Twenty-first Symposium (International) on Combustion/The Combustion Institute, 1986/pp.

265-274

THREE-DIMENSIONAL FURNACE COMPUTER MODELLING

R.K. BOYD
Electricity Commission of New South Wales

J.n. KENT
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Univer~i(~' o/Sydney
N.S.W. 2006
Australia

A fully three-dimensional computer model of a pulverized fuel, tangentially fired furnace is

presented. The model predicts gas flows, species concentrations and temperatures, particle
trajectories and combustion and radiation heat fluxes. The gas phase conservation equations of
momentum, enthalpy and mixture fraction are solved utilizing the k-{ turbulence model. A
Lagrangian approach is used to predict particle trajectories. Particle dispersion in the turbulent
flow is modelled by a stochastic method. Coal devolatilization and char burnout are modelled
and radiative heat transfer is handled by a discrete transfer method.
The predictions are compared with data obtained in an operating 500 MW(e) furnace. Input
conditions for the computations are the actual coal feed rate, particle size distribution, specific
energy and chemical analysis. The predictions are compared with furnace measurements of
temperatures, 02 concentrations, wall heat fluxes and carbon burnout. Agreement between the
predictions and data is very satisfactory.

1. Introduction tion a n d heat t r a n s f e r a n d includes particle

Many of the boilers c u r r e n t l y being operated
by the Electricity C o m m i s s i o n of NSW
(ECNSW) are tangentially pulverised coal fired
designs a n d hence have flows which are t u r b u -
lent, recirculating a n d fully three-dimensional.
T e s t i n g of these boilers is extremely expensive;
a n d high costs also make extensive plant modi-
fications prohibitive. T h u s a n analytical f u r n a c e
m o d e l allowing the p e r f o r m a n c e of new coal
seams to be evaluated a n d e n a b l i n g prospective
f u r n a c e designs to be tested, is invaluable from
design a n d operational viewpoints.
Over the last two decades the e n o r m o u s
growth in available c o m p u t e r power has fos-
tered the d e v e l o p m e n t of n u m e r i c a l flow, com-
bustion a n d heat transfer models. Early models
focussed u p o n gaseous fuels being b u r n e d in
laboratory scale c o m b u s t o r s a n d have b e e n
reviewed previously t-3. Pulverised coal combus-
tion models c o n c e n t r a t e d u p o n the chemistry
using assumed flow fields 4. Later work led to
o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l or t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l axisym-
metric models of laboratory test furnaces ~'6'7.
Recently, models of industrial-scale, pulverised,
coal fired furnaces have a p p e a r e d 8-12. T h e
p r e s e n t work extends previous models by de-
scribing fully t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l flow, combus-
dispersion in the t u r b u l e n t gas flow.
T h e f u r n a c e m o d e l l e d is one of the ECNSW
Liddell Power Station 500 MW(e) boilers. T h e
boiler is a tower type tangentially fired design
having two furnaces s h a r i n g a c o m m o n central
water wall. Each f u r n a c e has dimensions 10.69
• 8.86 x 31.0 m a n d is fired from four vertical
banks of 8 b u r n e r s a n g l e d at 28 ~ a n d 40 ~ to the
vertical wall n o r m a l a n d with - 1 6 ~ vertical tilt.
T h e exact f u r n a c e g e o m e t r y is described more
fully elsewhere a3'14.
T h e model uses actual f u r n a c e o p e r a t i n g
conditions a n d coal properties. Predictions are
c o m p a r e d with m e a s u r e m e n t s o b t a i n e d from
the o p e r a t i n g furnace. T h e s e include oxygen
concentrations, t e m p e r a t u r e distributions, wall
heat fluxes a n d coal particle b u r n o u t at the exit.
2. Physical Models
2.1 Gas Flow
T h e gas flow is described by th~ time m e a n
conservation equations of global mass, m o m e n -
tum, enthalpy a n d species mass fractions. T u r -
b u l e n t diffusivity is h a n d l e d by an effective
viscosity o b t a i n e d f r o m the well k n o w n k-e

