International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
A Journey towards Green Revolution- A case study of foundry
R.Krishnaraj*, Dr.M.Sakthivel, Dr.S.R.Devadasan, K. Kanthavel, E.Balaji, J.Arulmani
a
Abstract - The objective of this study is to evaluate the stack emission and ambient air quality of a dust collector in a foundry. Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) was analyzed along with SO2, NO2 and CO hence, its level was found to be appropriate with all the locations of sampling stations. The factors affecting dust concentration were also discussed along with the results indicating lowest dust exposure, moderate and highest dust concentration based on the stack height with various levels were varied with respect to port hole, stack diameter and temperature with its metrological indication. Even though our study specifically focuses on a particular plant, the results may be interesting on reducing of dust particles.
—————————— • ——————————
oundry practices mainly include melting ferrous, nonferrous metals and alloys and reshaping them in to products of finished shape by pouring and solidification of molten metal or alloy in to any
mould. The foundry industry plays an important role in recycling of metals. Steel, cast-iron and aluminum scrap are casted into new products. Most possible hazardous environment effects of foundries are related to the presence of thermal process and the use of mineral additives. Emissions are the key environment problem that creates mineral dust organic carbons emitted from melting, sand molding, casting and finishing [1]. The present paper uses dust collector as an effective pollution control tool. In most of the plant, dusts are spread across the industrial site resulting in pollution. Effective dust control on foundries depends on initial design of machinery installation and operation. Dust control measures were not implemented in many foundries because of various aspects hence dust control and evaluation programs are in effect in only large foundries. Continuous dust monitoring was not routine in any foundry and only periodic dust measurements had usually been made.[3]. Many of the materials contain metallic oxides and non metallic compounds in the form of loose particles. The hot gases mainly CO2 (Carbon dioxide), CO (carbon monoxide) and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) from the burned coke and are in a form of a residue of fine ash. As the hot gases rise they trap some of the ash1,
as well as the tiny particles generated by change the
materials, as a result they form a characteristic plume
R.Krishnaraj, P.hD Scholar, Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore, India, 09943012109, Emailid: r.kraj009@gmail.com
above the stack, thus the major pollutants are SPM and SO2 . .All industrial activities are bound to have its impact on environment. They lead to consumption of natural resources will be which may lead to environmental pollution of air, water, etc. Foundry industry which when operated is expected to generate pollution. In order to counter this modern technology is being employed in the foundry industry like automated molding line, electric induction furnaces, etc. which with a proper planning takes care of the environmental issue. The major constituents of RSPM are organic and element carbon, metals elements like silicon, magnesium, iron, ions like sulphates, nitrates, ammonium etc. Composition of particulate matter varies from place to place depending upon sources present. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless and poisonous gas. Incomplete combustion of carbon produces CO. Unlike the individual gaseous pollutants, particles in the atmosphere are composed of a wide range of materials arising from a variety of sources. Concentrations of PM comprise coarse particles, suspended soils and dusts, arising from combustion sources. Mainly sulphates and nitrates are formed by chemical reaction in the atmosphere. The relative contribution and composition of each source type varies from day to day, depending on meteorological conditions and quantities of emissions from mobile and static sources. The major barrier is lack of attitude towards adaptation and standard operating practice as it is economically inefficient. It would be more efficient if arge particles are removed either by means of settling chamber or any other suitable device before passing through scrubber. [4]. There are air emission limitations and target values for particulate matter from furnace to recover metals from collected dust and die casting machinery is not to
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
exceed 0.5 kg per ton of molten metal after the control. Monitoring data should be reviewed at regular interval to maintain the dust emission in an acceptable form[5]
Wet scrubber is a device where the flue gases are
pushed against down falling water (liquid) current. The particulate matter along with water droplets fall down and get removed. In these devices the liquid assists the PM to fall and settle down. In these devices water is the mostly used as scrubbing liquid. In these wet collectors the particulates are with water and then separated. For particulate matter the material transfer between the gas and the liquid phases may be variety of mechanisms that include inertial, gravitational, electrostatic, and diffusion phenomenon. For gaseous molecules it is mainly by diffusion. Wet scrubbers have the advantage of handling hot gases and sticky particulates and liquids. They require quantity of water and gas in the range of 0.005-0.20m3 of H2O per
100 cm3 of gas thus producing more quantity of sludge’s. In these both gaseous pollutants and
particulate pollutants can be removed instantly. Hot gases can be cooled down where corrosive gases can be recovered and neutralized. A proper operation/maintenance of dust collector and wet scrubber attached to shot blasting machines and to induction furnaces are carried out to minimize air pollution load at the outlet of the air pollution control system and to ensure safe working environment, maintenance work. There are various aspects of maintenance. Any accumulation of dust in the hopper of the dust collector should be properly cleaned. Special care should also be given to mechanical parts, which require lubrication such as bearings. Fabric filters commonly known as bag houses, fabric collectors use filtration to separate dust particulates from dusty gases. They are one of the most efficient and cost effective and cost efficient and cost effective types of dust collectors available and can achieve a collection efficiency of more than 99% for very fine particulates. Dust-laden gases enter the bag house and pass through fabric bags that acts as filters. The bags can be of oven or felted cotton, synthetic or glass-fiber material in either a tube or envelope shape. The high efficiency of these collectors is due to the dust cake formed on the surfaces of the bags. The fabric primarily provides a surface on which particulates collect through the following four mechanisms :inertial collection – dust particles strike the fibers placed perpendicular to the gas-flow direction instead of changing direction with the gas stream. Interception –
and compared with the operating standards so that if any necessary corrective action is needed, can be taken particles that do not cross the fluid streamlines come in contact with fibers because of the fiber size. Brownian movement- submicrometre particles are diffused, increasing the probability of contact between the particles and collecting surfaces. Electrostatic forces- The presence of an electrostatic charge on the particles and the filter can increase dust capture. A combination of these mechanisms results in formation of the dust cake on the filter, which eventually increases the resistance to gas flow, the filter must be cleaned periodically. The performance of the scrubber was found to be in permissible limit in induction furnace for its successful adaptation water treatment must be devised to maintain required quality of water for circulation and disposal of solid waste. [4] The level of ambient SPM was quantified through a Hi-Volume air sampler operated at a suction rate of 1.2 m3 /min. The total SPM collected over a period of 24 hours on preweighed glass fibre filter paper was reweighed after sampling for gravimetric evaluation of SPM and was reported as mg/m3. Atmospheric SO2 concentrations were determined at the impingement rate of 1 litre/minute for an average period of 4 hrs through West and Gack methods. The method used for ambient NOx levels was Jacob and Hochhesier, keeping the same impingement rate and averaged over
4 hrs. Stack sampling was carried out using Enviro
Care APM 620 Stack Monitoring Kit.[6]
(The minimum stack height required has been calculated based on the CPCB formula)
Gas emissions has been theoretically calculated Stack height requirement – as per SO2 emissions Quantity of gaseous emission : 59,770 Nm3 /day. Emission of SO2 : 5.0 mg /Nm3
Total emission per hour : 59,770 x 5.0 /1000 x
1000 x 24 : 0.012 kg /hr. Required stack height : H = 14 (Q SO2)0.3 (Where Q SO2 is total SO2 emission kg / hr)
:14 x (0.012)0.3
: 3.71 m
(The stack height required as per the CPCB guidelines is 3.71m for SO2 emissions)
Stack height requirement – as per SPM emissions
Emissions of SPM : 52.0 mg / Nm3
Total emission per hour :
59,770x52/1000X1000 x 1000 x 24 : 0.00013 T /hr
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
Required stack height : H = 74 ( Q SPM)0.27
salvage value and so forth. The selection of a
(The stack height required as per the CPCB guidelines is 6.61m for SPM emissions)
However it has been proposed to establish a stack of height – 8.50m with Wet Scrubber system by the unit.
The basic function of the wet scrubber is to provide contact between the scrubbing liquid, water and the particulars to be collected. The polluted gas flows upward and the particle collection results because of inertial impaction and interception of the droplets. Expected stack gas discharge = 0.920 m3 /sec. Expected suspended particulate matter = 40 ppm Diameter of the scrubber = 0.5m
Area of the scrubber= (II /4) x (0.5)2 m2= 0.196 m2
The terminal velocity of water should not exceed the upward velocity of air.
The terminal velocity of water droplet should be more than gas velocity.
Individual drop collection efficiency is maximum for droplet diameter of 2 -4 mm is 0.65.
Over collection efficiency is = hsc = 1 –(1 –nd)n
n = number of collecting droplets encountered by a group of particles
nd = individual drop collection efficiency
Dust collectors vary widely in design, operation, effectiveness, space requirements, construction and capital, operating and maintenance costs. Each type has advantages and disadvantages. However the selection of a dust collector should be based on the following general factors.[2]
• Dust concentration and particle size-for minerals processing operations, the dust concentration can range from 0.1 to 5.0 grains(0.32g) of dust per cubic feet of air (0.23 to 11.44 grams per standard cubic meter) and the particle size can vary from 0.5 to 100µm.
• Degree of dust collection required –The degree of dust collection required depends on its potential as a health hazard or public nuisance, the plant location, the allowable emission rate, the nature of the dust, its
collector should be based on the efficiency required and should consider the need for high-efficiency, high cost equipment, such as electrostatic precipitators; high efficiency, moderate-cost equipment, such as bag houses or wet scrubbers; or lower cost, primary units, such as dry centrifugal collectors.
• Characteristics of airstreams- the characteristics of the air stream can have a significant impact on collector selection. For example, cotton fabric cannot be used where air temperatures exceed 180’F(80’C). Also condensation of stream or water vapour can blind bags. Various chemicals can attach fabric or metal and cause corrosion in wet scrubbers.
• Characteristics of dust- Moderate to heavy concentrations of many dusts (such as dust from silica sand or metal ores) can be abrasive to dry centrifugal collectors. Hygroscopic material can blind bag collectors. Sticky material can adhere to collector elements and plug passages. Some particle sizes and shapes may rule out certain types of fabric collectors. The combustible nature of many fine materials rules out the use of electrostatic precipitators.
• Methods of disposal- Methods of dust removal and disposal vary with the material, plant process, volume, and type of collector used. Collectors can unload continuously or in batches. Dry materials can create secondary dust problems during unloading and disposal that do not occur with wet collectors. Disposal of wet slurry or sludge can be an additional material-handling problem; sewer or water pollution problems can result if wastewater is not treated properly.
Important parameters in specifying dust collectors include airflow the velocity of the air stream created by the vacuum producer; system power, the power of the system motor, usually specified in horsepower storage capacity for dust and particles and minimum particle size filtered by the unit. Other considerations when choosing a dust collection system include the temperature, moisture content and the possibility of combustion of the dust being collected. Systems for fine removal may only contain a single
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
filtration system (such as filter bag or cartridge). However, most units utilize a primary and secondary separation/filtration system. In many cases the heat or moisture content of dust can negatively affect the filter media of a bag house or cartridge dust collector. A cyclone separator or dryer may be placed before these units to reduce heat or moisture content before reaching the filters. Furthermore, some units may have third and fourth stage filtration. All separation and RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
filtration systems used within the unit should be specified.
Concentration in ambient air | |||||
Pollutant (1) | Time Weighted Average (2) | Industrial Area (3) | Residential rural and other areas (3) | sensitive areas (4) | method of measurement (5) |
Sulphur Dioxide (so2) | Annual Average 24 hrs | 80 µg/m³ 120µg/m³ | 60µg/m³ 80µg/m³ | 15µg/m³ 30µg/m³ | Improved west and gaeke method Ultra violet fluorescence |
Oxides of nitrogen (no×) | Annual Average 24 hrs | 360µg/m³ 500µg/m³ | 140µg/m³ 200µg/m³ | 70µg/m³ 100µg/m³ | High volume Sampling (average flow rage not less than 1.1 m³ per minute) |
Respirable particulate matter (size less than 10µm) (rpm) | Annual Average 24 hrs | 120µg/m³ 150µg/m³ | 60µg/m³ 100µg/m³ | 50µg/m³ 75µg/m³ | Respirable particulate matter sampler |
Lead (pb) | Annual Average 24 hrs | 1.0µg/m³ 1.5µg/m³ | 0.75µg/m³ 1.0µg/m³ | 0.5µg/m³ 0.75µg/m³ | Aas method after using EPM 2000 or equivalent filter paper |
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
Carbon monoxide (CO) | 8 hours 1 hour | 5.0µg/m³ 10µg/m³ | 2.0µg/m³ 4.0µg/m³ | 1.0µg/m³ 2.0µg/m³ | Non dispersive infrared spectroscopy |
sampling stations, emissions of pollutants – (ambient air survey – I)
Station No | Location of the sampling station | Sample Code | Pollutant (µg/m3) | ||||
Station No | Location of the sampling station | Sample Code | SPM | SO2 | NOX | CO | Pb |
A1 | Near the Power House ( South East ) | AA 01 | 286 | 15.6 | 18.2 | Nil | BDL |
A2 | Near sump – F (south West) | AA 02 | 298 | 18.2 | 20.1 | Nil | BDL |
A3 | Near Office ( North West) | AA03 | 280 | 14.8 | 16.8 | Nil | BDL |
A4 | Near Time Office (North East) | AA 04 | 278 | 15.2 | 17.4 | Nil | BDL |
CPCB Standard | 500 | 120 | 120 | 5.0(mg/m3) | 1.5 |
All tested values for ambient air quantity are with in the standards prescribed by CPCB.
Sl.No. | Source Emission | Dust collection | Stack Details | |
Sl.No. | Source Emission | Dust collection | Diameter (mts) | Height (mts) |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Induction furnace – 0.8T Induction furnace – 1.5T Rotary furnace – 2T Cupola Furnace – 1.5T Shot blasting Moulding Sand plant Core oven – 1 Core oven – 2 320 KVA DG Set | Common scrubber Common scrubber Common scrubber Common scrubber Bag filter Dry type scrubber Dry type scrubber Stack Stack Stack | 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.15 0.15 0.15 | 14 14 06 14 12 12 4 |
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
11 12 | 180 KVA DG Set 60 KVA DG Set | Stack Stack | 0.15 0.15 | 4 3 |
Stack | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | S8 | S9 | S10 | S11 |
Sack Height from Ground height | 9.0 | 8.5 | 8.5 | 9.0 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 10 | 14 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 4.9 |
Port Hole Height from Ground Level(m) | 8.0 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 6.6 | 7.0 | 5.0 | 4.4 |
Stack Diameter(m) | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.25 |
Stack Temperature(°K) | 311 | 310 | 309 | 308 | 312 | 380 | 381 | 328 | 389 | 386 | 369 |
Ambient Temperature(°K) | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 | 304 |
Sep-09
Oct-09
Nov-09 - - - - BDL BDL 1 7.8 6.2 .9
Dec-09
Jan-10
Feb-10 - - - - BDL BDL 1 7.2 6.4 .4
Mar-10
Apr-10
May-10 - - - - BDL BDL 1 5.6 5.8 .2
Jun-10
Jul-10
Aug-10 - - - - BDL BDL 1.8 5.2 5
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 6.45 5.85
4
375
BDL –Below detectable level
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
Trend Chart for S02 levels at Various Points for the year 2009-2010 | ||||||||||
Month | Shot Blasting Dust collector- No1 | Shot Blasting Dust collector- No2 | Shaker dust collector | Sand Plant Dust Collector | Core Oven- 1 | Core Oven- 2 | Fume Extraction | Gen set-250 KVA | Gen set- 180 KVA | Genset 63 KVA |
Sep-09 | ||||||||||
Oct-09 | ||||||||||
Nov-09 | - | - | - | - | 1.4 | 1 | 1.8 | 63.2 | 52 | 49.4 |
Dec-09 | ||||||||||
Jan-10 | ||||||||||
Feb-10 | - | - | - | - | 1.2 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 58.2 | 54 | 46.8 |
Mar-10 | ||||||||||
Apr-10 | ||||||||||
May-10 | - | - | - | - | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 45.6 | 44.8 | 40.2 |
Jun-10 | ||||||||||
Jul-10 | ||||||||||
Aug-10 | - | - | - | - | 2 | 1.8 | 2.2 | 43.4 | 41.2 | 38.7 |
Average | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.475 | 1.175 | 1.65 | 52.6 | 48 | 43.775 |
Trend Chart for SPM levels at Various Points for the year 2009-2010 | ||||||||||
Stack No S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 | ||||||||||
Month | Shot Blasting Dust collector- No1 | Shot Blasting Dust collector- No2 | Shaker dust collector | Sand Plant Dust Collector | Core Oven (1) | Core Oven (2) | Fume Extraction | Gen set- 250 KVA | Gen set- 180 KVA | Genset 63 KVA |
Sep-09 | ||||||||||
Oct-09 | ||||||||||
Nov-09 | 79 | 96 | 68 | 88 | 72 | 74 | 90 | 104 | 98 | 87 |
Dec-09 | ||||||||||
Jan-10 | ||||||||||
Feb-10 | 74 | 90 | 64 | 82 | 70 | 75 | 92 | 98 | 96 | 79 |
Mar-10 | ||||||||||
Apr-10 | ||||||||||
May-10 | 78 | 86 | 65 | 84 | 74 | 73 | 96 | 82 | 92 | 82 |
Jun-10 | ||||||||||
Jul-10 | ||||||||||
Aug-10 | 72 | 76 | 68 | 82 | 70 | 74 | 98 | 92 | 89 | 80 |
Average | 75.75 | 87 | 66.25 | 84 | 71.5 | 74 | 94 | 94 | 93.75 | 82 |
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
The study revealed that the emissions levels were below the standard limit with the appropriate usage of dust collectors and the ambient air quality survey concludes that there must be separate zone for the sensitive area of the sampling stations . A monitoring study has been undertaken to measure the concentrations of suspended particulate matter and variations in air quality both before and after the implementation of the zones. An emission estimation and simple dispersion modeling study has also been undertaken using survey data collections in various zones at corresponding periods. The ambient air quality measurements and the modeling predictions assess their concentration level within time and the results were discussed.
The author wishes to thank Dr. A.R.Ramanathan formally prof essor and Head of the department of Mechanical Engineering, Annamalai university for his valuable suggestion and guidance and special thanks to Mr. J.Prabu Lawer chamber the Nilgiris for assisting financially to carry out the work very successfully. And also sincere thanks to Mrs. M. Premalatha, B.E Computer Science and Engineering , AUTCBE, Coimbatore for assisting the work with fulfillment.
1. European commission integrated pollution prevention and control-reference document on best available techniques and smitheries and foundry industry, May 2005
2. World Bank Group . Pollution Prevention And
Abatement Hand- Book, Foundries 1998.
3. Erro Siltanen, Matti Koponen, dust exposure in finish foundries, scand j. work environ. & health 2 (1976): 1, 19-31.
4. D.P. Mukherjee, Barriers towards cleaner production for optimizing energy use and pollution control for foundry sector on Howrah, India 2010.
5. D. Fatta, M. Marneri, Industrial pollution and control measures for a foundry in cyprus. Journal of cleaner production 12 (2004),29-36.
6. Palanivel, M., T.Elayaraja, D.Ganeshmoorthy, N.Jagadeeswaran, and K.Kalaiselvi “Impact Of Foundry Units On Coimbatore Environment” in Martin J. Bunch, V. Madha Suresh and T. Vasantha Kumaran, eds., Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Environment and Health, Chennai, India, 15-17 December, 2003.
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 2, Issue 7, July-2011
ISSN 2229-5518
7. C. Vijayanand Assessment of heavy metal Contents in the ambient air of the Coimbatore city, Tamilnadu, India, 22 March 2008.
8. World Bank Group. Pollution Prevention and
Abatement Handbook, Foundries
9. Emission Estimation Technique Manual for Ferrous Foundries, Version 1.2,3 September 2004, Australia.
IJSER © 2011 http://www.ijser.org