athomas236
Mechanical
Does anyone if Orimulsion has been fired in boilers successfully in commercial plant
Thanks
athomas236
Thanks
athomas236
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Orimulsion 7
- Thread starter athomas236
- Start date
- Status
-
2
- #2
Try a visit to this site for information:
Some years back i believe that they were trialing this fuel at Sandwich Power Station in the UK. I don't know what the outcome was since they closed the power station down.
I believe you will find that it is a fuel option for some large diesel engines. I would suggest a visit to the MAN B&W site and look for their Copehagen Research centre site. The engines they produce can burn some pretty mucky stuff.
JMW
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Some years back i believe that they were trialing this fuel at Sandwich Power Station in the UK. I don't know what the outcome was since they closed the power station down.
I believe you will find that it is a fuel option for some large diesel engines. I would suggest a visit to the MAN B&W site and look for their Copehagen Research centre site. The engines they produce can burn some pretty mucky stuff.
JMW
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
-
1
- #3
It was used at the florida power and light , sanford station, in about 1985. That station has since been demolished and replaced with a gas fired combined cycle plant.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Foster Wheeler had established a small company that had built an orimulsion processing plant, I believe the site was in Tennessee. The Orinoco coke was crushed and micro-pulverized and mixed with a plasicizing agent to keep it in suspension, and stored in RR tanker cars , but no buyers for the product evolved,, so the operation closed down after 2 yrs.
The joke at that time was that the most useful purpose for Orimulsion was to refill fire extinguishers, since it was so difficult to ignite you can easily put a fire out with it.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Foster Wheeler had established a small company that had built an orimulsion processing plant, I believe the site was in Tennessee. The Orinoco coke was crushed and micro-pulverized and mixed with a plasicizing agent to keep it in suspension, and stored in RR tanker cars , but no buyers for the product evolved,, so the operation closed down after 2 yrs.
The joke at that time was that the most useful purpose for Orimulsion was to refill fire extinguishers, since it was so difficult to ignite you can easily put a fire out with it.
As a PS this site provides some insites into the benefots of burning emulsified fuels:
JMW
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
JMW
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
-
4
- Thread starter
- #5
athomas236
Mechanical
Thanks Guys for your assistance.
JMW's first link was particularly useful. I am also following up FL&P and UK suggestions.
I did find a useful article in ModernPowerSystems, July 2003 about plant conversion in New Brunswick but I think there have been some problems with security of supply.
One of our clients is thinking of buying some 70's HFO fired 500MWe units and relocating them (boilers turbine the lot)then converting to Orimulsion.
Regards,
athomas236
JMW's first link was particularly useful. I am also following up FL&P and UK suggestions.
I did find a useful article in ModernPowerSystems, July 2003 about plant conversion in New Brunswick but I think there have been some problems with security of supply.
One of our clients is thinking of buying some 70's HFO fired 500MWe units and relocating them (boilers turbine the lot)then converting to Orimulsion.
Regards,
athomas236
Please keep us posted with any other needs. Be interesting to look at fuel heater control requirements.
JMW
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
JMW
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
GarethJones
Chemical
A number of trial burns of Orimulsion have been carried out in the UK. A few years ago there was a proposal to convert Pembroke power staion to Orimulsion firing but this fell through and the station has since been closed.
Orimulsion suffers from a number of problems, both from an operational and emissions point of view. As it contains relatively high levels of nitorgen and sulphur, anyone proposing to fire Orimulsion on a commercial basis will almost certainly have to install FGD and NOx removal systems. Close liasion with the environmental watchdog will be required from the early stages of the project.
Orimulsion suffers from a number of problems, both from an operational and emissions point of view. As it contains relatively high levels of nitorgen and sulphur, anyone proposing to fire Orimulsion on a commercial basis will almost certainly have to install FGD and NOx removal systems. Close liasion with the environmental watchdog will be required from the early stages of the project.
As I recall, the Orinoco coke also has a very high vanadium content. This can promote liquid phase corrosion of the superheater or reheater tubes if the surface metal temperature exceeds about 1100F. On the other hand , I have heard of attempts to collect and sell the economizer hopper ash due to its high vanadium content.
