COVER FEATURE
Plant Hatch Cooling Towers
An Innovative Prototype
Keith D. McCartney
Sales and Marketing
Tindal l Concrete V irginia, Inc.
Petersburg, Virginia
Bryant Zavitz
Vice President
Produ ct and Process Development
Tindal l Concrete Georgia, Inc.
Conl ey, Georgia
Douglas A. Leisy
Project M anager
H amon Cooling Towers
Bridgewater, New j ersey
The twin $8 million cooling towers recently built for
Georgia Power Company at Plant Hatch in Baxle~
Georgia, represent a significant step forward in the
design and construction of mechanical draft cooling
towers. Precast, prestressed concrete products
played a prominent role in rapidly building the two
12-ce /1 cooling tower structures. This unusual
project was the culmination of a sound design-build
partnership between Tindall Concrete and Hamon
Cooling Towers. Out of this relationship cam e a
prototype incorporating some unique and innovative
concepts for blending together both standard and
custom designed products and details to produce
two effic ient cost effective and highly durable
finished structures. This article discusses the design
concept, design considerations and stru ctural
innovations of the project, together w ith a
description of the production, transportation and
erection of the precast components.
ntil about 20 years ago, the typical image of a cooling tower for a large nuclear power plant was a tall,
semispherically shaped edifice, huge and dome-like
in appearance. These tall, wide, hyperbolic towers, which
are natural draft cooling towers , require gigantic size to
function properly. Although the operational costs of such
natural draft towers are extremely low, very few of them
have been built in the last 20 years, primarily because of the
extremely high initial expense of the structures.
In contrast, mechanical (induced) draft cooling towers are
more compact and less expensive to construct, but have
U
Gary R. Mirsky
Vi ce President of Sa les
Hamon Cooling Towers
Bridgewater, New j ersey
12
PCI JOURNAL
Fig. 1. Plant Hatch Cooling Towers, Baxley, Georgia.
very high operating costs compared to
the natural draft towers . This is because they use energy to drive large
fan motors at the roofs to induce a
tremendous amount of airflow through
the structures.
Mechanical draft cooling towers ,
like their large dome-like counterparts,
are designed to reduce the temperature
of water heated by various power generating processes by bringing it into
contact with air.
The hot water is pumped from the
generating station into distribution
piping in the cooling tower, then
sprayed onto a heat exchange medium
called fill. As the water percolates
down through the fill , air is brought up
through the fill by fans mounted on
top of the structure.
The Plant Hatch Cooling Towers
(see Fig. 1) built by Hamon Corporation of Bridgewater, New Jersey, use
24 200-horsepower fan motors at the
roofs to induce the airflow. As the air
and water pass each other inside the
fill , cooling takes pl ace through the
exchange of heat between the hot
water and cooler air and , more importantly, the evaporation of a portion of
the hot water. The cooled water is
continuously collected in a basin beneath the fill and pumped back into
January-February 1997
the coo ling system of the power
plant.
Mechanical draft cooling towers for
major utilities have traditionally been
constructed from wood or concrete,
with a more recent industry trend toward the use of fiberglass. Hamon
Thermal Engineers and Contractors,
an 85-year-old international corporation headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, supplies all types of cooling
towers to a broad client base throughout the world. The governing criterion
for the choice of building method has
historically been weighing initial cost
against life cycle benefits, along with
overall cooling volume requirements.
Particular emphasis by owners is
placed on the length of the payback
period as a determinant in the choice
of systems. Wood towers are less expensive than fiberglass or concrete,
so they have a significantly shorter
payback period. Concrete cooling
towers, especially those made from
precast concrete, are recognized as
being the most durable and are usually specified where longevity is desirable and a longer payback period is
more acceptable.
Many applications also require that
the structural system of the tower have
a certain fire rating, which automati-
cally precludes the use of wood. Fiberglass also has difficulty meeting the
fire rating criteria for many cooling
tower applications.
