energies

Article
Optimization of Fluidization State of a Circulating
Fluidized Bed Boiler for Economical Operation
Xuemin Liu 1,2, *, Hairui Yang 2 and Junfu Lyu 2
1 China Special Equipment Inspection and Research Institute, Beijing 100029, China
2 Key Laboratory for Thermal Science and Power Engineering of Ministry of Education, Tsinghua University,
Beijing 100084, China; yhr@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (H.Y.); lvjf@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn (J.L.)
* Correspondence: liuxuemin@csei.org.cn




Received: 5 December 2019; Accepted: 7 January 2020; Published: 13 January 2020


Abstract: To reduce the auxiliary power consumption and improve the reliability of large-scale
circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boilers, we developed energy-saving CFB combustion technology
based on the fluidization state re-specification. A calculation model of coal comminution energy
consumption was used to analyze the change in comminution energy consumption, and a 1D CFB
combustion model was modified to predict the operation parameters under the fluidization state
optimization conditions. With a CFB boiler of 480 t/h, the effect of fluidization state optimization
on the economical operation was analyzed using the above two models. We found that combustion
efficiency presents a nonmonotonic trend with the change in the bed pressure drop and feeding coal
size. There are an optimal bed pressure drop and a corresponding feeding coal size distribution,
under which the net coal consumption is the lowest. Low bed pressure drop operation achieved by
reducing the coal particle size is not beneficial to SO2 and NOx emission control, and the pollutant
control cost increases. The effect of fluidization state optimization on the gross cost of power supply
can be calculated, and the optimal bed pressure drop can be obtained.

Keywords: CFB boiler; fluidization state optimization; low bed pressure drop; economical operation

1. Introduction
With the advantages of fuel flexibility, a wide range of load adjustment and low cost for emission
control, the circulating fluidized bed (CFB) boiler has been widely commercialized in recent years.
However, CFB boilers have also shown deficiencies, such as high auxiliary power consumption and
wear-related problems. To solve these problems, fluidization state re-specification in CFB boilers was
proposed, namely flow pattern reconstruction [1,2]. It means that CFB boilers can be operated under
a relatively low bed pressure drop by reducing the quantity of ineffective bed materials [3]. After
the fluidization state is optimized, the combustion profile and heat transfer in the furnace change
and the formation of the pollutant changes correspondingly. The aim of this work is to analyze the
optimization of fluidization state for the economical operation of CFB boilers.
In the past decade, the characteristics and effects of fluidization state optimization have been
studied. There would be a theoretical optimal value of bed pressure drop, around which the boiler
operation can achieve the maximal combustion efficiency and with a significant reduction of the fan
power consumption. At the same time, the wear of the heating surfaces can be alleviated, and the
reliability can be improved [4]. The heat transfer coefficient increases significantly when the solid
suspension density is increased [5]. At a certain load and with the fixed size distribution of feeding
coal particles, a decrease in bed pressure drop yields an increase in bed temperature and reduced
heat transfer coefficient [6]. The role of bed particle size in the heat transfer to membrane walls of a
supercritical CFB combustion system was investigated [7]. The effect of fluidization state optimization

Energies 2020, 13, 376; doi:10.3390/en13020376 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2020, 13, 376 2 of 20

on combustion efficiency and pollutant emission in the CFB boiler has also been studied [8,9]. The
fluidization state specification (FSS) design principle [10] can be used for saving energy consumption,
improving combustion efficiency, and achieving ultra-low NOx and SO2 emission [11–13]. Change
in the bed pressure drop and size distribution of feeding coal particles directly influences the solids
concentration profile and, therefore, affect the heat transfer and reaction. In this work, the optimization
of the fluidization state for the economical operation of CFB boilers was attempted.
Many empirical and semi-empirical models have been used for simulation of CFB boilers, including
calculation of fluid dynamics, reaction, and heat transfer. These models have often been applied to
one dimension or two dimensions. A typical hydrodynamic model is based on the assumptions that
the furnace is characterized by two flow regimes, a dense region at the bottom and a dilute region
above. The dense phase operates in the turbulent fluidized bed regime while in the dilute phase, a
core–annulus solids flow structure is established [14,15]. Gungor [16] used a single-phase back-flow
cell model to represent the solid mixing in the dense phase zone. Wang et al. [17] developed a 2D
particle population balance model for the particle size and density distribution based on the analysis
of particle properties and the core-annulus hydrodynamic model. Krzywanski et al. [18] proposed a
model of coal combustion in an oxygen-enriched CFB environment. Blaszczuk et al. [19] developed a
mass balance model for the particle size distribution and solids’ mass fluxes in a supercritical CFB
boiler. 3D semi-empirical models are rarer. Adamczyk et al. [20,21] used a hybrid Euler-Lagrange
technique to model the dense gas-solid flow. Xu et al. [22] simulated the gas-solid hydrodynamics
based on the Euler–Euler model and energy-minimization multiscale drag model. Although the 3D
models can provide more detailed information about the local phenomena inside the furnace, they
are computationally more demanding, and the modeling speed is slower. The 1D model can predict
the main operating parameters with a fast calculation speed, and it can well meet the engineering
needs. Previously, the authors and other research groups have developed many 1D models and
realized calculations under normal operating conditions [15,16,23]. However, under the conditions of
fluidization state re-specification, due to the decrease in solids concentration in the transition zone
and the improvement in secondary air penetration, the previous model could not accurately predict
the solids concentration distribution along with the furnace height or the carbon content in fly and
bottom ash.
We introduced the effect of secondary air penetration on the combustion reaction in the 1D model
established before so that the 1D model can predict the combustion efficiency with higher accuracy
under the condition of fluidization state re-specification. The calculation results were validated
with field tests carried out in a 480 t/h CFB boiler. In addition, to achieve the fluidization state
re-specification, the size of feeding coal particles needs to be finer. To obtain the effect of the fluidization
state re-specification on the overall operation economics of the boiler, this is the first attempt to
comprehensively analyze the energy-saving and pollutant emission change caused by fluidization
state re-specification using 1D CFB model, and the increase in comminution energy consumption of
feeding coal particles using a calculation model of coal comminution energy consumption established
in our previous work [24]. Based on the analysis of gross cost, the optimal bed pressure drop and
corresponding feeding coal size distribution can be calculated.
In this paper, Section 2 gives a description to the 1D CFB model and verification of the model
by field tests. Section 3 gives a brief introduction to the calculation model of fuel comminution
energy consumption. Section 4 analyzes the effect of fluidization state optimization on the economical
operation, including the effect on auxiliary power consumption, power supply cost, SO2 and NOx
emissions, and gross cost of power supply. The effect of separator efficiency on boiler performance is
analyzed in the last subsection of Section 4. Based on the analysis of Section 4, conclusions are drawn
in Section 5.
 Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21
Energies 2020,
Energies 2020,13,
13,376
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of
of 20
21

2. 1D
2. 1D CFBCFB Model
Model
2. 1D CFB Model
2.1.2.1. Model
Model Description
Description
2.1. Model Description
ForForCFB CFB boilers,
boilers, thethe1D1D model
model usually
usually refers
refers to to
thethe
cellcell model.
model. The
The furnace
furnace is is divided
divided into
into
For CFB
several boilers,
cells along the
with1Dthe
model usually
height, and refers
the to the cell model.
parameters in each The
cell furnace
are is divided
assumed to be into severalThe
uniform.
several cells along with the height, and the parameters in each cell are assumed to be uniform. The
cells along
mass and with the height,
energy balance and the parameters
equations in each cell are assumed toexchange
be uniform. The by mass and
mass and energy balance equations areare established
established in in
eacheach cell.
cell. HeatHeatexchange caused
caused by thethe massmass
energy
flow balance
between equations
adjacent are
cellsestablished
is also in each
considered. cell. Heat exchange caused by the mass flow between
flow between adjacent cells is also considered. AsAsthethe
1D1D model
model cancan meet
meet thethe engineering
engineering needsneeds very
very
adjacent
well, cells
it is is alsoused.
widely considered. As the 1D model can meet the engineering needs very well, it is
well, it is widely used.
widely used.
2.1.1.
2.1.1. Mass
Mass Balance
Balance
2.1.1. Mass Balance
TheThemassmass balance
balance of the
of the solids
solids flow
flow (ash,
(ash, char,
char, andand lime)
lime) andandgasgas components
components (O2(O 2, SO2, CO, etc.)
, SO 2, CO, etc.)
is The mass
established balance
in eachof the
cell. solids flow (ash, char, and lime) and gas components (O 2 , SO 2 , CO, etc.)
is established in each cell.
is established inboilers,
each cell.
In In
CFB CFBboilers, thethe
gasgas flowflowis is approximate
approximate to to
thethe
plugplug flow.
flow. Thus,
Thus, gasgas back-mixing
back-mixing is is
notnot
In CFB boilers,
considered in the the gas flowprocess.
calculation is approximate
The mass tobalance
the plugofflow.
gas Thus, gas jback-mixing
component in cell i is is not in
shown
considered in the calculation process. The mass balance of gas component j in cell i is shown in
considered
Figure in the calculation process. The mass balance of gas component j in cell i is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. 1.

ug(i)C
ug(i)C i,jA
i,jA

Fi,jFi,j
Rpi,jRpi,j Rri,jRri,j

ug(i+1)Ci+1,j
ug(i+1)C A
i+1,jA

Figure
Figure
Figure 1. Mass
1. Mass
1. Mass balance
balance
balance of gas
of gas
of gas component
component
component j injcell
in cell
j in cell i. i.
i.