- Thread starter
- #9
athomas236
Mechanical
Experience with Orimulsion
In the following paragraphs there is a brief review of the experience burning Orimulsion. For convenience this review is made on a country by country basis.
Canada
Dalhousie Power Plant - New Brunswick Power
This plant consists of two tangentially fired, drum type boilers supplied by Combustion Engineering. Unit 1 was originally designed to burn 2.8% sulphur heavy fuel oil and has a maximum capacity of 100 MWe whereas Unit 2 was originally designed to burn 8% sulphur coal and has a maximum capacity of 215 MWe. Unit 1 started commercial operation in 1967 whereas Unit 2 in 1978. Both units started burning Orimulsion 100 in 1994 then switched Orimulsion 400 in 1998.
The early experience with these units showed increased furnace fouling and furnace exit gas temperatures compared with oil-firing which could result in excessive tube and steam temperatures in the superheaters and reheaters. This could be overcome by restricting the maximum operating load.
Initial testing on Unit 1 showed that the boiler efficiency dropped from 87.2% when burning fuel oil to 82.6% when burning Orimulsion 100. This was due to the effect of the high moisture content of Orimulsion 100 and the increased boiler fouling associated with Orimulsion 100 compare with fuel oil.
Operating experience also showed that it was necessary to shut the units down between annual outages for water washing when burning Orimulsion 100. This practise was not necessary after switching to Orimulsion 400.
When burning Orimulsion 100, the particulates in the flue gas at the economiser outlet were 250 mg/m3 (at 21°C, 0.5%O2) compared with 105 mg/m3 (at 21°C, 0.8%O2 ) for fuel oil.
Coleson Cove - New Brunswick Power
This plant consists of three units each having a capacity of 350 MWe. The boilers were supplied by B&W Canada in 1971 and are a typical two pass tower type designed to burn No. 6 fuel oil.
Based on their experience at Dalhousie, New Brunswick awarded a contract in early 2002 to B&W Canada to convert the boilers and supply the FGD systems. After conversion the boilers could burn either No. 6 fuel oil or Orimulsion 400.
The boilers were extensively modified the accommodate Orimulsion 400 and reduce NOx emissions. The existing 16 burners were replaced with 16 low NOx burners, 8 low NOx reburn burners and 9 overfire air ports.
The plant was originally intended to start burning Orimulsion in late 2004 but this may be delayed while the legal action by New Brunwick Power against BITOR determines if there is an enforceable agreement for the supply of Orimulsion. The BITOR position is that there is not an enforceable agreement.
Italy
The Brindisi Power Plant consists of four multi-fuel fired units (coal/oil/Orimulsion) each with a rated output of 660 MWe each. The boilers are of the opposed wall fired type and were supplied by Ansaldo.
Unit 1 started burning Orimulsion 100 in February 1998 and switched to burning Orimulsion 400 in November 1998. Unit 2 started burning Orimulsion 400 in 1999.
Experience on Unit 1 burning Orimulsion 100 showed higher fouling of heating surfaces and gas temperatures that were evident with oil firing. The higher fouling and gas temperatures were not evident when Orimulsion 400 was burned.
During initial operation these units experience some operating problems, mainly waterwall and cold end airheater corrosion which required modifications to the overfire air ports and airheaters to overcome these problems.
Units 3 and 4 at the Fiume Santo plant have an output of 320 MWe each and were originally designed to burn coal and fuel oil. The boilers are tangentially fired and were supplied by Franco Tosi.
The boilers were converted to burn Orimulsion 400 in 1999.
Operating experience on both units shows that the fouling of heating surfaces and gas temperatures when burning Orimulsion 400 are similar to those when burning fuel oil. Some initial operating problems were experienced and the installation of additional sootblowers and MgO injection system has been considered to overcome these problems.
Denmark
Asnaes, Unit 5 has an output of 670 MWe and started commercial operation 1981. The boiler is of the opposed fired type that was supplied by BWE and was originally designed to burn coal only.
In 1995, the unit started burning Orimulsion 100 and was converted to burning Orimulsion 400 in early 1999. During tests, following the conversion, the particulates in the flue gases were measured at 87 mg/Nm3 at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator.
In February 2003, the burning of Orimulsion ceased and the burning of coal restarted. This shift to coal firing was in advance of a month life-extending overhaul which included the installation of deNOx equipment and is scheduled to start in the spring of 2004. The reason for the long period of operation burning coal is said to be to clean up the entire system of Orimulsion residue. It is not known if the unit will burn Orimulsion in the future because the last supply contract ended in June 2003.
United Kingdom
The Richborough Power Plant consisted of three 120 MWe units which entered service in 1961-62. The boilers were supplied by John Thompson and were originally designed to burn coal. In the early 1970's all three units were converted to burn heavy oil. In 1991, units 2 and 3 were converted to burn Orimulsion 100 and continued to burn this fuel until 1995.
The Ince "B" Power Plant consisted of two 500 MWe units which entered service in 1982-83. The boilers were supplied by Clarke Chapman-John Thompson and were originally designed to burn heavy fuel oil. In 1991, both units were converted to burn Orimulsion 100 and continued to burn this fuel until 1995. During this period, units 2 and 3 operated at an average load factor of 70% and achieved an availability of 94%.
The precipitators at Ince were specifically designed for the collection of fly ash from Orimulsion and reduced the particulates in flues gases from 350 mg/Nm3 to approximately 35 mg/Nm3.
Use of Orimulsion 100 at Ince resulted in thin deposits of ash building up on the boiler heating surfaces and changes in the flue gas temperatures through out the boilers. Modifications to the boiler to minimise the impact of these changes in flue gas temperatures included the removal of the radiant front wall superheater, increasing the number of sootblowers in the convective section from 10 to 32 and converting several from compressed air to steam operation.
For financial reasons, Richborough was closed in early 1996 and Ince in early 1997.
Japan
The Osaka 4 unit has an output of 156 MWe and entered service in 1960. The boiler was supplied by Mitsubishi-Zosen and was designed to burn heavy oil and coal. The boiler was converted to burn Orimulsion 100 in 1994.
The Kashima-Kita Power Plant consists of five units with outputs of 95, 125, 165, 150 and 70 MWe for units 1 to 5 respectively and corresponding dates for starting operation of 1970, 1970, 1981, 1992 and 1999. Unit 2 was converted to burn Orimulsion in 1991 and was followed by units 1 and 4. Unit 5 was designed to burn Orimulsion as the main fuel with fuel oil as back-up.
In the following paragraphs there is a brief review of the experience burning Orimulsion. For convenience this review is made on a country by country basis.
Canada
Dalhousie Power Plant - New Brunswick Power
This plant consists of two tangentially fired, drum type boilers supplied by Combustion Engineering. Unit 1 was originally designed to burn 2.8% sulphur heavy fuel oil and has a maximum capacity of 100 MWe whereas Unit 2 was originally designed to burn 8% sulphur coal and has a maximum capacity of 215 MWe. Unit 1 started commercial operation in 1967 whereas Unit 2 in 1978. Both units started burning Orimulsion 100 in 1994 then switched Orimulsion 400 in 1998.
The early experience with these units showed increased furnace fouling and furnace exit gas temperatures compared with oil-firing which could result in excessive tube and steam temperatures in the superheaters and reheaters. This could be overcome by restricting the maximum operating load.
Initial testing on Unit 1 showed that the boiler efficiency dropped from 87.2% when burning fuel oil to 82.6% when burning Orimulsion 100. This was due to the effect of the high moisture content of Orimulsion 100 and the increased boiler fouling associated with Orimulsion 100 compare with fuel oil.
Operating experience also showed that it was necessary to shut the units down between annual outages for water washing when burning Orimulsion 100. This practise was not necessary after switching to Orimulsion 400.
When burning Orimulsion 100, the particulates in the flue gas at the economiser outlet were 250 mg/m3 (at 21°C, 0.5%O2) compared with 105 mg/m3 (at 21°C, 0.8%O2 ) for fuel oil.
Coleson Cove - New Brunswick Power
This plant consists of three units each having a capacity of 350 MWe. The boilers were supplied by B&W Canada in 1971 and are a typical two pass tower type designed to burn No. 6 fuel oil.
Based on their experience at Dalhousie, New Brunswick awarded a contract in early 2002 to B&W Canada to convert the boilers and supply the FGD systems. After conversion the boilers could burn either No. 6 fuel oil or Orimulsion 400.
The boilers were extensively modified the accommodate Orimulsion 400 and reduce NOx emissions. The existing 16 burners were replaced with 16 low NOx burners, 8 low NOx reburn burners and 9 overfire air ports.
The plant was originally intended to start burning Orimulsion in late 2004 but this may be delayed while the legal action by New Brunwick Power against BITOR determines if there is an enforceable agreement for the supply of Orimulsion. The BITOR position is that there is not an enforceable agreement.
Italy
The Brindisi Power Plant consists of four multi-fuel fired units (coal/oil/Orimulsion) each with a rated output of 660 MWe each. The boilers are of the opposed wall fired type and were supplied by Ansaldo.
Unit 1 started burning Orimulsion 100 in February 1998 and switched to burning Orimulsion 400 in November 1998. Unit 2 started burning Orimulsion 400 in 1999.
Experience on Unit 1 burning Orimulsion 100 showed higher fouling of heating surfaces and gas temperatures that were evident with oil firing. The higher fouling and gas temperatures were not evident when Orimulsion 400 was burned.
During initial operation these units experience some operating problems, mainly waterwall and cold end airheater corrosion which required modifications to the overfire air ports and airheaters to overcome these problems.
Units 3 and 4 at the Fiume Santo plant have an output of 320 MWe each and were originally designed to burn coal and fuel oil. The boilers are tangentially fired and were supplied by Franco Tosi.
The boilers were converted to burn Orimulsion 400 in 1999.
Operating experience on both units shows that the fouling of heating surfaces and gas temperatures when burning Orimulsion 400 are similar to those when burning fuel oil. Some initial operating problems were experienced and the installation of additional sootblowers and MgO injection system has been considered to overcome these problems.
Denmark
Asnaes, Unit 5 has an output of 670 MWe and started commercial operation 1981. The boiler is of the opposed fired type that was supplied by BWE and was originally designed to burn coal only.
In 1995, the unit started burning Orimulsion 100 and was converted to burning Orimulsion 400 in early 1999. During tests, following the conversion, the particulates in the flue gases were measured at 87 mg/Nm3 at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator.
In February 2003, the burning of Orimulsion ceased and the burning of coal restarted. This shift to coal firing was in advance of a month life-extending overhaul which included the installation of deNOx equipment and is scheduled to start in the spring of 2004. The reason for the long period of operation burning coal is said to be to clean up the entire system of Orimulsion residue. It is not known if the unit will burn Orimulsion in the future because the last supply contract ended in June 2003.
United Kingdom
The Richborough Power Plant consisted of three 120 MWe units which entered service in 1961-62. The boilers were supplied by John Thompson and were originally designed to burn coal. In the early 1970's all three units were converted to burn heavy oil. In 1991, units 2 and 3 were converted to burn Orimulsion 100 and continued to burn this fuel until 1995.
The Ince "B" Power Plant consisted of two 500 MWe units which entered service in 1982-83. The boilers were supplied by Clarke Chapman-John Thompson and were originally designed to burn heavy fuel oil. In 1991, both units were converted to burn Orimulsion 100 and continued to burn this fuel until 1995. During this period, units 2 and 3 operated at an average load factor of 70% and achieved an availability of 94%.
The precipitators at Ince were specifically designed for the collection of fly ash from Orimulsion and reduced the particulates in flues gases from 350 mg/Nm3 to approximately 35 mg/Nm3.
Use of Orimulsion 100 at Ince resulted in thin deposits of ash building up on the boiler heating surfaces and changes in the flue gas temperatures through out the boilers. Modifications to the boiler to minimise the impact of these changes in flue gas temperatures included the removal of the radiant front wall superheater, increasing the number of sootblowers in the convective section from 10 to 32 and converting several from compressed air to steam operation.
For financial reasons, Richborough was closed in early 1996 and Ince in early 1997.
Japan
The Osaka 4 unit has an output of 156 MWe and entered service in 1960. The boiler was supplied by Mitsubishi-Zosen and was designed to burn heavy oil and coal. The boiler was converted to burn Orimulsion 100 in 1994.
The Kashima-Kita Power Plant consists of five units with outputs of 95, 125, 165, 150 and 70 MWe for units 1 to 5 respectively and corresponding dates for starting operation of 1970, 1970, 1981, 1992 and 1999. Unit 2 was converted to burn Orimulsion in 1991 and was followed by units 1 and 4. Unit 5 was designed to burn Orimulsion as the main fuel with fuel oil as back-up.
Great information athomas236!
Given the time frames and given the normal problems with HFO which are probably worse for orimulsion, I am assuming that fuel heating was temperature controlled based on laboratory samples.
The drawbacks to heater control by this method, even with HFO, is the variability of the quality. Usually this means a combination of strategies to try and optimise efficiency. This would include excess oxygen flow to try and ensure complete combustion, laboratory sampling to regularly re-assess the target temperature and flame inspection.
Orimulsion is not a newtonian fluid so temperature alone is not a good indicator of the optimum temperature for injection.
At the optimum temperature the fuel is atomised into a well dispersed spray which mixes well with the air stream and burns in the optimum region for heating.
If the temperature is too low the higher viscosity results in larger droplets which (a) take longer to burn and (b) are projected further. This can lead to the fuel burning on the fire tubes and the excessive build up of soot. Fire tube burn through is a higher risk and soot blowing more frequent.
If the temperature is too high the droplet size is smaller and a non-dispersive spray forms which again does not mix well with the air and which burns closer to the nozzles.
This is the problem with HFOs in burners and in engines similar problems could occur. In most engines, however, fuel heater control doesn't use fuel temperature for a control point but uses an inline viscometer between the heater and the engine.
Fuel quality problems with burner operations (often a dirtier fuel and without cleaning)meant that viscometer was not an option at the time but is now. With orimulsion and fuel water emulsions the non-newtonian behaviour makes it more difficult to predict the optimum fuel temperature as when the fuel is sheared e.g. at the nozzles, its viscosity will change even at the same temperature.
It would be interesting to look at the strategy for viscosity control for orimulsion. There are significant efficiency savings to be made in HFO operation which is a simpler fuel. There is an article published about the Huntsman Chemical plant (Wilton, UK) change from temperature control to viscosity control which suggests some impressive cost benefits. Orimulsion may present more of a problem than HFO in a temperature based control strategy and the benefits of viscosity control might be even more marked... or very difficult to achieve., but athomas236's comments on cleaning are a possible consequence of incompete combustion; or the non-combustible residues of the orimulsion?
Some modern viscometers are very effective even with dirty fuels, for example are used with black liquor in paper plants which is also non-newtonian (several manufacturers) and bitumen emulsions (for road surface dressing heater control).
Athomas236, do you have any insights into the fuel heater strategies with orimulsion and do you know what temperatures the fuel was typically heated to?
As a footnote to the large diesel engine applications, FWE may run to 25% water or better. Water misting, fuel water emulsions and wet compession technology for turbines (Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, May 2004)all bring benefits to fuel combustion. The trick, as ever, is to find the optimum benefit to cost ratio.
JMW
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Given the time frames and given the normal problems with HFO which are probably worse for orimulsion, I am assuming that fuel heating was temperature controlled based on laboratory samples.
The drawbacks to heater control by this method, even with HFO, is the variability of the quality. Usually this means a combination of strategies to try and optimise efficiency. This would include excess oxygen flow to try and ensure complete combustion, laboratory sampling to regularly re-assess the target temperature and flame inspection.
Orimulsion is not a newtonian fluid so temperature alone is not a good indicator of the optimum temperature for injection.
At the optimum temperature the fuel is atomised into a well dispersed spray which mixes well with the air stream and burns in the optimum region for heating.
If the temperature is too low the higher viscosity results in larger droplets which (a) take longer to burn and (b) are projected further. This can lead to the fuel burning on the fire tubes and the excessive build up of soot. Fire tube burn through is a higher risk and soot blowing more frequent.
If the temperature is too high the droplet size is smaller and a non-dispersive spray forms which again does not mix well with the air and which burns closer to the nozzles.
This is the problem with HFOs in burners and in engines similar problems could occur. In most engines, however, fuel heater control doesn't use fuel temperature for a control point but uses an inline viscometer between the heater and the engine.
Fuel quality problems with burner operations (often a dirtier fuel and without cleaning)meant that viscometer was not an option at the time but is now. With orimulsion and fuel water emulsions the non-newtonian behaviour makes it more difficult to predict the optimum fuel temperature as when the fuel is sheared e.g. at the nozzles, its viscosity will change even at the same temperature.
It would be interesting to look at the strategy for viscosity control for orimulsion. There are significant efficiency savings to be made in HFO operation which is a simpler fuel. There is an article published about the Huntsman Chemical plant (Wilton, UK) change from temperature control to viscosity control which suggests some impressive cost benefits. Orimulsion may present more of a problem than HFO in a temperature based control strategy and the benefits of viscosity control might be even more marked... or very difficult to achieve., but athomas236's comments on cleaning are a possible consequence of incompete combustion; or the non-combustible residues of the orimulsion?
Some modern viscometers are very effective even with dirty fuels, for example are used with black liquor in paper plants which is also non-newtonian (several manufacturers) and bitumen emulsions (for road surface dressing heater control).
Athomas236, do you have any insights into the fuel heater strategies with orimulsion and do you know what temperatures the fuel was typically heated to?
As a footnote to the large diesel engine applications, FWE may run to 25% water or better. Water misting, fuel water emulsions and wet compession technology for turbines (Diesel & Gas Turbine Worldwide, May 2004)all bring benefits to fuel combustion. The trick, as ever, is to find the optimum benefit to cost ratio.
JMW
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
- Thread starter
- #11
athomas236
Mechanical
Orimulsion is usually looked on as a "dirty" fuel but for our project Orimulsion is the "clean" fuel. The main fuel is refinery residue with 7% sulpur and a viscosity of 700000cSt at 100C.
I will check on the temperature for atomising but the burner supplier who is working with us recommends a viscosity of 16cSt.
Regards,
athomas236
I will check on the temperature for atomising but the burner supplier who is working with us recommends a viscosity of 16cSt.
Regards,
athomas236
Athomas236, you have surprised me! Can I cross check that viscosity with you...700,000cSt at 100C? As a (presumed) non-Newtonian fluid, do you know at what sheer rate was this measured?
Compared to a typical HFO where the viscosity is 35cSt at 100C (for engines; burner fuels tend to be more viscous) that seems kind of sticky.
11-12cSt is a typical optimum for engines injection and 16cSt is well inside the typical range for burners but to get there you would need a lot of fuel heating. A 380cSt (at 50C) injection temperature (11cSt optimum) is around 142C.
Using ASTM D341, I can usually fudge the injection temperature for most fuel oils (same sort of fudge as the oil company calculators use) but for the viscosity you quote I have no feel for the A & B values. I would need a viscosity at another temperature (the spread sheet I use is on my web site; the spread sheet calculation of injection temperature is accurate but the fudge is to find the viscosity at a second temperature by looking for "good" A & B values).
The “orimulsion” 400 looks to have a fuel temperature of around 98C to achieve an injection viscosity of 16cSt, if one assumes a Newtonian fuel, which it isn’t. How does the sheer rate of 100 reciprocal seconds compare to the apparent sheer rate of the nozzles?
Orimulsion is a produced fuel so I would expect some degree of consistency dependent on the blending and emulsifying process. Refinery produced fuels for own use, show much less consistency than commercially produced fuels which are to comply with standards such as CIMAC. Un-processed Residuum will show variation dependent on the current refinery processes and the efficiency of those processes.
JMW
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Compared to a typical HFO where the viscosity is 35cSt at 100C (for engines; burner fuels tend to be more viscous) that seems kind of sticky.
11-12cSt is a typical optimum for engines injection and 16cSt is well inside the typical range for burners but to get there you would need a lot of fuel heating. A 380cSt (at 50C) injection temperature (11cSt optimum) is around 142C.
Using ASTM D341, I can usually fudge the injection temperature for most fuel oils (same sort of fudge as the oil company calculators use) but for the viscosity you quote I have no feel for the A & B values. I would need a viscosity at another temperature (the spread sheet I use is on my web site; the spread sheet calculation of injection temperature is accurate but the fudge is to find the viscosity at a second temperature by looking for "good" A & B values).
The “orimulsion” 400 looks to have a fuel temperature of around 98C to achieve an injection viscosity of 16cSt, if one assumes a Newtonian fuel, which it isn’t. How does the sheer rate of 100 reciprocal seconds compare to the apparent sheer rate of the nozzles?
Orimulsion is a produced fuel so I would expect some degree of consistency dependent on the blending and emulsifying process. Refinery produced fuels for own use, show much less consistency than commercially produced fuels which are to comply with standards such as CIMAC. Un-processed Residuum will show variation dependent on the current refinery processes and the efficiency of those processes.
JMW
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
Based on today's telecon with the Orimuslion distributor, no further future contracts for Orinoco bitumen or it products is to be allowed by the Venezualen ministry of trade- they have conducted an economic analysis and determined that greater benefits are to be had by instead processing the Orinoco bitumen to higher quality liquids and also sell the resulting pet coke.
- Thread starter
- #14
athomas236
Mechanical
Thanks davefitz
We had the same information at a diplomatic level.
athomas236
We had the same information at a diplomatic level.
athomas236
To jmw: the viscosity levels indicated by athomas236 can be obtained by extended vacuum distillation, or by propane deasphalting, of residues having a high sulfur content (more than 4%) from special "heavy" crudes. The penetration and ductility values of these hard, brittle bitumens are similar to those of highly oxidized (air blown) asphalts.
- Thread starter
- #16
This link may prove useful;
as it deals with the combustion of heavy fuels.
JMW
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
as it deals with the combustion of heavy fuels.
JMW
Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
- Thread starter
- #18
athomas236
Mechanical
JMW,
Thanks for the link about combustion of heavy oils. Have printed some of the sections, now trying to understand them.
By the way that high viscosity foe refinery residue of 700000cSt at 100C has been confirmed. So we will need steam at about 350C to heat the residue to about 320C for atomising.
regards,
athomas236
Thanks for the link about combustion of heavy oils. Have printed some of the sections, now trying to understand them.
By the way that high viscosity foe refinery residue of 700000cSt at 100C has been confirmed. So we will need steam at about 350C to heat the residue to about 320C for atomising.
regards,
athomas236
Those viscosities look in the order of what the asphalt from our ROSE unit had. I know the client at one time was looking at a prilling process to convert it into a fuelable form rather than trying to handle it as a liquid because of the problems keeping it liquid. In the end, we elected to simply make it into marine fuel oil.
Have you looked at using a low value aromatic cutter to reduce the viscosity to something that is easier to handle?
Have you looked at using a low value aromatic cutter to reduce the viscosity to something that is easier to handle?
- Thread starter
- #20
athomas236
Mechanical
TDK2,
Unfortunately, the refinery is already under construction and we have the fuel delivered over the fence, so there is no opportunity for us to influence the process.
athomas236
Unfortunately, the refinery is already under construction and we have the fuel delivered over the fence, so there is no opportunity for us to influence the process.
athomas236
- Status