Hamon 's previous precast concrete
cooling tower design had been based
on conventionally reinforced members without prestressing. Although
this system has proven itself marketable over the years in certain parts
of the world, it has not been competitive in the United States. Hamon
Cooling Towers, the New Jersey
based division of the parent company,
was seeking a better solution.
Knowing of Tindall Concrete Virginia's history of innovation in industrial construction,* Hamon Cooling
Towers contacted the firm in 1994
with a major challenge: to develop a
precast concrete cooling tower structural system that was competitive as
well as compatible with both parties'
products and processes. The system
needed to offer superior performance
and durability that would meet the
need s of Hamon 's demanding customers in the power and industrial
sectors.
*
Tindall Concrete has pioneered the development of
precast, prestressed concrete systems for pulp paper
mill s, food process ing plants and other industrial
facilities.
13
B I
L..EYEL ERAMNl PLAN
-o
Q
'--
0
c
~
f::
Fig. 2. Fill leve l framing plan. Layout shows double beams and tri-beams spann ing from doub le tee wa ll s at perimeter to solid loadbearing wal ls at centerlin e of tower.
Stainless stee l truss system shown for lateral stabi lity was required at fill level only.
~G ~G ~G ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~(j ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ p~ ~~ ~~~
CDC DG DC DQ DC DC PQ DC DG ~Q YG ~~ ~G ~~ ~~ ~@G ~G ~~ ~~ j)~ ~G ~~ ~(j ~~ ~~ ~(j ~(j ~G .,._
lor-
"-
I
i
'""'
~
i
i
~
~
~
I
1
z
~
~
~
(i)
~
-~
i
z
iI
i
~
-=
~
L
~
~
~
~
I
r'
r'
~
~
m~
~
I
~
I
I
"""·
!f.
-
lor-
"-
Jill~
I
'
'
'
'
lor-
"-
"-
I
...
I
I
I
IE
r'
_I
.J
I
11
Ill ~
I
II
~~
~~" I ~
If"
""'!.
~
)t II
•
~
"""
....
I'=
~
~-..
~
I Mill I
.
.,
r-i
r-1 I
I
I 1111111 I
I fl!lt I
Fi g. 3. Di stribution level framing p lan. See Fi g. 2 for desc ription of stru ctural fun cti on.
Ill
~
If"
~
~~~
~
'
~
l
I~
~
~
'
r•
i
I
I
"""
~
'
I
I
"""
;;'
;:;:
~
I
I
'
I~
i li I ~ l ll
Ill I
m1
' 1~~
It\
I
~
~
~
i I ~
~
~
I
' ,.
"'- I
""- I
J':
~
~
=
~
,:;:, I'
Q.
~
~
~
::;:
=
.,
'I
I
'I
'I
'I
'I
I
'I
'I
'I
'I
I
'I
-,
I
I
'I
~~
FAN DECK L..EYEL EIWftl PLAN
"U
<]
c...
0
c
~
~
Fi g. 4. Fan deck leve l framing pl an. Circul ar openings, 34 ft (1 0.4 m) in diameter, shown at roof for airflow at eac h of 12 cell s.
Note fa n pad (pedesta l) at center of each ce ll fo r fa n motor mount.
'I
'I
'I
I~
'I
I
"
!or-
"
.._
.;.. -"~ ' .;.. -"~" .;.. -"~" ..!.. -"~ ' .;..
I"
I"
I"
·~u .... } . , J.. J/-u .... J/-u ...- J/-u J..
11'
11'
11'
I
I
I
I
I
.&
I"
I
11'
,,...._,..
-
I
::.·
.
-. .-
•
• nnnrnr!!!!!t!!Hmmmrmmmrtll!!ll!tl!lt!ltlnr
.
