See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265550423

Cooling Tower Performance

Conference Paper · January 1995

CITATIONS READS

0 4,722

2 authors, including:

Dudley J Benton
McHale Performance
66 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Impacts of Global Climate Change View project

Thermodynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dudley J Benton on 11 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE

presented at the 1995 EPRI Thermal Performance Improvement Seminar

C. F. Bowman, P.E.
Chuck Bowman Associates, Inc.
6500 Papermill Road, Suite 21 9
Knoxville, TN 3 791 9

D. J. Be~ton, Ph.D.
Environmental Consulting Engineers
10938 Hardin Valley Road
Knoxville, TN 37932

Abstract

The performance of cooling towers is of great importance for the large number of
nuclear plants that must rely upon cooling towers as their only means of waste heat
rejection. Yet the performance of cooling towers have been problematic. Analytical
tools to evaluate their performance have been developed and validated by test by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and
others. The wide-spread application of these tools to address cooling tower
deficiendes can help nuclear power become more c.ompetitive. This paper discusses
· one of these tools, the Fast Analysis Cooling Tower Simulator (FACTS) computer
code developed by 1VA. The paper discusses the technical basis for FACTS and
documents the various ways that the code has been validated. The paper shows how -
FAC...!S may be used to evaluate proposed modifications to improve the perfonnance·
of the cooling towers such as those at TVA's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFNP) and
Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBNP). The paper reports on a new approach to
improving the performance of existing cooling towers, the Oriented Spray-Assisted
Cooling Tower (OSACT), and shows how FACTS has been used to evaluate the
improvement that may be expected with the OSACT design.

Purpose

The purpose of thls paper is to discuss the impact that cooling tower performance has
on nuclear plant efficiency and dectrical output and to show how analytical tools
such as FACTS may be used to address deficiencies in tooling tower performance.

Introduction

Cooling towers are relied upon to dissipate the waste heat all or part of the time at 28
of the active nuclear plant sites in the United States. Many of these plants can only
operate in a dosed mode where they must rely solely upon the performance of the
cooling tower to cool the condenser circulating water (CCW) so that the main
condenser can operate at a low back pressure (BP) and the turbine will operate
efficiently. However, cooling tower performance has been notoriously problematic.
The EPRJ responded to these problems in cooling tower performance by conducting
extensive tests 1 to validate analytical tools which may be used to evaluate cooling
tower performance problems. One of these tools is the FACTS computer code which
was developed by TVA 2 . The FAC1S code is well documented and verified both by
laboratory tests conducted by EPRI and TVA and by field acceptance tests conducted
by 1VA and other utilities on several types of cooling towers. However, this data has
not been published in the open literature in a form that fully demonstrates the
reliability and value of this important tool.

History of Cooling Tower Performance

The last comprehensive survey of utility cooling tower performance was conducted by
the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1983 3 . This survey which utilized information
received from 49 questionnaires was restricted to cooling towers operating at power
plant units of 500 megawatts and above. A total of 72 cooling towers including 39
mechanical draft. 32 natural draft, and I wet/dry were included in the survey. The
extent of cooling tower thermal performance problems was indicated by results of
performance testing. Acceptance tests were conducted on cooling towers which serve -
81% of the installed capacity represented by the survey. Of those, 40% failed while
46% met or exceeded specifications, with counterflow towers reporting a significantly
better record of success. As an indication of problems ·with cooling tower
performance, 65% (megawatt-weighted) indicated that poor cooling tower
performance resulted in decreased plant efficiency and 41% (megawatt-weighted)
reported a loss in plant electrical output.

EPRl 1 evaluated the results of the TVA suzvey and concluded that the mean value of
the performance of the cooling towers was estimated at 85%. This translates to a 2 to
2.5 °F increase in CCW temperature. EPRI reported on the results of cooling lower
testing reported by the Cooling Tower Institute. These results indicated a trend
toward improving the capabilities of cooling towers since the early l 970s. The
lowest capabilities were reported for tests conducted in 1971 (about 65%). For the
most recent year reported (1988) the measured capability was about 95% for new
towers, but the results of tests performed on older towers during the same time
period indicated an average capability of only 81 %. EPRI defines capability as the
percent of design water flow rate that can be cooled to the design cold water
temperature at design conditions.

