5 views

Uploaded by mkalbasi

- Sara Vel Cooling Tower
- Mechanical Engineering Handbook - Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
- LH(299)
- As NZS 1677.2-1998 Refrigerating Systems Safety Requirements for Fixed Applications
- A Simple Technique for Refrigerant Mass Measurement
- Impact of High Density Hot Aisles on IT Personnel Work Conditions
- What Ton AC Unit Should You Get
- Chilled Water Treatment
- Panwater PCF Series Cooling Tower.pdf
- Denzo.pdf
- Chapter 3
- R06_30SI
- 4s 328 Compresor Failures
- Economics
- INSTRUMENT LIST FOR WTP-REV.04-AFC.pdf
- Bioruptor_Water_Cooler_manual.pdf
- Air-Conditioning - Final 2
- Price List
- week 1
- Catalogo Multi Splits

You are on page 1of 11

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

performance

Wanchai Asvapoositkul*, Mantheerapol Kuansathan

Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, 126 Pracha Uthit Rd., Bang Mod, Thune Khru, Bangkok 10140,

Thailand

h i g h l i g h t s

A new computational approach for hybrid (dry/wet) cooling tower is proposed.

The performance of a hybrid cooling tower is determined.

The model simulation has been validated and it is used as a design tool.

Air ow rate has a major role in hybrid cooling system performance.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 19 February 2014

Accepted 12 June 2014

Available online 27 June 2014

The performance of hybrid cooling tower is analyzed using experiments and numerical simulations on a

wide variety of working conditions. A computational model for predicting the behavior of dry, wet and

hybrid cooling systems has been developed. The hybrid cooling tower model is expressed as a combination of a dry cooling model and a wet cooling model. The effectiveness-NTU equation and the Merkel

equation, fundamental equation of heat transfer in dry and wet cooling towers, are presented and discussed. The cooling tower characteristics are a function of water-to-air ratio for each cooling mode.

Comparison of the model tower test results with those of a computer simulation has demonstrated the

validity of that simulation and its use as a design tool. Using the information presented in this paper, it

will be possible to incorporate dry and wet cooling tower design, and simulation into a procedure to

evaluate and optimize hybrid cooling tower performance.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Hybrid cooling tower

Dry cooling tower

Wet cooling tower

Tower model

Simulation

1. Introduction

The state of the art in cooling tower has advanced to the point

where further signicant improvement cannot be considered only

in terms of energy efciency but also in connection with environmental problems. For this reason, in recent years increasing

attention and effort have been devoted to invent and experiment

on conservation of natural resources in cooling towers. Dry cooling

towers (or air cooled heat exchangers) require large surface areas

and have relatively high energy consumption, even with higher

water temperatures, in comparison to the more efcient and

signicantly smaller surface areas of wet cooling towers (or evaporative coolers) [1]. However, the wet cooling towers consume

relatively large fresh water quantities due to evaporation, drift and

draining losses. In addition, a visible plume may be formed at the

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: wanchai.asv@kmutt.ac.th (W. Asvapoositkul).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.06.023

1359-4311/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

plume, which is often considered visually undesirable, is only a

cloud composed of very small droplets of water. A review dealing

with formation, potential, and abatement of plum from wet cooling

towers can be seen in Tyagi et al. [2]. As a result of that study, a

number of innovative cooling towers have been developed and are

still being developed. Examples of these may be seen in Lindahl and

Mortensen [3], Al-Bassam and Maheshwari [4], Lucas et al. [5],

Michioka et al. [6], Pistochini and Modera [7], and Rezaei et al. [8].

A hybrid cooling tower is a cooling tower that uses a dry cooling

method and a wet cooling method to eject waste heat to the atmosphere by means of either dry cooling or evaporative heat

transfer [9]. It combines the advantage of the dry-bulb based dry

cooling tower and the wet-bulb based wet cooling tower and the

resulting make-up water and working performance is between the

two, depending on the chosen ratio. Its operating mode also depends on the heat load, the air ow rate and the ambient air conditions [1].

84

procedure that gives good qualitative predictions of hybrid cooling tower thermal performance that take into consideration the

variation of the working conditions. The proposed method is a

combination of a dry cooling tower model and a wet cooling

tower model. The dry cooling tower model is based on the

effectiveness-NTU approach [10] and the wet cooling tower model

is based on the Markel approach [11,12]. The approaches were

successfully demonstrated by Asvapoositkul and Treeutok [13].

This combination model allows a combined dry and wet cooling

tower (or hybrid cooling tower) to be studied in a variety of

working conditions.

1.1. Model details

Hybrid cooling towers can be applied to a wide range of congurations and they cannot all be considered here. A summary of

many congurations was prepared by Streng [14]. One of the most

effective cooling processes overall is a Parallel Path Wet/Dry

(PPWD) tower [3,14]. In this method, the air ow passes in a parallel

path through the dry and wet sections, and the water ow passes in

series connection of the two sections. Details of this arrangement

are given in Lindahl and Mortensen [3], and Streng [14]. It is also

applied to the present study and will be described in the following

sections.

The hybrid cooling tower was set up as shown in Fig. 1. The air is

drawn by an induced draft fan in a parallel path through the dry and

the wet sections, mixed in a plenum, and discharged from the fan.

The water is circulated by a pump, rst through the dry section and

then through the wet section. The hot water entering the dry section with a temperature of T W,DCT,1 is cooled in a nned tube heat

exchanger to a temperature of T W,DCT,2 with an ambient air (TDB,1,

T WB,1). The dry section range (RDCT) is the temperature difference

between T W,DCT,1 and T W,DCT,2. Then the water is delivered to the wet

section where it is cooled to a temperature of T W,WCT,2 via direct

contract with the ambient air. The wet section range (RWCT) is the

temperature difference between T W,DCT,2 and T W,WCT,2. This way, the

total cooling range (R) is split up into RDCT and RWCT.

Consequently, the hot and dry air (TDB,2, T WB,2) from the dry

section is then mixed with hot and humid air (TDB,3, T WB,3) from the

wet section so that the state of the cooling tower exhaust is locally

as uniform as possible. When this exhaust air (TDB,4, T WB,4) is mixed

with the ambient air (TDB,1, T WB,1), a plume is no longer formed.

In the dry section, the limiting temperature to which the water

can be cooled is the ambient air dry-bulb temperature. In the wet

section, the limiting temperature to which the water can be cooled

is the ambient air wet-bulb temperature. Therefore, the dry section

approach temperature (ADCT) is the difference between the outlet

water temperature (T W,DCT,2) and the ambient dry-bulb temperature (TDB,1). The wet section approach temperature (AWCT) is the

difference between the outlet water temperature (T W,WCT,2) and the

ambient wet-bulb temperature (T WB,1). The relationships are

illustrated in Fig. 2. Generally, hybrid cooling towers are designed

by taking advantage of the dry section with the higher inlet water

temperature to reduce water consumption and eliminate plume

formation. While the wet section can take advantage of the closer

approach temperature to increase tower efciency.

1.2. Model description

In this study, cooling towers of dry, wet and hybrid types were

analyzed using mathematical models for the computation of tower

characteristics. The analysis for wet cooling section is based on

Merkel approach and that for dry cooling section is based on

effectiveness-NTU approach. The analogous expressions for evaluation of both sections are expressed in terms of liquid-to-air ratio

(L/G).

1.3. Wet cooling tower

1.3.1. Wet tower demand curve

The wet cooling section cools water by a combination of heat

and mass transfers. It is quite common to use the Merkel equation

to calculate the thermal demand, KaV/L, based on the design temperature and selected liquid-to-air ratio, L/GWCT. The Cooling

Technology Institute (CTI) publication has published a cooling

85

This equation is widely accepted and is able to superimpose on each

wet tower demand curve to analyze the thermal performance capacity of a specied wet cooling tower at off-design conditions. The

intersection of this supply curve and the demand curve is the

operating point for the wet tower being considered for the duty

such as shown in Fig. 3. The techniques used in this study are based

on the work of Asvapoositkul and Treeutok [13].

1.4. Dry cooling tower

Fig. 2. Temperature relation.

tower acceptance test code [11] that is the industry standard for

evaluating and predicting the performance of a tower.

KaV

TW;WCT2

Z

TW;WCT1

cpw dTfw

hsw ha

(1)

KaV/L is a dimensionless variable which is the basis of determining the size of a wet cooling system. The mass and heat transfer

characteristics of cooling tower ll are described by Ka, a volumetric mass transfer coefcient. V is an effective tower ll volume.

The (hsw ha) is the difference between the enthalpy of saturated

air at water temperature (hsw) and the enthalpy of air at the air

temperature (ha). The tower characteristic (KaV/L) is determined by

solving the right-hand side of Eq. (1). The principle and numerical

methods, for evaluation of wet cooling tower, are present in CTI

[11], Leeper [12], and Asvapoositkul and Treeutok [13].

Plotting several values of KaV/L as a function of L/GWCT gives

what is called the wet tower demand curve (see Fig. 3). The

approach lines (AWCT T W,WCT,2 T WB,1) are shown as parameters.

1.3.2. Wet tower supply curve

For a xed wet cooling tower design, the value of KaV/L may be

determined as following [11].

KaV

L

C

L WCT GWCT

nWCT

(2)

The dry cooling section in this study is nned-tube heat exchangers. The methodology of heat exchanger design follows

Incropera et al. [15] and Choi and Glicksman [16]. The effectiveness

of the cooling tower is dened as the ratio of the actual energy that

is exchanged to the maximum energy that could possibly be

exchanged. The number of transfer units (NTU) is another parameter that measures the heat transfer size of the heat exchanger. The

effectiveness-NTU equations of a cross-ow heat exchanger with

water side unmixed are used to calculate the required and NTU

based on the design temperatures and selected liquid-to-air ratio,

L/GDCT. They may be determined in the following two cases.

Case I: L/GDCT < cpa/cpw

G

cpa

Lcpw

NTU ln 1 DCT

ln 1

Lcpw

GDCT cpa

GDCT cpa TDB;2 TDB;1

TW;DCT2

T

R

W;DCT1

DCT

ITD

Lcpw TW;DCT1 TDB;1

TW;DCT1 TDB;1

(3)

(4)

Lcpw

G cpa

NTU

ln 1 DCT

ln1

GDCT cpa

Lcpw

(5)

Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;DCT2

Lcpw RDCT

GDCT cpa ITD

GDCT cpa TW;DCT1 TDB;1

(6)

rate ratio (GDCTcpa/Lcpw) are most commonly present in many heat

transfer textbooks. This paper presents a somewhat simplied and

unied derivation of the effectiveness and the NTU for dry cooling

section in terms of liquid-to-air ratio (L/GDCT). Plotting several

values of as a function of L/GDCT gives what is called a dry tower

demand

curve

(see

Fig.

4).

The

approach

lines

(ADCT T W,DCT,2 TDB,1) are shown as parameters.

1.4.2. Dry tower supply curve

For a xed dry cooling tower design in either case I or case II, the

effectiveness may be determined as following.

CDCT

L

GDCT

nDCT

(7)

cooling section. Values of CDCT and nDCT can be determined from an

experiment. This equation is able to superimpose on each dry

tower demand curve to analyze the thermal performance capacity

of a specied dry cooling tower at off-design conditions. The

86

G4 GT GDCT GWCT

(12)

GT u4 GDCT u2 GWCT u3

(13)

Energy

GT h4 GDCT h2 GWCT h3

(14)

GWCT

G

h h2 u4 u2

1 DCT 4

GT

GT

h3 h2 u3 u2

intersection of this supply curve and demand curve is the operating point for the dry tower being considered for the duty such as

shown in Fig. 4. This procedure is similar to that presented in wet

cooling tower performance test method as described in the previous section. The principle and numerical methods, for evaluation

of a dry section (air-cooled heat exchanger), were developed by

Kuansathan [10].

Once is known, the QDCT and outlet temperatures can be

calculated as followings:

QDCT Qmax

(8)

value for the two working modes. To nd this average value of h (or

any other specic property of the mixture, such as u or TDB), we

need to know the proportions of wet section air mass ow rate and

dry section air mass ow rate in the mixture. The value of GWCT/GT is

between 0 (dry cooling tower) and 1 (wet cooling tower).

The amount of air mass ow rate (G) for each cooling system

also reects the heat rejection in each system. Based on mass and

energy conservation, the heat rejection in wet cooling unit to the

total heat rejection QWCT/QT can be related to GWCT/GT as following.

QWCT

Q

1 DCT

QT

QT

GWCT

GT

(9)

Case II

Q DCT

h3 h1

h3 1 GGWCT

h2 h1

T

(16)

COP

GDCT cpa TW;DCT1 TDB;1

GWCT

GT

The COP of the cooling tower is the ratio of the heat rejection to

the power in the form of work supplied to operate the system, as

determined from Eq. (17).

Case I

Q DCT Lcpw TW;DCT1 TDB;1

(15)

(10)

Energy balance

QDCT Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;DCT2 GDCT cpa TDB;2 TDB;1

(11)

QT QDCT QWCT

PT

Pfan Ppump

(17)

the dry cooling tower (QDCT) and the wet cooling tower (QWCT). The

total required work input (PT) is the sum of work input for fan (Pfan)

and pump (Ppump).

When air mass ow rate increases, it leads to higher heat

rejection and power input. The inuence is similar at different

water mass ow rate. Assuming a cooling tower with either L or G

increases by DL or DG, the total heat rejection and the total power

input are changed by dQT and dPT, respectively. The change in COP

value of the cooling tower is in two cases.

Case I: COPGDG > COPG

A hybrid cooling tower (or mixing section) can be treated as a

combination of two subsystems: the dry cooling tower and wet

cooling tower, as shown in Fig. 1. The outlet moist airs of both dry

and wet sections are mixed in the mixing section. The heat transfer

with the surroundings is ignored, and the mixing process is

assumed to be adiabatic. Mixing processes normally involve no

work interactions, and the changes in kinetic and potential energies

are negligible. The mass and energy balance for the adiabatic

mixing of air streams reduce to

QT dQT QT

>

PT dPT PT

QT dQT PT dPT

>

QT

PT

dQT dPT

>

QT

PT

(18)

dQT dPT

<

QT

PT

87

(19)

directly dependent on the percentage increase in heat rejection and

that in power input.

1.7. Simulation calculations

It is evident that cooling tower performance depends rather

dramatically on the operating conditions and especially on the

ambient air. The limiting temperature to which water can be cooled

for dry cooling section is the air dry-bulb temperature and that for

wet cooling section is the air wet-bulb temperature. Therefore,

prediction of cooling tower performance at various conditions is

important. Simulation calculations are required to determine the

new operating state.

For dry cooling section, the plots of effectiveness versus (L/GDCT)

are present in two forms, dry cooling system demand curve and

supply curve. Eqs. (4), (6) and (7) must be solved simultaneously to

determine the operating point for the dry cooling system being

considered for the duty. The sequence of the calculation is shown

by the ow diagram in Fig. 5. Starting with trial values of ADCT for an

ambient TDB,1 and RDCT, the value of can be obtained from Eqs. (4),

(6) and (7). In practice, the equations are solved iteratively with the

updated values of ADCT until the specied from Eq. (7) is satised.

Using the similar procedure for calculating the operating point for

the wet cooling system with T WB,1, RWCT and (L/GWCT) for (KaV/L)

and AWCT. Then the hybrid cooling tower operating conditions can

be determined from Eqs. (12)e(17).

2.1. Experiments

The hybrid cooling tower test-rig was constructed at KMUTT to

validate the mathematical models as well as to perform comparative

performance studies of the tower in various heat rejection ratios

between the wet cooling and the dry cooling. A schematic diagram

of the cooling tower is shown in Fig. 1. The cooling tower can operate

as a dry cooling tower, wet cooling tower and hybrid cooling tower.

The hybrid cooling tower combines the operating performance of

the dry cooling tower with that of the wet cooling tower and the

resulting performance is between the two, depending on the chosen

ratio which may be varied by adjusting each damper. The tower's

inside dimensions were 1000 mm 1000 mm with a total height of

3350 mm. The dry cooling system consists of four automotiveradiators, which are installed at each side of the tower, and connected for water ow in a series.

For dry cooling operations, ll and nozzles were removed and

the outlet water from the radiators were directed to a tank. To avoid

air ow into the wet section, the inlet louver was sealed with a

plastic board.

The wet cooling system consists of eight nozzles and a lm ll of

600 mm height. For wet cooling operations, the dampers at the

nned-tube were completely closed.

The water is heated at the tank by a gas burner and pumped

through a metering valve before entering the rotameter. The hot

water ow through the dry and the wet sections before returning to

the tank. Water temperature at the inlet and the exit of each cooling

section was measured by a thermocouple.

Air was induced by a fan in a parallel ow through the dry and

the wet sections. The fan speed could be varied by variable

Fig. 5. Flow diagram for calculation operating point of hybrid cooling tower.

88

and scanned across the front area. Readings from each radiator

were averaged to determine the average air inlet velocity. The same

procedure was done at the louver of the wet section. Inlet and exit

air temperatures of the dry, the wet and the mixing sections were

measured with a Resistance Temperature Detector (RTD) temperature probe. The humidity ratio (and other air properties) was

determined from Psychrometric charts or citing equations presented in Ref. [17] by measuring the dry and the wet-bulb temperatures at each location, where the air was drawn through

sampling tube by a small axial ow fan. The exit air of the dry

section was measured at the outlet of each radiator, where the

cross-plates (see Fig. 1) were installed to separate each air ow. To

obtain an average over the cross-section of the radiators, one

measurement was made at each location. The exit air of the wet

section was measured above the spray nozzles. The exit air of the

mixing section was measured at the top of drift eliminator.

A procedure for measuring each parameter is as following.

With the air side velocity and ow rate set, a water mass ow rate

range was chosen. The water pump and metering equipment from

the test cooling tower were capable of delivering up to 175 l/min

to the water inlet. Variations in test conditions were not varied by

more than 2% for circulating water ow, heat load and range. Individual air temperature readings during the test did not exceed

the average of all test data by more than 1 C. After reaching steady

state conditions, the temperatures of air and water at the inlet and

the exit for each cooling section were taken at every 5-min interval. A total of 12 readings were taken for each measured data,

and then the average was computed. Air velocity was measured

across each side of the radiators, the louver and that of the fan

stack exit. A reading was taken at every 20-min interval for 3 test

data for each area, and then the average was computed. The

circulating water mass ow rate was measured at every 20-min

interval for 3 test data, and then the average was computed. Power consumption in the fan and the pump was measured by using

a multi-meter. A reading was taken at every 30-min interval. A

total of 2 readings were taken and then the average was computed

for each device. The specications of the measuring devices are

shown in Table 1.

The surface heat transfer for both the dry tower and the wet

tower were xed in this study. According to the design data,

approximately 83% of the heat transfer in this cooling tower is due

to the wet cooling mode.

Combinations of dry and wet cooling tower working conditions

were studied in a variety of heat load, L/G and ambient conditions

and their performance were calculated. Its working modes are

determined by GWCT/GT. A dry cooling mode has GWCT/GT 0 and a

wet cooling mode has GWCT/GT 1.

An equation form used to analyze the thermal performance

capacity of a specied dry cooling tower is given in Eq. (7). This

equation ts well with test data with the value of CDCT 0.71 and

nDCT 0.26, as shown in Fig. 4. It can be used to predict the dry

cooling tower performance under changed operating conditions by

superimposing on each demand curve, since the and L/GDCT

relationship is a linear function on the logelog demand curve.

An equation form used to analyze the thermal performance

capacity of a specied wet cooling tower is given in Eq. (2). This

equation ts well with test data with the value of CWCT 0.92 and

nWCT 0.58, as shown in Fig. 3.

The wet tower supply curve (Fig. 3) together with the dry tower

supply curve (Fig. 4) are then used to evaluate the hybrid cooling

tower thermal capacity. Results from Eq. (15) were compared,

shown in Fig. 6, with the experiment data. It can be seen that they

are in good agreement.

A method for reducing the thermal capacity of a hybrid cooling

tower is to decrease QWCT/QT. This can be done conveniently by

decreasing GWCT/GT. The values of QWCT/QT based on Eq. (16) were

calculated and compared with that of experimental data as shown

in Fig. 7. It should be noted that the result from Eq. (16) was based

on the design conditions for each cooling type while that from the

test values was with varying heat load of 58% to 30% of design

load, ambient conditions at temperature of 2 C of design TDB and

at temperature of 1 C of design T WB. The trend apparent from

those gures indicates that the wet cooling tower has a dominant

inuence on the tower capacity. The value of QWCT/QT is large at

high GWCT/GT and drops to zero when GWCT/GT 0 (when the tower

is in the completely dry cooling mode).

The amount of air (G) and water (L) for each cooling mode reects the energy use and the rejected heat. The total power

The hybrid cooling tower would operate as a combined dry and

wet tower. In order to provide the experimental results for the

comparison of the dry/wet and hybrid cooling tower, each subsystem supply curve is analyzed with the test data that cover a wide

range of working conditions. The design parameters and evaluation

of the tower performance are as following.

Design point: inlet air dry bulb at 33 C and wet bulb at 29 C

inlet water at 50 C at the ow rate of 2.9 kg/s

water temperature drop of 3 C at an approach temperature of

14 C to the dry-bulb for dry cooling mode and water temperature drop of 14 C at an approach temperature of 7 C to the

wet-bulb for wet cooling mode.

Table 1

The specications of the measuring devices.

Measurement

Instrument

Accuracy

Resolution

Water ow rate

Water temperature

Air temperature

Air velocity

Power

Rotameter

Thermocouple type-K

RTD temperature probe

Vane anemometer

Multi-meter

2%

e

2%

2%

2%

12.5 l/min

0.3 C

0.1 C

0.1 m/s

0.1 V, 0.01 A

Fig. 6. Comparison of GWCT/GT and ha,4 ha,2/ha,3 ha,2 at the mixing section between

the experiment data and the predicted value from Eq. (15).

Fig. 7. Comparison of heat rejection in the wet cooling unit to the total heat rejection

between the experiment data and the predicted value from Eq. (16).

89

Fig. 9. The rejected heat for dry, wet and hybrid cooling modes.

consumption for the cooling tower is the sum of the fan power and

the pump power. Based on the measurement, as shown in Fig. 8, the

power input in the fan would require over 8 times more than that in

the pump for all types of cooling modes. It is interesting to observe

from this study that the dry cooling tower (GWCT/GT 0) trends to

require more power than the wet cooling tower (GWCT/GT 1). The

power input requirement for the hybrid cooling tower (0 < GWCT/

GT < 1) is between these two cooling modes.

The results, as shown in Fig. 9, indicate that the wet cooling

tower can reject heat about 5 times more than the dry cooling

tower. The rejected heat for the hybrid cooling tower is between

these two cooling modes and increased as GWCT/GT is increased, by

increasing the heat rejection during the evaporation process. As the

air mass ow rate increases, the rejected heat and the total power

consumption will increase. Therefore, the ratio of the two needs to

be considered.

operating conditions, the values of the total rejected heat to the

total power consumption or COP were calculated as shown in

Fig. 10. The results indicate that the wet cooling tower operates

with higher COP than the dry cooling tower. A COP value from 506

to 698 was achieved from the wet cooling tower, while from the dry

cooling tower it was 91e152. The COP for a hybrid cooling tower

can be calculated from the summation of rejected heat to total

power in each subsystem.

An increase in GWCT/GT results in increased COP since the

rejected heat in a wet cooling unit increases. In order to visualize

the results of changes in GWCT/GT or the hybrid cooling tower

operation mode, each subsystem characteristic curves are plotted

to be analyzed in a readily understandable manner. It is often useful

to know the cooling tower characteristics in terms of L/G since L and

G are the two working uids that are exchanged in both mass and

heat with each other.

Fig. 8. Measured pump power and fan power for dry, wet and hybrid cooling modes.

Fig. 10. The COP for dry, wet and hybrid tower modes.

90

2.08 kg/s to 2.92 kg/s and the air mass ow rate G was varied from

1.5 kg/s to 3.9 kg/s. By measuring the pump power and the fan

power for the cooling tower with various L and G quantities and

then plotting all of these points on a chart, the power curves in

Fig. 11 were obtained. The trends apparent, shown in that gure,

show that the fan power increases as G was increased. On the one

hand the fan power was slightly affected, but on the other hand the

pump power was not greatly affected as L was increased from

2.08 kg/s to 2.92 kg/s. When L increases, the amount of water distribution inside the cooling tower also increases along with the air

ow resistance. This water allows the air to blow the droplets over

the tower's cross-sectional area more randomly, resulting in a

higher air-side pressure drop and a lower air mass ow rate.

Therefore the fan ow rate and the power are decreased. In order to

get the same air ow rate, fan speed has to be increased and more

fan power is required. Solid lines are t curves of these test data and

will be used for further calculation. Although the scattering of the

point of Fig. 10 is quite appreciable, the general trend is denite.

For a wet cooling unit, as G increases, the fan power and rejected

heat will increase. From Eq. (19), the percentage increase in rejected

heat was lower than the percentage increase in fan power, resulting

in a lower of COP (see Figs. 12 and 13). It is interesting to note that

when the L is increased, the rejected heat will increase. The inuence of water distribution over ll causes air to operate in a higher

pressure drop resulting in a higher power requirement. But the

percentage increase in rejected heat was higher than the percentage increase in fan power. And the fan power is dominated the total

required power. As a result from Eq. (18), the COP will increase.

For a dry cooling unit, as G increases, the rejected heat will increase. But the change in L of the dry cooling unit to the rejected

heat is not greatly affected (see Fig. 12). This means that the rejected

heat of the dry cooling unit varies with G value. The variation of

COP, on the other hand, is not greatly affected and its values are

much lower than that in the wet cooling unit.

The predicted result, as shown in solid lines in Figs. 12 and 13,

was determined from Eqs. (2) and (7) or Figs. 3 and 4 for the test

hybrid cooling tower (for each subsystem) at a xed inlet water

temperature of 50 C, and an ambient temperature of TDB,1 33 C,

T WB,1 29 C. The value of COP at G lower than 1.5 kg/s is not shown

Fig. 12. The rejected heat from dry and wet cooling towers for different water and air

mass ow rates.

terms of the sum of the dry and the wet cooling modes and cannot

be categorized into each subsystem.

The largest source of uncertainty came from the measurement

of the fan and pump power with the multi-meter, whose uncertainty was estimated to be 4%. Combined with the uncertainties in

ow properties, and temperatures, the uncertainty in COP was

estimated at 4.6%. The details of the uncertainty in the measurements are included in Appendix A.

4. Conclusions

The experimental data reveal that the cooling tower characteristics of dry and wet cooling units are a function of water-to-air

ratio for each subsystem. It is the most important factor in

designing the cooling tower and related to operating performance

of cooling tower. Air mass ow rate is proportional to fan power

0.40

900.0

800.0

0.30

700.0

0.25

600.0

500.0

0.20

COP

Power (kW)

0.35

Measured data

0.15

COP

400.0

Fan @ L=2.92 kg/s

300.0

Measured data

@ L= 2.92 kg/s

COP

@ L=2.08 kg/s

COP

@ L= 2.92 kg/s

COP

@ L= 2.08 kg/s

0.10

200.0

0.05

0.00

0.50

100.0

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

G (kg/s)

3.00

3.50

4.00

Fig. 11. Input pump power and fan power curves for different water and air mass ow

rates.

0.0

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

G (kg/s)

3.00

3.50

4.00

Fig. 13. The COP of dry and wet cooling towers for different water and air mass ow

rates.

The same is true for pump. But in this study the pump has a fairly

at power consumption curve over most of its operating range. The

power consumption of pump is much less than that of fan. Thus the

fan power is dominated the total required power of the cooling

system and air ow rate has a major role in cooling tower performance especially in a dry cooling unit.

At high air mass ow rate the heat rejection and power consumption increased in both units. The increase of heat rejection is

low in dry cooling unit compare to that in wet cooling unit. The

combined result of these mechanisms gives a drop in COP. The dry

cooling unit exhibits less of a tendency to drop in COP at higher air

mass ow rates than does the wet cooling unit. But COP of dry

cooling unit is much less than that of wet cooling unit.

A hybrid cooling tower combines the operating performance of

a dry cooling unit with that of a wet cooling unit. Its performance is

between the two, depending on the chosen ratio which may be

varied by adjusting each tower's air mass ow rate.

As the air mass ow rate increases, the rejected heat will increase, but the COP will decrease. It is evident that if a hybrid

cooling tower can be adjusted without sacricing the rejected heat,

a more economical operation can be obtained at a reduced air ow

rate in a dry cooling unit than in a wet cooling unit. Therefore, it

could be concluded that better COP is obtained when operating

with low mass ow rate in each subsystem with high GWCT/GT. A

much more detailed analysis of the specic applications and the

corresponding economic factors would be necessary to identify

completely the relative merits of each subsystem. Furthermore,

work is in progress to use exergy analysis on the performance of the

cooling system.

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Thailand Research Fund

through the MAG Window I Program (Grant No. MRG545E082). The

authors want to gratefully acknowledge the generosity of Thai

Cooling Tower Company for donating material and equipment for

use in the tower.

Nomenclature

A

COP

G

h

I

Ka

KaV/L

L

NTU

P

Q

R

T

V

Volt

approach ( C)

coefcient of performance

air mass ow rate (kg/s)

enthalpy (kJ/kg)

current (A)

volumetric mass transfer coefcient (kg/m3 s)

wet cooling characteristic

water mass ow rate (kg/s)

number of heat transfer unit

power (kW)

heat load (kW)

range ( C)

temperature ( C)

effective tower ll volume (m3)

voltage (V)

Greek symbol

effectiveness

u

humidity ratio

Subscripts

a

air

DB

dry bulb

DCT

dry cooling tower

fan

fw

max

pump

sw

W

WB

WCT

T

1

2

3

4

91

fan

saturated water

maximum

pump

saturated air at water temperature

water

wet bulb

wet cooling tower

total or hybrid cooling tower

inlet dry section

outlet dry section or inlet wet section

outlet wet section

outlet mixing section

Appendix A

Uncertainty analysis of hybrid cooling tower COP

The main parameter of interest in hybrid cooling tower is coefcient of performance (COP). The coefcient of performance is

calculated by the following equation.

COP

QDCT QWCT QT

Pfan Ppump

PT

dCOP

COP

"

dQT

QT

2

dPT

PT

2 #1=2

QT QDCT QWCT

Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;DCT2 Lcpw TW;WCT1 TW;WCT2

Let T W,DCT2 T W,WCT1

QT Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;WCT2

QT Lcpw R

The uncertainty in QT becomes:

dQT

QT

"

2 #1=2

dL 2

dR

L

R

From test data:

Total cooling range (R) 15.9 C

Voltage of fan (Voltfan) 333.1 V

Current of fan (Ifan) 0.52 A

Voltage of pump (Voltpump) 158.3 V

Current of pump (Ipump) 0.19 A

Total power (PT) 0.34 kW

Coefcient of performance (COP) 545.734

From Table 1, the manufacturer's accuracy is used to estimate

the uncertainty L as:

dL

0:020

L

Total cooling range (R) is dened as

92

R TW;DCT1 TW;WCT2

The uncertainty in R becomes:

dR

"

#1=2

dTW;DCT1 2

dTW;WCT2 2

R

R

Therefore:

h

2

2 i1=2

dR dTW;DCT1 dTW;WCT2

2

!2

!2 3

dPT 2

1 4 dPfan

dPfan

2

dI

dVoltfan 5

PT

dIfan fan

dVoltfan

Pfan

"

2

dPpump

1

2

dIpump

dIpump

Ppump

2 #

dPpump

dVoltpump

dVoltpump

2

!2

dPT 2 4 dIfan

PT

Ifan

82

!2

dPT <4 dIfan

:

PT

Ifan

dR

h

dTW;DCT1

2

dVoltfan

Voltfan

dVoltpump

Voltpump

dVoltfan

Voltfan

#

2

9

!2 3 "

2

2 #=1=2

dI

dVolt

pump

pump

5

;

Ipump

Voltpump

2 i1=2

dTW;DCT1

h

2 i1=2

dR 2 dTW;DCT1

i h

io1=2

dPT nh

0:0202 0:0202 0:0202 0:0202

PT

"

2 #1=2

1

0:3

dR 2

2

dPT

0:040

PT

dR 0:212C

i1=2

dCOP h

0:0242 0:0402

COP

The uncertainty of QT is

"

#1=2

dQT

0:212 2

2

0:020

15:9

QT

dQT

0:024

QT

Total power (PT) is dened as

PT Pfan Ppump

When

Pfan

p

3Ifan Voltfan

and

Then

PT

!2 3 "

dIpump 2

5

Ipump

p

3Ifan Voltfan Ipump Voltpump

Voltpump are independent, the following expression for the uncertainty in PT is developed:

dCOP

0:046

COP

COP 545:73425:104

References

[1] J.P. Jensen, B. Conrad, U. Schuetz, F.R. Ullrich, A. Wanning, Hybrid dry coolers

in cooling systems of high energy physics accelerators, in: Proceedings of

EPAC, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2004.

[2] S.K. Tyagi, A.K. Pandey, P.C. Pant, V.V. Tyagi, Formation, potential and abatement of plume from wet cooling towers: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy

Rev. 16 (2012) 3409e3429.

[3] P. Lindahl, K. Mortensen, Plume abatement e the next generation, CTI J. 31

(2010).

[4] E. Al-Bassam, G.P. Maheshwari, A new scheme for cooling tower water conservation in arid-zone countries, Energy 36 (2011) 3985e3991.

[5] M. Lucas, P.J. Martnez, A. Viedma, Comparative experimental drift study between a dry and adiabatic uid cooler and a cooling tower, Int. J. Refrig. 31

(2008) 1169e1175.

[6] T. Michioka, A. Sato, T. Kanzaki, K. Sada, Wind tunnel experiment for predicting a visible plume region from a wet cooling tower, J. Wind Eng. Ind.

Aerodyn. 95 (2007) 741e754.

[7] T. Pistochini, M. Modera, Water-use efciency for alternative cooling technologies in arid climates, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 631e638.

[8] E. Rezaei, S. Shaei, A. Abdollahnezhad, Reducing water consumption of an

industrial plant cooling unit using hybrid cooling tower, Energy Convers.

Manag. 51 (2010) 311e319.

[9] G.J. Kosten, Wet, dry and hybrid system, a comparison of thermal performance, in: Electric Power Research Institute Cooling Towers and Advanced

Cooling Systems Conference, St Petersburg, Florida, August/September,

1994.

[10] M. Kuansathan, Performance Evaluation of Hybrid (Wet/Dry) Cooling Tower

in Thailand (Master Thesis of Mechanical Engineering), King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand, 2014 (in Thai).

[11] Cooling Technology Institute, Acceptance Test Code for Water-cooling Towers

ATC-105, Cooling Technology Institute, Houston, TX, 2000.

[12] S.A. Leeper, Wet Cooling Towers: Rule of Thumb Design and Simulation, U.S.

Department of Energy, July, 1981.

[13] W. Asvapoositkul, S. Treeutok, A simplied method on thermal performance

capacity evaluation of counter ow cooling tower, Appl. Therm. Eng. 38

(2012) 160e167.

93

[14] A. Streng, Combined wet/dry cooling towers of cell type construction, Energy

Eng. 124 (1998) 104e121.

[15] F.P. Incropera, D.P. Dewitt, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, Fundamentals of Heat

and Mass Transfer, sixth ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

[16] M. Choi, L.R. Glicksman, Computer Optimization of Dry and Wet/Dry Cooling

Tower System for Large Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Energy Laboratory, 1979.

[17] American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineerings,

ASHARE Handbook of Fundamentals, Atlanta, 2013.

- Sara Vel Cooling TowerUploaded byNeeraj Verma
- Mechanical Engineering Handbook - Air-Conditioning and RefrigerationUploaded byCabra Volklingen
- LH(299)Uploaded byreacharunk
- As NZS 1677.2-1998 Refrigerating Systems Safety Requirements for Fixed ApplicationsUploaded bySAI Global - APAC
- A Simple Technique for Refrigerant Mass MeasurementUploaded byDaniel Weeks
- Impact of High Density Hot Aisles on IT Personnel Work ConditionsUploaded by(unknown)
- What Ton AC Unit Should You GetUploaded byamar3612
- Chilled Water TreatmentUploaded byacmvorg
- Panwater PCF Series Cooling Tower.pdfUploaded bykingathur26681
- Denzo.pdfUploaded bySungguh Setianto
- Chapter 3Uploaded byctazian
- R06_30SIUploaded byBryan Vertuodaso
- 4s 328 Compresor FailuresUploaded byzebidians
- EconomicsUploaded byYolanda Marcela Enriquez Mendez
- INSTRUMENT LIST FOR WTP-REV.04-AFC.pdfUploaded byAliArababadi
- Bioruptor_Water_Cooler_manual.pdfUploaded byViswan Fdo
- Air-Conditioning - Final 2Uploaded byGhemeda
- Price ListUploaded byMonika Kartikar
- week 1Uploaded bySanty San
- Catalogo Multi SplitsUploaded byDarwin Rojas
- Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Cooling Tower Pump Intake Design Related to Hydraulic PerformanceUploaded bymacrespo
- RAU318HTDG-1.5 TonUploaded bymukeshcet
- Chapter_8Uploaded byskywalker_handsome
- Air ConditionerUploaded byNikki Amurao
- Water Cooler Cum Air ConditionerUploaded byPushpa Mohan Raj
- 11. Air Conditioning <a href=http://www.getaheadofthegames.com/best-celebrity-games >http://www.getaheadofthegames.com/best-celebrity-games</a>Uploaded byNishant Garg
- 70a2d0d08a8af01eccc902429353fc186e6aUploaded byade christy
- AC SampleUploaded byJillian Jominin
- LG Ceiling-Floor 19Uploaded byFalak Khan
- Mitshubishi PACUploaded byRizal Abdul Hamid

- Thermodynamics 2_chapter 6 - CopyUploaded byAmir Salleh
- Part 4Uploaded byMartha Argerich
- Psychrometric Chart ReadingUploaded byEzakiman Otanim
- Guidelines for the Measurement of AirUploaded byClifford Allen Cooper
- 06.psychrometry.pdfUploaded byrubyshaji96
- Precooled Ahu CalculationUploaded byEdmund Yoong
- All Cooling Load RulesUploaded byEngFaisal Alrai
- heatcraft-chart-unlocked.pdfUploaded byJoseph David
- 4 Psychrometrics Level1 Introduction (TDP 201A)Uploaded byBashir Soliman
- Psychrometry chartUploaded byOmar
- Hvac p.g.diplomaUploaded bySuthan Selvaraj
- ME5631 Advanced Refrigeration and Air ConditioningUploaded byKumaran Palani
- Climatology- Thermal Comfort and Phschycometric ChartUploaded bysushmak
- PSYCHROMETRIC_Basics of drying.pdfUploaded bywindie annisa
- handout 001Uploaded byapi-275399837
- Tutorial 1 Q6 PORUploaded byrui ann
- Jntuk 2-1 and 2-2 MECH Syllabus R10Uploaded bySrisatya Sandeep
- CHAPTER 8Uploaded bychandro57
- MEE3223 Review 2Uploaded byLim Wc
- Psych Rome TryUploaded bypalanihunt
- Discussion AirCond JuweUploaded byBroAmir
- energy problemsUploaded byprpunkskater
- R Building EnvelopeUploaded byZuhair Mased
- Simultaneous Heat and Mass Transfer Characteristics for Wavy Fin-And-tube Heat Exchangers Under Dehumidifying ConditionsUploaded byEKKACHAI PRABNAKORN
- F05_06SI PSYCHROMETRIC.pdfUploaded byFadilla Indrayuni
- Refrigeration & Air Conditioning - Stoecker & JonesUploaded by중중송
- 09_03_fa_ferguson_raish_ml.pdfUploaded byDeassy Siska
- Control - Control of Ventilation and Air Conditioning - SiemensUploaded byntt_121987
- Measurement of HumidityUploaded byzambila
- Grain Drying in Asia Part 4 86776Uploaded byAmp Aunyamone