Chapter 11. Thermal Efficiencies of Float and Container Furnaces

  1. John B. Wachtman Jr
  1. Warren Turner

Published Online: 26 MAR 2008

DOI: 10.1002/9780470314814.ch11

A Collection of Papers Presented at the 56th Conference on Glass Problems: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 17, Issue 2

A Collection of Papers Presented at the 56th Conference on Glass Problems: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 17, Issue 2

How to Cite

Turner, W. (2008) Thermal Efficiencies of Float and Container Furnaces, in A Collection of Papers Presented at the 56th Conference on Glass Problems: Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, Volume 17, Issue 2 (ed J. B. Wachtman), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. doi: 10.1002/9780470314814.ch11

Author Information

  1. Turner Process Research, Inc., Spring Church, Pennsylvania

Publication History

  1. Published Online: 26 MAR 2008
  2. Published Print: 1 JAN 1996

ISBN Information

Print ISBN: 9780470375419

Online ISBN: 9780470314814

SEARCH

Keywords:

  • float furnaces;
  • container glass production;
  • energy consumption;
  • enthalpy;
  • glass batch materials

Summary

The thermodynamic efficiencies of container and float furnaces are examined. The persistence of obsolete data may account for some of the large differences often cited. But even if modern data are used, the fuel use per ton of glass produced is still higher for a typical float furnace than a container furnace. To compare glass melting furnaces, thermodynamic efficiency should be used as the standard of comparison, since gross fuel usage is a bookkeeping device rather than a technical or scientific unit. Thennodynamic efficiency is the ratio of useful work done (melting enthalpy) to energy expended. When the analysis is focused on the tank rather than the firing system, it appears that three main components account for the difference in energy requirements between afloat and a container furnace: the melt energy is considerably higher for afloat batcwglass than container operation, batch/cullet ratios are typically higher for float because of a limit on recycled glass, and the temperature range over which the throughput glass must be heated can be up to 300°C higher for a furnace with a spring zone than for a submerged throat furnace. A comparison of melting energy requirements to published fuel consumption ranges suggests that the thermal efficiencies of float and container may be closer than commonly thought. And if the working end and delivery system of a container furnace were to be included in the fuel consumption figures, float furnaces might appear to be more efficient.