Optimization Study Of Incineration

In A MSW Incinerator With A

Vertical Radiation Shaft

A Thesis Submitted by

Vida Nasserzadeh Sharffi, B.Eng.

to

The University of Sheffield for the

degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering,

Chemical Engineering and Fuel Technology Group,

The University of Sheffield,

October 1990
 Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor J. Swithenbank for his supervision of this
research project, and to acknowledge the financial support of Warren Spring Laboratory
(Department of Environment).
In addition the help of the following organisations, laboratories and companies for pro-
viding some of the experimental equipment and their technical assistance during the
experimental work is, hereby, gratefully acknowledged:

1. Cleansing Services Department, Sheffield City Council,

2. Mr B. Jones, plant manager, Mr G. Sykes maintenance superintendent and the

technicians at the Sheffield municipal incinerator plant;

3. Warren Spring Laboratory, Materials Recovery and Pollution Abatement Divisions,

Mr D.W. Scott and Mr A.J. Poll;

4. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering

Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, Ohio, Dr
H.M. Freeman;

5. Babcock and Wilcox Power Ltd., London, Mr M. Knowles;

6. Babcock and Wilcox Ltd., Office of Research and Development, Scotland, Dr L.

King;

7. Motherwell Bridge Ltd., Dr W. McKingly;

8. Land Combustion Ltd., Dr K. West.

Thanks are also due to Dr A.B. Hedley, Dr P.J. Foster, Dr R.G. Siddall and Dr K.
Littlewood for their useful suggestions and discussions concerning various aspects of the
work.
The technicians and laboratory staff at the Mechanical and Process Engineering Work-
shop (University of Sheffield): Mr J.Lane, Mr D.Hancock, Mr J.Simpson, Mr B.Stobbs,

1
Mr C.Wright, Mr T.Rochford, Mr M.Smith, Mr M.Hudson, Mr B.Milner, Mr A.Sanby,

Mr A.Barber and Mr J.Wragg were most helpful in constructing experimental equipment

and providing encouragement.

The author also wishes to thank Dr. P.N. Wild from Flow Simulation Ltd. for his help

with the mathematical modelling of the flow field inside the furnace using the FLUENT

code.

Finally, many thanks to D.Savaz and M.Wild for their help with the computing work

and producing the photographs.

11
Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Experimental Programme and Procedure 7

2.1 Introduction 7

2.2 Description of Sheffield municipal incinerator plant 7

2.3 Incinerator Testing Program: 13

2.3.1 Physical and Chemical Analysis of Sheffield Refuse 13

2.3.2 Temperature Measurements 24

2.3.3 Pressure Measurements 29

2.3.4 Gas Sampling Measurements 34

2.3.5 Miscellaneous Measurements 46

3 Calculations 49
3.1 Furnace Calculations; Analysis of Actual Data Obtained From A Series

Of Tests At Sheffield Incinerator [42], [43], [44] 49

3.2 Estimation of Average Refuse Residence Time 61

3.3 Calculations: Drying, Pyrolysis, and Char gasification rates on top of each

roller inside the incinerator 62

3.4 Overbed Air Regime Calculations 68

3.5 Calculation of Incinerator - Boiler Efficiency (Heat - Balances) 69

3.6 Incinerator Material Balance 76

3.7 Combustion Calculation 79

111
4 Mathematical Modelling of Combustion Processes 85

4.1 Simplified Combustion Model [59], [60] 85

4.2 Mathematical Model For The Refuse Bed 87

4.2.1 Ignition of Refuse Bed 88

4.2.2 Drying Front 89

4.2.3 Pyrolysis Front 90

4.2.4 Active Burning And Zero Free 0 2 Zones 92

4.2.5 Solid Bed Gasification 92

4.3 Mathematical Model for Over-Bed Region (Gaseous Phase) 97

4.3.1 Primary Air Distributions (Modelling of Riddling Hoppers and

Hollow Grate Assemblies) 98

4.3.2 Mathematical Model for Overbed Region; Gaseous Phase 102

5 Discussion 109

5.1 Results for the Sheffield municipal incinerator 109

5.1.1 Isothermal Flow Field Model 109

5.1.2 Reacting Flow Case 111

5.2 Comparison with Experimental Results for the Sheffield Municipal Incin-

erator 115

6 Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Work 117

6.1 Conclusions 117

6.2 Suggestions for Future Work 120

Bibliography 122

Appendices 129

Tables

Figures

iv
Plates

V
 Nomenclature

Symbol Description Imperial Unit SI Unit

A Combustion model constant -

a Stoker efficiency correction factor -

A, Average pore surface area per

unit volume of refuse bed ft2/ft3 m2/m3
A Ash fraction in refuse lb/lb kg/kg
C Combustible fraction in refuse lb/lb kg/kg
Ca Furnace capacity lb/hr kg/hr
Cp Specific heat capacity Btu/lb °F J/kg °K
d Average refuse particle size ft m
D Refuse bed depth ft m
FA Area rate of char gasification lb/ft2 hr kg/m2 hr
F burning rate lb/ft 2 hr kg/m2 hr
fr C9 Relative carbon saturation factor - -
GA Underfire air flow per unit
weight of refuse lb/lb kg/kg

9 Gravitational constant ft/min2 m/sec2

Ile, Effective latent heat of vaporization Btu/lb J/kg
h Enthalpy Btu/mol J/mol
Ku, Essenhigh waste factor -
k, k' Reaction rate constants -
L Length ft m
M Free moisture fraction in refuse lb/lb kg/kg

vi
A Molecular weight of species i lb/mol kg/mol
in Index of CO-0 2 reaction
mi Mass of the i-th species lb kg
in Mass flow rate per unit area lb/hr ft2 kg/hr m2
k
n-
E

Ni Molar concentration of i-th species moles/min moles/min

P Pressure lbf/in2 Pa
Pm Oxygen mass fraction in air lb/lb kg/kg

QT Total underfire air flow ft3/min m3/sec

, Flame heat release per unit time Btu/hr J/hr
Q, Heat of surface pyrolysis per unit mass
per unit area Btu/lb ft2 kJ/kg m2
R Gas constant Btu/ °F j/ cl<

Rco Rate of CO consumption by chemical

reaction mol/sec mol/sec

Rf. Rate of fuel consumption by chemical

reaction mol/sec mol/sec

Sh Enthalpy source term due to chemical

reaction Btu/mol j/mol

S, Species source term due to chemical

reaction lb kg
t Time hr hr

T, Solid temperature °F °C

To Ambient temperature oF °C

Tg Gas temperature oF °C

u Velocity ft/min m/min

Ui Time average velocity component ft/min m/sec

Ui Instantaneous velocity component ft/min m/sec

vii
 I
Il i Fluctuating component of velocity ft/min m/sec
U Mass velocity of solid lb ft/hr kg m/hr
v Velocity ft/min m/min
vP Velocity in the pores of bed ft/min m/min
6113 Volume element in solid bed ft3 m3
V Volatile fraction of dry combustible
fraction - -

Wa Stoichiometric air lb/lb kg/kg

W Mass input rate lb/hr kg/hr
Wp Mass of pyrolyzable material
per unit volume of refuse lb/ft3 kg/m3
x, y Horizontal and vertical distances ft m
X Molar concentration in pores mole mole
y* Flame height ft m

Yi Mole fraction of i-th species -

7 Refuse bed depth correction factor

fi Dynamic viscosity lb/ft sec kg/m sec

Pa Air density lb/ft3 kg/m3

pg Gas density lb/ft3 kg/m3

Ps Solid density lb/ft3 kg/m3

E Porosity - -
E Dissipation rate of energy ft2/min3 m2/sec3
T Turbulence time scale sec sec
yij Kronecker Delta - -
5 Empirical constant -
Abbreviations:
C FM ft3/min

CV Calorific value of the refuse

F.D. Forced draught fan

FW L Full water level of the boiler drum

HHV High heat value of refuse

I.D. Induced draught fan

LH S Left hand side

MCR Maximum continuous rating of the incinerator

M SW Municipal solid waste

NW L Normal water level of the boiler drum

RH S Right hand side

S.A. Secondary air fan

Wt Weight
 Summary

An extensive series of experimental tests were carried out at the Sheffield municipal solid

waste incinerator plant (30 MW) from September 1988 to July 1989 to investigate the

influence of the design and operating parameters on the performance of the incinerator

which burns domestic and commercial wastes (500 ton/day).

The following measurements were made around the plant: temperature measurements,

pressure measurements, flue gas composition analysis and determination of physical and

chemical properties of Sheffield refuse. Several other miscellaneous measurements were

also made to monitor the effect of variation of operating parameters on the performance

characteristics of the incinerator.

A combustion model of Essenhigh type was then employed to model the combustion

processes inside the solid refuse bed on top of the travelling grate. In addition a math-

ematical model of the finite difference type (FLUENT) was used to predict the three

dimensional reacting flows (gaseous phase) within the incinerator geometry. Experimen-

tal measurements of gas composition, temperature and exit velocity were compared with

model predictions. Modelling results were generally in good agreement with measure-

ments.

As a result of the test data and the mathematical modelling of the whole process, sug-

gestions for design improvements for the Sheffield municipal solid waste incinerator were

made which will substantially increase the efficiency, reduce emissions of pollutants and

reduce the maintenance costs at the plant. These are: a) replacing the existing secondary

air system with secondary air nozzles and the use of more secondary air (up to 20 % of

total air) in order to generate turbulence in the high intensity combustion zone where

it is most needed and b) introducing a baffle into the main stream inside the radiation

shaft in order to lower the gas temperatures entering the precipitator and to remove the

existing recirculation zone in the shaft.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Wastes; a survey

Like energy, waste can be changed into different forms but it can never be wholly de-

stroyed. Whether it is burned, buried or recycled, some residue will always remain.

The statistics are staggering, if not well known. Since 1984 the number of landfills for

municipal solid waste in the United States has dwindled by 30 percent from 9284 to 6499

[1]. According to the 1973 report of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, over half the cities

in the U.S.A will run out of landfill capacity by 1995.

As landfill capacity declines, the rate at which Americans produce waste is increasing

rapidly. It is estimated that the solid waste generated in the United States will grow

at an average of 1.8 percent per year between 1980 and 2000. While two thirds of this

will be due to population growth, a third will come from the increased amount of waste

generated per individual. By the beginning of the 21st century, the Americans will

produce more than 280 million tons of domestic solid waste every year, or 1.7 kg per day

per person.

In the UK alone the total amount of wastes and residues produced annually has been

estimated to be 250 million tonnes, of which about 140 million tonnes has no commer-

cial value and is discarded [2]. Table 1.1 shows the various sources and the estimated

recoverable and available wastes; some waste materials are already recovered but the

1
majority are not. To this annual production figure can be added a further 50 million

tonnes of colliery spoil, 50 million tonnes of quarrying waste and 12 million tonnes of

power station residues. The cost of disposal is enormous; for that portion of the waste

handled by Waste Disposal Authorities (WDAs), the net expenditure over the period

1985 to 1986 was £127 million [3]. This however only accounted for the relatively in-

nocous domestic and commercial wastes. Over a similar period the nine English Water

Authorities and the Welsh Authority jointly spend £554 million on sewage treatment

and disposal, mainly by land or sea dumping. A Department of the Environment report

in 1978 concluded that unless the costs to the community outweigh the benefits then

waste should be reclaimed [4] ; most is still tipped and only a fraction of the potential

value is realised.

Disposal of Municipal Solid Wastes

The burgeoning problem of the disposal of solid wastes in metropolitan areas has pre-

sented many municipalities with a dilemma when choosing suitable disposal methods.

The traditional means of disposal have been either open dumping or landfill, but these

practices which require large land acreages and in the case of sanitary landfill require

costly earth, are becoming less attractive as the areas available for disposal near metropoli-

tan areas rapidly disappear. Incineration will therefore, in all likelihood, play an impor-

tant role in the future as a practical disposal method in urban areas.

There has been very little fundamental design work on incinerators and designs that have

proven "satisfactory" in the field have simply been sized to suit the required loading,

often with disregard for basic scaling laws. Consequently, municipal incinerators have

been subjected to mounting criticism as to their inefficiency. The processes occuring

within a burning refuse bed include drying, pyrolysis, solid and gas phase combustion,

convective, conductive and radiative heat transfer, mass transfer and gas flow through

randomly packed heterogeneous beds, whose elements differ widely in size, shape and in

their physical and chemical structure; moreover, the size, shape, chemical constitution

2
and orientation of these elements continually change with the course of combustion.

There is no more complex unit operation presently in use. Designs have, therefore,

evolved as an art rather than as a science.

Typically designs are based on gross overall heat and material balances, on allowable

combustion intensities in the overfire volume and on achievable burning rates per unit

area of grate surface with different refuse (Table 1.2). Of these three requirements the

most difficult to estimate has been the achievable burning rate. The heat and mass

balances are straight forward to calculate, particularly as the air requirements for most

solid fuels are remarkably uniform when expressed on a basis of energy liberated (Table

1.4). The achievable burning rates per unit of grate are estimated from guidelines such as

those provided by Table 1.2 or from the rule of thumb that the heat release rate within

the fuel bed should be about 300,000 Btu/hr ft 2 of grate area. For a typical as-fired

heating value for refuse (5,000 Btu/lb), the burning rate for the above criterion would

be 60 lb/hr ft 2 of grate area which agrees with the Incinerator Institute of America's

guideline for a class 5 incinerator (see appendix 1) and the values given in Table 1.2.

The maximum allowable heat release rate within a fuel bed is usually determined from

consideration of the maximum bed temperature that would prevail and therefore must

take heat losses from the bed into account. Temperatures that are too high cause difficul-

ties with clinkering and problems with grates clogged with molten glass and aluminum.

There are indications that successful operation has been achieved at heat release rates

up to three times the suggested maximum value of 300,000 Btu/hr ft 2 , hinting at the

temping prospect of reduced investment cost per ton of refuse processed.

A similar situation to that encountered when selecting grate sizes is found in the overbed

region where few design criteria are available. The only specifications given are for

furnace volumes based on guidelines such as those given in Table 1.2, or on the rule

of thumb that the volumetric heat release should be around 20,000 Btu/hr ft 3 , and on

allowable gas velocities at different points in the incinerator. The value of the maximum

combustion intensity is given without any regard for the amount of combustibles that

3
have to be burnt in the overbed region. No guidelines are given as to the desirable ratio

of primary air introduced through the fuel bed to secondary air injected into the overbed

region. There is general agreement in the literature that the secondary air must be

supplied with sufficient momentum to provide adequate mixing with combustible gases.

There are, however, no reliable methods presently available for determining how this

should be accomplished.

The early experimental work by Kreisinger, Ovitz and Augustine [5] and Nicholls [6]

provided valuable information on the combustion characteristics of both overfeed and

underfeed fuel beds. Although the combustion characteristics of a refuse bed, where

the moisture and volatile contents are greater than those for a typical bituminous coal,

may not be the same as found in these studies, the work of Kreisinger, Augustine and

Harpster [7] with lignite has suggested that the general behaviour may be somewhat

similar.

Few laboratory-scale experiments on refuse or simulated refuse combustion have been

reported in the literature. The first studies were conducted at the U.S. Bureau of Mines

in the late 1960s and since that time their studies have leaned towards the development of

a vortex incinerator where the secondary air was injected tangentially above the bed and

little or no underfire air was used. The work at the U.S. Bureau of Mines by Weintraub

et al [8] provided some information from the measurement of burning rates and bed

temperature profiles, on the bed burning characteristics of a simulated refuse (a mixture

of paper, cardboard, and leafy vegetable matter). No underfire air was used and in all

runs a substantial portion of the secondary air was induced through the bed by natural

draft and the vortex flow.

The only other study on fixed-bed incinerators that has been reported was the work of

Essenhigh and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University. This work has been summa-

rized in a paper by Essenhigh and Shieh [9]. The Pennsylvania State study was directed

towards conditions prevailing in a semicontinuous-feed overfeed bed.The simulated refuse

used in these studies was limited to computer cards whose characteristic thickness was

4
much smaller than that typically encountered in refuse.

There has been little theoretical work reported on models suitable for predicting burning

and ignition rates within refuse beds. The literature on coal bed combustion appears

to be ill-suited for refuse bed conditions, where the rate of heat transfer into the fuel

elements provides a controlling resistance to the combustion processes.

Designs based on these methods may have been satisfactory in the past but with the

effects of the new legislation concerning acceptable levels of gaseous and particulate

emission as well as ash and residue quality beginning to be felt, increasing numbers of

practitioners are becoming interested in developing more fundamental ways of designing

their incinerators. For example, HoRender [10] has pointed out the need for indicators

for determining the probable burning characteristics of different fuels, and the selection

of the size, number and location of secondary jet systems and the ratios of primary and

secondary air. In addition the long term trends in refuse quality as predicted by Niessen

and Alsobrook [11] and Niessen and Chansky [12] have suggested that the volatile content

of refuse which is a measure of the quantity of secondary air that is required to complete

the combustion of the volatile products distilling from the fuel bed, will increase over the

years (Table 1.3). The projected increase of this component in refuse is also expected to

require that more significance be placed on the successful operation of the secondary air

jets. This will require a more sophisticated approach to the design of these jets.

The problems of operating an incinerator effectively are enormous when one realizes the

tremendous variation in feed material that is handled from day to day. The variation

in the feedstock quality of an incinerator is very much greater than that in a pulverized

coal fired utility boiler, yet incinerator controls are barely existent compared to the

sophisticated controls of modern utility boilers.

It is self-evident that the above design criteria are severely inadequate for present-day

purposes and are critically defficient in meeting the challenge of tighter air pollution

requirements. The increasing investment costs for suitable incinerators coupled with

the challenges posed by more stringent pollution codes, the difficulty of finding skilled

5
labour, and the financial pressures on municipalities, bring out the basic need to improve

the designs and to develop inexpensive and reliable methods of controlling them. These

improvements will only be forthcoming as a result of extensive research on a laboratory

scale and careful experimentation on full-scale units.

For this reason, work was carried out at the Sheffield MSW incinerator to study the

performance of the plant. The main objective of this research project was to specify the

incinerator design. The experimental data together with the FLUENT computational

code were used to develop a physical and mathematical model of the incinerator. As

a result of the test data and the mathematical modelling of the whole process, sugges-

tions for design improvements for the Sheffield MSW incinerator were made which will

substantially reduce emissions of pollutants and reduce the maintenance costs at the

plant.

The following chapters present and discuss the mathematical model and the results ob-

tained from various experimental measurements made at the Sheffield incinerator plant.

Conclusions drawn from the study together with recommendations for future work are

finally discussed in chapter 6.

6
Chapter 2

Experimental Programme and

Procedure

2.1 Introduction

This chapter is concerned with the acquisition of the experimental data which was nec-

essary for model input and actual characterisation of the incinerator. Plant performance

figures are based upon an assumed ambient temperature in the plant of 15 °C (60 °F).

The Incinerator - Boiler unit house ground floor datum 0.00m (0.00"), is located 53.50

m (175') above the Site Ordance Datum level.

Tests were all carried out on Incinerator - Boiler no. 1 (Bernard Rd, Sheffield) from

September 1988 to July 1989. The following procedures describe the data collection and

the points of collection of the various inputs and outputs around the plant.

2.2 Description of Sheffield municipal incinerator plant

The installation is a continuous refuse disposal plant (30 MW) of direct incineration

type consisting of two-stepped-grate roll incinerator grates combined with two natural

circulation bi-drum boilers. The primary purpose of the plant is the disposal of refuse

collected locally (500 ton/day). The cross sectional view of the plant and the general

7
section of the process are shown in figures 2.1 and 2.2 respectively. Diagrammatic layout

of the Sheffield district heating scheme and damper diagram are also presented in figures

2.3 and 2.4.

Refuse Handling:

Refuse collection vehicles received in the Tipping Area, enter tipping stalls of which

six are provided. Each stall having an automatically controlled door to the main refuse

bunker. The main fuel for the incinerators is mixed household refuse. There are occasions

when collections are made of trade and industrial refuse and of other waste. The former

type of refuse can contain unusually large amounts of wet or putrescible matter and the

latter type largely paper and cardboard waste. At the head of the two feed conveyors,

the refuse is fed to the incinerator feed chutes, a chute being provided for each unit.

Each chute is flat-bottomed, the flat bottom forming the ram floor for a hydraulically

operated ram charging the incinerator. The level of the ram floor is 8.38 m above the

boiler house ground level datum.

The rate of movement of the charging ram feeding the incinerator grate is controlled by

the incinerator operator. The section of each refuse chute leading into the furnace is

fully water-cooled.

Operating Conditions:

The plant is designed to operate on a basis of continuous incineration of refuse with one

incinerator - boiler unit working seven days each week and the other unit working up to

five days each week.

Design Data-Boiler:

The Bi-drum waste heat boilers, each with the following characteristics are installed.

8
 Evaporation at MCR = 32300 kg/hr

Design Pressure = 12.3 bars

Feed water temperature = 186°C

Water content of boiler and furnace (NWL) = 32.58 ton

Water content of boiler and furnace ( FWL) = 35.63 ton

Heat Source:

Domestic, trade and industrial refuse provides the heat source. A typical analysis of

Sheffield refuse is given below, each constituent item being given as a percentage weight

of total. The analysis was carried out by Warren Spring Laboratory on 12th of March

1989 (weight sample = 341 kg). The general density of the refuse as collected is taken as

200 kg/m3 . There will be variations in density of refuse as grabbed from the refuse pits

because of compacting in the pits and inclusion at times of trade and industrial waste

and of material collected from offices.

Fine dust and small cinder (under 12 11.98%

Cinder (12 mm to 45 mm) -

Putrescible matter 15.20

Paper content 30.20

Rags content 4.00

Glass content 7.80

Tins 6.45

Plastics 2.22

Garden refuse 17.80

Miscellaenous combustible 2.86

Miscellaneous non-combustible 1.49

Total 100.0

The gross calorific value of the crude refuse collected would be 11000 kJ/kg (10428

9
Btu/lb) although this value could fall to 7000 kJ/kg (6631 Btu/lb).

Bi-drum Boiler:

The hi-drum boiler is a naturally circulated two drum water tube unit. It has a vertically

arranged water tube generating bank connecting an upper drum (the steam drum) with

a lower drum (the water drum). These drums are positioned transversely with respect

to the hot gas flow. The boiler furnace is water-cooled and is designed to absorb radiant

heat from the combustion zone. Gases are cooled to a lower temperature before passage

over the boiler bank convection surfaces. Steam is generated in the furnace wall tubes

and in a major part of the boiler tube bank and flow is up these tubes. Recirculating

water descends from the steam drum to the water drum through the final and cooler

part of the boiler on the gas outlet side of the boiler.

Furnace:

This is fully water-cooled, of membrane construction comprising 64 mm OD tubes on 76

mm pitch. The side walls of the furnace terminate above grate level and the front wall

above the refuse fuel chute. The rear wall of the furnace forms the rear arch and the exit

screen which is two rows deep on a 152 mm square pitch. Walls are covered with silica

carbide refractory to a height of 5.64 m above the mean stoker level at the centre of the

radiation shaft.

The furnace has a width of 3.05 m and a depth of 4.57 m, with a mean height above

grate at the centre of the shaft of 11.80 m. It has a heating surface of 172 m 2 and the

volume of the radiation shaft from the nose of the arch is 136 m 3 . The mean height of

the screen is 5.49 m. Furnace tubes are 63 mm 0.D to B.S. 3059 Pt. 1.33., Furnace

boxes are 244 mm by 16 mm to B.S. 3602 HFS 27.

10
Boiler bank:

The boiler bank is a single pass bi-drum bank comprising 36+2 elements wide on a pitch

of 83 mm across the gas flow. The 1.37 m diameter steam drum and the 1.07 diameter

water drum are located 7.62 m away from each other. The total commercial heating

surface is 1013 m 2 . Tubes are to BS 3059 Part 1.33, the boiler tubes being 50 mm and

supply tubes 100 mm O.D.

The steam drum is of 22 mm thick plate with torospherical ends. There is a 0.40 m x

0.30 m man-hole door at each end. The water drum has a shell of 22 mm thick plate, the

ends of the drum are torospherical and are of 19 mm plate. Boiler scantlings generally

are to a design pressure of 12.06 bars.

Incinerator:

Two incinerator grate units are installed, one under each boiler. These are used singly

or together, according to the amount of refuse available for disposal. The grates used

are the "Dusseldorf" continuous incineration rotating roll type (figure 2.5). Each grate

is designed to incinerate 10 ton/hr of crude refuse.

Grate roll units:

Six rolls are used to form each complete incinerator grate. The grate is installed at an

angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal so that a natural step occurs between each roll. As

refuse is carried through the furnace by rotation of the individual grate roll units, it falls

from roll to roll down the successive natural steps, being agitated and turned over by

the time that the end roll is reached. Each individual grate roll is 2.5 m wide and 2.4 m

diameter and the total combustion grate area is 36 m 2 . The grate roll itself consists of

a hollow shaft with a basket-type support carrying segmented type grate bars.

11
Draught system fans:

The induced air fan is a type S.T. BAB 141 fan with a backward aerofoil bladed runner

and a duty of 2393 m 3 /min in conditions of 6.75 mbar and 316 °C. It is driven by a 40.3

KW, 740 RPM motor.

Combustion primary air is admitted to the undergrate areas by six ports, one for each

grate roll. Secondary air is taken into the furnace by ports located over the top and the

bottom areas of the incinerator grate.

The F.D. fan is a type D122B fan with a backward aerofoil bladed runner and a duty

of 1025 m3 /min in conditions of 20 mbar and 15 °C, it is driven by a 44 kW, 970 RPM

motor.

The secondary air fan is a type SI BCB 42 fan with a backward curved bladed runner

and a duty of 281.8 m3 /min in conditions of 76.6 mbar and 15 °C, it is driven by a 43.6

kW, 2940 RPM motor.

Steam Utilisation:

a) Heat exchangers:

One heat exchanger is installed for the provision of hot water to the district heating

services. It is a shell and tube exchanger, 0.61 m diameter by 6.40 m long of "U-tube"

type. The exchanger has one pass on the shell side with two passes on the tube side. The

exchanger is capable of heating 28,150 kg of water from 71 °C to 126°C using 32500 kg of

steam per hour at 8.6-10.4 bar. The heat exchanged is 24,074,100 kJ/hr. The exchanger

has design pressures of 12.06 bar on the shell side and 15.86 bar on the tube side, with

design temperatures of 192 °C on both shell side and the tube side. Two other heat

exchangers are installed for the purpose of providing hot water services for the works,

offices and houses in the area. The exchangers are generally similar in construction and

in the fittings supplied, to the exchanger used for the district heating scheme.

12
b) Dump Condensers:

Steam which is in excess of the requirements of the heat exchangers is passed to one

or both of two dump condensers. These are type IFPGS air-cooled condensers and are

cooled by means of variable pitch eight bladed fans, each condenser being in two units

and each unit having its own fan. Salient features of the condensers are: each is 6172 mm

long by 4014 mm wide and capable of handling 32,365 kg of steam per hour, condensing

it to water under all operating conditions. Tube bundles are of 25 mm O.D. by 13 BWG

wall steel tubes with aluminium fins. These tubes are arranged horizontally between

fabricated plug type headers.

2.3 Incinerator Testing Program:

2.3.1 Physical and Chemical Analysis of Sheffield Refuse

Characterization of refuse by physical and chemical analysis and by determination of the

calorific value is fundamental to the engineering design of the incinerator systems. Chem-

ical analysis and Btu values of refuse and residue supplement furnace calorimetry data

in arriving at valid mass and energy balances of incinerator tests. In order to obtain this

information, procedures for the sampling and analysis of refuse materials are required.

Although there are well established sampling procedures for materials such as mineral

ores [13], [14] and [15], the widely differing physical characteristics of the components,

the non ideal materials handling properties (non free flowing) and wide ranging particle

size distributions of refuse materials make direct use of these techniques inappropriate.

Thus for the refuse processing industry, sampling and analytical procedures have been

adapted or modified in order to obtain the required information.

Other workers, particularly in Europe, have also been developing refuse sorting processes

and have followed similar approaches [16] , [17] to sampling and analysis. Standards have

been defined by some countries, for example the American Society for the Testing of

Materials (ASTM) in the USA. However the number of possible procedures, particularly

13
for chemical analysis, can make it difficult to compare the results unless procedures used

and the basis on which the results are reported are stated clearly and unambiguously.

The purpose of this section is to report on five studies of Sheffield refuse and incinerator

residue, all carried out over a period of nine months. The chemical analysis of Sheffield

refuse was conducted by the Warren Spring Laboratory. The physical and chemical

analysis results obtained, are on an "as received" basis unless otherwise stated. Bulk

density is reported in kg/m 3 and moisture content is calculated and reported on a wet

weight basis.

Chemical Composition Analysis of Sheffield Refuse

A complete chemical composition analysis of Sheffield waste was carried out by Warren

Spring Laboratory. The samples were taken directly from the refuse collection vehicles

prior to tipping into the reception bunker. Each time between 13 to 15 separate vehicles

were sampled (approximately 30 kg per sample, equivalent to 2 to 3 bins full) to give a

feed sample of about 400 kg. Portions of each sample were shovelled into large plastic

bags and then sent to Warren Spring Laboratory for analysis.

Tests showed a variation range of refuse analysis and composition. The variation of

moisture content of the refuse from 16 to 42 percent was experienced when no rain fell.

During a rainy period, the variation in refuse moisture content was in the range between

23 to 60 percent. The variation in refuse noncombustibles and metals was estimated to

vary between 18 to 34 percent of total refuse. Paper ranged between 27 to 53 percent

of refuse. The garbage (food waste) fraction ranged from 8 to 19 percent, two thirds of

which was moisture.

The refuse analysis which probably represents an average, was as follows:

14
 Typical Analysis by Weight and

Volume of a Domestic Refuse

Sample in the City of Sheffield

Weight% Volume%

Screening 12.31 4.30

Vegetable and Putrescible 35.46 25.85

Paper 31.12 38.91

Metals 5.34 8.65

Textiles 1.70 3.41

Glass 9.31 6.44

Plastics 2.97 10.43

Unclassified 1.79 2.01

No % l 00%

Proximate Analysis (as fired):

Moisture 36.0%

Volatile matter 32.0%

Fixed carbon 8.2%

Ash 23.8%

15
 Ultimate Analysis (as fired)

Moisture 36.0%

Carbon 20.8%

Hydrogen 2.4%

Sulphur 0.3%

Chlorine 0.2%

Nitrogen 0.4%

Oxygen 17.5%

Ash 23.8%

Estimated Calorific Value of Domestic

Refuse Sample in the City of Sheffield

Vol.% Btu/lb kJ/kg

Screening below 2 cm 4.30 307.78 717.13

Vegetable and Putrescible 25.85 871.88 2031.48

Paper 38.91 1900.62 4428.44

Metal 8.65 - -

Textiles 3.41 113.78 265.11

Glass 6.44 _ -

Plastics 10.43 486.49 1133.52

Unclassified 2.01 139.93 326.04

100%

Gross Calorific Value 3820.48 8901.72

Net Calorific Value 3285.20 7655.72

(Base December 1988)

The total yield of domestic waste in the City of Sheffield is in the order of 2500 tonnes/week.

16
Determination of Calorific Value of Sheffield Refuse

Method of determination: The calorific value of refuse was determined by two meth-

ods ; a) by sampling and laboratory analysis and b) by an overall heat balance of the

plant.

Method a: Samples of refuse were taken from the pit at approximately 30-minute inter-

vals during the test period. Portions of each sample were shovelled into large plastic bins

and retained for ultimate analysis and calorific value determinations. These were carried

out by Warren Spring Laboratory. The gross calorific values of the refuse determined by

this method were 8769 kJ/kg (17th January 1989) and 6559 kJ/kg (21 February 1989)

respectively.

Method b: Measurements made during the incinerator performance tests were used to

evaluate an overall heat balance of the plant. The reference temperature selected for the

heat balance was taken to be the average ambient temperature measured over the two

days of the test (23rd and 24th January 1989) and it was assumed that the refuse in the

bunker and the water supply from the main tank were at the same temperature.

It was thus only necessary to consider three sources of heat input to the incinerator, i.e.;

the heat from the combustion of refuse, the latent heat of water vapour in the combustion

air and the heat input from the forced draught and secondary air fan powers. The heat

output of the plant is a summation of the following:

• Heat supplied to boiler feed water

• Sensible heat of dry flue gases

• Latent heat and sensible heat of water vapour in flue gases

• Sensible heat of clinker and dust

• Calorific heat of carbon in clinker and dust (assumed to have a calorific value of 14500

Btu/lb)

• Sensible heat of moisture in clinker and dust

• Radiation and convection losses (assumed to be one percent of the heat output of the

plant)

17
Results of Determination: A summary of the overall heat balance of the plant is
given below. The gross calorific value of the refuse determined by heat balance method
was 8732 kJ/kg.
Calorific Value of Refuse Determination by Heat Balance:.
1) Heat Output:
Heat to boiler feed water = 14347 kJ/sec.
Sensible heat of dry flue gases = 4743 kJ/sec.
Latent heat and sensible heat of water vapour in flue gases = 6641 kJ/sec.
Clinker and dust (excluding moisture):
- sensible heat = 59 kJ/sec.
- calorific heat of carbon = 923 kJ/sec.
Sensible heat of moisture in clinker and dust = 25 kJ/sec.
Radiation and convection losses (assumed 1% of output) = 267 kJ/sec.
Total heat output = 27005 kJ/sec.

2) Heat Input:
Latent heat of water vapour in combustion air = 237 kJ/sec.
Forced draught and secondary air fan power (estimated) = 50 kJ/sec.
Heat from combustion of refuse (by difference) = 26718 kJ/sec.
Total heat input = 27005 kJ/sec.
Incineration rate = 3.45 kJ/sec.
Gross calorific value of refuse = 8732 kJ/kg.
We consider the heat balance method to provide the most accurate determination of the
calorific value. The differences between the two values obtained using method (a) and
between those values and the heat balance value evidently occur because of the difficulty
in obtaining representative samples of the refuse.

18
Bulk Density Tests

A series of 8 samples runs were performed in order to determine the density of Sheffield
refuse. For density measurements the settled volume technique was used as it was con-
sidered that this gave more reproducible results, even though the values determined were
up to 15% higher than those measured when the contents were not settled [18]. During
all tests the refuse was devoid of oversized wastes. Bulk density of refuse was determined
by filling a container of known volume (1 m 3 ) with the fresh refuse. After filling the con-
tainer, it was dropped 3 times from a height of about 100 mm and then the resulting
space was topped up with additional refuse. The weight of refuse was then determined.
The samples were taken directly from the collecting vehicles.
The first density test was conducted on Friday, November 18, 1988. There had been no
rain or snow during the previous several days. The residential sources were in the heating
season which would cause a low moisture content of waste paper. No grass or other yard
debris was presented. The next 3 tests were carried out in December 88, January 89
and February 89. The fourth density test was conducted on Monday April 11, 1989
following a humid, cool period during which no rain fell. The refuse was collected from
residences the same morning. Grass and leaves from lawn care were present. The refuse
was so damp that difficulty was experienced in maintaining the fires on the travelling
grate stoker.
During incineration of the November 18 refuse, the moisture content of the flue gas was
measured. It indicated a refuse moisture content of 24 per cent. The moisture content
of the April 11 refuse was probably close to 47 percent as shown by a test on sampled
refuse. Tests were also carried out to determine the bulk density of the residues. The
method used was the same as the one described above. The results obtained from these
tests are shown below:

19
 Bulk Density Determination

Date Refuse Density (kg/m3 ) Residue Density (kgirro)

November 88 137.0 1050.1

December 88 176.1 998.1

January 89 180.2 890.5

February 89 230.7 1140.6

March 89 254.6 986.8

April 89 310.1 953.5

May 89 246.1 896.9

June 89 180.6 932.3

Determination of Moisture Content of Sheffield Refuse

There are several ways in which moisture can influence the combustion intensity in an
incinerator. The most obvious is by straight dilution. The reduction in incinerator
capacity when burning waste of high moisture is directly due to the reduced reactivity of
the reactants (mostly smoke, volatiles and similar gaseous combustibles). The presence
of evaporated moisture increases the gas volume so that the concentrations of the fuel
(smoke, volatiles and gaseous combustibles) and the oxygen is reduced. At the same time
the increased volume of gas decreases the residence time in the combustion chamber so
that, either combustion is completed outside the chamber or else the residence time is
increased again by reducing the air input which in turn must be balanced by reducing
the overall combustion rate. The presence of moisture also provides an extra thermal
load so that the flame temperature will drop.
Moisture content of Sheffield refuse was determined by drying samples to constant weight
at a temperature of 100 - 105 °C. The following equation was then used to calculate the
moisture content percentage, wet weight basis [19]:

(Wet Wt — Dry Wt)

i.e. Moisture content % = 100 x
Wet Wt

20
Wet samples were investigated on separate days at the plant. Samples were protected

from moisture loss and weighed using a platform scale. They were then transferred to the

drying oven and were dried to constant weight at about 105 °C. In most of the tests, the

constant weight was achieved in 24 hours or less for oven temperatures in the range 100

to 105 °C. This suggests that the time for drying is less dependent on the initial moisture

content and more likely to be influenced by surface area, material packing characteristics

and the depth of material on the sample tray. It was observed that drying time for large

samples was reduced if the sample was spread thinly over 2 or 3 trays rather than being

piled up on a single tray. In addition, samples with a higher bulk density, particularly

those containing a high proportion of fines, tended to take longer to dry.

The variation of moisture content of Sheffield refuse from 16 to 42 percent was experi-

enced when no rain fell. The refuse moisture during a raining period was observed to

increase up to 60 percent.

Clinker and Precipitator Hopper Dust Analysis

In order to fulfil the aim of investigating the combustion efficiency under the various

operating conditions, it was necessary to measure the carbon loss from the system. Two

sources of loss were considered as carbon monoxide in the flue gases, and as the carbon

lost with the carryover and flyash. The gross samples of the burn out clinker were

collected during three days of testing. To obtain the samples, the disposal skip was

shunted to one side and a skip used solely for the collection of the clinker sample, was

placed in position at the conveyor belt discharge. On obtaining the desired amount of

sample the disposal skip was shunted back into position. Each sample was picked clean

of metals as far as was practicable and the metals set to one side for weighing. On

completion of each day of testing the gross samples were crushed. It was then spread

and samples taken for analysis. The gross samples of dust from the precipitator hopper

discharge were collected during the three days of testing in increments of about 10 kg

taken at hourly intervals. The samples were ground down and then analysed for moisture,

21
 carbon, hydrogen and putrescible content determination.
The weighted average carbon content of the clinker and precipitator hopper dust was
3.4 % on a dry and metal free basis (2.9% dry basis ). The weighted average putrescible
content of the clinker and precipitator hopper dust was 0.095 % on a dry and metal free
basis (0.09 % dry basis).
The average value was then taken to be representative of the whole. The method of
collection was probably the largest source of error. The error introduced by the sampling
and analysis was taken to be small. The results of the second day of the testing program
were as follows:

Residue Analysis
Average%
Moisture 14.7%
Unburnt carbon (dry and metal free) 6.6%
Putrescible content 0.099%

Precipitator Hopper Dust Analysis

Average%
Moisture 16.4%
Unburnt carbon (dry and metal free) 13.9%
Putrescible content 0.247%

The results obtained for the C/H ratio of the fly ash and the incinerator residues are
shown below:

22
 Carbon - Hydrogen Analysis
Fly ash (Dry Basis)
Run no. C/H Ratio Carbon % Hydrogen %
1 28.7 4.5 0.16
2 46.1 5.9 0.12
3 40.3 5.3 0.13
4 37.1 5.0 0.16
5 24.8 5.1 0.40

Carbon - Hydrogen Analysis

Incinerator Residue (Dry Basis)
Run no. C/H Ratio Carbon % Hydrogen %
1 13.3 4.4 0.33

2 16.4 3.5 0.21

3 9.5 2.4 0.26

4 16.9 4.9 0.29
5 13.8 4.1 0.27

Grate Siftings Tests

During these tests, the refuse burnt at the plant was primarily from households, with
minor commercial source wastes. The refuse appeared to be normal for a rain-free period.
The sifting test was conducted at the plant on October 27 and 28, 1988, for nearly 6
hours on both units (Boiler nos. 1 and 2). The clearances around the grate totalled
1.93 percent of the section area. The siftings that passed through the clearances of the
grate dropped into the hopper and were emptied. The grate openings (at the surface
of rollers) consisted of gaps, t; inch wide, with a total area of 7% of the sections. The
siftings from these sections were also dropped into the hopper and were collected from
there. The grate sifting samples were analysed. The combined siftings had a low (4.19
percent) content of combustible matter. At a measured bulk density of 210 kg/m 3 , the

23
siftings volume was about 0.10 m' per refuse ton. Large amount of glass, ceramics and
stones were observed in the grate sifting samples. The metal fraction included nails,
screws, bottle caps, tin can covers, etc. The density of the siftings was measured and it
was about 822 kg/m'. The samples of siftings were all collected when the furnace was
shut down. Siftings weight was estimated at 399.5 kg per 3500 tons of raw refuse.

