1999 Operating Seminar Jim Willa, Willa, Inc. – Welcome to the 1999 Operating Seminar.

We here to answer question for you the best we can, but that is just the first effort. The major effort comes from those of you who ask questions and tell your experience. If you weren’t able to get in a written question, don’t worry you can use any of the microphones to get your question presented. I would like to introduce the Operating Seminar Committee. I’m Jim Willa the chairman. We have Tom Laronge with Thomas M. Laronge, Inc., past President of CTI, now serving as CTI Journal Chair. Tom has 32 years in water treating. We also have Jim Baker, 15 years as a user of cooling towers. Jim has been on the CTI Board of Directors, past Chair of the Performance & Technology Committee and is currently Chair of the Education Committee. He has worked 15 years with a major producer and 5 years with a cooling tower manufacturer company. Jim will introduce the rest of the committee. One other thing I would like to mention is that this entire committee, with the Y2K problem in mind, has switched from our current computer to the newest and best model. Both of which guarantee Y2K compliant. So we’re in. Jim Baker, Marley Cooling Tower Company – Before introducing the rest of the panel I want to remind you of the green and yellow sheets in front of you. The green sheet is an evaluation form for the technical papers and panel discussion today. The yellow one is the evaluation form for the Operating Seminar. Please take time to fill those out, that is the input we work from to improve future meetings. The remaining panel members are Don Johnson, Research Fellow with Nalco Chemical with 25 years of experience in the industry. Don has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Iowa State. He is an inductee in the National Corporate Inventures Hall of Fame, a member of NACE, Chairman of NACE T7A-21 and a member of CTI. Next is Ken Mortensen of Marley Cooling Tower Company. Ken is a chemical engineer. Graduated in 1977 from MIT. He has been with Marley for 20 years and is company Manager of Materials Engineering. He has presented two papers, one on film fill fouling and the other on tower flamability and FM Approval for CTI. He is also a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Kansas. We also have Dave Stackhouse. Dave has a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California at Berkley. He has more than 20 years of experience in cooling tower engineering with emphasis on performance prediction and testing. He is presently Vice President of GEA Integrated Cooling Technologies. Our last panel member to be introduced is Mike Whittemore. Mike is the Vice President of the Water Technology Group at Brentwood Industries. Mike brings 20 years of experience to the panel. He has a degree in Environmental Science and has been a member of CTI for approximately 14 years. He has served as a committee member on the Performance & Technology Committee and the Engineering Standards and Maintenance Committee. Mike has published numerous papers on the subjects of film fouling, drift eliminator performance and PVC material. That completes our panel. As Jim mentioned these gentlemen are here to answer questions you have submitted. They are definitely not all the expertise represented in this room. We have plenty of people in the audience who are qualified to answer any of the questions. The way the Operating Seminar works is that the questions placed in the box at the registration desk will be fielded first. Tom Laronge will handle the Water Treating questions. Jim Willa will handle the cooling tower related questions. The panel members will attempt to answer them first with participation from the audience after that. The discussion of each question will be limited to provide time for all questions to be answered. After the written questions are answered then we will open the floor to any other questions there may be. Tom Laronge, Thomas M. Laronge, Inc. – Does anyone have any ideas, suggestions, or requests to be considered for the CTI Journal? What I would like to do is to make sure that every one in the CTI has an

1

Be careful that what you do is a help and not a harm. Willa – If you have an industrial crossflow towers where there is 5 to 6 feet between fan deck and distribution deck the best thing to do is to extend the fan deck. We need to say that we are speaking about crossflow cooling towers. The printing quality. or ideas we would really appreciate having them. I can remember many years ago that Charlie Shaffer of Shell Chemical would always cover his basin. I saw a tower in the last month where black plastic right was placed on top of the basins.equal opportunity to suggest improvements in the Journal or to suggest ideas for different content of the Journal because two heads are always better than one. Ballaigues – What pre-fabricated fiberglass (FRP) products are available that can be used in lieu of plywood or tongue and groove lumber. Consultant – Has anybody run any kind of analysis in recent times and whether it was cost effective or not. We want to keep up with what’s going in the world and make sure that we are doing a good job. Tom Hamilton. So if you have some suggestions. etc. When the plastic got hot it expanded. Baker – One other point is that whether the basin covers are attached or just a covering. Inc. Tony Ballaigues. He could justify it on cost savings and chemicals in so far as water treatment was concerned. GEA Integrated Cooling Technologies – There are a number of ways to cover a hot water basin. I have seen areas where if a basin is covered the demand for biocide goes way down. On crossflow towers one of the best ways is to build a covered structure over the basin sloped from the fan deck to the side. If you look at the CTI Journal and other Journal’s that you receive you’ll see that most of the other journals are going down in quality. That is one way to doing it. The cover should have sufficient height at the hand rail on the fan deck so there will be easy access to the area for cleaning without having to lift up panels and mess around with fasteners. Ken Mortensen. Sid Udall. particularly an oxidizing biocide or you are using gaseous chlorine and there is a certain amount of volatility across the cooling tower. specifically for hot water basins? 2 . Laronge – Tom in answer to your question. It can be done in several ways. You might want to consider solid redwood. in particular. the paper they are using is getting cheaper making it hard to read. You are correct. What is the most cost-effective method of doing this considering wind and snow load as well as access and durability? Dave Stackhouse. Cooling Tower Maintenance. Just like any other part of the structure it has to be properly designed for the intended service. do not limit the cleaning of the basin which can occur when something is bolted down tight. Then a confined space permit will have to be obtained. I don’t think I have ever seen an economic study. the idea is to prevent sunlight from contributing to algae growth. I don’t think anybody is ever worried about the difference in maintenance and the difference in solids inventory and everything else that are claimed to be the benefits of the tower. The only difficulty is that under today’s safety rules that generally becomes a confined space area. Marley Cooling Tower Company – On the cover issue relating to durability of course the wet dry issue contributes substantially to the delamination on the plywood. Then there will be headroom so you’ll still be able to check the nozzles and clean them. The CTI Journal is getting better and we would like to keep it that way. So I see a consumption factor go down. Tucson Electric Power – We had plywood covers on our original decks and we have had a lot of delaminating problems. is getting cheaper. like with pluming materials in wet/dry applications for towers. they have hot water basins where as counterflows don’t. – The objective of installing hot water basin covers is to eliminate the sunlight and subsequent algae growth. I would think that fiberglass would be a good choice. then laid down and covered up all the nozzles. You do have to be careful that wind loads must be taken into account as well as snow loads similar things.

There are also custom materials that are being made for that particular application. These same panels. Strongwell – There are a number of existing panels today that are also existing standard materials. 3 . “However. Under these conditions. Willa – Mark how about the ribs in the panels. It is my position. Gary Geiger. I’m going to have to defer a little on commercial availability of that right at this moment and time. we were making a study of chlorine sensitivity and we were investigating the classes of phosphonates as well as the impact of some of the stabilizing agents that are used with halogens. As I say. In that patent it was stated. you can safely make the statement that some phosphonates are degraded by halogens. Mark Christian. We should be precise in our language on this. Italo Liberatore. Nalco Chemical Company – I suppose I could say I have no recollection of that statement.724 was issued to you. are you talking about all major tower manufacturers or from the suppliers? Christian – The fiberglass manufacturers have a number of different standard items. that PBDC is in fact for all intents and purposes completely resistant to halogens. I think that is something that is going to be coming in the near future. – This question is directed to Don Johnson. Gary. based upon all the data that I am aware of that has been published and in the 20 or so years of experience in using the product I am not aware of anything that will contradict that statement. how do you reconcile the statement in your patent with the comment you made yesterday? Don Johnson.Mortensen – There are FRP basin floor deck panels becoming available.711. You cannot safely and truthfully say that “all” phosphonates are degraded by halogens. HEDP or other phosphonates can breakdown to a sufficient degree to cause problems. quiet rightly pointed out some similar language that I used in a patent that was written 10 or so years ago.” Yesterday you commented that the phosphonate PBTC is stable in the presence of chlorine. Willa – The same panels that we are recommending now. are they located such that nozzles can be placed on 1 foot centers where all is intersecting with the rib? Christian – There are some panels like that. You would need to check with either the fiberglass manufacturer or the manufacturer of the cooling tower to see how their panels designed to meet the necessary criteria. There are 4 different chemical classes of phosphonates currently being used in the water treatment industry and it has to do with their bonding structures. and for that reason we did not include it in that patent. based on all the data that is published and all the data that I have. I’m sure. Baltimore Gas & Electric Company – Is there a more practical way to adjust fan blade pitch to accommodate winter/summer operation? The corroded conditions of the hardware makes this task very undesirable for the plant technicians. In light of the fact that PBTC is not a new development and has been around for over 17 years. under less controlled environments found in a typical plant cooling circuit. So there are a number of materials today that can be bought either off the shelf or custom designed for what you are talking about. There are custom panels that are designed to meet those criteria. We discovered that you could reduce decomposition of HEDP by using the stabilizers. to replace fan deck are fiberglass panels. 1987. titled “Method for the Prevention of Phosphonate Decomposition by Chlorine. Baker – When you are saying off the shelf. I don’t think I will. Without getting too much into the chemistry. suffice to say that ATDP is well known to be chlorine sensitive as this patent that Gary is referring to states. At that time the patent was written. United States Patent 4. There are also some custom items that have been designed for cooling tower manufacturers. BetzDearborn Inc. can be adapted to the distribution deck which doesn’t have to take any more than the 60 lb. At the same time we also discovered. excessive chlorine levels are frequently observed. and I quote. On December 8. even on wood towers. per square foot load that the fan deck takes. I think what Gary is referring to is the question that I asked yesterday in response to one of the papers where I took exception to the statement that phosphonates are degraded by chlorine and bromine.

using galvanized in some situations may be a problem.5 minimum on carbon steel.1 or 1. then leave it. I would need to know a little bit more about the purity of the condensate and more details about the specific system. Inc. There were two redwood. If they are in a cold environment they won’t trip. For instance. I would recommend a pH of 8. Hamilton – A problem that you sometimes get into if you have overload heaters and the overload heaters are installed in a heated room they will trip. In general. George Hanks. the density of air is higher and takes more horsepower there are two mitigating factors that are going on. Air Products & Chemicals.Willa – We have had this in quiet a few places. you need to come up with a common ground where fan pitch could be set and leave it there. This greatly complicates the need to plan and also increases the cost of doing routine maintenance. insizing. and one incised pressure treated Douglas fir. To give you a good answer on the rest of the question. as in commercial evaporative condensers. While some might argue that the jury is out on the true longevity of FRP. I would tell you if you had mixed metallurgy where there was a lot of copper in the system. – What were once considered routine maintenance for cooling towers such as inspecting internals. There is certainly some associated strength reduction in terms of those perforations depending on the pattern used. Nalco Chemical Company – What specification for steam pH/CO2 content do you propose for the carbon steel tubes to prevent corrosion and iron pick up in the condensate? (Question refers to TP99-08) Laronge – Realistically you can’t specify less than 5 ppm as free CO2. ChemTreat. Obviously the higher the purity of the water the more important those few parts per million of CO2 are. Baker – Does anyone else want to comment on changing the pitch on your blades from summer to winter to accommodate the peaks and amperage because of the denser air? Dave Veil. you are moving hot air. Jim Kanuth. When winter comes. pressure treated Douglas fir? Mortensen – I would guess the questioner means by perforated. You are not moving outside air. Baker – One additional comment. If you raise a few horsepower above nameplate with a 1. The bottom line is set it for summer performance and forget it. There certainly are some package tower designs that have been in use for 15-years or so that are holding up well. Even at 1. Also. Mechanical considerations limit CO2 removal down to 5 ppm. If you did have a policy of changing fan pitches twice a year. – Reaching back into a past life as it were. We finally convinced them with sufficient data that you should set motor amperage near name plate motor rating during the summer when you need it.15 service factor it doesn’t matter. Over time in a wood structure. There is some debate as to whether that is helpful or not in terms of longevity of wood. I think there is a good track record to go on in terms of how long that material is going to last.0 serevice factor any damage that would be done to the motor would be from overheating.2 but not over. you are going to have to inspect and understand that all structural numbers internals are solid and are doing what they are suppose to be doing. Iowa Electric at their new plant at pay low(?) used to change fan pitch twice a year. They continued to wear out bolts. Wayne Cole. In those ten years we probably replaced 20-25 boards in the redwood 4 . I would agree with Jim. you might would want to go up to a pH of 9. changing fan pitch or checking gearboxes are now confined space entry issues. Overload heaters are also temperature sensitive. and so forth in addition to the labor involved. Inc. I would also recommend the use of a more non-corrosive hardware on the fan assembly. I spent ten years as Senior Utility Engineer in an ethylene plant where we had three cooling towers. If you have temperatures below freezing outside with a TEFC motor it would be very unlikely that you would overheat it. So the difference in density is not as great as you think it would be going across the fan so that you will raise horsepower. A/C Power – What is the benefit of FRP over perforated. The intent with fiberglass would be to eliminate some of the individual piece inspection and replacement work that occurs over time. It would be very hard to go below that level. clamps.

As far as the WCLIB. those things are yet to be discerned. It is enforceable. DesJardins & Associates – Just to answer the question concerning the incising issue. A company might be stuck with maintaining whereever it was dumped and any liability that goes with it. Also there is a strength loss with incising under debate right now. it really increases the depth of penetration to some degree. for Douglas fir to be stamped and approved by them.towers. there will be a much better treating result. In the Douglas fir tower we replaced 30% of the lumber over the same time period. the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau. Let me comment on the issue that Dick brought up with the disposal of treated wood. There are other treatments being used in this industry. We now have within the CTI a good treating specification. Does it significantly extend the life? Testing indicated that it did but whether it was enough or not I don’t know. – From an environmental stand point the new azole. treatment does have better penetration. it is an option. The difference seen is that there are a lot of different patterns. somewhere around 10-15%. as to whether or not you go with air dry or seasoned lumber and the type of treatment that you use. I don’t know enough about fiberglass to say what the longevity is like some of you folks that are involved in tower construction but it has to be better than Douglas fir. We. The specific percentage may be debatable. If fiberglass is used you won’t end up 10-15 years from now trying to dispose of an incised or treated piece of wood that has to go a Class I dump. that is not an issue at this moment in time. The thing that we have found from an 5 . – A few years ago a paper was presented at CTI. This has become quiet a problem in some projects where the old towers are being torn down and the wood has to be taken to a particular place for disposal and you remain responsible for the wood forever. decided to not agree with the WCLIB. I would welcome anybody here and anybody you know to get a hold of me so I can determine the type of reports being provided. and this was an issue when we rewrote the code a few years ago on the wood treating. If you get lumber that is incised there is a specific strength reduction that will occur. BetzDearborn Inc. when attempting to inject a water born treatment into a board that already has a 30% moisture content there already is a lot of water in the wood. This can significantly add to the cost of replacing and repairing the tower. If moisture content is already 30% or higher which is particular to the Douglas fir species. As far as disposal. In that ten years we missed annual spray treatment for fungus only once. 95% of the wood you’ll see in there is treated with the most common treatment that you see in cooling towers today and that is a CCA. Incising is not a requirement. like TTA. – As end users. You are attempting to push more water born preservative into this piece and it just won’t take anymore. requires it to be incised. Bill Howard. another requirement when lumber is treated is to check the moisture content or make sure that the manufacturer is using the correct moisture content. Inc. – We are involved in a project right now that the wood is coming to us incised. It doesn’t give it over the full area since there are gaps between incisions. Mike Trulear. as an institute. Can you comment on the biodegradability and environmental fate of the new halogen resistant azole? (Paper directed to the author of TP99-01) Dave Ritz. If you go to your local Home Depot or some other store. Thanks to Jim I have been nominated to come up with a CTI Standard on Treating Reports. but the majority is CCA. Baker – Would someone like to comment on the incising issue? Dick DesJardins. We do need a standard. different blade count. The results you are getting from different treaters around the country needs follow up so that we have a standard report which can be used and we can have more results that we can all universally see if we are exactly complying with the specification. could be degraded by microorganisms. Inc. Midwest Towers. which showed that tolyltriazole. Some of the problems with older of towers that required disposal concerned the chemicals used in the treatment that impregnated the wood during the operation of the life of the tower that had to go to a Class I dump. ChemTreat. If the water content is in the 19-24% as required by the CTI. can be degraded in a waste treatment plant through aerobic digestion. but there is a strength reduction and most of your stress is associated with that incising. Inc. Psychrometric Systems. Brown – I forgot to add one issue. As far as the treating results with incising. Larry Brown.

The biggest issue for this material being approved by the EPA was the reduction in the total package environmentally.)? Mike Whittemore. In the system that we use we also add epoxy to the system which causes epoxy to be added to the screw as it goes through. just for some general education. CTI as an industry. FRP presently must rely on manufacturer's information with respect to design. With the HRA at least we have submitted it for a variety of test including aquatic toxicity. Inc. They would tell you that a material rating doesn’t tell you that much if you don’t know what configuration it’s used in in terms of flammability. ensure each manufacturer uses sound engineering in their fiberglass design? 6 . It does not receive independent approval as a component but as a component in the system receives approval. So in some of the test that we have performed we actually see that the back is coated. say of property of PVC. I might also comment that when ordinary TTA is used in a system with chlorination there will be a variety of chlorinated azoles. Ritz – One other point. That is another benefit. if anybody has been around a cooling tower where chlorine gas or bleach is fed along with TTA one thing you’ll notice during chlorination is the characteristic caramel odor. persistence. We also participate in Factory Mutual tests. Howard – Has there been any studies on TEK screws damaging the FRP members by tearing out the backside and allowing wicking and water absorption to occur? Jess Seawell. This has been a major problem in applications where there are neighborhoods nearby. That is a material property. As a comparison. which is really more accurately reflected in full scope testing of the kind that Factory Mutual does and may some other agencies do. self extinguishing etc. safety factors. etc.e. Inc. “…is something of persistent biochemo to toxicant or chemical…” Under that rule this would not be considered persistent of biochem to depth’s degree much with the other azoles. flame spread less than xx. which are tower tests. of which there is less knowledge. Roy Manley. With the reduced use level with the new azole.environmental standpoint is when you compare the azoles ppm for ppm there are some issues with the way the new HRA halogen resistant azole is reacted and made. So there are two components to that type of rating for a tower. they have a question. Don Bucci. Mortensen – On flame spread. and degradability in a waste treatment plant giving us a battery of information available on the HRA. it is a non-uknitted rating from zero to 100 where 100 is red oak. – Under the Texas regimen. 25 or fewer categories considered basically self-extinguishing or I considered them roughly equivalent although I have never found a definition of self-extinguishing in the literature. Howard – National Design Standards (NDS) for wood construction has specific design related information with respect to wood engineering. The fill and drift eliminators would be an important component in the towers and contributing to that. as a fill and drift eliminator manufacturer. There is no more odor and air problem that comes with the TTA. you have a reduced copper levels resulting from lower copper corrosion. and the reduced level of halogen fed because there is no longer an extra demand for halogen from TTA or the other azoles. most commonly specifications of 25 or less are what we see to meet although you can meet lower values than that as low as 5 or 10. Ceramic Cooling Tower Company – How TEK screws actually draw a hole so you are drilling through the material so it doesn’t tear out so much on the back. Air Products & Chemicals. – I’ll respond to the components part. It can be degraded in a waste treatment plant and overall environmentally there is a bigger benefit in using this material than TTA. a property of the fiberglass mix as opposed to a property of the assembly configuration. How do we. The HRA has eliminated that problem. chlorine compound that is formed. Two of the tests that we conduct to meet flamability requirements are an ASTM Test E-84 which is a tunnel test. deflection limits. BetzDearborn Inc. – What is the proper method of specifying flammability ratings for towers (i. Brentwood Industries.

So that is something that needs to be watched. there are some things that can be done with water intrusion and it is just as much of a problem. Howard – Again. That is pretty labor intensive. It appears a standard will be necessary with the best information we can muster from the people who put together the towers. I would say for industrial towers. I think that Engineering Standard & Maintenance did a fine job of heading in that direction and putting some people on that that will come up with some good answers and guidelines that not only the manufacturers. 7 . Make sure your intake structure isn’t on the top or bottom of the vessel that you are using to collect your water. I will make comment concerning some of the things done in the past or screens put up on the louver face to keep out airborne materials such as cottonwood. BetzDearborn Inc. One is whether we are talking about fibers coming in with the water. Ken. Laronge – I think there are two issues here.Mortensen – Engineering Standards & Maintenance has a sub-committee under Mark Christian that is working to draft a standard. It is something that we are having a tremendous amount of questions on. Those things tend to help keep cottonwood fibers out. – What is the most effective method for preventing cottonwood and other airborne fibers from contaminating towers? Willa – This last year in Blytheville. Fifteen years in terms of package towers. going from the top of the louvers out ten feet then down to the ground. If you split those. or fibers that are airborne. Baker – Mark would you like to comment on the work you are about to do or did Ken sum it up? Christian – I think Ken did a real good job of telling you where we are going. when you see them they are a big problem. not knowing that information before. I was under the assumption we were still trying to keep it as a guideline. Maybe there is not a chemical answer. but it does do a good job of keeping the cottonwood out of the cooling tower. This came from a water treating person and I think they may be seeking a water treatment answer. I think you will see something coming along shortly that would define more specifically what’s known today about those design standards. but the suppliers and users can put to use. ultraviolet chemical resistance exposure. not to mention film fill. They go inside the enclosure once a week with a hose and wash the cottonwood off the screen from the inside. Five to seven years. Arkansas on a cooling tower that is only a few hundred yards from an area on the Mississippi River lined with cottonwood trees. The framework was then covered with regular plastic screen wire like you would put on a house window. We have a lot of participation. things like adjusting your intake structure. We want to encourage anyone that wants to come out and understand how we do it or get a copy of what we are doing see either me. using rake collectors for example or screens around intake. There was a debate today about a guideline versus a standard. They built a framework out from the louvers. Make sure that the intake structure is pointed toward the bottom about midway up or a third of the way up from the bottom. Baker – There is a continued interest for fiberglass components in the cooling tower industry. It does tend to have an ill effect on the airflow sometimes. If that doesn’t work you might want to take the water out of your system because that will stop the problem. or Jim. We would be happy to get that information to you. there was difficulty with splash fill. Kevin Emery. materials that are manufactured. Baker – We need some more comments this. Really. What we are doing is a long term guideline not only on the design of a fiberglass cooling tower but also fabrication practices. If they get to be big enough you’ll want to move the trees. the people who make the protruded materials and the experience that we have from those designs being in the field. Knowing now that we are going to create a standard that we as manufacturers must conform to made a lot more sense. We hope to get a standard or at least a first pass at a standard in the next few months.

Drift is involuntary blowdown. There is some sort of a problem here and you would be better served to look for the problem than to look for a way to measure the amount of drift. 8 . this will cause an increase in the drift. CTI has a test code that covers drift measurement and there are CTI test agencies available to do the job. It can result from a mixture of perpendicular and parallel fills mixed together which causes excessive air movement across one portion of the tower. If it hits the parking lot and gets on the plant managers Cadillac it’s intolerable. That can appear as drift after a fill job. There is probably some outside problem causing the drift. Baker – There are a lot of other things to consider when fill installed in a tower that can cause it to drift. However. is there a practical way to measure drift. If it hits the switch gear and starts to coat with scale and you start shorting out switch gear that is a problem. Many times basins can be dirty or the tower can be over recirculated. I think the companies doing drift test did only 2 or 3 last year. you are probably running water from the inboard side into the plenum area on a cross flow as well. The drift testing process is rather laborious and expensive. My recollection is that if you get much smaller than a half-inch mesh then you are going to start hurting yourself. I would suggest that you follow along the lines mentioned by Jim and the others. We rarely see drift tested. and the fill is brought closer to the drift eliminators causing the eliminators to flood which prevents them from draining properly. Maybe the drift eliminators were not replaced properly. There are many things that can come into play. If you are over pumping and have water running off the louver facing outside the tower. Willa – There is a CTI standard on measurement of drift but it is difficult.000. Let’s answer the man’s question. Don’t stop here. Baker – I agree with Dave. assuming a splash fill job and created more splash. Every gallon that goes out the top is a gallon that you don’t have to pull out the bottom. I told them if it comes out in the middle of the desert no one would mind. Is there any practical way to measure drift? Some you testing agencies out there can answer this. Whittemore – If you have had a repair done. Hamon Cooling Towers – I really didn’t hear the whole question. So that is one example. I would like to comment that there are ways to measure drift. the type of cooling tower being one possibly. Italo Liberatore. There are a lot of things that can cause that. even more difficult than the performance test measurement. When I was giving a seminar in Nevada at a power plant. Is there a practical way to measure drift? What can be done to minimize it? Whittemore – He didn’t say what type of cooling tower it was? Baker – No. One thing to keep in mind about drift is to use a proper term.Hamilton – Before any screening is placed on an intake louvers pressure drop calculations should be made to make certain the screen is not seriously effecting airflow. We look at the operation. but I think the gist of it is. Then we had to pay for the retest after making modifications and the retest cost about $22. The second example is a 36 cell salt water tower. He just said he put in new fill and it started drifting. Let’s say it isn't an outside problem and that there is a lot of drift in the tower.0015% and we failed the test and the cost of the first run was about $28. Gary Mirsky. That’s not drift that is just water that is being poured in a plenum area and sucked out the top. Consequently the cost of it is considerably higher than a performance test. Baltimore Gas & Electric – Since we have replaced our fill we have experienced “excessive” drift. he doesn’t say what type of cooling tower. If it hits the parking lot it is a serious problem.000. Stackhouse – As to the part of the question concerning drift measurement. In one case that retention was quiet significant (in the millions). whether they have new fill or not. That drift test cost well over $65. So the 36-cell tower had 16 cells individually tested for drift to have that be the average. as a P&T rep. We tested a tower to . The state of California seems to test for drift routinely on fresh water cooling towers.000 for a certified third party. It would probably be better to look for a problem than to focus on a test method. I can try to answer the question by quoting the cost. Of course both of these contracts that I am citing had a drift guarantee which was connected to a 10% retention.

