Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

Performance characteristics of counter ow wet cooling towers

Jameel-Ur-Rehman Khan, M. Yaqub, Syed M. Zubair
*

Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Mail Box 1474, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia Received 16 June 2002; accepted 23 September 2002

Abstract Cooling towers are one of the biggest heat and mass transfer devices that are in widespread use. In this paper, we use a detailed model of counter ow wet cooling towers in investigating the performance characteristics. The validity of the model is checked by experimental data reported in the literature. The thermal performance of the cooling towers is clearly explained in terms of varying air and water temperatures, as well as the driving potential for convection and evaporation heat transfer, along the height of the tower. The relative contribution of each mode of heat transfer rate to the total heat transfer rate in the cooling tower is established. It is demonstrated with an example problem that the predominant mode of heat transfer is evaporation. For example, evaporation contributes about 62.5% of the total rate of heat transfer at the bottom of the tower and almost 90% at the top of the tower. The variation of air and water temperatures along the height of the tower (process line) is explained on psychometric charts. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cooling towers; Model; Performance evaluation

1. Introduction Cooling towers, as shown schematically in Fig. 1, consist of large chambers loosely lled with trays or decks of wooden boards as slats or of PVC material. The water to be cooled is pumped to the top of the tower, where it is distributed over the top deck by sprays or distributor troughs made of wood or PVC material. It then falls and splashes from deck-to-deck down through the tower. Air is permitted to pass through the tower horizontally due to wind currents (cross ow) or vertically upward (counter current) to the falling water droplets. In the case of counter current

Corresponding author. Tel.: +966-3-860-3135; fax: +966-3-860-2949. E-mail address: smzubair@kfupm.edu.sa (S.M. Zubair).

0196-8904/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S0196-8904(02)00231-5

2074

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

Nomenclature AV cp a cw E h hc h c;w hD hf h f ;w hg h0 g hfg;w hs;w hs;int Le _a m _w m NTU PQ Pr Sc t tint tw V W Ws ;w e surface area of water droplets per unit volume of tower, m2 /m3 specic heat at constant pressure of moist air, kJ/kga K specic heat of water, kJ/kgw K slope of the tie line, kJ/kgw K enthalpy of moist air, kJ/kga convective heat transfer coecient of air, kW/m2 K convective heat transfer coecient of water, kW/m2 K convective mass transfer coecient, kgw /m2 s specic enthalpy of saturated liquid water, kJ/kgw specic enthalpy of water evaluated at tw , kJ/kgw specic enthalpy of saturated water vapor, kJ/kgw specic enthalpy of saturated water vapor evaluated at 0 C, kJ/kgw change of phase enthalpy hfg;w hg;w hf ;w , kJ/kgw enthalpy of saturated moist air evaluated at tw , kJ/kga enthalpy of saturated moist air evaluated at tint , kJ/kga Lewis number Le hc =hD cp;a mass ow rate of dry air, kga /s mass ow rate of water, kgw /s number of transfer units percentage heat rate(Q=Qtot ) Prandtl number Schmidt number dry bulb temperature of moist air, C airwater interface temperature, C water temperature, C volume of tower, m3 humidity ratio of moist air, kgw /kga humidity ratio of saturated moist air evaluated at tw , kgw /kga eectiveness

Subscripts a moist air db dry bulb em empirical g,w vapor at water temperature i inlet int airwater interface max maximum o outlet s,w saturated moist air at water temperature w water

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

2075

w,i w,o wb,i wb,o

water inlet water outlet wet bulb inlet wet bulb outlet

Superscripts cal calculated exp experimental

Fig. 1. Schematic of a wet counter ow cooling tower.

towers, the air motion is due to the natural chimney eect of the warm moist air in the tower or may be caused by fans at the bottom (forced draft) or at the top (induced draft) of the tower. Walker et al. [1] was the rst to propose a basic theory of cooling tower operation. The practical use of basic dierential equations, however, was rst presented by Merkel [2], in which he combined the equations for heat and water vapor transfer. He showed the utility of total heat or enthalpy dierence as a driving force to allow for both sensible and latent heats. The basic postulations and approximations that are inherent in Merkels theory are: the resistance for heat transfer in the liquid lm is negligible; the mass ow rate of water per unit cross sectional area of the tower is constant, i.e. there is no loss of water due to evaporation;

2076

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

the specic heat of the airsteam mixture at constant pressure is the same as that of dry air; the Lewis number for humid air is unity. It should be noted that the formulation and implementation of Merkels theory in cooling tower design and performance evaluation is presented and discussed in most unit operations and process heat transfer textbooks.

2. Literature review Webb [3] performed a unied theoretical treatment for thermal analysis of cooling towers, evaporative condensers and evaporative uid coolers. In this paper, specic calculation procedures are explained for sizing and rating each type of evaporative exchanger. In another paper, Webb and Villacres [4] described three computer algorithms that have been developed to perform rating calculations of three evaporatively cooled heat exchangers. The algorithms are particularly useful for rating commercially available heat exchangers at part load conditions. The heat and mass transfer characteristic equation of one of the heat exchangers is derived from the manufacturers rating data at the design point. Jaber and Webb [5] presented an analysis that shows how the theory of heat exchanger design may be applied to cooling towers. They demonstrated that the eectiveness e and NTUs denitions are in very good agreement with those used for heat exchanger design and are applicable to all cooling tower operating conditions. It is important to note that they did not consider heat transfer resistance in the airwater interface and the eect of water evaporation on the air process states along the vertical length of the tower. The results are only applicable for Lewis number equal to one. Furthermore, they used Merkels approximation of replacing the sum of the single phase heat transfer from the waterair interface to the air and the mass transfer (evaporation of water) at the interface with the enthalpy as a driving potential. Braun et al. [6] presented eectiveness models for cooling towers and cooling coils. The models utilize existing thermal eectiveness relationships developed for sensible heat exchangers with modied denitions for the number of transfer units and the uid capacitance rate ratio. The results of the models were compared with those of more detailed numerical solutions to the basic heat and mass transfer equations and experimental data. They also did not consider the eect of airwater interface temperature, however, they did consider the eect of water evaporation on the air process states along the vertical length of the tower. The results are only presented for a Lewis number equal to unity. Dessouky et al. [7] presented a solution for the steady state counter ow wet cooling tower with new denitions of tower eectiveness and number of transfer units. Their model is essentially a modied version of Jaber and Webbs model with the inclusion of Lewis number, which appears as a multiplication factor to the enthalpy driving potential. They did consider the eect of interface temperature and Lewis number, however, the eect of water evaporation on the air process states along the vertical length is not considered. Furthermore, they used an approximate equation for calculating the moist air enthalpy, which was obtained by curve tting the tabulated thermodynamic properties of saturated airwater vapor mixtures. It is important to note that the calculation of moist air properties should be accurate to obtain reliable results. Jorge and

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

2077

Armando [8] tested a new closed wet cooling tower for use in chilled ceilings in buildings. They also obtained experimental correlations for the heat and mass transfer coecients and concluded that existing thermal models were found to predict reliably the thermal performance of cooling towers. Bernier [9,10] explained the performance of a cooling tower by examining the heat and mass transfer mechanism from a single water droplet to the ambient air. He did not consider the eect of air temperature as it moved from the bottom to the top of the tower. Nimr [11] presented a mathematical model to describe the thermal behavior of cooling towers that contain packing materials. The model takes into account both sensible and latent eects on the tower performance. A closed form solution was obtained for both the transient and steady temperature distribution in a cooling tower. Jose [12] dened a new parameter thermo uid dynamic eciency, to quantify the performances of cooling tower lls and concluded that it is independent of the cooling tower height. The objective of this paper is to investigate the heat and mass transfer mechanisms from a water droplet in a cooling tower as the air moves in the vertical direction. In this regard, for the sake of completeness, we rst discuss briey the model of the tower, in which we have used reliable air water thermodynamic property equations that are formulated by Hyland and Wexler [13,14]. It is then followed by results and discussions related to the heat and mass transfer mechanisms of a water droplet as it travels from the top to the bottom of the tower.

