Perspectives on Ammonia Injection and Gaseous Static Mixing in SCR Retrofit Applications

K.J. Rogers M.G. Milobowski B.L. Wooldridge Babcock & Wilcox Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A. Presented to: EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium August 16-20, 1999 Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
BR-1680

Abstract
Achieving the stringent performance requirements of many SCR retrofit applications relies on a system design approach that allows for optimization. Options available in areas of ammonia injection and static mixing provide tools for the designer to improve process effectiveness. By reviewing the processes involved and the relative power consumption of each, optimization efforts can be enhanced. Product and performance optimization is achieved by the most appropriate application of the parts, in the manner that suits the particular retrofit site objectives. Integration know-how often provides the key to solving difficult process objectives.

Introduction
Ammonia injection and static mixing are two hot topics in the field of todays Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) DeNOx system design. These topics have risen in importance due to the high system efficiency requirements dictated by the current

emissions regulations and NO x credit sales opportunities, coupled with the economic directive of keeping the catalyst bed as small as possible. These high performance SCR system requirements have forced a need for a high degree of uniformity in gas flow and composition at the entrance to the catalyst bed. Various ammonia injection techniques have been utilized over the years, with more advanced designs being introduced in response to the more stringent requirements of the high performance SCR systems. This is especially true when sulfur-containing fuels are being fired, since extremely low ammonia slip is required to minimize precipitate/fouling problems in downstream equipment. The ultimate goal is to achieve the most uniform profile possible at the SCR catalyst face with regard to NOx concentration, ammonia to NOx molar ratio, velocity and temperature. This goal is complicated by physical space limitations, arrangement limitations and the limits to boiler modifications which exist in many retrofit applications. The key to the most efficient SCR retrofit installation is the proper matching of ammonia injection grid design and static mixer design for the site-specific application.

Babcock & Wilcox

Ammonia Injection
Primary design parameters for the ammonia injection grid include the following: Total ammonia delivery capacity Header velocity Nozzle area concentration Injection velocity From a functional performance standpoint, there are three basic governing criteria in ammonia injection grid design: 1. The desired process result, such as a certain concentration of ammonia with a given degree of dispersion in the flue gas. 2. The space, length or time needed to achieve the process result. 3. The energy consumption attributed to achieving the process result. It should be noted that whereas one has some degree of freedom with respect to Items 2 and 3 in green field installations, limitations already exist for Items 2 and 3 in retrofit applications. With the high NO x loading of many coal-fired utility power projects, the quantity of ammonia required becomes quite significant for the SCR DeNOx application. Reference Fig. 1 for an indication of ammonia demand. Depicted is the required ammonia mass flux versus flue gas velocity for a range of inlet NO x levels at an ammonia to NOx mole ratio of 1.0.

Figure 2 mass flux.

Ammonia injection grid (AIG) volumetric flow flux vs. NH3

Obtaining good distribution of diluted ammonia flow across the injection grid requires a sufficient injection port pressure drop to header velocity head ratio be maintained. As the total volume flux of diluted ammonia flow increases, the blocked area the injection grid presents to the flue gas flow can increase drastically, especially at the stepwise break points produced when moving upwards with standard available pipe sizes. Obviously the degree of dispersion obtainable with a given grid design can be related to the injection point area concentration (Na), where Na is equal to the number of injection points per unit area of duct cross-section, typically expressed as points/m2. The dispersion/mixing length required for a given injection point concentration will vary depending on the design of the ammonia injection grid and the intensity of localized downstream mixing. Without the benefit of some form of static mixing, the dispersion/mixing lengths required to achieve a given ammonia distribution in a uniform gas stream can be considerable. As the systems physical design is altered to induce turbulence, the dispersion/mixing lengths can be shortened. The relationship between the required flue length for dispersion versus injection point concentration for one specific grid design can be illustrated as in Fig. 3. Note that it is fairly evident that increasing injection point concentration to about 40 points per square meter provides meaningful improvement in

Figure 1

NH3 mass flux vs. duct velocity at NH3/NOx mole ratio=1.

