Recovery boiler sootblowers: History and technological advances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sootblowing technology used in recovery boilers originated from that used in coal-fired boilers. It started with manual cleaning with hand lancing and hand blowing, and evolved slowly into online sootblowing using retractable sootblowers. Since 1991, intensive research and development has focused on sootblowing jet fundamentals and deposit removal in recovery boilers. The results have provided much insight into sootblower jet hydrodynamics, how a sootblower jet interacts with tubes and deposits, and factors influencing its deposit removal efficiency, and have led to two important innovations: fully-expanded sootblower nozzles that are used in virtually all recovery boilers today, and the low pressure sootblowing technology that has been implemented in several new recovery boilers. The availability of powerful computing systems, superfast microprocessors and data acquisition systems, and versatile computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling capability in the past two decades has also contributed greatly to the advancement of sootblowing technology. High quality infrared inspection cameras have enabled mills to inspect the deposit buildup conditions in the boiler during operation, and helped identify problems with sootblower lance swinging and superheater platens and boiler bank tube vibrations. As the recovery boiler firing capacity and steam parameters have increased markedly in recent years, sootblowers have become larger and longer, and this can present a challenge in terms of both sootblower design and operation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".