FEAP-R-FE-2/06INTERIM

September 1992 REPORT

FACILITIES ENGINEERING

APPLICATIONS PROGRAM

AD-A262 927 "|c II$l I III lMit l~llII 11111ii l APR 1 4 1993

S° E

Demonstration of Low-NOx Burner

Retrofit for Dual-Fuel Package

Boilers: Equipment Selection

Criteria and Initial Findings

by

Noel L. Potts, Hamid Abbasl, Christopher Blazek, and Martin J. Savole

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories

Champaign, IL 61826-9005

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Is Unlimited.

93-07687 93 :~ b I 02III

_ U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center

INN ovFort Belvoir, VA 22060-5516

SInnovativ Ids-as for Lim Operatio, Maintenanice, & Repair of Army Fack
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE No. 0704-01" __________________________________________________ MB N~o. 0104-4188

Pub•ic rp..mg burden for the colleton al information i estimated to ae'rage 1 hour per teor.e .ricltudmg the tine to• Paviiowrig srdwsig eoanj daa #.0,oev

gathering and nmaintaining the data needed. anrd conipleang and reviewing the coltectio of intormation Send conmmwet regan•.-ng the bok.iren 0eliac Of arn ot' 60pe? r Me

colection of information, including sogge•tona lot reduong this burden to Washington Hadquarr.,as SerOiue* Oireatoae to. informetion Operation* and Reporfta 25 .,21

Davis Highway. Surle 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. arnd to the Oft". of Managemeint and Riiiget Paperworki Rediouciiioi Propert (0704-01988 Weraingtor, DC 205W

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2 REPORT DATE 3 REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 1992 Interim

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5 FUNDINGINUM•E3.RS

Demonstration of Low-NO, Burner Retrofit for Dual-Fuel Package Boilers: FEAP Project FW I

Equipment Selection Criteria and Initial Findings

6. AUTHOR(S)

Noel L. Potts, Hamid Abbasi, Christopher Blaek and Martin J. Savoie

7. PERFORM;NG ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) IR-FE-92/06

P. 0. Box 9005

Champaign, IL 61826-9005

9. SPONSORING(MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10 SPONSORINGIMONITORtNG

AGENCY REPORT NUM BE R

USAEI-SC

A'I7N: CEHSC-FU-M

Bldg 358

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5516

"11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Department of Defense operates nearly 600 Army boilers serving small clusters separate from central heating

networks. Air pollution control regulations may require that these burners be either replaced or made cleaner and

more efficient. Improved performance may be possible by retrofitting these small conventional boilers with highefficiency, low nitrogen oxide (NO,) dual-fuel burners in the 4 to 30 million Btu per hour (MBtu/h) firing range.

In this study, low-NO. replacement burners were retrofitted to firetube boilers at two Army installations for side-byside comparison with conventional burners based on efficiency, cleanliness, and cost payback. Replacement burners

were selected by the following minimum criteria: (1) a 5:1 turndown ratio, (2) excess air requirements of 10 to 20

percent throughout the firing range, and (3) emission levels of less than 50 ppm NO, and carbon monoxide (CO).

Preliminary findings show that retrofit of high-efficiency burner systems to firetube boilers may result in lowered NO,

emissions and a slight average efficiency gain compared to conventional burner systems. Based on present findings,

fuel savings are calculated to recover additional capital cost in less that 4 years. Long-range monitoring and

performance analysis continues.

14, SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

boiiers 96

burners 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Xd F1orn 28 (RP, 2-W Prescbed bp ANSI SW 213*1

208.1102
FOREWORD

Tihis work was performed for the U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center (USAEHSC).

Fort Belvoir, VA, under the Facilities Engineering Application Program (FEAP), Project FW I, "HighEfficiency. Low-NO, Dual-Fuel Burner System for Water Tube Boilers." The technical monitor was S.

Sharma, CEHSC-FU-M.

This work was performed by the Energy and Utility Systems Division (FE), of the Infrastructure

Laboratory (FL), of the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL). The

USACERL principal investigator was Noel L. Potts. Dr. David M. Joncich is Chief, CECER-FE, and Dr.

Michael .J. O'Connor is Chief, CECER-FL. The USACERL technical editor was William 1. Wolfe,

Information Management Office.

COL Daniel Waldo, Jr., is Commander and Director of USACERL. and Dr. L.R. Shaffer is

Technical Director.

Accesion For

NTIS CRA&M

DTIC TAB

Unannounced Li

Justification

B y ..... ......... _ _................. . . . . . . . .

Di-t ib-.tio", I

Availability Codes

Avail a-dior

Dist SpucI

-77-

2
CONTENTS

Page

SF 298 1

FOREWORD 2

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 5

INTRODUCTION ................................................... 7

Background

Objectives

Approach

Scope

Mode of Technology Transfer

2 STRATEGY PLANNING ............................................. 10

Burner Evaluation Criteria

Field Test Site Selection

Field Test Measurements and Equipment

3 BURNER SURVEY AND EVALUATION ................................. 15

Dunphy Oil and Gas Burners, Ltd.

Voorheis Industries, Inc.

Hague International

Smit Ovens

UE Corporation

Hirt Combustion Engineers

The Engineer Company (TEC)

John Zink Company

Discussion

4 TEST SETUP ...................................................... 27

Site Specifications

Site Preparation

Monitoring

5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ............................................. 35

6 RESULTS ........................................................ 43

Preliminary Test Results

Discussion of Results

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ............................. 48

METRIC CONVERSION TABLE 48

APPENDIX A: List of Burner Manufacturers Surveyed 49

APPENDIX B: Letter of Inquiry 55

APPENDIX C: Burner Manufacturers' Questionnaire Responses 57

DISTRIBUTION

3
TABLES

Number Page

1 Target Specifications for High-Efficiency, Low-NOr, Dual-Fuel Burners for Firetube

Boilers 10

2 Evaluation Criteria for High-Efficiency, Low-NO, Burners for Firetube Boilers I1

3 Estimated Analytical Equipment Requirements per Boiler 14

4 Burner Survey Results 17

5 Overall Burner Score 19

6 Fort Knox-Conventional Burner Test 43

7 Baseline Emissions Testing 43

8 Fort Knox-Dunphy Burner Test 44

9 Dunphy Emissions Testing 44

FIGURES

I Inquiry-Letter Questionnaire 16

2 Dunphy TD Series Burner 20

3 Voorheis Bluff-BodyTM Register Burner 21

4 Hague Transjet® Burner 23

5 Smit Ovens Ultrarnizing® Burner 24

6 UE Corporation Isomax® Burner 25

7 Boiler Arrangement at the Yakima Firing Center 28

8 Kewanee Series F Dual-Fuel Package Burner 29

9 Boiler Arrangement at Fort Knox 31

10 Value of Increased Boiler Efficiency at 3-Year Payback Value Given 60% Load,

250 hp, 80% Efficiency 36

11 Value of Increased Boiler Efficiency at 5-Year Payback Value Given 60% Load,

250 hp, 80% Efficiency 37

12 Value of Increased Boiler Efficiency a* 60% Load, 100 hp, 80% Efficiency 38

4
FIGURES (Cunt'd)

Number Page

13 Value of Increased Boifcr Efficiency at 60% Load. 800 hp, 80% Efficiency 39

14 Value of Increased Boiler Efficiency at 20% Load, 250 hp, 80% Efficiency 40

15 Value of Increased Boiler Efficiency at 100% Load, 250 hp, 80% Efficiency 41

16 Comparison of 02 and NO, Levels for Gas Firing 45

17 Comparison of 0, and NOQ levels for No. 2 Oil Firing 45

18 Comparison of Combustion Efficiency for Gas Firing 46

5
6
DEMONSTRATION OF LOW NO. BURNER RETROFIT

FOR DUAL-FUEL PACKAGE BOILERS: EQUIPMENT

SELECTION CRITERIA AND INITIAL FINDINGS

1 INTRODUCTION

Background

In FY88 the U.S. Army spent $432 million on heating operations, $172 million for natural gas-fired

operations, and $175 million for oil. The Army has a stated goal to reduce energy consumption during

the 1985 to 1995 period by 8 percent on a Btu/sq ft-yr" basis in existing structures, and by 10 percent on

a Btu/unit-produced in industrial processes.- The Army also plans to raise the productivity of its

personnel (by providing energy systems that reduce adverse environmental effects), and to enhance energy

security through dual fuel capability. Unfortunately, post engineering personnel often lack the time needed

to investigate new ways to save energy or new operation and maintenance techniques like those offered

by high-efficiency. low nitrogen oxide (NOJ) bumcrs.

In addition to meeting energy conservation goals, low NO, burners are also needed to meet air

pollution emission limits. In 1980, stationary sources including utility and industrial boilers accounted

for about 55 percent of the NO, emissions in the United States.' The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) has established emission limits for both utility and industrial boilers.

In 1990, the Department of the Army (DA) consumed 93.6 billion Btus of energy in the United

States. About 50 percent of this amount was used by boilers to provide space heating, domestic hot water,

and process heat. Of the Army's 1300 boilers throughout the United States, about 90 percent bum oil or

natural gas and 10 percent bum coal. Although the Army operates about 75 central heating plants (CHPs)

with capacities between 30 and 300 MBtu/h, most of its boilers (about 1100) are in the 4 to 30 MBtuh

range and serve small building clusters isolated from their installations' central heating networks. These

boilers are usually of firetube construction and bum No. 2 oil or natural gas. Because of their relatively

small size, they are often overlooked in energy conservation programs.

Nitrogen oxides (NOJ) emission is a major contributor to air pollution in urban areas. One source

of NO, is burners on industrial size boilers that provide heating or process steam, which are responsible

for over 9 percent of NO, emissions. Unlike the CHPs, however, small boilers have typically not been

required to meet stringent air pollution emission limits. USEPA regulations for boilers between 10 and

100 MBtu/h only limit opacity (20 percent) and sulfur oxides (0.5 lb/MBtu) emissions. Most states have

adopted similar limits for opacity and sulfur oxides and have added limits for particulates, usually at 0.1

lb/MBtu. Some states also limit carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Illinois limits all boilers to 200 parts

per million (ppm) CO, a level consistent with safe boiler operating practices. Most small boilers can meet

the USEPA and state limitations with good operating practices and fuel specifications.

The USEPA also limits NO, for boilers over 100 MBtu/h. California's South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD), however, has passed emission regulations for NO, emissions from small

A metric conversion table iF pjrovided on p 48.

"The Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Energy Program Policy Memorandum 86-3.

Nitrogen Oxide Control for Stationary Combustion Sources, EPA/625/486/020 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA],

1986).

7
boilers. SCAQMD limits new boilers with a 20 MBtu/h and lower capacity to 30 ppm; those over 20

MBtu/h are limited to 9 ppm NO.. Existing boilers between 2 and 5 MBtu/h are generally limited to 30

ppm; between 5 and 40 MBtu/h, to 40 ppm; and above 40 MBtu/h, to 30 ppm.

It is likely that other state emission regulations will follow California's lead, reflecting the

technological ability to reduce NO, emissions for all boiler sizes. To meet these requirements, a new

generation of burners is being developed for the new and replacement burner market.

Research by the natural gas and oil industry has produced efficient and clean industrial-size,

replacement dual-fuel burners. These burners have excellent turndown ratios (5: 1), efficient performance

requiring only 10 to 20 percent excess air throughout the entire operating range, and emissions less than

50 ppm for NO,, CO, and unburned hydrocarbons (UHCs) while burning natural gas.

This study investigated burner replacement on small Army boilers. The retrofit of boilers with such

high-efficiency, low-NO,, dual-fuel burners is calculated to give a 40 percent rate of return on the initial

investment due to a 3 to 5 percent increase in thermal efficiency and a 4 percent decrease in boiler fuel

consumption. Current information shows that, for most applications, this fuel savings will recover the

additional capital cost of the burner retrofit in less than 4 years. In addition, improved combustion can

increase boiler capacity and reduce maintenance requirements for firetube cleaning.

Objectives

The overall objective of this demonstration was to evaluate the performance and reliability of retrofit

application of high-efficiency, low-NO, burners to firetube burners by performing a side-by-side

comparison of this technology with conventional burner systems, If low-NO, burners compared favorably

to conventional systems, a further objective was also to determine operation and maintenance requirements

of the retrofit systems, and to provide guidance for product application.

The objectives of this first part of the research were to (1) locate appropriate test sites, (2) identify

and contact manufacturers of high-efficiency, low-NO, burners, (3) select and acquire burners that best

meet Army requirements, and (4) establish a program to install low-NO2 burners in conventional boilers

and to monitor and compare the low-NO, systems with conventional burners.

Approach

This part of the demonstration took the following steps:

1. Army installations were surveyed to find suitable sites for a demonstration of high-efficiency,

low-NO2 burners.

2. The characteristics of Army boilers that could benefit most from burner replacement were

identified.

3. A market survey identified available high-efficiency, low-NO, burners that would fit Army

boilers.

4. A set of criteria was developed to help select burners with the greatest potential for reducing

energy consumption, reducing air pollution, and lowering operation and maintenance costs.

8
5. Candidate burners were purchased, installed, and demonstrated on Army boilers.

6. Data taken from the demonstration were systematically compared to similar data taken from

conventional burner systems.

Long range monitoring and peformance analysis was established and is in progress.

Scope

This demonstration focuses specifically on high-efficiency, low-NO,, burners with a potential to

improve the cost-effectiveness of Army dual-fuel package boilers.

Mode of Technology Transfer

It is recommended that the results of this demonstration be incorporated into Technical Manual (TM)

5-650, Repairs and Utilities: Central Boiler Plants (Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

[HQUSACE], 13 October 1989), and Corps of Engineers Guide Specification (CEGS) 15561, "Central

Steam Generating System, Combination Gas and Oil Fired" (HQUSACE, June 1989).

9
2 STRATEGY PLANNING

Researchers worked to develop standards for evaluating current market burner technology. Table

I lists the target specifications of the desired burners and Table 2 shows the evaluation criteria. The

significance of each target specification is expressed in terms of weight factors.

As part of this task, a planning conference was held to determine the best approach for selecting and

field testing high-efficiency, low-NO5 burners. The following items were discussed and determined.

Burner Evaluation Criteria

The evaluation criteria (Table 2) were based on the target specifications for the high-efficiency, lowNO, burners. The criteria were found acceptable, and were augmented with a weighting factor for each

specification based on its significance.

Table I

Target Specifications for High-Efficiency,

Low-NO,, Dual-Fuel Burners for lretube Boilers

No. Criteria Measure

I Range of nominal sizes required 4 x 10' to 32 x 10 B3tu/h (in several

steps)

2 Combustion chamber specific heat 120,000 to 150,000 Btu/cu ft-h

density

3 Water-cooled cylindrical combustion 22 in. at 4 x 106 to 45 in. at 30 x 106

chamber diameter (Morison tube) Btu/h

4 Combustion chamber length-to-diameter From 6 to 7.5

ratio

5... NO, CO, and UHC emissions for

natural gas and No. 2 oil (at ambient Not more than 50 ppm each

combustion air temperature)

6 Soot emissions for No. 2 oil No. 2 Bacharach or less

7 Burner noise level 85 dba or less at 3 ft

8 Excess air requirements for natural gas a) At nominal capacity, 5% or less

firing b) At 5:1 turndown, 10% or less

Excess air requirements for No. 2 oil a) At nominal capacity, 8% or less

firing b) At 5:1 turndown, 12% or less

9 Pressure requirements for fuel and

combustion air As low as possible

10 Burner Turndown ratio: a) Natural gas, 5:1

b) No. 2 oil, 5:1

10
Table 2

Evaluation Criteria for High-Eftldency, Low-NO,

Burners for Firetube Bolterm

Weight Factor Criteria

0.05 1. Range of Nominal Burner Size (10W Btu/h)

(4, 8, 16, 32)

All four - 1 10 points (TARGET)

3 of 4 - 8 points

2 of 4 -- points

I or less -- 0 points

0.05 2. Combustion chamber Specific Heat Density (Btu/cu ft-h)

>145,0(X) - 1 10 points (TARGET)

<145,0X) -- 9 points

<140,000 8 points

<135.000 7 points

<130,000 -- 6 points

<125,000 -- S poi'Its

<120,000 -- 0 points

0.03 3. Minimum Water-Cooled Combustion Chamber Diameter (in.)

(at 4 X 10 Btu/h)

<22 in. -- !0 points (TARGET)

<23 in. -- 5 points

>23 in. -- 0 points

(at 32 X 106I Btu/h)

<45 in. -- 10 points (TARGET)

<47 in. -- 5 points

>47 in. -- 0 points

0.02 4. Combustion Chamber I,/D Ratio

<6 -- 10 points (TARGET)

<7 -- 8 points

<7.5 -- 5 points

>7.5 -- 0 points

0.10 5. NO, and UIIC

<50 ppm -- 10 points (TARGET)

<55 ppm -- 9.5 points

<60 ppm -- 8.5 points

<65 ppm -- 7 points

<70 ppm -- 5 points

>70 ppm -- 0 points

CO

<50 ppm -- 10 points (TARGiT)

<90 ppm 9.5 points

<130 ppm 8.5 points

<170 ppm -- 7 points

<210 ppm -- 5 points

>210 ppm -- 0 points

I1
Table 2 (Cont'd)

Weight Factor Criteria

0.05 6, Soot Emissions for No. 2 Oil

<No. I Bach. -- 15 points

<No. 2 Bach, 10 points iTARGET)

<No. 3 Bach 5 points

>No. 3 Bach - 0 points

0.08 7. Burner Noise Level (at 3 ft)

<85 dba -- I0 points (TARGET)

<87 dba -- 5 points

>87 dba -- 0 points

0.30 8. Excess Air Requirements

Gas Oil

At 5:1 At 5:1

or 4:1 or 4:1

Nominal Turndown Nominal Turndown

< 5% <10% < 8% <12% 10 points (TARGET)

< 6% <12% < 9% <14% 9 points

< 7% <14% <10% <16% 8 points

<8% <16% <11% <18% 7 points

, 9% <18% <12% <20% 6 oints

<10% <20% <13% <22% 5 points

>10% >20% >13% >22% 0 points

0.04 9. Pressure 'equirements (for 8 X 10 Btu/h)

Combustion

Air, inw 0, psi

<8 <100 10 points (TARGET)

<12 <200 9 points

<16 <300 8 points

<20 <300 7 points

<24 <300 6 points

<30 <300 5 points

<34 >300 4 points

<38 3 points

<42 2 points

<46 1 point

>46 0 points

0.10 10. Burner Turndown

Natural

Gas Oil

5:1 5:1 10 points (TARGET)

4:1 4:1 5 points

<4:1 <4:1 0 points

0.18 11, Estimated Life Cycle Cost

12
Field Test Site Selection

To minimize costs and facilitate testing of high-efficiency. low-NO. bure!rs, the following list of

features that would be desirable in the field test boiler were prepared:

• Firetube boiler

S 175 to 300 hp

* System should be in good physical and operating condition

• System should be well sealed against air infiltration

* Boilers should represent majority of Army-operated firetube boiler designs.

• At least two similar boilers should be available at the same sites -both available for

simultaneous comparison of hi-efficiency burners to conventional burners on separate boilers.

"• Technical personnel with a knowledge of instruments as well as all phases of boiler operations

should be available at the site.

"• Boiler should be accessible, i.e., it should have: (1) enough space around the burner to allow

installation of modifications; (2) at least 3 ft on each side of the boiler and at least 8 ft from

the burner mounting plate.

"* Stack should be accessible for instrumentation. (If stack is common to several boilers, the

connecting ducts should be at least 10 duct diameters long and should be accessible.)

Field Test Measurements and Equipment

To allow comparison of boiler performance of the new, state-of-the-art burners with the conventional

burners, a preliminary list of measurements and equipment was discussed and approved. Table 3 lists

equipment chosen to meet the necessary efficiency and emission measurements.

Boiler efficiency can be defined as a ratio of the heat absorbed by the water for steam production

to the fuel heat input. The amount of fuel heat input can be calculated from the measured fuel flow rate

and the fuel heating value.

For heat output, there are essentially two available options. First, one can attempt to measure the

actual boiler output (steam flow, steam temperature, and steam pressure) that could be used to calculate

the amount of heat in the product steam. The presence of moisture in the steam, however, would not only

complicate the steam flow measurement (necessitating indirect measurement through makeup water) but

would also make it difficult to estimate the amount of heat in the steam. Further, the steam and hot water

losses during boiler blowdowns would have to be accounted for. This approach to efficiency

measurement, therefore, may not be practical because of the large number of boilers involved considering

the scope of the current program.

The second approach estimates boiler efficiency by measuring the stack gas losses. The stack gas

losses are calculated from temperature and excess 02 measurements. This method assumes that all heat

13
not lost through the stack goes to produce steam, It does not account for surface heat losses, which are

generally low (2 percent).

The second approach was selected as the more practical for the current pnogram. especially since

the boilers compared were similar and could be expected to have similar surface heat losses, A similar

method is also used by boiler operators for routine efficiency monitoring.

Table 3

Estimated Analytical Equipment Requiremeots per Boiler

Fuel Flow

Natural Gas No. 2 Oil Steam Flow Flue Gas Analyzer

Flow meter Flow meter Flow meter O analyzer

Pressure transducer Indicator/ processor Pressure transducer CO analyzer

Thermocouple Thermocouple UHC analyzer

Indicator/processor Indicator/processor NO, analyzer

Opacity meter

Thermocouple/ indicator

14
3 BURNER SURVEY AND EVALUATION

At the start of the program, a list of burner manufacturers that could potentially supply advanced

burners for firetube boilers was compiled. The list (Appendix A) is believed to represent a majority of

burner manufacturers in the United States as well as in Europe and in Japan.

A letter of inquiry (Appendix B), seeking a dual-fuel, high-efficiency, low-NOX burner for firetube

boilers, was drafted and sent to all the manufacturers together with the desired target specifications

(Table 1) and a questionnaire. The questionnaire (Figure 1) was prepared to elicit more detailed

manufacturer responses, and to facilitate evaluation of the burner technology.

Table 4 shows the survey results. Companies that did not respond initially were contacted by phone

and followed up by a second set of forms, if necessary. A total of 104 manufacturers were contacted

during the survey; 18 replied positively, indicating they had a burner they believed met our requirements.

Of these, six manufacturers were European, and the remaining were domestic. Thirty-five companies

replied negatively. The remaining 51 manufacturers either did not reply or could not be located.

The evaluation criteria (Table 2) developed during the program were used to screen the candidate

burners. Burner specifications provided by the manufacturers were used to determine points gained for

each of the 10 specifications listed in the letter. These points were then multiplied by the respective

weighting factors, and the results were totaled to score each burner.

Appendix C includes the details of the points received by each burner. Table 5 lists the overall

burner scores. The top eight burners were selected for further analysis. Following is a brief description

of each of these burners presented in order of overall score.

Dunphy Oil and (;as Burners, Ltd.

Dunphy offered their TD Series Burner, shown in Figure 2, which either met or exceeded all the

target specifications. The burner uses axial air flow distribution based on a turbine principle that is

claimed to provide control over the radial swirl and axial velocity, thereby resulting in maximum

combustion efficiency and accurate flame shaping. In addition, while the burner operates on gas, a twostage device is said to eliminate low frequency resonance and allows extremely low excess air operation

requiring low air pressure.

The forced draft (FD) fan motor is mounted wthin the air stream. This eliminates the requirements

for a motor cooling fan, and also recovers the heat into combustion air. These burners are also equipped

with a patented UNIBLOCTM1 Unified Gas Train, which is said to be a unique multifunctional gas valve

that combines twin safety shutoff valves, two-stage control valves, a gas filter, and manual ball valves in

a compact package.

15
SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM I00 hp UP TO S0 bhp

Company Name:

Burner Model:

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h):

2. Combustion chamber specific heat density at nominal capacity (Btu/cu ft-h):

3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion chamber diameter (in.)

at 4 x 106 Btu/h:

at 8 x 10W Btu/h:

at 32 x 10' Btu/h:

4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter ratio

at 4 x 0 Btu/h:

at 8 x 10W Btu/h:

at 32 x 10' Btu/h:

5. NO,, CO, and UHC emissions with ambient combustion air for: NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppmj

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity:

at :I turndown:

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity:

at :1 turndown:

6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil (Bacharach No.):

7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 ft):

8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (%):

at 5:1 tuundown (%):

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%):

at 5:1 turndown (%):

9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc):

b. Natural gas (in. wc):

c. No. 2 oil (lb/sq in.):

10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas:

b. No. 2 oil:

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type:

Flow (Ib/lb oil):

Pressure (psig):

Figure 1. Inquiry-Letter Questionnaire.

16
Table 4

Burner Survey Results

Positive Negative Did Not

Manufacturer Reply Reply Reply Returned

A.A. Engelhardt, Inc. x

Ace Engineering Co. x

Acurex x

Aerogen Company, Ltd. x

Alzeta x

Babcock & Wilcox Co. x

Baker Perkins, Inc. x

Barber Mfg. Co., Inc. x

Bard Manufacturing Co. X

BDP Company x

Beltran Associates X

Benraad BV x

Bertin and Cie x

Bloom Engineering Co., Inc. X

The British Combustion

Equipment Mfrs. Assn. (forwarded to members) X

Burdett Mfg. Co. X

Caloric

Gesellschaft fur Apparatebau m.b.H. X

Cleaver Brooks

Div. of Aqua-Chem, Inc. X

Clyde Fuel Systems, Ltd. X

C.M. Kemp Mfg. Co. X

Coen Company, Inc. X

Combustion Engineering, Inc. x

Coppus Engineering Corp. x

Dr. Schmitz + Apelt

Industneofenbau GmbH X

DRU X

Dunham Busch, Inc. x

Dunphy Oil & Gas Bur,..-rs, Ltd. X

Eclipse Combustion

Div. of Eclipse. Inc. x

Eisenwerk Theodor Loos GmbH x

The Engineer Co. x

Flameco BV x

Forney Engineering Cc. x

Foster Wheeler X

Fuel Efficiency Inc. X

Furigas x

General Combustion Co. X

Gordon-Piatt Energy Group, Inc. x

Hague International X

Hamworthy Engrg., Ltd.

Combustion Division X

Hauck Mfg. Co. x

Hirt Combustion Engineers x

Hitachi Zosen X

Hovin BV x

H. Saacke Eurotherms, Ltd. X

Iron-Fireman (same as Dunham Busch) x

Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Ind. x

JHW of America, Inc. X

17
Table 4 (Coat'd)

Pogitive Negative Did Not

Manufacturer Reply Reply Reply Returned

Johnston Manufacturing Co. X

John Zink Co. x

Kawasaki Heavy Industries X

Keeler-Dorr Oliver Co. x

Kobe Steel. Ltd. x

Kromschroder. AG x

Laidlaw Drew & Co., Ltd. X

Leahy Manufacturing Co. X

Max Weishaupt GmbH X

Maxon Corp. x

Mid-Conunental Metal Products x

Midland-Ross Corp. x

Mitsubishi Heavy Ind.. Ltd. x

NAO. Inc. X

Nebraska Boiler Co. x

Nippon Furnace Kogyo Kaisha Ltd. x

North American Mfg. Co. x

Nu-Way Eclipse, Ltd. x

Nu-Way Heating Plants. Ltd. x

Oertli, c/o Tobler Bros. X

Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. X

Peabody Engineering (same as Gordon-Pialt) X

Perfection Constructors Co. x

Pillard Inc. X

Process C-Jmbustion Corp. x

Puripher x

Pyronics, Inc. X

Radiant Superjet, Ltd. x

Ransom Ga:, Industries, Inc. X

Ray Burner Co. x

Riello O.F.R. (Ossicine Frateooi Riello) x

Riley Stoker X

Riley Stoker x

Roberts-Gordon Appi. Corp. x

Selas Corp. of America x

Smit Ovens BV x

S.P. Kinney Engrs.. Inc. x

The Stacey Mfg. Co. x

Steinmuller GmbH x

ST. Johnson Co. X

Stordy x

Stordy Combustions Engrg.. Ltd. X

Sunbeam Equipment Corp. x

Superior Combustion Ind. x

Syncro-Flame Inc. X

Tate Jones x

T.C. Williams Burners Holme Mfg. Co., Ltd. x

Thermal Systems Engrg.- Inc. x

Tokyo Gas Co., Ltd. x

Trane Thermal Co. x

TRW x

UE Corp. x

Voorheis Industries, Inc. x

18
Table 4 (Cont'd)

Positive Negative Did Not

Manufacturer Reply Reply Reply Returned

Walter H. Edwards Engrg. Corp. X

Webster Engrg. Div. x

Whites Burners x

Wingaersheek, Inc.

WN. Best Combustion Equip. Co. X

Totals (104) 18 33 45 8

Table 5

Overall Burner Score

Manufacturer Overall Point Score

t)unphy Oil & Gas Burners. Ltd 820

Voorheis Industries, Inc. 818

Ilague International 816

Smit Ovens RV 788

UE Corporation 787

llin Combustion :ngineerC 784

The Engineer Company 783

John Zink Company 760

Hlauck Manufactunng Company 660

Coen Company. Inc. 639

Gordon-Platt Fnergy Croup. Inc. 578

Pillard, Inc. 569

Bloom Engineenng Co.. Inc. 553

Max Weishaupt Gmbll 487

[lamworthy Engineenng. Litd 483

l)r. Schmnitz & Apelt 427

Foomey Engineenng Company 410

NAO, Inc. 346

Voorheis Industries, Inc.

The Bluff-Body"' Register Burner (Figure 3) uses multiple rows of Bluff-Body elements to generate

turbulence and mixing. The burner is said to feature exceptional combustion air balance while eliminating

rotational spin and providing flame stability and nondivergent flame over a wide turndown ratio. The

nondivergent flame is said to minimize CO and hydrocarbon emissions by avoiding impingement and,

combined with multiple stages of air inlet, greatly minimizing NO, formation. The combustion air

pressure requirements are very low, and with natural gas, turndown is claimed to be unlimited.

19
E

E

E E WYr,

-J

ww

00

- oz

>- Ij 'I Z W

z 4

(/)*

2 V) NN.

I.- M

zz

0 a C0

02
CO (n

o 0 m (

cz@o

_I 0 CJ

F- 0. k

-i LL.~L w (E) W C

-40

z <i

w ~ w

21W
Hague International

Hague's Transjet® Burner (Figure 4) uses high-velocity air supplied through no,/lcs in the burner

housing. This creates a depression at the point of discharge, inducing products of partial combustion to

be recirculated and mixed with the incoming combustion air. This "selective recirculalion" is said it)

shape and optimize the mixing process and avoid the complexity of external recirc:ulation ductwork. In

addition, the burner uses radial staging with the final 10 to 20 percent combustion air introduced to mix

downstream and complete combustion. The center core is operated at an equivalence ratio of 0.7 to 0.9

thereby reducing NO, formation. The recirculated gas is also said to reduce smoke and alloA the burner

to operate at low excess air levels across a wide turndown range.

Smit Ovens

The Ultramizing® Multifuel Burner offered by Smit-Ovens uses a tangentially oriented impulse flow

of combustion air to atomize oil in an ultrafine dispersion pattern (<10 microns), simultaneously mixing

the oil mist with air to generate a stable, bluish. transparent flame similar to natural gas. (Figure 5

illustrates the "Ultramizing" principle.) The unique design of the a.tomizer maintains the quality oif

combustion across a wide turndown range. The combustion air quantity is controlled at the Ultrami/ing

Atomizer. providing a near constant air velocity and mixing over the burner tumdown. In addition. the

high discharge velocity induces partially combusted products into the flame root (internal recirculation)

through slots in the burner tile, further enhancing combustion and reducing NO, formation.

UE Corporation

UE Corporation's ISOMAX® Bumer (Figure 6) is said to produce clean blue flames when operating

with either oil or gas. It uses the Venturi principle, whereby the combustion air entering the injector

nozzle induces recirculation of combustion gases from the flame tunnel through the hot gas return tube.

When operating in oil, the oil is injected into the return tube for immediate gasification prior to ignition.

The recirculated combustion gases mix and preheat the combustion air, increasing combustion intensity.

Combustion is said to be essentially complete within the burner, resulting in very short flames, and no CO

or smoke in the flue gases.

Hirt Combustion Engineers

Hirt offered their gas and oil fired Multijet Burner, which is of premix design and is said to provide

complete combustion and maximum heat liberation. These burners are available for forced. induced, or

natural draft operation. For gas firing, the fuel gas is mixed with the combustion air prior to delivery to

the flame holder grid, which consists of a multitude of small openings resulting in multiple jet flames.

It appears that, for oil firing, the oil is not premixed, but rather injected through a central nozzle so that

it mixes with the combustion air entering the grid within the combustion chamber.

The Engineer Company (TEC)

The Model LX Burner employs a low velocity Venturi air entry to create uniform distribution. This

design is said to provide a high-velocity, balanced air stream at the burner throat resulting in efficient

penetration and mixing with the fuel streams while minimizing excess air requirements and pollutant

generation. To meet the target specifications for maximum NO, generation. TEC suggested external flue

22
z w

0 c

00 LiJ>-L

w V) cc0 L) w

) 0 )0 LL.

0

0 0

cr--

a.

z

0

I0

0

23
a. High-capacity atomizing and mixing of fuel and air.

b. Dispersion pattern of oil-air mixture.

Figure 5. Smit Ovens Ultramizing® Burner.

24
IGN7TOR

ISPARK PLUGI -

FUEL GAS INLET

INJECTOR NOZZLE TEE BLOCK

AtR ___FLAME TUNNEL -

INI.LET

COOLING AIR • -- - ..

INLET FOR I.,t ~GAS FIRING-''- - I-"

START UP OIL INLET

OIL INLET IAI

Figure 6. UE Corporation Isomax® Burner.

gas recirculation to decrease thermal NO, by decreasing the flame temperatures through dilution. Though

a viable approach, this would add significantly to the complexity and cost of the retrofit.

John Zink Company

The John Zink Co. recommended their Model HPS-SF/SA Burner, which is of forced draft, axial

flow design. For NO, control, the burner uses fuel staging when firing gaseous fuel, and combustion air

staging when firing oil fuel. The fuel staging technique is said to have been proven the best burner design

technology for NO, reduction.

Discussion

Background

Information provided by manufacturers revealed that most of the burners offered were either

developed for general applications or for applications other than firetube boilers. In fact, many have never

been applied to firetube boilers.

25
Their spatial restrictions and potential for quenching offlames by "cold" kMonson tub. watlls inaK',

firetube boilers demanding applications for burners. Furthermiore, the lack of reradiatioii, compared to a

refractory walled combustion chamber, results in relatively "'coKler" flames. Thus it is ge.erally ditficull

to design firetube burners to operate efficiently across the turndown range. Current firetube boilcr buniers

operate at low excess air (high efficiency) only at the nominal capacity, and require a greater :viunuit ,1

excess air at turndown. For example, a burner designed to operate on 10 percent excess air at noiminal

capacity might require up to 40 percent excess air at 210 percent capacity. At lower excess air Iele. NO,

would normally decrease but CO would increase.

Project Burner Technology

The burners solicited in this project were required to: (1) operate with less thanl 12 Percent excess

air across a 5:1 turndown for both natural gas and No. 2 oil. (2) produce nio) more thaii 50 ppm No). over

50 percent less than the existing levels), and (3) generate very little CO (<50 ppm) and soot

(<2 Bacharach). These were stringent, yet realistic requirements. Many burners riel most of the target

specifications, and the top two burners met them all. The more difficult requiremients appear io be the

low excess air specification, especially at turndown, and the NO, emission limit, especially when buming

No. 2 oil. Both specifications are critical to satisfy the program objectives of obtaining high-cfticiencs'

burner performance and low NOX and other emissions.

The descriptions of burner technologies give a sampling of the many lechniques high-cfficiency

burners use to obtain low NOX and excess air operation across the turndown range. Low excess air

operation is achieved by improving and maintaining the level of fuel/air mixing over the firing rate rawgec

This is done by increasing combustion air velocity and/or swirl along with more sophisticated and precise

mixing arrangements. Recirculation is also used to further enhance combustion efticiency in sorne

burners. Recirculating hot combustion products back into the root of the flame, directly or via combustion

air, also appears to be effective in decreasing NOX emissions. Another industry-accepted techniquc for

decreasing NOX formation is staged combustion (both fuel and air).

Burner Selection

The top eight burners (Table 5) were selected based on specification data provided by manufacturers.

Researchers recognized that some of these data were based on estimations rather than actual measurements,

especially emissions data. Since many of the burners were not developed specifically for firetube boilers.

the reported data was probably acquired in applications that may be only partly applicable to firetube

boilers. For example, a burner operated on firetube boilers should produce less NOX emissions than one

operated on refractory wailed combustion chambers. A burner operated on firetube boilers should also

test somewhat worse in terms of excess air requirements and CO and UHC emissions because, in firetube

boilers, the higher heat transfer to the cooler Morison tube results in cooler flames (lower NO.) and a

much greater potential for flame quenching that results in incomplete combustion.

After discussing the specifications for each of the eight burners in detail along with their potential

to meet these specifications, their applicability to firetube boilers, and their costs, the following three

burners were selected as candidates for field testing: the Dunphy TD Series, the Hague Transjet®. and

the UE Isomax®.

26
4 TEST SETUP

Researchers visited three sites (the Yakima Firing Center in Yakima, WA: Fort Knox Army Base

in Fort Knox, KY; and the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant in Shreveport, LA) to investigate the

potential for field testing the selected burners. Nontechnical factors that surfaced during the burner survey

determined that the best combination would be to test the UE Isomax® Burner at Yakima, the Dunphy

TD Burner at Fort Knox, and the Hague Transjet® Burner at the Louisiana plant. Each site had three

identical boilers. The first was to be tested in original configuration; the second was to be tested with the

new burner, and the third with the new control system. 2

Site Specifications

Of the three visited sites, two (the Yakima Firing Center and Fort Knox Army Base) were selected

for the demonstration based on their typical Army characteristics, the selected burners, and the demonstration strategy. (After this study had begun, the Louisiana plant was scheduled for shutdown.) The

demonstration strategy required each site to have at least two identical Boilers for a side-by-side

comparison of conventional and high-efficiency, low-NOX burners. The performance test plan included

long-term monitoring of boiler efficiency and short-term performance tests for combustion efficiency and

NOx emissions. At the time of this report, long-term testing had been initiated at both sites and one shortterm test had been completed at one installation.

Yakima Firing Center (YFC)

Building 223 at YFC provides steam for space heating and domestic hot water for barracks, mess

halls and offices. The boiler house at Plant 223 containeu three identical, relatively new, Kewanee Classic

Iii, 3(X) hp Scotch marine firetubc steam boilers that had been installed in 1984 (Figure 7). All three

boilers were equipped with Kewanee Series F dual-fuel package burners (Figure 8) for firing natural gas

or No. 2 oil. The boilers were also equipped with. Westinghouse 02 trim controls for air/fuel ratio

regulation, which were adapted to the new burner. The natural gas flow rate was measured by a single

totalizing meter on the main supply line, and the oil flow was measured by totaliiing meters on individual

boilers.

The UE Isomax® could not be configured to fit the YFC Boiler No. i. Based on the system design

and boiler arrangement. and since the Louisiana plant site was no longer available, Boiler No. I was

retrofitted with a "Hague Transjet®." The new 02 trim system was tested on Boiler No. 2. Boiler No.

3 was designated for the conventional burner test.

Fort Knox Army Base

The Fort Knox demonstration was located at Building No. 1483, which provides steam for space

heating and domestic hot water for a mess hall and dormitories. The boiler room has three Kewanee

Classic II1. 2(X) hp, low-pressure steam boilers that were built in 1979. The boilers were equipped with

Kewanee Series F package burners. Boiler No. I was designated for the conventional burner test, and

Boiler No. 2 was retrofitted with the "Dunphy TD 37 YMH" burner.

2 Noel Potts, Technwal Support for the Selection and Supply of Microprocessor Combustion Controllers for Dual Fuel Package

Boilers, Draft Te,hnxcal Report (U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Lalhratory (USACERLI, Decemher 1991).

27
doI

pqb

to.

a rV

6ozL Al

lilot

U1J
FLAME DETECTOR

CERAFELT

GASKET

OIL CIRCULATING

ATOMIZING AIR

PROVING SWITCH

GAS METERING

VORTEX DAMPER

SILENCER ADAPTER

Figure 8. Kewanee Series F Dual-Fuel Package Burner.

29
The boiler room in Building No. 1483 at the Fort Knox base had three identical Kewanee Classic

111, 200 hp, 150 psi steam boilers manufactured in 1979 (Figure 9). The boilers were equipped with

Kewanee Series F package burners. Boiler No. 1 was set up for gas firing with no oil train, and Boilers

No. 2 and No. 3 were set up for oil firing with no gas trains. The Dunphy burner was tested on boiler

No. 2. the new air/fuel controls were installed on Boiler No. 3 and the test boiler, No. I with its original

burner/control configuration.

Site Preparation

Identical dual-fuel package boilers were located at YFC and Fort Knox. Each pair was serviced to

ensure proper operation and equal baseline performance. One boiier of each pair was equipped with a

high-efficiency, low-NOX burner for comparison with its companion conventional boiler for per ormance,

reliability, and maintenance. Monitoring instrumentation was installed and data was collected for burner

evaluation. All four boilers were inspected, cleaned, and tuned before the test program was initiated. No

unusual problems were noted. However, a few problems occurred during shakedown and initial operation.

Yakima Firing Center- Hague System

Preparations at the boiler house for field testing included the following major items:

1. Checking the existing safety controls on all test boilers

2. Installing a new burner manufactured by Hague International on Boiler No. I as per burner

manufacturer's specifications and drawings

3. Connecting the new burner on Boiler No. I to plant controls

4. Restoring Boiler No. 3 to conventional bumer configuration per Kewanee specifications

5. Installing individual gas flow meters

6. Modifying the steam piping outside the boiler plant to allow steam venting from a muffled

exhaust valve

7. Providing an opening in the stacks for boiler exhaust gas temperature and emission monitoring

8. Cleaning all boilers.

The nominal capacity of the Hague Transjet® at YFC is 15 MBtuh input, but its nameplate rating

is 12.5 MBtuh input of natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil. Current uncalibrated measurements while burning

natural gas have shown NOx at 50 ppm for this burner compared to 75 ppm for Kewanee burners on the

other boilers.

In the Hague Transjet® burner, furnace gas rather than flue gas is internally recirculated. Thc

recirculated gas encapsulates the flame in a sheath with little or no recirculation occurring at the center

of the flame front. Combustion air is supplied from an integral windbox through nozzles in the bumer

housing, This high velocity creates a depression at the point of discharge and induces products of

combustion to be recirculated and mixed with the incoming combustion air. A sheath of combustion air

and recirculated gas surrounds and mixes with the fuel-rich core flame to complete combustion as the

flame travels down the furnace. The manufacturer specifications indicated NO, levels of 40-50 ppm and

a 10:1 turndown ratio with natural gas, and 45-50 ppm NO, and a turndown ratio of 8:1 for No. 2 oil.

30
ii: CYJ

6 a:Lu 6 0

z ~ -z z

cc a: a

ILoc

U~Lw

cc -LLJ

in w

coc

w L 

0

I-aUz w a 0~ 0 J

a:~ cc a:

W5 <w zni -w OJ

cof
After three site visits and one burner replacement by Hague (the last visit being in March 1990).

the burner was still not fully operational. Even basic burner operation could not be achieved because of

improper connection to the existing plant and boiler controls. During his attempt to complete connection

to existing controls, the Hague serviceman cited faulty controls, faulty safety devices, inaccurate drawings,

and inaccurate wiring identification. He made many changes to existing wiring and wiring identification

tags.

To resolve these problems, USACERL tasked an independent controls specialist to:

1. Make necessary alterations in wiring and controls for burning oil. These alterations should allow

for use of the plant air compressor rather than the existing compressor at Boiler No. 1 to supply

atomization air.

2. Check operation and wiring of safety devices in the burner's gas and oil train, steam

pressurestats, low water cut-off device, and the Fire-eye combustion monitor. Check the position and the

installation of the flame detector for adequate flame view, and correct any deficiencies found.

3. Correlate the feedback/control between the submaster for Boiler No. I at the main plant conirol

panel, the Fire-eye, and the fuel valve operator on the burner.

4. Direct the adjustment of fuel/air linkage for best combustion of both oil and gas. USACERL

provided a combustion analyzer to generate information and made the actual adjustment.

5. Direct the adjustment of the Hague air/fuel trim system. USACERL provided a combustion

analyzer and made actual adjustments.

6. Attach identification numbers to all associated wires at all junction points after achieving

successful control of the Hague burner. Provide sketches or mark existing drawings to show final

arrangement of controls and wiring, including wire identification numbers.

This demonstration site is not yet fully functional. The manufacturer's service representatives have

thus far achieved only performance equal to conventional burners while firing natural gas. Oil firing has

been unsuccessful. Further adjustment of the burner using factory improved replacement parts is planned.

Fort Knox Dunphy System

Preparation for field tests of the Dunphy burner included:

1. Adding a gas train to Boiler No. 2 and to the existing oil fired burner on Boiler No. 1

2. Installing a new Dunphy burner on Boiler No. 2 per manufacturer's specifications and drawings

including those on the burner mounting flange (Dunphy was contacted to provide information.)

3. Installing individual oil flow meters

4. Installing individual gas flow meters

5. Modifying steam piping to allow steam venting

6. Providing openings in stacks for temperature and emission monitoring

7. Cleaning all boilers.

32
The Dunphy burner at Fort Knox uses an axial turbine fan to force combustion air through swirl

chambers for optimum air distribution. The air quantity is controlled by a cylindrical drum with slots that

rotates axially in front of another identical concentric stationary drum. Gas and oil flow are corrected for

variance in combustion air conditions by pressure balanced valves with pneumatic sensor lines for gas.

oil, and combustion chamber pressures. In the combustion chamber, a characterized gas ring or oil gun

creates fuel rich pockets that later mix with additional air for complete combustion and NO, reduction.

The manufacturer specifications indicated NO, levels of 28-38 ppm and a 4:1 turndown ratio with natural

gas, and 36-41 ppm NO, and a turndown ratio of 4:1 for No. 2 oil.

During on site visits to make final burner adjustment, Dunphy performed the following:

1. Inspected the burner installation, and directed and assisted in the required corrections to the

burner installation, approved the burner installation for firing, and fired and adjusted the burner for safe.

optimum performance on both natural gas and No. 2 fuel oil

2. Marked burner adjustment settings to ensure that the burner remained at its optimum

performance

3. Instructed three Fort Knox boiler operators at the boiler plant in proper burner operation and

maintenance

4. Provided Fort Knox with literature covering operation and maintenance for any new features

on the burner.

The Fort Knox demonstration experienced three problems during the long-term test period. The

first problem occurred on the weekend of 15 April 1989 and was related to the flame safety control that

was manufactured for European instead of U.S. voltage. Fort Knox personnel suspected a poor connection

in the burner sequencer had overheated and ruined the contact They made a temporary fix and steadily

operated the burner until 5 September 1989 when the problem repeated and the module could no longer

be repaired. This problem was corrected by installing replacement parts recommended by the burner

manufacturer.

The second problem was a warped diffuser plate. This problem was caused by an incorrect

specification that overlooked the boiler's negative furnace pressure. The diffuser plate was replaced with

the correct design.

The last problem was the failure of the gas valve operator after only 10 months of operation. The

manufacturer supplied a new gas valve operator in January 1990 to replace the failed operator. Based on

the failure rates of similar valve operators, this was an unusual failure.

Monitoring

The demonstration sites were selected on the availability of two identical boilers for side by side

comparison of hi-efficiency to conventional burners. The test plan included long-term monitoring of boiler

efficiency and short term testing for combustion efficiency and NO, emissions. The objective of long-term

monitoring was to compare boiler efficiency for normal operation and maintenance conditions. Results of

the performance comparison will determine cost savings, reliability, applicability to Army facilities,

maintenance requirements, and operational efficiency of the tested burners. At the end of the monitoring

period, monitoring equipment will be removed, and boiler equipment will be returned to equal or better

than "as found" condition.

33
Long-term monitoring of input-output efficiency parameters was accomplished remotely using an

"Acurex Autograph 800" data acquisition system. The Acurex collects, compiles, and stores the necessary

data. which is later downloaded telephonically to USACERL's computer. The system collects data for

feedwater flow, feedwater temperature, and fuel flow (natural gas and No. 2 oil), corrected to standard

conditions. The feedwater flow was determined to be more accurate than steam flow for measuring boiler

output. The boiler efficiency was calculated from these measurements. 3

A series of short term tests are being performed on-site to evaluate burner performance throughout

its operating range. These tests sample stack flue gas for concentrations of oxygen, carbon monoxide,

nitrogen oxides, combustibles, and temperature. Flue gas measurements are made using an Encrac 2(X0)

flue gas analyzer. The gas sensors are electrochemical cells ard the combustibles sensor is a

semiconductor. Prior to each test, the analyzer is calibrated with reference gases for 02, CO. and NO2.

The fuel input and combustion air temperature are also measured. Combustion efficiency is calculated

using the heat-loss method.

3 G. Maples. D. Dyer, and MT. Savoie, U.S. Air Force Central Heating Plant Tuneup Workshop, Volume Xl: Efficiency, Special

Report (SR) E-90)03/ADBI41661 (USACERL, January 1990).

34
5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

The financial value of any technology that improves boiler efficiency can be calculated and used

to determine if the added value will offset the cost of implementation. One manner to measure this value

is by computing the extra or marginal output produced by the technology. The dollar value of this extra

output can be calculated by multiplying the marginal Btu/yr by the cost per unit of fuel.

For high-efficiency boiler technology, this value translates into lower fuel costs resulting from

increased output. Calculations were performed for three different fuel prices to illustrate the impact on

the analysis of rising or falling fuel costs (Figures 10 through 15). The Btu/yr output of a boiler can be

estimated by:

Btu/yr - Efficiency Factor (%) x Boiler Size (hp/hr) JEq 11

x 365 days x 24 hr x Load Factor (%)

The extra boiler production results from the higher efficiency factor shown in the above equation.

The fuel cost savings produced over a given time span can be compared to the initial cost of the

technology to estimate an acceptable discounted payback period for the technology. A payback period

represents the amount of time (in years) in which a project will recoup the initial investment (i.e., break

even). All benefits occurring beyond the payback period date are considered to be profit. The payback

period is computed by dividing the cost of the project by the dollar return per year. A discounted payback

period introduces the time value of money and forces the analysis to consider a rate of interest or the "cost

of money" associated with borrowing the funds needed to finance the project, or with the "opportunity

costs" of being unable to invest these funds elsewhere for a given rate of return. The discount rate used

throughout this analysis is 10 percent.

The factor used in this analysis to measure the benefit of the technology is a 3-year discounted

payback period. Figures 10 through 15 show the "percentage of additional boiler efficiency" (the

horizontal axis) measured against a "3-year payback value" (the vertical axis). To measure the value of

a 5 percent gain in efficiency, for example, locate 5 percent on the horizontal axis and then use the

appropriate fuel cost curve to locate the dollar amount (in thousands) on the vertical axis. This amount

represents the technology's maximum cost that will still produce a 3-year discounted payback period at

a 10 percent discount rate. Figures 10 to 15 show that, as fuel costs rise, the dollar value of the

technology also rises. The value of the technology also rises with load-factor increases, and linearly with

increases in the horsepower of the boiler.

Although this analysis accurately captures the cost associated with fuel savings, it does not address

the problems of emissions, differential operation and maintenance costs, and service life associated with

the technology. Whether the new technology can help resolve these problems must be considered along

with fuel savings in determining project acceptability.

35
;h%

Z

C4C

C04'

(s) n-NA)IOV~d H3A36J
0 0

37:
8-.

+

0q

(WAWXX'U

M-WA)OVH'Y3AI

"I38.
IR

(Wummw

(S) 3-NA 0VM~dWlkQ

39a
fj

CY

*Ii M50-

(munnal.

W~ ~~ Y3k3I-)~a~ 

0- N 
.05

41w

411
The value of the high-efficiency burner can be determined by comparing the estimated capital cost

of the system to the expected fuel savings predicted by the boiler efficiency analysis. The manufacturers'

quotes for the selected equipment are:

Dunphy burner package: $10,000

$10,000

Hague burner package: $27,900

Hague 02 control: $5,400

$33,300

Equipment installation is estimated to cost about $4,000. Thus, the installed capital cost is

$14,000 for the Dunphy equipment and $37,300 for the Hague equipment. Figures 10 through 15 show

that at this cost the project is economically acceptable with the Dunphy equipment but largely

unacceptable with the Hague equipment. Figures 10 through 15 predict a 4 percent improvement in

efficiency to be worth $13,000 and $17,000 depending upon the cost of fuel, under conditions of a 3-year

maximum payback, and assuming a 60 percent load factor and a 250 hp boiler. A 5-year payback period

will produce an acceptable expenditure range of $19,000 to $25,000. Under these conditions,

implementation of the high-efficiency burner allows a 4 percent improvement to be worth $40,000 to

$55,000 on an 800 hp boiler, and $5,000 to $7,000 on a 100 hp boiler. Should the load factor on a 250

hp boiler increase to 100 percent or decrease to 20 percent, the acceptable expenditure ranges would

become from $21,000 to $29,000, or from $4,000 to $6,000.

42
6 RESULTS

Preliminary Test Results

At present, the long-term test data is being collected from both the Yakima and Fort Knox sites.

Data collection is incomplete, pending improvement of test burner performance at Yakima. The complete

long-term data set has yet to be analyzed.

The first short-term test was conducted at the Fort Knox site on 17-18 April 1990. Tables 6

through 9 and Figures 16 through 18 show the results of this test. NOX emissions were corrected to 3

percent oxygen as required by SCAQMD emission regulations.

Table 6

Fort Knox-Conventional Burner Test

Load 02 CO NO. NO. Comb. Temp Fuel Comb.

% % ppm ppm ppm* % *F** MBtu/h Eft.

Natural Gas

31 6.0 0 77 92 0 262 2.43 84.9

52 4.5 0 90 98 0 290 4.15 84.6

74 3.3 6 103 105 0 309 5.90 84.4

96 2.0 39 106 100 0.04 320 7.60 84.4

No. 2 Oil

31 6.9 0 77 98 0 233 2.30 89.5

54 5,5 0 90 105 0 290 4.05 88.5

76 4.6 0 116 127 0 300 5.72 88.6

99 3.9 6 135 142 0 310 7.47 88.5

*Corrected NO, to 3% 02.

"Ambient temperature = 79 'F.

Table 7

Baseline Emissions Testing

02 CO 2 CO NOx* NO. Comb. Stack Fuel

Load % % ppm ppm ppm* % Temp *F** MBtu/h

Natural Gas MIN 6.0 8.4 0 77 92 0 262 2.43

1/3 4.5 9.2 0 90 98 0 290 4.15

2/3 3.3 9.9 6 103 105 0 309 5.90

MAX 2.0 10.7 39 106 100 0.04 320 7.60

No. 2 Oil MIN 6.9 10.4 0 77 98 0 233 2.30

1/3 5.5 11.6 0 90 105 0 290 4.05

2/3 4.6 12.2 0 116 127 0 300 5.72

MAX 3.9 12.8 6 135 142 0 310 7.47

*Corrected NO1 to 3% 02 measured NO 1 (20.9 - 3.0)

20.9- 02

"**Ambient temperature = 79 'F.

43
Table 8

Fort Knox-Dunpby Burner Ted

Load 02 CO NO. NOS Comb. Temp Fuel Comb.

% % ppm ppm ppm* % -F** MBtu/h Ef".***

Natural Gas

21 4.3 3 59 64 0.03 221 1.64 86.5

45 1.4 40 66 60 0.09 307 3.53 85.0

69 1.7 8 70 65 0.03 320 5.43 84.7

93 1.3 8 75 68 0.04 329 7.38 84.6

No. 2 Oil

17 7.3 8 60 79 0.53 290 1.28 88.2

48 4.8 13 98 109 0.68 303 3.59 88.7

74 4.8 11 112 124 0.86 331 5.65 87.9

104 3.7 13 120 120 0.69 342 7.92 88.0

*Corrected NO, to 3% 02.

**Ambient temperature = 88 OF.

"***Boiler not at steady state.

Table 9

Dunphy Emissions Testing

02 CO2 CO NO. NO. Comb. Stack Fuel

Load % % ppm ppm ppm* % Temp OF" MBtu/h

Natural Gas MIN 4.3 12.5 3 59 64 0.03 221 1.64

1/3 1.4 14.6 40 66 60 0.09 307 3.53

2/3 1.7 14.4 8 70 65 0.03 320 5.43

MAX 1.3 14.6 8 75 68 0.04 329 7.38

No. 2 Oil MIN 7.3 10.4 8 60 79 0.53 290 1.28

1/3 4.8 12.0 13 98 109 0.68 303 3.59

2/3 4.8 12.1 11 112 124 0.86 331 5.65

MAX 3.7 12.9 13 115 120 0.69 342 7.92

*Corrected NO, to 3% 02= measured NOS (20.9 - 3.0)

20.9-02

**Ambient temperature = 88 OF.

Preliminary test data does not show a significant improvement in combustion efficiency for either

natural gas or No. 2 oil. This was expected for No. 2 oil because there was no significant change in

excess air levels. However, operation on natural gas does show substantially lower excess air levels

obtained by the Dunphy burner and an improvement was expected.

The test does show a 35 percent reduction in NOX while burning natural gas, a drop from about

99 to 64 ppm. However, this still falls short of the 28-38 ppm indicated in the Dunphy specifications.

There was no significant change in NOX while burning No. 2 oil.

44
8 .150

7- 135 DUNPHY 02

120 DUNPHY NOx 6"w

" - 105 CONV. 02

)K •E CONV. NOx

U0.

04- 75 0 3,.......÷ ...... ...........

2- 45

1-4 21 

-30

15

0 0- 0 20 40 60 80 100

LOAD, %

Figure 16. Comparison of 02 and NO. Levels for Gas Firing.

8 150

7 -135 DUNPHY O2 7"• ,.............

6,, .120 DUNPHY NOx

. --. . * 105 , ....... ""CONV. S :' 02

90 CONV. NOx

(34" '75 •

03. 6 0 z

45

2"

30

1 .15

o i " ' " • -t o

0 20 40 60 80 100

LOAD, %

Figure 17. Comparison of 0, and NO, levels for No. 2 Oil Firing.

45
87

DUNPHY

CONVENTIONAL

S86

z

U-Ui85-

..............................

84-

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LOAD, %

Figure 18. Comparison of Combustion Efficiency for Gas Firing.

Discussion of Results

Of the two burners installed for demonstration, no specific conclusions can be made for the Hague Transjet®. In the market survey, Hague indicated that their burnecr was a standard production item.

However, Hague's continuing redesign and modification of the unit over the past 18 months to achieve

basic operation and to fulfill performance claims shows this burner to still be in the research and

development stage.

The Dunphy TD burner has been operated for a total of half of the 2-year test since it was

installed. During this time, three of its components failed. However, because this burner was designed

for accessibility, repair of these components was easy and was done by post personnel. The Dunphy

maintained its performance level and did not require retuning. The baseline burner which was operated

the other half of the 2-year period, experienced no failures, but did require one retuning of high fire gas

fow

fo.Comparison of Dunphy and baseline performance and emission data shows that both burners had

acceptable CO levels and similar stack temperatures, The Dunphy, however, had very low 02 levels that

the baseline burner could not achieve-at least while maintaining safe firing practices. These 0, levels

fulfilled Dunphy's claims and resulted in a I percent average efficiency advantage (85.5 - 84.5) over the

ba~seline. At no point did Dunphy fulfil: expectations for NO, emissions, but it did demonstrate an average

35 percent reduction of baseline NO., for gas firing.

46
With typical firing at an average amnual rate of one third capacity on natural gas, Dunphy's

efficiency gain will save 364 MBtu per year. This result can be interpreted fi t c,"ms of recovery of

investment. Its capital cost was $5(M) more than a conventional replacement burner, but installation and

maintenance costs are estimated to be equal. At a 7 percent discount factor and a starting gas cost of'

$2.69/MBtu, the additional cost of this burner can be recovered in slightly over 5 years.

Replacing conventional burners with dual fuel (natural gas and light oil) high-efficiency retrofit

burners reduces the environmental impact of industrial size boiler operations. Because of the highly

efficient use of fuel, these burners produce lower levels of carbon monoxide, combustible hydrocarbon

and nitrogen oxide emissions.

47
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Conventional dual-fuel oil and gas burners on package boilers do not thoroughly mix fuel and air,

or etlectively atounize oil for complete combustion: nor are conventional burners generally designed to

reduce NO, emissions levels. High-efficiency, low-NO, burners completely mix fuel and air, internally

recirculate part of the combustion gases, and monitor the fuel/air ratio for more complete combustion, thus

reducing NO, emissions. A market survey showed that advanced dual fuel burners are available for retrofit

to firetube boilers over the range of 4 to 30 x 106 Btu/h that offer significant improvement in terms of

increased efficiency and decreased pollutant emissions by comparison with conventional burner systems.

Although not developed specifically for firetube boilers (which perhaps are a more demanding application

because of their potential for flame impingement), most advanced burners appear to be retrofitable to

conventional boilers without major modifications.

Manufacturers' information showed that high-efficiency, low NO, burners offer superior

performance in terms of excess air requirement and pollutant emissions. The low excess air capability

of these burners across the turndown range would allow significant improvements in boiler efficiency.

Furthermore. retrofit of these burners would help reduce total pollutant emissions, and could reduce NO,

emissions by more than half the amount conventional burners generate. First stages of this demonstration

identified several advanced burners and selected two, the Hague Transjet® and the Dunphy TD burners.

for field testing.

"This demonstration set up and performed a side-by-side comparison of conventional boilers with

and without the high-efficiency burners. The boiler equipped with the Hague Transjet® boiler underwent

significant redesign and modification during the 18 months of testing, and has not yet given conclusive

results. The boiler fitted with the Dunphy TD burner showed acceptable CO levels and stack

temperatures, and a 35 percent reduction in NO, emissions. The Dunphy TD burner had O levels that

were consistent with safe practices and that resulted in a 1 percent average efficiency gain over the

baseline. With typical firing, the savings gained by retrofit and use of this burner should recover the

additional cost of the burner in slightly over 5 years.

The burners' performance appear to support the manufacturers' specifications and claims.

However, some of the manufacturers' data are clearly estimates and require verification by further field

testing.

METRIC CONVERSION TABLE

I Btu = 10.409 Liter-atinosphere

1 sq ft = 0.093 m2

I cu ft = 0.028 m3

I hp = 10.68 kg-calories/min.

1 lb/sq in. 6.89 kPa

48
APPENDIX A: List of Burner Manufacturers Surveyed

A.A. Engelhardt. Inc. Bard Manufacturing Co.

Div. of Eclipse. Inc. Sales Department

Sales Department Evansport Rd.

6117 N. Elston Ave. Bryan, OH 43506

Chicago, IL 60646 (419) 636-1194

(312) 775-4800

BDP Company

Ace Engineering Co. Sales Department

Sales Department 7310 W. Morris St.

2850 N. Harrison Indianapolis, IN 46231

Chicago, IL 60612 (317) 243-0851

(312) 722-7050

Beltran Associates

Acurex Sales Department

Sales Department 1133 E. 35th St.

P.O. Box 7555 Brooklyn, NY 11210

Mountain View, CA 94039 (718) 338-3311

(415) 964-3200

Benraad BV

Aerogen Company, Ltd. Sales Department

Sales Department P.O. Box 5

Newman Lane 7070 AA Ulft

Alton The Netherlands

Hampshire Phone: 08356-6641

United Kingdom Telex: 45029

Phone: 0420 83744

Bertin and Cie

Alzeta Sales Department

Sales Department b.p.3 - 78370 Plaisir

2342 Calle Del Mundo Zone Industrielle

Santa Clara, CA 95054-1008 40220 Tarnos

(408) 727-8282 France

Babcock & Wilcox Co. Bloom Engineering Co., Inc.

Fossil Power Division Homing & Curry Rds.

P.O. Box 351 Pittsburgh, PA 15236

20 S. Van Buren Ave. (412) 892-2121

Barberton, OH 44203

(216) 753-4511 Blue Flame Division

UE Corporation

Baker Perkins, Inc. P.O. Box 266-T

Sales Department Route 31

1000 Hess St. Ringoes, NJ 08551

Saginaw, MI 48601 (609) 466-1900

(517) 752-4121

The British Combustion

Barber Mfg. Co., Inc. Equipment Mfrs. Assn.

Sales Department The Fernevy

22903 Aurora Rd. Market Place

Bedford Heights, OH 44166 Midhurst

(216) 439-1680 West Sussex, GU29 9DP

England

Phone: 073081 2782

49
Burdeu Mfg. Co. Dr. Schmitz + Apelt

Sales Department Industrieofenbau GmbH

7460 W. 100th Pl. Postfach 220347 D-560X) Wuppertal 22

Bridgeview, IL 60455 ClausewitzstraBe 82-84

(312) 585-1141 Wuppertal-Langerfeld

Federal Republic of Germany

Caloric Phone: 0202 6098-I

Gesellschaft fur Apparatebau m.b.H. Telex: 8591802

Sales Department

8032 Grafelfing bei Munchen DRU

LohenstraBe 12 Sales Department

West Germany Huttenweg 24

Phone: 089/8542005 7071 BV Ulft

Telex: 5-29445 The Netherlanas

Phone: 08356-4951

Cleaver Brooks Telex: 45096

Div. of Aqua-Chem, Inc.

Sales Department Dunham Busch, Inc.

P.O. Box 421 Sales Department

Milwaukee, WI 53201 101 Burgess Rd.

(414) 962-0100 Harrisonburg, VA 22801

(703) 434-0711

Clyde Fuel Systems, Ltd.

Sales Department Dunphy Oil & Gas Burners, Ltd.

Queen Elizabeth Ave. Queensway

Hillington Rochdale. OLI 1 2SL

Glasgow. G52 4TE Lancashire

United Kingdom England

Phone: 041 882 3291 Phone: Rochdale 0706, 49217

Telex- 63507 

1

C.M. Kemp Mfg. Co.

Sales Department Eclipse Combustion

705 Baltimore 

- Annapolis Blvd. Div. of Eclipse, Inc.

Glen Burnie, MD 21061 Sales Department

(301) 760-5100 11005 Buchanan St.

Rockford, IL 61101

Coen Company, Inc. (815) 968-3751

1510 Rollins Road

Burlingame, CA 94010 Eisenwerk Theodor Loos GmbH

(415) 697-0440 Export Department

D-8820 Gunsenhausen

Combustion Engineering, Inc. Federal Republic of Germany

Sales Department Phone: 09831/640

1000 Prospect Hill Rd. Cable: EISENWERK GUNZENHAUSEN

Windsor, CT 06095 Telex: 61243

(203) 688-1911

The Engineer Co.

Coppus Engineering Corp. Foot of Teeple Place

Sales Department P.O. Box 39

P.O. Box 457 South Plainfield, NJ 07080

344 Park Ave. (201) 755-2500

Worcester, MA 01610

(617) 756-8393 Flameco BV

Sales Department

P.O. Box 37

2800 AA Gouda

The Netherlands

Phone: 01820-15988

Telex: 20262

50
Forney Engineering Co. Hitachi Zosen

Sales Department Maizuru Works

P.O. Box 189 Sales Department

Addison, TX 75001 1180, Amarube-Shimo

(214) 233-1871 Maizuru. Kyoto Pref, 625 Japan

Phone: 0773-63-1000

Foster Wheeler Telex: 5734-441

Sales Department

110 S. Orange Ave. Hovin BV

Livingston, NJ 07039 Sales Department

(201) 533-1100 Heulweg 29

2641 KP Pijnacker

Fuel Efficiency Inc. The Netherlands

Sales Department Phone: 01736-5797

P.O. Box 253

Clyde, NY 14433 H. Saacke Eurotherms, Ltd.

(315) 923-2511 Sales Department

Fitzherbert Rd.

Fungas Farlington

Sales Department Portsmouth, Hants., P06 1RX

P.O. Box 123 United Kingdom

9400 AC Assen Phone: 07018 83111

The Netherlands

Phone: 05920-42441 Iron-Fireman

Telex: 53945 Sales Department

101 Burgess Rd.

General Combustion Co. Harrisonburg, VA 22801

Sales Department (703) 434-0711

2140 W. Washington St.

Orlando, FL 32805 Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Ind.

(305) 843-9890 Sales Department

New Otemachi Building

Gordon-Piatt Energy Group, Inc. 2-1, Otemachi 2-Chome

P.O. Box 650 Chiyoda-Ku

Winfield, Kansas 67156-0650 Tokyo, 100 Japan

(316) 221-4770

JHW of America, Inc.

Hague International Sales Department

3 Adams St. 135 Cumberland Rd.

South Portland, ME 04106 Pittsburgh, PA 15237

(207) 799-7346

Johnston Manufacturing Co.

Hamworthy Engrg., Ltd. Sales Department

Combustion Division 2825 E. Hennepin Ave.

Fleets Corner Minneapolis, MN 55413

Poole (612) 331-7939

Dorset BHl7 7LA

England John Zink Co.

Phone: 0202-675123 P.O, Box 702220

Tulsa. OK 74170

Hauck Mfg. Co. (918) 747-1371

P.O. Box 499

Orland Park. IL 60462 Kawasaki Heavy Industries

(312) 460-2199 Nissei Kawasaki Building

16-1, Nakamachi-Dori 2-Chome

Hirt Co: ibustion Engineers Ikuta-Ku

931 S. Maple Ave. Kobe, 650-91 Japan

Montebello, CA 90640

(213) 728-9164

51
Keeler-Dorr Oliver Co. Mitsubishi Heavy Ind., Ltd.

Sales Department Sales Department

238 West St. 5-1, Marunouchi 2-Chome

Williamsport, PA 17701 Chiyoda-Ku

(717) 326-3361 Tokyo, 100 Japan

Kobe Steel, Ltd. NAO. Inc.

Sales Department 1284 E. Sedgley Ave.

3-18, Wakinohama-Cho 1-Chome Philadelphia, PA 19134

Fukiai-Ku (215) 743-5300

Kobe, 651 Japan

Phone: (078) 251-1551 Nebraska Boiler Co.

Cable: KOBESTEEL KOBE Sales Department

Telex: 5622-177 (KOBESTEEL KOB) 70th & Cornhusker Hwy.

Lincoln, NE 68501

Kromschroder, AG (402) 464-7441

Sales Department

Postfach 2809 Nippon Furnace Kogyo Kaisha Ltd.

D4500 Osnabruck Sales Department

West Germany 1-53, Shitte 2-Chome

Tsurumi-Ku

Laidlaw Drew & Co., Ltd. Yokohama. Kamagawa-Pres

Sales Department 230 Japan

Sighthill Industrial Estate Phone: 045-581-1281

Edinburgh, EHI 1 4HG Cable: FURNACE YOKOHAMA

United Kingdom Telex: 3822-340

Phone: 031 443 4422

North American Mfg. Co.

Leahy Manufacturing Co. Sales Department

Sales Department 4455 E. 71st St.

East 8th & Alameda Cleveland, OH 44105

Los Angeles. CA 90021 (216) 271-6000

(213) 623-1506

Nu-Way Eclipse, Ltd.

Max Weishaupt GmbH Sales Department

Sales Department P.O. Box 14

D-7959 Schwendi I Droitwich

Federal Republic of Germany Worcestershire

Phone: 07353-830 United Kingdom

Telex: 07-18-32 Phone: 09057 4242

Maxon Corp. Nu-Way Heating Plants, Ltd.

Sales Department Sales Department

201 E. 18th St, P.O. Box 1

P.O. Box 2068 Vines Lane

Muncie, IN 47302 Droitwich

(317) 284-3304 Worcestershire

United Kingdom

Mid-Continental Metal Products Phone: 09057 2331

Sales Department

2717 North Greenview Oertli

Chicago, IL 60616 c/o Tobler Bros.

(312) 549-3900 Sales Department

6 E. 39th St.

Midland-Ross Corp. New York, NY 10016

Sales Department

900 N. Westwood

P.O. Box 985

Toledo, OH 43696

(419) 536-4611

52
Osaka Gas Co., Ltd. Ray Burner Co.

Sales Department Sales Department

I Hirano-Machi 5-Chome 1301 San Jose Ave.

Higashi-Ku San Francisco, CA 94112

Osaka, 541 Japan (415) 333-5800

Peabody Engineering Riello O.F.R. Ossicine

Sales Department Frateooi Riello

835 Hope St. Sales Department

Stamford, CT 06907 Via Degli Alpini 

1

(203) 327-7000 37045 Legnago (VR)

Italy

Perfection Constructors Co.

Sales Department Riley Stoker

P.O. Box 3544 Sales Department

Springfield, MA 01101 3401 Richmond Rd.

(413) 733-2895 Cleveland, OH 44122

(216) 464-8013

Pillard Inc.

P.O. Box 24401 Riley Stoker

Louisville, KY 40224 Sales Department

(502) 423-7878 P.O. Box 547

Worcester, MA 01613

Process Combustion Corp. (617) 852-7100

Sales Department

1675 Washington Rd. Roberts-Gordon Appl. Corp.

Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Sales Department

(412) 561-6200 44 Central Ave.

Buffalo, NY 14206

Puripher (716) 892-8400

Sales Department

PO. Box 64 Selas Corp, of America

2682 ZH De Lier Sales Department

The Netherlands Dresher, PA 12025

Phone: 01745-4644 (215) 646-6600

Telex: 31653

Smit Ovens BV

Pyronics, Inc. P.O. Box 68

Sales Department 6500 AB Nihmegen

17700 Miles Ave. The Netherlands

Cleveland, OH 44128 Phone: (080) 523111

(216) 662-8800

S.P. Kinney Engrs.. Inc.

Radiant Superjet, Ltd. Sales Department

Sales Department 201 Second Ave.

Clapgate Lane Carnegie. PA 15106

Woodgate (412) 276-4600

Biruingham, B32 3BP

United Kingdom The Stacey Mfg. Co.

Phone: 021 422 7221 Sales Department

259 Township Ave.

Ransom Gas Industries, Inc. Cincinnati, OH 45216

Sales Department (513) 242-5772

2052 Farallon Dr.

San Leandro, CA 94577 Steir.rtuller GmbH

(4i5) 352-3751 Sales Department

Gummersbach

Germany

53
S.T. Johnson Co. Thermal Systems Engrg. lnI

Sales Department Sales Lcpartiewn

925 Stanford Ave. 185 New Boston St.

Oakland, CA 94608 Woburn, MA 0l101

(415) 652-6000 (617) 931-7880

Stordy Tokyo Gas Co . Ltd

Sales Department Sales Dlpaxunent

Schouwstraat 26A 2-16. Yacsu 1-Chome

1435 KN Rijssenhout Chuo-Ku

The Netherlands Tokyo., 103 Japan

Phone; 02977-23411/23511

Telex: 18389 Trane Thermal Co.

Sales Department

Stordy Combustions Engrg., Ltd. 250 Brook Rd.

Sales Department Conshohtsken. PA 19428

Heath Mill Rd. (215) 828-54(X)

Wombourne

Wolverhampton, WV5 8BD TRW

United Kingdom Sales Department

Phone: 0902 897654 One Space Park

Redondo Reach, CA 90278

Sunbeam Equipment Corp. (213) 535-4321

Sales Department

200 Mercer St. Voorheis Industries. Inc

lWeadville, PA 16335 P.O. Box 1442

(!;14) 724-1400 Fairfield, NJ 07006

(201) 227-2446

Superior Combustion Ind.

Sales Department Walter H. Edwards Engrg. Corp.

P.O. Box 156 Sales Department

801 Broad St. Jamieson Lane

Emmaus, PA 18049 Indianapolis. IN 46268

(215) 965-9051 (317) 251-2439

Syncro-Flame Inc. Webster Engrg. Div.

Sales Department Sales Department

4447 N, Oakland Ave. Box 748

Milwaukee, WI 53211 Winfield, KS 67156

(414) 332-4100 (316) 221-7464

Tate Jones Whites Burners

Sales Department Sales Department

4057 Windgap Ave. Industry Road

Pittsburgh, PA 15204 P.O. Box 2

(412) 771-4200 Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 5TP

United Kingdom

T.C. Williams Burners Holme Phone: 0632 658821U2

Mfg. Co., Ltd.

Sales Department Wtngaersheek, Inc.

Bradshaw Works Sales Department

Bradshaw Rd. 2 Dearborn Rd.

Honley Peabody, MA 01960

Huddersfield, HD7 2DT (617) 535-5300

United Kingdom

Phone: 0484 662185 W.N, Rest Combustion Equip. Co.

Sales Department

11-3 South St.

Danbury, CT 06810

(203) 743-6741

54
APPENDIX B: Letter of Inquiry

August 4, 1987

Re:High-Efficiency/Low-NO, Dual-Fuel Burners for Firetube Boilers

Gentlemen:

The Institute of Gas Technology (IGT) has been contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USA CERL) to select and recommend high-efficiency/low-NO,,

burners for field tests on their firetube boilers.

The U.S. Army operates over a thousand firetube boilers in the 100 to 800 hp (4 to 32 million Btu/h) range

burning light oil and natural gas. Retrofit of these boilers with the new generation of burners that are highly

efficient across the turndown range and produce little pollutant emissions shows promise of being cost effective.

Our current program consists of surveying the state-of-the-art in burner technology, followed by selection and

acquisition of at least three burners for retrofit field testing.

Enclosed with this letter are the target specifications for the type of burners we are seeking and the

questionnaire that we request you fill out. We expect that several burner sizes will be necessary to cover the

entire range.

As mentioned above, these are "target specifications." Realizing the unique working conditions of this

type of burner (small, water-cooled combustion chamber, large turndown ratio, etc.). these specifications may be

difficult to achieve, so we will evaluate each burner or burner design in comparison with the others available.

We recognize your company's considerable experience in the combustion field, and we would greatly

appreciate knowing if you have a burner suitable for this application and how well it meets the desired

specifications. If appropriate, please send us all the available information regarding the existing burners or the

burners under final development suitable for the application that we have described. Any operational information

or recommendation regarding your experience with burners of this type would be helpful. Please carefully mark

any information that you would like to remain confidential.

Also, include in your response information abort burner availability, and its delivery and price schedules.

We anticipate testing 8 million Btu/h burners on 200 hp boilers in an upcoming field test program.

A prompt response to this request will be appreciated. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to

contact Mr. Mark Khinkis at (312) 890-6445 or me at (312) 890-6443.

Sincerely,

Haroid Abbasi

Project Engineer

INSTITUTE OF GAS TECHNOLOGY

4201 W. 36th St.

Chicago, IL 60632

55
56
APPENDIX C:

Burner Manufacturers' Questionnaire Responses

57
WEIGHTED POINTS - 553

QUEST 1ONN A IRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO BOO hp

Company Name: Bloom Engineering Company, Inc.

Burner Model: Bloom #1060 Series

Burner Status: eExisting) Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size vithin the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Weighted Please indicate units if different from those listed.

Points

50 I. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 4 X 106 to 50 X 106 BTU/HR.

O 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Btulft 3 -h): 114,000 (4 & 8 MM BTU/HR) 71,000 (32 MH BTU/HR)

O 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 2#-69#

at 8 x 106 Btu/h- 3'-0"

at 32 X 106 Btuth: 5V-0"1

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 3

at 8 x 106 Btu/h: 3.6

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4.9

14 5. NOx, CO, and UNC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas @2%02

at nominal capacity: 60 * *

at :1 turndown: * * *

b. No. 2 oil 27O02 without fuel less than

bound N2 60 *

at nominal capacity: 60 * _

at :1 turndown: - * *

*Not Available

I N S I 1 7 U I E 0 r G A S T E C H N 0 L 0 G Y

58
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E. Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 9p UP TO 800 ho WE IGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): Less than 2

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): 85 dba

219 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (t): 0 to 10%

at 5:1 turndown (2): 10 to 20%

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%): 10%

at 5:1 turndown (2): 20%

20 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 28" Wc

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 2" WC

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): 15 PSIG (4 & 8.ri BTU/HR)

45 PSIG (32MM BTU/HR)

)00 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 9:1

b. No. 2 oil: 7:1

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Steam or Air

Flow (lb/lb oil): 0.2 LB/LB oil

Pressure (psig): 15 PSIG (4 & 8 mm BTU/HR•

45 PSIG (32 MM BTU/HR)

I N S 7 1 T U T E O F G A S T E C H N O L O G Y

59
WEIGHTED POINTS - 787

UUESTIONNAIRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOI,-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOP

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: Blue Flame Division, UE Corporation

Burner Model: ISOMAX<

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range. if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WE I GHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btul'h): 4-15-106(Std.):>lxl0 6 fs:pecial)

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3 -h): 200.000

30 3. Minimurm required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 B.u/h: 12"

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 16"

at 32 X 106 Btu!h: 24" approx. est.

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 3

at 8 X 10 6 Btu/h: 3

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: (nd)

99 5. NOx, CO, and URC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

Nv (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 49 20 -oat 2 :1 turndown: 48 15 -0-

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 54 25 -oat 2 :1 turndown: 55 20 -0-

I N S T I T U T E O F G A S 7 E C H N O LO G Y

60
QUE STIONNA IRE, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HICH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO, DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 UP TO 800 hp

WE IGHTED

POINTS

75 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): -_-

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): __

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (M): -oat 5:1 turndown (): --

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (051): -0-

at 5:1 turndown (%): _

8 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 40

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 28

c. No. 2 oil (lb!in.2): 40

75 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 5:1

b. No. 2 oil: 4:1

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: none

Flow (lb/lb oil): --

Pressure (psig): --

I N S T I I U Y E O F G A S T C H N O L O G Y

61
WEIGHTED POINTS - 639

QUE S T I O N N A I R E

SPECIFICATIONS FOP. HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 •p UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: - (-i1 •'

Burner Model: ,o-r 

Burner Status: Existing (u-nder Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS 4

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): A/O 4T) 0f 

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density /-

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h): t -

30 3. Minimu T required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: [ ... ..

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: ____ _ ____

at 32 X 10 6 Btu/h: . ____ _ _

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 10 6 Btu/h: __ _ _

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: :I

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: .• "

84 5. NOx, CO, and UIHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO. (ppm) CO (ppm) U`tC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 0 S.-',

at r$:1 turndown: _ 0 .

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: _____ _ _ __

at r:I turndown: _

I N S I 1 T UT E 0 F G A S T E C H N 0 L 0 G Y

62
QUE STI ONNA IRE, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

WEIGHTED FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 •p UP TO 800 hp

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil . (

(Bacharach No.): O- AvEc 4•-)

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): 8s Z)jAaJfC.Z 

135 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (t): .S-i/ >.

at 5:1 turndown (): /M:--.,.

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%): /0- /ljf'

at 5:1 turndown (M): 2-.F"'.3o

4o 9. Required pressures

a. Ar (in. wc):?

b. Natural gas (in- :v< Zy 6f'

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in.2): SO - /O't) 7&

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: / ."D /

b. No. 2 oil: _ _- __I

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: AiZ.

Flow (lb/lb oil): , L ,

Pressure (psig): )J'&&fC-IO 

I N S T 1 T U T E OF G A S T E C H N O LO G Y

63
WEIGHTED POINTS - b2U

QUEST 10 N N AI RE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRFTUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 KP UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: Dunphy Oil & Gas Burners Ltd

Burner Model: TD Series

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h):

50 2. Combustion chamber specific3 heat density 175,000 Btu/u.ft/h

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h): 175,000_Btu/cuft/hr

30 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 1O6 Btu/h: See attached appendix

at 8 x 106 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h:

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio MAXIMUM MINIMUM

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 5 - 1 1.8 - 1

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 5.2 - 1 1.6 - 1

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4.7 - 1 1.7 - 1

100 5. NOx, CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 38 15 6

at 4:1 turndown: 28 27 8

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 41 36 20

at 4:1 turndown: 36 38 31

I N S T I T U T F O F G A S T E C H N O L O0 Y

64
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R.E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HICH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 tp UP TO 800 hp WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): 1 - 2

TD 2/3/4 TD 5

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): 78/80 - 83

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (2): 5 %

at 5:1 turndown (2): 7%

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (52): 5 %

at 5:1 turndown (2): 9%

40 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 4" - 10" w.g.

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 30" w.g.

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in.2): Flooded Suction

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output) Pressure Jet Air

a. Natural gas: 4 - 1 5 - 1

b. No. 2 oil: 4 - 1 5 - 1

It. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Pressure Jet or Air

Flow (lb/lb oil): Dependent on Boiler efficiency

Pressure (psig): 400 psi

I N S T I T U T E O F A S T E C H N O L O0 V

65
WEIGHTED POINTS - 783

QUESTIONNAIRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNhER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 gp UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: THE ENGINEER COMPANyI

Burner Model: LX VENTURI - WITH FLUE GAS RErIRCtIIAT1Al!

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1, Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 5 TO 150 MILLION

50 2. Combustion chamber specific 3heat density 75X10 3 BTU/FT3 _ H TYPICAL

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h): BTU/_T_ _ H__ TYPICAL

30 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 22

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 32

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 45

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 1O6 Btu./h: 3.4 OR GREATER

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 3.4 OR GREATER

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4.0 OR GREATER

100 5. NOx, CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO,, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHiC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 40 30 30

at 10 :1 turndown: 40 40 40

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 50 30 '40

at 8 :1 turndown: 50 20 40

I N S 1 I1 U t E O F G A S I E C H N O L O G Y

66
QUE STIONNA IRE, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 9p UP TO 800 hp WE IGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): TWO OR LESS

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): LESS THAN 85

263 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (%): 5%_

at 5:1 turndown (%): 15%

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%): 5%_

at 5:1 turndown (t): 15%

4o 9. Required pressures 6 IN. WC THRU BURNER a. Air (in. wc): ________________

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 1001" WC

c. No. 2 oil (lb/tn.2): 100 PSIG

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output) 10 TO I

a. Natural gas: 10_TO_1

b. No. 2 oil: 8 TO 1

11. Oil atomizing fluid

STEAM OR AIR Type: ________________

Flow (lb/Ib oil): .1 L13/L8 OIL

Pressure (psig): 110 PSIG

I N SI I T U TE F G A S T E C H N O L O G Y

67
WEIGHTED POINTS - 410

QUEST I ON N AI RE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO BOO hp

Company Name: 6; AAJ.E -. L..C

Burner Model:

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill In a separate sheet for each burner site within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

0 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 2O - 5C 01A A

0 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3 -h): _A___

0 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 10 6 Btu/h__

at 8 X 10 6 Btu/h:

at 32 X I0 6 Btu/h: _ __ _"

o 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h:

at 8 X 106 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h:

O 5. NOx, CO, and UTIC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) Co (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: , /b//

at 5- :1 turndown:

b. No- 2 oil

at nominal capacity: .

at 72:1 turndown:

I N S T I l U T E O F G A S T E C H N O L O G Y

68
Q U E S T I0 N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HICl-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANCING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

EIGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): .

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): _-

150 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (2): ____

at 5:1 turndown (M):

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5t): _..__-

at 5:1 turndown (M):

40 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc):

b. Natural gas (in. vc): _.._-_ _,,_

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): ___________............

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: ____

b. No. 2 oil: __

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: 414

Flow (lb/lb oil): .03

Pressure (psig): - 92O/,

I N S tIt 1 U T E O F G A S T E C H N O LO G Y

69
WEIGHTED rOINTS - 578

QUESTIONNAIRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR RICG-EFFICIENCY/LOJ-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: Gordon-Piatt Energy Group, Inc.

Burner Model: F10 Series

Burner Status: xisting Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the soecifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WE I GHT ED

PO I NT S

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 4200 - 5250 liBli

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Bta/ft3-h). up to 250,000

30 3. Minimum required, water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h- 20

at 8 X 1O6 Btu/h

at 32 X 106 Btu/h:

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 3.4:1

at 8 X 106 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h:

84 5. NOX CO, and UIIC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO. (ppm) CO (ppm) UHTC (pDM)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 50 20 40

at 3 :I turndown: 50 20 40

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 100 0 50

at 3 "1 turndowrn: 100 0 50

INS UT 0 r r GAS I F C " N O L O G Y

70)
FlO

Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

PIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Kp UP TO 800 hp

WEIGHTED

POINTS

75 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): No 1 or less

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): 80

J9 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (t): 10Z

at 5:1 turndown (): 25%

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%): 10%

at 5:1 turndown (%): 30%

4o 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 6

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 14

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in.2): 100

50 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 3:1

b. No. 2 oil: 3:1

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Air

Flow (lb/lb oil): .25

Pressure (psig): 30

SN S T I T U T E F G A S T E C H N O LO G Y

71
WEIGHTED POINTS - Bib

QUESTIONNAIRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Kp UP TO 00 hp

Company Name: Hague International

Burner Model: Transjet

Burner Status: (ijting Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS 6

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 3 x 10 to 40 x 10

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density 6

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3 -h): 150 x 10

30 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 10 6 Bturh: 22"

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 28"

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 45"

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 6.0

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 5.4

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 5.2

100 5. NOx, CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UIHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 45 15 10

at 10 :1 turndown: 40 15 10

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 50 15 10

at 8 :1 turndown: 45 20 20

f N S T I T U T E 0r FG A S t E C H N 0 L 0 G V

72
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO BOO hp

AEIGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): 2

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): 85 dba at 3'

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (M): 5.0%

at 5:1 turndown (2): 10.0%

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%): 5.0%

at 5:1 turndown (2): 10.0%

36 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): Combustion Air: 10

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 50

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in.2): 100

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output) 10.0

a. Natural gas: 10_0

b. No. 2 oil: 8.0

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Air

Flow (lb/lb oil): 0.05

Pressure (psig): 80

I N S T I T U T E O F G A S T E C H N O L OG

73
WEIGHTED POINTS - 483

QUE ST 10 N A I R E

SPECIFICATIONS FOR RICH-EFFICIENCY/LOV.-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 tp UP TO 500 hp

Company Name: HM14OFTHfY E•GINEEING LMEI. CM-BUSTICtJ DIVISION

Burner Model: AW ROTIAP.Y CUP BURNERS

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

EXISTING, BUT WE OPERATE A POLICY OF CCZU3TINUCJUS DEVELM2OT

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

40 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): SEE BOCXHURE ENCWSED

HAVE SUPPLIED TO 250,000 B1TU/FT 3 /IR.

HOWXEVER, WITH CURPnrrT CLEAN AIR

50 2. Combustion chamber specific 3heat density LEGISLATICJ MOST EUROPEAN BOIL.F__1V4P.S

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h): NCLP n 70 P= TMAM-U 0,000

15 3. Minimum required water-cooled cýnbustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X I0 6 Btu/h: STD MIN DIA 26 INS

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 26 INS

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 44 IVS

THIS 70 SCOE EXTENT IS DICTATED BY

STD QUARL BRICK DU"4SICJS AND COULD

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter BE REIXCSIDERED

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: STD DESIGNJ APPROX 4:1

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 4:1

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4:1

74 5. NOx, CO, and UtiC emissions with

ambient combustion air for No~ ,(ppm) CO (ppm UH pm

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity:

at :1 turndown:

b. No. 2 oil SEE TABLE NO I

at nominal capacity:

at :1 turndown:

i N S T I T U I F 0 F O A S T E C H N O OL 0 Y Y

74
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER ?OR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Kp UP TO 800 hp

WE IGHTED

P01NTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil 2

(Bacharach No.):

UNSILENCED 94 96

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): SILENCED 80 83

SMALL LARGE BUREJP.S

39 8. Excess air requirements SEE DATA SHEET 01:03:26 ENC-LOSED.

a. For natural gas firing THIS SHOWS TYPICAL DESIGN RANGE

at nominal capacity (%): FOR EUROPEAN FIRETUBE BOILER DESIN,,

AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY RE.PFESDrT

at 5:1 turndown (%):_______________

A BURNER LIMIT

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%):

at 5:1 turndown (M):

REGISTER DRAFT LOSS IRDLL NOR,VAL

40 9. Required pressures DESIGN RANGE 4-8 INS wG DEPaDImG

rON BOILER DESIGN MIC.

a. Air (in. wc):________________

b. Natural gas (in. wc): NORMAL DESIGN 10-15 INS WG

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in.2 ): 5-15 LBF/INS2G

75 10. Turndown ratio (burner output) NORMAL DESIGN RAVGE

a. Natural gas: SMALL BURNERS 4:1

b. No. 2 oil: LARGE BU1RNIERS 5:1

PRIMARY AIR, r, CfEGRAL SUPPLY

11I. Oil atomizing fluid WITH COMBUSTION AIR SYSTi'1

Type:

Flow (lb/lb oil): APPROXIMATELY 7% OF ICXIAL AIR

Pressure (psig): APPROXIMATELY 35 INS WG

INS T IT U T E O F G A S T E C H N O L O G Y

"75
WEIGHTED POINTS - 660

q U E S T I O N N A I R E

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FRO4 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: Hauck Manufacturing Company

Burner Model: No7zle Mix Combinat io- Burner

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, If the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WE IGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (ttu/h): . 5 to 40 MMBTUH

50 2. Combustion chamber specific 3heat density 150,000 8u'so't-h

at nominal capacity (Bt'i/ft -h): __ 0,000___u__o___-h

15 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 14 inch.es

at 8 X 1O6 Btu/h: 20 in•chps

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4R inches

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 3.-3

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 5. 1

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 5.2

25 5. NOx, CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) VIfC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 12MM 0 11

at :1 turndown:

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: N/A

at :1 turndown:

76

I N S T I Y U T E F G 5 1 r I N
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFF1CIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 9p UP TO 800 hp WE IGHTED

POINTS

0 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): N/A

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): Less than 85 dba

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (Z): 0

at 5:1 turndown (M): 0

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (52): 5%

at 5:1 turndown (M): 10%

20 9. Required pressures

a. kir (in. wc): 28 "WC

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 10 "WC

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): 35 psi

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 10:1

b. No. 2 oil: 8:1

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Combustion Air Blower

Flow (lb/lb oil):

Pressure (psig): One psi

F 0'' OG A S 7 E C H N O L O G Y

77
WEIGHTED POINTS - 784

QUE ST1ONVAIRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR RICH-EFFICIENCY/LOV-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER ?OR

FIRETUBE SOILERS RANGINC FROM 100 Kp UP TO o00 hp

Company Name: I-4i 'R , Cnr U•;J06. ) 7L)&A., 1Z E SJ 

Buroer Model: 14,'r PREC S, o10 /PRE--J×x 13QU(zE..PBurner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill In a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner site (Btulb): • 'AA-.,& •_p ,,

50 2. Combustion chamber specific 3heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h): dA,,

30 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 x 1O6 Btufh: X__"_

at 8 X I06 Btufh: _ _ "_ _

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: __ _ _ _

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: Pd A

at 8 X 10 6 Etu!h: ýJ/A

at 32 X 1o6 Btu/h: M//A.

84 5. NOX, CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NOX (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: so _Q 0

at _ :I turndown: ZO 0 -50

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: I.Q 0___ __O 

at L_:l turndown: I1O ,Q50 50

, S T 1 7 U T F 0 V 7 0 A 9 1 1 CH N 0 L 0 0 

78
QUI S T 1 0 N V A IS R , Cost.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HICH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

WEIGHTED FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Kp UP TO W0O hp

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(lacharach No.): L rJ ljh¶. 

'

8o 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): _ _ _ _ _

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (2): 07'

at 5:1 turndown (M): O7.

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (52): "-Oyo (AF4Pcv.>

at 5:1 turndown (2): - (/0 (pr~j-)

20 9. Required pressures

A. ir (in. wc): a. r.

b. Natural gas (in. rc): 55.4

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): 1C ,.

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

"a. Natural gas: b I

b. No. 2 oil: _ _,_ _

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: 5•TrA i•

Flow (lb/lb oil): .3 IbAh

Pressure (pstg). irr• •IQIN TTUIE OF GAS IE C• c ooY0 0 

79
WEIGHTED POINTS - 346

QUEST 10 N NAI RE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FRO" 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: NAO, INC.

Burner Model: FD-VHESP

Burner Status: C in Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 4,12 MM

0 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density 60,000

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h):

30 3. Hinimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 18"

at 8 X 106 Btu/h: 23"

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 39"

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at s X 10 6 Btu/h: 2.1

at 8 X !06 Btu/h: 4.2

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 10.0

81 5. NOx, CO, and UNC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

No, (ppm) CO (ppm) UrHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 60 10

at -I turndown: 60 10

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 100 10

at :11 turndow.n: 100 10

SNS T t U 7 0 F G A S T I C H N 0 L 0 0 Y

80
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOP HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

WEIGHTED

POINTS

75 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): approx. 0

0 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): See Data Sheets Enclosed

0 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (2): 20

at 5:1 turndown (2):

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (52): 15

at 5:1 turndown (M):

40 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 1

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 15

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2): 80

50 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 5:1

b. No. 2 oil: 3:1

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: steam

Flow (lb/lb oil): .15

Pressure (psig): 100

I N S T 1 7 U T E 0 F G A S T E C H N O L o G Y

81
WEIGHTED POINTS - 569

QUESTIONNAI RE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOP,

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: Pillard, Inc.

Burner Model: (C.astor ) Beaver

Burner Status: Existing Under Development (circle one)

Gaz Oil

Note: Please fill In a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units If different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 4 X 106 to 32 X JO6 B7;/h

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3 -h): 150,000 to 220,000 BTL'/f 3 -t

)5 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (Inch)

at 4 X 106 Rtu!h: 22 inches

at 8 X 10 6 Btulh:

at 32 X 1O6 Btu t h: 50 inches

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 3.4

at 8 X 10f Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 6

84 5. NOx, CO. and UTIC emissions with

aifblent combustion air for

NO (ppm) CO (ppi) 1'C (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 50 50 -

at 5 :1 turndown: 50 50 -

b. No. 2 oil (TARGET)

at nominal capacity: 75 50 50

at 3:1 turndowns: 75 50

I N S 7 1 T U T E 0 F G A S T E C H N 0 L 0 G

82
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

WEIGHTED FiRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 9p UP TO 800 hp

POINTS

0 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): 3 to 4

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): 85

180 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (t): 8

at 5:1 turndown (t): 20

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5%): 12

at ')971 turndowrn (t): 20

3:1

40 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 6 inch wc

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 120 to 600 inch wc

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): I0.5 Wb/in. 2

50 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 5:1

b. No. 2 oil: 3:1

11. O11 atomizing fluid

Type: Mechanical

Flow (lb 'lb oil):

Pressure (psig):

IN ST U E O F G A S T E C H N O L O G

83
WEIGHTED POINTS - 427

QU E S T I O N N A I R E (Average o izs

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 tp UP TO BOO hp

Company Name: Dr. SCHMITZ + APELT INDUSTRIEOFENBAU GMBH

Burner Model: S F 0 C 1700

Burner Status: x Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Average for

3 sizes) Please Indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

40 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 6 mill Btu/h ; 1.5 Gcal/h

43 2. Combustion chamber specific 3heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft -h): 168.000 Btu/ft'-h ; 1.49 Gcal/m'

0 3. Hinimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 6 X 106 Btu/h: 800 m - 31.5

at 8 X 106 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h:

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 6 X 106 Btu/h: (2000 mm) 2.5 : 1

at 8 X 106 Btu/h:

at 32 X 10 6 Btu/h:

28 5. NOx, CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity:

at 4 :1 turndown: 1<100 (100 (100

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity:_

at 4 :1 turndown: f<150 10 0 <100

I N S T I T U T E O F G A S 7 E C H N O L OG Y

84
-2--

Q U E S T I O N N A I R E, Cont.

(Average for

3 sizes) SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL SURNIER FOR

WEIGHTED FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 hp UP TO 00 hp

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil <2

(Bacharach No.):

0 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): depending on plant

14 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (Z): f

at 4:1 turndown (M): abt. 10 - 15 2

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (52): (

at 4:1 turndown (2): 1 abt. 15 - 20 2

32 9. Required pressures

a. AJr (in. vc): 350 mm wC

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 350 hwn WC

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in.2): 145 lb/sq in Z1O bar

1O0 10. Turndowm ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 1 : 4

b. No. 2 oil: 1 : 4

11. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Mineral oil

Flow (lb/lb oil): 10 2 of max. oil throughput • 33

Pressure (psig): 102 Thlaq in 27 bar .....

85
qUESTIONNAIRE

WEIGHTED POINTS - 788

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 4p UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: SMIT OVENS B.V.

Burner Model: SMIT ULTRAMIZING

Burner Status: Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 3,2 x 106 to 32,2 x 106 Btu/h

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density 3

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3 -h): 220.000 Btulft -h

30 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X i06 Btu/h: 21 inch

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 26 inch

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 44 inch

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 3,4 : I

at 8 x 1O6 Btufh: 3,8 : I

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4 : 1

67 5. NOx CO, and U`HC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 150 <50 <5

at 6 :1 turndown: 80 < 50 5

b. No. 2 oil depending on burner size

at nominal capacity: 150 50 5

at 6 :1 turndown: 80 50 5

I N S T 1 U 7 f 0 O F G A S T E C H N O L O0G Y

86
Q U E S T I 0 N N A I R t, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR RIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOJ-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 9p UP TO 00 hp 4CEIGHTED

POINTS

75 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): zero at IZ 02

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): Depending on boiler design, abt. 85

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. Tor natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (M): 4%

at 5:1 turndown (2): 4%

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (52): 42

at 5:1 turndown (M): 4Z

16 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 31 in w.c.

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 40 in w.c.

C. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): 290 lb/in2

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 6:1

b. No. 2 oil: 6:1

It. Oil atomtzing fluid

Type: Not required

Flov (lb/lb oil):

Pressure (psig):

I N S I Il U I E OF A S I E C H N O O G Y

87
WEIGHTED POINTS - 818

UE ST IONNA I R E

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL 11URNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: Voorheis lndtustriesInc.

Burner Model: Bluff-BodyTh

Burner Status: iE Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

P01 NTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h)! 4 to 32 million

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nomtnal capacity (Rtu/ft 3 -h): All suitable

30 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X o06 Btu/h: 20

at 8 x 106 Btu/h: 24

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 44

18 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: 7

st 8 X 1O6 Btu/h: 7

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 5

100 5. NOX, CO. and UHIC emissions with

ambient combustion air for

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 1o 10 10

at 5_:1 turndown: 40 0 5

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 2 10 10

at 5 :1 turndown: n I. )

I N S 7 1 1 U T F O F 0 AS 9 E C H N O t a Y Y

9g
Q U E S T I 0 N N A IR E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANCING FROM 100 tp UP TO 800 hp WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): Less that) 2

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): Less than 80

300 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (2): less than 57

at 5:1 turndown (M): Less than 1 Q

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (5t): Le ss•stan 8'

at 5:1 turndown (): les ,tan 12'

40 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 4" W.C. drop across registcr at l:,

b. Natural gas (in. wc): 8V W. C. "

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): Arnrox 100 PSI

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: Turndown is not limited

b. No. 2 oil: 5:1 minimum

l1. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Air or steam

Flow (lb/lb oil): 3.0 or 0.10 (high fire)

Pressure (psig): 5 or 10 (not modulated)

INS T I U E 0 Fa S T EC HNOLOG8

89
WEIGHTED POINTS - 487

QUEST 10 N N AIR E

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BUIRNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 4p UP TO 800 hp

Company Now*: Max Weishaupt GmbH

Burner Hodel: WKGL 3/0-A

Burner Status: Existing X Under Development (circle one)

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the target

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

50 1. Range of nominal burner size (Stu/h): 7.85 x 106 to 40.96 106

fkW) '2300 to 12000

44 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3 -h):

0 3. Minimum required water-cooled combustion

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h:

at 8 X ]06 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 47 (1.2 m)

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h6

at 8 X 106 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: 4.8

34 5. NOx. CO, and UHC emissions with

ambient combustion air for rnq/m n n!/m' n rrn!m'n

NOX Wti) CO 40~) tmc 60d

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 150 (80) < 80 < 10

at :1 turndown:

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 230 (160) 4 50 < 10

at :1 turndown:

NOx calculated as NO, and at 3 % To; ( ) with flue gas feed back

I T 1 U 7 E Or 0 A S 7 E C H N O0 LO 0 Y

90
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HICGI-EFFICIENCY/LOu--NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 AP UP TO 800 hp

WEIGHTED

POINTS

75 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.):

80 7. burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): approx. 85

135 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (M): 5

at 5:1 turndown (M): 25

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominRl capacity (5%): 10

at 5:1 turndown (M): 40

2! 9. Required pressureq

a. Air (in. w0- 20.9 (50 mbar)

b. Natural gaq (in. wc): 209 (500 mbar)

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): 14.5 (1 bar)

25 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 4.778 x 106 Bu/h (1400 kW)

b. No. 2 oil: 7.851 X 106 Stu/h (2300 kVJ

11. Oil atomIzinR fluid

Type:

Flow (lb/lb jil):!

Pressure (psig):

9NS 1 7 U I F 0 V 0 A S I E C HN 0 L 0 Y

91
WEIGHTED POINTS - 760

QUESTIONNAIRE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGH-EFFICIENCY/LOW-NO DUAL-FUEL BU`PNT.R FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FROM 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

Company Name: JOHNJ ZINK LO$fltfly_____..

Burner Model: _HPS-SF1!SJ 5e4_d fiupI fnr q _ nti rtared air for oil)

Burner Status: c i~ng Under Development (circle one)

*Utilized for other applications

Note: Please fill in a separate sheet for each burner size within the tarRet

range, if the specifications are different.

Please indicate units if different from those listed.

WEIGHTED

POINTS

40 1. Range of nominal burner size (Btu/h): 5F1 Btu/hr to 200A Btu/hr

50 2. Combustion chamber specific heat density

at nominal capacity (Btu/ft 3h): See below

allowable

30 3. Minimum veqelred water-cooled combustion Estimated Dimensions

chamber diameter (inch)

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: Flame 20 in x 6ft

at 8 x 1O6 Btu/h: Flamp 26 in Y Q ft

at 32 X 106 Btu/h: Flame 42 in x 1F ft

20 4. Combustion chamber length-to-diameter

ratio

at 4 X 106 Btu/h: See above

at 8 X 10 6 Btu/h:

at 32 X 106 Btu/h:_

84 5. NOx, CO, and LInC emissions with Corrected to 3T 0

ambient combustion air for 2

NO, (ppm) CO (ppm) UHC (ppm)

a. Natural gas

at nominal capacity: 50 50

at 5 :1 turndown: 50 ? ?

b. No. 2 oil

at nominal capacity: 90 50 50

at 5 :1 turndown: 90 7 7

I N S t I 1 U F OF G A S I F C M N O L OG Y

92
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E, Cont.

SPECIFICATIONS FOP HICIU-EFFICIENCY/LOW--NO DUAL-FUEL BURNER FOR

FIRETUBE BOILERS RANGING FRO 100 Ap UP TO 800 hp

14EIGHTED

POINTS

50 6. Soot emissions for No 2 oil

(Bacharach No.): two or less

80 7. Burner noise level (dba at 3 feet): As required

270 8. Excess air requirements

a. For natural gas firing

at nominal capacity (M):

at 5:1 turndo-n (.): 10'

b. For No. 2 oil firing

at nominal capacity (fl): 10

at 5:1 turndown (M): 15'

36 9. Required pressures

a. Air (in. wc): 10 in.w.C.

b. Natural gas (in. we): As required

c. No. 2 oil (lb/in. 2 ): __nn__n_*

100 10. Turndown ratio (burner output)

a. Natural gas: 5:1

b. No. 2 oil:

)I. Oil atomizing fluid

Type: Air or steam

Flow (lb/l" oil): Q 3

Pressure (psig): 150

"*150 psig oil pressure should not be a problem for user.

I N S 7 1 7 V 7 E 0 r G A S I I C HN O tO G V

93
USACERL DISTRIBUTION

Cbef of WD.UO 411% lmed y Dir (MBCII) USA Natck RD&E Cenat 01760 Ddoe Lott.., Avtery

ATTN: CEHEC-[M-LH (2) ATTN. AFZC-FB 10913 ATTN. SThNC DT ATTN DLA WI 22304

ATTN: CENEC-IM-LP (2) ATTN, DRDNA.F

ATTN: CEC Fort Pecket 23824 Walter Rmd Amy Mok.ba Ca 20307

ATTN. CORD-M ATTN: APLA-PP-E TRADOC

ATTN: CECC-P AM,. DENH 13) US Miatary A.d-my 10996

ATTN; CERD-L Tokyhenn Amy Depot 19466 FPn Meeon 23651 ATTN MAEN A

ATTN: CECW-P ATTN: SDSTO-EH ATTN: AT8fOG ATTN FPho-otoe ti

ATTN CECW-PR Canel. Banack. 17013 ATTN G-ogmpy A LR, F-W&t

ATTlN CEMP-B US Army Maitml Coemonad (AMC) ATTN ATZE-DIS

ATTRN CUMP-C Redstone An-ed 35809 Port Gulae 23604 4166t Engepe Coaotoand 606W3

ATTN: CECW-O ATTN: D6SMI-KLP ATTN DEH ATTN obanoe USAR C'u

ATTN, CBCW .o4flet Pro•o Cnvmd 47250 FPat Chaff" 72905

ATTN: C-RM ATTN: STHJP-LDO-/PMH ATTN. AT'2l-; USA ".n (USAR")

ATTN; CEMP L.lacrimmy Amy Depot Fert Stl 73503 ATTN APAJ EN 65 96343

ATTN; CERD-C ATTN: 3DSLE-EiNN 17201 ATTN. ATZR-E ATTN HONSHU 96343

ATTN: COEP-M UPeblo Amy Depot 31008 ATTN DEN OIaa, 96376

ATTN. CEMP-R ATTN SDSTE-PUI-P US A-y Mlenal- Tech Lab

ATTN CERD-ZA Dugoy roving Groomed 34022 ATTN- SLCMT DEH 02172 Natvl PeFda e &W Coond

ATTN: DARN-ZCM ATTN: STEDP-EN ATTN Pelatja Fnr Comrnd (9)

ATTN. DAEN-ZCH Toelo Amy Depot 34074 WESTCOM 96851 ATTN D on Offeva* (1))

ATTN; DAEN-ZC1 ATTN: SDSTR-ELP ATTN DER ATTN Pb. Wi.Ctsta (8)

Yma Pm•ing Groend 35365 ATTN; APSN-A ATTN Nae.] Conar Baaohon Ca 93043

CEHSC ATTN: STEYP-EH-E ATTN N-rt C- Eng Labontory (3) 9 P4I

ATTN: CBHSC-F 22060 Tobyan.m Army Depot I86 SHAPE 09705

ATTN C•IHSC-TT 220M0 ATTN: SDSTO-E4I ATTN: Irmaotructme Branch LANDA $Ch US Army RKoe

ATTN7 CE1HSC-ZC 22•00 Seneca Amy Depot 14541 ATTN DEH (12)

ATTN. DOT 111 7990 ATTN. SDSSS-HP An*. Engionor. ALDC Ame Oft"c

Aberdeen Poimg Groned Amold Anr Ponc Stton, TN 37399 US Amy NSC

US Almy Rose Delict ATTN: STrAP-DLH 21005 Port Soo HNo. 73234

ATTN: ih.ny (40) Shap.e Army Depot 95331 HQ USHUCOM 09123 ATTN HSLO-P

ATTN: SDSSH-B ATTN ECJ4-LIS Pstnumom ArMy Mod-cl Cor

US Amy or Divion. Pat Motmenom'Lt 07703 ATTN HSHG DEN 8M04

ATTN: LaUwy (13) ATTN: SE.PM-Et-G AMMRC 02172

Swatamn A-my Depot 61074 ATTN DRXM -AP Tyoda.l APE 32403

US A•y Europe ATTN: SDS1E-VAA ATTN: DRXIM-WE ATTN APESC Progmnnm O4

ATTN ARAEN-EH 09014 Rock lia1&d Anenel ATTN: ESa. & Sr- LAb

ATTN. AEAHN-ODCS 09014 ATTN: SUCRI-E4 CEWES 39(80

V Corp ATTN: SMCRJ-TL ATTN Lbhuoey Ch-nk APB 61868

ATTN: DEH (s) WammevthArmzeal 12189 ATTN 3345 CPS/DE

VII Coq" ATTN: SMCWV-EH COCRL 03755

ATTN. DEH (11) Red Riaew Amy Depot 76102 ATTN. Loasry USA TSARCOM 63120

29th At" Support rowp ATTN: SDSMR-G ATTN: STSAS-F

ATTN: AERAS-PA 09054 Hnoy Demood Lab USA AMCOM

100th. Sapp Group ATTN: Librasy 20733 ATTN: P"tiEngr 21719 Armtoocan Pust Woail Aiome 60637

ATTN: AETTEN-IEH 09114 Wlhai Smub Mille Range 83002 ATTN: AMIMC-UR 61299

24 Ban battalion ATTN: Library ATTN: Fediie Engr (3) 95613 US Amy Er Hyerno, Agency

ATTN: AETV.BHR-8 09034 Corp- Chr- Amy Depo ATTN, HS10-9-ME 21010

23•5• Leo- S.ppeet Battalion ATTN: 0DSCC-8CD 79419 USAARMC 40121

ATTN: Unt 23614 Anbhh 09177 ATTN: ATIZICEHA US G,'t PFrmn Offim ,040(

293d Ems Support Battaion PORSCOM ATTN Re Sm/Dpomt S. (2)

ATTN: AEUSG-MA-AT-WO-B 09096 ATTN. Ftlibetae Enas (12) Military Trafic Mpot Commend 4

09th SqPot Bateon {(fe) FPrl Eragg 23307 ATTN, MTA-Gll-EHP 07002 NCI Ittutaste of St%,Acdr & Tunh

ATTN. AETTG-DEH 09114 ATTN; APZA-DR ATTN. MT-LOP 20315 ATTN Lilrexy 20999

412dt Este Support Ebflem 09630 FPrt Campbell 42223 ATTN: MTS-SU-PE 29461

ATTN: Unit 31401 ATTN; AP2S-DEH ATTN: MTW-11 94626 Defense Tech Ifdo Can•er 22304

Prankfaot But Support Bat6hon Port McCoy 54656 ATTN DTIC-PAB (2)

ATTN: Unit '7275 09242 ATTN: APZP-DE Peel Leood Wood 65473

CMlt HNohsvnie 0O973 FPrSt•Secaa 31314 ATtN. ATSE-DAC-LE (3) 301

ATTN: AgrTH-DEH ATTN: APZ-DOE ATTN: ATZA-TE-SW 09,92

Meoas, G.(my 09135 Ft Bochaman 00934 ATTN: ATSE-CPLO

ATTN 8SB3-MZ-. ATTN. Emm Offimc ATTN: ATSH-DAC-PL

2lit Sopport Commmod Ft Dr- •on 01433

ATTN: DEH (10) ATTN: APZZD-DE Militsy Dit of WASH

US Army Bo Port Drum 13602 FPrt McNeso

ATTN: AEBA-EH 09235 ATTN: APZS-EH-E ATTN ANEN 20319

ATTN: AHBA-EN 09235 Peet Imi 92310

SETAP ATTN: APZJ-BH USA ELo Activity. CaptLn Axon

ATTN AESE-ON-D 09613 Port Hood 76544 ATTN Laarey 22211

.TTN ABSE-EN 09630 ATTN, APZP-DE-AES Enyr

Suprot•o Albd Commsd Fot Memle 20755 Noiron APR 92409

ATTN, ACSGEB 09703 ATTN; APKA-ZI-EIH-A ATTN: LaUhony

ATTN: SHIMB/ENGR 09705

6t lsdeny Dsmsio, (Uilm) US Amy ARDEC 07906

INSCOM ATTN: APVR-DE 99505 ATTN: SMCAR-15i

ATTN: (ALOG.1 22060 ATTN: APVR-Wh-DE 99703

ATTN- lAY DEH 22136 Che.]e. E Kelly Spt Actrvity

NationlGoord Bloro 20310 ATTN' DEN 15071

USA TACOM 43397 ATTN: istoanlatbose Dv

ATTN; AMSTA-XE Engr Soeetam. Lbriey

Pon Bitoir 22060 ATTN. Acuqasnneos 10017

Defeore Diambtobo Rogsov Leat ATTN CETEC-IM-T

ATTNý DIRB-WI 17070 ATTN: CECCR 22060 Defse Nwir Agency

ATTN BEg, Smtreg Stedaie Ctr ATTN NADS 20305

HQ XVII] Aitbormes Corp 21307 ATTN. Autralian Len Off"e

ATTN APZA-IENH

This publication was reproduced on recycled paper.