oEPA
United States      Industrial Environmental Research  EPA-600/7-79-132
Environmental Protection  Laboratory          June 1979
Agency        Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Pilot Scale Evaluation
of NOX Combustion
Control for
Pulverized Coal:
Phase II Final Report

Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program  Report

-------
                  RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional  grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports  (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND  DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded  under the  17-agency  Federal  Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from  adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments  of,  and development of, control  technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide'range of energy-related environ-
mental  issues.
                       EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for  publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the  views and policies of the Government, 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-600/7-79-132

                                                      June 1979
Pilot  Scale Evaluation  of NOX  Combustion
           Control for  Pulverized Coal:
                 Phase II  Final  Report
                               by

                   R.A. Brown, J.T. Kelly, and Peter Neubauer

                          Acurex Corporation
                     Energy and Environmental Division
                           485 Clyde Avenue
                      Mountain View, California 94042
                        Contract No. 68-02-1885
                      Program Element No. EHE624A
                    EPA Project Officer: David G. Lachapelle

                  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

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                                                              Page

   1       SUMMARY	   1-1

           1.1  Facility Description 	   1-2
           1.2  Test Results	   1-4

           1.2.1  Baseline Testing 	   1-4
           1.2.2  Evaluation of Control Technology 	   1-8
           1.2.3  Coal Composition	   1-14
           1.2.4  Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)	   1-15
           1.2.5  Biased-Fired Results 	   1-16
           1.2.6  Staged-Combust ion ~ Natural Gas	   1-16

   2       BACKGROUND	   2-1

   3       FACILITY	   3-1

           3.1  Basic Furnace Design 	   3-1
           3.2  Burners	   3-9
           3.3  Instrumentation and Data Acquisition	   3-14
           3.4  Emission Monitoring	   3-18
           3.5  Facility Summary	   3-22

   4       TEST PLAN RATIONALE AND MATRICES	   4-1

           4.1  Test Plan Rationale	   4-1

           4.1.1  Furnace Characterization  	   4-2
           4.1.2  Control Technology 	   4-5

           4.2  Test Matrices	   4-8

           4.2.1  Baseline Testing 	   4-8
           4.2.2  Control Technology Testing  	   4-18

   5       TEST RESULTS	   5-1

           5.1  Definition of Terms	   5-1
           5.2  Baseline Testing  	   5-2

           5.2.1  Excess Air	   5-2
           5.2.2  Effect of Temperature	   5-6
           5.2.3  Early Mixing Studies  	   5-13
           5.2.4  Load	   5-28
           5.2.5  Coal Composition	   5-34
                                    m

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Section                                                              Page

           5.3  Evaluation of Control Technology 	   5-38

           5.3.1  Flow-Field Visualization 	   5-40
           5.3.2  First-Stage Parameters 	   5-53
           5.3.3  Second-Stage Parameters  	   5-102
           5.3.4  Effect of Coal Composition	   5-119
           5.3.5  Flue Gas Recirculation	   5-126
           5.3.6  Biased-Fired Results	   5-128
           5.3.7  Staged Combustion - Natural Gas	   5-133

   6       SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 	   6-1

   A       APPENDICES                                                A-i
           A.I    Data Summary Sheets	   A. 1-1
           A.2    Particulate Data Summary Sheets  	   A.2-1
           A.3    CO Plots and Conclusions	   A.3-1
                                   iv

-------
                           LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure                                                               Page
  3-1      Coal/Oil/Gas/Combustor  	   3-2
  3-2      Furnace Cross Section 	   3-4
  3-3      Horizontal Extension Configuration  	   3-5
  3-4      Staging-Air System  	   3-7
  3-5      Coal System Schematic	   3-8
  3-6      Coal Lance Detail	   3-10
  3-7      IFRF Burner	   3-12
  3-8      Corner-Fired Burner 	   3-13
  3-9a     B&W-Type Coal Spreader	   3-15
  3-9b     Axial Nozzle	   3-15
  3-10     Gas Nozzles	   3-16
  3-11     Emission Monitoring System  	   3-19
  3-12     Hot Sampling Probe	   3-21
  3-13     Furnace Performance Map	   3-26
  4-1      Relationship of Current NO  Evaluation, Full-
           Scale and Pilot-Scale Programs for Coal	   4-6
  4-2      Horizontal Extension Test Configurations  	   4-35
  4-3      Horizontal Extension Sampling Locations 	   4-38
  5-1      Front-Wall and Tangentially-Fired Baseline NO
           Emissions	   5-4
  5-2      Horizontal Extension and Firebox Front-Wall-Fired
           Results	   5-7
  5-3      Wall Cooling Units	   5-9
  5-4      Effect of Water-Wall Cooling (Baseline) 	   5-11
  5-5      Effect of Preheat (Baseline)  	   5-12

-------
                     LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure                                                               Page
  5-6      Effect of Temperature (Baseline)  	    5-14
  5-7      Effect of Burner Swirl   	    5-16
  5-8      Effect of Injector Position 	    5-18
  5-9      Location of Fuel Tube	    5-19
  5-9a     B&W-Type Coal  Spreader	    5-20
  5-10     Effect of Primary Stoichiometry 	    5-21
  5-11     Effect of Primary Percentage (Tangentially Fired)  .  .  .    5-24
  5-12     Effect of Burner Size	;	    5-27
  5-13     Effect of Load (Baseline)	    5-29
  5-14     Effect of Load (Horizontal  Extensions)   	    5-30
  5-15     Effect of Load	    5-32
  5-16     Effect of Coal  Composition  on  Fuel  Nitrogen
           Conversion	    5-33
  5-17     Effect of Coal  Composition  (Baseline)  	    5-36
  5-18     Effect of Coal  Composition  at  the Higher  Load  -
           (Baseline)	    5-37
  5-19     Effect of S02  Doping  (Baseline)	      5-39
  5-20     Coal Flow Apparatus	    5-42
  5-21      Smoke  Generator	    5-43
  5-22      Stage-Air  Injection Techniques   	    5-45
  5-23      Opposed Jets.   Test #6 Low Flow	    5-50
  5-24      Opposed Jets.   Test #9 High  Flow	    5-50
  5-25      Jets from One Side Only.  Test #9 High Flow	    5-50
  5-26     Multiple Opposed Jet Flow Configuration 	    5-51
                                  vi

-------
                     LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)

Figure                                                               Page
  5-27     Multihole Rakes Pointed Up.  Test #36	   5-52
  5-28     Multihole Rakes Horizontally Opposed.  Test #50 ....   5-52
  5-29     Multihole Rakes Pointed 45° Toward Each Other.
           Test #51	   5-52
  5-30     Staging-Air Locations 	   5-56
  5-31     Effect of First-Stage Stoichiometry 	   5-57
  5-32     Effect of First-Stage Stoichiometry and Load	   5-58
  5-33     Horizontal Extension Configuration  	   5-59
  5-34     Comparison of NO Reduction vs. First-Stage
           Stoichiometric Ratio for Front-Wall-Fired Units ....   5-62
  5-35     Effect of Bulk Residence Time on Stack NO (Front-
           Wall-Fired) 	   5-66
  5-36     Effect of Bulk Residence time on Stack NO
           (Tangentially Fired)	   5.57
  5-37     Effect of Bulk Residence Time on Stack NO
           (Horizontal Extension)	   5_68
  5-38     Effect of Stoichiometry (Horizontal Extension)  ....   5-69
  5-39     Effect of Stoichiometry (Front-Wall-Fired)  	   5-70
  5-40     Effect of Stoichiometry (Tangentially Fired)  	   5-71
  5-41     Schematic of Local SR Distributions in Fully
           Mixed and Stratified Combusting Systems 	   5-73
  5-42     Schematic of Hot Sampling Probe	   5-78
  5-43     NO versus Residence Time in The First Stage	   5-79
  5-44     Effect of Mixing (First Stage)  	   5-84
  5-45     Effect of Secondary Air Swirl 	   5-86
  5-46     Effect of Primary Stoichiometry 	   5-87

-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
F i gure
5-47
5-48
5-49
5-50
5-51
5-52
5-53
5-54
5-55
5-56
5-57
5-58
5-59
5-60
5-61
5-62
5-63
5-64
5-65
5-66
5-67
5-68

Effect of Number of Burners (Long Residence Time) . . .
Effect of Number of Burners (Short Residence Time) . .
Effect of First-Stage Mixing (Short Residence Time) . .
Effect of First-Stage Temperature (FWF and Tangential).
Effect of First-Stage Stoichiometry and Preheat -
(Horizontal Extension) 	
Effect of First- Stage Temperature (Tangential) ....
Effect of First-Stage Temperature and SR
(Front-Wall-Fired) 	 	 .' 	
Effect of Wall Cooling at the Mid- Staging Position . .
Effect of Load (FWF and Tangential) 	
Effect of Stoichiometry and Load (One Large
IFRF Burner) 	
Effect of Second-Stage Stoichiometry (Tangential) . . .
Effect nf Fxrp<;<; Air ( Front-Wai 1-Fired) ........
F'f'fprf' r\f Pvrocc A"iv* f AYI a 1 Tnlppfrir) . . . . . . . . .

Slow Mixing Manifold Location and Configuration ....
Effect of Baffle 	
Effect of Temperature .......... 	
Effect of Second-Stage Temperature ... 	
Effect of Coal Composition Under Staged Conditions . .
Effect of Coal Composition (440 kW) 	
Effect of SOo DoDina (Staaed) 	
Page
5-90
5-91
5-93
5-95
5-96
5-97
5-99
5-100
5-103
5-104
5-106
5-107
5-108
5-110
5-113
5-114
5-115
5-117
5-118
5-120
5-122
5-124
             viii

-------
                     LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Concluded)

Fl>re                                                               Page
  5-69     Effect of S02 Concentration	     5-125
  5-70     Effect of Coal Type	   5.127
  5-71     Biased-Firing Configurations  	   5-129
  5-72     NO vs. First-Stage Stoichiometric Ratio (4 vs.
           5 Burners)	   5-132
  5-73     Natural Gas Fired NO vs.  SR	   5-134
                                 IX

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                 Page
 2-1     Overview of Experimental Emissions Control Work
         with Coal	2-3
 3-1     Analytical Pollutant Measurement Equipment  	   3-20
 3-2     Principal Components and Capabilities 	   3-23
 3-3     Furnace Performance Parameters for Various
         Configurations  	   3-27
 4-1     Structure of Furnace Characterization Tests Series  ....   4-3
 4-2     Preliminary Screening Matrix:   Baseline 	   4-9
 4-3(a)   Baseline Tests:   Effect of Temperature  	   4-11
 4-3(b)   Baseline Natural  Gas Effect of Temperature and Wall
         Cooling	4-12
 4-4     Baseline:  Natural  Gas Through Coal  Nozzle  	   4-13
 4-5     Baseline:  Front-Wall-Fired, Main Box	4-14
 4-6     Baseline:  Tangential  	   4-15
 4-7     Baseline:  Horizontal  Extension 	   4-16
 4-8     First-Stage Parameters  	   4-19
 4-9     Second-Stage Parameters 	   4-21
 4-10    Effect  of Coal Type	4-22
 4-11     Effect  of Residence Time	4-23
 4-12     Biased-Fired Tests   	   4-24
 4-13     Four Burners Only	4-24
 4-14     Natural  Gas  Staging Matrix   	   4-25
 4-15     Miscellaneous Test  Conditions  	   4-28
 4-16     Staged-Air:   Tangential  Matrix   	   4-29

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
Table                                                                 Page
 4-17    Alternate Control Techniques:  Tangential Matrix 	    4-31
 4-18    Tangential:  Substoichiometric Firing Matrix 	    4-33
 4-19    Staging:  Horizontal Extension Matrix  	    4-34
 4-20    Staging:  Horizontal Extension Matrix  	    4-35
 4-21    Hot Sampling Tests	    4-37
 5-1     Baseline Burner Test Conditions  	    5-5
 5-2     Tangential Air Distribution  	    5-23
 5-3     Effect of Yaw Angle	    5-26
 5-4     Pulverized Coal Characteristics  	    5-35
 5-5     Summary of Cold Flow Tests	    5-47
 5-6     Effect of Yaw - Tangentially Fired 	    5-89
 6-1     Summary and Conclusions  	    6-2
 6-2     Summary and Conclusions	    6-3
 6-3     Summary and Conclusions  	    6-5
                                     XI

-------
                                SECTION 1



                                 SUMMARY
        Advanced NO  control techniques for utility and industrial boilers
                   X


were tested in a pilot-scale furnace firing pulverized coal.  The impact of



NO  control techniques on other emissions, primarily CO and carbon loss,
  A


was also determined.  Staged combustion, where combustion air is propor-



tioned between first and second stages, was the primary control technique



tested.  Biased firing and flue gas recirculation as NO  control techniques
                                                       A


were P.ISO tested but to a lesser extent.



        Air quality planning studies show that advanced NO  control
                                                          A


techniques will be needed in the 1980's and 1990's to meet projected N0?



air quality standards.  Because utility and industrial boilers together



produce about two-thirds of the nationwide stationary NO  emissions, control
                                                        /\


of NO  emissions from these sources has been given high priority in  federal,
     /\


state and local NOX abatement programs.



        The EPA has several research programs underway to provide specific



criteria for the optimum application of burner modifications and staged



combustion techniques for NOX control.   A range of programs, from fundamental



experiments through field test investigations, is being sponsored by EPA to



develop NO  control technology.
          A


        Pilot-scale tests bridge the gap between fundamental experiments,

-------
which determine how local combustion environments affect pollutant emissions,
and full or near full scale tests, which determine specific hardware and
operating conditions needed to lower NO  emissions for specific source types.
                                       A
Unlike fundamental  experiments, pilot-scale tests can efficiently investi-
gate fluid mechanics and mixing processes for full-scale units.  Also a
pilot-scale facility offers more flexibility than full-scale units allowing
a wide variety of fuels and combustion modification techniques to be
tested efficiently.  In summary, pilot-scale tests can help develop guide-
lines for NO  combustion control techniques, such as staged combustion,
            J\
which can be applied to full-scale combustion systems.
        The pilot-scale test facility used for the NOX combustion tests is
briefly described below.  The test results are summarized in the following
subsections.
1.1     FACILITY DESCRIPTION
        The EPA pilot-scale furnace can simulate front-wall, opposed, or
tangentially-fired utility and industrial boilers.  A horizontal furnace
extension is also available which permits the facility to simulate a package
boiler.  A variety of heat exchange  sections allows gas quenching time to be
varied, and several stage-air ports, located over the length of the heat ex-
change section, provide variable first-stage residence times.
        Furnace volume  is typically 1.6 m3  (57 ft3), and the maximum  heat
release rate when firing coal  is  440 kW  (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr).  Furnace  volume
may be varied by removing heat exchange surface or adding the  horizontal
extensions.  Although hot refractory walls  are typically employed during
testing, water-cooled panels  to cover  the walls  are  available  for testing
the effect of cold walls on emissions.
                                     1-2

-------
        Five burners typically are used in the front wall  firing mode.
These burners are patterned after variable swirl  block burners developed
at the International Flame Research Foundation (IFRF).  Variable burner
parameters include swirl, flow velocities, fuel injector type, fuel,  and
quarl design.  Burner settings can be adjusted to closely  simulate full
scale system parameters.
        For horizontal furnace extension firing, a single large burner of
IFRF design or four of the IFRF burners used in the front-wall-fired tests
can be employed.  The large burner is also fully adjustable.
        Corner-fired burners are employed during tangentially-fired test-
ing.  Patterned after Combustion Engineering's tangentially-fired burners,
these burners have tilt and yaw capability and can be set at conditions
characteristic of full-scale systems.  The main difference between the
pilot and full-scale burners is that the pilot-scale burners use a circular
exit configuration while full-scale burners use a rectangular configuration.
Normally, four burners are used for tangentially-fired testing.  However,
if needed, eight corner burners can be fired in two tiers.
        Emissions and facility performance measurements are continuously
monitored by a computerized data acquisition system and displayed every
30 seconds on a CRT in the control room.  Pressures and temperatures of
a variety of streams are monitored for facility control and safety.
Continuous monitoring of emissions is provided by:
                Instrument	Emission
                Chemiluminescent             NO/NO
                                                  /\
                Nondispersive Infrared       CO/COp
                Paramagnetic                 0^
                                    1-3

-------
                Flame lonlzation Detector    UHC
                Pulsed Fluorescence          S02
Particulates are sampled with an isokinetic high volume stack sampler (EPA
Method 5).
        The versatile EPA pilot-scale furnace can be used to test and eval-
uate a wide range of staged and unstaged combustion conditions.  The follow-
ing section summarizes the parameters investigated during baseline and control
technology evaluation testings.
1.2     TEST RESULTS
        Results from the baseline and control technology evaluation test-
ing are summarized in this section.  Front-wall-fired (FWF), horizontal
extension (HE), and tangential-fired tests on several coal types are
discussed.
1.2.1   Baseline Testing
        Baseline tests in both FWF and tangential coal-fired configurations
have demonstrated that the EPA pilot-scale facility can duplicate full-scale
boiler NO levels and trends with excess air.  For the most part, burner
parameters and firebox exit temperatures for these tests were equivalent
to full-scale system parameters.  In addition to these firebox tests, base-
line tests in the HE with FWF type burners give NO results similar to fire-
box tests.  The agreement between HE and firebox test results indicates
that the firebox chamber geometry does not strongly influence NO results
such as those from the FWF burner.
        The variations of baseline NO levels and trends with system para-
meters are briefly discussed in the following subsections.
                                     1-4

-------
1.2.1.1   Excess Air
        As observed in full-scale units,  increases  in  excess  air  produce
higher levels of NO.   For a given excess  air level, rapid-mix coal  spreader
injector FWF NO levels are higher than slow-mix tangential  or axial  coal
injector FWF results.   Similarly, at higher excess  air levels, the  increased
oxygen availability appears to have more  impact on  NO  levels  for  rapid-mix
systems than for slow-mix systems.
1.2.1.2  Temperature
        Hot refractory-lined walls in the pilot-scale  facility produce
sufficient heat transfer (loss) to model  full-scale boiler exit gas tempera-
tures.  However, by using water-cooled walls and/or reduced air preheat,
exit gas temperatures may be further reduced and the influence of temperature
on NO could be assessed.  By comparing the variation of NO with exit gas
temperature for both gas and coal firing, it was demonstrated that exit gas
temperature (and bulk furnace temperature) chiefly impact thermal NO.  Since
NO derived from fuel nitrogen during coal combustion is much greater than
the thermal contribution, the majority of the work was performed at a single
air preheat temperature and with the hot refractory walls.
1.2.1.3  Mixing
        Exploratory tests were conducted to establish representative base-
line burner settings for FWF and tangential firing configurations.  Be-
cause these burner settings impact the mixing of the fuel and air, they
influence NO levels.
Front Wall Fired Burners
        The FWF burner swirl setting strongly impacts NO levels.   At very
low swirl, the flame produced is very lazy and can become lifted off the
fuel injector.  Under these conditions, fuel and air are well mixed prior
                                     1-5

-------
 to ignition and high NO levels are generated upon burning.   For high swirl
 levels,  intense well-mixed flames are produced near the burner exit, yield-
 ing high NO levels.   Intermediate swirl  levels produce the  lowest NO levels;
 this condition  was  chosen  for all baseline and control  technology evalua-
 tion testing.
         The percentage  of  air used to transport coal  to the  burners  (percent
 primary  air)  strongly impacts NO  levels.   A high percentage  of primary air
 gives  high  primary  air  velocity,  leading  to lifted  flames in which fuel and
 air are  thoroughly mixed prior to ignition.  These  flames have high  NO emis-
 sions.   Twelve  percent  primary air, characteristic  of full-scale  system
 values,  produces non-lifted flames  and was  selected for baseline  and  con-
 trol technology evaluation testing.
         Injector design also  strongly impacts NO  levels.  The  coal spreader
 injector disperses the coal in a  conical pattern  from the fuel injector
 exit, rapidly mixing the coal and combustion air, producing a very
 intense  flame.  NO levels with this injector design are  high compared to
 the  slow-mix axial injector.   Flames produced by  the axial injector are
 lazy and probably have significant fuel/air ratio  stratification over their
 flame length.
         In conclusion, mixing of  fuel  and air plays a dominant role in
 coal fired, FWF burner NO production.   Lifted flames and high-swirl well-
mixed intense flames produce high NO levels.  Slow-mix lazy, but attached,
 flames produce much less NO.   It  is conjectured that the slow-mix flames
 have considerable mixture ratio stratifications and that fuel-nitrogen
 (fuel-N)  is converted to N2 rather than NO within the rich combustion
zones.   In addition, NO formed elsewhere can be reduced to N2 in these
                                    1-6

-------
rich combustion zones.   Since NO derived from fuel-N  dominates  in  coal
flames, fuel-N and NO reduction to N2 in rich combustion  zones  can
significantly lower NO levels.
Tangentially-Fired Burners
        NO levels in tangential systems increase as the percentage of
primary air increases.   However, the high NO "lifted flame"  condition
present with the FWF burners at high primary air percentage  was not observed
with tangential firing.  Hot adjacent flames impinging in the tangential
system might maintain ignition near the fuel injector, thereby preventing
lifted flames.  Also, mixing of air from only two sides in tangential
firing, in contrast to mixing from all sides in FWF firing,  might give fuel-
rich stratified combusting mixtures even if the flame was somewhat lifted
from the burner face.
        Changes in burner yaw, or angle between the burner center!ine and
the diagonal, did not significantly impact NO levels.  Yaw angle was varied
from 0° to 9° (6° is full-scale practice).  Since yaw angle affects the
manner in which adjacent flames interact, NO processes in the tangentially-
                                11
fired pilot scale facility must be dominated by near-burner processes
rather than by intermediate-zone flame interaction processes.  In
support of this conjecture, it was found that axial-coal-injector FWF NO
results are very similar to tangential results, but are much below spreader-
coal-injector FWF results.  This comparison indicates that the primary
characteristic of the pilot-scale tangential systems  is the slow-mix
nature of the combusting jets.  The  interaction of adjacent flames in the
pilot-scale firebox must play  a secondary role to the slow-mixing nature of
the jets.
                                    1-7

-------
1.2.1.4  Load
        As load is Increased, NO levels are increased for FWF, HE and
tangential firing configurations.  This is probably due in part to the
increased combustion intensity and rise in combustion chamber temperature
which in turn increases thermal NO.  Additionally, fuel and air injection
velocities and consequently enhanced fuel/air mixing at higher loads prob-
ably increases fuel-N derived NO production.
1.2.1.5  Coal Composition
        Three coals, Pittsburgh #8, Western Kentucky and Montana were tested
under baseline conditions.  The Montana coal represented a departure from
the other coals in that it had a significantly higher moisture and oxygen
content and a lower carbon, nitrogen and sulfur content than the other
coals.  Under baseline excess air conditions, the Montana coal produced
consistently higher NO levels than the Pittsburgh #8 and Western Kentucky
coals.  Laboratory experiments have shown that the presence of sulfur can
inhibit NO formations under excess air conditions.  Thus, this mechanism
might be exhibited under these baseline operating conditions which gave
higher NO levels with the lower sulfur Montana coal.
1.2.2   Evaluation of Control Technology
        Staging in the FWF, HE, and tangential firing modes was the primary
NO control technology investigated.  During staging, only a fraction of
the air needed for complete combustion is mixed with the fuel in the first
stage.  The rest of the combustion air is mixed with the products from the
first stage in the second stage.  Under staging, limiting the amount of
available oxygen, which mixes with the fuel in the first stage, reduces
NO production.
                                    1-8

-------
        In addition to staging, flue gas recirculation and biased firing
were also briefly investigated to determine their potential  in reducing  NO.
        The variations of NO levels with first- and second-stage  parameters
and with flue gas recirculation and biased firing parameters are  briefly
discussed in the following subsections.
1.2.2.1  First-Stage Parameters
        The first-stage parameters varied during the tests include
stoichiometry, residence time, mixing, temperature and load.
Stoichiometry
        For long first-stage residence times (greater than 3 seconds bulk
residence time), minimum NO levels of from 80 to 160 ppm were achieved at
first-stage stoichiometric ratios (SRs)  of 0.75 to 0.85.  The minimum NO
level and associated SR was not strongly dependent on the type of firing
mode tested.  The similarity in minimum NO levels and SRs at which they
were achieved, for all of the firing modes tested, indicates that chemical
rather than physical processes are controlling minimum NO levels  at long
residence times under staged combustion conditions.
        At SRs near 1.0, NO levels depend strongly on the firing  mode, with
FWF and HE rapid-mix firing producing more NO than tangential firing at the
same SR.  Physical processes, such as fuel/air mixing, are probably playing
a more significant role at the higher SRs.
        These  results are consistent with fundamental studies which indi-
cate that the  maximum amount of fuel-N  is converted  to N2 at  a SR on the
order  of 0.8.   Below  this ratio,  increased amounts of fuel-N  are converted
to nitrogen  intermediates, such as HCN  and NH3, which unlike  N2» can be
easily converted  to NO  in the  oxygen-rich second  stage.  Above a SR of  0.8,
                                     1-9

-------
sufficient overall oxygen  is available to convert fuel N to NO, and the
mixing  rate, which determines local fuel-N-to-oxygen contacting, controls
the amount of NO produced.  If mixing is rapid, as in FWF firing, fuel-N
conversion to NO can be high.  Slow-mix tangential systems produce less NO
at SRs  near 1.0 for possibly two reasons:
        •   Less fuel-to-oxygen contacting
        •   Reduction of NO through flame-flame interaction.
Residence Time
        NO levels were found to decrease with residence time at all fuel
rich stoichiometry ratios  for the FWF and HE firing modes.  However the
higher  the SR, the higher  the initial NO level appeared to be.  As the SR
decreases towards the minimum NO SR, the NO decay rate increases.  Below
the minimum NO SR, the NO  decay rate decreases.  Similar results are observed
under tangential firing.   However, at the same early bulk residence time,
tangentially fired NO results are lower than FWF and HE NO results.  A bulk
residence time on the order of 3 seconds is required to decay NO levels to
values  characteristic of final stack NO levels.
        The early residence time, high NO levels are probably due to the
ready availability of primary air oxygen to the initial fuel-N volatiles.
Even at low SRs, sufficient oxygen is initially present to convert early
fuel N  volatiles to NO.
        The rate and extent of reduction of early NO depends on the local
SR and  the residence time  at those conditions.  Fuel-rich combustion zones
will  convert early NO to Np.  Overly fuel-rich combustion zones will
produce fuel-N intermediates, such as HCN and NH-, which will be converted
to NO in the oxygen-rich second stage.  Fuel-lean combustion zones will not
reduce early NO and will generate additional NO.
                                    1-10

-------
        At long residence times under overall  fuel-rich conditions,  decay
processes reduce NO to minimum levels.   At reduced  first-stage  residence
times, NO decay becomes sensitive to fuel/air mixing or firing  mode, with
tangentially fired systems producing less NO than FWF systems  at the same
bulk residence time.
Mixing
        FWF, HE and tangential system non-staged combustion NO results show
that fuel/air mixing dominates NO levels with the slow-mixed tangential
systems producing less NO than the rapid-mix FWF and HE systems.  For
long first-stage residence times, changes in mixing produced by burner
swirl, primary air percentage, and fuel  injector design do not significantly
impact NO levels below or at the minimum NO SR.   As the SR increases towards
1.0, mixing becomes of greater importance, until at excess air conditions,
mixing dominates NO levels.  It appears  that at long residence times under
fuel-rich conditions, the first-stage combustion volume acts somewhat like
a homogenous reactor with NO levels independent of fuel/air injector design.
However, for shorter residence times, mixing becomes important even at the
fuel-rich stoichiometries.
        Large single versus four small burner and axial versus spreader
coal injector HE NO results show that, at reduced residence time, and very
fuel-rich conditions, rapid fuel/air mixing systems give lower NO levels
than slow fuel air mixing "systems.  As the SR is increased, the rapid- and
slow-mix system NO levels cross over and slow-mix systems produce less NO.
Apparently, mixing influences the extent of combustion in the first stage
prior to stage air additions.  For a highly mixed system, combustion is
rapid and for very fuel rich SR available oxygen is depleted much before
stage air addition.  Decay reactions then have a longer time to reduce NO

                                    1-11

-------
 in the first stage than for slow-mix systems where available oxygen is
 depleted less rapidly.  These results suggest that under staged conditions
 and low SR, rapid mixing should be used to minimize NO for a given residence
 time.  At SRs approaching 1.0, slow mixing will minimize NO for a given
 residence time.
 Temperature
        For non-staged combustion or staged combustion with SR near 1.0,
 increases in first stage temperature increase NO levels.  Comparison of
 coal- and gas-fired NO levels as a function of temperature indicates that
 the increase is primarily due to increases in thermal NO rather than fuel-
 N derived NO,
        During staged combustion at a low SR, and a long residence time, an
 increase in first stage temperature decreases the NO level.   This  is probably
 the result of increased fuel-N volatilization in the fuel-rich first stage
which, due to the greater fuel-N in the gas phase, has a lower NO conversion
 efficiency.  In addition, the NO to N2 decay reactions are probably more
 rapid under the higher temperature conditions leading to  greater re-
 ductions of NO.   At low SR the change in these processes with temperature
are much more significant than the change of thermal  NO with temperature.
As SR increases these effects come into balance and finally, at SR near one,
 the thermal NO temperature effect is the dominant effect on NO.
        At shorter residence times and all SRs, increasing the first stage
temperature increases the NO levels.   Apparently, at short residence time
the decay processes under fuel  rich conditions do not have sufficient time
to reduce the NO produced in the early part of the flame.
                                    1-12

-------
Load
        As firebox firing rate is increased,  both  firebox  temperature and
mixing are increased.   Visually,  the intensity of  combustion  is  increased
with load.  As in the case of first-stage temperature  changes,  increases in
load at long residence times increase NO levels at SRs near 1.0  and de-
crease NO levels at low SRs.  For shorter residence times, NO levels in-
crease as load increases for nearly all  SRs.   This behavior  is consistent
with the previously discussed effect of temperature on NO.
1.2.2.2  Second-Stage Parameters
        The second-stage parameters varied during the  tests  include
stoichiometry, residence time, mixing and temperature.
Stoichiometry
        Second-stage stoichiometry or excess air levels do not strongly
impact NO levels.  As excess air is increased from 5 to 25 percent, NO
levels increase  slightly.   This  increase is probably due  to the increased
availability of  oxygen in the second stage or possibly the increase of
oxygen in the first stage,  due to the backmixing of air into the first
stage under high excess  air conditions.
         If the residence time in the second stage  is  less than  1 second,
20  to 25  percent excess  air is needed to reduce CO levels below 100 ppm for
SRs  below 0.95.   However, when the second-stage residence time  is equal to
or  greater than  1  second, the CO is always under  100  ppm  and carbon loss
is  less  than  0.5 percent of fuel input  on a Btu basis.
Residence Time
         For the  first-stage SRs  of 0.85 and  1.02  tested,  second-stage resi-
dence time changes from  0.6 to 2.4 seconds did  not significantly impact
                                     1-13

-------
 NO  levels.  This is expected since the gases in the second stage are more
 homogenous  than the first-stage gases and homogenous NO reactions are
 sufficiently rapid compared to the residence time of the gases.  As indi-
 cated in the previous section, at least 1 second is needed to reduce
 CO  and carbon loss to acceptable levels in the second stage.
 Mixing
        If  stage-air is added such that part of the air is backmixed into
 the first stage, NO levels will increase significantly.  To achieve
 minimum NO  under staged combustion conditions, particularly at low SR,
 stage-air must not be allowed to backmix into the first stage.  Second
 stage mixing has very little influence on NO levels except as it in-
 fluences the first-stage SR.  However, slow second-stage air mixing
 produces higher CO and carbon loss (200 to 500 ppm CO and 1  to 2 percent
 carbon loss).
 Temperature
        Increases in second-stage temperature slightly increased NO levels
 at a SR of  1.02 and slightly increase or decrease NO at a SR of 0.85
 depending on whether the mixing of stage-air is fast or slow respectively.
        Since increases in stage-air temperature also increase velocity,
 the rise in NO with temperature may be due to backmixing.   In addition,
 consistent with first-stage results, increases in temperature under lean
 first-stage conditions can increase thermal  NO production.   Also, at a SR
 of 0.85, slow mixing of stage-air may give stratified rich zones in the
second stage which  have the potential to more rapidly reduce NO as
temperature is increased.
1.2.3  Coal  Composition
        Western Kentucky,  Pittsburgh #8 and  Montana coal  were utilized in
                                    1-14

-------
the control  technology evaluation testing.   As mentioned in Section 5.
the Montana  coal  had a significantly higher water and oxygen content and a
lower carbon and sulfur content than the other coals.  For both FWF and
tangential firing, Montana coal NO levels at SRs near 1.0 were higher than
Western Kentucky and Pittsburgh #8 levels.   However,  below a SR of Q.8
Montana NO levels were lower than Western Kentucky and Pittsburgh #8 levels.
The relative difference between the low sulfur Montana coal NO levels and
the other coal data is consistent with laboratory experimental evidence
which shows  that the presence of sulfur in the fuel can reduce NO under fuel-
lean conditions but can enhance NO under fuel-rich conditions.  The effect
of fuel sulfur on NO levels was further demonstrated by injecting S02 into
the coal feed or air stream.  These tests showed that S02 addition to the
coal feed stream can significantly enhance NO formation under fuel-rich
conditions.
1.2.4   Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR)
        For tangential firing under baseline conditions, up to 30 percent
of flue gas recirculated through the secondary air ports produces very
little change in NO levels.  The reduction in thermal NO expected with FGR
is probably balanced by the increase in NO with mixing produced by the
higher velocity secondary air/FGR jets.  Under combined FGR additions and
staging, NO levels increased from their staged-only  levels.  The loss of
effectiveness in staging with  FGR addition can be  attributed  to increased
mixing, lower first-stage temperature under  rich conditions,  reduced
residence time and the recycling of FGR-NO into the  firebox.
        Introduction of FGR into the secondary air ports while combusting
coal has very little beneficial  impact on fuel-N derived NO,  which is the
                                    1-15

-------
 primary source of NO in coal fired systems.
 1.2.5   Biased-Fired Results
        Some FWF biased-firing configurations gave NO reductions on the
 order of 25 percent at baseline conditions.  These reductions are in line
 with those achieved by full-scale biased-fired systems.  For a rich burner
 stoichiometry of 0.85, the effectiveness of biased-firing in reducing NO is
 far below full staging techniques which yield 80 percent reductions in NO
 at a SR of 0.85.  These results show that the separation of stage-air
 addition from the first-stage combustion zone is critical in achieving low
 NO levels with staging.
        Tangential biased-fired results, where either two opposite or
 adjacent burners were fired rich (SR = 0.85) and the other burners fired
 lean, showed no change in NO levels with biasing.  Stage-air separation
 under biased-firing was probably minimal during these tests.  Also, in-
 troducing stage-air increases mixing and reduces residence time, both of
which act to counter any NO reduction due to staging.
        Tangential firing with overfire air, where the burners were
 run at SRs down to 0.75 and stage-air was added above the burners, showed
 only modest (15 percent at a SR of 0.75) reductions of NO.  Staging, where
 stage-air is completely separated from the firebox, showed NO reductions
 of 71 percent at a SR of 0.85.
        It is  clear from these results that good separation of first and
second stages  is critical  to achieving large reductions in NO through
staging.
1.2.6   Staged-Combustion  -- Natural  Gas
        Staged combustion  with natural gas  yields a NO versus first stage
                                    1-16

-------
SR curve which is similar in character to the coal-fired results discussed
previously.  Since molecular nitrogen can act like a fuel-N species  under
rich combustion conditions, the similarity in shape between coal and gas
staged results indicates that chemical effects are dominating the shapes
of the curves.
        Staging position or residence time does not impact gas-fired staging
results over the residence times (roughly seconds) investigated.  Since
coal-fired NO results changed with staging position, coal physical process
time scales, such as those associated with volatilization, and diffusion to
or from the particle surface, must be longer than those associated with
homogenous pollutant formation processes.
                                     1-17

-------
                                SECTION 2
                                BACKGROUND

        Utility and industrial  boilers are the two largest stationary
emitters of NOX.  Together they comprise about 60 percent of the 1974
nationwide stationary NOX emissions (Reference 2-1).   Because of this,
control of NOX from utility and industrial boilers has been given high
priority in the Federal, State  and local NO  abatement programs created
                                           A
to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for N02
         o
(100 ug/m  annual average).  Standards of Performance for New Stationary
Sources were set in 1971 for gas, oil  and bituminous  coal fired steam
generators with a heat input greater than 73 MW (250  MBTU/HR) (Reference 2-2),
Revision of the standard for bituminous coal units from 301 ng/J (0.7
Ib. N02 /106 Btu) (~580 ppm at zero percent 02) to 260 ng/J (0.6 Ib
N02/10  Btu,) (~500 ppm,) to reflect advances in control technology
(Reference 2-3) has been proposed.  For solid fuels with greater than 50
weight percent subbituminous coal a standard of 220 ng/J  (0.5 Ib N02/
10  Btu) has been considered.  Standards for new industrial boilers are
being prepared by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.  In
addition, emission standards for new or existing utility and large
industrial boilers have been set as part of State Implementation Plans to
maintain air quality in N0? critical regions  (Reference 2-4).
                                     2-1

-------
        Despite this regulatory activity, a number of air quality planning
studies (References 2-5 to 2-8) have determined that additional stationary
source control technology will be needed in the 1980s and 1990s to meet
projected N02 air quality needs.  These studies also concluded that, where
possible, additional technology should focus on application to advanced
design of new equipment.  In response to the need for additional technology,
EPA is developing and demonstrating advanced controls for utility and in-
dustrial boilers and other sources (References 2-9 and 2-10).  Near term
emphasis is on using major hardware modifications for new or existing sources.
Far term emphasis is on major redesign of new sources.  The ppm emission
goals (at zero percent 02) for the near and far term R&D programs for coal
fired utility and industrial boilers are as follows (Reference 2-9 and 2-10):
                                      1980 Goal         1985 Goal
           Utility                     230 ppm           115 ppm
           Industrial                  175 ppm           115 ppm
        As part of the EPA program to develop and demonstrate advanced
controls for utility and industrial boilers and other sources, the tests
described in this report function to define and demonstrate advanced NO
                                                                       /\
control techniques for utility and industrial boilers firing conventional
and alternate fuels (Reference 2-11).  To date, pilot-scale testing has
concentrated on firing coal in utility boiler configurations.
        Table 2-1 summarizes some NO  reduction research programs for
                                    X
coal fired equipment completed or ongoing at the initiation of the present
effort.  Several of these research programs have cast doubt on the effective-
ness of flue gas recirculation in reducing NOX in coal-fired systems.
        In a pilot-scale study, Armento (References 2-13 and 2-14) found that
a 15 percent flue gas recirculation resulted in only a 15 percent reduction in

                                     2-2

-------
                             TABLE 2-1.    OVERVIEW  OF EXPERIMENTAL EMISSIONS CONTROL  WORK WITH COAL
ro
 i
                  Notes:  1.  BW = Babcock & Wilcox, CE = Combustion Engineering, FW = Foster Wheeler, RS = Riley Stoker
                         (..  FW = front-wall-fired, HO = horizontally opposed, T = tangentially fired, Turbo - turbo-fired, SB = single burner
                         3.  hvbb = high volatile B bituminous (ASTH), sub c  = sub-bituralnous C (ASTM), etc.
                         4.  Approximate effectiveness observed in tests, 1 •* major controlling parameter, 2 * important effects, 3 •* minor effects
Reference






Crawford
(Ref 2-12)





Arraento
( Ref s 2-1 3
and 2-14}
Heap
(Ref 2-15)
Pershing
(Ref Z-16
and 2-17)
McCann
(Ref 2-18)
Unit
Dave
Johnston 2
Wildcat
Creek 6
E. D.
Edwards 2
Crist 6
Leland
Olds 1
Harlee
Branch 3
Four
Corners 4
Barry 3
Haughton 3
Barry 4
Dave
Johnston 4
Big Bend 2
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Pilot
Utility
Pac. Power
and Light
TVA
Central 111.
Light
Gulf Power
Basic Elec.
Georgia
Power
Ariz. Pyb.
Service
Ala. Power
Utah; Power
& Light
Ala. Power
Pac. Power
& Light
Tampa Elec
~~
--
~~
-~
City
61 en rock


Pensacola
Stanton

Farmington
Mobile
Kaimerer
Mobile
Glenrock
Tampa
Alliance
Umulden
Raleigh-
Durham
Pittsburgh
State
Wyoming
Alabama
Illinois
Florida
N.Dakota
Georgia
New Hex.
Alabama
Wyoming
Alabama
Wyomi ng
Florida
Ohio
Holland
N.Carol.
PA
Mfgr'
BW
BW
RS
FW
BW
BW
BW
CE
CE
CE
RS
RS
*"~
—

--
Firing2
FW
FW
FW
FW
HO
HO
HO
T
T
T
T
Turbo
SB
SB
SB
FW
Fuel3
Rank
Lig A

hvcb
hvcb
Lig A

sub c
hvcb
sub b
hvcb
Lig A
hvcb
hvbb
Europ

hvbb
Fuel
Origin
(If given)
Local



Local

Local
Ala.
Local
Ala.
"midwest"
Local





Fuel Analysis - Proximate
Hoist. Ash Vol. FC S HV(K)
28 8 32 32 0.5 8
7
16 9 32 41 3 11
9 10 35 45 11
38 6 28 28 0.4 7
7
13 22 31 34 9
7 11 32 49 12
13 7 37 42 10
7 11 32 49 12
10 7 37 46 12
28 8 32 32 0.5 8
11 14 34 42 3.6 11
6 12 36 46 12
6 32 0.75

Z 10 37 52 13

-------
                TABLE 2-1.   (concld.)  OVERVIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL EMISSIONS CONTROL WORK WITH COAL







Reference


















Crawford
(Ref.2-12)






Arraento (Refs.
2-13 & 2-14)
Heap (Ref.
2-15)
Pershing (Refs.
2-16 & 2-17)
HcCann(Ref.?-18







Unit











Dave Johnston 2
Wildcat Creek 6
E.D. Edwards 2
Crist 6
Lei and Olds 1
Harllee
Branch 3
Four Corners 4
Barry 3
Naughton 3
Barry 4
Ala.
"Midwest"
Dave Johnston 4
Big Bend 2
Pilot

Pilot
Pilot

Pilot







Fuel Analysis
(Concluded)








Ultimate Dry
CHS N 0 A

64 5 0.7 0.8 19 10
68 5 3 1.4 5.6 17
69 5 3.5 1.25 9.5 11
70 5 3.5 1.4 8 11
64 4 0.6 1.1 20 10
74 5 1.3 1.8 8 11

58 4 0.8 1.3 11 24
72 5 2.7 1.6 6.6 13
69 5 0.5 1.6 16 8

72 5 2.7 1.6 6.6 13
73 5 3.2 1.4 9.4 8
64 5 0.7 0.8 19 10
66 5 4 1.4 8.5 15
69 5 2.8 1.1 10.3 12

78 5 1.1 0.75 6


73 5 2.1 1.4 8.4 10
Effectiveness of Reduction Technique
Burner Modifications
o
01
o • -
•f V +*
*> Q. •—
£ $ £
>» C *
«0  tt) C t/i *• in
^^ t- O t. >* •—
>* *J •*- 01 I- (O
SO .— O 4-» 0> i- t-
O i- 41 i- E 0* Q)
v*o> y c ex 01 ITJ j->
123 4 567














3
3


11111
1 1 1


Overall Parameters





2

w
«

L. .n
US *
0* -M
lrt •*- OJ
•O OJ CT> -C
TJ O rtJ A)
O X 4-» L.
	 1 UJ  O-
8 9 10 11

1 2
1 2
1 1 2
3 1 3
2 1 3
3 1 2

1 2
1
1 2

1 2

Z 1
Z 1 3
Z 1 2 Z


2

1 2





Reclrculation





£>
£• -S
« C Of I-
E O O> OJ
O. (/) t/1 O
12 13 14 15
















3 2


2

2 2





c
o




c

tot.
a c v
A 3 -P
x cr o
16 17 18









3
3

3



3












Important
Combinations










9+10=1


9 + 10 - 1






9 + 10 = 1





10 + 13 - 2





PO
I

-------
NO  emissions.   McCann (Reference 2-19)  found F6R to be more effective;
  A


however, it is  difficult to determine whether the large reductions are a



direct result of the FGR or due to major changes in the primary zone mixing.



Pershing (Reference 2-16) found only small  reductions with FGR and sub-



sequently demonstrated that these were almost certainly due to the suppression



of the thermal  NO .  His work also suggests that a large portion of the
                 A


total NO  emissions from pulverized coal firing is the result of fuel
        A


nitrogen oxidation.  Since fuel NO  formation is relatively insensitive to
                                  A


temperature variations, it is not surprising that thermal dilution techniques



such as FGR are not very effective with coal.



        EPA research, both at IFRF and  in-house, indicated that burner



modifications leading to what might be  termed "internal staging" (or staged



combustion patterns in the near neighborhood of the burner) offer great



potential for NO  reductions in pulverized coal fired systems.  Heap
                A


(Reference 2-15) demonstrated that the  fuel injector design, swirl level and



primary percentage all strongly impact  NOV emission levels.  In some of
                                         A


his  tests he found that burner conditions which promote rapid mixing of the



coal and air before and during devolatization usually increase NOX emissions.



For  example, by switching  from a  prototype commercial coal impeller or



spreader to an axial  fuel  injector, he  was able to  reduce NO  from 902 to
                                                            A


453  ppm at 12 percent primary air.  Also, through  staging  (supplying part



of the  combustion air through tertiary  injection ports), he  was able to



achieve NO  levels well below 400 ppm without markedly  changing the physical
          A


characteristics of the flame.



        Staged combustion  was  found to  be another  effective and,  fortunately,



inexpensive means  of  controlling  NO  from pulverized  coal  systems.  Armento
                                   A
                                      2-5

-------
(Reference 2-13) found that with a burner stoichiometry of 0.80 a 38 percent



decrease in NO  was obtained.  At similar stoichiometry, McCann (Reference
              A


2-19) measured a 47 percent reduction.  In full scale field testing Crawford



(References 2-20 and 2-12) found roughly 40 percent reductions in NO  with
                                                                    A


burner stoichiometry near 0.90.  Crawford also found that in some cases



particulate loadings increased with staging, but he found no evidence of



increased tube wastage based on accelerated corrosion tests.



        Thus, staged combustion is clearly effective in decreasing NO  from
                                                                     A


pulverized coal systems.   However, the best techniques for staging were not



known and there were many unanswered questions about the existing staging



information at the initiation of this effort.  Crawford noted large variations



in the effectiveness of staging depending on the type and size of boiler.



Armento and McCann both noted major dependence on secondary air injection



and location, but neither was able to quantify the effect.  Armento noted a



minimum in his NO  versus primary zone stoichiometry data, which he attributed
                 A


to an increase in second-stage thermal fixation at low burner stoichiometries.



However, this effect possibly might have been the result of a major increase



in the oxidizable nitrogen species coming from the first stage.



        From the above brief comments, burner modifications and staging appear



to offer significant potential for NO  reduction.  The EPA initiated several
                                     A


research programs to provide specific detailed criteria for the optimum



application of burner modifications and staged combustion for NOV control.
                                                                A


The full spectrum from fundamental experiments to field test investigations



was initiated by the EPA to solve the important NOV reduction problems.
                                                  A


The pilot scale tests, reported herein, help bridge the gap between



fundamental experimental  studies and full or near full-scale tests.
                                      2-6

-------
These results also allowed definition of specific hardware and operating



conditions needed to lower NO  emissions for specific boiler types.   Unlike
                             A


fundamental  test facilities, fluid mechanics and mixing processes similar



to full-scale units can be efficiently investigated in the pilot-scale



facility.  Also, the pilot-scale facility has a much greater flexibility  than



full-scale units permitting a wide variety of fuels and combustion modi-



fication techniques to be efficiently tested.



        In summary, the pilot-scale tests sought to efficiently develop



semiquantitative guidelines for NO  combustion control techniques which
                                  X


could be generalized to full-scale combustion systems.  These tests focused



on the identification of low NO  operating conditions for the staged com-
                               A


bustion of pulverized coal.  Burner design modifications were not addressed



in this program because this activity is supported by another EPA program.



        The pilot-scale tests results support both the near-term and far-



term NO  control efforts mentioned above.  To support the near-term application



of major hardware modifications on units of conventional design, the test



facility was designed with a fairly realistic modeling of the geometry and



aerodynamics of large multiburner boilers.  This modeling aids in trans-



lating the present pilot-scale results to field demonstrations or design of



major hardware changes.  To support the far-term application of control



through major redesign of new sources, the facility was designed with the



flexibility to give a wide variation of combustion process modifications



important in NO  control.  This flexibility offers the capacity to identi-
               A


fy combined low NO  process modifications which extend beyond the range of
                  A


conventionally designed field units but which may relate to advanced designs.
                                      2-7

-------
         Besides  baseline  testing,  the  combustion  process  modifications
 investigated  in  the  current  test program  are  as follows:
         t      First-stage stoichiometry
         •      First-stage residence  time
         •      First-stage mixing
         •      First-stage temperature
         t      Second-stage §toichiometry
         t      Second-stage residence time
         t      Second-stage mixing
         t      Second-stage temperature
         Baseline testing  was done  to verify that  pilot-scale facility baseline
 NO  emissions  and trends  with excess air  level are representative of those
  j\
 achieved by full scale equipment.  First-stage combustion parameters were
 investigated for both high (SR >_ 0.95) and low (SR <  0.95)  first-stage
 stoichiometry.  The high  first-stage stoichiometry condition is representative
 of substoichiometric burning corrosive conditions which can be tolerated by
 present  conventional boiler designs.  The lower stoichiometry condition
 might be applicable to future major  boiler redesigns when the corrosion
 problem can be alleviated.  Second-stage  combustion parameters were in-
 vestigated to ensure that  CO and carbon burnout were acceptable under low
 NO  operating conditions.
  X
        Baseline, and first- and second-stage parameters were investigated
 for both the front wall fired and  tangentially, corner fired configurations
with three coal types.  Emissions  of CO and carbon particulate were monitored
for all  tests so that the  impact of  combined low NO  modifications on unit
                                                   /\
efficiency could be determined.   The background and rationale for the selection
of the above test parameters is  given in the following related sections.
                                     2-8

-------
                               REFERENCES

 2-1.   "Control Techniques for Nitrogen Oxide Emissions from Stationary
       Sources," Second Edition.  EPA-450/1-78-001, January 1978.

 2-2.   Federal Register, 36 FR 24877, December 23, 1971.

 2-3.   Copeland, J. D., "An Investigation of the Best System of Emission
       Reduction for Nitrogen Oxides from Large Coal-Fired Steam Generators,"
       Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Office of Air
       Quality Planning and Standards, October 1976.

 2-4.   Environment  Reporter, State Air Laws (2V.) Bureau of National
       Affairs,  Inc., Washington, D.C.

 2-5.   Crenshaw, J. and A. Basala, "Analysis of Control Strategies to
       Attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Nitrogen
       Dioxide."  Presented at the Washington Operation Research Council's
       Third Cost Effectiveness Seminar, Gaithersburg, Md., March 18-19, 1974.

 2-6.   "Air Quality, Noise and Health - Report of a Panel of the Inter-
       agency Task  Force on Motor Vehicle Goals Beyond  1980."  Department
       of Transportation, March, 1976.

 2-7.   McCutchen, G.O.,  "NOx Emission Trends and  Federal Regulation,"
       presented at AIChE 69th Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 28-
       December  2,  1976.

 2-8.   "Air Program Strategy for Attainment and Maintenance of Ambient Air
       Quality  Standards and Control of Other Pollutants," Draft Report,
       U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., October 8, 1976.

 2-9.   Norton,  D.M. et  al.,  "Status  of Oil Fired  NOX  Control Technology."
       Reported  1n  the  Proceedings of the  NOX Control  Technology Seminar,
       EPRI Special Report SR-39, February 1976.

2-10.   Martin,  G.B. and J.S. Bowen,  "Development  of Combustion Modification
       Technology  for  Stationary Source NO  Control,"  EPA-600/7-76-002,
       1975,  February,  1976.               x

2-11.   Brown,  R.A.  et  al.,   "Pilot  Scale  Investigation of  Combustion  Modifica-
       tion Techniques for NO,, Control  in  Industrial  and Utility Boilers,"
       In Proceedings  of the Stationary  Source  Combustion  Symposium,  Volume
       II, EPA-600/2-76-152b,  June,  1976.
2-12.  Crawford, A.R., Manny, E.H.  and Be., tok, W.,  "Field Testing:   Appli-
       cation of Combustion
       Utility Boilers,"  E
       2-74-066, June 1974.
cation of Combustion Modifications to Control  NOX Emissions from
Utility Boilers,"  Exxon Research and Engineering Company,  EPA-650/
                                     2-9

-------
2-13.  Armento, W.J., "Effects of Design and Operating Variables on NOX  from
       Coal Fired Furnaces -- Phase I," Babcock and Wilcox Company, EPA-
       650/2-74-002a, January 1974.

