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
------- |