Advanced Power Plant Chemistry — Track 5

Cooling Water Troubleshooting

Module 5.7 — Applied capstone: a cooling tower chemistry problem worked start to finish, using cycles of concentration, LSI, and inhibitor logic together.

PASS THRESHOLD 80% EST. TIME 22 MIN TRACK 5 / 7
≡ Course IndexModule 34 of 48 · Track 5 — Cooling Water Chemistry
COC (calculated)
9.2
target was 5
LSI (calculated)
+1.8
target was 0 to +0.5
Suspected Cause
Blowdown Valve
controller malfunction
COOLING TOWER — UNIT B
WEEKLY CHEMISTRY LOG
PARAMETERRESULTTARGETSTATUS
Recirc. Water Chloride460 ppm~250 ppm (5 cycles)HIGH
Makeup Chloride50 ppm—BASELINE
Calculated COC9.2~5HIGH
Calculated LSI+1.80 to +0.5HIGH
Scale Inhibitor ResidualLow-normalFull targetCHECK
Corrosion Inhibitor ResidualNormalFull targetOK
Condenser Approach TempRising trendStableTREND

Click a highlighted row to see how it fits the diagnosis. Cycles of concentration reads nearly double target, LSI is correspondingly far into scaling territory, and approach temperature is trending — this isn't purely a paperwork problem.

Select a highlighted reading to learn more.

The Setup

Unit B's cooling tower normally runs around 5 cycles of concentration with LSI held in the 0 to +0.5 target range using a scale inhibitor program (Module 5.3). This week's chemistry log shows chloride-based cycles of concentration calculated at 9.2 — nearly double target — with a correspondingly elevated LSI of +1.8, well into scale-forming territory. Scale inhibitor residual reads low-normal rather than fully at target. Condenser approach temperature (the gap between cooling water outlet temperature and steam saturation temperature — a standard condenser performance indicator) has been trending upward, consistent with developing scale beginning to degrade heat transfer.

Applying the Module 5.2 Framework

Recall from Module 5.2 that cycles of concentration is calculated from a conservative tracer ion — chloride here — and that COC and blowdown rate are directly linked: less blowdown means higher cycles. A COC reading of 9.2 against a target of 5 points strongly toward inadequate blowdown, exactly the diagnostic logic Module 5.2 described: a cycles reading significantly higher than expected can indicate blowdown control isn't functioning as intended, worth checking before assuming a chemical dosing problem.

Ruled out as the primary cause — scale inhibitor underdosing (Module 5.3): The scale inhibitor residual is only slightly low, not dramatically deficient, and even a fully-dosed inhibitor program has limits — it extends the tolerable cycles/LSI range, but doesn't make arbitrarily high concentration indefinitely safe. The magnitude of the COC and LSI deviation here is too large to be explained by a modest inhibitor shortfall alone.
Ruled out — corrosion inhibitor problem (Module 5.4): Corrosion inhibitor residual reads normal, and nothing in the findings points toward a corrosion event specifically — the pattern here is scale-side, not corrosion-side.
Best fit — blowdown control malfunction: A COC nearly double target, following directly from Module 5.2's blowdown/cycles relationship, is the most direct explanation: less water is being blown down than the control system intends, allowing concentration to climb well past the design target. The low-normal (not critically low) scale inhibitor residual is a secondary consequence — the same inhibitor dose is now being asked to protect water at nearly twice the intended concentration, effectively diluting its relative protective capacity even though the absolute dose hasn't necessarily changed.

Connecting to Condenser Performance

The rising condenser approach temperature trend is the practical consequence Module 5.3 predicted: LSI well above target drives active calcium carbonate scaling, and scale insulates tube surfaces, directly degrading heat transfer (Module 5.3's core point). This is why the investigation can't stop at "cycles are high" — the approach temperature trend confirms this is already producing a measurable operational impact, not just a chemistry number sitting outside target on paper.

Investigation Sequence

  1. Verify the blowdown control valve and conductivity controller — is the automatic blowdown system actually opening the valve at the setpoint it's supposed to, or has it drifted, stuck, or been manually overridden?
  2. Confirm the chloride-based COC calculation against a second tracer if available, to rule out an analytical or sampling error before committing to a mechanical diagnosis.
  3. Once blowdown is corrected, recalculate LSI at the new, lower cycles of concentration to confirm return to target range.
  4. Monitor condenser approach temperature for recovery over the following days/weeks as any existing scale is gradually addressed, since correcting the chemistry doesn't instantly remove scale already deposited.
Field note: This scenario mirrors the diagnostic discipline built throughout the course — check the mechanical/control system before assuming a chemical dosing failure, read multiple related parameters together rather than one in isolation, and connect the chemistry finding to its real operational consequence rather than treating it as an abstract number out of range.
Condenser Approach Temperature
The temperature difference between cooling water outlet temperature and steam saturation temperature in the condenser, a standard indicator of condenser heat transfer performance.
Blowdown Control Valve
The automated valve, typically paired with a conductivity controller, that regulates cooling tower blowdown to maintain a target cycles of concentration.
Relative Inhibitor Protection
The effective protective capacity of a fixed inhibitor dose, which decreases as water concentration rises even without any change in the absolute chemical feed rate.
0 / 6 ANSWERED
0%