0 views

Uploaded by shubham208011

CFD Modelling Thermal Power Project

- Accounting SDR Fluctuations to Non-Premixed Turbulent Combustion for Better Predictions of In-Cylinder Processes
- aerospace-03-00045
- CFD Exam Paper
- Magellan Cfd
- Ashok-Tejasvi-Report
- Cfd Using Ansys Icem Cfd & Fluent
- resume
- 10.1.1.131.9942
- Investigation of Swing Check Valve
- Thermo - Heat Transfer - Fluid Flow VOL III
- Lid Driven Cavity_SIMPLE
- Water Flow Over an Ogee Profile Report
- Introduction to CFD
- Waves in Guinness
- Flexural-gravity waves due to transient disturbances in an inviscid fluid of finite depth
- mcmullan
- History of Fluid Mechanics
- Viscosity Compensation MV Series Turbine Meter (1)
- V001T01A042-94-GT-131
- Introducing Cos Mof Lo Works

You are on page 1of 13

www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

Sowjanya Vijiapurapu a, Jie Cui a,*

, Sastry Munukutla b

a

Mechanical Engineering Department, Tennessee Technological University, P.O. Box 5014, Cookeville, TN 38505, USA

b

Mechanical Engineering Department, Center for Energy Systems Research, Tennessee Technological University,

P.O. Box 5014, Cookeville, TN 38505, USA

Received 1 May 2004; received in revised form 1 May 2005; accepted 27 June 2005

Available online 18 August 2005

Abstract

Unbalanced coal/air ﬂow in the pipe systems of coal-ﬁred power plants will lead to non-uniform com-

bustion in the furnace, and hence a overall lower eﬃciency of the boiler. A common solution to this prob-

lem is to put oriﬁces in the pipe systems to balance the ﬂow. It is well known that if the oriﬁces are sized to

balance clean air ﬂow to individual burners connected to a pulverizer, the coal/air ﬂow would still be unbal-

anced and vice versa. However, the current power industry practice throughout the world is to size oriﬁces

for balancing the clean air ﬂow and accept the resulting imbalance in coal/air ﬂow. Field tests are mostly

conducted to verify a balanced clean air ﬂow.

It is now proposed to size the oriﬁces for balancing the coal/air ﬂow and then calculate the unbalanced

clean air ﬂow distribution to be known as the ‘‘tailored clean air ﬂow’’. Commercially available Computa-

tional Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code CFX was used to simulate the complex ﬂows in the piping systems in a

power plant. The two-phase modelling technique was employed to estimate the pressure drop coeﬃcients

with both clean air and coal/air ﬂows in order to size the oriﬁces. The results indicate that the pressure drop

is strongly dependent on the piping system geometry. With this proposed method, ﬁeld tests can be con-

ducted to correspond with the tailored clean air ﬂow, and the coal/air ﬂow balancing would be achieved.

2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 931 372 3357; fax: +1 931 372 6340.

E-mail address: jiecui@tntech.edu (J. Cui).

0307-904X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.apm.2005.06.005

S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866 855

1. Introduction

There are a number of operational problems of coal-ﬁred boilers, which are suspected to be

caused by non-uniform combustion in the furnace. One source of non-uniform combustion is un-

even distribution of fuel inputs to the furnace. Several coal pipes connect the exit of the pulverizer

to the individual burners, all of which are located at the same elevation in the furnace for that

particular pulverizer [1]. Though the elevation change is identical for each system, the pipes have

diﬀerent horizontal, vertical, and inclined lengths, and bends. Thus, the resistance to ﬂow is dif-

ferent for each system, leading to uneven distribution.

The resistance of a system is diﬀerent for single-phase ﬂow (clean air) or two-phase ﬂow (coal/

air) [2]. The resistance is expressed as a dimensionless pressure drop coeﬃcient. Thus, the single-

phase and the corresponding two-phase pressure drop coeﬃcients for any given system are diﬀer-

ent. One signiﬁcant point is that the pressure drop coeﬃcient for a sharp edged oriﬁce is the same

for both single-phase and two-phase ﬂows for dilute suspension ﬂows encountered in power

plants. A typical volume fraction of coal to air is 1/1600 [3].

Since the resistance coeﬃcients are diﬀerent for clean air and coal/air ﬂows, the oriﬁce sizes

needed to balance the clean air ﬂow would be diﬀerent from the oriﬁce sizes needed to balance

the coal/air ﬂow. The electric power industry practice throughout the world so far has been to size

the oriﬁces based on clean air ﬂow pressure drop coeﬃcients. The clean air ﬂow would, therefore,

be balanced but the corresponding coal/air ﬂow would still be unbalanced. In one instance, it was

reported that after the clean air ﬂow was balanced to within 3%, the coal/air ﬂow was still unbal-

anced by 27% [4]. On the other hand, if the oriﬁce sizing is based on the coal/air ﬂow balancing,

the corresponding clean air ﬂow would be unbalanced. This would not present a problem since

coal/air balancing is what is needed for eﬃcient combustion.

For calculating the pressure drop coeﬃcients, standard handbook data can be used [5]. How-

ever, the data for two-phase ﬂow (coal/air) is found to be unreliable. So, the pressure drop coef-

ﬁcients for the coal/air as well as the clean air ﬂow were calculated using CFD in the present work

[6]. The multi-phase models were used to simulate the complex ﬂow ﬁeld of each phase and the

interaction between air and coal particles. It is believed that the numerical solution was able to

provide reasonable pressure drop coeﬃcients in the current study.

In most power plants the geometry for individual pipe systems is speciﬁed by the total horizon-

tal run, total vertical run, number of bends, and bend geometry. Since exact geometry of the sys-

tem is not speciﬁed, it is not possible to calculate the pressure drop of the entire system in one

pass. It was therefore decided to calculate the pressure drop in a system by breaking it into indi-

vidual components. The calculated pressure drops across various components were then added

together, to estimate the pressure drop of the entire system. In the current paper, this procedure

will be implemented in one of the coal-ﬁred electric utilities. A description of this method and

results from ﬁeld experience will form the rest of the contents of this paper.

In the power generation industry, many processes involve multi-phase ﬂow, phase transforma-

tion, combustion, and complex chemical reactions [7]. This is particularly true for coal ﬁred power

856 S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866

plants. However, due to the complex nature of these phenomena, traditional research approaches

were not adequate in providing a thorough understanding of these processes. Recently, CFD has

been used in power industry to gain a qualitative as well as quantitative understanding of these

processes.

Pulverized coal combustion in a 2.5 MW burner was modelled using two commercial CFD

codes [8]. Despite discrepancies between the solutions of the two codes, the predicted velocity,

temperature, and species concentration were in overall agreement with the experimental data, sug-

gesting that the two codes were capable of predicting good ÔtrendÕ solutions. The Eulerian–Eule-

rian multi-phase model in conjunction with the k–e model was applied to predict erosion in slurry

pipeline tee-junctions [9]. The CFD model was used to assess several potential solutions to the ero-

sion problem, and the results demonstrated the eﬀectiveness with which CFD techniques can be

used in industrial applications. Similar multi-phase model was employed to develop a computa-

tional model of erosion in a ﬂuidized bed [10]. It was shown that the model predictions were in

good agreement with the experiment results. Stopford reviewed some of the recent applications

of CFD to the power generation and combustion industries [11]. Examples included coal-ﬁred

low-NOx burner design, furnace optimization, over-ﬁre air, gas reburn, and laminar ﬂames.

The results showed that CFD modelling was well established as a design tool and has been widely

used in the power generation industry to help engineers reduce emissions, increase thermal eﬃ-

ciency, select fuel, and extend plant lifetime.

In this paper, an attempt will be made to take this new approach—CFD—to a problem faced

by the power industry for a number of years: coal/air balancing. The multi-phase model in the

unstructured version of CFX (version 5.5.1) will be applied to determine pressure drop in the pip-

ing systems in a power plant. Based on the predicted pressure drop, oriﬁces in the piping systems

will be added or modiﬁed and balanced coal/air ﬂow will be achieved.

Fig. 1 shows two systems with the same elevation change, but diﬀerent horizontal, vertical runs,

and bends. Both systems start at the same elevation at the pulverizer exit and discharge at the same

elevation in the boiler. System 1 has one vertical run, one horizontal run, and one bend. System 2

has 3 vertical runs, 3 horizontal runs, and 5 bends. The total pressure drop consists of frictional

loss over the horizontal and vertical pipe lengths, a loss due to bends, and a loss due to gravity.