2-14.  Armento, W.J., Proceedings, Coal Combustion Seminar, June 19-20,
       1973, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, EPA-650/2-
       73-021, September 1973.

2-15.  Heap, M.P., Proceedings, Coal Combustion Seminar,  June  19-20,  1973,
       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,  27711, EPA-650/2-73-021,
       September 1973.

2-16.  Pershing, D.W., Brown, J. W., Martin, 6.B., Berkau, E.  C.,  "Influence
       of Design Variables on the Production of Thermal and Fuel  NOX  From
       Residual Oil  and Coal  Combustion," 66th  Annual AIChE Meeting,
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 1973.

2-17.  Pershing, D.W., Proceedings, Coal Combustion Seminar, June  19-20,
       1973, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, EPA-650/2-73-
       021, September 1973.

2-18.  McCann, C., Demeter, J., Snedden, R., and Bienstock, D.,  "Combustion
       Control of Pollutants  from Multi-Burner  Coal  Fired Systems," U.S.
       Bureau of Mines, EPA-650-2-74-038, May 1974.

2-19.  McCann, C.R., Demeter, J.J., Bienstock,  D., "Preliminary  Evaluation
       of Combustion Modifications for Control  of  Pollutant Emissions from
       Multi-Burner  Coal  Fired Combustion Systems,"  Pulverized Coal
       Combustion Seminar, EPA, Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina,
       June 1973.

2-20.  Crawford, A.R., Manny, E.H., Bartok, W., "NOX Emission Control for
       Coal Fired Utility Boilers," Pulverized  Coal  Combustion Seminar,  EPA,
       Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina,  June  1973.
                                   2-10

-------
                                  SECTION 3
                                  FACILITY

        This section discusses the EPA multiburner combustion facility at
Acurex.  It describes the basic furnace and burners together with the
capabilities of all the support systems including instrumentation, data
acquisition, and emission measurement equipment.
3.1     BASIC FURNACE DESIGN
        The basic furnace and heat exchange section used in support of this
program are shown in Figure 3.1.  The basic firebox was designed to simulate
the combustion aerodynamics of either a front-wall, opposed, or tangentially
fired utility boiler.  Horizontal extension sections can be added to
simulate a package boiler.  A variable geometry heat exchange section allows
for a variable quench rate or increased combustion volume by removal of heat
exchange surface.
        The heat exchange surface consists of 24 U-tube drawer assemblies
which can be inserted in "windows" in the heat exchange sections.  The heat
exchange sections are refractory lined so that they may become part of the
combustion volume when the heat exchange surface is removed and the
"windows" are plugged.
        The facility was also designed for investigating staging as a NO
                                                                        rt
control technique.  Stage-air injection ports were provided at numerous
locations over the length of the heat exchange section.  Thus, the first-
                                     3-1

-------

Figure 3-1.   Coal/oil/gas combustor

-------
stage residence time could be varied  by positioning  of the  stage-air
injection location.   Similarly,  the second-stage  residence  time  (time  from
stage-air injection  to quenching of the exhaust gases) can  be  varied by
placement of the majority of the heat exchanger surface.
                                                              3           3
        The main firebox is a refractory-lined chamber, 1.35 m  (47.7  ft.  )
in volume.  Figure 3-2 shows a cross  section of the  firebox showing the
ashpit and the first two heat exchange sections.   Numerous  sampling and
viewports are located around the periphery of the main firebox.
        Under this contract, a horizontal  extension  was fabricated as  shown
schematically in Figure 3-3.  There are five sections, each two  feet long
with an end cap for  mounting either single or multiple burners.   Numerous
ports are provided in each section for stage-air addition,  temperature
measurement, sampling access, or for cooling coil access.  These units are
83.8 cm (33") inside diameter and lined with 25.4 cm (10")  of  1650°C
(3000°F) insulating  castable backed up by  5.1  cm (2")  of insulation block.
Any number of sections may be connected together to  vary the combustion
chamber volume.  Two of the sections have  large rectangular windows for
flame observations.   A transition section  connects the horizontal extension
section to the main  firebox.  Two end caps were also fabricated so that the
section could be set up in a horizontally  opposed configuration.
        Heat is extracted from the flue gases by a closed loop Dowtherm G^
heat exchange system utilizing the drawer  assemblies mentioned previously.
The heat is then dissipated to the atmosphere through two Dowtherm   to
air heat exchangers.  A wide range of loads may be absorbed by bypassing
flow around the Dowtherm -to-air heat exchangers.  A schematic of this system
may be found in the Appendix.  Temperature of the Downthernr^or tube wall may
also be controlled from 65.6°C  (150°F) to 232°C  (450°F) by this valving system.
                                      3-3

-------
 1.   Combustion chamber  (39" cube)
 2.   Ignition and  flame  safeguard
 3.   Observation ports
 4.   Ashpit
 5.   1.5 x 106 Btu/hr IFRF burner
 6.   C.E.-type corner fired burners
 7.   3200°F refractory
 8.   Heat exchange sections
 9.   Drawer assemblies
10.   Staged injection ports
                                 Figure 3-2.    Furnace cross section.
                                                     3-4

-------
      4 IFRF
      burners
CO
 i
en
                                                                Heat exchange
                                                                surface
                                            ___ Staging and sampling ports
                                          /7V\
                                                     Movable  choke  for
                                                     stage  separation
                                                     when staging
  *[
                                                                                   ©
	 Main firebox
                                  Figure 3-3.   Horizontal extension configuration.

-------
         Combustion air  is provided  by  a  0.38 m3/s  (800  SCFM), 55 KPa  (8 psig)
 centrifugal  blower for  the  primary  (coal  transport air),  secondary, and
 staged air.   The  secondary  air may  be  heated and controlled to a maximum
 temperature  of 427°C  (800°F)  through a duct-type electrical heater.   Heated
 staged air is supplied  from the same heater, but the temperature can  be varied
 by addition  of cold air downstream  of  the heater.
        Secondary air is supplied to two  manifolds on either side of  the
 furnace with 8 outlets  on each side for a  maximum  of 16 outlets.  The
 controlled air flow from each of these outlets is  measured by a standard
 flange tap orifice.  Attached to the secondary air manifold assembly are
 natural gas, compressed air, and oil manifolds, each with five outlets on
 each side of the furnace.   The manifolds are positioned on overhead rails,
 allowing repositioning  for  use with the horizontal extensions.
        A 10.16 cm (4") diameter U-shaped  manifold supplies the stage-air
 to the heat exchange tower  from a vertical manifold as  shown in Figure 3-4.
 This vertical manifold  allows the U-manifold to be positioned at four
 levels to access the staging air ports in  the heat exchange tower.
        Cooling water for the burners  and  firebox  structural cooling  is
 provided from a manifold at the base of the furnace.  The water is supplied
 from a closed-loop cooling  tower system.   Coal is  delivered to the furnace
 through four to eight (depending on the number of  burners) copper tubes
 from a fluidized bed.
        The coal system schematic is shown in Figure 3-5.  Pre-pulverized
 coal  is dumped into a large hopper using a commercial bagdump.  The coal is
 fed intermittently from the hopper to  a pressurized Acrison screw feeder.
The screw feeder in turn transfers the coal at a uniform rate to the
                                    3-6

-------
CO
                   Vertical
                   Manifold
                                   Staging
                                     Air
                                                                     Heat Exchange Sections
Horizontal
  Manifold
4
                                                                                       Top View

                                                                        Staging Air Ports
                                                  Side View

                                       Figure 3-4.  Staging-air  system.

-------
       Flow direction

       Control valve
— ^3 —  Pressure switch
__  Solenoid valve
 /_:;   items located on
 L_J   control  board
                                                                                                                                               Bulkhead
                                                                                                                                          Primary and coal
                                                                                                                                          flow measurement
                                                                                                                                      _ j
                                                                                                                                            Shutoff bal 1  valve
A                                                                                air
                                                                       (50 (><•,(  min)
                                                                  rifll  bpd
                                                      hfH vniil
                                                                 height
                                                                     :'or
                                                                                                                                                    (Compressed air
                                                                                                                                                    (2  cfm, 30 psi)
                                                                                                                                       Till   t    i (f]uldi7ation
                                                                                                                                       it!tL_j)air
                                                                                                                                          Primary
                                                                                                                                       I( air  f1ow
                                                                                                                                       J f measurement
                                                                                                                          From primary
                                                                                                                          air heater
VihrUnr
                                                    Fioure  3-5.   Coal  system  schematic.

-------
fluidized bed.  The coal feed rate to each line from the fluidized bed is
metered by controlling the pressure drop across an orifice in a lance
immersed in the fluidized bed (see Figure 3-6).  The primary air flow to
each line is individually controlled and measured while the burners' coal
feed rate is balanced by flame observations.
        After passing through the furnace heat exchange section, the flue
gases enter the stack where the gaseous emission sample is taken.  The flue
is then ducted through the roof to the particulate sampling station, across
the roof and down into a baghouse for particulate removal.  An induced
draft fan and damper downstream of the baghouse allow control of the furnace
draft pressure from -5.1 cm (-2") H20 to +5.1 cm (+2") H20.
        The facility can also recirculate flue gas from the exit of the
baghouse to the secondary air line downstream of the heater.  Up to 50
percent flue gas recirculation is achieved using a 13.8 KPa (2 psi) Spencer
centrifugal compressor.
3.2     BURNERS
        As noted in the previous section, the facility was designed to
simulate either a front^wall-fired or tangentially-fired utility boiler.
In addition,  the horizontal extensions provide for simulation of a  package
boiler configuration.  The facility was also designed so that a variety  of
burner types  may be  utilized.   For  the  research tasks of  this contract,
it was desirable to have both multiple front-wall-fired burners, a  larger
burner of the same capacity as all  the multiple burners, and burners for
the tangential configuration.   It was also  required  that  these  burners  be
able  to fire  various  fuels and easily change aerodynamic  flow patterns
such  as air velocity  and swirl.  Therefore,  five  small and  two  large
versatile research burners were  designed  for the  front-wall-fired
                                     3-9

-------
Pickup Air
Bed Vent





Membrane

,

\
^^^
i
V
Lance Orifice
1 II II IT"

11

i :


It
^ ?0(
Coal + Primary Air
•* — 	 Remainder Primary A1r

I

1



9

•~- 	 — "

) AP Across
(Orifice
Coal In


T 11 111 1 JJ__L
«

of 8)
Bed Pressure
Fluidized
Coal Level


Fluldization
— Air
Figure 3-6.  Coal lance detail
             3-10

-------
configuration and eight corner-fired burners were designed and fabricated
for the tangential configuration.
        The small front-wall-fired burners, shown in Figure 3-7,  have a
nominal firing rate of 87.9 kW (3000,000 btu/hr.) each for a total  of 440  kW
(1.5 x 10  Btu/hr.).  The burners are patterned after the IFRF variable
swirl-block design and allow for great versatility.  Some of the  parameters
that may be varied with these units include:
        §   Swirl (adjustable during operation)
        •   Axial fuel tube position
        •   Air velocity (through sleeving)
        •   Quarl design (water cooled, refractory, angle)
        •   Injector type
        •   Fuel type (coal, oil, gas and others)
        The burners were designed for a secondary air exit velocity of
30.5 m/s (100 ft./sec.) at 316°C  (600°F) and 25 percent excess air at 87.9
kW  (300,000 Btu/hr.) heat release.  The two larger 440 kW  (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr.)
IFRF burners were of identical design and were used in the horizontal
extension work.
        The corner-fired burners  are patterned after  the  Combustion
Engineering tangentially-fired burners.  However, while the  CE burners are
a rectangular configuration, this version  uses three  concentric  circular
air fuel inlets,  shown  in Figure  3-8.  The  distribution of air and fuel
in  the vertical  plane,  as well as air  velocities,  were  kept  at the
same  levels  as  the  CE  units.  A maximum of eight burners  at  110  kw
(375,000 Btu/hr.) each may be utilized in  two  tiers for a  total  of 880 kW
(3  x  10  Btu/hr.).  (Normally only  four burners were  used  for a  total of
440 kW  1.5 x 106  Btu/hr.).    The  burners also have the capability of + 30°
                                     3-11

-------
                                                            *
                                                            *
PO


                                               Figure 3-7.  IFRF burner.

-------
            Gas
      Secondary
           air
      Coal and
    primary air

     Secondary
00       air
 I

CO
                                                        Figure 3-8.   Corner-fired burner.

-------
tilt, VIO  yaw, and have interchangeable air sleeves and fuel nozzles.  The
coal nozzles used in these burners were either the B & W-type spreader,
shown in Figure 3-9a, or a straight axial nozzle, shown in Figure 3-9b.
The axial nozzle consists of an open pipe with an exit velocity of from
18.3 to 30.5 m/s (60 to 100 ft./sec.) depending on firing rate.  Only the
axial nozzle was used in the tangential burners.  The B & W-type spreader
is patterned after typical full-scale hardware.
        The normal gas nozzle used in the IFRF type burner is shown in
Figure 3-10.  Since this nozzle has six holes exiting radially and one
axially, it is referred to as the radial/axial nozzle.  The holes are sized
so that fuel exits at sonic velocities.  The gas nozzles on the tangential
system are six-hole axial-only.
3.3     INSTRUMENTATION AND DATA ACQUISITION
        The facility is fully instrumented for temperatures and pressure
measurements.   Each subsystem has temperature and pressure measurements
for monitoring the status of the system as well as for input for flow
measurements.
        Flow measurements in the air system are accomplished using sharp
edged orifice sets.  The pressure drop across each orifice is read out on
a manometer.  The pressure at the orifice is monitored with a diaphram
gauge.  Orifice temperatures, as well as all other thermocouple measurements,
are monitored by a mini-computer data acquisition system.  The millivolt
signals are sent to the computer where they are interpreted and displayed
as temperatures every 30 seconds on a CRT screen in the control room of
the furnace.
        This same data acquisition system is used to monitor the emission
data as well as to calculate and record the various flow rates.
                                     3-14

-------
                      27.5
               Figure  3-9a.   B&W-type coal spreader.
0.75"
0.606"
                     Figure 3-9b.   Axial nozzle.
                                3-15

-------
00
I
                                                                                  I FRF Gas Nozzle
                                                                                    Corner  Burner
                                                                                    Gas  Nozzle
                                           Figure 3-10.  Gas nozzles.

-------
        The gas flow rate is determined using a rotameter and the Dowthernr^
flow is monitored with a Barton flow indicator based on an orifice AP
measurement.  The coal flow rate is approximately set using the screw
feeder setting but is normally back-calculated from the air flow and
Og measurements.
        Critical  cooling water flows are monitored with flow switches which
are tied to the flame safeguard system.  If any of these flows are lost,
the flow switches trip the fuel solenoid valves and the furnace is shut
down.  Other safeguard switches include overtemperature switches on the
                                        CR)                              ffli
flue gas into the baghouse, the Dowthernr^exit temperature, and Dowtherm^
minimum flow rate.
        Firebox temperatures are measured roughly using a ceramic sheathed
unshielded platinum-platinum/rhodium thermocouple.  Although these measure-
ments will incur considerable radiation error, they give an indication of the
approximate temperature level.  When more precise measurements are required
a Land Suction Pyrometer is used.
        The furnace draft is monitored by a magnehelic gauge both in the
firebox and at the point in the stack where the emissions are sampled.
During a test, the firebox and stack are maintained at positive pressure
to ensure that air is not leaking into the system.  Whenever a port is to
be opened, the furnace is put under negative pressure using the damper
control on the induced draft fan.
        The pressure measurement between the firebox and the stack also
gives an indication when the heat exchanger tubes are fouled and soot
blowing is required.  A similar pressure drop measurement is made across
the baghouse to indicate when baghouse pulse cleaning is required.
                                    3-17

-------
3.4     EMISSION MONITORING
        As mentioned in the previous section, emission samples are
continuously drawn from the stack just downstream of the heat exchanger
section but prior to the baghouse.  The temperature of exhaust gases at
this point is from U9°C (300°F) to 316°C (600°F).
        A schematic of the gaseous emission monitoring system is shown in
Figure 3-11.  A sample is pulled through a heated filter where the bulk of
the particulates are removed.  From the heated filter, the sample flows
through a heated Teflon line to an oven.   Additional  filtration is per-
formed in the oven and the sample divided three ways.   Calibration or
zero gas may also be added at this point.  From the heated oven, the three
sample lines pass through a refrigerant dryer where the sample is condensed
to a dew point of 2°C (35°F).  From the dryer, each sample gas passes through
                                              a.
a pump and another filter prior to entering the instruments.   Table 3-1
lists the instruments and principle of operation for each of the gaseous
emissions measured.   These include 02, CO, C02, NO, NOX, H/C and S02.  The
S02 unit uses a separate heated filter, sample line,  and condenser.
        Mhen particulate samples are required, an Aerotherm High Volume
Stack Sampler is used (EPA Method 5).   The sample port for this unit is located
downstream of the gaseous emission sample port 1n a vertical  section of the
stack, but upstream of the baghouse.  This port is easily accessible from
the roof of the building.   Grain loadings and percent combustibles are
determined from the particulate stack samples.
        Occasionally, sampling in the  hot (>1094°C (2000°F))  combustion
chamber for NO was performed during some  of the horizontal  extension tests.
This sampling was accomplished using the  water-cooled spray quench probe
shown in Figure 3-12.  Sufficient water is sprayed into the tip to quench
                                   3-18

-------
                                                                       Pulsed Fluorescent
CO
I
             Stack
                           Filter
Heated Stack

HZZh
  Filter
                         Cal  Gases
                                                  -[Dryer
                                            Filter
                                      Oven          Cal Gases
                                                  Pumps
                              Figure 3-11.  Emission  monitoring system.

-------
  TABLE 3-1.   ANALYTICAL POLLUTANT MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT
NO/NO  Intertech Model 32C chemi luminescence analyzer
     X


0?     Intertech Model Magnos 5T paramagnetic C^ analyzer



CO     Intertech Model URAS 2T NDIR CO analyzer



C02    Intertech Model URAS 2T NDIR C02 analyzer



U/HC   Intertech Model FID0008 FID H/C analyzer



S00    TECO Model 40 Pulsed Fluorescent analyzer
                           3-20

-------
                  Quench Water

           Gas  Sample  +  Slurry •*

             Cooling Water Out

             Cooling  Water In
CO
i
r>o
                                                           Combustion Chamber
                                                                               T > 2000UF
Hot Sample Gases
                                           Figure  3-12.   Hot  sampling probe.

-------
 the reactions  and unburned  hot  coal  particles.   This  slurry of char,  water
 and gaseous  sample is  drawn by  a  vacuum pump to  a  drop-out pot.   Here the
 gases  are routed  to the emission  system and  the  water and char slurry is
 separated.   Although there  may  be absorption of  NOp  in the water,  this
 system should  give a good  indication of the  NO level  at any point  in  the
 hot zone.
 3.5     FACILITY  SUMMARY
         In summary,  the EPA multiburner,  multifuel facility is one of the
 most versatile facilities available  for coal  combustion research  in the
 United States.
         Table  3-2 gives a summary of the  furnace and  furnace subsystem
 capabilities.   Detailed schematics appear in Appendix A.
         Important to the formulation of the  test plan in  the next  section
 is  the relationship of heat release  rate  per unit  volume  and firing rate.
 This is  illustrated  by the  performance  map of the  furnace  and  heat  exchangers
 as  illustrated in Figure 3-13.  The  upper boundary is determined with the
 full heat exchange surface  installed (or  using only the main firebox  as
 the combustion volume).  The lower boundary  is determined  by the required
 heat exchange  surface  to lower  the gas  temperature to 427°C (800°F) (the
 limit  imposed  by  the exhaust ducting).  Also shown on this curve are  the
 typical  ranges  of heat release  rates for  various fuels.   Clearly,  coal
 firing is restricted to  about 440 kW (1.5 x  106  Btu/hr.}.
         Table  3-3 further illustrates the current  performance  of this
                                           *
 facility by  giving the bulk residence times   and the  heat  release  rates
 for various  firing rates and combustion volumes.   This shows that  when
*Bulk residence times at 25 percent excess air and an assumed average
 temperature between 1370°C - 1590°C (25000F - 2900.0F) for the various cases.
 These residence times could be longer for a tangentially fired arrangement.
                                     3-22

-------
               TABLE  3-2.   PRINCIPAL  COMPONENTS  AND  CAPABILITIES
          Component
                 Description
Main Furnace Combustion  Chamber
 Max.  refractory temp:  1760°C (3200°F)
 Volume:   1.32 m3 (46.6 ft3)
 View  ports:  4, 7.62 cm (3") dia.
 Ignition  ports:  6, 2.54 cm (V) dia.
 Burner blocks  1, 5 hole, 71.1 cm (28")  dia.
   and plugs:   1, single hold, 71.1  cm (28")  dia.
               8, corner, "x"
 Burner mounting: 1-5 horizontal opposed
                 1-5 wall fired
                 4,8 tangentially fired
Ash Pit
 Volume:  226 m3  (8 ft3)
 Max.  temp:  1427°C  (2600°F)
Heat Exchangers
 Sections:   4 refractory lined
 Max.  temp:  1650°C  (3000°F)
 Inside dimensions:  63.5x63.5x81.3 cm
                    (25x25x32") high
 Drawers:   24 with 20 1.59 cm (5/8") U tubes
           /DWR - removable
 Length of  Dwr.:  81.3 cm (32")
 Coolant:   Dowtherm©
 Access ports:  4/section, 2.54 cm (1") dia.
 Mixing section:  15.2 cm (6") above and below
                 drawers (access ports are
                 located in those sections)
 Max.  heat  abs.:  645 kW (2.2 x 10^ Btu/hr)
 Wt.:   680  kg (1500i)/section w/o drawers
Burners
.2 - 440 kW  (1.5  x  l66 Btu/hr} Aerotherm/IFRF
 5 - 87.9 kW (300,000 Btu/hr) Aerotherm/IFRF
     •   Interchangeable fuel tips
     •   Interchangeable quarts
     t   Variable swirl
     t   Air sleeves to change velocity

 8 - 110 kW  (375,000 Btu/hr) Aerotherm corner fired
     •   Three  identical circular air &
         fuel Inlets/burner
     t   ±30° tilt  - all outlets ganged
     •   ±10° yaw - all outlets ganged
     •   Interchangeable air sleeves for
         each port
     t   Interchangeable fuel nozzles
Air Supply

  Primary
•
•
•
     0.378 m3/s  (800 SCFM) 0 55.1 kPag (8 psig)
     Aftercooler: 70°F dew point
     Cold control valve & orifice; separate
     heater
  Secondary
 •   Hot  control valves & orifices
                                            3-23

-------
                               TABLE  3-2.   (Continued)
          Component
             Description
                                             •   Individual control  & measurement  to
                                                 16 lines, 8 on each side of the fur-
                                                 nace.  Allows flow control  of second-
                                                 ary air to each I FRF burner and control
                                                 of annular and secondary air flows to
                                                 the corner fired burners.
Staged Air
Staged air manifold parallel to heat
exchanger stack.  Mixes hot secondary
and cold secondary air to achieve any
temperature up to the secondary air
temperature.  Presently only total
staged air is controlled.
Heaters
                                                                             427°C  (800°F)
Secondary air 200 kW max.
Temperature at the burner:
Primary air heater 12 kW max.
Temperature at the burner:  121°C (250°F)
Continuous control from 21 C (70°F) to
the maximum temperature for 10:1 flow
range
Flue Gas Recirculation
Take off point downstream of baghouse
Max. temperature:  204°C (400°F)
Max. flow: 0.0566 m3/s (120 SCFM)
Max. pressure:  13.8 kPag (2 psig)
Max. firing rate permissable at these
conditions:  440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
@ 10% excess air
Present introduction point is in the
secondary air line downstream of the
secondary air heater.  (Simple modi-
fication could be made to introduce
the flue gases in the stage air, pri-
mary air or individual  burners.
No FGR heater at this time
Oil  Delivery System
                                                                       104°C  (220°F) at
Up to 26.3 ml/s (25 gal/hr) on #2
or #6 oil
Single pumping & supply system for
both oils
Max. temperature #6:
the nozzles
Two oil manifolds with 8 taps each on
either side of the furnace
Quick disconnect fittings at the
manifold and burners
Flow control valves to each burner
Max. pressure:  1.72 MPag (250 psig)
                                           3-24

-------
                          TABLE 3-2,   (Concluded)
            Component
           Description
Gas System
Up to 0.0236 m3/s (300 ft3/hr)  9  172 kPag
(25 psig)
Manifold with quick disconnects,  8
outlets on each side of the  furnace
Shutoff ball valves for each tap  on
the manifold and needle control
valves for each burner inlet
 Coal  System
Up to 31.5 g/s (250 Ibs/hr)  of pulverized
coal
Ten delivery lines to two manifolds,
one on each side of the furnace.
Five flexible lines on each  manifold
deliver pulverized coal to one to
five burners.  The small  lines must
be recombined when firing the larger
burners.
The coal  and primary air flow rates
are controlled and measured  to each
of the delivery lines.  Uniform dis-
tribution Is obtained from a fluidized
bed distributor.
Bagged pulverized coal is fed into a
bagdump from the second floor level
and into a 1.4 m3 (50 ft3) hopper. This
represents about a 1 day supply of coal.
The fuel  flow may be stopped in the
event of a flame-out or unstable con-
dition through a solenoid operated air
purge system.  This purge system is
controlled manually or by the flame
safeguard system.
 Dowtherm^ System
Two DowthemN^to-air heat exchangers
can remove up to 132 kW (2.5 x 106
Btu/hr) from the Dowtherm
A bypass arrangement around these
coolers allows control of the heat
removal rate.
Induced Draft Fan
An induced draft fan with bypass
allows control of the back pressure
in the combustion chamber to ±5.1  cm
f±2") H20 over the full range of
tiling rates.
                                          3-25

-------
CO
 I
            CO
              3
             4->
             CD
              
-------
                      TABLE 3-3.   FURNACE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS
I
ro
Configuration
(Furnace plus
n empty sec-
tions)
Furnace
Furnace + 1
Furnace + 2
Furnace + 3
Vol
m3
0.4022
0.4943
0.5863
0.6784
Total Heat Release (kW)
880
R.T.
0.67/0.83
--
—
—
H.R.
2188
—
—
—
440
R.T.
1.34/1.68
1.65/2.06
1.96/2.45
—
H.R.
1094
890
750
—
293
R.T.
2.01/2.51
2.47/3.09
2.93/3.66
3.39/4.24
H.R.
728
593
500
432
              KEY:

                R.T.

                H.R.
= Residence time (sec) at 25 percent excess air/stoichiometric

= Volumetric heat release rate kW/m3

= Insufficient heat exchange surface

-------
                 TABLE 3-3.   (Concld.)   FURNACE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS CONFIGURATIONS
to
I
Configuration
(Furnace plus
n empty sec-
tions)
Furnace
Furnace + 1
Furnace + 2
Furnace + 3
Vol
ft3
46.60
57.27
67.93
73.60
Total Heat Release (Btu/hr)
3 x 10"
R.T.
0.67/0.83
—
—
__
H.R.
67,378
—
—
--
1.5 x 106
R.T.
1.34/1.68
1.65/2.06
1.96/2.45
—
H.R.
32,189
26,191
22,068
—
1.0 x 10"
R.T.
2.01/2.51
2.47/3.09
2.93/3.66
3.39/4.24
H.R.
21,459
17,461
14,721
12,723*
             KEY:
               R.T.
               H.R.
= Residence time (sec) at 24 percent excess air/stoichiometric
= Volumetric heat release rate Btu/hr-ft3
= Insufficient heat exchange surface
= Marginal heat exchange surface

-------
firing at 440 kW (1.5 x 10.6 Btu/hr.), a maximum residence time of 2.4 sec.
may be obtained.  This performance map was used extensively in setting up
the test matrices described in the next section.
                                       3-29

-------
                                 SECTION 4
                      TEST PLAN RATIONALE AND MATRICES

        This section presents the test plan rationale and the test matrices
developed to answer specific questions on advanced pollutant control
techniques involving combustion modification.  Section 4.1 presents the
specific rationale for the Phase II test program, including baseline tests
and the tests for evaluation of control techniques.  Section 4.2 presents
the detailed test program with explanations and test matrices.
4.1     TEST PLAN RATIONALE
        The fossil-fuel studies (Phase II, Task 1) task is made up of two
components.   The objective of the first component, Furnace Characteriza-
.tion, is to conduct fuels-oriented research and development, to deter-
mine how the pollutant emissions measured from this facility relate to
typical commercial combustion units under baseline conditions.  The
subscale results and the results from full-scale units will be compared
to establish the merit of the control techniques derived from the second
component of this task.
        The objective of the second component, Evaluation of Control
Technology, is to obtain general insight into control  technology to lower
the baseline emissions.  The general guidelines developed will help
burner and boiler manufacturers develop commercially feasible control
                                     4-1

-------
 technology.  We have organized this second component of the task to make
 maximum use of the unique features of the combustion facility, emphasizing
 promising aspects of control technology not covered by other EPA programs
 or that are best suited for testing in this furnace.  Tests to derive speci-
 fic hardware burner designs for low emissions were not planned, but rather,
 tests were planned to derive semiquantitative guidelines to indicate how hard-
 ware and operating adjustments can change important combustion characteristics
 (such as particle heating rate, mixing, etc.) and how these characteristics
 affect pollutant emissions.  Our rationale is described in more detail below.
 4.1.1   Furnace Characterization
        The objective in this subtask was to determine how this test
 facility compares to actual field hardware.  To do this, vie first answered
 preliminary questions about the conditions under which the furnace most
 directly corresponds to commercial units with respect to NO  emissions.
                                                           J\
 We then began baseline characterization with natural gas and three coals.
 Finally, we determined the baseline fuel NO  emissions for the three coals.
                                           A
        Table 4-1 shows the structure of the test program in this furnace
 characterization activity, and summarizes the objectives.  The following
 subsections amplifies these objectives.
 Preliminary Studies
        The test facility was designed with uncooled refractory walls in an
 effort to simulate the environment in most large multiburner furnances
 and boilers.   However, because of the complexity of flame size and
 flame shielding effects, it is possible that water walls might give a
better correspondence to field equipment.   Since this directly impacted
the credibility of the entire program,  we decided to experimentally
                                     4-2

-------
TABLE 4-1..  STRUCTURE OF FURNACE CHARACTERIZATION TESTS SERIES
Subtask
i
Furnace
Characterization
(1.1)
Element
Preliminary
Studies
Baseline
Series
Baseline
Fuel NOX
Studies
Wall
Cooling
Baseline
Burner
Config.
Front
Fired
Tangen-
tially
Fired
Test
Series
IIA
IIC
IID
HE
IIP
116
Principal Objectives
Determine importance
of wall cooling in
this facility in pro-
viding good duplica-
tion of full- scale
data or trends
Determine configura-
tion of burners in
wall -firing & tangen-
tial-firing which al-
lows best duplication
of full-scale data or
trends
Show that NOX
trends in this unit
duplicate full-scale
results over a range
of values of 3 pri-
mary operating vari-
ables: excess air,
preheat, & firing
rate (load)
Same as IID
Define NOX distri-
bution between ther-
mal NOX and fuel NOX
for coal
Define stage-air in-
jections technique
Other Objectives

Define furnace
operating char-
acteristics
• Define furnace
operating limits
• Compare emission
characteristics
of 3 different
fuels under same
conditions
• Establish data
base for evalua-
tion of control
technology
)
Investigate effect
of F6R
Estimate back-
mixing for various
staging geometries
                              4-3

-------
 evaluate  the  problem.  We  used  natural  gas and  coal  to  provide  the different
 combustion  and  radiation characteristics.  If water  walls were  found  to be
 necessary to  obtain  a  reasonable  correspondence between our results and
 those of  others  (such  as from full  scale units),  then they would be
 retained.
 Baseline  Testing
        For the main baseline test  series, emission  characteristics were
 classified  into two  general categories:
        •   Front-fired conditions
        •   Tangentially-fired  conditions
 For each  of these configurations  the primary operating variables of excess
 air, air  preheat, and  firing rate were  varied to  obtain a detailed baseline
 characterization.  This variation also  showed that the dependence of NO
                                                                       A
 on the three  primary operating  variables matches, or is at least related
 to, the dependence observed with  full-scale units.   Natural gas was used
 as the first  fuel, since more full-scale data are available for this case.
 The hardware  variables were initially set to correspond to utility practice
 and then  adjusted, if  necessary, until  the correct (as defined by full
 scale data) dependence on  excess air, air preheat, and firing rate was
 observed.
 Baseline  Fuel N0y Emissions
        In  the final part  of the furnace characterization tests, we
 established the importance of fuel  NO   at the various test conditions for
                                     /\
 coal  firing.  This was a difficult  problem, since even the most accepted
 approach, argon/oxygen substitution, was impractical here because of
economics (costs averaged  $2,000 per data pt.).  Turner (Reference 4-1)
                                     4-4

-------
has proposed that fuel NO  can be estimated using flue gas recirculation
                         /\
but Martin (Reference 4-2) has shown that there are potential  problems
associated with this method.  We proposed to get around these problems by
coordinating our tests with an independent test program at the University
of Arizona.  In this program, identical test fuels were burned under the
"same" combustion conditions in a small-scale, multifuel  combustor using
both Ar/CL replacement and flue gas recirculation.  The Arizona program
developed a relationship that can be used to accurately estimate fuel NO
                                                                        A
using flue gas recirculation (FGR).  However, the Arizona program also
showed a relationship between the thermal portion and combustion of natural
gas through the coal nozzle, that was simpler to use.  Thus, we used the
second method to establish the relationship between thermal NO  and fuel
                                                              A
NOX.
Stage-Air Injection Cold Flow Tests
        These tests were necessary to establish a stage-air injection
 technique with rapid mixing rates, but no appreciable back-mixing
 into the first stage.
4.1.2   Control Technology
        Because only  a fraction of all possible tests  could be  conducted
in  the time available, the specific scope of  the  research was narrowed  to
(a) make optimum use  of  the  special design features of this facility, and
(b) fill in research  gaps  not being investigated  elsewhere.  The  specific
research goals established for this program are explained below.  As  Figure
4-1 shows, for coal firing this program  focuses on and uniquely contributes
in  two areas:
                                      4-5

-------
                                                              Burner Variables
      Coal  Programs -
                      Wall  Firing
                    |- (on Register Burners)
                    — Tangential Firing
                                              Single-Stage —
                           '• EER (Heap)/EPA
                           • TVA (Hollinden)/EPA
                           • Exxon
                           It KVB Industrial Boiler/EPA
                                                              Flue Gas Recirculation — {0 1975 EPRI Program
                                                            <- Burner Variables-
                                            L- Two-Gtage
  Times;  temperatures

LWith FGR  	
                                            — Two-Stage
                                                            — General  Studies
                                                            LWith FGR
j • Acurex  Program

1« Acurex  Pn
)• Universit

{• EPRI  1975
• Acurex Program
• University of Arizona Program
                                            — Single-Stage — Burner Variables 	{•  Acurex Program
                           it Combustion Engineering/EPA
                           !• Acurex Program
                          It Acurex Program
Figure  4-1.   Relationship  of current NO   evaluation,  full-scale and pilot-scale  programs  for  coal,

-------
        •   Front-fired configuration  staging
        •   Tangentially-fired configuration burner variables
            and will  provide support for a third area
        •   Tangentially-fired configuration staging
        Research on wall-fired burner design modifications was deemphasized
for the following reasons.   First, an Energy and Environmental Research (EER)
study is specifically oriented towards this problem (excluding FGR), using
a nearly full-scale test facility.  The time limitations precluded the
luxury of duplicating results obtained on equipment more similar to actual
combustion facilities.  In addition, other important problems such as
staging and flue gas recirculation are more attuned to the unique capabilities
of this test furnance.
        Because studies by Combustion Engineering promised very useful
results on the effect of staging on tangentially-fired full scale units, our
role was (and is) to support their program.  Those tests that
can be conducted only with difficulty in full-scale units, such as various
adjustments in first-stage flame patterns, variations on second-stage air
injection methods, and  flue gas recirculation were conducted  in this facility.
In addition, the test  facility provided additional flexibility  in adjusting
first-stage  residence  time and heat removal, compared to  the  full-scale
program.
         For  staging on  the front-fired  configuration, the  test  facility can
provide  useful  information not available  or not being generated elsewhere,
such  as  the  effect of  mixing  in the fuel-rich  primary stage.  Studies
elsewhere will  help determine which  is  more desirable from a  NOX  point of
view  --  volatile fuel  nitrogen  (XN) or  char nitrogen.   Our studies were to
help  determine  how mixing affects  this.
                                    4-7

-------
        In addition, the test facility was ideally suited to allow varia-
tions in first-stage residence times, temperatures and stoichiometric
ratios, as well as various methods of secondary air addition.
4.2     TEST MATRICES
        The testing was categorized as baseline testing or verification of
the simulation capability and the testing of NOY control technology.  The
                                               s\
individual test matrices for each of these tests for the front-wall-fired,
tangentially-fired, and the horizontal extension testing are presented in
this section.  Each matrix lists the test number (e.g., lOOa, 118c*) for
those test conditions.   The purpose and rationale for each matrix is also
included.
4.2.1   Baseline Testing
        At the start of the test program, preliminary screening tests were
made to define the various burner settings.   On the front-wall-fired burners
the parameters of interest were the swirl setting, axial fuel tube position
and the primary air percentage.  Table 4-2 shows the matrix for the front-
wall-fired tests which explored these variables.  From this test series
came the nominal firing conditions of an axial fuel tube position of 11.8 cm
(4.65 in.), swirl setting equals 4 and a primary air percentage of 12 per-
cent.  The results for these tests will be presented in the next section.
        In establishing the facility as representative of full-scale units
from a NOV viewpoint it was important to determine the effect of temperature
         J\
and the effect, if any, of the hot refractory walls compared to water walls.
 The test numbering sequence was organized with a new number for each test
 day and a letter designation for a particular test condition.  Sometimes
 a prime was used for a slight modification to a test condition or where
 full emission measurements were not made.
                                     4-8

-------
              TABLE 4-2.   PRELIMINARY  SCREENING MATRIX:  BASELINE

Primary
%
12
25
SM
2
4
6
8
4
EA
25
5
15
25
15
25
1
15
Axial Fuel Tube Position, cm (in.)
10.54
(4.15")

108j
108h,i.k,l
107d*



108g
11.8
(4.65")
105b*
9c
113a
114a
9b, 113b, 114a
114c, 114d,
114f
105a*. d*
9a, llOa
135b
135c**
105c*
152a'

13.1
(5.15")


108b

107i


108f
14
(5.5")


108d
108c




15.2
(6.0")


108e





 *Hall Cooling Employed;  Load = 1.5 x 106 Btu/hr.
**427°C (800°F) Preheat.

-------
The matrix to study the effect of temperature and additional wall cooling
for coal is shown in Table 4-3a,  A companion matrix to explore this effect
on natural  gas is shown in Table 4-3b.  The purpose of these tests is to
look at the effect of temperature for both a fuel containing fuel-bound
nitrogen and a clean fuel.  For the clean fuel we should see only the
effect on the thermally generated NO  .  Another facet of this baseline work
                                    A
is to investigate which portion of the NO  emissions from the coal is due
                                         A
to fuel nitrogen.  It has been suggested that firing the coal nozzle on
natural gas at the same firing rate would represent the thermal NO  fraction
                                                                  A
and the remainder of the emissions would be associated with the fuel
nitrogen.  Table 4-4 presents the test matrix for this work.
        The baseline matrix for the effect of excess air, fuel injector,
firina rate and coal type on front-wall-fired burners is shown in Table 4-5.
In addition, a baseline test with four instead of five front-wall-fired
burners at the same firing rate was performed to determine the effect of
reducing the number of burners while maintaining the same firing rate.
Control technology tests were also conducted in this configuration, as shown
in Table 4-5.
        The baseline matrix for the tangentially-fired configuration is
given in Table 4-6.  These tests include the effects of excess air, firing
rate, air preheat, primary stoichiometry and coal type.
        The baseline tests for the horizontal extension configuration are
given in Table 4-7.  The objectives of these tests were as follows:
        •    Establish baseline data for four small IFRF burners with both
             the Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) spreader nozzle and axial injector
             in the horizontal extension mode
        t    Determine effect of preheat and firing rate
                                       4-10

-------
                    TABLE 4-3(a).   BASELINE TESTS:  EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE




37.8°C
(100°F)
149°C
(300°F)


316°C
(600°F)



427°C
{800°F)
Load
293 kW (1 x Id6 Btu/hr)
W. Cooling
5




107e







15




107f







25












No Cooling
5


118d



116e





15

140a
118c

12
116c
116d
134a
UOc
156n
182g
183a
135d
183g
25


118a
118b
118e

116a
116b





440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
W. Cooling
5


107k



107g
I07c




15


107j


105e
I06a





25




105a
105d






No Cooling
5


115c

9c
113a
114e





15


11
115b
115e
9b
113b
114a
114a
114d
114f



25


10
115a
115d
9a
llOa






Western Kentucky Coal   FWF
B & W   Spreader  Sw = 4

-------
                       TABLE 4-3(b).  BASELINE NATURAL GAS EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND WALL COOLING

TEMP/EA


No
Cooling



Cooling


149°C
(300°F)

316°C
(600°F)
82°C
(180°F)
149°C
(300°F)
316°C
(600°F)
703 kW (2.4 x 106 Btu/hr)
5
lOOc




102b

103c

103f
10
lOOb.d






103b


15





102a



103e
25
100a,e






103a


35





102a



103d
440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
5




lOOh




103i
15




lOOf




103h
35




lOOg




103g
ro

-------
I
CO
                                 TABLE 4-4.  BASELINE:  NATURAL GAS THROUGH COAL NOZZLE
                                                              LOAD

Temp/EA
149°C
(300°F)
316°C
(600°F)
293 kW (1.0 x TO6 Btu/hr)
5
121c
120e
15
121d
120c,d
20
121b
121e
120b
30
121a
120a,
120f
440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
5
121g

15
121f

20


30



-------
TABLE 4-5.  BASELINE: FRONT-WALL-FIRED, MAIN BOX
Burners
5 IFRF
4 IFRF

Firing
Rate
293 kW
(1 x 106
Btu/hr)
352 kW
(1.2 x 106
Btu/hr)
440 kW
(1.5 x 106
Btu/hr)
293 kW
(1 x 106
Btu/hr)


Coal Type
W. Kty.
Pitts #8
Montana
W. Kty.
W. Kty.
Pitts #8
Montana
W. Kty.
B & W Type Spreader
Excess Air
5
116e
1576
159/
156m
9c
157e
158/
165,6
15
116d
157a
159fe
156£,,t
96
157d
158,t
165g
25
116b
157c
159x1
156fe.j
9a
157rf
159a
165fi
Axial Injector
Excess Air
5
152c
157u
159g
152£
161(J



15
152a
148d
181a,182a
157u
159*.
152cf
161d



25
1526


152$
16U




-------
                                                         TABLE  4-6.   BASELINE:   TANGENTIAL
Preheat*
Temp.




316 C
(600°)






427°C
(500°F)
37.8°C
(100°F)
Load





293 kU
(1 x 106



440 kW
(1.5 x 106
Btu/hr)
293 kW
(1.0 x 106
Btu/hr)
293 kW
1.0 x 106
Btu/hr)
Burner
Yaw
+6







+6



+6

+6

Fuel**
Type
C-l




C-2

C-3
C-l
C-2
C-3

C-l

C-l

Primary
Stoich.
12
15

20

15

15
15
15
15

15

15

Excess Air
51
168d
169c 169T 174b 175e

168g

171c

171q
170c
170p
171cc





15%
168b
169a 169r 174g 175a 175c
178d 179a
168a 168e

171a

171*
170a
170n
171aa

174k 175g 179g

176a 176n 177a

25%
168c
169b 169s 174h 175b
175d
168f

171b

171p
170b
170*
171bb





 I
en
                range for the temperatures are as follows:
          **C-1 = Western Kentucky Coal
             C-2 = Pittsburgh 18 Coal
             C-3 = Montana Coal
 316°C:
(600°F:
37.8°C:
(100°F:
288  - 316°C
                                                                      550 - 600°F)
                                                                      27 - 47°C
                                                                      81 - 117°

-------
                                       TABLE 4-7.  BASELINE:  HORIZONTAL EXTENSION
Load
EA
Fuel
Western
Kentucky
Coal
Montana
Coal
Montana
Coal w/
S02 Inj.
In Sec
Montana
Coal w/
S02 Inj.
In Prim.
Inj./SW
Sp.-4
Ax-6
Sp.-4
Sp.-4
Sp.-4
Burner
4 1 FRF
Single Lg
IFRF w/4"
Sleeve
Lg IFRF
No Sleeve
4 IFRF
Single Lg
IFRF w/4"
Sleeve
Single Lg
IFRF w/4"
Sleeve

Preheat Temp.
32°C (90°F)
149°C (300°F)
316°C (600°F)
427°C (800°F)
316°C (600°F)
316°C (600°F)
316°C (600°F)
316°C (600°F)


249 kW (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
5



186d

2Q$i
205d
204,5

206bb
206ct

15

188a
188g
186b
189a
189fa
187i
203fi
205e
204e
1»3S
206dd
207

-------
         •    Determine  the  baseline data on Montana coal with and without
             SOp  injection  in  the  secondary and  primary air streams
         •    Compare  the  baseline  data  for a  single large  International
             Flame  Research Foundation  (IFRF)  burner with  the four small
             IFRF burners
         t    Determine  the  effect  of  changing the secondary air  velocity on
             the  large  burner  by sleeving the burner.
         It should  be noted that only four of the small  IFRF burners  were
 used in the horizontal extension  configuration  and that  the firing rate
 was reduced from 293 kW and 440 kW (1.0 and  1.5 x 106 Btu/hr.)  to 243  kW
 and 381 kW (0.83 and 1.3 x 106 Btu/hr.) respectively. This reduction  was
 done so that the heat  release per unit volume in the  main combustion zone
 was approximately the  same as in  the main firebox.  However,  in order  to
 achieve the same burner aerodynamics,  the number of burners was reduced
 from five to four.
        In addition to  the baseline test matrices for  the Phase II  test
program described above, at the start of every control technology test
(described in the next  section) a baseline  point at 15 percent excess
was usually taken for the particular firing  rate and preheat to be tested.
When the data for a particular test were then plotted, for example,  as  a
function of stoichiometric ratio  (SR), the baseline point for that particular
test was included as the reference point rather than  using the baseline
data taken early in the  test program.  Thus  some differences will be noted
in the  reference points.  These differences  can be attributed to changes
in the  combustion chamber  temperature, to changes in  the coal  spreader pattern
due to  wear on the nozzles (a  significant change as the nozzles become worn),
and to  ash clinkers on the fuel tube that changed the secondary air flow patterns.
                                    4-17

-------
4.2.2   Control Technology Testing
        Most of the control technology testing was concerned with staging
as a NOV control technique in both a front-wall-fired and tangentially
       J\
fired configuration.  The objective was to explore the effects of the first
stage and second-stage parameters on the stack NOX emissions and to deter-
mine the optimum set of first- and second-stage conditions to achieve
minimum NO  emissions while maintaining low CO, unburned hydrocarbon levels,
          X
and low carbon loss in the ash.
        As mentioned earlier, burner parameter changes were kept to a
minimum with first-stage parameter changes focusing on variables which would
affect the whole first stage.  The general parameters of interest for both
the first- and second-stage are as follows:
        •   Stoichiometry (excess air in second stage)
        •   Residence time in each stage
        t   Temperature &  Firing rate
        t   Mixing
        t   Coal Composition
        A series of matrices was developed to  explore each of these
variables in each stage for both the FWF and tangentially-fired config-
urations.  These matrices appear in Tables 4-8 to 4-14.  Most of the
testing was done in the front-wall-fired configuration and thus these tests
are divided into four principal matrices and several miscellaneous matrices.
The four principal matrices are described below.
Front-Wall-Fired Tests
        Table 4.8, First-Stage Parameters
            This matrix includes most of the first-stage variables, such
            as temperature or additional heat removal, mixing (both swirl
                                     4-18

-------
TABLE 4-8.  FIRST-STAGE PARAMETERS
Additional
Heat
Removal
None
Stagnation
Point
1st

SM
0
2
4
6

8
Firing Rate
kW/
10" Btu/hr
293/1.0
293/1.0
293/1.0
1.2
440/1.5
293/1.0
1.2
293/1.0

Preheat
°C/°F
316/600
316/600
427/800
149/300
316/600
427/800
316/600
316/600
149/300
316/600
316/600
316/600
427/800
Nozzle
BJW
Axial
Stolchlometric Ratio
0.65




182k

156g
160J





0.75
182J1
150d
150h

182j
150g
156d
1601



150e
182 j"

0.85
182i"



1821
127b

156b
160f

128a
129a

1821
129b
129c
129d
0.95



124c
127c
182h
123a
125e
127a

155e
160c
124f
127d
123b
124c
126c

128h

1.02



124d
127f
122b

155b
150a
124g
127e
124b
126b

1281

0.65









182d



0.75









182c
154e


0.85









182b
154d


0.95









182e
154a
154f


1.02









182f
153c



-------
                                  TABLE 4-8.   (Concld.)   FIRST-STAGE  PARAMETERS
ro
o
Additional
Heat
Removal
None
29.3 kW
000,000
Btu/hr)
Stagnation
Point
2nd
3rd
3rd
SW
0
4
6
8
4
6
8
4
Firing Rate
kH/
10s Btu/hr
293/1.0
293/1.0
440/1.5
293/1.0
293/1.0
293/1.0
440/1.5
293/1.0
293/1.0
293/1.0

Preheat
OC/°F
316/600
316/600
427/800
316/600
427/800
316/600
316/600
149/300
316/600
427/800
316/600
149/300
316/600
316/600
32/90
316/600
Nozzle
B&W
Axial
StoichiometHc Ratio
0.65

164b

164f




183d
183k





1
0.75

162d

164e
162h



183c
13Sg
137a
138e
183J
I83n





0.85

162c
164a
164c
164u
162f
164d
162h



131e
134b
138C
lS3b
135f
lB3i
183m

131d
134c
139c
140e
0.95

162e
1621

164g



132h
131b
138b
183e
135e
183h

132g
131c

139b

1.02

164h

164h



132e
132d
138a
183f


132f
132c

139a
139d
140b
140d
0.65





181f










0.75





181e










0.85
181g"




181d
181g
181g'









0.95





181c










1.02





181b











-------
                          TABLE 4-9.   SECOND-STAGE  PARAMETERS
Overall
Excess
Air
555
15*
25%
First
Stage
Mixing
Sw = 4
Slow
Sw = 8
Intense
Sw = 4
Slow
Sw = 8
Intense
Sw = 4
Slow
Sw = 8
Intense
SR
1.02
0.85
1.02
0.85
1.02
0.85
1.02
0.85
1.02
0.85
1.02
0.85
Second-Stage Residence Time and Injection Method
Secondary Air Preheat
90° C - 200 C
(200°F - 400 F)
Fast
Short
146B
146d
144d'
144d"


122b
127b
128i
129b
146a
146c


Long
143c
143d


143a
143e
149c
150a
165a
143b
143f




Slow
Short
145c
145f


145a
145d


145b
145e


Long
144b
144d


144a
144c






Secondary Air Preheat
200°C - 316°C
(400°F - 600° F
Fast
Short
146J
146h


146i
146g






Long












Slow
Short




145h
145g






Long












Down
Short




146e
146f
146f






Common Conditions:
Western Kentucky Coal
293 kW (1.0 x 10s Btu/hr)
316°C (600°F) secondary air preheat
12$ primary stoichlometry
First staging position
                                          4-21

-------
                                                      TABLE  4-10.    EFFECT  OF  COAL  TYPE
Swirl/
Injector
Swirl = 2
Spreader
Swirl = 6
Axial
Coal
11
Western
Kentucky
12
Pittsburgh
#3
Montana
11
Western
Kentucky
#2
Pittsburgh
#3
Montana
Firing
Rate
kW
(ItfBtu/
hr)
293
(1.0)
352
(1-2)
440
(1-5)
293
(1-0)
440
(1.5)
293
(1.0)
440
(1.5)
293
(1.0)
352
(1.2)
440
(1.5)
293
(1.0)
293
(1.0)
Overall Excess Air
5*
SR
0.65








156h



0.75








156e



0.85
143d
146d
146h

160g
157p
157h
159p


155f

157r

0.95

154b
160d
157m
157i
159n
159q
153a
155d
161 i
158c

1.02
143c
143b
146j

160b
157k

1598.


155a

158a

1.05i<




157e
159j
158J
152c

161f
157v
159s
15%
SR
0.55


160k

158h

159e


161n

159x
0.65


160J

158f
159g
159d

156g
161m

159w
0.75
149b
150b
150c
165b
154e
1601

158g
159f
159c
154g
156d
1611
158d
159v
0.85
149a
150a
143e
165a
146g
154d
160f
157o
158e
159o

148b
155e
161r
157d
159u
0.95
123a
125e
127a
154a
154f
160c
157!.
157g
159m
195b
148a
155b
161y
157t
159t
1.02
143a
146i
12Zb
153c
160a
157J

159k

148c

161g
158b

.15!"



