SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/7-78-206
November 1978
Comparison of Model
Predictions and
Consumptive Water
Use of Closed Cycle
Cooling Systems
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology- Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine 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
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
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 sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses 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 environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-206
November 1973
Comparison of Model Predictions
and Consumptive Water Use
of Closed Cycle Cooling Systems
by
Jerome B. Strauss
Versar. Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22151
Contract No. 68-02-2618
Task No.3
Program Element No. EHE624A
EPA Project Officer: Theodore G. Brna
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The objectives of this project conducted by Versar, Inc. were:
(1) to survey, verify, and calibrate, if necessary, simple generic cooling
system evaporation computer models and (2) to corrpare water evaporation
predictions made by cooling tower and cooling pond/lake models in the
same water resource region. Models were to be identified that accurately
predict evaporation rates within ±15 percent of actual operation. Seven
water resource regions were included in the study. The project was conducted
from the fall of 1977, through the sunner of 1979.
The following conclusions were drawn from this study:
The Leung and Moore cooling tower model generally predicted
evaporation rates within ±15 percent of mass balance calculated
evaporation rates, (i.e., evaporation = makeup - blowdown - drift),
for cooling towers on baseload power plants. However, the model
tended to overpredict evaporation rates for cooling towers on
power plants with low capacity factors. It was assumed that the
average make-up and blowdown flow rates provided by the utilities
were accurate representations of cooling tower operation. These
data served as the basis for testing the accuracy of computer
model predictions.
The Harbeck-Kbberg-Hughes model (Lake Colorado City study) and
the Meyer model produced the best results for predicting cooling
pond/lake evaporation when compared to water balance calculations
using field data. Both models generally predicted rates with
a ±15 percent accuracy.
11
-------
Evaporation rates normalized per surface area were quite consistent
with all the cooling pond/lake models' results. Sunnier evaporation
rates between .067-.073 cu m/min-ha (0.027-0.030 cu m/min-acre)
were found for all lakes and ponds studied. Annual values were
about 0.04-0.05 cu m/min-ha (0.02 cu m/min-acre) for cooling
ponds/lakes in southern locations and 0.03-0.04 cu m/min-ha (0.012-
0.015 cu m/ndn-acre) for northern region ponds/lakes. Results
from all models showed that natural evaporation is between
30-80 percent of total evaporation, depending upon location,
tine of year and power plant load.
Cooling ponds/lakes generally evaporate more water than cooling
towers. This relationship was true for all regional comparisons
where the cooling pond/lake area per unit power (ha/M?) ratio
was greater than 0.6 and the differences increased as the ratio
increased.
For use as simple, generic cooling system models, we would recommend
the Leung and Moore model for cooling towers and the I-feyer model
or Harbeck-Koberg-Hughes model for cooling ponds/lakes.
The results presented in the Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
(EH&A) study show cooling ponds/lakes consume less water than
cooling towers. This study indicates that cooling ponds/lakes
evaporate more water than cooling towers. Differences in conclusions
drawn by both studies were due mainly to the EH&A definition of
consumptive water use which includes a credit term for rainfall
runoff added to the pond/lake. This rainfall runoff term causes
a significant decrease in predicted consumptive water use as
compared to predicted evaporation rates.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Abstract ii
Figures v
Tables vii
Acknowledgments ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Rsconrnendations 6
4. Project Methodology 8
Models Used 8
Data Acquisition 10
Evaporation Prediction 12
Comparison of Actual Measurements and Predicted
Results 14
Comparison of Cooling Towers and Cooling Ponds/Lakes ... 16
5. Data Evaluation and Results 18
Cooling Tower Data and Results 19
Cooling Pond./Lake Data and Results 51
6. Model Accuracy and Sensitivity Analyses 76
Cooling Towers 76
Cooling Ponds /Lakes 78
7. Regional Comparison 86
Further Discussion of Evaporation Rate Predictions and
Consumptive Water Uses 89
8. References 07
9. Glossary gg
Appendix A - Computer Programs for Cooling System Models A-l
Appendix B - Meteorological Data Used for Model Predictions B-l
Appendix C - Computer Printouts of Model Predictions for
Cooling Towers c~l
^jpendix D - Computer Printouts of Model Predictions for
Cooling Ponds /Lakes D-l
Appendix E - Curves for Determining Homer City Station
Cooling Tower Evaporation Losses E-l
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Estimated increase in reservoir evaporation resulting
from the addition of heat by a power plant 12
2 Cooling tower evaporation rates calculated for various
outlet air temperatures and heat loads at Huntington
Creek Station (Utah) 22
3 Comparison of predicted and actual cooling tower
evaporation rates at North Main Steam Electric
Station (Texas) 28
4 Prediction of cooling tower evaporation rate for
synthesized full load conditions at North Main Steam
Electric Station over a six-day period 30
5 Percent deviation between predicted and material balance
values for cooling tower operation vs. capacity
factor for the El Paso Electric Co. Units 37
6 Cooling tover predicted evaporation rates based on actual
operating data for Clay Boswell Station 44
7 Material balance vs. model predicted cooling tower
evaporation rate for Homer City Steam Electric Station
(January 1977) 47
8 Material balance vs. model predicted cooling tower
evaporation rate for Homer City Steam Electric Station
(July 1977) 48
9 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Cholla Plant (1976) 54
10 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Morgan Creek Station (1960) 57
11 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Kincaid Station (1976) 60
12 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Powerton Station (1973) 63
13 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Mt. Storm Station (January 1977) 67
14 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Mt. Storm Station (July 1977) 68
15 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Robinson Station (1975-1976) 71
-------
FIGURES
(continued)
Number Page
16 Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates for
Belews Creek Station (1977) 74
17 Normalized annual evaporation rates for cooling
ponds 82
18 Water resource regions showing areas studied 87
VI
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Utah Power and Light Go.,
Huntington Station {Average 1976 Data) 20
2 Cooling Tower Performance Test Data for Arizona Public
Service Co., Navajo Plant (August 1977) .... 24
3 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Texas Electric Service
Co., North Main Station [1-Week Performance Test -
January 21-26, 1960] 26
4 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Texas Electric Service
Co., Permian Station (Six-hour Test Period,
November 5, 1958) 32
5A&B Cooling Tower Operating Data for El Paso Electric Go.,
Newman Station (August 1977) and Rio Grande Station,
Newman Station (July 1977) 33,34
6 El Paso Electric Co. Newman and Rio Grande Stations 35
7 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Arkansas Power and
Light Co., Moses Station (Annual Data 1976) 38
8 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Arkansas Power and
Light Co., Couch Station (Annual Data 1976) 39
9 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Arkansas Power and
LightCo., Lynch Station (Annual Data 1976) 40
10 Model Predicted Evaporation Rate with and without Correction
Factor Compared with Material Balance Calculated
Evaporation Rate for Arkansas Power and LightCo. Plant . . 42
11 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Minnesota Power and
LightCo., Clay Boswell Plant, Lhit 3 (January and
August 1977) 43
12 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Pennsylvania Electric
Company's Homsr City Plant (Jan, Apr, July 1977) 46
vxi
-------
TABLES
(continued)
Number Page
13 Cooling Tower Operating Data for Wisconsin Electric
Power Company' s Kochkonong Plant ............. .50
14 Cooliiig Pond Operating Data for Arizona Public
Service's Corp., Cholla Plant (Average 1974-1976) ...... 52
15 Cooling Lake Operation Data for Texas Electric Service
Company's Morgan Creek Plant, Lake Colorado City (1959-1960) 56
16 Cooling Lake Operating Data for Commonwealth Edison1 s ,
Kincaid Station (1977 Annual Data) ............. 58
17 Cooling Pond Operating Data for Commonwealth Edison,
Powerton Station (Unit #5 and #6 1977 Annual Data) ..... 62
18 Cooling Lake Operating Data for Virginia Electric and
Power1 s Mt. Storm Plant (Jan and July 1977) ......... 65
19 Cooling Lake Operating Data for Carolina Power and Light
Company' H.B. Robinson Plant (April 1975-March 1976) ..... 69
20 Cooling Lake Operating Data for Duke Power Company1 s Belews
Creek Station (1977 Annual Average) ............. 73
21 Comparison of All Cooling Tower Evaporation Rates, as
Calculated and Normalized .................. 77
22 Summary of Cooling Pond/Lake Material Balance and Computer
Model Evaporation Values on an 'As Is1 and Normalized
Basis ............................ 79
23 Monthly Adjusted Pan Evaporation Data Compared to Cooling
Pond ''odel Total Evaporation Predictions (m3/min) ...... 84
24 Bagional Comparison of Cooling System Evaporation Bate
. .
25 Comparison of EH&A Method With and Without Rainfall
Runoff Method ........................ 92
vzn
-------
The preparation of this report was accomplished through the efforts
of the staff of Versar, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, under the direction
of Dr. Robert G. Shaver, Vice President. Mr. Jerome B. Strauss, P.E.,
Environmental Engineer and Principal Investigator, directed the project
work with significant assistance from Dr. George L. Zarur, Systems Analyst.
We would like to thank Dr. Theodore G. Brna and Dr. Edward Bobalek,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, for
their invaluable contribution to this study. Dr. Brna was the Project
Officer for this program. Dr. Bobalek was the Project Officer on a pre-
liminary, but complementary,study concerning generic cooling system models.
Versar gratefully acknowledges the cooperation received from the
utility industry in performing this study, especially: Arkansas Power
& Light Company, Arizona Public Service Corporation, Carolina Power & Light
Company, Commonwealth Edison, Duke Power Company, El Paso Electric Company,
Minnesota Power & Light Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania Electric Company, the Salt River Project, Texas Utilities
Services, Inc., Utah Power & Light Company, Virginia Electric and Power
Company and Wisconsin Electric Power Company. We would also like to
acknowledge the special help and review of the report provided us by
representatives of the Utility Water Act Group and their contractor, Espey,
Huston & Associates Inc.
Also, our appreciation is extended to the individuals of the technical
staff of Versar, Inc., for their contribution and assistance during this
program. Specifically, our thanks to:
Mr. J. M. Lindsay, Physicist
Mr. P. Powers,Environmental Scientist
Mr. R. D. Miller, Draftsman
Mr. S. Deane, Draftsman
Mr. C. E. Thomas, Environmental Engineer
ix
-------
Acknowledgment and appreciation is also given to the secretarial
staff of Versar, Inc., for their efforts in the typing of drafts, necessary
revisions and final preparation of this document.
x
-------
SECTION 1
This project was initiated through the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory of the EPA Office of Research and Development at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. This is one of several projects supported by the
laboratory to assist EPA's updating of effluent guidelines for the steam-
electric generating industry.
As a part of this updating, the EPA evaluated models that predict
the site specific water evaporation caused by steam-electric generating
plants. The first step in this evaluation was to survey and analyze
existing simple, generic computer models that predict evaporative losses
from power plant closed-cycle cooling systems.
The second phase of the program was to verify and calibrate, if
necessary, the simple and generic cooling system evaporation models selected
earlier. The third phase of the program was to compare water evaporation
from closed cycle cooling ponds/lakes and towers on a regional basis and
to provide a simple regional classification.
Five tasks were performed to satisfy the requirements of this project.
The first task was to obtain actual operating data on cooling towers and
cooling ponds/lakes at representative steam-electric power plants. The type
of data requested provided input to cooling system models and allowed calcula-
tion of water balances around the cooling system. The information obtained
from the utilities was used as received, unless it appeared to be inconsist-
ent or questionable. In such cases, the utility was contacted for verifi-
cation of its data. Because of time constraints, only data from power plants
in five water resource regions were obtained. The seven regions vere the
qaper Mississippi, Ohio, Mid Atlantic, South Atlantic-Gulf, Texas Gulf,
Rio Grande and Lower Colorado.
-------
The second task used the actual operating data to test the accuracy
of the simple, generic models selected. Model prediction evaluations
involved comparison of model results with mass balance calculations of
evaporation rates or evaporation values provided by the utilities themselves.
The percent deviation of computer-predicted values from given or mass
balance-calculated values was determined and any major deviations were
analyzed to determine possible causes.
Since a major tool in causal determinations is sensitivity analysis,
the third task was to perform sensitivity analyses on the parameters within
the cooling models. Oooling pond/lake model sensitivity analyses were
performed using data on pond temperature, plant heat rejection rate and
load factor. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted for the mechanical
draft cooling tower model.
for the fourth task, a comparison was made of evaporation from power
plant cooling towers and ponds/lakes in the same water resource region. The
comparisons were performed on annual, seasonal and monthly time periods.
To eliminate size and efficiency differences between power plants, the
evaporation values were compared on a per MWe (unit power output) and
kcal/hr (heat rejection rate) basis. In addition, cooling pond/lake
evaporation rates were compared on a unit area and area/Mfe basis.
The final task involved comparing the evaporative losses for cooling
systems between water resource regions to determine which type of cooling
system evaporates less water and what factors may affect the regional differ-
ences. The results were compared to those from a similar study performed
for the Utility Water Act Group by Espey, Huston & £srociates, Inc.22
-------
SECTICN 2
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of the data for cooling systems used at 16 power plants
provided several conclusions concerning cooling system model accuracy
and evaporation rates. These conclusions are summarized below:
Results from the Leung and Moore cooling tower model1 ° were
generally within ±15 percent of the material balance calculated
evaporation rate for mechanical draft cooling towers on base-
load power plants. A plant is defined as baseload when it has
a capacity factor greater than or equal to 50 percent. For
these plants the ratio of the Leung and Moore model evaporation
predictions to evaporation rates obtained from material balance
calculations ranged from 0.67 to 1.5.
The Leung and Moore cooling tower model did not accurately
predict evaporation rates for cooling towers on power plants
with low capacity factors (i.e., peaking or intermediate load
plants). For annual capacity factors below 50 percent, the
model overpredicted evaporation rates by several hundred
percent.
The Leung and Moore model proved adequate for predicting
evaporation rates from natural draft cooling towers. Utilities
typically do not have the kind of information needed for input
to the natural draft tower cooling model developed by EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory at Corvallis, Oregon.23
The Harbeck-Koberg-Hughes model and Meyer model gave predictions
within ±15 percent of the actual value and appear appropriate
for preliminary designs or studies. The results obtained using
the five cooling pond/lake models showed that: (1) the Marciano-
Harbeck model (Lake Hefner study)2 ° produced consistently lower
3
-------
evaporation rates than the other models and also lower rates
than the material balance results; (2) the Brady model12 and the
Harbeck nomograph plus natural evaporation9 also produced
consistently low results, but these were less pronounced than
the Marciano-Harbeck model predictions; and (3) the Harbeck-
Koberg-Hughes model (Lake Colorado City study)8 and the Mayer
model12 produced the best results when compared to industry-
provided or material balance calculated evaporation rates.
There was excellent agreement between the model-predicted
values (using the most appropriate model) for cooling pond/lake
normalized summer evaporation rates in cu m/inin-ha. The values
for the four ponds/lakes analyzed ware between 0.067 and 0.073
cu m/min-ha (0.027 and 0.030 cu m/min-acre). In addition the
annual values shoved good consistency: southern region ponds/
lakes, normalized evaporation rates of 0.04-0.05 cu m/min-ha
(about 0.020 cu m/min-acre); and northern region ponds ranging
from 0.03 to 0.04 cu m/min-ha (0.01 to 0.02 cu m/min-acre).
This narrow range of values, regardless of pond geometry or area
per unit power output, indicates that a significant portion of
the cooling pond/lake evaporation is natural evaporation. The
lower annual evaporation rate differential in the northern regions
is probably caused by the cold winter weather which produces a
50 percent reduction in natural evaporation as compared to the
summer weather.
A cooling pond/lake used by a power plant with an area to
power ratio greater than 0.6 ha/t#7 results in the cooling pond/
lake evaporating more water than a cooling tower on an electric
generating unit of comparable size. This is primarily due to
the larger increase in natural evaporation as compared to the
slight decrease in forced evaporation as the area to unit power
output ratio increases.
Many results and conclusions of this study could be strengthened
or better defined if more confidence could be placed on the
4
-------
utility-supplied data. At present, the utilities do not
measure many of the parameters needed for improving water
balance estimates, especially with respect to cooling ponds/
lakes. Because the data vjere supplied by the utility and not
measured directly by the EPA contractor, confidence limits
could not be determined. The data supplied by various utilities
also differed significantly in completeness, accuracy, and
form. Consequently, a consistent methodology was developed
by Versar to permit material balance calculations. However,
since most of the utility-supplied information is routinely
needed for power plant operation, the contractor assumed
that these data were sufficiently accurate for the purposes
of the study. The appropriateness of this assumption is
supported by the good general agreement of model predictions with
field-data-based values for total evaporation rates and the
generally consistent trends of these evaporation values despite
their being based on varied sources.
This study indicates that cooling ponds generally evaporate more
water than cooling towers. The results presented in the Espey,
Huston and Associates, Inc. study show that single purpose
cooling ponds/lakes oonsxme less water than cooling towers.
Differences in conclusions drawn by these studies are due to the
EH&A definition of consumptive water use which includes a credit
term for rainfall runoff added to the pond/lake which offsets
evaporation. This rainfall runoff term causes a significant
decrease in predicted consumptive water use. If consumptive
water use is predicted using the EH&A formula, OE + (r-1) P,
the consumptive rate (C) reflects a credit term for rainfall
runoff that provides for increased water availability for down-
stream usage. This term, however, is site and time specific
and its application over large drainage basins requires further
analysis. There is also some question among hydrologists about
the applicability of the term while the results of this study do
not support using the credit term.
-------
SECTION 3
RECEMME1EIA3305SIS
The results from this study provide answsrs and insights to many
questions and oonosrns regarding water evaporation by power plant
oooling systems. The results can be used in the evaluation of power
plant operation on regional water resources. Begional EPA personnel may
use these results as a tool for licensing new plants and planning
regional activities relative to water utilization. A note of caution
is, however, that the results of the study are based on limited data
within unspecified accuracies and therefore more material balance data
for cooling ponds/lakes would be useful for further verification of results.
Based on the findings of this report, the following recoimendations
are made:
The Leung and Moore cooling tower model should be used as a simple,
generic model for estimating evaporation rates from baseload power
plants (i.e., capacity factor greater than 50 percent). No adjust-
ment of results is needed to provide accuracy of ±15 percent.
In most cases, evaporation rates from cooling ponds/lakes were
predicted to within ±15 percent of material balance values for both
the Harbeck-Koberg-Hughes model (Lake Colorado City study) and the
Msyer model. It is recomnended that, in general, either the Harbeck-
Koberg-Hughes or Meyer model be used for determining evaporation
rates and consumptive water use for future power plants using
single purpose cooling ponds/lakes.
The normalized evaporation rate coefficients (based on actual
operating capacity) for cooling towers and cooling ponds/lakes
should be compared with accurate material balances around cooling
systems in regions of the U.S. not covered by this study. This is
-------
especially true for the normalized sinner and annual evaporation
rates for cooling ponds/lakes in cu m/min-ha, which proved to be
relatively constant within the southern and northern regions,
respectively.
The normalized cooling pond/lake ratio (area per unit power) which
produces evaporation rates in cooling ponds/lakes approximately
equal to cooling towers for the same operating conditions and in the
same region should be determined in future investigations. This study
showed that the ratio is less than 0.6 ha/MSfe (1.5 acres/lVlSfe), but
could not define it further. Note that as this ratio decreases, the
thermal loading on the pond/lake increases which correspondingly increases
the forced evaporation rate; however, this increase is more than off-
set by the reduced natural evaporation rate produced by a smaller
pond/lake surface area.
Further studies should be performed to determine the validity of
the rainfall runoff credit term (P (r*-l)) applied on a regional
basis to cooling pond/lake consumptive water use. The study should
attempt to quantify the confidence limits of the credit term,
if determined to be applicable. These limits may be substantial
since the site-specific rainfall-runoff coefficient is applied
on a regional basis.
-------
SECTION 4
PROJECT METHODOLOGY
Five tasks were performed to accomplish the project. Collection of
actual operating data from various power plant closed-cycle cooling systems
was the first task. The second and third tasks involved verifying evapora-
tion predictor models with actual operating data and performing sensi-
tivity analyses to show the critical variables within each model. The
fourth task was to compare evaporation from cooling towers and cooling ponds/lakes
in a water resource region. The study culminated in a regional comparison
of evaporation rates and model accuracy.
MOEELS USED
The evaporation predictor model selection process for this program was
based upon three criteria. The first was that the models should be mathe-
matical and non-iterative with respect to input data. The second was that
the models should be generic, although any cooling system model that could
be calibrated for regional differences was acceptable. The third criterion
was the need for simple, understandable models. Since general understanding
by the public is desirable in the decision-making process and licensing
requirements for siting and operating power plants, complex computer models
wsre not considered responsive to the objectives of this program. Simplicity
was defined in terms of the definition of variables and allowance for site-
specific deviations, rather than the requirement for a simple relationship
between variables.
One model was selected for evaluation of cooling towers and five for
cooling ponds/lakes. The model selected for cooling towers was the mechanical
draft cooling tower model developed by Paul Leung and Raymond Moore10 from
studies performed for the Navajo Station in northern Arizona. In addition,
the algebraic approximations presented in the October 1973 EPA review
document1 ** were included for comparison of results.
-------
The model selected satisfies the three EPA criteria and has the added
benefit of having been used previously for effluent guidelines formulation
or subsequent hearings. The Leung and Moore node! is also widely accepted
throughout the utility industry.
The five cooling pond/lake models chosen also satisfied the criteria.
Four of the models are presented in the Littleton Research and Engineering
Corporation (May 1970) report12 for predicting the temperature of a thermally
loaded captive pond/lake. These four models fit the general mass transfer
equation:
Qo = f (w) (e -«JA
G 5 cl
where Q = evaporation rate, cfs
f (w) = wind speed function, where w is wind speed in miles per hour,
ft3/acre-sec-in. Hg
e = water vapor pressure in air at the pond/lake water surface
temperature , in. Hg
e = water vapor pressure in the ambient air, in. Hg
Si
A = pond/lake size, acres
For each model a different empirical value for f(w) is used. The four
models and their respective values for f (w) are:
Equation f (w)
Marciano-Harbeck20 (2.25 x 10~3)w
(Lake Hefner)
Harbeck-Fbberg-Hughes8 (3.31 x I0"3)w
(Lake Colorado City)
Meyer12 1.44 x 1(T2 + (1.44 x 10-3)w
Brady et al 12 1.38 x 1
-------
Vfeather Service (NWS) wind speed data to the appropriate height for use in
each model, the power law of Deacon was used.26 This expression is: u/ui =
(Z/Zi)p, where u is the wind speed at altitude Z, ui is the wind speed at
altitude Z\, and p is equal to 0.16 for flat country and lakes.
The fifth cooling pond model uses the Harbeck nomograph, developed
by G.E. Harbeck from studies at Lake Colorado City9, in conjunction with
natural evaporation rates. The nomograph is presented as Figure 1. Based
on energy balance concepts, the Harbeck nomograph permits the estimation
of forced evaporation rates resulting from the addition of heat by a power
plant to a cooling pond/lake. To use the nomograph, the heat rejection
rate, air temperature, and wind speed at the plant must be known. Given
this information, the percentage of heat added that is utilized in
increasing evaporation can be obtained from the nomograph as a function
of wind speed and water surface temperature. Dividing this value by the
product of the latent heat of vaporization and water density gives
the rate of forced evaporation. The total evaporation rate is then
calculated as the sum of the forced and natural evaporation.
For calculating natural evaporation, pan evaporation rates were obtained
from data provided by the National Vfeather Service, the U.S. Climatic Atlas
or from the utilities themselves. Note that a pan coefficient of 0.7
as recommended in Reference 25 was applied to the measured pan evaporation
data to get the correct cooling pond/lake natural evaporation rate.
All models used in this project were verified using literature-provided
data to check systems analysis and computer programning efforts.9'10'20 The
computer programs were written in Fortran IV and are presented in Appendix A.
DATA ACQUISITION
Actual cooling tower and cooling pcnd/lake operating data were solicited
from utilities, cooling tower vendors, spray module vendors and architect/
engineering firms. The utilities contacted represented all regions of the
country; twenty-one utilities gave positive responses to the data requests.
Twelve utilities responded in time to be included in this program study
representing 18 operating power plants.
10
-------
5
z
-
I
-
-
2
n
H
_
-
_
-
40 50 60 70
Water-surface Terperature, in °F
80
90
Figure 1. Estimated increase in reservoir evaporation
resulting from the addition of heat by a
power plant.9
11
-------
The type of data solicited and received ranged from hourly to
annual periods.
EVAPORATION PEEDICTION
One intent of this study was to determine the accuracy of the various
cooling system models. The accuracy was determined by comparing evaporation
rate estimates based on material balance calculations with model predictions.
Therefore the ability to reliably and accurately measure inflow and outflow
streams to the cooling system had a major effect on the accuracy determina-
tion.
For performance tests on cooling towers, correct flow data are important
to the vendor and utility , if flow rates with a ±5 percent accuracy are to
be obtained. For monthly or annual data it was assumed that the averaging
effect is provided by a sufficient approximation of station operation and an
adequate estimation of consumptive water use. The primary concern with
material balance data is short term estimation of flows which, if based on
pump curves, indirect flow measurements or experience, may be accurate to
within only ±10 or ±15 percent. Thus, the error factor in pump flow alone
may be as large as the ±15 percent accuracy requirement of the models. Since
there is no alternative for independently measuring operating data provided by
the utilities, this study assumes the reliability of the utility-provided data
is sufficient for comparison purposes in this study. Also, random measure-
ment errors should average out with the sample size of 18 power plants used
in this study.
Cooling Tower Model Input Data
Input cooling tower parameters for model prediction were heat rejection
rate to the cooling tower, make-up and blowdown water flow rate, range,
approach, cooling tower basin temperature, outlet air temperature, air flow
rate and an approximation of drift. Evaporation rates measured during perform-
ance tests or estimated in design specifications were also requested from
the utilities as an independent source for comparison with model predictions.
12
-------
Concurrent meteorological data required for the Leung and Moore model
were ambient dry and wet bulb temperature and relative humidity. Meteoro-
logical data were obtained from on-site measurements or the nearest
National Weather Service (NWS) meteorological station.
Cooling Pond/Lake Model Input Data
The cooling pond/lake model operating data required were pond/lake
temperature (measured), pond/lake inflow and outflow, pond/lake surface
area, pond/lake elevation, drainage area, estimates of runoff coefficients
and seepage. Since surface water temperatures were not usually available,
inlet water temperature to the condenser was used when the surface tempera-
ture was unavailable. Evaporation rates, if previously predicted or
measured by the utility, were also requested as an independent check on
model predictions. Meteorological input parameters were precipitation,
dry bulb temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and barometric pressure.
Evaporation Rate Estimates - Material Balance
Since evaporation rate is not measured directly, material balances were
used to calculate consumptive water use. That is, evaporation rate is the
difference between inflow (i.e., for towers it is make-up water to tower;
for lakes it is stream flow to the lake, runoff, and direct precipitation)
and outflow (i.e., for towers it is blowdown from tower and drift; for
ponds/lakes it is pond/lake outflow and seepage) associated with the
cooling system. Steady-state conditions were assumed to be maintained
throughout the operating period. For one set of cooling tower data, however,
the time period was sufficiently short that steady-state conditions could
not be assumed. For that data set an adjustment was made for basin drawdown
(as measured by the utility).
There was considerable discussion between the contractor and the utili-
ties concerning the ability to determine evaporation rates on cooling ponds/
lakes. It was noted that most natural ponds or lakes had feeder creeks,
underground springs, and indeterminant runoff conditions that caused makeup
13
-------
water values to be gross estimates at best. Lake drawdown from seepage
and outflowing streams was also considered difficult to measure or
estimate. As a result, the overriding belief was that water balances
around cooling ponds/lakes would be inaccurate. To overcome this concern,
data from man-made lakes or ponds with known make-up and outflow rates were
sought.
The water balance used the following generalized equation:
E = SF + DR+DP-OF-LE
where:
E = evaporation
SF = stream flow into the pond/lake
DR = direct runoff into the pond/lake
DP = direct precipitation on the pond/lake
OF = dam outflow
LE = change in lake volume (elevation) over the period of concern.
All values in the equation are ejqpressed in cu m/min. Note that seepage
is not included in the equation, since it is assumed negligible. If data
were available on seepage, they were included in the value 0.
Ihe cooling pond/lake material balance values for stream flow, runoff
and dam flow were estimates based on USGS hydrologic data. The OSGS
hydrologic data provide empirical equations that quantify the daily
stream flows. According to the USGS, these equations are accurate to within
±5 percent. Precipitation for each site was obtained from the nearest
National Weather Service station. The material balance included changes
in pond/lake elevation where available.
COMPARISON OF ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS AND PREDICTED RESULTS
Received data vrere checked against model requirements, and any deficien-
cies were referred back to the source for clarification or correction. Except
for outlet air temperatures and outlet air flow rates for cooling towers and
stream flows and surface water temperature for cooling ponds/lakes, the
utilities were able to provide most of the requested data. To estimate
14
-------
outlet air conditions, rating factor curves extracted from a Marley Cooling
lower Reference Manual13 were used. These curves provide outlet wet bulb
teirperatures and outlet air (dry) flow rates as a function of arrbient wet
bulb, design and operating range, design approach, and heat load on the
tower. In many cases the heat load data (Kcal/kwh) provided were for the
total plant. For those circumstances an assumption of 50 percent of the
total energy input rate to the plant is heat rejected to the circulating
water system. This heat rejection rate to the cooling system is taken from
Table B-V-1 in the Development Document for the Steam Electric Power Generat-
ing Point Source Category.
To estimate the average surface water temperature on a pond/lake,
the inlet water temperature to the condenser was used. The intake structure
is usually near the shoreline, and pumps provide surface or near-surface
water to the ccndenser. The inlet water is therefore considered to be a
best estimate of average surface water temperature.
Evaporation predictions were made by the appropriate models only after
data collection was complete. For mechanical draft towers and natural draft
towers, the Leung and Moore model was used. Cooling pond/lake data were
applied to the five cooling pond/lake evaporation rate prediction equations,
after adjusting for the elevation of wind speed, measurements. The model
results were then compared to water-balance-derived evaporation rates. The
comparisons are discussed in Section 5.
If the comparison of actual measurements and predicted results indicated
a critical relationship existed for a particular variable, sensitivity
analyses were performed on that parameter. The sensitivity analyses were
designed to show the variation in evaporation rates as a function of the
parameter being tested, with all other variables held constant. Sensitivity
analyses were performed on the following cooling tower parameters: outlet
air temperature, inlet dry bulb, relative humidity and heat rejection
rate. For the cooling pond/lake models, sensitivity analyses were conducted
using pond temperature, wind speed, heat rejection rate and load factor as
variables. The results of these analyses are presented in Sections 5
and 6.
15
-------
COMPARISON OF COOLING TOWERS AND COOLING PONDS/LAKES
Upon completion of the model accuracy analyses, the predicted evapora-
tion rates for cooling towers and cooling ponds/lakes were compared. Since
the power plants differed in size, efficiency and regional meteorology,
the oonparisons were made on carmen bases. Towers and ponds/lakes in the
same meteorological area were studied together, and evaporation rates
were normalized with respect to capacity and heat rejection rate (correcting
for capacity factor), i.e., cu Vmin-MW and cu m/106 kcal. Both model-
predicted and material balance evaporation rates were used.
The normalized evaporation rates were also compared between regions
to illustrate regional variations for each cooling system and identify con-
sumptive water use differences for towers and ponds/lakes. A regional
classification of relative evaporation rates was generated as a result of
these comparisons.
The data analyses presented in the following sections were based on one
or more of the following assumptions and bases:
Marley nomographs of outlet air flow rate and temperature for mechanic-
al draft and natural draft cooling towers were valid approximations,
since these data were generally not provided by the utilities.
When not provided, constant heat rejection rates of 50 percent of the
plant energy input rate were used.
For monthly and annual evaporation rate calculations, average monthly
meteorological data were used.
Data at the nearest National Weather Service (NWS) station character-
ized the on-site meteorology.
Cooling pond/lake surface temperature was characterized by one value,
generally the inlet water temperature to the condenser, since it
is usually the only water temperature parameter measured besides
discharge temperature.
ifi
-------
A water balance around a cooling pond/lake including inlet stream flow,
direct runoff to the pond/lake, direct precipitation and pond/lake outflow
provided a reasonable estimate of pond/lake evaporation. Seepage was
negligible unless noted otherwise by the utility.
17
-------
SECTION 5
DATA EVALUATION AND RESULTS
Power plant operating data received fron 12 utilities were included in
the analysis of cooling system models. These 12 utilities presented actual
operating data for 14 mechanical draft cooling tower systems, one natural
draft cooling tower system, seven cooling ponds/lakes, and one cooling canal.
In addition, design data were available on another natural draft cooling
tower system.
A sumnary of the data received follows:
Average annual data on mechanical draft cooling towers for a 400-MW
unit operated by Utah Power and Light Corrpany at Huntington Station.
Hourly performance test data for induced draft towers operated by
the Salt River Project at Navajo Generating Station.
A one-week performance test on mechanical draft cooling towers for
a 75 -MW unit operated by Texas Electric Service Company at its
North Main Station and a six-hour performance test on a mechanical
draft cooling tower for a 110-MW unit at its Permian Station.
One month of summer data for six mechanical draft cooling towers
operated by El Paso Electric Company at its Rio Grande Station and
Newman Stations.
Monthly and annual data on three mechanical draft cooling towers
operated by Arkansas Power and Light Company at Moses, Couch and Lynch
Stations .
Hourly data for two months (January and August) on mechanical draft
towers operated by Minnesota Power and Light Company at Clay Boswell
Unit 3 .
Daily data for three months (January, April and July) on natural
draft towers operated by Pennsylvania Electric Company at its Homer City
Station
18
-------
Monthly data averaged over a three-year period on a cooling pond at
Arizona Public Service Company1 s Cholla Station.
Monthly data for 10 months on a cooling lake at Texas
Electric Service Company's at Morgan Creek Station.
Average annual data on a cooling pond and lake at Commonwealth
Edison's Kincaid and Powerton Stations, respectively.
Daily data for two months (January and July) on a cooling lake
at Virginia Electric and Power Company1 s Mt. Storm Station.
Daily data for one year on a cooling at Duke Power Company's
at Belews Creek Steam Station .
Monthly data for one year on a cooling lake at Carolina
Power and Light Company's H.B. Robinson Plant.
Monthly data on one cooling canal at New Hampshire Public Service
Company's M5rrimack Station.
Design data on one natural draft cooling tower being built for
Wisconsin Electric Power Company at Koshkonong
Ihe following two subsections present the operating data supplied and the
results of the model analysis and sensitivity analysis for each cooling
system. The subsections are divided into cooling tower data and results
and cooling pond/lake data and results. The meteorological data are provided
in Appendix B. The actual computer printouts of the model predictions for
cooling towers and cooling ponds/lakes are provided in Appendices C and D,
respectively.
COOLING TOWER DATA AND RESULTS
Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers
Utah Power and Light Company, Huntington Station
The Hontington Station has a 400-MW unit. A mechanical draft cooling
tower system has been in operation for two years. The utility sent average
values for the 1976 operation which are presented in Table 1. Make-up
water flow and blowdown rates were given as average values, while the
remaining data were given at design conditions. The cooling tower is
operated at about 12 cycles of concentration. The make-up flow rate is
held constant, while the blowdown varies as a function of water quality in
the circulating water system. An evaporation rate value of 12.5 cu m/min
19
-------
TABLE 1. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR UTAH POWER AND LIGHT CD.
HDNTINGTON STATION (AVERAGE 1976 DATA)
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit Hsat Rejection Rate
kcal/kWh (BTU/kWh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, cu m/min
(GEM).
Make-up Flow Rate, cu m/min
(GEM)
Slowdown Flew Rate, cu m/min
CGFM)
Range, °C (°FJ
Approach, °C (°F)
Air Flew Rate, std cu nyfciin
(SCFM)
Cutlet Air Tenperature, °C C°F)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu m/rrin
(GEM)
Evaporation Rate, cu m/min (GPM)
Material Balance
Model Prediction
Unit 1
400
80
1,300 (5,100) (est.)
