Circular 86

STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION

by BRIAN BERG, R. W. LANE, AND T. E. LARSON

ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY

URBANA
1963
 CONTENTS

Page

Abstract 3
Introduction 3
Acknowledgments 4
Estimation of cooling tower costs 4
Initial cost 5
Fixed costs 7
Power costs 7
Maintenance costs 7
Additional power costs 7
Water treatment 7
Concentrations 9
Make-up water costs 11
Check list 11
Estimation of once-through cooling costs 12
Initial c o s t s , self-supplied water 12
Power costs 13
Derivation of cost relationships 13
Relative rating factor 13
Tower costs 14
Installation 14
Chemical treatment 15
Make-up 16
Power 16
Other considerations 17
Summary 17
References 18
Printed by the authority of the State of Illinois - I.R.S. Ch. 127, P a r . 58.29
 Water Use and Related Costs with Cooling Towers

by Brian Berg, R. W. Lane, and T. E. Larson

ABSTRACT

Methods of water use for heat dissipation a r e evaluated, with

emphasis on simplification of annual cooling tower cost e s t i m a t e s .
Tower costs for initial equipment and installation, annual fixed c o s t s ,
and operating costs are considered. Results of the study are presented
in an e a s y - t o - u s e , step-by-step form so that e s t i m a t e s for specific
cases may be made and compared with estimated costs of n o n - c o n s e r -
vation p r a c t i c e s . It is recommended that if costs of once-through and
conservation methods are within about 30 per cent of each other, a
thorough study of cooling water needs is justified.

INTRODUCTION

In studying the water r e s o u r c e s of northeast-
ern Illinois to determine their ultimate availability
in relation to predicted r e q u i r e m e n t s , considera-
tions of r e u s e and conservative m e a s u r e s are
n e c e s s a r y c o r o l l a r i e s which demand attention.
Economic factors as well as water availability
determine whether conservation practices are
adopted. The fact that water conservation m e a s u r e s
a r e a common p r a c t i c e , which has led to the devel-
opment of a now sizeable allied industry, testifies
to a degree that localized needs do exist and that
such m e a s u r e s can be economical. This study is
p r i m a r i l y concerned with an economic evaluation
of cooling towers for water r e u s e plus comparable
evaluation of self-supplied or purchased water for
once-through u s e .
In judgment on use of cooling towers for con-
servation of w a t e r it should be recognized that the
quantitative need for make-up water for cooling
towers is low, but such water is largely consumed
(evaporated) and the small r e m a i n d e r is degraded
for subsequent r e u s e when r e l e a s e d from the tower
because of the accumulation of m i n e r a l s . For once-
through use of water for cooling the quantitative
needs a r e relatively high, but usually l e s s than one
per cent is consumed and the discharge is generally
degraded only by a r i s e in t e m p e r a t u r e .
This r e p o r t p r e s e n t s the r e s u l t s of an examina-
tion of cooling tower costs in a ready and e a s y - t o -
use form, so that approximate costs for specific
cases may be estimated and compared with the
costs of non-conservative p r a c t i c e s . If the derived
costs are i n c l o s e range to or l e s s than the p r e s e n t
or projected costs of existing water use s y s t e m s ,
a complete and thorough study of cooling water
needs is justified. It is not the purpose of this r e -
port to r e p l a c e the specialized competence of the
consulting e n g i n e e r o r the water t r e a t m e n t
consultant.
Although this r e p o r t is concerned p r i m a r i l y
with n o r t h e a s t e r n Illinois which has suffered from
what is probably one of the g r e a t e s t ground-water
r e c e s s i o n s in the world, the r e s u l t s and factors
considered a r e applicable to m o s t a r e a s where
p r e l i m i n a r y e s t i m a t e s for relative economic
evaluation a r e d e s i r e d .
Of p a r t i c u l a r interest from this study was
the chemical savings that can be realized by p e r -
mitting m i n e r a l concentrations in the cycled water
in cooling towers to increase 5- to 10-fold r a t h e r
than 1.5- to 2.0-fold as c o m m o n l y practiced.
Although by percentage the g r e a t e s t water savings
a r e experienced at 1.5 to 2.0 concentrations of
m i n e r a l s , significant reduction in water needs can
be obtained when g r e a t e r controlled concentrations
of m i n e r a l s a r e permitted in the cycled w a t e r .
This has g r e a t e r significance f o r t h e l a r g e r
installations, and can amount to s e v e r a l million
3
g a l l o n s in a few m o n t h s .
The specific a r e a s of cooling c o s t s considered
in this report a r e :
1) I n i t i a l c o s t of e q u i p m e n t and i n s t a l l a t i o n
e x c l u s i v e of a l t e r a t i o n s to the existing
system
2) A n n u a l fixed c o s t s i n c l u d i n g a m o r t i z a t i o n ,
depreciation, interest, taxes, insurance,
rent
3) Annual operating c o s t s including water,
treatment, p o w e r , maintenance, etc.
S u g g e s t i o n s for r e l a t i n g t h e s e t o s e l f - p r o d u c e d
and p u r c h a s e d w a t e r use on a c o m p a r a b l e basis a r e
included.
E S T I M A T I O N O F C O O L I N G TOWER
Cost d a t a , provided by m a n y cooling tower
m a n u f a c t u r e r s on their respective types of t o w e r s ,
w e r e a s s e m b l e d and c o m p a r e d o n a c o m m o n b a s i s .
Although a n u m b e r of f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e t h e
r e l a t i v e c o s t s o f cooling t o w e r s , t h e t y p e o f c o n -
s t r u c t i o n - - w h e t h e r all w o o d , m e t a l with wood
t r i m , galvanized iron, aluminum, stainless steel,
or other m a t e r i a l -- is a p r i m a r y factor.
T h e r a t i o of a i r to w a t e r flow is a l s o a f a c t o r
b e c a u s e t h e h i g h e r t h i s r a t i o t h e s m a l l e r the t o w e r
f r a m e . The s m a l l e r tower frame r e s u l t s in lower
initial cost, but at the s a c r i f i c e of higher operating
c o s t s due t o g r e a t e r fan p o w e r r e q u i r e d for i n -
c r e a s e d a i r flow. This o p e r a t i n g cost is further
r e l a t e d t o t h e t y p e and l o c a t i o n o f t h e f a n .
Initial c o s t s a r e also r e l a t e d to pump head
r e q u i r e m e n t s . High p u m p h e a d t o w e r s g e n e r a l l y
have a lower initial cost, but again the operating
p o w e r and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s a r e g r e a t e r . T h e
efficiency of the packing design is another factor
in this r e s p e c t , since many different types of pack-
ABBREVIATIONS
R Range (HWT-CWT)*
A Approach (CWT-WBT)*
HWT Hot w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e *
CWT Cold w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e *
WBT Wet b u l b t e m p e r a t u r e *
RRF Relative rating factor
L Circulation r a t e , gallons per minute (gpm)*
MU M a k e - u p w a t e r , g a l l o n s p e r h o u r (gph)
Q H e a t d i s s i p a t i o n r a t e i n Btu p e r h o u r (Btuh)
C Concentrations
*From the Cooling Tower Institute Bulletin NCL 1092
4
Acknowledgments
This r e p o r t was prepared by Brian Berg,
s p e c i a l r e s e a r c h a s s i s t a n t , and R u s s e l l W . L a n e ,
c h e m i s t and s u p e r v i s o r o f t h e S t a t e I n s t i t u t i o n
water t r e a t m e n t s e r v i c e , under the general d i r e c -
t i o n o f D r . T . E . L a r s o n , a s s i s t a n t chief and h e a d
of t h e c h e m i s t r y s e c t i o n of t h e I l l i n o i s S t a t e W a t e r
Survey. J. Raymond C a r r o l l of C a r r o l l , Henneman
and A s s o c i a t e s p r o v i d e d c o n s u l t a t i o n and r e v i e w e d
t h e r e p o r t . D a t a f r o m m a n y v e n d o r s and m a n u -
facturers a r e gratefully acknowledged, as a r e p a r -
t i c u l a r l y the helpful c o n f e r e n c e s with p e r s o n n e l of
The Marley Company, Fluor P r o d u c t s Company,
and Binks M a n u f a c t u r i n g C o m p a n y . M r s . J , L o r e e n a
Ivens e d i t e d the m a n u s c r i p t and John W . B r o t h e r
p r e p a r e d the i l l u s t r a t i o n s .
COSTS
ings c a n b e u s e d t o b r e a k u p t h e w a t e r s o t h a t i t
will h a v e good s u r f a c e c o n t a c t w i t h the a i r . T h e
t w o m o s t c o m m o n t y p e s a r e t h e film flow p a c k i n g s
and t h e s p l a s h p a c k i n g s .
C o r r e l a t i n g c o s t s for e q u i p m e n t w i t h t h i s
n u m b e r o f v a r i a b l e s i s t h e r e f o r e difficult and
h a z a r d o u s and h a s n e c e s s i t a t e d n u m e r o u s a s s u m p -
t i o n s . The r e l a t i v e r a t i n g factor developed by The
Marley Company provided a common denominator
for t h e c o r r e l a t i o n . A s a p p l i e d i n t h i s r e p o r t , t h e
d e r i v e d c o s t s s h o u l d b e within a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 0
to 30 p e r cent of the actual c o s t s providing the
proposed installation complies reasonably well
with t h e s e p r i m a r y a s s u m p t i o n s :
1) The tower is installed on-grade
2) The tower is in reasonably close proximity
t o the e q u i p m e n t i t i s t o s e r v e
3) No special provision is m a d e to conceal
the t o w e r ' s e x i s t e n c e ( a e s t h e t i c a p p e a l ) .
S p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s not i n c l u d e d i n t h e s e
assumptions will r e q u i r e additional expenditures,
and a r e n e c e s s a r i l y o m i t t e d f r o m the c o r r e l a t i o n s
i n t h i s e v a l u a t i o n . A e s t h e t i c a p p e a l , for i n s t a n c e ,
could d i c t a t e s u p p l e m e n t a r y e x p e n d i t u r e s g r e a t e r
t h a n the c o m b i n e d t o w e r , a c c e s s o r i e s , and i n s t a l -
lation c o s t s .
To compute individual cooling costs based on
t h e m e t h o d s i n t h i s r e p o r t , t h e following i n f o r m a -
tion (also see list of abbreviations) is r e q u i r e d :
1 ) R e q u i r e d c o l d w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e (CWT)
2) E x p e c t e d h o t w a t e r t e m p e r a t u r e (HWT)
3 ) D e s i g n w e t b u l b t e m p e r a t u r e (WBT); s e e
table 1
4) C i r c u l a t i o n r a t e of w a t e r in gpm (L), or
t h e h e a t d i s s i p a t i o n r a t e (Q) i n Btu p e r
h o u r (Btuh)
 5) M i n e r a l a n a l y s i s of t h e w a t e r s u p p l y graph in figure 2. This cost includes installation
6) C o s t of w a t e r o f t h e t o w e r , and a l l p u m p s , c o n t r o l s , p i p i n g , and
7) C o s t of p o w e r w i r i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the t o w e r .
8) K n o w l e d g e of the v a r i a b l e s i n v o l v e d in the T a b l e 1 . Wet Bulb T e m p e r a t u r e s
fixed c o s t o f o w n e r s h i p ( t a x e s , i n t e r e s t ,
etc.) Summer
With t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n it is t h e n p o s s i b l e to u s e 24-hour 9-hour**
this report to e s t i m a t e initial cost, the costs of City average* average
power, maintenance, water treatment, make-up
w a t e r , and b a s i c fixed c o s t s for c o o l i n g t o w e r i n - Chicago 63 65.1
s t a l l a t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n . C e r t a i n d e s c r i p t i v e Joliet 62.8 ----
m a t t e r i s i n c l u d e d for c l a r i f i c a t i o n , and s u p p l e - Peoria 63.9 68
m e n t a r y explanations of derivations a r e discussed. Springfield 65.3 68.3
St. L o u i s 66.6 68.8
Annual
Initial Cost Design***
24-hour 9-hour** wet
average average bulb
The r e l a t i v e r a t i n g f a c t o r (RRF) i s a m e a s u r e
of t h e d e g r e e of difficulty to o b t a i n t h e r e q u i r e d Chicago 45.2 47.3 74.8
p e r f o r m a n c e . A r e l a t i v e r a t i n g f a c t o r of 1.0 h a s Joliet ---- ---- 75.3
b e e n assigned to the a r b i t r a r y s t a n d a r d conditions Peoria ---- ---- 75.6
of r a n g e (R) = 1 0 F , a p p r o a c h (A) = 1 0 F , and d e s i g n Springfield ---- ---- 76.8
w e t bulb t e m p e r a t u r e (WBT) = 7 0 F . T h e r a n g e and St. L o u i s 49.7 51.6 76.8
t h e a p p r o a c h p a r a m e t e r s define the r e l a t i v e r a t i n g (Data tabulated by meteorology 'section, Illinois State Water Survey,
f a c t o r for s p e c i f i c d e s i g n c o n d i t i o n s . D e s i g n wet from U.S. Weather Bureau airport records 1949-56 and from Fluor
bulb values m a y be obtained from table 1. The Products Company 3)
* Median values are about 1.5F higher
r e l a t i v e r a t i n g f a c t o r u s e d for s e l e c t i o n of t o w e r ** 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
s i z e can be o b t a i n e d f r o m f i g u r e 1, and the t o t a l *** Design wet bulbs are those which will be exceeded only 5 per
i n i t i a l c o s t m a y t h e n b e d e r i v e d f r o m the n o m o - cent of the hours in the period June 1 through September 30.

Figure 1. Relative rating factor chart

5
 To determine total initial cost, first calculate
the range (R) and approach (A), then enter figure 1
with these values to select a relative rating factor
(RRF). With this relative rating factor, the water
flow r a t e (L), and the design wet bulb t e m p e r a t u r e
(WBT), enter figure 2 to obtain the total initial cost
as in the illustrative example below.
If the cooling water circulation rate is not
known, it can be determined (ingallons per minute),
from the heat dissipation r a t e (Q) in Btuh and the
t e m p e r a t u r e s (HWT and CWT) by using the equa-
tion

Figure 2. Derivation of total initial cost of cooling tower

6
 Example problem:
Estimate the total initial cost required to
cool 200 gpm from 94.8F to 84.8F when the
wet bulb t e m p e r a t u r e is 78F:
R = 94.8 - 84.8 = 10F
A = 84.8 - 78 = 6.8F
From figure 1, RRF = 1.5
Enter figure 2 and place a straightedge
between the 78F WBT point and the RR F = 1.5
point. Place a straightedge between the i n t e r -
section point on the pivot line and the 200 gpm
point on the L s c a l e . The cost scale thus reads
$3,600. This is the approximate initial cost of
a complete cooling tower installation (includes
tower, pumps, piping, controls, and, electrical
wiring) to cool 200 gpm from 94.8F to 84.8F
when the wet bulb t e m p e r a t u r e is 78F.
Fixed Costs
The fixed cost of ownership can now be d e t e r -
mined according to individual accounting p r o c e -
d u r e . This cost should include such i t e m s as taxes,
depreciation, i n s u r a n c e , and i n t e r e s t .
Power Costs
Figure 3 is a nomograph for the determination
of the power r e q u i r e m e n t in kilowatts per hour.
This r e q u i r e m e n t includes the fan power and pump-
ing power attributed to the tower only. The p r e -
vailing power costs must be used with these values
to determine a per hour cost-of-operation figure.
A straightedge is used with this figure following
the same procedure outlined for figure 2.
The power consumption will not be constant
over a whole year or season. This is due to capa-
city modulation which is dependent upon the type of
control s y s t e m , the type of service, and the weather
conditions. For this r e a s o n , it is n e c e s s a r y to
either c o r r e c t the full load operating hours as
calculated or given in table 2, p. 11, or to adjust
the power requirement.
For estimation p u r p o s e s , the power r e q u i r e -
ments can be corrected for a particular CWT and
R by using an average wet bulb t e m p e r a t u r e for
the period of operation instead of the design wet
bulb t e m p e r a t u r e . With these values the RRF chart
(figure 1) can be used with the average approach
(CWT-WBT), and the s a m e procedure can be fol-
lowed in figure 3 as that outlined for figure 2.
Table 1 l i s t s the average wet bulb t e m p e r a t u r e
for some locations in and near Illinois, as well as
the n o r m a l design wet bulb t e m p e r a t u r e s .
Maintenance Costs
F o r lack of a specific application, m a i n -
tenance costs may be assumed equal to the power
c o s t s . This assumption is recommended 4 as a good
preliminary estimate.
Additional Power Costs
The pump power for existing heat t r a n s f e r
equipment (heat exchangers, etc., exclusive of
connecting piping) in remodeled s y s t e m s can be
estimated by the following elementary p r o c e d u r e .
E s t i m a t e the new head loss as
Additional head loss for connecting piping m u s t be
added to this head l o s s . With the combined new
head l o s s , and an assumed per cent efficiency of
40 to 70, the pump power in kilowatts per hour may
be calculated from the following equation
F o r new heat t r a n s f e r equipment, it will be
n e c e s s a r y to refer to m a n u f a c t u r e r s ' data for the
prediction of head l o s s . The ASHRAE Guide 5 p r o -
vides g r e a t e r detail on head loss calculations for
an e n t i r e s y s t e m .
Water Treatment
The role of water treatment in cooling tower
operations is an important economic consideration,
since equipment maintenance and operation effi-
ciency as well as water savings are dependent upon
it. Scale and corrosion problems, which can be
serious in once-through cooling s y s t e m s , are
usually accentuated when water is r e c i r c u l a t e d in
cooling t o w e r s y s t e m s . However, with proper
water t r e a t m e n t , water savings of n e a r l y 99 per
cent a r e possible.
The cooling tower is designed to evaporate
water as it is circulated through the t o w e r . This
evaporation lowers the t e m p e r a t u r e of the r e m a i n -
ing circulated water. As the evaporation takes
place, the m i n e r a l salts (present in all water
s o u r c e s ) remain in the circulated w a t e r and
i n c r e a s e in concentration. As water is evaporated,
m a k e - u p water is added to maintain the volume of
circulated water.
The concentration (C) refers to the number of
t i m e s that the original minerals in the circulated
water a r e concentrated or increased by continuous
evaporation. The circulated water volume may
t h e r e f o r e develop 2, 3, 10, or 20 concentrations of
m i n e r a l s a l t s , depending on the chemical t r e a t -
ment design and corresponding operation c r i t e r i a .
7
 The first n e c e s s i t y for avoiding excessive
concentration of m i n e r a l s in the water is to with-
draw periodically, or continuously, a portion of the
circulated water and to dilute the remainder with
fresh w a t e r . This withdrawal is similar to that
p r a c t i c e d in the operation of boilers for steam
generation and is called blowdown. Excessive blow-
down r a t e s a r e wasteful, and efficient operation
dictates that minimum blowdown be practiced and
that maximum m i n e r a l s be retained as consistent
with e c o n o m y and freedom from s c a l e and
corrosion.
Chemical t r e a t m e n t is therefore p r i m a r i l y
designed to prevent the problems which r e s u l t from

Figure 3. Total power requirement for tower

8
high m i n e r a l concentrations. Either internal or
external t r e a t m e n t or both may be applied. Internal
type t r e a t m e n t s , involving addition of chemicals
including scale and corrosion inhibitors, often
prove to be l e s s expensive than external p r e t r e a t -
ment since the equipment costs are low (less than
$600) and the chemical costs are reasonable.
During evaporation, carbon dioxide (carbonic
acid) is lost to the atmosphere and thereby causes
the circulated water to become more alkaline. In
the presence of calcium h a r d n e s s this causes scale
deposits. To avoid this, the water may be treated
with acid, and because of cost, sulfuric acid is
usually specified.
Other methods of t r e a t m e n t are designed to
reduce or remove the h a r d n e s s in the make-up
water. The two most generally used are external
softening methods, the cold lime softening p r o c e s s
and the sodium zeolite softening p r o c e s s . These
a r e discussed in the third section, p. 15. Others
may be competitive in effectiveness and in cost.
The d i r e c t acid application (along with scale
and corrosion inhibitors) as an internal treatment
preferably requires proportioning equipment for
controlled application of the chemicals to the m a k e -
up water. The cost of t r e a t m e n t in cents per 1000
gallons of make-up water (MU) may be calculated
from the following formula, where A is the alka-
linity (as CaCO 3 ) of the m a k e - u p water:

Concentrations
Assuming proper scale and corrosion p r e -
vention t r e a t m e n t , the maximum cooling tower con-
centration (C) is usually limited bythe calcium and
sulfate contents in the circulated water. These
limits a r e dictated by the solubility of calcium
sulfate. Since hardness (H) is related to the calcium
concentration and is also a reasonable empirical
m e a s u r e of the "effective" sulfate concentration in
a c i d - t r e a t e d make-up w a t e r s , this readily avail-
able p a r a m e t e r can be employed in the following
equation for estimating the maximum p e r m i s s i b l e
concentration ratio (C) for m i n e r a l s in the c i r c u -
lating water to the m i n e r a l s in the make-up water.
The equation is
In o r d e r to demonstrate savings in water and
chemical costs by maintaining high concentration
ratios in the circulating water, graphical examples
are provided in figures 4a and 4b. The make-up in
gallons per hour for selected concentration ratios
can be obtained from figure 5, p. 10.
Figure 4. Decrease of operating cost with increasing
mineral concentration for circulation rates of 200 gpm
(A) and 1000 gpm (B)
Example 1:
In figure 4a, a 10F range with a 94.8F
hot water t e m p e r a t u r e , a 200 gpm circulation
r a t e , and a cost of 15 cents per 1000 gallons
were a s s u m e d . Using the derived make-up
r e q u i r e m e n t s , the water cost per hour is indi-
cated by the dashed line. With internal acid
t r e a t m e n t and an assumed alkalinity of 300
ppm in the make-up water, the estimated cost
of chemicals per hour from the t r e a t m e n t
cost equation is indicated by the solid line.
The combined cost is 4.3 cents per hour at
C = 10.
By way of comparison for the same heat
load and hot water t e m p e r a t u r e , and a water
supply t e m p e r a t u r e of 60F at a cost of 15
cents per 1000 gallons , the once-through water
cost would be $1.80 per hour without water
treatment.
9
 Figure 5. Make-up water requirements for varying mineral concentrations
10
 Example 2: ing hours accordingly. This can be accomplished
by converting to an equivalent full load b a s i s . For
In figure 4b, a 10F range with a 94.8F hot example, if it is expected that the heat load to the
water t e m p e r a t u r e , a 1000 gpm circulation tower will be a certain percentage of full load c a -
r a t e , and a water cost of 5 cents per 1000 pacity for a predetermined period, the number of
gallons were assumed. For the derived m a k e - equivalent full load hours is the ratio of the expect-
up r e q u i r e m e n t s , the water costs a r e shown ed load to the full load capacity times the number
by the dashed line. For a m a k e - u p water with of hours in the reduced load period. That is
50 ppm alkalinity, the estimate of cost of
internal acid treatment is shown by the solid equivalent full _ no, of full
line. The combined cost is 9.5 cents per hour load hours load hours
at C = 10.
For the same heat load and hot water
t e m p e r a t u r e , and a water supply t e m p e r a t u r e
of 60F at a cost of 5 cents per 1000 gallons,
the once-through cost would be $3.00 per hour Table 2 lists some equivalent full load operating
without t r e a t m e n t . hours recommended for some typical air condi-
tioning applications. To determine t h e annual
In normal practice where treatment control
m a k e - u p w a t e r costs and chemical t r e a t m e n t
with minimum supervision is not rigid, maintenance
c o s t s , multiply the total number of gallons t i m e s
of 1.5 to 2 concentrations is not uncommon for
the cost per 1000 gallons, thus
s m a l l e r t o w e r s . This practice provides a factor of
m a k e - u p cost =[(gal/hr) (cost/1000 gal)]x hours
safety where costly shut-downs due to failure in
application is a n e c e s s a r y consideration. With
g r e a t e r a s s u r a n c e of proper chemical applications,
Table 2. Typical Equivalent Full Load
3 to 5 concentrations may well be practiced. For
Operating Hours for Air Conditioning *
l a r g e r t o w e r s , concentration of 3 to 4 may be
common for s i m i l a r r e a s o n s , but may well be
increased to obtain the efficiencies indicated in Hours **
figures 4a and 4b by g r e a t e r attention to properly open for
controlled chemical application and blowdown. Application business Chicago St. Louis
For conversion of costs per hour for c h e m i - Barber shops 1280 720 890
cal t r e a t m e n t and for water to an annual b a s i s ,
adjustment must be made in the make-up r e q u i r e - Department s t o r e s 940 610 750
ments for hours of operation and for reduced load
operation. Drug stores 2100 1060 1420

Funeral p a r l o r s 600 330 400

Make-up Water Costs
Offices 1100 720 910
Figure 5 is a nomograph of make-up water
requirements based on a v a r i a b l e dissolved solids Restaurants 2100 930 1300
concentration r a t i o . Make-up is equivalent to blow-
down, windage l o s s , and evaporation l o s s e s . Place Specialty shops 1090 590 720
a straightedge on figure 5 between the appropriate
L and R and m a r k the intersection on the pivot Theaters,
line. Place a straightedge between this point on the neighborhood 900 450 .550
pivot line and the appropriate concentration. Where
the straight line intersects the make-up s c a l e , * From ASHRAE Guide 5 ** Hours between May 15 and October 15
read the r e q u i r e d make-up water in gallons per
hour.
To determine the number of hours of operation Check List
per year, multiply the number of calendar days by
the number of operation hours per day. This n u m - Table 3 m a y be used as a check list for the
ber is applicable only for constant heat dissipation costs involved in the comparison calculations. No
as would be found in some p r o c e s s applications. attempt is made h e r e t o list power, water, interest,
If the heat dissipation r a t e is not expected to be and tax rates as these are variables which each
constant during this period, as in air conditioning user must include in order that the estimate may
applications, it is n e c e s s a r y to modify the o p e r a t - apply specifically to the particular c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

11
 Table 3. Cost Sheet
Initial Investment
1. Cost of total installation
2. Other costs (alterations or additions required
to complete the conservation system)
Total Initial Investment (T)
Annual Fixed Costs
1. Amortization and depreciation period (Y y e a r s )
2. Interest r a t e (i)
3. Amortization and depreciation (T/Y)
4. Interest x i x T
5. Taxes
6. Insurance
7. Rent
Total Fixed Costs, 3-7 (Tf)
Annual Operating Costs
1. Power (pump and fan of tower)
2. Maintenance
3. Power (other)
4. Water t r e a t m e n t
5. Make-up water
6. Sewer c h a r g e s
7. Miscellaneous
Total Operating Cost, 1-7 (To)
Annual Fixed and Operating Cost, Tf + To

ESTIMATION OF ONCE-THROUGH
COOLING COSTS

The cost of once-through water cooling may

be obtained by using the estimated initial cost of
the water supply (source and facilities) and d e t e r -
mining the fixed and operating c o s t s according to
the check l i s t in table 3. If purchased water is
used, the applicable c o s t s , both fixed and o p e r a t -
ing, should also be determined.
The quantity of once-through water is depen-
dent upon the heat to be dissipated, the maximum
allowable t e m p e r a t u r e (HWT), and the t e m p e r a -
ture of available water (CWT). The available water
t e m p e r a t u r e can be as low as 50F from shallow
wells or as high as 90F for some surface w a t e r s .
The two limiting t e m p e r a t u r e s indicate the allow-
able t e m p e r a t u r e difference (Range) for once-
through water. The once-through flow rate is t h e r e -
fore equal to 60Q/500(HWT-CWT) in gallons per
hour. This quantity multiplied by the unit cost of
the water, whether purchased or self-supplied,
gives the cost per hour. It is then n e c e s s a r y to
multiply this number by the expected full load
operating hours to determine the total annual op-
erating cost.

Initial Costs, Self-supplied Water

To approximate the cost of a well installation, Figure 6. Total cost of well pump assembly
s t a r t with the flow r a t e determined above which and installation
12

Table 4. Well Size Requirements
Pumping Minimum casing
r a t e , gpm sizes , inches
120 6-8
300 8-10
600 10-12
1200 12-14
2000 14-16
3000 16-18
will designate the minimum hole and casing size
as indicated in table 4.
Drilling costs for rock wells with casings may
then be estimated at $1.50 to $2.00 per inch dia-
m e t e r per foot of depth to 600 feet (including c e -
mented casing), and $1.50 to $3.00 per inch d i a m e -
t e r per foot at g r e a t e r depths (including l i n e r s ) .
DERIVATION OF COST RELATIONSHIPS
Relative Rating Factor
Rating charts for cooling towers are generally
developed from experimental data. The relative
rating factor (figure l ) i s obtained from an average
of a number of cross flow and counter flow rating
charts developed for a constant air flow r a t e .
Figure 1 was developed l by superimposing the
various rating charts for different towers upon
one another so that the a r b i t r a r y standard condi-
tions of 10F r a n g e , 10F approach to a 70F wet bulb
t e m p e r a t u r e coincided, and this point was a r b i -
t r a r i l y assigned a rating factor of 1.0. Other con-
ditions of range and approach were then assigned
relative values (RRF) w h i c h are fractions or
multiples of t h i s . These rating factors have the
dimensions of square feet per gallons per minute
(sq ft/gpm). In this instance the relative rating
factor has no relationship to the physical size of a
tower; it is a number for comparison only. To use
this number with the dimensions of sq ft/gpm to
determine the plan size would yield a tower (de-
pending on the packing) from 2 to 5 times too l a r g e .
Figure 7 i l l u s t r a t e s the general trend of two
10F approach curves when compared with the curve
plotted from figure 1. All the 10F approach curves
p a s s through the point R R F = l.0 and R = 10F. For
each different tower, the 10F approach curve will
rotate about this point as shown. The inherent e r r o r
within this method of reducing all towers to one set
of performance curves l i e s in the deviation of the
These values are rules-of-thumb for rock wells
and do not include the cost of pumping equipment.
The well pump assembly and installation cost
m a y b e estimated from generalized data assembled
in figure 6. The pumping head is taken to be the
pump setting from ground surface to the top of the
bowls. These estimates were obtained from a single
vendor. Competitive estimates may be significantly
g r e a t e r or l e s s e r depending on circumstances and
specifications.
For surface water supplies, no attempt has
been made to indicate estimates on costs for s u r -
face water inlets with attendant maintenance p r o -
blems or the cost of pumps for this type of installa-
tion, as these are beyond the scope of this r e p o r t .
Power Costs
In general, power costs may be estimated
from an approximate 0.525 kilowatt r e q u i r e m e n t
per 100 feet of head per 1000 gallons pumped.
approach curves when conditions greatly different
from R R F = 1.0 a r e chosen. The system, t h e r e -
fore, is acceptable for conditions close to a RRF
of 1.0, but l a r g e r e r r o r s are expected as m o r e
adverse conditions p r e v a i l .
Figure 7. Deviation of approach curves for varying
tower types
F o r simplification, o n l y the 70F wet bulb
t e m p e r a t u r e chart is used, and for other wet bulb
conditions, standard wet bulb correction factors
have been incorporated in the nomographs. Wet
bulb correction factors have been used frequently
to simplify cooling tower rating p r o c e d u r e s and
preliminary estimates.
The possible net e r r o r which is introduced by
both the relative rating factor and the wet bulb
correction factors does not exceed 9 per cent in
the range of 70 to 80F WBT and an RRF between
0.6 and 1.7.
13
Tower Costs
Because equipment pricing is not standard,
and reflects business judgment, deviations from
the values obtained from these charts m u s t be
anticipated. The tower cost is r e p r e s e n t e d by a
faired curve through the scatter of points shown
in figure 8. This scatter indicates a possible e r r o r
of - 24 per cent. If an additional 9 per cent i n a c -
curacy for the method of reduction is considered,
a total e r r o r of approximately 33 per cent in the
tower cost is possible. The inherent e r r o r s of
" r u l e s - o f - t h u m b " for the total installation costs
will add to, or compensate for, some of this
inaccuracy.
This evaluation of dependability clearly indi-
cates that the derived costs must be used only as
Figure 8. Point scatter of tower cost curve
14
e s t i m a t e s and should not be used for other m o r e
refined p u r p o s e s . For a generalized p r e l i m i n a r y
e s t i m a t e , however, this can b e c o n s i d e r e d
acceptable.
Installation
The complete tower installation costs w e r e
a r r i v e d at by using the customary " r u l e s - o f - t h u m b "
which are recommended for estimates by m a n u -
f a c t u r e r s . Two types of towers are involved. The
s m a l l e r towers (10-400 gpm) are generally fully
packaged for delivery and priced fob factory and
the l a r g e r (400-10,000 gpm) are assembled on
site and priced as site as sembled. This is indicated
b y the d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n t h e t o w e r c o s t c u r v e (figure
8 ) . T h e i n s t a l l a t i o n c o s t s ( f i g u r e s 2 and 8) h a v e
t h e r e f o r e been e s t i m a t e d as a r u l e - o f - t h u m b to be
2 - 1 / 2 t i m e s the c o s t o f the s m a l l e r ( 1 0 - 4 0 0 g p m )
t o w e r s and 1-1/2 t i m e s t h e c o s t o f t h e l a r g e r (400-
10,000 g p m ) t o w e r s , w h e r e c i r c u l a t i o n r a t e s (L) a r e
a t 9 0 F H W T , 8 0 F C W T , and 7 0 F W B T .
Chemical Treatment
C o s t s for o n l y t h r e e c o m m o n m e t h o d s o f w a t e r
t r e a t m e n t were considered. These include costs
o f t r e a t m e n t for m a k e - u p w a t e r and s u p p l e m e n t a r y
t r e a t m e n t of circulating water. Cost derivations
w e r e m a d e in a m a n n e r p e r m i t t i n g all to be ex-
p r e s s e d in t e r m s of c e n t s p e r 1000 g a l l o n s of
make-up water.
As shown in the t a b l e of n o m e n c l a t u r e for
water analysis, concentration of all ingredients
used is e x p r e s s e d in equivalents of calcium c a r -
b o n a t e e x c e p t t h a t for c a r b o n d i o x i d e . T h e c o s t o f
c h e m i c a l s m a y vary depending on the source of
s u p p l y and the q u a n t i t y p u r c h a s e d . U s u a l l y t h e s e
c o s t s w i l l b e i n the r a n g e i n d i c a t e d i n t a b l e 5 ,
which gives the costs of c h e m i c a l s used in the
f o r m u l a s i n the o p p o s i t e c o l u m n .
T a b l e 5. C o s t of C h e m i c a l s
Cost used Range*
Sulfuric acid, 66° B a u m e ' 4¢/lb 3 to 5¢/lb
Scale and c o r r o s i o n 15¢/lb 15 to 25¢/lb
inhibitors
Salt $2/100 lb
Hydrated lime $1.10/100 lb
* Under circumstances where chemical costs include services in
the form of periodic analyses or consultations, these may be as
much as twice the range indicated.
NOMENCLATURE, WATER ANALYSIS
A A l k a l i n i t y (as C a C O 3 ) , r a w w a t e r
A' A l k a l i n i t y (as C a C O 3 ) , a f t e r l i m e t r e a t m e n t *
CO2 C a r b o n D i o x i d e (as C O 2 )
Ca C a l c i u m (as C a C O 3 ) , r a w w a t e r
Mg M a g n e s i u m (as C a C O 3 ) , r a w w a t e r
H H a r d n e s s (as C a C O 3 ) , r a w w a t e r
H' H a r d n e s s (as C a C O 3 ) , a f t e r l i m e t r e a t m e n t *
* Estimates from equipment manufacturer
F o r the i n t e r n a l t r e a t m e n t b y a p p l i c a t i o n o f
a c i d , the a c i d c o s t is b a s e d on 1 pound 66° B a u m e '
a c i d ( 4 ¢ / l b ) p e r 1000 g a l l o n s m a k e - u p r e q u i r e d t o
n e u t r a l i z e 120 p p m a l k a l i n i t y . T h i s c o s t , i n c e n t s
p e r 1000 g a l l o n s , is 4 x ( A / 1 2 0 ) , or 0 . 0 3 3 A .
The scale inhibitor cost is based on an example
w h e r e s o d i u m p o l y p h o s p h a t e is m a i n t a i n e d at 6
p p m a n d s o d i u m l i g n o s u l f o n a t e at 18 p p m in the
c i r c u l a t i n g w a t e r . T h i s r e q u i r e s 0.05 pound o f
s o d i u m t r i p o l y p h o s p h a t e ( 1 3 ¢ / l b ) and 0.15 pound
o f s o d i u m l i g n o s u l f o n a t e ( 1 5 . 6 ¢ / l b ) p e r 1000 g a l -
lons of c i r c u l a t i n g w a t e r . T h e c o s t of t h e m a k e - u p
w a t e r r e q u i r e m e n t s i n c e n t s p e r 1000 g a l l o n s i s
therefore
The corrosion inhibitor* cost is similarly
b a s e d o n m a i n t a i n i n g 300 p p m C r O 4 i n the c i r c u -
l a t i n g w a t e r , and i s a p p l i e d a s N a 2 C r 2 O 7 • 2 H 2 O
(22¢/lb), or
T h e c o m b i n e d s c a l e and c o r r o s i o n i n h i b i t o r
cost is then (3/C) + (71/C) or 7 4 / C , in cents per
1000 g a l l o n s m a k e - u p , and t h e t o t a l t r e a t m e n t
c o s t b y t h i s m e t h o d i s t h e r e f o r e 0.033A + ( 7 4 / C ) .
With acid t r e a t m e n t , a s i m p l i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p
for e s t i m a t i n g m a x i m u m c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f m i n e r a l s
in cooling w a t e r to avoid calcium sulfate s c a l e is
C = 2 4 0 0 / H . Using D e n m a n ' s data7 the m a x i m u m
c o n c e n t r a t i o n w a s c a l c u l a t e d for a n u m b e r o f r e p -
r e s e n t a t i v e Illinois w a t e r s t r e a t e d with sulfuric
a c i d , and the a b o v e e q u a t i o n p r o v i d e d c o m p a r a b l e
r e s u l t s for the 1 0 4 F d a t a .
The choice of i n t e r n a l v e r s u s e x t e r n a l t r e a t -
m e n t d e p e n d s o n the m a n y f a c t o r s w h i c h s h o u l d b e
studied by competent e x p e r t s before r e a c h i n g a
decision based largely on economics. These factors
are:
1) The w a t e r a n a l y s i s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the h a r d -
n e s s and a l k a l i n i t y
2) T h e a v a i l a b i l i t y and c o s t o f w a t e r
3) T h e s i z e of t h e s y s t e m
4) The r e l a t i v e c l e a n l i n e s s of the s y s t e m
desired
5) The availability of s p a c e , capable o p e r a t -
ing p e r s o n n e l , and t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e .
E x t e r n a l c o l d p r o c e s s softening b y l i m e t r e a t -
m e n t g e n e r a l l y r e d u c e s the h a r d n e s s to about 80-
100 p p m , and i n c l u d e s a s u b s e q u e n t a c i d a p p l i c a t i o n
for s t a b i l i z a t i o n and a c o r r o s i o n i n h i b i t o r .
*Since chemicals of possible or definite toxicity are often used for
corrosion inhibition in the water treatments, definite preventative
measures shouldbe taken to insure that the cooling tower water can
not be permitted to possibly mix with or be siphoned into the drink-
ing water system. Make-up water should be introduced only at the
tower basin and should be applied at least twice the effective pipe
opening above the maximum possible water level or the overflow
pipe in order to prevent back siphonage6. Disposal of wastes or
blowdown should be in accordance with regulations of local health
agencies and the State Public Health Department.
15
 F o r the external lime t r e a t m e n t p r o c e s s for
the m a k e - u p water, the usual r e q u i r e m e n t s are
based onhydrated lime (1.1¢/lb) and on the formu-
la, 0.007 (A + 50) + 0.015(CO 2 ) in pounds per 1000
gallons. Therefore the lime t r e a t m e n t cost is equal
to

Unusual waters with excessive non-carbonate hard-

ness (H g r e a t e r than A), r e q u i r e supplementary
treatment.
To prevent the development of causticity in the
circulating water, the acid r e q u i r e m e n t s (4¢/lb) for
the m a k e - u p following lime t r e a t m e n t are 0.033A'.
The total treatment cost by this method, including
the need for scale and c o r r o s i o n inhibitors in the
circulating water, will then be
F o r estimating the maximum concentration
of m i n e r a l s when this t r e a t m e n t is used, the hard-
ness of the treated water m u s t be used in the p e r -
m i s s i b l e concentratton equation, p. 9, as follows:
C = 2400/H'
Although external h a r d n e s s removal by sodium
zeolite softening m a y b e employed without applica-
tion of a corrosion inhibitor, m o r e complete inhi-
bition is usually considered n e c e s s a r y .
F o r the external zeolite softening p r o c e s s the
salt r e q u i r e m e n t s (2¢/lb) a r e based on 1 pound
salt required per 2000 grains h a r d n e s s (H), where
1 g r a i n - p e r - g a l l o n hardness is 17 ppm. The salt
cost then is equal to
Therefore the total cost of zeolite t r e a t m e n t
in cents per 1000 gallons m a k e - u p is the salt cost
plus the inhibitor cost, or
In the case of zeolite softening, the maximum
concentration is limited by the alkalinity of the
circulating water. An a r b i t r a r y maximum limit
of 1200 ppm is suggested; however lower values
may be required to provide longer tower life by
avoiding disintegration of wood by high alkalinity.
The maximum concentration (C) is therefore
1200/A.
F i g u r e 9 i l l u s t r a t e s typical equipment costs
for external t r e a t m e n t . The zeolite equipment
cost is based on water h a r d n e s s of 340 ppm and
daily r e g e n e r a t i o n .
Make-up
Make-up (MU) water r e q u i r e m e n t s (figure 5)
were derived by assuming an evaporation loss in
gallons per hour of 1 per cent per 10F r a n g e , or
60 x 0.001 x R x L
16
Figure 9. Water treatment equipment costs
The blowdown in gallons per hour required to s a -
tisfy a given concentration ratio m a y b e estimated
as a fraction of the evaporation l o s s . In equation
form,
Summing both the evaporation loss and the blow-
down, the make-up in gallons per hour is equal to
F i g u r e 5 is a nomograph of this equation. Drift or
windage loss was assumed to be part of the blow-
down and consequently does not appear in the equa-
tion. The general limit on drift loss is usually
given as 0.1 per cent of the circulation r a t e with a
maximum allowable of 0.2 per cent, but these limits
a r e exceeded in some tower designs.
The m a k e - u p given in figure 5 is based on a
constant heat load to the tower. This is generally
not the case in air conditioning, as well as in
some p r o c e s s work, and hence the m a k e - u p for a
full season derived in the foregoing manner will
be in e r r o r unless c o r r e c t e d by the equivalent full
load method described in the first section.
The initial fill of water has been neglected in
this calculation as it is generally a minor fraction
of the operating cost if the system is drained and
refilled only once a y e a r .
Power
The power r e q u i r e m e n t s (figure 3) were d e -
rived from the fan and pump power values cited by
Pfeiffer. 8 These were assumed to be applicable at
the conditions of 90F HWT, 80F CWT, and 70F
WBT. Other conditions of approach, r a n g e , and wet
bulb t e m p e r a t u r e s consequently require a different
amount of power, which has been derived in the
nomograph through incorporation of the wet bulb
c o r r e c t i o n factor and the relative rating factor.
The power r e q u i r e m e n t s indicated by figure 3 a r e
comparable (within 35 per cent) to those indicated
by o t h e r s . 4 , 9 , 1 0
 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Other cooling methods may be desirable for
relatively small heat dissipation r a t e s (less than
1,000,000 Btuh). For these r a t e s refrigeration
s e r v i c e or other similar condensing s e r v i c e , a i r -
cooled condensers or evaporative condensers, can
s o m e t i m e s provide competitive cost advantages to
cooling t o w e r s . The scope of this r e p o r t has not
permitted consideration of this type of equipment.
Information is available from the ASHRAE Guide. 5
Where land is available at reasonable cost,
pond cooling can also be used for air conditioning
as well as some p r o c e s s cooling p u r p o s e s .
Other conservation methods may be considered
a l s o . Water used for cooling can be conserved by
many different methods, either with or without the
use of a cooling tower. The collection and storage
of precipitation from roofs and parking areas can
often provide an ample supply of low m i n e r a l con-
SUMMARY
This r e p o r t has been an evaluation of costs of
water used for heat dissipation with particular
emphasis on simplification of cooling tower e s t i -
m a t e s . Because of the complex nature of evapora-
tive cooling methods, these simplifications should
be used only for p r e l i m i n a r y comparison of p o s -
sible economic advantages in water conservation.
In the refrigeration industry, evaporative or
air-cooled condensers a r e often economically
competitive to cooling towers in the smaller sizes
(10-100 tons).
For maximum economy, optimum size match
tent water for use as m a k e - u p for cooling t o w e r s .
This method not only limits the cost of water to
cost of storage, but also reduces the cost of water
treatment.
Multiple r e u s e either within an industry or
between industries is not an uncommon p r a c t i c e .
Side-channel or flood-water collection basins
a r e also used for storage of n e c e s s a r y m a k e - u p
water.
Sewage t r e a t m e n t plant effluents are available
sources of low quality cooling water where potable
water is at a p r e m i u m .
These few examples suggest that the methods
and p r a c t i c e s of water conservation canbe adapted
and expanded by positive efforts through evaluation
and design. In each c a s e , an element of " f r e e "
water is p r e s e n t which limits costs to storage and
transportation.
is d e s i r e d for the equipment to be cooled and the
heat dissipation equipment. For this reason, s p e c i -
fic cooling needs should be subjected to c o m p r e -
hensive study by a competent engineer.
If the costs of both once-through and c o n s e r -
vation equipment a r e within about 30 per cent of
each other, a thorough investigation should be ad-
visable. The future availability of water is also a
consideration that should not be overlooked.
Economical justification f o r conservation
m e a s u r e s stimulates wise use of the water r e -
source and avoids regulation and r e s t r i c t i o n .
17
 REFERENCES

1 The Marley Company. Test your tower. Technical Bulletin No.

R - 6 1 - P - 8 , Kansas City, Missouri, 1961.

2 Cooling Tower Institute. Nomenclature for industrial water-cooling

t o w e r s . CTI Bulletin NCL-109, January 16, 1958.

3 Fluor Products Company. Evaluated weather data for cooling equip-

ment design, 1958.

4 K. K. McKelvey and Maxey Brooke. The industrial cooling tower.

Elsevier Publishing Company, A m s t e r d a m , 1959.

5 American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

E n g i n e e r s . Guide. p. 719, 1960.

6 Illinois state plumbing code. Department of Public Health, 1959.

7 W. L. Denman. Maximum r e - u s e of cooling water. Industrial Engi-

neering and Chemistry, v. 53, p. 817, 1961.

8 E. L. Pfeiffer. What size cooling t o w e r s ? Chemical Engineering,

v. 56(4), p. 98, April 1949.

9 G. M. Anderson. Cooling tower specifications and design. ASME Paper

No. 5 9 - P E T - 6 , June 1959.

10 F. J. Lockhart, J. M. Whitesell, and A. C. Catland, J r . Cooling towers

for the power industry. Paper presented at 17th annual meeting,
American Power Conference, March 30, 1955.

18