2.3.2 Temperature Measurements

A series of tests was carried out to establish an approximate temperature profile through-
out the incinerator. The test temperature logs showed operation with the temperature
control set point at 900 °C at the boiler inlet. Simultaneous temperature readings, giving
the actual temperature profile of the furnace enclosure, radiation shaft and the refuse
bed were obtained. The thermocouple used was of Ni-Cr-Al type covered with stainless
steel 310 material. Temperature readings were recorded using the BASIC program (see
appendix 6 for printout of the program) run on a CBM computer (plate no. 2). Due
to heat transfer considerations the thermocouple bead temperature is not equal to the
true gas temperature as discussed in [20] and [21]. A heat balance in fact is necessary
to relate the two. Appendix 2 outlines the method [22] by which the flame temperature
was derived from thermocouple bead temperature.

Furnace Temperature Measurements:

To record the temperature fluctuations in the hottest zone inside the furnace (position
TC10, see fig.2.6), it was decided to use a Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple and try to get the
thermocouple as close to the hot zone as possible. This of course meant potential errors
due to the effects of radiation but no practical alternative was available. It was decided
to use the access port on the back corner approximately 7m away from the hottest zone.
Whilst this was thought to be the best choice, it still presented many problems. One
of which was that the wall of the radiation shaft sloped at an angle of 60 ° below the
access port, thus preventing the simple introduction of a long length of mineral insulated

24
thermocouple. The only solution seemed to be to use a water cooled probe long enough
to project beyond the slope, and thereby enable the thermocouple to hang vertically
down into the hot zone from the end of the probe (plate nos. 3 & 4). The access door
made of cast iron and lined with refractory material, was removed and brought to the
Physics Department workshop. A hole 50 mm diameter at an angle of 45 ° was drilled
on it and a 11" BSP socket was welded in the hole. This enabled a 20 cm long tube
with a bore of 1.03" to be threaded into the socket which provided a guide for the water
cooled probe and the addition of grubscrews enabled it to be locked in position (plate
no. 5). The design of the water cooled probe was fairly straight forward; it consisted
of 3 concentric 316 stainless steel tubes with spirals of copper wire between the tubes
to ensure that the water cooled to the end of the probe (figure 2.7). A heat and mass
balance calculation was carried out to estimate the amount of water required to cool the
probe. Due to restricted space behind the access door, the probe was made 3.5 m long.
Insertion and removal was a 4 man operation including the use of a 3 m support to hold
the weight of the probe as it emerges. The water supply system for the probe consisted
of a Lowerna P.M.70 pump, a tank (1m 3 ) installed with two cold water supplies, one
from the mains (45 m below the access port) and one from a header tank on the roof of
the plant which was used as a back up (plate no. 6).
Temperatures were recorded in this high temperature zone for each of the operating
conditions examined during this study. The maximum temperature recorded was 1293°C
(see figure 2.8). Each time the Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple was quite effective until the flame
temperature became too intense, thereby causing the thermocouple to melt. For this
reason, we were only able to record the temperatures for about 3 minutes in this region.
The above results show that temperatures in this region are well above 1300 °C.
The Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple and the watercooled probe were also used to record the
flame temperature fluctuations above the burning refuse inside the furnace. Readings
were taken along the bed cross section on top of roller nos 1, 2, 3 and 4 using the top,
middle and bottom ports located on the furnace wall (plate nos 7 & 8). Gas temperature

25
fluctuations were recorded at 6 locations approximately 120 cm above the grate surface.
These locations were spaced approximately 50 cm, beginning from a point 25 cm away
from the inner surface of the refractory wall (figure 2.6). The maximum temperature
recorded was 1174 °C (on top of roller 2). It was not possible to record temperatures
above 1174 °C since a Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple was used for measurements. The results
showed an increase from the furnace wall to the centre of the chamber and then a
decrease. This indicates that most of the refuse is burnt in the middle of the grate
mainly on top of rollers 2 and 3. Visual inspection verified this. Typical temperature
variation vs time at position 3 for rollers 1, 2 and 3 are presented in figures 2.10, 2.11 and
2.12 respectively. The temperature near to the furnace wall deviated from the centre line
temperature by about 35-40%. Temperatures recorded near to the furnace wall ranged
from 450 °C up to 600 °C. Temperatures recorded at the centre line were generally above
1300 °C. Temperature variation across the refuse bed on top of rollers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are
shown in figures 2.14, 2.15, 2.16 and 2.17 respectively.
Readings taken on top of roller 4 were lower than those recorded for rollers 2 and 3.
The highest temperature recorded here was about 980 °C. The temperature at the wall
deviated from the centre line temperature by about 25-30% at an axial location 120 cm
above the grate surface (figure 2.13).
The fluctuations in temperatures recorded, were in some cases as high as ±30%. All
fluctuations were averaged for calculation purposes.

Radiation Shaft Temperature Measurements

A water cooled probe fitted with a Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple was used to establish an
approximate temperature profile in the shaft. Temperature measurements were taken at
10 locations (positions 1 to 10, figure 2.6) for each of the operating conditions examined
during this study. These locations were spaced approximately every 40 cm, beginning
from a point approximately 15 cm vertically down from the end of the probe. The
thermocouple TC1 was used as the controlling point (900 °C) in our testing program

26
(figure 2.18). The examination of the temperatures recorded by thermocouples TC2, TC3
and TC4 showed a maximum temperature differential of 200 °C from the temperatures
recorded by the controlling thermocouple TC1. Temperatures at these points varied
between 650 °C up to 1000 °C (figures 2.19, 2.20 and 2.21). Occasionally sudden drops
in temperature were recorded by thermocouples TC5 and TC6. This was possibly due
to the passage of unused secondary air in this region or burning of extremely wet refuse
(figures 2.22 and 2.23). Temperatures recorded by thermocouples TC7, TC8 and TC9
followed closely the readings taken by thermocouple TC10 with a maximum deviation
of approximately 200 °C in a few isolated instances. Temperatures recorded at these
points were in the range between 900 °C up to 1300 °C (figures 2.24, 2.25 and 2.26).

Refuse Bed Temperature Measurements:

While instrumentation was available to measure the temperature of the flue gases in
the combustion zone, the temperature of the refuse bed was more difficult to determine.
The bed temperature was measured at three different locations across the refuse bed
on top of roller nos 1, 2 and 3. Measurements were made at roughly one quarter,
one half and three quarter of the bed depth inside the bed above the grate (figure
2.9). These measurements were made using a specially constructed probe with Ni-Cr-
Al thermocouple. Setting up the requisite procedure for monitoring and collecting all
necessary data about the burning refuse bed was a monumental task which unfortunately
left some holes in the data. In an attempt to see if, in fact there was a relationship
between furnace temperature and the bed temperature, attempts were made to monitor
the bed temperature with a specially built probe (figure 2.27). This probe was quite
effective until the flame temperature became too intense, thereby causing the probe to
melt. Alternatives such as remote transmitters and heat sensitive dyes were investigated.
All of these techniques were rejected for numerous reasons of unreliability. An optical
pyrometer was used to estimate the surface bed temperature. It was noted that the
surface flame temperatures were usually about 300-400 °C greater than the combustion

27
chamber temperature (In this comparison, furnace temperatures were averaged over the
length of the test). It also should be emphasized that these measurements represent
a weighted mean of the temperature of the gas flowing over the thermocouple and the
temperatures of the surfaces with which the thermocouple is in radiative exchange.
The accuracy of this method is unknown but the results obtained were used for modelling
of the refuse bed and estimation of the rate of heat release on top of each roller. Fluctua-
tions in the temperature of bed were as high as ±15%. The temperatures recorded were
averaged for calculation purposes. It was realised that a more comprehensive study of
the bed temperatures was desirable but it was not thought to be practicable. A summary
of the results obtained at different points inside the refuse bed is shown below:

Internal Refuse Bed Temperature ( °C)

Bed Depth Bed Depth Bed Depth

Point 1 Point 2 Point 3
Roller no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1010 980 1043 990 1013 978 1254 1135 810

890 980 1043 1005 998 973 973 899 910
965 1105 995 875 965 989 897 934 1011
2 980 898 1120 1010 980 990 980 1230 1100

3 780 958 980 810 840 960 927 973 897

870 990 1120 870 855 1010 945 1014 997

993 973 989 830 825 880 915 953 1011

Flue Gas Temperature Measurements:

The flue gas temperature was recorded at eight points in the precipitator inlet duct
and precipitator outlet duct using a Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple. Readings were 'taken at

28
15-minute intervals of all other test and panel readings. Flue gas temperatures at the
precipitator inlet ranged between 287 °C to 330 °C (figure 2.28). The flue gas tem-
perature at the precipitator inlet was at all times during the tests above the specified
minimum value of 250 °C. Flue gas temperatures at the precipitator outlet varied be-
tween 270 °C to 310 °C which again was quite high compared to the specified minimum
value of 210 °C (figure 2.29).

Miscellaneous Temperature Measurements:

In addition to the above temperature measurements, several other temperature mea-

surements were made in order to identify the temperature profile at different locations
around the plant. These are:
1) Boiler water flow and return temperatures.
2) F.D and S.A fan inlet temperatures.
3) Ash trough temperature.
4) Boiler gas exit temperature.
The wet and dry bulb temperatures in the vicinity of the pits were measured by means of
mercury in the glass thermometers at hourly intervals. For all the above measurements
a Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple was used. Readings were recorded using a BASIC program run
on a CBM computer. The results obtained are as follows:
- Average air temperature at the F.D fan intake ranged between 13 °C to 24 °C.
- Average ash trough temperatures ranged between 69 °C to 87 °C.
- Boiler gas exit temperatures, ranged from 510 °C to 705 °C.
- Boiler water feed temperature, varied between 150 °C to 170 °C (figure 2.30).

2.3.3 Pressure Measurements

The main object of the cold test work (pressure measurements) was to establish the
primary and secondary air distribution through the grate and slots on the furnace roof

29
and hence through the live fire bed. The results of this test work suggested that about
80-90% of the total combustion air entered the furnace through the grate and most of
the time no secondary air was used for combustion purposes. From time to time, the
secondary air was supplied through a series of slots (4cm width by 10 cm long) located
above the top and the bottom areas of the incinerator grate, discharging into the furnace
enclosure (figure 2.6). The amount of secondary air used for the cooling purposes varied
between 100-125 m3/min (50-60% secondary front and 30-40% secondary rear). In the
original design of the plant, it was assumed that the long, luminous flame rising from
the refuse bed would mix with the secondary combustion air introduced through the
roof arch of the furnace, and that the combustion would be essentially completed in the
chamber with only minor parts of the combustion processes continuing in the radiation
shaft [23]. In actual operation our tests showed, however, that this condition was seldom
reached. When the refuse quality was such that a long, luminous flame could be obtained,
the introduction of the secondary air through the roof arch resulted, in some cases, in
localized high temperatures, sometimes in excess of 1000 °C. Because the secondary air
was distributed in this manner (slots), the turbulence required for complete mixing and
good combustion would probably not be achieved due to the absence of high velocity
passages or directional baffles. The cooling of the roof arch and the upper portion of the
walls by the secondary air, while the lower portions of the walls were exposed to flame
temperatures, resulted in high refractory maintenance costs because of partial slagging
and thermal gradients (see plate nos. 9 & 10). During the experimental work, boiler

no. 1 was shut down twice for refractory maintenance work, once in January 89 and a
second time in May 89.
Test work was also carried out to estimate the undergrate air distribution through the
grate. The amount of primary air passing through each control damper was estimated
using figure 2.32. The results obtained were as follows:

30
 Undergrate Air Distribution

Roller no. % air distribution

1 14 - 32
2 28 - 40
3 25 - 35
4 11 - 18
5 4-8
6 1-3

On average, about 75% of the total undergrate air passes through the front half of the
grate (roller nos. 1, 2 and 3) and the remainder through the rear of the grate (roller nos.
4, 5 and 6), i.e. through the 2 mm gaps at the roller surface. It was observed that most
of the time, these gaps were blocked by dirt and the rollers were not in a good condition
which resulted in poor air distribution and low combustion efficiency.
Variation of the amount of air supplied for 18 tests (in order to determine the effect of
operating variables such as air on the incinerator performance) could not be achieved as
originally planned. There is too much potential for leakage (e.g. through access ports,
charging chute and inspection windows) which results in unwanted air being drawn into

the furnace. The induced draft fan was the major factor in being able to alter the
amount and ratio of the combustion air. Flow irregularities were observed inside the
furnace (visual inspection through the access port in the control room) when attempts
were made to change the air flow rate and total air applied. The flow patterns which
existed when no attempts were made to alter the percentage of air applied were destroyed
when the attempts were made. It was noted that air leakage into the furnace occured
continuously. An estimate of the amount was made as the difference between the sum of
all forced draught and the induced draught. Estimated performance curves for F.D. and
I.D. fans [24] are shown in figures 2.33 and 2.34 respectively. By using these curves, the

31
amount of the air leakage into the furnace was estimated to be about 3.33 to 5.83 m3/sec.
The forced draught fan is rated at 50,000 CFM (23.33 m 3 /sec), actual measurements
were much less than this value and were between 23,000 up to 35,000 CFM (10.73 to
16.33 m3/sec).
The S.A. fan is rated at 9950 CFM (4.64 m3 /sec), the actual measurements were again
less than this value and were between 3000 to 5500 CFM (1.4 to 2.5 m 3 /sec), see figure
2.35.
Pressure measurements were carried out at 27 different points around the plant:
a) Measurements were made of AP across the control dampers fitted in the side of the
hoppers in order to determine the amount of undergrate air passing through the dampers
and entering the furnace through each grate roll.
This was done by tapping in (before and after the dampers) and reducing to a 6 mm
OD tube which was connected by a flexible tube to a manometer. The results were used
to get the flow characteristic curves for each damper (rollers 1 to 6). Pressure traverses
were carried out using a pitot - static tube to estimate: 1) the average undergrate air
pressures and 2) AP across the refuse bed on top of each roller. (At the Sheffield plant,
the system is designed on an U/G air pressure of 40 mm W G). The results obtained were
as follows:

Average U/G Air Pressures (mmWg)

Roller no. 1, P varied between 18 to 35 mmWg

Roller no. 2, P varied between 25 to 40 mmWg
Roller no. 3, P varied between 14 to 29 mmWg
Roller no. 4, P varied between 8 to 15 mmWg

Roller no. 5, P varied between 4 to 10 mmWg

Roller no. 6, P varied between -4 to 1 mmWg

AP across the bed was measured in January 89. The data obtained are as follows:

32
Roller 1 (From L.H.S to R.H.S) AP across the bed varied between 28 mmWG to 44
mmWG.
Roller 2 (From L.H.S to R.H.S) AP across the bed varied between 44 mmWG to 37
mmWG.
Roller 3 (From L.H.S to R.H.S) AP across the bed varied between 37 mmWG to 20

mmWG.
Roller 4 (From L.H.S to R.H.S) AP across the bed varied between 20 mmWG to 10
mmWG.
Roller 5 (From L.H.S to R.H.S) AP across the bed varied between 10 mmWG to -1
mmWG.
Roller 6 (From L.H.S to R.H.S) AP across the bed varied between 5 mmWG to -10
mmWG.

The same test was done in May 89 with relatively dry refuse and the results obtained
are as follows:
Roller no. 1 = 13 to 15 mmWG.
Roller no. 2 = 12 to 17 mmWG.
Roller no. 3 = 10 down to 1 mmWG.
Roller no. 4 = 4 down to 1 mmWG.

Roller no. 5 = 2 down to -1 mmWG.

Roller no. 6 = - .

b) Draft measurements - Total undergrate air pressure, total secondary air pressure,
furnace suction, boiler exit suction and the precipitator exit suction were all measured
and recorded using the plant instruments, readings being taken at 30 minute intervals.
c) Flue gas velocities and hence the gas flow rates in each duct (at the inlet to and
the outlet from the precipitator) were measured by a pitot tube in conjuction with an
inclined water manometer. Pitot traverses of the inlet and outlet ducts were carried out

33
at the commencement and completion of the test period, measurements also being made
at each position immediately prior to gas sampling. Velocities measured at the boiler
exit varied between 1.8 to 2.7 m/sec.
d) To estimate the F.D fan and S.A. fan output, pressure measurements were made of
the inlet to and the outlet from the fans. This was done by tapping in and reducing to
a 6 mm OD tube which was connected by flexible tubing to a manometer. Forced air
enters a common duct from which two branches evolve. Each branch, in itself, divides
into 6 branches. Pitot tubes were used in the ducts at each one of the junction points to
measure the amount of air applied. The same tests were repeated with the S.A. fan and
an estimation of the amount of secondary air entering the furnace for different operating
conditions was obtained.

2.3.4 Gas Sampling Measurements

The emissions from municipal waste incineration processes can be divided into three
categories:
• Combustible gases or vapours,
• Particulates consisting of ash plus unburned carbon and metallic fumes or oxides,
• Acid gases.
Emissions of combutible gases and vapours and the carbon content of emitted particu-
lates are functions of the combustion process in the furnace, which is in turn a function
of temperature and combustion chamber design. Given a reasonable design and suffi-
cient mixing above the refuse bed, then complete reaction of pyrolysis products should
be achieved.
Emissions of particulates are one of the most perceptible forms of pollution and consid-
erable effort is expended in attempting to reduce them. The emission standards for the
combustion of municipal refuse is covered by the Report of the Second Working Party
on Grit and Dust Emission [25], which recommends 915.6 mg/m 3 for an appliance rated
less than 0.879 MW and 228.9 mg/m 3 for appliances up to 14.7 MW (Table 2.1). There

34
are several emission control devices currently used on incinerator plants including wet

scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators , the latter having guaranteed collection effi-

ciencies of over 95 % [26]. The amount of the particulate emissions is clearly dependent

on the ash content of the refuse [27] and with some of the higher ash fuels the particulate

loading of the flue gases could cause problems.

Acid gas emissions particularly those of hydrogen chloride could be a further cause

for concern, although there is scope for the reduction of emissions. The more familiar

problems of the oxides of nitrogen and sulphur also associated with coal combustion, are

generally found to be lower for waste combustion than for coal combustion [28]. These

lower emission levels are associated with the lower nitrogen and sulphur contents of refuse

compared to coal. However, it must be remembered that halving the potential heating

value of a fuel (waste c.f. coal) is equivalent to multiplying the inherent nitrogen and

sulphur by two for a constant thermal output.

A primary aim of our experimental program at Sheffield municipal waste incinerator was

the measurement of the incinerator exit flue gas composition with respect particularly to

the pollutants CO, NO and SO 2 . The sampling and analysis of the flue gas was required

for the following purposes:

1 - Checking and controlling the efficiency of combustion.

2 - Calculating heat balances.

3 - Detecting air or gas in-leakage.

4 - Determinig compositions and hence calculating volumes of waste gases.

5 - Determining the effect of the gas on the other parts of the plant, e.g. corrosion or

tube blockage.

6 - Determining toxic gases.

This section describes and presents the design, construction and testing of the gas sam-

pling systems together with the analytical results obtained from the tests.

35
Problems Associated with Gas Sampling

Sampling of incinerator gases requires special consideration of several characteristics

unique to this operation: the necessity to obtain the representative sampling of relatively

large gas flows in a large duct cross-section, the presence of large low density particulates

entrained in the gas stream and the necessity to sample gases at temperatures in the

range of 500 °C to 700 °C. An analysis of the experience of a number of organizations

active in sampling incinerator gases and a summary of the recommendations on the

proper approach to the design of sampling equipment for incinerator gases, is contained

in a series of papers; [29], [30] and [31]. These recommendations are as follows:

• The minimum size of sampling nozzles should be 3/4 in. (18 mm).

• Sampling nozzles in high temperature gases (i.e. above approximately 500 °C) should

be of stainless steel.

• Sampling probes in high temperature conditions (i.e. above approximately 500 °C

should be water cooled to prevent combustion of entrained particulates after entry into

the sampling nozzle.

• Sampling equipment should be designed to assure isokinetic conditions on an instan-

taneous basis, i.e. null type sampling.

Usually a number of problems are raised when a gas sampling probe is introduced into

a two phase flow. Apart from the obvious fouling by droplet or particulate trajectories,

the probe distorts the gaseous streamlines at the point in the flow where it is located.

This distortion of the stream lines causes a perturbation of the concentration gradients

of all species in the flow.

For a large scale system, i.e. an incinerator, a large water cooled sampling probe is

normally used, the internal diameter is of the order of 1 mm and the external diameter of

the order of say 6 mm. Adiabatic expansion is not usually employed and heat conduction

is used to cool the sampled gases. The probe is usually cooled with water although

heated water under pressure or steam are sometimes used in an endeavour to prevent

the condensation of water vapour present in the sample when wet analyses are needed.

36
The thermal stresses which a metallic sampling probe experiences when immersed in
a turbulent high temperature flow field are considerable, this constitutes an additional
complexity which has to be taken into account when designing a water cooled probe.
Although sufficient sample mass flow can be extracted, the water cooled probe has a
considerable draw-back in that transition metals which are normally employed for probe
construction, can provide ideal environments for surface chemical reactions. All chemical
reactions within the probe being extremely undesirable. This surface reaction problem is
most acute when sampling for NO species since it is known [32], [33] that under reducing
environment conditions the chemical reduction of nitrogen oxides by carbon monoxide,
hydrogen and other reducing agents occurs in the presence of a metallic surface. The
result is that NO concentrations lower than the true values are measured by the analyser.
In an effort to overcome this problem many investigators [32], [34] have constructed their
probes from stainless steel since this material does not display as high a tendency as pure
transition metals (e.g. Cu, Ni and Fe) to promote surface reactions. Stainless steel also
posesses good mechanical strength and oxidizes only very slowly.
Another problem encountered when sampling probes are used concerns the rate at which
the sample is withdrawn from the probe. As mentioned above a distortion of the stream-
lines upstream of the probe occurs and it is obvious that this distortion is a function of
sampling rate. To minimize unwanted distortion, the mean velocity of the gases at the
probe entrance must be equal to the mean velocity of the gases in this vicinity which
would exist in the absence of the probe. The effect of sampling velocity upon measured
gas composition has been examined by Lengelle and Verdier [35] who found a significant
dependance.

Measurement of CO, CO 2 and 0 2 concentrations in the stack gas

A water cooled stainless steel probe was designed and constructed for the purpose of
measuring CO, CO 2 and 0 2 concentrations in the stack gas. The overall length of
the probe was 4 m. Measurements were made at the inlet to and the outlet from the

37

;.
precipitator. Sampling was carried out for 10 minutes at each of 12 positions at both the
inlet and the outlet (see figure 2.36), giving a nominal sampling time of 2 hours at both
positions (tests were carried out each day over a period of 6 weeks). The probe consisted
of three concentric stainless steel tubes which were attached to a stainless steel tip by
means of silver soldering. The probe overall OD was 40 mm and the inner capillary
through which the sample flowed, was 2 mm ID (figure 2.7). It was vital that the 3
tubes remained concentric so that the cooling water could flow easily along the narrow
probe annuli. In order to ensure that the tip which experiences considerable thermal and
mechanical stress, was adequately cooled and the sample efficiently quenched, the cooling
water flowed through the inner most channel first before reaching the tip. No difficulty
with any excessive sample condensation in the probe were encountered. A water tank
(1m3 ) connected to a small Stuart Turner pump was used as the water supply for this
probe. Cooling water was supplied from the header tank on the plant roof. A detailed
heat transfer analysis of the probe was not attempted as a design aid since such an
analysis would be very complex mathematically due to the large range of temperatures
and hence the thermal properties which are encountered throughout the probe. Instead
an approximate heat transfer evaluation was made to estimate the necessary cooling
water mass flow rate, and then relatively detailed calculations were performed to assess
the efficiency of the resultant probe design in quenching chemical reactions occuring
in the sample flow through the probe. A computer program nearly similar to the one
presented in [22] was used for this purpose. Flexible polythene tubing was used to transfer
cooling water to and from the probe and brazing was used in the cooling water manifold
construction. The probe inner sample capillary was expanded to OD stainless steel
tubing in this manifold and connected to the OD Teflon sample line by means of
a swagelock stainless steel fitting. Figure 2.37 illustrates the gas sampling line. As
it shows, the system was operated in either of two modes; 1) normal sampling and 2)
purging of the probe with air. The second mode of operation was selected at all times
during which actual withdrawal of samples from the stack was not required. Two Grubb

38
 Parsons SB2 infra red gas analysers (IRGA) were used for the purpose of continuously
measuring CO and CO 2 concentrations in the sampled gases. As plate no. 6 shows, they
were connected in series. This posed no real disadvantage from a response time point
of view since steady state readings only were required. An 0 2 paramagnetic analyser
was used for oxygen measurements. A water manometer was connected to them so that
sufficient flow to the analysers was assured if a pressure drop across them of 5 in.W.G.,
i.e. approximately 0.5 lit/min was registered. Both IRGA's and the 0 2 paramagnetic
analyser were connected to the channels of the Chessell miniature chart recorder after
the output potentiometers on each analyser were first substituted witb, z, VON4 QT. V2tAV.

type which enabled sensitive adjustment of the output signal in the range 0 - 10 itiV (see
plate nos. 11, 12 and 13).
Nitrogen was employed as zero gas and a standard gas containing 10% CO 2 , 10% CO
and zero 0 2 was used for the calibration purposes. Both IRGA's and the 0 2 analyser
were serviced before use and were left permanently switched on to assure steady state
operation. Each time the zero/calibration of each instrument was checked before making
any actual measurements. Provision was also made in the sampling line for the connec-
tion of another analyser, however, this take-off point was normally used whenever batch
samples were required to be accumulated in the sample bottles for analysis by the gas
chromatograph. This method of analysis was used for checking IRGA operation and for
the estimation of H2, CH4 and N2 levels.
Pitot-static pressure and flue gas temperature measurements were made at regular inter-
vals across each duct (inlet to the precipitator and at the outlet from the precipitator)
to enable the accurate determination of the mean flue gas temperatures and flowrates.
These measurements were made using a pitot tube and inclined manometer, whilst the
temperature measurements were made using a Ni-Cr-Al thermocouple.
The percent excess air was calculated using the stack gas analysis. These tests on the
Sheffield incinerator showed an average excess air of 210 percent and a range from 70 to
380 percent. The excess air percentage was calculated from the stack gas ' analysis using

39
the following equation [36]
02 — C0/2
% Excess air = ( ) x 100
2 0.264N — (02 — C0/2)
where N2, 02 and CO are volumetric percentages of the components in the stack flue
gas determined by experiments (dry basis).
The CO2 concentration ranged from 3.6 to 16.2 percent with an average of 6.1. Carbon
monoxide content varied between 76 ppm up to 430 ppm with an average of 185 ppm.
Figures 2.38 to 2.42 show the CO 2 , CO and 02 concentration variation as a function of
time at the precipitator inlet and outlet. It should be noted that all the gas sampling
data was obtained under isokinetic sampling conditions and is expressed on a dry basis.
The mean combustion efficiency of the incinerator plant was calculated using the follow-
ing equation [37]:

combustion efficiency = ((C 0 2 — C0)1CO 2 ) x 100

From the stack gas analysis results, the C/H ratio of refuse burned at the time of gas
sampling was also determined. The flue gas analyses for fuels containing carbon and net
hydrogen are affected by the C/H ratio in accordance with the following equation [38]
C CO2
H ' 8.80 — 0.421(CO2 -I- 02)

The above equation is derived from the molal relations and the oxygen content of air
(20.9%). Sulphur and nitrogen in refuse cause only slight error in the use of the equation.
Since the volume of SO 2 will be less than 0.1 percent that of CO 2 and the refuse nitrogen
will be about 0.1 percent of the nitrogen in the stoichiometric air, nitrogen and sulphur
in refuse may be neglected in considering the gas analysis. The CO 2 content of air (0.03
percent) is also usually neglected except in precision work.
From above, the C/H ratio calculated for the Sheffield incinerator ranged from 4.15 to
32.6, with an average of 11.8 based on the average gas analysis obtained at the plant.
The reason for a low C/H ratio observed in some runs is not apparent.
The moisture content of the stack gases was determined by the condensate method. A
weighted condensation trap followed by a magnesium perchlorate trap were used for

40
moisture determination. The change in weight of the condensation trap and the perchlo-
rate absorbent together with the gas volume gave the flue gas moisture concentration
(appendix 3). The moisture content of the stack gas varied between 5.7 to 17.8 % with
an average of 13.5%.

Burning Rate Determination

The actual burning rate was calculated using the gas analysis and air mass flow rate (see
appendix 4 for the method used for burning rate calculation). It represented only that
part of the charge (refuse) which was burned to carbon dioxide and water. The theoretical
burning rate was calculated using Essenhigh's model 139] ,[40.1. The instantaneous values
of the actual burning rate calculated from gas samples taken at regular intervals were
compared with the theoretical values. The maximum burning rate was approximately
64 percent of the theoretical value. The average burning rate was 57 percent of the
theoretical rate. These relations differed somewhat for various test conditions.
Burning rates calculated from gas analysis ranged between 26.1 to 46.9 kg/hr (128.5 to
230.9 kg/m2 hr).

Measurement of NO - SO 2 concentrations in the stack gas

For the measurement of the NO and SO 2 concentrations in the stack gas (precipitator
inlet) two specially made probes were used to take samples. The NO probe and SO2
probe were set adjacent to each other and were passed through a blading plate into the
duct and were traversed across the width of the duct (1m) by means of a lathe bed
supporting both probes and also supporting a board on which the condenser and the

glass vessels for taking SO 2 samples were mounted (see plate nos. 14 and 15). The
NO probe was 1.7 m long and was a conventional water cooled probe similar to the

CO/CO 2 probe as described before. In order to eliminate the possibility of NO surface

cooled sample interactions, the actual line was constructed completely of in. OD Teflon
tubing and Swagelok stainless steel fittings were used throughout to connect the various

• SHEFFILLCI

41 UNIYERSITX
LlBRAIDA
components in the line. As shown in figure 2.37, the system was operated in either of

two modes; a) Normal sampling, and b) Purging of the probe with air. The second

mode of operation was selected at all times during which actual withdrawal of samples

from the stack was not required and served two important purposes. Firstly it enabled

the sampling line and the probe to be maintained free of any solid/liquid deposits, and

secondly it was used to directly check for any probe - NO interference reactions. In the

second mode of operation the water trap, filter and sample flow rotameter were bypassed

and filtered air was pumped back through the probe.

During the sampling mode the sample was passed through a water trap in order to

condense out any water vapour present in the sample. The sample then flowed through

a filter to remove any small particles, before reaching, z. Ga.przetes (CA - 2SA.1-min)

rotameter which had an integral regulator that was used to meter the sample flow. The

pump used to transport the sample was of the reciprocating diaphragm type (Charles

Austen M391) and was driven by 3 phase power. The upstream side of the pump was

under vacuum and hence a pressure gauge, 0 - 760 mmHg Bourdon type, was used to

monitor this pressure.

Three glass 3-way taps were also employed in the system to enable either of the two

operating modes to be set. The lengths of all interconnecting Teflon tubing were min-

imised so that the overall residence time of the sample in the system was correspondingly

minimised. Due to:

• low sample line residence times.

• inert materials used to construct the actual line.

• relatively low NO 2 concentrations anticipated in the sample.

the gaseous oxidation of NO to NO 2 in the sample line was assumed negligible. This

check was later confirmed experimentally. Leakages into the sample line were found to

be negligible. This was performed by passing a standard NO containing gas through

the probe and determining the composition of the resulting gas which reached the NO

analyser.

42
The analyser selected for NO measurement was of the continuous type and was the
Thermo Electron model 10A modular type (see plate no. 16). It utilises the chemilumi-
nescent chemical reaction between NO and 03:

NO + 03 r= NO2 + 02 + hv

(A 0.6 — 3/2)

Light emission occurs when electronically excited NO 2 molecules revert to their ground
state. Instrument output is linear so that, in all cases, calibration is performed using a
single standard gas (500 ppm). The range over which the analyser was used was zero up
to 1000 ppm.
Sample gas was withdrawn continually through the analyser by means of a bypass pump.
A rotameter in the analyser indicated the bypass flowrate and a set of capillaries plus two
pressure regulators maintained the correct flowrates of 0 3 and the sample to the reaction
chamber, which was evacuated by a Welch 1399 vacuum pump. The zero reference gas
used was air.
The instrument output response was monitored by means of a Chessel 301 miniature
chart recorder. The operating conditions under which the NO analyser was run were:
1) 0 2 pressure; 2 psi.
2) Reaction chamber vacuum; 8-12 mmHg.
3) Sample vacuum; 5 in.Hg.
4) Sample flow; 0.23 - 0.93 lit/min, of which 5% reached the reaction chamber, the
remainder being bypassed.
Whenever the instrument was required for actual data acquisition, it was turned on at
least 24 hours beforehand to ensure that it had completely warmed up.
A heated silica sampling probe was used for taking SO 2 samples from the stack. The
probe consisted of a stainless steel tube (1.7 m long), inside which was a silica tube (13
mm OD and 2 m long). This was wound with kanthal wire and insulated with refractory
cement (figure 2.27). A current was passed through the kanthal wire in order that the

43
temperature of the flue gas remained above 260 °C [30]. Heating tape was wrapped
around the glassware (connected to the probe) to keep the temperature above 260 °C.
The concentration of SO2 was measured by passing the gas samples through solutions of
0.5 Molar Sodium Hydroxide, contained in two sintered drechsel bottles in series. Flow
rates were limited to about 0.8 1/min of dry flue gas (figure 2.44). The solutions were
retained for sulphate analysis at the department laboratory. The NO concentration at
the precipitator inlet was in the range between 125 ppm up to 380 ppm with an average
of 250 ppm (figure 2.43). The SO 2 concentrations varied between 98 ppm up to 168 ppm
with an average of 135 ppm.
A Land S0 2 /N0r electrochemical probe) analyser was used at the base of the chimney
to take readings for NO and SO 2 concentrations in the flue gases (see plate nos. 17 and
18 and refer to the manufacturer handbook for a more detailed description of the probe).
The NO concentrations at the precipitator outlet were in the range between 98 ppm up
to 257 ppm with an average of 145 ppm. The SO 2 concentrations were in the range
between 35 ppm to 67 ppm with an average of 57 ppm (figure 2.45). A summary of the
gas analysis results at the precipitator inlet is shown in the following table;

Stack Gas Emissions

Precipitator Inlet
Run no. CO CO 2 02 NO SO 2 1120

PP m % % PPm PPm %
1 83 5.6 16.0 125 54 11.8
2 151 4.1 15.8 128 48 16.3
3 101 4.8 17.1 124 51 14.3
4 172 4.3 15.6 131 53 12.8
5 62 5.8 16.1 121 49 11.9
6 143 5.8 14.8 118 51 14.3
7 184 3.8 16.5 124 58 13.8

44
Flue Gas Analysis Above The Refuse Bed

A series of tests were made above the refuse bed approximately 120 cm above the grate

surface in order to determine the effect of varying secondary and primary air rates on

the oxygen distribution and burning conditions in the combustion chamber. These tests

showed that excess air was present from the wall to the centre and along the grate from

the first roller to the roller no.6. These results were used for combustion calculations as

described in chapter 3.

Gas Analysis inside the Refuse Bed

Representative samples of the gases were withdrawn from the fire bed approximately

10 in. below the initial height of the refuse bed (Roller nos. 2 and 3). The carbon

content of the gases at the sample point were compared with that in the stack. The

value at the centre of the bed was approximately 25 percent higher than that in the

stack sample, suggesting that air flows preferentially near the furnace wall. Maximum

CO 2 contents of about 15% to 18% were recorded at the sampling points. The oxygen

concentration fell to near 2.1. Methane concentrations of up to 2.5 percent, dry basis were

also measured. CO concentrations were in the range between 3% up to 11%. Hydrogen

concentrations varied between 2.5 to 5.0 percent during the active burning period. In

some runs significant concentrations of 0 2 were found within the bed at times at which

the CO concentration was also high, no doubt due to channeling of the underfire air

through the bed. The results obtained were not consistent and therefore only general

conclusions could be drawn. A more detailed study of gases within the refuse bed would

have been of interest but would have required the design and construction of specialized

equipment. This was not carried out because the project time scale did not allow for

this.

Overbed Air Requirements - From the gas analysis above the refuse bed, it is apparent

that the oxygen required to complete the combustion of the gases leaving the refuse bed

will vary with operating conditions and with position along the grate. The sloichiometric

45
air requirement for a pound of moisture-free, ash free refuse is approximately five pounds

[41]. The amount of air required in the overbed section can therefore be readily deduced

from the difference between the stoichiometric requirement per unit area of grate calcu-

lated from burning rates and the underfire air supply rate. During the periods of most

active burning as much as 60 percent of the air needs to be supplied above the grate

while in some runs where significant channeling occured the overbed air requirements

were small.

2.3.5 Miscellaneous Measurements

The feeder ram speed and the roller speed were recorded in order that the refuse feed

rate can be estimated since their speed limits the rate at which refuse can be charged to

the furnace.

Meteorological conditions at the time of the test were monitored and recorded. These

measurements include barometric pressure and ambient temperature.

General Effects of Operational Conditions

It should be noted that there is some 1 to 1.5 hours lag time between the refuse loading

onto the feed conveyor and the bottom ash discharge (30 - 40 minutes on the conveyor,

30 - 40 minutes on the grate) and therefore determining the effect of changes in operating

conditions is a slow process. Hence only a limited range of variables was looked at before

selecting the steady test conditions needed for the sampling period.

The primary and secondary air rates were varied in a series of 18 tests in order to

study their effects on the overall incinerator performance. There were cases when CO

concentration fell down to about 58 ppm or high temperatures were recorded inside the

furnace. Of the 18 conditions investigated, the air distribution using 59% primary, 26%

secondary front and 15% secondary rear gave the best combustion conditions. The mean

carbon monoxide concentration was then only 58 ppm and showed few excursions.

