ISSN 0040-6015, Thermal Engineering, 2020, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 157–164. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2020.

Russian Text © The Author(s), 2020, published in Teploenergetika.

STEAM BOILERS, POWER PLANT FUELS, BURNER UNITS,

AND BOILER AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT

A General-Purpose Procedure for the Calculation

of the Optimum Gas Velocity in Gas Exhaust Ducts of Stacks
at Thermal Power Stations
N. A. Zroichikova, *, A. M. Gribkovb, **, M. I. Saparova, ***, and K. M. Mirsalikhovb, ****
aKrzhizhanovskii Energy Research Institute, Moscow, 119991 Russia
b
Kazan State Power Engineering University, Kazan, 420066 Russia
*e-mail: zna@eninnet.ru
**e-mail: gribkovalmi@mail.ru
***e-mail: saparov@eninnet.ru
****e-mail: mirsalihovkm@gmail.com
Received July 15, 2019; revised September 25, 2019; accepted September 25, 2019

Abstract—The regulations on stack designs at thermal power stations (TPS) has been analyzed. It is demon-
strated that the applicable guidelines do not consider all the actual problems encountered in designing stacks
for TPSs, such as optimization of the stack construction cost and its effective operation. The stack cost
depends on its height and diameter, which, at a given connected capacity, are affected by the gas velocity in
the stack channel. At present, the effective stack design procedures do not contain the notion of this econom-
ically feasible, cost-effective index, and the stack diameter is selected based on the engineering-and-cost esti-
mation calculation procedures, which have not been approved as mandatory standards. These procedures are
supported by the planning-and-distribution model of the country’s economic development. The article
announces a universal method developed by the authors for calculating the optimal flue gas velocity for any
model of economic development irrespective of the trend in prices and expenditures for the production of
goods and services. To calculate the optimal flue gas velocity, one should only input initial data valid at the
present stage. The calculated results of the price factors' effect on the optimal flue gas velocity for single-flue
and multiple-flue stacks are presented. Verification of the procedure against the initial data as of 1975 yields
acceptable results.

Keywords: stack, thermal power station, economics, computational method, optimal velocity, ecology, flue gas
DOI: 10.1134/S0040601520030064

The decree of the Government of the Russian Fed- that, for stack operation with condensate formation,
eration [1], which approved the rules for determining the gas velocity at the stack’s mouth should not exceed
the limit (maximum and minimum) capital costs for 18 m/s to prevent a large discharge of the condensate
the implementation of upgrading projects for thermal into the atmosphere.
power station, indexation of these costs, and selection According to [3], the minimum flue gas velocity at
of modernization projects, became effective in Febru- the outlet of the stack mouth is recommended to be at
ary 2019. The scope of a TPS upgrading project may least 4 m/s in summer or 7 m/s in winter to eliminate
also include the replacement (or construction) of a the effect of blowout and envelopment of the stack top.
stack at a coal-fired power station. In this case, the It is recommended to determine the maximum outlet
stack cost is comparable with the cost of the main velocity from the condition of no positive static pres-
equipment. For power stations fired with solid fuel, sure along the entire stack flue (except for stacks with
the average cost of stack construction exceeds 70% of gas-tight exhaust flues or backpressure stacks). The
the average cost for complete boiler replacement, and flue of a reinforced concrete stack should be designed
the percentage of the construction and erection can in the form of a cylinder, truncated cone, or a combi-
be as high as 95%. The facilities and equipment with nation of both (a truncated cone and a cylinder). The
a total capacity above 40 GW are to be upgraded ratio of the height of the entire stack or its individual
between 2022 and 2031. section to the outer diameter should not generally
A code [2] was published in 2018 wherein a proce- exceed 20/1. The slope of the generatrix of the stack
dure for the calculation of the critical parameter, i.e., surface to the vertical should be taken to be a maxi-
flue gas velocity in the stack, is absent. It is only stated mum of 0.1.

157
158 ZROICHIKOV et al.

