Accepted Manuscript

Design of dynamic plant model and model-based controller for a heat recovery
system with a swirling flow incinerator

Jaeyoung Cho, Yongtae Kim, Jeongwoo Song, Tae Kyung Lee, Han Ho Song

PII: S0360-5442(17)32020-0
DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.001
Reference: EGY 11950

To appear in: Energy

Received Date: 31 March 2017

Revised Date: 2 November 2017
Accepted Date: 1 December 2017

Please cite this article as: Cho J, Kim Y, Song J, Lee TK, Song HH, Design of dynamic plant model and
model-based controller for a heat recovery system with a swirling flow incinerator, Energy (2018), doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.001.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Title

Design of Dynamic Plant Model and Model-based Controller for a Heat Recovery System with a Swirling Flow

Incinerator

PT
Authors and affiliation:

Jaeyoung Choa, Yongtae Kima, Jeongwoo Songa, Tae Kyung Leea and Han Ho Songa,*

RI
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Seoul National University, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, South Korea

*Corresponding author

SC
Corresponding author’s contact information:

Address: Bldg. 301, Rm. 214, Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, South Korea (Zip: 08826)

Tel. No.: +82-2-880-1652

U
AN
Fax: +82-2-880-1652

Email address: hhsong@snu.ac.kr

M
D
TE
C EP
AC

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

We developed a plant model and model-based controller for a heat recovery system with a swirling flow incinerator

located in South Korea. First, a plant model was desinged to understand the dynamic characteristics of the system.

PT
The system was divided into three parts: incinerator, boiler, and steam drum. Then, each part was modeled with a

multi-zone, zero-dimensional modeling scheme. Consequently, we found that the plant model followed the dynamic

RI
behavior of the target system, particularly for the seven important variables: boiler inlet temperature, superheater

inlet temperature, boiler outlet temperature, oxygen mole fraction, steam production rate, steam pressure, and steam

SC
temperature. Then, we designed a multi-input multi-output controller for the system with a nonlinear control model.

In the controller design, input variables were selected as air flow rate, fuel supply rate and steam valve opening area;

U
while output variables were oxygen mole fraction of exhaust gas, steam production rate and steam pressure. A

nonlinear control model was constructed by reducing the plant model. Then a linear quadratic regulator was applied
AN
while evaluating control gain at each time step. Finally, we validated the controller on the plant model, which

adequately suppressed the disturbance on fuel composition and adjusted the steam production rate.
M

Keywords
D

Waste-to-energy, Solid refuse fuel, Waste incinerator, Model-based control, Multi-input multi-output controller,
TE

Dynamic plant model

C EP
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Nomenclature

 : Stoichiometric coefficient of the gas reactant of the kth reaction, especially for a solid-gas phase reaction, [-]

 : Cross-sectional area of the ith zone, [m2]

 : Effective heat transfer surface area of the steam generator (superheater) in the ith zone, [m2]

: Air fuel ratio of the solid refuse fuel, [-]

PT

, () : Mean specific heat of air (fuel) at constant pressure, [J kg–1 K–1]

 (), : Specific heat of the metal part of the drum (superheater), [J kg–1 K–1]

RI
 : Concentration of the jth gas species in the ith zone, [kmol m–3]


: Particle diameter, [m]

SC
 : Hydraulic diameter of the ith zone, [m]

 : Binary diffusion coefficient of the gas reactant of the kth reaction, [m2 s–1]


: Pipe diameter of the ith zone, [m]
U
AN
ℎ() : Specific enthalpy of liquid (vapor) water in the drum, [J kg–1]

ℎ : Specific enthalpy of superheated vapor in the superheater, [J kg–1]

ℎ : Convective heat transfer coefficient in the ith zone, [W m–2 K–1]

M

(),,

(!") : Inlet (outlet) enthalpy of the jth gas (solid) species into (from) the ith zone, [J s–1]

#$!

D

 : Thermal conductivity of exhaust gas in the i zone, [W m K ]

th –1 –1

# : Reaction coefficient of the kth reaction in the ith zone,

TE

[m s–1 for a heterogeneous reaction, (kmol m–3)x s–1 for homogenous reactions (x depends on reaction order)]

%& : Lower heating value of the ith species, [J kg–1]

%'()*()+)

EP

: Log mean temperature difference between the exhaust gas in the ith zone and the steam generator
(superheater), [K]

, (), : Mass of the metal part of the drum (superheater), [kg]

C

,(),

: Mass of the jth gas (solid) species in the ith zone, [kg]

, , : Inlet mass flow rate of total air: core air, top air, and shell air, [kg s–1]
AC

,(),,

: Mass production rate of the jth gas (solid) species by reaction in the ith zone, [kg s–1]

,(),,

(!") : Inlet (outlet) mass flow rate of the jth gas (solid) species into (from) the ith zone, [kg s–1]

,(), (!") : Inlet (outlet) mass flow rate of the liquid (vapor) water into (from) the drum, [kg s–1]

,"
!. : Steam production rate, which is equal to the outlet mass flow rate from the superheater, [kg s–1]

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

,)/0, : Inlet mass flow rate or the supply rate of the solid refuse fuel, [kg s–1]

,"!
, : Inlet mass flow rate of the top air: second blower flow rate, [kg s–1]

'1 : Molecular mass of the jth species, [kg kmol–1]

'1 : Molecular weight of the gas reactant of the kth reaction, [kg kmol–1]

'1


PT
: Mean molecular mass of the jth species, [kg kmol–1]

2$

3
4: The number of char with diameter 
in the ith zone, [-]

2() : The number of gas (solid) species, [-]

RI
5  : Pressure in the drum, [Pa]

5 : Pressure in the ith zone, [Pa]

SC
6$!

