Progress in Recovery Boiler

Deposit Removal Studies

Honghi Tran
Pulp & Paper Centre
University of Toronto
Toronto, CANADA

The 7th International Colloquium on Black Liquor Combustion and Gasification

Jyvskyl, Finland, July 31 - August 2, 2006
 Researchers
Faculty Graduate Students
Markus Bussmann Mark Martinnez*
Donald Cormack Secuk Ozcan*
Honghi Tran Resa Sabet*
Research Staff Kayhan Kermani*
Dr. I.M. Jameel* Danny Tandra*
Dr. Andrei Kaliazine Babak Emami
Dr. Morteza Eslamian Ameya Pophli

Note: * graduated or left

 Fouling of Tube Surfaces
Fouling rate is the
difference between the
deposit accumulation
rate (Ra) and the
deposit removal rate
(Rr):
Rf = Ra - Rr
Much work has been
done on Ra; little has
been done on Rr
Factors Affecting Deposit Removal
Force exerted on the deposit the jet
Deposit strength
Deposit-Jet interaction

Nozzle
Force

Sootblower
Jet Deposit
 Force Exerted on a Deposit
Depends on:
 Sootblower Jet Peak impact pressure (PIP)
Nozzle design, lance pressure, steam flow rate
Distance between nozzle and deposit
 Deposit size (thickness), shape, location
 Jet-deposit interaction
Jet impact angle
Exposure time
 Deposit Strength
What strength?
Compressive strength
Bend strength, or
Adhesion strength
Difficult to reproduce the deposit-tube
interfacial bond in the laboratory
 Fluid Deposit - Jet Interaction

Fluid Fluid
Brittle Brittle
(Plastic) Interfacial (Plastic) Interfacial
bond bond

T0 T0
Tube Tube
Jet Jet
Deposit Deposit

Before After
 Brittle Deposit - Jet Interaction

Brittle Interfacial Brittle Interfacial

bond bond

Tube Tube
Jet Jet
Deposit

Before After
 Deposit Removal by Debonding

Blow from Front Blow from Behind

(Difficult) (Easy)

Jet Jet

Deposit Deposit
Evidence of Debonding
 Deposit Removal Studies Using EFR

 Deposit composition
 Tube surface
temperature
 Deposit thickness
 Jet impact angle
 Gas/particle velocity
 Particle size
 SO2
 Effect of Chloride on Removal
1.8
Minimum PIP (MPa)

1.6 Probe temp.=400oC

1.4 0% K
% CO3
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
mole% Cl/(Na+K)
Effect of Potassium on Deposit Removal
(5 mole% Cl/(Na+K), no CO3)

0 mole% K/(Na+K)

5 mole%

10 mole%

20 mole%
 Effect of SO2 on Removal
1.0

0.8 425-600
PIP, MPa

0.6

0.4
600-710
300-425
0.2
150300

0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
SO2 Conc., ppm
Correlation between PIP & Sulphate
1.0 600-710um
425-600um
0.8 300-425um
150-300um
PIP, MPa

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Mole% SO4/(Na2+K2)
Effect of Sulphate Content on TStk
EFR Tests, Black Liquor Particles + SO2
850
Sticky Temperature, oC

800

750

700 BL+SO2

650
0 20 40 60 80 100
mole% SO4 /(Na2 +K2 )
 Effect of Thermal Sintering
0.5

0.4
No SO2
PIP, MPa

0.3

0.2
350 ppm SO2
0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Exposure Time, min.
 Implications
High SO2 makes deposits easier to remove,
due probably to an increase in particle
sticky temperature
In a high (350 ppm) SO2 atmosphere,
sulphation of carbonate reduces deposit
strength with time
 Effects of Probe Temperature & Cl
1.4
Minimum PIP (MPa)

1.2
10 mole%
1.0 Cl/(Na+K)

0.8
0.6
0.4 5 mole%
Cl/(Na+K)
0.2
0.0
200 300 400 500 600
Probe Temperature (oC)
Tube Temperature & PIP Requirement

Superheater
300-500oC: HIGH

Generating Bank
270-300oC: MEDIUM

Economizer
160-270oC: LOW
 Jet-Deposit-Tube Interaction
Analysis of Sootblowing Videos
CFD Modeling and Laboratory Studies
Focus on both PIP and force
Distance
Jet angle Jet Deposit
Off-set

Tube
 Effect of Offset
Platen
Nozzle Platen
Probe Nozzle
Jet Offset = 1.9 cm 0.45 cm Probe
Jet

5 cm 5 cm
Platen Platen
X
X
100 120

Experimental Data-This study 100 Predicted by CFDLib-SJT model

80
80
PIP, psig

PIP, psig
60 Predicted by CFDLib-
SJT model 60
40
40
Experimental Data-This study
20
20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 5 10 15 20
X/D
X, cm X, cm
X/D
 Effect of Blowing Angle

160
R
120
X
Platen 80
V (inch/s)
R (inch)
Sootblower
40

0
-90 -60 30- 0 30 60 90
V
Blowing Angle
Jet between Plates: Velocity Contour
Model Deposit Removal By Air Jet
Plaster of Paris : Water = 1:1
 Acknowledgements
Members of the Research Consortium on
Increasing Energy and Chemical Recovery in the Kraft Process

Alstom Power Domtar

Aracruz Celulose Georgia Pacific
Babcock & Wilcox International Paper
Boise Paper Solutions Irving Pulp & Paper
Bowater Canada Kvaerner Pulping
Cenibra MeadWestvaco
Clyde-Bergemann Stora-Enso Research
Daishowa-Marubeni Tembec
Diamond Power Votorantim Celulose E Papel
International
NSERC