Pressurized/unpressurized, does it matter to the boiler?

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.

cbb

Member
Apr 21, 2012
34
Nw. Maine
Does it matter to the boiler if the storage is pressurized or unpressurized system?
In regards to the oxygen in an unpressurized system possibly affecting the boiler?
Long term, is one system better?
 
Are you talking about having the boiler unpressureized as well? Personally I'd go with a totally pressureized system, meaning boiler, storage, load. No corrosion issues, no boiler treatment, no heat exchangers, the fewest pumps, the most efficient use of available BTUs, but more expensive I must admit, depending on what you can get old LP tanks for, and may take up more space than if you made a tank out of plywood and EPDM.

TS
 
pressurized LP tank type system, 1000 gallons.

Do you need to add boiler treatment to unpressurized systems?
 
If you have the space go pressurized.It will be a neater and simpler system.You can add a boiler treatment to the sysytem as they do in a oil or propane fired sysytem.Either way the wood boiler to the tank or to the coil in an open sysytem will still be pressurized.
 
I run an unpressurized system. My boiler, which is a prototype is all stainless steel.
The heating loops, which are all radiant and copper convector are also unpressurized. One hx, for DHW.

You can use corrosion inhibitors for use with a steel boiler, and we have done it many times (Dick Hill and I), but as Garn users can tell you,
you need to keep track of water treatment.

In our case, stainless is cheap for the boiler we have (it weighs 300# when assembled). A more conventional design, gets more expensive.
 
Does it matter to the boiler if the storage is pressurized or unpressurized system?
In regards to the oxygen in an unpressurized system possibly affecting the boiler?
Long term, is one system better?

The system that I run is a 30 year old boiler and storage; run with a open expansion tank one floor above which gives 3 psi at the boiler. Two heat exchanger coils inside the storage tank; one is for DHW and the second is for heating loops. Very simple with only 2 circulators, no corrosion issues, and has operated without problems to date. For me the deciding issue on whether to run pressure or go static pressure was insurance. I was not going to be able to get insurance if the 1000 gal storage tank was pressurized.
 
Go all pressureized, or all unpressureized. Then as said, you only need a heat exchanger for the DHW either way. Keeping each component in the total system share the same water and directly piped, avoiding heat exchangers, and extra watt eating pumps.

TS
 
Each has it's advantages/disadvantages.
The biggest advantage I see in a closed system is what the available static pressure does for pumping problems. Starting out with a built in positive pressure present at the pump suction eliminates a host of issues with cavitation and suction boiling. Thousands of pumps are burned up every year because there is not enough pressure at the impellor inlet to prevent the hot water from turning to steam. This happens because the pressure drops below normal atmospheric levels allowing the water to literally boil at less than 212*, especially with under sized tube and over sized pumps used to compensate for it. Keeping the whole system in positive pressure territory "fixes" that problem.
The biggest disadvantage is also pressure and the effects it has on the cost of equipment built to handle it. Those of you who have large pressurized storage (mandatory IMHO) know how costly that is to buy and how time consuming it is if done yourself. A comparable unit that is unpressurized will always be less expensive to buy. There is also the rare but not insignificant matter of a boiler explosion which is not possible in a normal open system. When liquid water turns into water vapor quickly the results are nothing short of catastrophic. Judging from comments I have seen here in the past, I don't believe that too many people really grasp what a steam explosion can do to the structure it is located in.:eek:

As for open systems, the most common problem is the reverse of the first issue I spoke of in the first paragraph. No pressure or even negative pressure at the suction inlet of the pump. Usually this can be overcome by correct tube sizing that establishes a low head in the system and heating circuits but only those who take the time to educate themselves learn this the easy way rather than the hard way, buying pump after pump after pump for the life of the system.
As a general rule an open system will fail before a closed system not because of inferior quality or design but rather, a lack of maintenance. They do require monitoring water quality more closely than a closed system but to say a closed system needs no water quality maintenance is a false statement.
An open system is incapable of causing a catastrophic explosion or failure and is more inherently safe especially when is contains a large volume of water.
Open systems are nearly always less expensive to install up front and also less expensive to buy.
 
Each has it's advantages/disadvantages.
The biggest advantage I see in a closed system is what the available static pressure does for pumping problems. Starting out with a built in positive pressure present at the pump suction eliminates a host of issues with cavitation and suction boiling. Thousands of pumps are burned up every year because there is not enough pressure at the impellor inlet to prevent the hot water from turning to steam. This happens because the pressure drops below normal atmospheric levels allowing the water to literally boil at less than 212*, especially with under sized tube and over sized pumps used to compensate for it. Keeping the whole system in positive pressure territory "fixes" that problem.
The biggest disadvantage is also pressure and the effects it has on the cost of equipment built to handle it. Those of you who have large pressurized storage (mandatory IMHO) know how costly that is to buy and how time consuming it is if done yourself. A comparable unit that is unpressurized will always be less expensive to buy. There is also the rare but not insignificant matter of a boiler explosion which is not possible in a normal open system. When liquid water turns into water vapor quickly the results are nothing short of catastrophic. Judging from comments I have seen here in the past, I don't believe that too many people really grasp what a steam explosion can do to the structure it is located in.:eek:

As for open systems, the most common problem is the reverse of the first issue I spoke of in the first paragraph. No pressure or even negative pressure at the suction inlet of the pump. Usually this can be overcome by correct tube sizing that establishes a low head in the system and heating circuits but only those who take the time to educate themselves learn this the easy way rather than the hard way, buying pump after pump after pump for the life of the system.
As a general rule an open system will fail before a closed system not because of inferior quality or design but rather, a lack of maintenance. They do require monitoring water quality more closely than a closed system but to say a closed system needs no water quality maintenance is a false statement.
An open system is incapable of causing a catastrophic explosion or failure and is more inherently safe especially when is contains a large volume of water.
Open systems are nearly always less expensive to install up front and also less expensive to buy.


The heat exchangers needed in an open system cost way more than the pressure tanks I use without exchangers. In my case with homemade expansion tank it was way cheaper to go pressurized.
 
The heat exchangers needed in an open system cost way more than the pressure tanks I use without exchangers. In my case with homemade expansion tank it was way cheaper to go pressurized.


If you need a heat exchanger that could be true in some cases. Any boiler, pressurized or not requires a heat exchanger for DHW production.
 
I am not sure that the hx for unpressurized tanks cost more than the tanks. In any case, plate hx can be fairly inexpensive, although they require 2 pumps.
The beauty of unpressurized is the convenience of access into any space, the ability to add hx very easily, and the ability to service.
This case would be similar for a DIY unpressurized tank as well as most production tanks.

I think it is always a matter of what value you assign to your DIY work. Pressure tanks ain't light and are not very easy to handle unless you drop them into a garage or specially built building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.