TheThe
mass balance
mass equation
balance cancan
equation be expressed as as
The mass balance equation can be be expressed
expressed as
ugu(i+u1g() C
g( i +1)
+i1)+C
iC Aj−−Auu−g (ui)g(C
A
1,ji +1,
i +1,j
)C
Cii,j A
g(i )
F+i,jF+
+AF
Ai ,j+ +pi,j
+i ,j R
R
i ,j
R−ri,j
Rp−−i ,j R
i ,j
Rr== =
00
i ,j 0
pi ,j ri ,j
(1)(1)
(1)
where
where
where ug(i+1)
uug(i+1)
g(i+1) is
is
thethe
is the gasgas
gas velocity
velocity
velocity in in
in cell ii ++ i1,
cellcell 1,+ uu1,g(i)
ug(i) is the
is the
g(i) is the gasgas
gas velocity
velocity
velocity in in
cellcell
in cell i,i,CCi,i+1,j
Ci+1,j is the
is the
i+1,j is the concentration
concentration
concentration of of
of
gasgas component
componentjjin
gas component j cellii++ 1,
in
incell cell i +
1, C1, Cis the
Ci,ji,j isi,j is the concentration
the concentration
concentration of of
of gasgas component
component jj in
gas component j in cell
celli,i,RRpi,j
incell i, R is the
pi,j
pi,j is
is the generation
the generation
generation
rate
rate of of component
component j in j in
cell cell
i, R i, R is is
ri,j the the consumption
consumption raterate
of
rate of component j in cell i, Rri,j is the consumption rate of component j in cell i, Fi,j is the flow
ri,j
of component
component j in j in
cell cell
i, F i,
i,j
F
is is
i,j the the flow
flow rate
raterateof of
of
component
component
component jj fedj fed
fed in in cell
in cell
cell ii by
byi by
primary
primaryprimary and
and and secondary
secondary
secondary air,air,
air, and
andand Athe
AAisis is the
the furnace
furnace
furnace area.
area. area.
For For a
For aa solids solids
solids flow, flow,
flow,ash ash
ashand and
andlime lime
limeparticles particles
particlesare are classified
areclassified
classified into into different
into different
differentcategories categories
categories according according
according to to size
to size
size
and
andand
age,age,
age, respectively.
respectively.
respectively. In In
In cellcell
cell i, the
i,i, the
the mass
mass mass balancebalance
balance of of
ashash
of ash particles
particles
particles in in
in size
sizesizegroup
group group jj and
andj and ageage
age group
group
group isk is
kk is
shown
shown in in
Figure
shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. 2.

m upm,i ,upj , k,i , j , k m down ,i −1, j ,k

m down ,i −1, j , k

m r ,m r ,i , j , k
m f m f ,i , j , k i , j ,k

m +k−m
 shift,i,+j,km −k→
 k−1→−km  k→k+1 m m
m
,i , j , k
 shift
m ,i, j ,k 1→k k +1

m d m  d ,i , j , k
,i , j , k

m upm,i +up1,,ji ,+k1, j , k m down ,i , j ,k

m down ,i , j , k

Figure
Figure
Figure 2. 2. Mass
2. Mass
Mass balance
balance
balance of of ash
of ash
ash particles
particles
particles in in size
in size
size group
group
group j and
jj and
and ageage
age group
group
group inkcell
kk in in cell
cell i.i. i.
Energies 2020, 13, 376 4 of 20

The mass balance of ash particles should satisfy the following equation [23]:
. . . . . . .
ma f ,i,j,k + mar,i,j,k − mad,i,j,k + maup,i+1, j,k − maup,i,j,k + madown,i−1, j,k − madown,i,j,k
. . . (2)
+mashi f t,i,j,k + mak−1→k − mak→k+1 = 0
.
where m denotes mass flux rate, subscripts a, f, r, d, up, down, and shift represent ash, fed particles,
recirculation particles, drainage of bottom ash particles, upwards solids flux, downwards solids flux,
and mass flux caused by attrition, respectively.
The mass balance equation of limestone particles is similar to that of ash particles, which can be
expressed as
. . . . . . .
ml f ,i,j,k + mlr,i,j,k − mld,i,j,k + mlup,i+1, j,k − mlup,i,j,k + mldown,i−1, j,k − mldown,i,j,k
. . . (3)
+mlshi f t,i,j,k + mlk−1→k − mlk→k+1 = 0

where subscript l represents limestone particles.

For char particles, the mass variation caused by the combustion reaction should be added. The
mass balance equation is as follows:
. . . . . . .
mc f ,i,j,k + mcr,i,j,k − mcd,i,j,k + mcup,i+1,j,k − mcup,i,j,k + mcdown,i−1, j,k − mcdown,i,j,k
. . . . (4)
+mcshi f t,i,j,k − mcc,i,j,k + mck−1→k − mck→k+1 = 0
.
where subscript c represents limestone particles, mcc,i,j,k is the mass change rate of char particles caused
by combustion reaction.
The density and size of particles in different groups vary, leading to the segregation of particles.
The upwards solids flux can be calculated using a segregation model. An attrition model was used
for calculation of mass flux caused by attrition. Details of these two models can be found in previous
studies [23].

2.1.2. Chemical Reaction

The reaction model accounts for volatile release, char combustion, desulfurization, NOx formation,
and reduction. The composition of the volatile matter is considered as CO, CO2 , H2 , CH4 , SO2 , HCN,
and NH3 . The char combustion reaction follows:
" # " #
1 2 2
C + O2 → 2 − CO + − 1 CO2 (5)
φ φ φ

where φ can be calculated by the model proposed by Ross et al. [25].

The combustion reaction rate kc can be calculated as follows:

1 1 1
= + (6)
kc φkd ks

where ks represents the chemical reaction rate constant and kd is the oxygen diffusion rate.
For calculation of combustion after fluidization state optimization, the secondary air mixing
coefficient is introduced to describe the effect of secondary air penetration [8].

Dg
kd = ψ Sh (7)
dc

where ψ is the secondary air mixing coefficient, Dg is the oxygen diffusion coefficient, and dc is the
char particle diameter. Sh is the Sherwood Number, reflecting the influence of gaseous mass transfer in
the boundary layer of char particles on combustion reaction.
Energies 2020, 13, 376 5 of 20

ψ increases with the secondary air penetration depth, leading to an increase in kd . ψ can be
assumed as follows [8]:
x − a/2
ψ = exp( ) (8)
k
where x is the secondary air penetration depth, a is the furnace depth, and k is the correction factor [26].
0.5
ρ2 u22

 
x = 1.7255  d0 (9)
ρg ug + ρp (1 − ε)up
2 2 

where ρ2 is the secondary air density, u2 is the secondary air jet velocity, ρg is the mainstream air
density, ug is the mainstream air velocity, ρp is the solid particle density, ε is the voidage, up is the slip
velocity of solid particles, and d0 is the nozzle diameter.
For the desulfurization reaction, the conversion rate of CaO can be calculated as follows [27]:

dXs K0 CSO2 t
= K0 CSO2 exp(− ) (10)
dt Xs,max

where Xs is the conversion rate of limestone, K0 is the chemical reaction constant, Xs,max is the maximum
conversion rate of limestone when the reaction time tends to be infinite, and CSO2 is SO2 concentration
on CaO surface.
The conversion rate of CaO at time t can be obtained by integration of the above equation:

K0 CSO2 t
Xs = Xs,max (1 − exp(− )) (11)
Xs,max

In this work, reaction used to model the NOx formation and reduction is shown in Table 1. As all
N-related reaction does not have the same importance, this work uses only the critical reaction, instead
of considering all reaction [28–30].

Table 1. NOx generation and reduction.