46
General observation made throughout the experimental program

Visual inspection of the rollers, secondary air slots and refractories inside the furnace
were made during the plant shut down periods. It was noted that the rollers were broken
at some places and not in good condition. The 2 mm gaps at the roller surface and the
secondary air slots were mostly blocked by dirt.
On occasions, when a large surge of waste entered the chamber, the roller grates had
difficulty loosening up and spreading the waste and the surge tended to travel down the
grate as a coherent lump. This led to short periods of poor ash burnout and although
the operators tried to reduce the effect of such surges by reversing rollers and adjusting
combustion air settings, this only led to a marginal improvement as such action tended
to be taken only when the surge was well down the grate.

Conclusions:

This experimental program was devised to get as closely as possible the overall perfor-
mance characteristics of the Sheffield incinerator plant. The conclusions of this study
are summarized below.
The testwork data showed that at the time of testing, the time averaged combustion
efficiency was relatively low. The carbon in the ash was relatively high and the carbon
dioxide concentration in the flue gases was, sometimes, outside the range expected for an
incinerator with heat recovery. The total supply of the combustion air and its distribution
throughout the system was inadequate. At times, large volumes of excess air was used for
the burnout of the refuse. This led to relatively poor gas phase combustion, overloading
of the electrostatic precipitator and higher pollutant emissions. The boiler performance
at such high excess air rates was relatively poor and the ratio of steam produced per kg
of the refuse was small.
The flue gases were discharged to the EP at a high temperature (ft' 300 °C), consequently
the volume of the flue gases tended to be greater than anticipitated and the particulate
abatement plant was often overloaded. Furnace temperature distribution 'was found to

47
be nonuniform which affected the incinerator performance and resulted in high refractory
maintenance costs because of partial slagging and thermal gradients (in the side areas
directly above the grate). It was suspected that the roof secondary air openings (slots),
arranged in rows perpendicular to the center line of the furnace were the major cause of
localized high temperatures inside the furnace.

48
 Chapter 3

Calculations

Combustion and heat calculations are invaluable in designing the incinerator and in eval-
uating its performance. They establish a) the quantities of the constituents involved in
the chemistry of combustion, b) the quantity of heat released and c) the efficiency of
the combustion process under both ideal and actual conditions. This chapter presents
details of the calculations that were made using experimental data to determine the
performance characteristics of the incinerator. Some of the results were used for mathe-
matical modelling of the refuse bed and overbed region.

3.1 Furnace Calculations; Analysis of Actual Data Ob-

tained From A Series Of Tests At Sheffield Incinera-
tor [42], [43], [44]

Dates of experiments: 18th, 19th and 20th May 1989

Waste type: 70% domestic waste & 30% wastes from market (mainly dry)
Refuse feed rate: 6.4 ton/hr (6400 kg/hr or 14,128 lb/hr)
Total combustion air flow: 210 percent excess air
Underfeed air flow: 80 - 90% of total combustion air flow
Heat losses: Siftings: 3% of total feed (3 - 4% combustibles)

49
Fly ash: 2% of total feed (6.6% carbon)

Residue: 29.5% of total feed (4.1% combustibles)

Figure 3.1 shows a schematic elevation and plan view of the Sheffield incinerator furnace

with the individual stoker air zones (rollers) and furnace pressures and approximate

positions of the gas sampling points. Although it would have been desirable to sample

all points in this test program simultaneously to remove possibility of conditions changing

greatly at any one point during the test, the manpower and the equipment requirements

made this impractical. Attemps were made to operate the incinerator as uniformly as

possible throughout the test period. Thus the test results are thought to be, in general,

indicative of combustion conditions in the incinerator.

Also for the purpose of simplification, it was assumed that the refuse bed depth followed

a triangular shape with the depth equal to zero at the discharge end of the stoker and

with the maximum depth at the throat of the charging chute. Between two points along

the stoker length the refuse bed depth would follow a trapezoidal configuration.

A summary of the mean composition of the gas samples taken at the indicated points

above the refuse bed and inside the bed (figure 3.1) are given in the following tables:

Summary of Gas Sampling Data

(10 cm above the bed)

Location % By Volume

CO2 02 CO 112 C114 N2

A1 4.00 14.67 1.35 1.10 0.29 75.1

Roller 1 B1 3.08 15.18 1.96 1.43 1.14 71.8

C1 8.83 6.72 6.58 10.99 2.81 61.2

D1 10.65 7.06 1.84 0.98 0.32 75.4

50
 Location % By Volume

CO2 02 CO H2 CH4 N2
A2 5.07 14.53 0.001 0.01 0.01 80.2
Roller 2 B2 17.55 5.22 1.97 1.28 0.33 78.1
C2 13.08 2.95 7.12 4.27 2.35 68.5
D2 6.47 12.7 3.18 1.97 0.69 72.34

A3 6.81 16.44 2.08 0.98 0.81 79.8

Roller 3 B3 13.34 7.51 4.09 1.12 0.04 80.9
C3 9.71 9.83 3.89 1.74 0.47 78.5
D3 5.94 15.71 1.87 1.32 0.28 77.8

A4 2.90 10.4 1.73 1.36 0.30 83.3

Roller 4 B3 3.10 11.6 3.1 2.21 0.63 79.3
C4 8.40 10.4 1.73 1.36 0.31 77.8
D4 3.45 10.9 1.97 0.92 0.43 82.3

A5 0.25 6.98 - 0.20 81.2

Roller 5 B4 0.42 6.76 - 0.32 80.3
C5 0.18 6.54 - 0.17 79.4
D5 0.09 7.14 - 0.11 82.1

Roller 6 - n
 Summary of Gas Sampling Data
(inside the bed, 50 cm above the grate surface)
Location % By volume
CO2 CO 02
A 6.1 12.4 10.6
Roller 1 B 13.8 11.2 4.2
11.9 14.9 5.1
11.2 10.6 6.9

A' 7.1 10.2 4.6

Roller 2 B' 13.7 11.3 4.3
C' 13.6 10.8 6.8
D' 12.3 14.2 7.5

8.7 7.3 6.8

Roller 3 B" 10.4 4.7 7.5
C" 13.2 8.9 7.8
D" 9.3 6.7 6.9

A"' 4.1 1.7 6.2

Roller 4 B"' 6.8 2.1 8.7
C"' 8.3 2.8 7.3
7.4 3.1 7.8

Roller 5
Roller 6

Based on the above data, the energy release inside and above the refuse bed were calcu-
lated and the results obtained are shown in figure 3.2. Now, integrating the areas under

52
 the curve for the total heat release (in bed and above the bed) in figure 3.2, we can
estimate the heat release for each of the stoker zones.
The heat release rate inside the refuse bed on top of rollers 1 to 6 were estimated [45] as
follows;
Roller 1 = 6.31 x 103 MJ/hr
Roller 2 = 8.97 x 103 MJ/hr
Roller 3 = 5.98 x 10 3 MJ/hr
Roller 4 = 4.41 x 103 MJ/hr
Roller 5 = 0.11 x 103 MJ/hr
Roller 6 = -

Stoker Heat Release Rate

Roller no. Btu/hr x 10 6 MJ/hr x 10 3 %

Roller no. 1 14.26 15.05 23.9
Roller no. 2 19.39 20.46 32.4
Roller no. 3 16.59 17.51 27.4
Roller no. 4 9.21 9.72 16.2
Roller no. 5 0.23 0.24 0.10
Roller no. 6 - _ -

Total 62.22 65.65 100.00

Converting the gas compositions above the refuse bed to a % by weight basis and com-
bining the readings at locations A i B i Ci D i , A2 B 2 C2 D 2 , A3 B3 C3 D3 and A4 B4 C4 D4 , the
values for the stoker burning rates including the gasification phase were calculated.
Neglecting the Nitrogen content in refuse, the percentages of the combined and bypassing
oxygen were calculated ("Bypassing air" is the air which remains after the combustion
of CO, H2 and CH4 above the refuse bed is completed).

53
 Location Average % By Weight

02 CO H2 CH4 CO2 N2

Ai Bi Ci Di 12.7 3.0 0.26 0.66 10.6 72.6

02 for complete

combustion - 1.71 2.08 2.64 .n

Excess 02 6.27 - .n

A2 B2 C2 D2 9.6 2.9 0.12 0.45 15.7 71.1

02 for complete

combustion 1.65 0.96 1.8

Excess 02 - _ _
5.19 -

A3 B3 C3 D3 12.0 2.0 0.1 0.23 6.0 78.6

0 2 for complete

combustion 1.18 0.80 0.92 - -

Excess 02 -
9.1 .n -

A4 B4 C4 D4 7.8 - - 0.121 0.37 91.6

02 for complete

combustion - _ 0.44 n -

Excess 02 7.36

A5 B5 C5 D5 - -

A6 B6C6 D6 - - _

Based on the above data, the percentages of the combined and by passing oxygen were

estimated as shown below:

54
 Location % of combined and by passing 02

Roller no.

combined 02 Uncombined 02

1 69% 31%

2 77% 23%

3 68% 32%

4 49% 51%

5 7% 93%

6 - -

The burning rate of each of the stoker sections can now be determined as can be the

actual burning rates based on the heat release rate percentages [39].

Burning Rates

Roller no. lb/hr kg/hr

1 1854.3 839.9

2 3028.7 1372.0

3 2472.4 1119.9

4 1236.2 559.9

5 100.6 45.5

Total grate area = 36 m 2 = 387 ft2

Each roller area = 6 m2 = 64.5 ft

Now using the above data, the actual burning rates per unit area of each roller were

estimated. The results obtained are shown below:

55
Actual Burning Rates Per Unit Area Of Roller

lb/ft 2 hr kg/m2 hr

Roller 1 28.74 139.9

Roller 2 46.95 228.6

Roller 3 38.33 186.6

Roller 4 19.16 93.3

Roller 5 1.55 7.58

Roller 6 - -

To obtain a reasonable calorific value of the refuse, we can sum up the heat release

in and above the refuse bed and the heat losses, by assuming a high heat value of the

combustible fraction of refuse at approximately 9000 Btu/lb (20.934 MJ/kg), see ref.[46]:

Heat release in and above the refuse bed = 62.22 x 10 6 Btu/hr (65.65 x103 MJ/hr)

Siftings = 14128 x 0.03 x 0.035 x 9000 = 133509.6 Btu/hr (140.86 MJ/hr)

Residue = 14128 x 0.29 x 0.04 x 9000 = 1474963.2 Btu/hr (1556.23 MJ/hr)

Fly ash (Carbon) = 14128 x 0.02 x 0.06 x 14544 = 246573.1 Btu/hr (260.15 MJ/hr)

Total = 64.08 x 106 Btu/hr (66.89 x 10 3 MJ/hr)

From above the high heat value of the refuse is calculated approximately as:

64, 084, 608

1111V= = 4536 Btu/lb (10.55 MJ/kg)
14,128

and the combustible fraction,

— 4536
C = 9000 = 0.504 lb/lb of refuse (kg/kg of refuse)

Based on the Sheffield refuse composition determined at the time of experiments (19th

January 1989), the stoichiometric air requirement can be calculated as follows:

56
 Refuse compostion (Ultimate Analysis)

C 22.3%

112 2.52%

N2 0.71%

02 12.4%

S 0.2%
I/2 0 31.4%
Ash 30.5%

Stoichiometric air required is 2.847 kg air/kg reSuse or t ine stthenlometfic air reqthrea is
5.648 kg air/kg combustible fraction r- .
Optimum stoker burning rate (1b/ft2 hr) [39] can be calculated using the following equa-
tion:
FA = Kt„C13

where FA = optimum stoker burning rate (1b/ft 2 hr), Ka, = Essenhigh waste factor
(dimensionless factor expressed as a function of combustion intensity, high heat value
of the refuse and furnace configuration factor) and Ca = furnace capacity. Now, from
figure 3.3, Kw = 3.39 for refuse with HHV = 4536 Btu/lb ; So,

FA = (14128) 1/3 x 3.39 = 81.95 lb/ ft2 hr (403.5 kg fm2hr)

If all the oxygen supplied with the underfire air would react with the combustible fraction
of the refuse, the ratio of the [44];

GA — fire air flow (lb/lb of refuse)

.
Wa Stoichiometric air (lb/lb of refuse)

would be equal to the ratio of [44];

Optimum stoker burning rate

Optimum stoker burning rate corrected for under fire air flow and stoker efficiency

57
 •

Therefore we can proceed to use the percentage of combined 0 2 to deter mineV

--vA ratios
of each of the stoker zones:

G A 28.74
Zone 1 =- = =0.508
W. 81.95 x 0.69

GA 46.95
Zone 2 = = = 0.744
W. 81.95 x 0.77

GA 38.33
Zone 3 = = = 0.687
Wa 81.95 x 0.68

GA 19.16
Zone 4 = - . = 0.477
Wa 81.95 x 0.49

GA 1.55
Zone 5 = - = = 0.270
Wa 81.95 x 0.07

Zone 6 = -

and therefore the optimum stoker burning rate corrected for underfire air flow and stoker

efficiency on top of each roller (F'A) is [44

Rollerl F x 0.508 = 41.63 Ibl ft2 .hr (204.9 kg I rrt2hr)

Roller2 F x 0.744 = 60.97 1b1 ft2 .hr (300.2 kg1M2hr)

Roller3 F 81.95 x 0.687 = 56.29 lb I f t2 hr (277.1 kg 1 rn2hr)

Roller4 F 81.95 x 0.477 = 39.09 lb I ft2 .hr (192.4 kg Int2hr)

Roller5 F 81.95 x 0.270 = 22.12 lbl ft 2 .hr (108.9 kg I irt2hr)

Roller6 - - - -

The fact that there is uncombined oxygen bypassing the refuse bed and the combustion

zone above the refuse bed, can only be attributed to stoker efficiency ( ine fficiency) and

the influence of the refuse bed depth. Using the following equation [44], the stoker

efficiency factor for each roller was estimated as follows ("! = efficiency factor);

FA = .1;ft X1
a

58
where -y = refuse bed correction factor, a = stoker efficiency correction factor and 1 =

Optimum efficiency factor.

Rollerl 28.74 = 41.63 X

Roller2 46.95 = 60.97 x

Roller3 38.33 = 56.29 X

Roller4 19.16 = 39.09 x

Roller5 1.55 = 22.12 x

Roller6 _ - -

SO = 0.69

= 0.77

= 0.68

= 0.49

= 0.07
= -

Now, the stoichiometric air requirements of 2.847 kg/kg of refuse will yield a total un-

derfire air flow at 21 °C [47] of;

14128
QT = 2.847 x x (13.34) x 3.082 = 27561.6 C FM (12.81 77.0/sec)
60

Therefore,
Qi = 6004.7 I
C FM (8.83 m3 sec)

Q2 = 8777.5 C FM (10.86 m3 I sec)

Q3 = 7158.8 C FM (9.01 m3/sec)

Q. = 4987.5 CFM (6.86 m3/sec)

Q5 = 2645.6 CFM (3.98 m3/sec)

Q6 = - -

According to the manufacturer's data, the free open area of the stoker is ': sz 7% of the

stoker surface, hence the air velocities through the surfaces of the stoker sections can be

59
estimated as follows [48]:

Ve/.1 = 830.8 ft/ mm = 252.5 m I ?min (4.20 mlsec)

V el.2 = 1215.3 ft/ mm = 369.4 m I min (6.15 mlsec)

Ve/.3 = 992.1 ft/mmn = 301.5 mlmin (5.02 mlsec)

Ve1.4 = 781.2 ft/mmn = 237.4 mlmin (3.95 mlsec)

Ve1.5 = 2.47 ft/mm n = 0.750 mlmin (0.01 ml sec)

V el.6 = - - = - - -

The above zone air velocities will yield the following dynamic pressures:

VP]. = 10.58 Pa = 1.079 mmWG

V P2 = 22.69 " - 2.31 ”

= 15.12 " --= 1.54 ”

VP3

V P4 = 9.36 " = 0.955

V P5 = 6 x 10-5 ” = 6.12 x 10-6 ”

V P6 = _ -= - -
The total pressure differentials across the stoker and the refuse bed are:

TP1 = 40.64 mmWG

TP2 = 41.50 77

T P3 = 30.18

TP4 = 17.08
TP5 = 5.7 ”

TP6 = -

Therefore the friction losses through the refuse bed are:

FPI = 39.57 mmWG

F P2 = 39.19 ”

FP3 = 28.64 ”

F P4 = 16.12 77

77
P P5 = 5.7
-
P P6 =

60
 Since the friction losses are directly proportional to the refuse bed depth, then; D=
Refuse bed depth can be estimated as follows:

D1 = 0.75 m
D2 = 0.74 m
D3 = 0.54 m
D4 = 0.30 m
D5 = 0.10 M

D6 = - -

3.2 Estimation of Average Refuse Residence Time

An analysis was made of the estimated time of refuse residence time on the grate inside
the furnace from the feed ram to the ash chute. Figure 3.4 shows the so-called "Duessel-
dorf" system of incineration at the Sheffield incinerator plant. It consists of an inclined
row of rotating grate cylinders. The rotating cylinder action transports the refuse from
roller to the roller in a gentle agitation for thorough combustion. Each roller has its
own variable speed drive to suit the refuse feed and combustion rate. The speed can be
varied from 1 to 10 revolutions per hour.
The average rollers' speed measured at the time of our experiments are given below;

Roller no. Measured Roller Speed (rev/hr)

1 2.5
2 2
3 1.5
4 0.9
5 0.9
6 0.9

Using these values and assuming that a (approx.) = 120° = 4r- (each roller rotates at
120° before the refuse on top of it transfers to the next roller), we have;

61
 For roller 1, average speed of roller = 2.5 rev/hr, so t 1 =
2.5x 2ir
27r/3
=-- 0.13 hr = 8 min

For roller 2, average speed of roller = 2 rev/hr, so t 2 =0.16

21113
---arr
2, = —
hr—
10 min
27r/3 = 0.22 hr = 13.3 min
1.5x2ir
For roller 3, average speed of roller = 1.5 rev/hr, so t 3 =_-.

(2,,.- == 0.37 hr = 22.3 min

2/r/3

For roller 4, average speed of roller = 0.9 rev/hr, so t 4 :-.= i)--

2713
For roller 5, average speed of roller = 0.9 rev/hr, so t 5 = .9irx/2;
o2
_ 0.37 hr = 22.3 min

For roller 6, average speed of roller = 0.9 rev/hr, SO t6 =--- 0.9x 2ir -
0.37 hr = 22.3 min

Therefore, estimated total refuse residence time inside the furnace from the feed ram to
the ash chute is:
8 -I- 10 + 13.3 + (22.3 x 3) = 98.2 min = 1.63 hr

3.3 Calculations: Drying, Pyrolysis, and Char gasifica-

tion rates on top of each roller inside the incinerator

The following calculations were carried out to allow quantitative estimation of the gen-
eration rate of combustibles along the refuse bed, thus specifying the secondary air
requirement and distribution. The results obtained were used as preliminary input data
for the development of the mathematical model of the Sheffield incinerator (FLUENT
modelling).

Drying Rate:

The propagation rate of drying is determined by the rate at which energy is transferred
ahead of the propagating front; a function of undergrate air supply, particle size, air

preheat, moisture content and fuel type. For refuse, the rate estimated by Essenhigh
et al [49] vary from 0.09 m/min for wet refuse to 0.15 m/min for average refuse. The
U.S.B.M. tests [8] indicate that the distance of seperation of the ignition and drying
wave is of the order of 0.15 m, but their ignition rates measured with little underfire air
were lower than those observed by Essenhigh et al.

62
Now, using the following equation [43];

dx _ Vk A
c T: —T,;')
dt — 2Allvplt
where kda = thermal conductivity of the dry solid bed, T 1' = temperature of the drying
front, pcsi = dry density of solid, t = time, T: = fixed surface temperature and Ilv =-
latent heat of vapourization, the drying rate can be estimated.
Putting the typical values for Sheffield refuse; 14 = 0.2 Btu/hr ft °F, p cif = 50 lb/ft3,
T: = 1800 °F, Tt' = 212 °F, AH,, = 600 Btu/lb ( for refuse with approximately 35%
moisture content), the rate of propagation of the vaporization plane (drying rate) can
be obtained as follows [43];

dx j 317.6 \I T
= 0.072 i = 0.072t-13.5
dt = V 60000t

where dxi- =
-a- rate of propagation of vaporization plane;

dx
t = 1 min 9 cW
= 0.557 ft/mmn (0.16m/rnin)
dx
t = 2 min 1 31 0.394 ft/mm n (0.11m/min)
dx
t = 3 min 9 31
0.321 ft/mmn (0.09m/min)
dx
t = 10 min ? di = 0.176 ft/mmn (0.05m/min)
t = 15 min 9
d.z.
di
= 0.144 ft/min (0.04m/rain)
dx
t = 20 min I 31 = 0.124 ft/mmn (0.03m/min)

The above calculations show that the rate of propagation of the vaporization plane

decreases at 0 5 , since the potential for heat transfer d

--7
cix
decreases as 0-5.

Pyrolysis Rate:

Combustible pollutants appear to be generated along the full length of the incinerator
grate, although their discharge rate into the overbed volume is relatively low in the drying
and ignition zones prior to the introduction of the underfire air. From the standpoint of
the total kg per hour per square meter release rate, the pyrolysis zone probably qualifies
as the single most important source of carbon monoxide, soot and hydrocaibon.

63
In order to estimate the rate of generation of the pyrolysis products at the Sheffield
incinerator model, the following equation [50] was used, assuming that the pyrolysis
reactions occur instantaneously above a critical temperature I', (260 °C), the rate of
generation of pyrolysis products is then:

p
• W(T: — T,f) \Ikcj(T: — )
'" = 2(T: — 77) 2A1-1,plt

where ./Z0 = rate of generation of pyrolysis products,

Wi, .,- mass of pyrolysis products per unit volume of refuse,
II, = latent heat of vapourization,
p ad = dry density of solid,
T: = fixed surface temperature,
11,' = temperature of drying front,

T,c, = critical temperature (260 °C),

and t = time.
Usually a pyrolysis product generation rate greater than 1.84 lb/hr ft 2 (8.96 kg/hr m2)
is necessary for spontaneous combustion to occur [50].
Now, putting the typical values for Sheffield refuse into the above equation, we get;
--= 50 lb/ft3 , 14 = 0.2 Btu/hr ft °F, T: = 1800 °F, T: --= 212 °F, rr. = 600 °F, W,,
= 30 lb/ft3 , A./1,, =600 Btu/lb ( for approximately 35% moisture content)

'to = 0.8:

Using this equation, the rate of pyrolysis product generation would fall below the thresh-

old level only after a period of 0.2 hr (12 mins).

64
The results obtained are shown below;

t = 1 min lip = 6.58 lb/hr ft2 (32.39 kg/hr m2)

t = 2 min i4 = 4.65 lb/hr ft2 (22.89 kg /hr m2)
t = 3 min .k,„ 3.80 lb/hr ft2 (18.71 kg /hr m2)

t = 4 min 14 = 3.29 lb/hr ft2 (16.19 kg /hr m2)

t = 5 min .750 0 = 2.94 lb/hr ft2 (14.47 kg/hr m2)
t = 6 min lip = 2.68 lblhrft2 (13.19 kg/hr m2)
t = 7 min 14 = 2.48 lb/hr ft2 (12.21 kg/hr m2)
t = 8 min lip = 2.32 lb/hr ft2 (11.42 kg/hr m2)
t = 9 min lip = 2.19 lb/hr ft2 (10.78 kg/hr m2)
t = 10 min 14 = 2.08 lb/hr ft2 (10.24 kg/hr m2)
t = 11 min 14 = 1.98 lblhrft2 (9.15 kg/hr m2)

t = 12 min 14 1.90 lbIhrft2 (9.05 kg/hr m2)

(t = 13 min .i4 = 1.82 below threshold level)
The above calculations show that in the Sheffield incinerator, pyrolysis reactions take

place on top of roller 1 and half way through on top of roller 2 until all the volatile

materials in the refuse are given off (-.- 12 minutes).

Char gasification rate (as a funtion of primary air supply rate):

Once the refuse has been completely devolatized, the rate of burnout of the char will be

determined by the rate of oxygen supply with the combustion first yielding CO 2 , which

then reacts with more carbon to yield CO. The amount of char provided is expected to

be in the range 0.10 to 0.20 kg per kg of the refuse [51]. The oxygen requirement for the

0.80 to 0.90 kg of refuse gasified will be determined by the water gas shift reaction and

enthalpy requirements.

Char gasification rate (as a function of primary air supply rate) on top of each roller was

estimated for the Sheffield incinerator using the following equation [51];

0.75f,,Pm OA
FA = (1 - A - M)(1 - V)

65
where Pm is the oxygen mass fraction in the air. GA is the air supply rate, V is the volatile
matter fraction of the dry, inert-free refuse, and A and M are the inert and moisture
fractions respectively. f,„, is a factor defined by Thring [52] known as the relative carbon
saturation (RCS) factor. It represents the degree of potential saturation of oxygen by
carbon with a value of zero for pure air and a value of unity at the maximum saturation
which is carbon monoxide. In our model the RCS factor was calculated from the 0 2 and
CO 2 in the gas analysis at the top of the refuse bed using the following equation [52];
1 - 0.019(CO 2 %) - 0.048(02%)
fr. =
1 0.010(CO 2 % + 02%)

where CO 2 % and 0 2 % are the volumetric or molar percentages of these two gases in the
gasification products.
To calculate the total refuse gasification rate from this carbon burning rate, the volatile,
moisture and ash content of the refuse must be considered. If the volatile fraction of the
refuse on a dry ash-free basis is V , each kg of carbon is produced from kg of dry,
inert-free refuse and one kg of char is produced from - - — kg of as-fired refuse
(1--v)(1-A-m)
if A and M are the ash and moisture content of as-fired refuse.
Following the above discussion, the char gasification rate was calculated on top of each
roller as shown below;

Total feed rate 6400 kg/hr

Total primary air rate 11.8 m3/sec

Roller % Air flow rate Vol. flow (m3 /sec) kg/4i2

1 20% 2.36 0,79

2 26% 3.06 1.03
3 26% 2.83 0.95
4 16% 1.88 0.63

5 12% 1.41 0.47

6 2% 0.23 0.07

66
Using the following equation,

0.75. f ref, .Pm .6 A

FA = - - -
(1 - A - M)(1 - V)

The char gasification rate on top of each roller can now be estimated as follows:

Roller no. Char gasification rate

kg/hr m2
1 126.6
2 230.7
3 210.3
4 140.8
5 50.7
6

The following table summarizes in Metric units the average conditions in the six zones
of the grate (top of rollers 1 to 6) roughly equivalent to the underfire air zones available.
This data was utilized as the preliminary input data in the mathematical modelling
work.

Roller no. 1 2 3 4 5 6
Grate length (m) 2.04 2.04 2.04 '1.Q4 2.04 `LAd.
Grate area (m2 ) 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19 6.19
Percentage of charge burnt 21.6% 30.9% 26.5% 15.2% 5.8% -

kg air/kg refuse burned 5.25 8.75 10.5 24.1 38.7 -

Excess air percentage 50% 150% 200% 590% 680%

Air flow (m3 /m2 ) 30.22 51.60 31.07 53.31 44.12
Burning rate (kg/m 2 hr) 209.8 300.2 257.4 147.6 56.3
Char gasification rate (kg/m2 hr) 126 230 210 140 50.7

67
3.4 Overbed Air Regime Calculations

From the refuse bed concentrations obtained experimentally, it is apparent that the
oxygen required to complete the combustion of gases leaving the refuse bed varies with
the operating conditions and with the time. For a travelling grate incinerator, this means
that the secondary air requirements will vary with position along the grate as well as
with operating conditions. Oxygen can be supplied to the bed both in the underfire air
and in any secondary air induced through the bed by temperature gradients. For the
latter case, the overbed air (which has a lower mass fraction of oxygen than the underfire
air) will tend to sink down at the "cold" walls of the furnace and to rise up through the
"hot" core of the bed. The oxygen in this air would be expected to be rapidly consumed
near the edges of the bed. The estimation of the quantity of air being induced into the
bed in this manner is difficult but a rough estimate of the expected magnitude of this
effect can be found for the Sheffield incinerator as follows:
If the only significant forces are those of momentum (U 2 p L3 ) and buoyancy(L 3 A p g),
the entrainment velocity U is found to be [53];

U=
\ILApg
Pc

where, L = characteristic length given by distance from the top of the bed to the roof
of the incinerator,
Ap = the density difference of the gas at the hot and cold temperatures,
Pc = the density of cold gas,
g= gravitational constant.
The mass flux of oxygen through a unit area of the bed by the natural draught (ND)
will be [53];

o ND = u p c( m02) c \ILAPg

where (MO 2 )c = mass fraction of oxygen in the overbed air.

The mass flux of oxygen through a unit of bed in the underfire air (dFD) is given by

68
[53];
a FD = V Pa(MO2)a

where V = superficial velocity of the underfire air,

Pa = density of air,

and (MO 2 )a = mass fraction of oxygen in the underfire air.

If the effect of the natural draught is to be negligible, then,

VP 0 ( MO 2) 0 > Pc(MO2)1/L49

IT: and pH = e---

and using pc = 2-- ga , where Ta, I', and TH are the ambient cold and hot

air and gas temperatures, gives;

V(MO2)0>>Ta(M°2)c il L[1— g
Tc II L TH1

Putting typical values for the Sheffield incinerator plant into the above equation, we get:

0.23, (MO2 ) c =0.08, T a = 15 °R (27 °C),I', = 555 °R (999 °C),

V = 2.5 ft/sec, ( M O 2 )0=
TH = 840 °R (1512 °C) gives;

0.575>> 0.006rL

For many furnaces, L, one of the driving forces for the buoyancy term is of the order of
10 - 20 ft. For the Sheffield incinerator plant, L is about 3 m (10 ft).
An estimation of the quantity of air being induced into the bed was made by substituting
this value for L in the above equation. The results indicate that the oxygen mass flux
induced by natural draught may well be greater than that supplied in the underfire air.

3.5 Calculation of Incinerator - Boiler Efficiency (Heat -

Balances)

Unfortunately there is no method of continuously monitoring the feed rate at the Sheffield
incinerator (e.g. a belt weigher or crane grab weigher) and hence the feed rate had to
be calculated on the basis of the overall run time and the total number of 'grabs' taken

69
to empty the known weight of raw refuse deposited in the pit. This provides an average
weight of refuse per grab load and by recording the number of grabs per hour an estimate
of hourly feed rate was made. There are inevitably errors involved in this procedure,
the bulk density of the waste in the pit varies, different crane operators use different
procedures to fill the grab and full grab loads become more difficult to obtain when the
pit is nearly empty. Figure 3.5 shows the hourly feed rate and it can be noted that the
average feed rate was 6.8 ton/hr with a standard deviation of 1.3 ton/hr (or ±12% ).
The following gives the detailed calculations and the principal values used for calculating
the mass and energy balances for the Sheffield refuse incineration [54], [55], [56] and [57]:
CALCULATIONS:
Note: For convenience (e.g. use of UK Callender steam tables, etc) the calculations were
carried out to give heat as British thermal units (Btu). Values in MJ are also provided
on the basis that 1 Btu = 1054.5 Joules.
Basis: One hour.
INPUT:
1 - Heat in refuse:
CV of refuse = 5295 Btu/lb , Feed rate _-r-- 14991 lb (6400 kg)
5295 Btu/lb x 14991 lb = 79.38 x 10 6 Btu (83755 MJ)
2 - Heat in boiler feed water:
Wt of water x temperature above 60 °F and specific heat
41534 lb of steam x (296 - 60) x 1 = 9.80 x 10 6 Btu (10341 MJ)
OUTPUT:
3 - Heat in steam:
Btu per lb from steam tables for saturated steam at 151 psi (10.26 bar),
Heat in steam = 1197 Btu/lb;
correcting for difference in datum line chosen and datum line in steam table;
1197 - 28.1 = 1168.9 Btu/lb
Multiply Btu/lb by pounds of steam;

70
 1169 x 41534 = 48.55 X 10 6 Btu (51,223 MJ)
Heat in steam - heat in feed water = (48.55 - 9.80) x 106 = 38.75 x 106 (40,881 MJ)
4 - Loss due to unburnt fuel in ash:

Measured % carbon in bottom ash = 5.8 % (dry basis)

Dry basis flowrate of ash = 2.42 te/hr
Wt of carbon in bottom ash = 309.43 lbs (140.36 kg)
Heat in bottom ash --= 309.43 x 14544 (combustion heat)
--= 4.50 x 10 6 Btu (4747 MJ)
Measured % carbon in EP ash = 6.8 % (dry basis)
Dry basis flowrate of EP ash = 967 lb/hr (438.05 kg/hr)
Wt of carbon in EP ash = 65.75 lbs (29.78 kg)
Heat in EP ash = 65.75 x 14544 = 0.95 x 10 6 Btu (1008 MJ)
Total heat in bottom
ash and EP ash = 5.45 x 106 Btu (5749 MJ)

5 - Heat Loss in Stack Gases:

5a) Sensible heat loss in dry stack gas;
Calculate moles of carbon in stack gas,

carbon in refuse = 14991 x 22.3/100

= 3342.99 lb
carbon in ash = 375.18 lbs
carbon in stack gas = 2967.81 lbs
moles of carbon in gas = 2967.81 ÷ 12 = 247 moles

Calculate moles of dry stack gas from dry vol/vol composition,

247x100 =
5.8 4259 moles

Calculate moles of each gas,

71
 CO2 = 4259x5.8 = 247 moles
100
02,N2, CO = 4259 — 247 = 4012 moles

From sensible heat chart, read heat in gas at 509 °F (298 °C),

Btu/moles

CO 2 = 4300

02, N2, CO = 3150

112 0 = 3700

Multiply moles by Btu per mole,

CO 2 : 247 x 4300 = 1,06,2100 Btu

02, N2, CO : 4012 x 3150 = 12,637,800 Btu

Total heat in dry stack gas = 13.69 x 10 6 Btu (14,453 MJ).

5b - Heat loss in water vapour from moisture and from hydrogen in refuse:

H2 0 from moisture in refuse = 14991 x a

= 4197.48 lbs

Wt. of hydrogen in refuse = 14991 x Ng

= 532.18 lbs

Wt of H 2 O from refuse 532.18x18

= 2
= 4789.62 lbs

Total wt of 11 2 0 from refuse combustion = 8987.10 lbs

Total moles of 1120 = 8987.10 _ 499 moles

18 -
Calculate sensible heat content =-- 499 x 3700

of water vapour = 1.84 x 10 6 Btu (1947 MJ)

Calculate latent heat of vapourisation =-- 8987.10 x 1057 = 9.49 x 10 6 (10,021 MJ)

Total heat loss in water vapour ------ 11.33 x 10 6 Btu (11,968 MJ)

72
5c - Undeveloped heat:

Total moles of dry gas = 4259 moles

Concentration of CO = 183 ppm (dry)

Moles of CO = o.01vxc)4259 = 0.766 moles

Heat loss as CO = 0.766 x 122,400 = 0.09 x 10 6 Btu (98.99 MJ)

5d - Radiation and unaccounted for losses:

Determined by difference,

Btu x 106 MJ x 103

Total heat input = 75.25 79.38

Accounted for output = 69.31 73.12

Radiation and unaccounted for losses = 5.94 6.26

COMPLETE HEAT BALANCE, BASIS 1 HOUR, DATUM LINE 60 °F

Input: Btu x 106 MJ x 10 3 %

1 Heat in raw refuse 75.25 79.38 100.0

Output:

3 Heat in steam -heat in boiler feed 38.75 40.88 51.48

4 Heat loss in ash (unburnt) 5.45 5.74 7.24

5 Heat loss in stack gases

a) sensible heat (dry gas) 13.69 14.45 18.19

b) heat in water vapour 11.33 11.95 15.05
c) undeveloped heat 0.09 0.09 0.15

73
 6 Radiation and unaccounted for losses 5.94 6.26 7.89

Total 75.25 79.38 100.00

STACK GAS VOLUME CHECK

Pitot measurement r---- 16.93 m3 /sec STP, wet.

Moisture content = 14.94 %

Therefore, dry volume 14.4 m3 /sec (508 ft3/sec)

Dry gas composition CO 2 = 5.8% : CO 2 density = 0.1237 lb/ft3

0 2 = 15.1% : 0 2 density = 0.0892 lb/ft3

N2 = 80.4% : N2 density = 0.0782 lb/ft3

Wt of CO 2 = 508 x 3600 x 0.058 x 0.1237 = 13120.90 lbs

Moles of CO2=-- 13120.90 = 298 moles

Wt of 0 2 = 508 x 3600 x 0.15 x 0.0892 = 24469.34 lbs

Moles of 0 2 = 2442.34 _ 764 moles

Wt of N2 = 508 x 3600 x 0.80 x 0.0782 = 114409.73 lbs

Moles Of N2 _ 1144209
8 .73 _ 4086 moles

Therefore;

Total dry gas moles based on the

measured stack volume = 5148 moles

Total wet gas moles based on the

measured volume = 5367 moles

Total wet gas moles based on the

calculated mass balance of C and 1120 = 4758 moles

% increase in measured gas volume = 609 x100

4758

= 12.79%

74
Boiler Efficiency Calculation

The efficiency of the boiler was calculated, using the following equation [57];

Total heat per kg of steam x Weight of steam

E= x 100
Calorific value of fuel x Weight of refuse
(2719.01 kJ/kg) x (18814.9 kg/hr)
E=
(12316.1 kJIkg)x (6400 kg/hr)
Therefore, Efficiency of boiler = 64.9%

The overall efficiency based on the net calorific value of the refuse was estimated as

follows [57]

Heat in steam — Heat in boiler water

Efficiency =
Heat in refuse — sensible heat in stack gases
38.75 x 106
Efficiency = 62.9%
61.56 x 106
From the above calculations, it can be noted that 51.48% of the gross heating value in

the waste was converted to steam with the major losses associated with the stack gas, in

particular the water vapour losses which include the latent heat as well as sensible heat

losses. 7.89% of the heat input was unaccounted for directly and represents radiation

losses, heat loss in solid discharge and any sampling/measurement errors. Considering

the direct combustion efficiency losses, 7.24% of heat content of raw refuse was lost due

to inefficient combustion. In terms of net calorific value input, i.e. accounting for the

moisture, hydrogen and ash content of refuse which inevitably lead to efficiency losses in

a combustion system, the overall efficiency was 62.9% and as noted, the efficiency loss is

almost entirely associated with the boiler section of the incinerator.

Considering the potential errors involved in calculating the heat balance, it can be noted

that the gas flow was calculated assuming the carbon balance was correct. As a measured

stack volume was also available, this was compared and there was a difference of 12.79%

between the two values (the measured value being higher). This is within the errors

expected for such an experimental work, given the problems associated with sampling

refuse materials and measurement of air flows. If the measured volumes had been used in

the heat balance, this would have reduced unaccounted losses to less than 1% of the total,

75
 a value considered to be unrealistically low. The schematic mass and energy balance for
raw waste incineration at the Sheffield incinerator is shown in figure 3.6. The typical
steam production rate is presented in figure 3.7.

3.6 Incinerator Material Balance

A material balance was carried out in order to estimate the hourly rate of consumption
of the carbon, hydrogen and oxygen content of the refuse inside the incinerator [58].
G
i

F
INCINERATOR

F = Refuse consumed (kg/hr),

G = Stack gas flow rate (kg mol/hr)
L = Air leakage flow rate (kg/hr)
0 = Secondary air flowrate (kg/hr)
U = Underfire air flow rate (kg/hr)

The above diagram shows the material inputs to and outputs from the incinerator. The
material balance took the amount of air leakage into the overbed region into account.
Now, at any particular instant during the experimental run four material balances for
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen could be written as follows (In these equations
the refuse was assumed to contain only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen which was a valid

assumption for the raw refuse used in this study).

