Guidelines for Estimating ESP
Performance When Switching to Alternate
Fuels
Interim Report
WARNING:
Please read the License Agreement
on the back cover before removing
the Wrapping Material.
12867128
Technical Report
12867128
Guidelines for Estimating ESP
Performance When Switching to
Alternate Fuels
Interim Report
1004075
Interim Report, February 2002
EPRI Project Manager
R. Altman
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
12867128
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN
ACCOUNT OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). NEITHER EPRI, ANY MEMBER OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE
ORGANIZATION(S) BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)
WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER'S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE
HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR
SELECTION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD,
PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS DOCUMENT
Southern Research Institute
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
Copyright © 2002 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
12867128
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Southern Research Institute
2000 Ninth Avenue South
P. O. Box 55305
Birmingham, AL 35255-5305
Principal Investigators
K. Cushing
J. McCain
G. Marchant, Jr.
This report describes research sponsored by EPRI.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Guidelines for Estimating ESP Performance When Switching to Alternate Fuels: Interim Report,
EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1004075.
iii
12867128
12867128
REPORT SUMMARY
Fuel flexibility has always been an important issue for power producers because the cost of fuel
is a major factor in the cost of generating electricity. More recently, the practice of fuel switching
to meet SO2 emission limits has shown the effect of alternate fuels on combustion equipment,
scrubbers, and electrostatic precipitators to be a more important and complicated issue. EPRI has
developed tools that address all aspects of this issue and, in particular, has developed a number
of tools to predict the impact of new coals and coal blends on electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
operation and performance.
Background
EPRI published the first guidelines for estimating collection efficiencies of ESP’s in 1987. These
guidelines documented relationships between coal and ash composition and the factors that
dominate performance of conventional dry ESP’s: fly ash resistivity and particle size
distribution. In 1993, the computer model of electrostatic precipitation, ESPM, was made
available. Since that time, a significant body of new data on coal and ash properties have been
gathered and major improvements in the model, ESPM, have been made.
Objective
To update the guidelines for estimating performance of ESP’s for new coals, coal blends, and
selected foreign and opportunity fuels.
Approach
The project team added new data to the data originally used to develop the correlation between
coal and ash composition and fly ash resistivity. New statistical techniques were used with the
expanded data set to produce a new set of correlations. The team reevaluated the original set of
particle size distributions in light of new data sets and new analytical procedures for calculating
particle size distributions to see if more accurate size distribution recommendations could be
made. Results from these studies were used in the new version of ESPM to examine the impact
of the changes on predicted ESP performance.
Results
Results of the resistivity analysis produced new correlations that are more robust than the
original correlations—predicting more accurate resistivity numbers for most coals. Particle size
data analysis indicated that distributions already incorporated in the ESPM model produced
satisfactory estimates of performance, but also suggested new, more realistic numbers to use in
the model. Studies also determined that the correlations could be used for coal blends and foreign
fuels. The new results are illustrated in numerous examples in this report.
v
12867128
EPRI Perspective
In an increasingly competitive market, power producers are constantly looking for ways to
reduce costs, including the cost of coals and the cost of environmental compliance for their coalfired plants. Since most of these plants are equipped with electrostatic precipitators for
particulate control, the impact of alternate fuels on ESP performance and operation is an
important consideration in selecting fuels. EPRI has developed a number of tools to predict fuel
impacts on ESP performance, and those tools have been recently updated and improved. This
report gathers together those tools and illustrates their use in typical alternate fuel evaluations.
The data and correlations in this report—combined with the EPRI-developed computer model of
ESP performance, ESPM, and recently published reports on optimizing and upgrading ESP
performance—make it possible to conduct a thorough investigation of the impact of a wide range
of alternate fuels on ESP performance. These efforts will greatly improve EPRI members ability
to select the most appropriate and least costly fuels for their plants. (See TR-113582 – Vol. 1 and
Vol. 2, Guidelines for Upgrading Electrostatic Precipitator Performance).
Keywords
Fly ash properties
Alternate fuels
Electrostatic precipitator performance
Particulate control
ESP performance modeling
vi
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
How To Use This Report .................................................................................................... 1-2
2 CASE STUDIES USING THE ESPM MODEL...................................................................... 2-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
Base (Standard) Cases ...................................................................................................... 2-1
Base (Standard) Case #1 and Alternate Fuels.................................................................... 2-2
Base (Standard) Case #2 and Alternate Fuels...................................................................2-21
Base (Standard) Case #3 and Alternate ESP Configuration and Fuels..............................2-32
3 RESISTIVITY MODEL REVISIONS AND AN EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR FLY
ASH RESISTIVITY ................................................................................................................. 3-1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
Early Work on Predictive Resistivity Correlations ............................................................... 3-1
Refinements in the Original Model...................................................................................... 3-2
Purpose of This New Research Effort................................................................................. 3-3
Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity........................................................................................ 3-3
Specific Fly Ash Resistivity Calculations............................................................................. 3-4
Calculation of Volume Resistivity ................................................................................... 3-4
Calculation of Surface Resistivity................................................................................... 3-5
Calculation of the Net Combined Resistivities for Volume Plus Surface Conduction ...... 3-6
Calculation of the Direct Contribution of SO3 .................................................................. 3-6
Calculation of Acid Resistivity ........................................................................................ 3-7
Condition 1: [Mg + Ca] < 5 and [Fe] < 1 .................................................................... 3-9
Condition 2: All other combinations of [Mg + Ca] and [Fe] values ............................3-10
Condition 1: The ash is difficult to condition (see criteria below). .............................3-11
Condition 2: The ash is not difficult to condition (see criteria below). .......................3-12
Calculation of the Combined Surface, Volume, and Acid Resistivity .............................3-13
vii
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Estimation of SO3 Concentration When It Has Not Been Measured ..............................3-14
Other Considerations....................................................................................................3-14
An Example Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity Using Model 3 ...........................................3-15
Example Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity Using Model 3.................................................3-19
Definition of Symbols ....................................................................................................3-19
Values for Specific Parameters.....................................................................................3-20
Calculation of Volume Resistivity ..................................................................................3-20
Calculation of Surface Resistivity..................................................................................3-20
Calculation of Acid Resistivity .......................................................................................3-20
4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 4-1
Background ........................................................................................................................ 4-1
5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 5-1
A CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLY ASHES ....... A-1
viii
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Comparison of predicted results from Models 2A and Model 3 for an ash
formed in the SRI Coal Combustion Facility at an SO3 concentration of 10 ppm.............3-22
Figure 3-2 Comparison of predicted results from Models 2A and the new model
developed from the extended set of samples at an SO3 concentration of 10 ppm...........3-23
Figure 3-3 Resistivity of the various ash samples used in the development of the SO3
conditioning resistivity models. .......................................................................................3-24
Figure 3-4 Model 2A predictions at 10 ppm SO3 for ashes formed by combustion of five
blends of PRB and James River coals............................................................................3-25
Figure 3-5 Predictions from the Model 3 at 10 ppm SO3 for ashes formed by combustion
of five blends of James River and Jacobs Ranch (PRB) coals........................................3-26
Figure 3-6 Comparison of the average unsigned errors in the slopes of the resistivity
versus temperature curves for the old and new models..................................................3-27
Figure 3-7 Comparison of the number of cases in the data bases for which the indicated
model has the smaller error when compared to measured values. .................................3-28
Figure 4-1 Illustration of the change in measured particle size distributions resulting from
improved understanding of inlet effects on the performance of inertial particle sizing
devices (cascade impactors and cyclones)...................................................................... 4-2
Figure 4-2 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 2. ............................ 4-7
Figure 4-3 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 22 ........................... 4-8
Figure 4-4 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 25 ........................... 4-9
Figure 4-5 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 38 ..........................4-10
Figure 4-6 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 40. .........................4-11
Figure 4-7 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 7. ...........................4-12
Figure 4-8 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 8. ...........................4-13
Figure 4-9 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 9. ...........................4-14
Figure 4-10 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 24. .......................4-15
Figure 4-11 Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 67.. ......................4-16
Figure A-1 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-57 with 10.0 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-33
Figure A-2 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-58 with 10.0 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-34
Figure A-3 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-59 with 10.0 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-35
Figure A-4 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-60 with 10.0 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-36
ix
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Figure A-5 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-61 with 10.1 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-37
Figure A-6 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-67 with 10.1 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-38
Figure A-7 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-68 with 10.2 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-39
Figure A-8 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-69 with 10.1 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-40
Figure A-9 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-70 with 10.1 % water by volume and
two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. ........................................................... A-41
Figure A-10 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-121 with 10.0 % water by volume
and two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. .................................................... A-42
Figure A-11 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-122 with 10.0 % water by volume
and two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. .................................................... A-43
Figure A-12 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-123 with 10.2 % water by volume
and two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. .................................................... A-44
Figure A-13 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-124 with 10.2 % water by volume
and two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. .................................................... A-45
Figure A-14 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-130 with 10.0 % water by volume
and two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. .................................................... A-46
Figure A-15 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-133 with 10.0 % water by volume
and two SO3 injection rates at specific temperatures. .................................................... A-47
Figure A-16 Laboratory resistivity of Sample D492A with 10.4 % water by volume and
one SO3 injection rate at specific temperatures.............................................................. A-48
Figure A-17 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 301 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-49
Figure A-18 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 302 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-50
Figure A-19 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 303 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-51
Figure A-20 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 304 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-52
Figure A-21 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 305 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-53
Figure A-22 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 306 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-54
Figure A-23 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 307 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-55
Figure A-24 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 308 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-56
Figure A-25 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 311 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-57
x
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Figure A-26 Laboratory resistivity of Sample 312 with three SO3 injection rates at
specific temperatures. ................................................................................................... A-58
xi
12867128
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Base Case #1, High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP.......... 2-5
Table 2-2 Base Case #1, Switch from High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal to Low Sulfur
Powder River Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP ............................................................ 2-7
Table 2-3 Base Case #1, Low Sulfur Powder River Basin Coal + 4 ppm S03, 4-Field
Cold-side ESP ................................................................................................................. 2-9
Table 2-4 Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder
River Basin Coal (Resistivity Treated if it is Dominated by the Eastern Ash), 4-Field
Cold-side ESP ................................................................................................................2-11
Table 2-5 Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder
River Basin Coal (Resistivity Treated as if Dominated by the Powder River Basin
Coal), 4-Field Cold-side ESP..........................................................................................2-13
Table 2-6 Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan
Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP ...........................................................................................2-15
Table 2-7 Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP ...........................................................................................2-17
Table 2-8 Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, Inject 10 ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP.............................................................2-19
Table 2-9 Base Case #2, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP .........2-22
Table 2-10 Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP .................................................................................2-24
Table 2-11 Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan
Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP ...........................................................................................2-26
Table 2-12 Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP ...........................................................................................2-28
Table 2-13 Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, Inject 4ppm SO3, 6-Field Cold-side ESP................................................................2-30
Table 2-14 Base Case #3, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP .........2-35
Table 2-15 Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP ...................................................................................2-37
Table 2-16 Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan
Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP.............................................................................................2-39
Table 2-17 Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP.............................................................................................2-41
Table 2-18 Base Case #3, LS Eastern Bituminous Coal, Switch from 4-Field Hot-side
ESP to 4-Field Cold-side ESP ........................................................................................2-43
xiii
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Table 2-19 Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP .................................................................................2-45
Table 2-20 Base Case #3, Switch to 50/50 Blend of LS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS
Powder River Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP ...........................................................2-47
Table 2-21 Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder
River Basin Blend to Venezuelan Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP ......................................2-49
Table 2-22 Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder
River Basin Coal Blend to South African Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP............................2-51
Table 2-23 Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder
River Basin Coal Blend to South African Coal, Inject 4ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side
ESP................................................................................................................................2-53
Table 3-1 As-Received, Ultimate Coal Analysis and Fly Ash Analysis used in the
Example Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity .....................................................................3-16
Table 3-2 Calculation of Stoichiometric Flue Gas Composition ..............................................3-17
Table 3-3 Conversion of Weight Percent Analyses of Ash to Molecular Percent as
Oxides and Catatonic Percent .......................................................................................3-18
Table 4-1 Boiler and Coal Characteristics, Particulate Concentrations, and Particle Size
Distributions for the Plants used in this Study Taken from the “Precipitator
Performance Estimation Procedure” Document............................................................... 4-4
Table 4-2 Results from ESP Modeling for each of the Selected Data Sets.............................. 4-5
Table 4-3 Results from ESP Modeling for each of the Selected Data Sets.............................. 4-6
Table A-1 Chemical and Physical Characterization of Fly Ashes Used in Model 1. ................. A-2
Table A-2 Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes Used in
Model 1 ........................................................................................................................... A-3
Table A-3 Chemical Characterization of Ashes from Original Sulfur Trioxide Study
(Model 2) by Dr. R. E. Bickelhaupt and Recent Particle Size and BET Results for
Same............................................................................................................................... A-4
Table A-4 Reanalysis of Selected Ashes from Original Sulfur Trioxide Study (Model 2) by
Dr. R. E. Bickelhaupt and Client Ash D492A. .................................................................. A-4
Table A-5 Results of Mineral, Particle Size and BET Analyses of Model 3 Fly Ash
Samples. ......................................................................................................................... A-5
Table A-6 Results of Mineral Analyses of Model 3 Coal Samples. .......................................... A-6
Table A-7 Sample 9896-1-57 Resistivity Data Summary......................................................... A-7
Table A-8 Sample 9896-1-58 Resistivity Data Summary......................................................... A-8
Table A-9 Sample 9896-1-59 Resistivity Data Summary......................................................... A-9
Table A-10 Sample 9896-1-60 Resistivity Data Summary..................................................... A-10
Table A-11 Sample 9896-1-61 Resistivity Data Summary..................................................... A-11
Table A-12 Sample 9896-1-67 Resistivity Data Summary..................................................... A-12
Table A-13 Sample 9896-1-68 Resistivity Data Summary..................................................... A-13
Table A-14 Sample 9896-1-69 Resistivity Data Summary..................................................... A-14
Table A-15 Sample 9896-1-70 Resistivity Data Summary..................................................... A-15
Table A-16 Sample 9896-1-121 Resistivity Data Summary................................................... A-16
xiv
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Table A-17 Sample 9896-1-122 Resistivity Data Summary .................................................. A-17
Table A-18 Sample 9896-1-123 Resistivity Data Summary .................................................. A-18
Table A-19 Sample 9896-1-124 Resistivity Data Summary .................................................. A-19
Table A-20 Sample 9896-1-130 Resistivity Data Summary .................................................. A-20
Table A-21 Sample 9896-1-133 Resistivity Data Summary .................................................. A-21
Table A-22 Sample D492A Resistivity Data Summary ......................................................... A-22
Table A-23 Sample 301 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-23
Table A-24 Sample 302 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-24
Table A-25 Sample 303 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-25
Table A-26 Sample 304 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-26
Table A-27 Sample 305 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-27
Table A-28 Sample 306 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-28
Table A-29 Sample 307 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-29
Table A-30 Sample 308 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-30
Table A-31 Sample 311 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-31
Table A-32 Sample 312 Resistivity Data Summary .............................................................. A-32
xv
12867128
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
1
INTRODUCTION
In the mid-1980s the Electric Power Research Institute published a comprehensive document
outlining a procedure for using an existing computer model to estimate the performance of a
cold-side utility fly ash electrostatic precipitator (ESP)(1). The purpose of this report is to update
this performance estimation procedure to predict changes in ESP performance (both cold-side
and hot-side) following fuel switching or fuel blending.
Generally, domestic coal sources consist of the following types – anthracite, eastern bituminous
(low sulfur), eastern bituminous (high sulfur), western sub-bituminous (low sulfur), Powder
River Basin, and lignite (Texas or North Dakota). Fuel switching and blending have become
quite commonplace as utilities strive to meet lower SO2 emission requirements, take advantage
of the low cost of PRB coals, or retrofit or install new cold-side ESPs to replace old hot-side
precipitators. Additionally, there is increased use of foreign coal sources, either wholly or
blended with domestic supplies. Alternate fuels such as petroleum coke and various biomass
choices (seed husks, switchgrass, etc.) are also providing challenges to ESP operators.
Site-specific data required for the ESP performance estimation procedure generally include:
•
Core-bore coal and ash analyses,
•
Values of precipitator mechanical dimensions, and
•
Values of gas temperature and gas volume flow rate.
New tools have been developed in the past several years to assist in estimating the remaining
data needed for the estimation procedure, if measured values are not available. These remaining
data consist of the following operating parameters, which influence precipitator performance:
•
Inlet fly ash mass loading,
•
Inlet particle size distributions,
•
Fly ash electrical resistivity, and
•
Precipitator voltage and current values.
The ESP operating parameters described above are used as input data for the electrostatic
precipitator performance model (ESPM, Windows-based) developed by EPRI (2,3) from the
original model (FORTRAN code) developed by Southern Research Institute under sponsorship
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (4,5).
The basic structure of this report will be centered around the presentation of case studies based
on various combinations of coal types and ESP configurations. The product of each case study
1-1
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Introduction
will be predicted particulate emission rates and stack opacities. There are several base cases
from which all alternate cases will proceed. The alternate cases will emphasize changes in coal
type, coal blends, and ESP variations. Example ESPM model results from the performance
estimation procedures will be presented for each case. Should the switches in fuel supply or ESP
configuration produce unacceptable increases in predicted particulate emission rates or opacity,
countermeasures will be proposed (and evaluated by ESPM) to bring the unit into compliance
(SO3 conditioning, humidification, SO3 plus ammonia conditioning, etc.).
How To Use This Report
As indicated by the title of this report, the purpose of this guideline document is to provide a
means for plant engineers and other interested parties to predict ESP performance variability
when fuel characteristics are altered. This report can best be used when the following steps are
followed.
•
Obtain a copy of the ESPM computer model from EPRI1.
•
Read this guideline document and become familiar with the illustrated cases and input and
output data.
•
Gather data for your specific boiler, ESP, and fuel supply. This will be the data set for your
own “base (standard) case.”
•
Input the data into ESPM and “calibrate” the model by adjusting the gas flow distribution
and sneakage parameters so that the model’s output matches the known performance data for
your system.
•
Obtain the properties of your new fuel source, blended fuels, alternate fuels, and other
changes you may have made in your ESP (hot-side to cold-side conversion, for example).
This report should assist you in determining the best particle size distribution input data to
use and the most accurate prediction of fly ash resistivity.
•
If fuel or ash data are not available, you may have to perform a test burn of the selected fuel
source to obtain accurate input information for the model.
•
Run the ESPM model to determine the impact of your anticipated fuel/ESP changes.
•
If the predicted performance is poor, use the ESP enhancement options listed in this report
and in other EPRI documents to improve predicted ESP performance.
The next section of this report illustrates this procedure with numerous examples. As indicated
earlier, a discussion of the newly developed ash resistivity correlation follows in Section 3, and
recommendations concerning the selection of appropriate particle size distributions follow in
Section 4. An appendix provides documentation of old and new laboratory data measured to
support the original development and recent revisions to the fly ash resistivity model.
1
ESPM 2.0, the current version, uses the old resistivity correlations. The case studies in Section 2 were developed
using this version. ESPM 3.0 will be released later in 2002 and will contain the new resistivity correlations. In the
meantime, users can override the calculated resistivity in ESPM 2.0 by entering a value obtained from Section 3 of
this report.
1-2
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
2
CASE STUDIES USING THE ESPM MODEL
Introduction
In this section the performance estimates of electrostatic precipitators described by various base
or standard case scenarios will be compared to performance estimates following switching to
either alternate fuel sources or following changes in the ESP configuration. ESP performance
estimates will be outlined from the output of the ESPM computer model. Specific regulatory
emission limits, as provided below, are met by all base (standard) cases. If these emission limits
are not met following fuel switching, counter measures will be suggested which will bring the
unit into compliance. To fully utilize the information and examples provided in this chapter, it is
assumed that the reader has a copy of the most recent version of the ESPM program, has read the
manual accompanying the software, and understands its use.
Base (Standard) Cases
Three standard case studies have been selected. Each will be described in detail below with the
specific input parameters for the ESPM model. In general terms the three standard case studies
can be differentiated as follows:
Plant #1
Megawatt Rating:
ESP Configuration:
SCA:
Coal Supply:
Emission Limits:
Plant #2
Megawatt Rating:
275-325 MWe
ESP Configuration: Medium to large size cold-side
2
SCA:
350 – 450 ft /kacfm
Low-Sulfur Eastern Bituminous
Emission Limits:
0.1 lb/MMBtu, 20% opacity (6 min. ave.)
Coal Supply:
Plant #3
275 - 325 MWe
Small size cold-side
200 – 250 ft2 /kacfm
High-Sulfur Eastern Bituminous
0.1 lb/MMBtu, 20% opacity (6 min. ave.)
Megawatt Rating:
275-325 MWe
ESP Configuration: Medium size hot-side
SCA:
250 – 300 ft2 /kacfm
Low-Sulfur Eastern Bituminous
Emission Limits:
0.1 lb/MMBtu, 20% opacity (6 min. ave.)
Coal Supply:
2-1
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
All emission limits are the same among the three plants. Boilers are T-fired or wall-fired
designs; cyclone boilers are not considered in this document. The ESPM computer model
requires input data in the following categories: General Parameters, Coal Parameters, Ash
Parameters, ESP Physical Parameters, Gas Properties at ESP Inlet, and Additional Parameters.
These data are included in tables presented in the subsections that follow. Fly ash resistivity
values used as input to the ESPM model are estimated (calculated) using Resistivity Model 3 as
described in Section 3 of this report. Electrostatic precipitator voltages and currents are
calculated using the EPRI PC Voltage/Current Correlation Model (4,5,6) see EPRI Report CS5040, Precipitator Performance Estimation Procedure.
Base (Standard) Case #1 and Alternate Fuels
This utility power plant consists of a moderate size boiler in the 275 to 325 megawatt range. The
plant has an older cold-side ESP of a generally small size with an SCA in the 200 to 250 ft2
/kacfm range. The plant is burning a high-sulfur Eastern Bituminous coal. Environmental
regulations require an outlet mass emission rate limit of 0.1 pounds per million Btu and a sixminute average stack opacity limit of 20%. The specific ESPM input parameters and model
results are listed in Table 2-1. A four-field ESP having a total specific collecting area of 227
ft2/kacfm is able to provide the necessary particulate collection efficiency. The fly ash resistivity
9
is low, 1.5 x 10 ohm-cm, and the ESP power levels are high. The average stack opacity is 7.5%,
while the particulate emission rate is 0.01 pounds per million Btu.
Alternate Fuel #1 - To illustrate the procedure to study the impact of alternate fuels on
precipitator operation and performance, it is assumed the plant is scheduled to switch to a lowsulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. All physical parameters of the four-field ESP from the
Base Case are maintained. The ESPM input data and model results are presented in Table 2-2.
The most obvious change is the dramatic increase in fly ash resistivity, from 1.50 x 109 ohm-cm
to 3.51 x 1011 ohm-cm, the reduction in overall ESP input power, and the change in the fly ash
particle size distribution. Poorer ESP performance would be expected and is supported by the
model results which predict an 8-fold increase in the mass emission rate, 0.01 to 0.078 lb/106
Btu, and an increase from 7.5% to 35% in stack opacity. If the ESP is not physically enlarged,
some type of flue gas conditioning will be required to bring this unit into compliance.
In order to get the ESP back into compliance, a flue gas conditioning agent is selected, sulfur
trioxide. An injection rate of 4 ppm is chosen. All other ESPM model input parameters remain
the same. The input data and results for this test are shown in Table 2-3. The sulfur trioxide
reduces the fly ash resistivity from 3.51 x 1011 to 1.19 x 1010 ohm-cm. Also, the ESP power
levels increase by almost an order of magnitude. This action reduces the mass emission rate
6
from 0.078 to 0.023 lb/10 Btu and the stack opacity from 35% to just under 15%. This action
brings the unit back into compliance.
A revised and updated fly ash resistivity model is being used to estimate resistivity values input
into the ESPM model for the examples described in this chapter. The resistivity prediction
correlations are discussed in detail in the following section (Section 3) of this report. In the
development of this updated model it was observed that for particular fly ash mineral
compositions the ash particles were deemed “hard-to-condition.” The model provides criteria
that, based on the ash mineral composition, offer the following three choices for the particular
2-2
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
ash in question: “easy to condition, “may be hard to condition”, and “probably hard to
condition.” This criteria may become active in situations where two different coals are blended,
as in the following examples.
Selecting the correct particle size distribution for a blend of two coals can be difficult, especially
if the coals are diverse, such as an eastern bituminous and a Powder River Basin low-sulfur coal.
For this report ESPM was allowed to select the appropriate size distribution based on the fly ash
chemistry. Alternately, if available, an actual size distribution histogram should be used based
on a measured particle size distribution during a test burn of the coal blend. Another technique is
to mathematically create a size distribution histogram from the differential mass size
distributions for the two individual coal ashes. By taking the appropriate percentage from each
size increment for each coal ash, a new blended differential mass size distribution can be
developed for a 50/50 blend situation. From this a new cumulative mass or percent distribution
can be generated. This new histogram can then be entered into ESPM.
Alternate Fuel #2 - Continuing with this base case, another possible scenario involving an
alternate fuel selection relates to a blended coal, 50% high-sulfur Eastern Bituminous and 50%
low-sulfur Powder River Basin. Following one of the two possible choices from resistivity
Model 3, the ash is treated as if it is dominated by the high-sulfur eastern fuel characteristics.
For this blend the ash resistivity drops by two orders of magnitude and the ESP power increases
dramatically. The ESPM input data and model results for this case are shown in Table 2-4. The
mass emission rate and stack opacity are even lower than those for the flue gas conditioning case
above, 0.014 lb/106 Btu and 9.8% opacity.
It may be that for the 50/50 blend of high-sulfur Eastern Bituminous coal and low-sulfur Powder
River Basin coal, the PRB coal dominates resulting in a high fly ash resistivity and low ESP
power levels. This scenario is described in Table 2-5 and corresponds to the hard-to-condition
ash case. For this case the fly ash resistivity jumps to 1.41 x 1011 ohm-cm and ESP power levels
are only about twice what they were with 100% PRB. The impact on emissions is as expected, a
high mass emission rate, 0.054 lb/106 Btu, half the allowable value, however, a stack opacity of
27.8%. It is likely that some type of mechanism for lowering ash resistivity will be required,
either injecting a chemical agent or humidification to lower flue gas temperature.
Alternate Fuel #3 – For this example, the alternate fuel is a foreign coal from Venezuela. The
physical configuration of the electrostatic precipitator has not changed. The ESPM input data
and model results are presented in Table 2-6. This is a low sulfur coal, but one that provides an
10
ash with a moderate resistivity, 5 x 10 ohm-cm. The ESP power levels are adequate. The
overall performance is generally good with an acceptable average stack opacity, 16.5%, and
mass emission rate, 0.028 lb/106 Btu.
Alternate Fuel #4 – Another alternate foreign fuel that is evaluated is one from South Africa.
The ESPM input data and model results for this coal are shown in Table 2-7. The overall
performance with this coal is much poorer than the Venezuelan coal. This is primarily due to the
10
12
two order of magnitude increase in the ash resistivity, from 5 x 10 to 2 x 10 ohm-cm. This
produces significantly lower power levels in the ESP, lower by about a factor of 6 in the first
field. The particle size distribution selected by ESPM is higher; however, this cannot overcome
the low power levels. This configuration is an obvious candidate for some type of flue gas
conditioning to reduce the ash resistivity and increase the ESP power levels.
2-3
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
In order to reduce the very high opacity, 75%, and mass emission rate, 0.25 lb/106 Btu, to
acceptable levels, the ash resistivity must be reduced. Injection of sulfur trioxide is one
candidate technology. Humidification could also be selected. In this example SO3 injection has
been chosen. The ESPM input data and model results are presented in Table 2-8. To achieve
reasonable performance levels, 10 ppm SO3 must be injected for this South African fly ash. This
reduces the ash resistivity almost four orders of magnitude and boosts ESP power levels 10-fold
on the inlet field. This has the necessary benefit because the predicted opacity now is 14.5%,
and the mass emission rate is 0.02 pounds per million Btu.
2-4
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-1
Base Case #1, High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-1. Base Case #1, High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
Hi Sulfur Coal
50
11613
138.9
%
%
%
%
45.4
34.61
11.28
8.71
%
%
%
%
%
64.55
4.12
7.26
1.25
2.83
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.5
1.50E+09
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.04
0.67
1.81
0.86
3.24
20.89
20.49
48.92
0.98
0.14
1.96
16
3.4
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-5
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-1. (continued) Base Case #1, High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
56.6633
44.75
1188
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
56.6633
45.01
2376
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
56.6633
42.65
2376
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
56.6633
39.8
2376
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,143,597
6.2
5.5
12.5
75.6
2034
8.1
4.71
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-6
12867128
0.00322
0.01
0.00271
7.5
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-2
Base Case #1, Switch from High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal to Low Sulfur Powder
River Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-2. Base Case #1, Switch from High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal to Low Sulfur Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
PRB
50
8870
182.5
%
%
%
%
22.8
45.3
26.5
5.5
%
%
%
%
%
51.27
3.83
11.76
0.72
0.44
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
0.9
3.51E+11
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.65
0.54
1.1
6.2
6.1
13.2
70.8
0.87
0.05
0.5
20.4
5.43
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-7
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-2. (continued) Base Case #1, Switch from High Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal to Low Sulfur
Powder River Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
36.27
204
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
35.29
289
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
34.93
428
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
32.73
546
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,229,253
9.5
5.5
12.2
72.8
355
1
5.0583
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-8
12867128
0.02349
0.078
0.0178
35
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-3
Base Case #1, Low Sulfur Powder River Basin Coal + 4 ppm S03, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-3. Base Case #1, Low Sulfur Powder River Basin Coal + 4 ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
PRB
50
8870
182.5
%
%
%
%
22.8
45.3
26.5
5.5
%
%
%
%
%
51.27
3.83
11.76
0.72
0.44
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
0.9
1.19E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.65
0.54
1.1
6.2
6.1
13.2
70.8
0.87
0.05
0.5
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-9
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-3. (continued) Base Case #1, Low Sulfur Powder River Basin Coal + 4 ppm SO3,
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
44.43
1527
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
43.3
2319
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
40.77
2198
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
52.7149
39.22
2900
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,229,253
9.5
5.5
12.2
72.8
355
1
5.0583
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-10
12867128
0.00689
0.023
0.00518
14.8
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-4
Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River Basin
Coal (Resistivity Treated if it is Dominated by the Eastern Ash), 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-4. Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River Basin Coal
(Resistivity Treated as if it is dominated by the Eastern Ash), 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
HiS/PRB
50
10241
157.8
%
%
%
%
34.1
39.96
18.89
7.11
%
%
%
%
%
57.91
3.98
9.51
0.99
1.64
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
0.9
3.20E+09
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.03
0.66
1.18
0.98
4.72
13.5
16.85
59.86
0.93
0.1
1.23
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-11
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-4. (continued) Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River
Basin Coal (Resistivity Treated as if it is dominated by the Eastern Ash), 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.8
44.8
1188
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.8
45
2376
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.8
42.7
2376
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.8
39.8
2376
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,183,276
7.7
5.5
12.3
74.3
1276
5
4.87
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-12
12867128
0.00418
0.014
0.00314
9.8
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-5
Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River Basin
Coal (Resistivity Treated as if Dominated by the Powder River Basin Coal), 4-Field Coldside ESP
Table 2-5. Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River Basin Coal
(Resistivity Treated as if dominated by the Powder River Basin Coal), 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
PRB/HiS
50
10241
157.8
%
%
%
%
34.1
39.96
18.89
7.11
%
%
%
%
%
57.91
3.98
9.51
0.99
1.64
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
0.9
1.41E+11
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.03
0.66
1.18
0.98
4.72
13.5
16.85
59.86
0.93
0.1
1.23
20.6
5.32
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-13
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-5. (continued) Base Case #1, 50/50 Blend of HS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River
Basin Coal (Resistivity Treated as if dominated by the Powder River Basin Coal), 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.7632
38.3
324
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.7632
37.3
468
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.7632
36.4
614
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
54.7632
34.4
790
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,183,276
7.7
5.5
12.3
74.3
1276
5
4.87
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-14
12867128
0.01646
0.054
0.01249
27.8
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-6
Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal, 4-Field
Cold-side ESP
Table 2-6. Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal,
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
Venezuelan Coal
50
12490
129.3
%
%
%
%
50
34.9
7.3
7.8
%
%
%
%
%
71.5
4.8
6.3
1.4
0.9
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.5
5.04E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.54
1.92
2.38
3.49
8.77
21.88
56.31
0.92
0.19
3.59
16
3.4
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-15
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-6. (continued) Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal,
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
40.8
987
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
39.7
1456
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
38.2
1668
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
36.3
2169
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,176,777
5.9
5.5
12.5
76
591
2
4.82
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-16
12867128
0.00872
0.028
0.00737
16.5
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-7
Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal, 4-Field
Cold-side ESP
Table 2-7. Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal,
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
South African
50
11151
144.7
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.1
2.01E+12
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.35
0.75
1.5
6.26
4.4
26.83
50.28
1.44
1.41
0.5
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-17
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-7. (continued) Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
32.7
156
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
31.8
213
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
32.3
396
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
29.9
496
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,172,648
5.5
5.5
13
75.9
443
2
4.82
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown inbold type.
2-18
12867128
0.07675
0.245
0.05735
74.9
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-8
Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal, Inject 10
ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-8. Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal,
Inject 10 ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant A #1
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
South African
50
11151
144.7
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.1
9.70E+07
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.35
0.75
1.5
6.26
4.4
26.83
50.28
1.44
1.41
0.5
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-19
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-8. (continued) Base Case #1, Switch from HS Eastern Bituminous Coal to
LS South African Coal, Inject 10 ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
44.75
1620
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
45.01
3240
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
42.65
3240
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
39.8
3240
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,172,416
5.5
5.5
13
75.9
443
10
4.82
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-20
12867128
0.00611
0.02
0.00458
14.5
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Base (Standard) Case #2 and Alternate Fuels
This utility power plant consists of a moderate size boiler in the 275 to 325 megawatt range. The
plant has a fairly new medium-sized, cold-side ESP. Its SCA is in a range of 350 to 450
ft2/kacfm. The plant is burning a low-sulfur Eastern Bituminous coal. Environmental
regulations require an outlet mass emission rate limit of 0.1 pounds per million Btu and a sixminute average stack opacity limit of 20%. The specific ESPM input parameters and model
results are listed in Table 2-9. A six-field ESP having a total specific collecting area of 395
ft2/kacfm is able to provide the necessary particulate collection efficiency, even though the fly
11
ash resistivity is high, 1.5 x 10 ohm-cm, and the ESP power levels are moderate. The average
stack opacity is 15.1%, while the particulate emission rate is 0.022 pounds per million Btu.
Alternate Fuel #1 - To illustrate the procedure to study the impact of alternate fuels on
precipitator operation and performance, it is assumed the plant is scheduled to switch to a low
sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. All physical parameters of the six-field ESP from the
Base Case are maintained. The ESPM input data and model results are presented in Table 2-10.
Because of the size of the ESP, it is able to handle this switch to Powder River Basin coal, even
though the ash resistivity increases by a factor of two, and the overall SCA of the ESP is reduced
from 395 to 370 because of the higher gas volume flow rate. One beneficial result of the coal
switch is that the fly ash concentration entering the ESP decreases. The overall result is that
there is actually a net improvement in performance. The average stack opacity is now 13.6%,
while the mass emission rate is 0.022 lb/106 Btu.
Alternate Fuel #2 – Another alternate fuel could be a foreign fuel, such as a Venezuelan coal.
The ESPM input data and model results from a switch from LSEBC to a Venezuelan coal is
shown in Table 2-11. All of the mechanical design parameters for the 6-field cold-side ESP
remain the same. The power levels in the ESP are quite adequate and this is reflected in the
results. The average stack opacity and mass emission rate are very low. The ESP has no
problem with this fuel. The opposite extreme is shown in the next example.
Alternate Fuel #3 – For this example a switch to a South African coal is made. The ESPM
input data and model results are presented in Table 2-12. Compared to the Venezuelan coal, the
resistivity of the South African coal ash is almost two orders of magnitude higher. While the
particle size distribution is larger for this ash, the low sulfur content and high resistivity result in
very low ESP power levels. The power level in the first field is almost 8 times lower for this ash
compared to the Venezuelan ash. These poor power levels translate to very poor particulate
collection efficiency, even for this 6-field ESP. Both the mass emission rate and stack opacity
6
are above the regulatory limits, 0.108 lb/10 Btu and 52.4%, respectively. Some type of means
for reducing the fly ash resistivity and increasing ESP power levels will be required to bring this
unit into compliance, even thoughthis ESP is relatively large.
One method for improving ESP performance with the South African coal is to inject a small
amount of sulfur trioxide. For this example 4 ppm SO3 appears to work well. The ESPM input
data and model results are presented in Table 2-13. The sulfur trioxide conditions the fly ash and
reduces the fly ash resistivity by almost two orders of magnitude, down to an acceptable level of
10
6 x 10 ohm-cm. This, in turn, dramatically increases the power levels in the electrostatic
precipitator, boosting secondary current values by a factor of 3 or 4. This reduces the mass
emission rate by a factor of 10, down to 0.009 lb/106 Btu, and lowers the stack opacity from 52%
to 7.5%.
2-21
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-9
Base Case #2, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-9. Base Case #2, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Plant B #2
Megawatts, Gross
300
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
T
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate % (Btu/kw) 10400
Stack Exit Diameter
Feet
20
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
Model Calculated
Low Sulfur Eastern
mm
50
Btu/lb
12132
T/hr
%
%
%
%
47.53
34.24
6.05
12.18
%
%
%
%
%
68.86
4.62
6.36
1.29
0.65
gr/acf
W-cm
at °F
3
gm/cm
2.1
1.50E+11
320
2.27
Y/N
mm
sg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.03
0.64
1.35
1.06
1.26
4.5
29.2
58.96
1.7
0.5
0.4
15.9
3.6
Ash Chemistry
Li2 O
Na2 O
K2 O
MgO
CaO
Fe2 O3
Al2 O3
SiO2
TiO2
P2 O5
SO3
2-22
12867128
132.6
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-9. (continued) Base Case #2, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
1
2
3
150
150
150
36
36
36
6
6
6
64800 64800
64800
0.109
0.109
0.109
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
2
ft /kacfm 55.9596 56.6633 56.6633
37.16
36.31
killovolts 38.17
427
616
815
milliamps
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
4
5
6
150
150
150
36
36
36
6
6
6
64800
97200 97200
0.109
0.109
0.109
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
12
12
56.6633 83.9393 83.9393
34.26
32.42
32.42
1048
2203
2203
.
Model Calculated
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
sg
in.
mm
320
1,157,979
5.7
5.5
12.6
76.1
479.4
1.9
4.77
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
0.0068
0.022
0.00587
15.1
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-23
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-10
Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River Basin Coal, 6Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-10. Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River Basin Coal,
6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Plant B #2
Megawatts, Gross
300
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
T
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate % (Btu/kw) 10400
Stack Exit Diameter
Feet
20
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
PRB
50
8870
182.5
%
%
%
%
22.8
45.3
26.5
5.5
%
%
%
%
%
51.27
3.83
11.76
0.72
0.44
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
3
gm/cm
0.9
3.51E+11
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.65
0.54
1.1
0.62
0.61
13.2
70.8
0.87
0.05
0.5
20.6
5.31
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2 O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P2O5
SO3
2-24
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-10. (continued) Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
1
2
3
4
5
6
150
150
150
150
150
150
36
36
36
36
36
36
6
6
6
6
6
6
64800 64800 64800
64800
97200 97200
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
0.109
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
12
12
ft2/kacfm 52.7149 52.7149 52.7149 52.7149 79.0724 79.0724
35.32
34.95
32.75
31.96
31.96
killovolts 36.29
280
397
586
748
1903
1903
milliamps
.
Model Calculated
o
F
320
acfm
1,229,253
9.5
%
%
5.5
12.2
%
%
72.8
355
ppm
ppm
1.4
5.0583
ft/sec
atm
0.9853
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
0.00624
0.021
0.00479
13.6
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-25
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-11
Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal, 6-Field
Cold-side ESP
Table 2-11. Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal,
6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Plant B #2
Megawatts, Gross
300
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
T
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate % (Btu/kw) 10400
Stack Exit Diameter
Feet
20
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
Model Calculated
Venezuelan
µm
50
Btu/lb
12490
T/hr
%
%
%
%
50
34.9
7.3
7.8
%
%
%
%
%
71.5
4.8
6.3
1.4
0.9
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.4
5.04E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.54
1.92
2.38
3.49
8.77
21.88
56.31
0.92
0.19
3.59
16
3.4
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P2O5
SO3
2-26
12867128
129.3
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-11. (continued) Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal,
6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
40.8
987
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
39.7
1456
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
38.2
1668
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
36.3
2169
5
150
36
6
97200
0.109
9
9
12
82.9
33
3554
6
150
36
6
97200
0.109
9
9
12
82.9
33
3554
.
Model Calculated
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,176,777
5.9
5.5
12.5
76
591
2
4.77
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
0.00093
0.003
0.00079
2.5
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-27
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-12
Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal, 6-Field
Cold-side ESP
Table 2-12. Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal,
6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Plant B #2
Megawatts, Gross
300
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
T
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate % (Btu/kw) 10400
Stack Exit Diameter
Feet
20
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
Model Calculated
South African
µm
50
Btu/lb
11151
T/hr
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.1
2.01E+12
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.37
0.8
1.6
6.68
4.69
28.62
53.64
1.54
1.5
0.53
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P2O5
SO3
2-28
12867128
144.7
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-12. (continued) Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African
Coal, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
32.7
156
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
31.79
213
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
32.28
396
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
29.85
496
5
150
36
6
97200
0.109
9
9
12
82.9
28.83
899
6
150
36
6
97200
0.109
9
9
12
82.9
28.83
899
.
Model Calculated
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,172,416
5.5
5.5
13
75.9
443
2
4.77
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
0.03392
0.108
0.02574
52.4
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-29
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-13
Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal, Inject
4ppm SO3, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-13. Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal,
Inject 4 ppm SO3, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Plant B #2
Megawatts, Gross
300
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
T
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate % (Btu/kw) 10400
Stack Exit Diameter
Feet
20
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
Model Calculated
South African
µm
50
Btu/lb
11151
T/hr
144.7
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.1
5.97E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.37
0.8
1.6
6.68
4.69
28.62
53.64
1.54
1.5
0.53
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P2O5
SO3
2-30
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-13. (continued) Base Case #2, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to
LS South African Coal, Inject 4 ppm SO3, 6-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
40.35
680
2
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
39.29
1000
3
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
37.88
1171
4
150
36
6
64800
0.109
9
9
8
55.3
35.99
1520
5
150
36
6
97200
0.109
9
9
12
82.9
32.94
2588
6
150
36
6
97200
0.109
9
9
12
82.9
32.94
2588
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,172,416
5.5
5.5
13
75.9
443
4
4.83
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
0.0028
0.009
0.00212
7.5
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-31
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Base (Standard) Case #3 and Alternate ESP Configuration and Fuels
This utility power plant consists of a moderate size boiler in the 250 to 350 megawatt range. The
plant has a 1970’s era medium-sized, hot-side ESP. Its SCA is in a range of 250 to 300
ft2/kacfm. The plant is burning a low-sulfur Eastern Bituminous coal. Environmental
regulations require an outlet mass emission rate limit of 0.1 pounds per million Btu and a sixminute average stack opacity limit of 20%. The specific ESPM input parameters and model
results are listed in Table 2-14. A four-field ESP having a total specific collecting area of 266
ft2/kacfm is able to provide the necessary particulate collection efficiency because the fly ash
8
resistivity is low, 4.8 x 10 ohm-cm, and the ESP power levels are fairly high. The average stack
opacity is 9.5%, while the particulate emission rate is 0.024 pounds per million Btu. In fact, the
ESP would probably suffer from the sodium depletion process, and performance could decline
and become unacceptable after a period of weeks or months of operation.
Alternate Fuel #1 - To illustrate the procedure to study the impact of alternate fuels on
precipitator operation and performance, it is assumed the plant is scheduled to switch to a low
sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. All physical parameters of the four-field ESP from the
Base Case are maintained. The ESPM input data and model results are presented in Table 2-15.
This hot-side ESP is able to tolerate the switch in fuel quite well. While the ash resistivity
increases slightly, there is an overall increase in the particle size distribution. The ESP power
levels remain the same. The model results indicate that the performance of the ESP will actually
improve slightly. The opacity and mass emission rate are lower compared to the base case, 8.1%
and 0.02 lb/106 Btu, respectively. However, as in the base case, this estimate is made for ash in
the fresh condition before sodium depletion occurs. The performance could become marginal
after an extended period of operation.
Alternate Fuel #2 – Another choice as an alternate fuel could be a foreign coal, such as one
from Venezuela. In this example a low-sulfur Venezuelan coal is investigated. The physical
parameters of the hot-side ESP remain constant. The ESPM input data and model results are
presented in Table 2-16. The particle size distribution of the Venezuelan coal is predicted to be
smaller than that of the PRB coal ash. The inlet mass loading is higher for the Venezuelan coal
ash. However, the resistivity is slightly lower for the Venezuelan coal ash; and hence, the
calculated voltages and currents end up higher for the Venezuelan coal. Therefore, the overall
performance is almost identical to that for the Powder River Basin coal
Alternate Fuel #3 – A second foreign fuel to be considered could be a South African coal. In
this case it is a low-sulfur coal, slightly lower than the Venezuelan coal. The ESPM input data
and model results are shown in Table 2-17. While the fly ash resistivity increases by about a
factor of five over the Venezuelan coal ash, the value is still quite low resulting in good ESP
power levels. The ESPM model selects a larger overall particle size distribution for the South
African coal ash compared to the Venezuelan coal ash. Overall performance is very good with
6
low opacity and mass emission rate values, 14.9% and 0.034 lb/10 Btu, respectively. The
original coal and the three alternate choices do not appear to pose any performance issues for the
4-field hot-side ESP. Again, sodium depletion could result in unacceptable performance after an
extended period of operation.
2-32
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Hot-side to Cold-side ESP Conversion – While the performance of the four hot-side ESP
examples above appear very good, it has already been noted that hot-side ESPs suffer from
sodium depletion. Depending on how rapidly this phenomenon occurs, your hot-side ESP may
quickly become a candidate for conditioning with sodium sulfate or sodium carbonate to increase
the sodium levels in the ash and improve overall ESP performance. One of the techniques for
dealing with anticipated poor ESP performance when switching fuels is to convert to cold-side
ESP operation. In this particular example, the original low-sulfur Eastern Bituminous coal
continues to be used while switching to a cold-side configuration. The ESPM input data and
model results are shown in Table 2-18. The physical attributes of the ESP remain the same.
Several changes are observed in the input data. The SCA increases from 266 to 344 ft2/kacfm
because of the reduced gas volume, the fly ash resistivity increases about three orders of
magnitude because of the low flue gas temperature and SO3 content in the flue gas, and the ESP
power levels are significantly lower. Nevertheless, the ESP is able to provide acceptable
performance levels, 17.8% stack opacity and 0.031 lb/106 Btu mass emission rate. Apparently,
the larger SCA is able to overcome the lower ESP power levels and high ash resistivity.
Alternate Fuel #1 – The next test is to determine how the new cold-side ESP will perform with
a Powder River Basin fuel. The ESPM input data and model results are presented in Table 2-19.
The most significant changes involve the lower ESP power levels and the larger inlet particle
size distribution. The fly ash resistivity is only slightly higher. The lower power levels and large
particle sizes appear to offset each other, because the overall performance, while somewhat
worse than with the low-sulfur Eastern Bituminous coal, is still within the regulatory limits. A
larger operating margin would be provided by some type of gas conditioning, as demonstrated
with Base Case #1 above.
Alternate Fuel #2 – Another possible fuel choice would be a blend of the Eastern Bituminous
and Powder River Basin low-sulfur coals. A 50/50 blend was selected for this example. The
ESPM input data and model results are presented in Table 2-20. As expected, these results are
very similar to both the low sulfur Eastern Bituminous and Powder River Basin performance
data. The main reason for the generally good performance is the SCA and power levels in the
precipitator. To gain an additional performance margin, steps could be taken to lower the fly ash
resistivity by reducing gas temperature or increasing the sulfur trioxide level in the flue gas.
Alternate Fuel #3 – Another alternate fuel which could be used in this configuration is one from
Venezuela. It is a low-sulfur coal. The ESPM input data and model results are presented in
Table 2-21. The calculated resistivity of the fly ash is lower than that for the low sulfur blend or
the Powder River Basin coal ash. While the SO3 level is low and the model-selected particle size
distribution has a small MMD, the overall ESP power levels are the highest for any cold-side
ESP scenario described for this base case. The ESPM model results are quite good. The
6
predicted stack opacity is 7.5%, and the predicted mass emission rate is 0.012 lb/10 Btu.
Alternate Fuel #4 – As would be expected from the results shown in Base Case #1 for the South
African coal ash and the 4-field cold-side ESP, the performance for this particular ESP with
South African coal ash is very poor. The ESPM input data and model results are shown in Table
2-22. The poor performance is caused by the very high ash resistivity, 2 x 1012 ohm-cm. This
depresses the power levels in the ESP, almost four times lower than those for the Venezuelan
coal ash. The larger particle size distribution selected by the model for this ash does not help
2-33
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
particularly. The average predicted stack opacity is over 50%, while the mass emission rate
exceeds 0.1 lb/106 Btu. This ESP is a candidate for a technology to reduce the fly ash resistivity.
One method for improving ESP performance with the South African coal is to inject a small
amount of sulfur trioxide. For this example 4 ppm SO3 appears to work well. The ESPM input
data and model results are presented in Table 2-23. The sulfur trioxide conditions the fly ash and
reduces the fly ash resistivity by almost two orders of magnitude, down to an acceptable level of
6 x 1010 ohm-cm. This in turn dramatically increases the power levels in the electrostatic
precipitator, boosting secondary current values by a factor of 5 or 6. This reduces the mass
emission rate by a factor of 5, down to 0.024 lb/106 Btu, and lowers the stack opacity from 51%
to 17%.
2-34
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-14
Base Case #3, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP
Table 2-14. Base Case #3, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
LSEBC
50
11613
132.6
%
%
%
%
47.53
34.24
6.05
12.18
%
%
%
%
%
68.86
4.62
6.36
1.29
0.65
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.3
4.78E+08
740
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.03
0.64
1.36
1.06
1.27
4.52
29.32
59.2
1.71
0.5
0.4
15.2
4.19
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-35
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-14. (continued) Base Case #3, Low Sulfur Eastern Bituminous Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
44.8
1620
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
45
3240
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
42.7
3240
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
39.8
3240
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
740
1,534,075
6.7
3
14.6
75.6
557
2
4.01
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-36
12867128
0.00568
0.024
0.00482
9.5
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-15
Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River Basin Coal, 4Field Hot-side ESP
Table 2-15. Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River Basin Coal,
4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
PRB
50
8870
182
%
%
%
%
22.8
45.3
26.5
5.5
%
%
%
%
%
51.3
3.8
11.8
0.7
0.4
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
0.6
1.50E+09
740
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.65
0.54
1.1
6.2
6.1
13.2
70.8
0.87
0.05
0.5
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-37
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-15. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
62.8
44.8
1620
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
62.8
45
3240
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
62.8
42.7
3240
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
62.8
39.8
3240
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
740
1,624,036
11.1
3
14.1
71.8
413
2
4.01
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-38
12867128
0.00443
0.02
0.00342
8.1
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-16
Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal, 4-Field
Hot-side ESP
Table 2-16. Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal,
4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
Venezuelan
50
12490
128.9
%
%
%
%
50
34.9
7.3
7.8
%
%
%
%
%
71.5
4.8
6.3
1.4
0.9
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.3
1.13E+09
740
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.54
1.92
2.38
3.49
8.77
21.88
56.31
0.92
0.19
3.59
15.4
4.02
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-39
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-16. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Venezuelan Coal,
4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
65.6
44.8
2160
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
65.6
45
4320
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
65.6
42.7
4320
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
65.6
39.8
4320
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
740
1,554,058
6.8
3
14.6
75.6
687
3
4.05
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6)
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-40
12867128
0.00474
0.02
0.00401
8.3
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-17
Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal, 4-Field
Hot-side ESP
Table 2-17. Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS South African Coal,
4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
South African
50
11151
144.3
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.4
5.93E+09
740
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.37
0.8
1.6
6.68
4.69
28.62
53.64
1.54
1.5
0.53
20.7
5.19
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-41
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-17. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to
LS South African Coal, 4-Field Hot-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
44.8
2160
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
45
4320
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
42.1
3847
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
66.5
39.8
4320
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
740
1,548,651
6.4
3
15.1
75.4
514
2
4.05
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-42
12867128
0.00805
0.034
0.00603
14.9
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-18
Base Case #3, LS Eastern Bituminous Coal, Switch from 4-Field Hot-side ESP to 4-Field
Cold-side ESP
Table 2-18. Base Case #3, LS Eastern Bituminous Coal, Switch from 4-Field Hot-side ESP to
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
LSEBC
50
11613
133
%
%
%
%
47.53
34.24
6.05
12.18
%
%
%
%
%
68.86
4.62
6.36
1.29
0.65
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.1
1.40E+11
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.03
0.64
1.36
1.06
1.27
4.52
29.32
59.2
1.71
0.5
0.4
15.7
3.84
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-43
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-18. (continued) Base Case #3, LS Eastern Bituminous Coal, Switch from 4-Field Hot-side ESP to
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86
38.2
427
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86
37.2
619
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86
36.3
817
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86
34.3
1051
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,185,437
5.7
5.5
12.6
76.1
479
1.9
3.1
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-44
12867128
0.00969
0.031
0.00825
17.8
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-19
Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River Basin Coal, 4Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-19. Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River Basin Coal,
4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
PRB
50
8870
182.5
%
%
%
%
22.8
45.3
26.5
5.5
%
%
%
%
%
51.3
3.8
11.8
0.7
0.4
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
0.9
3.51E+11
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.65
0.54
1.1
6.2
6.1
13.2
70.8
0.87
0.05
0.5
20.1
5.66
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-45
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-19. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from LS Eastern Bituminous Coal to LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
82.9
36.3
204
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
82.9
35.3
289
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
82.9
34.9
428
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
82.9
32.7
546
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,229,253
9.5
5.5
12.2
72.8
355
1.4
3.22
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-46
12867128
0.01062
0.035
0.00812
19.5
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-20
Base Case #3, Switch to 50/50 Blend of LS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-20. Base Case #3, Switch to 50/50 Blend of LS Eastern Bituminous Coal and LS Powder River
Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
LSEC/PRB
50
10501
153.9
%
%
%
%
35.17
39.77
16.28
8.84
%
%
%
%
%
60.07
4.23
9.06
1.01
0.55
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.5
7.51E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.03
0.65
0.95
1.08
3.73
5.3
21.2
64.88
1.29
0.28
0.45
20.6
5.26
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-47
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-20. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch to 50/50 Blend of LS Eastern Bituminous Coal and
LS Powder River Basin Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
85.6
39.8
445
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
85.6
38.8
651
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
85.6
37.5
785
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
85.6
35.6
1017
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,190,481
7.4
5.5
12.4
74.7
464
2
3.11
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-48
12867128
0.00937
0.031
0.0071
18.9
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-21
Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River Basin
Blend to Venezuelan Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-21. Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River Basin Blend
to Venezuelan Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
Venezuelan
50
12490
129.3
%
%
%
%
50
34.9
7.3
7.8
%
%
%
%
%
71.5
4.8
6.3
1.4
0.9
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
1.4
5.04E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.54
1.92
2.38
3.49
8.77
21.88
56.31
0.92
0.19
3.59
15.6
3.85
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-49
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-21. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River
Basin Blend to Venezuelan Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.6
40.8
987
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.6
39.7
1456
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.6
38.2
1668
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.6
36.3
2169
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,176,777
5.9
5.5
12.5
76
591
2
3.08
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-50
12867128
0.00364
0.012
0.00309
7.5
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-22
Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River Basin Coal
Blend to South African Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-22. Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River Basin Coal
Blend to South African Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
South African
50
11151
144.7
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.09
2.01E+12
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.37
0.8
1.6
6.68
4.69
28.62
53.64
1.54
1.5
0.53
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-51
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-22. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River
Basin Coal Blend to South African Coal, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
32.7
156
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
31.8
213
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
32.3
396
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
39.9
496
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,172,416
5.53
5.5
12.99
75.94
443
2
3.07
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-52
12867128
0.03477
0.111
0.02616
51.2
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-23
Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River Basin Coal
Blend to South African Coal, Inject 4ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
Table 2-23. Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River Basin Coal
Blend to South African Coal, Inject 4 ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
General Parameters
Unit Being Modeled
Megawatts, Gross
Boiler Type, T Fired, Wall Fired, Etc.
Estimated Thermal Efficiency or Heat Rate
Stack Exit Diameter
Coal Parameters
Mine Name
Mean Coal Diameter
Heating Value
Fuel Feed Rate
Proximate Analysis, as Received
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Moisture
Ash
Ultimate Analysis, As Received
C
H2
O2
N2
S
Ash Parameters
ESP Inlet Concentration
Calculated Ash Resistivity
Ash Density
Particle Size
Log Normal
Mass Median Diamerter Entering ESP
Geometric Standard Deviation
% (Btu/kw)
Feet
Plant C #3
300
T
10400
20
Model Calculated
µm
Btu/lb
T/hr
South African
50
11151
144.7
%
%
%
%
52.6
25.7
10
12
%
%
%
%
%
65.9
3.6
6.6
1.6
0.6
gr/acf
Ω−cm
at °F
gm/cm3
2.1
5.97E+10
320
2.27
Y/N
µm
σg
Y
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
0.02
0.37
0.8
1.6
6.68
4.69
28.62
53.64
1.54
1.5
0.53
21
4.8
Ash Chemistry
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P 2O 5
SO3
2-53
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Case Studies Using the ESPM Model
Table 2-23. (continued) Base Case #3, Switch from 50/50 LS Eastern Bituminous Coal/LS Powder River
Basin Coal Blend to South African Coal, Inject 4 ppm SO3, 4-Field Cold-side ESP
ESPM Input Data
ESP Parameters
Field Number
Number of Gas Passages
Plate Height
Collecting Plate Length
Collecting Plate Area
Discharge Electrode(Effective) Diameter
Wire to Plate Spacing
Wire to Wire Spacing
Number of Wires per Gas Passage
SCA of Section
Secondary Voltages
Secondary Currents
--Feet
Feet
Sq. Ft.
Inches
Inches
Inches
ft2/kacfm
killovolts
milliamps
1
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
40.35
1070
2
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
39.29
1574
3
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
37.88
1843
4
236
36
6
101952
0.109
9
9
8
86.9
35.99
2391
.
Gas Properties at ESP Inlet
Gas Temperature
Gas Volumetric Flow Rate
Moisture Content
Oxygen Content
Carbon Dioxide Content
Nitrogen Content
Sulfur Dioxide Content
Sulfur Trioxide Content
Gas Velocity in ESP
Gas Pressure
Model Calculated
o
F
acfm
%
%
%
%
ppm
ppm
ft/sec
atm
Additional Parameters
Gas Velocity Standard Deviation
Electrode Misalignment
Fraction Misaligned
Aerodynamic Sneakage
Rap Reentrainment Fraction
Particle MMD (Rap)
Geometric Standard Dev. (Rap)
Core Turbelent Number
σg
in.
µm
320
1,172,648
5.53
5.5
12.99
75.94
443
4
3.07
0.9853
0.15
0
0
0.05
0.05
6
1.5
1
Results of the ESPM Model
Emissions:
gr/acf
lb/MMBtu
PM10; gr/acf
Opacity, %
Notes:
Fly ash resistivity calculated from Resistivity Model 3 (see Chapter 3).
ESP voltages and currents calculated from EPRI PC Correlation Model (4, 5, 6).
All model calculated values shown in bold type.
2-54
12867128
0.00752
0.024
0.00562
16.6
EPRI Licensed Material
3
RESISTIVITY MODEL REVISIONS AND AN EXAMPLE
CALCULATION FOR FLY ASH RESISTIVITY
Introduction
Methods for predicting resistivity were developed by Dr. Roy E. Bickelhaupt during the late 70’s
and early 80’s. These models were based on correlations that he established between resistivity
and fly ash compositions for specific laboratory test conditions. Although coal ash analyses can
be used, the predictors are based on fly ash analyses. These include projected resistivities with
SO3 conditioning. [The projected effects of SO3 conditioning are based on equilibrium values in
the laboratory and may not be achieved in the field. This is especially true for gas temperatures
above 325 degrees F (160 degrees C).] The data set available to Dr. Bickelhaupt at the time for
developing the SO3 related parts of the correlations was limited to only ten ashes. In addition, the
tools for data analysis that could be employed practically at the time were restricted as well. As a
consequence, the set of correlations for the effects of SO3 used an either/or choice of two slopes
for predicting the effect of changing SO3 concentration and a table containing six discrete values
for the effect of temperature on resistivity in the presence of SO3. In Dr. Bickelhaupt’s model,
changes in the slopes of resistivity versus temperature and SO3 concentration occurred at a set of
breakpoints at particular concentrations of iron, lithium plus sodium, and magnesium plus
calcium in the ash. Near these breakpoints, small changes in the concentration of one or more of
these elements could cause large changes in the resistivity predicted by the model for any given
SO3 concentration and gas temperature.
Early Work on Predictive Resistivity Correlations
Dr. Roy Bickelhaupt’s study of the electrical resistivity of coal fly ash began in the early 1970s.
This work focused on the study of volume conduction and surface conduction in fly ash. Test
data indicated that for fly ashes consisting principally of a glassy phase, the volume conduction
process was similar to that of common glass. It was determined that conduction occurs by an
ionic mechanism in which the alkali metal ions serve as charge carriers (in the absence of
sulfuric acid vapor). His research showed that the electrical resistivity was inversely proportional
to the combined molecular concentration of lithium and sodium (7). Dr. Bickelhaupt conducted
additional experiments demonstrating that surface conduction takes place by an ionic mechanism
in which the alkali metal ions serve as the principal charge carriers. It was observed that the
surface resistivity was inversely proportional to the concentration of these alkali metal ions (in
the absence of sulfuric acid vapor). Previously, it had been generally accepted that surface
conduction occurred by an electrolytic or ionic mechanism dependent principally on the physical
and chemical adsorption of certain species on the ash surface to produce a conducting film. Dr.
3-1
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Bickelhaupt’s research showed that the role of the environment is no less important in that these
factors control the release of the alkali metal ions (8).
The results of Dr. Bickelhaupt’s research on surface and volume conduction mechanisms
provided the basic tools for developing a method for predicting fly ash resistivity based on the
chemical composition of the ashes. To provide a complete set of data for developing these
correlations, an exhaustive study of 35 coal fly ashes was conducted in the late 1970s. From this
group, sixteen ashes were selected to investigate the effect of the variation in flue gas moisture
concentration and ash layer electric field strength on resistivity. Eight of these ashes were further
utilized in experiments to determine the effect of sulfur trioxide on resistivity. By combining the
expressions defining the effects of these three factors on resistivity with the basic expression for
resistivity as a function of ash composition, correlations were developed to allow the prediction
of fly ash resistivity as a function of temperature knowing the ash composition, water and sulfur
trioxide concentrations, and the ash layer field strength. This work was published in 1979 (9).
The laboratory tests showed that resistivity was strongly correlated to the concentrations of
lithium, sodium, iron, calcium, and magnesium in the ashes. Strong correlations were also shown
with moisture levels and sulfur trioxide concentrations. Mathematical expressions were
developed relating volume resistivity to ash composition and surface resistivity to temperature
and water vapor concentration. These were combined as a sum of parallel resistances. A
mathematical expression was developed relating acid resistivity to temperature and sulfur
trioxide concentration. Using the expression for parallel resistances, the surface-volume
resistivity expression was combined with the acid resistivity expression to form the final
predictive relationship.
Refinements in the Original Model
The original model developed in 1979 was labeled Model 1. Between 1980 and 1985 laboratory
data relevant to the resistivity prediction model were periodically obtained. Usually these data
simply verified previous observations. However, a series of tests were conducted using fly ashes
having high concentrations of calcium and magnesium that showed extra sensitivity to water
vapor concentration with respect to resistivity. This deviation from the previous resistivity/water
vapor correlation used in Model 1 was incorporated into the computer program. This new
program was designated Model 1A (10).
In 1986 a new fly ash resistivity predictive tool was published, Model 2 (10). The basis for the
development of this new model was a better understanding of the influence of sulfur trioxide on
resistivity and the dependence of its influence on the concentration of alkali metals in the ash. In
the course of development of Model 2 ten new ashes were thoroughly characterized both
chemically and physically. The parameters investigated included fly ash composition, sulfuric
acid concentration (1 ppm to 10 ppm), water concentration (5% and 10%), temperature (115°C to
200°C), and field strength intensity (2 kV/cm to 12 kV/cm). The principal type of experiment
was the determination of resistivity at three temperatures for three concentrations of sulfuric acid
vapor (1, 4, and 10 ppm).
In 1990 Dr. Bickelhaupt updated the program slightly to account for observations relative to the
combined concentrations of magnesium and calcium. At this point there were three criteria for
3-2
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
the selection of the slope of the acid resistivity curve as a function of reciprocal absolute
temperature. New data and observations made since Model 2 was published demonstrated that
predictions could be improved by altering a trigger point set by the concentration of calcium.
With this change, the model, now designated Model 2A (11), showed better agreement with
observation, and it became somewhat more conservative. A review of these earlier models has
been published by EPRI. (12)
Purpose of This New Research Effort
Users of the several resistivity predictor models over the last twenty years have found Model 1 to
be the most conservative, generally predicting the highest resistivity for normal ranges of ash
constituent concentrations. It has been found, for all models, however, that even small changes in
the concentrations of certain constituents, [Mg + Ca] or [Na +Li] for example, can result in large
step changes in the predicted value of resistivity. Effects of this type are illustrated in Figures 3-1
and 3-2 in which the calculations were carried out for slight changes in the concentration of
sodium. The development of revisions in the model to eliminate or smooth these unrealistic
changes in resistivity has been the primary goal of this effort. In addition, coal blending is very
common in the utility industry today. The current models may or may not work well with these
blends. Incorporating additional coal blends into the sample database was another goal of this
revision effort.
Physical and chemical properties of sixteen new coal and fly ash samples were measured to
expand the database upon which the next-generation resistivity model was to be based. These
data, including the original data sets developed by Dr. Bickelhaupt for Models 1 and 2, are
presented for completeness in Appendix A. A detailed description of the laboratory test program
and results has been published by EPRI (13).
Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity
All of the current models start with the calculation of flue gas and fly ash constituent
concentrations using coal ultimate and ash mineral analyses. The steps in these calculations can
be summarized as follows:
Step 1: Calculate elemental concentrations as “Atomic Concentrations” (or cationic percentages)
for the metals (cations) found in the ash analysis. The results of ash analyses for metals are
generally provided by analytical laboratories in terms of concentrations as oxides in weight
percent and must be transformed to the needed atomic concentrations. The steps required to
perform these transformations are given below.
a.
Normalize the weight percentages to sum 100% by dividing each specified oxide
percentage by the sum of the oxide percentages.
b.
Divide each oxide percentage by the respective molecular weight of the oxide to obtain
mole fractions.
3-3
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
c.
Divide each mole fraction by the sum of the mole fractions and multiply by 100 to obtain
the molecular percentages as oxides.
d.
Multiply each molecular percentage as oxide by the decimal fraction of cations in the
given oxide to obtain the atomic concentrations.
Step 2: Calculate flue gas composition
Step 3: Calculate estimated SO3 concentration based on SO2 concentration.
Step 4: Calculate volume resistivity of the ash based on the atomic concentrations of cations.
Step 5: Calculate the surface resistivity.
Step 6: Calculate the combined volume and surface resistivity.
Step 7: Calculate the direct H2SO4 (SO3) acid concentration in order to calculate the resistivity at
the actual (or estimated) flue gas SO3 concentration.
Step 8: Calculate the combined volume, surface, and acid resistivity.
Specific Fly Ash Resistivity Calculations
Calculation of Volume Resistivity
This correlation for the volume contribution to resistivity is used identically in all resistivity
models (Models 1, 1A, 2, 2A, and 3). The resistivity, ρvol, governing volume conduction through
the bodies of the particles is given by the following expression (Note: the log function as used
here and throughout the following discussions is logarithm base 10):
log(ρvol) = 8.9434 - 1.8916 * log(Li + Na) - 0.9696 * log(Fe) + 1.237 * (log(Mg + Ca) –
0.39794) - 0.03 * (E - 2) - 6.9352 + (4334.5 / T)
or
ρvol = 10(8.9434 - 1.8916 * log(Li + Na) - 0.9696 * log(Fe) + 1.237 * (log(Mg +Ca) – 0.39794) - 0.03 * (E - 2) - 6.9352 + (4334.5 / T))
where
ρvol = volume resistivity,
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin, and
E = electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm.
3-4
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
The value of the electric field strength, E, is set to either 4 kV/cm, representing a value typical of
conditions in the laboratory, or 12 kV/cm, representing a value typical of electrostatic
precipitator operation. No other values of the electric field strength are allowed. Li, Na, Fe, Mg,
and Ca are the atomic concentrations of the respective elements in the ash.
Calculation of Surface Resistivity
The resistivity, ρsurf, governing conduction through the surface layer(s) of the particles comes
into play only if the moisture content is greater than zero; otherwise it is effectively infinite. The
primary difference in the models for ρsurf is the way they are dependent on the concentrations of
magnesium plus calcium. The later Models 1A, 2, 2A, and 3 calculate a lower surface resistivity
for high [Mg + Ca] concentrations (> 10) than the original Model 1.
When the moisture content of the gas is non-zero and if [Mg + Ca] <= 10, ρsurf is given for
Models 1A, 2, 2A, and 3 by the expression
log(ρsurf) = 10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237*
H2O – 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T)
or
ρsurf = 10(10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237* H2O - 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T)).
When the moisture content of the gas is non-zero and if [Mg + Ca] > 10, ρsurf is given for
Models 1A, 2, 2A, and 3 by the expression
log(ρsurf) = 10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) + 0.56 - 0.056 * (Mg + Ca) 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237* H2O - 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T)
or
ρsurf = 10
(10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) + 0.56 - 0.056 * (Mg + Ca) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237* H2O - 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T))
where
H2O = volume percent moisture in flue gas,
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin, and
E = electric field strength in the ash layer expressed as kV/cm.
The value of the electric field strength, E, is set to either 4 kV/cm, representing a value typical of
conditions in the laboratory, or 12 kV/cm, representing a value typical of electrostatic
precipitator operation. No other values of the electric field strength are allowed. Li, Na, Mg,
and Ca are the atomic concentrations of the respective elements in the ash.
3-5
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
For Model 1 the value of the surface resistivity, ρsurf , regardless of the magnitude of [Mg +
Ca], is given by the expression
log(ρsurf) = 10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237*
H2O – 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T)
or
ρsurf = 10(10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237* H2O - 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T))
where
H2O = volume percent moisture in flue gas,
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin, and
E = electric field strength in the ash layer expressed as kV/cm.
The value of the electric field strength, E, is set to either 4 kV/cm, representing a value typical of
conditions in the laboratory, or 12 kV/cm, representing a value typical of electrostatic
precipitator operation. No other values of the electric field strength are allowed. Li and Na are
the atomic concentrations of the respective elements in the ash.
Calculation of the Net Combined Resistivities for Volume Plus Surface
Conduction
The combined contributions of ρvol and ρsurf are calculated by treating the two as resistors in
parallel. This calculation applies to all versions of the model and represents the resistivity in the
absence of SO3. If the moisture content is zero, there is no contribution from surface conduction
and the combined resistivity is equal to ρvol. Otherwise, the combined resistivity, ρVS, is given
by the expression
1/ρVS = 1/ρvol + 1/ρsurf or ρVS = (ρvol * ρsurf) / (ρvol + ρsurf).
Calculation of the Direct Contribution of SO3
The acid dewpoint, TADP, is not used directly in the calculations of fly ash resistivity. However, it
is important to know this value. The acid resistivity should not be calculated if the flue gas
temperature is below the acid dewpoint. Specifically, these acid resistivity calculations given in
the following section are applicable only if the gas temperature is above the acid dewpoint. If
the gas temperature falls below the dewpoint, the actual resistivity in the presence of the acid
may be significantly lower than that calculated by any of the models. (ln is used here to
designate the natural-logarithm function or log base e.)
3-6
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
1/TADP = (0.002276 - 2.943E-05 * ln(H2O * Pduct / 100) - 0.0000858 * ln(SO3 * 0.000001 *
Pduct) + 0.0000062 * ln(H2O * Pduct / 100) * ln(SO3 * 0.000001 * Pduct))
where TADP = the acid dewpoint in degrees Kelvin,
H2O = volume percent water vapor in the flue gas,
SO3 = parts-per-million by volume of SO3 in the flue gas, and
Pduct = absolute pressure in the flue gas duct (mm Hg).
Calculation of Acid Resistivity
The sequence of calculations used to model the effect of SO3 conditioning (acid resistivity) is the
same in both the old and new models. The specific details for each model are presented in the
following subsections below.
1. Calculate the resistivity at a temperature of 144 °C (291 °F) in an atmosphere containing 4
ppm SO3 and 10% moisture by volume. This calculation is based on fits to the “normal” ash
and “hard-to-condition” ash data points shown in Figure 3-3. These results differ slightly
from Models 2 and 2A because of the added data points used in the fits; however, the
fundamental basis for the calculations remains the same. The choice between the “normal”
and “hard-to-condition” curves was made at this point in Models 2 and 2A based on the sum
of the “atomic” concentrations of Mg+Ca and the atomic concentration of Fe. The criteria for
making this selection picked up only one of the two hard-to-condition ashes in the original
data set.
2. Calculate the effect of SO3 concentration(s) for values other than 4 ppm. In Models 2, 2A,
and 3 this effect is accommodated through a multiplier of log(SO3). In Models 2 and 2A this
multiplier had one of two values depending on the atomic concentrations of Mg+Ca and Fe.
In Model 3 the multiplier is calculated as a continuous function of the atomic concentrations
of Mg+Ca, Fe, Li+Na, K, and native sulfur in the ash; the function having been determined
by means of multiple regression analysis on the combined database.
3. Define the slope of resistivity versus temperature. In Models 2 and 2A, table look-ups are
used based on the atomic concentrations of Li, Na, Mg, Ca, and Fe together with the gasphase SO3 concentration. If the atomic concentration of Li+Na is greater than 1 and the
atomic concentration of Mg+Ca is greater than 5 then the temperature slope, depending on
SO3 concentration is -4.74 or -4.85. If the atomic concentration of Fe is less than 1 and the
atomic concentration of Mg+Ca is less than 5 then the temperature slope is set to -28.4.
Finally, if neither of the former conditions is true, the temperature slope is set to a value in
the range of –8.7 to –10.6.
In Model 3 the temperature slope is calculated as a continuous function of the atomic
concentrations of Mg+Ca, Fe, Li+Na, K, Al+Si, and SO3 in the flue gas. Again, the function was
determined by means of multiple regression analysis on the combined database.
3-7
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
This acid resistivity calculation applies to only Model 1 and Model 1A. Different sets of
parameters are used for this calculation depending on the atomic concentrations of Mg, Ca, and
K. These elements directly affect the ash’s affinity for acid.
If [Mg +Ca] > 3.5 and [K] < 1, typical of a western coal ash, the direct contribution to resistivity
by SO3, ρacid, is given by the equation
log(ρacid) = 12.1612- (0.3712 * CSO3) + 5.6673 * (2.37 – 1000/T) – 0.03 * (E - 2)
or
ρacid = 10
(12.1612- (0.3712 *CSO3) + 5.6673 * (2.37 – 1000/T) – 0.03 * (E - 2))
where
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin,
CSO3 = the concentration of SO3 in the flue gas in parts-per-million, and
E = the electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm.
The value of the electric field strength, E, is set to either 4 kV/cm, representing a value typical of
conditions in the laboratory, or 12 kV/cm, representing a value typical of electrostatic
precipitator operation. No other values of the electric field strength are allowed.
Otherwise, for the case in which [Mg + Ca] <=3.5 or [K] =>1, values which are typical for an
eastern coal ash,
log(ρacid) = 12.9676 - (0.3075 * CSO3) + 10.1048 * (2.37 – 1000/T) – 0.03 * (E - 2)
or
ρacid = 10
(12.9676 - (0.3075 * CSO3) + 10.1048 * (2.37 – 1000/T) – 0.03 * (E - 2))
.
where
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin,
CSO3 = the concentration of SO3 in the flue gas in parts-per-million, and
E = the electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm.
The value of the electric field strength, E, is set to either 4 kV/cm, representing a value typical of
conditions in the laboratory, or 12 kV/cm, representing a value typical of electrostatic
precipitator operation. No other values of the electric field strength are allowed.
3-8
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Note: The use of “and” in the text above and throughout this document means that both of the
conditions involved must be met simultaneously. The use of “or” means that either condition
may be met. An obvious limitation to this model is the fact that step changes in resistivity can
occur at the break points between these conditional statements concerning the concentrations of
these ash constituents. This concern also applies to the discussion of Models 2 and 2A below.
This acid resistivity calculation applies only to Model 2 and Model 2A. Again, different sets
of parameters are used for this calculation depending on the atomic concentrations of several
cations. In this case these are Mg, Ca, Li, Na, and Fe. The direct contribution to resistivity by
SO3, ρacid, for these versions of the model is given by the equations below.
Condition 1: [Mg + Ca] < 5 and [Fe] < 1
At the reference conditions used in the laboratory for developing the correlations the electric
field strength was 4kV/cm and the correlation function for ρacid is
log(ρacid) = 2.6354 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-5) *0.60206 + (-5) * log(CSO3) –
(RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T
or
ρacid = 10(2.6354 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-5) *0.60206 + (-5) * log(CSO3) - (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T).
For an electric field strength of 12 kV/cm, a typical target condition for ESP operation, the
correlation function for ρacid becomes
log(ρacid) = 1.95 + 0.76 * (2.6354 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-5) * 0.60206 +
(-5) * log(CSO3) - (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)
and
ρacid = 10(1.95 + 0.76 * (2.6354 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-5) * 0.60206 + (-5) * log(CSO3) - (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)),
where
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin,
ρVS244 = value of ρVS as calculated above for a temperature of 416.67 degrees Kelvin,
E = the electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm, and
CSO3 = the concentration of SO3 in the flue gas in parts-per-million.
3-9
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Condition 2: All other combinations of [Mg + Ca] and [Fe] values
At the reference conditions used in the laboratory for developing the correlations the electric
field strength was 4kV/cm and the correlation function for ρacid is
log(ρacid) = 0.2915 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-2.0502) *0.60206 + (-2.0502) *
log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T
or
ρacid = 10(0.2915 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-2.0502) *0.60206 + (-2.0502) * log(CSO3) - (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T).
For an electric field strength of 12 kV/cm, a typical target condition for ESP operation, the
correlation function for ρacid becomes
log(ρacid) = 1.95 + 0.76 * (0.2915 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-2.0502) *
0.60206 (-2.0502) * log(CSO3) - (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)
and
(1.95 + 0.76 * (0.2915 + 0.7669 * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – (-2.0502) * 0.60206 + (-2.0502) * log(CSO3) - (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T))
ρacid = 10
,
where
Τ = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin,
ρVS244 = value of ρVS as calculated above for a temperature of 416.67 degrees Kelvin,
E = the electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm, and
CSO3 = the concentration in the flue gas in parts-per-million.
The value of RTSlope depends on the concentrations of Li, Na, Mg, Ca, and the concentration of
SO3. If [Li + Na] > 1 and [Mg + Ca] >= 5 then the following values are obtained depending on
the SO3 concentration:
SO3
< 2.75
2.75 – 6.5
> 6.5
RTSlope
- 4.74
- 4.85
- 4.85
If [Fe] <1 and [Mg + Ca] < 3 in the case of Model 2 or [Fe] <1 and [Mg + Ca] < 5 in the case of
Model 2A,
RTSlope = -28.39.
3-10
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
The difference between the values of [Mg + Ca] at which the above slope change occurs is the
only difference between Model 2 and Model 2A.
If neither of the above conditions with respect to [Li + Na], [Mg + Ca], and Fe are met, the
following values are used for RTSlope depending on the SO3 concentration:
SO3
< 2.75
2.75 – 6.5
> 6.5
RTSlope
- 8.67
- 9.71
-10.59
In all cases, if the value of log(ρacid) obtained by these calculations is greater than 25, the Models
2 and 2A set the value at 25.
This acid resistivity calculation applies only to Model 3. Again, different sets of parameters
are used for this calculation depending on the concentrations of several cations. In this case these
are Mg, Ca, Li, Na, K, AL, Si and S. S here refers to the atomic concentration of sulfur in the
original ash prior to the introduction of SO3 vapor to the sample. The specific set of equations to
use in Model 3 to calculate acid resistivity depends on whether the ash is difficult to condition.
Condition 1: The ash is difficult to condition (see criteria below).
The direct contribution to resistivity by SO3, ρacid, for Model 3 is given by the equations below.
At the reference conditions used in the laboratory for developing the correlations the electric
field strength was 4kV/cm and the correlation function for ρacid is
log(ρacid) = -1.4253 + (1.0858) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 +
RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T
or
(-1.4253 + (1.0858) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)
ρacid = 10
.
For an electric field strength of 12 kV/cm, a typical target condition for ESP operation, the
correlation function for ρacid becomes
log(ρacid) = 1.95 + 0.76 * (-1.4253 + (1.0858) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope *
0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)
and
(1.95 + 0.76 * (-1.4253 + (1.0858) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T))
ρacid = 10
,
3-11
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
where
RASlope and RTSlope are calculated below,
ρVS244 = value of ρVS as calculated above for a temperature of 416.67 degrees Kelvin,
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin,
E = the electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm, and
CSO3 = the SO3 concentration in the flue gas in parts-per-million.
The value of RASlope depends on the atomic concentrations of Li, Na, Mg, Ca and Fe, K, and S
as given below.
RASlope = -(10
(0.444161 - 0.32591*log(Mg + Ca) – 0.20964*log(Fe)– 0.25399*log(Li + Na) – 0.16518*log(K) + 0.283781*(S))
)
The value of RTSlope depends on the atomic concentrations of Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, Fe, Al, Si,
and the concentration of SO3 vapor in the gas stream, CSO3, as given below. Currently the best
available indicator for an ash being difficult to condition is the value of RTSlope. If RTSlope<–
14, the ash is probably one that is difficult to condition and if RTSlope<–11, the ash may be
difficult to condition.
RTSlope = -(10(2.34683 + 0.07734*log(CSO3) – 0.41572*log(Li + Na) – 0.33556*log(K) – 0.59776*log(Mg + Ca) – 0.01400*log(Fe) – 0.85569*log(Al + Si)))
If the value of log(ρacid) obtained by these calculations is greater than 25, Model 3 sets the value
at 25.
Condition 2: The ash is not difficult to condition (see criteria below).
The direct contribution to resistivity by SO3, ρacid, for Model 3 is given by the equations below.
At the reference conditions used in the laboratory for developing the correlations the electric
field strength was 4kV/cm and the correlation function for ρacid is
log(ρacid) = -0.2575 + (0.8008) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 +
RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T
or
ρacid = 10(-0.2575 + (0.8008) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T).
For an electric field strength of 12 kV/cm, a typical target condition for ESP operation, the
correlation function for ρacid becomes
3-12
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
log(ρacid) = 1.95 + 0.76 * (-0.2575 + (0.8008) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope *
0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)
and
ρacid = 10(1.95 + 0.76 * (-0.2575 + (0.8008) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)),
where
RASlope and RTSlope are calculated below,
ρVS244 = value of ρVS as calculated above for a temperature of 416.67 degrees Kelvin,
T = gas temperature in degrees Kelvin,
E = the electric field strength in the dust layer expressed in kV/cm, and
CSO3 = the SO3 concentration in the flue gas in parts-per-million.
The value of RASlope depends on the atomic concentrations of Li, Na, Mg, Ca and Fe, K, and S
as given below.
RASlope = -(10
(0.444161 - 0.32591*log(Mg + Ca) – 0.20964*log(Fe)– 0.25399*log(Li + Na) – 0.16518*log(K) + 0.283781*(S))
)
The value of RTSlope depends on the atomic concentrations of Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, Fe, Al, Si,
and the concentration of SO3 vapor in the gas stream, CSO3, as given below. Currently the best
available indicator for an ash being difficult to condition is the value of RTSlope. If RTSlope<–
14, the ash is probably one that is difficult to condition and if RTSlope<–11, the ash may be
difficult to condition.
RTSlope = -(10(2.34683 + 0.07734*log(CSO3) – 0.41572*log(Li + Na) – 0.33556*log(K) – 0.59776*log(Mg + Ca) – 0.01400*log(Fe) – 0.85569*log(Al + Si)))
If the value of log(ρacid) obtained by these calculations is greater than 25, Model 3 sets the value
at 25.
Calculation of the Combined Surface, Volume, and Acid Resistivity
The combined contributions of ρVS and ρacid are calculated by treating the two as resistors in
parallel. The combined resistivity, ρVSA, resulting from all three mechanisms (volume, surface,
and acid) is given by the expression
1/ρVSA = 1/ρVS + 1/ρacid or ρVSA = ρVS * ρacid / (ρVS + ρacid).
3-13
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Estimation of SO3 Concentration When It Has Not Been Measured
Models 1 and 1A use a value of 0.4 percent of the SO2 concentration for all coals. That is,
(Estimated SO3) = (Actual SO2) * 0.004.
Models 2 and 2A differentiate between eastern ([Mg + Ca] < 5) and western ([Mg + Ca] >= 5)
coals/ashes. In the case of eastern coals/ashes, as before in Models 1 and 1A,
(Estimated SO3) = (Actual SO2) * 0.004.
However, for western coals/ashes,
(Estimated SO3) = (Actual SO2) * 0.001.
Further, in Models 2 and 2A, if the ash content of the coal is greater than ten percent (10 %), the
estimated SO3 concentration in either case is revised as follows:
(Revised estimated SO3) = (Estimated SO3) * (1 – 0.011 * ([Percent Ash in Coal] – 10)).
An option has been added in Model 3 for PRB (Powder River Basin) coals as follows:
(Estimated SO3) = (Actual SO2) * 0.0005.
Other Considerations
The concentration ranges, as percentages by weight, of the ash components used in developing
Model 3 are given below. All versions of the model share the same algorithm for calculating the
resistivity of the ash alone (that is, without SO3 conditioning). The concentration ranges of the
ash components used in generating the latter are those shown under the heading “REB Base” in
the table below. The concentration ranges of the ashes used in developing the various SO3
conditioning algorithms are shown under the headings “REB SO3” and “Pooled EPRI & REB
SO3” in the table. Use of the model for ashes for which component concentrations fall outside
these ranges may lead to questionable and unrealistic results. In particular, the new model
should not be used if any component concentration falls outside the ranges under “Pooled EPRI
& REB SO3” by more than about ten percent (10%) of the range limits. (For instance, if the
concentration of Na2O were below 0.17 (0.19 - 0.19/10) or above 4.4 (4 + 4/10) the new model
should not be used.)
3-14
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Concentration Ranges as Weight-Percentages in the Ash for the Samples Used to Generate the
Resistivity Model DataBases
REB Base
Pooled EPRI & REB SO3
REB SO3
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Minimum
Maximum
Li2O
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.1
0.01
0.1
Na2O
0.22
9.7
0.19
2.8
0.19
4
K2O
0.2
4.4
0.32
3.1
0.32
4.3
MgO
0.3
8.9
0.59
6.3
0.59
6.3
CaO
0.3
32.2
0.56
30.9
0.56
30.9
Fe2O3
0.7
23.6
3.9
21.4
3.9
21.4
Al2O3
10.0
31.5
19.8
32.8
14.4
32.8
SiO2
22.6
63.4
30.8
59
27.4
59
TiO2
0.7
5.5
0.84
2.3
0.84
2.7
P2O5
0.1
1.4
0.09
1.1
0.09
1.6
SO3
0.2
11
0.16
4.1
0.16
4.1
The models in all their forms were developed from actual flyash samples, primarily from
pulverized-coal fired boilers. The use of ashes from other types of sources may lead to
questionable results. SO3 concentrations in samples obtained by ashing coal in the laboratory
have been found in this work to be six-fold higher than in actual flyash samples formed from the
same coal in pulverized-coal fired boilers. Thus, when the model is used to predict resistivity
from laboratory-ashed coal, the SO3 concentration should be reduced by a factor of six.
Figures 3-4 and 3-5 show predicted resistivities at 10 ppm SO3 as calculated using Model 2A and
Model 3, respectively, for ash from James River coal (an eastern bituminous coal), Jacobs Ranch
coal (a Powder River Basin western coal), and ash from the combustion of three blends of the
two coals. The smoother transitions between the ash types provided by the model are apparent,
as is the somewhat better agreement between predicted and measured values provided by the
new model. Figure 3-6 compares average unsigned errors in the slopes of the predicted resistivity
versus temperature curves for Models 2A and Model 3. As can be seen, the new model is better
in all cases and is substantially better when dealing with the new ashes. Figure 3-7 compares the
number of cases in which predictions from Model 2A or Model 3 were closer to the measured
values for the various data sets. Again, the new model is clearly superior on the whole. (14)
An Example Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity Using Model 3
The equations given previously for calculating resistivity are mathematical representations of
empirical correlations of laboratory measurements of fly ash resistivity. These equations can be
used in hand calculations or in development of a mathematical spreadsheet for the calculation of
fly ash resistivity. The purpose of the following paragraphs is to describe a tutorial example. A
hand calculation is somewhat tedious because of the need to do preliminary calculations of the
flue gas composition and the atomic concentrations of metal elements in the fly ash. For further
explanations of these preliminary calculations, the user is referred to Chapter 6 of the Babcock &
Wilcox steam manual. (See footnote 1)
3-15
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
The example coal and fly ash analyses to be used in the example are shown in Table 3-1. (See
footnotes 2 and 3) The first step is the calculation of the stoichiometric flue gas composition, as
demonstrated in Table 3- 2. The second step is the conversion of the ash analysis from weight
percent concentrations to atomic percent concentrations, as demonstrated in Table 3-3. The third
step is to calculate the volume, surface, and adsorbed acid resistivities. These resistivities are
added according to parallel circuit theory to give the total predicted resistivity of the fly ash.
Table 3-1
As-Received, Ultimate Coal Analysis and Fly Ash Analysis used in the Example
Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity
Coal Constituents
Ultimate Analysis
(weight % (as received))
Ash Constituents
Ash Composition
(weight %)
Carbon
68.00
Li2O
0.01
Hydrogen
3.86
Na2O
0.96
Oxygen
6.00
K2O
2.43
Nitrogen
1.00
MgO
0.78
Sulfur
1.20
CaO
2.62
Moisture
3.60
Fe2O3
7.76
Ash
16.34
A12O3
17.85
SiO2
61.00
TiO2
0.62
P2O5
0.55
SO3
2.43
TOTAL
97.01
TOTAL
100.00
____________________________________
1. Babcock & Wilcox. Steam/Its Generation and Use. Babcock & Wilcox, New York, NY, 10017. 38th Edition,
1972.
2. Coal ash shall be re-ignited at 1050°C, in still air overnight, in order that its chemical analysis will correspond to
that of actual fly ash.
3. R. E. Bickelhaupt. A Technique for Predicting Fly Ash Resistivity. EPA-600/7 79-204. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711. August 1979. NTIS PB80-102379.
4. The laboratory measurements of fly ash resistivity were performed with an applied electric field of 2 or 4 kV/cm.
The laboratory data correlations have been adjusted to a higher value (12 kV/cm) of electric field that more nearly
represents the operating condition of a fly ash electrostatic precipitator.
3-16
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Table 3-2
Calculation of Stoichiometric Flue Gas Composition
A. Calculation of combustion products, air, and O2 for 100% combustion.
Coal
Constituent
Ultimate
analysis
lb/100 lb fuel
C
H2
O2
N2
S
H20
Ash
68.00
3.86
6.00
1.00
1.20
3.60
16.34
Total
100.00
Molecular
weight
/
/
/
/
/
/
-
12.01
2.02
32
28.01
32.06
18.02
-
Moles per
100 lb fuel
=
=
=
=
=
=
5.662
1.911
0.188
0.036
0.037
0.200
-
1
Multipliers
Moles/100 lb fuel
required for
combustion
at 100% total air
O2
Dry air
X
X
X
1.00 and 4.76
0.50 and 2.38
-1.00 and -4.76
5.662
0.956
-0.188
26.951
4.548
-0.895
X
1.00 and 4.76
0.037
0.176
6.467
30.780
8.034
B. Calculation of dry air and O2 for 30% excess air
O2 and dry air x 130/100 total
Excess air = 40.014 - 30.780
Moles/100 lb fuel
required for
combustion
at 30% excess air
Dry air
O2
8.407
40.014
9.234
Excess O2 = 8.407 - 6.467
1.940
-
C. Calculation of flue gas composition
Products of combustion
Flue gas
Constituent
CO2
Total
moles/100 lb fuel
Combustion / Fuel / Air
5.662
% by volume % by volume
wet basis
dry basis
13.406
14.412
=
5.662
=
2.949
6. 983
=
0.037
0. 088
0.094
=
31.647
74.931
80.555
=
1.940
4. 593
4.938
Sum wet
=
42. 235
Sum dry = 42.235 - 2.949
=
39. 286
a
H2O
1.911 + 0.200 + 0.838
SO2
0.037
b
0.036 + 31.611
N2
1.94
O2
___________________
a. Moles H20 in air = (40.014 x 29 x 0.013) /18 = 0.838.
b. Moles N2 in air = (40.014 x 0.79) = 31.611.
3-17
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Table 3-3
Conversion of Weight Percent Analyses of Ash to Molecular Percent as Oxides and
Catatonic Percent
Step 1:
Normalize the weight percentages to sum 100% by dividing each specified percentage by
the sum of the specified percentages.
Step 2:
Divide each oxide percentage by the respective molecular weight to obtain the mole
fractions.
Step 3:
Divide each mole fraction by the sum of the mole fractions and multiply by 100 to obtain
the molecular percentages as oxides.
Step 4:
Multiply each molecular percentage by the decimal fraction of cations in the given oxide
to obtain the atomic concentrations.
Oxide
Specified
Weight %
Normalized Molecular
Weight %
Weight
Mole
Fraction
Molecular
Percentage
Cationic
Fraction
Atomic
Concentration
of Cation
Li20
0.01
0.01
29.88
0.00034
0.024
0.67
0.016
Na20
0.96
0.99
61.98
0.01600
1.116
0.67
0.744
K20
2.43
2.50
94.20
0.02654
1.854
0.67
1.236
Mg0
0.78
0.80
40.31
0.01985
1.387
0.50
0.694
Ca0
2.62
2.70
56.08
0.04815
3.364
0.50
1.682
Fe203
7.76
8.00
159.70
0.05009
3.500
0.40
1.400
Al203
17.85
18.40
101.96
0.18046
12.608
0.40
5.043
Si02
61.00
62.89
60.09
1.04660
73.123
0.33
24.368
Ti02
0.62
0.64
79.90
0.00801
0.560
0.33
0.186
P205
0.55
0.57
141.94
0.00402
0.281
0.29
0.080
S03
2.43
2.50
80.06
0.03123
2.183
0.25
0.546
Total
97.01
100.00
1.43129
100.000
3-18
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Example Calculation of Fly Ash Resistivity Using Model 3
ρvol = 10(8.9434 - 1.8916 * log(Li + Na) - 0.9696 * log(Fe) + 1.237 * (log(Mg +Ca) – 0.39794) - 0.03 * (E - 2) - 6.9352 + (4334.5 / T))
ρsurf = 10(10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237* H2O - 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T))
1/ρVS = 1/ρvol + 1/ρsurf
1/ρVSA = 1/ρVS + 1/ρacid
Definition of Symbols
ρvol = volume resistivity (ohm-cm)
ρsurf = surface resistivity (ohm-cm)
ρacid = adsorbed acid resistivity (ohm-cm)
ρVS = volume and surface resistivity (ohm-cm)
ρVSA = total resistivity (ohm-cm)
Li+Na = percent atomic concentration of lithium plus sodium
Fe = percent atomic concentration of iron
Mg+Ca = percent atomic concentration of magnesium plus calcium
K = percent atomic concentration of potassium
Al+Si = percent atomic concentration of aluminum plus silicon
S = percent atomic concentration of sulfur
T = absolute temperature (K)
W = moisture in flue gas (volume %)
CSO3 = concentration of SO3 (ppm, dry)
E = applied electric field (kV/cm)
CSO2 = concentration of SO2 (ppm, dry
3-19
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Values for Specific Parameters
Li + Na = 0.016 + 0.744 = 0.76
Fe = 1.40
Mg + Ca = 0.694 + 1.682 = 2.376
Al + Si = 5.043 + 24.368 = 29.411
K = 1.236
S = 0.546
T = 417°K (Example gas temperature = 291°F)
W = 6.983
CSO3 = (0.004) * CSO2, dry = (0.004)(940) = 3.76 ppm, dry
E = 12 (See footnote 4 above)
Calculation of Volume Resistivity
ρvol = 10(8.9434 - 1.8916 * log(Li + Na) - 0.9696 * log(Fe) + 1.237 * (log(Mg +Ca) – 0.39794) - 0.03 * (E - 2) - 6.9352 + (4334.5 / T))
ρvol = 10(8.9434 - 1.8916 * log(0.76) - 0.9696 * log(1.40) + 1.237 * (log(2.376) – 0.39794) - 0.03 * (12 - 2) - 6.9352 + (4334.5 / 417))
= 1.443 x 1012 ohm-cm
Calculation of Surface Resistivity
The moisture content of the flue gas is non-zero and [Mg+Ca] <= 10, therefore,
ρsurf = 10
(10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(Li + Na) - 0.128 * (H2O - 9) - 0.03 * (E - 2) + 0.127237* H2O - 0.000320924* H2O*exp(2303.3 /T))
ρsurf = 10(10.7737 - 2.2334 * log(0.76) - 0.128 * (6.983 - 9) - 0.03 * (12 - 2) + 0.127237* 6.983 - 0.000320924* 6.983*exp(2303.3 /417))
11
= 2.114 x 10 ohm-cm
Calculation of Acid Resistivity
It must be determined if the ash is difficult to condition. This can be accomplished by
determining the value of RTSlope.
3-20
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
RTSlope = -(10(2.34683 + 0.07734*log(CSO3) – 0.41572*log(Li + Na) – 0.33556*log(K) – 0.59776*log(Mg + Ca) – 0.01400*log(Fe) – 0.85569*log(Al + Si)))
Substituting the appropriate values,
RTSlope = -(10(2.34683 + 0.07734*log(3.76) – 0.41572*log(.76) – 0.33556*log(1.236) – 0.59774*log(2.376) – 0.01400*log(1.4) – 0.85569*log(29.411)))
RTSlope = -(10
(0.926694)
)
RTSlope = – 8.446796, therefore the ash is not hard to condition.
Prior to calculating ρacid, the values for ρVS244 and RASlope must be determined. Using the values
of ρvol and ρsurf calculated above
12
11
12
11
ρVS244 = (ρvol * ρsurf) / (ρvol + ρsurf) = (1.656 x 10 * 2.427 x 10 ) / (1.656 x 10 + 2.427 x 10 )
ρVS244 = 1.844 x 1011 ohm-cm.
RASlope = -(10
(0.444161 - 0.32591*log(Mg + Ca) – 0.20964*log(Fe)– 0.25399*log(Li + Na) – 0.16518*log(K) + 0.283781*(S))
)
Substituting in the appropriate values gives
RASlope = -(10(0.444161 - 0.32591*log(2.376) – 0.20964*log(1.40)– 0.25399*log(0.76) – 0.16518*log(1.236) + 0.283781*(0.546)))
RASlope = -2.891019.
The appropriate Model 3 expression for calculating the acid resistivity is given by
ρacid = 10(1.95 + 0.76 * (-0.2575 + (0.8008) * log(ρVS244) + 0.03 * (E – 4) – RASlope * 0.60206 + RASlope * log(CSO3) – (RTSlope * 2.4) + RTSlope * 1000/T)).
Substituting in the appropriate values,
ρ
= 10(1.95 + 0.76 * (-0.2575 + (0.8008) * log(2.117 x 1012) + 0.03 * (12 – 4) – (-2.891023)* 0.60206 + (-2.891023) * log(3.76) – (– 8.446832 * 2.4) + (– 8.446832) *
acid
1000/417))
and
ρacid = 10
(9.463991)
ρacid = 7.320 x 108 ohm-cm.
Having calculated the volume resistivity, surface resistivity, and acid resistivity for this example,
the combined surface, volume, and acid resistivity value, ρvsa, can be calculated.
1/ρvsa = 1/ρvs + 1/ρa
1/ρvsa = 1/(1.844 x1011) + 1/(7.320 x108)
= 1.3716 x10-9
so
ρvsa = 7.291 x 108 ohm-cm.
3-21
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Resistivity, ohm-cm
1.E+11
1.E+10
1.E+09
Model 2A - 10 ppm, 1.07 % [Na+Li]
Model 2A - 10 ppm, 0.96 % [Na+Li]
Model 3 - 10 ppm, 1.07 % [Na+Li]
Model 3 - 10 ppm, 0.96 % [Na+Li]
1.E+08
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Temperature
Figure 3-1
Comparison of predicted results from Models 2A and Model 3 (the new model developed
from the extended set of samples) for an ash formed in the SRI Coal Combustion Facility
at an SO3 concentration of 10 ppm. The measured sum of sodium and lithium in the ash,
expressed as “atomic percentage,” was 1.07 %. The two versions of the model were each
run twice—once using the measured sodium concentration and once using a reduced
value of the sodium concentration that made the [Atomic Na + Atomic Li] concentration
fall just below a 1.0 % breakpoint at which a change occurs in the Model 2/2A correlations.
As can be seen, a dramatic change can be made in the results from Model 2/2A for small
changes in composition in some instances. These abrupt changes do not occur in the new
model.
3-22
12867128
600
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
1.E+11
1.E+10
1.E+09
Model 2A - 10 ppm, 1.01% [Na+Li]
Model 2A - 10 ppm, 0.94 % [Na+Li]
1.E+08
Model 3 - 10 ppm, 1.01 % [Na+Li]
Model 3 - 10 ppm, 0.94 % [Na+Li]
1.E+07
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Figure 3-2
Comparison of predicted results from Models 2A and the new model developed from the
extended set of samples at an SO3 concentration of 10 ppm. The measured sum of sodium
and lithium in the ash, expressed as “atomic percentages,” was 1.01 %. The two versions
of the model were each run twice—once using the measured sodium concentration and
once using a reduced value of the sodium concentration that made the [Atomic Na +
Atomic Li] concentration fall just below a 1.0 % breakpoint at which a change occurs in the
Model 2/2A correlations. As can be seen, a dramatic change can be made in the results
from Model 2/2A for small changes in composition in some cases. These abrupt changes
do not occur in the new model.
3-23
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
1.E+13
Resistivity with 4 ppm SO3
1.E+12
1.E+11
1.E+10
1.E+09
1.E+08
1.E+07
1.E+07
1.E+08
1.E+09
1.E+10
1.E+11
1.E+12
1.E+13
Resistivity without SO3
Figure 3-3
Resistivity of the various ash samples used in the development of the SO3 conditioning
resistivity models at a temperature of 291°°F at equilibrium with 4 ppm SO3 plotted versus
the resistivity at the same temperature at 0 ppm SO3. The solid symbols represent Dr.
Bickelhaupt’s original data used in the development of Models 2 and 2a while the open
symbols represent the data obtained during the current study.
3-24
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
1.E+11
Resistivity, ohm-cm
1.E+10
1.E+09
100% James River
25% PRB / 75% James River
50% PRB / 50% James River
75% PRB / 25% James River
100% PRB
100% James River Measured
100% PRB Measured
1.E+08
1.E+07
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Temperature, deg. F
Figure 3-4
Model 2A predictions at 10 ppm SO3 for ashes formed by combustion of five blends of PRB
and James River coals. The model predictions are shown as solid lines and measured
values are shown as dashed lines..
3-25
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
1.E+11
Resistivity, ohm-cm
1.E+10
1.E+09
100% James River
25% PRB / 75% James River
50% PRB / 50% James River
75% PRB / 25% James River
100% PRB
100% James River Measured
100% PRB Measured
1.E+08
1.E+07
200
300
400
500
600
700
Temperature, deg. F
Figure 3-5
Predictions from the Model 3 at 10 ppm SO3 for ashes formed by combustion of five blends
of James River and Jacobs Ranch (PRB) coals. The model predictions are shown as solid
lines and measured values are shown as dashed lines.
3-26
12867128
800
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
45
40
Model 2A
Model 3
Average Error in Slope, %
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
All Samples
New samples
only
Old samples
only
Figure 3-6
Comparison of the average unsigned errors in the slopes of the resistivity versus
temperature curves for the old and new models. Model 3 represents the new model.
3-27
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Resistivity Model Revisions and an Example Calculation for Fly Ash Resistivity
Number of cases in which model is better
40
35
Model 2A
Model 3
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
All Samples
New samples
only
Old samples
only
Figure 3-7
Comparison of the number of cases in the data bases for which the indicated model has
the smaller error when compared to measured values. Model 3 represents the new model.
3-28
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
4
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Background
During the mid-eighties EPRI published a document (15) providing guidelines for estimating the
performance of electrostatic precipitators when used to control emissions from various types of
boilers firing both eastern bituminous and western sub-bituminous coals. Two of the key factors
in projecting the performance of an ESP are the ESP inlet particulate concentration and particle
size distribution. The guidelines document was based on data obtained at thirty-four full-scale
utility boiler/ESP installations around the US. The test programs used to generate the database
were carried out during the mid-seventies and early eighties. Subsequent to the production of the
guideline document a previously unrecognized effect of sampling nozzles on the performance of
inertial particle sizing devices was discovered. Simply put, this effect resulted in the first stage of
an inertial particle-sizing device collecting smaller particles than existing theories and calibration
data had preciously indicated. The actual magnitude of the effect depends on the specific nozzle
geometry, the gas velocity in the duct being sampled and the sampling flow rate. After the effect
was recognized data analysis techniques to account for it were devised and implemented;
however, previously reported particle size data would have been biased low in terms of particle
concentrations at intermediate sizes (~3 to 10 µm) and high in terms of particle concentration at
larger sizes. An illustration of the effect is shown in Figure 4-1 below. In this example particle
concentrations between about 3 µm and 15 µm were biased low in the original analyses with a
corresponding high bias being introduced for particles with sizes larger than about 15 µm.
The errors in the interpretation of particle size data prior to the realization of the inlet effects
made the validity of the ESP performance estimation procedures published by EPRI somewhat
open to question. For this reason, an exploratory study was undertaken to determine the extent to
which the estimation procedure might have been affected. Field data archives at Southern
Research Institute were searched to locate as many of the original data sets used in the
development of the estimation procedures as possible. In the end, twelve of the original data sets
were located of which ten were deemed to be useful in the study. All ten were from tests
conducted on PC boilers, half firing bituminous coal and half firing sub-bituminous coal. The
data from each of the ten boilers was reduced again as it had been originally and then once more
as it would be currently. The results for each boiler were then used as inputs to WinESP, a
modern Windows version of the SRI/EPA/EPRI ESP model (4,5). The model was exercised
three times for each boiler using the same ESP setup each time. The first of each set of three
modeling runs used the size distribution and concentration suggested by the estimation
procedures, the second run used the measured concentration from the boiler with the size
distribution calculated as was done originally and the third run used the size distribution as it
4-1
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
would be calculated today. In each case the ESP model was for a four-field ESP having an SCA
of 389 ft2 /kacfm with an average applied voltage of 56.55 kV and an average current density of
39.59 nA/cm2.
5000
New Analysis
Original Analysis
Particle Concentration, mg/DNCM
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.1
1
10
100
Particle Diameter, micrometers
1000
Figure 4-1
Illustration of the change in measured particle size distributions resulting from improved
understanding of inlet effects on the performance of inertial particle sizing devices
(cascade impactors and cyclones).
The EPRI performance estimation procedure recommended the use of a single log-normal
particle size distribution for all PC boilers burning bituminous coal, and a second log-normal
particle size distribution was recommended for all tangentially fired boilers burning subbituminous coal. For other than tangentially fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coals a
procedure for calculating the percentages by mass smaller than 1, 2, 5, and 10 micrometers was
recommended. The latter percentages are calculated based on correlations with the coal ash,
sodium, and Btu values. In practice it appears that the log-normal distribution recommended for
tangentially fired boilers burning sub-bituminous coal is often used for other types of boilers
firing sub-bituminous coals. For this reason model runs for the three non-tangentially-fired
boilers in the data set were run with both the recommended size distribution estimates and using
the tangentially-fired log-normal estimate. The estimation procedure for particulate
concentrations for all PC boilers and coals uses a single, simple multiplier of the coal ash content
to calculate the estimated concentration. Pertinent characteristics concerning the data sets used in
this study are provided in Table 4-1.
The measured and estimated ESP inlet particle size distributions for each of the ten sites are
shown graphically in Figures 4-2 through 4-11. As can be seen from the figures, the log-normal
estimates do not conform well to the measured distributions regardless of the way the
measurements were reduced.
4-2
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
The results of the modeling runs are shown in Table 4-2. The table provides predicted total
concentrations, PM10 concentrations, PM2.5 concentrations, and opacities for each site based on
the three particle size distributions (estimated, measured using the current data analysis method,
and measured using the old data analysis method). The table also provides ratios of the values
predicted using the estimation procedures to those predicted from the measured concentrations
and size distributions. The model predications calculated on the basis of the estimation
procedures tended, on average, to be conservative (in the sense that predicted concentrations and
opacities based on the estimation procedures were generally higher than those based on
measured concentrations and size distributions when the latter were calculated in the original
manner). However, the model predictions from the estimation procedures tended to be low when
compared to those based on the reanalyzed measurements.
Although the original estimation procedures may remain useful, they are not as conservative as
would be desirable; consequently a revised set of particle size distribution estimators was sought.
Given the limited size of the available data set and the overall similarities of most of the
measured size distributions in that data set, a single revised estimator was generated for the
particle size distribution. The revised estimator is a log-normal distribution with a mass median
diameter (MMD) of 10 µm and geometric standard deviation (σg) of 2.6. Size distributions
calculated using this revised estimator are included in Figures 4-2 through 4-11. Results from
running the ESP model using the revised estimator are provided in Table 4-3. As can be seen
from the table, the revised estimator results in significantly more conservative performance
predictions but are not deemed to be excessively conservative. However, if one compares the
measured distributions to those calculated using the revised estimators, significant discrepancies
can be seen. Therefore it is recommended that further study of this subject be undertaken to
refine and improve the particle size estimation procedure.
4-3
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
Table 4-1
Boiler and Coal Characteristics, Particulate Concentrations, and Particle Size Distributions for the Plants used in this Study
Taken from the “Precipitator Performance Estimation Procedure” Document
Plant
ID
Coal
Boiler
Type
% Ash
% Sodium
BTU
Cumulative Percent below
Indicated Diameter
Estimated
Concentration
Measured
Concentration
grains/dscf
grains/dscf
4.32
3.51
3.39
3.27
3.39
2.01
1.89
2.37
4.05
3.72
3.12
4.54
2.57
3.91
3.01
2.40
1.23
3.07
2.83
4.45
2 µm
5.3
2
3.6
6
3.1
9.9
4.3
15
3.2
3
5 µm
14.00
6
12
12
14
30
18
38
15
15
10 µm
22
13
22
16
27
56
37
47
23
46
1 µm
0.41
1.53
3.26
2 µm
3.19
4.95
7.88
5 µm
13.20
16.59
23.01
10 µm
28.08 (from ash/sodium/Btu correlation procedure)
32.08
39.83
Estimated Size Distributions for tangential Sub-bituminous
Coal Boilers
9.8
15.9
27.1
37.4
Estimated Size Distributions for Bituminous Coal Boilers
1.0
8.1
21.6
37.2
2
7
8
9
22
24
40
67
25
38
B
SB
SB
SB
B
SB
B
SB
B
B
O
F
F
T
O
Turbo
T
T
T
T
14.4
11.7
11.3
10.9
11.3
6.7
6.3
7.9
13.5
12.4
0.55
0.36
0.39
1.80
0.50
0.59
3.50
0.81
0.20
0.33
11800
10900
9900
9600
12200
8300
10600
9700
11600
11700
1 µm
1.9
0.6
0.85
1.6
1.2
3.4
1.8
6.1
1.2
0.7
MMD,
µm
40
19
30
47
19
9
15
11
23
11
Estimated Size Distributions for Non-tangential SB Coal Boilers
7
8
24
SB
SB
SB
F
F
Turbo
11.7
11.3
6.7
4-4
12867128
0.36
0.39
0.59
10900
9900
8300
(from log-normal estimation procedure, MMD =
21.1 µm, Sg = 4.8)
(from log-normal estimation procedure, MMD =
16.3 µm, Sg = 3.4)
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
Table 4-2
Results from ESP Modeling for each of the Selected Data Sets
Plant
ID
WinESP Outlet Based on Report
WinESP Outlet Based on Reanalyzed
WinESP Outlet Based on Old Way for
Estimates
Impactor Data
Impactor Data
Total
PM10
PM2.5 Opacity
Total
PM10
PM2.5
Opacity
Total
PM10
PM2.5
Opacity
2
0.00594 0.00366 0.00077
3.28
0.00486
0.00308 0.00062
2.55
0.00267 0.00155 0.00053
1.83
7
0.00342 0.00183 0.00047
1.84
0.00400
0.00255 0.00037
1.89
0.00223 0.00133 0.00032
1.32
a
0.00491 0.00295 0.00090
3.65
7LN
8
0.00405 0.00215 0.00069
3.09
0.00672
0.00436 0.00040
2.75
0.00262 0.00160 0.00032
1.37
a
0.00475 0.00285 0.00087
3.53
8LN
9
0.00460 0.00276 0.00084
3.42
0.00591
0.00360 0.00108
4.47
0.00433 0.00251 0.00102
3.90
38
0.00515 0.00316 0.00066
3.19
0.00809
0.00513 0.00072
3.93
0.00491 0.00296 0.00064
2.84
25
0.00557 0.00342 0.00072
3.38
0.00498
0.00323 0.00045
2.40
0.00358 0.00218 0.00042
1.96
22
0.00470 0.00288 0.00061
2.79
0.00442
0.00277 0.00045
2.27
0.00297 0.00175 0.00041
1.80
24
0.00324 0.00176 0.00065
3.11
0.00654
0.00407 0.00084
3.91
0.00399 0.00237 0.00079
3.04
a
0.00285 0.00171 0.00052
2.12
24LN
40
0.00266 0.00162 0.00034
1.55
0.00227
0.00137 0.00035
1.53
0.00199 0.00116 0.00035
1.45
67
0.00336 0.00201 0.00062
2.63
0.00711
0.00415 0.00180
6.50
0.00580 0.00326 0.00177
6.08
a Using log-normal approximation rather than Estimation Procedure Cumulative Percent Method.
Ratio:
2
7
8
9
38
25
22
24
40
67
Avg.
Min.
Max.
Estimation Procedure/Reanalyzed
1.22
1.19
1.23
1.29
0.86
0.72
1.29
0.97
0.60
0.49
1.74
1.12
0.78
0.77
0.78
0.77
0.64
0.62
0.92
0.81
1.12
1.06
1.59
1.41
1.06
1.04
1.35
1.23
0.50
0.43
0.77
0.80
1.17
1.18
0.97
1.01
0.47
0.48
0.34
0.40
0.84
0.47
1.22
0.80
0.43
1.19
1.10
0.34
1.74
0.98
0.40
1.41
Estimation Procedure /Old Way
2.22
2.36
1.45
1.79
1.53
1.38
1.48
1.39
1.55
1.34
2.15
2.26
1.06
1.10
0.83
0.88
1.05
1.07
1.03
1.12
1.56
1.57
1.72
1.72
1.58
1.65
1.47
1.55
0.81
0.74
0.82
1.02
1.34
1.40
0.99
1.07
0.58
0.62
0.35
0.43
1.33
0.58
2.22
1.32
0.62
2.36
1.23
0.35
2.15
0.55
0.56
0.39
0.73
0.61
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.88
0.82
Old Way/Reanalyzed
0.50
0.85
0.52
0.87
0.37
0.81
0.70
0.94
0.58
0.89
0.67
0.93
0.63
0.92
0.58
0.94
0.85
0.98
0.79
0.98
0.72
0.70
0.50
0.87
0.72
0.82
0.79
0.78
0.95
0.94
1.32
0.43
2.26
4-5
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
Table 4-3
Results from ESP Modeling for each of the Selected Data Sets
Table 4-3. Results from ESP Modeling for each of the Selected Data Sets.
Plant
ID
2
7
8
9
38
25
22
24
40
67
Ratio:
2
7
8
9
38
25
22
24
40
67
Avg.
Min.
Max.
WinESP Outlet Based on Revised LogWinESP Outlet Based on Reanalyzed
WinESP Outlet Based on Old Way for
normal Estimates
Impactor Data
Impactor Data
Total
PM10
PM2.5 Opacity
Total
PM10
PM2.5
Opacity
Total
PM10
PM2.5
Opacity
0.00815 0.00511 0.00084 3.83
0.00486
0.00308 0.00062
2.55
0.00267 0.00155 0.00053
1.83
0.00669 0.00419 0.00069 3.14
0.00400
0.00255 0.00037
1.89
0.00223 0.00133 0.00032
1.32
0.00647 0.00405 0.00066 3.04
0.00672
0.00436 0.00040
2.75
0.00262 0.00160 0.00032
1.37
0.00626 0.00392 0.00065 2.95
0.00591
0.00360 0.00108
4.47
0.00433 0.00251 0.00102
3.90
0.00709 0.00444 0.00073 3.33
0.00809
0.00513 0.00072
3.93
0.00491 0.00296 0.00064
2.84
0.00767 0.00480 0.00079
3.6
0.00498
0.00323 0.00045
2.40
0.00358 0.00218 0.00042
1.96
0.00647 0.00405 0.00066 3.04
0.00442
0.00277 0.00045
2.27
0.00297 0.00175 0.00041
1.80
0.00387 0.00241 0.00040 1.83
0.00654
0.00407 0.00084
3.91
0.00399 0.00237 0.00079
3.04
0.00365 0.00227 0.00038 1.73
0.00227
0.00137 0.00035
1.53
0.00199 0.00116 0.00035
1.45
0.00456 0.00284 0.00047 2.15
0.00711
0.00415 0.00180
6.50
0.00580 0.00326 0.00177
6.08
a Using log-normal approximation rather than Estimation Procedure Cumulative Percent Method.
Estimation Procedure/Reanalyzed
1.68
1.66
1.34
1.50
1.67
1.64
1.87
1.66
0.96
0.93
1.67
1.11
1.06
1.09
0.60
0.66
0.88
0.87
1.01
0.85
1.54
1.49
1.74
1.50
1.46
1.46
1.47
1.34
0.59
0.59
0.48
0.47
1.61
1.66
1.06
1.13
0.64
0.68
0.26
0.33
1.21
0.59
1.68
1.21
0.59
1.66
4-6
12867128
1.15
0.26
1.87
1.05
0.33
1.66
Estimation Procedure /Old Way
3.05
3.30
1.58
2.09
3.00
3.15
2.16
2.38
2.47
2.53
2.07
2.22
1.45
1.56
0.63
0.76
1.44
1.50
1.13
1.17
2.14
2.20
1.88
1.84
2.18
2.31
1.61
1.69
0.97
1.02
0.51
0.60
1.83
1.96
1.09
1.19
0.79
0.87
0.27
0.35
1.93
0.79
3.05
2.04
0.87
3.30
1.29
0.27
2.16
1.43
0.35
2.38
0.55
0.56
0.39
0.73
0.61
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.88
0.82
Old Way/Reanalyzed
0.50
0.85
0.52
0.87
0.37
0.81
0.70
0.94
0.58
0.89
0.67
0.93
0.63
0.92
0.58
0.94
0.85
0.98
0.79
0.98
0.72
0.70
0.50
0.87
0.72
0.82
0.79
0.78
0.95
0.94
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
9000
8000
Reanalyzed
Original Analysis
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
7000
Estimation Procedure
Revised Estimate
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
1000
Figure 4-2
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 2. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing bituminous coal.
4-7
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
8000
7000
Reanalyzed
Old way
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
6000
Estimation Procedure
Revised Estimate
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
Figure 4-3
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 22. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing bituminous coal.
4-8
12867128
1000
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
9000
8000
Reanalyzed
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
7000
Old way
Estimation Procedure
6000
Revised Estimate
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
1000
Figure 4-4
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 25. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing bituminous coal.
4-9
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
14000
12000
Reanalyzed
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
Original Analysis
Estimation Procedure
10000
Revised Estimate
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
Figure 4-5
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 38. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing bituminous coal.
4-10
12867128
1000
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
3500
3000
Reanalyzed
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
Original Analysis
2500
Estimation Procedure
Revised Estimate
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
1000
Figure 4-6
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 40. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing bituminous coal.
4-11
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
14000
12000
Reanalyzed
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
Original Analysis
Estimation Procedure
10000
Revised Estimate
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
Figure 4-7
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 7. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing sub-bituminous coal. Estimation procedure calls for use of cumulative percentages at discrete sizes for this boiler.
4-12
12867128
1000
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
12000
Reanalyzed
10000
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
Original Analysis
Estimation Procedure
Revised Estimate
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
1000
Figure 4-8
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 8. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing sub-bituminous coal. Estimation procedure calls for use of cumulative percentages at discrete sizes for this boiler.
4-13
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
10000
9000
Reanalyzed
Original Analysis
8000
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
Estimation Procedure
7000
Revised Estimation
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
Figure 4-9
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 9. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing sub-bituminous coal.
4-14
12867128
1000
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
8000
7000
Reanalyzed
Old way
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
6000
Estimation Procedure
Revised Estimate
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
1000
Figure 4-10
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 24. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing sub-bituminous coal. Estimation procedure calls for use of cumulative percentages at discrete sizes for this boiler.
4-15
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Particle Size Distribution Analyses and Recommendations
9000
8000
Reanalyzed
Original Analysis
dM/dLogD, mg/DNCM
7000
Estimation Procedure
Revised Estimate
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.1
1
10
Diameter, micrometers
100
Figure 4-11
Estimated and Measured Particle Size Distributions for Plant 67. Estimation is the log-normal distribution estimate for a boiler
firing sub-bituminous coal.
4-16
12867128
1000
EPRI Licensed Material
5
REFERENCES
1. Nichols, G. B., J. P. Gooch, G. H. Marchant Jr., and A. Ferguson, Principal Investigators.
Guidelines for Upgrading Electrostatic Precipitator Performance; Volume 1 – Optimizing the
Performance of an Existing ESP; Volume 2 – ESP Upgrade Options, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
1999. TR-113582
2. EPRI ESPM (Electrostatic Precipitator Model) for Windows, Version 2.0. September 2000.
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
3. Norfleet, S. and R. Barton, Principal Investigators. EPRI ESPM (Electrostatic Precipitator
Model) for Windows, Version 2.0: Electrostatic Precipitator Performance Model Setup and
Tutorial Manual, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2000. 1000782.
4. Faulkner, M.G. and J.L. DuBard. A Mathematical Model of Electrostatic Precipitation
(Revision 3): Volume I. Modeling and Programming. Final Report EPA Grant No.
R806216010. EPA-600/7-84-069a, June 1984. NTIS PB84-212679.
5. Faulkner, M.G. and J.L. DuBard. A Mathematical Model of Electrostatic Precipitation
(Revision 3): Volume II. User's Manual. Final Report EPA Grant No. R806216010. EPA600/7-84-069b, June 1984. NTIS PB84-212687.
6. DuBard, J. L., and R. F. Altman. Prediction of Electrical Operating Points for Use in a
Precipitator Sizing Procedure. Presented at the EPRI Conference on Electrostatic Precipitator
Technology for Coal-Fired Power Plants, Nashville, Tennessee, July 14-16, 1982.
7. Bickelhaupt, R. E. “Electrical Volume Conduction in Fly Ash.” Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Volume 24, Number 3, March 1974, pp. 251 – 255.
8. Bickelhaupt, R. E. “Surface Resistivity and the Chemical Composition of Fly Ash.” Journal
of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 25, Number 2, February 1975, pp.148 –
152.
9. Bickelhaupt, R. E. “A Technique for Predicting Fly Ash Resistivity.” U. S. EPA Report
Number EPA-600/7-79-204, August 1979, 114 pp.
10. Bickelhaupt, R. E. “Fly Ash Resistivity Prediction Improvement with Emphasis on the
Effect of Sulfur Trioxide.” U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number EPA600/7-86-010, NTIS PB 86-178126, March 1986.
11. Bickelhaupt, R. E. “Observations of Modeled and Laboratory Measured Resistivity.” In
Proceedings: The Eighth Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of Particulate Control
5-1
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
References
Technology, March 20-23, 1990, San Diego, CA. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto, CA.
12. Cushing, K. M. and J. D. McCain. “Fly Ash Property Study: Preliminary Findings.” EPRI
Technical Engineering Report No. TE-114557. Interim Report, December 1999. Electric
Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
13. McCain, J., Principal Investigator. Fly Ash Property Study: Laboratory Test Results, EPRI,
Palo Alto, CA: 2000. 1000657.
14. McCain, J. D., K. M. Cushing and R. F. Altman. “Improvements in Predicting the Effects of
Sulfur Trioxide Vapor on Fly Ash Resistivity.” Paper C4-4 in Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Electrostatic Precipitation, May 14-17, 2001, Birmingham,
Alabama. International Society for Electrostatic Precipitation.
15. DuBard, J. L. and R. S. Dahlin. Precipitator Performance Estimation Procedure. Report
Number CS-5040, February 1987. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
5-2
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
A
CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND ELECTRICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF FLY ASHES
The tables and graphs in this appendix present data used in the development of the fly ash
resistivity models described in Chapter 3. They are presented in order to gather in one place a
complete set of data that may be used in the future by researchers in further refinement of these
fly ash resistivity correlations.
Tables A-1 and A-2 reproduce data used in the development of Model 1 by Dr. Roy Bickelhaupt.
The resistivity values in Table A-2 are for specific laboratory measurements conducted at
definite sulfur trioxide environments. The original descending temperature resistivity data sets
measured by Dr. Bickelhaupt in the absence of SO3, which were used in the development of the
surface and volume resistivity correlations, are not available. Table A-3 presents mineral analysis
results for several ashes used by Dr. Bickelhaupt in the development of Model 2. Reanalyses of
several of those ashes are presented in Table A-3. Table A-5 presents mineral ash analyses on
the new fly ashes used in the development of Model 3. Table A-6 shows data developed from
mineral analysis on the ashed coals.
Tables A-7 through Table A-22 present measured fly ash resistivities versus temperature and SO3
concentration for the new ashes. Tables A-23 through Table A-32 present measured fly ash
resistivities versus temperature and SO3 concentration for the ashes tested by Dr. Bickelhaupt in
the development of the Model 2 acid resistivity correlations.
Figures A-1 through A-15 show plots of resistivity versus temperature at various SO3
concentrations and the standard descending temperature resistivity relationship at 0 ppm SO3 for
the new ashes studied. These data were presented tabularly in Tables A-7 through A-22. Figure
A-16 through A-26 present similar graphs for the test data developed by Dr. Bickelhaupt during
the development of Model 2 and shown tabularly in Tables A23 through A32.
A-1
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-1
Chemical and Physical Characterization of Fly Ashes Used in Model 1.
Helium
Pycnometer
Ash No.
Li2O
Na2O
K2O
MgO
101
103
104
105
106
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.05
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.38
0.53
0.35
0.66
0.48
0.30
0.46
3.20
0.29
0.34
1.85
2.02
1.85
9.70
2.27
0.29
1.38
0.47
0.22
0.32
0.33
0.43
8.52
1.58
0.55
1.67
0.29
0.29
0.45
0.24
4.67
0.26
0.36
0.67
1.13
4.4
3.1
3.8
2.9
2.8
0.8
1.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
1.4
1.4
0.6
2.8
1.8
1.1
2.7
2.7
3.6
2.7
3.9
1.0
0.2
1.7
0.8
2.7
2.4
3.1
2.2
0.8
2.7
0.9
1.2
0.7
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.1
2.2
2.9
1.2
1.8
6.8
1.9
2.8
3.0
3.7
1.1
3.6
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.3
0.8
1.5
5.9
8.9
1.2
1.9
1.0
1.0
2.1
0.8
1.6
0.3
1.1
1.7
4.0
Reference:
Chemical Analysis in Weight Percent as Oxides
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
1.9
2.2
1.5
3.1
2.1
9.6
14.5
15.6
12.8
19.6
9.1
13.0
13.7
17.3
2.6
8.6
5.2
4.7
0.4
1.2
1.5
1.4
23.3
32.2
4.3
11.8
1.8
1.6
4.6
1.2
11.5
0.3
0.8
7.0
22.7
13.1
9.6
11.1
10.5
11.4
3.9
7.8
5.2
4.3
4.7
5.4
10.2
9.8
8.7
19.2
5.9
4.3
19.3
4.8
8.8
23.6
10.3
10.6
12.6
5.1
5.9
15.3
11.0
8.2
11.7
5.9
0.7
7.3
4.5
4.8
24.0
25.1
25.9
24.1
28.2
17.1
18.5
22.9
22.5
21.4
23.4
18.5
17.3
19.3
18.3
23.7
23.4
19.5
31.5
27.6
19.9
27.9
10.0
12.3
23.7
23.2
22.1
26.1
26.0
30.0
20.1
27.6
26.3
21.5
21.6
52.2
54.2
51.6
51.4
51.0
61.5
51.0
45.9
55.0
43.8
51.2
47.7
47.2
28.9
52.0
51.9
58.5
50.4
54.5
54.0
46.2
51.7
27.6
22.6
59.7
51.2
50.7
55.3
52.9
50.9
52.7
63.4
58.3
59.3
38.8
2.1
2.3
1.7
2.7
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.6
5.5
1.4
1.4
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.7
1.6
2.8
2.3
1.9
2.3
0.7
0.7
2.0
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.2
1.5
0.7
2.1
1.9
1.1
1.9
P2O5
SO3
Total
SO4-2
LOI
g/cc
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.9
1.3
0.3
1.9
0.4
4.2
3.2
5.7
1.0
1.3
0.7
1.5
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.8
11.0
7.9
0.8
1.6
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4
1.7
100.1
98.9
98.2
98.1
100.7
100.3
100.6
97.6
98.9
101.0
100.2
101.6
99.2
96.8
101.6
98.8
97.5
101.5
98.1
100.0
98.2
101.0
98.7
99.3
99.4
100.1
96.8
100.2
100.3
99.4
99.0
97.8
97.3
98.4
98.7
0.38
0.22
0.24
0.62
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.34
0.26
0.19
0.37
1.80
1.14
5.65
0.55
0.71
0.30
0.58
0.20
0.29
0.42
0.50
8.93
2.81
0.45
0.69
0.35
0.25
0.50
0.28
0.41
0.19
0.12
0.24
0.83
1.1
1.8
4.0
2.3
2.7
0.3
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
1.1
0.7
6.1
0.8
1.6
1.2
3.2
1.9
4.7
3.2
1.0
1.0
5.0
1.7
1.1
3.0
0.4
3.1
0.3
3.2
4.9
2.0
0.1
2.39
2.04
2.73
2.32
2.41
2.48
2.28
2.19
2.54
2.52
2.03
2.50
2.43
2.79
2.67
2.50
2.15
2.63
2.38
2.59
2.76
2.71
2.99
2.91
2.65
2.37
2.58
2.31
2.49
2.78
ND
2.43
2.26
2.27
2.54
Bickelhaupt, R. E. “A Technique for Predicting Fly Ash Resistivity.” U. S. EPA Report Number EPA-600/7-79-204, August 1979, 114 pp.
A-2
12867128
Mass Median
Diameter
Source of
Density
Ash Sample
Microns
26
15
7
13
13
24
50
10
20
11
35
10
10
12
14
3
38
16
14
6
16
4
6
12
11
15
12
13
19
4
13
8
13
80
7
Storage silo
Inlet, hopper
Inlet, cyclone
Inlet, hopper
Inlet, hopper
Inlet, hopper
Inlet1 hopper
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Mechanical collector
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Inlet, hopper
Unknown
Unknown
Hopper
Hopper
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Storaqe silo
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Unknown
Unknown
Inlet, cyclone
Unknown
Hopper
Hopper
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Inlet, hopper
Inlet, cyclone
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Proportionate blend, hoppers
Inlet, hopper
Unknown
Unknown
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-2
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes Used in Model 1
Measured Resistivity in ohm-cm at Various Temperatures
1000/T(ºK)
Atomic Percentages
Ash No.
Mg+Ca
Fe
Li+Na
101
103
104
105
106
107
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
121
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
131
133
134
135
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
2.3
2.5
2.5
3.2
2.4
7.5
11.2
10.8
9.3
16.8
7.3
10.3
11.0
14.4
2.7
8.4
4.0
4.1
1.0
2.0
1.9
2.3
19.0
26.3
3.7
8.9
2.2
2.0
3.8
1.6
8.4
0.5
1.5
5.8
17.1
2.5
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.1
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
3.6
1.0
0.8
3.6
0.9
1.6
4.8
1.9
1.8
2.1
0.9
1.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
2.2
1.0
0.1
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.37
0.49
0.35
0.62
0.47
0.24
0.35
2.43
0.23
0.31
1.40
1.52
1.43
7.53
1.84
0.25
1.10
0.43
0.24
0.35
0.33
0.42
6.20
1.16
0.48
1.27
0.31
0.34
0.41
0.30
3.47
0.26
0.32
0.53
0.84
Reference:
2.2
2
Experimental
2.8
2.6
2.4
1.6
Activation
Ash Layer
ºC
84
112
144
182
227
ºF
183
233
291
359
441
352
Energy in
Porosity
666
Electron Volts
6.00E+10
3.40E+10
8.80E+09
2.20E+10
3.00E+10
1.30E+11
3.40E+10
1.70E+09
2.20E+11
3.20E+10
2.00E+09
2.70E+09
4.50E+09
1.00E+08
3.30E+09
8.00E+10
7.50E+09
5.00E+10
2.00E+11
8.00E+10
3.80E+10
3.70E+10
1.40E+08
2.20E+09
2.20E+10
2.60E+09
3.80E+10
4.00E+11
1.40E+10
1.60E+11
7.00E+08
2.40E+11
1.80E+11
4.40E+10
1.10E+10
6.20E+11
4.20E+11
1.50E+11
2.50E+11
3.50E+11
1.30E+12
2.60E+11
1.20E+10
1.80E+12
2.80E+11
1.50E+10
1.80E+10
3.40E+10
6.50E+08
3.20E+10
7.60E+11
6.00E+10
6.50E+11
3.00E+12
9.20E+11
5.00E+11
3.80E+11
1.00E+09
1.20E+10
2.60E+11
2.20E+10
4.20E+11
2.20E+12
1.30E+11
1.80E+12
4.80E+09
3.40E+12
1.40E+12
6.00E+11
9.00E+10
1.00E+12
9.00E+11
4.00E+11
5.00E+11
6.50E+11
2.30E+12
7.40E+11
2.30E+10
3.30E+12
8.00E+11
3.90E+10
4.00E+10
9.00E+10
1.40E+09
4.60E+10
1.40E+12
8.40E+10
1.20E+12
5.30E+12
1.80E+12
9.20E+11
9.00E+11
1.60E+09
2.80E+10
6.80E+11
4.50E+10
7.60E+11
2.90E+12
3.20E+11
3.00E+12
9.40E+09
6.70E+12
2.50E+12
1.30E+12
2.50E+11
6.00E+11
5.80E+11
4.00E+11
3.50E+11
4.50E+11
1.90E+12
8.50E+11
2.80E+10
2.70E+12
1.20E+12
4.60E+10
4.60E+10
9.60E+10
1.80E+09
2.20E+10
1.10E+12
5.50E+10
5.50E+11
3.20E+12
9.50E+11
4.60E+11
5.80E+11
2.00E+09
3.90E+10
5.20E+11
4.50E+10
4.40E+11
1.20 E+12
2.90E+11
1.80E+12
9.50E+09
3.90E+12
1.00E+12
8.00E+11
3.10E+11
1.40E+11
1.40E+11
1.50E+11
1.30E+11
1.40E+11
1.00E+12
4.80E+11
2.20E+10
1.10E+12
1.00E+12
3.00E+10
3.00E+10
6.50E+10
1.70E+09
4.50E+09
5.20E+11
1.80E+10
1.30E+11
6.80E+11
2.30E+11
1.10E+11
1.90E+11
2.00E+09
2.80E+10
1.90E+11
3.40E+10
1.10E+11
2.80E+11
1.10E+11
4.90E+11
5.80E+09
8.50E+11
2.50E+11
2.90E+11
2.20E+11
2.90E+09
2.60E+09
3.60E+09
2.50E+09
2.60E+09
5.20E+10
2.40E+10
3.50E+09
5.00E+10
1.10E+11
1.80E+09
2.20E+09
4.70E+09
9.00E+07
8.00E+07
1.50E+10
5.10E+08
2.20E+09
9.50E+09
3.80E+09
2.00E+09
2.70E+09
1.00E+08
2.80E+09
3.20E+09
3.40E+09
1.80E+09
4.00E+09
3.10E+09
6.40E+09
4.30E+08
1.30E+10
4.70E+09
5.80E+09
1.00E+10
%
0.90
0.90
0.79
0.86
0.90
0.86
0.79
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.66
0.68
0.74
1.10
0.86
0.95
0.79
0.90
0.90
0.95
0.90
0.95
1.32
0.86
0.83
0.76
0.79
0.90
0.86
0.90
0.60
0.90
0.83
0.86
0.79
54
50
69
59
59
47
44
60
54
59
55
64
60
67
58
70
53
63
67
65
56
81
78
68
76
54
56
67
53
68
ND
75
66
61
64
Bickelhaupt, R. E. “A Technique for Predicting Fly Ash Resistivity.” U. S. EPA Report Number EPA-600/7-79-204, August 1979, 114 pp.
A-3
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-3
Chemical Characterization of Ashes from Original Sulfur Trioxide Study (Model 2) by Dr. R. E. Bickelhaupt and Recent Particle
Size and BET Results for Same.
Composition by Weight Percentage
Sample #
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
311
312
Li2O
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.1
0.07
Na20
0.51
0.29
0.34
0.19
0.34
0.46
2.8
1.8
0.54
0.2
K2O
1.7
0.71
0.42
2.7
3.1
2.4
0.62
0.32
2.4
0.76
MgO
1.3
1.8
6.3
0.85
1.1
0.91
1.1
6.2
1.2
1.7
CaO
4.4
12.6
19.5
0.56
2.2
3.8
12.8
30.9
2.1
7.9
Fe2O3
5
4.1
4.3
4.1
12.5
21.4
4.1
5.5
8.1
3.9
Al2O3
25.8
24.6
24.1
32.2
27.1
20.7
25.6
19.8
30.8
32.8
SiO2
59
52.9
41.2
56.4
50.5
46.9
50.4
30.8
51.6
48.7
TiO2
1.7
1
1.5
2.3
1.8
1.5
0.84
1.7
2.1
2.3
P2O5
0.31
0.13
0.31
0.15
0.33
0.29
0.19
1.1
0.51
0.98
SO3
0.35
0.24
0.94
0.18
0.57
1.2
0.41
4.1
0.33
0.53
MMD
19.7
32.9
10.4
21.9
30.8
24.6
28.2
3.12
30.6
NA
BET
1.55
2.18
1.03
1.17
.92
1.9
1.02
1.44
1.77
NA
Table A-4
Reanalysis of Selected Ashes from Original Sulfur Trioxide Study (Model 2) by Dr. R. E. Bickelhaupt and Client Ash D492A.
Composition by Weight Percentage
Sample #
301
302
304
308
D492A
Li2O
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.05
Na20
0.74
0.39
0.42
2.0
0.64
A-4
12867128
K2O
1.70
0.71
2.60
0.29
2.30
MgO
1.2
1.8
0.9
6.7
0.83
CaO
4.3
14.4
0.37
36.3
0.60
Fe2O3
5.4
4.6
4.6
5.9
5.7
Al2O3
23.8
23.0
30.8
20.1
30.9
SiO2
59.6
53.6
58.3
18.9
56.1
TiO2
1.3
0.83
1.8
1.6
1.9
P2O5
0.2
< 0.02
< 0.02
1.0
< 0.03
SO3
0.82
0.58
< 0.02
5.2
0.24
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-5
Results of Mineral, Particle Size and BET Analyses of Model 3 Fly Ash Samples.
Composition by Weight Percentage
Sample Number
Fly Ash
Corresponding
Coal
9896-1-57
9896-1-52
9896-1-58
9896-1-53
9896-1-59
9896-1-54
9896-1-60
9896-1-55
9896-1-61
9896-1-56
9896-1-67
9896-1-2
9896-1-68
9896-1-12
9896-1-69
9896-1-71
9896-1-70
9896-1-62
9896-1-121
9896-1-126
9896-1-122
9896-1-85
9896-1-123
9896-1-128
9896-1-124
9896-1-129
9896-1-130
9896-1-22
9896-1-133
9896-1-132
a
D492A
Minimum
Maximum
Li2O
Na20
K2O
MgO
CaO
Fe2O3
Al2O3
SiO2
TiO2
P2O5
SO3 TOTAL
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.02
0.04
0.05
1.70
1.50
1.40
1.10
0.87
1.10
1.20
4.00
1.60
0.40
1.30
0.47
1.10
1.80
0.36
0.76
0.52
0.90
1.20
1.70
2.20
1.90
2.40
1.90
0.97
0.53
1.50
2.60
4.30
0.50
2.90
1.01
4.40
4.50
3.70
2.70
1.50
2.00
1.80
5.70
2.60
2.00
1.60
1.90
2.20
4.60
0.84
0.59
27.90
22.00
17.90
11.40
4.70
7.00
7.40
19.90
10.20
9.60
3.50
8.80
3.00
25.10
1.40
0.95
9.90
9.60
9.20
9.50
10.20
6.30
13.10
9.00
5.90
8.40
9.00
16.30
7.60
5.70
5.30
7.04
19.30
20.80
23.40
21.80
24.70
25.80
25.50
14.40
21.50
23.20
26.90
24.40
26.40
19.40
30.00
29.46
27.40
34.50
39.90
43.90
51.00
51.90
45.60
42.70
54.50
53.20
51.80
42.90
52.40
36.60
55.10
58.34
2.60
2.40
2.40
2.70
2.20
2.40
2.10
0.92
2.00
2.00
1.80
1.60
2.00
2.50
2.40
1.35
1.10
0.93
0.77
0.49
0.24
0.46
0.32
0.27
0.57
0.64
1.60
0.94
0.62
1.20
0.28
0.09
3.10
2.20
2.80
2.40
1.30
1.30
1.60
1.60
0.40
0.75
0.36
0.73
0.23
1.40
<0.08
0.16
0.01
0.05
0.36
4.00
0.50
4.30
0.59
5.70
0.95
27.90
5.30
16.30
14.40
30.00
27.40
58.34
0.92
2.70
0.09
1.60
0.16
3.10
97.94
99.35
102.7
97.72
98.95
100.2
101.06
100.4
100.25
100.74
99.4
100.68
99.9
98.82
98.62
99.80
MMD
BET
7.6
1.22
9.6
1.28
12.8
1.11
18.
1.02
30.6
1.03
33.7 10.60
9.8
4.30
21.1
0.63
39.1
5.64
58.8
3.28
15.3
6.29
8.3
1.37
41.2
1.18
18.3
0.84
35.5
1.62
7.6
1.22
a. Fly ash analysis provided by supplier.
A-5
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-6
Results of Mineral Analyses of Model 3 Coal Samples.
Composition by Weight Percentage
Sample #
9896-1-52
9896-1-53
9896-1-54
9896-1-55
9896-1-56
9896-1-2
9896-1-12
9896-1-71
9896-1-62
9896-1-126
9896-1-85
9896-1-128
9896-1-129
9896-1-22
9896-1-132
Li2O
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.04
Na20
1.40
1.10
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.93
1.40
3.00
1.50
0.38
1.10
0.48
1.00
1.40
0.42
A-6
12867128
K2O
0.29
0.91
1.30
1.80
2.40
2.00
1.90
1.80
0.83
0.61
2.00
2.70
4.40
0.50
3.00
MgO
4.50
3.20
2.40
1.80
0.87
1.80
1.50
4.80
2.80
2.10
1.30
1.80
2.00
3.70
0.91
CaO
22.60
14.50
10.20
6.10
1.40
6.30
5.40
16.80
11.30
8.60
3.30
8.10
4.20
20.90
1.50
Fe2O3
7.90
8.60
8.50
13.60
10.50
10.20
11.10
8.20
5.50
7.60
8.10
16.00
8.30
5.00
6.20
Al2O3
14.20
16.60
18.30
21.60
26.70
23.20
26.30
12.60
19.10
23.30
25.60
22.00
26.00
16.60
30.00
SiO2
25.70
33.10
39.60
43.70
51.90
44.70
43.60
37.40
45.40
46.00
53.70
40.10
49.40
34.20
53.40
TiO2
2.10
2.00
2.30
2.20
2.30
1.60
1.70
0.60
1.60
1.60
1.10
1.20
1.20
1.70
2.10
P2O5
0.84
0.66
0.50
0.34
0.11
0.33
0.17
0.11
0.45
0.91
1.00
0.67
0.70
0.84
0.28
SO3
18.90
17.70
13.70
9.10
1.90
8.60
5.40
14.60
9.00
8.40
2.10
8.80
3.90
13.20
1.40
TOTAL
98.45
98.39
97.75
101.05
98.89
99.71
98.51
99.93
97.5
99.53
99.34
101.89
101.15
98.05
99.25
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-7
Sample 9896-1-57 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
835
714
610
514
442
376
320
261
217
187
1.47 x 10
9
6.95 x 10
10
2.73 x 10
10
6.82 x 10
11
1.06 x 10
11
1.01 x 10
10
5.88 x 10
10
2.25 x 10
9
4.78 x 10
8
4.66 x 10
9
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
2.46 x 10
8
6.82 x 10
8
2.25 x 10
9
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
347
329
311
293
2.77 X 10
8
1.32 X 10
7
6.21 X 10
7
2.94 X 10
7
1.53 X 10
8
A-7
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-8
Sample 9896-1-58 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
829
718
619
527
455
388
331
271
228
187
3.18 x 109
1.66 x 1010
5.70 x 1010
1.39 x 1011
2.06 x 1011
2.12 x 1011
1.36 x 1011
4.11 x 1010
7.96 x 109
1.01 x 109
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
1.66 x 109
5.38 x 108
1.59 x 108
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
347
329
311
293
5.23 x 108
1.91 x 108
9.32 x 107
4.49 x 107
2.25 x 107
A-8
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-9
Sample 9896-1-59 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
824
714
613
523
451
387
329
270
226
187
4.90 x 109
2.55 x 1010
9.32 x 1010
2.39 x 1011
3.82 x 1011
4.39 x 1011
3.47 x 1011
1.41 x 1011
3.32 x 1010
3.47 x 109
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
4.34 x 109
1.96 x 109
5.23 x 108
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
347
329
311
293
1.19 x 109
5.79 x 108
2.83 x 108
1.34 x 108
6.47 x 107
A-9
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-10
Sample 9896-1-60 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
817
707
608
520
448
383
327
268
226
185
2.94 x 109
1.78 x 1010
7.96 x 1010
2.55 x 1011
5.54 x 1011
8.68 x 1011
9.32 x 1011
5.79 x 1011
1.74 x 1011
1.78 x 1010
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
5.62 x 109
2.12 x 109
5.16 x 108
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
347
329
311
293
1.01 x 109
4.78 x 108
2.25 x 108
1.11 x 108
5.92 x 107
A-10
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-11
Sample 9896-1-61 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.1 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
788
705
604
523
462
392
333
270
228
185
6.16 x 108
2.01 x 109
1.03 x 1010
4.66 x 1010
1.53 x 1011
5.16 x 1011
12
1.01 x 10
8.49 x 1011
2.94 x 1011
2.25 x 1010
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 2.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
3.18 x 1010
7.21 x 109
1.32 x 109
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 11.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
3.64 x 109
7.96 x 108
2.25 x 108
A-11
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-12
Sample 9896-1-67 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.1 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
783
700
601
520
459
388
331
268
216
176
1.74 x 109
6.37 x 109
3.47 x 1010
1.41 x 1011
3.94 x 1011
12
1.06 x 10
12
1.66 x 10
12
1.19 x 10
3.82 x 1011
3.18 x 1010
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 2.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
3.64 x 1010
1.00 x 1010
1.78 x 109
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 11.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
5.42 x 109
1.14 x 109
2.18 x 108
A-12
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-13
Sample 9896-1-68 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.2 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
795
698
603
522
459
390
331
273
228
189
1.63 x 109
7.49 x 109
3.82 x 1010
1.32 x 1011
3.06 x 1011
4.90 x 1011
4.34 x 1011
1.82 x 1011
4.39 x 1010
5.46 x 109
After equilibration at
10.2 volume % H2O, 2.6 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
3.47 x 109
8.88 x 108
2.32 x 108
After equilibration at
10.2 volume % H2O, 10.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
2.18 x 108
7.21 x 107
2.46 x 107
A-13
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-14
Sample 9896-1-69 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.1 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
777
694
595
6.95 x 108
2.12 x 109
8.30 x 109
2.32 x 1010
516
455
385
329
268
226
183
3.82 x 1010
4.15 x 1010
2.55 x 1010
5.54 x 109
1.23 x 109
2.12 x 108
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 2.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
2.83 x 109
1.23 x 109
6.76 x 108
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 11.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
4.72 x 108
1.63 x 108
4.20 x 107
A-14
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-15
Sample 9896-1-70 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.1 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
772
689
592
513
453
381
327
266
225
183
1.91 x 109
5.79 x 109
2.39 x 1010
7.35 x 1010
1.47 x 1011
2.18 x 1011
1.82 x 1011
6.59 x 1010
1.82 x 1010
2.12 x 109
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 2.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
1.25 x 109
3.94 x 108
1.91 x 108
After equilibration at
10.1 volume % H2O, 11.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
2.73 x 108
9.79 x 107
4.34 x 107
A-15
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-16
Sample 9896-1-121 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
788
685
601
518
457
388
333
270
228
187
1.41 x 109
6.59 x 109
2.94 x 1010
1.36 x 1011
4.66 x 1011
12
1.66 x 10
12
3.18 x 10
12
3.18 x 10
12
1.09 x 10
1.14 x 1011
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
1.53 x 10
5.62 x 1011
4.42 x 1010
12
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 10.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
7.35 x 1011
9.79 x 1010
3.84 x 108
A-16
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-17
Sample 9896-1-122 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
781
680
595
514
453
385
331
268
226
187
1.16 x 109
5.20 x 109
2.12 x 1010
8.30 x 1010
2.39 x 1011
5.88 x 1011
8.88 x 1011
6.47 x 1011
2.39 x 1011
3.90 x 1010
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
9.32 x 109
3.47 x 109
7.96 x 108
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 10.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
3.11 x 109
5.46 x 108
8.30 x 107
A-17
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-18
Sample 9896-1-123 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.2 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
790
693
597
518
455
388
329
271
228
189
1.59 x 109
6.16 x 109
2.94 x 1010
1.01 x 1011
2.25 x 1011
3.32 x 1011
2.63 x 1011
9.79 x 1010
2.06 x 1010
2.25 x 109
After equilibration at
10.2 volume % H2O, 2.6 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
8.99 x 108
3.18 x 108
8.13 x 107
After equilibration at
10.2 volume % H2O, 10.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
1.66 x 108
4.44 x 107
1.12 x 107
A-18
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-19
Sample 9896-1-124 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.2 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
784
685
594
514
451
385
327
271
226
187
2.25 x 108
1.05 x 109
5.27 x 109
2.25 x 1010
6.37 x 1010
1.41 x 1011
1.53 x 1011
7.07 x 1010
1.56 x 1010
1.66 x 109
After equilibration at
10.2 volume % H2O, 2.6 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
1.50 x 109
5.88 x 108
2.25 x 108
After equilibration at
10.2 volume % H2O, 10.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
2.12 x 108
8.78 x 107
4.78 x 107
A-19
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-20
Sample 9896-1-130 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
775
675
590
511
450
383
329
268
226
187
3.94 x 109
1.70 x 1010
5.16 x 1010
1.21 x 1011
1.74 x 1011
1.56 x 1011
8.22 x 1010
1.82 x 1010
3.64 x 109
4.55 x 108
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
5.31 x 108
2.01 x 108
9.32 x 107
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 10.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
1.47 x 108
4.87 x 107
1.70 x 107
A-20
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-21
Sample 9896-1-133 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.0 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
770
669
586
507
448
381
327
266
225
185
5.46 x 108
2.55 x 109
1.08 x 1010
4.60 x 1010
1.29 x 1011
3.06 x 1011
3.82 x 1011
2.12 x 1011
6.06 x 1010
6.37 x 109
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 2.7 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
4.34 x 1010
1.47 x 1010
2.55 x 109
After equilibration at
10.0 volume % H2O, 10.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
365
329
293
7.64 x 109
2.12 x 109
4.75 x 107
A-21
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-22
Sample D492A Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.4 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
784
698
601
527
457
387
331
268
228
187
4.24 x 108
1.53 x 109
8.13 x 109
3.64 x 1010
1.56 x 1011
5.97 x 1011
12
1.27 x 10
9.67 x 1011
2.63 x 1011
1.39 x 1010
After equilibration at
10.4 volume % H2O, 3.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
Resistivity,ohm cm
300
270
9.79 x 1011
2.83 x 108
A-22
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-23
Sample 301 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.9 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
185
235
290
359
440
563
665
826
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.85 x 1010
3.06 x 1011
6.50 x 1011
5.12 x 1011
2.11 x 1011
3.36 x 1010
6.98 x 109
8.25 x 108
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 1.5 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
257
269
Resistivity,ohm cm
7.55 x 1010
2.51 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.4 volume % H2O, 4.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
266
277
278
290
287
Resistivity,ohm cm
5.63 x 1010
7.50 x 1010
1.50 x 1011
2.70 x 1011
2.95 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 9.6 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
281
284
284
297
323
323
326
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.17 x 109
8.09 x 109
1.06 x 1010
3.89 x 1010
2.51 x 1011
3.54 x 1011
6.09 x 1011
A-23
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-24
Sample 302 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.9 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
185
238
293
362
445
546
679
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
2.10 x 1011
1.59 x 1012
2.73 x 1012
2.67 x 1012
1.38 x 1012
3.51 x 1011
5.09 x 1010
7.03 x 109
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 1.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
243
272
300
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.89 x 108
4.20 x 109
6.34 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.4 volume % H2O, 3.4 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
266
287
300
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.44 x 108
3.13 x 109
2.01 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 8.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
287
330
351
A-24
12867128
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.75 x 108
1.73 x 1010
1.11 x 1011
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-25
Sample 303 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.9 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
193
244
302
371
455
590
685
758
851
Resistivity,ohm cm
3.27 x 1010
2.17 x 1011
7.46 x 1011
1.37 x 1012
1.13 x 1012
4.18 x 1011
1.62 x 1011
4.94 x 1010
1.58 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 1.5 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
260
297
338
Resistivity,ohm cm
9.06 x 108
5.45 x 109
8.04 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.4 volume % H2O, 4.2 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
279
314
353
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.49 x 108
2.97 x 109
3.12 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 9.6 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
287
321
361
402
Resistivity,ohm cm
6.62 x 107
9.51 x 108
8.04 x 109
4.94 x 1010
A-25
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-26
Sample 304 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.9 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
183
235
290
358
440
546
665
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.14 x 1011
1.22 x 1012
2.87 x 1012
1.70 x 1012
3.98 x 1011
4.99 x 1010
5.41 x 109
5.59 x 108
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 1.4 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
243
255
266
Resistivity,ohm cm
2.03 x 1011
2.62 x 1011
2.00 x 1012
After equilibration at
9.4 volume % H2O, 4.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
266
260
275
290
Resistivity,ohm cm
5.41 x 109
3.02 x 1010
2.29 x 1011
1.94 x 1012
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
281
287
284
300
320
320
323
A-26
12867128
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.32 x 108
1.69 x 109
7.71 x 109
1.77 x 1011
1.20 x 1012
1.40 x 1012
2.42 x 1012
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-27
Sample 305 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.8 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
185
235
293
362
445
546
672
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
3.34 x 1010
2.29 x 1011
4.38 x 1011
3.43 x 1011
9.47 x 1010
1.54 x 1010
2.25 x 109
2.08 x 108
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 1.4 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
260
300
333
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.53 x 109
2.67 x 1010
1.79 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 3.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
275
313
355
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.51 x 108
5.57 x 109
4.27 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
286
326
362
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.65 x 108
2.14 x 109
1.36 x 1010
A-27
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-28
Sample 306 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.8 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
185
235
293
359
440
540
665
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
3.08 x 1010
2.63 x 1011
5.48 x 1011
3.16 x 1011
9.29 x 1010
1.40 x 1010
1.67 x 109
2.03 x 108
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 1.4 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
257
293
330
Resistivity,ohm cm
2.86 x 109
4.79 x 1010
2.29 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 3.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
272
310
348
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.17 x 109
1.23 x 1010
9.29 x 1010
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
284
320
359
A-28
12867128
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.56 x 108
5.03 x 109
3.00 x 1010
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-29
Sample 307 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.8 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
185
235
293
359
440
546
672
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
6.97 x 108
5.19 x 109
1.72 x 1010
2.42 x 1010
2.01 x 1010
8.89 x 109
1.62 x 109
2.82 x 108
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 1.4 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
257
293
330
Resistivity,ohm cm
3.07 x 108
8.90 x 108
2.34 x 109
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 3.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
275
310
351
Resistivity,ohm cm
9.90 x 107
2.68 x 108
7.41 x 108
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
284
320
359
Resistivity,ohm cm
2.70 x 107
1.11 x 108
2.23 x 108
A-29
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-30
Sample 308 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
9.8 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
183
233
293
362
445
546
665
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
2.20 x 108
1.74 x 109
1.13 x 1010
4.99 x 1010
6.22 x 1010
3.21 x 1010
7.58 x 109
8.91 x 108
After equilibration at
9.8 volume % H2O, 1.4 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
257
293
330
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.70 x 108
8.90 x 108
2.74 x 109
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 3.9 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
275
313
348
Resistivity,ohm cm
3.61 x 107
1.66 x 108
6.50 x 108
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 9.8 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
284
320
362
A-30
12867128
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.55 x 107
6.19 x 107
2.05 x 108
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-31
Sample 311 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.2 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
182
233
289
351
431
489
554
639
723
835
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.60 x 1010
1.30 x 1011
4.00 x 1011
3.50 x 1011
1.30 x 1011
4.80 x 1010
1.40 x 1010
3.20 x 109
8.50 x 108
2.10 x 108
After equilibration at
9.6 volume % H2O, 1.5 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
258
294
331
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.30 x 109
6.00 x 1010
2.80 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 4.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
278
310
344
Resistivity,ohm cm
9.30 x 108
1.80 x 1010
1.55 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.7 volume % H2O, 9.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
286
324
359
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.00 x 108
6.30 x 109
4.80 x 1010
A-31
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
Table A-32
Sample 312 Resistivity Data Summary
Descending temperature mode at
10.1 volume % H2O, 0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
825
735
664
569
499
450
368
302
242
184
Resistivity,ohm cm
5.26 x 109
1.54 x 1010
4.00 x 1010
2.06 x 1011
6.34 x 1011
1.09 x 1012
2.68 x 1012
3.78 x 1012
2.15 x 1012
1.57 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.6 volume % H2O, 1.5 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
258
298
334
Resistivity,ohm cm
2.34 x 1010
1.78 x 1011
8.71 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.9 volume % H2O, 4.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
275
310
343
Resistivity,ohm cm
4.66 x 109
5.78 x 1010
3.71 x 1011
After equilibration at
9.7 volume % H2O, 9.0 ppm SO3
Temperature, °F
284
323
363
A-32
12867128
Resistivity,ohm cm
1.24 x 109
3.37 x 1010
2.22 x 1011
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
2.8 ppm SO3
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
1012
9.8 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-1
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-57 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
.
A-33
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.8 ppm SO3
12
9.8 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-2
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-58 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-34
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.8 ppm SO3
12
9.8 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-3
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-59 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-35
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.8 ppm SO3
12
9.8 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-4
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-60 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-36
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.9 ppm SO3
12
11.2 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-5
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-61 with 10.1 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-37
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.9 ppm SO3
12
11.2 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-6
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-67 with 10.1 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-38
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.6 ppm SO3
12
10.7 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-7
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-68 with 10.2 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-39
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.9 ppm SO3
12
11.2 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-8
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-69 with 10.1 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-40
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.9 ppm SO3
12
11.2 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-9
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-70 with 10.1 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-41
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.7 ppm SO3
12
10.0 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-10
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-121 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-42
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.7 ppm SO3
12
10.0 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-11
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-122 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-43
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.6 ppm SO3
12
10.7 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-12
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-123 with 10.2 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-44
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.6 ppm SO3
12
10.7 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-13
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-124 with 10.2 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-45
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.7 ppm SO3
12
10.0 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-14
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-130 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-46
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
2.7 ppm SO3
12
10.0 ppm SO3
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-15
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 9896-1-133 with 10.0 % water by volume and two SO3
injection rates at specific temperatures.
A-47
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
10
3.0 ppm SO3
12
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-16
Laboratory resistivity of Sample D492A with 10.4 % water by volume and one SO3 injection
rate at specific temperatures.
A-48
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
1012
1011
1010
109
Descending, 9.9 volume % H2O
1.5 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
108
4.2 ppm SO3, 9.4 volume % H2O
9.6 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-17
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 301 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-49
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
1012
1011
1010
109
Descending, 9.9 volume % H2O
10
1.2 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
8
3.4 ppm SO3, 9.4 volume % H2O
8.9 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-18
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 302 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-50
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
1012
1011
1010
109
Descending, 9.9 volume % H2O
1.5 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
108
4.2 ppm SO3, 9.4 volume % H2O
9.6 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-19
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 303 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-51
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
1012
1011
1010
109
Descending, 9.9 volume % H2O
1.4 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
108
4.0 ppm SO3, 9.4 volume % H2O
9.8 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-20
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 304 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-52
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending, 9.8 volume % H2O
1.4 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
1012
3.9 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
9.8 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-21
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 305 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-53
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending, 9.8 volume % H2O
1.4 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
1012
3.9 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
9.8 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-22
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 306 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-54
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending, 9.8 volume % H2O
1.4 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
1012
3.9 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
9.8 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-23
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 307 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-55
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending, 9.8 volume % H2O
1.4 ppm SO3, 9.8 volume % H2O
1012
3.9 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
9.8 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-24
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 308 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-56
12867128
900
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
Descending, 10.2 volume % H2O
1.5 ppm SO3, 9.6 volume % H2O
1012
4.0 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
9.0 ppm SO3, 9.7 volume % H2O
1011
1010
109
108
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-25
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 311 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-57
12867128
EPRI Licensed Material
Chemical, Physical, and Electrical Characteristics of Fly Ashes
1013
RESISTIVITY, ohm.cm
1012
1011
1010
109
Descending, 10.1 volume % H2O
1.5 ppm SO3, 9.6 volume % H2O
108
4.0 ppm SO3, 9.9 volume % H2O
9.0 ppm SO3, 9.7 volume % H2O
107
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
TEMPERATURE, °F
Figure A-26
Laboratory resistivity of Sample 312 with three SO3 injection rates at specific
temperatures.
A-58
12867128
900
12867128
Target:
Fuel Switching/Multi-Pollutant Controls - Issues &
Opportunities
SINGLE USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU AND THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH
INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI). PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY BEFORE REMOVING THE WRAPPING MATERIAL.
BY OPENING THIS SEALED PACKAGE YOU ARE AGREEING TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT,PROMPTLY RETURN THE UNOPENED PACKAGE TO EPRI AND THE PURCHASE PRICE WILL
BE REFUNDED.
1. GRANT OF LICENSE
EPRI grants you the nonexclusive and nontransferable right during the term of this agreement to use this package only for your own
benefit and the benefit of your organization.This means that the following may use this package: (I) your company (at any site owned
or operated by your company); (II) its subsidiaries or other related entities; and (III) a consultant to your company or related entities,
if the consultant has entered into a contract agreeing not to disclose the package outside of its organization or to use the package for
its own benefit or the benefit of any party other than your company.
This shrink-wrap license agreement is subordinate to the terms of the Master Utility License Agreement between most U.S. EPRI
member utilities and EPRI.Any EPRI member utility that does not have a Master Utility License Agreement may get one on request.
About EPRI
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S.
electric utilities established the Electric Power
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI,
the company provides a wide range of innovative
products and services to more than 1000 energyrelated organizations in 40 countries. EPRI’s
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers
draws on a worldwide network of technical and
business expertise to help solve today’s toughest
energy and environmental problems.
EPRI. Electrify the World
2. COPYRIGHT
This package, including the information contained in it, is either licensed to EPRI or owned by EPRI and is protected by United States
and international copyright laws. You may not, without the prior written permission of EPRI, reproduce, translate or modify this
package, in any form, in whole or in part, or prepare any derivative work based on this package.
3. RESTRICTIONS
You may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give this package to any person or organization, or use the information contained in this
package, for the benefit of any third party or for any purpose other than as specified above unless such use is with the prior written
permission of EPRI.You agree to take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of this package.Except as specified
above, this agreement does not grant you any right to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks or any other
intellectual property, rights or licenses in respect of this package.
4.TERM AND TERMINATION
This license and this agreement are effective until terminated.You may terminate them at any time by destroying this package. EPRI has
the right to terminate the license and this agreement immediately if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this agreement.
Upon any termination you may destroy this package, but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
5. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
NEITHER EPRI,ANY MEMBER OF EPRI,ANY COSPONSOR, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I) WITH RESPECT TO THE USE
OF ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE, INCLUDING
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS
PACKAGE IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING ANY
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRI OR ANY EPRI REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS PACKAGE OR ANY INFORMATION,APPARATUS,
METHOD, PROCESS OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS PACKAGE.
6. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of this package, and you agree not to
export or re-export this package or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States and foreign
government approvals.
7. CHOICE OF LAW
This agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applied to transactions taking place entirely in California
between California residents.
8. INTEGRATION
You have read and understand this agreement, and acknowledge that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between you
and EPRI concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different
terms of this agreement will be enforceable against EPRI unless EPRI gives its prior written consent, signed by an officer of EPRI.
© 2002 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc. All rights
reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered
service marks of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
1004075
EPRI • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10412, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
12867128