Reaction Reaction Rate

   
HCN + 1
2 O2 → CNO RHCN = mol
kCO2 CHCN m 3s k = 2.14 × 105 exp −10000 T
k1
  
k2
 
mol −25460
NCO + 21 O2 → NO + CO RCNO-O2 = kCO2 CHCN k1 +k2 CNO m3 s
9
k1 = 1.02 × 10 exp T
   
NO + C → 12 N2 + CO RNO-C,1 = kNπd2c CNO mol
s k = 5.85 × 107 exp −12000 T
   
NO + 12 C → 12 N2 + 12 CO2 RNO-C,2 = kNπd2c CNO mol
s k = 1.3 × 105 exp −17111T
 
k C (k CCO +k3 ) mol
  KT = 1.952 × 1010 exp − 19000 T
RNO-CO = KT k1 CNO +k2
NO + CO → 12 N2 + CO2 1 NO
3
2 CCO +k3 m s k1 = 0.1826, k2 = 0.00786, k3 = 0.002531
   
mol
RNO-CO(CaO) = kCNO CCO m 3s k = 2.1T exp − 8920 T
kCNH CO  mol   
RNH3 -O2 ,1 = C 3+k0 2 m k = 3.38 × 107 exp − 10000 , k0 = 0.054
NH3 + 54 O2 → NO + 32 H2 O O2
3s T
   
RNH3 -O2 (CaO),1 = kCNH3 CO2 m mol
3s k = 2.67 × 107 exp −10000 T
kCNH CO  mol   
3 1 3 RNH3 -O2 ,2 = C 3+k0 2 m 3s k = 3.38 × 107 exp − 10000
T , k0 = 0.054
NH3 + 4 O2 → 2 N2 + 2 H2 O O2
   
RNH3 -O2 (CaO),2 = kCNH3 CO2 m mol
3s k = 6.65 × 107 exp −10000 T
   
NO + NH3 + 12 O2 → N2 + 32 H2 O RNO-NH3 = k CO2 CNH3 CNO m mol
k = 1.1 × 1012 exp −27680
p p p
3s T

2.1.3. Energy Balance

For a certain cell, heat is transported in and out by the gas components and solid particles
at various temperature. At the same time, there is exothermic reaction (e.g., char combustion and
volatile combustion) and endothermic reaction (e.g., limestone calcination). The heating surfaces in the
Energies 2020, 13, 376 6 of 20

furnace are constantly absorbing heat. Under steady operation conditions, the energy balance can be
established as follows:
X X X X X
Hin − Hout + Qr − Qa − Qt = 0 (12)
P P
where Hin is the heat transported in the cell by the gas-solid flow, Hout is the heat transported out
P P
of the cell by the gas-solid flow, Qr is the total heat released from chemical reaction, Qa is the total
P
heat absorbed by chemical reaction, and Qt is the heat absorbed by the heating surfaces.
The heat transfer characteristics in CFB boilers are different from the pulverized coal (PC) boilers.
Due to the high concentration of solid particles, the convection heat transfer of solid particles cannot
be neglected. At the same time, the radiation heat transfer is relatively weak because of the low
temperature in the furnace. Therefore, the heat transfer model in CFB boilers is different from that in
PC boilers. According to the research results of Lu [31], the heat transfer model is established, and the
influence of solid material concentration on the heat transfer coefficient is mainly considered.

2.1.4. Solving Method

The solving method is done semi-analytically with three iterative loops. The first iterative loop is
energy balance, which is also the outermost iterative loop. The temperature in each cell is assumed.
Then the particle concentration distribution is assumed and solved by iteration under this temperature
distribution, which is the second iterative loop. As the mass fraction of char in bed inventory is
relatively low and the effect of reaction on the mass balance can be neglected, the calculation method
solves the mass balance first and then the reaction model (the third iterative loop) [32]. Based on the
results of the mass balance and reaction model, the heat transported in and out of the cell by the gas
components and solid particles, heat absorbed and released by chemical reaction can be calculated.
Combined with the heat transfer model in the furnace and tail flue, the temperature in each cell can be
obtained. The energy balance can be solved by iteration until the temperature distribution converges.

2.2. Field Tests

The field tests were carried out in a 480 t/h CFB boiler in Shanxi province in China. The combustion
chamber had a cross-section of 16.24 m × 7.21 m, and the bottom part was covered by refractory. The
main design parameters are listed in Table 2. The proximate analysis and ultimate analysis of fed
coal particles are listed in Table 3, and the size distribution is shown in Figure 3. Desulfurization was
achieved by adding limestone into the furnace. During the test, Ca/s was maintained at around 2.5.

Table 2. Main design parameters (Reprint with permission [8]; 2016, J. China Coal Soc.).

Item Units Values (B—MCR)

Main steam flow rate t/h 480
Main steam pressure MPa 13.73
Main steam temperature ◦C 540
Reheat steam flow rate t/h 388.5
Reheat steam pressure MPa 2.746
Reheat steam inlet temperature ◦C 327
Reheat steam outlet temperature ◦C 540
Air temperature ◦C 20
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 21

Reheat steam outlet temperature °C 540

Air temperature °C 20
Energies 2020, 13, 376 7 of 20

Table 3. The proximate analysis and ultimate analysis of coal (Reprint with permission [6]; 2015,
Table 3. Technol.).
Powder The proximate analysis and ultimate analysis of coal (Reprint with permission [6]; 2015,
Powder Technol.).
Proximate Analysis (as Received) Ultimate Analysis (as Received)
Component
Proximate Analysis Weight (%)
(as Received) Component
Ultimate Analysis (asWeight (%)
Received)
Moisture
Component 10.03
Weight (%) C
Component 32.81
Weight (%)
Ash 46.23 H 2.64
Moisture 10.03 C 32.81
Volatile Matter,
Ash VM 22.02
46.23 OH 2.647.11
Volatile Matter, VM 22.02
21.72 NO 7.110.76
Fixed Carbon, FC
Fixed Carbon, FC 21.72 N 0.76
LowerLower
Heating Value,
Heating LHV:
Value, 13.20
LHV: MJ/kg
13.20 MJ/kg SS 0.420.42

1.0

0.8
Accumulative mass fraction

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8
Particle size/ mm
Figure 3. Size distribution of coal particles.
Figure 3. Size distribution of coal particles.
2.3. Verification of 1D Model
2.3. Verification of 1D Model
Using the modified 1D model, the main operation parameters can be calculated, including the size
Using the
distribution andmodified 1D model,
carbon content of flythe main
ash and operation
bottom ash,parameters can temperature
pressure and be calculated,distribution
including thein
size distribution and carbon content of fly ash and bottom ash, pressure and
the furnace, and pollutant emission concentration. Figure 4 shows the model prediction and field test temperature
distribution
results in content
of carbon the furnace, andand
in fly ash pollutant emission
bottom ash. concentration.
The difference betweenFigure 4 shows
analytical the model
and experimental
prediction and field test results of carbon content in fly ash and bottom ash.
data of carbon content was all in the range of ±15%. The 1D model can predict the combustionThe difference between
analytical and experimental data of carbon content was all in the range of ±15%. The 1D
efficiency change with fluidization state re-specification well by considering the influence of secondary model can
predict
air the combustion
penetration efficiency change
on char combustion. with
With the fluidization
decrease in bedstate re-specification
pressure well bycontent
drop, the carbon considering
in fly
the influence of secondary air penetration on char
ash decreased, while the carbon content in bottom ash increased.combustion. With the decrease in bed pressure
drop,Figure
the carbon
5 showscontent in fly ash decreased,
the calculated while the
and experimental carbon
results content in
of furnace bottom ashunder
temperature increased.
different
boiler loads and bed pressure drop, which indicates that the model calculation results are in good
agreement with the field test data, with the difference lower than ±5%. With a certain coal particle
size distribution, if the boiler load was basically constant, the furnace temperature increased as the
bed pressure drop decreased. It means that the heat transfer temperature difference ∆T increased.
At the same time, the heat exchange remained unchanged. Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient K
reduced [6].
Figure 6 shows the model prediction results of SO2 emission concentration. The difference between
analytical and experimental data of SO2 emission concentration was all in the range of ±25%. The SO2
emission concentration showed an increasing trend with the decrease in bed pressure drop. When the
bed pressure drop was higher than 5 kPa, the SO2 emission concentration increased slowly with the
decrease in bed pressure drop. As the bed pressure drop further decreases, the trend of SO2 emission
concentration change with bed pressure drop became sharp.
 0.03

Carbon content
0.02
Energies 2020,
Energies 13, x376
2020, 13, FOR PEER REVIEW 88of
of21
20

Fly ash-calculation
0.01
0.04 Bottom ash-calculation
Fly ash-field test
Bottom ash-field test
0
0.03 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Carbon content
Bed pressure drop/ Pa

0.02
Figure 4. Effect of bed pressure drop on the carbon content.

Figure 5 shows the calculated and experimental results of furnace temperature under different
Fly ash-calculation
0.01
Bottom ash-calculation
boiler loads and bed pressure drop, which indicates that the model calculation results are in good
Fly ash-fieldlower
agreement with the field test data, with the difference test than ±5%. With a certain coal particle
Bottom
size distribution, if the boiler load was basically ash-fieldthe
constant, testfurnace temperature increased as the
0
bed pressure drop decreased. It 2000
means that
3000the 4000
heat transfer
5000 temperature
6000 7000difference ΔT increased. At
the same time, the heat exchange remained unchanged. Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient K
Bed pressure drop/ Pa
reduced [6].
Figure 4. Effect of bed pressure drop on the carbon content.
Figure 4. Effect of bed pressure drop on the carbon content.
1010
Figure 5 shows the calculated and experimental results
105 MW of furnace temperature under different
Calculation
boiler loads and bed pressure drop, which indicates that
105 MW thetest
Field model calculation results are in good
950 with the difference
agreement with the field test data, lower than ±5%. With a certain coal particle
80 MW Calculation
Bed temperature/ oC

size distribution, if the boiler load was basically 80 MW Fieldthe

constant, testfurnace temperature increased as the
bed pressure drop decreased. It means that the heat transfer temperature difference ΔT increased. At
the same time, the heat exchange 890 remained unchanged. Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient K
reduced [6].

830
1010
105 MW Calculation
105 MW Field test
770
950 80 MW Calculation
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
oC

80 MW Field test
Bed pressure drop/ Pa
Bed temperature/

Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21

890 on bed temperature (Reprint with permission [6]; 2015, Powder Technol.).
Figure 5. Effect of bed pressure drop
Figure 5. Effect of bed pressure drop on bed temperature (Reprint with permission [6]; 2015, Powder
Technol.). 400
SO2emission concentration/(mg/Nm 3)

Figure 6 shows the model 830 prediction results of SO2 emission concentration. The difference
300
between analytical and experimental data of SO2 emission concentration was all in the range of ±25%.
The SO2 emission concentration showed an increasing trend with the decrease in bed pressure drop.
770
When the bed pressure drop was higher than 5 kPa, the SO2 emission concentration increased slowly
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
200 drop. As the bed pressure drop further decreases, the trend of SO2
with the decrease in bed pressure
Bed pressure drop/ Pa
emission concentration change with bed pressure drop became sharp.
Figure 5. Effect of bed pressure
100 drop on bed temperature (Reprint with permission [6]; 2015, Powder
Calculation
Technol.).
Field test
Figure 6 shows the model0 prediction results of SO2 emission concentration. The difference
between analytical and experimental 2000 data of SO4000
3000 2 emission concentration
5000 6000 was all in the range of ±25%.
7000
The SO2 emission concentration showed an Bed increasing
pressuretrend
drop/with
Pa the decrease in bed pressure drop.
When the bed pressure drop was higher than 5 kPa, the SO2 emission concentration increased slowly
Figure 6. Effect of bed pressure drop on SO2 emission concentration.
with the decrease inFigure
bed pressure drop.
6. Effect of bed As the bed
pressure pressure
drop drop further
on SO2 emission decreases, the trend of SO2
concentration.
emission
The concentration
change in the change
measured withNObed pressure drop became sharp.
x emission concentration with different bed temperature was
The change in the measured NO x emission concentration with different bed temperature was
essentially the same as in the calculated values, with the difference within ±15%, as shown in Figure 7.
essentially the same as in the calculated values, with the difference within ±15%, as shown in Figure
7. It can be seen that the NOx emission concentration increased significantly with the bed
temperature. With the increase in the bed temperature, the release and production rates of volatiles
were increased, and the proportion of volatile nitrogen was increased correspondingly, which
increased the conversion of nitrogen in coal particles to NO. In addition, when the bed temperature
 Figure 6. Effect of bed pressure drop on SO2 emission concentration.

The change in the measured NOx emission concentration with different bed temperature was
essentially the same as in the calculated values, with the difference within ±15%, as shown in Figure
Energies 2020, 13, 376 9 of 20
7. It can be seen that the NOx emission concentration increased significantly with the bed
temperature. With the increase in the bed temperature, the release and production rates of volatiles
were
It increased,
can be seen thatand the xproportion
the NO of volatile nitrogen
emission concentration increasedwas increasedwith
significantly correspondingly, which
the bed temperature.
increased
With the conversion
the increase of temperature,
in the bed nitrogen in coal
the particles to NO.
release and In addition,
production rates when the bed
of volatiles weretemperature
increased,
was increased, the NO formation reaction and reduction reaction accelerated at the
and the proportion of volatile nitrogen was increased correspondingly, which increased the conversionsame time, and
thenitrogen
of influence in of bed
coal temperature
particles to NO.onIn the formation
addition, when reaction
the bedwas more remarkable,
temperature leading
was increased, thetoNOan
increase inreaction
formation a conversion rate of nitrogen
and reduction to NO. Based
reaction accelerated on same
at the the above
time, effects,
and thethe NO emission
influence of bed
concentrationon
temperature increased.
the formation reaction was more remarkable, leading to an increase in a conversion
rate of nitrogen to NO. Based on the above effects, the NO emission concentration increased.
NOxemission concentration/ (mg/Nm3) 300

200

100
Calculation
Field test

0
820 860 900 940
Bed temperature/ oC
Figure 7. Effect of bed temperature on NOx emission concentration.
Figure 7. Effect of bed temperature on NOx emission concentration.
The percentage difference between the calculated and experimental results is summarized in
The percentage difference between the calculated and experimental results is summarized in
Table 4. As there are many factors affecting the experimental results in the field tests, while simplification
Table 4. As there are many factors affecting the experimental results in the field tests, while
has been made in the calculation process of the 1D model, the calculated results have deviation from the
simplification has been made in the calculation process of the 1D model, the calculated results have
experimental values. The difference between the calculated and measured SO2 emission concentrations
deviation from the experimental values. The difference between the calculated and measured SO2
under the lowest bed pressure drop was the largest, about 25%. The other percentage difference
emission concentrations under the lowest bed pressure drop was the largest, about 25%. The other
between the calculated and experimental results was all within 15%. In general, the modified 1D model
percentage difference between the calculated and experimental results was all within 15%. In
can predict the effect of fluidization state re-specification on combustion, heat transfer, and pollutant
emission of CFB boilers.
Table 4. Difference between calculated and experimental results.

Item Percentage Difference

Unburned carbon content in residue 15%
Bed temperature 5%
SO2 emission concentration 25%
NOx emission concentration 15%

3. Calculation Model of Fuel Comminution Energy Consumption

In the case of fluidization state re-specification, it is usually necessary to reduce the size of feeding
coal particles to achieve steady operation under a lower bed pressure drop. For crushers, if the size
distribution of inlet particles is fixed, the comminution energy change with the different sizes of
products can be calculated as follows [24]:
 
N N
∆e C  p1 ( j)x1−n − P p2 (i)x1−n 
P 
= n−1  pj pi 
(13)

 j=1α −n+1  i=1
 α −n+1  
= C
n−1 Γ 1
α1 x1−n
1P=63.2%
− Γ 2
α2 x1−n
2P=63.2%
Energies 2020, 13, 376 10 of 20

where p1 (j), p2 (i) are the mass fraction of product particles in each size group, and N is the number
R +∞
of particle size groups. Γ is the Gamma Function, Γ(x) = 0 tx−1 e−t dt. α is a constant (distribution
modulus) and xP=63.2% is the particle size corresponding to Px = 63.2% (size modulus) for R-R size
distribution. C and n are constants, which can be determined by comparing the calculation results
with the experiment data. The value of n is influenced by the size range, and C is by the grindability.
For the size range of crushing operation, n can be fitted as 1.814. The coefficient C can be correlated
with the Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI).

1
C= (14)
aHGI + b

According to the experiment results, the values of a and b can be fitted as 0.021 and −0.783,
respectively. The detailed derivation and experimental verification of the calculation model can be
seen in reference [24].

4. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on Economical Operation

4.1. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on Auxiliary Power Consumption

To achieve steady operation under a lower bed pressure drop, it is necessary to maintain the solids
concentration in the upper furnace as a constant before and after optimization of fluidization state,
namely, the circulating flow rate. Therefore, when the bed pressure drop is reduced, the mass fraction
of fine coal particles needs to be increased, that is, the size distribution of fed coal particles needs to
be optimized. The CFB boiler mentioned in Section 2 is still taken as the calculation object. Taking
the 85% load condition as an example, in the calculation process, the circulating flow rate remained
constant by adjusting the coal particle size distribution when the bed pressure drop was reduced. The
coal particle size distribution corresponding to different bed pressure drop is shown in Figure 8. The
increase in comminution energy consumption caused by decrease in coal particle size, and the decrease
in power consumption of primary and secondary air fans caused by decrease in bed pressure drop
were calculated, respectively. Then the influence of fluidization state optimization on auxiliary power
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 21
consumption can be obtained.

1.0

0.8
Accumulative mass fraction

0.6

0.4 12 kPa-SD1
9 kPa-SD2
6.5 kPa-SD3
0.2
4.5 kPa-SD4
2.5 kPa-SD5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8
Particle size/ mm
Figure 8. Coal particle size distribution corresponding to different bed pressure drop.
Figure 8. Coal particle size distribution corresponding to different bed pressure drop.

4.1.1. Comminution Energy Consumption

The HGI of the fed coal particles is 56. The change in comminution energy consumption with
coal particle size can be calculated using the model described in Section 3, as shown in Figure 9.
When the coal particle size distribution is gradually changed from SD1 to SD5, the mass fraction of
fine particles is increased, leading to an increase in the required comminution energy consumption.
The change in power consumption of the crusher with coal particle size distribution can be obtained.
 0 2 4 6 8
Particle size/ mm

Figure 8. Coal particle size distribution corresponding to different bed pressure drop.
Energies 2020, 13, 376 11 of 20
4.1.1. Comminution Energy Consumption
4.1.1.
The Comminution Energy
HGI of the fed coal Consumption
particles is 56. The change in comminution energy consumption with
coal particle
The HGIsizeofcan be coal
the fed calculated
particlesusing the change
is 56. The model indescribed in Section
comminution 3, as shownwith
energy consumption in Figure
coal 9.
When the coal
particle particle
size can size distribution
be calculated is gradually
using the model changed
described from
in Section 3, asSD1 to SD5,
shown the 9.
in Figure mass
Whenfraction
the of
finecoal
particles issize
particle increased, leading
distribution to an increase
is gradually changed in theSD1
from required
to SD5,comminution energy
the mass fraction of fineconsumption.
particles
Theischange
increased, leadingconsumption
in power to an increaseofin the required comminution
crusher with energy
coal particle consumption.
size distributionThecanchange in
be obtained.
power consumption of the crusher with coal particle size distribution can be obtained.

6
Comminution energy/ (kJ/kg)

0
SD1 SD2 SD3 SD4 SD5

Size distributions of feeding coal particles

Figure 9. Change in comminution energy with coal particle size distribution.
Figure 9. Change in comminution energy with coal particle size distribution.
4.1.2. Fan Power Consumption
4.1.2. Fan Power
With Consumption
unchanged feeding coal amount and excess air ratio, the total amount of primary and
secondary air is about a fixed value. If the ratio of primary and secondary air remains constant, the
With unchanged feeding coal amount and excess air ratio, the total amount of primary and
primary and secondary air volumes and air velocities are fixed values, respectively.
secondary air is about a fixed value. If the ratio of primary and secondary air remains constant, the
For primary air fan, the pressure head can be calculated as follows:
primary and secondary air volumes and air velocities are fixed values, respectively.
For primary air fan, the pressure
PPAF = ∆P
head can + ∆P
bed be AD + ∆PPNR
calculated as follows: (15)

where PPAF is the pressure head of the primary air fan, ∆Pbed is the bed pressure drop, ∆PAD is the
pressure drop of the air distribution plate, and ∆PPNR is the resistance of the pipe network.
The resistance of the air distribution plate is squared with the air velocity. At a certain primary air
velocity, the pressure drop of the air distribution plate and the pipe network resistance are constant.
Therefore, the change in bed pressure drop is the change in the fan pressure head.
For secondary air, the back pressure is determined by the solids concentration near the secondary
air nozzles. As the bed pressure drop decreases, the secondary air back pressure decreases, and the
downward trend becomes slower as the bed pressure drop decreases. It means that when the bed
pressure drop is higher, the solids concentration in the transition zone decreases with the bed pressure
drop more obviously, as shown in Figure 10, which is beneficial to the saving of fan power consumption.
The power consumption of the primary air fan or the secondary air fan can be calculated as
follows:
N = PQ/η (16)

where N is the fan power consumption, P is the fan pressure head, Q is the airflow, and η is the
fan efficiency.
decreases, and the downward trend becomes slower as the bed pressure drop decreases. It means
that when the bed pressure drop is higher, the solids concentration in the transition zone decreases
with the bed pressure drop more obviously, as shown in Figure 10, which is beneficial to the saving
of fan power
Energiesconsumption.
2020, 13, 376 12 of 20

Back pressure of secondary air/ kPa

y = 0.0128x 2 + 0.0994x + 0.6783
4

0
0 3 6 9 12 15
Bed pressure drop/ kPa
Figure 10. Change in secondary air back pressure with bed pressure drop.
Figure 10. Change in secondary air back pressure with bed pressure drop.
4.1.3. Auxiliary Power Consumption

The power
Basedconsumption ofresults
on the calculation the primary airconsumption
of the power fan or theofsecondary
air fans and air fan can be energy
the comminution calculated as
follows: consumption, the auxiliary power consumption corresponding to different bed pressure drop and coal
particle size distribution can be obtained, as shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that as the bed pressure
/ η and the increase in comminution energy (16)
= PQ finer,
drop decreases, the size of fed coal particlesNbecomes
consumption is equivalent to the decrease in secondary air fan power consumption. The decrease in
where Nprimary
is the fan power
air fan powerconsumption, P is theresulting
consumption is greater, fan pressure head, decrease
in a significant Q is theinairflow, powerη is the
auxiliary and
consumption.
fan efficiency. As the bed pressure drop was decreased from 12 kPa to 2.5 kPa, the auxiliary power
consumption rate dropped by about 0.7%. Therefore, fluidization state optimization is beneficial to the
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
saving of auxiliary power consumption.
4.1.3. Auxiliary Power Consumption
Based on the calculation a+300
results of the power consumption of air fans and the comminution
energy consumption, the auxiliary power consumption corresponding to different bed pressure
drop and coal particle size distribution can be obtained, as shown in Figure 11. It can be seen that as
a
Power consumption/ kW

the bed pressure drop decreases, the size of fed coal particles becomes finer, and the increase in
comminution energy consumption is equivalent to the decrease in secondary air fan power
consumption. The decrease ina-300 primary air fan power consumption is greater, resulting in a
significant decrease in auxiliary power consumption. As the bed pressure drop was decreased from
12 kPa to 2.5 kPa, the auxiliary power consumption rate dropped by about 0.7%. Therefore,
Primary air fan
fluidization state optimization is beneficial to the saving Secondary
a-600 of auxiliary
air fanpower consumption.
Comminution energy
Auxiliary power
a-900
0 3 6 9 12 15
Bed pressure drop/ kPa

FigureFigure 11. Change

11. Change in auxiliary
in auxiliary power consumption
power consumption with the the
with bed bed
pressure drop. drop.
pressure

4.2. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on Power Supply Cost

Fluidization state optimization can not only save the auxiliary power consumption but also
affect the combustion efficiency, leading to a change in gross coal consumption. The mass fraction of
bottom ash is affected by both the bed pressure drop and the coal particle size. With a certain coal
 Figure 11. Change in auxiliary power consumption with the bed pressure drop.

4.2. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on Power Supply Cost

Energies 2020, 13, 376 13 of 20
Fluidization state optimization can not only save the auxiliary power consumption but also
affect the4.2.
combustion efficiency,
Effect of Fluidization Stateleading to aonchange
Optimization in gross
Power Supply Cost coal consumption. The mass fraction of
bottom ash is affected by both the bed pressure drop and the coal particle size. With a certain coal
Fluidization state optimization can not only save the auxiliary power consumption but also affect
particle size distribution, the mass fraction of bottom ash needs to be increased to achieve lower bed
the combustion efficiency, leading to a change in gross coal consumption. The mass fraction of bottom
pressure ash
drop, whileby
is affected if both
the the
bedbedpressure
pressure drop remains
drop and the coalconstant, theWith
particle size. mass fraction
a certain coal of bottom ash
particle
decreasessizewith coal the
distribution, particle size. ofTherefore,
mass fraction the tomass
bottom ash needs fraction
be increased of bottom
to achieve ash shows a
lower bed pressure
drop, while if the bed pressure drop remains constant, the mass fraction
non-monotonous trend during fluidization state optimization, as shown in Figure 12. of bottom ash decreases with
coal particle size. Therefore, the mass fraction of bottom ash shows a non-monotonous trend during
fluidization state optimization, as shown in Figure 12.

0.04 0.7

Mass fraction of bottom ash

0.03 0.65
Carbon content

0.02 0.6

Carbon content
0.01 y 1 = 0.0004x 2 - 0.0054x + 0.0342 0.55
Mass fraction of bottom ash
y 2 = 0.0023x 2 - 0.0284x + 0.7014
0 0.5
0 3 6 9 12 15
Bed pressure drop/ kPa
Figure 12. Carbon contents in fly ash and bottom ash under different bed pressure drop.
Figure 12. Carbon contents in fly ash and bottom ash under different bed pressure drop.
Combining the mass fraction of fly ash and bottom ash with carbon content, the average carbon
content inthe
Combining residue
masscan be calculated,
fraction of flywhich also bottom
ash and decreasesash
firstwith
and then increases
carbon as thethe
content, bedaverage
pressure carbon
drop decreases, that is, when the bed pressure drop decreases to a certain extent, even if the secondary
content in residue can be calculated, which also decreases first and then increases as the bed
air penetration improvement is beneficial to oxygen mixing and diffusion, the average carbon content
pressure increases
drop decreases, that is, when
due to insufficient thetime.
residence bedAccordingly,
pressure drop decreasesefficiency
the combustion to a certain extent, even if the
decreases.
secondary airBased
penetration improvement
on the change in combustionis efficiency,
beneficialthetochange
oxygen mixing
in gross coal and diffusion,
consumption withthe
bedaverage
carbon content
pressureincreases dueparticle
drop and coal to insufficient
size can beresidence time. Accordingly,
further calculated. Combined with the
thecombustion efficiency
auxiliary power
consumption,
decreases. the change in net coal consumption can be obtained, as shown in Figure 13. The lower
the carbon content in the residue is, the higher the combustion efficiency is, and the lower the gross
Based on the change in combustion efficiency, the change in gross coal consumption with bed
coal consumption is. Therefore, the gross coal consumption also decreases first and then increases
pressure with
droptheand coal in
decrease particle size can
bed pressure drop,be
andfurther calculated.
the net coal Combined
consumption is similar.with the auxiliary
The auxiliary power power
consumption rate tends to decrease monotonously with the decrease in bed pressure drop. Hence, in
the stage where the gross coal consumption decreases with the bed pressure drop, the decrease in net
coal consumption is more obvious. When the gross coal consumption increases with the decrease in
bed pressure drop, that is, in the stage of lower bed pressure drop, the increase in net coal consumption
is slightly smaller than the gross coal consumption, due to the saving of auxiliary power consumption.
The optimal bed pressure drop corresponding to the lowest net coal consumption is slightly lower than
the optimal bed pressure drop corresponding to the lowest gross coal consumption, which is about
6 kPa and 6.5 kPa, respectively.
in bed pressure drop, that is, in the stage of lower bed pressure drop, the increase in net coal
consumption is slightly smaller than the gross coal consumption, due to the saving of auxiliary
power consumption. The optimal bed pressure drop corresponding to the lowest net coal
consumption is slightly lower than the optimal bed pressure drop corresponding to the lowest gross
coal consumption,
Energies 2020, 13, 376 which is about 6 kPa and 6.5 kPa, respectively. 14 of 20

