CenPEEP

Centre for Power Efficiency & Environmental Centre for Power Efficiency & Environmental Protection Protection

Cooling Tower Performance Monitoring & Improvement Aspects

Partha Nag Sr. Manager (CenPEEP)

NTPC Coal Station

1 kcal//kWh Coal Saving 55,000 Tons CO2 Reduction 68,750 Tons

CenPEEP
Prepared on 16th March, 2010 All data on annual basis

Cost Reduction Rs. 7.66 Crores

Installed Capacity 24400 MW, GCV 3500 kcal/kg , Coal Cost Rs 1400 per Ton, PLF 90%, FC 34%

1 % Eff. Improvement

67 kcal//kWh Improvement

Coal Saving 36,85,000 Tons

CO2 Reduction 46,06,250 Tons

Cost Reduction Rs. 436.62 Crores

Same as above, Heat rate 2350 kcal/kWh

500 MW Unit

Per day Coal Consumption 7,020 Tons

Annual Coal Consumption 25,62,300 Tons

Annual Coal Cost Rs. 358.7 Crores

Annual CO2 Production 32,02,875 Tons

Same as above, Specific coal consumption 0.65 kg/kWh

500 MW Unit
Same as above

5 kcal//kWh Improvement

Coal Saving 5,635 Tons

CO2 Reduction 7,044 Tons

Cost Reduction Rs. 0.785 Crores

1 Million Ton CO2 ~ 2,74,000 Cars

You could check this directly using an electric kettle. Put in 1 liter of water (1 Kilocalorie will heat this by 1 deg celsius) Note the kettle wattage, and the cold water temperature, then note how many seconds to reach boiling temp (100 celsius). The number of kilocalories is just the temperature rise in degrees C, the number of Kwseconds is the wattage times the time to reach boiling in seconds.

CenPEEP Effect of Condenser Vacuum on Heat Rate

10 mmHg Improvement in Condenser Vacuum Leads to 20 Kcal/kwh Improvement in Heat Rate for a 210 MW Unit

CenPEEP Condenser Performance Monitoring Factors affecting Condenser Performance Tube fouling Air ingress into the system High Condenser heat load CW Inlet temperature CW Flow

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Importance of Cooling Tower Performance Cooling water system plays a vital role in dissipation of waste heat in power station. More than 60 % of total heat input to the plant is finally dissipated as waste heat. The waste heat from the power plant is carried away by circulating water and ultimately gets dissipated in cooling tower.

Monitoring

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Heat Duty

For a 200 MW Unit : Cooling Tower Heat Duty is equivalent to approx. 275 MW For a 500 MW Unit : Cooling Tower Heat Duty is equivalent to approx. 700 MW

CenPEEP Importance of Cooling Tower Performance Monitoring

Cold water temperature expected to improve by 2-3 deg C by improving Tower performance This will improve Condenser Vacuum by 6 9 mm Hg Improvement in Heat Rate 12 18 kcal/kwh. Reduction in fuel consumption of the order of 11200 16800 tons per year for one 500 MW unit. Annual savings of Rupees 9 - 13.5 million for one 500 MW unit.
Assumptions : PLF - 80%, GCV - 3750 kcal/kg, Coal cost - Rs. 800 per ton

CenPEEP

Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Test Code Cooling Tower Institute (CTI) has issued guidelines for carrying out the thermal performance test of cooling towers. CTI ATC - 105

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Parameters to be Measured

Wet Bulb Temperature (WBT) at Tower inlet Cold Water Temperature Hot Water Temperature CW Flow to each Tower Fan Motor Power

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Acceptable Test Conditions

CW Flow rate Cooling Range Wet-Bulb Temp Fan Motor Power

: 90 110% of Design : 80 120% of Design : Design +/- 8.50 C : 90 110% of Design

Average wind velocity : < 4.5 m/s

Cooling Tower Performance Salient Terms Used in CT Testing Approach

CenPEEP

Difference between the Cold Water Temperature at CT outlet and Inlet air Wet Bulb Temperature Range Difference between the Hot Water Temperature (inlet to CT) and Cold Water Temperature (outlet of CT)

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Performance Salient Terms Used in CT Testing Tower Capability The most reliable means to assess the cooling tower thermal performance. It is defined as the percentage of water that the tower can cool to the design cold water temperature when the inlet wet-bulb, cooling range, water flow rate and fan motor power are all at their design value.

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Performance Tower Capability

Tower Capability in Percentage Adjusted Test Flow Rate = Adjusted Test Flow Rate Predicted Water Flow Rate

= Measured flow x { Design KW of fans}0.333 { Test KW of Fans }

Predicted Water Flow Rate =Calculated from Manufacturer graphs and actual test conditions i.e. WBT, Range and Cold water temperature.

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Tower Capability = { QT } * { CellD } * { PD }.333 * 100 { Qpred } { CellT } { PT }

Where : QT = Measured water flow rate, t/hr Predicted water flow rate, t/hr No. of cells for design water flow rate No. of cells in operation during test Fan motor power design, kW Fan motor power measured, kW

Qpred = CellD = CellT = PD PT = =

CT Performance Test
TEST DATA
Average Hot Water Temperature Average Cold Water Temperature Average Inlet Air WBT Average Wind Velocity Actual KW of Fans during Test (Average) T HOT WATER T COLD
WATER

CenPEEP
UNITS
C C C Meter / sec kW

TEST VALUE 46.30 36.10 28.50 2.97 36.59 18 26100 29000 31900 32.00 11.00 4.40 18
P Des

T WBT V WIND P Act

No. of Cells in Service during Test DESIGN DATA

Design CT Flow (90 %) Design CT Flow (100 %) Design CT Flow (110 %) Design Cold Water Temperature (C) Design Range of Cooling Tower (C) Design Approach of Cooling Tower (C)

No.
T/Hr T/Hr T/Hr C C C

No. of Cells Design

Design KW of Fans CW Duct Inner Dia (ID)

No.
kW meter

47.81 0.60 0.9928

PITOT CONSTANT DATA

Pitot Constant DATA DERIVED FROM MANUFACTURERS CURVE Expected Cold Water Temperature : 90% Flow T COLD Expected Cold Water Temperature : 100% Flow Expected Cold Water Temperature : 110% Flow Actual CW Flow T COLD T COLD

WATER - 90%

32.25 32.93 33.53 27790.00

From CT [90%] Characteristic curve From CT [100%] Characteristic curve From CT [110%] Characteristic curve T/Hr

WATER - 100%

WATER - 110%

CT Performance Test

CenPEEP

Variation Between CW Flow Vs Expected Cold Water Temperature

33.80 Expected Cold Water Temperature [C] 33.60 33.40 33.20 33.00 32.80 32.60 32.40 32.20 32.00 22000 24000 26000 28000 30000 32000 34000 y = 0.00022069x + 26.50333333

CW Flow Rate [Tons/Hr]

CT Performance Test
FIELD TEST PARAMETERS Average Hot Water Temperature Average Cold Water Temperature Average Inlet Air WBT Average Wind Velocity COMPUTATION OF EXPECTED COLD WATER TEMPERATURE Average Inlet Air WBT Average CW Cooling Range Expected Cold Water Temperature : 90% Flow Expected Cold Water Temperature : 100% Flow Expected Cold Water Temperature : 110% Flow UNITS C C C m/sec C C C C C

CenPEEP
TEST VALUE 46.30 36.10 28.50 2.97 28.50 10.20 32.25 32.93 33.53

Expected Cold Water Temp: Actual Flow

32.64 0.31 32.95 ACTUAL 36.10 10.20 7.60 57.30

CORRECTION IN EXPECTED COLD WATER TEMPERATURE DUE TO WIND Correction factor due to Wind Velovity C Expected Cold Water Temp C RESULTS DESIGN EXPECTED Cold Water Temperature (C) 32.00 32.95 Cooling Range of Cooling Tower (C) 11.00 13.35 Approach of Cooling Tower (C) 4.40 4.45 Cooling Tower Effectiveness (%) No. of Cells Design No. of Cells in Service during Test TOWER CAPABILITY Measured CW Flow (T/Hr) Predicted CW Flow corres.to Test Cold Water Temp. Design KW of Fans Actual KW of Fans during Test (Average) Adjusted CW Flow (T/Hr) Tower Capability 71.43 18 75.02

18 Q Meas Q Pred. P P
Des Act

27790.00 43484.83 47.81 36.59 30378.66 69.86

Q Adj %

CT Performance Test
Design CWT HWT WBT CW Flow Fan Power (Average) Range Approach Effectiveness (Actual) Effectiveness (EXP) Capability 100 32 44 27.7 2222 47.81 12 4.3 73.62 CT Cell (19mm flute) 31.33 40.51 24.52 2520 45.65 9.18 6.81 57.4 63.22 87.13

CenPEEP
CT Cell (17mm flute) 31.84 41.13 24.42 2515 43.84 9.29 7.42 55.59 64.4 80.04

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Design and Test data
Description Unit Design Flow m3/hr 40,000 Hot water Deg C 44 Cold water Deg.C 32 Wet Bulb Deg.C 27.7 Approach Deg.C 4.3 Range Deg.C 12 Fan Power KW 47.81 Effectiveness % 73.62 Capability % 100 Predicted 53,333 30.49 5.89 10.61 47.81 64.32 Actual 44,189 41.1 31.6 24.6 7.0 9.5 44.17 57.58 85.05

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Performance Performance Analysis CT degradation to be assessed based on Capability test Deviation to be derived from actual temperature and predicted cold water temperature

CenPEEP Causes for Performance Deterioration

Fill clogging Increase in weight of 2-3 times

Deposition in the fills comes from the turbidity of make up water air borne dust from the atmospheric air being drawn into the cooling tower precipitates of dissolved silica

CenPEEP Causes for Performance Deterioration

Damage of fills. Chocking of nozzle. Falling of nozzle. Damage of splash bars. Algae formation on splash bars Damaged drift eliminators Unequal water flow in different cells. Recirculation of vapors Poor air flow due to less blade angle.

CenPEEP Causes for Performance Deterioration

Hot water distribution pipe damage Annular clearance between distribution pipe and hot water channel Growth of trees/plants/bushes near cooling tower Overflow of cold water basin. Improper quality of water
Control of COC Control of Turbidity

Rain/any other water entering in open channel

CenPEEP Optimizing Cooling Tower Performance

Maintaining proper L/G ratio

Equal water distribution between the cells Visual inspection of pipes, nozzles, fills, etc., for proper water distribution.

Increasing the air flow

By increasing blade angle to obtain max allowable loading of fans

By plugging all air path that do not pass through the fill zone
i ii iii iv v Sealing shaft hole of fan. Sealing door openings of fan chamber. Sealing the fan hub area. Maintaining blade tip clearances Reducing drift handled by fan

CenPEEP Optimizing Cooling Tower Performance

Cleaning of fills with water jets Cleaning of fills manually by removing from tower Cleaning of cold water basin during overhauls. Regular cleaning/checking of nozzles. Continuous Chlorination & Shock dozing to maintain required FRC

CenPEEP Improvement due to Fill cleaning/replacement

Parameters Unit Load No.of Cells in service [Ns] Hot basin temp. Cold basin temp. Cooling Range [(4)-(5)] Dry Bulb Temp. Wet Bulb Temp. Approach [(5)-(8)] Effectiveness [(6) / (6) + (9)] CW Flow (As measured) [Qa] Predicted cold Water Temp [Qp] Shortfall in Cold Water Temp. Design 500 --42.5 32 10.5 --27.4 4.6 69.5 30000 32 0.0 45.8 37.4 8.4 30.5 27.8 9.6 45.7 35.6 10.1 31.2 26.8 8.8 46 37.3 8.7 31.3 27.3 10 46.4 35.6 10.8 30.8 26.6 9 42.5 32.6 9.9 30.7 27.8 4.8 67.3 29215 31.9 0.7 42.9 32.4 10.5 31.4 27.6 4.8 68.6 29666 32.1 0.3 43.2 32.4 10.8 31.1 27.1 5.3 67.1 29541 31.8 0.6 42.6 32.1 10.5 31.2 27 5.1 67.3 28862 31.5 0.6 Before CT Fill Cleaning (Aug 2005) After CT Fill Cleaning (Jul 2007) CT# 7A CT# 7B CT# 8A CT# 8B CT# 7A CT# 7B CT# 8A CT# 8B 510 8 510 8 510 8 510 8 512 8 512 8 509 8 509 8

46.7 53.4 46.5 54.5 Predicted Cold Water Temp calculated at 100% flow 31.6 31.5 31.3 31.6 5.8 4.1 6.0 4.0

Remarks : Fill cleaning started in Jan 2006 and completed in May 2007.

CenPEEP Improvement due to Fill cleaning/replacement

Brief of Fill cleaning / replacement :

Fill used (New) Paharpur (4 X 4 X 1)-17mm flute Cells 7A1 (Part), 7A3 (Full), 7A4(part) Kooldag (4 X 1 X 1)-19mm flute Cells 7A6 (Full), 8A6 (Full) Kooldag (4 X 2 X 1)-19mm flute Cells 7A7 (Full), 7A8 (Full) Cells 7B3 (Full), 7B4 (Full), 7B5 (Full), 7B6 (Full), 7B8 (Full), 7B9 (Full) Cells 8A9 (Full), 8B9 (Full) In rest of the cells original fill packs were cleaned and reused.

CenPEEP Best Practices on Cooling Tower

For better performance of cooling tower L/G ratio should be uniform all across the tower. Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing to be done minimum 30 days after installation of new fills. Increasing Fan stack height helps in reducing Fan power consumption. Stack height can be increased upto 18 feet. Increasing Fan stack height also helps in reducing vapor recirculation

CenPEEP Best Practices on Cooling Tower

FRP blades are efficient than Metallic blades and reduces power consumption. When replacing Metallic blades with FRP blades assessment of air flow to be carried out. To reduce recirculation of air inside the stack - Blade tip clearance with stack to be minimum possible. - Arrangement of Seal disc at the middle of Fan hub. Without seal disc arrangement air flow may be reduced by 15%. Calibration of Pitot tube for CW flow measurement to be done at every two years as per CTI WBT and DBT measurement to be carried out within 5 feet of air intake and at different heights.

Study on Effect of L/G ratio on CT CenPEEP Thermal Performance

Objective of the Study

Study of variation in CT Fan power and air flow due to change in Liquid/Gas ratio Study of variation in CT performance due to change in Liquid/Gas ratio

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance Effect of L/G ratio

Liquid/Gas Ratio (L = water; G = air), of a cooling tower is the ratio between the water and air mass flow rates Low L/G ratio indicates that cooling tower is under utilized. High L/G ratio indicates availability of less air for actual cooling water flow CT Characteristic (KaV/L) is dependent on designed L/G ratio Heat removed from the water must be equal to the heat absorbed by the surrounding air

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance Instrument Used

3 hole pitot tube for CW flow measurements 24 no calibrated thermocouples alongwith data loggers for cold water temperature measurement One no. calibrated Battery operated psychrometer for WBT measurements Two nos. calibrated thermometers for DBT measurements One no. calibrated thermocouple for WBT & DBT measurement of exit air One Power analyzer for power measurements of CT fans One no. calibrated thermocouple for hot water temperature measurement Two nos. anemometer (with a read out and 6 M cable length)

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance Findings of the Study

Sr. N o. 1 2 3 4 Cell Fan Blade L/G Ratio (Water flow / Air Angle No Flow ) . 13 13 11 11 9 10 9 10 1.56 1.51 1.66 1.60 Cell Capabili ty % 77.1 79.8 77.8 80.4 Fan Power Consum ption kW 40.3 44.3 38.9 42.4

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance Findings of the Study

Measured L/G ratio was higher than the design L/G ratio of 1.44 CT fan air flow and power consumption varied proportionately with change in blade angle The test indicates that by changing the L/G ratio ( increasing the fan blade angle by 1 ) , the effectiveness of cell varied by more than 1% Cooling tower capability varied by more than 2.5 % with change in L/G ratio Higher capability observed with low L/G ratio i.e. high air flow for same CW flow

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance Observations of the Study

Increase in power consumption by 4 Kw in a single cell with increase in 10 blade angle Decrease in cold water temperature by 0.4 deg C in a single cell with increase in 10 blade angle Decrease in L/G ratio by 3.2% increases capability by 2.5% (typically running one additional CT fan in a tower decrease L/G ratio by 6.3%) Increase in power consumption by around 64 Kw in a tower can improve HR by 2 kcal/kwh (for a typical 200 MW unit)

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance Observations of the Study

Improvement in HR by 2 kcal/kwh is equivalent to improvement in unit load by around 205 Kw (for a typical 200 MW unit) Improvement in HR by 2 kcal/kwh is equivalent to annual savings of around 11 lacs (for a typical 200 MW unit)

CenPEEP Effect of L/G ratio on CT Thermal Performance

Fan blade angle vs Air flow CT Cell 11
2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 1504 1447 9 2 3 10 Blade Angle Air Flow TPH
50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Fan blade angle vs pow e r cons um ption, CT Ce ll 11 42.4

38.9

Blade Angle Pow er Consumpti on

9 2 3

10

L/G Ratio vs Capability CTCell 11

1.680 1.660 1.640 1.620 1.600 1.580 1.560 1

1.66

80.4

77.8 2

1.60 3

81 80 79 78 77 76

L/G Ratio ( Water flow / Air Flow ) Cell Capability

Fan blade angle vs Power Consumption CT Cell 13

60 40 20 0 1 40.3 9 2 3 44.3 10 Blade Angle Power Consumption

CenPEEP

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Test Setup

WBT Measurement Done on both sides of the tower at air inlet path using Psychrometers. The instrument shall be located within 1.5 M of the air intake. The number of stations for inlet wet bulb temperature measurement depends on the size and layout of the cooling tower. For a typical 500 MW unit having 2 cooling towers, there can be 16 locations per cooling tower (8 on each side) for an accurate measurement of wet bulb temperature

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Location Of Inlet Wet Bulb Temperature for Station with Counter Flow Tower

L < 2 Meters,

X Measurement Station.

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Location Of Inlet Wet Bulb Temperature for Station with Cross Flow Tower

L < 2 Meters,

X Measurement Station.

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Wet Bulb Temp. measurement setup

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Test Setup

Cold Water Temperature Measurement The recooled water temperature can be measured directly at the point where the circulating water is discharged from the basin. The temperature measurement instruments shall be located where the water will be thoroughly mixed. It is better to have a grid arrangement in the channel for cold water measurement.

CenPEEP

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Grid setup for Cold Water Temp. measurement

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Grid setup for Cold Water Temp. measurement of single cell

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Grid setup for Cold Water Temp. measurement of single cell

Grid Measurement for Cold Water Temperature for one Cell

CenPEEP

Grid of 48 probes

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing Test Setup

Hot water temperature measurement At the tower risers or at the discharge of the inlet risers Fan Power Measurement At the individual fan switch gear

CenPEEP CW Flow Measurement

CW flow Measurement using Pitot Traverse Pitot traverse is done in two planes i.e. vertical and horizontal at 90 degrees to each other. CW flow Q = dp0.5 (504.4883 x C x A) t/hr Where Q = CW Flow in t/hr dp = average dp measured in mmwcl C = Pitot coefficient A = Area of duct in m2

CenPEEP CW Flow Measurement

CW Flow Measurement

CenPEEP

CW Flow Measurement

CenPEEP

CenPEEP
On-line CW Flow Monitoring using Elbow Tap dp
Measurement of CW flow using Pitot traverse and calibrating Elbow Tap dp for on-line monitoring.

CW outlet duct

Elbow Tap

Pitot Traverse at CW outlet duct

Elbow DP

Circulating Water

Out let WB

Cond enser

Benefits On-line measurement of CW flow available in control room Helps in assessing Condenser performance

Elbow Tap Arrangement

On-line CW Flow Monitoring using Elbow Tap dp CenPEEP

Design Flow T/Hr CW Pass I (LHS-Road side) TWO CW PP running Full Flow(WB Valves open) One CW PP running Reduced Flow (CW outlet valve throttled) Reduced Flow (CW outlet valve throttled) CW Pass II (RHS-CT-2 side) Two CW PPs running Full Flow(WB Valves open) One CW PP running Reduced Flow (CW outlet valve throttled) Reduced Flow (CW outlet valve throttled)

Measured Flow at CT end (t/hr) using 3-hole Pitot ACW Flow (t/hr) CW Flow at Condenser Outlet (t/hr) dP at condenser end (mmWC) Elbow Tap Method

12950

10054

7513

6385

8269

6582

4982

450 12500 -

450 9604 500

450 7063 257.5

450 5935 107.5

450 7819 525

450 6132 400

450 4532 165

CW Pass I (LHSRoad side) CW Flow at Condenser Outlet (t/hr) Elbow tap dP ( mmwcl)

CW Pass II (RHS-CT-2 side)

For LHS Y= 431.59*X

9604 500 22.36

7063 257.5 16.046

7819 525 22.91

6132 400 20 328.56

For RHS Y= 328.56*X

SQRT of dP Constant K value

431.59

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

90% Flow; Cold Water vs. Wet Bulb
37.0 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 29.0 28.0 27.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0

COLD WATER TEMPERATURE C

Wet Bulb (C)

C-8.8C

B-11.0C

A- 13.25C

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

100% Flow; Cold Water vs. Wet Bulb
37.0 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 29.0 28.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0

COLD WATER TEMPERATURE C

Wet Bulb (C) C-8.8C B-11.0C A- 13.25C

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

110 % Flow;
37.0 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 29.0 28.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0

Cold Water vs. Wet Bulb

COLD WATER TEMPERATURE C

Wet Bulb (C)

C-8.8C

B-11.0C

A- 13.25C

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

90% Flow; Cold Water vs. Wet Bulb COLD WATER TEMPERATURE C

37.0 36.0 35.0 34.0 33.0 32.0 31.0 30.0 29.0 28.0 27.0 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0

Wet Bulb (C)

C-8.8C

B-11.0C

A- 13.25C

Test WBT 25.7 C

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Cold Water vs. Cooling Range
30.8 30.6 30.4 30.2 30.0 29.8 29.6 29.4 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

COLD WATER TEMPERATURE (C)

COOLING RANGE (C) 90% Flow

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Cold Water vs. Cooling Range COLD WATER TEMPERATURE (C)
32.0 31.5 31.0 30.5 30.0 29.5 29.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

COOLING RANGE (C) 90% Flow 100% Flow 110% Flow Test Range

Test Cooling Range 10.1 C

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Cold Water vs. Predicted Flow
30.8

COLD WATER TEMPERATURE (C)

30.6 30.4 30.2 30.0 29.8 29.6 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115

Predicted Flow (%)

Test Cold Water Temp 35.9 C

CenPEEP Cooling Tower Thermal Performance Testing

Cold Water vs. Predicted Flow
37.0 35.0 33.0 31.0 29.0 27.0 25.0 25,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 65,000 75,000 85,000

COLD WATER TEMPERATURE (C)

Predicted Flow (t/hr)

Test Cold Water Temp 35.9 C Predicted Flow 77,000 t/hr, Actual Flow - 30,977 t/hr

DEPOSITS IN FILL

CenPEEP

CenPEEP Falling of Nozzles

ALGAE FORMATION

CenPEEP

CenPEEP Unequal Water Distribution

CenPEEP Recirculation of vapors

Rain Water Entering Cold Water Basin CenPEEP

AIR PASSAGE THROUGH SHAFT OPENING

CenPEEP

CenPEEP
SEALING OF AIR PASSAGE THROUGH SHAFT OPENING

SEALING FAN HUB AREA

CenPEEP

SEALING FAN HUB AREA

CenPEEP

ONLINE FILL CLEANING RIHAND

CenPEEP