Carbon balance;
F . Fc
= G (YGG,02 + Ygo)
12

76
Oxygen balance;

F Fo G 1 G A 1A y
32 = G (Ygo2+ Y82+ Yco + —2 YH2o) ( U + 0 + 41702 H20)

Hydrogen balance;

F FH
20 — (U + + L)1120
— G 171.7
2

Nitrogen balance;

G Yll2 = ( U + 0 + L) Yg2

In the above equations Fo, FH and Fo are respectively the weight fraction of carbon,

hydrogen and oxygen in the refuse; IT? is the mole fraction of the component "i" in the

stack gases and is the mole fraction of the component "i" in the ambient air.

The above equations together with the testwork data obtained on 23rd of November 1988

were used to solve for the rate of consumption of oxygen, carbon and hydrogen content

of the refuse, i.e. F.F0 , F.Fc and F.F H . The results obtained are as follows;

Calculation
Basis = 1 hour

m3/sec kg/hr moles/hr

Total undergrate air (U) 11.8 78120 2697

Total secondary air (0) 1.3 10697 369

Air leakage volume (L) 0.7 7907 273

Stack gases;

Pitot measurement = 18.32 m3 /sec at STP, wet

Moisture content = 13.9 %

Therefore, dry volume = 15.7 m3/sec

Dry gas composition obtained from gas analysis;

77
component % by volume density (kg/m3)

CO2 6.1 1.980

CO 0.009 1.549

02 14.7 1.428

N2 80.4 1.251

Then, we have;

Wt of CO2 = 15.7 X 3600 x 0.061 x 1.980 = 6826 kg/hr

Moles of CO2------- 6-r- = 155 moles/hr

Wt of CO = 15.7 x 3600 x 0.00009 x 1.549 = 7.87 kg/hr

Moles of CO = -W- = 0.281 moles/hr

Wt of 0 2 = 15.7 x 3600 x 0.147 x 1.428 --= 11864 kg/hr

Moles of 02 - 1138:4 = 371 moles/hr

Wt of N2 = 15.7 x 3600 x 0.804 x 1.251 = 56848 kg/hr

Moles of N 2 - 5628848 = 2030 moles/hr

Therefore, the total dry gas moles based on measured volume = 2556 moles/hr and the

total wet gas moles based on measured volume = 3354 moles/hr.

Using the above values, the rate of consumption of the oxygen, carbon and hydrogen

content of the refuse can be calculated as follows:

F . Fc
= 3354 (6.1% + 0.009%) = 204.89 molest/1r (2458.6 kg /h?')
12

F . Fc 1 1
= 3354 (6.1%+0.009%-f-14.7%+- (13.9)) — (2697+369+273)(21%-F-2 (0.013))
32 2

= 208 moles/hr (6656 kg I hr)

G YA = (2697 + 369 -I- 273)(79%) = 2637 moles/hr (73836 kg /hr)

Thus the total burning rate in one hour is approximately :

2458.6 + 6656 + 846 = 9960.6 kg/hr

78
 3.7 Combustion Calculation

The quantities and the products of combustion air involved per kg of refuse were de-

termined as follows [57]. In the following calculations, the amount of moisture in the

combustion air is taken as 0.013 lb/lb of dry air, corresponding to conditions of 80 ° F

dry bulk temperature and 60% relative humidity.

CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL AIR NEEDED FOR COMBUSTION;

WEIGHT METHOD:
Assume : complete combustion (100% total air, no excess air).

ULTIMATE ANALYSIS MULTIPLIER REQUIRED FOR COMBUSTION

kg/kg of refuse kg/kg of refuse

as fired 02 DRY AIR

C 0.223 2.66, 11.53 0.593 2.571

H2 0.025 7.94, 34.34 0.198 0.858

02 0.124 - -

N2 0.007

S 0.002 1.0, 4.29 0.002 0.0085

H2 0 0.314 - -

ASH 0.305 _ -

SUM 1.000 0.793 3.437

Less 0 2 in fuel -0.124 -0.590

Required at 100% total air 0.669 2.847

Now, the theoretical air required forcombustion using 210% excess air can be calculated

as follows;

79
 0 2 Dry Air

0 2 and airx 210/100, total 1.404 5.978

Excess air = 5.978 - 2.847 - 3.131

Excess 0 2 = 1.404 - 0.669 0.735

CALCULATION OF THEORETICAL AIR NEEDED FOR COMBUSTION;

MOLE METHOD:

Assume complete combustion (100% total air - no excess air).

Ultimate Analysis Moles per Multiplier Required

kg/100 kg refuse 100 kg refuse combustion

as fired moles/100 kg refuse

02 dry air

C 22.3/12 1.85 1,4.76 1.85 8.80

H2 2.52/2 1.26 0.5,2.38 0.63 2.99

0 2 12.4/32 0.38 - -

N2 0.71/28 0.025 - -

S 0.28/32 0.008 1,4.76 0.008 0.038

H2 O 31.4/18 1.74 -

Ash 30.5 - _

Sum 100.00 2.48 11.82

Less 0 2 in refuse -0.38 -1.809

Required at 100% total air(stoichiometric) 2.1 10.01

CALCULATION OF THE PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION USING

THEORETICAL AIR:

The following table shows the amounts of oxygen and air required for the combustion of

1 kg of each combustible element of refuse and the products of the combustion obtained.

80
 Combustible kg air components, or products of combustion

Element per kg of element

02 N2 Air CO2 CO 1120 SO2

C(when burned to CO2) 2.66 8.82 11.48 3.66 -

C(when burned to CO) 1.33 4.41 5.74 2.33 - -

Hydrogen 8 26.4 34.4 9

Sulphur 1 3.3 4.3 - - 2

The volume of the products of combustion in m 3 at STP are as follows:

CO2 CO N2 1120 SO2

From lkg C to CO2 1.86 - 6.53 - -

From 1 kg C to CO - 1.87 3.51 - -

From 1 kg H2 to water vapour - - 20.99 11.16 -

From 1 kg sulphur to SO2 - - 2.62 - 0.686

From the above data the weight and volume of the air required and the weights and

volumes of products of combustion using theoretical air can be calculated as follows:

Refuse Analysis kg constituent/kg fuel

C 22.3% 0.22

H2 2.52% 0.02

02 12.4% 0.12

S 0.28% 0.0028

N2 0.71% 0.007

112 0 31.4% 0.31

Ash 30.5% 0.30

Using theoretical air:

0.22 kg C requires 0.22 x 2.66 kg 0 2 = 0.585 kg 0 2 /kg C

81
0.22 kg H2 requires 0.02 x 8 kg 02 = 0.16 kg 0 2 /kg 112

0.0028 kg S requires 0.0028 x 1 kg 02 = 0.0028 kg 0 2 /kg S

Total Wt. 0 2 required = 0.747 kg

Wt. 02 present in refuse = -0.124

0 2 to be supplied from air = 0.623 kg

Wt. of air required = 0.623 x M =2.685 kg = 2.23 m3 at STP air

Wt. of Nitrogen in refuse = 0.007 kg/kg refuse

Wt. of Nitrogen in air = 2.68 - 0.623 = 2.057 kg

Wt. of Nitrogen in flue gases = 2.05 kg

Wt. of CO 2 produced = 0.22 x 3.66 = 0.805 kg/kg refuse

Wt. of 11 2 0 produced = 0.02 x 9 = 0.18 kg/kg refuse

Wt. of 11 2 0 in refuse = 0.31 kg/kg refuse

Therefore we have,

Total water vapour in flue gases = 0.49 kg

Wt. of SO 2 produced = 0.0028 x 2 = 5.6 x 10 -3 kg

Total products of combustion, wet = 1.48 kg

Total products of combustion, dry = 0.990 kg

From above, the volumes of the combustion products can be estimated as shown below;

Flue gas constituent Vol. at STP, dry

(me)
N2 1.62
CO 2 1.73
112 0 0.60
SO2 0.002

Total flue gas, wet 1.08

Total flue gas, dry 0.71

82
 •
▪

CALCULATION OF EXCESS AIR AND DRY FLUE GASES USING

EXCESS AIR:
Actual flue gas analysis (by volume, dry basis) :
CO 2 = 5.8%

CO 0.03%

02 13.9%

N2 79.0%

Actual volume of dry flue gases can be calculated using the following equation [57];

Theory CO2
Actual (CO2 + CO)x Theoretical Vol. of dry flue gases

Now, from above;

x 1.561 = 4.440 m3

Volume of theoretical dry flue gases _-= 1.561 M3

But, the difference between these 2 volumes is the volume of the excess air. Therefore;
Volume of excess air 2.879 m3

Volume of theoretical air = 2.23 m3

and, Excess air % = 2.23 X 100 = 129.1%

Wt. of dry flue gases = theoretical Wt + Wt. excess air = 1.561 + 3.144 = 5.005 kg

Wt. of wet flue gases = 2.161 + 2.87 = 5.031 kg

Conclusions:

On the basis of the above calculations, the following main conclusions can be drawn.

The overall steam raising efficiency of the incinerator was relatively low. It was estimated

that 51.48% of the gross heating value in the waste was converted to steam with the

major losses associated with the stack gas (33.39%), in particular the water vapour

losses which include the latent heat as well as sensible heat losses. Considering the

direct combustion efficiency losses, 7.24% of the heat content of the refuse was lost

due to inefficient combustion. This shows that significant modifications in design and

83
operational parameters are required to uprate the boiler section in order to ensure that

the heat is effectively converted to steam and also to improve the combustion efficiency

of the incinerator.

The computed air flows and burning rates in the furnace revealed an ineffective utilization

of the combustion system. The calculated burning rates supported by the heat release

rates, showed that the stoker zones 2 and 3 alone yielded an hourly capacity of 4325

kg/hr, or approximately 60 % of the rated furnace capacity. This indicated an ineffective

use of the last two stoker sections and excessive burning rates on the second and third

stoker sections. The consequence of this type of the operation (exposing the stoker

surface to excessive temperatures) was the rapid deterioration of the stoker surface at

approximately the midpoint of the second roller from the feed chute.

By computing the required air flow on the basis of the rated burning rate and applying
unedr fi re air
the appropriate stoker efficiency factor, the stoichiornetric air
ratio for all the 6 rollers was

estimated which showed an inadequate distribution of the underfire air flow throughout

the system.

The values obtained for drying, pyrolysis and gasification rates and the air flows were

used as the preliminary input data for the development of the mathematical model of

the Sheffield incinerator plant (FLUENT modelling).

84
Chapter 4

Mathematical Modelling of

Combustion Processes

Virtually all the new research and development techniques in combustion technology
involve the application of computational fluid dynamics to combustor design. This seems
to be the best approach to solving design problems. Mathematical modelling thus is seen
as an inherent part of practically all combustion research programmes.

This chapter describes modelling of the Sheffield municipal incinerator. A combustion

model of the Essenhigh type was employed to model the solid refuse bed on top of the
travelling grate. In addition a computational package (FLUENT) was used to model the
three dimensional reacting flows within the incinerator geometry. Firstly the solid bed
model will be described. Gaseous phase modelling and its application to the Sheffield
incinerator plant is then discussed.

4.1 Simplified Combustion Model [591, [601

The overall solid waste combustion process for a travelling grate-type incinerator can be
seperated into two distinct regions (figure 4.1):
• Region 1 - The porous solid waste,

• Region 2 - The flame zone adjacent to the regressing surface.

85


Under the assumption of constant thermal properties in each region, no heat loss to the

walls, and a uniform speed of grate travel, the following equations apply:

Region 1:
oTi , oTi a2Ti
VaPaCaW
Ugrptutiww -t- = kw (4.1)
02

Region 2:
, ay, ) 87'2 , 82T2 A
Cg
(Pa tja — Pggr7
9i w = a y2 + (4.2)

An exact analytical solution of these energy equations seems unlikely. Thus several

simplifying assumptions were made to yield a tractable model.

The horizontal temperature gradients were considered to be small compared to vertical

gradients. The heat generation term in the combustion zone Q was assumed to occur at a

boundary only. This is an approximation that is often used in the analysis of combustion

for solid rocket propellant.

The regression rate derivative (0y 3 / Ox) was neglected in eq. 4.2 to obtain a quasi-steady

approximation. The surface position can then be obtained by numerical integration in

the x-direction. With these simplifications, the energy equation in the waste becomes:

aTi — 02T1
rh aCa — = ay2 (4.3)
ay

corresponding boundary conditions are:

= To at y = 0

= T, at y = y,

Similarly, the simplified energy equation for the combustion region and the corresponding

boundary conditions are:

0T2 -L 02T2
Maug = Ng ay2 (4.4)

T2 = T, at y = y„
T2 = Tf at Yf

The two regions (solutions) are coupled at the surface by the heat flux expression,

— OT2 — OTi .
— kg —ai = —k w wy— msQ, (4.5)

86
The above equations can be solved in a straight-forward manner to yield an expression

that relates the surface regression rate to other system parameters,

inoCo(T, — To) IngCg(Ti — Ta )exp(—thg Cg y* 'kg ) rhA

1 — exp(—inoCayaL) 1 — exp(—thg Cg y* !kg)

The mass regression rate of the solid waste surface can be expressed in terms of an

Arrhenius expression;

= A3 exp(—E3 1 RT.)

This results in an implicit expression for the surface temperature T, and the actual

oxidizer to fuel mass ratio.

Finally, the thickness of the flame zone y* can be approximated;

kg
y* = r,
g Ms

4.2 Mathematical Model For The Refuse Bed

Let us first consider the history of a combustible element in the refuse bed. Typically such

an element is heated primarily by radiation from the overfire region and from the burning

refuse bed. As its temperature increases it will lose its free moisture at 212 °F (100 °C),

pyrolyze at 500 °F (260 °C), ignite at 600 °F (316 °C) and then burn vigorously until

either the oxygen surrounding the element is depleted or all the element is devolatized

leaving a carbonaceous char. The residual charred or partially charred element may

undergo further pyrolysis, be gasified by CO 2 or 11 2 0 to yield CO or CO and 112 , or be

oxidized by free oxygen directly to CO 2 [61].

In the heterogeneous bed all the above processes may be occuring simultaneously within

a section of the bed since neighbouring fuel elements vary widely in size and composition.

Despite these complications and the additional complexity introduced by the substantial

temperature and concentration gradients that may be present in the larger fuel elements,

it is convenient for purposes of modelling to subdivide the burning refuse bed into well

defined zones as shown in fig. 4.2.

87
As can be seen from the simplified qualitative model of the refuse bed [43], shown in figure

4.2, drying and ignition waves propagate through the refuse followed by a devolatization

zone. The gases from the pyrolysis section pass through the char bed from the top of

which a mixture of mainly low-molecular weight gases emerge with small amounts of

soot and tars. The char that is formed follows an overfeed burning mechanism.

4.2.1 Ignition of Refuse Bed

A combustible element in a fuel bed may recieve the thermal energy required for drying,

pyrolysis and ignition via a number of different mechanisms. In the overfeed bed the

thermal energy is supplied by radiation from the overbed region (from both the hot

combustion gases and the refractory walls) by convective heating of the combustion

gases flowing up through the fuel bed and by radiative heating from the combustion

zone of the fuel bed. In the underfeed bed the major portion of the thermal energy is

supplied via radiation from the combustion zone directly behind the ignition front, while

the remainder is supplied by conduction through the fuel [62]. In case of the travelling

grate stoker the fuel at the top of the bed near the feed end of the grate is heated solely

by radiation from the overbed region. Once the ignition plane progresses down into the

fuel bed, as shown in figure 4.2, the thermal energy required is transferred to the fuel

in a manner analogous to the underfeed case. It is important to keep the underfire air

rate low at the entrance to the travelling grate stoker in order to insure that ignition is

achieved for the larger particles and for those with high moisture contents. Subsequently,

as the ignition plane propagates through the bed, it is again necessary to supply the right

amount of air through the grate so as not to hinder the progress of the ignition wave.

Ideally the underfire air should be set at the value that gives the maximum possible

ignition rate. Practically this is impossible, because not enough is known about the

processes of ignition propagation for this value to be determined on an appropriate basis.

Qualitatively it can be expected that the ignition rate will be a function of underfire air

preheat and supply rate [63], particle size [64], refuse type and moisture content [65].

88
For refuse, Kaiser's tests on the Oceanside Incinerator [46] indicated that the ignition
rate varied from 0.3 ft/min for wet refuse to 0.5 ft/min for average refuse. The ignition
rate would be expected to decrease as the moisture content of the refuse increased since
there will be a decrease in the total heat liberated within the bed that is available for
heating up fresh refuse. Present theories do not give an indication of how the underfire
air rate should be varied to take into account the different refuse moisture contents.

4.2.2 Drying Front

The heat effects associated with drying are greater than those associated with pyrolysis
and therefore for a high moisture content fuel such as refuse, the drying heat load will be
the only one of importance. The moisture content of a fuel particle can obviously affect
the time required for the particle to ignite and the drying of the particle may provide
the limiting step in the overall combustion process. The drying behaviour of a particular
particle will depend on many factors; amount of moisture(both free and bound), micro
and macroscopic structure of the particle, its diathermicity and the heating rate itself.
None of these factors has been studied in enough detail to permit anything but a crude
picture to be established for a 'typical' refuse particle.
There will, naturally, be a wide range of behaviour in the drying characteristics of refuse
components. Only the two extremes of this range will be discussed here. These limits
correspond to the cases where 1) the rate of heat transfer to the particle is much higher
than the rate of internal diffusion of water and 2) the rate of internal diffusion of water
is high enough for the surface temperature to remain in the vicinity of the vapourization
temperature of water [66].
For the first case it is assumed that at the high heating rates associated with a fuel bed,
the solid exhibits drying characteristics that resemble the "falling rate period" in drying
operations, and that a vapourization plane will retreat into the material as it is heated.
This model, at least for wet wood irradiated with intensities from 2.7 to 4.2 x 10 4 Btu/hr
ft2 , has been observed to fit experimental results reasonably well [66]. For the second

89
extreme of behaviour, it is assumed that the internal diffusion of water is very rapid.
In this case, the drying time can be calculated from the amount of heat that must be
transferred to the particle to supply all the heat for drying under the assumption that
the surface remains at 212 °F (100 °C).
The next consideration is how the moisture content of fuel (refuse) hinders the com-
bustion rate. This may be estimated as follows. Assuming a fixed surface temperature
T: and a linear temperature distribution in the particle (which will be valid for high
moisture contents), the progress of the drying front can be readily shown to be given by
[43];
dx — T;')
dt V2AI v.pl.t
where kl thermal conductivity of the dry solid bed, T: = temperature at the drying
front, pad = dry density of the solid, t = time and 11, = latent heat of vapourization of
water.

4.2.3 Pyrolysis Front

When the internal rate of diffusion of moisture is low, the surface temperature of the
fuel particles will increase slowly until ignition is achieved. Depending on the particle's
size and moisture content, this may take place over a period of a few minutes after the
main ignition front has passed by. After the surface reaches an ignition temperature,
the particle will continue to pyrolyze and burn until either all the oxygen surrounding
the element is consumed or the rate of generation of pyrolysis products falls below the
level required to sustain ignition. The latter condition would be achieved if the heat
supplied to the fuel element was not great enough to drive the vapourization plane at a
rate sufficient to supply the required amount of dry pyrozable material. The surface of
a fuel element, shortly after the ignition plane has passed it, will begin to char. It will
then be oxidized by any available 0 2 or will react with CO 2 and 112 0 according to the
reactions C CO 2 = 2 CO and C H2 0 = 11 2 + CO. Only the very small particles will
burn out completely at this stage, and the larger ones will still be drying and pyrolyzing

90
until all the oxygen in the underfire air is consumed [67].
For a fuel element in which the rate of diffusion of moisture is rapid, the heat sink will
cause local quenching of ignition and combustion. These particles and those surrounding
them will then remain in this quenched state until all the moisture from the fuel element
has been removed and there is enough oxygen and heat supplied to the element for it
to ignite and burn. If the residence time in the furnace is not long enough, these ele-
ments will be discharged incompletely combusted and may cause some of the surrounding
particles to be discharged in a similar state.
Bamford, Crank and Malan [68] indicated that a pyrolysis product generation rate
greater than 1.84 lb/hr ft 2 (8.96 kg/hr m 2 ) is necessary for spontaneous combustion
to occur. For the conditions in a refuse bed, where some flame is present, this pyrolysis
product generation rate should provide an upper bound for the rate required to sustain
combustion. Assuming that the pyrolysis reactions occur instantaneously above a critical
temperature T:, the rate of generation of pyrolysis products is then:

b Wp(T: — T;) \I kl(T: — Tsti)

-"P = 2(T: — T:) 26.11,,.pcsi.t

Where Wp is the mass of pyrolysis products per unit volume of refuse fuel. Inserting
typical values for the Sheffeld refuse into the above equation: psd = 50 lb/ft3 , k.d, = 0.2
Btu/hr.ft °F, T: = 1800 °F, T: = 212 °F, Wp = 30 lb/ft 3 , AH, = 600 Btu/lb (for 35%
moisture content) gives:
0.85
Vi
Using the Bamford, Crank and Malan criteria for sustaining combustion, the rate of
pyrolysis product generation would fall bellow the threshold level only after a period of
0.2 hr. It can be hypothesized, therefore, that drying may limit the pyrolysis rate to the
extent that it will hinder active flaming. Some further elementary calculations show that
the heat load associated with the movement of the drying wave will not act as a severe
local heat sink, as the enthalpy required can be readily supplied by convective transfer
from the combustion gas and radiative heat transfer from surrounding elements.

91
4.2.4 Active Burning And Zero Free 0 2 Zones

The only exothermic reactions taking place within the bed will consist of the reaction of
oxygen with char and pyrolysis products. The very high rate of reaction of oxygen with
both char and pyrolysis products suggests that all the oxygen in the underfire air will
be quickly consumed within a small zone just behind the ignition front; this behaviour
was observed in the coal bed studies of Kreisinger et al [7]. The heat released within this
zone provides the only source of energy within the fuel bed to dry and pyrolyze the fuel
and to sustain ignition.
Active burning will take place in a zone whose depth is determined by the rate of con-
sumption of underfire oxygen in both volatile and char combustion. Burning rates in coal
beds were found by Kreisinger et al [7] to be approximately proportional to underfire
air supply rate unless the burning rate was restricted by the ignition rate. Roughly the
same behaviour can be expected in a refuse bed. Beyond the point of oxygen depletion,
additional release of volatiles will occur from the larger particles and the char will be
gasified by the CO 2 and H 2 0 rising from the burning zone. Up to the point where the
ignition wave reaches the grate, the burning action will be of the unrestricted underfeed
type. After the ignition plane has reached the grate, combustion of the residual char will
be limited by the supply of oxygen. The CO 2 released on combustion in this region will
partially react with the remaining char to yield CO.

4.2.5 Solid Bed Gasification

The following gasification model of the bed burning process [40] was used to determine
the char gasification rate inside the refuse bed. Assumptions made were:
1 - The refuse bed is presumed to consist of solid particles that are mainly carbon and
inerts, packed randomly on top of the grate, with air supplied from below and fresh fuel
from above;
2 - A uniform porosity through the bed is assumed;
3 - Temperature through the bed is uniform;

92
4 - The velocity of flow through the pores of the bed is sufficiently slow for the hetero-
geneous reaction to be dominated by diffusion.
Reactions in the spaces between the particles are then, according to the "Three Zone
Theory [69]:
1 - Oxygen reacting heterogeneously with carbon to produce some CO 2 but mainly CO,
2 - CO 2 reacting heterogeneously with carbon being reduced to CO,
3 - CO and oxygen reacting homogeneously in the gas phase to oxidize back to CO2.
Consider the elemental volume of the bed regarded simply as a porous solid of porosity
E. The kinetic equations can now be written for the three reactions listed above. For
the two heterogeneous reactions (0 2 and CO 2 with solid carbon), the velocity constant
k determines the rate of reaction per unit of the pore surface. Knowing that reaction is
diffusion dominated, the reactant-gas concentration (0 2 and CO 2 ) at the solid surface can
be assumed to be nearly zero. Therefore the specific rate of reaction will be proportional
to the main stream or average concentration across a pore. If this concentration written
as moles per unit volume is X, then assuming A is the average pore surface area of the

bed (and will be a function of porosity and particle size, etc.), the molar rates of the
carbon removal (dm/dt) by the two reactions in a volume element V are given by:
1 - For C reacting with 0 2 to give CO (mainly) by the reaction;

2C +0 2 = 2C0 (4.6)

(dmi Mt) = 2(1c1 .A 3 ).Xi .av,,=2..Ki .xi .ov, (4.7)

2 - For C reacting with CO 2 to give CO by the reaction;

CO2 + C = 2C0 (4.8)

(dm2 /dt) = (k; •A,)•X2.19Vs -= K2.X2 .0173 (4.9)

where by this formulation the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the C/0 and the C/CO2
reactions respectively. k' denoting reaction with respect to unit surface area, becomes K
by multiplication with A, which in turn denotes the reaction with respect to unit volume
of bed.

93
For the overall gas phase reaction given by;

1
CO + — 0 2 = CO2 (4.10)
2

the details of the kinetic scheme are involved, requiring reaction with OH as a key
intermediate step. Fortunately there is evidence that the rate of CO 2 formation can be
represented in the phenomenological kinetics by the following equation [69]:

d Y21 I dt = k3 . Y3 . Yr (4.11)

where V2 indicates the mole fraction of CO 2 formed by this reaction alone and m is
an index apparently lying between 0 and 1.0 [69]. As a result of reaction, as a volume
element of gas moves up through the bed, the gas concentrations change and the gas
volume increases (at constant temperature and pressure) due to CO formation. Suppose
at some point in the bed we have a volume element of bed V, containing a volume V of
gas. This gas volume is assumed to remain in this position for a small period of time Ot
during which reaction takes place and at the end of which the gas volume moves on into
the next adjacent volume element of bed. Suppose the total number of moles in the gas
volume 01/9 is Mo at the start of reaction. Then,

M=N-I-N1 -FN2 -1-N3 (4.12)

where N is the number of inert moles (nitrogen, etc.) and the subscripts 1, 2 and 3 refer
to 0 2 , CO 2 and CO. If Omi moles of carbon form CO by reaction with oxygen and if by
reaction with CO 2 , the increase in CO from these two reactions is (8m i -I- 245m 2 ) and the
increases in N 1 and N2 are (—Omi 12) and (6m2 ) respectively. There is also an increase in
CO 2 to the extent (45N2 ) moles due to the gas-phase reaction and corresponding increases
to 0 2 and CO to the extent (—ON/2) and (-6N;) respectively. The net molar increases
of the three gases are therefore:

ari = ( — Smi /2) — (511g2) (4.13)

45N2 = (-6m2 ) + (6N) (4.14)

94
 6N3 = (Sm 1 -1- 245m2) — (bN21) (4.15)

The total molar increases OM is the sum of the SN:, i.e.;

, bm c , 013
I5M = blVi + ON2 + 6'11, 3 = 1 + 0/722 - 45/V; = (4.16)
2 2

Or,

M — Mo = N3 /2 (4.17)

If N3 = 0 when the air enters the bed (at time t = 0), then M = M o . If Y is the mole

fraction of inerts in the gas volume in the bed, then, since N remains unchanged, N _-,_

Yo X Mo = Y M; therefore,

Y = Yo.(MolM) (4.18)

Similarly defining Y3 = N3/M, then substituting for N3 by equation 4.17 and for M by

equation 4.18, we obtain

Y = Y0 .(1 — Y3 /2) (4.19)

Since the total of all mole fractions must be unity, we have for the input condition

respectively:

Y1 + Y2 + Y3 = 1 - Y (4.20)

Yf = ( 1 - Y0) (4.21)

Eliminating Y and Yo between these last three equations yields:

Yi. -I- Y2 + (Y3/2).(1 + Y10 ) = Yi° (4.22)

which is the general molar balance required. It enables calculation of any one of the

three gases if either of the other two are measured. Now, the rate of reaction for any

one of the above reactions can be found as follows:

Consider a horizontal thin element of the refuse bed of unit horizontal area and thickness

Ax. Its volume (61(8 ) is therefore Ax and the void volume (61I9 ) containing the gas is

E Ax. If reaction proceeds for a time (St, the mass of carbon removed in that'time by the

95
two heterogeneous reactions (Om) is given by multiplying the rate equations 4.10 and

4.12 by Ot;

25114 + 61%12 = —0m1 — 02 --= —2.k1 .X1 6178 .64 — k2X2 6178 (51 (4.23)

l
Dividing by 0173 = Olfg E converts ON into a change in number of moles per unit volume

OX. Dividing again on both sides by the number of moles per unit volume (which is a

constant at constant temperature and pressure) yields Y (the mole fraction) in place of

X. Dividing by St and taking limits gives after rearranging,

[2 E (dYi ldt)-F 2.ki Yi ] + [ E (dY2 idt)A- k 2 .Y2 ] = 0 (4.24)

Dividing through by E and writing (k/ E) = n, the equation becomes:

[2(dY1 I dt)-F 2n1 .Yi ] + [(dY2 I dt)-F n2 Y2 ]= 0 (4.25)

Each of the two expressions in the brackets are individually simple standard forms, and

each is equal to some function f(t) which is determined by the gas phase reaction. Since

conversion of N to Y by the divisions described above converts N; to Y; in equation

4.13, then combining equation 4.13 with 4.11 yields:

f(t)= n3 .Y3 .Y1m (4.26)

Simultaneous solution of this with equation 4.25 will generate the equations required for

the calculation of char gasification rate. Now, if we assume that in the above equations

k 1 and k2 depend primarily on diffusion, then they should differ only by the difference

between the diffusion coefficients for oxygen diffusing through nitrogen (and neglecting

any Stefan flow effects which is valid at the high dilution levels encountered in air). To a

first approximation or better, these diffusion coefficients are the same (0.18 cm 2 /sec for

oxygen, compared with 0.14 for CO 2 ) and the temperature coefficients are also about

the same. Therefore we may write;

n 1 L-2 n2 :Y. n3 (4.27)

Equation 4.25 now integrates directly, giving;

Yi + (Y2/2) = Yf.exp(—nt) (4.28)

96
and Y2 = 0 at t = 0

Based on the above analysis, the char gasification rate of the refuse bed as a function of

the area air supply rate, 6 A , and the relative carbon saturation factor, frci, (as proposed

by Essenhigh et al [61]) can be written as:

(31 4).pm.a Aires

FA= (1— A — M)(1— V) (4.29)

where V, A and M are the volatile fraction, ash, and moisture of the refuse and p m is

the mass fraction of oxygen in air. (For more detailed analysis of the gasification model

and derivation of equation 4.29, refer to references [59] and [61]).

In the equation 4.30, the rate of supply of oxygen to the combustion zone by the under-

grate air is pmdA (1b/ft 2 hr). Assuming all the carbon dioxide formed in the combustion

zone is reduced to carbon monoxide by the time the gases reach the top of the gasification

zone, the carbon burning rate will be (2mc )Pma A where Mc and MO2 are the molecular
mo2 '
weights of C and 0 2 . If the refuse bed is not deep enough to permit complete reduction

of CO 2 to CO, the carbon burning rate becomes 0.75 pmdAfre, (1b/ft 2 hr).

The limits for fr,.. is 1 for complete conversion of char to CO and 0.5 for complete

conversion of char to CO 2 . Usually for refuse fres is about 0.6 to 0.7 ( for a bed depth

of 0.5 m to 1 m). To calculate the total refuse burning rate from this carbon burning

rate, the volatile, moisture and ash content of the refuse must be considered. If the

volatile fraction of the refuse on a dry ash-free basis is V, each pound of carbon is

produced from T-L

y- pounds of dry inert - free refuse and one pound of char is produced

—)(1-A-M)
from ( 1 -V 1 pounds of as-fired refuse if A and M are the ash and moisture content

of as-fired refuse.

4.3 Mathematical Model for Over-Bed Region (Gaseous

Phase)

The FLUENT computer code together with experimental data were used to model the

over-bed region inside the incinerator.

97
4.3.1 Primary Air Distributions (Modelling of Riddling Hoppers and
Hollow Grate Assemblies)

In the Sheffield incinerator a large proportion of the combustion air (primary air 80-90%
of total air) enters the furnace through the 2 mm gaps at the surface of the rollers and
the refuse bed on top of the rollers. This flow may be expected to play a major role
in the flame stabilisation and complete burning of the refuse inside the incinerator. It
was therefore important to ensure that this feature could be simulated correctly before
proceeding with full incinerator modelling.
The loss of head by air flow through the roller gaps and the refuse bed on top of each
roller was investigated using the FLUENT code. The results obtained from this modelling
(velocity profiles and pressure drops across the refuse bed and the rollers ) were used as
the inlet boundary conditions for modelling of the over-bed region

Description of the individual stoker air zones

Combustion primary air is admitted to the undergrate areas by six ports, one for each
grate roll. Under each grate roll unit, there is a riddlings hopper to receive the particles
of grit passing through the grate and products from the hoppers discharge continuously
to the disposal system below. The hoppers are fitted along both sides with air plenum
chambers and undergrate combustion air is passed to each grate roll through control
dampers fitted in the side of the hoppers.

Modelling and Calculation Conditions:

Cartesian coordinates were employed to model the hoppers, 6 rollers and the refuse bed
on top of the rollers. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the finite difference grid used for the

solution as well as the outline of the riddling hopper and the roller. The dense solid
lines in this figure indicate grid lines and wall boundaries. Breaks in this boundary
indicate inlet and exit zones. 30x38x7 grid nodes were employed in the x, y and z
directions respectively. Cartesian coordinates necessiated the use of a stepped wall to

98
represent the hoppers' side walls. Half the main body of each of the rollers and hoppers
in the z direction was modelled by using the symmetry cells. The precise meaning of
the symmetry cell is best explained by defining it as a 'wall without shear' or 'slip wall'.
This means that fluid can not flow through it but it does not otherwise affect the flow.
Using these cells can save a great deal of computation wherever symmetry conditions
are known to exist.
Fluent's porous media model was used to model the solid refuse bed on top of each roller
inside the incinerator. The model was used to simulate the air flow through the solid
bed and to determine the flow resistance of the refuse bed present in the air flow path
on top of each roller. This model consists of a modified Birkman's equation (which is an
extension of Darcy's law) with a second order inertial correction [70];

li
v .v
ic-+ it.D 2 .v - F C2 .-
= — 1.P I v I .v
2

The above equation relates the pressure gradient in the porous cell to the flow velocity
in the porous cell. Two constants are required as inputs;
k = permeability specified in each component direction,
and C2 = internal resistance factor (m-1)
Permeability has units m2 in SI units and Darcys in British units ( Note that 1 Darcy
= 9.87x10 -13 m2 )
In our modelling work, first the depth of solid bed on top of each roller was estimated
(as shown in chapter 3). The loss coefficient based upon the refuse bed velocity was then
converted to the loss coefficient based upon the velocity at 100 % open area [71]. Finally
the resultant loss coefficient value was adjusted for the thickness of the refuse bed on
top of each roller. These data were supplied to the FLUENT code using the 'physical
constant' option.
Porous zone properties (solid bed on top of each roller) were set as follows;

99
 Roller no. Zone Kx Ky Kz C2

M2 M
2 DI
2 Ill
-1

1 *1 1011 1011 1011 872

2 *1 1011 1011 1011 1023

3 *1 1011 1011 1011 052

4 *1 1011 1011 1011 865

5 *1 1011 1011 1011 743

6 *1 1011 1011 1011 684

where Kx = permeability in x direction, Ky = permeability in y direction, Kz = perme-

ability in z direction and C2 = inertial resistance factor.

Isothermal modelling was carried out separately for each of the riddling hoppers and

hollow grate assemblies at a temperature of 300 K and a pressure of 730 mmHg. The

inlet boundary conditions ( air flows) for each of the rollers are summarized below;

Effective area of 6 rollers (3m wide grate) = 36 m2

Free area through grate = 7%

Free air surface = 36 x 0.07 = 2.52 m2

Free air surface/Roller = _2.52

6 = 0.420 m2

Primary (F.D.) air flow = 80% air required for combustion

Therefore: Vol. primary (F.D) air = 6400 kg/hr x 8 m 3 /kg refuse x 0.8 = 40960 m3/hr

Total primary air = 11.37 m3/sec

Now, using the experimental data (as shown in chapter 2), we can calculate the area and

the amount of undergrate air for each of the primary air inlet cell in our model [74.

100
 Air Flow Distribution for Each Roller

Inlet No. of Inlets Inlet Area (m2 ) %Total Air

Roller 1 1 0.20 20
Roller 2 1 0.20 26
Roller 3 1 0.20 26
Roller 4 1 0.20 16
Roller 5 1 0.20 12
Roller 6 1 0.20 2

An inlet turbulence intensity of 10% was assumed. Turbulence intensity for this study
has been defined as [70];

,v2
Intensity -_. ki —'I / ix 100% = [ Va/3
u
I x 100%

The dissipation rate boundary conditions were obtained from the following relationship
[70];

(C0)°.75.k1.5
E=
0.07.[71-]0.5

where A is the inlet opening area.

For the isothermal calculation, the u, v, and w momentum equations were solved in
cartesian coordinates and the k-c turbulence model was employed. Using the k-c model
requires the solution of the conservation of mass and momentum in their time averaged
form together with the solution of transport equations for kinetic energy of turbulence
(k) and its dissipation rate (c). The set of governing equations for the flow field is given
in appendix 5 (equations Al to A6 ). For compactness cartesian tensor notation has
been employed to present the formulation.
Calculations were performed using an IBM compatible computer where the problem
required a memory size of 5 megabytes. With this, iterations were performed until the

101
sum of normalized residuals fell to a value of lx 10 . Approximately 3 hours of cpu

time were required for the rollers' cold flow modelling calculations. The velocity vector

plot in two and three dimensional view (plane 4) and the geometrical outline are shown

in figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 respectively.

Under Relaxation Factors For Cold Model

Variable Factors (cold flow)

u 0.5

3 0.5

w 0.5

k 0.4

E 0.4

Species

Enthalpy

Temperature

IL 0.2

The printout of the FLUENT case file used for the modelling of the rollers (i.e. roller

no. 2) is given in appendix 6.

4.3.2 Mathematical Model for Overbed Region; Gaseous Phase

Fluent code (version 2.95) was used for modelling of the incinerator. For this problem the

rollers and the furnace roof were modelled by the use of a stepped wall approximation.

Half the main body of the furnace, shaft and the boiler in the z direction was modelled

by using the symmetry cells. Cartesian coordinates with 30x38x9 grid nodes were used

in the x, y and z directions respectively. Some simplifications to the modelled geometry

were made since the incinerator shape was so complicated. This will always be necessary

102
when cylindrical or cartesian coordinates are employed. At the same time attempts were

made to ensure a sufficiently fine grid spacing in regions where steep gradients of the

dependent variables were expected. Inevitably in fitting a difficult geometry, some grid

nodes were effectively wasted. Efforts were made to minimize this. The entering primary

and secondary air were modelled as discrete inlets and porous cells were used to model

the boiler tubes.