. ! : Convective heat transfer rate from the ith zone to the wall, [J s–1]

6!,78()9) : Heat loss rate from the waste incinerator (steam drum), [J s–1]

6:


U
: Convective heat transfer rate from the gas phase to the solid phase in the ith zone, [J s–1]
AN
6(), ;

: Heat release rate by the reaction in the ith zone in the gas (solid) phase, [J s–1]

6 .(),:

: Radiative heat transfer rate to the gas phase in the kth zone from the gas phase in the ith zone, [J s–1]

6 .() !
M


: Radiative heat transfer rate to the wall from the solid phase in the ith zone, [J s–1]

6)*()+)

: Convective heat transfer rate from the exhaust gas in the ith zone to the steam generator (superheater), [J s–1]
D

< : Universal gas constant in the ith zone, [J kg–1 K–1]

<9800,

TE

: Diffusive resistance for the kth reaction in the ith zone, [s kg–1]

<=8>,

: Kinetical resistance for the kth reaction in the ith zone, [s kg–1]

( : Gas temperature in the ith zone, [K]

EP

( (), : Intake temperature of the air (fuel) into the incinerator, [K]

(?!  (!") :
C

Inlet (outlet) temperature of the exhaust gas into (from) the boiler, [K]

(" (5): Saturation temperature of water at pressure P, [K]

( : Temperature of superheated steam, which is equal to that of the superheater, [K]
AC

@ : Bulk gas velocity in the ith zone, [m s–1]

@",

: Terminal velocity of the jth species in the ith zone, [m s–1]

A()

: Internal energy of gas (solid) in the ith zone, [J]

&() : Volume of the liquid (vapor) phase of water in the drum, [m3]

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

& : Volume of the superheater, [m3]

&  : Volume of the ith zone, [m3]

BCD ,.. : Mole fraction of oxygen in the exhaust gas (at steady state), [-]

E : Mass fraction of the jth component in the solid refuse fuel, [-]

E!D ," : Oxygen mass fraction in the atmosphere, [-]

PT
E,

: Mass fraction of the gas reactant of the kth reaction on the surface of char in the ith zone, [-]

Δ : Reaction heat of the kth reaction, [J kmol–1]

RI
G : Specific heat ratio of the superheated vapor in the superheater, [-]

H)* : The portion of heat from the exhaust gas transferred to the steam generator, [-]

SC
H"!
,
" : The portion of top air participating in the reaction, [-]

H ?  $ (I+J ) :

U
The portion of unburned char (methane), [-]

K$ : Density of char, [kg m–3]

K() : Density of liquid (vapor) water in the drum, [kg m–3]

AN
K : Density of superheated vapor in the superheater, [kg m–3]

K : Gas density in the ith zone, [kg m–3]

M

LM : Standard deviation of the diameter of the inlet SRF, [m]

N,
O
: Diameter growing rate of the jth species in the ith zone, [m s–1]
D
TE
C EP
AC

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction

Waste incinerators have been widely used in the past few decades to help recover energy from

waste as their use reduces dependency on fossil fuels and stress on landfill areas. In a typical heat recovery

PT
system, solid refuse fuel (SRF) made from the municipal waste is carried into an incinerator. Subsequently,

the hot exhaust gas from combustion enters a boiler and produces high temperature and pressure steam,

RI
which is then used for either electricity generation or district heating [1]. OECD countries, on average,

recover and convert 19% of municipal solid waste into heat or electricity using an incinerator [2]. To date,

SC
there are 137 facilities in South Korea that convert 24% of the total municipal waste into energy [2, 3].

Most incinerators are either stoker-type or fluidized bed-type. Researchers have recently

U
introduced other types of incinerators. In this work, the swirling flow incinerator (SFI) has been studied,
AN
which generates an intensive swirling flow between the flame and the inner wall. This flow acts as an air

curtain for reducing the heat loss and enhancing the mixing of fuel and air, thus increasing thermal
M

efficiency. Moreover, reduced clinker generation and lower wall temperature induced by an insulation

effect of the swirling flow enhances system durability. There are six heat recovery facilities in South
D

Korea with fourteen SFIs that burn approximately 220 thousand tons of SRF every year.
TE

However, waste incinerator systems are difficult to control because the composition of the SRF

is not well regulated. This can lead the system to exhibit unstable behavior. In South Korea, regulations on
EP

the heating value of SRF only suggest a minimum limit without a maximum [4], contrary to that the

regulations for coal, which specify both and divide the fuel into different grades according to their heating

value [5]. While this rather loose regulation encourages SRF production, it makes the combustion
C

phenomena in a waste incinerator hard to predict.

AC

In order to enhance the stability of the waste incinerator operation, some research groups have

designed a controller for different waste incinerators. Kozek and Voigt [6], Leskens et al. [7], and

Miyamoto et al. [8] have used a model-based controller to cover a wide range of nonlinearity; while other

research groups have used either neural networks [9] or the fuzzy method [10, 11] for this purpose, which

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

are suitable when there is plenty of data for the system. Other researchers have focused on understanding

the dynamic behavior inside the incinerator. Maris et al. [12] have designed a dynamic model for a

fluidized bed incinerator with SRF by dividing the zones inside the incinerator and Rovaglio et al. [13]

have modeled the plant with a rotary kiln-type incinerator.

PT
Our research focused on the controller and dynamic model for the system with a SFI, which has

RI
a shorter time constant and exhibits inhomogeneous combustion characteristics in comparison with other

types of incinerators. This makes it inherently difficult to simulate and control. In this study, we designed a

SC
multi-input multi-output (MIMO) controller with a nonlinear control model and a dynamic plant model

that simulates the behavior of the SFI with a boiler. A plant model was used in order to understand the

U
physics of the system on which the control model is based, and as a test platform to validate the controller.

Although we studied a particular type of incinerator installed in South Korea, this work models how to
AN
simplify a complicated combustion system, and how to apply that model to controller design.
M

The main body of this article consists of three sections. Section 2 provides the details of the

target system to be modeled and controlled. Section 3 is comprised of three subsections: 3.1 introduces the
D

assumptions and equations for the incinerator model, 3.2 models the boiler and the steam drum, and 3.3

validates the plant model. Section 4 describes the controller in two subsections: 4.1 deals with the
TE

nonlinear control model and its validation, and 4.2 describes the algorithm of the controller and the

validation with two different test cases.

C EP
AC

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2. Target system

The waste incinerator and boiler built by ENERONE Inc., located at Ul-San-Si in South Korea,

was chosen as the target system in this study (Figure 1). The system utilizes fluff SRF as a fuel and has

PT
the capacity to incinerate 2 ton h–1 of waste and generate 20 ton h–1 of steam at about 400 °C and 40 bar,

corresponding to ~56 GJ h–1.

RI
The schematics of the system are shown in Figure 2. As shown in Figure 2 (side view of the

system), SRF is fed from the bottom of the incinerator, and air is blown inside at three different locations.

SC
First, core air is blown along the central axis of incinerator. Then, the flame meets the top air that enters

the incinerator at the bottom wall. The inlet nozzle for top air is tilted toward the inner wall of the

U
incinerator, thus the top air makes intensive swirling flow as it enters the chamber. Finally, the shell air
AN
supplies additional oxygen to the flame. The same blower provides the core and shell air, which are

strongly coupled. The top air has its own blower.