There were test applications that required . Condensation is pure water and only a drift test is going to detect whether you are actually getting drift or condensation in the plenum area. A lot of times you’ll see that in the thane? Work area. We have an inexpensive test drift which in our ego we call the “Burger Drift Detection System. They removed the surfactant from the water and within 48 hours the drift completely stopped. We have seen a recent contract where the requested guaranteed drift rate was . We had an eight cell six cube crossflow tower. we made the guarentee. so we would check the air velocity. was being soaked. It took a long time to do the testing even with a small tower. extremely small. We tell our clients there are only two reasons for drift. You are really trapping the sulfur to calculate the drift when you go through the process. It’s not water. Three weeks later they called me back and everything in the refinery. not as expensive as isokenetic-sampling. The other reason for drift is that even with the best drift eliminator they may not be professionally installed. The problem is that what you are trying to do is to use a catalytic reduction of sulfur in a Stretford Tower with paper that is coated with lead acetate to precipitate lead sulfate.0001% specification.0001 on the drift. Drift is merely a function of air velocity. Water is insidious. It was more like a fog than a drift. We would call our friends at Brentwood and say we have 750 feet per minute velocity. It was a crossflow tower with a honeycomb drift eliminator. If the fill is changed to be parallel to air flow there will probably be increased performance but there will also be an increased air rate which could cause increased drift. They would literally go out and collect leaves. Burger Cooling Tower Company –An accurate drift test gets very expensive. If you know the air velocity. DesJardins – I was involved about 15-20 years ago with a product that was called a Stretford Cooling Tower. In that three weeks they had started to add 15 ppm of surfactant. I don’t think that is comparable to a water tower. The second thing that I would like to comment on is when you get a . If you can’t get up to it you look inside the hatch and see water bouncing around.0002% with the clients desire to change the 2 to a 1. Mirsky – In giving that answer I would like to ask a question. However I was on a tower last week that I’m sure there was virtually no drift at all but what I noticed was a lot of condensation in the structure. Bob Burger.Baker – It sounds like you need to find where the drift is coming from and not try to test it. Laronge – Dick when you looked at a Stretford Tower I don’t think it is fair to compare the drift measurement with a standard tower. new D fifteen drift eliminators installed properly. the plus or minus error in the drift measurement is more than the amount we are looking for. you’re drifting. The other thing that I noted in the question is that the gentlemen replaced the fill and the old splash bar is perpendicular to the air flow. To say that you can or can’t do it. The third thing that I would like to add to Mr. They would take distilled water use it as eluent. The second comment is as you go back in the early 1970’s people were measuring drift all over with what was called a salt leaf test. I’m sure that you can. but air velocity through the tower was about 300 feet a minute. Willa – In the first place there is a real problem of distinguishing recondensation from actual drift. They restarted surfactant feed at 6 ppm surfactant everything was still fine. within three blocks. I would like to hear if anybody has had a certified test done and has achieved that level. you leave a hole. The testing that was done was not done with an isokenetic-sampling machine but it was done with sensitize paper sent off to a laboratory to measure the droplet size and predict the drift. The condensation gets blown off as a droplet and the velocity carries it to the fan deck level (it wasn’t carrying to the parking lot). that is specifically refered to as liars contest because the ability to measure the drift. you stand on the motor if water hits you in the face your drifting. you are actually measuring water containing various dissolved salts. We got inside and drift was coming right through the D fifteens. what would you recommend. stopped all the drift and everyone was happy. but at 9 ppm surfactant the tower started drifting bad. It was a very complicated. The mechanical equipment at this time of the year is cold. So that is fantasyland. spray the water on the leaf and try to back 9 . You have to be careful that you don’t get to small of droplets by too much addition of surfactant. One is the improper selection of drift eliminator by a bidder who did not consider the air velocity and ended up as the low bidder. you pick the proper drift eliminator and if the low bidder picks something cheaper it is still going to drift. When drift is being measured. complicated. it was cooling the process fluid that included vanadium and some other stuff. water goes through. Proper operation of a drift eliminator is a function of air velocity.” Short stack. Burger’s comment is that he is correct with one additional thing that effects drift and that is droplet size. Yes.

nor the cooling tower manufacturer who has supplied the tower and submitted a contractual guarantee if a third party drift test is run. Mortensen – It would seem to me that if the pressure drop is the same. There should be. On the other hand you are probably getting the drift eliminators further away from the distribution system. perhaps.calculate drift and how much salt was being formed as a result of drift. We are considering raising the location on a counterflow tower. Is there a thermal benefit if we do this? Baker – Raising the DE’s? Am I missing something here? It must be counterflow. So I don’t think it is a given that the air velocities increase as you move up a couple of feet. the effect on performance would be the same and that location probably wouldn’t effect that. We are considering raising the drift eliminators. like Florida and California. or the distribution system leak or any number of things. Perhaps an area profile measurement ought to be taken in the plenum to see if the velocities increase as you go higher or if they decrease. Baker – What I am hearing from these experts is that we need to really look at where the drift is coming from. I think the industry needs it. They tried to set up a model that measured drift by measuring the concentration of the cooling water and how much of the common salt was collected on the leaves. It isn’t fantasyland to the owner/operator who has to meet his air quality permits. You can have both forces at work in a round tower. The numbers ran from over a percent down to four decimal places after the zero and I don’t think else counted. Mirsky – Jim (Willa) uses the term fantasyland when it comes to measuring very low drift values. If the water is actually splashing on to the drift eliminators because the nozzles are improperly tipped or something like that then you might benefit a little from it. If it is not. Italo are you present that you may comment on that question. Liberatore – The question that I stated was in reference to the drift eliminators. From a drift point of view you probably would come out breaking even or better by doing that. What I would suggest is to build on what was said by Dave Stackhouse. Mirsky – I’m vaguely familiar with Italo’s tower. I would like to challenge the Performance & Technology Committee. I would think a small performance effect in the negative direction. to develop a white paper that’s a BAT (Best Available Technology) statement. I think this is a serious situation at some facilities in certain states. There is one more question along that line that I think we probably already answered. it isn’t the drift eliminator itself as much as some outside force causing the water to get into the plenum area. We want to know if there is a benefit to providing structural support to those gearboxes is there a thermal benefit if we raise those drift eliminators. Hamilton – One thing you should do on the thing is to check the water distribution system to find out if water is impelling itself directly on to the drift eliminators. Taking some 10 . Stackhouse – My comment would be that in fact by moving the drift eliminator closer to the fan you reduce the available plenum size on the cooling tower. We believe it is caused due to excessive drift. It wasn’t a very good method. It will probably spread to other states. I would not raise the drift eliminators because it will hurt a little on performance because of the reduction in plenum chamber. If you are getting excessive drift. but Dave is probably more qualified to comment on that. In certain states and certain facilities it would be meaningful to be able to provide this to the consultants and to the designers who are making these commitments. We have an excessive amount of erosion on the support steel and gearboxes. Liberatore– We are experiencing erosion/corrosion of our gearboxes and support frames. There are many drift eliminators on the market that guarantee a low drift. This has the effect of changing air velocity distribution through the drift eliminators so you will have a small deterioration in performance as a result of higher velocities through a portion of the drift eliminators as well as the potential for increased drift at higher velocities. Baker – Another P&T hot topic we will probably get into soon.

