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 4F 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 4F 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 = STM temp - 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 usedBP
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.
More Power Engineering Issue Articles
Power Engineerng Issue Archives
View Power Generation Articles on PennEnergy.com

Copy right 2007-2016. PennWell Corp oration, Tuls a, OK. All Rights Res erv ed . P RIVACY P OLICY | T ERMS AND
CONDIT IONS