EPA-600/2-75-013-a
August 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY
OF A UTILITY BOILER
BAGHOUSE
NUCLA GENERATING PLANT
f fm \
I ^W7 S
\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
EPA-600/2-75-013-Q
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY
OF A UTILITY BOILER
BAGHOUSE
NUCLA GENERATING PLANT
by
Robert M. Bradway and Reed W. Cass
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Dmsion
Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
Contract No. 68-02-1438, Task 3
ROAP No. 21ADM-032
Program Element No. 1AB012
EPA Project Officer: James H. Turner
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
U.S. EPA Region III
August 1975 Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the National Environmental Research
Centt-r - Research Triangle Park. Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports ol the Office ol Research and Development. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, have been grouped into series. These broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and applica-
tion of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was
consciously planned to foster technology transfer and maximum interface
in related fields. These series are:
1. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LFFECTS RESEARCH
2. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY
3. ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
4. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
5. SOCIOECONOM1C ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
6. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT REPORTS
9. MISCELLANEOUS
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to
develop and demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and methodology
to repair or prevent environmental degradation from point and non-
point sources of pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment of pollution sources
to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public for sale through the National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-600/2-75-013-a
11
-------
CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures iv
List of Tables ix
Conversion Factors for British and Metric Units x
Acknowledgments xi
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 4
III Introduction 6
IV Nucla, Colorado Generating Station 8
V Equipment and Methods 17
VI Results 35
Appendices
A Particle Size Distribution Curves 55
B Differential Size Distribution Curves 78
C Fractional Efficiency/Penetration Curves 101
D CNC Readings 124
E Coal Analysis ' 131
iii
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Nucla Generating Station . 9
2 Flue Gas Cleaning System 10
3 Typical Pressure Drop Trace 14
4 Schematic of Baghouse Inlet Duct Showing Sampling Port
Locations ' 18
5 Baghbuse Inlet Sampling Location 19
6 Baghouse Outlet Sampling Location 21
7 Cross Section of the Baghouse Inlet Duct Showing Sampling
Points 22
8 Cross Section of Baghouse Outlet Sampling Location Showing
Sampling Points 22
9 Condensation Nuclei Counter System Components 26
10 Condesnation Nuclei Counter Sampling Configurations 29
11 Mobile Flue Gas Monitoring Van 33
12 Median Fractional Efficiency for 22 Tests 41
13 Inlet Condensation Nuclei Counter Sizing Measurements
(10/26/74) 42
14 Inlet Condensation Nuclei Counter Sizing Measurements
(10/27/74) 43
15 Fly Ash From Baghouse Hopper Number 4, October 25, 1974;
X-Ray Fluorescence Spectra 50
16 Fly Ash From Baghouse Hopper Number 4, October 25, 1974,
Scanning Electron Micrograph, 50 Magnification at 10 kV 50
iv
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Pa
17 Fly Ash From Baghouse Hopper Number 4, October 25, 1974;
Scanning Electron Micrograph, 1000 Magnification at 30 kV 50
18 Fly Ash From Baghouse Hopper Number 4, October 25, 1974;
Scanning Electron Micrograph, 10,000 Magnification at 30 kV 50
19 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 1 56
20 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 2 57
21 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 3 58
22 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 4 59
23 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 5 60'
24 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 6 61
25 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 7 62
26 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 8 63
27 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 9 64
28 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 10 65
29 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 11 66
30 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 12 . 67
31 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 13 68
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
32 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 14 69
33 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 15 70
34 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 16 71
35 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 17 72
36 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 18 73
37 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 19 74
38 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 20 75
39 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 21 76
40 Cumulative Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 22 77
41 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 1 79
42 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 2 80
43 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 3 81
44 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 4 82
45 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 5 83
46 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 6 84
47 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 7 85
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
48 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 8 86
49 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 9 87
50 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 10 88
51 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 11 89
52 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 12 90
53 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 13 91
54 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 14 92
55 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 15 93
56 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 16 94
57 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 17 95
58 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 18 96
59 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 19 97
60 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 20 98
61 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 21 99
62 Differential Particle Size Distributions Determined by
Andersen Impactors for Run 22 100
63 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 1 102
vii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
64 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 2 103
65 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 3 104
66 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 4 105
67 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 5 106
68 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 6 107
69 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 7 108
70 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 8 109
71 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 9 110
72 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 10 111
73 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 11 112
74 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 12 113
75 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 13 114
76 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 14 115
77 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 15 116
78 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 16 117
79 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 17 118
80 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 18 119
81 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 19 120
82 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 20 121
83 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 21 122
84 Penetration/Efficiency as a Function of Size for Run 22 123
viii
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Results of Physical Characterization Tests on Fabric
Filter Bags 12
2 Normal Cleaning Sequence for Each Compartment 13
3 Estimated Capital Cost for the Nucla Baghouse Installation
as of October, 1974 15
4 Capabilities of the Mobile Flue Gas Analyzers's
Instrumentation 34
5 Results of Particulate Sampling at Nucla 36
6 Results of Particle Sizing 38
7 Comparison of Outlet Impactor Results 39
8 Summary of Acceptable CNC Measurements 44
9 Summary of Monitored Uncontrollable Variables 46
10 Flue Gas Properties 47
11 Analysis of Selected Coal and Fly Ash Samples From
Boiler No. 2 49
12 Results of X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis of Coal and Fly Ash 51
13 Correlation Matrix for Tests 1 to 21 52
14 Condensation Nuclei Counter System Data 125
15 Results of Coal Analysis From Nucla Boiler No. 2 132
ix
-------
CONVERSION FACTORS FOR BRITISH AND METRIC UNITS
To convert from
°F
ft.
ft.2
ft.3
ft./nin. (fpm)
ft. /tain.
in.
in.2
oz.
2
oz. /yd.
grains
grains/ft.
grains/ft.
Ib. force
Ib. raass
lb./ft.2
In. H20/ft./wln.
Btu
To
°C
meters
2
meters
meters
ccntimcccrs/scc.
centimeters /sec.
centimeters
2
centimeters
grams
2
grans/renter
grams
2
grains/vcctcr
grams/meter
dynes
kilograms
2
grams /cent iiseter
cm. H.O/ca/ccc.
calorics
Multiply by
| (°F-32)
0.305
0.0929
0.0283
0.508
471.9
2.54
6.45
28.34
33.89
0.0647
0.698
2.283
4.44 x 10S
0.454
0.488
5.00
252
To
cciitiractcrs
cent imccers^
centimeters^
meters/sec.
nctcrs /hr.
meters
2
meters
grains
2
grams/centimeter
Ncwtons
grams
2
grams/necer
2
Newtons/neter /cm/sec.
Multiply by
_____
30.5
929.0
28,300.0
5. 08 x 10~3
1.70
2.54 x 10"2
6.45 x 10~*
433.0
_^
3.39 x 10 •*
0.44
454.0
4880.0
490.0
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The many contributions of Dr. James H. Turner, EPA Project Officer, are
gratefully acknowledged. The cooperation of Mr. E. F. McGuire, Mr. Lynn
Roberts and Dr. Ron Chessmore of the Colorado Ute Electric Association
and Mr. Don Dove and the staff of the Nucla Generating Station made this
program possible.
Several members of the GCA/Technology Division staff made significant con-
tributions to the field program. They include Mr. John Langley, Mr. Lyle
Powers, Mr. Manuel Rei, Mr. James Sahagian and Mr. Daniel Anderson. The
GCA Project Administrator was Mr. Norman Surprenant.
xi
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The fabric filter baghouse tested during this program removed particulate
emissions from a coal-fired boiler with a mean efficiency of 99.84 per-
cent. Under the test conditions this resulted in a mean outlet loading
of 0.0031 grains per dry standard cubic foot. At the time of testing fre-
quent bag failures were being experienced because of poor flow distribu-
tion at the inlet to the bags. Even though the collection efficiencies
determined in the present study were quite high, it is felt that signifi-
cant improvement will be made when the bag wear problem is solved.
The median fractional efficiency for the baghouse over the range of 1 to
10 ym (99.4 to 99.8 percent) showed day-to-day variations but was gener-
ally highest for the larger particles. The collection efficiency for
particles in the 2 to 6 ym range was nearly constant (-99.55 percent) but
lower than for 8 to 10 ym particles (-99.7 to 99.8 percent) while collec-
tion of 1 ym particles (-99.4 percent) was generally lower than the 2 to
6 ym fraction.
Several deliberate changes were made in the baghouse cleaning cycle but
none resulted in a statistically significant change in particulate penetra-
tion. Multiple regression analyses of several of the controllable and un-
controllable variables showed that penetration is most highly correlated
with the ash content of the coal but that the correlation is negative.
That is, the higher the ash content of the coal the lower the penetration.
Assuming that higher ash content increases the inlet loading, this would
seem to indicate that the baghouse smooths out input variations. That is,
-------
a relatively steady, low outlet concentration is achieved over a wide range
of inlet loadings. Under these conditions the percent penetration would
decrease as a result of the higher inlet concentration. Although our
tests do not show a statistically significant relation between the inlet
loading and ash content, we believe that some relationship between the
inlet loading and the ash content, or other property that is related to
ash content, must exist because the relationship between penetration and
ash is, indeed, very strong.
The results of the multiple regression analysis also showed that, for
the Nucla baghouse, the following changes in the cleaning cycle had no
statistically significant effect on particulate penetration.
• Increase in repressure air duration from the normal
15 seconds to 60 seconds.
• Elimination of the repressure air.
• Elimination of the shake portion of the cleaning
cycle, which was normally 10 seconds per com-
partment per cycle.
• Elimination during the sampling period of the cleaning
cycle, which was nominally once every 2 hours, depend-
ing on the coal quality.
• Increase in the cleaning cycle to about once every
half hour.
The multiple regression analysis showed that several variables had a
significant effect on penetration. These included:
• Ash content of the coal.
• Time since last replacement of failed bags*
• Sulfur content of the coal.
• Steam load.
• Particulate loading entering the baghouse.
• Moisture content of the coal.
-------
Several physical and chemical properties of the flue gas, coal and fly ash
were also measured during the program. No attempt was made, however, to
correlate these variables with particulate penetration.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that more laboratory experimentation and actual field
work be performed with the condensation nuclei counter system. One area
which should be concentrated on is the preservation of the number and size
distribution of submicron particles in the sample conditioning or dilution
system. Also, a standardized method of counting submicron particles with
an instrument other than the condensation nuclei counter needs to be de-
veloped to verify CNC measurements. Perhaps a technique of collection
of the particles on a medium which is analyzed with an electron microscope
could be utilized.
In the evaluation of high efficiency control devices for particle penetra-
tion as a function of particle size, there is a need for the development
of high and low flow rate in-stack impactors. First, there is the problem
of a high inlet loading necessitating a short sampling duration to prevent
overloading of the stages of the Andersen in-stack impactor. The short
sampling time is a source of possible error due to temporal variations in
the inlet loading and to the inability to instantaneously adjust the flow
rate through the impactor to precisely match the stack conditions at the
time of sample extraction. An ideal impactor for the inlet would allow
for an extended sampling duration equal to the sampling duration required
by the outlet impactor. Second, there is the problem of the low outlet
loading requiring an excessively long sampling period to obtain weighable
samples on the stages of the Andersen in-stack impactor. An ideal outlet
in-stack impactor would have a higher flow rate to reduce the sampling
time to that required by the simultaneous Method 5 technique. In addition
-------
both inlet and outlet impactors should be designed to sample through
a straight nozzle to reduce the particulate losses experienced with the
nozzles utilized in the present study. The mean percentage of the mass
caught in the inlet impactor probe was 20.9 percent with a standard i
deviation of 9.8 while the mean percentage of mass caught in the outlet
impactor probe was 14.6 percent with a standard deviation of 8.6.
It has been learned from plant personnel that recent changes in the
baghouse thimble plate have improved bag wear. One baghouse reportedly
has seen 5 months of service without a bag failure and a short series of
tests would be very useful in quantifying any significant improvement
in baghouse performance. The tests should be performed only under
normal operating conditions and should include size distribution meas-
urements as well as Method 5 measurements.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The work reported in this publication is one phase of a program whose
purpose is to characterize the performance of several industrial size
fabric filter systems. Of particular importance is the particulate
removal efficiency of the baghouses as a function of particle size.
The fractional particle size efficiency was determined by doing
upstream and downstream sampling using inertial and diffusional
sizing techniques and the total mass efficiency was determined
utilizing simultaneous upstream and downstream Method 5 techniques.
Although fabric filtration technology has been successfully applied
to a wide variety of industrial processes, there are several areas
where baghouses have not been or are just beginning to be utilized.
One of the recent applications is for the control .of particulate
emissions from coal-fired utility boilers. The potential use for bag-
houses on boiler flue gases is very large and yet the successful
application in this area represents a significant advancement in the
state of the art. Since the use of baghouses for this type of
application is very limited, several different boiler and baghouse
operating conditions were included in the characterization plan in
an attempt to determine what parameters, if any, would effect a
significant difference in fabric filter performance.
-------
APPROACH
The fabric filter installation evaluated during this first phase of the
program was on a small utility boiler in Colorado burning Western coal.
The approach to the baghouse performance characterization was to per-
form a pretest survey to gain firsthand knowledge of the facility and
determine what operational parameters could be varied. This informa-
tion was then used as the basis for a test plan which was designed to
include enough normal base line operation to statistically define per-
formance boundaries. Abnormal operating conditions were intermittently
spaced throughout the test plan and the sampling results compared with
those of normal operation to see if baghouse performance had been
significantly altered. The baghouse parameters that were changed during
this study included repressure air duration (0, 15, 60 seconds), number
of shakes per cleaning cycle (0, 10) and the number of cleaning cycles
per test (0 to 14).
Although the operation of the baghouse was the only parameter to be
deliberately changed, several uncontrollable variables were present.
These uncontrolled variables were closely watched to detect their
effect on the test results. The instruments in a van operated by
Control Systems Laboratory personnel monitored the flue gas for sulfur
dioxide, nitric oxide, carbon monoxide and oxygen during several of
the tests. In addition, coal samples were taken routinely to provide
information on the coal's ash and sulfur content. Also, copies of
plant operating logs were obtained so that steam rate, coal consump-
tion, and baghouse pressure drop variations could be identified.
-------
SECTION IV
NUCLA, COLORADO GENERATING STATION
The Nucla Station of the Colorado Ute Electric Association is located in
Nucla, a small town in southwestern Colorado. The plant, pictured in
Figure 1, is comprised of three 13 megawatt generators each with its
own Springfield boiler having a capacity of about 120,000 pounds of steam
per hour. The boilers are the stoker-fired traveling grate type with fly
ash reinjection and are fed at approximately 15,500 pounds of coal per
hour. The coal is mined locally and trucked to the power plant.
The flue gas leaving the boiler economizer passes a baffle designed to
remove the very large particles and then flows to the baghouse through a
horizontal duct. Six sampling ports on the inlet duct afford access for
sampling the dust laden gas entering the baghouse. The flue gas-is
pulled through the baghouse by an induced draft fan and the filtered gas
stream is exhausted to a 100 foot stack. Sampling ports are located on
the 5.5 foot diameter stack 46 feet above the outlet of the induced draft
fan. The general arrangement of the system is presented in Figure 2.
Each boiler is served by a Wheelabrator-Frye size 814, Model 264,
Series 8, Six Module Dustube Dust Collector. The six baghouse compart-
ments contain 112 graphite silicon coated fiberglass bags per compartment.
Each bag measures 8 inches in diameter by 264 inches in length for a
total cloth area of 30,964 square feet per baghouse. At the, designed
flow rate of 86,240 acfm this would result in an air to cloth ratio of
2.79 to 1.
-------
•'
Figure 1. Nucla generating station
-------
OUTLET PORTS
INDUCED
DRAFT
FAN
BAFFLE TO
REMOVE LARGE
PARTICLES
INLET
PORTS
Figure 2. Flue gas cleaning system
-------
The bags used at Nucla have the following specifications according to
the manufacturer, W. W. Criswell Company. The fabric material has a
2
weight of 10.5 oz/yd with a 66 x 30 thread count and the weave is a
3x1 twill. The warp yarn is a filament and the fill is a bulked
yarn. Actual physical characterization tests on a new and a used bag
from Nucla are presented in Table 1. Although it is impossible to de-
termine how much service the used bag had seen, it is estimated that the
maximum exposure that any bag could have seen is the 6 months since the
baghouse was put on line in March 1974.
A combination of shaking and reverse air flow is used to clean the
bags. The normal cleaning cycle, shown in Table 2, is actuated by
a pressure transducer near the inlet to the induced draft fan. The
pressure switch is normally set to initiate cleaning when the pressure
drop across the bags exceeds about four inches of water. Once started,
the cleaning cycle proceeds through all six compartments with a 17
second interval between compartments. A typical pressure drop trace is
shown in Figure 3. The cleaning cycles are clearly evident and the se-
quence of switching to each compartment can be seen. The pressure drop
across the baghouse is about 1.2 inches of water column lower after
cleaning.
The repressure air (also reverse air or collapse air) is supplied by a
separate blower that constantly circulates 5,600 cfm of flue gas from
the outlet side of the baghouse. When no compartment is undergoing
repressure, the gas is exhausted back into the duct leading to the
induced draft fan. When reprassuring is initiated, the main damper is
already closed and the repressure damper opens allowing the filtered flue
gas to flow through the dirty bags in the opposite direction of normal
filtration at a velocity of 1.09 fpm. This gas then exits the compart-
ment and joins the dirty flue gas entering the remaining five compartments.
11
-------
Table 1. RESULTS OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERIZATION TESTS ON FABRIC FILTER BAGS
ASTM D1910, Sample velght, oz./sq. yd.
range
average
ASTM D1777, Sample thickness, inches
range
average
ASTM D737, Air permeability, cfm/sq.ft.
range
average
ASTM D1682, Breaking strength and elongation
Breaking strength, Iba
Warp: range
average
Fill: range
average
Elongation Co break, percent
Warp: range
average
Fill: range
average
Flexural rigidity, Ibs (in.)2/in. width
average
New bag
7.4 - 7.5
7.4
0.013S - 0.0156
0.0147
83.5 - 91.8
86.5
168.6 - 210.0
186
82.2 - 116.0
104
8.9 - 11.7
10.7
4.6 - 5.2
4.8
6.26 x 10'4 '
Used bag, middle
7.7 - 7.8
7.8
0.0139 - 0.0158
0.0147
30.8 - 48.2
38.6
117.0 - 225.0
166
35.1 - 100.5
66.5
6.2 - 8.1
7.6
2.4 - 4.0
3.1
1.99%x 10"3
Used bag, bottom
11.3 - 11.7
11.4
0.0149 - 0.0169
0.0156
30.8 - 48.2
38.6
.
102.0 - 135.0
116
54.6 - 96.1
73.1
6.0 - 8.1
6.9
2.0 - 3.7
2.9
•
2.04 x 10"3
-------
Table 2. NORMAL CLEANING SEQUENCE FOR EACH COMPARTMENT
Event
Settle
Repressure
Settle
Shake
Settle
Repressure
Settle
Interval
Duration,
seconds
54 •
15
56
10
56
15
34
17
Damper positions
Main damper closed, repressure damper closed
Main damper clpsed, repressure damper open
Main damper closed, repressure damper closed
Main damper closed, repressure damper closed
Main damper closed, repressure damper closed
Main damper closed, repressure damper open
Main damper closed, repressure damper closed
Main damper open, repressure damper closed
Initiate next compartment cleaning
-------
o
o
o
PRESSURE DROP
.1 1:, i\.<
ACROSS
BAGHOUSE, in.of water
Figure 3. Typical pressure drop trace
14
-------
Following the first reverse' air flow and after about 1 minute of settle
time the bags are shaken. The amplitude is not known, and will not be
divulged by the manufacturer, but the frequency was measured at 4 cycles
per second. The shaking action appeared quite gently and is most likely
utilized to insure loosening of the cake from the bag.
The estimated capital cost for the baghouse installation is presented
in Table 3. It should be pointed out that the cost data in Table 3 is
for the three baghouses and includes some items not normally included
in capital cost comparisons. For example if only the cost of the bag-
house collectors is used, one would calculate about $2.50/acfm while
the inclusion of all items in Table 3 would result in over $10/acfm
initial capital cost.
Table 3. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST FOR THE NUCLA BAGHOUSE
INSTALLATION AS OF OCTOBER, 1974
Item
Baghouse collectors
Ash system
Miscellaneous equipment
and materials
Fainting
General construction
Engineering (consultant)
C-U project manager cost
Total
Costs
$ 631,168
86,332
219,083
61,000
1,193,080
294,383
120,000
$2,605,046
Percent
24.23
3.31
8.41
2.34
45.80
11.30
4.61
100.00
15
-------
The three baghouses at Nucla are identical but it was prudent to
restrict testing to only one. Plant personnel suggested number 2
boiler baghouse as being the most convenient so all tests were
performed on that unit. Number 2 boiler baghouse was also selected
because it has four ports installed in the stack allowing the
Andersen Impactors to be run for the entire test period without being
disturbed.
16
-------
SECTION V
EQUIPMENT AND METHODS
Several types of sampling techniques were employed during the test pro-
gram. Some methods were straightforward and do not require extensive
descriptions while other techniques were novel and will be described in
some detail. In addition, the large difference in particulate concentra-
tion between the inlet and outlet necessitated different sampling strat-
egies at each location. Whenever possible, however, the inlet and outlet
samples were collected over the same time period so that the effect of
temporal variations on plant operations would be minimized.
METHOD 5 MEASUREMENTS
The particulate mass concentration at the inlet was determined using a
RAC sampling train based on the design criteria as described in the
Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 247, Part II, December 23, 1971. The
sampling location is nonideal in terms of upstream and downstream dis-
tances from disturbances but is the only access between the knockout
baffle and the baghouse. The location of the inlet sampling ports is
shown schematically in Figure 4 and pictorially in Figure 5• As one
would suspect from the configuration, and as confirmed by the tests,
the flue gas velocity is higher on the bottom half of the duct. A
typical vertical flow profile is shown in Figure 4. The horizontal
flow profile is only slightly skewed, with a somewhat higher flow near
the back of the duct.
17
-------
00
FLUE GAS
I
Figure 4. Schematic of baghouse inlet duct showing sampling port locations
-------
Figure 5. Baghouse inlet sampling location
-------
Traversing was accomplished by sampling at six equally spaced points in
the duct for each of the six ports as shown in Figure 7. Since the
ports were not perfectly spaced in the vertical direction, it was im-
possible to traverse a duct with equal areas. The sampling array con-
sisted of 36 points with each point being sampled for 10 minutes. This
resulted in 6 hours of actual sampling time for each inlet mass loading
test. The extended inlet sampling time was dictated by the results of
the pretest survey, during which it was found that 6 hour tests were
necessary to obtain weighable samples on the stages of the outlet Ander-
sen impactor. The extraordinarily long sampling time necessitated two to
three changes of the RAG cyclone and filter during each run but the strat-
egy was to match as nearly as possible the outlet sampling period.
The particulate mass concentration of the outlet was determined using an
Aerotherm high flow rate version of the standard EPA Method 5 train.
This unit was utilized because it allowed collection of more mass on the
filter per unit time at the very low mass loading downstream of the bag-
house. The high volume train was operated without the cyclone precol-
lector to avoid the unnecessary weighing errors introduced by its use at
such low concentrations.
The outlet sampling location is shown pictorically in Figure 6 and the
cross section schematically in Figure 8. This was an ideal sampling
site with over eight duct diameters to the nearest downstream disturbance
and an equal distance upstream to the stack exit. Two perpendicular dia-
meters were traversed with six points per traverse. Each point was sampled
for 30 minutes which resulted in a total sample time of 6 hours. Although
a shorter sample time could have been utilized with the high volume train,
simultaneous sampling with the impactors was again the objective.
Impactor Measurements
Particle size classification by inertial separation was employed to
determine the size distributions of the particulates entering and leaving
20
-------
Figure 6. Baghouse outlet sampling location
-------
U 4' 5" *
10
»I •
-fr
u
-.c
e
*.;;;;
++++++
******
t
6
i
Figure 7. Cross section of the baghouse inlet duct
showing sampling points
IMFACTOR
SAMPLING
POINTS
Figure 8. Cross section of baghouse outlet sampling location
showing sampling points
22
-------
the baghouse. Andersen Mark III in-stack impactors were used for parti-
cles over the size range of 0.5 pm to about 20 pm during the test program.
These eight stage cascade impactors utilize glass fiber substrates as the
collection media in order to minimize the tare weights. These impactors
require a great deal of time and care for assembly and disassembly but no
serious problems were encountered.
One disadvantage of all impactors is their inability to sample isokine-
tically while traversing a stack or duct. As the velocity changes
going from one sampling point to the next the sampling rate of an im-
pactor cannot be changed to match isokinetic conditions because the
size cutoff for each stage would be changed and the results would be
meaningless. One can, of course, traverse the gas stream using only
one flow rate and, while the size cutoffs for each impactor stage are
held constant, any spatial variations in stack gas velocity will result
in anisokinetic sampling conditions. Alternatively one can forego tra-
versing and sample at a single point in the stack at one flow rate that
matches the gas velocity. In this case one cannot adjust for any tem-
poral change in velocity at the sampling point and, of course, the spa-
tial distribution of particulates is assumed to be uniform. This type
of sampling is well suited for steady state operations with sampling
ports located where the gas stream is well mixed even though the velocity
profile is not flat. Preliminary measurements during the pretest survey
indicated that such was the case at the baghouse outlet sampling
location so traversing was not utilized.
