Gas and liquid contact apparatus – Contact devices – Wet baffle
Reexamination Certificate
1999-06-18
2001-07-31
Simmons, David A. (Department: 1724)
Gas and liquid contact apparatus
Contact devices
Wet baffle
C261S113000, C261S117000, C261SDIG009
Reexamination Certificate
active
06267358
ABSTRACT:
FIELD AND BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to the field of flue gas desulfurization absorbers and, in particular, to a new and useful absorber arrangement for use in high velocity absorbers having straight, non-flared tank walls.
2. Description of the Related Art
Commercialization and development of high velocity absorbers is pursued because of the economic advantages they offer such as lower capital cost, less real estate requirements, shorter and more compact absorbers, and improved SO
2
removal efficiency. On the other hand, high velocity has some disadvantages such as increased resistance to gas flow and increased sensitivity of the system to changes in the hydraulic behavior of the gas and liquid phases. Physical model studies show that the gas velocity through the inlet of the absorber affects gas distribution in the absorber and reflects on the performance and behavior of the absorption zone and mist eliminator.
Regardless of the physical shape of the absorber, the resistance to gas flow is categorized as either useful resistance or parasitic resistance. Useful resistance is converted directly and entirely into scrubbing efficiency and participates in gas redistribution such as the absorption zone pressure drop. Parasitic resistance is expended to conduct the gas through the absorber confines without effective participation in the chemical process. The inlet and outlet resistances are good examples of this type of resistance. The use of turning vanes or other gas distribution devices is a simple solution to reduce outlet resistance. However, the inlet pressure drop is not easy to reduce because it affects the gas and the scrubbing liquid interaction throughout the absorber.
Traditional absorber inlets vary in shape and size but the shape of the inlets is basically the same.
FIG. 1
shows the commonly offered inlet design (without protective awning). In this design, the liquid flowing off the absorber walls
12
or sprayed by nearby spray headers, falls into the inlet
14
and forms a solid growth known as “elephant ears”. To overcome this problem and as shown in
FIG. 2
, protective intrusive awnings
16
were placed on top of the inlet
14
(see U.S. Pat. No. 5,281,402 to Gohara et al.). The awning diverted the contact point between the hot gas and the liquid curtain flow into the center of the absorber. Elephant ears formation is averted because gas humidification occurs in an area where there is minimum contact between the hot gas and the solid surfaces. This design has been proven functional at the traditional gas velocities and when the spray zone resistance is large enough to affect even distribution before the gas reached the mist eliminator further up in wall
12
. As the gas velocity increases, however, the curtain resistance adds significantly to the overall system parasitic pressure drop and distortions to gas flow pattern becomes more critical.
While the liquid curtin is needed to humidify and help gas redistribution, it has two significant drawbacks. It significantly increases the inlet pressure drop compared to a no awning inlet, and it distorts the flow pattern as the gas rises through the absorber.
In a new generation of high velocity absorbers, gas velocity is set between 15 and 20 feet per second. Minor distortion in the gas flow pattern results in localized high gas velocities approaching or exceeding the critical velocity of the mist eliminator and may result in functional failure of the mist elimination device.
To overcome the negative effects of high gas velocity in the inlet, one could increase the inlet's flow area and limit the gas velocity to the conventional 3,000 feet per minute. This solution, while simple and practical, will result in a larger inlet aspect ratio and increases the absorber height. An increase in absorber height minimizes the advantages gained by high velocity scrubbing. Other options include advanced low pressure drop gas inlets for the new generation of high velocity absorbers, or the use of available means within the system to redistribute the gas flow without significant increase in inlet resistance.
A current inlet design of The Babcock & Wilcox Company requires the installation of the protective awning
16
on top of the inlet
14
to deflect the slurry away from the hot flue gas flow and prevent the deposition of solids at the wet/dry interface. However, at high absorber gas velocity, obstruction of the gas path by the high density liquid curtain deflects the gas to the sides causing a momentary increase in gas velocity, an increase in pressure drop, and possible distortion.
Recent model studies and operating experience teaches that between 1 and 12.5 feet per second, the current inlet designs provide good gas distribution across the absorber at or below 3,000 feet per minute inlet velocity. The good gas distribution is provided partially by the resistance of the liquid curtain, falling off the awning to the entering gas. The primary function of the awning is to provide protection against inlet wetness and to provide ample resistance to slow down the entering gas, thus allowing the gas adequate time to redistribute itself across the absorber flow area. At a gas velocity below 12.5 feet per second reasonable gas distortion in the absorber will not approach the critical failure velocity of the mist eliminator.
As the gas velocity increases above 12.5 and approaches 20 feet per second or more, the resistance of the liquid curtain falling off the awning becomes significant and magnifies the effects of gas flow distortion.
Several attempts were made to reduce the resistance of the awning first by introducing a new generation of non intrusive awnings. In these designs, the awning is removed from the inlet's gas stream and placed above the inlet. See for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,403,523 to Strock, et al.; and U.S. Pat. No. 5,558,818 and 5,648,022 to Gohara et al. Each of these developments contributed to the reduction of the inlet's parasitic pressure drop caused by the intrusion of the original awning into the gas flow path. These designs, however, added 3 feet to the height of the absorber and none of them totally eliminated the effect of the heavy density liquid curtain.
These prior efforts were steps in the right direction to reduce the inlet's parasitic resistance; however, in every case the curtain resistance remained the same. Considering that one inch (water) of pressure drop is evaluated at $1 million over the life of the plant, reduction of the parasitic resistance of the absorber provides a significant competitive edge. Table 1 compares the pressure drop of an inlet with and without awning.
TABLE 1
Comparison of Inlet Pressure Drop
for No Awning and Awning Designs*
Non-Intrusive
Description
Intrusive Awning
Awning
No Awning
Inlet Pressure
4.59
3.50
2.50
Drop (Inch Water)
*Inlet velocity 3,600 feet per minute, liquid flux 60 gpm per square foot, absorber velocity 15 feet per second.
It should also be noted that the prior solutions for absorbers are adapted only for absorbers with flared walls, and do not apply to absorbers with straight, vertical walls.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
It is an object of the present invention to provide an improved gas inlet with a low pressure drop for absorbers having straight, unflared recirculation tanks.
Accordingly, an absorber with a recirculation tank having straight walls between the gas inlet and tank is provided having a perforated tray positioned above the gas inlet across the entire area of the absorber. A ring around the outer edge of the tray lacks perforations, or the perforations are covered. A drip ledge is located on the bottom of the tray around the inner edge of the non-perforated ring. Baffles are positioned over the tray as well. The baffles may extend between the walls of the absorber, or they may only occupy the space over the perforations in the tray.
The invention addresses the potential increase in the tray pressure drop by deviating from the prior art and reduces the pressure dr
Gohara Wadie F.
Hall William H.
Watson George B.
Edwards Robert J.
Hopkins Robert A.
Marich Eric
Simmons David A.
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
LandOfFree
Low pressure drop inlet for high velocity absorbers with... does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Low pressure drop inlet for high velocity absorbers with..., we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Low pressure drop inlet for high velocity absorbers with... will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2465618