Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.

1007/s12206-020-0141-4

Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020

Original Article
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
Detailed assessment of mesh sensitivity
for CFD simulation of coal combustion
Keywords:
· CFD
· Coal
in a tangential-firing boiler
· Combustion
· Boiler Hyunbin Jo1, Kiseop Kang1, Jongkeun Park1, Changkook Ryu1, Hyunsoo Ahn2
· Mesh sensitivity and Younggun Go2
· Unburned carbon
1
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 16419, Korea, 2Doosan Heavy
Industries and Construction, Yongin 16858, Korea
Correspondence to:
Changkook Ryu
E-mail: cryu@skku.edu
Abstract Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has become an essential tool for
optimizing the design and diagnosing the operation of a boiler. However, the validity of the
Citation: results depends on the degree of numerical diffusion as well as the reliability of the submodels.
Jo, H., Kang, K., Park, J., Ryu, C., Ahn, H.,
Go, Y. (2020). Detailed assessment of This study aims to assess mesh sensitivity in the reacting two-phase flow of pulverized coal in a
mesh sensitivity for CFD simulation of common tangential-firing boiler. Three mesh versions were constructed for the boiler with the
coal combustion in a tangential-firing number of cells ranging between 1.2 million and 5.4 million, corresponding to 0.0114 -
boiler. Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology 34 (2) (2020) 917~930. 0.0022 m3 per cell in the burner zone. The velocity distribution was found to be highly sensitive
http://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4 compared to temperature, heat flux, and NO concentration. By contrast, the use of key
performance parameters such as total wall heat absorption, exit NOx concentration, and
Received July 16th, 2019 carbon conversion, was not appropriate criteria for the mesh sensitivity test. These parameters
Revised November 16th, 2019 were determined by integration over the entire surface or volume, which made them sensitive
Accepted December 20th, 2019 to the overall reaction stoichiometry instead of the mesh fineness. It suggests that the use of a
coarse mesh could be acceptable in evaluating the key performance parameters influenced by
† Recommended by Editor major operation variables, such as air distribution and fuel properties. However, sufficient mesh
Yong Tae Kang fineness is necessary for studies requiring accurate prediction of detailed flow patterns such as
the evaluation of burner tilting/yawing or ash deposition on the wall.

© The Korean Society of Mechanical
Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH
Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
1. Introduction
Combined with efficient steam cycles and advanced combustion technologies with reduced
pollutant emission, coal-fired power generation has served as the most important source of
electricity worldwide for many years. However, it faces new challenges due to concerns involv-
ing greenhouse gas emissions as well as the increased use of renewable energy sources. This
means that coal-fired power plants must establish a new role for itself in the power industry by
improving their operational flexibility while further increasing energy efficiency and minimizing
environmental impact [1].
Most large-scale coal-fired boilers adopt one of the following two furnace configurations: Tan-
gential-firing (TF) and opposed wall-firing (WF). In a TF furnace, a series of coal burners and air
inlets are installed on the corners of a rectangular cross-section, which creates a large fireball
across the burner zone. In Korea, twenty plants adopting an almost identical TF furnace design
with a 500 MWe capacity are currently in operation, which are referred to as the ‘standard coal-
fired furnace’. In an opposed WF furnace, multiple layers of swirl burners are installed on the
front and rear walls, and these create individual jet flames colliding at the center of the furnace.
CFD is applied to the design optimization and operation diagnostics of coal-fired boilers
aimed to achieve high combustion efficiency, NOx reduction, alleviation of slagging/fouling, etc
[2]. It requires considering the detailed behavior and reactions of pulverized coal particles, typi-
cally having an average particle size of 50-55 μm. The calculation for the discrete particle
phase is performed using the Lagrangian scheme, tracking individual particles coupled with the

917
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

Table 1. Summary of CFD studies on a TF coal boiler in the literature.

Capacity No. of cells Mesh

Code Objectives and parameters Validation Ref.
(MW) (million) sensitivity
Wood chip burn-out and NOx in co-combustion by injection
150 2.04 CFX Exit values - [3]
level and burner yawing
NOx, heat absorption, and burn-out by burner yawing and the
200 5.00 Fluent Exit values - [4]
use of overfire air
300 0.95 Fluent Heat absorption and ash deposit by swirl-burner retrofit - - [5]
NOx and wall heat flux in straw co-combustion by cofiring ratio Measured temperature and
300 3.30 Fluent Tested [6]
up to 12 % exit values
500 0.96 Fluent NOx reduction and combustion with and without overfire air Exit values Tested [7]
Measured temperature and
500 3.00 Fluent Ash deposition by fuel blends and burner tilting (±30°) - [8]
velocity
Temperature and flow distribution in the crossover pass com-
500 7.00 Fluent Measured velocity - [9]
pared to measured data
Temperature and flow distribution, burn-out and NOx by differ-
500 4.13 Fluent Exit values Tested [10]
ent heat exchanger arrangement
NOx reduction and temperature distribution by the use of over- Measured NOx and exit
600 0.52 CFX Tested [11]
fire air values
Heat absorption, flow and temperature distribution by different
600 1.18 Fluent Measured NOx Tested [12]
overfire air ratios
Wall heat absorption, flow and reaction by the burner installed
600 0.74 Fluent Exit values and FEGT Tested [13]
on the corners and walls
Flow characteristics and heat absorption by SOFA yawing
600 1.18 - Measured velocity - [14]
(±20°)
Heat absorption and NOx by SOFA ratios up to 40 % and
600 1.64 Fluent Exit values Tested [15]
burner yawing
Measured temperature and
700 2.50 Fluent Burn-out, heat absorption and NOx by burner tilting up to 22° Tested [16]
exit values
800 3.40 CFX Heat absorption by coupled simulation with steam side Exit values Tested [17]
Exit temperature of heat
1000 3.20 Fluent Heat absorption by coupled simulation with steam side - [18]
exchanger and flue gas

