Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.


  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this


  1. 1. HTW Building Stack Velocity Testing Prepared by Spencer Owen and Geoff Silcox Department of Chemical Engineering University of Utah Prepared for Michael D. Brehm Environmental Health and Safety University of Utah June 2015
  2. 2. Introduction The Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) at the University of Utah inquired whether the students in Chemical Engineering 5305, Air Pollution Control Engineering, could help resolve an apparent inconsistency in the measured stack velocity in the High Temperature Water Plant (HTW). The velocity measured by DMK Environmental Engineering was higher than what would be expected based on the reported firing rate of the turbine and boilers in the HTW. The air pollution course is offered spring semester and in 2015 the students were asked to pick a research project related to air pollution. For his project, one of the students, Spencer Owen, offered to work with EHS to resolve the inconsistency noted above. The HTW is located at 1705 E South Campus Dr. The plant burns natural gas in a simple- cycle gas turbine and occasionally in supplemental boilers. The turbine is connected to a generator to supply the campus with electric power and the hot exhaust gases pass through a heat recovery unit to produce hot water for heating. The hot gases are exhausted through a stack on the roof of the HTW. The stack data collected by DMK were consistent except for the velocity. Through a material balance the stack flow rate and velocity are related to the amount of natural gas burned. The amount that DMK had calculated [1] was up to 30 million BTU’s (MBTU) more than what the plant was reporting. DMK also measured apparent negative static pressures at the sampling locations in the stack. This report explains these two features of the measurements and recommends ways to improve future measurements and analysis. Technical Approach The velocity of the exhaust gases in the stack was measured with an S-type pitot tube supplied by DMK. Pressure differences were measured with a magnehelic gauge that was also supplied by DMK. The experimental procedure followed the standard EPA Method 2 [2]. Prior to making stack measurements, qualitative tests of the pitot tube and the magnehelic gauge were performed in a small wind tunnel located in the Senior Projects Lab in the Department of Chemical Engineering. The velocity measurement locations in the stack were chosen based on EPA Method 1 [3]. The cylindrical stack and its dimensions are given in Figure 1 [1]. The inside diameter was 53.5 inches and the sampling locations were 34 inches above the roof. Method 1 specifies how to pick traverse points in measuring stack velocities. We used 16 points to traverse the stack and an additional 16 points perpendicular to those. The flow in the stack was turbulent and the pressure differences (P) obtained with the pitot tube and magnehelic were uncertain to 0.5 inches of water. Appendix 1 shows the recorded values of . The average exhaust temperature, based on measurements at four points, was 388.5 . To estimate the stack velocity and the average molar mass of the exhaust gases the natural gas was approximated as pure methane. This simplified the stoichiometric and heating value calculations.
  3. 3. Figure 1. Schematic of stack and its dimensions. The measured inside diameter was 53.5 in. [1]. The gas velocities were calculated as specified in Method 2 [2]. The average was 1.19 inches of water (in. H2O). EPA Method 2 recommends ∑ √ √ (1) to calculate the average velocity; where is the velocity equation constant, is the constant for S-type pitot tubes, is the average absolute temperature in the stack, is the absolute pressure in the stack, is the pressure difference from the S-type pitot tube at location i, n is the number of sampling points, and is the average molar mass of the combustion gases. The latter is calculated by assuming complete combustion with        2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1O O O O y y CH SR O SR N H O CO SR N SR O y y          (2) where SR is the stoichiometric ratio, and yO2 is the mol fraction of oxygen in air. Air was assumed to be 21 mol % oxygen, balance nitrogen and the stoichiometric ratio was assumed to be 2.0.
  4. 4. The stack velocity is related to molar flow rate (n ), gas density () and the cross- sectional area of the stack (A) by ̇ (3) The molar flow rate is related to the number of moles of methane burned through (2). The flow rate of methane was calculated from the given firing rate (decatherms/h or MBtu/h) of the HTW and the higher heating value (HHV) of methane. Appendix 2 contains the values and calculations related to firing rate, molar mass, and stack velocity. The absolute stack pressure, Ps, appears in (2). The absolute pressure is the sum of the stack static pressure, Pg, and the barometric pressure, Pbar, Ps = Pbar + Pg (4) EPA Method 2, Part 6.4, suggests measuring Pg by placing one of the openings of the s- type pitot tube parallel to the gas flow. The measured value of Pbar was 0.84 atm. The University of Utah and DMK performed this test and measured a negative value. A negative value is physically impossible. As an alternative, the engineering form of Bernoulli’s equation provides an estimate of the absolute stack pressure: (5) where is the density of the gas and the friction heating term is given by (6) In (6), D is the diameter, is the change in height from the top of the stack to the plane of measurement. The friction factor is estimated by [ ( ) ] (7) where is the roughness, and the Reynolds number is given by (8) where µ is the viscosity. Equations 5 – 8 show that the static pressure must be positive. Numerical values are given in Appendix 3.
  5. 5. Results and Discussion We made our stack measurements on April 10, 2015 and for this day the HTW staff reported that the power was 80 MBtu/hr. This “firing rate” and Equations 2 - 8 give an average stack velocity of 55 ft/s. The average pressure difference (P) measured in the stack with the pitot tube, and used in (1), was 1.5 in. water. Using this for (P) in (3), the resultant velocity is 93 ft/s, which is equivalent 130 MBtu/hr. This is quite different from the reported firing rate. This discrepancy prompted another visit with the staff at the HTW building to ask how they measured power in the plant. The HTW staff calculates power by the product of the heat capacity of water, the temperature increase of the water, and the mass flow rate of water leaving the plant. This approach underestimates the firing rate of the turbine because it neglects the electric power produced by the generator and the energy losses through the hot exhaust gases leaving the stack. This explains why the stack velocities measured by DMK and the University of Utah appear to be too high. Conclusion and Recommendations The power output report by the HTW is based on the properties of the hot water: the product of its heat capacity, its temperature increase, and its mass flow rate. This approach underestimates the firing rate of the turbine because it neglects the electric power produced by the generator and the energy losses through the stack. If the firing rate is calculated in this way the measured stack velocities will always appear to be too high. Two key recommendations have resulted from this study: (1) future calculations of the stack velocity should be based on the firing rate of natural gas and (2) when using s-type pitot tubes the stack static pressure, Pg, should be compared to that calculated from Equations 4 – 8. Negative stack static pressures are impossible and are probably an artifact of the s-type pitot tube. In addition, the accuracy of future University of Utah measurements can be improved by (1) using a digital manometer to obtain averaged values of P, (2) closing the opening around the probe to prevent the escape of the hot gases, and (3) using a support to hold the probe and magnehelic when making traverses. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of David Kopta, President of DMK Environmental Engineering, Inc., for supplying the equipment used in this study and for explaining how to use it. Michael Brehm, Environmental Protection Section Leader at the University of Utah gave generously of his time in helping to make the stack measurements. Finally, Terry Walters, supervisor at the High Temperature Water Plant, made us welcome in his facility and provided us with the tools and information that made this project possible.
  6. 6. References [1] Kopta, David, “U of U Central Heat Plant Gas Turbine,” January 2015 [2] “Method 2 – Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (S-Type Pitot Tube),” Internet Posting at, Updated December 5, 2014, Environmental Protection Agency. [3] “Method 1 – Sample and Velocity Traverses For Stationary Sources,” Internet Posting at, Last Updated December 5, 2014, Environmental Protection Agency.
  7. 7. Appendix 1 Stack Measurement and Velocities
  8. 8. Appendix 2. Stoichiometry
  9. 9. Appendix 3 Static Pressure Calculations