United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Reseach and
Development
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
EPA-600/7-77-025
March 1977
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS OF
MECHANICAL DRAFT COOLING
TOWER PLUMES
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, have been grouped into seven series.
These seven broad categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental technology. Elimination
of traditional grouping was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related fields. The seven series
are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from
the effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment
Research and Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's
mission to protect the public health and welfare from adverse effects
of pollutants associated with energy systems. The goal of the Program
is to assure the rapid development of domestic energy supplies in an
environmentallycompatible manner by providing the necessary
environmental data and control technology. Investigations include
analyses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health
and ecological effects; assessments of, and development of, control
technologies for energy systems; and integrated assessments of a wide
range of energy-related environmental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-77-025
March 1977
FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
OF MECHANICAL DRAFT
COOLING TOWER PLUMES
by
Lawrence D. Winiarski and Walter F. Frick
Assessment and Criteria Development Division
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
Effective regulatory and enforcement actions by the Environmental Protection
Agency would be virtually impossible without sound scientific data on
pollutants and their impact on environmental stability and human health.
Responsibility for building this data base has been assigned to EPA's Office
of Research and Development and its 15 major field installations, one of
which is the Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory (CERL).
The primary mission of the Corvallis laboratory is research on the effects of
environmental pollutants on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems;
the behavior, effects and control of pollutants in lake systems; and the
development of predictive models on the movement of pollutants in the
biosphere.
This report describes field measurements of mechanical draft cooling tower
plumes.
A. F. Bartsch
Director, CERL
m
-------
ABSTRACT
Tethered kitoon (small blimp) sampling techniques were devised to
measure the distribution of temperature and humidity in the invisible
portion of power plant cooling tower plumes. Measurements were made on
plumes from both single cell and multiple cell cooling towers under several
conditions.
These measurements, together with data collected on the ambient
meteorology and exit plume conditions, are particularly useful in moist
plume modeling work.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword i i i
Abstract 1y
List of Figures vi
List of Tables yiii
Acknowledgments ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary and Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 3
4. Sampling Procedure 4
5. Single Cell Plume, Florida 6
6. Multiple Cell Plume, Colorado 10
7. Multiple Cell Plume, North Carolina 34
References 38
Appendix 39
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
1 Plume sampling technique. 4
2 Single cell cooling tower plume profile. 8
Run 1 (descent).
3 Single cell cooling tower plume profile. 9
Run 2 (descent).
4 Single cell cooling tower plume profile. 9
Average of Runs 1 and 2.
5 10 cell cooling tower plume profile. 11
Run 9C (ascent).
I
7 10 cell cooling tower plume profile. 12
Run IOC (descent).
8 Run 4 on March 25, 1975 at 1030. 13
9 Run 6 on March 25, 1975 at 1052. 14
10 Run 7 on March 25, 1975 at 1125. , 15
11 Run 7p on March 25, 1975 at 1134. 16
12 Run 8 on March 25, 1975 at 1146. 17
13 Run 11 on March 25, 1975 at 1302. 18
14 Run 15 on March 25, 1975 at 1441. 19
15 Run 16 on March 25, 1975 at 1455. 20
16 Run 17 on March 25, 1975 at 1624. 21
17 Run 3 on March 25, 1975 at 0930. Horizontal 22
traverse at about 95 meter elevation, mov-
ing north toward cooling tower.
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
18 Run 18 on March 25, 1975 at 1636. Horizontal 23
traverse at about 95 meter elevation, moving
east to west.
19 Run 30 on March 26, 1975 at 0936. 24
20 Run 31 on March 26, 1975 at 1003. 25
21 Run 32 on March 26, 1975 at 1030. 26
22 Map of Comanche plant showing run location 27
and wind direction.
23 Velocity profiles of cooling tower cell at 29
Comanche power plant, March 1975.
24 Cliffside coordinate system. 35
VI1
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1 Peripheral Meteorological Information 7
2 Cooling Tower Efflux 30
3 Ambient Data at Comanche Power Plant, 31
March 25, 1975
4 Ambient Data at Comanche Power Plant, 32
March 26, 1975
5 Cliffside Power Plant Data 36
A-l Cliffside Plume Data 40
A-2 Released Balloon Coordinates Versus Time 55
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Several persons and organizations contributed to this effort.
Professor Ron West and students from the University of Colorado assisted in
taking and reducing the data at the Comanche Power Plant. Other EPA
employees who helped take the various plume measurements were Bruce Tichenor,
Dave Slegal and Everett Quesnell. Environmental Systems Corporation
measured the plume conditions at the exit of the single cell tower at Turkey
Point, Florida. Duke Power Company personnel, Steve Apple, John Gaertner,
Joe McHugh, and other employees helped set up the tests at Cliffside, North
Carolina. The assistance of Florida Power and Light Company, Public
Service Company of Colorado, and Duke Power Company are gratefully
acknowledged.
IX
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
A number of moist plume models are available to use in predicting
cooling tower plume trajectories and dimensions. However, application of
individual models provides significantly different results, and it is not
certain which model is most valid and under which conditions. Part of the
problem is the lack of complete sets of experimental data for model verifica-
tion. Plume behavior depends on many factors, but much of the collected
information is based on visual observations of chimney plumes. Often
adequate source and background meteorological data are missing or uncertain.
Numerical studies indicate that a given trajectory can be closely fitted in
a variety of ways, depending upon what physical mechanisms are assumed to
act on the plume. Therefore, it is also important to obtain information on
the dimensions, dilution, and internal distribution of properties within the
plume.
Several reports on other cooling tower plume studies have been published.
One study correlates photographs of natural draft cooling tower plumes
taken from an airplane with atmospheric soundings and power plant loadings
(1). Helicopter measurements of vertical distributions of excess plume
moisture in a natural draft cooling tower plume have been made at the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Paradise Steam Plant (2). Aircraft measurements
of horizontal temperature and moisture distributions of a multicell, mechani-
cal draft cooling tower plume have shown that the typical bent-over plume
model with its simplifying assumptions is limited in its application (3).
These data are of value in plume modeling, but more work needs to be
done, particularly closer to the tower where most of the significant changes
in the plume occur. Piloted aircraft sampling in this region is not only
hazardous but uncertain because the speed of traverse of the aircraft is too
fast relative to the time response of the instrument sensors. Also, it is
difficult to get accurate position data.
A recognition of the inadequate field data on cooling tower plumes
prompted the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory to undertake a research effort to collect appropriate
data from power plant cooling tower plumes. The research began with the
development of a unique tethered kitoon sampling technique; three field
studies were conducted and this report is the culmination of the project.
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The plumes from single and multiple cell cooling towers have been
observed and sampled with respect to the temperature and humidity
distributions. Corresponding ambient and efflux data were also taken.
When the site and atmospheric conditions are favorable the blimp/
radiosonde sampling method described here will provide detailed plume data
which can be used to verify various modeling techniques. Generally, a smooth
traversing technique yields the most useful data. However, conditions at
Cliffside necessitated point by point measurements. In comparing these data
with model predictions one should base comparisons on a number of data points
taken under similar conditions or within a relatively short time interval.
The three-dimensional nature of the plume and the measurement location needs
to be taken into account, and the location and time of the ambient
measurements should be considered. Strong vortex mixing was observed in all
plumes. This was evident bath near the exit of the tower stack and, on a
larger scale, in the curling of large scale plume puffs and the twisting of
the sheet of cooling tower plumes.
At times, the downwind separation between puffs of plume material
appeared more distinct than others. This is to be expected when the ambient
wind speed fluctuates in direction and magnitude. However, measurements
confirm that most of the plume dilution occurs relatively close to the stack
exit.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The simple radiosonde sampling technique could be improved by automatic
data logging equipment which would store the information on tape in a format
suitable for machine computation. This would eliminate much of the tedious
hand transcription from strip charts. The dual theodolite tracking works
well but is cumbersome and requires additional manpower. A tracking system
which would automatically log the position of the radiosonde in three
dimensions simultaneously with the other data would be quite helpful. If the
data logging and reduction become automated, the whole cross section of the
plume could be sampled in a relatively short time by using the lightweight
radiosonde in a radio controlled, powered sailplane, like the larger units
(e.g., 3 meter wingspan) available from model shops. More complete plume
cross section data would be of considerable help to the modeler. However,
it is essential that these traverses be made with very rapidly responding
instrumentation.
Slow response instrumentation tends to eliminate the peaks and otherwise
"smear" the data in time and space until significant aspects of the plume
behavior, as well as cause and effect relationships, are obscured. It is
important for model development and validation to distinguish between
entrainment that is entwined into the plume in a steady wind and the apparent
entrainment that results from the wind oscillating in direction and magnitude.
It is recommended that more wind profile data be taken. Ideally, what is
desired is a record of the local wind that a puff of plume material travels
through from the time it leaves the stack until it is measured. The
difficulties in making such measurement are recognized. However it might be
accomplished by double theodolite balloon tracking or photographing vertical
rocket smoke trails or other tracers introduced into the ambient. It is
also recommended that some horizontal plume velocity measurements be made
simultaneously with the wind measurements to ascertain how fast the plume
acquires the horizontal velocity of the wind under various ratios of plume
exit velocity to wind velocity.
-------
SECTION 4
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
To circumvent sampling problems encountered by previous investigators
and conform to project budget limitations, a new sampling technique (Figure
1) was developed using relatively inexpensive equipment. This sampling
system allows measurement of plume temperature and humidity in the invisible
or unsaturated portion of the plume. The following provides a description
of the technique.
A lightweight (130 gram) temperature/humidity sensor coupled with a
radiosonde is attached to the tail of a small blimp. This blimp is tethered
by the cooling tower and allowed to "windvane" downwind. Thus the blimp and
sensor are in the same vertical plane as the cooling tower plume. An
operator positioned underneath the blimp traverses the blimp vertically
through the plume by means of a second lightweight line hanging from the
blimp.
Simultaneous sightings of the sensor from two theodolites placed at
known locations are obtained. Temperature and humidity data transmitted
from the radiosonde to the receiving station are continuously recorded.
The exact time of the theodolite readings are noted on the recorder chart to
enable subsequent coordination of position, temperature, and humidity.
sonde
at ion
Figure 1. Plume sampling technique.
-------
During field sampling, the sensor calibration was checked about every
four hours. The temperature sensor was a small coated bead thermistor with
an accuracy of ± 0.2°C and a time constant of approximately 2 seconds. The
relative humidity sensor was a premium grade, carbon film hygristor with an
accuracy of ± 2% and a time constant of 0.7 seconds. A new hygristor was
installed at the start of each day and replaced whenever it appeared dirty.
Measurements using this system were made on plumes from the following
sources:
(1) A single cell mechanical draft, salt water cooling tower
located at Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey Point
Plant.
(2) A ten cell cooling tower located at Public Service of
Colorado's Comanche Power Plant near Pueblo, Colorado.
(3) Two, nine cell cooling towers at the Duke Power Plant at
Cliffside, North Carolina.
-------
SECTION 5
SINGLE CELL PLUME, FLORIDA
Data on the plume from a large single cell enables one to correlate
basic plume behavior theory without the uncertainty of merging plumes. When
the plume from the single cell, salt water cooling tower at Turkey Point was
sampled, a complete set of tower effluent measurements including velocity,
temperature, humidity, and particle size distribution were also being made by
the Environmental Systems Corporation for EPA (4). Although the tower was
only one cell, its size was comparable to the size of a single cell that
could be used in a large multicell tower. The diameter was 8 meters and the
air flow was about 422 cubic meters per second. Sampling at Turkey Point was
fairly easy because the wind direction was relatively constant or changed
slowly and the immediate area was free of high obstacles. There was fairly
good access to the area beneath the plume. By using a small boat it was
possible to sample over about half the surrounding area (180°rsector). Most
of the data are presented in Reference 5. Examples are shown here in
Figures 2, 3, and 4.
The data collected were reduced to a series of plots which show the
temperature and mixing ratio (grams of water per kilogram of air) as a
function of the height above the ground. The data for each plot were
obtained by pulling the blimp/radiosonde downward. The blimp actually
traversed along a slight arc rather than a completely vertical line, so the
distance given on the plot is an average distance from the tower.
To facilitate comparisons of the vertical atmospheric temperature
gradient with the adiabatic or neutral temperature gradient (9.8°C/Km), the
temperature profile is plotted between parallel lines whose slope is equal
to 9.8°C/Km. Examination of the temperature profiles indicates that most of
the data runs were made when the temperature gradient was near adiabatic.
Although relative humidity was the humidity parameter actually measured,
it was deemed more appropriate to use the mixing ratio which, in a well-mixed
environment, is nearly uniform and tends to remain constant throughout the
day. The wind conditions at the site, together with the measured atmospheric
gradient, indicated that for most of the data runs the atmosphere could be
considered well-mixed. Therefore, an increase in mixing ratio is the result
of an outside influence, in this case the cooling tower plume.
The data used to plot the curves shown were discrete points tabulated
from a strip chart recorder. Approximately 50 data points were used for
each vertical traverse, roughly 10 per minute. The data plots show the
significant fluctuations, but not all the fluctuations that were recorded.
-------
The dashed lines on the data plots are the results of a simple plume model
which was developed to predict the trajectory and average plume properties
assuming a circular plume cross section (6).
In addition to defining the plume, the profiles also provide ambient
atmospheric background data on the temperature, stability and moisture
content of the atmosphere. The blimp traverse was generally arranged so
that the radiosonde was pulled from a position above the plume to a position
underneath the plume. Thus the beginning and end of each traverse yielded
ambient background data. Additional information is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
PERIPHERAL METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
Figures 2, 3, 4
Efflux temp. (°C) 30.0
Source height wind (m/sec) 5.4
Wind lapse (sec -1) -0.011
Source height wind (m/sec) 5.4
Wind lapse (sec -1) -O.ftlia
Surface press, (mb) 1030
Average horiz. distance to
balloon (m) 125
Source type single cell
Volumetric tower flow
per cell (m3/sec) 422
Cell diameter (m) 8.0
Location Turkey Point
Florida
Date 25 Feb 74
Approx value from meterological tower 1 km away.
It is important to consider the variability of the ambient conditions
at the time the plume measurements are made. For example, if the wind
direction or speed changes during the time of the measurements, the plume
cross section will appear to have a different width than it would have had
if the conditions had remained constant. This type of plume spreading or
dilution should be distinguished from that which occurs when the wind is
steady.
As the questions involving plume prediction become more complex, it
becomes necessary to examine the cross section of the plume in the vicinity
of the stack. In a strong wind, the plume from a single cell may actually
develop into two counter rotating vortex sheets. In this case, the greatest
concentration peaks might be found in each single vortex and not in the
center of the plume. Sampling becomes more difficult under these conditions
because the balloon might tend to fly between the two vortex sheets. In
this case, it would be desirable to also make several vertical traverses on
each side of the plume center at essentially the same distance away from the
-------
tower. The results of these side by side traverses would define the plume
cross section.
The best results were obtained when the atmospheric conditions remained
fairly constant during the time it took to make a traverse (i.e., about 5
minutes). However, when conditions are slightly variable, it is still
possible to get data that approximate a steady state condition by averaging
a composite profile from several short-term observations. As an example, the
first and second runs on February 25, 1974, (Figure 2 and Figure 3), were
made at the same downwind location under nearly the same environmental
conditions. An average of these runs is shown in Figure 4. In this case
there is relatively little difference. Ideally, these measurements should be
taken simultaneously, but this would require extra equipment. An alternative
would be to try to make several traverses before atmospheric conditions can
change significantly.
The study at Turkey Point showed that under favorable meteorological
conditions the blimp sampling technique could be used to obtain temperature
and humidity distributions within the invisible part of the plume from a
single cell tower. The next task was to apply a similar technique to a large
multi-cell cooling tower.
100-r
14 15
Temperature (°C)
9 10 11 12
Mixing Ratio (gm/kg)
Figure 2. Single cell cooling tower plume profile,
Run 1 (descent).
8
-------
100 -
14 15 16
Temperature (°C)
9 10 11 IE
Mixing Ratio (gm/kg)
Figure 3. Single cell cooling tower plume profile.
Run 2 (descent).
Predicted average value
4-»
"£
measured value
15
Temperature { C)
Mixing ratio (gm/kg)
Figure 4. Single cell cooling tower plume profile. Average
of Runs 1 and 2.
-------
SECTION 6
MULTIPLE CELL PLUME, COLORADO
The next plume sampled was from a ten-cell cooling tower serving one of
the 300 megawatt units of the Comanche Power Plant near Pueblo, Colorado.
The diameter of each cell was about 10.2 meters and the volumetric air flow
rate per cell was about 710 cubic meters per cell. The study was jointly
conducted by EPA and University of Colorado.
The sampling at the Comanche Plant involved the use of two radiosondes
on the same blimp. One radiosonde system was an experimental unit developed
by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and operated by the
University of Colorado personnel. This radiosonde had sensors for wet bulb
and dry bulb temperature, wind speed, wind direction and pressure altitude
which were multiplexed into one recorder giving single points for each
parameter at 30 second intervals.
The EPA radiosonde was -identical to the one used at Turkey Point and
gave a continuous recording of temperature and humidity. It is advantageous
to monitor a continuous graph of humidity and temperature during the traverse
in order to determine when the sonde is in the plume. Vertical traverses
through the plume were made with this dual sonde system.
Examples of the data acquired by this sys.tem are shown in Figures 5, 6
and 7 (6). Also shown are ambient temperature data taken from three temper-
ature sensors which Public Service had installed on booms projecting out from
the power plant chimney, plus a ground level measurement. It can be seen
that these temperatures indicate a nearly adiabatic lapse rate and correlate
well with the radiosonde measurements. The location of the traverse with
respect to the cooling tower and the average wind direction is shown in
Figure 6, the wind is coming from the east at about 45° to the tower axis.
The blimp traverse was made nearly in line with the wind direction coming
from the center of the tower. The apparent wind direction as indicated by
the windvane on the NCAR sonde is also shown. Oscillations of the blimp,
variations in the ambient wind direction, and internal plume motions all
contributed to the direction indicated by this windvane. Therefore, it was
difficult to make quantitative assessment of these wind data. However, the
variation of the motion sensed by the windvane appeared to coincide with the
plume location as indicated by the temperature and humidity sensor.
Other data runs are shown in Figures 8 through 21. These graphs were
made using the 30-second internal temperature and altitude data from the
NCAR/U. of C. radiosonde and the continuous humidity data from the EPA
radiosonde. The location of each of these runs is shown in Figure 22.
(text continued on page 28)
10
-------
2.5 5.0*1 234
Temperature (°C) Mixing Ratio (gm/kg)
Figure 5. 10 cell cooling tower plume profile.
9C (ascent).
Run
11
-------
X*'
122m,/
Direction of Magnetic North
_-^- Average Wind Direc-
tion for Figs. 7&9.
Figure 6. Approximate average balloon location (x) for
Figures 7 and 9: 380 m from tower center.
200 -
D>
-------
300i
250
V)
\
0>
200
h-
x
o
LJ
X
150
100
50
0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 8. Run 4 on March 25, 1975 at 1030.
-------
o>
E
300
250
200
50
jj! 100
50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
12345
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 9. Run 6 on March 25, 1975 at 1052.
-------
300
250
200
-------
300
250
« 200
-------
to
o
4-
0)
E
300
250
200
50
X
o
UJ (00
50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
2345
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 12. Run 8 on March 25, 1975 at 1146.
-------
CO
300
250
10
200
E
150
100
50
-20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
I
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 13. Run II on March 25, 1975 at 1302.
-------
V)
^
0>
0)
e
300
250
200
150
100
50
O1-
-2
0 246 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
I
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 14. Run 15 on March 25, 1975 at 1441.
-------
ro
o
CO
o>
E
300
250
200
150
x
C
100
50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 15. Run 16 on March 25, 1975 at 1455.
-------
o>
300
250
200
- 150
I
C9
UJ 100
X
50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
0
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 16. Run 17 on March 25, 1975 at 1624.
-------
ro
ro
W
o
o
LU
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
-20 246 8 10 12
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
14
2345
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 17. Run 3 on March 25, 1975 at 0930. Horizontal
traverse at about 95 meter elevation, moving
north toward cooling tower.
-------
INJ
GO
seconds
UJ
2
I-
*fUU
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
^i
-
-
'
N
/
(
- ,(,
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 l<
I
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 18. Run 18 on March 25, 1975 at 1636. Horizontal
traverse at about 95 meter elevation, moving
east to west.
-------
ro
400
350
300
V)
250
o>
E
. - 200
C
X
100
50
j_
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
I
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 19. Run 30 on March 26, 1975 at 0936.
-------
PO
en
V)
0>
E
400
350
300
250
- 200
100
50
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
I
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 20. Run 31 on March 26, 1975 at 1003.
-------
ro
400
350
300
L_
5 25°
E
,_- 200
X
o
00
50
-20 2 46 8 10 12 14
TEMPERATURE,
degrees centigrade
MIXING RATIO,
gm/kg
Figure 21. Run 32 on March 26, 1975 at 1030.
-------
II
Cooling Towers
PIBAL average
wind direction
1147-1157 hrs
26 Mar 75
North
'Magnetic
^ North
16
up
Vertical Run
Non-vertical Run
Wind Direction
Figure 22. Map of Comanche plant showing run location and wind
direction.
27
-------
Although it is difficult to find any plume activity in several of the runs,
they provide valuable ambient background data. To a lesser extent, even if
the location of the plume is not known, it is of interest for the modeler to
know that the plume is definitely not in a certain area. The plume model
can be checked to see if it predicts a plume in this area.
Background and source data were collected and compiled by West (5).
The measured velocity distribution across the cooling tower stack is shown
in Figure 23. There is good reproducibility of the velocity. Unfortunately,
the temperature probe malfunctioned. However, a few glass thermometer
measurements were available. West (5) prepared preliminary estimates of the
cooling tower efflux which are given in Table 2.
The meteorological data are given in Tables 3 and 4. An interpretive
key follows the tables.
In analyzing the radiosonde data, one curious thing to note on the
vertical traverse runs is that the plume seems to have peak concentrations
at two different elevations. The upper peak is fairly consistent at about
225 meter elevation. It is not known if this is significant. One hypothesis
is that the upper peak may be part of the plume from the smoke stack.
Another hypothesis is that the sheet formed from the ten cooling tower plumes
has curled up on the edges and twisted, the curling being analogous to the
twin vortices of a single cell plume previously discussed. These are only
tentative hypotheses and more study is required for a definitive answer.
It would be desirable to monitor the internal plume motions by some
means, possibly with a tracer. On one occasion when small visible packets
of plume moisture persisted for a considerable distance, these plume cloud
puffs were observed rotating or spiral ing around the axis of the plume over
one-half mile downwind. The cause of this motion is not certain, but it may
be related to an early twisting of the line of plumes as they emerge from
the tower cells in a wind that is blowing at a slight angle to the line of
tower cells. This low level twisting brings down the edge of the plume
which results in more recirculation of plume moisture back into the downwind
cells. However, the manner in which the plumes merge and the resulting cross
section significantly affects the entrainment and hence the plume trajectory.
More study should be devoted to understanding this phenomenon.
The Comanche field study yielded plume data on a large mechanical draft
tower in a relatively dry climate. However, it was also desired to obtain
data on large mechanical draft systems in a more humid environment. There-
fore, another field study was set up in cooperation with meteorologists from
Duke Power Company to sample the cooling tower plume from their power plant
near Cliffside, North Carolina.
28
-------
PO
o
0>
(O
O
O
LJ
>
DATE WIND DIRECTION SPEED
A 19 270-315 deg 5m/sec
n 20 225 5-11
* 21 315 10-20
o 26 0-45 1-2
Ib
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-A
0
s* "ix^°
/* \ NW
-/ *v
-o \
\
\
\
i
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
>
\
ON
\
X
1 1 1 1 ^Y>.
0 £
°< \.
SE rf ° A \^
/ o"
' D A~
O/
DA' Q.
/
1
y "
7
y
n /
/
\x*
s^
£>* 1 1 1 1
432101234
DISTANCE FROM TOWER CENTER (m)
Figure 23. Velocity profiles of cooling tower cell at Comanche
power plant, March 1975.
-------
TABLE 2. COOLING TOWER EFFLUX (Reference 5)
DAY TIME
1 75 MDT
3/25 0600
0900
1000
1100
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2200
3/26 0600
0900
1000
1200
1300
1400
1500
1700
EFFLUX
TEMP. °C
13.5
22.4
22.8
23.5
24.4
25.0
25.2
25.4
25.6
25.3
25.1
24.5
23.4
21.3
21.4
23.3
24.0
24.6
27.0
26.6
EFFLUX
MIXING RATIO
g/Kg
11.1
19.7
20.3
21.1
22.4
23.2
23.5
23.8
24.1
23.7
23.4
22.6
21.0
18.5
18.6
20.9
21.8
22.7
26.4
25.6
TOTAL WATER
VAPOR RATE
105 g/sec
0.829
1.413
1.453
1.505
1.590
1.641
1.660
1.680
1.699
1.680
1.654
1.603
1.498
1.335
1.333
1.492
1.550
1.602
1.846
1.794
PLANT LOAD,
MW
171
332
336
336
336
338
336
327
327
328
330
330
330
282
283
285
283
285
340
338
STACK TRAVERSE RESULTS
1. Area Average Velocity = 10.2 m/s
Area Per Stack = 70.0 m2
2. Volumetric Gas Flow Rate
Measured = 1.516x1O6 Ft3/Min - Stack
=715 m3/sec - Stack
Design = 1.588x1O6 Ft3/Min - Stack
Total For Column (10 Stacks)
= 1.52xl07 Ft3/Min
= 7150 m3/s
30
-------
TABLE 3. AMBIENT DATA AT COMANCHE POWER PLANT. MARCH 25, 1975
RUN
no.
ACTUAL
RUM TIME
3C 0836
4C 1030-36
5C 1041-50
6C 53-1100
7C.7? 1125-34
3C1
9C
IOC
11C
12C
13C
14C
15C
16C
17C
13C
19C
1146-55
1211-20
1224-31
1302-05
1328-33
1346-51
NEW
HYZRISTOR
1441-49
1455-1501
1624-32
1636-45
1651-57
TIME
HOT
0700
0730
0800
0830
0900
0930
1000
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
1700
1730
1800
1830
1900
TEMP. AT
a b
5.9
4.0
4.4
5.4
6.2
7.1
8.2
8.9
10.7
11.0
11.8
11.8
11.1
10.6
10.0
9.7
-6.1
-5.8
-3.3
-0.8
+0.6
2.6
4.4
6.4
8.1
10.3
11.0
10.0
8.8
GROUND,
c
-6.4
-6.4
-E.3
-3.6
-2.2
-1.0
-0.8
0.0
+1.6
3.3
3.3
4.4
5.6
6.1
6.7
7.8
7.8
10.5
10.5
10.5
11.1
10.5
10.0
9.0
8.5
°C TEMP
d 76m
-3.0 -0.7
-0.8
0.0
+0.9
1.3
0.9
2.1
2.3
2.8
3.7
5.0
5.5
8.0
8.0 8.6
8.9
10.5
11.7
11.1
10.5
10.0
9.8
9.5
9.6
. ALOFT
112m
-1.2
-1.7
-1.7
-2.5
-2.2
-0.5
-1.1
-0.4
+0.8
1.8
2.3
3.2
4.3
5.0
6.7
7.0
7.8
9.7
9.7
10.0
10.0
9.5
9.3
9,1
8.8
, °C LAPSE RATE "C/lOOm
152m 76-112m 112-152m
-2.0
-2.0
-2.0
-2.9
-2.5
-1.3
-1.7
-0.8
+0.4
1.3
1.7
2.7
3.5
4.4
6.1
6.4
7.8
8.9
8.9
9.4
9.4
9.0
8.9
8.5
8.3
-1.4
-4.7
-6.1
-3.9
-6.7
-3.6
-3.6
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
-1.9
-1.4
-3.6
-4.4
-3.0
-2.2
-5.5
-3.0
-1.4
-1.4
-1.4
-1.1
-2.2
-2.0
-0.7
-0.7
-1.0
-0.7
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-1.0
-1.2
-1.5
-1.2
-2.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.5
0.0
-2.0
-2.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.2
-1.0
-1.5
-1.2
WIND SPEED, m/s
b c
1.8
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.8
3.1
2.2
0.9
1.8
3.1
4.9
6.2
7.1
1.3
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.2
2.9
2.3
1.4
2.2
3.3
4.7
4.8
5.4
WIND DIRECTION
b c
320
290
30
0
40
90
80
30'
340
20
320
290
280
330+30
280+30
30+40
30+40
40+40
70+30
60±40
0-V
320+40
0+30
300+30
280+.10
280+10
REL. HUMIDITY, % ISOLATION
a b d cal/cm2-HR
35
36
36
36
35
34
33
32
30
25
28
28
28
28
28
28
51 54
50
47
44
42
39
37
34
28
31
28
27
27
27
34
28
50
22
30
34
36
12
14
4
a - Data from HCAR Hydrothermograph
b - Data from PSCo Hydrothermograph or wind tower (10m)
c - Data from Meteorological Research Inc. (MRI) ground station (wlnd@3m)
d - Data from Assman Psychrometer or metal thermometer near base of cooling tower
-------
TABLE /). AMBIENT DATA AT COIIANCHE POWER PLANT. KARCH 26, 1975
CO
ro
?.u:< ACTUAL TIME
110. RUN TIME HOT
0800
0830
0900
30 0936-45 0930
31 1003-14 1000
32 1030-41 1030
38 1057-1108 1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
1700
TEMP. AT GROUND,
a t> c
-2.0
-1.5
-0.8
0.0
+1.1
2.0
3.7
5.1
6.9
7.8
9.6
10.9
12.2
12.0
14.0
14. 1
14.8
13.8
11.3
-3.1 -3
-2
-2.2 -1
0
+0.1 +0
1
2.2 4
6
5.6 7
11
8.6 10
11
10.2 13
12
13.3 15
14
14.2 15
13
12.8
.2
.2
.1
.0
.6
.7
.5
.1
.2
.1
.0
.7
.9
.8
.3
.4
.0
.3
, °C TEMP
d 76m
+2.0
3.7
5.5* 4.4
5.9
6.8
11.5* 8.6
7.5 8.6
10-. 0
12.0
13.0
13.5
14.6
14.5
13.5
11.2
. ALOFT. °C
112m 152m
-2.3
-2.1
-1.6
-1.6
-0.4
+0.7
2.2
4.2
5.3
6.9
7.8
8.9
11.3
12.8
13.0
13.9
13.5
12.5
10.0
-2.8
-2.7
-2.3
-2.1
-0.7
0.0
+1.5
2.7
4.5
6.1
7.6
8.3
10.7
12.4
12.4
13.3
12.8
11.9
10.7
LAPSE RATE "C/lOOm
76-1 12m 11 2- 152m
-8.3
-6.1
-4.7
-4.2
-4.7
-2.2
-3.0
-1.9
-0.6
-1.4
-1.9
-2.8
-2.8
-3.3
-1.2
-1.5
-1.7
-1.2
-0.7
-1.7
-1.7
-3.7
-2.0
-2.0
-0.5
-1.5
-1.5
-1.0
-1.5
-1.5
-1.7
-1.5
+1.7
WIND SPEED, m/s WIND DIRECTION
be be
4.0 3.8 10 10+JO
10120
4.0 3.2 30 40+30
50+30
3.1 2.5 40 50+30
20+30
1.8 1.8 40 0+90
0 HV
1.3 1.7 0 0 HV
30+40
1.8 2.0 0 30+60
70+90
2.2 2.6 90 90 HV
120+90
2.7 2.8 110 70+60
190+40
4.9 3.7 210 190+40
270+60
7.6 270
REL. HUMIDITY. X ISOLATION
a b d cal/cm2-HR
52
56
54
50
47
43
39
37
34
32
31
28
28
28
28
36
82
78
55
74 54
61
56
50 63
35
29
30
39
retal thermometer
a - Data from NCAR Hydrothermograph
b.- Data from PSCo Hydrothermograph or wind tower (10m)
c - data from Meteorological Research Inc. (MRI) ground station (w1nd83n)
d - Data from Assman Psychrometer or metal thermometer near base of cooling tower
-------
KEY TO TABLES 3 AND 4
BlankNo data for indicated time.
Temperatures AloftTemperatures from sensors on Public Service Co.
(PSC) Stack at 76,112 and 152 meter heights.
Wind SpeedsDesignation such as 3.1 G 10.7 indicates 3.1 meters/sec.
mean, gusts to 10.7 meters/sec. Meteorological Research
Institute (MRI) values are averaged over one hour period.
Wind Direction0° North, 90° East, 180° South, 270° West. PSC values
are hourly mean. MRI values are hourly mean; HV means
highly variable, direction varied up to 360° in one hour.
V means direction varied up to 180° in 1 hour; ±
indicates approximate range of variation.
Temperatures at Ground
a - Data from NCAR Hydrothermograph
b - Data from PSCo Hydrothermograph or wind tower (10m)
c - Data from Meteorological Research Inc. (MRI) Ground
Station (wind @ 3m)
d - Data from Assman Psychrometer or Metal Thermometer
near base of cooling tower.
33
-------
SECTION 7
MULTIPLE CELL PLUME, NORTH CAROLINA
The tower plume sampled here came from one of the two, nine cell
mechanical draft towers located at Duke Power Company's Cliffside plant.
The individual stack diameter was about 10 meters and the exit plume velocity
was about 10.4 meters per second. The power plant output varied between
300 and 575 megawatts.
The meteorological conditions prevailing during the sampling runs at
the Cliffside Power Plant were significantly different from the conditions
at either the Turkey Point or the Comanche tests. During most of this study
period the winds at the Cliffside Power Plant were so light that the plume
rose nearly vertically. When the plume did bend, it was often too high to
use a smooth traversing technique. In this case, the blimp/radiosonde was
used to make point measurements in and around the plume in tfte.vicinity of
the tower. Plans called for use of a three-man crew, with sensor positions
determined by a single theodolite and a new radiosonde which included a
pressure altimeter. Unfortunately, the altimeter malfunctioned, so again it
was necessary to use two theodolites for accurate position. Most of the
data points in the appendix were taken this way. The location of the cooling
towers and coordinate system adopted is shown in Figure 24. The origin of
the coordinate system is at the center of cooling tower B at the level of
the stack rim. All of the data collected have .been reduced according to this
coordinate scheme. The volume of the data and its three-dimensional nature
preclude its being shown in Figure 24. Instead, these data are presented in
the appendix.
Meteorologists and engineers from Duke Power Company made wind
measurements at two elevations. The lower level wind was measured at about
the same elevation as the base of the cooling tower but located across the
river. This sensor measured total feet of wind run. The upper level
anemometer was located on a water tower approximately 50 meters above the
top of the cooling tower stacks. Unfortunately, problems developed with
this upper level wind sensor and some of the data were uncertain. However,
the wind often was very light, almost calm. As expected, under these
conditions, the wind did not establish a very definitive direction.
Duke Power Company also provided measurements of the cooling towers
and plant operating conditions (Table 5).
A special sampling run was conducted at the Cliffside towers to
determine the conditions of the plume relatively close to the stack exit.
These measurements were taken about 46 meters above the tower cells by using
34
-------
MRI Anemometer a Thermometer
o
z = -14 m
Cooling Tower A
100m
Cooling Tower B
Cooling Tower Rims
are at z = 0.0 m
100 m
Chimney
O
200 m
300 m
o
Y-axis Water Tower Anemometer
Elev: 50m
Figure 24. Cliffside coordinate system.
35
-------
TABLE 5. CLIFFSIDE POWER PLANT DATA
Date
1975
Oct.
Oct.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
30
31
1
3
3
4
4
5
5
Start
Time
1337
1325
1247
0946
1428
0921
1411
0908
1403
Stop
Time
1628
1559
1534
1201
1600
1221
1619
1246
1618
Average
Generated
Megawatts
575
575
315
325
322
303
303
387
395
Tower A
Water
Temp, in
°C
33.2
32.1
22.2
25.0
25.8
25.6
26.6
29.1
30.4
Tower B
Water
Temp, in
°C
33,1
32.1
22.6
25.3
26.1
25.8
26.9
29.3
30.7
Tower A
Water
Temp . i n
°C
20.4
19.3
15.1
17.3
18.6
18.5
19.6
20.2
21.6
Tower B
Water
Temp, in
°C
20.2
19.4
14.9
17.7
18.4
18.5
19.7
20.4
21.6
Tower A
Water
Flow 106
Kg/hr
25.
25.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
25.
8
6
5
3
2
2
1
0
9
Tower B
Water
Flow 106
Kg/hr
23.8
24.2
24.5
24.3
23.5
24.1
23.4
23.9
23.0
-------
two tethers on either side of the tower. The position was determined by
sighting with a single theodolite and noting which cell the blimp was above.
The results of these close-in measurements are as follows:
Time 1255-1302, 1 November 1975
Average Plume Temperature 17.0°C
Ambient Dry Bulb Temperature 15.3
Ambient Humidity 30%
Average exit velocity 10.4 m/sec
Plume Efflux Temperature 25.5°C
Wind Speed (MRI) 2.36 m/sec
Wind Direction (MRI) 200°
The field observations at Cliffside showed how the plume from a
mechanical draft tower behaved under relatively light, almost calm wind
conditions. In this case, the thickness of the plume cross section
perpendicular to the tower axis remained narrower than the plume width
parallel to the tower axis for a distance of over 500 meters. However, if
the wind speed did pick up at an oblique angle to the lower axis there was
a tendency for the edge of this two-dimensional plume sheet to fold over.
37
-------
REFERENCES
1. Kramer, M. L. and D. E. Seymour. John E. Amos Cooling Tower Flight
Program Data: December 1974 - March 1975. American Electric Power
Service Corp. Smith-Singer Meteorologists Inc., Amityville, NY. 1975.
2. Slawson, P. R., J. H. Coleman, and J. W. Frey. Some Observations on
Cooling Tower Plume Behavior at the Paradise Steam Plant. Cooling Tower
Environment-74. CONF-74032, ERDA Symposium Series. National Technical
Information Service. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, VA. 1974. pp. 147-160.
3. Meyer, J. H., T. W. Eagles, L. C. Kohlenstein, J. A. Kagan, and W. D.
Stanbro. Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower Visible Plume Behavior:
Measurements, Models, Predictions. Cooling Tower Environment-74. CONF-
74032, ERDA Symposium Series. National Technical Information Service.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA. 1974. pp. 307-352.
r
4. Schrecker, G. 0., R. 0. Webb, D. A. Rutherford, and F. M. Shorner.
Drift Data Acquired on Mechanical Salt Water Cooling Devices: EPA-650/
2-75-060, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1975.
5. West, R., Preliminary Data for University of Colorado Report on U.S. EPA
Grant No. R802893-01, Corvallis Envrionmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, OR.
6. Winiarski, L. D., W. Frick, and B. Tichenor. Cooling Tower Plume
Measurements, Proceedings of the International Conference on Environ-
mental Sensing and Assessment. IEEE Service Center, 445 Hoes Lane,
Piscataway, NJ. 1976.
7. Winiarski, L. D. and W. Frick. Cooling Tower Plume Model. EPA-600/3-
76-100, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 1975.
38
-------
APPENDIX A
EXPLANATION OF TABLE A-l
The data from the Cliffside Cooling Towers are organized in Table A-l
as follows: Column 1 indicates the date of the run, either the end of
October or the beginning of November in 1975; Columns 2, 3, 4, are, respec-
tively, the x, y, z, coordinate locations of the balloon and radiosonde.
Column 5 is the number of seconds elapsed since the beginning of the
particular sampling run. The presence of the number 1 in column 6 signifies
that the balloon was judged to have gone into the plume. The data were
examined for a period of approximately a 10-second interval before and after
the position indicated. Column 7 is the average temperature over this
period. Columns 8, 9, 10 are the average, maximum, and minimum relative
humidity, respectively. This must be considered in using the data,
particularly close to the tower where the blimp could move in and out of the
plume within this time interval. Column 11 is the actual time. The presence
of the numeral 1 in column 12 indicates the start of a run. Columns 13, 14,
15 are, respectively, the wind direction in degrees, the wind speed in
meters per second, and temperature in degrees centigrade recorded by the MRI
Station located across the Broad River in Figure 24. When available, the
data in Column 16 and 17 are, respectively, the relative humidity calculated
onsite using a sling psychrometer and the tower efflux velocity. Interspaced
in the table are the wind direction/speed from the top of the water tower,
the plume efflux temperatures of designated cells on Tower B, on-site
temperatures and a few relevant comments.
39
-------
TABLE A-l. CLIFFSIDE PLUME DATA
>
0
z;
^*^
4->
O
0
OJ
-»->
O)
+j
«o
c
1
O
i-
O
O
o
x
(X.
2
100
125
177
26U
166
155
1 3b
140
137
-277
163
135
12H
12H
202
202
196
?01
c
o
0
r
fQ
CO
*4
O
A
Y
3
110
32
4
30
61
29
7
4
-22
234
17
0
-15
-23
93
62
48
25
C/3
o>
c
r-
P
.C
0>
r
CO
\
I]
4
45
48
66
39
141
114
61
27
2
382
54
48
30
2
103
95
78
66
u
O)
r-
-a
CL !-
E
0)
1
C
QJ
S
7
19.
19.
20.
20.
18.
18.
19.
20.
21.
17.
18.
19.
19.
19.
lb.
16.
16.
16.
2
9
2
7
6
6
2
8
1
6
8
4
4
0
2
2
0
b
E
a:
c
\
0) E *~*
>> TJ * CJ
-M «o c c «-i
r- O +J -- OC
^~ ^C co *^g *g ^"
10 11 12 13 14 15
16 1 010 3.0 18.3
54
15
15 1424
16 1430 1 350 3.0 18.3
16
16
20
35
16 1530 1 350 3.0 18.0
15
18
20
18
17 1540 i 340 3.4 17.3
15
15
15
u
>> at
4-» Vt
r- **^
-o ^g
E ^*
a: ro»
£>
!->
C ^
0) 3
r- r-~
"§ *-
16 17
31 tfATEK TOWER WIND 280/MlSSING
31 182 -11 101 4 0 16.7 17 17 17 1405 1 030 2.0 13.3
186 -52 46 97 0 14.5 18 18 18
TOWEtf WIND 325/MISSING
174 -76 106 15 C 13.5 17 17 17 1445 1 060 1.8 13.3
131-104 180 90 1 14.4 20 37 17
P78-368 265 145 1 14.4 19 33 17
139 -72 25 185 1 16.3 22 38 17
131 -67 0 210 1 16.6 25 32 21
40
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
r = " ^ fi 5 "a 4jQt/> £ £ 3
1 --J ^ -n "O »r- r
a £ I I I I 2 2 I I i i £
34 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
WATEK TOWEK WIND 355/MISSIN6
-85 ?.? 3? 1 15.5 33 47 20 1 030 1.9 13.3
118 0 -25 145 0 13.7 17 17 17
176 -67 138 145 C 13,7 17 17 17
216-1?? 146 187 1 14.5 17 23 15
241-148 180 221 0 13.3 17 17 17
200-119 176 268 0 13.0 17 17 17
267-17? 190 306 0 12.7 17 17 17 1455
1 1010 CELLS 2»3»5»9: 27» 27» 28» 28 DEG
WATEK TOWEK WIND OIO/MISSING
1 -101-2?? 168 0 0 13.3 42 42 42 1445 1 180 2.6 18.0
-82-212 155 50 0 13.1 42 42 42
-20-203 152 1^6 1 13.5 42 49 40
-2^-168 128 151 I 12.7 64 75 55
-13-158 118 188 1 13.2 58 63 55
W4TEH TOwEH WIND 060/MISSING
3 -140 -59 168 52 1 13.5 69 72 66 1035 1 190 1.8 15.2 64 10.6
-125 -47 141 101 1 13.6 72 74 69
-104-109 82 188 1 14.0 67 69 66
WATER TOWEK WIND 045/MISSING
-157 -53 247 82 1 12.y 68 73 66 1045 1 220 1.8 15.7
-119 -56 204 136 1 13.to 66 71 65
-111 -29 169 184 1 13.8 69 71 68
-110 -60 128 221 1 14.3 68 71 67
-97 -55 10? 259 1 14.6 66 73 64
WATEk TCMER w/INO 050/MISSING
-74 -96 195 136 0 16.5 63 64 63 1050 1 240 1.8 16.2
-147 -97 254 192 1 16.C 65 66 64
-193-128 205 247 1 14.8 68 72 66
WATcK TOWER WIND VRd/MlSSlNG
-149 -47 285 0 1 13.8 67 72 64 1055 1 270 1.7 16.9
-126 -10 292 275 1 14.2 65 68 63
PIBAL 0
41
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
^ 00
V? &^ ' v> +* v>
TT cT>> ^-oiE77-"aE
>i>» ~a o £
l/l ^ .,- +J .!-> 0) || ^ O £
|| ~O ! -I E "O *" 3 i
Q. -r- -O -O - C E E !-- I 3 S- <1> CL >
EEO) 3EE ctr-r-Q. E, "£ v
i- 31 OC33i QOO /" F, £
I IE 3L 1C !-> I -i- -j- ^ E M-
o£ I-H s: ssisicc^ss S
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
o
0)
to
c_>
o
>,>,
+J «->
X
ro
O)
OL
CO
.
O
a.
E
O)
>,
M
r
TJ
E
3
n:
-M
c:
o
ai
t/>
^^
E
B
,_
OJ
>
X
i.
nJ
-0
C
Qi
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
> «/)
o
^ (O
^j c
U T-
o -o
o
o
(U O
+J
re x1 "
Q ft
1 2
1030
4 20
24
17
10
-11
-118
-148
-116
-134
-136
-155
-195
-162-
-125-
-104
-60
-55-
c
o
o
^
CO
t/)
-\
1}
4
CELLS 1-
146
123
105
87
76
40
9
26
29
22
11
-78
131
105
-73
-99
110
-41-207
-86-
-113-
-167-
-193
-219
-99
-199
-222
-178
16
-34
27
-155
-206
-170
-14
23
4
-47
-96
195
149
106
-72
-18
-35
74
-8
-34
-31
-30
166
<»4
-46
-53
-20
-6
-42
-78
-12
29
58
76
118
145
168
159
372
380
375
328
286
286
333
417
360
351
290
260
256
256
263
267
317
178
175
226
293
34H
4.
323
245
254
302
280
274
362
444
o
o
CO
r~
1
C.
3
cn
5
9: 25
77
127
177
267
315
382
429
716
756
795
834
898
991
1056
1142
1278
1413
1480
1537
1619
1714
1839
1981
2050
382
TIME
494
547
618
736
868
940
1039
1095
1155
1245
1297
13<*7
1*26
u
O)
^
O-
c.
1 1
6
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
c
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
CJ
0
1
L_
C
IO
>> a>
»« *-* w ** in
en t- "^.
r- k ^3 ^-^ CJ **~~ ***^
»-> a> u ^-" £_^ -E
5 -r- c
E o£ T- a. E -t-1
§ i a i/i 01 c x
3Z (0 4-> 1 01 3
3 J- -0 -0 -r-
c-u race S "S t
r CJ +* *f *"" DC C H
2£ ^C to ^E 3 S ^C Lu
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
5,26.0,27.0,27.0,26.0,26.0,27.0
55
55
55
55
55
55
58
67
61
59
62
58
57
58
59
61
62
59
57
57
61
56
55
60
55
55 1100 1 210 1.2 23.0 10.6
55
55
55
55
55
57
62
60
59
59
58
57
58
59
60
58
56
56
57
56
56
55
56
55 1135 1 250 1.2 23.3
APPROA
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
20.
20.
18.
18.
17.
18.
20.
20.
18.
19.
19.
19.
18.
7
7
8
6
5
4
9
1
9
3
9
8
2
56
56
56
60
58
57
54
56
58
57
60
58
59
60
59
58
63
58
57
54
57
61
57
58
60
59
54
55
55
57
56 1150
57
54
55
57
57
57
57
59
44
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
>
o
»-»
o
o
O»
o
C
-------
TABLE A-1. (continued)
--^ 00
v> . ^-^ » >>, XI O !-
>. in in - !- +J -> Q. M ~O "O > E fl) ICQ)
\ (0 OO1
+3C r- c E E I
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
>
o
4J
U
O
to
Coordinates
of Balloon
ft Y~~
2 3
220-221
207-202
160-194
152-204
184-136
244-284
228-276
160-217
186-279
207-325
239-365
232-395
241-389
222-391
169-349
163-347
157-318
140-285
134-258
130-239
217 *0
72-196
78-212
74-230
82-242
72-284
51-283
55-286
54-189
87-276
70-224
Sightings
T\
4
211
216
234
198
137
147
213
292
298
326
377
332
345
333
298
260
236
229
225
185
741
232
224
239
235
204
205
175
219
218
243
>
-5
'i
c
as
O)
8
57
58
56
52
52
50
51
52
51
50
51
50
51
51
50
50
50
51
51
51
WIND
WIND
55
58
58
56
54
56
55
55
59
55
55
* -
**-*
o
r*
E
X
(B
2:
9
63
67
58
5?
5?
51
51
55
51
50
51
50
51
51
50
50
50
51
51
54
o
O)
*e *-~~ c/i
a; E
f- E "O
-o -i- c a>
r- t 3 J-
3 j- -a -a
C +3 CO C C
- >
C_>
o
Q.
O)
E
->
E
O)
-Q
-I
0)
15 15 17
24.7
47
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
o
>
<»
«/»
0
0)
>
o
z.
-^
o
o
O)
«->
&
1
Coordinates
ft
2
c
0
o
(TS
CO
O
^^^
Y
3
98-273
76-204
5
86-
83-
88-
131-
195
195
128
167
Sightings
zi
4
154
144
119
86
88
91
0930 REL HUM
in
C
«O
2:
7
21.
21.
22.
22.
22.
22.
9
7
0
2
2
0
5
r
OZ
C
rd
0)
8
59
54
56
59
59
66
r-
i
E
3
DC
X
as
g
64
54
59
60
61
67
IE 5 s 2: <: ui
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
56 1 080 .9 24.1
54
54
57
58
65
HYGRISTOR CALIBRATED TO SLING PSYCHROMETER
WATER
5
-30
1
33
-61
-71
-106
-145
-142
-111
-124
-78
-27
33
19
20
-48
-8
-23
-20
-1
66
69
27
36
16
-27
33
34
-1
-21
-7
5
65
128
145
124
89
56
49
64
71
80
103
121
132
155
154
166
98
78
248
205
240
262
257
229
?03
184
155
103
53
68
150
153
215
258
244
245
2?7
324
176
?68
4
172
167
265
324
374
427
4t>8
516
589
663
768
858
917
1020
28
74
133
209
273
317
366
fG4
481
54?
33
116
170
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C
0
0
0
I
0
TOWER
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
12.
13.
13.
14.
14.
13.
13.
12.
13.
13.
13.
13.
12.
12.
13.
13.
13.
16.
21.
21.
5
3
4
3
8
8
5
8
3
3
2
3
6
4
3
3
0
7
9
2
6
8
0
4
7
WIND 925/2.7
73
75
74
83
80
77
71
77
69
69
71
71
68
71
68
76
77
77
74
72
70
68
62
59
60
74
80
77
86
83
77
71
77
69
69
71
71
70
74
72
78
83
79
75
72
70
68
63
59
60
72 1027 1 270 .7 20.5 10.5
72
71
81
76
76
71
76
69
69
71
71
68 1042 1 360 1.1 22.2
68
67
75
73
76
72
72
70
68
61 1054 1 030 1.0 24.1
59
60
48
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
o
o
i v
ate Oct/Nov
\ Coordinates
0 fx
1 2
-63
-14
-23
-31
7
38
-7
-26
-9
26
30
4
11
12
PIBAL 3
-90
-86
-72
-73
-33
1
1
12
17
28
81
37
27
6
27
8
27
42
c
o
o
fO
CO
0
. -"
Y
3
26
53
-40
20
-67
-57
-31
-9
6
41
46
63
46
24
-32
-68
-67
-53
-58
-80
-73
-74
-72
-14
-8
48
44
9
12
-16
-48
-27
O)
c
i
4J
-C
cn
CO
-x
Zl
4
185
167
189
169
186
178
191
186
193
192
169
179
156
143
33
41
57
72
61
64
74
62
72
155
155
113
116
104
80
78
82
79
- ii
p^
Q) Q} ^z
r- 3 1
-EC
E «0
C£. > i 5C
5
225
27<+
317
370
<*32
515
571
642
683
723
784
824
861
900
1230
2
32
82
132
169
205
245
276
309
344
402
448
510
562
630
677
754
805
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
]
1
1
1
o
l
l
7
17
16
15
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
.5
.7
.3
.8
.8
.8
.2
.1
.5
.8
.9
.7
.0
.3
CELLS
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
U
1
1
23
23
24
24
23
24
24
23
23
23
21
21
21
18
19
19
19
20
.6
.5
.5
.5
.8
.8
.6
.6
.8
.1
.1
.4
.3
.<*
.3
.7
.0
.6
5
rs
31
to
D- >
c ceL -i- a. E <-
31 Q CO QJ C X
"n 3 S--OT3 I_I!Q«^
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
63
66
67
71
63
62
66
65
67
64
63
64
65
63
31.0* 31.0
59 1242 1 030 1.4 26.8 42
59
59
59
59
58
58
59
59
61
59
59
59
63
62
61
60
60
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
0
0)
CJ
O
v>
0)
-t->
(O
c
-a
o
o
o
/^X
2
26
-8
-2
-10
20
58
77
72
90
38
43
48
45
18
10
64
73
69
14
65
17
16
46
74
14
50
94
70
45
63
73
32
11
40
45
c
0
o
ca
*»-
O
. -^
Y
3
16
10
7
8
14
10
5
-3
-8
-23
-41
-14
-9
-8
-2?
-21
-13
-14
-3
6
19
26
39
20
-11
-26
-37
-37
-38
-35
-25
-11
-6
5
12
en
c
sz
en
"^
4
56
34
24
45
93
118
122
99
71
89
98
95
77
76
111
129
132
159
134
103
96
79
68
67
107
135
77
104
106
104
78
79
88
65
89
in
a>
^
i
c
5
79
142
199
248
304
339
376
411
444
495
573
624
660
709
752
797
835
891
936
972
1010
1049
1208
6
66
113
151
217
309
362
407
446
486
539
560
ii
Q_
t 1
6
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Q.
7
18.
18.
21.
21.
20.
18.
20.
21.
21.
21.
22.
21.
21.
23.
22.
20.
20.
20.
20.
19.
19.
19.
19.
18.
18.
18.
20.
20.
20.
20.
20.
19.
19.
20.
20.
7
6
5
5
7
9
1
5
3
6
2
7
9
0
0
5
9
5
5
fi
8
1
0
7
8
3
8
1
5
2
7
3
0
6
8
3
DC
C
QJ
8
63
63
64
63
64
61
61
61
61
60
60
60
63
61
60
60
60
60
D w
\o u
61
62
63
63
64
63
63
63
61
62
65
65
64
65
67
5
'i
IE
X
ra
9
63
64
69
67
71
62
61
63
62
60
60
65
68
62
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
62
63
63
72
67
65
67
61
65
71
76
68
72
73
o
'i
r-
10
63
62
61
61
62
61
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
61
62
63
63
62
61
62
61
61
61
62
62
62
61
64
O)
£=
h^
^
O-
X
3
i~"
f-
*-
UJ
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1300 1 360 1.2 26.8
1322 1 070 1.5 27.2
50
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
fr«
*e
ate Oct/Nov
\ Coordinates
o fx
1 2
139
101
31
-3
c
o
0
ro
to
O
. *
Y
3
61
-26
-36
-74
17-104
-14
30
75
105
101
81
49
41
35
6
40
43
65
41
23
-35
-4
-12
14
11
12
18
44
45
31
23
65
-49
-74
-93
-55
-41
-42
13
15
5
-7
-16
-5
6
4
3
-81
-67
-53
-89
-70
-33
-8
2
21
28
34
7
vt
en
c:
i
en
i
to
>
Zl
4
234
158
154
150
124
212
196
177
164
134
98
93
85
95
110
89
111
85
60
63
58
73
89
61
77
81
75
51
45
48
29
33
o
to
i
r-
I
1
5
11
48
lib
172
217
247
285
323
362
393
440
<*8l
562
614
652
705
747
824
889
910
1403
181
260
314
362
403
4^*9
486
531
579
611
b37
692
r
II
ai
3
t
0-
c
1 1
6
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
Ci
1
0
1
1
c
1
0
o
o.
i
c
03
a>
7
17.
17.
17.
18.
19.
21.
20.
21.
21.
21.
21.
22.
21.
2C.
18.
19.
21.
19.
18.
17.
6
8
9
2
8
2
7
1
6
8
2
1
8
5
7
1
2
7
C
6
ON SITE
1
1
0
1
o
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
24.
22.
23.
23.
22.
22.
2
0
8
0
3
V
23.0
22.
21.
21.
22.
20.
9
8
6
0
7
o
r
E
c:
fO
01
8
64
63
62
65
63
62
64
62
60
60
60
61
60
62
67
62
62
62
63
65
*
o
'i
rn
X
03
s:
9
66
65
63
72
66
62
69
64
60
60
6C
65
60
62
73
62
66
65
63
72
TEMP
64
63
63
64
63
63
63
63
63
64
65
65
66
65
63
66
63
63
63
63
63
72
67
65
-a
i
c
10
64
63
62
63
60
61
61
61
60
60
60
59
60
62
62
62
60
62
63
62
29.0
62
62
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
65
O)
£
1*
1
^_
(O
3
-!->
0
=C
II
c
3
C£.
+J
J-
fC
4->
in
Dl
(/)
^
o
O)
O)
Q.
V)
-o
c
3
c_>
o
^ ^
Q.
E
O)
h-
i i
Od
2:
£
o
i
3
nr
+->
c
X
3
<^
<4-
LU
1335 1 045 1.2 27.2
1 360 1.4 27.2 42
1425
51
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued^
^. 00
fc« ^ --x > O- >
~"~~ *" " ^~ ^~ ^~ *** *""" * ^" ^»z » >k 5^ ^ ^x
O-r- i -i- -i- pi re 3 3 i Q CO OJCX
-I .at
____- _ a: E M-
o b co a: -< ^ 2: 2: s: «< to 3 3
7
22.
23.
21.
22.
22.
22.
22.
21i
21.
21.
21,
2?;
22.
22.
22.
21.
21.
20.
19.
19.
19.
20.
19.
19.
20.
20.
19.
19.
22.
18.
19.
19.
19.
20.
21.
20.
19.
20.
0
3
5
0
7
5
2
3
3
7
7
3
2
3
0
8
5
6
9
V
6
0
8
8
6
0
9
6
9
0
6
0
5
7
2
5
5
2
1
3
C
8
61
61
64
61
63
61
61
61
62
61
61
61
65
64
65
65
63
6?
63
64
64
62
62
63
65
67
65
64
65
64
61
62
61
61
61
61
61
62
52
o
'i
X
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
*«
>
o
o
o
4_)
c
*^~
+J
1
CO
~~?1
4
220
167
222
162
151
133
182
151
176
154
133
139
151
99
101
108
159
197
187
?46
171
136
116
74
72
155
163
176
149
86
1 Ra
>, ^ zL ^ ?
£ E "O *
"O !- C -r- - C£
s: -=c co 3 3 s:
10 11 12 13 14 15
62 1549 1 030 1.1 26.8
62
63
62
62
63
63
63
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
64
25.6* r*EL HUM 54
59 Il4b 1 045 1.2 25.6
61
59 1 060 2.5 25.6
59
58
58
56
58
56 1213
26. 5» *LL HUM 47
59 1 130 1.9 25.7
61
60
60
59
0
>, 01
»-> in
TD E
3 i
-| ' QJ
^>
^_>
C X
Q> 3
n r-
O If
E 4-
eC LU
16 17
53
-------
TABLE A-l. (concluded)
U
0)
O
(U
O
o
0)
id
o
ISI
Ol
(O
c
o
o
I/)
CT>
52 -77 169
83 -77 185
95-1CK 171
75 -95 192
81-133 194
74-146 189
68-169 199
17-206 215
17-206 194
53-209 173
53-221 162
63-116 ?18
56-101 222
80-129 196
67-124 185
38 -64 225
57-128 158
53-127 140
53-102 141
49-107 128
43-12? 110
3-103 167
25-108 159
-16 -71 193
89 -99 153
91 -79 180
101 -87 168
106 -89 160
129 -76 124
127 -89 120
45-182 157
10 -98 191
64 -51 197
60 -10 ?15
38 -37 218
53 -86 200
u
O)
O
o
QJ
o
(U
c
3
o:
5
609
647
7-< s:
6
y
0
J
0
C
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
o
0
0
0
0
0
'j
0
1
a
0
0
0
0
0
7
19
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
. 16
16
16
16
16
17
18
.1
.7
.3
.9
.3
.4
.3
.7
il
.2
.1
.7
.5
.6
.4
.5
.6
t>
.8
.0
.4
.3
.3
.2
.0
.0
.0
.2
.5
.3
,<+
.6
.^
.6
.3
.0
TOwEK
CELLS
i
E
C
1C
0)
8
63
57
57
58
58
59
59
63
64
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
64
65
63
63
63
64
64
63
63
62
63
62
61
62
61
58
56
EXIT
1» 2
5
'i
31
X
to
9
64
57
57
58
58
59
59
63
68
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
6?
62
75
73
63
63
63
64
64
63
63
62
65
62
61
62
61
59
58
-«-» a> ii o
r- E -0 -^
a T- c cu
i- t 3 S- 01 Q-
E a: -r- Q. E
3 i Q CO OJ
3T 10 4J 1-
3 s- -a -o M
E 5 5 s
10 11 12 13 14 15
62
57
57
5d
58
59
59 1250
63 1252 1 100 1.7 25.7
62
61
61
61
61
61
62
62
62
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
64
64
63
63
62
63
62
60
62
60
58
58
VELOCITY 35. U
, '
7i 9*. 29.0» 30. b, 31.0.
-------
TABLE A-2. RELEASED BALLOON COORDINATES
VERSUS TIME
O
(O
O
O
C7>
PIbAL 0
30
90
150
210
240
270
300
330
11
139
-29
-149
-189
-417
-584-
-749-
180
168
134
4?
2
-91
12*
141
4h
131
?11
277
252
39S
*55
489
PItiAL 1
15
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
2b
53
102
91
79
50
64
82
82
98
18b
223
256
253
234
250
278
343
416
PIBAL 2
30
60
90
120
150
IbO
130-
14?-
190-
253-
?69-
PIBAL 3
30
90
120
150
180
210
2
-24
-26
-14
13
32
37
166
300
374
432
546
725
884
981
934
27
45
95
102
159
212
256 127
331 160
404 1Q9
164 35
155 90
159 136
161 161
148 185
176 ?3H
55
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-77-025
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Field Investigations of Mechanical Draft Cooling
Tower Plumes
5. REPORT DATE
March 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Lawrence D. Winiarski and Walter F. Frick
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Assessment & Criteria Development Division
Ecosystems Modeling & Analysis Branch
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
200 S.W. 35th St. Corvallis, OR 97330
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE625
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Corvallis, OR
Corvallis Environmental Research Center
200 S.W. 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Inhouse
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/02
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Tethered Kitoon (small blimp) sampling techniques were devised to measure the
distribution of temperature and humidity in the invisible portion of power plant
cooling tower plumes from both single cell and multiple cell cooling towers under
several conditions.
These measurements, together with data collected on the ambient meteorology
and exit plume conditions, are particularly useful in moist plume modeling work.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
cooling towers, plumes
plume computer programs
plumes trajectories
plumes cooling towers
plumes, thermal analysis
plumes, atmospheric diffusion
Field 14
group 131+
19. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
66
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
56
6 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-. 1977-797-540/105 REGION 10
------- |