In general if the total ﬂow rate is Q, with ﬂow rate in system 1 being Q1 and that in system 2

being Q2, and the pressure drop coeﬃcients being K1 and K2, respectively, we have

Q ¼ Q1 þ Q2 ;

K 1 Q21 ¼ K 2 Q22 ;

ð1Þ

Q Q

) Q2 ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃ and Q1 ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃ .

1 þ KK 21 1 þ KK 12

Let the pressure drop coeﬃcients for clean air and coal/air for systems 1 and 2 be K1A, K2A, and

K1C, K2C respectively. Then the ﬂow distribution with clean air is given as

S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866 857

Fig. 1. Illustration of two systems with the same elevations change, but diﬀerent horizontal and vertical runs, and

bends.

Q Q

Q2A ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ and Q1A ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ð2Þ

K 2A K 1A

1þ K 1A

1þ K 2A

Q Q

Q2C ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ and Q1C ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ . ð3Þ

K 2C K 1C

1þ K 1C

1þ K 2C

In most cases, it has been observed that the ratio of K2C/K1C is very nearly equal to K2A/K1A. In

other words, clean air and coal/air are unbalanced in a similar manner. The pressure drop coef-

ﬁcient KOR of the oriﬁce plate is calculated as the absolute diﬀerence in the pressure drop coeﬃ-

cients of the pipes. In order to achieve clean air balance, an oriﬁce yielding a pressure drop

coeﬃcient of KOrf,A = K2A K1A should be introduced. In order to achieve coal/air balance,

an oriﬁce yielding a pressure drop coeﬃcient of KOrf,C = K2C K1C should be introduced.

As a general rule the pressure drop coeﬃcients for the coal/air (two-phase) ﬂow K1C and K2C,

are always greater than the corresponding clean air (single-phase) pressure drop coeﬃcients K1A

and K2A (typically by a factor of 2–3) [12]. Hence, the oriﬁce diameters based on the clean air dis-

tribution are larger than those based on the coal/air distributions. As a result of the above, it has

been a normal trend in the power industry to under estimate the pressure drop requirement.

The diameter of the oriﬁce can be calculated from available empirical equations [13], one of the

commonly used equations is

" 0.375 !#2

F1 F0 F0

K OR ¼ 1 þ 0.707 1 ; ð4Þ

F0 F1 F1

2

where FF 01 ¼ AA01 ¼ DD01 , A0, A1 correspond to the area of the oriﬁce and pipe, respectively, and, D0,

D1 correspond to the diameters of the oriﬁce and pipe, respectively.

858 S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866

The four systems modelled using the numerical method are given in Table 1. As shown in the

Table, there are 4 systems that carry coal/air mixture from the pulverizer to the furnace. The indi-

vidual lengths of the horizontal and vertical sections between the bends are not known. The only

data available is the total horizontal and vertical length of the systems, and the number of diﬀer-

ent bends in each system. Also, the bend angles for each system are known.

If K1, K2, K3, and K4 are the pressure drop coeﬃcients for systems 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively,

ﬂow distributions V1, V2, V3, and V4 can be calculated by extending Eq. (3) to a 4-branch system.

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

400 K1

V 1 ð%Þ ¼ qﬃﬃﬃﬃ qﬃﬃﬃﬃ qﬃﬃﬃﬃ ; V 2 ð%Þ ¼ V 1 ;

K1

1 þ K2 þ K3 þ K4K1 K1 K2

rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ rﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ

K1 K1

V 3 ð%Þ ¼ V 1 ; V 4 ð%Þ ¼ V 1 . ð5Þ

K3 K4

Note that for a perfectly balanced system K1 = K2 = K3 = K4, and in that case V1 =

V2 = V3 = V4 = 100%. For an unbalanced system V1, V2, V3, and V4 could be diﬀerent from

100%, but however, would still add to 400%. It can be seen from Table 2 that in the existing sys-

tem the clean air and coal/air ﬂows are both unbalanced. It can also be observed that the two

unbalances are not similar due to the presence of oriﬁces. Hence, it is proposed to retroﬁt the

whole oriﬁcing system based on the coal/air balancing. Since the two-phase ﬂow in the existing

systems is quite complex and the data from standard handbook is unreliable, it was decided to

Table 1

Detail of four systems that exit from one pulverizer and feed the boiler at the same elevation

System Total vertical Total horizontal Bends in system Diameters of existing

length (m) length (m) oriﬁces in system (mm)

1 10.39 48.11 150, 160, 160, 135 442 at 1 m distance

442 at 56 m distance

2 10.39 36.83 120, 135 437 at 1 m distance

437 at 45 m distance

3 10.39 64.34 165, 90, 135 442 at 1 m distance

4 10.39 75.62 135, 90, 160, 160, 135 No oriﬁces

Note: Oriﬁces are inserted according to the maximum pressure drop in the systems. Calculated pressure drop in system 4

is the maximum. Therefore, oriﬁces were inserted in systems 1–3 to balance the pressure drop.