Two impactors were run during each test at the outlet and their sampling
locations in the stack are shown in Figure 8. Access to those points
was afforded by two perpendicular ports that were below and 45 degrees
offset from the ports used for total mass measurements. The impactors
were put in the stack with the nozzles pointing with, the flow of the gas
stream 1/2 hour before sampling was begun. This was done to heat
the impactors to the temperature of the flue gas so that condensation
would not occur when sampling was initiated. Sampling was begun by
23
-------
turning the impactor nozzle into the gas stream and adjusting the flow so
that the nozzle velocity matched the duct velocity which had been measured
with a pitot static tube at each sampling point. The sample flow rates
were not changed for the duration of the run and were maintained by keep-
ing constant pressure drops across calibrated orifices.
The high particulate loading at the inlet dictated very short sampling
times. Although it would have been preferred to match the inlet and
outlet impactor runs, no more than five minutes sampling at the inlet
could be tolerated without overloading the top stages. Consequently
an impactor run was made each morning by first heating the impactor in
the duct for half an hour and then sampling isokinetically for five
minutes. The impactor was allowed to cool, disassembled and then
reloaded so that a second run could be made in the afternoon.
In all impactor runs the nozzle size was selected such that actual flow
rates through the impactors would be at, or near, 0.5 cfm while matching
isokinetic conditions. Although the impactors were originally designed
for flowrates up to 1.0 cfm, considerable particle bounce sometimes
occurs at the higher flowrates.
Condensation Nuclei Counter Measurements
The penetration of submicron particles through the baghouse was deter-
mined by sampling the effluent stream before and after the baghouse with
a Condensation Nuclei Counter (CNC) and a Diffusion Denuder (DD). The
particle concentration was measured by a Rich Model 100 CNC and the
particle sizing was determined using a DD with the CNC.
The CNC is designed to measure particles between 0.0025 ym and 0.5 ym in
the concentration range of 1000 to 300,000 particles/cc. When working
with an aerosol that has a very large number of submicron particles, it
was therefore necessary to dilute the sample stream so the concentration is
within the CNC's measurement range. In addition, when sampling a hot,
24
-------
corrosive flue gas, substantial cooling of the sample stream must be
accomplished to protect the CNC. Diluters provided the necessary cooling
without subsequent condensation which results in the removal o£ submicron
particles. Three diluters were fabricated. In a diluter, the sample
stream is mixed with filtered air and the flow rates of the sample and
diluted streams are measured with calibrated orifices. The flow rates
are used to calculate the amount which the sample stream is diluted. The
pump diluter shown in Figure 9a draws a sample through an orifice, then
the sample flow mixes with a regulated flow of filtered air in the diluter
body. The major portion of the diluted sample is drawn through an ori-
fice by a pump and exhausted, while the remaining flow is drawn either
directly to the CNC which measures the sample flowrate or through more
diluters. This diluter is capable of providing a maximum dilution of
approximately 375 to 1.
The air ejector diluter shown in Figure 9b is limited to a maximum dilu-
tion of approximately 10 to 1. It is most valuable because of its ability
to draw a sample from a location where the pressure is below atmosphere
and to discharge the diluted sample at a pressure above atmospheric.
It was found during the tests that the CNC would not operate properly
when the pressure of the sample entering the CNC was too far below atmos-
pheric. In the air ejector diluter, the sample is drawn through an ori-
fice by an air ejector in which the sample stream and a filtered com-
pressed air stream are mixed before being discharged through an orifice
which meters the combined flow.
Figure 9c shows a diluter capable of providing a 12 to 1 dilution. A
capillary tube meters the sample flow which is combined with regulated
filtered dilution air in a tee. The combined sample and dilution flow
is measured by the CNC rotameter, which is used to monitor the flow rate
to the CNC. The capillary tube diluter was used primarily to vary the
sample flow rates through the DD to provide sizing data.
25
-------
(a)PUMP DILUTER
CALIBRATED
DILUTED 1
SAMPLE 1
TO CNC U
PUM
>
K
- DILUTER
^
_
"CALIBRATED
LORIFICE
» 1
1 ni
J
If
©VALVE
YT
n
— ' *— 1 FILTFR
LUTION
AIR
•SAMPLE
(b)AIR EJECTOR DILUTER
DILUTED
SAMPLE"
CALIBRATED
ORIFICE
II 11
AIR
EJECTOR
CALIBRATED
ORIFICE
SAMPLE
II
t
FILTERED
COMPRESSED AIR
Figure 9. Condensation nuclei counter system components
26
-------
(c) CAPILLARY TUBE DILUTER
DILUTED
SAMPLE '
TO CNC
CALIBRATED
CAPILLARY
TUBE
•SAMPLE
PINCH CLAMP
FILTER
t
DILUTION
AIR
(d) LARGE PARTICLE REMOVER
LAKGc
PARTICLES
| I
11 nl
T
SAMPLE
Figure 9. (continued). Condensation nuclei counter system components
27
-------
The DD is made of three closely spaced (0.097 cm) concentric cylinders on
which diffused particles are collected. The d5Q, which is the particle
diameter removed in the DD with 50 percent efficiency, is dependent upon
the flow rate through the DD. For example, the d5Q of the DD at flow rates
of 60 cc/sec and 5 cc/sec are 0.013 pm and 0.050 um respectively.
The CNC is designed to respond to all particles 0.0025 pm and larger.
Particle sizing is therefore determined by first sampling with the CNC
without the DD, this concentration corresponds to particles > 0.0025 um.
Next, the 60 cc/sec flow to the CNC is passed through the DD, where par-
ticles smaller than 0.013 um are retained. Finally, a 5 cc/sec flow is
passed through the DD, where particles smaller than 0.050 um are
retained. The capillary tube diluter allows a 5 cc/sec sample to be
drawn through the DD with the remaining 55 cc/sec required by the CNC
being made up of dilution air.
Figure 9d shows a large particle remover designed to provide a sample
stream without any particles which could clog the system. The large par-
ticles are removed by impaction with a d$Q of 15 vim for a flow of
240 cc/sec.
The initial outlet sampling.configuration is shown in Figure lOa. This
resulted in very low readings with the CNC (less than 1,000 particles/cc)
which were believed to be caused by excessive dilution or particle losses
in the diluter. Therefore, the diluter was removed and the flue gas
drawn undiluted into the CNC. To protect the CNC from excessive tempera-
tures and acid condensation, a condenser was used before the CNC. This
also led to very low CNC readings which were probably due to the removal
of condensation nuclei in the condenser. Later, it was found that the
low CNC readings were caused by the low pressure of the sample entering
the CNC from the pump diluter. The next setup utilized the capillary
tube diluter after the probe. This also resulted in low CNC readings
because the particles were probably removed as condensation formed in the
tygon tubing between the diluter and the CNC. The condensation in the
tygon tubing was due to insufficient dilution by the capillary tube
28
-------
(a)ORIGINAL OUTLET SETUP
CNC
f
1
J J! II
Oil UTFR
; j[
| PUMP|
(b) ORIGINAL INLET SETUP
DILUTE R
'MIXER
^T
AIR EJECTOR
LARGE
PARTICLE
REMOVER
Figure 10. Condensation nuclei counter sampling configurations
29
-------
(c) DIFFUSION DENUDER (D.D.) FLOW = CNC FLOW
CNC
•
I
'-} D.D }
* j i
DILUTION
SYSTEM
(d) D.D. FLOW < CNC FLOW
CNC
— JL •» -"
^•••^^H
s*
^
D.D )
j
DILUTION
SYSTEM
•CAPILLARY
TUBE
Figure 10. (continued). Condensation nuclei counter sampling configurations
30
-------
diluter. The final outlet -sampling system consisted of the air ejector
diluter preceded by the large particle remover. This system had the
advantage of duplicating the final inlet sampling system. The initial
inlet sampling system is shown in Figure 1Gb. A mixing chamber was used
to provide a volume to which the air ejector diluter could discharge
and from which the pump diluter could draw. The system was modified by
removing the mixer and diluter due to low readings. The remaining inlet
sampling configuration was utilized for the majority of the tests. A
variation of the system was tried which included a condenser after the
air ejector. This system proved inadequate due to a decrease in concen-
tration with time which was apparently caused by removal of condensation
nuclei in the condenser. The sampling systems used to provide various
flow rates through the DD are shown in Figures lOc and lOd.
An accurate measurement of the particles in an effluent occurs only when
there is proper sample extraction, treatment and measurement. Proper
sample extraction is not a problem since the concentration of submicron
particles is to be determined. These small particles are believed to be
uniformly mixed in the effluent stream and are not affected by aniso-
kinetic sampling. Proper sample treatment is a large factor in making an
accurate measurement. The data has shown the effect of inadequate sample
treatment in the losses due to condensation. Also, there have been
indications of unwanted particle generation in the sampling system.
Checking the dilution system in the field was performed by sampling
ambient air through the diluters employed. However, this differs from
actual sampling in that the sample's gaseous components and temperatures
are not the same when sampling air, thereby introducing possible errors.
Finally, proper measurement of the treated sample by the CNC was deter-
mined by periodically checking the CNC on the Zero and Test positions and
by observing the CNC's response to an air sample. Even though the con-
centration of condensation nuclei in the atmosphere is variable, it gen-
erally read on the CNC's 100,000 and 300,000 scales. A quick response
to a switch from effluent sampling to ambient sampling was interpreted to
be an indication of proper CNC operation.
31
-------
GASEOUS MEASUREMENTS
The sampling and analysis of stack gases was accomplished by the National
Environmental Research Center, using its Mobile Flue Gas Analyzer. This
van, shown in Figure 11, is instrumented to perform sampling and analysis
of flue gases and in this case was used to determine the concentrations
of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and
oxygen.
Sampling procedures of the van provide for the extraction, by a carbon-
vane vacuum pump, of stack gas from a sample port at a rate of approxi-
mately 1.5 scfm. Particulate is filtered out at the stack port. The
sampled gases are maintained at stack temperature during its flow through
the 200 feet of 1/2 inch Teflon tubing which extends from the sample port
to the van. The sample tubing is spirally wrapped with heating wires
covered with foam insulation and a polyvinyl-chloride jacket.
Before being introduced into the analyzer instruments, the sample gas is
cooled and dried to approximately 32 F by successive passage through two
refrigeration air driers, and the remaining particulates are removed with
polishing filters.
The resultant gas stream of approximately 1 cfm is then compressed by a
stainless steel diaphragm pump to 25 psig and directed to a manifold
where it is distributed to each instrument through a matrix of stainless
steel remote control valves which can also select span and zero gases for
the calibration of each instrument. A set of in-line flow meters is used
to monitor and control the gas flow as required by each instrument.
Gases exhausted from the instruments are collected in a manifold and are
then passed out of the van through Teflon tubing extending through the
van floor to the atmosphere. The capabilities of the on-board analyzers
are presented in Table 4. In addition to the instruments in Table 4, iron/
constantan thermocouples measure the various gas temperatures with an
accuracy of + 2°F.
32
-------
VIROMMENTA//fE TION AGENCY
RY
Figure 11. Mobile flue gas monitoring van
-------
Table 4. CAPABILITIES OF THE
INSTRUMENTATION
MOBILE FLUE GAS ANALYZER'S
.Gas component
Oxygen
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Nitrous oxides
Hydrocarbon
Type of analysis
Polargraphic
Nondispersive
infrared
Nondispersive
infrared
Nondispersive
infrared
Chemiluminescent
Flame ionization
Range
4
3
3
3
3
5
Range levels
0.1/5/10/25%
0-5/10/20%
0-500/1000/2000 ppm
0-1000/2000/4000 ppm
0-200/2000/20,000 ppm
0-4/40/400/4000/
40,000 ppm
Approximate
sensitivity
0.01/0. 05/0. 10/0. 25%
0.05/0.1/0.2%
5/10/20 ppm
10/20/40 ppm
2/20/200 ppm
0.04/0.4/4/
40/400 ppm
-------
SECTION VI
RESULTS
A total of 22 tests were run at the Nucla facility with the field effort
divided into two phases. Tests 1 through 16 were performed over the
period of September 21, 1974 through October 7, 1974. The remaining
tests, 17 through 22, were completed between '.vtober 22, 1974 and
October 27, 1974.
Eleven of the 22 tests were run under normal baghouse operating con-
ditions with the remaining tests made under special experimental con-
ditions. The baghouse operating conditions and the inlet and outlet
mass loadings for the tests are shown in Table 5. The mass efficiency
was calculated using the inlet and outlet Method 5 mass loadings. The
outlet mass loading for run 22 was not obtained and therefore no mass
efficiency was determined but the particle sizing information from that
run was included in the sizing analysis.
The mean mass efficiency for all runs was 99.84 percent with a standard
deviation of 0.11. The results of two particular tests are noteworthy,
however. Run number eight resulted in a mass efficiency of over 99.98
percent, the highest reported for all runs. This high collection effi-
ciency is explained by the very high inlet loading observed that day.
