Advertisement

CFD analysis of the combustion process in a boiler of a 160 MWe power plant: leakage influence

  • C. V. SilvaEmail author
  • L. F. Dondoni
  • C. Ermel
  • P. L. Bellani
  • D. A. Stradioto
  • M. L. S. Indrusiak
Technical Paper
  • 67 Downloads

Abstract

This paper presents a developed and validated CFD model of a boiler with the objective of studying a presumed defective actual operating condition, that is, air leakage into the furnace. Three cases were assessed, concerning the amount of air leakage across the boiler water seal. The base case considered the actual operational condition of 5% air leakage. Case 1 assumed 10%, and Case 2 simulated a more extreme leakage of 25%. The influence of the air leakage was analyzed with emphasis on temperature profiles, flow, wall heat flux, O2, CO, NOx, Soot and CO2 formation. Eddy dissipation together with finite rate chemistry models were used to model the combustion process, while the k-ω approach was considered to predict the turbulence effect. Brazilian pulverized coal type CE3100 was adopted as fuel, burning in atmospheric air. The conservation equations of mass, momentum, energy and chemical species were solved by Finite Volume Method using Ansys CFX commercial software. As main results, it has been observed that air leakage across the water seal has influence over the profiles of temperature and concentration of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Significant amounts of air leakage can induce the plant staff to change the amount of air to be fed through the burners, changing the burning condition, thus impairing energy generation. Although the simulated case concerns a specific operational condition of a given thermal power plant, the results demonstrate the capability of CFD as a decision support tool. It has been found that even a small drop in the flue gas temperature in the combustion chamber due to air leakage in the water seal significantly affects the radiation heat transfer from flue gases to the chamber walls. The overall reduction in average wall heat flux was − 0,3% and − 1,81% of base case for cases 1 and 2, respectively. This situation alters the boiler behavior related to the formation of pollutants, especially NOx, also reduces the burning efficiency, increasing the concentration of CO and CH4 in the exit region.

Keywords

Coal combustion CFD Leakage Water seal Thermal power plant 

List of symbols

\({\text{NO}}_{x}\)

Oxides of nitrogen

\({\text{CH}}_{4}\)

Methane

\({\text{O}}_{2}\)

Oxygen

\({\text{N}}_{2}\)

Nitrogen

\({\text{CO}}_{2}\)

Carbon dioxide

\({\text{CO}}\)

Carbon monoxide

\({\text{H}}_{2} {\text{O}}\)

Water vapor

\({\text{NH}}_{3}\)

Ammonia

k

Constant of chemical reaction rate; or turbulent kinetic energy, m2/s2

x

Spatial coordinate, m

r

Vector position or Particle radius

s

Vector direction, m

\(S^{{\prime \prime }}\)

Radiation source term, W/m

\(K_{\alpha }\)

Absorption coefficient, m−1

\(\tilde{U}\)

Average velocity, m/s

\(Sc\)

Schmidt number

\(C_{\mu }\)

Empirical turbulence model constant

\(C_{\text{o}}\)

Mass fraction of raw coal, kg/kg

\(C_{\text{ch}}\)

Mass fraction of char, kg/kg

\(p^{*}\)

Modified pressure, Pa

\(P_{\text{a}}\)

Atmospheric pressure, Pa

\(\bar{p}\)

Average pressure, Pa

D

Dynamic mass diffusivity, m2/s

\(\tilde{Y}\)

Average mass fraction kg/kg

Y1, Y2

Mass Fractions

I

Total radiation intensity, W/m2

\(\bar{R}\)

Chemical reaction rate, kg/(s.m3) or rate of formation/destruction of chemical species, W/m3.kg

\(\Re\)

Universal ideal gas constant 8314.5 kJ/(kmol K)

E

Activation energy, J/kmol

A

Empirical coefficient, (m3/s)/kmol

\(\tilde{C}\)

Average molar concentration, kmol/m3

\(\overline{MM}\)

Molecular mass, kg/kmol

\(k_{1}\)

Empirical constant

\(k_{2}\)

Empirical constant

\(\tilde{h}\)

Average enthalpy of mixture, kJ/kg

\(h_{\alpha }^{0}\)