265
266 COAL COMBUSTION

model and inolves two additional equations. All
equations are coupled by the gas density which
is a function o f the combustion heat release and
radiation losses.
The gas phase conservation equations in
three dimensions can be cast in the following
form:
(1)
Oxi t, ~ Ox, J
Here, r represents any of the above variables,
$6 is the source or sink term in the gas phase
and Sp~ is the term due to the particle phase.
The source terms and exchange coefficients
used are shown in Table 1.
T h e effective turbulent viscosity is IX: =
Cv,Pk2/~ + P4. W h e r e C~< = 0.09. Gas phase mean
density is obtained from the perfect gas equa-
tion using t e m p e r a t u r e derived from enthalpy
and molecular weight from the mixture frac-
tion equation (described later).
2.2 Particle Dynamics
The heterogeneous nature of pulverised coal
combustion and the relatively slow particle
combustion rates require the particle trajecto-
ries are accurately modelled. Particle sizes in
the range 10-200 Ixm are encountered and
particle-gas phase slippage cannot be neglected
particularly in regions of high velocity gradi-
ents and recirculation.
The Lagrangian approach, whereby each
particle size class is tracked through the gas
field is used here. During its flight the particle
interacts with the gas flow field j~roducing
source terms (particle source in cell IJ method)
in the m o m e n t u m , enthalpy and mixture frac-
tion equations as shown in Table 1. Particle
mass and t e m p e r a t u r e are also changing and
these properties are continuously updated.
The particle m o m e n t u m equation is,
dut, i 1
mt,---~ = ~C~p(ui--ul,,)2+ml, g , (2)
The drag coefficient CD is a function of Reyn-
olds number.
If the gas velocity used in the particle
m o m e n t u m equation is the mean velocity then
all particles o f a given size and starting location
will follow identical paths through the furnace.
Particles disperse because of the turbulent gas

TABLE I
Source Terms and Exchange Coefficients for Gas Phase Conservation Equations

6 F, S, Sp,

dmp
1 0 0
dt

dP d
u, t&* - - - - + pg,
dx i dt (mpuip)

k p,/0.9 G~- pe 0

9 Ixj1.22 (1.44Gk--l.92pe)- ~ 0

dmp
f ~x,/O.9 0 dt

d
h t,/0.9 - Qn --~t tmp apl
* Additional stress terms which occur in the momentum equations are for numerical
convenience placed into Su,.

1 /0ui a~j\/0ui a~,'~

 THREE DIMENSIONAL FURNACE MODELING
flow and hence their trajectories can be more
realistically modelled from a distribution of
instantaneous gas velocities.
T h e model 16 developed here solves the La-
grangian equation of motion for a statistically
significant sample of individual particles as they
encounter a r a n d o m distribution of turbulent
eddies. T h e velocity of each eddy is found by
making a r a n d o m selection from the probability
density function of velocity. This is assumed to
be an isotropic Gaussian probability density
function having standard deviations (2k/3) ~
about the mean velocity. T h e integration of the
particle equation of motion is p e r f o r m e d over a
time step which is taken to be the lesser of the
eddy lifetime and a characteristic time taken for
a particle to traverse an eddy. These times are
estimated assuming the characteristic eddy size
is the dissipation length scale16;
L~ = C 0"75
b~ kl5/e
T h e characteristic time taken to traverse an
eddy ~ is estimated as
tt = L j u p
where up is the particle velocity entering the
eddy.
The eddy lifetime is 16
te = Le/(2k/3) ~
2.4 Particle Combustion
Particle devolatization and char b u r n o u t
rates are strongly t e m p e r a t u r e dependent. T h e
particle energy balance is
d dmp
dt ( m p h p ) = h p - - - ~ + Q p c + Q p ~ + Q t , b
Radiative transfer between the particle and the
gas @, has been neglected here. Convected heat
transfer 0_~ = ha t, (T - Tp) is obtained for a
sphere moving at the slip velocity t h r o u g h the
gas.
During char b u r n o u t part of the heat release
may be directly transferred to the particle
rather than the gas phase. T h e term xq in 0.~b =
- - Xq q~
dmp
Qt, b = --Xqq~ dt
represents the fraction of the particle heat of
combustion which is transferred to the particle.
Here 4 xq = 0.3. Since all the particle standard-
ized enthalpy change, including combustion,
takes place by interaction with the gas phase,
267
the corresponding sink term in Table I is the
change in particle enthalpy.
T h e coal particle is initially composed of raw
coal and ash. Devolatilization and combustion
of the volatiles takes place in the gas phase
through rapid heating of the particle. The
remaining char particle subsequently burns out
to ash at a chemical or diffusion controlled rate.
T h e particle devolatilization is modelled by
considering a pair of parallel, first o r d e r
reactions 17.
I. (RAW COAL) ~1 (1 - Y~) (CHAR)
+ Y1 (VOLATILES) (7a)
II. (RAW COAL) ~2 (1 - Y2) (CHAR)
+ Y2 (VOLATILES) (7b)
These two reactions are competing, reaction I
being slow and reaction II fast. T h e volatiles
(3) mass yield Y1 for unit mass of raw coal is
assumed to be equal to the proximate volatile
analysis. T h e yield for reaction II, Y2, is
assumed Is to be 2Y> T h e rate coefficients '}1 and
k2 are given by A r r h e n i u s expressions of the
(4) form k = A exp( - E/RTp). T h e constants A l, A2
and activation energies El, E217 are shown in
Table II.
This model ensures that the actual volatile
yield is a function of the time-temperature
history of the particle. Following devolatiliza-
(5) tion, char b u r n o u t is controlled by the rate of
oxygen diffusion to the particle and the rate of
chemical reaction at the surface. T h e particle
mass change due to char b u r n o u t is given by4:
dmp = --~k,P#~Xo2 (8)
dt
(6) where the overall rate is given by the combina-
tion of chemical and diffusion rate terms:
k, = 1/(1/kd + 1/kc) (9)
T h e chemical rate is expressed in Arrhenius
form as, kc = Ac exp ( - Ec/RTp) with Ac and Ec
given in Table 24 .
2.5 Gas Phase M i x i n g and Combustion
The previous section specified the particle
mass loss rate to the gas phase by devolatiliza-
tion and char burnout. These processes pro-
duce gas phase fuels which provide source
terms in the gas phase species and enthalpy
equations.
T h e overall complete combustion reaction
for the raw coal is,
268 COAL COMBUSTION

TABLE II having the composition of the raw coal. (Water

Operating Conditions is considered separated d u r i n g coal preheating
prior to furnace entry.) The rate of production
ULTIMATE COAL ANALYSIS Mass % of this gaseous fuel is determined by the
Carbon 53.86 relations in 2.4.
Hydrogen 3.64 Chemical reactions in the gaseous phase are
Nitrogen 1.36 considered to occur rapidly and are limited by
Sulphur 0.88 the mixing rate of fuel and oxidant. This allows
Oxygen 6.66 the well known mixture fraction approach to be
HzO 7.40 used. The mixture fraction f is the mass
Ash 26.20 fraction of the gaseous fuel atoms and for
complete combustion all species mass fractions
Specific Energy (dry ash free) 32.83 MJ/kg
and molecular weight can be algebraically re-
COAL COMBUSTION PARAMETERS lated tof. Thus, for pure f u e l f = 1, in air f = 0
Devolatilization: A1 1.3 x 105 s-1 and where f has the stoichiometric value the
A2 1.5 x 1013 s-1 composition is given by the products in Eq. (i0).
Et 74 x 103 KJ/mol The time mean mixture fraction in the furnace
E2 251 x 103 KJ/mol is obtained by the solution of t h e f c o n s e r v a t i o n
Yl 0.27 equation with the source term in Table 2.
Y2 0.54 The molecular weight from f together with
Char Combustion: Ac 0.8596 kg/(s - m2)/ temperature from enthalpy allow the time
(N/m 2) mean gas density to be evaluated. No fluctua-
Ec 1.49 x 105 kJl(kg-mol) tions in f (the "g" equation) have been con-
sidered. The distributed source terms mean
RADIATION PARAMETERS that f gradients are much smaller than for
Ks 0.13m -1 b u r n i n g fuel jets where turbulent fluctuations
% 0.67 can affect the computed time mean variables.
T~ 660 K
BOILER OPERATING CONDITIONS 2.6 Energy Transport
Burner tilt - 16~
Total Coal Flow 30.9 kg/s Standardized enthalpies are used for all
Primary Airflow 56.0 kg/s species including the coal particles. T h e gas
Secondary Airflow 224.0 kg/s phase enthalpy equation contains only two
Primary Air Temperature 353 K source terms; the cell radiation and that due to
Secondary Air Temperature 533 K the enthalpy of fuel transferred from the solid
Excess Air 15.5% to the gas phase. T h e enthalpy together with
the species mass fractions from f allow the
determination of gas temperature.
Radiative heat transfer is handled by the
discrete transfer method of Lockwood and
Shah 19. This method embodies features of the
zone, flux and Monte-Carlo methods and has
m
--' vSO2 + ~ - H 2 0 + nCO 2 been found to yield good results and be
computationally efficient. The furnace is di-
vided into 6 x 6 x 17 cartesian cells, each
3 rn P having u n i f o r m temperature and absorption
+ .76(n+-~-~-+r)N2 (10)
coefficient. A discrete n u m b e r of rays are
tracked to the centre of each wall cell from the
The reaction occurs by gas phase combustion surounding walls. As each ray encounters a cell
of the volatiles and char burnout. The char is at temperature T and absorption coefficient K
considered to be pure carbon and the gas phase the change in intensity of the ray is given by:
fuels thus have differing compositions, heat of
reaction and oxygen requirements. However,
these differences are not large when the com- dI KoT 4
d--~= - K I + --~r (11)
plete conversion of char to CO2 is considered.
(The char surface reaction is generally con-
sidered to produce CO which rapidly oxidises Hence, the change in intensity of any ray
to CO2 in the gas phase.) over a cell is f o u n d by the integration of
A simplified approach is, therefore, to treat equation (11). T h e net absorption or emission
all fuel sources in the gas phase as one gas of energy Qm from a cell is the summation of
 THREE DIMENSIONAL FURNACE MODELING 269

the change in intensity o f each ray passing

through that cell.
T h e treatment used here assumes the com-
bined particle and gas absorption coefficient in B
B
each cell is 2~
t / I p
~ I I,
K(m -1) = 0.32 + 0,28 exp( - 7"/1135)(12) I I ~ - . ~, l l 1
and in the b u r n e r region considering soot the
absorption coefficient increases by 0.4 m -1. ~

Isotropic radiative scatter has been included

I ~ ~ ~ . ~ , . o a

with an assumed scatter coefficient Ks = 0.13

m -1"

3, N u m e r i c a l Solution
T h e finite difference T E A C H - 3 E code 21 de-
# / / / / / ! !
veloped at Imperial College, London provides
the basis for the solution o f the quasi-linearized
elliptic conservation equations. The computa- Ill//Ill
tions are carried out on a 12 x 10 x 31 node
cartesian mesh with a fine node spacing in the
l I / / i / / !
b u r n e r regions. Each inlet p o r t is modelled by
one finite difference cell with a p p r o p r i a t e / l / / I l l /
b o u n d a r y conditions. For the results presented ,I i i I I I I /I
here, only the lower 7 out o f 8 b u r n e r levels are

""331~"II1
rl t i i i I I II
in operation with secondary air supplied from
the s u r r o u n d i n g 8 levels.
... .. Cf
T h e Lagrangian particle trajectory equations
are solved for a representative number of
particles. Four particle injection locations
F
A
.f/
77
l't'/
~.

within each of 28 burners are used along with 5

particle size groups. T h e particle size distribu- I'1"/
tion used is 10% by mass 51xm, 20% 15 txm, 40%
50txm, 20% 1001xm and 10% 170 Ixm. Five
identical particles are tracked for turbulent
dispersion. Thus a total o f 2800 particle trajec-
tories are c o m p u t e d after each gas phase
iteration. \....__ __ _ 71 i'.l
T h e computations are started using a par-
tially converged solution for heated inlet
streams but without trajectories or combustion.
T h e Lagrangian particle tracking code is then
r u n after each flow code iteration and a partialy
converged non-reacting two phase solution is
obtained. Finally, the particles are forced to
devolatilize until t e m p e r a t u r e s are high enough
to sustain reaction and the radiation routine is
r u n every 10 iterations until the system is fully scare: 20m/s
converged. This p r o c e d u r e is followed to en-
sure stability. Overall convergence is obtained FIG. 1. Predicted gas flow velocity vectors in the
in approximately 600 iterations, which takes furnace. Top: Plan view Section A-A at 19.1m
about 15 hours CPU time on a VAX 8600 elevation. Bottom: Elevation at section B-B through
computer, burner centreline Overall furnace dimensions are:
8.86m x 10.69m x 31.0m
4. Results
A testing p r o g r a m 22 on one of the Liddell First, some c o m p u t e d general gas flow pat-
Power Station boilers provided data which is terns are shown in Fig. 1. T h e horizontal
used for comparison with the present predic- section is t h r o u g h the level 1.2m above the top
tions. T h e computation input conditions in b u r n e r (19m elevation) and the vertical section
Table 2 are the boiler o p e r a t i n g conditions. is t h r o u g h the b u r n e r centreline. The clockwise
270 COAL COMBUSTION

swirling flow clearly seen in Fig. 1 is induced by with the predicted and measured values coin-
the higher tangential m o m e n t u m c o m p o n e n t ciding at 4%.
of the 40 ~ burners. This swirling flow pattern is Mean particle trajectories (without disper-
still present at the furnace exit, although the sion) are shown in Fig. 3. T h e trajectories are
tangential velocities become much lower. En-
trainment of gas from the corners adjacent to
the 28 ~ burners causes recirculation zones in
these two corners a n d the 40 ~ b u r n e r jets are
forced against the walls.
The vertical section shows several points of
interest. A stagnation region where the two
opposing jets meet can be seen about 3 metres
from the 40 ~ b u r n e r . The diminishing swirl in
the downstream direction can be seen from the
largely horizontal flow from the b u r n e r s be-
coming almost vertical at the furnace exit. \ \ \ \l
Velocity predictions for an isothermal model
with the same characteristics have been found
to be in good agreement with experiment.
Figure 2 shows predicted and measured O2
volume fraction contours at 1.2m above the top
b u r n e r (19m elevation). The predicted and \\ ~% I
measured profiles show considerable similarity '\ \ \\ ';
except for the region near the side wall. T h e
difference between the measured and pre-
dicted O2 concentrations here can be attributed
X~ ~I u
to measurement error. As furnace pressure is 9 ~1 I] I111
lower than ambient, regions near the wall are
subject to air leakage through the m e a s u r e m e n t
ports, resulting in high 02 values. Elsewhere,
the agreement is good as can be seen by the
similarities in the 4%, 6% and 8% contours.
At 26m elevation near the furnace outlet, the
measured and predicted oxygen concentration
profiles are very flat. Agreement is excellent,
,?sZ E
J
'v2dJ,
j 6
~ ; 1 t/
I0 +

(b)
Fic. 2. Oxygen volume fractions at 1.2m above top
burner (19m elevation). (a) Predictions (b) ECNSW
measurements. + measurements location.
FIG. 3. Predicted mean particle trajectories (with-
out turbulent dispersion) from one 40~burner bank.
Plan and one elevation view through whole furnace.
warm up and devolatilization; --- char burn-
out. End of trajectory signifies complete burnout of
char with ash remaining.
 THREE DIMENSIONAL FURNACE MODELING 271

only for particles being injected from one set of

40 ~ burners. T h e mean trajectories show that
considerable particle dispersion occurs because
of differing starting locations and varying
particle sizes. A quite small initial displacement
may lead to a markedly different trajectory.
T h e dispersion increases considerably using the
turbulence interaction model described which
was used for all the predictions.
T h e particle warm up, devolatilization and
char b u r n o u t regions are shown. Clearly, the
devolatilization occurs very rapidly and within 2
m of the b u r n e r exit. Figure 3 also shows that
most of the particles b u r n o u t completely before
reaching the furnace exit. T h e predicted over-
all carbon b u r n o u t is 96% o f the initial mass of
the combustible matter which compares with
the experimentally obtained value of 97%.
T h e predicted gas t e m p e r a t u r e s and those
obtained from suction p y r o m e t e r measure-
ments are presented in Fig. 4 for the level 1.2m
above the top b u r n e r (19m elevation). Tem-
peratures are similar except for a predicted hot
region of 2000 K. T h e reason for the high
prediction is not clear at this stage, but may be
due to too rapid devolatilization or inadequate
particle radiation losses.
At the furnace outlet the predicted and
measured t e m p e r a t u r e profiles are both rela-
tively flat. T h e average m e a s u r e d t e m p e r a t u r e
is 1473K and the average predicted tempera-
ture is 1560K, showing that the overall heat Fro. 5. Wall incident heat flux (kW/m2). (a) Predic-
transfer predictions for the furnace are good. tions (b) ECNSW measurements. + measurement
F u r t h e r detail of the heat transfer predic- location.
tions can be seen from the comparison of
measured and predicted incident heat flux to a
side wall in Fig. 5, T h e agreement here is very
satisfactory. T h e only area in which the predic-
tions significantly differ to the measurements is
1800 near the furnace exit, where predictions are
slightly lower than m e a s u r e d fluxes. T h e re-
gion of maximum heat flux which is important
to furnace design is predicted quite well.

Conclusion

~/ ' lz ~ ~`~1I ~176 A fully three-dimensional flow, combustion

and radiation model applied to power station
furnace conditions yields very encouraging
predictions of measured quantities. Predicted
+ 1L,O0
,~_ temperatures, oxygen concentrations, heat
fluxes and carbon b u r n o u t are in generally
,o, Iol good agreement with the available data. The
78"I gas velocities and particle trajectories show
where ash loadings are high and where erosion
problems may occur in the furnace.
Fro. 4. Temperatures (~ at 1.2 m above top T h e r e are many areas o f further investiga-
burner (19m elevation). (a) Predictions (b) ECNSW tion p r o m p t e d by the results obtained. The
measurements. + measurement location. effects of numerical grid size, radiation pa-
272 COAL COMBUSTION

rameters, devolatilization rates, sensitivity to Acknowledgement

particle size distribution and particle dispersion
are a few which may lead to more accurate and
efficient computations. Sub-models and pa-
rameters such as those used for devolatilization
and b u r n o u t may be easily changed allowing
the sensitivity o f these factors, or coal types,
upon such problems as b u r n e r flame stability to
be investigated. Research in these areas is
currently being undertaken.
The authors are grateful to Dr. F.C. Lockwood of
Imperial College, London for his assistance in em-
ploying the basic TEACH code and supplying the
radiation code. The support and guidance of Dr. A.
Lowe of the Electricity Commission of NSW is
gratefully acknowledged.
This project was supported by grants from the
Electrical Research Board, and has been sponsored
by the Electricity Commission of NSW.