-. .-
::Ill:
:::ur:
::Ill:
NORTH I.OtQ1ll)tW.. B EVATION 1r
11111~11111111
-.aM~
:::j
Fig. 5. South and north longitudinal elevati ons. Loadbearin g doubl e tee side wa ll s shown, 50ft (15.2 m), w hi ch support three leve ls of precast framing. O penness of lower half of th ese
members is to all ow airflow into the cell s to be drawn up through the va ri ous tower levels during the coo li ng process.
--
1
I
l
r
---
j
"1
~~
£
t:
~v~
I~
•
•PL..W
-o
Q
c:_
0
c
JJ
z
)>
r
Fig. 6. Interior elevation and transverse sections of 12-cell cooling towers.
A. Transverse cell divider walls shown with openings at bottom for water flow. These walls functioned as shear walls in transverse direction.
B. Transverse section through two back-to-back cell s showing the three supported operating levels .
C Section show ing interior windscreen wa ll requi red as part of Hamon's design.
--··-
rr
'
r-----,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
y ....,--.-&. .... ...-.-:
_.,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~
--®~
·----OIIIIIIIIIlt-.ar-
co
Fi g. 7. Beam-to-co lumn conn ecti o ns and vari o us cross secti o ns.
I\)
0
Q
'-
®~
0
c
:IJ
z
f:.
Fig. 8. Beam-to-column connections and typica l joints.
.........
1
!'=\£
~
-~ fF
·. . ,·.. ·
-~·.:
·~
I .: .
. · t, ·
lo
n n:
!! !! !
~
Fig. 9. Cross sections and details.
•
·:~(r'
nlll :
I Ill
n:
'+"fl I
•
"I"
I
I l l I l lI
IIIII\
Ill
Ill
11lP~ I IL--r .
I llfli I
1111,,.
!!!I'!!!
:1 :: :
r
! !! :: !
:
II
II I
: :: HI
II
~
: ::
I II
Ill
I::
Ill
Ill
Ill
:::
Ill
11 1
11
I It
I
n
1
In short order, a sound partnership
formed between Hamon and Tindall,
which allowed for the careful design
and development of a system of prestressed concrete elements that could
be produced, delivered and erected as
economically as possi ble and still
meet the unique functional requirements of these unu sual structures.
The first two structures from this prototype design were erected at Plant
Hatch.
If it had been implemented on the
Plant Hatch project, the conventional
Hamon design would have resulted in
many more separate elements with
thicker sections, narrower widths, and
shorter length s, all resulting in more
Fi g. 10. Tri -beams in storage fo r fill/distribution leve ls.
Fig. 11. Erection of first tower. At this constru ction phase,
about o ne-third of the structure was compl eted .
22
Fig. 12. 50ft (15.2 m) long perimeter loadbea ring walls being
erected during ea rl y phase of constru ction .
PCI JOURNAL
individual pieces to produce , ship ,
erect and connect in the field. Tindall
worked with Hamon to consolidate
these elements into fewer components
by maximizing widths and lengths of
members. By doing so, a cost-saving
"domino" effect was realized. Efficiencies and reductions in production,
plant handling, shipping, and erection
and connection hardware were all realized. A dramatic improvement in the
overall construction schedule was an
additional benefit.
Georgia Power's decision to hire
Hamon Cooling Towers as its turnkey
contractor for the two major 12-cell
towers at its Plant Hatch Nuclear
Facility in Baxley , Georgia, was
based on economics and a rapid
schedule. Georgia Power also expressed confidence in the life cycle
and durability characteristics of the
precast/prestressed structural system
supplied by the Hamon/Tindall team.
The amount of cooling capacity
needed and the volume of air and
water flow involved required 24 cells,
48 x 50ft (14.6 x 15 .2 m) in dimension , to be constructed in two separate dual-line towers. The building dimensions for each tower were 96 ft
2 in. x 302 ft 6 in . (29.3 x 92.2 m) in
plan and 49ft 10 in. (15.2 m) high
overall. Each cell in both towers has a
basin level several feet below grade,
a fill level approximately 21 in. (533
mm) above the basin floor, a distribution level about 13 ft (3.9 m) above
the fill level, and a roof or fan-deck
level above surrounded by a 3 ft 6 in.
