Smelt Shattering

Shattering Kraft Recovery Boiler Smelt by a Steam Jet
by
Anton Taranenko
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Master of Applied Science
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto
Copyright by Anton Taranenko 2013

ii
Abstract
Shattering Karft Recovery Boiler Smelt by a Steam Jet
Anton Taranenko, M.A.Sc. Thesis 2013
Department of Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry
University of Toronto

Kraft recovery boiler smelt is shattered into small droplets by an impinging steam jet to
prevent smelt-water explosions in the dissolving tank. Inadequate shattering increases the
likelihood of dissolving tank explosions. While industry has not dedicated much effort to
smelt shattering, the safety implications require smelt shattering to be studied in detail.
An experimental set-up was constructed to simulate the shattering operation using a
water-glycerine solution and air instead of smelt and steam respectively. The objective
was to examine how physical properties and flow characteristics affect shattering. It was
found that increasing shatter jet velocity greatly reduced droplet mean diameter.
Increasing the liquid flow rate greatly increased droplet size, as expected. Shattering was
not significantly affected by viscosity, unless a weak shatter jet was used on a highly
viscous fluid. Increasing the proximity of the shatter jet nozzle decreased droplet size.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my utmost gratitude to Professor Honghi Tran for his guidance and
supervision. His motivation and encouragement throughout this project has been
invaluable.
I also extend my thanks to Professor Markus Bussmann for his enthusiasm and
helpfulness in my time as a graduate student. I am deeply appreciative of his technical
and non-technical advice.
I am also grateful to all my colleagues and friends at the Pulp and Paper Centre: Tasnuva,
Daniel, Liming, Wei, Eric, Fariba, Monica, Ivan, Babak, Ameya, Mesoumeh, Frida, and
Aino. I thank them for all the fun times and insightful conversations we had.
Special thanks go to Paul Jowlabar, Sue Mao, and Anna Ho. They have always been
more than happy to help me during my time at U of T.
Lastly, I would like to thank my parents. Without their love and support this thesis would
have been insurmountable. Thank you mom and dad!

iv
Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1 ........................................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Smelt Shattering................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Smelt Shattering Practices ............................................................................... 8
1.3 Research Objectives........................................................................................ 13
Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................... 14
2 Literature Review ................................................................................................... 14
2.1 Cross-flow Atomization.................................................................................. 14
2.2 Melt Atomization ............................................................................................ 17
Chapter 3 ......................................................................................................................... 20
3 Experimental Design and Methodology................................................................ 20
3.1 Experimental Set-up....................................................................................... 20
3.2 Experimental Methodology............................................................................ 23
3.2.1 Image Processing..................................................................................... 25
v
3.2.2 Droplet Size Data Processing ................................................................. 26
3.3 Air Jet Measurements..................................................................................... 29
3.4 Spout Flow Measurements ............................................................................. 31
Chapter 4 ......................................................................................................................... 36
4 Experimental Results and Discussion ................................................................... 36
4.1 Effect of Air Velocity ...................................................................................... 37
4.2 Effect of Liquid Flow Rate............................................................................. 41
4.3 Effect of Viscosity............................................................................................ 47
4.4 Effect of Nozzle Proximity.............................................................................. 53
Chapter 5 ......................................................................................................................... 59
5 Practical Implications............................................................................................. 59
5.1 Effect of Momentum Ratio............................................................................. 59
5.2 Implications ..................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 6 ......................................................................................................................... 62
6 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................... 62
6.1 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 62
6.2 Future Work Recommendations ................................................................... 63
References........................................................................................................................ 65
Appendices....................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A Calculating Smelt Flow Rate................................................................. 68
vi
Appendix B Calculating the Weber Number for Liquid Shattering....................... 69
Appendix C Shattering Images................................................................................... 70

vii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Maximum black liquor firing capacities and the number of spouts, for
four recovery boilers [8, 9] ...................................................................... 4
Table 4-1: Range of parameters considered in this thesis ....................................... 36
Table A-1: Volumetric smelt flow rate .................................................................... 68

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Kraft recovery cycle [1] ........................................................................... 2
Figure 1-2: Recovery boiler [1, 7]: (a) air supply, (b) black liquor guns,
(c) dissolving tank.................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-3: Typical smelt shattering........................................................................... 5
Figure 1-4: Documented dissolving tank explosions in North America
since 1973 [12]......................................................................................... 6
Figure 1-5: Smelt spout designs: (a) water-cooled, (b) dry spout .............................. 9
Figure 1-6: Typical spout and jet placements........................................................... 10
Figure 1-7: A conical steam shatter jet that covers a large area ............................... 11
Figure 1-8: Shatter jet nozzles: (a) single hole design with a steam jet cleaner, (b)
single hole design with a shovel to prevent salt build-up, (c) multiple
hole design, (d, e) slit hole design.......................................................... 12
Figure 2-1: Cross-flow atomization.......................................................................... 15
Figure 2-2: Melt atomization [21] ............................................................................ 17
Figure 3-1: Water-glycerine shattering by an air jet................................................. 20
Figure 3-2: Full view of the experimental set-up ..................................................... 21
Figure 3-3: Schematic of the experimental set-up.................................................... 21
Figure 3-4: Liquid stream break-up captured by the high speed camera (front view)
................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 3-5: Liquid break-up captured by the high speed camera (low flow, side
view) ...................................................................................................... 24
ix
Figure 3-6: Liquid break-up captured by the high speed camera (high flow, side
view) ...................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3-7: Image processing: (a) original image, (b) binary form of the original
image, (c) droplet outlines ..................................................................... 25
Figure 3-8: Droplet diameter distributions obtained from 3, 5, and 10 images. Air
velocity = 100 m/s, shatter nozzle to liquid proximity = 7.5 cm, liquid
flow rate = 0.1 L/s, liquid viscosity = 2.5 cP......................................... 27
Figure 3-9: Volume distributions obtained from 3, 5, and 10 images. Air
velocity = 100 m/s, shatter nozzle to liquid proximity = 7.5 cm, liquid
flow rate = 0.1 L/s, liquid viscosity = 2.5 cP......................................... 28
Figure 3-10: Air velocity distribution (horizontal axis) 7.5 cm from the nozzle exit.
Air velocities at the nozzle exit are 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s ... 29
Figure 3-11: Air velocity distribution (horizontal axis) 15 cm from the nozzle exit.
Air velocities at the nozzle exit are 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s ... 30
Figure 3-12: A comparison of a 100 m/s jet at 7.5 cm and a 300 m/s jet at 15 cm.... 31
Figure 3-13: Front view of the spout. The diameter of the spout (d) is 3.75 cm. ....... 32
Figure 3-14: Water velocity at the spout exit versus spout flow rate, for four spout
inclinations............................................................................................. 33
Figure 3-15: Effect of spout inclination on exit velocity............................................ 34
Figure 3-16: Liquid stream velocity at the spout exit versus spout flow rate, for four
different liquid viscosities at 15 inclination ......................................... 35
Figure 4-1: Spray images at different air velocities. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP,
N
ls
= 7.5 cm............................................................................................ 37
x
Figure 4-2: Droplet diameter distributions at u
air
= 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s.
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm.................................................... 39
Figure 4-3: Volume distribution at u
air
= 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s.
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm................................................... 39
Figure 4-4: Effect of air velocity on SMD. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm.. 41
Figure 4-5: Shattering images at different liquid flow rates.
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 4-6: Effect of liquid flow rate on droplet distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm.................................................................. 44
Figure 4-7: Effect of liquid flow rate on volume distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm.................................................................. 44
air
= 300 m/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm.................................................................. 46
Figure 4-9: Effect of liquid flow rate on SMD.
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm................ 47
Figure 4-10: Shattering images at different liquid viscosities at u
air
= 100 m/s,
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm................................................................ 48
Figure 4-11: Effect of viscosity on droplet distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................................................... 49
Figure 4-12: Effect of viscosity on volume distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................................................... 49
air
= 300 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................................................... 51
air
= 300 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................................................... 51
xi
Figure 4-15: Effect of viscosity on SMD. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm......................... 52
Figure 4-16: Shattering images at different nozzle distances. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
................................................................................................................ 53
Figure 4-17: Effect of nozzle proximity on droplet distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, and
l
= 2.5 cP................................................................... 54
Figure 4-18: Effect of nozzle proximity on volume distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, and
l
= 2.5 cP................................................................... 54
Figure 4-19: Effect of nozzle proximity on SMD. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP .............. 55
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 4-21: Effect of shatter jet span on droplet diameter. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 4-22: Effect of shatter jet span on volume distribution. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
................................................................................................................ 57
Figure 5-1: Plot of liquid-to-gas momentum ratio with respect to normalized droplet
mean diameter ........................................................................................ 60
Figure C-6-1:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm....................................................... 71
Figure C-6-2:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm....................................................... 72
Figure C-6-3:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm........................................................ 73
Figure C-6-4:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm........................................................ 74
Figure C-6-5:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm.................................................... 75
Figure C-6-6:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm.................................................... 76
xii
Figure C-6-7:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm..................................................... 77
Figure C-6-8:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm..................................................... 78
Figure C-6-9:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................... 79
Figure C-6-10:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................... 80
Figure C-6-11:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm...................................................... 81
Figure C-6-12:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm...................................................... 82
Figure C-6-13:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................... 83
Figure C-6-14:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm..................................................... 84
Figure C-6-15:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm...................................................... 85
Figure C-6-16:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm...................................................... 86