Ammonia injection grid size and the resultant flue gas pressure drop are also influenced by the type of reagent used. For any given ammonia mass flux, the actual volumetric flow per unit region of flue area will vary depending on reagent type, vaporizer and delivery system design. Relative comparisons of anhydrous and aqueous system volume flows versus delivered ammonia mass flux are presented in Fig. 2. Anhydrous systems do not require the heat energy aqueous systems need for evaporation. Thus, the dilution air is typically cooler and more dense. Aqueous systems can have significantly higher dilution air temperatures and flows. The exact combination of temperature and flow is typically dependent on the characteristics of the air source and on the design of the vaporizer.

Figure 3 Ammonia dispersion length vs. injection point concentration and relative degree of downstream mixing for constant grid design.

Babcock & Wilcox

required dispersion length. Also evident is that diminishing returns are obtained when point concentrations exceed 40 points per square meter. The relative influence localized intensity mixing can have on reducing the required dispersion/mixing length at a constant injection point concentration is also shown in Fig. 3. Note that as mixing intensity is increased, the point of diminishing returns occurs at lower values of Na. For retrofit applications, the required dispersion/mixing length can often be dictated more by overall arrangement issues than by SCR performance alone. That is to say, the arrangement may be based on maximizing the available space between the systems inlet and outlet terminal points. In many cases, this maximizing of available space still falls short of the target distance requirement, necessitating an optimization procedure between ammonia injection grid design, static mixing and catalyst sizing in order to provide the most efficient and cost effective high performance system possible.

the potential. This is a result of the downstream performance length typically dependent on the ratio of length to the hydraulic diameter of the mixing flow channels. Achieving the desired mixing goals can also produce velocity profile complications. Larger scale mixing and translocation of gas volumes can tend to disrupt velocity profiles. On the other hand, depending on the degree of velocity imbalance entering the mix zone and the degree with which turbulence is directed towards localized mixing, there are cases where a properly designed mix zone can improve both chemical component distribution profiles and gas velocity profiles, simultaneously.

Project Design Synergy

Careful analysis is typically required to obtain the desired process results within the system limitations that are often imposed. Realizing that there are always exceptions to the rule, a basic guideline could be to not specify static mixers unless there is an underlying NO x concentration and/or temperature maldistribution. If there are significant maldistribution problems and the use of static mixer(s) appears inevitable, then the system design should be optimized with the aim of reducing the complexity of the ammonia injection grid. By including the parasitic advantage of the static mixer(s) with regard to the total systems ammonia dispersion capability, it may be possible to simplify the design of the ammonia injection grid. Most important is the need to understand the entire process, throughout the boiler, flue and catalytic reactor designs. Understanding the direct and peripheral consequences of design changes from the NOx generation point to the stack makes it possible to uncover ways of improving performance with modifications to the burners, economizers, economizer bypass arrangements, flue arrangements, flue internals, reactor design, etc. The most efficient design is often most practically obtained with a unique design in each application. In this manner, weakness for one reason can be potentially exploited to strengthen elsewhere. For example, some retrofit arrangements require very tight and/or odd aspect ratio non-uniform bends. In the good old days, when distribution meant little if anything, the system would be designed with splitters and/or vanes. Then, the goal of minimizing pressure drop was the primary factor. In todays retrofit SCR system design, a unit length of flue is a precious commodity for the system designer who is focused on performance goals. The higher the blending degree required, the more impractical is it to leave a length of flue designed for the lowest pressure drop. For any given mixing device, the lower the pressure drop the lower the degree of blend. The splitters and vanes within a bend are minimizing pressure loss by reducing turbulence and blending within and downstream of the bend. Blend functions rely heavily on time and turbulence. The more efficient the mixing device, the greater its ability must be to direct the energy dissipation towards the specific blending goal. Reference Fig. 4, where a degree of blend can be described by a dimensionless blend number defined as follows. Bn = 1- %rms 1/%rms0 (1) Where, %rms0 = degree of homogeneity at the inlet to the mix zone %rms1 = degree of homogeneity at the outlet of the mix zone

Static Mixing
There are three basic governing criteria in static mixer design that parallel those of ammonia injection: 1. The desired process result, such as a certain final degree of homogeneity entering the catalyst bed. 2. The space, length or time needed to achieve the process result. 3. The energy consumption attributed to achieving the process result. Obtaining synergy between the ammonia injection grid design and the static mixer design is vitally important in achieving the needed process result. If there is a need for static mixing, other than for ammonia dispersion alone, then more intricate or multi-bank mixers may be required which perform a higher degree of translocation of compounds and/or temperature from one side of the flue to the other, or from top to bottom. Of course, the more complicated the design or the greater the number of banks, the higher the energy consumption (i.e. pressure drop). This is applicable to projects where there is a relatively high NOx maldistribution in the gas stream entering the SCR system fluework. It is also applicable to projects where economizer bypass is required to maintain minimum flue gas temperature at the SCR catalyst. In such cases, static mixing can be required to provide an acceptable distribution of NOx and gas temperature, independent of the ammonia injection process. When ammonia distribution is the only goal, the system design can often be accomplished with minimal to no static mixing. If the design does utilize static mixing, it is more local than global in relation to flue area; that is, the mixing elements are typically smaller with the mixing effect dissipated over a shorter distance. When large side to side or top to bottom translocation and mixing is required, the available downstream flue length becomes quite important. While most static mixing devices produce an initial performance over the length of the device, they typically rely on continuation of downstream turbulence to perform the remainder of the blending function. Larger mixing element flow channels, typically needed for more global blending, will usually require larger downstream lengths to realize

Babcock & Wilcox

Example 2
Another project requires economizer bypass at lower loads to maintain adequate ammonia injection zone and catalyst reactor temperatures. NOx mal-distribution is predicted to be low, near 5% RMS or less. Analysis of the arrangement, static mixing options and possible AIG designs show the lowest operating pressure drop with static mixing devices specifically designed for temperature distribution followed by an ammonia injection grid. Space limitations and the mix length required for improvement in the temperature distribution forces the AIG into a closer proximity to the catalyst face. An Na value of 10 pt/m 2 is found to be required. At this point concentration and ammonia flux requirement of 0.0013 kg NH 3/m 2-s, an anhydrous reagent system requires an injection port size of approximately 0.69 inches. The resulting full load flue gas side pressure drop is predicted to be approximately 0.24 inches H2O. If the same basic grid arrangement was to be based on aqueous reagent, the grid size could rise to require 1.1 inch port diameters with the associated header size increases. The flue gas pressure drop would rise to approximately 0.63 inches H2O. In the event of such a change, the entire design should be reevaluated. An alternate injection grid type could be evaluated, or it could be more appropriate to utilize such a high pressure drop for an increased static mixing performance. In the latter case, the additional or alternate static mixing could be used to disperse ammonia from a more coarse grid point concentration as well as providing further temperature profile improvement.

Figure 4

Mix zone blend number characteristics.

The %rms values can be referred to as a coefficient of variation, defined as the standard deviation divided by the arithmetic mean, expressed as a percentage. At constant averages, the %rms values can be substituted with the standard deviation, 1 and 0, of the respective distributions. Blend numbers can be used to assess both spatial efficiencies and energy efficiencies. Spatial efficiencies provide an indication of the degree of blend achievable per unit length or volume, while the energy efficiency provides the degree of blend per unit energy dissipation rate. A bend, an expansion or contraction, and even a straight length of flue can perform a static mixing functions. Left alone, their efficiency is often low in terms of achieving a blending process result. However, when augmented with internals designed to capitalize on the arrangement and the flow profiles throughout, their efficiency with regard to blending can be significantly enhanced. Resulting is the need to review the entire arrangement and all the options available in a search for synergy with process performance parameter requirements. A few hypothetical examples follow.

Example 3
A project requires an average ammonia to NOx molar ratio of 1.0 with a distribution of 5% RMS or better. An analysis of the system suggests a need for static mixing to improve NOx and temperature distribution. A first attempt incorporates static mixing followed by the ammonia injection grid, with final mixing prior to the catalyst bed. This results in a good NO x and temperature distribution, but the result predicts an ammonia-to-NOx molar ratio distribution of approximately 12.6% RMS leaving the ammonia injection zone. Further study shows that the upstream mixing function disrupts the velocity profile ahead of the ammonia injection grid, creating a significant portion of the ammonia-to-NOx molar ratio mal-distribution. It could be more suitable to utilize the limited space ahead of the ammonia injection zone for flow straightening. When the upstream mixer is removed and flow straightening into the ammonia injection zone is focused upon, the ammonia-to-NOx molar distribution leaving the injection zone is reduced to 7.8%. This reduces the duty on the downstream mixing device from a blend number of 0.60 to a value of 0.36 in terms of ammonia-to-NO x ratios. The result is a lower pressure drop system in less space by replacing the first stage mixing with pressure saving flow straightening devices. Unfortunately it is found that the criteria for NOx and temperature distributions do not allow for reducing the duty of the remaining stage of static mixing. If there were no underlying NOx or temperature distribution concerns, the downstream mix zone could be reduced accordingly.

Example 1
A project requires an ammonia flux of 0.0013 kg NH3 /m2-s in a horizontal gas flow duct with 12 meters of duct length between the ammonia injection grid (AIG) location and the catalyst face. Temperatures are adequate across the load range and NO x uniformity at the economizer outlet is 8% RMS. A detailed analysis of the arrangement and predicted flow profiles show the need for static mixing low and that the required level of ammonia dispersion is achievable with an injection point concentration of approximately 6.4 points/m 2. If anhydrous ammonia is utilized as the reagent, the required volume flux is about 85 cfm of diluted ammonia flow per m2. The injection port size is approximately 0.84 inches and flue gas pressure drop, associated with the AIG at full load, is approximately 0.12 inches H2O. An aqueous reagent counterpart could require as much as 250 cfm/m2 diluted ammonia flow to the same 6.4 pt/m2 concentration of injection ports. The injection port size increases to approximately 1.4 inches and injection header sizes increase to achieve proper flow distribution. The result is a higher flue blocked area by the AIG and a corresponding higher flue gas side pressure drop of approximately 0.25 inches H2O.

Summary
Space and arrangement constraints are problems that often plague the plant design stage of many processes. Retrofit projects are typically worse in this regard and at times are at the ex-

Babcock & Wilcox

treme end of the problem. It is no exception that current SCR system designs are similarly challenged. Achieving desirable end goals requires a comprehensive dedicated approach that relies heavily on a high level of synergy between all the components comprised within the system boundaries. Extension of the boundaries may also be warranted to affect a more holistic change in process performance requirements. Within the typical SCR system boundaries, the major interacting areas of interest are the flue arrangement, the ammonia injection process, static mixing and reactor sizing. Optimizing designs to best suit each projects needs and directives is a time consuming task. The task, however, is worth the effort when long term project performance value is to be maximized.

References
1. R. Perry and C. Chilton. Chemical Engineers Handbook. 5 th ed. McGraw-Hill Inc. 1973 2. N. Cheremisinoff. Practical Fluid Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. Technomic Publishing Co. Lancaster PA. 1990. 3. W.A. Tasucher and F.A. Streiff. Static Mixing of Gases. Chemical Engineering Progress. April 1979. 4. B.R. McLaughlin, E.A. Jones Jr, and E.C. Lewis, Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Retrofit at San Diego Gas & Electric Company South Bay Generating Station. Presented at EPRI-DOE-EPA Combined Utility Air Pollutant Control Symposium, Washington, DC, August 25-29, 1997.

Copyright 1999 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.

Babcock & Wilcox