Quality performance evaluation method for full-size denitration catalyst detection platform

Abstract

The invention discloses a quality performance evaluation method for a full-size denitration catalyst detection platform. The quality performance evaluation method comprises the steps of data consistency testing, air tightness testing, uniformity verification testing and stability testing. The data consistency test comprises cross-platform detection consistency test, personnel consistency test and reactor consistency test; the air tightness test comprises a static pressure method test and a dynamic leakage rate test; the uniformity verification test comprises field uniformity, temperature field uniformity and gas component concentration field uniformity; the stability test comprises 168h data drift rate test. According to the quality performance evaluation method for the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform, quality performance evaluation is carried out on multiple aspects of the detection platform, the detection platform is more accurately utilized to test the technological characteristic indexes of the denitration catalyst, and an accurate direction is provided for optimization and improvement; errors and uncertainty are reduced, the accuracy of detection data is improved, and an important basis is provided for evaluation and diagnosis of the denitration catalyst.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of flue gas denitrification, and particularly relates to a method for evaluating the quality performance of a full-size denitrification catalyst detection platform. Background Art

[0002] As the core component of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) denitrification technology, the catalyst is widely used in thermal power plants due to its high denitrification efficiency, strong stability and other characteristics. Among them, the process characteristic indexes (such as denitrification efficiency, activity, ammonia escape, SO2 / SO3 conversion rate and pressure drop, etc.) are mainly tested by a denitrification catalyst detection platform. The denitrification catalyst detection platform mainly consists of a nitrogen production system, a gas distribution unit, a main experimental platform system (such as a gas heating system, a mixing and rectifying system, a catalyst reaction system, a main pipeline control and heating system, a gas-gas + gas-water heat exchange system and a tail gas treatment device, etc.), a flue gas analysis system, a control system, etc. The denitrification catalyst detection platforms in related technologies have differences, but lack corresponding evaluation methods, which is not conducive to the evaluation and diagnosis of denitrification catalysts. Summary of the Invention

[0003] The present invention aims to at least solve one of the technical problems existing in the prior art. For this reason, an object of the present invention is to provide a method for evaluating the quality performance of a full-size denitrification catalyst detection platform, which can evaluate the performance of different detection platforms from multiple aspects of data consistency, airtightness, uniformity and stability, and provide an important basis for the evaluation and diagnosis of catalysts.

[0004] The method for evaluating the quality performance of a full-size denitrification catalyst detection platform according to an embodiment of the present invention includes:

[0005] Data consistency test, and the data consistency test includes cross-platform detection consistency test, personnel consistency test and reactor consistency test;

[0006] Airtightness test, and the airtightness test includes static pressure method test and dynamic leakage rate test;

[0007] Uniformity verification test, and the uniformity verification test includes flow field uniformity, temperature field uniformity and gas component concentration field uniformity;

[0008] Stability test, and the stability test includes 168h data drift rate test.

[0009] The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to the embodiments of the present invention conducts quality performance evaluations from multiple aspects such as data consistency, airtightness, uniformity, and stability of the detection platform, more precisely uses the detection platform to test the process characteristic indexes of the denitration catalyst, can accurately find out the specific problems existing in the detection platform, provides an accurate direction for optimization and improvement; reduces errors and uncertainties, improves the accuracy of detection data, increases the credibility between the data results of different detection platforms, and provides an important basis for the evaluation and diagnosis of the denitration catalyst.

[0010] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the cross-platform detection consistency test includes: testing the same catalyst sample on different detection platforms respectively, the number of the detection platforms ≥ 3, the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

[0011] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the personnel consistency test includes: different testers operate according to the standardized process on the same detection platform and test the same catalyst sample respectively, the number of the testers ≥ 3, the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

[0012] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the reactor consistency test includes a single reactor consistency test and a multi-reactor consistency test;

[0013] Among them, the single reactor consistency test includes: the same tester uses the same catalyst sample to conduct 2 performance tests on the same reactor respectively, the interval time between the 2 performance tests is 24h, the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%;

[0014] The multi-reactor consistency test includes: the same tester uses the same catalyst sample to conduct 1 performance test on different reactors respectively, the number of the reactors ≤ 4, and the relative deviation of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop in the performance test data of different reactors ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

[0015] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the static pressure method test includes: pressurizing to 1.2 times the design pressure of the detection platform, maintaining the pressure for 30 minutes, and the pressure drop ≤ 1% / h.

[0016] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the dynamic leakage rate test includes: under the full-load operation state, using a tracer gas to detect the leakage rate, and the leakage rate ≤ 0.1%vol.

[0017] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the flow field uniformity test includes: calibrating test points by the grid division method, measuring the inlet flow velocity distribution of each reactor using a pitot tube or a thermal anemometer, with the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity test ≤ 5%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

[0018] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the temperature field uniformity test includes: calibrating test points by the grid division method, measuring the inlet temperature and outlet temperature of each reactor using a thermocouple, with the temperature difference at the inlet cross-section ≤ ±3°C, the temperature difference at the outlet cross-section ≤ ±3°C, and the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet ≤ ±6°C.

[0019] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the gas component concentration field uniformity test includes: calibrating test points by the grid division method, measuring the inlet and outlet gas component concentrations of each reactor under no-load conditions using a flue gas analyzer, with the RSD of the component concentration at the inlet cross-section ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentration at the outlet cross-section ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentrations at the inlet and the outlet ≤ 3%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

[0020] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the 168h data drift rate test includes: continuously operating at full load for ≥ 168h, recording key parameters every 2h, and simultaneously measuring the catalyst activity, ammonia slip, SO2 / SO3 conversion rate, and pressure drop data. The key parameters include flow rate, temperature, pressure, and concentration. The drift of the key parameters ≤ ±2%, the fluctuation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop ≤ ±5%, and the fluctuation of the test data of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%. Among them, the flow rate measurement includes two parts. One is that the drift of the flow meter itself ≤ ±2%, and the other is that the relative deviation between the set value and the total flow rate monitoring value ≤ ±5%.

[0021] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the acceptance sequence of the detection platform quality performance evaluation indicators includes:

[0022] The first stage, which includes the airtightness test, the uniformity verification test, and the reactor consistency test;

[0023] The second stage, which includes the personnel consistency test and the stability test;

[0024] The third stage, which includes the cross-platform detection consistency test;

[0025] Among them, the judgment rule includes: if any indicator in the first stage and the second stage fails to meet the standard, the whole is unqualified.

[0026] The additional aspects and advantages of the present invention will be partially given in the following description, partially become obvious from the following description, or be understood through the practice of the present invention. Description of the Drawings

[0027] The above and / or additional aspects and advantages of the present invention will become apparent and be readily understood from the description of the embodiments in conjunction with the following drawings, in which:

[0028] Figure 1 is a schematic content diagram of the quality performance evaluation method of a full-scale denitration catalyst detection platform according to some embodiments of the present invention. Detailed implementation manners

[0029] The embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below. Examples of the embodiments are shown in the drawings, wherein the same or similar reference numerals denote the same or similar elements or elements having the same or similar functions throughout. The embodiments described below with reference to the drawings are exemplary only for explaining the present invention and should not be construed as limiting the present invention.

[0030] Reference will be made below to Figure 1 describe the quality performance evaluation method of a full-scale denitration catalyst detection platform according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0031] The quality performance evaluation method of a full-scale denitration catalyst detection platform according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: data consistency test, airtightness test, uniformity verification test, and stability test.

[0032] The data consistency test includes cross-platform detection consistency test, personnel consistency test, and reactor consistency test. By testing the data consistency of the detection platform, the influences brought by the differences of different platforms, different personnel, and different reactors can be excluded;

[0033] The airtightness test includes static pressure method test and dynamic leakage rate test. By the static pressure test and dynamic pressure test, the errors and uncertainties caused by pressure can be reduced, and the accuracy of the detection data can be improved;

[0034] The uniformity verification test includes flow field uniformity, temperature field uniformity, and gas component concentration field uniformity. By testing the flow field uniformity, the error influence caused by the gas flow rate in the detection platform is reduced. By testing the temperature field uniformity, the error influence caused by the gas temperature in the detection platform is reduced. By testing the gas component concentration field uniformity, the error influence caused by the gas concentration in the detection platform is reduced;

[0035] The stability test includes a 168h data drift rate test. By testing the stability of the detection platform, the test values of the detection platform can be stabilized within a certain range, and the influence brought by instrument drift on the test results can be excluded.

[0036] The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to the embodiments of the present invention conducts quality performance evaluations from multiple aspects such as data consistency, airtightness, uniformity, and stability of the detection platform, more precisely uses the detection platform to test the process characteristic indexes of the denitration catalyst, can accurately find out the specific problems existing in the detection platform, provides a precise direction for optimization and improvement; reduces errors and uncertainties, improves the accuracy of detection data, increases the credibility between the data results of different detection platforms, and provides an important basis for the evaluation and diagnosis of the denitration catalyst.

[0037] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the cross-platform detection consistency test includes: testing the same catalyst sample on different detection platforms respectively, the number of detection platforms ≥ 3, the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

[0038] The relative deviation ≤ ±5% can be understood as: the absolute value of the relative deviation is less than or equal to 5%. When the relative deviation is positive, the relative deviation is less than or equal to 5%; when the relative deviation is negative, the relative deviation is greater than or equal to -5%.

[0039] The relative deviation ≤ ±10% can be understood as: the absolute value of the relative deviation is less than or equal to 10%. When the relative deviation is positive, the relative deviation is less than or equal to 10%; when the relative deviation is negative, the relative deviation is greater than or equal to -10%.

[0040] Among them, the relative deviation is the ratio of the difference between the test results of different detection platforms to the average value of their test results; the standard for the performance test refers to GB / T 31587 "Honeycomb Flue Gas Denitration Catalyst". The relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop ≤ ±5% means that the activity tested by different detection platforms ≤ ±5%, the ammonia slip ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate test data ≤ ±10% means that the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate tested by different detection platforms ≤ ±10%.

[0041] For example, the number of detection platforms can be 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. By comparing the test results of multiple detection platforms, accidental factors can be prevented and the accuracy of the data can be enhanced. If the relative deviation of the activity ≤ ±5%, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip ≤ ±5%, the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data ≤ ±5%, it is determined that the cross-platform detection consistency of the detection platform is qualified; if the relative deviation of the activity > ±5%, or the relative deviation of the ammonia slip > ±5%, or the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate > ±10%, or the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data > ±5%, it is determined that the cross-platform detection consistency test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0042] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the personnel consistency test includes: different testers operate according to the standardized process on the same detection platform to test the same catalyst sample respectively. The number of testers is ≥ 3, and the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop is ≤ ± 5%; the relative deviation of the test data of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate is ≤ ± 10%.

[0043] Among them, the relative deviation is the ratio of the difference between the tests of different personnel to the average value of their test results; the standard for the performance test refers to GB / T 31587 "Honeycomb Flue Gas Denitration Catalyst". The relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop ≤ ± 5% means that the activity tested on different detection platforms is ≤ ± 5%, the ammonia slip is ≤ ± 5%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data is ≤ ± 5%; the relative deviation of the test data of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ± 10% means that the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate tested on different detection platforms is ≤ ± 10%.

[0044] For example, the number of different testers can be 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. By comparing the test results of multiple people, accidental factors can be prevented and the accuracy of the data can be enhanced. If the relative deviation of activity ≤ ± 5%, the relative deviation of ammonia slip ≤ ± 5%, the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ± 10%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data ≤ ± 5%, it is determined that the cross-platform detection consistency of the detection platform is qualified; if the relative deviation of activity > ± 5%, or the relative deviation of ammonia slip > ± 5%, or the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate > ± 10%, or the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data > ± 5%, it is determined that the personnel consistency test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0045] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the reactor consistency test includes the single reactor consistency test and the multi-reactor consistency test. Through the single reactor consistency test and the multi-reactor consistency test, the consistency between reactors can be better compared, errors and uncertainties can be reduced, and the accuracy of the detection data can be improved.

[0046] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the single reactor consistency test includes: the same test personnel use the same catalyst sample to conduct 2 performance tests on the same reactor respectively. The time interval between the two performance tests is 24h, the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop is ≤ ± 5%, and the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate is ≤ ± 10%.

[0047] Among them, the relative deviation is the ratio of the difference between the test results of two performance tests to the average value of the test results; the size of the reactor is ≥150 mm × 150 mm × 1500 mm, and the standard for performance tests refers to GB / T 31587 "Honeycomb Flue Gas Denitrification Catalyst". The same test personnel use the same catalyst sample to conduct two performance tests on the same reactor respectively, and the interval time between the two performance tests is 24 h, which can ensure that other variables except time remain unchanged and keep the environment of the two performance tests of a single reactor the same. The relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop ≤ ±5% means that the relative deviation of the activity data, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip data, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data in the two performance tests are all ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10% means that the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in the two performance tests is ≤ ±10%.

[0048] For example, the size of the reactor can be 150 mm × 150 mm × 1500 mm, or it can be 160 mm × 160 mm × 1600 mm, etc. After the same test personnel use the same catalyst sample to conduct two performance tests on the same reactor at an interval of 24 h, calculate the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop in the two tests. If the relative deviation of the activity data in the two tests ≤ ±5%, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip data ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data ≤ ±5%, it is determined that the consistency test of a single reactor on the detection platform is qualified; if the relative deviation of the activity data in the two tests > ±5%, or the relative deviation of the ammonia slip data > ±5%, or the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data > ±5%, it is determined that the consistency test of a single reactor on the detection platform is unqualified. If the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in the two tests ≤ ±10%, it is determined that the consistency test of a single reactor on the detection platform is qualified; if the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in the two tests > ±10%, it is determined that the consistency test of a single reactor on the detection platform is unqualified.

[0049] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the consistency test of multiple reactors includes: the same test personnel use the same catalyst sample to conduct one performance test on different reactors respectively, the number of reactors is ≤ 4, and the relative deviation of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop in the test data of different reactor performance tests is ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate is ≤ ±10%.

[0050] Among them, the relative deviation is the ratio of the difference between the test results of one performance test of different reactors to the average value of their test results; the size of the reactor is ≥150mm×150mm×1500mm, and the standard for the performance test refers to GB / T 31587 "Honeycomb Flue Gas Denitrification Catalyst". The same test personnel use the same catalyst sample to conduct one performance test on different reactors respectively, which can ensure that the other variables except the reactor remain unchanged and keep the environment of the same performance test of different reactors the same. The relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop ≤±5% means that the relative deviation of the activity data, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip data and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data in one performance test of different reactors are all ≤±5%; the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤±10% means that the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in one performance test of different reactors is ≤±10%.

[0051] For example, the number of reactors can be 2, 3 or 4; the size of the reactor can be 150mm×150mm×1500mm, or 160mm×160mm×1600mm, etc. After the same test personnel use the same catalyst sample to conduct one performance test on different reactors respectively, calculate the relative deviation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip and pressure drop in one test. If the relative deviation of the activity data, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip data and the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data in one test of different reactors are all ≤±5%, it is determined that the single reactor consistency test of the detection platform is qualified; if the relative deviation of the activity data in one test of different reactors >±5%, or the relative deviation of the ammonia slip data >±5%, or the relative deviation of the pressure drop test data >±5%, it is determined that the single reactor consistency test of the detection platform is unqualified. If the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in one test of different reactors ≤±10%, it is determined that the single reactor consistency test of the detection platform is qualified; if the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in one test of different reactors >±10%, it is determined that the single reactor consistency test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0052] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the static pressure method test includes: pressurizing to 1.2 times the design pressure of the detection platform, maintaining the pressure for 30 minutes, and the pressure drop ≤1% / h.

[0053] For example, close all the inlets and outlets of the detection platform, fill nitrogen into the pipeline of the detection platform to 1.2 times the design pressure, maintain the pressure for 30 minutes, record the pressure value every 5 minutes, and detect the leakage point by the soap bubble method at the same time. If the pressure drop rate in the detection platform ≤1% / h and there is no visible bubble leakage, it is determined that the static pressure method test of the detection platform is qualified; if the pressure drop rate in the detection platform >1% / h or visible bubble leakage occurs, it is determined that the static pressure method test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0054] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the dynamic leakage rate test includes: under the full-load operation state, using a tracer gas to detect the leakage rate, and the leakage rate ≤ 0.1% vol.

[0055] For example, the tracer gas can be helium. Under the state where the detection platform is running at full load, inject the tracer gas into the system and use a mass spectrometer to detect the peripheral leakage concentration. If the leakage rate ≤ 0.1% vol / h, it is determined that the dynamic leakage rate test of the detection platform is qualified; if the leakage rate > 0.1% vol / h, it is determined that the dynamic leakage rate test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0056] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the flow field uniformity test includes: calibrating the test points by the grid division method, using a pitot tube or a thermal anemometer to measure the inlet flow velocity distribution of each reactor, the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity test ≤ 5%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

[0057] Among them, the grid division method is a grid layout of at least 3×3. RSD is the relative standard deviation, which is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the data by its average value. The RSD of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity test ≤ 5% means that in a single test, the RSD of the flow velocities of all measured points in this cross-section ≤ 5%; the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2% means that the RSD of the flow velocity of a certain measured point in three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

[0058] For example, the grid division method can be a 3×3 grid layout, a 4×4 grid layout, etc. After calibrating the test points by the grid division method, use a pitot tube or a thermal anemometer to measure the inlet flow velocity distribution of each reactor, and calculate the RSD of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution through the flow velocities of the test points. If the RSD of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity test in a single test ≤ 5%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%, it is determined that the flow field uniformity test of the detection platform is qualified; if the RSD of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity test in a single test > 5%, or the RSD of three repeated tests > 2%, it is determined that the flow field uniformity test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0059] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the temperature field uniformity test includes: calibrating the test points by the grid division method, using thermocouples to measure the inlet temperature and outlet temperature of each reactor, the temperature difference of the inlet cross-section ≤ ±3°C, the temperature difference of the outlet cross-section ≤ ±3°C, and the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet ≤ ±6°C.

[0060] Among them, the grid division method is a grid layout of at least 3×3. The inlet section temperature difference ≤ ±3°C means that in a single test, the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures of all measured points in the inlet section ≤ ±3°C; the outlet section temperature difference ≤ ±3°C means that in a single test, the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures of all measured points in the outlet section ≤ ±3°C; the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet ≤ ±6°C means that the difference between the average temperature of all measured points in the inlet section and the average temperature of all measured points in the outlet section ≤ ±6°C.

[0061] For example, the grid division method can be a 3×3 grid layout, or a 4×4 grid layout, etc. After calibrating the test points by the grid division method, use thermocouples to measure the inlet and outlet temperatures of each reactor, and calculate the difference and average value of the cross-section temperature based on the temperatures of the test points. If the inlet section temperature difference ≤ ±3°C, the outlet section temperature difference ≤ ±3°C, and the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet ≤ ±6°C, it is determined that the temperature field uniformity test of the detection platform is qualified; if the inlet section temperature difference > ±3°C, or the outlet section temperature difference > ±3°C, or the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet > ±6°C, it is determined that the temperature field uniformity test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0062] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the gas component concentration field uniformity test includes: calibrating test points by the grid division method, using a flue gas analyzer to measure the inlet and outlet gas component concentrations of each reactor under no-load conditions, the RSD of the component concentration in the inlet section ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentration in the outlet section ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentrations of the inlet and the outlet ≤ 3%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

[0063] Among them, the grid division method is a grid layout of at least 3×3. RSD is the relative standard deviation, which is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the data by its average value. The RSD of the component concentration in the inlet section ≤ 3% means that in a single test, the RSD of the gas component concentrations of all measured points in the inlet section ≤ 3%; the RSD of the component concentration in the outlet section ≤ 3% means that in a single test, the RSD of the gas component concentrations of all measured points in the outlet section ≤ 3%; the RSD of the component concentrations of the inlet and the outlet ≤ 3% means that in a single test, the RSD of the gas component concentrations of all measured points in the inlet section and the outlet section ≤ 3%; the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2% means that the RSD of the gas component concentration of a certain measured point in three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

[0064] For example, the grid division method can be a 3×3 grid layout, a 4×4 grid layout, etc. After calibrating the test points using the grid division method, the gas component concentrations at the inlet and outlet of each reactor under no-load conditions are measured using a flue gas analyzer, and the RSD of the cross-sectional gas component concentrations is calculated. If the RSD of the component concentration at the inlet cross-section ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentration at the outlet cross-section ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentrations at the inlet and outlet ≤ 3%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%, it is determined that the test for the uniformity of the gas component concentration field of the detection platform is qualified; if the RSD of the component concentration at the inlet cross-section > 3%, or the RSD of the component concentration at the outlet cross-section > 3%, the RSD of the component concentrations at the inlet and outlet > 3%, and the RSD of three repeated tests > 2%, it is determined that the test for the uniformity of the gas component concentration field of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0065] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the 168h data drift rate test includes: continuously operating at full load for ≥ 168h, recording key parameters every 2h, and simultaneously testing catalyst activity, ammonia slip, SO2 / SO3 conversion rate, and pressure drop data. The key parameters include flow rate, temperature, pressure, and concentration. The drift of the key parameters ≤ ±2%, the fluctuation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop ≤ ±5%, and the fluctuation of the test data of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%. Among them, the flow rate test includes two parts. One is that the drift of the flowmeter itself ≤ ±2%, and the other is that the relative deviation between the set value and the total flow rate monitoring value ≤ ±5%.

[0066] Among them, the drift of the key parameters ≤ ±2% means that the relative deviation of the flow rate, temperature, pressure, and concentration in the adjacent data recorded every 2h ≤ ±2%; the fluctuation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop ≤ ±5% means that the relative deviation of catalyst activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop data in the adjacent data recorded every 2h ≤ ±5%; the fluctuation of the test data of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10% means that the relative deviation of the catalyst SO2 / SO3 conversion rate in the adjacent data recorded every 2h ≤ ±10%; the drift of the flowmeter itself ≤ ±2% means that the relative deviation of the flowmeter in the adjacent data recorded every 2h ≤ ±2%; the relative deviation between the set value and the total flow rate monitoring value ≤ ±5% means that the relative deviation of the total flow rate of all gases in the adjacent data recorded every 2h ≤ ±5%. In addition, if the following requirements are not met continuously for more than 3 times in the adjacent data recorded every 2h, it is considered a random error and will not be determined that the 168h data drift rate test of the detection platform is unqualified; if the following requirements are not met continuously for 3 times or more in the adjacent data recorded every 2h, it is determined that the 168h data drift rate test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0067] For example, among the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours, if there are 3 or more consecutive occurrences (which can be 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.). The relative deviation is the ratio of the difference between the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours to the average value of the test results. During the continuous operation of the detection platform at full load for ≥168 hours, key parameters and test data are recorded every 2 hours, and the relative deviation of the parameters in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours is calculated. If the relative deviation of the flow rate in all adjacent data recorded every 2 hours ≤ ±2%, the relative deviation of the temperature ≤ ±2%, the relative deviation of the pressure ≤ ±2%, and the relative deviation of the concentration ≤ ±2%, or if the relative deviation of the flow rate in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours does not exceed 3 consecutive times and is > 2%, the relative deviation of the temperature > ±2%, the relative deviation of the pressure > ±2%, and the relative deviation of the concentration > ±2%, then it is determined that the 168-hour data drift rate test of the detection platform is qualified; if there are 3 or more consecutive times in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours where the relative deviation of the flow rate > 2%, or the relative deviation of the temperature > ±2%, or the relative deviation of the pressure > ±2%, or the relative deviation of the concentration > ±2%, then it is determined that the 168-hour data drift rate test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0068] For example, if the relative deviation of the catalyst activity in all adjacent data recorded every 2 hours ≤ ±5%, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip ≤ ±5%, the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop data ≤ ±5%, or if the relative deviation of the catalyst activity in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours does not exceed 3 consecutive times and is > ±5%, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip > ±5%, the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate > ±10%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop data > ±5%, then it is determined that the 168-hour data drift rate test of the detection platform is qualified; if there are 3 or more consecutive times in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours where the relative deviation of the catalyst activity > ±5%, the relative deviation of the ammonia slip > ±5%, the relative deviation of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate > ±10%, and the relative deviation of the pressure drop data > ±5%, then it is determined that the 168-hour data drift rate test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0069] For example, if the relative deviation of the flowmeter in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours ≤ ±2% and the relative deviation of the total gas flow rate ≤ ±5%, or if the relative deviation of the flowmeter in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours does not exceed 3 consecutive times and is > ±2%, and the relative deviation of the total gas flow rate > ±5%, then it is determined that the 168-hour data drift rate test of the detection platform is qualified; if there are 3 or more consecutive times in the adjacent data recorded every 2 hours where the relative deviation of the flowmeter > ±2% and the relative deviation of the total gas flow rate > ±5%, then it is determined that the 168-hour data drift rate test of the detection platform is unqualified.

[0070] According to some embodiments of the present invention, the acceptance sequence of the detection platform quality performance evaluation indicators includes:

[0071] The first stage includes an airtightness test, a uniformity verification test, and a reactor consistency test;

[0072] The second stage includes a personnel consistency test and a stability test;

[0073] The third stage includes a cross-platform detection consistency test;

[0074] Among them, the judgment rules include: if any index in the first stage and the second stage fails to meet the standard, the whole is unqualified.

[0075] For example, when the airtightness of the detection platform in the first stage is judged to be unqualified and the other indexes are judged to be qualified, the detection platform as a whole is judged to be unqualified; if all the tests in the first stage are qualified and the stability test in the second stage is unqualified, the detection platform as a whole is judged to be unqualified; if all the tests in the first stage and the second stage are qualified, then enter the third stage test; when all the tests in the third stage are qualified, the detection platform as a whole is judged to be qualified.

[0076] Example 1,

[0077] Taking the airtightness, uniformity, and reactor consistency in the first stage as examples.

[0078] 1. Implementation method of airtightness test

[0079] (1) Static pressure holding test

[0080] Close all inlets and outlets of the detection platform, fill it with nitrogen to 1.2 times the design pressure, hold the pressure for 30 minutes, record the pressure value every 5 minutes, and detect the leakage point by the soap bubble method at the same time. When the pressure drop rate ≤ 1% / h and there is no visible bubble leakage, the acceptance is qualified.

[0081] (2) Dynamic operation leakage rate test

[0082] Under the full-load operation state, inject tracer gas (such as helium) into the system, and use a mass spectrometer to detect the peripheral leakage concentration. When the leakage rate ≤ 0.1% vol / h, the acceptance is qualified.

[0083] 2. Implementation method of uniformity

[0084] (1) Flow field uniformity (cold state test)

[0085] Design reference flow velocity: 2.0 m / s, arrange 9 measuring points, repeat the test 3 times, and measure with a pitot tube.

[0086] The test data of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity are shown in Table 1.

[0087] Table 1

[0088] Measuring point 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Cross-section RSD First time 1.95 2.02 2.08 1.98 2 2.05 1.93 2 2.03 2.3％ Second time 1.98 2 2.03 1.96 2.02 2.04 1.97 2.01 2.05 1.9％ Third time 1.94 2.05 2 1.99 2.01 2.02 1.96 1.98 2.06 2.6％ RSD repeated three times 1.2％ 1.5％ 1.8％ 0.8％ 0.4％ 0.7％ 1.1％ 1.3％ 1.6％ /

[0089] The RSD values of the single - test of the cross - section flow velocity are 2.3%, 1.9% and 2.6% respectively, all meeting the requirement of RSD ≤ 5%. The repeated tests for three times all meet the requirement of RSD ≤ 2%.

[0090] (2) Temperature field uniformity

[0091] Design reference temperature: 380 °C, 9 measuring points are arranged, the test is repeated 3 times, and measured by thermocouples.

[0092] The test data of the temperature field uniformity are shown in Table 2.

[0093] Table 2

[0094]

[0095] The temperature difference across the section: at the inlet ≤ 3 °C, at the outlet ≤ 3 °C; the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet: 1 °C. All meet the requirements that the temperature difference across the inlet section ≤ ± 3 °C, the temperature difference across the outlet section ≤ ± 3 °C, and the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet ≤ ± 6 °C.

[0096] (3) Gas component concentration field uniformity

[0097] Design reference concentration: 270 ppm, 9 measuring points are arranged, the test is repeated 3 times, and measured by a flue gas analyzer.

[0098] The test data of the gas component concentration field uniformity are shown in Table 3.

[0099] Table 3

[0100]

[0101] The uniformity of the inlet cross - section meets the requirement of RSD ≤ 0.15%; the repeatability meets the requirement of RSD ≤ 0.18% for three tests.

[0102] 3. Consistency implementation method

[0103] Taking the activity of a single reactor as an example, the test data for testing the reactor consistency are shown in Table 4.

[0104] Table 4

[0105]

[0106] Among them, the relative deviation of the reactor consistency is 1.84%, meeting the requirement of the relative deviation of a single reactor ≤ ± 3%.

[0107] In the description of this specification, the descriptions referring to terms such as "one embodiment", "some embodiments", "schematic embodiments", "examples", "specific examples", or "some examples", etc., mean that the specific features, structures, materials, or characteristics described in connection with the embodiment or example are included in at least one embodiment or example of the present invention. In this specification, the schematic expressions of the above terms do not necessarily refer to the same embodiment or example. Moreover, the specific features, structures, materials, or characteristics described can be combined in any one or more embodiments or examples in a suitable manner.

[0108] Although the embodiments of the present invention have been shown and described, those of ordinary skill in the art can understand that various changes, modifications, substitutions, and variations can be made to these embodiments without departing from the principles and spirit of the present invention, and the scope of the present invention is defined by the claims and their equivalents.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the quality performance of a full-size denitration catalyst detection platform, characterized in that, Including: Data consistency test, where the data consistency test includes cross-platform detection consistency test, personnel consistency test, and reactor consistency test; Air tightness test, where the air tightness test includes static pressure method test and dynamic leakage rate test; Uniformity verification test, where the uniformity verification test includes flow field uniformity, temperature field uniformity, and gas component concentration field uniformity; Stability test, where the stability test includes 168h data drift rate test.

2. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, characterized in that The cross-platform detection consistency test includes: testing the same catalyst sample on different detection platforms respectively, where the number of detection platforms ≥ 3, and the relative deviation of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop test data ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

3. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, characterized in that The personnel consistency test includes: different testers operating according to the standardized process on the same detection platform and testing the same catalyst sample respectively, where the number of testers ≥ 3, and the relative deviation of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop test data ≤ ±5%; the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

4. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, characterized in that The reactor consistency test includes single reactor consistency test and multi-reactor consistency test; Among them, the single reactor consistency test includes: the same tester using the same catalyst sample to conduct 2 performance tests on the same reactor respectively, with an interval of 24h between the 2 performance tests, and the relative deviation of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop test data ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%; The multi-reactor consistency test includes: the same tester using the same catalyst sample to conduct 1 performance test on different reactors respectively, where the number of reactors ≤ 4, and the relative deviation of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop in the performance test data of different reactors ≤ ±5%, and the relative deviation of SO2 / SO3 conversion rate ≤ ±10%.

5. According to the full-scale denitration catalyst detection platform quality performance evaluation method described in claim 1, characterized in that The static pressure method test includes: pressurizing to 1.2 times the design pressure of the detection platform, maintaining the pressure for 30 minutes, and the pressure drop ≤ 1% / h; The dynamic leakage rate test includes: under the full-load operation state, using a tracer gas to detect the leakage rate, and the leakage rate ≤ 0.1% vol.

6. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, characterized in that The flow field uniformity test includes: calibrating the test points by the grid division method, and using a pitot tube or a thermal anemometer to test the inlet flow velocity distribution of each reactor. The RSD of the cross-sectional flow velocity distribution uniformity test ≤ 5%, and the RSD of three repeated tests ≤ 2%.

7. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, characterized in that The temperature field uniformity test includes: calibrating the test points by the grid division method, and using a thermocouple to test the inlet temperature and outlet temperature of each reactor. The temperature difference of the inlet cross-section ≤ ±3℃, the temperature difference of the outlet cross-section ≤ ±3℃, and the overall temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet ≤ ±6℃.

8. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, characterized in that The test for the uniformity of the gas component concentration field includes: calibrating test points by the grid division method, and using a flue gas analyzer to test the inlet and outlet gas component concentrations of each reactor under no-load conditions. The relative standard deviation (RSD) of the component concentration at the inlet section is ≤ 3%, the RSD of the component concentration at the outlet section is ≤ 3%, the RSD of the inlet and outlet component concentrations is ≤ 3%, and the RSD of three repeated tests is ≤ 2%.

9. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, wherein The test for the 168h data drift rate includes: continuously operating at full load for ≥ 168h, recording key parameters every 2h, and simultaneously testing catalyst activity, ammonia slip, SO2 / SO3 conversion rate, and pressure drop data. The key parameters include flow rate, temperature, pressure, and concentration. The drift of the key parameters is ≤ ±2%, the fluctuation of the test data of activity, ammonia slip, and pressure drop is ≤ ±5%, and the fluctuation of the test data of the SO2 / SO3 conversion rate is ≤ ±10%. Among them, the flow rate test includes two parts. One is that the drift of the flowmeter itself is ≤ ±2%, and the other is that the relative deviation between the set value and the total flow rate monitoring value is ≤ ±5%.

10. The quality performance evaluation method of the full-size denitration catalyst detection platform according to claim 1, wherein The acceptance sequence of the quality performance evaluation indicators of the detection platform includes: The first stage, which includes the airtightness test, the uniformity verification test, and the reactor consistency test; The second stage, which includes the personnel consistency test and the stability test; The third stage, which includes the cross-platform detection consistency test; Among them, the judgment rule includes: if any of the indicators in the first stage and the second stage fails to meet the standard, the overall is unqualified.

Images