Often in engineering situations devices are encountered through which the pressure drop

is proportional to the velocity head of the fluid. Tube banks are such devices. When

they are part of a much larger flow system (as it is in our modelling work), it is often

impractical to model them in sufficient detail to predict the losses through them. For

this reason, it was convenient to model the tube banks inside the incinerator as a porous

region of flow field, defining a known flow resistance using the inertial resistance factor

C2.

The porous zone properties (boiler tubes) were set as follows;

Zone = *1,

Kx = Permeability in x direction = 1011 m2,

Ky = Permeability in y direction = 1011 m2,

Kz = Permeability in z direction = 1011 m2,

C2 = Inertial resistance factor = 1.121 x 103 m-1.

The effective grate area within the furnace burning area was established at 37.9 m 2 , this

was equivalent to a grate loading of 293 kg/m 2 hr, at a 272 metric ton per day loading.

Based on a grate 3 m in width by 15.54 m long in the active burning zones, the primary

air velocities at the surface of the solid refuse bed were determined for each stoker air

zone prior to hot flow modelling. The following table summarizes the combustion air

flow distribution for the reacting flow model;

103
 Air Flow Distribution

Inlet No. of Inlets Inlet Area %Total Air

Primary air:

Roller 1 28 0.06 14

Roller 2 28 0.06 23

Roller 3 28 0.06 21

Roller 4 28 0.06 12

Roller 5 28 0.06 8

Roller 6 28 0.06 2

Secondary air:

Front secondary 5 0.06 6

Rear secondary 5 0.06 14

Total - 100

The entering air possessed vertical velocity components but no transverse components.

The turbulence intensity for primary air inlets and the dissipation rate boundary condi-

tion were calculated and used as input data in the model. These are as follows;

Roller no. Inlet Turbulence Dissipation rate

m2 /s2 m2/s3
Ii 6.6x10-4 2.7x10'

12 3.1x10-3 2.5x10-2

13 3.1x10-3 2.5x10-2

14 6.6x10-4 2.7x10-3

104
 15 9.6x10-5 1.5x10-4

16 2.9x10 -6 8.2x10-7

Isothermal modelling was carried out for a total combustion air flow rate of 11.3 m3/sec

at a temperature of 300 K and a pressure of 730 mmHg. The results of this calculation

were then employed as a 'first guess' flow field for further trials. For the isothermal

calculation, the u, v, and w momentum equations were solved together with the k and c

transport equations.

The two step chemical reaction mechanism (equations B4 to B8 , see appendix 5) was

used for hot flow modelling.

The parameters employed in the numerical solution procedures are summarized below.

The available computer time has not made it practical to fully optimise all of these pa-

rameters. Past experience with similar problems is the only guide to parameter selection.

In the case of under relaxation factors, the choice was a trade off between stability and

speed of convergence.

The under relaxation factors used for the hot flow model are given below;

Under Relaxation Factors for Hot Flow Model

Variable Factors (cold flow) Factors (hot flow)

u 0.6 0.6

v 0.6 0.6

w 0.6 0.6

k 0.5 0.5

c 0.5 0.5

Species - 0.9

Enthalpy - 0.6

Temperature 0.8

/2 0.4 0.4

105
The refuse model boundary conditions and the physical properties for the Sheffield in-
cinerator model were set as follows;
Refuse density = 200 kg/m3
Molecular weight = 162
Approximate chemical formula = C6 /110 05
Heat of combustion = 10 7 J/kg
Stoichiometric ratio = 0.6

Turbulence controlled reaction factors ; A = 4.0 and B = 0.5

Viscosity (gas) = 1.72x 10 -5 kg/m.sec
Thermal conductivity (gas) 2.4x 10- 4 kJ/m.sec.K
Heat capacity (gas) = 1004 J/kg.K
The amount of raw refuse and the amount gasified on top of each roller was set in the
calculation domain by using the patch option. These values were estimated from the
experimental work at the plant (as shown in chapter 2). The air entering the incinerator
had the same temperature and mass flow rate as did the isothermal case.
Calculations were performed using Walters 386 computer where the problem required a
RAM memory size of 5 megabytes. With this, as with the isothermal case, iterations
were performed until the sum of normalised residuals fell to a value of 1 x 10 -4 .
Approximately 5 hours of cpu time were required for the Sheffield incinerator hot flow
calculation.
After the gas phase solution was obtained, the secondary phase (particulate) phase was
defined using the S2 (set up phase 2) option of the 'Main' menu. Setting up the second
phase was considerably more straight forward than the equivalent option for the gas
phase since only the initial conditions for the particle phase was required along with
some physical data. These were as follows;
A group of 10 inert particles were injected into the furnace. The partides,were injected

106
the Magnussen type was employed with chemistry simplified to a two step process. For

solution of the gas phase equations a finite difference technique was employed, using

the SIMPLE algorithm and hybrid differencing. An additional Lagrangian model was

employed for the prediction of the particle trajectories in the incinerator. The results

obtained from mathematical modelling work will be discussed in the following chapter.

108
the Magnussen type was employed with chemistry simplified to a two step process. For

solution of the gas phase equations a finite difference technique was employed, using

the SIMPLE algorithm and hybrid differencing. An additional Lagrangian model was

employed for the prediction of the particle trajectories in the incinerator. The results

obtained from mathematical modelling work will be discussed in the following chapter.

108
Chapter 5

Discussion

Chapter 5 presents the mathematical modelling results for the overbed region (gaseous

phase) and makes comparison with the experimental data. Firstly the overall perfor-

mance of the model is assessed in terms of its ability to predict the isothermal and

reacting flow fields within the incinerator. The model behaviour is then compared with

the experimental results obtained at the Sheffield incinerator together with a more de-

tailed discussion of the individual features.

Since the results of the computer modelling are held in storage arrays of very large size

and represent complicated three dimensional distributions, presentation of the data in

an intelligible form represents almost as much effort as the computations themselves.

Vector plots, isometric projections, contour lines and profile graphs have been employed

to interpret the results.

5.1 Results for the Sheffield municipal incinerator

5.1.1 Isothermal Flow Field Model

Cartesian coordinates with 30 x 38 x 9 grid nodes were used in the x, y and z directions

to model the incinerator. Some simplifications to the modelled geometry were made

since the incinerator shape was so complicated. At the same time attempts were made

to ensure a sufficiently fine grid spacing in regions where steep gradients of the dependent

109
variables were expected. Inevitably in fitting a difficult geometry, some grid nodes were

effectively wasted. Efforts were made to minimize this. The grid constructed for the

incinerator and the modelled incinerator in outline are shown in figures 5.1 and 5.2

respectively. The three dimensional view of the incinerator is given in figure 5.3.

The isothermal flow field prediction for the Sheffield incinerator is shown by the velocity

vector plot in figures 5.4. Vectors show both magnitude and direction of the predicted

velocities in each grid cell. The length of the arrow and size of the arrow head indicate

the magnitude of velocity. Figure 5.4 shows the general flow pattern in a slice through

the incinerator in the plane of the secondary air injection inlets for the isothermal case.

The velocity vector plots clearly show that a large recirculation zone has formed inside

the radiation shaft. Recirculation zones are usually formed in flows when the effect of

an adverse axial pressure gradient exceeds the kinetic energy of the fluid particles and a

stagnation point is produced. The impingement of undergrate air from the top of rollers

5 and 6 and the rear secondary air appears to be responsible for the small recirculation

zone at the discharge end of the incinerator. Velocities at the discharge end are relatively

low, i.e. 0.06 m/sec.

The vertical flow patterns at the refuse bed surface (on top of the rollers 2, 3 and 4 )

continue in a vertical direction entering the shaft with an average velocity of 1 m/sec.

However high pressure losses appear at the nose of the rear arch and exit screen (boiler

screen) accompanied by high exit velocities of up to 1.3 m/sec. Figures 5.5 and 5.6

present predicted turbulence properties for the isothermal case. As expected the level of

turbulence is low inside the furnace. These regions of poor mixing might be expected to

result in high localized temperatures near to the walls inside the furnace.

High levels of turbulence and dissipation rate are apparent in the shaft and near to

the boiler screen where the tube bank impose a considerably high flow resistance in the

gas flow path. Clearly turbulence is causing some mixing to occur in this area in the

direction of the mean flow.

110
5.1.2 Reacting Flow Case

Figure 5.7 shows the velocity vector plot in the plane of secondary air injection slots

(plane 4) for the reacting flow case. Contours of u, v and w velocities for this case are

shown in figures 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10. Here the fuel is municipal waste. For the purposes

of computation ease, the composition of the inert-free content of moist refuse can be

simulated by C(H2 0)„ with 'n' having a value of 5/6 for a dry cellulose, 1.55 for a refuse

with 23% inerts and 25% moisture and 2.0 for a refuse with 23% inerts and 34% moisture

[51]. The amount of the refuse and the amount gasified on top of each roller was set

in the calculation domain by using the patch option. These values were obtained from

the experimental work (as shown in chapter 2). The air entering the incinerator has

the same temperature and mass flow rate as did the isothermal case. The results were

obtained using the eddy dissipation type, two step chemistry model (FLUENT, version

2.95).

As would be expected, heat release is seen to have raised the gas flow velocities. Recircu-

lation in the shaft is now considerably reinforced. High velocities created by the limited

furnace discharge throat are aggravated by the stack effect of the rise in the shaft roof.

Despite the effects outlined above, the basic flow patterns (cf. to isothermal flow field

model) remain unaltered by the combustion process. This indicates the usefulness of

isothermal flow visualisation methods and the isothermal flow modelling as a combustor

design tool.

In the Sheffield municipal incinerator the radiation shaft is located directly over the area

of active burning in the furnace (rollers 2 and 3). From figure 5.7 it can be seen that the

vertical flame patterns at the refuse bed surface continue in a vertical direction entering

the shaft with an average velocity of 5 m/sec. Maximum velocities along the roof arch

of the furnace are seen to be as high as 7 m/sec with 1.5 m/sec velocities extending back

to drying zone (top of roller 1).

The flow field inside the incinerator appears to be nearly two dimensional. This can

be seen by comparing the flow patterns in different planes. The relative uniformity of

111
the refuse and the air distribution across the grate and the fact that the width of the
furnace is relatively small compared to the vertical and horizontal dimension appears to
be responsible for this phenomenon.
The predicted temperatures inside the incinerator are shown in figure 5.12 (plane 2, near
to the furnace side wall) and figure 5.13 ( plane 4, near to the center of furnace) . A
long flame rising from the refuse bed on top of rollers 2, 3 and 4 can be seen in figure
5.14. Temperatures in excess of 2000 K are present in this area. The introduction of the
secondary air through the roof arch has resulted in localized high temperatures and in
stratification of the flue gas stream. This cooling of the roof arch and of the upper portion
of the walls by the secondary air, while the lower portions of the walls are exposed to
high flame temperatures, is apparent in figure 5.16. This results in partial slagging and
general deterioration of the side walls directly above the grate surface. High refractory
maintenance costs has been a major problem at the Sheffield incinerator plant in recent
years. The predicted temperature at the ash discharge end is higher than expected.
Discrepancies at this area may be attributed to the stepped wall approximation for the
inner liner surface of the furnace in the model which causes the stagnation of gases in
this area.
The predicted temperature contours confirm the presence of much cooler, air rich gases
in the recirculation zone inside the radiation shaft with a local temperature of about 800
K. The drop in temperature in this area can have a significant effect on the composition
of the combustion products leaving the incinerator. Predicted temperatures at the refuse
feed chute end and top of the roller no. 1 (drying zone) are around 1000 K . As is shown
in figure 5.13 the temperatures gradually drop as the gas flow passes through the boiler
tubes and approaches the exit. Here the predicted temperatures are around 800-900 K.
Figure 5.15 shows the colour raster plot of density (kg/m') of flue gases at plane 4. A
continuous feed incinerator furnace usually produces the hottest gases near the input end
of the burning grate while the gases at the discharge end are cooler because of the higher
percent excess air. As can be seen from this figure , the flow from the top 'of rollers 2

112
and 3 is essentially vertical with warm, low density gases tending to remain at the top
and to flow with higher velocity as a result of acceleration in the vertical flow from the
refuse bed. The hot gases will be accelerated as they flow upwards in the pressure field
produced by the denser cool gases.
Contour plots of the predicted kinetic energy of turbulence and its dissipation rate are
shown in figures 5.17 and 5.18 (plane 4). These figures present predicted turbulence
levels and dissipation rates inside the radiation shaft for the reacting flow case. As
expected, the level of turbulence is high in the recirculation zone. It is apparent that the
region of maximum mixing is at the entrance to the boiler bank where the main gas flow
impinges on the surface of the first row of the tubes (spaced 2.5 inches apart from each
other). Although this is clearly a very well stirred region, most of the mixing power is
expended mixing air rich gases with air rich gases and is of no benefit to the combustion.
Regions of poor mixing are apparent inside the furnace. Very little secondary air is used
for the incineration of the municipal waste and the turbulence required for complete
secondary combustion is not achieved due to the absence of high velocity secondary jets.
The secondary air vertical velocity components seem to decay rapidly once they enter
the furnace and there is no indication of efficient mixing of these jets with the main body
of the flow.
The characteristics of the combustion process in the Sheffield municipal incinerator can
be qualitatively and quantitatively determined by examining the product species con-
centration distributions within the incinerator enclosure.
A two step kinetic scheme together with a Magnussen type model for determining reac-
tion rate has been able to give some indication of pollutant formation inside the incin-
erator. Predicted species mass fractions, i.e. F (fuel), B (carbon monoxide), C (carbon
dioxide) and 0 (oxygen) are shown in figures 5.19, 5.20, 5.21 and 5.22 respectively.
The distribution of concentration of unburnt fuel (species F) is shown in figure 5.19 and
shows, as expected, that the majority is to be found in the most active burning zone
located on top of rollers 2, 3 and 4, giving rise to a fuel rich region near to the nose

113
of the arch roof of the furnace. Very low concentration of species F (0.02%) exits at

the ash discharge end of the furnace where no combustion takes place. The relatively

non-uniform distribution of species F inside the furnace enclosure in figure 5.19 indicates

that this furnace configuration does not utilize the lower volume of the furnace over the

grate discharge. The concentration of unburnt fuel decreases as the flue gases enter the

shaft and approach the boiler exit. The concentration at the boiler exit is about 0.03%.

Figure 5.20 shows the colour raster plot of species B (CO). The high concentration of CO

on top of rollers 2, 3 and 4 indicates that nearly all of the refuse is pyrolized and gasified

in this region. As can be seen from this figure, these rich CO-containing gases rising

from the gasification and char burn out zones (rollers 2, 3, and 4) are accelerated as they

flow into the shaft. Very little CO appears to be evolved in the discharge grate section

(0.01%). CO discharge rate into the overbed volume is also relatively low in the drying

and ignition zones on top of roller 1 (less than 0.005% ). Predicted CO concentrations

at the boiler exit are about 0.03%.

Figure 5.21 shows the concentration of CO 2 throughout the system. A relatively large

percentage of CO 2 concentration is present at the grate discharge end. The slow increase

in the CO 2 concentration as the main flow enters the shaft and passes through the boiler

tubes can be attributed to the relatively slow oxidation of CO to CO 2 . High CO 2 regions

are also apparent in the shaft and the boiler section of the incinerator plant. The CO2

concentration at the boiler exit is about 4%.

A colour raster plot of oxygen concentration (figure 5.22) shows a maxima near to the

undergrate and secondary air inlets. Air-rich portions of the flow are seen near to the

feed chute end of the furnace (drying zone, roller 1) and near to the ash discharge end

(rollers 5 and 6). This probably improves drying and ignition with wet refuse. The low

oxygen concentrations directly above the refuse bed ( rollers 2, 3 and 4) indicate that

fairly good combustion does occur within the bed in this region. The 02 concentrations

in the shaft and boiler tube bank are relatively low.

Detailed information on particle trajectories provides a supplement to the overall un-

114
derstanding of the flow field structure of the combustion chamber. Figures 5.23 to 5.28
show particle trajectories for different particle injection locations (top of rollers 1 to 6)
in the plane of secondary air openings for the Sheffield incinerator plant. As can be
expected from the structure of the flow field discussed earlier, particles injected from the
top of rollers 2 and 3 followed the gas flow of relatively high velocity and escaped from
the shaft without entering the recirculation zone (8 to 11 seconds). However, particles
injected from the top of roller 1 were captured by the corner part of the recirculation
zone and therefore had a significantly longer residence time (17 to 21 seconds). The
particles injected from the top of rollers 4, 5 and 6 collided with the furnace wall and
were captured by the small recirculation zone at the discharge end of the travelling grate
incinerator.

5.2 Comparison with Experimental Results for the Sheffield

Municipal Incinerator

The measurement of temperatures at the furnace exit, boiler exit, radiation shaft and
inside the furnace were presented in chapter 2. Temperature measurements were made
using a thermocouple and the quoted results were corrected for radiation errors. Over
most of the incinerator plant, the model predicts the correct magnitude of temperature
and its change with position. In the most active burning zone (top of rollers 2 and 3) the
asymmetric character is apparent in both measured and calculated temperature profiles.
This can be seen by comparing the temperature colour raster plots in planes 2 and 4
(figures 5.12 and 5.13). The data clearly shows the cool core in the shaft due to the
major recirculation eddy and high temperature region on top of rollers 2, 3 and 4 , as
predicted by the model.
The low temperature secondary air entering the furnace can be seen to be giving rise to
corresponding low temperatures. Figures 2.18 and 2.28 (chapter 2) show the available
temperature data at furnace exit and boiler exit. Temperatures were again, measured

115
by thermocouple. Comparison with modelling results show the temperatures to be well

predicted. There is , however, some over prediction of temperature by the model at the

ash discharge end of the furnace. This is too large to be explained by the approximate

nature of the radiation correction made in the experimental study, but there may be a

probe interference effect when measuring the temperatures in this region or more likely

due to the value of the product specific heat capacity used for the modelling.

Comparisons of predicted and measured gas composition were made. Agreement between

experiment and predicted carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and oxygen concentrations

are generally good. The two step kinetic model for prediction of carbon monoxide for-

mation has performed well. Of particular note are the large peaks in CO concentrations

measured on top of rollers 2 and 3. These are reliably reproduced by the model. It can

be seen that close agreement is also achieved at the boiler exit between the computed

and measured values. The computed CO2 and 0 2 profiles in the shaft and within the

furnace enclosure also show the correct trend, although there are some over predictions.

The measurements of combustor exit velocity are presented in chapter 2 and the predicted

velocity profiles are shown in figure 5.7. Measurements and prediction are in reasonable

agreement.

1,16
Chapter 6

Conclusions and Suggestions for

Future Work

6.1 Conclusions

An extensive experimental programme was carried out at the Sheffield municipal inciner-

ator in conjuction with the modelling study. Measurements of velocity, gas composition

and temperature were made. The modelling results were generally in good agreement

with the experimental work.

The principal conclusions are summarized below:

• An evaluation of the data revealed that during the tests, the unit (incinerator - boiler

no. 1) operated at 51.5 percent of capacity which was lower than expected. The overall

steam raising efficiency of the incinerator plant was relatively low. It was estimated

that 51.48% of the gross heating value in the waste was converted to steam with the

major losses associated with the stack gas, in particular the water vapour losses which

include the latent heat as well as sensible heat losses. Considering the direct combustion

efficiency losses, 7.24% of heat content of the waste was lost due to inefficient combustion.

• The calculated burning rates, supported by the heat release rates (estimated from the

refuse bed gas analysis), showed that the stoker zones 2 and 3 alone yielded an hourly

117
capacity of 4325 kg/hr or nearly 60 percent of the rated furnace capacity. This indicates

an ineffective use of the last two stoker sections and excessive burning rates on the second

and third stoker sections.

• The total supply of the combustion air and its distribution throughout the system was

inadequate. Variation of the amount of air supplied for most of the tests could not be

achieved as originally planned. There was too much potential for leakage which resulted

in unwanted convection air being drawn into the furnace.

• Performance tests showed that the secondary air was used only for cooling purposes and

no use was made of these air jets to generate turbulence in the high intensity combustion

zone where it was most needed.

• Changes to operational strategies (such as optimizing primary and secondary air dis-

tribution) greatly improved the temperature profiles and combustion efficiency. The air

distribution using 59% primary, 26% secondary front and 15% secondary rear gave the

best combustion conditions. The time average combustion efficiency was 99.989 % and

the mean carbon monoxide (CO) concentration was only 58 ppm. The mean temperature

at the combustor exit was 945 °C. In view of the importance of maintaining high com-

bustion efficiency both to optimise steam production and minimise emissions of unburnt

carbonaceous material, it is recommended that CO 2 and CO monitoring instrumentation

is fitted at the plant to measure combustion efficiency on a continuous basis.

• Refuse of high moisture content burned in the incinerator with greater excess of air

than drier refuse. However the data were not sufficient to decide whether this difference

was due entirely to the refuse or to the other variables.

• Dry refuse yielded more CO in the pyrolysis region (top of rollers 1 and 2) than the

wet refuse.

• More CO was released in the char burning zone (rollers 3 and 4) than elsewhere in the

furnace and would present a large secondary air demand in this area.

• The furnace temperature distribution was found to be non-uniform which affected the

incinerator performance and resulted in high refractory maintenance costs because of

118
partial slagging and thermal gradients (in the side areas directly above the grate). The

roof secondary air openings, arranged in rows perpendicular to the center line of the

furnace, were the major cause of localized high temperatures inside the furnace.

• Maximum temperatures usually occured near the center of the combustion chamber.

There were a few cases when the L.H.S. of the furnace was generally hotter than the

R.H.S.

• The flue gases were discharged to the electrostatic precipitator at high temperature

(approximately 300 °C ), consequently the volume of the flue gases tended to be greater

than anticipitated and the particulate abatement plant was often overloaded.

• The emission performance tests on the Sheffield incinerator showed that the emission

levels of pollutants (CO, NO and SO 2 ) were relatively high possibly as a result of poor

mixing inside the furnace.

• Combustible pollutants appeared to be generated along the full length of the incinerator

grate mainly on top of rollers 2, 3 and 4 although their discharge rate into the overbed

volume was relatively low in the drying and ignition zones (top of roller 1).

• A mathematical model of the finite difference type was employed to predict the three

dimensional reacting flows within the incinerator. This model formulation has proved

capable of predicting all the major features in the Sheffield incinerator flow field.

• As a result of the test data and modelling of the whole process, suggestions for design

improvements for the Sheffield incinerator were made which should substantially reduce

emissions of pollutants and reduce the maintenance costs at the plant [73] , [74]. These

are : a) replacing the existing secondary air system with secondary air nozzles and the

use of more secondary air (up to 20% of total air) in order to generate turbulence in the

high intensity combustion zone (top of rollers nos 2 and 3 ) where it is most needed and

b) introducing a baffle into the main stream inside the radiation shaft in order to lower

the gas temperatures and to remove the existing recirculation zone in the shaft.

119
6.2 Suggestions for Future Work

Much work is required in model development, application and experimental testing before

the full potential of our three dimensional modelling technique can be realised.

Employing cartesian coordinates to model the complicated incinerator geometry has

presented some difficulties. The use of three dimensional body fitted coordinates should

take a high priority in any further studies.

Some improvements to the chemical reaction model are required for a more detailed

analysis of the gaseous phase above the refuse bed. Models for the prediction of soot,

oxides of nitrogen and chlorinated compounds are also required, however these are best

incorporated in a post processor for the FLUENT output.

As noted in chapter 4, further work on the refuse solid bed model in a travelling grate

incinerator is also an important area for research. Experimental studies will be particu-

larly important here. Knowledge of drying, ignition, pyrolysis and actual burning rates

in the incinerator primary zone will be valuable for model testing. However these are

likely to be difficult to make in practice and will require extensive research work on a

laboratory scale and carefull experimentation on full scale units.

The further extension of the proposed model to include the effect of moisture content of

the refuse in determining the overall performance of the incinerator is also required.

The mathematical model based on existing refuse burning models gave realistic results

when compared to the experimental data of this programme. Data from further experi-

mental programmes utilizing a wider range of combustion conditions could also be used

to determine the flexibility of the model.

The only gaseous emissions measured during the present experiments were the combus-

tion gases CO, NO and CO 2 . Other toxic gases could be released, e.g. Dioxins during

the combustion of municipal waste due to the plastic content and this area too requires

investigation.

The need to monitor the composition and temperature of the flue gases leaving the com-

bustion chamber and prior to the abatement equipment has been illustrated from the

120
present experimental work. Carbon dioxide and/or oxygen measurements are required
to modulate the total amount of combustion air fed to the system to suit the refuse feed
and composition. Carbon monoxide measurement is required to adjust the distribution
of the air to optimise combustion. In addition comprehensive temperature measurements
are needed to check that the required temperature at the combustor exit is being main-
tained. While this instrumentation is commercially available, its use on the incinerators
particularly in the U.K. is minimal and considerable work is required to identify suitable
equipment and monitoring technologies.
As the temperature and the gas residence time are to be set as key control parameters
in the incineration of wastes, their measurements is becoming increasingly important
and requires research into more accurate representative methods than those currently
available.

121
Bibliography

[1] 'Background Report 1: Description Of Incineration Technology', Environmental

Protection Agency, Office Of Policy And Planning, Washington, U.S.A, March 1985

[2] 'The Potential For Waste Burning', A.J. Smith and H. King, Energy From Waste

Burning Symposium, Institute Of Energy, Portsmouth, 1979

[3] 'The Hazardous Waste Inspectorate Second Report', Department Of Environment,

U.K., July 1986

[4] 'Report Of The Working Party On Refuse Disposal', Department Of Environment,

HMSO, London, 1978

[5] 'Combustion In The Fuel Bed Of Hand-Fired Furnaces', H. Kreisinger, F.K. Ovitz

and C.E. Augustine, U.S. Bureau Of Mines, Technical Paper No. 137, 1946

[6] 'Underfeed Combustion; Effect Of Preheat And Distribution Of Ash In Fuel Beds',

P. Nicholls, U.S. Bureau Of Mines, Bulletin No. 387, 1954

[7] 'Combustion Experiments With North Dakota Lignite', H. Kreisinger, C.E. Augus-

tine and W.C. Harpster, U.S. Bureau Of Mines, Technical Paper 207, 1959

[8] 'Experimental Studies Of Incineration In A Cylindrical Combustion Chamber', M.

Weintraub, A.A. Orruing and C.H. Schwartz, U.S. Bureau Of Mines, Technical

Paper No. 467, 1967

122
 [9] 'Combustion Of Computer Cards In A Continuous Test Incinerator; A Compari-

son Of Theory And Experiment', W.S. Shieh and R.H. Essenhigh, Proceedings Of

National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1972

[10] 'Developing Thermal Energy Release Intensity Parameter For Solid Waste', HI

Hollander, Proceedings Of National Industrial Solid Waste Management Conference,

Houston, Texas, March 1970

[11] 'Municipal And Industrial Refuse; Composition And Rates', W.R. Niessen and A.F.

Alsobrook, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1972

[12] 'The Nature Of Municipal Solid Waste', W.R. Niessen and S.H. Chansky, Ibid, 1968

[13] 'Mineral Processing', E.J. Pryor, 2nd Edition, Elsevier Publishing, 1965

[14] 'Hand Book Of Mineral Dressing', A.F. Taggart, Elsevier Publishing, 1944

[15] 'Sampling And Sampling Problems Relating To Minerals', D.N. Collins, Analytical

Proceedings, Vol. 23, October 1986

[16] 'Analysis Of Household Waste And Measurement Of Thermal Emissions, Resources

And Conservation', K.E. Lorber, Vol. 14, 1987, pp. 205 - 223

[17] 'Methods For Sampling And Analysis Of Waste', Paper Presented By Gendan Ltd.

(Copenhagen, Denmark), For The Commission Of The European Communities,

1982

[18] 'Private Communications', D.W. Scott and A.J. Poll, Warren Spring Laboratory,

1988

[19] 'Sampling And Analysis Of Domestic Refuse; A Review Of Procedures At Warren

Spring Laboratory', A.J. Poll, Report No. LR45S, 1987

[20] 'Evaluation Of Furnace Temperature, Gas Residence Times And Operational Fac-

tors Affecting Refuse Incinerators', A. Loader, Report No. LDFT34, Warren Spring

Laboratory, 1988

123
[21] 'Incinerator Temperature Measurements: How, What And Where', J.L. Laver, Pro-

ceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1964

[22] 'Pollutant Minimisation By Blue Flame Staged Combustion', D.S. Prior, PhD The-

sis, Chemical Engineering Department, Sheffield University, 1976

[23] 'Private Communications', Dr. W.McKingly, Motherwell Bridge Ltd., January 1989

[24] 'Private Communications', Dr. L. King, Babcock and Wilcox Ltd., Scotland, Jan-

uary 1989

[25] 'The Environmental Impact Of Refuse Incineration In The U.K.', M. Woodfield,

Warren Spring Laboratory, September 1987

[26] 'Techniques For Air Pollution Control In Municipal Incineration', J.A. Fife, AIChE,

Symp. Ser. No. 137, Vol. 70, 1974, pp 405 - 473

[27] 'An Approach To Incinerator Combustible Pollutant Control', W.R. Nissen and A.F.

Sarofim, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1970

[28] 'Energy World', May 1984, p.5

[29] 'The Measurement Of Suspended Particle, Heavy Metal And Selected Organic Emis-

sions At Sheffield MSW Incinerator', P. Clayton and D.W. Scott, Report No. LR570

(PA), Warren Spring Laboratory, 1988

[30] 'Methods For The Sampling And Analysis Of Flue Gases; Part 1 And 2, BS 1756',

1971

[31] 'Refuse Combustion And Flue Gas Analysis From Municipal Incinerator', E.R.

Kaiser, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference', A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1964

[32] 'The Sampling, Analysis And Study Of The Nitrogen Oxides Formed In Natu-

ral Gas/Air Flames', C.J. Halstead and A.J.E. Munro, I.G.T./A.G.A. Conference,

Chicago, USA, 1971

124
[33] 'Hydrogen Interference In Chemiluminescent NOx Analysers', R.M. Sievert, Com-

bustion And Flame, Vol. 25, 1975, P. 273

[34] 'Private Communications', Dr. K. West, LAND Combustion Ltd., December 1988

[35] 'Gas Sampling And Analysis In Combustion Phenomena', R. Lengelle and F.

Verdier, AGARD Report No. 168, 1973

[36] 'Steam/Its Generation And Use', 39th Edition, Babcock and Wilcox, 1978

[37] 'Preliminary Report On Sheffield Incinerator', D.W. Scott, Warren Spring Labora-

tory, Report No. LHK45, 1988

[38] 'Sampling And Analysis Of Solid Incinerator Refuse And Residue', E.R. Kaiser,

Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1970

[39] 'Burning Rates In Incinerators', R.H. Essenhigh, Ibid, 1970

[40] 'Burning Rates And Operational Limits In A Solid Fuel Bed', M. Kuwata, T.J. Kuo

and R.H. Essenhigh, Ibid, 1970

[41] 'An Investigation Of Combustion Air For Refuse Burning', L.J. Cohan and R.C.

Sherril, Ibid, 1964

[42] 'The Effect Of Furnace Design And Operation On Air Pollution From Incinerators',

H.G. Meissner, Ibid, 1964

[43] 'Solid Fuel Combustion And Its Application To The Incineration Of Solid Refuse',

J.E.L. Rogers, PhD Thesis, Chemical Engineering Department, Massachusetts In-

stitute Of Technology, 1973, Microfiche

[44] 'Practical Application Of Incinerator Burning Rate Equations', M. Dvirka, Proceed-

ings Of National Waste Processing Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1976

[45] 'Industrial Furnaces', L. Trinks, Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, Interscience Publisher, 1944

125
[46] 'Refuse Composition And Flue Gas Analysis From Municipal Incinerators', E.R.

Kaiser, Proceedings Of National Waste Processing Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y.,

1964

[47] 'Internal Flow Systems', D.S. Miller, BHRA, 1972

[48] `ASHRAE Handbook And Product Directory: Fundamentals', 1977

[49] `Combustion And Emission Phenomena In Incinerators; Studies On Combustion

Behaviour And Extinction Limits Of Smoke Flames', B.K. Kiswas, T.J. Kuo and

R.H. Essenhigh, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y.,

1970

[50] `The Pyrolysis Of Refuse Components', R.G. Rogers, AIChemE 60th Annual Meet-

ing, Reprint 370, N.Y., 1967

[51] 'Combustion And Emission Phenomena In Incinerators; Physical And Mathemat-

ical Model Of A Simple Incinerator', T.J. Kuo, M. Kuwata, W.S. Shieh and R.H.

Essenhigh, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1970

[52] `The Science Of Flames And Furnaces', M.W. Thring, 2nd Edition, Chapman &

Hall, 1962

[53] `Mathematical Analysis Of Gas Flow Patterns In Municipal Incinerator Furnace

Configuration', W.T. Clarke, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference,

A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1972

[54] `Preparation And Incineration Of Screened Refuse', J. Barton and A.J. Poll, Warren

Spring Laboratory, Report No. LR 592 (MR), November 1986

[55] 'The Efficient Use Of Fuel', H.M. Stationary Office, London, 1958

[56] 'Steam Plant Calculations Manual', V. Ganaphaty, Marcel Dekker Inc., 1976

[57] `Fuels And Fuel Technology', W. Francis and M.C. Peters, Second Edition, Perga-

mon Press, 1975

126
[58] 'Combustion Calculations; Theory, Worked Examples And Problems', E.M.

Goodger, 1st edition, The MacMillan Press Ltd., 1977

[59] 'Development Of Physical And Mathematical Models Of Incinerators; Part 1, State-

ment Of The Problems', R.H. Essenhigh and T.J. Kuo, Proceedings Of National

Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1970

[60] 'Theoretical Model Of Solid Waste Combustion Processes', J.E. Flanagan and G.A.

Hosack, Ibid, 1970

[61] 'Development Of Fundamental Basis For Incinerator Design Equations And Specifi-

cations', R.H. Essenhigh and T.J. Kuo, Proceedings Of 3rd Mid-Atlantic Industrial

Waste Conference, University Of Maryland, November 1969

[62] 'Effect Of Underfire Air Rate On A Burning Simulated Refuse Bed', J.E.L. Rogers,

A.F. Sarofim and J.B. Howard, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference,

A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1972

[63] 'Contribution To The Study Of The Ignition Of Fuel Beds', A.C. Dunningham and

E.S. Grammell, Institute Of Fuel Journal, Vol. 11, 1947, pp 117-122

[64] 'Studies On Combustion Of Carbon Particles In Flames And Fluidized Beds', S.

Yagi and D. Kunni, 5th Symposium (International) On Combustion, Reinhold, N.Y.,

1955

[65] 'The Ignition Of Wet And Dry Wood Ignited By Radiation', D.L. Simms and M.

Law, Institute Of Fuel Journal, Vol. 11, 1967, pp 377-388

[66] 'Experimental Study Of Incineration', A.A. Orruing, W.C. Harold and J.F.

Schwultz, Proceedings Of National Incinerator Conference, A.S.M.E., N.Y., 1970

[67] 'The Heat Balance Integral And Its Application To Problems Involving A Change

Of Phase', T.R. Goodman, Trans. A.S.M.E., Vol. 8, No. 2, 1958, pp 335-342

127
[68] 'The Combustion Of Wood, Part 1', C.H. Bamford, J. Crank and D.H. Malan, Proc.

Camb. Phil. Soc., Vol. 42, 1946, pp 146-181

[69] 'The Degree Of Interaction Between Air And Solid Refuse: The Effect Of Fuel Size',

M.W. Thring, Coal Research, BCURA Leatherhead, September 1944, p 70

[70] 'FLUENT Manual', Flow Simulation Ltd., 1988

[71] 'Gas Turbine Combustor Modelling And Validation', P.N. Wild, PhD Thesis, Chem-

ical Engineering Department, Sheffield University, 1987

[72] 'Chemical Engineering Handbook', R.H. Perry and C.H. Chilton, 5th Edition, In-

ternational Student Edition, 1972

[73] 'Three Dimensional Modelling Of The Sheffield MSW Incinerator', V. Nasserzadeh,

J. Swithenbank, D.W. Scott and B. Jones, To be published in the Journal Of Insti-

tute Of Energy, 1990

[74] 'Design Optimization Of A Large Municipal Incinerator With A Vertical Radiation

Shaft', V. Nasserzadeh, J. Swithenbank, D.W. Scott and B. Jones, To be published

in the Journal Of Institute Of Energy, 1990

[75] 'Heat Transmission', W.H. McAdams, 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill, 1967

[76] '3 Dimensional Gas Turbine Combustor Modelling', P.N. Wild, F. Boysan and J.

Swithenbank, Conference Proceedings No. 422, Combustion And Fuels In Gas Tur-

bine Engines, AGARD, France, 1987

[77] 'Advance Of Research Of Coal Combustion System Modelling', J.Swithenbank,

E.S.Garbett, F.Boysan and W.H.Ayers, Proceedings Of The International Sym-

posium On Coal Combustion, Beijing, China, September 1987

128
 Appendix I

Types Of Refuse And The Classes Of Incinerators

The Incinerator Institute of America (IA) has categorized the types of refuse and the

classes of incinerators as part of a systematic approach to incinerator application and

engineering [1]. They are as follows:

Types of Refuse
Type 1: A mostly dry, primarily rubbish, containing up to 25 % moisture and up to 10

% incombustible solids with a heating value of 8000 kJ/kg as fired.

Type 2: An evenly mixed refuse of rubbish and garbage, containing up to 50 % moisture

and up to 7 % incombustible solids with a heating value of 5500 kJ/kg as fired.

Type 3: A mostly wet refuse, generally garbage, consisting of up to 70 % moisture and

up to 5 % incombustible solids with a heating value of 2500 kJ/kg as fired.

Type 4: By-product waste, gaseous, liquid or semi-liquid from industrial operations

having variable content and Btu values.

Type 5: Solid by-product waste from industrial operations, otherwise unclassified and

having little or no moisture with variable content and Btu values.

To consume divergent types of refuse, a wide range of incinerator designs and capacities

have developed together with different methods of charging classified by the IIA as

follows:

Classes of Incinerators:
Class 1: Portable, packaged, direct fed incinerators with a capacity of up to 50 kg per

hour of type 1 or type 2 refuse.

Class 1A: Portable, packaged or site assembled, direct fed incinerators with a capacity

of from 50 to 200 kgs per hour of type 1 or type 2 refuse.

Class 2: Chute-fed apartment house incinerators where the refuse chute also acts as the

flue for the products of combustion.

129
Class 2A: Chute-fed apartment house incinerators having a separate refuse chute and a

separate flue for the products of combustion.

Class 3: Direct-fed incinerators with a burning rate of 200 kg per hour or more, suitable

for type 1 or type 2 refuse.

Class 4: Direct-fed incinerators with a burning rate of 150 kg per hour or more, suitable

for type 3 refuse.

Class 5: Municipal incinerators with a burning rate of 1 ton per hour or more.

Class 6: Crematory and pathological incinerators suitable for only type 4 refuse.

Class 7: Incinerators designed for specific type 5 by-product waste.

130
 Appendix 2

Calculation of Ambient Flame Gas Temperature

from Thermocouple Bead Temperature

A Ni-Cr-Al Thermocouple was used for the purpose of estimating mean values of flame
temperature T f ( °C). Due to heat transfer consideration the thermocouple bead tem-
perature Tb does not equal this value, a heat balance in fact is necessary to relate the
two. This appendix outlines the method by which T f was calculated from Tb [22].
Assume thermocouple bead is spherical and of 1 mm diameter.
Thermocouple bead steady state heat balance [33]:
Rate of heat transferred to bead by convection from gases = Rate of heat transferred
from bead by radiation to the combustor walls + Rate of heat transferred from bead by
conduction along the leads

41 = 42 + 43

Therefore,
hAb (T f — Tb ) = 6* Ab (E Tgi — aT„,4 ) + 6
where T,„ = mean combustor wall temperature, °K
h = heat transfer coefficient (iz-)
E = bead emissivity
6 = Stefan Boltzmann constant, 5.67 x 10-8 ( TT,R-4- )
a = absorptivity of walls
Db --= bead diameter, m

Forced convection and turbulence effects constitute additional complexities but were
neglected since first order approximations only are required. It is further assumed:
• 42 > 43, in practice 43 can be minimised by the use of small diameter leads,

131
• Tgi › TI , Tw is difficult to measure without resorting to the implantation of further

thermocouples.

For heat transfer to a cylinderical object;

hDb
Nu = — = 2.0
A

Now A and E are not constants but functions of temperature. In the interests of mathe-

matical simplicity both these thermal properties were expressed as linear relations:

A a Aair = 6.13 x 10 -5 7'1 -I- 3.01 x 10 -2 (-

147 )
mK

For 500 < T1 < 1800°C, using data available from [74]:

E a ENi–cr–Ai wire = 8.63 x 10 -5 7'1, + 0.05

A FORTRAN program was written to calculate T 1 in addition to evaluating T f for any

given Tb the program estimates the density of flue gas at that point.

The program listing used for T f and flue gas density calculations is given in appendix 6.

132


Appendix 3

Calculation of % Moisture Content of

Flue Gases

The following sample formulae was used in each test case for computing the percentage

of moisture by volume that was experimentally determined during each test [31].

Formula 1 yields the volume of sampled flue gas at standard temperature and pressure;

V,, Pm Tstd
Vatd = (1)
Tm Paid

Formula 2 yields the volume of sampled flue gas at duct temperature and pressure;

Vduct = VstdPstdTduct
(2)
stdrduct

Formula 3 yields the volume of water vapour at duct temperature and pressure based on

the amount of water collected by the desiccant;

Vtuv = x (82.057).Tduct (3)

Pductw 18.00

where w = amount of water collected.

Formula 4 yields the volume percentage of water vapour as determined by the desiccant

weight change method;

Vol. % water vapour =[ Vwv 1 X 100 (4)

LVduct VWV J

where Vw„ = volume of water vapour.

The following sample calculations use data gathered on the 16th of November, 1988 at

the Sheffield municipal incinerator;

(163.4 /it)(659 mm)(330 K)

std = — 140.2 lit
(760 mm)(332 K)

133


(140.2 /it)(760 mm)(433 K)

Vduct = = 188.8 lit
(761 mm)(330 K)
(762 mm)(15.24 g)(82.05 cc/g mo/eK)(433 K)
Vw„, = = 27700 cc (27.7 lit)
(761 mm)(18.00 g I g mole)
Therefore;

27.7 lit
% Moisture content of flue gases = X 100 = 12.8%
188.8 lit + 27.7 lit

134


Appendix 4

Burning Rate Determination [40]

Assumption: There are negligible amounts of Nitrogen, Sulphur and other inorganic

combustibles in the waste.

The specific gravity of the flue (stack) gas referred to air can be determined by the

following equation;

+ MH20
Sp.Gr. = MCO2 + MCO MO2+ MN2
+
29.0

where;
(%CO2)
MCO2 = X 44.01
100

Mco = (CO) x 28.01

100
(%02)
MO2 = X 32.00
100
H20 = (%1120)
M x 18.01
100
(%N2)
MN2 = x 28.20
100

N.B. Molecular weight of dry air = 29.00.

The density of the flue gas at standard conditions is then;

pf g = Sp•Gr. X Pair

where; pair = density of dry air at standard conditions = 0.075 lb/ft3

The total mass of the flue gas leaving the system is;

Mt = pfgQ, (lb/hr)

where Pfg = density of flue gas (1b/ft3 ) and Q, = volumetric flow rate (ft3/hr).

135


The nitrogen in the flue gas can be used as a tie element to determine the quantity of

dry combustion air introduced to the incinerator.

%N2 ) PN2
Mai, =Q.( (--
i, ) (1b/hr)
1 00 JN2

where pN2 = density of nitrogen in lb/ft 3 at standard conditions.

and fN 2 = weight fraction of nitrogen in air = 0.768

By determining the absolute humidity ( H a) of the combustion air at the time of the test,

the water contained in the combustion air can be accounted for.

%N2
Mc(' = [1 + Ha]. [ Q 8 ( 100 ) PN2]÷ fN2

where H a = absolute humidity (lb water/lb dry air).

The burning rate for an incinerator can now be determined on an ash free basis;

RAF = Mt — Mca (1b/hr)

where RAF = Burning rate ash free basis (lb/hr)

Or it can be expressed as;

RAF = Qs[P fg — ( 1 + Ha)(%N2/100)(PN2/fN2)]

in lb/hr of ash free waste burned.

If the ash content of the waste is known or can be determined, the charging rate can be

expressed as;

RT = RAF[
1
1 oos ) ]
(%iilh
where %Ash = weight percentage of incombustibles in the waste.

136


Appendix 5

FLUENT Computational Package;

An Overview [70]

In this study a computer code, FLUENT, was used to perform the calculations. This

computer programme can fulfil a wide range of requirements. Examples of the application

of FLUENT presented in references [76] and [77] illustrate the level of versatility and

validity of this particular computer code.

Equations of the gas phase model; The equations required for the description of the
flow field in the combustion chamber which express the time averaged fluid flow balance

of mass and momentum are given below in cartesian tensor notation for compactness.

Conservation of mass

0
(") = 0 (Al)

Conservation of momentum

0 •
t 3 . )= —th5i3
(Puiuj) (p7.121
axi
(A2)
uxi

r Oui Ni l 2 aui
(A3)
= Vt()7ij

k-c Turbulence model

a a [ A -F pt )( Ok
-(puik)= ( .5k P — pc
(A4)
Ox .1

a
8 [( 11+14 ) ( 8 )1 +
(pUiE) = --- P — C2P—k-
E2 (A5)
uxi Oxi be Oxi
pk2
itt = 0.09 x (A6)

Modelling coefficients take the values; C 1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92, bk = 1.0 and bc = 1.3.

Equations for gas phase reacting flow

137


Equation for the conservation of enthalpy;

a a [ t + itt ah
Q „,
(puio= --- (i )1+ )( ) Sh (B1
aX UXi Oh 0Xi

Equation for conservation of chemical species;

a a + m
(P u i m s) = [(11 t )( a d+ (B2)
axi Oxi 6, a, )J

The equation of state;

(B3)
P i
= RTEmjIM
Equations for two step chemical reaction model
The two step reaction mechanism is modelled as follows;

CrIly (;- + + nN2 ) = xCO -FP12 0 (;-F X nN2 (B4)

xCO ;(9 2 nN2 )= xCO 2 + ;nN2 (B5)

Reaction rates for the two steps are determined by;

E A 0 E S fuMfU
Rfu = [ AIPMfu i 7 ,Rjeu kinetic (B6)
zil S fuk S fu m fu + Scomco

[E A pmo E Scomco
Rco = A2PMC°P ‘12 sco k , R0 kinetic (B7)
S f u M f u + Sco M co

where A is a model constant and the subscript 'kinetic' denotes the rates determined

by the Arrhenius equations. S fu and Sco are the stoichiometric oxidant/fuel mass ratio

for the combustion reactions. These have been included in order to account for the fact

that the two reactions are simultaneously competing for available oxygen. The operator

[ ] takes the smaller of the terms within and allows combustion to be controlled by the

Arrhenius formula, the dissipation of oxygen containing eddies or the dissipation of fuel

eddies. Once the rates Rfu and Rco are known, the required source terms are determined

from knowledge of stoichiometry and the heat of combustion.

138
 Appendix 6

List of Computer Programs Used For The

Experimental And Modelling Work

1 - BASIC program used for recording the furnace temperature.

2 - Flame gas temperature estimation program (in FORTRAN).

3 - Mean gas temperature estimation program (in FORTRAN).

4 - Standard deviation calculation program (in FORTRAN).

5 - FLUENT case file used for modelling of the rollers.

6 - FLUENT case file used for modelling of the Sheffield incinerator plant.
REFEN.

1 DIMOP(16)
100 REM***PCI1002ADC**
110 REM
120 REM**********4444******
130 REM*BERNARD RD INCINERATOR *
140 REM*TEMP. MEASUREMENT EXPT.*
150 REM*PCI1002ADC PROGRAM
160 REM*VIDA NASSERZADEH
170 REM*UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD*
180 REM*
190 REM*************************
200 REM
205 REM***SELECT T/C RANGE***
201'; REM
210 PRINT"MCI 1002 THERMOCOUPLE CONVERTER"
220 PRINT"WHERMOCOUPLE TYPES AVAILABLE"
22:0 PRINT"M,B"
235 PRINT"M IS FOR K TYPE 0- 400 DEG C ;RANGE IS 317-1MY"
236 PRINT" IS FOR V TYPE 400-1370 DEG C ;RANGE IS 2:01MV"
2217 REM
240 PRINT ":ENTER TYPE"CHR$(3);
250 GETT$
REM
254 REM***SELECT LINEARISING COFFS***
251; REM
2RA IFT$= "A"THENA(0)=0 : A:1)=2.438324SE-2 : A(2) =9.7830251E-9:CK=40.30
290 IFT$="A"THENA(3)=3.6276965E-12:A(4)=-2.5756438E-16:6OT0396
IFT$="B"THENA(0)=5.2300671:A(1)=2.4955374E-2:A(2)=-7.8788333E-S:CK=40.30
310 IFT$="B"THENA(3)=1.329743E-12:A(4)=1.5580541E-16:GOT0396
340 IFT$="R"THENA(0)=0:A(1)=1.5239494E-1:A(2)=-1.3755675E-5
3F.A IFT$ = "P"THENA(3) = 1.2510922E-9 : A(4) = -4.4281251E-14 C1 =5.85
395 60T0250
391; PRINTT$
400 REM
410 REM***ENTER DEVICE NO***
420 REM***DE•ICE NO IS 5 IN THIS CASE***
Lit-4=e,
440 REM
45A REM***CHECK PCI1002 RANGE***
450 REM
470 CH=0 : GOSUE 10000
480 IFOP.,0)<SOOTHENR=100
4 c:1 0 IFOP(0)>=800ANDOP(0)<TWOTHENR=30
500 IFOP(0)>=2000THENR=10
510 REM
REM***SCAN CH1 TO 15+0
5:7:n REM
535 PRINT"n"
PRINT"ORANGE"R"MV ; THERMOCOUPLE TYPE "T$
537 FOR#2,"SEQ FILE".. 110,1.1
5.7:3 FOR L = 1 TO 2
540 FORCH=1T015:GOSUB10000:NEXTCH
FIFIA REM
620 CH=4
630 GOSUE11000
640 PRINT"TEMP. OF CHANNEL"CH" = "OP(CH)"DEG C"
641 X$="TEMP.RECORD"+STR$(0P(CH))
642 PRINT#2JX$
643 REM
644 REM
645 REM
646 REM
699 REM
741 OPEN 4, 4
742 CMD4
743 PRINT#4, ; "TEMPERATURE OF CHANNEL NC"H" = "OP(CH)"DEG C"
744 PRINT#4, ;
745 CLOSE4
746 FOR 2=1 TO 1 5000 : NEXTZ
799 NEXT L
800 NEXT
810 END
982 /40
10000 REM
10010 REM*** OPERA T I NO SUBROUTINE***
10020 REM
100:30 OPEN 1 , DN., CH
10040 GET# 1 , J-$ .. KS
10050 1:::=A SC (K:$ ) -224
10060 I FK<OTHEND= ( K+32 ) *- 1
10070 I FK)=0THEND=K
10080 D=D*255
10090 I FJ$= " "THENJ=0 : GOTO 11 711 1 0
10100 J=ASC ( J$ )
10110 I FK .COTHENJ = J*- 1
10120 OF' ( CH )=J+D
10130 CLOSE 1
10140 RETURN
11000 REM
11010 REM***E I TS TO Da-3C SUE:ROUT I NE***
11020 REM
11030 C...T =CK+( O' 3 ) *R 400
/ ) REM G I'y'ES CJC IN MI CRO'y'OL TS
11040 V=OP ( CH )4:R/4 : REM 0 1 'ES 0/P IN MI CROVOLTS
11050 V=V+C.3 : REM ADD CJC VOLTAGE
11060 T=A ( 4 )
11070 FOR I = C3T00:3TEP- 1
11080 T=TV.,.'+A ( I )
11090 NEXT I
11100 OP( CH ) = INT ( 1 0* ( T ) +0 . 5' / 10
11110 RETURN
READY.
 TO@ ‹USRA17WC2VNS>FLAMD.F77 laet modified Fri daw 11 Aug 89 10'22144

REAL DATA(12,29),TB(29),TF(29),RDHT(29),ESH(29),DEN(29)
INTEGER NOP,NOC,CN
CHARACTER*20 FNAME
WRITE(1,WINPUT DATA FILENAME'
READ(1,'(A17)')FNAME
OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE=FNAME)
RFAn(c,*)NOP,NOC
DO 100 I=1,NOP
READ(5,*)(DATA(J,I),J=1,NOC)
100 CONTINUE
CLOSE(UNIT=5)
WRITE(1,*)'WHICH COLUMN TO USE'
READ(1,*)CN
CN=CN+1
DO 200 I=1,NOP
TB(I)=DATA(CN,I)
DSH=1.75E-03
SBC=5.67E-08
ESH(I)=(0.109*TB(I)/1132.22)+0.05
RDHT(I)=((TB(I)+273)**4)*SBC*ESH(I)
A=12.26E-05
D=O. 72E-04
B=D-(A*TB(I))
C=(D*TB(I))+(DSH*RDHT(I)/837.4)
TF(I)=((-B)+SORTl(B**2)+(4*A*C)))/(2*A)
DEN(I)=(28.0/22.4)*(73.0/76.0)*(273/(273+TF(I)))
WRITE(1,3)TF(I),DEN(I)
200 CONTINUE
3 FORMAT(F8.3,5X,FS.3)
STOP
END
 !File <USRA17>FC2VNS>MEAN.F77 last modified Friday 11 Aug 89 14:46:24

REAL DATA(11,52),TB(52),SUM
INTEGER NOP,NOC,CN
CHARACTER*20 FNAME
WRITE(1,WINPUT DATA FILENAME'
READ(1,1(A17)')FNAME
OPEN(UNIT=5/FILE=FNAME)
READ(5,*)NOP,NOC
DO 100 I=1,NOP
READ(5,*)(DATA(J,I),J=1,NOC)
100 CONTINUE
WRITE(1,*)'WHICH COLUMN TO USE'
READ(1,*)CN
CN=CN+1
SUM=0.0
DO 200 I=1,NOP
TB(I)=DATA(CN,I)
SUM=SUM+TB(I)
200 CONTINUE
XMEAN=SUM/NOP
WRITE(1,201)XMEAN
CLOSE(UNIT=5)
STOP
201 FORMAT(F8.3)
END
 !File <USRA17>FC2VNS>STDEV.F77 last modified Friday 11 Aug 89 14:47:00

REAL DATA(11,52),TF(52),B(52)
INTEGER NOP,NOC,CN
CHARACTER*20 FNAME
WRITE(1 1 WINPUT DATA FILENAME'
READ(1,'(A17)')FNAME
OPEN(UNIT=5,FILE=FNAME)
READ(5,*)NOP,NOC
DO 100 I=1,NOP
READ(5,*)(DATA(J,I),J=1,NOC)
100 CONTINUE
WRITE(1,*)'WHICH COLUMN TO USE'
READ(1,*)CN
CN=CN+1
SUM 1=0.0
SUM2=0.0
DO 200 I=1,NOP
TF(I)=DATA(CN,I)
C WRITE(1,*) TF(I)
SUM1=SUM1+TF(I)
am CONTINUE
TFAV=SUM1/NOP
C WRITE(1,*) TFAV
DO 300 I=1,NOP
B(I)=(TF(I)-TFAV)**2
C WRITE(1,*) B(I)
SUM2=SUM2+B(I)
IM CONTINUE
STDEV=SCIRT(SUM2/NOP)
WRITE(1.3)STDEV
3 FORMAT(F8.3)
STOP
END


_ICENEED BY AND THE PROPERTY OF CREARE INC. P.O. BOX 71. HANOVER. NEW HA,
FSHIRE 0777;E.647-7800 I

-
FFFFF U EEEEE N N rTTTT

U E NN N
=F.= • U EEEE N N N

• U E N NN

LLLLL UNU EEEEE N FLUID FLOW
ODELLIN3

OUTPUT PRODUCED BY RELEASE 2.99 ROLLER MODELLING

- UNITS SYSTEM -

INDEX PROPERTY UNITS S.I. CONVERSION FACTOR

DIMENSIONLESS 1.000E+00
MASS ItILOGRAMS 1.000E+00
LENGTH METRES 1.000E+00
4 TIME SECONDS 1.000E+00
5 VELOCITY METRES/SEC 1.000E+00

6 FORCE NEWTONS 1.000E+00
ACCELERATION METRES/SEC/SEC 1.000E+00
8 ENERGY JOULES 1.000E+00
9 POWER WATTS 1.000E+00
10 MASSFLOWRATE KILOGRAMS/SEC 1.000E+00
11 TEMPERATURE KELVIN 1.000E+00
12 ENTHALPY JOULES/KILOGRAM 1.000E+00
13 PRESSURE PASCALS 1.000E+00
14 DENSITY KILOGRAMS/CU.M 1.000E-100
15 VISCOSITY KG/Fl SEC. 1.000E+00
16 K.E. OF TURCLNCE M.SQ/SEC/SEC 1.000E+00
17 K.E. DISS. RATE M.SO/SEC/SEC/SEC 1.000E+00
18 SPEC. HT . CAP. JOULES/KG-K 1.000E+00
19 THERMAL COND. WATTS/M-K 1.000E+00
20 DIFFUSIVITY M.SO/SEC. 1.000E+00
21 ACTIVATION ENRGY JOULES/KGMOL 1.000E+00

Lat. ANGLE RADIANS 1.000E+00
HEAT FLUX WATTS/M.SO. 1.000E+00
24 PARTICLE DIAM. METRES 1.000E+00
MirIMPKITHM TCoaTC WM h4 ICCr. •
 -- JGL../ C. I.. 1.QQQC-WU
-o HEAr TRANSF COEF WATTS/M.-So-I 1.000E+00
PERMEABILIT't M. SC. 1.000E+00
Ao INTERNAL MISC.) UNDEFINED 1.000E'00
VOL. FLOWRATE CU.M/SEC. 1.000E+00
AREA M. SD. 1.000E+00
A RRHENIUS FACTOR CU.M.,E GO.-SEC. 1.000E+00
72 INERTIAL FACTOR FER METRE 1.000E+00
vOL. HEAT RATE WATTS/CU.M. 1.000E+00
:4 A2SCRE./3CATTER. := ER METER 1.000E+00
ANGULAR VELOCITs( PER SECOND 1.000E+00
7o SFARE UNDEFINED 1.000E+00

- GEOMEIR, -

-,EC1AWOULAR
CARTESIAN COORDINATES
K41 NJ = 7S =

NODE CENTRES FOSITIVE FACES

..... CELL DIMENSIONS
NO. '(-GRID r-GRID 2-GRID X-GRID '(-GRID 2-GRID
x-GRID.-3RID 2-GRID NO.
--.o 7 36E-02 -1.1111E-- -)1 -2-000E-01 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
5. 7 57E- )2 2.222E-01 4.000E-01 1
c
-..678oE-02 1.1111E- . D1 2.0000E-01 2.222E-01 4.000E-01
5. -757E-02 2.222E-01 4.000E-01
3.)757E-02 7_7337E-01 6.0000E-01 1.071E-01 4.444E-01 3.000E-01
5. - 57E-02 2.222E-01 4.000E-01
4 1.7737E-01 5.5556E-01 1.0000E+00 1.o07E-01 o.667E-01 1.200E+00
5.757E-02 2.222E-01 4.000E-01 4
1.3750E-01 7.7778E-01 1.4000E+00 ^.147E-0 1 3.389E-01 1.600E+00
5.757E- 0 2 2.222E-01 4.000E-01 =
2.4107E-01 1.0000E+00 1.8000E+00 2.679E- 01 1.111E+00 2.000E+00
5.757E-02 '.222E-01 4.000E-01 6
7 2.9464E-01 1.2222E+00 2.2000E+00 7,214E-01 1.7Z7E+00 0.000E+00
5.757E- 02 2.222E-01 4.000E-01 7
7,4821E-01 1.4444E+00 0.0000E+00 3. 750E-01 1.556E+00 0.000E+00
5.757E- 02 2.22E-01 0.000E+00 3
9 4.0179E-01 1.6667E+00 0.0000E+00 4.-86E-01 1.778E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-0 - 2.222E-01 0.000E:00
10 4.5536E-01 1.8885E+00 0.0000E+00 4.821E-01 2.000E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 10
11 5.0897E-01 2.1111E+00 0.0000E+00 5.357E-01 2-22-5+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E100 11
12 5.6250E-01 2.3333E+00 0.0000E+00 5.897E-01 2 .444E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 ^.222E-01 0.000E:00
13 6.1607E-01 2.5556E+00 0.0000E+00 6.429E-0 1 2.667E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E400 13
14 0.6964E-01 2.7778E+00 0.0000E+00 6.964E-01 - 889E+00 0.000E+00
5.7,57E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 14
15 7.2321E-01 3.0000E+00 0.0000E+00 7 • 500E-01 3 .111E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 15
16 7.7679E-01 3.2222E+00 0.0000E+00 8.036E-01 3.33ZE+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 16
17 8.3036E-01 3.4444E+00 0.0000E+00 8.571E-01 3.556E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 17
18 8.8393E-01 3.6667E+00 0.0000E+00 9.107E-01 :7.778E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 18
19 9.3750E-01 3.8889E+00 0.0000E+00 9.643E-01 4 .000E+00 0.000E+00
5.-57E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E+00 19
20 9.9107E-01 4.11115+00 .0.0000E+00 1.018E+00 4.222E+00 0.000E+00
5.357E-02 2.222E-01 0.000E400 20
7 1 clageln 4 rwsew,,,,,, ea',1r..^^ a
 1.u/laT,Ju Quijm-reju
Z.Z5TE 0 :4 - - I 0.000E1- 00 1.125E+00 4,667E+00
1._ 0.°°°02-1-00 0.000E+00
1-0022+00 4.5556E(-00
5.Z57E 02 2.22E _01 0.00(F40k=
.. cw,n02+n0 1.17VE+00 "4..039E+00 0.000E+00
--
01 0.nmEi0(..
5.:57E 1.-77E+00
0.00002+00 '4.11 1E 4-00 0.000E+00
1-20542r-00 5.00002i.00
5.Z57 E 011 2,222E 01 0.00O2:00 .24
1.286E+00
1-2539E+00 5.2222E+00 J.0000E4-00 0.000E+0c)
C.7
2.222E J1 0.600E400 1.777E+00
5.44442+60 .).0000E+00 -.536E+00 0.000E+00
E.C. 37 E- 2 .222E (A. 0.-00E:00 .26
1.777E,00 -'.773E-I-o0 0.000E+00
1.:6612F00 5.66672+00 0.00O0E+00
5. 7=72,2 2.2222 01 0.000E:00 1.446E+00 '.000E+00 0.0002-00
20 1-41?621-0,, 5.3339E+00 0..)000E1-00
2.222E DI. 0.0002+0o 2S
1.477.2E100 1.500E+00 .22.2E4-00 0.J0c.E+00
2'? .D.1111E1-00 0.0000E+00
5.7.7-75 01 0.0OOE.00
1.5263E'00 0.)002+00 .444Er0( 0.000E-00
6.ZZ7ZE+00 0.0000E4-00
5,7,572 2.2222 A. 0.000E+00 70
0.)0GE4-00 Z..--.67E+00 0.01)0E+0.
- 1 0000E00
.1.0004-00 =1 )..0002:4 0L 721
•A: 0.000E+00 '.-.339E00 0.(:3002+c(0
_ 7 7 2E4-00 0.0000E+00
0.000E+00
0.000E+00 -.111E+00 0.000E+00
j..)(-)(i')E4-0° 7 .0000 c -1-00 0.0000E1,00
0 . ,-) 0°2-10C _
).000E-00 7 ,1777E+00 0.000E+00
- .2222E+00 ).i000E+00
2 - 2=27 )1 ).:,60E400
L..:')°°E'°° 7 .44442 ,-00 0.0u00E,00 0.000E+00 -. =:56E+00 0.000E-00
).000E 40t- 2 - 2222 01 0.O00E+00
_6 ..J.0000E+00 7.6667E+00 0.O000E+00 0.000E+00 7 .778E+00 0.000E+00
0.000E-4 00 2 - 2222 01 0.000E 4 00 =6
).0000E+00 - .3389E+00 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 8 .000E+00 0.000E+00
0.000E 4 00 2.2= 31 0.000E400
:a 0.0000E4-00 3.1111E+QO 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 0 .000E+00 0.000E+00
0.000E+00 2 -222E - 01 0.000E400 73

CELL TYPES -

K = 1

J I= 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 13 ^0 24 26 28 ZO
Z8 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0wo
SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
ZO SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
• SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
Z4 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
77 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
• SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
Z1 •SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
:O . SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
29 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
28 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
▪ SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
26 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
24 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
• SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
21 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWW0W0
20 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
19 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
12 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
17 qwownwnwownwnwownwownwownwnwnwnwownwnwownwnwownwowownwowowo

▪
▪ - 3

. _ .

1..L) .4;40;.,1%)1,,I;)1401,..101-10 W( W( wo wow; yw( _vwowt.,wowL)Wt_3143_)W(DW(_)W0Wow0wo

I S W 0'40 OWO WOW° WO WOWO WOW 0 W 0 WOW ()WOW 0 W OWO WOW OW OWO w ()wow°
W wi..)
14 8W.:,WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0w0WOWOW0w0,-..10w0wowow0W0wowo
31111 wowowowowow0W0w0wowowoWOWOWOWOWC,WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWC-WO
12 511 Ill,Aluw0W0WOWOWCA.,10WC.,WOWL)WOWLDWC,WOWOWOWOW(Dwowowowowob,40wouowc,
11 -qtAb. WC,WOWOWOLJOWOWOWI)WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWL)WOWOW0140WOWOWOWOWLIWOWC)
t: 5WC.1,10WOWL.WOWOWCMC,WOWOWOWOWOWC440WIDWOWOW0140WOWOWC,WOWOW,DWC:',40Wt,
▪ 4WOWOW.--)WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOLAJOWOWOWOWCJWCWOWC;WOWOWOWOWOW01.4C'WCWOWO
▪ 3WC,Wt: WO WC. WOLAJO WO WO WO WOW OWO WOWOWO WO WOWO WC,WO WO Wo w0 wOWO WO
7 swovh_ wh: wo Wo W 0 wo wo wowo wowt..,wt.,WO WOWO WOW OW k)W0w0 wc.wciwow0WOW
swowo wow0w0w0w0w0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW.)WCWO
5 3w w.)W(...WC,WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
4 zw,_ w ..A40 W0w0 WO Wc. ;w0WOW0Wowow0 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WOWOW01,40
EWL. '4_,WOWOWOWOWOWC WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
1WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0wowowowor,:40W0W0w0W0WO
1 wowowom Jw0w0w0WOWOWOWOWoWOWOWOW)WOWOWOW0wOWOWOWOWOL--OWO
2 4 7, 3 1.) 12 14 16, 18 2') 22 24 2,m

6, 1 : 12 14 1.7; 13 2 24 26 2E7"
0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 .3 3 0 0

-
2 WO
3 .W0
7.4 s .
n••
S '40

: 1 3 * * * * * 4 4t- * * Iwo

s* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * 140
S* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * wo
20 S*1*1*1*1-,E1*1*1*1*1*1461*1*1*1*14E1*1*1*141-1*1*1*1*1*IWO . WO
27 s -
LAP ) .140
26 3 140 . 140
- S WO
24 S WO WO
WO WO
22 S WO
21 3 WO 140
20 3 WO WO
19 siel m-1*1*1*1*146. 1*14E1*1*1*1*1 46 1*1 46 1*1*1*1*1*1 4(-131-1*1*1WO 140
18 140
17 S 140
16 S WO
15 S WO
14 S WO
13* S WOWO
S WOWOWOWO
11 S WOWOWOWOWOWO
10 5 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
9 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
6 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
5 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
4 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
1 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
J I= 2 4 6 81012141618202224262930


J I- 4 6 10 12 14 16 16 _u 22 24 26 23 70
73 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WO
w0

Wo
W0
Wn
_ mr ft * *
* * * * * * * * * * k * * * * A- * * * * * * WO
:0 S* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 4 * * * X * WO
- S* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ,e WO
-d 5-*1-(1*1*141*1*1*1*1*1h-14-1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*I*1*1W0 . .WO
WC: WO

WL") WO
-4 • Wt

5
• W )
-1 Wn 40
............ WO . . WO
S m i *1*I*1 *1*1 *1 * 1 *1*1 4 1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1WO . WO
16 6 Wn
6 40
16 - WO
15 3 Wn
ILl S WO
1.7 s wnwn
= wnwownwo
11 E WOWOWOWOWOWO
1u WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
W0WOW0WOW0WOWOWOW0W0
8 WOW0W0W0W0W0W0WOW041
WOWOWnWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
6 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
5 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
4 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
• SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
1 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
J 1= :.: 4 6 8- 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 ZO

= 4

J I= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Z8 s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OWO
WO
Z6 3 WO •
WO
WO
WO
32 s WO
31 s* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WO
30 Si* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WO
▪ s* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *- * * * WO
28 S*1*1411*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*I*1W0 WO
WO WO
26 WO. WO
-)rt-
 • •
▪

WO
• =.WOWOWOWOW 0 W0W0t.joW0 WoWt_;WOWOWOWO WOWOWOWOWl)WOWt_mowowowo .
2 :: Nowowowowo wcpwoi.jo W WO WOWOWOW OW ()WO W 0 WO W W OW w w w 0 w 0,
W(t W,
Wu L-k.1(

Wt
11 '; it 1. *1 *1 +1*1 A-11*1*1*11*1*
* * 1*1*1*11*-1*1*1*1*1*1W0
*- . Wi)
Wc
1 ; z Wt:
'4(

1-4

• -Jt:, C. , vJ W 0
11
1 C ..,101.10WnWt)14n14,-)W0Wo
14( )14( )Wt .Wnwt-mr)w0i401..,p)!•.jr)
........... ..... . ,WoWuWOWOWOWowuwt.-.;wowt:44,:,
WOW% ;Wt •W(_W.)14'-_,W()Wt_.,W(.%WOWOWL
▪ - ............. Wt.)WUWOWOWOWUWOWOWOWOWOWt..)WOWC,WOMS
• ........... .4 ( . ,W(JWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWQW(..W6W(.-)W0
4 ......... Wit . )W()WOWUWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWCJWOW0140WOWOWC,Wt.)
....... WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWUWOWOWOWOWOWOM JWOW0wouvw,_,
- : 1-1(. Wk. WuW0W0Wt.)WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
1 SWOWOWc,WOW0WOW...)W0WOW0WOWUWOWuW0Wul4t..,W0WOW0W0WOWOWOW0W0WOWOWO
4 6 8 10
1.g. 14 1 6 18 -:0 ..:2

J 1= - 4 .5 8 it) 11.: 14 1 6 1E1 0 22 24 6 23 30

:3 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OWO
S NO
7-6 S WO
-7=
NO
WO
S NO
32 5 WO
71 5* s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WO
30 S* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WO
29 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WO
28 S*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1W0 WO
S N0 No
26 3 WO WO
•,= WU 140
24 C, NO
.2; s WU NO
2^ S WO WO
S WC)
20 WO 140
1 9 S*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*-1*1*1*1*1*1*.1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1W0 WO
18 s wo
1 7 S WO
16 S WO
15 S WO
14 s WO
13 S WOWO
12 s WOWOWO.WO
11 S WOWOWOWOWOWO
10 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
S


............
8 s wowowQwowowowowowowowuwo
7 S ............... WoWoW0WoWuWoWoWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
6 ............. WOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoW0
........... WoWoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
4 ......... WOW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WoWoWoWOWOWoWoWo
....... WOWoWOWoWOWOWOWOWOWoW0WOWoWOWoWOWOWOWoWoWoW0
SWOWOW0WoWOWOW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWoWOWoWOWOW0WOW0WOWOWoWoWoWOWOWo
1 SWOWuWoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWWOWOWOWO
1 = - A 8 8 1) 11- 14 18 lu _o

U - 4 3 1) 1_ 14 18 18 -4_.-.. 21"3
=3 T.-. - "3 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 .3 _; j jWtj

3 wo
7 8 W(_
_
-= Wo
4LJ
_
- ........................... %.

WO

= * V a- a- ft a- a- w f
t r * ,r * * * *

71:)) '5* * A k * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * W

7
2: 7 * * * X- ft * * * * * * W)
3*1n19I1*1*111*11,1)(1*1*1* 1 * 1 * 1R1H1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 'AIP,1 *1*1W0 . .WO

3 ..................... .40 WO
28 3 ......................... WO . Wo
wo wo
• .....................
......................... WO WO
S......................... Wo Wt.)

• ......................... WO WO
3 ......................... wo 140
21
• ......................... WO WO
19 8*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1*1 *1 w 1*1*1*1*1*1*1W0 . WO
18 WO •
17 S WO
16 8 WO
15 S WO
14 '3 Wu
13 S WOWO
12 S WOWOWOWO
11 S 140140140WOWOWO
10 _S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
9 S. WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
8 S 140140140WO140140WOWO140140140WO
7 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
6 S 140W0140WOWOWOWOWOWOWO140WO140WOWOWO
5 S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
4 s WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
S WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
2 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
1 SWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
11 *.; 4 6 8 10 11.: 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 '7 8 30

=
J I= 2 4 a 0 10 12 14 16 18 20
38 swowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowomwookmoteiwoi&o;8
37 swowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowowgwowowuwo


1J U E N NN

LLLLL UUU EEEEE N N FLUID FLOW
ODELLIN3

OUTPUT PRODUCED BV RELEASE 2.99 FURNACE MODELLING

- - - ^

- UNITS 9'. S TEM -

FROPERTY JNIT9 T. rnrxuPp g TnN pacTrIR

INDEX

1 DIMENSIONLESS 1.000E+00
- NASS KILOGRAMS 1.000E+00
LENGTH METRES 1.000E+00
TIME SECONDS 1.000E+00
• .:ELOCIrf METRES/SEC 1.000E+00
NEWTONS 1.000E+00
6 FORCE
7 ,CCELERATION METRES,SEC/SEC 1.000E+00
a ENERGY JOULES 1.000E+00
POWER WATTS 1.000E+00
to MASSFLOWRATE KILOGRAMS/SEC 1.000E+00
11 TEMPERATURE ELVIN 1.000E+00
12 ENTHALPY JOULES/ItILOGRAM 1.000E+00
13 PRESSURE PASCALS 1.000E+00
14 DENSITY KILOGRAMS/CU.M 1.000E+00
15 VISCOSITY KG/Fl-SEC. 1.000E+00
16 K. E. OF TURBLNCE M.SQ/SECISEC 1.000E+00
17 K.E. DISS. RATE M.SQ/SEC/SEC/SEC 1.000E+00
18 SPEC. HT . CAP. JOULES/KG-K 1.000E+00
19 THERMAL COND. WATTS/M-K 1.000E+00
20 DIFFUSIVITY M.SQ/SEC. 1.000E400
21 ACTIVATION ENRGY JOULES/KGMOL 1.000E+00
ANGLE RADIANS 1.000E+00
HEAT FLUX WATTS/M.SO. 1.000E+00
24 PARTICLE DIAM. METRES 1.000E+00
MOMENTUM TR RATE KG.M/SECISEC 1-000E+00
26 HEAT TRANSF COEF WATTS/M.SQ-K 1.000E+00
27 PERMEABILITY M.SQ. 1.000E+00
28 (INTERNAL MISC.) UNDEFINED 1.000E+00
29 VOL. FLOWRATE CU.M/SEC. 1.000E+00
30 AREA M. SO. 1-000E+00
31 ARRHENIUS FACTOR CU.M./KG0.-SEC. 1-000E+00
'Tn INERTIAL FACTOR PER METRE 1.000E+00
VOL. HEAT RATE WATTS/CU.M. 1.000E+00
34 SPARE UNDEFINED 1.000E+00
SPARE UNDEFINED 1.000E+00
36 SPARE UNDEFINED 1.000E+00

- GEOMETRY -

RECTANGULAR CARTESIAN COORDINATES

NI = 30 NJ = 38 NK = 9
 0.000E+00 5.907E-01 0.000E-. 00 71
•
0.0000E+00 1.900 7 E+01 0.0000E+ou 0.000E+00 1.8:30E+01 0.000E+00
0.000E+00 5.907E-01 0.000E+00

•-• ).0000Et-00 1.3594E+01 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 1.869E+01 0.000E+00
0.000E+00 5.707E-01 0.000E+00
).0000E+00 1. 9 134E+01 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 1.949E+01 0.000E+00
0.000E+00 5.90 7 E-01 0.000E+00 :4
0.000E+00 1.9774E+01 c) 0.000E+00 2.007E+01 0.000E+00
0.000E 1-(c0 5.707E-01 0.000E+00
).)000E+00 2.0765E+01 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 2.066E+01 0.000E+00
0.000E+00 s. ?2E- - .000E+00 :6
0.0000E+00 2.097E+01 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 2.125E+01 0.000E+00
0.000E+00 5.907E 01 0.000E+(:0
-3 ).)000E+00 2.1545E+01 0.0000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+-)0
0. ,)00E+00 5. 7 07E-01 ).000E+00 73

- CELL 17 ,FES -

J I= 2 4 0 9 10 12 14 16 19 20 22 242k 23 30
:8 WoW0WOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
7 7 W440W0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
:6 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
75 W0WOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOW0Wow0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
72 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
71 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
70 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
29 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
29 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOW0W0W0
27 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
26 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
25 W0W0W0W0W0w0W0W0W0W0WOW0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0W0
24 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
23 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
21 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
20 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
19 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
19 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
17 WOWOWOWOWOC40WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
16 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
15 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
14 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
13 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
12 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
11 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
10 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
9 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
8 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
7 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
6 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
4 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
2 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
J 1= 2 4 6 8 10 12. 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30


j I = 2 4 6 S 10 12 14 16 13 "0 2- 24 26 23 70
:.3 w0woW0W0w0w0W0w0WOW0wow0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0w0WOWOW0w0W0wow0w0W0
--
,, 54(-, *1*1*1*-1*1*1*1 • . 0
7.•.;=, W o *lic1i4-1*1*1*1*1 . . 0
-.5 No *1*1*i*1x-1*ik-1 • • 0
74 WO kt*1*1*1*1*1-N1 . . 0
-- 1,J,) 4-14-1,,I*Ik1l(-1*1 • • 0
7.2. W n *1*1*1*1*1*l*1 • . 0
:1 W, ) 4-1*1*1*1*1*1*1 • • 0
2,- , Wci WOW, *1*1-*1*1*t*1*1 . . .WO
29 Wo wowo *i*-1*1*I*1A-im-1 . . .wo
23 W o wo *lici*I*141-1*1*1 . . .WO
•_, AO WO *Ix-1*14.1*IA-1*1 . . .WO
:6 w nwnwc, wn 0,1*1*1*1*1R-1*1 • . .,...10
-= ,4nWuW s WO W'') *Ix-1*1*14-1*1*1 . . .WO
24 Wowcwownwwowo Wo *Iitl*,.*IA-14-1k1 • . .wo
• WoW0WoI3WoI3W o Wo WI) 4- 11.-1*1 q-1*1*1A-1 • . . Alo

• ikm wi Anwn wn
• Jo ,AmwowoWC. wow) WoWo
20 No ............ WOWOW0wOWOW0 . . .W0wo . . .WOWOWO
19 W o WoWoW0W0woW0WoW0 . .WOW0 . .WOWOWOWO
13 W: ............. w0w0WOW6w0WOWOWOWOW0w0w0WowCWOWO
17 .4(.14 o ............ I0W0I9W0WoWoWow0WOWOWOW0WOWOWOWO
1 ,.7, 40W0I111I1I1 ............ w0w0WOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWO
15 WOWoWOWOWOWO ............ WOWOWOW0w0WOW0w0WOWOWOWO
14 WOWOWOWOWOWOI2I2I2I2 Wowow0W0WoWOWOWO
1: wOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO ............ WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
— WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI:I2I7I:
,.._ WI)
11 wOWOW0W0W0w0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO ............... WO
10 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO W OI 4I4I4I4 WI)
9 wOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO W O W O W O WoW 0 'An
8 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI5I5I5I5 WO
7 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO NO
6 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO W OWOWOWOWOI6I6I6I6 • . WO
s J WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . . WO
4 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . • NO
2 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0w 0 WO
2 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO .WO
1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
J I= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 le 20 22 24 26 28 30

K=

J I= 2 4 6 El 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
38 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
37 NO *1*1*1*1*1*-1*1 . 0
36 NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 0
25 NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . 0
34 WO *1*1*14$1*1*1*1 . 0
33 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 0
,,
........ WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . 0
31 NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . 0
30 NO WOWO *I*1*1*1*1*1*1 . .WO
29 NO WOWO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . .WO
28 WO WO 41.1*I*1*I*1*1*D .WO
27 NO NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . .WO
26 WOWOWO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . .WO
25 wowowow0 wo *1-wiwi*i*I*1*-1 .Wo


24 WOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO wo
27 WoWoWOWoWoWoWoM Wo *1 *1 *1 *1*I*1*1 . WO
22Wo WC WoW0 kin
21 Wo wownwoWo WoWo wown
20 Wo WoW014oW0WoWo WoWo WoWoWo
19 WO ........... WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . .WOWO . .WOWOWOWO
18 WO ............. WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0w0WOW0
17 WOWO ............ Wow0WOWOW0w0w0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
16 WOWO 1111'111 ............ WOWOWOW0w0Wow0WOWOWOWOWO
15 WOWOWOWOWOWO ............ WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
14 WOWOWOWOWOWOI2I2F7 I WoWoWoWoWow0WOWO
13 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO ............ wOwnwowowowowowo
12 WOW0w0WOWOWOWOWOWOW0I3I3I 7 I3 wo
11 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
10 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOW014I414I4
9 WOW0woWOWOWOWoW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
8 WOW0w0WOWOWOWow01.j0WoW01.JoWOWOWOWOW01'JO1ti1sI515 Wo
7 WOWoW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoWuWOWOWOWOW o W0W o Wo wn
6 WOWoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW016I61616 . WO
5 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWW0W0w0WOWOWO . . WO
4 WOW0w0WOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOW0w0W0WoWowowowowowowowo wo
WOW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoW0WowoWOWOWoWoWOWOWOW 0 WoWOWO WO
2 146WoWOWOWOWoW6WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoWOW O W OW OWo W 0 NO
1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoWOWOWOW0WoWoWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWO
J I= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

J I= 2 4 6 9 10 12 14 16 13 20 22 24 26 28 30
38 WOW0WoWOWOWOWOW0w0WOWOWOWOW0w0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
37 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
36 WO *liel*I*1*1*1*1 . . • 0
35 NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . • 0
34 VI() *I*I*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
33 NO *1*-1*-1*1*-1*-1*1 . . . 0
32 W 0 *1*iiiiiiiiti*I*1 . . . 0
31 W o *1*-1*1*1*1*-1*1 . . . 0
30 WO WOWo *1*1*I*1*1*1*1 . . . WO
29 NO WoW0 *1*1*-1*1*1*-1*1 . . . W0
28 NO Wo *1*-1*I*1*1*1*1 . . . WO
27 WO NO iclici*oci*i*I*1 . . .WO
26 WOW o Wn NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
25 WoW0W0W0 NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
24 WoWnWnWOWnWOWO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .W0
-),
.-, WOWOWOISWOI8W0wo Wn *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
22 Wn WO WoW0 Wn
21 NO WOWOWOWO . .WOWO . .WOWO
20 NO wowow0WOWOWO
. .WOWO . . .WOWOWO
19 NO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO .WOWO . .WOWOWOWO
18 NO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
17 WOWO I9W0I9WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
16 WOW0I1I1I1I1 WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
15 WOWOWOWOWOWO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
14 WOWOWOWOWOWOI2I2I2I2 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
13 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWn WnWOWnWOWOWOWOWO
12 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI3I3I3I3 WO
11 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO NO
10 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI4I4I4I4 WO
9 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW n wn
8 W0W0W0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI5I5I5I5 Wn
7 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWnW n Wn wn
6 wownwowownwowowownwownwownwownwnwnwowownwownTATATATA .wn


5 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW O W W0WOWOWOWOWOWO ... WO

4 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WOWO W OWOWOWO ... WO
3 14O14O14O14OWOWO14O14O14O14O1JOWOWOWOWO14O4O1,JOW0WOWOWOWOW0 1,-JOWO ...
2 WOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoWOWOWOWOW0 W1J

1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWoW0
J I = 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 10 20 22 24 26 23 70

I. =

J I= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 23 :0
38 140140140WOWOWOWO14OWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWO14OW0W0WoWo14014014O14014O14oW0140
37 Wo *1 wl*1*1*1 * 1 k 1 . . 0
36 Wo "
35 Wo *Ik1h1Alltlkl*1 . .0
34 Wo ,A1A1*11(-1*1*1*1 . . . 0
33 Wo *1*1*1*1x1x1*1 . . .
32 WO 0.1 wi 0
31 WO *1*1 k 1 m 1 w 1 x 1 *1 . . .0
30 Wo 140140 . *1*1A1*1*1*1*1 . . .140
29 WO W0W0 . *1 k 1A-1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
28 WO 10 kl*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .140
27 WO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .140
26 14014, 1140 140 I*1-x1*I*1*11(1 . . .WO
25 W 0W0W0W0 WO *1it1*1*1*114-1*1 . . .140
24 WoW0WoW0W 0 W 0 W( J . . .WO
23 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO ........ WO . *1*1*1*1*1*1 14-1 . .W0
2' WO 140 WoWo Wn
21 WO WOW0W0W0 WOWO WOW()

20 Wn WnW0WOW0W0W0 WnWn 1401401-J0

19 WO ........... WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . .WOWO . .WOWOWOWO
18 Wn WnWnWOW0W0WO1-J0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
17 WOW() ............ WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
16 WOW)) 11111111 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
15 WOWOWOWOWOWO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
14 WOWOWOWOWOW0I2I2I2I2 wnwnW0W0W0WOW0W0
13 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO ............ WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
WOW"WOWOWOWOLAOWOWOWOI -7 I T U'I'r WO
11 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWnW0W0 140
10 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI4I4I4I4
9 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
8 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWoW0WoWOWOWOWOWO I5I5I5I5 WO
7 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO No
6 140WOWO140140WO140140140WOWOWOWOWOWOWO140140 WOWO140140I6I6I6I6 . . .W0
5 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . . .WO
4 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW OWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO NO
3 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WOWOWOWOWO WO
2 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WOWOWOWOWO WO
1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
J I = 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

K = 6

J I= 2 4 6 El 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
38 140WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO140WOWOW0WO140WOWOWOWOWO140140140140
37 wn *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
36 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . I . 0
35 NO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
34 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
 37 Wo xl*1*1*1*1,4-1A1 . . . 0
32 Wo *14(1*1*1*11,1*1 . . . 0
31 wo *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
30 Wo Wowo *1*1*1*1*1)117.1 . ..Wt
29 Wo WoWo k1A1*1*1w1R1*1 . . .WO
28 Wo WO R1*1*1*1N1*1*1 . .WO
27 Wo *1*1)(1*1*1x1*1 . . .W0
26 WoWoWo *1-61*1*1*1141*1 . .WO
25 WoWoW0W0 *1*11(1A1N-1*1*1 . .WO
24 WuWOW0Wow0w0W0 ......... WO .*1*1*ii(1*1*1-R1 . . .WO
23 WuWoWoI8WoI8W1 wo Al*1*1w1*1*1w1 . . .Wu
22 Wu wow) Wo
21 WI) WoWoWoW0 WoWo WM()
20 wo WoWoWuWoWuwo . . _ WOW) ... WOWuW0
19 WO ........... WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . .WOWO . .WOWOWOWO
18 Wu ............. WOWOW0WOWoWOWOWuWuWOWOW0w0w0WOWu
17 WoW0 19wol5wowuwowowowowoWOWOWOWOWuW0
16 WuW011 I 111 I 1 WoWoWoWuW0WW6WOWOW0WuW0
15 W0 W0WoWnWoW 0 WuWuWuWuWOWOWOW0WuWuwOwu
14 WOW0WoWOWOW012121212 WoWo4oW0WoWoWuWo
13 1JOWOWOW0WoWuWowoWowo WwwwwwwwwwWoWoWo
12 WOWOWOWOWOWuW0WuWOW013I.7.131'
11 WuWuWOWCWOWOWOWOWOWowww w w0wo Wu
10 WOWuWwW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWoW0W0W0I4I414I4 WO
9 WOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOW0WOWOW0W0w0WOWOW o w0
8 WoW0W0WoWOWOWOWW0WOWOWW0W o WOWOWOWI5I5I515 Wo
7 WOW0WW0WOW0WOW0WOWOWoW0W o WOWOW0W0W u WOWOWOWO WO
6 WOWOWOWOWOWOWoWOWOWOWW0WuWOWOW0w0w0WOW0WO1JOI616I616 . . Wu
5 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WuWOWoWuWOW0WOWuWOWOWOWuW u w 0 W 0 w0
4 WOWuWOWOWOWOWOWOW0w0WOWOW0w0w0W0W o w0W u Wuw0 w0WOW0w0W0 w0
WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWuw0W0WOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWO w0
2 WuWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWuWOWOW 0 WOW0w0WOWuWOWOWOWOWOW 0 W 0Wo Wo
1 WuWoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWuw0w0WW0W0WOWOWOW0wwW0WOWOW0w0W0
J 1= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 2r 26 28 30

K= 7

J I= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 113 20 22 24 26 28 30
38 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWO
37 Wo *1*1*-1*1*11clicl . . . 0
36 Wu *litlit1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
35 WO *1*-1*-1*-1*1*1*1 . . . 0
34 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
33 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
32 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
31 WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
30 W n WnWn *1*-1411*1*1*1*1 . . .W0
29 WO WOWO . .*I*1*1*1*1*1*1 . .wo
28 WO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
27 WO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
26 WOWOwn *1*1*1*1*L*1*1 . . .W0
25 WOWOWOWO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .W0
24 WOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .W0
23 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0 WO *1*1*1*1*I*1*1 . . .WO
22 WO WO WoWn WO
21 WO WOWOWOWO WnWn wnWn
20 WO WOWOWOWOWOWO . . .W0140 ... WOWOWO
19 WO ........... WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . .WOWO . .WOWOWOWO
18 WO WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
17 WOWO WOWoWoWoWoW0W0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
16 WOW0I1I1I1I1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
15 WOWOWOWOWOWO W0WOWOWOWOWOW0WOWnWOWOWO


11 WOWuWt.WQWW0(212I^I- WnWOWnWnWnWnWnWn
13 WOWOWWnWnWOWOWOWOWO ............ WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
I: wuuow0uuWOWOW.,w0WW0I7I-3I3I7 W0
11 14061WOWuWuW0W n W0Wu 1 4uWOWOWO WO
10 WOW0W0W0WOWOWOWW0WuWuWuWOWOI4I4I414 Wn
wuw0wowuwuw0w0WOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
• WuWnWuW0WOWOWOWuWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI5I5I515 Wn
WuWulJuWuWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOW 0 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
WuW0WOWOWOW044uWuWOWOWOWOWOWuWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI6I6I6I6 . WO
• W u WOWuW0W0WOWOWQW0WOWOWOWOWuWOWOWOW n WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
1JuwoWn140WWO4nWuWOW0WOWOWOWOWOW0W0WOW0WOWOWOWO 4 OWOWO WO
14uwnwl)4OW0410WOWOWOWOWOWOWuWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
WuW(.WOWnW0WOWQW0WOW0WW0WOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . . WO
WuWuWnWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW.WuWuWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOWO
J 1= 2 4 c 1.0 12 14 16 le 2u 22 24 26 28 30

J 1- , -3 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
38 4JoWnWuWuWuWnWuW0WW0WuWnWQW0W0WOWOWOWOWOW0WOW0W0WOWOWOWOWOWO
37 W u *1*1*1*1*1*1*1 . • . 0
36 Wu *1-4-1*1*1*lx-1*1 . . . 0
wu *1*1w1s1*1*1*1 . . . 0
34 Wu *1*1*1*1w1m.1*1 . . . 0
Wo WIN-1*1*1*1*1*1 . . • 0
72 W u
*14(1)(1*13(1*1*1 . . . 0
31 Wu *1*1)(-1*1*1*1*1 . . . 0
3u ( lu 41x1*1*1*1*1*1 . . .WO
.2? t.1( 4j1=
ti *1441*1*1*1*1w1 . .WO
• Wo WI *14(-1*1*14(1)(14(1 . . .WO
• wu Wn Pl*lx-l*lx-1*1*1 . .WO
26 WuWOWn WO *1*1*11t14(1*14(1 . . .WO
25 WuWuWnWO 140 *1*1*1*1*1*14c1 . . .WO
24 WoW0WoW0WW0Wo WO ml*1*1*1*1)(1*1 . . .WO
23 wnwoNorewoiswowo WO . .wo
22 Wn Wn WOW') WO
21 No WOWOWOWO . . . .WOWO .... WOWO
20 NO WOWOWOWOWOWO . . .WOWO . . .WOWOWO
19 W n wownwownwowowowo . .wowo . .wowowowo
18 WO ............. WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
17 WOWO I9W0I9WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
16 WOW0III1I1I1 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
15 wowowownwnwo wowowowowowowowowowowowo
14 WOWOW0WOWOW012121212 wownwownwownwnwo •
13 WOWOWOWOWOWOWAJOWOWO wownwnwownwnwowo
12 WOWOW0WOWOWOWOWOWOW0I3I3I7I3 WO
11 WOWOWnWOWOWOWOW O W O W n W n WOW n WO NO
10 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI4I4I4I4 WO
9 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO WO
8 WOW0W0WOW0WOW0W0W0W0WOW0W0W0W0W0WOWOI5I5I5I5 NO
7 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO wn
6 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOI6I6I6I6 . .W0'
5 WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . • .WO
4 WOW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . . .WO
3 WOWuWoW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO . . .WO
2 WOW0WoWOWOWOWOW0W0WOW0W0W0W0W0WOWOW0W0W0WOW0W0W0W0WO . . .WO
1 WOW0WoWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO
3 I= 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30


3
J I= 4 6 8 10 1 7 14 16 18 20 2 24 23 730
38 SsS.SSSSSSSsSSSSSSSSSSSSSOS::,!:
SsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
36 SsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS3SSSs8SSSSS
.35 SsSS 5 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 5 SSSS
34 SsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSssSSSSS
SsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
32 Ss 3 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
31 SS 3 SSSSSSSSSSSSS 5 SSSSSSSSSSSSS
30 SsSSSSSSSSS3SSSSSSSSS SSSSS S S 3
29 SSSSSSSSSSSSSS3SSSSSSSSss53SSS
28 SSSSSSSSSSSSSESSSSSSSSsgsSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSS 33S3335SSsss5SS3S
26 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSssssSSSS
3SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs5SSSSS
24 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSESSSSSSSSS
23 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS3SSSSsst3SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSS5SSS9S33S5Sgs98S85
••••• •

21 3 3 3 3S3SSSSSSSSSSSSSS3SSss8S3S3
20 SS3SSSSSSSS.SSSSSSS3 3S358sSSSSS
19 6z6sbSSSSSSSSSSSSS3S3SSssSSSSS
18 5SSSSSSSSSSSSSS8S59SSS33s5S3SS
17 33SSSSSSSSSSSSS35SSSSSSS5SSSSS
16 SSSSSSSSSSSSSS3SSSS3SSSss3SSSS
15 5S39SSSSSSSSSSSSS5SSSSSSS s 3 S S S
14 553SSSSSSSS5SSSSSSSSSSSsESSSSS
13 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
12 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
11 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
10 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS5SSSE35SESS
9 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
8 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
7 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
6 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
4 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
3 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsSSSSSSS
2 SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
1 SSSSsSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsSSSSSSSSS
J I = 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 78 30

- SOLUTION CONTROL PARAMETERS -

PARAMETER ...................... ......................... vALuEs

(W) (E)
(P) (U) (V) (D) (H) CT) (
F) (0) (C) ((VS) ( (PT) Y Y Y Y
SOLVED y Y Y
1 y Y 1 1
1 1 1 1
NO. SWEEPS 20
1 1 1 .i 4.0E-ol . 4.0E-01 4
5.0E-01 4.0E-01 4.08-° : .0E-01
- 9.0E-01 9.0E-01 9.
UNDERRELAX 1
0E-01 9.0E-01 9.0E-01 9.0E-01 6.0E - °,1 . , - ( )E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 3.0E-02 2.
UNDERRELAX 2 5.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E -1)yi". —
0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 2.0E-02 3.0E-L'`
1.0E+00 1.3E+00 7-0E-01 7.0
FR/SC NO.


E-01 7.nE-01 7.0E-01

FESID UALS 2.7E+00 3.7E-02 4.6E-02 1.8E+00 3.1E-02 3.2E-02 1.0E-02 4.1
E-02 4.'7E-03

ti OUNI- 44RIES -

OHM. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

:ONE U) (V) (W) (E) (D) (T)

0 n (0) (C) (2)
NO 0001EI-o0W 0.0000E+00W 0.0000E+00W 0.0000E+00S 0.0000E +00S 6.0000E+02W O.
On00E F 00 C o.0000E A WC 0.0600E+00C R
0 0.0000E1001 0 . 0 000E+001_ 0.0000E+00L 0.0000E+00L 0.0000E+00L 2.77.00E+02L O.
00 0 °E 1 , 2( q_ 0.9000E 1 00L 0.0000E+00L E
II ,..).0000E100L 2.1000E-01L 0.0000E+00L 6.6000E-04L 2.7000E-03 L 3.0000E+02L O.
00001-7 40()L 2.1000E OIL 0.0000E+00L E
[2 0.~)nE+00L 4.6000E-01L 0.0000E+00L 2. 100':'E• 2.9000E-02L 7.0000E+02L 0.
0000F+ 0 0L 2.10 00 E 011_ 0.(_1 000E+001_ E
[:: , 1 . k )(7111 - 1E
Ft It )1_ 4.6()00E-01L 0.0000E+00L 7.1000E-07L 2.9000E-02L 7.0000E+02L 0.
0000E1 0 01_ 2.1000E 01L 0.0000E+00L E
14 0.(n10nlmJOL 2.0200E-01L 0.0000E+00L 6.6000E-04L 2.7000E-03L 7.0000E+02L 0.
0000EF00L 2.1000E-OIL 0.0000E+00L E
15 ..0000Fin0L 8. 00 00E-02L 0. n 000E+00L 9.6000E-05L 1.5000E-04L 7.0000E+02L O.
00u0E,00L 2.1 0 00E-01L 0.0000E+00L E
16 o.000f,E4001... 1.4000E-02L 0.0000E+00L 2.9000E-06L 8.2000E-071_ 7.0000E+02L O.
0000E+ooL 2.1000E 011_ 0.0000E+00L E
18 1.00001E1-00L-3%7600E-01L 0.0000E+00L 1.6000E-071_ 1.1400E-02 L 2.7700E+02L 0.
00u0E+00L 2.1000E 01L 0.0000E:0 n L E
00E+02L 0.
19 10.o0otE100L 5.0400E-01L 0.0n00E+00L 7.8000E-07L 7. . 9700E-0 7L '7 .77.
u00(1 E 00L 2. 1000E 1L
')1L 0. 0000E:o0L E

CONSTANTS

CYCLIC CELLS PRESCRIBED PRESSURE DROP 0.000E+00

DIFFERENCINO SCHEME POWER LAW
REFERENCE PRESSURE AT I= 27 J= K= 2 (ACTUAL PRESSURE = 1.000E+05)
GAS DENSIT% AT STP = 1.297E:00 USE GAS LAW - y PRESSURE CORRECTED

SECOND RELA;ATION FACTORS ON AFTER 32000 ITERATIONS.

PATCH OPTION -N
CONVERG/DIVERG CHI
NORMALIZE RESIDS. -V
CONTINUITY CHECK -Y
RESET OPTION -Y
SWEEP DIRECTION 1
REYNOLDS STRESS MODEL-N
NON NEWTONIAN FLOW -N
POROSITY MODEL -Y
ALLOW LINK SETTING -N
SET INLET TURBULENCE -V
MONITOR OPTION -N
LINK OPTION -N
FARrICLE TRACKING 0 TRACKS EVERY 0 ITNS.

POROUS ZONE PROF ERTIES

LONE KX KY KZ C2
 1.0000E+11 1.0000E+11 1.0000E+11 1.1210E+03

ITATIONAL ACCELERATIONS- X = 0. 000E+00 Y = 0.000E+00 Z = 0.000E+

AM = 1.000E+01
ES = 1 . OC)0E403
HN = 1.000E+03
X= 9

ULENCE MODEL CD Cl C2 CMU RSMCD

5.5E-01 1.4E+00 1.9E+00 9.0E-02 1.0E+00

TURBULENCE MODEL. WALL ZONE CAPPA ELOG

WO 4.187E-01 9.793E+00

-NEWTONIAN FLOW -
1.0E+00 1.0E+00

ADIATION -

ORPT ION COEFF. = 1. 000E- 01

TTERING COEFF = 1. 000E-02
L EMISSIVITIES AT ZONE

S. 000E - 01 WO

HEMICAL REACTION -

T OF REACT. = 1.000E '07

ICHIM1ETRIC RATIO = 6. 000E-01
N'ATION ENERG = 1. 000E4 D2
EXPONENTIAL FACTOR = 1. 000E+12
E1JLENCE CONTROLLED REACTION FACTORS - A = 4. 000S+0C B = 5.000E-01
MAAR WEIGHTS - SPECIES
I NERTS Z . 975E+01
1 . 620E+02
0 7 . 200E+01
5.Q00E+01

TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT PROF ERT I ES

FROFERT :flCCCC 1

N411C VISCOS I T 1 I . "."-I.OE 05

DE.INIE, I T INERTS 1 1.297.0E100
E.DENS I TY SPECIES F 1 1.=0E100
L DENS IT . SPECIES 0 1 1.2T7.0E CC
DENSIM SPECIES C 1 1.297.7.0E00
EM r IC HEA1 ( GAS; 1 1.0040E10:
RMAL COND. C.11-1S ) 1
EMF I C HEA1 ( PARI ) 1 1.0000E-10:
ERMAL COND. (FART. ) 1 7.8000E-u2
NF6 DI FF US I V I T \ 1 -L. 0000E-05
F.PRESS. (PHASE 2) 1 2.5‘)00E-(07

8ECM.ID PHASE PARTICLE/DROPLET TRACKING -

• .^
- TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT PROPERTIES
PROPERTY COEFFS 0 1
4

DYNAMIC VISCOSITY 1 1.7200E-05

LIO.DENSITY INERTS 1 1.2930E10C
LIO.DENSITY SPECIES F 1 1.2930E+00
LIO.DENSITY SPECIES 0 1 1.2970E+00
LIO.DENSITY SPECIES C 1 1.2970E+00
SPECIFIC HEAT (GAS) 1 1.0040E+03
THERMAL COND. (GAS) 1 2.4100E-02
SPECIFIC HEAT (FART.) 1 1.0000E+0 T
THERMAL COND. (PART.) 1 7.9000E-02
BINARY DIFFUSIVITY 1 .0000E-05
VAP. PRESS. (PHASE 2) 1 2.5771E+07

- SECOND PHASE PARTICLE/DROPLET TRACKING -

MAX. NO. OF STEPS = 5000

STEP LENGTH FACT. = 2.000E+01
PARTICLE DENSITY = 1.000E+07
BOILING POINT = 7.770E102
LATENT HEAT OF VAPORIZATION = 1.000E+07
COEFFICIENT OF RESTITUTION = 1.000E-100
VAPORIZATION TEMPERATURE = 7.770E+02
SWELLING COEFFICIENT = 2.000E+00
FRACTION VOLATILE COMPONENT = 1.000E+00
FRACTION NON-VOLATILE COMPONENT = 0.000E!00
STOICHIOMETRIC RATIO FOR SURFACE REACTION = 1.777E+00
HEAT OF REACTION FOR SURFACE REACTION = 2.000E+07

PARTICLE LAWS ACTIVATED FOR USER-DEFINED HISTORY -

INERT VAPORIZE BOILING DEVOLAT BURNOUT INERT

INJECT INITIAL VALUES

NO TYP (X) (Y) (Z) (U) (V) (W) (T) (DIAM) (MFLOW)

FLOW FIELD AFTER 0 ITERATIONS--

 TOTAL RECOVERABLE AVALABLE

UNITS MILLION (te / year)

REFUSE
DOMESTIC AND TRADE 18 - 20 18 - 20 18 - 20
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL 25 - 35 25 - 35 25 - 35
SCRAP TYRES AND SPENT OIL 1.0 - 1.5 0.5 - 0.8 0.5 - 0.7
SEWAGE SLUDGE : 30 - 40 25 - 35 25 - 35
ANIMAL WASTES:
CATTLE 115 - 145 40 - 45 40 - 45
POULTRY 3.5 - 4.5 3.5 - 4.0
PIGS 8 - 11 8 - 11 8 - 11
CROP RESIDUES
STRAW 10 - 14 9 - 13 4 - 5
SUGAR BEET 6 - 8 4 - 4.5 3 - 3.5
VEGETABLES 1.8 2.3 1.8 - 2.3 1.6 - 2.0
WOOD RESIDUES
FORESTRY 2.8.- 3.2 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 - 1.0
WOOD PROCESSING 1.7 - 2.0 1.7 - 2.0 0.7 - 1.0
PROCESS WASTES
FOOD AND DRINKS 10-11 10 -11 0.1 0.2
OTHER INDUSTRIES 0.5 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 0.4 - 0.7

TOTALS 223 - 298 147 - 186 129 - 163

TABLE 1.1 - SOURCES OF WASTES AND RESIDUES IN THE U.K. (REF. 3)

 Type Grate loadings in lbs Volume in ft per ton of
of * of refuse per hour of refuseper 24 hours
refuse operation per ft of
grate area Furnace Furnace
primary secondary
chamber chamber

M 58 to 109 8.5 - 25 12.1 - 28.0

Range of
values R 50 to 72 13 - 14.5 26.6 - 31.3

C 54 to 98 9.9- 13.8 17.2 - 28.3

M 77 12.7 18.5

Average R 58 13.6 29.9

values
C 77 11.5 21.3
-

* M - Mixed refuse made up of garbage, rubbish and noircomoustibles.

R - Refuse comprised of burning rubbish only.
C - Refuse containing combustibles only; such as garbage and burnable rubbish.

TABLE 1.2 - PARAMETERS OF DESIGN FOR REFUSE INCINERATORS (REF .1 )

CCMPOSITION 1970 1980 1990 2000

WEIGHT % AS DISCARDED

Paper 37.4 40.1 43.4 48.0

Yard wastes 13.9 12.9 12.3 11.9
Food wastes 20.0 16.1 14.0 12.1
Glass 9.0 10.2 9.5 8.1
Metal 8.4 8.9 8.6 7.1
Wood 3.1 2.4 2.0 1.6
Textiles 2.2 2.3 2.7 3.1
Leather and rubber 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3
p lastic 1.4 3.0 3.9 4.7
Miscellaneous 3.4 2.7 2.4 2.1

WEIGHT % AS DISCARDED

Moisture 25.1 22.0 20.5 19.9

Volatile carbon 19.6 20.6 21.8 23.4
Total ash 22.7 23.9 22.8 20.1
Ash (excluding glass & metal) 6.4 6.1 6.0 6.0

TABLE 1.3 - PROJECTED AVERAGE GENERATED REFUSE COMPOSITION AND

QUANTITY, BETWEEN 1970 TO 2000 (REF. 11)
 ATMOSPHERIC AIR REQUIRED (1b/10000 Btu )
FUEL RANGE AVERAGE

Anthracite
_ 7.83
New Mexico
Colorado _ 7.85
Pennsylvania 7.81-7.93 7.88
Semi-Anthracite 7.68-7.82 7.74
Bituminous coal
Lad volatile 7.62-7.76 7.69
Hign volatile A 7.51-7.73 7.63
High volatile B 7.56-7.73 7.66
Hign volatile C 7.54-7.67 7.60
Sub-bituminous coal 7.56-7.57 7.56
Lignite
North Dakota - 7.47
Texas - 7.52
Coke
Hign-temperature 7.96
Low-temperature 7.63
Beenive 8.05
By-product 8.01
Gas works coke 8.02-8.10 8.06
Petroleum coke 7.73
Pitcn coke 8.13
Wood:
Soft wood 7.02-7.22 7.11
Hard wood 7.09-7.28 7.15
Bagasse 6.25-6.99 6.59
Petroleum oils
Gasoline 7.46
Kerosine 7.42
Gas oil 7.45
Fuel oil 7.58
Gaseous fuels
Natural gas 7.32-7.41 7.37
Refinery and oil gas 6.52-7.38 7.44
Blast furnace gas 5.73-6.27 5.82
Coke oven gas 6.66-7.02 6.80
Miscellaneous
Cellulose - 6.80
Glucose _ 6.90
Glycol dipalmitate - 7.40
Methyle alcohol - 6.70

TABLE 1.4 - AIR REQUIREMENT OF COMPLETE COMBUSTION FOR D/FFERENT

FUELS ON A DRY BASIS (REF.7 )
 Maximum Allowable Emission
Heat Release of Grit and Dust
Tonnes/h'
(MBtu/h) MJ/h (Ib/h) gis
1.0 1055 0.091 1.0 0.126

2.0 2110 0.181 2.0 0.25

3.0 3164 0.272 3.0 0.378

4 .0 4219 0.363 3.5 0.441

5.0 5274 0.453 4.0 0.504 --

10.0 10548 0.907 6.5 0.819

15.0 15822 1.36 9.0 1.134

20.0 21096 1.81 9.6 1.710

30.0 31640 2.721 10.6 1.335

40.0 . 42190 3.63 11.7 1.474

50.0 52740 4.53 12.8 1.61

75.0 79110 6.80 10.2 2.42

100.0 105500 9.07 25.6 3.236

200.0 210960 18.14 51.1 6.438

300.0 316400 27.21 76.7 9.664

400.0 421900 36.28 102 12.85

500.0 527400 45.35 128 16.13

Above 500.0 <527400 Add 26 lb/h oer 100 MBtu/h.

3.276 ciis per 105500 MJ/h

Intermediate values in the aoove table should be found by interpolation.

• Based on an assumed 5000 Btu/lb

TABLE 2.1 - THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SECOND WORKING PARTY ON

GRIT AND DUST EMISSIONS (REF .25 )
tl
!! ' F:

r:

P:

LL-- I
1 -1=lerv.;:sz (1
0 j

r_5.1

C111

_V

711 1

1- 1

71
I I—
 -
2
CL
CL
cla
=
,f)
Cr)
co

A 2
c' 5

1 9
I
8

0
 F..

I
 SIDE VIEW

IT- .» ii Iii 1 / rii___\

L _ 1 _ ..f: J__
1 4

CROSS SECTION

FIGURE 2:5 ' DUSSELCORF ' ROTATING ROLL

GRATE TYPE.
 RADIATICN SHAFr
a TC1

BOILER S—rION
TC2
• :C2
4 TC4
• ICS
POSITICNS OF TEmPERATURE KEAsuRauarrs
SECONDARY AIR • TC6 INSIDE THE RADIATION SHAFT
(FRONT)
• TC7
TC8

• TC9

• TC10
40 cm ? SMCNDARY AIR (rearl

I40 cm

POSITICNS OF TEMPERATURE mEAsumatarr

........... ABOVE THE REFUSE BED

REFUSE BED

ROLIJER:.1 MEIER 2 ROLLER 3 ROLLER 4 ROLLER 5 ROLLER 6

25 an

50 an

3.05m

1.53 m 1.53 m 1.53 m 1.53 m 1.53 m 1.53 m

PLAN VIEN

FIGURE 2. 6 -SCHEMATIC OF SHEFFIELD MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR SHOWING

LOCATION OF TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS INSIDE THE
FURNACE AND SHAFT

▪

I.

1
ill rr----
I II
I I II
I I I I 1 II
I I I I II I
1 l i 1 I II I
I Ii li II
il
I II I li
I I , I
I I I I i
I II I
I I 1 , I
II I
I I
I I i . I
I I I I 1
II I• •
I I I I I II c•1
I I I I 11 )1
I I II
I I 1 1 li
I I I I I I r
1 1 1 1 ii 1

I1, 1 ;--. -
, 4-7-1
H II ,,
u,
.
I I ,-

1.1•
41--• crl
t
ECl)
.
c... 0
 =17

.16

4.

Lil
LIS CD
----T i —
----
,
D
w
cn
.- _ c_
....
.--- __J
—
-,- , w
-,---
•INI

-":---------- , •
-.C.v._

.----.___
-,___._--
.10
---,___

----------
..41.,.
M..

— —
m.E.I...,
__......

--.

-------
7 7 7 .

()OTT 1 i ' ' 006

00 0 -' 00B ' 00Z ' 009 ' ' ODS — bOt: ' 00E 00B
(3 .) DdiilVEdNal_ 3WV-Id
 RADIATICN SHAFT

azuzR TUBE BANK

FPONT SECCNDARY
AIR

SECCNDARY AIR (rear)

•.• :

Ra'USE BED

ASH I
(PLAN vrEso

ROLLER 1 ROLLER 2 ROLLER 3 ROLLER 4 ROLLER 5 ROLLER 6

50 cm ----- —

3.05m

1.53 in 1.53 m 1.53 in 1.53 in 1.53 m 1.53 in

FIGURE2. 9-SCHEMA11C"OF SHEFFIELD MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR - SHOWING

LOCATION Cr TEMPERATURE MEA_SUREMENTS INSIDE. THE
REELISE BED.
 C
o
-,
-

iC.
;
o-
....

a
---- o
111 2 "

,....
,
Luc"
._
\..

A1 \-4 I

ILI
\-
=A_
WI a.'

< iln
7 \ --

LI- o 1
J1-1
.1 \,..
Ni.

g-1
c.a
20 40 50 80 tiio ...Zo 140 150 180
TIME ELAPSED (SEC',

FIGURE 2.10 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION 3

ABOVE ROTTER No. 1 , (SEE FIG. 2.6)

FIGURE 2.11 — TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT FOSITICU 3

ABOVE ROLLER No. 2 (SEE FIG. 2.6)
 At
1

200 400 600 abo

TIME (SEC)

FIGURE 2.12 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITICN 3

ABOVE ROLLER No. 3 , (SEE FIG. 2.6)

FIGURE 2.13 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION 3

ABOVE ROLLER No. 4, (SEE FIG. 2.6)
 FIGURE 2.14 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION ACROSS THE REFUSE BED
CN TOP OF ROLLER 1

FIGURE 2.15 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION ACROSS THE REFUSE BED

ON TOP OF ROLLER 2
 FIGURE 2.16 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION ACROSS THE REFUSE BED
CN TOP OF ROLLER 3

FIGURE 2.17 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION ACROSS THE REFUSE BED

ON TOP OF ROLLER 4
 PI I

I L. I I I
lit 1
11—111
11-T1
. 1
r-T i jr 1 1
1
In
Hi - 1 : H I
J

:
i i ,1 I
..
;
,:
9
I

1 I .I .. 1 1 , 1 „ i ..,
).1021 2 0 71 , , o, 1 0 9. i 1 /I oz
-
ii i , 1H1 T., IT i ii 1

.ui 1 _ Li1 1 ! I i 11 1

11 i'1 ll !I.: iii 1 L_

1

II I ili:17 ,
1

• 'I' 11 1 16
II . . i ,
11111 i
1 OL

I 1 1 1111 1

I • 1 . i , 1

I 'I H hi L.L1

1
.1 I
I 11. , I I 1 i I

tiT
H
1 ',II'H
i 1

I
I
ZL

i I 1
l H II
oqt I 0 III 1
DOO
iI i Io
, ,

I 1 •IIII II
11111 I i 1 I IINIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIII
iui i
ii iiiouiiiiiuiiiiio
I
Ill

..4 iiiiii i _
. II

1 iv 1
11111
11
.,_[. I ti
DooL I oba / 0°9
IN !limn
mgm gin
. __ 1
.. '
_ •
„
11111 I - •,•••

C
cs,


FIGURE 2.19 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC2

INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig:2.6)

...
el I

cm I

ell

1
col
..:SL
.,7 1 +
.i.
I

3F,.-11
-...• 4.

. , 1.
LW= 1
CC2

— 1 1
-.Cat "
(=zt-i
14Jj
a-
Z g .1
u..1 -4
I--

.
„
\-I
. I
21
.1
. 2
28 i'e 6fa 88 1 ea 12a 14o ii3' lim
TIME (SE)

FIGURE 2.20 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC3

INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2.6)
FIGURE 2.21 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC4
INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2.6)

FIGURE 2.22 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC5

INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2.6)
FIGURE 2.23 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC6
INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2.6)

FIGURE 2.24 — TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC7

INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2:6)
FIGURE 2.25 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC8
INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2.6)

FIGURE 2.26 - TYPICAL TEMPERATURE VARIATION VS TIME AT POSITION TC9

INSIDE THE SHAFT (see fig.2-.6)
 0
cr)

r:

E-t
 -I

!I
I 1

I 1

LL
' •
II

tri
;ocys 00I. 1

1, 11..11
•I,.:
I! 11

CN

— Z1 11
5ous 00Z , n 001. i

•
— •

. I .

• I

OOL
C

'Do

11 H

CNI

.0

•3
- 1 1: 131
gm<

•C"
 ••••••

77-r r7, ; •
WWII;
11.. • • 1 III
j
• , • .111111•••
;
11 ! I I !
• ;•-: .:11 •:•• • ;
Dos Dor!!! I j oat I I I ; I
• •il; • I I - L.! 1.:

1111 I
;;;: 'HI . • ';••,°,;:.
:j •:!•!: •
I I • ;

•
•:
•
!!11 1:1 ; I

; I •••••
• • • I • • • t
• • • , • j : ; I I ; '

• •
II •

! , . • .
! •

- • . :
oos : ocr: „ ; 001 • Ir

. • • : • I ' . • . • .:10
9. • ; • ; • . ; ! ! '

: ; I , • •
; ! : I. • ..,
LI • ;---
.. • —• , • I • •••
e.• ; •. • • • .; I.

