./.' . ;.. j-f. IHLtT RUN C
X OUTLET lUPACTOa X (UW)
A OUTLET IMPAC70S 8
O INLET RUN.*
Q INLET RUN 8
O.OOOl
0.001
0.0) OJ
log 0 . orolnป/ic(
1.0
JO
Figure 97. Differential particle size distribution for run 22
-------
100 r
3 ป > T I ป 1
1 4 5 < 7 I I
Ui
00
,.... .....: ,H. ....._...--^:.
...,.., .... .j..|.)rj ..^-.._.:.T- _|.TT_r
. I ' i ( ! ' <
I-*-' [-! ;)-:
....I,,;..!.': i'.[!!.| i jj.i
,....-,.. ,.,-H
~~[~ .' vi, ; u
- - - - . - . 1. - - 1 ..4..., ... 4 -,-,', - ซ- - ~~4 . . ... . ,_ r,- .--,- - -j. - , - - _
Q.~O : - - > -T" - - -H - - \
r':r ^pt"'"'*'
x OUTLET IMP.\CTOR Atuw)
A OUTLET IMPACTOd P
O INLCT RUN. A
RUN 8
:-J- IHLCT RUN C
0.01
O.OOOI
0.00)
O.OI 0.)
-------
WO T
> 5 ซ 7 I
vO
II
',.. *..,.* *..'7iVi. ...* '._,.4.-V..' " ? -*.. *- *.ซ.'? r-rr ..? 7 -y T ;-'.
"tJ Lv 1 'I' 'j 'l!.''' ";'L '' I I" ''i! '-:'' !"! : '!' i j ! ' i.t'ljlliz ''"ir^lrti'lL
' ! i ' ' ! .. ! ' i ' I ! - ' ' ' ' ' ' ''':_'_.' : - i
!.i'j |iii;:-:i :.!:-: :i
I ! I I ; .!:::!: : !
...... ,. ...t.. , r i i -:
.... I ... ...t . ....... i..,. . .,. . . .
X OUTLET IMPACTOR A (UVf)
OUTLET IMPACTOH
O INLCT RUM.*
a INLtT RUN S
-* INLET RUN C
0.01
0.0001
0.00)
0.01 0.1
dM/d loo 0. gfolnป/i<(
Figure 99. Differential particle size distribution for run 24
-------
100 ?
] t 5 f > ป!
TTCT:"! i i i!:fn:;:::-i:ni.".i"r.
4..!j|;;. ...,;.. |. ^ ]..
..-,.
.,.
i r i
,r........
r^*Lj ' L.JllJ'il !L_Ill! j t-:ir;:si;: _2i '
rf.i ; i"i": !~"i"TTirt-!'"!"t'iinrr:':"-r!
- ;:! i;' I:-;;-- /-::! \:\\:\-\\". F;.!
I ! I i I . . I ! I I I I I -I
r:.~rt-i-hrr-:-:
. . :i: -| ..):! i.l
1....'...' :..;..j. ;..'. L' ; i!':'!:
I...,!:.. \:<
X OUTLET IMPACTOd * ( UW)
A OUTLET IUPACTOH 8
O INLET RUN. A
Q INLET RUM B
...... i-< ;.!. .,..!+ INLET PUN C
:.! ! I; : L, _
0.01
0.0001
o.ooi
O.OJ . 01
-------
too
> 4 J 7 I < I
i 5 ซ 7 til
3 4 5 C 7 I f I
10
I
ป
I
5
o
ex
-------
1 I J J ซปl
J < 5 ซ 1 I ป t
ILJ..LJJ: ;;:.:: Tin..,
.1 :..,..!: , j
iM>
-------
1 4 > t 7 I t I
ป ซ 3 ซ 7 I t I
ON
1 t 1 f T It I
"{f i] !'!!:j!::: ::::;::[7nJ.::]'I.!T] SKEl^]^'.i7;^
t ! -l:t:rr-- : !"| ' M j 4 )--, ---i j.....-T-Zrj-i 1-...
.,.. ..,,.,.^...,rr,TJ.- l..|.v. ^.._.|....l_-r.T. ...-(^ -. ,-
[ 'I t' I [ ' I ' I ' 1
i -- -I- I ' '! h-l-l ' ''
.L,.._!:.: i_L J..L . ..:-_] _LJ J
...,..
!!- '.r.\:\
, ;. | .,.').
! .!.::.::
!::;:- --rn m "i-i 'M"::^::!'":
:- - ' 1 ; :'*!"
: :il
X OUTLET IWPAC70R A (UW>
OUTLCT IMPACTOR 8
O INLET RUN. *
D INLET BUN 8
0.01
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D. 8'olnt/ซc(
Figure 103. Differential particle size distribution for run 28
-------
-|Tii] :mi::: :,:&-.T-r:
i- !''.'' "; ~~\
.-1_. J,-.....:. .... 1 .
:::;;:: Tri | :.) n iTrrrT.Tn'l-"'.'.; ..jrj-j.rz^
''-
II J . j 1 I i .'
'/* I ! ' ."" ' : '! i i : ' * *~
S I II- l
>>. H t-ii-i
: ' i ; I : c:
-1 , - J- I -t .-. rt
... .1.:. '
r
OUTLET IVCACTOR
A OUTLET IMPACTOR
O INLET RUN. A
Q INLET HUN 8
-f INLฃT RUN C
LLHI; _ฃฃ
0.01
0.000!
0.00)
0.01 0.1
dM/d log 0. gfolni/ปcf
10
Figure 104. Differential particle size distribution for run 29
-------
100 r
) 1 1 I 7 I%l
J 4 > Ttl
ON
Ui
.-; -_4.. J..4. ..:
HI I I '
- ^ i-i-ป-j i -**ปi*-
::;.:!.rr!:, RrN5?ฃ
~f. ...).]. ',.
:L.i,!.L.l': ;
X OUTLET IMPACTOfl A (UWJ
A OUTLET IUPA.CTOR
O INLET RUN. A
DIHLET HUN B
IMLET BUN C
0.0001
0.001
0.0) 0.1
dM/d tog D. grolnt/tcf
Figure 105. Differential particle size distribution for run 30
-------
100
1 4 1(7111
.... r - ' --; I I --.M I/- ' .ซ.:..
r r ! i I ''
-------
APPENDIX C
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY/PENETRATION CURVES
167
-------
10.0
90.0
T T 1 :T i
! ! ' ' I" ' I :- I
456769
PARTICLE SIZE, /tin
10
99.9
13 14
Figure 107. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 1
168
-------
10.0
90.0
0 I 234 56789 10 II 12 13 14""
PARTICLE SIZE,
Figure 108. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 2
169
-------
c
4)
O
Jป
O
O.
z
O
U
z
UJ
Q.
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
-
t
:::r.
't 1
99.0
99.1
99.2
99.3
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.91
99.92
99.93
99.94
99.95
99.96
99.97
99.98
O I 2 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 II E 13 14
PARTICLE SIZE, Mm
99.99
0)
O
h.
O)
a.
O
z:
u
O
LJ
U.
U.
LJ
Figure 109. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 3
170
-------
10.0
90.0
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 "
O.I
Figure 110. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 4
171
-------
c
tp
u
k.
o
o.
o:
H
UJ
z
u
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II E 13 14
99.98
0.01
99.99
v
o
fc.
o
o.
o
Z
UJ
o
LJ
u.
u.
LJ
Figure 111. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 5
172
-------
10.0
90.0
56789
PARTICLE SIZE, M
10 II 12 13 14
99.9
Figure 112. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 6
173
-------
c
0>
o
I.
0>
CL
Z
O
UJ
H
UJ
Q.
99.98
-------
c
V
u
h.
o
o.
Z
O
o:
z
LU
0.
I 2 5 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II t2 13 14
c
o
o
o
z
LJ
O
UJ
u.
u.
LJ
0.01
Figure 114. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 8
175
-------
c
0>
u
o
o.
2
O
c
u
9>
Q.
Id
0.02
0.0!
99.99
Figure 115. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 9
176
-------
OQ
On
O 7
Oc
.5
OA
.**
0*
09
ซ~
c
o
I.
0.
^
z
o r> i
H n OQ
< u.us
(ฃ. r\ r\Q
~ \J.\Jo
u r> r>7
H U. U f
UJ
CL O.Ob
0 05
O O4
0 03
.(J
.,.:
I
1
i
"
1
-(
~
|-~
t
,
.
|'
=
...
-;
...:
\
\
1
1 . - .
.
!
|
[ ,
.
.
i
~~
TLV.
"
'--]
-
.'--
-
.
.
.
.:.:
...
...
:..
...
i
i '
t
i
i
i
.
.
-::
:.;
...
-,:
_.
' -
1
|
1
1 .
i
i ..
~'~
t-
i-
!
i" -
1
>
"
i^_
;::..
.:
t...;
f
i
.. f._.
_.L
!
;
j
i . :
::. i-::.
,
!...
.. ,
.. )....
.. ; .
; I::".
:: i;.:::
t
. . .1 . : .
.-(.:i.
.
...
:.
....
...
1
1
I
I
"'.
...
....
T-
-
_
;_
[:. .1
r
:
:::
::
^'
!
|
I
1
1
....
....
'
;
1
:.-
.;.
i
i
).::
*
1"
i
1
'
1 '.
...
'
. ..
"r
r
"r
t
_. i
i .
_. i
.j.
i
i. . '
; ."
;
... , .
i
i.::'
.......
*
... ,..
, ...
... j....
....(....
.'.' 1 "
1 r-
. i
-
LlJ
;::.:
. . .
'. !.'
'.: :.:.
i ..
^..
;:.i
T. ...
i
i
i
i .
i
i
i
i .
i :
!..
!
J
:i--.
i
I. .
!..
J
'
-
....
--
....
*
i
1
I
I
1
!
r
j
j
i .
i..
i
1
-i
-i..
....
....
.._ป
, .
i
i..-
i.*.
i
1
.._.
..
._.
j_
.
i
, .
i..
1
--
._
i_
i
__r .
i
..
.
_L
. .
: ::
S3.U
'
99.1
99.2
CSQ TK
99.4
99.5
99 6
qq 7
99.O
c
o
ft_
a.
M
>-
99.9 ij
yy.yi ~
99.92 i,j
99 93 H"
QQ Q4
99 95
QQ QC
go 97
y y.yo
99.99
3 V 5 V 7 V 9 10 II C 13 14
PAJUICLE SIZEป ^m
Figure 116. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 10
177
-------
c
0
o
2
O
t-
Ul
z
UJ
0.
0 I Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II E II
99
Figure 117. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 12
178
-------
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II O. 13 14
97
99.98
aป
u
w
-------
o
o
b.
o
ex
H
O
H
UJ
z
UJ
0.
8 9 10 II E 13 14
99.99
c
o>
u
o
a.
u.
UJ
Figure 119. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 14
180
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
o
o
o
Q.
2
O
z
UJ
CL
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
..\...
_:l__r:
^ฑฑr^i
. . |- -r -v ;. .
ti^m
_| __
_ฑ:
-h
73~
:::r:
t
^J_
..-i:| -::
33m
teL
zui
M
ฑฑ=
---I-
99.0
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
99.9
99.91
99.93
99.94
99.
e
v
o
-------
0>
o
.w
o
0.
z
O
<
o:
H
UJ
z
LJ
'; "yis :' A^" " '" 'r~/'\ '"
9 10 II E 13 14 '
5 V 5 V 7
PARTICLE SIZE, urn
0.02
c
4>
U
w
O
Q.
O
z
UJ
o
UJ
U.
U.
LJ
0.01
O I
99
Figure 121. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 16
182
-------
9D.O
99.1
c
o.
z
O
P
H
U
z
u
0.
8 9 10 II E II 14
99
Figure 122. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 17
183
-------
o
o
-------
O I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II E 11 14
<0
Q.
V
O
o
UJ
U.
U.
ut
97
99.98
0.01
99.99
Figure 124. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 19
185
-------
c
4>
u
o
t-
UJ
2
UJ
0.
0.02
97
99.98
0.01
14
99.99
I 234 56 7B9 10 II 12
PARTICLE SIZE, >ปm
Figure 125. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 20
U
w
-"
O
o
UJ
(J.
u.
UJ
186
-------
c
4)
O
2
O
cc
I-
UJ
2
UJ
CL
0.02
r~1 99.98
0.01
5 G 7 6
PARTICLE SIZE, ^
10
99.99
c
V
O
v
O
z
UJ
O
LU
U.
u.
UJ
Figure 126. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 21
187
-------
(U
o
*ป
o
0.
2
O
o:
i-
UJ
2
UJ
3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 li 14
c
4>
O
v.
O
Q.
O
z.
LJ
Figure 127. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 22
188
-------
c
0
o
h.
u
ex
o
>-
cc
UJ
UJ
Q.
9 10 It C 15 14
99.0
99.1
99.2
99.3
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
0.0!
99.99
c
o>
o
t.
ID
Q.
