Comprehensive evaluation of operation stability of wet desulfurization system based on causal-fuzzy AHP

doi:10.16085/j.issn.1000-6613.2021-0107

Abstract

Abstract:

Because of its mature technology, lime gypsum flue gas desulfurization has been widely used in coal-fired power plants, iron and steel metallurgy and other industries. The technology has the characteristics of high removal efficiency and easy to buy absorbent. However, there are many fuzzy uncertainties in the daily operation of desulfurization system. In order to make a better comprehensive evaluation of the system operation stability, the influencing factors were analyzed through three steps, and the final conclusion was obtained. First of all, according to the technical characteristics and operation status of the project, the investigation was carried out from six aspects of process, equipment, electrical, instrument automation, public and auxiliary and operation and maintenance, and various factors and constraints leading to the instability of the system operation were found. Secondly, the cause and effect fuzzy analytic hierarchy process was used to analyze the reasons leading to the instability of lime gypsum desulfurization system, and the fuzzy evaluation model of system operation was established. The weight calculation and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of various influencing factors were carried out, and the weight order, comprehensive score and evaluation grade were obtained. Thirdly, combined with the case of sintering machine flue gas desulfurization, the influencing factors of project operation instability were divided into 6 categories and 24 sub items, and the evaluation level was divided into very stable, relatively stable, basically stable, less stable and unstable. Finally, through the case analysis, evaluation and comparison with the on-site detection, the following three conclusions were obtained. ①The weight order of each influencing factor was obtained as follows: electrical failure, instrument automation inaccuracy, abnormal process index, equipment failure, public and auxiliary supply instability, daily operation and maintenance management. ②The comprehensive score of the case project was 77.75, and the evaluation level was determined as level 3-basically stable. ③After comparing the comprehensive evaluation results of causal fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with the field monitoring results, it was determined that the two results were consistent, which showed that the method had good applicability for the stability evaluation of lime gypsum desulfurization system.

Key words: desulfurization system, stability, comprehensive evaluation, causal analysis method, analytic hierarchy process, fuzzy theory

摘要：

石灰石膏法烟气脱硫技术作为一种传统的湿法脱硫技术，具有脱硫效率高、吸收剂易得等特点，在燃煤电厂和钢铁冶金等行业的烟气脱硫中得以广泛应用。但在系统运行中存在诸多模糊不确定性，为了能够对石灰石膏法脱硫系统稳定性进行综合评价，根据项目的技术特点和运营状况，本文从工艺、设备、电气、仪表自动化、公辅和运维六个方面进行调查，查找导致系统运行失稳的各种因素和制约条件。采用因果-模糊层次分析法对导致石灰石膏法脱硫系统运行失稳的原因进行分析，建立系统运行状况模糊评价模型，对各种影响因素进行权重计算和模糊综合评价，得出权重排序、综合评分和评价等级。结合莱芜钢铁265m²烧结烟气脱硫案例，将项目运行失稳的影响因素分为6类24项，将评价等级分为“很稳定”“比较稳定”“基本稳定”“欠稳定”“不稳定”5个等级。通过对案例的分析、评价以及与现场检测对比得到：①各影响因素的权重排序为电气故障＞仪表自动化失准＞工艺指标异常＞设备故障＞公辅供应失稳＞日常运维管理；②案例项目的综合评分为77.75，评价等级为“基本稳定/三级”；③采用因果-模糊层次分析法的综合评价结果与现场监测结果相符，说明采用该方法对石灰石膏法脱硫系统稳定性评价具有良好的适用性。

关键词: 脱硫系统, 稳定性, 综合评价, 因果分析法, 层次分析法, 模糊理论

CLC Number:

X701.3

HOU Jianyong, YAN Fang, WANG Hao, CHENG Xiaohui, YAN Houhua, HU Gang. Comprehensive evaluation of operation stability of wet desulfurization system based on causal-fuzzy AHP[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2022, 41(2): 569-583.

侯建勇, 严芳, 王浩, 程晓辉, 严厚华, 胡刚. 基于因果-模糊层次分析的湿法脱硫系统运行稳定性综合评价[J]. 化工进展, 2022, 41(2): 569-583.

Figures/Tables 2

References 35

1	于勇, 朱廷钰, 刘霄龙. 中国钢铁行业重点工序烟气超低排放技术进展[J]. 钢铁, 2019, 54(9): 1-11.
	YU Yong, ZHU Tingyu, LIU Xiaolong. Progress of ultra-low emission technology for key processes of iron and steel industry in China[J]. Iron & Steel, 2019, 54(9): 1-11.
2	武春锦, 吕武华, 梅毅, 等. 湿法烟气脱硫技术及运行经济性分析[J]. 化工进展, 2015, 34(12): 4368-4374.
	WU Chunjin, Wuhua LYU, MEI Yi, et al. Application and running economic analysis of wet flue gas desulfurization technology[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2015, 34(12): 4368-4374.
3	侯建勇, 李洁. 含高浓度SO₂的烧结机烟气超低排放技术研究[J]. 冶金动力, 2020, 39(8): 77-82.
	HOU Jianyong, LI Jie. Ultra low emission technology of sintering flue gas containing high concentration SO₂[J]. Metallurgical Power, 2020, 39(8): 77-82.
4	曹建宗, 刘琦, 陈文通, 等. 典型湿法脱硫系统存在的问题及人工智能在优化运行中的应用[J]. 化工进展, 2020, 39(S1): 242-249.
	CAO Jianzong, LIU Qi, CHEN Wentong, et al. Problems of typical wet desulfurization system and application of artificial intelligence in optimal operation[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2020, 39(S1): 242-249.
5	马双忱, 杨静, 张立男, 等. 湿法脱硫浆液的氧化控制缺陷及对策[J]. 化工进展, 2016, 35(8): 2547-2552.
	MA Shuangchen, YANG Jing, ZHANG Linan, et al. Defects and countermeasures of slurry oxidation control in the Wet-FGD[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2016, 35(8): 2547-2552.
6	曹国庆, 邢金城, 涂光备. 基于灰色层次分析理论的烟气脱硫技术评价方法[J]. 中国电机工程学报, 2006, 26(4): 51-55.
	CAO Guoqing, XING Jincheng, TU Guangbei. Grey method with use of an analytic hierarchy process for performance evaluation of flue gas desulfurization technology[J]. Proceedings of the CSEE, 2006, 26(4): 51-55.
7	孙冠中, 董艳艳, 黄奎, 等. 脱硫脱硝一体化工艺和AHP在工艺综合评价中的应用[J]. 科技通报, 2016, 32(5): 197-201, 206.
	SUN Guanzhong, DONG Yanyan, HUANG Kui, et al. Application of AHP in the evaluation of simultaneous removal of SO₂ and NO_x for supercritical and ultra-supercritical thermal power units[J]. Bulletin of Science and Technology, 2016, 32(5): 197-201, 206.
8	朱廷钰. 烧结烟气净化技术[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2009.
	ZHU Tingyu. Sintering flue gas purification technology[M]. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press, 2009.
9	张春霞, 王海风, 齐渊洪. 烧结烟气污染物脱除的进展[J]. 钢铁, 2010, 45(12): 1-11.
	ZHANG Chunxia, WANG Haifeng, QI Yuanhong. Status of exhaust pollutant reduction in sinter process[J]. Iron & Steel, 2010, 45(12): 1-11.
10	周茂军, 张代华. 宝钢烧结烟气超低排放技术集成与实践[J]. 钢铁, 2020, 55(2): 144-151.
	ZHOU Maojun, ZHANG Daihua. Technology integration and practice of ultra-low emission of sintering flue gas in Baosteel[J]. Iron & Steel, 2020, 55(2): 144-151.
11	丁禺乔, 赵毅. 钢铁行业烟气污染物控制技术[J]. 化工技术与开发, 2020, 49(1): 45-48.
	DING Yuqiao, ZHAO Yi. Control technology of flue gas pollutants in iron and steel industry[J]. Technology & Development of Chemical Industry, 2020, 49(1): 45-48.
12	王新东, 侯长江, 田京雷. 钢铁行业烟气多污染物协同控制技术应用实践[J]. 过程工程学报, 2020, 20(9): 997-1007.
	WANG Xindong, HOU Changjiang, TIAN Jinglei. Application and practice of multi-pollutant cooperative control technology for flue gas in iron and steel industry[J]. The Chinese Journal of Process Engineering, 2020, 20(9): 997-1007.
13	郭瑞堂, 高翔, 王君, 等. 湿法烟气脱硫石灰石的活性[J]. 燃烧科学与技术, 2007, 13(6): 485-490.
	GUO Ruitang, GAO Xiang, WANG Jun, et al. Reactivity of limestone in wet flue gas desulfurization system[J]. Journal of Combustion Science and Technology, 2007, 13(6): 485-490.
14	马双忱, 周权, 曹建宗, 等. 湿法脱硫系统动态过程建模与仿真[J]. 化工学报, 2020, 71(8): 3741-3751.
	MA Shuangchen, ZHOU Quan, CAO Jianzong, et al. Modeling and simulation of wet desulfurization system dynamic process[J]. CIESC Journal, 2020, 71(8): 3741-3751.
15	祝杰, 吴振元, 叶世超, 等. 石灰石-石膏湿法喷淋脱硫模型研究[J]. 高校化学工程学报, 2015, 29(1): 220-225.
	ZHU Jie, WU Zhenyuan, YE Shichao, et al. Modelling of wet limestone-gypsum flue gas desulfurization system in spray tower[J]. Journal of Chemical Engineering of Chinese Universities, 2015, 29(1): 220-225.
16	梁磊, 马洪玉, 丁华, 等. 石灰-石膏法烟气脱硫系统塔内浆液pH及密度测量改进[J]. 中国电力, 2012, 45(9): 80-84.
	LIANG Lei, MA Hongyu, DING Hua, et al. Improvement in pH value and density measurement for slurry in tower of lime-gypsum FGD systems[J]. Electric Power, 2012, 45(9): 80-84.
17	马双忱, 林宸雨, 周权, 等. 基于深度神经网络的脱硫系统预测模型及应用[J]. 化工进展, 2021, 40(3): 1689-1698.
	MA Shuangchen, LIN Chenyu, ZHOU Quan, et al. Prediction model of FGD system based on deep neural network and its application[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2021, 40(3): 1689-1698.
18	贾西部. 石灰石-石膏湿法脱硫废水排放量深度解析[J]. 中国电力, 2020, 53(8): 139-144, 163.
	JIA Xibu. In-depth analysis on wastewater discharge of wet limestone-gypsum FGD[J]. Electric Power, 2020, 53(8): 139-144, 163.
19	宁翔, 谷小兵, 倪黎, 等. 石灰石-石膏湿法脱硫系统氯离子富集时间的计算[J]. 热能动力工程, 2020, 35(9):154-160.
	NING Xiang, GU Xiaobing, NI Li, et al. Calculation of chloride ion enrichment time in limestone-gypsum wet desulfurization system[J]. Journal of Engineering for Thermal Energy and Power, 2020, 35(9):154-160.
20	李守信, 胡玉亭, 纪立国. 湿式石灰石-石膏法烟气脱硫中石膏质量的工艺控制因素[J]. 电力环境保护, 2002, 18(3): 5-7.
	LI Shouxin, HU Yuting, JI Liguo. The factors controlling gypsum quality in wet limestone(lime)-gypsum flue gas desulfurization[J]. Electric Power Environmental Protection, 2002, 18(3): 5-7.
21	杨治中, 郭士义. 火电厂石灰石-石膏湿法脱硫除雾器的研究及应用进展[J]. 能源环境保护, 2014, 28(6):11-14, 6.
	YANG Zhizhong, GUO Shiyi. A review on the research and application of demister in wet limestone-gypsum flue gas desulfurization system at coal-fired power plant[J]. Energy Environmental Protection, 2014, 28(6):11-14, 6.
22	郝润龙, 赵毅, 郭天祥. 燃煤烟气湿法脱硫系统模型及优化运行[J]. 动力工程学报, 2016, 36(10): 822-826, 841.
	HAO Runlong, ZHAO Yi, GUO Tianxiang. Modeling and operation optimization of wet flue gas desulfurization systems[J]. Journal of Chinese Society of Power Engineering, 2016, 36(10): 822-826, 841.
23	杨爱勇, 申智勇, 袁立明, 等. 石灰石-石膏湿法脱硫装置磨损腐蚀问题分析[J]. 电力科技与环保, 2010, 26(6): 31-32.
	YANG Aiyong, SHEN Zhiyong, YUAN Liming, et al. Analysis about the notable erosion and corrosion in wet limestone FGD equipments[J]. Electric Power Technology and Environmental Protection, 2010, 26(6): 31-32.
24	潘佩媛, 陈衡, 焦健, 等. 湿法脱硫后烟气腐蚀现场实验研究[J]. 化工学报, 2019, 70(1): 161-169.
	PAN Peiyuan, CHEN Heng, JIAO Jian, et al. In-plant experimental study on desulfurized flue gas corrosion[J]. CIESC Journal, 2019, 70(1): 161-169.
25	陈倩萍. 风机叶片材料磨损试验的研究[J]. 流体机械, 2014, 42(8): 12-15, 11.
	CHEN Qianping. Wear test research on fan blade materials[J]. Fluid Machinery, 2014, 42(8): 12-15, 11.
26	余仁强, 何建军, 李微, 等. 火电厂循环泵叶轮材料Cr30A在脱硫浆液腐蚀环境中的交互损伤失效行为研究[J]. 中国腐蚀与防护学报, 2019, 39(4): 353-358.
	YU Renqiang, HE Jianjun, LI Wei, et al. Erosive wear of Cr30A high chromium cast iron in a simulated circulating pump operation condition with slurry related to wet desulfurization process in thermal power plant[J]. Journal of Chinese Society for Corrosion and Protection, 2019, 39(4): 353-358.
27	许拥军, 王天博, 崔一尘, 等. 湿法脱硫中真空皮带机脱水效果影响因素[J]. 环境工程, 2013, 31(S1): 453-456.
	XU Yongjun, WANG Tianbo, CUI Yichen, et al. Influencing factors of vacuum belt conveyor dehydration effect in wet FGD[J]. Environmental Engineering, 2013, 31(S1): 453-456.
28	吴晓霖. 烟气脱硫DCS电源缺陷分析及改进措施[J]. 电力安全技术, 2019, 21(8): 48-51.
	WU Xiaolin. DCS power supply defect analysis and improvement measures for flue gas desulfurization[J]. Electric Safety Technology, 2019, 21(8): 48-51.
29	李飞. 燃煤电厂脱硫废水零排放技术应用与研究进展[J]. 水处理技术, 2020, 46(12): 17-24.
	LI Fei. Application and research progresses of technologies for zero-discharge of desulfurization wastewater from coal-fired power plants[J]. Technology of Water Treatment, 2020, 46(12): 17-24.
30	朱敬聪, 朱晓光, 关磊. 基于贝叶斯网络的化工企业人员应急疏散研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2021, 21(2): 739-745.
	ZHU Jingcong, ZHU Xiaoguang, GUAN Lei. On the emergency evacuation of the personnel in the chemical enterprises based on the Bayesian network[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2021, 21(2): 739-745.
31	赵煜晖, 乔蓓, 徐俊, 等. 基于鱼骨图分析的城市燃气运营风险要因剖析[J]. 石油与天然气化工, 2015, 44(4): 119-124.
	ZHAO Yuhui, QIAO Bei, XU Jun, et al. Analysis of operational risk of urban gas based on fishbone diagram analysis[J]. Chemical Engineering of Oil & Gas, 2015, 44(4): 119-124.
32	马双忱, 范紫瑄, 温佳琪, 等. 基于模糊层次分析的燃煤电厂脱硫废水处理可利用技术评价[J]. 化工进展, 2018, 37(11): 4451-4459.
	MA Shuangchen, FAN Zixuan, WEN Jiaqi, et al. Evaluation on technology of desulfurization wastewater from coal-fired power plant based on fuzzy AHP[J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2018, 37(11): 4451-4459.
33	陈许玲, 赵新泽, 范晓慧, 等. 铁矿烧结烟气净化技术综合评价模型研究[J]. 矿冶工程, 2018, 38(6): 83-87.
	CHEN Xuling, ZHAO Xinze, FAN Xiaohui, et al. A comprehensive evaluation model for sintering flue gas purification technologies[J]. Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, 2018, 38(6): 83-87.
34	汪应洛. 系统工程[M]. 5版. 北京: 机械工业出版社, 2016.
	WANG Yingluo. Systems Engineering[M]. 5^th ed. Beijing: China Machine Press, 2016.
35	翟昕龙, 雷毅, 曹学文, 等. 天然气管道内涂层失效因素及安全评价[J]. 油气储运, 2019, 38(6): 642-648.
	ZHAI Xinlong, LEI Yi, CAO Xuewen, et al. Failure factors and safety evaluation of internal coating of gas pipeline[J]. Oil & Gas Storage and Transportation, 2019, 38(6): 642-648.

[1]	WANG Xin, WANG Bingbing, YANG Wei, XU Zhiming. Anti-scale and anti-corrosion properties of PDA/PTFE superhydrophobic coating on metal surface [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(8): 4315-4321.
[2]	LU Yang, ZHOU Jinsong, ZHOU Qixin, WANG Tang, LIU Zhuang, LI Bohao, ZHOU Lingtao. Leaching mechanism of Hg-absorption products on CeO₂/TiO₂ sorbentsin syngas [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(7): 3875-3883.
[3]	WU Zhanhua, SHENG Min. Pitfalls of accelerating rate calorimeter for reactivity hazard evaluation and risk assessment [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(7): 3374-3382.
[4]	XIE Zhiwei, WU Zhangyong, ZHU Qichen, JIANG Jiajun, LIANG Tianxiang, LIU Zhenyang. Viscosity properties and magnetoviscous effects of Ni_0.5Zn_0.5Fe₂O₄ vegetable oil-based magnetic fluid [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(7): 3623-3633.
[5]	YANG Jingying, SHI Wansheng, HUANG Zhenxing, XIE Lijuan, ZHAO Mingxing, RUAN Wenquan. Research progress on the preparation of modified nano zero-valent iron materials [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(6): 2975-2986.
[6]	YANG Yang, SUN Zhigao, LI Cuimin, LI Juan, HUANG Haifeng. Promotion on the formation of HCFC-141b hydrate under static conditions by surfactant OP-13 [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(6): 2854-2859.
[7]	LI Ling, MA Chaofeng, LU Chunshan, YU Wanjin, SHI Nengfu, JIN Jiamin, ZHANG Jianjun, LIU Wucan, LI Xiaonian. Progress on the synthesis of 1,1,2-trifluoroethene and the catalysts [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(4): 1822-1831.
[8]	YIN Ming, GUO Jin, PANG Jifeng, WU Pengfei, ZHENG Mingyuan. Deactivation mechanisms and stabilizing strategies for Cu based catalysts in reactions with hydrogen [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(4): 1860-1868.
[9]	LI Yunchuang, XIE Fangming, XI Yanan, WAN Xinyue, SUN Yuhu, ZHAO Yongfeng, LI Gen, LIU Honghai, GAO Xionghou, LIU Hongtao. Low-cost synthesis of hydrothermally stable mesoporous aluminosilicates [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(4): 1877-1884.
[10]	WANG Yuzhuo, LI Gang. S,N co-doped three-dimensional graphene for all-solid-state supercapacitors [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(4): 1974-1982.
[11]	TAN Dexin, ZENG Jiaxin, LIANG Limin, SHEN Sihui, ZENG Ziqian, WANG Yanli. Effects of substituted alkyl on the properties of arylacetylenic monomers and their polymers [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(4): 2031-2037.
[12]	ZONG Yue, ZHANG Ruijun, GAO Shanshan, TIAN Jiayu. A review on the pressure-driven thin film composite (TFC) membranes with special stability for desalination [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(4): 2058-2067.
[13]	LI Guangwen, HUA Qucheng, HUANG Zuoxin, DA Zhijian. Progress on polymethacrylate as viscosity index improvers for lube oil [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(3): 1562-1571.
[14]	ZHANG Chenguang, FENG Shuo, XING Yuye, SHEN Boxiong, SU Lichao. Research progress of isolated Cu²⁺ in copper based zeolite NH₃-SCR catalyst for diesel vehicles [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(3): 1321-1331.
[15]	WU Yiheng, ZHANG Yaoyuan, WU Qin, SHI Daxin, CHEN Kangcheng, LI Hansheng. Research progress of gallium modified HZSM-5 catalysts for aromatization of light alkanes [J]. Chemical Industry and Engineering Progress, 2023, 42(10): 5162-5178.