FLAME Doctor T-Fired Systems Feasibility Study

Preliminary Results from Georgia Power Yates 6 and TVA Gallatin 1

1010316

11968301
11968301
Flame Doctor T-Fired Systems
Feasibility Study
Preliminary Results From Georgia Power Yates 6
and TVA Gallatin 1
1010316

Technical Update, December 2005

EPRI Project Manager

J. Stallings

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 ▪ PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 ▪ USA
800.313.3774 ▪ 650.855.2121 ▪ askepri@epri.com ▪ www.epri.com

11968301
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT

EPRI

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

This is an EPRI Technical Update report. A Technical Update report is intended as an informal report of
continuing research, a meeting, or a topical study. It is not a final EPRI technical report.

NOTE
For further information about EPRI, call the EPRI Customer Assistance Center at (800) 313-3774 or
email askepri@epri.com

Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.

Copyright © 2005 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

11968301
CITATIONS

This report was prepared by

The Babcock & Wilcox Company

20 South Van Buren Avenue
Barberton, Ohio 44203

Principal Investigator
T. Fuller

This report describes research sponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI).

The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:

Flame Doctor T-Fired Systems Feasibility Study: Preliminary Results from Georgia Power
Yates 6 and TVA Gallatin 1. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2005. 1010316.

iii
11968301
11968301
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has sponsored the development of an advanced
®
combustion diagnostic tool known as the Flame Doctor system. The Flame Doctor technology
analyzes signals from optical flame sensors (typically existing flame scanners) to determine the
type and severity of combustion imbalances at individual burners. The technology is currently
commercially available for wall-fired systems and is being developed for cyclone-fired and
turbo-fired systems. This report summarizes preliminary results from development testing of the
Flame Doctor technology for corner-fired (T-fired) systems.

Results and Findings

The preliminary results described in this report show that scanner signals from a T-fired unit
sometimes respond to changes in combustion on that unit. The results seem to confirm that the
major technical challenge for application of the Flame Doctor technology to T-fired systems is
understanding what the scanner signal represents (an individual burner flame, the fireball, or a
combination of both). The preliminary results also indicate that T-fired units do have a need for
advanced combustion diagnostic tools such as Flame Doctor.

Challenges and Objectives

This report is intended for plant engineers who are in charge of combustion tuning and
optimization for a T-fired plant or for utility engineers who are in charge of tuning and
optimization for multiple T-fired plants. The development effort described in this report could
lead to a diagnostic tool that will allow these engineers and operators to monitor the operating
state of all burners and the fireball on a given unit 24 hours a day.

Applications, Values, and Use

The testing described in this report is the first stage of a development effort for a T-fired version
of the EPRI-owned Flame Doctor combustion diagnostic technology.

EPRI Perspective
The wall-fired application of Flame Doctor took approximately ten years to develop, starting
with basic exploratory research in chaos time series analysis. This long-term and highly risky
effort resulted in a commercial product that represents a substantial breakthrough in burner
diagnostics. The most current reports summarizing the development are The Flame Doctor®
Burner Monitoring System – Demonstration Tests at Alliant Energy’s Edgewater 5 (1011298)
2004 and The Flame Doctor® Combustion Diagnostic System: Beta Test Program (1004099)
2004. EPRI is interested in applying this technology to other combustion systems. Programs for
cyclone and turbo boilers are currently underway. This report describes the initial effort in the
development of a system for tangentially fired boilers.

v
11968301
Approach
The development team of The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) installed portable Flame Doctor systems on two T-fired test sites. On one
site, the test had to be aborted due to problems with sighting of temporary test sensors. On the
other site, data was collected over the course of two days as controllable parameters such as
burner tilt and secondary air flow were manipulated.

Keywords
Flame Doctor
T-Fired
Combustion Diagnostics
Chaos
Nonlinear Dynamics
Scanners
Coal-Fired Power Plants

vi
11968301
CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1-1
Background ...........................................................................................................................1-1
Feasibility Test Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................1-1
General Approach .................................................................................................................1-2

2 TEST SETUP..........................................................................................................................2-1
Unit Descriptions ...................................................................................................................2-1
Georgia Power Yates 6 ....................................................................................................2-1
TVA Gallatin 1 ..................................................................................................................2-2
Flame Doctor Hardware Installation ......................................................................................2-4
Georgia Power Yates 6 ....................................................................................................2-4
TVA Gallatin 1 ..................................................................................................................2-4

3 PRELIMINARY RESULTS .....................................................................................................3-1

T-fired Combustion Issues ....................................................................................................3-1
Test Results ..........................................................................................................................3-1
Georgia Power Yates 6 ....................................................................................................3-1
TVA Gallatin 1 ..................................................................................................................3-2

4 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES ........................................................................4-1

vii
11968301
11968301
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 Yates 6 Furnace Configuration.................................................................................2-1

Figure 2-2 Yates 6 Typical Corner Configuration.......................................................................2-2
Figure 2-3 Gallatin 1 Furnace Configuration..............................................................................2-3
Figure 2-4 Gallatin 1 Typical Corner Configuration....................................................................2-3
Figure 2-5 Portable Flame Doctor Data Acquisition Hardware ..................................................2-4
Figure 3-1 Brightness of Scanner D1 Compared to D Level Tilt................................................3-4
Figure 3-2 Skewness of Scanner D1 Compared to D Level Tilt ................................................3-4
Figure 3-3 Kurtosis of Scanner D1 Compared to D Level Tilt....................................................3-5
Figure 3-4 Skewness of Scanner B1 Compared to B Level Tilt.................................................3-5
Figure 3-5 Kurtosis of Scanner B1 Compared to B Level Tilt ....................................................3-6
Figure 3-6 Skewness of Scanner D1 Compared to C1 and D1 Damper Positions ....................3-6
Figure 3-7 Kurtosis of Scanner D1 Compared to C1 and D1 Damper Positions .......................3-7

ix
11968301
11968301
LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 TVA Gallatin Test Matrix............................................................................................3-3

xi
11968301
11968301
1
INTRODUCTION

Background

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has sponsored the development of an advanced
combustion diagnostic tool known as the Flame Doctor® system. The Flame Doctor technology
analyzes signals from optical flame sensors (typically existing flame scanners) to determine the
type and severity of combustion imbalances at individual burners. The technology is currently
commercially available for wall-fired systems and is being developed for cyclone-fired and
turbo-fired systems.

EPRI and its contractors B&W and ORNL have received numerous inquiries asking if the Flame
Doctor technology is applicable to T-fired systems. In response to this interest, a three-phase
feasibility/development program for T-fired systems was initiated. Phase I is a short (roughly
two day) test to assess the general feasibility of applying the Flame Doctor technology to T-fired
systems. Phase I includes a Go/No-Go decision point. Phase II is a series of detailed tests and
development activities aimed at fine tuning the technology for T-fired systems. Phase III is a
single test demonstrating the capabilities of the Flame Doctor system for T-fired units.

Both Georgia Power and TVA offered to be host utilities for the Phase I feasibility study.
Georgia Power identified Yates 6 as their target boiler while TVA identified Gallatin 1 as their
target boiler. Each plant offered something different in terms of setup and operation so both
plants were accepted for the feasibility test. This report documents the preliminary results
obtained from feasibility testing on each unit.

Feasibility Test Goals and Objectives

The main goal for feasibility testing was to collect enough data over a range of operating
conditions so that a Go/No-Go decision could be made regarding application of the Flame
Doctor technology for T-fired combustion systems.

Several objectives were identified to help accomplish the feasibility test goal. These were:
• Understand/document typical T-fired combustion issues.
• Demonstrate the ability to collect representative optical data.
• Adjust available control variables to available limits
• Observe Flame Doctor’s response to control variable adjustments
• Confirm repeatability of Flame Doctor’s responses.

1-1
11968301
INTRODUCTION

General Approach

The general approach taken for the feasibility test was to temporarily install a wall-fired version
of Flame Doctor on the target unit and then exercise the main controllable parameters of the unit
over a range of conditions. With this approach, the main job of the Flame Doctor system was to
sample the scanner signals at regular intervals and perform basic statistical and chaos data
processing on line. The controllable parameters identified for potential adjustment included:
• Burner tilt
• Mill primary air (PA) flow
• Mill coal flow
• Individual secondary air (SA) compartment flow
• Over-fire air flow

The exact parameters available for adjustment and the degree of allowable adjustment were
discussed with each plant prior to the start of testing.

1-2
11968301
2
TEST SETUP

Unit Descriptions

Georgia Power Yates 6

Georgia Power Yates 6 is a 350-MW Combustion Engineering (CE) T-fired unit with an ICL
low-NOx firing system. The unit is a single furnace design with five levels of burners in each
corner. Figure 2-1 is a plan view of the furnace showing the numbering of the corners and the
firing direction. Each corner has 11 independently controlled secondary air compartments
surrounding the five burner nozzles. Figure 2-2 shows the arrangement of coal and air nozzles in
a typical corner. The unit has scanner guide pipes above each coal nozzle but does not have
scanners. The coal nozzles are fed by five CE roller-type mills. Each mill feeds one elevation of
nozzles. The unit burns eastern bituminous coal. The unit has two levels of separated over-fire
air (SOFA).

Figure 2-1
Yates 6 Furnace Configuration

2-1
11968301
TEST SETUP

Figure 2-2
Yates 6 Typical Corner Configuration

TVA Gallatin 1

TVA Gallatin 1 is a 240-MW CE T-fired unit with an ICL low-NOx firing system. The unit is a
twin-furnace design with separate reheat and superheat furnaces. Figure 2-3 shows the firing
configuration of each furnace. Each furnace has four levels of burners for a total of 32 burners
between both furnaces. Each corner of each furnace has 10 independently controlled secondary
air compartments surrounding the four burner nozzles. Figure 2-4 shows the layout of coal
nozzles and secondary air compartments in a typical corner. Each coal nozzle has an ABB Safe
Flame scanner located in the secondary air compartment above the nozzle. The burners are fed
by eight CE roller-type mills. The unit burns a blend of 85% PRB and 15% western bituminous
coals. There is one level of SOFA. The SOFA is split into independently controlled upper and
lower compartments.

2-2
11968301
 TEST SETUP

Figure 2-3
Gallatin 1 Furnace Configuration

Figure 2-4
Gallatin 1 Typical Corner Configuration

2-3
11968301
TEST SETUP

Flame Doctor Hardware Installation

Test data was collected using a portable Flame Doctor system. The portable system consists of
high-speed data acquisition and filtering equipment mounted in a suitcase along with a laptop
computer running the Flame Doctor software. Figure 2-5 shows a portable Flame Doctor
system. The wall-fired version of the Flame Doctor software was installed on the laptop.

Figure 2-5
Portable Flame Doctor Data Acquisition Hardware

Georgia Power Yates 6

Since Yates 6 does not have flame scanners, B&W temporarily installed a fiber-optic-based
sensor system known as the Spyron system for testing. The Spyron system consists of small lens
assemblies that are installed on each burner, an electronics case that houses the optical sensors,
and fiber-optic cabling to connect each lens head to the electronics case. The electronics case
connects to the portable Flame Doctor system using standard ribbon cabling. For Yates 6, the
lens assemblies were installed in the existing scanner ports using pipe caps that were drilled and
tapped for the assemblies. Spyron lenses were installed at the top two burner elevations in each
corner.

TVA Gallatin 1

Flame Doctor typically ties into the scanner field wiring where it terminates in the cabinet
housing the scanner processing modules. At Gallatin 1, however, the terminations inside the
processing cabinet were inaccessible. To get around this problem, plant personnel ran temporary
wiring from the scanner field junction boxes to a dedicated set of terminal strips. Since this was
a feasibility test, the temporary wiring was installed only on the superheat furnace. The portable

2-4
11968301
 TEST SETUP

Flame Doctor system connected to the temporary terminal strips using pre-made wire bundles
with alligator clip terminators.

2-5
11968301
11968301
3
PRELIMINARY RESULTS

T-fired Combustion Issues

In wall-fired combustion systems, experience has shown that the performance of individual
burners can have a large impact on the performance of the overall combustion system. This is
why Flame Doctor was designed to provide insight into combustion quality at individual burners
in a large array of burners. With T-fired systems, however, the influence of individual burners
on the performance of the overall system is not well understood by the Flame Doctor
development team. Because of this, it is not clear what application the Flame Doctor technology
may have on T-fired systems.

In order to better understand the issues, plant personnel at both sites were asked about their
combustion problems. Both plants identified NOx reduction as their top combustion issue. Both
sites felt that maldistribution of coal and air among the elevations and corners was the main
impediment to consistent, reliable NOx control. Plant Yates further reported that the degree of
flame detachment from the coal nozzles greatly influences NOx production. Both plants also
identified slagging and water-wall corrosion/erosion issues associated with fireball shape and
position as critical items. Additionally, both plants indicated issues with high LOI.

Gallatin had a few additional plant-specific issues. Gallatin runs with their mill exhausters at
100% bias. They run this way because of past experiences with burner fires and because of
recommendations by Alstom and Storm Engineering. Gallatin recognizes that this hurts their
overall performance but they have no tool to alert them to feed problems at lower exhauster
biases. Gallatin also indicated that they have experienced gradual shifts in coal feeder
performance that are difficult to identify from plant operating data and pinpoint to a specific
feeder. Finally, Gallatin reported that they have experienced secondary air damper drive failures
that are also hard to identify from plant operating data.

Test Results

Georgia Power Yates 6

Test data was not collected from Yates 6 due to problems encountered with sighting of the
temporary fiber-optic lenses. As described in Section 2, the lenses were sighted down the
existing scanner ports. The scanner ports, however, do not have a straight line of sight to the
flames. The ends of the ports nearest the furnace are made of a flexible material allowing them
to bend up and down with the burner tilt. As a result of this, the temporary lenses mounted on

3-1
11968301
PRELIMINARY RESULTS

the outside of the windbox could not see the flames. This was true even when the burner tilt was
zero because the Yates scanner ports always have an offset to center them over the burners.

The Flame Doctor test team was not aware of the scanner port configuration prior to testing.
Subsequent discussions with scanner vendors confirmed that the Yates configuration is typical
for T-fired units. The scanner vendors also confirmed that scanner systems for T-fired units
must use fiber-optic extensions to get a sighting of the flames.

Since the existing scanner ports could not be used for data collection, the test team identified
observation ports that could be used instead. The observation ports provide a general view
through the windbox. The observation ports are located adjacent to the scanner ports on every
elevation in every corner. The temporary lenses will be mounted to these observation ports for
future testing.

TVA Gallatin 1

A total of eight tests were conducted on November 15, 2005 and November 16, 2005. The eight
tests are shown in Table 3-1. All tests were conducted at full load. Every effort was made to
change one variable at a time while holding all other variables constant. This was not always
possible, however, due to operational considerations. For instance, the burner tilts are used to
control steam temperature, and on November 16 the operators were having difficulty maintaining
steam temperature, so the burner tilts were left in automatic. Unfortunately, the tilts changed
considerably throughout the day, and this had a direct impact on the test results. Even when all
variables could be taken “in hand” for a particular test, the operators could only hold the unit
steady for about 30 minutes before they had to return to automatic control. This directly affected
the duration of some tests.

Figure 3-1 shows the D level (lowest level) tilt and the overall brightness of the signal from
scanner D1 for all tests. The overall brightness is expressed as the root-mean-square (RMS) of
the scanner signal. The brightness of the flame remains steady, except when the tilt is at its
maximum angle of 30°. The plant reported that the fiber optic scanner extensions have a
tendency to retract into the guide tubes at extreme burner tilts. This could explain the drop in
signal intensity at these conditions.

Figure 3-2 shows the skewness of scanner D1’s signal compared to the D level tilt for all tests.
Skewness appears to follow tilt very well over all conditions. The same behavior is also
observed in the kurtosis of the signal from scanner D1 as shown in Figure 3-3. This result is
encouraging, since skewness and kurtosis are sensitive indicators of flame quality in the wall-
fired version of Flame Doctor.

Unfortunately, the encouraging response of scanner D1 to burner tilt is not observed on all
scanners. Figure 3-4 shows skewness for scanner B1 compared to B level burner tilt. Figure 3-5
shows kurtosis for scanner B1 compared to B level burner tilt. The B1 scanner does not appear
to respond to burner tilt as scanner D1 did.

3-2
11968301
 PRELIMINARY RESULTS

Table 3-1
TVA Gallatin Test Matrix

Test Date Start Time End Time Objectives

Baseline test with SA dampers and

Baseline 11/15/05 1530 hrs 1600 hrs
burner tilts in hand.

Burner tilts at +15°. SA dampers in

Test 01 11/15/05 1630 hrs 1655 hrs
hand.

Burner tilts at -15°. SA dampers in

Test 02 11/15/05 1705 hrs 1730 hrs
hand.

Mill “A” feeder at -15% bias. SA

Test 03 11/16/05 0845 hrs 0945 hrs
dampers and tilts in automatic.

Mill “A” feeder at 0% bias. D1 SA

Test 04 11/16/05 1035 hrs 1105 hrs damper at 25% open. All other SA
dampers and tilts in automatic.

C1 SA damper at 25% open. D1 SA

Test 05 11/16/05 1125 hrs 1200 hrs damper at 25% open. All other SA
dampers and tilts in automatic.

CD1 SA damper at 20% open. C1

and D1 SA dampers at 25% open.
Test 06 11/16/05 1230 hrs 1300 hrs
All other SA dampers and tilts in
automatic.

Mill “D” exhauster bias at +75%. C1

and D1 SA dampers at 25% open.
Test 07 11/16/05 1315 hrs 1415 hrs D2 SA damper at 25% open. CD1
SA damper in automatic. All other
SA dampers and tilts in automatic.

Mill “D” feeder bias at +15%. Mill “D”

exhauster bias at +75%. C1, D1, D2,
Test 08 11/16/05 1445 hrs 1515 hrs D3, and D4 SA dampers at 25%
open. All other SA dampers and tilts
in automatic.

The response of scanner D1 skewness to changes in C1 and D1 secondary air damper positions is
shown in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-7 shows the response of scanner D1 kurtosis to the same change
in damper positions. The C1 and D1 dampers control secondary air in the outer air zone. The
outer air zone surrounds the coal nozzle in much the same way secondary air zones do on a
typical wall-fired burner. The air flow to this outer zone has a large influence on flame
detachment. The change in D1 damper position shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7 caused the
detachment of the D1 flame to go from 8-10 ft down to 3-4 ft. Neither skewness nor kurtosis
reflects this change.

3-3
11968301
PRELIMINARY RESULTS

40 0.02

D Tilt
30 Scanner D1 0.0175

20 0.015

10 0.0125

RMS (Voltage)
Tilt (degree)

0 0.01

-10 0.0075

-20 0.005

-30 0.0025

-40 0
15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005
09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000 00:00:00.000 04:48:00.000 09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000
CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST

Figure 3-1
Brightness of Scanner D1 Compared to D Level Tilt

40 3

D Level Tilt
30 Scanner D1 2.5

20 2

10 1.5
Tilt (degree)

Skewness

0 1

-10 0.5

-20 0

-30 -0.5

-40 -1
15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005
09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000 00:00:00.000 04:48:00.000 09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000
CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST

Figure 3-2
Skewness of Scanner D1 Compared to D Level Tilt

3-4
11968301
 PRELIMINARY RESULTS

40 8

D Tilt
30 7
Scanner D1

20 6

10 5
Tilt (degree)

Kurtosis
0 4

-10 3

-20 2

-30 1

-40 0
15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005
09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000 00:00:00.000 04:48:00.000 09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000
CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST

Figure 3-3
Kurtosis of Scanner D1 Compared to D Level Tilt

30 1.2

B Level Tilt
20 Scanner B1 1

10 0.8
Tilt (degree)

0 0.6
Skewness

-10 0.4

-20 0.2

-30 0

-40 -0.2
15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005
09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000 00:00:00.000 04:48:00.000 09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000
CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST

Figure 3-4
Skewness of Scanner B1 Compared to B Level Tilt

3-5
11968301
PRELIMINARY RESULTS

40 8

B Level Tilt
30 7
Scanner B1

20 6

10 5
Tilt (degree)

Kurtosis
0 4

-10 3

-20 2

-30 1

-40 0
15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 15-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005 16-Nov-2005
09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000 00:00:00.000 04:48:00.000 09:36:00.000 14:24:00.000 19:12:00.000
CST CST CST CST CST CST CST CST

Figure 3-5
Kurtosis of Scanner B1 Compared to B Level Tilt

100 4

Damper D1
90 Damper C1 3.5
Scanner D1
80 3

70 2.5
Damper Position (%)

60 2 Skewness

50 1.5

40 1

30 0.5

20 0

10 -0.5

0 -1
16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov-
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
04:48:00.0 06:00:00.0 07:12:00.0 08:24:00.0 09:36:00.0 10:48:00.0 12:00:00.0 13:12:00.0 14:24:00.0 15:36:00.0 16:48:00.0
00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST

Figure 3-6
Skewness of Scanner D1 Compared to C1 and D1 Damper Positions

3-6
11968301
 PRELIMINARY RESULTS

100 10
Damper D1
90 Damper C1 9
Scanner D1

80 8

70 7
Damper Position (%)

60 6

Kurtosis
50 5

40 4

30 3

20 2

10 1

0 0
16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov- 16-Nov-
2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005
04:48:00.0 06:00:00.0 07:12:00.0 08:24:00.0 09:36:00.0 10:48:00.0 12:00:00.0 13:12:00.0 14:24:00.0 15:36:00.0 16:48:00.0
00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST 00 CST

Figure 3-7
Kurtosis of Scanner D1 Compared to C1 and D1 Damper Positions

3-7
11968301
11968301
4
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE ACTIVITIES

The preliminary results from TVA Gallatin 1 do show changes in some of Flame Doctor’s basic
statistics corresponding to changes in input parameters. Most notably, the statistics appear to
respond directly to changes in burner tilt. The results, however, are inconsistent. The change in
statistics seen on one burner level for a certain change in input parameters is not necessarily seen
on a different burner level for the same change in input parameters. Additionally, the scanners
do not appear to respond at all to some changes, such as secondary air damper position.

The inconsistent results are likely tied to the main technical issue that must be addressed for
Flame Doctor to be applicable for T-fired systems. What does the scanner see? Except for the
topmost scanner, all other scanners are positioned between two coal nozzles. At Gallatin, for
instance, the scanners are almost exactly half way between the coal nozzle above and the coal
nozzle below. The positioning means that each scanner (except for the top scanners) most likely
“sees” the side of the flame above it, the side of the flame below it, and the fireball directly in
front of it. If this view holds true, then the fireball will likely dominate the signal making issues
local to one coal nozzle difficult to identify. The preliminary results seem to support this view
because only global changes (i.e. tilts on all burners) show up in the results with any consistency.
Additional data and more detailed analysis are required before this issue can be classified as a
“show stopper” for application of Flame Doctor to T-fired systems.

Future activities on this project include a more detailed analysis of the existing Gallatin data,
collection and analysis of data from Yates 6, and possible additional testing at Gallatin. Once
these activities are complete, a Go/No-Go decision can be made regarding continued
development of Flame Doctor for T-fired systems.

4-1
11968301
11968301
11968301
Export Control Restrictions The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Access to and use of EPRI Intellectual Property is The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), with
granted with the specific understanding and major locations in Palo Alto, California, and Charlotte,
requirement that responsibility for ensuring full North Carolina, was established in 1973 as an
compliance with all applicable U.S. and foreign export independent, nonprofit center for public interest energy
laws and regulations is being undertaken by you and and environmental research. EPRI brings together
your company. This includes an obligation to ensure members, participants, the Institute’s scientists and
that any individual receiving access hereunder who is engineers, and other leading experts to work
not a U.S. citizen or permanent U.S. resident is collaboratively on solutions to the challenges of electric
permitted access under applicable U.S. and foreign power. These solutions span nearly every area of
export laws and regulations. In the event you are electricity generation, delivery, and use, including
uncertain whether you or your company may lawfully health, safety, and environment. EPRI’s members
obtain access to this EPRI Intellectual Property, you represent over 90% of the electricity generated in the
acknowledge that it is your obligation to consult with United States. International participation represents
your company’s legal counsel to determine whether nearly 15% of EPRI’s total research, development, and
this access is lawful. Although EPRI may make demonstration program.
available on a case-by-case basis an informal
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
assessment of the applicable U.S. export classification
for specific EPRI Intellectual Property, you and your
company acknowledge that this assessment is solely
for informational purposes and not for reliance
purposes. You and your company acknowledge that it
is still the obligation of you and your company to make
your own assessment of the applicable U.S. export
classification and ensure compliance accordingly. You
and your company understand and acknowledge your
obligations to make a prompt report to EPRI and the
appropriate authorities regarding any access to or use
of EPRI Intellectual Property hereunder that may be in
violation of applicable U.S. or foreign export laws or
regulations.

© 2005 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights

reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.

Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America 1010316

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

3420 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com

11968301