on your upper limit.5 very often unless you have some process variation that takes you there. The critical time that is involved is the first 45 days when this material is put into circulating water.5 on the high side and 6 to 6.airflow profiles makes sense. what maximum pH and alkalinity is recommended for the circulating water? Hutton – I jumped up real quick to answer that question and I maybe I should just throw that back to the water treating guys because this is a galvanized steel tube bundle in a straight-through water system. There is no different between that and a cooling tower other than the circulating water is not going through piping to a condenser in a building. so we are not at that high of a temperature. if you don’t mind. if you are using acid or anything like that you can go below the 6 to 6. 11 . so it is exposed to the structure the air flow and so forth. it is just being pumped over the galvanized steel surface. 115°. The treatment program would just have to be compatible with the technique used for galvanized steel. but there is over 50 years of experience with galvanized steel tube bundles in evaporative condenser applications. white rust. It is not the same as the mill galvanized steel that is used in structure of some types of equipment it is hot dipped galvanized steel on the tube bundles. why the same program? Mortensen – As I recall the charts from the paper. Hanks – (Refers to paper TP99-08) 1) If galvanized tubes are used in the evaporative steam condenser. maybe 120°F. Baker – OK. There is a phenomenon known as white rust that occurs. Laronge – You have a problem with zinc in the galvanized service because most people use zinc to stop corrosion of steel. The other end. I think we are probably looking at a pH of 9.5 on the low side. If you start out in an alkaline pH range you can end up with this zinc carbonate formation. We are talking about a system that maybe well over 165°F at the point of which it operates. Zinc solubility increases very rapidly in the pH region above 8.5. a little bit of a different animal. There is a mentality that says you can get better performance if you go from carbon steel to galvanized tubes and to the best of my knowledge that has never been found to work.5. Along that line the American Zinc Association Handbook has a statement that states the use of galvanized is not designed for any kind of immersion service duty but designed for wet/dry and intermittent service duty. Also the big question I have is why would anyone ever put galvanized tubes in that particular service. The recommendation.5 range pretty easily. Laronge – I would like to disagree with Ken. You really complicate the overall process by using galvanized. In most cases for an evaporative condenser application we are talking about condensing it 110°. This is another reason to not consider the use of zinc for galvanizing. In those systems zinc actually becomes noble to steel and the steel becomes the anode in the corrosion reaction. It is really more sensitive on the low side because you are not going to run above 9.0 and 8. Ritz – I believe you can operate successfully anywhere from 7 to 9 pH range with galvanized piping. I would tell you the absolute maximum to avoid dissolution of the zinc ought to be a pH of between 8. Further more if you have any environmental changes zinc is very chemically reactive relative to many other substances like ammonia and a lot of natural occurring materials that you would have including water treatment chemicals. So what you are doing is corroding the steel and not using the zinc as a sacrificial anode. Perhaps you would move the drift eliminators to the level where the velocity is the lowest.0 for that first 45 days you can minimize the formation of this white rust which is zinc carbonate. galvanized is not so great. As long as the treatment program is designed properly they operate very satisfactorily. It does cost more money to put galvanized in and it may be prettier but it doesn’t have any great advantages as far as performance is concerned. which can cause problems in your system. and from our experience if you keep your pH below 8. I wouldn’t question Tom on anything having to do with water chemistry. That is too high for zinc. That’s why when you see a cyclone fence galvanized is great but when you see a tube that is going to be wetted. Hutton – We are not purposing the use of galvanized steel on any application that would go to 160°F.

12 . don’t do it. Puckorius & Associates – Back in former life with my former employer we had specifications that were eventually changed where we specified galvanized steel piping as a standard. The acid has got to be put in ½ of a PVC 6 inch pipe split in two with baffels in it or a lead lined box.Tory Tvedt. bad things will happen. Stackhouse – I would add to what is Jim is saying – write contracts with teeth in it. What I have found and what we promulgated within the company is to treat these as if they were carbon steel. Baker – He (George Hanks) is talking about the makeup water for one thing. Based on my experience.2 pH. You can use a wooden trough. but in the white paper that came out I believe it was 6. Put specified penalties and remedies and make it clear that not only are you going to test. The program doesn’t work if you go any higher in pH so it might as well be a good recommendation. but carry out the test the manufacturers are not going to believe you. but if you test and the tower does not pass the test. Otherwise it will chew concrete to pieces. and I don’t want to be held to this. I believe that was the upper limit. don’t withhold 10%. We eventually changed the specifications and quit spending the money on the galvanized. Preferably return a water stream in so there is lots of dilution. If a company has a history of having a specification for testing. That is very important. 2) getting a certain amount of rebate on a particular price. Run the test. supposed to be the most effective known treatment for galvanized water. the curb for 6 foot is eaten out a foot deep. 3) the test is carried out when it is cool. Baltimore Aircoil Company – As a purchaser. Make sure the test is carried out. but we are always having trouble trying to add the acid. what is the recommended method for feeding acid for pH/alkalinity control for moderate alkalinity make-up water? Willa – I don’t know about the zinc standard.6 to 7. – If you are going to feed acid to a galvanized structure certainly you want to make sure that the water gets well mixed before it comes into contact with the galvanizing. Laronge. Baker – The second part of the question has been answered. 99% and no less with retainer were some general suggestions made. Bob Miller. and we found to be the case on numerous times that the galvanized was totally deteriorated within 1 to 2 years. I think we will have to look at that industrial specification to decide how far we want to go with that. I would think if we get into that we would have to have significant thermal committee participation in determining how to specify that number. I’m always being told not to trust “the other guy’s” ratings. Thomas M. which was. Andy Ward. As long as we provided adequate protection for carbon steel we got very good useful life out of the pipes.5 under all conditions in order for the recommended phosphate treatment program. If you will take the little stainless steel ¼ inch line and take it around the curb and drip it into the basin. or 4) everybody is happy and the manufacturer will give you a rebate to skip the test all together. You can use either a plastic bucket with bricks in it to hold it down below the water line. Put in water treating programs that would protect carbon steel piping on the assumption. I don’t know how much thermal performance is going to be addressed in that work. 98%. withhold 20%. What can I do to ensure the tower I buy performs as specified? (This was asked at the Multi-Agency Testing Report) Mortensen – There is some work on a broad specification under ES&M starting at this point. There is a hole in the basin where the unmixed acid is heavier than water and falls to the floor eating the concrete. but you water treating professionals are going to have to help me out. I believe it had to be below 7. He wants to know how to feed the acid for pH/alkalinity control to maintain moderate alkalinity in his makeup water. Willa – You put in your specification that the tower will be tested by a third party. Inc. When it comes time to test and a manufacturer makes suggestions such as: 1) using their test equipment and personnel. The acid must be mixed with water before it is turned loose in the basin. If you are worried about the tower you bought. If present CTI guidelines for zinc coating are followed. There can be some very broad numbers in terms of 100% and no less or whatever you choose. that is going to be a more severe corrosion issue than what Jim suggested with concrete. Laronge –I think the CTI guidelines.

Burger – A plug for CTI.Baker – And back it up. is that towards end the budget runs out and it is time to test and management is looking to cut everything that can be cut. I told them they didn’t have a 2° plus tower. almost always the tower test will be 100% or better when the supplier knows this up front. Mirsky – One thing Tom or Jim did not say is that industry really has consolidated. I think it is very prudent to spend money if you are challenged and think that if there is any question about the specification. I don’t know from the user’s question what category of towers he is talking about. The testers said the manufacturer guaranteed a 15° range and 7° approach. the CTI Certification program is intended for that type of unit. I am talking about just the first test on acceptance test. They had test results that they had showed a 102% tower. It’s not that we didn't pay. There are curves and graphs on fill available in the market place. Are any of the members aware of any other acid that is being used in cooling tower? Acid use is not an option due to silica concentrations. They tested the tower and showed they had an 18° range and a 5° approach. An example was a tower that was thermally upgraded only to meet its original design specification. The manufacturer should not test their own unit because no mother is going to comb her own child ugly. One way we found around that was to include the test as part of the contract to the cooling tower manufacturer for a third party test and it will be the manufacturer's responsibility to pay. There are the staffs in cost cutting moods. Number one is to echo when testing is done. hire a consultant. The only problem was the tower was designed for 80° wet bulb and the test was done at 74° wet bulb. Hamilton – That is what I was going to say – specify what the penalty is. Hutton – One additional note to add is a plug for the CTI Certification program. I wouldn’t be here. for the smaller where testing may not be the cost option. Many companies don’t have specialists any more. it’s just built into the contract price so the test gets done. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company – For an owner/operator. You should have in your contract that the tower is to be tested only by a Certified Testing company recognized by CTI. When I told that to the plant manager and explained the relationship with the wet bulb he asked me not to mention it at the wrap up meeting. You can get a history and hopefully the manufacturer will give you truthful data. one of the problems found in capital projects. I would love to have had 2% of the money the company didn’t make because of that tower. Allan Oden. in a specification I would recommend that you ask the manufacturer to provide a five year history of acceptance tests that have done on their towers. What we have to do is get the word around to join CTI if you use cooling towers and make sure you have the certified CTI test on your tower. It provides the purchaser the same kind of independent verification performance for packaged towers and catalog type towers as the CTI Acceptance Tests do for a large tower. Mike Bailey. The certified lines of towers are published in each issue of the CTI Journal. Tvedt – I just want to offer a few comments on experiences that I’ve had purchasing industrial cooling towers. but if it is a category where the cost of a test is prohibitive compared to the cost of the tower itself. the use of sulfuric acid for pH control has become an issue. Reliant Energy (former Houston Lighting & Power) – As a result of a recent sulfate limits in water discharge. There are several consultants available. That holds for manufacturers to those type towers who are now participants in the CTI program Baker – That is exactly right. I would be in the Riviera. a few in this room right now who probably have the tools to make a determination if there is some problem. That is what the certification program is designed for as Dave said. Secondly. The third comment I have is on the critical importance of towers meeting their design perameters. We were called in on a tower that the customer said wasn’t performing right. This plant had gone ten years before the upgrade was performed. you have 3° minus or a total of 5° deficient. The upgrade was paid for in the first three months of operation. 13 .

Generally. some of them work and some don’t. kind of more off the wall thing that I came across. particularly when the fan cycles off. Obviously there is some trade off with that because you would have to let the system run pretty dirty to do that. We have to have an acid and we are looking for some alternatives. they have justified themselves economically but some of my cohorts may want to comment on that too. excessive splash-out occurs. Typically. Here again. Willa – I’ve been in several towers recently that operate in that high of pH ranges that they maintain control strictly by blowdown. Sid Udall. it winds up near the bottom of the drift eliminators and then regular splash fill on each side. people have done all sorts of things. So I would be looking at basically to another splash type fill. I could give you another. At about a 45 degree angel. However if the pH can run somewhere in the mid 8’s and the treatment program is compatible you might be able to do that. What can be done to minimize this. I read about a case history Great Britian similar to yours where they couldn’t use acid. Bailey – This sulfate discharge limit is new and chloride will be an issue too. The rate of that stripping is a function of pH. When you are running that high it is sometimes practical to do it by blowdown alone. salts and things that we foul with the film packed type fill. it isn’t used in cooling towers at any lower pH than that because it is stripped off rapidly. 14 . But if you’re fan off toward the bottom you will have a significant amount of water pile up. Brentwood has the crossflow fill. The fill is plastic ladder. The other is a stepwise procedure. Carbon dioxide might also be an option for you. Johnson – You say you can run at a pH of 8. It won’t solve your problem completely but it will move it back a little.5 as far a scaling intensity. You start out with 4-foot wide film impact fill 6-foot deep against the louver face. They have been concrete type towers where you have gone to a film fill crossflow to a counter flow type of conversion. Has anyone done this and economically justified the capital cost? Mortensen – The cases that I know of have been larger than that. excluding the use of an integrated inlet louver? Baker – That particular tower is a crossflow tower as stated and originally probably came out with a splash type and now has evidently converted to film type. The next 6 foot down you move it in with just about maybe a foot overlap from the previous one and another 6 foot drop continuing all the way down to the bottom of the tower. That works to some degree. Mortensen – Sometimes a row of nozzles can be blanked out nearest the louver face. that’s sort of in the mildly alkaline range of operation.Baker – Mike can you expand a little more on the question. Ballaigues – When converting Series 15 & Series 18 crossflow towers from splash fill to honeycomb fill. Willa – A favorite habit right now is upgrading a crossflow tower to 600 Series by putting film pack in it. Our water treatment vendor has run their program and we top out at about 8. Hydrochloric acid won’t be a fix either. If you can run the pH that high and you can use a scale inhibitor program. It isn’t going to be as inexpensive as using sulfuric acid but it is an option. Marley has a flash fill. Tucson Electric Power – We had Marley 600 crossflow cooling towers constructed in the early 1980’s.5 and you are also limited on chloride. I’ve been doing basically two different methods like a 2-foot thick slice starts out at the top outside and runs all the way to the bottom. They fed ammonia into the system and backed off on the biocontrol to let the bugs generate nitric acid in situs. You are talking a lot of money to change that out and do you really see a difference in performance from splash type fill to another. drill out orifices inside of that to try and pull some of the water back in. Baker – It will also depend on how close the new film fill is to the louver face or if you set it back in a little away from the louver face. but it is a way to upgrade a crossflow fill tower. Please give me comments on the replacement of existing fill with “updated” fill designs. I’ve tested both types of these. Udall – We have a lot of solids.

Use 4-inches wide fill on 8/8 centers and this will out perform the ladder fill that you have now and still be a splash fill tower. you’ve answered. Baker – Some of the problems that I have seen encountered are the difference in dimensions of the fiberglass drop in structure versus the wood structure that they are replacing. So it is a perfect material for fan decks. which is based on some 1900 that’s quiet non-clogging. Some may have to be shimmed. Mirsky – There is dissimilarity in some of the shapes that you would be replacing. around 2-inches deep as far as the reinforcement that they have in the vertical direction comes with a non-skid surface. Backtracking to the conversion of large crossflow to counterflow cooling towers. They do come close to matching up. Air Products & Chemicals. Baker – The hot water basins are also a good application. 1) Have the suppliers been developing this option? 2) How are the dissimilar shapes connected? 3) Do we have to reengineer (structurally) the tower to ensure strength & mechanical integrity? Mortensen – We have done significant basin structure and plenum replacements with fiberglass members. yes there are some dissimilar shapes. For the most part the pieces of dissimilar strength are stronger so that does not become an issue. but again you need to rate you fill with your tower. As far as decay. Baker – Ok. That was a very informative paper. Mirsky – Just one other comment to confirm what Ken says. Make some comparisons like that then just contact the fill manufacturer of your choice to get some ratings for your particular application. S&S Sales & Supplies – Is there any effect on concrete basins using this chemistry? Laronge – I believe the question is whether or not the chemistry that was discussed in TP99-12 involving the ammonia and the acid has any effect on the concrete basin. or algae is not going to allow you to use a film pack. angles and channels. The new fill you’ve developed Mike. we have been quiet successful in using the 1900. In fact. – We are very interested in replacing existing wood members with fiberglass structural shapes when we perform maintenance/retrofit activities. The most significant one of course is the column. Baker – In most application. You can take out the ladder fill and put in a splash type fill parallel to airflow. So there is a little extra re-engineering if you have to match existing wood pieces. A lot of testing went into the researchfor the paper.Baker – I would recommend reviewing the paper presented by Bob Fulkerson this morning. have you done much experimenting with that? How much bad water would that take on this type of conversion? 15 . Willa – If this is a tower that the water treatment. The pultruded shapes that typically over 1-foot wide. Inc. Steve Bartlett. wide flange beams. the fill. There were no comments on the question. I think it’s stronger than the member it is replacing in terms of structural capabilities. we would use sleeve type designs that would have large bearing areas for the bolts so that you don’t get rip out of the fastener at that location in a similar way that we do to our standard fiberglass tower construction. Burger – I have a question for Mike Whittemore. Joints. they are obviously a great choice. I-beams. I think one the items that goes the fastest in a tower is a fan deck made out of plywood. I believe we have 3 ½-inch members available that replace exactly in kind and we can do structural calculations but I don’t think there is a lot of change in terms of structure. The one thing that I do love about fiberglass is the fan decks that are being used today. there is an option being considered and probably you have to do some re-engineering. Lynn Stampley. The fiberglass shapes for the most part are like the steel shapes where you have tubular.

Here you basically have a very small bearing surface on a wood beam or concrete beam of around 75-125 pounds per square foot which is very 16 .Whittemore – Are you talking about the VF19+? The VF19+ is a new low fouling fill that we just introduced. which is what you were saying. I’m talking about northern United States. up in Canada I see counterflows with boxes built through the louver two feet wide for air inlet louvers and all the rest of the louvers shut down. some gearbox problems and such things. The testing that we have done on our packs we measure loads in the actual supported condition. I would like to get an idea of what the issues are that we are trying to address. The scenario is where we want to design a cooling tower for a northern United States climate with significant freezing potential. I hear Jim Willa say go counterflow yet other suppliers say crossflow. I have heard some suppliers say go crossflow. Danfoss Electronic Drives – Haven’t heard any discussion about VFD’s. Baker – Are you talking about veriable frequency drives? Foree – Correct. So if we starting with a clean sheet of paper. Pennsylvania across to Chicago where there will be significant icing during the winter months. Mirsky – My response would be. Veil – I may have asked this question last year but I don’t think I have an answer that I am comfortable with yet. is like Jim said go counterflow. form curtain ice or have structural damage if we run too low a water temperature. I think the main emphasis should be on the operation of the tower whether it is crossflow or counterflow. I think that whether cross or counter you can get in to some serious problems if you don’t operate the fans or stay on top of them during the winter months. we want to run the coldest possible water to find maybe 45° average cold water outlet during the freezing winter months and have a tower that will run unattended during the evenings. It is for counterflow only and would be a good choice for that application. I understand there has been some delamination of drive shafts. I’m trying instead of running 60° averages running 45° or lower if possible. Rick Foree. in a 12-foot high louver than in a 36-foot. in the real cold climates. you have an iceberg. Either one can be done. I would just like some suggestions at this point. Willa – It is just easier to close off a portion or all of the louvers on the north side. The counterflow film fills are a corrugated shape and can with stand very heavy loads. Baker – Do you already have the tower in place or are you getting ready to install the tower? Veil – We have many towers where we are trying to run lower water temperatures for efficiency of our facilities and we are seeing significant icing either limiting the ability to drop the temperature. Of course ice will form and it will be colder out. Baker – I think there are operational benefits to both if operated properly. to get that cold water the fans will be left on all night long. Veil – I’m not talking about extreme winters. Generally. and have discussed this for most of my cooling tower career. Baker – There is one comment that I would like to make. The strength of the counterflow film fill is related to its sheet thickness as well and also to its temperature of operation. others say counterflow. it just which is the easiest. When it is colder the materials can typically handle even heavier loads than PVC’s would when it is warm. If there are people in the audience that have had problems running electronic drives could you please get with me at some point in time and let’s chat about what some of those issues are. It is thermal upgrade over the other fills that we have introduced before. When you shut fans down and turn them back on. Willa – Counterflow. etc. When you come back. One of the things that we are here for is to try to get an idea of what kind of issues that there have been in the field.

Stackhouse – I would just like to add that I know people have operated crossflows very successfully in severe winter conditions. I’ve always felt that the counterflow design is much more forgiving in cold weather situations.significant ice formation. there is a basic fact about crossflow in that the cold air meets the water across the entire inlet face of the tower. to the best of my knowledge. closed cycle system is what we are talking about. With the Legionaires Disease the organism grows in the cooling tower system so I would think that you would mainly be concerned if it was a closed cycle system and not like a once through helper tower. So if you have a leak. Oden – But my question was with a helper cooling tower would you pull river water in. for example. It was just loose water flow near the intake of the building. About the third slide she had was a government office building in San Francisco and that particular case did not involve a cooling tower. Let me conclude by saying what you are doing here is not avoiding the ice but preventing the damage to the fill. Baker – I would like to thank all of you for coming to the operating seminar. My opinion would be that that would be considered as a possible source of transmitting Legionnella. I guess the other thing I would say is that it sounds like this is an obvious application for some sort of automatic control system that keeps this thing running through the night without operator. “did the cooling tower really cause Legionnella?” The answer to that question is much more complex and generally that disease requires an aerosol to be formed. If it is closed – you don’t have a problem. you don’t have a problem. that last slide that we didn’t see was. So you get a rather non-uniform water temperature distribution across the bottom of the fill. Oden – I have just a quick question on the Legionaires Disease. would there be less of a problem with developing Legionaires? Laronge – I don’t know if I would want to say less but there was an example that Janice Stout had up this morning that was a water caused case of legionnella where three people died. from a closed loop system where you could form an aerosol there is a danger. Since you don’t recirculate that water over. So the minimum temperature is considerably different than the average temperature across a crossflow section. A counterflow tends to introduce the air more uniformly across the fill and there is much less variation between minimum and average. Just drinking the water does not allow the organism to transmit. You have a very large range through that section of the tower. send it to the cooling tower and then back into the river. Baker – Right. and this was missed badly this morning. Laronge – If the system is really closed there should be no danger. If you have a system where you cannot form an aerosol. However. Remember. run it through the condenser. 17 . As the air moves back through the fill section the range decreases.