gas phase in the Eulerian scheme. The interactions between
the two phases involving momentum, heat and mass transfers,
and heterogeneous reactions require repeated iterations to
converge. The reliability of the solution depends on the mesh
sensitivity, as well as the use of appropriate submodels and
input conditions.
The mesh sensitivity is associated with the influence of nu-
merical diffusion on the solution. Discretization of the governing
equations with a choice of a numerical scheme for the mesh
resolution and shape induces the numerical diffusion. The nu-
merical diffusion needs to be minimized by refining the mesh
combined with the alignment to the flow pattern and use of
higher-order discretization schemes. The mesh sensitivity test
to evaluate its influence on the key results is performed, typi-
cally by increasing the number of cells.
Table 1 lists some of the recent CFD studies on a TF furnace
[3-18]. For a boiler capacity range of 150 - 800 MW, CFD was
performed using commercial codes for various purposes, in-
cluding biomass co-combustion, NOx reduction, and the opti-
mization of operating parameters. The results were mostly
validated using the values at the boiler exit (typically econo-
mizer) and, in some cases [6, 15], through the in-furnace
measurement of temperature or velocity. The number of cells
used to construct the mesh ranges between 0.52 and 5 million.
Most studies carried out mesh sensitivity analysis, but the wide
variations in the number of cells conflict with each other. Fur-
thermore, the detailed methodologies used to assess the mesh
sensitivity differed between studies and were often not clear.
For example, the temperature and concentration of O2 at the
furnace exit were used as the criteria in Ref. [6], but the use of
exit values may underestimate mesh sensitivity. The tempera-
ture profile along the furnace height was used in Refs. [11, 14]
without any quantitative evaluation of the errors between the
meshes.
This study aims to improve the engineering practice of CFD
applications in a large-scale TF coal boiler to improve the de-
sign and diagnose operation, focusing on mesh sensitivity.
Three versions of mesh with up to 6 million cells were con-
structed for the standard 500 MW boiler in Korea. For each
mesh, CFD simulations were performed for three cases vary-
ing the air distribution and burner tilting, with the use of ad-
vanced submodels for coal devolatilization, char conversion,

918
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020
Fig. 1. Schematic of 500 MW coal-fired boiler with proposed retrofit includ-
ing installation of separated overfire air (SOFA).
and heat transfer through user-defined functions. Based on the
differences in the results, the mesh sensitivity was assessed in
two ways: i) Local profiles of velocity, temperature, heat flux,
and NO concentration, and ii) quantified values of key perform-
ance parameters. Then, an appropriate method for mesh sen-
sitivity and sufficient degree of mesh fineness depending on
the purpose of CFD simulation are discussed.
2. Target boiler and operation conditions
Fig. 1 shows a schematic representation of the 500 MW
coal-fired boiler selected for this study, which consists of a
burner zone with a TF configuration and a convective heat
exchanger section in the upper part. Its original design is often
referred to as the standard boiler in Korea, where 20 identical
units are currently in operation. The burner zone had six levels
of coal burners (A to F levels) divided into three sections with
two burners each. Each section has an identical arrangement
of coal and air supply ports, as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 1.
In each burner, the flow of coal and primary air is split into con-
centrated and weak ports, with more coal entering into the
former. Close-coupled over-fire air (CCOFA) is injected directly
above the burner zone and separated OFA (SOFA) 6.144 m
above. The convective heat exchanger section incorporates a
series of tube bundles for superheaters (SHs), reheaters (RHs),
and economizer (ECO) with different tube geometries and
steam conditions. The furnace itself is an evaporator built with
membrane tube walls. The steam pressure and temperature
leaving the final SH to the high-pressure turbine are 250.5 bar
(gauge) and 596°C, respectively. The various characteristics of
this boiler for combustion, heat transfer, NOx emission, and
slagging/fouling have been previously reported in the Refs. [7,
8, 19]. Note that the convective section differs from that of the
original boiler because this study was a part of the research
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
Table 2. Fuel properties of performance coal.
Analysis Coal
Total moisture 17.00
Inherent moisture 10.00
Proximate analysis
Volatile matter 31.36
(wt.%)
Fixed carbon 43.89
Ash 7.75
C 76.95
H 5.34
Ultimate analysis
(wt.%daf) O 16.01
N 1.19
S 0.51
HHV (kcal/kg) 5600
into its retrofit to improve its performance for low-rank coals
with poorer fuel quality than the original design coal. The instal-
lation of separated OFA (SOFA) was also included to achieve
lower NOx emissions.
Table 2 presents the properties of the new performance coal
considered for the boiler retrofit; it was sub-bituminous with a
higher heating value (HHV) of 5600 kcal/kg, significantly lower
than that of the original design coal (6300 kcal/kg).
In the operating condition for this study, 55.58 kg/s of coal
(equivalent to a thermal input of 1303 MWth) was pulverized
and then injected through burners A-E transported by primary
air at 77 °C. Burner F was standby. During the pulverization,
the coal was dried to a residual moisture content of 8.6 %, and
therefore the moisture evaporated was mixed with the primary
air. The secondary air (SA) with a total flow rate of 355.1 kg/s
at 326 °C was divided into the burner SA, CCOFA, and SOFA.
The overall excess air ratio was 12.94 %.
The detailed operating parameters varied into three cases for
a detailed evaluation of mesh sensitivity. In case 1 (reference
case), the flow ratios of CCOFA and SOFA were 5 % and 15 %
of the total air, respectively, which resulted in an air-fuel
equivalence ratio in the burner zone (λBZ) of 0.904. The burner
tilting of 15° upward was introduced in case 1T, which is per-
formed during operation to control the heat absorption on the
wall. Deeper air staging was tested in case 2 by increasing the
SOFA flow ratio to 20 % without tilting the burners.
3. Numerical methods
3.1 Mesh constructed for the boiler
Three versions of the mesh were constructed for the boiler
with different numbers of cells, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and
summarized in Table 3. V1 has approximately 1.23 million cells.
The mesh fineness for the burner zone was increased to 3.53
million cells in V2 and 5.47 million cells in V3, while maintaining
the identical mesh shape. The average cell volume in the
burner zone was 0.0114 m3 for V1, 0.0034 m3 for V2, and
0.0022 m3 for V3. The mesh employed hexahedral cells for
most of the furnace volume, which was favorable for conver-
919
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

