Component Costs for Multiple-Hearth Sludge

Incineration from Field Data*

WALTER UNTERBERG and GEORGE R. SCHNEIDER
Rocketdyne/Rockwell International
Canoga Park, California

ROBERT J. SHERWOOD
Envi rotech Corporation
San Francisco, California

ABSTRACT

Field data were obtained from nine operating municipal

multiple-hearth sewage sludge incinerators, with unit
furnace capacities from 200 to 4500 Ib dry solids/hr. The
data yielded normalized cost relationships for capital,
labor, material and supplies, hearth replacement, fuel,
and power in terms of furnace parameters. Effects of
operating schedules and thermal cycling were considered.
INTRODUCTION

A recent study carried out by the authors for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency was concerned with
the development of a computer program for the predesign
and cost estimation of optimum multiple-hearth-furnace
(MHF) sewage sludge incineration systems [1]. A field
study of a number of operating MHF sludge incinerators
was p'erformed to acquire data on their design, operation,
and component costs.
This paper, after describing MHF sludge incineration,
presents the method of normalizing costs by use of
economic indicators, and the various cost elements de
rived from field data in the form of equations, graphs, or
tables. In this form, the cost information is directly useful
for the analysis of existing or the predesign of planned
MHF sludge incinerators.

Work carried out under Contract 14-12-547 sponsored by the

Office of Research and Monitoring, EQvironmental Protection

Agency. with Dr. J. B. Farrell as Project Officer.

Rabbled-hearth furnaces have been in use for nearly a

century, initially for roasting ores. The present air-cooled ,
multiple-hearth furnace (MHF) is essentially the
Herreshoff design of 1 889.lt has been used for sewage
sludge incineration since the 1 930's. The multiple-hearth
furnace is a unique combustion device. Unlike furnaces
designed for the combustion of solid waste materials, this
furnace employs no open burning grates. Furthermore,
unlike most incinerators, the combustion zone is in the
,central part of the vertical furnace structure and not out
side in another connecting chamber. The advantages of
the MHF include simplicity, ease of control, flexibility of
operation, and durability .
A typical section through a multiple-hearth furnace is
illustrated in Fig. 1 taken from Burd [2] . A typical
incineration system comprising the furnace and ancillary
equipment is diagrammed in Fig. 2. The furnace proper
consists of a number of annular hearths stacked horizon
tally at fixed distances one above the other inside a
refractory lined, vertical, cylindrical steel shell. A centrally
located cast-iron shaft, which runs the full height of the
furnace, supports cantilevered rabble arms (2 or 4) above
each hearth. Each arm contains several rabble teeth,
which rake sludge spirally across the hearth below the
arms as the latter rotate with the central shaft. The sew
age sludge (dewatered to about 25 percent solids) is fed in
at the periphery of the top hearth (IN-hearth) and raked
by the rabble teeth toward the center to an opening
through which it falls to the next hearth (OUT-hearth).
On this hearth, the sludge is raked outward to the
periphery where it drops to the next IN-hearth below.

289

Combustion air generally is of three kinds: 1 ) recycled

cooling air that has traveled up through the hollow central
shaft and is then, in part, ducted to the bottom hearth, as
shown in Fig. I and 2; 2) ambient air from a blower,
usually located at a central hearth in conjunction with
auxiliary fuel burners (Fig. 2); and 3) ambient air ad
mitted through adjustable ports and doors at various
points into the furnace which is slightly below atmos
pheric pressure because of the induced draft (Fig. 2).
Isheirn [3] has given details of the materials and
methods of present-day MHF construction. Of particular
interest are the design features at the points of maximum
temperature in the central hearths. To permit tempera
tures up to 2000 F, rabble arms and teeth are cast of a
nickel-chrome alloy, and the vertical furnace wall is
provided with a 1 3.5-inch thickness of insulation. This is
made up of 4.5-inch firebrick next to the combustion
zone, followed by 9-inch block type insulation next to
the outer steel shell.
, The effect of rabbling is continually to "plow up" the
solids and break up lumps of material to expose more
surface on each hearth to heat and oxygen. In this way,
drying, combustion, and heat exchange occur at high rates.
Owen [4] has suggested that the incinerator be divided
into three zones (indicated in Fig. 1 ): sludge drying,
sludge combustion, and ash cooling. These designations
refer to the downward progress of the sludge. The cor
responding upward flow of the gases provides the follow
ing pic ture :

.---OOllNG AIR OISCHARGE

...__-.

FU)ATING OAMPER

hqr---tC:;'::
:
.

'
....

_
.
,' .. ...

.
_

...
. .
.......... -_

... ,..
;...:.

.....'.
,

..

...
....

SLU DG E INLET

....

."

"

C1- C,
- Vj
" , ...
0 ....', .)'r 'W
oN
....

LvN

/oj BUSTlC,

AIR RETURN

-RIIBBLE ARM
S

'0'

DRIVE

' .

COOLING AIR FAN

FIG.1

TYPICAL SECTION OF MULTIPLE HEARTH INCIN

ERATOR (FROM BURD: "SLUDGE HANDLING AND
DISPOSAL," FWPCA REPORT Wpo20-4 [REF. 21)

This in-out process is continued on down the furnace.

Thus, the sludge and gas streams move counter-current to
one another, the sludge passing down the furnace and
finally turning into ash, while the combustion air flows
over each hearth as it moves upward, finally exiting as
flue gas at the top hearth.

.,:: '
.

.'

,.

..

cct .'J
..

1 ) In the bottom ash cooling zone, the entering

combustion air is heated above ambient by the ashes.

:":\'iil\g :,:. r

;.:-:I;ll::: " 3S

':IJ r

T
'n

-,.

"

d
'
...(,Ol"G :, i r
-

(0(\1 in!:>
'If r rro:":
; 10*

>-

Ur.1P

:::raft

I ilrv

."u(>l

"-

Scruer

. 'rl.'..:ooler

\'c t

Scruber

('or:-

from Llowcr*

\J j us t.lle PortS ar.J

t'h

for
Seru:" cr and
?rcco!..:r
:-:tif'

Disc! . .lq:: ...

::(\tor Dr:'..
with :o::.or !)r i v ..

FIG.2 MHF FLOW AND EQUIPMENT DIAGRAM

290

?a

;\ ' .o
.. r

* [lee::..it
*,\

I uceQ

,j,

ion .\ i r

'.'

.\nl

/"

..

:.l:xi

r.)(i':;as

. ,

,', n:r:ll
Sl.I:'

'::.:r
: u:':',,r

..

',..'ater

2) In the central sludge combustion zone, the air

burns with the sludge such that the product gases are in
the 1 400 to 1 600 F range.
3) In the sludge drying zone, the gases are cooled by
the incoming sludge to a discharge temperature (into the
scrubber) of about 800 F.
The economics of MHF sewage sludge incineration
have heretofore been studied mainly from an overall cost
standpoint. Burd [2] quoted a manufacturer's brochure
which gave MHF costs based on the size of the population
served, and translated this into a total annual cost per ton
of dry solids. Maclaren [5] made an MHF estimate of a
similar nature. Studies of MHF sludge incineration have
been made for specific communities. Sebastian and
Cardinal [6] presented costs for city population equiva
lents ranging from 1 0,000 to 1 ,000,000 (dry solids vary
ing from 360 to 36,000 tons/annum). Quirk [7] developed
costs for a city of 1 00,000 (2530 tons of dry solids/
annum) in some detail. Weller and Condon [8] .discussed
MHF selection factors and their application to Kansas
City, Missouri (average dry solids 30,400 tons/annum).
Mick and Linsley [9] compared actual performance and
cost data for the year 1 955 in four cities covering a range
in population from 1/2 to 2 million (Buffalo, Cleveland,
Detroit, and Minneapolis-St. Paul). The range in dry
solids was from 7242 to 84,290 tons/annum. Mick and
Linsley pOinted out the difficulties of securing good
operation at all times and presented some of the practical
considerations.
Burd [2] has stated that a general literature review,
presumably based on the references cited above, yielded
a range in MHF incineration costs of 8 to 40 dollars/ton
of dry solids, exclusive of dewatering or ash disposal.
Twenty dollars/dry ton was cited as an average. The trend
seemed to be toward a lower cost/dry ton as plant
capacity increased.

4) Hearth and exhaust gas temperature level high

enough to prevent odors
5) Hearth, exhaust, and ash temperatures low enough
to prevent failure of furnace due to overheating
6) Heatup and cool down transients slow enough to
prevent failure of refractory due to thermal stresses
7) Combustion efficiency and percent excess air high
enough to keep polluting in exhaust gas below maximum
allowable concentrations
I t was thought essential to study mUnicipal incineration
plants that varied as to number of MHF's, size and
capacity of a unit MHF, sludge type and composition,
plant operating mode, and manufacture. The scope of
the project permitted an in-depth survey at seven locations. A selection procedure narrowed the dozens of
cities in the U.S. with MHF sludge incinerators down to
these seven cities, comprising nine incineration plants:

Cleveland, Ohio (2 incineration sizes)

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota (installed 1 938,

1 95 1 )

Kansas City, Missouri

Battle Creek, Michigan (2 incineration sizes)

Saginaw, Michigan (installed 1 963)

Hatfield, Pennsylvania

Bridgeport, Pennsylvania
In addition to the in-depth data on the nine basic incinera
tion plants, capital cost and other limited data were ob
tained on another four plants located at :

South Tahoe, California

Minneapolis-St. Paul (installed 1 965)

Saginaw (installed 1 969)

East Rochester, New York

Overall data on the 1 3 plants mentioned above are
presented in Table 1 . Effectively, the incinera tion plants
studied in depth (No. 1 through 9) provide the following
variations:

Number of Furnaces
1 to 4

Single-furnace design 200 to 4500 lb dry

capacity
solids/hr

Number of hearths
5 to 9 per furnace

Outer diameter
6 to 22.25 feet

Effective hearth area

85 to 2327 sq ft/furnace

Total solids in sludge 20 to 53 weight percent

The annual utilization of MHF incinerators by capacity
and time for all plants studied is shown in Table 2. The
nominal operating schedule, which varied from round the
clock down to 1 6 hr/week, is seen to have a large effect
on the annual "load factor." This is the product of two
quantities, X and Y. The quantity X is the total annual
operating hours divided by the number of round-the
clock hours per year. The quantity Y is the actual dry
I

DATA ACQU ISITION

A field study of a number of operating MHF sludge

incinerators was considered the best means of acquiring
data on design and operational factors, and on their
relationship to costs. The field study was to provide in
formation on the effectiveness of the MHF operation in
terms of the following requirements.
1 ) Efficient operating schedule, well integrated with
operation of entire wastewater treatment plant
2) Good use of operating manpower, considering
operator skill and integration with the rest of the treat
ment plant
3) Effective maintenance schedule to maximize the
processing capacity of the MHF
291

Table 1. Summary of Multiple Hearth Furnace Sewage Sludge Incinerators

B=Bid

Hill'

nlF

First

Operating

IncinE"rntor

No.

u[F 11 IIi t D."til

Ou te r
l Ie a rth
Din ,
No. of
Aren,
Ft - I n lIearths
n

C -Con tra e t.
Y ('Ill"

Location

No.of

U[}"

Dry o 1id
H a t e U[}'

Opg.

Dntu
Period
Yenrs

1\l--

Av.

Hax.

Lh/llr

LlJ/lIl'

Av.
lIe,,,l.h
LoudJ!;:.

Avg.

1'0 tal

I.l,
llr n:.'

DI'\'

Solids,

\\' t.

}If 1'.

"

'"
on

...
CJ

",.

"1'1
"
,
--.-

1U(W

22-3

!!3::!7

lili-6\1

4lli 7*

7U l O

25*

11138 , 1951

3,1

22-3

tl

20tH

tl-litl

:lliOO

fJOtlO

35-21

Kansas City

11166

22-3

20tH

Li7 -lHI

4riOO*

1 800

Cleveland

11140

18- \1

tl

11!.!5

58-6li

20tl3'

5370

Battle

1966

18-9

10li 8

Iitl-69

2050*

DaUle

18-11

8 !10

1 !l62

S agi na w

1 !l63

1(;-9

8 1 5

62-67

llatfield

1 \/67

1 0- !I

230

Dridlleport

1964

U-O

85

HJ(l7C

14-3

515

Cleveland

Hinn.-SLPaul

Creek

Cre ek

2CJ

2.1H*

2 *

1.-17*

3(;50

2 li

U *

lli5*

1600

li

1.83*

uli-6!J

18 tl O

28U

2.22

67-6!J

100

480

53**

20

1.7-1

60

200*

336*

25*

2.35*

Not

\100*

15*

I . :)7

Il

11

HiJU),-St. Paul

1 \Jli5C

22-3

11

28Utl

Part

G:.!5U*

12

Saginaw

1 !J60D

22-3

1 5 00

of Hain

5170-*

13

East Rochester

1 !)(l3C

10-0

2 U

Design

**

High Oil/Grease Content

Table

HBF
No.

Eff.
Hearth

Area per
MllF' ,

Location

Cleveland
Minn.-St.

Sq Ft.

2327

Paul

Cleveland
Sag inav

I)

Kansas C i ty

Battle Creek
Battle C reek
Bridgeport
Hatfield

2.2J*

Il

--

25*
.15'h

3 . :32 *

6 UO*

25*

2. utP

6775*

1t1O

2084

1425
845

Steady-Stnte

Total
No.
of

M1'W' 8
4

Operating

Schcuule

Stcudy-Stn tc

Year

Fraction of
Full Time

P e rioc.l

1.0

1966

( 24 Ilr "
7 Day/Wk)

or

1967
1 %S
1966
1 tll;7
1 UUtl

6 2-6 5

2084

1966
lU67

1068

3aO

0.714

( 24 llr x
:> Day/Wk)

85

230

(.357 , )
1 2 x I)
0.095
(8 x 2 )

292

Actunl

Actual

1U68

Study

2, Summary of SteadyState Operation Per MHF (Annual Averages)

Nominal

".lenition

Fraction of

}'ull 'rime,
(X)
. 260

.223

--

De s ign
Ac tua1 Tons/ Y'
Dry
Full- I i IlIt DcSolids

Fl ow

Hatio

( \)

.7 23

.6U O
--

.8S5

.5UO

.t!SU
.855

.670
.S 1 3

718

.6 21

'rOlls/Yr

sign

Lond I'nctor,

(X).(Y)
,1St!
15 1
.30

.5O
.r,V5
.liU 1

.Hli

.851

1.06

.UUU

.8'1li
.U20

. !)U

H17
. I)' IG

196U

.930

67-6U

.476

19 68

.654

1 \/69

.666

1964

1.01

.9 U6

.Utj

.775

.369

1.03

.(jj5

.937

.li l

.597

.816

.505

1965
1U67

.75U

1.075

.81Li

1969

.2975

67-69

11

South

1.73

10

Tahoe

1.7\l*

.796

033

.080

1.012
.818

--

./:lUli

2!)!

--

solids flowrate in the operating incinerator divided by

the design dry solids flowrate.
In one plant (MHF No. 1 ), less than the total of MHF's
ran at one time, while in another plant (MHF No. 6) the
annual amount incinerated exceeded the nominal value,
due to operation at overcapacity and overtime. In yet
another plant (MHF No. 3), only 2 of the 3 total units
operate simultaneously, so that there is always a standby
unit.

INSTALL ED CAPITAL EQUIPMENT (Column 1, Table 3)

The cost of installed MHF incinerator systems was

considered to be the sum of the fabricated equipment
costs (castings, blowers, motors, controls, etc.) and the
charges for construction. Castings include the center shaft,
rabble arms, teeth, and other structural components. A
cost ratio of 60 percent equipment/40 percent construc
tion was taken as typical , based on industry experience.
The Average Marshall and Stevens Equipment Cost Index
[ 1 0] and the Engineering News Record Construction
Cost I ndex [ 1 1 ] were combined in the 60/40 ratio to
produce the MHF Capital Cost Index (Col. 1 of Table 3).

ECONOM IC IND ICATORS AND LABOR RATES

All costs were converted to 1 969 dollars since the field

visits were made in that year. Adjustments were needed
for raw data obtained during the previous three decades
on capital equipment and other materials, and for the
cost of all types of labor involved. Much effort was
devoted to arriving at realistic conversion methods, which
are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, standardized to 1 969 .
The principal considerations are detailed in the following
paragraphs, by column.

NORMAL MAINT ENANCE PARTS AND SUPPL IES

(Column 2, Table

3)

The Plant Maintenance Cost Index [ 1 2] was used for

updating normal maintenance materials. This index
dctually is a I1)ix of labor ar:d materials, but was adopted
here for materials alone.

Table 3. Summary of Economic Indicators for Capital

MH F CASTINGS COST (Column

3, Table 3)

Equipment and Materials

The Process Machinery subcomponent of the Equip

ment component of the Plant Cost Index [ 1 3] was used
for castings. Of the seven subcomponents, it is the one
that appeared most representative of castings.

(Standardized to 1969)
nIF

Normal
Purts &

Capi tal
Year

Su

Cost

(1)
1938
9

1IO

nIF

Haiflt.enance

Installed

lies

Cas tinr'S
0

He f '.. e Lory

Cost

COsL

RE FRACTORY COST (Column

30.5

:25.6
25.2
25.7

4
30.1

3U.1i

27.5

32.1

29.7

34.1

30.3

34.3

34.4

4, Table 3)

The Clay Products components of the Marshall and

Stevens Equipment Cost Index [10] was adopted for the
furnace brick.

1945

1.0
31 . 5

36.8

44.7

41.8

50.1

51.2

48.8

45.5

54.2

55.5

49.0

46.8

56.8

55.5

1950

51.4

49.1

59.6

57.4

55.0

54.6

65.7

61.4

55.9

56.3

66.5

61.5

57.3

59.0

69.2

62.1

58.6

59.9

71.1

63.2

1955

60.9

62.3

73.2

64.9

65.8

66.4

79.1

71.0

7
8

70.2

69.8

84.2

77.0

72.2

85.9

79.4

74.5

71.2
73.5

87.4

81.4

NORMAL MAINT ENANCE LABOR (Columns

1960

76.0

87.4

82.7

76.6
77.7

75.0
76.3

86.8

82.3

Table

87.5

82.6

78.7

78.1
79.7

87.6

82.7

80.4

81.7

88.0

84.0

1965

82.1

83.7

88.9

85.2

6
7

85.3

86.8

91.1

87.5

89.0

89.9

93.3

91.8

93.8

94.5

96.2

95.5

2
3

1969

10U.0

34.7

OPERATING LABOR (Columns 1 and 2, Table

42.1

100.0

1UI).0

4)

In this (and every other labor category) there are

regional differences, but their consideration was felt to be
an unwarranted refinement in view of the other Simplifica
tions made. The national Average Hourly Gross Earnings
per Nonsupervisory Worker in Electric, Gas,.and Sanitary
Services [ 1 4] were selected. The 1 969 rate was $3.88/hr.
3 and 4,

4)

As for Normal Maintenance Parts and Supplies, the

variation of the associated labor was also represented by
the Plant Maintenance Cost Index [ 1 2]. Reference [ 1 5],
which dealt with a wage survey in the I ndustrial Chemi
cals Industry, was used to obtain absolute hourly rates.

100.0

293

Table

4. Summary of Economic Indicators for labor

(Standardized to 1969) .
Labor Categories
Hnintenance

unci Castin/;"

Operating
Per IIr

Year

Index

1958

62.1

2.41

65.2

1960

68.3

(1)

Index

(2)

Refrnetory

Per Ilr

" Per Ilr

Index

.-

(4)

(5)

71.2

2.9 0

60.5

2.97

2.53

73.5

2.99

63.7

3.13

2.65

75.0

3.06

6r..6

(3)

70.6

2.74

76. :1

3.11

68.6

73.5

2.85

78.1

3.18

71.1

76.0

2.05

79 .1

3.2i>

7.9

78.4

3.01

81.7

3.33

75.2

3.27
:3. :\7

;1. 1 !I

3.f>H

a. r. \}

1965

81.7

3.17

83.7

3. \ 1

78. \

0.H5

85.0

3.30

86.8

8I.9

88.7

3.41

8Y.!)

:1 f)1

3.ut>

H5.!)

93.6

3.63

91.5

3.1'5

!1I . 'I

.\ .O:.!
1 .,).)
1 .1 \}

1969

100.0

3.88

100.0

.1. 07

100.0

From the maintenance standpoint , it was felt that the

duties, and therefore wages, would be comparable. The
Nationwide Average of all Maintenance Skills (varying
from janitor to instrumentation repair) for November
1965 was given in [15] as $3.41 /hr which corresponded
to a 1 969 rate of $4.07 according to [ 1 2].
CASTING REPLACEMENT LABOR (Columns
Table

3 and 4,

4)

This was taken to be identical in all respects to the

Normal Maintenance Labor above, in view of similar skills
being involved.
RE FRACTORY REPLACEMENT LABOR (Columns 5
and 6, Table

4)

This work involves bricklaying and is more highly paid

than Normal Maintenance. The National Average Straight
Time for Masonry, Stonework, and Plastering [ 1 6] was
adopted, with its 1 969 rate of $4.9 1 .
INSTA L LED MHF CAP ITA L COST

In practically all cases, capital charges was the largest

item contributing to total MHF cost per annum or per

--

fit

ton of dry solids processed. The conventional method of

financing public works by municipal and other bonds,
typically with a 25-year payoff period, and the custom
of soliciting bids for each individual job from qualified
vendors are the principal factors in determining the
capital charges. It is difficult to establish the exact value
for a piece of equipment such as a furnace because con
tracting is usually by competitive bidding. In the present
case, all the MHF units examined were built by two
vendors: BSP Corporation of San Francisco and Nichols
Engineering and Research Company (NERCO) of New
York. The conversion of original costs (some dating as
far back as 1 938) to 1 969 levels was made according to
Column 1 of Table 3 .
Table 5 gives the breakdown of installed capital costs,
which include the metal and refractory parts of the fur
nace proper, assembled with the various air blowers, fuel
injectors, drive motors, scrubbers, controls, instrumenta
tion, and other accessories necessary to the operation of
the furnace. The installed cost does not include consulting
engineering fees, sludge dewatering, ash handling and
disposal, building, or land. Surprisingly, the field visits
with few exceptions did not produce good capital cost
data - many capital cost figures were approximate or
not known. It was then decided to contact the consulting
engineers on the various installations; in all cases co
operation was excellent and files going back decades

294

Table 5. MHF Installed Capital Cost

( U-Uid)

n!F

No.

Uni t Mllt'
lIearth

Contract

No.
of

Year

MllF's

Aren,Ft2

Location

Source

Ilelllark:i

Clevelantl

1 %3

<1

2327

M i /Ul.-S t. Pnu1

l\.l31l

Minn.-SL. Pnul

1050

2UIl1

Kansas

19G1

2081

Black

Cleveland

1\138

1-125

llnvcJls & EJIlel'son

Ci ty

Engrs.

(CE-COllsulling

1
2B

Orig.

for CoL;

llavens & Emerson

pel' Un i t

Ull"

( 1UOO$)

1!J(j\) Co s t
pCI' lI"i t
UlF
1OUUS)

3 7 ti

(CE)

l' 01tz,KiJl:,! , 1?" nd J

Cost

Amlc rs 011 (CE)

1U51 M-SL.P. Snnitury Di.LIicL

ll" porL ( l\)(.h ,uUlual), p.llu

:o!08'1

& VeaLch

cOlilbust-ion

217

(CE)
(CE); hull<y

prchcllLer

air

inclutleu.
5

BaLtle Creek

l\.1GG

1068

Bnttlc Creek

1960

800

HcNalllcc, POI' LeI' & S e c1ey (CE);

Elaborate conLrols incillued.
Malcolm
cost.. of

Pi1'1lie &

Sag inaw

1116 3

845

lIuuucll, HoLh &

Hntfie1d

1 !Jll7

230

'frucy

\J

Bridgeport

1%4

85

SouLh Tahoe

U)(17

575

Clu"I, (CI';)

197

Inc' . ( CE )

225

253

71

U2

233

2(;2

T 01Lz ,l( illg t Duvull,AndcrRon (CE);

Est,l \l(.'\\'at..l!l'.cosLs suhtl'H:'lt'ti.

81G

903

Ie LeaH w"l

Ed,ly (Cl::)

630

( CE )

8U

Lnginccrs,

B. h'hUSt Illc. (CF);costs

of Ull" componCH ts a\'nilnhlc.

Gcorg:

South Tahoe Puhlic Util. l>isLj

I:;sLd. dc",'a teriJl etc. cos t..s

317

241

Imilding suut.l'acted.

10

Co.(CE); EsLu

380

\lhll'HC t cd.
11

Hi/ln.- St.

12
13

1 065

2808

Saginaw

1 \.16 UB

1560

East Rochester

1 \J63

230

Puu1

EJI:,!;irtttl'

Lozil.r

IIJ

Table 6. Engineering Fee Structure

Correlating Equation: Y
Fee, Pcrc"ll (. of
Installed
Cost

(u!F

Plu5

Bui1dillJ,()
Dollars

Kan:ias

["gin.
Soc.

1\)(;2

Ref.

I I )

led.-Higb

O.5Xo

Installcu COOl

ASC[
Hediall

19Gi

Rc r .

I 18)

Complexity:
Average

Aboy"
A\'g.

(X)

Soc. Prof.

O hio
Soc. Prof.

Eng!'s.

Engrs.

Prc-1\)utl

Pn-l %8

tissouri

Il.pf'.

(J c)

Hillimwn

Rf . I I ")
H i n imwn

Se1cc Lt'u

Abs o l u t e
Etwiuecr0
ing Fee

( I is s our i
"

Hillimuru
Dolla,'s

(Y)

13.0

--

1,300

12.0

--

3,000

12.7

1 1. 0

--

5,500

10.75

10.0

12.0

10,000

12.5

--

25,000

1 l. 1

--

50,000

10. 0

9. 4

100,000

9.0

8.25

;,!OO,OOO

8.0

7.3

9.25

8.25

9.75

16,500

300,000

6. 75

6.85

8.6

7.25

9.0

21,750

400,000

5.9

6.5

8.1

7.0

8.63

28,000

500,000

5.2

6.25

7.75

6.75

8.4

33,750

750,000

4.0

5.85

7.25

6.25

7.6

46,875

1 Million

3.5

5.6

6.8

5.75

7.2

57,500

5 Million

4.75

5.8

4.67

5.84

10,000

295

233,500

yielded desired information and in some cases also cor

rections of field data. One bonus was that the 9 basic
units examined could be expanded to 1 3 , for capital cost
only, because the installed costs of other recently con
structed MHF sludge incinerators were made available to
this program. Hearth area was chosen to be the variable
indicative of capacity because it related directly to hard
ware and so to its first cost.
In three of the units, only combined costs of incinera
tion, dewatering, disposal, etc., were available, so
estimates were made for the incineration cost alone.
Table 5 indicates the data sources and the nature of any
adjustments made. The contract dates are the basis for
dollar cost conversion.
Figure 3 is a log-log plot of the 13 points (cost vs
hearth area). A least-square fit of the points to a power
function resulted in an exponent of 0.60, which happens
to be the "classical" value for chemical process equip
ment. No doubt, this close an agreement is fortuitous but
it does point up the chemical process aspect of incinera
tion. Some inflationary trend was noted with the cost
adjustment chosen in that MHF's for which contracts
had been signed in or after 1 966 tended to fall above the
least-square line, while MHF's ordered before 1 95 1
tended to fall below the line. The equation of the least
square line is the power function.
CCl 5464 (FHA)o . 60
=

12.

"
"

500

&

"

"

f;

7.

200
Doto from
Table

'

13

100

NU.IIIerlll"
nre HIlF
NWllberll

,o ")0
1

2
-L

-L
i UOO
2000
1 000
00
';00
00
Errt'ctive Reart.h Area pt'r HlIY

(AlA.),

8'1 rt

FIG.3 MHF INSTALLED CAPITAL COST

fan and blower horsepower, and wet sludge rate were

straight-line fitted with the following results:
Combustion Air

Blower rated horsepower 0. 1 5 per daily ton of wet

sludge
Air flow at 1 6 osi 1 50 scfm per rated horsepower
i.e., air flow 22.5 scfm per daily ton of wet sludge
=

Cooling Air

For meaning of abbreviated terms, please consult the

Glossary at the end of the paper.

Fan rated horsepower 0.08 per daily ton of wet sludge

Air flow at 8 inches water 450 scfm per rated horse
power i.e., air flow 36 scfm per daily ton of wet
sludge
=

OTHER CAPITA L COST COMPONENTS

COOLING A IR FANS AND COMBUSTION AIR

BUILDING COST

BLOWERS

It is possible to determine the required capacities of

cooling air fans and combustion air blowers given the
,
dimensions of the flow channels, the cooling rate required to maintain adequate apparatus operating life, the
sludge feed rate, and combustion and (including excess
air) requirements. Consideration of heat transfer correla
tions, friction factors, thermodynamics, and stoichiom
etry could then be used to predict the blower and fan
requirements. However, manufacturers of MHF's have
presumably already solved this problem empirically or
otherwise with every furnace delivered. A realistic pro
cedure, then, consists of utilizing information on fans and
blowers collected during the field visits. However, the
field data were incomplete (only half the plants visited
responded). The available data points on air/flowrate,

. Installed capital cost for an MHF never includes the

building, if any, in which the furnace is housed. In many
cases, furnaces are installed in existing buildings, or the
latter may be enlarged. When entirely new buildings ac
company the furnace, the costs may vary widely. In the
1 965 Minneapolis-St. Paul contract (MHF No. 1 1 , Table 5),
one new building 'housed four incinerators with dewater
ing equipment , controls, instrumentation, lockers, lunch
room and service facilities. An estimate of the cost of that
portion of the building applicable to incinerators alone
gave a ratio of building cost to incinerator installed cost
of 0.5 1 3. For the Battle Creek 1 960 contraCt (MHF No. 5)
the same ratio was estimated as 0.667. No other examples
of simultaneous furnace and building construction came
to light. Obviously, the cost of a new building is significant
compared to the MHF installed capital cost.
296

two components that make up a hearth: castings (e.g.,

rabble arms and structural supports) and refractory (brick
lining of horizontal and vertical hearth surfaces).
Table 7 shows that all replacement expenditures per
hearth increase with diameter. Castings are more expensive
than refractories from the material standpoint, while the
amount and unit cost of refractory replacement labor
exceed those for castings (Columns 4 and 6, Table 4).
Correlating polynomials for all four hearth replacement
expenditure items were fitted to the data in Table 7. The
equations are valid for Outer Diameter (HDIA) values
from 6 to 23 feet and apply to replacement of one hearth:

ENGINE ERING FEE

Under the current system of contracting for treatment

plant equipment, a fairly consistent fee structure has
evolved for consulting engineers, as a percentage of the
net construction cost, here taken as the installed cost of
the MHF plus building, if any. Table 6 lists percentages
recommended in the states of Kansas, Missouri, and Ohio
[ 1 7] and by the American Society of Civil Engineers
[ 1 8] . For the present purpose, the Missouri fee structure
was selected as being in the middle of the range of fee
structures examined. The least-square power law fit for
this structure, in the cost range from $ 1 0,000 to
$5 ,000,000 is
,

EFC

0.5 (CCI

CAST 1 08 1 -220 HDIA + 89.5

(HDIA)l.S

On-Site Castings
Material

BGC)846

On-Site Refractory REFR 458 -1 20 HDIA + 1 4.6

Material
(HDIA)2
=

LAND COST

Casting Man-Hours CLH 7.47-0. 1 05 HDIA + 0.0299

(HDIA)2
=

One of the advantages of an MHF (which is built "up"

rather than "out") is the small land area occupied. Four
available data points were used to establish a ratio of
land area to superficial circular area based on MHF outer
diameter. This ratio was found to be KLA 4.938. In all
cases, the land area is a small fraction of an acre, and thus
a minor cost item.

RLH 69 . 1 -0. 1 05 HDIA + 0.530

(HDIA)2.2s

Refractory
Man-Hours

Frequency of hearth replacement should preferably be

based on the lifetime history of an MHF. Part of a life
time replacement history was available fot the three
Minneapolis-St. Paul units commissioned in 1 940, during
the period 195 1 to 1 965 . Table 8 compiles the number of
hearth castings and refractories replaced during the 15year period. For the castings, it was assumed that each
rabble arm replaced was equivalent to casting and each
tooth to 1 /40 casting. The result is that the equivalent of
44 hearth castings and 1 0 hearth refractories were re
placed during years 1 1 through 2 5 . With the assumption
that the replacement frequency for the first 1 0 years was

HEARTH REP LACEMENT MATER IAL, LABOR,

AND FREQUENCY

During the life of an MHF, it may become necessary

to replace one or more hearths because of their deteriora
tion due to exposure to high temperature and to heating/
cooling cycles. Based on hardware experience, estimates
were made for material and labor required to replace the

Table 7. Hearth Replacement Material and Labor

Cas tings

( One

Hearth

Ref rae tory

( One

Hearth

Outer
Diameter, Ft

( 13.5

in Wall)
"1IDIAII

On-Site Material,

19G!J $

nCAST"

Labor,

Man-Hours
"ClJ I"

On-Site Mntcrial,

19t19 :S

" IU1,'U"

I,abor,

Han-Hours

"nul"

10.75

1907

10

913

192

14.25

2695

12

1661

288

16.75

3410

14

2365

3:JG

18.75

44115

16

3542

480

22.25

5511

20

4950

610

297

Table

8. 15 Years Hearth Replacement History: Three Minneapolis-St. Paul MHF's

(Operating Since

1939)

8 Hearths 20 Arms + 138 Teeth

Each MHF:

Cas tings
Rabble

MIIF },- 0
Year

I l)!) J
1 ')'j
1\.153

I
,

iro

1954

3,

Arms

All
AlJ
.UJ

Rabble

Teeth

}; 0

Heanlt No.

Refractor...

/
1/
1/ 4
All
2/2
2'3
/
2/4
l/All
2/All
3/All

Equiv.

f)
-

Hearth"

Equiv.

f)

0.50

1.00

<)

0.50

0.55

1.25

1.85

0.05

Total

Equiv.

0.60

;J

Hearth

No.

O.iiO

, Q

Total

1
1
1

1 2

1955

All
1 1

1\:15G

1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964

19G5

/
1/3,4,6
2/1
AlJ
All
All
All
1/
3/
3/
4/
1/

81

2.00

25

1.50

3.50

0.50

0.75

51

1.25

2.00

3.75

0.10

--

0.10

58

1.45

16

8.0

9.45

I
--

--

18

0.50

1/

2/
3/
1/

1.10

0.20

12

11

6.0

7.40

0.5

0.50

0.75

1.25

5.00

6.10

1.00

0.05

0.75

0.075

0.50

0.58

20

0.80

--

0.50

0.50

--

1.25

--

1.25
0.5

0.50

--

1.25

--

1.0

1.00

--

0.12

5-

1 .40

1
1

55

44

0.125

15-Year Totals

1 .25

42.90

10
,

--.- . ---

.-

298

NORMAL MA INTENANCE MATER IA L AND LABOR

only half of that during years 1 1 through 25 , the follow

ing tabulation results:
Castings
Hearths replaced dur ing years 1 1

Multiple-hearth furnace maintenace has a periodic

component (hearth replacement, see previous section)
and a continuous component (normal maintenance). The
latter involves, for the most part, regularly scheduled in
spection (for wear, corrosion, and failure), servicing (e.g.,
lubrication of rotating machinery) and adj ustment (e.g., of
instrumentation) of all MHF components that may under
go changes as a result of operation and mere exposure to
the environment.
The field survey produced sketchy and incomplete in
formation. In particular, normal maintenance was some
times lumped in with operation or hearth replacement.
Frequently, labor and material (the latter called Parts and
Supplies) were often reported as a combined dollar ex
penditure. The variables to be correlated were assumed to
be expenditures per elapsed calendar time, rather than per
operating time, because normal maintenance efforts and
environmental deterioration are both related to calenda:
time. Physical size, expressed as hearth area was taken as
the independent variable, although its influence would be
expected, and, in fact, was found to be minor.
Table 9 shows data from six MHF's for normal mainte
nance material and labor, Fig. 4 is a plot for parts and
supplies, and Fig. 5 a similar plot for labor, both for

Refractories
10

42.9

through 25 ( i n 3 M H F 's, each 8

hearth)
Equivalent M H F's replaced d u r i n g

1 .79

0.42

0.60

0. 1 4

2.39

0.56

(CR L )

( R R L)

years 1 1 through 25
Equivalent M H F 's replaced d u r i ng
years 1 through 1 0 (at half rate of
years 1 1 through 25)
Equivalent M H F 's replaced d u r i ng
total 25-year l ife

Conditions at Minneapolis-St. Paul were relatively "mild",

e.g., temperatures below 1600 F, primary sludge with
high total solids, no sulfur in the auxiliary fuel, and, per
haps most important, 24 hr/day (HPD) operation, This .
meant few cooldown/heatup cycles and consequent low
thermal stress. It was decided to use the replacement
rates above (rounded oft) for all 24 HPD furnaces, and a
rate twice as high (to account for increased cycling) for all
furnaces which operated less than 24 hr/day, i.e.:
CRL 2.5 for HPD 24 and 5 .0 for HPD less than 24
RRL 0.5 for HPD 24 and 1.0 for HPD less than 24
=

Table 9. Yearly Normal Maintenance Material and Labor

Par t

JIe ar t h
.

Area

N o. .

o .

Lo.catio.n

Hinn . -S t . Pnul

Kansas

C i ty

U !F '

l ies

Pel' UU-'
I DG U $/Yr .
"A.'Il' "

Labo.r

Year

All
oa" 1 s
$/ Y r .

:!Ot:H

1%5

, r, 92

, 1 78

1 !)ij5

20tH

1 90 9

5 , OUO

1 , UG7

1 UtiU

Sq . F t . /UIF

o.f

)UIF

IlUt! Su

" FlL\"

/tLlw

Ycar

Da ta

Hall-I l l'

Yr

Pc' l' )11 iJ'

E.xpc n d i lurc

$ 1 :! , O!11

( 1 Hlli." s )
$ 1<1 , UUIJ"
( 3 Hill.' s )

0, \' '.1'1"
. ,

M':-: 0

I , 1 73

Bat t l e

Ba t tle Creek

Saginaw

Bridgep o. r t

Creek

1 068

3 , 000

l OU9

89 0

1969

85

l , OUU
lOU\l

1 , 5UO

2 , 400

2 , '100

2 , UOU*

2 , 00U

1969

815

1 , 500
(2
1 \lU \I

I \lti 9

*Estimate
Correla ting Equations :

nnd Suppl ies :

AMSY

Labo. r :

ANMM

FHA )
570 (

0 . 023

1 2 0 ( FUA )

0 . 307

, Han-fir

1969

per

year

per year

299

Ial\-nr

mu" s )

72U HIUl-Ilr

*" (,)1
"

of

To. till

((; . 3
}bll-Ili' /lay)
-

La b o r

Parts

2 , OUU

I , Uilil
720

IUU

f-

'

I!-

7
9

(,

f-

It;
1-"

Data from
Tublc 9

Numerals
-r rOIl! MIIF
Numb ers

, , I I

')00
50

r;oo

oo

100

I I II

, I

-L
5000

2000

1000

FIG.4 COSTS OF NORMAL MAINTEN ANCE PARTS AND

SUPPLIES

w
: oo

"

--

1000

:: >oS
,-

0
0 0:
;..- ,
=

"

'j00

r
tt-

t250

, ,

tt- '

r
r

Co

"

,..
,..

-= =

,..

f-

- <
"
-

..

7.

Dote from
Table 9

",..

Numcrlt I s
or(' MHF
NumbcT8

I I I I

I I I I

'j0

100

I I

'jOO

200

I -L-L-.l

1000

ooo

-L
1)000

FIG.5 NORMAL MAINTEN ANCE LABOR

annual expenditures as a function of hearth area. Least

square power law fits for these curves are as follows:
Annual Parts and
Supplies
AMSY 570 (FHA)o.023, 1 969 Dollars
Annual Labor ANM M 1 20 (FHA)o .307, Man-Hours
=

OPERAT ING LABOR

Since this item is usually the second-largest component

of the total annual cost (the fust being capital charges)
considerable effort was expended in obtaining realistic
data. These are listed in Table 10 where the raw data are
converted to Equivalent (i.e., considering supervision)
Nonsupervisory Man-Hours per MHF per 24 hour Operat
ing Day (qJMD). In the absence of other information, the
nonsupervisory man-hours were increased by 1 0 percent
to account for the cost of supervision. Where supervisory
man-hours were available, a supervisory hourly rate 1
times the nonsupervisory rate was adopted.
Figure 6 is a plot of the 1 0 points of Table l O on a
qJMD vs FHA log-log graph. The data indicated that there
was a minimum operating labor level in "small" plants,

independent of the MHF size. This level was taken to be

CllMD 6. These plants, too, operated the MHF on 8-hour
shifts (compared to round-the-clock operation for the
other plants), contributing to higher specific labor costs.
The remaining points (except two) were correlated by a
45-degree line (indicating direct proportionality), which
met the minimum qJMD at FHA 7 1 9. The correlation
then becomes
For FHA equal to less than 7 1 9 sq ft : CllMD 6
For FHA greater than 7 1 9 sq ft : qJMD 0.008343 (FHA)
For two points which lie below the correlating line on
Fig. 6 represent Saginaw and South Tahoe. In Saginaw,
the incineration is continuous and requires no auxiliary
fuel in view of the 45 weight percent solids content ; at
South Tahoe two other MHF's (for lime recalcination and
and activated carbon regeneration) are part of the same
plant and all three MHF's are operated jointly. Reduced
operating labor would be expected in these two plants,
and the dashed line parallel to the main line represents a
1 /3 reduction, which is reasonable.
A direct proportion relationship means that no ad
vantage in operating labor cost is gained by having fewer
=

300

Table
IDill

10. Operating labor

SHII

N on-supervisory Han-hours

:I

Supervi s o ry

Man-bours
Equival r n l

MIIF
No.

lIearth
Area
Sq Ft /HIlF

No .
of

HlII"

Location

Raw Data ( f or 21-). Opera t i ng Day)

19UU Unl ess StntrI
SHlI ) per Day for

327

( 72 NHlI

:!084

66 NHlI per Day for

20

10jt ( c s t . ) of (Dowater
(80 Equi val ell t IDOl/Day

Cleveland

1425

40 IDOl per Day for 4 WIF ' s ( l U58 )

Battle Creek

1068

8 IDnI per

Battle Creek

Sagina\l(

Ilatfield

230

Bridgeport

85

575

Cleveland

M i nn . -S t .

Kansas

Paul

C i ty

10

South Tahoe

* Equivalent

NHlI

(Es t . )

-Supervisory Hourly

84

O lF ' 8

<I

45

IDUI

6.4

( 1 !J65 )

!f

I n c i n . ) Lauol'
r or :2 fOil'" s )

:-: c

>.
I

: 0

lG.U

1 1 . lI*

1 :1. 8*

Day

1:1.

per Day - No S}Ol

6.1

80jt (est . ) o f Total Labor ( 6 . 3 NMlI per Day)-No SHH

5.0

$ 1 9 . 93/Day at $5.65 Equivalent Hourly Rate

3.5

1 l 0% of Actual IDOl (For Supervision )

(Est . )

150 o f Non-supervisory Hate

_.

'"
-,

'"
Q.
o
0
-

,:3

10

.,.
'!t ':' 1
'. "
0
. -

,H
"

Q.

r-

"
-

rr-

r-

IO

....

f-

Data from

Tabl.

I I
100

200

are MIlF
Nwnb ere

I I I

';00

Effect ive Hearth Area per HIIF'

1000

(F1IA ) ,

FIG . 6 OPERATING LABOR

I
OOO

gil

- - - 1'1(1n18 \d 1 i 1 Luhnr Sn\'ill

301

10

Numf' r n l s

50

';

8*

4 .4*

f-

.",.
.

1 8 . 1C

21 . U

per Day

Nl'UI

l-JIJ .

Opera t.ill:,!;

8 IDUI per Day

Rate

f-

per

O W ' s

IDIII pC I' no'

ft

lJit

larger MHF's in a plant, i.e., there is no "large economy

size." While at first this appears unrealistic, it should be
noted that a recent study of over 1 5 00 U.S. treatment
plants by Michel, Pelmoter, and Palange [ 1 9] was inter
preted by Smith [20] to indicate that the total labor
(mainly operating) was almost directly proportional to
the plant design capacity independent of plant size. Ad
mittedly, this was the result of an overall statistical study
of all types of conventional wastewater treatment plants;
other overall plant studies (e.g., McMichael, [2 1 ] indicate
a savings for larger plants. Obviously, the relation between
operating labor and capacity for specific processes will
vary with the process.
E LECTR ICAL POWER CONSUMPT ION

Good records are usually kept of electrical power

consumption, by kilowatt-hour and dollar. Since power is
consumed mainly during operating periods, a measure of
cumulative power usage is the cumulative tonnage of
treated sludge. The quantity kilowatt-hour per ton dry
solids (PDS) was selected as the variable. Table 1 1 shows
the data points that are plotted on Fig. 7 on a log-log plot
vs FHA. The figure shows that PDS decreases as FHA in
creases. Ten of the 1 1 points were correlated (for FHA up
to 2808 sq ft) by the function
PDS 29.6 - 6.55 x 1 0-9 (FHA- 2808)3 + 4.94x 1 0-! 6
(FHA - 2808)5
=

The one uncorrelated point is for the Minneapolis fur

naces (No. 2) which employed natural draft and had no
wet scrubber, thereby reducing power usage below the
level of the forced draft, wet scrubber installations.
FUEL FOR THERMA L CYC L ING

When MHF's are not operated round the clock, the

question arises of how best to schedule the on-off cycles,
so that MHF life and operating time are not curtailed to
the point of inefficiency. In addition to cycling as part of
the operating schedule, at least one annual cold MHF in
spection is advisable. Due to the inability of refractory to
sustain tensile loads that may result from thermal stresses,
it is important to limit the temperature differences within
the material by limiting the heatup and cooldown rates.
Although experts differ on details, there is a general con
sensus that somewhere in the temperature range from
ambient to operating (say, 70 to 1 5 00 F) a "soak" period
should take-place for reasons of stress equalization within
refractories. In this study, 1 200 F was chosen as the soak
temperature, and also as the "standby" heating tempera
ture, when the furnace is to be inactive for short time
periods, such as overnight, or even weekends. This soaking
should be carried out both during healup and cooldown.
The allowable rates of change of temperature are
lower for large hearth diameters and furnaces than for
small ones, and are usually specified by the manufacturer.

Table 1 1 . Electrical Power Consumption

lIear th
MllF
No .

Location

Area/ MIll'

No.

Sq
Ft
"}'1lA"

of
MI[F ' s

Data
Year

Ac tual Avg . pe r MIIF

Dr y So l i ds

l OOO ' Kllll

T O llS IIY('cLr

per Year

-.

--

KWH

p C I' T o n

Dry S o l i d s
--

- -

3:WO

H t:l

2327

-1

I ()(j 7

20H4

l Uli7

Kansas C i ty

2()H4

' 0 7- ' 0 9

2U;

7272

2 \) . 7

C l eve l and

1425

' 0 2- ' 65

205

10u'!

50 . (;

Bat t l e C re e i<

I Oti8

l V08

2U

HOUO

37.8

Saginaw

8'15

l OG \!

5/11

7 (; 20

71 .0

Hu t f i e l d

230

l \)()()

Bridgeport

85

1 \I{\ \ l

17.3

2808

1 \)68

--

C l eve l and

Hi IUl . -S t .

11

Paul

li rUl . -S t . paul

9 -1 . 7
-

--

--

' ) I ) l )()(
--

I
-

"'Low Va l u e :

Natul'al D r a f t - No We t Scrubber

-Es t i ma t e d frOID lIT' and S l ude F l o w Ratings

" 'Es t i m a t e d from A M l . F l o w R a t e s

302

--

[) . 2"*

9H . ' 17 tl ,I

:F,. 7

1{. t I
-

'

,
"

f-

r
"-

'-

J,

f-

if to

i-

'"
c
c
-

"'l

50

'

II

,- '"

c
0
'-

+'

20

-'

"-

_.

f-

'"

"
--

Data frolD-

Tabho 1 1

.
- '"
"

10

"if,

f-

Nume rals

Numbers

are MHF

50

I ,

200

500

1 000

Effective Hearth Area pr HRF

-'-

OOO

(FHA) , aq

FIG . 7

I ..L I I
')000
1 0 , 000

--'-

ft

MRF No . ) nnt t i ttpet . h1"CflU8f' plant

I llIet 110 ...lt ... crulll",!" 0 " iutlnct" tlrilrt

Note :

fall.

POWER CONSUMPTION

The field reports showed that the large furnaces, in

Minneapolis-St. Paul and Cleveland, are limited to tran
sient rates of 20 to 25 F/hr with soak periods of 1 to 2
days, so that it requires several days to heatup or cool
down a furnace completely. The .allowable temperature
change rates increase to 1 50 F/hr for the smallest MHF's
examined. The duration of the stated transients affects
the steady-state annual MHF operating period and also
the fuel requirements during transients. To limit the
temperature change rates, it is sometimes necessary to
apply heat to an MHF while it is cooling down. In this
study, however, it was assumed that a furnace could be
"bottled up" (Le., all openings closed off) well enough
to avoid the need for heating during cooldown. Moreover,
the heat input rate (Btu/hr) was taken to be the same for
1 ) the presoak ambient to 1 200 F and 2) the postsoak
1200 to 1 500 F periods.
A unified "optimum" operational scheme for all MHF's
was developed with the help of the field data which sug-

gested that the furnaces should be divided into three

operational groups:
(A) (Large Cities)
24 HPD (hours per day)
MHF No. 1 , 2 , 4
7 DPW (days per week)
(also 7)
24 HPD
(B) (Intermediate Cities)
<7 DPW
MHF No. 3 , 5 , and 6
(C) (Small Cities)
24 HPD
Any DPW
MHF No. 8 and 9
First, a Heatup Time (CYT), hours, (also equal to cool
down time) was developed as a function of furnace
hearth area (FHA), based on typical temperature change
rates soak times. Table 12 shows how CYT values were
generated for several FHA levels, and Fig. 8 shows the
resulting CYT vs FHA straight-line-segment graph.
Figure 9 depicts the two types of cycle considered:
a cold cycle for maintenance inspection for all three
groups, and a hot cycle for standby at 1 200 F applicable
to groups (B) and (C). Periods during which fuel is used

Table
Note: Heatup Hours

Effective

Assumed

Ueart.h
Aren, Sq Ft
" fllAlI

Alloynll1e

lien t.up
Rate , 1',/llr.

12. MHF Heatup Rates and Times

Cooldown Hours, but no fuel used during cooldown
Hour. tor Portions ot
o
Complete lleatup (0_1 500 F

"
0-1 200 F .
err

(4/9)

1200 F Sunk

(4/9)

err

1200-1flOU 1"
_

CYT

(1/9)

Total
Jll!atup,
lIours
"CYT"

As.umcd

IIOUl'S 101'
Inspectioll
LYf

("/U)

200 :.t. 200

100

18

1"

600 ,. 200

100

12

12

27

2,

300

15

16

16

3U

32

1100 ,. 300

50

24

24

54

1M

2000

25

48

48

12

108

tiC

1100

:t

303

11

r- -7

q0

:.

:.>

"

:::

,-0

.,

",

.'

--

0
0

0; 0

",

r-

"
-

'"

-.

r
10

I
I
-'

_.J

r.;
.c:::':.J

- - -

- - - Tuble 1 2 Data
Adopted for

Compute-r

1000

Projtrltm

I
":1;0(1(1

FIG . 8 MHF HEATUP TIME

and USBH components in Table 1 3 leads to the following

.
relationships for totaJ hours:
(A) YSBH (8/9) (CYT) (N0F-SN0)/(N0)
YHUH ( 1 0/9) (CYT) (N0F-SN0)/(N0F)
(B) YSBH (N0F-SN0) [(8/9) (CYT) + 1 248 (7-DPW)]
/(N0F)
YHUH (62/9) (CYT) (N0F-SN0)/(N0F)
[(N0F-SN(,? /(N0F)] [(8/9) CYT] +
(C) YSBH
[8736-52 (HPD) (DPW)]
YHUH [(N0F-SN0)/(N0F] (CYT/9)
( 1 0 + (52 DPW)]
From the field data, hourly standby and heatup heat re
quire men ts, in.terms of million Btu/hr, were developed as
functions of the effective hearth area. Table 1 4 shows the
available data, reasonable on heatup and scant on standby.
Linear least-square equations are fitted to the standby
data, plotted on Fig. 1 0, and the heatup data plotted on
Fig. 1 1 :
Standby Heat Requirement,
SBQ 3 1 5 (FHA)
Btu/hr
Heatup Heat Requirement,
HUQ 1 9 1 3 (FHA)
Btu/hr
As might be expected, the standby requirement is a small
fraction of the heatup requirement. The sum of the
products (YSBH) (SBQ) and (YHUH) (HUQ) is the
total annual heat requirement for thermal cycling. Division
of this sum by the heating value (Btu/lb) of the fuel to be
used then provides the annual fuel consumption for
thermal cycling. The thermal cycling fuel is in addition to
steady-state fuel needed (if any) as determined by the
incinerator heat balance.

1101' CYCIJl

..

0
=

1500

1200

11-

No Fuel
Standby FU('l

,::
1/9

::h

Night

W'cakcnd
etc.
I

I1catup Fuel

Time (CYT uni t s )

...
1/9

IIcutup

COlJ) CYCU,

Fuel

No Fup 1
..

Standby Fue 1

1500

loLl intcnoncc
Inspection

1200

d
-

0
...

1
'
1--

-I

R/9

1/9

FIG . 9 ASSUMED MHF THERMAL CYCLES

at the heatup rate, standby rate, or not at all are indicated

on the figure.
Next, the total yearly cycling hours per MHF (YHUH)
and yearly hot standby hours per MHF (YSBH) were
established for each operational group in terms of CYT,
N0F (total number of MHF's in plant) and SN0 (number
of standby MHF's). This information is detailed in
Table 1 3 which assumed two complete "cold cycle" in
spections per year. To model standby units, it was as
sumed that the load was evenly distributed among all
furances on an annual basis. Combination of the YHUH

304

Table

13. Yearly Cold. Heatup. and Stall dby Hours Per MH F

Assumption: Load evenly distributed among N 0 F on annual basis

.

Ilr .

Day s

t i onal

per

pe r

Day

We e k

G r o up

I[PD

DPW

Ope r a -

2<1

(A )

C o l d lIo u r s
N o Fue l

U s ed)

of

Cy cl e
Col

l I o ll r
1''' 1'

Type

17

(n)

\i

17

lIo t

<24

(C)

Any

Co l d

\)

xy

17

\)
1

fIo t

xy

\)

Y e ur

"Y

Cold

<7

per

Cy c l c

110 t

21

Cy c l e s

2
52

xy

5 2 DPW

xy

( O - l :!()lJ ,

It.r s .

1 10 1 1 " "

per
Y e ar

:11

()

xy

per

[,

:I-l

V
3,\

5::!
\)

xy
xy

xv

xy

Cyd e

Y e ur

--

xy

.)
-

G2

xy

xy

1
xy

[, 2 DPW

\)

CYT ; y

(NF-SN )/NF

Table

.
ll
i
No.

1
.

Location

ClovelcUlu
Hiun . -

S t . Pl\ul

Kansas City

Cl eveland

5 , 6 Battle
Creek

'h

Area
"FIlA"

ISq.F t .

Opg .

:.J27

l OG6

20H'1

I lJ

xy

per

III

V
r,!,!
U

10

xy

xy

2084

'I

Oil,
Gal

(B tU )
Gal
H l , 535

( 1 . a9xl0 5 :

rr.. tfie1d

230

1969

85

1 96 9

\J

xy

y[8,;I\;

.:""} "

f)

-5 ( l U'O ) ( 01'1. \

S - DPW

( 7-WI\ )

Ii

.)
-

' ( :!.I -IU'D)

xy

1 :!18

5 !:!

Gas ,
Cu Ft
( Btu )
Cu l't
20 7

(GUO)

Standat,
by ,
"
Dny/Yr

,.

.]

2 2 98

130 . 5

Heat

(
lOt,

Fue l

Q ty .

Bt u

Unit

He,
)

5\

/
1

25, 000

506
-

55 . 1
--

. 383

. 3 58

(;u njWk
( 880 )

1 4 , 000
Cu ' .

t;9

flOO
G a l/ C r;
1 . 4xlO i )
(HOU

Cu F l/Cy

(9aG )
ijU
Ga1/ C ):
1 . .1xI UV)

305

IAvg.

l I at
e

H a tc ,
1 i lltu

10

MIlFJ
l Iea t

Cy/Yr p e r nl' ,
ti
(llr/Cy) l U B tu

. 734
25, 70U

xy

u n ('

..

Xy

6
204
3 .15>:10
1425 162-65
(Avg ) II(1 .39xl05 ) ( 600)
1068 , 1969
400/1Ir
8 00
(896)

1 9G9

--

( 7 -DI'II' )
-

xy

0 1

..

52
xy :!.[ Y 7 -DI'I'!
U

1969

845

xy

xy

Y t ' i t l'

--

NUlie

pt I'
)'t ' i l l'

I H' I '

C y c l l'
-

I I .. , .

14. Thermal CYCling Heat Requirements Per MH F

1 59

Saginaw

Bridgeport

Y"UI'

J :! lJlJ'\')

C \" ' l l'

1 I0llrs

II" ., .
P L' !'

. DPW

. DPW

Abbreviations I

(,,-i

.)
-

xy

-5

J :!lJl I- i .-,UU''t-

per

Cy c l ,'

N Olle

S I.a I I 0 1 by l I u r s

1 I c a tu!, l l o l l "

JiJ7:.!
Y

pel'
; .

22

per
Week

1 2 . 54

per
Week

126

per
1e

5 . 71

per

Cy c l e

1.4

p r' r

Cy r. l (

1 [;

(GU)
1 per

Week
( ::; )

1 per
7 ek

(U)

3 . 97
4.4

1 . 39

(, )

1 . 75

(1)

U . 475

(a)

0 . 167

t;

0.8

r------r--+---

0.6

r----r--

"
+' -=

"

o ..
"
..
= +'
,.. '"

J!

=
... 0
=
"

0.4

'-r

--

----

--t.r--::
:-6

----

,, :0:
"C
c
o
...

<r.

0.2

1------:
Data from Table 1 4
Nwaerah are
MBF Number.

1000

2000

Effl'ctivl' HNlrtll ArC'll (II..'T MIfF

FIG. 10

(FIlA ) ,

JOOO

R I I rt

MHF STANDBY HEAT REQUIREMENT

_ ,E
,
E
.

"

Co

, 1------r---7L-----

"
..
....
,

'"

,::

III

C
0

....

::: ....

= -

----'------I

0. >:
"

...

'\

I---------+---_+--
Datu

from Tab l e 1 4

Numc r . l R fire
HHF Numbers
o

1000

FI G.1 1

JOOO

2000

MHF HEATUP HEAT REQU I REMENT

FUE L FOR STEADYSTATE OPERATION

A basic MHF energy balance matches the combined

heat energy contained in the incoming sludge and auxiliary
fuel to the sum of the outgoing heat flows. The latter are
associated with the exhaust gases (including heat required
for evaporation of the water content of the sludge), the
ash, the part of the cooling air rejected to the atmosphere,
and the furnace heat losses to the environment. The
steady-state fuel requirements can then be found when

sludge properties, minimum percent excess air, tempera

tures of the exhaust stream, and some minor parameters
are specified .
Another approach to finding steadystate fuel require
ments is to' examine the records of operating sludge in
cinerators for historical sludge and fuel flows and
properties. The sum of the heat energies released by the
sludge and fuel, normalized on the basis of some MHF
capacity variable, might be proven of value as an empirical
guideline. Of several tried, the quantity Total (Fuel +

306

Table
a

HIIF
No .

Ye ar

o c at i on

Clevel and

Minn . -St .

Kansas

Cleveland

llat t 1 e Creek

6
7

C i ty

Battle Creek

Saginaw

Bridgeport

Vo l n-

Per

tiles

9 , 530

13 . 7

1 9GG'

1 0 , 000

71 .8

67-69

1 0 , 500

59 . 9

62-65

1 0 , 070

43 . 9

Hili 7

1 9(;8

1UGU
1

964
1 96 5
1 96 7
l !1 G

1 9G 7
10G9

Hatfield

Wt.%

.)
1 06

1 9 66

10

10

1 3 , 970

1%9

1 969

Dry

4
10

1 7000jLb .

ttu
Ton
Sol

8 . 33
8 . 25

13. 3

14.1

U9 . 5

13.9
1

57 . 0

S l tulge

5.4

3 . 0

3 . 1 li

0 . 37 5

27 . 5

.l . Otl

4 . 88

4 . 25

0 . 50

2:.1 . 1
28 . 2

2 . 9
4

. 06

23.4

3 . 1 -1

2U . 0

1 . 4 7
.1 1 0)

2.7

13 . 2

( cst.)

13.0

12 . 5

13.0
14.3

14.0

Dry Sol .
(cst. )
I

Avg . Total
(}'ue + S1 udc )
lOu D tu pc,.
'r on Wn t S l ud)!c

4.0

401 . 8
itl 7
48 . 2
51 . 1

Av/!: . Tot.
S o l i(l s ,
Wi. . ; I I I

\l . 4

11.7

G3 . 7

All Fuel
(r . Avll. ' )
l Oll n tu p('r
'ron Dry :-;01 .

" 7.IX+Y)"

2\l . 4

11.3

5li . 5
58 . 4

' Z"

1.0

11.0

5'\ .

,.I

2 . (;

11.4

1 0G8

\' .. .

D tujLb
or
Period Volati les

1%7
Paul

15. Total MHF Heat Release

4 . 'IG

6 . 15

7 . (;0

3.

-15
1 . 18
None

:20 . 1

:24 . 7

2G .
21 . 7 5

1il . 9
'1 j
1 7
11l .

-14 . 0

O . ' s t.)
1 3 . 5 ( cs t.)

4.G7

4 . 03

4 . 17

5 . 7'1
G.1

G.2

G 1I

. 2
--

3 . 78

* A s sumed v a l u e

MHF or perhaps a smaller amount of excess air and cool

ing air than is in use elsewhere.

Sludge) Heat Release in million Btu/ton wet sludge ap

peared to be the most useful. Table 1 5 gives average
annual fuel and sludge data for all the furnaces visited in
the field. The Total Heat Release computed from these
data appears in the last column, with values varying be
tween 3 and 7.
The Total Heat Release is between 3.5 and 4.5 for
most of the furnaces investigated. Values much above
4.5 are probably excessive (since they are out of step
with the current practice) and could indicate either higher
exhaust stream temperatures than in most incinerators,
or excessive use of cooling or combustion air. The highest
value listed in Table 1 5 , 7.0 for Saginaw, is the result of
1 ) the high calorific value of the sludge volatiles and
2) the high concentration of solids in the sludge. The
Saginaw MHF could be operated quite well with a much
wetter sludge, thereby reducing filtration costs or could
be used as a source of thermal energy for other tasks.
The Kansas City MHF plant also appears to operate at
a high heat usage per ton of sludge. Since the Kansas City
sludge has about an average solids content and heat re
lease, the reason here would appear to be the use of
excess fuel perhaps accompanied by enough excess air to
maintain a reasonable exhaust temperature.
The Cleveland MHF's, on the otherhand, have a Total
Heat Release of about 3. This is quite low and indicates
a colder exhaust temperature then the average operating

CONC LUS IONS AND RECOMMENDAT IONS

In-depth data from field visits to installations of various

sizes with preferably lengthy and well-documented operat
ing histories have proven essential in providing needed in
formation for estimation of component costs of MHF
sludge incineration. The cost data remain continually use
ful since they are tied to economic indicators that are
published year after year. The estimates derived from
this work should be compared with actual costs associated
with new incinerators; such feedback should be incorpo
rated in the formulations to reflect Significant changes in
the cost structure as advances are made in the field.
G LOSSARY

AMSY Yearly normal maintenance material cost per

MHF, dollars/year
ANM M Yearly normal maintenance labor per MHF,
man-hours/year
BGG
Cost of incinerator building, dollars
CAST On-site cost of castings for one hearth, dollars
CCI
Installed capital cost, dollars

307

Castings replacement labor for one hearth,

man-hours
Complete MHF castings replaced during MHF
CRL
life (SLF), number
Total heatup cycle time, hours
CYT
Weekly incineration schedule, days/week
DPW
Engineering fee, dollars
EFC
FHA
Effective hearth area per MHF, sq ft
HDIA MHF outer diameter ( l 3.5-inch wall), feet
HPD
Daily incineration schedule, hours/day
Heatup heat requirement per MHF for 0 to
HUQ
1 200 F and 1 200 to 1 500 F heating, Btu/hour
Multiple hearth furnace
MHF
Total number of MHF's
N(/)F
Daily operating labor per MHF, man-hours/240MD
hour operating day
Electrical power consumption rate, kilowatt
PDS
hours/ton dry solids
REFR On-site cost of refractory for one hearth, dollars
RLH
Refractory labor for one hearth, man-hours
RRL
Complete MHF refractories replaced during
MHF system lifetime (SLF)
Hot standby ( 1 200 F) heat requirement per
SBQ
MHF, Btu/hour
SN(/)
Number of standby MHF units
YHUH Yearly heatup hours per MHF
YSBH Yearly standby hours per MHF
CLH

Conference on Sanitary Engineering, University of Kansas,

January 1 966.
[ 9 ) Mick, K. L. and S. E. Linsley, "An Examination of Sewage
Solids Incineration Costs," Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 1 04,
No. 1 1 , pp. 479-487, November 1 9 5 7 .
[ l O ) Marshall and Stevens Equipment Cost Index (Average
and Clay Products), Chemical Engineering, 5 March 1 962, p. 1 25
( 1 9 1 3- 1 9 6 1 ) ; 5 May 1 969, p. 1 37 ( 1 95 0- 1 968); 2 3 March 1 970,
back flap ( 1 964-1969).
[ 1 1 ) Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index,
Business Statistics, 1 967 Biennial, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of B usiness Economics ( 1 9 39-1 966); Construction Review,
January 1 970, p. 42 ( 1 964-1969).
[ 1 2 ) Plant Maintenance Cost Index, McGraw-Hill Department
of Economics, 330 W. 42nd Street, New York, New York
( 1 947-1969).
[ 1 3 ) Plant Cost Index (Average and Process Machinery),
Chemical Engineering, 25 April 1 966, p. 1 8 8 ( 1 947 -1 965 );
5 May 1 969 ( 1 950-1968).
[ l 4 ) Average Hourly Gross Earnings per Non-Supervisory
Worker in Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services, Business Statistics,
1 967 Biennial, U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of
Business Economics ( 1 9 5 8 - 1 9 66) ; Monthly Employment and
Earnings, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor
( 1 967-1 969).
[ 1 5 ) "Industrial Wage Survey-Industrial Chemicals," Bulletin
1529, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor,
October 1 966.
[ l 6 ) Masonry, Stonework , and Plastering (Straight Time
Earnings, National Average), Monthly Employment dnd Earnings,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor ( 1 9581969).
[ 1 7 ) Smith, R., "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treat
ment of Wastewater, Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed. , Vol. 40,

REFERENCES

No. 9, pp. 1 5 46- 1 5 7 4 , September 1 968.

[ 1 8 ) American Society of Civil Engineers, Civil Engineering,

[ 1 ) Unterberg, W., R. J. Sherwood, and G. R. Schneider,

"Computerized Design and Cost Estimation for Multiple-Hearth
Sludge Incinerators," Report 1 7 070 EBP 07/7 1 , U . S . Environ
mental Protection Agency , July 1 97 1 .
[ 2 ) Burd, R. S., "A Study of Sludge Handling and Disposal,"
U.S. Department of the Interior, FWPCA Report WP-20-4,
May 1 968.
[ 3 ) Isheim, M.

c., "The Multiple Hearth Furnace," BSP

p. 3 1 , October 1 967.
[ 1 9 ) Michel, R. L., A. L. Pelmoter, and R. C. Palange,
"Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Waste Treatment
Plants," Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 4 1 , No. 3,
pp. 335-35 4, March 1 969.
[ 2 0 ) Smith, R., "Estimation of Operating and MainteQance
Cost for Wastewater Treating Processes," Internal FWPCA
Memorandum, 30 April 1 969.
[ 2 1 ) McMichael, W. F., "Operating and Maintenance Costs,"

Corporation, San Francisco, June 1 969.

Internal FWPCA Memorandum, 9 August 1 968.

[ 4 ) Owen, M. B., "Sludge I ncineration," Paper 1 1 72 Journ.

,

San. Eng. Div., A mer. Soc. Civil. Engrs. , Vol. 8 3, No. SA- I ,
pp. 1 1 7 2-1 through -25 , February 1 95 7 , and "Sewage Solids

AC KNOWLEDGMENTS

Combustion," Water and Sewage Works, pp. 442-4 4 7 , October

1 95 9 .
[5 ) MacLaren, J . W . , "Evaluation of Sludge Treatment and
Disposal," Canadian Municipal Utilities, pp. 23-33, 5 1 -59, May
1961.
[ 6 ) Sebastian, F. P. and P. J . Cardinal, "Solid Waste Disposal,"
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 7 5 , No. 2 2 , pp. 1 1 2-1 1 7 , October
1 968.
[ 7 ) Quirk , T. P., "Economic Aspects of Incineration versus
Incineration-Drying," (from Sludge Concen trationFiltration and
Incineration, Continued Education Series No. 1 1 3 , University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, p. 389), 1 964.
[ 8 ). Weller, L. W. and W. R. Condon, "Problems in the Design
of Sludge Incinerating Systems," Proceedings 16th Annual

This work was sponsored by the Office of Research and

Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, and was
monitored by Dr. J . B. Farrell as Project Officer. Messrs.
K. W. Fertig and W. H. Moberley performed the computer
programming. Messrs. L. Lombana and R. Stroshane
carried out the field visits.
The Field Survey of MHF Sewage Sludge I ncinerators
could not have been accomplished without the coopera
tion of the municipal authorities who frequently assisted

308

in furnishing records, and , in particular, the pa tience and

courtesy of the plant personnel who provided performance
and operational information. Thanks are due to personnel
at the fQllowing cities and plants:

Cleveland Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant,

Ohio

Minneapolis-St. Paul Sanitary District, Minnesota

Kansas City Big Blue River Sewage Treatment Plant,

Missouri

Battle Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, Michigan

Saginaw Sewage Treatment Plant, Michigan

Hatfield Township Sewage Treatment Plant,

Pennsylvania

Bridgeport Sewage Treatment Plant, Pennsylvania

South Tahoe Public Utility District, California

Especially helpful were Mr. Maurice L. Robins, Super
intendent and Chief Engineer, and Mr. Scott E. Linsley,
Assistant Chief Engineer, both at Minneapolis-St. Paul,
who sent records covering over two decades of incinerator
operation. Additional information was also provided by
Mr. Walter Tresville, Director, Cleveland Southerly Plant,
and Mr. David Evans, South Tahoe.

Information on installed cost, some going back over

30 years, was obtained from personnel associated with
the following consulting firms:

Havens and Emerson, Cleveland, Ohio

Toltz, King, Duvall, Anderson & Associates, St.

Paul, Minnesota

Black & Veatch, ConSUlting Engineers, Kansas City,

Missouri

McNamee, Porter and Seeley, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Malcolm Pirnie Engineers, White Plains, New York

Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc., Bloomfield Hills,

Michigan

Tracy Engineers, Inc., Lemoyne, Pennsylvania

George B. Mebus, Inc., Willow Grove, Pennsylvania

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Engineers, Boston,

Massachusetts

Lozier Engineers, Rochester, New York

Welcome assistance on economic indicators was given by
Messrs. Greenwald and Norden, McGraw-Hill Department
of Economics, New York and Mr. Robert Ball, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
D.C.
,

309