7.

5 Water In-Leakage Detection Methods [3]

In the past, condenser tube leakage inspections made use of shaving cream, plastic
wrap, and
cigarette smoke in attempting to find the leaking tube. Some individuals believed
that they could
find a tube leak by placing an ear on the tubesheet. Unfortunately, out of the
millions of tubes
that have been inspected, very few tubes have been heardto be leaking. Meanwhile,
others
believed that they could locate a leaking tube by simple observation.
All of the above intuitive techniques have their shortcomings so far as reliability,
accuracy, and
cost-effectiveness are concerned. None of these techniques offers a means of
verifying, prior to
putting the condenser back on-line and then checking the chemistry, that the
suspected tube was
the one actually leaking. These techniques are not supported scientifically and they
all rely on the
intuitive sense of the technician.
Most leak-detection methods involve draining the waterbox that is to be inspected
with the shell
side of the condenser still under vacuum. With only one waterbox out of service, it is
possible to
perform a leak test under partial load. However, it is difficult to perform in-leakage
testing with
the unit shut down completely. The air-removal vacuum system might be able to
lower
condenser backpressure sufficiently when working alone. A major problem with all
of these
traditional methods is their uncertainty. To ensure that the leak has been sealed, the
tube

identified as leaking has to be plugged. A number of the surrounding tubes also

have to be
plugged.