12

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

Product and Process Development Tindal l Concrete Georgia, Inc.

Conley, Georgia

Douglas A. Leisy Project M anager Hamon Cooling Towers Bridgewater, New jersey

Gary R. Mirsky Vice President of Sa les

Hamon Cooling Towers Bridgewater, New jersey

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 came 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 structural innovations of the project, together w ith a description of the production, transportation and erection of the precast components.

U 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

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 place 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 needs 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

-o Q '--0 c

B I L..EYEL ERAMNl PLAN

~ Fig. 2. Fill leve l framing plan. Layout shows double beams and tri-beams spann ing from double tee wa lls at perimeter to solid loadbearing wal ls at centerline of tower. f:: Stainless stee l truss system shown for lateral stabi li ty was required at fill level only.

CDC DG DC DQ DC DC PQ DC DG ~Q YG ~~ ~G ~~ ~~ ~@G ~G ~~ ~~ j)~ ~G ~~ ~(j ~~ ~~ ~(j ~(j ~G ~G ~G ~G ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~(j ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ p~ ~~ ~~~ ' '

.,._ ' ' ' '

"- lor- "- lor- "- "- lor-

i I I I I I I I I I I I I IE r' r' """·

... r' ""'!.

'""' ~ i ~ ~ !f. _I

~~ )t ~ .J ~ i

I 1 m ~ ~ I I ~ -Jill~ 11 I Ill ~ I II ~ ~ • II ~ ~ ~ z

""" """ If" ~~" I ~

""" If"

~ ~ ~

~ ~ I'= .... ~ ~~~ ~ ~-..

(i) -~ ' ~

;;' ' ~ ;:;:

~ ~ ~ L r• l ~ ~ i I ~

~ I

~ i

~ r-i I ~ It\ ~ i ~ ~ I I I Mill I r-1 I I I 1111111 I Ill i li I ~ llll Ill I m 1 I i I ~ z i ~ I fl!lt I

' 1-~

-= ., .. ~~

~ Fi g. 3. Distribution level framing plan. See Fi g. 2 for description of structural functi on.

"U <] c... 0 c

~ ~

= ~ Q. ,:;:, I' ~ ~ ~ ::;: =

I "'- I ""- I ' ,. J':

. , 'I I 'I ' I ' I ' I I ' I ' I ' I ' I I ' I - , I I 'I ' I ' I ' I

~~

FAN DECK L..EYEL EIWftl PLAN

~ Fi g. 4. Fan deck leve l framing plan. Circular openings, 34 ft (1 0.4 m) in diameter, shown at roof for airf low at each of 12 cell s. ~ Note fan pad (pedesta l) at center of each ce ll for fan motor mount.

I~ ' I I

" !or- " .. _

.;.. -"~ ' .;.. -"~" .;.. -"~" ..!.. -"~ ' .;.. I" I" I" I"

·~u .... }., J.. J/-u .... J/-u ...- J/-u J.. I 11' 11' 11' 11'

,,...._,..

I

-. . .- -. . .- ::Ill: :::ur: ::Ill:

• • nnnrnr!!!!!t!!Hmmmrmmmrtll!!ll!tl!lt!ltlnr NORTH I.OtQ1ll)tW.. B EVATION 1r

11111~11111111 -.aM~

I I I I I

.&

-::.·

Fig. 5. South and north longitudinal elevations. Loadbearing double tee side wa lls shown, 50ft (15.2 m), w hich support three leve ls of precast framing. Openness of lower half of these :::j members is to allow airflow into the cells to be drawn up through the va rious tower levels during the coo li ng process.

-o Q c:_

0 c JJ z )> r

1 l --I

--

£ --

j ~-v~

"1 I~

•PL..W •

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 cells showing the three supported operating levels. C Section showing interior windscreen wa ll requi red as part of Hamon's design.

t: ~~

--­··-

r

rr '

--·----­OIIIIIIIIIlt-.ar-

®~

r-----, I I I I I I I I I I

co Fig. 7. Beam-to-co lumn connecti ons and various cross sectio ns.

y ....,-- .-&. .... ...-.-: _., I

I I

I I I I

I I

~~

I\) 0

Q ®~ '-0 c :IJ z f:. Fig. 8. Beam-to-column connections and typica l joints.

~ Fig. 9. Cross sections and details.

.........

n n :

!! !! ! I:: Ill Ill :::

lo

•

1 n lll : I Ill n :

!'=\£ • '+ "fl I

I "I" I Ill Ill

~ IIIII\ Ill Ill

11lP~ I IL--r.

-~ fF I llfli I · ... ,· .. · 1111,,. -~ ·.: !!!I'!!! ·~ I .: . : :1 :: : . · t, · r II II I

·: ~(r ' ! !! :: ! : :: H I : :: II ~ I II Ill Ill 11 1 Ill 11 1 I It n I

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.

Fig. 10. Tri -beams in storage for fill/distribution leve ls.

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 lengths, all resulting in more

Fig. 11. Erection of first tower. At this construction phase, about one-third of the structure was completed.

Fig. 12. 50ft (15.2 m) long perimeter loadbearing walls being erected during earl y phase of construction .

22 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.

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. 1 3. 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.

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-

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. 17. Large distributor pipes feed hot water into individual cells at the distribution level to begin the cooling process.

Fig. 18. Exterior tower end walls showing fill level beams framed in perpendicular direction.

24 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 ac­

commodate 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-

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. 19. Interior shot of typical cell at basin level. Note succession of cell divider walls in background.

Fig. 20. Basin level perimeter. Loadbearing exterior double tee wa ll panels connect at foundation below water level.

January-February 1997 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

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 spe­

cially 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. 21. Exterior elevations of both new towers prior to start­up. Steam in background from existing towers.

Fig. 22. Overhead shot showing tower at upper right in operation, lower tower equipped and nearing completion.

26 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 m2

)

• 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 compo­

nents 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.

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. 23. Overhead shot showing tower at upper right in operation, lower tower equipped and nearing completion.

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 Hatch Cooling 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 re­

cently 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 this 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 have 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: Tin­dall 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