journal article·2015-02-01Open access

Understanding recovery boiler smelt runoff phenomena

HONGHI TRAN, ANDREW K. JONES, THOMAS M. GRACE

TAPPI Journal· Volume 14· Issue 1

Abstract

There is considerable interest in the nature and causes of heavy smelt runoff from recovery boilers because of the role it has played in numerous dissolving tank explosions and for personnel safety around the dissolving tank. Most mills have experienced runoff problems, which can be caused by cleaning plugged spouts, burning down a large bed, low sulfidity smelt, startup with a bed in the unit, and improper firing practices. The peak smelt flow during a runoff is often 3 to 5 times normal and may be much greater in severe cases. Heavy runoffs are self-limiting and typically last less than 30 min. The geometry of the lower furnace plays a significant role in runoff events. Sloped floor units are more vulnerable to smelt pool buildup and heavy runoff when released. Decanting bottom units are inherently more tolerant of smelt pool buildup. Low sulfidity results in smelt with a high melting temperature, making the smelt easy to freeze and difficult to flow. Sulfate-rich slag/deposits falling on the hearth from the upper furnace can contribute significantly to runoff problems by causing dams and spout plugging, increasing the load of smelt pool to be removed, decreasing bed temperatures, and lowering the sulfidity of the smelt leaving the furnace.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Metallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics · Nuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics · Cyclone Separators and Fluid Dynamics

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (11)

Show source-provided references
1. Lien, S. and DeMartini, N., “Dissolving Tank Explosions – A Review of Incidents between 1973 and 2005,” Report to AF&PA Recovery Boiler Committee, American Forest and Paper Association, AF&PA, Washington, DC, 6 February 2008.
2. Grace, T.M., “Dissolving Tank Explosions – A Review of Incidents Reported to BLRBAC,” Report to AF&PA Recovery Boiler Committee, AF&PA, Washington, DC, 26 November 2013.
3. Grace, T.M., “Survey For Best Practices for the Safe Operation of Dissolving Tanks – Analysis of Responses to Survey,” Report to AF&PA Recovery Boiler Committee, AF&PA, Washington, DC, 19 December 2013.
4. MacCallum, C., “Design Considerations for Reducing the Risk of Dissolving Tank Explosions,” BLRBAC Meet., Black Liquor Recovery Boiler Advisory Committee (BLRBAC), Atlanta, GA, USA, April 2011.
5. Taranenko, A., Bussmann, M., Tran, H.N., “A Laboratory Study of Recovery Boiler Smelt
6. Jin, X., Bussmann, M., Tran, H.N., “An Experimental Study of Smelt-Water Interaction in Recovery Boiler Dissolving Tanks,” TAPPI PEERS Conf., TAPPI PRESS, Atlanta, 2013
7. Wiklander, G., “Some New Developments in the Recovery Cycle,” Black Liquor Recovery Boiler Symp., Finnish Recovery Boiler Committee, Finnish Energy Economy Association and EKONO Oy, 1982.
8. Tran, H.N., Sunil, A., Jones, A.K., J. Pulp Pap. Sci. 32(3): 182(2006).
9. Magnusson, H. and Warnqvist, B., Sven. Papperstidn. 78(17): 614(1975).10.1177/0040571X7507801116 ↗
10. Lindberg, D., Backman, R., Chartrand, P., J. Chem. Thermodyn. 39(6): 942(2007).
11. Tran, H.N., Mao, X., and Chartand, P., “Effects of Sulphide on Melting Temperatures of Smelt and Carryover in Kraft Recovery Boilers,” TAPPI Eng., Pulping Environ. Conf., TAPPI PRESS, Atlanta, 2009