Next Article in Journal
Nano-Structured Demineralized Human Dentin Matrix to Enhance Bone and Dental Repair and Regeneration
Previous Article in Journal
The Development of a Soft Robot Hand with Pin-Array Structure
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimal Design of a Tower Type SCR-deNOx Facility for a 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant Based on CFD Simulation and FMT Validation

Department of Automation, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and the Key Laboratory of System Control and Information Processing, Ministry of Education of China, 800 Dongchuan Road, Shanghai 200240, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9(5), 1012; https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051012
Submission received: 12 February 2019 / Revised: 4 March 2019 / Accepted: 7 March 2019 / Published: 11 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Chemical and Molecular Sciences)

Abstract

:
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is one of the most efficient methods to reduce NOx emissions from coal-fired power plants. This paper deals with an optimal design tower type SCR-deNOx facility for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant. Combined with computational fluid dynamics (CFD), the configuration of the baffles geometry was studied with spatial constraints. Flow field was regulated at the ammonia injection grid (AIG) with the dual aim of reducing difficulties in implementing the non-uniformed ammonia (NH3) injection strategy and achieving a more homogeneous distribution at the catalyst entrance. A flow model test (FMT) was carried out at a laboratory scale to verify the design results. The results of the flow model test are in good agreement with the computational fluid dynamics. It is indicated that small-sized baffles are recommended for installation at the upstream side of the facility as the optimal design and ability to regulate the flow field at the ammonia injection grid makes it an effective way to deal with spatial constraints. This paper provides a good reference for optimizing the tower type SCR-deNOx facilities with spatial constraints.

1. Introduction

Emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx) will lead to severe environmental problems. NOx is considered to be responsible for the formation of photochemical smog, acid rain, tropospheric ozone, ozone layer depletion, and a variety of health problems for human beings [1,2,3].
Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) technology is one of the most efficient approaches to reduce NOx emissions [4,5,6]. Reductants such as urea or ammonia (NH3) are injected into the flue gas from an ammonia injection grid (AIG) [7,8,9]. The typical SCR reactions include [10,11]:
4 N O + 4 N H 3 + O 2 4 N 2 + 6 H 2 O
4 N O + 6 N H 3 5 N 2 + 6 H 2 O
The SCR-deNOx efficiency is influenced by reaction temperature, residence time, space velocity, and the uniformity of both flue gas velocity and NH3 concentration [12,13]. Therefore, to achieve high NOx reduction efficiency and low NH3 slip, optimal design of the flow field and non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy should be carried out for the SCR-deNOx facilities [14].
The SCR-deNOx facilities are usually divided into π type and tower type according to their overall shapes. So far, many studies have been conducted on the optimization of flow field for the π type SCR-deNOx facilities. The baffles geometry and the corresponding configuration have been investigated [15,16,17]. Attempts have also been made to reduce difficulties in performing the non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy and to achieve a more homogeneous distribution of NH3 [18,19]. However, research on the optimal design of the tower type SCR-deNOx facilities are scarce. A tower type SCR-deNOx facility usually has fewer turnings and a huge expansion duct, which implies a large sectional area and less turbulence. Nowadays, with an increasing number of tower type SCR-deNOx facilities [20,21], it is necessary to implement flow regulation and ensure optimal design. In the meantime, spatial constraints are common due to the compact configuration. Hence, it is more challenging to find an effective way to optimize the tower type SCR-deNOx facilities.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation is nowadays commonly applied to the flow field regulation of SCR-deNOx facilities [22,23]. In this paper, the optimal design of the tower type SCR-deNOx facility for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant is presented. A combination of crossed baffles and small-sized arc-shaped baffles are used to deal with the spatial constraints and to regulate the flow field. The influence of flow regulation at the AIG is evaluated. In addition, pressure loss and the consumption of steel plate are considered. A flow model test (FMT) is carried out to verify the CFD simulation results. This may provide an effective approach to optimize the tower type SCR-deNOx facilities.

2. CFD Simulation and FMT Validation

2.1. Facility Optimization

The schematic geometry of a tower type SCR-deNOx facility for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant is shown in Figure 1. The power plant is located in Tuandong Town, Neixiang County, Nanyang City, Henan Province of China. It belongs to the State Development and Investment Corp. The overall height of the SCR-deNOx facility is about 100 m and the flow rate of the flue gas is about 1030 kg/s with a temperature of 647.15 K under 100% BMCR condition. The flue gas inlet size is about 21 m × 6 m and the sectional area of the catalyst layer is approximately 430 m2.
The flue gas leaves the economizer and passes the first turning. Then it mixes with NH3 that is injected by the AIG. After that, the flue gas goes through the hybrid grid and the expansion duct. Finally, it enters the SCR reactors, which contain two catalyst layers. The mixing distance for flue gas and NH3 is approximately 25 m from the AIG to the catalyst entrance.
The relative standard deviation (RSD) at the entrance of catalyst layers is used to evaluate the uniformity of both gas velocity and NH3 concentration distribution, which is defined as [24,25]:
RSD = i = 1 n x i x ¯ 2 n 1 1 / 2 x ¯
where xi is the i-th measured value of the variable, x ¯ is its average value, and n is the total sampling number. Usually, the RSD is set to less than 15% for the flue gas velocity distribution and less than 5% for the NH3 concentration distribution. In the facility design stage, pressure loss is also a very important issue because it is directly related to energy consumption. Correspondingly, a total pressure loss of less than 400 Pa is required excluding the catalysts’ pressure loss. In addition, with the promotion of China’s high-quality development, the consumption of steel plate also needs to be considered.
For this tower type SCR-deNOx facility, optimal design is required with spatial constraints. No baffles are allowed to be installed inside the first turning because it is too close to the economizer. Therefore, it is more difficult to achieve the requirements of RSD mentioned previously and to control the pressure loss. A variety of regulation measures should be taken during the design stage of the SCR-deNOx facility. Arc-shaped baffles with small sizes are used due to their good performance in regulating the flow field while reducing the total pressure loss.
Meanwhile, attempts also are made to regulate the flow field at the AIG as a potential solution to spatial constraints. Installing the baffles at the upstream side of the facility would reduce the difficulty in regulating the downstream flow field, especially for the expansion duct.
Correspondingly, a non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy was adopted to increase the uniformity of NH3 concentration distribution. Considering the large sectional area and insufficient turbulence, it was necessary to use the non-uniformity NH3 injection strategy to enhance the mixing performance. In this case, the AIG had 21 independent NH3 injection areas (3 × 7) and the NH3 injection velocity of each area was set to be proportional to the gas velocity based on the gas velocity distribution before the AIG. With the flow field regulated at the AIG, it was much easier to determine the injection velocities.
The optimization process was carried out based on CFD simulation and FMT validation. Firstly, the CFD simulation of the tower type SCR-deNOx facility with no baffles geometry was performed as an indication of the flow field. Secondly, on the basis of the preliminary simulation, the baffles geometry was designed. The RSDs of gas velocity and NH3 concentration, as well as the pressure loss were calculated. Adjustments were made on the configuration of the baffles until the RSDs and the total pressure loss performed as low as possible. In addition, the consumption of steel plate was calculated and considered. Finally, FMT was conducted as a validation of the CFD simulations.

2.2. CFD Simulation

Three-dimensional CFD simulation was carried out with ANSYS 17.1, ANSYS Inc. [26]. The meshing model was established with the real scale. The total mesh number of the geometry was about 5.9 million. Due to the limitation of the hardware, the grid convergence analysis was only carried out on the meshing geometry of the AIG and the hybrid grid. The corresponding results are shown in Appendix A. Figure 2 shows the meshing geometry of the representative area.
The model is considered to be adiabatic and the chemical reactions are not considered here. A standard k-ε model was used to deal with the turbulence and a SIMPLE (Semi-Implicit Method for Pressure-Linked Equation) algorithm was used to solve the Navier-Stokes equation. Moreover, a porous media model was used as a substitute for catalyst layers and the permeability term was eliminated considering the honeycomb structure of the catalyst layers. The corresponding boundary conditions are given below:
(1)
The flow distribution of inlet was set to be uniform as the sufficient resistance provided by the economizer. The velocity was 14.75 m/s under 100% BMCR condition;
(2)
The NH3 concentration was diluted to 5% and the corresponding average injection velocity was set to 20 m/s based on the NH3/NOx molar ratio of 1:1;
(3)
An atmospheric pressure was set at the pressure outlet and the total pressure loss of two catalyst layers was set to 420 Pa;
(4)
An observation plane was located 0.2 m above the porous media. As the overall height of the tower type SCR-deNOx facility is about 100 m, the flue gas velocity and NH3 concentration distributions at the observation plane can be regarded as those of the catalyst entrance.
Iteration continued until the residuals had converged below 10−6. Contours of gas velocity and NH3 concentration at the observation plane were generated respectively. Thereafter, the corresponding RSDs and the total pressure loss were calculated.

2.3. FMT Validation

A flow model test was constructed to verify the CFD simulation results. Figure 3 indicates the platform of FMT experiments.
The model of the tower type SCR-deNOx facility was made of transparent plexiglas with a scale of 1:30. A perforated plate was used to represent the pressure drop of the catalyst layers. Slices made of aluminum were used as the baffles, AIG, hybrid grid, and straightener. During the experiments, chemical reactions were neglected. Air and carbon dioxide (CO2) were substituted for flue gas and NH3. A Testo-445 multi-function measuring instrument with different probes was used to measure the variables. A vane probe was used to measure the air velocity. Its measuring range is 0.6 to 40 m/s with a resolution of 0.01 m/s. The corresponding accuracy is ±(0.2 m/s ± 1.5% of measurement value) (+0.6 to +40 m/s). A CO2 probe was used to measure the CO2 concentration. Its measuring range is 0 to 10,000 ppm with a resolution of 1 ppm. The corresponding accuracy is ±(500 ppm + 2% of measurement value) (0 to +5000 ppm) and ±(100 ppm + 3% of measurement value) (+5000 to +10,000). In addition, a pressure probe was used to measure the pressure loss. Its measuring range is 0 to 100 hPa with the resolution of 0.01 hPa. The corresponding accuracy is ±0.1 hPa (0 to +20 hPa) and ±0.5% of measurement value (+20 to +100 hPa). Figure 4 indicates the 64 detection spots that are arranged as an 8 × 8 matrix over the perforated plate.
The experiments were repeated five times at room temperature while the air inlet velocities were modified to close to 14.75 m/s, which is in accordance with the case of 100% BMCR condition. The experimental results are shown in Appendix B. The average values of air velocity, CO2 concentration, and pressure loss were calculated and recorded. Comparisons are presented between the results of the FMT experiments and CFD simulations as a validation of the optimal design.

3. Results and Discussion

After optimization, baffles were installed in the expansion duct. The corresponding configuration is shown in Figure 5. The specific sizes and locations of the baffles are shown in Figure 6.
A group of crossed baffles were installed before the AIG. The corresponding configuration is shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 illustrates the specific sizes and locations of the baffles. The consumption of the 6 mm steel plate was about 1.13 m3 and the corresponding surface area of the baffles was about 188 m2, which is quite small compared with the sectional area of the catalyst layer of 430 m2.
Figure 9 shows the contours of gas velocity at the observation plane for the optimal design. According to Figure 9, the RSD of gas velocity is 11.90% and the maximum velocity is 6.64 m/s. Figure 10a gives the injection divisions of AIG and Figure 10b gives the corresponding non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy. Figure 11 shows the contours of NH3 concentration with the non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy applied. The RSD of NH3 concentration is 3.37% and the range varies from 1.53 × 10−3 to 1.86 × 10−3 kg/m3, indicating that the flue gas and the NH3 are mixed adequately.
Comparisons were made to evaluate the effect of the crossed baffles. Figure 12 illustrates the influence of the crossed baffles on gas velocities and NH3 concentration. After installing the crossed baffles shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, the RSDs of gas velocity and NH3 concentration decreased by 18.2% and 25.6%, respectively. It is revealed that the crossed baffles are helpful in regulating the flow field. Moreover, when optimizing the tower type SCR-deNOx facility with spatial constraints, regulating the flow field at the AIG may provide an effective way to achieve a more homogeneous distribution at the entrance of catalyst layers.
In addition, in order to control pressure loss, all of the small-sized baffles were installed at the upstream side of the facility. Simulation results showed that the total pressure loss for the optimal design was 330.61 Pa, which is less than the requirement of 400 Pa.
Table 1 summarizes the statistic indices of the tower type SCR-deNOx facility before and after the optimal design. According to Table 1, the RSDs of gas velocity and NH3 concentration decreased by 18.30 and 5.50 percentage points, respectively. It is indicated that the flow field inside the SCR facility is regulated remarkably after the optimal design. The maximum velocity at the observation plane decreased by 6.83 m/s, which would greatly reduce the risk of catalyst breakage. Additionally, the existence of the optimal baffles provides an extra pressure loss of 195.44 Pa.
Table 2 and Table 3 show the measured values of air velocity and CO2 concentration for the FMT experiments. According to Table 2, the RSD of air velocity is 11.24% and the maximum velocity is 4.76 m/s. FMT results show that the lower velocity areas are located in the upper edge and the bottom edge. Meanwhile, the air flow runs faster at the left half (A–D) of the plane. Table 3 gives a decent concentration distribution. The RSD of CO2 concentration is 4.98%.
Comparisons are made between the results of CFD simulations and FMT experiments. Table 4 shows the corresponding statistic indices. According to Table 4, both the CFD simulations and FMT experiments achieve the design requirements and perform homogeneous distributions of velocity and concentration. Most of the statistic indices between CFD simulations and FMT experiments are at the same level. For the gas/air velocity distributions, the RSDs are quite close and the difference is only 0.66 percentage points. The deviations of velocities and concentrations may be attributed to detection accuracy and installation accuracy. For instance, the detection spots are unable to cover the whole plane in the FMT and deviations may appear between the actual installation and the optimal design of baffles geometry. For total pressure loss, Table 4 shows a relatively large deviation of 79.61 Pa. It is plausible to treat this as a result of the deviations of velocities. From Figure 9 and Figure 11 and Table 2 and Table 3, it is indicated that the distribution tendencies of gas/air velocity and NH3/CO2 concentration are similar.
In general, it is revealed that the FMT results are basically consistent with the CFD results, indicating that the optimal design is effective for the tower type SCR-deNOx facility with spatial constraints.
The tower type SCR-deNOx facility is quite different from the traditional π type one. To implement the flow regulation, it is recommended to use small-sized baffles and to install the baffles geometry at the upstream side of the facility. It has the advantages of controlling the pressure loss and the consumption of steel plate. Furthermore, regulating the flow field at the AIG is proven to be an effective way to deal with spatial constraints. It can be applied to SCR-deNOx facilities that have compact configurations such as reconstructed facilities. Additionally, it helps to determine the non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy and to achieve a more homogeneous distribution of gas velocity and NH3 concentration. This paper presents not only the configuration of the baffles geometry but also many specific indices and details during the optimization. It can provide a good reference for optimizing the tower type SCR-deNOx facility.

4. Conclusions

In this study, the flow field of the tower type SCR-deNOx facility for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant is optimized and presented. Baffles geometry and the non-uniformed ammonia injection strategy are performed via computational fluid dynamics. According to the real operation condition, the corresponding relative standard deviations of gas velocity and ammonia concentration are 11.90% and 3.37%, respectively. All statistical indices achieve the design requirements. Furthermore, a flow model test is carried out to validate the computational fluid dynamics-based optimal design, where air and CO2 are substituted for flue gas and ammonia. The corresponding relative standard deviations are 11.24% and 4.98%. Both the computational fluid dynamics and flow model test show that the uniformity of the flow field is greatly improved by the optimal design and the flow model test experimental data are consistent with the computational fluid dynamics simulation results. For the tower type SCR-deNOx facility, small-sized baffles are recommended to be installed at the upstream side of the facility. This has the advantages of improving the uniformity of flow field and controlling the pressure loss and the consumption of steel plate. Furthermore, regulating the flow field at the ammonia injection grid is proven to be an effective way to deal with spatial constraints. The optimal design may be valuable for further study on flow field regulation of tower type SCR-deNOx facilities with spatial constraints.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.Z.; Data curation, H.Z.; Formal analysis, H.Z.; Funding acquisition, J.Y.; Investigation, H.Z.; Methodology, H.Z. and J.Y.; Project administration, J.Y.; Resources, J.Y.; Supervision, J.Y.; Validation, H.Z. and J.W.; Writing—original draft, H.Z.; Writing—review & editing, J.Y.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 61533013 and the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, grant number 17ZR1414200.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AIGAmmonia Injection Grid
BMCRBoiler Maximum Continuous Rating
CFDComputational Fluid Dynamics
FMTFlow Model Test
RSDRelative Standard Deviation
SCRSelective Catalytic Reduction

Appendix A

In the following, the grid convergence analysis is presented. Due to limitations in the hardware, the grid convergence analysis is only carried out on the most complex part of the meshing geometry, which is the AIG and the hybrid grid. The sizes of the grid are chosen to be 100 mm, 60 mm, 50 mm, and 40 mm. The corresponding number of nodes are about 0.45 million, 0.84 million, 1.36 million, and 2.48 million, respectively. The relative standard deviations of velocity are calculated to indicate the performance. The results show that the corresponding relative standard deviations are 9.7%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 6.0%. It is revealed that the 50mm grid is appropriate to be chosen as the smallest size for the meshing geometry.

Appendix B

In the following, five experimental results of FMT are provided. For each experiment, the measured values of air velocity, CO2 concentration, and pressure loss are recorded and presented in tables.
Experiment A1.The air inlet velocity is 14.24 m/s.
Table A1. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A1 (m/s).
Table A1. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A1 (m/s).
ABCDEFGH
13.453.623.243.472.893.023.072.76
24.323.794.834.143.163.584.293.78
35.443.894.914.744.043.174.934.95
44.134.414.114.233.583.414.063.94
53.384.885.444.224.544.065.164.32
63.794.674.164.434.213.794.854.03
73.643.844.444.754.893.823.033.58
83.404.303.162.912.312.463.092.67
Table A2. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A1 (ppm).
Table A2. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A1 (ppm).
ABCDEFGH
124752371257425132385241121682555
224522081234623922372244924202453
324762335257524312422250624492604
424312413232524902505241423692706
525352352227421692465255524192430
621052504258122272419220623072294
724822490234523342450236222282369
824082459251925422424239623782370
Table A3. Pressure loss in Experiment A1 (Pa).
Table A3. Pressure loss in Experiment A1 (Pa).
ItemMeasurement Value
Total pressure loss627
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded)246
Experiment A2.The air inlet velocity is 14.66 m/s.
Table A4. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A2 (m/s).
Table A4. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A2 (m/s).
ABCDEFGH
13.373.133.062.512.373.093.162.78
24.313.854.334.454.554.654.743.48
34.924.454.634.354.734.074.094.60
44.514.394.594.523.854.094.264.03
53.934.805.054.194.654.514.594.41
64.564.534.264.714.614.084.344.48
73.704.114.314.534.384.323.594.08
82.774.233.462.883.123.133.763.63
Table A5. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A2 (ppm).
Table A5. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A2 (ppm).
ABCDEFGH
119562162225523921803223019972285
223961747215121182112208220852224
322102020236123212033209619212181
423701869212920542041210218612154
520271718221318842263217222452298
617622091232721412033213820302210
721791899213119842321189819232148
822072116192123722318210820021930
Table A6. Pressure loss in Experiment A2 (Pa).
Table A6. Pressure loss in Experiment A2 (Pa).
ItemMeasurement value
Total pressure loss636
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded)251
Experiment A3.The air inlet velocity is 14.77 m/s.
Table A7. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A3 (m/s).
Table A7. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A3 (m/s).
ABCDEFGH
12.944.203.763.844.084.214.123.66
23.344.324.524.424.524.424.564.76
33.264.984.463.944.604.204.704.58
43.924.424.484.184.364.104.264.42
54.184.304.384.084.244.584.544.30
64.184.064.164.164.504.194.724.00
74.403.684.103.844.163.923.583.34
83.863.264.023.663.203.323.742.98
Table A8. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A3 (ppm).
Table A8. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A3 (ppm).
ABCDEFGH
120272018214021271972209318642117
220841724198519801992190319402069
320631821206322111728197618962106
420451960203019682015183918392038
520531790209417762189209720222158
618322021209719501932188019212098
721471940196118062115184317772028
821151997189521781997189717991748
Table A9. Pressure loss in Experiment A3 (Pa).
Table A9. Pressure loss in Experiment A3 (Pa).
ItemMeasurement Value
Total pressure loss640
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded)250
Experiment 4.The air inlet velocity is 14.83 m/s.
Table A10. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A4 (m/s).
Table A10. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A4 (m/s).
ABCDEFGH
13.323.693.873.312.792.933.132.88
24.134.454.754.494.254.354.913.57
34.844.684.824.194.943.983.874.47
44.624.294.704.243.974.154.344.32
54.114.694.594.374.924.644.514.40
64.394.314.194.714.544.194.534.32
74.404.104.374.524.454.244.084.18
83.154.163.323.063.153.223.832.87
Table A11. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A4 (ppm).
Table A11. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A4 (ppm).
ABCDEFGH
120761833210519821884216216772192
222001693199318471965189818791909
320681656207421851685190519602051
421581764211718561899172117161930
518911631221116242100193620252090
616341943198219461890162416491956
721461760183016731936166416451961
820551878188719271917178716791813
Table A12. Pressure loss in Experiment A4 (Pa).
Table A12. Pressure loss in Experiment A4 (Pa).
ItemMeasurement Value
Total pressure loss641
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded)251
Experiment A5.The air inlet velocity is 15.07 m/s.
Table A13. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A5 (m/s).
Table A13. Measured values of air velocity distribution in Experiment A5 (m/s).
ABCDEFGH
13.213.273.954.653.453.014.174.09
24.274.794.274.574.434.524.874.37
34.565.094.274.914.814.284.044.09
44.564.495.004.654.634.954.604.32
54.734.214.354.474.724.574.284.59
64.555.134.814.514.634.534.124.48
75.044.934.474.484.354.554.524.21
83.363.093.844.334.323.804.254.29
Table A14. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A5 (ppm).
Table A14. Measured values of CO2 concentration distribution in Experiment A5 (ppm).
ABCDEFGH
117411771184118361941200418841811
217131935181018131754192817261750
318181758190717621927177717291778
419011679176917721880166917301712
520241754185317221808194018191864
618771886184818411816175718981922
717662111188819031868198817771974
818801910191318561994185218321804
Table A15. Pressure loss in Experiment A5 (Pa).
Table A15. Pressure loss in Experiment A5 (Pa).
ItemMeasurement Value
Total pressure loss657
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded)258

References

  1. Skalska, K.; Miller, J.S.; Ledakowicz, S. Trends in NOx abatement: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408, 3976–3989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Xiong, S.C.; Xiao, X.; Liao, Y.; Dang, H.; Shan, W.P.; Yang, S.J. Global Kinetic Study of NO Reduction by NH3 over V2O5(WO3)/TiO2: Relationship between the SCR Performance and the Key Factors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2015, 54, 11011–11023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Busca, G.; Lietti, L.; Ramis, G.; Berti, F. Chemical and mechanistic aspects of the selective catalytic reduction of NOx by ammonia over oxide catalysts: A review. Appl. Catal. B 1998, 18, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Forzatti, P. Present status and perspectives in de-NOx SCR catalysis. Appl. Catal. A 2001, 222, 221–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dolanc, G.; Strmčnik, S.; Petrovčič, J. NOx selective catalytic reduction control based on simple models. J. Process. Control 2001, 11, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Svachula, J.; Ferlazzo, N.; Forzatti, P.; Tronconi, E.; Bergani, F. Selective reduction of nitrogen oxides(NOx) by ammonia over honeycomb selective catalytic reduction catalysts. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1993, 32, 1053–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chae, H.J.; Choo, S.T.; Choi, H.; Nam, I.S.; Yang, H.S.; Song, S.L. Direct Use of Kinetic Parameters for Modeling and Simulation of a Selective Catalytic Reduction Process. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 1159–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, L.C. Improvement on Hybrid SNCR-SCR Process for NO Control: A Bench Scale Experiment. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 2006, 6, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nguyen, T.D.B.; Lim, Y.I.; Eom, W.H.; Kim, S.J.; Yoo, K.S. Experiment and CFD simulation of hybrid SNCR-SCR using urea solution in a pilot-scale reactor. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34, 1580–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lietti, L.; Nova, I.; Tronconi, E.; Forzatti, P. Transient kinetic study of the SCR-DeNOx reaction. Catal. Today 1998, 45, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bosch, H.; Janssen, F. Formation and Control of Nitrogen Oxides. Catal. Today 1988, 2, 369–506. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, D.; Hui, S.; Liu, C.; Shang, T.; Zou, H.; Zhang, G. Effect of the shape of SCR reaction tower and the internal guiding plates on the airflow uniformity. Energy Procedia 2014, 61, 398–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lei, Z.G.; Wen, C.P.; Chen, B.H. Optimization of Internals for Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) for NO Removal. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 45, 3437–3444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Spiteri, A.; Eggenschwiler, P.D.; Liao, Y.; Wigley, G.; Michalow-Mauke, K.A.; Elsener, M.; Kröcher, O.; Boulouchos, K. Comparative analysis on the performance of pressure and air-assisted urea injection for selective catalytic reduction of NOx. Fuel 2015, 161, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, X.; Tan, H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, F.; Mikulčić, H.; Vujanović, M.; Duić, N. Low NOx combustion and SCR flow field optimization in a low volatile coal fired boiler. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 220, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Gao, Y.; Liu, Q.; Bian, L. Numerical Simulation and Optimization of Flow Field in the SCR Denitrification System on a 600 MW Capacity Units. Energy Procedia 2012, 14, 370–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ye, X.L.; Yang, D. Application of the Flow Simulation for the Optimization Analysis of SCR DeNOx System of Coal Power Plant. Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 610–613, 1533–1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhou, H.; Guo, X.; Zhou, M.; Ma, W.; Dahri, M.W.; Cen, K. Optimization of ammonia injection grid in hybrid selective noncatalyst reduction and selective catalyst reduction system to achieve ultra-low NOx emissions. J. Energy Inst. 2018, 91, 984–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, G.; Bao, W.; Zhang, W.; Shen, D.; Wang, Q.; Li, C.; Luo, K.H. An intelligent control of NH3 injection for optimizing the NOx/NH3 ratio in SCR system. J. Energy Inst. In press. [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, G.; Xu, C.; Yang, Y.P.; Fang, Y.X.; Zhou, L.Y.; Zhang, K. Novel partial-subsidence tower-type boiler design in an ultra-supercritical power plant. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, G.; Xu, C.; Yang, Y.P.; Fang, Y.X.; Zhou, L.Y.; Yang, Z.P. Thermodynamic and economic analysis of a partially-underground tower-type boiler design for advanced double reheat power plants. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015, 78, 565–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xu, Y.Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, F.N.; Shi, W.F.; Yuan, J.Q. CFD analysis on the catalyst layer breakage failure of an SCR-DeNOx system for a 350 MW coal-fired power plant. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2014, 69, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gan, X.B.; Yao, D.W.; Wu, F.; Dai, J.W.; Wei, L.; Li, X.W. Modeling and simulation of urea-water-solution droplet evaporation and thermolysis processes for SCR systems. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2016, 24, 1065–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lang, E.; Drtina, P.; Streiff, F.; Fleischli, M. Numerical simulation of the fluid flow and the mixing process in a static mixer. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 1995, 38, 2239–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chen, J.J.; Lan, C.H.; Jeng, M.S.; Xu, T.F. The development of fan filter unit with flow rate feedback control in a cleanroom. Build. Environ. 2007, 42, 3556–3561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Handbook of ANSYS 17.1; ANSYS Inc: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2016.
Figure 1. The schematic geometry of a tower type SCR-deNOx facility for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant. AIG: Ammonia Injection Grid.
Figure 1. The schematic geometry of a tower type SCR-deNOx facility for a 1000 MW coal-fired power plant. AIG: Ammonia Injection Grid.
Applsci 09 01012 g001
Figure 2. Meshing geometry of the representative area.
Figure 2. Meshing geometry of the representative area.
Applsci 09 01012 g002
Figure 3. The platform of flow model test (FMT) experiments.
Figure 3. The platform of flow model test (FMT) experiments.
Applsci 09 01012 g003
Figure 4. The sketch map of detection spots over the perforate plate.
Figure 4. The sketch map of detection spots over the perforate plate.
Applsci 09 01012 g004
Figure 5. The baffles installation in the expansion duct for the optimal design (unit: mm).
Figure 5. The baffles installation in the expansion duct for the optimal design (unit: mm).
Applsci 09 01012 g005
Figure 6. The sizes and locations of the baffles installation in the expansion duct: (a) Y-positive view; (b) X-negative view.
Figure 6. The sizes and locations of the baffles installation in the expansion duct: (a) Y-positive view; (b) X-negative view.
Applsci 09 01012 g006aApplsci 09 01012 g006b
Figure 7. The crossed baffles installation at the upstream side of the ammonia injection grid (AIG) (unit: mm).
Figure 7. The crossed baffles installation at the upstream side of the ammonia injection grid (AIG) (unit: mm).
Applsci 09 01012 g007
Figure 8. The sizes and locations of the crossed baffles installation at the upstream side of the AIG: (a) Y-positive view; (b) X-negative view.
Figure 8. The sizes and locations of the crossed baffles installation at the upstream side of the AIG: (a) Y-positive view; (b) X-negative view.
Applsci 09 01012 g008
Figure 9. Contours of gas velocity at the observation plane for the optimal design (unit: m/s).
Figure 9. Contours of gas velocity at the observation plane for the optimal design (unit: m/s).
Applsci 09 01012 g009
Figure 10. (a) The injection divisions of AIG (top view); (b) The corresponding non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy (unit: m/s).
Figure 10. (a) The injection divisions of AIG (top view); (b) The corresponding non-uniformed NH3 injection strategy (unit: m/s).
Applsci 09 01012 g010
Figure 11. Contours of NH3 concentration at the observation plane for the optimal design (unit: kg/m3).
Figure 11. Contours of NH3 concentration at the observation plane for the optimal design (unit: kg/m3).
Applsci 09 01012 g011
Figure 12. The influence of the crossed baffles on gas velocities and NH3 concentration.
Figure 12. The influence of the crossed baffles on gas velocities and NH3 concentration.
Applsci 09 01012 g012
Table 1. Comparisons between the statistic indices before and after the optimal design.
Table 1. Comparisons between the statistic indices before and after the optimal design.
ItemBefore the Optimal DesignAfter the Optimal Design
Maximum velocity (m/s)13.476.64
RSD of gas/air velocity (%)30.2011.90
RSD of NH3/CO2 concentration (%)9.253.37
Total pressure loss (Pa)555.17750.61
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded, Pa)135.17330.61
Table 2. FMT results of air velocity distribution (m/s).
Table 2. FMT results of air velocity distribution (m/s).
ABCDEFGH
13.263.583.583.563.123.253.533.23
24.074.244.544.414.184.304.673.99
34.604.624.624.234.623.944.334.54
44.354.404.584.364.084.144.304.21
54.074.584.764.274.614.474.624.40
64.294.544.324.504.504.164.514.26
74.244.134.344.424.454.173.763.88
83.313.813.563.373.223.193.733.29
Table 3. FMT results of CO2 concentration distribution (ppm).
Table 3. FMT results of CO2 concentration distribution (ppm).
ABCDEFGH
120552031218321701997218019182192
221691836205720302039205220102081
321271918219621821959205219912144
421811937207420282068194919032108
521061849212918352165214021062168
618422089216720212018192119612096
721442040203119402138195118702096
821332072202721752130200819381933
Table 4. Comparisons between computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and FMT experiments.
Table 4. Comparisons between computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations and FMT experiments.
ItemCFDFMT
Maximum velocity (m/s)6.644.76
Minimum velocity (m/s)3.723.12
Average velocity (m/s)5.454.11
RSD of gas/air velocity (%)11.9011.24
RSD of NH3/CO2 concentration (%)3.374.98
Total pressure loss (Pa)750.61640
Pressure loss (catalysts excluded, Pa)330.61251

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zeng, H.; Yuan, J.; Wang, J. Optimal Design of a Tower Type SCR-deNOx Facility for a 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant Based on CFD Simulation and FMT Validation. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051012

AMA Style

Zeng H, Yuan J, Wang J. Optimal Design of a Tower Type SCR-deNOx Facility for a 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant Based on CFD Simulation and FMT Validation. Applied Sciences. 2019; 9(5):1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051012

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zeng, Haojun, Jingqi Yuan, and Jingcheng Wang. 2019. "Optimal Design of a Tower Type SCR-deNOx Facility for a 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant Based on CFD Simulation and FMT Validation" Applied Sciences 9, no. 5: 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051012

APA Style

Zeng, H., Yuan, J., & Wang, J. (2019). Optimal Design of a Tower Type SCR-deNOx Facility for a 1000 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant Based on CFD Simulation and FMT Validation. Applied Sciences, 9(5), 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9051012

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop