See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285591661

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF A CROSS

FLOW COOLING TOWER – A SIMPLIFIED
APPROACH

Conference Paper · October 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 320

4 authors, including:

Kiran Naik Bukke

Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati
16 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cross and counter flow cooling tower View project

Solar driven liquid desiccant air conditioning system View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kiran Naik Bukke on 04 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF A CROSS FLOW COOLING TOWER – A

SIMPLIFIED APPROACH

B. Kiran Naik1, V.K. Choudhary1, P. Muthukumar1*, C. Somayaji1

1
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati,
Guwahati-781039, India
*
Tel: (+91) 361-2582673, E-mail: pmkumar@iitg.ernet.in

ABSTRACT: Cooling tower is one of the key components of a large-scale water cooled condenser
based air-conditioning system, whose efficiency influences the COP of the system. This paper describes
a relatively simple model for the preliminary design of the humidification process occurring in a cross
flow cooling tower. An expression is derived using the effectiveness of a heat exchanger (condenser),
the condenser refrigerant temperature, the cooling tower water and air inlet temperatures and the thermal
effectiveness of a cooling tower for predicting the evaporation rate of water. The model predictions are
compared with the experimental data and a good agreement is observed between them. The simplified
analytical model developed in this study can be used as a tool for predicting the cooling tower
performance characteristics. The influences of refrigerant temperature and the heat exchanger
effectiveness on the performance of the cooling tower are studied in accordance with the humid
subtropical conditions and the results are presented in this paper.

Keywords: Cooling tower, Humidification, Cross flow, Evaporation rate, Performance analysis

INTRODUCTION into the condenser (Fig. 2), where the water is

Cooling tower is a key element of a water
cooled condenser based air-conditioning plant
for removing the heat from the warm water
which comes out from the condenser. Although
many methods are available for heat rejection
process, cooling towers are more attractive due
to their flexibility in handling the large heating
loads (> 100 TR). Also, they are relatively
inexpensive and reliable [1].
The schematic of a cross flow induced draft
cooling tower for air humidification
(evaporative cooling) process is shown in Fig.
1. Initially, the warm water sprayed in the
cooling tower comes in contact with the
ambient air flowing in cross flow direction. Due
to the partial pressure difference, evaporation of
water take place. During this process of
vaporization, latent heat is released in the air
and air gets humidified. As a result, water gets
cooled and depending on the water temperature,
either the air gets cooled or heated. The cold
water coming out of the cooling tower enters
heated up due to exchange of heat between the
refrigerant and the water. Then the warm (hot)
water pass into the cooling tower and the
process continues.
The complexity of heat and mass transfer
analysis on a cross flow cooling towers, has
been studied by several researchers since 1925.
The first mathematical model for heat and mass
transfer in wet cooling towers was proposed by
Merkel [2]. Using Merkel’s theory, analysis on
counter flow, cross flow and co-flow cooling
towers have been studied widely. Depending on
the usage and the performance, counter flow
towers got more attention when compared to
other types. Also, the analysis on cross flow
cooling towers is complicated compared to
parallel and counter flow types [3]. Snyder [4]
developed a cross flow cooling tower model by
applying the theory of heat exchanger design to
calculate the heat and mass transfer
charecteristics. He assumed the water
temperature and the enthalpy of saturated air as
linear.
4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015
Fig. 1. Schematic of cross flow induced draft cooling tower
Zivi and Brand [5] developed a model using
finite difference method. and solved
numerically assuming nonlinear relationship
between the enthalpy of the air and the water
temperature. Schechter and Kang [6] used the
model developed by Zivi and Brand and
concluded that the water temperature and the
enthalpy of saturated air were at equilibrium for
a limited range. Later, an integral solution was
proposed by Baker and Shryock [7] based on
Merkel’s theory. Poppe and Rogener [8]
developed an iterative method which is entirely
different from the Merkel’s model. They
utilized Bosanjakovic relation [9] to study the
water-air interface humidity ratio. Similarly,
Bourillot [10] and Baard [11] also developed the
models using a fourth order Rung-Kutta
approach for defining the specific humidity at
the outlet of the packed fill. Few years later,
Jaber and Webb [12] developed several
equations for applying ε-Ntu method directly to
a cross flow cooling tower. This effectiveness
model simplifies complicated calculations
which are encountered in Merkel and Poppe
method [2, 8] and reduces the computational
time. But, for the assessment of performance of
the cooling tower employed in a large scale
power plants, Poppe method is very popular
[13].
Kopplers and Kroger [9] compared the Merkel,
Poppe and ε-Ntu methods. They concluded that
to determine the water outlet temperature either
Merkel or ε-Ntu method can be used but when
heat transfer rates are important, then prediction
through Poppe approach is accurate. Khan and
Zubair [14-15] considered the effects of Lewis
number and heat transfer resistance at air-water
interface and developed a detailed model for the
counter flow wet cooling towers. They assumed
Lewis factor as 0.9 and correlated with the
Simpson and Sherwood [16] experimental
measurements. It has been noticed that the
majority of heat transfer is due to the latent heat
i.e. of about 60 %. Prasad [17] developed a
numerical model to estimate the packed fill
characteristics across a cross flow cooling
tower.
It is observed from the literature that many
researchers developed the mathematical models
based on finite difference models [2-11, 17] and
ε -NTU model [9, 12, 14-15] for predicting the
performance of a cooling tower. The models
which developed by finite difference method
are complex in nature and require numerous
data for calculation procedure whereas ε-NTU
model needs more assumptions and less
accurate.In this paper, a simple analytical
solution is proposed for estimation of water
evaporation rate using a dimensionless thermal
effectiveness of the cooling tower and heat
exchanger effectiveness of the condenser.
Furthermore, the method developed for bulk
4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015
heat and mass transfer processes, can be used
for predicting all the exit parameters of a
cooling tower with the known inlet parameters.
DIMENSIONLESS PERFORMANCE
PARAMETERS FOR AIR
HUMIDIFICATION PROCESS
The objective of the air humidification process
is to transfer the latent heat from the water to the
air stream where the specific humidity
(moisture) of the ambient air increases during
this process of vaporization. Many design
variables, such as the flow rates and the inlet
conditions of the air and the water, affect the
performance of the cooling tower (evaporation
process). The driving force for the heat transfer
between the water and the air is their
temperature difference whereas the driving
force for mass transfer is the difference in
partial pressure of the water and the water
vapour present in the ambient air. These driving
forces depend upon the changes in the local
temperature and changes in the liquid-vapour
interface equilibrium condition.
Partial pressure of the water vapour present in
the ambient air is an important property since it
influences the mass transfer rate. It is to be
noted that to determine the humidity ratio at the
air-water interface using the finite difference
model needs the assumption of Lewis factor or
Merkel number [2-5]. In fact, for defining the
humidity ratio at the interface, Merkel method
assumes Lewis number as 1.0 [13]. Khan and
Zubair [14-15] estimated Lewis number as 0.9
and some of the researchers determined the
Lewis factor in terms of humidity ratio at the
interface using Bosnjakovic relation [8] and
analyzed the performance parameters. In the
present study, the humidity ratio at the air-water
interface is defined in terms of evaporation loss
and specific humidity of the air at the inlet.
In the present study, two non-dimensionless
parameters are defined. Since, the hot water is
supplied for the heat rejection (removal)
process, the inlet water temperature is always
higher than the ambient air temperature. Hence,
in addition to evaporation process, heat also
rejected from the water to the ambient air due to
difference in temperature. Therefore, two
characteristic parameters relating to heat and
mass transfer as dimensionless ratios, one for
the temperature difference and the other for
pressure difference are to be specified. A
dimensionless humidification effectiveness for
the evaporation process is defined in terms of
the moisture content as
o  i
H  (1)
o,max  i
As the specific humidity ratio at the air –water
equilibrium interface set the theoretical limit on
the maximum humidity ratio that air can reach
and this can be written as
o,max  int (2)
Eq. (1) can be rewritten as
 o  i
H  (3)
int  i
The vapour pressure of the hot water at the inlet
of the cooling tower is higher than that of the
cold water at the outlet. As long as the partial
pressure of water is greater than the water
vapour pressure present in the air, mass transfer
takes place. Hence, the water inlet conditions
set a theoretical limit on the maximum partial
pressure that air can achieve and this can be
written as
po ,maxp w ,i
(4)
Eq. (1) can be rewritten in terms of the vapour
pressure ratio as
pa ,o  pa ,i
H  (5)
pw,i  pa ,i
As expected, the value of pa,o is less than pw,i and
the value of ξH is always positive and less than
1.
The temperature difference ratio (thermal
effectiveness) can be defined in accordance
with the dimensionless vapour pressure
difference ratio as given by Eq. (5), to obtain a
simple relationship. Accordingly, this can be
defined as
Ta ,o  Ta ,i
T  (6)
Tw,i  Ta ,i
The air outlet temperature is lower than the
water inlet temperature and higher than that of
the air inlet temperature due to the contact of the
ambient air stream with the pure water (Table
1). Hence ξT is always positive and less than 1.
In this paper, an expression is derived to predict
the evaporation loss for a cross flow mechanical
4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015

draft cooling tower operating at ambient Ta,o  T Tw,i  Ta,i (1  T ) (10)

conditions.
MATHEMATICAL MODELLING In order to obtain the water temperature at the
outlet of the cooling tower in terms of known
The following assumptions are made in order to water temperature at the inlet, the effectiveness
simplify the analysis of the heat exchanger is defined as
 Operation is steady Tw,i  Tw,o
 Specific heats of fluids is constant and does  HE  (11)
not vary with temperature Tr  Tw,i
 Latent heat of evaporation is constant with
respect to the temperature of the water The water outlet temperature in terms of the
encountered in the system inlet temperature is obtained as
 Heat loss to the surroundings is neglected Tw,i   HETr
while the pure water flowing in between the Tw,o  (12)
outlet and inlet of the cooling tower and the (1   HE )
condenser (heat exchanger)
By substituting the values for Ta,o and Tw,o from
The overall energy balance for the cooling Eqs, (9), (10) and (12), respectively, in Eq. (8),
tower can be written as the amount of mass evaporated from the water
to the ambient air is given by
mwhw,i  ma ha,i  mwhw,o  ma ha,o (7)
Cw HE (Tr  Tw,i ) 
Eq. 7 can be written as   1   (13)
  CaT (Tw,i  Ta ,i ) 
ma (c pa  c pv )(Ta ,o  Ta ,i ) 
(8)
where Cw  mw c pw and Ca  ma (c pa  c pv )
 ma (o  i )  mwc pw (Tw,i  Tw,o )
By equating Eq. 13 and Eq. 9, the humidity ratio
The rate of water vapour evaporated from the of air at the outlet is obtained as
water to the ambient air inside the cooling
tower, is referred as evaporation loss (λ) and is o     m   i (14)
given by  a

  ma (o  i ) (9)
where   Cw HE (Tr  Tw,i )  CaT (Tw,i  Ta,i ).
The air temperature at the outlet of the cooling
tower is given by

Fig. 2. Energy and mass balance of a water cooled condenser

4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015

From Eq.3 and Eq.14, the humidity ratio at the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
air-water equilibrium interface is obtained as
In order to use Eq. 13 developed for predicting
the mass flow rate of water evaporated from the
int    m    i (15) water to the scavenging air during
 a H humidification process, a proper validation is
needed. A comparison is made between the
The heat load provided by the condenser to the predicted values obtained from Eq. 13 and
cooling tower in terms of cooling tower water experimentally measured evaporation loss for
inlet and outlet temperature is given by the same operating conditions. A comparison
between the typical experimental results for
q  Cw (Tw,i  Tw,o ) (16)
elven cases and the results obtained from the
current study, is given in Table 3. The
Substituting Eq. 12 in Eq. 16, the heat load in experimental results are used for calculating the
terms of known water inlet and condenser dimensionless temperature difference ratio (ξT)
temperature and effectiveness of heat exchanger and the heat exchanger effectiveness (ɛHE). The
is formulated as latent heat of condensation value is assumed to
Cw HE (Tr  Tw,i ) be constant at 2501 kJ/kg. It may be noted that
q (17) ξT varies between 0.25-0.53 depending upon the
(1   HE ) weather conditions whereas heat exchanger
effectiveness varies between 0.59-0.73.
TOWER SPECIFICATIONS AND With reference to the results presented in Table
REQUIRED MESURING INSTRUMENTS 3, there is a good agreement between the
DATA experimental data and the theoretical values
predicted from the developed mathematical
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the cross flow
model for the water and air outlet temperatures,
induced draft cooling tower. The fills are pack
the mass of water evaporated (evaporation loss)
type with rectangular cross section. The pack and the outlet specific humidity. In all the cases,
material is made up of PVC material. The
predicted values for the evaporation loss are
design conditions of the tower are listed in Table slightly higher (or) lower than the experimental
1.
values. The discrepancy is due to the
Table 1. Design conditions of the cooling assumptions made in the analysis. However,
tower there is an excellent agreement between the
outlet conditions of the operating parameters
Mass flow rate of water (kg/s) 149 predicted by the model and the experimental
Mass flow rate of air (kg/s) 34.0 results. The present model yields the air outlet
Ambient relative humidity (%) 62-87
temperature slightly less than the experimental
Chiller capacity (TR) 600
values and the difference is less than 6 %,
Cooling tower capacity (TR) 840 (HRR =1.4)
Fan diameter (m) 1.9 whereas for the water outlet temperatures match
Cell dimensions within ±1.8 % is predicted. Based on this
Length (m) 2.71 preliminary comparison, it is believed that the
Height (m) 3.96 simplified model derived herein yields a good
Width (m) 5.71 predictions and added confidence that this
model can be used to make the quick
Table 2 lists the different instruments and their performance estimation of all the operating
operating ranges employed in the experimental parameters (outlet parameters and evaporation
studies. loss) for a cross flow cooling tower.
Table 2. Specification of measuring instruments / sensors
Measuring equipment Quantity Range Accuracy
Rotating anemometer Air velocity (m/s) 0.25 to 30 ±1%
Sling Psychrometer Ambient temperature (C) 0 to 50 ± 0.1 C
Ultrasonic flow meter Velocity (m/s) 0 to 12 ± 0.5 %
T-type thermocouple Refrigerant temperature (C) -50 to 200 ± 0.5 C
 4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015

Table 3. Comparison of experimental data with the predicted model

Experimental Predicted % difference
Inlet Outlet Outlet
Ta,i ωa,i Tw,i Tr ξT ɛHE Ta,o ωa,o Tw,o λ Ta,o Tw,o λ Ta,o Tw,o λ
27.0 17.0 34.1 37.8 0.53 0.59 31.5 27.5 29.4 0.356 33.2 29.1 0.372 -5.40 1.02 -4.49
29.0 21.0 37.0 38.7 0.25 0.65 31 27.3 33.8 0.214 32.5 33.4 0.199 -4.84 1.18 7.01
29.5 21.8 38.5 40.4 0.26 0.66 31.9 28.7 34.7 0.234 33.6 35 0.224 -5.33 -0.87 4.27
30.5 23.4 34.5 35.6 0.25 0.65 31.5 27.8 32.5 0.149 32.3 32.7 0.134 -2.54 -0.62 10.07
31.0 20.8 37.5 39.2 0.31 0.71 33.0 27.6 33.4 0.230 34.4 32.9 0.224 -4.24 1.50 2.61
32.0 21.4 37.0 38.7 0.50 0.70 34.5 27.5 33.1 0.208 35.8 32.8 0.201 -3.77 0.91 3.37
33.0 21.1 36.0 37.7 0.50 0.70 34.5 27.9 31.8 0.232 35.3 32.1 0.239 -2.32 -0.94 -3.02
33.0 23.1 38.0 39.5 0.30 0.71 34.5 28.8 34.3 0.196 35.6 33.9 0.206 -3.19 1.17 -5.10
34.0 20.9 37.0 38.7 0.33 0.73 35.0 28.4 32.3 0.254 35.7 32.6 0.271 -2.00 -0.93 -6.69
34.5 26.9 38.5 40.0 0.38 0.68 36.0 33.0 35.4 0.207 36.9 35.1 0.195 -2.50 0.85 5.80
36.0 23.0 39.0 40.7 0.50 0.70 37.5 30.4 35.3 0.250 38.3 34.9 0.239 -2.13 1.13 4.4

Many researchers [3-6, 7-10, 12-16] studied the loss. This is due to the fact that, by the definition
effects of the various operating parameters such of heat exchange effectiveness when the latent
as inlet air humidity ratio, inlet air temperature, load of the refrigerant at the condenser increases
inlet water temperature, heat load and specific then the water sensible load at the cooling tower
humidity at the equilibrium interface on the decreases. This implies that the water has longer
performance of the cooling tower in detail by period of contact with scavenging air for the
implementing many mathematical models. given operating conditions and hence the
Hence, in this paper, the effects of the evaporation loss increases. The water flow rate
refrigerant temperature, the thermal causes significant variation in the evaporation
effectiveness of the cooling tower and the heat loss at higher refrigerant temperature and the
exchanger effectiveness of the condenser on effect is insignificant at lower refrigerant
evaporation loss (employing Eq. 13) are temperature. However, it may be noted that
investigated by varying water flow rate. The higher water flow rate is undesirable because
parameters that have been kept constant during flooding condition may occur and it should be
this analysis are listed in Table 4. avoided for smooth operation of cooling tower
(heat rejection process). The influence of the
Table 4. Cooling tower parameters kept
condenser effectiveness (heat exchanger
constant during the analysis
effectiveness) on the evaporation loss is
Circulating fluid Water illustrated in Fig.4.
Inlet air temperature 32 C
Inlet humidity ratio 22.07 gv/kgda
Air flow rate 34 kg/s
Water inlet temperature 37 C
Inlet condenser temperature 39 C
Heat exchanger effectiveness 0.7
Temperature difference ratio 0.6
Fig.3 illustrates the variation of predicted water
evaporation rates for different water flow rates
and the refrigerant temperatures. To investigate
this effect, the refrigerant temperature at the
condenser is varied from 38 C to 41 C which
can be obtained due to the variation of
compressor load or amount of heat added at the
evaporator. The water evaporation loss
Fig. 3. Influence of refrigerant temperature on
increases linearly as a function of refrigerant
evaporation loss
temperature. For a particular water flow rate, as
the refrigerant temperature decreases, the For a given operating condition, as the heat
evaporative loss also decreases. The higher the exchanger effectiveness increases, the rate of
refrigerant temperature yields more evaporation evaporation of water increases. This is due to
4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015

the fact that as the condenser effectiveness CONCLUSIONS

increases, the water temperature at the outlet of
An analytical investigation of air humidification
the cooling tower decreases and hence there is
with water is carried out by varying heat
an increase in water evaporation rate. For a
exchanger effectiveness and temperature
given ɛHE of 0.75, increasing the water flow rate
difference ratio. The performance of the cooling
from 140 kg/s to 170 kg/s, increases the
tower predicted with a simplified model
evaporation loss by 29 %.
described in this study shows very good
agreement with experimental data. It is found
that the higher the refrigerant temperature and
the higher heat exchanger effectiveness increase
the evaporation loss. The effect of varying the
water flow rate on the water evaporation rate is
more pronounced at high refrigerant
temperatures of above 41°C. For the
preliminary design of cooling tower and for
quick prediction of outlet parameters, the
expressions derived in this paper provide a basic
and useful guideline.
NOMENCLATURE
cp specific heat at constant pressure
Fig. 4. Influence of heat exchanger (kJ/kgK)
effectiveness on evaporation loss ṁ mass flow rate (kg/s)
T temperature (°C)
Fig.5 describes the evaporation loss for h enthalpy (kJ/kg)
different flow rates of the water and temperature q heat load (kW)
difference ratio (thermal effectiveness). HRR heat rejection ratio
Accordingly, the thermal effectiveness is varied
from 0.55 to 0.65 to investigate this effect. For Greek letters
a particular water flow rate, as the thermal δ latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
effectiveness decreases, the evaporation loss ω air specific humidity ratio (kgv /kgda)
increases, due to decrease in the water outlet ξ difference ratio
temperature of the cooling tower. For a given ξT ɛ effectiveness
of 0.65, the evaporation loss is found to increase λ evaporation rate (kg/s)
by about 29 % when the water flow rate is
increased from 140 kg/s to 170 kg/s. Subscripts
a air
v water vapour
r refrigerant
i inlet
o outlet
w water
T thermal
HE heat exchanger
H humidity
int interface

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their sincere gratitude to
the Engineering section, IIT Guwahati, Sterling
and Wilson Company private Limited, Kolkata
Branch for providing the necessary technical
Fig. 5. Influence of thermal effectiveness on support during the experiment.
evaporation loss
 4th National Conference on Refrigeration and Air Conditioning (NCRAC-2015)
Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Chennai, 28th to 30th October 2015

REFERENCES Thermal Engineering, Vol.64, pp. 273-

282.
[1] HVAC Systems and Equipment’s,
[14] Khan J.R. and Zubair S.M., (2002),
(2012), ASHRAE Handbook, Chap.40.
Performance characteristics of counter
[2] Merkel F., (1925), Evaporative cooling,
flow wet cooling towers, Energy
Z. Verein Deutsch Ingen (VDI) Vol. 70,
Conversion and Management Vol. 44, pp.
pp. 123–128.
2073–2091.
[3] Hajidavalloo E., Shakeri R. and
[15] Khan J.R and Zubair S.M (2001), An
Mehrabian M. A., (2010), Thermal
improved design and rating analyses of
performance of cross flow cooling
counter flow wet cooling towers, Journal
towers in variable wet bulb temperature,
of Heat Transfer Transaction, ASME Vol.
Energy Conversion and Management
123, pp. 770–8.
Vol. 51, pp. 1298-1303.
[16] Simpson W.M., and Sherwood T.K.,
[4] Snyder N.W., (1956), CEP Sympos Ser
(1946), Performance of small mechanical
pp. 61–79.
draft cooling towers, Refrigeration
[5] Zivi S.M. and Brand B.B., (1956), An
Engineering, Vol. 52 (6) pp. 535-543 and
analysis of the cross flow cooling tower,
pp. 574-576.
Refrigeration Engineering, vol. 64, pp.
[17] Prasad M., (2003), Economic up
31–34.
gradation and optimal use of multi-cell
[6] Schecheter R.S. and Kang T.L., (1959),
cross flow evaporative water cooling
Industrial Engineering Chemical, vol. 51
tower through modular performance
pp.1373–84.
appraisal, Applied Thermal Engineering,
[7] Baker D.R. and Shryock H.A., (1961), A
Vol.24, pp. 579–593.
comprehensive approach to the analysis
of cooling tower performance, Journal of
Heat Transfer, Vol. 83, pp. 339–349.
[8] Poppe M. and Rogener H., (1991),
Calculation of cooling process, VDI-
Warmeatlas, pp. Mi 1-Mi 15.
[9] Kloppers J.C. and Kroger D.G., (2005),
Cooling tower performance evaluation:
Merkel, Poppe, and e-NTU methods of
analysis, Journal of Engineering Gas
Turbines Power, Vol.127, pp. 1–7.
[10] Bourillot C., (1983), TEFERI-
Numerical Model for Calculating the
Performance of an Evaporative Cooling
Tower, EPRI Report, CS-3212-SR,
Electric Power Research Institute, Palo
Alto.
[11] Baard T. W., (1998), Performance
Characteristics of Expanded Metal
Cooling Tower Fill, Mtech Engineering
thesis, University of Stellenbosch,
Stellenbosch, South Africa.
[12] Jaber H. and Webb R. L., (1989), Design
of Cooling Towers by the Effectiveness-
NTU Method, ASME Journal Heat
Transfer, Vol.111, pp. 837–843.
[13] Nasrabadi M. and Finn D.P., (2014),
Mathematical modeling of a low
temperature low approach direct cooling
tower for the provision of high
temperature chilled water for
conditioning of building spaces, Applied

View publication stats