420 7.5

Auxiliary power consumption rate/ %

7

Coal consumption/ (g/kWh)

400

6.5
380
6
Net coal consumption
360 y 1 = 0.2204x 2 - 2.4746x + 405.71
5.5
Gross coal consumption
340 y 2 = 0.204x 2 - 2.5927x + 380.94
Auxiliary power consumption 5
y 3 = 0.0762x + 6.0815
320 4.5
0 3 6 9 12 15
Bed pressure drop/ kPa
Figure 13. Effect of bed pressure drop on coal consumption.
Figure 13. Effect of bed pressure drop on coal consumption.
4.3. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on SO2 and NOx Emission
4.3. Effect
Withofcertain
Fluidization StateSO
Ca/S, the Optimization on SO2 and NOx Emission
2 emission concentration mainly depends on the residence time of CaO
particles. Therefore,
With certain Ca/S,asthe
theSO bed pressure drop decreases, the SO2 emission
2 emission concentration mainly depends on theconcentration
residence time increases
of CaO
rapidly. The NO x emission is mainly affected by the bed pressure drop and
particles. Therefore, as the bed pressure drop decreases, the SO2 emission concentration increases coal particle size. As the
bed pressure drop decreases, the
rapidly. The NOx emission is mainly affected NO x emission by the bed pressure drop and coal particle size. As and
concentration shows a trend of decreasing first the
then increasing.
bed pressure drop decreases, the NOx emission concentration shows a trend of decreasing first and
To meet the emission requirements stipulated by environmental protection standards, SO2 and
then increasing.
NOxTo should 3 . SO can be removed below 100 mg/m3 by increasing
meet betheremoved
emissiontorequirements
below 100 mg/m stipulated 2 by environmental protection standards, SO2 and
NOx should be removed to below 100 mg/m . SO2 can bePrevious
Ca/S. But the change in Ca/S also affects NO x
3 emission. removedstudies
belowhave shown
100 mg/m that
3 by CaO has
increasing
a significant promotion effect on NO formation. Therefore, as Ca/S increases,
Ca/S. But the change in Ca/S also affects NOx emission. Previous studies have shown that xCaO has a the NO emission
concentration
significant increases.
promotion Theon
effect required Ca/S and Therefore,
NO formation. corresponding NOx increases,
as Ca/S concentrations
the NO arex shown
emission in
Figure 14. It can be seen that as the bed pressure drop decreases, the
concentration increases. The required Ca/S and corresponding NOx concentrations are shown in required Ca/S increases rapidly
for the 14.
Figure same SO2be
It can emission
seen that target
as the ofbed mg/m3 , which
100 pressure not only increases
drop decreases, the desulfurization
the required Ca/S increases cost but
rapidly
alsothe
for adversely
same SOaffects NO emission. Therefore, if only the pollutant control is considered, it is not
2 emission xtarget of 100 mg/m3, which not only increases the desulfurization cost but

also adversely affects NOlower

advantageous to achieve bed pressure drop operation only by reducing the coal particle size. It
x emission. Therefore, if only the pollutant control is considered, it is not
is necessary to to
advantageous supplement otherbed
achieve lower means at the drop
pressure same operation
time, such only
as increasing the secondary
by reducing air ratiosize.
the coal particle and
injection position, which will be beneficial to NO emission reduction. With certain
It is necessary to supplement other means at the same time, such as increasing the secondary air ratio
x Ca/S, optimization
of theinjection
and particle position,
size distribution
which of limestone
will can improve
be beneficial to NOthe utilization rate, reduce the SO2 emission
x emission reduction. With certain Ca/S,
concentration,ofand
optimization the avoid NO
particle x emission
size concentration
distribution of limestone excessively
can improveincreasing caused byrate,
the utilization excessive
reduceCa/S.
the
The above means provide the possibility of achieving ultra-low emission,
SO2 emission concentration, and avoid NOx emission concentration excessively increasing caused by which will be analyzed in
future work.
excessive Ca/S. The above means provide the possibility of achieving ultra-low emission, which will
be analyzed in future work.
4.4. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on Economical Operation
Based on the analysis in Section 4.2, the net coal consumption under different bed pressure drop
and coal particle size distribution can be calculated, combined with the change in pollutant control
cost, the gross cost change can be obtained.
SO2 is removed by adding limestone to the furnace. The calculation method of limestone
consumption is as follows [33]:

mCaO = mcoal × S × Ca/S × 56/32/48% (17)

where mcoal is the net coal consumption, S is the sulfur content in coal, 32 and 56 are the molar masses of
S and CaO, respectively, and 48% is the mass fraction of CaO in limestone. The unit price of limestone
was calculated at 80 yuan/t.
Energies
Energies 2020,
2020, 13,
13, x376
FOR PEER REVIEW 15
15of
of21
20

350 7
SO2
y 1 = 0.1181x 2 - 1.9057x + 102.83
NOx

Emission concentration/ (mg/Nm3)

300 6
y 2 = 0.7273x 2 - 20.707x + 304.22
Ca/S
250 y 3 = 0.0205x 2 - 0.5709x + 5.4725 5

Ca/S
200 4

150 3

100 2

50 1
0 5 10 15
Bed pressure drop/ kPa
Figure 14. SO and NO emission under different bed pressure drop.
Figure 14. SO22and NOxxemission under different bed pressure drop.

NOx is controlled by the selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) method. Urea will decompose
4.4. Effect of Fluidization State Optimization on Economical Operation
or hydrolyze to form NH3 after being injected into the furnace [34]:
Based on the analysis in Section 4.2, the net coal consumption under different bed pressure
CO(NHcan
drop and coal particle size distribution 2 )2 + + CO2 with the change in pollutant
2 O → 2NH3combined
beHcalculated, (18)
control cost, the gross cost changeCO (NH
can )2 → NH3 + HNCO
be 2obtained.
SO2 is removed by adding limestone to the furnace. The calculation method of limestone
CO(NH2 )2 = mNO /30 × (n(NH3 ) /n(NOx )) /2 × 60
consumption is as followsm[33]: (19)

where mNO is NO mass in flue gas, n(NH3 )/n(NOx ) can be calculated at 1.5, 30, and 60 are the molar
mCaO = mcoal × S × Ca / S × 56 / 32 / 48% (17)
masses of NO and urea, respectively. The unit price of urea was calculated at 2.2 yuan/kg [35].
whereThe gross
mcoal is thecosts
net of power
coal supply corresponding
consumption, S is the sulfurto different
content bed pressure
in coal, 32 and 56drop, and
are the coal particle
molar masses
size distribution are shown in Figure 15. It can be seen that the gross cost decreases
of S and CaO, respectively, and 48% is the mass fraction of CaO in limestone. The unit price first and then
of
increases as
limestone was the bed pressure
calculated at 80 drop decreases, and the optimal bed pressure drop is about 7 kPa. It
yuan/t.
meansNO that
x is when the bed
controlled bypressure dropnoncatalytic
the selective is higher thanreduction
7 kPa, decreasing bed pressure
(SNCR) method. Ureadrop
will by adjusting
decompose
Energies
coal 2020,
particle 13, x
sizeFOR PEER
can saveREVIEW
the power supply cost.
or hydrolyze to form NH3 after being injected into the furnace [34]: 16 of 21

CO ( NH 2 )2 + H 2O → 2NH3 + CO2
a+0.015
(18)
CO ( NH 2 )2 → NH 3 + HNCO

CO( NH ) = mNO / 30 × ( n ( NH3 ) /n ( NO x ) ) /2 × 60

y = 0.0002x - 0.0024x + 0.0131+a
ma+0.010
Gross cost/ (yuan/kWh)

2 2
(19)

where mNO is NO mass in flue gas, n ( NH 3 ) /n ( NO x ) can be calculated at 1.5, 30, and 60 are the
molar masses of NO and urea, respectively. The unit price of urea was calculated at 2.2 yuan/kg [35].
The gross costs of powera+0.005
supply corresponding to different bed pressure drop, and coal particle
size distribution are shown in Figure 15. It can be seen that the gross cost decreases first and then
increases as the bed pressure drop decreases, and the optimal bed pressure drop is about 7 kPa. It
means that when the bed pressure drop is higher than 7 kPa, decreasing bed pressure drop by
adjusting coal particle size can save
a the power supply cost.
0 3 6 9 12 15
Bed pressure drop/ kPa

Figure 15.
Figure Effect of
15. Effect of bed
bed pressure
pressure drop
drop on
on gross
gross cost.
cost.

4.5. Effect of Separator Efficiency

The above analysis is based on the condition that the existing boiler is not retrofitted, and the
fluidization state optimization is achieved only by adjusting the coal particle size distribution. The
fluidization state re-specification was proposed based on the improvement of the separator
Energies 2020, 13, 376 16 of 20

4.5. Effect of Separator Efficiency

The above analysis is based on the condition that the existing boiler is not retrofitted, and
the fluidization state optimization is achieved only by adjusting the coal particle size distribution.
The fluidization state re-specification was proposed based on the improvement of the separator
efficiency, which is the most crucial factor affecting the bed material quality. For the fluidization state
re-specification, the separator efficiency should be improved first, so that more benefits can be obtained.
Four separators with different efficiency were analyzed, as shown in Table 5. For different working
conditions, the bed pressure drop was kept at 4.5 kPa, and the coal particle size distribution was SD4.

Table 5. Separator efficiency.

Case d50 (µm) d99 (µm)

1 30 120
2 25 110
3 20 100
4 16 96

The calculation results are shown in Figure 16. With a certain bed pressure drop and coal particle
size distribution, improving the separator efficiency will increase the storage of fine particles and the
circulation flow rate. The mass fraction of fine particles leaving the furnace in the form of fly ash
decreases,
Energies 2020, while thePEER
13, x FOR mass fraction of bottom ash increases. The carbon content in residue decreases,
REVIEW 17 of 21
and the combustion efficiency increases.

0.04 0.7
Mass fraction of bottom ash

0.03 0.65
Carbon content

0.02 0.6

Carbon content
y 1 = 0.0002x + 0.0145
0.01 0.55
Mass fraction of bottom ash
y 2 = -0.0001x 2 + 0.0004x + 0.6968

0 0.5
10 15 20 25 30 35
Separator d50 / μm

Figure 16. Effect of separator efficiency on combustion.

Figure 16. Effect of separator efficiency on combustion.
At the same time, improving the separator efficiency is also beneficial to the reduction of SO2
and NO x emissions,
At the as shown
same time, in Figure
improving 17, because
the separator as the separator
efficiency efficiencyto
is also beneficial increases, the residence
the reduction of SO2
time NO
and of CaO particlesas
x emissions, increases,
shown in resulting
Figure in17,a decrease
because in as SO
the2 emission.
separator The solids increases,
efficiency concentration
the
in the upper
residence timefurnace
of CaO increases,
particlesreducing atmosphere
increases, resulting enhances accordingly,
in a decrease in SO2 which is beneficial
emission. The solidsto
NO reduction.
concentration in the upper furnace increases, reducing atmosphere enhances accordingly, which is
To guarantee
beneficial the heat transfer characteristics, the solids concentration in the upper furnace should
to NO reduction.
be kept constant. By improving the separator efficiency, the circulation flow rate can remain unchanged
under a lower bed pressure drop. It means that the bed material quality can be improved without
300
adjusting coal particle size distribution. Lower bed pressure drop can be achieved, and combustion
concentration/ (mg/Nm3)

efficiency can be increased. SO2

y1 = 1.1321x + 124.78
250 NOx
y 2 = 1.0356x + 176.36

200
 At the same time, improving the separator efficiency is also beneficial to the reduction of SO2
and NOx emissions, as shown in Figure 17, because as the separator efficiency increases, the
residence time of CaO particles increases, resulting in a decrease in SO2 emission. The solids
concentration in the upper furnace increases, reducing atmosphere enhances accordingly, which is
beneficial
Energies 2020,to
13,NO
376 reduction. 17 of 20

300

Emission concentration/ (mg/Nm3)

SO2
y1 = 1.1321x + 124.78
250 NOx
y 2 = 1.0356x + 176.36

200

150

100
10 15 20 25 30 35
Separator d50 / μm
Figure 17. Effect of separator efficiency on SO2 and NOx emission.
Figure 17. Effect of separator efficiency on SO2 and NOx emission.
For the coal particle size distribution SD2, the bed pressure drop, and the corresponding carbon
To in
content guarantee
fly ash andthebottom
heat transfer characteristics,
ash achieved theseparator
by different solids concentration
efficiency areinshown
the upper furnace
in Figure 18.
Energies 2020, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
should be kept constant. By improving the separator efficiency, the circulation flow
When d50 is decreased from 30 µm to 15 µm, the bed pressure drop can be reduced from 9 kPa to 5.5 rate can remain
kPa
unchanged
without under a lower
adjusting bed pressure
size. drop. Ittime,
means that thethe
bed material quality canconsumption
be improved
significant. Due to the
the coal particle
increase At this
in separator efficiency,because
the pollutantcomminution
emission willenergy
also be improved.
without
has not adjusting
increased, coal
the particle
saving of size
the distribution.
auxiliary power Lower bed
consumption pressure
will be drop
more can be achieved,
significant. Due to and
the
The fluidization state optimization under this condition will be more beneficial to the economical
combustion
increase in efficiencyefficiency,
separator can be increased.
the pollutant emission will also be improved. The fluidization state
operation of CFB boilers.
For the coal
optimization particle
under size distribution
this condition SD2, beneficial
will be more the bed pressure drop, and the
to the economical corresponding
operation carbon
of CFB boilers.
content in fly ash and bottom ash achieved by different separator efficiency are shown in Figure 18.
When d50 is decreased from 0.025
30 μm to 15 μm, the bed pressure drop can be 10 reduced from 9 kPa to 5.5
kPa without adjusting the coal particle size. At this time, because the comminution energy
consumption has not increased, the saving of the auxiliary power 8consumption will be more
Bed pressure drop/ kPa
Carbon content

0.02
6

4
0.015 Carbon content
y 1 = 0.0001x + 0.0142
Bed pressure drop 2
y 2 = 0.2625x + 1.2025
0.01 0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Separator d50 / μm

Figure 18. Fluidization state optimization achieved by improving separator efficiency.

Figure 18. Fluidization state optimization achieved by improving separator efficiency.
From the above analysis, for CFB boilers, the key of fluidization state re-specification or
From theis above
optimization analysis,
to improve the bedformaterial
CFB boilers,
quality the
and key of the
so that fluidization
boiler canstate re-specification
be operated stably under or
optimization is to improve
lower bed pressure the bed material
drop conditions. quality
The separator and so has
efficiency thata the boilerinfluence
decisive can be operated stably
on bed material
under
quality,lower
so thebed pressure drop
improvement conditions.
in separator The separator
efficiency will bringefficiency
a wider has a decisive influence
implementation space andonmore
bed
material quality, so the improvement in separator efficiency will bring a wider implementation
significant economic benefits for fluidization state optimization. However, for the existing units, under
space and more
the premise thatsignificant economic
the separator benefits
efficiency for fluidization
is difficult to improve,state
the optimization. However,
bed material quality can for
alsothe
be
existing
improved units, under the
by adjusting the premise thatsize
coal particle thedistribution.
separator efficiency
Through modelis difficult to improve,
calculation the bed
and analysis, the
material quality
optimal bed can also
pressure dropbe andimproved by adjusting
the corresponding coal the coalsize
particle particle size distribution.
distribution Through
can be suggested for
model calculation
different andtypes,
boilers, coal analysis,
and the optimal bed pressure drop and the corresponding coal particle
loads.
size distribution can be suggested for different boilers, coal types, and loads.

5. Conclusions
Taking a 480 t/h CFB boiler as an object, the influence of fluidization state optimization on the
economical operation was calculated and analyzed. Under certain separator efficiency, to achieve a
low bed pressure drop, it was necessary to reduce the size of feeding coal particles. The calculation
Energies 2020, 13, 376 18 of 20

5. Conclusions
Taking a 480 t/h CFB boiler as an object, the influence of fluidization state optimization on the
economical operation was calculated and analyzed. Under certain separator efficiency, to achieve a
low bed pressure drop, it was necessary to reduce the size of feeding coal particles. The calculation
results show that the increase in comminution energy consumption is much lower than the decrease
in fan power consumption, which results in a significant decrease in auxiliary power consumption.
The combustion efficiency shows a non-monotonous trend with the change in bed pressure drop and
coal particle size. There are an optimal bed pressure drop and corresponding coal particle size to
minimize the coal consumption of power generation or power supply. The optimal bed pressure drop
corresponding to the lowest net coal consumption is slightly lower than the value corresponding to the
lowest gross coal consumption, which is about 6 kPa and 6.5 kPa, respectively.
Lower bed pressure drop operation achieved only by reducing the coal particle size is not beneficial
to SO2 and NOx emission control, and the pollutant control cost will increase. Combined with the net
coal consumption, the influence of fluidization state optimization on the gross power supply cost can
be calculated. There is an optimal bed pressure drop under which the gross power supply cost is the
lowest. For the example in this work, the optimal bed pressure drop is approximately 7 kPa.
If the design and manufacturing level of the separator can be improved or the existing unit can be
retrofitted, the bed material quality can be significantly improved. A lower bed pressure drop can
be achieved without changing the size distribution of fed coal particles. The combustion efficiency
can be increased, and the gross coal consumption and net coal consumption can be both reduced. At
the same time, improvement in the separator efficiency is also beneficial to SO2 and NOx emission
control. Therefore, if the separator efficiency can be improved, the optimal bed pressure drop can be
further decreased.
For the 1D model used in this work, the consideration of some sub-models is simplified; for
example, the effect of secondary air penetration and desulfurization. Further improvement in the
submodels can help improve the accuracy of the 1D model. The separator efficiency is the most crucial
factor affecting bed material quality. The influence of separator efficiency on CFB boiler performance
can be analyzed more systematically in future work. Optimization of the secondary air ratio and
injection position can also be extended.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.Y. and J.L.; methodology, H.Y. and J.L.; software, X.L. and H.Y.;
validation, X.L.; formal analysis, X.L. and H.Y.; investigation, X.L., H.Y. and J.L.; resources, X.L.; data curation,
X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L.; writing—review and editing, X.L. and H.Y.; visualization, X.L.;
supervision, J.L.; project administration, X.L.; funding acquisition, X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, grant number 2018YFF0216005.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yang, H.R.; Yue, G.X. Updated design and operation experience of CFB boilers with energy saving process in
China. VGB Powertech 2011, 7, 49–53.
2. Yang, H.R.; Yue, G.X.; Lu, J.F.; Zhang, H. An update of circulating fluidized bed combustion (CFB) technology
in China. VGB Powertech 2012, 12, 75–79.
3. Su, J.; Zhao, X.X.; Zhang, J.C.; Liu, A.; Yang, H.; Yue, G.; Fu, Z. Design and operation of CFB boilers with low
bed inventory. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Xi’an,
China, 18 May 2009; pp. 212–218.
4. Yang, H.R.; Zhang, H.; Yang, S.; Yue, G.; Su, J.; Fu, Z. Effect of bed pressure drop on performance of a CFB
boiler. Energy Fuel 2009, 23, 2886–2890. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, M.; Bie, R.S.; Yu, Z.Z.; Jiang, X. Heat flux profile of the furnace wall of a 300MWe CFB boiler. Powder
Technol. 2010, 203, 548–554.
Energies 2020, 13, 376 19 of 20

6. Liu, X.M.; Zhang, M.; Lu, J.F.; Yang, H. Effect of furnace pressure drop on heat transfer in a 135 MW CFB
boiler. Powder Technol. 2015, 284, 19–24. [CrossRef]
7. Blaszczuk, A.; Nowak, W. Bed-to-wall heat transfer coefficient in a supercritical CFB boiler at different bed
particle sizes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2014, 79, 736–749. [CrossRef]
8. Liu, X.M.; Yin, W.D.; Wang, P.N.; Yang, H.R. Effect of bed pressure drop on combustion efficiency of CFB
boilers. J. China Coal Soc. 2016, 10, 2484–2489.
9. Liu, X.M.; Yang, H.R.; Lyu, J.F.; Qi, G. Effect of Flow-pattern Reconstruction on Combustion Efficiency and
Pollutant Emission in CFB Boiler. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Energy, Ecology
and Environment, Melbourne, Australia, 21 November 2018.
10. Yue, G.X.; Cai, R.X.; Lu, J.F.; Zhang, H. From a CFB reactor to a CFB boiler—The review of R&D progress of
CFB coal combustion technology in China. Powder Technol. 2017, 316, 18–28.
11. Li, J.J.; Zhang, M.; Yang, H.R.; Lu, J.F.; Zhao, X.X.; Zhang, J.C. The theory and practice of NOx emission
control for circulating fluidized bed boilers based on the re-specification of the fluidization state. Fuel Process.
Technol. 2016, 150, 88–93. [CrossRef]
12. Cai, R.X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Yang, H.; Lyu, J.; Yue, G. Development and application of the design
principle of fluidization state specification in CFB coal combustion. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 174, 41–52.
[CrossRef]
13. Ke, X.W.; Cai, R.X.; Zhang, M.; Miao, M.; Lyu, J.; Yang, H. Application of ultra-low NOx emission control for
CFB boilers based on theoretical analysis and industrial practices. Fuel Process. Technol. 2018, 181, 252–258.
[CrossRef]
14. Adanez, J.; Diego, L.; Gayan, P.; Armesto, L.; Cabanillas, A. A model for prediction of carbon combustion
efficiency in circulating fluidized bed combustors. Fuel 1995, 74, 1049–1056. [CrossRef]
15. Wang, Q.H.; Luo, Z.Y.; Li, X.T.; Fang, M.; Ni, M.; Cen, K. A mathematical model for a circulating fluidized
bed (CFB) boiler. Energy 1999, 24, 633–653. [CrossRef]
16. Gungor, A. One dimensional numerical simulation of small scale CFB combustors. Energy Convers. Manag.
2009, 50, 711–722. [CrossRef]
17. Wang, Q.H.; Luo, Z.Y.; Ni, M.J.; Cen, K. Particle population balance model for a circulating fluidized bed
boiler. Chem. Eng. J. 2003, 93, 121–133. [CrossRef]
18. Krzywanski, J.; Czakiert, T.; Muskala, W.; Sekret, R.; Nowak, W. Modeling of solids fuels combustion in
oxygen-enriched atmosphere in circulating fluidized bed boiler: Part 1. The mathematical model of fuel
combustion in oxygen-enriched CFB environment. Fuel Process. Technol. 2010, 91, 290–295. [CrossRef]
19. Blaszczuk, A.; Leszczynski, J.; Nowak, W. Simulation model of the mass balance in a supercritical circulating
fluidized bed combustor. Powder Technol. 2013, 246, 317–326. [CrossRef]
20. Adamczyk, W.P.; Wecel, G.; Klajny, M.; Kozołub, P. Modeling of particle transport and combustion phenomena
in a large-scale circulating fluidized bed boiler using a hybrid Euler–Lagrange approach. Particuology 2014,
16, 29–40. [CrossRef]
21. Adamczyk, W.P.; Myohanen, K.; Hartge, E.-U.; Ritvanen, J.; Klimanek, A.; Hyppänen, T.; Białecki, R.A.
Generation of data sets for semi-empirical models of circulated fluidized bed boilers using hybrid
Euler-Lagrange technique. Energy 2018, 15, 219–240. [CrossRef]
22. Xu, L.J.; Cheng, L.M.; Ji, J.Q.; Wang, Q.; Fang, M. A comprehensive CFD combustion model for supercritical
CFB boilers. Particuology 2019, 43, 29–37. [CrossRef]
23. Yang, H.R.; Yue, G.X.; Xiao, X.B.; Lu, J.; Liu, Q. 1D modeling on the material balance in CFB boiler. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 2005, 60, 5603–5611. [CrossRef]
24. Liu, X.M.; Zhang, M.; Hu, N.; Yang, H.; Lu, J. Calculation model of coal comminution energy consumption.
Miner. Eng. 2016, 92, 21–27. [CrossRef]
25. Ross, I.B.; Davidson, J.F. The combustion of carbon particles in a fluidized bed. Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng. 1982,
60, 108–114.
26. Yang, J.H.; Yang, H.R.; Yue, G.X. Experimental study on secondary air jet penetration in circulating fluidized
bed. J. Power Eng. 2008, 28, 509–513.
27. Garcia-Labiano, F.; Adanez, J.; Rubiera, F.; Fuertes, A.B.; Pis, J.J. Characterization of the reactivity of limestone
with SO2 in a fluidized bed reactor. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1992, 70, 734–741. [CrossRef]
28. Talukdar, J.; Basu, P. A simplified model of nitric oxide emission from a circulating fluidized bed combustor.
Can. J. Chem. Eng. 1995, 73, 635–643. [CrossRef]
Energies 2020, 13, 376 20 of 20

29. Krzywanski, J.; Czakiert, T.; Muskala, W.; Nowak, W. Modeling of CO2 , CO, SO2 , O2 and NOx emissions from
the oxy-fuel combustion in a circulating fluidized bed. Fuel Process. Technol. 2011, 92, 590–596. [CrossRef]
30. Li, J.J.; Yang, X.H.; Yang, H.R.; Lyu, J.F. Experimental study and modeling of NOx generation from char
nitrogen in the bubbling bed. J. China Coal Soc. 2016, 41, 1546–1553.
31. Lu, J.F.; Zhang, J.S.; Yue, G.X.; Liu, Q.; Yu, L.; Lin, X.D.; Li, W.J.; Tang, Y.; Luo, T.Y.; Ge, R.S. Method of
calculation of heat transfer coefficient of the heater in a circulating fluidized bed furnace. Heat Transf. -Asian
Res. 2002, 31, 540–550. [CrossRef]
32. Hu, N.; Li, Z.G.; Yang, H.R. Development and validation of a 1D CFB boiler combustion model. In
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustion, Napoli, Italy, 3 June 2012;
pp. 962–969.
33. Li, C.H. Desulfurization process and cost calculation for a 300MW CFB boiler. In Proceedings of the 7th
Symposium on Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction in the Power Industry, Hangzhou, China, 1
October 2012; pp. 29–31.
34. Rota, R.; Antos, D.; Zanoelo, E.F.; Morbidelli, M. Experimental and modeling analysis of the NOxOUT
process. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, 57, 27–38. [CrossRef]
35. Qu, W.D.; Zhou, J.Q.; Yang, J.H.; Qin, G.Y. SNCR denitrification system in CFB boilers: Optimization and
application. Therm. Power Gener. 2014, 43, 133–136.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).