O
99.9 z
99.91 y
99.92 S
09.93 t
u
99.94
99.95
99.96
99.97
99.98
Figure 128. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 23
189
-------
o
o.
Z
O
<
cc
t-
LU
5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
0.02
c
o>
o
-"
o
u.
U.
UJ
0.01
0125
Figure 129. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 24
190
-------
o
ex
2
O
cc
H
UJ
z.
o
w
o.
o
2
U
UJ
0.02
0.01
99.99
Figure 130. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 25
191
-------
4>
O
k.
V
Q.
z
O
IT
H
UJ
z
Ul
CL
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II C 15 14
4)
o
O
z
Ul
u
u.
Id
97
99.98
0.01
99.99
Figure 131. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run
26
192
-------
o
o
o.
z
o
a:
H
Ul
2
UJ
CL
0.02
0.01
56709
PARTICLE SIZE.^m
to
14
99.99
Figure 132. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 27
193
-------
c
0
u
*-
e>
Q.
ce
H
UJ
2
LU
Ci.
01 Z 54 56 7 0 9 10 II E 13 14
0.01
V
u
O
o.
Figure 133. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 28
194
-------
c
ซ
o
w
O
Q.
M
2
O
K
H
UJ
z
UJ
Q.
0.02
-------
e
o
o
2
O
CE
H
UJ
z.
UJ
a.
5678
PARTICLE SIZE, p
10
99.99
c
4>
O
w
ID
a.
a
z
LJ
LJ
Figure 135. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 30
196
-------
V
u
2
O
cn
H
txl
2
UJ
CL
0.02
99.98
0.01
3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 II
PARTICLE SIZE, ^m
13 14
99.99
c
o
o
o
z
u
ui
Figure 136. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for run 31
197
-------
APPENDIX D
CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
199
-------
Table 25. CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Run
no.
7
8
9
Time
0850
0900
0915
1006
1037
1142
1350
1400
0915
0945
1123
1155
1205
1217
1240
1305
1312
1317
1332
1356
0920
0935
0945
1005
1025
1045
1055
1125
1135
1140
1147
1155
1209
1223
1237
1251
1300
1306
1308
1309
1316
1320
1326
Inlet a
concentration,
particles/cc
Outlet
a
concentration,
particles/cc
1,000
1,000
2,000
4,000
1,000
600
12,000,000
45,000,000
33,000
210,000
1,400,000
6,500,000
4,200,000
24,000
5,100,000
5,800,000
'8,900,000
7,400,000
7,500,000
2,900,000
3,200,000
4,700,000
64,000
29,000
19,000,000
1,500,000
48,000,000
42,000,000
39,000,000
29,000,000
28,000,000
20,000,000
21,000,000
26,000,000
2,200,000
8,700,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
14,000,000
13,000,000
8,700,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
Dilution
system
Db
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D + AEฐ
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D 4- AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
Dilution
ratio
5.7
5.7
5.7
7.5
7.5
3.6
1.7
3.0
47.0
35.4
34.7
28.5
34.6
47.1
28.5
29.1
32.8
35.3
41.8
48.2
17.7
12.7
91.6
48.8
31.4
24.9
21.7
18.9
17.0
15.4
14.0
10.2
14.0
21.7
31.4
24.9
21.7
14.0
10.2
14.0
21.7
14.0
10.2
DD flow,
cc/sec
200
-------
Table 25 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Run
no.
9
10
12
13
14
Time
1454
1518
1548
1555
1605
0805
0820
0850
0912
0923
1040
1058
1105
1110
1353
0952
1020
1040
1205
1311
1350
1507
1603
1645
1700
1712
0945
1015
1115
1136
1150
1210
1225
1235
1625
1635
1648
0955
1020
1022
1028
1045
Inlet
concentration,
particles/cc
Outlet
concentration ,
particles/cc
28,000,000
7,800,000
301,000
35,800,000
25,800,000
276,000,000
118,000,000
108,000,000
50,000,000
61,000,000
397,000,000
28,000,000
33,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
3,000,000
74,000
180,000
105,000
6,000,000
13,000,000
6,000,000
309,000,000
4,500,000
716,000,000
780,000,000
835,000,000
747,000,000
710,000,000
785,000,000
660,000,000
575,000,000
589,000,000
341,000,000
8,000,000
45,000
6,000,000
86,000
905,000
2,000,000
17,000,000
830,000,000
Dilution
system
D + AE .
D + AE ,
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D -t- AE + CT
AE + CT
AE
AE
AE + CT
AE + CT
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D -1- AE
D -f AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
Dilution
ratio
163.1
164.0
1505.0
1194.0
151.3
184.34
2572.5
2847.2
2762,1
2762.1
90.24
6.15
6.15
61.5
50.25
131.43
73.76
72.89
70.13
75.9
133.0
126.7
85.95
212.7
162.8
162.8
160.6
158.9
154.3
167.0
137.6
130.7
131.0
83.2
150.0
150.0
140.9
214.2
226.3
226.3
213.8
206.8
DD/flow,
cc/sec
55
55
55
5.5
6.5
50
201
-------
Table 25 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Run
no.
14
15
16
17
18
Time
1108
1128
1148
1216
1241
1310
1445
1630
1035
1114
1241
1247
1300
1330
1352
1425
1435
1442
1458
1505
1522
1545
1557
1605
1616
1628
1636
1641
1142
1153
1247
1612
1616
1638
1656
1705
1726
1222
1515
Inlet
concentration ,
particles/cc
Outlet
concentration ,
particles/cc
1,025,000,000
620,000,000
716,000,000
34,000,000
26,000,000
3,966,000,000
901,000,000
637,000,000
477,000,000
430,000,000
846,000,000
2,460,000,000
836,000,000
8,967,000,000
10,582,000,000
4,714,000,000
1,072,000,000
678,000,000
449,000,000
853,000,000
11,000,000
40,000,000
89,000,000
635,000,000
77,000,000
4,000,000
917,000,000
1,008,000,000
32,000,000
47,000,000
13,000,000
38,000,000
21,000,000
49,000,000
3,500,000
3,600,000
5,400,000
576,000,000
547,000,000
Dilution
system
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D+AE+CT+CT
D+AE+CT+CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D -f AE + CT
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE
D -1- AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE + CT
D 4- AE + CT
D + AE + CT
D + AE
D + AE
Dilution
ratio
204.9
200.21
198.96
1541.0
1451.5
2644.8
268.3
254.6
2728.5
2413.3
3319.1
2235.2
3342.9
3112.3
3112.3
3142.4
218.8
218.8
224.4
224.4
2167.3
1077.5
496.62
352.2
773.7
1805.3
229.2
229.2
10.65
10.65
8.06
8.04
7.59
7.59
70.2
73.0
78.5
263.5
227.8
DD flow,
cc/sec
50
50
6.6
7.0 .
55
35
50
5
10
22
31
14
6
50
50
50
5
5
5
202
-------
Table 25 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Run
no.
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
Time
1830
1905
1914
1925
1945
2005
2022
1050
1458
0826
0909
0941
1200
1225
1243
1251
1340
1520
1717
1312
1346
1537
1738
1239
1442
1456
1530
1552
1614
1700
1733
1745
1808
1815
1215
1233
1441
1500
1625
1640
Inlet
concentration ,
particles/cc
Outlet
concentration ,
particles/cc
748,000,000
762,000
25,800,000
811,000,000
95,500,000
573,000,000
955,000,000
51,000,000
35,000,000
24,000,000
12,000,000
4,000,000
. 24,000,000
34,500,000
30,000,000
28,000,000
320,000
1,500,000
927,000
9,000,000
17,000,000
17,500,000
19,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,300,000
2,400,000
2,500,000
2,200,000
6,500,000
92,000
1,200,000
185,000
105,000
93,000
67,000
69,000
85,000
7,600
52,000
Dilution
system
D + AE
D + AE + CT
D + AE
D + AE .
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
D + AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
AE
ISO6 + AE
ISO + AE
ISD + AE
ISO + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD +, AE
ISD + AE
ISD
ISD + AE
Dilution
ratio
467.5
5079.5
477.4
477.4
477.4
477.4
477.4
507.9
580.5
590.4
590.4
201.9
191.6
191.6
186.9
186.9
10.65
12.31
6.18
8.07
7.5.4
7.63
7.63
8.57
10.0
9.59
10.93
10.0
10.00
131.0
132.3
126.1
108.1
150.3
93.7
84.5
98.7
97.2
12.7
104.5
DD flow,
cc/sec
50
50
203
-------
Table 25 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Run
no.
28
29
30
31
Time
1237
1340
1728
1129
1600
1222
1302
1507
1525
1533
1540
1547
1554
1617
1628
1702
1711
1715
1718
1721
1725
1728
1732
1737
1750
1204
1255
1324
1410
1448
Inlet
concentration,
particles/cc
9,500,000
6,700,000
3,400,000
5,600,000
5,500,000
Outlet
concentration,
particles/cc
272,000
59,000
84,000
51,000,000
50,000
102,000
113,000
71,000
98,000
58,000
104,000
94,000
115,000
126,000
116,000
130,000
111,000
111,000
93,000
102,000
111,000
111,000
111,000
111,000
115,000
Dilution
system
ISD + AE
ISO + AE
ISD + AE
ISD
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
ISD + AE
Dilution
ratio
104.4
98.5
105.8
14.5
99.4
102.2
113.2
94.5
88.9
88.9
94.5
94.5
105.1
96.9
96.9
92.6
92.6
92.6
92.6
92.6
92.6
92.6
92.6
92.6
96.1
2007.0
1732.6
1437.2
1400.3
1583.2
DD/flow,
cc/sec
'50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Concentration = CNC reading (particles/cc) x dilution ratio.
Pump diluter.
*
'Air ejector diluter.
Capillary tube diluter.
k
"In-stack diluter.
204
-------
APPENDIX E
CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER CHART RECORDINGS
205
-------
ro
o
LU1LI
i ill
1-L
"IL
II ml
tfii
liillllLlil"
Iffi
Hl
f _-._ -
"'^rnTT mi'Mii TiTiii 'uT
rrrr
-i(.. t i-
ffit
/t/rtiW[
ซIM*Ni*ซk*ฃ-* *ปป^ป- ***
i-i-4--- ^T7 i MM'
iiTi;tirnllT[irni
lill
TiTTi M 11| /0/ci I!
TTI r rtflTft] HI Hi III I r iiiTtlnIIII5Fr[j5ii
TfT]l:n"ri:fitfTf rrnf iT^fc^^^trF! (Til IMI!
i ililiLiiilii:
ii!!illJl]J J "
I -; LLi-i JJH ). -
LLUl.'-iฑ V-VL! J
I M ; ; ' ' ^-;:. '.
t "r-Tฃ,. . i I I i
MIJJ/N I
i n i
Figure 137. Ci^C cnart recordins for run 26
-------
(S3
o
n^-^jjj 1 < /1 / / / /../ / j/^JtLL
illj if,^:. ' ^-'~'~ ' I > "' ''/ -' ' '-'-iLii- -
lliilL-.:.- -~ ~
MTM-; ; ; i i;; iTiTrrjTi 111111 \ ll^J.^- i/ct; ''.
Figure 130. CNC chart recording for run 27
-------
ro
o
oo
TT
iffi
.111
ILL
T
- - ..-,-.*..
liTT
TT
Tffi
ill
nil: i. ill I LIU* ill-'' l-llliill-i?^^
UUILI
IllHi!
IIJiHi
LU.Li!
I
111
1'A
fin
mimr
H
iITTJ
-!-rH-i-r-f-r-f-T
T
IT
LH
TliTI
.1
IT-TP
I
" -pfpt L1ฑr;ftyฃ^jMjTT 111
..
ii
TTl
Ti
TMlS?-->HT i
I-L
im
111
mฑi-
I !
iUlli
JM[_T=s-. >^-
Figure 138 (continued). CMC chart recording for run 27
-------
O
VO
inTpi^^.i U'H/*u! !J I LMII'lJJlJlii^^-!
rri rfi i irn rtrliSjJ JirU tra i Ei-unriiDip^^-
'" ' ~""~~ ' ' " """""
J!Ui.iIUlJ-U
44J1M
QliLUJ
ml"
i I ! I I I I i i MM
* ปWm T**--t*^T": *^-^:-?'-l_^._^_' a
.LLU111L
i I I t I i"l "7""i~! ' i "I i i I I r i T . . ' T"'_ *J~^ฑ
JiLTIiTL
ILLUiLL
I! ! iTj |! 11! i i i | I i;
I j I! 11! 11!!
Figure 133 (continued). CNC chart recording for run 27
-------
NJ
I-1
o
/ป-tt~-C| | , i i , ,
\ol^ p| i 7 j-, J..-4 rf
IJ MjJ] Mj
l1 M I i I
JJJJLIlii 11
_i_-, , i i i i i i^_i ... L L. , i ,_,
1_ _j i f_ ; _j _-__-, , i^_i .
N ft -r u-^_-=L--EEn..-U-: i
rr-r! t^-H^r-:" "FT-, i -H '. i >
-r4-U > ^J-!J-i_LLLL;
iiUi-iJ.1 JLiiJIlJl.
Figure 139. CNC chart recording for run 28
-------
LLl
TijirtnTnjrmh
fi i i;
ILiiil
/v/r JMMlii!
lULJ I Mi
iii
M
iiU
iii'.i
* MJ*~"\' i * * 111' i *
TiTjTifTi!
11
Ulk!
il |7i Ll!rTn(flTiTT!i^^g^~ii'-rTiit MINIMI LUj iii
piTTM MM rrnTi nriTM 1 1 1 \ II[M \ \ nirriiirtiii > 1 1 MJM
n i^ft^^ j-.^ki n iJirrTi 1 1 i -
' "
J M LLUJ ' !C
MMIl!MliTMTTrM'riT! "
irrf
[PfM
M
l
il
] T
iM! T7Trzฑp=ti
'
TT
iTl I LU II
j i ri
l ! n i iiiLJjji
l i M Jix :i M M i M i
RtrMTtJ u.LluiviJ"[jZj+tR.
-tt-
IlLUJi-
i:
rlrfH4!-
T
M4 1-n'n
.ITT
T
uij
JJJT
i
frf im
Mill! j JjIl
'
M
IJTI ritT
'
ILL
un^.?rM r
Qitlu
L_l_i-ปl_i- I. - -^^T^^^, -- , ,
mTiTTTn M i M i iTTTi M >. M~! PtTi i i i !T i i f i"!"? riT" "-'- 7$ s /; t*r."T' i 1 i'
||'!M!!MlllMllM|iM!':M!MJ!lil||i| ~~-*-_^ซ., M I M i i I ; I | f
"" MMMIMMlMTTTl'
Figure 139 (continued). CMC chart recording for run 28
-------
N>
.ULTCTL! JJl'lUiJllLLLLl
TTi
ri
i
JHMIMJIJIILLULI
r Rj^2->L^Ufity L
*'
1 1 i i i i i '. 1 1 1 i
illi ilT
illlHjM I llhMjjjM^C-^v!'!!
!
~^T 'T--^-' ! I | ! ! I ! I
*.fok\ I j i |TT[| 1 i ! !
A'/r
Figure 139 (continued). CNC chart recording for run 28
-------
N5
M
to
$
\
v-
Figure 140. CNC chart recording for run 29
-------
ro
I I i l L?;:; %ej I I I I II I | I II I I I I I I
njjMiri'niiii i
IllTlM
TTnfMiTTTrmTiTT
" ' M i IMIMlMIMMi
.mM
u i' M M M M IIJJ JlLUilU
I!! iTfe
M . ,
DIfl-M'Q
Urn I ui,. u iifrnn-iife
ifrH-HrrrriTmiMM
. J.-J .. * , . i | ซ ซ i* . 1 I -J-ป. ป. t m
Figure 140 (continued). CUC chart recording for run 23
-------
NJ
h-4
Ul
1LL1J
111
M
I !
u
ill!
Ill
JJJI
1L
Jl
JJ1
11'I
_L4~-ป4r~
n
llTfTT
11 i
ffl
il!.' U'L: ;./
na -~ hrฑ i i. i,
'gfer-lilllllN
..mjiiwp ..^ 111; 11 MJJj.
L-Tr- .-^i/
T
Figure 140 (continued). CNC chart recording'for run 29
-------
NJ
! I
U1LIU1J'! I
ui
JILL
i i M i
1 \1
! l
~T7
MM
1!
TTi
III!
II
i i
j
11
11
ri
iiiiimiM
1 I
I 1 I I
TTTT
m
ID
li
III
T
T
JJ
I 1L
ILL
'fฎ
I
ri
T
T1"
L
11
IT
HIM I r i
JIป
Ml
ID
Tf
MMJiiU _
LfM Mill IllElIfc ;^iLli
lill*
inr
J.
*~~*
Jl
it
i T
1L1U1
MIMMIMj.'.1,
* i~* T"'"!'1"*'~i r ! r... ^ซ
rj
IMiV.'
-------
"*"? :"-'~"-' :>."' -.^--" i M i Pol
; ^ ! 11 LL
VG"f-:c1*r
TJf
11
/ป i11!
M
1
i
JU.
Ill
lilf
IT
Irtl:
Tf
.
liiL
11111
! i
kCa
II
I\
^^^.-vv-^f.,,.
tit
III
TT
li
1
1
M
4- -Ilil ~^-tt-
ritruXL
i *
TT
11
lunimr1"
UHJJlll
LULL
m
im.
MM
ITT
- .,
Mil! T HiTTrr iiLiMTH^fijj.
I
TiT
n
4H
U
ffl
111
i
i'
nit
MM
T[T
i
Uil
Igpfcr-^^^L^+l-
-i 111-
fflfll
,
MiTTTMi;
LIL
HU
1111
IT
Ml
! i
4-iiJiA.7.4:H.U I M I |M
* .>-trซi ^.ar,.
liiililiiiLii-U-ili'-j
TT7T
MM1
JTTTi I
Figure 141 (continued). CNC chart recording for run 30
-------
00
'rซ<ป -MM
I i
"!-! I ! i-Li
I II
Oil
mi
HI!-
MM
a
ill
TT
I I
1
J.1LLL
JST;
1LLL
Jllil
LI
,-.-:-i_-ซ ,1-
ilnn
,.-..ai-
'in
-iiUlLjJ] j-i isr
rr
11
Ji.
Figure 141 (continued). CNC chart recording for run 30
-------
VO
O
iiiijiri
ifL
rli-
1LI
i i
4l^LfH-|.
,-iJiJ -i hJ_Lr_
! l M I I I I I
-~ t - ,ป *- i -;
- n-pprl
TMTLLL
M
.TIT t
1T|T
MT1
IT
imj
n
411
ill
11
ID
i iMTTTTrrTi
J i j JL LtT LM iTIUTUllLi - i>
TJTI^
I il Ml-'MJlill!
'
'
UTOI
IUILIL
lijMjl
i 11 ft: i iT
Ml!
M11H M
i
W
OJIK
-t 1-^11! T iTH-RKui I
T
JB
Til
r!
! J
JlE
4Iฃ
I I !
111
III
II
LLLL
n
TlttT
l !
LMilMM
"^"nni
M!M!
' *% ' *x
^li-iTTK^nT
'rf III! MUJILLM M iM1
Ft "
1U
rh 11
MMMj-LLL
M i I M M M !ป' ii.
M' iTM
i i | :"*:'*=:r^
! ii"i~rr""rL
"
'JTijj :;;...:rtLl i
ill I
ฑrrr^\jj:f^rfr^f^
n
V?-M i II 1.1
[ffil
i j. l :-
1 i !
1
f i M J
Figure 142. CNC chart recording for run 31
-------
APPENDIX F
COAL ANALYSIS
221
-------
Table 26. SUNBURY COAL ANALYSIS
N)
[O
ro
Run 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Fuel
Pulv, boiler feed
Pet. coke
Antli. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler teed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
fulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
An t!i. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Fulv. boiler feed '
?ct. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. S buck
As received
Total
moisture
^
2.9
5.4
18.6
a
3.1
7.2
15.3
4.2
4.9
16.2
3.1
4.3
17.6
3.0
4.6
17.4
2.6
3.8
19.5
3.4
7.2
19.5
2.9
4.7
14.4
3.2
7.3
17.0
12.3
3.0
7.4
17.8
10.6
Volatile
matter
X
7.7
8.8
6.9
9.4
11.3
6.1
8.3
12.5
6.4
8.3
12.4
7.1
7.5
11.7
6.3
8.5
11. '/
6.8
7.7
12.3
6.0
7.9
13.0
5.3
3.6
11.1
6.2
7.8
7.9
10.8
6.3
7.8
Fixod
c.'irbon
Z
71.4
81.9
52.8
68.3
80.6
53.6
64.9
82.4
51.2
64.3
82.5
50.8
66.6
83.5
51.9
68.4
84.3
50.1
58.4
80.4
48.9
60.6
82.0
38.1
66.3
81.1
49.2
62.4
66.8
75.8
50.4
62.9
Asli
%
18.0
J.9
21.7
19.2
0.9
25.0
22.6
0.2
26.2
24.3
0.8
24.5
22.9
0.2
24.4
20.5
0.2
23.6
30.5
0.1
25.6
28.6
0.3
42.2
21.9
0.5
27.6
17.5
22.3
6.0
25.5
18.7
It Ml
per
pound
11,707
13,b(>j
8,698
11,657
14,197
8,570
10,865
14,759
8,241
10,725
14,731
8,296
10,953
14,720
8,427
11.443
14,874
8,187
9,710
14,407
7,870
10,084
14,748
5,831
11,135
14,311
7,932
10,399
10,914
13,101
8,065
10,382
Sulfur
%
2.0
4.6
0.6
2.2
4.7
0.6
1.6
4.9
0.6
-
1.6
4.7
0.7
1.6
4.6
0.6
2.1
4.9
0.6
1.7
4.8
0.6 .
1.5
4.7
0.3
2.1
4.5
0.6
0.9
1.4
4.0
0.6
0.6
Dry basis
Vulnc tie
ma 1 1 e r
Z
7.9
9.3
8.5
9.7
12.2
7.2
S.7
13.1
7.6
8.6
13.0
8.6
7.7
12.3
7.6
8.7
12.2
8.5
8.0
13.3
7.5
8.1
13.6
6.2
S.9
12.0
7.5
8.9
8.1
11.7
7.7
8.7
Fixed
carbon
7.
73.6
86.6
64 .'8
70.5
86.8
63.3
67.7
86.7
61.1
66.3
86.2
61.7
68.7
87.5
62.9
70.2
87.6
62.2
60.4
86.6
60.7
62.4
86.1
44.5
68.5
87.5
59.3
71.2
68.9
81.8
61.3
70.4
Ash
Z
18.5
4.1
26.7
19.8
1.0
29.5
23.6
0.2
31.3
25.1
0.8
29.7
23.6
0.2
29.5
21.1
0.2
29.3
31.6
0.1
31.8
29.5
0.3
49.3
22.6
0.5
33.2
19.9
23.0
6.5
31.0
20.9
Btu
per
pound
12,050
14.342
10,685
12,032
15,292
10,117
11,337
15,515
9,832
11,063
15,397
10,073
11,293
15,434
10,203
11,753
15,466
10.176
10,049
15,525
9,778
1C, 387
15,477
6,814
11,500
15,432
9,553
11,854
11,249
14,140
9,809
11,614
Sulfur
%
2.1
4.9
0.7
2.3
5.1
0.7
1.7
5.2
0.7
1.7
4.9
0.8
1.6
4.8
0.7
2.2
5.1
0.7
1.8
5.2
0.7
1.5
4.9
0.4
2.2
4.9
0.7
1.0
1.4
4.3
0.7
0.7
*Blankซ Indicate that no sample waซ collected.
-------
Table 26 (continued). SUNBURY COAL ANALYSIS
U)
Run .1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Fuel
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Fulv. boiler feed
Pet- coke
An t h . silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anih. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Putv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Fulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. .boiler feed
Pet. cokซ
Anth. silc
Anth. no. 5 buck
As received
Total
moisture
X
2.5
7.9
12.1
2.1
9.8
16.6
11.5
2.6
7.1
17.5
11.4
1.7
8.8
18.4
14.1
3.0
6.8
19.4
14.5
2.7
7.0
18.5
15.2
3.2
8.3
19.1
2.4
10.3
19.3
12.6
2.8
6.2
18.1
16.5
2.6
7.6
19.0
12.6
1.8
7.7
18.6
15.7
Volatile
mat ter
Z
8.3
10.7
7.4
9.5
10.5
6.8
7.1
8.1
10.4
6.1
6.6
8.5
10.3
6.0
6.0
7.8
11.8
5.3
6.7
7.5
8.5
5.9
6.4
7.8
11.0
6.2
8.8
8.7
6.2
7.4
8.4
12.8
5.8
5.3
7.5
12.0
5.9
6.2
8.0
11.2
7.1
5.7
fixed
carbon
r.
70.0
80.0
63.7
72.7
79.1
47.6
63.1
71.0
81.8
45.4
65.8
71.4
80.7
43.8
63.4
67.7
81.3
49.6
60.5
69.7
84.3
49.3
60.6
66.3
80.6
47.6
70.3
79.4
51.5
68.4
67.8
80.8
50.3
57.2
68.3
79.8
51.2
62.9
63.9
80.9
53.7
64.1
Ash
ฃ
19.2
1.4
16.8
15.7
0.6
24.0
16.3
13.3
0.7
31.0
16.2
18.4
0.2
31.8
If.. 5
21.5
0.1
25.7
18.3
20.1
0.2
26.3
17.8
22.7
0.1
27.1
18.5
1.6
23.0
11.6
21.0
0.2
25.3
21.0
21.6
0.6
23.9
18.3
21.3
0.2
18.6
14.5
Bttl
per
pound
11.678
14,093
10,500
12/03
13,899
7,782
10,327
11,716
14,266
7,261
10,f)62
11,909
14,003
6,')ซ3
10,237
11,116
14,431
7,755
9.841
11,440
14,456
7.831
9,781
10,956
14,271
7,587
11.H02
13,570
8,310
11,382
11,374
14,!'>S5
3,066
8,978
11,246
14,346
8,208
10,076
11,408
14,332
9,252
10.328
Sulfur
7.
2.1
4.3
0.6
3.1
0.6
0.5
0.5.
1.6
4.7
0.4
0.5
1.7
4.6
0.3
0.5
1.3
4.6
0.4
0.6
1.2
3.9
0.4
0.5
1.5
3.9
0.5
1.5
3.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
4.0
0.4
0.4
1.2
3.9
0.4
0.5
1.4
4.2
1.0
0.4
Dry basis
Volat ile
matter
Z
8.5
11.6
8.4
9.7
11.6
8.1
8-0
8.3
11.2
7.4
7.5
8.6
11.3
7.4'
7.0
8.0
12.7
6.6
7.8
7.7
9.1
7.2
7.5
8.1
12.0
7.7
9.0
9.7
7.7
8.5
8.6
13.6
7.1
6.3
7.7
13.0
7.3
7.1
8.1
12.1
8.7
6.3
Fixed
carbon
7.
71.8
86.9
72.5
74.3
87.7
57.1
71.3
72.9
83.0
55.0
74.2
72.7
88.5
53.7
73.8
69.8
87.2
61.5
70.9
71.7
90.7
f>0.5
71.5
68.4
87.9
58.8
72.0
88.5
63.8
78.2
69.8
86.2
62.0
63. 6
70.1
86.3
63.2
72.0
70.2
87.7
68.5
76.0
Ash
%
19.7
1.5
19.1
16.0
0.7
34.8
20.7
13.8
0.8
37.6
18.3
18.7
0.2
38.9
19.2
22.2
0.1
31.9
21.3
20.6
0.2
32.3
21.0
23.5
0.1
33.5
19.0
1.8
28.5
13.3
21.6
0.2
30.9
25.1
22.2
0.7
29.5
20.9
21.7-
0.2
22.8
17.2
Btu
per
pound
11,975
15,303
11,942
12,666
15,414
9,327
11,671
12,023
15,356
8,300
12,035
12,117
15,426
3.552
11,916
11,454
15,450
9,618
11,507
11,752
15,539
9,611
11,537
11,319
15,554
9,376
12,091
15,124
10,299
13,022
11,669
15,647
9,851
10,748
11,545
15,521
10,139
11,534
11,614
15,583
11,361
12,247
Sulfur
Z
2.2 .
4.7
0.7
3.2
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.6
5.1
0.5
0.6
1.7
5.1
0.4
C.6
1.3
4.9
0.5
0.7
1.2
4.2
0.5
0.6
1.6
4.3
0.6
1.5
3.9
0.6
1.7
1.5
4.3
0.5
0.5
1.2
4.2
0.5
0.6
1.4
4.6
1.2
0.5
-------
Table 26 (continued). SUNBURY COAL ANALYSIS
ro
Run i
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Fuel
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coko
An t h . silt
Antti. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
?ct. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Tulv. boiler feed
Pot. coke
An t h . silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
An c h . silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Aiith. no. 5 buck
Pulv. boiler feed
Pet. coke
Anth. silt
Anth. no. 5 buck
As received
Total
moisture
r
2.3
8.1
14.8
3.5
9.0
15.1
3.6
8.4
19.3
13.0
4.1
5.3
19.9
3.5
7.8
18.0
12.9
2.7
4.3
16.0
14.5
3.2
6.8
18.6
15.9
3.6
6.1
17.5
11.6
2.7
8.3
15.9
3.3
7.3
18.2
19.1
Volatile
matter
7.
7.6
9.9
6.4
8.?
10.6
5.8
8.0
11.5
5.9
6.7
8.4
12.3
5.0
7.5
12.0
5.8
6.2
9.3
11.9
6.0
7.3
8.2
11.4
5.5
7.7
7.6
10.5
5.3
7.2
7.7
11.0
5.8
8.0
10.7
5.7
5.6
Kix.-d
carbon
7,
69.9
79.3
54.1
66.8
77.9
52.5
66.6
79.6
47.0
62.1
67.7
81.9
50.5
66.6
79.3
51.8
66.2
70.2
83.5
52.3
60.3
68.2
81.7
51.7
58.9
65.9
82.0
53.0
65.3
67.1
80.0
'54.4
67.4
81.0
53.6
52.9
Ash
7.
20.2
2.7
24.7
21.5
2.5
26.6
21.8
0.5
27.8
18.2
19.8
0.5
24.6
22.4
0.9
24.4
14.7
17.8
0.3
25.7
17.9
20.4
0.1
24.2
17.5
22.9
1.4
24.2
15.9
22.5
0.7
23.9
21.3
1.0
22.5
22.4
Btu
por
pomu!
11.454
13,(>16
8,692
11,117
13,519
8,310
10,989
14,003
7.510
10,121
11,263
14,553
7,736
10,838
14,114
8,071
10,674
11,817
14,7u7
8,230
9,910
11,255
14,371
8,108
9,744
10,784
14 ,?07
8.283
10,572
11,003
14,065
8,563
11,141
14,162
8,569
8,452
Sulfur
7.
2.0
5.0
' 0.4
1.7
4.5
0.5
1.7
5.1
0.4
0.6
2.3
5.5
0.3
1.5
5.4
0.4
0.5
2.0
5 2
0.4
0.7
2.0
5.5
0.4
0.8
1.5
4.8
0.4
0.7
1.5
4.9
0.4
1.9
4.7
0.4
0.4
Dry basis
Volatile
matter
%
7.S
10.8
7.5
8.5
11.6
6.8
8.3
12.6
7.3
7.7
8.8
13.0
6.2
7.8
13.0
7.1
7.1
9.6
12.4
7.1
8.5
8.5
12.2
6.8
9.2
7.9
11.2
6.4
8.2
7.9
12.0
6.9
8.3
11.5
7.0
6.9
Fixed
carbon
%
' 71.5
86.3
63.5
69.2
85.6
61.9
69.1
86.8
58.3
71.4
70.6
86.5
63.1
69.0
86.0
63.1
76.0
72.1
87.3
62.3
70.6
70.4
87.7
63.5
70.0
68.3
87.3
64.3
73.8
69.0
87.2
64.7
69.7
87.4
65.5
65.4
Ash
7.
20.7
2.9
29.0
22.3
2.8
31.3
22.6
0.6
34.4
20.9
20.6
0.5
30.7
23.2
1.0
29.8
16.9
18.3
0.3
30.6
20.9
21.1
0.1
29.7
20.8
23.8
1.5
29.3
18.0
23.1
0.8
28.4
22.0
1.1
27.5
27.7
Btu
per
pound
11,717
14,311
10,203
li;519
14,848
9,737
11,401
15,237
9.3C6
11,635
11,741
15,367
9,715
12.2&8
15,308
9,847
12,256
12,143
15,427
9,795
11,590 .
11,626
15,422
9,963
11,590
11,186
15,126
10,045
11,963
11,303
15,334
10,181
11,521
15,279
10,470
10,442
Sulfur
Z
2.1
5.4
0.5
1.8
4.9
0.6
1.8
5.6
0.5
0.7
2.4
5.8
0.4
1.6
5.9
0.5
0.6
2.1
5.4
0.5
0.8
2.1
5.9
0.5
1.0
1.6
5.1
0.5
0.8
1.5
5.3
0.5
2.0
5.1
0.5
0.5
-------
APPENDIX G
BAGHOUSE PRESSURE DROP CHART RECORDING
225
-------
SOAY-
Figure 143. Baghouse pressure drop chart recording for run 2
226
-------
APPENDIX H
GASEOUS MEASUREMENTS
227
-------
Table 27. GASEOUS MEASUREMENTS
Time
O 7
^9 j to
so2,
ppm
co2,
7.
Run No. 1
1620
1625
1630
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
1735
1740
1745
1750
1755
1800
7.40
7.38
7.88
8.38
8.00
7.38
7.35
7.50
8.25
7.50
8.12
9.00
8.50
7.38
8.12
8.25
8.88
8.00
8.12
8.12
8.12
1805 - 1910 no data
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
2000
2005
8.25
7.88
8.25
8.25
8.00
8.00
8.75
8.00
8.12
8.38
7.88
1633
1633
1666
1666
1650
1650
1650
1650
1633
1633
1633
1633
1616
1616
1616
1616
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1567
1533
1517
1450
1483
1467
1467
1450
1433
1450
13.3
13.5
13.3
12.3
12.9
13.5
13.7
13.4
13.1
13.5
12.9
12.9
13.4
13.4
12.2
12.9
12.1
12.8
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.4
13.5
12.6
13.2
13.3
13.2
13.4
13.3
13.2
12.9
13.3
Run No. 8
1955
2000
2005
2010
2015
10.12
10.35
9.70
9.65
10.35
no
. readings
12.2
11.1
11.8
11.6
11.5
228
-------
.Table 27 (continued). GASEOUS MEASUREMENTS
Time
02, %
S02, ppm
C02, 7.
Run No. 24
1418
1521
1623
1727
8.5
9.5
7.3
8.0
1330
1230
1490
1240
10.3
9.1
11.0
10.8
Run No. 25
1118
1221
1324
1410
1514
1617
8.9
7.7
8.4
7.6
8.4
8.5
1650
1360
1220
1150
1360
1420
10.8
11.5
11.0
11.3
10.9
10.2
Run No. 26
1200
1303
1405
1508
8.8
8.2
8.6
10.0
1915
1890
1790
1870
12.4
12.4
12.0
11.6
Run No. 27
1005
1107
1210
1313
1415
1517
8.9
9.2
9.5
10
8.8
8.5
1890
1790
1670
1670
1790
1730
11.8
11.7
11.8
10.8
12.0
12.7
Run No. 28
1030
1132
1235
1337
1440
1543
10.0
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.2
8.8
1830
1700
1600
1500
1510
1450
11.1
11.9
12.2
11.9
12.0
11.6
229
-------
Table 27 (continued). GASEOUS MEASUREMENTS
Time
0 7
v-/9 > to
so2,
ppm
ro 1
^^2 > /ซ
Run No. 29
1027
1129
1232
1335
1437
9.8
9.7
9.2
10.2
9.0
1450
1380
1300
1400
1370
11.6
11.8
12.0
11.1
11.8
Run No. 30
1002
1105
1208
1311
1415
1518
9.5
10.8
9.8
9.7
9.4
9.8
no reading
1370
1320
1290
1230
1230
12.4
11.1
12.0
12.4
12.2
12.0
Run No. 31
0811
0915
1018
1121
9.8
10.2
10.6
10.0
1370
1370
1175
1210
11.6
10.8
11.1
11.1
230
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(I'lcatr rend InWiifinnn: on llic ;rrmr he fine completing)
1. HC.POHT NO.
EPA-GOO/2-76-077a
1. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler Baghouse:
Sunbury Steam-Electric Station
3. UCCIt'lilNT'U ACCESSION-NO.
">. REPORT DATE
March 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Reed W. Cass and Robert M. Bradway
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-75-17-G(4)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB012; ROAP 21ADM-032
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1438
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; 6/74-11/75
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
EPA-600/2-75-013a. Project
Ext 2925.
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The first report of this series is
officer for this report is J. H. Turner, Mail Drop 61,
1C. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of extensive tests of a fabric filter baghouse oper-
ating on the effluent of a coal-fired utility boiler burning a mixture of petroleum coke
and anthracite silt. The tests were conducted to determine the total mass and frac-
tional efficiencies of the baghouse during normal and abnormal operatTorTwith brand
new and usecTfilter bags. Total mass samplers, inertial impactors, and a conden-
sation nuclei counter were used to sample the baghouse influent and effluent. Results
of the normal tests with the brand new and used bags determined the baghouse mean
mass removal efficiencies to be 99.88 and 99.93%, respectively. Statistical analysis
of the test results showed that the purposely altered variables had no significant effect
on either the outlet concentration or penetration for normal and abnormal tests of the
used bags. However, there were significant differences in the outlet concentrations
and penetrations when the normal tests were compared for the new and used bags.
There were also significant differences in the outlet concentrations when the new bag
normal and abnormal tests were compared.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. I DENT I Fl FOG/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution
Dust Control
Dust Collectors
Fabrics
Filtration
Tests
Utilities
13. DISI HlliU I ION 1.1 AT L ME NT
Boilers
Combustion
Coal
Petroleum Coke
Anthracite
Silts
Efficiency
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Sunbury Plant
Participate
Baghouse
Fabric Filters
Unlimited
1'J. SI (JUKI I Y CLASS (/Vi/A Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
05E
13A
HE
07D
14B
2 IB
2 ID
21. NO. OF PAGES
246
22. PRICE
EPA Furm 22?0-1 (9-73)
231
------- |