CICIND REPORT

Vol. 25, No. 1

Rectangular Breechings vs. Round Elbows for Wet Stack Entries

Victor Bochicchio
Victor Bochicchio is the Executive Vice President of Hamon Custodis, Inc. USA. He has over 30 years of engineering experience, and is responsible for all technical and commercial activities related to chimneys. Victor is a CICIND member and a member and past-chairman of ACI Committee 307 on Concrete Chimneys. He was co-chairman of the ASCE Task Committee on Chimney and Stack Inspection Guidelines and is a Licensed Professional Engineer in several states in the USA.

Introduction
This paper explores various aspects of breeching entries for chimneys serving Wet Flue Gas Desulphurization (WFGD) systems. The advent of WFGD systems in the 1970s resulted in the lowing of flue gas temperatures in power plants. Prior to WFGD, or scrubbers, most chimneys operated in a dry condition above or near the sulfuric acid dew point. The flue gas leaving a WFGD is wet and saturated. Flue gas reheat can be used to raised the flue gas temperature and help solve problems relating to liquid entrained in and condensing out of the flue gas, however due to problems and cost associated with reheat, more and more WFGD installations do not have any type of reheat and allow the wet saturated flue gas to directly enter the chimney, creating what is commonly know as a wet stack (Figure 1). This has now become the almost exclusive application following a WFGD in the United States.

Figure 2: Breeching Entry to Chimney

Figure 3: Rectangular Breeching Shape of duct upstream of the chimney Figure 1: Wet Stack Discharge The breeching is the flue gas entrance into the chimney flue or liner (Figure 2). It can be either a rectangular duct (Figure 3) or a round elbow (Figure 4). The choice of the type of breeching entry into a wet stack requires consideration of several factors, including: 57 Width of opening required in the outer chimney shell Material and fabrication costs Erection costs Pressure losses Efficiency of liquid collection Cost of Liquid Collection System

CICIND REPORT

Vol. 25, No. 1 In addition, code structural limitations on the width of an opening in relation to the diameter of the concrete shell may require that the diameter of the chimney be increased to accommodate the wider opening needed for an elbow. This is more likely to occur in single flue chimneys and is generally not an issue for multi-flue chimneys.

Material and Fabrication Costs

The fabrication costs for rectangular breechings and elbows vary with the material of construction. Elbows are usually more economical in Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic (FRP), since the fabricating facilities for manufacturing FRP cans for the chimney liner will already be in place at the site; the additional cost to make the cans required for the elbow is low. For steel and alloy metal materials, large diameter elbow fabrication on site is usually more expensive. In either material, the surface area required for an elbow is 10 to 20 % less than that required for a rectangular breeching for an equal duct cross sectional area, resulting in considerable material cost savings. Also, rectangular breechings require much greater stiffening than elbows, further increasing their cost (Figures 5 and 6).

Figure 4: Round Elbows

Shape of Duct Upstream of the Chimney

The shape of the duct upstream of the chimney, which conducts the flue gas from the WFGD to the stack, directly affects the total project cost for a particular type of breeching. It is usually more cost effective to construct the chimney breeching in a shape similar to the ductwork upstream of the chimney. This is due to the need for a round to rectangular transition to accommodate the difference in shape. These transitions are often expansive to fabricate. In addition, transitions may disrupt the gas flow causing an increase in pressure loss or the need for additional liquid collection devices.

Width of opening required in the outer Chimney Shell

It is structurally preferred to have a tall narrow opening in the concrete shell rather than a wider shorter opening as would be required for an elbow. The stresses and reinforcing requirements for a narrow opening are less than for a wide opening.

Figure 6: Rectangular Breeching Fabrication

Erection Costs
Erection costs for elbows are slightly higher due to the more extensive rigging required and elbow erection can be problematic if the fabrication is not accurate. Rectangular breeching erection is usually more forgiving for accuracy of placement.

Pressure Losses
The pressure loss, or turn loss, for an elbow is approximately half of the loss of a rectangular breeching. The loss for an elbow varies with the number of miters and the turn radius. Losses in rectangular breeching entries can be reduced by using turning vanes; however turning vanes may increase stack liquid discharge in wet stacks by introducing droplets into the gas stream. Turning vanes are generally not recommended in wet stacks; if used, they must be carefully designed to address 58

Figure 5: Elbow Fabrication

CICIND REPORT

Vol. 25, No. 1

Figure 9: Round to Rectangular Figure 7: Rectangular Entry Flow Patterns the affects on liquid discharge and may require incorporating liquid collectors and drains into the shape of the vanes.

Cost of liquid Collection System

The cost of liquid collectors for elbows and rectangular breechings are similar, however attempts to achieve equivalent liquid collection efficiency in elbows can become complicated and more expensive. Sloped liner floors in rectangular breeching entries can improve liquid collection performance, but add significant cost.

Efficiency of Liquid Collection

Rectangular breeching are more favorable for efficient liquid collection. In rectangular entries, entrained droplets impact on a large area of the liner wall opposite the breeching. In elbow entries, the impact area is smaller and in a higher velocity area, which makes it more difficult to design efficient liquid collectors. (Figures 7 and 8) The improved liquid collection performance of rectangular breeching can offset the other advantages of an elbow, sometimes resulting in unexpected ducting arrangements (Figure 9). Each installation is unique and requires a wet flow model study to size and locate the liquid collectors. In most cases it is possible to achieve satisfactory performance in both elbow and rectangular entries.

Summary and Recommendations

A summary of the major advantages and disadvantages of elbows and rectangular breechings is shown in Table 1. It is recommended that the wet flow model study be performed early in the project, before a decision on the type of breeching is made. If the study shows that acceptable liquid collection can be achieved with an elbow and the concrete shell can accommodate the opening size required, and elbow is usually preferred. This information can then be provided to the chimney designer or design/build contractor for performing the detailed chimney design.

Figure 7: Ellbow Entry Flow Patterns

Table 1: Ellbow vs. Rectangular Breeching 59