Oxy-firing of Fired Process Heaters:

CFD Analyses and Comparison with Data

3rd Intl Oxy-Fuel Combustion Conference, Ponferrada, Spain

September 9 13, 2013

Jamal Jamaluddin Shell Global Solutions (US), Inc.

Jaime A. Erazo, Jr., Charles E. Baukal, Jr. John Zink Co., LLC
Presentation Outline

Project Summary

Background and objectives

Description of test furnace system
CFD simulation of test furnace, and comparison with data
CFD simulation of multi-burner VC and Box heater
Summary of simulation results

Conclusions

Acknowledgement
Project Background and Objectives

CCP is a partnership of major energy companies, working to advance

the technologies that will underpin the deployment of industrial-scale
CO2 capture and storage.

Since 2000, the CCP has undertaken more than 150 projects to improve
the understanding of the scientific basis, economic drivers and
engineering applications of the CCS technologies. CCP works with
government bodies, academics and global research institutes.

In CCP3, it was decided to confirm the technical feasibility of oxy-firing

process heaters and boilers, with the following objectives:

Assess the feasibility of utilizing conventional process heater burners for oxy-
firing, through single burner oxy-firing tests in a test furnace.
Perform CFD simulations of test furnace and oxy-fired multi-burner heaters.

The John Zink Co. was contracted to perform burner testing and CFD
simulations for fired process heaters.
Pictures of the Furnace System

Boiler, Fan, Flue Gas Ductwork

Test Furnace (Pictures courtesy of John Zink Co.)

Sketch of the Test Furnace System
 CFD Simulations of the Test Furnace

CFD simulations of the test furnace were performed using ANSYS

FLUENT v13.0 simulation code. A user-defined function was used to
calculate flue gas emissivities and absorption coefficients under oxy-
firing conditions. The following scenarios were simulated:

Two burners : PSFG and COOLstarTM

Two fuels : Tulsa Natural Gas and Simulated RFG (50% CH4,
25% H2 and 25% C3H8)
Two firing modes : Air-firing and Oxy-firing

COOLstarTM PSFG
Flame Shape (PSFG): Air- and Oxy-Fired TNG

Air-firing Oxy-firing

Air-firing Oxy-firing
Heat Flux Profiles (PSFG): Air- and Oxy-Fired TNG

Heat Flux Profile, Normalized Heat Flux Profile, Normalized

PSFG- TNG Air Case PSFG- TNG Oxy Case

30 30

25 25

20 20
Furnace Elevation (ft)

Furnace Elevation (ft)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Heat Flux - Normalized Heat Flux - Normalized
Test PSFG TNG-Air CFD PSFG TNG-Air
Test COOLstar TNG-Oxy CFD COOLstar TNG-Oxy

Incident Heat Flux: Air-Fired TNG Incident Heat Flux: Oxy-Fired TNG
Heat Flux Profiles (PSFG): Air- and Oxy-Fired RFG

Heat Flux Profile, Normalized Heat Flux Profile, Normalized

PSFG - RFG Air Case PSFG - RFG Oxy Case

30 30

25 25

20 20

Furnace Elevation (ft)

Furnace Elevation (ft)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Heat Flux - Normalized Heat Flux - Normalized
Test PSFG RFG-Air CFD PSFG RFG-Air Test PSFG RFG-Oxy CFD PSFG RFG-Oxy

Incident Heat Flux: Air-Fired RFG Incident Heat Flux: Oxy-Fired RFG
Flame Shape (COOLstarTM): Air- and Oxy-Fired TNG

Air-firing Oxy-firing

Air-firing Oxy-firing
Heat Flux Profiles (COOLstarTM): TNG Firing

Heat Flux Profile, Normalized Heat Flux Profile, Normalized

COOLstar - TNG-Air Case COOLstar - TNG-Oxy Case

30 30

25 25

20 20
Furnace Elevation (ft)

Furnace Elevation (ft)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Heat Flux - Normalized Heat Flux - Normalized
Test COOLstar TNG-Air CFD COOLstar TNG-Air
Test COOLstar TNG-Oxy CFD COOLstar TNG-Oxy

Incident Heat Flux: Air-Fired TNG Incident Heat Flux: Oxy-Fired TNG
Heat Flux Profiles (COOLstarTM): RFG Firing

Heat Flux Profile, Normalized Heat Flux Profile, Normalized

COOLstar - RFG Air Case COOLstar - RFG Oxy Case

30 30

25 25

20 20
Furnace Elevation (ft)

Furnace Elevation (ft)

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Heat Flux - Normalized Heat Flux - Normalized

Test COOLstar RFG-Air CFD COOLstar RFG-Air Test COOLstar RFG-Oxy CFD COOLstar RFG-Oxy

Incident Heat Flux: Air-Fired RFG Incident Heat Flux: Oxy-Fired RFG
General Arrangement Drgs: VC and Cabin Heaters

Vertical-Cylindrical Heater Cabin-Style Heater

Burner Arangement: VC Heater

PSFG Burners in VC Heater COOLstarTM Burners in VC Heater

Burner Arrangement: Cabin Heater

PSFG Burners in Cabin Heater COOLstarTM Burners in Cabin Heater

Flame Shape (VC Heater): Air- and Oxy-Firing

PSFG burner firing RFG

PSFG burner firing TNG

Flame Shape (VC Heater): Air- and Oxy-Firing

COOLstarTM burner firing RFG

COOLstarTM burner firing TNG

Flame Shape (Cabin Heater): Air- and Oxy-Firing

PSFG burner firing RFG

PSFG burner firing TNG

Flame Shape (Cabin Heater): Air- and Oxy-Firing

COOLstarTM burner firing RFG

COOLstarTM burner firing TNG

Summary of Simulation Results

Parameter Firing FRNC-5 CFD Result CFD Result

Condition Prediction (TNG) (RFG)
Bridge-wall Air-firing 1465 1455 1461
Temperature
(F)
Oxy-firing 1404 1423 1434

Radiant Air-firing 55 52.7 50

Efficiency (%)

Oxy-firing 67.7 61.9 64.5

 Conclusions

The flame shape and size, as well as temperature and heat flux profiles,
predicted by the CFD model agreed reasonably well with data collected in
the test furnace.

The CFD simulations closely matched the heater bridge-wall temperatures

and overall efficiencies previously calculated by FRNC-5 (heater deign
model).

CFD simulations predicted significant flame merging for both air- and oxy-
firing using the COOLstarTM burner in a vertical cylindrical heater, while
these phenomena were less evident for the PSFG burner. These trends are
thought to be the effect of imbalance in flue gas re-circulation pattern
within the firebox.

No flame distortion is predicted for either burner in a cabin-style heater.

The flames sizes are slightly smaller for oxy-firing, compared to the air-
fired case.

The simulations show that heater performance similar to air-fired

operation can be achieved when oxy-firing is employed.
References and Acknowledgements

References
J. Jamaluddin, C. Lowe, N. Brancaccio, J. Erazo, C. Baukal, Jr. and
R. Patel, Oxy-Firing Tests in a Simulated Process Heater, paper
presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the AFRC, Salt Lake City,
Utah (September, 2012).

J. Jamaluddin, C. Lowe, N. Brancaccio, J. Erazo, and C. Baukal, Jr.,

Technology Assessment of Oxy-Firing of Process Burners, paper
presented at the 2012 GHGT Conference, Kyoto, Japan (November,
2012).

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the CO2 Capture Project for their guidance
and financial support.