Combustion Control and Safety – A

comparison between Zirconium

Oxide/Catalytic and Tunable Diode (TDL)
Technologies
Dr Stephen Firth / Rhys Jenkins
Agenda
 Introduction
– Combustion Theory / Practical Benefits
– Possible measurement Solutions overview
 Zirconia Solutions
– Technology Overview
– Practical Advantages / Disadvantages
 Laser Solutions
– Technology Overview
– Practical Advantages / Disadvantages
 Practical Examples
– Zirconia vs Laser – measurement differences
– Practical Matters – Laser purge / Ambient Temperature
– Comparison
 Fired Heater - “Safety and Efficiency”
■ CO is wasted fuel and money ■ Excess O2 is wasted energy -
■
■
Fuel Breakthrough is unsafe
Excess soot and sooting of tubes
means poor efficiency and high
SAFETY heating up excess Air (mainly N2),
which cools the products of
combustion and drops efficiency
maintenance ■ Excess O2 increases NOx

■ CO, and CO+CH4 monitoring: ■ O2 & CO monitoring:

– Highlights inefficient control – Highlights inefficient
– Highlights inefficient burner setup control
– Highlights burner maintenance – Highlights inefficient
burner setup
– Highlights Leaking Tubes
– Highlight inefficient
– Helps ensure safe start-up and operation
shut-down
– Help ensure safe operation
– Improves Process
– Improves Site Safety Efficiency
and Process Efficiency EFFICIENCY
 Process Gas Analysis Monitoring Geometries

DCS
Control
In Situ mA / Relays
Cross Process +
(Laser) In Situ
Probe (Zirconia) AMCS
Analysis
Ethernet/Modbus

Process
Flow Gas Analyzer Extractive
Variables: (Paramagnetic
•Flow Velocity Sample Infrared
•Temperature Conditioning Electrochemical)
•Pressure
•Dust Analyzer Shelter
Zirconia / Combustibles
Zirconia

■ Complete sample During calibration the flow

Temperature
Interlocked
of sample gas through the
measured by each analyser & transducer Aspirator Air
Solenoid Valve
1.5ltr/min typical
remains unchanged
sensor in turn Heated to prevent
Condensation /
■ Core T90 response Heated
Enclosure
corrosion

kept to < 20 s Aspirator

Aspirator &
■ Temperature interlock Sample Outlet
1.7ltr/min typical Comb Cell Aux Auxiliary air
ensures flue gas is not 300 ml/min
Air to ensure
Rest. Comb
drawn into a cold Flame arrestors for safety Flame reading
Trap
head Probe
Internal 100 ml/min
Filter 200ml/min
■ Low flow technique Flame
O2 Cell

Flow
fully pneumatic and During calibration the
Trap
alarm
driven by instrument sensor head is ‘flooded’
with calibration gas to
air prevent process sample
Cal Gas Inlet
Confidence in measurement
from interfering
Model C version dual sensor shown 600ml/min
Zirconium Oxide Technology

Performance Installation
• Decent response time • Single Flange
• Unaffected by background gases • Split configuration (control unit accessible)
• Sample at hot / wet condition • Simple validation / calibration
• Historically Acceptable • SIL1 Rating
Economics Utilities
• Well Know and Understood • Minimal – Instrument Air
• Very acceptable operational life • Mains Power
• Low maintenance requirements
• COe sensor added at modest cost
Tuneable Diode Laser Spectroscopy
Building Blocks of a TDL Analyser

Receiver
Optics Receiver

Comparison of light sources

and laser bandwidth
Demonstrates very narrow
laser bandwidth
Process
Windows
 So laser selective to the
Transmitter measured gas
Optics
 Reduces cross interference
compared to NDIR

Electronics & Signal

Laser + Temp. Control Processing
Line Lock Reference Techniques

Line Lock Reference Cuvette

 Always available, continuously scanned.
 No maintenance required
 Self diagnostics inbuilt, an advantage for Safety Instrumented Systems
 Filled with the gas of interest, rather than locking on to a process water line – better reading stability

Cuvette Gases:
NH3, CO, O2
Laser Technology
Performance
• Fast response time
• Unaffected by background gases
• Sample at hot / wet condition
• Gaining Acceptance
Economics
• Price X3 or X4 that of zirconia
• Very acceptable operational life
• Low maintenance requirements
• CO/CH4 needs a second Analyser
• Better CO measurement
Installation
• Dual Flange
• Split configuration (control unit accessible)
• Simple validation / off line calibration
• Alignment potential issue
• SIL2
• Hazardous Area available
• Effected by sample pressure and Temperature
Utilities
• 50-100 l/min Instrument Air
• 24V dc
Combustion
How to make you cracker furnace more efficient
Cross Path Average versus Spot Measurement
2700
CO =1500 ppm
Zirconia O2
CO =100 ppm O2=1.0%
Thick film COe
O2=2% T= 1000 C
T= 900 C

7930 O2
7930 O2 Laser
receiver
transmitter

7930 CO/CH4 7930

Laser CO/CH4
transmitter receiver
Furnace cross section

10 m - 40 m
Real Life Examples – Zr vs TDL Long Pathlength Furnace

Laser O2
Laser CO
Faster Response
Better Control

Zr O2
4 min
Tfx CO
Some Combustion Process….it’s Obvious which to use !

• High Sulphur Fuels on Heaters and Incinerators

• Lots of SO2/SO3/S
• Highly Corrosive
 Presence of sulphur in the “fuel” the sample is
corrosive and attacks the traditional zirconia sensor
and metal tubes.
 Lasers is none contact with the sample, so no
corrosion,
 hence, less maintenance.(saving $100K/year on a US
plant)
 No zirconia cells to change
 Less frequent calibration due to laser stability
 Less frequent calibration due to laser stability
In Situ vs Extractive – Key Considerations
Oxygen Extractive In Situ
(Zirconia Based) (Cross Stack TDL)
Sample Conditioning Required: control of moisture, cooling, None – Good for toxic and corrosive samples
pressure
Measurement Largely Independent of process conditions – Affected by process conditions – Temperature,
influences Temperature, pressure, dust, etc Pressure, Dust, Window Purge Flow Rate, etc
Calibration Precision Calibration / Verification possible Off Line Calibration Only. Verification possible
(accuracy: ~3% of span)

Response Time Slow (10 - 30 sec) Fast (<5 secs)

Flow and system dependent
Maintenance Medium – flow alarm required for high
Requirements integrity
Ambient Temperature “Hot” Ambients can effect electronics
But Extractive Zirconia Solutions
Utilities Minimal. Instrument Air 1.5 l/min
Mains Power. Calibration Gases
Low – minimum system components
(Alignment issues esp. long pathlengths)
“Hot” Ambients can effect electronics
Up to 100 l/min of Air or Nitrogen for window purge
Mains power or 24V
In Situ vs Extractive – Key Considerations
CO / CH4 Extractive In Situ
(Electrochemical/catalyst Based) (Cross Stack TDL)
Measurement General combustibles Sensor (eg reacts to H2) Specific to CO and CH4
Sensor – relative Photometric – accurate
Low Cost Addition to Zr analyser Requires second analyser (expensive)
Measurement Largely Independent of process conditions – Affected by process conditions – Temperature,
influences Temperature, pressure, dust, etc Pressure, Dust, Window Purge Flow Rate, etc
Calibration Precision Calibration / Verification possible Off Line Calibration Only. Verification possible
(accuracy: ~3% of span)

Response Time Slow (10 - 30 sec) Fast (<5 secs)

Flow and system dependent
SIL Accessment SIL1 SIL2

Ambient Temperature “Hot” Ambients can effect electronics “Hot” Ambients can effect electronics
But Extractive Zirconia Solutions
Utilities Minimal. Instrument Air 1.5 l/min Up to 100 l/min of Air or Nitrogen for window purge
Mains Power. Calibration Gases Mains power or 24V
Conclusions
■ Both zirconia and TDL offer great advantages when considered
as complementary techniques for combustion control
■ Zirconia offers specific point measurement with a higher level of
inherent accuracy coupled with true calibration / validation
(good for “small” <5m Furnaces)
■ TDL offers a faster, overall measurement with less associated
maintenance (good for “large” >5m Furnaces and corrosive
processes)
■ TDL offers a good measurement with significantly less
maintenance for Corrosive Processes (eg Sulphur Furnaces)
■ For CO/CH4 measurement the laser offers the better
measurement but at the price of a second analyser
Thank You