Enthalpy of formation, kJ/kg

t

Time, s

\(c_{\text{p}}\)

Specific heat, kJ/(kg.K)

S

Path length, m; or source term, W/m3

n

Reaction order

Greek symbols

\(\sigma_{k}\)

Prandtl number

\(\sigma_{\varpi }\)

Prandtl number

\(\tau_{w}\)

Shear stress in the wall, Pa

\(\rho\)

Density, kg/m3

\(\mu\)

Dynamic viscosity, N s/m2

\(\varepsilon\)

Dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy, m2/s3n

\(\beta\)

Temperature exponent or empirical constant

\(\beta^{{\prime }}\)

Empirical constant

\(\alpha\)

Empirical constant or α-th chemical species

\(\varPi\)

Product symbol

\(\gamma\)

Concentration exponent

\(\eta\)

Stoichiometric coefficient, kmol

\(\kappa\)

Thermal conductivity, W/(m K)

\(\sigma\)

Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.678 × 10−8 W/(m2 K4)

\(\delta\)

Krönecker delta function

Subscripts

j

Index

i

Index or Chemical species

k

Chemical reaction or index

t

Turbulent

rad

Radiation

rea

Chemical reaction

g

Gas

s

Surface

d

Oxygen diffusion

o

Raw coal

ch

Char

ref

Reference

p

Products or particles

eff

Effective

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank for the support of MCT/CNPq—National Research Council (Brazil).