7Q4 (.185,8001
15,1(4,000)
1,21 (320)
13.3 (23.9)
9.7 (17.5)
5.0 x 10s (18 x 10s)
varied 28 - 36 (82 - 97)
1,41 (372)
12.5 (3,300)
12.8 (3,380)
20
-------
(7.37 cfs) was calculated fron a water balance around the tower (i.e.,
make-up - blowdown - drift = evaporation).
Meteorological parameters were obtained from the National Weather
Service station at Grand Junction, Colorado. The weather station is located
over 150 kilometers (100 miles) from Huntington and is at 1,525 meters (msl),
(425 meters below the power plant). The monthly meteorological conditions
used as input are presented in Appendix B. A pressure correction was made
because of the 1,950 meter (msl) elevation of this plant.
Since temperature rise (range) in the condenser and approach were
assumed to vary minimally throughout the year for this baseload plant, con-
pared to meteorological conditions, the range and approach were held constant
for all model calculations. Hie variable which appeared most sensitive to
meteorology and to the model was outlet air temperature. Five computer cal-
culations using the leung and Moore model were performed with the outlet air
temperature ranging from 28°C to 36°C. For these runs, the outlet air
temperature that most closely approximated the average annual evaporation
was 36°C (97°F), or 8°C above design basin temperature. This result is
merely an average value, however, since outlet air temperature is a function
of inlet conditions and therefore varies over a large range throughout the
year.
Ihe results do confirm that monthly evaporation rates vary directly
with meteorology and differ by as much as 50 percent. Che implication of
this variation is that for drought conditions the consumptive water use
can be as much as 25 percent above annual average conditions as shown on
Figure 2.
A sixth case was investigated for Huntington Station involving the
sensitivity of the model to heat load. The outlet air temperature calcu-
lated using the Marley nomographs of 36°C ( 97°F) was used in the model
(Case V of Figure 2 ), but the heat rejection rate to the tower was increased
by 10 percent. This produced a 10 percent increase in predicted evapora-
tion.
21
-------
20
18
16
£
3
-------
Air flow rates and outlet water temperatures in mechanical draft cool-
ing towers also vary with meteorology but over a smaller range than other
variables. The impact of these parameters was not investigated using the
Huntington Station data.
In conclusion, as shown on Figure 2, an increasing outlet air tempera-
ture decreases water consumption and an increasing heat rejection rate
increases consumptive water use in cooling towers (all other parameters
being constant). Overall, the Lsung and Moore model predicted evaporation
rates relatively well. For Cases I through V, the evaporation predictions
were within 17 percent of the calculated water balance evaporation rate. A
primary concern, however, is that no data were available on outlet air tempera-
ture variation throughout the year. Since this parameter can be expected to
vary by as much as 22 °C (40°F) over the year at the Huntington Station,
the accuracy of evaporation rate calculations based on constant outlet air
temperature needs further study. Air flow rate is another variable which
is held constant in the Leung and Moore model but which varies throughout
the year. The validity of this assumption should also be investigated.
Salt River Project, Navajo Generating Station
Performance test data were received from the Salt River Project for the
Navajo Generating Station. These data were of special interest because the
Leung and Moore mechanical draft tower model was based on the design condi-
tions for the Navajo towers. The data, presented in Table 2, consisted of
two performance tests conducted on each of the two mechanical draft tower
cells - Tower 1-A and 1-B. The first performance test was conducted on
August 6, 1977, for one-hour duration. The second test for a duration of
two hours was performed on August 20, 1977. Both tests were performed at or
above 100 percent rated electrical capacity of the generating unit.
Meteorological data and material balances were part of the test
results. Some meteorological data were supplemented by information from the
NWS station at Winslow, Arizona. For both tests, material balance results
for Tower 1-B were questionable.
23
-------
TABLE 2. COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE TEST DATA FOR ARIZONA. PUBLIC
SERVICE CO. , NAVAJO PLANT (August 1977)
Test 1A Test 2A
(One-hour duration) (Two-hour duration)
Plant Capacity (MW) 750 750
Plant Capacity Factor (%) 107 100
Unit Heat Rejection Rate 1,130 1,130
kcal/kWh (BTUAWh) (4,480) (4,480)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, 551 558
cu m/min (GEM) (145,326) (147,306)
Make-up Flow Rate, cu m/min 13.2 13.Q
(GEM) (3,482) (3,432)
Slowdown Flow Rate, cu m/tein Q 0
(GPM)
Range, °C (°F) 15.6 (28.1) 15.4 (27.7)
Approach, °C (°F) 11.3 (20.3) 12.6 (22.7)
Air Flow Rate, std cu ro/roin 7.8 x 10s 8.0 x 10s
(SCFM) (2.8 x 107) (2.9 x 107)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C (°F) 34.9 (94.8) 33.3 (92.0)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu m/inin l.H (293) 1,12 (295)
(GPM)
Evaporation Rate, cu m/min (GPM).
Model predicted 14.1(3,720) 13.8(3,640)
Material Balance 12.1 (3,190) 11.9 (3,140)
Marley Predicted 12.6 (3,330) 12.3 (3,250)
24
-------
Ihe computer model results overpredicted by almost 17 percent the actual
water consumption rates as measured directly frcm circulating water flows
and changes in basin level. Using the data from lower 1-A for performance
tests 1 and 2, the computer model predicted evaporation rates of 14.1 cu m/
min and 13.8 cu m/min respectively. These compare to material balance
results of 12.1 and 11.9 cu m/min.
A third set of results can be included based on performance curves
used by the cooling tower vendor (Ihe Marley Company) during the test. Ihe
cooling tower vendor predictions for the same two tests were 12.6 and 12.3
cu m/min. The Leung and Moore model overpredicted these evaporation rates
by 12 and 13 percent, respectively. The vendor predictions and material
balance values were within four percent in both cases.
The utility later found that the circulating water flows and heat reject-
ion rates were about 10 percent above the design values. This may account
for the differences in predicted and calculated evaporation rates, since the
(increased) heat rejection rate is input to the model, but circulating
water flow rate is not. The model may compensate for the increased heat
rejection rate by overpredicting evaporation.
From the standpoint of evaporation rate, the Navajo plant produced the
lowest value of any tower analyzed - 0.015 cu m/inin-MW. This low unit
evaporation rate is probably a function of the high capacity factor (100
percent) during the tests and the high efficiency of this new, large power
plant, which has a low heat rejection rate of 1,130 kcaV*&i (4,480 BTU/kWh).
Texas Electric Service Company, North Main Steam Electric Station
To study the variations in air temperature, air flow rate, and heat
rejection rate over a short time period, an analysis of performance test
data from Texas Electric Service Company's North Main Station in Fort Worth,
Texas, was made. The North Main Station has a mechanical draft cooling
tower on its 75-MWs generating thit No. 4. A performance test was made
during January 21-26, 1960, to determine tower capabilities over a large
range of heat rejection rate and meteorology. During the test the unit
generated up to 86 MWfe gross capacity. The data for these tests are pre-
sented in Table 3.
25
-------
TABLE 3. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA TOR TEXAS
NORHI MAIN STATION [1-Week Performance
26, I960)
SKRVJCK CO. ,
Test - January 21 -
ro
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit I teat Rejection Rate,
(UTU/ kwh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, cu ny'i'u'n
(GPM)
Make-up E'low Rate, cu m/irui
(GPM)
Blowdown Flow Rate, cu rn/:nin
(GPM)
Range, °C
('₯}
Approach, °C
Air Flow Rate, std. cu
(SCFM)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C
(°F)
Approximate Drift losses and Evaporation
Rate, cu nv/tnin
(GPM)
Relative Humidity "
Test Date
'Itest No. 1
85.85
48
1, 517
(6,018)
251
(66,244)
1.92
(508)
.78
(201)
4.3
(7.8)
8.8
(15.9)
1.0 x 10s1
(3.5 x 10s)
19
(66)
on
0.97
(256)
25
1/21/60
2
85.85
63
1,507
(5,979)
239
(63,116)
2.04
(535)
.96
(250)
5.6
10.0)
12.1
(21.9)
1.0 x 105
(3.5 x 101')
22
(71.5)
0.99
(260)
70
1/25/60
3
85.85
35
1,591
(6,315)
242
(64,092)
2.1
(553)
.96
(250)
3.3
(fi.O)
7.6
(13.7)
1.0 x 10s
(3.5 x 10r')
18
(64)
0.90
(237.8)
78
1/25/60
4
85.85
76
1,499
(5,948)
240
(63,429)
1.92
(509)
.54
(141)
6.7
(12.0)
12.3
(22.2)
1.0 x 10s
(3.5 x 10fl)
26
(78)
1.85
(489.1)
90
1/26/60
T>
85.J15
82.5
1,528
(6, (163)
243
(64,189)
2.46
(644)
.54
(141)
7.8
(14.0)
12.3
(22.1)
1.0 x 10!'
(3.5 x 10'')
29
(84)
1.56
(412.8)
80
1/26/60
6
85.85
100
1,542
(6,119)
241
(63,765)
2.7
(710)
.54
(148)
9.1
(16.4)
12.9
(23.3)
1.0 x 10'1
(3.5 x I0';)
33
(91.5)
2.53
(668.7)
68
1/26/60
-------
The data were obtained aver 6 two-hour test periods. Evaporation rates
were calculated by the utility and were measured from a material balance
around the tower, including water level fluctuations in the cooling tower
basin. Drift losses could not be measured and drift loss guarantees were
not provided. However, since drift losses in modem cooling towers are
typically less then one percent of the evaporation rate, the lack of drift
data should not affect the results significantly.
Meteorological values were measured on-site during the test, but
relative humidity was extracted from a psychrometric chart, based on given
dry and wet bulb temperatures and assuming standard atmospheric pressure.
Figure B-2 (Appendix B) provides these data.
Hie comparison of the Lsung and Moore model prediction for evaporation
and actual measurements is shown on Figure 3. Ihis comparison reveals
the following:
The model overpredicted evaporation in all cases except that of
design conditions.
For three tests (numbers 3,4 and 6) the computer model over-
predicted evaporation by as much as 15 percent of measured values.
For test numbers 1,2 and 5, the model overpredicted by 70,
60 and 55 percent, respectively.
The actual measured evaporation for test number 5 was unaccount-
ably low for the given conditions.
lu
The evaporation prediction formula developed by EPA also over-
predicted the evaporation rate in all test cases (but it is with-
in 15 percent of the Lsung and Moore predictions for all test
runs).
The meteorological variations and, therefore, evaporation rates
over the one-week period were large. Constant evaporation over
short time periods (weekly) cannot be assumed. Thus, monthly
values may prove to be insufficient for water resource-drought-
effect calculations.
An initial observation of these results was that under all meteoro-
logical and operating conditions, the Leung and Moore model tended to
overpredict evaporation.
27
-------
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
I
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
200
Test Number
D
A
A
D
A
D
O
A
O
J I
O
I
j I
A
D
O
2.5
D _
2.0
1.5
1.0
LEGEND
O ACTUAL TEST DATA
D MODEL PREDICTED
A EPA FORMULA
FROM EPA - 660/2 - 73 - 016
0.5
1
1/21/60
2
1/25/60
3
1/25/60
4
1/26/60
5
1/26/60
6
1/26/60
Efesign
Figure 3. Comparison of predicted and actual cooling tower
evaporation rates at North Main Steam Electric
Station (Texas).
28
-------
Che possible explanation for the overprediction is that the low
relative humidity characteristic of this location nay preclude a saturated
outlet air stream. Since unsaturated air contains less water at the sane
temperature than saturated air and the Leung and Moore model assumes the
outlet air is 100 percent saturated, the model-predicted evaporation
rates will exceed actual evaporation rates for unsaturated air outlet
conditions.
Another possible explanation is that the circulating water system is
sufficiently large that it reacts slowly to meteorological variations. Thus,
for rapidly changing meteorological conditions, the cooling system param-
eters lag, causing the model to overpredict in some circumstances and under-
predict in others. This system lag could produce incorrect input values for
parameters which must be calculated using nomographs based on steady-state
meteorological conditions. Such parameters are outlet air temperature and
outlet air flow rate.
Any lag would be especially pronounced for this performance test because
of the large variation in input parameters over the six-day period. For
example, inlet water temperature to the tower varied by 18°C (33°F), tower
water basin temperature varied by 12 °C (22 °F), and heat load increased by a
factor of three throughout the week. Meteorological conditions also changed
significantly with wet bulb temperature varying by 7°C, dry bulb varying
almost 11°C (20 °F) , and relative humidity increasing from 25 to 90 percent
and then decreasing to 70 percent as the week progressed. Over longer .time
periods, one would expect this lag to have less effect on results.
A calculation using the Leung and Moore model, assuming the station
operated under full load conditions for the entire test period, showed that
the predicted evaporation rate would have varied by 25 percent. The maximum
evaporation rate occurred during the lowest relative humidity period and
was 17 percent greater than the mean evaporation. Figure 4 presents the
model results from these synthesized full load data. It should be noted
that the circulating water flow rate, range, air flow rate, outlet water
teirperature and heat load were held constant for these calculations.
Conclusions based on these data and predictions are:
29
-------
3.2
3.0
2.8
I
I
I 2.6
"s
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1/21/60 1/25/60 1/25/60 1/26/60 1/26/60 1/26/60
Test Dates
Figure 4. Prediction of cooling tower evaporation rate
for synthesized full load conditions at North
Main Steam Electric Station over a six-day period.
1.0
30
-------
Ihe Leung and Moore model tended to overpredict actual evapora-
tion, although it often gave values within 15 percent of the
actual values.
Unsaturated outlet air conditions could cause the Leung and
Moore model to overpredict evaporation rates.
Meteorological variations over a one-week time span were
sufficient to cause a 25 percent change in evaporation rate.
Texas Electric Service Company, Permian Station
Texas Electric also provided the results from a second mechanical draft
tower performance test at Permian Station for a 1QO-MW load. Data for the
6-hour test period are qiven in Table 4. Sufficient data were supplied to
predict evaporation using the Leung and Moore model. The results were
similar to those above in that the cooling tower model slightly overpre-
dicted evaporation rate. The computer model evaporation rate prediction
was 3.1 cu m/min (1.80 cfs) versus a calculated evaporation rate of
3.0 cu m/min (1.76 cfs), only a two percent difference.
El Paso Electric Company, Newman and Rio Grande Stations
El Paso Electric Company provided results for one sunnier month at two
stations with three units, August 1977 data for Units 1-3 at the Newman
Station and July 1977 data for Units 6-8 at the Rio Grande Station. The
Newman Station units (1-3) have capacities of 86 MW, 90 MW and 110 MW respectively.
Unit 1 is an intermediate load unit, while units 2 and 3 are baseload units.
The Rio Grande units have capacities of 50 MW, 50 MW and 165 KW. All
three had monthly capacity factors below 60 percent. The operating data
for these six units are shown in Tables 5A and 5B.
Data received were average values for those months which El Paso
Electric Company believed most closely approximated design conditions.
Since the Leung and Moore model was generated using design conditions,
one would expect the model to closely predict evaporation rates. This
expectation was realized for the two baseload units. A comparison of
model predictions versus calculated evaporation rates is shown for all
six units in Table 6.
31
-------
TABLE 4. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR TEXAS ELECTRIC
SERVICE CO., PERMIAN STATION (Six-hour Test
Period Novenfoer 5, 1958)
Plant Capacity (MW) 100
Plant Capacity Factor (%) Not given
Unit Heat Rejection Rate
Unit 1, kcalAWh (BTUAWh) 1,207 (4,788)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, cu m/min (SPM) 263 (69,550)
.Make-up Flow Rate, cu m/min CGPML 2.64
Slowdown Flow Rate, cu m/min (GPM) 0
Range, °C (°F) 7.7 (13.8)
Approach, °C (°F) 9.5 (17.2)
Air Flow Rate, std cu m/min (SCFM) 9.2 x 104 (3.3 x 106)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C (°F) 33 (92)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu m/min (GPM) .0456 (12)
Evaporation Rate, cu m/min (GPM)
Model Prediction 3.1 (812;
Material Balance 3.0 (794)
NOTE: During this test the water level in the cooling tovrer basin dropped
4.75 inches. This accounts for the differential between makeup
flow-rate and evaporation rate for a zero blowdown condition.
32
-------
TABLE 5A. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR EL PASO ELECTRIC
CD., NEWMAN STATION (August 1977)
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit Heat Rejection Rate
kcal/kWh (BTU/kWh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate,
cu ra/min (GPM)
Make-up Flew Rate, cu
(GPM)
Slowdown Flow Sate, ^
(GPM)
Range, °C (°F)
Approach, °C (°F)
Air Flow Rate, std cu
(SCFM)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C (°F)
Aporoxiinate Drift Losses, cu nytnin
(GPM)
Evaporation Rate, cu ir/min
Material balance
Model prediction
86
59.3
1,430
(5,680)
164
(43,300)
6
(1,580)
1.44
(375)
14 (25)
13(24)
90
85.5
1,440
(5,715)
159
(42,000)
5.64
(1,484)
1.32
(350)
14 (25)
11 (20)
110
98.2
1,340
(5,310)
161
(42,500)
6.36
(1,672)
1,50
(397)
16 (28)
10 (18)
6.4 x 10* 8.4 x 10*
(2.3 x 10s)(3.0 x 10s
40 (104) 36 (97)
,330
(87)
.318
(84)
11.5 x 10*
)(4.1 x 106)
36 (97)
.324
(85)
4.2 (1,122) 4.0(1,050) 4.5 (1,194)
3,7 (3.74) 3,9(1,032) 4{Y (1,194)
33
-------
TABLE 5B. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA. FOR EL PASO ELECTRIC
CO., RIO GRANDE STATION (July 1977)
Unit 6
Unit 7
Unit 8
Plant Capacity (MS)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit Heat Rejection Rate
kcalAWh. (FIUAWh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate,
cu m/rn±n CGPM1
Make-up Flow Rate, cu m/inin
(GPM)
Blowflown Flew Rate, cu
(GEM)
Range, °C (°F)
Approach, °C
Air Flow Rate, std cu m/tain
(SCFM)
Outlet Mr Teiroerature, °C (°FJ
Drift Losses, cu in/bin
(GEM)
Svaporation Rate, cu m/inin
-------
TABLE 6. EL PASO ELECTRIC CO. NEWMAN AND RIO GRANDE STATIONS EVAPORATION RESULTS
Unit No.
Calculated3 Corputer Modelb
cu rVmin (GPM) cu to/win (GPM)
EPA (1973) c'd Capacity Factor
cu m/min (GPM) (%)
Newman Station
1
2
3
Rio Grande Station
6
7
8
4.2
4.0
4.5
1.1
1.4
4.2
(U2Q)
(1,050)
(1,190)
(283)
(377)
(1,110)
3.7
3.9
4.5
2.4
2.1
6.5
(974)
(1,030)
(1,190)
(646)
(561)
(1,710)
3
3
3
1
1
3
.2
.0
.4
.1
.2
.5
(844)
(790)
(893)
(278)
(318)
(933)
3.8
3.6
4.1
1.3
1-5
4.2
(1,010)
(947)
(1,070)
(332)
(386)
(1,120)
59.
83.
98.
30.
58.
48.
3
7
1
5
5
0
a Calculated from water balances around the towers
b Results from Leung and Moore induced draft cooling tower model
c EPA model assuming 75% of waste heat is dissipated by latent heat transfer
d EPA model assuming 90% of waste heat is dissipated by latent heat transfer
-------
For Unit 2 at the Newman Station, the model-predicted evaporation rate
was within two percent of the evaporation rate calculated from a water
balance around the tower. For Unit 3, which had a capacity factor of
98.2 percent, the model and water balance values were identical. These
results imply that for high capacity units, the model is quite accurate.
In contrast, Unit 1 had a capacity of only 59.3 percent. Hie model under-
predicted evaporation by 13 percent.
The model results, in terms of percent deviation from calculated
values, were similar at Rio Grande Station. For all three units the
computer model overpredicted evaporation. Ihe percent overprediction was
127 percent for Unit 6 (a 30.5 percent capacity factor), 50 percent for
Unit 7 (a 58.5 percent capacity factor), and 55 percent for Unit 8 (a 48
percent capacity factor).
Ihese results show that average evaporation prediction accuracy is a
function of the capacity factor. Figure 5 shows this relationship for the
six El Paso units. This figure indicates that a semi-logarithmic
correction might be used to adjust for capacity factor.
Arkansas Power and Light Company, Moses Station, Couch Station and Lynch Station-
Arkansas Power and Light Company supplied annual and monthly operating
data for three peak load plants. Ihese were the Moses, Couch and Lynch
Stations, which had plant capacities of 126 MW, 161 MW and 239 MW, respec-
tively. Each plant uses a mechanical draft cooling tower system. Ihe data
for the average annual conditions are shown in Tables 7 through 9. The
utility-provided make-up and blowdown flow rates were averaged during plant
operation only. Therefore the capacity factor, which includes this down-
time, was not applied to computer model input parameters. National Vfeather
Service data were used to input monthly and annual values.
The results from these three plants were similar to the El Paso Electric
results in that for low capacity factor power plants (peak and intermediate
load plants), the model overpredicted evaporation. This is an expected result
since the model is attempting to predict evaporation rate from a plant
36
-------
1,000
100
M-l
I
(0
g
a
10
0 o
o
o
1 I I 1
0 20 40 60 30 100
Capacity Factor {%)
Figure 5. Percent deviation between predicted
and material balance values for
cooling tower evaporation rate for
the El Paso Electric Co. thits.
37
-------
TABLE 7. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR ARKANSAS POWER
AND LIGHT, MOSES STATION (Annual Data 1976)
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit Heat Ejection Rate, kcal/KWh (BTU/kWh)
Unit 1
Unit 2
Circulating Water Flow Rate, cu nv/inin (GPM)
Make-up Flew Rate, c^ nv/roin (GPM)
Slowdown Flow Rate, cu m/tain (GPM)
Range, °C (°F)
Approach, °C (°F)
Air Flow Rate, std. cu ni/inin (SCFM)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C (°F)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu m/mm
Evaporation Rate, cu n/min (GPM)
Model Prediction
Material Balance
Model Prediction X Capacity Factor
Units 1 & 2
126
11
1,915 (7,600)
1,910 (7,575)
301,5 (79,650),
3,9 (.1,030)
0,84 (221)
4.7 (8.4)
7.8 (14)
2.5 x 10s (8.9 x 106)
19 (66)
0.6 (160)
7.2 (1907)
2.4 (646)
0.79 (211)
38
-------
TABLE 8. COOLING TONER OPERATING DATA FOR ARKANSAS POWER
AND LIGHT, COUCH STATION (Annual Data 1976)
Units 1 & 2
Plant Capacity (MW) 161
Plant Capacity Factor {%) 29
Unit Heat Rejection Rate, kcal/kWh (BTO/kWh)
Unit 1 1,855 (7,370)
Unit 2 1,675 (6,650)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, cu nv/rain (GPM) 441 (116,500)
flake-up Flow Rate, cu iVraLn (GPM) 2.4(622)
Slowdown Flow Rate, cu m/mm (GPM) 0.6(160)
Range, °C (°F) 7 (12)
Approach, °C (°F) 8 (14)
Air Flow Rate, std. cu iVmin (SCFM) 3.2 x 10s (11.3 x 106)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C (°F) 28 (83)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu ny'inin (GPM) 0.18 (46.6)
Evaporation Rate, cu m/min (GPM)
Model Prediction 7.6 (2,019)
Material Balance 1.6 (413)
Model Prediction X Capacity Factor 2.2 (583)
-------
TABLE 9. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR ARKANSAS POWER
AND LIGHT, LYNCH STATION (Annual Data 1976)
Units 1, 2 & 3
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit Heat Rejection Rate, kcalA^h
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Circulating Water Flew Rate, cu nyfriin (GPM)
Make-up Flew Rate, cu m/min (GPM)
Slowdown Flow Rate, cu m/min (GPM)
Range, °C (°F)
Approach, °C (°F)
Air Flow Rate, std. cu m/miii (SCFM)
Outlet Air Tertperature, °C (°F)
Approximate Drift losses, cu nv/min (GPM)
Evaporation Rate, cu nv/min (GPM)
Model Prediction
Material Balance
Model Prediction X Capacity Factor
239
12
2,395 (9,500)
2,040 (8,090)
2,000 (7,950)
622.8 (164,500)
4.5 (1,186)
0 (0.1)
5.4 (9.8)
7.8 (14)
3.5 x 10s (12.5 x 106)
20 (68)
0.252 (66)
14.3 (3,770)
4.2 (1,120)
1.7 (449)
40
-------
operating at constant load, whereas peaking and intemediate plants spend
considerable time relative to their total operating time building up to full
load and shutting down. During these transition periods, the cooling system
is rejecting varying heat loads at a fraction of full load conditions. The
Leung and Moore model is not designed to handle these transition conditions.
In an attempt to correct the model for these transition conditions, a.
correction factor was applied to the model results. This correction factor
was equal to the capacity factor. For example, the Moses Station had an 11
percent capacity factor for 1976 and the Leung and Moore model-predicted
value for 1976 was 7.2 cu m/min. The corrected evaporation rate is therefore
7.2 x 0.11 = 0.79 cu m/min. A comparison of predicted, corrected, and
material-balance calculated evaporation rates is provided in Table 10 for
the three plants.
Minnesota Power and Light Conpany, Clay Boswell Unit 3
Minnesota Power and Light Company provided hourly data for two months
in 1977 for the Clay Boswell Unit 3 mechanical draft towers. Ihe two months,
January and August, represent meteorological extremes and were expected to
show the minimum and maximum evaporation rates. The average for each month
is shown on Table 11. Since make-up and blowdown rates to the towers were
not measured on an hourly basis as part of the normal reporting activities
of Minnesota Power and Light, only an annual average was obtained. As a
result, hourly evaporation rates could be predicted by the model, but material
balance calculations could only be performed for annual evaporation.
Meteorological data were measured on-site and were provided as part of
the hourly data (see Appendix B, Figure B-3).
The results of the Leung and Moore model for January and August are
shown in Figure 6. For January, the evaporation rate varied between 4.0 and
6.8 cu m/min. Although the values appear to be relatively constant, the
range represents a difference of 20 percent. August evaporation is also
relatively constant ranging from 7.0 to 9.5 cu m/min, a range variation of
35 percent. It is noteworthy that the maximum January and minimum August
daily evaporation rates differ by only 2 percent, but the average August
41
-------
10.
MJnisr. PKiiDicjt'D hvAixNwraiN iwiti WITH AND WITHOUT CORRECTION FACTOR GOMPAKH:) WITH MATERIAL
UAIANCK CAICUIATED EVATOKATION RATE POH ARKANSAS POWliK AND IJQIT PLANTS (All values in cu n(/min) .
N)
PI ANT/
fc.VAKM
-------
TABLE 11. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR MINNESOTA POWER AND
LIGHT, CLAY BOSWELL PLANT, UNIT 3 (January and August 1977)
Jan Aug Annual
Plant Capacity (MW) 350 350
Plant Capacity Factor (%) 86 93
Unit Heat Rejection Rate 1,293 1,251
kcalAWh (BTUAWh) (5,130) (4,965)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, 495.1 495.1
cu m/min (GPM) (130,800) (130,781)
Make-up Flow Rate, cu m/min 9.9
(GPM) (2,616)
Slowdown Flow Rate, cu m/min. 1.90
(GPM) (500) (500)
Range, °C (°F) 11.1 (20) 10.9 (15.6)
Approach, °C (°F) 18.27 (32.9) 12.1 (21.8)
Air Flow Rate, std cu m/min 3.4 x 105 3.4 x 10s
(SCFM) (12 x 106) (12 x 10s)
Outlet Air Temperature, °C (°F) 17.9 (64.25) 32.0 (89.5)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu m/min 0.049 0.049
(GPM) (13) (13)
Evaporation Rate, cu m/min (GPM)
Model Prediction 5.61 (1,470) 8.41 (2,220)
Material Balance (Annual) 7.95
(2,100)
43
-------
10
a
0
7
Ul r
>M °
o
1
rj
5
i '
& 3
2
1
0
(
D
n
a a
n o a a a D a
a a
* a a n a a
a a
o
0 0
o o o o
o
0 0
0 o
o
LEGEND
O-JANUARV 1977
D -AUGUST ]977
* AVERAGE
ANNUAL VALUE BASED
ON MATERIAL UALANCE
) 24 G 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 31
10
14
12
10
J
3
6
4
2
Day of Month
Figure 6. Cooling tower predicted evatxjration rates based en
actual operating data for Clay I'oswell Station.
-------
value is 50 percent greater than the January average (8.4 cu m/min vs. 5.6
cu m/min). Since the daily average of these two months, 7.0 cu m/min,
is almost 1 cu m/min less than the calculated annual average, one may
surmise that the model is underpredicting the evaporation rate for Clay
Boswell Unit 3, but is within 15 percent of the actual evaporation rate.
{Figure 6 illustrates this conclusion.)
On an evaporation"loss per MW basis, the Clay Boswell Unit 3 value
was consistent with other units (0.031 cu m/min-t-SV) near its size and
capacity factor. This relationship with other cooling tower systems is
discussed further in Section 6.
Natural Draft Cooling Tower Data and Results
Pennsylvania Electric Company, Homer City Station
Pennsylvania Electric Company provided daily natural draft cooling tower
data for three months - January, April and July, 1977 - at Boner City Station,
Units 1 and 2. These data were the only natural draft cooling tower opera-
ting data used in this study. Ihe January and July average monthly operating
conditions for these 664-MW units are presented in Table 12. The correspond-
ing meteorological data, shown in Appendix B, were taken from the National
Weather Service station at the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania airport.
Figures 7 and 8 illustrate the daily predicted and material balance
evaporation rates for January and July. These figures show that the Leung
and Moore model generally underpredicts evaporation rate versus the material
balance values. However, the material balance possibly produced considerably
greater consultative water use values because the make-up flew rates provided
were for the entire station, and the utility could only estimate plant water
use (500 gpm) and ash sluice water flows (800 gpm). The cu nv/rain-MW values
(ranging from 0.027-0.040) are relatively high for these large power units
(664 MW units). It is noted that the Leung and Moore model was initially
developed for mechanical draft towers, but has been used in previous studies
to predict evaporation for natural draft towers. Insufficient information
was available fron the utility to use the EPA natural draft cooling tower
2 3
model developed by Winiarski.
45
-------
TABLE 12. COOLING TOWER OPERATING DATA FOR PENNSYLVANIA. ELECTRIC
COMPANY'S HOMER CITY PLANT (January, April, July 1977)
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Ehit Heat Rejection Rate
(HEU/fcWh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate,
cu rn/inin (GPM)
Make-up Flow Rate,
cu itv/min (GPM)
Slowdown Flow Rate,
cu
Range, °C (°F)
Approach, °C (°F)
Air Flow Rate, Std. cu
(SCFM)
Outlet Air Tenperature, °C (°F)
Approxiinate Drift Losses,
cu in/min (GPU)
Evaporate Rate, cu nv/min
(GPM)
Material Balance
Model Prediction
Vendor Design Curves
1977
January
1,328
49.41
1,319
(5,238)
777.8
(205,500)
34.7
(9,186)
9.84
(2,595)
19.4 (34.9)
26.67 (48)
3.5 x 105
(12.38 x 106)
33.9 (93)
0.078
(20.6)
18.5
(4,080)
16.8
(4,440)
April
1,328
34.94
1,404
(5,576)
777.8
(205,500)
33.6
(8,889)
10.08
(2,660)
15.6 (28.1)
13.33 (24)
2.34 x 10s
(8.25 x 106)
33.3 (92)
0.078
(20.6)
18.0
(4,760)
13.8
(3,640)
13.5
(3,550)
July
1,328
57.35
1,432
(5,685)
777.8
(205,500)
53.5
(14,150)
10.74
(2,838)
15.7 (28.3)
10 (18)
4.09 x 10s
(14.44 x
106)
40.6 (105)
0.078
(20.6)
39.5
(10,500)
25.9
(6,870)
25.1
(6,640)
46
-------
01
a
4) 4IIIM)
Oixsratintj data for llaier City ic located in 'Sables 12.
UJGJ'H)
. DAILY LVAIOKATION
RAW; n«n MAT'L
BALANCE AM) MODlil.
ramcrioNS
Material balance calculated evaporaticsi rate
Figure 7. Evaporation rates for cooling towsrs for Homer City Steam Electric Station, Uiits 1 and 2 (January 1977),
-------
NMH: CjjaratiiKj data for Ilonur City is located in Table 12.
00
,0 *«w
fi
94
I ««»'
U33END
. DAILY 1WAPORAT10N
RATE FROM MAT'L
BAIANCE AI« nOMPU-lER
PREDICTIONS
«
KHWII
Material balance calculated evaporation rate
8. Evai»raticn rates for cooling tovers for Efcmer City Steam Electric Station, Uiits 1 and 2 (July 1977).
-------
For this plant a third source for estimating evaporation losses was
available - vendor (Gilbert Associates) design evaporation loss curves
which are presented in Appendix E. Table 12. also compares the Leung and
Moore model predictions with the evaporation loss curve results. The model
tends to overpredict when compared to this method of evaporation prediction.
Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Kbshkonong Plant
Design data were used for a natural draft cooling tower under construc-
tion to supplement the actual operating data received.
Natural draft tower design data were extracted from the Wisconsin
Utilities Project Environmental Report (ER) for the Kbshkonong Nuclear
Plant located in southern Wisconsin." The evaporation rates and input data
presented in the ER were determined by Stone & Webster Engineering Corpora-
tion. These data are shown in Table 13. The data were found to be insuffi-
cient to meet the input requirements to the EPA natural draft cooling tower
model. This model is sensitive to heat transfer and friction coefficients
and requires considerable information on inlet and tower packing geometry.
To our knowledge, final verification of this model has not been performed
using actual operating test data.
There was sufficient information for input to the Leung ana Moore
model. Since this model has been used to predict evaporation rates in
natural draft towers as well as mechanical draft towers, a computer analysis
was performed on the design data.
The Leung and Moore model predicted an evaporation rate of 42 cu m/min
(24.6 cfs) versus the Stone & Webster prediction, using a more sophisticated
energy balance model, of 40 cu m/min (23.8 cfs). The difference is less than
four percent.
If the natural draft tower operating data received to date are repre-
sentative of the type and extent available from the utilities, then it is
believed there is insufficient input to conclusively test the applicability
2. 3
of the Winiarski generic model. In particular, the data input to the EPA
natural draft cooling tower model on packing geometry is not expected to be
available from the utilities, but may be available from the vendors.
49
-------
TABLE 13. COOLING TOMER OPERATING DATA FOR WISCONSIN ELECTRIC
POWER COMPANY'S KOSHKONONG PLANT (Design Data)
Unit 1
Plant Capacity (MW) 900
Plant Capacity Factor (%) 100
Unit Heat Rejection Pate 1,860
kcalAWh (BTU/kWh) (7,383)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, 1/986
cu n/min (GPM) (524,100)
Make-up Flow Rate, cu n/min 28.4
(GPM) (12,500)
Slowdown Flow Sate,cu nVtain 7.2
CGPM) (1,850)
Range, °C (8F) 14 (26)
Approach, °C (°FJ 10 (18)
Air Flow Rate, std cu m/min 1-1 x 10*
CSCFM) " (40.2 x 106)
Cutlet Air Tenperature, °C C°F) 28 (32)
Approximate Drift Losses, cu m/min 0.096
"(GPM) (26)
Evaporation Rate, cu ir/min (GPM)
Design Value 40 (10,700)
Model Prediction 42 (11,200;
50
-------
COOLING POND/LAKE DATA AND RESULTS
The data obtained from utilities on oooling pond/lake and oooling
canal operation reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring or accurate-
ly estimating evaporation. Unlike cooling towers that operate under con-
trolled flow rate conditions, cooling pond/lake operation is affected by
uncontrolled variables such as direct rainfall, runoff, intermittent and
underground stream inflow, seepage, and variable natural evaporation. As
a result, utilities in general only monitor cooling pond/lake elevation
and condenser inlet and outlet water temperatures.
Ho perform material balances around oooling ponds/lakes without direct
measurements from the utilities requires estimation of the following
parameters: stream inflow and outflow, drainage area for the pond/lake,
pond/lake level variations over time, and precipitation. In some cases
many of these data were unobtainable, but for the Cholla Plant, H. B.
Robinson Station, and Belews Creek Station a material balance for determining
evaporation rate could be appliec using available information.
The cooling pond/lake data and analyses of results are presented in
this section on a plant-by-plant basis. Throughout this section the terms
"cooling pond/lake model-predicted evaporation rates", or "Model Predictions"
are used. These phrases denote results from each of the five cooling pond/
lake models; Marriano-Harbeck (Lake Hefner Study-QH)20 Harbeck-Koberg-
hughes (Lake Colorado City Study-QC) ,9 Msyer Model (QM) }* Brady et al model
(QB)l z, and the Harbeck Nomograph Method.8 Where only one model is
discussed and its results presented, the model is specified by author or
study name. The letter designations are used in figures presenting model-
predicted evaporation rates.
Arizona Public Service Company, Cholla Plant
Arizona Public Service provided annual average operating data for the
period 1974-1976 on the Cholla Plant located in the Lower Colorado region.
The operation data are presented in Table 14. Actual evaporation rates
were provided by the utility, the values provided being based on pan
evaporation data. Representative meteorological data were obtained from
Winslow, Arizona (see Appendix B).
51
-------
14. C3QQLING POND OPERATING DATA FOR ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE'S
CHOLLA PLANT (Average 1974-1976)
Plant Capacity M 120
Plant Capacity Factor (%} 70 (design)
Uiit Haat Ejection Bate, 1,215
(4,820)
Circulating Water Flew Bate, 105.2
cu in/min (GPM) (27,800)
Flow Hate into Pond, cu iri/min 6.42
(GEM) (1,696)
Flew Rate out of Pond, 1.18
cu nv/min (GPM) (313)
Bange, °C (°F) Not given
Condenser Make-up Water Tfencera- 13.8
ture, °C (°F) " (56.9)
Surface Area of Cooling Svstem, 135.7
ha (acres) " (340)
Volume of Cooling System, cu ra Hot given
(acre-ft. )
Drainage Area
Evaporation, cu rv^nin (GPU)
Material Balance 6.9 (1,840)
Itodel Predictions
Lake Hefner (QH) 4.8 (1,260)
Lake Colorado City (QC) 6.9 (1,840)
Msyer (QM) 6.1 (1,620)
Brady (QB) 5.3 (1,390)
Harbeck NDmograph & Fan Evaporation (QHN)a 5.0 (1,300)
The corrected pan evaporation rate was 3.5 cu m/min
52
-------
The predicted monthly average evaporative losses are shown on Figure 9.
Hie average evaporative loss provided by the utility was 6.9 cu m/min
(4.1 cfs). This' value is within ±15 percent of the predictions
of the Lake Colorado City and the Ifeyer model values of 6.9
and 6.1 cu m/min (4.1 and 3.6 cfs), respectively. This cooling pond system
is characterized by an area/MW ratio of 2.8, which is relatively high
compared to roost utility cooling pond systems. This larger ratio is
reflected in a small difference between pond and ambient temperatures.
The largest temperature variation occurs in the winter months when the
pond remains a few degrees above freezing and ambient temperatures lie
a few degrees below freezing.
Factors of special note that affect the results are:
£n accurate estimate of seepage and inflow was unobtainable, so
utility estimates of evaporation were used. Ihe confidence
limit on the value is unknown. However, variations of ±30%
would put all the models within the sought ±15% predictive range.
A large pond size in comparison to the plant electrical load
iicplies that natural evaporative loss contributes a major
portion of the total evaporative loss. This is seen by
comparing the historical annual average corrected pan evaporation
of 3.5 cu m/min with the material balance value of 6.9 cu m/min
(i.e., 51%).
Texas Electric Service Company, Morgan Creek Station
Texas Electric Service Company was contacted to determine if cooling
lake data were available comparable to the performance test data on their
cooling towers. They suggested the cooling lake study conducted by G.E.
Harbeck, J.S. Msyers, and G.H. Hughes at Lake Colorado City in I960.9
The Lake Colorado City model was generated from that and previous studies.
The Harbeck et al study9 provides lake temperature, meteorological
and evaporation data, but no plant operating data for the Morgan Creek
Station that discharges to Lake Colorado City. To supplement the study,
53
-------
3 -
7 -
3
3
2
1
I
p
o
O
o
12
10
-8
g
ft
u
s
JFMAM J J A S O N D
Jfcnth
Figure 9. Cooling pond model predicted evaporation rates
for Cholla Plant (1976).
54
-------
operating data were obtained from the Steam-Electric Plant Air and Water
Quality Control Data Summary Report published by the Federal Power
Commission15 (now the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). The conbined
data are provided in Table 15. The meteorological data are presented
in Appendix B.
Water balance and energy calculations were performed as part of the
study for October through September, 1959 and 1960, and an annual cumula-
tive evaporation of 252 on (96.9 in.) is given. This is equivalent to 20.9
cu m/min (12.3 cfs).
The data were used to calculate predictions from all five models.
The predictions are presented on Figure 10. As might be expected, the
closest model to the actual evaporation rate of 20.9 cu m/min was the
Lake Colorado City model at 17.9 cu m/min (within 14 percent).
The 1960 study used a nearby reservoir and energy balances to determine
that forced evaporation accounted for about 15 percent of the total lake
evaporation. This is lower than, but consistent with, forced evaporation
results found at other cooling ponds/lakes in this study.
Commonwealth Edison Company, Kincaid Generating Station
Commonwealth Edison Company provided operating cooling lake data from
the Kincaid Generating Station on Sangchris Lake. The data were primarily
annual average operating data for July 1, 1976 - June 30, 1977. Table 16
presents these data. Monthly lake and plant discharge temperatures were
also provided.
Table 16 also lists a utility-calculated evaporation rate of 36.2
cu m/min (21.3 cfs). This value was provided by Commonwealth Edison Company
and based on thermal modeling of the reservoir and is an average for the years
1971-1975. Because no relevant gaging station data were available from tie
USGS and the data for verifying the utility-derived evaporation rate were not
provided, the value could neither be verified nor adjusted for the January
1976 through June 1977 period for which operating data were provided. Since the
55
-------
TABLE 15. COOLING LAKE OPERATION DATA FOR TEXAS ELECTRIC
SERVICE COMPANY'S, MORGAN CREEK PLANT, LAKE COIDFADO
CITY (1959-1960)
Plant Capacity (MW) (equivalent)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Annual Heat Rejection Rate,
kWh/yr (BTU/hr)
Circulating Water Flow Rate,
cu m/min (GPy.)
Flow Rate into Pond,
cu m/min (GPF.)
Flow Rate out of Pond,
cu m/min (GPM)
Range, °C (°F)
Condenser Make-up Water Temperature,
°C (°F)
Range
Average
Surface Area of Cooling System,
ha (acres)
Volume of Cooling System,
cu m (acre-ft)
Drainage Area,
sq km (sq.mi.)
Evaporation, cu m/min (GPM)
Material Balance
Model Predictions
Lake Ifefner (QH)
Lake Colorado City (QC)
Meyer (QM)
Brady (QB)
Harbeck Nomograph & Pan Evaporation (QHN)
102
N.A.
1.64 x 109
(5.62 x 1012]
1,869
(493,714)
23.1
(6,075)
3.24
(860)
Not Given
6-26 (43-79)
20 (68)
445
(1,100)
38,223,000
(31,000)
846
(326)
20.9 (5,520)
12.2
17.9
15.0
13.9
14.7
(3,230)
(4,710)
(3,950)
(3,640)
(3,860)
Based on 1.64 x 109 kwh/yr rejected to Lake Colorado City.
The corrected pan evaporation rate was 12.3 cu m/min.
56
-------
CO
^J
JB
2
30 -
25 -
20 -
15 -
10 -
5 -
- 50
- 40
e
I
"s
30 -
w
1
- 20
- 10
JFMAMJJASONO
Month
Figure 10. Cooling pond model predicted evaporation
rates for Morgan Creek Station (I960).
57
-------
TABLE 16. COOLING LAKE OPERATING DATA FOR CCMVDNWEALTH EDISON'S,
KINCAID STATION (1977 Annual Data)
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Ifoit Haat Rejection Rate,
kcalAWh (BTUAWh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate,
cu m/min (GEM)
Flow Rate into Pond, cu m/min
(GEM)
Flow Rate out of Pond,
cu nv/min (GPM)
Range, °C (°F)
Condenser Make-up Water Teirpera-
ture, °C (°FJ
Surface Area of Cooling System,
ha (acres)
Volume of Cooling System, cu m
(acre-ft.)
Drainage Area , sq. km. (sq. mi.)
Evaporation, cu m/min (GPM)
1976 Annual Average
Model Predictions
Lake Hefner (QH)
Lake Colorado City (QC)
Mayer (CM)
Brady (QB)
Harbeck Ncmograph & Pan Evaporation (QHN)
1,319
34 (47.8, 1971-1975)
1,310
(5,200)
1,817 (479,981)
109.2 (28,800)
73.2 (19,300)
7.7 (13.8)
16.7 (62.0)
972*
(2,400)
41,305,500 (33,500)
198 (76.6)
36.2 (9,560)
26.4 (6,960)
39.0 (1,030)
34.4 (9,070)
30.1 (7,940)
19.g (5,340)
NOTE: 2,165 acres was the effective area used as suggested by
Commonvealth Edison. The available cooling area was
reduced because one arm of Sangchris Lake is not
available for cooling.
The corrected pan evaporation rate was 12.6 cu m/min.
58
-------
evaporation rate is an independently derived value based on an accepted
thermal model, it was used for comparison with the predictions from the
five models.
Meteorological data (shown in Appendix B) were obtained from the NWS
at Springfield, Illinois, about 20 miles south of the plant.
Using the 1976 data, model predictions of the evaporation rate were
made and are presented on Figure 11. Based on a map of the lake and
information from, the utility, one arm of the lake (about 10 percent of
the surface area) was not included in the evaporation calculation because
it was not available for cooling.
As with most other pond results, the model predictions understate the
evaporation from the cooling lake. Two cooling lake models were within
±15 percent of the utility-provided 36.2 cu rn/min evaporation rate; the
Harbeck et al (Lake Colorado City) model predicted a value of
39.0 cu m/min , while the Meyer model predicted 34.4 cu m/min.
A comparison of meteorological and operating data between the period
1971-1975 vs. 1976 shows generally cooler ambient temperatures and lower
pond temperatures for 1976. This will normally result in less evaporation
and may account for some of the cooling lake models underestimating the
evaporation rate. The fact that the capacity factor for 1971-1975 was
48 percent versus a capacity factor of 34 percent for 1976 probably caused
some decrease in pond temperature for 1976.
Commonwealth Edison, Powerton Generating Station
Comnonwealth Edison also provided operating data shown in Table 17
for two units at the Powerton Generating Station and the associated cool-
ing pond. The man-made pond uses levees to contain water pumped to the
pond, but considerable seepage occurs which acts as a blowdown stream. This
seepage has been estimated by the utility to be 56 cu m/min (32.9 cfs).
The pond is baffled to enhance mixing and direct flow.
59
-------
2
40 -
35 -
30 -
1S -
10
P
- SO
T
- 50
- 40 4
- 30
S
2
§
- 20
- 10
JFMAMJJASONO
Mcnth
Figure 11. Oaoling pond model predicted evaporation rates
for Kincaid Station (1976).
60
-------
The operating data were average values for the time period September 1971
through February 1974 and the 12 months ending June 30, 1977. For comparison
purposes, the utility provided 1973 pond temperature data when only Unit
5 discharged to the pond (840-MW unit) and 1977 pond temperature data when
Unit 6 (945^W) also discharged to the pond. Meteorological data for 1973
were obtained from the NWS at Peoria, Illinois and are presented in
Appendix B.
The evaporation and seepage values from the cooling pond were determined
by Gomncnwealth Edison Company for the period September 1972 through February
1974. The evaporation rate was calculated as the difference between
make-up from the Illinois River plus direct precipitation and estimated
seepage losses. An annual average value of 18.5 cu m/min (10.9 cfs) was
provided by the utility as the cooling pond evaporation rate during this
period.
The model values, shown on Figure 12, predict an average annual
evaporation rate for 1973 (Uoit 5 only) from 12.6 to 18.0 cu m/min. The
Lake Colorado City and Meyer models were within ±15 percent of the water
balance value provided by Gctrinonwealth Edison. The evaporation rate predict-
ed by that Lake Colorado City model was 18.0 cu m/min (10.6 cfs), under-
estimating evaporation by 3 percent, while the Meyer mocel predicted
evaporation of 15.7 cu m/min (9.2 cfs), a difference of -15 percent.
The 1977 operating data provided an opportunity to approximate the
increase in forced evaporation from this cooling pond when Uhit 6 was
added. Its effect on evaporation is reflected in the 1977 model predict-
ions. The values below show the difference between 1973 and 1977
evaporation rates predicted by the Lake Colorado City and Meyer models.
Model-predicted evaporation rate for January through August 1977 (cu m/min)
Difference in Increase In
MODEL 1977 1973 Evaporation Bate Evaporation
Lake Colorado City 27.4 18.0 9.4 52%
Mayer 24.1 15.8 8.3 53%
61
-------
TftBLE 17. COOLING ?CHD QPEROXNG DATA FOR COMMONWEALTH EDISCN,
POWERICN STMiai (Unit ito. 5 and No. 6 1977 Annual Data)
(1973) (1977)
ttiit HO. 5 Chit tto. 6
Plant: Capacity VSfl) 840 945
Plant Capacity Factor (%1 51.7 47.1
Uiit Hsat Rejection Sate, 1,140 (4,540)a
Circulating Water Flaw Sate, 2,614.4 (690, 562)a
kcal/kHh (BTU/kWh)
Flow Rate iato Sand, cu mAtin 74.4 (19,666.2)a
CSM)
Flow Hate out of Pond, 55.9 (I4,772.1)a
cu nVtain (<3M)
Ranee, °C C9?) 10.4 (18.8) 10.7 (19.3)
Ccndenser Make-uo Mater Tsscsra- 34.1 (61.5) 33.6 (60.6)
tare, «C (?)
Surface Area cf Cooling Svstesi, 577 (l^e)3
ha Cacrss)
Volute cf Cooling Svstas, cam 712,094 (15,600)a
Cacrs-ft. ]
Drainage Area J'A N/A
evaporation, ca n/rain (GEM)
9/71 - 2/74 Average Annual (Utility- provided) 18.5 (4,391.9 N/A
Model Predictions (1973) - Chit No. 5
Lake Hefeer (QH) 12.6 (3,320)
Lake Colorado City (QC) 18.0 (4,760)
.'fevers (QMJ 15.7 (4,130)
Brady (QB) b 14.0 (3,580)
Harfaeck NonDgraph -i- Pan Evaporation ((33N) 14.0 (3,680)
>bdel Predicted Evaporaticn -
(1/77-8/77) - Oiits 5 and 6
Lake Colorado City (QC) 27.6 (7,270)
Msyer (CM) 24.2 (6,370)
a Values placed between Units No. 5 and ~So. 6 correspond to averags data
for the year ending 6/30/77.
V,
The corrected pan evaporation rate was 7.1 cu m/min.
62
-------
S
2
S
2
I
3S -
30 -
2S -
20 -
IS -
10 -
n
95
- 50
- 40
60
1
30
. 10
JFMAMJ JASONO
Fiaure 12. Cooling paid model predicted evaporation rates
for Powertan Station (1973).
63
-------
Comparing 1977 and 1973 meteorology shows that 1973 was generally
warmer, more humid, and more windy. These three factors should act to
narrow the difference between the two years. It appears therefore that
Unit No. 6 by doubling the plant produced at least a 50 percent increase
in the total evaporation rate.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, Mt. Storm Station
The utility supplied relevant operating data for two months, January
and July 1977, for Mt. Storm Station which are shown in Table 18. These
data have restricted use for evaluating which of the four models better des-
cribes actual evaporative loss for a geographic region without concurrent
flow or evaporation data. Since the utility did not provide actual field
data, USGS stream data were relied upon for performing a material balance.
The components used for the water balance equation are:
Gaged inflow from creeks or tributaries
Drainage basin areas and runoff rates
Seepage, if any
Gaged outflow
A USGS gaging station is located 7% miles downstream from the Mt.
Storm Lake dam; this distance adds another 17 square miles of drainage basin
that must be subtracted to obtain dam flows. The actual lake drainage
basin area is known, but not the flows in Stony Creek which
is the major inflow to the lake. An attempt was made to estimate flows
in Stony Creek from USGS-provided data on other nearby creeks with similar
flows. Abram Creek, Patterson Creek, the North Branch of the Potomac River
and the Blackwater Pdver were chosen. January and July flows were obtained
for Stony Creek, but the estimated flow varied by 30 to 70 percent depending
upon which of the five similar creeks were used in the determination.
Therefore, the estimated Stony Creek flows added large uncertainties to
the material balance.
The water balance-calculated evaporation rates for Mt. Storm Lake
were -2.0 cu m/min for January and 4.7 cu m/min for July. The negative
evaporation rate and low summer evaporation rate were attributed to the
64
-------
TABLE 18. COOLING LAKE OPERATING DATA FOR VIRGINIA. ELECTRIC AND
POWER'S MP. STORM PLANT (January and July 1977).
January
July
Plant Capacity (MW)
Plant Capacity Factor (%)
Unit 1
tiiit 2
Unit 3
Unit Heat Rejection Rate,
kcalAWh (BTUAWh)
Circulating Water Flow Rate,
cu m/ftiin (GPI1)
Flow Rate into Pond,
cu m/min (GPM)
Flow Rate out of Pond,
cu m/min (GPM)
Annual Range, °C (°F)
Condenser Make-up Water
Temperature, °C (°F)
Surface Area of Cooling System,
ha (acres)
Volume of Cooling System,
cu m (acre-ft.)
Drainage Area, sq. km. (sq. mi.)
Evaporation, cu m/min (GPM)
Material Balance
Model Prediction
Lake Hsfner (QH)
Lake Colorado City (QC)
Meyer (QM)
Brady (QB)
1,662 MW
68.8%
61.2%
35.4%
1,078 (4,280)
3,366 (889,020)
692 (182,743)
1,078 (4,280)
3,366 (889,020)
539 (142,378)
29.0(7,676) 11.8(3,124)
18.5 (33.3)
5.7 (42.2)
28.4 (83.1)
457.6 (1,130)
6.0 x 107 (4.9 x 10")
78 (30)
-2.0 (-539) **
7.7 (2,020)
11.2 (2,960)
10.6 (2,780)
10.0 (2,650}
4.7 (1,260)
10.9 (2,870)
16.2 (4,260)
24.3 (6,420)
19.2 (5,070)
The negative material balance value was caused by uncertainties in the
estimated flews in Stony Creek.
The lack of monthly pan evaporation data precluded calculation of
nodel-predicted values.
65
-------
uncertainties in the estimated flows in Stony Creek and the lack of informa-
tion concerning lake level changes during the period.
Nevertheless, model predictions were made based on meteorological data
from the NWS at Elkins, West Virginia (Appendix B). The results obtained
from the models are presented in Figure 13 and 14.
For the month of January, three of the four models predicted about
10-11 cu m/min, with the Lake Hefner model producing a lower value of 7.7
cu m/min. The model results for July varied by more than a factor of two
with the Lake Hefner model predicting only an 10.9 cu m/min rate, while
the Msyer model produced an evaporation rate of 24.3 cu m/min compared to
the material balance computation of 4.7 cu m/min.
For a 1,660-MW generating station, these evaporation rates are relative-
ly low compared to other power plants studied in this program. This is
probably due to the low area per unit power (acre/MWe) ratio which
in effect reduces natural evaporation more than the increased lake thermal
loading increases forced evaporation. A further discussion of the effect
of area per unit power on cooling pond/lake evaporation rate is provided in
Chapter 6. A definitive analysis of these model predictions, however, needs
more reliable field measurements to characterize the water mass balance
around the Mt. Storm cooling lake.
Carolina Power and Light Company, H.B. Robinson Station
Carolina Fewer and Light operates two units at its H.B. Robinson
Station with a total capacity of 885 KW. The cooling lake contains 2,250
acres of surface area and 173 square miles of drainage. The utility per-
formed a study of its cooling system discharge for the Robinson impound-
ment for the period April 1975 through March 1976.3 This study provided
operating and meteorological input data for the computer models and
material balance calculations. Table 19 presents the annual average opera-
ting data for this station. Concurrent meteorology is provided in Appendix B.
The various components of the water balance around the impoundment
were available from the Section 316 Demonstration Study.3 An estimate
of the evaporative loss was computed as follows:
66
-------
-------
2J
22 -
21 -
20 -
1» -
III -
I/ -
16 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -
7 -
6 -
6 -
4 -
3 -
1 -
C
1
)
,eu,,
4> -on
O -«c
H-OM
A -no
1
C
!
<
1
q
I
,
»
C
1
C
i
)
(
1 ,
p
n £
1 t
T <
> 1
1
, *<
c
i
<
>
<
i
C
13
1
(
;
1
1
,
t
(
1 c
j
»
i (
4,
p
;i
<
i
4
o
8
i
q
D
c
c
:
»
i
1
\
<
4
i
t
i
>
<
c
t
)
c
i
1
»
4..
p
C
t
1
1
(
p t
(
D
V
n
)
i
c
i i
)
w
(
>
<
p
<
<
Q
r
q
q y
\
)
4
q
(
i
(
> i
<
i
i
(
i
(
l
(
9
>
i
'i
)
<
p
i|
;
»
(
t
;
4
1
i
P
Q
v i
»
- 32
- 3O
20
- 26
- 24
- 22
- 20
- It
- 16
- 14
- 12
- to
- a
- 6
- 4
- 2
- O
I 2 34 b li 1 a 0 ID II 12 13 14 IS IS M 1U IK 20 21 22 23 24 2b 26 2) 2» 29 3O 31
Date
Figure 14. Cooling lake model predicted evaporation rates for Mt. Storm Station (July 1977)
-------
TABLE 19. COOLING LAKE OPERATING DATA FOR CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY'S H.B. ROBINSON PLANT (April 1975 - March 1976).
Plant Capacity (MW) 885
Plant Capacity Factor (%) 67
Uhit Haat Rejection Rate, 1,230
kcalAWh (BTUAWh) (4,900)
Circulating Water Flow Rate, 1,896.4
cu m/nin (GPH) (500,923)
Flow Rate into Pond, cu m/min 496.7
(GEM) (131,202)
Flow Rate out of Pond, 474.1
cu m/min (GPM) (125,232)
Range, °C (°F) 7.8 (14.1)
Condenser Make-uo Water Tertpera- 22.0 (71.6)
ture, °C (°F3
Surface Area of Cooling System, 911.2 (2,250)
ha (acres)
Volume of Cooling System, cu m 5.06 x 107
(acre-ft.) (41,000)
Drainage Area, sq. km. (sq. mi.) 448 (173)
Evaporation, cu m/min (GPM)
Material Balance 44.6 (11,800)
Model Predictions
Lake Hefner (QH) 26.0(6,870)
Lake Colorado City (QC) 38.3(10,100)
Meyer (OM) 40.2(10,600)
Brady (QB) a 34.0(8,980)
Harbeck Nomograph & Pan Evaporation (QHN) 26.8(7,090)
aThe corrected pan evaporation rate was 16.0 cu m/min.
69
-------
Evaporative loss = Inflow from Black Creek and others + precipitation
- flow over the dam ± changes in pond level.
In 1975, the annual average loss was calculated to be 44.6 cu m/min
(26.2 cfs).
The model predictions based on actual monthly operating data are pre-
sented in Figure 15. The annual average model-predicted evaporation and
the material balance results (all in cu m/min) are compared below:
Model
Lake Hefner Lake Colorado City Mayer Brady Material Balance
26.0 38.3 40.2 34.0 44.6
The relatively good agreement of the Lake Colorado City and Mayer models with
the material balance values on an annual basis does not reflect the fact that
for some months the model predicted evaporative losses differed from the
material balance values by as much as 50 cu m/min.
The utility provided measured temperature data in its Section 316
Demonstration such that the net temperature rise in the pond due to the power
plant heat rejection could be calculated by comparing a baseline year (1960)
when the plant was not in operation with average tenperatures for three years
when the plant was operating (1972-1974). liider summer conditions, the
power plant discharge caused an average 1.8°C rise in lake discharge tempera-
ture and 2.8°C for winter months.3 The models were exercised using data for
baseline (1960) and one operating year (1973) which provided the following
annual averages in cu m/min.
Total Natural Forced Forced
Model Evaporation Evaporation Evaporation Evaporation, %
Lake Colorado
City 42.4 32.5 9.7 23
Mayer 45.6 35.2 10.4 23
These values do not reflect the variations that arise on a month-to-month
basis. The power plant discharge accounts for an evaporation rate of
70
-------
80 -
70 -
SO -
-, *<>
0}
a
s
I
30 -
20 -
10 -
o
- 140
- 120
c
s.
- 60 S
40
M J J A
Mcntfa
Figure 15. Cbolinc pcand model predictEd a'/apora-
tion rates for Itobinson Station (1975-1976)
71
-------
about 10 cu m/min (6 cfs) en a yearly average, which is about 20-25
percent of the total evaporative loss. Since the lake was constructed
primarily as part of the cooling system, the total evaporative loss has
been attributed to the plant.
Duke Power Company, Belews Creek Station
Duke Power operates toro units with a total capacity of 2,286 Md, on a
large lake serving a dual purpose as a cooling lake and a recreational
facility. The annual average operating data for 1977 are presented in
Table 20.
The topographic layout of the plant's intake and discharge points are
so arranged that the total area of the lake (3,550 acres) should not be in-
cluded in the model computations for evaporative loss. It is difficult to
arrive at the effective surface area, since no estimate could be made of the
flow characteristics around the power plant. This uncertainty impacts the
calculation of the forced evaporation rate. The total surface area con-
tributes to the natural evaporative loss.
The utility provided operating data on a daily basis for the year
1977. This represents the most extensive data for a cooling pond used in
this study. In conjunction with the operating data, dam flows, lake
levels, inflows and precipitation were given. A material balance calcula-
tion yielded an average evaporative loss of 91 cu m/min (54 cfs). This
value is considerably larger than a water budget value of 31 cfs which
was presented by the utility and North Carolina Geological Survey at
regulatory hearings. Duke Power Company believes that the 31 cfs value
may be low, however.
The meteorological data were provided by the utility from a meteorologi-
cal tower situated in the middle of the cooling lake. The average monthly
meteorological data are shown in Appendix B. The averages of the model
predictions for each month are presented in Figure 16.
72
-------
TABLE 20. COOLING LAKE OPERATING DATA FOR DUKE POWER COMPANY'S
BELEWS CREEK STATION (1977 Annual Average)
Plant Capacity (MW) 2,286
Plant Capacity Factor (%} 66
Unit Hsat Rejection Rate, 1,065
kcalAWh (BTu/kWh) (4,225)
Circulating Water Flew Rate, 3,976.5
cu m/min (GPM) (1,050,332)
Flow Rate into Pond, cu m/min 99.3
(GPM) (26,222)
Flow Rate out of Pond, 43-1
cu m/min (GPM) (11,381)
Range, °C (°F) 10.2 (18.4)
Condenser Make-uo Water Ifenpera- 19-9 (67.9)
ture, °C (°F)
Surface Area of Cooling System, 1,439 (3,553)
ha Cacres)
l/olume of Cooling Svstera, cu m 2.17 x 108
(acre-ft.) * (176,000)
Drainage Area , sq. km. (sq. mi.) 114 (70.9)
Evaporation, cu m/min (GPM)
Material Balance 90.9 (24,000)
Model Predictions
Lake Hefner (QH) 37.8 (9,960)
Lake Colorado City (QC) 55.5 (14,600)
Meyer (QM) 58.7 (15,500)
Brady (QB) 46.5 (12,300)
Harbeck Nomographs Pan Evaporation (QHN)a 48.8 (12,900)
The corrected pan evaporation value was 24.1 cu m/min.
73
-------
as .
so -
55
50 -
45 -
^_
in
(U 40 -
2
|
IB 3S
1 .
zs -
20 -
15 -
g
;
;
LEGEND
O "OH
a -QC
-OM
A -OB
4
C
_
Lj ^
T
t i
A A
>
3
^
5
<
C
:
(J
<
[
»
] '
I
c
\
4
4
C
i
>
d
>
r
t
1
i
^
»
T
r
L
0 <
!
)
]
^
X
I
D
r
c
I
i
)
p
1 g
i
o
i.
c
P
L !
i
^
c
5
i
0
. 110
90
e
!
j
70 m
S
8
IB
8
Evaporoi
. 30
JFMA M J JASONO
Mzith
Figure 16. Cooling pond model predicted evaporation
rates for Selews Creek Station (19771
74
-------
A ooirpariscn of the annual predicted evaporation versus material
balance calculations show that the model predictions range from 35 to 58
percent lower. The Meyer model provided the best estimate / 58.7
cu m/min or an underestimation of 35 percent.
To investigate evaporation during extreme meteorological conditions,
material balance and predicted evaporation rate values for the months of
January and August were compared. For January, the material balance provided
a value of 64 cu m/min. The Harbedc et al (Lake Colorado City) model
and Mayer model predicted evaporation rates of 45 and 42 cu m/min, respect-
ively, a 30-35 percent underestimation. In contrast, for August/ the
computer model-predicted evaporation rates ranged from 31 percent to 2
percent lower than the material balance value of 99 cu m/min. The Hefner
model prediction of 68 cu m/min was the only model^predicted value not
within ±15 percent of the water balance calculated result. The Lake
Colorado City model value of 108 cu m/min was the most accurate prediction.
A possible reason for the underprediction is the method for estimating
lake inflow. The USGS data for area streams are used to predict inflow,
based on a historical correction factor for runoff and drainage area
differences between streams. According to the USGS, these stream flow
values are accurate within ±5 percent. Gaging station data from four
similar streams in the vicinity of Lake Belews were used to estimate pond
inflow. The inaccuracy and uncertainty of averaging similar stream
flows could cause an error in the water balance greater than the desired
±15 percent model accuracy. This hypothesis is strengthened
by the fact that for August when stream flows are low and less varied, the
computer model predictions and water balance values are quite close.
A further discussion and sensitivity analysis on Lake Belews is
provided in Section 6.
75
-------
SECTION 6
MDEEL ACCURACY AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
To compare evaporation rates for different sized power plants with
unequal capacity factors/ a common (normalized)basis is needed. The two
normalizing parameters used here were average hourly power generation
(MW, or MWH/hr) and unit heat rejection (106 kcal/hr). These parameters
were divided into the predicted or given evaporation rates to normalize
the results (i.e., cu m/min-MW and cu m/106 kcal).
COOLING TOWERS
A comparison of cooling tower evaporation rates on a common basis
(i.e./normalized) was made to further investigate the variables that impact
consumptive water use. Table 21 lists each power plant's cooling tower
evaporation rate on a unit power (per MW) and unit heat rejection (per
106 kcal) basis. The accuracy of the Leung and Moore model relative to
material balance values is also illustrated.
On the average, the Leung and Moore model was within ±15 percent
of the material balance data when those power plants with capacity factors
less than 50 percent were excluded. The previous discussion concerning
Arkansas Power and Light's peaking and intermediate units is relevant
here. That is, the varying heat load and inherent inefficiencies in
peaking operation are not well simulated by the simple Leung and Moore
model. The necessity for steady-state data input to the model precludes
modeling of peaking and possibly intermediate units.
With the exclusion of the non-baseload units, the mean of the ratios of
material balance calculation values to model-predicted values is 1.02. This
might be interpreted as indicating the overall accuracy of the Leung and
Moore model is better than ±15 percent. However, there are several units,,
including North Main Station and Homer City (summer), that were outside
76
-------
TABLE 21. COMPARISON OF ALL COOLING TOWKR EVAPORATION RA1ES AS CALCUIJYIED AMD IUHMAUOSU
Ratio Normalized Evaporation Normalized Evaporation
Plant/Unit Size (MM)
Huntington/400
Navajo/750
N. Main/85
Permian/100
Newnen-1/86
-2/90
-3/110
Rio Orande-6/50a
-7/50
-8/1653
Lynch/239 a
Couch/161a
llarer City/1328
Clay Boswell/350
Koshkonong Nuclear/ 900
Tine
Pericd
annual
houriy-sunner
hourly-suntner
hour ly-sumer
August
August
August
July
July
July
annual
annual
annual
January
July
January
August
annual
annual
Material
Balance
(cu iq/min)
12.5b
12.6
(12.2)
1.46
3.0
4.2
4.0
4.5
1.1
1.4
4.2
2.45
4.16
1.62
16.9
40.5
(18.6)d
7.95
40
Model Pre-
diction
(cu nv/min)
12.8
13.8
1.96
3.]
3.7
3.9
4.5
2.4
2.1
6.5
7.2
(0.85)e
14.4
7.6
(2.2)e
14.7
26.0
5.61
8.41
42
Model/
Material
Balance
1.02
1.10
1.34
1.03
0.88
0.98
1.00
2.18
1.50
1.55
3.0
(0.35>e
3.5
<0.41>e
4.7
(1.35)e
0.87
0.67
0.88
1.05
cu nytain-MW
Material
Balance
0.039
0.016
0.025
0.030
0.082
0.052
0.042
0.072
0.050
0.053
0.177
0.145
0.035
0.030
0.054
(0.026)d
0.031
0.044
Model
0.040
0.01B
0.034
0.031
0.072
0.051
0.042
0.157
0.075
0.082
0.531 e
(0.061)
0.508
(0.047)
0.163
(0.059)
0.026
0.036
0.019
0.026
0.046
cu m/lQ*
Material
Balance
1.84b
0.85.
o.sr
0.99
1.49
3.44
2.17
1.86
2.62
2.11
2.45
5.54
4.93
1.02
1.19
2.62
(1.20)d
1.50
1.43
kcal
Model
1.88
0.96
1.32
1.54
3.02
2.15
1.86
5.73
3.17
3.79
16.5
(1.92)e
17.3
(1.60)e
4.77
(1.73)e
1.04
1.68
0.86
1.24
1.50
a Units with capacity factors less than 50 percent
b Rased on constant outlet air temperature
c Marley test results
d Gilbert Asaoc. curves
o Results X capacity factor
-------
the ±15 percent limits. In fact, for simmer conditions, the average
ratio of the Leung and Moore model to material balance results was 1.15.
This illustrates the tendency of this generic model to overpredict slightly
during the summer months. The summer evaporation rate was underpredicted
for only one case, by 12 percent, at Newman Station No. 1.
Ihe normalized evaporation rates for cooling towers vary over a large
range as shown in Table 21. There is a marked tendency for the large, base-
load units with high capacity factors to have the lowest evaporation rate per
MW. This is probably due to their lower heat rate (higher efficiency) during
operation. The five units that operated at or near 100 percent capacity
(Navajo, North Main Station, Permian, Newman No. 3, and Clay Boswell Unit 3)
also had low normalized evaporation rates. Based on model predicted values,
the peaking and intermediate units of the Arkansas Power and Light Company
and the two Rio Grande units with less than 50 percent capacity factors had
the highest normalized evaporation rates.
For baseload units, a value of 0.040 cu m/min-MW and 1.3 cu m/106 kcal
appear to be adequate approximations of summer evaporation rates. An annual
factor of 0.040 cu m/min-MW is supported by these data. Regional
variations between cooling towers appear to be insignificant (this is con-
sistent with the fact that cooling towers are designed to reject between 70
to 90 percent of the heat load as latent heat based on regional meteorology).
COOLING PONDS/LAKES
Table 22 is the summary of annual and summer month evaporation rates as
calculated and normalized (i.e.,on a common basis and corrected for capacity
factor) for cooling ponds/lakes. In contrast to the cooling towers
discussed in this report, the power plants associated with the cooling ponds/
lakes were generally large baseload units. Only two plants, Morgan Creek
and Kincaid, had annual capacity factors less than 50 percent.
A major point highlighted in this table is the relative accuracy of the
Lake Colorado City (Harbeck-Koberg-Hughes) and Meyer models.
78
-------
TAIUJ; 22. SIJMMAKY Of UXJI.INC l-OND/IAKU MA'llSIUAL DAfJiNOi AND LUMPl/lliR MODU1. l.VAl'OKATJUN VAUtliS ON
AN 'AS IS1 AND NORMALIZED BASIS.
VO
I'ldnt/Uiit or
Station Size (M)
ClioUa/120
Moryari Creek/102
(equivalent)
II. n. Hobinson/885
Du lews Creek/
2,286
Mt. Stornv'1,662
Kincaid/1,319
l'owurton/840
Tine
Period
July
annual
Auyust
annual
August
annual
August
annual
January
July
Alltjust:
annual
August
annual
(1973)
Material
Balance
cu irv/min
6.9
29.fi
21.11
76.5
44.6
99.1
90.9
36.2
18.5
Model
Predicted
cu n/min
QU
6.8
4.3
22.6
12.2
38.1
26.0
68.5
37.8
7.7
10.9
44.7
26.4
18.8
12.6
-------
The Lake Colorado City (Harbeck-Koberg-Hughes) model predictions are
with ±15 percent of the annual average values for 5 of the 6 plants for
which independently-provided values were available. The one exception
is for the Belews Creek Station, although here the model is within 15
percent of the water budget value estimated by the North Carolina Geologic-
al Survey. The Meyer model is within ±15 percent of annual average values
for 4 of the 6 plants. In contrast, neither the Marciano-Harbeck model nor
Brady model is within ±15 percent of the given or calculated value for any
plant. The Harbeck nomograph plus pan evaporation method was not within
±15 percent for any plants.
For plants where summer month values were given or could be calculated
by material balances, the Lake Colorado City and Meyer models showed about
the same accuracy (i.e., within ±15 percent of summer material balance values
for 2 of 3 plants).
Based on this discussion, it is suggested that estimates of the Lake
Colorado City and Meyer models generally predict evaporation rates within
±15 of material balance or thermal model calculated values.
A second finding is the consistency of the normalized values for
evaporation rate in cu m/min-ha for both summer and annual values. These
values are grouped into two distinct classes; those associated with a
southern climate (Cholla, Morgan Creek, H.B. Robinson and Belews) have
summer evaporation rates between 0.067 and 0.073 cu m/min-ha (0.027 and
0.030 cu m/min-acre) and annual rates of 0.04 and 0.05 cu m/min-ha (about
0.020 cu m/min-acre) , while northern cooling ponds have annual values of
between 0.03 and 0.04 cu m/min-ha (0.01 and 0.02 cu m/min-acre). This
consistency in evaporation values may be attributed to two factors:
A large percentage of evaporation per acre is natural and
therefore is dependent on climate but not power plant thermal
discharges.
The relatively constant area per unit power (ha/MW) ratio
which varies between 0.66 and 1.15, excluding Mt. Storm
and Morgan Creek.
80
-------
On. the other hand, the normalized evaporation rate per megawatt is
not as consistent. The annual average values range over a factor of about
four from 0.046 to 0.175 cu m/minHMW. Based on a constant area per unit
power (ha/Mtf) value, there is some similarity in the results. Figure 17
shows a relatively second-order relationship between evaporation rate
per unit power (cu irv/min-MW) and area per unit power (ha/MW). This curve
may be useful for estimating evaporation rates for similar cooling ponds/
lakes at power plants with capacity factors of 0.5 to 0.7; however, further
data and analyses are needed to support this finding.
Although the different models utilized in this study share the same
basic variables such as thermal driving force and wind speed, the Harbeck
et al and Brady equations are more sensitive to wind speed.
The dominant variable, however, in computing cooling pond/lake evapora-
tive loss is the pond/lake equilibrium temperature. This is particularly
true in the hot summer months when evaporation is several times higher than
in winter. High summer evaporation rates are directly attributed to the
non-linear behavior of the thermal driving force. To demonstrate this
behavior, several hypothetical computations using the Lake Colorado city mcxfjel
were performed for Mt. Storm using data for the extreme meteorological condi-
tion months of January and July. Wind speeds in January average more than
twice the magnitude of July; yet for all five models, July evaporative loss
computations are twice as large as January. The arerage ambient temperatures
for January were about -8°C (18°F) and for July were about 24°C (75°F).
If AT is defined as being the difference between average ambient air and
pond/lake temperatures, the following results can be calculated:
Evaporation
Time Lake Ambient Rate,
Period Temp,°C Temp,°C AT,°C (cu m/min)
January 1977 5.7 -8.3 14 11.2
July 1977 23 21 7 16.2
81
-------
.zs -
.20 -
s
s
2 s «
5 J
.10 -
.us -
.
-------
An increase in the pond/lake tenperature of 10 percent (approximately
3°C) during the summer months caused a 60 percent increase in the
evaporative loss. A 10% wind speed increase only produced up to a 10%
greater evaporation rate as would be expected when using a model having
a linear evaporation rate-wind speed function relationship.
As a second rough estimate of the relationship between wind speed
and pond tenperature concerning evaporative loss, Lake Colorado City model
predictions were made on Lake Belews data for the month of August. These
computations indicated that an average increase of wind speed of 50
percent had the same effect on pond evaporation rate as a 2°C (3.6°F)
increase in pond tenperature.
Since meteorology is uncontrollable, pcnd temperature emerges as the
variable that can be controlled to limit evaporative loss.
Even if pcnd/lake temperatures were minimized, natural evaporation
would cause significant water consumption. This water consumption is caused
by exposing large water surfaces to solar radiation and wind currents.
Natural evaporation from the cooling ponds/lakes investigated were estimated
using National Weather Service pan evaporation data and applying a correc-
tion coefficient of O.7.25 Table 23 compares adjusted monthly pan evapora-
tion data and the Lake Colorado City cooling pond/lake model-predicted values.
The table shows that the monthly natural evaporation can be as low as
25 percent of total monthly evaporation or as high as 110 percent depending
on location, time of year, and plant load. Two monthly values where natural
evaporation exceeds total evaporation at Morgan Creek reflect the fact, as
noted by Harbeck,9 that at this location total evaporation exceeds natural
evaporation by only 5 to 10 percent in the summer months. Potential
inaccuracies of pan evaporation values and small variations in model predic-
tions could readily account for these anomalies. Extended power plant down
times for annual maintenance are reflected in the table when total and
natural evaporation are nearly equal (e.g., Cholla and Morgan Creek plants
in June and Robinson in April). For the hotter, dryer climatic regions,
represented by Cholla and Morgan Creek, natural evaporation is about 60-80
percent of total evaporation in the summer and 50-60 percent in the autumn
and winter. In contrast, for the more temperate climatic regions, natural
83
-------
00
TAUIJi 23. MONTHLY ADJUSTED PAN EVAPORATION IWTA COMPAHUD TO UOOIJNG POND MOOUf. TOTAI.
LVAKHtoTION PmJICrtONS (
.Tun
Pub
Mar
Flay
Jim
July Aurj
Sept
Oct
Itov
Doc
o*na
Nnrcjan Creek 4.5
Ki ncaid
Towerton
II. B. Robint-on
lielews Creek
Mt. iitorni
Cholla 1.94
Morgan Creek 8. 5
ia ncaid ^6.8
Rwerton 16.0
II. B. tobinson 15.3
Uelewa Creek 45.0
Mt. Storro 11.2
7.44
17.9 19.7
25.86
12.53
18.2 19.7 27.8 26.5
25.3 38.7 40.2
10.4
Model Predicted
3.69 5.91 8.60 11.37
11.0 5.4 21.2 17.9
8.7 15.8 16.7 53.1
7.0 12.2 4.4 25.2
35.0 52.1 29.7 37.2
36.7 36.2 44.9 47.2
9.22
25.7
33.4
18.9
30.9
4?.. 3
9.1
5.93
21.3
35.77
10.1
25.2
55.1
10.7
5.18
22.1
25.2
15.64
27.5
43.3
9.1
3.98
17.4
23.63
10.5
19.8
34.8
6.02
2.58
11.6
14.4
15.34
20.7
4.4
1.47
7.9 5.2
11.5 7.2
Total Evaporation3
13.89
25.6
47.4
32.0
37.4
58.4
9.94
26.1
57.8
26.6
62.9
88.7
16.2
10.98
33.7
65.8
27.6
56.0
101
6.77
32.8
46.0
32.3
4B.2
65.3
5.04
21.5
43.8
15.7
45.7
61.9
2.96 2.21
14.7 7.8
46.5 39.0
6.8 10.4
27.2 18.0
46.1 34.4
'using lake Colorado City (Itarback-Koberg-Hughes) model
-------
evaporation ranges from 35 to 70 percent in the summer. Pan evaporation
values are typically not measured from November through April in
northern climatic areas.
85
-------
SECTION 7
REGIONAL COMPARISON
A primary objective of this study is to compare consumptive water vise
from cooling towers and cooling ponds/lakes on a regional basis. The 18
U.S. water resource regions are shown on Figure 18. The 16 cooling systems
investigated provide comparisons for seven water resource regions. These
regions are the Lower Colorado, Texas Gulf, RLo Grande, South Atlantic
Gulf, Upper Mississippi, Ohio, and Mid-Atlantic.
A major problem in comparing these cooling systems is that they are
of different sizes and capacity factors. Therefore, the normalized values
presented in Section 6 were used in the comparison instead of actual
evaporation rates.
Another point of concern is how natural evaporation from cooling ponds/
lakes should be charged to the power plant. In this study the natural
evaporation has been included in total plant consumptive water use, because
the cooling systems were built specifically to accommodate the power plants.
Several ponds/lakes are used for recreational purposes as well. If only
forced evaporation was considered, then annual evaporation rates would
decrease by as much as 80 percent (shown by the Lake Colorado City (Harbeck-
Koberg-Hughes)model at Morgan Creek) and at least by 45 percent
(at H.B. Robinson Plant). For 5 of the 6 cooling ponds,the natural
evaporation is betooeen 45 and 51 percent of the best model-predicted result.
The comparison of cooling ponds and cooling towers is presented in
Table 24. The values in the table generally show that evaporation rates
for cooling towers are lower than cooling ponds/lakes. This relationship
is strongest in the southern regions due to high natural evaporation rates
and area per unit power ratios above 0.6 ha/lYIW (1.5 ac/MW). For the
86
-------
WATER RESOURCE REGIONS
"**>»->..
t«
°*»u
»(v)
SOURIS-RED RAINY
*uM v, >\
-^IMTIM MtnM
I
i
; .
mnouou
'MISSOURI
.BASIN
*$&*°
i
I
«<*»
'&
[-£»"
GRf^r
UI4N
6^S//V
COLORADO
' J ^^^-^w 'i^i&^m
i""~«*l- ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED 1 \^^^X/p ^
?Vwi^ !~um-T ^"«i^^ VEt5N^SE|^^^^p^
. i r^ER
r~ " ^MI^ISSIP§ii|||||K ig7
ll^v. -«**>vlVir\ J?^saiiiiilif
1
'v^:>
«*syi
Figure 18. Water resource regions showing areas studied
NOTE: Shaded areas represent water resource regions containing cooling systems included in the regional
comparison.
-------
TABLE 24. REGIONAL COMPARISON OF COOLING SYSTEM EVAPORATION RAW
Water Resource
fcgion
Lower Colorado
! Itexas Gulf
Rio Grande
|
South Atlantic
Gulf
Upper
Mississippi
i
i
;Ohio
Mid- Atlantic
Plant
llu» ting lion
Navajo
Oiolla
Newman-tiiit 1
Newman-Unit 2
Newman-Unit 3
Rio Grande-Knit 6
Rio Grands-Unit 7
Rio Grande-Unit 8
Nortli Main
Permian
Margan Creek
II. n. Robinson
Lake Bellews
Clay-Doswoll
Koshkonong
Kincaid
PowF>rton-Unit 5
Manor City
ML. Storm
Cooling
System a
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
I,
I,
L
T
T
L
P
T
L
Plant Size
(W)
400
750
120
86
90
110
50
50
165
85
100
102
885
2,286
350
900
1,319
840
664
1,662
Capaci ty
Factor
80
100
0.7
59
86
98
30
58
48
100
12
67
66
93
100
34
47
57
55
Mattel Predicted/
Material Balance
Kvaporatlonb'C
(mVmin)
12.8/12.5
13.8/12.6
6.3/6.9d
3.7/4.2
3.9/4.0
4.5/4.5
2.4/1.1
2.1/1.4
6.5/4.2
2.9/2.5
3.1/3.0
20. 5/17. 9d
40. 2/44. 6e
58. 7/90. 2e
8. 4/7. 95 f
42/40
34. 4/36. 2e
8. 0/18. 5 d
25. 9/39. 5 f
Suratcr
Normalized" Evaporation Rate
InPTmTjPMWy fiiiVlO" "kcalj
0.018
0.103
0.072
0.024
0.025
0.292
0.075
0.101
0.034
0.031
0.29
0.089
0.062
0.026
0. 036
0.012-0.026
1.68
5.81
2.BB
2.00
1.86
5.73
3.17
3.96
1.89
1.54
11.1
4.4
3.5
1.35
1.68
0.66-1.5
Annual
Normalized Evaporation Rate
(mT/fii"n-MW)~ (m Y] 0K kcal )
0.04
0.075
1.88
3. 70
--
'
!
0.201
0.068
0.039
0.04
0.077
0.046
0.03
__
7.60
3.31
2.19
1.50
3.51
2.40
1.40
i
Cooling Tower (T) j Ccxjling I'orvl (P) j aid Cooling Lake (L).
For oooling towers tlie leung and Moore nrxtel was used. Far crsoling ponds, tl»e Ilart»<^k-Kot«rg-llvKjlies, or rt>yor mxtel, or Um llartieck nomngrnph
was used depending upon whicli nixlol noro closely apfiroximates mafcerial-bnlanora values. Hie Harbeck nonograph was calibrated using Morgan Creek data
Annual values are shown, exoept for performance tost results on ooolinq towers whidi are tesecl on full cajvicity test.
Harbed<-KolDerg--lliK|hes model
Mever incxfcl
Suin\Er value
-------
Ifcper Mississippi region, the normalized cooling pond evaporation rate begins
to approach the cooling tower value, and for the Ohio region the Mt. Storm
normalized predicted evaporation rate is less than that for Hater City
Station. This result is consistent with the low ha/Mtf value. A reason
that the Mt. Storm cooling pond evaporation rate is lower than that for the
Haner City Station cooling tower may be a result of its unusually low area
per unit power ratio of 0.28 ha/MW, which reduces natural evaporation relative
to forced evaporation.
It can be interpolated from the table that the cooling system evapora-
tion rate equivalency point (tower evaporation = pond evaporation) would
occur where the area per unit power value is less than 0.60 ha/MW. Certainly
further work must be performed to verify this conclusion and obtain a
better estimate, regionally, of the evaporation rate equivalency point.
RJKTHER DISCUSSION OF EVAPORATION RATE PREDICTIONS AND CONSUMPTIVE WATER USE
The evaporation results from cooling ponds/lakes and cooling towers in
this study differed from the results presented 'in earlier studies by Espey,
-------
The EH&A study defined consumptive water use as evaporation losses
minus a rainfall runoff term which conceptually accounts for increased
water availability downstream of the cooling pond/lake. The equation
used by EH&A was:
C = E + (r-1) P
where: C = oonsunptive water use
E = forced evaporation (from the Harbeck nomograph) plus
natural evaporation (from pan evaporation data)
r = runoff coefficient (always less than 1)
P = precipitation falling directly on the cooling water surface.
Evaporation rates were calculated as the sum of forced evaporation values
obtained from the Harbeck nomograph and natural evaporation values taken
from National Weather Service pan evaporation dat-a (described in Section
4.0).
The credit term, (r-1) P, always negative, represents the storage
of water that would otherwise be lost to evapotranspiration, soil moisture
and groundwater (i.e., basin recharge). The assumption made by EH&A is
that r can represent the runoff for an entire water resource region,
despite the fact that r is a function of the following variables that
change with site location, time and climatic conditions:
Soil infiltration capacity
Antecedent precipitation
Vegetation co-ver and type
Duration of rainfall
Terrain
Simple rainfall runoff relations such as given above, infiltration indices,
and runoff coefficients are normally applicable only to a single small
rirer basin. More coirplex rainfall runoff relations have, however, been
applied to large areas, including a number of basins.11
90
-------
The magnitude of this credit term can be seen by comparing the results
for similar plants in the tavo studies. A comparison was made for the
885-JW H.B. Robinson plant of Carolina Power and Light Company and the
1,319-JW Kincaid Plant of Commonwealth Edison Company and the hypothetical
plants in Richmond, Virginia and Columbus, Ohio, presented in the EH&A
report. The values presented in Table 25 permit comparison of evaporated
of an operational and hypothetical plant in adjacent water resource
regions, since the report by EH&A did not present values for cities in
the water resource regions where cooling ponds covered by this study were
situated.
Table 25 shows that the credit term can cause about 40-50 percent
decrease in water consumption by the cooling pond/lake. Since the rainfall
runoff term alone reduced consumptive water use in the examples by up
to 50 percent, the accuracy of the credit term used in the EH&A method
for determining water consumption by cooling ponds/lakes was studied by
Versar.
No corroborating field data or studies were found that indicate
what degree of precision could be expected using the simple rainfall runoff
credit term on a large river basin scale, thtil further studies verify
that the term can be used for large basins, it is suggested that the
rainfall runoff credit term be used only on a site-specific basis, as it
was intended.
This study generally supports the use of model-predicted values (i.e.,
Lake Colorado City or Meyer model) for evaporation rates and water consump-
tion from cooling ponds/lakes for the following reasons:
Field data-derived evaporation rates agree more closely with
model-predicted evaporation rates without the rainfall runoff
credit in the water consumption equation.
Hydrologists consulted during this study questioned the general
(2 7)
use and significance of this rainfall runoff credit termv '.
The rainfall runoff credit term has not been validated for large
water basins and its value with a general model is unproven.
91
-------
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF EH&A METHOD WITH AND WITHOUT
RAINFALL RUNOFF METHOD
PLANT
H.B. Robinson
Hypothetical
LOCATION
Darlington, S.C.
Richmond, Va.
SIZE (MW)
848
1,000
CAPACITY
FACTOR (%)
67
80
CALCULATED MATERIAL
AREA EVAPORATION BALANCE
(acres) EH&A METHOD (m3/inin)
2,250
2,000
28.8° 44.6
15.0b/12.0b'C
Kincaid
Hypothetical
Springfield, IL.
Columbus, OH.
1,310
1,000
34
80
2,400
2,000
23.5C
13.6b/9.2b'C
36.2
Excludes rainfall runoff term.
Includes rainfall runoff term.
Linear correction for plant capacity and pond acreage based on operating plant comparison values.
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
1. Bailey, G.F. and J. C. Sonnichsen, Jr. Discussion of Cooling Pond
Temperature Versus Size and Water Loss. Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Power Division. 98_ (POl)
June 1972, 175-178.
2. Carolina Power and Light Co. H.B. Eobinson Steam Electric Plant
316 Demonstration. Volume II. 1976.
3. Carolina Power and Light Co. H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant
316 Demonstration Summary. 1976
4. Consumptive Water Use Triplications of the Proposed EPA Effluent
Guidelines for Steam-Electric Power Generation. Document No. 7407.
Espey,Huston & Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas. May 1974. 87 p.
5. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source
Category. U.S. EPA. Haport No. EPA 440/1-74-029-a. October 1974. p. 425.
6. Hamilton, T.H. Estimating Cooling Tower Evaporation Rates. Power
Engineering. 81^,3. March 1977. p. 52-55.
7. Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory. Assessment of Require-
ments for Dry Towers. HEDL-TME 76-82. U.S. ERDA under Contract No.
EY-76-C-14-2170. September 1976. 365 pp.
8. Harbeck, G.E., J. 1964. "Estimating Forced Evaporation From Cooling Ponds."
Journal of_ The Power Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers. 9£ (PO3) P4061, October, 1964.
9. Harbeck, G.E., J. Stewart Meyers and G.H. Hughes. Effect on An
Increased Heat Load on The Thermal Structure and Evaporation of
Lake Colorado City, Texas. Texas Water Development Board, Report
24, 1966.
10. Leung, P. and R.E. Moore. Water Consunption Study for Navajo Plant.
Proceedings of the American Society of CivilJSngineers. Journal of
the Power Division. 97 (P04). December 197lT 749-766.
93
-------
11. Linslsy, R.K. and Franzini, J.B. Water Besouroes Engineering.
McGraw-Hall Company. 1972.
12. Littleton Research and Engineering Corporation. An Engineering-
Economic Study of Cooling Pond Performance. U.S. EPA Report No.
16130 DFX 05/70. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
May 1970. 172 p.
13. The Marley Company. Managing Waste Heat with the Water Cooling
Tower, 2nd edition. Mission, Kansas. 1973.
14. National Environmental Research Center. Reviewing Environmental
Impact Statements - Power Plant Cooling Systems, Engineering Aspects.
U.S. EPA-660/2-73-016. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. October 1973. 93 p.
15. Schrcck, V.E. and G. J. Trezek. Rancho Seco Nuclear Service Spray
Ponds Performance Evaluation. Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Contract No. 4792. University of California, Berkeley, California,
July 1973. 73 p.
16. Steam-Electric Plant Mr and Water Quality Control Data, Summary
Report. Federal Power Commission, Washington, D.C., January 1976.
17. Stefan, H., C-S Chu and H. Wing. Impact of Cooling Water on lake
Temperatures. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers,
Journal of the Power Division. 9£ (PO2)'. October, 1972. 253-271.
18. Surface, M. O. Systems Designs for Dry Cooling Towers. Power
Engineering. 81, 9. September 1977. 42-50.
19. Thackston, E. L. and F. L. Parker. Geographical Influence on Cooling
Ponds. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 44, 7.
July 1972. 1335-1350.
20. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Loss Investigations: Lake Hefner
Studies. Base Data Report. U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Papers. 270. 1954.
21. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for Vfest Virginia Water
Year 1975. W-75-1.
22. The Use of Surface Water Impoundments for Cooling of Steam-Electric
Power Stations. Document No. 7775, Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Austin, Texas. September 1977.
94
-------
23. Water Quality Office. A Mathod for Predicting the Performance of
Natural Draft Cooling Towers. U.S. EPA Report No. 16130 GKF. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C., December 1970. 70 p.
24. Wisconsin Utilities Project. Kbshkonong Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
Environmental Beport, Amendment 8. Docket Nos. STN 50-502 and STN 50-503,
25. Standard Handbook for Civil Ehyineers, Frederick S. Merritt (Editor).
McGraw Hill, New York, 1968, Section 21.
26. Wark, K. and Warner, C. Air Pollution. Its Origin and Control.
Harper and Row, Inc. New York, 1976. p. 89-90.
27. Memorandum from E. T. Blake and Y. C. Chang, Re: Cooling Pond
Evaporation. Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Environmental
Engineering Division. January 23, 1979.
95
-------
SECTION 9
GLOSSARY
approach: The temperature differential between the inlet air wet bulb
temperature and the outlet water temperature from the cooling tower.
It indicates how close the tower is to the theoretical equilibrium
between the cooling air and circulating water.
bkwcbwn: The discharged water stream taken from, the circulating water system,
needed to avoid the buildup of dissolved solids in cooling towers.
circulating water system: Water used to draw off heat from the power
plant condenser (s) and reject that heat to the cooling system.
cooling pond: A surface water impoundment which accepts the heat rejected
from the plant by the circulating water system.
cooling tower: A heat exchange structure in which the circulating water
contacts ambient air for the purpose of cooling the water by
vaporization and conductive heat transfer. The air may be drawn
into the system by an induced-draft fan (mechanical) or by convective
forces produced by the temperature differential between the inlet
and outlet air (natural).
evaporation loss in the cooling pond - (Natural): Water vaporization from
the cooling pond surface caused by the natural forces of the sun's
radiation, wind, and other natural forces. (Forced): The increase
in water vaporization from the cooling pond surface due to increased
water temperature, caused by rejection of the power plant's heat.
teat rejection rate: The amount of energy per unit time accepted by the
circulating water system from the condenser (s) and delivered to the
cooling system.
lakeup: The water constantly added to the circulating water system to
replace losses due to evaporation/ blowdown, and drift.
Jilait capacity factor: The percentage of the power plant's full load
electrical output rating which was actually delivered during the
period of concern.
Bnge: The water temperature differential between the circulating water
system inlet and outlet at the cooling tower.
96
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPUTER PROGRAMS FOR COOLING SYSTEM MDDELS
-------
TMn t VI i DRAFT COOLING TUWHR ^CDEL. Cfcmcuter
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
200
(T3CI) f 1=1.12)
CUF(I>.I=1. 12)
(HL(I) .1=1.12)
PROGRAM TO COMPUTE THE EVAPORATIVE LOSSES FROM A MECHANICAL
DRAFT TOWER. REFERENCE: LEUNG AND MOORE IN THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS* JOURNAL OF THE
POWER DIVISION VOL 97. PAGES 749-766.
THE REQUIRED VARIABLES : AIR INLET TEMPERATURE. AIR EXIT
TEMPERATURE?WATER BASIN TEMPERATURE. PERCENT RELATIVE
HUMIDITY. HEAT LOAD IN BTU/HR* WATER AND AIR FLOW RATES IN
LBS/HR. AND THE ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES.
DIMENSION TIU2)rTEXU2) »PH< 12) r UF( 12) .HL< 12) . TB < 12) . AFU2)
READ(5.200) CTI.1=1.12)
READ(5.200)
READ(S.200)
READ(5.200)
READC5.200)
READ(5.200)
READ(5.200)
READ(5.200) ?
CP=0.24
ATMOS=(14.696/29.92)*P
SUM=0.0
DO 10 1=1.12
TIN=TI(I)
HLOAD=HL(I)
TBASIN=TB(I)
TOUT=TEX(I)
yFLOU=UFCI)
PHI=PH(I)/100.0
SUBROUTINE THERMO RETURNS THE VALUES FOR "HE VAPOR PRESSURE
AND ENTHALPY AT THE AIR INLET AND WATER BASIN TEMPERATURES.
THE DATA IS TAKEN FROM THE CHEMICAL ENGINEERS' HANDBOOK 1973.
CALL THERMO(TIN»T3ASIN»ENT.PS)
PW=PHI#PS
AIRM=AF(I)
QT=HLOAD+
W1=(0.622*PW)/(ATHOS-PU)
HA1 = (CP*TIN)T(U1*(1061.30-K0.44*TIN) ) )
HA2=« QT/AIRM) -rHAi
U2=(HA2-
HEAT LOAD IN 3TU PER HOUR ='>T45.1E12.4)
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES ='.T4S.1E12.4)
INLET TEMPERATURE ='.1F6.2.' PERCENT HUMIDITY ='
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F='.T45.1E12.4)
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F ='.T43.1E12.4)
EVAPORATION IN GPM ='.l£12.4.' IN CFS ='.1E12.4)
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS ='.T4S»1F3.3)
A-l
-------
NRHIRAL DRAFT GCOLUC 'IWhiR t*TiFT., Gonputer 3rograni
C FOR DESCRIPTION* SEE PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATER LABORATORY PAPER
C NUMBER 16X30 GKF » DATED 12/70
C
REAL LBVLBA , LBU * LAMBDA , N F L3VLBS » LBV! F KAL
LOGICAL PRITER »EXTAFL * EXTUTO , PRSTE? . PRIMP F REAOIN , INHIB F ENOFLG *
* PPPfPRIN
DIMENSION READIN(37)*VALS<37> FVNAME3C37)
DOUBLE PRECISION VNAMESfVN
EQUIVALENCE ( UTRTI , VAL3 C 1 ) > * ( AIRTI , VAL5 < 2 >> C HTOUER * VAL3 ( 3 ) )
* CDTOU£R*VAL3<4> ) , (HAIRIN » VALS< 5 > ) * CHUM * VALS ( a > ) » ( WTRFT , VALS ( 7 ) )
* (WTRFfVALS(S)) (AIRFjVALS<9))»(UTRTOrVAL5(10) )»
* ( STEPS- VAL3( 11) ) » (TOLERT»VALS<12) ) f (TOLERHf VAL3< 13) ) r
* (AFINfVAL3 > » ( AF3L ^UALS < 16) ) >
* (ADINfVAL3(17) ) » < ADQTr VALS< IS) > > C ADSL* VALS < 19 ) ) »
* (CDIN»UALS(20) ) VALS ( 24 ) ) ,
X (DNSARIf UALS(25) ) r ( THICK fVALS ( 26 ) ) i SPACE >VAL3( 27? 1
* (ATOTAL»VALS(2S) ) » ( AFPK» yALS(29) ) f ( ADPK, yftL3( 30 ) > ,
.* ( HP ACK > VALS ( 31 ) ) » < LAMBDA t VALS < 32 J ) f C N , VAL3 < 33 » »
* (P13»VALS<34) ) r (P23fVAL3(3S) ) » (P16r VALSi 36 ) ) , (P26. VALS< 37; )
DATA' CVALS(I) * 1 = 1 »30)/97. »90. »330. >300. ,20. .37>3.SE7»
:* 1200. » 2*0. > 20. F
* . l»10. »3*1 . f<5*0. » . 24 » 14. 493 F 3*0. »235. F .75-31 4. /
DATA 3TARFBLANK/lH*FlH /. IPS, LITER »LSTEP/0» 32? 30/F
* INHIB F cHDFLG F EXTAFL > EXTWTO/4* . FALSE . /
DATA UNAME3/3HUTRTI , 3HA IRTI , 6HHTDUER . oKDTCUER > 6HHA IR IN , 3HHUM >
* 5HUTRFTF5HUTRF FSHAIRF FaHyTRTOF SHSTEPSForiTQLERT.oHTOLEK'H.
* 3HAFIN F3HAFOT F5HAF5L F3HADIN F5HADOT 3HADSL »5HCDIN -
* SHCDOT fSHCDSL -SHCP FSHATMOSFoHDNSARI rSHTHICK ,
:K 5HSPAC£j6HATOTAL»3HAFPK >5HAOPK ' -5HHPACX FoHLAMBDAr SHN
* 3HP13 F3HP23 FSHP16 F3HP26 /
C THE RATHER LONG INPUT SECTION IS DESIGNED Tu INSURE THAT
C APPROPRIATE COMBINATIONS OF VALUES ARE INPUT. ALL VARIABLES
C HAVE DEFAULT VALUE* AND ONLY THOSE WHICH NEED TO 3E CHANGED
C MUST BE INPUT
C###**#*X**#**##*#X%*X***XX***XX:K#:lc*:lc*X##:O
EXTAFL= . FALSE .
EXTWTO=. FALSE.
URITE(6Fl04)
104 FORMAT (1H1)
JY=1
JM=1
JD = 1
DO 70 1=1*37
70 READIN(I)=.FAL3E.
READ (3*71 F£ND=IOI > PRITER * PRSTEP PR INP
30 TO 101
101 PRITER=.TRUE.
PRSTEP=. FALSE.
PRINP=.TRUE.
30 TO 30
71 FORMAT (3L1)
77 READ(3F72*END=73)VN*VV
72 FORMAT(A8*F10.0)
DO 73 1=1*37
IFCVN.EQ.VNAMESd) )GO TO 74
73 CONTINUE
WRITE(6*76)VN
76 FORMAT CONO VARIABLE NAMED '*A8>
INHIB=.TRUE.
GO TO 77
A-2
-------
74
READINC !)=». TRUE.
GO TO 77
75 DO 78 1=1 F 7
IFCREADINCI) >GO TO 31
78 CONTINUE
80 WRITE(6f79>
79 FORMATC 'ONONE OF THE ESSENTIAL INPUT DATA PROVIDED. THIS'*
* ' WILL 3E RUN AS A TEST CASE')
NB=28
NE=30
GO TO 84
81 DO 82 1=1 f 7
IF(READIN(I))GO TO 82
IFCI.EQ.7.AND.READINC3) )GO TO 32
INHIB=.TRUE.
URITE<6f33)VNAM£SCI>
83 FORMAT< 'OINPUT VARIABLE '»A8»' IS ESSENTIAL AND WAS NOT READ IN.')
32 CONTINUE
34 ATGU£R=DTOUER*DTOUER*. 785398
IFC .NOT.READIN(7> >UTRFT=UTRF*ATOWER
IF( .NOT.READIN<8) )UTRF=»UTRFT/ATOUER
IFC .NOT.READINC 10) )WTRTO=UTRTI-25 .
IF( .NOT.READIN(9) )AIRF=WTRF
AIRT=AIRTI
NOITER=0
VHVC=.167*(DTOUER/HAIRIN)*X2
VPRES=HUM*PSAT ( AIRT )
L3VL3A» . <522*VPRES/ ( A TMOS-VPRES )
VPENT=1061 . ( . 444*AIRT
ENTI=CP*(AIRT-32. )-!-VPENT*LSyLBA
VPRESI=WPRES
L3VI=L3VL3A
DNSARI= < ( ATMOS-VPRES ) /53. 3+VPRES/85 . 7 ) *144 . / ( 460 . f A IRT )
IFC .NOT.PRINP>GO TO 94
IPG=IPG+1
URITE(6f88)JM».jD»JYf IPS
38 FORMATC1COOLING TOWER PROGRAM - LISTING OF INITIAL VARIABLES' >
* 47X»I2»2(1H/I2) ' PAGE' »I3/"OVARIABL£ NAME VALUE'/)
DO 89 1=1,25
FND=8LANK
IFC .NOT.READIN< I) >FND=STAR
39 URITEC6f90)VNA«ESSTOP
NB=26
NE=31
ATOTAL=24 . *HPACKVSPACE
AFPK=( SPACE- THICK ) /SPACE
ADPK=ATOTAL/AFPK
GO TO 2
A-3
-------
3 IF( .NOT.READIN<32> .AND. .NOT.READIN<33;> >GO TO 2
PPps. FALSE.
ATOTAL=HPACN
NB=29
NE=33
IF( ,NOT.READIN<34> .AND. .NOT.READIN(35) .AND. .NOT.READINC36)
* ,AND..NOT.READIN(37))GO TO 11
PRIN=.TRUE.
NB=31
NE=37
11 DO 9 I=NB»NE
IFiREADINGO TO 9
URITE(6r83)VNAMESCI>
INHI3=.TRUE.
9 CONTINUE
:FCINHIB>STOP
URITEC6fl2>
12 FORMATC '0< PARALLEL PLATE PACKING NOT ASSUMED)'/)
2 IF(PPP)URITE(6f 13)
13 FORMATC 'OCPARALLEL PLATE PACKING ASSUMED)'/)
IF(.NOT.PRINP)GO TO ?3
DO 14 I=NBfNE
rND=BLANK
IF( .NOT.READIN< I) )FND=STAR
14 URITE(6>90>yNAHES(I)
91 FORMATC '0' .20X»'*yALUE CALCULATED FROM OTHER INPUT OR ASSUMED')
93 DA=ATOTAL/STEPS
AIRFL=0.
IF(INHIB)STOP
C END INPUT AND INITIALIZATION
C START ITERATION
95 yNOM=AIRF/(DNSARI#3600.
IF(PPP)GO TG la
KAL=HPACK*LAMBDA*(AIRF/UTRF):**N
HG=CP*UTRF*KAL/HPACK
HGOUT=0.
IF(.NOT.PRIN)GO TO 16
Tl=yNOM/3.-l.
P1 = *TH-P13
P2= ( P2A-P23 ) *T1 +P23
UHLPK=< (P2-P1)*
-------
C=HG*DA* ( ENTSAT-ENT ) /CP
IF< .NOT.PRSTEP.OR.cXTUTO.OR.EXTAFDGO TO 35
IF(LSTEP.LT.47)GO TO 36
IPG=IPG+1
WRITE ( 6 » 37 > JM > JD f JY » IPG
37 FORMAT* '1CCOLING TOUER PROGRAM - STEP BY STEP RESULTS OF ONE'
* t' ITERATION' »38X»I2r2(lH/I2J »' PAGE'»I3/
* '0 WATER AIR SATUR ACTUAL REL PNDS UTR/ VAPOR'/
* ' AREA TEMP TEMP ENTHAL ENTHAL HUM PNDS AIR PRESV)
LSTEP=0
LITER-52
36 LSTEP*LSTEP+1
URITE<6»33>A»yTRT,AIRT.£NTSAT,ENTfHUMIrL3YL3AfVPRES
38 FQRMAT<5F7.1rF6.3fF9.5fF7.4>
35 DUTRT=C/UTRF
DENT=C/AIRF
DAIRT=HG*DA* ( UTRT-A I RT> / ( AIRF*CP )
UTRT=UTRT-KIUTRT
ENT=ENT+D£NT
AIRT=AIRT*DAIRT
VPENT=1061 . t . 444*AIRT
L3VLBA»(ENT-CP*(AIRT-32. ) )/WPENT
PSA=PSAT(AIRT>
IFCPSA.EQ.O. )GO TO 110
L3VLSS= . 622*PSA/ < ATMOS-PS A )
HUMI=*LBVLBA*< .622+L3VL3S) / *1 44 . / < 460 . -i-AI RT )
DNSARO=DNSARO* ( 1 . -f-CONWTR > / ( 1 . fCONUTR*DNSARO/62 . 4 )
DNSAVG= < DNSARI-rDNSARO ) X2 .
yiN=vlNOM/AFIN
yOT=AIRF/(BNSARO*AFaT*3600. )
ySL=AIRF/(DNSARO*AFSL*3600. )
PRLIN»CDIN*DNSARI*.016126*ADIN*yiN**2
IF (PRIM) GO TO 102
VPK=AIRF/ < DNSAWG*AFPK*3600 , >
A-5
-------
PRLPK=CF*BNSAVG#.016126XADPK*VPK*X2
GO TO 103
102 PRLPK=DNSARI*.016126XVHLFK*VNOMX*2
VPK=VNOM
103 PRLOT=CDOT*DNSARQX.016126XADOT*VOT*X2
PRLSL=CDSL*DNSAROX.016126*ADSL*VSL*X2
PRLVC=VHyC*DNSARI*.016126XVNOMXX2
PRLSP=VHSP*ONSARI*.C16126XYNaMXVNOM
PRLPR=PRLCT+PRLIN+PRLSL
H= ( PRLFR+PRLFK+PRL3P+PRL VC ) / < DNSARI-ONS ARO )
IF(ENDFLG)GO TO 40
NOITER=NOITER-H
IF< .NOT.FRITER.OR.EXTAFDGa TO 21
40 IF(LITER.LT.32)GO TO 30
L3TEP=50
LITER=0
IPG=IPG+1
WRITE (or 31) JM»JD»JYf IPG
31 FORMATC '1COOLING TOWER PROGRAM - RESULTS OF ITERATIONS ' »33Xf
* I2r2UH/I2)f ' PAGE' >I3/'0'f22X» 'AIR CALC TOWER'/
*' OUTLET VELCTY HEAT CHARAC- SKIN INLET ' r
*' OUTLET OUTLET PROFILE PACKING SPRAY VENA CON'/
*' ITER UATER AIR IN TRANS TERISTIC FRICTION RELAT WATER'*
*' AIR AIR PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE TOWER'/
*' NO LOSS DENSITY PAKING COE.-F CKXA/L) CQEFF HUMID TEMP '
*' TEMP ENTHAL LOSS LOSS LOSS LOSS HEIGHT ')
30 WRI TEC o*32> NO ITER jUTRLT'iiNSARQ. VFKrHGOUT »KAL*CF ,HUMI >UTRT , AIRT .
* ENT»PRLPR»PRLPK;»PRLSP«PRLVC>H
32 FORMAT ( ' 0 ' » 14 , ra.2 jr 9 ,o»F7 .3f F6 .o»F9.4> F9 .Sr F7,3f F6 . 1 r
X. F6.1»F7.1rF10.
LITER=LITER-h2
IF(ENDFLG)GO TO 33
END PRINTING RESULTS OF ONE ITERATION
21 IFiNOITER.LE. 100)60 TO 39
URITE<6,9S)
98 FORMAT (' -MORE THAN 100 ITERATIONS. EXECUTION TERMINATED')
STOP
C NOW FIND IF SPECIFICED TOLERANCES ARE MET, AND IF NOT- WHICH
C OF AIRF OR UTRTO SHOULD 3E ADJUSTED
C PRINT A MESSAGE WHICH SHOWS VALUE FROM WHICH A NEW VALUE WILL
C BE EXTRAPOLATED
39 IF
-------
H1=H
AIRF=AIRF+10.
EXTAFL=.TRUE.
GO TO 95
C A SAMPLE ITERATION HAS BEEN MADE TO ADJUST AIRF OR UTRTO
C PRINT MESSAGE? AND DO ANOTHER ITERATION
SO H2=H
DAFDH=10./
EXTAFL=. FALSE.
OLAIRF=AIRF
A IRF=AIRF+DrtFDH* < HTOUER-H )
IF(AIRF.LT.O.>AIRF=.1*OLAIRF
IF(.NOT.PRITER)GO TO 95
URITEC6.35)AIRF
LITER=LITER+1
35 FORMATS ' (MODIFYING AIRF TO '.F7.1,')')
GO TO 95
24 yTRT2=UTRT
DTODTI= , 001/ < UTRT2-UTRT1 )
EXTWTO*. FALSE.
UTRTC=UTRTO+DTODTI*
IF< ,NOT.PRITER)GO T015
IF(.NOT.EXTAFL)GO TO 62
URIT£(6.61>UTRTO
61 FORMAT (' (MODIFYING UTRTO TO '»F6.1»'>'>
LITER=LITER+1
GO TO 15
62 URITE(6f60)UTRTO
LITER=LITEn+2
60 FORMATC (MODIFYING UTRTO TO '.F6.1.')')
GO TO 15
29 IF*
RETURN
END
A-8
-------
PCMD MQDET.S, Corputar Program
C PROGRAM TO COMPUTE COOLING POND EVAPORATION RATES IN CFS
c VARIABLES REQUIRED: PERCENT HUMIDITY, AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
C IN DEGREES F, WIND VELOCITY IN MILES/HOUR, POND TEMPERATURE
C IN DEGREES F AND POND AREA IN ACRES.
C IN INCHES
REAL MEY
DIMENSION HUM (12) , TAMBC12) »UINDC 12) »TP( 12)
READ(5rl03) (HUM(I> ,1=1 >12)
READ <5r 103) CTAMB< I) » 1=1, 12)
READ(5»103) CUIND
HUMID=HUM(I)/1CO.O
H£F=2 . 25E-3*UI.ND ( I >
=l .44E-2f<1.44E-3:xU.TND(I) )
3RA=1 .3SE-2 + < 1 .3SE »*UIND ( I )*UIND( I ) )
THERMO RETURNS VALUES FOR "HE UAPQR PRESSURE IN L3S/SC3. IN.
AS TAKEN FROM PERRY AND CHILTON ENGINEERS' HANDBOOK.' 1773
CALL TKERMO i TPOND » TPOND , DUMMY , PS )
CALL THERMO ( TAMB (I ) , TAMB < I ) ? DUMMY . P A )
£3=PS* C 29 . 92/14. 696 )
EH=PA*(29. 92/14. o?6)
T£MP= ( SS-EA ) ;*AREA
THE HA3S TRANSFER EQUATIONS ARE GIVEN IN REPORT N
EPA-660/2-73-01o ON PAGE 42
QK=HEF*TEMP
QC'COL-KTEMP
QB=BRA*TEMP
SUMl=SUMl-rQH
SUM2=3UM2-rGC
SUM3=3UH3-rQM
URITE(Qf 101) TAMBC I) >HUM( I) fUINB(I) , GH , QC > QM >.1B
10 CONTINUE
AV2=SU«2/12.
AV3=SUM3/12.
f AV4
100 FORMAT C1F1 0.1 /' ACHES' '<>*, IF 6 .2} ' POND TEMPERATURE
101 FORMAT(3F7.2f4X.4(lF7.2r2X) >
102 FORMATC4dF7.lj.3X))
103 FORMAT C12F6. 2)
104 FORMATC1E3.2)
END
STOP
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
]yETEOK)LOGICAL DATA. USED FOR MDDEL PREDICTIONS
-------
FIGURES
APPENDIX B
Number Page
B-l Ambient dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity
for Hunting-ton Creek Station evaporation rate
calculations (1976) B-l
B-2 Ambient dry-bulb temperature, ambient wet-bulb
temperature, and average wind speed for North Main
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate calculations
{I960) B-2
B-3 Ambient dry-bulb temperature and relative humidity
for Clay Boswell Steam Electric Station evaporation
rate calculations (1977) B-3
B-4 Iwo months of relative humidity (January, July) for
Homer City Steam Electric Station evaporation rate
calculations (1977) B-4
B-5 Ambient dry-bulb temperatures for Homer City Station
(1977) B-5
B-6 Ambient dry-bulb and pond temperatures for Cholla Plant
(1974-1976) B-6
B-7 Average wind speed and relative humidity for Cholla
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate calculations
(1974-1976) B-7
B-8 Ambient dry-bulb and pond temperatures for Morgan
Creek Station (1960) B-8
B-9 Average wind speed and relative humidity for Morgan
Creek Steam Electric Station evaporation rate
calculations (1960) B-9
B-10 Ambient dry-bulb and pond temperatures for Kincaid
Station (1976) B-10
B-i
-------
FIGURES
(Continued)
Number Page
B-ll Average wind speed and relative humidity for Kincaid
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate
calculations (1976) B-ll
B-12 Ambient dry-bulb and pond temperatures for Powerton
Station (1973) B-12
B-13 Average wind speed and relative humidity for
Powsrton Steam Electric Station evaporation rate
calculations (1973) B-13
B-14 Comparison of ambient dry-bulb temperature with pond
temperature for Mt. Storm Station (January 1977) B-14
B-15 Comparison of ambient dry-bulb temperature with pond
temperature for Mt. Storm Station (July 1977) B-15
B-16 Average wind speed and relative humidity for Mt. Storm
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate calculations
(January 1977) B-16
B-17 Average wind speed and relative humidity for Mt. Storm
Steam Electric Station evaporation calculations
(July 1977) B-17
B-18 Ambient dry-bulb and pond temperatures for Robinson
Station (1975-1976) B-18
B-19 Average wind speed and relative humidity for Bobinson
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate calculations
(1975-1976) B-19
B-20 Ambient dry-bulb and pond temperatures for Lake Belews
Station (1977) B-20
&-21 Average wind speed and relative humidity for Lake Belews
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate calculations
(1977) B-21
B-ii
-------
45
40
30L
O
2_ 25
S **- =
15
U 10
O AMBIENT DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE
D RELATIVE HUMIDITY
M 3
MONTHS
Figure 3-1. Ancient ary-oulo raj^peracure auu re
it^ for Huntington Creek Station
ration rate calculations (1976) .
-170 S
I
_ 60
H
SO
I
J
40
25
! 30
25
3-1
-------
30
25
15
10
u
o
-10
-IS
O AMBIENT DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE
AMBIENT WET-BULB TEMPERATURE
A AVERAGE WIND SPEED
figure a- 2
TSST
30
25
20
15
1
10
£mbient dry-bulb temperature , ainbient vet-bulb
temperature and average wind speed for North Main
Steam Electric Station evaporation rate calcula-
tions (1960).
B-2
-------
V
U)
O AMBIENT DRY BULB TtMI'EHAHIHt
I I RELATIVE HUMIDITY
1.) U
o
(J
U O l>
U
o o
O
o
n
U LI
n a
I
40
2 4 li II IU 12
IB III 20 22 24 2B 21 30 31
AUUIIST 1977
Figure B-3. J\mbient dry-bulb tenperature and relative humidity
for Clay Boswell Steam Electric Station evaporation
rate calculations (1977).
-------
JANUARY
A JULY
ft"
I
ft I
&
i 2 i 4 6 a 7 a o 10 ii 12 n 14 I& ic 17 IB is 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 za 29 30 ai
Date
Figure B-4. TYo months of relative humidity (January/ July)
for Homer City Steam Electric Station evaporation
rate calculations (1977).
-------
Ul
I
rt 10
o
n
A A
70
JANUARY
A JULY
to
10
13
1 2 J 1 6 li 7 II U 10 II 12 13 14 16 IB 17 IB IB 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 2B 2!) 30 31
Day of Month
Figure B-5. Ambient dry-bulb tenperatures for Homer City
Station (1977).
-------
30
25
20
15
10
5
O AMBIENT DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE
T POND TEMPERATURE
J FMAMJJ_ASOND
30
25
U
o
15
10
-5
Fiqure B-6. Ambient diy-bulb and pond tenperatures
fcr Cholla Plant (1974-1976)
B-6
-------
a
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
4
3
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
n
a
a
a
a
a
A
A
a
**
A
a a .A
A
A
A
^
.1 AVERAGE WIND SPEED
~ RELATIVE HUMIDITY
SO
50
40
^__ ^
oP
"~^
1?
'r^
30 -H
3
*c
1
4J
-------
JO
GO
20
..
'J
O
Q in
b
o
T
M
0
0
O
O
o
O AMBIENT DHV-BULD TEMPERATURE
T POND TEMPERATURE
BO
70
CO
60
40
32
AMJJASO
Moith
NU
Figure B-8. Ambient dry-bulb temperatures and pond temperatures
for Itorgan Creek Station (1960).
-------
24
22
20
13
16
14
12
S 101
c
A.
a
a A
AVERAGE WIND SPEED
HEUATIVE HUMIDITY
70
JFMAMJJASOND
Month
Figure B-9. Average wind speed and relative humidity
for ftorgan Creek Steam Electric Station
evaporation rate calculations (1960).
60
55
50 50
'I
30
20
15
10
B-9
-------
:m
2! >
211
Cd *B ...
1 (D l!l
M n
O fu
. HI
0
n
II
T
' 0
0
o
T T
0
o
o
o
V
o
* O AMUIENT DRY BULB TEMPERATURE °
T POND TEMPERATURE
0
(III
70
60 "g
o
3
40
32
IMAM
N O
Fiqure B-10. Ambient dry-bulb tenperatures and pond temperatures
for Kincaid Station (1976).
-------
20
13
16
14
12
i
AVERAGE WIND SPEED
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
SO
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Month
Figure B-ll. Average wind speed and relative humidity
for Kincaid Steam Electric Station
evaporation rate calculations (1976).
B-ll
-------
V
M
KJ
Ib
II)
O
o
O
o
M
O
T
O
T
O
o o
o
T
o
O AMBIENT DRV BULB TEMPEflATUHE
fONO TEMPERATURE
M
O N
70
CO
t)0
40
32
J J A S
MontJi
Figure B-12. Ambient dry-bulb tenperatures and pond tempera-
tures for Powertcn Station (1973).
-------
24
22
20
18
16
1*
12
10
A AVERAGE WIND SPEED
G RELATIVE HUMIDITY
85
80
75
70
65
60
JFMAMJJASOND
I-tonth
Figure B-13.__ Average wind speed and relative humidity
for Powertcn Steam Electric Station
evaporation rate calculations (1973).
B-13
-------
10
O AMBIENT DRV UULU TEMPERATURE
>f POND TEMHEMAIlllie
O
a.,
10
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
1 2 :t 4 !> (i / II Q 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 IV III II) 20 21 22 23 24 2b 2U 21 211 2U 30 31
UAVS
Figure B-14. Gotparison of arrbient dry-bulb tenperature with pond
temperature for Mt. Storm.Station (January 1977).
-------
30
» » T
» » T » »
I)
O
o o
o o
iv
a
o
o
20
Ib
10
o o
o
o o
o
o
O AMBIENT OHV Bill B TEMPERATURE
V POND TEMPERATUHE
3 4 5 G 7 tt 0 10 II 12 I.I 14 Ib Ili 17 111 10 20 21 22 23 24 20 2G 21 20 2!) 30 31
Days
Fioure B-15. Ccnparison of ambient dry-bulb temperature wit-h pond
teirperature for Mt. Storm Station (July 1977).
-------
2
-------
It)
1U
14
12
s;
. \ AVERAGE WIND SPEED
II RELATIVE HUMIDITY
a
. _
A a
an
« "
a
IJ
100
90
HO
70 gl
Pi
60
bO
40
1 2 I) 4 !i li / U U 10 11 12 |:l 14 1!. Hi 17 1(1 lit 20 21 22 2.1 24 2!i 26 21 20 29 31) 31
Days
Figure B-17. Average wind speed and relative humidity for Mt. Storm
Steam Electric evaporation rate calculations (July 1977).
-------
?
3b
30
2b
I
fl
o
o
1B
10
o
0
O AMBIENT DRY-BULB TEMPERATURE
T POND TEMPERATURE
go
80
70
GO
50
40
32
MAM
O N
J J A S
IVbnth
Fiqure B-18. Ambient dry-bulb temperatures and pond tenperatures
for Itobinson Station (1975-1976).
-------
u
13
12
11
10
a
g .
a
AVERAGE WIND SPEED
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
100
SO
60
40
20
Figure B-19.
A M J J A S 0 M 3
Maith
Average wind speed and relative humidity
for Itobinson Steam Electric evaporation
rate calculations (1975-1976).
B-19
-------
30
CJ 20
o
2
a is
-U
0)
'j3 10
T
O
O AMBIENT OBY-BULB TEMPERATURE
T PONO TEMPERATURE
30
25
20
O
o
15
10
JFVIAMJJASOND
Month
Fiqune B-20. Ambient dry-bulb temperatures
and pond temperatures for
Lake Relews Station (1977).
B-20
-------
12
11
10
0 7
AVERAGE WIND SPEED
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
90
35
30
75
70 _^
65
60
55
50
45
-d
M J
MONTH
Figure B-21.
Average wind speed and relative humidity
for Lake BeleT.vs Steam Electric Ftaticn
evaporation rate calculations (1977).
B-21
-------
APPENDIX C
COMPUTER PRINTOUTS FOR COOLING TOWER MDEEL
-------
DEFINITIONS FOR LEUNG AND MOORE PROGRAM OUTPUT
Parameter
Inlet Temperature
Percent Humidity
Evaporation in GPM
Evaporation in CFS
Air Flow in Pounds Per Hour
Head Load in BTU Per Hour
Atmospheric Pressure in Inches
Basin Temperature in Degrees F
Air Outlet Temperature in Degrees
F
Average Evaporation in CFS
Definition
Ambient Dry Bulb Air Temperature
in °F
Ambient Relative Humidity
Leung & Moore model evaporation
prediction in gallons per minute
Leung & Moore model evaporation
prediction in cubic feet per second
Air flow rate through the tower in
pounds of air per hour
Heat rejected to cooling tower in
BTU per hour
Ambient barometric pressure in inches
of Hg
Circulating water temperature out
of cooling tower - °F
Temperature of air exiting fron
cooling tower - °F
Average Model Predicted values for
total run.
Dates shown are day -month- year (e.g. January 8, 1977 is 080177)
C-l
-------
HUSPHNCTCN STATION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
CASE I - AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE AT 82.5°
0.5053E+02 0.8865E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE » 21.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.2944E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.1138E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 38.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.3445E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.1160E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 38.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3462E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.1916E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 51.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3861E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.2739E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 61.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4160E+04 IN CFS *
0.5053E+02 0.3683E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 70.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4423E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.5007E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE * 79.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4703E+04 IN CFS =
0.5053E+02 0.4343E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 75.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4571E+04 IN CFS »
0.5053E+02 0.3273E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 66.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4314E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.1866E-t-00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 51.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATrON IN GPM » 0.3840E-I-04 IN CFS »
0.5053E+02 0.1177E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 39.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM « 0.3475E+04 IN CFS =
0.5053E+02 0.8865E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE - 27.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.3127E+04 IN CFS =
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
WATER FLOW IN GALLONS PER MINUTE =>
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=» .
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
STOP
END OF TASK 0
- 68.20
0.6561E+01
- 60.50
0.7675E+01
» 45.70
0.7714E+01
36.50
Q.8603E+01
- 42.50'
0.9268E+01
- 25.70
0.9855E-I-01
- 31.20
0.1048E-1-02
- 32.00
0.1019E+02
> 42.20
0.9613E+01
= 35.00
0.8557E+01
= 38.50
0.7743E+01
- 41.70
0.6968E-I-01
8.602
0.1080E+10
0.1997E+07
0.2530E-HO
6.8250E+02
C-2
-------
HUNTINGDON STATION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
CASE III - AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE AT 92.5°
0.5053E+02 0.8865E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE - 21.
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0
0.50S3E+02 0.1138E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 38.
EVAPORATION IN GPM « 0
0.5053E+02 0.1160E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 38.
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0
0.50S3E+02 0.1916E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 51.
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0
0.5053E+02 0.2739E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE =» 61.
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0
0.5053E+02 0.3683E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 70.
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0
0.5053E+02 0.5007E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 79.
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0
0.5053E+02 0.4343E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE » 75.
70 PERCENT HUMIDITY * 68.20
.2630E-I-04 IN CFS - 0.5860E + 01
20 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 60.50
.3128E+04 IN CFS » 0.6970E+01
70 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 45.70
.3146E+04 IN CFS - 0.7009E+01
90 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 36.50
.3543E+04 IN CFS = 0.7394E+01
80 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 42.50
.3839E+04 IN CFS » 0.8553E+01
40 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 25.70
.4102E+04 IN CFS - 0.9139E+01
60 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 31.20
.4379E+04 IN CFS = 0.9757E-t-01
30 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 32.00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 75.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.4248E+04 IN CFS -
0.5053E+02 0.3273E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 66.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM « 0.3992EH-04 IN CFS =
0.5053E+02 0.1866E+00
JNLET TEMPERATURE - 51.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM « 0.3522E-t-04 IN CFS =
0.5053E+02 0.1177E+00
ISLET TEMPERATURE - 39.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.3159E+04 IN CFS =
0.5053E+02 0.8865E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 27.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.2813E+04 IN CFS =
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
WATER FLOW IN GALLONS PER MINUTE =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES «
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
32.00
.9466E+01
42.20
.8396E-I-01
35.0 0
.7848E+01
38.50
.7038E+01
41.70
.6267E+01
7.89i
0.1080E+10
0.1997E-I-07
0.2530E-HO
0.2535E+02
0.8250E+02
0.9250E+02
C-3
-------
0.5053E+02 0.4999E-01
IHLET TEMPERATURE « 21.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2549F.+ 04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =»
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =»
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E+02 0.1138E+00
IMLET TEMPERATURE = 38.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3041E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEtlPERATURE IN DEGREES F<=
AIR OUTLET TEtlPERATURE IH DEGREES F -
0.5053E+02 0.1160E+00
MAR INLET TEMPERATURE = 38.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3059E+Q4 IH CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
O BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
J^ AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E+02 0.1916E+00
APR^NLET TEMPERATURE = 51.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3455H+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
OASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E+02 0.2739E+00
MAYhfLET TEMPERATURE = 61.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM ,= o.375it+o4 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DtGREES F =
0.5053E+02 0.1683E+00
J1JNE INLET TEMPERATURE = 70.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4014T+04 IN CFS *
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PLR HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E+02 0.500/E+OO
l rn.i.T TEMt'iiHATum; 7t.<. o I'liiu'iJjJT 11111:1 <> I TV
EVAPORATION IN GPU - 0.42"Oli+<'4 III CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKK-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
- 68.20 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
0.5679E+01 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH INCHES =
0.1080B+10 I1ASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
0.2000E+07 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE III DEGREES F =
0.2520C+10 0.5053E+02 Q.4343E+00
0.2540E+05 MX!INLET TEMPERATURE » 75.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8250E + 02 EVAPORATION IH GPM = 0.416flE»04 IN CFS =
0.9470E+02 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
- 60.50 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
0.6776E+01 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
0.1080E+10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
0.2000E+07 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2520E+10 0.5053E+02 0.3273E+00
Q.2540E+02 SEPT .1 NLET TEMPERATURE - 66.<»0 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8250E+02 EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3904E+04 IH CFS =
0.9470K + 02 MR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
- 45.70 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
0.6815E+01 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES »
0.1080E+10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
0.2000E+07 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2520E+10 0.5053E+02 0.1866E+00
0.2540E+02 QCT1NLET TEMPERATURE » 51.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8250E+02 EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3435E+04 IN CFS =
0.9470E+02 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
- 36.50 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
0.7699E+01 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
0.1080E+10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
0.2000E+07 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.2520E+10 0.5053E+02 0.1177E+00
0.2540B+02 NOVINLET TEMPERATURE - 39.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8250E+02 EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3072E+04 IN CFS -
0.9470E+02 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
= 42.50 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =»
0.8357E+01 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
0.1080E+10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
0.2000E+07 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F "
0.2520U+10 0.5053E+02 0.7214E-01
0.2540E+02 DEC INLET TEMPERATURE = 27.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8250E+02 EVAPORATION IN GPM =» 0.2727E+04 IN CFS =
0.9470E+02 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
= 25.70 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
0.8941i;+0l ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
0.1080E+10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
0.2000E+07 MR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2520E+10 AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS -
0.2540E+02 -STOP
0.8250K + 02 F.ND OF TASK 0
0.9470E+02
I0bot.» 10
2noor.»o7
2520IC t 10
. 2 5 4 <> r. * n 2
0.9470L+02
= 32.00
0. 126HH4 01
o. 10801-;+in
0.2000K+07
0.2540E+02
0.8250i; + 02
0.9470K+02
42.2"
0.1080i:+10
0.2000P.+ 07
.2520E+K1
.2540E+02
.8 250E+02
0.*» 470E + 02
35.00
, 7653E + 01
0.1080E+10
0. 2000E+07
0.2520E+10
0.2540i: + 02
0.8250E+02
0.9470K+02
38.50
.6844E401
O.lOBOr.t IP
.2000E+07
2520E+10
.2 540E+02
.8250U+02
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.9470E+02
= 41.70
0.6077E+01
P.1080E+10
0.2000E+07
0.2520E+10
0.2540E+02
0.8250E+02
0. 'I470E + 02
7.6<>7
HUNTINGDON STATION
CASE IV - 94.7°F OUTIET AIR
-------
HUNTING-TON STATION - CASE V - 97°F OUTLET AIR
0.5053E+02 0.4999E-01
IULET TEMPERATURE 21.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM 0.2477E+04 IN CFS "
AIR FLOW*
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW III POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
O.S053E+02 0.1138E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 38.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPH - 0.2S69E+04 IN CFS
AIR FLOW III CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »
MAKE-UP HATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F*
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
0.5053E*02 0.1160E+00
IHLET TEMPERATURE » 38.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION Iti GPM « 0.2986E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IM BTU PER HOUR «
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIH TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E*02 0.1916E+00
I:lLET TEMPERATURE « 51.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3383E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR *
HEAT LOAD IN ETU PER HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIH TEMPERATURE III DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E+02 0.273«£tOO
INLET TEMPERATURE 61.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.3677E+04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR "
MAKE-UP WATER FLCW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD TN BTU PER HOUR >
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIH TEMPERATURE III DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E*02 0.3683E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE » 70.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IM GPM » 0.3940E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN DTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASTH TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DECREES F -
0.5053E+02 O.S007E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 79.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY
68-20 >EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4216E+04 IIJ CFS -
.5519E*01 AIR FLQH IH COBJC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
J'l:?!?!*^2 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR
0
0.2S40E+02
0.8250E+02
0.9700E+02
. HEAT LOAQ (
-2000E'-07 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES
.2520E+10 BASIH TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F
- 31.20
0.4 394E*"!
o. io80E«-;f<
0. 2000E+0'
0.2520E*!'1
0. 2540C+02
0.8250E+02
0.9700E*02
60.50
6615E+01
0.1080E+10
2000E+07
2520E+10
2540E+02
82SOE+02
9700E+02
45.70
.S654E+01
0.1080E+10
0.2000E+07
0.2520E-HO
0.2S40E+02
0.8250E+02
0.9700E+02
36.50
7537E+01
0.1080E+10
2000E+07
2520E+10
2540E+02
8250E+02
9700E+02
42.50
8194E+01
0.1080E+10
0.2000E+07
0.2520E+10
0.2540E+02
0.3250E+02
0.9700E*02
25.70
.8779E+01
0.1080E+10
0.2000E+07
0.2520E+10
0.2540E+02
0.825PE+02
0.9700E-H12
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F »
0.5053E+02 0.4343E*00
INLET TEMPERATURE 75.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 32.00
EVAPORATION IN GPH - 0.4086E*04 IN CFS - 0.9104E+01
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR " 0.1080EHO
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR - 0.2000E«-^.
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR - 0.2520E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH INCHES - 0.2540E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F- 0.8250E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E+02 0.3273E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE 66.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3830E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH INCHES "
BASIN TEMPERATURE It) DEGREES F>
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
O.S053E+02 0.1866E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 51.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3362E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IH CUBIC FEET PER HOUR
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH INCHES "
BASIN TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E+02 0.1177E+00
IULET TEMPERATURE - 39.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM " 0.3000E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP HATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR "
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES »
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F" 0.8250E*02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - 0.9'OOE+02
0.5053E+02 0.7214E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE 27.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 41.70
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.26S6E4-04 IN CFS - 0.5917E + 01
AIR FLOW IS CUBIC FEET PER HOUR - O.lOBOCtlO
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR - 0.2000E+0?
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR - 0.2520E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES " 0.2540E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F» 0.8250E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - 0.9700E*02
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS " 7.535
STOP
END OF TASK 0
» 42.20
n . 8 51 St * P1
0.108PE+10
0.2000E+0"
0.2520E+10
n.254PE+02
0.8250E*02
0.9700E+02
» 35.00
0.?491E«-01
O.lOBOEtl"
0.200PE4-P"
0.2520E+1P
0.2540E*Oi
0.82SOE+02
0.9700E+P2
« 38.50
0.6684E-I-01
0.2000E+0'
0.2520E+-10
2540E*02
-------
o
CTi
o.
INLET TEMPERATURE * 21.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2'*12Et04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
DASTN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E402 0.113BE+00
TEMPERATURE = 18.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPU = 0.3401C+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
HASIH TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - \
0.5051E»02 0.11«OE*00
MAR INLET TEMPERATURE 38.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPH » 0.3421E»04 IN CFS -
MR FLOW 114 CUDIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR «
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
DARIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F"
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E*02 0.1416E + 00
APRlNLET TEMPERATURE - 51.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN CPU - 0.3817E+04 IN CFS
AIR FLOW IN CUDIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR m
HEAT LOAD IN HTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E+02 0.273"»E»00
MftyiNLET TEMPERATURE = 61.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN CPU = 0.4112EKM IN CFS »
AIR FLOW III CUDIC FEET PER HOUR «
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN OTU PER HOUR >
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
DASTN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES Fa
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
P.5053E+02 0.3683E*oo
JTJNElHLET TEMPERATURE - 70.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = O.4175E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FKET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F*
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5053E+02 0.5007E400
TEMPERATURE 79.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY -
EVAPORATION IN CPM " O.4651E*04 IN CFS - 0 .
" SB. 20 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
0.6488E+01 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
0.1P80E+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.2QOPE*07 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES "
0.2760E+10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
0.2540E*02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.8250E*02 0.5051E+02 0.4143E*00
0.»700E*02 j^JJQINLCT TEMPERATURE » 75.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION III GPM => 0.4521E»04 IN CFS » 0.
tO. 50 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
0.7SIME+01 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR «
O.lOUl'CHO HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.2000E^07 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.27tnE»10 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F"
0.2540E*f>2 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
O.B250E+02 _ 0.5053E402 O.JJ73E+00
0.I»70PE»02 'SEPT'NLET TEMPERATURE " 66. "»0 PERCENT HUMIDITY -
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.426SE+O4 IN CFS - n.
« 45.70 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
0.7«22E»Ol MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
0.1P80E + 10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR »
0.2000E+07 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.2760E410 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
0.2b40E»02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.8250et02 0.5051E+02 O.186CE+00
0.1700E*02 -OCTINLET TEMPERATURE - 51.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY -
'"EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3797E+04 IN CFS « 0.
- 16.50 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
O.SSOSEtol MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
0.10BPE+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.2000E+07 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.2760E+10 DASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
0.2540E + 02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.8250E*02 0.5053E+02 0.1177E+00
0.17POE + 02 UO^INLET TKMPERAT*
----- INLET TEMPERATURE " 39.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY =
- 42.50 EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.1434E»04 IN CFS - n.
0.tl62E + 01 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
0.1080E»10 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR »
0.2000E+07 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.2760E+10 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.2540E+02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
O.H250E*P2 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.0700EJ-02 0.5051E*02 0.7214E-O1
ICBC INLET TEMPERATURE » 27.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY =
= 25.70 "EVAPORATION IN CPM » O.3P10E+04 IN CFS - n.
O.S748E«-01 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »
O.inaOE+10 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR »
0.2000E*07 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
0.276PE+10 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.2540E*02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
0.8250G+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F "
0."»700E»02 AVERAGE EVAPORATIOM IN CFS -
STOP
H.2«<
1 O 1 f.L »
-------
NAVAJO STATION PERFORMANCE TESTS - AUGUST 1975
PREDICTED EVAPORATION PER TEST
O .
INLET TEMPERATURE - 90*00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3730E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
MR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F ~
INLET TEMPERATURE » ru.Qi) PcAuENT HUMIfUlY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = G.3643E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER .HOUR =
H£AT LOAD IN ETU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
INLET TEMPERATURE = 85.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0* 36slEi 0-1 IN CFS ~
AIR FLOW Ii! POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR :-
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
iEtftSIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
&IA -DUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
INLET TEMPERATURE = 85.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.357SE+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =--
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
- 21,00
0»8311E+01
0»6000E-*-08
0«1740E-f07
0.2040E+10
0.2560E+02
0.8260E+02
0.9480E+02
0*3118E+01
0*6200E+08
0*1290E+07
0.2010E+10
0,2560E-f02
0.8080E+02
0*9420E+02
= 39.00
0.815BE+01
0.6200E106
0.1710Ei07
0.2040E+10
0«2560E+02
O.S130E+02
0*9200E+02
^ 39*00
0.7972E+01
O.A300E+Q8
0*2070E+07
0, 1980E+10
0.25AOE+02
0.8030E+02
0.9200E+02
Test 1A
Test IB
Test 2A
Test 2B
-------
Test
1
NORTH MAIN STATION
PEEFOFMANCE TEST DATA-1-6
JANUARY 21-26, 1960
0.2806E+02 9.1773E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 49.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 9.2490E+03 IH CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F =
0.2876E+92 0.2729E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 61.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 9.4301E4-03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3406E+02 0.1645E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 47.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 9.4077E+93 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR '-
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4125E-t-02 0.1952E+09
TNLET TEMPERATURE = 52.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 9.5993E*03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4554E-I-02 0.2435E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE => 58.50 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 9.6418E+93 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E+92 0.3294E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 66.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 9.7732E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS =
0-8
78. 00
.5549E+00
0.1900E+03
0.2750E+06
0.1930E+09
0.2970E+92
0. 6000E-I-02
1.6490E+02
25.00
.9584E+00
0.1909E+08
0.2540E+06
0. 2470E4-09
9.2970E+02
0.6070E-I-02
0.6600E+02
70. 00
.9085E+09
0.1900E+98
0. 2625E-I-06
0.3230E+09
0.2970E+02
0.6600E-t-02
0.7150Ef02
90.00
1135E+91
0.1900E+08
0.2541E+06
0. 3870E-I-09
0.2970E+02
0. 7320E-I-02
0. 7800E-I-02
80.00
1430E+01
0.1900E+08
0.3216E+96
0.4560E-I-09
0.2970E+02
0.7750E+92
0.8400E+02
68.00
1723E+01
0.1900E+08
0.3549E+96
0.5250E+09
0.2979E+02
0.8 250E+02
0.9150E+02
1. 363
-------
NORTH MAIN STATION
SYNTHESIZED FULL LOAD RUN
Test No.
3 INLET TEMPERATURE = 49.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.6887E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN.POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3585E+02 0.2729E+00
1 INLET TEMPERATURE = 61.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.7812E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3585E+02 0.1645E+00
2 INLET TEMPERATURE = 47.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.6765E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4205E+02 0.1952E+00
4 INLET TEMPERATURE - 52.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IH GPM = 0.6902E*03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4644E-I-02 0.2435E4-00
5 INLET TEMPERATURE = 58.50 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.7229E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5053E + 02 0.3204E-1-00
6 INLET TEMPERATURE = 66.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.7681E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
= 78.00
0.1535E+01
0. 1700E+08
0. 3550E-I-06
0. 5250E+09
0.2970E+02
0.6930E-I-02
0.8850E+02
= 25.00
0.1741E4-01
0.1700E-I-08
0.3550E+06
0.5250E-I-09
0.2970E+02
0.6780E+02
0.8 800E-J-02
= 70.00
0.1507E+01
0.1700E+08
0.3550E+06
0.5250E-I-09
0.2970E+02
0.8800E-H02
90.00
1538E+01
0.1700E+08
0.3550E+06
0.5250E+09
0.2970E-J-02
0.7400E+02
0.9100E+02
80.0 0
1611E+01
0.1700E+08
0.3550E-»-06
0.5250E+09
0.2970E-H02
0.7840E-I-02
0.9300E+02
68.00
1711"E+01
0.1700E+08
0.3550E-I-06
0.5250E-(-0?
0.2970E+02
0.8250E+02
' 0.9500E-I-02
09
-------
PEIMLAN STATION
PERFORMANCE TEST
(ASSUMED 100% LOAD)
INLET TEMPERATURE = 80.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 54.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.8127E+03 IN CFS - 0.1811E+01
AIR FLOW IN .POUNDS PER HOUR » 0.1300E4-08
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.3520E+06
HEAT. LOAD IK OTU PER HOUR = 0.4300E+09
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES = 0.2970E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0.8380E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F = 0.9200E+02
0.5183E+02 0.5175E-I-00
C-10
-------
NEWMAN STATION
UNITS #1, #2, #3
RIO GRANDE STATION
UNITS #6, #7, #8
0.4804E+02 0.4363E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 78.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.9723E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
H.4804E+02 0.4363E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 78.~0 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1033E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4304E+02 0.4S63E4-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 73. ~0 PERCENT HUMIDITY =
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1195E+04 IN CFS = 0
ATR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE III DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4304E+02 0.547 8E-l-OO
INLET TEMPERATURE = 32.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY =
= 43.25
0. 2163E+01
0. 1000E+08
0.7399E+06
0.5640E+09
0. 2610E + 02
0. 8 OOOE + 02
0.1045E+03
= 43.25
0 . 2 3^2E + ^I
O.I300E+08
0. "419E+06
0.5930E+09
n. 2610E+02
0. 3 OOOE4-02
0 . 9 700E+02
= 43.25
0.2665E-i-01
0. 1300E+03
0. 3 359E+06
0.7010E+09
0.261 nEf 02
0.3000E+02
0. 9 "OOE-t-02
IN GPM
0. 6441E+03 I
FS =
EVAPORATION
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES *
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4304E+A2 0.5473E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 32.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.5615E+03 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.43H4E+02 0.5478E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 32.30 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1715E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGRESS F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
C-ll
4.75
0.1435E-»-Ci
0.1 500E+08
n. 2 50^E + 06
0. 3570E-1-09
0.2S10E+02
0. 7500E+02
0.8 5
44. "5
I251E+01
n. 1 310E+08
0 . 3040E+Oo
0. 3240E+09
0.2611E+02
0.7500E+02
0.910 OE-t-0 2
44.75
3321E+01
0. 3800 E+ OS
0.3134E-i-05
0.1020E+09
0.2 biOE-t-02
0.7500E+02
0. 9400E+02
-------
t 11 LET TEMPERATURE - 1r>.~"> PERCENT HUMIDITY - 68.01
iJVAPORATfOi; Til CPU - 1.16«8E»04 TN CFS - 1.1784E-H1
AIR FLO:« r:; POUNDS PER HOUR * i.ssiiEtos
MAKE-UP I;ATER FLOW 1:1 POUNDS PER HOUR - o.309iE*06
IIEAT LOAD lil DTU PES ilCUR - 1.1304E«-10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE lil INCHES " 0.297"E*02
BASIU TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F" 0.8500E*02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F « 0.3200E+02
0.5103E»02 0.1959EH1
lEBlHLET TEtlPERATURE » 52.51 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 63.!
EVAPORATION IH GPM = 1.1727E+-04 IN CFS - 0.3849E + 01
AIR FLOK IN POUNDS PER HOUR 0.44HE*08
::AKE-UP HATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR » o.279iE*06
HEAT LOAD IM ETU PER HOUR " 0.1304E*10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE III INCHES - 0.2970E+02
DASIN TEMPERATURE It) DEGREES F» 9.8300E*02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F » 0.8700E*02
1.5712E*12 0.2266EVH
INLET TEMPERATURE = 56.51 PERCENT HUMIDITY 67.00
EVAPORATION IM GPM - 1.2115E»14 IN CFS * 0.44<»3E*01
AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR - 0.7010E*08
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUUDS PER HOUR - 0.3791E*06
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR - 0.144«E*10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES - 0.2970E»02
BASIU TEMPERATURE TN DSGREES F- 1.8900E*02
AIR CUTLET TEMPERATURE I'.I DEGREES F » 0.7800E + 02
MAR
JULY r.VLET TEMPERATURE 80.20 PERCENT HUMIDITY
hiJL EVAPORATION IN GPM - 1.251'6*04 IN CFS -
>E*OB AIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IH POUNDS PER HOUR "
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IU INCHES. -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IU DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE III DEGREES F -
1.6600E+02 0.4868E*10
ALJG INLET TEMPERATURE « 78.70 PERCEHT JIUMIDITY
EVAPORATIOH IN GPU » 0.2572E*04 IH CFS
AIR FLOW IN POUUDS PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW III POUUDS PER HOUR
HEAT LOAD IM BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES
BASIU TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F
0.6411E+O2 0.3909E»00
SEPlHLET TEMPERATURE - 72.10 PEKCEHT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IU GPM » 0.1971E+04 IN CFS «
AIR FLOW IN POUUDS PER HOUR
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IH POUUDS PER HOUR -
, HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR "
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
> BASIN TEMPERATURE IU DEGREES F-
! AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
= 6«.50
1.5618E+11
1.781"E*18
0. 4 431E+-16
1.1546E*11
0. 2 971E + 12
1 . 9 7 1 1 E * i 2
0 .
APR
MAY
INLET TEMPERATURE = nl.li PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION 111 GPM = 0.1902EH4 IU CFS »
AIR FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR »
MAKE-UP WATER FLCU IK POUUDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IS BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE I :l INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IS DEGREES F«
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F *
0.5612E*12 1.1115E*00
IHLET TEMPERATURE * 64.61 PERCEIIT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN 3PH = 1.2038E*
EVAPORATION III GPli * 0.2138E+14 IN CFS »
AIR FLOW III POUNDS PER HOUR =
:;AKE-UP WATER FLOii IM POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F «
1 . 0191EH2 1.4216EI-11
JtNE INLET TEMPERATURE - ^4.40 PERCEIIT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IM GPf. = 1.2252E*14 III CFS -
AIR FLOU I:: POUNDS PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW III POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IK BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASi:: TEMPERATURE IS DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE It! DEGREES F -
61.50 OCTlHLET TEMPERATURE
.4237E+01
0.2910E+16
0.1304E+11
0.9100E+02
0.7 750E+02
68.70
0.4541E*01
1.8 OOi)E«-08
0.2116E*OS
1.1352E*10
0. 2179EH2
0 .8801E*02
1.7751EV12
57,80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 1.1823E+14 IN CFS -
AIR FLOU IN POUUDS PER HOUR -
tIAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR «
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE 111 INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F"
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE 13 DEGREES F -
0.5"»02EH2 1.1529E*00
INLET TEMPERATURE 45. "H PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.1745E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN POUUDS PER HOUR
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUUD5 PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEtlPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IU DEGREES F »
o.6001E*02 0.1314E*10
rjgpIMLET TEMPERATURE - 41."0 PERCENT HUMIDITY
= 72.51 SVAPORATIOH IH GPM - 0.1866E*04 IN CFS -
1.5018E+01 iAIR FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
1.7801EH8 I MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE TH DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
0.8651E*02 i AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS
STOP
END OF TASK
COUCH PLANT
MCNTHLY EVAPORATION - 1976
- 60.50
0.573"E*01
0.720i£f 08
0.4270E«-16
0.1546EH.1
0.2'»70E«-i2
. i. 9giiE»i2
o.8"70EH2
'2.51
0.4 3<>1E»11
i. 5 200Lt-08
i. 3571E+16
1.1 314E*11
i. 2 i"iE«-i2
1. " 600E»i2
i .« 10 IE* 12
64.00
0.
0.1449E*10
0.2970E+«2
0.9200E*02
0.50HE*-13
1.2 ^OE + 06
1.1 352EHO
1. 2 971E+02
1. <* 200E+12
0.8 771E + 12
» 58.71
0. 388<>Et-'>l
o. 4 toiEtiS
0.4521E*16
1.1304EH1
0.2"»70EH2
0. 9 100Et02
0.7751E<-02
« 55.10
1.4158E+01
i. 5 311C*-13
1.5121EH6
O.L401EHO
0. 2 971E«-02
0.
-------
U)
T TEMPERATURE » I'i.SO PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN Ufll ~ O.l«75t*M IN CFS -
ATI) FLOW IN CIIUIC FEET PER HOUR »
MAKE-UP 1IATRR FLOW IN POUNDS PER IIOUH "
HEAT LOAD IN UTCI PF.R HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH INCHES »
BASTN TEMPERATURE IN DECREES F=
ATR OUTLET TEMPP.RATURE IH DEGREES F -
ramTNLET TEMPERATURE »
EVAPOHATIOK IH CPU
51.80 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.197tE*14 TH CFS -
ATR PLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD TN UTU PER IIOUH -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE TN INCHES *
BAST 14 TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F~
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IK DRCKEES F "
*>.4704E»02 0.2435E+90
TNLET TEMPERATURE- 58.5" PERCENT HUMIDITY
MAR EVAPORATION TN GPU = 0.2420t*04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW TN CUDTC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW TN POUNDS PKR HOUR "
HEAT LOAD TN UTU PUR HOUR =
ATHOSPIIERTC PRESSURE TN INCHES «
WAS tM TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE TN DEGREES F -
MAY
TEMPERATURE - 63,6O PERCF.IIT HUMIDITY
'EVAPORATION IN GPM » 4F.*(>2 9.3123E+-00
.TNLET TEMPERATURE » 65. CO PERCEIIT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM O.1871F.*04 IN CFS <*
AIR FLOW III CUBIC FEET PF.R HO4IU =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW TN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD TN DTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
I1ASTN TEMPERATURE TH DEGREES F=
ATR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F -
0.5101G*<>2 Q.4511E*OA
JTJIEINLKT TEMPERATURE - 76.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPH 0 .1 949J-; 104 TN CFS «
ATR FLOW IH CUBIC FEET PKH HOUR =
MAKE-UP HATER FLOW IH POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR «
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BAH IN TEMPERATURE TH DROREES F"
AIR OUTLET TEMPBKATUKE TH Di:CRLi:.S F -
-...INLBT TEMPBHATURE
JLUjXF.VAPORATIOH TN OPM
60.50
417812*01
0.
51.00
81.5" PERCENT HUMIDITY = 62
n,1851E*04TH CFS » ".41
ATR FLOW TN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP HATER FLOW 114 POUNDS PER HOUR = '
HEAT LOAD TN HTU PER HOUR ="
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES * '
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F- 0.871
.
TEMPERATURE " 7B.10 PERCENT HUMIDITV
ATTOH III GPM - 0.1B8<»E*O4 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW TN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKK-UP WATER FLOW TH POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD TH DTU PEIl HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH IMCHES -
UASItl TEMPERATURE IH DEGREES F-
ATR OUTLET TEMPERATURE TN DEGREES F -
0.6 51121:1° 6
n.l
n.B
o.B
t. 2"»70E*02
« 61. on
1.5191E+01
0.5TJ013+01
0.1123E+10
0.2170E*02
0.7900E*02
0.6200i: + 02
55.50
0. 6700131
62.
. .
SEPTlNLET TEMPEHATORE - 71.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY =
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.1816E+04 HJ CFS » 0.
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW TN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD TN »TO PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
HASTN TEMPERATURE TN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IH DECREES F =
0.5J.01E + 02 0.246BE + 00
OCT TNLET TEMPERATURE - 58.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY -
EVAPORATION TW GPM » 0.201BE+04 IH CFS » <)
ATR FLOW IN CUBTC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP MATER FLOW IN POUND? PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IH BTU PEH HOUR
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE TH INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
n.4«n5E + '>2 *>. 1 SOSE + n"
NQVTHLF.T TEMPERATURE - 45.5" PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPH - 0.1H39E+M IN Clr'S «
AIR FLOt* IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKK-UP HATER FLO»V TH POUNDS PER HOUH -
II CAT LOAD IN UTU PER HOUR "
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IH INCHES -
UAS1N TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
'I.1058EHO
0.
65.00
n.
o.2<»7o|;+«2
».l
o.a
0.8400E+02
O.T»OO
61.2"
n. 1274E+06
n.X1341i*l'»
0.2970E+02
57.70
0.2'»7nr.»'>2
0.72«»<»i;*«»2
i. snoot:* "2
TEMPERATURE - 41. 'Q PRRCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATTOH IW GPM - 0.1766E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW TN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IM POUNDS PER HOUR -
II HAT LOAD TH UTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE TN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE III DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE. IM DEGREES F "
AVF.RAGE EVAPORATION TH CFS -
STOP
END OF TASK «
MDSES STKEICN - 1976
n.5
n,7 7n«i;»02
n. 4 innu*02
-------
9
TEI1PERATURE « 19.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3730E*04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP HATER FLOW 111 POUNDS PER HOUR »
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F» ,
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IM DEGREES F -
0.5103E+02 0.1959E+00
lEBllJLET TEMPERATURE - 52.50 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION Hi GPU - 0.371BE<-04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE III INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DECREES F«
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
Q.5702E+02 0.2266E+00
MARlHI-ET TEMPERATURE « 56.50 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3701Et04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IH CUBIC FEET PER HOUR
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR
HEAT LOAD IU BTU PER HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES »
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
0.4604E+02 0.2670E+00
APRltlLET TEMPERATURE » 61.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPU = 0.3967E+04 IM CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IU POUNDS PER HOUR «
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DECREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IM DECREES F -
0.4304E+02 0.3015E+00
M^YINLET TEMPERATURE * 64.60 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION It) GPM » 0.3495E+04 IN CFS «
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »'
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR
HEAT LOAD IS BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES »
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5403C+02 0.4216E+00
JUNE INLET TEMPERATURE ' 74.40 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM => 0.409ZEXM IN CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP MATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR "
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES, -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IB DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
O.S2(11E*02 A.S104E+00
6S.OO JULYlNLET TEMPERATURE - 80.JO PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.aU2E + Or EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3752C+04 IN CFS «
Q.7500E+09 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
0.7066E+06 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
0.2146E+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.2970E+02 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES
0.7800E + 02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IK DECREES F-
O.S300E+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5103E+02 0.4B6BE+00
» 68.50 AUGjNLET TEMPERATURE- 78.70 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.82B4E+01 EVAPORATION IN GPM 0.3759E+04 IN CFS -
0.7500E+09 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
0.4874E+06 MAKE-UP MATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
0.2160E+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR «
0.2970E + 02 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IM INCHES -
0.8300E+02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IM DEGREES F»
0.6600E+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
___ Q.47Q4E+02 0.3909E+00
- 67.00 SEPT INLET TEMPERATURE" 72.10 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8247E+01 EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3«3(E + 04 IN CFS -
0.7500E+09 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
0.72S7E+0« MAKE-UP HATER FLOW IN POUNDS PCS HOUR »
Q.2098C+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR
0.2S70E+02 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES
0.8900C+02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F"
0.6600E+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F "
0.4BQ4e+02 0.2375E+00
» 63.50 OCTlNLET TEMPERATURE - 57.BO PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.8B38E+01 EVAPORATION IN CPM - 0.3745E+04 IN CFS -
0.7500E+09 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
0.5707E+06 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
0.2232E+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.2970E+02 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.7800E+02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F>
0.6900E+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DECREES f -
0.4804E+02 0.1529C+00
« 68.70 NOVltJLET TEMPERATURE - 45.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.7787E+01 EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3829E+04 IN CFS -
0.7500E+09 AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
0.6141E+06 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR
0.1958E*10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR "
0.2970E+02 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
0.7500E+02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F«
0.7100E+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F >
0.3705C+02 0.1314E+00
» 72.50 CEClNLET TEMPERATURE" 41.90 PERCENT HUMIDITY
0.9119E+01 EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.4230EKJ4 IN CFS -
0.7500n+09 AIR FLOW IH CUBIC FEIT PER HOUR -
0.5957E+06 MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUHDS PER HOUR -
0.2304E+10 HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
0.297QE+02 ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
o.aeooE+02 BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DECREES r*
0.8200E+02 AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS
LItfCH PLANT
> 69.50
0. 8 359E+01
0 .7500E + 09
0.5924E+06
0.2088E;10
0.2970E*02
0.8400C+02
0.8500E+02
- 60.50
0.4375E+01
0.7500E+09
0.5249E*Ob
0.2088E+10
0.297QE+02
0.8300E<-02
0.8 300E»02
- 72.50
O.B101E»01
O.S183E+06
0.2088E+ld
0.2970E*02
0.7900E+02
0.8200E4-02
- 64.00
0.8 345E+01
0.7500E*0<»
O.S266E4-06
Q.2083E+10
0.2970E«-02
0.8000E+02
0.6400E4-02
- 58.70
0.8532E+01
0. 7500E*01
0.7191E*06
0.2088E+10
0.2970E+02
O.aoOOE+02
0.5000E+02
» 55.00
0. 942 6E »01
0.5324E+Ob
0.2304E+10
0.2970E+02
0.6900E+02
9.4 500E+02
8.477
MlflHLY EVAPORATICU
-------
CLAY BOSWELL UNIT 3
DAILY PREDICTED VALUES
JANUARY 1-12, 1977
INLET TEMPERATURE - 5, CO PERCENT HUMIDI
EVAi =0RATION IN GPM = Q.1545E+04 IN CFS
AIR -LOW IN CUBIC -FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER PLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR ''
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
O.iOOOEfOl
0. 1310E-T-07
0«1710E+10
0.2840E+02
0.4000E+02
0.6AOOE+02
3,\ 9 7 F - 0 1
Q C. 3 0 F - 0 ?
0*1000E-f01
0.1310E+07
0.1S20E+10
0.2S40E+02
0*4000E+02
0.7100E+02
Im.E7 TEMPERATURE := 11*00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1636E+04 IN CFS =
AIR PLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN STU PER HOUR =.
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE -IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES P -
DATA BAD ON 30177
DATA BAD ON 40177
D A T ft . £tAD_ ON _ _S.O i 7 7 _
Q« 9030E+01 -0.1644E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE ~ 4,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0*1613E-f04 IN CFS =
AIR PLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER PLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.9030E+01 -0.614SE-01
- 60.00
0.3594E+01
0* lOOOE-01
O.I310E+07
0*lS20E-flO
0.2340E+02
0.4100E+02
O.A700E+02
iivLEI TbnPe.Kf-U.UKh. = -8.UO l-'tKLbN I HtJMliU ! r
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1273E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR «
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
HAS.IN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F ^
.DATA BAH ON 30.177
I.ATA BAD ON 90177
0,752^£-fO:t. -0 . 6148E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = -8*00 PErtCENi huniWiir
EVAPORATION IN GPM = Q.1Q64E+04 IN CFS =
AIR PLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
MAKE-UP WATER PLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR ==
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD ON 110177
DATA BAD ON 120177
0.9030ET-01 -0.2770E-01
015
0.2836E+01
0. .LOOOErOl
0*1310E+07
0.1S20E+10
0.2840E+02
0*4100E+02
0*2371E-f01
0.1000E+01
0*1310Ef07
0.1630E+10
0.2S40E+02
0.3930Ef02
0.5200E+02
-------
CLAY BOSWELL UNIT 3 (oont'd)
JANUARY 13-22, 1977
i / ;! r 0 R f i T IG N IN i3 r M -" 0 » i 6 2 5 E T 0 -t IN
.-I.-v FLOW i,V CJJ2IC FEET PER HOUR =
>:AKE-bP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HO
,-iEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES ~
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F
DATA BAD ON 14C177
DATA BAD ON 150177
DATA BAD OH 160177
DATA BAD ON 170177
Q.3027E4-Q1 -0,393oE~02
UR ~
CU1310E-T-07
0,1750E+1Q
0.2840E+02
0.4100E+02
0,6300E+02
i iiu;'! .1. .U .i. i
IN Cr£
INLET T E M !- E R A '"' U R E :~ ti-.-jJ .cj'v
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1475ET04
AIR rLGW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAXE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT 'LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES. F =
C :. 3529E+01 -<)> :!. 444E-01
0.323SE-T-01
0*1COOE+OI
0.1310E+G7
0.1720E+10
0.2S40E+02
0«4000E+02
0.6200E+02
HUMIDI
IN CFS
INLET TEMPERATURE - 4.00 PERCENT
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1331E+04
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PEP; HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
T-'A3IN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES
0 > 9532E+01 0 + 3233E-01
TV = 72.00
= 0.2966E+01
0,1000E+01
0.13IOE+07
0.1500E+10
0.2S40E+02
0.4050E+02
0»5700E+02
INLET TEMl-'ERA sUKE = l/.OU i-'cKChN
E V A P 0 R A T 1 0 N I N 0 P M - 0.1466E+04
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET. PER HOUR
>;AKE~UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER
:~ir.iT ! HAfl IN STiJ PilTR HOUR ~
I H-JMiDI ! <
IN CFS =
=:
:_'p]!p -=
1 i T..J W I ^
= 76*00
0.3265E+Q1
0.1000E4-01
0»:L310E+07
0 > '1 6 0 ''' F T 1 0
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-«
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES
0,1003ErG2 -O.S1S3E-02
0.2S40E+Q2
0*6400E-r02
li-1003£+02 -0.5183E-Q2
IN CFS
HOUR ~
i« _t
0*3103E-f01
0*1000E+01
0,i3iO£r07
0.1620E+10
0.2840E+02
0,4200Er02
0*6300E+02
INLET TEMPERATURE - 7*00 Pe.kLc.Ni
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.1635E+04
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN FOUNDS PER
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES
IN CFS = 0.3643E+01
0.1000E+O.L
HOUR = 0* 1310E4-07
0.1630E4-10
0.2840E+02
0>4200E4-02
-------
CLAY BQSWELL UNIT 3 (oont'd)
JANUARY 23-31, 1977
INLET TEMPERATURE = 22.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1804E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
Q.10Q5E+02 0.5487E-Q1
TTTTclr^iTTT^ujfrfm. i T ;-
- 32,00
0.4023E4-01
0.1000E+01
0.1310E+07
0.1650E+10
Q.4200E-J-02
0.7300E+02
INLET TEMPERATUKh = ii.Ou r'tr-Juc
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.1690E+Q4 IN CFS *
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR = -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES *
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
DATA BAD ON 250177
0.903QE-H)1 ' -0+1644E-01
0»3766E+01
O.lOOOEfOl
0.1310E+.07
AIR
0.2S40E+02
CK4200E4-02
0,7200E+02
INLET TEMPERATURE = *.Ut' r'th'i-tN i hunn-.i
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1295E-f04 IN CFS
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
HAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR ^
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
A IS OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD CM 270177
DATA BAD ON 280177
Q.S027E-KJ1 -Q.3521E-01
0.1000E+01
0.1310E+07
0.1450E+10
0.2S40E+02
0.4100E+02
0.6100E-f02
INLET TEMPERATURE = -I -00 PLKCtrn mj i"i 1 1: .L
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1353E+04 IN CFS
rtIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
EA5IN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F s
0>g529ErO:!. -Q>2Q2Q£-0:l
o w1
0.3014E+01
0.1000E+01
0* 1310ET07
G.2840E-T-02
0.4000E+02
0.6500E+02
i;-;LST TEMPERATURE = 3-00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0*1394E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR ? .
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LGAIi 1M BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
TATA BAD GN 310177
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS =
- 60*00
0.3105E+01
0»1000E+01
0.1310E+07
0.1670E+10
0.2S40E+02
Q.4050E+Q2
0.6700E+02
3.286
017
-------
CLAY BOSWELL UNIT 3
DAILY PREDICTED EVAPORATION
AUGUST 1-6, 1977
J.\LET TEMPERATURE = 59.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0,2197E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR ~
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES «
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =»
Q.4QQ5E+Q2 Q+2392E+QQ
INLET TEMPERATURE = 53.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2463E + 04 IN CFS =-
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4Q55E+Q2 Q.2561E+QO
INi_ET TEMPERATURE = 60*00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2300E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
Q.4055E+Q2 Q.2AAQErOQ ^_w___
INLhi i cMPtKA I Uh'E = 61,00 Fc.KCt.Ni HUM j.iU I f
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2403E+04 IN CFS ~
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR *
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES I- =
0.4005E+Q2 0.2561E+QO
INLET TEMPERATURE = 60.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2045E+04 IN CFS ~
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LGAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0,4005E+Q2 Q«295AE+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 64.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2503E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LGAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F<=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
018
= 45,00
0.4894E+01
0.1000E+01
0.1310E+07
0*1520E+10
0*2840Ef02
0.7200E+02
0,3500Er02
^ 4S.OO
0*54S3E-f01
0.1000E+01
0.1310E+67
0.1720E+10
0»2840E+02
0.7200E+02
0.9100E+02
0.5125E+01
0.1QOOE+01
0.131GE+07
0*1650E+10
0*2840E+02
0.9100E+02
J U » U O
0.53S5E+01
0*1000E+01
0..1310E+07
0.1670E-flO
0.2840E+02
0.7250E+02
0*9200E+02
= 45.00
0.4557E+01
0»1000E+01
0.1310E+07
0.1600E+10
"0.2S40E-f<)2
0.7200E+02
0.9100E+02
- o/.OO
0.5577E+01
0.1000E+01
0»1310E+07
0.1700E+10
0.2S40E+02
0.7200E+02
0.9200E4-02
-------
CLK£ BQSWELL UNIT 3 (oont'd)
AUGUST 7-12, 1977
JiiVLET TEMPERATURE ~ i5*00 PlEiM-lbN i H U M I D 1 f /
EVAPORATION IN GPM == 0.2356E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0+4055E+02 0.2S57F+GO
INLc IEMPERATURE ~ 63.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0,2286E+04 IN CFS =,
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP 'WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4055E+02 0.3284E+00
IMLtlT TEMPERATURE = 67*00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0,2289E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0 . 4055E+02 0 * 256 1 £+00
I N L E T T E M r E R A T U R E - 60,0 0 P E K C b. N I H i J ri 1 n I 1 V
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2259E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F~
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN' DEGREES F =
0.4055E+02 0.266QE+00
INLET T E M P E R A T U R E = 61, 0 0 P E R C fc. N T H U M I D I T Y
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0*2249E+04 IN CFS ~
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR ~
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR CUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3955E+02 0.2660E+00
iNLLF 1 EMPEKATUKh - 61, UO r'lir
-------
CLKt BOSWELL UNIT 3 (oont'd)
AUGUST 13-21, 1977
i ':'. L i£ i T £ M r £ R A T U R E :::: 5 4 , 0 U r1 i- K L.::. :N i ): 1; ivt 1 J .;. i V ~
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0,2275Er04 IN CFS = 0
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F--
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
Q,3805E-K)2 .Q.23Q8E+QO
INLET TEhPERrt rUKt. ~ D/.OO i-'e.i-<;L.-=.iv I ri U r: J. ^ .L i i ^
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2090E + 04 IN CFS ==
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD ON 150877
DATA BAD ON 160877
DATA BAD ON 170877
Q.3<605E+Q2 0,2224E-fOO
INLET TEMPERATURE = 56,00 PERCENT HUMIDIT
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2129E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN FOUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3605E+02 0.2308E+00
5Q69E+QI
0, lOOOE-fOl
0.1310E+07
0.1660E+10
0.2840E+02
0.7200E+02
O.S800E+02
0 ,465/E-fOl
0.10GOE+01
0.1310E+07
0.1480E+10
0.2S40E+02
0.7000E+02
0.9100E+02
0.4745E+01
0,1000E+01
0, 13iOE-i-07
0.1550E-fIO
0.2840E+02
0*6SOOE+02
0.8300E+02
hiHi-'cKATUxE - 57.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2436E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT.LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F^=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0«37Q5E+Q2 Q»2857E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 63*00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2127E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.37Q5E+02 Q»2758E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 62,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0,I861E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =»
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HE/»T LOAD IN EJ.U_ PER. HG.UR _=. . .
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0 . ^TO^F+OP 0 . '^477F4-OO
C-20
= 41.00
0.542SE+01
O.lOOOErOl
0.1310E+07
0*1820E + .10
0.2340Er02
0.8900E-f02
"4 6 « O C1
0.4739E+01
0, lOOOE-fOl
0.1310E+07
0.1470E+10
0.2840E+02
0.6900E+02
0.9000E+02
- 42,00
0.4.L46E+01
0.1000E+01
0.1310E+07
0*129QE+10
0.2840E+02
0,6900E-f02
0,8700Ef02
-------
CLAY BOSWELL UNIT 3 (oont'd)
AUGUST 22-31, 1977
INLET TEMPERATURE = 59,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2252E+04 IN
FLOW IN
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0,lR5?F-fOO
3S» 00
= 0.5017E+01
O.lOOOE+01
0.1310E+07
0.1590E+10
0.2340E+02
0.6900E+02
0*8900E+02
INLET TEMPERATURE = 51,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2214E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR .=
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0,3305Ef02 0.1995E+00
= 40,00
0.4933E+01
0*1000E+01
0»1310E+07
0.1690E+10
0,2840E-f-02
0.6800E+02
0,9000E+02
J.NLET TEMPERATURE = 53,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2123Er04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F--
AIS OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
Cr, 3406E-T-02 0 , 2392E+ 00
j-NLe. i 1 ci*!Ps.RA : LK'E bb»'JO J-'L-J-\CEN I i-iL';v).t.iJl : V
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.1847E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR <=
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =»
-40,00
0*4730E+01
0, lOOOE-fOl
0,13.1.0ET07
0*1600£+10
0*2840E+02
0.6700E+02
0,8300E-f02
:- -4 -^ , O O
0,4116£-f01
O.lOOOE+01
0.1310E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES
DATA BAD ON 260377
DATA BAD ON 270S77
DATA BAD ON 230S77
DATA BAD ON 290377
DATA BAD ON 300877
DATA BAD ON 310377
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS =
0. 1400E+10
0.2S40E+02
0.6600E+02
0.8900E+02
4,945
021
-------
HOMER CITY STMTCN
DAILY MOEEL PREDICTIONS
JANUARY 1-8, 1977
0.3406E+02 G.AC77E-02
INLET TEMPERATURE .= 10.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPrt = 0.2677E+04 IN C
AIR FLOW IN CUriC FEET PER HOUR =
MflKE-UP WATER FLGU IN FOUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3406Ef02 0.2S.50E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = U.OO PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.2743E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FE£T"F',ER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =«
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN-DEGREES F"
AIR OUTLET, TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F *
0.3505E+02 0.4361E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 20.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM -' 0.2915E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FUOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DECREES F =
0.3002 O.A238E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE * 2S.OO PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM =» 0.2S98E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HDUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES *
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2904E+02 0.5112E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 22.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.6213E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES ~
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR CUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3106E+02 0.623SE-01
INLET TEMPERATURE * 25.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPH = 0.5452E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR a
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.270AE+02 0.4736E-Oi
INLET TEMPERATURE = 21.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.6IOdE+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR *
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HDUR «
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =»
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F *
0.3306Er02 0.2109E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 14.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.5C6SE+04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =»
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
0.3603^4-02 0.o9=<4E-Oi
= 60.00
O.S96'lE+01
O.lOOGE+01
0.4200E+07
0. 2140E-HO
0.2SAOE-f-02
0.6600E-f02
0.9400E+02
« 48,00
0.6112E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4200E+07
0.2140E-HO
0.2Q60E+02
0.6600E+02
0.9AOOE+02
- 32.00
0.6494E+01
0". 1000E+01
0.4000E+07
0.2200E+10
0.2860E+02
O.A700E+02
0.9600E+02
= 68.00
0.6456E-I-01
O.lOOOE-fOl
0.4100E+07
0.2150E+10
0.2360E+02
0.6200E+02
0.9300E+02
* 36.00
0.1384E+02
O.lOOOE-fOl
0.4400E+07
0.4710E+10
0.28
-------
HOMER Cm STATION '(cont'd)
JMJUAKf 22-31, 1977
0.2S70E+10
0.28(40E+02
0.5900E+02
0.9SOOE+02
= 50.00
0.8267E-I-01
O.lOOOEfOl
0.4800E+07
0.2670E+10
0.2860E+02
0.6000E+02
0.9300E+02
INLET TEMPERATURE * 27.00
EVAPORATION IN GPtf- 0.3E
0.2706Et02 0.2484E-01
*NLPT TEMPERATURE = 15.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 5S.OO
EVAPORATION IN GFM = 0.3549E+04 IN CFS = 0.7907E+01
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = 0.1OOOE+01
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN FOUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2B04E+02 0.2109E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 14.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.3710E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN. POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER- HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2706E+02 0.6988E-01
PERCENT HUMIDITY = 53.00
.3B84E+04 IN CFS « 0.8654E+01
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR - 0.1000E+01
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR " O.S100Ef07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR - 0.2660E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES - 0.2860E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F* 0.5900E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - 0.9500E+02
0.3006E+02 0.6988E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 27.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 68.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3773E+04 IN CFS = 0.8407E+01
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = 0.1000E+01
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.3900E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR = 0.2620E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =» 0.2860E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0.6200E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F = 0.9500E+02
0.310
-------
HOMER CLOY STATT.CN (oont'd)
JANUARY 9-21, 1977
INLET TEMPERATURE := iV.uO r iiF.LlHMT HUrtlMTY
EVAPORATION IN GPH * 0.4728E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU .IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN STL; PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD ON 100177.
0.3206E+02 0.6077E-02
INLET TEMPERATURE » 10.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.5392E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE' IN INCHES =>
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN fiEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.340AE4-02 -0.1430E-02
INLET TEMPERATURE - 8.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPtC' 0.7541E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR "
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
IBASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.3306E+02 0.9830E-02
INLET TEMPERATURE =« 11,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.2777E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR *
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0,320<5E+02 0.7739E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 29.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.2939E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN 'BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
0.2806E+02 0«i423BE-Oi
INLET TEMPERATURE = 25.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.314(SE+04 IN CF3 =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD ON t60177
DATA BAD ON 170177
DATA BAD ON 180177
DATA BAD ON 190177
DATA BAD ON 200177
0.2606E+02 0.3986E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 19.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY.
IVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.9096E+02 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »
MAKE-'UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F*
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2706E+02 0.2484E-01 C-24
- 6 d . 0 0
0.1053E+Q2
O.lOCOE-f-01
0.4500E-H07
0.3900E-HO
0.2S60Er02
0.7000E+02
0.9500Ef02
= 49.00
0.1313E+02
0.1000E+01
0.3100E+07
0.4720E-HO
0.2860E+02
O.A400E+02
0.9500E+02
= 56.00
0.1680E+02
0.1000E+01
0.4000E+07
0.4360E+10
0.23AOE-I-02
0.6600E+02
0.9500E+02
= 41.00
0.6187E+01
O.lOOOE-f-01
0.3900E+07
0.22IOE4-10
0.2S60Ef02
0.6500E+02
0.9500E+02
= 67.00
0.6549E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4000E+07
0.2130E+10
0.2S60E+02
0.6400E+02
0.9500E+02
= 58.00
0.7011E+01
0.1000E+01
0.3500E+07
0.2250E+10
0.2S60E+02
0.6000E+02
0.8900E+02
= 55.00
0.2027E+00
0.1000E+01
0.5100E+07
0.6000E+09
0.2860E+02
0.5800EH-02
0.9000E+02
-------
HOMER CITY STATION
DAILY MODEL PREDICTIONS
APRIL 1-7, 1977
END.OF TASK 0
*RES CL
*LO PAKUTOUR.OBJ
*AS 6rCRT5
*AS IO,PAKI:HOCAPR.FTN
*ST
0.3006E+02 0.1780E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - SD.OO PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * O.4075E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IU BTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F*
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3SOSE+02 0.2047E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 54,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN QPM » 0.3942E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR'»
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =>
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F«
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.3605E+02 0.17SOE+00
INLET TEMPERATURE * 50.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4011E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR »
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =»
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3206E+02 0.1320E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 42.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN SPM * 0.4001E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD ON .-50477
0.2806E+02 O.V616E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE » 34.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN QPM = 0.3801E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES .=
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES -
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.2404E+02 0.9991E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE - 33.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.3571E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.210<5E-r02 0.8865E-01
= 44.00
0.9079E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4800E+07
0.2560E-HO
0.2880E+02
0.6200E+02
0.9700E+02
-76.00
O.8784E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4200E+07
0.2520E-HO
0.2880E+02
0.7000E+02
0.10SOE+03
= 50.00
0.8937E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4100E+07
0.2490E+10
0.2880E+02
O.A800E+02
0.9400E-I-02
= 85.00
0.8914E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4000E+07
0.25-40E+10
0.2S80E+02
0.4400E+02
0.9000E+02
= 55.00
0.8448ET01
0.1000E+01
0.3600E+07
0.2490EflO
0-. 2880E+02
0.
-------
HOVER CITY STATION (oont'd)
APRIL 8-19, 1977
0.2106E+02 0.8B65E-01
INLET TEMPERATURE = 32.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN QPM » 0.2970E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F »
DATA BAD ON 90477
DATA BAD ON 100477
DATA BAD ON 110477
0.4504E+02 0.4451E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 76.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GFM, « 0.2696E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC :FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR *
.HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES »
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.4604E+02 0.3629E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE =» 70,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM » 0.4566E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.4105E+02 0.2660E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 61.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4270Et04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =»
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.3805E+02 0.2392E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 58.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4451E+04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR -
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F *
0.3805E+02 0.2224E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 56.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4401E+04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PSR HOUR *
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.3705E+02 0.2477E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 59.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM 0.3081E+04 IN CFS -
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR «
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F *
DATA BAD ON 180477
DATA BAn ON 190477
48.00
.6A17E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4100E+07
0.1850E-HO
0.2880E-I-02
0.5300Ef02
0.7500E+02
= 29.00
0.6007E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4300E+07
0.1440E4-10
0.2880E+02
0.7700E-I-02
0.9600E-I-02
= 34.00
0.1017E+02
0.1000E+01
0.3800E+07
0.2630E+10
0.2880E+02
0.7800E+02
0.9900E+02
= 45.00
0.9515E+01
0.1000E+01
0.3800E+07
0'.2530E+10
0.2980E+02
0.7300E+02
0.9500E+02
» 23S00
0.9918E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4000E+07
0.2650E+10
0.2880E+02
0.7000E+02
0.9400E+02
= 39.00
0.9807E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4600E+07
0.2620E+10
0.2880E+02
0.7000E+02
0.9400E+02
* 40.00
0.4866E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4100E+07
0.1770E-HO
0.2880E+02
0.6900E+02
0.9000E+02
C-26
-------
HOMER CITY STATICN (cont'd)
APRIL 20-30, 1977
OATA BAD ON 2C0477
DATA BAD ON 210477
DATA BAD ON 220477
0.4604E+02 0.2561E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 60.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3536E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP UATER FLOW"IN-POUNDS PER HOUR *
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN- DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE 'IN DEGREES F -
0.4005E+Q2 0.13S2E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 31.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4253E+04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC JEET PER HOUR *
MAKE-UP UATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES »
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AJR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.350SE+02 0.1719E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE => 49,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.4304E+04 IN CFS "
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR *
MAKE-UP UATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =*
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
B4SIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.31QAE-)-02 0.1474E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE » 45.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.3073E+04 IN CFS »
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP UATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F*
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
DATA BAD ON 270477
DATA BAD ON 280477
0.2904E+02 0.1474E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 45.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.1335E+04 IN CFS *
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP UATER FLQU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.290&E+02 0.1923E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 52.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.3019E+1
0.<4700E+07
0.2530E+10
0.2880E+02
0.6700E+02
0.9500E+02
= 7O.OO
0.6846E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4600E+07
0.1940E+10
0.2B80E+02
0.6300E+02
0.9100S+02
= 45,00
0.2975E+01
0.1000E+01
0.3900E+07
0.6900E+09
0.2880E+02
0.6100E+02
0.7500E+02
= 40.00
0.6726E+01
0.1000E+01
0.4100E+07
0.1700E+10
0.2880E+02
0.
-------
HOMER CITY STATION
DAILY MDDEL PREDICTIONS
JULY 1-10, 1977
*LO PAKI:TOUR.UBJ
*AS 6»CRTt
*AS IO»PAKI;HOCJUL.FTN
*ST
DATA BAD ON 10777
DATA BAD ON 20777
DATA BAD ON 30777
DATA BAD ON 40777
0.5502E+02 0.5780E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 84.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM * .0.7569E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IWPOUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5303E+02 0.34&E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 82.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN 0PM - 0.6689E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC :FEET PER HOUR -
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =»
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5302E+02 0.4760E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 78.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.8705E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR *
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR *
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES -
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F»
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5303E+02 0.429AE+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 73.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION *N GPM - 0.8464E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR *
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR *
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR -
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F-
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5203E+02 0.4030E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 73.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.8069E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.5303E+02 0.4296E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 75.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.8684E-04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR =*
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR »
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5303E+02 0.4030E+00
= 58.00
0.1687E+02
0.7900E+07
0.4280E-HO
0.2880E-I-02
0.8700E+02
0.1100E+03
= 60.00
0.1490E+02
0.5000E+08
0.4800E+07
0.3870E+10
0.2880E+02
0.8500E+02
O.UOOE+03
= 65.00
0.1940E+02
o.foooE+or
0.8400E+07
O.SOOOE+10
0.2880E+02
0.8700E+02
0.110OE+03
= 77.00
0. 1930E+02
0.*OOOE+OB
0.3100E+07
0.5070E+10
0.2880E+02
0.8500E-1-02
O.ll-OOE+03
= 75.00
0.1798E+02
O.^OOOE+Off
0.8600E+07
0.4760E+10
0»2880E+02
0.8400E+02
O.UOOE+03
= 58.00
0.1935E+02
0 .TOOOE+Off
0.8600E+07
0.5050E+10
0.2880E+02
0.8500E+02
0.1100E+03
C-28
-------
HOMER CITY STATION (oont'd)
JULY 19-26, 1977
0.5203E+02 0.44S1E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 76.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 63.00
EVAPORATION "IN"GPM = 0.3171E+04 IN CFS - 0.7066E+O1
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =" 0.*OOOE+C8
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.7800E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR = 0.1460E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES = 0.2880E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0.3400E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - 0.9900E+02
0.5403E+02 0.5246E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE =» 8A. 00 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 67.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 6.3315E+04 IN CFS = 0.7387E+01
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = 0.>» OOOE+08
MAKE-UP WATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.5600E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU P.ER HOUR - 0.1630E-HO
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES - 0.2880E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F" 0.8600E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F » 0.1010E+03
0.3602E+02 0.4914E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 79.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY - 67.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM - 0.2787E+04 IN CFS - 0.6210E+01
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR - 0.4IOOOE+OBJ
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR * 0.7000E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR » 0.1280E-HO
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES = 0.2880E-K>2
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F- 0.8800E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - 0.1050E+03
DATA BAD ON 220777
0.4304E+02 0.2956E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 64.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 62.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.4108E+04 IN CFS = 0.9153E+01
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = . O.*000£+08
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR - 0.6300E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR » 0.2340E-HO
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =» 0.2880E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0.7500E1-02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F - 0.1010E+03
0.5103E+02 0.4163E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE » 74.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 60.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.8220E+04 IN CFS = Q.1832E+02 .
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR » 0.4000E+08
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.61.00E-r07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR » 0.4850E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES = 0.2880E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0.3300E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F = 0.1050E-J-03
0.3203E+02 0.3763E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 71.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY = 80.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM * 0.8404E+04 IN CFS = 0.1873E+02
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = O.itOOOE+08
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.7100E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR = 0.5020E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES-« Q,2880Et02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES f%= 0.8400E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F = 0.1080E+03
0.4504E+02 0.2956E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE * 64,00 PERCENT HUMIDITY =» 36.00
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.4403E+04 IN CFS = 0.9B10E+01
AIR FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = 0.*OOOE-(-08
MAKE-UP UATER FLOU IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.5000E+07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR = 0.2370E+10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES = 0.2880E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0.7700E+02
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F = 0.1010E+03
0.4404E+02 0.2857E+00
C-29
-------
HOMER GUY STATION (oont'd)
JULY 27-31, 1977
O.44O4E+O2 O.2S57E.+OO
INLET TEMPERATURE = A3.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = ''O.B018E+04 IN CFS =
AXFL FLPU IN CUBIC FEET -EEB^HDUfi »
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE JN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F -
0.4804E+02 0.3763E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 71.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM. - 0.8471E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5003E+02 0.4030E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE - 73.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.8471E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR' =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
0.5103E+02 0.3763E+00
INLET TEMPERATURE = 71.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY
EVAPORATION IN GPM = 0.8792E+04 IN CFS =
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR =
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR =
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR =
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES =
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F=
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F =
DATA BAD ON 310777
AVERAGE EVAPORATION IN CFS =
STOP
END OF TASK 0
~ 52,00
0.1787E+02
0.4000E+08
0.5700E+07
0.4880E+10
0.2880E+02
0.7600E+02
0.9900E+02
= 57*00
0.1887E+02
0.4000E+08
0.6600E+07
0.5040E+10
0.2880E+02
0.8000E+02
0.1050E-f03
= 63.00
0.18S8E+02
0.4000E+08
0.5800E+07
0.5030E+10
0.2880E+02
0.8200E+02
0.1050E+03
a 71.00
0.1959E+02
0.4000E+08
0.7800E+07
0.5140E+10
0.2880E+02
O.S300E+02
0.1050E+03
15.278
030
-------
KQSHKCNCNG NUCLEAR PLANT
DESICJJ DATA
0.6301E+02 0.6572EVOO
INLET TEMPERATURE « 88.00 PERCENT HUMIDITY =* 60.00
EVAPORATION IB GPM = 0.1102E+05 IN CFS = 0.2456E+02
AIR FLOW IN CUBIC FEET PER HOUR = Q.2400E+10
MAKE-UP WATER FLOW IN POUNDS PER HOUR = 0.6249E-I-07
HEAT LOAD IN BTU PER HOUR » 0.6642E-1-10
ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE IN INCHES - 0.2990E+02
BASIN TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F= 0 . <* 50 OE + 0 2
AIR OUTLET TEMPERATURE IN DEGREES F = 0.1I20E+-03
C-31
-------
APPENDIX D
COMPUTER PKENlOUTS" FOR CODLING POND MODELS
D
-------
DEFINITIONS FOR COOLING PCND MODELS PROGRAM OUTPUT
Parameter
TAMB (column I)
HUM
Wind
QH
QC
QM
QB
Qua!
Definition
Ambient Dory Bulb Mr Temperature
in F
Acres
Ambient Relative Humidity
Ambient Wind Speed - miles per hour
Marciano and Harbeck model (Lake
Hefner) predicted evaporation in
cubic feet per second
Harbeck, Koberg, and Hughes model
'(Lake Colorado City) predicted
evaporation in cubic feet per second
Meyer model predicted evaporation
in cubic feet per second
Brady et al model .predicted evapora-
tion in cubic feet per second
Origin of data - 0.0 is utility and/or
NWS data -1.0 indicates data
supplemented by engineering estimate
of values. 2.0 means insufficient
data for model prediction.
Surface area of cooling pond in acres
Botton Line: Average values for QH QC QM QB Max. no. of values
possible in period Actual no. of values used in average
First Date Last Date
Dates shown are day-month-year (e.g. January 8, 1977 is 080177)
D-l
-------
TAMB HUM WIND QH QC QM QB
1.21
1.96
2.86
4.03
5.51
6.73
5.14
5.76
3.73'
2*77
1.75
1.32
1.14
2.13
3.47
5.05
6.68
8.16
5.84
6.45
3.98
2.96
1.74
1,30
0,95
1 .65
2.64
3. 05
5,09
6,21
4.45
4.97
3.11
2.30
1,40
1 .06
3,1
CHOLLA PLANT MONTHLY EVAPORATION PERIOD: 1974-1976
30.00
37.00
45.00
51.00
62.00
72.00
78.00
75.00
67.00
55,00
42,00
31.00
30.00
37.00
45.00
51,00
62.00
72.00
78.00
75.00
67.00
55.00
42.00
31.00
2.8
30. Ot)
37.00
45.00
51.00
62,00
72.00
78.00
75.00
67.00
55,00
42,00
31,00
59,00
43.00
30.00
25.00
15,00
15.00
36,00
31,00
45,00
37.00
44.00
51.00
59.00
43,00
30.00
25,00
15.00
15.00
36.00
31.00
45.00
37.00
44,00
51*00
4
59.00
43.00
30.00
25.00
15.00
15.00
36.00
31*00
45,00
37,00
44.00
51.00
7.10
9,30
11,60
12. -40
11 .60
11,60
10.20
9.90
8.70
8.90
8.00
7.80
7.00
9.10
11*40
12.20
11.40
11.40
10.00
9,70
8,60
8,80
7,80
7.60
.1
6,40
8.30
10,40
11.10
10,40
10,40
9,10
8*90
7,90
8.00
7.10
7*00
3.6
0.77
1.45
2*36
3.43
4.54
5.55
3.97
4,38
2,71
2,01
1.18
0.88
-------
TAMB HUM WIND QH QC QM QB
3.97
6 . 81
6,2?
9,90
8.59
10.79
16.96
17.63
13.67
4.58
2.60
3.60
4.61
9.72
7.76
12.65
10.67
13.61
19.20
19.54
15.86
5.58
3.04
4.14
3.51
7.21
5.89
9.78
8.11
10.42
14.78
15.07
12.10
4,25
2.32
3.15
8.1
MORGAN CREEK STATION 1960 COMPUTER RUNS
45.50
46,40
58,10
68,40
80,40
87.10
82,90
82.30
81.60
70,70
51,90
49,10
45.50
46.40
58.10
68.40
80,40
87,10
82,90
82.30
81.60
70,70
51.90
49.10
7.2
45,50
46,40
58.10
68.40
80,40
87.10
82.90
82,30
31,60
70,70
51.90
49,10
62,00
58.00
56.00
56.00
58,00
52,00
57.00
48.00
50.00
64.00
58,00
62.00
62,00
50.00
56,00
56,00
58.00
52,00
57.00
48.00
50.00
64.00
53.00
62.00
10
62.00
58.00
56.00
56.00
58.00
52.00
57.00
48,00
50.00
64.00
58.00
62.00
10,60
14.30
12,10
13.20
12,20
12.60
10,30
9,70
10.60
11.70
10,80
10.40
10.40
15.40
11.90
12.90
12.00
12.40
10.00
9.50
10.40
11.50
10.60
10.20
.5
9.50
13.20
10.80
11.80
10,90
11,30
9.20
8,70
9.50
10,50
9.70
9,30
8.8
3.13
6.60
5.28
8.60
7,25
9,25
13.05
13.28
10.78
3,79
2.07
2.81
-------
TAMB HUM WIND QB
/. QKT.
u * t.f %J
3. 98
3.87
3 . 16
3.00
2.95
8.31
4.40
4.35
10.25
6.53
6,02
8,35
2.47
4.48
8.23
7,96
6.01
5,29
3,52
4.42
8.31
3.63
2,40
3.39
5,13
9,05
7.05
10.01
9.43
* 9 7'76
j. <
MT. STORM STATION - JANUARY 1977 - BRADY MODEL
6,60
15,00
22,60
30,20
31,00
32.00
21,80
13.20
24.60
21,80
4.20
8,80
7,80
36,20
27,60
3,60
-3.00
2.00
7,80
12,80
16,60
14.60
12,60
27.20
25.80
24,80
21 ,00
20,00
4,60
10.40
11 ,40
60,00
69.00
78,20
88.60
96.40
89.80
74,40
46,20
79.00
85.20
56.40
74.00
54.40
87.80
74.60
69,20
46. -10
49.60
70.00
55,00
77.40
70.60
6SX60
90.60
87.60
73,20
62.20
67.80
45.60
62.20
50.60
8,30
2.40
2.40
3,10
3.10
2.20
11.20
0.90
4.80
13.60
7,70
9.00
9.90
5.50
7,70
11,00
10.50
8.10
7.50
2.00
6,80
12,90
2.90
2.40
6.80
9.90
14.00
11.60
14,50
13.60
11.40
-------
TAMB
HUM
WIND
O
I
01
71 ,20
67,50
67.20
67,00
74,00
77,70
81 ,30
77.70
76,30
72.20
75.00
73.80
71 .50
70.80
70.50
79.20
75.00
78.50
75.00
79.30
71.30
70,80
65.50
67.50
70,00
60,70
63.50
65.80
67.70
70,80
70.00
71.30
58.30
65,30
68.20
80.20
70,80
65.80
70*70
73,70
80.70
76.20
79.30
88.70
72.30
71 .50
77.00
72.20
66.20
72.00
72.70
88.50
69,00
66.00
76.30
90.20
70,80
63.20
65.20
72.70
75,20
73.50
9.10
4.80
2.30
2.40
4.00
3.50
4,40
5.90
4,30
1.00
4, 10
4.30
4.60
3.00
3. 10
0.50
3,50
1 .30
3,80
4.30
2.30
6,80
3.10
4,40
5,90
3.50
3.00
2,30
4,40
4.40
1.30
14.76
12,17
10,75
9.76
7.26
8,
7,
8.
10,
7,
9,
11 ,
93
70
66
94
85
65
7 "i
lJ A.
11.3
7,04
10,85
10,59
10.5 4
17.61
15.96
13,67
12.17
14.1 3
1 4 . 7 4
14 .68
1 1.50
11.42
10.68
MT. STORM STATION - JULY 1977 - BRADY MODEL
-------
TAMB HUM WIND
6,60
15.00
22,60
30,20
31*00
32*00
21*80
13*20
24*60
21,80
4.20
9. BO
7, BO
36,20
27.60
3.60
-3,00
2.00
7.80
12,80
16.60
14.60
12,60
27.20
25,80
24,80
21.00
20,00
4,60
10.40
11.40
60,00
69.00
78.20
88.60
96.40
99.30
74.40
46.20
79 , 00
05,20
56.40
74.00
54.40
87.80
74.60
69,20
46,40
49.60
70,00
55*00
77.40
70.60
65,60
90.60
87.60
73,20
62.20
67.30
45,60
62,20
50,60
9.30
2.70
0,00
3,40
0,00
2,20
12.50
1.00
5.40
15.20
8.60
11.00
0.00
6*10
8*60
12.30
11*80
9.10
8,30
2.20
7.60
14.50
3,20
2.70
7.60
11 .00
15.70
13.00
16.20
15.20
12.70
3. 17
4.99
3.82
4.03
2,86
3,50
0,66
5,01
5,68
7,95
8,25
4,40
3.21
5,46
8.66
8,61
7,24
6,46
4,31
5,55
7.97
4,61
3.00
4.25
5,67
8.20
7.22
9.53
3.71
3.00
MT. STORM STATION - JANUARY 1977 - MEYER MODEL
-------
TAMB HUM WIND QM
71
67
67
69
74
77
81
79
76
72
75
73
71
70
70
79
75
7G
75
79
71
70
65
67
70
60
63
65
67
70
70
,20
.50
,20
,00
.00
,70
.30
.70
,30
,20
.00
.80
,50
.80
,50
.20
.00
,50
.00
.30
,30
,30
,50
,50
.00
.70
,50
.80
,70
.80
.00
71,30
50,30
65,30
68.20
80.20
70.80
65.80
70.70
75.70
80,70
76.20
79.30
88.70
72.30
71.50
77.00
72.20
66.20
72.00
72.70
88,50
69,80
6 6 , 0 0
.76,30
90.20
70.80
63.20
65.20
~> "> "7 n
/ *_ » / U
"7 i:r "V /\
r .J t ±. U
~> ~* S rt
/ »-* f vj U
10,10
5,30
2,60
2.70
4.40
3.90
5.00
6.60
4.80
1 .10
4,60
4 ,80
5.20
3.30
3.50
0.60
3.90
2,00
4.20
4.80
2.60
7.50
3.50
5.00
6.60
3.90
3,30
3,10
5.00
5.00
1 .50
1 7 . 16
15.79
13.42
12.23
9.40
9.71
10.93
11.48
10.04
9.93
14.27
10.24
12.63
14.41
16.00
7.76
14.02
12.55
16,64
13.80
13. 16
21.99
20,51
17.93
15.64
18.25
18.76
1S . 61
19.02
14.93
12.61
MT. STORM STATION - JULY 1977 - MEYER MODEL
-------
TAMB HUM WIND QH QC
8.36
2.35
2.28
2.35
2.23
1 .49
10.Q8
1.05
4.49
12.86
8.26
9.76
10.92
2.75
5.67
o> 3.60 69.20 12.00 7.23 10v71
10.53
7.75
6.66
1.79
1 .09
10.6^
2.49
1.41
4.17
6.71
11.30
9.23
13.2?
11.83
10.12
6.60
15.00
22.60
30.20
31.00
32.00
21.80
13.20
24.60
21 ,80
4,20
8,80
7.80
36.20
27.60
3,60
-3.00
2 . 00
7.80
12.80
16.60
14.60
12.60
27.20
25,80
24.80
21.00
20.00
4 , 60
10.40
11 .40
4,5
60.00
69.00
78,20
88,60
96.40
89.80
74.40
46.20
79,00
85.20
56,40
74.00
54.40
87.80
74.60
69.20
46.40
49.60
70.00
55.00
77.40
70.60
65.60
90.60
87.60
73.20
62.20
67.80
45,60
62.20
50,60
O
? , 1 0
2,60
2.60
3.40
3.40
2.20
12.30
1.00
5,30
14,90
8,40
10,80
10.80
6.00
0,40
12,00
11,60
8,90
8.20
2.20
1.50
14,20
3.10
2,60
7,50
10.80
15,40
12.80
15,90
14,90
12,50
.6
6,02
1.60
1.55
1.60
1*52
1.01
7.40
0,71
3.05
8.74
5*61
6.63
7.42
1.87
3.86
7.23
7.16
IS" O ~7
4,52
1.22
0.74
7,22
1.69
0.96
2.83
4.56
7.68
6.28
9,03
8.04
6.88
4c- i <.
» vJ U . U
MT. STORM STATION - JANUARY 1977 - LAKE HEFNER AND LAKE COLORADO CITY MODELS
-------
TAMB HUM WIND QH QC
71.20 71.30 9.90 13.21 19.43
67.50 58.30 5.20 8.39 12,34
67.20 65.30 2.50 4.16 6.12
69.00 68.20 2.60 3.91 5.76
74,00 80.20 4.30 4.39 6.45
77.70 70.80 3.80 4.15 6.10
81.30 65.80 4.90 5.58 8.20
79.70 70.70 6.50 7.02 10.33
76,30 75,70 4.70 4.98 7.33
72,20 80.70 1.10 1.54 2.26
75,00 76.20 4.40 6.72 9.88
73,80 79.30 4,70 5.08 7.47
71.50 88.70 5.10 6,62 9.74
70.80 72.30 3.30 5.59 8,22
70.50 71,50 3,40 6.30 9.26
79.20 77.00 0.50 0.57 0.84
75.00 72.20 3.80 5.99 8,81
78.50 66.20 2,00 3.27 4.81
75.00 72.00 4.20 7.69 11.31
79.30 72.70 4.70 6.85 10.07
71,30 88.50 2.50 4.08 6.00
70.80 69.30 7.40 14.53 21,38
65.50 66.00 3.40 8.07 11,88
67,50 76.30 4.?0 9,15 13.46
70.00 90.20 6.50 9.57 14.08
60,70 70,80 3.80 7,80 11.47
63,50 63.20 3.30 7,27 10.70
65.80 65.20 3.10 6.88 10.13
67.70 72.70 4.90 9.71 14.28
70,80 75.20 4.90 7.65 11.25
70,00 73.50 1,50 2.57 3.73
6,4 9,5
MT. STORM STATION - JULY 1977 - LAKE HEFNER AND LAKE COLORADO CITY MODELS
-------
o
TAMB
23.50
39.30
45.40
55.00
59.70
72.40
77.40
71.60
65.20
49.60
34.60
24.10
23.50
39.30
45.40
55,50
59.70
72.40
77.40
71.60
65.20
49.60
34.60
24.10
15.5
23.50
39.30
45.40
55.00
59,70
72.40
77.40
71.60
65.20
49.60
34.60
24. 10
HUM
73.50
72.80
73,10
65,80
62.00
58.20
63.20
60.80
64.00
69.40
66.80
57.40
75.50
72.80
73,10
65.80
62.00
53.20
63.20
60.80
64.00
69.40
66.30
57.40
oo
75.50
72,80
73.10
65.80
62,00
58.20
63.20
60,80
64,00
69.40
66.80
57.40
WIND
13.50
14,50
15.50
12.70
11 .60
8.80
9.30
8.50
8.70
9.30
12.00
13.40
13.30
14.20
15.30
12.40
10.60
8.70
9,10
8.40
8,60
9.10
11 .80
12.90
.9
12.10
13.00
13.90
11.30
9.60
7.90
8.30
7,60
7,80
8.30
10,80
12,00
Off
QC
0.:
10.56
3.48
6.30
6.68
21,22
18.92
23.10
26.28
18.38
17.48
18.58
15.59
15.53
5.13
9.27
9.82
27.83
33,98
38.66
27.04
25.72
27.33
22.93
QM
11 .94
3.05
6.72
7.02
27.68
26.16
31 ,35
37.05
25.58
23.73
22.17
13.10
QB
11 .99
4.05
7 . 10
7.52
23.60
rt 1 /. /.
A- J. * U U
~i it- '-i r>
*_ U * a_ .'
30.27
21 .09
19.90
20.92
18.09
KINCAID GENERATING STATION MONTHLY PREDICTED EVAPORATION 1976
-------
a
I
TAMB
29.70
30.70
46.30
51 .90
59.60
73.20
76.00
76.00
6? .80
60 .70
45.50
28.00
29,70
30,70
46.30
51 .90
59.60
73.20
76.00
76.00
69,80
60.70
45.50
28.00
7,2
29.70
30.70
46.30
51,90
59,60
73,20
76.00
76.00
69,80
60,70
45.50
28.00
HUM
77.00
(30.00
77.00
70.00
67.00
A 9. 00
69.00
73.00
72.00
60.00
73,00
77.00
77,00
80.00
77.00
70.00
67.00
69.00
69.00
73.00
72.00
68.00
73.00
77.00
10
77.00
80.00
77.00
70.00
67.00
69.00
69.00
73.00
72,00
68.00
73.00
77.00
WIND
14.10
12.60
13,80
14.50
12.10'
11.30
7.80
8.70
9,30
9.80
11.70
13.30
13.80
12.30
13.60
14.20
11.90
11.10
7.60
8.60
9.10
9.60
11.50
13.10
.6
12.60
11.20
12.40
13.00
10.90
10,10
7,00
7.80
8.30
8.80
10.50
11.90
QH
QC
9.
6.49
2.79
4.87
1.73
10.09
12.77
10.63
11.02
12.91
6.27
2.71
4.17
9.54
4.10
7,17
2.54
14.84
18.79
15.64
16.21
18.99
9.23
3.99
6,13
QM
7,25
3.28
5,46
1 .91
11.99
15.69
15.94
15.33
17.52
3.28
3.27
4.74
QB
3.14
5,58
2.01
11.30
14.26
12.78
12.64
14.69
7. 11
3.04
4.71
POWERTON GENERATING STATION MONTHLY PREDICTED EVAPORATION 1973
-------
o
H"
K)
£AS 10,
*rt3 Hi
IAMB
8,60
27,00
44,60
57,10
68 , 50
70 , 20
78 , 20
71.40
PAK1
PAK1
PAK1 JASD.FTN
HUM
66 . 70
68,40
62.10
57,80
63,60
64,40
67,00
76,30
1430,0 AC
10,5
15
WIND
11,80
1 1 . 00
13,20
11.40
7.90
9.20
3,90
8.30
Fi;E3
*4
STOP
END OF TASK 0
*LO PAK1JPOND.OBJ
QH
8.02
6.06
8.83
9.13
9.48
13.56
17.22
11,68
QC
11.79
8.92
12.98
13.43
13.94
19.95
25.33
17,19
13,1
8
QM
9.48
7.41
9.93
10.97
13.74
19 ,12
23.40
16.49
POWEKTQN GENERATING STATIOSI
MOSTTOIX PREDICTED EVAPORATION
1977
OB
9.97
7.47
11,25
11 ,29
11.95
16.70
21.26
14.58
i/:
CJUAL
0.0
0,0
0 ,0
i * o
'.I »0
0,0
0,0
87
-------
TAMB
HUM
WIND
QH
QC
D
I
M
W
46.90
48,40
54.40
63.60
72.20
79.70
81.60
80.50
75.30
64.70
53.70
46.40
46.90
48,40
54.40
63,60
72,20
79.70
31,60
80.50
75.30
64.70
53.70
46.40
15.3
46.90
48.40
54.40
63,60
72,20
79,70
81.60
80,50
75,30
64,70
53,70
46.40
65.00
63,00
61.00
60 . 00
61 .00
64.00
66.00
69,00
67.00
67,00
67.00
66,00
65.00
63.00
61.00
60.00
61,00
64.00
66.00
69.00
67,00
67.00
67.00
66.00
22.
65.00
63.00
61.00
60,00
61.00
64.00
66.00
69.00
67.00
67.00
67.00
66.00
7.50
8.20
8.90
9.20
7.50
7.20
7. 10
6.50
6.70
6.50
6.90
7.00
23.6
7.30
8,00
3.80
9,00
7,30
7.10
7,00
6.40
6.60
6.40
6.80
6.?0
5
6.70
7.30
8.00
8.20
6,70
6.50
6.40
5.80
6.00
5.80
6.20
6.30
6.09
13,97
20,80
9,51
14.36
14.93
25,13
22.38
19.28
13.26
10.88
7,21
8.96
20.55
30.60
13.99
21,86
21,97
36.97
32.92
28.36
26.86
16.00
10.60
QM
9.34
20.34
28.59
12.99
22.80
23.15
39.29
36.93
31.22
30.12
17,30
11.36
QB
7,41
16.42
23.78
10.81
18,09
18,35
31.04
28.66
24,36
23,38
13,58
8.95
H.B. ROBINSON STATION,APRIL 1975 - MARCH 1976, MONTHLY EVAPORATION
PREDICTION.
-------
TAMB HUM
WIND
QH
QC
D
28.90
40.30
54,50
61.80
69.20
73.00
80.70
67.10
73.00
57.60
51.90
40.60
28.90
40.30
54.50
61.80
69.20
73.00
80.70
67.10
73.00
57.60
51.90
40.60
22.2
28.90
40.30.
54.50
61.80
69.20
73.00
80.70
67.10
73.00
57.60
51.90
40.60
53.00
46.00
54.00
59.00
63.00
A 3. 00
60.00
72.00
74.00
71.00
71 .00
68.00
53.00
46.00
54.00
59.00
63.00
63.00
60.00
72.00
74.00
71 .00
71.00
68.00
32
53.00
46.00
54.00
59.00
63.00
63.00
60.00
72.00
74.00
71.00
71,00
68.00
9.20
8,60
8.20
7.00
5.80
6,70
6.20
6.90
7.00
7.60
3.20
7.80
9.00
8,40
8.00
6.90
5,70
6.60
6.10
6.80
6.90
7.50
3.00
7.70
.6
8.20
7.70
7.30
6.30
5.20
6.00
5,60
6.20
6.30
6. SO
7.30
7.00
34.5
17.99
14.65
14.48
17.93
18.86
23.33
35.42
40.23
26.06
24.74
18,43
13.75
26.46
21.55
21.30
26.37
27.75
34.33
52,11
59.18
38.34
36.39
27.11
20.23
QM
24.56
20,76
21.09
28.27
31.87
37.79
60.53
63.99
41.09
37.15
26.83
20.35
QB
17.01
17.02
22.26
24.31
27,49
47.04
50.23
32.36
27.58
21.65
16.32
BELEWS CREEK STEAM STATION MONTHLY PREDICTION OF EVAPORATION RATE
JANUARY 1977
-------
ui
T£MB
-9.90
Ow » wU
39.30
13.00
35.70
24, SO
25.40
2i3.80
27, cO
46 . 00
47.20
"17. 10
43. 20
43 . 70
40.20
29.40
2 8 . 0 0
27 * 60
10 « 70
3 7 . 7 0
32.70
45.40
33 * 30
Ovj * 30
53.40
61*30
56.20
40.60
3350
15.2
HUM
37.00
40 . 00
40.00
42.00
39.00
37.00
37.00
47.00
46.00
42.00
45. 0 \i
63, CO
34.00
40.00
44.00
46.00
40,00
c; 3 + CO
f f* .-* ^
3 V » v.' v>
43 . 00
4 i » 0 0
.» .~, ,.., ^
j / * J w
n ** .-* .-^
*t\J * (JV
53 * 00
33 . 00
40.00
76,00
51*00
WIND
3 . 50
3*20
10.00
5.40
12, 10
7.40
6, SO
3*50
4*?0
5.30
3*90
4.70
8*90
7*70
3.40
9*iO
6 + 00
3.40
4 * 50
/» n f\
r « *>'w
«»t (*~ /»
/ . o w
r . S 0
3,30
3.90
9*60
8.80
9.30
6,90
QH
19.37
1 1 . 55
21,07
10*82
26*64
16*30
14,10
3»20
12,91
12.67
8 * 38
7.70
20.45
17.75
13,19
22,85
17*73
11*65
20*07
13.98
6 . 49
15.98
QC
23.50
16.99
31,00
15*92
39.18
23.98
20.74
12*07
13*99
13.64
12.33
11.33
30,09
26.11
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DDES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NGT
26*76
33, 61
26,08
17.13
29,52
20.57
9.55
23.51
QM
26*93
21*61
26.97
19.75
31 .14
24.53
22.2?
20*25
25*13
22.09
19.12
15.41
27.80
26.11
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
27.17
29.54
24,24
15.83
26.22
19.12
3.62
25,05
OB
24 , 03
.. - - ..
*. / * u J.
^.U * i"O
15,87
33.27
j^ j\ -\ , .
*iV. 7V
IS. 59
16. 13
20.04
17,90
15,19
12,27
os ~?A
* Wl » A-, hj
22.52
23 , 25
23,03
21,93
14.33
24,64
17,29
7 , 93
20,96
«0 ACRES
22
.4
23.0
20*2 28
22
10277
QUAL
,00
,00
, 00
,00
. C 0
,00
. 00
, 00
* wO
"t"
-» w w
"i ."l
* w '/
> fS f\
« X V/
2.0 Ci
2,00
2,00
2,00
2.00
, 00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,00
.00
BEIEWS CREEK STEAM STATION (oont'd)
EEBBUARir 1977
-------
TAMB
HUM
WIND
QH
QC
QM
QB
QUAL
40,80
39,50
4 o i 1 0
w 5 , r 0
54 ,60
47,90
4 7 , 4 0
4o , 50
33.40
54. 10
53.40
61 , 00
63,10
53,20
60.50
62.60
55.00
63.90
51.20
52 . 70
47,40
46,50
46 , 00
51.00
53 * 60
56.20
5 6 * 60
62.90
64.10
64.20
64,00
47.00
4 4*0 0
43,00
37.00
69.0 j
36 * 00
46*00
39.00
42*00
73,00
74,00
35.00
80.00
tr .»* /* f
w1 7 * W 0
49.00
37 . 00
35 »00
22*00
62.00
52.00
59.00
62, OC
28,00
29.00
31.00
34.00
37,00
63 ,00
32.00
89.00
43.00
3.80
3,20
5*00
3,90
5.20
3,10
7. 70
4,80
8.60
5* 00
3.40
5,00
8.90
4*90
4.20
9.50
6,30
15,90
5.10
7,30
5,00
12,10
9,40
3,60
5,40
3.90
6 . 60
13.30
9,70
3,30
9.30
21.13
13,11
12.47
2.57
7 » 56
5.07
19.77
14.63
24.43
8,91
5.43
5.17
7.87
11,20
12.75
31.08
23.99
60,69
14.02
21.50
15,46
34.59
32 . 06
29.69
20.15
15.27
23,75
27 . 85
3,53
6.72
30,45
31 .08
19.29
IS. 34
3.78
11 ,12
7.46
29.09
21.52
36*01
13*11
7,99
7,61
11.58
16.48
18.76
45.73
35.27
39,28
20,62
» a / -r
*3 .L « 6 0
22.74
50 . 39
47.17
43,68
29 , 64
22,46
34.94
40,97
12,62
9.89
44.79
23.33
24,53
23,94
3.49
14.14
13.71
29,09
23,37
33,89
17,11
13.71
9.93
10.70
21.80
27,60
40 . 83
39 . 70
63,27
26.57
32.61
29,67
40.43
42.35
41.09
36,77
34,83
38,23
30,74
11*15
9,49
40*44
26, 13
19*64
19.12
%j + /
1 1 . 33
11.00
25.09
23 , 00
30*3 /'
13.57
10. ?4
/ ,93
9.72
17.39
21.91
38.13
32.61
32,60
21,25
27.69
23.70
43,21
39.40
36.83
29,26
27,67
31.6?
35.95
10 » 53
3,35
37.^5
, 00
f v w*
. 0 0
.- J w1
» C' 0
--* -«
, JO
,00
, 00
.00
, 00
,00
.00
. 00
,00
,00
# W W
+ 0 v*
.00
,00
,00
,00
Gf\
V
» 00
, C 0
,00
'" **,
, 00
. 00
.00
.00
3o50.0 ACRES
IS. 3
27
.0
27.7
25.1
31 31
10377
310377
BEIEWS CTEi5K STEAM ST?,TICtJ (CX2ll"D,
MARCH 1977
-------
TAMB
53.30
64,3 0
63 * 00
5 i « 3 0
53 , 30
47 * 50
4 7 . 3 0
57*50
47 . 30
59.3 0
63.
oc2.
60 ,
/ V*' *
65 *
.-% >» ^
w lw *
i£
67*
6 6 .
f,
CO *
66 «
cc .
w 7 »
67 «
62
53.
51 ,
20
70
90
20
60
00
r -'\
OV
60
50
£ 0
50
vj w
40
T .".
10
30
57.90
66.50
0*00
i;
0,00
HUM
>;::. .00
3 0 0 0
6 5*00
93.0 0
64.00
33 . 00
51.00
36 ,00
35 * 00
47*00
50,00
50,00
50,00
4 7 , 0 0
74,00
5 4 . 0 0
»rf O + W \*:
63 . wO
67 , 00
/' 5 , 0 0
/ / « 0 0
68,00
33 . 00
77,00
50 , 00
54 , 00
49.00
43.00
0. 00
0.00
WIND
4*60
10.30
6.10
7 , 9 0
0.00
0 , OC
0*00
0.00
0*00
0,
7
vj *
3*
0.
0.
0,
0*
3.
4*
5.
4*
10.
10,
7 «
6,
/ 4
GO
90
20
00
00
00
00
00
3D
20
10
i ^,
X W
10
40
.10
,10
3.40
10.70
QH
13,10
13,67
13,74
20,59
10.23
9.05
9
12
1 4
11
30
24
24
28
33
"* rr
40
.64
. 35
,29
.46
.49
,95
,74
.56
.68
,31
,33
5.90
4*10
QC
26,63
27,46
21,30
27.57
30,30
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES MOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
15.05
13*32
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
14.18
13*13
21.02
16*35
44*86
36 . 70
36*40
42.45
49.54
52,67
59.40
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
QM
36,77
23.55
24,46
27.18
-V ** £J i^1
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
23*34
23*90
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE-
COMPUTE
26*73
26*30
26*73
25.22
33.84'
31*77
37.24
48.75
51.91
50,20
49*99
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
OB
27,24
22.91
1?,93
23,63
27.31
18*
19.
, .
L. J. *
20.
21.
20*
37.
30 ,
31 ,
39*
43 »
44*
54
13
48
88
41
02
41
60
74
31
76
i^ro
\«- /
49*64
QUAL
,00
, 00
* -~f ..
*\ .--\
.00
2,00
2,00
2*00
2.00
2.00
2,00
. :)0
,00
2,00
2,00
2,00
2.00
,00
. 0 0
,00
,00
. 0 0
,00
, JO
, 0 C
.00
. OC
. 0 0
2,00
2*00
/' A f. «. i r*
^ i-: L r\ c b
20*9 30.3 33,7 29.0 30 18 10477 300477
BEIEWS CEEEK S1EAM STATION (oont'd)
APRIL 1977
-------
a
i-1
en
TAMB
0
*-*
/ *^
69
69
a?
73
/ .'
J 7
%j \J
52
..,
W 4W
7 0
. -v
2 /
67
. -,
72
74
70
72
/ »;
00
o /
63
. %
/ *;
73
63
/ 0
# O *^
.10
> i 0
, 00
. 7 C
20
. 30
» 'w W
i 90
20
« 3 0
* -^ '-.*'
>00
* / w'
. X 0
. .» w'
. 0 C
* T v/
> 7 '..'
. C1 'J
* oO
* 1 0
.10
JO
* - 0
. 7 V
4 C^ w
. 30
*90
.10
. v 0
HUM
0
67
7 ^
76
/'o
x *
03
75
57
A -i
42
-.3 J
43
42
111 ^ C
50
60
'J?
37
1* A-,
6 1
^5
wd
/ 2
S3
a/
B4
7 5
63
66
86
S3
,00
t 00
.00
,00
» 00
,00
.00
,00
» 00
, 00
.00
,00
,00
. 00
,00
-\ .-1
t X,' \J*
, Vi'O
4 0 -..'
> -J w
* \.f _/
» --./ '._f
» 00
,00
* w *
> w -'
* -- ..
> V/ w'
» w' -,
: 00
. 00
i.OO
WIND
4
/
5
l~
6
t
*f
3
5
1 2
o
T
4
C/
4
,
*t
4
O
3
3
/*j
j;
O
3
7
-s
2-
3
c
3
5
~* *** r~ ~^
.00
» bC
.40
.90
.00
.20
.90
.30
> 10
. /' W
.50
^ .-».
» 1 'w1
» 90
.70
.90
.60
. 00
. J-G
» 90
. ?0
. 6xJ
w «v w'
* 7 .."
.00
-i- -t w'
+ IH- -./
» 50
* A- V
.70
1 ;',
« *T \i
. C W
QH
IS. 34
14.50
16.19
16.32
13.35
13.39
24.16
72.19
r\ .-% ,"* *~i
^1 '-J « (3 /
13.3 3
1 cf * 3 3
23.132
15,44
15. 62
1-4.74
i- J , A^ /
.i. d » t 1
.1 -*. .--+ .4
«. v. » / .*
:. 1 . 59
14.64
.14.70
18.46
QC
DOES NOT
26 . 98
21.33
23.82
24.01
19.64
19.70
35.54
106.20
DOES NOT
TOES NOT
IJ U/ C O i '( o T
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
30.70
.- .... .- A
.1. ~ . O '«
23.29
3 ' . .: 0
-> -;. -* ..
a- _ .' ,L
22*73
21.67
O / v J. C-
. / « v c'
.1 6 > C- :"
* "^ :'\ "
"* ' '.rr »
21.63
2 7' . j. 3
QM
COMPUTE
27.3?
26. 46
27.92
27,85
28.89
30.54
44.63
34.33
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
CGfVHJTE
-» ,..^ . , -. 1 1 .«.
w..;; ir i.J . ,::.
CGMF'^JTZ
CCMPUTE
-"* J * "-X -.1- j : "T* TT
40,07
37,02
.30 * 1 1
40* 37
vi .-- > ..... w
35*64
o-j . c»^
3v: . 2S
30*15
26.35
2S.61
J S » 6 -U
%.' ! > S 4
33.72
QE
23
21
?>">
'> *>
A'.. X.'.
^o
4^. ji~
24
35
TO
T "
29
2o
32
2 7
.. ::,
w -.w
.... ,
':. *
-
*£ *«
\J w
.-x ....
... .*..
.43
» .%c /
» ^ 9
.6?
. 94
.26
.31
* 17
* :,:>
» 7 4
* 6?
« *!
* /' -'
+ /' .t.
.', .
i . ..
i
... ,
* .j \.-
* ^; -_-'
.94
* 7 1
, : ,.
i^r^c.0
29.6
QUAL
2.00
.00
.^'\
» »* v/
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.CO
2.30
»
BEIEWS CREEK STEAM STATION (oont'd)
MAY 1977
-------
TAMB
HUM
WIND
QC
QB
QUAL
o
1
vo
7w » 40
/ .i, * 40
t i * .*. -.
73 . 20
.:;2 * > J
_ ,. * 2 -
6 w . _ w
6 a » 0 0
68.30
71 .3 0
73 . 70
70.20
72.00
74.40-
7o.lO
77.60
SO. 10
79.00
78 . 20
71.10
64 » 20
63.90
/' 3 . 7 0
77.70
77.70
79.40
80.40
79.40
3530
2 «ii . *r
_ / . (,' w
4 9 , - <;
3 5 » C C
3 i . 0 J
^ 2 « 0 x.
'i i » v 0
32,00
C 0 « W J
3 7 , Vr' 0
4 3 , 0 0
o 4 , 0 0
63*00
33*00
77.00
74 .00
70. 0 ^
6 9 * 0 0
5 6 , V'L/
56 »CO
47,00
6 4 4 -w 0
92.00
!~ »*^ '" . *
W W t w \-f
d i * 'J :-V
73 00
"i .* % .*%
63 , 00
64 , 00
6 4 , 0 0
,0 AC
33
4 , ', j
4.20
<_r i 7 0
i . J 0
3 4 '?..,
4,30
i .i * / Vr
7 4 9
4 » 4 0
3.10
3,70
3, SO
4,20
2.70
6 , SO
6 , 70
6.90
7 « 70
7 . 30
4 , 0 0
6.70
4.00
3.40
5.00
3,20
3.90
7,20
6.20
r, r- i^v
'"/
27.2 6
22 . ^ 1
29,60
41,02
39,31
19*72
11.95
13.52
12,33
13.49
10.20
26.20
f. 0'=:
£. ** « 7 J
30 . 90
.I /* ^*
O O . V/1 ij
39*36
20.37
27,33
14,54
16,86
.4 - 1 f\
J. / « «J 0
12.02
41.6
4 ;. ^
O ^ , i.'.: ..;
43. : '3
6 0 , 3 4
DGE3 HO"'
liCEiH ivGT
D u i£ 3 N 3 T
s.v .: » a. ^
*-?**« ...
i / . C, :;
19 ,39
18.21
19.33
15.00
33,54
36 » 70
43.4 6
51 .33
57,90
29,97
40.30
21.39
24.30
23.36
17,68
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
DOES NOT
34.2 30
* " j -f \* ...
47 . "::3
_' .. > C. 6
w » 't ^.
C3:ii- JTE
i^j !-;.-«- ;c
Joi^i.-'UTE
37.30
** ~ » w 1
32.32
32. 0^
2S > 77
29.20
30.69
41.42
3 9 » 3 0
4<3 * 44
rr .» rr"^
3 9. .69
43*6 -1
43,91
32.37
30.77
33*75
31,73
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
24
v..' . » . .
^ / "' :".
* « * *"! V
30 ,6C
-" ^ .*" * -'-t . *
"«r » . . ..
c .-.- , <:; .t
2 W 4 T -^
2 3 ... ' ' Z
*:*. *« , .'^ ;.;-
23, iti
3 3'* 09
40,33
44,44
3G*c9
3 i , 2 '"t
"T i " '
23. S6
24.73
26. '9 3
25.39
10677
V ./ ./
+ -.- .f
. ,;;>
2 , 0 J-
»; » L1 %.-
^. 1 \.: '-S
... w ..
* * v.
/ -. -..-
. *
w J-
.J -..-
> - \t
, )0
» w ./
> i;C
* w »..'
,-\ -*
,00
> %.-' '..'
r _' i.j
2.00
2. DO
2,00
3 '.) «' 6 7 7
BELESK CFaSDBK SOEAM STAEECN (cxait'd)
JUNE 1977
-------
to
o
TAMB
u W . 4 .)
76 . -tO
76.2 0
30 .30
/ y * ,j G
-\ * ", /-
3 * V i 0 0
63.00
3 J » 0 0
71.00
6o*0 0
66 . 00
61 * 00
c* 3 * 0 0
54 . 00
n* n -"^ v
33* 00
vj w + V -.V
37,00
71 .00
33 , OC
32 > 00
3 ? » 0 C-
33 * -0
A "** /'- -"\
4 / . 0 3
56,00
6P.OO
oO . 00
~~ f. f\
^vi * WV
rfIND
9,30
4 * 20
4 . 3 j
tj . 3 W
3 . 00
3.90
4.20
4.00
-J * Cw v/
4. SO
4.30
4.60
3*60
2 . 60
3 . CO
--^ e~. r*
^i . r \j
7*60
/ < 90
7,10
6 , 2 C
3.90
3* 40
4.90
3.60
1 1 . '30
C' * j. w'
7.10
^.20
6.10
6.50
4 > 70
.0 ACKE3
/ 0
-
t X
OH
QC
QM
QB
QUAL
.
3!/ * t w
"TO ^J'"1
o / > -; ^.
A "* i~% {*
'i J * 7 7
71 . 63
" -* "T ">
^W * .JO
') :J « J. w
36 . 3i
32,99
43.29
42.73
32.87
7 9..4
i.' \ j iH. i
DOES
DOES
**i r* * o
:. U c. b
DOES
DOES
DOES
DCES
DOES
DOES
EOES
DDES
NO'
ND"
MO"
NOT
NOT
NCT
NCT'
NOT
rvOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NGT
NCT
DOES NGT
f. -^ T ."* V I ^-* -f
^uc.i> NOT
»J O » -. O
64.71
103.33
113.34
66,41
C 4 * O 7
62.94
A "*> '*, /
4 a . -.i o
.,
!.»'_! li" ..J ! ^L
COMPUTE
COMPUTE
CQMPLTE
COMPUTE
wGMFUTZ
CjMPLJTi
COMPUTE
CCMPLJ-E
rriMoi :rc
w* *.» I 11 U t -
Cnjxoi iTT
win w I ;.
COMPUTE
COMPUTE:
COMPUTE
CCMPUTE
/ ,* *-# ^
a / . ..i v
S6.3S
71.39
6 5» a 0
31
BELEWS CFEEK STEAM STATION (cx>nt'd)
1977
62
10777
.310
-------
HUM WIND QH QC gM QB
QUAL
/ f' f W '*-
6_ , 00
o3 , 60
b } v 20
U5 w . '» G
/ C * O w'
/ ; , T 0
77*30
7 V » £J 0
/ 6 . vj 0
75,30
a 76 ,30
i 7 7 » 3 0
i1 / o * 3 0
6 / * 6 0
6? . 60
7 2 > i 0
/ 2*0' ':/
.'''*. * '" 0
7 »- » 7 w
7 5 * 0 0
O V * v3 'w
/ 0 . 3 0
/ 3 * i '0
/ .' » O v
7 S * 2 0
73*6 0
3550
32,8
72»:-J 7.70
>r. i, » 0 0 :: » 1 0
c 2 , 0 0 7.20
a 2 « '.; w .:; , / J
67 . 00 -; » 00
6b .00 ,.*!>.,
a 7 » 0 0 6 > 3 «..
7 1 * 0 0 6 , 4 0
67*00 - * ? C
o 7 , 0 0 7 > 6 0
0 0*00 7 » 7 ':,
C W » W -./ W * 4. ./'
rf w * w 0 O >- c v.
3 ^ * 0 0 v1 > w 0
~\ .-* .... - .» .1 .
3 W , 'w V '* , I ,
c / » o 0 3 * .1 '«
63*00 3.4 v
/ / * --j -..-' -.'^ > .1. ..
::; 0 v ., w vj * ^ \,
7 7 » 0 0 4 * 3 '.-
lw * 'W w t~ » AM ^.
73 > .; .1 5 ; 20
7 7 t 0 j 3 * 5 .,
/ 3 * 0 0' 3 * 7 0'
74,00 6.0C
.i ^ **, ,'\ '! i*^
70*00 5*60
»0 A3R23
48 » 3
".'. - : 7 3
t '-..' * ."'
4 i") . 2 1
^ .-", -. i
5 _) > >.J '.i
i t » 6 r
3C , 72
0 J » ..-' 1
3S . 78
23*7 4
43.13
40,30
J. O 1 »/' 3
v- 7 » 0 Q
; 'w , O i
2 -t * 4 5
. , .. .«*
.. '.- * O /
'"'0 , 7 !
26*74
"-7.4S
i A- > .^ .''
34 »53
" ' .". '^
.1 7 * T";-,;^
r.. / + w o
26,32
25 , 9i
26,58
55,4
'-"I, -;
i-; ,21
5 ? .... 3
7:1 .43
65,75
%« *" -"^ '*
*,: O * u- -.-'
.27*04
* -"' '** '"!
66*47
.^ -.- » V *^
.i CJ » 2 7
6 6 * V ;.j
35 , 96
2b » Vo
3 0 . " -6
"T C? "T v,.
.\ -. \ »
3 2 , -1 ;;:
-../ j. > 2- ._
».i T * A " '
.^ *^.: * / "f
'"? *^? ~T j1*-
33.73
"r ;^ -t '".
3? i25
4 6 , 3
T - ^ ~ ~>
-" ".'. ^ "7
*.'. w » '..-' -'.»
£5 * 7;;
c 4 , 3 ;}
v* O » *2, ^1
t* *""' * w CJ
63*5?
55* 73
63. r ?
sr r% -i '
W ? » 1- O
' F > 7 '3
5° . 79
.... , ... .v
-i" "!? ''* '""
Ci *C * . ' '*
50,67
'""V "'" * :-r ,'
* v o » 3 >ii"
*.j- t."i f w ^-,
4 ? , - :.
A ' r* r
"> O t v. /
3 7 , 9 1
44 -93
49*10
47*57
30 30
' v - .
... ... -
--. ... - . ..
5 v v "
5 j - 2 0
'-* .^. » %J v^
1' !. ' J -:>
-~ .:? o
* ^ '
^..,. . . .
C ... r *;
;-rc -::> :
.« -..' > " -..-
42 . "7
A . « -.
; .-.- . ':.
10 * 32
..) 7 , '' 2
3 - 6 9
c- -. '
' ">" ^ "" '
3 ' : ' .::
r J. ,t . . ' Vi
3 -; v 6 -")
5 7 .- ,.» 3
~!^ '.'. "7 "~
.1 ,-\ '» n ^
.i. '., o ,'
BEIEWS CREEK STEAM STATION (cont'd)
AUGUST 1977
-------
TAMB
HUM
tfIND
QH
QC
QM
Q3
QUAL
? -% Cv ,"
oO » 30
3 0 . 4 0
7 ? .60
73 .60
77.80
7S .50
7 2 > 0 0
63 . 60
67.30
73 « 70
70.10
66 , 40
71,70
77.30
V 70,40
£ 66,60
74,20
75 * 30
76,3 0
75 , 50
69, 10
65 « 80
i 9 2 0
73,10
75.10
75,40
73.20
67 , 20
63,90
3550
29.2
7::J » 00
67, ~0
c3 . 00
67,00
70 , CO
74 , 00
69.00
94,00
rS.OO
93,00
33,00
55 , 00
62 , 00
70,00
72 , 00
78,00
93,00
37.0 0
30 ,00
72.00
69,00
63,0 0
7 5 . 0 0
/ 6 , 0 3
72 , 00
71 ,00
7 6 » 0 0
7 0 . 0 0
6 4 ; C 0
63* 0 0
. 0 A
4
.^} t O "w*
4.20
4,70
5.50
4.30
6.40
3 .50
6.00
9,70
7,50
7.10
6,20
4,90
9.70
3,30
5,9 0
5.70
6,10
5 , 60
6 » 9 0
5 * 0 0
5 . BO
3,70
4,70
7.90
6,30
9.20
5.90
7,40
4.10
CF:E3
3 > 0
17, b 1
2 1 . 4 5
25,64
23.60
24.31
31,77
13.99
24.00
37.23
29,16
27.23
36,29
23.76
44,95
33.11
26,36
23.35
21.39
23,13
30,59
25.57
35 . 25
22.14
26.09
40.99
33.34
40,20
29,75
43,44
24.27
49,9
25 , 73
» .1 » v
"* . :''*"
. «, T '*?
42*07
35. 76
46,74
27.94
35 .31
34 . 35
42.90
40.06
53.33
42,30
66, 13
43,71
33 ,73
34 , 35
32 , 20
34,10
45.00
37.62
3 i . 3 3
32 > be?
33 .33
60,30
49,79
KT Q ! .\
iJ 7 + .i. 'T
43 , 77
6 3.91
35,70
4 1 . 5
4 ; , 6 ~
4 6 > 4 1
31.32
rr i -T o
i . , v* 7
52.10
46,39
40.96
43.46
43,55
41,97
60,63
55.96
53.43
46. 13
45,47
41.1 7
36, 9 7
41* 3 3
47,95
A .-^ .f f\
-t r » j. D
61 ,45
52 , 46
52,22
59,44
53,51
33,69
51 ,32
63,33
53,41
30 30
~"T "^ "7 . *
J .- , ;; 2
** ^J $ "* %>.i
4 i . 5 -
3 3 * 2 1.
''v «!'. , 7 -^.
3 7 , 3 6
33,36
43.7-
.5 /' * 2 if)
3 5 » 3 d
4 9 * 6 9
:v si » 6 4
55.17
41,16
36,95
33.29
30,20
33.35
40.14
39,21
4 '/ T ij .'.
4i + .'.r
'^ J. + U* O
51.68
4 4 * 6 4
49, -48
41,70
b 5 » 7 3
42*40
310377
BELEWS CFEEK STEAM STATION (ccnt'd)
SEPTEMBER 1977
-------
O
to
to
TAMB
C7.CO
... , jO
vj 7 « 3 C
2 / .O C
J 7* , 0 0
ol 60
59,00
59,20
64. ?0
51,9 0
>j o . 10
55.0 0
44 * 60
4 7 » 0 0
49,00
0 « 00
52 * 00
54.30
55,50
54.70
53,90
60. CO
53.20
56, 10
O f » Q 0
62,00
63 « 30
c o , 3 G
61.20
53.30
50.60
3550
27.0
HUM
72*00
/O .00
35 . i>G
^6* J.O
67,00
73 .00
67.00
38 . 00
72.00
6 9 » 0 0
30*0 0
64.0 0
93.00
7r .00
72,00
0,00
36 .00
53 * 00
57,00
60.00
74,00
67,00
70,00
64.00
/ 9 , 00
94 . GO
93, 00
34,00
60,00
52.00
70.00
WIND
1 C , 3 0
C C3 "
U. , ' V*
9.2 0
3.40
4.90
5.20
O » b 0
3 « 30
10,50
4.60
5*20
6.10
10.50
8 . 30
9.90
8.30
9.00
7.00
7,00
5 , 30
3.30
4,70
7,20
6,60
6,40
6 . 90
3, 40
5,30
7,70
6,10
3.10
. 0 ACRES
39
.8
QH
3 7.11
~~ . 73
54 * J55
30.19
25 » 32
23*46
25.93
14,71
39.33
22.43
22.41
29 , 50
44,58
35,72
* A ~7 *
*t*t » /^
43.13
23.74
23,37
20.90
12,51
16.87
23,68
21,39
16.15
9.95
10,94
12.30
26,65
26 . 34
29.03
QC
54,59
43.23
SO, 25
4 4*41
-^ -t .-\ j
J ,' . i vj
34.52
3 8 15
21.64
58.67
33.07
32.96
43.39
65.53
32.55
65.31
DDES NOT
63.52
42.27
41.74
30.75
13.41
24.31
34,34
32.21
23.76
14,64
.16.09
13.09
39.20
33 . 75
42.71
QM
46.37
44,56
72.36
n:- -" f~i ;;-
49.27
43.39
46,77
34. IS
49.84
45,66
41,92
49,83
55.70
43,64
57.55
COMPUTE
58.34
44,66
44.10
oS . 62
32,27
33 , 76
36,21
35,24
26,49
15,60
19,96
22 - 72
39.21
44.49
41.52
QB
43.:~8
40-4?
67.15
i* ; ^ ;:;
3 9 » 3 -
35,16
37*47
27.16
43, ?3
3 i> , .3 1
3-» er <
O » w .'
40.6?
w*T * /' %./
44*13
5 4 , 3 B
53.26
37.22
37.04
30,99
25,79
26.87
30,63
29,21
21,32
13.0a
16.05
13,22
33.31
36.34
36,40
QUAL
,00
2.00
.00
,00
,00
.00
.00
> 00
.00
, 00
42.5
36 .6
31
30
11077 311077
BELEWS CFEEK SOEflM STATION (oont'd)
OCTOBER 1977
-------
TAMB
HUM
WIND
D
ro
55.
5?*
6 ! »
O '.' *
6 7 »
O w ,
64 *
62 *
62 *
5? *
4ili »
40 *
33 ,
43 *
51 .
53 ,
ow ,
j i »
45 *
47 «
55 »
52 .
41*
51 i
4 3 *
~*o
31 »
'*2 «
43 «
40*
^ ..-'
::; v
oO
.L ./
7 0
i .-»
/ -v
aO
0 J
70
. .*
7 _/
90
10
20
30
SO
1 0
50
20
60
4 0
'j 0
i \i
50
90
6 0
*\
1 '"
* 'w'
". *
00
"" v>
3550
17
+ ,\-
'.'., :-' >
97,
r / >
'.; A^ *
/6 +
93 *
33.
-* . -^
oc; ,
c>2 ,
O w* *
37 *
44*
4 .:> *
49 ,
'3 »
a 3 *
O 7 ,
31 ,
r:' >
\J^ ,
65 »
73 >
39 ,
93,
36 *
3 ::;
uj .- ,
oO ,
4d,
x *' ,
,' O ,
97,
.0
O
C ',/
-\ -\
0 C
\ ^\
V' -..'
^* .-V
w '..
0 0
00
00
C' 0
00
'-.' w*
00
r" ;'\
w \/
w' '-J
00
00
-.' V
0 0
00
00
./ \i
00
00
0 0
00
*»/ \>
'w; -J
i v. '*:
^ y
00
/-»
"" 4
/' t
..: ,
4 »
o ,
3 .
6 *
3 .
*t »
14*
8*
9 .
/ *
6 *
r~\
7 t
10 *
11*
7 «
,".
«;. *
"T
J *
4,
o .
6 .
\J *
7 *
1 i .
4,
»!' .
/ .
/ *
60
7 0
-U>
0
3 L>
00
~~ '\
w /
30
30
v »
00
60
50
70
20
90
50
40
00
.-*\ f\
50
.* f\
i«J ^
40
2fJ
10
50
70
20
30
30
ACRES
lL.
wJ » J.
QH
23»92
.i. 'w' * V- «, o
/ w^
-* ,-« --^
7 * 0 ii
45.66
33, -42
39,30
29.60
22-72
30.32
22*26
24,31
27.03
6.40
9.44
10.35
i n A o -\
.i. w * .- -*.
13.34
5*3?
13*60
34*o6
15, 12
^ i .» .»
i ^ . .: *+
< i:r -~. -.
-L. vj » ^- "
10*68
QC
35*20
:L5o04
» »=3
4*39
4*11
» ' *>
.'' t v.y -.*
16*93
.10 .33
i '» /! »
.1. V * t '*
.(-.-7 ! ;
o . » j. /
A O ' ?
T " > .1 /
n- i n -i
vw / 4 O A
f-r cr c;
4 O » »rf ij
33. 42
44.60
32,75
36*30
39 . 77
9*41
13*83
i :: ->»}
.L w » »- «^
16*05
19*63
1 2 . 3 4
2 0 0 !i
5 0 * 9 V
2 2 * 2 }
:L 7 . S 6
22.49
t C" "V --,
i J * .' t.
QM
31*26
15*04
w* * »..: ..:
6 , DC
4,62
7.34
.* ,»* .< -i
I V * .t u.
13.11
20*90
"ST/*, ' "i
v^ w * .j. w
43*13
51 .35
44*20
36.24
40.49
27 , 32
29,69
40,63
24,56
24.91
21,34
1?.4S
-> -> >~> q
*_ .L . '..t \.t
1 b * 6 9
20.97
4 1 * 47
30 * 26
7 '; , 7 |
23*19
16*20
QB
29.37
12.97
4*57
'; * '-. ..~
7 q ,""-
..J * W V^
/ .*- *
O » ** -i.
15,70
14,47
i^* i
* o > -.., ;
'" "T? ""* J
42, C 2
43*24
3 7 * 3 2
"? " . ! -,
-. w * J. i
-?-? . -.?'->
W/ / T V./ *«
2 "' . 4 1
w- V + -' "
34*63
20,4;
L 9 * r 4
i »' '^ i
.1. j , ; u
-i L:r "? ,-\
.u .J « './
1 ^:> * 0 .-
* ~> irr "**,*
j. ._ > -..; /
17 , 6S
42 , 93
24 ,0c
18,1?
19,69
13.76
26,0
30
(JUAL
.00
0 0
00
11177 301177
3EIEWS CREEK STEAM STATION (cont'd)
NOVEMBER 1977
-------
TAMB
HUM
WIND
O
I
N>
in
-f vJ * »- */
4 3 * ? 0
:;; ' *
\,s .. -r *, w
4o.oO*
U.iG
26,3 0
J 2 , o 0
39.^0
i b * i v
29 * 60
33,80
45,3 0
53 . 90
52.30
43.90
43 . 90
47. 60
43.10
39.90
33.6 0
o 3 » 3 G
33 * oO
43.20
43 ,30
2 7 , 3 0
29 . 90
27.60
33 . 60
35. 40
4 0.40
3350
13.6
j \J . O i/'
7 i . 0 0
7 0 ., 0 0
?4.CO
60 . 00
52*00
50 * 00
43.00
47 » 00
4 4,00
49.00
6i » 00
95.00
74.00
57 . 00
93*00
70 . 00
64 , 0 0
93 » 00
7 1.00
55.00
07.00
77 * 00
>j .- « j 'j
4 S . 00
35. 00
54 ,00
36 . 00
3 3 , 0 0
85.00
. 0 ACi
'*; "'
<;i . 7 O
7 » 2 C
5 . 90
7*10
11.5 0
3.50
6 » 70
12 . 30
5,30
4,10
7 . 20
6.30
3.60
3.30
4.00
6,40
5.40
4.20
3 » 30
7.30
7.40
S.90
9 , 5 0
1 j£ « G 'J
9,10
7.40
' -'S /\
o t --O
6 » .jO
) "7 '*
5.90
^£5
+ 7 .
Qtf
. ; A ^
7 . T 'T
,(. W i / W
.1 o * 0 7
12,01
7 * -3 *5
31,09
24.30
13,36
~* "T /*. !
w --J v V I
16.42
11.93
20.96
13,62
4 .35
5*93
7.59
9.36
7. 98
10.49
10.26
15,06
21.12
22.47
.1 6.05
25.74
'-A (*- O '"*
i, .'. ''j
17 * 63
30 + 33
2 0 « 0 4
6 . 4 0
S.72
11.1 7
14.51
11 ,39
15.43
15*09
22,15
31 » 07
33 » 06
23,62
37,37
37, 11
23,10
23*82
23 * 60
15,79
12.31
QM
15,06
A*. \J * 't \.J
*.! "-f * -..V O
... __., .^ ,
W * .'" J-
IK 3?
37.20
34.54
29 , 2S
39,30
23 . 63
2i.37
32.04
22 , 56
~i ~?i~
/ , / u
15,30
17.01
16.17
14,33
22. 70
IS. 95
~> -~> c; *
^.»i. * D"t
31 ,78
30 . 55
2 1 * 0 9
30*2 0
33,39
25.74
27. 0 7
26,37
19.83
14,43
OB
., ...^ ,.- -^
.i. A- * w.< _
20.2.i
*.. w' + - r
1 c * d 3
.1 .V.". # -i. -Jl
33 . -3 i
30.32
24.35
i ' ~? ',
"4 .L. , ... O
'^ -. v A-; ^
^ -\ "* *\
i. -.^' . " M
27.1 .1
1 b , ^ .5
C * ».. C1
12,22
13,51
13,32
1 1 > .'j i
18,02
15.2!
i9>3'r
27,0?
c. .' > / ii?
.[?, 7Z
C c. » .1. J
:j 1 } 0 9
-\ A <~ :
AT + W .
2 ^ * ' ~
T ( r^ .
^: j. » ::: ^.
j. b , 9 1
11,73
QUAL
24,1
21 ,0
31
31
BELEWS CFEEK STEAM STATION (cont'd)
DECEMBER 1977
,
I 'w '*.:
. GO
.00
, 00
,00
, 00
, 00
* :o
.00
,00
1127''' 311277
-------
APPENDIX E
CURVES FOR DETERMINING HOMER CHY STATION
COOLING TOWER EVAPORATION LOSSES
-------
HOMER CITY STATION
UNITS 1 & 2
COOLING TOWERS EVAPORATION LOSSES
M.MO
I1.NI
E-l
GILBERT ASSOCIATES. INC.
Figure E-l.
-------
HOMER CITY STATION
UNITS 1 & 2
COOLING TOWERS PERFORMANCE - 332,800 GPM
60 70
DRY BULB AIR TEMPERATURE *F
f-7
. £
GILBERT ASSOCIATES, INC.
Figure E-2.
4150-700-0.10
-------
HOMER CITY STATION
UNITS 1 & 2
COOLING TOWERS PERFORMANCE - 416,000 GPM
-JO
50
60 70
DRY BULB AIR TEMPERATURE *F
E-3
GILBERT ASSOCIATES. INC.
Figure E-3.
80
93
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-206
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Comparison of Model Predictions and Consumptive
Water Use of closed Cycle Cooling Systems
5. REPORT DATE
November 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Jerome B. Strauss
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Versar, Inc.
6621 Electronic Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22151
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
E HE 62 4 A
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2618, TaskS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final; 3-6/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Theodore G. Brna, Mail Drop 61,
919/541-2683. P '
ACT The report gives results of a comparison of field-data-derived water eva-
poration rates with predictive model values for cooling towers and cooling ponds at
steam-electric generating plants. The Leung Moore cooling tower model and five
cooling pond models (Harbeck and Marciano; Harbeck; Harbeck, Koberg, and Hughes;
Meyer; and Brady et al.) were used in the study. Plant data from 13 utilities (16 cool-
ing tower systems and 7 cooling ponds) and for 5 water resource regions were util-
ized. Generally, the Leung and Moore tower model predicted evaporation rates to
within + or - 15% of the plant-data-derived rates for baseload plants , but overpredic-
ted evaporation rates for plants with low capacity factors. Of the pond models, the
Harbeck, Koberg, and Hughes (Lake Colorado City) and the Meyer models best pre-
dicted evaporation rates, although neither was always within + or - 15% of the plant-
data-derived rates. For the water resource regions included in the study, ponds
generally exhibited higher consumptive water use than towers.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Cooling Systems
Evaporation
Water Consumption
Mathematical Models
Cooling Towers
Ponds
Electric Power
Plants
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
13B
13A
07D
12A
07A
08H
10B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
204
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |