Bubbling Fluid Bed Boiler Emissions Firing Bark &

Sludge
D.L. Kraft
Babcock & Wilcox
Barberton, Ohio, U.S.A.
BR-1661

Presented to:
1998 TAPPI Engineering Conference
September 14-18, 1998
Atlanta, Georgia

Abstract
A Bubbling Bed Boiler in the Pacific northwest has been
commissioned and operated for more than two years. The unit
fires a combination of mill-generated bark, purchased wood
waste, and sludge. The sludge is approximately 2/3 primary and
1
/3 secondary. The uniqueness of the project is the ability to
operate the unit within the strict emissions permit under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
The combustion related emissions being controlled are CO, SO2,
HCl (all under 50 ppm), NOx and Dioxin destruction. Dioxin
emissions are assumed destroyed by controlling the combustion process to continuously provide flue gas temperature above
1800F for a minimum of 1 second residence time, which is a
continuous measurement and control tripping function.
The paper describes the interplay between the different control strategies for each pollutant. The process is a complex
chemical reaction with multivariable control strategies that conflict with each other, necessitating a predictive controller to
expand the operating window of the system. Also described are
emissions from other bubbling bed sources and fuels.

Introduction
The Pulp & Paper Industry fires a variety of fuels to meet
their energy needs. The traditional mill-generated bark is being
displaced or supplemented with other solid fuels to lower energy costs. Today, the mill-generated bark is often supplemented
with wood waste from the local area, which can change the bark
characteristics. For example, wood waste can be different in
size distribution, moisture and nitrogen content, and heating
value. Sludge is added to the solid fuel mix due to landfill limitations and costs. Sludge varies in moisture, ash, sulfur, chlo-

Babcock & Wilcox

rine, nitrogen content and heating value. Additionally, mills are

looking for alternate fuel supplies to co-fire with the bark and
sludge, such as Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) or coal. All of these
variations can have an impact on the emissions and the boiler
design. The intent of this paper is to describe the impact on the
boiler design by a range of fuels and the air permit requirements for a Bubbling Fluidized Bed (BFB) boiler.

Emissions
Before proceeding with a discussion on the impact of pollution control on the boiler design, the following is a brief description of the mechanisms of pollutant formation and the individual control techniques that are unique to the bubbling fluid
bed combustion process.

Sulfur Dioxide: SO2

During the combustion process, the sulfur in fuel converts
to sulfur dioxide (SO2). Left uncontrolled, the amount of SO2
release is assumed to be the total amount of sulfur converting
to SO2. One control technique unique to the fluid bed combustion process is adding a sorbent, such as limestone, to the bed
with the fuel feed. The limestone calcines in an endothermic
chemical reaction, which occurs above 593C (1100F).
CaCO3 CaO + CO2
The CaO reacts with the SO 2 in an exothermic chemical reaction called sulfation reaction. This chemical process is temperature sensitive and the rate of reaction is at its peak in a
815C (1500F) to 871C (1600F) environment, which is a typical
primary zone combustion temperature for the BFB combustion
process.
CaO + SO2 + 1 /2O2 CaSO4

Nitrogen Oxides: NOx

Nitrogen oxides are formed during the combustion process.
The two basic mechanisms for NOx formation are thermal and
fuel bound nitrogen conversion.

Thermal NOx
Thermal NOx is formed during high temperature combustion processes. The nitrogen in the air is oxidized when the nitrogen and oxygen are dissociated and recombine the form NO x.
The three principal reactions are: [1,2]
N2 + O NO + N
N + O 2 NO + O
N + OH NO + H
The process is strongly temperature and to a lesser extent
oxygen dependent. The rate of reaction is exponential based on
temperatures above 1204C (2200F).

Fuel Bound NOx

The conversion of the nitrogen in the fuel to NOx is basically dependent on oxygen availability (or limiting). The nitrogen in the fuel can be tied up with char or the volatile matter.
The combustion control technique is to limit the oxygen availability during the initial combustion process to allow enough
time for the N molecules to react with other N molecules to
form stable N2 molecules before finding oxygen molecules. The
volatile release of nitrogen can account for most of the fuel nitrogen conversion, in particular, for high volatile fuels such as
bark, wood and sludge. One control technique for the volatile
nitrogen release is to provide a residence time at near stoichiometric conditions to allow enough time for the nitrogen molecules to combine.

NOx Control: Selective Noncatalytic Reduction

Technology (SNCR)
When combustion control techniques are not enough to control the NOx emissions, the next control strategy is an SNCR
system. There are two basic SNCR technologies. Exxon developed an ammonia based technology called Thermal DeNOx@.
The other is an urea based technology developed under the sponsorship of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Both
technologies spray their chemical agent into the upper furnace
to reduce NOx emissions.
The ammonia reaction is:
4NO + 4NH3 + O 2 4N 2 + 6H 2O
The Urea reaction is:
2NO + (NH 2) 2CO + 1/2O 2 2N 2 + 2H2O + CO 2
Both processes depend on spraying into a 815C (1500F) to
1093C (2000F) flue gas temperature with each having its optimum temperature. Therefore, there are multi-levels of nozzles
on the furnace walls and the control strategy is to switch levels
based on boiler load and fuels being fired to hit the best temperature window for the process. For bark/sludge fired BFBs,
the temperature profile above the overfire air and before the
superheater inlet is quite compatible with the desired temperatures for the SNCR systems.

Carbon Monoxide: CO
Carbon monoxide formation is directly related to the mixing
of the fuel and air at sufficient temperature. The control techniques are combustion related. The better the fuel is distributed

to the combustion process and the better the mixing at the

overfire air elevation, the lower the CO emissions level.

Dioxin Destruction: Time at Temperature

When there is chlorine in the fuel, there is the possibility of
forming dioxin. The source of chlorine is usually sludge. One
control technique is to design the furnace such that there is a
certain temperature for a certain furnace residence time to thermally destroy the dioxin: that is, a residence time at a temperature level or Time at Temperature (T@T). Some examples are
850C (1562F) for 2 seconds and 982C (1800F) for 1 second.
The residence time is after the last admission of air into the
furnace.

Hydrocarbons: Expressed as CH4

Like the CO emissions, the hydrocarbon emissions are strictly
dependent on mixing the combustion air with the fuel at sufficient temperature. Controlling the CO emissions is a good indication the hydrocarbons will be low. Hydrocarbon emissions
are usually less than 1/10th of the CO value firing bark, sludge
and wood waste.

Hydrochloric Acid: HCl

Hydrochloric acid is formed from the hydrogen in the fuel
and the chlorine in the sludge. BFB pilot data firing sludge shows
the conversion rate is high. The control technique is limestone
input to the combustion process. Like the SO 2 absorption by
the lime, hydrochloric acid will combine with the lime but at
significantly lower process temperatures. The excess limestone
fed to the furnace will result in lime carryover to the last particulate control device where the temperatures are conducive
for the reaction of the lime with HCl. The reaction occurs as the
gas contacts the ash on baghouse bags or electrostatic precipitator wires. If the particulate control device is a baghouse, the
absorption rate can be in excess of 70% while burning high
moisture fuels.

BFB Bed Temperature Control

It is not the intent of this paper to discuss the basic BFB
combustion technology in any great detail, but for those interested, the referenced paper [3] describes the combustion technology more completely. However, a brief discussion on bed temperature control is important due to its impact on pollution control.
Controlling bed temperature while firing bark and sludge is
accomplished by operating the bed in a substoichiometric atmosphere. Therefore, increases in the fluidizing air flow raise
the bed temperature (inbed heat release) and decreases in air
flow lower the bed temperature. For variations in the fuel moisture, the bed air flow varies to control bed temperature. As moisture increases, the fluidizing air flow is raised to release more
of the fuels heat to evaporate the additional water in the bed.
As moisture decreases, the air flow is lowered to lower inbed
heat release. For each of these control actions, there is an equal
and opposite air flow change in the overfire air system to maintain constant total air flow. Also, with the switching of air from
the bed to the overfire air system there is a change in the upper
furnace temperature profile. As heat release is moved from the
bed to above the overfire air elevation, the upper furnace temperatures increase. The increase can be 100s of degrees, a point
that is important for T@T and NOx control.

