Circulating water plant design
Thread Content
I currently have a circulating water project with a maximum water consumption of 6,200 cubic meters per hour, and a normal water consumption of 5,000 cubic meters per hour. The original design capacity was 8,000 cubic meters per hour, with two units, resulting in 4,000 cubic meters per hour per unit. Recently, a proposal was made to use three units, each with a capacity of 2500 cubic feet per hour, but this increased the investment cost. I was wondering if some expert could give some advice: setting up two units, with a capacity of 4,000 cubic meters per hour per unit – is this plan reasonable? Thank you. This post was last edited by li*ch1968 on 2009-2-17 09:26.]
Additional note: Since the approved investment amount for this project is relatively low, I would like to hear everyone’s opinions and suggestions!
I think Option 2 is better; when water is used intensively, all three can be turned on, while normally two are sufficient. In Plan 1, the equipment remains in a low-efficiency state, which is a great waste. I’m a beginner with limited experience; my opinions are for reference only
From an energy-saving perspective, what was said on the second floor is correct: using three units with a capacity of 2500 cubic feet per hour per unit allows one unit to be in use in winter and two units in summer. If the capacity is 4000 cubic feet per hour per unit, then energy utilization is poorer.
Option 2 is better, with strong adjustment capabilities!
Option 2 is certainly better than Option 1, as it offers better adjustability. Although Plan 2 requires higher investment than Plan 1, it is highly feasible in the long term; if the system needs maintenance, one set can be shut down while the other two continue to operate, thus avoiding production stops. Additionally, energy savings are also very good; over a long period of operation, the cost savings from energy conservation can be significant ； Additionally, it is very convenient to adjust the number of groups that can be turned on or off as needed.
Option 2 is better as it is easier to adjust.
The design requirements specified by the poster are not very clear; there are no basic design parameters at all. I think it’s a bit arbitrary to decide on a cooling tower based solely on the design water volume If the design requirements are not particularly stringent, I think it would be sufficient to design 2 tower units with a capacity of 3,000 cubic meters each, and then check whether the maximum water flow rate can meet the design specifications. Or seek from the supplier a guarantee for the water temperature under maximum flow conditions. By the way, is this how everyone chooses their towers? Only consider the water volume, regardless of design parameters? I think continuing like this will only make the waterway engineering field even less technical; if our own field doesn’t value it, how can we expect others to? This post was last edited by mengqq on 2009-2-17 19:35.]
I don’t know the outdoor temperature in your area. Based on the temperature in Beijing, I think you should opt for a three-chamber design; the capacities of these chambers should be 2000 tons, 3000 tons, and 3000 tons respectively, so that 1/4 of them can be used during winter
Thank you all for your participation and support. The project is located on the southern edge of the Sahara Desert in Africa, where outdoor temperatures are high at 42 degrees, humidity is low throughout the year, and evaporation is significant. Moreover, there are no other closed-loop water systems available to support the facility. Thank you all. I also agree with choosing the second option; you have provided me with many theoretical arguments to convince the leadership.