In recent years, a significant number of cooling towers have been repad(ed with film-
fill packing. Although these film fills can result in substantial improvement in
performance, fouling of these fills, if left unchecked, reverse perfonnancc gains from
the tower upgrade and add substantially Lo cooling tower structural loading 4 . As a
result, in recent years considerable emphasis has been placed on controlling CCW
chemistry to avoid cooling tower fill fouling.

Impact of Cooling Tower Performance

In some instances the cooling towers have been added to the plant design to help
comply with environmental limits and the cooling tower performance does riot
directly impact the CCW temperature. However, in the vast majority of the cases,
the cooling tower is an integral part of a closed cycle heat rejection system (HRS),
and the cooling tower performance directly impacts the plant performance.

The Carnot efficiency of any closed heat c-ycle is a function of the following:

(1)

where T H and T 1. are the absolute temperatures of the heat source and heat sink,
respectively. In the case of a power plant operating on a Rankine cycle, TL is the
saturation temperature of the condenser which is detennined by the condenser BP.
Bowman 5 showed the relationship between the CCW temperature entering the
condenser and the condenser BP and the electrical output for the TVA's BFNP when
operating at I 00% thermal power input.

Since the cold water temperature (CWf), leaving the cooling tower (entering th.e
main condenser) is one of the important parameters which establish the condenser
BP, the ambient wet bulb temperature (WBT) and the cooling tower performance are
very important parameters because they directly affect the CWT and, therefore, the
maximum possible heat cycle efficiency and electrical output. Figure l shows the
effects that ambient WBT and the cooling tower performance have on electrical
output for the lVA's WBNP 6 . Watts Bar is a 1160 megawatt electrical (MWE)
pressurized water reactor (PvVR) nuclear plant located in east Tennessee. The
 Table 1: Impact of 5.5 In. Hga. BP Limit on MWE

No BP Limit BP limited to 5.5 In. Hga.

WBT (.~ BP3 MWE CvVT .B£.3 MWE

40 70.3 3.08 1212.3 70.3 3.08 1212.3
50 75.5 3.55 1204.2 75.5 3 .55 1204.2
60 80.9 4.14 1193.6 80.9 4.14 1193.6
70 86.8 4.88 1180.2 86.8 4.88 1180.2
75 89.8 5.32 1172.3 89.8 5.32 1172.3
80 92.9 5.81 1163.6 92.9 5.50 11 I 1.6
85 96.1 6.35 1154.1 96.1 5.50 l 010. 1
90 99.3 6.97 I 143.7 99.3 5.50 898.8

WBNP HRS consists of 4 CCW pumps, a triple-pressure condenser fitted with an

on-line ball cleaning system, a counter-flow natural draft cooling tower, and
associated piping and valves. The CCW pumps deliver a total flow of 420,000 gpm.
Figure 1 shows the expected generator output in MWE and the BP in the third zone
of the condenser for an array of cooling tower performance percentages and for the
cooling tower performance as predicted by FACTS. However, as is the case wit h
many nuclear plants, the WBNP condenser BP must be limited due to turbine design
considerations. The WBNP condenser BP is limited to 5.5 inch Hga pressure.
Figure 2 shows the impact that this limitation imposes on generator output. This
limitation means that cooling tower performance is even more important at high
WBT. Table I shows the relationships among the WBT, CWT, condenser BP in the
third zone, and the generator output based on the .1:-".AC!S model with and without
BP limitations. It may be seen t hat at high WBT values, a reduction in the CWT of
I °F vvill result in an increase in generator output of 3 MWE with no BP limitations
and 32 MWE when the BP must be limited to 5.5 inches Hga.

