From: Schimmel, Terry (Bricks - Phenix City) [mailto:Terry.Schimmel@boral.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:58 AM

To: Nizich, Sharon

Cc: Susan Miller

Subject: Gleason Brick PM Test Values

Sharon,

Please find the attached very brief memo I have put together for Gleason. If you have any further 

questions of need more please let me know.

Thanks,

Terry

TERRY SCHIMMEL 

Consultant

Boral Bricks Inc.

Office: (334) 480-2488 

Mobile: (706) 575-6213 

Fax: (334) 291-3237 

4 Digit Dial (Internal Use Only): 2488 

Email: Terry.Schimmel@boral.com

 

<< Gleason 6-11-2015.docx>>

100 Brickyard Road Phenix City Alabama 36869

http://www.boralbricks.com

http://www.boralbuildingproducts.com

 
1 

June 11, 2015

Subject: Boral comments with regard to PM results of Gleason 1998 stack testing

The below comments are submitted with respect to why the PM emissions may be lower than for some 

other source tests in the current EPA database as well as whether similar testing done currently on the 

Gleason kiln would produce similarly low numbers.

1. The Gleason kilns were built by Harrop Industries around 1960 and were of a design dating back 

to the earliest tunnel kilns. These kilns were supplied with a low velocity naturally aspirated 

combustion system and were operated substantially unchanged until modifications were 

initiated starting in May 1997 but not fully completed until late in 1999. The modifications 

included the installation of a forced air high velocity combustion system, flame safety on 

preheat burners, the addition of high velocity preheat burners, crown high velocity burners and 

4 zones of automatic temperature control. Additionally crown baffles and hearth narrowing 

partition walls were added to increase air velocities through the brick loads rather than around 

them. An exact timetable of what was done when as it relates to the 1998 stack test in question 

is unknown.

2. In 2008 a major project to install a producer gas system to both generate a combustible gas as 

well as combust it in the kilns was undertaken. Modifications included additional burner ports 

and various air baffling modifications. This trial was abandoned after several year of minimal 

success and the onset of lower natural gas pricing. Much of the system has hence been removed 

but some modifications remain.

Given bullet point 1 and 2 above it is suspected that the PM results achieved in the 1998 tests would not 

be achievable if tested today as further explained in the below bullet points. 

1. As originally configured these kiln had very low product scrubbing air velocities relying more on 

radiation and conduction and less on convection to supply energy to the product. This was a 

result of both low velocity combustion systems as well as a lower area ratio of product cross 

section vs. tunnel cross section. The above mentioned modifications as well as the designs of 

modern kilns result in much higher air velocities around and through the product as well as 

across the car decks etc. These higher air velocities can be expected to stir and entrain more 

material that will be caught as PM in a stack test. Kilns with high velocity under deck firing 

systems which Gleason is not could be expected to entrain even more PM.

2. The production rate in the 1998 test was 5.9 TPH vs. a design rate of 9.8 TPH. Operation at 

around 60% of capacity would have resulted in less combustion system velocities as well as 

lower exhaust volumes and subsequently a lesser potential of PM generation or entrainment 

from the product, kilns cars or other sources internal to the kiln. Operation at this lower capacity 

also results in a compression of the temperature curve with less input from the higher velocity 

preheat burners and recirculation systems located just upstream of the exhaust takeoff ports.

In summary there are many reasons why the Gleason PM numbers may be lower than other test results 

from both controlled and uncontrolled kilns as well as why a stack test done today would likely not 
2 

return similarly low PM numbers. Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarification 

of any of the above.

Terry Schimmel-Consultant for Boral Bricks Inc.