Reducing NOx Emissions in
Tangentially-Fired BoilersA New Approach
A. Kokkinos
D. Wasyluk
M. Brower
Babcock & Wilcox
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
Presented to:
ASME International Joint Power Generation Conference
July 24-25, 2000
Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
Introduction
Power plant owners and operators, especially those with coal-
fired capacity, are facing both significant opportunities and chal-
lenges. The move to deregulate the U.S. power industry pre-
sents an opportunity for existing coal-fired power plants be-
cause of their low fuel cost, and many are forecasting near-term
growth of this type of generation. The associated open market,
however, will force all power generators to control capital ex-
penditures, reduce operating and maintenance (O&M) costs, and
maximize overall plant efficiency to remain competitive.
At the same time, plant operators and owners are facing the
need to meet significantly tighter nitrogen oxides (NOx) regu-
lations as a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990. Lower NO x emissions require both increased capital and
operating costs that produce a negative impact on overall plant
efficiency.
The winners in this race are those that drive costs down by
selecting technologies that meet the emissions requirements at
minimal capital and operating costs. Most technologies apply
some type of air staging, for the reduction of NOx emissions as
required by the Title IV Phases I and II of the CAAA with rea-
sonable operating and capital costs. The anticipated further re-
duction in NO x emissions levels as a result of Title I (ozone
non-attainment) requirements further increases the pressure on
the utility boiler owners and operators. Depending on where
the final regulations are set, the use of more costly technologies
such as Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) may be required.
At Duke Power Co., a building block approach has been ap-
plied to the NO x strategy. The Duke project manager for his
Babcock & Wilcox
J.J. Barna
Duke Power Co.
Charlotte, North Carolina, U.S.A.
BR-1705
effort also called upon and applied his personal religious con-
victions and beliefs to develop the best solution at the least cost.
In anticipation of more stringent Title I regulations, Duke
Power and Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) reworked the tangen-
tially-fired Marshall Unit 3 with a low NOx combustion system
that will maximize NOx reductions thereby minimizing the costs
of future technology for NOx control.
NOx Formation and Control
NOx formation during the combustion process occurs mainly
through the oxidation of nitrogen in the combustion air (ther-
mal NO x) and nitrogen bound in the fuel matrix (fuel NO x).
Thermal NO x formation during the combustion process is eas-
ily understood and has been adequately described by the
Zeldovich mechanism. It is suppressed by reducing flame tem-
peratures and limiting oxygen concentration. Fuel NOx forma-
tion is a more complex process involving local concentration of
oxygen and nitrogen and is reduced by minimizing the avail-
ability of oxygen during the early stages of the combustion pro-
cess. Separated Overfire Air (SOFA) provides staging of the
combustion air controlling the mixing process of fuel and air
and the peak temperatures. The effectiveness of the NO x con-
trol process is dependant on the coal burned, with lower NOx
emissions from coals with lower nitrogen contents and lower
ratios of fixed carbon to volatile matter (i.e., higher reactivity).
Combustion zone geometry is particularly important, with higher
heat release rates and shorter residence times all contributing to
higher NOx levels.
1
Project Background
The Marshall Units 3 and 4 are tangentially-fired boilers
capable of generating 4,673,000 lbs/hr of steam at a pressure of
3615 psig and a temperature of 1005 F. Pulverized eastern bitu-
minous coal is fed through six elevations of tilting tangential
nozzles through eight corners of the combustion chamber (see
Figure 1). The unit was supplied by Combustion Engineering in
the mid 1960s and burns eastern bituminous coal tangentially.
Fuel is introduced through six elevations of CE Raymond 863RS
pulverizers with combustion air being injected, alternating, at
levels above and below each coal injection nozzle. In 1995 Com-
bustion Engineering reduced the NOx emissions with a LNCFS
Level 1 system resulting in a reduction of emissions from a typi-
cal level of 0.6 to 0.7 lbs/106 Btu fired to 0.45 lbs/106 Btu fired.
In order to carry out the LNCFS Level 1 work, the units top
coal elevation was moved to the air compartment located be-
tween the second and third upper most elevations (see Figure 2)
and the coal piping was rerouted to maintain the original fuel
firing order. This was required to allow for the use of the upper
windbox compartments as CCOFA (Close Coupled Overfire Air)
ports. Duke Power believed it could meet the early election
(grandfathered) Title IV limit of 0.45 lbs/106 Btu fired with this
work. It was also the first in a building block approach that could
later accept SOFA. Although it met its goal for Title IV regula-
tions, one or two levels of SOFA did not provide flexibility for
maximum reductions in NOx emissions through combustion
controls. Specifically, concerns with additional air staging for
the system as it existed were:
Limited residence time
Increased combustible losses (unburned carbon and CO)
Increased burner zone heat release rates due to the clus-
tering of the coal injection elevations resulting in higher
NO x levels and possible increases in corrosion.

Figure 1 Side view of Duke Power Station Unit 3. Figure 2 Existing unit windbox arrangement.

2 Babcock & Wilcox

 Duke felt that reducing the heat released in the combus-
tion zone and eliminating the clustering, relocating one of
the coal elevations below the main windbox, would result in
additional decrease in NO x emissions. To establish the ef-
fects of such a relocation, a study was undertaken by Duke
and B&W. The objectives of the study were twofold: (1)
evaluate the NO x reductions of LOFIR (LOwer Fire Incre-
mental Respacing), SOFA and combinations of both, and (2)
evaluate their effect on boiler performance.
The primary method of evaluation was computational flow
modeling using B&Ws proprietary combustion modeling
code called COMO TM . COMO is a multi-dimensional, steady
state, turbulent fluid flow program with coupled heat trans-
fer and combustion modules. The flow modules use a finite
difference formulation to solve the governing equations of
continuity, momentum, and energy. The heat transfer and
combustion modules use a continuous gas phase and a dis-
persed particle phase described in an Eulerian reference
frame.
The numerical model includes a NO x post-processor for
theoretical NO x predictions. This model is referred to as a
global model because it performs well when predicting glo-
bal changes in the furnace such as staged combustion or the
addition of air ports. The numerical NO x model is used only
to evaluate the change from one OFA arrangement to another
and is not used for guarantees.
The numerical predictions are based on a finite volume
computational fluid dynamics code. The model accounts for
various inlets by establishing boundary conditions that rep-
resent the chemistry and physical flow phenomena calcu-
lated from performance predictions.
Convection pass banks are represented with a distributed
resistance model for the flow solution and heat transfer
boundaries to represent their thermal characteristics.
Inlets are represented with three dimensional vector com-
ponents to maintain the mass, momentum, and aerodynamic
characteristics of the burning equipment. Inlet chemistry is
defined to represent the design fuel and air quantities.
Alternate arrangements are evaluated based on mixing
uniformity, port penetration, carbon monoxide, and nitro-
gen oxides predictions. In general, arrangements with im-
proved mixing effectiveness that do not increase NO x gen-
eration are considered superior. Other considerations are the
distribution of flue gas entering the convection pass, space
restrictions around the boiler setting, and furnace functional
limitations.
The numerical NO x predictions are based on user-speci-
fied reaction rates. For coal-fired applications the recom-
mended mechanisms are fuel NO x projections and reduction,
thermal NO x projections, and reburn NO x reduction.
Modeling Results
The study evaluated a total of six options in addition to the
current design. The options consisted of the addition of OFA, the
unclustering of the coal elevations and a combination of the two.
Option 1: This involved the relocation of the upper-most el-
evation of coal nozzles to a level just above the boiler ash hopper
bottom. Moving the elevation to the lower elevation allows for
additional closed coupled OFA and decreases the burner zone heat
release rates. Both of these actions should allow for a reduction in
NOx emissions.
Babcock & Wilcox
Option 2: The windbox configuration is maintained as is
and SOFA is introduced at two elevations. The lower eleva-
tion is introduced at multiple locations while the upper is in
a traditional (at corners) manner. The idea is to allow for a
reduction in NO x emissions while at the same time allowing
for lower CO and UBC levels. It is believed that lower CO
levels along the furnace waterwalls, especially in the area
above the main windbox, will provide protection against
furnace waterwall corrosion. Duke also wanted the future
option of interlacing to improve urea injection in the event
SNCR proved to be a worthwhile technology.
Option 3: This option is a variation of Option 2 and pertains
to moving the coal elevation from 806-10 to 793-6.
Option 4: This option provides for the addition of SOFA
(two elevations) to Option 1.
Option 5: This option maximizes the amount of SOFA,
increasing the separation distance between the upper two coal
elevations by moving the upper most elevation 3 ft above its
current location. It was felt that this approach would allow
for maximum NO x reduction.
Option 6: This option is a variation of Option 1 but with
moderate (one elevation) separated OFA.
In summary, the study predicted that de-clustering one
of the coal elevations and moving to a position below the
main firing zone would lower furnace exit gas temperatures
and NO x emissions. The study indicated that NO x emissions
will be reduced by an average of 0.03 to 0.05 lbs/10 6 Btu
fired. The study further suggested that introducing the OFA
using an interlace approach provided better mixing with
the products of combustion (see Figures 3 and 4) resulting
in lower predicted CO levels in the main furnace.
The modeling study also compared the proposed system
of lowering the clustered coal elevation (LOFIR) and the
addition of OFA with that of the typical aggressive NO x re-
duction systems used in other units in the industry. Specifi-
cally, the aggressive system consists of two levels of SOFA
(located at the corners), CCOFA with flame attachment
nozzle tips and concentric secondary air. The results of the
modeling indicated that, with the aggressively staged sys-
tem, carbon monoxide (CO) levels in the area above the burn-
ers were higher than those of the system developed for the
Marshall unit. It has been shown in the past (1) that CO levels
in the furnace are a good indicator of boiler waterwall fire-
side corrosion.
Following completion of the study, it was suggested that
testing of the Marshall unit be conducted to validate the re-
sults of the study. Specifically, the effects of lowering one
of the coal elevations on boiler performance and emissions
were examined. The testing was conducted at partial load
with four of the existing pulverizers and hence coal eleva-
tions in service. The results of the testing indicate that NO x
emissions were reduced by approximately 25% from a level
of 0.51 to 0.54 lbs/10 6 Btu fired with the upper four in ser-
vice, to 0.4 lbs/10 6 Btu fired or less with the lower four in
service. Reheat steam temperatures however also were re-
duced resulting in a decrease in temperature of approximately
5 F in addition to a reduction in reheat attemperator spraying.
In summary, the study indicated that incorporating the
LOFIR system with separated OFA could reduce NOx emis-
sions to 0.28 lbs/10 6 Btu fired at the Marshall unit with mi-
nor alterations to the units performance.
3
Figure 3 Graphical illustration of different fuel firing and OFA options tested with CFA modeling

Existing Firing
Pattern (Base)
Rear Wall

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Front Wall

2 ft Above Existing
Burner Windbox

8
7
6
5
CO 4
% vol. 3
2
1
0.5
Option 4 Option 5 Option 6 0.1
0

Figure 4 CFD model results of CO concentration for options tested.

4 Babcock & Wilcox


Figure 5 Modifications to Marshall Unit 3.
Marshall Unit Pollution Control Projects
The LOFIR system with separated OFA was installed in
Marshall Unit 3 during the fall outage of 1999. Figure 5 pro-
vides a three-dimensional overview of the work carried out. The
project consisted of moving elevation E (the elevation origi-
nally clustered) to a location below the main burner zone. A
boiler waterwall circulation study was carried out to ensure that
proper cooling to the LOFIR tube opening was present. Ten (10)
separated interlaced SOFA ports were installed above the main
burner zone to allow for NOx reductions. Additionally four (4)
small overfire air ports were installed co-rotational to the fire-
ball at the top windbox elevation to allow for oxidizing atmo-
sphere in the areas of the boiler that could be prone to waterwall
corrosion. The secondary (auxiliary) air nozzles were also re-
placed to assure proper air flow distribution and velocities.
Secondary air ducting to the LOFIRs was diverted from the
main secondary air supply duct as shown in the Figure 5. New
corner windboxes were built each containing one level of coal
firing and auxiliary air above and below for complete coal com-
bustion (see Figure 6). The pulverized coal piping was adjusted
to allow for the proper length and pressure drop and to maintain
the same pulverizer nomenclature for operating personnels ease
of identification.
Project Results
The unit was brought into operation in early December 1999
and initial results indicate that its conversion was very success-
ful in achieving its NO x emissions goals. During unit start-up
the unit was limited for its first week of operation to less than
560 MW from increased opacity due to oil coating of the elec-
trostatic precipitator. The NOx levels during this operation were
consistently under 0.19 lbs/106 Btu fired without any operational
side effects.
The unit was able to reach full load (730 MW) with all pul-
verizers in service within a week or so of start-up (following
cleaning of the precipitator). NOx levels, depending on the de-
gree of opening of the SOFA ports, ranged from 0.23 lbs/106
Btu to 0.39 lbs/106 Btu. Figure 7 summarizes the NOx emis-
sions as a function of boiler load with the use of the SOFA ports
Babcock & Wilcox
Figure 6 LOFIR windbox prior to installation on Marshall Unit 3.
and compares it to that achieved prior to the low NO x conver-
sion. The reduction in NOx emissions was consistent through-
out the boilers load range representing a reduction of 50 to
60% from baseline.
Further analysis of the results indicates that the LOFIR con-
tributed approximately up to one third (~ 20 to 35%) of the to-
tal reduction in NOx emissions while the OFA ports contributed
the rest. The LOFIR contribution in reducing the NO x emis-
sions is further attributed to a reduction in burner zone heat
release rates and increased combustion zone residence times.
The reductions in burner zone heat release rates were achieved
due to the de-clustering of the coal elevations resulting in
lower thermal zone production. Increased residence times al-
low for fuel NOx reducing reactions to take place.
An interesting operational point is that closing the CCOFA
on most of the Duke units can achieve a NOx rate near that
present prior to the Title IV implementation dates (i.e., units
not controlled for NO x). They range from 0.55 to 0.7 lbs/106
Btu for the tangential units. When closing all of the SOFA and
CCOFA at Marshall Unit 3, the NOx does not go above 0.4 lbs/
106 Btu as compared to 0.65 lbs/10 6 Btu prior to the original
Title IV project.
Conclusions
CFD modeling was used to provide the initial confirmation
that the addition of LOFIR and OFA will provide reduction in
0.60
NOx Emissions, lbs/MBtu
Pre-Modification
0.50 Low NOx Conversion
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 200 400 600 800
NOx Emissions, lbs/MBtu
Figure 7 NOx emissions as a function of boiler load following
low NOx system installation.
5
NO x emissions without any changes in boiler performance. The
system installed at Marshall Unit 3 resulted in a reduction of
over 50% in NOx emissions from baseline with LOFIR provid-
ing 20 to 35% of the NOx reduction achieved. The addition of
OFA in an interlaced form allowed for lower CO levels under
staged conditions. Overall the unit can consistently operate with
NOx levels of 0.25 lbs/106 Btu fired, making it one of the lowest
NOx emitting units firing an eastern bituminous low sulfur coal.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dave Styer, Steve Knach, and
Eddie Harwell of Duke Power and the Marshall Unit 3 opera-
tors for all their help during this conversion. The authors also
wish to thank Bruce McMahon, and Mel Albrecht of B&W for
their technical contributions in this project. Finally, J.J. Barna
would like to give glory to ElohimSupreme God and Creator
as the source of his success in this project.

References
1. Kitto, J. B. et.al., Low cost integrated NOx solutions Evalu-
ating unit economics, presented at the EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined
Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium 1999, Atlanta, GA, Au-
gust 1999.
2. Kokkinos, A. et. al., B&Ws low NOx burner operating ex-
perience, presented at the EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air
Pollutant Control Symposium 1999, Atlanta, GA, August 1999.

Copyright 2000 by The Babcock & Wilcox Company,

a McDermott company.
All rights reserved.

No part of this work may be published, translated or reproduced in any form or by any means, or incorporated into any information retrieval system,
without the written permission of the copyright holder. Permission requests should be addressed to: Market Communications, The Babcock &
Wilcox Company, P.O. Box 351, Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. 44203-0351.

Disclaimer

Although the information presented in this work is believed to be reliable, this work is published with the understanding that The Babcock & Wilcox
Company and the authors are supplying general information and are not attempting to render or provide engineering or professional services.
Neither The Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees make any warranty, guarantee, or representation, whether expressed or implied,
with respect to the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work; and neither The
Babcock & Wilcox Company nor any of its employees shall be liable for any losses or damages with respect to or resulting from the use of, or the
inability to use, any information, product, process or apparatus discussed in this work.

6 Babcock & Wilcox