Illustrative scenario

Cooling tower blowdown optimization

Illustrative scenario, representative of common industrial IoT applications

Cooling towersWaterManufacturing: Automotive, Plastics & RubberBuilding Materials, Concrete & Aggregates

Blowdown was controlled by a timer rather than conductivity, causing usable water to be discharged unnecessarily.

A plastics manufacturing factory

No client is named, no logo is shown and no figure here was measured at any site.

How it went.

Every study on this site runs the same four beats, in the same order.

  1. 01

    Alert

    A timer does not know the water chemistry. It blows down on schedule whether the tower needs it or not, and the make-up water pays for it.

  2. 02

    Cost

    1 setpoint changed. Blowdown moved from a fixed timer to a measured conductivity threshold.

  3. 03

    Fix

    Make-up and blowdown flow meters · Conductivity monitoring on the tower basin · Cycles-of-concentration trending

  4. 04

    Restored

    Blowdown on a measured conductivity threshold

In full.

Illustrative scenario, representative of common industrial IoT applications.

The problem

A timer does not know the water chemistry. It blows down on schedule whether the tower needs it or not, and the make-up water pays for it.

What would be installed

  • Make-up and blowdown flow meters
  • Conductivity monitoring on the tower basin
  • Cycles-of-concentration trending

What changes

Before: Blowdown on a timer After: Blowdown on a measured conductivity threshold

The number

1 setpoint changed. Blowdown moved from a fixed timer to a measured conductivity threshold. Illustrative scenario, not a client result. Figure is representative, not measured.

In one line

A water balance on a cooling tower is a short chart with a large number at the end of it.

What the data looked like.

Hover or arrow-key across the trace to read any interval. The flagged point is the one that started the conversation.

Cooling tower blowdown optimization
makeup to evaporation, 62 L/minmakeup to blowdown, 38 L/minmakeup to unaccounted, 14 L/minrecovered to evaporation, 11 L/minmakeup to drift, 6 L/minMake-up water120 L/minRecovered condensate11 L/minEvaporation73 L/minBlowdown38 L/minUnaccounted14 L/minDrift6 L/minMake-up water to Evaporation: 62 L/min, 47% of total flowMake-up water to Blowdown: 38 L/min, 29% of total flowMake-up water to Unaccounted: 14 L/min, 11% of total flowRecovered condensate to Evaporation: 11 L/min, 8% of total flowMake-up water to Drift: 6 L/min, 5% of total flowMake-up water120 L/min92% of totalRecoveredcondensate11 L/min8% of totalEvaporation73 L/min56% of totalBlowdown38 L/min29% of totalUnaccounted14 L/min11% of totalDrift6 L/min5% of total
TOWER WATER BALANCE · MAKE-UP TO EVAPORATION, DRIFT AND BLOWDOWN

What changed.

Before

Blowdown on a timer

After

Blowdown on a measured conductivity threshold

1 setpoint

changed

Blowdown moved from a fixed timer to a measured conductivity threshold.

Source: Illustrative scenario, not a client result. Figure is representative, not measured.

Find out what’s hiding in your factory.

Every study on this site started with somebody walking a floor and asking what the numbers actually were. Our team will do the same on yours and tell you honestly what we find.

Book a site visitAll case studies

or call 1-833-QUANTFY (1-833-782-6839)