Table 3. Number of cells and quality in the three versions of mesh con- stability. The higher-order schemes caused instability in the
structed for the boiler. solution associated with radiation by particles especially in low-
Mesh V1 V2 V3 velocity regions.
Table 4 summarizes the detailed submodels that were
Total number of cells 1229410 3529358 5469908
adopted. In the discrete phase method (DPM), coal particles
Number of cells in the burner
zone
965121 3214169 5101373 were represented by 10 different diameters ranging between
5.9 μm to 204 μm, with an average of 50 μm. In total, 49560
Average cell volume in the
0.0114 0.0034 0.0022 particles were tracked, with considerations of the turbulent
burner-zone [m3/cell]
dispersion, coal devolatilization, and char conversion along the
Cell equiangle skewness 0.1281 0.1234 0.1268
path. The coal devolatilization was modeled as a single step
Orthogonality 0.9321 0.9365 0.9330
+
reaction with product yields and rate constants acquired using
Burner zone y 931 299 222
FLASHCHAIN of PCCoalLab [20]. Based on the semi-
empirical coal network model, FLASHCHAIN predicts the dy-
namics of coal devolatilization, providing the product yields and
kinetics. As the coal devolatilization finished within a short resi-
dence time at heating rates well over 103 K/s, the ultimate
yields of primary pyrolysis were taken for tar, CO, CO2, H2O,
CH4, C2H4, C2H6, C3H6, HCN, and H2S, and implemented into
the CFD code using a user-defined function (UDF). The C2+
hydrocarbons were simplified to an imaginary species of CxHy.
The yield and composition of tar were also slightly modified to
include the H and O fractions of char, which allowed the model-
ing of char as a pure carbon solid. The formation enthalpy of
tar was calculated according to the energy balance between
the input coal and devolatilization products. The reaction kinet-
ics was calculated using a single Arrhenius rate with rate con-
stants presented in Table 4.
The char conversions by O2, CO2, and H2O were solved us-
ing the unreacted core shrinking model (UCSM) [21], appropri-
ate for the high-temperature reaction in the industrial-scale
furnace. This model included three competing rates of hetero-
geneous reactions: The surface reaction on the char core, gas
diffusion onto the particle surface, and gas diffusion through
the ash layer. It was implemented in the CFD code using a
Fig. 2. Mesh constructed for the boiler with three versions of different fine- UDF.
ness in the burner zone. The gaseous reactions were modeled using the global reac-
tion schemes described by Jones and Lindstedt [22] for hydro-
gence. Tetrahedral cells were used for the top and bottom carbon and Smith and Smoot [23] for tar. The reaction rate was
ends of the burner zone leading to the heat exchanger section calculated using the kinetic-rate/diffusion-rate model [24] to
and the bottom hopper, respectively. Each heat exchanger in consider turbulence-chemistry interaction. Turbulence was
the upper furnace was simulated as a zone with local convec- solved by the realizable k-ε model [25] which considers the
tion and radiation heat transfer and directional flow resistances swirling flow better than the standard k-ε model and provides
depending on tube geometry and alignment as opposed to better convergence than the Reynolds stress model. Although
modeling the complex tube geometry. This modeling method advanced turbulence models such as the large eddy simulation
was implemented using user subroutines, which is explained are available [26], applying such models for engineering prac-
later. Therefore, the mesh in the heat exchanger sections in tice for the large-scale coal boiler is rare because of excessive
the upper furnace consisted of simple orthogonal hexahedral computation costs [27]. The models based on the Reynolds-
cells, and this was identical across the three mesh versions. averaged Navier-Stokes approach are common in engineering
applications listed in Table 1. Radiation was solved using the
discrete ordinate method with the weighted sum of the gray
3.2 CFD submodels
gases model for gas absorption [28].
CFD simulations were performed using ANSYS Fluent (ver- Regarding the heat transfer, the entire furnace wall (evapora-
sion 17.2). In the solution method, the PRESTO! scheme was tor) was assumed to have a fixed temperature of 652.15 K with
used for pressure-velocity coupling and the QUICK scheme for an overall heat transfer coefficient of 250 W/m2K and an inner
spatial discretization which provided the best convergence and wall emissivity of 0.7; the temperature corresponded to the

920
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

Table 4. Summary of submodels adopted for boiler simulation.

Category Submodels
Coal combustion -Devolatilization: FLASHCHAIN [20]
Dry coal→58.56 wt.%daf volatiles + 32.91 wt.%daf C(s)(Char)
Composition of Volatiles (wt.%daf): Tar 32.57, CO 3.31, CO2 3.89, H2O 14.35, H2 0.71, CH4 1.99, CxHy 1.73
-Devolatilization rate:
dV æ E ö 3
= A exp ç - ÷ (V0 - V ) ; E = 5.49 kcal/mol, A = 7.89×10 s-1
dt è RT ø
-Char combustion: Unreacted core shrinking model [21]
1
Rchar ,i =
1 1 1 æ1 ö i
( P - Pi * ) éëgcm-2 s-1 ùû
+ + ç - 1 ÷
kdiff ,i ks ,iY 2 kdash ,i è Y ø
kdash = kdiff ε 2.5 , Y = d char / d p
(R1) C(s) + 0.5 O2 → CO
0.75
ks = 8710 exp(-17967 / Ts ), kdiff = 1.383 ´ 10-3 (T / 1800 ) / ( Pt d p )
*
Pi - Pi = PO2
(R2) C(s) + H2O → CO+H2
0.75
ks = 247 exp(-21060 / Ts ), kdiff = 1 ´ 10-3 (T / 2000 ) / ( Pd
t p)

Pi - Pi = PH 2O - ( PH 2 × PCO ) / K eq , K eq = exp[17.644 - 30260 / (1.8Ts )]

*

(R3) C(s) + CO2 → 2 CO

0.75
ks = 247 exp(-21060 / Ts ), kdiff = 7.45 ´ 10-4 (T / 2000 ) / ( Pd
t p)

*
Pi - Pi = PCO2

Species, gas -Species: Tar, CO, CO2, H2, CH4, CxHy, H2, SO2, O2, N2
reaction -Reaction mechanism [22, 23]
(R4) CxHyOz (tar) + a .O2 → x CO + 0.5y H2
(R5) CnHm + 0.5n .O2 → n CO + 0.5m H2
(R6) CnHm + 0.5n H.2O → n CO + 0.5(m+n) H2
(R7) CH4 + 0.5 .O2 → CO + 2 H2
(R8) CH4 + 0.5 H.2O → CO + 2.5 H2
(R9) CO + H2O → CO2 + H2
(R10) H2 + 0.5 O2 → H2O
-Reaction rate: kinetic-rate/eddy-dissipation rate model [24]
Discrete phase -Lagrangian scheme with stochastic tracking for turbulence
-Number of particles: 49560
-Particle size: 5.88-204μm
Turbulence -Realizable k-ε model [25]
Radiation -Discrete ordinate method
-Gas absorption: Weighted sum of gray-gases model [28]
Tube bundles -Flow resistance by Jakob’s correlation [30]
-Volumetric heat source by convection (Zukauskas correlation [31]) and radiation
Wall condition -Overall heat transfer coefficient: 250 W/m2K
-Water/steam temperature: 352 °C
-Emissivity: 0.7
NOx -Thermal NOx: Extended Zeldovich mechanism [32]
-Fuel NOx: De Soete model [33] with volatile-N released as HCN and NH3 (5:1), and char-N as NO