Babcock & Wilcox

It is important to design BFBs for a wide range of fuels or

fuel characteristics. One important fuel component to vary is
moisture. It is expected that the fuel moisture would vary from
wet winter and spring weather to dry summer days. For fuel
moisture contents above 55%, the fluidizing air is 70 to 80% of
the total air flow. For moisture contents below 45%, the fluidizing air is less than half of the total air flow to control the same
bed temperature. One equalizer for a wide moisture range is to
add Flue Gas Recirculation (FGR) to the fluidizing air flow for
the dry fuel condition. FGR is a heat sink that is a quick responding control strategy for bed temperature control. However,
to keep the FGR flow reasonably low, the first control strategy
is to lower the bed stoichiometry. The lower the bed stoichiometry the lower the FGR flow.

The project is a new boiler firing bark, wood waste and sludge
with natural gas capability (See Figure 1). The unit is capable
of producing 54,545 kg/hr (120,000 lb/hr), 400C (750F), 43 bar
(625 psi) steam. The primary project justification is to burn all
of the mill-generated sludge since the landfill option was no
longer attractive. Since the Spring 1996 startup, wood waste is
purchased to increase the steam production from solid fuel.
The boiler is permitted under the Oregon Department of
Environmental Qualitys (DEQ) incinerator rules, which are
much more stringent than the boiler rules. The air permit requirements and the results of the State compliance test are listed
in Table 1. The general control strategies for each of the pollutants are listed in Table 2.

Combustion Control Setup

Example BFB Project

The topics up to this point have been general background
information on pollutants and the basic BFB technology. The
next subject is a review of an operating BFB boiler firing wood
waste and sludge with an air permit that is one of the most stringent in the United States for a boiler without a scrubber. The
combustion control and the pollution control strategies conflicted, which provided a unique opportunity to discover the
true capabilities of the technology.

Limestone, Sludge and Wood

The unit normally fires a 40% sludge and 60% wood waste
mixture. The moisture content ranges from 48% in the summer
to 65% in the winter. For bed temperature control, the fluidizing air flow is varied to control the inbed heat release and FGR
is added to the bed during the Summer. To minimize the amount
of FGR, the combustion controls reduce the fluidizing air flow,
which lowers the inbed heat release. The combustion control
strategy is to allow the fluidizing air and FGR flows to be controlled by the bed temperature controller, without regard to the
impact on pollutant formation. The bed temperature must be
controlled.

Attemperator

Superheater

Fuel Mixing
Screw
Metering
Bin

Gas
Economizer
Generating
Bank
Tubular
Air Heater

Air

Rotary Airlocks
Overfire Air System

Burners
Steam Coil
Air Heater

Fuel Spouts

Fluidized Bed

Silencer

Ash
Conveyors

Forced Draft
Fan

Figure 1 Example B&W BFB project.

Babcock & Wilcox

Table 1
Emissions Permit Versus Actual Values
Permit Values

DEQ Compliance Test

CO

50 ppm

15 ppm

SO2

50 ppm

35 ppm, 80% reduction

NOx

175 ppm

155 ppm, 55% reduction

HCl

50 ppm

2 ppm, 90+% reduction

VOC

50 ppm

<0.1 ppm

T@T = 1 sec 1.35 sec

above 982C (1800F)
All ppm values are corrected to 7% O 2 dry.

Table 2
Design Control Strategies for the Individual Pollutants
CO

High velocity over fire air system, excess air, fuel

distribution and good fluidization

SO 2

Limestone feed with the fuel feed

NOx

SNCR with ammonia injection

T@T

Controlling the combustion split between the bed

and the upper furnace

HCl

Limestone feed with the fuel feed and a

baghouse for the flue gas/lime contactor

VOC

Same as CO control

Individual Pollutant Control Setup

CO: The CO responds well when the overfire air flow produces a static pressure at the nozzle in excess of 74 mm (30 in.)
of water. The control strategy is to maintain a high overfire air
flow, or reduce the fluidizing air flow as much as possible.
SO2: Limestone is added to the bed through the fuel feed
system. The SO 2 reduction is greatest when the fluidizing air
flow is at maximum flow. The sulfation reaction requires oxygen. When the fluidizing air flow is reduced to control the bed
temperature, the limestone input increases. When the bed stoichiometry is reduced below a certain point, the lime/SO2 reaction seems to shut down and the SO2 controller increases the
limestone input to maximum. When SO2 is being controlled,
the fluidizing air flow can not be lowered as low as the bed
temperature control would normally allow. The control strategy is to maintain as high a fluidizing air flow as possible.
NO x: The SNCR system works well. The set point value is
easily controlled. The NO x varies with changes in the bed stoichiometry, but there are enough demands on the fluidizing air
flow setting that NOx is not controlled by air splits. The limestone input increases the NO x when the limestone input is high.
Minimizing the limestone input lowers the ammonia flow. The
control strategy is to allow the SNCR system to solely control
NO x and to minimize the limestone input.

T@T: The Time at Temperature is continuously measured

and controlled. Failure to satisfy T@T is a solid fuel trip. The
flue gas flow rate is measured at the stack and corrected to the
boiler outlet O2. There are temperature measurement probes at
3 and 7.5 m (10 and 25 ft) above the overfire air elevation. The
temperature probes are calibrated against HVT traverses (from
startup). The DCS graphs the furnace temperature profile and
determines the height above the overfire air elevation the flue
gas temperature drops below 982C (1800F) and calculates the
time the flue gas is above 982C (1800F). If the time drops below 1 second, the solid fuel feed system is tripped.
The fuel moisture is vaporized in or around the bed. Therefore, the heat released by overfire air combustion is sensible
heat, which raises the flue gas temperature. The upper furnace
temperatures can vary more than 149C (300F) by changing the
fluidizing air flow. That is, the inbed heat release is lowered by
lowering the fluidizing air flow and the heat release above the
overfire air is increased, which raises the upper furnace temperatures. As the fuel moisture decreases, the upper furnace temperatures are increasing. However, as the fuel moisture increases,
the bed temperature controls increase the fluidizing air flow to
increase the inbed heat release, to raise the bed temperature,
which lowers the upper furnace temperatures. Finally, as FGR
is increased, the upper furnace temperatures decrease. The control strategy is to lower the bed stoichiometry (lower fluidizing
air flow) and to minimize FGR flow to maintain T@T above 1
second.
Each one of these control strategies relies on the fluidizing
air flow setting. However, there are competing interests as to
where to set the fluidizing air flow. SO 2 control wants high fluidizing air flow. T@T and NOx control want low fluidizing air
flow. CO wants low fluidizing air flow for high overfire air flow.
Finally, the bed temperature control wants to vary the fluidizing air flow to what is required to maintain the set point temperature; high air flow in the winter and low air flow in the
summer.
The operation of a BFB is a matrix between fluidizing air
flow and fuel types. In this case the matrix is multilevel due to
the pollution control requirements. To develop the control settings using normal single loop controls, which would simultaneously satisfy all of the requirements for the fluidizing air flow
and for the range of fuels, would be too restrictive. That is, the
window of operation would be too narrow. A multi-input, multivariable controller[4] now controls the DCS combustion controls. This predictive controller has expanded the window of
operation. The controller is set up by inputting all of the control
variables (CO, SO2, T@T, etc.) and inputting all of the control
actions that influence each control variable. The controller
switches its priority control set point as a limit is being approached. With this controller, a setting can be controlled much
closer to a limit than with conventional single loop controls,
which expands the window of operation, and allows the unit to
operate in compliance with the air permit.

Boiler Design
The described project is an extreme example. The unit operates in compliance because the unit is small and based loaded.
A larger load swinging BFB boiler is not going to operate within
such tight air permit requirements. However, the same control
strategies would be implemented on larger BFB boilers to control the same pollutants to higher values and the boiler design

Babcock & Wilcox

would be impacted by the same constraints. To assure the BFB

combustion system and the pollution control strategies are adequately designed, the following is offered as a guideline.
1. Understand the fuels being fired. Know the range of moisture, sulfur, chlorine, ash and heating value for each fuel
by analyzing samples over the seasons. Do not make up
fuel analyses because the resultant theoretical air could
be fictitiously too low and cause the fans to be under sized
or too high and cause over sizing of the bed. An oversized bed will limit the turndown capabilities of the boiler.
Specify a normal fuel mix, but consider upset conditions
or off-normal fuel mixes. For example, the unit needs to
continue to operate when the sludge presses break or the
woodyard is down. Another example is the combined fuel
heating value may change in the future if mill-generated
bark is displaced with purchased wood waste, or sludge
is increased due to expanding the recycle capacity of the
mill. If the BFB is not designed for these upsets or changes
in fuel properties, the boiler will not operate as expected.
2. Understand the environmental permit requirements. The
BFB design can not be finalized until the permit is finalized.
Given that the range of fuels and air permit requirements are
defined, the impacts on the boiler design are:
The wettest fuel combination at full load normally sets the
bed plan area and the fluidizing air fan capacity. The bed
area is set by the highest full load bed velocity, and the wet
fuel condition requires the highest fluidizing air flow to
maintain the bed temperature; therefore, the highest bed
velocity. The wet fuel condition normally produces the
highest flue gas weight, which sets the furnace height for
adequate residence time, sets the convection pass velocities, sizes the ID fan and sets the particulate control device
volume.
The driest fuel combination at full load normally sets the
FGR flow requirements and the overfire air fan capacity.
As the fuels become drier, the bed stoichiometry is reduced
from the wet fuel condition to control the bed temperature.
However, for the driest fuel condition, FGR is added to the
bed for greater bed temperature control. As fluidizing air
is reduced, the overfire air increases to maintain the total
air flow. At the minimum bed stoichiometry, the overfire
air and FGR flows are at their greatest.
For combined moisture content greater than 55 to 60%, the
combustion air needs to be preheated to control the bed
temperature without auxiliary fuel input. Therefore, economizer surface is replaced with air heater surface. Note, as
the air heater size increases, the FGR requirement for the
dry fuel condition increases so do not overextend the wettest fuel condition above what is reasonable. If the moisture peaks above the design (wet condition), auxiliary fuel
could be added to the bed to maintain the bed temperature.
This could be acceptable if the maximum moisture is exceeded for only short periods.
If SO 2 is to be controlled by limestone input to the bed, the
FGR capacity requirement increases. The bed stoichiometry can not be lowered as low as the bed temperature controller would normally allow. The sulfation process shuts
down when there is not enough air in the bed. Therefore,
there is a minimum (higher) bed stoichiometry for SO2 control. At the higher bed stoichiometry the inbed heat release
is higher, which requires higher FGR flow to control the

Babcock & Wilcox

bed temperature. FGR is set by the sulfation process firing

the driest fuel combination, and the bed area, furnace, convection pass, ID fan and particulate control device volume
could be set by this condition if the wet fuel condition is
not significantly higher than the dry fuel condition.
Typical uncontrolled NO x valves are 227 to 340 mg/Nm 3
(0.2 to 0.3 lb/MBtu) with nitrogen content less than 0.215
mg/kJ (0.5 lb/MBtu). A SNCR is typically used if lower
NOx values are required or the nitrogen content is high.
Low CO levels require high static air pressure in the overfire
air system. The example project requires static pressures
in excess of 74 mm (30 in.) of water to control CO below
50 ppm. Therefore, the overfire air fan static pressure could
be set by the CO requirements. Other factors affecting CO
are excellent fluidization of the bed and good distribution
of the fuel to the bed. Typical range depending on the NOx
limit is 170 to 340 mg/Nm3 (0.15 to 0.3 lb/MBtu).

Supplemental Fuels
Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) is a popular supplemental solid fuel.
The TDF is delivered to the mill sized below 50 mm (2 in.) and
98% of the wire removed. This fuel burns well in the bed, but
doing so impacts the emissions. The sulfur content averages
about 1.25%. The amount of TDF firing can be limited by the
maximum SO2 emissions allowed by the permit or by adding
TDF to the fuel mix could force the BFB to control the SO2
emissions by feeding limestone. If the BFB is designed for SO2
control, the next limiting constraint to the amount of TDF input
is bed temperature control. The TDF has a high heating value
and adding TDF to the fuel mix increases the overall heating
value of the combined fuel to the bed. Therefore, the bed stoichiometry is reduced further and the FGR flow is increased.
There are lower limits to the overall bed stoichiometry and with
about 25 to 30% by heat input from TDF, these limits are being
reached.
The NO x from tires is about 230 to 260 mg/Nm3 (0.2 to 0.23
lb/MBtu) and is not influenced by conventional combustion
control techniques. The best explanation offered is the nitrogen
in man-made products is released differently than the nitrogen
release from naturally formed fuels. In any event, the NOx from
TDF tends to slightly increase the overall emission rate.
Coal is another possible supplemental fuel. For 100% recycle plants, sludge is the only free fuel from the paper process,
so all other fuels are purchased. Sludge from recycle plants tends
to be low in heating value and requires support fuel to maintain
the bed temperature. Since all other fuels are purchased, the
lowest cost fuel will be the support fuel and that may be coal. If
it is, the BFB design is driven by the design rules for coal. Unlike the biomass fired BFBs, the bed stoichiometry is not reduced significantly below theoretical air flow while firing coal.
The coal ash softening temperatures in reducing atmospheres
can be low and cause bed agglomeration. Therefore, the fluidizing air flow is maintained at approximately theoretical air flow.
The coal input is set by what is required to control the bed temperature or until the maximum FGR flow is reached for higher
coal inputs.
The emissions are set primarily by the coal. The SO2 will be
controlled by either limestone injection or with a backend scrubber depending on the removal efficiency required by the air
permit. Some small coal source emitters require only 70% SO2
removal and the BFB with limestone injection can satisfy this

level of reduction. For 90% removal efficiency, a scrubber will

be required. The NOx from coal will be higher than from sludge.
The average NOx emissions from a BFB firing coal only is 455
to 570 mg/Nm 3 (0.4 to 0.5 lb/MBtu). Typically a SNCR system
will be required for coal and sludge fired BFBs.

Summary
When considering a BFB, the single greatest point to define
is the range of fuels and to specify (guarantee) that the unit is to
operate over the entire range of fuels. The next point would be
to understand the impact of the environmental permit on the
BFB specification to assure the equipment is sized adequately.
If these two points are followed, the design of the BFB should
satisfy the requirements of the project.

References
1. Zeldovich, J.B., Oxidation of nitrogen in combustion and
explosion, Academic des Sciences de lURSS-Comptes Rendus
(Doklady), Vol. 51, No 3, pp. 217-220, January 30, 1946.
2. Sarofim, A.F., and Pohl, J.H., Kinetics of nitrogen formation in premixed laminar flames, presented at the Fourteenth
Symposium on Combustion, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, Pennsylvania, August 20-25, 1972.
3. Kraft, D.L., Fluidized Bed Combustion of Sludge and
Woodwaste, presented at the 1994 TAPPI Engineering Conference, San Francisco, California, September 19-22, 1994.
4. Treiber, S.S., et al., Closed-Loop Plant Wide Optimization, presented at CPPA 92, Whistler, B.C., September, 1992.

Babcock & Wilcox