(1.06 m) parapet.
Plan and elevation views of the structure together with typical cross sections
are shown in Figs. 2 through 9.
Fig. 13. Shot from
basin floor showing
fill , distribution and
fan deck levels.
Fig. 14. Interior view midway through erection phase showing fill and distribution
level framing.
ERECTION SCHEDULE
Scheduling and speed of erection
were critical considerations in this
project because the power plant was in
full operation with older towers in use.
Erection of critical components of the
new towers had to take place during
two-week shutdown periods, with definjte beginning and ending times. Precast, prestressed concrete was ideal for
these conditions because production
and shjpping could be planned and executed according to the window of
opportunity.
January-February 1997
Fig. 15. Roof (fan deck level ): 200 horsepower motor mounted on plant cast pedestal
between adjacent double tee stems. Notice large area of flange block-out for airflow.
23
Fig. 16. Exterior elevation showing towers nearing completion.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
INNOVATIONS
Several innovative concepts made
the cooling tower prototype successful:
1. Use of typical prestressed members whenever feasible , which were
amenable with Tindall's form inventory. Members were efficiently sized
in a modified format to meet the aerodynamic and hydrodynamic functional
requirements of the structure. One of
the most important products driving
the economy of the towers was the
loadbearing double tee along the
perimeter, with removal of the entire
flange area between the stems in the
lower half of the members . This al-
lowed for single-component construction for the full height of the tower
using a modified 10 ft (3 .05 m) wide
standard member.
Hamon's technical engineers were
not accustomed to dealing with this
pattern of openings on 5 ft (1.52 m)
centers and had to perform extensive
evaluation to integrate this pattern into
their overall system design. Much
scrutiny was even given to the amount
of draft on the remaining stems of the
wall panels and how this would affect
overall airflow activity.
In addition , the system incorporated
single-component flat interior wall
panels with large intermediate openings
for water flow rather than the conven-
Fig. 17. Large distributor pipes feed hot water into individual
cells at the distribution level to begin the cooling process .
24
tiona! column-to-beam framing that is
typically seen in other tower designs.
This interior wall concept, as opposed
to a column-to-beam layout, also provided shear walls for lateral stability.
2. A second key to the overall economy of the two structures involved the
consolidation of many single-span
beams at the upper fill and distribution levels into a fewer number of
two- and three-beam section members,
which became, in effect, double-stem
beams and triple-stem beams with
intermittent transverse connecting
diaphragms. This consolidation of
many members into fewer components
allowed for overall lower erection and
production costs . In addition , fewer
Fig. 18. Exterior tower end walls showing fill level beams
framed in perpendicular direction.
PCI JOURNAL
components meant fewer exposed
connections, less expensive stainless
steel and reduced concern regarding
long-term corrosion.
3. A third innovation with an obvious economic benefit was the use of
standard 25 in. (635 mm) deep, I 0 ft
(3.04 m) wide double tees for the roof
(fan deck level). The gross open area
of 908 sq ft (84 m2) required for the
massive uplift airflow generated by
the 200-horsepower fans at this level
was achieved by removing (blocking
out) approximately 40 percent of the
total double tee flange area per each
individual cell. Five double tees per
cell clear spanning 50ft (15.2 m) were
used to frame the fan deck level in
place of cumbersome member framing
to frame out and around these large
openings so often seen in other tower
designs. The aerodynamics of this design solution were also carefully studied and analyzed before being approved by Hamon's engineering staff.
4. A fourth cost benefit was realized by stabilizing the structures laterally in both the longitudinal and transverse directions with shear walls. This
was easily accomplished by taking advantage of the overall open and closed
wall design, thereby avoiding costly
and cumbersome frame action connections usually required in other tower
designs .
SPECIAL DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
Among the special design considerations were the following:
• Connections
• Durability and corrosion protection
of reinforcement
• Lateral stability of the structure
• Vibration/torsion at roof level to accommodate fan operation
• FiiJ level diaphragm
Connections
To provide superior corrosion protection, grouted sleeved connections
were used in place of welded or bolted
connections wherever reasonably possible. This applied to all foundation
connections and some limited elevated
connections as well. For added measure, a crack protection coating
(Sikadur 30) was applied in the field at
the bottom of the precast members
near the foundation after they were
erected.
The type of connection hardware
specified for precast concrete cooling
towers for exposed conditions is normally governed by the corrosive quality of the water being cooled. When
cooling towers are operative, they are
usually completely wet inside and out,
24 hours a day. If the water is slightly
saline or brackish, the corrosive im-
Fig. 19. Interior shot of typical cell at basin level. Note
succession of cell divider walls in background.
January-February 1997
pact on exposed connections can be
devastating.
In certain salt water environments
the connection hardware specified is
often an aluminum-bronze or siliconbronze aiJoy, which is much more expensive than stainless steel but many
times more resistant to corrosion. Fortunately, the chloride content of the
water for this project required only
that stainless steel be used for all exposed connection hardware.
Flat wall panels, double tee panels
and column-to-foundation connections - Cast-in-place emulating connections were required , with no
exposed steel, because of the permanently submerged condition of these
areas at the tower basins. More specifically, concealed grouted dowel connections were used: #7 dowel bars
were epoxy grouted into 12 in. (305
mm) deep drilled sleeves at the foundation with a 30 in. (762 mm) projection of the reinforcing steel. Members
with sleeves cast at the bottom were
erected and set overtop projecting
dowels and grouted solid via strategically positioned grout ports.
The 7 ft 6 in. (2.3 m) long pipe support beams at the distribution level
were also connected using completely
concealed epoxy grouted dowels.
Connections above the foundation
(precast to precast) - A wide vari-
Fig. 20. Basin level perimeter. Loadbearing exterior double tee
wa ll panels connect at foundation below water level.
25
ety of welded and bolted stainless
steel connections were used throughout the structure to guard against the
problems that might be caused by corrosive conditions.
Durability and Corrosion
Protection of Reinforcement
The performance and life cycle
value of concrete elements used in
cooling towers, whether for industrial
or commercial uses, depends on protecting the reinforcing steel. Fortunately, because of the relatively low
level of chloride in the water produced
by the Plant Hatch process, corrosion
inhibitors or silica fume additive were
deemed unnecessary. However, Tindall did maintain a low water-cement
ratio of 0.37 maximum to lessen the
permeability of the members to water
and ion penetration.
In addition , for the flanges of the
wall and roof double tee members ,
where concrete cover was somewhat
minimized, galvanized mesh was used
in place of uncoated steel for additional protection.
Lateral Stability of the Structure
Shear wall design to brace the structures laterally in both the longitudinal
and transverse directions was utilized
in place of frame action more often
seen in structures of this type.
Diaphragm action at the roof level
with the large circular opening at each
cell was achieved through intermittent
welded, stainless steel, flange-to-flange
connections [3 in. (76 mm) double tee
flange thickness] . A 2 in. (51 mm)
thick composite concrete topping was
poured in the field by Hamon.
Vibration/Torsion at Roof Level to
Accommodate Fan Operation
The torsion and vibration thrown
into the roof diaphragm from the operation of the large 200-horsepower
fans, one at each cell, and the potential
for possible eccentric loading from
this was accommodated through the
conservative diaphragm design. These
effects were also minimized by thickened support pads, or pedestals, that
were monolithically cast on top of
double tee roof members fabricated at
Tindall's plant in Conley , Georgia.
These pads directly supported the
motor and gear box of each unit.
Directly under this thickened pad
section of double tee, at midspan of
the tee, was a separate beam specially
designed to provide additional support
and torsion resistance. The double tee
from the top of its thickened pad section was bolted down to this beam
with large stainless steel rods epoxygrouted deep into the underlying beam
section.
Fill Level Diaphragm
At the level of the fill , which the
water passes over during the cooling
Fig. 21. Exterior elevations of both new towers prior to startup. Steam in background from existing towers.
26
process , diaphragm action was
achieved by using a custom designed
stainless steel distribution truss.
DESIGN PHASE
The project was awarded in mid to
late January 1995, allowing for ample
design time for Tindall and Hamon to
work out the various particulars relative to the new prototypical design
concept, before the need to begin casting the product. In addition, the extra
time allotted ensured a comfortable
schedule for the fabrication and delivery of the custom steel forms required
at Tindall's Jonesboro facility .
PRODUCTION OF
PRECAST COMPONENTS
A large variety of standard and specially designed precast, prestressed
concrete components were fabricated
for this project. All of the products
were manufactured by Tindall Concrete
Georgia, Inc., a PCI Certified Producer
Member with more than 30 years of
proven reliability and experience.
A total of 736 precast, prestressed
concrete components were produced, a
description of which follows:
• 17 in. (432 mm) deep LOft (3.04 m)
wide double tee wall panels with a
49ft 6 in. (15.1 m) clear span from
basin floor to top of parapet, with all
flange elements blocked out in the
lower 24 ft 7 in. (7 .5 m) of each
panel for air and water flow require-
Fig. 22. Overhead shot showing tower at upper right in
operation, lower tower equipped and nearing completion.
PCI JOURNAL
ments: 184 components per 84,700
sq ft (7868 m2)
• 25 in. (635 mm) deep 10ft (3 .04 m)
wide double tees at roof (fan level),
with 47 ft 9 in. (14.5 m) spans, also
with excessive amount of flange
blocked out for airflow requirements: 120 components per 57,200
sq ft (5313 m2)
• 16 x 16 in. (406 x 406 mrn) precast
columns (one per cell): 24 components per 1110 ft (338m)
• 8 in. (203 mrn) solid, 10ft (3.04 m)
wide loadbearing wall panels at the
longitudinal center all , supporting
beam and double tees on both sides:
60 components per 28,080 sq ft
(2608 m)
• 6 in. (152 mm) solid, 12 ft (3.6 m)
wide non-loadbearing divider walls
with large block-out openings at
bottom for water flow: 80 components per44,585 sq ft (4141 m 2)
• 32 in. (813 mm) deep double-stem
beams and triple-stem beams at the
fill level: 96 components per 4,585
ft (1397 m)
• 28 in . (711 mm) deep double-stem
beams and triple-stem beams at the
distribution level : 95 components
per 4,585 ft (1397 m)
Production of the precast components for the two 12-cell towers at
Plant Hatch took place at three of five
different Tindall plant locations: Conley, Georgia, Biloxi, Mississippi, and
Jonesboro, Georgia. Tindall ' s plant in
Biloxi produced all of the custom designed triple-stem beam and doublestem beam members.
All remaining products (425 of the
total 736 components) were manufactured at the large prestressing plant in
Conley, Georgia. The production cycle
was approximately 12 weeks and
lasted from June through August 1995.
Fig. 23. Overhead shot showing tower at upper right in operation, lower tower
equipped and nearing completion.
TRANSPORTATION OF
PRECAST PRODUCTS
Aside from the normal "overwidth"
permits required for the 12 ft (3.66 m)
wide products and special extra wide
dunnage for the triple-stem beams, no
unusual shipping and/or handling
costs were incurred in the process of
transporting the unusual variety of
products for the project to the site.
Both the Conley and Jonesboro plants
January-February 1997
Fig. 24 . End elevation. Initial start-up of first completed tower with large flume in
foreground .
are located approximately 210 miles
(340 km) from the Plant Hatch jobsite.
The double tee loads coming from
Biloxi had two, sometimes three, components per load to help minimize the
higher freight impact due to the
greater distance involved [300 miles
(484 km) from the site]. The fact that
so much of the tee flange was blocked
out helped to lighten these members
considerably, making these multiple
member loads possible.
27
Fig. 25. Completed view of Hatc h Coo ling Towers.
ERECTION HIGHLIGHTS
Figs. 10 through 24 show various
construction phases of the cooling
towers.
A 200 ton (181 t) truck crane was
used to erect elements for both 12-cell
towers. The interior concrete basin
floor thickness of 15 in. (381 mrn) allowed for comfortable access of the
crane and trucks inside both tower
footprints . For added protection to the
15 in . (381 mm) thick slab, special
dunnage was placed under each crane
outrigger to spread the loads out during erection.
Erection proceeded on a cell-by-cell
basis that allowed for a progressive
turnover of structure for the mechanical (fill uplift, etc.) trades. In particular, fill and distribution level piping
installation occurred almost immediately after erection.
Due to the owner' s requirement for
union labor on the site, Gibbons Erectors of Denver, Colorado, performed
all the erection of precast products ,
with direct supervision by Tindall
Concrete Georgia, Inc. The 200 ton
28
(181 t) truck crane and crew were also
used to lift and set the large fans at
the roof level of each cell for Hamon
and to facilitate the movement of
"fi ll" uplift material into the cells as
well. The total duration for both towers combined (736 components) was
3 7 erection days , or slightly more
than seven weeks, at an average of
about 20 components per day with
one crane and crew.
PROJECT COST
The contract amount for the precast
package was roughly $3 million, with
the total turnkey tower costs at about
$8 million overall.
Fig, 25 shows the finished cooling
towers in operation.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The cooling towers at Plant Hatch recently underwent the owner's thermal
performance test, designed to determine
whether contractual cooling requirements are being attained. These new
prototypical towers at Plant Hatch ex-
ceed the required performance criteria.
Water enters the tower at an average
107°F (42°C) (inlet temperature) and
exits the tower at 86°F (30°C) (outlet
temperature). Each of the two 12-cell
towers perform this function at a rate of
146,000 gallons per minute (gpm).
A new design that is durable, easy
to build, cost effective and aesthetically pleasing must perform as designed. Passing this performance test
is absolutely vital, and in thi s application the design is not only innovative,
it is viable and performs at or above
specifications.
Hamon's market projections suggest
an increase in power plant construction
in North America in the next two to
three years. Although wood is cheaper
in North America, it is Jess durable .
Precast, prestressed concrete in this application may prove to be the solution
of choice. Hamon and Tindall are continuing to investigate avenues to market this tower system throughout North
America and have given price quotations for projects in California, Oregon, Mexico and Puerto Rico .
At the time of this publication, Tindall and Hamon hav e jointly completed another cooling tower project
in Andalusin, Alabama, incorporating
ro ughly equivalent concepts and
technology.
CREDITS
Owner: Georgia Power Company ,
Baxley, Georgia
Architect: Hamon Cooling Towers,
Bridgewater, New Jersey
General Contractor: Hamon Cooling
Towers, Bridgewater, New Jersey
Structural Engineer (Foundation ):
Hamon Cooling Towers, Bridgewater, New Jersey
Structural Engineer (Superstructure):
Tindall Concrete Georgia, Inc .,
Conley, Georgia
Precast Concrete Manufacturer: Tin dall Concrete Georgia, Inc., Conley
and Jonesboro, Georgia
Photographer:
- Cover photograph : Mark Olencki,
Olencki Graphics , Spartanburg ,
South Carolina
- Hamon Cooling Towers, Bridgewater, New Jersey
- Edgars Studio, Alma, Georgia
PCI JOURNAL