Abstract .....................

1.0 Introduction....................... 2

2.0 Objectives...... 2

3.0 Theory................... 2-3

4.0 Diagram and Description of Apparatus ...... 4

5.0 Experimental Procedures ......................... 4-5

6.0 Results................................... 6

7.0 Sample calculations............... 7

8.0 Sample of calculations of errors............ 8

9.0 Discussions................ 8-10

10.0 Conclusions........... 10

11.0 Recommendations................................. 10

12.0 References......... 11

13.0 Appendices........ 11-17

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.0 OBJECTIVES

3.0 THEORY

DIAGRAM AND DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

2
6.0 RESULTS

EXPERIMENT A: DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE OF COOLING TOWER

Table 6.1 Air and Water Temperature and Differential Pressure at Varying Heater Power

Column C

Water flow rate : 1 LPM

Blower : Fully opened

Heater (kW) 0.5 1.0 1.5

Air inlet dry bulb, T1 (C) 27.3 27.7 28.2
Air inlet wet bulb, T2 (C) 27.5 27.3 27.4
Air outlet dry bulb, T3 (C) 24.3 25.5 25.6
Air outlet wet bulb, T4 (C) 25.3 26.2 26.2
Water inlet temperature, T5(C) 32.8 38.2 40.1
Water outlet temperature, T6(C) 24.0 24.0 24.1
Heater power (W) 427 814 1209
Dp orifice 76 76 74
Dp column 62 60 57

EXPERIMENT B: DETERMINATION OF EFFICIENCY OF COOLING TOWER

Table 6.1 Air and Water Temperature and Differential Pressure at Varying Water Flowrate

Column C

Heater : 1.0 kW

Blower : Fully opened

Water flow rate (LPM) 1.0 2.0

Air inlet dry bulb, T1 (C) 27.7 28.0
Air inlet wet bulb, T2 (C) 27.3 27.1
Air outlet dry bulb, T3 (C) 25.5 25.8
Air outlet wet bulb, T4 (C) 26.2 27.6
Water inlet temperature, T5(C) 38.2 33.2
Water outlet temperature, T6(C) 24.0 25.2
Heater power (W) 814 830
Dp orifice 76 73
Dp column 60 64

3
7.0 SAMPLE OF CALCULATIONS

EXPERIMENT A: DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE OF COOLING TOWER

Water flow rate constant = 1.0 LPM

Variable changes = heater in kW

T (cooling range)

= Change in water temperature for each power supply

= water inlet temperature,T5 water outlet temperature, T6

At power = 0.5 kW

T T5 - T6

= 32.8 - 24.0

= 8.8

At power = 1.0 kW

T T5 - T6

= 38.2 - 24.0

= 14.2

At power = 1.5 kW

T T5 - T6

= 40.1 - 24.1

= 16.0

4
EXPERIMENT B: DETERMINATION OF EFFICIENCY OF COOLING TOWER

At water flow rate 1.0 LPM = 0.0167 kg/s

L kg min
1.0 x1 x1
min L 60s
kg
0.0167
s

T (cooling range) for 1.0 LPM :

= water inlet temperature,T5 - water outlet temperature, T6

= 38.2 - 24.0

= 14.2 C

Heat load, Q = mCpT

= 0.0167 kg/s x 4.186 kJ/kg.C x 14.2C

= 0.9927 kW

At water flow rate 2.0 LPM = 0.033 kg/s

T (cooling range) for 1.0 LPM :

= water inlet temperature,T5 - water outlet temperature, T6

= 33.2 - 25.2

= 8C

Heat load, Q = mCpT

= 0.033 kg/s x 4.186 kJ/kg.C x 8C

= 1.1051kW

5
Water flowrate (LPM) Heat load, Q (kW) Cooling range,C

1.0 0.9927 14.2

2.0 1.1051 8.0

8.0 SAMPLE OF CALCULATIONS OF ERRORS

In this experiment, the percentage error was calculated between experimental pressure drop and
pressure drop obtained from generalized correlation chart (theoretical data). All values of percentage
error is calculated by using Equation 8.1 as below and were recorded in Table A2.B at last column.

|Experimental valueTheoretical value|

Percentage error= 100 (Equation 8.1)
|Theoretical value|

9.0 DISCUSSIONS

This experiment was conducted with two different objectives. The first objective of this experiment
was to determine the air pressure drop across the column as a function of airflow for different water
flow rate through the column. Water flows in from top while air flows in from bottom of the column.
The difference in pressure between top and bottom of the column is called pressure drop.

In this experiment, the water flowrate was first kept constant at 1L/min while the air flowrate
were manipulated from 20 L/min to 180L/min by interval of 20 L/min for each increment. Then, the
experiment were repeated by changing water flowrate to 2 L/min and 3 L/min. All value of pressure
drop were read from dPI-201 and recorded. Note that the unit of pressure drop read from dPI-201 is in
kPa. Thus, conversion of unit is done to give unit of mmH2O as recorded in Table 6.1. The graph of
pressure drop against air flowrate was then constructed as shown in Figure 6.1. By referring to Figure
6.1, it can be found that as air flowrate increase, the pressure drop also increase. This happen because
when air flowrate is high, the air will push the water upward. Thus, increased in gaseous per unit
height of column as compared to water flow will result in the increment of pressure drop. Other than
that, by referring to Figure 6.1, it can also be found that increasing water flowrate also increase the

6
pressure drop. Despite these agreement, discrepancy still happen in which at air flowrate of 40 L/min
and 60L/min, pressure drop of 3L/min water flowrate is higher than 2L/min water flowrate. By
referring to theory, supposedly the higher the water flowrate, the higher the pressure drop inside the
column. However, some source of errors that leads to these discrepancy will be discussed later for
clarification. In spite of that, same trend is found to be happen when plotting log-log graph as shown
in Figure 6.2.

Second objective of this experiment was to determine the loading and flooding points in the
column. As mentioned in theory, loading point happens when gas start to hinder the liquid down flow,
and local accumulations or pools of liquid start to appear in the packing. The accumulation and pools
of liquid can be seen in Figure A.1C in Appendix A.1. In conducting experiment, loading point was
noticed 20 L/min airflowrate before flooding point for each different water flowrate, that is for
1L/min, 2L/min and 3L/min water flowrate, loading point happened at 180L/min, 140 L/min and 100
L/min air flowrate, respectively. Consequently, loading point can be considered as an undesirable
condition that needs to be avoided as it prevents absorption from taking place as a results of hindering.

Afterward, further increased in air flowrate will create flooding point. As mentioned in theory,
beyond the loading point, the pressure drop rises rapidly with gas flow and the liquid hold up in the
column also rises. The pressure drop rises significantly and the liquid may splash back from the
column at this flooding point. This situation were recorded in Figure A.1D in Appendix A.1. In this
experiment, at 1L/min water flowrate, even though the value of pressure drop could be read by dPI201
indicator, flooding was already happened during conducting the experiment. Consequently, the water
that splash due to flooding enters the pressure indicator. As a result, dPI pressure indicator cannot read
the pressure drop when proceeding to repeat the experiment to 2L/min water flowrate. To solve this,
water that enters the indicator tube need to be removed. From what happened, it can be said without
any doubt that flooding point is an undesirable condition that needs to be prevented as it may damage
the equipment. Apart from that, at 2L/min and 3L/min water flowrate, flooding happened at 160L/min
and 120L/min air flowrate, respectively.

Apart from measuring pressure drop from dPI-201 indicator during conducting this
experiment, the pressure drop can also be calculated theoretically from generalized correlation of chart
of Figure A.2. This theoretical value were recorded in Table A.2B. By referring to Table A.2B, it can

7
be found that the trend of increment in pressure drop as air and water flowrate increase is tally with
experimental trend. However, flooding point for theoretical data is found to be occurred at lower air
flowrate as compared to experimental approach, which is for 1L/min, 2L/min and 3L/min water
flowrate, flooding point occurred at 160 L/min, 100L/min and 60L/min, respectively. Difference
between these theoretical and experimental data were calculated and recorded in Table A.2B to
illustrate percentage error. As can be seen in Table A.2B, error is beyond 98% for almost all different
flowrate. This can be concluded that the generalized correlation does not fit the experimental data very
well. Otherwise, this might also happened due to some errors.

There are some sources of error that can be pointed out to explain discrepancies occurred
during conducting this experiment. First, major source of error happened when there is water
contained inside the dPI-201 pressure indicator tube. As mentioned before, the water may enter the
tube when flooding occurs. In fact, small quantity of water contained in the tube may affect the
reading thus affecting results. Furthermore, errors might also happened when the equipment is not
been calibrated periodically. As a result, pressure shown by indicator might be different from actual
pressure drop inside the column. Parallax error might also happened when setting flowrate to desired
value. Finally, error might also happen when water level inside absorption column, K1 is not
maintained at line as shown in Figure A.1A in Appendix A.1. This is because when water level is too
low, the air will flows down the column K1 instead of flowing upward.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

All the objective of the experiment which is to determine pressure drop across the column for different
water flow rate and loading point in the column was achieved. The flooding point was determined
where at 1L/min, 2L/min and 3L/min water flowrate, flooding happened at 180L/min, 160L/min and
120L/min. The loading point is found for each water flowrate was found to be 20L/min air flowrate
before flooding point occurred. This experiment is very important in order to know the limit the
column which can cause flooding. From this experiment, a conclusion can be made where when air
flow rate and water flow rate increases, the air pressure drop across column also increases. In addition,
it can be concluded that generalized correlation does not fit the experimental data. Some sources of
error were listed to explain some discrepancies.

8
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

First, the person that control valve at the bottom of the column should stabilize the level of the water
so that the water level not too lower or passes the nozzle. Next, take more time in order to ensure the
equipment stabilize after the changes in flow rate is made. Furthermore, make sure the eyes must be
perpendicular to the scale during setting the flow rate to the desired value. Finally, make sure that
during flooding the water level is not pass green line so that the water does not burst out at the top of
the tower.

12.0 REFERENCES

[1] Geankoplis, C. J. (2014). Transport Processes and Separation Process Principle. Fourth
edition. England: Pearson

[2] Warren L. M., Julian C. S. and Peter H. (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical
Engineering (7th ed., pp. 565-568). USA: McGrawHill

[3] Earlie, R. L. (1983). Unit Operation in Food Processing. UK: Pergamon Press

[4] Varvakas, T & Tzia, C. (1983). Food Engineering Handbook: Food Engineering
Fundamentals. USA: CRC Press

[5] MT304 (n.d.). Gas-Liquid Absorption [Lab Manual]. Retrieved from

http://www.che.iitb.ac.in/courses/uglab/cl333n335/mt304-absorption.pdf

13.0 APPENDICES

9
APPENDIX A.3 RAW DATA SHEET

10