average water/steam temperature between the inlet and outlet.
The heat transfer coefficient was tuned to meet the design
value of the wall heat absorption (562 MWth), but was consis-
tent with the measured values (3.51-4.37 m2K/kW of thermal
resistance equivalent to 229-285 W/m2K depending on coal
types) in the boiler [19].
vection, and radiation considering the detailed geometry infor-
mation of tubes. The details of this method have been pre-
sented elsewhere [29]. Briefly, the inertial resistance in the
lateral and transverse directions was calculated using the Ja-
kob’s correlation [30] as follows
0.14

The SHs, RHs, and ECO tube bundles were simplified as 2 f ¢Gmax 2 N L æ μs ö
Δp = ç ÷ (1)
porous zones having the source terms for flow resistance, con- ρ è μø

921
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

é ù -0.15 Table 5. Number of iterations and relative computation time for each of the
0.08 ( S L / D )
f ¢ = ê0.044 + 0.43+1.13 D / S L ú
Re (2) three meshes.
êë ( ST / D - 1) úû
Number of gas phase iterations DPM Relative
Method Cold flow Hot flow calcula- computation
where D denotes the tube diameter and S L and ST repre- Total tion time
simulation simulation
sent the spacings in the lateral and transverse directions, re-
V1 10000 10000 20000 333 1
spectively. The inertial resistance in each cell for the local ve-
locity and gas properties was updated using a UDF. Similarly, V2 10000 20000 30000 666 6.468
the heat transfer rate in each cell was calculated as the sum of V3 10000 22500 32500 750 9.444
convection ( q&conv ) and radiation ( q&rad ) as follows

k gas Nu
q&conv = f tuning As
D
(T
gas - Ttube ) éë W / m3 ùû (3)

q&rad = f tuning εσAs (Tgas 4 - Ttube 4 ) éë W / m3 ùû (4)

The Nusselt number ( Nu ) for convection was determined

using the Zukauskas correlation [31]:

Nu = 0.40 Re D 0.6 Pr 0.36 (5)

In the above equations, As denotes the specific tube surface

area per unit volume. The heat transfer rates were also imple-
mented using a UDF. Due to the simplified calculation and the
thermal resistance by slagging/fouling, a correction factor
( f tuning ) was introduced in Eqs. (3) and (4) to match the pre-
dicted heat transfer rates to the design values.
Fig. 3 compares the distributions of heat absorption in the
heat exchangers between the design values and the CFD re-
sults for the mesh V2. The heat transfer rates predicted by
CFD were very close to the design values in all of the heat
exchangers, which implies that the predicted temperature dis-
tribution along the furnace height was reasonable.
3.3 Coupled iteration with the DPM
In the solution method, the DPM calculations coupled with
the gas phase (hot flow simulation) were conducted after the
initial air flow pattern was established with 10000 iterations of
the gas phase alone (cold flow simulation). In the hot flow
simulation, each DPM calculation was performed in every 30
gas phase iterations, and the source terms from the particles
were updated with an under-relaxation factor of 0.15. This
meant that at least 83 times of DPM calculation and 83×30
iterations for the gas phase were required for the updated
source term to reach 99.9999 % of the total, even without any
interactions with the gas phase. As summarized in Table 5, the
actual solution required a substantially larger number of itera-
tions (10000 iterations for the mesh V1, 20000 for V2, and
22500 for V3 after the cold flow simulation) for the conver-
gence with a criterion of less than 3 % variation over 500 itera-
tions in the velocity profile along the centerline. This involved
repeated DPM tracking by 333 to 750 times depending on the
mesh version, which decreased the dependency on the limited
number of particles (49560) at the same time. Also, the velocity
Fig. 3. Comparison of heat absorption distribution between design values
and CFD results.
variation corresponded to 0.33 % variation in the temperature
profile and 0.12 % variation in the wall heat absorption for V2.
Similar variations were monitored for other meshes.
The computation times to reach the convergence for V2 and
V3 were 6.47 and 9.44 times that of V1, as also listed in Table 5.
3.4 Post-processing for NO emission and ash
slagging
NO emissions by thermal and fuel NOx mechanisms were
predicted by post-processing the CFD results. The prompt NO
mechanism was ignored as its contribution was negligible. The
thermal NOx reactions were based on the extended Zeldovich
mechanism with rate constants taken from Hanson and Sali-
mian [32]. The local concentrations of O and OH radicals were
determined by the partial equilibrium assumption. The fuel NOx
mechanism considered the release of fuel-N during the devola-
tilization and char conversion [33]. The partitioning of fuel-N
into volatile-N and char-N was acquired using FLASHCHAIN.
In the volatile-N, the N intermediates were assumed to be HCN
5: NH3 1. Char-N was directly converted into NO. The reduction
of NO to N2 by active carbon on the char surface was also
considered, with a BET surface area of 100 m2/g.
Furthermore, the ash slagging caused by the deposition of
sticky ash particles onto the wall was evaluated for the three
mesh versions. Ash slagging is associated with boiler efficiency

