Text

Analysis of Thermal Performance & Evaporative Losses of Vogtle UHS Cooling Tower Sys
	ML20115J879
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	04/30/1985
From:	Dunn W, Sullivan S; ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL
To:	Wescott R; NRC
References
	NUDOCS 8504240140
	Download: ML20115J879 (21)
	v • d • e

Co- 424 l

I I

I ANALYSIS OF THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE AND EVAPORATIVE LOSSES 0F THE V0GTLE ULTIMATE HEAT SINK COOLING TOWER SYSTEM prepared by W. E. Dunn and S. M. Sullivan Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign I 144 Mechanical Engineering Building 1206 W. Green Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 217/333-3832 for Mr. Rex Wescott U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue I Bethesda, Maryland 20814 April , 1984 I

, j g. esio ga:

sa'L p'g I 8504240140 DR 850430 ADOCK 05000424 g ena

I I

ANALYSIS OF THE THERMAL PERFORMANCE AND EVAPORATIVE LOSSES I 0F THE V0GTLE ULTIMATE HEAT SINK COOLING TOWER' SYSTEM I

I prepared by W. E. Dunn and S. M. Sullivan Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign I 144 Mechanical Engineering Building 1206 W. Green Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 217/333-3832 for Mr. Rex Wescott U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7920 Norfolk Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 I April, 1984 I

I .

.I op.

I 1. INTRODUCTION The Vogtle Station employs two four-cell, mechanical-draft cooling towers to provide for the safe shutdown and cooldown of the nuclear units in the ad-vent of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA). This report addresses the question of whether the proposed cooling tower system may be reasonably expected to I provide (a) sufficient cooling that the temperature limit of safety related equipment in the plant is not exceeded and (b) sufficient basin capacity that operation of the UHS system for a period of 30 days without make-up water is assured.

The analysis of the Vogtle system was carried out using mathematical models developed specifically for predicting UHS cooling tower performance.

Information on tower design was taken from the Final Safety Analysis Report for the Vogtle Station and supplemented by material provided by the Bechtel

~'

Corporation and transmitted through the staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The design basis accident scenario and the maximum allowable tem- ,

perature of water returned to the plant by the UHS system were prescribed by the U. S. NRC staff.

2. V0GTLE UHS COOLING TOWER SYSTEM The Vogtle Station employs two four-cell, mechanical-draft cooling towers for each generating unit, one tower being associated with each train of the nuclear service cooling water system. Each cell is equipped with a thermosta-tically controlled (based on the temperature of water being returned to the plant) fan having a design air flow rate of 535,000 cubic feet per minute.

Each tower consists of a basin and an upper structure containing the cooling

! tower fill. The capacity of each basin is 3,650,000 gallons or roughly 30

,I I ---

I million pounds. The design basis scenario assumes that both trains of the nuclear service cooling water system operate for the first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , thereaf-ter only one tower and one train is operated. However, the basin of the oper-ating tower is assumed to be replenished from the basin of the inactive tower until the water of that basin is fully depleted. The flow rate through each tower is nominally 36,000 gpm when operating. However, the actual flow rate depends on the depth of water in the basin. It is assumed that because of the above noted transfer of water from the inactive basin to the active basin that the active basin remains at maximum capacity until the inactive basin is fully depleted. The essential design parameters of the UHS cooling tower system are summarized in Table 1. The time-dependent heat load and cooling water flow rates for the UHS system are presented in Table 2 as taken from the Final Safety Analysis Report for the Vogtle Station and the supplemental material provided by the Bechtel Corporation.

Manufacturer's performance curves for the cooling tower for water flow rates ranging from 90 % to 118 % of the design value were provided in the sup-piemental material received from the Bechtel Corporation. These curves were digitized for comparison with the predictions of the mathematical model util-ized in this study. These comparisons are summarized in Figures 1 through

4. As can be seen, the agreement between the manufacturer's values (indicated i

by the symbols) and the model predictions (shown by the various curves) is ex-cellent over the full spectrum of conditions for which manufacturer's data are available. Figure 5 shows the variation of the heat transfer parameter KAV with flow rate L, both being normalized by their respective values at 100%

flow. Examination of this curve reveals that the overall effective heat transfer coefficient is roughly constant independent of flow rate with perhaps a slight tendency to increase with decreasing water flow rate.

i

P*

I I

Table 1. Design Parameters for Vogtle UHS Cooling Towers.

Design Circulating Water Flow Rate 36,000 gpm in two trains I first 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months 18,000 gpm each train 18,000 gpm per one train thereafter L/G 0.932*

KaV/L 1.09*

Design Wet-Bulb Temperature 82 F Design Approach 13 F Design Range 34 F Number of Basins 2 Number of Towers 2 Number of Cells per Tower 4 Number of Fans per Cell 1 Air Flow Rate per Fan 535,000 cfm Water Volume per Basin (Initial) 3,650,000 gallons 1;ater Mass per Basin (Initial) 30,100,000 lbm Dissolved Solids Content of Basin Water Deep Well Water Maximum Allowable Return Temperature to Plant 95 F

determined from manufacturer's performance curves I

I I

I .

I '

I Table 2. Heat Load During LOCA. (Adapted From Final Safety Analysis Report of Vogtle Station.)

i Total NSCW System Heat Load I Time Train A 6

(10 Btu /hr)

Train B Total 0 sec 0 0 0 36 42.3 42.3 84.6 41 323.7 333.7 658.8 I 100 109.

150 339.4 328.2 328.2 349.8 339.0 339.0 689.2 667.2 667.2 I -

300 900 1800 305.5 246.8 1 81.5 316.1 251.8 190.5 621.6 493.6 372.0 3150 145.7 153.5 299.2 3160 219.5 232.3 451.8 3600 232.0 244.6 476.6 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months 197.7 207.4 405.1 I 5 12 24 32.5 103.8 91.8 137.0 104.7 91.9 269.5 208.5 183.7 24.5 I 25 26 119.5 123.8 128.4 0

0 0

119.5 123.8 128.4 36 131.1 0 131.1 2 days 125.9 0 125.9 I 4 112.2 0 112.9 6 98.0 0 98.0 I 8 10 12.75 93.0 89.0 82.0 0

0 0

93.0 89.0 82.0 14 79.0 0 79.0 I 16 18 20 76.2 76.3 72.4 0

0 0

76.2 76.3 72.4 I 22 24 26.7 69.1 68.1 69.9 0

0 0

69.1 68.1 69.9 I

I lI

,I

<I -

m m a m M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 105 i i i i i i PERFORMANCE CURVE COMPARISON n 100 -

b_ SYMBOLS-DATA FROM MANUFACTURER

' RWe (*F) v CURVES-MODEL PREDICTIONS + 37.4 _

95 _

a 25.0 A',. 15.0 2

'y y#',.u , A-#

e b_J 90

.. 8.5 t__

+ ' . - / '

<f*'

~**' A ,, 'l sf .

& 85 -

y ,-4 Ul m

>-- Z'. '4

<C 80 -

. ,g-e' O 75 -

J KaV/L = 1.2445 O L = 16200 gpm (90% of design)

O 70 -

65 i i i i e i 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 INLET WET-BULB TEMP (*F)

Figure I. Comparison of fianufacturer's Performance Data with Fredictions of fiathematical Model for 90% of Design Flow Rate.

W W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M l

J 110 , , , , , ,

PERFORMANCE CURVE COMPARISOM n 105 - -

Lt_ SYMBOLS-DATA FROM MANUFACTURER CURVES-MODEL PREDICTIONS Range (*F)

100 - -

O_ , 37.4 25.0 LLI 95

.' i V,.$ # , ^

I-- ^ 15.0 E 90 -

g V-#./ p s'

8.5 f e. p -,/ p.',- ^ *

<C 85 c g A , -s ' ,g- -

O 80 - ' -

__I g g- KoV/L = 1.0902 O L = 18000 gpm (100% of design)

O 75 - -

t 70 i i i i e i 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 INLET WET-BULB TEMP (*F)

Figure 2. Comparison of Manufacturer's Performance Data with Predictions of Mathematical Model for 100% of Design Flow Rate.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 110 , , , , , i PERFORMANCE CURVE COMPARISON n 105 -

b_ SYMBOLS-DATA FROM MANUFACTURER CURVES-MODEL PREDICTIONS 100 -

, 37,4 O_

2

}'j 25.0 w 95 - V.t-.< , ,s-j._. .- ', 15.0 e.

', s / .x '. a' '. ' 8.5

& 90 -

b_I ~

-K.- / 4 e'

r' ,. -1".

<C 85 - A

'i 3 -

e Q 80 -

g' -

__J KoV/L = 0.9761 O - L = 19800 gpm (110% of design)

O 75 -

70 i i i i i i 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

! INLET WET-BULB TEMP (*F)

Figure 3. Comparison of Manufacturer's Performance Data with Predictions of Mathematical Model for 110% of Design Flow Rate.

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 110 . . , , , .

PERFORMANCE CURVE COMPARISON

^ 105 - -

, h SYMBOLS-DATA FROM MANUFACTURER Range (*F)

CURVES-MODEL PREDICTIONS A 34.0 a 100 l' '

2 I '

4 .e 25.0

. ld F- 95 -

,+

V - -d" -

' 4' 15.0 E #j #+ -( ,

Ld 7 i g 90 - -

6 - -

4 - -f 4

3 g 85 -

m -

O s

_J , KaV/L = 0.9244 e L = 21348 gpm (118% of design)_

80 -

~

75 i i i i i i l 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95

! INLET WET-BULB TEMP (*F)

Figure 4. Comparison of Manufacturer's Performance Data with Predictions of flathematical Model for 118% of Design Flow Rate.

l 1

i

sus as man am uma um um um uma um e uma uma en as as as sus 1

i i 1.3 , , , ,

! KaV Performance -

V0GTLE i a Points from fit to Data from Manufacturer l Best Linear Fit 1.2 _ _

r 1 o

i o w 1.1 - -

l >

o M

j \ S i > 1.0 e e o -

S l M

{

l O.9 - -

l 1

0.8 i e i i 1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 L/L 100 Figure 5. Variation of Relative Tower Parameter KaV (Ratio of KaV at the Given Flow Rate to KaV at Design Flow Rate) to Relative Flow Rate (Ratio of Given Flow Rate to Design l

Flow Rate).

1

10 I The curve shown in Figure 5 is significant in that it allows us to deter-mine (by interpolation) tower performance characteristics for the specific flow rates postulated in the design basis accident scenario, but for which no performance curves were provided by the manufacturer.

I 3. ANALYSIS OF UHS COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE The analysis of ri5 system performance was carried out using the mathema-tical models described by Sullivan and Dunn [1-2]. Briefly, the procedure consists of two steps:

I 1. The full period of meteorological data available for the nearest re-porting station from the National Weather Service is analyzed to find the three periods of worst-case meteorology of record. To do this, the response of the tower / basin system is approximated as first order with a time constant determined from analysis of the actual system operating under accident conditions.

I 2. For each of the three periods of worst-case conditions determined in step 1 above, tower performance under accident conditions is simula-ted. The maximum return temperature to the plant and the total 30-day water loss are determined.

I For determining the periods of worst case tower performance, the tower /

basin temperature was assumed to respond as a first order system with a time constant of 7.0 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months , this value being determined from the tower / basin model. Since the design basis scenario calls for a sudden change from two I

I ..

11 train to single train operation after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , the approximation of the sys-tem response as first order was investigated. It was deterraned that the system may be better approximated using two time constants, one characteristic of single train operation and the second characteristic of two train opera-tion. Our study showed that the use of the two train time constant (7 hours8.101852e-5 days 0.00194 hours 1.157407e-5 weeks 2.6635e-6 months ) led to the most conservative results, and, thus, this value is used in the analysis presented herein.

The time period analyzed covered 0:00 hours on January 1,1949 through 23:00 hours on December 31, 1983. Also, the window for worst-case conditions was set at 820 hours0.00949 days 0.228 hours 0.00136 weeks 3.1201e-4 months , thus providing a maximum of 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months of meteorological data prior to accident initiation and 720 hours0.00833 days 0.2 hours 0.00119 weeks 2.7396e-4 months of meteorological data during accident simulation. The periods of worst-case meteorological conditions identified by our procedure are, in order of decreasing severity:

I (a) 17:00 hours on August 8, 1952 through 16:00 hours on September 11, 1952, wherein the running wtt-bulb temperature reached a maximum of 79.73 F at 21:00 hours on August 12, 1952.

I (b) 15:00 bours on July 14, 1958 through 18:00 hours on August 17, 1958, wherein the running wet-bulb temperature reached a maximum of 79.70 F at 19:00 hours on August 18, 1958.

I (c) 11:00 hours on July 12, 1981 through 14:00 hours on August 15, 1980, wherein the running wet-bulb temperature reached a maximum of 79.25 'F at 15:00 hours on July 16, 1981.

I I

I ...

12 I 1 Since the dissolved solids content of the basin water was not specified I exactly, a conservative value of 5 ppt was employed. The analysis indicated that the effect of disfolved solids was negligibly small for this case.

I 3. DISCUSSION OF SIMULATION RESULTS A simulation of tower basin response was made for the first period of meteorological conditions identified above. The results are summarized in Figures 6 through 9 and Tables 3 and 4. The basin temperature (return temper-ature to plant) plotted in Figure 6 reaches a maximum of 87.74 *F, 49 hours5.671296e-4 days 0.0136 hours 8.101852e-5 weeks 1.86445e-5 months after initiation of the accident. This value is well below the design criter-ion of 95 'F and, thus, the system is judged able to meet the maximum tempera-ture limit imposed. Sensitivity studies (using alternate meteorological data, alternate starting times, etc.) indicated that the value given above is the maximum attainable under the design basis accident scenario.

The basin water mass as a function of time is shown in Figure 7 and list-ed in Table 4. As can be seen, mass declines slowly due to evaporation. Af-ter 29 days and 16 hours1.851852e-4 days 0.00444 hours 2.645503e-5 weeks 6.088e-6 months of operation, the basin is predicted to be completely dry. However, this result is based on the very conservative assumption that all of the heat rejected by the UHS system is evaporative heat transfer. A more refined analysis based on the actual balance between sensible and latent heat transfer predicted by the model indicates that roughly 6 millions pounds of water will remain at the end of the 30-day period of operation. Thus, it may be concluded that the system will meet the requirement of 30 days opera-tion without make up water supply.

I I

sp.

met ama amm uma smus uma en umm i

100 i i , i V0G-~ _ E u_

o Basin Temperature after LOCA

v

O L

90 3

l l O

L l

e _-

E -

i

80 -

a i

i C

l M O

CO l 70 i i i i l 0 20 40 60 80 100 ime (,r)

Figure 6. Basin Temperature During LOCA as Function of Time from Beginning of Accident.

1 1

mum uma ammu um e amm l

i 7x107 i i i i V0G-~ _ E i Basin Mass after LOCA

^

E

.a v 6x107 j

W

! W

! O l 1 l

C: 5x107 - .

I W i O

! CO 1

i i 4x107 i i 0 ~20 40 60 80 100 i ~~ime (,r)

Figure 7. Basin Mass During LOCA as Function of Time from Beginning of Accident.

l l

l

mum uma uma man muu num mim num ,num uma amm mum uma amm num mum uma amm ums 2.3x108 ,_. , , , ,

V0G-~ _ E n

i Heat Load after LOCA Tower 1

' \ --- Heat Load after LOCA Tower 2 g

( 1.8x10s a 1

_Q

\ -

o 1.3x108 -

\ g x o \ -

o x o 8.0x107 -

)

<D l

{

i

! 3.0x107 i i i 0 20 40 60 80 100

~~i m e (1 r)

Figure 8. Heat Load to UHS System During LOCA as Function of Time from Beginning of Accident.

uma man mui -

uma imm em 1

t 0.10 i i i i ,

V0G~~_E l Basin Salinity after LOCA 0.08 - -

X C

0.06 -

O W

C 0.04 -

m O

4 0

0.02 -

4 i

0.00 i i i i i O 100 200 300 400 500 600 i

l

~~ime (,r) -

Figure 9. Basin Salinity During LOCA as Function of Time from Beginning of Accident.

1 i

i

I 17 Table 3. Variation of Important Meteorological, Heat Load, and Basin Variables with Time During LOCA.

TIME TBASIN BMASS S TWB Q L EPS (HR)

(F)

(LBM)

(PPT)

(F)

(BTU /HR)

(LBM/HR) ()

0.0 76.65 6.02E+07 5.0 76.0 1.00E+00 9.01E+06 5.23E-01 1.00E+00 9.01E+06 5.23E-01 1.0 78.87 5.998+07 5.0 74.0 2.32E+08 9.01E+06 6.10E-01 2.45E+08 9. ole +06 6.15E-01 2.0 80.66 5.96E+07 5.1 74.0 1.98E+08 9.01E+06 6.03E-01 2.07E+08 9.01E+06 6.07E-01 3.0 81.78 5.93E+07 5.1 74.0 1.43E+08 9.01E+06 5.86E-01 1.84E+08 9.01E+06 6.02E-01 4.0 82.31 5.91E+07 5.1 74.0 8.76E+07 9.01E+06 5.66E-01 1.60E+08 9.01E+06 5.95E-01 5.0 82.34 5.89E+07 5.1 74.0 3.25E+07 9.01E+06 5.45E-01 1.37E+08 9.01E+06 5.86E-01 6.0 82.15 5.87E+07 5.1 74.0 4.27E+07 9.01E+06 5.48E-01 1.32E+08 9.01E+06 5.83E-01 7.0 82.04 5.85E+07 5.1 74.0 5.29E+07 9.01E+06 5.51E-01 1.28E+08 9.01E+06 5.81E-01 8.0 81.98 5.83E+07 5.2 74.0 6.31E+07 9.01E+06 5.55E-01 I 9.0 81.98 5.82E+07 5.2 1.23E+08 74.0 7.32E+07 1.19E+08 9.01E+06 9.01E+06 9.01E+06 5.79E-01 5.59E-01 5.77E-01 10.0 82.07 5.80E+07 5.2 75.0 8.34E+07 9.01E+06 5.69E-01 1.14E+08 9.01E+06 5.81E-01 11.0 82.31 5.78E+07 5.2 76.0 9.36E+07 9.01E+06 5.80E-01 1.09E+08 9.01E+06 5.86E-01 12.0 82.76 5.76E+07 5.2 78.0 1.04E+08 9.01E+06 5.97E-01 1.05E+08 9. ole +06 5.97E-01 13.0 83.27 5.75E+07 5.2 78.0 1.03E+08 9. ole +06 5.98E-01 1.04E+08 9.01E+06 5.99E-01 14.0 83.75 5.73E+07 5.3 79.0 1.02E+08 9.01E+06 6.06E-01 1.03E+08 9.01E+06 6.06E-01 15.0 84.20 5.71E+07 5.3 79.0 1.01E+08 9. ole +06 6.07E-01 1.02E+08 9.01E+06 6.07E-01 16.0 84.55 5.70E+07 5.3 79.0 9.98E+07 9.01E+06 6.08c-01 1.00E+08 9. ole +06 6.08E-01 17.0 84.83 5.68E+07 5.3 79.0 9.88E+07 9.01E+06 6.08E-01 9.94E+07 9.01E+06 6.08E-01 18.0 85.13 5.66E+07 5.3 80.0 9.78E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 9.83E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 19.0 85.35 5.64E+07 5.3 79.0 9.68E+07 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 9.72E+07 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 20.0 85.43 5.63E+07 5.4 79.0 9.58E+07 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 9.62E+07 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 21.0 85.57 5.61E+07 5.4 80.0 9.48E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01

, 9.51E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 l 22.0 85.75 5.59E+07 5.4 80.0 9.38E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 l

9.40E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 l 23.0 85.88 5.57E+07 5.4 80.0 9.28E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 l 9.30E+07 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 24.0 85.90 5.56E+07 5.4 79.0 9.18E+07 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 9.19E+07 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 25.0 85.44 5.54E+07 5.4 79.0 1.24E+08 9.01E+06 6.20E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.71E-01 ll 26.0 85.60 5.53E+07 S.4 78.0 1.20E+08 9.01E+06 6.16E-01

! 5 0. 1.00E+00 5.66E-01 27.0 85.68 5.52E+07 5.5 77.0 1.29E+08 9.01E+06 6.llE-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.60E-01 28.0 85.69 5.51E+07 5.5 76.0 1.29E+08 9. ole +06 6.05E-01 0 1.00E+00 5.55E-01 29.0 85.65 5.49E+07 5.5 76.0 1.29E+08 9.01E+06 6.05E-01 0 1.00E+00 5.55E-01 i

30.0 85.62 5.48E+07 5.5 76.0 1.29E+08 9.01E+06 6.05E-01

, 0. 1.00E+00 5.55E-01 II

18 Table 3. Continued 31.0 85.57 5.47E+07 5.5 75.0 1.30E+08 9.01E+06 6.00E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.49E-01 32.0 85.47 5.46E+07 5.5 75.0 1.30E+08 9.01E+06 5.99E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.48E-01 33.0 85.37 5.44E+07 5.5 74.0 1.30E+08 9.01E+06 5.94E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.42E-01 34.0 85.22 5.43E+07 5.5 74.0 1.31E+08 9.01E+06 5.93E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.42E-01 35.0 85.17 5.42E+07 5.6 76.0 1.31E+08 9.01E+06 6.040-01 0, 1.00E+00 5.53E-01 36.0 85.28 5.41E+07 5.6 78.0 1.31E+08 9.01E+06 6.16E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.65E-01 37.0 85.53 5.39E+07 5.6 80.0 1.31E+08 9.01E+06 6.29E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.78E-01 38.0 85.81 5.38E+07 5.6 79.0 1.30E+08 9.01E+06 6.24E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.73E-01 39.0 86.04 5.37E+07 5.6 80.0 1.30E+08 9.01E+06 6.30E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.79E-01 40.0 86.28 5.36E+07 5.6 80.0 1.29E+08 9.01E+06 6.31E-01 0, 1.00E+00 5.80E-01 41.0 86.41 5.35E+07 5.6 70.0 1.29E+08 9.01E+06 6.19E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.69E-01 42.0 86.52 5.34E+07 5.6 80.0 1.29E+08 9.01E+06 6.31E-01 I 43.0 44.0 86.75 5.33E+07 86.98 5.32E+07 5.7 5.7 0.

81.0 1.28E+08 O.

81.0 1.28E+08

. 1.00E600 9.01E+06 1.00E+00 9.01E+06 5.81E-01 6.38E-01 5.8BE-01 6.39E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.89E-01 I 45.0 46.0 87.19 5.30E+07 87.37 5.29E+07 5.7 5.7 81.0 1.27E+08 0.

81.0 1.27E+08 0.

9.01E+06 1.00E+00 9.01E+06 6.39E-01 5.90E-01 6.40E-01 1.00E+00 5.90E-01 I 47.0 48.0 87.57 5.28E+07 87.72 5.27E+07 5.7 5.7 82.0 1.26E+08 0.

0.

9.01E+06 1.00Et00 80.0 1.26E+08 9.01E+06 6.46E-01 5.97E-01 6.35E-01 1.00E+00 5.85E-01 49.0 87.74 5.26E+07 5.7 80.0 1.26E+08 9.01E+06 6.35E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.86E-01 50.0 87.73 5.25E+07 5.7 79.0 1.25E+08 9.01E+06 6.28E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.79E-01 51.0 87.64 5.23E+07 5.8 78.0 1.25E+08 9.01E+06 6.22E-01 I 52.0 87.48 5.22E+07 87.29 5.21E+07 5.8 5.8 0

0.

1.00E+00 5.73E-01 77.0 1.25E+08 9.01E+06 6.16E-01 1.00E+00 77.0 1.24E+08 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 5.67E-01 53.0 1.00E+00 5.66E-01 I 54.0 55.0 87.10 5.20E+07 86.87 5.18E+07 5.8 5.8 0.

76.0 1.24E+08 9.01E+06 6.08E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.60E-01 76.0 1.24E+08 9.01E+06 6.07E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.59E-01 I 56.0 57.0 86.68 5.17E+07 86.42 5.16E+07 5.8 5.8 76.0 1.24E+08 0.

9.01E+06 1.00E+00 74.0 1.23E+08 9.01E+06

0. 1.00E+00 6.07E-01 5.58E-01 5.94E-01 5.46E-01 I 58.0 59.0 86.16 5.14E+07 86,00 5.13E+07 5.9 5.9 75.0 1.23E+0B 9.01E+06

0. 1.00E+00 76.0 1.23E+08 9.01E+06

0. 1.00E+00 5.99E-01 5.51E-01

6. 0 4 E-01 5.56E-01 9.01E+06 6.15E-01 I 60.0 85.96 5.12E+07 5.9 78.0 1.22E+08

0. 1.00E+00 5.67E-01 61.0 86.03 5.11E+07 5.9 78.0 1.22E+08 9.01E+06 6.15E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.67E-01 62.0 86.11 5.10E+07 5.9 79.0 1.22E+08 9.01E+06 6.21E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.74E-01 63.0 86.23 5.09E+07 5.9 79.0 1.22E+08 9.01E+06 6.22E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.74E-01 64.0 86.33 5.08E+07 5.9 79.0 1.21E+08 9.01E+06 6.22E-01 5.74E-01 I 65.0 86.42 5.06E+07 5.9 0.

0.

1.00E+00 79.0 1.21E+08 9.01E+06 1.00E+00 6.22E-01 5.75E-01

.a.

19 Table 3. Continued 66.0 86.49 5.05E+07 6.0 79.0 1.21E+08 9.01E+06 6.22E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.75E-01 67.0 86.54 5.04E+07 6.0 78.0 1.20E+08 9.01E+06 6.17E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.69E-01 68.0 86.57 5.03E+07 6.0 79.0 1.20E+08 9.01E+06 6.22E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.75E-01

'I 69.0 70.0 C6.58 5.02E+07 85.56 5.01E+07 6.0 6.0 78.0 1.20E+08 O.

9.01E+06 6.16E-01 1.00E+00 5.69E-01 78.0 1.20E+08 9.01E+06 6.16E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.69E-01 71.0 86.49 5.00E+07 6.0 77.0 1.19E+08 9.01E+06 6.10E-01 0, 1.00E+00 5.63E-01 72.0 86.35 4.98E+07 6.0 76.0 1.19E+08 9.01E+06 6.04E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.57E-01 I 73.0 74.0 86.17 4.97E+07 86.01 4.96E+07 6.1 6.1 76.0 1.19E+08 9.01E+06 6.03E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.56E-01 76.0 1.18E+08 9.01E+06 6.02E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.56E-01 '

75.0 85.88 4.95E+07 6.1 76.0 1.18E+08 9.01E+06 6.02E-01 O. 1.00E+00 5.55E-01 76.0 85.76 4.94E+07 6.1 76.0 1.18E+08 9.01E+06 6.01E-01

0. l.00E+00 5.55F-01 77.0 85.61 4.92E+07 6.1 75.0 1.18E+08 9.01E+06 5.95E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.49E-01 78.0 85.40 4.91E+07 6.1 74.0 1.17E+08 9.01E+06 5.88E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.42E-01 79.0 85.16 4.90E+07 6.1 74.0 1.17E+08 9.01E+06 5.87E-01 I 80.0 81.0 84.95 4.89E+07 84.74 4.87E+07 6.2 6.2 0.

0.

1.00E+00 5.42E-01 74.0 1.17E+08 9.01E+06 5.87E-01 1.00E+00 5.41E-01 73.0 1.16E+08 9.01E+06 5.80E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.35E-01 82.0 84.52 4.86E+07 6.2 74.0 1.16E+08 9.01E+06 5.85E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.39E-01 83.0 84.46 4.85E+07 6.2 76.0 1.16E+08 9.31E+06 5.96E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.50E-01 84.0 84.54 4.84E+07 6.2 77.0 1.16E+08 9.01E+06 6.02E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.56E-01 85.0 84.72 4.83E+07 6.2 79.0 1.15E+08 9.01E+06 6.14E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.69E-01 4.82E+07 80.0 1.15E+08 9.01E+06 6.21E-01 I 85.'02 86.0 6.2

0. 1.00E+00 5.76E-01 87.0 85.32 4.81E+07 6.3 80.0 1.15E+08 9.01E+06 6.22E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.77E-01 88.0 85.62 4.80E+07 6.3 81.0 1.14E+08 9.01E+06 6.29E-01 l 0. 1.00E+00 5.84E-01 89.0 85.64 4.79E+07 6.3 73.0 1.14E+08 9.01E+06 5.82E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.38E-01 90.0 85.29 4.78E+07 6.3 74.0 1.14E+08 9.01E+06 5.87E-01 0 1.00E+00 5.42E-01 91.0 85.17 4.77E+07 6.3 77.0 1.14E+08 9.01E+06 6.03E-01 0 1.00E+00 5.59E-01 92.0 85.25 4.76E+07 6.3 78.0 1.13E+08 9.01E+06 6.09E-01 0 1.00E+00 5.65E-01 93.0 85.25 4.75E+07 6.3 76.0 1.13E+08 9.01E+06 5.97E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.53E-01 94.0 85.19 4.73E+07 6.4 77.0 1.13E+08 9.01E+06 6.03E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.59E-01 95.0 85.21 4.72E+07 6.4 77.0 1.12E+08 9.01E+06 6.03E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.59E-01 l 96.0 85.17 4.71E+07 6.4 76.0 1.12E+08 9.01E+06 5.97E-01 l

0. 1.00E+00 5.53E-01 97.0 85.09 4.70E+07 6.4 76.0 1.12E+08 9.01E+06 5.96E-01 I 98.0 84.97 4.69E+07 6.4 0.

75.0 1.12E+08 0.

1.00E+00 5.52E-01 9.01E+06 5.90E-01 1.00E+00 5.46E-01 99.0 84.82 4.6BE+07 6.4 75.0 1.11E+08 9.01E+06 5.90E-01

! 0. 1.00E+00 5.46E-01 l 100.0 84.66 4.67E+07 6.4 74.0 1.11E+08 9.01E+06 5.83E-01

0. 1.00E+00 5.40E-01 L

a.

20 REFERENCES S. M. Sullivan and W. E. Dunn, " User's Manual for UHS Thermal Performance 1.

Analysis Codes", University of Illinois Department of Mechanical and In-dustrial Engineering, in preparation,1984.

2. S. M. Sullivan and W. E. Dunn, " Method for Analysis of UHS Cooling Tower Performance", University of Illinois Department of Mechanical and Indus-trial Engineering, in preparation,1984.

l

, ._ .-... __.,.,. ._ _.._____._.._ _....___ _ _.___._ _ _ , . . _ _ _ , _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ . . . . _ . . _

ML20115J879

Text

Navigation menu

Search