Department of Chemical Engineering and Energy Sustainability

Faculty of Engineering

KNC 3221
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY IV
SEMESTER 2- SESSION 2018/2019

Experiment 3: Water Cooling Unit

NAME : MATRIC NO.

1. THEN MUN YIP 58152
2. NURSHUHADA BINTI GARIP 59055
3. DG SHARIFAH ROZELLIA BINTI KAMEL 58553
SHARIFF
4. MUHAMMAD AFIQ BIN SALAHUDDIN 58786

LECTURER
1. MOHD FARID ATAN
Group No. : 2
Submission Date: 19/02/2019

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Chemical Engineering & Energy Sustainability
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract 1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Aim 1
1.2 Objectives 2
1.3 Problem Statement 2
2.0 Literature Review 2
3.0 Experimental Procedures 4
4.0 Result and Discussion 5
4.1 Results 5
4.2 Discussion 9
5.0 Conclusion 10
6.0 Recommendation 10
7.0 References 11
 ABSTRACT

In this experiment, the aim is to study the effects of several parameters towards the
exit water temperature which shows the cooling tower performance. Water cooling
unit is mainly used in air cooling industries worldwide. Some factors such as water
flow rate, air flow and cooling load effects the performance of the cooling tower.
Hence, these factors are manipulated during the experiment to identify the make-up
water rate as well as the mass and energy balance throughout the process. The steady
flow equation on the selected systems is applied to get some insight into the changes
of energy within the phases under different condition
Keyword: Cooling Tower, performance, parameters

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Cooling tower systems are very important, especially in the chemical process
industry. In order to study the principles of cooling tower operation, a commercial air
conditioning system is used as a laboratory cooling tower. Cooling towers can be
classified as natural draft cooling towers and mechanical draft cooling towers.
Cooling tower function is to reject the heat to the atmosphere and a common heat
transfer medium that is used to remove the heat is water. (Guyer, 2016). In the case of
a laboratory unit, the cooling tower process load will be provided by the water heater.
In a cooling tower, water will evaporate as a result of water is in contact with the
air thus lowering the temperature of the hot water. The working principles of cooling
tower operation are similar to the principle of evaporative cooling. In order to
understand the working principles and performance of the cooling tower, the basic
knowledge of thermodynamics is essential. The First Law of Thermodynamics that
related to the conservation of energy is applied for the operation of the cooling tower.

1.1 AIM
The aim of this experiment is to study the effect of one of the process variables on the
performances of the cooling tower.

1
1.2 OBJECTIVES
There is two objectives in this experiment:
a) To determine the “End State” properties of air and water from tables or charts
b) To determine energy and mass balance using the steady state flow equation on
the selected systems

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

In most of the operations, water is the most commonly used coolant to remove the
heat. During this process, evaporation will occurs due to the air and water are in
contact and discharges from the cooling system. Hence, to recharge the water lost due
to evaporation, the make-up water source is used and the rate of make-up water will
be determined. The process factors in this water cooling tower experiment are water
flow rates, air flow and cooling load capacity. Therefore, this experiment is conducted
to study how these parameters affect the temperature of T1-T7 and also the make-up
rate of the water cooling tower.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Cooling towers are usually designed for not only cooling purposes but also other
industrial applications. According to Marley (2019) cooling tower works to reduce the
temperature of the water circulated through the tower by the direct contact made by
the air and water. Using basic principles of First Law of Thermodynamics. The
conservation of energy stated that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can
only be transferred into another form. Hence, by assuming that the water is hotter than
the air, it will be cool down by radiation, conduction, convection and also evaporation
(Cooling Tower Experiment [CTE], 2019).

Figure 1: Illustration of water and air contact in cooling tower (CTE, 2019)

2
There are many different types of cooling towers such as crossflow, counterflow and
counterflow plume abated despite the differences the working principles used still
remain the same that is the principle of “evaporative cooling” (Cooling Tower
Product, 2018). The energy that enters the cooling tower are generated from the hot
water and cooled from temperature T1 to a temperature T2. Thus, the energy
calculated by recording the outlet and inlet temperature at every water valve in the
system.
H=U+PV (eqn 1.1)
Whereby, H=enthalpy;U=internal energy;P=pressure;V=volume. Some of the data
can be obtained in the physical property tables. In accordance with thermodynamic
first law which is the conservation of energy shown in equation 1.2, cooling tower
inlet energy can be assumed equal as the outlet energy.
∑ ∆𝑯𝒊𝒏 = ∑ ∆ 𝑯𝒐𝒖𝒕 (eqn 1.2)
Not only that, since the air is considered low pressure, the water cooling tower can be
treated as ideal gas which brings to the usage of the equation 1.3 (Lewis, Daniels, &
Newman, 1996).
∆𝑯 = 𝑪𝒑 ∆𝑻 (eqn 1.3)
Where ∆𝐻= the change in enthalpy; Cp=Specific heat capacity; ∆𝑇= The change in
temperature.

3.0 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

General Start-up procedure

1. Valves V1 to V6 were checked to ensure it were closed. Valve V7 was opened

partially.

2. The load tank was filled with distilled water. It was done by first the make-up tank
was removed and poured the water through the opening at the top of the load tank.
The make-up tank was replaced onto load tank and the nuts were tightened lightly.
The tank was filled with distilled water.

3. Distilled water were added to the wet bulb sensor reservoir to the fullest.

4. All appropriate tubing to the differential pressure sensor were connected.

5. The appropriate cooling tower packing was installed.

3
6. The temperature set point was set to 50⁰C by temperature controller. 1.0kW water
heater was switched on and heat up the water until approximately 40°C.

7. The pump was switched on and the control valve V1 was opened slowly and set the
water flowrate to 2.0LPM, a steady operation where the water distributed and flowing
uniformly through the packing was obtained.

8. Damper and fan were fully opened and switched on. The differential pressure
sensor was checked to give reading when the valve manifold was switching to
measure the orifice differential pressure.

9. The unit was run for about 20 minutes, for the float valve to correctly adjust the
level in the load tank. Make-up tank was refilled as required.

Experimental procedure

1. The system was set and allowed stabilized for about 15 minutes under the
following conditions

i. Water flow rate: 2.0 LPM

ii. Air flow: maximum

iii. Cooling Load: 1.0 kW

2. The stopwatch started when the make-up tank was filled up with distilled water and
recorded the initial water level.

3. Make-up water supply was determined at an interval of 10 minutes.

4. In the interval 10 minutes, a few sets of the measurement were recorded such as the
temperature (T1-T7), orifice differential pressure (DPI), water flow rate (FT1) and
heater power (Q1) and the mean value for calculation and analysis were obtained.

5. The quantity of make-up water that was supplied during time interval by noted the
height reduction in the make-up tank was determined.

4
6. The observations were repeated at different conditions which were different water
flow rates, air flow rates and load.

General Shut-down procedure

1. The heaters was switched off and let for 3-5 minutes for water to circulate through
the cooling tower system until the water cooled down.

2. Fan and Damper were switched off.

3. Pump and power supple were switched off.

4. The water in the reservoir tank was retained for the following experiment.

5. The water from the unit was drained completely since it is not in used.

4.0 RESULT & DISCUSSION

4.1 Results
Table 4.1: Settings/conditions for the experiment
Conditions Water Flow Rate (LPM) Air Flow Cooling Load (kW)
1 0.4 Max 1
2 0.9 Max 1
3 0.9 Half 1
4 0.9 Max 1.5

Table 4.2: Data for condition 1

Condition 1 3 min 5 min 10 min Average
Temperature T1 (℃) 29.1 29.1 29.2 29.13
Temperature T2 (℃) 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.40
Temperature T3 (℃) 28 27.9 28.0 27.97
Temperature T4 (℃) 28.5 28.4 28.4 28.43
Temperature T5 (℃) 33.8 33.8 33.9 33.83
Temperature T6 (℃) 27.1 27.2 27.2 27.17
Temperature T7 (℃) 31.0 31.1 31.0 31.03

5
Differential Pressure, DP 2 1 1 1.33
Water Flow Rate, FR (LPM) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40
Heater Power, Q (Watt) 1039 1037 1039 1038.33
Temperature Controller(℃) 32.7 32.7 32.6 32.67
Change in water level (cm) 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.50

Table 4.3: Data for condition 2

Condition 2 3 min 5 min 10 min Average
Temperature T1 (℃) 29.2 29.3 29.3 29.27
Temperature T2 (℃) 28.5 28.6 28.1 28.40
Temperature T3 (℃) 28.2 28.1 28.1 28.13
Temperature T4 (℃) 28.3 28.4 28.3 28.33
Temperature T5 (℃) 34.0 34.0 34.1 34.03
Temperature T6 (℃) 27.3 27.3 27.9 27.50
Temperature T7 (℃) 31.1 31.1 30.9 31.03
Differential Pressure, DP 1 0 0 0.33
Water Flow Rate, FR (LPM) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.90
Heater Power, Q (Watt) 1040 1040 1040 1040
Temperature Controller(℃) 32.7 32.7 32.8 32.73
Change in water level (cm) 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.40

Table 4.4: Data for condition 3

Condition 3 3 min 5 min 10 min Average
Temperature T1 (℃) 29.2 29.0 29.4 29.20
Temperature T2 (℃) 28.6 28.6 28.6 28.60
Temperature T3 (℃) 28.1 28.4 29.0 28.50
Temperature T4 (℃) 28.4 28.4 28.8 28.53
Temperature T5 (℃) 35.4 36.9 39.5 37.27
Temperature T6 (℃) 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.50
Temperature T7 (℃) 27.6 26.5 26.1 26.73
Differential Pressure, DP 0 0 0 0.00
Water Flow Rate, FR (LPM) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.90

6
Heater Power, Q (Watt) 1039 1041 1035 1038.33
Temperature Controller(℃) 34.3 35.8 38.3 36.13
Change in water level (cm) 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.40

Table 4.5: Data for condition 4

Condition 4 3 min 5 min 10 min Average
Temperature T1 (℃) 28.8 28.9 29.3 29.00
Temperature T2 (℃) 28.5 28.5 28.7 28.57
Temperature T3 (℃) 29.5 29.7 30.3 29.83
Temperature T4 (℃) 29.3 29.4 29.7 29.47
Temperature T5 (℃) 43.3 44.5 46.3 44.70
Temperature T6 (℃) 27.7 27.7 27.9 27.77
Temperature T7 (℃) 26.1 26.2 26.5 26.27
Differential Pressure, DP 0 0 0 0.00
Water Flow Rate, FR (LPM) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.90
Heater Power, Q (Watt) 1510 1507 1500 1505.67
Temperature Controller(℃) 42.6 43.8 45.5 43.97
Change in water level (cm) 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.53

Table 4.6: Data from Psychrometric Chart & Change in enthalpy of air
Conditions ℎ𝐴 (kJ/kg) 𝑤𝐴 ℎ𝐵 (kJ/kg) 𝑤𝐵 𝑉𝑎𝐵 (m3/kg) ∆𝐻𝑎𝑖𝑟 (kJ/kg)
1 91.57 0.0244 101.78 0.0250 0.886 10.21
2 91.57 0.0243 95.28 0.0247 0.886 3.71
3 92.56 0.0247 97.25 0.0249 0.888 4.69
4 92.42 0.0248 95.88 0.0242 0.891 3.46

The following values are obtained from the Psychrometric Chart:

I. Enthalpy of point A,ℎ𝐴 (based on T1 and T2)
II. Humidity ratio of point A, 𝑤𝐴 (based on T1 and T2)
III. Enthalpy of point B, ℎ𝐵 (based on T3 and T4)
IV. Humidity ratio of point B, 𝑤𝐵 (based on T3 and T4)
V. Specific volume, 𝑉𝑎𝐵 (based on T3 and T4)

7
Next, the enthalpy of water will be calculated based on T5 and T6 with the saturated
water-temperature table.

Table 4.7: Summary or change in enthalpy of water

Conditions T5 T6 𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟(𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑒𝑡) 𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟(𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑡) ∆𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
(℃) (℃) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg) (kJ/kg)
1 33.83 27.17 141.75 113.90 -27.85
2 34.03 27.50 142.60 115.28 -27.32
3 37.27 27.50 156.12 115.28 -40.84
4 44.70 27.77 187.19 116.41 -70.78

Mass flow rate of dry air (𝑚𝑎̇ ), water mass loss (𝑚𝐸 ) and make-up rate (𝑚̇) are
calculated with the respective formulae listed below:
i) Mass flow of rate of air

𝒙
𝒎̇𝒂 = 𝟎. 𝟎𝟏𝟑𝟕√𝑽 (eq 4.1)
𝒂𝑩 (𝟏+𝒘𝑩 )

Where x = 185.7Pa x 1mmH20 / 10.13Pa = 18.33mmH20

ii) Water Mass Loss

𝝅𝑫𝟐 (𝒉𝟏 −𝒉𝟐 )𝝆

𝒎𝑬 = (eq 4.2)
𝟒

Where D = 74mm internal diameter of make-up tank)

𝜌 = 1000 kg/m3 (water density)
ℎ1 & ℎ2 = level water units (cm)

iii) Make-up rate,

𝒎𝑬
𝒎̇ = (eq 4.3)
∆𝒕

8
Table 4.8: Summary of mass flow rates for air and water
Condition Water mass Make-up Mass flow rate of Mass of water
lost, 𝑚𝐸 (kg) rate, 𝑚̇ (kg/s) dry air, 𝑚̇𝑎 (kg/s) vapour, 𝑚̇𝑣 (kg/s)
1 0.0215 1.075 x 10−4 0.0615 1.5006 x 10−3
2 0.0172 0.8600 x 0.0616 1.4969 x 10−3
10−5
3 0.0172 0.8600 x 0.0615 1.5191 x 10−3
10−5
4 0.0228 1.14 x 10−4 0.0614 1.5227 x 10−3

The amount of air enthalpy must be equal to the amount of water enthalpy based on
the first law of thermodynamics which is the law of conservation of energy.
∆𝐻𝑎𝑖𝑟 + ∆𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 0
Percentage error is calculated to see whether energy balance is achieved in this
experiment.
Table 4.9: Percentage error of change in enthalpy
Condition Change in enthalpy of Change in enthalpy of Percentage
water, ∆𝐻𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 (kJ/kg) air, ∆𝐻𝑎𝑖𝑟 (kJ/kg) error (%)
1 -27.85 10.21 63.33
2 -27.32 3.71 86.42
3 -40.84 4.69 88.52
4 -70.78 3.46 95.11

4.2 Discussion
In this experiment, different parameters such as water flow rate, air flow and
cooling load are investigated where one’s effect is being studied while the other two
are being kept constant. Water flow rate, air flow and cooling load are varied in
condition 2, 3 and 4 respectively, listed in Table 1. Theoretically, as water flow rate is
increased, the make-up rate increases. This is because basically make up flow rate is
the water supply rate to refill the water that has been lost due to evaporation,
discharge in cooling system, leaks as well as other causes. However, in the 12 trials
that have been conducted with 4 different conditions, the system does not seem to

9
abide by this theory. This is possibly caused by the pipe leakage in the beginning of
the experiment.
Next, on the effect of air flow, generally, if the air flow is half, the cooling tower
would have to consume more heat output in doing its job to keep the temperature
down while if the air flow is max where the blower is working at full capacity, the
cooling tower does not have to generate more energy to cool the water. Meanwhile, it
can be seen that from Table 4.4, the heater output is lower for half air flow compared
to max air flow. This is different from what have been expected and predicted. This
occurrence may be due to other disturbances and high blower speed. High blower
speed leads to short contact time between cool air and hot water, leading to
incomplete of heat exchange. All these factors make the max air flow less efficient
and therefore requires high heater output that half air flow.
Apart from that, from Table 4.5 it can be inferred that higher cooling load from
1.0kW to 1.5kW leads to higher make-up rate. This is consistent with the hypothesis
where high heater output will cause more evaporation of water, thus causing the
make-up rate to increase. Therefore, condition 4 has the highest make-up rate out of
the four settings because it is the only condition with 1.5kW heater output.
Also, the mass and energy balance of the system is of concern in this experiment.
The mass balance can be studied in Table 4.8. The law of conservation of mass states
that in a closed system, the mass of the system must remain the same over time. In
other words, the mass in should always be equal to mass out. Referring to Table 4.8,
make-up rate represents the inlet or mass in while mass of water vapor represents the
outlet or the mass out. It can be seen that although the make-up rate and mass of water
vapor are similar, but they are not exactly the same, this difference in mass can be due
to leakage in the cooling tower system or faulty instruments.
The percentage error for energy balance ranges from 63% to 95% in Table 4.9.
The energy balance is therefore not achieved. The lower air enthalpy indicates that the
heat may have escaped from the air to surrounding because cooling tower is not
insulated properly with aluminum foil or other heat insulators. The inaccuracy in
taking measurements may also have contributed to this phenomenon.

5.0 CONCLUSION
The experiment has been successfully conducted where the process variables’
effects on the cooling tower performance have been thoroughly studied. The first

10
objective which is to obtain the end state property of air and water from psychometric
chart has been achieved. The second objective however could not be achieved
because mass and energy are not balanced due to some parameters being either
unobtainable or inaccurate. Therefore, recommendations have been suggested so that
this objective can be achieved if the experiment is to be repeated.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION
There are few recommendations that can be done to improve this experiment.
First, it is best to cover the cooling tower with aluminum foil to minimize the heat
escaping from the cooling tower. Next, the leakage in water tank has prevented the
flow rate to be at 0.9LMP maximum when the required setpoint for water flow rate is
2.0LMP. For blower, the damper is broken which caused the air flow unable to be
controlled. The half air condition trials were conducted by covering the damper
manually, this can lead to inaccuracy of data as the area closed manually might not
have been 50%. This is due to human error. The blower is also designed to be
controlled with the damper which is not fully accurate. It is recommended to install
digital scale for the blower so that more accurate data can be collected.

7.0 REFERENCES
Cooling Tower Experiment. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.me.iitb.ac.in/~matrey/PDF's/cooling%20tower.pdf

Cooling Tower Products. (2018). How Cooling Towers Work (W/Diagram, Picture
and Principles) 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.coolingtowerproducts.com/blog/how-cooling-towers-work-
diagram-pictures-2015.htm

Guyer, J.P. (2016). An introduction to water cooling towers. Retrieved from

https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/An%20Introduction%20to%20Water
%20Cooling%20Towers.pdf
Lewis, S. Daniels, S. Newman, A. (1996, September 17). Cooling Water Experiment.
Retrieved from http://chem.engr.utc.edu/webres/435F/3T-CT/3T-CT.html

Marley. (2019). What Is A Cooling Tower. Retrieved from

https://spxcooling.com/coolingtowers

11