M

As the exhaust gas from the incinerator enters the boiler, it first passes through the steam generator 1

and then through the superheater. Next, the exhaust gas passes steam generator 2, and exits to the
D

economizer (not shown in Figure 2), which constitutes the saturated liquid supply to steam drum. The
TE

walls of the boiler are covered with tubes connected to the steam drum, as depicted with blue lines in

Figure 2.
C EP
AC

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3. Plant model development

In this section, the development of the plant model, which simulated the real plant, has been

described. In a preliminary study, 3D CFD simulations were performed on the SFI using Star-CCM+ with

PT
800,000 spatial grids and four simplified reaction equations. The model, however, takes about two weeks

in an ideal computation environment (CPU clock speed 2.7 GHz, 12 cores, and 24 threads) to simulate

RI
only a few seconds. Therefore, it was deemed an inappropriate tool to design a controller that would

require validation for several hours of operation. Instead, the computational cost was minimized by

SC
adopting a multi-zone, zero-dimensional model with reasonable assumptions. The model was developed in

the MATLAB-Simulink environment and designed in a manner to follow the dynamic characteristics of

U
the target system for a wide range of real plant operations.
AN
3.1. Plant model – swirling flow incinerator
M

The typical temperature and velocity field in the incinerator derived from the 3D CFD

simulation are shown in Figure 3. The flame is initiated with the core air and continues with the top
D

and shell air, while the swirling flow makes an air curtain around the flame. Based on this structure,
TE

the thermodynamic state of the incinerator was simplified into three zones, as shown in Figure 4. The

first zone, also called as the primary combustion zone (PCZ), is the region where SRF is devolatilized

and reacts with the core air. The products from the PCZ flow into second combustion zone (SCZ) and
EP

react with the shell air and top air. The last zone is the air curtain zone (ACZ), which is a characteristic

region of the SFI between the flame and the inner wall.
C

,,

= ,,,

− ,,,!"

+ ,,,

(T)
P
AC

,,!"

where ,,,!"

= ,,

,

A
= Y ,,

− Y ,,!"

+ 6, ;

− 6$!

− Y 6 .(),:

− 6:

([)
P . !
  Z

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

,,

5 &  3'1

/( 4
Y = (])
P < P


Each zone was split into the solid and gas phases, and mass conservation, energy conservation,

PT
and ideal gas laws were applied for the gas phase in Eqs. (1)-(3). Using the velocity field from the 3D

simulation results shown in Figure 3, the mass transfer taking place between each zone, defined as

,,,

(!") ,

RI
was simplified. The diffusive mass transfer was neglected as the convection velocity is as

fast as 5–20 m s–1. Furthermore, only the convective mass transfer from PCZ and ACZ to SCZ was

SC
considered because other convections are relatively small. Therefore, the inlet mass flow rate into

ACZ, ,,,
^I_
, only comprises the shell air and top air supply rates. Similarly, ,,,
`I_
describes the

core air supply rate and ,,,

)I_

U
denotes the convective mass transfers from PCZ and ACZ.
AN
Meanwhile, the pressure inside the incinerator was assumed to remain unchanged (atmospheric

pressure), even though in a real system it is slightly negative in order to prevent a blowout.

The species conversion and heat release by gas phase reaction was modeled as ,,,

and
M

6, ;

. The ACZ experiences convective heat loss to the wall, calculated as 6$!

. ! . Furthermore,
D

there is radiative heat transfer amongst the zones because the product gas contains gray gases such as

CO2 and H2O, and the amount of heat transfer, ∑Z 6 .(),:

,was evaluated based on the
TE

configuration factor and the total emittance from Hottel’s charts. Both the solid and gas phases exist
EP

within the PCZ and SCZ, and the convective heat transfer between these phases was calculated as

6:
e
c,d fce

. Subsequently, the remaining (2 + 2) unknowns, ,,!"

" "
, , and , were calculated by

solving (2 + 2) simultaneous equations (Eqs. (1)-(3)) for each zone.

C
AC

g,,

3
4 gN,

3
4,,

3
4
= ,,,

3
4 − ,,,!"

3
4 + ,,,

3
4 − (h)
gP g

2
where N,

3
4 = ,,,

(
)
K$ i
j 2$

(
)

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A
= Y ,,

− Y ,,!"

+ 6, ;

− 6 .() !

+ 6:

(k)
P
 

Equations (4) and (5) define the mass conservation and energy conservation for the solid phase,

respectively. As in the case of the gas phase, the mass transfers from the other zones to the ACZ, from

PT
SCZ to other zones, and from ACZ to PCZ were neglected. Furthermore, the diameter growing term,
e e
lmn,d 3M 4n,d 3M 4
, was included in order to account for the mass change of the given diameter, which

RI
lM

affects the overall surface-to-volume ratio of the solid particles and leads to a change in the reaction

SC
rate [14]. Here, N3
4 is the rate of the diameter change, which is negative when the diameter

decreases.

U
In this study, we assumed that all the particles are spherical, and the diameter of the incoming
AN
SRF assumes a Gaussian distribution, as shown in Eq. (6). The maximum diameter for the fluff

SRF, 
,; , is 50 mm by law. However, this value was modified to 15 mm, considering 0.3 of
M

effective sphericity of wastes.

,,)/0,
`I_
3
4 1 ttt
4
3
− 
j

= exp s− u (v)
D

∑M ,,)/0,
`I_
3
4 2LM
j
p2iLjM
TE

ttt
= M,wxy, L = M,wxy
where 
jM z
EP

Equation (7) represents the outlet mass flow rate of solid particles. As shown, the particle outlet

velocity was assumed as the difference between the gas bulk velocity and the terminal velocity of the
C

particle. This assumption was applied because the residence time of the particles is about ten times
AC

longer than the time required for equilibrating the gravitational force and drag force under a typical
e
n,d
condition. Thus, (2 + 1) unknowns, , and (2 + 1) equations remain for each zone and
fne
" "
and

can be solved for all the variables.

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

,,

3
4  
 (@ − @",

(
)), @",

(
) < @
,,,!"

3
4 = { & ()
0, @",

(
) ≥ @

For the oxidation reaction of SRF with air, the reaction pathways were assumed as depicted in

PT
Figure 5. The SRF is dried right after it enters the incinerator and undergoes the devolatilization

process where char and the volatile matter separate. Then, the char is burned to form carbon monoxide

RI
and ash remains, where the former finally reacts with oxygen to carbon dioxide. The volatile matter

reacts with oxygen to complete combustion products, i.e. carbon dioxide and water vapor. The detailed

SC
descriptions and assumptions for each process are given below.