Nomenclature
REFERENCES
Ap particle surface area (m 2)
CD particle d r a g coefficient 1. McDoNALD,H: Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 5, 97
dp particle d i a m e t e r (m) (1979).
E activation energy (kJ/kmol) 2. KHALIL, E.E.: Modelling of Furnaces and Comb~r
f mixture fraction tors, Abacus (1982).
G, turbulence generation term (J/(m3-s)) 3. GREEN, A.S., WHITELAW,J.H.: J. Fluid Mech.,
gi gravitational acceleration - 9 . 8 1 m / s 2 for 126, 2 (1983).
vertical direction, otherwise zero 4. BAUM, M.M., STREET, P.J.: Comb. Sci. Tech., 3,
h specific enthalpy (J/kg) 231, (1971).
I radiation intensity (W/m ~) 5. SMITH, P.J., FLETCHER,T.H., SMOOT,L.D.: Eigh-
K gas radiation absorption coefficient (m -1) teenth Symposium (International) on Combustion, p.
k turbulence kinetic energy (m2/s 2) 1285, The Combustion Institute, 1980.
Ks particle radiation scattering coefficient 6. LOCKWOOD,F.C., RIzvL S.M.A., LEE, G.K., WHA-
(m -i) LEY,H. : Twentieth Symposium (International) on Com-
mp particle mass (kg) bustion, p. 513, The Combustion Institute, 1984.
P pressure (N/m 2) 7. LOWE, A., WALL, T.F., STEWART, I.M.: Fifteenth
Q4b heat transfer rate to particle due to com- Symposium (International) on Combustion, p. 1261,
bustion (W) The Combustion Institute, 1974.
Qpc convective heat transfer rate to particle 8. LocKwooo, F.C., SALOOJA, A.P., SYED, S.A.:
(w) Comb. and Flame, 38, 1, (1980).
Q4r radiative heat transfer rate to particle 9. LOCKWOOD, F.C., RIZVI, S.M.A., SHAH, N.G.:
from gas (W) Some Predictive Experiences of Coal Firing, Mech.
QR cell net radiative power gain (W/m 3) Eng., Imperial College of Science and Technol-
qc char enthalpy o f combustion (J/kg) ogy Report FS/83/37, (1983).
s distance coordinate (m) 10. BENESCH, W., KREMER, H.: Twentieth Symposium
T T e m p e r a t u r e (gas) (K) (International) on Combustion, p. 549, The Com-
t time (s) bustion Institute, 1984.
ui velocity c o m p o n e n t (m/s) 11. TRUELOVE, J.S.: Twentieth Symposium (Interna-
X mole fraction tional) on Combustion, p. 523, The Combustion
xi length coordinate (m) Institute, 1984.
F effective t u r b u l e n t diffusivity (kg/(m-s)) 12. SMITH, P.J., SMOOT, L.D.: Coal Combustion and
turbulence dissipation (m2/s 3) Gasification, 1985.
r wall radiation emissivity 13. BOYD, R.K., KENT, J.H.: Three Dimensional Gas
viscosity ( k g / ( m - s ) ) Flow Modelling of Boiler Furnace, Eighth Australa-
p density (kg/m 3) sian Fluid Mechanics Conference on Fluid Me-
chanics, 1B14-17, 1983.
14. BOVD, R.K., ROSCAREL,K.J. AND KENT,J.H.: Gas
Subscripts Flow and Mixing in a Tangentially Fired Furnace,
Third Australasian Conference on Heat and
c chemical Mass Transfer, May 1985, Melbourne.
d diffusion 15. MIGDAL, D., AGOSTA, V.D.: ASME, Applied
laminar Mech., p. 860 (1967).
p particle 16. SHUEN,J.S., CHEN, L.D., FAETH,G.M.: AIChEJ.,
t turbulent 29, No. 1, January 1983.
w wall 17. UBHAYAKAR, S.K., STICKLER, D.B, VON
 T H R E E D I M E N S I O N A L FURNACE MODELING
ROSENBERG JR., C.W., GANXON, R.E.: Sixteenth
Symposium (International) on Combustion p. 427, T h e
Combustion Institute, (1977).
18. JAMALUtmlN, A.S., TRUELOVE, J.S., WALt, T.F.:
Combustion and Flame 62, 1, 85 (1985).
19. LOCKWOOD, F.C., SHAH, N.G.: Eighteenth Sympo-
sium (International) on Combustion, p. 1045, T h e
Combustion Institute, 1981.
20. GIBB, J., JOYXER, P.L.: LiddeU Boiler Reheat Metal
Temperature: Gas Side Heat Transfer Analysis, Cen-
tral Electricity Generating Board, Res. Div. R/M/
N1029 (1979).
COMMENTS
F.C. Lockwood, Imperial College, Great Britain. Con-
cerning your stochastic particle/turbulence interac-
tion model, I have three questions:
1) You have stated that you select the gas velocity
direction randomly, do you also select the velocity
magnitude randomly about 2~K1'27
2) All o f this computational effort plus the need to
sample large n u m b e r s o f particles in each size group
in o r d e r to ensure statistical accuracy suggests ex-
treme c o m p u t e r time will characterize your particle
dispersion model? Is this indeed the case?
3) What influence on i m p o r t a n t predictable quan-
tities do you observe which are due to this model?
Author's Reply.
1. As stated in the text, the velocity o f each
turbulent eddy is estimated by making a r a n d o m
selection from the probability density function o f
velocity which is assumed to be isotropic Gaussian
having standard deviations (g~)l/2.
2. T h e stochastic dispersion model is computation-
ally expensive, as you point out. However, only
between 10 and 20 trajectories for each particle size
and starting location are required for the dispersion
treatment. W h e n more trajectories than this are
considered for the stochastic dispersion treatment,
negligible change in the predicted temperature,
species and heat flux occurs.
3. With the inclusion o f particle dispersion, the
t e m p e r a t u r e and oxygen concentration fields showed
lower gradients as would be expected with more
dispersed fuel sources.
Zhou Lixing, Univ. of Beijing, China.
1. What is the physical basis for your assumption o f
energy distribution between particle and gas phases?
2. Have you accounted for the source term due to
particle devolatilization and combustion in the mix-
ture fraction equation?
273
21. CARVALHO, M.G.M.S., LOCKWOOD, F.C.: Predic-
tion of the Combustion of an End Wall Fired Glass
Furnace, hnperial College, Dept. of" Mech. Eng,
Internal Report, 1981.
22. LOWE, A.: The Instrumentation of a Large Utility
Boiler for the Determination of the Effects of Mineral
Matter on Heat Transfer, Conference on Slagging
and Fouling Due to Impurities in Combustion
Gases, C o p p e r Mountain, Colorado, Aug. 1984.
3. Have you ever used p d f to calculate your
reaction rate in turbulent flow?
Author's Replr.
1. T h e physical basis of the assumption of 0.3 o f
the particle heat release to the solid phase and the
r e m a i n d e r to the gas phase is that the C+(1/2)O2
CO reaction occurs at the particle surtace and the CO
+ (1/2)O2 ~ CO2 reaction occurs awa} from the
particle. T h e factor o f 0.3 is based upon the relative
heats o f combustion o f the above two reactions.
2. As described in the text, the mass of volatiles
released appears as a source in the mixture fraction
equation.
3. No concentration fluctuation model is included
at present, as it is believed that it will make little
difference to the results.
W. Zinser, Univ. of Stuttgart, W. Germany. In your
model you are proposing to employ the pyrolysis
model o f Kobayaskhi, et. al. in o r d e r to predict the
devolatilization rate o f coal particles in the furnace.
One o f the aims o f this model is to give a guess about
the yield o f volatiles d u r i n g fast pyrolysis by consider-
ing two competing reactions with low and high
activation energy, respectively. This again requires a
rather accurate prediction o f the temperature history
o f the coal particles d u r i n g devolatilization. Now, in
the coarse grid you are required to use for compu-
tional reasons, devolatilization takes place within very
few gas phase control volumes near each burner,
where you have to assume constant gas temperature
within each volume. Should this not give a rather
erroneous picture o f the volatiles yield in the fur-
nace? As your fast gas reaction scheme will probably
overpredict t e m p e r a t u r e s in this region, I would
expect a c o r r e s p o n d i n g strong overprediction of the
volatiles yield. On the o t h e r hand, you report satisfac-
tory predictions o f heat fluxes to the walls and o f char
274 COAL COMBUSTION
burn-out. Should this not indicate that the devolatil-
ization model has no strong impact as the prediction
of furnace performance?
Author's Reply. Particle heatup is taking place
during transit through about two (2) cells at the
burner. During this time, the particle temperature is
rising asymptotically toward the cell gas temperature.
It is worthwhile to consider refining the grid system
in this area, but it is not likely to affect the total heat
release in the volatiles phase significantly, as heatup
rates are, in any case, quite rapid.
N. Arai, Nagoya Univ., Japan. I understand that this
kind of modelling is very difficult. What do you think
are the main causes of the discrepancies among the
predictions and experiments, especially for tempera-
ture profiles? I think the effect of scattering for energy
treatment is really important in such calculations.
Author's Reply. The region of main temperature
discrepancy occurs near the burners, where turbu-
lence is high and gradients are steepest. Fluid
mechanics, turbulence and finite difference grid
refinement may affect the profiles here. Also, there is
some uncertainty in the experimental data. The
predicted heat flame agreement with data seems to
indicate better temperature correspondence than
shown. Scattering is already included in the radiation
model and is important with these high ash coals.
N. Shah, Combustion Dept. Rolls Royce, Great Britain.
In answer to a question from a Japanese participant,
the scattering in the model is isotropic. Secondly,
rather than change wall emissivitives, one should
examine the effects of absorption coefficients both
for gas and scattering.
Author's Reply. The absorption coefficients for gas
and particles and the particle scatter coefficients are
presently receiving attention. Preliminary calcula-
tions using coefficients calculated from the local gas
and particle properties resulted in improved incident
heat flux correlations and closer predicted and
measured furnace outlet temperatures.
T. Wall, Univ. of Newcastle, Australia.
1) You have fixed the wall emissivity at 0.67, what
should it be to match predicted total heat pick-up?
2) Regarding the modeling of the heating value of
the volatile matter (which you have taken as 70% of
that of the coal)---could you obtain a better estimate
by taking the heating value of char as carbon and the
char yield as calculated by your model?
Author's Reply.
1) To achieve the correct furnace outlet tempera-
ture, a wall emissivity of approximately 0.8 is
required.
2) The volatile matter and char are assumed to
have identical heating values. This assumption will
result in negligible error for the coal considered, as
the dry ash free specific energy of the coal of 32
MJ/Kg is equal to the specific energy of pure carbon.
C. Lawn, Marchwood Eng. Labs., Great Britain. I don't
think you should worry unduly about the discrepancy
between your predicted furnace temperatures and
the measured values. Measurements with suction
pyrometers in furnaces are notoriously difficult, but
more substantially, I doubt whether the measured
wall heat fluxes are consistent with those tempera-
tures, taking any credible value of wall emissivity.
We did some radiation calculations for the very
same furnace some years ago and our results for gas
temperature were similar to the ones you predict, and
indeed, to those calculated for a variety of other
furnaces of this scale.
K. GOrner, Univ. of Stuttgart, W. Germany. What is
the velocity inlet condition used in your calculation? I
wonder why you have not found any recirculations
region in the funnel shaped bottom and above the
upper burner plane. I did some furnace calculations
and found some very strong recirculations because of
the normally high momentum input through the
burners.
Author's Reply. The modelled inlet Primary Air and
pulverised fuel velocities are equal to those found in
the actual furnace--although a flat velocity profile is
imposed in the model. Strong recirculation zones are
present between the 28 ~ burners and the side walls. A
recircu[ation zone with low gas velocities is present in
the region below the burners.