The boiler was experiencing some very poor combustion conditions for part
of the run and the problem must be attributed to-the combustion system
rather than the fuel because the coal properties did not appear to be
atypical on that day. The observation that the baghouse could operate
35
-------
Table 5. RESULTS OF PARTICULATE SAMPLING AT NUCLA
ON
Dale
9/21/74
9/22/74
9/2J/74
9/24/74
9/25/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
9/28/74
9/30/74
10/1/74
10/2/74
10/3/74
10/4/74
10/5/74
10/6/74
10/7/74
10/22/74
10/23/74
10/24/74
10/25/74
10/26774
10/27/74
Run
1
2
3
4
b
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Inlet mass loading
grains/dscf
Method
5
2.0759
2.371?
1.9753
1.7021
1.6768
1.7995
1.8516
11.4446
2.3878
1.6873
1.7422
2.1112
2.2693
1.7751
1.3572
2.1779
2.1098
2.0669
1.9828
1.7791
1.9502
2.0572
Andersen
A
0.4984
1.5078
1.4014
1.7092
1.4819
1.3426
1.3144
1.6248
1.6636
1.4206
1.0294
1.5900
1.8991
1.6593
2.4579
2.3232
1.8337
1.5351
1.8120
2.9943
1.5053
1.9528
Andersen
B
-
1.4610
1.7176
1.1793
1.4382
1.1600
1.9251
2.0813
1.9608
1.3540
1.4893
1.3091
2.0574
1.4318
1.6854
1.5909
-
1.6651
1.7094
1.6683
1.3352
1.7008
Outlcc mass loading
grains/dscf
Method
5
0.0044
0.0049
0.0045
0.0063
0.0042
0.0047
0.0045
0.0016
0.0016
0.0010
0.0015
0.0092
0.0040
0.0029
0.0007
0.0019
0.0022
0.0010
0.0015
0.0017
0.0015
—
Andersen
north
0.0101
0.0069
0.0034
0.0043
0.0031
0.0048
0.0033
0.0053
0.0021
0.0021
0.0035
0.0563
0.0034
0.0047
0.0039
0.0042
0.0025
0.0024
0.0030
0.0025
0.0028
0.0036
Andersen
west
0.0031
0.0034
0.0028
0.0021
O.OOJO
0.0051
0.0025
0.0015
0.0020
0.0034
0.0046
0.0796
0.0035
0.0154
O.OOJ6
0.0037
0.0025
0.0022
0.0021
0.0025
0.0023
0.0035
Mass
efficiency
(percent)
99.7880
99.7743
99.7722
99.6299
99.7495
99.7388
99.7570
99.9860
99.9330
99.9407
99.9139
99.5642
99.8237
99.8366
99.9484
99.9128
99.8957
99.9516
99.9244
99.9045
99.9231
—
Baghouse
operation
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Cont. cleaning
Cont. cleaning
Normal
Long rcpressure
Long repressure
Normal
No cleaning
No cleaning
Normal
No repressure
No repressure
Normal
Normal
Long repressure
Normal
No shaking
No shaking
Normal
-------
under such adverse conditions and still allow a penetration of only
0.0016 grains/dscf is important.
The results of run number 12 are also interesting in that the lowest
efficiency and highest outlet loading of all tests were observed during
that test. It also is a day on which seven bags were replaced in the
baghouse so that one might expect the performance to improve with the
removal of failed bags. It was learned, however, that the bags that
were replaced during run 12 were in particularly bad shape with some bags
having tears several feet long. This resulted in a large amount of fly
ash being deposited on the floor of the baghouse. When the bags were
replaced the fly ash was not removed and it is theorized that when that
compartment came back on line the fly ash was gradually reentrained and
swept up the stack resulting in the extraordinarily high outlet
concentration.
The cascade impactor results showed a mean mass median diameter at the
inlet of 18.4 urn with a standard deviation of 5.2 while at the outlet
of the baghouse the mean mass median diameter was 8.8 um with a standard
deviation of 4.1. A summary of the mass median diameter data is shown
in Table 6. The particle size distribution curves generated from the
impactor data show day to day variations but no significant trends or
correlations could be ascribed to the scatter. The particle size dis-
tribution curves are presented in Appendix A. The utilization of two
identical Andersen impactors side by side at the outlet sampling loca-
tion for all 22 tests affords an opportunity to examine the precision
of the technique. As can be seen from Table 7, the geometric mean con-
centrations as measured by each impactor are very close to each other.
However, the average absolute value of the difference of each paired
measurement is about 70 percent of the overall geometric mean. This
means that with any given paired sample, a significant difference is
quite apt to be observed between the individual impactors. If one does
not take the absolute value of the difference, however, the average
difference is only about 18 percent of the geometric mean of all measure-
ments. This shows that one impactor docs not always tend to be biased,
and that the differences, though large, are probably random.
37
-------
Table 6. RESULTS OF PARTICLE SIZING AT NUCIA
Date
9/21/74
9/22/74
9/23/74
9/24/74
9/25/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
9/28/74
9/30/74
10/1/74
10/2/74
10/3/74
10/4/74
10/5/74
10/6/74
10/7/74
10/22/74
10/23/74
10/24/74
10/25/74
10/26/74
10/27/74
Inlet
Andersen A,
mmd, yen
37
17.6
21
16.5
20
16.5
17.1
16.2
18.2
19.0
16.5
18.1
12.5 .
18.6
1.2
21.0
17.3
18.8
15.8
-
22.0
19.5
Andersen B,
mmd, ym
-
28
20.5
21.5
23.4
20.8
18.3
15.5
11.6
15.5
16.0
14.2
27
20.7
16.0
16.0
-
15.3
17.2
18.0
18.0
21.7
Outlet
Andersen
north
mmd, pm
10.8
8.8
18.1
14.9
15.3
10.1
8.6
-
9.7
6.1
7.2
0.80
14.6
10.2
9.5
7.7
4.1
7.0
4.4
6.3
5.8
7.4
Andersen
west
mmd, ym
12.9
21
13.5
9.4
8.0
11.0
9.5
4.55
4.45
13.4
7.6
-
7.0
-
8.7
6.3
6.2
5.4
5.2
5.5
5.4
7.4
38
-------
Table 7. COMPARISON OF OUTLET IMPACTOR RESULTS
Impactor X
Imp actor Y
Impactor X + Y
Geometric mean
concentration, grains/dscf
0.0041
0.0036
0.0038
Geometric standard
deviation
2.0085
2.2982
2.1419
. Ot0026
- Y) =
n
Impactor X
Impactor Y
Impactor X + Y
Geometric mean
mass median diameter, ym
8.57
8.13
8.34
Geometric standard
deviation
1.51
1.50
1.50
Ix -Y|
n
3.26
z (x - Y)
n
= 0.45
A similar analysis of the mass median diameter as determined by each im-
pactor shows the same trend but the geometric standard deviations are
somewhat smaller. Further, the average absolute value of the difference
of each paired measurement is only about 40 percent of the overall geo-
metric mean. The average difference of each pair, not taking the absolute
value, is only about 5 percent of the geometric mean. It would appear,
therefore, that substantial, apparently random differences are quite apt
to be observed in the mass median diameters as determined bv paired im-
pactors but that those differences are less than those observed for the
measured mass concentration.
The fractional efficiency for each run was calculated from differential
size distribution plots, which are contained in Appendix B. The differ-
ential particle size distributions were constructed in the manner described
by Smith et al. The concentration of each of six particle diameters was
39
-------
averaged for the two impactor runs at the inlet and outlet and the effi-
ciency calculated for each size. These fractional efficiency, or frac-
tional penetration, curves show the performance of the baghouse as a
function of particle size. The results of all 22 fractional efficiency
curves which are presented in Appendix C have been combined in Figure 12
to give the median efficiency/penetration over the range of 1 to 10 urn.
The result is a fairly smooth curve that tends toward higher collection
efficiencies for the larger particles and toward higher penetration for
the smaller particle sizes. Also shown in Figure 12 is the range of ob-
served efficiency/penetration values for each size, but excluding the
extreme observation (highest and lowest). The wider bar indicates the
range of that half of the values nearest the median while the thinner
bar indicates the range of that half of the values furthest from the median.
The measurements made with condensation nuclei counter system are pre-
sented in Appendix D. All of the CNC measurements were evaluated in
terms of the static pressure at the instrument inlet, indications of
condensation having taken place and whether the readings appeared to be
reasonably stable for a nominal 5 minutes with no wild fluctuations.
This exercise cast doubt on more than 90 percent of the 200 measurements.
Those measurements that withstood the scrutiny are shown in Table 8 and
are the basis for the size distributions at the baghouse inlet as shown
in Figures 13 and 14. These two figures show count median diameters of
0.015 and 0.020 pm. It is not known why the number concentration on
October 27 was so much higher than on October 26 but the effect is thought
to be real. Indeed the mass concentration of the smaller particles as
measured by the Andersen back-up filters was more than twice as high on
October 27 as on October 26.
The mean of all the inlet readings from Table 8, except those in which
the DD was used, is 18 million particles/cc. Since there are only two
outlet readings in Table 8 and those readings vary by such a large
amount, a reading was selected. The 27 October 1974 reading at 1738
40
-------
IU.U
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
C
*»
L>
0>
ex
£ 1.0
go.
< 0.8
Lj 0.7
£ 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
v.e
01 <
__
..
—
i
: ;
.......
- ' r
-..—
i : .
. ;...
;
_.._
—
—
ki
:K T ~
—
)
;:r
-.
" 1
i '..
L
i
_:_
• I :
. i
•
..'.-
-
i -
:.
—
Z 3
.
-
—
_.
i '
• 1 -
—
1
. . ! .
. . .
I
i
—
;
: 1 ;
' I :
.
4
: *
r ;
-
i
i
._;.-_
-; j
'!
'::':
—
j
• \
.
i ,
1
i •
"... i.
• i- j i
•
i
!
• • | —
..
. 1
7~
. .
'
—
\
— •
\
'
•
1 .
i :
• j.:.
:
. j . .
r
:
: t
1
:• i : -
: • :
! .
:..'
X:-
i--
i _
i .
!;•
• i • •
•t
i i '
•|.-f
5:
I
•j •
'!,.
•-I •
i
n
1
: .:
' 1 .
I
i
... 1
— i —
.
'—
I
- !
. .;.
•f H
'
.i
I
' '!
. .:-
Ii
±:
—
— .
• n
! '
' f '
*• —
5 6 7 8 9 10
PARTICLE SIZt\ /.m
--
.
...1: :,
• 1
.H .-;
:j;
---
—
• t
. i
u a. 13 c
95.0
96.0
97. 0
98.0
e
0
99.0 S.
99.1 >-"
O
99.2 g
99.3 U
U.
99.4 u.
UJ
99.5
99.$
99.7
99.8
99.9
Figure 12. Median fractional efficiency for 22 tests
-------
cc
UJ
h-
LJ
^
<
Q
o
tr
UJ
0.001
24 6 8 10 12
MILLIONS OF PARTICLES/cc > STATED SIZE
14
Figure 13. Inlet condensation nuclei counter sizing measurements
(10/26/74)
-------
c:
UJ
H
Lvl
Q
O
Q
O
K
UJ
0.001
0 10 20 30 40 50 GO "70
MILLIONS OF PARTlCLES/cc > STATED SIZE
Figure 14. Inlet condensation nuclei counter sizing measurements
(10/27/74)
43
-------
Table 8. SUMMARY OF ACCEPTABLE CNC MEASUREMENTS
Date
9/26/74
9/30/74
10/1/74
10/2/74
10/26/74
10/27/74
Time
1525
1645
1720
1723
0920
0940
0956
1027
1045
1102
1135
1142
1150
1325
1347
1422
1441
1459
1530
1549
1738
1800
Inlet
concentration,
particles/cc
6,100,000
7,000,000
3,800,000
3,500,000
3,600,000
25,000,000
27,000,000
27,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
9,400,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
9,600,000
5,600,000
1,200,000
710,000
31,000,000
35,000,000
50,000,000
32,000,000
17,000,000
4,400,000
4,500,000
Diffusion
denuder
d50»
urn
0.0125
0.0135
0.0190
0.0590
0.0590
0.0135
0.0190
0.0610
0.0610
Outlet
concentration,
particles/cc
4,300,000
49,000
0
Diffusion
denuder
d50>
urn
0.0140
44
-------
was chosen because the dilution system used duplicates the dilution
system used for all the acceptable inlet readings. If the mean inlet
reading and the 27 October 1974 outlet reading are used, the removal
efficiency of the baghouse for particles in the 0.0025 urn to 0.5 urn
range is 99.74 percent. This, combined with the results of the
impactor measurements, would indicate a collection efficiency greater
than 99 percent on a mass basis down to about 1 um, and similarly, a
collection efficiency greater than 99 percent on a number basis for
particles between about 0.5 urn and 0.0025 urn.
In addition to the particulate measurements that were made, several un-
controllable variables were monitored throughout the tests so that their
effects, if any, could be examined. These variables included the ash,
moisture and sulfur content of the coal, the boiler steam load and bag-
house parameters, such as the number of cleaning cycles during each test
and the occurrence of bag failures. A summary of the daily values of the
uncontrollable variables is presented in Table 9. The measured and cal-
culated properties of the inlet and outlet flue gases are summarized in
Table 10.
