Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Title
0
Rev
28.10.1
5
Date
Satyajit
Satyajit
Originator
Verified
Approved
Implemente
d
Revision Summary
Revision
No
Date
Changes
0
1
Page 1 of 11
Section 1: Introduction
This document should be read in conjunction with Doc No EGB-RPT-Dalkia/SC / 002 having
title : Visit report to the facility in September 2015.
Essentially it was opined by Veolia that the boiler will be de-rated to 40 tph and ways and
means to improve fluidizing velocity & bed temperature should be looked into.
Total 3 schemes were discussed, and it was agreed that Enmas GB will study these 3
schemes and come out with
a) Technical suitability
b) Advantage & Disadvantages over other schemes
c) Extent of modification & BOM
d) Approximate cost.
e) Delivery time.
f) Time to undertake the modification.
This issue of the report analyses the 3 schemes and lists the suitability as per a) to f) above.
After working out the details & feasibility, in each schemes, certain more modifications came
to light over and above those discussed during the meeting & reported in Doc No EGB-RPTDalkia/SC / 002.
Page 2 of 11
Page 3 of 11
Page 4 of 11
Page 5 of 11
Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11
SCHEME 2
SCHEME 3
DESCRIPTION
EXTENT OF MODIFICATION
Removing
bottom
level
buckstays, cutting & blocking
supply pipes & risers to the wing
headers permanently. Removing
4 nos spreaders & connections
permanently. Removing burners.
Removing 12 nos air ports
permanently. Cutting & removing
extended walls in front & rear
side permanently. Re-locating
side walls by spool panel inserts.
Welding spool panels in front &
rear wall for Secondary air
openings.
Relocating
burner
openings
by
welding
spool
inserts to suit new width.
Modification in floor support
beams. Modification in windbox.
Re-attaching
the
temporarily
removed parts.
Page 8 of 11
ADVANTAGE / DISADVANTAGE
TECHNICAL SUITABILITY
SCHEME 2
1. Least
extent
of
modification
2. May be restored to 55 tph
when required.
3. Existing furnace volume
retained.
Unfortunately,
the
additional
load due to refractory is over the
safe limit for the beams, slings in
top suspension & will cause
heavy local stress in header lugs.
Therefore,
though
this
scheme appeared to be the
most promising, but the
same
is
technically
not
suitable
from
structural
considerations.
1. Huge modification.
2. Burners will face each
other & can burn out /
cause fire.
3. Restoring to 55 tph will
again call for similar
exercise.
4. Lesser
number
of
spreaders
will
be
available.
5. Furnace volume will be
reduced,
can
upset
emission.
6. Bed tube surface will still
be in the expanded bed.
7. Will require long shut
down.
Though this scheme is feasible, it
is not preferred by Enmas GB as
1. The extent of modification
is massive.
2. There will be a reduction
in number of spreaders,
3. The burners will nearly
face each other.
4. Furnace
volume
will
decrease.
5. Bed tubes will still be
present which Veoila does
not want.
6. The boiler can not be
restored
back
to
its
original capacity easily.
Due to the above reasons
Enmas-GB does not prefer
Page 9 of 11
SCHEME 3
1. Manageable modification.
2. Structural load increase is
minimal and acceptable.
3. No bed tubes as desired.
4. Furnace volume is intact.
5. No alteration in fuel
feeding
or
burner
location.
6. Boiler can be brought
back to 55 tph generation
very easily.
Page 10 of 11
REPLACEMENT ITEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
SCHEME 2
Floor tubes.
Bed tubes
Air Nozzles.
Attachments
local
to
support beams.
5. Bed
drains,
thermocouples & carrier
tubes, Diff Pressure tube.
6. Insulation & refractory
Page 11 of 11
SCHEME 3
1. Floor tubes.
2. Windbox steel floor with
watercooled floor tubes
with supports.
3. Attachments
local
to
beams.
4. Air nozzles.
5. Bed
drains,
thermocouples & carrier
tubes, Diff Pressure tube.
6. Front & rear wall spool
piece inserts.
7. Rear wall header.
8. Insulation & refractory