SOOTBLOWING OPTIMIZATION: FIELD EXPERIENCE1

Dr. Nenad Sarunac and Mr. John Sale

Energy Research Center, Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015
ABSTRACT
Furnace and convective pass slagging and fouling have a negative effect on boiler
performance and emissions. Sootblowing controls the level of ash and slag deposits on
the boiler heat-transfer sections. Excessive sootblowing can cause opacity excursions,
unfavorable temperature distributions, and can be responsible for increased
maintenance in fossil-fired boilers.
Sootblowers perform on-line cleaning of localized areas using high-pressure steam or
air. Boiler operators typically follow one continuous sootblowing sequence. Most rely
on manufacturers recommendations, while some try to improve sootblower activation
strategy by employing a trial-and-error approach. Considering the importance of
sootblowing on plant operations and availability, sootblower operations need more
attention.
The Lehigh University Energy Research Center (ERC) has developed a practical,
knowledge-based approach to sootblowing optimization and has implemented it in the
sootblowing optimization code called IntelliCLEAN. The ERC approach can deal with
various optimization goals, such as steam temperature control, opacity reduction, SCR
inlet temperature control, and reduction of sootblower activation frequency. This paper
describes the approach; implementation on a 500 and 400 MW tangentially fired boiler,
operating experience, and benefits to the plants.
INTRODUCTION
All coals contain mineral matter in coal ash. Furnace slagging occurs as molten or
sticky fly ash particles come in contact with the furnace walls or other radiant surfaces
and form deposits due to the quenching effect of the tube wall. Slag deposits reduce
heat transfer to the furnace walls, and increase the amount of heat available to the
convection pass. This results in a higher furnace exit gas temperature (FEGT) and, for
subcritical boilers, in a higher steam temperature, desuperheating spray flows and NOx
1

Prepared for presentation at the EPRI 2007 Heat Rate Improvement Conference at Charlotte, NC,
January 24-26, 2007

emissions. Deposition of ash on tubes or heat transfer surfaces in the convective pass
reduces heat transfer in that part of the boiler. The convective pass fouling results in
less heat is transfer to the working fluid, a decrease in steam temperature and
desuperheating spray flows, and in an increase in flue gas temperature at the boiler
exit.
Sootblowing controls the level of ash and slag deposits on heat transfer sections.
Sootblowers perform on-line cleaning of localized areas using high-pressure steam or
air. Wall blowers and water cannons remove slag from furnace water walls, while
retractable blowers clean the convective pass of the boiler (including the air preheater).
Furnace cleaning increases radiation heat transfer to water walls and reduces the
FEGT. This decreases the amount of heat that is available to the convective pass.
Therefore, over-cleaning of furnace walls can result in low steam temperatures (below
design level) with resulting heat rate penalties and increased moisture levels and
erosion damage in last stages of the low-pressure turbine. Reduced reheat steam
temperature also results in lower turbine and unit power output.
The challenge in sootblowing optimization is to determine which sections of the boiler to
clean and on what schedule, considering the trade-offs between NOx, stack opacity,
steam temperatures, heat rate and other factors such as tube life, sootblower steam or
air consumption and maintenance cost. For utilities affected by the Ozone Transport
Season (OTC) regulations, these trade-offs will be different during the OTC than for the
rest of the year. For best boiler performance, it is important to maintain an optimal
balance between furnace and convective pass heat transfer.
ERC APPROACH TO SOOTBLOWING OPTIMIZATION
The ERC has developed a practical and intelligent sootblowing optimization approach,
described in References [1 to 9], for balancing furnace and convection pass heat
transfer to improve boiler performance, reduce NOx emissions, and minimize
disturbances caused by sootblower activation. The basis for the approach is the
premise that knowledge is stronger than data. The following five steps describe the
approach:
Step 1: Setup Instrumentation and Calculations
Step 2: Characterize Sootblowers
Step 3: Create Data and Knowledge Bases
Step 4: Update Knowledge-Based Expert System (KEBS)
Step 5: Implement and Evaluate Intelligent Sootblower Advisor (ISA)
The ERC sootblowing optimization approach depends on a database describing the
effects of sootblower activation on parameters, such as cleanliness of heat transfer
surfaces, steam temperatures, attemperating sprays, emissions, opacity, and other
2

parameters of interest. The sootblower characterization database (SBCD), created

from a series of sootblower characterization tests, contains of the effect of one
sootblower or sootblower group at a time on parameters of interest. The knowledgebased expert system (KBES) uses a knowledge base, developed from the SBCD along
with process data, to determine an optimal sootblower activation strategy. Some of the
knowledge is generic while other is site-specific. The site-specific part of the knowledge
depends on the arrangement of heat transfer surfaces and location of sootblowers
relative to the heat transfer surfaces.
The approach is implemented as an intelligent sootblowing optimization code
IntelliCLEAN, that employs KBES and combines live process and sootblower activation
data to make real-time on-line decisions on optimal sootblower activation. A schematic
representation of the IntelliCLEAN is presented in Figure 1. The code runs on-line in
real time and, based on the live process data, recommends an optimal sootblower
activation sequence. IntelliCLEAN also adapts to changes in fuel quality and
sootblower maintenance status.

SOOTBLOWER
CHARACTERIZATION
TESTS

LIVE PROCESS DATA

SOOTBLOWER
CHARACTERIZATION
DATABASE

INTELLIGENT SOOTBLOWING
ADVISOR (ISA)

SOOTBLOWER
CHARACTERIZATION
KNOWLEDGE BASE

SOOTBLER ACTIVATION
DATA

Figure 1: Schematic Representation of the IntelliCLEAN code

LAMBTON UNIT 3
The ERC teamed with CANMET and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to implement
Sootblower Advisory System (SAS) at Lambton Unit 3. The SAS consists of an Ash
Monitoring System (AMS), which calculates cleanliness factors for boiler convective
pass sections and IntelliCLEAN. CANMET developed and implemented the AMS,
which is a first-principles model that performs a series of heat and mass balance
calculations and transforms operating data into information on section cleanliness in
boiler convective pass, Ref. [6]. The ERC developed and implemented IntelliCLEAN.

Unit Description
Lambton Unit 3 is a subcritical, divided furnace, tangentially fired unit, rated at 520
MW e. The unit fires medium sulfur eastern bituminous coal. Fifty-four wall blowers,
arranged in three elevations clean the furnace. Eighteen retractable blowers arranged
in seven elevations clean heat transfer surfaces in the convective pass of the boiler
(Figure 2).

FEGT B
East

53

42

46
A

39

43

EL 690 ft

41

40 West

38

45
44
North

52
4

47
5

South

54

49

48

FEGT A

CAMERAS

51
50

36

37

35
33

34

32
31

30

24
23

29
22

28

EL 679 ft
COAL BURNERS

21
20
27

19

26

18

15
25

17

14
13

16

12
11

10

EL 633 ft

5
4
3

9
2

8
7

Figure 2: Sootblower Locations at Lambton Unit 3

The ERC uses an inferential approach to determine the cleanliness of the lower furnace
using a correlation between furnace cleanliness and the measured value of the FEGT.
The FEGT uses two pairs of infrared gas temperature probes. The first pair is installed
at the exit of lower furnace, while the second pair was located upstream of the outlet
reheater. The heat balance for that section uses the second probe pair.
Objectives
The objectives and goals of the sootblowing optimization program at Lambton were the
reduction of sootblowing frequency and erosion damage to boiler tubes, maintaining
steam temperatures close to their set-point values, control of burner tilt angle (avoiding
high positive tilts), and maintaining the SCR gas inlet temperature below a critical value
for good catalyst performance. Prior to installation of the SAS, the unit operators had
no information on the cleanliness status of heat transfer sections. They deployed
sootblowers on a fixed time schedule or at their discretion (Figure 3).
4

Lambton Unit 3: February 11th 2006, Regular SB Practice

80
Furnace

70

Convective Pass

Sootblower in Service

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0:00

4:00

8:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0:00

Time

Figure 3: Regular Sootblowing Practice: Fixed Time Schedule

Field Implementation
The ERC performed sootblower characterization tests at Lambton Unit 3 under full load
operating conditions. The ERC analyzed the characterization test data to determine the
effect of activation of individual sootblower groups on section cleanliness, and boiler
performance and emission parameters. The ERC created the SBCD using these
results. The SBCD includes information on the magnitude and duration of the effect of
each sootblowing group on cleanliness of heat transfer sections, NOx emission rate,
steam temperatures, RHT desuperheating spray, FEGT, and SCR gas inlet
temperature. The ERC developed the knowledge base using SBCD.
The ERC used the knowledge base to develop a Lambton-specific version of the KBES
and incorporated it into the IntelliCLEAN code. The ERC implemented IntelliCLEAN in
an on-line advisory mode at Lambton in December 2005. IntelliCLEAN provides the
unit operator with on-line advice on when and where to activate sootblowers.
CANMET implemented the SAS at Lambton Unit 3 using the OPC (OLE for Process
Control) Server/Client approach. ABB Canada provided the OPC server, which
provides access to the distributed control system (DCS) data. The team implemented
the AMS and IntelliCLEAN as OPC clients configured to receive live DCS process data
via the OPC server. The OPC server is connected to the plant DCS via the Ethernet.
5

The team developed DCS screens for the unit operators to display the SAS results.
The overview screen (Figure 4) displays process data, cleanliness status, time elapsed
since last sootblowing (TSS) for all heat transfer sections, and ISA advice. The
operator can select a particular heat transfer surface to obtain more information. Detail
screens are available for each heat transfer section and include graphical
representation of a section cleanliness status and time trend.

Figure 4: SAS Overview Screen

Results
The team performed a preliminary evaluation of the SAS performance using FebruaryMarch 2006 operating data (Figure 5). The basis for the event-driven strategy is the
basic IntelliCLEAN goals: (1) maintain optimal balance between furnace and
convective pass heat transfer, and (2) minimize disturbances due to sootblower
activation. The SAS sootblower activation strategy is radically different from the fixed
sootblowing schedule (Figure 3). It employs combinations of furnace and convective
pass sootblower activations to minimize disturbances and satisfy optimization goals and
imposed constraints. Please note that, despite an increase in furnace sootblowing
frequency, the SAS sootblowing strategy has decreased the total sootblower running
time by 70 minutes (11 percent) due to a decrease in convective-pass sootblowing.
6

This is because running time for a furnace wallblower is one minute, while for a
convection pass sootblower it is ten minutes.
Table 1 compares the regular and SAS sootblowing strategies. The results show that
the SAS strategy resulted in a cleaner furnace and convection pass, and lower burner
tilts (Figure 6). Lower burner tilt angles had a big positive impact on clinker formation
on the platen SHT. Reheat desuperheating spray flow was significantly lower (Figure
7), resulting in a heat rate improvement. In addition, due to the lower burner tilts, NOx
emissions were lower, resulting in lower ammonia flow to the SCR. Both sootblowing
strategies preserved the steam temperature set points. The average SCR inlet
temperature with the SAS in operation was 406C, which is 3C higher compared to the
regular sootblowing sequence. The reason for this higher temperature is that the SAS
configuration maintains the SCR gas inlet temperature below a default set-point value of
410C.
Table 1: Comparison of SAS and Regular Sootblowing Practices
Parameter

Units

Regular
Sootblowing
Practice

Unit Load

MW

520 20

518 3

no change

FEGTavg

1,208 22

1,210 16

no change

Burner Tilt

degrees

2.5 4.1

0.7 2.5

1.8 deg.
decrease

Excess O2

3.2 0.1

3.2 0.1

no change

Main Steam
Temp.

545 2

545 2

no change

RHT Steam
Temp.

539 2

539 2

no change

RHT Spray
Valve

% open

23 12

11 9

52% smaller

NOx

ppm

252 17

247 9

5 ppm lower

SCR Gas Inlet

403 3

406 2

3C higher

Furnace

SB Activations

37

68

80% increase

Convective
Pass

SB Activations

60

49

20% reduction

SB Activation

minutes

637

558

70 min.
decrease

SAS
Sootblowing
Practice

Change

Lambton Unit 3: February 27th 2006, SAS in Operation

80
Convective Pass
Furnace

70

Sootblower in Service

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0:00

4:00

8:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0:00

Time

Figure 5: Event-Driven SAS Optimal Sootblowing Strategy

Lambton Unit 3

Average Burner Tilt Angle Position [Degrees]

10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Regular SB Practice
SAS in Operation

-8
-10
0:00

4:00

8:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0:00

Time

Figure 6: Burner Tilt Angle: Regular vs. SAS Sootblowing Strategy

8

Lambton Unit 3
50
Regular SB Practice
SAS in Operation

Average RHT Spray Valve Position [%]

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0:00

4:00

8:00

12:00

16:00

20:00

0:00

Time

Figure 7: Average RHT Spray Valve Position: Regular vs. SAS Sootblowing Strategy
In summary, at Lambton Unit 3, the SAS sootblowing strategy met all optimization
goals: reduced sootblowing, improved performance, and control of SCR gas inlet
temperature. Additionally it resulted in lower emissions, and cleaner platen SHT.
BRIDGEPORT UNIT 3
Unit Description
Bridgeport Unit 3 is a 400 MW net tangentially fired unit converted to burn a blend of U.S.
Eastern bituminous and low-sulfur Indonesian coals. Characteristics of Indonesian coal
are a low heating value, low Hardgrove grindability index, high moisture content, low
ash content, low nitrogen, high ash iron content, and low ash softening temperature.
The unit has a Combustion Engineering (CE) TFS-2000R low-NOx firing system
(retrofitted in 2000) to comply with the State of Connecticut year round NOx emission
regulation of 0.150 lb/MBtu. Other environmental constraints that apply to this unit
include stack opacity limited at 20 percent on a 6-minute rolling average and selfimposed CO emissions below 100 ppm.
The plant suffers from high opacity spikes that occur at high load conditions and high
ambient temperature due to marginally sized ESP and large temperature stratification at
the ESP inlet. The unit has implemented an automated load runback (derate) provision
9

that reduces unit load when the stack opacity exceeds the 20 percent limit for more than
allowed time.
The plant has performed modifications to the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) ductwork
internals and controls and, in collaboration with the ERC, has worked on improving the
operating conditions affecting fly ash resistivity and ESP collection performance. The
ERC engineers performed combustion tuning and optimization in 2004 to reduce NOx
emissions, improve unit performance, and part load capacity.
Indonesian coals, burned at Bridgeport, have lower-than-design ash fusion temperature,
and, therefore, cause slagging of the upper furnace (division walls in particular).
Although slagging in the lower furnace is light, due to the highly reflective slag, furnace,
frequent wall blowers activation keeps the FEGT below 2,500F. Due to low ash
content (less than one percent), convective pass fouling is light.
The furnace is cleaned by 48 wall-blowers, arranged in 3 elevations (Lower Elevation
(LE), Middle Elevation (ME), and Upper Elevation (UE)). Retractable sootblowers
divided into nine groups of two, clean the convection pass of the boiler (Figure 8). The
FEGT measurement is at the furnace exit plane using one infrared probe.
Economizer Outlet Link T, P

Final SHT T, P
Radiant RHT
Outlet T, P

Pendant RHT

65,66

59,60

51,52

SHT Division Wall

49,50
57,58

SHT Division Wall

53,54

Platen SHT

55,56

Drum

Horizontal
Primary SHT

Feedwater
Inlet T, P

Drum P, T

Downcomers

RHT Desuperheating Spray

63,64

Economizer

Radiant RHT (Front Wall)

61,62

Final RHT T, P

Final SHT (SHT Rear

Pendant)

Vertical Primary SHT (SHT

Rear Pendant)

SHT Desup.
Spray

Rear
WW
Tubes

FEGT
Radiant RHT
(Side Wall)

RHT Desuperheater
Inlet T, P
RHT
Desuperheater
Outlet T, P
(Radiant RHT Inlet)

1,16

Cold RHT Flow

17,32

Even No - North
Odd No - South

Burner
Belt

Side WW Tubes
Side WW Tubes

33,48

Boiler Circulating Pump

Front
WW
Tubes

WW Crossover Lines
Rear Lower
WW Drum

Pump Discharge Lines

Front Lower
WW Drum

Figure 8: Sootblower Locations at Bridgeport

A fixed sootblowing schedule, programmed into the sootblower control system, is
available to Unit 3s operators for use at their discretion. Historical operating data
indicated that sequential activation of all wall blowers produced large cyclic variations in
main steam temperature. Cleaning the convection pass increased the main steam
10

temperature and removing slag from the furnace water walls decreased the main steam
temperature. Such cycling of the main steam temperature is not desirable because it
stresses both the boiler and the steam turbine.
With the normal sootblowing sequence, multiple load runbacks (usually 2 to 4), caused
by lingering opacity spikes, occurred during a typical day (Figure 9). In addition, a large
drop in steam temperature occurred during transient and reduced load operation. Note
that there is no sootblowing during reduced load operation.

Load runrun-back

Temp.
Drop
OS

OS

OS
OS

Daily
Cal.

No Sootblowing
Figure 9: Opacity spikes and load derates at Bridgeport
Objectives
The objective of the Bridgeport sootblowing optimization project was the development of
an optimal sootblowing strategy that will control the amount of ash and slag allowed to
accumulate on heat transfer surfaces, prevent opacity spikes due to sootblowing, and
reduce sootblower activation frequency. In addition, the optimal sootblowing strategy
should maintain main and reheat steam temperatures close to their set-point values to
improve unit heat rate, and maintain the FEGT below a target value to control furnace
and pendant slagging.

11

Field Implementation
The technical approach for developing intelligent sootblowing at Bridgeport Harbor was
similar to the approach used at Lambton.
The ERC performed sootblower
characterization tests to determine the effect of individual sootblower groups on steam
temperatures, emissions, opacity, and other parameters of interest. The ERC analyzed
the test data, developed a SBCD, and used the SBCD to develop plant-specific
knowledge base. The main difference is at Bridgeport Harbor is that decisions
concerning boiler section cleanliness status and sootblower activation are made using
an indirect (inferential and knowledge-based) approach.
The ERC developed and implemented into the IntelliCLEAN code a Bridgeport Harbor
specific version of the KBES using the plant-specific knowledge base. IntelliCLEAN
uses a Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE) interface with the unit DCS.
Results
After installation, IntelliCLEAN at Bridgeport entered service in August 2005. In the online advisory mode, IntelliCLEAN recommends, in real time, which sootblowers or
groups of sootblowers to activate and when to activate them. In addition, the advisor
displays the current values of the relevant process parameters, such as FEGT, steam
temperatures, and stack opacity. It also gives operators execution options for
example, pausing sootblowing or skipping individual blowers or groups (Figure 10).
The ERC performed an evaluation of the effect of IntelliCLEAN on unit operation
performance and emissions at a unit load of 385 MW net in late August 2006. Data
collected during the evaluation tests showed that with the IntelliCLEAN in service, load
runbacks caused by lingering opacity spikes occurring during normal sootblower
activation sequence, were eliminated (Figure 11). IntelliCLEAN reduced stack opacity
by 25%; and opacity spikes were less frequent, shorter in duration, and smaller in
magnitude, compared to the regular sootblowing sequence.

12

Figure 10: IntelliCLEAN - Main operator screen at Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3

The results, summarized in Table 2, also show the IntelliCLEAN successfully controlled
FEGT and main and reheat steam temperatures close to their set points of 2,450oF,
1,005oF, and 1,005oF, respectively. Reheat desuperheating spray flow was reduced by
more than 30 %, and the boiler exit gas temperature was lowered by 5 to 8oF. As a
result, unit heat rate improved. This also resulted in a 5 percent SO3 injection rate
reduction for opacity control.
Table 2: Average Test Values
Date

ISA

Tmst

Trht

Status

Mrht,spray FEGT Opacity Teco,go Tesp,gi SO3

Klb/hr

8-22

Off

1,000 1,002

64

2,454

10.5

727

309

73

8-23

Off

1,002 1,004

62

2,458

9.2

725.5

304

72

8-24

On

1,002 1,004

49

2,449

7.9

720.5

303

70

8-25

On

1,003 1,005

46

2,432

7.9

716

300

65

-15.5

-15.5

-1.95

-8

-5

-5

Difference
% Diff

+1.5

+1.5

-32
13

-24.7

Regular Sootblowing Sequence

IntelliCLEAN in Operation

Opacity-Induced Load Derate [MW]

120

100

80

60

40

No Derates with IntelliCLEAN

20

0
8/22/05 0:00

8/22/05
12:00

8/23/05 0:00

8/23/05
12:00

8/24/05 0:00

8/24/05
12:00

8/25/05 0:00

8/25/05
12:00

8/26/05 0:00

8/22/05
12:00

8/23/05 0:00

8/23/05
12:00

8/24/05 0:00

8/24/05
12:00

8/25/05 0:00

8/25/05
12:00

8/26/05 0:00

100

Opacity [%]

80

60

40

20

0
8/22/05 0:00

24

48

Time (hrs)

Figure 11: Comparison of daily load and opacity profiles

Closed Loop Control
Based on the benefits, achieved with IntelliCLEAN operating in the advisory mode of
operation, the plant operations personnel decided to close the control loop. In the
spring of 2006, plant controls engineers put IntelliCLEAN in the closed-loop control
mode of operation. Since then, IntelliCLEAN has controlled the sootblowers on a 24/7
basis. The intelligent, knowledge-based closed-loop control system operates over
entire load range, including transient operation of the boiler.
The plant operations staff evaluated the benefits of closed-loop control by comparing
operating data from July-August 2005 (prior to IntelliCLEAN deployment) with JulyAugust 2006 (with IntelliCLEAN operating in closed-loop control mode). With
14

IntelliCLEAN running, automatic load runbacks were eliminated (Figure 12), resulting in
a 12 MW (3%) increase in unit power output. IntelliCLEAN achieved better control of
steam temperatures during reduced load and transient operation. The furnace and
boiler were cleaner, resulting in lower desuperheating spray flows, lower boiler exit gas
temperature, lower SO3 injection rate, and improved unit efficiency. The impact of
optimized sootblowing on O&M costs still needs to be determined.

AR

Better steam temperature control

Daily
Cal.

Sootblower
in Service

1-48 Furnace
Convection pass cleaned
4848-66 Convection Pass
to maintain steam temps.
Figure 12: Daily load, opacity, and temperature profiles: IntelliCLEAN operating in
closed loop mode

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The ERC performed sootblowing optimization of Lambton Unit 3 and Bridgeport Harbor
Unit 3 using methods and procedure developed by the ERC. The ERC IntelliCLEAN
code provides on-line sootblowing advice at both plants. In spring 2006, The ERC
implemented IntelliCLEAN in closed loop control mode at Bridgeport Unit 3.
Lambton Unit 3
The objectives and goals of the sootblowing optimization program at Lambton Unit 3
were the reduction of sootblowing frequency and erosion damage to boiler tubes,
maintaining steam temperatures close to their set-point values, control of burner tilt
angle, and maintaining SCR gas inlet temperature below critical value for good catalyst
performance. The Lambton results show that the event-driven sootblowing strategy
15

recommended by IntelliCLEAN was radically different than the regular sootblowing

practice. It resulted in smaller disturbances due to sootblowing, cleaner furnace and
convective pass, lower burner tilts, lower platen SHT slagging, lower RHT spray flows,
better unit performance, lower NOx, lower ammonia flow to the SCR, and reduction in
sootblower activation time. In addition, IntelliCLEAN maintained the SCR gas inlet
temperature below a specified set-point value. Fine-tuning the IntelliCLEAN code
settings will improve performance.
Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3
The objectives of the Bridgeport Harbor Unit 3 sootblowing optimization project were
different from Lambton Unit 3: They included the development of an optimal sootblower
strategy that will maintain unit performance and eliminate opacity-caused load runbacks
and provide on-line operators advice on optimal sootblower activation.
At Bridgeport Harbor, management of ash and slag accumulation is of primary
importance. To avoid opacity spikes causing load runbacks, it is important to keep the
boiler cold end clean. This also helps decrease flue gas temperature into the ESP, and
fly ash conditioning with SO3. Convection pass fouling is light and activation of
convection pass sootblowers has no measurable effect on tube metal temperatures in
that section of the boiler. Nevertheless, convective pass has to be cleaned on regular
basis to control ash accumulation. With IntelliCLEAN in service, automatic load
runbacks were eliminated resulting in a 12 MW (3%) increase in unit power output. In
addition, IntelliCLEAN achieved better control of steam temperatures during reduced
load and transient operation. The furnace and boiler were cleaner, resulting in lower
desuperheating spray flows, lower boiler exit gas temperature, lower SO 3 injection rate,
and improved unit efficiency. The impact of optimized sootblowing on O&M costs still
needs to be determined.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge contribution of the following individuals: Dr. Carlos
Romero, Dr. Xiaodong Bian, Ph.D. candidate Wei Zhang (ERC), Bruce Clements and
Richard Pomalis (CANMET), Chris Micu and Collin Andrews (Lambton Generation
station), and Michael Cilinski, Thomas Johnson, and John Bokowski (Bridgeport
Harbor).
REFERENCES
1. Sarunac, N., Romero, C.E., Clements, B., Pomalis, R., Henrikson, J., Cylwa, W.
and Luk, J., Sootblowing Optimization: Part 1 - Methodology, Instrumentation
and Determination of Section Cleanliness, Presented at Combustion Canada
2003 Conference, September 21-24, 2003, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
2. Sarunac, N., Romero, C.E., Shan, J., Bian, X., Clements, B., Pomalis, R.,
Henrikson, J., Cylwa, W. and Luk, J., Sootblowing Optimization: Part 2
Sootblower Characterization and Implementation of an Intelligent Sootblowing
16

Advisor, Presented at Combustion Canada 2003 Conference, September 21-24,

2003, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
3. Sarunac, N. and Romero, C., Sootblowing Optimization and Intelligent
Sootblowing, Presented at 4th Intelligent Sootblowing Workshop, Houston,
Texas, March 2002.
4. Sarunac, N., Romero, C. E. and Bilirgen, H., Optimization of Sootblowing in
Utility Boilers, EPRI Heat Rate Conference, Birmingham, Alabama, January 2830, 2003.
5. Sarunac, N., Romero, C.E. and Levy, E. K., Combined Optimization for NO x
Emissions, Unit Heat Rate and Slagging Control with Coal-Fired Boilers, 28th
International technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, March
9-14 2003, Clearwater, Florida.
6. Pomalis, R., Clements, B. R. and Abdallah, I. Ash Monitoring System for
Lambton Generation Station Unit 3, CETC Division Report CETC-O-ACT-03-14
(CF), Natural Resources Canada, 2003.
7. Sarunac, N. and Romero, C.E. Sootblowing Operation: The Last Optimization
Frontier, Presented at the 29th International Technical Conference on Coal
Utilization & Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Florida, April 18-22, 2004.
8. Sarunac, N. and Romero, C.E. Sootblowing Operation: The Last Optimization
Frontier, Presented at the 29th International Technical Conference on Coal
Utilization & Fuel Systems, Clearwater, Florida, April 18-22, 2004.
9. Sarunac, N., Romero, C.E., Bilirgen, H., Bokowski, J. And Cilinski, M.,
Comprehensive Approach to Performance Improvement and Emissions
Reduction on a 400 MW Tangentially-Fired Boiler: Part 2 ESP Performance
Improvement and Sootblowing Optimization, Presented at the 30th International
Technical Conference on Coal Utilization and Fuel Systems, April 2005,
Clearwater, Florida.

17