Condenser Performance: Assigning Monetary

Losses to Sources of Degradation

09/19/2014
By Kevin Boudreaux, Nalco Company

A conventional coal-fired plant in central Arkansas has two 850-MW

units. The two units are identical and use identical cooling towers and
condensers. The hyperbolic cooling towers are rated at 310,000 gpm
each, and the condensers are two-shell, two-pass, single pressure
units, rated at 292,000 gpm each. Circulating water flow is achieved
via two circulating water pumps, each rated to 50 percent capacity.
According to SNL Financial, the plant's capacity factor during the
months of June, July, and August 2013 was approximately 85 percent.

Nalco's Condenser Performance Monitoring Tool (CPMT) was used to

compile and review historical data at the plant. The CPMT is an
application designed to capture appropriate historical data, perform
necessary calculations, normalize results to design expectations and
provide trend graphs with a results dashboard that highlights the
condenser performance for the timeframe and load conditions
specified.

After a significant event at the Arkansas plant, the CPMT was used not
only to identify the true causes and magnitude of the degradation,
but also to determine how much the incident cost.

THE CONDENSER FOULING EVENT

As can be seen in the cleanliness factor (CF%) graph in Figure 1, an
event took place at the plant on June 6, 2013. Although the
degradation occurred rapidly, it was actually precipitated by a buildup
rather than a sharp shift. The event was initially believed to be due to
a loss of scale inhibitor, biocide or some other chemistry upset, which
was followed by a mechanical cleaning and sharp improvement shift
on Aug. 6.
Chemistry upsets typically result in gradual degradation, while
mechanical upsets such as air in-leakage or pump failures manifest as
sharp shifts in performance. In this event, however, the problem was
determined to be an atypical mechanical failure that took
approximately 10 days to completely manifest. Just prior to June 6, fill
from the cooling tower had fallen into the basin, eventually
obstructing the circulating water pumps and condenser tubes. Before
Aug. 6, the plant performed online condenser backwashes in an effort
to minimize the potential for a total plant trip due to high condenser
back pressure (BP). However, it appeared the fill would rapidly foul
the condenser, and the decision was made to perform a mechanical
cleaning on Aug. 6.

Given that the cause of the condenser performance degradation is

known, this article will endeavor to understand the consequences of
that problem. Toward this end, it is necessary to investigate the data
in order to better understand the following:

1. What is the mechanism by which the cooling tower fill

obstructing the condenser tubes caused the performance
degradation?
2. How can the CPMT results be used to better train plant
personnel on the theories behind condenser operation?
 3. How can the CPMT isolate the specific mechanisms that led to
an increase in not only operating BP, but also the BP Penalty as
well?
4. How can the CPMT assign a dollar amount to this fouling event?

PERFORMANCE DEGRADATION REALIZED

As shown in Figure 1 on pg. 46, the CF% degraded from 80 percent to
55 percent after June 6. Though the CF% is an often-monitored
parameter, such a metric does nothing to answer the questions of
why the event occurred or how much it cost. To answer these
questions, parameters such as BP Penalty, Temperature Rise (TR) and
Terminal Temperature Difference (TTD) prove more useful. When the
difference is calculated between the operating BP and the expected
operating BP, the result is a BP Penalty. Using this data, heat rate and
megawatt (MW) penalties can be deduced. The Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) has also developed guidelines for assigning
a heat rate penalty with respect to BP Penalty. In addition to
considering the CPMT results and the actual data seen at the plant,
these EPRI guidelines can be used to understand the event more fully.

According to the CPMT results, the plant experienced an overall

increase in operating BP of 1.5 inHg, with a BP Penalty of
approximately 1.0 inHg (Figure 2). Theoretically, this 1.0 inHg BP
Penalty converts to a megawatt loss of approximately 4.0 MW-hr
(Table 1). Based on the EPRI guidelines, there is a 2.5 percent
efficiency loss for every 1.0 inHg BP Penalty. In the Arkansas incident
this amounted to approximately 250 Btu/kW-hr. Interestingly, the
plant's calculated heat rate increase of 9700 - 9950 Btu/kW-hr (Table
1) confirms this guideline.
 
Understanding Performance Degradation
 
Though it was clear that the fill which fouled the condenser tubes also
affected overall plant efficiency, the science behind this loss in
revenue was not immediately clear. Many analysts rely too heavily on
CF% to monitor condenser performance. Though CF% may offer a
general depiction of what is happening during an event, it does not
provide specific information about those events, nor does it normalize
the data. CF% does not take into consideration operational changes in
parameters such as steam load swings and circulating pump
operation. Changes may be observed, but these changes will not
necessarily reflect a problem or improvement in the condenser.
Rather, they will reflect a general change in the overall operation,
which does not help analysts troubleshoot or assign costs to a process
degradation or improvement.

Once-through units provide a good example of this. These units

typically alter the number of circulating water pumps in operation
based on season and water temperature. For instance, if a circulating
water pump is brought on line, the CF% decreases rapidly indicating a
change in condenser performance. In actuality though, the problem
has nothing to do with the condenser. This is because the BP Penalty
calculated using the condenser's design flow decreases significantly
as the flow increases. However, if the BP Penalty is calculated using
the current flow rate, it remains constant. While this may sound like a
mere semantic difference, it is extremely important when
troubleshooting and planning potential plant downtime. For this
reason, it is better to examine the actual parameters involved in CF%
calculations, mainly Temperature Rise (TR), Initial Temperature
Difference (ITD) and Terminal Temperature Difference (TTD), and to
correlate the results with other operational parameters such as pump
amps, air removal rates and overall calculated BP Penalty.

The TR indicates the amount of heat the cooling water absorbs from
condensing steam. At the Arkansas plant, it is clear that fill from the
cooling tower obstructed the tubes in early June, resulting in a
reduction in overall flow through the condenser (Figure 3). As this flow
was reduced, the circulating water absorbed more heat per pound,
thus increasing the outlet water temperature and, in turn, the TR.
Amp draws and discharge pressures on the circulating pumps further
supported the idea that water flow through the condenser had been
reduced due to a restriction. Even after pump operation was restored
to normal, the TR increased 4°F and did not return to a normal level
until after the outage and subsequent repair on August 6.
While TR is an indication of the amount of heat absorbed by the
circulating water, TTD is a measure of the efficiency with which heat
is transferred from the shell side of the tube to the water side. A lower
TTD is always better, and all condensers are designed with a specific
design TTD. However, factors like inlet water temperature and flow
can affect this design TTD, which means any analysis tools that are
used must compensate for these changes in real-time. Factors that
can cause degradation in TTD are:

 Air-binding on the shell side

 Bio-fouling
 Scaling
 Silting

The problem is, all of these factors look alike when reviewing
condenser data, and they can all happen simultaneously, which is
why plant and operational knowledge are so critical.

In the event at the Arkansas plant, the TTD showed a gradual but
sharp rise when the fill obstructed the tubes, and a very sharp drop
when the plant came down and the condenser was manually cleaned.
It is clear that fouling of the tubes played an important role in
elevating the TTD, and subsequently the operating BP (Figure 4).

Before discussing the way an elevated operating BP truly affects

overall plant efficiency, it is important to understand how condenser
tube fouling can cause the elevated TR and TTD, and ultimately the
higher BP. As previously discussed, the TR increases because an
overall reduction in water flow results when fill debris obstructs the
tubes. As the velocity decreases, the water spends more time in the
tube bundles, allowing it to absorb more heat per pound of water (as
shown in the center tubes of Figure 5).
When only a few tubes become obstructed, logic suggests that the
decrease in velocity in the affected tubes should result in an increase
in velocity in the remaining unaffected tubes. As a result, the TR
should remain constant because the average velocity will be
unchanged. However, this was not the case in the event at the
Arkansas plant. The rise in the TR confirms there was a reduction in
total flow. The significant amount of obstruction in the condenser tube
appears to have increased back pressure on the centrifugal
circulating water pumps, moving the operating point to the left on the
pump curve. Consequently, the total flow output of the pumps was
reduced. When the event occurred, the discharge pressure and amp
draws of the circulating water pumps rose, thus indicating that the
pumps were not only working harder, but that the flow was also being
reduced. Conservation of energy states that an increase in pressure
will equal a decrease in flow rate.

As shown in the equation below, decreased velocity and increased TR

will affect operating BP. Assuming a constant TTD and water
temperature at the inlet, an increase in the TR will result in a
subsequent increase in the steam temperature.

CWin + TR + TTD = Steam Temp

The TR increase of approximately 4°F at the Arkansas plant increased

the operating BP to 0.4 inHg. However, the overall increase in the
operating BP was approximately 1.5 inHg. What, then, accounted for
the remaining 1.1 inHg?

TTD is an indication of the efficiency with which heat is transferred.

Heat transfer rates are better when the TTD is lower. This is
illustrated in Table 1, which shows the actual heat transfer rate (Ua),
as compared to the TTD. While the TR can show an overall operational
change and degradation in performance due to a decrease in flow,
the TTD degradation is an indication of an actual change in heat
transfer related to the condenser tubes themselves.
After the Arkansas event, it became important to understand how a
decrease in flow caused an increase in TTD and a resulting issue in
condenser performance. At issue here are the ways in which a TTD
increase can be produced. Condensers contain tens of thousands of
tubes, which do not all become fouled simultaneously or perform in
identical ways. The way tubes become fouled affects the way they
impacta overall condenser performance. For instance, if tubes
become scaled, biofouled, silted or air bound, their heat transfer rates
drop significantly. Water-side temperature will also drop because
there will be no heat absorption. However, because the heat entering
the condenser must go somewhere, the tubes that are not fouled
assume the load, thus increasing their heat transfer rate, and
subsequently their operating temperature (Figure 6). Because the
steam will now condense at a higher temperature, the overall
condenser operating BP will increase. This causes an increase in the
TTD, as shown in the equation below:

TTD = STMtemp - CWout

Tubes that have become scaled, biofouled, silted or air bound do not
necessarily increase the TR. This is because the condenser's overall
outlet water temperature is an average of all the tubes, both fouled
and clean. Therefore, the high outlet water temperatures of clean
tubes are tempered by the cooler outlet water temperatures of fouled
tubes, thus producing a TR that is the same as if all the tubes were
clean.

However, if a section of tubes become partially obstructed, as they

did at the Arkansas plant, the flow through those tubes becomes
slower and causes an increase in the outlet temperature of the
obstructed tubes (Figure 5). As with the scaled-tubes example, the
increased outlet temperature increases overall operating BP and
steam temperature. The TTD then rises as a consequence of the
obstruction.
The event at the Arkansas plant, where fouling was the result of fill
falling into the basin, is different from an incident in which scale
fouling is at work; the affected tubes in each case had different outlet
water temperatures.
In the example of scale fouling, the outlet water temperature of the
fouled tubes decreased relative to design. This was due to a decrease
in heat transfer rates. Conversely, the outlet temperature of the clean
tubes increased, as did the operating steam temperature and BP. This
was due to an increase in heat transfer rates. The result was an
overall net zero increase/decrease in TR and an increase in TTD.

In the Arkansas event, where the tubes were fouled by fill, the outlet
water temperature of the affected tubes increased due to reduced
cooling water flow. This caused an increase in operating steam
temperature, BP and TTD. The unaffected tubes, however, remained
unchanged relative to design. This is because the amount of heat
transferred per tube remained the same (Figure 5). Because the
significant amount of fouling resulted in a reduction in overall flow,
the overall outlet water temperature increased. As a result, the TR
also increased.

Based on the calculations performed by the CPMT, it appears that the

TTD had an overall effect on the increased operating BP of 0.6 inHg.
When this figure is combined with the 0.4 inHg already attributed to
TR, 1.0 inHg of the 1.5 inHg increase in operating BP can be
accounted for.

It is difficult to determine if the remaining 0.5 inHg was due to an

increase in ambient temperatures, or if there was an issue with
cooling tower performance due to the loss of fill. Based on the plant's
weather station data, there was an increase in Dry Bulb temperature
during the discussed timeframe, and the cooling tower basin water
temperature tracks well with the ambient conditions. The weather
station was not tracking humidity correctly, so Wet Bulb cannot be
calculated. As with most cooling towers throughout the industry, the
tower at the Arkansas plant is not sufficiently instrumented to monitor
true cooling tower performance. Without ruling out problems caused
by the loss of fill in the tower, it is believed that ambient conditions
accounted for the remaining 0.5 inHg increase in operating BP.
 
Determining True BP Penalty
 
It is relatively clear, then, that the Arkansas plant saw a BP Penalty
increase of 1.0 inHg, which can be directly attributed to fill from the
cooling tower that fouled the condenser tubes. This increase was
comprised of 0.4 inHg that resulted from the increased TR, and 0.6
inHg that resulted from the increased TTD.

In cases such as this, there are actually two BP Penalties that can be
considered. The first is the BP Penalty under design flow conditions.
This assumes the plant should be operating at design cleanliness and
design flow rates at all times. However, this method should not be
used in all cases because many plants never operate at design flow.
To truly determine condenser performance, a second method must be
used—BP Penalty under actual (current) flow conditions. This
calculates the BP Penalty, which represents actual condenser
performance, using what many plants experience as off-design, but
nonetheless normal flow conditions. This method essentially
normalizes everything around the condenser and isolates the
condenser performance to the condenser itself. In this way, individual
BP Penalties can be assigned to specific phenomena (i.e. TR and TTD).
Because the Arkansas plant normally operates at design flow, these
figures must be assumed when measuring overall system
performance. Therefore, for purposes of cost calculation, the plant
can be said to have experienced a 1.0 inHg performance degradation
from June 6 to August 6 (Table 1).
 
Converting BP Penalty to Turbine Efficiency
 
Steam contains a particular enthalpy (Btu/lb) at both ends of a
turbine. Carnot's theorem suggests that, all else being equal, turbine
efficiency increases with a decrease in exiting steam enthalpy. As
such, a lower condenser BP yields an exiting steam with lower
enthalpy and, as a result, greater turbine efficiency.

The concept is relatively simple. When fewer Btu are sent to the
cooling water and the hotwell, more Btu can be used by the steam
turbine. Because of this, it is important to maintain the lowest
operating BP possible; a BP Penalty always amounts to a loss in MW
production. An increase in BP Penalty can be caused by complications
in true condenser heat transfer, or by failures with ancillary
components such as circulating pumps and cooling towers.
 
Converting BP Penalty to MW Lost
 
There is debate about how to accurately convert a BP Penalty to MW
lost. The CPMT method calculates the enthalpy difference between
the actual operating BP and the expected operating BP. From this
calculation, the MW loss can be determined using a simple Bt- to-kW
conversion, along with the plant's condenser steam loading.

According to this method, the Arkansas plant experienced a loss of

approximately 4 MW/hr at a 1.0 inHg BP Penalty. However, in the past
this method has shown itself to be conservative, and actual losses
might have been greater. Given the complexities of a power plant, it
can be presumptuous for non-plant personnel to assign total plant
losses to condenser performance alone.
 
Assigning a Cost
 
Based on $42/MW-hr, which was the average rate for the area during
this period, the 60-day BP Penalty cost the plant $241,920, assuming
base-loaded operation. This penalty is based on the 1.0 inHg BP
Penalty attributed to the combined rise in TR and TTD from tube
fouling. It does not include 0.5 inHg of the total operating BP rise
because this is assumed to be the result of conditions beyond the
plant's control.

CONCLUSIONS
By using the CPMT to examine the historical data at the Arkansas
plant, plant personnel were able to identify exactly when the
condenser fouling occurred, as well as the consequences of that
fouling. They were also able to understand the mechanism by which
fouling caused the performance degradation. This allowed them to
isolate the specific mechanisms that led to an increase in not only
operating BP, but also in the BP Penalty as well. Most importantly,
plant personnel were able assign a dollar value to not only the event,
but also the individual components of the event.

Moving forward, the plant will continue to use this same approach not
only to identify problems during operation, but also to justify
downtime, mechanical/operational changes or changes in chemistry
programs. Furthermore, improvements or deteriorations in
performance can be assigned a dollar value for purposes of budgeting
and return on investment.

Author
Kevin Boudreaux is a power industry technical consultant for NALCO
Co.