Fireside Testing Addendum

Addendum to Guidelines for Fireside Testing
TR-111663
Final Report, November 1998
Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in the document prior t o publication.
EPRI Project Managers E. Hughes A. Mehta
EPRI 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 USA 800.313.3774 650.855.2121 askepri@epri.com www.epri.com
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM: (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR (B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT. ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT Fossil Energy Research Corporation
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to the EPRI Distribution Center, 207 Coggins Drive, P.O. Box 23205, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, (925) 934-4212. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. POWERING PROGRESS is a service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. Copyright 1998 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by Fossil Energy Research Corporation 23342C South Pointe Laguna Hills, California 92653 Authors M. D. McDannel L. J. Muzio G. C. Quartucy This report describes research sponsored by EPRI. The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner: Addendum to Guidelines for Fireside Testing, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 1998. TR-111663.
iii
REPORT SUMMARY
A common and important test in utility power boilers is evaluation of candidate new coals or coal blends by measuring how changed coal quality affects performance of the components, including the coal handling system, furnace and ash collection system. This Addendum updates EPRIs 1988 Guidelines for Fireside Testing by describing more current instrumentation along with various scenarios to streamline testing and reduce cost. Background In 1988, EPRI published the document Guidelines for Fireside Testing in Coal-Fired Power Plants (CS-5552). This report gave detailed advice and background information on the rationale, instrumentation, procedures, and labor requirements for testing new coals or coal blends in utility boilers. In addition to coal test burns, Guidelines for Fireside Testing (GFT) also presented strategies for solving fireside-related problems in coal-fired boilers. The original Guidelines have established a standard for field tests of coal quality impacts. One important benefit of that original document has been development of a consistent set of data on coal quality impacts. These results have been reflected in EPRIs Coal Quality Impact Model (CQIM) and related models emerging from CQIM. Since 1988, fireside testing methods and practices have changed in some important aspects. Hence, EPRI undertook this project to update the original Guidelines. Objectives To describe and recommend new instrumentation more appropriate for fireside testing, and to characterize test programs that can be performed at lower cost than those described in the original GFT. Approach Researchers who plan and perform fireside testing for evaluation of alternative coals, coal blends, and other emission or cost reduction measures were engaged by EPRI to prepare an addendum to the 1988 Guidelines. In the first phase of the project, they prepared an outline and a plan for writing the addendum. With consultation and review by EPRI staff and others, they then developed a summary of the original GFTs structure, an update on new instrumentation and methods, and a revised section on streamlined testing options and reduced costs. Results The major power plant systems involved in testing the effects of a change in coal or coal v
blend are (1) the coal feed system, including mills (pulverizers) and coal flow pipes; (2) the boiler fireside system, or furnace; (3) the boiler waterside system, especially steam generation, superheat, and reheat production; and, (4) the electrostatic precipitation (ESP) system, where coal ash and unburned carbon particles are removed from the flue gas. A systematic review of these systems (based on current practices, available equipment and instrumentation, and potential for reducing costs) showed many areas where significant changes had occurred. These included (1) data acquisition using distributed control systems and other computer-based automated systems, (2) availability of new coal sampling devices that provide more representative samples, in less time, compared to the ASME sampling method, and (3) multigas, multipoint gas sampling and analysis systems that speed up testing relative to traditional manual methods. By taking advantage of instrumentation advances, especially automation, and by selecting a streamlined test program from this Addendum, utilities can improve upon the benefits offered by the original GFT. In particular, facilities can substantially reduce labor hours, and their associated dollar costs, for a fireside test of new or changed coal. To show how these savings can be achieved, the Addendum presents tables, descriptions, figures, and recommendations. It also describes how to choose a test program, instruments, and procedures that will best evaluate a new coal or blend. In addition, the addendum contains a section describing emerging technologies. These technologies include coal flow measurement devices, furnace temperature measurement instrumentation, and advanced boiler tuning systems. While these systems are not yet generally available commercially, they offer the potential to provide future improvements. EPRI Perspective Power generators planning tests to confirm benefits or check for adverse impacts of coal changes, alternative fuel cofiring, or modified operations such as low-NOx firing arrangements will benefit from the original, detailed GFT and from this new Addendum. The Addendum adds value to the original GFT not only by updating it, but also by summarizing how utilities can best apply it in the context of todays constrained testing budgets and current need for tests focusing on NOx control or alternative fuel cofiring. TR-111663 Interest Categories Fossil fuel assessment & cost management Air emissions control Biomass Keywords Coal flow Electrostatic precipitator Test procedures Instruments Coal switching Coal quality impacts vi
EPRI Licensed Material
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Electric Power Research Institute and Fossil Energy Research Corporation would like to thank Messrs. Wim Marchant and Joe McCain of Southern Research Institute for their help in preparing this report.
vii
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1 2 STRUCTURE OF THE ORIGINAL GUIDELINES DOCUMENT .......................................... 2-1 3 STRUCTURE OF THIS ADDENDUM .................................................................................. 3-1 4 UPDATE ON MEASUREMENT METHODS ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1 General Comments on DCS and Pressure Measurement Updates .......................... 4-1 4.2 Fuel System .............................................................................................................. 4-7 4.2a Primary Air Flow (GFT Part 2, Section 5.1.6) ...................................................... 4-7 4.2b Pulverized Fuel Sample (GFT Part 2, Section 5.1.7)........................................... 4-7 4.2c Coal Pipe Balancing (GFT Part 3, Section 2.6) ................................................. 4-10 4.2d On-line Coal Loadings (GFT Part 3, Section 2.3).............................................. 4-11 4.2e Mill Internal Samples (GFT Part 3, Section 2.4) ................................................ 4-11 4.3 Boiler System (waterside) ....................................................................................... 4-12 4.4 Boiler System (fireside) ........................................................................................... 4-13 4.4a Flue Gas Flowrate (GFT Part 2, Section 5.2.12) ............................................... 4-13 4.4b Back-End Corrosivity......................................................................................... 4-16 4.4c Flue Gas Analysis (GFT Part 2, Section 5.2.14)................................................ 4-16 4.4d Fly Ash Samples And Analysis (GFT Part 2, Section 5.2.16)............................ 4-21 4.4e Flame Stability................................................................................................... 4-22 4.4f Erosion and Corrosion (GFT Part 3, Section 3.7)............................................... 4-23 4.4g Boiler Tube Cleanliness Monitors (GFT Part 3, Section 3.8) ............................. 4-25 4.4h Combustion Gas Temperature (GFT Part 3, Section 3.9) ................................. 4-26 4.5 Electrostatic Precipitators........................................................................................ 4-30 4.5a Fly Ash Resistivity ............................................................................................. 4-30 4.5b Particle Size ...................................................................................................... 4-31
ix
4.5c Fly Ash Leachability (GFT Part 3, Test 4.4)....................................................... 4-33 4.5d Fly Ash Properties ............................................................................................. 4-33 4.5e Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) Concentration .................................................................. 4-33 5 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES............................................................................................ 5-1 5.1 Continuous On-Line Coal Pipe Measurements ......................................................... 5-1 5.1.1 Thermal Measurement Techniques.................................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 Electrical Measurement Techniques .................................................................. 5-2 5.1.3 Acoustic Measurement Techniques ................................................................... 5-2 5.1.4 Microwave Measurement Techniques................................................................ 5-3 5.1.5 On-Line Determination of Coal Loadings and Particle Size................................ 5-3 5.1.6 Optical Particle Sizing and Loading.................................................................... 5-4 5.1.7 Additional Solids flow Measurement Techniques ............................................... 5-6 5.2 Advanced Concepts for Boiler Tuning....................................................................... 5-6 5.2.1 Systems Utilizing Flame Scanner Signals .......................................................... 5-6 5.2.2 Neural Networks................................................................................................. 5-7 5.3 Continuous On-Line Carbon in Ash Measurements .................................................. 5-7 6 UPDATE ON LABOR REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS....................................................... 6-1 6.1 Labor Requirements.................................................................................................. 6-1 6.2 Cost Reduction........................................................................................................ 6-22 7 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Measurement Methods ............................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 Cost of Testing .......................................................................................................... 7-2 8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 8-1 A GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................................A-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4-1 Dirty Air Pitot Schematic ....................................................................................... 4-8 Figure 4-2 Type S Probe ..................................................................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-3 Type 2 Probe, Probe Collar, and Protractor ....................................................... 4-14 Figure 4-4 5-Hole DAT Probe .............................................................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-5 H2SO4 Dewpoint vs. Temperature....................................................................... 4-17 Figure 4-6 Fossil Energy Research Corp. Multipoint Combustion Diagnostics Analyzer ..... 4-20 Figure 4-7 Schematic of Power Technology Furnace Wall Corrosion Probe ....................... 4-25 Figure 4-8 Multiple Path Acoustic Pyrometry ....................................................................... 4-28 Figure 4-9 Isothermal Contour Map from Multi Path Acoustic Pyrometer ............................ 4-29 Figure 4-10 Comparison of the SPECTRATEMP Optical and HVT Temperature Measurements .............................................................................................................. 4-30 Figure 5-1 RotorProbe Assembly with EPCS......................................................................... 5-4 Figure 5-2 Typical Baseline Particle Loading Full Sootblowing Cycle.................................... 5-5
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Structure of the Original "Guidelines for Fireside Testing"*.................................... 2-2 Table 3-1 Coal Quality Impact Performance Test Matrix: Conventional Tests, Summarized Form........................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2 Coal Quality Impact Performance Test Matrix: Special Tests, Summarized Form................................................................................................................................ 3-4 Table 4-1 Fuel System........................................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Boiler System - Waterside ..................................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Boiler System - Fireside......................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-4 Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP).............................................................................. 4-6 Table 5-1 Summary of SCS On-Line Carbon-In-Ash Measurement Systems...................... 5-10 Table 6-1 Labor Requirements for Coal Test Burn, Individual Tasks..................................... 6-3 Table 6-2 Comprehensive Program Field Assignments (from GFT, Appendix F) ................ 6-24 Table 6-3 Streamlined Program Field Assignments............................................................. 6-25 Table 6-4 Comparison of Labor Requirements Between Comprehensive, Streamlined, and Minimal Approaches............................................................................................... 6-27 Table 7-1 Summary of Labor Requirements for Two Test Scenarios .................................... 7-3
xiii
1
INTRODUCTION
Deteriorating coal quality, changing emissions regulations and fluctuating fuel prices have prompted utilities to consider alternative coal supplies for existing plants. The viability of a particular alternate coal depends not only on the delivered fuel cost but also on the economic cost of its impact on the performance of power plant components. To assess these impacts, many utilities conduct coal test burns to quantify the impact of coal quality on boiler performance. In 1988 EPRI assembled a comprehensive guideline document which provided step-bystep guidance in:

establishing a test plan (for both coal test burns and solving operating problems) selecting the appropriate measurement methods conducting the tests reducing the data documenting the results
This document was issued as EPRI report CS5552 (Research Project 1891-3), Guidelines for Fireside Testing, in 1988 (Ref. 1). The basic philosophy and structure of the original document is still valid. The ensuing decade has seen changes in the utility industry and development of new measurement methods that warrant updating the Guidelines for Fireside Testing. The two specific areas that warrant updating are: 1) measurement methods and instrumentation, and 2) overall structure of a test program and the manpower commitment. With the mergers and downsizing within the industry, resources are diminished and in most cases a utility can no longer afford to allocate 20-27 people to perform and completely document an alternative coal test burn. This update provides alternative approaches. Because the structure of the original document is sound, it was decided to produce an addendum to the original guidelines rather than modifying the original document. This addendum will update measurement methods including emerging technologies and review manpower and cost requirements. Throughout the addendum, reference 1-1
EPRI Licensed Material Introduction
will be made back to the specific sections of the guidelines where modifications are being made, or additional information is provided. Note that the addendum focuses on conducting coal test burns. The test methods described are also applicable to solving operating problems, boiler tuning, and evaluating emission reduction techniques. In particular NOx emissions reductions have become a driving force for many test activities. NOx reductions are not only impacted by operational factors, but also coal quality.
1-2
2
STRUCTURE OF THE ORIGINAL GUIDELINES DOCUMENT
The outline of the original Guidelines for Fireside Testing (GFT) is provided in Table 2-1. The original document was divided into three major parts plus appendices: Part 1: Provided an Introduction and Summary, including an overview of the improvements and developments most needed to advance the state-of-the-art of testing to measure coal quality impacts. Part 2: Provided the basis for developing a test program for either an alternate coal evaluation or problem solving. This part also discussed test methods and instrumentation that would fall under the banner of Conventional Tests (Part 2, Section 5). The required manpower resources to conduct each specific test are also provided (Part 2, Section 5). Part 3: Provided descriptions of Special Test methods and instrumentation. These special tests included test procedures that are not generally needed for a typical coal test burn. However, they may be needed when specialized information is needed. Methods which are new and not widely adopted within the utility industry also fall into this category. Appendices: The appendices provide a variety of supplemental information. Of importance is Appendix F, which provides a detailed case history of a PRB blend test burn including a narrative, a test plan, and a test report.
2-1
EPRI Licensed Material Structure of the Original Guidelines Document Table 2-1 Structure of the Original "Guidelines for Fireside Testing"* Part 1: Introduction and Summary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Introduction Background for Planning a Test Program Summary Comments on the Tests Reporting of Results Analysis of Results Development Needs
Part 2: Conventional Tests 1. Application of this Manual to Evaluate the Impact of Coal Quality on Power Plant Fireside Performance 2. Application of this Manual for Diagnosing Fireside Performance Problems 3. Test Preparation and Schedule 4. Manpower Documentation and Guiding Principles 5. Test Measurements and Instrumentation 6. Calculations 7. Results Part 3: Special Tests 1. 2. 3. 4. Appendices A. B. C. D. E. F. G. Symbols and Descriptions Conversion Tables Definitions Example of Performance Test Documentation Slagging and Fouling Observation Log Case History Estimated Benefits of Tube Cleanliness Monitoring System Use Introduction Special Tests for the Fuel System Special Tests for the Steam Generation System Special Tests for the Precipitator System
* EPRI Report CS5552 (Ref 1)
2-2
3
STRUCTURE OF THIS ADDENDUM
The basic structure of the original Guidelines for Fireside Testing (GFT) is still valid. The reader should consult the original document to develop the strategy and plan for a test burn or problem solving campaign. This addendum addresses two primary issues: updating measurement methods and instrumentation, and updating labor requirements and costs. The addendum describes new measurement methods that have been developed and are being used within the utility industry. While the original guideline document was divided into two major parts covering conventional tests and special tests, the methods update section of the addendum (Section 4) has been organized by section of the utility boiler system as follows:

Fuel System Boiler Waterside Boiler Fireside Electrostatic Precipitator
Within each portion of the boiler system, the test methods have been categorized as conventional and special tests in order to be consistent with the original document. In a few cases, tests or test methods that were categorized as special tests in the original document have become more commonly used and would now be classified as conventional tests. For example, in the original document the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) method was recommended for obtaining pulverized coal samples with mention of the RotorProbe as an alternative method. Currently, the RotorProbe is an International Standards Organization (ISO) method and, in addition, there are at least three other methods in common usage that overcome shortcomings of the ASME method. Optional instruments are being used to obtain furnace exit gas temperatures in addition to suction pyrometry. Measuring the SO3 content of the flue gas was categorized as a special test to assess cold end corrosion issues. This measurement has become more important to the utilities in dealing with toxic release inventories and assessing balance-of-plant impacts associated with post combustion NOx control systems (e.g., SNCR and SCR). 3-1
EPRI Licensed Material Structure of this Addendum
In addition to updating measurement methods, the addendum also contains a section on emerging technologies. This section highlights on-going development work on new methods which, as of the writing of the addendum, are not necessarily commercially available. However, they represent potentially significant advances such that the utility should be aware of their status and follow their development towards commercialization. The second major area that is addressed by the addendum is the manpower required to perform a given test. The original GFT document provided manpower estimates assuming a very detailed and precise test protocol would be followed. For instance, if all of the recommended tests were conducted during a coal test burn, a test crew of 27 would be required. In the current utility environment, sufficient manpower and resources may not be available to conduct a coal test burn as originally structured in the GFT. This addendum provides alternative approaches requiring less manpower but at some expense in overall precision. Where possible, the addendum attempts to quantify the impact of using an abbreviated approach. For instance, in the original guidelines, one person was dedicated full time to obtain raw coal samples from each mill every 15 minutes. In a reduced scope test plan this would be reduced to a part time activity with samples obtained from each mill every 1-2 hours. While the less frequent sampling may not provide as representative a coal sample, it will not compromise the test burn. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the various tests for each of the sections of the boiler (fuel system, boiler waterside, boiler fireside, and ESP). Table 3-1 utilizes the same nomenclature used in the original GFT where R stands for a recommended test and A represents an additional (optional) test. Recommended and additional tests are subsets of conventional tests. The tables are based on Table 1-2 in Section 2 of the original GFT document and show which tests are recommended, which are additional, and which would be classified as special for a typical test burn. Additionally, the tests are presented in the order they are presented in the GFT. For a particular test burn, selection of which additional and special tests need to be conducted will depend on the specific boiler and test coals.
3-2
EPRI Licensed Material Structure of this Addendum
Table 3-1 Coal Quality Impact Performance Test Matrix: Conventional Tests, Summarized Form
Conventional Tests 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 5.2.6 5.2.7 5.2.8 5.2.9 Raw coal samples Coal flow & handling problems Pulverizer power Mill vibration Mill rejects Primary air Pulverized fuel Mill differential Feedwater Superheat & reheat steam Attemperation Flame stability Combustion air Steam temperature Bottom ash sample Boiler metal temperatures Slagging R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R A R A R R A R R R A R R R R R Fuel System R R R R R R R R A Boiler Waterside Boiler Fireside Precipitator R R R R
5.2.10 Fouling 5.2.11 Air heater temperatures 5.2.12 Flue gas flow 5.2.13 Back end corrosivity 5.2.14 Flue gas analysis 5.2.15 Furnace draft and air heater 5.2.16 Fly ash sample 5.2.17 Fans 5.2.18 Sootblowing 5.2.19 Control room readings 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7 Precipitator power consumption Inlet dust conditions Fly ash resistivity Precipitator collection efficiency Rapper control system Hopper pluggage Opacity measurement
R = recommended test A = additional test
3-3
EPRI Licensed Material Structure of this Addendum Table 3-2 Coal Quality Impact Performance Test Matrix: Special Tests, Summarized Form Special Tests Fuel System Boiler Waterside Boiler Precipitator Fireside
Fuel System (Section 2 of GFT) 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Crushed coal sample for long-term retention Laboratory and pilot-scale coal testing On-line coal analysis Mill internal coal samples Wear rates of mill parts Primary air and coal balancing Samples of pulverized coal for special tests Full-scale erosivity testing X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Steam Generation System (Section 3 of GFT) 3.1.1 Flame stability 3.1.2 Furnace flow visualization 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 Flame root position Burner zone gas composition & temperature On-line sampling of wall deposits Furnace localized heat fluxes Thermal properties of furnace wall deposits Wall tube wastage due to erosion and Boiler tube bank cleanliness
3.9.1 Suction pyrometer 3.9.2 Sonic pyrometer 3.10 Furnace & convective section tube deposits 3.11 Velocity & solids in high-temperature zones 3.12 Convective section & upper furnace tube 3.13 Economizer exit gas and color analysis 3.14 On-line fly ash analysis 3.15 Examination of fireside deposits Precipitator System (Section 4 of GFT) 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Particle size analysis SO3 concentration Stratification at the precipitator inlet Leachability of fly ash Other properties of fly ash
3-4
4
UPDATE ON MEASUREMENT METHODS
Tables 4-1 through 4-4 summarize the measurement methods contained in the original Guidelines for Fireside Testing (GFT) document, as well as the updated measurements covered in this addendum. These tables cover the following boiler systems:

Table 4-1 Fuel System Table 4-2 Boiler System (waterside) Table 4-3 Boiler System (fireside) Table 4-4 Electrostatic Precipitator
Each measurement required is listed in the appropriate table, along with the equipment and/or instrument(s) needed. The location of the measurement in the GFT is noted. Finally, it is noted (X) if the measurement has been updated in this addendum.
4.1
General Comments on DCS and Pressure Measurement Updates
Two types of measurement methods are referenced throughout the original GFT document have been updated here for all systems. These include the measurement of pressure (and pressure differential) and the logging of routine operating information in a generating unit. Measurement of pressure is now typically performed using either magnehelic gauges or pressure transducers. Magnehelic gauges are available to measure a wide range of pressures, so it is important to select a gauge that will accommodate the range of pressures expected. With the advent of distributed control systems (DCS), it is possible to log unit operating data at regular intervals automatically. Prior to the start of testing, customized data logs can be prepared using information logged by the DCS. The test logs can be set to calculate the average of the available data at fixed intervals and then print the logs. Typically, data are averaged over five-or ten-minute intervals, and the logs printed out on an hourly basis. These logs are often available for the fuel and air supply systems, boiler waterside and gas-side data, and the ESP. 4-1
EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods Table 4-1 Fuel System
Conventional Tests Measurement Raw Coal Samples Coal Flow and Handling Problems Pulverizer Power Mill Vibration Mill Rejects Primary Air Flow Pulverized Fuel Sample Equipment/Instruments Sealable containers, scoop, bags, riffler Log book, observation sheets Calibrated wattmeter or watt-hour transducer Vibration monitor 5 gal. metal pail, bags, scale Pitot probe and associated equipment Dirty air pitot probe ASME PF sampler (ASME PTC 4.2) RotorProbe SMG-10 ACFM VKR Pressure transducer or equivalent Fixed orifice Variable orifice(EER) GFT 2:1.1 2:5.1.2 2:5.1.3 2:5.1.4 2:5.1.5 2:5.1.6 X 2:5.1.7 3:2.6.2 X X X X X Addendum
Mill Differential Coal Pipe Balance
2:5.1.8 X X
Specialized Tests Measurement Lab/Pilot-Scale Coal Tests Erosivity Continuous Grindability Quartz Content Slag Viscosity PC Coal Fraction Analysis Mossbauer Spectroscopy Pilot-Scale Combustion Tests Slagging/Fouling Indices On-Line Coal Analysis Elemental (C,H,S, CO, N, ash) Moisture Coal density Mill Internal Coal Samples Mill Duct Ware Rates Rollers Rings Full Scale Erosivity Emerging Technologies On-Line Coal Pipe Loading Microwave Acoustic X X Prompt nuclear activation analysis (PNAA) Microwave Gamma ray system CONAC (integrates all three) Samples Velocities Template, measure before/after Template, measure before/after Metal coupon installed in elbow Equipment/Instruments GFT 3:2.2 Addendum
3:2.3
3:2.4 3:2.4 3:2.5 3:2.5 3:2.8
X X
4-2
EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods Table 4-2 Boiler System - Waterside
Conventional Tests
Measurement
Equipment/Instruments
GFT
Addendum*
Feedwater
Flow nozzle and associated equipment
2:5.2.1
Superheat and Reheat Steam
Calibrated thermocouples and Pressure Transducers
2:5.2.2
Attemperation
Flow nozzle and associated equipment
2:5.2.3
Steam Temperature Control
Control Room Instrumentation
2:5.2.6
* Note: waterside measurements are important to fireside testing as a direct measure of boiler performance. There are no waterside sections in this addendum because there are no necessary updates.
4-3
EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods
Table 4-3 Boiler System - Fireside Conventional Tests Measurement Flame Stability Combustion Air Bottom Ash Sample Boiler Metal Temperatures Slagging Equipment/Instruments Furnace shields, Log Book Pitot Tube and Associated Equipment Metal bucket, containers Surface mount or chordal thermocouples Log Sheets (optional) B & W System 140 or Univ. of Waterloo Integrated Boiler Cleanliness Monitor Ash Deposition Probe B & W System 140 Univ. of Waterloo Integrated Cleanliness Monitor Thermocouples Pitot Probe and Associated Equipment 3-D Pitot Probe Plant CEM Acid Dewpoint Meter CERL Deposition Sampler SO3 (controlled condensation) Extractive Sampling System and Gas Analyzers Portable suitcase analyzers Multipoint-multigas analyzers Pressure transducers High volume EPA Method 17 filter or cyclone sampler CEGRIT sampler Quasi-isokinetic sample LOI analysis Pitot Tube, Tachometer, watt-hour, (ASME PTC) Flow nozzle or orifice and associated equipment Log Sheets DCS Logs, Printed Scenarios Ultrasonic wall thickness Corrosion probe GFT 2:5.2.4 2:5.2.5 2:5.2.7 2:5.2.8 2:5.2.9 Addendum
Fouling
2:5.2.10
Air Heater Temperature Flue Gas Flowrate
2:5.2.11 2:5.2.12 X X 2:5.2.13 2:5.2.13 X 2:5.2.14 X X 2:5.2.15 2:5.2.16 2:5.2.16 X X 2:5.2.17 2:5.2.18 2:5.2.19 X X
Back End Corrosivity
Flue Gas Analysis
Furnace Draft and APH DP Fly Ash Sample
Fans Soot Blowing Control Room Reading Corrosion
4-4
Table 4-3 (continued) Boiler System - Furnace
Special Tests Measurement Flame Stability Furnace Flow Visualization Furnace Velocities Flame Root Position Burner Zone Gas composition particles Temperature Wall Deposits Localized Heat Fluxes Incident radiation Total heat flux Localized Deposit Thermal Properties and Wall Deposits (emissivity & Conductivity) Erosion and Corrosion Equipment/Instruments High speed motion picture video camera Inject luminous salts Pitot holes or suction pyrometers Type k thermocouple Water cooled probe Suction pyrometer Curved sample retrieval probe Portable or permanent heat flux meters Ellipsoidal radiometer CERL heat flux meter Univ. of Waterloo system (multiple clean & dirty heat flux meters) No current methods available 3:3.4 3:3.5 3:3.5.1 3:3.5.2 3:3.5.3 3:3.6 GFT 3:3.1.1 3:3.1.2 3:3.1.2 3:3.2 3:3.3 Addendum X
Ultrasonic thickness Corrosion probes Erosion probe Extractive sample system Heat balance across section Suction pyrometer Sonic pyrometer Acoustic pyrometer Optical pyrometer Deposition probe Water cooled probes Erosion probes
3:3.7.3 3:3.7.2 3:3.7 3:3.7.1 3:3.8 3:3.9.1 3:3.9.2 3:3.9.2 3:3.10 3:3.11 3:3.12
X X X
Furnace Corrosion (wall atmosphere) Boiler Tube Bank Cleanliness Combustion Gas Temperatures
X X
Furnace/Conv. Sect OnLine Deposit Samples Velocity and Isokinetic Samples High T Zone Convective Section Tube Wastage
4-5
Table 4-4 Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) Conventional Tests Measurement Power Consumption Inlet Dust Conditions Fly Ash Resistivity ESP Collector Efficiency Rapper Control System Hopper Pluggage Opacity Equipment/Instruments Voltameter/ammeter Pitot Probe, EPA Method 17, Cascade impactor In situ resistivity probe laboratory resistivity analysis 2 EPA Method 17 trains Log sheets Log Sheets Opacity meter trained observer GFT 2:5.3.1 2:5.3.2 2:5.3.3 X 2:5.3.4 2:5.3.5 2:5.3.6 2:5.3.7 Addendum
Specialized Tests Measurement Particle Size Measurement Equipment/Instruments Inertial impactors Staged cyclones Diffusion batteries Condensation nuclei controls Electrical aerosol analyzers Optical particle sizing GFT 3:4.1.1 3:4.1.2 3:4.1.3 3:4.1.3 3:4.1.3 X 3:4.1.4 Controlled Condensation ASTM D398 ASTM 618-80 ASTM C311-77 NH3 content 3:4.2 X (update) X (update) Addendum
Particle Size Data Analysis SO3 Concentration Leachability of Fly ash Other Properties of Fly Ash
4-6
4.2
4.2a
Fuel System
Primary Air Flow (GFT Part 2, Section 5.1.6)
Primary air flow is measured using a dirty air pitot in the individual coal pipes. The dirty air measurement is preferred over clean air measurements to determine primary air flow since it is a more accurate representation of the air flow conditions when coal is present. When these measurements are being made so that the primary air flow can be balanced between the individual coal pipes, the dirty air measurement is preferred since it accounts for the interactions between the pulverized coal and primary air flows. The primary air flow measurement is made with the coal flow set at (or near) the design flow rate for the mill being tested. The velocity traverse is performed at a location in the coal pipe where good flow characteristics are obtainable. A minimum of 12 points are traversed, six on a diameter, spaced as described in ASME PTC 11. The sampling traverses are made at 90 degrees to each other. The primary airflow measurements require 2 persons part time to make velocity traverses of individual coal pipes. The dirty air flow measurement uses a modified EPA Method 2 sampling system. The modification involves replacing the standard S-type pitot with a dirty air pitot. A standard pitot experiences frequent plugging during sampling due to the high concentration of coal particles in the air stream. A dirty air pitot overcomes this problem by using a head design that employs shielded total and static pressure taps. This probe design is illustrated in Figure 4-1. Velocity measurements are based on ASME equal area calculations for each coal pipe. A digital manometer is used to record the differential pressures. Temperature of the coal and air stream is measured with a Type K thermocouple. Dirty air flow measurements are typically taken in conjunction with pulverized fuel samples, described below. 4.2b Pulverized Fuel Sample (GFT Part 2, Section 5.1.7)
Pulverized coal samples are obtained using an extractive sampler installed through ports in the individual coal pipes downstream of the pulverizer. This sampling effort requires 2 persons part time to take pulverized fuel samples from each mill. The purpose of this testing is to determine the coal loading in individual coal pipes and to determine the overall fineness of the coal leaving the pulverizer.
4-7
- coal pipe wall ~ 36 " ~4"
static pressure port
reflecting disk
to digital manometer compressed air flow direction dynamic pressure port
Figure 4-1 Dirty Air Pitot Schematic
Methods currently used to obtain pulverized coal samples include:

ASME PF sampler RotorProbeTM SMG-10 VKR ACFM
Each of these methods is discussed briefly below. The Guidelines for Fireside Testing cite ASME PTC 4.2, which describes the ASME pulverized fuel (PF) sampling method. The sampling is done on two traverses 90 degrees apart at the centroids of equal area segments. The weight of the collected sample is compared to the predicted weight, based on total mill coal flow, the number of pipes, the cross-sectional area of the pipe, and the cross-sectional area of the sampling nozzle. If the measured and calculated values agree within 10 percent, the sample is valid. If not, the test is repeated until the desired agreement is achieved. Note that this method is used only to collect a pulverized sample for screen sizing, not to quantify coal flow through a pipe. The alternate methods described below provide total coal flow measurement as well as a sample for analysis.
4-8
The RotorProbeTM is an extractive coal sampler consisting of a rotating head with four sample holes, a control box and a cyclone that collects the sample. The RotorProbeTM apparatus is shown schematically in the Guidelines for Fireside Testing (Part 3, Section 2.6). The RotorProbeTM implements International Standards Organization (ISO) Method ISO 9931 for sampling pulverized coal in a primary air stream. Samples obtained with TM the RotorProbe can be used to determine both the size distribution and the relative mass flow of the coal in each burner pipe. In operation, a velocity traverse is taken across the coal pipe using the dirty air pitot probe described previously. The sampling rate of the RotorProbeTM is then set to provide isokinetic sampling at the average coal pipe velocity. Coal sampling then proceeds as the RotorProbeTM head is indexed through 360 degree sampling across the entire coal pipe cross section. A complete traverse provides sample from 64 points, which represent equal cross-sectional areas in the coal pipe. The coal is separated from the air by a cyclone and collected in a jar, and the amount of primary air sampled is determined from a calibrated venturi and the sampling time. Coal loadings are determined from the amount of coal collected by the cyclone and the amount of air sampled. The SMG-10 sampler is used to obtain flow profiles in a coal pipe. The SMG-10 works by taking isokinetic measurements of the pulverized coal and transport air across a given cross-section of the coal pipe over a fixed time period. The probe location is controlled by indexing through a series of points determined by a perforated disk. Under isokinetic sampling conditions, the velocity of the gas entering the particle sample collector is the same as that of the gases in the flow stream at the sampling point. As a result, the size and concentration of particles collected accurately represent those properties in the flowstream. This system consists of a probe, perforated disk and computer. The perforated disk is used to mount the probe as it is indexed over the coal pipe cross-section. Each measuring point is sampled for about 10 seconds, and the number of points sampled varies from 27 to 108 depending on the pipe diameter. The SMG-10 probe works on the principle of isokinetic extraction, using a zero differential sampling probe. A differential pressure transducer sends a signal that operates a pneumatic valve. The solenoid valve adjusts the airflow through an eductor to maintain an isokinetic flow rate. Deviations in the flow rate, which occur when the probe flow rate is adjusted to maintain isokinetic conditions, is recorded and mathematically compensated for using a predetermined correction factor. The measuring probe is indexed through the use of a perforated disk, which is sized according to the pipe being sampled. By moving the probe point-by-point using the indexing holes on the disk, the entire duct is sampled. To minimize the impact of probe angle, the system is designed to maintain the probe angle within 20 degrees of the flow. Points that are not sampled at an angle parallel to the flow are compensated mathematically using the SMG-10 software. The primary advantage of the SMG-10 over the RotorProbe is that each point is sampled 4-9
isokinetically, and the actual point by point coal loading within the pipe is calculated and recorded. VKR in Germany has a system similar to the SMG-10. The Airflow Sciences Corporation Advanced Coal Flow Measurement (ACFM) sampler is an automatic, computer controlled system. The ACFM sampler requires four sample ports to complete its sample matrix. The system incorporates a standard dirty air pitot for primary air measurement and a modified ASME-type extraction probe for coal sampling. A data acquisition system records all instrumentation output. Coal sampling is computer controlled to provide isokinetic sampling at each point, as opposed to flow averaging methods typically used with ASME-type probes. The ACFM uses a fabric filter for particulate collection, and can be installed in a 1.5 NPT test port. Data are output to an Excel spreadsheet in real time to generate a test report. 4.2c Coal Pipe Balancing (GFT Part 3, Section 2.6)
Coal pipe balancing is often required to achieve uniform fuel/air ratios at individual burners. Establishment of uniform fuel/air ratios typically allows a reduction in excess air level while maintaining LOI levels. This reduction in excess air also provides reduced NOx emissions and improved efficiency. Information on coal pipe balancing is obtained after the pulverized fuel samples are obtained. The goal is to have the maximum variation in any one coal line less than 5 percent of the mean for that mill. This is accomplished with some type of flow control device. Typically, this means either a fixed or variable orifice. A fixed orifice is typically chosen because of its lower cost. Units that burn relatively non-abrasive coals may be able to use a set of fixed orifices for many years, while units that fire more abrasive coals will require more frequent orifice replacement. Typically, the coal pipe balancing is performed at the start of the test program to ensure that combustion non-uniformities do not adversely affect the test results. One way to overcome the need to replace orifices on a regular basis is to install variable orifices. Variable orifices are externally adjustable, allowing for on-line changes in orifice size (Ref. 2). Thus, it is possible to maintain the desired coal flow balance as pulverizer components or orifices wear. Note, however, that the variable orifices will only be useful if a regular program of coal flow measurement is established and maintained. The variable orifices are useful in speeding up the process of balancing the coal flow during the testing. Once a set of coal flow measurements are made, the required orifice size can be calculated for the pulverizer. With the variable orifices, these changes can be made on-line and the pulverizer retested in a matter of a couple of hours. If variable orifices are not installed, the new orifice plates must be cut, and the mill taken off-line so that they can be installed. This usually results in an overnight delay.
4-10
4.2d
On-line Coal Loadings (GFT Part 3, Section 2.3)
Systems capable of making on-line coal loading measurements are currently becoming available. These systems include automated samplers based, to some degree, on the RotorProbeTM design. System designs based on microwave and acoustic technologies are currently under development and are reviewed in Section 6 of this report. Each of the currently available system types is reviewed below. One device based on the RotorProbeTM design is the M&W Automatic Coal Flow Monitoring (ACFM, not related to the Airflow Sciences ACFM sampler) sampler. The M&W ACFM unit is based on the ISO Standard 9931 sampling, and uses a 4-nozzle probe to provide controlled sampling of the pulverized fuel. The M&W system is automated to allow for the simultaneous sample extraction from any number of coal pipes. Sampling is performed at a pre-set pressure differential, so that any roping or unbalance in the coal pipe will not adversely influence the sampling. The airflow in each pipe is measured at a fixed coal flow rate using a dirty air pitot prior to the start up of the M&W sampler. These tests define the pressure drop required across the cyclone, which is held constant during the sampling run. Four sampling tips revolve at a constant speed so that the entire pipe area is sampled in four minutes. The coal sample is collected in a measuring device installed underneath the cyclone. Once the sampling is completed, the amount of coal collected is measured, and the result logged. Once the signal is released, the sample can either be blown back into the coal pipe or sent to a sampling bottle for further analysis. 4.2e Mill Internal Samples (GFT Part 3, Section 2.4)
The EPRI Pulverizer Interest Group (PIG) is performing a project to evaluate the feasibility of implementing low cost mill upgrades to improve coal fineness. When completed, this work will include baseline tests performed to characterize mill operation, cold flow modeling to provide a basis for design changes, physical modifications and post-modification testing. At the time this addendum was prepared, the baseline tests and cold flow modeling tasks had been at Georgia Powers Plant Bowen and at Amerens Meramec Station. At Plant Bowen, airflow measurements were made in the inlet air duct and inside of the pulverizer while coal samples were taken from ports installed on the side of the pulverizer. The pulverizer coal samples were gathered using a series of solids sampling probes in conjunction with a RotorProbe cyclone and control box. These probes used a simple ASME type probe design (i.e., a closed end tube with a hole on the side). At each point, the opening of the solids sampling probe was aligned with the yaw angle measured at that point during the pulverizer clean air testing. The sample flow rate was set based on the velocity measured during the clean air tests, the temperature, 4-11
nozzle area and a constant relating the primary air flows measured in the pulverizer both with and without coal. Typical sample times were on the order of 3 to 4 minutes per point, which provided between 200 and 300 grams of sample. At points where samples appeared to be obtained at a lower rate, the sample time was increased to provide a minimum sample weight of 150 grams. Additional coal samples of the classifier reject stream were taken from the top of the pulverizer. These samples were taken using a probe inserted through the port on top of the pulverizer in its closed position. Once inside the mill, the scoop was slid down to its open position. The coal particles were then allowed to fall into the cup. After nominally 30 seconds, the cup was returned to its closed position and the probe removed from the port. The sample was then removed from the cup. Because of the relatively small size of the cup, it was necessary to take numerous samples to obtain the quantity of coal desired. At the Meramac Station, airflow measurements were also made in both the inlet air duct and the pulverizer. Coal samples from inside of the mill were taken using fixed coal sampling nozzles temporarily installed inside the pulverizer. Three nozzles were installed in different areas, and the fineness was found to vary with nozzle location. Coal extraction rates were found to be consistent at a given nozzle, independent of the nozzle velocity. Samples taken at the classifier inlet were found to be significantly finer than the samples gathered in the pulverizer, and were similar to those taken in the coal pipes. The preceding discussion of coal sampling inside the pulverizer serves to illustrate the extremes of what could be done as part of a coal test program. This project is utilizing the expertise gained in coal pipe sampling and applying it to sampling in the pulverizer.
4.3
Boiler System (waterside)
This addendum contains no updates to the test methods listed in the Guidelines for Fireside Testing for the boiler waterside systems. The original GFT included descriptions of measurement of the following boiler waterside information:

Feedwater (pressure, temperature, and flow) Superheat steam (pressure, temperature, and flow) Reheat steam (pressure, temperature, and flow) Attemperation (temperature and flow)
4-12
The GFT described the approaches to measuring the pressure temperature and flow of the steam in these locations, all of which are still valid. However, in many instances, the plant instrumentation are relied on to provide these measurements. In these cases, the instruments are calibrated prior to the start of testing by plant instrument technicians according to the utilitys standard practices.
4.4
4.4a
Boiler System (fireside)

Flue Gas Flowrate (GFT Part 2, Section 5.2.12)
The measurement of flue gas flowrate is discussed in Part 2 Section 5.2.12 of the original guideline document. The recommended technique involved the following instrumentation: 1) a pitot tube, 2) inclined manometer to measure the velocity pressure, 3) vertical manometer or pressure transducers for static pressure, and 4) thermocouple for the temperature measurement. The recommended measurement location is the air heater outlet. While the guidelines did not specify the type of pitot probe to be used, the measurements are normally made with an S-type pitot probe shown in Figure 4-2.
Probe Plane
End View
Thermocouple Tube A
Side View
Tube B
Flow
Figure 4-2 Type S Probe
The S-type pitot probe works well provided the flow field is highly axial with little swirl or radial velocity components. If there are primarily swirl components (or yaw), the operating procedure of the S-type probe can be modified to account for the swirl component. This is done in the following manner.
4-13
Attach either an electronic inclinometer, or protractor wheel to the probe (Figure 4-3 shows a typical protractor wheel arrangement) Rotate the S-type probe until the differential reading is zero (i.e., null the probe angle, null) Record the angle at which the probe is nulled (this represents the angle of the velocity vector) Rotate the probe 90 from the null position and record the differential velocity (i.e., null 90)
The velocity calculated at the (null + 90) position is the total velocity and the axial velocity is given by multiplying by the cosine of the angle: Vaxial = VTotal COS ( null ) (eq. 4-1)
Protractor Wheel
Angle Indicator
Probe and Collar Locks
Probe
Figure 4-3 Type 2 Probe, Probe Collar, and Protractor
4-14
If the flow field is suspected to contain both swirl (yaw) and radial (pitch) flow components, then it is recommended that a 5-hole 3-D pitot probe be used to measure the velocity field. There are a number of 5-hole pitot probe designs, one of the more popular is the DA, or DAT probe manufactured by United Sensor Company. Figure 44 shows a diagram of the DAT probe; the cylindrical geometry of the probe is an attractive feature for field testing. As seen in Figure 4-4, the probe has five pressure sensing holes located at the tip. The centrally located hole (P1), two laterally located holes (P2, P3), and two holes located along the axes of the probe (P4, P5). In operation, the probe is rotated to null the reading between P2 and P3 (P2 - P3 = 0) and the yaw (or swirl) angle (Y) is read directly using either the inclinometer, or protractor.
Thermocouple
P1 P2
P5
P3
P4
Figure 4-4 5-Hole DAT Probe
After the yaw angle has been determined, differential pressures (P4 - P5) and (P1 - P2) are measured. The pitch angle, (P), is then determined from the pitch angle calibration factor (F1), where F1 = (P4 - P5)/(P1 - P2). P = a(F1 ) + b(F1 ) + c (F1 ) + d
3 2
(eq. 4-2)
At any pitch angle ( ), the probe coefficient (Cp) is determined by entering the pitch angle, P, as the value for in a second calibration curve (F2).
4-15
F2 = C p = a 5 + b 4 + c 3 + d 2 + e + f
(eq. 4-3)
Utilities have been required to install continuous emission monitors (CEMS) which include instruments to measure flue gas flowrate. The readings from these devices can be used in lieu of the pitot probe traverse unless the CEM is located in the stack and the stack accommodates multiple boilers. There is one caution about using the CEM flowrate monitor. These monitors are usually set up and calibrated against a pitot traverse with an S-type pitot probe. If the flow in the duct, or stack, has non-axial components, an error can be introduced into the flow rate as measured with the S-type probe. This error can be as high as 25% for cases where there is a high amount of swirl. (Ref. 3) 4.4b Back-End Corrosivity
The original guidelines recommended the use of an acid dewpoint meter (available from Land Instruments) to determine the dewpoint temperature (Part 2, Section 5.2.13) along with a gold plated deposition disk to assess the corrosion and fouling potential. An alternative approach is to measure the SO3 concentration at the economizer exit (air preheater inlet). The measured SO3 concentration is used along with a correlation of dewpoint temperature as a function of SO3 concentration and water vapor concentration to determine the H2SO4 dewpoint. (The water vapor can be either measured, EPA Method 4 run in conjunction with the SO3 test, or calculated from the fuel analysis, relative humidity and economizer exit O2 concentration). Figure 4-5 shows a correlation between H2SO4 dewpoint and SO3 concentration. The measurement method for determining the SO3 concentration is the controlled condensation technique described in Part 3, Section 4.2 of the original guidelines and in Section 4.5e of this addendum. 4.4c Flue Gas Analysis (GFT Part 2, Section 5.2.14)
Flue gas analysis is needed to determine combustion and boiler efficiency, as well as to assess the burner to burner combustion uniformity to characterize emissions. For this purpose, gas samples are usually obtained through multiple ports at the economizer exit. Part 2, Section 5.2.14 and Part 3, Section 3.13 discuss flue gas sampling. These sections recommend extractive sampling with analysis typically used in CEM systems. This section of the addendum will point out some alternatives for gas sampling and alternative analyzer approaches.
4-16
Extractive Sampling Systems Figure 3-30 in Part 3 of the GFT showed a schematic diagram of an extractive gas sampling system and continuous gas analysis instrumentation. The system shown in Figure 3-30 includes an ice bath (water drop out) near the sample probe. In most cases this can be eliminated if the sampling rate is sufficiently high. It is also recommended in the addendum that a filter be used either at the end of the probe or just prior to the sample line. If this is done, the sample pump can be relocated downstream of the moisture condenser. In this arrangement the pump, back pressure regulator, and backup filter will no longer need to be heated. 350
H2SO4= 5%
H2SO4 Dewpoint, F
300
H2SO4= 10% H2SO4= 15%
250
200
150 0 10 SO3 Concentration, ppm

Figure 4-5 H2SO4 Dewpoint vs. Temperature
20
The next issue is how to sample from the multiple sample ports at the economizer exit, there are three approaches: 1. Use a single probe and sample line and manually traverse each port. 2. Install multiple probes in each port, use short sample lines to manifold the points together at the economizer exit with a single sample line going to the analyzers. With this system, valves on each sample line ahead of the manifold can be used to select the sample(s) to be analyzed. 3. Install multiple probes and sample lines with the sample lines run all the way to the analyzers. 4-17
The choice of the above depends on the length of the test program and the amount of gaseous data that needs to be collected. If the test program is short (less than a day) and the gaseous data is not the primary focus then option 1 above may be justified. For a longer test burn where burner to burner balancing is anticipated, a more comprehensive set-up like option 3 is probably more appropriate. Gas Analyses As with the extractive sampling system, there are also options in terms of the analyzers that are used. The original guidelines were written assuming the analyzers would basically be the type used in CEMS: O2: paramagnetic, zirconia oxide, electrochemical non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) chemiluminescent
CO/CO2: NO/NOx: SO2:
NDIR, or non-dispersive ultraviolet (NDUV)
In addition to the above analyzers, there are a series of less costly portable analyzers that could be used, particularly for a short test program. These systems use electrochemical cells to measure O2, CO, CO2, NO, NO2 and SO2 and are available in briefcase type packages. These analyzers still need to be calibrated with appropriate calibration gases. While these analyzer systems will not have the accuracy and precision of the CEM type analyzers listed above, they are substantially less costly and are most appropriate with the manual sampling system described above (option 1). These systems are available from a number of manufacturers including COSA, Bacharach, ENERAC and NOVA. Multigas Multipoint Sampling and Analysis Flue gas mixing through the radiant and convective section of the boiler is typically not complete. The variation in gaseous species at the economizer exit can be used to assess burner to burner fuel/air ratios, determine how well overfire air ports are balanced, and identify areas of an air leakage. To obtain this distribution of gaseous species at the economizer exit the common approach was to either manually traverse the economizer exit using a single probe and sample line (option 1 above), or analyze each sample line point by point using the multiple probe and sample line approach (options 2 or 3 above). This would typically require 2-3 hours to obtain a complete profile. This time requirement severely compromised how many burner or overfire air adjustments could be made and evaluated in a day.
4-18
Recently, multipoint/multigas systems have become available that greatly speed up obtaining these distributions. Representative systems are the VKR MARA system and Fossil Energy Research Corp.s Multipoint Multigas Combustion Diagnostics analyzer. The VKR MARA system, which can be categorized as a quasi-simultaneous flue gas analysis system uses a sample system as described in option 2 above. Multiple sample lines are manifolded near the sample points. Solenoid valves are used to select the samples to be analyzed. Up to six sample lines feed six NO and O 2 analyzers (typical CEM type analyzers). On the order of 100 measuring points can be sampled and a concentration profile produced in a period of 40 minutes. The system from Fossil Energy Research Corp. uses a multiple probe multiple sample line system (option 3 above) with an analysis system consisting of an array of up to 24 O2, NO and CO electrochemical cells. This system provides real time simultaneous data displayed as contour plots on a computer screen. The contour maps are upgraded every 20 seconds. Figure 4-6 shows a diagram of the system along with a typical contour plot. These multipoint multigas analysis systems not only facilitate boiler tuning but also can be used to optimize selective non-catalytic NO x reduction (SNCR) and selective catalytic NOx reduction (SCR) systems. Multipoint multigas systems allow a test engineer to quickly see the results of adjustments to burner air registers, overfire air ports, or ammonia/urea injection systems. This will frequently allow optimization to be completed in 1-2 days rather than on the order of a week using a manual system.
4-19
FERCo Mobile Lab
Figure 4-6 Fossil Energy Research Corp. Multipoint Combustion Diagnostics Analyzer
4-20
4.4d
Fly Ash Samples And Analysis (GFT Part 2, Section 5.2.16)
Fly ash samples are usually gathered using a batch process with one of two methods. When the samples are to be used for guarantee purposes, EPA Method 17 is typically used. This method uses an in-stack filter to obtain the flyash samples, typically from the economizer exit. The method requires isokinetic sampling at every point, with typical sample times on the order of one to two hours. Another approach is to use a high volume sample train, and sample quasi-isokinetically. This method calculates an average duct velocity based on the flow rate and duct dimensions. The sample flow rate is set to sample isokinetically using this average at every sample point. A large nozzle, used in conjunction with a high-volume pump, allows a sample traverse to be completed within 30 minutes. Tests performed with both methods at the same site have shown that the quasi-isokinetic method provides results that are in good agreement with those measured using EPA Method 17. These samples can then be analyzed for carbon content or loss on ignition (LOI). LOI is measured by burning a fly ash sample and measuring the weight loss in the sample. LOI provides a measure of carbon in the fly ash. Note, during the heating process to determine LOI, some sulfates in the ash sample can vaporize, resulting in an LOI value that is higher than the unburned carbon content. However, sulfate values are typically much lower than carbon values in coal fly ashes and have little impact on the measurement. Carbon content in the fly ash is an indicator of combustion completeness, and is important in that it (1) represents lost fuel heating value, (2) can impact the marketability of fly ash for use in cement, and (3) can impact ESP performance. The analysis of these batch samples for LOI has traditionally been done using the procedures outlined in ASTM PTC 28, Method 4.07. ASTM PTC 28 requires that a weighed ash sample be dried at 221-230F until a constant weight is achieved. The dried sample is then allowed to cool in a dessicator and reweighed. This dry sample is then put into an oven and heated at 1472F 90F until a constant weight is achieved. After this time, the sample is allowed to cool and reweighed. The total analysis time is on the order of several hours. While there is no inherent problem with the above method for determining LOI, it does require several hours. With the current installation of low NOx burners and overfire air systems, utilities have been confronted with a trade off between low NO x and increasing LOI. Optimization of these combustion systems is benefited by a more rapid method of determining LOI. Recently, three such bench top instruments became commercially available:

EPRI/FERCo Hot FoilTM LOI (heated metal foil) CAMRAC Table-Top LOI Analyzer (microwave absorption) AMETEK Carbon In Fly Ash Analyzer (photoacoustic) 4-21
The EPRI/FERCo Hot FoilTM LOI (HFLOI) analyzer uses a heated foil and a much smaller sample (on the order of 50 mg) to perform the analysis (Ref. 4). An ash sample is placed in a preweighed foil boat and weighed. The sample is dried at a low power setting and reweighed. It is then returned to the HFLOI analyzer and heated at a high power setting. The ash is then weighed after heating, and the LOI level determined. The HFLOI analyzer can provide LOI values in nominally 30 minutes, based on triplicate analyses of a single sample. The HFLOI analyzer has provided good agreement with the conventional ASTM method at a wide range of test sites. The CAMARAC Table-Top LOI Analyzer uses microwaves to measure unburned carbon, or LOI. An empty cell is inserted into the device and a microwave reading is made. Another cell with approximately 10 grams of fly ash is then inserted and a second measurement made and the LOI calculated. The AMETEK carbon in ash analyzer is also a bench top analyzer that uses a photoacoustic technique to determine the carbon in the fly ash. This photoacoustic technique involves heating an ash sample contained in a sample cell with microwaves. The amount of energy absorbed by the sample will be dependent on the carbon content of the sample. The absorbed energy heats the sample which in turn heats the air in the sample cell. A sensitive microphone senses the small pressure difference associated with the heated air. Additional instruments capable of performing on-line measurement of flyash samples are currently being developed. These instruments are described in section 5.3 of this report. 4.4e Flame Stability
The GFT describes use of a high speed film camera to photograph flames in order to assess flame stability. Advances in technology have resulted in development of high temperature video cameras that are designed for use in furnaces. The FireSight high temperature viewing system is manufactured by Lenox Instrument Company. The system includes an air-cooled high temperature lens, a video camera, a monitor, and a video cassette recorder. The system can televise and video tape color images of flame patterns, slag formation, and other conditions. There are two options for lenses: a normal straight ahead lens and a 90-degree right angle lens. The 90-degree right angle lens allows insertion through a burner view port and viewing the adjacent burner and those above and below it. System requirements include one person to operate the camera and a compressed air supply for cooling. 4-22
4.4f
Erosion and Corrosion (GFT Part 3, Section 3.7)
With the installation of low NOx burner and overfire air systems, some utilities have experienced accelerated water wall corrosion. This has been attributed to fuel rich regions on the walls, typically below the overfire air ports. The GFT addresses this issue as one of the special tests in Part 3, in contrast to the conventional tests. With accelerated corrosion it is important to be able to categorize the corrosion process. In Part 3, Section 3.7 of the Fireside Testing Guidelines, three approaches were described to characterize tube wall corrosion:

Measuring Furnace Wall Atmosphere (3:3.7.1) Controlled Temperature Water Wall Wastage Probe (3:3.7.2) Ultrasonic Boiler Tube Thickness Measurement (3:3.7.3)
Ultrasonic Measurements (3:3.7.3) Ultrasonic Boiler Tube Thickness Measurement provide the most comprehensive measurement as measurements can be made throughout the furnace. However, this requires the boiler to be off line. Furnace Wall Atmosphere (3:3.7.1) Measuring furnace wall gas composition, typically for O2, CO, SO2, H2S, HCl, can provide information as to whether or not a reducing atmosphere exists near the wall. These measurements are typically made in areas where corrosion is suspected. Figure 3-14 (Part 3, Section 3 of the GFT) showed a diagram of a sampling system indicating the measurements of O2, CO2, and CO. It is recommended that the slate of compounds be expanded to include SO2, H2S, and HCl. The HCl need only be determined if the coal chlorine content is reasonably high. While there are commercial H2S analyzers, they are not generally appropriate for this type of flue gas analysis. However, an SO 2 analyzer in conjunction with a gas conditioner can be used to determine the H2S concentration. The approach is similar to EPA Method 16A that is used for stack H2S measurements. In essence, the wall atmosphere gases are scrubbed to selectively remove background SO2, then the H2S is oxidized to SO2, which is subsequently analyzed by a conventional SO2 analyzer. The gas is scrubbed to remove all SO2 species in a potassium or sodium citrate and citric acid buffer solution. A small amount of air is added to the gas if the O 2 levels are near zero, prior to combusting the gas in a quartz tube heated to 800C. This converts any H2S to SO2 by simple combustion or oxidation. The resulting gas must then be evaluated for SO2 to determine the amount of the original H2S and O2 concentration for the amount of dilution by the oxidizing air. 4-23
Corrosion Probes (3:3.7.2) Part 3, Section 3.7.2 described a controlled temperature water wall probe developed by Combustion Engineering, Inc. (now ABB-CE). This particular probe requires several months of exposure to obtain data for calculating corrosion rates. The original document also referenced a probe developed by the Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratory (ACIRL) which can obtain wastage data in 24 hours by measuring the decay in radio activity of a surface activated test piece. Recently, PowerGen described a simple probe (developed under an EPRI co-sponsored R&D program) that can be used to obtain accelerated corrosion data (Ref 5). A diagram of the probe is shown in Figure 4-7. The probe is essentially a simple tube, one end of which has a flat disc specimen held in place by a screwed collar. Sample coupon preparation and the image analysis technique used to measure material loss from the coupon are the key features that allow meaningful corrosion data to be obtained with short time exposures to the flue gas (24-48 hours). The corrosion specimens are 31mm (1.22in) in diameter and 5mm (0.2in) thick, precision machined from flat carbon steel strip of a specification comparable to that used for conventional furnace wall tubing. Coupons manufactured from strip, rather than round bar, are preferred by virtue of aligning the worked grain structure parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the exposed surface as in extruded boiler tubing. Measurement accuracy can be improved dramatically by obviating the need to measure the original coupon thickness. This is done by establishing a permanent surface datum on the corrosion specimens. The test surface of each furnace wall sample is precision machined to a flat surface finish (0.4 micrometers, or 16 micro inches). A 1-2mm (40-80 mils) wide annulus of nickel plate is then deposited around the coupon rim. Although previous studies had established nickel plate as being highly resistant to corrosion, the annulus is further protected from the corrosive furnace gases by locating it under the sample mounting ring on the probe. Following exposure, the coupons are mounted in cold setting araldite to retain scale and ash, sectioned across a diameter and then metallographically prepared to a 1m finish. All cutting and grinding operations are performed using non-aqueous media to retain any water soluble species in the scale and ash for examination by optical and scanning electron microscopy. Metal loss determinations are performed using image analysis. In planning a corrosion measurement campaign a basic decision is whether to use the ultrasonic tube wall thickness measurement or a corrosion probe (and which one). One of the advantages of the ultrasonic measurement is that they can be made throughout the furnace. However, as pointed out previously, they are time consuming and do 4-24
require the unit to be off line. Corrosion probes are restricted to use through existing or added sample ports providing very localized measurements. Since corrosion can be a fairly localized phenomena, a corrosion probe may not be able to be located at the correct position to detect the corrosion. Or, even if it is initially in the correct location, a boiler operational change may move the area of localized corrosion. In this case the corrosion probe could indicate that the operational change reduced or eliminated corrosion when, in actuality, the location moved. All of these factors need to be considered in selecting the test methods. If a unit has a history of corrosion problems, and resources allow, the ultrasonic measurements would be recommended. On the other hand, if corrosion has historically not been a problem, then comparative data using one of the corrosion probes such as the EPRI/PowerGen probe is probably appropriate.
Figure 4-7 Schematic of Power Technology Furnace Wall Corrosion Probe
4.4g
Boiler Tube Cleanliness Monitors (GFT Part 3, Section 3.8)
Boiler tube bank cleanliness can be monitored as an indication of the possible onset of a slagging or fouling episode. There are currently two basic approaches: monitoring specific tube metal temperatures where slagging and fouling episodes have historically 4-25
occurred, or monitoring the rate of temperature change in individual boiler convective heat transfer sections. The theory behind this monitoring is that if a slagging or fouling episode is underway, the rapid increase in deposits will cause an increase in both the local temperature and the rate of temperature change. If this is noticed in time, it may be possible to increase sootblowing in the affected area and/or change the operating conditions. These actions can reduce the deposition and reverse the temperature increases, thereby preventing an episode which could result in a unit derate or worse. Commercial software programs are available for this purpose including programs developed by a number of boiler manufacturers such as the A&E companies. The primary disadvantage of many commercial boiler performance monitors or sootblowing advisors is that they are configured to operate for an average unit, and do not incorporate unit-specific data. Recently, FERCo has developed a Fouling Episode Monitor/Alarm (FEMA) that is custom calibrated for each unit, utilizing boiler- and fuel-specific data. The calibration data is used in conjunction with results of combustion diagnostic testing, to develop several fouling indices. These indices are updated as operating data are logged, and displayed for the control operators. These indices warn the operator of potential fouling episodes, providing enough time to allow changes in unit operation to be made so as to avoid the episode (Ref 6). 4.4h Combustion Gas Temperature (GFT Part 3, Section 3.9)
At the time the GFT was written, a measurement of the combustion product temperature, particularly at the exit of the radiant furnace, was categorized as one of the most important special tests. Such a measurement currently deserves at least that status, if not being upgraded to a conventional or recommended test. It is a key measurement in assessing slagging, carbon burnout, heat transfer, and more recently, the assessment of selective non-catalytic NOx reduction (SNCR). The original guidelines presented two methods for determining combustion product temperatures, or furnace exit gas temperatures:

Suction Pyrometry (or HVT), Part 3: Section 3.9.1 Sonic (or Acoustic) Pyrometry, Part 3: Section 3.9.2
In recent years, optical pyrometers have also seen more widespread use and should be considered in selecting temperature measurement techniques. This section of the addendum will provide an update on sonic (or acoustic) pyrometry and discuss available optical pyrometers.
4-26
Suction Pyrometer Suction pyrometry still remains the most widely used approach to characterizing furnace exit gas. The equipment is relatively inexpensive, it provides the opportunity to obtain detailed temperature profiles (point-by-point), and provides the capability to obtain gaseous species profiles in the upper furnace. However, it is a time consuming and cumbersome technique. Obtaining a furnace exit gas profile at a single test condition can take to 1 full day with a test crew of 3-4 people. Update on Acoustic Pyrometry The basis of acoustic pyrometry was described in Part 3, Section 3.9.2 of the GFT. A sound wave, or pulse, is sent across the furnace and its transmit time measured. The known path length and transit time provides a mean sound speed which in turn can be used to calculate the average temperature along the path between the sound source and receiver (Ref. 7). At the time the original guidelines were prepared the commercial offerings were primarily single line of sight systems, although the systems could provide average temperatures along separate lines of site. One of the potential advantages of acoustic pyrometry is the ability to obtain temperature profiles essentially in real time. If multiple sound sources and receivers are set up at the furnace as shown in Figure 4-8 and transit time measurements made along the various measured lines of sight the resulting data can be mathematically deconvoluted to yield a two dimensional profile as shown in Figure 4-9. Some of the potential disadvantages of the acoustic pyrometry system are 1) the number of ports necessary if a two dimensional profile is to be measured and 2) the need to have ports on opposite sides of the boiler with a clear line of sight. This provides challenges for units with platens in the upper portion of the radiant furnace. Frequently existing observation ports are located between the platens to observe ash build up on the platen surfaces. Likewise, twin furnace designs do not provide an opportunity to have lines of sight between side walls. There are currently two manufacturers that offer commercial acoustic pyrometry systems, Scientific Engineering Instruments, Inc. (Sparks, Nevada) and Codel Limited (Derbyshire, England). Each uses a slightly different approach to sending and receiving the sound waves. Optical Pyrometry Optical pyrometer systems are being used more often to measure furnace exit gas temperatures in utility furnaces. The advantage of these instruments is that they only need a single access port to make a measurement, as opposed to the acoustic pyrometer that requires ports on each side of the line of sight. The primary disadvantage of the optical technique is the measurement depends on the optical properties of the 4-27
combustion products. Also, it is not always clear as to the effective path length, which means uncertainty in the distance over which the measurement is being made and, therefore, the point in the furnace to which the temperature is to be ascribed.
Figure 4-8 Multiple Path Acoustic Pyrometry
4-28
Figure 4-9 Isothermal Contour Map from Multi Path Acoustic Pyrometer
There are two basis optical techniques that are being used, one utilizes the emission of visible light from the ash particles and one that uses infrared emission. A unit that is being used in the industry is the SPECTRATEMP instrument currently distributed by Bovar, Inc. The SPECTRATEMP unit detects radiation primarily at visible wavelengths where its accuracy is maximized while minimizing errors resulting from the relatively cool walls that surround the gas. This visible radiation is emitted by the ash particles transported by the exhaust gases, and not by the gases themselves. Since the ash particulates are typically smaller than 30m in diameter and thermally equilibrate with the surrounding gas in a few tens of microseconds, their temperature is said to accurately reflect the local gas temperature (Ref. 8). Measurements from the SPECTRATEMP unit were recently compared to suction pyrometer (HVT) measurements on a 600 MW t-fired boiler firing Powder River Basin coal. The results of this comparison are shown in Figure 4-10. There appears to be a reasonably good correlation between the SPECTRATEMP optical measurements and the HVT measurements, except at temperatures above 2450F. At the high temperatures the response of the SPECTRATEMP unit flattened out. The reasons for this are not currently understood. Representative of the infrared systems is the Infra-View system sold by JNT Technical Services, Inc. The Infra-View Boiler Thermometer is an infrared based system that
4-29
senses boiler gas temperature from 250F to 3000F. The infrared spectral response of the Infra-View unit is pre-set specifically to detect infrared emissions from CO2 gas.
4.5
4.5a
Electrostatic Precipitators
Fly Ash Resistivity
The original document specified in-situ resistivity techniques for determining ash resistivity. Laboratory resistivity measurements are also used to provide trends of ash resitivities, particularly ash chemistry effects. For the laboratory ash resistivity measurements, ash samples should be collected isokinetically at the ESP inlet for analysis. Fly ash resistivity is determined according to IEEE Standard Criteria and Guidelines for the Laboratory Measurement and Reporting of Fly Ash Resistivity (IEEE Standard 548-1981). While subjecting an ash sample to a laboratory ash resistivity analysis is in many instances more convenient than performing the in-situ measurement, there can be some differences in the results. With the laboratory technique the measurement is performed in a different background gas environment than the actual flue gas. For the laboratory technique, the sample must be thermally annealed to eliminate surface chemistry effects that can occur in extracting the sample. On the other hand, with the in-situ technique, particularly with western coals, there can be problems depositing an adequate sample in the device leading to erroneous high resistivity values. In this latter case, reviewing the ESPs voltage-current characteristics can help determine if the ash resistivity is high, or if it is an artifact of the measurement.
2800 SPECTRATEMP Average Temperature, F 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
HVT Average Temperature, F
Figure 4-10 Comparison of the SPECTRATEMP Optical and HVT Temperature Measurements
4-30
4.5b
Particle Size
The primary systems for measuring particle size distribution are cascade impactors and cyclones. Each of these systems are reviewed below. Cascade Impactors Cascade impactors remain the primary means of measuring particle size distribution in industrial flue gases. However, models of particle and gas stream behavior in impactors have evolved considerably since the time the guidelines document was first published as have the techniques for using impactors. At the time the fireside testing guidelines were published, theoretical treatments of the impaction process were inadequate and did not accurately predict the measured performance of many impaction stages. Improved theoretical models are now available to account for variations in Reynolds number (Ref 9) of the sample nozzle design (Ref 10). Procedures for using cascade impactors and analyzing data obtained with them are provided in Procedures Manual for the Recommended ARB Particle Size Distribution Method (Ref 9). At least one program is currently commercially available from Andersen Instruments, Inc. for doing all relevant impactor calculations on a personal computer (Ref 11). Typical stage catch weights were cited in the guidelines document as ranging from one to a hundred milligrams. However, ten milligrams should be used as the upper limit to the catch on any one stage, except for special pre-collector stages. As the catch weight on a stage increases above ten milligrams the probability of blow-off and transfer of material to succeeding stages increases substantially. Such blow-off can cause large positive errors in the calculated concentrations of small particles. Thus typical stage catch weights can be expected to fall in the range of less than one milligram to ten milligrams. Improved impactor substrate materials (e.g., quartz fiber filters) are now available that are relatively inert and at least partially mitigate interferences from reactions with gas phase components of the gas stream being sampled. However, since no substrate material has been identified which is consistently immune to reactions with flue-gas components running blanks is still recommended. If possible, checking the weight stability of the substrate material to be used on a job at the site in question beforehand can head off potential problems in this regard. The sampling rate at which particle bounce can be expected to become a problem is dependent on the type of substrate material being used. In general, the numerical value of the product of stage jet velocity in meters per second and stage D50 in micrometers should be less than fifteen (15) if greased substrates are used, ten (10) if fiber substrates are used, and five (5) if bare metal or similar substrates are used. D50 is the aerodynamic equivalent cutoff diameter of a collection stage. It is defined as the diameter of a spherical particle of unit density that would be collected with 50% efficiency on a collection stage. 4-31
The sampling traverse strategy used in EPA Method 201A for PM10 is suggested for use with cascade impactors as well. Cascade impactors, like the PM10 cyclone require that the sampling flowrate be held constant. The strategy previously used was that of dividing the total sampling time to be used evenly over the grid of traverse points. However, a more representative sample can be obtained if the dwell time at each traverse point is made proportional to the gas velocity at that point, thus the PM10 Method 201A strategy which requires just that should be used. The number of known commercial suppliers of cascade impactors suitable for use in flue gas sampling has been reduced by two: Andersen Instruments, Inc. and Pollution Control Systems. Cyclones Cyclone theory remains inadequate for predicting the cut diameters of cyclones from first principles. However, useful empirical correlations have been developed for the five-stage cyclone system described in the guidelines document that obviate the need for carrying out calibrations under conditions near identical to those used when sampling with the system. These empirical relations are described in Procedures Manual for the Recommended ARB Sized Chemical Sample Method (Ref 12). Two of the cyclones of the five-stage cyclone system, cyclones I and IV, have been adopted for use by the US EPA for measuring PM10 and PM2.5, respectively, in industrial flue gases. The PM10 method, EPA Method 201 (Ref 13), has been formally promulgated and a similar method for PM2.5 is under consideration. Test Protocol: PM10/PM2.5 Emission Factor and Chemical Characterization Testing (Ref 14) provides a concise description of the methodology for making PM10 and PM2.5 emissions measurements. Computer software for carrying out PM10 and PM2.5 setup calculations and analyzing data obtained from these methods can be obtained from several vendors, among which include: Apex Instruments, Air Control Techniques, Cherokee Instruments, and Andersen Instruments, Inc. Apex Instruments, Cherokee Instruments and Andersen Instruments all market PM10 and PM2.5 cyclones. The full five-stage cyclone system can be obtained from Andersen Instruments, In-Tox Products, and Kanomax USA, Inc. Submicron Particle Sizing Submicron particle sizing in the context of utility fireside testing is generally considered as being limited to use in specialized research programs in which detailed size distribution information is needed below about 0.3 micrometers. The techniques for doing submicron particle sizing have changed little since the publication of the GFT document. However, the number of vendors has decreased. 4-32
Pollution Control Systems is the sole supplier of low-pressure cascade impactors suitable for use in industrial flue gases with no changes in the models available from those originally listed. TSI, Inc. is now the sole vendor of condensation nuclei counters and electrical mobility particle sizing devices and TSI markets a set of screen type diffusion batteries. Software for the use of these systems is provided by the vendor. Diffusion and electrical mobility techniques still require the use of sophisticated sample dilution and conditioning systems, of which none suitable are commercially available. 4.5c Fly Ash Leachability (GFT Part 3, Test 4.4)
There are no updates to the fly ash leachability section of the GFT. This is, however, an area of active research by EPRI, and there may be new information in the near future. 4.5d Fly Ash Properties
As utilities deploy urea or ammonia based NOx control technologies, an issue that arises is ammonia absorption on fly ash. These post combustion technologies result in some ammonia emissions that can be absorbed on the fly ash as the flue gas passes through the air pre-heater and particulate control device. Depending upon the amount of ammonia that becomes associated with the ash, the impacts can include odor problems, pose a potential hazard to personnel, and impact ash sales. The amount of ammonia associated with the ash will depend on both process parameters as well as ash characteristics. To characterize ash ammonia content, ash samples should be collected either from the hoppers of the particulate control device or the ash silo if the ash is removed dry. A known weight of ash (nominally 0.5 gms) is then added to dilute sulfuric acid (nominally 0.02N H2SO4) and stirred for at least 30 minutes. The resulting liquid can then be analyzed for ammonia and the amount of ammonia associated with the ash calculated. A number of techniques can be used for the ammonia analysis of the liquid: specific ion electrode, direct Nesslerization, steam distillation and titration. The authors prefer to use a specific ion electrode as it is reasonably free from interferences and can be used directly in the ash/H2SO4 solution without filtering the solution. The results should be reported as mg NH3 per kg ash (i.e., ppm NH3 in the ash on a weight basis). 4.5e Sulfur Trioxide (SO3) Concentration
The recommended method for measuring the SO3 concentration is the controlled condensation method described in Part 3, Section 4.2 of the original guidelines document. A gas sample is cooled through a temperature controlled condenser to a temperature that is below the H2SO4 acid dewpoint but above the water dewpoint. In this temperature range, SO3 condenses to form an H2SO4 aerosol which is collected in 4-33
the condenser. In the original document it was recommended that the collected material be analyzed with an acid base titration using 0.02N NaOH with a Bromophenol Blue indicator. An alternate analysis approach is to analyze the sample for sulfate (SO4) using a barium chloride-thorin titration (Ref 15), or with ion chromatography. The sulfate is assumed to be in the form of H2SO4.
4-34
5
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
Emerging technologies for coal testing include continuous on-line measurement of coal pipe air and solids flow rates, boiler tuning and optimization using flame scanner signals and continuous on-line measurement of carbon in ash. Advances in each of these areas are reviewed below.
5.1
Continuous On-Line Coal Pipe Measurements
Balanced coal distribution, along with satisfactory fineness, are necessary to maintain combustion efficiency in the current environment of low-NOx combustion systems. In order to optimize unit performance, it is necessary to maintain uniform air-fuel ratios at each burner. Typically, air and fuel flow rates are measured manually using methods described previously (see Section 4.2). This is adequate for tuning boiler performance at a given time, but will not necessarily maintain this performance over time. Ideally, one would be able to monitor coal and primary airflow on a real-time basis, and make changes as necessary to maintain the desired balance. In an effort to do this, the flow measurement of pneumatically conveyed solids is being studied. Methods under consideration at this time include measurements based on thermal, electrical, acoustical and electromagnetic principles. Some of these methods are reviewed below. 5.1.1 Thermal Measurement Techniques Thermal measurement techniques rely on the measurement of a temperature differential across a specific measurement section, which is subjected to a constant heat input. The ratio of the heat input rate and the temperature differential across the measurement section define the mass flow rate. As an alternate, the measurement could be based on maintaining a constant temperature differential across a test section, and measuring the heat input required to maintain this differential. Two resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) are used to measure the mass flow. One RTD measures process temperature, while the other is heated to maintain a fixed temperature differential. In this case, the mass flow rate is proportional to the heat input. Commercially available mass flow meters from Kurz operate on this principle; however, they are typically used to measure the flow of clean gas streams. Tests of this device in a pulverized coal/air stream at B&Ws large-scale combustion facility in 5-1
EPRI Licensed Material Emerging Technologies
Alliance, Ohio showed that its performance deteriorated in the presence of the pulverized coal, which tended to deposit on the probe. 5.1.2 Electrical Measurement Techniques Electrical measurement techniques can be classified into two basic types: active charge detection and passive charge detection. Solids flow meters have been developed using both of these techniques; however passive charge detection devices are preferred for this application. Active charge detection devices could be hazardous, since if the supplied charge was large enough it could cause the pulverized fuel to ignite. Thus, this discussion focuses on passive charge detection techniques. Passive charge detectors fall into two basic design types; capacitive sensors and electrostatic sensors. Capacitive sensors utilize insulated pipeline sections to measure the solids concentration. By incorporating a capacitor in an oscillator circuit, the capacitance between the insulated and uninsulated sections of the pipeline is determined. The capacitor dielectric changes as particulate matter is introduced into the air stream, which causes the capacitor value (and the oscillator frequency) to change. An AC amplifier provides the transducer output. The AC signal which constitutes the transducer output is a function of the concentration of the solid in the pipeline. Several groups, including Greenwich University, have investigated this approach to mass flow measurement. These devises require a minimum solids:air mass ratio in order to operate. The electrostatic measurement technique involves the use of pipeline sections similar to those described above. In this instance, the insulated ring section is connected to the input of a charge amplifier. Solids flowing through the pipeline will cause the charge on the ring sensor to vary, providing an indication of the solids concentration. The charge level is also dependent upon particle properties such as size and moisture content, so this technique does not provide an absolute measure of solids concentrations. However, this technique can provide an indication of the relative solids flow in different pipes carrying the same material. Two establishments at the forefront of the development of this technology include the Universities of Greenwich and Tesside. 5.1.3 Acoustic Measurement Techniques Acoustic measurement techniques can also be divided into passive and active analysis methods. Both methods have been evaluated on pulverized coal flows. Passive acoustic measurement involves the monitoring of solids flow by measuring the noise associated with the flow. The aerodynamic sounds generated by the turbulent nature of solids flow can be analyzed to determine the solids concentration in 5-2
suspension. This noise can include particle collisions with the pipe walls. In its simplest form, these measurements can be made using a microphone attached to the pipe wall. To date, passive acoustic measurement techniques have utilized piezoelectric transducers that convert acoustic waves to voltage signals and accelerometers. Active acoustic measurement techniques are based on the introduction of an external acoustic signal and the measurement of its resulting feedback signal. The presence of suspended particles in a gas affects the gases acoustic properties due to particle interactions with the acoustic waves. The suspended particles reduce the speed of sound and increase the attenuation. These impacts are frequency dependent. The overall effect depends on particle characteristics including density, size distribution, shape, thermal properties and concentration in the gas stream. The attenuation varies roughly linearly with concentration by volume at a fixed frequency and particle size. Active acoustic measurement techniques evaluated to date have included plane wave transmission, ultrasonic transmission, reverberant decay, orifice impedance and acoustic probes. 5.1.4 Microwave Measurement Techniques Microwave attenuation techniques have been used to measure the concentration of pneumatically conveyed solids. Solid particles in a pipeline absorb microwave energy and increase the attenuation between the microwave source and detector. Over a fixed microwave path length, increasing solids concentrations result in increased attenuation. A disadvantage of a microwave line of sight system is that a coal rope could pass outside of the line of sight and escape detection. 5.1.5 On-Line Determination of Coal Loadings and Particle Size A test program was conducted to investigate the potential for performing on-line measurement of pulverized coal particle sizing and loading. This was accomplished by integrating a RotorProbe coal sampler with Insitecs laser diffraction EPCS instrument (Ref 16). These instruments, and the way they were integrated, are discussed below. The RotorProbe is an extractive coal sampler which was discussed previously in Section 4.2. The Insitec Ensemble Particle Concentration and Size (EPCS) monitor measures light extinction and near-forward angular scattering intensity as a function of particle size. The intensity of the unscattered incident beam is measured for calculation of particle concentration. The EPCS was integrated with the RotorProbe as shown in Figure 5-1.
5-3
P u lv e riz e d C oal T ra n s p o rt P ip e
R oto rP ro b e S a m p ler Flexible Hose
Insitec EPCS3
D u s tle s s C o n n e c tion C y c lo n e S e pa ra to r B a c k bl ow in g
S a m p lin g
T o R o torP ro b e C on tro l B ox
Figure 5-1 RotorProbe Assembly with EPCS
The test results showed that the on-line particle size distributions measured with the EPCS were in good agreement with the sieved samples. The coal loading in the pipe determined with the RotorProbe and laser-based EPCS were also in good agreement using a coal bulk specific gravity of 1.35 for the pulverized coal. While this system is not currently available commercially, the separate components are. It is conceivable that the EPCS could be integrated with an automatic coal sampler to provide these measurements on-line. 5.1.6 Optical Particle Sizing and Loading Traditionally, particulate loading and sizing measurements have been performed using extractive techniques: EPA Methods 5 and 17 for particulate loadings, cascade impactors for particle size. While these techniques have been refined and are reasonably accurate, by virtue of their batch nature, they can only provide a snapshot of the process. There are a number of optical techniques that can provide real-time data which in turn can provide more insight into both boiler and ESP processes. These optical devices employ a wide range of techniques from simple light extraction, ensemble diffraction scattering, forward and backscattering, and single particle counting. An example of these devices is Insitecs Particle Counter, Sizer, Velocimeter Probe (PCSV-P). This optical instrument is capable of making nearly real-time, in situ measurements of particle size, number density and velocity for non-spherical particles. 5-4
The PCSV-P detects light scattered by individual particles passing through a diagnostic probe volume defined by a focused laser light source and the selected scattering angle. Particle size is determined from the scattered light using a response function which is based on Mie theory. By examining a large number of particles, the size distribution can be determined. Practical sizing limits for this particular instrument are between 0.3 and 25 microns. Two laser beams with 7.4 and 40 micron beam-waist diameters are used to examine the small (<2 micron) and large (>2 micron) size distributions, respectively. The instrument measures with one beam at a time. By measuring the transit time of the particle through the laser beam, the instrument also determines velocity. The PCSV-P is inserted into a water-cooled jacket which allows it to be placed directly into hot flue gas. This particular device has been used to make in situ particle measurements at locations ranging from the nose at the exit of the radiant furnace of a coal fired boiler to the exit of an ESP. Optical windows on the transmitter are airpurged to prevent contamination. The instrument was recently used for an EPRI SCR Pilot plant project to characterize potential aerosol formation by the reaction of SO2 and NH3 (Ref 17). To illustrate its capabilities to measure real-time particles, Figure 5-2 shows the time varying particle loading during a boiler sootblowing cycle; note that the operation of each individual sootblower within the furnace can be identified.
BASELINE PARTICLE COUNTS @ ASCR OUTLET NO NH3 & SO3 ADDED; NO ASCR CATALYST SOOTBLOW; FULL U4 SOOTBLOW SEQUENCE
SUB-2 MICRON PARTICLE CONCENTRATION, #/SCC 20000 17500 15000 12500 10000 7500 5000 2500 0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 TIME, MINUTES
Figure 5-2 Typical Baseline Particle Loading Full Sootblowing Cycle
These optical instruments provide the capability of gaining more insight into boiler and ESP processes. They also potentially provide the tools to better optimize sootblowing and ESP processes. 5-5
5.1.7 Additional Solids flow Measurement Techniques There are a number of solids flow measurement techniques, which are undergoing development. These include Beta Radiation Detection Measurement Techniques, Optical Sensor Measurement Techniques, Tomographic Measurement Techniques, radiometric attenuation techniques, laser doppler velocimetry (LDV) measurement techniques and particle image velocimetry measurement techniques. More information about these techniques can be found in reference 18.
5.2
Advanced Concepts for Boiler Tuning
Boiler tuning to date has relied on balancing fuel and air flows to each burner along with gas analysis at the economizer exit to confirm uniform fuel air ratios across the furnace. New technologies under development to perform this work include systems which analyze flame scanner signals and neural network systems. Each of these systems are described below. 5.2.1 Systems Utilizing Flame Scanner Signals A number of companies are developing systems that utilize either flame scanner signals or optical signals from sensors near the furnace exit to tune and balance burners. These systems are in the developmental stages and are currently not widely used. However, they do offer the potential for continuously monitoring and adjusting the combustion process. Systems based on analyzing flame scanner signals are being developed by a number of organizations including Forney, Babcock and Wilcox, and PSI (Ref 19, 20, and 21). While the specific approaches used by each of the systems vary, they basically all look at the flame scanner system and analyze the signals in time and frequency domains. The basic premise is that burners which are balanced should exhibit the same optical power spectrum as a function of frequency. A somewhat different system is offered by MK Engineering, Inc. Their MPV-1 system consists of a series of optical sensors installed along the front wall near the furnace exit (Ref 22). The manufacturer claims that the system uses proprietary signal processing algorithm to extract useful information from the turbulence in the post combustion flue gas. The algorithms extract information on both LOI and Temperature.
5-6
5.2.2 Neural Networks At the time this document was prepared, neural network models were straddling the line between in-use and emerging technologies. While some neural network systems are in place, their use is not yet widespread. Additionally, they are typically utilized to maintain low-NOx system operations, but are rarely used to perform testing at this time. Neural network software is designed to evaluate a range of unit operating data and determine patterns in the process. There are several neural network software packages currently available. These software packages are used as the engine for a number of commercially available models including EPRIs GNOSIS, Pegasus NeuSIGHT, ULTRAMAX, and Pavilion Technologies Process Insights (Ref 23-25). The models incorporate an expert system to devise the tests needed to train the model. In some instances, a combustion engineer develops a unit-specific test matrix designed to teach the model the practical operating constraints of the unit. The neural network part of the model develops non-linear correlations between emissions (i.e., NOx, LOI, CO, opacity) and unit operating parameters. The unit operating parameters typically include damper positions, mill bias setting, excess O2 levels and other controllable operating parameters. These correlations are then analyzed using mathematical optimization algorithms, which identify the desired boiler operating conditions. Most expert systems are currently operating in an advisory capacity, although work is underway to incorporate them into the on-line, closed loop combustion controls (Ref 26).
5.3
Continuous On-Line Carbon in Ash Measurements
The technology necessary to sample fly ash and analyze it for LOI level has been available for many years. This equipment is, however, subject to operational inaccuracies associated with sample transport and handling, as well as the limitations of single point sample extraction. There are basically two types of sampling systems; extractive and non-extractive. Extractive systems can be further classified into direct and indirect measurement systems. These systems are reviewed below. Extractive systems are based on intrusive sampling techniques which remove fly ash from the exhaust stream using an isokinetic sampler. The CEGRIT (Central Electricity Grit) Sampler is typically the basis for these systems. This sampler has no moving parts and samples isokinetically. Within the sample extraction system velocity must be maintained at a sufficiently high rate to prevent particle deposition on the sample system walls. Direct measurement systems currently available are based on heating a known weight of ash in an oxidizing atmosphere at temperatures sufficiently high (i.e., ~1500F) to 5-7
oxidize the carbon in the ash to CO2. The CO2 is measured using an infrared based meter, thus providing a direct measurement of the ash LOI level. Indirect measurement techniques rely on the measurement of another of the ashs properties (i.e., light reflection, or absorption, microwave absorption, or changes in capacitance). These properties are correlated to the LOI level, determined in the laboratory, of a number of ash samples. Because these properties vary with the coal type, these techniques require a site-specific calibration for each type, these techniques require a site-specific calibration for each coal fired. It is possible to perform the indirect measurements at a higher frequency than the direct measurements, since they do not require accurate sample weights or measurement of evolved gases. This also provides for a less complex design for the analysis system. A brief description of the different measurement techniques is provided below. Systems based on the light reflection properties of ash samples operate by exposing the ash to infrared light and measuring the resulting reflection. The reflection is proportional to the carbon content of the ash sample. This carbon content can be inferred using calibration curves previously generated for the coal being fired. Two basic types of microwave-based measurement systems are currently in use. One type uses microwave absorption techniques to measure carbon content. Carbon transmits a microwave signal more readily than pure ash. Thus, the carbon present causes a change in phase shift and attenuation as the ash carbon levels vary. A second type measures the microwave absorption of the ash and compares it to the absorption of a carbon-free ash using an internal calibration system. The capacitance measurement technique measures the capacitance of the sample. The capacitance is known to be inversely proportional to the carbon content of the ash. A previously established correlation curve is used to determine the carbon content of the ash. Non extractive systems currently available are based on infrared measurement techniques. These operate on the principle that unburned carbonaceous material at the furnace exit is at a higher temperature than carbon free ash and the combustion products. A near infrared wavelength camera is used to measure the furnace radiant energy levels. The results are expressed as a function of counts per minute, and are calibrated using load and excess O2 levels. These units are typically positioned at the furnace exit in existing side wall observation doors. Southern Company Services (SCS) has recently completed an analysis of on-line carbonin-ash measurement devices (Ref 27). SCS evaluated the following four units:
5-8
Applied Synergistics FOCUS Unburned Carbon Module An in-situ unit that relates the infrared emission from the ash particles in the upper furnace to the carbon content. Clyde-Sturtevant SEKAM An extractive system that uses a capacitance technique to determine the carbon content of the sample. CAMRAC CAM An extractive system that uses microwave absorption to determine the carbon content of the sample. M&W Asketeknik Residual Carbon Analyzer An extractive system that illuminates the sample with a special light source and its reflectance is used to determine the carbon content.
Table 5-1 summarizes the results of this program. The program showed that all of the analyzers tested exhibited high availability. The extractive analyzers were found to be most accurate during this evaluation, however, they cost $25k to $50k more than the non-extractive system. Also, the extractive systems will likely require more maintenance than the non-extractive system. The microwave- and infrared-based systems had faster response times than the capacitance-based system. One important issue is whether the analysis technique provides an absolute measurement of carbon, or if it must be calibrated for each coal type burned. If a particular boiler burns a number of different coals, calibration of the carbon analyzer becomes more difficult. Additional technologies currently under development include acoustic measurement technique, laser measurement techniques and infrared measurement techniques. These technologies are described in more detail in reference 18.
5-9
EPRI Licensed Material Emerging Technologies Table 5-1 Summary of SCS On-Line Carbon-In-Ash Measurement Systems
Analyzer
Operating Principle
Extractive/ Microwave Non-extractive Infrared Camera Extractive/ Infrared Reflection Extractive/ Capacitance
Cost $k
75-100
Availability Accuracy2 Response Time2

High
1
Reliability2
CAM
FOCUS
50
varied
M&W
100
High
SEKAM
50-75
High
1 2
Moderate to low (Hammond), high (Gaston) + = advantage, - = disadvantage, N = neutral results
5-10
6
UPDATE ON LABOR REQUIREMENTS AND COSTS
This section presents a review of the labor requirements for the tests outlined in the GFT, provides descriptions of lower cost alternatives and identifies possible sacrifices in data quality associated with lower cost alternatives. It also discusses the potential cost reductions associated with performing a streamlined coal test burn program, and performing a minimal coal evaluation effort.
6.1
Labor Requirements
The original scope for a coal test burn as described in the GFT is a comprehensive program using a large test crew and providing a large volume of detailed, precise results. Since publication of the GFT, most U.S. utilities have downsized and are operating in a competitive environment, so the resources necessary to conduct such a program are not often available. This section outlines a streamlined approach to conducting a coal test burn that includes the following features: 1. Reduced test crew size. 2. Maximum use of existing plant data acquisition systems (DAS). 3. Increased utilization of existing station personnel. The streamlined approach is based on more recent utility experience in conducting test burns, and on an assessment of the minimum resources needed to collect adequate data to evaluate an alternative coal. The data available from a number of alternate coal burns performed at U.S. utilities have helped to streamline this process. This experience allows the test engineer to determine the required tests, thereby streamlining the test program. A third approach, termed a minimal approach, is also described. In the minimal approach existing unit instrumentation is used for all measurements, and no test crews are used. A station engineer works with operating personnel to assess boiler operation with the test coal, with particular emphasis on any operating constraints.
6-1
EPRI Licensed Material Update on Labor Requirements and Costs
The minimal approach is best used when the changes in coal properties are small, or when there is operating experience with the test coal on a similar boiler within the utility. The test methods presented in Part 2, Section 5 of the GFT are used as the basis for the discussion presented in this section. Table 6-1 presents a summary of these methods, including the labor estimates provided in the GFT for a comprehensive program and new labor estimates for a streamlined program. The differences for each task or test are discussed individually below. The discussions of each approach present a summary of the comprehensive and streamlined approaches, followed by discussion of key issues. Mid-effort level approaches are presented for some tasks where a mid-effort level might represent the best option. Prior to discussion of the individual tasks, some general comments on differences between the comprehensive and streamlined approach are presented below. Use of Data Acquisition Systems. Since the GFT were originally written, most utility boilers have been retrofitted with distributed control systems (DCS) that provide for automated collection of operating data reducing the manpower to manually record data. To the fullest extent possible, the streamlined approach uses data acquisition systems (DAS) for collection of unit operating data not logged by the plant DCS. Use of Existing Unit Instrumentation. Where existing instrumentation exists, the streamlined approach uses it. The GFT makes wide use of separate measurement of parameters that are already monitored. While using existing instrumentation may result in some sacrifice in data quality, it does reduce cost. Calibration of Unit Instrumentation. It is assumed that whichever approach is taken, unit instrumentation will be in good working order for the tests and will not provide obviously flawed data. It is left to the utility to make an assessment of the accuracy of its instrumentation, and to determine if any special calibration is required prior to the test. At a minimum, any malfunctioning instruments should be repaired. If the purpose of a test is to evaluate the differences in operation between two coals and the tests are run back to back, any calibrations and repairs should be done before the baseline tests so that direct comparisons can be made. Additional Tests. Tests that are noted as additional in Section 2, Table 1-2 of the GFT are not included in the streamlined test approach. However, discussions are still presented for reduced effort approaches for some of the additional tests. Use of Station Personnel. This issue is not clearly addressed in the GFT, and the labor requirements discussed in this section do not address whether the labor is provided by a contractor, by an in-house utility test group, or by existing station personnel. This is addressed as a cost issue in Section 6.2. 6-2
EPRI Licensed Material Update on Labor Requirements and Costs Table 6-1 Labor Requirements for Coal Test Burn, Individual Tasks
Task/Test Original GFT Streamlined Effort Minimal Approach
5.1 Fuel System 5.5.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 Raw coal samples Coal flow & handling problems Pulverizer power Mill vibration Mill rejects Primary air Pulverized fuel Mill differential 1 FT 1 PT 1 PT 2 PT 1 PT 2 PT 2 PT 1 PT 1 PT 1 PT --1 PT included in 5.1.7 2 FT -1 PT Op* DAS -
5.2 Steam Generator System 5.2.1 Feedwater 5.2.2 Superheat & reheat stem 5.2.3 Attemperation 5.2.4 Flame stability 5.2.5 Combustion air 5.2.6 Steam temperature control 5.2.7 Bottom ash sample 5.2.8 Boiler metal temperatures 5.2.9 Slagging 5.2.10 Fouling 5.2.11 Air heater temperatures 5.2.12 Flue gas flow 5.2.13 Back end corrosivity 5.2.14 Flue gas analysis 5.2.15 Furnace draft and air heater differential pressures 5.2.16 Fly ash sample 5.2.17 Fans 5.2.18 Sootblowing 5.2.19 Control room readings 5.3 Electrostatic Precipitator System 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5.3.6 5.3.7 Precipitator power consumption Inlet dust conditions Fly ash resistivity Precipitator collection efficiency Rapper control system Hopper pluggage Opacity measurement 1 FT, or DAS 2 FT 1 FT 4 FT 1 PT 1 PT 1FT DAS 2 FT, if necessary 2 FT 1 PT Operator CEM (if no scrubber) DAS Op Op CEM 1 PT 2 FT, or DAS 1 PT, or DAS 4 PT 1-2 PT 1 PT 1 PT 1 FT, or DAS 2-4 PT 2 PT 1 FT, or DAS 2 PT 1 FT 1 FT 1 FT, or DAS 2 PT 2 PT 1 PT, or DAS 2 FT, or DAS DAS DAS DAS 1 PT DAS Part of 5.2.19 1 PT DAS 1 PT DAS DAS CEM 1 or 0 FT CEM DAS 1 PT DAS Operator 1 FT DAS DAS DAS Op DAS Op DAS Op DAS DAS CEM CEM DAS Op DAS Op 1 FT
Note: See Tables 6-1 and 6-2 for individual labor assignments and total personnel requirements. Op - monitored by operating personnel for problems; no additional test crew labor. FT = Full time, estimated 10 hours/day PT = Part time, estimated 4 hours/day
6-3
Size of Test Crew. Determination of the total size of the test crew is site and project specific, and the GFT presents labor requirements as a range. If all the individual task labor requirements from the GFT are added up, the result is a crew containing between 11 and 20 full time assignments and 28-31 part time assignments. Separately, the GFT text states that a test crew would be between 10 and 25 people. Based on a review of the GFT test/task descriptions, the labor requirements for a comprehensive test outlined in the GFT would be much closer to 25 people than to 10 people. The streamlined effort is estimated to require 7-10 people. Mid-level efforts. An actual test program is not constrained to follow either the comprehensive or streamlined approach. In fact, most programs will probably involve a level of effort somewhere between the two. This section is designed to provide the information necessary to assess the specific requirements for a test program. Task/test Specific Labor Requirements. This section presents a task by task comparison of labor requirements for the comprehensive and streamlined approaches. Included are discussions of the labor requirements and any differences in data quality between the two approaches. Test 5.1.1 Raw Coal Samples
A representative coal sample is essential to evaluate the boiler and auxiliaries performance, the combustion process, and flue gas emissions. The coal quality is likely to fluctuate throughout the boilers operation due to changes in the mine supply, blending procedures, and coal yard operation and drainage, and bunkering. It is therefore necessary to take sufficient samples to ensure the coal sample provides a representative composite of the as fired coal. Comprehensive approach. One person full time to sample every 15 minutes from each running mill, and to reduce and identify samples for analysis. Streamlined approach. Samples collected every 1-2 hours from each mill by part time person. Minimal effort. Normal plant fuel analyses of coal deliveries are used. Blend percentages are as provided by fuel handing personnel. The comprehensive approach calls for a raw coal sample from each mill every fifteen minutes, requiring one full time person. In the streamlined approach, samples are collected every 1-2 hours from each mill. The impact of this change on data quality will depend on the uniformity of the fuel, but is generally expected to be minor.
6-4
Some units are equipped with automatic coal sampling systems. In these cases manual sampling is not necessary, provided that the system is ASTM bias test approved. Test 5.1.2 Coal Flow and Handling Problems
Changes in the coal quality (especially moisture level and ash content) can affect the coal handling equipments performance. Areas which may be affected include: coal silo feed, coal belt spillage, coal feeders, crushers, and coal pile dust. Coal which does not flow easily from silos may require the addition of vibrators or blasters, or a change in silo material or slope. Changes in coal conveyor roller angle may be required to reduce spillage. Excessive dust problems from coal pile air-borne coal, or stacking out may require watering and dust hoods. Frozen coal will require coal yard management to prevent coal from freezing in bunkers. Comprehensive approach. One person full time to record incidents as they occur, record coal scale integrator readings, and record feeder loading. Streamlined approach. Same as comprehensive approach. Can use station operations personnel to reduce cost. Minimal effort. Normal operator attention. This task primarily involves monitoring and documenting coal handling issues and problems during testing. For this task the streamlined and comprehensive approaches would be the same. Program cost might be reduced by using station fuel handling personnel to perform the task. Test 5.1.3 Pulverizer Power
Pulverizer power consumption should be measured to determine any additional power consumption required to maintain the same unit output. One pulverizer can be selected as being representative to determine the pulverizer performance. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to measure pulverizer power, and record operating parameters. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Not included-considered an Additional test. Pulverizer power testing is considered and additional test. Therefore, it would not normally be included in a streamlined test program.
6-5
The comprehensive approach calls for using a calibrated watt-hour meter or watt-hour transducer, using ASME PTC 4.2 on all pulverizers at three test loads. In the streamlined approach, pulverizer amp levels are taken in the control room. Power level can then be calculated from the amps and the motor voltage. This approach provides a comparison between baseline and test coal pulverizer power consumption, but will not provide an absolute value that would be valid for comparison between different units or possibly between different coals on the same unit if the tests are separated in time by several months. Test 5.1.4 Mill Vibration
Vibration levels on the mills should be checked to determine if there is any anomalous dynamic behavior due to a change in coal. Vibration measurement instrumentation and locations should be selected to determine the vibration levels of the pulverizer supports, motor, and gearbox. Comprehensive approach. Two persons part time to measure vibration levels on pulverizers. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Not included-considered an additional test. Mill vibration levels are listed as an additional test, and would not be included in a streamlined test. If this measurement is included in a reduced effort test, the approach outlined in the GFT is appropriate. Test 5.1.5 Mill Rejects
The mill (or pulverizer) rejects should be examined to ensure that the pyrites and tramp metal are being removed without excessive coal being rejected. Where possible the pyrites rejected during the test period should be collected. This can be accomplished by emptying the pyrites hopper prior to the start of the test period, and collecting all the pyrites at the end of the test period. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to empty pyrite hopper at start and end of each test run and to identify, weigh, and send for analysis the pyrites collected during test runs. Streamlined approach. Same as comprehensive approach. Note that this task can easily be performed by person collecting coal samples. Minimal effort. Not performed.
6-6
Mill rejects are listed as an additional test in the GFT; however they are included in the streamlined approach since they provide valuable information and require minimal labor to collect. Test 5.1.6 Primary Air
The primary air quantity should be examined to determine if there is sufficient air and temperature to dry the surface moisture of the pulverized coal and carry the coal and air mixture to the burners. Insufficient temperature or quantity can lead to a build-up of coal in the burner lines and possibly a burner line fire. Comprehensive approach. Two persons part time to make velocity traverse of air ducts and determine air density. Streamlined approach. Use plant instrumentation for total primary air. Individual coal pipe air flow collected with pulverized fuel sample in Test 5.1.7. Minimal effort. Plant instrumentation and distributed control system (DCS). Primary air flow distribution among the burners is a critical parameter, and is included in both the comprehensive and streamlined approaches. For the streamlined approach, plant instrumentation is used. Primary air ratios can change with coal type if the moisture content of the coal changes. As the moisture content increases, more air is required to dry the coal to provide the proper grinding. Additionally, the primary air to coal ratio impacts NOx emissions, albeit a second order effect. Note that in Section 4.2a of this Addendum it is recommended that dirty air testing of primary air flow in all coal pipes be performed as part of a test program. These tests are usually performed simultaneously with the pulverized fuel sample collected in Test 5.1.7, which are discussed immediately below. Test 5.1.7 Pulverized Coal
Pulverized fuel samples are required to determine if the pulverizer is grinding the coal to the required fineness. The pulverized coal fineness is dependent on coal quality, coal quantity, pulverizer settings and the condition of the pulverizer internals. If a pulverizer is grinding too coarse this may be an indication of mill internal problems (classifiers, throat gaps, wear) or a change in coal quality. Proper combustion is dependent on the fineness of grind and many problems (slagging, carbon-in-ash) can often be traced to problems with the pulverizer grind. Comprehensive approach. Two persons full time to take pulverized fuel samples from each mill.
6-7
Streamlined approach. Same labor requirements. See Section 4.2b of this Addendum for description of updated methods. Minimal effort. Not performed. Coal size distribution is a critical indicator of mill performance, and collection of pulverized coal samples is included in the comprehensive and streamlined approaches. As part of the pulverized coal sampling, primary air flow measurement in each coal pipe is also measured. This combination of tasks makes it possible to make the primary air flow measurements at minimal additional cost. Test 5.1.8 Mill Differential Pressure
The mill differential should be measured by taking the difference between the mill inlet throat pressure and the classifier outlet pressure. Mill differential pressure can be used as an indication of the height of the grinding bed and the amount of recirculation in the mill. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to measure and record the mill pressure differentials throughout the test period. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Not included unless data can be logged by the unit DCS. This is listed as an additional test, and is not included in the streamlined tests. If control room instrumentation is provided, the data can be collected with less effort than the comprehensive test approach of taking manometer readings every 10 minutes. Test 5.2.1 Feedwater
Boiler capacity is generally dependent on both the feedwater flow and boiler firing rate. The temperature, pressure and quantity of the feedwater entering the boiler will affect the final steam temperature, pressure and flow, as well as the flue gas exit temperature leaving the economizer. To evaluate different coals in a boiler or to study the effect of different operating modes on a boiler, feedwater conditions should be similar. Feedwater flow can be used to determine steam flow and hence boiler capacity. Comprehensive approach. One person part time during test runs to measure and record flow nozzle differential pressure and feedwater temperature. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Flow recorded by DAS.
6-8
For the streamlined tests, control room instrumentation can be used to measure feedwater flow and the DAS can be used to record flow. There may be some sacrifice in accuracy from the comprehensive approach, but this can be minimized by calibration of the flow meter before the tests. Test 5.2.2 Superheat and Reheat Steam
Accurate outlet steam temperature and pressures are important in operating the unit at its best efficiency. Deviation in temperature of the superheat or reheat steam can reduce the turbine efficiency and increase the units heat rate. Where possible, temperatures should be measured at the inlet and outlet of each heat transfer section. This will enable further understanding in the relative heat transfer mechanisms with differing coals. Comprehensive approach. Two persons full time, or data acquisition system to measure steam temperature and pressure at the superheater outlet, reheater inlet, and reheater outlet. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. For the streamlined tests, control room instrumentation can be used to measure feedwater flow and the DAS can be used to record flow. There may be some sacrifice in accuracy from the comprehensive approach, but this can be minimized by calibration of the flow meter before the tests. Test 5.2.3 Attemperation
If attemperation water is used to control superheat and reheat steam temperature, the flow and temperature of the water should be measured. The steam temperature upstream and downstream of where the attemperation water enters the system should be recorded. Comprehensive approach. One person part time or distributed control system (DCS) to measure attemperation flow, measure steam temperature before and after attemperation. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. For the streamlined tests, control room instrumentation can be used to measure feedwater flow and the DCS can be used to record flow. There may be some sacrifice in accuracy from the comprehensive approach, but this can be minimized by calibration of the flow meter before the tests.
6-9
Test 5.2.4
Flame Stability
Flame stability while burning the test coal must be established over the entire range of boiler load and operating conditions. Changes to normal boiler settings (burner settings, O2 levels, minimum mill loadings, flame scanners, etc.) may be required to ensure safe boiler operation. Any necessary changes should be established prior to performance testing, keeping in mind the possible effects on boiler efficiency and emissions. The perception of flame stability is subjective and varies according to the observer. To determine flame stability, it is therefore essential that several experienced observers view the same flame and note their observations. To provide consistency, the same set of observers should be used for all tests. Operations staff from the station are usually the most reliable observers. The observers should note the following: flame shape and length, color, ignition point, pulsing and any irregularities. Comprehensive approach. Four persons part time to view the furnace and burners under various operating conditions and record observations, and to make judgment on stability of flames. Streamlined approach. Four observers for first set of observations, one observer for subsequent observations. Minimal effort. Evaluated by test engineer and available boiler operators. The comprehensive approach calls for four observers, because flame observation can be subjective. Use of four observers, with at least two of them coming from station operations staff, provides assurance of flame stability and better documentation and interpretation of flame appearance. With the streamlined approach, four observers are used for the first full set of observations at the start of testing. After the four observers meet and discuss their results, one observer can be used for subsequent observations during the test program. Test 5.2.5 Combustion Air
The combustion air quantity to achieve proper combustion, steam temperatures, and slagging control may vary for differing fuels. If the flow is measured at the FD fan inlet, the air heater leakage must be accounted for in combustion air calculation. Comprehensive approach. One or two persons part time to measure the combustion air with a velocity traverse, or measure differential across a calibrated primary element, and determine air density.
6-10
Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Distributed control system (DCS). For the streamlined tests, control room instrumentation can be used to measure feedwater flow and the DCS can be used to record flow. There may be some sacrifice in accuracy from the comprehensive approach, but this can be minimized by calibration of the flow meter before the tests. Test 5.2.6 Steam Temperature Control
Furnace flue gas temperature and subsequently steam temperatures are generally controlled by one or several of the following: changing burner tilts, use of gas recirculation, use or biasing selected mills, amount of excess air, and sootblowing cycle utilized. If burner tilts or gas recirculation are used for temperature control, the appropriate indicator should be calibrated to ensure the proper indication. This work would normally be carried out prior to testing. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to record firing conditions with respect to mill configuration, burner tilts, and gas recirculation. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Included as part of control room readings, Test 5.2.19. This is listed as a separate line item in the GFT, but for the streamlined approach can be considered to be a subset of control room data. Test 5.2.7 Bottom Ash Sample
Bottom ash represents a portion of the total ash leaving a boiler. Analysis of the bottom ash carbon content is required for determining the overall carbon-in-ash level for the boiler. The relative amounts of fly ash and bottom ash which a particular boiler produces can be estimated from the relative amounts of ash deposed. Station records can be used for determining how many tons of each type of ash is removed over an extended period. Estimates may have to be made if the ashes are mixed with water during disposal. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to take sample of bottom ash from each run, identify samples, and send for analysis. Streamlined approach. Same as comprehensive approach. Minimal effort. Not performed.
6-11
No difference between comprehensive and streamlined approach. Test 5.2.8 Boiler Metal Temperatures
Excessive boiler tube metal temperatures can lead to premature tube failures due to: decreased creep life, increased corrosion rates in areas susceptible to corrosion, or carburization of certain steels. Control of boiler tube temperatures is accomplished through the use of sootblowing, burner tilts or gas recirculation, excess air, and attemperation. The coal quality will affect the combustion within the boiler and can lead to problems in certain tube banks due to delay in combustion. Comprehensive approach. One person full time or data acquisition system to record tube metal temperatures for each test run. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. For the streamlined approach, use of existing boiler tube thermocouples combined with the unit DAS will minimize labor. Test 5.2.9 Slagging
Before covering Test 5.2.9, slagging, it should be noted that slagging, fouling (Test 5.2.10), and APH temperature (Test 5.2.11) are all closely related, and should be assessed as a group. Evaluation of the impacts of a test coal on those three issues are among the most important aspects of coal switching tests. The extent to which slag forms in a boiler is dependent upon several factors including boiler operation, boiler design and coal characteristics. Slagging can occur in the boiler without being a problem to the operator or to the performance of the unit. Operators often permit slag to accumulate in certain areas of the boiler as an alternate method of controlling steam temperatures. However, slagging can lead to serious operational problems if the removal system (generally sootblowers) cannot remove the accumulation when required. Build-up of slag can cause excessive steam temperatures in the convective section which cannot be controlled by attemperation. High gas exit temperatures which results in an increase in exit gas losses and hence lower boiler efficiency, and increase NO x emissions, can also result from slag build-up. Comprehensive approach. Two to four persons part time to record observation of slagging; optional record data from slag monitoring equipment. Streamlined approach. Two to four persons for preliminary round of observations, one person for subsequent observations. Minimal Effort. Evaluated by test engineer and available boiler operators. 6-12
For slagging, the same approach described for Test 5.2.4, Flame Stability, can be used. It should be noted that monitoring of slagging formation is complex, and should be performed by an experienced engineer. Test 5.2.10 Fouling
Fouling is generally accepted to refer to the deposition of dry ash on the non-radiant surfaces of the boiler. This includes the convective tube banks, the economizer and the air heaters. The extent and nature of the ash deposition will dictate the sootblowing requirements for a particular coal. Increased fouling will decrease boiler heat transfer, which may reduce outlet steam temperatures (lower turbine efficiency), and increase gas exit temperatures (lower boiler efficiency). This may require more frequent or extensive sootblowing to maintain steam temperatures. Comprehensive approach. Two persons part time to operate ash deposition probe and optionally operate heat transfer monitoring equipment. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Use DAS to monitor convective pass, air preheater, and other available pressure drops over time. The GFT discusses use of an ash deposition probe and optional heat transfer monitoring equipment to assess fouling. A streamlined approach would include monitoring of gas pressure drops across convective passes, the economizer, and the air preheaters over time, with comparison of pressure drops at the same boiler fuel and air flow. Test 5.2.11 Air Heater Temperature
To determine the effectiveness of the heat transfer, the flue gas and air temperatures to and from the air heaters should be measured. Multiple thermocouple grids are required, since a great deal of stratification can be experienced on the outlet from regenerative type air heaters, due to the rotation of the baskets and leakage from the high pressure air side. Comprehensive approach. One person full time or data acquisition system to record temperatures. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. Mid-level approach. Evaluate temperature stratification before testing by conducting manual temperature traverses to evaluate accuracy of boiler instrumentation. The comprehensive approach calls for a thermocouple grid, with either a full time person or a DAS to collect data. For the streamlined approach, existing unit 6-13
instrumentation with data logging can be used. Prior to testing, the location and condition of the thermocouples used to provide plant data should be reviewed. If resources permit, a manual temperature traverse should be performed to provide a comparison between traverse data and control room readings. Use of the streamlined approach could result in loss of accuracy, depending upon the level of temperature stratification and the placement of the plant thermocouples. However, even if the temperatures are biased, there would still be a direct comparison between baseline and test coal values. Test 5.2.12 Flue Gas Flow
The flue gas flow is used in the calculation of the air heater performance, the precipitator performance and induced draft (ID) fan performance. Unbalanced flue gas velocity at the precipitator inlet can also reduce precipitator performance by causing reentrainment of ash during rapping cycles. Flue gas should be measured at the air heater outlet. Comprehensive approach. Two persons part time to perform velocity, temperature, and pressure traverse of flue gas. Note that if ESP outlet particulate tests are conducted (Test 5.3.4), flue gas flow is measured as part of the particulate test. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Use Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) flow monitor. The comprehensive approach calls for pitot probe velocity traverses at the air heater outlet. In the streamlined approach, the flow measurement value from the plant CEMS is used. There are some cautions for the quality of data for both approaches. The cautions are based on the fact that flow measurements taken with an s-type pitot probe tend to be biased high when flow is nonaxial. For most cases at power plants this bias is in the range of 2-15%, depending upon the flow angles at the measurement location. This bias will apply both to a pitot traverse taken during a test burn per the comprehensive approach and to CEMS flow data used for the streamlined approach, since flow CEMS are calibrated to pitot traverses in order to pass Relative Accuracy tests. If accurate data without the bias is desired, stack or air preheater outlet velocity traverses should be performed using a three-dimensional velocity probe as described in Section 4.4a. A comprehensive approach would involve conducting traverses for each test, and a streamline approach would involve a single test to develop a calibration factor to use with CEMS data for subsequent tests.
6-14
Test 5.2.13
Back End Corrosivity
The potential for corrosivity or acid deposition in the air heaters and back end ducting can be related to SO3 concentrations in the optimum flue gas. This is an important consideration in the establishment of the flue gas temperature leaving the boiler by adjustment of steam air preheaters. Operation of a unit in acid-condensing environments can lead to reduced duct and stack life, reduced air heater basket life, and an increase in air heater wash requirements. Operation of a unit at a higher than necessary flue gas exit temperature to avoid condensation will increase dry gas losses and reduce boiler efficiency. Unnecessary use of steam coils can also reduce net unit efficiency. Comprehensive approach. One person full time to measure SO3 dew point. Streamlined approach. Eliminate measurements if SO3 and plume visibility is not an issue. Minimal effort. Address only if expected to be a concern. The comprehensive approach call for one person full time to measure H2SO4 dew point. As noted in Section 4.4b the current recommendation for the comprehensive approach also includes direct measurement of H2SO4 concentration along with the acid dew point readings. In some cases, particularly with low sulfur western coals, H2SO4 levels are at or near zero, and a streamlined approach would involve either no acid dew point/H2SO4 measurement or limited testing. If H2SO4 levels are a concern because of corrosion, ESP performance, or visible plume issues, a streamlined approach would involve measuring either acid dew point or H 2SO4, not both. Use of both tests in the comprehensive approach provides cross-verification, while use of only one method in the streamlined approach does not provide this verification. Test 5.2.14 Flue Gas Analysis
The flue gas analysis is required to determine the combustion and boiler efficiency. Excessive combustion air can reduce boiler efficiency by increasing the boiler dry gas losses. Insufficient air will increase carbon in ash losses. CO losses, and excessively low air can lead to dangerously high CO levels. Stratification of the CO, CO2, and O2 levels in the flue gas duct can also indicate problems with a burner settings or air register settings. The flue gas constituents leaving the boiler should be analyzed for O2, CO2, CO, NOx, and SO2. Flue gas should be analyzed using an extractive type sampling system.
6-15
Comprehensive approach. One person full time to monitor O2, CO2, CO, NOx, and SO2 at boiler exit. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Boiler instrumentation for O2 and CO (if available), CEMS for NOx, SO2. Mid-level approach. One person full or part time to monitor O2 and CO, with probe grid and test van or with portable instruments and manual traverse. Flue gas analysis per the streamlined approach includes collection of gas samples using a grid at the economizer exit and measuring O2, CO2, CO, NOx, and SO2. This approach provides a variety of types of information: boiler efficiency (assessed by O2, CO2, and CO), combustion completeness (CO), combustion uniformity (traverses of O2, CO, NOx), and NOx and SO2 emissions. The streamlined approach would use plant instrumentation to determine O2 at the economizer exit, and the boiler CEMS to determine NOx and SO2 emissions. Use of the fully streamlined approach would produce the following sacrifices in information gathered: 1. Since O2 is usually stratified at the economizer exit and the degree and nature of the stratification will change with burner operating conditions, boiler O2 instrumentation is usually not representative of actual O2 levels. 2. Many coal-fired boilers do not have CO instrumentation. Since CO is a key indicator of combustion quality, the fully streamlined approach would not provide this information. 3. NOx and SO2 stratification information would not be available, but these are less critical than stratification information for O2 and CO. Based on these limitations, a mid-level approach for flue gas analysis should be considered. This mid-level approach would consist of economizer exit analysis for O2 and CO, while using the stack CEMS for NOx and SO2. The O2/CO measurements could be collected using a test van with a sample grid installed, or with manual traversing using portable instruments. Test 5.2.15 Furnace Draft and Air Preheater Differential Pressures
Changes in the ash deposition or the tube banks and air heater elements, and changes in flue gas flow will effect the furnace drafts and differentials. Increase in air heater differential, or duct resistance will affect the ID fan capacity. A fuel with a high moisture content will likely put an increased demand on the ID fans.
6-16
Comprehensive approach. One person full time or data acquisition system to monitor furnace and air heater differential pressures. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. The comprehensive approach calls for installation of manometers and collection of data via either a full time person or a DAS. With the streamlined approach the existing information with a DAS is used, requiring minimal labor. It is recommended that the plant differential pressure gages be calibrated prior to testing. Test 5.2.16 Fly Ash Sample
A representative fly ash sample is required for determining the unburned carbon in the ash, and to establish the ash characteristics entering the precipitator. The unburned carbon-in-ash is used with the bottom ash carbon-in-ash to determine the heat lost due to incomplete combustion of the coal which is used in the boiler efficiency calculation. Comprehensive approach. Two persons part time to sample particulate at precipitator inlet. Streamlined approach. Same as comprehensive, use high volume semi-isokinetic method to reduce sampling time. Minimal effort. Fly ash hopper sample collected by operator or the use of CEGRIT Sampler. Collection of fly ash samples for LOI and other potential analysis is an important part of the streamlined sampling program. Rather than collecting a full isokinetic traverse to collect a sample, a semi-isokinetic sample using the system described in Section 4.4d of this Addendum is recommended. This system collects a larger quantity of fly ash than a standard Method 17 system, is simpler to set up and operate, and can usually be operated by one person rather than two. For the purposes of collecting a sample for analysis (rather than for quantification of ash concentration), there is no significant sacrifice in data quality. Test 5.2.17 Fans
The fan power required for operation should be measured to determine the available margin left on the fans. These measurements are also used to determine the auxiliary power used by the unit. The flow head characteristics of the fan should also be determined.
6-17
Comprehensive approach. Two persons part time to perform flow and pressure measurements, measure fan motor power and speed, and note damper positions or vane settings. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. Collection of basic fan operating data via the control room DAS is sufficient for most test burns. If detailed fan performance data is needed, the comprehensive test approach including air flow tests and power consumption measurement can be performed. Test 5.2.18 Sootblowing
Effective sootblowing contributes directly to the efficient operation of the unit, the ability to achieve design superheat and reheat steam temperatures, and to achieve design steam production. Evaluating the sootblowing system during the test program of the alternate coal is important in evaluating the overall suitability of the coal. Comprehensive approach. One person part time or data acquisition system to monitor and record the sootblowing steam flow, temperature and pressure, and monitor superheat and reheat temperatures. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Logging of sootblowing operation and reasons for sootblowing by boiler operators. Monitoring of sootblower operation and its impact on steam temperatures is important for the streamlined approach. Measurement of sootblower steam flow, temperature, and pressure are called for in the GFT, but are not necessary for most tests. Complete logging of sootblower operation is critical. Use of boiler operators to log all sootblowing activity and the reason for sootblowing (scheduled time for sootblowing, steam temperature control, high furnace pressure, etc.) will reduce test crew labor, assure all sootblowing cycles are logged, and provide operator insight and involvement to the project. Test 5.2.19 Control Room Readings
Obtaining a comprehensive set of control room data for each test will document specific test conditions and provide a historical data base from which to compare future operations. Much of this data can be collected from the DCS system installed on most units. Comprehensive approach. Two persons full time or data acquisition system to monitor control room indications.
6-18
Streamlined approach and minimal effort. One person full time with data acquisition system. Control room monitor logs and assesses unit operation. With use of automated data logging, control room data monitoring can be done by one person instead of two. Even with the streamlined approach, it is important that the person taking the control room data be experienced with boiler operation so that they can assess operation during the tests and ensure that the proper test conditions are established. Test 5.3.1 Precipitator Power Consumption
The precipitation power consumption and voltage current characteristics provide important information on overall ESP performance as well as an indication of ash resistivity. Comprehensive approach. One person full time or data acquisition system to monitor electrostatic precipitator voltage and currents. Streamlined approach and minimal effort. Data acquisition system. Since original publication of the GFT, ESP control systems that provide automated logging and control of precipitator power have become the norm. Use of automated data logging eliminates the need for a full time person to collected voltage and current data. ESP performance should be monitored and assessed during testing by the control room engineer. Test 5.3.2 Inlet Dust Conditions
Determining the inlet particulate loadings to the electrostatic precipitator is an important input in determining overall performance. Comprehensive approach. Two persons full time to perform isokinetic traverse of precipitator inlet duct with particulate sampling train, measure particulate collected, and calculate inlet dust loading. Note these two persons are included in the four persons cited for Test 5.3.4. Note that inlet dust loading tests are more rigorous than tests to collect fly ash analysis. Streamlined approach. Perform only if necessary for diagnostics of ESP performance. Minimal effort. Not performed. Inlet dust concentration is listed as a Required test in the GFT, but might be considered as an additional test for a streamlined approach. Evaluation of ESP performance is primarily based on opacity and outlet particulate concentration, so inlet concentration 6-19
may not be necessary. The ESP particulate removal efficiency can be calculated from the ESP catch (dust out of the hoppers) and the particulate mass measured at the outlet. The ash content of the coal and the ash LOI provide an indication of the ESP inlet loading and the difference between the test coal and the baseline coal. Test 5.3.3 Fly Ash Resistivity
The measurement of in-situ fly ash resistivity is extremely useful in analyzing the precipitators performance. The collection efficiency of an electrostatic precipitator depends on the operating voltage and currents of the electrical sections. The spark limiting voltage and current for charging and collecting the fly ash particles is, in turn, dependent on the resistivity of the collected fly ash layer on the precipitator plates, and the flue gas composition. If the fly ash resistivity is high, problems with excessive sparking and back corona formation occur. This will result in limited power input to the precipitator and reduced collection efficiency. Comprehensive approach. One person full time to sample and measure fly ash resistivity. Streamlined approach. Ex situ analysis on samples collected in Test 5.2.6. Minimal effort. Not performed. In situ analysis of fly ash resistivity is a time consuming test requiring specialized equipment and a trained equipment operator. An alternative approach is to analyze some of the ESP inlet fly ash samples collected in Test 5.2.16 for resistivity. {based on input from SRI discuss cost and technical merits} Test 5.3.4 Precipitator Collection Efficiency
Precipitator collection efficiency is calculated from the measured inlet and outlet dust loading of the precipitator. If the outlet dust loading is typically less than one percent of the inlet dust loading, increased attention in determining this value is required. Comprehensive approach. Four persons full time to perform particulate sampling traverse of precipitator inlet and outlet ducts. Streamlined approach. Two persons to conduct ESP outlet sampling; inlet tests only performed if necessary for ESP diagnostics. Minimal effort. Not performed. This test involves simultaneous measurement of particulate concentration at the ESP inlet and outlet. As noted in the discussion for Test 5.3.2, inlet particulate 6-20
concentration is of secondary importance relative to outlet particulate concentration and opacity. Therefore, a streamlined approach would involve only particulate concentration at the ESP outlet or stack. A mid-level approach would be to conduct outlet particulate tests early in the test burn and perform preliminary analysis on-site. If the particulate concentrations or opacity levels indicate that the test coal may create compliance problems, then inlet particulate measurements would be performed as part of a diagnostic process. Test 5.3.5 Rapper Control System
The method of rapping precipitator plates and wires should be documented for each test. Varying the rapper sequencing and intensity can be used to alter the precipitator performance. Excessive rapping can increase reentrainment with accompanying increases in particulate emissions and opacity. Insufficient or ineffective rapping can also impact performance by altering the electrical characteristics of the system. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to inspect rapper and vibrators, review rapping sequences and intensities. Streamlined approach. No difference. Minimal effort. Normal operator attention. No difference between streamlined and comprehensive approach. Test 5.3.6 Hopper Pluggage
A change in the coal quality is likely to have a direct effect on the ash quantity and flow characteristics. A record of problems encountered in routine fly ash and bottom ash removal should be kept. Comprehensive approach. One person part time to investigate problem of fly ash handling. Streamlined approach. No difference; can be performed by operations personnel. Minimal effort. Normal operator attention. No difference between streamlined and comprehensive approach. This task could be handled effectively by existing operating shift personnel.
6-21
Test 5.3.7
Opacity Measurement
Opacity is the term used to describe the visibility of the plume emitted by the power plant. The stack opacity will depend on particle concentration, size and optical characteristics. Having low opacity levels doe snot necessarily mean that particulate loading levels are low, and in general, fine particles tend to lead to higher opacity readings. NO2 levels and acid plumes may also contribute to the opacity but are not reflected in particulate load. Comprehensive approach. One trained opacity observer part time to record opacity levels on an hourly basis and 5-minute differences. Streamlined approach. Use DAS for plant opacity meter. Conduct visible observations only if opacity is greater than 5-10%, or if unit has a wet scrubber and a saturated steam plume. Minimal effort. Key indicator of ESP performance. No difference between streamlined and comprehensive approach. Visible observations not necessary if opacity is less than 5-10%.
6.2
Cost Reduction
This section discusses the cost reductions achievable by utilizing a streamlined approach compared to the full comprehensive approach outlined in the GFT. The reductions are presented here only in terms of labor hours, not of dollars. This is done because it is not practical to estimate labor rates in a document such as this. Rates will vary from utility to utility, depending on their geographic location. Additionally, rates will vary depending upon whether consultant or utility personnel are utilized, and will vary if utility corporate technical groups charge overhead as well as raw labor to generating stations for the services provided. It is left up to the utility to use these manpower estimates with their specific rate structure. Table 6-2 presents a summary of labor assignments for the comprehensive approach. These assignments are taken from the sample program report presented in Appendix F of the GFT. Note that any special tests included in the program described in Appendix F were not included in this table. The table shows a total of 20 full time and 3 part time positions, broken down by assignment and by the type of person used for each assignment. The nomenclature used is not explicitly described in the GFT, but is described below: Performance Group. These individuals are from a group that specializes in boiler performance testing. The group can be from a consulting engineering firm, or an in6-22
house utility performance group. The group will include engineers and technicians, and each individual will have relevant specific experience. Observers, Observers are generally individuals who have the skills to perform the tasks but not the specific experience. These individuals would be trained for their specific task at the start of the project, and would generally work under supervision of performance group team members. Observers might be provided by a consultant, a labor contracting firm, or the generating station. Observer positions are full time, and station personnel assigned to these positions would not be available for their normal assignments. Research. These are generally individuals with specialized knowledge and expertise for a specific test method. Station Technical. Individuals supplied by a technical group at the generating station, such as a laboratory or instrument shop. Station Operations. Operations personnel, including management and shift workers. The duties assigned typically can be performed in conjunction with their normal duties.
6-23
Table 6-2 Comprehensive Program Field Assignments (from GFT, Appendix F)

Performance Group P1 Pulverizer vibration Pulverizer differential P2 Air heater gas in/out Test Observers O1 Pulverizer power Primary air flow O2 Turbine first stage P Economizer inlet P Reheat out P O3 Steam to No. 6 heater T Steam to No. 6 heater P Feedwater to No. 6 heater T, P Drains from No. 6 heater P O4 ESP inlet particulate O5 ESP outlet particulate O6 Control room readings O7 Data reduction & analysis Research R1 Flame observations Station Technical ST1, ST2 Pulverized coal on one mill. Station Operations SO1 Raw coal samples Coal flow Fly ash hoppers SO2 Flame observation*
R2 Ash deposition, convective passes
P3 Flame observation
R3 Ash deposition, APH in
SO3 Flame observation*
P4 ESP inlet particulate P5 ESP outlet particulate P6 Test supervisor ESP readings P7 Fly ash resistivity P8 Test engineer P9 Test supervisor
P - performance group personnel O - observer R - research personnel ST - station technical personnel SO - station operating personnel
6-24
The field assignments for the streamlined approach are presented in Table 6-3, and compared to the comprehensive approach in Table 6-4. As can be seen, the streamlined approach requires six full time people, compared to 20 people for the comprehensive approach.
Table 6-3 Streamlined Program Field Assignments Test Supervisor Control room readings Pulverizer power Mill differential Steam/feed water conditions Flame observations Slagging Fouling ESP power consumption CEMS data Solids Sampler and Test Supervisor Assistant (1) Raw coal Coal flow & handling Mill rejects Bottom ash sample Assist test supervisor in unit data collection Test Crew (4) Primary air Pulverized coal ESP inlet fly ash sample (LOI, resistivity) ESP outlet sample SO3/acid dew point APH in gas analysis Station Operations (3 part time) Flame observations Sootblowing log Rapper control system Hopper pluggage
In the minimal approach, the test is coordinated by a test engineer, with all necessary support provided by station operating personnel. Table 6-4 presents a direct comparison between the three approaches. Note that the labor hours shown in Table 6-4 assume a four-week (20 working days)test burn for the comprehensive and streamlined approach, with one week for the baseline coal and 6-25
three weeks for the test coal or blend. The GFT outlines a four-week program, and actual utility experience using the streamlined approach indicates that it can also be accomplished in four weeks. For both approaches, 10-hour work days are assumed. One to two weeks are assumed for the minimal approach. Table 6-4 shows that total estimated labor hours are 5,140 for the comprehensive approach, 1,950 for the streamlined approach, and 360 for the minimal approach. Total labor costs are presented assume a base labor rate of $31/hour for engineers and $20/hour for operators and technicians. Costs are presented three ways: (1) raw payroll costs, (2) costs burdened with 30% overhead, a typical value for payroll taxes and fringe benefits, and (3) costs burdened with 200% overhead, a typical value if outside consultants and contractors are used. The differences between the labor costs between the comprehensive and stream lined approaches are due to a number of factors, including:
Implementation of digital control systems and automatic data logging on most boilers since initial publication of the GFT. Elimination or simplification of many tests, as described in Section 6.1. Use of only performance group personnel. This provides a core of experienced and flexible personnel. For example, the test crew of four is intended to perform a variety of different tests in a flexible manner to allow development of an optimized test schedule.
Note that the dollar savings do not correlate exactly to the labor hour savings. Most of the positions eliminated are the lower cost observer positions, with the positions requiring more experience remaining. Even with that consideration, that does not mean that none of the positions in the streamlined approach can be filled by less expensive station personnel. It does mean, however, that the station would have to provide more training and preparation for station personnel involved in the streamlined approach compared to personnel who might fill observer positions in the comprehensive approach.
6-26
Table 6-4 Comparison of Labor Requirements Between Comprehensive, Streamlined, and Minimal Approaches Comprehensive Number of People Performance group Observers Research Station support 9 7 3 1 full time 3 part time 20 full time 3 part time 20 7 0 0 3 part time 0 0 0 1 full time 3 part time 1 full time 3 part time 7 Streamlined Minimal
Total
7 full time 3 part time 20
Number of Days
Labor Hours* Engineering (hours) Technician/operator (hours) Total hours (hours) 2,340 2,800 5,140 800 1,150 1,950 160 200 360
Labor Cost, no overhead ($) Labor Cost, 30% overhead ($) Labor Cost, 200% overhead ($)
$129,000 $167,000 $385,000
$48,000 $62,000 $143,000
$9,000 $12,000 $27,000
* Assumes 10 hours each for full time assignments, 4 hours/day for part time assignments. Includes on-site hours and off-site hours for preparation and reporting. For the comprehensive and streamlined approach, off-site hours are 30% of on-site hours for engineers, 10% of on-site hours for technician/operator. Hourly rates used are $31/hour for engineer, $20/hour for operator/technician.
6-27
7
CONCLUSIONS
This addendum has focused on bringing the EPRI guidelines up to date with respect to the cost of conducting coal switching tests in boilers, and as regards the instruments and methods best suited for such tests. Conclusions in specific areas are presented below.
7.1
Measurement Methods
Improved power plant instrumentation (and controls introduced into the utility) make it possible to gather operating data using computer generated logs set up specifically for the testing. Additionally new instruments and new controls, which employ much faster and lower cost computation technology, simply cost less in and of themselves compared to their vintage 1987 equivalents, independent of the savings in the number of labor hours required. Examples of this new technology include (1) the distributed control systems (DCS) now common in many control rooms, (2) more sophisticated controls on electrostatic precipitators, (3) more accurate gravimetric feeders for monitoring coal flow, and (4) continuous emission monitors providing CO2, NOx, and flue gas flowrate measurement. New instruments make possible measurements or accuracy not possible ten years ago. This can make tests more reliable, or just as reliable at the same or lower cost. These include: (1) optical pyrometers to measure furnace gas temperatures, (2) on-line analyzers capable of measuring ash carbon content, and (3) instruments capable of automatically measuring coal flow in individual coal pipes. Finally, apart from cost reductions some instruments simply replace other, older ones. The new ones are what people can find and use today, or are likely to know how to use today, or are just better due to higher performance or lower cost (e.g., digital manometers and pressure transducers versus inclined manometers, data logging systems versus manual data logs, multigas-multipoint gas analyzer systems vs. manual sampling traverses of ducts, upgraded stack opacity instruments versus trained observers, etc.).
7-1
EPRI Licensed Material Conclusions
7.2
Cost of Testing
Reduced dollar costs usually are achieved at the sacrifice of some test objective or some level of confidence in the result. However, some increase in knowledge and improvement in technique during the past ten years does allow for a power plant to test new fuels today at lower costs than were suggested by the original guidelines of 1988. In particular, coal test experience incorporated into the EPRI Coal Quality Impact Model (Ref 28) and the EPRI NOx/LOI Predictor (Ref 29) allows a utility to determine, in advance, what the potential impacts of switching coals may be. Use of these tools can allow the owners to devise a test plan which focuses on areas of concern for the particular coal. The advent of DCS systems allows custom operating logs to be generated, which significantly reduces the amount of time needed to log unit operating data. In preparing this addendum, a more streamlined test approach was developed. This approach was summarized in Table 6-4, and results in utilizing a test crew of 7 full time and 3 part time compared to a test crew of 20 full time and 3 part time as specified in the original GFT. The minimal approach assumes all testing will be done by station personnel within a seven-day period. Because of the short nature of the minimal approach, the tests should only address high priority issues associated with the test coal. The high priority issues will be site-specific. Often the ability to narrow the scope to a small set of high priority issues will arise because similar experience within the company, or other data well-known to the company, will make possible a short wellfocused test. Table 7-1 summarizes the differences between the comprehensive and streamlined scenarios. (For a minimal scenario, each case would be different due to differences in scope, and, therefore, Table 7-1 does not give numbers for the minimal approach.)
7-2
EPRI Licensed Material Conclusions Table 7-1 Summary of Labor Requirements for Two Test Scenarios Comprehensive 4 weeks(1) $130,000 - $390,000 Streamlined 4 weeks(1) $50,000 - $150,000
Test Period Cost

(2)
Number of People Performance Group/Station Engineering Research Observers Station Support 9 3 7 1 3 Total
(1) (2) (3) (3)
7 0 0 3
(3)
20 full time 3 part time
7 full time 3 part time
Baseline coal - 1 week, test coal - 3 weeks Range of cost depends on whether testing performed in house or with contractors Part time commitment
In another perspective, the streamlined approach reduces the required number of engineering hours by 1,540 (from 2,340 to 800) and the technician/operator hours by 1,650 (from 2,800 to 1,150). This overall reduction of 3,190 hours can provide a significant reduction in program cost.
7-3
8
REFERENCES
1. Sotter, J.G., et al., Guidelines for Fireside Testing in Coal-Fired Power Plants, EPRI Report Number CS-5552, March 1988. 2. Frato, R., et al., Burner Coal Flow Balancing: An Approach to Performance Improvement and Emissions Reduction, EPRI Meeting on Effects of Coal Quality on Power Plants Impacts, EPRI TR-109340, November 1997. 3. Muzio, L.J., et al., Flue Gas Flow Rate Measurement Errors, EPRI Report Number TR-106698, June 1996. 4. Muzio, L.J., et al., Rapid Determination of Fly Ash LOI Utilizing the Hot Foil LOI Instrument, US DOE Second Conference on Unburned Carbonaceous Matter on Utility Fly Ash; Pittsburgh, PA, March 1995 5. Davis, C.J., et al., Combustion Rig Studies of Fireside Corrosion in Coal Fired Boilers, Preceedings: EPRI Conference on Effects of Coal Quality on Power Plants, EPRI TR-109340, November 1997. 6. Thompson, R., et al., Combining Heat Absorption and Coal Quality Monitoring with Combustion Diagnostics to Minimize Fouling Episodes, presented at the 1998 Heat-Rate Improvement Conference, Baltimore, Maryland, September 21-28, 1998 7. Muzio, L.J., et al., Acoustic Pyrometry: New Boiler Diagnostic Tool, Power Engineering, November 1989 8. Johnson, S.A., Khesin, M.J., Maintaining Low NOx Emissions After Your Burner Retrofit, EPRI/EPA 1995 Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion NOx Control, Book 2, May 1995 9. McCain, J.D., S.S. Dawes, J.W. Ragland, A.D. Williamson. Procedures Manual for the Recommended ARB Particle Size Distribution Method (Cascade Impactors). Prepared for The California Air Resources Board, ARB Contract A3-092-32, May 1986, NTIS PB 86218666. 10. McCain, Joseph D., Charles S. Fowler and William E. Farthing. Development of Point Source PM10 Measurement Methods. CLEAN AIR 94 - First North American 8-1
EPRI Licensed Material References
Conference and Exhibition on Emerging Technologies and Business Opportunities, September 1994, Toronto, Canada 11. WinCIDRS: Cyclone/Impactor Data Reduction System, 1998. Available from Andersen Instruments Inc., 500 Technology Court, Smyrna, GA 30082. 12. McCain, J.D., S.S. Dawes, W.E. Farthing. Procedures Manual for the Recommended ARB Sized Chemical Sample Method (Cascade Cyclones). prepared for The California Air Resources Board, ARB Contract A3-092-32, Sacramento, CA, May 1986. 13. US EPA Method 201A. 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. 14. Richards, John R. Test Protocol: PCA PM10/PM2.5 Emission Factor and Chemical Characterization Testing. The Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. PCA R&D Serial No. 2081. 1996. 15. Cheney, J.L. and Homolya, J.B., Sampling Parameters for Sulfate Measurements and Characterization, Environ. Sci. & Technology, 13 (5) 584-588, 1979. 16. Muzio, L.J., et al., Demonstration of On-Line Coal Loadings and Particle Size Determinations, EPRI Meeting on Effects of Coal Quality on Power Plants Impacts, EPRI TR-109340, November 1997. 17. Fang, T.C., et al., Pacific Gas and Electric Companys Advanced SCR Pilot Plant, EPRI Report TR-108525, September 1997. 18. Bindemann, K.C.G., and Colechin, M.J.F., On-Line Measurement of PF Flow and Carbon-in-Ash: Its Present Technology Status and Future Development, PowerGen Report COAL R105, 1997. 19. Khesin, M., Giruan, R., Demonstration of New Flame Monitoring System at a PilotScale Gas-Fired Combustion Test Facility, AFRC International Symposium, Baltimore, Maryland, 1996. 20. Fuller, T.A., et al., Analysis of Dynamic Boiler Measurements: A Practical Approach, AFRC International Symposium, Baltimore, Maryland, 1996. 21. Johnson, S.A., Khesin, M., Maintaining Low NO x Emissions After Your Burner Retrofit, EPRI/EPA 1995 Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion NOx Control, Book 2, May 1995. 22. Power, P6-7, May/June 1998.
8-2
EPRI Licensed Material References
23. Sorge, J., et al., GNOCIS - A Performance Update on the Generic NO x Control Intelligent System, presented at the EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, Washington, D.C., August 25-29, 1997. 24. Booth, R.C., et al., The Emissions, Operational and Performance Issues of Neural Network Control Applications for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers, presented at the EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, Washington, D.C., August 25-29, 1997. 25. Boyle, R.J., et al., Reducing NOx While Maintaining Boiler Performance at TVAs Johnsonville Steam Plant using Constrained Sequential Optimization, presented at the EPRI/EPA 1995 Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion NOx Control, Kansas City, Missouri, May 16-19, 1995 26. Williams, S., et al., Application of an Expert System and Neural Networks for Optimizing Combustion, presented at the EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollution Control Symposium, Washington, D.C., August 25-29, 1997 27. Lorrimore, L. and Sorge, J., Evaluation of On-Line Carbon-in-Ash Measurement Technologies, presented at the U.S. DOE Third Annual Conference on Unburned Carbon on Utility Fly Ash, March 13-14, 1997, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 28. Development and Application of the Coal Quality Impact Model: CQIM, EPRI Report GS-6393, April 1990 29. Niksa, S., et al., NOx LOI Predictor, User Guide and Tutorial, EPRI Report No. TR-109208, December 1997.
8-3
A
GLOSSARY
Symbol
SO3
Description Sulfur Trioxide Ammonia yaw angle, pitch angle (eq. 4-3) 3D pitot calibration coefficient 3D pitot calibration coefficient 3D pitot calibration coefficient 3D pitot calibration coefficient 3D pitot calibration coefficient pitch angle pitot probe coefficient pitch angle calibration factor velocity calibration factor sulfuric acid oxygen water carbon monoxide carbon dioxide
Units ppm ppm degrees ----- (degrees) ---ppm % % ppm % A-1
NH3 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P Cp F1 F2 H2SO4 O2 H2O CO CO2
EPRI Licensed Material Glossary
Symbol NO NOx SO2 H2S HCl NaOH SO4 acfm D50 Cut diameter Y
Description nitric oxide oxides of nitrogen sulfur dioxide hydrogen sulfide hydrochloric acid sodium hydroxide sulfate actual cubic feet per minute cutoff diameter of a cascade impactor collection stage see D50 yaw angle
Units ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm
ft3/min micrometers
degrees
A-2
Acronym PRB ASME ISO SNCR SCR ESP PF CEM EPA LOI PTC 3-D NDIR NDUV A&E HVT IEEE ARB PM10 PM2.5 D50
Description Powder River Basin American Society of Mechanical Engineers International Standards Organization Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction Selective Catalytic Reduction Electrostatic Precipitator Pulverized Fuel Continuous Emissions Monitor Environmental Protection Agency Loss On Ignition Power Test Code Three-Dimensional Non-Dispersive Infrared Non-Dispersive Ultraviolet Architect and Engineer High Velocity Thermocouple Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Air Resources Board (California) Particulate Matter smaller than 10 microns Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 microns Cutoff diameter of a cascade impactor collection stage
A-3
Acronym RTD B&W ABB OE AC EPCS PCSV-P ASCR LDV PSI SCS FT PT DAS DCS SRI APH VKR SMG-10 M&W PIG GFT
Description Resistance Temperature Detectors Babcock & Wilcox ABB Combustion Engineering Alternating Current Ensemble Particulate Concentration and Size Particle Counter, Sizer, Velocimeter Probe Advanced Selective Catalytic Reduction Laser Doppler Velocimetry Physical Sciences, Inc. Southern Company Services Full Time Part Time Data Acquisition System Distributed Control System Southern Research Institute Air Preheater VEBA Kraftwerke Ruhr AG Pulverized Coal Sampler from Verfahrens-und Me Technik M&W Asketeknik Company Pulverizer Interest Group Guidelines for Fireside Testing, EPRI Report CS5552S (the original report to which this volume is an addendum)
A-4

Fireside Testing Addendum

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fireside Testing Addendum

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addendum to Guidelines for Fireside Testing

Final Report, November 1998

EPRI Project Managers E. Hughes A. Mehta

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material

EPRI Licensed Material Introduction

EPRI Licensed Material

* EPRI Report CS5552 (Ref 1)

EPRI Licensed Material

Fuel System Boiler Waterside Boiler Fireside Electrostatic Precipitator

EPRI Licensed Material Structure of this Addendum

EPRI Licensed Material Structure of this Addendum

R = recommended test A = additional test

EPRI Licensed Material

General Comments on DCS and Pressure Measurement Updates

Mill Differential Coal Pipe Balance

3:2.4 3:2.4 3:2.5 3:2.5 3:2.8

Flow nozzle and associated equipment

Superheat and Reheat Steam

Calibrated thermocouples and Pressure Transducers

Flow nozzle and associated equipment

Steam Temperature Control

Control Room Instrumentation

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

Air Heater Temperature Flue Gas Flowrate

Back End Corrosivity

Flue Gas Analysis

Furnace Draft and APH DP Fly Ash Sample

Fans Soot Blowing Control Room Reading Corrosion

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

Table 4-3 (continued) Boiler System - Furnace

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

- coal pipe wall ~ 36 " ~4"

static pressure port

to digital manometer compressed air flow direction dynamic pressure port

Figure 4-1 Dirty Air Pitot Schematic

Methods currently used to obtain pulverized coal samples include:

ASME PF sampler RotorProbeTM SMG-10 VKR ACFM

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

On-line Coal Loadings (GFT Part 3, Section 2.3)

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

Boiler System (waterside)

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

Boiler System (fireside)

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

Probe and Collar Locks

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

Figure 4-4 5-Hole DAT Probe

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

H2SO4= 10% H2SO4= 15%

150 0 10 SO3 Concentration, ppm

EPRI Licensed Material Update on Measurement Methods

CO/CO2: NO/NOx: SO2: