Heat Transfer Engineering, 22:41–55, 2001

Copyright °
C 2001 Taylor & Francis
0145–7632/01 $12.00 + .00

Performance of
Evaporative Condensers

HISHAM M. ETTOUNEY, HISHAM T. EL-DESSOUKY,

WALID BOUHAMRA, and BADER AL-AZMI
Department of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and Petroleum,
Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait

Experimental investigation is conducted to study the performance of evaporative

condensers/coolers. The analysis includes development of correlations for the external heat transfer
coefŽ cient and the system efŽ ciency. The evaporative condenser includes two Ž nned-tube heat
exchangers. The system is designed to allow for operation of a single condenser, two condensers in
parallel, and two condensers in series. The analysis is performed as a function of the water-to-air
mass  ow rate ratio (L/G) and the steam temperature. Also, comparison is made between the
performance of the evaporative condenser and same device as an air-cooled condenser. Analysis of
the collected data shows that the system efŽ ciency increases at lower L/G ratios and higher steam
temperatures. The system efŽ ciency for various conŽ gurations for the evaporative condenser varies
between 97% and 99%. Lower efŽ ciencies are obtained for the air-cooled condenser, with values
between 88% and 92%. The highest efŽ ciency is found for the two condensers in series, followed by
two condensers in parallel and then the single condenser. The parallel condenser conŽ guration can
handle a larger amount of inlet steam and can provide the required system efŽ ciency and degree of
subcooling. The correlation for the system efŽ ciency gives a simple tool for preliminary system
design. The correlation developed for the external heat transfer coefŽ cient is found to be consistent
with the available literature data.

Condensers are found in a wide range of applications,
such as petroleum reŽ neries, petrochemical plants,
power-generation stations, chemical process industries,
and air-conditioning units. The cooling  uid in conven-
tional condensers is commonly fresh water, which can
be costly or not readily accessible. However, demands
for conservation of the limited fresh-water resources
on a global scale necessitates the use of abundant cool-
ing media, which includes seawater or ambient air. Use
of seawater as the cooling medium is limited to low
condensation temperatures to avoid scale and fouling
by the seawater at temperatures above 60± C. Moreover,
Address correspondence to Hisham Ettouney, Chemical Engineering
Department, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University, P.O.
Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait. E-mail: hisham@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw
41
the feed seawater must be treated to remove particulate
matter and chemically treated to control scale forma-
tion, fouling, and corrosion. The rejected seawater has
an adverse effect on the environment, due to the ther-
mal pollution caused in the locality of the discharge
area. Applications of air-cooled condensers are found
in conventional air-conditioning units, where ambient
air is used as a heat sink to condense the refrigerant va-
por. On an industrial scale, air condensers are also used
in power plants, where fresh water may be inaccessible
and expensive.
Use of evaporative cooling improves the perform-
ance of air-cooled condensers. The evaporative effect
cools the condensate to a temperature lower than the
air ambient temperature. This increases the thermal
capacity of the air stream and as a result makes it
possible to use a lower air  ow rate and consequently
the fan capacity and its power consumption are reduced.
Further, the heat transfer coefŽ cient for the evaporative
system is higher than for air-cooled condensers. This
enhances the heat transfer rate and increases the value
of the overall heat transfer coefŽ cient. As a result, a
smaller heat transfer area is used to remove the same
thermal load in air-cooled condensers. Use of evapora-
tive condensers eliminates the shell cover for the heat
exchange tubes, which is an expensive element in con-
ventional condenser units that combines a cooling tower
and an external heat exchanger. Also, placement of the
evaporative unit inside the cooling tower reduces the
space requirements for piping connections and valves
used in conventional units.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Literature studies for modeling and analysis of evap-
orative condensers are limited in number. On the other
hand, the major fraction of the literature studies on air –
water evaporative systems focuses on performance and
analysis of cooling towers and the indirect evaporative
cooling systems. The latter have a number of similarities
with the evaporative condenser, especially when con-
sidering heat and mass transfer in the air– water system
outside the heat exchanger tubes. Therefore, analysis of
literature studies for indirect evaporative coolers as well
as evaporative condensers is considered in the follow-
ing discussion. Differences in modeling these systems
are caused primarily by variations in the driving force
between the  uid inside the tubes of the heat exchanger
and the water/air streams  owing outside the heat ex-
changer tubes, and the heat transfer mechanisms inside
the tubes. The driving force in evaporative condensers is
primarily equal to the difference of the condensing va-
por temperature and the external temperature between
the surface and the air– water mixture. The condensation
process also includes vapor desuperheating and conden-
sate subcooling. Either process is similar to  uid cooling
inside the heat exchanger tubes in indirect evaporative
coolers.
The main focus of the literature studies on indirect
evaporative coolers is the development of more energy-
efŽ cient air-conditioning systems. This is achieved by
various combinations of cooling towers, indirect and
direct evaporative coolers, and conventional mechani-
cal vapor compression units [1]. Webb [2] presented a
uniŽ ed theory for modeling of cooling towers, evap-
orative condensers, and evaporative coolers. Various
correlations are adopted to deŽ ne the water Ž lm heat
transfer coefŽ cient and the mass transfer coefŽ cient for
water transport from the water Ž lm to the air stream.
In modeling the condenser and cooler units, additional
42 heat transfer engineering
correlations are used to deŽ ne the heat transfer coefŽ -
cient for the  uid inside the tubes of the heat exchanger.
The heat transfer coefŽ cient for the water Ž lm used by
Webb [2] corresponds to a water Ž lm  owing under
gravity conditions and in the absence of the air stream.
Subsequently, three algorithms and computer models
are presented by Webb and Villacres [3] for analysis
of cooling towers,  uid coolers, and evaporative con-
densers. The algorithms are found to predict accurately
the duty of the three systems, within 3% of the man-
ufacturer’s rating data. Models of indirect evaporative
cooling towers are developed by Maclaine-Cross and
Banks [4], Kettleborough and Hsieh [5], Chen et al. [6].
These models are found to give reasonable agreement
for outdoor air applications. However, the models over-
predict the cooling effectiveness of the system during
certain operations, which include mixed or exhaust-air
applications. This motivated Peterson [7] to develop a
mathematical model for analysis of indirect evaporative
coolers.
Predictions of the mathematical model are validated
against experimental data. This comparison shows the
limitations of the model in accurate predictions of en-
ergy savings or performance at some operating con-
ditions. At such conditions, Peterson [7] recommends
the use of correlations generated from experimental
data to obtain necessary design or performance data.
Kettleborough [8] presented a numerical model for eval-
uation of the effectiveness of indirect evaporative cool-
ers. The numerical model evaluates the temperatures
of the plate, secondary air, and primary air. Also, the
model calculates the humidity of the outlet secondary
air stream. Since the model equations are coupled and
nonlinear, an iterative and numerical solution is found
necessary to determine the system effectiveness, which
is deŽ ned as the ratio between the drop in the primary
air temperature and the wet-bulb depression (deŽ ned as
the difference of the dry- and wet-bulb temperatures )
of the inlet primary air with respect to the secondary
air stream. Experimental evaluation of indirect evapo-
rative coolers, when combined with conventional air-
conditioning systems, are presented by Peterson and
Hunn [9] for a small ofŽ ce building in Dallas, Texas.
Analysis of the data shows a system efŽ ciency higher
by 70% than conventional air-conditioning units. This
allows for a 12% reduction in the capacity of the air-
conditioning system. Further evaluation of the evapo-
rative air precooling system shows that the water pump
is the largest energy-using component, rather than the
air fan. Erens and Dreyer [10] tested the performance
of three mathematical models for simulation of evap-
orative coolers. The mathematical development of the
models is based on either dividing the cooler into dif-
ferential elements or by considering the cooler as one
vol. 22 no. 4 2001
element. The Ž rst and second models are differential,
where the Ž rst model evaluates the Lewis number and
the second model assumes the Lewis number is equal
to one. The third model assumes unit Lewis number,
constant water temperature, and negligible thermal re-
sistance in the water Ž lm. Results show that the simpli-
Ž ed model gives accurate results for evaluation of small
units, and it is useful to obtain preliminary design and
rating data. On the other hand, the detailed models are
suitable for more accurate performance predictions.
Effect of tube arrangement in indirect evaporative
cooling is analyzed by Erens [11]. Results show that
the performance of bare tubes is enhanced through the
use of plastic Ž ll, which can be integrated with the tubes
or placed below the tubes. The improved performance
is caused by the increase of the water residence time
in the Ž ll material, which generates higher rates of heat
and mass transfer between the air and water streams.
A similar effect on enhancement of the performance
of cooling towers is reported by El-Dessouky [12] on
the use of rough surface packing material. Goswami
et al. [13] studied performance enhancement of small
to medium-size air-conditioning units by evaporative
cooling of the ambient air used to condense the refriger-
ant  uid. The study follows a similar approach adopted
in air-conditioning units for large facilities and build-
ings. Evaporative cooling of the air is found to increase
the temperature driving force for the condensation pro-
cess. In turn, energy savings up to 20% are reported for
the evaporatively cooled air against system operation
without the evaporative cooler.
Simulation of cooling towers includes analytical
models, i.e., the model by Merkel [14], and numeri-
cal models, i.e., the models by Nahavandi et al. [15]
and Sutherland [16]. Comparison of both models shows
small differences of 5 – 12% in their predictions.
El-Dessouky et al. [17] developed a modiŽ ed model for
analysis and rating of cooling towers. The model prese-
nts new deŽ nitions for the number of transfer units and
the effectiveness of the cooling tower. The number of
transfer units is expressed in terms of the air and water
heat capacity, and the effectiveness is expressed as a
function of the tower cooling range and the approach
to equilibrium. The model also considers the nonlin-
ear dependence of the air/water vapor enthalpy on the
temperature.
Early models of evaporative condensers by Goodman
[18] and Thomsen [19] assumed constant temperature
for the water stream. This assumption is found to gen-
erate poor predictive results for the system and was
eliminated in the study by Parker and Treybal [20]. In
their model, they assumed a Lewis number of unity,
linear dependence of the air enthalpy on temperature,
and negligible change in the water  ow rate. The model
heat transfer engineering
by Parker and Treybal [20] does not require numerical
solution and can be solved using a simple analytical
procedure. A more detailed numerical model is devel-
oped by Leidenfrost and Korenic [21], in which the
three assumptions in the Parker and Treybal model are
eliminated. However, a number of inconsistencies in
the model were later cited by Peterson et al. [22], who
modiŽ ed the Parker and Treybal model and validated
their results against experimental data. Their analysis
shows that the value for the water-side heat transfer co-
efŽ cient of the water– tube interface proposed by Parker
and Treybal is low, since the model underpredicts the
condenser load by 30%.
From the above survey it can be concluded that a
limited number of studies are found on performance of
evaporative condensers. The survey shows the need for
execution of the following.
Experimental measurements of the temperature proŽ le
in the evaporative condenser are necessary for bet-
ter understanding of the system performance and in
development of accurate models for the system.
Evaluation of the evaporative condenser efŽ ciency at
different operating conditions.
Development of correlations for the heat transfer coef-
Ž cient of the air/water side.
Development of accurate mathematical models for the
evaporative condenser and validation against exper-
imental data. This will be executed in a subsequent
study.
Accordingly, the main objective of this study is to de-
termine experimentally the performance of evaporative
condensers as a function of the  ow rate ratio of water
to air and the thermal load. This involves measurements
of the axial temperature distribution and calculating the
system efŽ ciency and the heat transfer coefŽ cient. The
study also compares the performance of evaporative
condensers versus air condensers. Results and analysis
gives better understanding in the performance of evap-
orative condensers, which is necessary to develop and
design more efŽ cient systems.
EXPERIMENTAL APPARATUS
AND PROCEDURE
Figure 1 shows a schematic for the evaporative con-
denser system. As is shown, the system is made of a
metal frame and includes a water basin, a water circula-
tion pump, an air fan, packing material, two evaporative
condenser units, water spray nozzles, siding sheets of
Plexiglas, connection tubes, and valves. The measur-
ing devices include water  ow meters and temperature
vol. 22 no. 4 2001 43
 Figure 1 Schematic of the evaporative condenser.
thermocouples. The sides of the apparatus are tightly
sealed with the Plexiglas sheets, which is necessary to
prevent air leakage to or from the system. The system
dimensions are 0.83 £ 0.6 £ 2 m in width, length, and
height, respectively. The water basin has dimensions of
0.83 £ 0.6 £ 0.32 m in width, length, and height. The
 oat control in the water basin is adjusted to a height of
0.3 m, which allows for accumulation of 0.1494 m3 of
water in the basin. This volume is necessary to main-
tain a nearly constant water temperature in the system.
The water circulates from the water basin to the spray
nozzles via the water circulation pump and the  ow
meter. The circulation pump has a maximum power of
0.278 kW and provides a maximum  ow rate of 2 kg/s.
The spray nozzle system breaks the water stream into a
Ž ne mist, with an average drop diameter of 5 £ 10¡4 m,
which is evenly distributed over the packing material.
Therefore, the water  ows from the top of the column
toward the basin in a countercurrent direction to the
air stream. The suction fan has an input/output power
44 heat transfer engineering
rating of 440/350 W. The fan moves the air stream from
the side openings near the water basin to the top of the
column. The suction fan has a constant speed and moves
the air at an average  ow rate of 2.767 m3 (STP )/s or
2.68 kg/s.
As is shown in Figure 1, structured packing mate-
rial is used and is divided into three layers. As reported
by El-Dessouky et al. [23], this type of packing gives
higher system efŽ ciency than Sheathy leaf or natural
Ž ber. Each layer has the same cross-sectional area as
the metal frame (0.83 £ 0.6 m ). This prevents bypass
of the air or water streams, which would result in re-
duction of the contact area between the two streams and
consequently decrease in the cooling efŽ ciency. Each
layer has a thickness of 0.1 m, which gives sufŽ cient
internal surface area for air and water contact. Use of
the three packing layers maintains proper water distri-
bution and sufŽ cient contact area between the air and
water streams. The two condenser units have proper
piping that allow operation of a single condenser or the
vol. 22 no. 4 2001
two condensers in series or parallel. The two condensers
are identical, and each has a single path and dimensions
of 0.83 £ 0.6 £ 0.02 m in length, width, and thickness,
respectively. Each condenser contains a single row of
18 tubes with an outer diameter of 0.011 m and an inner
diameter of 0.008 m. Thin  at sheet Ž ns hold the tube
bundle together, and each Ž n has dimensions of 0.02 £
0.6 £ 0.0015 m in height, length, and thickness. The
number of Ž ns in a 1-m length is 394. This arrangement
gives a total heat transfer area of 3.672 m2 , which in-
cludes a heat transfer area of 0.312 m2 for the tubes and
3.36 m2 for the Ž ns.
The measuring devices are used to determine the  ow
rates of circulating water and condensing steam as well
as the dry- and wet-bulb temperatures of the ambient air,
the water temperature inside the column, and the steam
inlet and condensate temperatures. Locations for the
thermocouple measurements are shown in Figure 1. Ac-
curacy of the temperature-measuring device is §0.1± C
and for water  ow is §1% of the full scale.
Experimental Procedure
Operation of the evaporative condenser requires Ž ll-
ing the water basin prior to operating the water pump
and opening the steam valve. The system operating con-
ditions are determined by adjusting the water  ow rate,
setting the steam pressure, and selecting the condenser
conŽ guration (single, two in series, or two in parallel ).
At the start of operation, the system is monitored for a
period of 1 h before commencing data collection. All
temperature measurements are stored in a data logger
at an interval of 5 min. Other data, which includes the
 ow rate of the steam condensate and the circulating
water, are measured repeatedly on hourly basis over a
period of 12 h. Temperature measurements include the
water temperature proŽ le inside the column as well as
the temperatures of the ambient air, inlet steam, and
condensate. In all experiments, the air  ow rate is kept
constant at 9,660 m3 (STP)/h or 2.68 kg/s, and the wa-
ter  ow rate is varied and maintained at values of 0.44,
0.63, 0.82, and 0.95 kg/s. These values give water-to-
air  ow rate ratios ( L/G ) of 0.164, 0.235, 0.306, and
0.354. The steam inlet temperatures used in the experi-
ments are 111.9 and 120.8± C, which correspond to sat-
uration pressures of 1.5 and 2 bar. In all experiments,
which include the evaporative and air condensers, com-
plete condensation of the inlet steam is achieved. The
condensate  ow rate varies over a range of 0.014 to
0.012 kg/s.
Operation of the system as an air condenser is done
simply by keeping the packing and the water basin
dry and turning off the water pump. Other operating
procedures and conditions, which include the air  ow
heat transfer engineering
rate, steam pressures, and condenser conŽ gurations, are
identical to those of the evaporative conŽ guration.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The collected data are used to analyze the perfor-
mance of the evaporative condenser and the air con-
denser. This includes analysis of the axial temperature
proŽ les for the water stream and calculations of the efŽ -
ciency, e , which is deŽ ned as the ratio of the actual to the
maximum possible amounts of heat that can be removed
from the condenser. The maximum amount of heat re-
moved from the condenser occurs as the condensate
steam temperature cools to the wet-bulb temperature of
the air  owing to the column. That is,
Ms ( Hs00 ¡Hu ) Ms [k C C p (Ts ¡Tu )]
e D D (1 )
( 00
M s Hs ¡Hw ) Ms [k C C p ( Ts ¡Tw )]
where Hs00 is the saturated steam enthalpy, k is the latent
heat, Ms is the steam mass  ow rate, T is the tempera-
ture, C p is the speciŽ c heat at constant pressure, H is the
condensate enthalpy, and the subscripts s; u, and w de-
Ž nes the saturated steam or condensate, the subcooled
condensate, and the wet-bulb condition of the ambient
air. It should be emphasized that the steam condensed
in the evaporator is in the saturation state.
The axial temperature proŽ les for the water stream in
the evaporative condensers are shown in Figure 2 for the
two condensers in series. Results are obtained for steam
temperatures of 111.9 and 120.8 ± C and L/G values of
0.235 and 0.353. As is shown, the lowest water temper-
ature is found in the water basin, and its value is above
the wet-bulb temperature of the ambient air. The water
temperature increases as it  ows from the spray noz-
zles through the tower. The maximum water tempera-
ture occurs below the second heat exchanger. The water
temperature and the condensate temperature increases
at higher steam temperatures and as L/G increases. It
should be noted that the effect of the wet-bulb tempera-
ture is consistent with the measured results. With regard
to this, an increase in the wet-bulb temperature results
in an increase of the condensate and water temperature
in the system. This is caused by the small difference of
the humidity for the dry and wet air. Therefore, at high
wet-bulb temperatures the amount of water evaporated
per unit  ow rate of the water stream is reduced.
The measured data for the temperature proŽ le of the
water stream in the evaporative condenser tower are
very important in modeling the system characteristics.
This proŽ le can be used to deŽ ne the driving force
for heat transfer, which is necessary for heat trans-
fer calculations. In literature studies, it is common to
vol. 22 no. 4 2001 45
Figure 2 Variation in the water axial temperature proŽ le as a function of measuring hour, steam temperature, and L/G for two condensers
in series.

