Proceedings

Proceedingsof
ofthe
theASME
ASME 2011
2011 Power
Power Conference
Conference
POWER2011
POWER2011
July
July12-14,
12-14,2011,
2011, Denver,
Denver, Colorado,
Colorado, USA
USA

POWER2011-55110
POWER2011-55110
CFD SIMULATION OF POLLUTANT EMISSION IN POWER PLANT BOILERS
Ivn F. Galindo-Garca, Ana K. Vzquez-Barragn, Alejandro G. Man-Gonzlez, and
Miguel Rossano-Romn
Electrical Research Institute of Mxico (IIE),
Reforma 113, Cuernavaca, Mxico, 62490

ABSTRACT
A computational model is developed in order to investigate
pollutant emissions from power plant boilers to the
atmosphere. A well-known method of pollutant reduction is the
modification of the combustion conditions to prevent their
formation, and 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes
provide an effective tool for the analysis of the combustion
process. In this paper CFD calculations were performed to
analyze the effect of the amount of combustion air on the
production and emission of nitrogen oxides, one of the main
pollutants produced during the combustion process. For this
analysis the appropriate modeling of the chemical and physical
phenomena involved is important, because the production and
transport of pollutant species strongly depend on the flow and
temperature distributions in the furnace. Two case studies are
presented: a pulverized coal-firing tangential boiler and a fueloil frontal boiler. The CFD calculations adopt a 3Dformulation of the mean flow equations in combination with
the standard high-Reynolds-number k- turbulence model. The
model domain consists of the whole boiler, from the burner
nozzles up to the exit of the economizer. Due to their complex
geometrical features and computational limitations bank tubes
are not modeled individually, but are grouped in a total
volume. A porous media region approach is then undertaken to
model gas flow and heat transfer in each heat exchanger.
Model validation is a difficult task due to the lack of available
data from commercial utilities. Validation has been done using
routinely measured global parameters. Relatively good
agreement is obtained. Results show that increasing the
amount of air reduce nitrogen oxides formation for the case of
the tangential boiler, however for the frontal boiler case this
behavior is not as evident. These results demonstrate that CFD
simulations are a viable tool to study the effect some
combustion parameters have on the production of pollutants.
CFD results may help to establish trends that, in turn, may help
to reduce pollutant emissions from power plant boilers.

1. INTRODUCTION
One of the main challenges facing the power generation
industry that use fossil fuels is to meet the increased electricity
demand while maintaining the emission of pollutants
according to environmental regulations. Some of the air
pollutants formed in high temperature combustion processes
where the nitrogen present in the fuel or air combines with
oxygen are nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide NO, nitrogen dioxide
NO2 and nitrous oxide N2O, grouped as NOx), which, along
with sulfur oxides (SO2 and SO3) and particulate matter,
contribute to the formation of acid rain and ozone degradation,
with the potential to affect visibility and in general deteriorate
human health [1]. In consequence, in order to diminish their
effect most combustion systems are regulated, monitored and
required to have some type of control. This control is closely
related to the combustion process. In utility boilers, the socalled primary techniques for reduction of nitrogen oxides
consist in the modification of combustion conditions to avoid
their formation. Depending on the fuel, and also on the design
of furnace and combustion system, diverse technologies are
available: low NOx burners, fuel/air staging, overfire air,
reburning, and flue gas recirculation. In many instances these
primary techniques are not enough to meet the new, very
stringent regulations, so that secondary techniques, i.e. NOx
selective chemical reduction, are unavoidable.
Useful tools to help in the control of the emission of
contaminants, with either primary or secondary techniques, are
simulation tools such as the Computational Fluids Dynamics
(CFD) codes. The method involves the use of mathematical
and numerical models to solve fluid flow, mass and heat
transfer, chemical reactions and phase change. CFD
simulations help to analyze the combustion process through a
virtual prototype that provides qualitative and quantitative
results.
In this work simulations have been performed in order to
demonstrate that CFD simulations are a viable tool to study the

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

effect some combustion parameters have on the production of

pollutants. The appropriate modeling of the chemical and
physical phenomena involved is important, because the
production and transport of pollutant species strongly depend
on the flow and temperature distributions in the furnace. CFD
results may help to establish trends that, in turn, may help to
reduce pollutant emissions from power plant boilers. The
present CFD simulations analyze the effect of increasing the
amount of combustion air available for combustion by 10%.
Two 350 MW generating units are simulated; one is a coalfired tangential-design boiler and the other a heavy oil-fired
frontal-design boiler. Flow, energy and the global kinetics of
NOx formation in the furnace have been simulated by standard
CFD techniques.
2. NOX FORMATION OVERVIEW
Combustion of a fossil fuel invariably produces NOx due to
the high temperature and the availability of oxygen and
nitrogen in the air and fuel. NOx formation results from three
main mechanisms: thermal NOx, fuel NOx and prompt NOx
[1-3].
Thermal NOx is produced by oxidation at high temperature
of the nitrogen present in the combustion air and its formation
rate is function of temperature (significantly increases after
1204C) and the residence time at that temperature. Since the
typical factors for an efficient combustion are high
temperature, long residence time, and high turbulence, i.e.
characteristics that tend to increase the formation rates of
thermal NOx, a balance has to be sought between an effective
combustion and production of NOx. Typical control of thermal
NOx consists of reducing mean and maximum flame
temperature.
Fuel NOx is formed through two mechanisms: oxidation of
volatile species in the nitrogen present in the fuel during the
initial phase of combustion and the formation of nitrogen
radicals during char combustion. The volatiles consist of
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and methane,
principally, while the remaining particle, following
devolatilization, consists of char residue and inert ash. In the
first mechanism nitrogen reacts to form intermediate
compounds in the rich fuel region, therefore NO and NO2
formation strongly depends on the local air-fuel stoichiometry
ratio. Conversion can be controlled by reducing the available
oxygen during the initial stages of combustion. In the second
mechanism, char-oxidant reactions, a fraction of the nitrogen
in the char is directly converted to NO. Additionally,
heterogeneous reduction to N2 by interaction with the char
particles can contribute to slightly decrease the total amount of
fuel NOx.
Prompt NOx is formed by reactions of N2 with fuel derived
radicals such as CH and CH2 in regions near the flame zone of
a hydrocarbon fuel. The contribution of prompt NOx to total
NOx is usually very small.
In order to model NOx formation, kinetic rate models
detailed enough to characterize the process, but consisting of

only a few global steps, to facilitate their interaction with the

computation of velocity, temperature and concentration fields
are employed. In CFD modeling, NOx simulation is usually
decoupled from the main calculation. Simulations consist of
two stages. First velocity, temperature and concentration of
major species are calculated, and second NOx calculations are
executed after as a post-processing task. This is expected,
because the presence and evolution of trace species hardly
affect the overall flame evolution, controlled by comparatively
faster fuel combustion mechanisms [2].
3. NUMERICAL SIMULATION MODEL
The general purpose CFD code FLUENT [4] has been
adopted to simulate chemical reactions, fluid and particle flow,
and heat and mass transfer inside the furnace. The discretized
conservation equations for mass, momentum and energy are
solved. Turbulence is accounted for by means of the standard
k model [5].
For the simulation of the tube bundles (superheaters,
reheaters, economizers and hanger tubes) located downstream
of the furnace, it is not feasible to model each tube
individually due to the different length scales, instead a porous
media approach was adopted. The porous media model adds
two source terms to the momentum equations, a viscous term
and an inertial loss term, which depend on the molecular
viscosity and the square of velocity, respectively. For the case
of the heat absorbed inside the porous zone, the energy
equations are modified in the heat conduction terms, using an
effective conductivity that takes into account the fluid and
solid conductivities and the porosity of the medium. The
porosity is the volume fraction of fluid within the porous
region (i.e., the open volume fraction of the medium). The
formula for porosity factor is,
=1

Do2
4ST SL

(1)

where Do is heat exchanger tube diameter, ST is the transversal

length (pitch), and SL is the axial length. The porous model is
employed to model three superheaters (SH1, SH3 and SH4),
two reheaters (RH2 and RH3), two economizers (ECOSUP
and ECOINF) and hanger tubes for SH1. Superheater SH2 is
modeled as plates and reheater RH1 is not modeled. The
geometric data used for the calculation of the porosity of the
heat exchangers are given in Table 1.

SH3
RH2
RH3
SH4
SH1
ECO SUP
ECOINF
Hanger tub SH1

Panel
s
26
40
80
80
54
27
27
54

Tubes
33
20
8
8
34
12
12
5

Diam.
mm
48.6
63.5
60.3
48.6
54
45
45
48.6

ST, mm
522
348
174
174
130.5
130.5
130.5
130.5

SL,
mm
58.1
115
115
100
100
115
115
100

Porosity
0.938
0.920
0.857
0.893
0.824
0.894
0.894
0.857

TABLE 1. HEAT EXCHANGERS PARAMETERS.

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

Total heat absorbed in each exchanger is modeled by

adding an energy source term to the energy equation. The
value of the source term is calculated based on the percentage
of heat absorbed in each heat exchanger. In Table 2, the
percentage of heat absorbed in each heat exchanger is shown.

Heat exchanger
Boiler Walls (%)
Superheaters (%)
Reheaters (%)
Economizer (%)
Air Pre-heater (%)(not modeled)
Total absorbed heat (%)

Coal
34
33
14
9
10
100

Heavy Oil
36
31
14
10
9
100

TABLE 2. HEAT ABSORBED IN EACH HEAT EXCHANGER.

Coal combustion involves homogeneous (or gas-phase)

combustion and heterogeneous reaction of fuel particles.
During gas phase combustion species products of combustion
are formed. The main objective of a combustion model is to
determine the mean production rates of those species; the
kinetic rates then appear in the species transport equations.
Here the Eddy-dissipation model with a one step heat-release
mechanism, available in FLUENT, was employed. For
combustion of fuel particles the process involves drying,
devolatilization, and char oxidation. The devolatilization
model is applied to a combusting particle after the particle
reaches the vaporization temperature (i.e. after drying). The
single kinetic rate model, where the yielding kinetic rate k is
defined by an Arrhenius expression, was adopted. The
Arrhenius expression is given by:

k = A1 e (E RT )

the weighted-sum-of-gray-gases model (WSGGM). The

impact of reacting particles or droplets on the continuous
phase can be examined using heat and mass transfer
relationships, available in FLUENT. For coal particles the
model includes particle heating, evolution of volatiles and
swelling, char reaction and cooling of the particle. For droplet
combustion the droplet evolution includes heating to
vaporization temperature, evaporation, boiling and cooling.
Interaction between the turbulence and chemistry is modeled
with the eddy dissipation model in which reaction rates are
assumed to be controlled by the turbulence.
All models mentioned above have been extensively used
for an efficient modeling of the complex phenomena found in
large scale boilers. Detailed formulations of the models are not
given here since they can be found in the ANSYS FLUENT
Theory Guide [3].
A parametric analysis was accomplished to confirm that
numerical results were grid independent. Fig. 1 shows the
velocity in a horizontal line inside the boiler at 23 m from the
bottom and going from one corner to the opposite corner
(position 0-12.5m) using grids with different total number of
cells of 2, 3 and 5 million cells. It can be observed that
velocity is similar for the grids with 3 and 5 million cells,
which indicates that increasing the number of cells in the mesh
does not significantly affect results.

(2)

where A1 is the pre-exponential factor, E is the activation

energy, T is the temperature and R is the universal gas
constant.
Following devolatilization the remaining particle consist of
char residue and inert ash. Char combustion is modeled by the
kinetic/diffusion-limited rate model, which assumes that the
surface reaction rate is determined either by kinetics or by a
diffusion rate.
The time averaged conservation equations are solved for
predicting the flow, temperature and concentration of gas
species within the boiler. Turbulent quantities are calculated
using the standard high-Reynolds-number k- turbulence
model. Lagrangian particle trajectories of the pulverized coal
particles or heavy oil droplets are calculated throughout the
computational domain. The dispersion of particles due to gas
turbulence is predicted using the stochastic tracking model
which includes the effect of instantaneous turbulent velocity
fluctuations of the gas on the particle trajectories. The P1
radiation model is used to simulate radiation heat transfer.
Absorption coefficients of the gas phase are calculated using

FIG. 1. VELOCITY CALCULATED USING THREE

DIFFERENT MESH SIZES.

4. CASE-STUDY BOILER
The boiler under consideration is part of a 350 MW
commercial power plant operating in a subcritical steam cycle.
The combustion chamber is rectangular in shape (dimensions
12.7 x 14.15 x 45.6 m), and is fired tangentially using either
five pulverized coal burners or four heavy oil fuel burners in
each corner. The burner nozzles discharge a mixture of coal
and air into the furnace, while auxiliary nozzles discharge
secondary air. For the case of the boiler firing pulverized coal
it has two types of coal burners, one is a fuel rich burner

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

(CONC) and the other is a fuel lean burner (WEAK). The

furnace geometry and burner arrangement are shown in Fig. 2.

FIG. 2. BOILER GEOMETRY.

The model domain consists of the combustion chamber, from

the burner nozzles at the furnace corners, up to the exit of the
economizer. A mesh for the model was created using
tetrahedral and hexahedral elements and has approximately
3.5106 elements of unequal size. The regions close to the
burners, where the fluids are injected and the combustion
processes take place, were assigned a denser mesh, Fig.3.

Boundary conditions were obtained from the plant design

data sheets. The air and fuel nozzles were the inlets and the
region after the economizers was the outlet. The boiler walls
were assigned wall boundary conditions for flow and thermal
properties. Table 3 presents the boundary conditions for the
simulation cases. Properties of fuels, proximate and ultimate
analyses, as well as heating value are given in Table 4.

Parameter
Case 1: Coal firing
Load
Elevations in service
Coal flow rate
Primary air flow rate
Primary air temperature
Total secondary air flow rate
Secondary air temperature
OFA flow rate
Outlet pressure relative to
atmospheric pressure
Case 2: Heavy oil firing
Load
Elevations in service
Heavy oil flow rate
Heavy oil temperature
Air flow rate
Air temperature
Gas recirculation flow rate
OFA flow rate
Outlet pressure relative to
atmospheric pressure

Boundary condition value

100% (350 MW)
A, B, C, D
33.786 kg/s
86.666 kg/s
70 C (343 K)
256.388 kg/s
321 C (594 K)
21.04 % of secondary air
-1000 Pa

100% (350 MW)

A, B, C, D
21.98 kg/s
117.4C (390 K)
305.55 kg/s
325 C (598 K)
30.8 kg/s
13.78 % of total air
-1000 Pa

TABLE 3. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS.

Coal Properties
Proximate analysis (as received)
Moisture (%)
Ash (%)
Volatile (%)
Fixed carbon (%)
Ultimate analysis (as received)
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Oxygen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Sulfur (%)
Chloride (%)
Heating value (kJ/kg)
Heavy oil Properties
Proximate analysis (as received)
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Sulfur (%)
Oxygen + Nitrogen (%)
Heating value (kJ/kg)

values
9.5
12.2
31
47.3
82.5
5.6
8.96
1.8
1.1
0.04
26,497.27
values
83.64
11.3
4.2
0.86
41,868

TABLE 4. FUEL PROPERTIES.

FIG. 3. MESH FOR THE MODEL.

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

5. MODEL VALIDATION
The data needed for model validation is usually not
available in commercial utilities. As stated in [6], it is
impractical and unlikely that enough experimental data could
be collected to provide the detailed information needed for
combustion modeling. Therefore the global parameters
measured routinely by plant operators may be taken as a guide
for model validation. In this context validation refers more to
agreement in trends than comparison of absolute values.
5.1. Validation results firing coal
The boiler was operated with the lower ABCD levels
firing coal and the upper E level out of service. The tilt angles
of the AE burner levels were assumed to be 0. The
combustion simulations are compared to some key global
design parameters available from boiler data, including the
average temperature and average O2 and CO2 mass fraction at
the furnace exit. Table 5 presents data from calculations and
from the reference boiler. It should be noted that the exact
location for measurements inside the boiler was not known.
Therefore calculated values in Table 5 are given as a range
limited by the maximum and minimum values in a transversal
plane at the indicated location, where the minimum and
maximum temperature values are greatly influenced by the
cold temperature at the walls (377 C) and by the hot gases at
the center of the furnace, hence the wide range of values in
Table 5. These results show that, except for flue gas
temperature at furnace exit and O2 concentration at
economizer exit, which are higher and lower than plant data,
respectively, the ranges of calculated values enclose the
respective reference value. Discrepancies are difficult to
analyze because of the uncertainties about the exact location of
the measurement point. Despite these differences the general
trend in flue gas temperature as the gas flows through the
furnace is similar for calculation and plant data. Recall,
however, that this comparison is only a rough approximation
towards model validation and that more plant data is needed
for better analysis.

Variable
Flow rate
Flue gas (economizer outlet) kg/s
Temperature
Flue gas at furnace exit, C
Reheater outlet, C
Superheater outlet, C
Flue gas at economizer inlet, C
Flue gas economizer outlet, C
Flue gas concentration
O2 economizer exit (dry vol %)
CO2 economizer exit (dry vol %)

Calculation

Plant data

372.2

376.66

1433 1711
511 1235
584 907
487 907
252 610

1007
779
527
524
343

0.73 2.58
15.5 18.1

3.6
15.217.7

TABLE 5. COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND

REFERENCE PLANT, COAL FIRING.

5.2. Validation results firing heavy oil

For the condition of 100% load and the boiler firing heavy
oil the four elevations of oil burners are used. Similarly to the
case for coal-firing, results in this case also show that plant
data is within the ranges given by the maximum and minimum
calculated values, exceptions are temperature at the furnace
exit and, only slightly, species concentrations at the exit.
Model predictions and plant data are shown in Table 6.
Comparing these data it is clear that more reference data is
needed for a comprehensive validation; however the available
plant data helps to roughly corroborate results from these
simulations.

Variable
Flow rate
Flue gas at economizer outlet, kg/s
Temperature
Flue gas at furnace exit, C
Reheater outlet, C
Superheater outlet, C
Flue gas at economizer inlet, C
Flue gas economizer outlet, C
Flue gas concentration
O2 economizer exit (dry vol %)
CO2 economizer exit(dry vol %)

Calculation

Plant data

358.20

357.5

8191484
445 1081
336 680
336 668
171 400

1017
773
517
546
352

0.08 0.9
12.7 13.39

1.1
13.59

TABLE 6. COMPARISON BETWEEN CALCULATIONS AND

REFERENCE PLANT, HEAVY OIL FIRING.

6. MODEL RESULTS
CFD simulations have been performed in order to analyze
the effect of changing the boiler operating conditions on the
combustion process and in particular on pollutant emissions.
Here the effect of varying the amount of combustion air is
investigated. It is assumed that variation of the combustion air
can have a significant influence on the NOx formation process.
Two cases are presented: a case with a tangentially fired boiler
burning coal and a case of a frontal burner boiler using fuel
oil. For both cases results were obtained for 100% load and
increasing the combustion air by 10%.
6.1 Tangentially fired Boiler
Figure 4 shows a plot of the average temperature in
horizontal cross-sections at different distances in the path of
the gas. It shows the influence of the amount of air supplied
for the combustion process on average temperature.
Temperature is lower when combustion air was increased.
Figure 5 shows temperature contours in a horizontal crosssection at the height of the elevation D burner (10 m) for the
two cases. Even if the profiles are very similar, it appears that
the temperature for the base case is higher.

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

The significant difference between the two cases can be

observed in Fig. 7, where a comparison of the distributions of
predicted NO mole fraction for the two cases is shown at
vertical and horizontal planes inside the furnace.

FIG. 4. AVERAGES OF GAS TEMPERATURE ALONG THE

FURNACE HEIGHT.

Base case

Overfire air (10% increase)

Base case

FIG. 5. CROSS-SECTIONAL AVERAGES OF GAS

TEMPERATURE.

As for the production of NOx, the simulations show that the

decrease in average temperature causes a reduction in NO
formation. Figure 6 shows a plot of the volume fraction of NO
averaged over horizontal planes at different distances from the
path of the gases.

Overfire air (10% increase)

FIG. 7. CONTOURS OF NITRIC OXIDE (NO) MASS
FRACTION.

FIG. 6. VOLUME FRACTION OF NITRIC OXIDE (NO)

ALONG THE FURNACE HEIGHT.

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

The difference between the two images is evident, because

while the base case shows several areas at the top of the scale
(0.02) and an average at the outlet of 0.005, the case with 10%
more air has a maximum fraction of 0.0028 and an average at
the outlet of 0.001. It should be noted that due to uncertainty
in the validation, the assessment of trends, i.e. the variation
between different states of operation, is of greater value than
the absolute values of the simulations. In our case the trend
exhibited by the results can be considered adequate according
to the NOx formation processes both thermal and fuel, as
described above. Although the formation of fuel NOx is greater
with increased availability of air, the temperature decrease due
to more air dominates the formation of NOx and has a lower
yield for the case where the secondary air was increased by
10%.
6.2 Frontal burner boiler
In a second case study the same scenario of 10% increase
of combustion air, but now in a boiler that burns fuel oil with
frontal burners distributed in four levels of three wall burners
with a total of 24 burners was also investigated. Unlike the
previous case, it sought to analyze the formation of NOx
mainly at the furnace and excluding the effect of heat transfer
on the walls and on the banks of tubes. Results show that
increasing the combustion air NO formation is reduced in the
furnace region, however, at the outlet both have similar values,
even the base case is slightly higher (Fig. 8).

FIG. 8. PLOT OF MOLAR FRACTION OF NITRIC OXIDE

(NO) ALONG THE FURNACE HEIGHT, FRONTAL BOILER.

Figure 9 shows the contours of the mole fraction of NO for

the two scenarios. As can be seen, although at the top and at
the outlet the profile is similar, in the furnace itself differences
in the profiles of NO can be noticed. The case in which there is
more available air appears to have less NO produced in the
burner region.

Base case

10% air increase

FIG. 9. CONTOURS OF NITRIC OXIDE (NO) MASS

FRACTION, FRONTAL BURNER BOILER.

6. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Computations of a utility boiler have been undertaken using
a CFD-based model that solves the 3D-equations for massdiffusion, momentum, and energy in combination with models
for turbulence (standard high-Reynolds-number k- model),
combustion (eddy dissipation model) and radiation (P1
model). The aim was to demonstrate that CFD simulations are
a viable tool to study the effect that combustion parameters
have on the production of pollutants. CFD results may help to
establish trends that, in turn, may help to reduce pollutant
emissions from power plant boilers. The CFD calculations
presented here investigate the effect that changing the
operating conditions of a boiler would have on NOx formation.
The model has been validated comparing simulation results to
design parameters from the reference plant, where validation
refers more to agreement in trends than comparison of absolute
values Two case studies have been presented in which
numerical simulations were conducted varying the amount of
oxygen available for combustion, which changes the
conditions for the production of NOx. Results show that NO
production is reduced when the amount of available air for
combustion is increased by 10%. This result is justified
because temperature decreases by increasing air flow.
However, in the case of the frontal boiler firing fuel oil this
trend was not observed as clearly, so further simulations are
required varying this parameter further. As a final conclusion
CFD is recommended as a viable computational tool to
evaluate techniques aimed at reducing emissions in boilers,
bearing in mind that validation is a key part in the simulation
process.

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support for this work was provided by CFE (the
Mexican utility, Laboratorio de Pruebas a Equipos y
Materiales, LAPEM), CONACYT (National Council for
Science and Technology of Mxico) and IIE (Electrical
Research Institute of Mxico).

NOMENCLATURE
Roman letters
A1
pre-exponential factor (kgmol/m3-s)
Do
tube diameter (m)
E
activation energy (J/kgmol)
R
universal gas constant (J/kgmol-K)
ST
transversal length (m)
SL
axial length (m)
T
temperature (K)
k
kinetic reaction rate (kg/m3-s)
Greek letters

porosity factor

REFERENCES
[1] Babcock and Wilcox, 2005, Steam/its generation and use,
41 ed, eds. J.B. Kitto and S.C.Strultz, The Babcock and
Wilcox Company, Ohio, USA.
[2] L. I. Dz, C. Corts, and J. Pallars, 2008, Numerical
Investigation of NOx Emissions From a Tangentially-Fired
Utility Boiler Under Conventional and Overfire Air
Operation, Fuel, 87, pp 1259-1269.
[3] ANSYS, 2009. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 Theory Guide,
ANSYS, April 2009.
[4] ANSYS, 2009. ANSYS FLUENT 12.0 Users Guide,
ANSYS, April 2009.
[5] Launder BE, Spalding DB., 1974, The Numerical
Computation of Turbulent Flows, Comput Meth Appl Mech
Eng, 3, pp. 269289.
[6] Fiveland, W.A., Wessel RA, 1988, Numerical Model for
Predicting Performance of Three Dimensional Pulverize-Fuel
Fired Furnaces. J Eng Gas Turb Power, 110, pp.117126.

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/06/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Copyright
2011
ASME
Copyright
2011
by ASME