157a
157d
159h
158i
152a
148d
181a
182a
156f
161d
158b
159r
25*
SR
0.75


161b





156c

157u

0.85
46c

160h





156a



0.95

154c
160e
157n



Ib3b
155c
161j


.02
46d

161a










.25?"



157c
157f
159i
159a
152b

161e


-p.
 I
ro
ro
               1 Not staged
               Conmon Conditions:   316°C (600°F)  secondary air preheat
                                  149°C (300°F)  second stage preheat
                                  Fast second stage mixing
12% pri  stoichiometry
P 293 kW (1.0 x 106Btu/hr)
0 440 kW (1.5 X 106Btu/hr)
First staging position
Long second stage residence time

-------
                                                        TABLE 4-11.   EFFECT OF  RESIDENCE  TIME
Firing Rate
kU - Thermal
(106 Btu/hr)
293
(1.0)

440
(1.51

Staging
Position
3rd
2nd

1st
3rd
2nd
1st
2nd
Stage
Residence
Time
Short
Short
Long
Short
Short
Long
Long
15% Overall Excess Air

0.55






160k
Stoichlometric Ratio
0.65
183d
164b
182k


164f
160J
0.75
183c
162d
165b
149b
150c
182j

183n
164e
1601
0.85
131e
134b
183b
162c
164a
164c
164J
165a
149a
150a
143e
127b
183m
164d
160f
0.95
131b
138b
183e
16Ze
1641
123a
125e
127a
182h
123a
123e
127a

164g
160c
1.02
132d
138a
183f
164h
143a
122b

164k
160a
1.15
135a
162b



162a
i

 I
ro
CO
             Common Conditions       Western Kentucky coal
                                   316 C (600°F) secondary air preheat
                                   149 C (300°F) second stage air preheat
                                   125! pri  stoich
                                   15% excess air
                                   fast second stage mixing

-------
 TABLE 4-12.  BIASED-FIRED TESTS

LOAD
293 kW
(1 x TO6 Btu/hr)
352 kW
(1.2 x 106
Btu/hr}
SR*
iK1
0.85
0.85
0.85
Configuration**
1
165c
156p
156o
2
165d
156q

3
165e


SR-, - Sto1ch1ometr1c ratio
of fuel -rich burner
**
Configuration description
(also Figure 5-71)
1. Overflre air
2. Burners out of service
air only
3. Burner out of service,
air only
TABLE 4-13.   FOUR BURNERS ONLY

LOAD
293 kU
(1 x 106 Btu/hr)
SR
0.75
165m
0.85
1651
0.95
165k

1.02
165j
                       4-24

-------
                                  TABLE  4-14.   NATURAL  GAS STAGING MATRIX
ro
en

Stg. Pos
1st
2nd
Excess Air/
Sampling
15
Stg Air
Off, Flue
Sample
25
15
10
5
Sample at
End of 1st
Stg.
Stg. Air Off
Flue Sample
Stg. Air Off
Sample End
of 1st Stg.
SR
0.65
165r
165r'
166*
1661
166j
166k
1661'
166J1
166k' ,£'
166k"

0.75
165q
165t
165f

166f, m
166g
166n
166flm'
166g'
166n'
166m"
166m"
0.85
164n
165rs
165s1

166c,n
166d
166e
166c',n'
166d
166e'
166e"

0.95
164m
165


166b


166b'


1.15
164£
165n

X
166a
X
X
166a'
X
X
                                                                                                   Common Conditions

                                                                                                   Preheat 316°C (600°F)        ,
                                                                                                   Firing Rate: 293 kW (1.0 x 10° Btu/hr)
                                                                                                   Burner:  5 I FRF
                                                                                                   Noz/Sw:  Radial/axial - Sw = 2

-------
            and injector type),  first-stage residence time,  and  firing
            rate, as a function  of the first-stage stoichiometry.
            These tests are with common second-stage parameters, such as
            excess air and residence time.
        Table 4.9, Second-Stage  Parameters
            This matrix includes the second-stage air,  preheat,  mixing
            (such as slow, fast, and down mixing as defined  in Section  5),
            residence time and the second-stage stoichiometry (excess air).
        Table 4.10, Effect of Coal  Type
            This matrix shows the staging tests conducted on the various
            coal types as a function of several first-  and second-stage
            parameters including injector type, first-stage  stoichiometry,
            excess air, and firing rate.
        Table 4.11, Effect of Residence Times
            This matrix has been separated  for interest to show  the effects
            of both first- and second-stage residence times  as a function of
            first-stage stoichiometry.
        A number of additional special tests were made in the front-wall
fired configuration and are shown in Tables 4-12 through 4-14.  Each of
these are described below.
        Table 4.12, Biased-Fired Test
            This matrix shows the effect at two loads of three biased-fired
            arrangements, including an off-stoichiotnetric arrangement and
            two burners-out-of-service arrangements.
        Table 4.13, 4 Burners Only
            A short series was conducted to determine the effect of staging
            on four burners compared to the five burners previously used.
                                        4-26

-------
       Table 4.14, Natural Gas Staging
            A set of  tests was  run  on  natural  gas  to  determine  the  response
            of  a  clean fuel  to  staging.   Tests were  run  at two  staging
            positions over  a  range  of  first-stage  stoichiometric  and  excess
            air levels to estimate  the first-stage NO levels.   Hot  sampling
            of  NO was made  at the end  of the first-stage and a  flue sample
            was taken with  the  stage-air off.   The hot samples  were taken
            with a water cooled stainless steel probe.
        A number of test points fell  into the miscellaneous category, and
are shown in Table 4-15.  In many cases these points are at various primary
percentages, and excess air levels  combinations not  covered in  the  previous
matrices.  Some of these were special  points chosen  to explore  a  particular
effect and others are points that do not fit into any of the other matrices.
Tangentially-Fired Matrices
        The main matrix for the tangentially-fired staging tests  is shown in
Table 4-16.  This matrix is primarily concerned with first-stage  parameters,
since the tests in the front-wall-fired configuration showed very little
effect of second-stage parameters.   However, there were some tests  made to
examine the effect of excess air on CO and carbon loss in the stack.   The
principal parameters of interest were the first-stage residence time, the
firing rate, the secondary air preheat, and the coal type.  A few tests
were also run at various primary air percentages.
        Table 4-17 shows the matrix for a variety of alternate  control
techniques for the tangential configuration.  These include biased-fired
tests and flue gas recirculation tests.  The effect of burner yaw was
                                       4-27

-------
                                           TABLE  4-15.    MISCELLANEOUS TEST  CONDITIONS
ro
CO

Coal
W.
Ky
Pitts
U. Ky
Firing Rate
t
N02
B &
Spr
M
Ax
B «
W
Preheat
°C(°F)
316 (
600)
149(300)
316 (600)
127 (800)
J16 (600)
\
316 (600)
*27 (800)
316 (
600)
SW
6
1
4
8
4
8
4
4
4
2
4
6
4
8
8
4
0
Prim.
12
1
33
25
J
12
12
12
10
12
15
12
12
25
1
EA
25
20
15
1
25
25
25
1
5
5
25
5
15
1
SR
0.75









150f
161c


143f



0.85







134d
134f,g





182T
182'
182
0.95
125b,c
125d


128f
128g
132i
138b'



157q





1.02
125a

128b
128c
128e
128d






135f




1.05
131c
















                                                                                                                              Higher Swirl;
                                                                                                                              High Excess Air
Effect of
Primary
Stoichionetry &
Increased
Swirl


Effect of
Temperature at
High Excess Air
and Max. Stg.
Position
                                                                                                                               Higher Primary

                                                                                                                               Higher to Lower
                                                                                                                               Excess Air, Etc.

-------
                                                    TABLE  4-16.   STAGED-AIR:   TANGENTIAL  MATRIX

Staging
Position
1st


2nd















Preheat*
Teap
317«C
(600°F)
317oC
(600°F)
317°C
(600°F)















Firing
Rate
293 kW (1.0
x 106 Btu/
hr) 440 kW
(1.5 x 10*
Btu/hr)
293 kU ,
(1.0 x 106
Btu/hr)














Burner
Yaw
+6
+6

+6















Fuel
Type
C-l
C-l

C-l






C-2





C-3



Primary
Stolch
15
15

15




20

10
15


25

15



Excess
Air
15
15

5

15
25

15

15
5
15
20
15

5
15
25
SR
0.55

173g

















0.65
173c
173f

169k

1691
169J 179f




17U
171J
171k


171v
171t
171u
0.75
173b
173c

169f

169g
169h 174e
179e
168h



1711




171s

0.85
173a
173c

169m

169e
169£ 179d


71m


171h

171h


171r

0.95
173J
173h



169n
179c





171g




171w

1.02
173k
173i

169q

169o
169d 169p
179b



171e
171d
171f

1712

171x 171dd
171y
-F»

ro
                *The range for the temperatures  are as follows:  316°C:  288 - 316°C
                                                          (600°F:  550 - 600°F)
                                                          37.8°C:   27 -  47°C
                                                          (100°F:   81 - 117°F)

               **C-1 - Western Kentucky Coal
                 C-2 = Pittsburgh 18 Coal
                 C-3 » Montana Coal

-------
                                 TABLE 4-16.   (Concld.)  STAGED-AIR:  TANGENTIAL MATRIX
Staging
Position
2nd





3rd
Preheat *
Temp
317°C
(600°F)





427°C
(800°F)
37.8°C
(100°F)
317°C
(600°F)
427°C
(800°F)
37.8°C
(100°F)
Firing
Rate
440 kW ,
(1.5 x 10b
Btu/hr)





293 kW ,
(1.0 x 106
Btu/hr)
293 kW ,
(1.0 x 10°
Btu/hr)
293 kH ,
(1.0 x 10°
Btu/hr)
440 kH ,
(1.5 x 10b
Btu/hr)
293 kH ,
(1.0 x 10b
Btu/hr)
293 kW ,
(1.0 x 10b
Btu/hr)
Burner
Yaw
+6





+6
+6
+6
+6
+6
+6
Fuel**
Type
C-l

C-2


C-3


C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
C-l
Primary
Stoich
15

15


15


15
15
15
15
15
15
Excess
Air
5
15
25
5
15
25
5
15
25
15
15
15
25
15
15
15
SR
0.55
170m


170x


•(70U







0.65
170J
170k
170£
170u
170v
170*
171kk
171iii
171JJ
179k

174f

174n

0.75
1701


170t


171hh
171hh'
179j
177e
174d
174e

174m
171e
0.85
170h


170s


171gg 171nn
171nn'
1791
177d
174b
174b'
174J
174^ 175n
176d
0.95
170f


170r


171ff

179h
177c
174a

174o
176c 171f
1.02
170e
170d
170g
1702
170y
170g
171ee

171mn
179f
177b
174c


171h 176c
I
w
o

-------
                                  TABLE  4-17.   ALTERNATE CONTROL  TECHNIQUES:   TANGENTIAL MATRIX
Configuration
Bias-Fired
Diag. corner,
same side
Tiered
Flue Gas Recir-
culation
0%
10%
30%
Burner
Yaw
No annula" air
Cold Walls**
Natural gas
Coal
Preheat*
Temp
°C
317f
317

317
317
317

317
317

317
317
Firing
Rate
kW
293tf
293

293
293
293

293
293

293
293
Burner
Yaw
+6
+6

+6
+6
+6

0
+9
+6

+6
+6
Fuel**
Type
C-l
C-l

C-l
C-l
C-l

C-l
C-1
C-l

NG
C-l
Primary
Stolen
15
15

15
15
15

15
15
15

15
15
Excess
Air
15
15
•
15
15
15

15
15
15

15
15
Staging
Position
—
.--

2nd
2nd
2nd

2nd
2nd
---

1st
1st
SR
0.65










172c
172i
0.75

178c








172c
172h
0.85
178e
178f
178b

180e

ISOd

180h
180k


172c
172g
0.95

178a

180e

180d

180h
180k


172b
172f
1.02











172e
1.15



180a
180b
180c

180i
180j
178g

172a

-pi
I
CO
              *The range for the temperatures are as  follows:  317°C:  288-317°C
                                                           600°F:  550-700°F)

             **
               C-) = Western Kentucky Coal
               NG  = Natural Gas
            ***
               Very cold from H,0 leak in previous test

              f317°C = 600°F

             ^293 kW = 1,000,000 Btu/hr

-------
tested as well  as the effect of shutting off the annular air.  Additionally,
the effect of very cold walls was observed in a staging mode for both
natural gas and coal.
        Finally, a number of points were fired substoichiometrically with
no staging air.  These points at two firing rates are listed in  Table 4-18.
Horizontal Extension:  Staging
        Matrices were developed for the horizontal extension to  investigate
the effects on staging of the following:
        •   Residence time, at much shorter residence times than were
            possible in the main firebox
        t   Temperature and well  mixed first stage, using baffles,  air
            preheat and cooling
        •   Cooling just prior to the second stage addition
        •   Axisymetric flow field vs. the aerodynamics of the main
            firebox
        •   A single large burner vs. four small burners
        •   An axial injector vs. the Babcock and Wilcox-type spreader in
            this configuration
        •   Coal type
        •   SOp injection in the primary and secondary air under staged
            conditions.
        Table 4-19 provides the matrix  for all of these  variables except
the tests on Montana coal and S02 injection.  These later tests  are given
in Table 4-20.  The tests of S02 injection with the Montana coal were made
to determine if the lower NO emissions at lower SRs experienced in previous
testing with the Montana coal were due, at least in part, to the lower
sulfur content of the fuel.
                                   4-32

-------
                             TABLE 4-18.  TANGENTIAL:  SUBSTOICHIOMETRIC FIRING MATRIX

Firing Rate

293 kW
(1.0 x 106
Btu/hr)
440 kW
(1.5 x 10b
Btu/hr)
SR
0.55






170m'
0.65
169k'





170T
0.75






170i'
0.85
169£'






0.95
169n'






I
OJ
OJ

-------
                                    TABLE 4-19.  STAGING:  HORIZONTAL EXTENSION  MATRIX
-p»
oo
SR
FIRING RATE
Fuel
Western
Kentucky
Coal
Western
Kentucky
Coal
InJ/SW
SP 4

AX 6
SP 4
SP2/SP6
SP 4
Burner
4 I FRF

4 I FRF
«/ cool Ing
4 IFRF
4 IFRF
w/cool1ng
4 IFRF
4 IFRF
Single
19
IFRF
w/4"
Sleeve
Lg IFRF
No Sleeve
Conflg
10
7
7
4
4
«
8
5 w/o B
5
4
4
3
1
1
Preheat Teup
32°C (90°F)
149°C (300°F)
317°C (600°F)
427°C (800°F)
317°C («00°F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (600°F)
427°C (800°F)
317°C (SOO°F)
317°C (SOO°F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (6000F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (600°F)
317°C (600°F)
0.55
249 kH
0.85 I
106
tu/hr)



193 f



194 e


207 n
208 e


381 kW
(1.3 x
106
tu/hr)



190 g

1914
192 J

195 1

207 •
208 j


0.65
249 kU
0.85 I
106
tu/hr)
186 g
189 f
194 1
189
190 k
193 e

191 4
192 d
194 d
19S •
193 k
207 o
208 d
203 k

381 kU
(1.3 x
106
tu/hr)
187 c
189 0
189 n
190 f

191 h
192 1

196 h

207 v
208 1
203 e

0.75
249 U
0.85 x
106
tu/hr)
188 b
188 h
186 f
186 h
187 9
189 e
194 h
189 h
190 j
193 d
193 b
191 c
192 c
194 c
195 b
193 j
207 p
208 c
203 J
204 g
381 kH
1.3 x
106
tu/hr)
188 d
188 f
187 b
187 e
189 p
189 •
190 c

191 9
192 h

195 g

207 u
208 h
206 0

0.85
49 kH
.85 x
106
Btu/hr)
186 e
189 d
190 1
194 g
189 1
190 1
193 C
193 a
191 b
192 b
194 b
19S c
193 1
207 q
208 b
203 1

381 kH
1.3 x
106
Btu/hr)
187 a
190 a
189 q
189 1
190 d

191 f
192 g

195 f

207 t
208 9
206 c

0.95
49 kU
.85x
106
AiulhiJ
186 1
189 c
194 f
189 j
190 h

191 a
192 a
194 a
195 d
193 h
207
208
203
mnm
381 W
1.3x
106
Bl-u/hr)
186 0
190 b
189 k
190 e

191 e
192 f

195 e

207 s
208 f
206 a
206t>

V.02
249 kN
0.85 x
106
Btu/hr)
186 )





192 e







381 Uf
(1.3X
106
nrii/nr)
186 n














-------
                                       TABLE 4-20.   STAGING:  HORIZONTAL EXTENSION MATRIX
SR

Fuel
•bntana
Coal
Montana Coal
«/S02 1n
Sec.
Montana Coal
•/SO; 1n
PrT«.
Montana Coal
x SO, In
Sec.

Spreader
Sp-4
ip-4
Sp-4
Sp-4

Burner
Single Ig
IFRF
w/4" sleeve
Single 19
IFRF
»/4" sleeve
Single Ig
IFRF
w/4" sleeve
Single Ig
IFRF
w/4- sleeve

Conflg
4
1
1
4
4
FIRING RATE
Preheat Temp
317°C
(600°F)
317°C
(600°F)
317°C
(600°F)
317°C
(600°F)
317°C
(600°F)
0.55
249 kU
(0.85 x
10«
Btu/hr)
207li




381 kU
(1.3 x
10*
Btu/hr)





0.65
249 kU
(0.85,x
106
Btu/hr)
2071


207J
2071*
207k
381 kW
(1.3 «
106
Btu/hr)





0.75
249 kU
(0.85.x
106
Btu/hr)
207s
206t
206u
207h

381 kW
(1.3 x
ID*
Btu/hr)

206>
206s


0.85
249 kU
(0.85 x
10*
Btu/hr)
207e
206y
20611
207f

381 kU
(1.3,x
106
Btu/hr)

206p
206q


0.95
249 kW
(0.85,x
106
Btu/hr)
207c
206x
206y
207d

381 k«
(1.3.
10«
Btu/hr)

206n
206*


1.02
249 kK
(0.85 x
106
Btu/hr)

206z
206aa


381 kU
(1.3 ,
10«
Btu/hr)

2061
206n


I
co
tn
          High S02 Inj Rate

-------
CO
en
          Configuration if
        L12'°
        hi - 3.
        Ln=°
L]1 = a

Li2 - ° I
         hi'1
                I
                             \
                                    n
                                    i
                                      I_LJ
Ml	H
   L]2=l  L12-
   n
   4—4
                  Figure 4-2.  Horizontal extension test configurations.

-------
                                                                     TABLE  4-21.     HOT  SAMPLING  TESTS
Staging
Conf.
H-4
H-4
H-4
H-4
H-4
H-4
H-4
H-4
H-;
H-7
H-7
H-?
H-J
H-7
H-7
H-10
H-10
H-10
H-10
H-10
H-10
H-10
H-tD

Burner
Conf.
BU SPR
BW SPR
MM SPR
BW SMS
8U SPR
BW 911
BIU SPR
Ax Inj
BW SPR
BW SPR
BW SPR
tlit SPR
MV SPR
BtW SPR
BW SPR
BW SPR
BW SPR
BW SPR
BW SPR
BW Sf>«
BW SPR
BW SPR
BW SPR

rest 1
193b
1931
1931
I93c
193d
193e
193f
19%
194f
1949
1901
19411
>S9e
1941
189f
1B6J
13*1
J86e
186ti
186,
1B71
)87b
187c

Firing
Rate
249 kll
(.85 Btu/hr.
249 kV i 106
(.85 Btu/hr.
249 kU i Id6
1.85 Btu/hr.
249 kU x 106
(.85 Btu/fcr.
249 kW « 10*
(.85 Btu/hr.
249 kK « 106
(.85 Btu/hr.)
249 tU I 106
(.65 Btu/hr.)
249 U > 10e
(.as eiu/hr.j
249 kU i 106
;.«!. Btu/hr. )
249 kV. x 10*
(.85 Jtu'hr.
249 kU « 106
(.85 Btu/hr.]
249 kU i ID6
(.85 Btu/hr.]
249 IcW « 106
|. 85 Btu/hr.)
?49 M < 106
;.BS Btu/hr.;
249 kU x ID6
(.85 Btu/hr.;
249 kW I 106
(.85 Btu/hr.;
249 kK » 106
(.85 Btu/hr.;
249 U i 106
(.85 Btu/hr.
249 kU > ID6
(.85 Btu/hr.
249 kH x ID6
(.B5 Btu/hr.;
361 kM I ID6
(1.3 Btu/hr.;
381 kH I 10S
(1.3 Btu/hr.:
381 kU * ID6
1.3 Btu/hr.]

Prfhejt
<°C)
37.8°C
(100«F)
37.8°C
(100»F)
317CC
(«00°F)
427°C
(800°F)
427°C
(BOOOF)
427°C
(80Q»F)
427°C
<800°F)
317°C
(600°f)
317°C
(600<>F)
317°C
(600"f)
317°C
(«00°F)
317°C
<6flO°F)
317°C
(600»F)
31I°C
(«OOOF)
317°C
(600°F)
317°C
(600"F)
317°C
(MO°F)
J17°C
(600<>F(
3i7°c
(600°F|
317°C
(600PFI
J17°C
(600°F)
317°C
(600°f)
317°C
(600°F)

SR
0.75
O.BS
0.85
0.85
U.75
0.65
0.55
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.65
1.02
0.95
0.35
0.7S
0.65
0.95
0.75
0.65

Sample Locations*
2-0, 2-17.8(7)
£-0. 2-17.8(7)
2-0, 2-17.8(7)
2-0. 2-17.8(7)
2-0, 2-8.9(3.5), 2-17.8(7), 2-25.4(10)
2-0
2-0. 2-8.9(3.5). 2-17.8(7), 2-25.4(10)
Z-0, 2-8.9(3.5), 2-17.8(7). 2-25.4(10)
2-0, 2-8.9(3.5). 2-17.8(7). 4-0, 4-17.8(7). 4-25.4(10), 6-0, 6-8.9(3.5), 6-17.8(7), 6-25.4(10), 6-17.8(7)
2-0. 2-1). B(T), 4-0. 4-17.8(1). 6-0, 6-17.8(7). 8-17.8(7)
3-0
2-0, 2-8.9(3.5). 2-17.8(7), 2-2«.4(]0). 4-0, 4-17.8(7), 8-17.817)
3-0, 4-0, 6-0
2-0. 2-17.8(7), 8-17.8(7)
3-0, 6-0
4-0
4-0
4-0, 6-0
4-0. 6-0
4-0. 6-0
4-0. 6-0
4-0. 6-0
4-0, 6-0

u>
—I
                                                                            »tM first »u*n- Indicates (be sa»fIf port I is illustrated  1n Figure 4-3i Th« second lurtw Indlcitts 1«
                                                                             cwflwurs (Inches) the distance (ran the oenttrline of ttw furnace twirts the «11.  Therefore, 3-25.4(10)
                                                                             M»U IndKltt s«ple 3,254.  cm 110 ) firm the centrrlln* of ttie (urntcc.

-------
        The description of the various configuration numbers listed on these
matrices is illustrated in Figure 4-2.
        For the horizontal extension tests, a hot sampling quench probe for
NO was designed and fabricated.  This probe was used to obtain information
on the NO levels in the first stage.  Table 4-21 summarizes the conditions
at which these samples were taken, using the same configuration number as
referred to earlier.  The code for the sample locations is described on
the table and the sample position may be found in Figure 4.3.
        This section has summarized the test matrices.   If additional
correlations other than those given in Section 5 are required, refer to the
matrices to find the specific condition and test number.  The emission
levels for each of these tests are then given in the appendix under the
Data Summary Tables.  In all  approximately 766 test points were completed
in the Phase II program.
                                   4-38

-------
                                           (7)    (
©    (2;
CO
vo

Main Firebox














/


































1.78

0|,25
0.56
0.86
1.17
1.47







2.08
2.39
Distance ( Meters } Frnm Rnrnav Far
*
»

»
•

"0
Sampling Location #'s
                             Figure 4-3.   Horizontal extension sampling  locations.

-------
                                 REFERENCES
4-1     Turner, D. W., Andrews, R. L., and Siegmund, C. W., "Influence of
        Combustion Modification and Fuel Nitrogen Content on Nitrogen Oxides
        Emissions from Fuel Oil Combustion," in Air Pollution and Its Control,
        R. W. Coughlin, et al, ed., American Institute of Chemical  Engineers,
        Vol. 68, 1972.

4-2     Martin, G., Berkau, E. E., "Evaluation of Various Combustion
        Modification Techniques for Control  of Thermal and Fuel-Related
        Nitrogen Oxide Emissions," presented at 14th Symposium (Interna-
        tional) on Combustion, The Combustion Institute, Pittsburgh,
        Pennsylvania, 1973.
                                    4-40

-------
                                SECTION 5
                              TEST RESULTS

        The results and conclusions from the baseline and control  technology
tests are presented in this section.  Following a brief description of the
terminology to be used (Section 5.1), the results of the experimental
program are presented according to baseline tests (Section 5.2) and the
control technology tests (Section 5.3).  The baseline results are subdivided
into effects of stoichiometry or excess air, temperature, mixing, load and
coal composition on NO.  The control technology tests are given for first
and second-stage parameters and coal composition.  Miscellaneous results
on flue gas recirculation, biased firing, and staged combustion with natural
gas are also presented.
        Within each of the first- and second-stage parameter sections,
stoichiometry, residence time, mixing, and temperature are addressed.
Baseline and control technology results are presented for the front-wall
fired, tangentially-fired, and horizontal extension configurations.
5.1     DEFINITION OF TERMS
        The most important terms which need to be defined are:
        •   Primary Air           -  Air used to convey the coal to the burner,
                                     expressed as percent of total at 15
                                     percent excess air, m
        t   Secondary Air         -  Air introduced through the burners into
                                     the first stage exclusive of the primary
                                     air' "sec
                                      5-1

-------
        t   First-Stage Air

        •   Stage-Air

        •   Total Air
            Stoichiometric Ratio
            (SR)

            Residence Time (RT)
-  Secondary + primary air, ni
                              o L-
-  Air introduced into the second stage,  m

-  Primary + secondary + stage, m
                                          st
                                         First Stage Air
     Stoichiometric Air
                                                                       mi
                                                             =  SR  =    'st
                                     m
-  Mean volumetric residence time of the
   mass flow using a measured temperature
   to calculate an average density
        % Flue Gas Recirculation   -  Flue gas is drawn off downstream of
                (% FGR)
   baghouse and reintroduced with the
   secondary air.   The definition is
   % FGR =            mfgr
            msec + mpri  + mst
                                                                   m
                                                                    fgr
5.2     BASELINE TESTING

        The first series of combustion tests were designed to determine the

baseline or uncontrolled NO emissions for the front-wall-fired (FWF) and

tangenti ally-fired configurations.  This section presents the test data from

which the baseline operating parameters were developed.  These data are

presented in parametric format rather than the chronological order in which

the data were taken.  The primary result of this test series was the develop-

ment of a baseline curve of NO versus excess air for each configuration.

These results simulate quite well full-scale NO  emission trends and levels.
                                               A

        Following the presentation of the baseline curves, the effect of

temperature, mixing, coal composition and load on NO  emissions will be
                                                    A

discussed.

5.2.1.   Excess Air

        The baseline NO data as a function of excess air for the FWF and
                                     5-2

-------
tangentially-fired configurations  are shown in Figure 5-1*.   Also plotted
on this curve are a number of field and pilot-scale results  (References  5-1
through 5-5).  As can be seen in Figure 5-1, both the emission levels
and trends measured in this study are representative of full-scale data.  The
nominal NO level at 15% excess air is 875 ppm for the FWF configuration
and 430 ppm for the tangential configuration.  The tangential plot also
shows the baseline curve for the axial injectors in the FWF mode.  It should
be noted that the axial injector for slow-mix data is closer to the tangential
results than the FWF results using the spreader.  The correspondence of these
results is probably due to the near burner slow-mix nature of these two
configurations.
        The base conditions for each of these configurations are listed on
the figure.  These conditions were established by a number of preliminary
combustion tests.  In  general the burner parameters simulated were kept
close  to conventional  utility practice.  These parameters include the
secondary air  preheat,  secondary air  axial  velocity,  primary air percentage,
the, coal nozzle  design, the secondary  air  swirl,  heat release per unit  volume
and residence  time to  the  convective  section.  The  primary air  percentage
for the  FWF  configuration  was a little lower than conventional  (12%  of  total
air at 15% excess  air) because  of  a  more effective  spreader  in  the  small  scale.
A summary of these parameters is given in  Table  5-1  for the  FWF and  tangentially
fired  configurations.
         One  of the most important  tests was to  determine if  wall  cooling  would
be required  to simulate full-scale test results.   As  will be demonstrated
  All  emission data are corrected to 0% Og, and NO rather than NOX 1s given in
  all  cases.   Periodically the total NOX levels were checked but were never
  found to be significantly different from the NO levels.
                                      5-3

-------
               Base  Conditions --  This work
               Western  Kentucky Coal
               Swirl  Index = 4
               Primary  Air = 12%
               316°C (600°F) Preheat
               5  IFRF Burners
               B&W Type Spreader
                                                                  Base Conditions -- This Work
                                                                  Western Kentucky-Coal
                                                                  YAW = 6°
                                                                  Primary Air = 15%
                                                                  316°C (600°) Preheat
                                                                  4 Tangential Burners
tn
    Q-
    CL
    5 5
    o
1200


1000


 800


 600


 400


 200
                                     This Work 293 kW (1.0
                                     x 106 Btu/hr)
                                     Crawford (Ref. 5-2)
                                   — McCann (Reference 5-1)
                                     Armento (Ref. 5-3)
                                     Pershing (Ref. 5-4)
                                   I	I	I	
                                                                           This Work 293 kW (1  x 100 Btu/hr)
                                                                           Selkar, Barry #2 (Reference 5-5)
                                                                           Crawford, Morgantown (Reference 5-2)
                                                                           Crawford, Commanche (Reference 5-2)
                                                                           This Work - Axial  FWF 293 kW thermal
                           10
                             15
20
25
0
10
15
20
25
30
                                                     Excess Air,  percent
                          Figure 5-1.   Front-wall  and tangentially-fired baseline NO emissions

-------
                                    TABLE 5-1.  BASELINE BURNER TEST CONDITIONS
                         Firing Rate:  293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr) — 15 Percent Excess Air
                           Front Wall Fired
                                                                      Tangentially Fired
en
Ul
Secondary Air Preheat:
Secondary Air Velocity:
Primary Air:
Coal Nozzle Design:
Secondary Air Swirl:
Heat Release Rpr Unit Volume:
Residence Time to Convective
  Section
316°C
10.8 m/sec
12%
B & W Type Spreader
Swirl Block Setting^=4
180.5 kW/m3

2.84 sec
                                                                  Secondary Air Preheat:
                                                                  Secondary Air Velocity:
                                                                  Primary Air:
                                                                  Annular Air Velocity:
                                                                  Yaw Angle:
316°C
20.3 m/sec
15%
20.3 m/sec
6° From Diagonal
         1.  Primary Percentage is percent of total combustion air at 15% excess air.
         2.  The swirl block setting is not a "Swirl Number."  It is merely an indication on the burner.
             A swirl block setting of zero achieves pure axial flow of the secondary air with no tangential
             component.  A setting of 8 yields a tangential component from the swirl blocks.

-------
in the next section, wall cooling was not required to model full-scale
results for this pilot-scale facility.  Therefore, the data in Figure 5-1
and all other data not specifically denoted as cool wall were taken with
hot refractory walls.
        Baseline tests were also run in a later series in the horizontal
extension (HE) configuration.  These results are compared to the firebox
data in Figure 5-2.  For the Western Kentucky Coal and a range of excess
air levels the HE baseline results follow the same trend and are at
approximately the same level as the FWF results.  These results were ob-
tained with four small I FRF burners as opposed to five used in the main
firebox tests.  These four burners were fired at a load of 249 kW (0.85 x
106 Btu hr) compared to 293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu hr) in the firebox tests.
This heat release rate maintained the same heat release per unit volume in
the HE as in the main firebox.  The four burners and lower firing rate also
maintained nearly constant burner aerodynamics between the HE and FWF
configurations.
        It can be seen that the HE results are slightly higher than the FWF
results.  This is possibly due to two factors.  First, the burner velocities
were slightly higher for the HE configuration resulting in increased mixing.
Secondly the proximity of the refractory walls may have resulted in both an
increased local temperature near the burner and a change in the internal
flue gas recirculation.  However, the changes in NO levels are relatively
minor and indicate that, at excess air conditions, FWF NO levels are not
sensitive to the combustion chamber configuration.
5.2.2   Effect of Temperature
        Concern was expressed early in the program that the pilot-scale
facility might not simulate conventional water-wall boilers since hot

                                     5-6

-------
tn
I
        O.
        Q.
         CM
        O
O

O
1200

1100

1000

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

   0
                  0
                                                       1
                                                            1
                              10
                                               15
20
                                                                                       4 Burners, Hor. Ext
                                                                                       249 kW (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                                                                       5 Burners, Main Firebox
                                                                                       293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
25
30
                         Figure 5-2.
                                          Excess  Air,  percent
                          Horizontal  extension and  firebox  front-wall-fired  results

-------
refractory walls were used in this pilot-scale facility.   It was believed
that the difference in wall cooling would affect the early temperature
history and thereby the NO production (both through aerodynamics and the
absolute temperature history).  Although other investigators (Reference 5-4)
have shown that temperature does not significantly influence NO levels when
firing coal, a series of tests were run to determine the  effect of wall
temperature on the pilot-scale facility baseline NO levels.
        The measured temperatures at the inlet to the convective section
with the refractory walls and a firing rate of 293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
were on the order of 1149°C to 1204°C (2100°F to 2200°F).  This temperature
corresponds roughly to utility practice and indicates that a heat loss
characteristic of water tube boilers is being realized in the refractory
walled firebox.  This correspondence is possible because  the heat loss per
unit volume of the furnace is inversely proportional to the furnace volume
characteristic dimension, L.  Therefore the amount of active cooling required
to achieve the same heat loss per unit of heat input for a small-scale furnace
is much less than that for a large unit.  Even though overall heat loss and
exit temperature were well modeled with the refractory-lined walls, pilot
scale facility tests were run to investigate the effect of water-walls and
local wall temperature on NO levels.  Tests were run on both natural gas and
Western Kentucky coal to demonstrate the effect of wall cooling on NO, for
fuels that produce only thermal NO and predominantly fuel NO respectively.
Tests were run with and without a wall cooling surface which consisted of
approximately 1.09m2 (11.8ft2) of water cooled tubing laid along the inside
surface of the main firebox as shown in Figure 5-3.  When the heat transfer
surface is clean, this amounted to an additional heat loss from the furnace of
                                     5-8

-------
                                   Furnac<
         Cooling  Coil
         Units
Figure 5-3.  Wall cooling units.
               5-9

-------
approximately 87.9 kW (300,000 Btu/hr) In addition to the normal loss from
the refractory walls of 44 kW (150,000 Btu/hr.)
        Figure 5-4 shows the effect of these water-walls for the natural
gas and pulverized coal flames.   As expected, the percent effect on natural
gas was much more dramatic than the effect on coal.  For the pulverized
coal flame the greatest decrease achieved by wall cooling was approximately
80 ppm out of 1100 ppm or a 7% decrease.  The natural gas NO levels decreased
by approximately 110 ppm when wall cooling was applied.  This is about a
50% decrease at the 220 ppm level.  These results confirm that the bulk of
the baseline NO in a front-wall-fired pulverized coal flame is not strongly
temperature sensitive.
        Since water-wall cooling only impacted pulverized coal results to
a minor extent and because it was desirable to avoid a variable heat
absorption rate due to fouling and the necessity of water tube soot blowing,
it was decided to conduct the bulk of the main firebox control technology
tests without water walls.  A few tests with additional heat extraction by
cooled walls were run during the control technology test series to determine
the effect of cooling under staged or fuel-rich conditions.
        In addition to the wall  cooling tests, a number of baseline tests
were run at a variety of air preheats.  Preheat not only affects the bulk
flame temperature but also the early mixing due to changes in secondary
air exit velocities as preheat temperature is varied.  The effect of preheat
for a variety of test conditions is show in Figure 5-5.
        It is interesting to note that the slope of the data is nearly the
same for the tangential, FWF, HE and both gas and coal fuels.  Also the coal
fired data from the University of Arizona (Reference 5-4) has a similar
slope.   Because fuels with no fuel-N and a great deal of fuel-N give similar
                                    5-10

-------
    1200
   1000
    800
o.
o.
 CM
O

§   600

o
    400 -
    200 _
                                  Hot  Wall

                                  Cold  Wall
       Load = 439 kW (1.5 x 10b Btu/hr)
       5 IFRF Burners
       316°C (600°F) Preheat
                    W.Kty.  Coal
                    B&W  Spreader
                    SW - 4
                                                                                  Hot Wall
                                                                           -A-  Cold Wall
                                                  Nat.  Gas
                                                  Rad/Ax.Noz
                                                  SW =  2
                                10
 15           20

Excess Air, percent
25
30
                          Figure  5-4.   Effect of water-wall  cooling (baseline),

-------
in
i
   1200




   1000



o.
°-  300

o

^  600

O


    400




    200
                        100
                         38
200
 93
                                 300
                                 119
400
204
500
260
600
316
700
371
800
427
                                                                   Load/Fuel

                                                                 0381 kW (1.3 x 106  Btu/hr) Coal,  Ho. Ext.

                                                                 O249 kW (.85 x 106  Btu/hr) Coal,  Ho. Ext.

                                                                 Q293 kW (1.0 x 106  Btu/hr) Coal,  Tana.

                                                                 Q440 kW (1.5 x 106  Btu/hr) Coal,  Mot Wall

                                                                 0440 kW (1.5 x 106  Btu/hr) Coal,  Cold Wall

                                                                 O293 kW {1.0 x ID6  Btu/hr) Coal,  Hot Wall

                                                                 ^732.5 kW (2.5 x 106 Btu/hr) - Gas - Hot Hall

                                                                 £1732.5 kW (2.5 x 106 Btu/hr) - Gas - Cold Wall

                                                                 A 293 kW (1.0 x 106  Btu/hr) H & W Sprdr.  - Hot Hall

                                                                 AWendt &  Pershimj Coal  (Reference 5-4)

                                                                   15" Excess Air
                                                                   B & W Spreader

                                                                   Sw=2
                                                                   Ax/Rad
                                                                                                                      Coal


                                                                                                                      Gas
                                           Air  Preheat  Temperature
                                                   Figure  5-5.   Effect of  preheat (baseline).

-------
increases with temperature, the increase in the NO levels  is probably due
to increases in the thermal NO fraction rather than the fuel-nitrogen-derived
NO.   It has been suggested by Pershing (Reference 5-4) that gas firing may
roughly represent the thermal portion of the total NO emissions when fired
at the same firing rate and in the same firebox configuration.   This
gas  data will be used in a later section on coal composition to discuss
fuel-nitrogen conversion rates.
        Another demonstration of the effect of temperature on NO levels is
given in Figure 5-6.  This plot gives tangentially-fired NO emissions as
a function of firebox exit plane temperature.  Although the absolute exit
temperature measurement is not precise (a bare Platinum/Platinum-Rhodium
thermocouple was used) the plot clearly demonstrates the relationship with
temperature.  Note that the slope of the gas curve is parallel to the coal
curve.  This relationship  again supports the concept that the temperature
primarily affects the thermal NO fraction when firing coal.
5.2.3   Early Mixing Studies
        Although the primary purpose of this work was to investigate
staging as a NOV control  technique rather  than  burner parameters, a  number
               /\
of exploratory tests were  conducted to establish  representative burner
settings for the baseline  tests.  Some of  these exploratory tests involved
investigation of burner early mixing parameters.   Included  in  these  FWF
exploratory  tests were the effects of  primary  air percentage,  swirl,  axial
fuel  tube  position  and injector design on  stack NO  levels.  For the
tangentially-fired  test series, primary percentage,  yaw and distribution  of
air  among  the  various  air registers were varied.
5.2.3.1  Front-Mall-Fired Burners
         For  the majority  of  FWF tests,  five IFRF  burners  (described in
                                     5-13

-------
                                                                         Tangentially  Fired
                                                                         Excess  Air  =  15 percent

                                                                         Q  316°C (600°F)  preheat

                                                                         A  427°C (800°F)  preheat

                                                                         Q  Gas 316°C (600°F)  preheat
                                                                             38°C (100°F)  preheat and  cooling
en
i
             Q_
             Q.
700


600

500

400

300

200

100

  0
                                               I
                    I
                    I
                                     Coal  293 KW (1.0 x
                                            106 Btu/hr)
                                                                         Gas
                   I
                           1,800
                             982
1,900
 1038
2,000
 1093
2,100
 1149
2,200
 1204
                                                          2,300
                                                           1260
                    I
2,400
 1316
2,500   °F
 1371   °C
                                            Firebox  Exit Temperature
                                 Figure  5-6.   Effect of temperature (baseline).

-------
Section 2.2) were used to simulate utility boiler results.   These burners
allow variation in the nozzle design, swirl  of the secondary air, and
the axial fuel  tube position.  In addition,  the coal  feed system allows
for variation of the primary air flow rate.   Test results for each of the
above parameter variations are discussed below.
Swirl Setting
        Tests were conducted over swirl settings from S = 2 to S = 8 (Note:
these are the index numbers on the burner and do not correspond to a "Swirl
Number."  At S = 0 the air flow is totally axial whereas at a S = 8 the flow
has the maximum tangential component).  Figure 5-7 shows the effect of swirl
on NO emissions at 15% excess air and a load of 440 kW (1.5 x 10  Btu/hr)
for the Western Kentucky coal.  A minimum in NO occurred at swirl setting
of 4.  Flame observations showed that as the swirl is increased above S = 4
the flame becomes more compact and intense.   This is probably due to the
increased fuel/air mixing rate giving a more intense flame which, for
conventional burners, can yield high  percent conversion  of  the  fuel-nitrogen
fraction to NO  (Reference 5-4).  As  the swirl  is decreased  below  a value of
4 the flame becomes lazier and less stable.  It has been shown  by others
(Reference 5-6) that under these conditions the flame can be blown off
the nozzle to the point where the coal and air are more  thoroughly mixed
prior to ignition.  Very high NO levels can be achieved  under these  conditions,
A swirl  setting of S = 4 was chosen as the base condition because it gives
a stable flame with NO levels representative of  full-scale  furnace results.
Axial Fuel Tube Position
         The position of the  fuel tube within the burner  throat  can change
the  fuel/air mixing patterns and thereby  the NO emissions.  An  optimum
position was sought such that the nozzle  tip did not become too hot

                                     5-15

-------
tn
                       1400-
                       1300
                       1200-
                   §
1100-,





1000-





 900 _


   0
                                     Western Kentucky Coal - S IFRF Burners
                                        Percent excess air = 15  percent
                                        Load: 440 kW  (1.5 x 106  Btu/hr)
                                                                  Swirl Index
                                                  Figure 5-7.   Effect of burner swirl.

-------
and the coal would not impinge on the quarl.   Figure 5-8 shows the relation-
ship of stack NO to the position of the fuel  tube in the burner throat.
Again, the position which gave the minimum NO level was chosen as the base
condition.  Figure 5-9 shows the positioning of the fuel tube in the burner
quarl at this optimum condition.
Primary Stoichimetry
        Another parameter which has a strong effect on NO emissions is the
primary stoichiometry.  This is shown in Figure 5-10 where at the high
stoichiometry condition the flame became unstable and lifted from the nozzle.
This result is similar to that experienced by others (References 5-4 &
5-6).  To avoid unstable flames and for minimum baseline NO levels, a
primary stoichiometry of around 12% was chosen for most of the FWF test
cases.
Injector Design
        As was pointed out in Section 5.2.1 an axial injector was tested
as well as the Babcock & Wilcox type coal spreader.  The baseline data for
these nozzles are given in Figure 5-1.  The axial  injector produced a long
lazy flame which essentially delayed the mixing of the  coal and air.  A
swirl setting of six was required to stabilize the flame with the axial
injector.  The delayed-mix axial flame produces considerably  lower NO
levels than the coal spreader flame.  As indicated by others  (Reference 5-7)
the  lower levels for the axial  injector probably are due to the substantially
greater extent of fuel-rich regions which occurs with this type of mixing.
It is also  interesting to note  that the level and  trend of the axial data
are  very  similar to that of the tangentially-fired configuration.  Low tan-
gentially-fired system NO levels are believed to be a result  of their slow-mix
                                     5-17

-------
         1400
         1200
                                   Western Kentucky Coal  -- 5 IFRF Burners

                                            Preheat = 316°C (600°F)
                                            Excess Air = 15%       fi
                                            Load = 439 kW (1.5 x 10° Btu/hr)
                                            SW = 4
         1000
       o.
       Q.
       CM
      O
          800
en

00
600
          400
          200
                          I    I    I	I	I	I	I	I	1	1	1	L
                                                                    i     I   I	I	I	I	L
                     0.2
                     .51
                   0.4
                  1.02
 0.6
1.52
 0.8
2.03
 1.0
2.54
 1.2
3.05
 1.4
3.56
 1.6
4.06
                                            Injector  Position  (From  Exit)

                                      Figure 5-8.  Effect of injector position.
 1.8
4.57
 2.0
5.08
 2.2 in
5.59 cm

-------
                                                     Water Cooled Quarl
12.7 cm
(5 in.)
 1.90 cm
(.75 in.)
                           2.41  cm  U
                          (.95  in.)
 6.6 cm
(2.6 in.)
Fuel  Tube
                                                                   Secondary  Air  Tube
                                Figure  5-9.  Location of  fuel tube.

-------
                                              27.5
en
i
ro
o
                                          Figure  9a.   B&W-type coal  spreader.

-------
                                1600-
                                1400.
                                1200-
                             Q.
                             0.
in
ro
,5s1 iooo_

o

o   800-
z


     600-




                                                          Western Kentucky Coal
                                                          5 IFRF Burners
                                                          B&W Spreader, SW = 4         ,
                                                          Firing Rate = 440 kW {1.5 * 10° Btu/hr)
                                                          Preheat = 316°C (600°F)
                                                          Excess Air = 15%
                                            4      8      12      16     20     24     28

                                             Primary  Air, Percent  of Stoichiometric
                                          Figure  5-10.   Effect  of primary stoichiometry.

-------
 (Reference  5-8).   The  correspondence  between  axial  injector  and  tangentially-
 fired  data  seems  to  confirm  this conjecture.
 5.2.3.2  Tangentially-Fired  Burners
         In  the tangentially-fired mode the mixing parameters that were
 varied in the firebox  included the primary air percentage, the yaw  (or
 tangent  circle diameter) and the distribution of the air between the various
 ports.   These latter variations in air distribution will be  described in
 the control technology section.  The  nominal distributions between  the
 various  air ports  are  listed in Table 5-2.  The burners were designed such
 that the exit velocities of each of the streams was approximately 30.5m/sec
 (100 ft/sec) with  316°C (600°F) air preheat at a load of 440 kW  (1.5 x 106
 Btu/hr)  and 15% excess air.  These burner design variables fall within the
 typical  ranges of  full-scale equipment.  The percent air distribution between
 ports  was held constant during most of the tangential test program with the
 exception that the primary air flow rate was held constant so as to maintain
 the coal entrained in the primary air.  The primary air effects and the yaw
 effects are discussed below.
 Primary  Air Percentage
         Figure 5-11 shows the effect of the primary air percentage on the
 baseline NO  emissions.  As expected,  the results were similar to the FWF
           A
 data in that with increased primary percentage the NO levels increased.
 However, the NO did not increase as fast as the FWF burner results.  The
 increase is most likely due to the greater availability of oxygen within the
 fuel-rich jet and possibly due to an increased mixing rate as a result of
higher velocities.  The rate  of NO increase is not as great as FWF results
probably because the difference in the annular and primary jet velocities
                                    5-22

-------
TABLE 5-2.  TANGENTIAL AIR DISTRIBUTION
                               ,,1
     Secondary Air, Top       32

     Primary Air              15

     Annular                  21

     Secondary Air, Bottom    32

                             100%
1. Percent at an overall Excess Air Level
   of 15%.
                     5-23

-------
en
i
ro
        i.
        04
        O
        o

        o
1000 H


 900


 800


 700


 600


 500


 400


 300


 200


 100


    0
                      •V
                                 Western  Kentucky Coal
                                 4  Burners
                                 Yaw  =  +6°
                                 Excess Air 15%             fi
                                 Firing Rate  293  kW  (1.0 x 10° Btu/hr)
                                                      1
1
1
1
1
                               12    13   14    15   16   17    18   19    20
                                                      Primary Air  Percentage
                     21
                      22   23    24   25
                                      Figure 5-11.   Effect  of  primary  air percentage  (tangentially fired)

-------
is not as great as the swirling FWF burner velocities.   Also "lifted  flame"
conditions which occurred with the FWF configuration did not occur to the
same extent with the tangentially-fired tests.
        At 293 kW load, 316°C preheat and 15 percent primary and excess air,
turning off the annular air flow and increasing secondary air flow a  cor-
responding 33 percent resulted in a 19 percent reduction in NO .  This drop,
                                                              /\
which is comparable to a primary air reduction of 6 percent, is probably
the result of reduced oxygen availability in the fuel-rich jet.
Yaw
        During the majority of the tests, the nominal yaw angle was set at
6  off the firebox diagonal.  This yaw setting is the same as in many full
scale units.  This angle was varied from 0° to 9° to determine if yaw angle
had any effect on NO.  At 0° the flames are directly opposed and little
vortex motion exists in the firebox.  At 9° the vortex motion within the
firebox is substantial.  The effect was negligible as seen in Table 5-3.
5.2.3.3  Horizontal Extension
        Another example of the influence of mixing under baseline conditions
is a comparison of the emissions of the four small burners to those from
the single large  IFRF burner fired in the horizontal extension configuration.
Figure 5-12 compares the baseline NO data for the four  small burners with the
large burner data with and without the burner throat being sleeved.  The
sleeve reduced the diameter of the burner throat from the normal  15cm  (5-7/8")
down to 10cm (4"), and thereby increased the secondary  air velocity.
        As can be seen, the data from the four small burners falls between
the large burner  data with and without the sleeve.  The burner velocities
should be the same between the small and large burners without the sleeve.
The lower NO data for the larger burner indicate the influence of the

                                    5-25

-------
     TABLE 5-3.  EFFECT OF YAW ANGLE
Yaw
0
6
9
NO (0% 02)
512
550
551
PPM



Coal:   Western Kentucky
Firing Rate:  293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
Excess Air:  15%
Air Preheat:  316°C (600°F)
Exit Plane Temp:  1260°C (2300°F)
                     5-26

-------
E
   1400

   1300

   1200

   1100

   1000

    900

    800

    70°

    600

    500

    400

    300

    200
                                                    With  Sleeve
                                                    _  4  Small  Burners
                                                    W/0  Sleeve
                                           Single Large  Burner
                                           Western Kentucky Coal
                                           B&W Spreader, SW = 4
                                           316°C (600°F) Preheat   -
                                           Load = 439 kW (1.5  x 106  Btu/hr)
       0
                          12     16     20    24
                            Excess Air,  percent
                   26
   1200

   1100

   1000

    900

 a  800

5°  700
o

o
         Single Large Burner
         Western  Kentucky  Coal
         BSW  Spreader,  SW  =  4
         316° (600°F) Preheat
         Load =  249
    600

    500

    400
    300

    200

    100

      0
  Btu/hr)
           With Sleeve



           — 4 Small Burners
            W/0 Sleeve
                           _L
jL
_L
_L
                           12     16    20     24
                             Excess  Air, percent
                                                      26
                      Figure 5-12.   Effect of burner size.
                                        5-27

-------
 larger coal jet diameter.  The larger coal jet diameter effectively allows
 a  longer  fuel-rich  residence time before the air diffuses into the fuel-
 rich region.  By increasing the velocities with the use of the sleeve more
 rapid mixing is achieved, especially at the lower, firing rate, and more
 rapid mixing increases the NO levels.
        The slopes  of the NO curves are greater for the large burner indicating
 that there may be some differences in the secondary air mixing processes
 between the large and small burners.  For scale up-purposes it appears the
 higher NO associated with the mixing difference caused by the sleeve is off-
 set by the fuel jet diameter effect.
       For control  technology tests of the large burner in the horizontal
 extension the burner was used with the sleeve in place.  This choice was
 made because results close to full-scale practice were achieved with the
 sleeved burner.  Also, it was of interest to determine the effect of higher
 burner velocities on NO during staged combustion.
 5.2.4   Load
        The facility in all its configurations was operated over a variety
 of loads under baseline and staged conditions.  In the FWF and tangential
 configurations, the two primary loads were 293 kW and 440 kW (1.0 and 1.5
 x 10  Btu/hr).   In the HE configuration the primary loads were 249 kW and
 380 kW (0.85 and 1.3 x 106 Btu/hr).   The HE was fired at a lower heat
 release rate to maintain the heat release per unit volume within the HE at
 approximately the same level  as in the firebox.  Also, to keep burner
 aerodynamics approximately the same at the lower firing rate, the number
 of burners was  reduced from five to four.
        The effect of load on NO for both the FWF and tangentially-fired
configurations  is shown in Figure 5-13.   Also, Figure 5-14 shows a similar
                                    5-28

-------
tn
vo
         1200
         1000
       §. 800
       Q.
        CM
       O
           600
       o
           400
           200
   440 kW (1.5  x  10^ Btu/hr)
                       293 kw (1.0 x 10
                               Btu/hr)
5 IFRF Burners
316°C (600°F) Preheat
BfW Type Spreader,  SW
12% Primary Air
Western Kentucky Coal
                                        = 4
                               FRONT-WALL-FIRED
                                                        _L
                            10
                  15
                     4 Tangential  Burners
                     316°C (600QF) Preheat
                   - 6° YAW
                     15% Primary Air
                     Western Kentucky Coal
                       440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                                                                             293  kW
                                                     (1.0 x 10
                                                      Btu/hr)
                                                            TANGENTIALLY-FIRED
                                                            J_
                                         1
20       25           5
       Excess Air, percent
10
                                                                                       15
                                                                             20
25
                                     Figure 5-13.   Effect  of  load  (baseline).

-------
                                                                               380 kW  (1.3 x  10  Btu/hr)
en
co
   Q-
   Q.
   o

   o
1400 r

1300


1200

1100


1000

 900


 800


 700

 600


 500


 400


 300

 200


 100


    0
            0
                                                                               249  kW  (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
                     Baseline -- Horizontal Extension
                     4 I FRF Burners
                     B&W Spreader, SW = 4
                     Western Kentucky Coal
                                                _L
             _L
_L
J_
                             10
                                 Figure 5-14.
                                                                         25
 15          20

    Excess Air, percent

Effect of load (horizontal extensions).
            30

-------
result for the HE configuration.   The data shows  that NO  increases with
load for all  configurations.   This is probably due in part to the  increase
in combustion chamber temperature with load which causes  the thermal  NO  to
increase.  In addition, fuel  NO could be increasing due to enhancement of
fuel/air mixing at increased load.  Figure 5-15 is a plot of NO versus load
at two preheats for the Western Kentucky coal  and gas (both the radial/axial
nozzle and Babcock & Wilcox spreader were used in the gas test).  This
plot shows that the NO levels from coal are increasing at a more rapid rate
with load than the gas NO levels.  If the gas NO levels at the same  load
truly represent the coal thermal NO, then these results imply that the
conversion ratio of coal fuel-nitrogen to NO is increasing as the load
increases.  Observations of flame patterns under these conditions suggest
that aerodynamics may be playing a major role.  At 440 kW (1.5 x 10  Btu/hr),
the flames were more compact and intense than at 293 kW (1.0 x 10  Btu/hr).
The higher intensity indicates that more rapid fuel/air mixing is occurring
at  increased load as a result of the higher injection velocity.  As  discussed
in  Section 5.2.3, increased mixing causes NO to increase.
         Figure 5-16 gives the percent  conversion of  fuel-N to NO for  two
loads as  a function of percent nitrogen in the fuel  for the  three fuels
tested  (See  Section 5.2.5 for a  description of the coals  used in this study).
The percent  conversion of fuel-N was  found by subtracting the thermal NO
(assumed equal to the  gas NO  levels)  from  the total  coal  NO.  As can  be
seen  in Figure 5-16,  fuel-N conversion ratio  increases from  24-27 percent  to
31-33 percent as  load  increases.  The shape of the curves do not change  very
much  but the level  is  significantly  increased.   At a load of 293 kW
(1  x  10  Btu/hr)  the  percent  conversion derived  in this  study  is somewhat
consistent with  the results of  Pershing (Reference  5-4).
                                     5-31

-------
Ul
I
          Q.
          Q.
           CM
          o
1300,

1200

1100

1000

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100
                 0
                 0.8
                                                              O  Coal - 317°C (600°F) Preheat
                                                              A  Coal - 149°C (300°F) Preheat
                                                                 5"/ to 25% Excess Air

                                                              O  Gas - Radial/Axial Nozzle
                                                              m  Gas - B&W Coal Nozzle
                                           \    i    I    »    »     i	I	I	I	1	1	1	L
         0.9  1.0   1.1  1.2 1.3  1.4  1.5  1.6  1.7  1,8  1.0  2.0  2.1  2.2  2.3  2.42.5x10 btu /hr
    234   264  293   322  352 381  410  440  469  4P8  527  557  586  615  645  674  703  733  kW
                                             Load
                                               Figure 5-15.  Effect of load.

-------
    40   -
o
z

o
     30
l*-
o


o

in
t-
0)

c
o
o

•p


-------
5.2.5  Coal Composition
        Three coals were tested to determine the applicability of the
control technology to a range of coal types.  Table 5-4 shows the ultimate
and proximate analysis of these three coals.  The Pittsburgh #8 coal is a
fairly high sulfur, high grade bituminous steam raising coal.  The Western
Kentucky coal is a good grade bituminous coal, typical of what is being
fired in the Midwest and Southern states.  It is also very similar to the
coals used in previous EPA field tests.  Finally, the Montana coal represents
a typical low sulfur Western coal which has a potentially large market in the
future.  It should be noted that the Montana coal has a higher water, oxygen
and ash content and a lower carbon and sulfur content than the other two
coals.
        Although the dry ultimate analyses for the three coals are somewhat
similar (except for sulfur content) the combustion characteristics of the
three coals are known to be quite different.  The Pittsburgh #8 coal is a
sticky coal that has a tendency to become soft just prior to burning.  Fouling
the fuel tips when firing the Pittsburgh coal necessitated moving the fuel
tip further into the throat of the burner to minimize fouling.
        Prior to the control technology tests with the three coals, baseline
results of NO versus excess air were obtained.  FWF and tangentially-fired
NO results are given in Figure 5-17.  The Western Kentucky and Pittsburgh #8
coal  results were very close over the entire range of excess air levels.
The Montana coal was consistently higher at all excess air levels.  These
trends were also found at a load of 440 kW (1.5 x 10  Btu/hr) as seen in
Figure 5-18.
        The nitrogen content of the Montana coal  on a dry and ash-free basis
is the lowest of all the coals tested.  Since the Montana coal NO levels are
                                     5-34

-------
                                      TABLE  5-4.   PULVE^'UED COAL CHARACTERISTICS
co
Coal
Ultimate Analysis
(t. Dry)
C
H
N
S
0
Ash
Heating Value
(Btu/lb, Wet)
Proximate Analysis
(%, Met)
Volatile
Fixed Carbon
Moisture
Ash
Rationale
for Selection

Pittsburgh
*8

77.2
5.2
1.19
2.6
5.9
7.9
13,700

37.0
54.0
1.2
7.8
• Host important gen-
eral class of U.S.
steam raising coals
• Highest quality U.S.
steam coals
• Standard against
which others are
usually compared
• Wide distribution
• Expanded production
likely
Western
Kentucky

73.0
5.0
1.40
3.1
9.3
8.2
12,450

36.1
51.2
4.B
7.8
« Extensively used
for steam genera-
tion in Ohio and
Mississippi Val-
ley areas
• Good quality steam
coal
i Wide distribution
• Some published Esso
full-scale data for
comparison
Montana-Powder
River Region

67.2
4.4
1.10
0.9
14.0
11.7
8,900

30.5
39.0
21.2
9.2
• Current local
Importance; future
national signifi-
cance
t "Typical" Western
subbmi tumi nous in
abundant supply


-------
          1200
          1000
           800
tn
i
CO
en
        £
        Q.
        Q.
        CM
       o
o

o
           600
           400
           200
5 IFRF Burners
B&W Spreader
Swirl = 4
122 Primarv
316°C (eOO^F) Preheat
Load = 293 kW - thermal (1.0 x 10  Btu/hr)

 Q    Western Kentucky

 &    Pittsburgh  #8

       Montana
                     I
                    I
                                                        I
                                                          4 Tangential Burners
                                                          +6° YAW
                                                          15% Primary
                                                          316°C (600°F) Preheat
                                                          Load = 293 kW - thermal
                                                                                                    (1.0 x 10C
                                                                                                     Btu/hr)
                                                   I
                                     15
                                      25           5
                                    Excess  Air,  percent
                                                                                15
25
                                  Figure 5-17.  Effect  of coal composition  (baseline).

-------
   1200
   1000
    800
Q.
CL
o

o
    600
5-Spreader
Swi rl=4
12% Primary
316°C (600°F) Preheat
440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
    400
     Western Kentucky

     Pittsburgh
     Montana
    200
                                                      I
                                                   4-Tangential
                                                   +6° Yaw
                                                   15% Primary
                                                   316°C (6000F)  Preheat
                                                   440 kW (1.5 x  106  Btu/hr)
      0
            10
15
20        25         5

      Excess Air, percent
                                                                         10
15
20
                                                                                              25
                        Figure 5-18.  Effect of coal composition at the higher load (baseline).

-------
higher, the fuel nitrogen conversion ratio must be greater for the Montana
coal than the other coals.  The higher conversion may be a result of the
moisture, oxygen or sulfur content differences between the coals.  Recently
Wendt (Reference 5-9) has indicated that sulfur in the fuel can either en-
hance or depress NO levels depending on the stoichiometry and temperature
of the-combustion zone as well as whether the fuel contains significant bound
nitrogen.  To check if the reduced sulfur content of the Montana coal was
the cause of higher NO, a series of baseline tests where S0? was injected
into the secondary air flow, were carried out.  The normal level of stack
S02 without injection was 1300 ppm.   Sufficient SOo was injected into the
secondary air while burning Montana coal to bring the SOp to levels (2300
ppm) comparable to those achieved with the other coals.  As can be seen in
Figure 5-19, SO^ injection in the secondary air has not caused any sub-
stantial change in NO Level.  As Wendt indicated (Reference 5-9) fuel
sulfur can decrease thermal NO emissions from well-mixed flames but increase
fuel-N conversion to NO in fuel-rich combustion zones within the flame.
It is possible that the flame configuration results presented in Figure ii-19
were obtained as a result of a balance between these two sulfur effects.
It will be demonstrated in the section on control technology that fuel sulfur
can either enhance or reduce NO under the proper combustion conditions.
The results shown in Figures 5-17 and 5-18 might be due to the smaller amount
of sulfur in the Montana coal and the proper combustion conditions.
5.3     EVALUATION OF CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
        During this phase of the study, combustion condition changes were
sought which would yield minimum NO levels when burning pulverized coal.
                                    5-38

-------
          Q.
          CL
           CVJ
          O
en
CO
vo
     2000


     1800


     1600


     1400


     1200


g   1000


2    800


      600


      400


      200


        0
                                Montana  Coal                  ,
                                Load  380 kW thermal  (1.3  x  10b  Btu/hr)

                                Large IFRF  Burner, SW  = 4
                                Horizontal  Extension Configuration
                                          10
20
        NO S02 Inj. (-1300 ppm S02)
        with SO,, Inj. in Sec. Air
               *  . (~2300ppm S02)
                                                                                30
                                               Excess  Air,  percent
                                Figure 5-19.  Effect of S02 doping (baseline),

-------
Large parameter variations, such as overall stage stoichiometric ratio (SR),
were emphasized in this study rather than detailed burner effects.  Staging
was the primary NO  control method investigated.  To a lesser extent flue
                  /\
gas recirculation and biased firing were investigated for their potentials
to control NO .
             A
        Front-wall-fired (FWF), tangential and horizontal extension (HE)
firing modes were employed in this control technology study.  A straight-
forward experimental approach was applied during parameter variation tests.
This caused several parameters to vary at once.  For example, when first
stage SR is changed, for a fixed load, the ratio of primary to secondary
stream velocities changes, giving an altered mixing history as well as first
stage SR.  Therefore, results are complex and care must be used when inter-
preting the NO levels.  However, the results yielded the gross effects of
the main parameter variations and were characteristic of what could be
achieved in a real system by system parameter variations without major
hardware design changes.
        This section first discusses the results of some preliminary cold
flow experiments to determine flow patterns for a variety of staging injec-
tion techniques.  These tests were helpful in determining the appropriate
stage air injection technique and in interpreting the hot flow combustion
data.  This is followed by a discussion of the results of the parametric
testing of the first- and second-stage parameters as well as coal composition.
A discussion of data taken on a variety of other control technology tests
including flue gas recirculation and biased firing follows these results.
Finally,  staged  combustion results for natural gas firing are presented.
5.3.1   Flow Field Visualization
        The first series of tests were conducted to establish a qualitative
idea of the stage-air mixing patterns and degree of backmixing into the
                                    5-40

-------
first stage for a variety of injection techniques.   This  was  accomplished by
fabricating two simulated clear plastic heat exchange sections and using
smoke injection to establish the flow patterns.  This apparatus is illustrated
in Figure 5-20.  The plastic unit was set atop the main furnace volume prior
to installation of the actual heat exchange sections.  A duct connected
the plastic sections to an induced draft fan on the roof.  Smoke was generated
using the apparatus illustrated in Figure 5-21.  Air was passed through a
bubbler for humidification and then passed over pure TiCl^ in a large vessel.
The resultant mixture of TiOp smoke, HC1 and air was then passed to one of
several injection points, including the stage-air ports, the fuel nozzles of
the burners or a multiport rake.  This rake could be positioned anywhere in
the main firebox or heat exchange section.
        A variety of stage-air inlet designs were tested as listed below
and as illustrated in Figure 5-22.
        •   Normal stage-air ports
        t   Normal stage-air ports with flare  nozzles
        t   Multitube injector located in the  heat  exchanger drawer
            window locations
        •   Multihole rake
         During the  testing  of  each of these  techniques,  flow  patterns  were
observed  in the  heat  exchange  sections and backmixing  was noted  through a
large plastic  viewport.   The main  firebox was  illuminated with a  floodlamp
placed in  the  ashpit.   In addition,  black and  white motion pictures  and
still photos were  taken of  the mixing patterns.
         Flow rates of the secondary  and stage  air were adjusted  so  that the
relative momentums of the air  streams were consistent  with those  values
                                     5-41

-------
Stage Air

Injection Port?
Plastic
Viewport
of Firebox
Five IRFR
Burners
                                                 ID Fan
                     /     X
                                                 Plastic Simulated Heat

                                                 Exchange Section
Fi rebox
              Figure 5-20.   Cold flow apparatus.
                              5-42

-------
Compressed Control Valve
Air* V9

r

HO to









\






X*
l(


O
0°
Pinch rPjnch
T7
X "\ /*" A *\
„ , ^ „ ,
J- I
( 1 I
TiCL Smoke To
*^^_^_^_s^_^ Rake or Stage
en
-P.
to
                                      Bubbler
                     Tl  C14

                   Container
Figure 5-21.  Smoke  generator.

-------
in
i
                    n
                                          4, 1" Diameter Ports
           1
   HE

Top View
                     a)   Nonnal  Staged-
                         Air Ports
                                                 b) Flared Nozzle  Inserted  in
                                                    Normal Staged-Air Ports
                                     Figure 5-22.   Stage-air  injection  techniques.

-------
                   C-
                             Flow
                            -4-
                          Furnace
en
i
en
              *±j
   HE

Top View
                    10, 3/4" ID
                    Tubes (Each
                                             Manifold
                                          From Staged-Air
                                          Manifold

                                                                           Furnace
                                                ^
                                                                             HE
                                                                            Top
                                                                            View

                                                                     Two Rakes Positioned
                                                                     Through Original 1"
                                                                     Diameter Injection
                                                                     Ports
                                                                                              Two Rakes  3/4"
                                                                                              Diameter with 12
                                                                                              Holes  3/8" Diameter
                                                                               From  Stage-Air Manifold
          c)  Multiple opposed jet injection technique.
                                                        d)  Mu Hi hole rakes.
                             Figure 5-22.  Stage-air injection  technique (continued).

-------
achieved under hot conditions for a typical firing rate of 293 kW
(1.0 x 106 Btu/hr).
        Table 5-5 summarizes the conditions and observations of the tests
performed and refers to the figures of the observed flow patterns.   These
cold flow tests led to the following conclusions:
        •   The four opposed jet nozzles produce rapid and efficient
            mixing with no backmixing into the main combustion chamber
        t   Some backmixing occurs with the opposed jets but it is
            limited to a few inches below the injection point
        t   Intentional backmixing into the first stage may be
            achieved by injecting the stage-air only from one side
        •   When backmixing occurs, the amount is proportional to
            the swirl of the main burners and the amount of
            stage-air flow
        •   Instabilities can be developed in the flow patterns if
            the stage-air jets do not directly impinge
        t   Reducing the penetration velocity results in
            poor mixing
        t   The rake pointed upward gave poor mixing
        •   The optimum position for good mixing and minimum
            backflow for the rake technique was with the jets
            opposed and pointed upward at a 45° angle.
        •   A sol id-body clockwise rotation of the flow in
            the firebox was observed.  The degree of this
            rotation is proportional to the swirl.
        •   At high swirl (smoke injected through the fuel
            tube) a high degree of recirculation back into
            the burner quarl and throat was noted.
                                   5-46

-------
                                                        TABLE  5-5.    SUMMARY OF  COLD FLOW TESTS
Test 1
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
15
16
17
18
lnj. Type
* Position
None
None
None
S-l
S-l
S-l
S-l
S-l
S-l
S-2
S-Z
S-2
S-Z
S-2
S-Z
S-Z/W
S-2/V
Smoke InJ.
Type S Position
ROB
ROB
ROB
CHE
CHE
CHE
CHE
CHE
CHE
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
Stg. Air
Flow
None
None
None
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High
H19h
Low
High
Burner
Swirl
R
4
0
0
4
8
8
4
0
8
4
0
0
4
8
4
4
Degree of Firebox
Backmixing
-
-
-
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None f
None
None
None
None
'omnents Figure
No.
Whole chamber swirling for clockwise rotation
1 rev/5 sec; effect all the way across chamber
About 1/7 chamber swirling in manner of Test I
Flow impinges window, heads down then up the
side wall
Smoke recirculates below injection point about
2"; rapid turbulent mixing of impinging jets
Smoke recirculates below Injection point about
4"; rapid turbulent mixing of impinging jets
Smoke recirculates below Injection point about
10"; rapid turbulent nixing of impinging jets




5-Z3

Smokes recirculates below injection point about
16"; rapid turbulent mixing of impinging jets
Smokes recirculates below injection point about
12"; rapid turbulent mixing of impinging jets
Smokes recirculates below Injection point about
12"; rapid turbulent Mixing of impinging jets 5-24
Smokes recirculates below injection point about
24"; rapid turbulent mixing of impinging jets
Smokes reciruclates below injection point about
32"; rapid turbulent mixing of fmpfnging jets
tn
         KEY

         Injector Type and Position:
   S = Normal 4 horizontal opposed 1" diameter jets; -1
       heat exchange section up.
1st staging position, -2
         Smoke Injector Type and Position:
   F - Flare nozzle inserted in normal staged air port.
   M = Multirube injector located in heat exhange lower window (See Figure
 RU = Two rakes pointed upward.
RHO = Two rakes horizontal opposed -/45 pointed upward 45°/RHD/45 = Two rakes
       horizontal divergent (pointed towards wall) at 45° angle upward
ROB = Through a rake opposite the burners
 RC = Through a rake in the bottom middle of the first heat exchange section
  ST = Together with the stage air
CHE = Center of heat exchanger through rake

-------
                                                                      TABLE  5-5  (Continued)
Test I
!9
ZO
21
ZZ
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Inj. Type
J Position
S-l/W
S-l/M
S-l/W
S-l/M
S-l/W
S-l/H
S-1
S-1
S-1
S-VE
F-l
F-l/H
F-l/W
F-?/W
F-l/H
F-l/H
M-l
Smoke Inj.
Type 4 Position
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
Stg. Air
Flow
High
Low
Low
High
High
Low
High
High
High
High
High
Med.
Low
Low
Med.
Mod
High
Burner
Swirl
8
8
4
4
0
0
0
4
8
8
8
8
8
4
4
0
0
Degree of Firebox
Backmixing
High
Med.
None
Med.
Low
None
None
None
None
High
Hone
High
Med.
Wed.
High
Med.
None
Conroents Figure
No.
Flow impinges on opposite wall and partially
flow downward 5-25
Flow penetrater 1/2 the heat exchanger -
some pul led down
Flow nenetrater 1/2 the heat exchanger -
some pulled down
Flow impinges on opposite wall and partially
flows downward
Flow impinges on opposite wall and partially
flows downward
Flow penetrates 1/Z the heat exchanger -
some heads down
Smoke recirculates below injection point to
some degree
Smoke recirculates below injection point to
some degree
Smoke recirculates below injection point to
some degree
Flow impinges opposite wall and partially
flows downward *
Flow the same as straight jets
Same as straight jet when flowing from one side
Same as straight jet when flowing from one side
(Test t?0)
Same as straight jet when flowing from one side
Comes toward firebox viewport in puffs
Same as straight jet when flowing from one side
Comes toward firebox viewport in puffs
Same
Instability In the flow pattern. 5-26
Ul
I
co
         KEY
         Injector Type and Position:            S= Normal 4 horizontal opposed 1" diameter jets;-1 = 1st staging position,-2
                                                 heat exchange section up.
                                             F = Flare nozzle inserted in normal staged air port.
                                             M = Multitude injector located  in heat exhange lower window (See Figure
                                           RU = Two rakes pointed upward.
                                          RHO - Two rakes horizontal opposed • /45 pointed upward 45°/RHD/45 = Two rakes
                                                 horizontal divergent (pointed towards wall) at 45° angle upward
         Smoke injector Type and Position:  ROB = Through a rake opposite the burners
                                           RC = Through a rake in the bottom  middle of the first heat exchange section
                                            ST = Together with the stage air
                                           CHE = Center of heat exchanger through  rake

-------
                                                                        TABLE  5-5  (Concluded)
Test 1
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Inj. Type
8, Position
M-l
M-l
H-l
H-l
M-l
M-l/W
M-l/H
H-1/W
M-l/W
RU-1
Rtl-1
RU-1
RHO-1
RHO-1
RHO-1
RHO/45-1
RHO/45-1
RHO/45-1
RHO/45-1
RHD/45-1
RHD/45-1
Smoke Inj.
Type » Position
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
RC
RC
RC
RC
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
St
Stg. Air
Flow
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
None
Low
How
Low
High
Low
Low
High
Low
High
High
Low
Low
Hi ql.
Burner
Swirl
4
8
8
0
4
8
8
0
0
8
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
8
8
8
8
Degree of Firebox
Backmixing
Hone
None
None
None
None
Hed.
None
None
None
None
None
None
High
Hed.
High
None
Low
Low
None
Low
Low
Comments Figure
No.
Same
Same
Stage air flow does not penetrate bulk of
upward flow
Unstable pulsing returns
Same as Test 138
Flow impinges opposite wall and partially
flow down
Flow does not penetrate heat exchange section;
turns upward almost 1 [mediately
Rake in upper section shows very slow mixing
patterns w/o staged air on
Flow does not penetrate goes straight up
Local recirculation patterns around rake but
generally very poor mixing into main stream 5-27
Same
Highly turbulent but little backmixing
Highly turbulent fast mixing - lots of backmixing
Highly turbulent fast mixing - lots of backmixing
Highly turbulent fast mixing - lots of backmixing 5-28
Highly turbulent; less backmixing
Highly turbulent; good mixing
Highly turbulent; good mixing
Highly turbulent; good mixing 5-29
Not as good mixing - recirculates down outer wall
Not much different than low staged air run
in
10
           KEY
           Injector Type and Position:
          Smoke Injector Type and Position:
   S = Normal 4 horizontal opposed 1" diameter jets; -1 = 1st staging position, -2
       heat exchange section up.
   F = Flare nozzle inserted in normal staged air port.
   M = Multitude injector located in heat exhange lower window (See Figure
 RU - Two rakes pointed upward.
RHO = Two rakes horizontal opposed -/45 pointed upward 45°/RHD/45 = Two rakes
       horizontal divergent (pointed towards wall) at 45° angle upward
ROB = Through a rake opposite the burners
 RC = Through a rake in the bottom middle of the first heat exchange section
  ST = Together with the stage air
CHE = Center of heat exchanger through rake

-------
in
in
o
            Figure  5-23.   Opposed  jets.
                     Test #6
                     low  flow.
Figure 5-24.  Opposed jets.
          Test #9
         high flow.
Figure 5-25.  Jets from
    one side only.
       Test #19
      high flow.

-------
                 Stable Position a
           r
           L
/
L
                 Stable  Postion  b
                     Test #36
Figure 5-26.  Multiple opposed jet flow configuration.
                         5-51

-------
en
i
ro
          Figure  5-27.   Multihole
             rakes  pointed up.
                 Test #36
Figure 5-28.  Multihole
  rakes horizontally
  opposed.
       Test #50
Figure 5-29.   Multihold
   rakes pointed 45°
   toward each other.
       Test #51

-------
These results showed that for the majority of the tests where fast mixing
was required in the second stage, the normal four opposed jet stage-air
injection ports should be used.
5.3.2   First-Stage Parameters
        A number of first-stage parameters for FWF, tangential and HE firing
configurations were varied to determine their impact on NO, CO and carbon loss
emissions.  The parameters varied during the tests include:
        •   First-stage stoichiometry
        •   First-stage residence time
        t   First-stage mixing
        t   Secondary air preheat temperature
        •   Load
        The results of changing these parameters will be discussed in the
following subsections.
5.3.2.1  First-Stage Stoichiometric Ratio
        NO  control by staged-air combustion has been widely tested since
          /\
its initial development in the late 1950's  (Reference 5-10).  Operation with
a near or substoichiometric first stage effectively suppresses both thermal
and fuel NO  formation.  However, the degree of NO  control achieved by
           A                                      J\
increasing fuel-rich stoichiometry may be limited by both  practical and
theoretical considerations.   First, from a  practical standpoint, there is
concern that the operation of  conventional  design boilers  under reducing
conditions of first-stage Stoichiometric ratios  (SR) below about 0.95 may
yield unacceptable rates of water-wall corrosion.  One objective of the
present program was to identify low NO  conditions for SR  ^0.95 for potential
                                      A
                                      5-53

-------
 application  to  conventional  design  boilers.   However,  low SRs  may  be  accept-
 able  for new unit designs,  so  a  second objective was  to  identify the  minimum
 achievable NO  emission  at  low SR.   Here,  fundamental  considerations  suggest
              A
 a  limit  to NO  reductions.
              A
         During  first-stage  combustion, a portion of the  fuel-N trapped  in
 the coal  is  volatilized  and  mixed with the surrounding gases.   If  these
 gases  are fuel-rich,  due to  substantial evolution of coal  fuel  volatiles,
 combustion processes  will convert a  fraction  of  the fuel-N  to  Np,  as  well
 as to  NO  and  bound nitrogen  intermediates,  such  as NH., and  HCN  (Reference
 5-11).  Well  stirred  reactor experiments (Reference 5-12) using propane fuel
 doped  with model  fuel-N  compounds show that as the SR decreases, the  amount
 of Ng  produced  from fuel-N  reaches a  peak  and then decreases.   Also,  these
 experiments  show  that the concentration of bound nitrogen intermediates
 continue  to  increase  as  SR decreases.   Equilibrium (Reference  5-13) and
 plug-flow and well-stirred reactor kinetic  calculations  (Reference 5-14)
 also exhibit  similar  trends.  Adding  second-stage air to  the first-stage
 combustion products oxidizes the bound nitrogen  intermediates  such as NH~
 and HCN,  (References  5-11, 5-15, 5-16)  to NO.  However, the fuel-N that has
 been converted  to N2  in  the first stage remains  relatively  unavailable for
 conversion to NO.
        These results suggest that an  optimum first-stage SR exists which
 will  maximize Np production and thereby minimize  the second-stage NO  level.
 The fuel which passes into the second  stage trapped in the  uncombusted coal
 or in the form of NO or bound N intermediates will probably be converted
to NO within the second stage.   This fuel-N represents the  lower limit for
NO  production in the staged system.
                                      5-54

-------
        Staging tests utilizing FWF or tangentially-fired configurations
were performed over a range of SRs with the stage-air introduced into a
number of positions in the heat exchange tower (see Figure 5-30 for a
schematic of the staging ports).  It should be noted that for this evolving,
volatilizing fuel system, the local SR can be quite different from the
overall SR.  This has important implications to NO formation and this point
will be discussed further in the sections on first-stage residence time
and mixing.
        Stack NO levels versus overall first-stage SRs are shown in
Figure 5-31 for the  FWF and tangential configurations for the second staging
position (see Figure 5-30).  Conditions for these tests are given on the
figure.  The first-stage SR was varied by altering the secondary air and
staged air such that the overall excess air level remained constant at 15
percent.  The primary air  level remained constant during these  tests.  The
effects of the staging position,  i.e.  first-stage residence time on stack
NO  will be discussed in  the section on residence time.  As seen in Figure 5-31,
stack  NO is a  strong function  of  first-stage  SR for  all  firing  configurations.
For the front-wall-fired configuration, a  52  percent reduction  in  NO was
achieved at a  stoichiometric  first stage and  an overall  excess  air of  15
percent.   A minimum NO  level  of 160 ppm was  achieved (82 percent  reduction)
at  a SR of 0.80  to 0.85.
         For the  tangential  case,  a 31  percent reduction  was  achieved at a
 stoichiometric first stage and a  minimum  of 125  ppm (71  percent reduction)
 at  a SR  of 0.85.   Further reductions  in SR showed a corresponding rise in
 NO  for both configurations at this staging position.
         Stack NO levels for various SRs in the HE firing configuration are
 given in  Figure 5-32.   (For staging configuration 10, see Figure 5-33).
                                     5-55

-------
      Heat Exchange/
      Staging Sections
Five Burner Array
            Corner
            Burners     pi
r~
                                      L.
                                      r-
                                               Heat Exchanger Surface
   -*-     3rd  Staging  Position
          2nd  Staging  Position



          1st  Staging  Position
          >  Main  Firebox
                       Ash Pit
                 Figure  5-30.   Staging-air locations.
                                  5-56

-------
          C\J
          o
             1200
             1000
              800
              600
en
en
              200
FRONT-WALL-FIRED

5 IFRF Burners
316°C (600°F) Preheat
B&W Type Spreader; SW = 4
15% Excess Air
12% Primary Air
Second Staging Position
293 kW (1.0 x 10° Btu/hr)
                                                          1
TANGENTIALLY-FIRED

4 Tangential Burners
316QC (600°F) Preheat
6° YAW
15% Excess Air
15% Primary Air
Second Staging Position
293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
0.65     0.75     0.85    0.95     1.05    1.15 0.65   0.75
                                    Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                                             0.85
                                                               0.95
                         1.05
1.15
                                Figure  5-31.   Effect of first-stage stoichiometry.

-------
Ui   E
I    Q.
tn   Q-
oo
     CM
    o
    o
    o
1000  _

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100
           0
                                                                              Horizontal Extension
                                                                              4  I FRF Burners
                                                                              B  & W Type Spreader,  SW=4
                                                                              Western  Kentucky  Coal
                                                                              Stage Configuration  10
                                      O  317°C (600°F) Preheat
                                      A  427°C (800°F) Preheat
                                      •  317°C (600°F) Preheat
                                          427°C (800°F) Preheat
                                      1
                                                   1
                0.65
                   0.75
0.85       .95       1.05
Stoichiometric Ratio
1.15
                                     249 kW
                                    (0.85 x 10b
                                     Btu/hr)
                                     381 kW  ,
                                    (1.3 x 10b
                                     Btu/hr)
                              Figure 5-32.   Effect  of first-stage stoichiometry and load.

-------
        4 I FRF
        Burners
tn
i
(71
VO
                                                                     Heat Exchange
                                                                     Surface
                                                   Staging and Sampling  Ports

                                                                       1(
                                                        Movable Baffle for
                                                        Stage Separation
                                                        When Staging
Main Firebox
                                 Figure 5-33.  Horizontal  extension  configuration.

-------
Both the 249 and 381 kW (0.85 and 1.3 MBtu/hr) load results are shown in
this figure.  The 249 kW (0.85 MBtu/hr) results using 4 IFRF burners roughly
match to volmetn'c heat release obtained by 5 IFRF burners operating at
293 kW (1 MBtu/hr) in the FUF configuration.  For the HE firing at 249 kW
(0.85 MBtu/hr), an 11 percent reduction in stack NO level was achieved at a
stoichiometric first stage and an overall excess air of 15 percent.  A
minimum NO level of 80  ppm was achieved at a SR of 0.75.  As in the other
firing configurations, reductions in the SR ratio below 0.75 resulted in
increased NO levels.
        Even though absolute NO levels are different for the various firing
configurations, the general shape of the curves is similar with roughly the
minimum NO levels occurring at a first-stage SR of between 0.75 and 0.85.
These curves are qualitatively similar to well-stirred reactor experiments
and calculations where the shape of the curves is due primarily to chemical
effects, being only secondarily influenced by mixing and temperature.  This
suggests a possible chemical control leading to the general shapes of the
curves exhibited in Figures 5-31 and 5-32.
        The speculation is that with a SR of 0.75 to 0.85, the maximum
amount of fuel-N is converted to N£.  This is consistent with the gas fired
well-stirred reactor experiments (Reference 5-12) and calculations (References
5-13 and 5-14).  This fuel-N derived Np is then essentially unavailable for
conversion to NO in the oxygen rich second stage.  At a SR near 0.8 and
below, the amount of NO produced in the first-stage decreases with decreasing
SR.  Armento (Reference 5-3) suggests that first stage NO decreases to
zero at a first-stage SR of 0.65.   The bound-N intermediates, such as HCN
and NH3 formed in the first stage in lieu of NO or N2, must then be oxidized

                                     5-60

-------
to NO in the second stage to give the observed stack NO levels.   Therefore,



the key to low NO levels is to trap as much fuel-N in N2 as is possible.



This amount of fuel-N will  then remain essentially unavailable for conversion



to NO in the oxygen-rich second stage.



        The experimental results are at least in qualitative agreement with



equilibrium constraints.  For example, Sarofim (Reference 5-13) has shown



that the equilibrium concentration of NO and the bound nitrogen intermediaries,



which can be oxidized to NO in the second stage, reach a minimum at a



SR dependent on temperature and fuel type and increase as the SR is further



reduced.  The oxidation of the intermediaries in the second stage can



constitute a lower limit to NO  reduction achievable by staging.  Another
                              A


limiting condition could arise from the fraction of the fuel nitrogen which



remains in the coal char after pyrolysis (References 5-4 and 5-11).  Pershing



(Reference 5-4) has estimated that 100 to 200 ppm of total NOX emissions are



due  to  char NOV under fuel-lean conditions.   Furthermore,  the  oxidation
              A


of  the  char nitrogen to char NO  proceeds slowly and is relatively insensitive
                               A


to  first-stage conditions.  The formation of  char NO   in the  second  stage
                                                    A


could thus be another fundamental  limit to the  effectiveness  of  staged



combustion for NO  control.
                 A


        It should  be noted that all of the results presented  in  this section



were for a single  fuel  of  a given  bound nitrogen  and sulfur content.   Fuel



sulfur  has been  shown  (Reference 5-9)  to affect flame  NO  levels.   This



will impact the  relative NO  levels but not  the  general  shape  of the  curves



with SR.   This  point will  be  confirmed in  Section  5.3.4.



         Figure  5-34  compares  the FWF results  achieved  in  this study



with those from other  pilot-scale  tests  (References 5-1 and 5-3) on  a
                                       5-61

-------
C71
I
ro
                 0
                20
             o
             3

             1  40
u

0)
0.
                60
                80
               100
                                                        Normal
                                                                               Substoichiometric
                                                                               (Staged Air Off)
                                                                                    This work
                                                               —	— Armento (Reference  5-3)

                                                               	 McCann (Reference  5-1)
                                            1
                                                              1
                                          1
                       0.6
                    0.7
0.8       0.9        1.0       1.1

First-Stage Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                                                    1.2
                            Figure 5-34.  Comparison of  NO  reduction  vs.  first-stage Stoichiometric
                                          ratio for front-wall-fired  units.

-------
percent reduction basis.   Data from this study falls below that obtained
elsewhere, except for the substoichiometric data of Armento (Reference 5-3).
It is believed that the lower levels of NO achieved in this study are a
result of a lack of the backmixing of second-stage air into the first stage.
This conjecture is also somewhat borne out by the greater degree of comparison
between the present results and the substoichiometric curve of Armento.
        In conclusion, NO results for staged combustion have been achieved
for a variety of first-stage SRs which are similar to results achieved
elsewhere.  For delayed staging or long residence times the shape of these
curves appears to be consistent with a chemical limitation of fuel-N con-
version to NO .  The quantitative differences between the FWF, tangential
             n
and HE firing results are due to mixing, local SR, temperature and residence
time effects.  These effects will be addressed in subsequent sections.
5.3.2.2  First-Stage Residence Time
        Conventional applications of staged combustion inject the staged
air directly over the primary flow with a resulting first-stage bulk re-
sidence time of less than 1 second.  This is done both for convenience and
to ensure adequate second-stage residence time for CO and carbon burnout.
Several studies have suggested, however, that increased first-stage residence
time enhances NO  reduction (References 5-1, 5-5, 5-16, 5-17 and 5-19).
                A
This is consistent with fundamentals since increased residence time at fuel-
rich conditions should promote the driving off of the char-bound nitrogen
prior to oxidation in the second stage, and promote the reactions which
convert fuel-N to N«.
        Tests were conducted in the FWF, tangential and HE configurations
to explore the effects of bulk residence time on NO  formation.
                                                   ^
                                     5-63

-------
        It should be recognized that the bulk residence time is indicative
of an average residence time assuming that all of the fluid within the
furnace volume is in motion.  If there are substantial pockets of stagnant
nonreacting fluid within the combustion volume, then the actual residence
time for the reacting gas is much less than the bulk value.  The motion of
the gases within the furnace is a complex function of burner parameters
such as injection velocity, swirl and overall system parameters such as
SR, load, combustion volume and combustion chamber configuration.  The sub-
stantial difference in these parameters between tangential, FWF and HE
configurations gives different actual residence times for essentially
equivalent bulk residence times.
        Taking the horizontal extension firing case as an example, if burner
swirl were zero, it might take tens of burner diameters  or several feet
to significantly decay burner axial velocity.  At this location, the actual
residence time of particles and gases on the axis might be a factor of 10
less than the bulk residence time value.  This difference in time is sub-
stantial and can lead to conditions quite different than expected for those
of the order of the bulk residence time.  Even though bulk residence time
is not a precise measure of residence time, it is utilized as a correlating
parameter in this study because it is easy to determine, can be correlated
with the actual  residence time for fixed geometry and flow conditions,
and is a parameter which has been applied in similar studies.  However, the
limitations of this parameter, especially when comparing results from
various firing configurations, should be kept in mind.
        To examine residence time effects for tangential and FWF firing
in the main firebox,  three stage-air injection positions (see Figure 5-30
for location)  and two loads, 293 and 440 kW (1.0 and 1.5 x 10  Btu/hr), were
                                      5-64

-------
investigated.   With the HE configuration (Figure 5-33)  much shorter residence
times were explored at loads of 249 and 381  kW (0.85 and 1.3 x 106 Btu/hr).
The reduced loads were used in order to maintain approximately the same
heat release per unit volume as with the firebox configuration.  Also four
burners were used instead of five in order to maintain constant burner aero-
dynamics.  Baseline tests in this HE mode revealed nearly identical NO versus
excess air curves as compared to the FWF firebox data.
        The variation of NO with residence time is shown in Figures 5-35
and 5-36 at various first-stage stoichiometric ratios for the FWF and tan-
gentially fired configurations, respectively.  The variation in NO with
residence time for the HE over a much broader range of residence times is
shown in Figure 5-37.  The residence times here are volumetric bulk residence
times determined by the mass flowrate and flue gas density calculated at an
average temperature of 1204°C (2,200°F) assuming well-stirred conditions
over the furnace volume.
        The FWF, tangential and HE stack NO data given in  Figures  5-35, 5-36
and  5-37, respectively,  show that, for  all fuel-rich SRs,  stack NO increases
as bulk residence  time decreases.  These results also  show that the  rate of
decrease of stack  NO with  residence  time increases  as  SR decreases.   This is
clearly shown  for  FWF, tangential  and HE firing  in  Figures 5-38,  5-39 and
5-40,  respectively.   In  these figures,  stack  NO  for two staging positions
are  presented  as a function of  SR.   The two staging positions  define the
residence time to  stage-air position, given the  volumetric flow rate in the
furnace and the  temperature.  For  SRs near 0.8  the  stack NO levels show a
substantial sensitivity  to staging position or  residence time.  For  SRs near
1.0  or 0.6, stack  NO  is  practically  independent  of  residence time.   Also,
                                      5-65

-------
                                                                           SR
en
i
o>
                     500
                     400
                   Q.
                   Q.
                  0^300
o

o
z: 200
                      100
                     Western Kentucky Coal
                     5 IFRF/B&W Spreader
                     Swirl  = 4
                     316°C  (600°F)  Preheat
                     12* Primary
0.75
0
4
0.85
O
A
0.95
a
o
Load
293 kU (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                   1.5 x 10 Btu/hr

                                  _|	I	L
                                           I
 1.0 x 10" Btu/hr

_|	I
                                                                                          0.95
                           2.0       2.4      2.8     3.2      3.6     4.0

                                                Residence Time  (sec)
                                                          4.4
                 4.8
                                                                                            5.2
                         Figure 5-35.   Effect of bulk  residence time  on stack NO  (front-wall-fired)

-------
en
i
en
SR
0.85
o
A
195
D
6

Load
293 kW(1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
440 kW(1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
 CM
O

O

o
               500
               400
               300
               200
               100
                 0
                  Western  Kentucky  Coal
                  4 Tangential
                  YAW = +6°
                  316°C (600°F) Preheat
                  15 Percent Primary
                                 Q-0.95
                                                      0.85
                                                                                0.95
                                                                                    0.85
                           440 kW(1.5 x~10b Btu/hr293 kW(1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
                       J	t        I	I	I        I	I	1
                       2.0     2.4     2.8     3.2     3.6      4.0

                                            Residence Time (sec)
                                                             4.4
4.8    5.2
                             Figure 5-36.   Effect of  bulk  residence  time  on  stack  NO
                                           (tangentially fired).

-------
       600
I
o>
oo
    o

    o
       500
       400
       300
       200
Western Kentucky Coal
4 IFRF burners
B&M spreader, SW = 4
Horizontal extension configuration
Excess air * 15 percent
         O  SR =  0.85

         Q  SR *  0.75

         O  SR =  0.65

Solid points are 381  kW (1.3  x  106 Btu/hr)
Open points are 249 kW  (0.85  x  106 Btu/hr)
       100
         o
                                   2345
                                                  Residence Time (sec)

                       Figure 5-37.  Effect of bulk residence time on stack NO (horizontal  extension).

-------
U1
        Q.
        0.
         CVJ
        CD
        o

        o
1000


 900


 800


 700


 600


 500


 400


 300


 200


 100 _
               0
                                            Horizontal  Extension

                                            4  IFRF Burners,  Sw = 4

                                            Western Kentucky Coal
                                            Load  =  249 kW (.85  x  10  Btu/hr)
                    0.65      0.75      0.85       0.95

                                      Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                  1.05
1.15
              O   Configuration

              A   Configuration #4
                          Figure 5-38.  Effect of stoichiometry (horizontal  extension).

-------
   1200
   1000
 CM
O
    800
    600
    400
    200
     0.60
 Western  Kentucky  Coal
 Load  = 440  kW  (1.5 x  106 Btu/hr.)
 B  & W Spreader
 Preheat  = 317°C  (600°F)
 Excess Air  = 15%
  £> _  _ _  ist Staging  Position
  O	 2nd Staging  Position
0.70       0.80     0.90       1.0
               Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                        1.10
1.20
           Figure 5-39.  Effect of stoichiometry (front-wall-fired).
                                      5-70

-------
    1200
    1000
Q.
a.
 CvJ
o
     800
     600
     200
Western Kentucky Coal
Load = 440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
B & W Spreader
Preheat = 317°C (600°F)
Excess Air = 15%
   - - - 1st Staging Position
   	 2nd Staging Position
       0.60     0.70
      0.80      0.90      1.0         1.10
             Stoichiometric Ratio
1.20
           Figure 5-40.   Effect of stoichiometry  (tangentially fired),
                                     5-71

-------
 FWF and HE data are more sensitive  to  residence time than tangentially-fired
 data.
        Some of the difference between these firing systems may be due to
 actual versus bulk residence time effects.  For example, the tangentially
 fired system probably has more of the  combustion volume gases in motion
 than does the FWF or HE firing configurations.  The actual residence time
 for the tangential system is then probably longer than the actual time for
 FWF and HE firing at the equivalent bulk residence time.  Therefore, the
 tangential system stack NO data exhibits less sensitivity to residence
 time because it is further along in the decay process.  Even though some
 differences between the results are due to correlating the data with bulk
 residence time rather than actual residence time, most of the differences
 are due to local stoichiometry, mixing and temperature differences in
 these systems.
        The character of the stack NO  results is a complex function of
 chemical and mixing processes.  To help interpret these results, the com-
 bustion and pollutant formation events occurring in the first stage are con-
 ceptually separated into three zones as schematically shown in Figure 5-41.
 These zones, denoted as near, intermediate, and far, represent zones in
 a real pulverized coal combustion system in which the local stoichiometry
 has a significant change in character.  Local stoichiometry is defined as
 the ratio of available fuel up to the end of the zone divided by the avail-
 able air normalized by the stoichiometric fuel/air ratio.  The local stoichi-
ometry is continually changing character in these zones due to the evolving
nature of coal combustion.   For the coals burnt in this study, a considerable
fraction of the fuel  (greater than 40 percent) is volatilized during the com-
bustion process and is burnt homogeneously in the gas phase.  The time scale of
                                     5-72

-------
        Secondary
           Air
        Coal  + Primary
           Air
—I
CO
SR]
~1
<1
mixing
mixed
stratified
mixed
stratified
near
zone
a
SR >1
a
SRa>l
SR >1
a
SR >1
a
intermediate
zone
b
SRb~l
SRb
-------
volatization depends on coal heating rate.  An estimate of this time scale for
the experiments carried out might be on the order of tens of milliseconds.  Dur-
ing devolatilization, the oxygen in the combustion air is retarded from
reaching the coal surface by the gases evolving from the coal.  Heterogeneous
combustion of the coal is then slowed during the devolatilization period.
The availability of the fuel to the oxygen in the air or the local SR ratio
is then a time dependent function whose time scale is roughly that of de-
volatilization or tens of milliseconds.  Major gas phase combustion processes,
including fuel-N conversion chemistry in combusting zones, occur on time
                                         *
scales shorter than tens of milliseconds.   Therefore, coal fuel availability
to the oxygen in the combustion air is probably rate limiting in these systems.
        In addition to fuel availability limitations, oxygen availability
is varying in these systems due to the rate of mixing between the primary
and secondary streams.  If the burner is designed (i.e., injection velo-
cities, swirl, etc.) to rapidly mix the primary and secondary streams,
oxygen availability is not limiting and the local stoichiometry is primarily
a function of fuel availability.  However, if the burner is configured
for slow mixing, oxygen availability as well as fuel availability can be rate
limiting.  Therefore, the relative rates of these processes determine the
local stoichiometry and the spatial and time extent and uniformity of the
near, intermediate and far zones as schematicized in Figure 5-41.  Referring
to Figure 5-41, the near zone local stoichiometry is shown to be fuel-lean
for all first-stage stoichiometries and mixing rates.  This is because the
fuel  initially available from the coal always sees an abundance of oxygen.
Combustion of the initial concentration of fuel and fuel-N always occurs
*
 Fuel sulfur might affect the homogeneous NO formation time scale to some
 extent depending on local conditions (see Reference 5-9).
                                      5-74

-------
under lean conditions and most of the fuel-N evolved will  go immediately to
NO.   Very little fuel-N will  be converted into N? within this zone.   There-
fore, volatile fuel-N conversion to NO will  be very high in the near zone.
        The intermediate zone is where most of the volatile fuel  and fuel
N components evolve and react.  Depending on the overall first-stage SR
and the mixing rate of primary and secondary air, combustion and pollutant
formation processes can occur in a locally rich or lean environment in
this zone.  If the first-stage stoichiometry is rich, then combustion will
probably occur under locally rich conditions for both fully mixed and
stratified or unmixed conditions.  Therefore, some of the fuel-N evolved
in this region will be converted to N2 rather than nitrogen intermediate
or NO.  In addition, NO generated in the near zone will be reduced to N2
in the fuel-rich intermediate combustion zone.
        For a first stage SR of  approximately 1.0, the  local intermediate
zone SR can be either rich or lean depending on mixing  rate.   For a poorly
mixed or  stratified system, secondary air oxygen will only slowly mix into
the  fuel-rich primary stream.  Combustion and pollutant formation will
occur under locally fuel-rich conditions and the intermediate  zone will
have a character similar  to that which occurs under  a fuel-rich  first-stage
SR condition.   For a rapidly  mixed system,  the  overall  intermediate  zone
SR ratio  will be near  1.0 and most of the fuel-N evolved will  be converted
to NO  .   In summary, the  intermediate zone  processes will  reduce near zone
     A
NO   and convert  fuel-N  evolved  in  this zone to  N?  if either  the  overall
  X                                              £
first-stage SR  is  rich  or the sytem  is poorly mixed  and highly stratified.
         If the  intermediate  zone is  very rich the  evolved fuel-N can  be
converted to  nitrogen  intermediates  rather  than N2.   If it is  lean,  most of
                                     5-75

-------
the fuel-N will be converted to NO.



        The far zone is represented by a region sufficiently removed from



the burner such that the SR achieved is characteristic of the overall first



stage SR.  In the far zone most of the available fuel has been exposed to the



combustion air oxygen.  If the overall first-stage stoichiometry is rich,



processes in the far zone will tend to further reduce near zone NO to N«



and some of the remaining fuel-N will be converted to Np.  However, if the



overall first-stage stoichiometry is lean then fuel-N will be converted to



NO  and any nitrogen intermediate generated in a rich intermediate zone will
  A


be converted to NO .
                  A


        In summary, for either rich or lean first-stage SRs, most of the



fuel-N evolved in the near zone is converted into NO .  For rapidly mixed
                                                    A


systems and lean first-stage SRs, much of the fuel-N evolved in the inter-



mediate zone is converted to NO .  For rich SRs or stratified systems at
                               A


lean SRs, the fuel-N evolved in the intermediate zone is partially converted



into N9 with some conversion to nitrogen intermediaries and NO .  In addition,
      C~                                                       A


some of the NO  formed in the near zone is reduced to N~ in this locally



rich zone.  For rich SRs in mixed or stratified systems the fuel-N evolved



in the far zone will be partially converted to Np as well as to nitrogen



intermediaries and NOV.  Also, NO  formed in the near zone will be further
                     A           A


reduced to Np and nitrogen intermediaries in this rich combustion zone.



For lean SRs in mixed or stratified systems the fuel-N evolved in the far



zone will  be converted to NO .  In addition, the nitrogen intermediaries
                            A


generated in the intermediate zone for the stratified system will be con-



verted to NO  in the fuel-lean far zone.  It should be noted that the
            A


addition of rapidly mixed stage-air will have the same effect as an overall



lean far zone.
                                     5-76

-------
        The above conceptual  model  is  simplistic  and  does  not  take  into
account "prompt NO"  and fuel  and thermal  NO  or fuel  sulfur interactions.
                                           A
Also, the relative degree of N conversion and the rate of  N devolatilization
versus fuel devolatilization is not considered.  However,  these effects
will govern the details of NO  formation  and will not alter the overall
                             A
conclusions developed from this model.
        The experimental data is now reexamined in light of the above
conceptual model.  Based on the model, initial NO should be high for all
of the firing configurations and SRs tested.  Both the FWF and HE stack
NO data, presented in Figures 5-35 and 5-37 respectively,  show fairly high
early NO levels over the residence times  measured.  However, these results
do not cover a sufficiently low range of residence times to draw any firm
conclusion on near zone or early NO.
        To gain additional insight into the formation and decay of NO in
the first stage, prior to second stage air addition, sampling in the hot
fuel-rich first stage in the horizontal extension configurations was per-
formed using the probe shown in Figure 5-42.   This is a water-cooled, water
injection probe which rapidly quenches the hot gases and coal or char particles
sampled from the first stage.  The horizontal  extensions were set up with
the stage air introduced at the longest possible  residence  time and with
samples taken at various distances  (or residence  times) from the burner.
Figure 5-43 shows the NO levels as a  function  of residence  time and stoichio-
metric ratio.  These NO results confirm the  existence of high  levels of
near  zone  or early NO which then decays in the fuel-rich intermediate zone.
It  appears  that  the  maximum early  NO  level  depends on SR  ratio with
                                      5-77

-------
tn
i
00
                                                 Combustion Chamber
                                                                             1093°C (2000°F)
       Quench Water

Gas Sample + Slurry

  Cooling Water Out
   Cooling Water In
                                                                        ^J_L
                                                                                       Hot Sample Gases
                            '* f•" / *
                            ,.: 0:0?
                             '   • .o 0 «
                               .'.-<>'•
                                 Figure 5-42.   Schematic of hot sampling probe.

-------
CJ»

10
           CVJ
           o
               600
               500
           §:   400
               300
               200
               100
                                 Western Kentucky Coal
                                 4 IFRF burners
                                 B&W spreader, SW = 4
                                 horizontal extention conf.
                                                                 J.
O
            SR.


           0.85

           0.75


      GJ   0.65


Shaded points are
381 kW (1.3 x  106 Btu/hr); all
other 249 HW (0.85 x  106 Btu/hr)
                                           3       4        56
                                           Bulk Residence Time  (sec)
                                 Figure 5-43.  NO versus residence  time  in  the  first  stage.

-------
 higher SR  yielding  higher early  NO.  However, measurements at earlier
 residence  time  were not  possible to quantify the maximum early NO levels
 achieved as  a function of SR.  It should be noted again that the actual
 residence  time  can  be 0.1 or  less  of the bulk residence time for this
 firing configuration.  Therefore,  actual residence times are probably on
 the  order  of tenths of seconds or less  rather than seconds.
        At sufficiently  low SR and long residence time the local NO pre-
 sented in  Figure 5-43 appears to nearly vanish.  Comparing this result to
 the  stack  NO results given in Figure 5-37 indicates that second-stage NO
 for  low SRs  is  probably  formed from the oxidation of first-stage nitrogen
 intermediates,  such as HCN and NHU in the second stage.  This adds further
 evidence to  the concept  of one optimal minimum-stack-NO SR at which max-
 imum Np is produced and  below which nitrogen intermediate production is
 favored.   These intermediates can then be oxidized to NO in the oxygen
 rich second  stage.   Firm proof of this concept awaits the measurement of
 nitrogen intermediates in the first and second stages.  Examining the FWF
 and HE  results  given in  Figures  5-35 and 5-37, it can be seen that the rate
 of decay of  stack NO is  slower for the leaner SRs.  This is consistent with
 the conceptual model where, reduction of near zone NO  and generation of
                                                     A
 intermediate zone NO  or N9 depends on the overall richness of the first
                    /\     £
 stage  SR.  For  very  lean systems no decay of NO should be observed.   For
 a first-stage SR around  1, in this rapidly mixed system (i.e.,  high
 swirl,  coal  spreader) little N«  and decay of first-stage NO  is pro-
                              £-                            A
 duced  in the intermediate zone and stack NO levels are high.   For lower
 SRs, production of  N2 and thereby the decay of NO with residence time is
more rapid.  For very low SRs, N2 production is  reduced in the  inter-
                                    5-80

-------
mediate zone and nitrogen intermediaries are increased.   This  will  yield
increased stack NO levels when the nitrogen intermediaries are oxidized in
the second stage.
        The tangential firing stack NO results given in  Figure 5-36 show
less sensitivity to residence time and do not exhibit high initial  values
noted in the FWF and HE results.  The tangential system  does not have swirl
or a coal spreader device.  Therefore, this mode of firing is of a slow
mix nature.  The low levels of NO observed in Figure 5-36 may be a result
of the rich intermediate combustion zone reducing the early NO faster than
is possible in the rapidly mixed FWF and HE systems.  Also, actual  residence
time for the tangential system may be longer than that for the FWF and HE.
If this is the case then we would be looking at the long residence time
effect or far zone results for the tangential system in Figure 5-36.
        In summary, high NO levels produced in the fuel-lean near zone
are partially reduced in intermediate and far zone.  The rate and extent
of reduction depends on the local stoichiometry and the residence time
at those conditions.  Local stoichiometry 1s a function of the relative
rates of coal devolatillzation and mixing of secondary air with the pri-
mary coal stream.  Once the near-zone NO 1s formed, 1t takes a considerable
amount of bulk residence time to reduce 1t  to low levels.  It appears that
a slowly mixed system, like the tangential  firing configuration where local
SRs are lower for a given  first-stage SR, 1s more effective in decaying early
NO than highly mixed  systems.   For a given  bulk residence time to stage
air addition, a  mixing and thereby, local SR distribution could be found  to
yield minimum NO.
5.3.2.3  First-Stage  Mixing
        NOX emissions  from unstaged combustion  and  from  staged combustion at
                                    5-81.

-------
SRs near 1.0 and above are dominated by burner mixing (References 5-2,  5-7,
5-20, 5-21).  Detailed study of NOY control  by burner modification 1s beyond
                                  A
the scope of this program and 1s covered elsewhere (Reference 5-21).   How-
ever, the combined effect of mixing and staging was carried through the
tests for two reasons.  First, burner mixing 1s Important 1n staging  of
boilers of conventional  design where operation at SR < 0.95 1s precluded  by
operational  problems (References 5-2, 5-5).   Second, the Impact of mixing
on NOV production at low SRs, potentially achievable with new boiler  designs,
     A
is expected to be insignificant.  Therefore, the interaction of conventional
burner mixing and staging was experimentally examined over a wide range
of first-stage SRs to establish the importance of mixing on NO  formation
                                                              A
under staged combustion  conditions.
        Changes in the mixing rate between the primary and secondary  air
stream alter both the local  oxygen environment and the heating and devolatili-
zation rate of the coal  particles.  As discussed in the section on first
stage residence time, mixing and the resulting intermediate zone local
stoichiometry have a large impact on near zone NO  reduction and intermediate
                                                 A
zone NO  production.  In this study the impact of mixing on NOV production
       A                                                      A
was investigated by varying the angle of spread of the coal injector, swirl
of secondary air and percent of air in primary stream for the FWF configura-
tion.  In addition, HE tests with variable coal spreader angles and number
of burners were carried  out to determine the impact of mixing on this firing
configuration.  Finally, mixing in the tangential system was just briefly
investigated by altering the percent primary air and the angle of the burners,
         The coal spreader applied in this study distributes the coal in  a
conical pattern whose apex is the injection point.  The spreader also causes
                                     5-82

-------
the primary air stream to have  an initially  diverging  pattern.   The  diverging
nature of the spreader flow helps to carry the coal  into the secondary air
stream.  Thus the coal is rapidly mixed with both primary and secondary air.
In contrast to this situation,  at low swirl, the axial injector has  a much
slower mixing rate between coal and secondary air.  Therefore, the impact
of mixing on NO under staged combustion conditions should be clearly
demonstrated by comparing results with and without the spreader.  In Figure
5-44, stack NO levels under staged conditions with and without the spreader
are presented.  At a SR near 1.0, for both 293 and 440 kW (1 and 1.5 MBtu/hr)
load, the difference in NO level between the axial injector and the spreader
is substantial.  As the SR decreases, this difference also decreases until,
at a SR of around 0.8, the difference is negligible.  Referring to the
conceptual model presented in Figure 5-41, at a SR near 1.0 the axial
injector gives a rich intermediate zone, where near-zone NO  is reduced and
                                                           /\
fuel-N is converted to N2-  The  spreader gives a  leaner intermediate-zone
SR; where near-zone NOW is not reduced and most of the fuel-N goes to NO  .  As
                      x                                                 «
the SR is decreased, the far zone, for both the axial  injector and spreader,
becomes rich thus reducing NOY formed in either the near or intermediate
                             A
zone.  Therefore, for low SRs and sufficiently long residence times the im-
portance of  intermediate-zone mixing decreases and the far-zone local SR
dominates the  results.
        Adding stage-air at earlier times has an  impact on NOX> similar to
a  lean far zone  because NO decay processes are interrupted.   For earlier
stage-air addition, intermediate zone mixing  once again becomes important
in determining final  NO  levels.
                       A
        The  higher  load  results  presented in  Figure 5-44 produced higher  NO
than  the  lower load cases over  the entire SR  range because  of two effects.

                                     5-83

-------
      1200r-
      1000 -
    a.
    CL
en
CO  O
       800 -
       600
       400
       200
                    440 kW (1.5 x 10  Btu/hr)
                                       B&W Spreader
                                         SW = 4
                                                                 1200  -
              1000
                                                                  800
                                                                  600
Axial Injector 400
    SW = 6

               200
         0.50   0.60   0.70   0.80   0.90   1.00    1.10    1.20
                                                                     0
5 IFRF
Preheat = 316°C (600°F)
Excess Air = 157,
Western Kentucky Coal
Prim Stoich:  12T.
1st Staging Position   ,
Load:  293 kW (1.0 x 10bBtu/hr]
                             B*W Spreader
                               SW = 4
                              Axial Injector
                                 SW = 6
                                                                          iiiiiitii]
                                                                 j
                     0.60   0.70   0.80    0.90   1.00   1.10   1.20

     Stoichiometric Ratio
                                       Figure 5-44.  Effect of mixing (first stage).

-------
First, at higher loads the injection velocities are greater and  the mixing
of the streams is improved.   Second, temperature is increased  at higher
load altering the coal combustion rate and leading to additional  thermal
NO production.
        In addition to coal  injector design, the effect of mixing coal and
combustion air on NO was further explored by varying secondary air swirl
and percent primary air flow in the FWF firing configuration.  Figure  5-45
shows the effect of secondary air swirl, including the coal spreader,  for
two stage-air addition positions.  At SRs near 1.0, and the second staging
position, swirl only has a moderate effect on NO.  This is probably because
the spreader has effectively mixed the coal and secondary air, and swirl does
not enhance mixing significantly for this situation.  At low SRs the  effect
of swirl becomes small, which is consistent with the hypothesis  that  far
zone local SR dominates the NO level at long residence times.  Also con-
sistent with this picture at low SRs is the further flattening of the  NO
with swirl curve for the longer residence time 3rd staging position con-
dition.  In addition, the NO levels have decayed to lower levels due  to a
longer residence time in the locally fuel-rich far zone.
        Figure 5-46 shows the effect of altering mixing by increasing
primary air flow at both low and high secondary air swirl.  Increasing the
primary air increases the local oxygen level by increased secondary air
entrainment due to higher primary air velocities.  It also increases  local
oxygen by increasing the amount of premixed oxygen due to the greater primary
air flow.  In the unstaged modes (EA = 15%), increasing the primary air
from 12 to 25 percent causes the flame to lift off the burner and the NO  to
increase dramatically.  This is believed to be the result of increased local
                                    5-85

-------
CJI

00
cr>
                         Western  Kentucky  Coal  316°C  (600°F)  Secondary Preheat
                         149°C  (300°F)  Second Stage Preheat
                         12% pa Fast Mixing
                         293 kW (1.0 M  Btu/hr)
          1000  -
          800
       Q.
       Q.
        00
       O
o

O
           600
          400
           200
                                   15% EA
                                                     2nd stage
                                      SR  1.02
                                                                          EA = 15%
                                                                          SR - 1.02
                                                                          SR = 0.95
                                                                          SR = 0.85
                                                                                       t-T
                                                                                                3rd stage
                                                                                                           -0-
                                                             Swirl
                                     Figure 5-45.   Effect of secondary air swirl.

-------
I
00
•-J
    1300



    1200



    1100



    1000



    900



 £  800
 Q_
 CL

—^  700
 CM
O

**  600
O


O  500
z


    400



    300



    200



     100



       0
                             10
                                              'Lifted flame
                                                 SR = 0.85
                                           Sw = 4

                                          Low Swirl
                                                                         SR. 1.02
                                                                                    SR «  0.85
  Sw = 8

High Swirl
                  20         30         4010         20         30


                  Primary Air  Flow (Percent of Stoichiometric)
                                                                                               40
   Figure  5-46.   Effect of primary stoichiometry (load:  293 kW  (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr), preheat:   316°C  (600°F)

                   first staging  position).

-------
oxygen availability at the point of volatile nitrogen evolution.   In the
lifted flame mode of operation, the primary and secondary air streams  have
sufficient time to mix with coal before any substantial  fuel-nitrogen
evolution.  When fuel-nitrogen conversion does take place it does  so in a
locally lean environment and high levels of NO are produced.
        Under staged combustion conditions, the' increase in NO with percent
primary air decreases as SR decreases.   At a SR of 0.85 for both high  and
low swirl the change in NO with percent primary is small, and even negative
in the case of small swirl.  These results are also consistent with the
hypothesis that at low SRs and long residence time, burner mixing  does not
impact NO significantly.  What controls NO in these cases is far-zone  local
stoichiometry and residence time.  For higher levels of swirl, the primary
and secondary streams are more rapidly mixed and this gives higher NO  levels
for SRs of 1.02 and 0.95.  The enhanced mixing by swirl  reduces the impact
of primary air flow changes.
        Percent primary air variation results were also obtained for the
nonswirling tangential firing configurations at a SR of 0.85.  These results,
which were obtained on Pittsburgh coal, showed very little change  in NO as
primary air increased from 10 to 25 percent.  This behavior is consistent
with the FWF results presented in Figure 5-46 and once again demonstrates
that at low SR and sufficient long residence time, mixing does not signifi-
cantly impact NO levels.
        The effect of tangential burner yaw on staged tangential  NO levels
was also investigated.  Yaw is defined as the angle between the diagonal
across the firebox and the direction of the burner centerline.  As can be
seen in Table 5-6, varying the yaw from 0° to 9° had little effect on NO
                                     5-88

-------
emissions.  Since yaw impacts the way in which the corner-fired burner flames
interact in the far zone, these results show that NO emissions are dominated
by near- and intermediate-zone processes at SRs near 1.0.  As indicated
previously, given sufficient resident time at a SR of 0.85,  the NO emissions
are somewhat insensitive to mixing.

               TABLE 5-6  EFFECT OF YAW - TANGENTIALLY FIRED
NO (0% 02) PPM
SR
1.15
0.95
0.85
£
500
197
120
£
550
202
106
         Figures  5-47  and  5-48  show  the  effect of  burner  size  and mixing on
 NO  formation  under  staged conditions.   These results were  obtained  in  the
 horizontal  extension  at a firing  rate of 249 kW  (0.85  MBtu/hr).  Burner
 design  was  similar  with the  large burner equivalent  in capacity to  four
 small burners.   For the long residence  time results  shown  in  Figure 5-47,
 the large single burner has  significantly lower  NO under staged conditions
 above a SR  of 0.8.  Since the  four  smaller burners mix the primary  and sec-
 ondary  streams more rapidly  than  the  single burner,  the  intermediate zone
 for the large burner  remains richer for a longer period  of time than in the
 small burner  case.  This  gives more near-zone NO reduction and higher
                                  5-89

-------
in
i
      o.
      Q.
 CM
O
o
o
1200

1100

1000

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100
   0
                    0.55
                        0.65
                                       Western Kentucky Coal
                                       Load = 249 kW (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                       Excess Air:  15%
                                       316°f. (600°F) Preheat
                                       H.E. Conf #1, 7, 10
                                                                   O
                                                                                      Single Large Burner
                                                                                      Four Small Burners
                                                             I
                                                                    1.15
               0.75       0.85      0.95        1.05
                First-Stage Stoichiometric  Ratio
Figure 5-47.   Effect  of number of burners (long residence time).
1.25

-------
en
to
         CL
         o.
         CM
        o
o
o
1200

1100

1000
 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100
   0
                      0.55
                  0.65
                                         Western Kentucky  Coal
                                         Load = 249  kW  (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                         Excess Air  = 15%
                                         316°C (600°F)  Preheat
                                         H.E. Conf.  #4
                                                                                    A Single Large Burner
                                                                                    O Four Small Burners
                                                                                   J-
                                                                          1.15
             0.^5       0.85     0.95       1.05
                First-Stage  Stoichiometric Ratio
Figure 5-48.   Effect of number  of burners (short residence time).
1.25

-------
conversion of fuel-N to N2 which leads to lower NO levels.   As in  the FWF
cases, at low SRS the far zone local  SR dominates final  NO  values  and the
importance of mixing diminishes.  Figure 5-48 shows the  effect of  reducing
first-stage residence time under the same conditions as  those in Figure 5-47.
At SRs greater than 0.9, the single large burner gives lower NO.  However,
below a SR of 0.9 the four burners achieve lower NO.  Besides having a
slower mixing history, the large single burner also probably has a slower
devolatization and combustion history.  For the single large burner, addi-
tion of stage air earlier in the process probably interrupts the N2 produc-
tion and NO reduction processes before they are complete, resulting in higher
NO levels.  In the case of the  four small burners, the N2 formation process
is more complete and earlier stage-air addition does not impact the NO re-
sults as strongly as in the single burner case.  This is somewhat confirmed
by comparing the four small burners short and long residence time NO results.
Down  to an SR of 0.95 the results are equivalent for the small  burners
whereas the large burner  results are quite different.  The same interruption
of N2 production for the  slow-mixed case at short residence time can also be
seen  in Figure 5-49.  These results show that the slow mixing,  caused by
employing the axial  injector on four  small burners, has produced lower NO
only  above 0.85.  Below a SR of 0.85  the slow mixing has probably delayed
combustion and fuel-N conversion sufficiently to cause the stage-air addi-
tion  to  interrput the N2  production in  the fuel-rich far zone.
        These results show  that, for  long residence times and  low SRs  (near
0.8), mixing does not significantly impact NO  levels.  However, at  shorter
                                     5-92

-------
            1000
             800
en
I
>£>
         Q.
         Q.
 CJ
O
        o

        o
    600
             400
             200
                                   Western Kentucky Coal
                                   4 I FRF Burners
                                   Horizontal Extension Conf. #4
                                   Excess Air:  15%
                                   Load:  249 kW (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                   Preheat:  316°C (600°F)
                                                                                    B  & W  Spreader,  Sw =  4
Axial Injector, Sw = 6
              0
                   0.55       0.65       0.75      0-85      0.95      1.05
                                           First-Stage Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                                       1.15
      1.25
                          Figure 5-49.   Effect of first-stage mixing (short residence time).

-------
 residence times and the same SRs, mixing does  influence the NO levels be-
 cause  it determines the extent of combustion and fuel-N conversion in the
 first  stage prior to stage-air addition.  This can be made clear by referring
 to Figure 5-41.  For a highly mixed system, the near and intermediate zones
 will be compressed spatially because of enhanced volatilization and com-
 bustion.  Far-zone reactions will then have a  considerable amount of time
 to decay near-zone NO before stage-air addition.  For slow mixing, volatili-
 zation and combustion processes are delayed and far-zone reactions do not
 have sufficient time to decay near-zone NO before stage-air addition.  This
 suggests that  under staged condition at low SR, where residence time to
 stage  air addition is limited, mixing in the near and intermediate zones
 must be carefully considered to minimize NO levels.
 5.3.2.4  First-Stage Temperature
        The influence of first-stage temperature on NO formation was
 established by considering extremes in thermal conditions.  FWF, tangential
 and HE firing configuration data were obtained at the upper operating limit
 of the furnace, 371 - 427°C (700-800°F) secondary air preheat, and alternatively
 at the lower limit of stable combustion (no air preheat and 38 kW (0.1-0.13
 MBtu/hr) additional wall cooling).  As Figures 5-50 and 5-51 indicate, under
 normal  combustion conditions (no staging), decreasing the combustion zone
 temperature reduces the NO emissions.   This is almost certainly the result
 of a reduction in thermal  NO formation.   In fact, the unstaged NO emissions
 at low preheat are approximately the same as the fuel-NO measured by Pershing
 and Wendt (Reference 5-4)  for this coal.   This is further shown by the gas
 and coal  fired tangential  results presented in Figure 5-6 and repeated here
as Figure 5-52.  The slopes of NO concentration as  a function of temperature

                                    5-94

-------
en

en
  1200  i ,
  1000
I  800
   600
   400
   200
             5 IFRF/B&W  SPREADER

             3rd Staging Position
             293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
             Swirl  =  4
             12% Primary/Western  Kentucky Coal
      O 427°C  (800°F) Secondary  Air
        Preheat, No Wall Cooling
      • 320C (90°F)  Secondary Air
        Preheat, 29.3 kW (100,000 Btu/hrL
        Cooling

          427°C (800°F)
0.75  0.80  '   0.90
                               32°C  (90°F) + Cooling
600 ,-


500

400


300


200

100


  0
                                                           4  TANGENTIAL

                                                           3rd Staging Position
                                                           293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                                           6° YAW
                                                           15% Primary/Western Kentucky Coal
                                                                 427°C (800°F)  Preheat
                               1.0       1.1      1.2       0.50     0.70

                                               Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                                       0.90
                                                                                27°C (80°F) Preheat
                                                                                Cooling
                               1.00
                                                                                                                  1.20
             Figure 5-50.   Effect of first-stage temperature (FWF and  tangential).

-------
  1200
  1000
   800
 CO
o
o
o
   600
   400
   200
     0
_L
          0.55
            Western Kentucky Coal
            4  IFRF Burners
            B  & W Spreader,  Sw = 4
            Load = 249 kW (0.85 x  106 Btu/hr)
            Excess Air:   15%
            Conf.  #4 Stage Air
J_
         0.65
_L
                              _L
                                                     _L
J_
                                                                               371°C  (700°F)  Preheat
                                                              _L
                                                                                32°C  (90°F)  Preheat  &
                                                                                38  kW (130,000  Btu/hr)  Cooling
                                                              _L
         0.75
                                                   1.25
                             0.85       0.95        1.05       1.15
                           First-Stage Stoichiometric Ratio
Figure 5-5?.   Effect of first-stage stoichiometry and preheat (horizontal  extension).

-------
I
10
>-J




§. 700
ex
5^ 600
S 500
o
400
300
200
100
0
15% Primary
Western Kentucky Coal
6° Yaw
O Coal - 316°
A Coal - 427°
Q Gas - 316°C
O Coal - 37.8
293 kW (1.0


/^>-Coal
^<<^>^ A
^K^^^
£>~J&~^V
^**^ Gas
	 L_ 	 | 	 L 	 1 	 1 	 1 	 ' 	
1800°F 190QOF 2000°F 2100°F 2200°F 2300^F 2400°F
982°C 10370C 1093°C 1149°C 1204°C 1260°C 1316°C
C (600°F) Preheat
C (800°F) Preheat
(600°F) Preheat
°C (100°F) Preheat &
Cooling
x 106 Btu/hr)







i
2500°F
1371°C
                                                  First-Stage Temperature


                               Figure 5-52.   Effect of first-stage temperature (tangential).

-------
are the same for gas and coal firing.  This would seem to indicate that,
near baseline conditions, the change in NO level with temperature is
primarily associated with thermal NO rather than fuel-N derived NO.  It
should be noted that increasing the air preheat increases the injection
velocity.  Therefore, higher preheat results probably causes enhanced mixing.
        Under staged conditions, the influence of combustion zone tempera-
ture is a function of first-stage stoichiotnetry.  Near stoichiometric
conditions, increasing temperature increased NO; however, at SR = 0.85,
an inverse trend was noted.  This is clearly shown by the FWF firing con-
figuration data in Figure 5-53.  These data were obtained at secondary
air preheats of 32°C (90°F), 149°C (300°F), 316°C (600°F) and 427°C (800°F)
and are reported in terms of the temperature measured at the end of the first
stage using an unshielded Pt-Pt/Rh thermocouple.  (Although the measurements
cannot be assumed to represent the actual flame temperatures, they provide
a means of correlating the data and summarizing the effect.)  Blair et al.,
(Reference 5-22) and Pohl and Sarofim (Reference 5-11) have shown that under
controlled pyrolysis conditions the yield of volatile nitrogen increases
with increasing temperature.  Under locally lean conditions this might
convert more fuel-N to NO.  However, under locally rich conditions, the
evolved fuel-N might be more rapidly reduced to N2 in the high temperature
environment, giving lower final NO levels.  This conjecture is consistent
with the data presented in Figures 5-50, 5-51 and 5-53.
        The above conclusions apply if the residence time before stage-air
addition is sufficiently long to allow for the reactions to reduce as
much fuel-N as possible to N2>   For shorter residence times, the far-zone
processes are interrupted and the final  NO results are altered.  Figure 5-54
                                    5-98

-------
  IGOOi—
   900
   800
   700
   600
Ik. 500
o
SU400
   300
   200
   100
                     O
                                               Western Kentucky Coal
                                               5 IFRF Burners/B & W
                                                            Spreader
                                               15% EA
                                               12% Primary Air
                                               Third Staging Position
                                               293 kW (1  x 10C
                                               Swirl = 4
                         Btu/hr)
                                  Q
                                                         O
                                               * 0.95
       1038°C
      (1900°F)
                    1093°C
1U9°C
1204°C
                                                              O
                   (2000°F)          (2100°F)      (2200°F)
                        First-Stage Temperature
Figure 5-53.   Effect of  first-stage temperature and SR (front-wall-fired)
                                     5-99

-------
Ul
I
      500
      400
    Q.
    O.
 CM
O
       300
O   ^
0   O
     CJ
    O
       200
       100
         0
         0.50
                0.60
                               4   Tangential Burners

                               6°  Yaw

                               293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                                    I
                                                           I
0.70
0.80      0.90       1.00

        Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                                    1.10
                                                                                 316°C (600°F) Preheat (Hot)

                                                                                 T   = 1230°C (2245°F)
                                                                                 27°C (80°F) Preheat & Cooling

                                                                                 T   = 1093°C (2000°F)
                                                    1.20
                         Figure 5-54.   Effect of wall  cooling  at the  mid-staging  position,

-------
gives NO level achieved at extreme thermal  differences for tangential



firing under the middle staging position.   For SRs near the unstaged condition



the results are comparable to those for the late staging position presented



in Figure 5-50.  However, at SRs near 0.8, the mid-staging position results



show increased NO for higher temperature,  which is opposite to the effect ob-



served for the longer residence time third-staging position.  This might be



due to the high temperature enhancing volatilization to such an extent that



very high near-zone NO is produced.  Also, intermediate-zone combustion



might become overly rich, producing nitrogen intermediates at the expense



of Np.  Given sufficient residence time, these local processes would be



masked by far-zone reduction processes.  However, if stage-air is introduced



early, the nitrogen intermediates and high early NO might become evident



in the data as is shown in Figure 5-54.  Of course, this is simply conjecture



and to substantiate this requires measurement of NO and nitrogen intermediates



throughout the first stage.  What is important to note here is that the



effect of temperature and mixing depends on residence time as was shown



in the last section.



Load



        Under normal operation, reduced load (volumetric heat release rate)



and reduced air preheat tend to reduce NO  emissions  by suppressing thermal
                                         /\


NO .  Indeed, new boiler designs are using enlarged fireboxes partly to
  A


meet NO  emissions standards (Reference 5-23).  Under fuel-rich conditions,
       n


however, opposite effects may  prevail.  The work of Sarofim, et al., (Re-



ferences 5-11,  5-13 and  5-24)  has suggested that high heat  release rate and/or



high preheat may reduce NO   in  two ways.   First, high bulk  temperature can
                          A


accelerate the  decay of bound-N intermediaries and near-zone NO in the



first stage and thus reduce  NO  or the  conversion to NO  in  the second stage.





                                    5-101

-------
Second, high first-stage temperature can reduce the amount of bound nitrogen
carried into the second stage in the char.   In addition, increased load and/
or temperature enhances mixing in the present experimental setup.
        The effects of load on NO under staged FWF, tangential  and HE firing
are presented in Figures 5-55 and 5-56.  These results are very similar to
the effects of preheat temperature and are  consistent with the mechanisms
discussed above and in the section on first-stage temperature.   Visually,
the intensity of combustion is increased as load is increased, giving
sharply defined flames.
        The effect of load on NO under staged conditions in the HE at reduced
residence time is given in Figure 5-56.  These results are also very similar
to those achieved with preheat variation at several residence times.   Argu-
ments similar to those employed for preheat temperature variation  might also
be applied in this case.
5.3.3   Second-Stage Parameters
        Following the first-stage parametric study the following second
stage parameters were varied.
        •  Second-stage stoichiometry or excess air
        t  Residence time to quenching
        •  Stage-air mixing technique
        t  Stage-air preheat temperature
        In general the first-stage parameters were held constant.   However,
in some cases the second-stage variables were also explored over a range
of first-stage variables, such as SR, swirl etc.  The nominal first-stage
conditions during the second-stage tests were:
        •  293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr) firing rate
        •  Western Kentucky Coal
                                    5-102

-------
                       FRONT- WALL- FIRED
                                             TANGENTIALLY-FIRED
                1200
                1000
             CM
            O
            o

            o
o
CO
                 200 -
                   0
5 I FRF Burners
316QC (600°F) Preheat
B&U Type Spreader; SW
15% Excess Air
12% Primary Air
2nd Staging Position
                                             = 4
                        i    i   i
4 Tangential Burners
316°C (600°F) Preheat
6° YAW
15% Excess Air
15% Primary Air
2nd Staging Position
                                                                    O  293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)

                                                                    O  440 kw (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                                                                            i   i
                    0.65    0.75    0.85    0.95    1.05    1.15     0.65    0.75    0.85    0.95     1.05    1.15
                                                  Stoichiometric Ratio
                                     Figure 5-55.   Effect of load (FWF and tangential).

-------
O1
o
 Q.
 Q.
O
~
o
1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

   0
              I
            0.55
                       Western Kentucky Coal
                       Conf. #1 Stage Air Position
                       1 Large IFRF Burner,  B & W Spreader
                       Swirl=4
                       317°C (600°F) Preheat
                       12% Primary Air
                       15% Excess Air
                                                                         LOAD
                                                                       O381 kW (1.3 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                                                       A249 kU (0.85 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                  I
I
I
                                           I
I
I
                               0.65
                             1.05
                             1.15
                    0.75       0.85       0.95
                         Stoichiometric  Ratio
Figure 5-56.   Effect of stoichiometry and  load  (one large IFRF burner).
                   1.25

-------
        •  Babcock & Wilcox spreader at SW = 4
        •  1st staging position
        •  Primary air: 12% of total @ 15% EA.
        Results of tests on each of the second-stage variables is discussed
in the following subsections.
5.3.3.1  Second-Stage Stoichiometry
        Tests were conducted to determine the effect of second-stage
Stoichiometry on stack NO levels.  Figure 5-57 shows several  typical curves
of NO versus overall excess air at various first-stage SRs.   As shown,  the
overall NO does not seem to be a strong function of excess air, under staged
conditions.  The only significant effect is noted at SR = 0.65
between 15 and 5 percent excess air.  At this SR, the NO decreased by 50
ppm at the lower excess air level.  Similar results were obtained for the
FWF configuration, for other loads, first stage mixing, coals, and staging
positions.  As shown in Figures 5-58 and 5-59, the general trend of these
curves for various loads and mixing is that NO increases slightly as excess
air is increased.   This increase could be due to either increased avail-
ability of oxygen  to oxidize first-stage nitrogen intermediates and produce
second-stage NO or it could be due to backmixing of oxygen into the first
stage as the stage-air velocity increases.  This increase of first-stage oxy-
gen would increase the effective first-stage SR and result in increased NO.
        Excess air had a significant effect on CO and carbon loss if the
second stage residence time was less than 1 second.  In this case, 20 to
25 percent excess air was required to achieve CO levels below 100 ppm at SRs
below 0.95.  However, when the second-stage residence time was at least 1
second, the CO was always under 100 ppm and carbon loss was less than 0.5
percent of fuel input on a Btu basis.
                                    5-105

-------
    600
    400
tn

O
Q.
Q.
 C\J
O
O

O
    200
                 -O
                          4 Tangential  Burners
                          Western Kentucky  Coal
                          YAW = +6        ,
                          293 kW (1.0 x 10   Btu/hr)
                          2nd Stage Position
                                                           Eh
                                         _L
                                                                       I
                              10                     20
                                  Excess Air, percent
                                                                                       SR1 =
                                                                                       1.02
                                                                     0.65
o- °-75
    0.85
                                                                                              30
        Figure  5-57.   Effect of  second-stage stoichiometry (tangential).

-------
en
i
         o.
         Q.
         CM
        o
o
o
1200

1100

1000

 900

 800

 700

 600

 500

 400

 300

 200

 100

   0
                                      5 I FRF Burners/B & W Spreader
                                      Western Kentucky Coal
                                      440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
                                      Swirl=4
                                      Preheat:  316°C (600°F)
                                      1st Staging Position
                                           1
                                                1
                                     1
                                          10
                                                                           Sym
                                                         SR
                                                                             O  1.02
                                                                             A  0.95
                                                                             Q  0.85
                                                                            O  0.75
                                                                                  .95
                                                                                         0.85
                                                                                         0.75
1
                                                                           25
                       15           20
                  Excess Air, percent
Figure 5-58.   Effect  of excess air (front-wall-fired)
             30

-------
tn
i
o
oo
        Q.
        Q.
 CM
O


O


O
1000


 900

 800


 700

 600


 500

 400


 300


 200


 TOO


   0
                                       Western Kentucky Coal

                                       Preheat:  317°C (600°F)
                                       5 IFRF Burners/Axial Injector
                                       Swi rl=6

                                       1st Staging Position
                                       SR-, = 0.95
                                             I
                                            10
                                                   I
I
I
                                                                                    440 kW
                                                                                    (1.5 x 10b Btu/hr)

                                                                                    293 kW   f.
                                                                                    (1.0 x 10° Btu/hr)
                                              15           20

                                       Excess  Air,  percent

                       Figure 5-59.   Effect of excess  air (axial injector).
                                                                              25
                          30

-------
        In summary, NO levels as low as 125 ppm can be achieved with  the
first-stage stoichiometry between an SR = 0.75 to 0.85 and an overall  excess
air of at least 15 percent to achieve CO and carbon burnout.   The effect
of excess air on NO emissions for most first-stage stoichiometries was not
significant.
5.3.3.2  Second-Stage Residence Time
        The effect of second-stage residence time was explored by keeping
the stage-air location constant and moving the heat exchange surface.
Figure 5-60 shows the effect of second-stage residence time as a function
of SR and second-stage mixing technique.  As can be seen, no substantial
effect was observed indicating that for these SRs any second-stage NO that
is being formed is produced very rapidly.  This is expected for two reasons.
First, the second stage is more well stirred and homogeneous than the first
stage and homogeneous chemical reactions are sufficiently rapid compared
to the residence time of the gases within the reactor.  Second, most of the
gas within the second stage is in motion and the bulk residence time is a
good measure of the actual residence time.  Therefore, bulk residence times
of seconds within the second stage represent long actual residence times.
        One practical limitation to staged combustion has been the occur-
rence of CO and carbon-in-flyash emissions at low stoichiometric and/or
low second-stage residence times (References 5-1, 5-5 and 5-17 through 5-19).
One objective of the present program was to identify the second-stage res-,
idence time required for CO and carbon burnout.  This requirement impacts
the feasibility of staging for  NO  control for  application to  both conventional
                                 rt
and advanced designs.   It was found that with 15  percent excess air and a
second stage residence  time  of  1 second  or  longer, CO levels were below
100 ppm and carbon losses were  below 0.5 percent  of  the heat input.  The
                                     5-109

-------
   1000
    800
Q.
Q.
    600
o

2   400
    200   -
    SW
O   4
A   8

D   4

O   I
                    _L
                         EA
                         15
          Stage air
            Mixing
             Fast
                                 Slow
                          —o
      _L
                       _L
                               Western Kentucky Coal
                               5 IFRF/B&W Spreader
                               1st Staging Position
                               316° (600°F) Preheat
                               12% Primary
                                                                    SR =
                                                                     1.02
                                                                                    SR = 0.85
JL
_L
                                                                          J.
     0-6                1.2                1.8
            Second-Stage Residence Time (sec)

Figure 5-60.   Effect of second-stage residence time {FWF}.
                                                                                2.4

-------
minimum second stage residence time needed to reduce CO and carbon loss
decreased at high levels of excess air.
5.3.3.3  Second-Stage Air Mixing
        Nearly all prior studies of staged combustion have injected the
stage-air so that a portion backmixes with the fuel-rich first stage.  This
backmixing makes it difficult to determine the independent effects of first
stage SR, residence time and local fuel/air mixing on NO .  Limited results
                                                        X
have shown that directing stage-air away from the primary flame zone has a
substantial effect on NO  reduction (References 5-1 and 5-5).  The pre-
                        /\
sent facility was therefore designed to achieve a minimum of backmixing
into the first stage.  The stage-air mixing technique was qualitatively
studied using cold-flow smoke tests.   Little backmixing was observed
provided the opposed stage-air jet impinged at the  center of the  duct.
If the jets impinged on the opposite wall, considerable backmixing was
observed.  Backmixing may account for  some of the differences  between
the shape of the  curves of stack NO versus SR given in  Figure  5-31 and
5-44 for the two  staging positions.
        To illustrate the effect of backmixing and  stage  separation  on
NO  , tests were  run with biased-burner firing using the same burner  flame
  A
stoichiometry  as  the staged tests.  Also,  the method of staged-air  in-
jection was perturbed to cause  backmixing  into the  first  stage and  there-
by  reveal  the  consequences of backmixing  on  NO   emissions.   The stage-air'
                                              /\
injection  technique was also  varied  to study the effects  of second-stage
mixing on  CO  and carbon burnout as well  as any effect it  may have on
 potential  second stage  NO.
         Three  mixing  types were explored,  fast,  slow and  downmixing (high
backmixing).   The fast mixing  condition uses the  normal  four, 2.54-cm

                                     5-111

-------
 (1-inch) diameter ports in which the opposing jets meet at the center of the
 duct  under all condition.  The slow mixing case utilized 5.08 cm (2-inch)
 diameter ports located in two vacant heat enchanger drawer windows as close
 to  the first staging position as possible.  Figure 5-61 is a schematic of the
 stage air injection configuration for slow mixing.  Downmixing was achieved
 by  introducing the stage-air from one side only at the first staging position.
        Figure 5-62 shows that at a stoichiometric ratio of 0.85, there was
 virtually no impact of second-stage mixing conditions on NO.  However, at a
 stoichiometric ratio of 1.02, the slow-mix condition gave consistently higher
 NO  levels, with the spread in the data being greater with higher excess air.
 This result is believed attributable to greater backmixing, particularly
 into the first stage and especially with increased excess air.   As can be
 seen in Figure 5-62 a similar result was obtained for the purposely back-
mixed condition.   As illustrated in Figure 5-31, NO is more sensitive to
 slight changes in the first-stage SR at a SR of 1.02 than at a  SR of 0.85.
Another consideration is the first-stage residence time.   If the NO decay
 processes are not complete, backmixing will have a more substantial effect
 than if they are complete.  The conclusion then, is that within the staging
 techniques and SRs tested, the second-stage mixing technique has very little
 influence on the NO except as it influences the first-stage SR.  This effect
 can also be seen from the biased-fired data point shown on Figure 5-62.
This represents the extreme case in backmixing where the lower  three burners
were operated at a SR = 0.85, with the excess air delivered through the
upper burners.   Staging tests in the HE with and without a baffle plate
separating the first stage from the second stage air addition further dem-
onstrated the impact of backmixing.   As seen in Figure 5-63, removing the
baffle plate (schematicized in Figure 5-33) causes an increase  in NO level
                                    5-112

-------
                                                  Refractory
                                                  Heat Exchange
                                                  Section
                                             Staged Air
                                               Staged  Air
Figure 5-61.  Slow mixing manifold location and configuration.
                             5-113

-------
Ul
I
          BASE CONDITIONS

          Western Kentucky Coal
          316°C (600°F)  Preheat
          B&W Spreader,  SW = 4
          12% Primary
          1st Staging Position
          Load = 293 kW  (1.0 x 10& Btu/hr)
                          EA = 5
                                                EA = 15
          CL
          d.
          c\J
         CD
         o

         o
              800 r
              600
400
              200
                0
                                     -  O
                    0.85
               0.95
1.05
                                                           MIXING METHOD

                                                           D Slow
                                                           O Fast

                                                           A Down

                                                           O Biased Fired
                                                          EA = 25
 0.85     0.95      1.05

Stoichiometric Ratio
                                                                                      0.85
                                                                                 0.95
                                                                   1.05
                                       Figure 5-62.  Effect of second-stage mixing.

-------
   1000
Q.
Q.
    800
 OJ
o

    600
    400
   200
     0
           0.55
Western Kentucky Coal
4 IFRF Burners, B & W Spreader
Swirl=4
Horizontal Extension
Conf. #5 Staging Position
Load = 249 kWjO.85 x. 106 Btu/hr)
Preheat:
j uu^ i i ly  i \j j i u i»
J kW  (0.85 x K
 317°C  (600°F)
                                                          O With Baffle

                                                          A Without Baffle
                                                       I
0.65       0.75      0.85      0.95       1.05

                      Stoichiometric  Ratio

                Figure 5-63.   Effect  of baffle.
                                          1.15
1.25

-------
over the range of SRs tested, with the most pronounced effect occuring at
SRs around 0.95.  The baffle plate was designed to reduce backmixing and
results achieved without it indicate the impact of enhanced backmixing.
These results show the importance of stage separation in achieving the
lowest possible NO for any given first-stage SR.
        An effect of the second-stage mixing technique was noted on CO
and carbon loss, with the slower mix conditions producing higher CO and
carbon (200 to 500 ppm CO and 1 to 2 percent carbon loss).
5.3.3.4  Second-Stage Temperature
        Figure 5-64 shows the effect of increasing stage air temperature
on stack NO for first-stage SRs of 0.85 and 1.02.   A substantial increase
of NO with temperature is observed at a SR of 1.02.  At a SR of 0.85 the
results are not clear.  In Figure 5-65, the NO results given in Figure 5-64
are presented as a function of second-stage temperature.  These results
clearly show that NO increases with second-stage temperature for SR equal
to 1.02 whereas temperature only has a small effect on NO at a SR of 0.85.
        This behavior with SR is similar to that observed in the second
stage mixing study and may partly be a result of enhanced backmixing as
temperature is increased.  Mixing increases as the stage-air temperature
rises due to increased injection velocity for the  same stage-air mass addition.
For SR near 1.0, the high sensitivity of NO levels to backmixing, as discussed
previously can give higher NO levels for small increases in first-stage  SR.
        In addition to the aerodynamic mixing effect discussed above, in-
crease in stage temperature could affect the chemistry processes.  At a  SR
of 0.85 significant amounts of unburned fuel and nitrogen intermediates
exit the first stage.  These quantities are greater than those achieved  at
a SR of 1.02.  In addition, due to greater first stage N2 production, less

                                    5-116

-------
         1000
          800
I

-J
      o.
      Q.
       CM
      o
o

o
          600
          400
          ZOO
            0
              0
                     SYM  SW
                     O    4
                     D
                           EA
                           15
                            5
                           15
                            1
     MIXING
      Fast


      Slow
                                                                            SR = 1.02
                 100°F
                 37.8°C
200°F
93.3°C
300°F
149 C
                                                     204°C
500°F
?60 C
600°F
316 C
                                      Stage-Air Temperature

                               Figure 5-64.  Effect of temperature.
                                                                                 SR = 0.85

-------
          1000
Western Kentucky Coal
Front Wall Fired
5 IFRF Burners
1st Staging Position
Load - 293 kW
           800
        CL
        Q.
       o

       o
           600
en
i
00
           400
            200
                                                    Fast, SR
                                                    5% EA	
                                                                                           0.85,
                                                                                                O
                                                                     G
                    982°C
                   1800°F
                  1038°C
                  1900°F
1093°C
2000 F
1149°C
2100°F
                                                      Second-Stage  Temperature
                                    Figure 5-65.  Effect of second-stage  temperature.

-------
total  NO and nitrogen intermediates  exit the first stage  at  a  SR  of 0.85
than at a SR of 1.02.  Therefore, in contrast to SR equals  1.02 conditions,
at SR equals 0.85, more fuel  has to  be burned in an environment which  has  less
available NO and nitrogen intermediates to convert to NO.   It  can be hypoth-
esized for the SR equals 0.85 case,  that as the second stage air  is mixed  with
the gases exiting the first stage, additional combustion  will  initially take
place under rich conditions.   The rich combustion zones will help to further
reduce NO and bound-nitrogen intermediates to N~ before the  stage air  is
fully mixed with the first-stage exit gases.  Thus the initial mixing  zone
in the second stage might be stratified and behave somewhat like  a rich
first stage which has a SR between 0.85 and 1.15.
        The NO level for this case would then be fairly insensitive  to
temperature as is shown in the first-stage results presented in  Figure 5-65.
In addition, as also shown in Figure 5-65, temperature would strongly  im-
pact the NO levels at a SR of 1.02 due to thermal NO production.   In  fact,
the increase in NO with second-stage gas temperature is identical to  that
achieved by increasing the first-stage temperature.  Also, for the SR  of
0.85 and 15 percent excess air case, the decrease in NO level, with increasing
second-stage temperature is somewhat consistent with the decrease with first
stage  temperature.  These consistencies support the hypothesis that first
and second-stage processes have some similarities.
5.3.4   Effect of Coal Composition
        Three different coals were tested to determine the effect of coal
composition on NO emissions under staged conditions.  Table 5-4 lists  the
principal properties, nitrogen content and  the rationale behind selection
of each of  these coals.  The effect of coal composition on NO under staged
conditions  is shown  in Figure 5-66 for the  FWF and  tangential configurations.

                                     5-119

-------
                                  5  IFRF/B&W  SPREADER
                                                                                 4 TANGENTIAL
tn
i
               1200
   1000



    800
i.
o.

5"1 600

o

S  400



    200



      0
                          Swirl  =  4
                          12% Primary
                          316°C  (600°F)  Preheat
                          Load = 293 kW  (1.0 x  10b Btu/hr)
                          Excess Air = 15%
                          1st Staging Position
                       J	I	L
_L_J	I	1	1	1
                   0.65   0.75   0.85   0.95
                                +6° YAW
                                15% Primary
                                316°C (600°F) Preheat  ,
                                Load = 293 kW (1.0 x 10° Btu/hr)
                                Excess Air - 15%
                                2nd Staging Position
                                                                     o   Western Kentucky

                                                                     A  Pittsburg #8
                                                                     O   Montana
          1.05   1.15       0.65   0.75
                Stoichiometric  Ratio
                                                                                      0.95   1.05   1.15
                             Figure 5-66.  Effect of coal composition under staged conditions.

-------
For the tangential  configuration the Western Kentucky and Pittsburgh  data
agree closely.   The Montana data is higher at baseline but is lower below
SR = 0.90.  At the rich conditions, NO emissions with the Pittsburgh coal
did not increase with SR to the same extent as the Western Kentucky coal.
The NO from the Montana coal reaches a lower minimum and does not exhibit
as much nitrogen-intermediate-derived or second-stage NO as the Pittsburgh
coal below a SR of 0.85.  This suggests that at the low stoichiometric
ratios the fuel-N intermediary products may be different for the three coals.
        The staging data for the FWF configuration at 293 kW (1.0 x 106
Btu/hr) shows a similar trend to the tangential data.  However, for the FWF
configuration, the NO levels of the Western Kentucky and the Pittsburgh
#8 coals  differed at stoichiometric ratios of 1.0 to 0.85.  On the other
hand, as  shown in Figure 5-67, at  a firing rate of 440 kW (1.5 x 106 Btu/hr)
no appreciable difference was observed between the NO levels of these two
coals.  It is possible  that the difference  in the 293 kW  (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
data was  due to changes in mixing  patterns  caused by  buildup of a  sticky
ash deposit on the fuel tip frequently encountered during the Pittsburgh
#8  firing.  The trend of the NO data  for  the  Montana  coal was consistent
for all configurations  and  firing  rates.   For the Montana coal  the NO  levels
are higher at baseline  conditions  and SRs greater than  0.80  to  0.85  and
lower  at  SR < 0.85.
        It appears that the combustion of Western Kentucky and  Pittsburgh
#8  coals  yields quite  similar  results.  The Montana  coal  acts  differently
under  both baseline  and staged conditions.   This  difference  may be attrib-
uted  to the  lack  of  sulfur and high oxygen and water content of this coal.
        As  indicated in the baseline tests coal  composition  section  (Section
5.2.4), Wendt (Reference  5-9)  has  shown  that sulfur  can either enhance or
                                     5-121

-------
      1200
      1000
    S.  800
    Q.
    CSJ
   o
_4  O
ro  z
ro
       GOO
       400
       200
         0
D  Western Kentucky
A  Pittsburgh
O  Montana
    5 IFRF/B & W Spreader
    Swirl=4
    12% Primary
    316°C (600°F) Preheat
    Load = 440 kW   fi
           (1.5 x 10° Btu/hr)
    Excess Air = 15%
    1st Staging Position
                                                    I
                                           I
                               I
  I
                    0.50
            0.60
0.70
1.10
                0.80     0.90      1.00
               Stoichiometric Ratio
Figure 5-67.   Effect of coal  composition  (440 kW).
1.20
1.30

-------
reduce combustion-generated NO depending on temperature and local
stoichiometry.  In very rich hot combustion zones, where fuel-nitrogen is
present, NO formation can be considerably enhanced by the addition of sulfur
to the fuel.  However, the addition of sulfur to well mixed overall lean
flames can reduce thermal NO emissions.  Therefore, at a SR near 1.0, where
the combustion is overall lean, the low sulfur Montana coal should give
higher NO levels than the other coals tested.  This is clearly shown in
Figure 5-66.  In addition, as SR decreases to low values where the com-
bustion occurs under rich conditions, the low sulfur Montana coal  should
have lower NO emissions than the other coals.  This effect is also evident
in Figure 5-66.
        In summary, the difference in NO emissions between the Montana
coal and the Pittsburgh #8 and Western Kentucky coals can be attributed
partly to the difference in sulfur content between the coals.  To further
define the NO fuel sulfur interaction under staged conditions, several
tests where S02 was injected into the air or fuel streams were carried out.
        Figure 5-68 shows the effect of adding S02 to the secondary or
primary air stream.  Sufficient S02 was added to increase the stack S0?
levels from roughly 1400-1500 ppm to 2400-2500 ppm.  When S02 is added to
the secondary air the effect of sulfur on NO is small even under rich con-
ditions and long residence times.  However, when S02 is added to the primary
air or fuel stream, the sulfur enhances NO formation even at short residence
times.  These results show that for effective NO enhancement, the sulfur
must be present in the primary stream or fuel-rich combustion zones.  Figure
5-69 shows the effect of increasing the injection rate of S02 into the pri-
mary stream on NO at a SR of 0.65.  Increasing S02 injection rate causes
the stack NO levels to rise.
                                    5-123

-------
g;
o
o
o
1200 -

1100-

1000 -

 900 -

 800 -

, 700-

 600 -

 500 -

 400 -

 300 -

 200 -

 100 -

   oL—
             MONTANA COAL
             LOAD - 249 KW (0.86 x 10" BTU/HR)
             CONF.#1
             LG. IFRF BURNER, SW-4
             LONG RESIDENCE TIME
                                                     NO SO: INJ.
                                                      WITH SOa INJ.
                                                      IN SECONDARY AIR
        0.55    0.65    0.75    0.85    0.95    1.05     1.15

               First-Stage Stoichiometric  Ratio
                                                          1.25
   1200

   1100

   1000

    900

    800

  j 700

    600

    500

    400

    300

    200

    100

     O1
        0.55
              MONTANA COAL
              SINGLE LG. IFRF BURNER
              BMV TYPE SPREADER, SW-4
              LOAD - 249 KW (046 x 10* BTU/HR)
              SO] IN PRIMARY AIR
               (2400-3800 PPM)
               (1400-WOO PPM NORMAL)
              H.E.CONF.04
              SHORT RESIDENCE TIME
                                                     NO SO: INJ.
                                                   A WITH SO: INJ.
                                                     IN PRIMARY AIR
               0.65    0.75
                           0.85
0.95
1.05
1.15
                                                         1.25
               First-Stage  Stoichiometric  Ratio

         Figure 6-68.   Effect  of S02 doping  (staged)

                                5-124

-------
cn
i
ro
cn








z
Q.
"rf
o
1
o



260
240


220


200

180
160
140
120
100
n
^^

MONTANA COAL
LOAD = 0.85 x 106 BTU/
- SRi = 0.65
EXCESS AIR = 15%
H.E. CONF. #4
•»

^B
^•ft
^B
-
1 1 I 1 1
                                                                I
                                                                            I
                                       I
                                                                                         I
                   200   400   600
1000  1200  1400   1600   1800  2000  2200   2400   2600  2800  3000


    SO2 (0% Oz) PPM IN STACK
                                         Figure 5-69.  Effect of S02  concentration.

-------
        The SOP injection data show that there is a SO /NO  interaction
              £                                       t\   /\
when the sulfur is present in fuel-rich combustion zones.   This data implies
that a lower sulfur coal  will yield a lower NO under fuel-rich conditions
as was shown in Figures 5-66 and 5-67.   This is further shown in Figure 5-70
for the horizontal extension configuration where the lower sulfur Montana
coal again gives lower values of NO than the Western Kentucky coal  under low
SR or fuel-rich conditions.
5.3.5   Flue Gas Recirculation
        The impact of flue gas recirculation under baseline and staged
combustion conditions was investigated  for the tangentially-fired con-
figuration.  The flue gas was introduced into the secondary air supply
ducts above and below the primary fuel  stream.  Ten and thirty percent
of the exhaust gas was recirculated through the secondary  air ports under
baseline and staged-combustion conditions.  The conditions of these tests
and the stack NO results  are given below.

                     TABLE 5-7.   FLUE GAS  RECIRCULATION
              Tangentially fired -- 293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr)
600°F preheat, 6° yaw, 15% primary,  15% excess air, Western  Kentucky Coal
SR
% FGR
NO (0% 02) PPM
% Baseline

1.15
1.15
1.15
0.95
0.85
0
10
30
30
30
500
475
470
271 (214)b
150 (125)b
100
95
94
54
30
lumbers in () are NO levels w/o FGR; staged only
                                     5-126

-------
 Q.
 CL
                   1200


                   1100


                   1000


                    900


                    800


                    700


                    800
O1
I
ro
o
*•«
3.  500

O
Z  400


    300


    200


    100


      0
                           0.55
                       LARGE IFRF BURNER
                       BMV TYPE SPREADER, SW-4
                       PREHEAT Slrf1 (8DO°F)
                       LOAD - 24» KW 4046 x 10" 8TU/HR)
                       EXCESS AIR • 16%
                       H.E.CONF.#4
                       SHORT R.T.
                                     0.65
                                                0.75
                                                           0.85
                                                                      0.95
                                                                                 1.05
                                               First-Stage Stoichiometric  Ratio
MONTANA COAL

WESTERN KENTUCKY COAL
                                                                                           1.15
                                                                                                      1.25
                                                 Figure  5-70.   Effect of  coal  type.

-------
        From Table 5-7, flue gas recirculation is seen to be ineffective
at baseline conditons, producing only a 6 percent reduction.  At baseline
conditions, F6R should reduce temperature and thereby thermal NO.  However,
the increased secondary air flow increases mixing which leads to increased
NO in the normally stratified tangential firing configuration.   Therefore,
NO reduction due to the temperature effect is offset by mixing.
        Under combined FGR addition and staging the NO levels were increased
from their staged levels without FGR.
        This loss in effectiveness of staging with FGR addition  can be
attributed to a number of reasons.  First, at an SR of 0.95 mixing is still
fairly important and FGR addition could increase mixing sufficiently to
cause a rise in NO.  Second, at a SR of 0.85, reductions  in temperature by
FGR addition could slow down the reducing reactions and lead to  higher
NO levels.  Third, FGR addition reduces the overall residence time, which
leads to increased stack NO levels.  Finally, additional  NO is  introduced
into the first stage with the FGR.  This could have an impact on stack
NO levels.
        In conclusion, the introduction of FGR into the secondary air is
not an effective method of NO reduction under baseline and staged conditions.
When used in this manner, FGR has very little beneficial  impact  on fuel-N
derived NO which is the primary source of NO in coal-fired systems.
5.3.6   Biased-Fired Results
        Biased firing tests were performed to establish the effect
on NO and to determine if the pilot-scale facility NO results compare
with full-scale biased-firing tests.  Both FWF and tangential con-
figuration biased-firing tests were conducted.  Figure 5-71 is  a schematic
                                    5-128

-------
Configuration
   Number
o
o
Fuel-lean burner SRfa =1.60
                                                     Fuel-rich burners SR.  = .085
                                                     Equal  fuel  to all burners
                                                     Burners out of service - Air only
                                                     Fuel-rich burners SRb = 0.85
                                                     All fuel to bottom three burners
                                                     Fuel-rich burners  SRb =  0.85


                                                     Burner out  of  service -  Air only
                                                      Fuel-rich  burners  SRb  =  0.85
                       Figure 5-71.   Biased-firing  configurations.
                                            5-129

-------
 of the three FWF biased-firing  configurations  investigated.  A  summary
 of burner conditions  during  the tests  is  also  listed  on  this figure.
         While burning Western  Kentucky coal  at a  load of 293 kW (1.0 x
 106 Btu/hr), a preheat of 316°C (600°F) and  the burner swirl set at 4,
 the biased-firing configurations gave  the following results.
                Conf         NO (0%09)ppm         %  Baseline
                                                       100
                                                         70
                                                       100
                                                         74

         For configurations  1 and 3  shown  in  Figure 5-71, the results are
 typical  of emission reductions  in biased-firing in full-scale equipment.
 Configuration 2 resulted  in  no  decrease in NO.  This  might be because the
 load for the burners  firing  fuel  was increased by a factor of 1.67, re-
 sulting  in very rapid mixing of the stage-air  introduced in the nearby out-
 of-service burners with the  burners firing fuel.
         At a load of  352  kW  (1.2 x  106 Btu/hr)  and 15% primary  stoichiometry
.the following results were  obtained.
     SR          Biased-Firing                  NO  (0%09)ppm       % Baseline
                 Configuration
Baseline
1
2
3
875
615
875
645
1.15
0.95
0.85
0.85
Baseline
1
1
2
1135
1035
995
1035
100
91
88
91
                                     5-130

-------
        The NO reduction achived at this firing rate and primary air was
not as great as that achieved at the lower load.   The higher primary
stoichiometry and load may have resulted in greater mixing of the nearby
staging air giving less NO reduction for this biased-firing case.
        One additional test was performed to compare the NO in four burners
to the NO from the normal five burner array under staged conditions, both
at a load of 293 kW (1.0 x 106 Btu/hr).
        The fifth burner had both the air and fuel turned off.  Figure 5-72
shows the NO versus SR for the four and five burner array configuration.  No
significant differences in NO levels can be seen between these results.  At
a SR <1 these results are consistent with the tests of increased mixing
at constant load presented in the section on first-stage mixing.  The
higher mixing produced by increased individual burner load when firing on
four burners gives higher NO under staged conditions and SR near 1.0.  At
low SRs the difference in mixing becomes less important.
        Two biased-firing configurations were tested in the tangential
firing mode.  In the overfire air biased-firing mode, the stage air was
introduced through the upper burner tier locations at the same yaw angle
(+6°) as the burner air.  In the diagonally or same side biased-firing
mode, the stage-air was introduced in diagonally opposite or  same side
corners respectively with the other corners containing  burners  firing at
SR = 0.85.  These  results, achieved at  the  same conditions as the overfire
air tests, are presented below:
                                       5-131

-------
   1200
   1000-J
800-
o.
o.
 CO
o
    600-
    400-
    200-
       Western Kentucky Coal
       Load = 293 kW (1.0 x 106  Btu/hr)
       B&W Spreader
       Preheat = 316°C (600°F)
       Excess air = 15% below ER -  1.05
       1st staging position
               4 burners

               5 burners
      0,60
           0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
                      First-Stage Stoichiometric Ratio
 Figure 5-72.  NO vs. first-stage Stoichiometric ratio (4 vs. 5 burners)
                                    5-132

-------
                        Biased-Fired Tangential
    Configurations            NO (0%OJ  ppm         %  Baseline
      Baseline                    485                  100
  Diagonal  Opposed                485                  100
     Same Side                    495                  102
        These results  indicate that stage separation by this  effect  is
probably negligible.   As indicated earlier in the section on  first-stage
residence time, reduction of early NO requires a substantial  time at low  SR.
Introducing stage air into the firebox enhances mixing and  reduces re-
sidence time.  This gives a first stage with a reduced residence time and
an effectively higher SR than burner settings would indicate.  Both  of
these effects work counter to NO reduction.
5.3.7   Staged-Combustion -- Natural Gas
        Staging tests were performed with natural gas  firing  at 293kW
(1.0 x 10  Btu/hr) to investigate in this facility the effect of staging
on clean fuels.  The five IFRF burners were set up in  the following  manner:
        •   6 hole radial/axial nozzle
        •   Swirl setting of 2 to produce a clear blue flame under
            baseline conditions
        •   Axial fuel tube position
        •   Water cooled quarl - same as in the coal fired tests
        Stage-air was introduced in the first and second staging positions
in two separate tests.  When the second staging position was  utilized,  a
water-cooled stainless steel sampling probe was inserted in the first staging
port to sample first-stage emission levels.  At both staging positions,
the emissions were also sampled at the normal port with the staged-air
off (substoichiometn'c firing).  Figure 5-73 gives the NO versus SR found
                                     5-133

-------
oo
    240


    220-


    200-


    180-


    160-
Q.
Q.
~  140-1
 CM
O

g  120-1


i  100-

     80-


     60-


     40-


     20-
                                Natural gas
                                Load =  293 kW (l.p x 106 Btu/hr)
                                Nozzle: 6 hole radial/axial
                                SW = 2
                                Preheat = 316°C (600°F)
                                O 1st staging pos
                                0 1st staging pos - stg air off

                                A Mid. staging pos
                                        staging pos - stg
                                    off and hot sample line
                                      2nd stage  NO
                                            A/
                               -if
                            0-
                            0.60
                  I         I         I         '
                0.70     0.80      0.90      1.00
                            Stoichiometric Ratio
1.10
1.20
                                      Figure  5-73.   Natural gas fired NO vs. SR.

-------
for this test series.   The shapes  of these curves  are  very similar to  the
coal-fired results.   However,  unlike the coal-firing cases, there was  no
difference between the first-stage and second-stage position results.   In
addition, hot sampling in the first stage gave the same NO levels as stack
values while running substoichometrically at a SR above 0.85.  Below a SR
of 0.85, the NO levels within the first stage steadily decayed reaching
10-12 ppm at a SR = 0.65.  These results suggest that above SRs of 0.85,
the bulk of the NO is produced in the first stage.  Below SRs of 0.85, in-
creasing amounts of NO are produced in the second stage until at around
0.65 the bulk of the NO  is formed in the second stage.
        As was hypothesized for coal-firing at long residence time, the
shape of the NO vs SR curve is primarily due to chemical processes.  DeSoete
(Reference 5-25) has suggested that atmospheric N2 acts like a fuel-nitrogen
species at low SR, yielding nitrogen intermediate species which can potential-
ly be converted to NO in  the fuel-lean second stage.  Comparing hot sampling
and stack NO results at  low SR adds some support to the hypothesis that
nitrogen  intermediates are being  oxidized  in  the second stage.  The close
similarity between the gas- and coal-fired NO vs SR curve  shapes  for  fuels,
which have widely dissimilar mixing and  combustion  characteristics, lends
support to the hypothesis that chemical  effects are dominating the  shapes
of the  curves.   It is  interesting to  note  that  stage  position did not  impact
gas-firing results, whereas  it has  a  significant  impact on coal-fired results.
This  difference  could  be a result of  several  processes.   First,  during gas
firing  the fuel  is mixed and  combusted on  a  shorter time  scale  than coal
combustion.   For gas-firing,  the  combustion  volume may be sufficient  to  com-
plete all  chemical  processes  whereas  coal  processes may be continuing at the
                                      5-135

-------
point of stage-air addition.  Second, near zone NO produced during coal
firing will probably not be present when firing on gas.  Finally coal
contains bound-nitrogen and sulfur compounds which can interact and which
are not expected to yield NO formation levels and rates similar to gas fired
results.  Therefore, the decay processes and long residence times needed
to reduce this early NO during coal firing are not needed for gas combustion.
        The gas-fired results give an indication of the NO levels achieved
when firing clean fuels under staged condition.  These results can be used
as a rough measure of the effectiveness of staging when burning fuels
containing bound nitrogen.
                                    5-136

-------
                                  REFERENCES

5-1.  McCann, C., Demeter, J., Snedden, R., and Bienstock, D., "Combustion
      Control of Pollutants from Multi-Burner Coal-Fired Systems," U.S.
      Bureau of Mines, EPA-650/2-74-038, May 1974.

5-2.  Crawford, A. R., et al.., "The Effect of Combustion Modification on
      Pollutants and Equipment Performance of Power Generation Equipment, "
      Exxon Research and Engineering Co.., EPA-600/2-76-152c, prepared for
      the Stationary Source Combustion Symposium, September 24-26, 1975.

5-3.  Armento, W. J., "Effects of Design and Operating Variables on NOX
      from Coal Fired Furnaces — Phase  II, " EPA-650-2-74/002b, February,
      1975.

5-4.  Pershing, 0. W. and Wendt, J. 0. L.,  "Pulverized Coal Combustion:
      The Influence of Flame  Temperatures  and Coal Composition on Thermal
      and Fuel NO.," presented at the  Sixteenth  Symposium (International)
      on Combustion, M.I.T.,  August 15,  1976.

5-5.  Selker,  A.  P.,  "Program for Reduction of NOx from  Tangential
      Coal-Fired  Boilers, Phase  II  and Ila,"  EPA-650/2-73-005a  and  b,  June
      1975.

5-6.  Heap,  M. P., Proceedings,  Coal Combustion  Seminar,  June 19-20,  1973,
      Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina  27711,  EPA-650/2-73-021,
      September  1973.

5-7.  Pershing,  D. W., et al.,  "Influence  of  Design  Variables on the
      Production  of  ThermaTand  Fuel  NO from  Residual  Oil and Coal
      Combustion,"  AIChE Symposium Series,  No.  148,  Vol. 71,  1975,  pp.
      19-29.

5-8.  Habelt,  W.  W.  and  Selker,  A.  P., "Operating Procedures  and Prediction
      for  NOX Control  in Steam  Power  Plants", presented at Central  States
      Section  of the Combustion  Institute, Spring Technical Meeting,
      Madison, HI,  March 26-27,  1974.

 5-9.  Wendt, J.  0.  L.,  Corley,  T.  L.  and Morcomb, J. T., "Interactions
      Between Sulfur Oxides  and Nitrogen Oxides in Combustion Processes,"
      Proceedings of the Second Stationary Source Combustion Symposium.
      Vol.  IV, Fundamental  Combustion Research, EPA-600/7-77-073d,  July
       1977.

5-10.   Hardgrove, R. M.,  "Method for Burning Fuel," U.S. Patent 3,048,131,
       August 7, 1962.

5-11,   Pohl, J. H. and Sarofin,  A. F., "Devolatilization  and Oxidation of
       Coal Nitrogen", Sixteenth Symposium  (International) on Combustion,
       The Combustion Institute, 1976, p. 491.
                                       5-137

-------
5-12.  Corlett, R. C. and Monteith, L. E., "Molecular Nitrogen Yields from
       Fuel Nitrogen in Backmixed Combustion",  Western States Section
       Combustion Institute Paper WSS/CI 77-47, Stanford University, Palo
       Alto, CA, October 1977.

5-13.  Sarofim, A. F., et a,l_., "Mechanisms and Kinetics of NOX Formation:
       Recent Developments,"  presented at 69th Annual Meeting, AIChE,
       Chicago, November 30,  1976.

5-14.  Folsom,B.A., Evaluation of Combustor Design Concepts  for Advanced
       Energy Conversion Systems, Proceedings of the Second  Stationary
       Source Combustion Symposium, Vol. V, EPA-600/7-77-073e, July,
       1977.

5-15.  Axworthy, A. E., et aj_.> "Chemical Reactions in the Conversion of
       Fuel Nitrogen to NOX," in Proceedings of the Stationary Source
       Combustion Symposium,  Volume I, EPA 600/2-76-152a, June 1976.

5-16,  Yamagishi, K., e_t a/L, "A Study of NOX Emission Characteristics  in
       Two Stage Combustion," Fifteenth Symposium (International) on
       Combustion, The Combustion Institute, p. 1156, 1974.

5-17.  Heap, M. P., et al., "The Control of Pollutant Emissions from Package
       Boilers," ASME paper 75-WA/F4-4, December 4, 1975.

5-18.  Siegmund, C. W. and Turner, D. W., "NOX Emissions from Industrial
       Boilers:  Potential Control Methods," ASME Journal of Engineering for
       Power p.l, January 1974.

5-19.  Cato, G. A., et_ii., "Field Testing:  Application of  Combustion
       Modification to Control Pollutant Emissions from Industrial Boilers
       — Phase 2," KVB Engineering, Environmental Protection Technology
       Series, EPA-600/2-76-086a, April 1976.

5-20.  Martin, G. B., and Berkau, E. E., "An Investigation of the Conversion
       of Various Fuel Nitrogen Compounds to Nitrogen Oxides in Oil
       Combustion," presented at 70th National AIChE Meeting, Atlantic  City,
       NJ, August, 1971.

5-21.  Heap, M. P., et al.., "Burner Criteria for NOX Control — Volume  I.
       Influence of Burner Variables on NOX in Pulverized Coal Flames,"
       EPA-600/2-76-061a, March 1976.

5-22.  Blair,  D. W.,  Wendt., J. 0. L., and Bartok, W., "Evolution of
       Nitrogen and Other Species During Controled Pyrolyns  of Coal,"
       Sixteenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, The Combustion
       Institute, 1976, p. 475.
                                       5-138

-------
5-23.   Copeland,  J.  D.,  "An Investigation of the Best System of Emission
       Reduction  for Nitrogen Oxides from Large Coal-Fired  Steam Gen-
       erators,"  Standards Support and Environmental  Impact Statement,
       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,  October 1976.

5-24.   Pohl, J. H. and  Sarofim, A. F., "Fate of Coal  Nitrogen During
       Pyrolysis  and Oxidation," in Proceedings of the Stationary Source
       Combustion Symposium, Vol. I, Fundamental Research,  EPA-600/2-76-152a,
       June 1976.

5-25.   DeSoete, G. G.,  "Overall Reaction Rates of NO and N2 Formation  from
       Fuel Nitrogen,"  Fifteenth Symposium (International)  on Combustion,
       the Combustion Institute, p. 1093, August 1974.
                                   5-139

-------
                                 SECTION  6
                          SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

        The conclusions derived from the  previous section are summarized
for the baseline and control  technology tests in Tables  6-1  and 6-2 respectively.
In general, these conclusions apply equally well to the  front-wall-fired,
tangentially-fired or horizontal  extension  fired configurations.
        Staged combustion as  a technique  for controlling NO  emissions is
                                                           A
limited in its application due to the long  residence times and very fuel-
rich conditions (0.75 to 0.85 SR) required  to achieve low NOX levels (400  ppm).
Unfortunately, to achieve less than 100 ppm it would require nearly 2/3 of
the volume of present conventional utility  boilers.  This would present
severe corrosion slagging and flame stability/detection problems.   However
it is possible that a combination of low-NO  burners plus staging  at higher
                                           ^
SRs (0.90 to 1.02) may be suitable for either new boiler design or retrofit
of existing boilers.
        Table 6-3 summarizes the Impact of the major parameters, both under
low and medium first-stage SR conditions.  An indication is given  for each
test parameter whether it has a major, moderate or minor effect on NO and
preferred value or direction for that parameter.
                                      6-1

-------
                  TABLE 6-1,   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Baseline Testing
        •  Facility simulates  full-scale units with hot refractory walls
        •  NO increases with excess air
        •  Axial  type injector on front-wall-fired burners yields  NO
           levels similar to tangential  results; both are lower than
           front wall-fired spreader coal  injector results
        t  NO levels increase  slightly with temperature due to thermal
           NO contribution
        •  An optimum swirl and axial  fuel  tube position was found for
           minimum NO levels for front-wall-fired units
        •  NO increases with increasing primary air and very high  NO levels
           may be achieved if  the flame becomes detached from the  burner
        •  Increases in firing rate increased both temperature and air/
           fuel  mixing and thereby NO levels
        •  The Western Kentucky Coal and Pittsburgh #8 Coal yielded very
           similar results for each firing  mode.  The Montana Coal  with
           higher HLO and ash  levels but low S levels consistently
           yielded higher NO levels
                                     6-2

-------
                    TABLE 6-2.   SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSIONS
Evaluation of Control  Technology
        •  Minimum NO  levels were achieved at stoichiometric  ratios
           of 0.75 to  0.85; the minimum NO and SR was not dependent  on
           the type of firing
        •  Chemical rather than physical  processes dominate under fuel-
           rich long residence time conditions
        •  Under fuel-rich conditions, NO levels decay with increasing
           residence time; 3 to 5 seconds at the minimum SR are required
           to achieve  NO levels less than 100 ppm
        0  Increased temperature at the minimum SR and long residence  times
           resulted in slighly lower NO levels possibly due to greater
           devolatilization under fuel-rich conditions and/or greater
           decay of NO
        t  Higher firing rates had effects on NO similar to temperature
        •  At short residence times and SRs greater than the  minimum,  increases
           both in temperature and firing rate produced higher NO levels
        t  Mixing in the 1st stage becomes more important as  the residence
           time is decreased and/or the SR is increased
        t  Second-stage parameters (excess air, mixing, temperature  or
           residence time) did not have a strong influence on the NO levels
           unless they impacted back-mixing of stage-air into the first
           stage
                                     6-3

-------
APPENDIX A
     A-i

-------
             NOTES TO TEST AND PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
TEST SUMMARY SHEETS
    Fuel:             1 = Western Kentucky Coal
                     2 = Pittsburg #8
                     3 = Montana Coal
                     4 = Virginia Coal
                     G = Natural Gas
    SR:               Stoichiometric Ratio
    EA:               Excess Air (%)
    Load:             Firing Rate x 10  Btu/hr
    Preheat:          Sec.  = secondary air preheat
                     Stg.  = stage air preheat
                     W.C.  = indicates addition  water cooling  in  the  1st
                     stage
    Burner:           5 IFRF =  five small  IFRF swirl  block  burners
                     Tang  = tangentially  fired  burner
    SW/Inj.  or Yaw:   SW =  swirl  index on  burner,  0  to 8
                     Inj.  = injector type
    (No indication):  B&W type  spreader
    Rad/Ax            radial/axial  gas nozzle
    AX                axial  injection stright  open pipe
    Prim. Stoich:     Primary stoichiometry; percent of total  air at
                     15 percent  EA
    Stg. Air Mixing   Fast  — four 1-inch  hole injectors
    Location:
                     Slow  -- eight 2-inch  hole  injectors
                     Down  -- air injected  one side  only
                     4/1 =  indicates injected through four holes at  first
                     staging position
                                  A-ii

-------
H-#
Nominal Residence
Time, T
Temperature:
N0c:
C0c:
mf:
mt:
mT:
TR:
Vg:
GL:
CP:
AF:
CL:

 Comments;
See text for horizontal extension configuration
1st = first stage
Short = staged at first staging position
Med   = staged at second staging position
Long  = staged at third staging position
2nd   = second stage
Short = one heat exchanger length
Long  = one and one-half or more heat exchanger
lengths
Bare Pt/Pt-Rh thermocouple measurement
T23 = measured at the exit of the firebox
Tp^ = measured in the second stage
NO level in ppm corrected to Q% $2
NO level in ppm corrected to 0% 02
fuel flow, Ibs/hr
total air flow, Ibs/hr
total air plus fuel flow, mf + m. = m,.,  Ibs/hr
total residue from cyclones and  filter,  grams
                                   3
volume of flue sample  collected, ft
grain loading, grains/ft
percent combustibles in residue  collected, %
Ibs of dry refuse per  Ib of as-fired  fuel
combustible loss as carbon or a  percentage of
heat input, %
Axial fuel tube position -- distance  from end
of fuel tube to burner body in inches,  outside
the burner.  Used as reference measurement.
                               A-iii

-------
    APPENDIX A.I



DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
        A.1-1

-------
                                                      DATA  SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10&
Ho. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
lOOa G 1.25 25 2.4
b G 1.10 10 2.4
c G 1.05 5 2.4
d G 1.10 10 2.4
e G 1.25 25 2.4
f G 1.15 15 1.5
g 6 1.35 35 1.5
h G 1.05 5 1.5
102a G 1.15 15 2.5
b G 1.05 5 2.5
c G 1.35 35 2.5
103a G 1.25 25 2.5
b G 1.10 10 2.5
c G 1.05 5 2.5
d G 1.30 30 2.5
e G 1.15 15 2.5
f G 1.05 5 2.5
g G 1.35 35 1.5
h G 1.15 15 1.5
1 G 1.02 2 1.5
lOSa 1 1.40 40 1.5
b 1 1.35 35 1.5
c 1 1.35 35 1.5
d 1 1.40 40 1.5
e 1 1.25 25 1.5
106 a 1 1.30 30 1.5
107a G 1.15 15 2.5
b 1 1.20 20 1.5
c 1 1.20 20 1.5
d 1 1.20 20 1.5
el 1.15 15 1.0
f 1 1.25 25 1.0
g 1 1.10 10 1.5
h 1 1.00 0 1.5
i 1 1.01 1 1.5
j 1 1.25 25 1.5
k 1 1.15 15 1.5
108a G 1.25 25 2.4
b 1 1.10 10 1.5
c 1 1.25 25 1.5
d 1 1.25 25 1.5
Preheat
Sec. OF
300
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
182 w.c.
182 w.c.
182 w.c.
300 w.c.
300 w.c.
300 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
600 w.c.
300 w.c.
300 w.c.
600
600
600
600
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 2 12
5 IFRF 6 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax 12
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 25
5 IFRF 25
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 6 12
5 IFRF 4 12
Norn. RT Temperature
1st
„
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
2nd
„
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
__
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
T23 (°n
2263
2345
2500
2486
2444
2322
2275
—
—
—
—
2063
2120
7173
2104
2154
2217
1952
1991
2019
2026
2060
2062
2142
2170
2181
2215
2132
2043
2206
1961
1950
2147
2226
2229
2?25
2238
1538*
1818
1984
2026
T24 (°F)

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
--
NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments
205 -- 5.15t>
216 -- 5.15
218 — 5.15
755 -- "5.15
253 -- 5.15
241 — 5.15
242 -- 5.15
195 -- 5.15
93 — 5.15
88 -- 5.15
107 -- 5.15
116 — 5.15
117 - 5.15
115 -- 5.15
177 -- 5.15
189 — 5.15
173 -- 5.15
137 -- 5.15
128 — 5.15
117 -- 5.15
1240 — 4.65
1300 -- 4.65
1400 — 4.65
1310 -- 4.65
1210 85 4.65
1110 54 4.65
274.4 9 5.15
880 17 5.15
980 35 4.65
1175 52 4.15
1300 47 4.65
1440 34 4.65
1010 107 4.65
660 168 5.15
720 56 5.15
1100 95 4.65
935 69 4.65
233 -- 5.15
11?8 -- 5.15
1350 -- 5.5
1300 - 5.5
00
               out; wall T/C  instead
           bNu«bers — Axial fuel tube position

-------
                                                             DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
Mo. Fuel SR (*) Btu/hr
108e 1 1.10 10 1.5
f 1 1.15 15 1.5
g 1 1.25 25 1.5
h 1 1.15 15 1.5
i 1 1.15 15 1.5
j 1 1.05 5 1.5
k 1 1.15 15 1.5
1 1 1.25 25 1.5
109a G 1.02 2 1.82
b G 1.11 11 2.4
c G 1.23 23 2.4
d G 1.14 13.5 2.4
e G 1.06 5.5 2.4
f G 1.24 23.5 2.4
g G 1.13 13 2.4
h G 1.15 15 2.2
i G 1.06 6 2.2
j G 1.24 23.5 2.2
HOa 1 1.30 30.0 1.5
Ilia 1 1.28 28.0 1.5
b 1 1.12 12.0 1.5
113a 1 1.06 5.6 1.5
b 1 1.11 11.1 1.5
114a 1 1.12 11.6 1.5
b 1 1.25 25.2 1.5
c 1 1.12 11.7 1.5
d 1 1.12 11.7 1.5
e 1 1.03 2.8 1.5
f 1 1.17 16.9 .5
115a 1 1.19 19.9 .5
b 1 1.13 13.5 .5
c 1 1.06 6.2 .5
d 1 1.26 26.0 .5
e 1 1.13 13.3 .5
116a 1 1.38 38.2 .0
b 1 1.24 24.4 .0
c 1 1.18 17.9 .0
d 1 1.12 11.7 1.0
e 1 1.05 5.1 1.0
H8a 1 1.44 44.2 1.0
b 1 1.25 25.0 1.0
1
Preheat
Sec. °F
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
620
620
600
600
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
600
300
300
Stg. °F
	
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (<) Location
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF ?5
5 IFRF 25
5 IFRF 1?
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 12
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 2/rad/ax
5 IFRF 4/rad/ax
5 IFRF 4/rad/ax
5 IFRF 4/rad/ax
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 21.6
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 1?
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
Nom. RT Temperature
1st

..
._
__
	
—
	
—
._
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
	
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
	
	
—
—
—
—
2nd

__
__
	
__
	
	
	
__
—
__
—
—
—
—
—
__
—
__
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
	
—
__
__
—
—
—
—
T23 (°F,
2081
2137
2184
??02
2198
2199
2213

2570
2547
2482
2563
2605
2531
2583
2554
2581
2556
2298
2256
2336
2494
2556
2006
2120
2088
2123
2194
2230
2156
2260
2292
2304
2349
2058
2117
2188
?247
2266
1970
2039
T24 CF,

__
__
	
__
__
__
	
1969
2027
2068
2135
2158
2191
2203
2225
2239
2256
1834

	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
—
NOc COj.
ppm ppm Comments
1280 -- 6. Ob
1551 — 5. IS
1790 — 1.15
1068 — 4.15
975 -- 4.15
890 — 4.15
1040 -- 4.15
1130 -- 4.15
333 — CO meter out
388 — CO meter out
392 — CO meter out
464 — CO meter out
430 — CO meter out
411 — CO meter out
468 — CO meter out
414 — CO meter out
386 — CO meter out
363 — CO meter out
1270 — CO meter out
1260 — CO meter out
1150 — CO meter out
875 — CO meter out
1075 — CO meter out
940 ~ CO meter out
1680 — CO meter out
910 — CO meter out
950 -- CO meter out
820 — CO meter out
1170 — CO meter out
1020 — CO meter out
1050 — CO meter out
840 — CO meter out
1075 — CO meter out
950 — CO meter out
1025 — CO meter out
975 ~ CO meter out
910 — CO meter out
820 — CO meter out
675 -- CO meter out
940 24
840 24
p>
 I
          bNunfcers — Axial fuel tube position

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
i
m
Test EA Load x 10<>
No. FueJ SR (X) Btu/hr
118c 1 1.17 17.3 1.0
d 1 1.03 2.9 1.0
e 1 1.45 44.7 1.0
120a G 1.32 32.0 0.89


b G 1.18 18.1 0.90


c G 1.165 16.5 0.92


d 6 1.165 16.5 0.92


e G 1.045 4.5 0.93


f G 1.282 28.2 0.88


g G 1.282 28.2 0.88


121 a G 1.38 38.0 0.90


b 6 1.19 19.2 0.92


c G 1.05 5.0 0.92


d G 1.145 14.5 0.90


e G 1.22 22.0 0.91


Preheat
Sec. °F
300
300
300
600


600


588


588


584


589


591


300


300


300


300


300


Stg. OF
	
I
'
—


—


—


--


—


—


—
'

—


	


	


	


—


Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (<) Location
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4 12
5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 6


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


Norn. RT Temperature
1st
	
—
—
--


--


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


--


--


—


2nd
	
—
—
—


--


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


--


—


T23 t°n
2167
2240
2255
1897


1935


1973


1984


2032


2006


—


1819


1889.6


1950.4


1946


1935


T24 CF,
__
—
—
—


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


—


NOc COC
ppm ppm Comments
770 75
510 ?38
1030 42
191 0 Note qas
thru
coal nozzle
168 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
176 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
185 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
150 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
216 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
197 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
139 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
126 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
99 30 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
126 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle
146 0 Note gas
thru
coal nozzle

-------
                                                   DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
I
CTi
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (*) Btu/hr
120f G 1.16 16.0 1.58


g G 1.095 9.5 1.47


122a 1 1.05 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
123a 1 0.95 15 1.0
b 1 0.95 15 1.0
124a 1 1.05 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
d 1 1.02 15 1.0
e 1 0.95 15 1.0
f 1 0.95 15 1.0
g 1 1.02 15 1.0
125a 1 1.02 25 1.0
b 1 0.95 25 1.0
c 1 0.95 25 1.0
d 1 0.95 20 1.0
e 1 0.95 15 1.0
126a 1 1.05 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
127a 1 0.95 15 1.0
b 1 0.85 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
d 1 0.95 15 1.0
e 1 1.02 15 1.0
f 1 1.02 15 1.0
128a 1 0.85 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 1.02 15 1.0
d 1 1.02 15 1.0
e 1 1.02 15 1.0
f 1 0.95 15 1.0
g 1 0.95 15 1.0
h 1 0.95 15 1.0
i 1 1.02 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. OF
300


300


600
600
600
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Stg. OF
—


--


300
—
335
—
—
—
350
300
—
—
—
342
351
350
350
360
300
315
340
328
331
300
300
271
270
300
344
350
350
340
330
310
297
288
Prim. Stq. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4


5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 33 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 33 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 25 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 25 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 25 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 25 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
Norn. RT Temperature
1st
__


--


Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
?nd V2;J f°F)
„


--


Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
2136


?1P8


__
...
__
—
_.
—
__
__
__
__
_-
__
—
-.
—
._
	
—
—
__
—
--
__
--
—
._
—
—
—
—
__
—
—
--
T24 '°F>
__


—


1820
1879
1961
2020
1915
1929
1940
1991
2062
2081
'027
1775
1805
1891
1928
1945
1909
2006
?0?2
2000
?084
2085
2051
2089
2124
2096
2062
2105
2115
2131
2139
2139
7175
2138
NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments
210 0 Note qas
thru
coal nozzle
185 0 Note gas
thru
cnal nnzzle
575 ?1
435 54
280 84
310 250
7?0 °9
610 90
400 V
515 60
385 fiO
335 60
600 f-0
465 74
285 150
270 150
310 70
315 125
625 ?5
635 39
315 73
260 150
160 1160
290 400
330 200
490 100
490 130
195 100
650 72
850 50
8^5 50
750 42
470 HI
475 59
400 in
700 51

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
p»
I
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
129a 1 0.80 15 1.0
b 1 0.80 15 1.0
c 1 0.80 15 1.0
d 1 0.80 35 1.0
e 1 0.82 15 1.0
131a 1 1.15 25 .0
b 1 0.95 15 .0
c 1 0.95 15 .0
d 1 0.85 15 .0
e 1 0.85 15 .0
132a 1 1.05 15 .0
b 1 1.05 15 .0
c 1 1.02 15 .0
d 1 1.02 15 .0
e 1 1.02 15 1.0
f 1 1.02 15 1.0
g 1 0.95 15 1.0
h 1 0.95 15 1.0
i 1 0.95 25 1.0
134a 1 1.15 25 1.0
b 1 0.85 15 1.0
c 1 0.85 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 25 1.0
135a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.15 15 1.0
c 1 1.15 15 1.0
d 1 1.15 15 1.0
e 1 1.02 15 1.0
f 1 0.95 15 1.0
g 1 0.85 15 1.0
g' 1 0.85 15 1.0

h 1 0.85 15 .0
i 1 0.75 15 .0
j 1 0.75 15 .0
k 0.85 15 .0
137a 0.85 15 .0
a' 0.85 15 .0
138a 1.02 15 .0
b 0.95 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. op
600
600
800
800
800
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
300
300
300
300
300
600
600
600
600
600
600
800
800
800
800
800
800

800
800
800
800
800
800
600
600
Stg. op
360
355
330
330
330
—
282
343
360
360
312
312
309
310
256
250
236
236
237
—
333
397
427
—
—
—
—
335
371
424
424

400
400
400
400
458
458
296
340
Prim. Stg. Air
SH/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3

5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
Norn. RT Temperature
1st
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
2nd V
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
23 fr
„
—
.-
—
_-
2085
2078
2102
2093
2100
2210
2?20
2237
2?52
2267
2275
2261
2267
2263
2110
2074
2067
2065
2032
2011
2079
2123
2220
2231
2215
2211

2201
2163
2159
2172
2086
—
1992
2042
T24 '°F>
2063
7126
2136
2157
-.
1P37
1612
1649
1733
1779
1756
1762
1768
1784
1814
1825
1853
1852
1867
1703
1771
1807
1754
1672
1668
1732
1762
1779
1837
1922
1950

1958
2050
2033
1982
1760
—
1^29
1589
NOc CQc
ppm pom Comments
190 273
195 ?40
180 2000
IfiO 100
170 117
835 31
240 215
260 180
130 175
130 175
745 31
735 26
695 41
690 41
625 35
•5^5 50
300 162
300 220
270 85
815 55
140 300
154 300
162 170
830 15
865 15
1000 10
950 10
540 40
300 210
105 210
85 158 NOX meter
on low cal
95 175 84 ppm
110 100 84 ppm
110 60 84 ppm
78 53 84 ppm
100 — 84 pom
122 260 Normal cal
580 110 Normal cal
240 275 Normal cal

-------
                                                   DATA  SUMMARY  SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
138b' 1 0.95 25 1.0
c 1 0.85 25 1.0
c1 1 0.85 25 1.0

d 1 0.85 25 1.0

d' 1 0.85 25 1.0
e 1 0.85 15 1.0
e1 1 0.85 15 1.0

f 1 0.85 25 1.0

f 1 0.85 25 1.0
g 1 0.85 25 1.0

g' 1 0.85 25 1.0

139a 1 1.02 15 1.0

b 1 0.95 15 1.0
c 1 0.85 15 1.0
c' 1 0.85 15 1.0

d 1 1.02 15 1.0
140a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 1.15 15 1.0
d 1 1.02 15 1.0
e 1 0.85 15 1.0
143a 1 1.02 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 1.02 5 1.0
d 1 0.85 5 1.0
e 1 0.85 15 1.0
f 1 0.85 15 1.0
144a 1 1.02 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 5 1.0
c 1 0.85 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 5 1.0
146a 1 1.02 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. °F
600
600
600

600

600
800
800

800

800
800

800

95+ cool

95+ cool
95+ cool
95+ cool

95+ cool
90
90
600+ cool
600+ cool
600+ cool
600
600
600
580
580
580
600
600
590
580
600
Stg. °F
340
358
357

362

362
423
423

425

425
414

414

95

95
95
95

95
—
90
—
280
328
300
300
281
317
350
384
260
270
308
(308)
373
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw («) Location
5 1FRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3

5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3

5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3

5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3

5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF Clinkers 12 Fast 4/3
off
5 IFRF Clinkers 12 Fast 4/3
off
5 IFRF Clinkers 12 Fast 4/3
off
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3

5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 6/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 6/1
Norn. RT Temperature
1st
Long
Long
Long

Long

Long
Long
Long

Long

Long
Long

Long

Long

Long
Long
Long

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
2nd V23 (°F)
Short
Short
Short

Short

Short
Short
Short

Short

Short
Short

Short

Short

Short
Short
Short

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Long
Lonq
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Short
(2042)
2059
2059

2060

2070
2164
2162

2164

2167
2172

(2172)

1960

2001
1992
1995

2068
1965
2026
2070
2114
2114
2035
2081
2152
2265
2237
2217
1960
(1960)
2129
2173
	
T24 (°F)
(1589)
1717
1764

1763

1754
1817
1856

1856

1843
1817

(1817)

1540

1555
1729
1777

1682
1605
1617
1736
1707
1825
1653
1736
1791
1902
1904
1890
1629
(1629)
18?3
1861
1812
NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments
200 184 Normal cal
125 "40 Normal cal
95 530 NOX meter
on low cal
103 257 NOX meter
on low cal
120 260 Normal cal
100 625 Normal cal
92 600 NOX meter
on low cal
95 325 NOX meter
on low cal
119 290 Normal cal
110 325 Normal cal

88 452 NOX meter
on low cal
420 215 Normal cal

250 405
145 900
120 785 NOX meter
on low cal
540 155
700 30
no 70
785 28
400 97
155 435
510 41
675 40
550 33
185 61
720 35
215 35
530 50
580 100
??0 75
190 1400
620 31
00

-------
                                                 DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
I
10
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR («) Btu/hr

145b 1 1.02 25 1.0
c 1 1.02 5 1.0
d 1 0.85 15 1.0
e 1 0.85 25 1.0
f 1 0.85 5 1.0
g 1 0.85 15 1.0
h 1 1.02 15 1.0
146a 1 1.02 25 1.0
b 1 1.02 5 1.0
c 1 0.85 25 1.0
d 1 0.85 5 1.0
e 1 0.85 15 1.0
f 1 1.02 15 1.0
g 1 0.85 15 1.0
h 1 0.85 5 1.0
i 1 1.02 15 1.0
j 1 1.02 5 1.0
148a 1 0.95 15 1.0
b 1 0.85 15 1.0
c 1 1.02 15 1.0
d 1 1.15 18 1.0
149a 1 0.85 15 - 1.0
b 1 0.75 15 1.0
150a 1 0.85 15 1.0
b 1 0.80 15 1.0
c 1 0.75 15 1.0
d 1 0.75 15 1.0
e 1 0.75 15 1.0
f 1 0.75 15 1.0
g 1 0.75 15 1.0
h 1 0.75 15 1.0
152a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.25 25 1.0
c 1 1.05 5 1.0
d 1 1.15 15 1.2
e 1 1.05 5 1.2
f 1 1.25 25 1.2
153a 1 0.95 5 1.0
b 1 0.95 25 1.0
c 1 1.02 15 1.2
Preheat
Sec. °F

590
590
580
580
580
620
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
580
600
600
600
600
580
575
575
575
575
575
750
750
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Stg. op

343
329
318
319
318
543
500
333
300
329
339
333
326
545
510
478
436
240
331
336
293
400
400
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
—
—
—
—
—
—
335
335
300
Prim. Stq. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 8/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Down 2/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Down 2/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 2 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 2 10 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 2 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
Nom. RT Temperature
1st

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
2nd \T?, (°F)

1
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
	
—
1951
2067
2076
2095
2118
2137
2168
2177
2234
2230
2230
2259
2315
(2315)
1947
2070
2132
2131
2266
2241
2030
2056
2081
T24 (°F>

1824
1878
1895
1867
1948
1982
1998
1885
1947
1973
2013
2009
2007
2079
2157
2129
2)70
1477
1574
1612
1650
1685
1733
1798
1824
1881
1895
1909
1925
1942
(1942)
1728
1860
1903
1931
2241
2055
1780
1854
1884
NOc COc
ppm ppm Comments

630 39
^50 17
218 400
?10 ?20
175 1300
168 170
720 50
450 37
515 26
?33 40
190 61
257 49
600 37
236 37
212 207
575 31
640 20
??5 58
225 53
750 69
360 63
243 55
230 54
205 54
207 41
212 38
229 39
223 41
210 43
187 37
207 34
340 31
410 22
280 300
480 116
290 216
560 57
190 931
270 1 35
310 104

-------
                                                             DATA  SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR («) Btu/hr

154a 1 0.95 15 1.2
b 1 0.95 5 1.2
c 1 0.95 25 1.2
d 1 0.85 15 1.2
e 1 0.75 15 1.2
f 1 0.95 15 1.2
g 1 0.75 15 1.0
155a 1 1.02 5 1.2
b 1 1.02 15 1.2
c 1 1.02 25 1.2
d 1 0.95 5 1.2
e 1 0.95 15 1.2
f 1 0.85 5 1.2
156a 1 0.95 25 1.2
b 1 0.85 15 1.2
c 1 0.85 25 1.2
d 1 0.75 15 1.2
e 1 0.75 5 1.2
f 1 0.75 23 1.2
g 1 0.65 15 1.2
h 1 0.65 7.5 1.2
i 1 1.15 15 1.2
j 1 1.25 25 1.2
k 1 1.25 25 1.2
1 1 1.15 15 1.2
m 1 1.05 5 1.2
n 1 1.15 15 1.0
o 1 SR! 15 1.2
=
0.95
p 1 SR-| 15 1.2
=
0.85
q 1 SRT 15 1.2
=
0.85
157a 2 1.15 15 1.0
b 2 1.05 5 1.0
c 2 1.25 25 1.0
d 2 1.15 15 1.5
e 2 1.05 5 1.5
Preheat
Sec. op

585
585
580
580
570
580
570
600
600
600
590
590
580
600
595
590
580
580
580
570
570
600
600
600
600
600
600
600


600


600


600
600
600
600
600
Stg. OF

343
324
367
376
362
(362)
398
250
257
297
290
303
300
400
378
373
372
367
344
320
314
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


—


—


—
—
--
—
—
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/1


5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/1


5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/1


5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
Norn. RT Temperature
1st

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Cont:c
= 1

Cont:c
= 1

Cont:c
= 3

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
2nd

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—


—


—


Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
T23 (°F)

2079
?189
2231
2301
2336
2352
2340
2253
2275
2238
2308
2320
2367
2074
2129
2117
2151
2245
2192
2242
2322
2263
2306
2307
2318
2348
2335
2395


2412


2373


2087
7118
2130
2281
2333
T24 <°F>

1894
1999
2075
?1S9
2194
2213
2185
2094
2125
2095
2152
2172
2231
19?4
1972
1973
2003
2084
2062
2114
2189
2150
2197
2202
2204
?227
2216
2290


2311


2293


1930
—
—
2051
2080
NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments

270 58
230 C7S
285 39
2'0 47
205 52
255 25
205 60
865 42
900 52
955 60
720 80
765 48
410 113
695 70
425 62
430 76
235 58
175 1650
240 96
210 fi8
180 100
1135 50
1310 76
1180 71
1170 40
1010 35
1015 32
1035 34 Biased
fired

995 34 Biased
fired

1035 52 Biased
fired

845 34
700 38
990 48
1020 1«8
875 70
I
o
            cSee chart for biased firing

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (I) Btu/hr

157f 2 1.25 25 1.5
g 2 0.95 15 1.5
h 2 0.85 5 1.5
i 2 0.95 5 1.5
j 2 1.02 15 1.0
k 2 1.02 5 1.0
1 2 0.95 15 1.0
m 2 0.95 5 1.0
n 2 0.95 25 1.0
o 2 0.85 15 1.0
p 2 0.85 5 .0
q 2 0.85 5 .0
r 2 0.85 5 .0
s 2 0.85 5 .0
t 2 0.85 15 .0
u 2 1.15 15 1.0
v 2 1.05 5 1.0
158 a 2 1.02 15 1.0
b 2 0.95 15 1.0
c 2 0.95 5 1.0
d 2 0.75 15 1.0
e 2 0.85 15 1.0
f 2 0.65 15 1.5
g 2 0.75 15 1.5
h 2 0.55 15 1.5
i 3 1.15 15 1.5
j 3 1.05 5 1.5
159a 3 1.25 25 1.5
b 3 0.95 15 1.5
c 3 0.75 15 1.5
d 3 0.65 15 1.5
e 3 0.55 15 1.5
f 3 0.75 15 1.0
g 3 0.65 15 1.0
h 3 1.15 15 1.0
1 3 1.25 25 1.0
j 3 1.05 5 1.0
k 3 1.02 15 1.0
1 3 1.02 5 1.0
ra 3 0.95 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. of

600
600
600
600
590
590
585
580
580
575
575
575
575
575
575
585
590
595
590
590
580
600
600
590
580
600
600
600
600
600
590
580
575
570
590
595
590
590
590
585
Stg. °F

„
240
292
310
308
280
311
320
330
347
345
323
323
323
320
—
—
278
296
303
324
378
370
368
380
—
—

400
400
393
388
392
398
—
—
—
—
—
--
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

5 IFRF SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF SPROR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF SPROR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
Norn. RT Temperature
1st

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
2nd

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
T23 (°F)

2370
2331
2408
2425
2344
23?0
2280
2305
2262
2280
2316
2266
2318
2354
2319
2295
2327
2007
2036
2045
2137
2122
2303
2317
2417
2290
2389
2033
2139
2214
2299
2329
2232
2198
2102
2142
2150
2186
2190
2168
T24 (°F)

2130
2089
2159
2175
2081
2048
2031
2046
2022
2025
2055
2010
2069
2094
2071
2058
2078
1777
1813
1820
1898
1921
2082
2093
2173
2098
2178
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—

NOc COc
ppm ppm Comments

1210 251
570 6?
370 49
495 50
550 34
520 40
450 33
375 42
404 37
275 35
240 51
170 171 4.65b
170 194 5.00
185 163 4.65
210 98 5.00
570 63 5.00
400 270 5.00
275 110 5.00
230 89 5.00
210 612 5.00
1S5 100 5.00
365 170 5.00
235 194 5.00
240 149 5.00
245 160 5.00
1155 102 4.65
1005 82
1215
650 20
215 21
180 ?1
210 22
140 14
135 13
925 13
1095 14
.760 20
730 11
800 50
590 36
^Hunter — axial fuel tube position

-------
DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR («) Btu/hr
159n 3 0.95 15 1.0
o 3 0.85 15 1.0
p 3 0.85 15 1.0
q 3 0.95 5 1.5
r 3 1.15 15 1.0
s 3 1.05 5 1.0
t 3 0.95 15 1.0
u 3 0.85 15 1.0
v 3 0.75 15 1.0
w 3 0.65 15 1.0
x 3 0.55 15 1.0
160a 1 1.02 15 1.5
b 1.02 5 1.5
c 0.95 15 1.5
d 0.95 5 1.5
e 0.95 25 1.5
f 0.85 15 1.5
9 0.85 5 1.5
h 0.85 25 1.5
i 0.75 15 1.5
j 0.65 15 1.5
k 0.55 15 1.5
161a 1.02 25 1.5
b 0.75 25 1.5
c 0.75 5 1.5
d 1.15 15 1.5
e 1.25 25 1.5
f 1.05 5 1.5
g 1.02 15 1.5
h 1 0.95 15 1.5
i 1 0.95 5 1.5
j 1 0.95 25 1.5
k 1 0.85 15 1.5
1 1 0.75 15 1.5
m 1 0.65 15 1.5
n 1 0.55 15 1.5
162a 1 1.15 15 1.5
b 1 — 15 1.0
c 1 0.85 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. op
590
585
585
600
600
600
600
590
580
580
580
600
600
600
600
600
595
595
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
615
612
608
607
607
606
600
600
590
590
621
600
600
Stg. °F
	
307
320
331
—
—
266
—
335
367
—
303
279
290
290
289
289
292
337
343
353
7
300
370
380
—
—
—
—
—
—
300
332
350
372
380
—
—
280
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%} Location
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 axial 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
Norn. RT Tenperature
1st
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Ned
Ned
Med
2nd
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
T23 (°F)
2234
2213
2254
2422
2268
2327
2336
2329
2329
2311
2416
?m
2349
2327
2391
2388
2432
2479
2397
2432
2536
2596
2071
2249
2312
2356
2367
2437
2512
2494
2538
2510
2538

—
	
2321
2322
2276
T24 <°F>

	
__
	
__
__
__
__
	
__
	
__
__
	
__
__
__
__
__
	
__
	
__










2497
2534
'588

	
~~
NOc COc
ppm ppm Conroents
555 330
320 56
300 240
640 41
550 38
455
385 18
050 ?0
210 30
180 85
170 56
735 37
815 29
560 38
560 48
635 38
400 29
385 57
455 54
265 32
255 32
250 62
735 40
245 35
190 54
515 75
720 75
315 1750
375 335
335 40
310 1880
390 60
320 33
275 26
245 33
257 50
985 20.4
8?5 20
145 20.3

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

162d 1 0.75 15 1.0
e 1 0.95 15 1.0
f 1 0.85 15 1.0
g 1 0.85 15 1.5
h 1 0.75 15 1.5
164a 1 0.80 15 1.0
b 1 0.65 15 1.0
c 1 0.85 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 15 1.5
e 1 0.75 15 1.5
f 1 0.65 15 1.5
g 1 0.95 15 1.5
h 1 1.02 15 1.0
1 1 0.95 15 1.0
j 1 0.85 15 1.0
k 1 1.02 15 1.5
1 G 1.15 15 1.0
m G 0.92 15 1.0
n G 0.83 15 1.0
165a 1 0.85 15 1.0
b 1 0.75 15 1.0
c 1 Bias 15 1.0
fl
ERb
0.85
d 1 Bias 15 1.0
*3
ERb
0.85
e 1 Bias 15 1.0
14
ERb
0.85
f 1 Bias 15 1.0
ERb
0.85
Preheat
Sec. OF

600
600
760
800
800
580
570
580
600
600
590
600
575
570
560
600
600
600
600
570
560
580



585



580



585


Stg. OF

282
297
329
383
—
445
475
480
446
400
403
412
235
257
308
332
—
327
348
378
385
—



—



	



	


Prim. Stq. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%) Location

5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPROR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 radial - Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 radial -- Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 radial - Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 12



5 IFRF 4 12



5 IFRF SW = 2 12
B 15


5 IFRF SW = 2 12
B 15

Norn. RT Temperature
1st

Hed
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Short
Short
--



--



-.



--


2nd

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—



—



—



—


T23 (°F)

2263
2286
2322
2401
2432
2119
2104
2142
2269
2375
2356
?459
2161
2231
2237
2362
2242
2236
2216
—
--
--



—



—



—


T24 (°F>

	
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1998
2033
2013



1972



2067



2085


NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments

175 20.2
345 20.?
150 19.8
255 20.4
165 19.1
165 75
290 85
170 70
2.10 104
155 89
255 80
430 145
460 22
320 48
145 705
710 40
228 2
118 16
58 440
204 130
216 90
646 59 Biased
fired


872 40 Biased
fired


645 126 Biased
fired


660 82 Biased
fired

 I
CO

-------
                                                                     DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
>

 I
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR («) Btu/hr

165g 1 1.15 15 1.0
h 1 1.25 25 1.0
i 1 1.05 5 1.0
j 1 1.02 15 1.0
k 1 0.95 15 1.0
1 1 0.85 15 1.0
m 1 0.75 15 1.0
n G 1.15 15 1.0
o G 0.95 15 1.0
p G 0.85 15 1.0
q G 0.75 15 1.0
r G 0.65 15 1.0
r' G 0.65 -- 1.0

s G 0.85 15 1.0
s1 G 0.85 - 1.0

t G 0.75 15 1.0
t' G 0.75 -- 1.0

166a G 1.15 15 1.0
a1 G 1.15 15 1.0
b G 0.95 15 1.0
b1 G 0.95 15 1.0
c G 0.85 15 1.0
c1 G 0.85 15 1.0
d G 0.85 10 1.0
d1 G 0.85 10 1.0
e G 0.85 5 1.0
de' G 0.85 5 1.0
de" G 0.85 -- 1.0
f G 0.75 15 1.0
df G 0.75 15 1.0
g G 0.75 10 1.0
dg' G 0.75 10 1.0
h G 0.75 5 1.0
2000
78 11
74 >2000
78 ?3
71 >2000
75 172
73 >2000
73 >2000
60 34
?5 >2000
76 47
25 >2000
59 729
25 >?000
70 38
                 indicates sample at end of first  state.
                 staged air off-flue sample
                 staged air off — sanple at end of first stage

-------
                                                                     DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
d!66i' G 0.65 15 1.0
j 6 0.65 10 1.0
dj' G 0.65 10 1.0
k G 0.65 5 1.0
dk1 G 0.65 5 1.0
dk" G 0.65 — 1.0
1 G 0.65 25 1.0
dl' G 0.65 25 1.0
m G 0.75 15 1.0
dm1 G 0.75 15 1.0
dm" G 0.75 - 1.0
dm"' G 0.75 - 1.0
n G 0.85 15 1.0
dn' G 0.85 15 1.0
168a 1.15 15 1.0
b 1.15 15 1.0
c 1.25 25 1.0
d 1.05 5 1.0
e 1.15 15 1.0
f 1 1.25 25 1.0
g 1 1.05 5 1.0
h 1 0.75 15 1.0
169a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.25 25 1.0
169c 1 1.05 5 1.0
d 1 1.02 25 1.0
e 1 0.85 15 1.0
f 1 0.75 5 1.0
g 1 0.75 15 1.0
h 1 0.75 25 1.0
i 1 0.65 15 1.0
j 1 0.65 25 1.0
k 1 0.65 5 1.0
1 1 0.85 25 1.0
m 1 0.85 5 1.0
n 1 0.95 15 1.0
o 1 1.02 15 1.0
p 1 1.02 25 1.0
Preheat
Sec. op
560
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
560
560
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
580
580
580
560
580
580
580
580
580
580
580
580
580
580
580
580
Stg. op
284
300
300
303
303
303
301
301
342
342
—
—
333
333
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
300
—
—
—
288
355
388
410
420
415
415
416
450
400
388
370
373
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/lnj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax - Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 2 rad/ax — Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 20
4 tang +6 12
4 tang +6 12
4 tang +6 12
4 tang +6 20
4 tang +6 20
4 tang +6 20
4 tang +6 20 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
Nom. RT Temperature
1st
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
—
—
—
—
—
—
-.
Med
—
—
—
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
2nd
Lonq
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Long
—
—
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Lonq
Long
Long
T23 (°F)
2074
2057
2057
2054
2054
2054
2030.6
2030.6
2044.8
2044.8
2020
2020
2061
2061
2050
2125
2143
2182
2171
2174
2156
21fil
2050
2102
2149
2169
2151
2152
2148
2140
2127
2114
2114
2160
2114.7
2213
2236
2246
T24 <°F>



2?12
2212
1961
2131.1
2131.1
2136
2136
1898
1898
2083
2083
1700
1775
1808
1826
18?3
1837
1843
1947
1716
1774
1811
1769
1825
1999.6
1993
1936
2062
2012
21'1
1871
2005
1928
1935
1915
NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments
6 2000
76 61
7 >2000
73 noo
7 > 2000
9 >2000
~>9 87
6.5 >2000
63 %
23 >2000
22 >2000
24 >2000
69 94
74 >2000
454
415
520
290
518
626
159

417 20
540 16
250 50
46
170 55
148 1259
150 168
165 73
249 55
261 55
?10 1063
131 112
117 217
200 62
347 43
350 45
 I

in
           d'
                indicates  sample at  end of first state.
                staged air off-flue  sample
                staged air off — sample at end of first stage

-------
                                                 DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
>
I
Test EA Load x 10^
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
169q 1 1.02 5 1.0
r 1 1.15 15 1.0
s 1 1.25 25 1.0
t 1 1.05 5 1.0
170a 1 1.15 15 1.5
b 1 1.25 25 1.5
c 1 1.05 5 1.5
d 1 1.02 15 1.5
e 1 1.02 5 1.5
f 1 0.95 15 1.5
9 1 1.02 25 1.5
h 1 0.85 15 1.5
1 1 0.75 15 1.5
j 1 0.65 5 1.5
k 1 0.65 15 1.5
1 1 0.65 25 1.5
m 1 0.55 15 1.5
n 2 1.15 15 1.5
o 2 1.25 25 1.5
P 2 1.05 5 1.5
q 2 1.02 25 1.5
r 2 0.95 15 1.5
s 2 0.85 15 1.5
t 2 0.75 15 1.5
u 2 0.65 5 1.5
v 2 0.65 15 1.5
w 2 0.65 25 1.5
x 2 0.55 15 1.5
y 2 1.02 15 1.5
2 2 1.02 5 1.5
171a 2 1.15 15 1.0
b 2 1.25 25 1.0
c 2 1.05 5 1.0
d 2 1.02 15 1.0
e 2 1.02 5 1.0
f 2 1.02 25 1.0
9 2 0.95 15 1.0
h 2 0.85 15 1.0
i 2 0.75 15 1.0
j 2 0.65 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. OF
580
580
580
580
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Stg. op
356
—
--
--
--
--
—
—
—
—
—
350
370
380
381
381
395
--
--
--
320
358
390
398
397
398
398
391
362
—
—
--
--
211
200
243
278
324
323
352
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang 4-6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
Norn. RT Tenpe^ature
1st
Med
--
—
--
—
—
—
Med
Med
Hed
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
—
—
—
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
--
—
--
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
2nd
Long
—
—
—
—
—
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
—
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
—
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
T23 (°F)
2260
2245
2239
2265
2196
2253
2304
2349
2382.8
2363
2363
2326
2276
2264
2241
2227
2185
2298
2358
2381
2357
?336
2308
2276
2273
2258
2245
2204
2289
2301
2035
2054
2076
2109
2109
2124
2116
1939
2063
2941
T24 (°F)
1966
1979
1984
1989
1907
1972
2022
2047
2095.5
2UO
1987
2098.9
2179
2327
2332
2256
2322
2114
2141
20«9
2045
2071
2134
2181
2336
2319
2225
2315
2124
2147
1856
1873
1887
1887
1907
1873
1873
2068
2029.8
2068
NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments
330 33
528 24
648 32
360 22
607
726
463
437
442
262
448
]47
170
200
222
235
305
630
738
475
428
272
146
146
162
177
186
?46
427
418
410
520
310
324
306
319
188
135
155
200

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
3>



 I
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (*) Btu/hr

171k 2 0.65 25 1.0
1 2 0.65 5 1.0
m 2 0.85 15 1.0
n 2 0.85 15 1.0
o 3 1.15 15 1.0
p 3 1.25 25 1.0
q 3 1.05 5 1.0
r 3 0.85 15 1.0
s 3 0.75 15 1.0
t 3 0.65 15 1.0
u 3 0.65 25 1.0
v 3 0.65 5 1.0
w 3 0.95 15 1.0
x 3 1.02 15 1.0
z 3 1.02 5 1.0
aa 3 1.15 15 1.5
bb 3 1.25 25 1.5
cc 3 1.05 5 1.0
dd 3 1.02 15 1.0
ee 3 1.02 5 1.5
ff 3 0.95 15 1.5
gg 3 0.85 15 1.5
hh 3 0.75 15 1.5
11 3 0.65 15 1.5
171jj 3 0.65 25 1.5
kk 3 0.65 5 1.5
11 3 0.55 15 1.5
mm 3 1.02 25 1.5
nn 3 0.85 15/ 1.5
25
172a G 1.15 15

b G 0.95 15

C G 0.85 15

d G 0.65 15

Preheat
Sec. OF

600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600

600

600

600

Stg. op

369
380
395
396
—
—
—
336
392
420
422
422
390
376
357
—
—
—
304
304
303
321
358
368
381
400
455
423
—
—

—

—

—

Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stolen. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 10 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 25 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 16 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

Norn. RT Temperature
1st

Med
Med
Med
Med
—
.-
—
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
.-
—
—
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
—

Short

Short

Short

2nd

Long
Long
Long
Long
__
	
__
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
__
	
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
--

Long

Long

Long

T23 (°n


3513




__
—
	
__
	
__
2236
2255
2263
2375
2399
2410
2473
2476
2463
2311
2286
2249
2237
2207
7197
2300
2275
1907

1927

1946

2006

T24 (°F)

2039.6
2064

1985
1928
1944
1942
2054
2075
2136
2077
2140
1902
1901
1926
2078
2119
2129
2148
2177
2182
2135
2202
2236
2241
2256
2313
2044
2175
1730

1762

1788

1841

"1
NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments

210
181
129
141
476
625
384
102
147
200
215
177
231
380
347
713
828
526
525
509
315
101
115
170
185
145
188
386
97
56 — Water in
box
27 13 Water in
box
n 61 Water in
box
25 240 Water in
box

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
i
oo
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR («) Btu/hr

172e 1 1.02 15 1.0

f 1 0.95 15 1.0

g 1 0.85 15 1.0

h 1 0.75 15 1.0

1 1 0.65 15 1.0

173a 1 0.85 15 1.0
b 1 0.75 15 1.0
c 1 0.65 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 15 1.5
e 1 0.75 15 1.5
f 1 0.65 15 1.5
g 1 0.55 15 1.5
h 1 0.95 15 1.5
i 1 1.02 15 1.5
j 1 0.95 15 1.0
k 1 1.02 15 1.0
174a 1 0.95 15 1.0
b 1 0.85 15 1.0
c 1 1.02 15 1.0
d 1 0.75 15 1.0
e 1 0.75 25 1.0
f 1 0.65 15 1.0
g 1 1.15 15 1.0
h 1 1.25 25 1.0
1 1 1.05 5 1.0
j 1 0.85 15 1.5
k 1 1.15 15 1.0
1 1 0.85 15 1.0
m 1 0.75 15 1.0
n 1 0.65 15 1.0
o 1 0.95 15 1.0
P 1 1.02 15 1.0
175a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.25 25 1.0
Preheat
Sec. OF

600

600

600

600

600

600
580
570
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
800
800
800
800
800
800
600
600
Stg. °F

273

284

343

377

407

285
364
412
443
443
438
—
397
371
358
354
259
302
333
330
325
322
~
--
--
280
—
306
372
447
413
413
—
*~
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/1
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
Nom. RT Temperature
1st

Short

Short

Short

Short

Short

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
—
—
Long
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
—
~~
2nd

Long

Long

Long

Long

Long

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
—
—
—
Short
—
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
—
~~
T23 <°n

1884

1865

1967

2013

2092

2056
2081
2129
2132
2261
2357
2470
2264
2273
2179
2150
2142
?138
2179
2137
2125
2088
2148
2163
2214
2256
2283
2232
2200
2159
2227
2236
2127
2135
T24 (°n

1745

1730

1824

1868

1926

1907
1933
1972
1994
2106
2200
2318
2147
2143
2048
2016
1736
1800
1778
1957
1952
2039
1869
1867
1879
2023
1964
1996
2024
2128
1966
1957
1850
1865
NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments

216 39 Water in
box
165 41 Water in
box
171 40 Water in
box
210 34 Hater in
box
281 32 Water in
box
153 37.5
176 37.5
243 34.0
184 46.5
180 57.0
222 39.8
303 47.2
269 35.3
428 30.0
217 58.8
329 4P.O
127 176
105 348
268 40
Ifi6 416
170 177
?36 265
444 46
565 58
295 35
98 607
427 24
85 217
125 82
207 179
125 83
'55 40
401 5
503 2

-------
DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

175c 1.15 15 1.0
d 1 1.25 25 1.0
e 1 1.05 5 1.0
f 1 0.85 15 1.0
g 1 1.15 15 1.0
h 1 0.85 15 1.0
176a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 15 1.0
e 1 0.75 15 1.0
f 1 0.95 15 1.0
g 1 1.02 15 1.0
h 1 1.15 15 1.0
177a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 15 1.0
e 1 0.75 15 1.0
178a 1 0.95 15 1.0

b 1 0.85 15 1.0

c 1 0.75 15 1.0

d 1 1.15 15 1.0
e 1 0.85 15 1.0



f 1 0.85 15 1.0


g 1 1.15 15 1.0

g1 1 1.15 15 1.0

179a 1 1.02 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. op

600
600
600
600
800
800
117
101
90
83
82
82
81
81
100
100
90
88
85
600

600

600

600
600



600


600

600

600
600
600
Stg. OF

._
—
—
—
—
300
—
—
104
86
84
84
83
—
—
92
90
90
87
453

384

406

—
—



—


—

—

—
166
216
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%) Location

4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/3
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Upper
tier 3/4
4 tang +6 15 Upper
tier 3/4
4 tang +6 15 Upper
tier 3/4
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Biased
diago-
nally
opposite
4 tang +6 15 Biased
same
side
4 tang +6 Baseline

4 tang +6 No annu-
lar air
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
Norn. RT Temperature
1st

..
—
—
Long
—
Long
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long

Med
Hed
Med
Med
Short

Short

Short

—
—



—


--

--

—
Med
Med
2nd

..
—
—
ShoH
—
Short
—
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long

Long

Long

—
—



—


--

--

—
Long
Long
\T23 (°F)

2145
2145
2174
. 2141
2201
. 2158
1788
. 1864
1864
1878
1867
1890
1911
1923
2001
2019
2024
2017
2007
2189

2274

2284

2290
2315



2334


--

--

?133
2201
2227
T24 (°F>

1872
1877
1879
1920
1942
1929
1587
1592
1614
1788
—
—
—
—
1856
1826
1816
1837
1911
2031

2114

2133

2152
2179



2191


--

--

?000
2018
2027
NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments

428 2
549 1
315 12
98 38fi
507 20
86 352
251 44
170 77
101 488
94 637
142 623
99 620
201 190
336 182
345 6.0
242 16.5
147 45.6
102 61.2
120 53.8
397 39.7 Overfire
air
430 35.1 Overfire
air
400 67.2 Overfire
air
473 45.5
527 43.5 Biased
fired


543 38.0 Biased
fired

— Biased
fired
~ Biased
fired
458 1?.0
303 21.4
210 34.3

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

179d 1 0.85 15 1.0
e 1 0.75 15 1.0
f 1 0.65 15 1.0
g 1 1.15 15 1.0
h 1 0.95 15 1.0
i 1 0.85 15 1.0
j 1 0.75 15 1.0
k 1 0.65 15 1.0
1 1 1.02 15 1.0
180a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.15 15 1.0
c 1 1.15 15 1.0
d 1 0.95 15 1.0

e 1 0.95 15 1.0
f 1 0.85 15 1.0

g 1 0.85 15 1.0
h 1 0.95 15 1.0
i 1 1.15 15 1.0
j 1 1.15 15 1.0
k 1 0.95 15 1.0
1 1 0.85 15 1.0
181a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 1.02 15 1.0
c 1 0.95 15 1.0
d 1 0.85 15 1.0
e 1 0.75 15 1.0
f 1 0.65 15 1.0
g 1 0.85 15 1.0
182a 1 1.15 15 1.0
b 1 0.85 15 1.0
c 1 0.75 15 1.0
d 1 0.65 15 1.0
e 1 0.95 15 1.0
f 1 1.02 15 1.0
g 1 1.15 15 1.0
h 1 0.95 15 1.0
i 1 0.85 15 1.0
j 1 0.75 15 1.0
Preheat
Sec. OF

600
600
600
800
800
800
800
800
800
600
600
600
600

600
600

600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
580
570
590
590
600
600
590
580
Stg. op

280
296
345
—
—
446
500
491
464
—
120
204
275/
210
333
422/
194
428
—
—
—
305
300
—
192
221
273
313
353
400
—
332
330
328
289
292
	
—
250
297
Prim. Stg. Air
SW/lnj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang *6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15 4/2
4 tang +6 15 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang +6 15
4 tang +6 15
4 tang -1-6 15
4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2

4 tang +6 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang 6 15 Fast 4/2

4 tang 0 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang 0 15 Fast 4/2
4 tang 0 15
4 tang 9 15
4 tang 9 15
4 tang 9 15
5 IFRF 6 ax 15
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/2
5 IFRF 6 ax 15
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 6 ax 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast 4/1
Norn. RT Tenperature
1st

Med
Hed
Med
--
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
—
—
—
Med

Med
Med

Med
Med
—
—
—
—
—
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med
Med

Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
2nd

Long
Long
Long
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
~
—
—
Long

Long
Long

Long
Long
--
—
--
—
—
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long

Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
T ( F)

221fi
2211
2215
2298
2344
2332
2338
2328
2366
2182
2228
2208
2212

2260
2185

2261
2287
2317
2334
2345
2331
2158
2204
2196
2216
2206
2156
2111
1931
2018
2107
2151
2068
2062
2131
2109
2106
2182
T ( F)

2040
2093
2193
2149
2149
2205
2263
2351
2209
1969
2029
2043
1999

2019
1993

2077
2070
2121
2140
2108
2141
2020
2020
2011
20fi7
2090
2173
1993
1908
1992
2086
2132
2054
2048
2112
2096
2092
2165
NO CO
ppm ppm Comments

120 35.0
15? 29.2
21fi 24.6
510 40.5
220 55.7
119 64.6
118 40.9
155 39.8
352 38.7
413 9.1 FGR = 0*
11 FGR = 10X
16 FGR = 30X
59 FGR = 30X
—
213 45.0 FGR = OX
64 FGR = 30X

120 51.5
194 40.6
512 13.2
551 8.8
218 37.3
108 31.1
290 143
195 80
185 92
191 104
210 72.5
272 82
178 94.7
280 «i?
192 38.4
231 35
258 37
208 44.4
240 94
789 24
392 33.4
233 37.2
184 31. 1
I
ro
O

-------
                                                    DATA SUMMARY  SHEET5
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (*) Btu/hr
182k 1 0.65 15 1.0
1 1 0.85 15 .0
183a 1 1.15 15 .0
b 1 0.85 15 .0
c 1 0.75 15 .0
d 1 0.65 15 .0
e 1 0.95 15 .0
f 1 1.02 15 .0
9 1 1.15 15 .0
h 1 1.02 15 .0
1 1 0.95 15 .0
j 1 0.85 15 1.0
k 1 0.75 15 1.0
1 1 0.65 15 1.0
m 1 0.85 15 1.5
n 1 0.75 15 1.5
186a NG 1.15 15 1.3

b 1 1.15 15 0.85

c 1 1.25 25 0.85

d 1 1.05 5 0.85

e 1 0.85 15 0.85

f 1 0.75 15 0.85

g 1 0.65 15 0.85

h 1 0.75 15 0.85

1 1 0.95 15 0.8S

J 1 1.02 15 0.85

It 1 1.15 15 1.3

1 1 1.25 25 1.3

Preheat
Sec. OF
580
570
600
600
600
570
530
590
840
840
840
840
840
830
600
580
580

560

560

560

540

520

520

500

530

530

570

580

Stg. OF
325
341
256
316
348
314
301
237
265
300
328
378
363
355

—

~

—

286

404

365

434

307

302

—

—

PHm. Stg. Air
SH/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (*) Location
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 15 Fast 4/1
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 15 Fast 4/3
4 IFRF 2 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 K-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
Norn. RT Temperature
1st
Short
Shor
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long
Long

—

—

—

—

—

—

	

—

—

—

—

2nd
Long
Long
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Shor
Short
Short

	

._

	

	

	

	

..

—

—

—

—

r23 &
2234
2142
2156
2158
2131
2081
2186
2207
2262
2284
2297
2283
2244
2213
2356
2357
2574

2517

2499

2541

2445

2317

2290

2222

2291

2281

2494

2528

T24 (°F)
2213
2124
1621
1662
1764
1805
1645
1656
1739
17?1
1728
1796
1819
1905
1928
1999
2252

2211

2219

2234

2235

2187

2231

2181

2204

22?3

2404

2442

NOC COC
ppm ppm Comrents
219 38
238 42
646 1?
137 108
162 73
237 88
239 87
117 54
690 90
175 73
290 104
120 190
150 219
187 158
170 588
120 641
244 0.0

908 29.5

1026 26.4

765 10.2

209 14.3

90 41.3

131 24.8

100 41.2

664 15.6

830 10.1

300 5.8

1423 6.8

ro

-------
                                                    DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10^
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

186m 1 1.05 5 1.3

n 1 1.02 15 1.3

o 1 0.95 15 1.3

187a 1 0.85 15 1.3

b 1 0.75 15 1.3

c 1 0.65 15 1.3

d 1 1.15 15 1.3

e 1 0.75 15 1.3

f 1 1.15 15 0.85

g 1 0.75 15 0.85

188a 1 1.15 15 0.85

b 1 0.75 15 0.85

c 1 1.15 15 1.3

d 1 0.75 15 1.3

e 1 1.15 15 1.3

f 1 0.75 15 1.3

g 1 1.15 15 0.85

h 1 0.75 15 0.85

189a 1 1.15 15 0.85

Preheat
Sec. OF

580

580

570

596

585

570

780

800

800

770

80

80

80

80

300

300

300

300

580

Stg. °F

	

201

225

266

341

359

—

317

—

400

—

80

—

—

~

184

—

254

—

Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
Nom. RT Temperature
1st

._

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—



















2nd

..

--

__

--

—

—

—

—

—

—



















T23 (°F)

2590

2637

2600

2204

2199

2262

2729

2591

2595

2539

2333

2246

2486

2415

2581

2483

2482

2346

2405

T24 <°F)
t*t
2477

2523

2531

2368

2391

2380

2495

2484

2484

2432

1689

1853

1876

2091

2034

2164

1997

2017

1780

NOC COC
ppffl ppm Comnents

1120 3.5

1)88 6.9

932 9.0

380 16.0

no 30.0

135 57.5

1355 16.8

91 23.7

950 18.0

107 18.8

609 12.8

102 91.6

945 11.8

110 76.2

1043 28.0

101 38.6

696 20.8

98 92.7

788 48.2

I
I\>
ro

-------
                                                     DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (*) Btu/hr

189b 1 1.15 15 0.85

c 1 0.95 15 0.85

d 1 0.85 15 0.85

e 1 0.75 15 0.85

f 1 0.65 15 0.85

g 1 0.65 15 0.85

h 1 0.75 15 0.85

i 1 0.85 15 0.85

j 1 0.95 15 0.85

k 1 0.95 15 1.3

1 1 0.85 15 1.3

m 1 0.75 15 1.3

n 1 0.65 15 1.3

o 1 0.65 15 1.3

p 1 0.75 15 1.3

q 1 0.85 15 1.3

190a 1 0.85 15 1.3

b 1 0.95 15 1.3

c 1 0.75 15 1.3

d 1 0.85 15 1.3

Preheat
Sec. OF

580

580

580

570

540

520

530

540

560

600

600

590

580

580

580

580

530

530

580

580

Stg. OF

	

250

297

327

344

348

340

324

315

232

276

275

273

272

264

257

280

281

282

288

Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (<) Location

4 IFRF 4 12
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
Norn. RT Temperature
1st









































2nd









































T23 (°F)

2608

2586

2544

2566

2477

2457

2502

2610

2589

2743

2733

2661

2612

2607

2663

2552

2641

2665

2564

2469

T24 (°F>

1888

1883

1935

2005

2144

2150

1998

1936

1877

1975

2043

2135

2193

2252

2225

2181

2001

2034

2137

2136

NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments

852 13.2

480 21.3

172 17.5

108 21.0

168 89.2

158 62.8 w/cooling

109 46.6 w/cooling

252 37.5 w/coolinq

684 35.0 w/cooling

857 48.0 w/cooling

358 47.0 w/coolinq

126 47.5 w/cooling

132 51.3 w/cooling

134 42.0

136 36.2

—

366 34.8

832 31.1

347 8.6

572 11.9

ro
GO

-------
                                                 DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
I
rv>
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (%) Btu/hr
190e 1 0.95 15 1.3

f 1 0.65 15 1.3

g 1 0.55 15 1.3

h 1 0.95 15 0.85

i 1 0.85 15 0.85

j 1 0.75 15 0.85

k 1 0.65 15 0.85

1 1 0.85 15 0.85

191a 1 0.95 15 0.85

b 1 0.85 15 0.85

c 1 0.75 15 0.85

d 1 0.65 15 0.85

e 1 0.95 15 1.3

f 1 0.85 15 1.3

g 1 0.75 15 1.3

h 1 0.65 15 1.3

1 1 0.55 15 1.3

192a 1 0.95 15 0.85

b 1 0.85 15 0.85

c 1 0.75 15 0.85

Preheat
Sec. °F
580

580

570

570

561

554

540

565

580

570

560

545

600

600

580

580

570

570

560

550

Stg. OF
286

321

325

202

255

285

319

295

214

311

345

356

284

324

335

302

283

229

306

353

Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw («) Location
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-4
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-6
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-8
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-8
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-8
Hor ext
Norn. RT Temperature
1st





































-


2nd








































T23 <°F)
2512

2496

2446

2469

2458

2442

2401

2449

2407

2401

2287

2268

2323

2762

2597

2485

2394

2453

2460

2405

T24 (°F)
2179

2239

2277

2161

2127

2113

2137

2094

1804

1844

1892

1928

2049

2107

2181

2237

2241

1896

1922

1987

NOC COc
pom ppm Comments
904

262 15.9

?45 16.0

665 16.3

432 17.4

250 19.3

202 21.7

290 41.2

453 18.0

214 33.6

126 49.7

127 58.6

737 53.0

370 50.0

149 52.0

110 55.?

135 54.5

538 18.7

?28

Ifil


-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x Ifl6
Ho. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
194c 1 0.75 15 0.85

d 1 0.65 15 0.85

el 0.55 15 0.85

f 1 0.95 15 0.85

g I 0.85 15 0.85

h 1 0.75 15 0.85

1 1 0.65 15 0.85

195 a 1 0.65 15 0.85

b 1 0.75 15 0.85

C 1 0.85 15 0.85

d 1 0.95 15 0.85

e 1 0.95 15 1.3

f 1 0.85 15 1.3

g 1 0.75 15 1.3

h 1 0.65 15 1.3

1 1 0.55 15 1.3

203a 4 1.15 15 1.35



b 4 1.05 5 1.35


Preheat
Sec. °f
550

SSO

520

570

540

550

930

550

530

530

550

S90

590

590

574

560

600



590


Stg. <>f
286

311

335

232

284

299

305

200

271

267

249

226

212

309

306

297

—



—


Prim. Stg. Air
SH/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext w/o B
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext w/o B
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext w/o B
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-7
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IFRF 5P-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IPRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-S
Hor ext
4 IFRF SP-4 12 H-5
Hor ext
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig A 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Norn. RT Temperature
1st







































2nd







































T23 <°F>
2264

2229

2182

2367

2436

2392

2393

2252

2256

2317

2362

2507

2534

2508

2456

2780

2262



2418


T24(°F>
2Z31

2282

2313

2263

2309

2263

2249

2118

2171

2144

2102

2275

2388

2428

2464

2486

2309



2462


NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments

170 53.7

157 50.0

142 47.0

525 26.0

322 23.4

100 30.0

117 146.8

133 88.8

155 65.5

252 47.2

456 42.8

656 96.3

388 94.0

194 79.?

156 81.4

IBS 83.0

1127



890


ro
01

-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
I
ro
Test EA Load x 1Q6
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
203c 4 1.25 25 1.35



d 1 1.25 25 1.3



e 1 1.15 15 1.3



f 1 1.05 5 1.3


g 1 1.25 25 0.85



h 1 1.15 15 0.85



i 1 1.05 5 0.85



203J 1 0.75 15 0.85


k 1 0.65 15 0.85


1 1 0.85 15 0.85


01 1 0.95 15 0.85


Preheat
Sec. OF
600



600



595



590


580



580



570



550


550


540


550


Stg. °F
—



—



—



—


—



—



—



300


300


300


300


Prim. Step. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw {*) Location
Sgl )g 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12
IFRF
w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12 Hor #1
IFRF w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12 Hor *1
IFRF w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12 Hor #1
IFRF w/4"
sleeve
Sgl Ig 4 12 Hor 11
IFRF w/4"
sleeve
Nom. RT Tenperature
1st







































2nd







































T23 <°F)
2423



2494



2396



2479


2420



2394



2406



2435


2398


2404


2422


T24 (°F>
2457



2514



2412



2479


2412



2379



2384



2307


2239


2259


2303


NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments
1317



1420



1265 57.4



956 18.0


1191 16.4



970



646



95 16.0


116 25.2


132 20.0


387 16.7



-------
                                                   DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 10^
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
204a 1 1.25 25 1.3

b 1 1.15 15 1.3

c 1 1.05 5 1.3

d 1 1.25 25 0.85

el 1.15 15 0.85

f 1 1.05 5 0.85

g 1 0.75 15 0.85

205a 1 1.25 25 1.3

b 1 1.15 15 1.3

c 1 1.05 5 1.3

d 1 1.05 5 0.85

e 1 1.15 15 0.85

f 1 1.25 25 0.85

206a 1 0.95 15 1.3

b 1 0.95 15 1.3

206c 1 0.85 15 1.3

d 1 0.75 15 1.3

e 1 0.65 15 1.3

f 3 1.25 25 1.3

g 3 1.25 25 1.3

Preheat
Sec. OF
600

600

590

580

580

560

550

600

600

600

570

590

590

600

600

600

590

580

600

600

Stg. OF
^_

—

—

—

--

—

250

-r

—

—

—

—

—

240

270

290

330

316

—

—

Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%) Location
Lg IFRF 4 12
no sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12
no sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12
no sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12
no sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12
no sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12
no sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor #1
no sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl */ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Norn. RT Temperature
1st








































2nd








































T23 («F)
2467

2541

2616

2481

2491

2502

—

2449

2512

2587

2473

2447

2412

2430

2522

2546

2411

2449

2477

2555

T24 <°F>
2341

2422

2476

2382

2383

2385

—

2360

2411

2476

2364

2350

2323

2245

2375

2391

2227

2265

2425

2486

NOc COc
ppm ppm Comments
1177 37.0

1038 20.0

825 o.o

890 5.0

736 9.0

469 1.0

75 30.0

1423 16.8

1239 16.3

776 15.4

584 34.5

969 17.2

1208 16.9

194 22

564 68

217 66

122 87

129 90

1559 70

1570 71

ro

-------
                                                   DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
I
ro
00
Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

206h 3 1.15 15 1.3

i 3 1.15 15 1.3

j 3 1.05 5 1.3

k 3 1.05 5 1.3

1 3 0.95 15 1.3

m 3 0.95 15 1.3

n 3 0.85 15 1.3

o 3 0.85 15 1.3

p 3 0.75 15 1.3

q 3 0.75 15 1.3

r 3 0.65 15 1.3

s 3 0.65 15 1.3

t 3 0.65 15 0.85

u 3 0.65 15 0.85

206v 3 0.75 15 0.85

w 3 0.75 15 0.85

x 3 0.85 15 0.85

y 3 0.85 15 0.85

z 3 0.95 15 0.85

aa 3 0.95 15 0.85

Preheat
Sec. OF

590

590

590

590

—

—

600

600

590

590

580

—

580

580

580

590

600

600

—

—

Stg. op

„

—

—

—

—

—

255

260

306

350

360

—

300

280

262

250

240

230

—

—

Prim. Stg. ftir
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%) Location

Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
s 1 eeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor fl
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor tl
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor 11
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor fl
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor *1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor »1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor *1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor #1
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12 Hor *1
sleeve
Norn. RT Temperature
1st









































2nd









































T23 (°F)
CJ
2517

2559

2618

2630

—

--

2671

2679

2668

2673

2621

2608

2543

2502

2545

2561

2589

2589

—

--

T24 (°F>

2458

2500

2556

2584

—

—

2570

2586

2536

2520

7479

2458

2400

2341

2353

2364

2391

2403

—

--

NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments

1407 59

1432 104

1173 38

1152 32





1026 45

1030 110

410 72

462 61

112 62

91 62

78 100

79 69

230 67

244 76

565 67

590 65






-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
ro
Test EA Load x 10<>
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

206bb 3 1.05 5 0.85

cc 3 1.05 5 0.85

dd 3 1.15 15 0.85

ff 3 1.25 25 0.85

gg 3 1.25 25 0.85

207a 3 1.15 15 0.85
b 3 1.15 15 0.85
c 3 0.95 15 0.85
d 3 0.95 15 0.85
e 3 0.85 15 0.85
f 3 0.85 15 0.85
q 3 0.75 15 0.85
h 3 0.75 15 0.85
v 3 0.65 15 0.85
j 3 0.65 15 0.85
k 3 0.65 15 0.85
1 3 0.65 15 0.85
in 3 0.55 15 0.85
n 1 0.55 15 0.85
o 1 0.65 15 0.85
p 1 0.75 15 0.85
q 1 0.85 15 0.85
r 1 0.95 15 0.85
s 1 0.95 15 1.3
t 1 0.85 15 1.3
u 1 0.75 15 1.3
v 1 0.65 15 1.3
w 1 0.55 15 1.3
208a 1 0.95 15 0.85


b 1 0.85 15 0.85


Preheat
Sec. °F

600

620

620

620

--

580
580
560
560
560
560
530
530
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
520
580
580
580
550
540
570


550


Stg. °F

„

—

—

—

--

—
—
152
152
193
193
275
275
340
340
340
340
348
367
356
341
302
275
236
314
347
346
330
163


189


Prim. Stg. Air
SH/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%) Location

Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sgl w/ 4 12
sleeve
Sql w/ 4 12
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12
Lg IFRF 4 12
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Norn. RT Temperature
1st








































2nd








































T23 (°F)

2572

2574

2563

2538

2508

2135
2135
2207
2207
2237
2237
2236
2236
2217
2217
2217
2217
—
2182
2224
2279
2334
2361
2441
2488
2514
2501
2473
1899


1906


T24 <°F>

2410

2408

2384

2391

2343

2158
2158
2170
2170
2183
2183
2193
2193
2167
2167
2167
2167
—
2251
2254
2236
2228
2237
2314
2343
2389
2422
2479
1841


1834


NOC COc
ppm ppm Comments

844 42

872 50

960 60

1161 107

1110 58

968
°89
567
615
376
395
225
257 16.1
171 1.2
196
201
213
166
230 6.9
227 9.4
286 9.4
431 12.5
600 12.2
896 28.3
628 28.4
391 32.5
305 30.3
296 28.3
436 24


264 34



-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
I
CO
o
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

208c 1 0.75 15 0.85


d 1 0.65 15 0.85


e 1 0.55 15 0.85


f 1 0.95 15 1.3


9 1 0.85 15 1.3


h 1 0.75 15 1.3


1 1 0.65 15 1.3


j 1 0.55 15 1.3


Preheat
Sec. op

560


530


500


590


580


580


560


545


Stg. "F

249


293


335


241


291


335


332


297


Prim. Stq. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Lg IFRF 4 12 Hor-3
w/4"
sleeve
Norn. RT Temperature
1st

























2nd

























T23 (°F)

1930


1958


1996


2046


2094


2145


2213


2297


T24 <°F>

1852


1873


1904


2013


2050


2078


2142


2232


NOC COC
ppm ppm Comnents

156 35


138 56


146 80


683 69


405 67


230 71


171 107


207 90



-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
I
oo
Test EA Load x 10^
No. Fuel S« (X) Btu/hr
181g' 1 0.85 15 1.0

g" 1 0.85 15 1.0
182i' 1 0.85 15 1.0

i" 1 O.B5 15 1.0

j1 1 0.75 15 1.0

j" 1 0.75 15 1.0

T 1 0.85 15 1.0

1" 1 0.85 15 1.0

187x 1 1.15 15 1.3
189j' 1 0.95 15 1.3
190x 1 1.15 15 1.3
y 1 1.15 15 0.85
191 1 1.15 15 0.85
(Bl)
(82) 1 1.15 15 1.3
192 1 1.15 15 0.85
(81)
Preheat
Sec. °F
600

600
600

600

600

600

600

600

600
600 w.c.
600
600
600
600
600

Stg. °F























Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (*) Location
5 IFRF 8 ax 12
-2nd
5 IFRF 0 ax 12
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12
8 ax
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12
0 ax
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12
0 ax
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 12
8 ax
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 25
0 ax
5 IFRF 4 SPRDR 25
8 ax
4 IFRF 4 12 H-10
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
4 IFRF 4 12 H-7
4 IFRF 4 12 H-4
4 IFRF 4 12 H-6
4 IFRF 4 12 H-6
4 IFRF 4 12 H-8

Norn. RT Temperature
1st























2nd























T23 (°F)























r24 <°F>























NOC COc
ppm ppm Contents
181 90

184 89
219 43

265 50

191 37

193 39

233 42

235 44

1200 23
1088 27
1139 25
950 IS
845 38
104 43
909 21


-------
                                                  DATA SUMMARY  SHEETS
I
CO
Test EA Load x 10^
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

192
(82) 1 1.15 15 1.3
193 1 1.15 15 0.85
(Bl)
(82) 1 1.15 15 0.85
194 1 1.15 15 0.85
(81)
195 1 1.15 15 0.85
(81)
(B2) 1 1.15 15 1.3
(83) 1 1.15 15 1.3
207 1 1.15 15 1.3
(Bl)
208 1 1.15 15 0.85
(81)

(82) 1 1.15 15 1.3



209 1 1.15 15 0.85
(Bl)
207 1 1.15 15 0.85
(82)
Preheat
Sec. °F


600
100

800
600

600

600
600
600

600


600



100

600

Stg. OF



w/cooling





















Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (%) Locatio


4 IFRF 4 12 H-8
4 IFRF 4 12 H-4

4 IFRF 4 12 H-4
4 IFRF 4 12 H-5 w/o
B
4 IFRF 4 12 H-5

4 IFRF 4 12 H-5
4 IFRF 4 12 H-5
Lg IFRF-4 4 12 (4HE)
Dist air
Lg IFRF 4 12 3HE
w/4" sleeve
-4
Lg IFRF 4 12 3HE
w/4"
sleeve
-4
4 IFRF-4 * 12
Hor 6
Lg IFRF 4 12 4HE
-4 Dist. air
Norn. RT Temperature
1st

























2nd

























T23 <°F)

























T24 (°F)

























NOC COC
ppm ppm Comments


1190 42
853 5

1085
823 57

889 49

1017 132
1192 76
515 28

887 22


1067 59



720 17

940 16


-------
                                                   DATA SUMMARY SHEETS

Test EA Load x 10&
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr
170m1 1 0.55 1.5


152a' 1 1.15 1.5


131c' 1 0.95 25 1.0
135f 1 0.95 25 1.0
143f 1 0.75 5 1.0
144d' 1 0.85 5 1.0
d" 1 0.85 5 1.0
146f 1 1.02 15 1.0

146x1 1 0.92 35

x2 1 0.98 45
169k1 1 0.65 1.0


1' 1 0.85 1.0


n1 1 0.95 1.0

170f 1 1.15 15 1.5

T 1 0.65 -- 1.5


i1 1 0.75 -- 1.5

x' 2 1.15 15 1.5

Preheat

Sec. of
600


600


600
800
600
600
600
600



600


600


600

600

600


600

600


Stg. op






343
371
384
308
308






















Prim. Stq. Air
SU/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/
Burners or Yaw (X) Location
4 tang, +6 15 Stack w/o
2nd staged
air
5 IFRF 8 12 Stack w/o
-8 staged
a ir
5 IFRF 6 12 Fast 4/3
5 IFRF 4 12 Fast 4/3
-4
5 IFRF 8 12 Fast 4/1
-8
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 6/1
-4
5 IFRF 4 12 Slow 7/1
-4
5 IFRF 4 12
-4 (down)
5 IFRF 4 12 Down Mix
-4 (down)
12 Fast Mix
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
2nd staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
2nd staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
2nd staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 Baseline
2nd
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
2nd staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
2nd staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 Baseline
2nd
Norn. RT Temperature

1st






5.0
5.0
3.5
3.5
3.5





















2nd






0.65
0.65
2.3
2.3
2.3





















T?3 ,'F)






2102
2231
2217
2173
2173





















T24 (°F)






1649
1837
1890
1861
1861






















NOC COc
opm ppm Comments
39


429 19


?40 95
272 65
151 43
181 100
195 150
594 36

473 74

551 65
21


99


226 354

668

47


63

594

CO
CO

-------
                                                    DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
Test EA Load x 106
No. Fuel SR (X) Btu/hr

171hh' 3 0.75 25 1.5

171nn' 3 0.85 25 1.5


172d' 1 1.15 15 1.0


172g' 1 1.15 15 1.0


1721' 1 1.15 15 1.0


174b' 1 0.85 25 1.0


Preheat
Sec. OF

600

600


600


600


600


600


Stg. OF


















Prim. Stg. Air
SW/Inj. Stoich. Mixing/^
Burners or Yaw (X) Location

4 tang, +6 15 Baseline
2nd
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
2nd Staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
1st Staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
1st Staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
1st Staged
air
4 tang, +6 15 w/o
3rd Staged
air
Norn. RT Temperature
1st


















2nd


















T23 (°F)


















T24 (°F)


















NOC COC
ppro ppm Comments

132

95 --


338 17 fd1 Base-
line)

95 158 fg' Base-
line)

316 29 M' Base-
line)

129 95


I
00
42-

-------
          APPENDIX A.2



PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEETS
             A.2-1

-------
                                             PARTICIPATE  DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Test
No.
125b
125c-l
125c-2
125d-l
125d-2
125e
126a
126b
126C-1
126c-2
127a
127b
127c
127d
127e
127f
128a
128b
128c
128d
128f
128g
128h
129a
129b
134a
134b
134c
134d
135a
135b
135c
135d
135e
135f
Filter
No. Fuel
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
142-53 Coal fl
142-62 Coal fl
142-66 Coal fl
142-63 Coal fl
142-60 Coal fl
142-68 Coal fl
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inj
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
6 ax
4 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
6 ax
8 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
25
25
25
20
20
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
23
15
15
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
SR
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
1.05
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.02
1.02
0.85
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.80
0.80
1.15
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.02
0.95
mt
Ihs/hr
993.0
993.0
993.0
941.0
941.0
904.0
922.8
931.0
933.0
933.0
914.7
929.6
918.0
918.0
925.6
925.6
923.4
1004.0
1004.0
920.5
919.0
972.0
931.0
932.3
932.3
977.0
898.0
898.0
983.0
931.7
931.7
912.6
912.6
927.8
911.9
mf
Ibs/hr
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
Ibs/hr
1073.6
1073.6
1073.6
1021.6
1021.6
984.6
1003.4
1011.6
1013.6
1013.6
995.3
1010.2
998.6
998.6
1006.2
1006.2
1004.0
1084.6
1084.6
1001.1
999.6
1002.6
1011.6
1012.9
1012.9
1057.6
978.6
878.6
1063.6
1012.3
1012.3
993.2
993.2
1008.4
991.9
TR
grams
0.05545
0.07606
0.13167
0.12079
0.29432
0.10742
0.33790
0.34876
0.41395
0.28074
0.23809
0.26386
0.29392
0.17693
0.15789
0.18809
0.21390
0.17157
0.20753
0.30971
0.28750
0.29061
0.31311
0.15088
0.15584
0.33414
2.58692
1.46561
2.46443
1.921
2.285
2.760
2.611
2.357
2.802
Vg
3.43
3.42
6.84
6.87
6.90
6.84
6.75
7.05
3.82
3.73
3.41
3.15
3.52
3.46
3.56
3.34
3.55
3.51
3.52
3.41
3.65
3.29
3.40
3.19
3.39
18.76
15.35
12.44
13.76
11.189
12.395
12.944
13.411
U.487
15.290
GL
grains/ft3
0.244
0.336
0.291
0.266
0.645
0.237
0.757
0.748
1.638
1.138
1.056
1.267
1.263
0.773
0.671
0.851
0.911
0.739
0.891
1.373
1.191
1.336
1.392
0.715
0.695
0.269
7.548
1.781
2.708
2.596
2.787
3.224
2.944
3.10?
2.771
CP
14.36
24.40
71.92
15.66
23.92
'6.96
3.80
4.08
6.05
7.79
2.37
8.54
8.58
3.38
3.46
4.18
4.58
3.53
3.73
5.45
3.77
1.37
5.85
8.17
12.08
3.64
26.55
29.89
26.80
2.45
2.75
1.81
1.83
12.93
19.13
AF
0.463 x 10-3
0.637 x 10-3
0.551 x 10-3
0.504 x 10-3
1.221 x 10-3
0.450 x 10-3
1.432 x 10-3
1.415 x 10-3
3.095 x 10-3
2.15? x 10-3
1.997 x 10-3
0.632 x 10-3
2.387 x 10-3
1.463 x 10-3
1.269 x 10-3
1.611 x 10-3
1.723 x 10-3
1.399 x 10-3
1.686 x 10-3
2.596 x lO-1
2.252 x 10-3
2.525 x 10-3
2.632 x 10-3
1.353 x 10-3
1.315 x 10-3
0.510 x 10-3
4.806 x 10-3
3.364 x 10-3
5.106 x 10-3
4.895 x 10-3
5.254 x 10-3
6.073 x 10-3
5.548 x 10-3
5.845 x 1(1-3
5.223 x 10-3
CL
*
0.103°7
0.24299
0.1R8°7
0.11734
0.43450
0.10°10
0.07955
0.08509
0.7764R
0.71750
0.06860
0.07930
0.7°78R
0.071°3
0.06436
0.0986?
0.11544
0.07800
0.09°38
0.7062P
0.17361
0.05051
0.22685
0.16314
0.23445
0.02860
1.81869
1.43342
2.119RO
0.17684
0.71306
0.1590]
0.14687
1.11006
1.44370
ro
co

-------
                                          PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Test
No.
138 a
138b
138e
140 a
140b
140c
}40d
140e
143i
143b
143c
143di
143d2
143e
143f
144c
144d
145a
145b
145c
145d
145e
145f
145g
146a
146b
146c
146 d
146e
146f
146g
Filter
No.
142-54
142-65
142-51
142-61

142-101
142-102
142-103
142-104
142-105
142-114
142-113
142-109
142-108
142-107
142-106
142-111
142-110
142-123
142-127
142-124
142-119
142-122
142-126
142-120
142-125
142-118
142-116
142-121
142-117
142-128
Fuel x
Coal fl
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal #1
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal tl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal #1
Load
106 Btu/hr
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inj
4 SPRDR
SPROR
SPROR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPROR
4 SPROR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
8 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
5
5
5
15
15
15
5
15
25
5
15
25
5
15
25
5
25
5
15
15
15
SR
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.65
1.15
1.02
1.15
1.02
0.85
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.02
1.02
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.02
0.85
rat
Ibs/hr
915.3
916.7
911.1
905.6
925.7
914.0
927.0
915.7
913.7
927.4
927.4
859.6
830.9
830.9
920.7
920.7
916.7
840.7
931.5
1009.2
855.3
915.0
997.0
835.0
920.9
994.0
837.3
992.0
838.4
918.8
915.5
913.8
"if
Ibs/hr
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
T
Ibs/hr
995.9
1077.3
991.7
986.2
1005.3
994.6
1007.6
996.3
994.3
1008.0
1008.0
940.2
911.5
911.5
1001.3
1001.3
997.3
921.3
1012.1
1089.8
935.9
995.6
1077.6
915.6
1001.5
1074.6
917.9
1072.6
919.0
999.4
896.1
994.4
TK Vg
grams ftj
2.06298 13.25
2.65349 12.40
3.79631 13.81
6.81555 28.36
	
6.48264 29.88
2.02398 15.56
2.30075 14.09
2.17639 13.86
1.83445 15.33
1.75391 14.38
3.84895 12.68
2.11443 12.17
2.40665 11.28
2.71210 13.72
1.67876 13.45
3.73138 11.14
13.15115 13.00
1.963 13.00
1.634 13.00
2.1158 13.00
1.2981 13.00
2.3134 13.00
0.9522 13.00
2.03* 13.00
5.6338 13.09
1.83347 11.44
1.64251 11.49
1.63910 9.64
0.88522 8.46
1.46896 13.10
2.08792 9.89
Gl
grains/ft3
2.354
3.236
4.156
3.634
__
3.280
1.967
2.469
2.374
1.809
1.844
4.590
2.627
3.226
2.989
1.887
5.064
15.307
2.283
1.900
2.461
1.510
2.691
1.107
2.361
6.507
2.423
2.161
2.571
1.582
1.695
3.192
CP
X
23.15
28.39
49.81
22.79
—
23.29
2.01
17.00
29.20
3.29
3.65
6.31
9.53
5.67
2.38
2.01
11.49
25.44
6.36
6.98
8.13
29.18
17.58
39.60
23.80
11.74
8.88
10.23
17.55
19.47
7.34
8.45
AF
4.441 x 10-3
6.094 x 10-3
7.815 x 10-3
6.83<) x 10-3
—
6.178 x 10-3
3.713 x 10-3
4.657 x 10-3
4.479 x 10-3
3.417 x 10-3
0.483 x 10-3
8.623 x 10-3
4.954 x 10-3
6.076 x 10-3
5.632 x 10-3
3.564 x 10-3
9.506 x 10-3
28.191 x 10-3
4.308 x 10-3
3.589 x 10-3
4.642 x 10-3
2.853 x 10-3
5.073 x 10-3
2.094 x 10-3
4.454 x 10-3
12.182 x 10-3
4.571 x 10-3
4.079 x 10-3
4.848 x 10-3
2.989 x 10-3
3.203 x 10-3
6.013 x 10-3
CL
X
1.49149
2.714S8
5.62296
2.23888
__
2.08452
0.10954
1.14889
1.89423
0.16506
0.18664
0.74511
0.62676
0.45741
0.19550
0.10447
1.58668
9.62404
0.4039?
0.39761
0.51444
1.20726
1.3Q985
1.10607
1.54650
2.P3852
0.54272
0.6S198
1.13898
0.847P2
0.30684
0.735<>1
ro
i

-------
                                            PARTICULATE  DATA SUMMARY  SHEET
i
en
Test
No.
118 a
148b
149 a
149b
152a
152b
152c
152d
152e
152f
153a
153b
153c
154 a
154 b
154 c
154d
L54e
154 f
154g
15Sa
155b
155c
155d
Filter
No.
142-131
142-130
142-132
142-129
142-145
142-146
142-144
142-139
142-138
142-137
135
134
133
157
156
155
154
153
152
151
150
149
148
142
Fuel
Coal fl
Coal tl
Coal 11
Coal t\
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal tl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Inj
6 ax
6 axj
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
15
15
15
15
15
25
5
15
5
25
5
25
15
15
5
25
25
25
25
25
5
15
25
5
SR
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.15
1.05
1.25
0.95
0.95
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.95
0.75
1.02


0.95
Ibs/hr
927
917
911.6
928.6
920
998.4
870
1057.8
955.5
1149.5
837.9
997.7
1053
1045.5
951.8
1123.fi
1056.9
1059.9
1055.5
911
972
1061
1154
955.7
nif
Ibs/hr
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
121
121
121
80.6
80.6
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
80.6
120
120
120
120
BIT
Ibs/hr
1007.6
997.6
992.2
1009.2
1000.6
1079
950.6
1178.8
1076.5
1270.5
918.5
1078.3
1173
1165.5
1071.8
1243.6
1176.9
1179.9
1175.5
991.6
1092
1181
1274
1075.7
TR
grams
2.67371
2.02244
1.26821
1.43718
1.09898
2.1130
1.0725
2.37678
2.16799
1.85883
0.75251
1.01864
1.73469
1.28184
1.03842
1.50657
1.09370
0.93733
0.76518
0.96855
0.59188
0.74035
0.82038
0.71351
Vg
ft3
19.94
18.38
12.34
12.2"
9.42
11.87
10.36
13.5
10.99
15.38
7.5
9.78

12
10.48
15.05
11.84
11.02
10.38
10.22
9.78
11.66
12.48
10.79
GL
grains/ft3
2.0274
1.6637
1.^539
1.7681
1.764
2.6915
1.5653
2.662
2.9827
1.8274
1.5171
1.5748

1.6151
1.4982
1.0615
1.3967
1.2861
1.1146
1.4329
0.91505
0.96004
0.99392
0.9998
CP
%
9.94
5.81
7.95
6.91
9.95
4.77
16.43
3.26
7.11
3.58
32.31
10.10
6.36
13.78
18.68
5.06
10.22
9.54
9.62
7.71
8.33
3.74
-.
5.87
AF
3.8?
-------
                                            PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
t\i
Test
No.
155e
155f
156a
156b
156c
156d
156e
156f
156g
156h
157e
157f
157g
157h
1571
157J
157k
1571
157m
157n
157o
157p
157q
Filter
No.
141
159
158
153
152
151
150
149
148
157
155
156
154
50
165
164
163
162
161
160
55
52
58
Fuel
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal *1
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal 11
Coal #2
Coal *2
Coal #2
Coal #2
Coal 12
Coal 12
Coal #2
Coal 12
Coal 12
Coal 12
Coal *2
Coal 12
Coal 12
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inj
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPROft
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPROR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
15
5
25
15
25
15
5
23
15
7.5
5
25
15
5
5
15
5
15
5
25
15
5
5
SR
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.65
1.05
1.25
0.95
0.85
0.95
1.02
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.85
mt
Ibs/hr
1050.3
—
1154.5
1048.4
1143.2
1036
941.2
1117.9
1054
975
1191
1414
1306
1198
1185
869.6
796.2
870.6
796
950.5
878.8
799.6
793
raf
Ibs/hr
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
109
109
109
109
109
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
mT
Ibs/hr
1170.3

1274.5
1168.4
1263.2
1156
1061.2
1237.9
1174
1095
1300
1523
1415
1307
1294
942.6
869.2
943.6
869
1023.5
951.8
872.6
866
TR
grams
0.84902
0.61090
0.78361
0.66047
0.79488
0.86594
0.90260
0.76020
0.71005
0.54067
0.93065
1.48316
0.96405
0.56484
1.00259
0.57285
0.57971
0.32654
0.36758
0.42403
0.37783
0.20739
2.02346
Vq
10.64
10.8
10.59
10.71
12.22
12.32
10.9
12.39
12.46
16.23
19.02
16.59
16.18
16.22
8.06
4.74
6.78
4.84
7.78
6.52
4.9
6.69
GL
grains/ft3
1 . 2065
0.8553
1.1188
0.9324
0.98352
1.0527
1.1133
0.92770
0.86163
0.8670
1.179
0.8786
0.52784
0.9346
1.0746
1.84P2
0.7282
1.1483
0.8241
0.87619
0.63995
4.5732
CP
8 46
8.90
9 54
12.42
6.68
7.55
18.82
9.33
6.74
17. fA
6.67
2.10
6.27
10.89
7.53
4.89
2.10
6.84
10.93
5.14
6.99
13.94
10.36
AF
2 281 x
1.618 x
2 116 x
1.764 x
1.853 x
2.010 x
2.367 x
1.755 x
1.630 x
1.640 x
2.230 x
1.662 x
0.999 x
1.768 x
2.032 x
3.49' x
1.378 x
2.171 x
1.559 x
1.658 x
1.211 x
8.592 x

10-3
10-3
]0-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
CL
*
0 ?1 Q

0 '50
0.248
0.15?
0.170
0.45<1
0.197
0.125
0.153
0.0768
0.159
0.153
0.186
0.151
0.1025
0.143
0.332
0.13?
0.177
0.237
0.1240

-------
                                         PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Test
No.
ISSa
158b
158c
158d
158e
158f
158g
158h
159a
159b
159c
159d
159f
159g
159h
1591
159j
159k
1591
159m
159n
159o
159p
159q
159r
159s
159t
159u
159v
160 a
160b
160c
Filter
No.
168
167
166
178
177
192
191
190
189
188
179
174
173
172
171
170
176
187
186
185
184
183
182
181
180
202
201
200
199
198
196
197
Fuel
Coal 12
Coal 12
Coal f2
Coal f2
Coal 12
Coal *2
Coal 12
Coal f2
Coal #3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal #3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
Inj
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
15
15
5
15
15
15
15
15
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
25
5
15
5
15
5
15
5
5
15
5
15
15
15
15
5
15
SR
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.75
0.85
0.65
0.75
0.55
1.25
0.95
0.75
0.65
0.75
0.65
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.95
1.15
1.05
0.95
0.85
0.75
1.02
1.02
0.95
Ibs/hr
871
863.8
791
876
1322
1302.7
1302.6
1295.2
1434.7
1315
1316.6
1305.9
886
881
891
969
805
890.7
818
883.5
803.5
883.3
803.6
1195.9
888
801.4
882.5
877
-~
1374.3
1250.3
1359.fi
mf
Ibs/hr
73
73
73
73
109
109
109
109
168
168
168
168
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
112
168
112
112
112
112
112
120
120
120
Off
Ibs/hr
944
936.8
864
949
1431
1411.7
1411.6
1404.2
1602.7
1483
1484.6
1473.9
998
993
1003
1081
917
1002.7
930
995.5
915.5
995.3
915.6
1363.9
1000
913.4
994.5
989

1494.3
1370
1479.6
TR
grams
1.94409
0.95373
2.09213
1.21947
1.53615
0.77416
0.53613
0.87311
3.33174
3.78299
2.74672
2.36112
2.07275
1.75923
3.20806
2.91512
2.73231
3.17544
3.53583
2.30814
1.91648
2.89894
2.37378
4.01263
4.50679
3.07512
1.88930
2.28192
2.6052
0.03147
0.01547
0.01125
vg,
ft?
13.95
13.81
13.7
14.84
21
8.84
15.85
16.36
14.81
15.13
15.39
15.74
15.39
15.11
15.97
16.65
14.69
15.89
15.2
16.01
15.24
15.77
20.97
17.08
15.17
13.31
17.41
10.69
12.61
21.42
19.99
21.29
GL
grains/ft3
2.1071
1.0442
2.309
1.2425
1.1060
1.3241
0.5114
0.80693
3.4015
3.7805
2.6985
2.2681
2.0364
1.7604
3.0373
2.6472
2.8123
3.02156
3.5172
2.1798
2.8935
2.7794
1.7115
3.5522
4.492
3.4933
1.6408
3.2276
3.1238
0.02221
0.01170
0.00799
CP
*
11.78
42.95
28.45
13.04
17.68
15.81
10.39
8.24
2.24
0.70
0.52
0.39
0.30
0.26
0.27
0.36
0.42
0.45
0.36
0.50
0.39
0.28
0.18
0.44
0.41
0.44
0.06
0.03
0.19

__
--
AF
3.977 x 10-3
1.975 x 10-3
4.356 x 10-3
2.349 x 10-3
2.092 x 10-3
2.503 x 10-3
9.683 x 10-4
1.S27 x 10-3
6.405 x 10-3
7.113 x 10-3
5.088 x 10-3
4.280 x 10-3
3.844 x 10-3
3.325 x 10-3
5.723 x 10-3
4.992 x 10-3
5.301 x 10-3
5.693 x 10-3
6.621 x 10-3
4.114 x 10-3
5.453 x 10-3
5.240 x 10-3
3.233 x 10-3
6.687 x 10-3
8.441 x 10-3
6.576 x 10-3
3.100 x 10-3
6.079 x 10-3
5.885 x 10-3
4.710 x 10-5
2.220 x 10-5
1.514 x 10-5
CL
*
0.711
1.?78
1.724
0.4675
0.570
0.60?
0.153
0.190
0.161
0.0516
0.0274
0.017?
0.0121
0.00900
0.0162
0.0204
0.0214
0.02fi<>
0.0232
0.0215
0.0204
O.OlfS
0.00558
0.0280
0.0363
0.0277
0.00194
0.00189




ro

-------
                                         PARTICULATE  DATA  SUMMARY SHEET
ro
CO
Test
Ho.
160e
160f
160g
160 h
1601
160J
160k
161a
161b
161c
161d
161e
161f
161g
161h
1611
161j
161k
1611
161m
161n
162c
162d
162e
162f
162g
162h
164 a
164b
164c
164 d
164e
164f
164 g
164 h
1641
Filter
No.
195
194
211
210
209
208
206
205
203
204
226
225
224
223
222
221
220
218
217
216

215
214

213
212

142-236
142.235
142.234
142-233
142-232
142-231
142-230
142-229
142-228
Fuel
Coal 11
Coal #1
Coal 11
Coal 1*1
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal fl
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal #1
Coal 11
Coal #1
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal #1
Coal 11
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal #1
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal *1
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5



1.0
1.0
Inj
4 SPROR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPROR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
*
25
15
5
25
15
15
15
25
25
5
15
25
5
15
15
5
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
SR
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.55
1.02
0.75
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.55
0.85
0.75
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.75
0.80
0.65
0.85
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.95
1.02
0.95
mt
Ibs/hr
1481.1
1363.9
1241
1484.7
1355.4
1377.8
1367.9
1500.9
1478.4
1243.6
1372
1490
1251
1368
1356.7
1247.3
1488.3
1357.1
1366
1374

910
903.5
909
923.1
1376
1360.6
899.2
895.5
913.6
1375
1370
1365.2
1377.3
922.9
914
mf
Ibs/hr
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
80
80.6
80.6
80.6
120
120
80.6
80.6
80.6
120
120
120
120
80.6
80.6
mT
Ibs/hr
1601.1
1483.9
1361
1604.7
1475.4
1497.8
1487.9
1620.9
1598.4
1363.6
1492
1610
1371
1488
1476.7
1367.3
1608.3
1477.1
1486
1494

990
984.1
989.6
1003.7
1496
1480.6
979.8
976.1
994.2
1495
1490
1485.2
1497.3
1003.5
994.6
TR
grams
4.37288
1.1224
0.96360
1.47019
0.74774
0.63042
0.35211
2.28869
1.86912
1.94374
2.80149
1.89559
1.77083
1.88132
1.32004
1.07207
0. 55988
0.42643
0.19992
0.33058

1.67412
1.41820

1.70702
1.76299

1.7045
1.30005
1.6202
1.71067
1.0808
1.2984
2.2819
1.8452
1.9527
Vq
ft3
18.07
18.41
17.64
17.44
17.45
17.31
16.94
16.85
16.85
16.56
16.77
17.15
16.49
16.99
13.85
14.1
14.53
14.19
14.88
14.86

13.41
13.72

14.34
14.36

11.82
11.98
9.60
10.13
9.25
11.46
10.71
6.72
8.57
GL
grains/ft3
3.6590
0.92182
0.82594
1.2746
0.64789
0.55066
0.31428
2.0537
1.6772
1.7747
2.52585
1.6712
1.6237
1.6742
1.4411
1.1496
0.58261
0.45431
0.20241
0.33636

0.2232
1.5629

1.8000
1.8563

2.1804
1.6408
2.5518
2.5533
1.7667
1.7131
3.2215
4.1517
3.4451
CP
*
1.54
3.08
6.77
1.9?
2.84
1.29
4.57
4.97
3.59
6.41
7.22
1.47
16.16
10.56
3.00
4.21
3.81
3.73
4.07
3.13

7.03
9.35

7.32
9.34

18.18
11.26
17.10
14.40
25.24
13.05
7.79
7.33
7.95
AF
6.886 x 10-3
1.744 x 10-3
1.563 x 10-3
2.410 x 10-3
1.226 x 10-3
1.042 x 10-3
5.952 x 10-1
3.877 x 10-3
3.168 x ID'3
3.352 x 10-3
4.764 x 10-3
3.157 x 10-3
3.068 x 10-3
3.163 x 10-3
2.724 x 10-3
2.174 x 10-3
1.103 x 10-3
0.860 x 10-3
3.850 x 10-4
6.370 x 10-4

0.423 x 10-3
2.953 x 10-3

3.399 x 10-3
3.505 x 10-3

4.10 x 10-3
3.10 x 10-3
4.80 x 10-3
4.80 x 10-3
3.30 x in-3
3.20 x 10-3
6.10 x 10-3
7.80 x 10-3
6.50 x 10-3
CL
X
O.lfi?
0.0771
0.140
0.0720
0.04°R
D.0196
(1.0393
0.303
0.176
0.2843
0.498
0.0725
0.660
0.482
0.117
n.i?i
0.0656
0.0460
0.0225
0.0289


0.396

0.364
0.475

1.0638
0.4963
1.1886
1.5051
1.8077
0.9034
1.0364
0.8357
0.7486

-------
                                          PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Test
No.
165a
165b
165c

165d
165e
165f
165g
165h
165 i
165j
165k
1651
169 a
169b
169c
169d
169e
169f
169g
169h
1691
169j
169k
1691
169m
169n
169o
169q
I70a
Filter
No.
142-227
142-251
142-250

142-249
142-248
142-247
142-267
142-266
142-265
142-264
142-263
142-262
142-295
142-294
142-293
142-292
142-291
142-290
142-289
142-288
142-287
142-286
142-285
142-272
142-270
142-271
142-269
142-268
Fuel
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl

Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal II
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.0
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
t.s
Inj
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
4 tang
4 tang
EA
X
15
15
15

15
15
15
15
25
5
15
15
15
15
25
5
25
15
5
15
25
15
25
5
25
5
15
15
5
15
SR
0.85
0.75
0.85/
1.6
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
0.95
0.85
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
0.85
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.85
0.85
0.95
1.02
1.02
1.15
mt
Ibs/hr
915.7
924.0
928.7

920.9
907.0
907.0
915.0
991.2
840.6
906.6
913.9
911.7
889.9
955.4
782.1
940.5
885.2
797.1
878.6
959.6
866.4
934.4
776.4
960.3
799.5
881.7
878.5
807.5
1331.0
n»f
Ibs/hr
80.6
80.6
80.6

80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.6
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
1Z1
my
Ibs/hr
996.3
1004.6
1009.3

1001.5
987.6
987.6
995.6
1071.8
921.2
987.2
994.5
992.3
970.8
1036.3
863.0
1021.4
966.1
878.0
959.5
1040.5
947.3
1015.3
857.3
1041.2
880.4
962.6
959.4
888.4
1452.0
TR
grams
1.9196
1.0934
1.7961

1.8103
2.5415
.9987
.5919
.7880
.8473
.7000
.4656
1.64651
1.73536
2.47392
1.84790
2.17358
1.90114
1.79441
1.97130
1.67960
1.37969
1.76711
1.87927
2.19191
1.78252
1.60613
1.79032
3.41846
vg,
ft3
12.25
12.30
13.17

13.54
13.72
13. S9
13.96
12.44
12.53
12.72
12.82
13.29
14.24
12.78
14.15
13.18
12.16
13.01
14.58
13.76
14.33
12.39
14.79
12.49
12.99
13.24
12.92
14.57
grains/ft3
2.3693
1.3441
2.0620

2.0215
2.8008
2.2237
1.7242
2.1732
2.2291
2.0208
1.7172
1.873
1.843
2.927
1.975
2.494
2.364
2.0854
2.0443
1.8456
1.4558
2.1565
1.9212
2.6534
2.0748
1.8342
2.0952
3.5475
CP
X
16.51
11.25
3.40

4.41
23.17
1.9?
2.19
3.27
3.58
5.87
2.93
3.13
1.27
13.04
10.34
15.45
21.04
14.79
9.06
7.43
5.03
14.81
8.60
12.96
7.89
4.97
4.58
5.35
AF
4. SO x 10-3
2.50 x 10-3
3.90 x 10-3

3.80 x 10-3
5.30 x 10-3
4.20 x 10-3
3.30 x 10-3
4.10 x 10-3
4.20 x 10-3
3.80 x 10-3
3.30 x 10-3
3.50 x ID'3
3.70 x ID"3
5.50 x 10-3
3.70 x 10-3
4.70 x 10-3
4.50 x 10-3
3.90 x 10-3
3.90 x 10-3
3.50 x 10-3
2.80 x 10-3
4.10 x ID'3
3.60 x 10-3
4.90 x 10-3
3.90 x 10-3
3.50 x 10-3
3.95 x 10-J
6.70 x 10-3
CL
X
1.0782
0.4115
0.1949

0.?445
1.7665
0.1J69
0.1128
0.1799
0.2162
0.3231
0.1398
0.1543
0.0726
0.8982
0.5671
1.0180
1.2063
0.8032
0.5335
0.3575
0.2075
0.7554
0.4678
0.8113
0.4298
0.2422
0.2332
0.5050
ro

-------
                                            PARTICIPATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
ro
i
Test
No.
170b
170c
170d
170e
170f
170g
170h
1701
170j
170k
1701
170m
170n
170o
170p
170q
170r
170s
170t
170u
170v
171a
171b
171c
171d
171e
171f
171g
171h
1711
171J
171k
1711
171o
Filter
No.
142-278
142-275
142-279
142-254
142-253
142-252
142-280
142-277
142-282
142-281
142-283
142-284
	
	
142-276
142-261
142-260
142-259
142-246
142-245
142-244
142-243
142-257
—
142-255
142-241
142-240
142-258
142-239
142-238
142-237
142-274
142-310
142-273
Fuel x
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal 01
Coal *1
Coal *1
Coal 9\
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal *1
Coal 11
Coal 91
Coal #1
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 12
Coal 12
Coal #2
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 12
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 12
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 92
Coal 12
Coal 92
Coal 12
Coal 13
Load
106 Btu/h
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
r Inj
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
EA
X
25
5
15
5
15
25
15
15
5
15
25
15
15
25
5
25
15
15
15
5
15
15
25
5
15
5
25
15
15
15
15
25
5
15
SR
1.25
1.05
1.02
1.02
0.95
1.02
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.55
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.65
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
1.15
mt
Ibs/hr
1424.0
1199.1
1299.2
1186.2
1296.0
1396.7
1310.8
1304.2
1183.6
1299.6
1410.6
1321.3
1301.9
1403.0
1197.9
1409.1
1295.7
1296.0
1293.9
1166.5
1272.5
870.7
961.0
793.0
869.1
797.1
940.1
860.5
878.0
878.8
872.7
949.7
791.7
886.3
mf
Ibs/hr
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
121
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
116
mT
Ibs/hr
1545.0
1320.1
1420.2
1307.2
1417.0
1517.7
1431.8
1425.2
1304.6
1420.6
1531.6
1442.3
142?. 9
1524.0
1318.9
1530.1
1416.7
1417.0
1414.9
1287.5
1393.5
951.7
1042.0
874.0
950.1
878.1
1021.1
941.5
959.0
959.8
953.7
1030.7
872.7
967.3
TR
prams
2.21930
2.02055
1.94243
2.00419
1.57895
3.66049
2.71939
1.66939
2.35463
1.59921
1.71096
1.66102


1.79940
1.38456
1.51008
1.77486
1.24650
1.19730
0.93920
0.9339
1.1784
__
1.2628
1.5138
1.3488
1.5106
1.7793
1.5319
1.3491
1.1028
1.4345
1.8909
& ,
16.12
16.27
16.31
16.33
16.42
16.71
12.77
13.23
12.91
13.34
13.34
13.39


13.40
13.51
13.44
13.44
11.43
11.32
11.37
11.84
13.05

12.74
12.01
13.32
11.83
12.40
11.62
11.67
12.71
11.32
11.28
GL
jrains/ft3
2.0816
1.8777
1.8007
1.8557
1.4539
3.3122
3.2198
1.9079
2.7577
1.8167
1.9393
1.8756


2.0304
1.5496
I.fi988
1.9968
1.6489
1.5992
1.2490
1.1926
1.3653

1.4967
1.9058
.5311
.9307
2.1696
.9933
.7479
.3119
.9160
2.5346
CP
«
2.16
3.30
3.46
3.21
4.81
5.13
8.01
24.06
12.18
11.54
5.38
5.71


8.05
9.67
10.01
11.28
14.67
33.67
10.96
17.23
1.89

11.28
18.42
9.90
14.54
17.55
13.59
11.38
6.60
21.44
5.23
AF
3.90 x 10-3
3.50 x 10-?'
3.40 x 10-3
3.50 x 10-3
2.70 x 10-3
6.20 x 10-3
6.10 x 10-3
3.60 x 10-3
5.20 x 10-3
3.40 x 10-3
3.70 x 10-3
3.50 x 10-3


3.80 x 10-3
2.90 x 10-3
3.20 x 10-3
3.80 x 10-3
3.10 x 10-3
3.00 x 10-3
2.40 x 10-3
2.30 x 10-3
2.60 x 10-3

2.80 x 10-3
3.60 x 10-3
2.90 x 10-3
3.60 x 10-3
4.10 x 10-3
3.80 x 10-3
3.30 x 10-3
2.50 x 10-3
3.60 x 10-3
4.80 x 10-3
CL
*
0.1?63
0.147Q
0.1621
0.1425
0.1786
0.4684
0.6788
1.1977
0.80P
0.5408
0.2958
0.2797


0.3014
0.4)63
0.4403
0.58S3
0.6243
1.2618
0.3556
0.5466
0.0742

0.4349
0.8440
0 4240
0 7143
i.nooi
0.7184
O.S1Q1
0.7461;
0.9763
0.2458

-------
                                           PARTTCULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Test
No.
171p
171q
171r
171s
171t
171u
171w
171w
171x
171y
1712
171 aa
171bb
171CC
171dd
171ee
171ff
171gg
171hh
171ii
171JJ
171kk
17111
171mn
173a
173b
173c
173d
173e
173f
173g
173h
1731
173J
173k
174a
174b
Filter
No.
142-306
142-296
142-297
142-305
142-307
142-302
142-309
142-298
142-299
142-312
142-313
142-301
142-311
142-308
142-304
142-303
142-332
142-324
142-323
142-322
142-321
142-320
142-319
142-330
142-331
142-329
142-328
142-327
142-326
142-325
142-318
142-317
142-316
142-314
142-343
142-342
142-353
Fuel
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal 13
Coal #3
Coal #3
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal 13
Coal f3
Coal f3
Coal #3
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Load
x 106 Btu/hr
1.0
i.o-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inj
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
tang
4 tang
4 tang
EA
X
25
5
15
15
15
25
5
15
15
25
5
15
25
5
15
5
15
15
15
15
25
5
15
25
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
SR
1.15
1.05
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.95
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.55
1.02
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.55
0.95
1.02
0.95
1.02
0.95
0.85
mt
Ibs/hr
973.0
806.8
883.9
884.0
874.3
949.3
786.3
906.5
884.8
1004.8
859.8
1344.7
1436.5
1186.2
1320.4
1202.4
1323.0
1320.7
1330.1
1331.3
1428.3
1190.6
1273.6
2620.0
876.6
889.4
882.5
1302.8
1320.9
1309.9
1323.7
1310.3
1318.4
880.5
889.4
888.2
891.0
mf
Ibs/hr
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
116
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
163
81
81
81
121
121
121
121
121
121
81
81
81
81
T
Ibs/hr
1054.0
922.8
999.9
1000.0
990.3
1065.3
902.3
1022.5
1000.8
1120.8
975.8
1507.7
1599.5
1349.2
1483.4
1365.4
1468.0
1483.7
1493.1
1494.3
1591.3
1353.6
1436.6
2783.0
957.6
970.4
963.5
1423.8
1441.9
1430.9
1444.7
1431.3
1439.4
961.5
970.4
969.2
972.0
TR
grams
2.0041
2.3156
2.5230
1.9203
1.9494
2.0571
2.8016
3.1742
2.6633
2.6719
3.0083
3.2539
2.8572
3.0822
2.0485
3.8740
2.5712
3.5815
4.3265
4.0865
3.5325
3.8567
3.1905
3.6803
1.2925
0.5536
1.7534
2.5652
2.1852
3.3955
1.8958
1.6057
3.1396
1.4697
1.3196
2.9311
2.9478
vg,
ft3
12.90
11.22
12.88
12.02
11.36
12.63
11.24
12.33
11.56
12.80
11.35
18.33
20.70
16.82
18.37
17.17
18.88
18.05
18.32
18.36
19.20
16.68
17.77
19.79
9.96
9.76
9.85
14.82
15.04
30.87
17.04
17.75
17.16
10.87
10.76
12.36
12.80
GL •>
grains/ft3
2.3490
3.1205
2.9618
2.4156
2.5946
2.4627
3.7687
3.8924
3.4835
3.1562
4.0075
2.6841
2.0870
2.7709
1.6861
3.4115
2.0591
3.0001
3.5708
3.3654
2.7818
3.4960
2.7147
2.8118
1.9621
0.8576
2.6915
2.6171
2.1968
1.6631 '
1.6822
1.3678
2.7664
2.0443
1.8543
3.5856
3.4821
CP
X
2.22
4.08
2.96
3.90
2.05
2.07
2.48
2.04
1.59
1.02
1.23
1.05
0.80
0.62
—
0.39
0.74
0.72
0.74
0.83
0.77
1.16
0.91
0.97
18.30
26.74
16.30
17.52
16.53
13.56
13.75
13.31
10.40
11.89
18.56
38.40
40.85
AF
4.40 x 10-3
5.90 x 10-3
5.60 x 10-3
4.60 x 10-3
4.90 x 10-3
4.60 x 10-3
7.10 x 10-3
7.30 x 10-3
6.60 x 10-3
5.90 x 10-3
7.50 x 10-3
5.10 x 10-3
3.90 x 10-3
5.20 x 10-3
3.20 x 10-3
6.40 x 10-3
3.90 x ID"3
5.70 x 10-3
6.70 x 10-3
6.30 x 10-3
5.30 x 10-3
6.60 x 10-3
5.10 x 10-3
5.30 x ID"3
3.70 x 10-3
1.60 x 10-3
5.10 x ID'3
4.90 x 10-3
4.10 x 10-3
3.10 x 10-3
3.20 x 10-3
2.60 x 10-3
5.20 x 10-3
3.90 x 10-3
3.50 x 10-3
6.70 x 10-3
6.60 x 10-3
CL
%
0. 104?
0.2248
0.1677
0.1816
0.1007
0.1027
0.1608
0.15410
0.1063
0.0683
0.0911
0.0582
0.0359
0.0313
0.0342
0.0245
0.0305
0.0439
0.0533
0.0563
0.0468
0.0746
0.0480
0.0586
0.9398
0.6017
1.1609
1.1859
0.9481
0.5836
0.6168
0.4806
0.7553
0.6462
0.9137
3.6141
3.7983
ro

-------
                                           PARTICIPATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
3>
ro

ro
rest
Ho.
174c
174d
174e
174f
174g
174h
1741
174J
174k
1741
.174w
174n
1740
174p
176a
176b
176c
176d
176e
177a
177b
177c
177d
177e
17Ga
178t>
178c
178e
178f
179b
179c
179d
Filter
No.
142-352
142-351
142-350
142-349
142-336
142-335
142-334
142-339
142-338
142-337
142-348
142-347
142-346
142-345
142 -344
142-340
142-341
142-360
142-359
142-358
142-357
142-356
142-354
142-355
142-367
142-366
142-365
1*2-364
142 -363
142-36?
142-361
142-437
Load
Fuel x 106 Btu/hr Inj
Coal 11
Coal fi
Coal 11
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal f!
Coal «
Coal tl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal tl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coa! fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
A tang
4 tang
4 tanq
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tanq
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
EA
X
15
15
25
15
16
25
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
!5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
5R
1.02
0.75
0.75
0.65
1.15
l.?5
l.OS
0.85
1.15
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.95
1.02
1.15
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
1.15
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.95
0.95
0.75
O.B5
0.85
1.02
0.95
0.85
ni-
tb s/hr
889.7
866.5
960.5
882,3
883.8
965.1
813.0
1310.0
883.4
875.2
887.2
866.7
887.3
892.9
873.5
869.6
867.2
869.0
878.3
876.3
869.7
864.2
865.7
860.7
890.6
866.3
871.2
892.5
895.3
875.4
874.7
867.9
IHf
Ibs/hr
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
123
a:
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
31
ai
81
81
81
™T
IbSf-hr
970.7
966.5
1041.5
963.3
964.8
1046.1
894.0
1433.0
964.4
956.2
968.2
947.7
968.3
973,9
954.5
950.5
948.2
950.0
959.3
957.3
950.7
945.2
946.7
941,7
971.6
947.3
952.2
973.5
976.3
957.4
955.7
948.5
TR
qrams
2.5476
2.5700
2.5031
2.5566
1.9024
1.9233
?.42«
5.0515
1.8133
2.0541
2.2117
1.6430
2.2576
1.5192
2.0854
2.7574
6.2808
4.3179
3.6304
38.3058
4.3323-
5.1759
4.2300
3.2007
1.5957
1.8248
1.5583
2.0753
0.3228
3.2113
1.7833
1.1955
VQ GL
ft3 grains/ft3
13.30
12.94
14,38
13.54
13.26
14.50
12.47
19.15
12.38
11.93
12.44
12.13
12.35
12.51
12.84
12.45
11.45
13.06
12.17
13.01
11.93
13.19
13.19
13.20
11.00
11.45
10.87
12.39
12. SI
J3.12
13.49
13.67
2.S962
3.0030
2.6319
2.8549
2.1693
2.0055
2.9400
3.9884
2.2146
2.6034
2.6882
2.0480
2.7640
1.8362
2.4557
3.3487
8.2939
4.9990
4.5104
44.5183
5.4907
5.9333
4.8489
3.6663
2.1934
2.4097
Z.1676
7.5326
0.3901
3.7008
1.9988
1.3223
CP
1
25.71
31.27
30.31
33.45
9.95
2.67
8.34
22.46
6.78
18.39
18.50
16.79
13.57
8.93
11.20
30.72
46.23
51.12
50.78
14.48
15.65
?0.65
?4.63
?4.49
3.69
1.09
8.04
7.00
1.86
3.27
12.08
24.02
Af
5.50 x 10-3
5.70 x 10-3
S.OO x 10-3
5.40 t 10-3
4.10 x 10-'
3.80 x 10-3
5. SO x 10-3
7.50 x 10-3
4.20 x 10-3
4.90 x 10-3
5.10 x ID"3
3.90 x 10-3
5.20 x 10-3
3.50 x 30-3
4.60 x 10-3
6.30 K 10-3
l.^S x IO-?
9.40 K 10-3
8.50 x 10-3
7.78 x 10-2
1.D3 x 10-2
1.11 x 10-2
9.10 x 10-3
6.90 x 10-3
4.10 * 10-3
4.50 x 10-3
4.10 x 10-3
4. SO x 10- J
0.70 x 10-3
7.00 x 10-3
3.60 x 10-3
2.50 x 10-3
CL
t
1.9894
2.4094
2.7R77
2.5219
0.5705
0.1521
0.5944
2.3040
0.3980
1.2488
1.3240
0.8994
0.0903
0.4412
0.7127
2.6665
9.8478
6.6165
6.0014
15.6307
2.2212
3.1401
3.0754
2.3064
0.2130
0.0673
0.4540
0.474]
0.0184
0.3176
0.6359
0.8259

-------
                                             PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY SHEET
rv>

_j
co
Test
No.
179e
179f
179g
179h
1791
179j
179k
1791
181 a
181 b
181 c
181 d
181 e
181 f
182 a
182b
182c
182d
182e
182f
182g
1B2H
182 i
182j
182k
183c
183d
183e
183f
183h
183 i
183J
183k
1831
186e
186f
186g
Filter
No.
142-436
142-435

142-434
142-433
142-432
142-425
142-427
142-423
142-422
142-421
142-420
142-418
142-419
142-389
142-392
142-387
142-390
142-393
142-386
142-375
142-372
142-398
142-383
142-382
142-385
142-413
142-412
142-405
142-403
142-369
142-368
142-404
142-417
142-415
142-414
142-370
Fuel
Coal #1
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal #1
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Load
x 106 Btu/h
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
1.0
0.85
0.85
0.85
r Inj
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
4 tang
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
6 ax
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
SR
0.75
0.65
1.15
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
1.02
1.15
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
1.15
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.95
1.02
1.15
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.75
0.65
0.95
1.02
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.85
0.75
0.65
"t
Ibs/hr
876.6
881.4
887.5
863.2
892.4
865.8
874.1
894.5
901.5
872.8
837.0
887.1
887.1
869.9
876.0
875.4
880.6
884.4
876.4
888.4
873.1
871.2
878.4
879.6
879.0
889.3
883.7
883.3
886.0
876.1
877.0
877.3
886.5
889.8
744.0
745.0
754.0
"f
Ibs/hr
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
69
69
69
T
Ibs/hr
957.6
962.4
968.5
944.2
973.4
946.8
955.1
975.5
982. 5
953.8
968.0
968.1
968.1
950.9
957.0
956.4
961.6
965.4
957.4
969.4
954.1
953.2
959.4
960.6
960.0
970.3
964.7
964.3
967.0
957.1
958.0
958.3
967.5
970.8
813.0
814.0
823.0
TR
grams
3.7990
2.3132
--
1.9920
1.8587
1.6971
1.4569
0.7743
1.2776
1.9291
2.1763
1.7637
1.8418
0.7831
1.8936
1.8021
1.5490
1.5246
1.9980
1.7255
2.1408
1.8700
1.7213
2.3539
0.6870
2.8790
2.2346
2.9177
2.999?
3.3141
2.7113
3.0769
2.7884
2.1239
1.0849
0.5815
1.5863
Vg->
«3
22.25
22.10

12.38
12.16
12.01
12.12
12.99
10.44
12.35
14.96
12.48
12.31
12.13
12.83
13.11
12.59
13.07
13.08
12.28
12.33
12.23
12.28
11.99
11.39
17.10
15.62
16.11
15.63
14.55
14.23
14.42
13.78
13.10
10.38
8.99
10.31
GL
grains/ft3
2.5816
1 . R826

2.432"
2.311
2.1366
1.8175
0.9013
1.850
2.362
2.200
2.137
2.262
0.976
2.232
2.078
1.860
1.764
2.310
2.125
2.625
2.312
2.119
2.968
0.912
2.546
2.163
2.738
2.901
3.444
2.881
3.226
3.060
2.451
1.580
0.978
2.326
CP
X
6.39
3.98
—
3.57
3.74
3.61
2.21
4.02
21.51
12.38
18.11
16.62
15.24
15.42
12.55
7.60
7.00
5.46
9.05
12.60
5.69
4.30
3.83
4.57
5.02
15.86
12.23
14.79
6.03
4.61
9.63
10.33
15.15
19.69
5.60
4.20
3.29
AF
4.90 x 10-3
3.00 x 10-3

4.60 x JO'3
4.40 x lO-3
4.00 x 10-3
3.40 x 10-3
1.70 x 10-3
3.494 x 10-3
4.456 x 10-3
4.151 x 10-3
4.033 x 10-3
4.269 x 10-3
1.846 x 10-3
4.211 x 10-3
3.923 x 10-3
3.513 x 10-3
3.331 x 10-3
4.358 x 10-3
4.010 x 10-3
4.950 x 10-3
4.362 x 10-3
4.000 x 10-3
5.594 x 10-3
1.725 x 10-3
4.801 x 10-3
4.08? x 10-3
5.163 x 10-3
5.468 x 10-3
6.484 x 10-3
5.430 x 10-3
6.077 x 10-3
5.765 x 10-3
4.624 x 10-3
2.986 x 10-3
1.850 x 10-3
4.389 x 10-3
CL
*
0.4.146
0.1665

0.'?47
0.2122
0.198?
0.1040
0.0966
1.07030
0.76258
1.05471
0.94051
0.91283
0.39240
0.73306
0.41331
0.34273
0.25450
0. "54726
O^tWl
0.38951
0.25886
0.21305
0.35592
0.12051
1.07083
0.69810
1.06717
0.46213
0.41466
0.72604
0.87189
].2246fi
1.28110
0.23129
0.10761
0.20221

-------
                                             PARTICULATE DATA SUMMARY  SHEET
ro
-e»
Test
Ho.
186 i
186j
186k
1861
186m
186n
186 n
187 a
187b
187 c
187 e
187f
187g
188 a
188b
188c
188d
188e
188f
188 g
***";>
188h
Filter
No.
142-377
142-376
142-388
142-411
142-410
142-409
142-408
142-446
142-407
142-401
142-400
142-399
142-406
142-384
142-374
142-378
142-379
142-380
142-381
142-395
142-396
Load
Fuel x 106 Btu/hr Inj
Coal 11
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal #1
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
Coal fl
0.85
0.85
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.85
0.85
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.85
0.85
4 SPRDft
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPROR
4 SPROR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
4 SPRDR
EA
X
15
15
15
25
5
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
SR
0.95
1.02
1.15
1.25
1.05
1.02
0.95
0.85
0.75
0.65
0.75
1.15
0.75
1.15
0.75
1.15
0.75
1.15
0.75
1.15
0.75
rat
Ibs/hr
749.0
752.0
1133.6
1244.8
1028.7
1141.7
1129.7
1134.2
1134.5
1127.3
1126.9
744.0
739.5
746.6
770.9
1174.0
1119.8
1147.3
1126. 9
756.0
742.0
ITlf
lbs/hr
69
69
105.3
105.3
105.3
105.3
105.3
103.5
103.5
103.5
103.5
69
69
69
69
105.3
105.3
105.3
105.3
69
69
T
lbs/hr
818.0
821.0
1238.9
1350.1
1134.0
1247.0
1235.0
1237.7
1238.0
1230.8
1230.4
813.0
808.5
815.fi
839.9
1279.3
1225.1
1252.6
1232.2
825.0
811.0
TR
grams
0.8475
0.7749
2.6321
1.0880
1.7027
0.5938
1.5636
1.2623
1.2444
2.1604
2.0035
2.3407
1.5891
0.3953
0.3027 <•
4.2529
1.7675
1.3970
1.8275
0.5808
1.1586
vg, GL
ft3 grains/ft3
9.05
10.34
12.26
13. Z5
12.67
14.00
13.14
15.16
13.70
13.76
15.51
12.20
9.96
12.20
9.79
16.06
15.96
18.06
17.82
13.95
11.19
1.416
1.133
3.246
1.242
2.032
0.641
1.799
1.259
1.373
2.374
1.953
2.901
2.412
0.490
0.467
4.004
1.674
1.170
1.551
0.630
1.566
CP
X
3.11
2.19
2.50
1.40
1.05
0.89
0.87
1.82
1.73
1.99
1.29
0.94
2.77
3.81
27.50
8.03
7.84
1.77
3.26
2.28
12.70
AF
2.676 x 10-3
?.143 x 10-3
6.114 x 10-3
2.347 x 10-3
3.836 x 10-3
l.?14 x 10-3
3.398 x 10-3
2.380 x 10-3
2.596 x 10-3
4.479 x 10-3
3.688 x 10-3
5.467 x 10-3
4.551 x 10-3
0.928 x 10-3
0.885 x 10-3
7.531 x 10-3
3.163 x 10-3
2.212 x 10-3
2.930 x 10-3
1.192 x 10-3
2.958 x 10-3
CL
X
O.H583
0.06555
0.21112
0.04947
0.05092
0.01502
0.04071
0.06082
0.06306
0.12443
0.06639
0.07109
0.17341
0.04904
0.34786
0.86250
0.33873
0.05467
0.13122
0.03813
0.51836

-------
      APPENDIX A.3





CO PLOTS AND CONCLUSIONS
            A.3-1

-------
                     EFFECT OF  STOICHIOMETRY:   FIRST STAGE


2.0 •
1.8 •
|1.8
3» « M '
w o 1.2 •
s
J1.0
I 0.8
3
0.8

0.4 •
0,2
0 •
Front-Ma 11 -Ft red
Load • 1.0 • 10* Btu/hr



O
'


0
0 o a
A

O 5 burners
2nd stage pos.
T2 - 1.8
A 4 burners
1st stage pos.
T2 • 2.0








A &





















Front-Wall -Fired
Load = 1.5 x 106Btu/hr

Q2nd stage pos,
T2 « 1.0
OAlst stage pot
T2 • 1.3

0
O



O


A » •**•*• M **p «» MA* M AC * AC % 1C 1 9at
0.8S 0.78  0.85  0.9S 1.05  1.1S 1.25
              SH,
SR.

-------
                                      CO  CONCLUSIONS
                                        TEMPERATURE



        t   CO LEVELS DECREASED WITH  INCREASING  TEMPERATURE  FOR BOTH FWF AND TAN-

            GENTIAL CONFIGURATIONS AT T2 =  0,65  SEC



        •   FOR T2 > 0,65 NO  EFFECT WAS  OBSERVED
GO
I

-------
                                       EFFECT  OF  FIRST-STAGE  AIR PREHEAT
CO

in
  1.100


  1.000


    900


    800


    700


«   600
o^

6   500


    400


    300


    200-


    100


     0
                                                  FRONT-WALL-FIRED
                                                    Western Kentucky Coal
                                                    5 I FRF burners
                                                    BiW spreader/SW = 4
                                                    3rd staging position
                                                    i2 - 0.65  second
                                                    Load - 1.0 x 10' Btu/hr
                                                    Excess air 15X
                             100       200        300        400        500        600

                                                   First-stage air preheat (°F)
                                                                               700
800

-------
                                       EFFECT  OF  FIRST-STAGE AIR  PREHEAT
                                                 TANGENTIALLY-FIRED
OJ
                                                    Western Kentucky Coal
                                                    4 tangential  burners
                                                    yaw • 6°
                                                    3rd staging position
                                                    t£ = 0.65 second
                                                    Load » 1.0x10* Btu/hr
                                                    Excess air 15 percent
                                                    300        400        500
                                                     First-stage air preheat (*F)

Q
0
£
SR
1.02
0.85
0.75
800

-------
                                      EFFECT OF FIRST-STAGE RESIDENCE  TIME
                                                   FRONT-WALL-FIRED
co
 i
                                        = 3.5

                                        = 0.65
                                     Western Kentucky Coal
                                     5  IFRF burners
                                     B&U spreader/SW = 4
                                     Preheat = 600"F
                                     Load = 1.0 x 10k Btu/hr
                                     Excess air = 15*
                  O.flO 0.85  0.90 0.95  1.0  1.05  1.10  1.15
                                   SR,
1,200


1.100


1,000


  900


  800


  700


 600


 500


 400


 300


 200-


 100'
T, =  5.0

T2 -  0.65
  O.flO  0.85  0.90  0.95   1.0 1.05 1.10  1.15
                                                                                          SR,

-------
                                      CO CONCLUSIONS
                                     COAL COMPOSITION

        •   AT 1,5 x 106 BTU/HR THE MONTANA COAL PRODUCED GREATER CO AS THE SR
            DECREASED FOR THE FWF CONFIGURATION

        t   AT 1,0 x 106 BTU/HR NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COALS

        •   FOR THE TANGENTIAL CONFIGURATION THE PITTSBURGH #8 PRODUCED SLIGHTLY
            HIGHER CO LEVEL OVER ALL SR'S
co
i
00
        §   FOR THE TANGENTIAL CONFIGURATION THE PITTSBURGH #8 CO LEVELS INCREASED
            WITH EA AT BASELINE CONDITIONS

-------
                                                   EFFECT  OF  COAL COMPOSITION
CO
 I
IO
                                     Tangentially-Fired
                                     4 tangential burners
                                     Preheat 600° F
                                     2nd  staging position
                                     Load • 1.5 x 10* Btu/hr
                                     Yaw  - 6°
                                     T. »  1.0 second
          Front-Hal 1-F1 red

          5 IFRF burners
          Preheat 600°F
          1st staging position
          Load • 1.5 x 10* Btu/hr
          BiU spreader/SH - 4
          TZ =• 1.3 second
          Excess air 15t (below SR • 1.02)
                   0.55  0.65  0.75  0.85  0.95  1.05  1.15  1.25

                                      SR,
0.55  0.65  0.75  0.85  0.95  1.05   1.16  1.25


                      SR,

-------
                                CO CONCLUSIONS

                                    MIXING

1ST STAGE
    •   AXIAL INJECTOR PRODUCED GREATER CO LEVELS AT EA = 5%

    •   TANGENTIALLY FIRED CONFIGURATION ALSO PRODUCED GREATER CO LEVELS AT
        EA = 5%

    •   NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY CONFIGURATION AT EA > 5%

2ND STAGE
    •   SLOW MIXING PRODUCED HIGHER CO LEVELS AT SRA = 0,85

    •   NO DIFFERENCE WAS SEEN AT SR = 1,02 DUE TO MIXING TECHNIQUE
    •   THE HIGHER CO LEVELS FOR THE SLOW-MIX CONDITION COULD BE REDUCED BY
        INCREASING THE EXCESS AIR

-------
                                           EFFECT OF  SECOND-STAGE MIXING  ON  CO
u>
i
1,200
              1,000
           »*
           o
                 0
                             EA
                                   Western Kentucky Coal
                                   5  IFRF burners
                                   BAW spreader/SW =  4
                                   Preheat 600"F
                                   Load = 1.0 x 10' Btu/hr
                                   Slow
                                                               Q
                                                                      EA »  15
                                                       Western Kentucky Coal
                                                       5 IFRF burners
                                                       BAW spreader/SW = 4
                                                       Preheat 600"F
                                                       Load = 1.0  x 10' Btu/hr
                                                                        Slow
                                                                                                           EA •  25
                                               Western Kentucky  Coal
                                               5 IFRF burners
                                               B&W spreader/SW = 4
                                               Preheat 600°F
                                               Load = 1.0 x 10b  Btu/hr
                                                                                                                  Slow
    0.80  0.85  0.90

                SR
                                 0.95   1.0  1.05
0.80  0.85  0.90  0.95

              SR1
                                                                               1.0  1.05
0.80  0.85  0.90  0.95   1.0  1.05

              SR1

-------
                                           EFFECT  OF  SECOND-STAGE  MIXING
CO
 i
ro
                          1,300



                          1,200



                          1,100



                          1.000



                            900
                        a   800
                        CM
                       O


                       g   700
                       8
                           600



                           500



                           400



                           300



                           200



                           100 •



                             0
                                                   FRONT-WALL-FIRED
                              SR « 0.85
                              T] * 3.5 second
                              i2 - 0.65 second
                              SW = 4

                              Preheat 600°F
            Slow" 2nd stage nixing
      "Fast" 2nd stage mixing
                              0
8    10    12    14   16   18   20    22    24    26

     Excess air, percent

-------
                                         EFFECT  OF  FIRST-STAGE MIXING
OJ
e
o
u
2,000
1 .800 -

1 .600 •
1.400.
1 .000 •
800.
600 •
400 .
200 .

S.R. western Kentucky Coal
11 " • G IFRP burner's
fl Baseline Preheat: 60n°F
A 1.02 1st staging position
'
-------
                                        CO CONCLUSIONS
              STOICHIOMETRY - 1ST STAGE

                  •   CO INCREASES (SLIGHTLY)  AS SR DECREASES FOR T2 > 1,0 SEC
                      (EA = 15%)

                  t   CO INCREASES SIGNIFICANTLY AS SR DECREASE FOR T2 < 1,0 SEC
                      (EA = 15%)

l>                 •   CO LESS THAN 100 PPM WERE EASILY ACHEIVED AT ALL SRj's
-p>
                  •   NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FWF AND TANGENTIALLY
                      FIRED

-------
EFFECT OF FIRST-STAGE  STOICHIOMETRY:   TANGENTIALLY-FIRED



i
0.
CVJ
O
s
o
o




200-
180-
160-
140-
120

100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
Western Kentucky Coal
4 tangential burners
Yaw = +6
Preheat = 600°F
2nd staging position
Excess air: 15% (below SR1 = 1.02)
A Load • 1.0 x 10s Btu/hr
T- » 1-5 sec.





A O
** o
& o
. A Q O ®
£i 0 Q
A O 0
0.55   0.65  0.75
0.85  0.95

   SR1
             1.05  1.15  1.25
                                          Western Kentucky Coal
                                          A tangential burners
                                          Yaw - +6
                                          Preheat = 600°F
                                          2nd staging position
                                          Excess air: IBS (below SR

                                           Load *  1.5 x  10* Btu/hr
                                           T " 1.0 sec.
                                                                       1.02)
                                                                           O
0.55  0.65  0.75  0.85  0.95  1.05  1.15  1.25

                       SR1

-------
                             EFFECT  OF  FIRST-STAGE  STOICHIOMETRY:   WALL FIRED
co
   200 .


   180 -


   160 •


   140


Z 120 -
 CM


S 100 •
o
LJ
    80



    60


    40 -


    20 -



     0
                 Q.
                           0-65
                     0.75
                                                    Western Kentucky Coal
                                                    5 I FRF burners
                                                    B&U spreader/SU * 4
                                                    Preheat 600°F
                                                    2nd staging position
                                                    T2 - 1.5 second
                                                    Excess air 15%
                                                    Load » 1.0 x 10' Btu/hr
                                                 O
 Q

 O
                                                0.85
0.95


 5R,
                                                    1.05
                                     O Test 162

                                     Q Test 164
                                                                               1.15
                                                                        1.25

-------
CO
f
                        CO CONCLUSIONS



                      RESIDENCE TIME  (RT)



1ST STAGE


    t   NO MAJOR EFFECT



2ND STAGE


    •   FOR SR<0.95 CO LEVELS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY AT RT2  <  1,0  SEC


    •   FOR SR > 0,95 NO EFFECT ON CO  LEVELS  AT  ANY  RT TESTED


    •   AT RT > 1.0 NO EFFECT ON  CO LEVELS


    t   SIMILAR RESULTS FOR FWF AND T,F,

-------
                                        EFFECT  OF SECOND-STAGE  RESIDENCE  TIME
CO
i

CO
            100-
                             Front-Wall-Fired
                           Western Kentucky  Coal
                           5 I FRF burners
                           B&W  spreader/SW = 4
                           Excess Air:  15%
                           Load:  1.0 x 10*  Btu/hr
                           Prthaat:  600°F
            Tangentlally-Fired
          Western Kentucky Coal
          4 tangential burners
          Yaw - 6°
          Excess air:  15%
          Load:  1.0 x 10' Btu/hr
          Prtheat:  600° F
                                                                         -o-
                                      -o
              0.6   0.8   1.0   1.2   1.4    1.6   1.8   2.0    2.2   2.4
                                      T~, seconds
0.6  0.8   1.0   1.2   1.4   1.6   1.8   2.0  2.2   2.4

                      T., seconds

-------
                                       CO CONCLUSIONS




                 STOICHIOMETRY - 2ND  STAGE


                     •   CO DECREASES  WITH  INCREASING EXCESS AIR


                     t   TANGENTIALLY-FIRED PRODUCES GREATER CO AT EA = 5%


                     •   CO < 100 PPM  ACHIEVED AT EA > SI, RT2 > 1 SEC
CO
I

-------
         EFFECT  OF EXCESS  AIR:   TANGENTIALLY-FIRED
 Western Kentucky Coal
 4  tangential burners
 Yaw = 6°
 Preheat =  600"F
 2nd staging position
Load  = 1.0 x 10" Bto/hr
   .1.5 second
>2,000
                               25              5

                               Excess air, percent
                   Western Kentucky Coa!
                   4  tangential burners
                   Yaw - 6°
                   Preheat =  600°F
                   2nd staging position
                  Load = 1.5 * 106 Btu/hr
                  i~ = 1.0 second
                      15
20

-------
                                             EFFECT  OF  EXCESS AIR:    WALL-FIRED
200


180


160
    I  140
ro
120


100


 80


 60


 40


 20


 0-
                            SR
                            .75
                            .85
                            .95
                           1.02
                                   Western Kentucky Coal
                                   5 I FRF burners
                                   BAH spreader/SW - 4
                                   Preheat:  600°F
                                   1st staging position
                      Load - 1.0 x 10* Btu/hr
                      T2  5 .650  . 2.3  O
                          10
                              15
                                         20
                                                                       Western Kentucky Coal
                                                                       5 IFRF burners
                                                                       BftW spreader/SW « 4
                                                                       Preheat:  600°F
                                                                       1st staging position
                                                                       Load ' 1.5 x 10* Btu/hr
                                                                       TO  s 1.3 sec.
25               5

Excess air, percent
10
15
20
25

-------
                               TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                         (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 REPORT NO.
  EPA-600/7- 79-132
                          2.
                                                     3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Pilot Scale Evaluation of NOx Combustion Control for
 Pulverized Coal: Phase n Final Report
                                                    6. REPORT DATE
                                                    June 1979
                                                    6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
'. AUTHOR(S)
R.A. Brown, J.T. Kelly, and Peter Neubauer
                                                    8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

                                                     78-293
i. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Acurex Corporation
Energy and Environmental Division
485 Clyde  Avenue
Mountain View, California 94042
                                                    10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                    EHE624A
                                                    11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                                    68-02-1885
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 AN.D PERIOD COVERED
                                                    Final; 6/73 - 1/78	
                                                    14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                      EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TJERL-RTP project officer is David G.  Lachapelle, Mail Drop 65,
 919/541-2236.
. ABSTRACT
              report givfes results of an in ves tigation of advanced NOx control tech-
 niques on a pilot scale test facility firing pulverized coal.  The 440 kW pilot scale
 test facility can simulate front wall, opposed, or tangentially fired utility and indus-
 trial boilers . Baseline and control technology tests were performed on three coal
 types over a range of parameters. Baseline NO levels closely simulated full scale
 results in both  levels and trends over these parameters. The primary control tech-
 nology investigated was staging. First- and second-stage parameters investigated
 include stoichiometry , excess air, temperature, mixing,  residence time, and coal
 composition.  The most important first-stage parameters were stoichiometry and
 residence time. A minimum NO level was achieved at a stoichiometric ratio be-
 tween 0. 75 and 0. 85, depending on fuel and furnace configuration.  The first-stage
 residence time was also found to be critical: the longer first-stage residence times
 gave lower stack NO levels. To obtain NO levels below 150 ppm, first-stage resi-
 dence times of  up to 3 seconds were required. Second-stage parameters were found
 to be of second-order importance.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                        b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
  COS AT I Field/Group
 Pollution
 Nitrogen Oxides
 Combustion Control
 Coal
 Boilers
                                         Pollution Control
                                         Stationary Sources
                                         Staged Combustion
                                         Tangentially Fired
                                         Wall Fired
13B
07B
21B
21D
13A
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

 Unlimited
                                         19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisRtport)
                                         Unclassified
                                         20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                         Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES

    300
                                                                   22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                      F-l

-------