Spray Tower Design: Design, Operation, and Selection Guide

Spray Tower Design: Design, Operation, and Selection Guide

Every spray tower scrubber installation that underperforms can be traced back to one of three root causes: the gas velocity was chosen for vessel economy instead of capture efficiency, the nozzle selection was based on catalog pressure ratings rather than droplet size distribution, or the liquid-to-gas ratio was picked from a rule of thumb instead of a mass balance. Spray tower design (also referred to as spray tower scrubber design) is the systematic process of matching tower geometry – diameter, height, nozzle arrangement, and material construction – to the specific pollutant load, gas flow rate, and removal efficiency target. This guide covers the calculations and trade-offs that separate a correctly sized system from one that spends its service life struggling to meet permit limits.

What Is Spray Tower Design?

Spray tower design is the engineering discipline of sizing and configuring a spray tower scrubber to achieve a specified removal efficiency at the lowest total cost of ownership. Unlike packaged equipment selection, where a buyer picks from pre-sized models, spray tower design requires calculating the vessel geometry, spray system parameters, and liquid handling capacity from first principles – because every exhaust stream is different.

The Design Objective – Matching Tower Geometry to Process Conditions

The design objective is a tower that delivers the required gas-liquid contact time and interfacial surface area without exceeding the mechanical limits of the construction material. Gas-liquid contact time is determined by tower height divided by gas velocity. Interfacial surface area is determined by droplet size, liquid flow rate, and the number of spray stages. The designer adjusts each variable within its feasible range until the combination produces the required mass transfer.

Key Design Inputs You Need Before You Start

A spray tower design calculation requires seven inputs. Without all seven, the result is an estimate, not a design:

1. Gas flow rate at actual inlet conditions (m3/h or scfm) – not the fan nameplate rating

2. Inlet pollutant concentration for each target compound (ppmv or mg/Nm3)

3. Required outlet concentration or removal efficiency (%, based on permit limits)

4. Gas temperature and humidity at the scrubber inlet ( degC and % RH)

5. Particulate loading and particle size distribution (mg/Nm3 and um d50)

6. Available pressure budget for the fan (cm WC or kPa)

7. Liquid chemistry – scrubbing medium composition, pH, and maximum allowable TDS

Gas Flow Rate, Pollutant Load, and Target Efficiency

The gas flow rate sets the tower diameter. The pollutant load sets the required liquid flow rate and chemistry. The target efficiency sets the number of spray stages and the tower height. These three inputs form the outer boundary of the design space; everything else – nozzle selection, material choice, pressure drop – is optimized within that boundary.

Gas Velocity and Tower Sizing – The First Calculation

Tower diameter is the first dimension fixed in any spray tower design, and it is determined by a single parameter: the superficial gas velocity through the empty vessel cross-section.

How to Calculate Tower Diameter from Gas Velocity

The relationship is a simple area-velocity equation:

“`

A = Q / v

D = sqrt(4A / pi)

“`

Where A is the tower cross-sectional area (m2), Q is the actual gas flow rate at operating conditions (m3/s), and v is the chosen superficial gas velocity (m/s). D is the tower diameter (m).

For a tower handling 50,000 m3/h (13.9 m3/s) at a typical velocity of 0.8 m/s:

“`

A = 13.9 / 0.8 = 17.4 m2

D = sqrt(4 x 17.4 / pi) = 4.7 m

“`

Increase the velocity to 1.2 m/s and the diameter drops to 3.8 m – a 20% reduction in vessel diameter and a corresponding reduction in shell material cost.

Worked Example: 50,000 m3/h at 0.8 m/s

Gas flow: 50,000 m3/h / 3,600 = 13.9 m3/s

Gas velocity: 0.8 m/s

Area: 13.9 / 0.8 = 17.4 m2

Diameter: sqrt(4 x 17.4 / 3.1416) = 4.7 m

This tower fits a standard 4.7 m diameter FRP or PP vessel. If the calculated diameter falls between standard shell diameters, round up to the next standard size rather than down, because the actual velocity will be slightly lower and the safety margin is on the right side.

Why 0.3-1.2 m/s Is the Standard Range

Below 0.3 m/s, the vessel becomes impractically large for any flow rate above a few thousand m3/h. Above 1.2 m/s, two problems converge. First, droplet entrainment becomes severe: at 1.5 m/s, the upward gas velocity approaches the terminal settling velocity of 500 um water droplets (approximately 1.8 m/s), and a significant fraction of the spray is carried upward into the mist eliminator rather than falling back into the sump. Second, the gas residence time in the spray zone becomes too short for adequate mass transfer. A tower operating at 1.2 m/s with a 6-meter spray zone provides approximately 5 seconds of contact time; at 2.0 m/s, the same tower provides only 3 seconds.

When to Go Higher or Lower

Design toward the lower end of the range (0.3-0.6 m/s) when the target pollutant has low water solubility, when fine particulate below 10 um represents a significant fraction of the inlet loading, or when the scrubbing liquid chemistry requires extended contact time for the chemical reaction to reach completion. Design toward the upper end (0.9-1.2 m/s) when the pollutant is highly soluble (HCl, NH3, HF), when capital cost is the binding constraint, or when the tower is followed by a packed polishing section that can recover any efficiency lost to reduced contact time.

Droplet Size and Nozzle Selection

Droplet diameter is the controlling variable for both particulate collection and gas absorption efficiency, yet it remains the most underspecified parameter in spray tower procurement documents. A design that specifies only the nozzle flow rate and operating pressure has skipped the parameter that determines whether the tower performs as designed.

The 500-1,000 um Window – Why It Exists

The 500-1,000 um range represents the balance between two competing constraints. Droplets smaller than 500 um have higher surface-to-volume ratios, which increases both the interfacial area available for gas absorption and the probability of particle-droplet collision. But droplets below approximately 300 um have terminal settling velocities below 0.5 m/s, meaning they are easily entrained by the upward gas flow and carried into the mist eliminator before they have done useful scrubbing work. Droplets larger than 1,000 um fall faster and resist entrainment, but their surface-to-volume ratio is so low that the total interfacial area per unit volume of scrubbing liquid drops by more than 50% compared to 500 um droplets.

Nozzle Types and Their Droplet Size Distributions

Nozzle type determines droplet size distribution more than any other single factor, including operating pressure.

Full-cone nozzles produce the most uniform droplet size distribution across the spray pattern. The droplets are concentrated in the 600-1,000 um range at standard operating pressures of 1.5-3.0 bar. Full-cone nozzles are the default choice for gas absorption applications because the uniform distribution minimizes untreated gas bypass channels.

Hollow-cone nozzles produce a droplet size distribution with a smaller mean diameter – typically 400-800 um at equivalent pressure – because the liquid is forced through a thinner annular orifice. The smaller droplets increase collection surface area, but the hollow spray pattern leaves a low-density zone along the centerline of the tower that can allow a fraction of the gas to pass through with reduced contact.

Spiral nozzles produce the coarsest droplet distribution – typically 800-1,200 um – but have the widest free passage for solids-laden liquid, making them the preferred choice for recirculated slurry service such as flue gas desulfurization.

Full-Cone vs. Hollow-Cone vs. Spiral Nozzles

Droplet Terminal Velocity and Entrainment Limits

A 500 um water droplet in still air at 20 degC has a terminal settling velocity of approximately 1.8 m/s. A 1,000 um droplet settles at approximately 3.5 m/s. The upward gas velocity in the tower must remain below the terminal velocity of the smallest droplets in the spray distribution, or those droplets will be carried upward and discharged through the mist eliminator. A design that pushes gas velocity above 1.2 m/s must use larger mean droplet sizes (800-1,200 um) to keep the entrainment fraction within acceptable limits.

The Droplet Entrainment Calculation

The ratio of gas velocity to droplet terminal velocity – the entrainment parameter – should be kept below 0.7 for standard operation. At a gas velocity of 0.8 m/s with 500 um droplets (terminal velocity 1.8 m/s), the entrainment parameter is 0.44, and droplet carryover is negligible. At 1.2 m/s with the same droplets, the parameter rises to 0.67, and the mist eliminator must be generously sized to handle the increased liquid loading.

Liquid-to-Gas Ratio – The Operating Cost Driver

The liquid-to-gas ratio (L/G) determines how much scrubbing liquid must be circulated per unit volume of gas treated. It is the single largest driver of operating cost in a spray tower because pumping power is directly proportional to liquid flow rate. Designing for the minimum L/G that meets the removal target is the difference between an economical system and one that wastes electricity and water for its entire service life.

How L/G Ratio Affects Removal Efficiency

In gas absorption service, removal efficiency increases with L/G ratio up to a point – typically around 2.0-2.7 L/m3 – beyond which additional liquid provides diminishing returns. The reason is that mass transfer in a spray tower is limited by the gas-side resistance for most pollutants, not the liquid-side resistance. Doubling the liquid flow rate increases the interfacial area by less than the square root of the flow increase because droplet coalescence and wall impingement become more significant at higher liquid densities.

For particulate collection, the relationship is more linear. Each additional unit of liquid flow adds droplet surface area that can capture particles by inertial impaction. Particulate-dominated applications often run at L/G ratios of 3-5 gal/1,000 ft3 (0.4-0.67 L/m3). Fine particulate applications requiring collection of particles below 5 um may need L/G ratios above 10 gal/1,000 ft3 (1.3 L/m3).

Calculating the Required L/G from Mass Balance

The required L/G for gas absorption can be estimated from a simple mass balance if the target pollutant’s equilibrium solubility is known:

“`

L/G = (C_in – C_out) / (H x C_out)

“`

Where L/G is in kg liquid per kg gas, C_in and C_out are the inlet and outlet concentrations in consistent units, and H is the dimensionless Henry’s law constant for the pollutant-water system at the operating temperature. For a chemically enhanced system, the effective H is replaced by the reaction stoichiometry.

Worked Example: SO2 Absorption with Caustic

Consider an exhaust stream containing 500 ppmv SO2 that must be reduced to 50 ppmv (90% removal). The scrubbing liquid is 10% NaOH solution. The stoichiometric requirement is 2 moles of NaOH per mole of SO2:

SO2 removal required: 450 ppmv = 1.20 g SO2 per Nm3 of gas

NaOH required: 1.20 x (2 x 40 / 64) = 1.50 g NaOH per Nm3 of gas

At 10% NaOH concentration: 1.50 / 0.10 = 15 g of scrubbing solution per Nm3 of gas

This corresponds to approximately 0.015 L of solution per Nm3 of gas, or 15 L per 1,000 Nm3 – an unusually low L/G because the chemical reaction drives absorption far beyond what physical solubility alone would achieve.

For physically absorbed pollutants, the spray tower scrubber design calculation begins with the equilibrium solubility:

L/G Optimization – Technical Maximum vs. Economic Optimum

The economic optimum L/G is almost never the technical maximum. Beyond the point where additional liquid flow produces less than proportional efficiency gains, every extra liter of recirculated liquid adds pump power cost, chemical consumption, and wastewater treatment burden without a corresponding reduction in emission concentration. The design engineer should calculate the marginal cost of each unit of L/G increase and compare it to the marginal value of the efficiency gain. In most industrial applications, the economic L/G falls between the value that achieves the permit limit and the value that achieves maximum theoretical removal.

Tower Height and Number of Spray Stages

Tower height determines gas-liquid contact time. Contact time, combined with interfacial area, determines removal efficiency. A tower that is too short for its design velocity leaves pollutants in the gas stream. A tower that is too tall wastes material and creates unnecessary structural load.

Single-Stage vs. Multi-Stage Design

A single-stage spray tower places one bank of nozzles at a single elevation. It provides one contact zone of limited height – typically 1.5 to 3.0 meters of active spray region. Single-stage towers are adequate when the removal efficiency target is below 90%, when the pollutant is highly soluble (HCl, NH3), or when the application is primarily particulate collection from coarse particles above 10 um.

A multi-stage tower places two or more spray levels at different heights, each creating an independent contact zone. Multi-stage design is standard for applications requiring above 90% removal, for pollutants with moderate solubility (SO2, H2S, Cl2), and for any application where the permit limit demands consistent performance across a range of inlet conditions. Each additional stage adds approximately 1.2 to 2.0 meters of tower height and increases the capital cost by roughly 10-15% per stage.

How to Estimate Tower Height from Contact Time

The required tower height can be estimated from the desired contact time and the design gas velocity:

“`

H = v_g x t_c

“`

Where H is the active spray zone height (m), v_g is the gas velocity (m/s), and t_c is the required contact time (s).

For a tower treating SO2 at 1.0 m/s gas velocity with a target of 95% removal using caustic-enhanced scrubbing, the required contact time is approximately 3-4 seconds based on published mass transfer data. The active spray zone height would be:

“`

H = 1.0 x 3.5 = 3.5 m

“`

With two spray stages at 1.75 m spacing, this gives a total active height of approximately 3.5 meters, plus the mist eliminator section above (0.5-1.0 m), the gas inlet section below (1.0-1.5 m), and the sump volume (1.5-2.0 m). The total vessel height would be in the range of 6.5 to 8.0 meters.

Worked Example: 3-Stage Tower for FGD

A flue gas desulfurization spray tower handling 1,000,000 m3/h of flue gas at 1.2 m/s gas velocity. The required SO2 removal is 95% using limestone slurry:

Contact time target: 5 seconds (FGD requires longer contact because limestone dissolution kinetics are slower than caustic neutralization)

Active spray zone: 1.2 x 5.0 = 6.0 m

Stages: 3 spray levels at 2.0 m spacing

Mist eliminator section: 1.5 m (FGD slurry requires more extensive demisting)

Gas inlet + sump: 3.5 m

Total vessel height: 6.0 + 1.5 + 3.5 = 11.0 m

Mist Eliminator Sizing and Placement

The mist eliminator section must be sized for the actual gas velocity at the tower outlet, which is the same as the superficial velocity in the countercurrent section. A chevron vane mist eliminator requires approximately 0.3-0.5 m of height per bank, with a pressure drop of 0.5-1.5 cm WC. A mesh pad is thinner (0.1-0.2 m) but more prone to plugging in dirty service. The mist eliminator should be located at least 1.0 m above the top spray level to allow droplets to decelerate before reaching the eliminator media.

Pressure Drop Estimation and Fan Sizing

Pressure drop is the design parameter where spray towers win decisively over packed bed and venturi alternatives. Accurate DP estimation is essential because it determines the fan power requirement – and fan power is the largest component of operating cost over the equipment’s 10-15 year service life.

How to Estimate Spray Tower Pressure Drop

Industry data from the US EPA consistently reports spray tower pressure drop in the range of 1.3 to 7.6 cm of water column for gas absorption applications, and less than 2.5 cm for particulate service. The total DP is the sum of three components:

1. Gas inlet losses – 0.3-0.8 cm WC, depending on inlet duct configuration and gas distribution baffles

2. Spray zone losses – 0.5-3.0 cm WC, caused by the drag force of falling droplets on the rising gas stream. This is the only component that varies significantly with L/G ratio: doubling the liquid flow rate approximately doubles the spray zone pressure drop

3. Mist eliminator losses – 0.5-1.5 cm WC for a clean chevron vane bank; up to 5.0 cm WC if the eliminator is partially scaled or fouled

The sum for a well-designed countercurrent spray tower at moderate L/G ratios is typically 2.0 to 4.0 cm WC.

Fan Power Calculation from DP

The fan power requirement follows directly from the total system pressure drop:

“`

P = (Q x DP) / eff

“`

Where P is the fan shaft power (W), Q is the gas flow rate (m3/s), DP is the total pressure drop (Pa), and eff is the combined fan and motor efficiency (typically 0.60-0.75 for centrifugal fans).

Annual Energy Cost Comparison: Spray Tower vs. Venturi

For a 50,000 m3/h (13.9 m3/s) system:

• Spray tower DP: 3.0 cm WC = 294 Pa
• Venturi DP: 50 cm WC = 4,903 Pa
• Fan power (spray tower): 13.9 x 294 / 0.70 = 5,838 W = 5.8 kW
• Fan power (venturi): 13.9 x 4,903 / 0.70 = 97,300 W = 97.3 kW

At $0.12/kWh and 8,000 operating hours per year:

• Spray tower fan cost: 5.8 x 8,000 x 0.12 = $5,568/year
• Venturi fan cost: 97.3 x 8,000 x 0.12 = $93,408/year

The venturi fan alone costs approximately $87,800 more per year to operate. Over a 10-year equipment life, the fan energy savings of the spray tower approach $878,000 – far exceeding the capital cost difference between the two technologies.

Why Low DP Is the Spray Tower’s Design Advantage

The absence of packing media or a constricted throat means the gas path through a spray tower encounters almost nothing except falling droplets. No tortuous passages through random packing. No high-velocity gas shear zone. The pressure drop stays low and predictable regardless of the inlet particulate loading, which means the fan can be sized close to the design point without the large safety margins that packed bed and venturi designs demand.

Materials of Construction – Design Implications

The choice of construction material affects not only corrosion resistance and service life, but also the vessel wall thickness, structural support requirements, and maximum allowable operating temperature. A spray tower design that specifies the material as an afterthought – after the diameter and height are fixed – may find that the chosen material cannot withstand the mechanical loads at the required dimensions.

How Material Choice Affects Vessel Wall Thickness

Polypropylene (PP) towers are fabricated from sheet stock, typically 6-18 mm thick depending on vessel diameter and height. The wall thickness is determined primarily by the hydrostatic head of the liquid in the sump section and the wind load on the exposed vessel, not by the internal gas pressure (which is near atmospheric). A 4.7 m diameter PP tower handling 50,000 m3/h would require a wall thickness of approximately 10-12 mm for the cylindrical section and 15-18 mm for the sump section where the liquid head is highest. The shell weight is approximately 400-500 kg per meter of height.

Fiberglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) towers use a laminate structure with a thickness of 6-15 mm, depending on the design code and the specific gravity of the scrubbing liquid. The corrosion barrier – the inner layer that contacts the exhaust stream – must be at least 2.5 mm thick with a minimum 90% resin content. The structural layers behind it carry the hoop stress from liquid head and wind loading. A common design error is specifying the laminate thickness based on structural requirements alone and neglecting to add the corrosion barrier thickness to the total.

Stainless steel (SS304/SS316L) towers use significantly thinner walls – 4-8 mm for the equivalent diameter – because the material’s yield strength is an order of magnitude higher than PP or FRP. The weight saving is partially offset by the material’s higher density and the need for internal stiffening rings on large-diameter vessels.

FRP Laminate Design for Chemical Service

FRP laminate design requires specifying four parameters, not just the resin type:

1. Corrosion barrier thickness: 2.5-5.0 mm (veil + resin-rich layer)

2. Structural laminate thickness: 5-15 mm (alternating chopped strand mat and woven roving)

3. Resin type: isophthalic polyester (general service), vinyl ester (strong oxidizers/chlorine), or epoxy (high-temperature)

4. Cure schedule: room-temperature cured vs. post-cured for enhanced chemical resistance

Corrosion Barrier Thickness vs. Structural Layers

The corrosion barrier provides the chemical resistance; the structural layers carry the mechanical loads. A common specification error is to count the corrosion barrier thickness toward the structural design thickness. A 12 mm total laminate with a 4 mm corrosion barrier leaves only 8 mm of structural material – which may be inadequate for a large-diameter vessel under wind and liquid loading.

Temperature De-Rating and Its Effect on Sizing

PP loses approximately 50% of its tensile strength at 60 degC compared to room temperature, and is not recommended for continuous service above 80 degC (see our spray tower construction materials guide →). FRP retains most of its mechanical properties up to 100 degC with a properly selected resin, but above 110 degC the resin begins to degrade regardless of the glass reinforcement content. Stainless steel has no meaningful strength de-rating up to 180 degC. The design must account for the reduced allowable stress at the operating temperature when calculating wall thickness, or the vessel may fail mechanically even if chemically compatible.

Step-by-Step Spray Tower Design Checklist

The following seven steps form a complete sequence to design spray tower systems. Following them in order prevents the common error of optimizing one parameter (such as vessel diameter) before the constraints from other parameters (such as droplet entrainment limits) are known.

7-Step Design Procedure

Step 1 – Define the inlet conditions. Record gas flow rate, temperature, pressure, pollutant concentrations, particulate loading, and particle size distribution at the actual inlet location. Use measured data, not fan nameplate ratings. If measurement is not possible, apply a 20% uncertainty margin above the estimated flow.

Step 2 – Set the removal target. Convert permit limits to required removal efficiency (%). For multi-pollutant streams, the target efficiency for the most difficult-to-remove pollutant determines the design.

Step 3 – Select the gas velocity. Start at 0.8 m/s for most applications. Move lower (0.3-0.6 m/s) for low-solubility pollutants or fine particulate. Move higher (0.9-1.2 m/s) for highly soluble gases or cost-constrained projects.

Step 4 – Calculate the tower diameter. Use the area-velocity equation from Step 3. Round up to the nearest standard vessel diameter.

Step 5 – Determine the L/G ratio from mass balance. Calculate the stoichiometric requirement for chemically enhanced systems, or use the Henry’s law equilibrium for physical absorption. Apply a 20% design margin above the minimum calculated value.

Step 6 – Size the nozzle system. Select nozzle type and quantity to deliver the required L/G at the target droplet size. Verify that the droplet terminal velocity exceeds the gas velocity by a factor of at least 1.5. Arrange nozzles in a triangular or square pattern with overlap to ensure full coverage.

Step 7 – Determine tower height. Calculate the required contact time from published mass transfer data or pilot testing. Multiply by gas velocity to get the active spray zone height. Add mist eliminator space, inlet section height, and sump volume to get the total vessel height.

Common Design Errors and How to Avoid Them

For non-standard dimensions or multi-stage requirements, custom-engineered spray towers → can be designed to your exact process conditions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the first parameter to fix in a spray tower design?

Gas velocity through the empty tower cross-section is always the first parameter fixed. It determines the tower diameter, which in turn constrains the nozzle arrangement, shell material cost, and entrainment behavior. All other design parameters – L/G ratio, tower height, nozzle selection – are optimized within the geometry set by the velocity choice.

How do I calculate the right L/G ratio for my application?

Use a mass balance based on the target pollutant’s solubility or reaction stoichiometry. For physical absorption, the required L/G = (C_in – C_out) / (H x C_out), where H is the Henry’s law constant. For chemically enhanced scrubbing, calculate the stoichiometric reagent requirement and convert to solution flow rate based on the reagent concentration. Apply a 20% margin above the calculated minimum.

How many spray stages do I need?

One stage is sufficient for removal efficiency below 90% with highly soluble gases. Two stages are standard for 90-95% removal. Three or more stages are required for applications above 95% or for pollutants with moderate-to-low solubility such as SO2 and H2S without chemical enhancement.

What is the most common error in spray tower design?

Specifying the nozzle system based on flow rate and pressure alone, without verifying the droplet size distribution or the spray coverage pattern. A nozzle that delivers the correct L/G at the right pressure can still produce droplets that are too large (low surface area) or too small (carried into the mist eliminator). Droplet size should be verified against the manufacturer’s spray characterization data, not assumed from the catalog.

How much design margin should I include?

A 10-20% margin on gas velocity and L/G is standard. A 20% margin on fan static pressure is recommended to account for nozzle wear and mist eliminator fouling over the equipment life. Material thickness should include a corrosion allowance of 1.5-3.0 mm beyond the structural requirement.

Key Takeaways

• Tower diameter is controlled by a single parameter: gas velocity. The area-velocity equation A = Q/v determines the vessel cross-section, and the 0.3-1.2 m/s range represents the balance between capital cost (smaller diameter at higher velocity) and operating reliability (droplet entrainment and contact time at lower velocity). Choosing 0.8 m/s as a starting point and adjusting based on pollutant solubility is a proven engineering default.

• Droplet size selection is the most influential variable for removal efficiency and the most commonly underspecified design parameter. The 500-1,000 um window balances interfacial surface area against droplet stability in the gas flow. Nozzle type – full-cone for absorption, hollow-cone for particulate, spiral for slurry – determines the actual droplet size distribution more than operating pressure does, and the manufacturer’s spray characterization data should be referenced before finalizing any nozzle specification.

• The economic optimum L/G ratio is not the technical maximum. Beyond the point where additional liquid flow produces diminishing efficiency gains, extra L/G adds pump power cost, chemical consumption, and wastewater burden without proportional emission reduction. The design L/G should be calculated from a mass balance – stoichiometric for chemically enhanced systems, Henry’s law equilibrium for physical absorption – with a 20% safety margin, not selected from a rule-of-thumb table.

• Pressure drop is the spray tower’s decisive advantage over alternative scrubber technologies. A well-designed spray tower operates at 2-4 cm WC, yielding annual fan energy cost of approximately $5,500 for a 50,000 m3/h system at typical industrial power rates. The equivalent venturi scrubber fan cost exceeds $93,000 per year. Over a 10-year equipment life, the fan energy savings of a spray tower approach $878,000.