- Main
- Chiller Efficiency
- Auto Tube Brushing
- Cooling towers
- Motorless Turbine
- News
- Contact Us
After you’ve decided that on-line cleaning is the right solution to maintain efficiency and to extend both service time between turnarounds and equipment lifespan, the following question presents itself: Which of the available condenser cleaning systems is the best for your project?
In this article, we look at the different options available. Obviously, as a supplier of brush cleaning systems, we cannot be completely unbiased. However, we do our best to present the facts from a neutral standpoint.
Do not hesitate to challenge your project consultant who casually includes ATCS in their design — your long-term interests are at stake.
Germany’s MAN Turbine Manufacturing initiated the development of on-line or continuous condenser cleaning systems for their power plants in the last century. The company asked its two senior engineers (Hermann Heeren and Josef Taprogge) independently to come up with a solution for efficiency loss due to fouling.
Hermann and Josef retreated to their design benches to wrack their brains for the best solution. Inspiration struck both individually, so today there are two on-line cleaning systems on the market. The solutions they devised are as follows.
Both condenser cleaning systems proved workable, although Hermann jokingly asked Joseph if he would also recommend using sponges as a tool to avoid scaling in dental hygiene strategy.
But seriously, let’s have a closer look at these two systems. We’ll do so by pointing out the disadvantages of one approach in comparison to the other (click “+” for details).
Failure to maintain the ball-type condenser cleaning system can result in tube fouling, reducing diameter and compromising efficiency. Subsequent replacement ball addition risks misfitting, leading to tube blockages. Once cleaned tubes become a blockage hazard. Regular maintenance is critical to prevent such issues, ensuring optimal system performance and longevity.
In practice, the recurring issue arises when operators opt to cut costs by neglecting the timely replenishment of sponge balls. This oversight leads to operational challenges and compromises system efficiency. Timely ball replenishment is essential to maintain the optimal performance of these condenser cleaning systems and prevent costly disruptions in the operation of your chiller.
We can conclude that both systems are effective in avoiding fouling that decreases the condenser’s efficiency and while doing so, minimizing electricity waste from the compressor. As a supplier of continuous tube brushing systems, however, we like to highlight the fact that brushing allows worry-free operation with minimal need for checking and the lowest operating cost.
Our analysis shows that for a 2,000-tube chiller, the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of a brush ATCS is about US$30,000 lower over 10 years compared to a ball ATCS.
But this is just the headline. The full comparison breaks down:
Want the complete data-backed comparison to guide your next ATCS decision?
Download our ATCS Cost of Ownership Comparison (10-Year Analysis) now.
Simply enter your email below and get instant access to the full report, including a practical Sponge Ball Procurement Checklist.
And remember — if you already operate a ball-type ATCS, cutting costs on replacement balls is a short-sighted and risky move. Using cheap, low-quality balls can actually worsen fouling, cause tube blockages, and multiply the very problems the system was meant to solve.
Please contact me thru [email protected]
we are a big semiconductor testing facility in Calamba Laguna Philippines and we are running 2 units 1060 TR centrifugal Trane Chillers.
Thanks for reaching out. We’ll be in touch via email.