assume constant water temperature throughout the col- for additional subcooling of the condensate. Increase
umn, which is equal to the wet-bulb temperature [2]. in L/G results in decrease of the efŽ ciency for all sys-
This assumption is not consistent with the above mea- tems. This is because the wet-bulb temperature of the
surements, and its adoption may lead to inaccuracies in ambient air sets the amount of water evaporated in-
the model predictions. side the tower. Therefore, increase in the  ow rate of
Hourly variations in the efŽ ciency of the evaporative
condenser and the air condenser are shown in Figure 3
for the single condenser, two condensers in parallel,
and two condensers in series. The evaporative effect in-
creases the system efŽ ciency from values of below 92%
to values above 99%. Inspection of the efŽ ciency varia-
tions shows the decrease in the efŽ ciency of all systems
during the daytime. The lowest efŽ ciency is found at
noontime, and the highest efŽ ciency is measured dur-
ing the early morning and the evening hours. This in-
crease is associated with the decrease in the wet-bulb
temperature of the ambient air  owing to the column.
Effects of the steam temperature and L/G on the
efŽ ciency of the evaporative condenser are shown in
Figures 4 – 6. As is shown, the efŽ ciency averages are
97.7%, 98.1%, and 98.9% for the single condenser, two
condensers in parallel, and two condensers in series.
The higher efŽ ciency of the two condensers in series Figure 3 Variation in the system efŽ ciency as a function con-
is caused by the larger heat transfer area, which allows denser conŽ guration and measuring time.

46 heat transfer engineering vol. 22 no. 4 2001


Figure 4 Variation in the efŽ ciency of the single condenser
as a function of the water-to-air  ow-rate ratio and the steam
temperature.
the cooling water results in reduction of the amount of
water evaporated per unit mass  ow rate of cooling wa-
ter. Therefore, at higher L/G ratios an increase occurs
in the cooling-water temperature and consequently the
condensate temperature increases and the system efŽ -
ciency decreases. Effects of the steam temperature are
not discernable; however, at higher steam temperatures,
a higher efŽ ciency is expected because of the increase
in the heat transfer driving force.
Comparison of the condensate temperature for the
evaporative condenser (wet ) and the air condenser (wet)
is shown in Figure 7 for the single condenser, two con-
densers in parallel, and two condensers in series. As is
shown, the averages for the condensate temperature for
the air system are 76.9, 86.5, and 97.2± C for the two
condensers in series, two condensers in parallel, and
heat transfer engineering
Figure 5 Variation in the efŽ ciency of two condensers in paral-
lel as a function of the water-to-air  ow-rate ratio and the steam
temperature.
the single condenser, respectively. Lower condensate
temperatures are obtained for the evaporative system,
with values of 30.3, 35.6, and 37.8± C for the two con-
densers in series, two condensers in parallel, and the sin-
gle condenser, respectively. Comparison of these results
shows that the evaporative system is capable of remov-
ing larger amounts of heat than the air system, which
results in a higher degree of subcooling. The above re-
sults show that the degree of condensate subcooling is
large, with values between 73.3 and 90± C. As is shown,
the largest subcooling is obtained for the two condensers
in series. Comparison of the energy release accompa-
nied with the subcooling process and the latent heat for
the same amount of condensate show that the subcool-
ing energy is less than 15% of the condensation energy.
However, the subcooling heat transfer area is compa-
rable to the heat transfer area required for condensa-
tion. This is because the low thermal energy of subcool-
ing is also associated with a low overall heat transfer
vol. 22 no. 4 2001 47

Figure 6 Variation in the efŽ ciency of two condensers in se-
ries as a function of the water-to-air  ow-rate ratio and the steam
temperature.
coefŽ cient. The opposite is true for the condensation
process, where the overall heat transfer coefŽ cient is
high, as well as the thermal energy for condensation.
CALCULATIONS OF THE HEAT TRANSFER
COEFFICIENTS
The following assumptions are made to calculate the
heat transfer coefŽ cients:
Steady-state operation.
The surfaces are clean or fouling resistant is zero.
The condenser surface is clean or the fouling resistance
is zero.
Uniform distribution of the air and water stream in the
column and on the outside surface of the condenser.
Water losses in the column are negligible.
48 heat transfer engineering
Figure 7 Variation in condensate temperature as a function con-
denser conŽ guration and measuring time.
The steam stream entering the condenser unit is satu-
rated.
Condensate subcooling follows steam condensation.
The thermophysical properties of air and water in the
heat transfer coefŽ cient, which include the speciŽ c
heat at constant pressure, the density, the viscos-
ity, and the thermal conductivity, are obtained at the
mean temperature of the stream.
Operation of the coil heat exchangers in series allows
for simple calculations of the heat transfer coefŽ cient
for the two cases of condensation with two-phase  ow
and subcooling with a single phase. In this case the
Ž rst heat exchanger performs the condensation step, and
it includes steam and its condensate; the second heat
exchanger includes only the condensate. The following
two sections give the analysis for each heat exchanger.
Figure 8 shows a schematic for the temperature proŽ les
in the two heat exchangers and in the air/water system
outside the heat exchanger tubes.
Heat Transfer CoefŽ cient with Two Phases
As is shown in Figure 8, the steam condenses inside
the heat exchanger tubes at the saturation temperature,
Tc , and then is subcooled to a lower temperature, Tu .
On the outside of the heat exchanger tubes, the water
temperature increases from T1 to T2 during steam con-
densation and then from T2 to T3 during subcooling.
The thermal load for condensation is then deŽ ned by
q D qc C qu (2 )
vol. 22 no. 4 2001
 Figure 8 Schematic of the temperature proŽ les inside the heat exchangers in the air/water stream on the outside.

where (T3 ¡ T2 )
LMTDu D (9 )
lnfR=[R C ln(1 ¡ RP )]g
qc D Ms k (3 )
where ( T2 ¡ T1 ) is the difference of the water Ž lm tem-
and perature due to steam condensation and ( T3 ¡ T2 ) is dif-
ference of the water Ž lm temperature during condensate
qu D Ms C p (Tc ¡ Tu ) (4 ) steam. The two terms R and P in Eq. (9 ) are given by

Tc ¡ Tu
In the above equations, qc and qu are the thermal loads RD
T3 ¡ T2
due to condensation and subcooling, respectively, M s is
the steam  ow rate, and Tc and Tu are the condensation T3 ¡ T2
and subcooling temperatures. The two thermal loads PD
Tc ¡ T2
are then used to deŽ ne the corresponding overall heat
transfer coefŽ cients:
The expression for LMTDu given in Eq. (9 ) is obtained
from the work by Threlkeld [24]. In Eqs. (5 ) and (6 ) the
qc D Ms k D Uc A c LMTDc (5 ) overall heat transfer coefŽ cients, Uc and Uu , are deŽ ned
by
qu D Ms C p (Tc ¡ Tu ) D Uu A u LMTDu (6 ) ³ ´
1 1 Ao Ao d p 1 1¡u
D C C 1C
Uc h c A p;i A p;m k ho A p;o = A F C Á
where A c and Au are the heat transfer areas required for
condensation and subcooling, respectively. The sum of (10 )
the two areas is equal to the total heat transfer area, A t ,
or
³ ´
1 1 Ao Ao d p 1 1¡u
At D Ac C Au (7 ) D C C 1C
Uu h u A p;i A p;m k ho A p;o = A F C u

In Eqs. (5 ) and (6 ) the values of LMTD are deŽ ned by (11 )

(T2 ¡ T1 ) where h o is the external heat transfer coefŽ cient, u is

LMTDc D (8 )
ln[ Tc ¡ T1 )=(Tc ¡ T2 )]
( the Ž n efŽ ciency, and k is the thermal conductivity of
heat transfer engineering vol. 22 no. 4 2001 49
the tube wall. The surface areas in Eqs. (10 ) and (11 ) 0:01 · v · 0:99
are given by
158 · q̄ · 1:6 £ 106 W=m2
The tube inner surface area,
11 · Ḡ · 4;000 kg=m2 s
A p;i D np Di Z p
7 · P · 18;000 kPa
The tube outer surface area,
0:0019 · Pr · 0:82
A p;o D n (p Do Z p ¡ mp Do d )
350 · Re · 100;000
The Ž n surface area,
³ ´ The average heat transfer coefŽ cient is obtained by con-
np Di2 sidering an average value of 0.5 for complete conden-
AF D m BW ¡
4 sation of steam. The correlation for heat transfer during
subcooling, h u , is given by the Dittus and Bolter relation
The Ž n and tube outer surface area, [Eq. (15 )].
The above system of equations (2 )– (15 ) is used to cal-
A o D A F C A p;o culate qc ; qu ; h u ; h c ; Uc ; Uu ; T2 ; A c ; and A u . How-
ever, determination of these requires calculations of the
In the above relations, n is the number of tubes, m is outside heat transfer coefŽ cient, h o . This coefŽ cient is
the number Ž ns, Do and Di are the tube outer and inner obtained from the analysis of heat transfer in the second
diameters, Z p is the tube length, B is the Ž n height, heat exchanger, which is described in the next section.
and W is the Ž n width. In Eq. (10 ) the internal heat
transfer coefŽ cient for condensation, h c , is deŽ ned by
the correlation of Shah [25]. This relation is given by Heat Transfer CoefŽ cient with Single Phase
³ ´
hc 3:8 As is shown in Figure 8, the subccoled condensate
D1C (12 ) leaves the Ž rst heat exchanger at temperature Tu and is
h lo z 0:95
cooled further in the second heat exchanger to a lower
The parameter z is deŽ ned by temperature, Tv . On the outside of the heat exchanger
tubes, the water temperature increases from T3 to T4 .
³ ´0:8 The thermal load for the second heat exchanger is given
1
z D ¡1 P̄ 0:4 (13 ) by
v
q D M C p (Tu ¡ Tv ) D Uu A LMTD (16 )
where P̄ is the reduced pressure, and v is the vapor mass
fraction. The local superŽ cial heat transfer coefŽ cient
h lo is calculated using the relation In Eq. (16 ), q; M , and C p deŽ ne the thermal load, the
 ow rate, and the speciŽ c heat at constant pressure of
the  uid  owing inside the heat exchanger tubes. Also,
h lo D h u (1 ¡ v )0:8 (14 )
Tu and Tv deŽ ne the inlet and outlet temperatures of the
 uid inside the heat exchanger tubes. The LMTD value
where h u is the heat transfer coefŽ cient, assuming all
in Eq. (16 ) is given by
 owing mass as liquid, and is calculated by the well-
known Dittus-Bolter equation: (T4 ¡ T3 )
³ ´ LMTD D (17 )
0:8 0:4 k` lnfR=[R C ln(1 ¡ RP )]g
h u D 0:023 (Re ) (Pr ) (15 )
Di
where
The ranges of data over which the equation by Shah can Tu ¡ Tv
be used are RD
T4 ¡ T3
2:8 · Di · 40 mm
T4 ¡ T3
± PD
21 · Ts · 355 C Tu ¡ T3
50 heat transfer engineering vol. 22 no. 4 2001
 column and in the void space of the heat exchanger.
The measured averages are 5.39 and 7.85 m/s for the
air velocity in the column and the heat exchanger void
space, respectively. The former value gives a free  ow
area of 68.6% of the face area of the heat exchanger.
The correlation by Myers [26] is used to calculate the
wet heat transfer coefŽ cient. This correlation relates the
wet and dry heat transfer coefŽ cients, or

h w D h d (1:07 )Va0:101 (18 )

where Va is the air velocity in m/s. Substituting the val-

ues for the dry heat transfer coefŽ cient, with an average
of 157.5 W/m2 ± C, and the void space air velocity gives
a wet heat transfer coefŽ cient of 206.9 W/m2 ± C, which
is consistent with the data shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Variation in outside heat transfer coefŽ cient as a func-

tion of water-to-air  ow-rate ratio and steam temperature. HEAT TRANSFER AREA FOR CONDENSATION
AND SUBCOOLING

where (T4 ¡ T3 ) is the difference in the water Ž lm tem- Variations in the heat transfer area for condensation
perature. The overall heat transfer coefŽ cient in Eq. (16 ) and subcooling are shown in Figure 10 as a function
is given by Eq. (11 ). As discussed before, the Dittus and of the water-to-air  ow ratio. The data are shown for
Bolter relation given by Eq. (15 ) is used to calculate inlet steam temperature of 120.8 ± C. The higher con-
the internal heat transfer coefŽ cient, h u . Therefore, densation area is a result of higher thermal load for
Eqs. (11 ), (16 ), and (17 ) are used to determine the ex- condensation than subcooling. Also, the decrease in the
ternal heat transfer coefŽ cient, h o . condensation area at higher values for L/G is caused by
The outside heat transfer coefŽ cient is determined the increase in the heat transfer coefŽ cient as shown in
as a function of the air-to-water  ow rate ratio and the Figure 9. On the other hand, the increase in the subcool-
temperature of the inlet steam. As is shown in Figure 9, ing area upon the increase in the L/G ratio is caused by
the heat transfer coefŽ cient varies over a range of 150 the constraint imposed on the total heat transfer area.
to 230 W/m2 ± C. The two sets of data given in Figure 9 Since the total area of the condenser is constant, it is
show that the outside heat transfer coefŽ cient increases equal to the summation of the condensation and sub-
at higher inlet steam temperatures. This is caused by the cooling heat transfer areas.
increase in the driving force for heat transfer rate across
the surface area of the heat exchanger at higher temper-
atures. This enhancement is caused by reduction in the
water viscosity and increase in the thermal conductivity
of the air and water at higher temperatures. Regardless
of this, the thermal resistance on the water/air side in-
creases at higher L/G values. This is because of the
increase in the water Ž lm thickness. Evidently, this ef-
fect is masked by the enhancement caused by the high
steam temperature and the increase in the water tem-
perature at higher L/G values.
For a zero  ow rate of the water stream, the system
is reduced to an air condenser. At this condition the
heat transfer coefŽ cient is calculated using the same
procedure as for the evaporative condenser. The results
give a dry heat transfer coefŽ cient that varies over a
range of 150 – 165 W/m2 ± C.
Comparison of the measured values of the wet heat
transfer coefŽ cient is made against literature data. This Figure 10 Variation in the condensation and subcooling heat
required measurements of the air velocity inside the transfer area as a function of water-to-air  ow-rate ratio.

heat transfer engineering vol. 22 no. 4 2001 51

CORRELATIONS OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The efŽ ciency data for the evaporative condenser and
air condenser are correlated as a function of the steam
temperature (Ts ), the wet-bulb temperature ( Tw ), the
heat transfer area ( A ), and the water-to-air  ow rate ratio
( L/G ). The heat transfer area for the two condensers in
parallel is set equal to the area of the single condenser.
The resulting efŽ ciency correlation for the evaporative
condenser is given by
e e D 98:57 ¡ 1:76( L/G ) ¡ 2:09 £ 10¡2 ( Ts )
C 0:27 A C 4:83 £ 10¡2 (Tw ) (19 )
with an R 2 value of 0.89, average deviation of
0.15%, and maximum deviation of 0.39%. The above
Figure 11 Variation in measured and calculated system
efŽ ciency.
52 heat transfer engineering
correlations are limited to the ranges 0:164 · L/G ·
0:352; 23:1 · Tw · 26; 111:9 · Ts · 120:8, and
3:68 · A · 7:36, where the temperatures are in ± C
and the area is in m2 . Similarly, the efŽ ciency correla-
tion for the air condenser is given by
e a D 223:03 C 1:81 £ 10¡2 ( Ts ) ¡ 0:31 A ¡ 5:29(Tw )
(20 )
with an R 2 value of 0.97, average deviation of 0.28%,
and maximum deviation of 1.18%. The results for the
two correlations are shown in Figure 11. The above
correlations are limited to the ranges 24:52 · Tw ·
26; 111:9 · Ts · 120:7, and 3:68 · A · 7:36, where
the temperatures are in ± C and the area is in m2 .
The wet heat transfer coefŽ cient data are correlated
as a function of the water-to-air  ow rate ratio and the
steam temperature. The resulting correlation is given by
h o D 0:16( L/G )0:23 (Ts )2:13 (21 )
The above correlations are limited to the ranges 0:164
· L/G · 0:352 and 111:9 · Ts · 120:8, where the
temperature is in ± C. The R 2 value for the above corre-
lation is 0.94, with an average deviation of 1.7%, and
maximum deviation of 5.8%. The correlation results are
shown in Figure 12.
ERROR ANALYSIS
Error analysis in calculating the dimensionless gro-
ups presented in this article is performed by the Kline-
McClintock procedure [27]. The uncertainty in
measurements is deŽ ned as the root sum square of the
Figure 12 Variation in measured and calculated heat transfer
coefŽ cient.
vol. 22 no. 4 2001
Ž xed error by the instrumentation and the random er- Cp speciŽ c heat at constant pressure, J/kg ± C
ror observed during different measurements. The error d Ž n thickness, m
analysis includes measured temperature and  ow rate. D tube diameter, m
The calculated errors are 3.1% of the full scale for the G air  ow rate, kg/s
temperature measurement and 2.45% of the full scale Ḡ steam mass  ux, kg/m 2 s
for the  ow-rate measurements. Accordingly, devia- h heat transfer coefŽ cient, W/m2 ± C
tions in the calculated heat transfer coefŽ cient and sys- H liquid enthalpy, J/kg
tem efŽ ciency are 5.3% and 6.59%, respectively, from H 00 vapor enthalpy, J/kg
the true value. k thermal conductivity, W/m ± C
L liquid  ow rate, kg/s
CONCLUSIONS m number of Ž ns
M mass  ow rate of condensate vapor, kg/s
An experimental investigation is conducted to study n number of tubes
the performance of evaporative condensers. In the light P pressure, kPa
of results and analysis, the following conclusions are P¯ reduced pressure,  uid pressure/critical pressure,
made. dimensionless
Pr Prandtl number (D C p l = k )
q thermal load, W
The evaporative condenser efŽ ciency increases at lower
q̄ heat  ux, W/m2
L/G ratios and higher inlet steam temperatures.
Re Reynolds number (D q V D =l )
The system performance shows that the parallel con-
T temperature, ± C
denser arrangement allows for processing the maxi-
U overall heat transfer coefŽ cient, W/m2 ± C
mum amount of inlet steam. On the other hand, the
V velocity, m/s
series conŽ guration provides the maximum degree
W Ž n width, m
of subcooling.
Z length, m
Performance of the single condenser unit is similar to
d thickness of tube wall, m
that of the two condensers in parallel. However, for
e system efŽ ciency [D (Ts ¡ Te )=( Ts ¡ Tw )]
the same amount of steam load, the single condenser
k latent heat, J/kg
results in a higher water temperature inside the col-
l dynamic viscosity, kg/m s
umn and a lower degree of subcooling.
u Ž n efŽ ciency
Proper design of the evaporative condenser and efŽ -
q density, kg/m 3
cient use of the heat transfer area for condensation v vapor mass fraction
rather than subcooling, would allow the evaporative
condenser to handle a thermal load 60% higher than
that of the air condenser. In other words, for the same Subscripts
amount of inlet steam, the higher thermal capacity of
the evaporative condenser allows for use of a smaller a air stream or air condenser
heat transfer surface area and fan power than the air c condensate or condensation area
condenser. d dry-bulb or dry heat transfer coefŽ cient
The efŽ ciency correlation is expressed in terms of the e evaporative condenser
steam temperature, the heat transfer area, L/G, and F Žn
the ambient air wet-bulb temperature. The correla- i inner tube
tion is simple and can provide preliminary design ` liquid water
data. lo local heat transfer coefŽ cient of liquid water
The correlation for the water/air heat transfer coefŽ cient m mean
is expressed as a function of the steam temperature o outer tube
and L/G. The correlation predictions are consistent p tube
with literature studies. s heating steam
t total heat transfer area
NOMENCLATURE u subcooled condensate leaving Ž rst heat exchanger
v subcooled condensate leaving second heat ex-
A heat transfer area, m2 changer
B Ž n height, m w wet-bulb or wet heat transfer coefŽ cient

heat transfer engineering vol. 22 no. 4 2001 53

REFERENCES
[1] Al-Juwayhel, F. I., Al-Haddad, A. A., Shaban, H. I., and
El-Dessouky, H. T. A., Experimental Investigation of the Per-
formance of Two-Stage Evaporative Cooler, Heat Transfer
Eng., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 21 – 33, 1997.
[2] Webb, R. L., A UniŽ ed Theoretical Treatment of Thermal
Analysis of Cooling Towers, Evaporative Condensers, and
Fluid Coolers, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 90, pp. 398 – 415, 1984.
[3] Webb, R. L., and Villacres, A., Algorithms for Performance
Simulation of Cooling Towers, Evaporative Condensers, and
Fluid Coolers, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 90, pp. 416 – 458, 1984.
[4] Maclain-Cross,I. L., and Banks, P. J., A General Theory of Wet
Surface Heat Exchangers and Its Application to Regenerative
Evaporative Cooling, J. Heat Transfer, vol. 103, pp. 579 – 584,
1981.
[5] Kettleborough, C. F., and Hsieh, C. S., The Thermal Perfor-
mance of the Wet Surface Plastic Plate Heat Exchanger Used
as an Indirect Evaporative Cooler, ASME J. Heat Transfer, vol.
105, pp. 366 – 373, 1983.
[6] Chen, P., Qin, H., Huang, Y. J., and Wu, H., A Heat and Mass
Transfer Model for Thermal and Hydraulic Calculations of
Indirect Evaporative Cooler Performance, ASHRAE Trans.,
vol. 97, Part 2, pp. 852 – 865, 1991.
[7] Peterson, J. L., An Effectiveness Model for Indirect Evapora-
tive Coolers, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 99, pp. 392 – 399, 1993.
[8] Kettleborough, C. F., The Thermal Performance of Cross-Flow
Indirect Evaporative Cooler, Proc. ASME-JSME Thermal En-
gineering Joint Conf., vol. 3, pp. 195 – 201, 1987.
[9] Peterson, J. L., and Hunn, B. D., Experimental Performance
of an Indirect Evaporative Cooler, ASHRAE Trans., vol. 98,
pp. 15– 23, 1992.
[10] Erens, P. J., and Dreyer, A. A., Modelling of Indirect Evapora-
tive Air Coolers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 36, pp. 17 – 26,
1993.
[11] Erens, P. J., Comparison of Some Design Choices for Evapora-
tive Cooler Cores, Heat Transfer Eng., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 29 – 35,
1988.
[12] El-Dessouky, H., Enhancement of the Thermal Performance
of a Wet Cooling Tower, Can. J. Chem. Eng., vol. 71, no. 3,
pp. 1 – 8, 1996.
[13] Goswami, D. Y., Mathur, G. D., and Kulkarni, S. M., Experi-
mental Investigation of Performance of a Residential Air Con-
ditioning System with an Evaporatively Cooled Condenser,
J. Solar Energy Eng., vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 206 – 211, 1993.
[14] Merkel, F., Verdunstungshuhlung, Z. Ver. Deutsch. Ing. (V.D.I.),
vol. 70, pp. 123 – 128, 1925.
[15] Nahavandi, A. N., Kershah, R. M., and Serico, B. J., The Effect
of Evaporation Losses in the Analysis of Counter Flow Cooling
Towers, J. Nuclear Eng. Design, vol. 32, pp. 29 – 36, 1975.
[16] Sutherland, J. W., Analysis of Mechanical-Draught Counter
Flow Air/Water Cooling Towers, J. Heat Transfer, vol. 105,
pp. 576 – 583, 1983.
[17] El-Dessouky, H. T. A., Al-Haddad, A., and Al-Juwayhel, F.,
A ModiŽ ed Analysis of Counter Flow Wet Cooling Towers,
ASME J. Heat Transfer, vol. 119, no. 3, pp. 617 – 626, 1997.
[18] Goodman, W., The Evaporative Condenser, Heating, Piping,
and Air Conditioning, vol. 10, pp. 165 – 328, 1938.
[19] Thomsen, E. G., Heat Transfer in an Evaporative Condenser,
Refrig. Eng., vol. 51, pp. 425 – 431, 1946.
[20] Parker, R. O., and Treybal, R. E., The Heat, Mass Trans-
fer Characteristics of Evaporative Coolers, Chem. Eng. Prog.
Symp. Ser., vol. 57, pp. 138 – 149, 1961.
54 heat transfer engineering
[21] Leidenfrost, W., and Korenic, B., Evaporative Cooling and
Heat Transfer Augmentation Related to Reduced Condenser
Temperature, Heat Transfer Eng., vol. 3, no. 3– 4, pp. 38 – 59,
1982.
[22] Peterson, D., Glasser, D., and Williams, D., Predicting the Per-
formance of an Evaporative Condenser, ASME Trans., J. Heat
Transfer, vol. 110, no. 3, pp. 748 – 753, 1988.
[23] El-Dessouky, H. T., Al-Haddad, A. A., and Al-Juwayhel, F.
I., Thermal and Hydraulic Performance of a ModiŽ ed Two-
Stage Evaporative Cooler, J. Renewable Energy, vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 165 – 176, 1996.
[24] Threlkeld, J., Thermal Environmental Engineering, 2d ed.,
pp. 235 – 275, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJ, 1970.
[25] Shah, M. M., General Correlation for Heat Transfer during
Film Condensation inside Pipes, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 547 – 556, 1979.
[26] Myers, R. J., The Effect of DehumidiŽ cation on the Air Side
Heat Transfer CoefŽ cient for a Finned-Tube Coil, M.Sc. thesis,
University of Minnesota, 1967.
[27] Kline, S. J., and McClintock, F. A., Describing Uncertainities
in Single Sample Experiments, in Mech. Eng. ASME, New
York, 1953.
Hisham Ettouney has been Professor of Chemi-
cal Engineering at Kuwait University since 1988.
Previously, he was a faculty member at the King
Saud University, Saudi Arabi, and University of
New Hampshire, USA. He received his Ph.D. in
Chemical Engineering from MIT, USA, in 1983.
Also, he received his B.Sc. in Chemical Engineer-
ing from Cairo University, Egypt, in 1975. He has
more than 100 research publications and conference presentations in desali-
nation, evaporative cooling, energy storage, and membrane separation.
Hisham El-Dessouky has been Professor of
Chemical Engineering at Kuwait University since
1991. Previously, he was a faculty member at
Qatar University, Qatar, and Zagazzig University,
Egypt. He received his Ph.D. in Chemical Engi-
neering from the University of Hannover, West
Germany, in 1981. Also, he received his M.Sc.
and B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from Cairo
University, Egypt, in 1976 and 1971, respectively. He is an Associate Edi-
tor of Heat Transfer Engineering and Desalination. He has more than 100
research publications and conference presentations in desalination, evapo-
rative cooling, energy storage, and membrane separation.
Waleed S. Bouhamra is Professor of Chemical
Engineering at Kuwait University since 1999. He
received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Chemical Engi-
neering from Oklahoma State University in 1988
and 1985. His B.Sc. in Chemical Engineering was
received from Kuwait University in 1981. He has
held a number of academic positions at Kuwait
University, which includes Assistant Vice Rector
for ScientiŽ c Affairs, Director for the Center of
Evaluation and Measurement, Vice Dean for Re-
search and Academic Affairs at the College of Engineering and Petroleum,
and currently he is the Vice Rector for Academic Support and Services. His
research interests include environmental and indoor air pollution, reactor
design, and energy. He has published and presented more than 50 research
articles in refereed journals and international conferences.
vol. 22 no. 4 2001
Bader Al-Azmi has been an Instructor of
Chemical Engineering at Kuwait University since
1994. He received his M.Sc. and B.Sc. in Chem-
ical Engineering from Kuwait University in 1998
and 1994, respectively. Currently, he is pursuing
his Ph.D. studies in heat transfer.

heat transfer engineering vol. 22 no. 4 2001 55