Integrated study of flue gas flow and superheating process in a recovery boiler using computational fluid dynamics and 1D-process modeling
Source abstract
Abstract
Superheaters are the last heat exchangers on the steam side in recovery boilers. They are typically made of expensive materials due to the high steam temperature and risks associated with ash-induced corrosion. Therefore, detailed knowledge about the steam properties and material temperature distribution is essential for improving the energy efficiency, cost efficiency, and safety of recovery boilers. In this work, for the first time, a comprehensive one-dimensional (1D) process model (1D-PM) for a superheated steam cycle is developed and linked with a full-scale three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the superheater region flue gas flow. The results indicate that: (1) the geometries of headers and superheater platens affect platen-wise steam mass flow rate distribution (3%–7%); and (2) the CFD solution of the 3D flue gas flow field and platen heat flux distribution coupled with the 1D-PM affect the platen-wise steam superheating temperature (45%–122%) and material temperature distribution (1%–6%). Moreover, it is also found that the commonly-used uniform heat flux distribution approach for the superheating process is not accurate, as it does not consider the effect of flue gas flow field in the superheater region. These new observations clearly demonstrate the value of the present integrated CFD/1D-PM modeling approach.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Heat Transfer and Optimization · Combustion and flame dynamics · Heat transfer and supercritical fluids
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF), “Production of electricity and heat,” Helsinki, ISSN=1798-5099. Available [Online] http://www.stat.fi/til/salatuo/index_en.html <8June2020>.
2. Pöyry, “World fibre outlook up to 2030,” Pöyry Oyj, Helsinki, 2016.
3. Tran, H. and Vakkilainen, E., Int. Colloq. Eucalyptus Pulp, 3rd, ABTCP, São Paulo, Brazil, 2007, p. 4.
4. Salmenoja, K., 55th Anniv. Int. Recovery Boiler Conf., Finnish Recovery Boiler Committee, Vantaa, Finland, 2019, p. 175.
5. Edge, P.J., Heggs, P.J., Pourkashanian, M., et al., Comput. Chem. Eng. 35(12): 2618(2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.04.003.10.1016/j.compchemeng.2011.04.003 ↗
6. Schuhbauer, C., Angerer, M., Spliethoff, H., et al., Fuel 122:149(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.032.10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.032 ↗
7. Chen, T., Zhang, Y.J., Liao, M.R., et al., Fuel 240: 49(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.11.008.10.1016/j.fuel.2018.11.008 ↗
8. Park, H.Y., Faulkner, M., Turrell, M.D., et al., Fuel 89(8): 2001(2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2010.01.036.10.1016/j.fuel.2010.01.036 ↗
9. Yang, Y., Bai, W., Wang, Y., et al., Appl. Therm. Eng. 113: 259(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.11.043.10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.11.043 ↗
10. Hovi, V., Huttunen, M., Karppinen, I., et al., Energy Procedia 120: 508 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.186.10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.186 ↗
11. Saviharju, K., Pakarinen, L., Wag, K., et al., Int. Chem. Recovery Boiler Conf., TAPPI PRESS, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2004, p. 247.
12. Leppänen, A., Välimäki, E., Oksanen, A., et al., TAPPI J. 12(3):25(2013). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ12.3.25.10.32964/TJ12.3.25 ↗
13. Leppänen, A., Tran, H., Taipale, R., et al., Fuel 129: 45(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.03.046.10.1016/j.fuel.2014.03.046 ↗
14. Leppänen, A., Tran, H., Välimäki, E., et al., J. Sci. Technol. For. Prod. Processes 4(1): 50(2014).
15. Leppänen, A. and Välimäki, E., TAPPI J. 15(3): 187(2016). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ15.3.187.10.32964/TJ15.3.187 ↗
16. Maakala, V., Järvinen, M., and Vuorinen, V., Energy 160: 361(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.002.10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.002 ↗
17. Maakala, V., Järvinen, M., and Vuorinen, V., Appl. Therm. Eng. 139: 222(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.084.10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.084 ↗
18. Vakkilainen, E., Kuparinen, K., and Heinimö, J., “Large industrial users of energy biomass,” IEA Bioenergy Task 40, 2013.
19. Wessel, R.A., Denison, M.K., and Samretvanich, A., TAPPI J. 83(7): 1(2000).
20. Li, B., Brink, A., and Hupa, M., Fuel Process. Technol. 105:149(2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.08.007.10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.08.007 ↗
21. Zbogar, A., Frandsen, F.J., Jensen, P.A., et al., Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 31(5-6): 371(2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2005.08.002.10.1016/j.pecs.2005.08.002 ↗
22. Alobaid, F., Mertens, N., Starkloff, R., et al., Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 59: 79(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2016.11.001.10.1016/j.pecs.2016.11.001 ↗
23. Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Queen’s University, “Losses in pipes,” Kingston, ON, Canada. Available [Online] https://me.queensu.ca/People/Sellens/LossesinPipes.html<6June2020>.
24. Engblom, M., Miikkulainen, P., Brink, A., et al., TAPPI J. 11(11): 19(2012). https://doi.org/10.32964/TJ11.11.19.10.32964/TJ11.11.19 ↗