Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

ISSN: 0002-2470 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm16

A Model for Coal Fly Ash Filtration

Richard Dennis & Hans A. Klemm

To cite this article: Richard Dennis & Hans A. Klemm (1979) A Model for Coal Fly
Ash Filtration, Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 29:3, 230-234, DOI:
10.1080/00022470.1979.10470783

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00022470.1979.10470783

Published online: 13 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 179

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uawm20
 A Model for Coal Fly Ash Filtration
Richard Dennis and Hans A. Klemm
GCA/Technology Division
Bedford, Massachusetts
A new mathematical model for predicting the performance of
woven glass filters with coal fly ash is described. The data base for
this development includes an extensive bench and pilot scale study,
field data from prior studies of fly ash filtration with glass fabrics, past
studies of fabric filter cleaning mechanisms and a literature survey.
Trial model applications with utility boilers operating at Sunbury, PA
and Nucla, CO indicate excellent agreement between theory and
practice for penetration and resistance characteristics. The intro-
duction and experimental confirmation of two physical relationships
were instrumental in model design. The first describes how dust
dislodges from a fabric and its subsequent impact upon resistance
and penetration in a multichambered system. The second concept
relates to the large fraction of ash that passes through temporarily
or permanently unblocked pores such that particle penetrations are
essentially size independent. Additionally, the quantitation of the
cleaning action and energy with dust removal method is included in
the model. The calculation of dust specific resistance coefficient,
based on size distribution parameters provides improved estimates
of K2 in lieu of its preferred direct measurement.
In this paper, a filtration model is described which, based upon
limited field validation, provides good estimates of perfor-
mance for woven glass bags with coal fly ash in real filter
systems.1-2 The success of the model is attributed to the in-
troduction of three new concepts or approaches to the mod-
eling process.3-4
The first relates to the fact that dust remaining on a fabric
surface after cleaning is characterized by a distinctive, non-
uniform distribution in which the unique resistance and col-
lection properties of cleaned and uncleaned areas are defin-
able and thus amenable to mathematical analysis.
The second concept allows us to specify the relationship
between the amount of dust removed from a filter and (a) the
method of cleaning and (b) the filter dust loading prior to
cleaning.3-5
The third concept evolves from the unique penetration
properties observed for fly ash with glass fabric in which
Copyright 1979-Air Pollution Control Association
230
failure to obtain rapid and/or complete pore bridging allows
significant dust leakage through the filter.3 Such penetration
occurs because of nonuniformity in both pore sizes and in the
dispersion of the loose fiber substrate that obstructs the pore
openings.3'4
The relatively low resistance to gas flow of the larger pores
results in the passage of a disproportionately large fraction
of the uncleaned gas along with most dust particles <15 ^m
diameter. Because the quantity of fly ash penetrating the
fabrics via the pores or pinholes greatly exceeds that which
penetrates the unbroken dust cake, ~100 times, the particle
size properties of the effluent are essentially the same as those
for the entering aerosol.
The above phenomenon explains why the fractional ef-
ficiencies for glass fabrics often appear to be independent of
particle size. It is also pointed out that rear face slough-off of
agglomerates due to vibration or aerodynamic drag may
contribute to the effluent loading.3'6
Another consideration is the fact that dust collection for any
specified part of the fabric depends upon both the local dust
cover and filtration velocity.5'7'8 Additionally, the specific
resistance coefficient, K% is governed not only by the physical
properties of the.particles, gas and bed structure but also by
the gas velocity at the time of particle deposition.3'4-8
Introduction of the variables and concepts discussed above
into the classical filtration equations constitutes the basis for
a new model which can play two major roles. The first relates
to the design of a filter system based upon specified dust, gas
and fabric properties, and operating parameters. The second
application involves the analysis of the operating regimen and
design approach specified by a system designer to determine
if they meet particle emission and resistance requirements.
COVER PHOTO. The Kramer Station of the Nebraska Public Power
District employs four reverse air fabric filter baghouses. The Station,
which was described in the January 1979 JAPCA (pages 82-83), is of
the type whose performance can be estimated by the model reported
by Dennis and Klemm in this issue. Photo credit: Ray Manley Photogra-
phy—Courtesy of Steams-Roger Incorporated, Denver.
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
The diagnostic role of the model should aid regulatory per-
sonnel who must assess the adequacy of proposed control
measures.
In the following sections, the basic structure and develop-
ment of the model and its preliminary trial runs are outlined
briefly. A very detailed description of all aspects of the model
is given in a recent report.3 Although the basic model structure
has been established, peripheral modifications are expected
as the model is further tested in the field.
Model Development
Basic Filtration Relationships
Deposition of a uniformly distributed dust layer at a con-
stant rate upon an unused or completely cleaned fabric pro-
duces the characteristic relationship shown in Curve 1, Figure
1. The origin for the curved section of Curve 1 depicts the true
residual drag, SR, when the minimal residual loading, WR, for
a cleaned glass fabric is approximately 50 g/m2. In most cases,
the effective residual drag, SE, which is determined by a linear
extrapolation to the zero loading state, is sufficient for esti-
mation of total system drag. The following equation
S = SE + K2 W
in which S is the total filter drag, SE the effective residual
drag, K2 the specific resistance coefficient for the dust, and
W the fabric dust loading in mass per unit area describes the
drag for any element of the filter for which the dust loading
is uniformly distributed and the local filtration velocity is
known.
sT
Curve Description
1
Maximum possible cleaning
2
Highly efficient cleaning
3 Average cleaning range j<r/
(mechanical shaking) yy /
4 Average cleaning range yy / /
collapse with reverse f l o w - / / /
k '3
0W R 0.25WT 0.5WT 0.75WT
Average fabric loading, W
Figure 1. Typical drag vs. loading curves for filters with different degrees of
cleaning and a maximum allowable level for terminal drag, ST, and terminal fabric
loading, Wj-
Parallel Flow Concept
When a fabric is cleaned by bag collapse and reverse flow
or by mechanical shaking, the dust spalls off as flakes or slabs
with the separation occurring at the dust/fabric interface
where the adhesive bonds are weakest.3-8 Typical dragAoading
curves for fabrics with varying fractions of their dust loading
removed are represented by Curves 2 through 4, Figure 1. The
varying slopes indicated on Figure 1 have sometimes been
incorrectly interpreted as signifying a dependency of K2 on
March 1979 Volume 29, No. 3
the underlying fabric substrate. Except for heavily napped
surfaces, however, the apparent variability in K2 is usually
attributable to the partial cleaning effect or to massive pinhole
leakage that may divert as much as 20% of the approaching
gas flow through as little as <0.1% of the filter face area.4
The path of these curves is governed by several parallel flow
paths in which the approaching gas stream is apportioned
according to the local drag values at any specified time for
cleaned and uncleaned surfaces:3*4'9
n A A
— I V" c a. " i (2)
- .2- "5" + -5— • • •
In Eq. (2), S and A refer to overall drag and filter area, re-
spectively, i designates the ith fractional area and its associated
properties, n is the total number of filter areas making up the
whole surface, and the subscripts c and u refer to the cleaned
and uncleaned filter areas, respectively.
The resultant pressure loss, P, at time t + At, for cleaned
and uncleaned filter surfaces are equal and expressible by the
following relationship:
Pt+At = (SEV)t+*t + (K2VW)t+M, (3)
in which SE is the effective residual drag, V the local face
(1) velocity and W the fabric loading at time t + At. Eq. (2) and
(3) are the building blocks for the iteration process from which
local and average drag and resistance may be estimated for
any time and/or average filter dust loading during a filtration
cycle. Two important variables must be defined, however,
before undertaking the computer modeling, the K2 value and
the cleaning parameter, ac.
Specific Resistance Coefficient (K2)
The first parameter is K2, which has been shown to increase
with the velocity of dust deposition, presumably due to in-
^ / / creased dust layer compaction and hence lower cake porosi-
ty.4-8 For many fly ash/glass fabric systems, K2 values may be
J^/ /
estimated by Eq. (4):
j ^ / /
/ K2 = 1.8 V1/2 (Metric units)* (4)
/
For broader applications, however, Eq. (4) is better ex-
/ pressed as:
(K2)2=(K2)1(V2/V1)V2 (5)
when K2 has been measured at a different velocity. Although
several approaches have been proposed for estimating K2,8
its direct measurement is strongly recommended. In the ab-
sence of direct measurements, a modification of the Kozeny-
Carman equation3 provides a rough estimate offi2;i.e.:
4
K2=l.6nS02(l-e)/ppe3
(6)
where fi is the gas viscosity, e the cake porosity, p p the discrete
WT
particle density, and So the specific surface parameter for the
size distribution. Unfortunately, relatively small errors in
porosity measurement, ~10%, can lead to 50% or greater errors
in final K2 estimations.3
Use of the parallel flow concept in conjunction with Eq. (2),
• (3), and (4) produced excellent agreement between observed
and predicted resistance values.3'4 The above modeling pro-
cess, Figure 2, depends on the fact that the cleaned area
fraction, ac, is always associated with a characteristic fabric
drag, Sc.
Fraction of Filter Surface Cleaned (a c )
In the case of cleaning by bag collapse and reverse flow, the
amount of dust removed (expressed as fraction of the filter
• * V = face velocity, m/min.
K 2 = specific resistance coefficient, N-min/g.m.
231
 \J\J\J
pores, pinholes or damaged filter areas.3'4 Furthermore, be-
— A Woven glass fabric, completely cleaned cause few particles are removed from the gas fraction passing
— • Woven glass fabric, partially cleaned /
—APredicted curve, partially cleaned
through the pores (nearly 100% penetration for diameters <15
800 woven glass fabric Mm), the size distributions are nearly the same for upstream
and downstream aerosols provided that size properties are
measured in the immediate vicinity of the dirty and cleaned
600 filter faces.1-3
Test parameters
The above findings suggest that mass emissions from glass

: A' partially cleaned fabric

fabrics should depend upon both inlet concentration, Q, and

A
V=0.61 m/min
400 unblocked pore area. The latter variable, which is governed
Co=6.9 g/m3
by the amount of dust deposited on the filter following re-
ac=0.485
au=0.515
sumption of filtration, may cease to be important once a
200
• / A >1
J Sc = 102.4N min/m 3
substantial dust layer has reaccumulated. In the absence of
visible defects, the relationship between outlet concentration,
/ > Su = 1033 N min/m 3
Co, and fabric dust loading appears as shown in Figure 4.
K2=1.80 V1/2N min/gm
0 /, , .i
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Average face velocity plays a major role in controlling outlet
concentrations. Following deposition of about 60 to 80 g/m2,
1,200
Average fabric loading, g/m 2 Figure 4, steady state emissions are seen to increase from ~0.5
Figure 2. Fly ash filtration with completely and partially cleaned woven glass to 150 mg/m3 over the face velocity range of 0.39 to 3.35 m/min
fabric (Menardi Southern).3 (1.3 to 11 ft/min). Therefore, seeking to reduce collector size
by increasing the face velocity (air to cloth ratio) may lead to
unacceptably high emission levels.
surface cleaned) can be related to the fabric dust loading im- Interfacial adhesive force, dynes/cm''
mediately before cleaning, Wp, the residual dust loading for 1
10 2 5 10 2
the cleaned region, WR, and the average filter dust loading 1
1
after cleaning, WR':
•01 Nucla ^

ar = 1 —
WR' - WR
WP- WR
(7)
; O2Sunburu^^d
<>3 Bow J
-8 2.52
B
7 -
Use of Eq. (7) is restricted to special cases where WR' has been a c =1.51x10 W
<
determined experimentally. Ordinarily, Eq. (8), which de- A /
pends only on the readily measured term, Wp in g/m2, is se- - © ") Pilot plant /
Q > studies with /
lected to determine the cleaned area fraction:3
= 1.51 X 10- 8 (8)
2 -
A J single bags J
-
The term Wp has the special significance of identifying the
fabric loading associated with the fabric pressure loss just -1
before initiating the cleaning action. 10

Dust Dislodgement and Adhesive Forces

Dust separation from the filter surface is assumed to take

place when the local separating force equals or exceeds the
local adhesive force bonding the dust layer to the fabric. The
dislodging force for bag collapse-reverse flow systems is that
resulting from the tensile or shear stresses (assumed to be
approximately the same) exerted by the local surface loading
in mass per unit area, Ma, in a gravity field, g. If the system
is cleaned by mechanical shaking, the average acceleration,
a, imparted to the dust layer by the mechanical shaking action
is substituted for the gravitational acceleration:3-5'10
a = 29.6 f2A
In Eq. (9), / is the shaking frequency and A the horizontal
component of the shaker arm amplitude (half stroke).
The relationship between ac and fabric loading shown in
Figure 3 is also a measure of the distribution of adhesive forces
over the fabric surface. The force distribution displays the
same statistical pattern reported for particle to particle ad-
hesion8-11'12 while the average forces binding the cake to the
fabric are similar to those described by Zimon.13 The cleaned
area values characterize those to be expected after successive
fabric flexings.
Dust Penetration with Woven Glass Fabrics
Laboratory and field measurements coupled with an anal-
ysis of the filtration process with twill-weave glass fabrics
indicate that fly ash emissions are due mainly to excessive gas
flow through the low resistance paths presented by unblocked
102 2 5 103 2
Average fabric loading, W, g/m 2
Figure 3. Cleaned area fraction versus filter dust loading or
interfacial adhesive force. Coal fly ash, (MMD = 4.2 ^ m , ag =
2.44) with woven glass (Sunbury type) fabric.
(9) Another contributor to outlet loading is the low level, steady
state, slough-off of agglomerated dust from the downstream
region of the dust deposit as the result of reentrainment
augmented by mechanical vibrations.3-6 A safe estimate of this
residual concentration, CR, places it as not greater than a 0.5
mg/m3 contributor to the outlet concentration.
The curves shown in Figure 4 represent the best mathe-
matical fits to the experimental data. The outlet concentra-
tion, Co, is defined by the local penetration level, Pn, the inlet
dust concentration, C,-, and the previously cited residual
concentration, CR = 0.5 mg/m3:
Co = CR (10)
The actual equations and their applications in the filtration
model are treated in detail in Reference 3. For present pur-
poses, it suffices to indicate that substitution of the necessary
quantitative relationships into the general expression:
Pn or C o ~ (4>, C- W, V,CR)

232 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association

 Model Applications

It is assumed for simplification that the performance of each

compartment is represented by any single bag within the
compartment and that there are no concentration gradients
for Ci and W in the system. The model describes the overall
effect of many parallel flow paths through fabric surface ele-
ments bearing different dust loads. The local performance of
each element is defined by the working equations presented
earlier in this paper.
An analysis of field measurements at the Nucla Station2-3
illustrates how the model can be used to predict system per-
formance based on specified design and operating conditions.
The foregoing procedure typifies the preliminary evaluations
of an emissions regulatory group who wish to determine
whether a proposed particulate control system is likely to be
Inlet cone. Face velocity successful.
Test (g/m3) (m/min) The data inputs required to model the filtration process are
1^ 98 8.09 O39 summarized in Table I. Items 1 through 3 are based upon
r 2A Average 7.01 0.61 system design or operating data provided by the manufac-
3O 96 5.37 1.52 turer. The two minute minimal time interval, Item 4, was
4Q 97 4.60 3.35 chosen by the model user so that successive, stepwise itera-
2 Notes: Solid lines are curves predicted by model. tions would always indicate maximum, minimum, and average
5
Symbols represent actual data points. system resistance while any one compartment was off-line for
16 cleaning.
20 40 60 80 100 _ 120 140
Average fabric loading, W, g/m
Figure 4. Predicted and observed outlet concentrations for
bench scale tests. GCA fly ash and Sunbury fabric. Table I. Required data inputs for specific model application.3
Item Variable Description Comments
1 Number of 6 System design parameter
determines penetration or effluent concentration as a function compartments
of 0, a parameter characterizing the dust/fabric combination 2 Complete 24 min Time to sequentially clean
of interest; constant inlet and residual concentrations, C; and cleaning cycle 6 compartments
CR, respectively; and the time and position dependent vari- 3 Cleaning time 4 min Indicates total
ables; i.e., local face velocity, V, and local fabric dust loading, per compartment off-line
W. It is again emphasized that because direct leakage is re- compartment time
sponsible for nearly all of the particulate emissions, the size 4 Minimum time 2 min Provides data points for
properties of typical coal fly ashes* do not enter directly into increment for maximum, minimum
iterative and average resistance
the estimation of dust penetration for the fabrics discussed computations and penetration during
in this paper. off-line period for on-
The total (and average) filter system penetration, Pn, at line compartments
some time, t, for a system consisting of/ compartments and 5 Average face 0.824 m/min Based on total flow and
J areal subdivisions per bag is determined by successive it- velocity (V) total fabric area
erations in accordance with the general summation: 6 Reverse flow 0.0415 m/min Weighted average velocity
velosicy (V) over total (4 min)
1 J cleaning interval
Pnt = E L PnijtVijt (ID 7 Inlet dust 2.6 g/m 3
f l 1
' concentration
(Q)
Model Capability 8 Temperature 412°K Average baghouse
temperature
3
The model described in this paper is intended for use with 9 Effective (clean) 434 N-min/m Based on linear
coal fly ash/glass fabric systems or with other dusts and fabrics fabric drag extrapolation of drag vs.
possessing similar physical properties. Within the above (SE) fabric loading
framework, the model provides the following capabilities for measurements with
constant flow filtration systems. uniform dust deposit
10 Specific 0.76 N-min/g.m Value determined at 0.61
• The model can describe equally well a continuous, inter- resistance m/min and 25°C
mittent (time controlled) or a pressure controlled sys- coefficient
tem. (K2)
• The model can be used with collapse and reverse flow sys- 11 Residual dust 50 g/m2 Refers to surface loading
loading (WR) on freshly cleaned area
tems, mechanical shaking systems, or combinations of the only
above. It is not intended for use with pulse jet or high ve- 12 Cleaned fabric 0.375 Fraction of cleaned
locity reverse jet cleaning systems. area fraction surface exposed when
• The model provides estimates of average and point values (ac) cleaning is initiated
of filter resistance for the selected set of operating condi- with a fabric loading
tions. corresponding to a
resistance of 1160 N/m2
• The model provides estimates of average and point values 13 Maximum 1160 N/m 2
Fabric pressure loss at
for penetration and mass effluent concentration for the allowable which cleaning cycle is
selected set of operating conditions. pressure Pm to be actuated
a
Modeling of actual field performance of stoker-fired boilers at Nucla,
• Coal fly ash MMD = 5 to 20 11m, <rg = 2.5 to 4.0. CO, Colorado UTE Electric Association.2-4

March 1979 Volume 29, No. 3 233

 Average face and average reverse flow velocities, Items 5 and Table II. Measured and predicted performance for woven glass
6, respectively, are operating parameters usually chosen by bags with coal fly ash.
the filter manufacturer. Percent penetration Resistance-N/m2
Inlet dust concentration and average filtration temperature, Measured8 Predicted" Measured Predicted
Items 7 and 8, are determined mainly by the combustion
process and the type of fuel. The estimates of Se, K2 and WR, Nucla, CO 0.21 0.19
Items 9 through 11, respectively, are best determined by direct (1.52)b
measurement if not already defined. Average, cleaning 1030 972
and filtering
The user and/or filter manufacturer has selected a pressure During cleaning 1700 1520
actuated cleaning system such that cleaning will be initiated only
when overall system resistance, Pm, reaches 1160 N/m2 (4.7 Maximum just 1160 1160
in. water), Item 13. Prior manufacturer's experience suggests before cleaning
that the interval between cleaning cycles will probably range Minimum just 850 720
from 2 to 3 hr for the given operating and design condi- after cleaning
tions. Sunbury, PA 0.15 0.20
Item 12, the cleaned area fraction, ac = 0.375, is the only Average, cleaning 635 620
calculation presently performed outside the model. It is and filtering
During cleaning 710 663
computed from the relationships: only
ac = 1.51 X 10- 8 Wp2-52 (metric units) (8) Maximum just 710 663
before cleaning
and Minimum just 560 567
after cleaning
WP = (Pm/V - SE)IK2 (from Eq. (1)) a
Averaged over cleaning and filtering cycles.
Note that WP is the estimated (uniformly distributed) fabric b
During cleaning cycle only.
loading corresponding to the resistance Pm. Having deter-
mined, ac, the Table I data inputs allow the program to gen-
erate a tabular and/or graphical printout that can provide
interim, individual compartment, and overall system per- contract number 68-02-1438, Tasks 5,6, and 7. The contents
formance parameters. of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or
In the case of the Nucla operation, the availability of per- policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
formance data2'3 enables one to appraise the model capability. does mention of trade names, commercial products, or orga-
The superposition of predicted and observed system resis- nizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
tance curves, Figure 5, shows fairly good agreement although
the model does predict a somewhat larger interval, 188 vs. 150 References
min, between cleaning cycles. Table II shows that average
emissions during the cleaning cycle were about eight times 1. R. W. Cass, "Fractional Efficiency of a Utility Boiler Baghouse:
Sunbury Steam-Electric Station," Report No. EPA-600/2-76-
those observed when all Nucla compartments were on-line. 077a (NTIS No. PB253-943/AS), March 1976.
2. R. M. Bradway and R. W. Cass, "Fractional Efficiency of a Utility
Boiler Baghouse—Nucla Generating Plant," Report No. EPA-
600/12-75-013a (NTIS No.—PB240-641/AS), Aug. 1975.
3. R. Dennis, et al, "Filtration Model for Coal Fly Ash With Glass
2.0 A Measured Fabrics," Report No. EPA-600/7-77-084, Aug. 1977.
o Predicted 4. R. Dennis, R. W. Cass, and R. R. Hall, "Dust dislodgement from
woven fabrics versus filter performance," J. Air Poll. Control
Assoc. 28:47 (1978).
5. R. Dennis and J. E. Wilder, "Fabric Filter Cleaning Studies,"
Report No. EPA-650/2-75-009, Jan. 1975.
1.0 6. D. Leith and M. W. First, "Particle Collection by Pulse-Jet Fabric
Filter," Report No. EPA-600/7-77-022, March 1977.
7. D. S. Ensor, R. C. Hooper, and R. W. Scheck, "Determination of
the Fractional Efficiency, Opacity Characteristics, and Engi-
neering Aspects of a Fabric Filter Operating on a Utility Boiler,"
Final Report, EPRI-FP-297, Nov. 1976.
8. C. E. Billings and J. E. Wilder, "Handbook of Fabric Filter
100 200 300 400 Technology, Volume I, Fabric Filter Systems Study," EPA No.
Time, minutes APTD 0690 (NTIS No. PB-200-648), Dec. 1970.
Figure 5. Nucla Baghouse simulation, resistance vs. time.
9. J. W. Robinson, R. E. Harrington, and P. W. Spaite, "A new
method for analysis of multicompartment fabric filtration,"
Atmos Environ. 1:499(1967).
10. G. W. Walsh and P. W. Spaite, "An analysis of mechanical shaking
Further model validations for the Sunbury station, again in air filtration," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 12:57 (1962).
11. F. Loffler, "Investigating adhesive forces between solid particles
based upon actual field measurements, are summarized with and fiber surfaces," Staub (English Translation) 26:10 (June
Nucla results in Table II. It is our present conclusion that the 1966).
filtration model, even in its preliminary form, has been dem- 12. M. Corn, "The adhesion of solid particles to solid surfaces, 1. A
onstrated to be a useful diagnostic and design tool. Improve- review," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 11:523 (1961).
13. A. D. Zimon, Adhesion of Dust and Powder, Plenum Press, New
ments in model reliability are expected to result from a sen- York, 1969. p. 112.
sitivity analysis now in progress and the conduct of further
field and laboratory measurements.

Acknowledgments
The authors express their appreciation to Dr. James H.
Turner, EPA Project Officer, for his technical support
throughout the program.
This project has been funded at least in part with Federal
funds from the Environmental Protection Agency under
Mr. Dennis and Mr. Klemm are members of the Environ-
mental Engineering Department of GCA/Technology Divi-
sion, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730. This is a revised version
of Paper No. 78-62.5 which was presented at the 71st Annual
Meeting of APCA at Houston in June 1978.

234 Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association