1
Chapter 1

1 Introduction
The kraft pulping process is the most widely used method to produce pulp from wood.
Since it produces high strength pulp and is able to process most wood species, the kraft
pulping process is advantageous to other pulping processes.
In the kraft pulping process, wood chips are converted into wood pulp with the use of
white liquor a mixture of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium sulfide (Na
2
S). NaOH
and Na
2
S are known as the pulping chemicals. Wood pulp, in the form of cellulose fibers,
accounts for half of the processed wood, while the rest is dissolved with the spent pulping
chemicals to form a liquid mixture known as weak black liquor. Thus, black liquor is
composed of both organic and inorganic components.
The kraft recovery cycle (Figure 1-1) is a part of the pulping process. It recycles the
aforementioned pulping chemicals, generates steam and power from burning the organic
part of the black liquor, and disposes of dissolved wood substances [1].
2

Figure 1-1: Kraft recovery cycle [1]
In kraft pulping, the pulp is separated from weak black liquor through washing, leaving
weak black liquor with 80-85% water content. This liquid stream is then sent through a
series of evaporators to reduce the amount of water to 15-25% [2]. The resultant liquid
stream, referred to as heavy black liquor, is injected into a recovery boiler via spray guns.
The recovery boiler (Figure 1-2) is the most expensive and important component of the
kraft recovery cycle [3]. It has two main functions, one of which is to produce power (via
steam generation) by burning the organic components of black liquor. [4]. As the black
liquor is injected into the recovery boiler via spray guns, some of the organic matter
burns in flight, while the rest of the black liquor falls onto a porous char bed, which burns
the remaining organic matter. The char bed also carries out the second function of the
recovery boiler by converting sodium along with sulfur into sodium carbonate (Na
2
CO
3
)
and Na
2
S the two major components of what is called smelt [4]. The resulting hot,
molten smelt percolates to the bottom of the bed, flows out of the boiler, is shattered into
droplets by an impinging steam shatter jet, and falls into a dissolving tank, where it
dissolves in water to form so-called green liquor. The green liquor is supplied to the
causticizing plant, where Na
2
CO
3
is reacted with lime (CaO) in the presence of water and
3
converted to NaOH, while the Na
2
S remains unchanged [1, 5]. The solution of sodium
sulfide and the newly converted sodium hydroxide is white liquor. It is filtered from
calcium carbonate (CaCO
3
), precipitated from the caustisizing reaction, and is ready to be
reused in pulping. CaCO
3
is later calcined back into CaO [5, 6].

Figure 1-2: Recovery boiler [1, 7]: (a) air supply, (b) black liquor guns, (c) dissolving
tank
This thesis studies the atomization process of smelt shattering by an impinging steam jet.
The remainder of this chapter describes in detail the motivation for the smelt shattering
process, some of difficulties associated with it, various smelt shattering practices, and the
thesis objective.
4
1.1 Smelt Shattering
Smelt is composed of 2/3 Na
2
CO
3
and 1/3 Na
2
S with trace amounts of sodium sulfate
(Na
2
SO
4
), sodium chloride (NaCl), potassium carbonate (K
2
CO
3
), potassium sulfide
(K
2
S), potassium sulfate (K
2
SO
4
), and potassium chloride (KCl) [3]. The temperature of
molten smelt in the recovery boiler is around 800C. When smelt is hot and molten it has
a glowing bright red colour. One way to determine smelt temperature is to look at its
colour. As smelt forms in the recovery boiler, it percolates through the char bed and
collects at the bottom of the boiler, forming a pool. Smelt level is regulated by a series of
openings at the bottom of the boiler, as it continuously flows out of the recovery boiler
through these openings and down a series of spouts attached to the boiler outer wall.
Approximately 40% of the black liquor dry solids mass is converted into smelt [3]. Dry
solids (d.s.) refers to the solid content of black liquor. The rate at which black liquor
enters a boiler is defined for any boiler by the maximum firing capacity. Table 1-1 lists
firing capacities of several recovery boilers.
Table 1-1: Maximum black liquor firing capacities and the number of spouts, for four
recovery boilers [8, 9]
Recovery boiler Max black liquor (BL)
firing capacity (tons BL
d.s./day)
Number of spouts
A 1100 2
B 950 2
C 2050 5
C (resized) 2700 6
D 3500 8
5
Based on these maximum black liquor capacities and the number of spouts, one can
estimate that the smelt flow rate is approximately 1 L/s per spout (Appendix A).
From the spout, the smelt falls into a dissolving tank filled with water that is kept at 80C
to 90C. If the smelt stream were allowed to fall directly into the dissolving tank, the
smelt-water interaction would quickly transform liquid water into vapour, which could
lead to a smelt-water explosion. This is a serious plant safety concern. To reduce the risk
of an explosion, and to improve smelt-water solubility, it is common practice to shatter
the smelt stream into droplets with a steam jet (Figure 1-3), placed near to the spout exit.
The atomization of the smelt stream into droplets reduces the likelihood of a smelt-water
explosion and thus promotes a safer dissolving tank operation [10].

Figure 1-3: Typical smelt shattering
Despite the use of shatter jets, serious smelt-water explosions in the dissolving tank
continue to be reported [11]. Figure 1-4 shows the number of documented dissolving
tank explosions in North America.
6
Kraft Recovery Dissolving Tank Explosions
North America Pulp and Paper Industry
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
9
7
1
1
9
7
3
1
9
7
5
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
9
1
9
8
1
1
9
8
3
1
9
8
5
1
9
8
7
1
9
8
9
1
9
9
1
1
9
9
3
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
7
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
3
2
0
0
5
2
0
0
7
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
1
Year
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

Figure 1-4: Documented dissolving tank explosions in North America since 1973 [12]
Exactly why a dissolving tank explodes is not known. However, one possible cause for
explosions is shatter jet failure to sufficiently break up smelt streams exiting the recovery
boiler, allowing lumps of smelt to fall into the dissolving tank. Shatter jets can fail for a
number of reasons:
During the regular operation of a boiler, but more commonly during the start-up
of a boiler after a shut-down for cleaning, the char bed will include large lumps of
char floating in molten smelt. Char lumps can plug spout openings. When they are
cleared the accumulated smelt can lead to a sudden flow surge, known as smelt
run-off. The exact flow rate of these surges is not known, but it may be too great
for the shatter jets to adequately break up.
Sometimes a visibly slower smelt flow is detected on a spout. This may indicate
that smelt is cooler and its viscosity is significantly higher than the 3 to 4 cP that
7
is a typical smelt viscosity [13]. The highly viscous flow, known as jelly roll
smelt, is much more difficult for shatter jets to break up.
Boiler start-up, or a partially plugged spout, can produce a diminished smelt flow
that drops straight down. The shatter jets, which are directed at the usual smelt
stream, may completely miss a reduced stream.
Smelt-water explosions may occur because of smelt build up on recovery boiler
and dissolving tank walls. It is possible that some of the shattered smelt can
accumulate to form solid deposits on the walls. When these deposits grow large
enough, they break off and fall into the dissolving tank. The deposits are
sometimes referred to as cherry bombs.
Sometimes large lumps of smelt fall into the dissolving tank and splash green
liquor onto the shatter jet nozzles. Once the water evaporates, salt deposits will
form on the nozzles. If this happens on a continuous basis, the shatter jet nozzles
will plug. As a result, the shatter jet ability to fully break up smelt is greatly
reduced.
It should be noted that even individual smelt droplets explode when they fall into the
dissolving tank. Boiler operation continuously produces smelt droplets, and, in turn,
audible droplet explosions in the dissolving tank. Boiler operators can assess the
effectiveness of smelt shattering, and more generally the operation of the dissolving tank,
by the rumbling noise coming from the dissolving tank. In some cases the cumulative
energy released from multiple droplet explosions is enough to shake the recovery boiler
itself. The mechanism for these explosions is not yet fully known, but it has been noted
that if the shatter jet steam flow is increased, the noise from the dissolving tank is
reduced. This is most likely related to smelt droplet size. Intuitively, the use of more
shatter steam will reduce the number of larger droplets and unbroken smelt lumps. As a
result, the noise level will decrease.
Even though smelt shattering and dissolving tank operation are important aspects of
recovery boiler operation, with serious safety implications, the industry has not dedicated
8
much effort to optimizing shattering operations. No research on smelt shattering has been
done previously.
1.2 Smelt Shattering Practices
Smelt spout design, shatter jet nozzle design and placement, and shatter jet steam
consumption vary from plant to plant. There appears to be little agreement on a best
practice for smelt shattering. It should be noted that much of the information presented in
this section is based on a number of mill visits by Professor Honghi Tran at the
University of Toronto.
The most commonly used spouts are U-shaped (Figure 1-5), although at some mills the
spouts are V-shaped. Typical U-shaped spouts are just under 1 meter in length and about
15 cm wide at the top of the U. Most spouts are water-cooled in order to protect the
spout from smelt corrosion and to extend spout life. Spouts that are not water-cooled are
referred to as dry spouts. Spout inclination can vary between 15 and 45, although
most spouts are installed at the lower inclination. The choice of the spout angle affects
smelt shattering. At low inclinations the spout exit is further from the recovery boiler
wall, meaning less shattered smelt will come in contact with the recovery boiler wall.
However, at low spout inclinations and low flow rates the exiting smelt stream falls
straight down as it leaves the spout exit. In cases where shatter jets point straight down
and cannot be pivoted, smelt will not be sufficiently atomized since the shatter jets are
unable to reach the stream. The trajectory of the exiting smelt stream will vary less if the
spout inclination is steep, and so there is less chance that a shatter jet will miss the smelt
stream. The drawback is that more smelt will build up on the recovery boiler wall.

9

Figure 1-5: Smelt spout designs: (a) water-cooled, (b) dry spout
The placement of shatter jets varies from mill to mill. Jets can be directed downwards and
placed about 30 cm (1 ft) from the spout lip, so that the vertical distance from the nozzle
to the smelt stream is about 60 cm (2 ft), as shown in Figure 1-6a. Shatter jets may also
be tilted toward the recovery boiler (b) to better accommodate changes in smelt flow
conditions. Most of the time only one shatter jet per spout is utilized, although sometimes
two jets are used (c). The second jet is sometimes only turned on when there is a reduced
smelt flow or a smelt flow surge, when the main shatter jet could fail to sufficiently break
up smelt on its own. The placement and direction of the second jet can vary. Usually it is
10
closer to the spout and is sometimes pivoted such that it intersects the exiting smelt
stream (d). In some cases the second jet is directed away from the recovery boiler (e) in
order to avoid smelt build up on the recovery boiler and dissolving tank walls.

Figure 1-6: Typical spout and jet placements
11
Most pulp mills make use of superheated steam for smelt shattering. Steam pressure can
range anywhere from 3.5 bar (50 psi) to 15.5 bar (225 psi), while temperature is between
150C to 250C [14]. The amount of steam used per spout varies from mill to mill. In
fact, most mills only know the total shatter jet steam consumption. Some mills use large
amounts of steam and create large conical shatter jets in order to cover a larger area and
thus compensate for any smelt flow surges or low flows (Figure 1-7). However, the size
of the conical jet is much larger than the size of the smelt stream during normal smelt
flow. This can lead to significant steam wastage.

Figure 1-7: A conical steam shatter jet that covers a large area
Shatter jet steam consumption per nozzle appears to vary widely. Quoted values range
from 180 kg/hour (400 lbs/hour) to 2250 kg/hour (5000 lbs/hour) per nozzle. This is one
order of magnitude difference. This corresponds to a ratio of steam consumption to smelt
production of 0.05 to 0.625 kg of steam per kg of smelt.
12
Shatter nozzle designs and sizes also vary greatly. Furthermore, new jets (and new
designs) are occasionally installed during a recovery boiler lifetime, especially if
shattering problems are encountered. Examples of a few shatter jet nozzle designs used in
practice are shown in Figure 1-8. It seems that most pulp mills simply use pipes that
carry steam and modify the pipe outlet to create a nozzle. A shatter nozzle can be circular
(Figure 1-8 a, b, and c) or slit-shaped (d). Some mills use multiple circular holes (c).
Some shatter nozzles have been modified to prevent smelt build up on nozzles. One pulp
mill has an attached shovel-shaped barrier (b), while another directs a small flow of
steam at a shatter nozzle (a) to clean the nozzle.

Figure 1-8: Shatter jet nozzles: (a) single hole design with a steam jet cleaner, (b) single
hole design with a shovel to prevent salt build-up, (c) multiple hole design, (d, e) slit hole
design
13
1.3 Research Objectives
Little work has been done to study smelt shattering. However the safety implications
dictate that it is absolutely vital that smelt shattering be studied in detail, to prevent
dangerous dissolving tank operation.
The objectives of this project were to:
Construct an experimental apparatus to study smelt shattering
and to use the apparatus to examine how:
Smelt flow rate
Smelt viscosity
Shatter steam flow rate
Nozzle placement and jet shape
affect shattering effectiveness. This thesis documents the apparatus that was built and the
results of the study. It is hoped that these results can be used to guide the development of
safer steam shattering and dissolving tank operation practices.
The remainder of this thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter 2 introduces some
atomization processes similar to smelt shattering. Chapter 3 presents the experimental
apparatus that was built and the methodology of data acquisition. Chapter 4 presents
experimental results, while Chapter 5 discusses some of their practical application.
Chapter 6 concludes the thesis and presents recommendations for future work.
14
Chapter 2

2 Literature Review
Atomization is the break-up of a bulk liquid into numerous smaller particles, usually very
small droplets on the order of micrometers to millimeters in diameter. The break-up
greatly increases the surface area of the liquid [15]. Atomization is an important process
in many applications, including spray combustion in furnaces and engines, crop spraying,
water treatment, spray painting, and powdered metallurgy [16].
Depending on the application, different techniques can be used to break-up a bulk liquid
into droplets. Atomization can be achieved with an atomizer, a device that discharges a
liquid stream through a nozzle, thus creating a liquid jet that quickly disintegrates into
droplets. Bulk liquids can also be reduced to droplets with the use of liquid-liquid jet
impaction, liquid-solid interaction, and gas-liquid interaction. Lastly, atomization can be
achieved with acoustic atomizers, ultrasonic atomizers, and electrostatic
charging [17, 18].
The process, known as smelt shattering, is an example of both cross-flow atomization and
melt atomization. Cross-flow atomization is the process of injection and disintegration of
liquid streams (or jets) in gaseous cross-flows [19]. Melt atomization uses various means
to break up a molten material. One melt atomization method uses a high velocity gas jet
to impact and break-up the metal liquid this is referred to as gas atomization [20]. In
what follows overviews of cross-flow and melt atomization are presented.
2.1 Cross-flow Atomization
The atomization of liquid jets in subsonic cross-flows has been studied extensively. In
cross-flow atomization a liquid stream is generated and injected normal to an oncoming
flow of gas (Figure 2-1) [19]. The momentum of the moving gas impacts the liquid
column, bends it, shears droplets from the column, and eventually disintegrates the
15
column completely into droplets. The gas flow is usually enclosed in a duct so it is
uniform across the cross-section area of the duct, and is constant throughout its length.

Figure 2-1: Cross-flow atomization
The application of cross-flow atomization ranges from Venturi scrubbers to fuel injection
systems and aircraft engines [19, 21]. Venturi scrubbers are used to control particle
emissions. Scrubbers atomize a liquid medium (usually water) into droplets, which can
trap contaminants found in a gas flow [21]. Fuel injector systems use this kind of
injection to improve fuel atomization and vaporization characteristics.
Liquid jet trajectory and droplet size depend on fluid and geometric variables. This
dependence is usually expressed in terms of non-dimensional parameters. Using the
Buckingham theorem and applying some mathematical simplifications, a function (C)
for liquid jet trajectory and droplet size in cross-flow atomization can be found [19]:
C = f(q, We
g
, Re
l
) 2-1
where q is the liquid-to-gas momentum ratio, We
g
is the Weber number, which is the ratio
of gas inertia to the liquid-gas surface tension force, and Re
l
is the Reynolds number,
16
which is the ratio of inertial to viscous forces. Momentum ratio can be expressed in the
following manner:

2
2
g g
l l
u
u
q
=
2-2
where
l
and
g
are liquid and gas densities, and u
l
and u
g
are liquid and gas velocities
respectively. The Weber number can be expressed as:

g l
l g g
g
D u
We
/
2
= 2-3
where D
l
is the column (or nozzle) diameter and
l/g
is the surface tension of the atomized
liquid. Lastly, the Reynolds number can be expressed as follows:

l
l l l
l
D u
= Re
2-4
where
l
is the viscosity of the atomized liquid.
Most research has focused on the liquid jet trajectory and deformation as it is injected
into a cross-flow. Numerous models exist to describe the penetration of the liquid jet into
an oncoming gas stream [19]. For the purposes of this thesis, the break-up process of the
liquid jet is of primary interest. The break-up processes in cross-flow atomization are
divided into three categories primary break-up, column break-up, and secondary break-
up. Primary break-up involves the stripping of ligaments and drops from the main liquid
jet column. Column break-up occurs when a jet disintegrates into a series of droplets.
Secondary break-up refers to the reduction of large droplets formed during column break-
up, into smaller particles. According to the literature [19], if We is on the order of 100,
90% of the liquid column mass is taken away due to stripping. This mass loss coupled
with the liquid column instabilities initiated by gas flow leads to column break-up [19].
Intuitively, higher Weber numbers should instigate column break-up faster.
17
It is somewhat difficult to calculate We for the shattering process due to the non-uniform
nature of the shatter jet. However, We can reach values on the order of 1000 at the
centerline of the shatter jet (Appendix B). This ensures that liquid column break-up is at
the point of gas-liquid impingement. There is no distinct liquid stream beyond that point
and the liquid column disintegrates into a spray almost instantaneously.
2.2 Melt Atomization
Melt atomization is widely used to produce metal and alloy powders, and to facilitate
metal spray deposition. Metals such as Al, Cu, Fe, and alloys such as steel are melted,
forced through an orifice forming a liquid stream, and subsequently atomized by a high-
velocity liquid or gas jet (Figure 2-2). The end result, after heat transfer, is a solid
powder or surface coating [20, 22].

Figure 2-2: Melt atomization [21]
Melt atomization has many uses in industry. Melt powders can be used in solid rocket
fuel, metallic paints, filters, and batteries. Some components in the aerospace industry are
18
manufactured from metallic powders. Depending on the application, particle size can
vary. Atomization is a viable and yet challenging option for producing metal powders.
Due to its complexity, the atomization process is difficult to predict theoretically. Thus, it
is often difficult to achieve droplets within a certain size range. Research and
development is often needed when modifications to atomizer design, melt properties, and
melt flow rate are required [23].
Melt atomization is a two-fluid process, where a molten metal fluid is impacted by a
high-velocity secondary (or atomizing) fluid, a liquid or gas jet. The secondary fluid flow
is created and accelerated by a stream injector (if the fluid is a liquid) or generated by a
pressuring reservoir (if the fluid is a gas). The atomizing fluid exits via a nozzle as a jet,
which is focused on the atomized fluid to facilitate molten metal break-up. This results in
the production of droplets that have a much greater surface-to-volume ratio when
compared to the original molten metal stream. Part of the kinetic energy that is
transferred from the atomizing fluid to the molten metal stream overcomes viscous forces
that resist deformation; the other part overcomes the molten metal surface energy forces
that resist free surface creation. Thus, the kinetic energy that is transferred from the liquid
or gas jet to the molten metal is retained in the form of surface energy [20].
In general terms, melt atomization can be divided into three categories: water
atomization, oil atomization, and gas atomization. Momentum transfer is the main
mechanism for water and oil melt atomization. Due to the high heat transfer rate between
the atomizing liquid and melt, the morphology of melt powders is irregular in comparison
the gas atomized powders, which are more spherical in shape. Water and oil atomization
is most commonly used in instances where melt flow rate is high. Gas atomization is
dependent on the velocity of the impinging gas. The kinetic energy of an impacting gas
jet, which can be subsonic, supersonic, or ultrasonic, forces the melt stream to break up
into droplets. Particle size is governed by the gas-to-melt momentum ratio [20].
Atomization is controlled by both viscous and surface tension forces of the atomized
liquid. The relative importance of each of those forces can be represented in the
following manner [22]:
19

U
E
E
l
=
2-5
where
l
is the viscosity of the atomized liquid, U (relative velocity) is the difference
between the velocity of the liquid and the velocity of the surrounding gas, and is the
surface tension of the liquid. For a typical relative velocity of 50 m/s, the ratio of viscous
to surface tension forces for molten metals such as steel, zinc, and magnesium would be
around 0.1 to 0.15. Therefore, the effect of viscosity on atomization would be negligible
compared to the effect of surface tension. However, this says little about the direct effect
of viscosity on droplet size, and only that surface tension is more dominant. Furthermore,
empirical evidence and models suggest that viscosity has an effect on droplet size [22]. A
widely used expression that predicts droplet mass median diameter (D
m,0.5
) as a function
of liquid viscosity and other liquid and gas parameters is [24]:

2 / 1
1
5 . 0 ,
) / 1 (
(
(
+ =

g m
g
m
m
m m We
v
v
K D 2-6
where K is a constant between 40 and 50, is a length scale equivalent to the melt orifice
diameter, v
m
is the melt kinematic viscosity, v
g
is the gas kinematic viscosity, m
m
is the
melt mass flow rate, and m
g
is the gas mass flow rate. The increase in melt viscosity and
surface tension produces larger droplets. Some further effects on droplet size can be seen
in equation 2-6. Increases in melt orifice diameter, velocity, and mass flow rate produce
larger drops. Gas velocity and mass flow rate increases lead to smaller droplets.
20
Chapter 3

3 Experimental Design and Methodology
This section presents the design of the experimental set-up and the methodology used to
run and record the shattering experiments. Shatter jet and spout flow velocities are
characterized as well.
3.1 Experimental Set-up
A quarter scale experimental set-up was constructed to mimic a typical smelt shattering
operation. For reasons of safety, a water-glycerine mixture was used in place of smelt,
and air was used instead of steam. A simple illustration of the experimental set-up is
shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1: Water-glycerine shattering by an air jet
21
The constructed experimental set-up is shown in detail in Figure 3-2.

Figure 3-2: Full view of the experimental set-up
The process flow schematic of the experimental set-up is presented in Figure 3-3.

Figure 3-3: Schematic of the experimental set-up
22
A heavy duty polyethylene collection tank (75 x 100 x 75 cm) stores the water-glycerine
solution (bottom of Figure 3-2). The solution is pumped out by a cast iron 3/4 hp
centrifugal pump (a in Figure 3-3) with a semi-open impeller (3 diameter). The inlet of
the pump is 2, while the outlet is 1. The outlet of the pump is connected to a tee so that
a recycle line (1 diameter) can be used to divert some of the liquid back into the
collection tank. A gate valve (b) is installed on the recycle line to control the flow. The
second line (1/2 diameter) coming from the tee leads to the inclined tank. A simple
water filter (c) with a clear housing, a gate valve (d), and a water flow meter (e) are
installed on the way to the inclined tank. The flow meter measures water flow rates up to
40 L/min.
A smaller heavy duty polyethylene inclined tank (80 x 32 x 46 cm) is used to collect the
water-glycerine solution. A U-shaped poly(methyl methacrylate) spout (top of
Figure 3-2) is attached to the inclined tank (40 cm above the tank bottom). Spout length
and width are around 30 and 3.75 cm respectively. A rising pool of liquid is generated
once the water-glycerine solution is supplied to the inclined tank. When the water-
glycerine solution reaches the attached spout much like smelt does, it flows down the
spout and exits as a liquid stream back into the collection tank. The large size of the
inclined tank inhibits flow disturbances. As a result, the stream flowing down the spout is
steady.
The liquid stream is shattered and reduced to droplets by an impinging air jet. Air is
supplied by the building air supply station through a 1/2 pipe line. The flow rate is
controlled by a ball valve (f in Figure 3-3) and measured by a flow meter (h) with a
capacity of 15 to 150 scfm (calibrated at 70F and 100 psi). A pressure gauge (g) is
installed to monitor the pressure inside the air line, from 0 to 100 psi. The shatter jet is
generated with a Laval type nozzle (i) with an 11.9 mm outlet diameter and a 7.9 mm
throat diameter; the air flow is always subsonic. The position of the nozzle is adjustable,
and is maintained at 7.5 cm or 15 cm above the liquid stream, pointed straight down. The
horizontal distance between the nozzle and the spout exit is about 10 cm.
23
3.2 Experimental Methodology
The water-glycerine droplet formation is illuminated by a light source and captured by a
high speed camera. The light source is a 300W light bulb with a 5 cm diameter
multifaceted reflector. Translucent sheets are used to diffuse the light intensity. A digital
high speed camera (Mega Speed MS70K S2) fitted with a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3
DG macro lens is used to capture droplet formation. The Mega Speed software package is
used with the digital camera.
Since droplets travel at high velocities, the lens exposure time is kept low around 10 to
25 s. The light shines directly into the camera to brighten the images and create dark
contours around the transparent droplets to make them visible (Figure 3-4).

Figure 3-4: Liquid stream break-up captured by the high speed camera (front view)
Although the water-glycerine break-up can be seen in the figure above, it is difficult to
detect single droplets from such an image. Therefore, the high speed camera is focused
on a small area of interest, about 3.5 by 3.5 cm, 50 cm below the point of impingement.
The camera is placed 1 m away from the image area (Figure 3-5).
24

Figure 3-5: Liquid break-up captured by the high speed camera (low flow, side view)
The shattered plume of droplets tends to be conical and symmetrical at lower liquid flow
rates and high air velocities. However, larger droplets travel closer to the camera, while
smaller droplets are further away. Increasing the liquid flow rate shifts the plume closer
to the high speed camera (Figure 3-6).

Figure 3-6: Liquid break-up captured by the high speed camera (high flow, side view)
25
Since the camera is always focused on the same area, the data is limited to the droplets
that appear in that plane. Thus, the captured images may not fully represent the droplet
size distribution of the break-up.
3.2.1 Image Processing
Once the images are obtained, ImageJ software is used to process them and extract
droplet diameter data. The processing of a sample image is illustrated in Figure 3-7:

Figure 3-7: Image processing: (a) original image, (b) binary form of the original image,
(c) droplet outlines
26
As can be seen, the original image (a in Figure 3-7) is first converted into binary form
(b), and then droplet sizes can be calculated. It should be noted that only circular drops
are analyzed; large unbroken lumps are discounted, since volume cannot be computed
from such data. Due to the three dimensional nature of the water-glycerine breakup it is
somewhat difficult to predict how close a droplet is to the camera lens. The depth of field
is kept low (on the order of 2 cm) so that more accurate droplet size calculations can be
made. Droplets that are out of focus are not processed. Droplets that are processed are
outlined and numbered in Figure 3-7c.
3.2.2 Droplet Size Data Processing
The most common technique to evaluate atomization is to examine droplet diameter,
volume, and mass distributions. In addition, droplet mean diameters are calculated to
assess atomization. A common measure is the Sauter mean diameter (SMD or D
32
),
which is a ratio of drop volume to surface area [20, 25, 26]:

=
=
= =
N
i
i
N
i
i
D
D
SMD D
1
2
1
3
32

3-1
where D is droplet diameter and N is the number of droplets. The Sauter mean diameter is
particularly applicable to the shattering process because it characterizes the ratio of
inertial force to the aerodynamic drag [26].
For every shattering experiment, over 100 break-up images were captured, of which a
few were used to obtain distribution and average drop size results. Figure 3-8 presents
droplet distribution plots obtained using data from 3, 5, and 10 images of a particular
experiment.
27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
Droplet Diameter (mm)
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
3 images 5 images 10 images

Figure 3-8: Droplet diameter distributions obtained from 3, 5, and 10 images. Air
velocity = 100 m/s, shatter nozzle to liquid proximity = 7.5 cm, liquid flow rate = 0.1 L/s,
liquid viscosity = 2.5 cP
These three droplet distribution curves are very similar, but these plots do not adequately
reflect the presence of large droplets (diameter greater than 1 mm), since the number of
small droplets greatly exceeds the number of big ones. A volume distribution curve
presents the liquid volume distribution as a function of droplet diameter, and better
illustrates the significance of bigger drops. The fluid volume distribution data, using 3, 5,
and 10 images, is presented in Figure 3-9:
28
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5
Droplet Diameter Range (mm)
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
3 images 5 images 10 images

Figure 3-9: Volume distributions obtained from 3, 5, and 10 images. Air
velocity = 100 m/s, shatter nozzle to liquid proximity = 7.5 cm, liquid flow rate = 0.1 L/s,
liquid viscosity = 2.5 cP
The plot suggests that processing 5 images yields data very similar to that obtained from
10 images, and is enough to yield accurate distribution results. Also, the Sauter mean
diameters based on 3, 5, and 10 images are 0.96, 1.24, and 1.3 mm respectively. Thus, 5
images were analyzed to produce all shattering plots presented in Chapter 4.
During experiments, the amount of total droplet volume detected in shattering images
gradually decreases as the air velocity increases, due to the fact that the shatter jet spreads
the plume of droplets outward, effectively out of the camera depth of field. This is the
reason why the droplet data in the volume distribution plots is not presented in terms of
actual liquid volume.
29
3.3 Air Jet Measurements
The gas flow that exits the shatter nozzle expands outward, and the centerline velocity
decreases with distance from the nozzle exit. A small experimental set-up was used to
measure air jet velocities away from the nozzle exit to assess jet strength at the point of
impingement. A pitot tube was attached to a monometer and used to measure air jet
dynamic pressures at the centerline of the jet. Jet velocities were measured at four
distances 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15 cm from the nozzle exit. After scaling up, these distances
are representative of how shatter nozzles are placed relative to smelt streams in recovery
boilers. The pitot tube was also shifted (perpendicular to the air flow) horizontally,
vertically, and diagonally to obtain dynamic pressures away from the centerline of the jet.
Figure 3-10 presents air velocity along the horizontal axis, 7.5 cm from the nozzle exit.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Offset (cm)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
100 m/s 150 m/s 200 m/s 250 m/s 300 m/s

Figure 3-10: Air velocity distribution (horizontal axis) 7.5 cm from the nozzle exit. Air
velocities at the nozzle exit are 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s
30
As the nozzle exit velocity increases from 100 to 300 m/s, the centerline velocity of the
jet 7.5 cm from the nozzle only rises by about 35 m/s (or 60%.) The maximum span of
the jet (or jet diameter) at that distance increases by 1.5 cm (around 30%). It is apparent
that the jet profile shifted to one side. This is most likely due to the slight misalignment
of the pitot tube and the nozzle exit.
Figure 3-11 presents air velocity along the horizontal axis, 15 cm from the nozzle exit.
0
10
20
30
40
50
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Offset (cm)
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
100 m/s 150 m/s 200 m/s 250 m/s 300 m/s

Figure 3-11: Air velocity distribution (horizontal axis) 15 cm from the nozzle exit. Air
velocities at the nozzle exit are 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s
As the air velocity at the nozzle exit increases from 100 to 300 m/s, the centerline
velocity of air rises by 20 m/s (or 75%). The diameter of the jet expands by 1.5 cm (about
25%). The centerline velocities are halved as the nozzle-to-pitot tube distance increases
from 7.5 to 15 cm, and the diameter of the jet increases by 25 to 30%. Once again, the
due to the slight misalignment of the pitot tube and the nozzle exit, the profile is shifted.
31
Figure 3-12 compares air velocity distribution for nozzle distances of 7.5 and 15 cm at
exit velocities of 100 m/s and 300 m/s, respectively. This plot is meant to compare the
diameters of two jets with similar centerline velocities. The effect of jet diameter on
shattering effectiveness will be discussed in Section 4.4.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Offset from Centreline (cm)
A
i
r

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
100 m/s, 7.5 cm away 300 m/s, 15 cm away

Figure 3-12: A comparison of a 100 m/s jet at 7.5 cm and a 300 m/s jet at 15 cm
The two jets have similar centerline velocities of about 50 m/s, and these velocities
remain similar within a 5 mm radius of the centerline. However, the 300 m/s jet is
stronger outside of this region, and its diameter is about 60% greater than that of the
100 m/s jet.
3.4 Spout Flow Measurements
To understand the relationship between liquid flow rate down a spout and velocity, liquid
velocities were measured at the spout exit. Liquid stream velocities were also measured,
in order to estimate the momentum ratios presented in equation 2-2.
32
The experimental set-up (described in Figure 3-2) was run at different liquid flow rates
and viscosities to determine liquid levels (h in Figure 3-13) at the spout exit, in order to
calculate the cross-sectional area. A regular digital camera was focused on the spout exit
to capture the liquid heights. Water-glycerin flow rates were then divided by the cross-
sectional areas to determine the average liquid velocities.

Figure 3-13: Front view of the spout. The diameter of the spout (d) is 3.75 cm.
Figure 3-14 illustrates the effect of water flow rate on velocity at the spout exit, for spout
inclinations of 0, 10, 15, and 20 degrees.
33
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Water Flow Rate (L/s)
S
p
o
u
t

E
x
i
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
0 degrees 10 degrees 15 degrees 20 degrees

Figure 3-14: Water velocity at the spout exit versus spout flow rate, for four spout
inclinations
Average spout exit velocities for 0, 10, 15, and 20 inclinations are 0.45, 1.15, 1.3, and
1.4 m/s respectively. When the spout is horizontal, there is a small rise in velocity as the
liquid flow rate increases, of about 17% as the liquid flow rate is doubled (from 0.1 L/s to
0.2 L/s). Higher spout inclinations 10, 15, and 20 produce higher average
velocities due to gravity, as expected. However, there is no evident velocity rise or drop
when flow rate is varied at those inclinations. This is in part due to the difficulty of
making precise measurements. Higher spout inclinations produce more turbulent flow,
due to the increase in velocity, and much lower water levels (around 4 mm at low flows)
when compared to flow at 0 inclination. Water levels are around 8 mm at low flows
when the spout is horizontal. As a result, velocity measurements obtained for 10, 15,
and 20 have an error that is somewhat higher than that for 0.
The effect of inclination on average spout exit velocity is presented in Figure 3-15:
34
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 5 10 15 20 25
Inclination (degrees)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

S
p
o
u
t

E
x
i
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)

Figure 3-15: Effect of spout inclination on exit velocity
As expected, greater spout inclination increases the average exit velocity due to gravity.
Spout exit velocity significantly increases when the spout inclination is changed from 0
to 10, while subsequent inclination increases lead to a steady velocity rise. This occurs
because the liquid in the spout does not accelerate when the spout is horizontal.
To examine the effect of viscosity on liquid flow, Figure 3-16, spout exit velocity data
was obtained for four different liquid viscosities at an inclination of 15.
35
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Liquid Flow Rate (L/s)
S
p
o
u
t

E
x
i
t

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
1 cP 2.5 cP 10 cP 50 cP

Figure 3-16: Liquid stream velocity at the spout exit versus spout flow rate, for four
different liquid viscosities at 15 inclination
Spout exit velocities are lower at higher viscosities because resistance to flow is greater.
Average velocities for 1, 2.5, 10, and 50 cP at 15 inclination are 1.3, 1.2, 1.05, and
0.8 m/s respectively. Increasing liquid flow rate has little effect on spout exit velocities at
1 and 2.5 cP. However, results obtained at 10 and 50 cP show a stronger dependence of
velocity on liquid flow rate. An increase of 30% in spout exit velocity was observed
when the flow rate was doubled (from 0.1 L/s to 0.2 L/s) at 50 cP. Once again, it was
difficult to make precise measurements for less viscous fluids due to turbulence and very
low fluid heights. As a result, the error is greater and no strong relationship between flow
rate and velocity could be determined.
36
Chapter 4

4 Experimental Results and Discussion
A series of experiments were run to examine the effects of air velocity (u
air
), liquid flow
rate (Q
l
), liquid viscosity (
l
), and nozzle proximity to the liquid stream (N
ls
). The spout
inclination was kept at 15. The ranges of parameters are summarized in Table 4-1:
Table 4-1: Range of parameters considered in this thesis
Air velocity at the nozzle exit (m/s) 100, 150, 200, 250, 300
Liquid flow rate (L/s) 0.1, 0.2
Liquid viscosity (cP) 1, 2.5, 10, 50
Nozzle proximity to the liquid stream (cm) 7.5, 15
The lower liquid flow rate is representative of the smelt flow encountered under normal
recovery boiler conditions, while 0.2 L/s is more representative of heavy smelt flow. Of
the four liquid viscosities, 2.5 cP is most representative of recovery boiler smelt since its
viscosity is typically between 3 and 4 cP. The nozzle proximity to the liquid stream, if
scaled up, translates into 1 to 2 feet a typical distance between the shatter nozzle and
the smelt stream. Some of the collected shattering mages are shown in Appendix C.
Experiments were run for all combinations of the parameters. However, in this chapter, in
order to show the effect of each parameter (u
air
, Q
l
,
l
, or N
ls
) on shattering effectiveness,
others are kept constant. For example, the effect of air velocity on droplet formation is
presented at a liquid flow rate of 0.1 L/s, viscosity of 2.5 cP, and nozzle to stream
distance of 7.5 cm. The applicability of the experimental results presented in this chapter
to smelt shattering practice is discussed in Chapter 5.
37
4.1 Effect of Air Velocity
This section considers the effect of air flow rate on droplet formation. The liquid flow
rate is 0.1 L/s, the liquid viscosity is 2.5 cP, and the nozzle proximity to the liquid stream
is 7.5 cm. Representative snapshots of liquid breakup are presented in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Spray images at different air velocities. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
38
As one would expect, the faster the air jet, the smaller the droplets. This is due to an
increase in aerodynamic drag applied to the liquid stream. The shatter jet exiting at
100 m/s does not have enough momentum to completely atomize the liquid stream into
droplets, since large irregularly shaped lumps of liquid appear in the images. Increasing
the velocity of the shatter jet by 50 m/s largely eliminates the lumps, producing only
circular droplets. Subsequent air velocity increases lead to more smaller droplets.
Figure 4-2 is a droplet distribution curve that compares the effect of air jet velocity on
droplet size. The droplets are sorted into 0.15 mm diameter bins. So, for example, the
percentage of droplets, with a diameter between 0 and 0.15 mm is presented over the
0.15 mm tick-mark in the figure. To view the same data differently, Figure 4-3 compares
the liquid volume distribution versus air velocity.

39
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
100 m/s 150 m/s 200 m/s 250 m/s 300 m/s

Figure 4-2: Droplet diameter distributions at u
air
= 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s.
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 - 1 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 4 4 - 5
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
100 m/s 150 m/s 200 m/s 250 m/s 300 m/s

Figure 4-3: Volume distribution at u
air
= 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 m/s.
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
40
The droplet distribution curves show no significant effects of air flow on droplet
formation. In all cases, close to 50% of the droplets are between 0.15 and 0.3 mm in
diameter, while less than 5% are larger than 1 mm. Furthermore, the air velocity does not
affect the peak droplet size.
The volume distribution plot shows a more distinct effect of air velocity. As expected,
more liquid volume is in the form of smaller droplets as the air velocity increases. The
volume percent of very small droplets (0-1 mm in diameter) steadily rises from 20 to
65% as the air velocity increases from 100 to 300 m/s. The volume distribution curve
maximum shifts towards a lower range as the air velocity increases from 100 to 300 m/s.
More than half of the liquid volume is in droplets greater than 1 mm in diameter at all air
velocities except 300 m/s. However, the volume distribution curve maximum shifts to a
lower droplet size range (0-1 mm from 1-2 mm) as the air velocity increases from 200 to
250 m/s. At its maximum velocity, the shatter jet was effective enough to break up 60%
of the liquid stream into droplets less than 1 mm in diameter.
A significant amount of liquid (20%) is in droplets 3 to 4 mm in diameter when the air
velocity is only 100 m/s. This is due to the presence of one large droplet. Droplets of this
size were uncommon for this air velocity.
Figure 4-4 presents droplet SMD versus air velocity.
41
R
2
= 0.98
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Air Velocity (m/s)
D
r
o
p
l
e
t

M
e
a
n

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(
m
m
)

Figure 4-4: Effect of air velocity on SMD. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
Mean droplet diameter decreases gradually as the air velocity increases. The mean
droplet diameter is reduced by about 50% when the air velocity is tripled.
4.2 Effect of Liquid Flow Rate
This section presents the effect of liquid flow rate on droplet formation and size. All of
the data presented is for a liquid viscosity of 2.5 cP, while the nozzle proximity to the
liquid stream is 7.5 cm. Representative snapshots of liquid breakup at air velocities of
100 and 300 m/s are presented in Figure 4-5.
42

Figure 4-5: Shattering images at different liquid flow rates.
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
As expected, shattering improves as the liquid flow rate decreases. More large drops and
unbroken lumps of liquid form at a higher liquid flow rate. A number of large drops are
out of focus at 0.2 L/s and an air velocity of 100 m/s, which implies that the shatter jet is
not strong enough to break up large lumps of liquid. Instead, these lumps follow the
trajectory of the liquid stream.
43
Figure 4-6 presents droplet size distribution versus liquid flow rate at an air velocity of
100 m/s. Droplet volume distribution is plotted in Figure 4-7 to provide insight into the
liquid flow rate effects on large drop formation.

44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
0.1 L/s 0.2 L/s

Figure 4-6: Effect of liquid flow rate on droplet distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
0.1 L/s 0.2 L/s

air
= 100 m/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
45
No effect of liquid flow rate is seen in the droplet distribution plot. The volume
distribution plot indicates that a higher liquid flow rate is more difficult to shatter. This
confirms the visual inspection of images captured for 0.1 and 0.2 L/s flow rates at
100 m/s in Figure 4-5. At a flow rate of 0.1 L/s, more than 60% of liquid volume is in
droplets that are smaller than 2 mm in diameter. Conversely, only about 25% of liquid
volume is in droplets that are smaller than 2 mm in diameter, at a flow rate of 0.2 L/s. In
the analyzed images, there are 13 drops in the 2-3 mm diameter range for a liquid flow
rate of 0.2 L/s, compared to only 2 for the lower liquid flow rate. Furthermore, only one
drop larger that 3 mm was detected for a flow rate of 0.1 L/s, while there are 3 drops
greater than 3 mm for a higher liquid flow rate. The volume distribution curve maximum
shifts from the 1-2 mm range to the 2-3 mm range with an increase in liquid flow rate.
The effect of liquid flow rate was also examined at a higher air velocity. The droplet
distribution plot, which compared the effect of liquid flow rate at 300 m/s, was found to
be almost identical to the plot in Figure 4-6. No effect of liquid flow rate on shattering
was noticed.
As before, volume distributions were plotted to examine the presence of large droplets.
Figure 4-8 presents the effects of liquid flow rate on liquid volume distribution.
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
0.1 L/s 0.2 L/s

air
= 300 m/s,
l
= 2.5 cP, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
The increased air velocity shifts the volume distribution towards the smaller droplet range
when compared to the distribution obtained at 100 m/s (Figure 4-7), as expected. But
doubling the liquid flow rate still leads to an increased formation of larger droplets. More
liquid volume (65%) is in droplets less than 1 mm in diameter at a liquid flow rate of
0.1 L/s, while only 20% of the total liquid volume is taken up by droplets of the same size
at 0.2 L/s. However, the shatter jet was still effective enough to completely reduce the
liquid stream into droplets less than 3 mm in size even when the liquid flow was doubled.
Figure 4-9 presents Sauter mean diameters with respect to air velocity at the two
aforementioned liquid flow rates:
47
R
2
= 0.61
R
2
= 0.98
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Air Velocity (m/s)
D
r
o
p
l
e
t

M
e
a
n

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(
m
m
)
0.1 L/s 0.2 L/s

Figure 4-9: Effect of liquid flow rate on SMD.
l
= 2.5 cP, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
An increase in liquid flow rate from 0.1 to 0.2 L/s leads to a significant rise in droplet
mean diameter regardless of the air velocity. At 100 m/s the average droplet diameter
increases from 1.25 to 2 mm when the liquid flow rate is doubled, while at 300 m/s the
droplet diameter increases from 0.6 to 1.2 mm.
4.3 Effect of Viscosity
This section presents the effects of liquid viscosity on droplet formation. All of the data is
for a liquid flow rate of 0.1 L/s, while the nozzle proximity to the liquid stream is 7.5 cm.
Representative snapshots of liquid breakup are presented in Figure 4-10.
48

Figure 4-10: Shattering images at different liquid viscosities at u
air
= 100 m/s,
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
Upon visual inspection, increasing the liquid viscosity from 1 to 50 cP leads to a small
effect on droplet size. In particular, there seems to be less fine drop formation when the
liquid viscosity is 50 cP, as opposed to when the liquid viscosity is 1 cP.
Figure 4-11 compares shattering results for four liquid viscosities at an air velocity of
100 m/s. Figure 4-12 presents volume distribution curves for the four liquid viscosities.
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
1 cP 2.5 cP 10 cP 50 cP

air
= 100 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
1 cP 2.5 cP 10 cP 50 cP

air
= 100 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
50
Figure 4-11 shows a distinct effect of liquid viscosity on droplet size distribution. While
the droplet distribution curve remains unchanged as the liquid viscosity is increased from
1 to 2.5 cP, there are fewer smaller droplets (0.15 to 0.3 mm in diameter) as the liquid
viscosity increases to 10 and 50 cP. A slight increase in the number of droplets larger
than 0.6 mm is also present at 10 and 50 cP. The change of viscosity does not affect
droplet distribution curve maximum.
The volume distribution plot does not show a distinct impact of liquid viscosity on
droplet breakup at 100 m/s. By comparison the effect of air velocity or liquid flow rate on
shattering is much more apparent. The liquid volume in droplets less than 2 mm in
diameter increases as the liquid viscosity is lowered from 50 to 2.5 cP. However, the
volume distribution curve for 1 cP does not fit that trend.
Figure 4-12 indicates that the shatter jet has difficulty atomizing a highly viscous (50 cP)
liquid stream. There is a significant amount of liquid volume in droplets greater than
3 mm in diameter for viscosities of 1, 2.5, and 50 cP. While these droplets are uncommon
for lower viscosities and could be considered outliers, large droplets appear regularly
when a highly viscous (50 cP) liquid stream is shattered.
The effect of viscosity is also assessed at a higher air velocity. Figure 4-13 compares
droplet distributions attained for four liquid viscosities at u
air
= 300 m/s. Viscous effects
on liquid breakup were also examined with the use of volume distribution plots, and the
results are presented in Figure 4-14.
51
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
1 cP 2.5 cP 10 cP 50 cP

air
= 300 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
1 cP 2.5 cP 10 cP 50 cP

air
= 300 m/s, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
and N
ls
= 7.5 cm
52
At a higher air velocity, a smaller effect of viscosity on droplet distribution is seen. There
are 15% fewer small droplets (less than 0.15 mm in diameter) and 5% more larger
droplets (0.6-0.9 mm in diameter) as the liquid viscosity increases from 1 to 50 cP.
The increase in liquid viscosity has a small effect on shattering at 300 m/s. More liquid
volume is in small droplets (<1 mm in diameter) when the liquid viscosity is 1 and 2.5 cP
compared to 10 and 50 cP. In addition, there is less liquid volume in larger droplets (1-2
mm in diameter) at 1 and 2.5 cP compared to 10 and 50 cP. In conclusion, the volume
distribution maxima for 1 and 2.5 cP lie in the 0 to 1 mm range, while the maxima for
higher viscosities lie in the 1 to 2 mm range.
Sauter mean diameters were also computed to understand the liquid viscosity effect on
droplet size. Figure 4-15 compares average drop diameters obtained at 1, 2.5, 10, and
50 cP.
R
2
= 0.95
R
2
= 0.82
R
2
= 0.96
R
2
= 0.98
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Air Velocity (m/s)
D
r
o
p
l
e
t

M
e
a
n

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(
m
m
)
1 cP 2.5 cP 10 cP 50 cP

Figure 4-15: Effect of viscosity on SMD. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm
53
Overall the effect of viscosity on Sauter mean diameter is not significant at air velocities
above 200 m/s. However, the effect of viscosity on average drop size is more apparent at
lower air velocities (100 and 150 m/s). This is most likely due to the ability of
aerodynamic drag (at u
air
> 200 m/s) to overcome forces that resist deformation. The
Sauter mean diameter for a highly viscous liquid (50 cP) is noticeably higher when
compared to the average droplet size obtained for less viscous liquids (1, 2.5, and 10 cP).
4.4 Effect of Nozzle Proximity
This section presents the effect of nozzle proximity to the liquid stream on droplet
formation. The effect of jet diameter on shattering is also examined. All of the data
presented is for a liquid flow rate of 0.1 L/s and liquid viscosity of 2.5 cP. Representative
snapshots of break-up are presented in Figure 4-16:

l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
Placing the nozzle further from the liquid stream results in poorer shattering, as expected.
The droplets are much larger, and some are out of focus, when the nozzle is further away.
Figure 4-17 shows droplet size distributions for nozzle to liquid proximities of 7.5 and
15 cm. Volume distribution curves are plotted in Figure 4-18.
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
7.5 cm 15 cm

Figure 4-17: Effect of nozzle proximity on droplet distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, and
l
= 2.5 cP
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
7.5 cm 15 cm

Figure 4-18: Effect of nozzle proximity on volume distribution at u
air
= 100 m/s,
Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, and
l
= 2.5 cP
55
Placing the shatter jet nozzle closer to the liquid stream increases the percentage of
smaller droplets (up to 0.6 mm in diameter) and decreases the number of droplets larger
than 0.6 mm in diameter. Close to 85% of droplets are smaller than 0.6 mm when the
nozzle is 7.5 cm from the liquid stream, while only about 50% of the droplets are smaller
than 0.6 mm when the nozzle is 15 cm away. The droplet curve maxima remain in the
0.15 to 0.3 mm range.
As expected, more liquid volume is in smaller droplets when the shatter jet nozzle is
closer to the liquid stream. More than 60% of the liquid volume is in droplets smaller
than 2 mm in diameter when the nozzle is 7.5 cm away from the liquid stream, while only
25% of the liquid volume is in that size range when the nozzle proximity is 15 cm.
Furthermore, around 40% of the volume is in very large droplets (>4 mm in diameter)
when the nozzle proximity is 15 cm. Conversely, placing the nozzle 7.5 cm from the
liquid stream eliminates droplets of that size.
Figure 4-19 presents droplet SMD versus nozzle proximity.
R
2
= 0.93
R
2
= 0.98
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Air Velocity (m/s)
D
r
o
p
l
e
t

M
e
a
n

D
i
a
m
e
t
e
r

(
m
m
)
7.5 cm 15 cm

Figure 4-19: Effect of nozzle proximity on SMD. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
56
Sauter mean diameter curves for 7.5 and 15 cm exhibit similar decreasing trends as the
air velocity increases. Droplet mean diameter decreases as the shatter jet nozzle is
positioned closer to the liquid stream. At u
air
= 100 m/s, the Sauter mean diameter is
halved when the nozzle proximity is decreased from 15 to 7.5 cm. A similar decrease of
the mean diameter is evident at all other air velocities.
Rather than compare the effect of nozzle distance on droplet distribution at a higher air
velocity, a comparison between two shatter jets with similar centerline velocities was
made in order to examine the effect of shatter jet span. The velocity profiles of the two
jets are presented in Figure 3-12. The air velocities of the two jets are 48 and 54 m/s,
while the jet diameters are 8 and 5 cm respectively. The corresponding shatter images are
shown in Figure 4-20.

l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
Visual inspection shows that the increased span of the shatter jet does not have a clear
effect on shattering. The droplet distribution plot in Figure 4-21 compares the effect of
the span of the jet on shattering. Figure 4-22 presents the effect of jet span on volume
distribution.

57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0
N
u
m
b
e
r

P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

(
%
)
Jet span = 5 cm Jet span = 8 cm

Figure 4-21: Effect of shatter jet span on droplet diameter. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5
V
o
l
u
m
e

P
e
r
c
e
n
t

(
%
)
Jet span = 5 cm Jet span = 8 cm

Figure 4-22: Effect of shatter jet span on volume distribution. Q
l
= 0.1 L/s,
l
= 2.5 cP

58
The shatter jet with the greater span but a slightly lower centerline velocity produces
fewer small droplets when compared to the shatter jet with the greater centerline velocity.
Around 60% of the droplets are less than 0.45 mm in diameter when the span of the air
jet is 8 cm, while close to 80% of droplets are in that range when the jet span is 5 cm. As
a result, larger droplets form in greater numbers when the centerline air velocity is
slightly decreased. Increasing the span of the shatter jet has little effect on droplet
distribution.
Finally, while 20% of the liquid volume for the 5 cm jet span is in droplets >3 mm in
diameter, that data represents only one droplet. If that droplet is considered to be an
outlier and removed, then the volume distributions and Sauter mean diameters produced
by the two shatter jets become very similar.
59
Chapter 5

5 Practical Implications
Various effects on shattering effectiveness were presented in the previous section. It is
difficult, however, to make them directly applicable to shattering practices at pulp mills
since the experimental set-up was a scaled down version of the shattering process.
Furthermore, smelt and steam were not used in any of the experiments. However, the use
of non-dimensional parameters and their correlations can help make the experimental
shattering data applicable to real shattering practice.
5.1 Effect of Momentum Ratio
Similar to the relation described in (2-1), the Buckingham theorem was used to find the
dependency of droplet mean diameter (D
drop
) on non-dimensional parameters that
describe liquid shattering:

|
|
\
|
=
l g
g
l
l
drop
We
D
D
q f
D
D
Re , , ,
5-1
D
l
and D
g
are the hydraulic diameters of the shattered smelt or water-glycerine solution,
and of the impinging steam or air shatter jet, respectively. The subscript l denotes liquid
smelt or water-glycerine solution, while g denotes steam or air. Expression (5-1) is
identical to (2-1) with the exception of the liquid-to-gas hydraulic diameter ratio, which is
unique to the liquid shattering process. Once again, the symbol q denotes the liquid-to-
gas momentum ratios:

2
2
g g
l l
u
u
q
=
2-2
60
Since only q and D
l
/D
g
can be controlled at a pulp mill, normalized droplet mean
diameter (D
drop
/D
l
) should be plotted as a function of the two non-dimensional variables.
However, due to the lack of experimental data of liquid-to-gas diameters, only the effect
of liquid-to-gas momentum ratio can be illustrated.
Figure 5-1 is a plot of water-glycerine to air momentum ratio with respect to normalized
droplet mean diameter:
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
q
D
d
r
o
p
/
D
l
0.1 L/s 0.2 L/s

Figure 5-1: Plot of liquid-to-gas momentum ratio with respect to normalized droplet
mean diameter
Two liquid flow rates 0.1 and 0.2 L/s are presented in Figure 5.1. As expected, the
droplet mean diameter decreases as the liquid-to-gas momentum ratio decreases. The
slope of both curves becomes steeper as the momentum ratio decreases. It is also
apparent that increasing liquid flow rate (and liquid stream diameter as a result) leads to a
slight increase of mean droplet size.
61
If the air velocity and the actual diameter of the shattered smelt stream are known, the
mean diameter of the droplets can be approximated by multiplying the normalized droplet
diameter by the smelt stream diameter. One should also take into account the effect of
viscosity, surface tension, and nozzle design, but the plot in Figure 5-1 is a good start for
connecting the experimental results to actual practice.
5.2 Implications
Two practical implications may be drawn from this experimental study.
1. For low viscosity liquids, the droplet distribution is unaffected by air jet velocity.
This implies that recovery boiler smelt can be easily shattered with a minimum
amount of steam. Therefore, it is beneficial to reduce the steam used for shattering.
2. Although the results showed that viscosity has only a small effect on shattering even
at the maximum water-glycerine viscosity of 50 cP used in this study, it does not
mean that smelt viscosity does not have an effect on shattering in practice. This is
because as the smelt starts to freeze, its viscosity increases drastically, well above
50 cP. This could make shattering more difficult.
62
Chapter 6

6 Conclusions and Recommendations
This section summarizes the findings of this study, and draws conclusions on the
practical implications. Future work suggestions are also presented.
6.1 Conclusions
Smelt shattering research is vital if the likelihood of serious dissolving tank explosions is
to be reduced. To date, the industry has not dedicated much effort to study and improve
smelt shattering. An experimental set-up and methodology were developed to study the
shattering process with the use of water-glycerine solutions instead of smelt and air in
place of steam. Shattering experiments examined the effect of air jet velocity, liquid flow
rate, liquid viscosity, and shatter nozzle placement on liquid droplet size. A summary of
the findings is presented below.
Effect of Air Velocity
While the droplet diameter distribution shows little effect of air velocity, the volume
distribution plot confirms that more liquid volume is in smaller droplets as the air
velocity increases, as expected. The Sauter mean diameter decreases linearly with
increasing air velocity. Liquid is completely disintegrated into droplets regardless of the
air velocity.
Effect of Liquid Flow Rate
Doubling the liquid flow rate from 0.1 to 0.2 L/s leads to an increase in the number of
large droplets. Unbroken lumps appear frequently at lower air velocities. The volume
distribution plots indicate that more liquid volume is in small droplets at a lower liquid
flow rate. The Sauter mean diameter increases as the liquid flow rate increases.
63
Effect of Liquid Viscosity
The effect of viscosity on droplet size is not as clear as that of air velocity or liquid flow
rate. However, at a low air velocity, it is clear that the number of smaller droplets
decreases as the liquid viscosity increases. Droplet size is affected by liquid viscosity to a
much smaller extent at a greater air velocity. Sauter mean diameter is independent of
viscosity except when a highly viscous liquid is shattered with a weak air jet.
Effect of Nozzle Proximity
Placing the nozzle closer to the liquid stream increases the number of smaller droplets, as
expected. Sauter mean diameter decreases significantly as the nozzle proximity to the
liquid stream is halved. The effect of shatter jet span on larger droplets is not significant.
Finally, since real smelt and a steam shatter jet were not used, the experimental data in
this thesis cannot be applied directly to the shattering practices encountered in the
industry. However, an analysis based on non-dimensional parameters can be utilized to
estimate droplet size in practice.
6.2 Future Work Recommendations
The research in this thesis examined the following effects on smelt shattering: shatter jet
velocity, smelt flow rate, smelt viscosity, and nozzle proximity. Other aspects of smelt
shattering that should be looked into include the effect of lower shatter jet strength,
shatter jet orientation, and nozzle design on droplet formation.
Shatter Jet Strength
At lower liquid flow rates, the air shatter jet can completely disintegrate the liquid stream
into droplets. Thus, it would be of interest to determine how little air is needed to
adequately atomize a liquid stream without producing unbroken lumps. This research
would help reduce shatter steam consumption.

64
Shatter Jet Orientation
In the current experimental work, the shatter jet was directed straight down. However,
shatter jet orientation varies at every pulp mill. Some pulp mills position the shatter jet at
an angle, to always intersect the smelt stream. Thus, the effect of shatter jet orientation
should be studied. This would explain how aerodynamic drag can optimize atomization
of smelt.
Nozzle Design
In this thesis, a single Laval type nozzle was used to shatter a liquid stream. Pulp mills
use shatter nozzles of different size and shape. Thus, another next step in smelt shattering
research should be to use and examine the effect of different types of nozzles.
Shatter Image Capture Methodology
In the current experimental work, the camera was focused on one area regardless of its
position in the liquid break-up plume. The captured images may not give a full
representation of droplet size distribution. Thus, the camera should be focused on several
places in the break-up plume (closer and further from its centre) for a given set of
conditions. It may also be beneficial to capture images from the both sides of the liquid
break-up.
65
References
1. Tran, H. N. and Vakkilainnen, E. K., The Kraft Chemical Recovery Process.
TAPPI Kraft Recovery Short Course. St. Petersburg, FL: TAPPI PRESS, 2009.
2. Clay, D. T., Evaporation Principles and Black Liquor Properties. TAPPI Kraft
Recovery Short Course. St. Petersburg, FL: TAPPI PRESS, 2009.
3. Tran, H. N., Course Notes. Energy and Chemical Recovery. CHE564: Pulp and
Paper Course. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2010.
4. Adams, T. N. Chapter 1: General Characteristics of Kraft Black Liquor Recovery
Boilers. Ed. T. N. Adams. Kraft Recovery Boilers. Atlanta, GA: TAPPI PRESS,
1997. 3-5.
5. Sanchez, D. R., Recausticizing Principles and Practice. TAPPI Kraft Recovery
Short Course. St. Petersburg, FL: TAPPI PRESS, 2009.
6. Tran, H. N., Lime Kiln Chemistry and Effects on Kiln Operations. TAPPI Kraft
Recovery Short Course. St. Petersburg, FL: TAPPI PRESS, 2009.
7. Adams, T. N. TAPPI Kraft Recovery Operations Seminar. Orlando, FL, 2006.
8. Empie, H. J. and Armstead, D. A. Smelt Sampling Probe for Use in the Kraft
Recovery Boiler. International Chemical Recovery Conference. 2004.
9. Ribeiro, J. C. T. and Tran, H. Smelt Spout Corrosion in a Recovery Boiler.
10. Grace, T. M., Mao S., and Tran, H. Dissolution of Smelt in Green Liquor Report
to 2009 Annual Research Review Meeting of the Consortium on Increasing Energy
and Chemical Recovery Efficiency in the Kraft Process, University of Toronto.
11. Lien, S. and DeMartini, N., Dissolving Tank Explosions a review of incidents
between 1973 and 2008. Report to AF&PA Recovery Boiler Committee, 2008.
12. BLRBAC Meeting Minutes. Atlanta, GA. April 4-6, 2011.
13. Wadhwani, A. S. Fluidity of Recovery Boiler Smelt. M.A.Sc. Thesis. University of
Toronto, Toronto, 2003.
14. Materials and Welding Guidelines for Black Liquor Recovery Boilers BLRBAC,
February 2012
15. Lavernia, E. J. and Wu, Y. Chapter 4: Atomization. Spray Atomization and
Deposition. Chichester: John Wiley, 1996. 49-69.
16. Bayvel, L. P. and Orzechowski, Z. Preface. Liquid Atomization. Washington, DC:
Taylor & Francis, 1993. vii.
66
17. Bayvel, L. P. and Orzechowski, Z. Chapter 4: Types of Atomizers. Liquid
Atomization. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis, 1993. 159-236.
18. Sultan, F., Ashgriz, N., Guildenbecher, D. R., and Sojka P. E. Chapter 32:
Electrosprays Ed. N. Ashgriz. Handbook of Atomization and Sprays: Theory and
Applications. New York, NY: Springer, 2011. 727-754.
19. Mashayek A. and Ashgriz, N. Chapter 29: Atomization of a Liquid Jet in a
Crossflow Ed. N. Ashgriz. Handbook of Atomization and Sprays: Theory and
Applications. New York, NY: Springer, 2011. 657-684.
20. Zheng, B. and Lavernia, E. J. Chapter 36: Melt Atomization Ed. N. Ashgriz.
Handbook of Atomization and Sprays: Theory and Applications. New York, NY:
Springer, 2011. 837-848.
21. Guerra, V. G., Goncalves, J. A. S., Coury, J. R. Experimental Verification of the
Effect of Liquid Deposition on Droplet Size Measured in a Rectangular Venturi
Scrubber Chemical Engineering and Processing. 2011.
22. Yule, A. J. and Dunkley, J. J. "Chapter 2: Fundamentals of the Atomization
Process." Atomization of Melts for Powder Production and Spray Deposition.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. 15-46.
23. Yule, A. J. and Dunkley, J. J. "Chapter 1: Introduction." Atomization of Melts for
Powder Production and Spray Deposition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. 1-14.
24. Yule, A. J. and Dunkley, J. J. "Chapter 6: Atomizer Designs for Melts."
Atomization of Melts for Powder Production and Spray Deposition. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1994. 165-218.
25. Yule, A. J. and Dunkley, J. J. "Chapter 3: Parameters for Characterizing Particles,
Powders, and Sprays." Atomization of Melts for Powder Production and Spray
Deposition. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. 47-86.
26. Lefebvre, A. H. "Chapter 3: Drop Size Distributions of Sprays." Atomization and
Sprays. New York: Hemisphere Pub., 1989.
27. Mao, T. Impact of Liquid Droplets on Solid Surfaces and its Applications to
Carryover Deposition in Kraft Recovery Boilers. Ph.D. Thesis. University of
Toronto, Toronto, 1997.
67
Appendices

68
Appendix A Calculating Smelt Flow Rate
Smelt flow rate (per spout) was calculated using the maximum black liquor capacity and
smelt spout data found in Table 1-1 with the use of the following expression:
Smelt flow rate = 0.4(Max. BL firing capacity)/Number of smelt spouts A-1
Results are tabulated in Table A-1:
Table A-1: Volumetric smelt flow rate
Recovery boiler Smelt flow rate per spout
(L/s)
A 1.32
B 1.14
C 0.99
C (resized) 1.08
D 1.05
Average 1.12

69
Appendix B Calculating the Weber Number for Liquid
Shattering
In order to calculate the Weber number (in 2-3) typical of smelt shattering operations,
steam density, steam velocity, smelt stream hydraulic diameter, and smelt surface tension
have to be known. For the conditions given in Chapter 1, steam density is about
0.5 kg/m
3
, and based on steam flow rate and shatter jet nozzle area, steam velocity is on
the order of 150 m/s. Smelt stream hydraulic diameter can only be approximated visually
from smelt spout videos. For the purposes of this calculation, it is estimated to be 5 cm.
Smelt surface tension is not known, but the surface tension of sodium carbonate
(~200 mN/m) can be used instead [27]. Thus, a characteristic Weber number for smelt
shattering is:
We
smelt-steam
= (0.5 kg/m
3
)(150 m/s)
2
(0.05 m)/(0.2 N/m) = 2800
In comparison,
g
, u
g
, D
l
, and
l-g
for water-glycerine streams are 1.2 kg/m
3
, 100-300 m/s,
1 cm, and 72 mN/m, respectively. Thus, a Weber number characteristic of the water-air
experiments varies from:
We
water-air
= (1.2 kg/m
3
)(100 m/s)
2
(0.01 m)/(0.072 N/m) = 1700
to
We
water-air
= (1.2 kg/m
3
)(300 m/s)
2
(0.01 m)/(0.072 N/m) = 15000

70
Appendix C Shattering Images
The following are some of the shattering images collected for the completion of this
thesis. There are 16 figures in total. Liquid viscosity is 1 cP in Figures C-1 through C-4,
2.5 cP in Figures C-5 through C-8, 10 cP in Figures C-9 through C-12, and 50 cP in
Figures C-13 through C-16. Air velocity is marked on the left hand side of each figure.
There are 4 images presented for each set of conditions (u
air
,
l
, Q
l
, and N
ls
) to emphasize
the variation in droplet size distribution.

71

Figure C-6-1:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

72

Figure C-6-2:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

73

Figure C-6-3:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

74

Figure C-6-4:
l
= 1 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

75

Figure C-6-5:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

76

Figure C-6-6:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

77

Figure C-6-7:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

78

Figure C-6-8:
l
= 2.5 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

79

Figure C-6-9:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

80

Figure C-6-10:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

81

Figure C-6-11:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

82

Figure C-6-12:
l
= 10 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

83

Figure C-6-13:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

84

Figure C-6-14:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 7.5 cm

85

Figure C-6-15:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.1 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

86

Figure C-6-16:
l
= 50 cP, Q
l
= 0.2 L/s, N
ls
= 15 cm

Smelt Shattering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smelt Shattering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shattering Kraft Recovery Boiler Smelt by a Steam Jet

You might also like