Fast Analysis Cooling Tower Simulator (FACTS)

Technical Basis for FACTS

Theoretical Development of FACTS. FACTS is a computer model of the

simultaneous heat, mass, and momentum transfer processes occurring throughout a
cooling tower. The heat transfer within an evaporative cooling tower may be
expressed in terms of the sensible and evaporative (or latent) heat transfer. For
sensible heat transfer,

(2)
where
dQ. = differential sensible-heat transfer rate
H = local heat transfer coeffident
tw = local water temperature
tdb = local air dry-bulb temperature
cL\ = differential interface area
For evaporative heat transfer, the differential mass transfer rate is related to the
driving potential and the mass transfer coefficient by

dE=KB~ (3)

where
dE = differential evaporative mass transfer rate
K = mass transfer coeffident
B = mass transfer driving potential

and

B = (f5 - f)/ (I - f5 ) (4)

where
f = mass fraction of water in the far field
f5 = mass fraction of the water at the interface
(assumed to be saturated)

In t he case of mixtures of air and water vapor,

f=w/(l+w) (5)

where
w = absolute humidity .
By combining terms.

dE = K [ {w5 -w ) I (l + w ) ] ~ (6)

where
w5 = absolute humidity at saturation

The differential mass transfer rate is related to the differential latent heat transfer rate
through the enthalpy of saturated water vapor, hg, by,
 (7)

where
dC2.e = differential latent heat transfer rate
hg = enthalpy of saturated water vapor

The sum of the differential sensible- and latent-heat transfer rates is the differential
total heat transfer rate, d~

d(4 = dQ. + dC2.e (8)

The differential total heat transfer rate is also related to the temperature change of
the water, the constant-pressure specific heat of the water, and mass flow rate of the
water by the conservation of energy principal,

d(4 = -d(L CPw d1=w) (9)

where
L = mass flow rate of water
cPw = constant-pressure specific heat of water
d~ = differential temperature change.

The differential interface area,~. within a differential volume dx, dy, dz, of the fill
is expressed as,

~ = adx dydz (10)

where
a = interface area per unit volume.

The three equations of interest are then,

(I I)

dE= K.a [(w5 -w) /(1 +w )) dx dy d ( 12)

dC2.e = hg Ka [(w5 -w ) /(I +w )] dx dy dz (13)

The FACTS model is based on the conservation of the mass of air and the mass of
water vapor as well as the conservation of the energy for the gas phase and the energy
for the water phase. These conservation equations in conjunction with the Bernoulli
equation constitute the set of equations which are solved by FACTS to simulate
cooling tower performance. The form of the Bernoulli equation used is,

( 14)

where the subscripts I and 2 represent two locations along a streamline and

p =pressure
p == density
V = total velocity
& = Newton's constant
g = acceleration of gravity

These equations are applied in their steady-state, steady-flow form. The independent
variables are the horizontal distance, x, vertical distance, y, and total mass flow rate of
water, L, inlet water temperature,~. and the ambient wet- and dry-bulb
temperatures. The dependent variables in the consexvation equations are air velocity,
absolute humidity, the enthalpy of the air-water vapor mixture, ha, the.water
temperature, and pressure. The wet-bulb temperature, ~b• and dry-bulb temperature,
are determined using the following thermodynamic relationships for air-water vapor
mixtures from computed values of w, h 3 , and p 7 :

( 15)

where
tas = adiabatic saturation temperature which is assumed to be equivalent to
the wet-bulb temperature
Cp3 =constant-pressure specific heat of dry air

and

( I 6)

The interrelationship among t he dependent and independent variables is evident

from the formulation of the conservation equations that follow. The conservation of
mass for the water vapor within a control volume is expressed as

f JJ Ka[(w5 -w) /(l +w )] dx dy dz = JJ [wp /( 1 +w )] V*d.A ( 17)

where V*d.A is the dot product of the two vectors V and d.A. The conservation of
energy for the air within a control volume is

JJ f{ hg Ka[(W5 -w) /(I +W )]+Ha(lw- tdb)}dx dy dz = JJ[hap/(1 +w))V*d.A (18)

Finally, the conservation of energy for the water within a control volume is

L cpw d~ =-III{hg Ka[(w5 -w) /(l +w )]+Ha(tw- tdb)}dx dy dz (19)

Simulation of the mass, momentum, and heat transfer processes in the cooling Lower
requires that the tower be discretized, or divided into computational cells. Each cell
is treated as a control volume, and the governing equations are applied to each. At
each cell the computed dependent variables from the adjacent upstream cells are
utilized. These variables are defined at nodes located at the mid-points of the cell
boundaries. The use of boundary nodes assures conservation of mass and energy from
cell to cell. Applying the Bernoulli equation and conservation equations to each cell
results in a set of nonlinear simultaneous equations relating the dependent variables.
These implicit nonlinear simultaneous equations are solved using the Gauss-Seidel
method.

For counterflow towers, the air is assumed to flow between collinear hyperboloid
pathlines. The fraction of air mass flow between each pathline is computed and
reflects flow resistance in both the fill and the rain zones. The pressure drop and
transfer characteristics of the fill are integrated in the radial direction to obtain
average values. These are weighted by the velocity head, air flow, and waterflow.
These average values are used with the one-dimensional integral conservation
equations.

For crossflow towers, the airflow distribution is evaluated using the Bernoulli
equation (with head loss) and the conservation of mass for air. These equations are
applied to each computational cell.

Modeling Assumptions. The assumptions made in the FACTS code are discussed in
References (I) and (2). FAC!S is a steady-state, steady-flow model. It is more
sophisticated than a one-dimensional model, yet it contains simplifications which
prevent it from being classified as a true two-dimensional code. The following are the
other major assumptions made:

I. The flow of air is two-dimensional in the fill region of a crossBow tower, and
one-dimensional in the fill region of a counterflow tower.
2. Wet-bulb temperature is equivalent to the adiabatic saturation temperature.
3. ~The cooling tower is exten1ally adiabatic (e.g. in the case of a natural draft
cooling tower, the enthalpy of the air is constant in the chimney.)
4. The atmosphere around the a natural draft cooling tower is isentropic.
5. The water flows vertically downward.
6. Evaporation loss is neglected in the water mass balance
Model Capabilities. The spedfied inlet conditions of both air and water
(temperatures and flows) can vary across the inlet plane. FACTS can model towers
containing hybrid fills or fills that have voids or obstructions. FACTS allows for the
input of separate correlations for spray and rain regions in counterflow towers.

Validation of FACTS

FACTS has been the subject of extensive validation efforts byTVA8 •9 , EPRlu 0 , and
other utilities. FACTS requires as input a sensible heat transfer coefficient, H, and a
mass transfer coefficient, I~ which are a function of the fill characteristics as input.
EPRl undertook an aggressive program in the mid-I 980's to study the thermal
performance of cooling tower fill materials and to compare numerical models for
accuracy in predicting cooling tower performance. 10 EPRI contracted with Thermatec
to test several fills at their Santa Rosa, California test facility. The performance of
the cement-asbestos board (CAB) fill material which was commonly used in early
counterflow towers was tested at three fill heights and two fill sheet spacings. The
tests were conducted at several water flow rates and air flow rates. A data r~duction
program, FACTR, based on FACTS was used to calculate the mass transfer
characteristics from the raw data using the relationship,

Ka/L" = C (UG)n (20)

where
L" = water flow rate per unit area
G = air flow rate
C = constant
n =constant

FACTS treats the rain zone of counterflow cooling towers similar to fill material.
TVA conducted tests of the heat transfer in the rain zone. This study concluded that
the mass transfer coefficient for the rain zone is approximately 14 to 25 % of that for
CAB and 10 to 44% of that for splash bars. 9

The validity of FACTS model has been tested by comparing model results with field
data collected on cooling towers at 3 TVA power plants. These towers are
fundamentally different in design. The cooling towers at BFNP, Sequoyah Nuclear
Plant (SNP), and Paradise Steam Plant (PSP) are crossflow mechanical draft,
crossflow natural draft, and counterflow natural draft, respectively. The results of
these tests are shown in Figure 3. The fill characteristics used in the FAC...1S model
for these comparisons were taken from published values 11 , and no calibration of the
model was used in making the predictions.
In 1989 EPRI published the results of the Cooling Tower Performance Prediction and
Improvement (CfPPI) project 1 in which heat and mass transfer coefficients and
pressure drop data were obtained for eight crossflow and eight counterflow
conunercial fills in an engineering-scale facility that was built at the Parish Station of
Houston Lighting and Power Company. A test matrix of roughly 50 test points for
crossflow and 65 points for counterflow was run with each fill to provide input for the
regression analysis of the test data. Three correlations were used:

where
L+ = L / lo

c+ = G / G0
and Lo and G 0 are reference values, mal<ing L+ and c +dimensionless. For
counterflow fills , an additional parameter, air travel distance, ATD, was included in
all correlation forms with the exponent. n ,. , because the performance of counterflow
fills is dependent upon the fill depth. The comparison between measured and
computed CWT for 4 of the most common fills tested for each of the 3 correlations is
shown on Figures 4- 9. The FACfS code predicted the cwr to within 0.69 °F of
the measured value on average. FACTS performed best with Correlation 1 in the
crossflow towers, but the results improved somewhat with Correlation 2 in the
counterflow towers.

Evaluation of Cooling Towers with FACTS

FACTS has been used not only to predict the performance of existing cooling tower
designs but also to evaluate proposed modifications of existing cooling towers to
improve their performance. EPRJI reported on two instances in which FACTS h as
been used to evaluate proposed cooling tower modifications and then those
predictions were compared with actual test data after the modification was
implemented.

In the fust instance. a ring of plastic film-type packing was added above existing
sheets of CAB in a counterflow cooling tower. The original CAB was arranged in the
11
typical Stadium" shape in which there were 7 tiers at the periphery which stepped
down to 4 tiers at the center. This arrangement is frequently used to achieve
approximately uniform air flow through the filL The plastic film-type packing was
placed in a "doughnut ring" on top of the PVC near the outer periphery and on top of
the 6th tier such that the new packing was flush with the 7th tier. When the 1-'A.CTS
model was run for this arrangement, the fill characteristic for the appropriate fill
material was specified at each node. FACrS predicted that the additional fill material
would reduce the cwr from 87.9 °F LO 85.2 °F at a WBT of 60 °F. EPRJ reported
that field test results for this situation have verified this prediction in improved
performance.

In a second instance reported by EPRI 1, a film-type fill was inserted as diagonal fill
wedges into a crossflow mechanical draft cooling tower. This design, shown in Figure
10,12 effectively converts a portion of a crossflow tower into a counterflow. This
design was implemented at one of the TVA's BFNP cooling towers and was tested
along side of an identical cooling tower \vithout the modification in 1980. The
FACTS code later analyzed both cooling towers wi thouL reference to the results of the
field tests. The results of this analysis is shown in Figure 3 as BFN (HYBRID). It
may be seen that the uncertainty in the model results are essentially the same for the
modified (HYBRlD) tower as for the unmodified tower even though the fill was
nonuniform.

1VA utilized FACTS in a recent study to evaluate the \NBNP Unit 1 cooling tower. 6
As shown in Figure 2, FACTS predicts that this tower will prove to be short of
predicted performance with an actual performance of about 90% of design. The
actual deficiency varying as a function of wet bulb temperature. The effect of this
deficiency is to move the "Knee" of the curve sho!Vll in Figure 2 to a lower wet bulb
temperature such that reductions in electrical output due to BP limitations will occur
more frequently than expected. In addition, there will be a loss of 4-5 MWE
throughout the year when the unit is not limited by BP due to the warmer CCW.
1VA investigated several alternative modifications to the heat rejection system at
WBNP using the FACTS code. Some of the alternatives considered included
repacking the existing cooling tower with a film-type fill, adding 2 feet of film-type fill
on top of the existing CAB fill over approximately 80% of the plan area of the cooling
tower, add a supplemental mechanical draft cooling tower. and converting the existing
cooling tower into an OSACT. Each of these alternatives were shown to have
advantages and disadvantages. l-"'AC!S predicted an improvement in performance of
32% by repacking the existing cooling towers, but at a very high capital cost. Both
alternatives which involved the new fi1~-type fill required an expensive chemical
treatment of the CCW to prevent plugging of the fill due to the accumulation of
bacterial slime and silt. Adding supplemental mechanical draft cooling tower is not
only very expensive, but also requires CC"W treatment and increases the auxiliary
power requirement. Converting the cooling tower ot an OSAC1 is relatively
inexpensive and does not require chemical treatment of the CCW, but it is a new
technology.

Oriented Spray-Assisted Cooling Tower

The authors have developed a version of FAC"TS which models the patented
OSACI 13 • The OSACT is a new, revolutionary approach to cooling tower design
which may be applied either to new or existing cooling towers. The OSAC"T design,
shown in Figure 11, diverts a portion of the total amount of CCW from the cooling
tower, through a header pipe, and to a series of spray trees consisting of vertical riser
pipes, spray arms, and spray nozzles which are evenly spaced external to th~ cooling
tower so as to produce a uniform spray pattern oriented toward the central axis of the
cooling tower, which is the desired direction of air flow. The sprayed water then
lands on an apron extending from the header pipe to the cooling tower basin. The
apron is sloped gently toward the cooling tower basin such that the sprayed water
drains into the cooling tower basin. The water spray droplets apply a drag force to
the air, increasing the air velocity and air flow into the cooling tower over that
achieved with conventional coating tower design. By spraying the water to be cooled
in a region external to the cooling tower in a manner such that the spray falls just
short of the cooling tower basin, the spray does not interfere with the operation of
the cooling Lower, proper, and the maximum increase in air velocity is achieved just
above the cooling tower basin where it is the most effective. By diverting a portion of
the water to be cooled to the spray trees external to the cooling tower, the water
loading in the cooling tower heat exchanger section is reduced and the resistance to
air flow through the cooling Lower caused by the water falling through the heat
exchanger section of the cooling tower is reduced. Therefore, the effectiveness of
evaporative cooling is improved

To quantify the improvement in performance with the OSACf, a version of FACfS -

was created which computes the performance of the cooling tower with and without
the spray trees in operation. As previously noted, one of the capabilities of fACTS is
that the specified inlet conditions of both the air and water temperatures and flows
may be varied across the inlet plane. An input file is required which defines the air
temperature and velocity as it exits from the sprays. These values are calculated using
a thennal model developed by TVA to analyze oriented spray cooling ponds for
ultimate heat sinl<.. applications. 14 This model has been thoroughly validated against
both experimental data and full scale field test data. 15• 16 The actual improvement in
perfom1ance with the OSACf design varies depending upon the cooling tower design.
For the WBNP cooling tower design, approximately 13% of the CCW flow would be
diverted to spray trees, and the UG ratio would be reduced by approximately 20%.
The resulting improvement in C'"'WT as shown in Figure 12 is approximately 1 °F.
Conclusion

For those nuclear plants where the cooling tower is an integral part of a closed cycle
heat rejection system. the performance of the cooling tower places a thermodynamic
limit on the thermal efficiency of the plant, since it defines the heat sink temperature.
However, the thermal performance of this important component can be problematic.
EPRI has aggressively addressed this issue by condm:ting tests of fill materials which
have been useful to validate analytical tools such as FAC"TS which have proven useful
in evaluating cooling tower performance and proposed modifications to cooling
towers to improve performance. The FACTS model has been validated not only with
engineering-scale test facilities but also by comparison with acceptance tests which
have been performed on a number of cooling towers. A modified version of FACfS
has been used to predict the performance of the OSACT which may be back-fitted to
improve the performance of existing cooling towers without requiring fill replacement
or expensive chemical treatment of the CCW. These tools should be utilized to
improve the thermal performance of these plants to help keep nuclear energy a viable,
competitive energy option.

References

( 1) Cooling Tower Perfonncmce Prediction ami Improvement, Palo Alto, Calif.: Electric
Power Research Institute, 1989. GS-6370. [report]

(2) Benton, D, J., A Numerical Simulation of Heat Transftr in Evaporative Cooling

Towers, Norris, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, September 1983. WR28-l-
900-l 00. [report]

(3) Boroughs, R D., and J. E. Terrell, A Surv~y of Utili9J Cooling Towers,

Chattanooga, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, April 1983. TVNOP/EDT-
83/13. [report]

(4) Mortensen, K P. and S. N. Conley, 11Film Fill Fouling in Counterflow Cooling

Towers: Mechanism and Design", CTI Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer 1994,
Cooling Tower Institute, Houston, Texas.

(5) Bowman, C.F., "Heat Balance Models Improve Thermal Performance

Monitoring'', EPRI-p2£p Nuclear Plant Performance Improvement Seminar,
May 1993, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

(6) Benton, D.J., Results ofNlalysis of the Watts Bar Nudear Plant Heat Rejection
System, Norris, Tenn.: Tennessee Vallt.)' Authori ty, April 1992. WR28-2-85-
136. [report]
(7) Van Wylen, G. J. and R. E. Sonntag, fundamentals of Classical
Thermodynamics 2nd Ed., Wiley, New York, 1973.

(8) Benton, D. J., and W. R. Waldrop, Computer Simulation of Transport Phenomena

in Evaporative Cooling Towers, Norris, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, March
1985. WR28-I-900-141. [report]

(9) Brackett, C. A. and]. R Missimer, Results of Model Tests of Heat Transfer in the
Rain Zone of a Counteiflow Natural Draft Cooling Tower, Norris, Tenn.: Tennessee
Valley Authority, March 1985. WR28-l-900-141. [report]

(I 0) Rehberg, R. L., Thermal Perfomzance of Cement-Asbe.stos Cooling Tower Fill in an

Experimental Test Facili9J, Norris, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, February.
1985. WR28-l-900-I52. [report]

(I l) Majumdar, A. K .. and A. K Singhal, VERA2D-A Computer Program for TJ.flo-

Dimensional Analysis of Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer in Evaporative Cooling Towers,
Volume H-User's Manual, 1981, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California.

(12) Phelps, P.M., Sloped Film FillAssemb[y Cooling Tower, U.S. Patent No.
3,917,764, Nov. 4, I 975, The United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Washington, D. C.

(13) Bowman, C. F., Oriented Spray-Assisted Cooling Tower, U.S. Patent No.
5,407,606, Apr. 18, I 995, The United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Washington, D. C.

(14) Berger, M. H. and Taylor, R. E., "An Atmospheric Spray Cooling Model," In
E11vironmental Effects ofAtmospheric Heat/Moisture Release: Cool Towers, Cool ponds
and Area Suurces; Proceeding ojtl1e 2nd AIANASME Thennophysics and fleat
Transfer Confertmce, Palo Alto, CA, Mf91 24-26, 1978J 59-64. New Yorlc
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, l 97 8.

( 15) Bowman, C. F., Smith, D. M., and Davidson,]. S., "Application of the TVA
Spray Pond Model to Steady-State and Transient Heat Dissipation Problems,"
Proceedings of the American Power Conference, Volume 43, I 981.

(16) Bowman, C. F., "Analysis of the Spray Pond Ultimate Heat Sink for the
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor", Proceedings of the American Power
Conference, Volume 56, I 994.
--
'

7.0
1230

-
~ 1210
f-
;:;:>
1220
6. 0"'""

5.0 ~
....
:X
::0
""I
:: 1200 z
:::> too
0 Ql
~ 1190 4.0 ~
f-
-<
....,
II'<

:i 1180 ""'
~
..,
:z:
.., 3. 0 ~
01170 ::c
,..
-
CO)

....
~ 1160
..,
>< ...
2.0;:::,

uso
ASSUIPTIONS: l.O
1140 CONDENSER CLEAIILIJESS = 95%
IAXliUI BAClPIESSVBE : 8 iaHt
IELATIYE BUIIDlTT : 74t
1130 o'--'--l:--'----:l'--'-~,o~.J--•..~o,--...L._...,s:':o-...L._-.~-_.J._---~::--'---±----''--~9o· 0
lET-BULB TEIPERATURE
......lJ'Ian;)
••
Figure 1

--· CAP:100% - FlCTS

5.0
~
=
.....
""'
0

...=
l-

f-
4.0~
:z
I

g 1100 1:'0

,...
=
n
3.0:: .,.,
t'O:l
en
en
c:::
""'
2.0:
~-

...
::>
:X

I. 0
&SSVIPTIOIIS:
COII0£11S£R CL£AIILIIIESS : 95%
IUXliOI IUCIPRESSUI!E : 5. 5 ialit
RELATIVE IUIIDITY : 741

...
Figure 2

219
 MEASURED COLD WATER TEMPERATURE I o CJ
20 25 39 35
u.. 199 u
0
0 BFN
0 BFN £HYBRID>
-
0

w
a:::
95 35 w
a:::
:::l <> SQN :::l
~
<
0::: 99
* PAF ~

0:::
<
w LIJ
a.. a..
X: X:
UJ 39 UJ
~ 85 t-
a:: 0:
1.&.1 UJ
~
< ue ......
<
:r ::s:
Cl
25 c
...l 75 THIS FJCURE SHOWS -l
0
u HODEL AGREEHENT u
0
THIS IS NOT A
0 CORRELATION 0
UJ 79 UJ
~ ......
:::l
a..
29 :::l
0...
X: X:
0
u 78 7S ee 85 99 95 199
0
u
MEASURED COLD WATER TEMPERATURE I °FI
Figure 3
LARGE SCALE OORON V-BAR 4X8
95
0 CORRELATION I
0 CORRELA TlON 2
0 CORRELATION J

0
_J
0
(_)

0
w
.....
::>
a_
~
0
0

70 75 80 85 90 95
UEASURED COLD WATER TEUPERATURE (F)

Figur~ 4

220
 0 CORRELATION I
0 CORRELATION 2
d CORRELATION 3

_,
0
0
u
0
w
~
::>
a..
::::f
0
<J

70 75 80 85 90 95
UEASUREO COLO WATER TEUPERATURE rrJ
Figure 5
LARGE SCALE UUNTERS 12060 (5 FT.)
95•~-------,~~~--.--------,.-------~----~--~------~
o CORRELATION 1
o CORRELATION 2
o CORRELATION J

0::
w
~

~
0
_l
0
<J
0
w
~
::>
a..
::::f
0
<J

70 75 80 85 90 95
UEASURED COLO WATER TEUPERATURE (FJ

figure 6

221
 o CORRELATION I
o CORRELATION 2
b CORRELATION 3
9

Q::
w
.....
<
~

0
_j
0
(.)

0
w
.....
:;:,
a.
::I
0
(.)

70 75 80 85 90 95
UEASUREO COLO WATER TEUPERATURE (FJ
Figure 7
LARGE SCALE UUNTERS 19060 (5 FT.)
95.--------r--------.-------~--------,_----~~r-------~
o CORRELAliON 1
o CORRELATION 2
A CORRELATION 3

t...
~

Q::
85
w
.....
<
~

0
...J
0
(.)

0
w
.....
:;:, 75
0..
::::!:
0
(.)

m ~ oo ~ oo 95
t.iEASUREO COLO WATER TEUPERATURE fF J

Figure 8

222
 o CORRELATION I
o CORRELATION 2
6 CORRELATION J
90

~
85
0:
w
1-
<
~

0 80
...J
0
u
0
w
1- 75
~
a..
:::I
0
u

70 75 80 85 90 95
U£ASUREO COLO WATER TEUPERATURE [f)

Figure 9

"
Figure 10

223
 Figure 11

100 r---C.;.;O;.;;.II.;..;PUT~ED~BF;..;.F~ECT.;.;;.....;.;Of~SP;..;.R;;;;.AY.;.....;.T;;;.;:RE:;.::!S:::.......;;O..;;..H....:fB:.=.lf:.;,_;;C.::;.;OO:;.::L:=.;IHr-:C;,...T.:....:O;...:;.I.:::;;ER;;....;;.;PE:::.:;R?-FO.:....:R:;.::I.;;;;;AN~C.::.E____,
--- 1-( CflYIS fOIIODl
- - K cttfiS roa 101
- - r-c CUllS rot aDl
--·- PACTS UTBDVT SPilT TUlS

..
0 ~0
- UCTS UTI SPlAY flUS

......
w

......
:::.
0:
A.
•
-....
~
.... eo
......
I IQ

-
K
~
...:

...::
0
70

1001 IWTifiiVIIDITY
8~~o---------~.o~------~5~o---------~eo~------~7~0--------e~o~------~go

lET-BULB TUPWTUII l 0 fl

Figure 12

224
View publication stats