1 views

Uploaded by Anonymous M4BGwOkIp

Ground vibration induced by collapse of 235 m high cooling tower - smirt

- Role of Stiffeners in Resisting Impact Loads on Steel Plates
- chapter1 history.pdf
- Modal Analysis
- Asee 2014 Final Paper 8643
- Analysis and Structural Behavior Od Cylindrical Steel Tanks Under Seismic Effectss
- A Practical Review of Rotating Machinery Critical Speeds and Modes
- N200 11000 HP Motor Analysis
- Thesis Final 1
- Dignostic Mode Vibration
- Gid Elmer 2006 Article
- 1 Vibration analysis using MATLAB
- ED009 - Approved Training Courses
- Evaluation of the effect of ground vibration due to blasting on adjacent structures in dam construction projects
- Dynamics Assignment University of Aberdeen
- 07A72101-VIBRATIONSANDSTRUCTURALDYNAMICS
- Plaxis_bearing Capacity of Strip Footing
- introductiontovibrationmonitoring-141220051134-conversion-gate02.pptx
- Prac2 Balance
- SmartVibro Manual
- Modelling Turbulence Induced Vibration of Pipes

You are on page 1of 8

COOLING TOWER

F. Lin1, R. B. Xu2, X. Y. Zhao1, X. L. Gu1

1

Department of Building Engineering, Tongji University, No.1239 Siping Road, Shanghai, China, 200092

2

Guangdong Electric Power Design Institute, No.1 Tianfeng Road, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China, 510663

E-mail of corresponding author: lin_feng@tongji.edu.cn

ABSTRACT

A complete approach for the prediction of the ground vibration due to the collapse of a cooling tower with

a height of 235 meter is presented in this study. The causes to induce the tower to collapse could be various accident

loads, e.g. explosion or strong wind. The purpose for the prediction of the ground vibration is for the safety

evaluation and the plant planning of a planned nuclear power station in China. Firstly, falling weight tests were

executed using dynamic compaction method at a construction site. The data for the ground vibrations were measured.

Then a finite element method based “falling weight - soil” model was developed to simulate the ground vibration

induced by the falling weight and it was verified by the in-site test results. Meanwhile, the simulated collapse

processes of the cooling tower under various accident loads were completed in a parallel project, and the results

were briefly referred in this paper. Finally, based on the “falling weight - soil” model, a “cooling tower - soil” model

was developed to predict the ground vibrations induced by two types of the collapses of the cooling tower. To

reduce the numerical consumption, appropriate modeling strategies were executed in building the “cooling tower –

soil” model. It was found that, when collapsing, severe vibration occurred in near field of the cooling tower.

However, the vibration attenuated rapidly with the increase of the distance.

INTRODUCTION

A new water draft cooling tower with an overall height of 235 m will be built in south China, as a part of

the construction of a nuclear power station. Cooling tower with such a huge height, probably the highest one in plan

worldwide, results in a full of innovation for both structural design and plant planning. Experience accumulated

from this kind of structures with their height up to about 150 m in the past decades is not fully applicable for the new

one. Consequently, a series of search projects have been initiated for the purpose of the safety evaluation of the

nuclear-related facilities. The project in which the study of this paper was involved focused on two parts. One

concerned the causes, process and mechanic behavior of the collapse of the cooling tower. The causes to induce the

tower to collapse could be various accident loads, e.g. explosion or strong wind. The other dealt with the ground

vibration induced by the collapse of the tower. The objective of this project is for the safety evaluation of the

adjacent nuclear island. As a part of the project results, this paper mainly presents some results related to the ground

vibration. The collapse of the cooling tower will not be introduced in detail, because another manuscript focused on

this theme was submitted to SMiRT 21 too.

Studies on the ground vibration induced by a falling weight could be traced back at least to Lamb in 1904.

He studied the vibration of a semi-infinite body under vertically concentrated harmonic force, and derived an

analytical solution for the displacement in an integral form [1]. Subsequently, with the rapid development of

computational technology, numerical simulation has been applied more and more to describe the ground motion

induced by the collapse of structures. Gu and Lee studied the ground response to dynamic compaction of dry sand,

using two-dimensional finite element analyses with a large-strain dynamic formulation and a cap model for soil

behavior. As a result, the stress wave attenuation and improvement effects were realistically predicted [2]. Pan and

Selby simulated the dynamic compaction of loose soils under dynamic loads numerically. A full axisymmetric elasto

- plastic finite element representation was generated for the soils, whereas the impact of the drop mass was modeled

by means of a force - time input and a rigid body [3]. However, for the ground vibration induced by the collapse of a

cooling tower, no studies and suggestions were found either in research papers or in technical handbooks. To

realistic evaluate the safety performance of the nuclear power facilities in the event of an severe ground vibration, it

is necessary to understand the characteristics of the vibration and thus bridge the knowledge gap.

A reliable methodology is crucial for the solution of a complex problem, such as the problem encountered

1

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

in this study, involving both structural collapse and ground vibration. The methodology applied in the research

project was briefly illustrated in Fig. 1, and could be achieved through the following steps:

(1) Conducting falling weight tests;

(2) Developing a “falling weight - soil” model and verifying it by the tests;

(3) Simulating the collapse of the considered cooling tower;

(4) Building a “cooling tower - soil” model based on the “falling weight - soil” model;

(5) Predicting the ground vibration using the “cooling tower - soil” model;

(6) Proposing the suggestions for the design of the nuclear island and for the plant planning.

The contents in the boxes of Fig.1 with grey background are not presented in detail in this paper. Moreover,

to keep the numerical consumption in step (4) at an acceptable lever when the current common used PC was used,

we had to execute appreciate numerical strategies.

weight tests +soil”model design of

nuclear island

tests for soil “cooling tower prediction of

parameters ground vibration

+soil”model

plant panning

accident collapse of

loads cooling tower

Falling weight tests were executed in a construction site near Hangzhou, China. The tests made use of the

facilities of the common dynamic compaction, which is an effective method for the consolidation of the soft soil

foundation. As indicated in Fig 2, dynamic compaction machinery slung a weight ( with 12 ton in weight and about

2.5 m in diameter) to an appropriate height (about 5.9 m in the tests), and then made the weight fall with the aid of a

self-release mechanism. The weight dropped freely and impacted the soil surface at a tamping point and,

consequently, induced ground vibration. The equipment layout is schematically shown in Fig. 3. As illustrated in the

figure, the considered vibration point is L far from the tamping point. A recording, storing and data processing

system was used, including acceleration sensors, which placed in the position of the considered vibration point as

accurate as possible, and were used to measure the acceleration histories in vertical and radial direction, respectively.

The vibration in tangential direction was not measured, because it was relative small and was regarded as

insignificant due to approximately axisymmetry of the site soil [4]. Typical test results for different distances L are

illustrated in Fig 5 and Fig 6. It can be seen that the vibration times lasted from 0.5 to 1 second and then the

vibration point tended to revert to their stationary positions. The acceleration amplitude, both in vertical and radial

direction, decreased significantly with the increase of distance L. For the requirement of further numerical analysis,

the soil parameters were investigated through pre-conducted soil tests.

crawler

crane

mechanism and sensors

compaction total station recording, storing

weight

machinery compaction and data processing

machinery system

Fig 2: Set-up of dynamic compaction Fig 3: Equipment layout of drop hammer tests

2

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

A finite element method (FEM) based “falling weight - soil” model was developed for the prediction of the

ground vibration caused by a falling weight impacting onto the surface of the soil. For verification of the model, the

results from the falling weight tests were used. The model was built using a commercial finite element program

(ANSYS / LS-DYNA), as illustrated in Figure 4. Both the soil and the falling weight were simulated using the 8-

noded isoparametric element Solid164. For material models, ideal elasto – plastic behavior was assumed for the soil,

described by Drucker - Prager model [5], whereas a rigid model was applied for the falling weight. This was because

the weight is made of concrete filled steel shell and thus could be handled as a rigid comparing with the soft soil.

Moreover, several aspects related to the model had to be considered appropriately. Firstly, the soil parameters were

ascertained from in - site soil tests and listed in Table 1. Secondly, for the determination of the mesh size of the soil,

both the accurate requirement and the numerical efficiency should be considered properly. In general, based on

wave propagation theory, the maximum mesh size le used in a dynamic analysis based on FEM should meet Eq. (1)

[6],

1 1 1 1 v

le ( ~ ) T ( ~ ) (1)

12 6 12 6 f T

in which, T is the wave length corresponding to the dominant wave frequency fT under consideration. v denotes

wave velocity and may be taken as 172 m/s following a calculation with the parameters from Table 1. The dominant

wave frequency fT can be taken as 5 Hz following a frequency spectrum analysis of Fig. 5 and Fig.6. As a result, Eq.

(1) becomes:

l e 2 .9 m ~ 5 .8 m (2)

Thus, the general mesh size of 5m × 5m × 5m was eventually adopted after two different meshes size were

trialed. However, in order to fit the actual thickness of the soil layers, mesh sizes of 4 m ~ 5 m were also used.

Thirdly, non - reflecting boundaries were set in the undersurface and the four vertical surfaces of the soil model, so

that the waves could transmit through these boundaries without reflection and refraction, as they actually did in real

soil. Fourthly, the dimension of the soil model was adopted as 400 m × 400m in horizontal plane and 30m of

thickness based on trial computations. Finally, to consider the impact action among blocks, the common penalty

function method was used to implement the contact - collision algorithm.

With the aid of the developed model, the acceleration histories of the considered vibration point were

simulated and then plotted in Fig.5 and Fig.6 with comparison to the measured data. Good agreement was achieved

both in the acceleration amplitudes and vibration duration. The reasons for the differences may contribute to:

(1) In the tests the sensors might be not exactly placed in the vibration point and in the expected directions.

Moreover, the sensors were probably not in good contact with the soil surface to insure a synchronous motion;

(2) The weight could fall down onto the ground with a minor obliquity, which was not considered in the model;

(3) The soil parameters and the thickness of the soil layers used in the model were not exactly in conformance with

these of the in - site soil.

local enlargement

3

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

values

parameters symbols units clayey silt

(uppermost)

sandy silt mucky silt clay

thickness of soil layer hi m 8 10 12

density kg m 3

1929 1948 1813

0

shear elastic modulus G d MPa 28.88 77.22 99.30

Poisson’s ratio - 0.4 0.4 0.4

cohesion c kPa 7.40 5.89 13.85

Internal friction angle degree(°) 30.9 30.4 13.8

damping ratio % 1.15 0.92 1.13

Note: 1. Thickness of the soil layer was simplified and used in this study to fit the mesh size; 2.Poisson’s ratio was

determined empirically.

0.20 0.10

L=80m L=100m

0.10 s−2 ) 0.05

s−2 )

a (m·

0.00 0.00

a (m·

-0.10 -0.05

-0.20 -0.10

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

ｔ (s) ｔ (s)

0.08 0.04

L=120m L=150m

0.04 0.02

s−2 )

s−2 )

a (m·

a (m·

0.00 0.00

-0.04 -0.02

-0.08 -0.04

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

ｔ (s) ｔ (s)

Fig. 5: Tested and simulated results of ground vibration in radial direction at various distances

(“ ” denotes the tested results and “ ” denoted the simulated results)

The planned cooling tower was of 235 m high, with 120 columns of 18 m high at bottom, as illustrated in

Fig. 7. The tower was designed to be constructed with reinforced concrete. In this paper, two categories of accident

loads were considered to cause the tower to collapse. One was a sudden failure of 60 columns (simply named load

case 1), as a result of, for example, foundation settlement or a bomb attack. The other was an extremely strong wind

4

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

load (simply named load case 2). The simulated collapse of the cooling tower is demonstrated in Fig. 8. However,

for brevity, the details of the collapse simulation are not presented here and were given in reference [7].

0.04 0.06

L=80m L=100m

0.02 0.03

s−2 )

s−2 )

a (m·

a (m·

0.00 0.00

-0.02 -0.03

-0.04 -0.06

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

ｔ (s) ｔ (s)

0.04 0.02

L=120m L=150m

0.02 0.01

s−2 )

s−2 )

a (m·

0.00 0.00

a (m·

-0.02 -0.01

-0.04 -0.02

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

ｔ (s) ｔ (s)

Fig. 6: Tested and simulated results of ground vibration in vertical direction at various

(“ ” denotes the tested results and “ ” denotes the simulated results)

The simulation indicated that, the collapse of the tower exhibited different characteristics under different

accident loads. For load case 1, firstly, the tower shell inclined to a minor degree (about 3 degree in this study), and

then fell down in its integrity without changing the profile of the whole tower. Meanwhile, the residual 60 columns

were crushed into pieces sequentially due to the action of the tower gravity. Then the tower shell impacted the

ground intensively and finally disintegrated. This collapse type was labeled as “collapse in integrity” in this study.

Unlike this, for load case 2 (wind velocity 44.3 m/s, Beaufort Scale 14), at the early stage a large part of the upper

shell was disintegrated, broke into big fragments and then failed onto ground. However, the under portion of the

shell do not broke and survived in the wind load. This collapse type was labeled as “collapse in fragments”.

It should be noted that, the columns were failed in the collapse type of “collapse in integrity”, but survived

in “collapse in fragments”. To simulate the failure of the columns, we had to use a lot of solid elements by ANSYS /

LS-DYNA, i.e. a column including 432 elements for concrete (SOLID164) and 288 elements for steel bars

(BEAM161). In total 120 columns contained 864 00 elements, resulting in a tremendous numerical consumption.

This disadvantage was to be modified in the study of ground vibration, as described in the next section.

(a) (b)

Fig. 7: Profile of the planned Fig. 8: Collapse of the cooling tower in load case of (a) a sudden

cooling tower failure of 60 columns and (b) an extremely strong wind

5

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

The ground vibrations caused by the collapse of the cooling tower in case of different accident loads were

predicted using a “cooling tower - soil” model, developed from the “falling weight - soil” model described above.

To avoid tremendous numerical consumption, we held different simulation strategies for the two collapse types.

For load case 1, the “cooling tower - soil” model is illustrated in Fig. 9(a). At the beginning, the whole

tower shell free fell down with an inclination angle of 3 degree, at an average height of 18 m from the bottom of the

tower shell to the surface of the ground. The residual 60 columns were deleted intentionally and hence not included

in the model. The advantage of this treatment was that, the element number reduced remarkably and computational

time was limited to one day using the current common PC. Whereas, the collapse process was believed to have no

significant change with comparison to that using the model with columns.

For load case 2, the model was illustrated in Fig. 9(b). In this model, one column was simulated as one

beam element. The beam element overestimated the load bearing capacity of the real column. However, the collapse

process was almost the same as that using the model in Fig. 8(b), because actually no columns failed in the two

models. By doing this the element number of the columns reduced remarkably and thus numerical consumption was

reduced significantly.

Additionally, the soil under the cooling tower was rock, and the soil parameters were taken as: density ρ＝

2700 kg/m3, elastic modulus E＝4.00 × 104 MPa, Poisson’s ratio ν＝0.2 and damping ratio ξ＝5%. The dimension

of the soil model was applied as 1000 m × 1000 m × 50 m, which was enough for the considered plant planning.

(a) (b)

Fig. 9: “Cooling tower - soil” model for prediction of ground vibration caused by collapse of the cooling

tower in load case of (a) a sudden failure of 60 columns and (b) an extremely strong wind

1.20 2.00

s−2 )

s−2 )

a (m·

0.00

a (m·

0.00

-1.20 -2.00

-2.40 -4.00

0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00

ｔ (s) ｔ (s)

Fig. 10: Predicted ground vibration caused by collapse of the cooling tower in load case of a sudden failure of

60 columns for point at distance L = 200 m

6

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

0.20 0.30

s−2 )

s−2 )

a (m·

a (m·

0.00 0.00

-0.20 -0.30

-0.40 -0.60

0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00 0.00 4.00 8.00 12.00 16.00

ｔ (s) ｔ (s)

Fig. 11: Predicted ground vibration caused by collapse of the cooling tower in load case of a extremely strong

wind for point at distance L = 200 m

With the aid of the “cooling tower - soil” model and the appropriate simulation strategies, the ground

vibrations were obtained in the form of acceleration histories of the points at different distances L to the ground

center of the cooling tower. The results indicated that, severe vibration occurred in near - field (L less than 300 m).

However, with the increase of distance L, the vibration attenuated rapidly. In Fig.10 and Fig.11 the results of the two

load cases for distance L = 200 m were displayed as examples. It can be seen from the figures that, for load case 1,

the maximum acceleration amplitudes are about 0.2g and 0.3g in radial and vertical direction, respectively. However,

for load case 2, they were about 0.04g and 0.06g, respectively. The vibration time lasted for about 7 seconds for load

case 1 and 9 seconds for load case 2. Based on the assessment method for seismic intensity in China, it can be

concluded that a strong earthquake with a seismic intensity of IX occurs in this point.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents an approach for the prediction of the ground vibration caused by the collapse of a huge

cooling tower. The adopted “cooling tower - soil” model was based on a “falling weight - soil” model verified bu

means of the in – site falling weight tests. The ground vibration was predicted in the form of acceleration histories of

the points at different distances to the ground centre of the cooling tower. It was found that severe vibration occurred

in near - field, but attenuated rapidly when distance increased.

Due to the limited page number secrecy reasons, technique details were not presented here. A further study

on the characteristics of the ground and underground vibration under various conditions is under way. Moreover,

suggestions for vibration reduction based on this study are also planned.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was sponsored by Guangdong Electric Power Design Institute (GEDI). The authors would

like to extend their sincere gratitude to GEDI for the support.

REFERENCES

[1] Lamb, H., “On the Propagation of Tremors over the Surface of an Elastic Solid”. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society London, Vol. 203, 1904, pp. 359-371.

[2] Gu, Q., Lee, F. H., “Ground Response to Dynamic Compaction of Dry Sand”. Géotechnique, Vol. 52(7),

2002, pp. 481-493.

[3] Pan, J. L., Selby, A. R., “Simulation of Dynamic Compaction of Loose Granular Soils”. Advances in

Engineering Software, Vol.33, 2002, pp. 631-640.

[4] Kwang, J. H., Tu, T. Y., “Ground vibration due to dynamic compaction”. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake

Engineering, Vol. 26, 2006, pp. 337-346.

[5] Drucker, D. C., Prager, W., “Soil mechanics and plastic analysis or limit design”. Quarterly Journal of

Applied Mathematics, Vol. 10(2), 1952, pp. 157-165.

[6] Kausel, E., Manolis, G., “Wave Motion in Earthquake Engineering”. Boston: WIT Press, 2000.

7

Transactions, SMiRT 21, 6-11 November, 2011, New Delhi, India Div-4: Paper ID# 349

[7] Li, Y., Lu, X. Q., Lin, F., Gu, X. L., “Numerical Simulation Analysis on Collapse of a Super Large Cooling

Tower Subjected to Accidental Loads”. 21st International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor

Technology (SMiRT 21), New Delhi, India, 6-11 November, 2011. (Submitted)

- Role of Stiffeners in Resisting Impact Loads on Steel PlatesUploaded byAHD8Tz24693y
- chapter1 history.pdfUploaded byBen Ahmed
- Modal AnalysisUploaded bylrodriguez_892566
- Asee 2014 Final Paper 8643Uploaded bysaulomon
- Analysis and Structural Behavior Od Cylindrical Steel Tanks Under Seismic EffectssUploaded bymahmood hunar
- A Practical Review of Rotating Machinery Critical Speeds and ModesUploaded byCharles Matos
- N200 11000 HP Motor AnalysisUploaded byUsman Jabbar
- Thesis Final 1Uploaded byClayton Roberson
- Dignostic Mode VibrationUploaded byphoneme79
- Gid Elmer 2006 ArticleUploaded byBi8ikity
- 1 Vibration analysis using MATLABUploaded byreachspk
- ED009 - Approved Training CoursesUploaded byJay Patel
- Evaluation of the effect of ground vibration due to blasting on adjacent structures in dam construction projectsUploaded byali.siamaki
- Dynamics Assignment University of AberdeenUploaded byNahYaoQi
- 07A72101-VIBRATIONSANDSTRUCTURALDYNAMICSUploaded byshiva_kumar_perumalla
- Plaxis_bearing Capacity of Strip FootingUploaded byKasim Baručija
- introductiontovibrationmonitoring-141220051134-conversion-gate02.pptxUploaded bySubramanian Minakshisundaram
- Prac2 BalanceUploaded bySam Jonassen
- SmartVibro ManualUploaded byLeon Mills
- Modelling Turbulence Induced Vibration of PipesUploaded byJose Prado
- is.5249.1992.pdfUploaded byrentu sk
- Lecture Plan StructureUploaded bySanjay Tiwari
- Chapter 1 IntroductionUploaded byNik Haslida Nik Ali
- Chapter 3 Harmonic ResponseUploaded byDaniel Wong
- 7702Uploaded byMohamed Elgamml
- Inno2018 Emt2502 Vibrations Free Vibration SdofUploaded byinnoodira
- 22. Chapter 22 - Modal Analyses _a4Uploaded byGabrielPaintings
- ME411Uploaded bySubrat kumar Sahoo
- Vibration AnalysisUploaded byDinesh Mohitkar
- Fixed Plate Modeling and Modal analysis By ANSYSUploaded byMohammad Ahmad Gharaibeh

- IS 908-1975Uploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- An Intro to Fill and Backfill for Structures.pdfUploaded bykohatian27796105
- RopesUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- 281Uploaded bydinesh_mahakal
- icaoUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- 204_1Uploaded byRaj Kumar
- 204_1Uploaded byRaj Kumar
- App i Section 03050 Fill CreteUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- 205Uploaded byVikas Saini
- The Limit State Design of Spun Concrete Columns Using Load Combinations Recommended by en 1990 and ASCE SEI 7 05Uploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- IS 909Uploaded byAnkit Singhal
- 1_Welcome to the Satbara.coUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- TrussUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- AERB PUBLICATION PRICE.pdfUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- fileUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- fileUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- Is.2720.1.1983 Preparation of Dry Soil Samples for Various TestsUploaded bynnsdell
- Fillcrete c v01 EngUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- IS 14402 GRPUploaded byNilesh Kitey
- Aerb Publication PriceUploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- e-pr-790Uploaded byAnonymous M4BGwOkIp
- IS.269.2013Uploaded byschakten

- Controlling the Risks From Legionella in Cooling Towers and Evaporative CondensersUploaded bywholenumber
- USN Douthat NPDES Permit Combined[1]-1Uploaded byDan Reese
- Full TextUploaded bysiva_nagesh_2
- Hyperbolic Cooling Towers -DetailsUploaded byAnonymous YcAZv5qF67
- Answer SheetUploaded byCharles Michael Bautista Hosmillo
- Cooling tower Selection criteriaUploaded byPrashant Suvarna
- Cooling Tower CleaningUploaded byChris Haslego
- Recovery and reuse of water from effluent of cooling tower.pdfUploaded byThanasan Tangchaksuwan
- 04 Building ServicesUploaded byfansforever9125
- CTI TP12-10 Field Evaluation and VerificationUploaded byKCFUNG
- Process Leakage Into Cooling TowersUploaded byJavier Gonzalez
- Cooling Tower FullUploaded bySyazli Eimran
- Cooling Tower Lab SheetUploaded byakriti2690_323802303
- Refrigeration System Layout (24) Ver1.1Uploaded byRidwan Jumadi
- Seawater FeasibilityUploaded bysmartleo_walo
- Flake Nugget TechUploaded byPaco Scarpenis
- epri cooling tower water rfi.pdfUploaded bydrjonesg19585102
- WW Reuse RulesUploaded bymyamane808
- Technical Offer From Thermax on 13.05.10Uploaded byvenka07
- Water Use in Thermal Power Plants Equipped With CO2 Capture SystemsUploaded byGopi Kiran N
- PUMP ASSIGNMENTUploaded byFikri Rahim
- Training ReportUploaded bySunny Dhir
- Surface Condenser HEIUploaded byJesús Santiago Quijada
- Sea Water Cooling System for Jubail 2Uploaded byNiong David
- GEA Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers for the Oil and Gas IndustryUploaded byMauricio Huerta Jara
- 55323886 Thumb Rules Xls for Chemical EngineerUploaded byshashibagewadi
- HVAC MAINTENANCE.pdfUploaded bytsraj10
- Cooling Tower Water Loss CalculatorUploaded bykarunajanakiraman
- Auxiliary Power Reduction in Thermal Power PlantUploaded byManoj Upadhyay
- Cost of Equipment 93851_20Uploaded bySushant Pai