Clean Chilled Water Means Reduced Energy Costs Abstract Energy efficiency and reliability of the Texas Tech

University chilled water system became impaired by severe fouling of the chiller tube-sheets and building air handlers. The cause: 35 years of accumulated corrosion byproducts in the closed loop. Although Texas Tech knew that a fairly large, complex and costly problem existed, they had to assure that the cost of a solution did not exceed the hidden costs of operating a fouled chill water system. Furthermore, the solution had to be effected without interrupting service to the campus. The problem was solved economically by retrofitting the system with side stream filters at the central plant and utilizing a polymer-based treatment program to disperse iron corrosion byproducts and enhance filtration. Over a ton of iron corrosion byproducts has been removed from the system since the program was started. Although filters and polymers are common technologies, this application is unique for the way in which they were combined, their use in a chilled water closed loop, the measures that were taken to control the cleaning process and the fact that all was done online to support the research environment. Texas Tech University Texas Tech University is a major research institution located in the Panhandle of West Texas. 29,000 students plus faculty attend classes and perform research in 189 Spanish Renaissance style buildings sprawling across one of the physically largest campuses in the nation. (Figure 1) The climate in winter is temperate; but the climate in spring, summer and fall can be torrid. West Texas is famous for long blazing days and enormous blue cloudless skies. Cooling this vast campus in dry Texas heat consumes most of the Texas Tech energy budget. Jeremy Dickson, engineer, and leader of the Energy Management Team, says that annual campus chilled water cost is on the order of $4.5 million. The condition of the chill water distribution system has direct bearing on this budget for it affects the longevity, maintenance costs and heat transfer efficiency of the central plant chillers and the campus building air handlers. In 1967, Texas Tech built Central Heating and Cooling Plant #1 to provide the campus with steam for heating and chilled water for cooling (pictured, Figure 2). Though the campus had been serviced by an earlier heating plant, central cooling was not introduced until the construction of Central Heating and Cooling Plant #1.

Chilled Water Closed Loop Chilled water is produced by four shell-in-tube centrifugal refrigeration units having a combined capacity of 19,000 tons/hour. The chillers are turbine-driven by 600# superheated steam. The chilled water is distributed to the campus through a 7 mile labyrinth of underground tunnels. In Figure 3, the tunnels are shown in red. (Figure 3) The chilled water system contains 2 million gallons of water which is circulated to most of the 189 buildings on the Tech campus. Chilled water cools these buildings by absorbing heat via the building air handlers and then returns to Central Heating and Cooling Plant #1 where it is re-chilled. The distribution piping diameters range from 30 in the main plant trunk lines to 3/8 in the air handler coils. The attached map indicates the size and complexity of the system. This geometry is necessary from the standpoint of chilled water distribution, but it contributes to a problem with which all building managers are familiar: Corrosion byproducts, aka tramp iron, build up in the system and eventually migrate to the smaller extremities where they plug the air handlers. This is a particular problem for aging systems which have grown and evolved over a long period of time. In the case of Texas Tech, the campus grew, the system branched out and developed turns and loops; the direction of flow became dynamic, changing direction as operating conditions varied at different points on the system. With the add-ons came varying pipe sizes. New buildings were constructed on campus without additional filters such that the relative filter area decreased per unit volume of circulated water. Pipe runs increased with the growing number of users, causing the velocity to drop at the points of use; as a result, the inevitable corrosion byproducts began to settle out more readily. The problem can be likened to sand bars that build up wherever the Brazos River bends. Similarly, silt, corrosion byproducts and microbiological masses build up in chill water systems wherever there are turns, loops, different pipe sizes and low velocities. These problems are common to many closed loop systems hot or cold. An Endemic Problem Corrosion will occur in any closed loop system. But without an adequate filtration program, corrosion byproducts will accumulate in low flow areas and can eventually plug heat transfer equipment. Wherever these byproducts deposit, they create conditions for under-deposit corrosion which can be accompanied by a variety of corrosion mechanisms differential cell, bacterial, galvanic, and so forth. Because such corrosion mechanisms are caused by deposits but also shielded by them, under-deposit corrosion cannot be effectively treated unless there is a mechanism to remove the foulant.

Many systems are built with filtration devices to prevent the buildup of tramp iron. But filters are not always properly maintained. Even with properly maintained filters, iron is not always filterable either because it is in a colloidal state and is therefore too fine for conventional filters, or because system configuration has too many turns and too low a velocity to transport the iron to the filters; and it is not usually feasible to install a full flow filter in each and every branch line. The problem becomes self-perpetuating; corrosion byproducts deposit some place where they induce more corrosion, hence more corrosion byproducts which move around the system and perpetuate the corrosion cycle. Over years of operation without proper filtration, these byproducts can build up to levels that obstruct flow and impede heat transfer. The problem is difficult to defend because it is not always observable. The recirculating water can look crystal clear even though the air handlers may be fouled by deposits in the lower channels and smaller extremities. This is because iron corrosion byproducts form a heavy mass that does not readily circulate with the water; therefore it does not show up in colorimetric tests or filter tests. Furthermore, the corrosion mechanisms which take place under these deposits (known accordingly as under-deposit corrosion) will not be detected on corrosion coupon reports or corrosion rate monitors. 35 Years of Corrosion Byproducts All of the above conditions were at work at Texas Tech University when Delta Water Laboratories President George Tull and Texas Tech Utilities Chemistry Manager Lon Mirll conducted a systematic survey of all utility systems. George Tull noted an inadequate filtration program for the expansive chilled water system. From a one-building campus in 1925 to its present size, the Texas Tech campus had gradually outgrown its earlier utility equipment, and the chilled water system had evolved into a sprawling network. In theory, some of the foulants had been around since the construction of the central cooling system which was installed in the mid-sixties. Organizing to Tackle the Problem To quantify and address this problem required a coordinating structure among the building managers, utility plant chemists, plant superintendents and the building maintenance personnel. In August 2001, Doug Chowning, Director for Physical Plant, reorganized an Energy Management Team under Pete Tarlton, Director for Utilities. The purpose was to more effectively address campus-wide energy issues. The Energy Management Team was comprised of personnel from the Directors Office, Utilities, Building Maintenance and

4 Construction, and Engineering Services. The success of the Energy Management Team cannot be adequately treated within the scope of this article, but it has direct bearing on the problem of chill water system fouling. Reports of plugged campus air handlers began to get the attention of the new Energy Management Team. This information was compared with developments at Central Heating and Cooling Plant #1; tubes were being fouled and the tubesheets were beginning to show signs of under-deposit corrosion. (Figure 4) Building maintenance personnel reported to the Energy Management Team that existing campus filters were not being maintained due to inconvenient location, limited availability of labor, and the prohibitive costs of disposable filters. Despite their best efforts, maintenance personnel could not keep up with the task of replacing filters that fouled almost immediately, being undersized for the enormous system. The previous treatment program also played a part. For years the system had been treated with sodium silicate, a program which was reasonably effective in coating steel surfaces and was very inexpensive. The silicate which was designed to form a glass-like barrier on the steel surfaces likely glued down the corrosion byproducts by the same mechanism and inhibited them from returning to the plant. In the same way, they also contributed to fouling of the air handlers. Furthermore, Utilities chemistry management personnel discovered that campus building managers were plumbing fill lines for their hot water loops off the main campus chilled water loop; silica will definitely foul heat exchangers in hot systems. So Physical Plant made the decision to discontinue the silica treatment. Soon thereafter, as the silica residual was depleted, foulants began to show up in the plant chillers. Options Texas Tech considered several options to deal with the dual problems of corrosion inhibition and system fouling. One option was to use molybdate as a corrosion inhibitor. But molybdate would not clean the system and the corrosion byproducts would both consume the molybdate and inhibit it from reaching the corrosion sites. Furthermore, molybdate is a relatively expensive treatment and for a two million gallon system making up at 3 gpm, it would be very expensive indeed. Projected annual costs were in the $30,000 to $50,000 range. Another option was a combination borate/nitrite and low-level molybdate program. However, Tech had tried a similar program several years earlier. The earlier program quickly failed when denitrifying bacteria took over the system; Texas Tech spent $30,000 in one year on this approach. Microbiological problems common to this type of program were projected to cost at least another $30,000 annually in microbiocides. One idea was to simply flush out the system. But the idea was infeasible due to the size and complexity of the system, and because iron foulants were imbedded in the pores of the pipe. Water cost alone was estimated to be about $50,000. Furthermore, the idea did

5 nothing about eliminating the root problem: perpetuation of under-deposit corrosion. Finally, the most important disqualification of any mechanical cleaning mechanism was that it would interrupt service to the campus, a matter of paramount importance to the research environment. Recommendation Texas Tech needed a workable solution to this dilemma, which would involve three features: controlled removal of the foulants so that air-handlers would not be plugged by large masses of sloughed-off tramp iron, an affordable and effective corrosion inhibition program that would not contribute to the fouling, and most importantly, the solution must be implemented online so as not to compromise the research environment. To accomplish this, Delta Water Laboratories made formal recommendation that Texas Tech switch to a polymer-based chemistry to release the corrosion byproducts from the pipe walls and to install side-stream filters to remove the corrosion byproducts from the system. The polymers, it was expected, would disperse the iron corrosion byproducts from the campus system and also bind them together in large enough aggregates that the filters would be able to remove them. On the corrosion side of the problem, a combination of poly-phosphate and ortho-phosphate would provide both anodic and cathodic protection to the system piping along with a copper corrosion inhibitor to help control yellow metal corrosion. The polymers selected for this treatment were chosen for their ability to remain functionally active in the presence of iron and for their ability to control both iron phosphate and calcium phosphate fouling. Another advantage of this approach is that oxidizing biocides are compatible with the chemistry. If microbiological problems became apparent, the system could be treated with inexpensive oxidants such as sodium hypochlorite. This would not have been the case with a nitrite program, which would have required a more expensive non-oxidizing biocide. Lon Mirll scheduled the recommendation for review by the Energy Management Team. The purpose was to explore two basic options: should multiple filters be installed throughout the campus distribution system, or should a single manifold of filters be installed in the central plant? The Energy Management Team decided in favor of a centralized filter, the advantages being easy access, an ever-present maintenance force and technical oversight by plant chemists. Delta Water Laboratories specified two150gpm single canister reusable pleated filters to be installed in the main chill water line. The reusable cartridges would help keep the cost down. At a total of 300gpm, the 2 million gallons of water would be turned over once a

6 week, leaving two days for cleaning and putting the system back on line. This constituted an intuitive and manageable approach from a maintenance standpoint, especially with regard to monitoring. Concerns The Energy Management Team voiced several concerns: Is there really a problem? With no current means of monitoring campuswide heat transfer efficiencies, could it be demonstrated that the theoretical benefits would justify the cleanup cost? Would the filtration apparatus be affordable? Would operation of the filter be prohibitively expensive? Typical cooling water filtration scenarios are based on 10% of the system circulation rate 30,000 gallons per minute at Texas Tech which was perceived as a fairly expensive undertaking. Would the change of corrosion inhibitors create a new corrosion problem? And most importantly, if the function of the polymers would be to loosen up and disperse the silt and to glue it together so it would be filterable, then how can we assure that the polymers will not turn loose too much foulant and cause it to bind together in the air handlers causing a catastrophic failure of the system?

These issues had to be addressed before the Energy Management Team would approve the pilot plan. Answers The fact that there was a problem was easy records of air handler maintenance and photographs of fouled tubesheets were enough. The Energy Management Team had bridged the gap between campus maintenance and utilities generation. The complete filter apparatus recommended by Delta Water Laboratories would cost only $7000 for equipment and installation a small figure compared to the costs of air handler and evaporator tubesheet repairs. Texas Tech purchased two 150 gpm units. (Figure 5) Utilities chemistry management at Texas Tech had already established a history of excellent corrosion inhibition by multiple corrosion coupon racks and portable corrosion rate monitors. As the new chemical program was implemented, Tech continued to monitor these same measurements in order to assure that the excellent corrosion rates were maintained.

7 Tech established a baseline of the chill water system condition by devising weekly 0.45m filter tests and running them in conjunction with laboratory analyses for iron and orthophosphate. The idea was to assure that adequate corrosion inhibition was available as deposits were removed and fresh metal exposed. These tests would also confirm if iron was being dispersed as polymer was added and that the iron was being converted into a filterable state. The program was implemented in two phases. First, the corrosion inhibitors (minus polymer) were employed for a matter of weeks until it was certain that corrosion rates were being maintained at a steady and acceptable level. After that, polymer was added very slowly, increasing the concentration over a matter of two months. This was to prevent mass slough-off of deposits and answer the Energy Management Teams concern that the removal of corrosion byproducts be a controlled process. Finally, the reusable filters were weighed before and after each cycle of use in order to get an accurate measurement of how much foulant was being removed from the system. In this way, correlation could be established between polymer concentration and foulant removal, and mass detachment of solids from the piping could be anticipated. Successful Implementation When polymer concentrations were established at 10ppm (an arbitrary benchmark), the system began to filter out about 10 pounds of iron foulant per week. Corresponding laboratory filter tests showed almost no color before the polymer was added but became dark brown as polymer concentration increased. (Figure 6) Also, iron concentrations were practically nil before polymer was added, but increased dramatically to about 3ppm after the polymer was added. Polymer and iron levels were not allowed to increase beyond these levels to avoid mass slough-off of tramp iron from the distribution piping. After this startup interval, plant personnel experimented with two ranges of filter porosity before allowing other variables to be adjusted. At startup, they used 20m filter cartridges, then graduated to 10m. They briefly experimented with 1.0m cartridges which plugged in only a few hours. Finally, they settled on 10m cartridges as their standard equipment, at least until the system began to show signs of clean-up. The 10m cartridges doubled the rate of iron foulant removal to 20 pounds per week. Once this trend was established, plant personnel again began to increase the polymer concentration. At about 35ppm polymer, the retentate had increased to 40 pounds of iron foulant per week.

8 Was the new iron possibly the result of new corrosion? Certainly not, as demonstrated by the ongoing excellent corrosion rate measurements. Tech continued to measure mild steel corrosion in the range of 0.1 0.3mpy (mpy: thousandths of an inch per year) and copper corrosion consistently less than 0.1mpy. These are excellent compared to industry standards of 0.2mpy for steel and 0.1mpy for copper.1 (See table A) Iron tests and filter tests established that more iron was being filtered as the polymer level was increased. (Figure 7) It became necessary to correlate these filtration phenomena with air handler fouling on campus. The correlation was obscured by the fact that most air handlers had received minimal water-side maintenance during their entire life-cycle (15 years on one occasion.) So how would Texas Tech be able to recognize new fouling if the air handlers were already fouled? Help came from Delta Water Laboratories; comparative x-ray diffraction analyses and microscopic examination of air handler sludge and retentate from the plant filters showed significant dissimilarities: Air handler obstructions were 93% silica, a residual of the former treatment program. The obstructive material had a white, flaky appearance. In contrast, retentate from the filters was uniformly fine and loose, and was about 50% iron. It was dark brown in appearance. (Figure 8) These analyses and their dissimilarities indicate that the exchangers had been previously plugged by a different material than was being transported and removed by the polymer/filter program. The badly fouled chiller tube sheets cleaned up after introduction of the polymer and after the filters had been operated for only a few weeks. Whether it was by the dispersing action of the polymer or because so much iron had been removed from the system in a short time, there could be little doubt that the program was working. (Figure 9) 2300 Pounds of Iron Removed Lon Mirll reported these results to the Energy Management Team in January 2003, six months after the pilot plan was implemented. At 10ppm polymer levels and without adversely affecting campus heat exchangers, the 20m two-filter system averaged 10 pounds iron removal per week and had increased to 20 pounds per week as polymer levels were slowly increased to 20ppm. Pilot plant costs were $7000 for equipment, and annual projected costs of $1400 for chemicals, $1400 for labor and $1000 for

9 replacement cartridges. The filters seemed to last about 6 months after being hand washed weekly. The Energy Management Team was so impressed by the results that they decided it would be desirable to speed up the cleaning process by installing four more filters. By reducing the filter porosity to 10m, the six-filter scenario had the potential to remove 120 pounds of corrosion byproducts per week. The four additional filters were installed in March of 2003. Over the next six months, plant personnel made two adjustments to the system: When they determined that maintenance personnel could keep up with the increased filter maintenance, filter porosities were reduced from 20m to 10m, effectively doubling the iron removal. Then they increased the polymer concentration to a maximum of 100ppm, acting cautiously over a matter of months so that they would not trigger a mass slough-off of iron that would plug building air handlers. The retentate peaked at 120 pounds in a single week in August 2003 and has since begun to decline to about 60 pounds per week. At the time of this writing, now October 2003, the polymer/filter program has removed over 2300 pounds of iron. Costs Final project costs were $21,000 for filter apparatuses, and annual costs of $1400 for chemicals, $1400 for labor, and $2400 for replacement cartridges. Amortized at less than $10,000 annually for the next five years, the new program costs much less than the previous program which only covered up the problem instead of cleaning it up. Two unknowns that are currently being examined are the cost of additional energy to bypass water through the filters, and the energy savings resulting from clean air handlers and evaporator tubes, as well as reduced air-handler maintenance costs. Therein lays the practicality of this program: though the potential savings are difficult to quantify, the costs are so obviously low as to make it a practical non-issue. Besides, it is hard to argue with foulant cleanup measured in tons. The Future How long it will take to complete the cleaning process is unknown since it is unknown what quantity of old corrosion byproducts and silica chemical deposits were in the system at the beginning of the new program. But at 2300 pounds and counting, the system is off to a good start. The next phase of the plan is to reduce filter porosity to 5m and to intermittently treat the system with chlorine bleach and bio-dispersants to remove any microbes that may be shielding deposits. As the foulant decreases relative to the polymer concentration, the

10 system may graduate to 1m filters and some filters may be taken out of service. If the retentate declines sufficiently, the reusable cartridges could be replaced with disposables. Keys to Good Filtration The experience suggests several keys to a good filtration program: Location A remote or inconvenient filter is not likely to receive the required attention. Commitment to Maintenance George Tull once had a customer who bypassed his filters because they kept getting trash in them. Dedication to filter maintenance is what makes the filters work. Ease of Maintenance Systems should be designed and installed with maintenance personnel in mind. The filters at Texas Tech are easy to maintain; the process involves removing the cartridges and spraying them with a water hose. Maintenance time is currently about 45 minutes per filter per week. As the system cleans up, maintenance declines. Budget for It Keep filter cartridges, gaskets and so forth in stock so deficient parts inventory doesnt hold up proper maintenance. Proper Sizing At Texas Tech the arbitrary starting point was approximately 1% of recirculation per filter. In selecting the number of filters, Texas Tech considered equipment cost, probable amount of solids to be removed, and the availability of manpower to clean the filters. Oversight As in any good PM program, maintenance records should be kept and reviewed. But in most cases, once a proper program is in place it is probably not necessary to weigh filters and take the other precautions that were observed at Texas Tech.

Filters should be installed in any closed loop system, regardless of size, hot or cold. Engineering specifications for new installations should always include filters which, depending on the application, may be very small, simple and inexpensive. Large filters would only be necessitated for large closed loops that are already heavily fouled. A new system, properly treated, can be kept clean by a very small filter provided the filter apparatus is routinely maintained. Summary As this article suggests, old closed loop systems can be safely and effectively cleaned with inexpensive filters, using the appropriate chemistry to enhance filtration and inhibit corrosion. New systems can be kept in top condition by this same technology. The payback is extended equipment life, elimination of under-deposit corrosion, reduced equipment maintenance, and increased energy efficiency.

11

Footnote 1. Boffardi, Bennett, PhD. Standards of Corrosion Rates, The Analyst, v.7, #2, Spring 2000.

12

Figure1: Campus, Texas Tech University

13

Figure 2: Central Heating and Cooling Plant #1

14

Figure 3: Tunnel Distribution System 8 miles of utility tunnels are shown in red

15

Figure 4: Fouled Tubesheet

16

Figure 5: Filter Cannister

17

Figure 6: Filter Paper Comparison Filter papers on the right indicate little iron removal (at 0.45 microns) BEFORE polymer was added. Papers on the left show more iron being removed after polymer was added to the system.

18

Lbs per week of silt

60 60

50

lbs/wk Polymer Linear (lbs/wk)

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

Figure 7: Iron Filtrate Corresponds to Polymer Level

19

Figure 8: Microcomparisons Heat exchanger scale (top) compared to plant filtrate (bottom). Heat exchanger scale was 93% silica. Plant filtrate was 50% iron. Magnification x10.

20

Figure 9: Clean Tubesheet

21

Quantitative Classification of Corrosion Rates for Closed Recirculating Cooling Water Systems Corrosion Rates (mpy)
Description Excellent Good Moderate Poor Very Poor to Severe Carbon Steel Less than or equal to 0.2 0.2 to 0.5 0.5 to 0.8 0.8 to 1 Greater than or equal to 1 Copper Alloys Less than or equal to 0.1 0.1 to 0.25 0.25 to 0.35 0.35 to 0.5 Greater than or equal to 0.5

Table A. Corrosion Standards as defined by the Association of Water Technologies, Inc.