An attempt was made to keep the boiler load steady but day to day dif-
ferences in demand and in operating conditions resulted in some fluctua-
tions. The mean boiler load for all tests was 111,000 pounds of steam
per hour with a standard deviation of 8,500. There was no control over
the properties of the coal that was burned; therefore, three coal samples
were taken from the boiler feed each day and analyzed for heating value
and composition. The complete coal analyses are contained in Appendix E.
The daily average ash content ranged from 11.38 percent to 18.00 percent
with a mean value of 14.34. The daily average sulfur content ranged
from 0.60 percent to 1.72 percent with a mean of 0.78 while the average
heating value ranged from 11,798 to 12,978 with a mean of 12,423 Btu
per pound.
45
-------
Table 9. SUMMARY OF MONITORED UNCONTROLLABLE VARIABLES
Date
9/21/74
9/22/74
9/23/74
9/24/74
9/25/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
9/28/74
9/30/74
10/01/74
10/02/74
10/03/74
10/04/74
10/05/74
10/06/74
10/07/74
10/22/74
10/23/74
10/24/74
10/25/74
10/26/74
10/27/74
Avg.
7. ash
14.59
14.66
13.50
11.38
13.09
12.89
13.89
14.19
14.36
18.00
15.58
13.88
14.23
13.62
13.60
15.24
15.48
16.56
12.27
15.00
14.11
14.17
Avg.
% moisture
7.95
7.97
5.99
5.67
6.47
6.50
5.64
6.34
5.93
6.54
7.44
6.83
5.77
6.28
4.96
6.92
8.42
9.01
8.71
7.18
8.08
8.37
Avg.
% sulfur
0.72
0.73
0.82
1.11
1.72
0.90
0.67
0.72
0.75
0.60
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.63
0.69
0.85
0.68
0.80
0.68
0.65
0.75
0.75
Avg. boiler
steam load
1000 Ibs/hr
115
99
112
113
117
117
116
117
117
101
96
118
117
118
85
117
114
111
111
111
110
111
No. of
cleaning
cycles
2
1
7
1
14
14
5
14
3
5
0
0
5
11
1
3
4
2
3
12
14
7
No. of bags
replaced
-
-
-
-
-
-
6
-
-
-
-
7
5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46
-------
Table 10. FLUE GAS PROPERTIES
Date
9/21/74
9/22/74
9/23/74
9/24/74
9/25/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
9/28/74
9/30/74
10/1/74
10/2/74
10/3/74
10/4/74
10/5/74
10/6/74
10/7/74
10/22/74
10/23/74
10/24/74
10/25/74
10/26/74
10/27/74
Inlet
Moisture,
Z
7.64
7.26
4.83
7.13
7.32
7.46
6.65
6.87
6.21
3.77
5.40
6.37
7.15
7.12
6.03
6.86
7.33
4.92
7.07
6.63
5.44
6.39
C02.
-
11.8
12.9
11.9
10.0
12.0
11.5
02.
X
6.0
5.2
7.3
6.1
8.4
7.0
6.6
7.2
9.0
6.9
7.0
CO.
Z
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.4
Stack
tempera-
ture, °K
283
275
281
283
281
276
276
267
266
267
270
280
272
273
259
271
256
261
266
264
271
266
Volumetric
flow rate,
acfta
44,434
39.595
41.513
•41,946
42,694
40,746
43.426
44,000
42,295
41.793
47,670
4 1 , 008
44,179
48,681
39,876
46,483
48,803
47.530
44,711
45.162
45,718
44,750
Outlet
Moisture,
7.
6.24
5.69
5.63
5.66
5.87
6.03
4.67
5.38
5.12
5.12
3.75
5.87
5.84
5.43
4.08
5.07
5.78
6.50
5.67
5.32
5.56
C02.
Z
11.0
12.0
10.5
11.5
9.6
10.8
°2.
Z
7.6
8.0
6.8
7.4
9.2
7.4
7.7
6.7
8.1
6.9
7.6
4.5
8.4
8.0
7.6
8.5
8.1
8.6
8.9
CO,
7.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0
0
0.5
Stack
tempera-
ture. °f
250
246
254
248
252
252
240
1 243
246
238
247
249
246
239
233
245
240
242
238
234
233
Volumetric
flow rate,
acfm
40.300
41.731
41.489
41.644
43.351
37,635
40.194
38.480
38,544
37.618
42,292
39,717
39,240
40,120
37,487
41,711
42,907
39.479
40.312
41,058
41,034
Concent rat ion,
lbs/102 Ecu
0.0106
0.0137
0.0111
0.0145
0.0106
0.0102
0.0104
0.0036
0.0036
0.0025
0.0043
0.0211
0.0092
0.0060
0.0020
0.0046
0.0055
0.0024
0.0034
0.0042
0.0036
Ibs part/
hr
1.53
1.76
1.61
2.26
1.54
1.52
1.54
0.52
0.54
0.326
0.53
2.12
1.36
0.93
0.228
0.665
0.823
0.34
0.50
0.605
0.524
-------
Analysis of selected coal and fly ash samples were made for trace ele-
ments using atomic absorption. The results of these analyses are pre-
sented in Table 11. Along with the analysis by AA, some samples were
examined using a scanning electron microscope and X-ray fluorescence.
The X-ray spectra and photomicrographs at three magnifications of one
of the fly ash samples are shown in Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18. The
elemental analyses for the coal and fly ash samples examined by X-ray
fluorescence are shown in Table 12.
A multiple regression analysis was employed to determine the effect of the
most obvious variables on particulate penetration. The list of variables
analyzed and the correlation matrix is shown in Table 13. Most of the
variables are self-explanatory except those associated with the baghouse
operation. Variable 6, the number of shakes per cycle, was varied only
for tests 20 and 21 when the shaking part of the cleaning cycle was
eliminated. Variable 7 is a somewhat qualitative assignment that at-
tempts to account for the excessive frequency of bag failures that were
experienced. The baghouse was inspected periodically for broken bags
and nearly every inspection resulted in bag replacement. Since it was
impossible to determine when the bag failure had actually occurred, each
day was assigned the number equal to the number of days since a baghouse
inspection that resulted in bag replacement.
Variable 9, the length of reverse flow, was normally 15 seconds. In
three tests it was extended to 60 seconds and in two tests it was elimi-
nated. Variable 10, the number of cleaning cycles during the test, was
included because there usually was little control over the frequency of
cleaning. The cleaning cycle is actuated when the pressure drop across
the bag reaches 4 inches of water and hence was dependent upon the
quality of the coal, the quality of combustion in the boiler, the flue
gas flow rate, etc. In addition two tests were run in which the pres-
sure transducer was bypassed so that no cleaning took place which resulted
in each compartment being active for the entire 6 hour sampling period.
-------
Table 11. ANALYSIS OF SELECTED COAL AND FLY ASH SAMPLES FROM BOILER No. 2
\o
% Ash
Ash analysis
7. Loss on Ignition
7L Moisture
7. Silica (S102)
7. Iron oxide (Fe.0_)
7, Aluminum oxide (Al_0_)
7. Calcium oxide (CaO)
7. Titanium oxide (TiOj)
7. Potassium oxide (K.O)
7. Sodium oxide (Na20)
Coal samples
0855
9/28/74
12.40
-
-
52.56
9.30
30.50
1.20
2.00
0.92
0.19
0900
10/01/74
14.72
•
-
50.28
13.10
26.20
5.56
1.60
0.80
0.19
1155
10/25/74
12.81
-
-
51.04
8.50
33.50
3.52
1.60
0.76
0.19
Fly ash samples
Compartment #4
hopper
1230
10/25/74
-
32.53
0.45
31.87
9.65
19.10
3.22
1.07
0.18
0.20
Compartment 05
hopper
1235
10/25/74
-
35.61
0.48
31.00
12.53
14.40
4.60
1.02
0.15
0.10
Compartment #6
hopper
1240
10/25/74
-
39.65
0.45
28.79
5.33
19.76
3.71
0.96
0.14
0.11
-------
200^. m
Figure 15. Fly ash from baghouse
hopper number 4,
October 25, 1974;
X-ray fluorescence
spectra
Figure 16. Fly ash from baghouse
hopper number 4,
October 25, 1974;
scanning electron
micrograph, 50 magnifica-
tion at 10 kV
,'M
Figure 17. Fly ash from baghouse
hopper number 4,
October 25, 1974;
scanning electron
micrograph, 1000
magnification at 30 kV
Figure 18. Fly ash from baghouse
hopper number 4,
October 25, 1974;
scanning electron
micrograph, 10,000
magnification at 30 kV
50
-------
Table 12. RESULTS OF X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF COAL AND FLY ASH
Coal
Fly ash
Fly ash
Fly ash
T\z* t" «
L/d LC
10/22
10/25
10/25
10/26
10/26
'10/22
10/22
10/22
10/25
10/25
10/25
10/26
10/26
10/26
10/26
10/26
10/26
T-f mo
1 J.1I1C
1450
0905
1445
1115
1520
1530
1535
1540
1230
1235
1240
1445
1450
1455
1500
1505
1510
Elements in order of concentration
Si
Si
Si
Si
Fe
Si
Si
Al
Al
Al
Si
Al
Si
Si
Si
Si
Si
Al
Al
Al
Al
Si
Al
Al
Si
Si
Si
Al
Si
Al
Al
Al
Al
Al
S
S
S
S
Al
S
S
S
Fe
S
S
S
S
S
Fe
S
S
Fe
Fe
Fe
Fe
S
Fe
Fe
Ca
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ti
Ca
Fe
Ti
Fe
Ca
Ti
K
Ti
K
K
Ti
Ti
Cl
S
Fe
Fe
Fe
Ti
Ca
K
K
Ti
K
Ca
K
Ca
Ca
Ca
Ca
Fe
K
Cu
Ca
Ca
Fe (trace)
Ti
Ca
Ca
Fe
Ca
Cr (trace)
Ca
Ti
K
K
Ti
Ca
K
S
Ti
K
Cl
Cu
Cl
Cl
Cl
Mn
Mn
51
-------
Table 13. CORRELATION MATRIX FOR TESTS 1 TO 21
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Variable
Inlet, gr/ft3
Outlet, gr/ft
Coal Bolsturc, percent
Coal ash, percent
Coal sulfur, percent
Dag chakea per cleaning cycle
Days since bagl.ouse inspection
Boiler stcan load, 1000 Ib/hr
Rcprenure tiisc, second*
Cleaning cycles per Coat
Efficiency percent
Penetration, pareanc
1
1.000
2
•0.144
1.000
3
•0.070
-0.214
1.000
4
-0.004
-0.507
0.404
1.000
5
-0.086
0.233
-0.133
-0.423
1.000
6
0.083
0.233
-0.221
-0.052
0.114
1.000
7
-0.233
-0.369
0.472
0.000
0.283
-0.603
1.000
8
0.215
0.382
0.028
-0.263
0.222
0.021
-0.100
1.000
9
0.703
-0.1S5
-0.090
0.040
-0.009
0.065
-0.146
0.321
1.000
10
0.319
-0.149
-0.115
-0.202
0.276
-0.442
0.347
0.390
0.118
1.000
11
0.291
-0.97S
0.250
0.553
-0.333
-0.214
0.261
-0.332
0.275
0.128
1.000
12
-0.290
0.973
-0.250
-0.558
0.333
0.214
-0.261
0.332
-0.27S
-0.123
•1.000
1.000
-------
In two other tests the baghouse was forced to clean continuously which
resulted in a total of 14 cleaning cycles during the test period and each
compartment being active only 5 of the 6 hours of testing.
Equation 1, constructed from the 11 tests with normal baghouse operating
parameters, explains 95.3 percent of the variance in penetration.
-2 f
percent penetration = 1.169 +10 1-3.62 (coal ash, %) -3.76 (days
since inspection) + 31.81 (coal sulfur, %)
-0.40 (steam load) -13.14 (inlet grain loading) +
1.45 (coal moisture, %) (1)
The regression analysis for all 21 tests, that is for normal and abnormal
baghouse operating conditions combined, results in a substantial reduction
in the predictability of penetration, although 62.7 percent of the vari-
ance in penetration is still explained by equation (2).
percent penetration = 0.367 + 10~2 -3.75 (coal ash, %) -1.70 (inlet
grain loading) -2.64 (days since inspection) +
0.28 (steam load) + 11.70 (coal sulfur, %)
-0.12 (repressure time) +1.66 (coal moisture, %)
-0.40 (shakes per cleaning cycle) (2)
Notable in equation (2) is the apparently slight influence of the delib-
erately altered variables. Several changes were made in the cleaning
cycle that were expected to significantly effect performance. These
variables, however, either do not appear in the penetration equation
or appear as only slight influences on penetration. To test this ob-
servation the mean penetration was computed for the 11 tests under normal
operating conditions and for each series of tests under experimental bag-
house operating conditions. Comparison by a two sample t-test reveals
that for all situations, except increased duration of reverse air during
cleaning (variable 9), one would fail to reject at the 0.10 level the
53
-------
null hypothesis that the means are equal. That is, all abnormal condi-
tions except increased reverse air duration do not show statistically
significant differences in the penetration as compared to normal
conditions.
The first of the tests in which the reverse air was increased to 60 sec-
onds coincided with an inlet particulate concentration more than five
times higher than during any other run. During that test it was noted
that an extended period of very poor combustion occurred in the boiler
which probably caused the extremely high particulate loading. Because
of this observation the increased time of reverse air flow was repeated
for test 9 and again for test 18. When the results of only tests 9 and
18 are compared with the results of the normal tests, the difference in
penetration is no longer statistically significant. It certainly appears
that the results obtained by including test 8 are more dependent on the
high inlet loading caused by the boiler misfire than on the increase in
the duration of reverse air flow.
REFERENCE
1. Smith, W. B., K. M. Gushing, and J. D. McCain. Particulate Sizing
Techniques for Control. Device Evaluation. Southern Research In-
stitute. EPA-650/2-74-102. October 1974.
-------
APPENDIX A
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
55
-------
v-n
PEHCcNTAGE OF MASS LESS TiiAN OR EQUA!. TO STATE.O SIZE
Figure 19. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Itnpactors for Run 1
-------
i!-:_.
• n ' ' i • ;
-— i inlet run A
•, • A inter run B
r~ O outlet W«»t port
:.; O outlet North port
COI "01 0
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 20. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 2
-------
CO
Zj' .lL!_i_i_L I:';;' i'.
!_— p:L: J_
III
--:-"-r— H- v-n-
1 -. -••• i:;i i
• r I • • • ' !
- x Inlaf run A
inlet fun 8
! O curl«t Wot port
O outlet North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 21. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 3
-------
— x in[«r run A
ml.r run B
" O oulUl W*it port
i : it i
O outlet North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 22. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 4
-------
— ii inlet run A
i A in!«t run B
" : O oulUt W«if porr
O outler NorlK port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 23. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 5
-------
L-.-. i... i.—.! _^_.!.: : • ; ;
_i ,: '. I i : .1;..
x Irtltt run A
in!»f run B
O oullot Wait port
O outlaf NortK porr
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 24. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 6
-------
i i inlet run A
inlet run B
O outlet Wait port
D outlet North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 25. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 1
-------
100-
cr.
y
i
O
u
«
o
i : .
--•-•-- . f " * T "•" [•- . ' , j '* * '.
• . • i . . /. . : I ' . i ! i : ;
— - » inl«t run A
A Inlet run 6
I:::, : .
n:<{.: .] i: :. i..,.j .1 I ...:.:;
J ; j t ^
• "• i.'." O oulUt Wait port
O outltt North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 26. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Itnpactors for Run 8
-------
100 —
0 «• C? P 1 7 (.1 0 "I
cr-
I inlet run A
inlet run B
O oull.f W«i» port
O ouil.l North port
001 c vl •) I o i o •> I : ^ |i) l(t
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 27. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 9
-------
100
7 1 n •,
T-H-I H-
i .. i . ; • i
ill biizEEfci:
.: . , !
int«r run A
inlet run B
.]'""" O outlet W«»t porf
D outl«t North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 28. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 10
-------
100-
»)« VM 51 »
: :'•-;•[ :ji^.Ll^!
7 i c * o : r i
i T "
I '
z
s •
o
I..L
inlet fun A
inter run 8
O outlet W«»t port
O outlet NortK port
CGI 0 *t 0 t u I u
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 29. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 11
-------
100 —
, , . ,._ - ...
__ : ;L: :____ i • • •
., i; n :' ; • : ..r^TTi
K inlt? run A
A inltt run B
" _ :~' O outlst W«it por(
D oulUr NorfK port
•I III' I : i I ! :, ;
gci r.,1 01 oj
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 30. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 12
-------
100
Co
- ii inltt run A
tn!*t run
'" O outlet W«il port
.. O ourltf North port
OCI O.wi Ul 02 Ui 1
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 31. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 13
-------
0--
VO
'."]'.'" O oufUt W«»( port
O oulUt North port
; ;; L .:
C 01 f ul 0 1 0 2 OS 1 2 > lu /U J • 4u :-i» {,J 7u KJ "0 3j Oa '/^ •-'• t it '
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 32. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 14
-------
i inltt fun A
• A inlet run B
• O oulUt W«»( port
D outlet North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 33. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 15
-------
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 34. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 16
-------
100 -
c
t*
u
10 !-
2
O
«
u
<
inlof run
O Oftlol W«ir corl ;
D outlet North port
I
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 35. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 17
-------
!:!!K l.!!i| : :-ii;- ^jjj
• inttt run A
nlat run &
~*~~ O oullat W»if port
I"! .!'
D outlet NorfK port
001 0 [^ G ! 0 I 01 1 1 'i 10 ?u Jfl *J 13 C" 73 I"1 '' ri't ''ft V • *•'! •» *J ' '
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 36. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 18
-------
OS 07 ft I D r, "• f"
i : :"• ' ; •' \ ": ."!" "I- *~ " • t - i -. : ' !~ '": •
L i...l_J. • '!..._ ilUi
• x inI*T run A
A i n! 91 r y n 8
;'. ' O ouMot W«if porr
D ouHot North port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EOUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 37. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 19
-------
Ui
x inlet run A
£, inltt run B
O outlaf W«jf port
D out!er NorfK port
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAU OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 38. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 20
-------
100-
DCS (*0!
o
2
>-
O
t-n
UJ
<
1 r:
a 10 —— !—;_
x inltl fun A
A mitt run B
O oufl«t W»tl porr
O ouHtl North porr
001 L.^101 J/ 0) 1
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 39. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 21
-------
100 —
: ; ' !
• ' :
: : : :.
-j : i J LLJ:
L_|_j ._:
1 ; : j
: I 1 . : : . .
1 , '
' .
L.
!:!:
:•;
: ;
-4-1
: .
' : :
'
• ; :
;:::
: 1
- . i- -
• "
•_ !
' !"• "
; •
: ';•
• —
•;:
.
•
— -
i : : i i : . :
i r~t"i i . j . ' . ,
j • 1. -i • • i : •
,,: !;•;!,; : r!'jjjjj i i-- i .- i: i .'•' •
if j iiii
"1 "M •••!•• :••••;-• -; -•-;-.-; •-;---; •;- r -•-
..^....|:;:.|. |...p... . |.,|.: |. .:. i ! ...
" ;'' . j '•': : ; ' '• i I ! i :' r • "
I - 1 i - . , . . I -
. \
'.'. 1 .
! '••
i
i
i i-
> i ,
' j:
-> i
- ; !
"i i
Li
j i . ,
\A/
x inUf run A
A inl*t run B
O outltt W«») porf
Q Ouf!«r NorfK port
• . -• -I "'
PERCENTAGE OF MASS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO STATED SIZE
Figure 40. Cumulative particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 22
-------
APPENDIX B
DIFFERENTIAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
78
-------
inltl run B
O outUf W«»f port
Q outlet Ni'ortS port
0.01 ;iLi
0.0001 .
0.001
o.oi o.i
dM/d log 0 , jroinj/dicf
Figure 41. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 1
-------
2 3 4 3 C 7 « q 1 ? 1 « 1 f, 7 i 'j I Z 3 4 5 C 7 fl 9 I
3 * S « 7 • »
08
o
* x inlet run A
- & inlet*run B
O outlet V/«sf port
O outlet North port
0*0001 ""6.G01 6,01 0.1 10
dAA/d log D , grains/d c c t
10
Figure 42. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Irapactors for Run 2
-------
Co
r-
4^07*91 2 3 4 ! G 7 « 9 I } 4 S < T >«l 9 4 I « T Inltt run A
^
A inlet run B
O oul!«t Wail por^
D ouIl8^ Nortn porf
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D , grainl/djcf
Figure A3. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 3
-------
100;;:;:
CO
0.0!.-:. :- -_
0.0001
::':!:!.
6.001~~
0.01 0.1
loo 0 , Ofoin
x In!«t run A
A inlftt fun 5
O outl«r W»if porf
O outUr North port
1.0
10
Figure 44. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 4
-------
100 '•"
2 3 4 3 « 7 fl * I
CO
x inlet run A
A inlet run B
O outl«l VJett port
D ourlal North port
o.oi u.;•-.__
o.oooi
o.oi o.i
dM/d log D , groini/ciscf
Figure 45. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 5
-------
iOO ,'-
2 > * 5 « 7 8 9 1 2 3 4567991
CO
.£>
0.1
Q.Qi:..--:-.
0.0001
0.001
x iniaf run A
& inlet run B
O outlet Wait port
O outlet North port
0.01 0.1
dM/d loj 0 , graint/dscf
1.0
10
Figure A6. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 6
-------
100
1 i 5 I 7»»l
09
0.1
0.01.-—. " i
0.0001
A inlet run S
O outlet V/*tt port
D outlet North port
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D , groint/dicf
1.0
10
Figure 47. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 7
-------
cr-
2 1 4 5 C 7 « « 1 2 1 4 S < 7 • * 1 2 3 4 S C 7 0 4 1
0.01...
0.0001
K Inlet run A
inlet run 3
O outlgl V/«i! port
D outUf North port
1.0
10
Figure 48. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 8
-------
r 3 4 3 6 7 B
!f a 7 B 9 1 2 34567891 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 1
03
O.COOI
x in!»? run A
A inlet run B
O outUt W«i( port
Q ouM«t North port
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D , groin»/dscf
1.0
10
Figure 49. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 9
-------
I OOf-."'
00
06
I 3 4 * & ? A 9 I 2 J.4567eot 2 3 4367801
0.01 :_:i::..!.:.:.
0.0001
x inlil run A
A inlet run &
O outlet W«tt port
Q outlat NortK port
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log 0 , graint/dtcf
1.0
10
Figure 50. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 10
-------
,„,.
IUO • '
00
J 3 4 3 6 7 » »1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »»I
0.01 _ . _
0.0001
x inl«t run A
A inl«t run B
O ocM»t W»if port
O ogtl«t NorlK por>
0.001
0.01 0.)
dM/d log D . groint/dscf
10
Figure 51. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 11
-------
2 3 4 5 II 7 «« I 2 .1 4 1 6 7 » 91 2 3
x in!*} run A
A inlot run B
O ourUr Wa» port
Q ouiUl North port
O.C01
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D , groini/
-------
* ? 6 7 9 9 1 _ ? 3 _4_ 5 « 7 B » 1
x inlet run A
ir.Iat fun B
0 cufUt W»»t porf
O outlet Norfh port
1.0
10
Figure 53. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 13
-------
J 3 4 5 s 7 e * 1
" — '~
vo
0.01: ::-
O.OOOT
..? -f _" .' T"?.' ? ?., *-..? *.7. • V, *.. ,...'.. 4. ? '.' •'.'.
i ir.Ut run A
A inlet run 3
O ou*!0t Waif porf
D outlal Klorfh port
0.001
L. . _;__:_ _J _' ._ '' :":'!
0.01 0.!
dM/d log D . grolni/dicf
1.0
10
Figure 5A. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 14
-------
100 ;
VD
o.ooci
i inlol run A
A inl»t fun B
O eurlat V/«ti port
D outlef Norf'n port
0.001
0.01 0.1
-------
100 i1
t 341'. 78*1 Z 3 4 :: 6 7 n •* ! 2 343*70-31
2 3 43S7B91 2 3 4 9 I 7 « 91
0.01
0.0001
s Initt fun A
A inlet run B
O ouilsl W«sl port
Q oul'.tt North port
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log 0 , grains/docf
1.0
10
Figure 56. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 16
-------
100.
! >_'__»«'• 91 » 14 S f. 7 « 91 2
; , • • • • t •
VO
On
A ir.!*r run
O ouHsr Weil port
Q out!ef North port
0.0! -- -.
0.0001
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D , Qrain«/dscf
1.0
Figure 57. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 17
-------
VD
2 1 < > 6 7 «
-------
100 '-
»• :
j 4 j « 7 it
1 4^671*4! 2 3 4 5 « 7 8 •> 1 1 3 4 3 G 7 0 4 t
0.01-1-—:
0.0001
> inlet run A
ntet run B
O ouf!«t V/«i! port
Q outlet North port
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D , groint/dacf
1.0
10
Figure 59. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 19
-------
100 •'-
1 i 3 <; 7 fl a 1
GJ
0.01— . _:
00001
0.001
0.01 0.1
dM/d log D . oroim/dscf
K i A ! • t fun A
A inltl run B
O outl«t Weif porf
O outltt North port
1.0
10
Figure 60. Differential particle si2e distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 20
-------
2 1 4 5 6 7 • « 1 2 34567HS1 2 ] 4 3 C 7 • «
o
> inltt run A
in[*f run B
O outUi V.'air port
D oullaf Norfli porl
o.oi;.-_:_:
ooooi
Figure 61. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 21
-------
100 •'
O
O
0.01.'..: :~
O.OOC!
X in!i>r run A
A in!at run S
O oulUr Wt» port
D outlet North port
C.001
0.0! 0.1
dM/d log 0 , jraini/dscf
1.0
10
Figure 62. Differential particle size distributions determined
by Andersen Impactors for Run 22
-------
APPENDIX C
FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY/PENETRATION CURVES
101
-------
10.0
90.O
o
llj
u_
O.I
5 & 7 6
PARTiCLt SIZE, F
10
99.9
Figure 63. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 1
102
-------
10.0
00.0
>-
o
z
UJ
o
UJ
O.I
5 6 7 8 9 10
PARTICLE SIZE. Mm
99.9
Figure 64. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 2
103
-------
10.0
00.0
O.I
99.9
Figure 65. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 3
104
-------
10.0
90.0
0.2 —:—t —
O.I
5678
PARTICLE SIZE, ^
10
, -"99.9
Figure 66. Penotration/officiency as a function of size for Run 4
105
-------
10.0
•30.0
O.!
99.9
Figure 67. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 5
106
-------
10.0
90.0
95.0
a 9 10 n iz 13
99.9
Figure 68. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 6
107
-------
10.0
90.O
O.I
5678
PARTICLE SIZE, ^
99.9
Figure 69. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 1
108
-------
c
1'
o
v.
01
o.
O
t-
H
UJ
Z
Id
CL
0.02
—r— — i ! i r— 99.98
0.01
5678
PARTICLE SIZE. /*
10
ii E
15 14
99.99
c
0>
-------
10.0
90.0
o
UJ
o
UJ
u.
u.
Ul
99.9
II 12 13 14
Figure 71. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 9
110
-------
10.0
90.0
5 C 7 8
PARTICLE SIZE, /i
10
li 14
99.9
Figure 72. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 10
111
-------
10.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
7. 1.0
2 os
o.e
O.I
• •' : '•-" - r • --
" 1
:
I
; 1 i •
v i
X^~ •-•:-- ;••- .-
i j-^r-^-k.^
•
L : '
"
:
L _
""*"
I
•— >•—
1 - ; -•
; : ;
"i " "1
| | i
i |
1 ' F
: ! . ' i
±±L± III
90.0
95.0
96.0
97.0
98.0
99.0
99.1
99.2
99.3
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
567
PARTICLE SIZE,
99.9
Figure 73. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 11
112
-------
10.0
90.0
5678
PARTICLE SIZE, M
10
II 12
14
99.9
Figure 74. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 12
113
-------
10.0
90.0
O.I
5 G 7
PARTICLE SIZE, M
15
99.9
Figure 75. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 13
114
-------
10.0
00.0
O.I
90.9
10 II 12 13 14
Figure 76. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 14
115
-------
10.0
90.0
34 56789 10
O.I
99.9
Figure 77. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 15
116
-------
10.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
K 1.0
2 o,
K
0.8
0.7
Of,
0.5
0.3
O.I
90.0
95.0
96.O
97.0
90.0
99.0
99.1
99.2
93.3
99.4
99.5
99.6
99.7
99.8
5678
PARTICLE SIZE, ^
10
99.9
Figure 78. Penetration/efficiency as a function of si^e for Run 16
117
-------
10.0
90.O
— 95.O
-96.0
- 97.O
o
-
_
UJ
O.I
56790
PARTICLE SIZE,
15 14
09.9
Figure 79. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 17
113
-------
10.0
DO.O
O.I
5 G 7 8 9
PARTICLE SIZE, ^m
1-1
99.9
Figure 80. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 18
119
-------
10.0
90.0
O.I
5078
PARTICLE SIZE. h
13 14
99.9
Figure 81. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 19
120
-------
10.0
90.0
O.I
56783
PARTICLE SIZE. Mm
10
90.9
Figure 82. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 20
121
-------
10.0
90.0
O.I
5 C 7 8
PARTICLE SIZE, ^
10
II 12
99.0
Figure 83. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 21
122
-------
10.0
00.0
O.I
5 G 7 8
PARTICLE SIZE, ^
99.9
Figure 84. Penetration/efficiency as a function of size for Run 22
123
-------
APPENDIX D
CNC READINGS
124
-------
Table 14. CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Dace
9/26/74
9/27/74
9/30/74
10/1/74
.
10/1/74
10/2/74
Tlac
1100
1125
1140
1210
1030
1055
1200
1235
1353
Sacple
dilution
cyctcs
Da
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rb + AEC + D
P. + AE + D
R + AE + D
R + AE + D
R + AE •*• D
R + AE + D
R •»• AZ + D
D
D
D
D
D
R 4- AE + D
R + AE + D
R + AE + D
R + AE + D
R 4- AE + D
D
Cc
D + C
D + C
D + C.
Steady
ccate
conditions
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
YC3
Yce
Yco
Yco
YC3
Yco
Yes
Yco
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YC3
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
YC3
YC3
DD flow
(cc/scc)
_
_
66
66
—
24
66
-
—
66
66
24
66
66
-
—
66
-
66
28
-
66
-
66
28
__
_
-
66
23
Dilution
ratio
73
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.8
1.0
1.0
220
220
220
620
220
220
220
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.4
fi.O
ISO
1?0
150
150
350
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.6
Altitude
corrected
CMC readings
(particles/cc)
53,000
690
340
690
660
150
690
720
27.000
310
600
570
390
6/.0
31,000
700
6SO
690
690
650
21,000
540
23,000
620
570
730
530
650
640
610
Inlet
concentration
(particlcs/cc)
6,ion,ooo
70,000
130.000
350,000
SS.OCO
140,000
7,000,000
3,800,000
97,000
•3,500,000
93,000
200, COO
Outlet
concentration
(particlcs/cc)
4. 300,000
690
3iO
690
660
150
690 '
720
2,500
2,300
2,300
2.3CO
5.500
730
5cO
650
640
1,600
NJ
-------
Table 14 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Date
10/3/74
10/3/74
'
10/4/74
Time
1400
1525
1540
1605
1627
1637
16^5
1655
1715
1720
1723
1050
1105
1120
1135
1200
1256
1323
1332
1340
1425
1025
1030
1035
1040
1055
1106
1300
14CO
1430
1503
Sarcple
dilution
cyctcm
D 4- C
R 4- AE 4- D
R 4- AS 4- D
R + AE 4- D
R T AE + D
R 4- AE + D
R 4- AE
Steady
Gtate
conditions
Yea
Yes
No
No
No
No
YC3
R 4- AE No
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
D
D 4- C
D 4- C
D 4- C
D + C
R 4- AE 4- C
R 4- AE 4- C
R + AE 4- C
R 4- AC 4- C
C
pc + CTf
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
? 4- CT
P
P + C
P 4- C
P + C
P 4- C
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
YC3
No
IJo
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yoc
Yco
Yes
DO flow
(cc/scc)
3.7
-
66
-
34
-
-
66
23
66
-
_
—
-
66
66
-
-
-
-
-
_
—
—
—
-
-
-
—
-
66
Dilution
ratio
16
180
240
230
4.9
5.6
2.6
2.6
7.5
2.6
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.0
1.0
15
1.3
6.4
1.6
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Altitude
corrected
CNC readings
(particlcs/cc)
610
20.000
650
7,500
65
26
9,600,000
8,200,000
930
10,000.000
10.000,000
490
620
630
610
130
11,000,000
25,000
650
36,000
26
72
78
78
72
0
12,000,000
0 to 130,000
2,200,000
13.000,000
3,900
Inlet
conccnti Jtion
(partlclcc/cc)
3.600.000
160,000
1,700,000
320
150
25.000,000
22,000,000
7,400
27,000,000
27,000,000
24,000,000
53,000
1,400
36,000
26
Ouclc:
cor.GGntratioa
(particlcs/cc)
10.000
t
490
620
6SO
610
130
1,000
93
500
120
0
12,000,000
0 to 130,000
2,2CO,OCCS
13.COO,OCCh
3.9CO
-------
Table 14 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Date
10/5/74
10/6/74
Tine
1550
1610
1020
1035
1053
1130
1230
'1300
1345
1415
1445
1515
1550
1640
0912
0930
0953
1020
1110
1135
1206
1220
1255
1320
1345
1500
1559
1623
1646
1715
Sample •
dilution
sye tea
P + C
P + C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P -f C
P 4- C
P + C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P -f C
P 4- C
P + C
P -f C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P + C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P 4- C
P + C + CT
P + C
P + C
P •*• C
Steady
state
conditions
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
DD flow
(cc/scc)
24
-
_
-
—
-
-
.
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
60
60
60
-
_
_
-
—
Dilution
ratio
2.6
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
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
Altitude
corrected
CNC readings
(particlcs/cc)
420
320
10,000.000
2.600.000 -
io;ooo.ooo
460
390
520
650
580
4.600.000
520
570
580
520
4,200,000
12,000,000
12,000,000
12,000.000
12,000,000
11,000,000
11,000.000
12,000,000
12,000,000
0 to 260
0 to 200
12.000.000
300
230
12,000.000
12.000.000
Inlet
concentration
(particlcs/cc)
Outlet
concentration
(particlcs/cc)
1,103
320
10.000,000
2,600.000 -
10. 000. COO
460
390
520
650
5EO
4,600,000
520
570
5SO
520
4,200.000
12.000.000
12.000.000
12. 000. COO
12,000,000
11,000.000
11,000.000
12,000,000
12,000.000
0 to 260
0 to 2CO
12.000.0DO
4SO
230
12,000,000
12.000.000
ro
-------
Table 14 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
ho
00
Date
10/7/74
10/22/74
•
10/23/74
10/24/75
Time
0303
0324
0900
0928
1030
1109
1115
11'. 7
1335
1400
1434
1315
1330
1333
14C3
1430
1630
1830
0930
0945
1340
1425
1504
1535
1600
1040
1125
1140
1200
Sanplc
dilution
eye tern
P + C
P + C
P 4- C
P + C -f CT
P + C + CT
P + C + CT
P + C •*• CT
P + C -1- CT
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
P + CT
P 4- CT
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
Steady
state
conditions
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
DD flow
(cc/sec)
^
-
-
-
-
-
60
60
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
66
33
3.7
_
-
-
—
Dilution
ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
12
12
12
12
12
1.8
1.8
1.8
4.6
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.5
3.0
3.0
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
35
1.7
5.3
4.4
1.8
Altitude
corrected
CNC readings
(particlos/cc)
12,000.000
12,000,000
13,000.000
50,000 -
200.000
0 to 150,000
50,000 -
200,000
0
0
56,000
26,000
26, COO
70,000
39.000
26. '.CO
13,000
13,000
3,200
10,000,000
9.000.000
12,000,000
140.000
140,000
130.000
120,000
5,100
20,000
23,000
21,000
27,000
Inlet
concentration
(partlclcs/cc)
92.000
46,000
46,000
270,000
300,000
270,000
240,000
180,000
33.0CO
120.000
90,000
48,000
Outlet
concentration
(partlclcs/cc)
12.000.030
12.000.000
13, 000. COO
550.000 -
2,400,000
0 to 1. SCO, 000
550.000 -
2.400,000
0
0
320,000
87,000
52,003
26,030
26,000
7.200
IS, 000, COO
27,000.000
37,030. CCO
-------
Table 14 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Data
10/25/74
10/26/74
Time
1205
1245
13CO
1330
1515
1520
1620
1630
16/. 4
1015
1020
1030
1040
1047
1055
1100
1130
1250
1320
1420
1523
1545
1558
0920
0940
0956
1027
1045
1102
1135
1142
1
Sample
d illucion
aystcm
R 4- AE
R + AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R + AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R + AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R + AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
R 4- AE
Steady
state
conditions
No
No
No
No
No
Yes .
Yea
No
No
Ycg
Yco
Yes
Yes
No
YC3
Ycg
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
DD flow
(cc/sec)
55
55
6.8
6.8
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
'60
30
3.2
Dilution
ratio
1.8
1.6
16
16
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0 '
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.6
2.0
2.1
3.1
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.6
3.4
3.0
55
Altitude
corrected
CNC readings
(particlcs/cc)
18.000
16.000
0 to 1.6CO
0 co 1,300
0 to 1,300
0
0
0
10,000,000
6.000
2,300
3,600
3,900
5,800
3,500
4,400
1,300
7,400,000
260.000
6,500.000
320,000
220.000
91.000
5,100,000
5,600,000
4,200.000
6,800,000
5,200,000
2,900,000
1,800,000
22,000
Inlet
concentration
(parciclcs/cc)
32.000
24.000
0 to 25,000
0 to 20,000
19,000,000
520.000
12,000.000
10,000,000
550,000
240.000
12,000.000
14,000.000
9,400,000
16,000.000
14.000,000
9,600,000
5,600,000
1,200,000
Outlet
concentration
(particlcs/cc)
0 to. 1,800
0
0
0
10. 000. COO
9,500
3.SOO
5.7CO
6,300
9.6CO
6, COO
7.500
2,100
ISJ
VO
-------
Table 14 (continued). CONDENSATION NUCLEI COUNTER SYSTEM DATA
Data
10/27/74
.
Tine
1150
1304
1320
1335
H05
1505
15'. I
1557
0835
1013
1040
1112
1120
1137
1325
1 3'. 7
K22
1441
1459
1530
1549
1638
1701
1738
1800
Sample
dilution
cyacca
P. + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AF.
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R 4- AE
P + CT
P + CT
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AC
R + AC
R + AE
R * AE
R 4- AE
R •«• AE
R + AE
R + AE
R + AE
Steady
Bt.ite
conditions
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Mo
No
Yes
YC3
YOS
Yes
Yes
YC3
Yea
No
No
Yes
Yes
DD flow
(cc/scc)
3.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
30
3.1
3.1
-
-
-
55
Dilution
ratio
55
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
5.5
6.1
7.6
7.1
6.9
no
170
4.0
4.2
4.2
4.2
Altitude
corrected
CNC readings
(particlcs/cc)
13,000
22,000
16,000
6,100
0
3,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
5.700.000
5,700.000
6.500,000
4.400.0UO
2.500,000
26,000
26,000
2,300
260
12,000
0
Inlet
concentration
(particlcs/ce)
710,000
31.000,000
35,000.000
50.000,000
32,000,000
17,000,000
4.4CO.OOO
4.500,000
Outlet
concentration
(particlcs/cc)
33.000
29.000
11,000
0
6.403
0
0
0
0
0
2.000
0
0
9.400
1.100
49,000
0
U)
o
Puzp dilutcr.
Large particle recover.
cAir ejector dilutcr.
Condcnocr.
Capillary tube dilutcr.
^Cleaning cycle minimus.
Cleaning cycle ninicua.
Probe.
-------
APPENDIX E
COAL ANALYSIS
131
-------
Table 15. RESULTS OF COAL ANALYSIS FROM NUCLA BOILER NO. 2
Date and
time
9/21/74
0900
1400
1700
9/22/74
0900
1330
1530
9/23/76
0930
1420
9/24/74
03 JO
1215
1700
9/25/74
0915
1330
1550
9/26/74 .
0850
1240
1525
As received
Moisture
(percent)
5.51
8.99
9.34
10.10
7.34
6.47
6.89
5.09
4.41
6.66
5.64
7.05
6.26
6.11
4.58
8.06
6.86
Volatilcs
(percent)
32.22
30.31
30.05
29.95
31.46
30.24
31.65
31.73
32.79
32.78
33.45
33-24
32.14
32.74
33.27
31.40
31.49
Fixed
carbon
(percent)
50.87
47.93
44.57
43.46
48.56
46.83
49.72
49.52
50.40
51.06
50.53
50.28
47.94
47.47
50.83
A8.79
48.59
Ash
(percent)
11.40
12.77
16.04
11.49
12.64
16.41
11.74
13.66
12.40
9.50
10.38
9.43
13.66
13.68
11.32
11.75
13.06
Ecu
per
pound
12,188
11,145
10,889
11,282
11,359
11,029
11,999
11.847
12,159
12,221
12,379
12,305
11,661
11,744
12.354
11.778
11,760
SulCur
(percent)
0.73
0.61
0.64
0.60
0.71
0.70
0.67
0.86
0.64
1,15
1.36
0.97
2.23
1.63
1.08
0.79
0.67
Dry basis
Volatilcs
(percent)
34.10
33.30
33.15
33.31
33.95
32.33
33.99
. 33.43
34.30
35.12
35.45
35.76
34.29
34.87
34.87
34.15
33.81
Fixed
carbon
(percent)
53.84
52.67
49.16
53.91
52.41
50.12
53.40
52.18
52.73
54.70
53.55
54.10
51.14
50.56
53.27
53.07
52.17
Ash
(percent)
12.06
14.03
17.69
12.78
13.64
17.55
12.61
14.39
12.97
10.18
11.00
10.14
14.57
14.57
11.86
12.78
14.02
Btu
per
pound
12,899
12.246
12,011
12,549
12,257
11,792
12,887
12.432
12.720
13.094
13,119
13,238
12.440
12,509
12,947
12,811
12.626
Sulfur
(percent)
0.77
0.67 •
0.71
0.67
0.77
0.75
0.72
0.91
0.67
1.23
1.44
1.04
2.37
1.74
1.13
0.85
0.72
-------
Table 15. (continued). RESULTS OF COAL ANALYSIS FROM NUCLA BOILER NO. 2
Date and
tire
9/27/74
0355
1245
9/23/74
0355
1220
1530
9/30/74
C910
1230
1325
10/1/74
0900
1240
1520
10/2/74
0900
1510
10/3/74
1030
1315
160S
As received
Moisture
(percent)
5.61
5.67
5.25
6.75
7.02
4.48
6.99
6.31
5.01
7.65
6.96
8.15
6.72
6.76
7.63
6.10
Volatilcs
(percent)
33.02
31.06
32.06
31.36
30.77
32.66
31.45
31.34
32.05
30.00
30.01
29.92
31.39
31.44
31.15
31.11
Fixed
carbon
(percent)
49.57
48.86
50.50
43.72
47.71
51.27
48.57
46.44
47.19
45.09
45.60
45.37
49.65
48.65
48.47
49.88
Ash
(percent)
11.80
14.41
12.19
13.17
14.50
11.59
12.99
15.91
15.75
17.26
17.43
16.56
12.24
13-15
12.75
12.91
Btu
per
pound
12,106
11,725
12,072
11,800
11,455
12,238
11,700
11,234
11,486
10,909
10,985
10,990
11,797
11,675
11.650
11,868
Sulfur
(percent)
0.66
0.60
0.66
0.70
0.65
0.66
0.76
0.71
0.55
0.59
0.56
0.64
0.62
0.61
0.70
0.64
Dry basis
Volatilcs
(percent)
34.98
32.93
33.84
33.63
33.09
34.19
33.82
33.45
33.74
32.48
32.25
32.57
33.65
33.72
33.72
33.13
Fixed
carbon
(percent)
52.52
51.79
53.29
52.25
51.32
53.08
52.21
49.57
49.68
48.83
49.02
49.40
53.23
52.18
52.48
53.12
Ash
(percent)
12.50
15.28
12.87
14.12
15.59
12.13
13.97
16.98
16.58
18.69
18.73
18.03
13.12
14.10
13.80
13.75
Btu
por
pound
12,825
12,430
12,741
12.654
12.320
12,812
12,580
11,990
12,091
11,812
11,807
11,965
12.646
12.521
12.612
12.639
Sulfur
(percent)
0.70
0.63 •'
0.70
0.75
0.70
0.69
0.81
0.76
0.58
0.63
0.60
0.69
0.66
0.65
0.6S
0.68
U)
-------
Table 15. (continued). RESULTS OF COAL ANALYSIS FROM NUCLA BOILER NO. 2
Date nnd
tl-nc
10/4/74
0350
1240
1450
10/5/74
0905
1200
1505
10/6/74
0505
1235
1500
10/7/74
0745
1050
1325
10/22/74
1120
1450
1745
10/23/74'
0330
1145
1550
A-. received
Moisture
(percent)
6.20
5.51
5.60
5.55
7.60
5.68
2.79
6.07
6.01
7.36
7.34
6.06
7.68
9.34
8.25
7.40
9.87
9.77
Volatilcs
(percent)
31.77
31.88
30.81
31.77
31.25
32.19
32.79*
30.84
31.22
29.62
30.67
31.36
31.03
30.46
29.06
30.38
28.86
29.74
fixed
carbon
(percent)
48.95
48.73
50.32
50.85
47.70
49.14
52.86
50.47
48.22
47.37
48.71
48.96
47.27
47.50
46.86
48.51
43.29
47.02
Ash
(percent)
13.03
13.88
13.27
11.83
13.45
12.99
11.56
12.62
14.55
15.65
13.28
13.62
14.02
12.70
15.83
13.71
17.98
13.47
Otu
per
pound
11.830
11,254
11,889
12,145
11,522
11,905
12,556
11,904
11,663
11,284
11,620
11,785
11,149
10,972
10,581
11,177
10,031
11,004
Sulfur
(percent)
0.63
0.61
0.58
0.59
0.55
0.63
0.56
0.73
0.68
0.96
0.64
0.76
0.77
0.56
0.55
0.70
0.83
0.64
Dry babis
Volatilcs
(percent)
33.87
33.74
32.64
33.64
33.82
34.13
33.73
32.83
33.21
31.97
33.10
33.38
33.61
33.60
31.67
32.81
32.02
32.96
Tixed
carbon
(percent)
52.19
51.57
53.30
53.83
51.62
52.10
54.38
53.73
51.31
51.14
52.57
52.12
51.20
52.39
51.08
52.38
48.03
52.11
Ash
(percent)
13.94
14.69
14.06
12.53
14.56
13.77
11.89
13.44
15.48
16.89
14.33
14.50
15.19
14.01
17.25
14.81
19.95
14.93
Btu
per
pound
12,612
12,439
12,594
12,859
12,470
12,622
12,916
12,673
12,408
12,180
12,540
12.545
12.077
12.102
11.532
12.070
11,129
12.196
Sulfur
(percent)
0.67
0.65
0.61
0.62
0.60
0.67
0.58
0.78
0.72
1.04
0.69
0.81
0.83
0.62
0.60
0.76
0.92
0.71
-------
Table 15. (continued). RESULTS OF COAL ANALYSIS FROM NUCLA BOILER NO. 2
Date and
Cine
10/24/74
GZ'j'j
1135
1715
10/25/74
C905
1155
1445
10/26/74
OS15
1115
1520 '
10/27/74
0345
1105
1515
As received
Moisture
(percent)
7.33
9.63
9.18
7.19
7.51
6.85
7.26
9.06
7.92
6.60
9.55
8.97
Volatilcs
(percent)
31.16
30.21
31.46
31.53
29.44
30.44
31.32
30.19
30.44
31.52
29.71
29.49
FiAcd
carbon
(percent)
50.16
46.95
/.7.61
48.76
47.33
49.19
49.53
46.91
48.48
49.37
47.42
48.44
Ash
(percent)
11.35
13.21
11.75
12.52
15.72
13.52
11.89
13.84
13.16
12.51
13.32
13.10
Btu
per
pound
11,451
10,854
11,270
11,434
11,101
11,545
11,690
11,034
11,217
11,672
10.863
11,202
Sulfur
(percent)
0.54
0.62
0.70
0.61
0.56
0.67
0.59
0.78
0.70
0.66
0.71
0.69
Dry basis
Volaciles
(percent)
33.62
33.43
34.64
33.97
31.83
32.68
33.77
33.20
33.06
33.75
32.85
32.39
Fixed
carbon
(percent)
54.13
51.95
52.42
52.54
51.17
52.81
53.41
51.58
52.65
52.86
52.42
53.22
Ash
(percent)
12.25
14.62
12.94
13.49
17.00
14.51
12.82
15.22
14.29
13.39
14.73
14.39
Ecu
per
pound
12,357
12,011
12.409
12,320
12,002
12,394
12,605
12,133
12,132
12.497
12,010
12,305
Sulfur
(percent)
0.53
0.68
0.77
0.65
0.60
0.71
0.63
0.86
0.76
0.71
0.78
0.76
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Plcatc read liiuniclmns on the wcne before i oiiiplcli
1 PtPOHTNO
EPA-600/2-75-013-a
2.
3 RECIPILNT'S ACCLSSIOt+NO.
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler Baghouse-
Nucla Generating Plant
5 REPORT DATE
August 1975
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Robert M. Bradway and Reed W. Cass
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
GCA-TR-75-17-G(s)
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
GCA Corporation
GCA/Technology Division
Bedford, MA 01730
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB012; ROAP 21ADM-032
11. CON TRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1438, Task 3
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT
The report gives results of an extensive testing program performed on a fabric
filter baghouse operating on a small coal-fired utility boiler. Total mass loadings
were obtained by sampling upstream and downstream using Method 5 techniques:
particulate size distributions were obtained with instack impactors. A condensation
nuclei counter/diffusion denuder system was also used for submicrometer sizing
analysis, but the instrumentation was found to be difficult to work with and very
sensitive to the static pressure of the sample stream. The results of 22 tests
indicated a mean mass efficiency of. 99. 84 percent. Eleven tests were run at normal
baghouse operating conditions and eleven were run at abnormal operating conditions.
Statistical analyses show no significant influence of the abnormal operating conditions
on particulate penetration.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution
Dust Filters
Utilities
Boilers
Coal
Combustion
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fabric Filters
Baghouses
Particulates
Fractional Efficiency
c COSATI Field/Group
13B
13K
ISA
21D
21B
3 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS (1 Ins Kfport)
Unclassified
21. NO OF PAGES
148
Unlimited
30 SECURITY CLASS (Tinspage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Fo.in 2220-1 (9-73)
137
------- |