7.

Multivariate Analysis of Fouling in Kraft Recovery Boilers

Peter Versteeg, Honghi Tran

Highlights: Operating data from three recovery boilers was analyzed using Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) and Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS). PCA was used to compare operational periods
of high fouling and low fouling and for analyzing individual runs in all boilers. PLS was used to
extract the correlation structures between model input and output variables showing that some
variables were disproportionably associated with fouling. Together, these two techniques can be
used to identify operating variables that may be adjusted to minimize fouling and for developing
an on-line fouling monitoring technology.

Status: Complete

INTRODUCTION non-fouling periods, to monitor deposit buildup on a

Kraft recovery boilers with fouling problems often
operate with a lower thermal efficiency and are
prone to costly unscheduled shutdowns.
Considerable research has been done thus far to
determine the effect of variables such as black
liquor firing load, composition and temperature, and
air flow rate on recovery boiler fouling [1-4]. This
has enhanced our understanding but due to the
complexity of the relationships between the
variables and difficulties in measuring the rate of
fouling, persistent problems still remain for many
kraft paper mills.
Fouling is still a consistent issue for two reasons.
The first is due to large variations between recovery
boilers in operation and design. Conclusions drawn
from existing literature that solve a fouling problem
for one boiler may not yield results for another. The
second reason arises because of the difficulty of
analyzing deposit buildup from available process
data. With many complex and simultaneous boiler
processes occurring, only seasoned experts can
consistently make process decisions that lower
deposit buildup by changing operational conditions.
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Partial
Least Squares Analysis (PLS) are two
complimentary multivariate statistical techniques
that have been used to explore and monitor
problems in very complex processes [5-8]. This
paper introduces the use of these two techniques to
successfully investigate recovery boiler fouling for
three recovery boilers. The goals of this project
were to use PCA and PLS to compare fouling and
day-to-day basis, and to understand how specific
variables have correlated with increased or decreased
deposit buildup. These goals were accomplished for
the three recovery boilers investigated, which are
labeled Recovery Boilers A, B, and C.
FOULING EXPERIENCE
Recovery Boiler A typically fires 1.6 million kg dry
solids/day and produces 250,000 kg steam/hr at 6.2
MPa and 440°C. Recovery Boiler B is larger and
typically fires 2.4 million kg dry solids/day and
produces 320,000 kg steam/hr at 6.2 MPa and 440°C.
Recovery Boiler C is intermediate in size and
typically fires 2.0 million kg dry solids/day and
produces 275,000 kg steam/hr at 6.7 MPa and 470°C.
On average, Recovery Boiler A requires two water
washes per year, but has experienced changing rates
of deposit accumulation. In several years there were
extended run lengths, while other years proved very
costly. One particularly bad year was the 12 month
period from late 2004 to late 2005, where five
waterwashes were required. Figure 1 displays a recent
picture of the deposit buildup in the generating bank
of Recovery Boiler A taken just before a waterwash.
The boiler was shut down due to plugging after
operating for less than two months.
Recovery Boiler B has consistently been problematic
in terms of fouling, with water washes typically
required at least three times per year. Recovery Boiler
C has also experienced heavy fouling, requiring on
average about three waterwashes per year.

7-1
 correlated variables in complex systems. Large
amounts of process data from multiple variables can
be represented as a single data point that moves in
time along multiple axes called principal components
(PC’s). PC’s are new variables built using PCA; they
represent statistically significant processes in the
system and are usually smaller in number than the
Flue Gas original variables being measured [9,10]. The ability
to visualize large amounts of data across a number of
variables on a simple plot makes this technique
powerful.

A principal component analysis was performed using

Simca-P, a multivariate statistical analysis program by
Umetrics, on daily average data compiled from
Figure 1. Heavy deposit buildup on the generating
January 2002 to October 2005 for Recovery Boiler A
bank tubes of Recovery Boiler A.
and B. Less historical data across fewer variables were
available for Recovery Boiler C, and so hourly
DATA AND VARIABLES COLLECTED
average data, from January 2005 to June 2007, was
collected so that particular runs could be investigated
Data for the variables listed in Table 1 was
at a higher data resolution. Data for all boilers
collected for all three recovery boilers. The data
corresponding to time periods where the boilers were
resolution for each variable ranged from hourly-
shutdown due to water washes or maintenance was
averaged measurements taken by on-line
removed from each data set. The PC’s, or latent
instruments, to mill-lab data collected as
variables, for each model were calculated through
infrequently as twice per week. The steam enthalpy
cross-validation and together accounted for
was calculated based on available steam pressure,
approximately 69%, 66%, and 64% of the variability
temperature, and flowrate data. Instrument
in the data for Recovery Boilers A, B, and C
locations, water wash histories and major process
respectively.
interruption data for both recovery boilers was also
collected where available.
The first two PC’s can be plotted as the axis on a two-
dimensional graph called a t1/t2 plot, and the data
TABLE 1. VARIABLES COLLECTED
points can be plotted over these axis as shown in
Liquor Firing Load Steam Pressure
Figure 2 for Recovery Boiler A. In Figures 2, the t[1]
Liquor Solids Content Sootblowing Steam Flow axis represents the first principal component, the t[2]
Liquor Temperature Boiler Bank Gas Pressures axis the second. Each data point on the graph is a
Liquor Pressure Economizer Gas Pressures representation of the data from all the variables being
Liquor Composition Boiler Bank Gas measured for an entire day. The ellipse represents a
Temperatures 95% confidence interval, and the origin represents the
Air Flowrates Economizer Gas average value across all the variables in the analysis.
Temperatures Data points away from the origin deviate from the
Air Temperatures Excess O2 average in some respect.
Feedwater Flowrate ID Fan Speed
Feedwater TRS Concentration
Temperature
Steam Flowrate SO2 Concentration
Steam Temperature

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS

PCA is a modeling technique that can be used to

visually untangle the interactions among highly

7-2
 variance in the data, explains the variability due to
increases in the loading of the boiler.

Figures 4 and 5 show increasing values of final steam

flow rate and boiler bank outlet temperature over the
same principal components. Together these two
variables represent a measure of boiler energy transfer
efficiency. As these two variables increase, they
diverge in the t[2] axis, with the highest final steam
flow rates coinciding with intermediate boiler bank
outlet temperatures and the highest boiler bank outlet
temperature coinciding with high to intermediate final
Figure 2. The t1/t2 plot of the first 2 PC’s of the
steam flow rates. This indicates that the second PC,
model built using daily average data on the
which models the second greatest source of variance
Recovery Boiler A.
in the data, explains the variability due to energy
transfer efficiency in the boiler, which is primarily
To gain insight into the first two principal
affected by fouling. Figure 6 summarizes the two key
components, the underlying variables driving the
processes explained by the first two PC’s. Figures 7
deviations in the data were examined. The data
and 8 summarize the corresponding principal
points in Figure 2 were divided into separate plots
components explaining boiler loading and energy
of increasing values of specific variables as shown
transfer for Recovery Boilers B and C.
in Figures 3, 4, and 5. Figure 3 shows that as the
black liquor flow rate increases, the data points shift
from left to right along the t[1] axis, indicating that
this first PC, which models the greatest source of

Figure 3. Variation in the t1/t2 plot with respect to black liquor flow rate for Recovery Boiler A.

7-3
Figure 4. Variation in the t1/t2 plot with respect to boiler bank outlet temperature for Recovery Boiler A.

Figure 5. Variation in the t1/t2 plot with respect to final steam flowrate for Recovery Boiler A.

7-4

Figure 6. Key processes in the t1/t2 plot of the PCA
model for Recovery Boiler A.
Figure 7. Key processes in the t1/t2 plot of the PCA
model for Recovery Boiler B.
Figure 8. Key processes of the 2nd and 4th principal
components of the PCA model for Recovery Boiler
C.
In Figure 6, the upper right quadrant (II) contains
data points that correspond to ideal operating days
when Recovery Boiler A was firing at a high load
7-5
and having high energy transfer efficiency. The
lower right quadrant (III) shows data points for
operating days when the boiler was at a high load,
but had low energy transfer efficiency due
presumably to fouling. Similar results were found
for Recovery Boilers B, with the first PC explaining
the variability due to boiler loading, and the second
PC explaining the variability due to changes in
energy transfer efficiency. Due to a major process
change in the dataset for Recovery Boiler C, the
statistically significant processes representing boiler
loading and energy transfer were found at the
higher 2nd and 4th PC’s, respectively.
COMPARISON OF LOW FOULING AND
HIGH FOULING TIME PERIODS
An ability to visualize the variability due to fouling
as shown in Figures 6, 7, and 8 is accompanied by
the ability to compare periods of high fouling and
periods of low fouling in order to understand why
some approaches have worked in the past and why
some have not. In this section periods of relative
high fouling are compared to periods of low fouling
for each boiler. Runs can be visualized and
compared for differences in startups and shutdowns,
and entire periods can be contrasted variable by
variable. The dataset for Recovery Boiler A was
separated into several sections and the number of
fouling related waterwashes was determined in each
section. Time periods were compared based on the
number of fouling related waterwashes they
contained. A seven-month “low-fouling” period
was chosen from 10/24/2003 to 5/01/2004 which
began with a clean boiler and ended with a
scheduled waterwash. A five-month, “high-fouling”
period combining dates from 2/05/2005 to
4/14/2005 and 6/28/2005 to 9/27/2005 was also
selected that contained three waterwashes within it.
The data points were displayed over Figure 6 with
all other data points removed. The result is shown
in Figure 9.
 Figure 10. “Low-fouling” and “high-fouling”
Figure 9. “Low-fouling” and “high-fouling”
periods for Recovery Boiler B
periods for Recovery Boiler A.
In Figure 10, grey circles again represent days
In Figure 9, grey circles represent days
corresponding to the “low-fouling” period, and
corresponding to the “low-fouling” period, and
black circles represent days corresponding to the
black circles represent days corresponding to the
“high-fouling” period. Data points corresponding to
“high-fouling” period. The data points clearly
the “high-fouling” period were primarily situated at
cluster into two distinct regions. Data points
the bottom of the plot while “low-fouling” data
corresponding to the “high-fouling” period are
points were situated almost entirely in the upper
primarily situated at the bottom of the t1/t2 plot
part of the plot. The two regions are once again
while “low-fouling” data points were situated
distinct in the y-axis corresponding to the second
almost entirely in the upper part of the t1/t2 plot. The
principal component. The data from these two
overall results agree well with the interpretation of
regions was selected and their averages were
the principal components. There is little overlap
compared directly as shown in Table 7 in the
between the two periods in the second principal
Appendix. The results are interesting as several
component suggesting that they were very different
variables stand out. Black liquor flow was actually
in terms of energy transfer efficiency. The averages
higher on average, during the “low-fouling” period
of the points in the two clusters can be compared
as was sootblowing steam flow. White liquor
directly, the results of which are shown in Table 6
sulfidity was also elevated during the “high-
in the Appendix.
fouling” period.
Since Recovery Boiler B has experienced consistent
For the high resolution data available for Recovery
fouling problems, it was not practical to break up
Boiler C, individual runs were compared based on
and compare sections of the dataset in terms of the
run length. A 54 day “high-fouling” period was
number of waterwashes. Instead, “low-fouling” and
chosen from 7/21/2005 to 9/12/2005 which began
“high-fouling” periods were selected by comparing
with a boiler cleaning and ended with a pluggage.
fouling indicator variables such as the boiler bank
This was compared to a 76 day, “low-fouling”
outlet temperature. There are clear periods when the
period from 7/19/2006 to 10/3/2006. The data
boiler bank outlet temperature rose sharply,
points were displayed over Figure 9 with all other
indicating that fouling happened very quickly, and
data points removed, and the result is shown in
there are periods where this is not as much of a
Figure 11.
problem. From this, two regions were then selected
that corresponded to a “low-fouling” period, from
10/3/2003 to 3/14/2004, and a “high-fouling”
period combining 3/5/2005 to 5/4/20005 and
7/13/2005 to 9/5/2005. The data points were
displayed over Figure 7 with all other data points
removed. The result is shown in Figure 10.

7-6

Figure 11. “Low-fouling” and “High-fouling”
periods of hourly average data for Recovery Boiler
C.
In Figure 11, grey circles represent days
corresponding to the “low-fouling” period, and
black circles represent days corresponding to the
“high-fouling” period. There is overlap between the
two clusters because both periods experienced some
deposit accumulation, the “high-fouling” period
was more severe however. The data from these two
regions was selected and their averages were
compared directly as shown in Table 8 in the
Appendix.
INDIVIDUAL RUNS
Individual runs were also investigated for each
recovery boiler, showing both gradual and sudden
shifts in boiler energy transfer efficiency. Figures
12 and 13 show the progression of a two month run
for Recovery Boiler A. Figure 12 shows the first
half of the run, from July 28 – August 24, 2005, and
Figure 13 shows the latter half of the run, from
August 24 – September 25, 2005.
In Figure 12, point “A” represents the first day of
the startup on July 28. Points “B”, “C”, and “D”
represent the days before, during, and after a one-
day slowdown in boiler operation. Point “E”
represents the final day of operation before a
waterwash. The energy transfer efficiency of the
boiler changes between points “B”,”C” and “D”,
with days lying after point “D” corresponding to
lower energy transfer operation. The variables
comprising points “B” and “D” can be compared, as
shown in Figure 14 in the Appendix.
7-7
Figure 12. Points corresponding to operation from
July 28-August 24 for Recovery Boiler A
Figure 13. Points corresponding to operation from
August 24- September 25 for Recovery Boiler A
PLS REGRESSION
PLS is effectively an extension of PCA, making use
of principal components to determine key
correlations between input and output variables
from historical data [9,10]. Correlations between
two variables do not necessarily represent a cause
and effect relationship, but when two variables are
correlated, changes in one of the variables are
associated with changes in the other, which can
give useful insights into the process. To investigate
the correlation structure of the variables, a partial
least squares analysis was also performed using
Simca-P on Recovery Boilers A and B using daily
average data sets and on Recovery Boiler C using
hourly average data. The variables in Table 1 were
reorganized into inputs and outputs as shown in
Table 3. Input variables were chosen as those that
might change the fouling situation of the boiler.
Output variables were those that might experience
some effect due to fouling.
TABLE 3. INPUTS AND OUTPUTS FOR PLS liquor droplets both of which tend to decrease
Inputs Outputs carryover. Similarly, white liquor sulfidity, when
Liquor Firing Load Steam Flowrate increased, showed corresponding decreases in
Liquor Solids Content Steam Temperature energy transfer related variables and increases in
Liquor Temperature Steam Pressure boiler bank outlet temperature and ID fan speed
Liquor Pressure Steam Enthalpy which indicates decreased energy transfer
Liquor Composition Feedwater Flowrate efficiency. Also interesting were the sootblowing
Air Flowrates Feedwater Temperature steam flow variables. The north sootblowing steam
Air Temperatures Boiler Bank Gas Pressure flow had positive correlations with both final steam
Sootblowing Steam Flow Economizer Gas Pressure flow rate and the steam enthalpy, while the south
Boiler Bank Gas sootblowing steam flow variable had no consistent
Excess O2 correlation with any of the outputs. This supports an
Temperatures
observation by mill personnel that deposits may be
Economizer
TRS Concentration forming faster on the north side of the boiler.
Temperatures
Consistent correlations were not found for black
SO2 Concentration ID Fan Speed
liquor chloride or sodium contents. This does not
necessarily mean that these were not important
For Recovery Boiler A, seven PC’s were calculated
variables, but rather, this may be due to limited
through cross-validation accounting for 70% of the
liquor composition data available for the analysis.
variability in the data. Final steam flow rate, steam
enthalpy, boiler bank outlet temperature, and ID fan
The correlation structure from the PLS analysis on
speed were well modeled output variables, where
Recovery Boiler B is shown in Table 5. The
more than half of their variability (Q2>0.5) could
correlations between many of the operational
be predicted based on the input variables. The
variables behave as expected. An increase in white
resulting correlation structure derived from the
liquor sulfidity corresponded to an increase in
model coefficients is shown in Table 4.
boiler bank outlet temperature, differential draft
pressure, and ID fan speed indicating that the boiler
In Table 4, the number of indicators (plus or minus
had a tendency to operate during these periods with
signs) infers the strength of the correlation. Absent
lower energy transfer efficiency. Likewise, an
indicators imply that the model was unable to
increase in sootblowing steam flow corresponded
extract a consistent correlation between the
with an increase in final steam flow rate and the
variables. Shaded regions represent areas of
steam enthalpy. White liquor sulfidity and
particular interest. Most of the variables in the
sootblowing steam flow were also the variables that
correlation structure in Table 4 support expected
were high and low respectively in the “Low
operational conditions. Black liquor flow rate, for
Fouling” period in the corresponding PCA analysis.
example, had the strongest positive correlation with
all the outputs indicating that when black liquor
The correlation structure from the PLS analysis on
flow increased, the output variables, final steam
Recovery Boiler C is shown in Table 6. The results
flow rate, steam enthalpy, boiler bank outlet
from Table 6 shows that black liquor flow rate
temperature, and ID fan speed, also increased. Air
showed strong positive correlations with both final
flow properties and excess O2 also showed
steam flow rate and steam enthalpy, but only a
operational adjustments reflecting increased or
weak positive correlation with the boiler bank outlet
decreased black liquor flow.
temperature. Black liquor flow increases the heat
available to the boiler and therefore should raise the
Black liquor solids, however, showed strong
boiler bank outlet temperature. One would then
positive correlations with both final steam flow rate
expect, however, a much stronger correlation
and steam enthalpy, but a negative correlation with
between black liquor flow rate and boiler bank
the boiler bank outlet temperature. This indicates
outlet temperatures if boiler loading was the main
that during periods of high black liquor solids, the
problem behind deposit buildup.
boiler had a tendency to operate with higher energy
transfer efficiency. Firing high black liquor solids
tends to stabilize the char bed and produce larger

7-8
TABLE 4. PLS CORRELATIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILER A
Final Steam Flow Boiler Bank Outlet
Rate Steam Enthalpy Temperature (Q2 ID Fan
(Q2 = 0.9) (Q2 = 0.91) = 0.65) (Q2 = 0.78)
Black Liquor Flow rate +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
Black Liquor Solids ++++ +++ --
Black Liquor Temperature
Black Liquor Pressure -- -- ---
Black Liquor Cl Content
Total Air Flow ++++ ++++ +++ ++++
Primary Air Flow -- -- --
Secondary Air Flow +++ ++ ++
Tertiary Air Flow +++++ +++++ ++++ +++++
Primary Air Temp - --
Secondary Air Temp ++++
Tertiary Air Temp +
Sootblowing Steam Flow +++ ++++
Sootblowing Steam Flow
Excess O2 ----- ----- ---- ---
TRS + + ++ +++
SO2 -- -- +++
Green Liquor Flow + + ++ +++
White Liquor Sulfidity -- -- ++++ ++
Saltcake Cl -- --

TABLE 5. PLS CORRELATIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILER B

Final Steam Boiler Bank Outlet Econ. Outlet Differential
Flow Rate Steam Enthalpy Temperature Temperature Pressure PDI214 ID Fan
(Q2 = 0.91) (Q2 = 0.90) (Q2 = 0.55) (Q2 = 0.71) (Q2 = 0.63) (Q2 = 0.88)
Black Liquor Flow rate ++++ ++++ +++ +++ ++++ ++++
Black Liquor Solids + + - -
Black Liquor Mass Flow Rate ++++ ++++ +++ +++ +++ ++++
Black Liquor Temperature - - -
Black Liquor Pressure + +++ ++
Black Liquor Cl Content
Total Air Flow +++ +++ ++ +++ +++ ++++
Primary Air Flow +++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++
Secondary Air Flow + ++ +++ ++ +++
Tertiary Air Flow +++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++
Primary Air Temp - - --
Secondary Air Temp -- -- ---- +++ ---- ---
Sootblowing Steam Flow + ++ ++
Excess O2 --- --- ---- -- --
TRS + - +
SO2 - - ++
Green Liquor Flow +++ +++ +++ ++
White Liquor Sulfidity + +++ - ++++ ++
Pulp Rates Bleached AD Tons ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++
Saltcake Cl -- --

7-9
TABLE 6. PLS CORRELATIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILER C
Final Steam Boiler Bank Outlet Boiler Bank Outlet
Steam Enthalpy West ID Fan East ID Fan
Flow Temp Press.
Q2=0.77 Q2=0.62 Q2=0.54
Q2=0.73 Q2=0.57 Q2=0.67
Black Liquor Flow Rate +++ +++ + - ++++ ++
Black Liquor Solids + + + + - -
Black Liquor Mass Flow Rate +++ ++++ + - ++++ ++
Black Liquor Temperature -- -- ++++ ++ ++
Black Liquor Pressure ++ ++ --- +++ +
Primary Air Flow +++ +++ ---- --- +++ -
Secondary Air Flow +++++ +++++ ----- +++++ +++++
Tertiary Air Flow +++++ ++++ ++++ +++ ++++ +++++
Primary Air Temp -- +++ +++++ --- ++++
Secondary Air Temp ++ - ---- ++
Sootblowing Steam Flow ++ ++++ + -- +++ ---
Excess O2 ----- ----- --- -- --- ---
TRS -
White Liquor Sulfidity - ++ ----
Opacity ++ + + + --- ---
Attemperator Flow ----- ++ --- -----

SUMMARY correlated with improved recovery boiler operation.

In this study, PCA and PLS was applied to
historical recovery boiler data on three recovery
boilers using the multivariate statistical program
Simca-P by Umetrics. For PCA, all models were
able to visually distinguish the variability related to
boiler loading and deposit accumulation. For
Recovery Boilers A and B, the first principal
components modeled the variability due to boiler
loading, and the second modeled the variability due
to energy transfer. For Recovery Boiler C, large
additional sources of variability in boiler operation
were present, and higher principal components
explained the variability due to loading and energy
transfer.
For PLS, a correlation structure was extracted that
described the recovery boiler process and showed
which variables increased or decreased with deposit
buildup. The results show that for Recovery Boiler
A, increased black liquor solids %, increased
sootblowing steam flow on the northside of the
boiler, and decreased white liquor sulfidity were
correlated with improved boiler operation.
Similarly, increased sootblowing steam flow and
decreased white liquor sulfidity corresponded to
improved operation for Recovery Boiler B. For
Recovery Boiler C, high primary air flow, low
black liquor temperature, high black liquor
pressure, and high sootblowing steam flow were all
Some variables thought to cause increased fouling
showed an inconsistent correlation structure,
suggesting that they were not major factors in poor
boiler operation. Overall, both PCA and PLS
performed well in modeling recovery boiler
operation and present an excellent opportunity to
investigate recovery boiler fouling.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was conducted as part of the research
program on “Increasing Energy and Chemical
Recovery Efficiency in the Kraft Process”, jointly
supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and a
consortium of the following companies: Alstom
Power, Andritz, Aracruz Celulose, Babcock &
Wilcox, Boise Paper Solutions, Bowater Canadian
Forest Products, Carter Holt Harvey, Celulose
Nipo-Brasileira, Clyde-Bergemann, Diamond
Power International, Domtar, DMI Peace River
Pulp, Georgia Pacific, International Paper, Irving
Pulp & Paper, Metso Power, MeadWestvaco, Stora
Enso Research, Tembec, and Votorantim Celulose e
Papel.
REFERENCES
[1] TRAN H.N., REEVE D.W., BARHAM D.
“Formation of Kraft Recovery Boiler Superheater

7-10
 Deposits” Pulp and Paper Canada, Vol. 84, No. 1, Industrial Fuidized-bed Reactor” Control
T7-T12 (1983) Engineering Practice, Vol 8, 893-909 (2000)

[2] BACKMAN R., HUPA M., UPPSTU E. [7] YIN K. K., YANG H., CRAMER F. “On-line
“Fouling and Corrosion Mechanisms in Recovery Monitoring of Papermaking Processes” Chemical
Boiler Superheater Area” TAPPI Journal, Vol 70, Engineering Communications, Vol 189, 1242-1261
No. 6, 123-127 (1987) (2002)

[3] HUPA M., BACKMAN R., SKRIFVARS B.J., [8] KRESTA J.V., MACGREGOR J.F., MARLIN
HYOTY P. “The Influence of Chloride on the T.E. “Multivariate Statistical Monitoring of Process
Fireside Behavior in the Recovery boiler” TAPPI Operating Performance” The Canadian Journal of
Journal Vol 73, No. 6, 153-158 (1990) Chemical Engineering, Vol 69, 35-47 (1991)

[4] BARSIN J. “Recovery Boiler Sootblowers”
TAPPI kraft recovery operations short course,
TAPPI PRESS 219- 227 (1992)
[5] HODOUIN D., MACGREGOR J.F., HOU M.,
FRANKLIN M. “Multivariate Statistical Analysis
of Mineral Processing Plant Data”, CIM
Bulletin, Vol. 86, No. 975, 23-34 (1993)
[6] SIMOGLOU A., MARTIN E.B., MORRIS A.J.
“Multivariate Statistical Process Control of an
[9] KOURT T. “Application of Latent Variable
Methods to Process Control and Multivariate
Statistical Process Control in Industry”
International Journal of Adaptive Control and
Signal Processing, Vol 19, 213–246 (2005)
[10] SHI R., MACGREGOR J.F. “Modeling of
Dynamic Systems using Latent Variable and
Subspace Methods” Journal of Chemometrics, Vol
14, 423-439 (2000)

APPENDIX

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE VALUES OF THE “LOW FOULING” AND THE “HIGH
FOULING” PERIODS FOR RECOVERY BOILER A
Average of “Low-Fouling” Period Average of “High-Fouling” Period
BL Flow rate (USGPM) 303 307
BL solids A (%) 70.2 69.1
BL Temperature (F) 254 253
BL Pressure (psi) 23.5 24.4
BL Cl (% d.s.) 0.9 0.9
Air Flow Primary (%) 35 36
Air Flow Secondary (%) 43 43
Air Flow Tertiary (%) 21 21
Air Flow Total (1000 lb/hour) 693 732
Final Steam Flow Rate (1000 lb/hour) 558 520
Final Steam Temperature (F) 844 826
Final Steam Pressure (psi) 870 873
Sootblowing Steam Flow 1 (1000 lb/hr) 22.0 20.2
Sootblowing Steam Flow 2 (1000 lb/hr) 24.2 23.3
Boiler Bank Inlet Temperature 1 (F) 876 944
Boiler Bank Outlet Temperature A (F) 684 712
Excess O2 (%) 3.0 3.0
TRS (ppm) 1.0 1.2
SO2 (ppm) 1.2 5.7
WL sulfidity (% on TA) 25.1 27.4
ID Fan Speed (% of Maximum) 66 65.8
Steam Enthalpy (TJ/day) 21.7 20.1

7-11
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE VALUES OF THE “LOWER FOULING” AND THE “HIGHER
FOULING” PERIODS FOR RECOVERY BOILER B
Average of “Low-Fouling” Period Average of “High-Fouling” Period
BL Flow rate (USGPM) 454 451
BL solids (%) 71.0 71.8
BL Temperature (F) 247 245
BL Pressure (psi) 46.4 46.5
Air Flow Primary (%) 36 36
Air Flow Secondary (%) 42 41
Air Flow Tertiary (%) 22 22
Air Flow Total (1000 lb/hour) 953 961
Final Steam Flow Rate (1000 lb/hour) 698 697
Final Steam Temperature (F) 847 821
Sootblowing Steam Flow (1000 lb/hr) 41.6 38.6
Boiler Bank North Inlet Temperature (F) 1077 1151
Boiler Bank North Outlet Temperature (F) 743 767
Excess O2 (%) 2.7 2.0
TRS (ppm) 0.4 0.4
SO2 (ppm) 1.8 8.9
WL sulfidity (% on TA) 25.1 28.4
North ID Fan (% of Maximum) 69 72.1
Steam Enthalpy (TJ/day) 26.9 26.5

TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE VALUES OF THE “LOWER FOULING” AND THE “HIGHER
FOULING” PERIODS FOR RECOVERY BOILER C
Average of “Low-Fouling” Period Average of “High-Fouling” Period
BL Flow rate (USGPM) 361 389
BL solids (%) 69.5 68.6
BL Temperature (F) 244 238
BL Pressure (psi) 16.8 16.3
Air Flow Primary (%) 37.8 41.4
Air Flow Secondary (%) 49.4 62.2
Air Flow Tertiary (%) 50.8 24.6
Final Steam Flow Rate (1000 lb/hour) 578 611
Final Steam Temperature (F) 837 872
Final Steam Pressure (psi) 1,434 1436
Sootblowing Steam Flow (1000 lb/hr) 50.1 50.0
Boiler Bank Outlet Temperature (F) 862 771
Excess O2 (%) 2.6 3.0
TRS (ppm) 0.8 0.8
WL sulfidity (% on AA) 26.4 25.5
West ID Fan Speed (RPM) 516 618
Steam Enthalpy (TJ/day) 22.0 23.7

7-12
 “Point B” “Point D”

Standard Deviations from Standard Deviations from

Dataset Average Dataset Average

Figure 14. Comparison between Point B (August 22, 2005-High Energy Transfer Efficiency) and Point D (August 24,
2005-Low Energy Transfer Efficiency) for Recovery Boiler A

7-13