turner et al 02

8/11/2019 turner et al 02

1/13

This article was downloaded by: [University of Nottingham]On: 29 April 2014, At: 06:59Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

JAPCAPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm17

Sizing and Costing of Electrostatic PrecipitatorsJames H. Turner

a, Phil A. Lawless

a, Toshiaki Yamamoto

a, David W. Coy

a, Gary P.

Greinerb, John D. McKenna

b& William M. Vatavuk

c

aResearch Triangle Institute , Research Triangle Park , North Carolina , USA

bETS, Inc. , Roanoke , Virginia , USA

cU.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Research Triangle Park , North Corolina ,

USA

Published online: 08 Mar 2012.

To cite this article:James H. Turner , Phil A. Lawless , Toshiaki Yamamoto , David W. Coy , Gary P. Greiner , John D.McKenna & William M. Vatavuk (1988) Sizing and Costing of Electrostatic Precipitators, JAPCA, 38:5, 715-726, DOI:

10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for anypurpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and viewsof the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08940630.1988.10466413http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uawm17


2/13

Sizing and Costing

of

Electrostatic Precipitators

Part II: Costing Considerations

JamesH.Turner, PhilA.Lawless, Toshiaki Yam amoto,andDavidW. Coy

Research Triangle Institute

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

GaryP.Greiner and JohnD.McKenna

ETS,

Inc.

Roanoke, Virginia

William

M.

Vatavuk

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

This is the

second

of a two-part

article

that reviews

electrostatic

precipitation

theory,

presents size

estimating

methods, and gives

costing

procedures fora variety of

electrostatic

precipitator(ESP) types and sizes.

Part I of the article, which

appeared

in the April

1988 issue

o/JAPCA,

discussed

theory and

sizing;this

part presents

costing.

Information is given

for estimating total

capital

investment including

separate costs

for the bare

ESP (five

types)

and auxiliaries.

Factors

a re given for

installation

and for

indirect costs. Direct and indirect annualcostsarediscussed.An example

problem

is given.

Par tI

1

of this article gaveabriefde-

scriptionof electrostatic precipitation

theory, simple methods

of

sizing,

and

descriptions

of

electrostatic precipita-

tor (ESP) typesandoperation. Pa rtII

discusses costing, presents cost infor-

mation,

and

gives

an

example problem

tha t estimatessize,total capital invest-

ment, and annual costs for an ESP.

Th e material in this article is taken p ri-

marily from

the E.A.B. Control Cost

Manual.

2

Estimating Total Capital Investment

Total capital investment (TCI) in-

cludes costsfor

the ESP

structure,the

internals , rappers, power supply, auxil-

iary equipment,and the usual direct

and indirect costs associated with

in-

stalling

or

erecting

new

structures.

These costs,

in

second-quarter

1987

dollars,

are

described

in the

following

subsections.

Equipment Cost

ESP Costs. Five typesofESPsare

considered: plate-wire, flat plate,wet,

tubular,andtwo-stage. Basic costsfor

the first four

are

taken from Figure

1,

which gives

the

flange-to-flan ge, field-

erected price based

on

required plate

area

and a

rigid electrode design. This

plate area

is

calculated fromthesizing

information given previously for the

four types. Adjustments aremadefor

standard options listed in Table I.

Costs for two-stage precipitators are

given

in a

later subsection.

The costs

are

based

on a

number

of

actual quotes. Least squ ares lines have

been fitted

to the

quotes,

onefor

sizes

between 50,000 and1,000,000

ft

2

,

an da

second for sizes between 10,000and

50,000ft

2

. An equa tion is given

for

each

line. Extrapolation below 10,000 or

above1,000,000ft

2

should not be used.

The reader should

not be

surprised

if

quotes

are

obta ined th at differ from

these curvesby asmuchas 25 per-

cent. Significant savings can

be had

by

soliciting m ultiple q uotes. All unitsin-

cludethe ESPcasing, pyramida l

hop-

pers, rigid electrodesandinternalcol-

lecting plates, transformer rectifier

(TR) sets

and

microprocessor controls,

rappers , and stub -supp orts (legs)

for

4-

ft clearance below

the

hopper

dis-

charges.The lower curveis thebasic

unit without the standard options.

The

upper curve includes all of the stan-

dard op tions (see Tab le I) that are nor-

mally utilized in a modern system.

These options

add

approximately

45

percent

to the

basic cost

of

the flange-

to-flange hardware. Insulation costs

arefor3in.

of

field-installed glass fiber

encasedin ametal skin

and

appliedon

the outside

of

all areas

in

contact with

the exhaust

gas

stream. Insulationfor

ductwork,fancasings,

and

stacks mu st

be calculated separately.

Impact of Alternative Electrode De-

signs. All three designsrigid elec-

trode, weighted

wire,

and rigid frame

can beemployedinmost applications.

Any cost differential between designs

will depend on the combination of ven-

dor experience and site-specific factors

that dictate equipment size factors.

The rigid frame design will costup to

25 percent moreif the mast or plate

height is restricted

to

the

same used

in

other designs. Several vendors can now

Copyright 1988APCA

May1988 Volume 38, No.5 715


3/13

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

1 0 '

2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

2

3 4

5 6 7 8 9 1

r

CO

3

D

T3

C

o

o

Q.

U)

c

ro

0)

c

(0

o

ro

'5.

10*

(

^ 2 0 . 0 0

/ft

2

^

y

r

?14.00

-

Rig

-with

I

Hi

y

id Electroc

All Standa

(see Tab

11.00

>

/

/

/

/

^

F

turner et al 02

Documents