922
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020
[m/s]
(a) V1
Fig. 4. Comparison of velocity contours on selected cross-sections for case 1.
and operational issues. It reduces the wall heat transfer and, if
severe, damages the boiler. The slagging tendency was pre-
dicted by developing a UDF that integrated the rate of ash
particles impacting on the wall cells by post-processing of the
CFD results for trajectories of approximately 2.2 million parti-
cles.
m& slag = åm& impact ηcapture [ kg / s ]
π
m& impact = w ρd p 3 [ kg / s ]
6
The particle mass ( m& impact ) included a weighting factor ( w )
to consider the actual mass flow rate represented by each
particle tracked. It was multiplied by capture efficiency ( ηcapture )
[34] which was determined by the sticking probability ( ηv ) and
a threshold of carbon conversion ( ηc ) for each particle.
ηcapture = ηc ηv
ì 1 if μash < μcrt
where ηv = í
î crt ash if μash > μcrt
μ / μ
ì 0 if x < xcrt
and ηc = í
î 1 if x > xcrt
ηv was based on the ash viscosity of ash with critical vis-
cosity ( μcrt ) varying between 104 and 108 Pa·s [34]. In this
study, 105 Pa·s was selected for comparison between the
meshes. If the particle temperature was high enough to have
the viscosity below the critical viscosity, ηv becomes 1; oth-
erwise, it takes the value of the viscosity ratio. The ash viscos-
ity was determined using the Urbain model [35] for the compo-
sition of design coal (CaO 2.69, MgO 0.90, SiO2 57.29, Al2O3
29.34, Fe2O3 4.39, Na2O 0.30, K2O 0.70, TiO2 1.30, and mis-
cellaneous 3.09 wt.%), as follows.
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
(b) V2 (c) V3
μash = 4.0378 ´ 10-11T exp ( 36.9753 ´ 103 / T ) (11)
ηc was introduced to ηcapture based on the fact that the char
particle requires sufficient ash buildup on its surface to be
sticky. The critical carbon conversion ( x crt ) as the threshold
value was 0.9 [36].
(6) 4. Results and discussion
(7) 4.1 Comparison of results for case 1
Fig. 4 compares the velocity magnitude on the center and
horizontal planes between the three meshes in case 1. On each
horizontal cross-section, the jet flow from each corner can be
identified clearly. This developed a swirling flame (fireball) over
20 m/s across the burner zone. The fireball had three crescent-
shaped high-velocity regions on the vertical cross-section, which
coincides with the three burner sections (A/B, C/D, and E/F
(8) burners). This was because the fireball was forced towards the
center by the air supply in the three burner sections and was
(9) then expanded to the wall by the centrifugal force in the gap
between the burner sections. Above the burner zone, the swirl-
ing flow expanded to the wall because the momentum keeping
(10)
the fireball at the center no longer existed, resulting in an
enlarged low-velocity region at the center. The meshes V2 and
V3 exhibited similar patterns when these high- and low-velocity
regions were compared. By contrast, differences were notice-
able in V1 in various locations, as indicated by dotted circles in
Fig. 4(a). The results are evaluated quantitatively later.
Fig. 5 compares the temperature distribution for the refer-
ence case. The fireball had high temperatures as a result of the
mixing and reactions between coal and air. The temperature
gradually increased along the burner height as more coal and
air were supplied, and ultimately peaked in the uppermost
burner level. It then decreased with the injection of SOFA. As
923
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020
[℃]
(a) V1
Fig. 5. Comparison of temperature contour for case 1.
soon as the gas entered the heat exchanger zone, the tem-
perature dropped rapidly. Part of the flow from the A/B burner
section entered the bottom hopper and was cooled down
through heat transfer to the wall. The cold flow then entered the
center of the fireball, creating a convex shape in the low-
temperature region in the lower burner levels. By comparing
the temperature patterns between the meshes, it was observed
that the convex shape of the low-temperature region at the
center of the fireball was narrower in V1. In addition, the high-
temperature region in the E/F burner section was enlarged.
Some differences were noticeable on the horizontal cross-
sections between V2 and V3, but these were not significant to
those between V1 and V3.
For quantitative analysis, the temperature and velocity mag-
nitude profiles along the vertical centerline across the furnace
and the horizontal centerline on the burner D level are com-
pared in Fig. 6. The temperature profiles were very similar be-
tween the meshes. However, the velocity magnitude profile of
V1 deviated largely from that of V3, whereas V2 had a very
similar pattern to that of V3. For the data sets, the relative er-
rors in the results of V1 and V2 were determined with respect
to those of V3, as follows.
Relative error ( % ) =
ò φ - φ ds
i 3
(12)
òφ ds
3
φi denotes the temperature or velocity magnitude for a
mesh version i, and s denotes the coordinate along the line.
The relative errors for V1 were 17.6 % for velocity magnitude
and 1.1 % for temperature on the vertical centerline. By con-
trast, the values for V2 were decreased to 4.8 % and 0.7 %,
respectively. Similar trends were observed in the profiles on the
horizontal centerline. The relative error of V1 was 28.9 % for
924
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
(b) V2 (c) V3
velocity magnitude and 2.2 % for temperature, whereas it was
lowered to 6.4 % and 0.6 %, respectively, for V2. In particular,
the velocity profile across the fireball in V1 was significantly
attenuated compared to that of V2 and V3.
The results were further compared qualitatively for heat trans-
fer, char conversion, and NOx reaction, which are associated
with the performance of the boiler design and operation. Fig. 7
compares the total heat flux by radiation and convection on the
wall among the three meshes for the reference case. The heat
flux increased when the hot flow including particles (char and
ash) approached the wall. Compared to the complex pattern of
V3, the region of high heat flux, above 200 kW/m2, between the
burner C level and SOFA was flattened significantly in V1. This
was associated with the numerical diffusion, which did not cap-
ture the secondary flow patterns and sharp temperature varia-
tions near the wall sufficiently. By contrast, V2 exhibited very
similar patterns to those of V3.
Fig. 8 compares the reaction rate of char by O2 between the
three meshes for the reference case. The char reactions oc-
curred rapidly in the high-velocity regions of the fireball where
O2 was available. On the other hand, the reaction was not sig-
nificant at the center of the fireball because the char particle
concentration was low and O2 was depleted. Above the burner
zone, the char reaction continued in the fireball up to the first
heat exchanger section (primary SH). The high concentration
of char particles near the wall without efficient mixing led to the
release of unburned carbon in fly ash. Although the reaction in
the mesh V1 was more spread out at the center of the fireball,
the char reaction patterns were overall similar between the
mesh versions.
Fig. 9 compares the NO reaction rate between the three
meshes for the reference case. Here, a negative value indicates
the reduction of NO by the fuel and thermal NO reaction
mechanisms. NO was rapidly generated near the burner jets
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Profiles of velocity magnitude and temperature on the vertical centerline (a) and (b); on the horizontal centerline of the burner D level (c) and (d) for
case 1.

[kW/m2]
formation above 1x10-6 kmol/m3s coincided with those of rapid
char oxidation shown in Fig. 8. Outside these regions, NO re-
duction reactions were active due to the depletion of O2. In
particular, the reduction reactions were dominant in the wide
volume between the top of the burner zone and SOFA. This
was the main purpose of installing the SOFA in the boiler retro-
fit. Overall, the reaction patterns were similar among meshes
because of the identical reaction stoichiometry, as determined
by the distribution of combustion air.
If the local profiles of wall heat flux or NO concentration were
analyzed, the magnitude of numerical diffusion increased to a
similar degree with those of temperature and velocity magni-
tude. For example, the relative error in the profile of wall heat
flux shown in Fig. 10(a) was 5.6 % for the mesh V1 and 2.8 %
for V2. These values were comparable to those for tempera-
ture. The NO concentration as shown in Fig. 10(b) was more
sensitive to the mesh with relative errors of 16.2 % and 7.6 %
(a) V1 (b) V2 (c) V3
for V1 and V2, respectively. In particular, the profile was flat-
Fig. 7. Comparison of wall heat flux for case 1. tened significantly in the NO profile for V1, which can be mis-
leading if employed for detailed analysis to adjust the burner
design and operation for NOx reduction.
by the oxidation of HCN and NH3 from coal devolatilization and In addition to comparing profiles, the key parameters associ-
release of NO from the char-N conversion. The regions of NO ated with boiler performance were analyzed: Carbon conversion,

925
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

Table 6. Comparison of key performance parameters for cases 1, 2 and 1T.

Case Case 1 Case 2 Case 1T

Mesh V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V3 V1 V2 V3
Char + O2 66.88 63.98 65.19 65.02 62.31 64.59 70.55 66.15 66.61
Char + CO2 21.48 23.21 22.61 23.73 26.05 24.21 19.10 21.50 21.26
Carbon conversion [%]
Char + H2O 11.42 12.45 11.96 10.97 11.22 10.83 10.35 12.36 12.13
Total 99.78 99.64 99.76 99.72 99.59 99.64 99.86 99.81 99.78
Exit O2 [mol.%] 2.485 2.494 2.476 2.495 2.516 2.515 2.474 2.477 2.483
Exit NO [ppm, 6%O2] 109.4 107.4 109.4 98.8 97.7 98.3 126.4 112.3 109.0
Total 592.4 598.6 599.5 577.1 580.7 583.7 577.47 579.70 574.91
Furnace wall heat
Radiation 555.7 560.5 561.9 541.0 543.7 546.9 540.53 542.24 538.25
absorption [MWth]
Convection 36.7 38.1 37.6 36.1 37.0 36.8 36.94 37.46 36.66

[kgmol/m3·s] exit NO and O2 concentrations, and wall heat absorption.

(log-scale)
These values have been used for mesh sensitivity analysis in
several studies listed in Table 1. Table 6 compares the pa-
rameters for the three mesh versions. Surprisingly, the values
between the meshes were found to be very similar. In particu-
lar, the results of V1 deviated by less than 2 % from those of
V3, despite the large differences in the flow and temperature
patterns in the burner zone. This is further discussed with the
results for cases 2 and 1T.
Finally, the ash deposition rate on the front wall was calcu-
lated by post-processing of the CFD results. As shown in Fig.
11, it was influenced by the swirling fireball and the secondary
flow pattern circulating near the wall. The deposition patterns
were overall similar, but the deposition rate showed a strong
dependence on the mesh fineness. In terms of the total deposi-
tion rate, the mesh V1 was 32.5 % larger than that of V3
whereas V2 was 7.3 % larger. This was comparable to the
(a) V1 (b) V2 (c) V3 relative errors in the velocity profile mentioned previously. The
Fig. 8. Comparison of char oxidation rate for case 1. results suggest that V1 would not be acceptable for the quanti-
tative evaluation of ash slagging. Even V3 may not be fine
[kmol/m3·s]
enough to be free from the mesh sensitivity issue for the ash
deposition rate. The strong mesh dependence in ash slagging
is associated with the flow pattern in the near-wall region. In a
fine mesh, detailed velocity distribution can be acquired in
small near-wall cells for particle trajectories to become evasive
from wall impaction. In contrast, a single velocity vector in the
large near-wall cell of a coarse mesh can lead to over-
estimation of ash deposition. Therefore, a fine mesh should be
used because of the strong mesh dependence if the purpose
of the CFD study is on ash slagging and related behaviors.

4.2 Comparison of results for case 2

In order to confirm that the same level of differences in the
key performance parameters between the three meshes is
achieved for different operating conditions, the proportion of
SOFA was increased from 15 to 20 % in case 2. Correspond-
ingly, the amount of secondary air in the burner zone was de-
(a) V1 (b) V2 (c) V3 creased. Table 6 includes the key performance parameters
Fig. 9. Comparison of NO reaction rate for case 1. between the meshes for case 2. Due to the reduced λBZ (case

926
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020
(a)
(b)
Fig. 10. Profiles of (a) wall heat flux on the side wall; (b) NO concentration
on the centerline of burner D level in case 1.
(a) V1 (b) V2 (c) V3
Fig. 11. Comparison of ash deposition rate on the front wall.
1: 0.904, case 2: 0.847), a decrease in gas temperature and
depletion of oxygen in a wider region was observed. As a result,
the heat absorption in the furnace wall was 15-18 MWth lower
than that in case 1. Further, NOx emission decreased by ap-
proximately 10 ppm with a smaller contribution of thermal NO
mechanism. Similar to the results in case 1, the three mesh
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
(a) V1 (b) V2 (c) V3
Fig. 12. Comparison of z-velocity contour on the burner B level in case 1T.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 13. Comparison of (a) carbon concentration; (b) velocity magnitude
profile on the centerline of burner A level for case 1T.
versions exhibited the same trend. The heat absorption on the
furnace wall tended to become lower in the meshes V1 and V2
with deviations of 1.13 % and 0.51 % from that of the mesh V3,
respectively. The deviations in NOx emission from that in V3
were within 0.6 ppm.
The above results suggest that the key performance pa-
rameters have little dependence on the mesh fineness for
change in the air distribution. This was because these parame-
ters were determined by integration over the entire furnace
surface or volume. This made them relatively insensitive to
local variations in temperature, velocity, or species concentra-
tion and, therefore, the influence of numerical diffusion was
927
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020
diminished. Instead, the parameters were more influenced by
overall input variables such as burner zone stoichiometry (λBZ)
and fuel properties that shifted the entire reaction and flow
characteristics in a certain direction. On the other hand, a mesh
comparable to V1 can be acceptable if the purpose is to inves-
tigate the influence of those major variables on the key per-
formance parameters.
4.3 Comparison of results for case 1T
The burner tilting by 15° upward in case 1T is a minor
change in the operation parameter from case 1. Table 6 also
compares the key performance parameters acquired for this
case. Because the fireball and corresponding high heat flux
regions on the wall were moved upward by the burner tilting,
the wall heat absorption was decreased by approximately 25
MWth to 574.9 MWth from case 1 for V3, which in turn increased
the proportion of heat absorption in the tube bundles. V1 and
V2 had similar values in the wall heat absorption and carbon
conversion with V3. However, a significant difference was ob-
served in NO emission for V1 which was 17.4 ppm higher than
that of V3. The difference was large enough to mislead the
effect of burner tilting. In contrast, V2 was 3.3 ppm higher,
which is an acceptable deviation.
Elucidating the reason for the larger NO emission in V1 for
this case required a detailed analysis of the results which was
caused by the subtle change in the operating parameter. It was
associated with different secondary flow patterns that influ-
enced particle trajectories, char conversion, and fuel NOx reac-
tions. Fig. 12 compares the z-velocity contour on the burner B
level. The secondary flows near the wall in V1 were stronger
and headed upward (positive z-velocity) whereas those in V2
and V3 were weaker and mostly downward. Because the char
particles were concentrated in near-wall region, those from the
lowermost burners in V1 were mostly entrained with the up-
ward swirling flow. In contrast, the particles in V2 and V3
flowed downward to enter the bottom cone region or upward
along the near-wall region. Those in the bottom cone region
then flowed upward through the center of the fireball. As a
result, char particles were more concentrated in the near-wall
region on the burner A level in V2 and V3 as shown in Fig.
13(a). According to the fuel NO mechanism, the char particles
produced NO from char-N and at the same time reduced NO to
N2. The resultant NO concentration became lower compared to
that in V1. Such a difference would have been difficult to notice
while using the velocity magnitude profile on the centerline as
shown in Fig. 13(b).
To summarize, the mesh sensitivity was more influential for
the minor operational change and the large relative error in the
velocity profile of V1 led to significant differences in NO emis-
sion and particle behaviors. Therefore, a mesh comparable to
V2 or finer should be used to achieve improved accuracy for
simulations requiring detailed analyses of flow patterns and
local flow/reaction phenomena by minor changes in design or
operation variables such as burner angle for tilting or yawing
928
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
and shape/size of air supply ports.
5. Conclusions
This study investigated the issues associated with mesh
sensitivity to improve the current engineering CFD practice
applied to the design and operation diagnostics of a coal-fired
boiler. Differences in local variables, ash slagging on the wall,
and key performance parameters were evaluated for three
versions of the mesh with average cell volumes ranging be-
tween 0.0114 and 0.0022 m3/cell which corresponded to ap-
proximately 0.97 and 3.2 million cells in the burner zone for the
500 MW TF boiler selected in this study. The mesh sensitivity
could be evaluated better by velocity magnitude profile which
was the most sensitive to the mesh fineness compared to NO
concentration, temperature, and wall heat flux. The mesh ver-
sion with 0.0114 m3/cell led to a larger fireball formed in the
burner zone and flattened the heat flux on the wall because of
the increased numerical diffusion. In contrast, the overall per-
formance parameters, such as the total wall heat absorption,
NO and O2 concentrations, and carbon conversion, were not
sensitive to mesh size. This suggests that the use of a coarse
mesh is acceptable for evaluating the influence of major design
and operating variables such as the burner zone stoichiometry
and fuel properties on those parameters. Therefore, the find-
ings of CFD studies with relatively coarse meshes are justified
in relation to the reported literature. However, a mesh finer than
0.0034 m3/cell is required to accurately capture the secondary
flow pattern and associated particle behaviors if minor de-
sign/operation changes are to be considered such as burner
tilting and yawing. Finally, the finest mesh should be employed
for analysis of ash slagging because of its strong mesh de-
pendence in the near-wall region.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) affiliated with
the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy of the Korean Gov-
ernment (Contract No. 20181110200190). The authors would
also like to thank Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction
for their help and support.
References
[1] M. A. Gonzalez-Salazar, T. Kirsten and L. Prchlik, Review of
the operational flexibility and emissions of gas-and coal-fired
power plants in a future with growing renewables, Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82 (2018) 1497-1513.
[2] V. V. Ranade and D. F. Gupta, Computational Modeling of
Pulverized Coal Fired Boilers, CRC Press (2014).
[3] H. Gao, A. Runstedtler, A. Majeski, P. Boisvert and D. Camp-
bell, Optimizing a woodchip and coal co-firing retrofit for a
power utility boiler using CFD, Biomass and Bioenergy, 88
(2016) 35-42.
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020
[4] X. Zhang, J. Zhou, S. Sun, R. Sun and M. Qin, Numerical in-
vestigation of low NOx combustion strategies in tangentially-
fired coal boilers, Fuel, 142 (2015) 215-221.
[5] N. Modlinski, Computational modeling of a utility boiler tangen-
tially-fired furnace retrofitted with swirl burners, Fuel Process-
ing Technology, 91 (11) (2010) 1601-1608.
[6] S. R. Gubba, D. B. Ingham, K. J. Larsen, L. Ma, M. Pourka-
shanian, H. Z. Tan, A. Williams and H. Zhou, Numerical model-
ling of the co-firing of pulverised coal and straw in a 300 MWe
tangentially fired boiler, Fuel Processing Technology, 104
(2012) 181-188.
[7] C. R. Choi and C. N. Kim, Numerical investigation on the flow,
combustion and NOx emission characteristics in a 500 MWe
tangentially fired pulverized-coal boiler, Fuel, 88 (9) (2009)
1720-1731.
[8] K. Jang, K. Han, G. Lee, S. H. Baek, H. Y. Park and K. Y. Huh,
Prediction of the ash deposition characteristics of blended
coals in a 500 MWe tangentially fired boiler, Energy & Fuels,
32 (7) (2018) 7827-7840.
[9] B. Akkinepally, J. Shim and K. Yoo, Numerical and experimen-
tal study on biased tube temperature problem in tangential fir-
ing boiler, Applied Thermal Engineering, 126 (2017) 92-99.
[10] P. Tan, Q. Fang, S. Zhao, C. Yin, C. Zhang, H. Zhao and G.
Chen, Causes and mitigation of gas temperature deviation in
tangentially fired tower-type boilers, Applied Thermal Engineer-
ing, 139 (2018) 135-143.
[11] L. I. Díez, C. Cortés and J. Pallarés, Numerical investigation
of NOx emissions from a tangentially-fired utility boiler under
conventional and overfire air operation, Fuel, 87 (7) (2008)
1259-1269.
[12] Y. Liu, W. Fan and Y. Li, Numerical investigation of air-staged
combustion emphasizing char gasification and gas tempera-
ture deviation in a large-scale, tangentially fired pulverized-coal
boiler, Applied Energy, 177 (2016) 323-334.
[13] S. Chen, B. He, D. He, Y. Cao, G. Ding, X. Liu, Z. Duan, X.
Zhang, J. Song and X. Lia, Numerical investigations on differ-
ent tangential arrangements of burners for a 600 MW utility
boiler, Energy, 122 (2017) 287-300.
[14] Y. C. Liu, W. D. Fan and M. Z. Wu, Experimental and numeri-
cal studies on the gas velocity deviation in a 600 MWe tangen-
tially fired boiler, Applied Thermal Engineering, 110 (2017)
553-563.
[15] Q. Zha, D. Li, C. A. Wang and D. Che, Numerical evaluation
of heat transfer and NOx emissions under deep-air-staging
conditions within a 600 MWe tangentially fired pulverized-coal
boiler, Applied Thermal Engineering, 116 (2017) 170-181.
[16] P. Tan, D. Tian, Q. Fang, L. Ma, C. Zhang, G. Chen, L. Zhong
and H. Zhang, Effects of burner tilt angle on the combustion
and NOx emission characteristics of a 700 MWe deep-air-
staged tangentially pulverized-coal-fired boiler, Fuel, 196
(2017) 314-324.
[17] H. Y. Park, M. Faulkner, M. D. Turrell, P. J. Stopford and D. S.
Kang, Coupled fluid dynamics and whole plant simulation of
coal combustion in a tangentially-fired boiler, Fuel, 89 (8)
(2010) 2001-2010.
DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4
[18] T. Chen and W. Z. Wang, Modeling of combustion and hy-
drodynamics for a coal-fired supercritical boiler with double-
reheat cycle, International Journal of Numerical Methods for
Heat & Fluid Flow (2019).
[19] H. Y. Park, J. E. Lee, H. H. Kim, S. Park, S. H. Baek, I. Ye
and C. Ryu, Thermal resistance by slagging and its relation-
ship with ash properties for six coal blends in a commercial
coal-fired boiler, Fuel, 235 (2019) 1377-1386.
[20] S. Niksa, PC Coal Lab Version 4.1: User Guide and Tutorial,
Niksa Energy Associates LLC, Belmont, CA (1997).
[21] C. Y. Wen and T. Z. Chaung, Entrainment coal gasification
modeling, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Process Design
and Development, 18 (4) (1979) 684-695.
[22] W. P. Jones and R. P. Lindstedt, Global reaction schemes for
hydrocarbon combustion, Combustion and Flame, 73 (3)
(1988) 233-249.
[23] L. D. Smoot and P. J. Smith, Coal Combustion and Gasifica-
tion, Springer Science & Business Media (2013).
[24] B. F. Magnussen and B. H. Hjertager, On mathematical mod-
eling of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot
formation and combustion, Proceedings of the Combustion In-
stitute, 16 (1977) 719-729.
[25] T. H. Shih, W. W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang and J. Zhu, A
new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbu-
lent flows, Computers & Fluids, 24 (3) (1995) 227-238.
[26] C. D. Argyropoulos and N. C. Markatos, Recent advances on
the numerical modelling of turbulent flows, Applied Mathemati-
cal Modelling, 39 (2015) 693-732.
[27] W. P. Adamczyk, B. Isaac, J. Parra-Alvarez, S. T. Smith, D.
Harris, J. N. Thornock, M. Zhou, P. J. Smith and R. Zmuda,
Application of LES-CFD for predicting pulverized-coal working
conditions after installation of NOx control system, Energy, 160
(2018) 693-709.
[28] T. F. Smith, Z. F. Shen and J. N. Friedman, Evaluation of
coefficients for the weighted sum of gray gases model, Journal
of Heat Transfer, 104 (4) (1982) 602-608.
[29] J. K. Park, S. Park, M. Kim, C. Ryu, S. H. Baek, Y. J. Kim and
H. Y. Park, CFD analysis of combustion characteristics for fuel
switching to bioliquid in oil-fired power plant, Fuel, 159 (2015)
324-333.
[30] M. Jakob, Heat transfer and flow resistance in cross flow of
gases over tube bank, Transaction ASME, 60 (1938) 384.
[31] R. K. Hanson and S. Salimian, Survey of rate constants in the
N/H/O system, Combustion Chemistry, Springer, New York,
NY (1984) 361-421.
[32] G. G. De Soete, Overall reaction rates of NO and N2 forma-
tion from fuel nitrogen, Proceedings of the Combustion Institute,
15 (1975) 1093-1102.
[33] A. Žukauskas, Heat transfer from tubes in crossflow, Ad-
vances in Heat Transfer, 8 (1972) 93-160.
[34] L. Y. Huang, J. S. Norman, M. Pourkashanian and A. Wil-
liams, Prediction of ash deposition on superheater tubes from
pulverized coal combustion, Fuel, 7 (1996) 271-279.
[35] G. Urbain, F. Cambier, M. Deletter and M. R. Anseau, Viscos-
ity of silicate melts, Transactions and Journal of the British Ce-
929
 Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 34 (2) 2020 DOI 10.1007/s12206-020-0141-4

ramic Society, 80 (1981) 139-141. Hyunbin Jo is a Ph.D. student at the

[36] S. Li, Y. Wu and K. J. Whitty, Ash deposition behavior during School of Mechanical Engineering,
char-slag transition under simulated gasification conditions, Sungkyunkwan University, who received
Energy & Fuels, 24 (2010) 1868-1876. his B.S from the same school. His re-
search subject is computational model-
ing of coal and biomass combustion in
Changkook Ryu is Professor at the industrial-scale boilers for NOx reduction
School of Mechanical Engineering, and improved performance.
Sungkyunkwan University. He received
his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Mechanical
Engineering from Korea Advanced Insti-
tute of Science and Technology (KAIST).
His research interests include combus-
tion, gasification, and pyrolysis of solid
fuels, and various applications to industrial-scale plants.

930