4.5 Article

A numerical study on the superheater tubes bundle of a 660 MW coal-fired supercritical boiler

Journal

Publisher

WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBL CO PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1142/S0217979224502266

Keywords

Superheater tubes; 660 MW coal-fired; martensitic steel; austenitic steel

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coal-fired thermal power plants are upgrading their technology to meet global energy demands. This study focuses on the design and analysis of a superheater tube bundle for a 660MW coal-fired supercritical boiler. Thermal and structural analyses are conducted to investigate temperature distribution, heat flux, stresses, strains, and deformations. Comparisons are made between different materials, and it is found that martensitic steel exhibits superior thermal performance, while austenitic steel has lower strain compared to martensitic steel.
Coal-fired thermal power plants are currently converting their technology to supercritical and ultra-supercritical in order to meet the world's energy demands. An important component in this technology is the superheater of the boiler, which operates at higher temperatures and above the critical pressures. For the design and reliable operation of a superheater tube bundle, thermal and structural analyses are crucial. This study focuses on the superheater tubes bundle of a 660MW coal-fired supercritical boiler. The superheater model is simulated to investigate the thermal characteristics such as temperature distribution, total heat flux and directional heat flux and structural parameters such as von Mises stresses, equivalent strains and total deformations. Different materials such as martensitic steel, austenitic steel and nickel-titanium are compared based on thermal and structural analysis. It is claimed that thermal performances of martensitic steel are more impressive as compared to superheater materials. The lower strain appeared for austenitic steel as compared to martensitic steel.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available