References

  1. 1.
    Eaton AM, Smoot LD, Hill SC, Eatough CN (1999) Components, formulations, solutions, evaluations, and application of comprehensive combustion models. Prog Energy Comb Sci 25:387–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Launder BE, Sharma BI (1974) Application of the energy-dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc. Lett Heat Mass Trans 19:519–524Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilcox DC (1988) Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA J 26:1299–1310MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuo KK (2005) Principles of combustion, 2nd edn. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Turns ST (2000) An introduction to combustion—concepts and applications, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magnussen BF, Hjertager BH (1979) On mathematical models of turbulent combustion with special emphasis on soot formation and combustion. In: Proceedings of the 16th international symposium on combustion: combustion institute, pp 719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carvalho MG, Farias T, Fontes P (1991) Predicting radiative heat transfer in absorbing, emitting and scattering media using the discrete transfer method. ASME HTD 160:17–26Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu M, Azevedo JLT, Carvalho MG (2000) Modeling of the combustion process and NOx emission in a utility boiler. Fuel 79:1611–1619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams A, Pourkashanian M, Jones JM, Backreedy R (2002) Modelling coal combustion: the current position. Fuel 81:605–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Backreedy RI, Jones JM, Ma L, Pourkashanian M, Williams A, Arenillas A, Arias B, Pis JJ, Rubiera F (2005) Prediction of unburned carbon and NOx in a tangentially fired power station using single coals and blends. Fuel 84:2196–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Backreedy RI, Fletcher LM, Ma L, Pourkashanian M, Williams A (2006) Modelling pulverised coal combustion using a detailed coal combustion model. Combust Sci Technol 178:763–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurose R, Makino H, Suzuki A (2004) Numerical analysis of pulverized coal combustion characteristics using advanced low-NOx burner. Fuel 83:693–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bosoaga A, Panoiu N, Mihaescu L, Backreedy RI, Ma L, Pourkashanian M, Williams A (2006) The combustion of pulverized low grade lignite. Fuel 85:1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumar M, Sahu SG (2007) Study on the effect of the operating condition on a pulverized coal-fired furnace using computational fluid dynamics commercial code. Energy Fuels 21:3189–3193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Asotani T, Yamashita T, Tominaga H, Uesugi Y, Itaya Y, Mori S (2008) Prediction of ignition behavior in a tangentially fired pulverized coal boiler using CFD. Fuel 87:482–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choi CR, Kim CN (2009) Numerical investigation on the flow, combustion and NOx emission characteristics in a 500 MWe tangentially fired pulverized-coal boiler. Fuel 88:1720–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Silva CV, Indrusiak MLS, Beskow AB (2010) CFD analysis of the pulverized coal combustion processes in a 160 MWe tangentially-fired-boiler of a thermal power plant. JBSMSE XXXII(4):328–336Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Park HY, Faulkner M, Turrell MD, Stopford PJ, Kang DS (2010) Coupled fluid dynamics and whole plant simulation of coal combustion in a tangentially-fired boiler. Fuel 89:2001–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Al-Abbas AH, Naser J, Dodds D (2012) CFD modelling o fair-fired and oxy-fuel combustion in a large-scale furnace at Loy Yang A brown coal power station. Fuel 102:646–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crnomarkovic N, Sijercic M, Belosevic S, Tucakovic D, Zivanovic T (2013) Numerical investigation of processes in the lignite-fired furnace when simple gray gas and weighted sum of gray gases models are used. IJHMT 56:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guo J, Liu Z, Wang P, Huang X, Li J, Xu P, Zheng C (2015) Numerical investigation on oxy-combustion characteristics of a 200 MWe tangentially fired boiler. Fuel 140:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wenjing S, Wenqi Z, Aibing Y, Longhai L, Yujun Q (2015) Numerical investigation on the flow, combustion and NOx emission characteristics in a 660 MWe tangential firing ultra-supercritical boiler. Adv Mech Eng 8(2):1–13Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen S, He B, He D, Cao Y, Ding G, Liu X, Duan Z, Zhang X, Song J, Li X (2017) Numerical investigations on different tangential arrangements of burners for a 600 MW utility boiler. Energy 122:278–300Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adamczyk WP, Bialecki RA, Ditaranto M, Gladysz P, Haugen NE, Katelbach-Wozniak A, Klimanek A, Sladek S, Szlek A, Wecel G (2017) CFD modeling and thermodynamic analysis of a concept of a MILD-OXY combustion large scale pulverized coal boiler. Energy 140:1305–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gubba SR, Ingham DB, Larsen KJ, Ma L, Pourkashanian M, Tan HZ, Williams A, Zhou H (2012) Numerical modelling of the co-firing of pulverized coal and straw in a 300 MWe tangentially fired boiler. Fuel Process Technol 104:181–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maharaj A, Schmitz W, Naidoo R, Jestin L, Fuls W, Pronobis M (2015) A numerical study of air preheater leakage. Energy 92:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patankar SV (1980) Numerical heat transfer and fluid flow. Hemisphere, Washington, DCzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dorigon LJ, Duciak G, Brittes R, Cassol F, Galarça M, França FHR (2013) WSGG correlations based on HITEMP 2010 for computation of thermal radiation in non-isothermal, non-homogeneous H2O/CO2 mixtures. IJHMT 64:863–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cassol F, Brittes R, França FHR, Ofodike A, Ezekoye A (2014) Application of the weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model for media composed of arbitrary concentrations of H2O, CO2 and soot. Int J Heat Mass Transf 79:796–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kanury AM (1975) Introduction to combustion phenomena. Gordon and Beach Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown WK (1995) Derivation of the Weibull distribution based on physical principles and its connection to the Rosin-Rammler and lognormal distributions. J Appl Phys 78:2758–2763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ubhayakar SW, Stickler DB, Rosenberg Jr. CW, Gannon RE (1976) Rapid devolatilization of pulverized coal in hot combustion gases. In: Symposium international on combustion, the combustion institute, vol 16, pp 427–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Xianchun L, Hui S, Qi W, Chatphol M, Terry W, Jianglong Y (2009) Experimental study on drying and moisture re-adsorption kinetics of an Indonesian low rank coal. J Environ Sci Suppl 5:127–130Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ansys Inc (2009) User’s guide—CFX Solver Theory, V.15, AnsysGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Westbrok CK, Drier CK (1981) Simplified reaction mechanisms for the oxidation of hydrocarbon fuels in flames. Combust Sci Technol 27:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 8:1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nikuradse J (1933) Strömusgsgesetze in Rauhen Rohren. Forsch. Arb. Ing”, Ees.. VDI-Forsch 361, engl. Transl.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Silva CV, França FHR, Vielmo HA (2007) Analysis of the turbulent, non-premixed combustion of natural gas in a cylindrical chamber with and without thermal radiation. Combust Sci Technol 179:1605–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Silva CV, Deon DL, Centeno FR, França FHR, Pereira FM (2018) Assessment of combustion models for numerical simulations of a turbulent non-premixed natural gas flame inside a cylindrical chamber. Combust Sci Technol 190(9):1528–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nieckele AO, Naccache MF, Gomes MSP, Carneiro JE, Serfaty R (2001) Evaluation of models for combustion processes in a cylindrical furnace. In: Proceedings of the ASME-IMECE, international conference of mechanical engineering congress & exposition, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tesner PA, Snegiriova TD, Knorre VG (1971) Kinetics of dispersed carbon formation. Combust Flame 17:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Filkoski RV (2010) Pulverised-coal combustion with staged air introduction: CFD analysis with different thermal radiation methods. Open Thermodyn J 4:2–12Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Denison MK, Webb BW (1993) A spectral line based weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model for arbitrary RTE solvers. J Heat Transf 115(4):1004–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pierrot L, Rivière P, Soufiani A, Taine J (1999) A fictitious-gas-based absorption distribution function global model for radiative transfer in hot gases. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 62(5):609–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang H, Modest MF (2002) A multi-scale full-spectrum correlated-k distribution for radiative heat transfer in inhomogeneous gas mixtures. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 73(2–5):349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Modest MF, Singh V (2005) Engineering correlations for full spectrum k-distribution of H2O from HITEMP spectroscopic databank. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 93(1–3):263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Galarça MM, Mossi A, França FHR (2011) A modification of the cumulative wavenumber method to compute the radiative heat flux in non-uniform media. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 112(3):384–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Centeno FR, Silva CV, França FHR (2014) The influence of gas radiation on the thermal behavior of a 2D axisymmetric turbulent non-premixed methane–air flame. Energy Convers Manag 79:405–4014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cassol F, Brittes R, Centeno FR, Silva CV, França FHR (2014) Evaluation of the gray gas model to compute radiative transfer in non-isothermal, non-homogeneous participating medium containing CO2, H2O and soot. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mossi A, Brittes R, Galarca MM, Vielmo HA, Franca FHR (2012) Comparison of spectral models in the computation of radiative heat transfer in participating media composed of gases and soot. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng (Impresso) XXXIV:112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hottel HC, Sarofim AF (1967) Radiative transfer. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Smith TF, Shen ZF, Friedman JN (1982) Evaluation of coefficients for the weighted sum of gray gases model. Trans ASME J Heat Transf 104:602–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rothman LS, Gordon IE, Barber RJ, Dothe H, Gamache RR, Goldman A, Perevalov VI, Tashkun SA, Tennyson J (2010) HITEMP the high-temperature molecular spectroscopic database. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transf 111:2139–2150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Felske JD, Charalampopoulos TT (1982) Gray gas weighting coefficients for arbitrary gas-soot mixtures. Int J Heat Mass Transf 25:1849–1855zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Makhviladze GM, Roberts JP, Yakush SE (1999) Fireball during combustion of hydrocarbon fuel releases. In: II. Thermal radiation, combustion, explosion and shock waves, vol 35, p 4Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Centeno FR, Brittes R, França FHR, Silva CV (2016) Application of the WSGG model for the calculation of gas-soot radiation in a turbulent non-premixed methane-air flame inside a cylindrical combustion chamber. IJHMT 93:742–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bazzo E (1992) Geração de Vapor, 1ª edn. Editora da UFSC, FlorianópolisGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wang G, Silva RB, Azevedo JLT, Martins-Dias S, Costa M (2014) Evaluation of the combustion behaviour and ash characteristics of biomass waste derived fuels, pine and coal in a drop tube furnace. Fuel 117:809–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. V. Silva
    • 2
    Email author
  • L. F. Dondoni
    • 3
  • C. Ermel
    • 1
  • P. L. Bellani
    • 3
  • D. A. Stradioto
    • 1
  • M. L. S. Indrusiak
    • 2
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineer DepartmentUniversidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGSPorto AlegreBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Engineering and Computational ScienceUniversidade Regional Integrada do Alto Uruguai e das MissõesErechimBrazil
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineer DepartmentUniversidade Federal Santa Catarina – UFSC, Campus Reitor João David Ferreira LimaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations