Yang et al. 2012
Two 56-cell air-cooled condensers under wind from five directions: what the direction rule can and cannot carry
Tier 3: CFD, co-simulation or another model.
- What was compared
- The total fan volume flow and heat transfer rate of the two 56-cell A-frame air-cooled condensers of a 2 × 600 MW plant under winds of 3 to 15 m/s from five directions, each as a ratio to its own value at 3 m/s; the model's ratios are compared at 9 and 15 m/s for 0°, 45° and 90°.
- Against
- The CFD study of Yang et al. (2012, Fig. 19), read from the figure; it is a second model and not a measurement.
- The agreement
- The model does not reproduce the study. Its flow ratio lies 15.4 to 17.2 points above the CFD's at 9 m/s and 18.0 to 31.4 points above it at 15 m/s, and it orders the two directions oppositely: at 15 m/s the wind across the axis is 0.28 points worse than along it in the model and 13.1 points better in the CFD.
- What it shows
- The case documents a limit of the model's wind method for an A-frame bank: the periphery rule (Kröger, Section 9.3) sees only the number of windward fans and its held factors, and it does not represent the plant's buildings. It does not validate the method for a large condenser under strong wind.
- Source
- L. Yang, X. Du, Y. Yang, 'Space characteristics of the thermal performance for air-cooled condensers at ambient winds', Int. J. Thermal Sciences 53 (2012) 175-187Section 3 and Fig. 19 (totals against wind speed and direction), Eqs. 1-4, 12, 15-16