• •
E I ,
• •I
1!;;:ill: • . ,
•

c : 7.

• • !
•-.

1 • • !•
I : •'•

; • •
L t.! • • •
! . I ' • •
-.,
n
'•-• 00S : 007 ' : • ! : 00 1 0:DZ I DO I
r.. . 1 t :
o ' --,--- • _•,-- .— . , I . : J.._ -
•
•,
2 1 ' ' ! • ' i ' , , :
I: ' ' . 'Do
• I ' •
17 1 • ' .
I . .

: ; • i ;

: I
• I
• ; ; •

: • • • •; ! ; • • • •
Z, • I

C.

••'•

• •

• •

L: 1
z..• .1
– <
77 ••• –
–
:....,
c c
in


I I I
:;••;
; ;; • ••
•i••„!I

1:1
II
III •;i I I

I ,I I !;• . ;I:•• •

•;I .

Wil:•••

Hi..H;;!!

1 •'!;:,.

i;:•; !

;;.1.1 ', ill Ili: I, I ;

• •i;!.; i ; I
1 • • ' •
j •;';;1.1; '••!'! •:•;:
Hi;

)6•1z1 I 1;100,1;1 ';'0O0, ,1 Hi !as! '••••,i:

•

1 1,1i 1 • •••
111; j1 , 1: ; • 1-777,,
I I

1
11 1.;
1'1

!;1;11:1;;Wiii..;::1
I 1

I!: •.,;
I I

11
.11 ,•i•

•
1.• :1;',•1111. •!,

1. •:1
.•
I ;.-3 •• I 1116
• ••—•
,—• 1.

•;1,..!;
1
'•!';' 1' :
OzI 106 C: 1 ; 11 1..;; ; •05.1 •;1.11I

11 :• :1••i • i• :.0E)6
I • I'i! • u!I•
HI .7,
—"I- •;!i!.
' ,•:! n •
I. 1111!1:1:i;Hi.Hill
t,
..;

'1 1 i ;1" ' 1 1-r":"I!

1•"i-11;1"!•
11,1111111 ' !;1 11!
,;

; !,1 !;,,.
,
,
! LH .1 • ; ; ;
• •
-i-r
;:••
•;.;;;Ii!!!;1:!;;I! ; !!ii

1 !WI i
' 11!i
•,, •.i! •.; .:•'•:•
I II!!
• '":
1;i 1:
1• ; ;!
.! i,: 1: • ::•

'!•100011
t•• i • ! , •
I••
I ' ILL'. 1!:•.•
• 1.,
I '1 •••': ; •
E—• 1

•i •
u .
•'• • •1•• !•:1
"-n

0
0
Cs.1
 . '• 1.... • 1
°
P...
.- b z 7. .11 ;01;;
___ — - i— • • E ,t ;3\ c'en
n — ,6 z 0364
..-n • ..- '" •:-÷
. 7
%Y. •01.
I .:. ....mrlti
4 i *7r 4 --
i ••n I 4.c.,.
24....
j;

....los
4:4 '
. i
_n_ri.xl_ru I
__ ,-- rti.,
17=
-
t i 4 • r
__ i I I, I: :_. 7-j• I .7.:
+oohs
:11N,of
:
— 4 1 J., ! --
• i o, n..-.
cc ? =
.., ...,
ji-r.

.l1 ; . ca ;411

71:1-/-1111i,
I
_ . i1 - z 1 X2'4
.-..

LI-LrLIVI. . 1 gimc...

I1---
il a:
;
);
•*„. . ===
1
'' 0 .—...
i fol L' I 'I I
2416:
r• . I 7
E •
—'
4,,z
—
3
E
rak., 4 _
rzo•
.. 1 i
• t:' { I I I
Ii I i
0•
1. 1 i
• 11.1-- i I

. 0.. lo I
L.
• . 1 7 •
., 7
,,
1i 11 i u I I 0 1
;e•
,.. -- ii ' 5I
. A •• A •
4
.• 1 0
i
• — I t

11 •

lit , ..er.— :
ip
r• 7V—
/s 1 7.69
1O I I'. ilj
I
L --
i
1 ._.._
'•- , , • . r•
i I '- pi,- ,..i
I
f ., • I -
b
I s :. --
7=

-1 r- iS - - -

,..
M _
.°'
trga...
i ..
i LI ''''
liltaii
1 jj
Z=-.-
*If
- -- - -

..—
MAIMI:= / 51 i
31'111—
W-
I ..
N 1
1
- Ws --- . 0
!
..
4
WM= • Al . Ilk_
• .. =Al
IMUMI
..
- r. *I. •
1 : 1
1 -- . '
 90

80

70
./*
60

40

30 ./ •

10

To

DAMPER OPENING %

10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100

0 18 36 45 54 71 90

BLADE ANGLE DEGREE

FIGURE 2.32 - APPROXIMATE EFFECT OF DAMPER BLADE (SINGLE BLADE)OPENING
ON FLOWRATE (PROVIDED BY BABCOCK & WILCOX Ltd)

S.A. AT 7 4 0 R.P.M.

"•.

3 I.N. *Ns\

1
60

0
BHP TO FAN SHAFT T 50
740 RPM
./ 40
h..4CR
r- Design
30

20

10

0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
VOLUME IN C.F.M. 1000

FIGURE 2.33 - ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE CURVES FOR FORCED DRAFT FAN (PROVIDED
BY BABCOCK & WILCOX Ltd)
 6

5 SA AT • 740
—.—.RPM
L.•••• •

3
,--
C/1

,E5
•
• 60
• n
1 1
1
I
\
I I
50
.•-------•..„
Cll
0 I
BHP TO FAN SHAFT ./../.-- I I 40
AT 740 RPM , n '' 1 I
. ) 1
1 .
1 I 30
I
./ MCR 1 :Design
,./ I
.. I ,n
.. I
I I
I 1
1 1 0
I I
VOLUME IN C.F.M. 1000 I 1

1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

FIGURE 2.34 - ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE CURVES FOR INDUCED DRAFT

FAN (PROVIDED BY BABCOCK & WILCOX Ltd.)

40

30 SA AT 2940
"".""
."0„.

20 / N
•
10
MCR Design
80

• 111...••••n•
60

BHP TO FAN 40
SHAFT AM 2940.,./'.

20

2 4 6 8 10 12 14
VOLUME IN C.F.M. 1000

FIGURE 2.35 .— ESTIMATED PERFORMANCE CURVES FORSECONDARY' AIR

FAN, (PROVIDED BY BABCOCK & WILCOX)

 PLANE A TWIN
FLUE
ELECTROSTATIC CHIMNEY
CRANE PRECIPITATORS
GRAB
v1511
BOILER

WASTE AND
RECEPTION
PLANE B
s rE,!.Y\

/\(
RAM FEEDER
CONTROL
ROLLER GRATE ROOM

\t5i/
FLY 1 .0.
QUENCHED
n=1 FURNACE ASH ASH FAN

FLANGES

• • • • • •
GAS FLOW • • • • • al

>.• 40cm
• • • • • 2 . 1 m

• • • • a

2.95m

FIGURE 2.36 — SCHEMATIC OF SHEFFIELD INCINERATOR SHOWING

LOCATION OF GAS SAMPLING (PLANES A & B),
AT THE PRECIPITATOR INLET AND OUTLET.
 GAS ANALYSIS
SAMPLE
)< ' NO / NOx

SF RP

/ OTHER
> 4(0 F2
F1

vy T AIR
•••••n•••

MAI N LINE

KEY:
SAMPLING MODE GASEOUS FLOW
PURGING MODE AIR FLOW
SP SAMPLING PROBE
SAMPLING FLOW TEMPERATURE MEASURING THERMOCOUPLE
wr WATER TRAP
Fl SAMPLE FILTER
F2 PURGE AIR FILTER
SR SAMPLE FLOW ROTAMETER & INTEGRAL REGULATOR
RP SAMPLE PUMP 3 PHASE, RECIPROCATING DIAPHRAGM TYPE

FIGURE 2.3 7 - GAS SAMPLING LINE

 CO2 VARIATION VS TIME AT PRECIPITATOR IRLET

FIGURE 2.38 — TYPICAL CO2 CONCENTRATION VARIATION VS TIME AT

PRECIPITATOR INLET.

CO VARIATION VS TIME AT PRECIPITATOR INLET

io io

:=1 APSED TIME (rrun .)

FIGURE 2.39 — TYPICAL CO CONCENTRATION VARIATION VS TIME AT

PRECIPITATOR INLET.
 02 VARIATION VS TIME AT PRECIPITATOR INLET
—
c.

a.:,...
w
M
D
CDtt
›-
Z:
co
I—,
r-=
<
CC
r-
Z

z
C3
c..i

cu.
c)--

o to 20 30 dO 50 GO

ELAPSED TIME (min.)

FIGURE 2.40 — TYPICAL 02 CCNCENTRATICN VARIATION VS TIME AT

PRECIPITATOR INLET.

CO2 VARIATION VS TIME AT PRECIPITATOR OUTLET

m
ELAPSED TIME (min.)

FIGURE 2.41 — TYPICAL CO2 CONCENTRATION VARIATION VS TIME AT

PRECIPITATOR. OUTLET.
 1
02 VARIATION VS TIME AT PRECIPITATOR OUTLET

4-e

Lu

-
_.1
0
>- ..

0
I—, r--
I— -
.CC
CC

Z --. -
LU
C-1
Z
Cff-'-
C__I

CM
CD=

c
a 10 is io Zs
ELAPSED TIME (min.)

FIGURE 2.42 — TYPICAL 02 CONCENTRATION VARIATION VS TIME AT

PRECIPITATOR OUTLET.

700

600

500

400

8 300

200

• 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 T1KE Ihrl

FIGURE 2.43 — TYPICAL NO calcarimmoN VARIATION VS TIME AT PRECIPITATOR

INLET.
 HEATING TAPES AND
INSULATION

SAMPLE

(77-')

Lr
1 ,

CL sm.hutt-Taloxim cc=77aR
DL GAS WASEIN aal.-LaloF 250 ail Cl2ACZTYCZMPLY= ;qr.=
TEE z==.E.N.TS OF BS 2461 ecia...k zIN=ED EEAD OF
MRCSIM7C17ADE NO. L (BS L752)
7T SULPEUR DIOXIDE cr77.---=
E1 DE=NG BOITIE
01 NZE=LE VALVE FOR FLUg COMIECL
EL Pam
%.71 -CeLS METEP

FIGURE 2.44 — SCHEMATIC ARRANGEMENT OF SO2 SAMPLING TRAIN.

ImilllurI l m ni ninlIni 11110 1 P 1j111 I n 11111111! n . 91H011 ! 1
1ld1111w.HHHHI I IIIHII 1H111111 HHIHHHH11:111 Wilguilimi . . . 1 0 ,. ,
:1111111 :lulu!' Ihi HI II lid im Irwin ,ifiliIMMIIMIRIMINIMMISI
Millill
1111111IIIIIIIIIii il mum
III 'HI Ih1H111 1 1:111H1 H111.0 ummmillifinifillmmifimmirNIMIIIIffell
11111111111111M1111111111111111111
HHHHHHIliffilhoi III I I I i I 111111,1111M1Ilrfill
%JD
MI HIII:Hiffinw i lwli 1111i1 'WWI Willifillillifill i l I Ii i mi . 1 ,, •H',11
1. 1 I.
..i. 110, r1H1111
11 11 1 HU . I H. mu H li 1 1 IHI III .1
H11 .101;1 HH111
1111 III 110 111 '11 ' OH H III III H111 . 0 01
I HI I II !HI! .11 1111 I l i! II 1 II 11 II 1 1111 1 11 11 MI 01 1 II
1111111111 1 101(11111111011 IIIIIIIII 11111111001111111 1111 11111111111H1 ;III
111111 1 111 , 11 1 1111111HHHH 111111111 1111111010111111 1 iiii 111111:M1H; HH '
linimilii:muilffillirn 111111111m11111111H11H0 MI Jill Ilnwil HO I
i l limIlh o lIMIllii i ffill linIll!I 111111:1011111ifil Main' 1111 ,'•1 Hu •cr
1 1H1h1H I HMIH , 111 1 111H HIHIHI H14 1 01H1111111 HI HH H1111114:01 H
ih,11.111 ...,H110 H,H 111 HIH110 11111HIHIIH HH Flu 1111 H 1111111 0 I
HIH111111 1 111111HiHIHIU IIHHIll H1I !HIM11101 1 Hil Hil HHHH0111 1 .1
HI1111111 . H111111111:11111 H1111111 HIHHIalnI1H11 HH HH H11111101111 !I
11; 1 1 HIII J. ui (11111H1H1 HIH1111 HHIHIH1P h1H OH HII HIIIH 1 11111 . II
WHHIlhidh1111111iHnI 1011110 h111H1111H1h1h HIHIHI 01HHI11101 II
;1 1 10;111;;Ithiffil.111'111 IIII 1 1 11111111111 h i tt1 1,11 WI 1 111 1111 MI H1 d
ili!li..11;1:11H0111111, n 1 1 1111 1 111 HilllillIIIM111111I WI MI HO MI II
0111:,H0 .011Hi HI11101 Hil 111 111 II 111111111 IH II HIIIIhi 'HI H
11111,1 1111 111111 111111111 1111 1 1 1 111H11 H11 11 . 1 11 1 1 I INN/ 11
DIIIII. MC1.1111121111 11113;1111111;411111111131111 1114:111 HM711 I Illisill =MIS ID
.11 11 1 1 ... 11111 1 H111 lid 1111111M111 . 1 H11111 111t 111 111 III 1111111
11 11 01 . 1 111111H111 1111 H1 1 III 1p1H101 H
H I HI H101141H1
HI 1111 1 1
1 .1 ,H11110,0!.! H 1 ! Hu 1H H 'Him 11111111 IHIHIll HH III I ,
HH I 1 .1011 1 . 11 111111111111 110 . 011111 11 1111111111• 1 111111 , 11 1
. 1 11 1 11 1411 1 11 1J11111 101 11 1111111HHHHHIH I IIIH Hill1H1W111111111 d
I I 1 1 11 ! 11.-111i111 1 11111111110 1111 1 m1111' 1 11 11:H1111111111111111 .1
I . 1 1 . 1 .. 1" 1 . I 111111111 diii 1 1. 1 1 1 ;1111 ,IHIIIH11 1 11111 1 ;11 II
' I . . , 1 .11 . ,1 1 1 11111 1111 it 1'' t; wt.:Ill . : H pi .
... I . ,,, t.'1111 11/1 1 , . , ‘ 1,1,: 1 ;:ill H.,,,111,.! 1

• 1 1 1 I 1 1 Hid . 1 1 .11:-4 1
-I. I . I t 1 '1'"' 1
I 11 i ' ' III lo 1.1111111111.111.111 1,11:1 111 11,111i,1111,11=1, 11
1 I .1 HI' . h•HHIIHILH111 1. 11,1 n 11 up H I HT 1 HIH . 11 1
0 1.1 . 11,10 1 11 i. 11h1IHUIHIIHI: H 1:1 III I. 111111111HHHH1 d
1 ,.i 1,1; 11 ti l l 11T11111 1 1i1H 11 1 1 11:11110111111 .. 111 . 1 1 .1
1 1 :1 I I IIIWhh, I 1 1 , 1111 , Hilll y .n , • I I
10 ,II 9 • I t8 . 1 ,1 '711:11 1 1 11 t'111 I 1 51 1 1 .. 1 1I 1 1 13.1111W- 0
i • Ii. ..1 I I I IH'11:11 . HIHIH HIIIIHI 1h1H1U1111111h11110 1
1 ;pl.: 1E1 1'Ii II 11h1dH/ . 111111Hi 1 OHM lifilll 1111 111111111 1
11101.0111 ikI H '01h1111:11HIH. 1111111 .11111 1 111H1H 1 1 111 11 n1 1
110001 . 1 . 11:111 1h 1 H111111 1 011,1n11.1111.101110 . 11HIP . H1:11
;111 " '1
1 11 111 1 1 I '.I P0 1 11,1H H1111111111 HIHIH HI:111111H 111111H1 . 111111- 1 11 1
t.D
I HI".11:'1 1 h. hIH .I H HIHIIIIIHHIH H111011 HIHHHH I nI111 1 1. 1
Li 111 . 1 . 1 10 , 1. 1H,HIH011 HoIn1 1 1111 H 01 H111 ,H1...11
I , 11 .. I.• • • • , 11111
1 1 1 1 ..
II .. .. 111 . • .fl LI_
1 0, 0 „ I I I .1141.111
.11.. . 1 1 lull 1 111 1 .11HHHH1111
1 1,0 1 111.1... .111 I
1 1 11'11 • 1 1 ,1 1 1 "Ill"l l'IllitH11111 il 1 1 1 11 1111111111111111 1 111111 I
I ill , ,111 . 1 , 1 , ,, 0111/11 11,111,01111111111 1 H 1H 111111111111.1,!011

"Ill 'HI' - 11:11 1 1.1 /1-1111111. 01 1:1'11 11 1.111111 1 1 1 1111111" 11 1 111 11 111 ' 1 '1
1 '' I, ,., ..11 Ilkilllo111 11 1 1 111111 1 011 .11 . 1,, 11 1 11111...w . 1 . 1
.J1 . 1' .,I 1 . 1 1 • 1 . 0 1 1"H1111 1 111111111 .. .110, 1.;i,1 1111.0:1 ' 0 1 I
g in!".0. '1 1 ;:111 . 11H 0 HiHIHH11:1H11 1 11H:H111 1 0:n1111H . H1H1h1 1 1 I
11111.1111...0.01:.:11H-111H1.111r1110110:11H10:1,1HIHIT'1111I'
IHI 1 111 . " . 1 .: 111 , IW II 111 1.11 1, ii 1..1 1 1111 1 " 1 101 11011H011.01 , 1- I.' 1
1:1-.111 wI l. 1 "..1 ,q. 6:11,111” . WH:111111111111h:H.Hi . H n IW.H1 .1
q 10 1 1"11 1 01 .. t n PI'd I 1 0 "1“ 11 . 1111 ...14-1111 1

.: 111' .1 11. : I III' l l' . 1 111 . 01 1, 111 1: 11 1.. H1IlikI:11 1. :11t0IHIHIhIH;P.1: I

. 1111,1h...111,h . 1 ..,..0.0 H H 11"1 . 1H111 , 1111' . 111' 11 :HIHI:" H " H h 1
.„„,..11 . 1 “ . .....1 :. 1111 p 11 .011..111:11110111 .... :..1!0'h,.d.:Id: 1
I
.'111' III'',11 . ...H111 . .111 .. o .. 11- 111 1. H IIHHIn . d ,h1 h11HH.H . - .. 1.11414 •,.
. k (1 ,, 0 .1Hs'1111.1 ,1HiffiI1t._LiiimihIIIIII;r1111t1111111"11W1,
-.11 1.. otwii,:: . 11,111 '' .1, '1' 1 " 11-Hil l wl i tffi' ll 1:1, , 1 11.1i1w1;:11,1 .-4
:11 1 1,;;11 :1 1,11111111111,11.1111111;d1;1.1'1:11IIHWI I I11111111,10 . 11 .1 1:0; 1

' H 11.1:111 .1 111iIi11 ,H IIII1111 11 1 110 1iml:IH1111'1 , 11.1 I 111111!11 111 1ih , 10 1

. !:11 : H1111 1,1 1 11. 1 111 1Hr 1 11.III I II II H '11: 1 .1 , 11 1 111 1 11 I ' Ill :I111 1101::.: 1 . , •:1-1'
_
•c•
n.)

C 0 0 0 0 0
0 C 0 0 0 0
1/44) tri
 SHAFT

SECONDARY FRONT AIR AT NA

17 mMWG

5mmin7G

REFUSE •
t
A
40cm SECONDARY REAR AIR
AT 32 mmWG

1 40cm
ACCESS PORT
1
1
1 i
1 1
1 1
i
I
I
I AIR AT I i

I 26 mmWG 1
AIR AT I 1
1 11
1 33 mmWG AIR AT 1
1 I 1
1
1 22mmWG 1
I IAIR AT1/
I I 112 ngii1
i 1 1
I 1 1 AIR ATI
1 1
I 1 1 4 mmWG1
I 1 1
lAIR AT
I 1
1 1 i
11 mmWG
I 1 1 1
1 4.----.--t.'4,----014-------01,. 0
•*--------0•P
3.07 m 1.53 m 1.53 m 1.53m 1.53m 1.53m
ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 ZONE 6

1
4 • Al • A2 •A3 I •A4
40cl
3.05m • B1 • B2 1 4033 •B4 1
• Cl • C2 I •C3 6(24
•D1 • D2 •D3 D4 I

ROLLER 1 ROLLER 2 ROLLER 3 ROLLER4 ROLLER5 ROLLER6

FIGURE 3.1 — SCHEMATIC OF SHEFFIELD INCINERATOR SHOWING

LOCATION OF GAS SAMPLING INSIDE AND ABOVE
THE REFUSE BED.
 n,

\ ABOVE AND INSIDE THE REFUSE BED

\\\

THE REFUSE BED

2 6 6 LO 12 14 16
DISTANCE FROM THE FEED CHUTE (M)

FIGURE 3.2 - ESTIMATED ENERGY RELEASE RATES FOR SHEFFIELD

MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR PLANT.

•
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
HIGH HEAT VALUE OF REFUSE
(Btu/lb)x1000

FIGURE 3.3 - VALUES OF WASTE FACTORS K (REF. 44 )

 FIGURE 3.4 — SIDE VIEW OF THE ROTATING GRATE ROTTFRS
SHOWING THE ROTATING ANGLE (c4).

AVCRAGE
TI fROUGHPUT

6.8 he/hr

lb /1 12 -.3 14 15 16 17. 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 I/ CUR

FIGURE 3.5 - HOURLY THROUGHPUT RATE OF RAW REFUSE, BOILER NO.1

SHEFFIELD INCINERATOR.
 REFUSE ARISING = 190,000 te/annum
BULK DENSITY = 210 kg/m3
GROSS CALORIFIC VALUE = 15000 kJ/kg
BASIS FOR CALCULATION = 1 HOUR

HEAT LOSS DURING INCINERATION

26.69x103MJ

OPERATING HOURS = 8000 hr/year

NOMINAL CAPACITY = 10 te/hr
ACTUAL CAPACITY = 6.4 te/hr
FEED RATE = 6400 kg TOTALPRIMARY AIR INPUT = 65000 m3 /hr
TOTAL SECONDARY AIR INPUT - 7500 m3/hr
TOTAL COMBUSTION AIR Ex(Fss AIR = 210 % STEAM PRODUCTION
= 80000 m3/hr % OF PRIMARY AIR = 80 - 90 % OF TOTAL 48-56x103MJ
HEAT INPUT =75.25x10 MJ % OF SECONDARY AIR = 10 - 20 % OF
TOTAL
BOLLER EFFICIENCY = 64.9 %
OVERALL EFFICIENCY (BASED ON THE NET
CALORIFIC VALUE OF REFUSE) = 62.9%

CLINKER AND ASH = 1.8 te/hr

BULK DENSITY OF RESIDUE = 837 kg/m3
VOLUME = 2.15 m3

FIGURE 3.6 --SCHEMATIC MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE- FOR RAW REFUSE
INCINERNTION IN SiihktaELD INCINERATOR (BOLGER No.1)


I!.
; : ' •
, • . 1.

•--4 • ! •
:
'G • "
•• •

; , • „
I I •
l'••••
: 1•
• i 1
3 .4 I .

! !..
• • , •

Tr)
r. •

• -14
;

ne.

;
, I Mill i i!! '

' -•

.

III 11
1_ L . . LI
,!ri ..!
I •,•
I1_-s•
•
1 ' I

I 'III I '

EL,

In r,! In
CN
 F -7

1.2

.nnnnn•

>--
 FIGURE 4.2 - Simplified schematic of processes occuring
in the refuse bed on a travelling grate.

/7
0
L.
.44en
0
0 4.•n••nnn

>6

n••

u.]

<


1••••••••
=WM.= n
n
ala aND•las. a a. n-aa—...a. aa.aa.
===12== :=
ln a I nn••••n • MIIIIMMA MIRO
n1 MOM IIM• NOM NM MOM
aminAm• MEN
=MN ••41.1•110 MN= j=
in
=Ma inAlimi
.'" MO =MD MOM
OM
•••nn=e0•11 n•
MIME.. MO IMMO. MINIM =
••nnnn =1•1 181=1
01E1111=0.mM.
••n••••
ORM =Nom=
=N.M.
••••• nI•
n •n .1
4
CZ=
a:
!UM.
1nn =Imams
===
saMmala n
== =
WINII• n
--- :EN — ."'
MM

NIMONs.o. a n.... ...ow

MN... ilimn ..1.11110n111 ....
nnn••nn
mimmoll.n
MEI /M.=
MONommi.n
••••••1•1n
=NM ma= 1n11
maimmil.am
OM INIIIMMII
=NMI
411••
mm•• Ems MOO anal
MENBEIMMIN 01.111•111
•nn•n
•n••n• ••n•
n••• =.1.1
••••••n•••••
imMiseM n
IMIS n
ONOWIM.
n1111Mi n MIN OMB
•n••••n•••••• •=111.10.
1=11.1•IMIN
••n•n•n•••
gaNalln ••n
110••n•
•n •n•••
—
.th....,
MINIIMIO OM
--- —
---, ,
•••••••1.11 w•MINWIINVEME•liala

LUX
(1)

U._
4-1
NI 0

7:3
ffi

Ommal
 NI

,, , , . / Aft A
4k‘wavicitlystr4,7 -."-?./Ap 4,
v& N

/..v••„,-WvisAINIEr
41i

• 4
i
•

I--
Z
ILI X
=
_J iL
ri I—•
N
•;:2

•••,..,•••••••••• •

:
:
:

•
i
: .i.-
Z g
i_
2
E
.
:

II . ...
nbin in
...1.010
E 4 s . :
..m

lit]

a . —. -
. •
a. -'-."-...-7-7-7—.-...--...
:"- 7 i" 4 LL '
...1
0.
+
4.1.11

0.

..

I 1 •
>C

..... co .
, N•_1]
•4- 4 -4 ,A i-A CM C‘.1 ul ••••
 KEY
4.7EE+01
4.43E+01
4.1MEOI

3.01E+01
2.66E+01
2.30Etat
1.95E+0!
1.80Et01
1.24&0t
8.86E+00
5.32E+00
1.77E400

242,
ROLLER MODELL I NG CRIENT
VELOCITY VECTORS

(METRES/SEC) FLUENT 12i
MAX. - 4.S62S1E41 I 3-0 MIN MGICIE DC

FIGURE 4.7 - Velocity vector plot (3D) for the roller's

isothermal case.
 ••nn1

si *

I--
Z
1.1.1 X
=
EL-1

..
NA z

4
N- a i
ffi cm

$5 r.11

--

2 0E

i
•—•
Lu LIJ

Y.1-
'
 I--

Z
L.1.1 M
=
—1
• - _ . . LJ_

1\ t 1 / ... ,
1 i A . . "
%
• • •
r..4

N
-or

a
z
i

7-"';1 i• % ."

IIIIIIIIII
. Ito ,,.. A, 1 \
/ ‘ ' -
7
1 . _
. .' _
7
.",/
1 (

\„,. ____ -

1 •-•sk Ill--wliki•-•"",.....

..`,.
...-•*".....--..-
• -
. ..<1•11P-velk:' „,.±...
Irak ziklewx:- ' 1
- ' '4., ....lii •iCr-ZzAiab.v...wL n
,,,-(--‘--4----
73"Kgre:1- 4-t -ft-W•1•74.4.-
VA.:;.,
‘----,
*---. ',.. '
"..4. •nn
.' "" '
, _
-Ar
, •: -
N".
::\
/ , . . . . . . . ' ".. s :::,<`":: \.,.• n\,,•• ..I,„s -V II1 1. .I. , .,,,...
,

I ,,N \1+1
—
I # r / \ .....,...,_ ---
4 \
\i.
,,_......--,, l f / 1 , ' I , _ tn4=.

\ \ n..Z---..1F-11,4"".-jt, /
c ..--...
N -... ,, ..., ...,..._
8,=)
1•n•• "--
.— LT

---- • - - • . wn4

›..
I.... ,•••
t••n1

/
8 el

. 1 o
'—;: 7
- -;" ci 7
— 7
c \I ).<
ilttMtiLliltLkj
ei, .06 (i, U", 4 14 -: ci,
a.___]
A
 t Fr---

:rno..:
.

V*
!
1
kl.,:
t•J

1s
N

T
I
=

2 FT)

c ---.......-_....... ,
@I

ft — .w.
.

‘. 4
,

g,
..:,
....,-- .

E3
1 C3 -

.4 1
g
,
44
ic
1
g g CU g g <, g g g g g g g g ‘,-, • g `+' VI 1•_;,' 7 il
/
>1.- WA §# =:64,
4-44 rj) r••n
oi m
,,; 4, cn1 ni
IVI
PI CZ
k.,1 _t §1 _1.. V M -Mti V,
C \J • • • • CL
M Iti
8 - .:1 (4 a;
-
). 1 1

0
rI
Csi CV rq cv 0.1 CJ C•1 CU NI
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P

. • . • • . . • • u.„ 4
 *1\

5g1

*
2f
LUX

l".• .. _ 1
CFI

//,.........
•----- 1 , ,, s a
=
t7c'
n % : . Wr., N A
a

111 I i n
1 # . .

1! 92
r.1

II,.. 1a ', 4)4 ..,_.,,,‘-\. (

iw.. (
'1 r-------'--we,..... r i
- -
. 1\ \ \
• --
1 - .:_-_

.... \ % N"..,,,

„....,",,,,....,
.4. .•
-
--_,
Ii. ..........
• 1
• •\ •.— —
—
.-

' z :4; ' `• •:: • '''..""- Al! '

•Na`,...... ' •----.y ..". _. ..., •
__.!•---
V N,, '". - ,--"_^ .

.... ,-...**.
...., \ \ \ \ 1 / , -:•ZiNa.,
. .--

i V, \.... \,,,
\ \ ......."/11t1I,
I / ,... 1\
mt\...........
7—
".---
—

i- ......-..._ -

........_
f
lii
............n ............am I
i W il

n-- ts.

W-21 N

1 0 •
-41
. II-1
eZ cla LA
414."$
-.«
4 NI rA 1,71
A t1;i N,
c.; ...!. -1 t.:-
4
n,
)._d R 1
—J
 .'---..--.-.
...,. n•
IN Z

:1 " i
n---
g ! dal
f- $3
.--- rh

_
_ .31n7 "
—
.e.
t t:' •
• , N
1mi

se
:.‘
,., )\
.,
>-1
il

0 114
3c &I,

,., , 4
con, VA.

_,_ :g g,.,.. c.. -.- 8 O ,-- •• =, ,:::", ,., 7 c

CL1

r:i L1 M .`11 1.4 til $ il 0 01 *

4 -4 IA 1-,1 CJ01 (\ie-- -1 .1 cni n;
CE/ * Cii
4 N; 4- 4 u;
0 r*
tri 8 cp t,-1
;
'"
__A d.
V

LU

le.„1

n ER
0
4-44-4
tr. 0
N
4-1
0
4-1

5
—
W

,=, I
7. 4.

,C) 0 CD

t—
C.0 tri
 I--
1 UJ X
=
—J
I LL_

. ._ .._ .

,._...

1 iLti
roz.N
1 ...-i

Hs
I
'A
H
TT
&r.

.:::J It

$ 4(

1-g r1
•') 1 tg Igl 11 r..-, i ig i
fV C, .I 11
iN g
i
.! 08 t..2. LA NI

IN ••• z
N .-7K.
N 2C
•
••' ••n••,.- - ANIIIIIIIMIW/ A mi,.
\ M ! 8
- AN-.6
',/,
r.,...:.-.4-7-,
_ T,././.e.ray b. AngterAgrey • , 4.

A. 1‘.-474.1"
.. .__ . 4 . A,1,1'1‘•\:.t
V' • l&A '
1•41R4)14).vi
1'44 • V4.
\ • 1
• b.
.,.. v .....A,
.

:. ....:A...7
, 2. ,,
Vr.7.
•
• 1.
_.
• '
k sT r
-:
.gts I" ff
.........
a

,....Sv
A
._.
...„....4,‘ f
° 472,. ., .; ...,' ' - rf .4.',...p ' ':•--.77;4• ; A k
-..,.•" • . ,,,,...--'.- --...., .... • C...)
N . •••4*...:•.f - . Ai.
•` i'.. 1-:..... gm,. ...-7.• kW"
-..•.72. --I,' .`i•sderlia
nks sw

-..,, -- ..........-
, ir ANNA,
....na.
„r..I.10s."qik,,,,..
_„.._.,_
0

*Nra‘':Ne4. 1. ......_
- • --......_
- •-n-:Z.•-- • :so, .,,_
19
s'S141,1ti lthn Y i ' E 7;1
7", ' . ileArA.
_ v;:,--•
.......
A
1

2 fil.
,.....,17.,,"

.,..„,

r
l-
I—I

_ .. 8
>_ 4 x
. .e2 ,._, i ., 1 4 _.i ! 0!
). )
. irl -4- 76; pn 4
t-2. CO IA ...: -.1 4 t-A n) c•I -!. -2. b.: i'V N


LU
r---
LL.

..r•am•

NI
>I NI 11
; Pn

mu 4 4 r121
 ; 0
I---
=
LIJ g
___I
LL
)4 .....
a
g
g

):.•-•
eOld
1.:4

1
gi
I
x-0t,..ih,..
oa
......... 11
ni 4 cs1 ' ' ' ' ' cei t-: LA T.3

— ???
,o th; LA -4 ....
 •

••n

•zt.

r-
0514

+-)

04 •

Cl) (11

>1

n@

0
4-4
WV
ow
0

O 0
• 44

L.
co
•-1
•
cr)

I--
Z •zr
LLI X
=
--I •
_ LL r(5.
, -..
•

evniis, 4-) cn

f 1 V.-=-,. 4-1
0
.
II •
8
144

III
S'
O I

W0
1
t....., tal
m. 0
INF

C I U
O 0
44

__F- C

i
2n 16 g

u
P.
g.
.:,.:.-. cr)
•

L
I
0 0 0 0 0 c:, •=. C2 0 0 0 0
? ? ? ? 9 ? i q II
.... ., __. liVWIli ti h.',
r••1 A t-A o'i c-:, •;, •:, c.:: (.1 ••1 4 Z
a; t•-1 8 Ng
 ••

I--
Z
LLJ X
=
_I
LL 4-)
o
..,
r. 1
4-1 co
•
O Q.)

O0
1 !

4-1
0
V.T. •. i 4-1 -H
0

-P 0
(11 -H •
iI
• 4-1 (1.)
S-1

g 0
O 4-) ,--1
▪ w0

1 0
C..) 'CI

,—, •
1
i
....__
cz
m
:1 pi.
iiii
,
cy
In

, . . _ _
c., -i, 7 °.... °N N
° N7 '7
i Al N N M
7°°°T 21g•
- , 1. . - . 1-1.'" '.G, 05 .,
F41
W X i
--• a; -' ir; 4 C, J .4 1

I-
Z
LU X
=
•

LL Q.)
•H

4-1

8 •
6 5 -4-1
o a)

4-4q 0
0 n-1
4-1 4-)
O W
r1 H
1r L- ROCS

O 0 RI
0

4-)
U)-4J 0
• 1111
• -H

, .
O
4-)

(1)
G)
0
-H

O 0 .0
U

....
cr)
Ifil
In•
6.
CI

'"'
L2i
z7,- .-,-. z.;
114
i. [tiW,
_ _.. _
-3. giggigi gi g g
ii il t1
_.: cg aa b.: 0, 4 143' e:1 —
7 11
t..I
6I
 sa

I-
LU N
=
_J
LL

• B

il
6
P-4
-1

111

i !.
E.
_
9
• 3
_12hz
i
gME
2 61
J.It
MINNNNNM
???1F7?T? Lg g
. ,... tI_. VII 0itiOkirn
_..- _:..7.; d, cz ti; A 01 tz.
4
k

a
I—
Z
LU X
=
_J
LL

t • —

-- 1=4

• til

s $
1
lm.

vi 1

2
(ll

. . lit .
8
0

,
1
A
0

MINNN
? ,=, .=, •=, .. ? ? 7 c; 0 0 0 0

Pi lil * 1,1*Iltlii0141M
01014.4.2-2—mdtA.I.
1;1
FAA01
 r'.-4 .d
!
M

i AC

Act

II

CI
0
! in

<AD
•=:.
di

0
.r.:)
CU c=,
0
Lf1

M
-J

c Co
0
•
111
10
0
<=>
<=0
0
10 E

j c,
II
,.
...c
=
_J
 04
0
4-1

0
4-1

0
4-;

as 0•

WW

(U4-
al 0

so

In

LI)
 Fn1

tf)

Es

a)

0
144

1••1 4J

Lk •
0 0

$.4
cx3

0
a)

4-1
• •-1 0
4-4

0
fli 4J

In

Ci4

'11
 PLATE 1 - The drying oven and other equipment
used for determination of density and moisture con-
tent of Sheffield refuse

PLATE 2 - The CBM computer, the analogue-digital

convertor and the printer used for recording the ex-
perimental data
 i'llessommi=11
.......
........... .
... :4;

ot
j I 'N G iNE1
711? BO It ER
 PLATE 3 - Plant Ni-Cr-Al thermocouples used for
temperature measurement at the combustion chamber
exit

PLATE 4 - Water-cooled probe and the Ni-Cr-Al ther-

mocouple used for temperature measurement inside
the radiation shaft
 PLATE 5 - End view of the water-cooled probe
used for temperature measurement inside the radia-
tion shaft

PLATE 6 - The sampling probe cooling system

 PLATE 7 - Side view of the incinerator showing lo-
cation of the top access port used for gas sampling and
temperature measurement inside and above the refuse
bed

PLATE 8 - Side view of the incinerator showing loca-

tion of middle and bottom ports used for gas sampling
and temperature measurement inside and above the
refuse bed

\
 PLATE 9 - Inside view of the furnace showing loca-
tion of secondary air openings on the roof arch of the
furnace. As shown, most of the openings are blocked.

PLATE 10 - Inside view of the furnace showing the

travelling grate. Slagging of the side walls of the fur-
nace and the general deterioriation of the refractory
materials in the side areas directly above the grate
can clearly be seen.
 PLATE 11 - Sampling probe (water-cooled) used for
determination of CO, CO 2 and 0 2 concentrations at
the combustion chamber exit

PLATE 12 - CO and CO 2 infra-red gas analysers , 02

paramagnetic analyser and chart recorder used for the
flue gas analysis

\
PLATE 13 - Sampling train used for determination of
CO, CO 2 and 0 2 concentrations in the flue gases
 PLATE 14 - Sampling train used for determination
of SO2 and NO concentrations at the precipitator inlet

PLATE 15 - Sampling equipment (pump, gas meter,

transformer, condenser, etc) used for flue gas analysis
at the precipitator inlet
PLATE 16 - NOx analyser (Thermal Electron Model
10A modular type) used for NO measurement at the
precipitator inlet

\
 PLATE 17 - LAND electrochemical probe-analyser
used for determination of NO and SO 2 concentrations
at the base of chimney

PLATE 18 - Compressor, chart recorder and LAND

computer system used to record NO and SO 2 emission
levels
amin1111n112
, Nersn7rwwwwwwwn

"4\,