As the temperature in the incinerator is much higher than the boiling point of water, the drying

U
process was modeled as an instantaneous reaction. The rate of devolatilization was then evaluated by
AN
using Eq. (8) with the kinetic parameter given by Rui Sun et al. [15]. During this process, the particle

diameter was assumed to be invariant, and therefore only the internal structure of particle changed
M

[16]. For further simplification, it was assumed that the volatile matter consisted only of CH4 and CO2,

which react with oxygen with the rate coefficients described in Table 1. This simplification can lead to
D

errors in evaluating the reaction rate of volatile matter, but it hardly affects the performance of model
TE

since the time constant of volatile matter combustion is a hundred times shorter than that of other

dynamics: heat transfer, residence time and char burnout.

(∗
,,)/0, (
) = − exp €− ‚ ,,)/0 3
4 (ƒ)
EP

 
(

where  = 3.63 ∗ 10† /‡ and (∗ = 9340 K

C

The char burnout process was simulated as a one film model [17], while the structure of the
AC

boundary condition around the char particle was simplified. It was first assumed that there is no

homogeneous gas reaction inside the boundary layer. Next, the reaction of the char with oxygen and

carbon dioxide occur independently, although each reaction can affect the rate of the other reaction by

changing composition inside the boundary layer. With these assumptions, the rate of char burnout was

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

calculated, as described in Eqs. (9) and (10). Here, <=8>,


and <9800,

represent the kinetic and

diffused resistance, respectively, when the char burnout process is analyzed with circuit analogy [17].

The ash was separated from the char particles in an amount proportional to the burn rate of the fixed

carbon component. Table 1 shows the relevant parameters of the chemical reactions of the SRF. Here,

PT
it is worth noting that all reaction rates were calculated by assuming that the particles are spherical.

The effect of the particle shape on the reaction rate is above the scope of this study.

RI
j
E; $ ?! + E E
,,$ ,

3
4 = − 2$ 3
4 Y  ()
E; $ ?! <=8>, 3
4 + <9800,

3
4

SC
Ž

E
,,,

= −‘ ’ Y ,,$ ,

(
) (T“)
E; $ ?! + E
M

where
U
AN
'1

 < (
'1$  
<=8>,

3
4 = ,
i
j '1
 # 5
M

'1

 + E,

3
4
'1$
<9800,

3
4 = , and
2i
K 

D

E
E,

3
4 = <=8>,

3
4
<=8>,

3
4 + <9800,

3
4
TE

3.2. Plant model – boiler and steam drum

EP

The boiler part was divided into three zones, as shown in Figure 6, and simulated as a zero-

dimensional model. In the first zone, steam generator zone 1 (SGZ1), heat transfer takes place
C

between the exhaust gas and the saturated liquid water from the steam drum in the wall tube. In the
AC

second zone, the superheater zone (SHZ), the outlet gas from the SGZ1 transfers heat to the

superheater. In the third zone, steam generator zone 2 (SGZ2), the exhaust gas heats the saturated

liquid again before being discharged.

The thermodynamic states of each zone were calculated by using the mass conservation, energy

conservation, and ideal gas laws, Eqs. (11)-(13). The state of the exhaust gas at the boiler inlet was
13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

obtained directly from the incinerator model. The pressure inside each zone was also set to be constant

at atmospheric pressure and the solid particles in the exhaust gas were removed before it entered the

boiler as in the real plant.

,
= ,,

− ,,!"

(TT)

PT
P

A 
= Y ,

− Y ,!"

− 6)*(! )+)

(T[)

RI
P
 

, 5 &  ('1


/(  )

SC
Y = (T])
P < P


U
Equation (14) shows the rate of heat transfer between the exhaust gas and the steam generator
AN
(or superheater). As shown, the log mean temperature difference (LMTD) was used as the

representative temperature difference. For each zone, the intake temperature of the exhaust gas was set
M

to be equal to the temperature of the previous zone and the outlet temperature was made equal to the

present zone. The convective heat transfer coefficient was calculated as a function of the Reynolds
D

number and the Prandtl number. As there is only wall tubing in SGZ1, we applied the correlation for

fully developed turbulent internal flow [18]. On the other hand, we used the correlation for turbulent
TE

external flow over a bundle of pipes for the steam pipes across the zones in SHZ and SGZ2 [19].

6  )*(! )+) = ℎ$!


  %'( (Th)
 
EP

where
C

log ((?!  − (" (5  )) − log (( )*_ − (" (5  ))

%'( )*_ = ,
((?!  − (" (5  )) − (()*_ − (" (5  ))
AC

log (( )*_ − ( ) − log (( )+_ − (" (5  ))

%'( )+_ = ,
(()*_ − ( ) − (()+_ − (" (5  ))

log (( )+_ − (" (5  )) − log (( )*_j − (" (5  ))

%'( )*_j = , and
(()+_ − (" (5  )) − (()*_j − (" (5  ))

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.023<›9 .ž 5Ÿ  .  #$!


š œ 
, ¡ = ¢£¤1
˜ 
ℎ$!

=
™0.259<›9M 5Ÿ #$!
  .¦   .   

˜ , ¡ = ¢¤ §Ÿ ¢£¤2
— 


PT
Both steam generators 1 and 2 are connected to a steam drum, as depicted in Figure 7, where

the saturated liquid-vapor equilibrium is maintained in order to reduce the fluctuation of the

RI
thermodynamic state of the steam output during the plant operation. Equations (15)-(18) define the

drum and superheater model, which is based on Astrom and Bell’s study [20]. In the first equation,

regarding the mass conservation of the steam drum, ,,

SC
is the saturated liquid water feed rate from

the economizer and ,,!" is the outlet mass flow rate of the saturated vapor from the steam drum to

U
the superheater. The second equation is that of the energy conservation in the steam drum, where the

right side contains heat transfer from the boiler, 6)*

)*_
and 6)*
)*_j
AN
, and the heat loss to the wall,

6!,)9 . Equations (17) and (18) denote the mass and energy balance for the superheater, where the
M

superheated vapor is assumed as an ideal gas. The coefficients on the left hand side of Eqs. (15)-(18),

› to ›†† , were calculated from the thermodynamic database for the saturated liquid and vapor
D

phases of water [21].

Lastly, the steam production rate, ,"

!. , was determined from the steam valve opening
TE

area, ¨ , which relates to the desired steam production rate in the real plant operation.  and

© represented the empirical characteristic coefficients for the valve.

EP

& 5  K

› + ›j + ›  + ›† ,,!" = ,, (Tk)
P P P
C

& 5  K

›j + › jj + ›j  + ›j† ,,!" = 6)*
)*_
+ 6)*
)*_j
− 6!,)9 + ,, ℎ (Tv)
P P P
AC

& 5  K

›  + › j + ›   + › † ,,!" = −,"
!. (T)
P P P

& 5  K

›† + ›†j + ›†  + ›†† ,,!" = −,"
!. ℎ + 6)+
)+_
(Tƒ)
P P P

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

where

gK gK
› = K − K , ›j = & + & ,
g5  g5 

›  = 0, ›† = 1,

PT
›j = K ℎ − K ℎ,

›jj

RI
gK gℎ gK gℎ
= & €ℎ + K ‚ + & €ℎ + K ‚ − (& + & )
g5  g5  g5  g5 

SC
g(" (5  )
+ , ,  , ,
g5 

›j  = 0, ›j† = ℎ ,
U
AN
›  = 0, › j = 0, ›   = & , › † = −1,

& ,, , '1+D C

›† = 0, ›†j = + ,
M

G − 1 K <

,, , (

D

›   = & ªℎ −

+ C ( « − , ›†† = −ℎ ,
D K
TE

and ,"
!. =  ∗ ¨ + ©
EP

3.3. Plant model validation

The plant model was compared with the results from the operation of the real plant. The
C

validation data was collected for approximately 2500 seconds with variations in the top air flow rate
AC

and the SRF feed rate. The PID controller regulated the pressure inside the drum, causing values for

¨ to vary. In the plant operation, it was nearly impossible to regulate the composition of the SRF.

Therefore, the representative composition in Table 2, which was measured from a sample of SRF, was

used.

The SRF feed rate into the incinerator was not measured directly. Instead, the electrical power

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

input to the inverter and motor, 5  " , which controls SRF feed rate in the fuel hopper, was used to

estimate the rate. As shown in Eq. (19), the feed rate was based on 5  " in terms of an ordinary

differential equation, where the first order was assumed considering the time delay between the fuel

hopper control and the actual feed into the incinerator chamber. Here, ¬)/0 represents the dynamic

PT
response of the fuel supply system, which had been calibrated during the plant model validation. The

parameters   " and ©  " represented the static response and were based on the data

RI
provided by ENERONE Inc..

¬)/0 ,­)/0, + ,)/0, =  ∗ 5 + ©  " (T)

SC
 "  "

Table 3 lists the important variables regarding plant model validation. First, the inputs into the

U
system included the 1st blower flow rate, the 2nd blower flow rate, the SRF feed rate, and the steam
AN
valve opening area. The 1st blower controlled the mass flow rate of core air and shell air, while the 2nd

blower regulated the top air.

M

Secondly, the seven major outcomes, which are listed on the second column of Table 3, were

compared. The first three variables, namely, the temperature of the exhaust gas at the boiler inlet,
D

superheater inlet, and the boiler outlet, is deemed to be important parameters as they directly affect the
TE

steam production rate. The fourth variable is the remaining oxygen mole fraction in the exhaust gas,

which is used as a representative indicator of the emission characteristics in the plant operation. Then,
EP

we chose steam production rate, steam pressure, and steam temperature; which are directly related to

the performance of the plant.

C

Finally, the third column in Table 3 lists the model parameters that were calibrated during
AC

validation. First, we adjusted the proportion of top air, which does not participate in the reaction. As

shown in Figure 4, as the top air is blown into the incinerator along the wall, only a portion of it

participates in the oxidation reaction in the flame. The second parameter, i.e., the effective surface area

of the steam generator and the superheater was adopted in order to evaluate the dependency of heat

transfer on the structure of the heat exchanger, which is difficult to capture directly using the current

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

zero-dimensional model. The third and fourth parameters,  and © , relate the steam

production rate with the valve opening area. Finally, ¬)/0 is the last parameter to be considered for

the characteristic time constant of the fuel supply system. The values of the calibration variables are

listed in Table 4.

PT
Figure 8 shows the validation results of the plant model (blue) against the real plant operation

RI
(red). The left five figures describe the change of the input variables, and the right five depict that of

the output variables listed in Table 3. The computation time for the simulated 2500-sec operation

SC
using a typical lab computer with a CPU clock speed 3.40 GHz is less than 800 seconds, which is fast

enough to design and validate the controller. As shown, this model simulates the behavior of the plant

U
quite well, with the exception of some fluctuation on the oxygen mole fraction. This might be mainly

due to the limitation of the zero-dimensional model, which lumps the spatial distribution of the
AN
variables even though the sensor measures the local oxygen mole fraction. Moreover, the fuel

composition could have been varied during the measurement, which was not simulated in the plant
M

model, as it was only possible to adopt the representative fuel composition without further real-time

measurements.
D
TE
C EP
AC

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. Controller

The controller was designed on the basis of the experience of the plant operator. In other words,

the input variables were chosen as the ones that the operator most frequently manipulated, namely, the

PT
second blower flow rate (top air flow rate), SRF feed rate, and the steam valve opening area. Then, we set

the controlled output variables for the following states: oxygen mole fraction, steam production rate, and

RI
steam pressure, which we would aim to regulate in this step. As an observer had not been built during the

controller development, which is beyond the scope of this research, we set the state variables equal to the

SC
output variables. In order to describe the relationship between the input and output variables, a non-linear

control model was first developed and then linearized around the nominal operating condition, since the

U
output states in the target system vary slowly and slightly over time with respect to the time scale of the

physical phenomena in the system. Subsequently, the controller was designed based on the linear quadratic
AN
regulator (LQR) scheme, one of the fundamental multi-input multi-output (MIMO) controllers.
M

4.1. Non-linear control model

In this section, the non-linear control model with three input variables and three state variables
D

has been described. The control model was built for simplifying the plant model with 7 input variables
TE

and 60 state variables (in Section 3). For this, both the incinerator and the boiler were combined into a

single zone and assigned some simple first order differential equations to the dynamic behavior. The
EP

assumptions and the reasons or justifications for these are summarized below.

1. Reaction kinetics are much faster than other system dynamics. Thus, it was assumed
C

that all the reactants change to the designated products right after being supplied into
AC

incinerator.

2. When the combustion zone is fuel-rich, the volatile matter first reacts with oxygen and

then char particles react with the remaining oxygen.

3. The drum level is well regulated with an intrinsic PID controller, and can therefore be

assumed to be constant.

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

4. It was also assumed that the proportion of heat transfers for the steam generator and

superheater are fixed.

As shown in Figure 3, the typical temperature inside the flame is over 1500 K, which is high

PT
enough to assume an instantaneous reaction. Furthermore, the oxygen consumption rate from the

combustion of volatile matter is about a hundred times faster than that of char particles in most cases

RI
according to the plant model. In the real plant operation, there is a PID controller for regulating the

drum level by adjusting the water inlet mass flow rate by considering the inverse response

SC
characteristics [20], thus its values would fluctuate only slightly during operation (±3%). Finally, the

results from the plant model tests show that the proportion of heat transfer to the steam generator and

U
superheater is typically between 80:20 and 81:19.
AN
¬I®,CD B CD + BCD = BCD ,.. (20)

where BCD ,..

M

ECD ," 3, , −  ∗ ,)/0, 4 '1

š ∗ , Case 1
˜ , , + ,)/0, (1 − E ) '1CD
˜
˜ ECD ," ,"!
, 31 − H"!
,
" 4 '1
D

= ∗ , Case 2
™, , + ,)/0, 31 − E − E; $ ?! ∗ H ?  $ 4 '1CD

˜
TE

˜ ECD ," ,"!

, 31 − H"!
,
" 4 '1
˜ ∗ , Case 3
— ,  , + ,)/0, 31 − E − E; $ ?! 4 '1CD
EP

Based on these simplifying assumptions, the first state, i.e. the oxygen mole fraction in the

exhaust gas, was modeled as a first order simple differential equation in Eq. (20). Here,

¬I®,CD represents the dynamic response of the oxygen mole fraction in the exhaust gas to the oxygen
C
AC

mole fraction input change by controlling the blower or the SRF feed rate into the incinerator. This

parameter was evaluated by comparing it with the plant model. Here, BCD ,.. is the static response of

the oxygen mole fraction, depending on the different combustion cases as follows. Case 1 occurs when

the sufficient air is provided in PCZ and SCZ for complete combustion of the fuel. Case 2 occurs

when there is enough air present in PCZ and SCZ to burn methane, however, insufficient to burn char

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

particles completely. Finally, Case 3 occurs when there is insufficient air that cannot even burn

methane completely.

5 
› = 6)*
)*_
+ 6)*
)*_j
− 6!,)9 − ,"
!. (ℎ − ℎ ) ([T)
P

PT
where

›

RI
gK gℎ gℎ
= & (ℎ − ℎ ) + K & + K & − (& + & )
g5   g5  g5 

SC
g(" (5  )
+ , ,  , ,
g5 

6)*
)*_
= H)* Y
, ,,!" ((?!  − (?! !" ),
U
AN


6)+
)+_
= (1 − H)* ) Y
, ,,!" ((?!  − (?! !" ), and

M

Y
, ,,!" (?! 

D

, ( , , , +
,)/0 ()/0, ,)/0,
š
˜ + %&I+J ,)/0, EI+J + %&; $ ?! ,)/0, E; $ ?! − 6!,78 , Case 1
˜
TE

˜
, ( , , , +
,)/0 ()/0, ,)/0,
=
™+ %&I+J ,)/0, EI+J + %&; $ ?! ,)/0, E; $ ?! (1 − H ?  $ ) − 6!,78 , Case 2
˜
˜
, ( , , , +
,)/0 ()/0, ,,
˜
EP

— + %&I+ ,)/0, EI+ (1 − H ?  I+ ) − 6!,78 ,

J J J
Case 3

For the second state of steam production rate, the relationship between ¨ and steam
C

production rate in the control model was used, which had also been introduced in the plant model
AC

design (Section 3.2). We evaluated the last state, the steam pressure, in Eq. (21) [20], which is the

reduced steam drum equation for the case when the level is well-regulated. The amount of heat

transfer from the exhaust gas to the steam, 6)*

)*_
and 6)+
)+_
, were calculated with the boiler inlet

temperature, which was evaluated for different cases from Eq. (20). Here, the boiler outlet temperature

was determined from the temperature sensor at the boiler outlet.

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The control model was validated by comparing the output state variables against those of the

plant model. We used the same test case shown in Figure 8. As the input variables were varied, the

relevant output variables were plotted together in Figure 9. The control model predicted the output

variables within a relative error of 1%.

PT
4.2. Controller development and application

RI
This sub-section introduces the control algorithm that was used to calculate the input variables

based on the developed control model, and the validation of the controller has been demonstrated by

SC
applying it to the plant model in two different cases.

In developing the controller, we applied the LQR algorithm using a linearized and discretized

U
control model. As described in Figure 10, the nominal state, B> , and nominal input, @> , were
AN
renewed at each time step. Then, the control model was linearized and discretized. By using the

derived system matrix, , and the input matrix, ©, control gain was calculated to minimize the cost

function in Eq. (22) with pre-determined matrices 6, <, and 2. Next, the input variables were
M

evaluated, which were fed back into the plant system model. This process was repeated at every time
D

step.
TE

± = Y(²B f [´]6²B[´] + ²@f [´]<²@[´] + 2²B f [´]2²@[´]) ([[)

Ž
EP

In the following paragraphs, we will perform two representative test cases for the controller

application that are useful in real plant operation. As previously mentioned, the composition of SRF
C

could be varied during the plant operation in a somewhat arbitrary and unknown fashion. This would
AC

lead to an unstable operation of the system, depending on the significance of the fluctuation. In the

first test case, it was demonstrated that the controller could effectively suppress this disturbance of fuel

composition variation. Here, the SRF composition was changed periodically by mixing two extremely

different SRFs, as shown in Table 5. While SRF-1 is the fuel that was used for the plant model

validation in Table 2, SRF-2 is another arbitrary choice of SRF with a higher volatile matter and

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

heating value, which is also produced in South Korea [22]. The ratio of two fuels, SRF-1:SRF-2, was

varied from 0:100 to 100:0 over a period of 200 s. In the meantime, the output variables from the plant

model were monitored both without the controller for the first 1000 seconds, and with the controller

for the following 2000 seconds. While the controller operated, the SRF composition in the control

PT
model was fixed to be equal to that of SRF-1, i.e., a nominal value, as there was no real-time sensor

(or model) that could measure (or predict) the composition of SRF in the real plant. This is a realistic

RI
situation because the SRF composition is generally measured only twice a year, and workers mix one

truck-load of the new fuel with the old fuel stock in the yard every day. Thus, the controller was

SC
supplied with some fixed, nominal fuel composition values.