The stacks are the most expensive element of the The volume of the reinforced concrete shaft with
TPS auxiliaries. Hence, proper selection of their basic lining is calculated by the formula from [8]
characteristics is essential to minimize capital and 0.5
operating expenditures during construction and oper-  Tg 
Vr/c sh. l = 0.01 H
2.2 0.5 0.3
ation of TPSs. The basic parameter to be optimized is T  ,
D0 K w.l. (4)
 ref 
the flue gas velocity at the stack mouth. The conclu-
sions made in the study [4], performed in compliance where H is the stack height, m; D0 is the stack mouth
with the planning-and-distribution model of the diameter, m; Kw.l. is the wind load factor for the stack
country economic development existing at that time, shaft to be taken depending on the wind region; Tg is
should be updated to account for the conditions of the the flue gas temperature, K; and Tref = 423 K is the
present market economy in Russia. flue gas temperature taken as the reference one.
Over the last three decades, the cost indicators of According to the data given in Table 10.3 from [8],
goods (such as steel, concrete, and electricity) and ser- the proportionality factor in formula (4) is taken as 0.01.
vices (such installation and commissioning of equip- The reinforced concrete price consists of the price of
ment) required for the construction of a stack have concrete and structural steel; at the current wholesale
grown considerably. In addition, taking into account prices and the degree of reinforcement of 200 kg/m3, it
the time factor, the cost of capital has become variable. is 11000 rubles/m3.
The best option for an investment project should be As a first approximation, the stack height Н0, m, is
selected based on the criterion of lowest total dis- calculated according to [9] by the formula
counted expenses. Therefore, the optimum gas veloc-
ity is that yielding the minimum total discounted cost AM F
for the construction of the stack, Cd [5, 6], to be calcu- H0 =  , (5)
cst 3 V ΔT
lated by the formula
τ
where A is the coefficient depending on the meteoro-
 (K −τ logical conditions in the climatic region of interest;
Cd = inv + Ex + Ex f ) (1 + E ) , (1) М is the harmful emission rate, g/s; F is the coefficient
τ= 0
accounting for the deposition rate of a harmful sub-
where Kinv is the investments, Ex is the expenses stance in atmospheric air; for gaseous emissions, F = 1;
without depreciation, Exf is the financial expenses, for ash, F = 2–3; сst is the concentration of harmful
τ is the design service life of the stack, and Е is the impurities discharged from the stack at the human
discounting rate. being inhalation level, mg/m3; V is the flue gas volu-
The stacks belong to Group 6 of the All-Russia Clas- metric flowrate, m3/s; and ΔT is the difference in tem-
sifier of Fixed Assets [7] with a maximum service life of perature between the flue gases and the ambient air, K.
15 years inclusive. Therefore, the design service life for The stack height considering the emission parame-
the study of stack performance is taken to be τ = 15. ters is calculated by the formula
The discounting rate is calculated according to [6]
is calculated by the formula H = mH 0, (6)
n where m is determined depending on the complex
E= E a ,
i =1
i i  (2) k D03 using the data presented in [10]. For a single-

where Ei is the price of the ith captial, ai is the share of flue stack, the coefficient k in the complex k D03 is
the ith capital in the total investments, and n is the calculated by the expression
number of capital types in the total investments. 2
The most widely used stack type is a single-flue k = 1621 V2 . (7)
stack with a clamped lining. Its load-bearing rein- H 0 ΔT
forced concrete shaft with the lining is considered as The volumetric flowrate of flue gases, m3/s, dis-
one solid item. Therefore, the stack cost Kst is calcu- charged from the stack mouth is calculated by the for-
lated by the expression mula
К st = К sh. l + К found , (3) πD02
V = w, (8)
where К sh. l = Vr/c sh. lPr/c sh. l + L sh. l is the cost of the 4
shaft with lining (here, Vr/c.sh. l is the volume of the where w is the flue gas velocity at the stack mouth, m/s.
shaft reinforced concrete with lining, m3; Pr./c sh. l is the The flue gas velocity minimizing the total dis-
price of the construction material of the shaft with lin- counted costs is optimal wopt.
ing, rubles/m3; Lsh.l is the labor cost for construction The labor cost for the construction of the lined
of the shaft with lining, rubles; and Kfound is the foun- reinforced concrete shaft is estimated based on the
dation cost, rubles). man-day input (see Table 10.3 from [8]) taking into

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020

 A GENERAL-PURPOSE PROCEDURE FOR THE CALCULATION 159

account the volume of lined reinforced concrete shaft For single-flue conical stacks, the friction loss, Pa,
and the price of a man-day, Pm-d, rubles/day, by the can approximately be taken as
formula
Δhfr = 0.3hv.h0, (16)
L sh.l = 3.6 Vr/c sh. lPm-d. (9) where hv.h0 is the velocity head at the stack mouth, Pa
2
The foundation cost is estimated by hv.h0 = ρ g w ; (17)
2
К found = Vr/c foundPr/c found + L f , (10) here,
where Vr/c. found is the reinforced concrete volume in
the stack foundation, m3; Pr/c. found is the price of rein- ρ g = 1.29 273  , (18)
273 + tg
forced concrete in the stack foundation, rubles/m3;
and Lf is the labor cost for the construction of the is the flue gas density, kg/m3, and tg is the flue gas tem-
foundation, rubles. perature, °С.
The reinforced concrete volume in the foundation The local resistances, Pa, are calculated by the
is calculated by the formula formula

Vr/c found = 0.004H 2.3D00.45K w0.2.l.K s0.25, (11) Δhl.r = hv.h0 ζ , (19)
where Ks is the coefficient accounting for the soil where  ζ is the sum of local resistance coefficients
(for single-flue conical stacks,  ζ = 0). The coeffi-
quality.
The dependence of the reinforced concrete vol-
ume on the diameter and height of a stack were taken cient of resistance of the flue gas duct connection to
from [11, 12]; the proportionality coefficient value of the stack belongs to the local resistances of the flue gas
0.004 is the weighted average value according to duct.
Table 10.2 of [8]. With the foundation reinforcement The head loss with outlet velocity, Pa, is taken to be
level of 100 kg/m3, the reinforced concrete price is the velocity head hv.h0 at the stack mouth
7000 rubles/m3. Δho.v = hv.h0. (20)
The labor cost for foundation construction is esti- The stack effect, Pa, is calculated as
mated based man-day input according to Table 10.2
of [8] using the formula Δhst. eff = (ρa – ρg )gH , (21)
L f = 0.7Vr/c foundPm-d . (12) where ρa is the air density, kg/m3,
and g is the gravity
acceleration, m/s2. Air density is calculated by the
In the considered options, the expenses E is calcu- formula
lated as follows:
ρa = 1.29 273 , (22)
Ex = nopμ2аepN g.t , (13) 273 + ta
where nop is the number of boiler operating hours (with where ta is the air temperature, °С.
an average boiler downtime of 1 month, nop = 8000 h); The reference for the further analysis was the data
аep is the power generation cost (approximately аep = in Fig. 1a, which shows the optimal flue gas velocities
1.5 rubles/(kW h)); μ is the installed capacity utiliza- in a single-flue reinforced concrete stack based on the
tion factor (approximately μ = 0.75); and Ng.t is the prices of 1975 [4].
power consumption for gas transportation through the The predictions for the construction of a stack by
stack, kW: one’s own funds at a constant cost of capital are shown
VΔ h ,
−3
in Fig. 1b. The average man-day price was taken to be
N g.t = 10 (14) 2000 rubles/man-day. The electricity price growth
ηd.f ηmot rate between 1975 and 2018 was much higher than the
where Δh is the pressure difference required for flue construction material price increase rate in this
gas transportation, Pa; ηd.f is the efficiency of the draft period. This fact affected the optimal gas velocities in
fan (to be taken as 0.7); and ηmot is the efficiency of the the stacks. Nowadays, it is more profitable to use rela-
draft fan motor (to be taken as 0.98). tively cheap construction materials and try to reduce
The pressure difference consists of the friction the cost of flue gas transportation, thereby decreasing
loss, Δhfr, the losses due to local resistances, Δhl.r, the the optimal flue gas velocities.
head loss with outlet velocity, Δho.v, and the stack effect, The predictions in Fig. 1c show the optimal flue
Δhst. eff: gas velocities in reinforced concrete stacks under the
existing construction conditions using loan funds got
 Δh = Δhfr + Δhl.r + Δho.v + Δhst. eff . (15) at 10% annual interest considering an inflation of 5%.

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020

160 ZROICHIKOV et al.

(а) (b)
wopt, m/s wopt, m/s

4
44 16
3 4
2 3
36 1 12 2

28 8
1
20 4
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 V, m3/s 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s

(c) (d)
wopt, m/s wopt, m/s

4 30 4
25
25
20 3 3
2 20 2
15
15
10 10
1 1
5 5
800 1000 1200 1400 3
1600 V, m /s 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s

wopt, m/s (e)

4
50
3
40
2
30

20
1
10
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s
Fig. 1. Dependence of the optimal f lue gas velocity at the single-flue reinforced concrete stack mouth on the flue gas volu-
metric f lowrate. (a) As of 1975 [4]; (b) as of 2018 with the constant cost of capital, stack construction using one’s own
resources, and Pm-d = 2000 rubles/day; (c) as of 2018 with the inflation and Pm-d = 2000 rubles/day; (d) as of 2018 with the
inflation and for Pm-d = 3000 rubles/day; (e) as of 1975 with zero inflation and stack construction using one’s own resources; Н, m:
1—120; 2—150; 3—180; 4—250.

The figure also shows that the inflation and the cost of half the optimal velocities specified in the database for
credit quite noticeably affect the optimal gas velocity. 1975 (see Fig. 1a).
It increases by approximately 4 m/s for 120-m high To verify the developed procedure, Fig. 1e rep-
stacks, 5 m/s for 150- and 180-m high stacks, and 7 m/s resents the predictions for the prices for 1975, which
for 250-m high stacks. were as follows [4]: Pr/c. sh. l = 316.8 rubles/m3,
Pr/c. found = 253.4 rubles/m3, Pman-day = 10 rubles/day,
Under the same conditions, increasing the man-day аe.p = 0.005 rubles/(kW h). The data presented in
price by a factor of 1.5 rose the optimal gas velocity by Figs. 1a and 1d are nearly the same, especially for a
approximately 1.0 m/s for 120-m high stacks, 1.5 m/s 180-m high stack.
for 150- and 180-m high stacks, and 2.5 m/s for 250-m Optimal velocities in a multiflue stack are further
high stacks (see Fig. 1d). However, these velocities are analyzed by an example of the most common four-

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020

 A GENERAL-PURPOSE PROCEDURE FOR THE CALCULATION 161

flue stacks, which are basically used at cogeneration depends on the reinforced concrete volume and the
power stations (TETs). It is assumed that the average man-day cost, by the formula
wall thickness of the flues is the same, and all the flues
are made of carbon steel with a corrosion allowance of L sh. found = 0.2 Vm-f foundPm-d . (28)
14 mm. The flues are cylindrical along the entire The cost of the flues was calculated by the expression
height, and an increase in the metal volume in the
basement is taken into account in the average thickness К fl = PflVm + L fl, (29)
of the flue walls. The minimum distance between the where Pfl is the flue construction material price
wall of the flues is 1.2 m, and that between the outer wall (which is approximately Pfl = 312 000 rubles/m3 for
of the flue and the inner wall of the reinforced concrete steel); Vm is the volume of metal consumed for the
shaft in its upper part is 1.0 m. The cost of a multiflue manufacture of all flues, m3; and Lfl is the labor cost
stack Km-f st is calculated by the formula for installation of all flues, rubles.
The volume of metal for construction of all flues is
К m-f st = К sh + К found + К fl, (23)
where Ksh is the shaft cost (without lining in this case); Vm = π dfl H δN fl, (30)
Kfound is the foundation cost; and Kfl is the cost of where dfl is the flue inner diameter, m; δ is the flue
flues. wall thickness (for steel δ = 0.012–0.014 m); and Nc is
The shaft cost is the number of flues.
К sh = Vr/c shPr/c sh + L sh , (24) The flue inner diameter was calculated by the for-
mula
where Vr/c.sh is the volume of the shaft reinforced con-
4Vfl
crete; Pr./c sh is the price of the construction material of dfl = , (31)
the shaft; and Lsh is the labor cost for construction of π wfl
the shaft with lining. where Vfl is the gas flowrate through one flue, m3/s;
The reinforced concrete volume in the shaft is cal- and wfl is the gas velocity in the flue, m/s.
culated by the formula According to [14], the labor cost for the installation
Vr/c sh = 0.09H sh
1.75 0.6
Dsh K m-f w.l , (25) of the flues, Lfl, rubles, is
where Hsh is the reinforced concrete shaft height (to be L fl = 60 VmPm-d . (32)
taken 5 m lower than the stack height); Dsh is the shaft The predictions for the four-flue stacks with the
inner diameter at the stack outlet, m; and Km-f w.l is the metal flues in a common reinforced concrete shaft in
wind load factor for the shaft of a multiflue stack (to be the prices for 2018 are shown in Fig. 2.
taken according to Table 3 [13]). Comparison of the data presented in Figs. 1b and 2a
The price of reinforced concrete for a multiflue demonstrates that the optimal velocity in the multiflue
stack was taken to be the same as the price for a single- stack is higher than that in the single-flue stack. This
flue stack, i.e., 11000 rubles/m3. difference is greater for relatively low stacks. The effect
The labor costs for the construction of a rein- of volumetric flow rate and stack height for four-flue
forced concrete shaft in formula (24) are calculated stacks is less pronounced than for single-flue stacks.
based on the number of expended man-days accord- This stems from the fact that the cost of multiflue
ing to Table 10.3 from [8], which depend on the vol- stacks is considerably greater than the cost of single-
ume of reinforced concrete and the price of a working flue stacks.
day, using the formula The predictions for the four-flue stacks with the
L sh = 2.9Vr/c shPm-d . (26) metal flues in a common reinforced concrete shaft in
the prices for 2018 with the inflation of 5% and the
The cost of a multiflue stack foundation is calcu- construction out of borrowed funds made at an inter-
lated by est rate of 10% per annum are shown in Fig. 2b. As is
evident from the figure, the inflation and the interest
К found = Vr/c sh. foundPr/c sh. found + L sh. found , (27)
rate have a quite strong effect on the optimal velocity
where Vr/c. sh. found is the reinforced concrete volume in of flue gases in four-flue stacks, which increases by
the foundation of a multiflue stack shaft, m3, to be cal- approximately 5 m/s. The optimal gas velocities in
culated by formula (11); Pr/c. sh. found is the price of 250-m high four-flue (see Fig. 2b) and single-flue (see
material consumed in manufacturing the reinforced Fig. 1c) stacks are quite close. If the optimal gas veloc-
concrete foundation (to be taken the same as that for a ities range from 19 to 27 m/s for single-flue stacks,
single-flue stack, i.e., 7000 rubles/m3); and Lsh. found is then they range from 23 to 26 m/s for four-flue stacks.
the labor cost for construction of the shaft foundation. For lower stacks, this difference increases.
The labor cost for the construction of the multiflue The effect of the man-day cost for installation
stack foundation was calculated from the number of activities on the optimal flue gas velocity can be
expended man-days according to Table 10.2 [8], which revealed by comparing Figs. 2b and 2c. Increasing the

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020

162 ZROICHIKOV et al.

(а) (а)
wopt, m/s Кrat
3 4
4 0.92
3
20
0.90
15
2 1 1 2
10
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s 0.88
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s
(b) (b)
wopt, m/s
Кrat 3 4
4 3
25
0.92
20
2 1
15 0.90
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s
1
(c) 2
wopt, m/s
0.88
3 4 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s
25
Fig. 4. Dependence of the ratio of the cost of (a) single-
20 flue or (b) four-flue stacks with the inflation considered to
2 the cost of the same stack estimated without inflation on
1 the flue gas volumetric flowrate; 1–4—see Fig. 1.
15
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s

Fig. 2. Dependence of the optimal flue gas velocity on the man-day cost by a factor of 1.5 raises the optimal
flue gas volumetric flowrate in four-flue stacks with metal velocity by approximately 1 m/s.
flues as of 2018. (a) With the constant cost of capital;
(b) with the inflation and Pm-d = 2000 rubles/day; (c) with In spite of the fact that the diameters of flues and
the inflation and Pm-d = 3000 rubles/day; 1–4—see Fig. 1. the shaft decrease, the cost of the stack increases by
11–12% irrespective of its height. This is explained by
the fact that the effect of increasing labor cost prevails
over a decrease in the price of the used construction
(а)
materials.
Кrat 1
The comparison of Fig. 1d with Fig. 2c demon-
2.5 3 2 strates that the optimal gas velocities in 250-m high
single-flue and four-flue stacks are comparable. For
2.0 lower stacks, a considerable difference is evident: the
4
optimal velocity is 20 m/s in four-flue stacks and 10 m/s
1.5 in single-flue stacks.
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s
(b) Figure 3a shows the ratio of four-flue to single-flue
Кrat 1 stack cost Krat, which slightly depends on the flue gas
3
volumetric flow but quite considerably on the stack
2.5 2 height. This ratio is 2.6 for 120-m high stacks and 1.7
for 250-m high stacks.
2.0 4
Figure 3b shows the ratio of four-flue to single-flue
1.5 stack cost considering the effect of inflation. Compar-
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 V, m3/s ison of Fig. 3b with Fig. 3a suggests that these values
have changed only slightly, but with the inflation taken
Fig. 3. Dependence of the ratio of the cost of a four-flue into account the stack cost decreases with an increase
stack with metal flues to the cost of a single-flue reinforced
concrete stack, both designed for same parameters, in
in the optimal gas velocity. Comparison of Fig. 4a with
prices for 2018 with (a) the constant cost of capital and Fig. 4b demonstrates a more pronounced effect of the
(b) with inflation. 1–4—see Fig. 1. inflation on the cost for single-flue stacks.

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020

 A GENERAL-PURPOSE PROCEDURE FOR THE CALCULATION 163

Cd, Kst, million rubles We have developed the codes for calculating the
H, D0, m optimal gas velocity for various stack types (single-flue
500
stacks with a vented air clearance, three-flue stacks,
etc.). Figure 5 represents the predicted optimal flue
gas velocities in a 250-m high four-flue stack at a vol-
400 umetric flowrate of 1600 m3/s.
4 The results of the aerodynamic calculation of the
200 distribution of positive static pressures pst along the
300 stack height performed by the procedure described
in [15] with account taken for the slope of the stack
2 generatrix, U, and the absolute roughness of the stack
inner surface, Δ0, are shown in Fig. 6.
200 In the first case (see Fig. 6a), a negative pressure is
1 100 observed along the entire stack height, which exceeds
700 Pa at the stack bottom, and no limits are imposed
100 on the static pressures in the stack. In the second case
(see Fig. 6b), a positive static pressure is built in the
3 top section of the stack. The codes have also been
developed for calculating the optimal parameters of a
0 three-flue stack with flues having any diameter.
0 20 40 w, m/s
Thus, the optimal flue gas velocity in exhaust flues
in stacks of different designs can be calculated at dif-
Fig. 5. Predicted optimal velocities of flue gases. 1—Cd; ferent emission parameters considering the existing
2—Кst; 3—D0; 4—Н. situation in the economics.

CONCLUSIONS
(а)
Н, m (1) The developed mathematical model and the
software package created on its basis have been veri-
fied under the conditions of the planning and distribu-
tion model of the country’s economic development.
200 (2) The procedure proposed by the authors for cal-
culating the optimal flue gas velocity for any model of
economic development is universal and does not
depend on the trend of prices and costs for produc-
100
tions goods and services. To calculate the optimal flue
gas velocity, one should only input the initial informa-
tion applicable at the present time.
3. Application of the developed software code has
рst, Pa –600 –400 –200 0 yielded that the gas velocity adopted now in designing
(b)
stacks are considerable overestimated.
Н, m
REFERENCES
1. “On the selection of modernization projects for gener-
200 ating facilities of thermal power plants,” RF Govern-
ment Decree No. 43 of January 25, 2019.
2. SP 375.1325800.2017. Industrial Chimneys. Rules for
Design (Izd. Standartov, Moscow, 2018).
100 3. SP 43.13330.2012. Constructions of Industrial Enterprises.
Updated edition of SNiP 2.09.03-85 (Izd. Standartov,
Moscow, 2013).
4. L. A. Rikhter, E. P. Volkov, E. I. Gavrilov, V. G. Lebe-
dev, and V. B. Prokhorov, “Determination of the cost of
рst, Pa –400 –200 0 200 chimneys of TPPs and optimization of gas velocities in
the exhaust pipe,” Teploenergetika, No. 4, 12–16 (1975).
Fig. 6. Static pressure distribution along the stack height. 5. Guidelines for Evaluating the Effectiveness and Develop-
(a) U = 0.015; Δ0 = 0.0015 m; wopt = 20 m/s; (b) U = 0.025; ment of Investment Projects and Business plans in the
Δ0 = 0.003 m; wopt = 30 m/s. Electricity Industry (With Typical Examples), Vol. 1:

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020

164 ZROICHIKOV et al.

Methodological Features of Evaluating the Effectiveness of 11. E. I. Gavrilov, Aerodynamic Characteristics of the Ex-
Projects in the Electric Power Industry (NTsPI, Moscow, haust Pipes and the Output of the Chimneys of High
2008). Power, Candidate’s Dissertation in Engineering (Mos-
6. N. D. Rogalev, A. G. Zubkova, I. V. Masterova, cow Power Engineering Inst., Moscow, 1973).
G. N. Kurdyukova, V. V. Bologova, and O. Yu. Pono- 12. A. M. Gribkov and E. I. Gavrilov, Choosing the Optimal
mareva, Power Industry Economics: Study Aid, Ed. by Sizes of Chimneys and External Flues: Study Aid (Mosk.
N. D. Rogalev (Mosk. Energ. Inst., Moscow, 2005) [in Energ. Inst, Moscow, 1986) [in Russian].
Russian].
13. L. A. Rikhter, Gas-Air Tracts of Thermal Power Plants,
7. OK 013-2014 (SNS 2008). All-Russian Classifier of 2nd ed. (Energoatomizdat, Moscow, 1984) [in Rus-
Fixed Assets (Rosstandart, Moscow, 2014). sian].
8. F. P. Duzhikh, V. P. Osolovskii, and M. G. Ladygichev,
Industrial Smoke and Ventilation Pipes: Handbook 14. GESN 09-06-033-02. Installation of Exhaust, Smoke
(Teplotekhnik, Moscow, 2004) [in Russian]. and Ventilation Pipes with a Diameter of up to 3250 mm
from Sheet Steel up to 45 m High. http://www.defsmeta.
9. “On approval of calculation methods for dispersion of com/rgsn14c/gsn_09/giesn-09-06-033-02.php.
emissions of harmful (polluting) substances in the air,”
RF Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environ- 15. L. A. Rikhter, “Aerodynamic characteristics of chim-
ment Decree no. 273 of June 6, 2017. neys,” Elektr. Stn., No. 4, 11–14 (1968).
10. E. I. Gavrilov, “Calculating the height of chimneys of
TPPs,” Teploenergetika, No. 3, 77–80 (1980). Translated by T. Krasnoshchekova

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 67 No. 3 2020