CSSR 2010 1569340661

2010 CSSR 2010 Initial Submission

Application of Thermodynamics and Heat

Transfer Theories to Analyze Performance
Degradation of Air Cooled Condenser (ACC) At
Gelugor Power Station

Abstract—Gelugor Power Station has its power output
derated from the installed capacity level of 330 MW to
295 MW. From preliminary investigation, it was
found that poor performance of the Air Cooled
Condenser (ACC) is the main contributor to this
problem. Consequently, four condenser key
performance indicators (KPIs) that illustrate the
contribution of two root cause categories, namely
inadequate cooling air flow and ineffective heat
transfer were identified. Subsequently, these KPIs for
design and actual condition (before analysis) were
computed and then compared to analyze the root
cause(s) of ACC performance degradation. Upon
determination of the root cause(s), measures for ACC
performance improvement were provided and the
corresponding capacity improvements were also
estimated. As part of the validation exercise, the
effectiveness for partial implementation of ACC fins
cleaning, i.e. one of the recommendations given and
carried out by the power plant was evaluated. From
the validation, it was found that cleaning 25% of the
ACC fins has improved the air flow by 50 m3/s and the
steam turbine power output by 0.9 MW.
temperature to the ACC was found to be higher than
normal and this affects the condensing of turbine exhaust
steam significantly.
Possible contributors to poor ACC performance are hot
weather at site, where the ambient temperature at noon is
in the range of 35 to 38oC, and insufficient air flow (i.e.
cooling medium) to the ACC inlet as the surrounding air
passages is partially blocked by the sound-proof wall.
In order to determine the root causes of poor ACC
performance, TNB Research Sdn. Bhd. (TNBR) was
engaged to analyze the problem and provide
countermeasures.
II. METHODOLOGY
A. Condenser Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the ACC.

Keywords—Terminal Temperature Difference; Overall Heat

Transfer Coefficient; Air Mass Flow Rate; Temperature
Rise; Air Cooled Condenser

I. INTRODUCTION
Gelugor Power Station is a combined cycle power plant
of Tenaga Nasional Berhad (TNB), which has an installed
capacity of 330 MW. The plant comprises two units of GE
Frame 9E Gas Turbines (GTs) rated at 110 MW each, two
Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSGs) and a Fuji
Electric Steam Turbine (ST) rated at 110 MW.
In less than six years after the commissioning of the
plant (September 2003), its generating capacity has
reduced by 35 MW, from 330 to 295 MW, according to a
test conducted by Energy Procurement Department,
Planning Division, TNB in February 2009. This load
deration was suspected to be attributable to poor
performance of the Air Cooled Condenser (ACC), which Figure 1. Schematic of the air cooled condenser [2]
can be observed from low condenser vacuum trend and
the requirement to operate the second vacuum pump to The primary indicator of ACC performance is its
increase the vacuum level. Moreover, the air inlet vacuum level. In general, higher condenser vacuum
signifies increased efficiency and output for the steam

1
 2010 CSSR 2010 Initial Submission
turbine. The vacuum level of the condenser, be it air
cooled or water cooled is driven by the following
variables, as in [1].
1. Inlet temperature of the cooling medium
2. Heat load
3. Flow rate of the cooling medium
4. Condenser fouling
5. Air in-leakage
Variable 1 is predominantly affected by the ambient
condition, which will only be controllable if additional
inlet cooling equipment was installed.
Meanwhile, variable 2 is primarily a result of loading
condition. Hence, to enable “apple to apple comparison”
in the analysis, only base load plant data will be used.
From the remaining variables, it can be categorized into
two:
1. Inadequate supply of cooling medium (Variable 3)
2. Ineffective heat transfer (Variables 4 and 5)
Variables 4 and 5 are grouped together as they share
similar condenser key performance indicators (KPIs),
which will be elaborated below.
For root cause analysis, the required KPIs for each root
cause category will be identified. Then the KPIs will be
evaluated at two conditions, namely design and Phase 1
(actual and before analysis). After that, the KPIs for both
conditions will be compared to diagnose the root cause.
For inadequate supply of cooling medium or cooling air
in this case, the required KPIs are as follows:
 Air mass flow rate through the ACC
 Temperature rise across the ACC
On the other hand, the KPIs for ineffective heat transfer
are:
 Terminal temperature difference (TTD)
 Overall heat transfer coefficient (U)
B. Inadequate Cooling Air?
The first KPI to be examined is air mass flow rate
through the ACC.
More often than not, direct measurement of flow rate is
difficult subjected to accuracy, reliability and accessibility
of the measuring instrument. Hence it is common to
approximate flow rate to other parameters, which are
easier to measure.
In this case, the air mass flow rate through the ACC is
approximated via total power consumption of the AC
motors that drive the ACC fans. The input power by a
motor can be expressed as follows:
Pin  3 V p  p  I  PF
where
Pin  input power (W )
Vp  p  phase to phase voltage (V )
I  load current ( A)
PF  power factor ( fraction)
Assuming the applied voltage and power factor do not
change significantly, the measured current consumption of
the motors can be used to reflect the changes in air mass
flow rate.
The second KPI to be computed is the temperature rise
across the ACC, which can be expressed as follows:
RISE  Tout, air  Tin, air (2)
where
RISE  temperature rise ( oC )
Tout , air  cooling air outlet temperature (oC )
Tin, air  cooling air inlet temperature (oC )
From (2), the required data are cooling air inlet and
outlet temperatures. Cooling air inlet temperature is
assumed to be the same as ambient air temperature, which
is available for analysis. In contrast, cooling air outlet
temperature is not measured and thus has to be derived by
rearranging the following equation.
Q air  m C p ( Tout, air  Tin, air ) (3)
where
Q air  heat transfer rate through the cooling air ( J )
s

m  air mass flow rate through the ACC ( )
kg
s
C p  specific heat capacity of air ( Jo )
kg C
In order to use (3), the heat transfer rate through the
cooling air has to be determined. Based upon the
Conservation of Energy Principle, energy cannot be
created nor destroyed. Hence the heat that is removed
from the exhaust steam will be transferred to the ACC fins
and finally to the cooling air. This means, the heat transfer
rate through the cooling air can be approximated based
upon the design heat duty (i.e. heat to be removed from
the exhaust steam) at the corresponding load ratio, as
shown below.
C. Ineffective Heat Transfer?
For this category of root cause, the first KPI to be
studied is terminal temperature difference (TTD), which
can be expressed as follows:
(1)
TTD  Tsat  Tout, air (4)
where
TTD  ter min al temperatur e difference ( oC )
Tsat  saturation temperatur e correspond to condenser pressure ( oC )
2
 2010 CSSR 2010 Initial Submission

The saturation temperature at condenser pressure is From the summary data in Table 1, it is clear that the
assumed to be the same as ACC outlet water temperature heat transfer across the ACC is ineffective compared to its
since condenser is in the saturation water-steam mixture, design, as indicated by the problematic TTD that is higher
whereby its temperature stays constant. than its design value and problematic U that is lower than
The second KPI to be investigated is overall heat its design value.
transfer coefficient (U), which can be derived by In contrast, for the investigation on the adequacy of
rearranging Newton’s Law of Cooling, as follows: cooling air, no conclusion can be made as the problematic
data are affected by spray water operation.
Q  U A T (5) As mentioned above, ineffective heat transfer can be a
result of condenser fouling and/or air inleakage. Without
where further analysis or air inleakage detection / measurement,
no root causes can be ruled out.
Q  heat transfer rate ( J )
s Nevertheless, cleaning of the ACC fins is recommended
U  overall heat transfer coefficiet ( W2 )
to Gelugor plant operators as a first attempt to increase the
m heat transfer rate of the ACC. Upon conducting this
A  heat transfer surface area ( m) countermeasure, a re-assessment will be conducted to
T  temperature difference between hot and cold bodies ( oC )
verify its effectiveness.
E. Analysis and Discussion: Before and After Partial
The condenser duty will be used as the heat transfer Cleaning of ACC Fins
rate. Meanwhile the heat transfer surface area is assumed Prior to the closure of this project, Gelugor power
to be the same as its design value, 496,785 m2. station has managed to complete the cleaning of 4 ACC
For the temperature difference between the hot (exhaust fins from the total of 16 available.
steam) and cold (cooling air) bodies, the Arithmetic Mean Table II shows the summary data for conditions before
Temperature Difference (AMTD), which can be expressed and after partial cleaning of ACC fins.
in the following equation, will be employed.
TABLE II.
Tin, air  Tout, air SUMMARY DATA FOR CONDITIONS B EFORE AND AFTER PARTIAL ACC
AMTD  Tsat  (6) FINS CLEANING
2
Before After
Partial Partial
D. Analysis and Discussion: Design and Phase 1 No. KPI / Parameter Unit Cleaning Cleaning
Table 1 shows the summary data for design condition of ACC of ACC
and Phase 1 (actual and before analysis). Fins Fins
Average current
consumption for
TABLE I. 1 A 241.9 243.7
ACC fans 1 – 16
SUMMARY DATA FOR DESIGN AND PHASE 1 CONDITIONS
motors
No. KPI / Parameter Unit Design Phase 1 Calculated air mass kg/s
2 583.5 587.8
Average current flow rate per fan
Calculated total air
1 consumption for ACC A 250 241.9 3 kg/s 9,337 9,405
fans 1 – 16 motors mass flow rate
Calculated air mass kg/s 4 ST load MW 104.4 105.3
2 603 583.5
flow rate per fan Condenser duty /
Calculated total air MJ/s
3 kg/s 9,650 9,337 Heat transfer rate
mass flow rate 5 or 243.8 246.0
through the cooling
MW
4 ST load MW 110 104.4 air
Cooling air inlet o
Condenser duty / Heat 6 C 31.6 32.4
MJ/s or temperature
5 transfer rate through the 257 243.8
MW Cooling air outlet o
cooling air 7 C 54.2 55.0
Cooling air inlet temperature
o
6 C 32 31.6 Temperature rise o
temperature 8 C 22.6 1 22.6
Cooling air outlet across the ACC
o
7 C 55 54.2 Saturation
temperature
Temperature rise across temperature o
8 o
C 23 22.6 1 9 C 63.5 63.3
the ACC correspond to the
condenser pressure
Saturation temperature
9 correspond to the o
C 63.1 63.5 Terminal
o
condenser pressure 10 temperature C 9.3 8.3
difference
Terminal temperature o
10 C 8.1 9.3 Arithmetic Mean
difference o
11 Temperature C 20.6 19.6
Arithmetic Mean o
11 C 19.6 20.6 Difference
Temperature Difference
Overall heat transfer Overall heat transfer
12 W/m2 26.4 23.8 12 W/m2 23.8 25.3
coefficient coefficient

1 1
Taken without considering the heat removal rate from spray water operation Taken without considering the heat removal rate from spray water operation

3
 2010 CSSR 2010 Initial Submission
As shown in Table II, the heat transfer effectiveness has
improved significantly after the partial cleaning of ACC
fins. For this reason, the plant operators are urged to
complete the cleaning for the rest of the fins.
Besides, cleaning of ACC fins has increased the air
mass flow rate through the ACC by 68 m3 (or 0.7%). With
cleaner ACC fins (i.e. less obstruction in the ACC fins),
more air is drawn into the ACC for cooling.
Most importantly, the ST output has also increased by
0.9 MW (or 0.9%), despite the reduction in GTs output by
0.2 MW (or 0.1%), from 203.0 to 202.8 MW.
F. Correction of Output Data to the Same Ambient
Temperature
Since the output changes with ambient temperature [3],
the corresponding GTs and ST output data before ACC
fins cleaning (ambient temperature = 31.6 oC) has to be
corrected to the condition after ACC fins cleaning
(ambient temperature = 32.4 oC) to enable comparable
capacity improvement estimation.
According to [3], the average GTs and ST output data
before ACC fins cleaning is shown in Table III.
TABLE III.
SUMMARY DATA FOR CONDITION B EFORE ACC FINS CLEANING:
BEFORE AND AFTER C ORRECTION OF AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
Before Correction After Correction
(Ambient (Ambient
No. KPI / Parameter
temperature = temperature =
31.6 oC) 32.4 oC)
1 GTs load 203.0 201.9
2 ST load 104.4 103.8
Based on the corrected data for condition before ACC
fins cleaning in Table III, the actual improvement in ST
output from the recommended activity (i.e. partial
cleaning of ACC fins) is 1.5 MW (or 1.4%), from 103.8 to
105.3 MW .
III. CONCLUSION
The ACC performance at Gelugor Power Station can be
improved further in order to increase the plant generating
capacity by about 10 MW (4 MW from the GTs and 6
MW from the ST). To achieve this condition, all the ACC
fins has to be cleaned.
Clean fins provide better flow passage (i.e. less
obstruction) for the cooling air. This enables the fan
motors to pass more air through the fins. Thus, better heat
transfer can be achieved by the ACC.
When the ACC heat transfer improved, it can remove
more heat faster, namely has higher condenser duty. This
additional heat will have to be supplied by the GTs. As a
result, the GTs output will increase too.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The R&D project team would like to thank TNB for the
R&D project funding and Gelugor Power Station
personnel for their cooperation throughout the project
duration.
REFERENCES
[1] Performance Consulting Services, Inc. (PCS), “Heat Rate
Awareness: Course Manual”, PCS, Montrose, 2006, pp. 3.1-3.3,
7.1-7.18.
[2] M.W. Larinoff, W.E. Moles and R. Reichhelm, “Design and
Specification of Air-Cooled Steam Condensers”, Texas: Hudson
Products Corporation, January 2000,
www.hudsonproducts.com/products/stacflo/may22_78.pdf
[3] F.J. Brooks, “GE Gas Turbine Performance Characteristics”, New
York: GE Power Systems, October 2000,
http://143.107.98.150/Silvio/PME2517/GEgasTurbine.pdf