3. Analysis of a cooling tower A schematic of a counter ow cooling tower, showing the important states, is presented in Fig. 2. The major assumptions that are used to derive the basic modeling equations may be summarized as [15,16]: heat and mass transfer is in a direction normal to the ows only; negligible heat and mass transfer through the tower walls to the environment; negligible heat transfer from the tower fans to the air or water streams; constant water and dry air specic heats; constant heat and mass transfer coecients throughout the tower; constant value of Lewis number throughout the tower; water lost by drift is negligible; uniform temperature throughout the water stream at each cross section; and uniform cross sectional area of the tower.

From the steady state energy and mass balances on an incremental volume (refer to Fig. 2), the following equation may be written [16] _ w d h f ;w m _ a dW hf ;w _ a dh m m 1

We may also write the water energy balance in terms of the heat and mass transfer coecients, hc and hD , respectively, as _ w dhf ;w hc AV dV tw t hD AV dV Ws;w W hfg;w m 2

2078

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

Fig. 2. Mass and energy balance of a wet counter ow cooling tower [15,16].

and the air side water vapor mass balance as _ a dW hD AV dV Ws;w W m By substitution of the Lewis number as Le hc =hD cpa in Eq. (2), we get, after simplication, _ w dhf ;w hD AV dV Le cpa tw t Ws;w W hfg;w m 4 3

Notice that we have dened Lewis number in Eq. (4) similar to the denition that is used by Braun et al. [6] and Kuehn et al. [15], however, Jaber and Webb [5] and El-Dessouky et al. [7] have used Le Sc=Pr, commonly used in heat and mass transfer literature. In this regard, we prefer to stick to the notation of Kuehn et al. [15] that is considered as one of the standard references in cooling tower literature. Combining Eqs. (1)(4), we get, after some simplication [16], dh hs;w h Le hg;w h0 g Le dW Ws;w W 5

It should be noted that Eq. (5) describes the condition line on the psychometric chart for the changes in state for moist air passing through the tower. For given water temperatures tw;i ; tw;o , Lewis number (Le), inlet condition of air and mass ow rates, Eqs. (1) and (5) may be solved numerically for the exit conditions of both the air and water stream. The solution is iterative with respect to the air humidity ratio and temperatures (W , t and tw ). At each iteration, Eqs. (1)(5) can

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

200

2079

Ta Tint Tw
hs,w

Tw > Tint > Ta

Enthalpy kJ/kg dry air

hs,int
100 -hc,w

E=

E=
Saturated Air

hD

air operating line

0 10 Water Temperature
o

- h h s,int

hs,w - h
50

Fig. 3. Water operating line on enthalpytemperature diagram indicating the eect of tie line E hc;w =hD on saturated moist air enthalpy [16].

be integrated numerically over the entire tower volume from air inlet to outlet by a procedure similar to that described in Kuehn et al. [15] and Khan and Zubair [16]. In deriving Eqs. (1)(5), it was assumed that there is no resistance to heat ow in the interface between the air and water. In other words, the interface temperature was assumed to be equal to the bulk water temperature. However, for heat transfer to take place between the air and water, the temperature of the interface lm must be less than the bulk water temperature, as shown in Fig. 3. In that case, all the terms in Eqs. (1)(5) with the subscripts (s, w) will be replaced by subscript (s, int). Webb [5] assumed that tw is nearly equal to tint 0:5. Fig. 3 shows both the enthalpies of the saturated airwater vapor mixture and tower operating line as a function of water temperature. Considering the short distance between hs;w and hs;int on the saturation curve as a straight line, the following simple relationship can be easily deduced [7], hs;w h hs;w hs;int Etw tint E hc;w =hD 6 7 where E is the slope of the tie line and is constant for a given cooling tower. This slope is given by The above equation can be used for obtaining the interface temperature. However, for large values of E, the interface and bulk water temperatures are almost equal. A computer program written by Khan and Zubair [16] is used for solving Eqs. (1)(5) numerically, and the ow chart of the program is shown in Fig. 4. In this program, the properties of the airwater vapor mixture and moist air are needed at each step of the numerical calculation. These properties are obtained from the property equations given in Hyland and Wexler [13,14], which are also used by ASHRAE [17] in computing airwater vapor thermodynamic properties. The program gives the dry bulb temperature, wet bulb temperature of air, water temperature and humidity ratio of air at each step of the numerical calculation starting from the air inlet to the air outlet values. If the value of hD AV is known, the required tower volume may be obtained by using [16]:

2080

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

Fig. 4. Flow chart of the computer model.

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

2081

_a m hD AV

Wo

Wi

dW Ws;w W

The integral in the above equation is solved numerically. The number of transfer units of the tower is calculated by Z Wo dW _a 9 NTU hD AV V =m Ws;w W Wi The cooling tower eectiveness e is dened as the ratio of the actual energy transfer to the maximum possible energy transfer e ho hi hs;w;i hi 10

Correlations for the heat and mass transfer of cooling towers in terms of physical parameters do not exist. It is usually necessary to correlate the tower performance data for specic tower designs. Mass transfer data are typically correlated in the form [18]: !n _w hD AV V m c 11 _w _a m m where c and n are empirical constants specic to a particular tower design. Multiplying both sides _ a and considering the denition for NTU (refer to Eq. (9)) gives _ w =m of the above equation by m the empirical value of NTU as !n1 _w m NTUem c 12 _a m The coecients c and n of the above equation were t to the measurements of Simpson and Sherwood [19] for four dierent tower designs over a range of performance conditions by Braun et al. [6]. Their experimental values were also compared with the values obtained by our model, and the results are discussed in Khan and Zubair [16]. It was shown that the calculated and empirical values of NTU are well within acceptable limits. Also, the wet bulb temperature of the outlet air twb;o calculated from the present model is compared with the experimental values reported in Simpson and Sherwood [19], and the two values are very close to each other (within 0.6%). 4. Performance characteristics It is commonly believed that the evaporation heat transfer rate inside the cooling tower is much greater than the convective heat transfer rate. To investigate the contribution of evaporation heat transfer in a cooling tower, a study is conducted on a water droplet as it moves from the top to the bottom of the tower, whereas the air that is used to cool the water is forced from the bottom of the tower in a counter ow arrangement. In this regard, the heat transfer rates from a single water droplet (of 3 mm diameter) inside the cooling tower due to convection and evaporation were expressed, respectively, as

2082

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

_ conv hc AV tw tdb Q _ evap hD AV Ws;w Wa hfg;w Q

13 14

The computer program for simulating the performance of the cooling tower, explained in the previous section, was used for analyzing the heat transfer rates for the following set of input data: tdb;i 29:0 C, twb;i 21:11 C, tw;i 28:72 C, tw;o 24:22 C, hD AV 3:025 kg/s m3 , Le 0:9 _ a 1:187 kg/s. At each incremental control volume, measured from the top of the tower, the and m program calculates the thermodynamic properties of the airwater mixture that are then used to calculate the heat transfer rates from the water droplet by using Eqs. (13) and (14). The results from the program are plotted in Figs. 519. In these gures, the eects of water to air mass ow rate ratios on the airwater temperatures, as well as the driving potential for convectiveevaporative heat transfer rates are investigated. In this regard, the ratio of mass ow rate of water to _ a , is varied from 0.5 to 1.5 at an interval of 0.5. _ w =m mass ow rate of air, m Fig. 5 is a plot of the air and water temperatures versus volume of tower. The water falls from the top and its temperature, tw , decreases continuously as it approaches the bottom of the tower. This is generally expected in a cooling tower because the water loses heat both by convection and evaporation. It is interesting to see that the air, which enters from the bottom of the tower with initial dry bulb temperature, tdb , decreases in temperature and then increases before leaving from the top of the tower. This can be explained from the fact that the water, which enters from the top of the tower, when it reaches the lower part, is cooled because of a predominantly evaporation mechanism. In this region, the water temperature, tw , is much lower than the entering air dry bulb temperature, tdb , however, as we note from Fig. 5, when the tower volume from the top reaches
30

28 Temperature (C)
tdb

26

24
tw

22

twb

20 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Volume of Tower "V" m3

_ w =m _a Fig. 5. Variation of dry and wet bulb temperature of air and water temperature with volume of tower for m 0:50.

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

30

2083

28

tdb

Temperature (C)

26

tw

24
twb

22

20

0.2

0.4
3

0.6

0.8

Volume of Tower "V" m

Fig. 6. Variation of dry and wet bulb temperature of air and water temperature with volume of tower for _ w =m _ a 1:00. m
30
tdb

28

Temperature (C)

tw
26

24

twb

22

20

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Volume of Tower "V" m3

Fig. 7. Variation of dry and wet bulb temperature of air and water temperature with volume of tower for _ w =m _ a 1:50. m

above 0.15 m3 , the water temperature is less than tdb . This results in heat transfer from the air to the water (i.e. negative convection). The intersection point of the tdb and tw curves indicates no

2084

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

Fig. 8. Variation of driving potential for convection and evaporation heat transfer with volume of tower for _ w =m _ a 0:50. m

Fig. 9. Variation of driving potential for convection and evaporation heat transfer with volume of tower for _ w =m _ a 1:00. m

temperature dierence. At this point, there is no convection heat exchange between the water and the air. Furthermore, below this point tdb is less than tw , which results in heat transfer from the water to the air (i.e. positive convection). As expected, the wet bulb temperature of the air twb

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

2085

Fig. 10. Variation of driving potential for convection and evaporation heat transfer with volume of tower for _ w =m _ a 1:50. m

Heat Rates "Q" (Watts)

2
Qevap

1
Qtotal

Qconv

-1

0.2

0.4 0.6 Volume of Tower "V" m3

0.8

_ w =m _ a 0:50. Fig. 11. Variation of heat rates with volume of tower for m

decreases continuously in the tower from the top to the bottom. It approaches the water outlet temperature at the bottom of the tower.

2086

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

3

Qevap

Heat Rates "Q" (Watts)

Qtotal

0
Qconv

-1

0.2

0.4 0.6 Volume of Tower "V" m3

0.8

_ w =m _ a 1:00. Fig. 12. Variation of heat rates with volume of tower for m

3
Qevap

Heat Rates "Q" (Watts)

Qtotal

0
Qconv

-1

0.2

0.4 0.6 Volume of Tower "V" m3

0.8

_ w =m _ a 1:50. Fig. 13. Variation of heat rates with volume of tower for m

_ w =m _ a is investigated by varying the mass ow rate of water, The eect of mass ow rate ratio m _ a , constant. The results are shown in Figs. 57. We note that _ w , while keeping the air ow rate, m m

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

2087

_ w =m _ a 0:50. Fig. 14. Variation of percent heat rates with volume of tower for m

_ w =m _ a 1:00. Fig. 15. Variation of percent heat rates with volume of tower for m

with the increase in water mass ow rate, the dry bulb temperature of the air decreases over a relatively small height of the tower, and also the temperature drop of water is less with the in_ w . This can be explained from the fact that with an increase in mass ow rate ratio, crease in m more water is to be cooled for a given tower volume. Therefore, one would expect that the surface

2088

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

_ w =m _ a 1:50. Fig. 16. Variation of percent heat rates with volume of tower for m

0.04 125

275
0.03

100

250 225 200

0.08

75

0.02

50

0.01

25

30

kg J/ (k 0 y lp 150 a th En 125

r) ai y dr of 175

0.06

0.04

100 75

0.02
50
= RH 20%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Dry Bulb Temperature (C)

_ w =m _ a 0:50. Fig. 17. Process line of water cooling in cooling tower for m

area required both for convection and evaporation will be reduced, resulting in higher water outlet temperatures and reduced heat transfer rates. The driving potentials for evaporative heat transfer Ws;w Wa and convective heat transfer _ w =m _ a varying from 0.5 to 1.5 at an tw tdb versus tower volume are presented in Figs. 810 for m interval of 0.5. We note that the humidity ratio of saturated moist air, Ws;w decreases with tower volume measured from the top because the water temperature decreases as it moves down, while

Humidity Ratio (kg of moisture/kg of dry air)

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

0.04 125 100 0.03

2089

275 250 225 200

0.08 Humidity Ratio (kg of moisture/kg of dry air) Humidity Ratio (kg of moisture/kg of dry air)

75

0.02

50

0.01

25

30

kg J/ 0 (k y 150 lp a th En 125

r) ai y dr of 175

0.06

0.04

100 75

0.02
50
= RH 20%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Dry Bulb Temperature (C)

_ w =m _ a 1:00. Fig. 18. Process line of water cooling in cooling tower for m
0.04 125 100 0.03

275 250 225 200

0.08

75

0.02

50

0.01

25

30

kg J/ 0 (k y 150 lp a th En 125

r) ai y dr of 175

0.06

0.04

100 75

0.02
50
= RH 20%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Dry Bulb Temperature (C)

_ w =m _ a 1:50. Fig. 19. Process line of water cooling in cooling tower for m

the humidity ratio of moist air, Wa increases with tower volume measured from the bottom because the air absorbs moisture as it move upwards. These gures show that the potential for evaporation _ a 0:5. However, _ w =m decreases rst and then increases with the tower volume, particularly for m _ a P 1:0, the potential increases with tower volume. On the other hand, the driving po_ w =m for m tential for convection heat transfer tw tdb decreases with tower volume, and it becomes negative after reaching some height of the tower. It, therefore, results in a negative convective heat transfer in the tower (from water to air). As explained above, the negative convection in the tower occurs when the water temperature is lower than the air dry bulb temperature.

2090

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

_ conv , Q _ evap and Q _ total Q _ conv Q _ evap are The convection and evaporation heat transfer rates Q plotted as a function of tower volume measured from the top of the tower in Figs. 1113. These gures show that the heat transfer rates are high in the top portions of the tower and decrease as _ a 6 1. These _ w =m the water moves from the top to the bottom of the tower, particularly for m _ a P 1 and is mainly controlled _ w =m gures, however, indicate that the total heat rate increases for m by the evaporation mechanism. In the region where the heat transfer is taking place from air to water; i.e. negative convection, the evaporation heat rates are generally high. These gures clearly show that evaporation is basically controlling the total heat ow in a cooling tower. The percentage heat rates due to convection and evaporation PQconv and PQevap , are plotted _ a . As _ w =m in Figs. 1416 as a function of tower volume for dierent mass ow rate ratios, m _ conv decreases with m _ w =m _ a . Therefore, a high percentage is noted for m _ w =m _ a less discussed above, Q than 1.0, particularly in the region where the convection is taking place from air to water, i.e. the convection component is negative. These gures clearly show that the percentage of the evaporation component is always positive and is highest for low mass ow rate ratios. The process lines of the air on a psychometric chart are presented in Figs. 1719 for dierent _ a . These curves show that the dry bulb temperature at the outlet of the tower is _ w =m values of m always less than that at the inlet for the conditions investigated in this study. However, the relative humidity and the specic humidity of the air increase as the air moves from the bottom to the top of the tower. This implies that the air is also going to cool in the tower, along with the water, because of evaporation of water in the tower. It should be noted that when water evaporates in the tower, it needs heat that is taken from both water and air. Therefore, one would expect the possibility of cooling both air and water in the tower. 5. Concluding remarks A reliable computer model of a counter ow wet cooling tower has been used to study the heat transfer mechanisms from a water droplet as it moves from the top to the bottom of the tower, while the air is forced vertically upward. It is clearly demonstrated that the water temperature, tw , decreases continuously as it approaches the bottom of the tower. However, air, which acts as a coolant, enters from the bottom of the tower, initially at its dry bulb temperature, tdb , decreases in temperature and then increases before leaving from the top of the tower. This cooling phenomenon of the air, i.e. negative convection, in some parts of the tower, along with the water, is explained due to evaporation of the water in the tower. It is demonstrated that in the negative convection region of the tower, the evaporation rates are generally high. The eect of water to air mass ow rate ratio, _ a , is investigated by varying the mass ow rate of water, m _ w , while keeping the air ow rate, _ w =m m _ a , constant. The results clearly demonstrate that with an increase in water mass ow rate for the m same ll packing, the surface area required both for convection and evaporation is reduced, resulting in higher water outlet temperatures and reduced heat transfer rates. Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support provided by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals through the research project (ME/RISK-FOULING/230).

J.-U.-R. Khan et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 44 (2003) 20732091

2091

References
[1] Walker WH, Lewis WK, McAdams WH, Gilliland ER. Principles of chemical engineering. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc; 1923. [2] Merkel F. Verdunstungshuhlung. Zeitschrift des Vereines Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI) 1925;70:1238. [3] Webb RL. A unied theoretical treatment for thermal analysis of cooling towers, evaporative condensers, and uid coolers. ASHRAE Trans 1984;90(2):398415. [4] Webb RL, Villacres A. Algorithms for performance simulation of cooling towers, evaporative condensers, and uid coolers. ASHRAE Trans 1984;90(2):41658. [5] Jaber H, Webb RL. Design of cooling towers by the eectiveness-NTU method. ASME J Heat Transf 1989;111(4):83743. [6] Braun JE, Klein SA, Mitchell JW. Eectiveness models for cooling towers and cooling coils. ASHRAE Trans 1989;95(2):16474. [7] El-Dessouky HTA, Al-Haddad A, Al-Juwayhel F. A modied analysis of counter ow cooling towers. ASME J Heat Transf 1997;119(3):61726. [8] Jorge F, Armando CO. Thermal behavior of closed wet cooling towers for use with chilled ceilings. Appl Therm Eng 2000;20:122536. [9] Bernier MA. Cooling tower performance: theory and experiments. ASHRAE Trans 1994;100(2):11421. [10] Bernier MA. Thermal performance of cooling towers. ASHRAE J 1995;37(4):5661. [11] Nimr MA. Modeling the dynamic thermal behavior of cooling towers containing packing materials. Heat Transf Eng 1999;20(1):916. [12] Jose AS. The use of thermo-uid dynamic eciency in cooling towers. Heat Transf Eng 2002;23:2230. [13] Hyland RW, Wexler A. Formulations for the thermodynamic properties of the saturated phases of H2 O from 173.15 to 473.15 K. ASHRAE Trans 1983;89(2):50020. [14] Hyland RW, Wexler A. Formulations for the thermodynamic properties of dry air from 173.15 to 473.15 K, and of saturated moist air from 173.15 to 372.15 K, at pressure to 5 MPa. ASHRAE Trans 1983;89(2):52035. [15] Kuehn TH, Ramsey JW, Threlkeld JL. Thermal environmental engineering. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1998. [16] Khan JR, Zubair SM. An improved design and rating analyses of counter ow wet cooling towers. ASME J Heat Transf 2001;123:7708. [17] ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc; 1993, Chapter 6. [18] ASHRAE equipment guide. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc; 1983, [chapter 3]. [19] Simpson WM, Sherwood TK. Performance of small mechanical draft cooling towers. Refrig Eng 1946;52(6):525 43, 5746.