Table 2

Existing ﬂow distribution for clean air and coal/air ﬂows

System Clean air ﬂow distribution (%) Coal/air ﬂow distribution (%)

1 95 102

2 97 108

3 100 96

4 108 94

S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866 859

utilize the two-phase modelling technique to obtain the pressure data in each system. Then the

oriﬁce diameters are recalculated based on the CFD results and a well-balanced system is

obtained.

As discussed in Section 2, the exact geometries of the individual systems in a power plant are

not always available. This problem was overcome by breaking up the geometry of the system into

various components like the horizontal section, vertical section, and various bends. The pressure

drop across each component is calculated and then put together to give the pressure drop along

the whole geometry of the system. Examples of the geometries used for the modelling are shown in

Fig. 2.

The pressure drops for the horizontal and vertical lengths were calculated initially for a 60D

pipe, where D is the diameter of the pipe. The pressure drops across unit length were then calcu-

lated and applied to the existing lengths of the pipe. A length of 60D was chosen to ensure that the

ﬂow became fully developed. The pressure drop per unit length was calculated for the fully devel-

oped region. It was found that for the current conﬁguration and ﬂow condition (Reynolds number

9.15 · 105, surface roughness e = 0.0026 mm) the ﬂow became fully developed within 30D from

the inlet. Therefore, for the bends, the upstream length was assumed to be 40D and downstream

to be 20D and the pressure drop across the bend was calculated.

For calculation of the steady state ﬂow in the piping systems, continuity and momentum equa-

tions were solved along with the standard k–e turbulence model. Two-phase ﬂow calculations

were adopted to simulate the air ﬂow and coal particles. The equation of continuity for a mixed

ﬂuid is expressed by Eq. (6), where a is the phase, ra is the volume fraction of that phase, qa is the

density of the ﬂuid in the phase a, xj is the coordinate with the index j ranging from 1 to 3, and U ja

is the mean velocity in the phase a along the direction j. The continuity equation expressed for

each control volume is shown in Eq. (7).

860 S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866

oðra qa Þ oðra qa U ja Þ

þ ¼ 0; ð6Þ

ot oxj

X X 1 oðra qa Þ oðra qa U j Þ

a

ra ¼ 1 or þ j

¼ 0; ð7Þ

a a

qa ot ox

where repeated indices imply summation from 1 to 3. The equation of motion is expressed by Eq.

(8)

oðra qa U ia Þ oðra qa U ia U ja Þ op oðra sji Þ

þ j

¼ ra i þ ra qa gi þ ; ð8Þ

ot ox ox oxj

where p is the pressure and sij is the stress tensor given by

i

oU oU j

sij ¼ leff þ i ; ð9Þ

oxj ox

where leﬀ is eﬀective viscosity, which is deﬁned as the sum of dynamic viscosity l and eddy vis-

cosity lt, leﬀ = l + lt. The eddy viscosity is provided by the k–e turbulence model.

k2

lt ¼ C l q ; ð10Þ

e

where Cl is a constant and is equal to 0.09, k is the turbulent kinetic energy, e is the dissipation

rate, and both are provided by the k–e turbulence model.

o o j l þ a ok a

ðra qa k a Þ þ j ra ðqa U a k a Þ l þ ¼ ra ðP a qa ea Þ þ T kab ; ð11Þ

ot ox rk oxj

o o l þ a oea ea

ðra qa ea Þ þ j ra ðqa U ja ea Þ l þ ¼ ra ðC e1 P a C e2 qa ea Þ þ T eab ; ð12Þ

ot ox re oxj ka

where rk = 1.0, re = 1.3, Ce1 = 1.44, and Ce2 = 1.92 are constants from the k–e model. T kab and T eab

are the terms that represent the inter-phase transfer for k and e respectively. P represents the shear

production due to turbulence for that particular phase, which is

oU j oU j oU k

P ¼ lt k þ j . ð13Þ

ox oxk ox

The continuity equation, momentum equation, and the turbulence model equation were solved

for each phase. The pipe diameter was 0.527 m. For clean air ﬂow, the air density was taken as

1.284 kg/m3, which is the value at room temperature. For coal/air ﬂow, the air density was

0.977 kg/m3, which is the value at 88 C, and the coal density was 1398 kg/m3. The coal ﬂow rate

was 2.36 kg/s and the air ﬂow rate was 5.00 kg/s.

The boundary conditions were assumed to be uniform velocity distribution at the inlet and zero

gage pressure (open to atmosphere) at the outlet. Grid reﬁnement near the walls was used for grid

generation (Fig. 3). This allows for much better resolution of the velocity ﬁeld near the wall where

it changes rapidly. Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS) were solved using ﬁnite

volume method on an unstructured mesh with the standard k–e model for turbulence.

S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866 861

A typical mesh size for the CFD simulation was around 300,000 mesh cells, each steady state

case took 11–16 wall clock hours on Dell Optiplex GX270 computers. These computers had 2

Intel P4 3.20 GHz processors with 2.00GB RAM. The steady state solutions used pseudo time

step, which was determined by the CFL requirement of the solver. Convergence was claimed when

a stable pressure drop was achieved, usually it took 7000 iterations.

The friction factor was calculated by using the pressure drop in the fully developed region of the

pipe. The friction factor for clean air was calculated by

DP

f ¼ ; ð14Þ

L 1

D 2

qU 2avg

where f is the friction factor, DP is the pressure drop along the pipe over a distance of L in the

fully developed region, q is the density of air, Uavg is the average velocity, and D is the diameter

of the pipe. For a fully developed ﬂow, the friction factor is a constant. From this calculation, the

friction factor was found to be f = 0.0164. The results were compared to those in the Moody chart

(Reynolds number 9.15 · 105, surface roughness e = 0.0026 mm, friction factor f = 0.017).

The boundary conditions for the coal/air ﬂow were imposed in the same manner as those for

clean air ﬂow. The boundary condition for the particles was no slip i.e., the particles stick to the

surface if they hit the surface. The volume fraction for coal at inlet was considered to be uniformly

distributed. The coal particles were all considered to be spherical and of the same uniform size

(diameter 1 lm). Table 3 gives the pressure drop per unit length for the horizontal and vertical

components and also the pressure drop across the bends for both clean air and coal/air ﬂows.

As can be seen, the pressure drop for the coal/air ﬂow is always greater than that of the clean

862 S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866

Table 3

Pressure drop across various components for clean air and coal/air ﬂows

Horizontal (Pa/m) Vertical (Pa/m) Bend angles

90 (Pa) 120 (Pa) 135 (Pa) 150 (Pa) 160 (Pa) 165 (Pa)

Clean air 11.02 10.82 48.68 32.06 23.93 13.79 9.18 5.71

Coal/air 27.52 16.6 104.33 51.76 29.63 15.64 11.47 8.38

air ﬂow. It can be said that this is mainly due to the resistance oﬀered by the interaction between

air and coal particles and among coal particles themselves, as well as blockage eﬀects.

6. Results

In this study, oriﬁce sizes were calculated for coal/air balancing. Based on the given data, the

calculations have been performed with the existing system conﬁguration. The clean air and coal/

air pressure drop coeﬃcients, and ﬂow distributions were ﬁrst calculated. Oriﬁce sizes for coal/air

balancing were then calculated. Note that in each system if one or more oriﬁces already exist, then

there was at least one oriﬁce at 1-m distance from the pulverizer exit. It was then tacitly assumed

that the new oriﬁce would replace that oriﬁce.

Table 1 gives the data from the power plant. This table is self-explanatory. The existing ﬂow

distributions are given in Table 2, which are based on the pressure drop calculations shown in

Table 3. The oriﬁce diameters for balancing coal/air ﬂow are shown in Table 4. The tailored clean

air ﬂow and the balanced coal/air ﬂow distribution after insertion of new oriﬁces is shown in

Table 5. As can be seen from Table 5, the pressure drop for each system is the same and

Table 4

Oriﬁce diameter calculation for coal/air balancing

System K Loss coeﬃcient Existing oriﬁce KOR Total K New KOR Oriﬁce diameter (mm)

1 5.84 0.95 6.79 2.32 401.78

2 4.73 1.07 5.80 3.31 389.08

3 7.78 0.00 7.78 1.32 427.85

4 9.10 0.00 9.10 0.00 –

Note: K is the pressure loss coeﬃcient of each system and KOR is the pressure loss coeﬃcient of the oriﬁce calculated

based on Eq. (4).

Table 5

Tailored clean air ﬂow and balanced coal/air ﬂow distribution after insertion of new oriﬁces

System Clean air Coal/air

Total K after retroﬁt Flow distribution (%) Total K after retroﬁt Flow distribution (%)

1 5.25 91 9.10 100

2 6.01 85 9.10 100

3 3.88 105 9.10 100

4 3.01 120 9.10 100

S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866 863

consequently the coal/air ﬂow is balanced. In each instance, an existing oriﬁce at 1 m distance is to

be replaced by the new oriﬁce.

The CFD simulations also provide detailed information of the two-phase ﬂow ﬁeld. Fig. 4

shows the close-up view of the air velocity magnitude contours for bends with various angles.

The gravity force is vertically downward (in the negative y-direction). All contours shown in Figs.

4 and 5 are on the center plane (xz-plane) that passes the axis of the bend. In the horizontal por-

tion of the bend, all ﬂows exhibit similar velocity distributions and there is no variation in the

Fig. 4. Air velocity magnitude contours for bends with various angles.

864 S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866

Fig. 5. Contours of volume fraction of coal for bends with various angles.

streamwise direction. This is because the ﬂow has gone through 40D upstream length before it

reaches the bend, and ﬂow has become fully developed. It is observed that the velocity is lower

near the bottom of the horizontal portion. This is due to the higher resistance to the air induced

by the coal particles when they deposit to the pipe bottom. For the ﬂow conditions considered in

the current study, the eﬀects of coal particle deposition is signiﬁcant. It can be clearly seen from

Fig. 4 that the characteristics of the air ﬂow downstream of the bend strongly depend on the bend

angle. For sharp turns (Fig. 4a–c), the ﬂow has to change direction quickly and the higher velocity

ﬂow is shifted towards the outer radius of the downstream bend. While near the inner radius of

S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866 865

the bend, a lower velocity region can be identiﬁed. As shown in Table 3, this sharp ﬂow direction

change results in signiﬁcant pressure loss, with the 90 bend giving the highest. For higher bend

angles (Fig. 4d), the ﬂow goes through the bend quite smoothly, and the pressure loss is insignif-

icant compared to the sharp turning cases.

Fig. 5 displays the contours of volume of ﬂuid (VOF) of coal for bends with various angles. In

the horizontal portion, all bends show similar coal VOF distribution, just like the velocity con-

tours in Fig. 4. Higher coal VOF is found at the lower part of the upstream pipe. This is again

attributed to the deposition of the coal particles. In the bend, maximum VOF of coal can be iden-

tiﬁed near the outer radius of the bend. This is explained by the ﬂow impingement in the bend, and

the attachment and accumulation of coal particles at this location. For sharp turning bends, the

overall VOF of coal becomes much less downstream of the bend, indicating signiﬁcant deposition

and accumulation of coal particles in the bend and upstream pipe (Fig. 5a–c). While for smooth

turning bend, the eﬀects of coal particle deposition and accumulation are not as prominent

(Fig. 5d). It should be pointed out that for the 90 bend, immediately downstream of the bend

and close to the inner radius, there is a localized region with a higher coal VOF than its local

ambient. This is the indication of ﬂow separation. The local recirculating ﬂow traps a signiﬁcant

amount of coal particles and a region of higher VOF of coal is formed. For 120 and 130 bends,

this localized region can still be seen, but the size is much smaller. While for the 160 bend, it is not

recognizable, suggesting negligible or non-existent ﬂow separation downstream of the bend.

7. Conclusions

There is currently no easy way of measuring coal/air ﬂow in a power plant. In order to balance

the coal/air ﬂow to the individual burners, it would, therefore, be necessary to rely on clean air

tests. The industry practice has so far been to balance the clean air ﬂow and accept the resulting

imbalance in the coal/air ﬂow. It was observed in one speciﬁc case that, when the clean air is bal-

anced with a maximum deviation of 3% from the average, the corresponding coal/air ﬂow devi-

ation was approximately 27%. This is unacceptable from the consideration of eﬃcient unit

operation.

A new method in which creating a tailored imbalance in clean air ﬂow corresponding to a bal-

anced coal/air ﬂow distribution has been successfully proposed in this paper. Commercially avail-

able software CFX was used to calculate pressure drops in systems. The two-phase ﬂow

phenomena was simulated using the multi-phase modelling technique. Using this, several geom-

etries involving any number of independent lines starting from a mill and discharging to a given

burner can be handled. The results show that the pressure drop in the systems strongly depends on

the system geometry. Oriﬁces are sized based on calculated coal/air pressure drops, and ﬁnally

imposing a tailored imbalance in clean air ﬂow distribution leading to a balanced coal/air distri-

bution. It should be pointed out that in order to implement this method in power plant, veriﬁca-

tion can still be done by measuring the tailored clean air distribution. The numerical results also

provide detailed information of the two-phase ﬂow ﬁeld in the piping systems in a power plant,

based on which physical insights were obtained and better understanding of the complex ﬂow phe-

nomena was achieved. This study demonstrated that CFD can be used as an eﬀective tool for

design and research for power industry applications.

866 S. Vijiapurapu et al. / Applied Mathematical Modelling 30 (2006) 854–866

References

[1] A.A. Vetter, R.S. Vetter, Balancing pulverized coal ﬂows in parallel piping, J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power 107 (July)

(1985) 679–684.

[2] R. Avancha, Coal/air balancing in pulverized coal ﬁred units, MasterÕs Thesis, Tennessee Technological University,

1995.

[3] M.P. Sharma, Numerical and experimental study of gas-particle ﬂows in oriﬁces and venturis: application to

ﬂowmeter design, Ph.D. Dissertation, Washington State University, 1977.

[4] G.R. Jones, Pulverized Coal Mill Fuel/Air Ratio Testing, paper presented at EPRI Heatrate Improvement

Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee, September 1989.

[5] ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals-2001, I.P. Edition.

[6] AEA Technology, CFX-5.5.1 Flow Solver User Guide, AEA Technology Inc., 2003.

[7] C. Yin, L. Rosendahl, S.K. Kar, T.J. Condra, Use of numerical modeling in design for co-ﬁring biomass in wall-

ﬁred burners, Chem. Eng. Sci. 59 (2004) 3281–3292.

[8] C.N. Eastwick, S.J. Pichering, A. Aroussi, Comparisons of two commercial computational ﬂuid dynamics codes in

modeling pulverized coal combustion for a 2.5 MW burner, Appl. Math. Modell. 23 (1999) 437–446.

[9] G.J. Brown, Erosion prediction in slurry pipeline tee-junctions, Appl. Math. Modell. 26 (2002) 155–170.

[10] D. Achim, A.K. Easton, M.P. Schwarz, P.J. Witt, A. Zakhari, Tube erosion modelling in a ﬂuidised bed, Appl.

Math. Modell. 26 (2002) 191–201.

[11] P.J. Stopford, Recent applications of CFD modelling in the power generation and combustion industries, Appl.

Math. Modell. 26 (2002) 351–374.

[12] A.A. Vetter, Theoretical Evaluation of the Diﬀerences Between Single and Two-Phase Flow as Applied to Coal

Transport Piping, Humburg Mountain Research Laboratories Report, HMRL R—31:1, September 1981.

[13] I.E. Idelchik, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, third ed., CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 1994, p. 221.

- Accounting SDR Fluctuations to Non-Premixed Turbulent Combustion for Better Predictions of In-Cylinder ProcessesUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- aerospace-03-00045Uploaded byNaresh kumar
- CFD Exam PaperUploaded byAbhishek Awasthi
- Magellan CfdUploaded byBarışPulat
- Ashok-Tejasvi-ReportUploaded bytejasvi_ashok
- Cfd Using Ansys Icem Cfd & FluentUploaded bynapinnvo
- resumeUploaded byapi-389086603
- 10.1.1.131.9942Uploaded byKaushik Ram S
- Investigation of Swing Check ValveUploaded byvelusankar
- Thermo - Heat Transfer - Fluid Flow VOL IIIUploaded byEvangelos Tentis
- Lid Driven Cavity_SIMPLEUploaded byJason Ryan Picardo
- Water Flow Over an Ogee Profile ReportUploaded bysandigric
- Introduction to CFDUploaded byKUNKRI
- Waves in GuinnessUploaded byAnonymous YJxoSV
- Flexural-gravity waves due to transient disturbances in an inviscid fluid of finite depthUploaded byDong-Qiang Lu
- mcmullanUploaded byndoye
- History of Fluid MechanicsUploaded byYash Menon
- Viscosity Compensation MV Series Turbine Meter (1)Uploaded bypedro
- V001T01A042-94-GT-131Uploaded byjohnson_rego
- Introducing Cos Mof Lo WorksUploaded byMilagrosCisneros
- Microscale Heat Transfer - Fundamentals and Applications.pdfUploaded byAndréRocha
- Fluidity and PlasticityUploaded bywatersakana
- large eddy simulation articleUploaded byMuhammad Zahid
- Guo_ComputationalDesignToolBridgeHydrodynamicLoadingUploaded byAnusha Kishore
- 1-s2.0-S1877705813001033-mainUploaded bygunjandpatel05
- Phd_thesis_penstate Flow Channel ReactorUploaded byvictoria
- Instant+Guide+to+Flow+ProfilingUploaded bynikhil_barshettiwat
- CFX12 08 TransientUploaded byKada Der
- Compressible Flow EqnUploaded byAnkur Bhatnagar
- Lecture NotesUploaded byP K

- Fishcapter-naturehandbookUploaded byshubham208011
- 5-6May 2016Uploaded byshubham208011
- Annexure 4Uploaded byshubham208011
- 05.Water Balance TheoryUploaded byshubham208011
- Public Hearing of Jawahar STPPUploaded byshubham208011
- Cover LetterUploaded byshubham208011
- Lecture2 Thermodynamics 2014Uploaded byshubham208011
- presentation-i-exergy-and-optimization-atilla-biyikoglu-1.pdfUploaded byshubham208011
- presentation-i-exergy-and-optimization-atilla-biyikoglu-1.pdfUploaded byshubham208011
- Survey on Positive and Negative Environmental and Social Impacts and Effects of Mitigation Measures on Hydropower DevelopmentUploaded byshubham208011
- 76 1 Finalconsolidated Environmental RHEPUploaded byshubham208011
- Lecture1 Fundamentals 2014Uploaded byshubham208011

- Fine Marine Innovsail_2010Uploaded byPavel Remmy
- P7Uploaded byBobby Bannerjee
- Introduction to Fluid Mechanics - Ch11Uploaded byNguyễn Hồng Quân
- BuoyancyUploaded byjayeshep
- NCFMFP_SPHUploaded byabrarn179208
- Transonic report DEN 302Uploaded byget_moin
- 428F2 Side Shift Backhoe Loader bomba de pistones.pdfUploaded byRICHARD
- Metodo de TurnerUploaded byGruber Herrera
- FLUID MECHANICS WITH LABORATORY MANUAL, SECOND EDITION By MAJUMDAR, BIRESWARUploaded byPHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
- 1-s2.0-S0376042114000645-mainUploaded byEirick Wayne Zuñigga De-Itzel
- Spedding, Hand 1997 - Prediction in Stratified FlowUploaded byDony Gunawan
- 17. Application of CFD for determination of pressure coefficients using Ansys Flotran by Satyen Ramani.pdfUploaded bySatyen Ramani
- Biomedical Engineering_revised_handbook 082015 (3)Uploaded byTeja Gutti
- Sheet 17-2-2013Uploaded byAhmad Salah
- Fluid Lab - Pump in Parallel and SeriesUploaded byYukiYukina
- Darcy-Law (Rock)Uploaded byMaqsood Iqbal
- Sizing Centrifugal Pump for Viscous LiquidUploaded bygeogeogeo
- High Lift Low Reynolds Number Airfoil DesignUploaded byalexis477
- Festo Electrical, Pneumatic and Logic SymbolsUploaded byAvtomatika Kole Nehtenin
- YES-PLEASE.docxUploaded byjaime1234
- 87426770-Experiment-9Uploaded byGuianne Carlo Bustamante
- List of Equations in Fluid Mechanics - Wikipedia, The Free EncyclopediaUploaded byRuby Smith
- 20 - Method of Characteristics (1)Uploaded byAero Anbazhagan S
- Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Wall Adaptation on Flow Over Cylinder in Modernized Wall Wind TunnelUploaded bysree244
- gdjp QBUploaded byChenthil Kumar K
- liquids Difference between BuoyancyUploaded byab
- Jet Impingement Heat TransferUploaded bydrmazhar1
- Summary Basic FluidsUploaded bySuzane Ferreira
- Air Flow ReportUploaded byLuke jagger
- Flow Conditioning PLatesUploaded byGeetha