U
As shown in Figure 11, all the output variables were found to converge into the desired values

with the application of the controller. The fluctuation in the oxygen mole fraction was effectively
AN
suppressed from ±1.2% point (±15.4%) to ±0.3% point (±3.9%), and the steam pressure was
M

stabilized to the desired value (while it diverged without the controller in the beginning). The steam

production rate started to fluctuate with the controlling process, but the amplitude was lower than 0.07
D

kg s–1 (1.3%).
TE

For the second test case, the steam production rate was controlled to the desired value as there is

a variation in steam demand depending on the steam turbine’s electric generation requirement or other
EP

steam related processes. In this test, the desired value of steam production rate was varied arbitrarily.

As in the real plant operation, the desired values of the oxygen mole fraction and steam pressure were
C

assigned to ensure pollutant emission control and product quality of superheated steam, respectively.
AC

As shown in Figure 12, the steam production rate followed the desired values well with the

maximum settling time of 400 seconds after the controller was applied at the zero second mark in the

figure. In a real plant operation, the typical time for steam production rate variation is much longer

than 400 seconds. At the same time, the other output variables met the target values with a minimal

fluctuation of ±0.6 bar (±1.4%) for steam pressure and ±0.14% point (±1.8%) for the oxygen mole

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

fraction, respectively.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

5. Conclusions

In this study, we controlled the steam generation system for the swirling-flow waste incinerator,

while suppressing various real-world disturbances. Initially, a plant model was developed in order to

PT
understand the physics of the system, and then a model-based controller was designed for a specific SFI

and boiler system installed in South Korea. A summary of the findings is given below:

RI
1. A plant model was built as a multi-zone, zero-dimensional model with three separate parts:

an incinerator, a boiler, and a steam drum. The thermodynamic state and combustion

SC
phenomena taking place inside the incinerator were simplified into three zones based on the

observation from in-house, 3D CFD results. We defined the boiler by the type of heat

U
exchangers, and incorporated a widely accepted model for the steam drum. The integrated
AN
model was then validated against the real-plant operation data for seven important state

variables: boiler inlet temperature, superheater inlet temperature, boiler outlet temperature,
M

oxygen mole fraction, steam production rate, steam pressure, and steam temperature. It was

found that the plant model could predict the behavior of the real system accurately with a
D

relatively small computing resource. Therefore, this model was deemed to be well-suited for

the design and validation of the controller.

TE

2. A reduced, non-linear control model for the three input variables, namely, second blow flow
EP

rate, fuel supply rate, and steam valve opening area, and three output variables, namely,

oxygen mole fraction, steam product rate, and steam pressure, was designed and these

variables were then validated against the developed plant model. This control model was
C

applied to a linear quadratic regulator after being linearized and discretized. Subsequently,
AC

the controller was designed and tests were performed on the plant model. The developed

controller could efficiently suppress the real-world disturbance from the fuel composition

variation as well as adjust the steam production rate as desired, while maintaining a proper

control on the other important system target parameters.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

6. Acknowledgement

This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research

Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2015R1D1A1A02062337).

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References

[1] Tabasová A, Kropáč J, Kermes V, Nemet A, Stehlík P. Waste-to-energy technologies: Impact on

environment. Energy. 2012;44(1):146-55.
[2] OECD. Waste: Municipal waste2017.
[3] Park M. Production, Consumption and Import of Solid Refused Fuel in South Korea: 2015 Report.

PT
In: Choi Y, editor. Production, Consumption and Import of Solid Refused Fuel in South Korea: Korea
Environment Corporation; 2015.

RI
[4] Environment Mo. ENFORCEMENT RULE OF THE ACT ON THE PROMOTION OF SAVING AND
RECYCLING OF RESOURCES. In: Legislation MoG, editor. 6842016.
[5] Energy MoTI. ENFORCEMENT RULE OF THE COAL INDUSTRY ACT. In: Legislation MoG, editor.

SC
2402014.
[6] Kozek M, Voigt A. Model based decoupling control for waste incineration plants. Conference
Model based decoupling control for waste incineration plants. IEEE, p. 629-34.

U
[7] Leskens M, van Kessel L, Bosgra O. Model predictive control as a tool for improving the process
AN
operation of MSW combustion plants. Waste Management. 2005;25(8):788-98.
[8] Miyamoto Y, Kurosaki Y, Fujiyama H, Nanbu E. Dynamic characteristic analysis and combustion
control for a fluidized bed incinerator. Control Engineering Practice. 1998;6(9):1159-68.
M

[9] Carrasco R, Sanchez EN, Ruiz-Cruz R, Cadet C. Neural control for a solid waste incinerator.
Conference Neural control for a solid waste incinerator. IEEE, p. 3289-94.
[10] Sugeno M, Kang G. Fuzzy modelling and control of multilayer incinerator. Fuzzy sets and systems.
D

1986;18(3):329-45.
TE

[11] Chen W, Chang N-B, Chen J-C. GA-based fuzzy neural controller design for municipal incinerators.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 2002;129(3):343-69.
[12] Marias F, Puiggali J, Flamant G. Modeling for simulation of fluidized‐bed incineration process.
EP

AIChE journal. 2001;47(6):1438-60.

[13] Rovaglio M, Manca D, Biardi G. Dynamic modeling of waste incineration plants with rotary kilns:
Comparisons between experimental and simulation data. Chemical Engineering Science.
C

1998;53(15):2727-42.
[14] Levenspiel O, Kunii D, Fitzgerald T. The processing of solids of changing size in bubbling fluidized
AC

beds. Powder technology. 1968;2(2):87-96.

[15] Sun R, Ismail TM, Ren X, El-Salam MA. Influence of simulated MSW sizes on the combustion
process in a fixed bed: CFD and experimental approaches. Waste Management. 2016;49:272-86.
[16] Zhou C, Zhang Q, Arnold L, Yang W, Blasiak W. A study of the pyrolysis behaviors of pelletized
recovered municipal solid waste fuels. Applied Energy. 2013;107:173-82.
[17] Turns S. An Introduction to Combustion: Concepts and Applications. 1996. Oxygen-Enhanced

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Combustion.543.
[18] McAdams WH. Heat Transmission, (1942). McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.
[19] Kays W, Lo R. Basic Heat Transfer and Flow Friction Design Data for Gas Flow Normal to Banks of
Staggered Tubes: Use of a Transient Technique1952.
[20] Astrom KJ, Bell RD. Drum-boiler dynamics Automatica. 2000;36(3):363-78.

PT
[21] Reynolds WC. Thermodynamic properties in SI : graphs, tables, and computational equations for
forty substances. Stanford [Calif.] :: Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University; 1979.

RI
[22] Shin DH. Study on the characteristics of RDF and RPF in South Korea. Suwon Universitry: Suwon
Universitry, 2008.
[23] Caram HS, Amundson NR. Diffusion and Reaction in a Stagnant Boundary Layer about a Carbon

SC
Particle. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals. 1977;16(2):171-81.
[24] Dryer F, Glassman I. High-temperature oxidation of CO and CH4. Conference High-temperature
oxidation of CO and CH4, vol. 14. Elsevier, p. 987-1003.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1 Steam generation system with a waste incinerator built by ENERONE Inc. at Ul-San-Si in
South Korea (Single column)

Figure 2 Schematic of the incinerator and boiler of ENERONE Inc. (top view, side view) (Single
column)

PT
Figure 3 Temperature and velocity field in the incinerator (from 3D CFD simulation) (Single
column)

RI
Figure 4 Division of zones in the incinerator (side view) (Single column)

SC
Figure 5 Reaction pathway of the combustion of SRF (1.5 column)

Figure 6 Division of zones in the boiler (top view) (Single column)

U
Figure 7 Schematic diagram of the steam drum (Single column)
AN
Figure 8 Plant model validation (1.5 column)

Figure 9 Control model validation (1.5 column)

M

Figure 10 Process diagram for control implementation. (Single column)

Figure 11 Application of the controller on the plant model - suppressing disturbance caused by
D

fuel composition variations (1.5 column)

TE

Figure 12 Application of the controller on the plant model adjusting the steam production rate
(1.5 column)
EP

Table 1 Parameters for modeling the SRF reaction (1.5 column)

C

Table 2 Characteristics of the SRF (Single column)

AC

Table 3 Important variables for plant model validation (1.5 column)

Table 4 Value of calibration variables (1.5 column)

Table 5 Characteristics of SRF for testing the fuel composition variation (Single column)

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 1 Steam generation system with a waste incinerator built by ENERONE Inc. at Ul-San-Si in
South Korea

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP

Figure 2 Schematic of the incinerator and boiler of ENERONE Inc. (top view, side view)
AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 3 Temperature and velocity field in the incinerator

U
(from 3D CFD simulation)
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Figure 4 Division of zones in the incinerator (side view)

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
Figure 5 Reaction pathway of the combustion of SRF
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Figure 6 Division of zones in the boiler (top view)

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Figure 7 Schematic diagram of the steam drum

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C
AC

Figure 8 Plant model validation

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Figure 9 Control model validation

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP
C

Figure 10 Process diagram for control implementation

AC

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Figure 11 Application of the controller on the plant model - suppressing disturbance caused by
fuel composition variations
C
AC

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Figure 12 Application of the controller on the plant model adjusting the steam production rate
C
AC

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1 Parameters for modeling the SRF reaction

Char burnout

¸¹¸ [º/»] ¼¸ [½[ /»] ¾¿¸ [À/¸ºÁÂ]

PT
No. Reaction equations Ref.
17966
2C + Oj → 2CO 3.007 ∗ 10z exp €− ‚ 2 ∗ 10:† 1.12 ∗ 10ž
(
1 [23]
29790
C + COj → 2CO 4.1 ∗ 10Æ exp €− ‚ 2 ∗ 10:† −1.7 ∗ 10ž
(
2 [23]

RI
Gas phase reaction

No. Reaction equations ¸¹¸ [(¸ºÁÂ/º] )T:º:Ç /»] m n ¾¿¸ [À/¸ºÁÂ] Ref.
1 15098  .z

SC
CO + Oj → COj 1.3 ∗ 10 exp ‘− ’ +D C 2.82 ∗ 10ž
2 (
3 1 0.5 [23]
24358
CH† + 2Oj → COj + 2Hj O 10  exp ‘− ’ 5.00 ∗ 10Ê
(
4 0.7 0.8 [24]

U
AN
Table 2 Characteristics of the SRF
M

Proximate analysis (wt%)

H2O 8.5

Volatile matter 74.1

D

Fixed carbon 7.4

TE

Ash 10.0

Calorific value (MJ/kg)

LHV 30.8
C EP
AC

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3 Important variables for plant model validation

Input variables Output variables Calibration variables

Ë,ÌÁÍÎ,¹Ç +ºË,»ÒÎÂÂ,¹Ç )
(ºÏÐÑ
1st blower flow rate
((Ü!  , ( )*_ , ( )*_j )
ÓÐÑ
Boiler gas temperature

H"!
,

PT
"

(B!)*_j
Mole fraction of oxygen

(ºÓÐÑ  ,  , )+_

D
2nd blower flow rate
)*_ )*_j
)
Ë,ÔÁÕ,¹Ç ) 

RI
(,"
!. )
Steam production rate

 , ©
(ºÏÐÑ
SRF feed rate

SC
»,Ö×Ø,¹Ç )
(5  )
Steam pressure

¬)/0

(ÙÚÛÂÚÎ ) (( )
Steam valve opening area Steam temperature

U
AN
Table 4 Value of calibration variables
M

ÝÔÁÕ,ÕÇÔ [−] ÓÖßÑT

ÎÞÞ [º ]
[
ÓÖßÑ[
ÎÞÞ [º ]
[
ÓÖ¿Ñ
ÎÞÞ [º ]
[
ÓÚÛÂÚÎ[¸Ë/»] àÚÛÂÚÎ [¸Ë/»] áÖ×Ø [»]

1.15)*_ 0.65)*_j 0.7)+_

D

0.34~0.4a 0.06 5.09 300

a
Linearly vary with SRF feed rate
TE
EP

Table 5 Characteristics of SRF for testing the fuel composition variation

Proximate analysis (wt.%)

C

SRF-1 SRF-2

H2O 8.5 1.9

AC

Volatile matter 74.1 92.7

Fixed carbon 7.4 2.1

Ash 10.0 3.3

Calorific value (MJ/kg)

SRF-1 SRF-2

LHV 30.8 35.7

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

Plant model was built to simulate heat recovery system with a waste incinerator.

Multi-input multi-output controller was designed for the system.

The controller could efficiently suppress disturbance and adjusts load variation.

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC