deposit removal

Interaction between sootblower

jet and superheater platens
in recovery boilers
By D. Tandra, A. Kaliazine, D. E. Cormack, and H. Tran
Abstract: The flow characteristics of a sootblower jet passing between superheater platens in a
recovery boiler are examined experimentally using a laboratory apparatus and numerically using
a computational fluid dynamics code with a modified turbulence model. Experimental and simulation results show that, depending on the jet position, the interaction between the jet and the platen surface greatly lowers the jet peak impact pressure. The interaction is pronounced as the jet axis
is near the platen, but becomes negligible as the jet moves away from it.
on heat
transfer tubes in recovery boilers is
controlled with sootblowers that blast
the deposits with high pressure,
superheated steam jets. Sootblowers
consume a large amount of steam (3 to 12% of
the total steam produced by the boiler), and thus,
need to be operated as efficiently as possible. The
efficiency of a sootblower in removing deposits is
directly related to the peak impact pressure (PIP)
of the jet, i.e. the stagnation pressure measured
along the nozzle centreline downstream of the
nozzle. The PIP, at a fixed distance from the nozzle exit, increases with an increase in nozzle size,
sootblowing steam flow rate and pressure, but
decreases rapidly in the axial direction of the jet
due to the turbulent entrainment of surrounding
gases [1,2].
As a sootblower jet sweeps through superheater platens, its flow characteristics may be
altered by obstacles in the jet path. The obstacles
may be in the form of uneven platen surfaces,
tube misalignments, or deposits of various sizes
and shapes. Presently, it is not well understood
how obstacles may affect the PIP, and hence, the
deposit removal efficiency of the sootblower at
locations downstream.
A numerical model has been developed by
Tandra [3,4] to compute the fluid dynamics of a
turbulent, supersonic jet and its interaction with
flat plates. The model has been used, together
with laboratory experimental measurements, to
examine the flow characteristics of a sootblower
jet propagating between superheater platens. This
paper discusses the essence of the model, and the
main results obtained from simulations using the
model, and from laboratory experiments.

IRESIDE DEPOSIT ACCUMULATIOn

THE MODEL
The flow of a sootblower jet and its interaction
with deposits and/or tube surfaces can be
described by the averaged Navier-Stokes equations, the equation of state, and an appropriate
turbulence model. In the work of Tandra [3,4],
several turbulence models available in literature,
including the widely used K- turbulence model,
were tested [5,6,7]. However, none was found to
be able to describe adequately the turbulent

nature of a high pressure jet impacting a deposit

and/or a tube. Efforts were therefore directed
toward developing a modified turbulence model
which has a minimum amount of numerical complexity but has an ability to capture the relevant
physics of the sootblower jet flow.
This modified model was named Sootblower
Jet Turbulence model or SJT model. It uses
three correction terms in addition to the standard terms in the K- turbulence model. They
are: the Durbin realizable term, the Heinz turbulence production term, and the Sarkar compressibility term [5,6,7]. The Durbin realizable term
suppresses the excessive growth of turbulent
kinetic energy (K) characteristic of the convensional K- model near the stagnation point when
a flow impinges on a solid object. The Heinz and
Sarkar terms are account for jet compressibility
effects. The SJT model has been integrated into
an open source computational fluid dynamics
code, CFDLib [8], developed at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory. For simplicity, this CFDLib
code combined with the SJT model will be
referred to as the CFDLib-SJT model, or simply
the model in this paper.

MODEL VALIDATION
A sootblower jet behaves like a free jet before it
enters a confined space between superheater
platens where it interacts with the deposits and
tubes. It is therefore essential for the developed
model to be able to accurately predict a free jet
flow if it is to be used to simulate the sootblower
flow. In this study, the CFDLib-SJT model was
used to predict free-jet flows under various conditions, ranging from subsonic to supersonic flow
up to a Mach number 2.8. However, only two sets
of experimental data are presented in this paper
to show the validity of the model: one was
obtained in our laboratory and the other was
obtained by Eggers [9]. These sets of data were
chosen since they were obtained under conditions geometrically and dynamically similar to
actual sootblower conditions, as summarized in
Table 1.
Figure 1 shows a comparison of the jet centerline velocities predicted by the CFDLib code
incorporated with both the standard K- turbu-

D. TANDRA,
Pulp & Paper Centre and
Department of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, CANADA

A. KALIAZINE,
Pulp & Paper Centre and
Department of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, CANADA

D.E. CORMACK,
Pulp & Paper Centre and
Department of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, CANADA

H. TRAN,
Pulp & Paper Centre and
Department of Chemical Engineering & Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto,
Toronto, ON, CANADA

PULP & PAPER CANADA 108:5 (2007)

43

T105

T106 deposit removal

TABLE I. Experimental Flow Conditions.
Nozzle type
Exit Mach number (Mexit)
Jet/ambient gas density ratio
Reservoir pressure

Actual Sootblower
Fully expanded Laval Nozzle

This study
Fully expanded Laval Nozzle

Eggers [9]
Fully expanded Laval Nozzle

2.3 - 2.8
~2
150 - 350 psig

2.27
1.98
160 psig

2.22
2
150 psig

FIG. 2. Jet axial velocity profile predicted by the CFDLibSJT model along the jet radial direction at various positions: X/D = 8.5, 15.5 and 24.0.
FIG. 1. Comparison between the normalized jet centerline
velocities predicted using the standard K- model and the
SJT model as a function of distance, and the experimental
data obtained by Eggers [9]. X = distance from nozzle exit
and D = nozzle exit diameter.

FIG. 4. Experimental apparatus for studying jet-tub platen

interaction.

The model was also used to predict the peak impact pressure
(PIP) of a free jet measured in the laboratory under conditions
summarized in Table 1. Figure 3 shows a comparison of the jet
PIP predicted by the model and the experimental results. The
agreement is reasonable. The model also predicted the PIP profiles well for free jets with different Mach numbers up to 2.8.

JET AND SUPERHEATER PLATEN INTERACTION

FIG. 3. Comparison of the Peak Impact Pressure of a free
jet predicted by the CFDLib-SJT model and experimental
data obtained at University of Toronto. X = distance from
nozzle exit and D = nozzle exit diameter.

lence model and the SJT model, and the experimental data
reported by Eggers [9]. The centerline velocity (Uc) is normalized with the jet exit velocity (Uj), while the distance from the
nozzle exit (X) is normalized with the nozzle exit diameter (D).
The results predicted with the SJT model are in excellent agreement with the experimental results, and are much better than
those predicted with the standard K- model.
The CFDLib-SJT model was also used to predict the axial
velocity profile across the radius of the Eggers jet [9]. This performance test of the model was important in order to examine
the ability of the model to predict the spread of the jet. Figure
2 shows the jet axial velocity along the radial direction at three
axial distances from the nozzle exit: ie: X/D = 8.5, 15.5, and 24.
The axial velocity U along the jet radius r is normalized with the
centerline velocity Uc, while r is normalized with the nozzle exit
diameter D. In all cases, the jet axial velocity profiles were well
predicted by the model.

44 108:5 (2007) PULP & PAPER CANADA

Laboratory Experiments
The experimental apparatus consists of a fully-expanded nozzle,
with an exit diameter of 1 cm, mounted on a metal shaft which
can be moved in both X (left-right) and Y (backwards-forwards)
directions, two arrays of horizontal tubes that simulate superheater platens, and a pressure probe that can be moved along
the jet axial direction (Figure 4). The supersonic jet emerging
from the nozzle is directed to flow between the simulated
platens. The vertical position of the jet is changed by sliding the
nozzle up and down along the Z direction, i.e. perpendicular to
the metal shaft. The jet velocity is altered by regulating the air
pressure using a valve. The jet PIP is measured at different distances from the nozzle by moving the pressure probe along the
jet axial (X) direction.
In this study, although the horizontal position of the jet could
be altered by moving the nozzle closer to (or away from) the
platens, it was fixed at 5 cm from the leading edge of the first
tube of the platen. The pressure probe was mounted rigidly on
a stand (not shown), with the tip of the probe positioned at 0.45
cm from the surface of the bottom platen, 1.5 cm from the platen entrance, i.e. 6.5 cm from the nozzle. The nozzle was locked
at a fixed offset, which is defined as the shortest distance
between the jet centerline and the bottom platen surface. When

peer-reviewed

FIG. 5. PIP profile as a function of distance from the nozzle

exit. The jet centerline is placed at the mid-point between
platens (offset = 1.9 cm). X = distance from nozzle exit and
D = nozzle exit diameter.

FIG. 6. PIP profile as a function of distance from the nozzle

exit. The jet centerline is placed on the platen surface (offset = 0 cm). X = distance from nozzle exit and D = nozzle
exit diameter.

FIG. 7. Velocity distribution within a sootblower Jet.

all lengths and distances are scaled by the nozzle exit diameter,
the results of this study may be interpreted in the context of larger scale systems operating at similar Mach numbers and similar
geometry.
Experimental and Simulation Results
The experimental results are shown in Figure 5 along with the
PIP profile predicted by the CFDLIB-SJT model for the case
where the jet centerline was at the middle of the distance
between the platens (offset = 1.9 cm). The predicted values
agree reasonably well with the experimental results. Reasonable
agreement was also obtained between the experimental data
and predicted values for the case where the jet centerline was at
the platen surface (i.e. offset = 0 cm), as shown in Figure 6. The
results suggest that the CFDLIB-SJT model predicts reasonably
well the jet PIP profile between tube platens.
Effect of Jet-Tube Platen Interaction on PIP
Figure 7 conceptually shows the velocity profile of a sootblower
jet passing over a superheater platen. As the jet exits and propagates from the nozzle, it mixes with the surrounding quiescent
air, expands and decelerates. As a result, three different velocity
regions are formed within the jet: potential core, supersonic and
subsonic regions. In the potential core region, the mach number of the jet is about the same as that at the nozzle exit, Mexit.

FIG. 8. Maximum Mach number of the jet hitting the platen

surface for a given offset. D = nozzle exit diameter.

In the supersonic region, the jet velocity is between Mach 1 (the

speed of sound) and Mexit, while in the subsonic region, the jet
velocity is below Mach 1.
The interaction between the jet and the platen surface
depends greatly on the offset, or the distance between the jet
centerline and the platen surface. As the offset decreases, the
subsonic region of the jet, the supersonic region and then the
potential core region of the jet hit the platen surface in
sequence. Shock waves develop near the platen surface when
the supersonic region of the jet interacts with the platen, and
this greatly inhibits the jet flow.
In order to examine the interaction between the jet and the
platen surface, the CFDLib-SJT model was used to predict the
Mach number and the PIP of the jet as a function of offset, for
the experimental arrangement shown in Figure 4. At a given offset, the Mach number of the jet as it hits the platen is important
in determining whether a shock wave will be formed. If the maximum Mach number is greater than 1, a shock wave is expected
to develop at the point of the impingement. As shown in Figure
8, at dimensionless offsets between 0 and about 0.26, the jet hits
PULP & PAPER CANADA 108:5 (2007)

45

T107

T108 deposit removal

the platen surface at a Mach number of Mexit, implying that the
potential core of the jet will directly interact with the platen surface. As the jet centerline moves away from the platen surface at
an offset between 0.26 to 0.7, both the supersonic and subsonic
portions of the jet will hit the platen. At a dimensionless offset
greater than 0.7, only the subsonic portion of the jet will hit the
platen and a shock wave will be avoided.
Figure 9 shows how the interaction between the jet and platen may affect the jet performance. At a given location, the PIP
profile of the jet in the absence of the bottom platen may be
interpreted as the maximum attainable (or ideal) peak impact
pressure, while the PIP values obtained from laboratory experiments in the presence of the bottom platen may be considered
as the achievable PIP values. The difference between these two
PIP profiles at a given offset represents the magnitude of the
interference caused by the platen. The difference (or the interference) becomes smaller as the offset increases (i.e. as the jet
centerline moves away from the platen). In the region where
the potential core of the jet interacts directly with the platen surface, a strong shock wave is created, resulting in a significant
reduction in PIP of 50 to 60%, compared to that with no platen.
In the region where the supersonic portion of the jet hits the
platen surface, the PIP is also reduced but to a lesser extent (20
to 30%). This is due mainly to the fact that the shock wave is
weaker in this region than in the potential core region. In the
subsonic region, the PIP reduction is a maximum of 10%. As the
offset is increased further, the low subsonic portion of the jet
prevails. There is no shock wave and hence no adverse effect
caused by platen interference in this region.

SUMMARY
A Sootblower Jet Turbulent (SJT) model has been developed
and incorporated into an open CFDLib code to simulate the
flow characteristics of a sootblower jet in recovery boilers. The
CFDLib-SJT model has been shown to be able to predict reasonably well the behaviour of a supersonic free jet and that of a
supersonic jet propagating between tube platens
The model has been used to examine the interaction of a
sootblower jet and superheater platens. The results suggest that
the interaction of the supersonic and high velocity subsonic portion of the jet with superheater tubes will reduce significantly the
jet PIP. This PIP reduction will become more significant as the
nozzle jet centerline approaches the platen surface where the
potential core of the jet creates a shock wave as it hits the platen. The effect on PIP becomes insignificant as the jet centerline
moves away from the platen, where only the low subsonic portion of the jet prevails.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was part of the research program on Increasing the
Throughput and Reliability of Recovery Boilers and Lime Kilns
jointly supported by Alstom Power Inc., Andritz Corporation,
Aracruz Celulose S.A., Babcock & Wilcox Company, Boise Paper
Solutions, Bowater Canadian Forest Products Inc., Canfor Inc.,
Clyde-Bergemann Inc., Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd.,
Domtar Inc., Georgia Pacific Corporation, International Paper
Company, Irving Pulp & Paper Limited, Kvaerner Power OY,
MeadWestvaco, Stora Enso Research AB, Tembec, Votorantim
Celulose e Papel, and Weyerhaeuser Company, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

46 108:5 (2007) PULP & PAPER CANADA

FIG. 9. A comparison of jet impact pressure in the absence

and in the presence of the bottom platen. D = nozzle exit
diameter.

REFERENCES

1. Jameel, M.I., Cormack, D.E., Tran, H.N., Moskal, T.E., Sootblower Optimization, Part I: Fundamental hydrodynamics of a sootblower nozzle and jet, TAPPI
Journal Vol.77(5), 135-142, (1994).
2. Habib, T.F., Advanced sootblower nozzle - Gemini, 2001 Western and
Advanced Fuels Conference (2001).
3. Tandra, D.S., PhD thesis, Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied
Chemistry, University of Toronto (2005).
4. Tandra, D.S., Kaliazine, A., Cormack, D.E., Tran, H.N., Numerical Simulation
of Supersonic Jet Flow Using a K- Turbulence Model, 12th Annual Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Ottawa, Canada, paper. 41, May 2004.
5. Pope, S.B., An Explanation of the Turbulent Round jet/Plane jet Anomaly,
AIAA Journal Vol. 20 (3), 279-281, (1978).
6. Thies, A.T., and Tam, C.K.W., Computation of Turbulent Axisymmetric and
Non-axisymmetric Jet Flows Using the K- Model, AIAA Journal Vol.34 (2), 309316, (1996).
7. Barber, T.J., Chiappetta, L.M., DeBonis, J.R., Georgiadis, N.J., and Yoder, D.A.,
Assessment of Parameters Influencing the Prediction of Shear Layer Mixing ,
Journal of propulsion and power Vol.15(1), 45-53, (1999).
8. Baumgardner, J.R., Cline, M.C., Johnson, N.L., and Kashiwa, B.A., CFDLIB: A
Library of Computer Codes for Problems in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-90-1361, (1990).
9. Eggers, J. M., Velocity Profiles and Eddy Viscosity Distributions Downstream of
a Mach 2.22 Nozzle Exhausting to Quiescent Air, NASA TN D-3601, Sept. (1966).

Rsum: Les caractristiques du jet dun souffleur de suie passant entre

les plaques du surchauffeur dune chaudire de rcupration ont t
analyses en laboratoire laide dun code de dynamique des fluides
numrique avec un modle de turbulence modifi. Les rsultats des essais
et de la simulation indiquent que, selon la position du jet, linteraction entre
le jet et la surface de la plaque rduit de faon importante la pression dimpact de crte du jet. Linteraction est prononce lorsque laxe du jet est prs
de la plaque, mais elle devient ngligeable lorsque le jet sen loigne.

Reference: TANDRA, D., KALIAZINE, A., CORMACK, D.E., TRAN, H.

Interaction between sootblower jet and superheater platens in recovery
boilers. Pulp & Paper Canada 108(5):T105-108 (May 2007). Paper presented at the 2004 International Chemical Recovery Conference in
Charleston, SC, June 6-10, 2004. Not to be reproduced without permission of PAPTAC. Manuscript received September 06, 2004. Revised
manuscript approved for publication by the Review Panel July 29, 2006.
Keywords: RECOVERY BOILER, SOOTBLOWER, CFD MODELING,
SUPERSONIC JET, DEPOSIT REMOVAL.