Experiment 4: Cooling tower 10

Coooling range (oC)

8

Approach value,
Combalicer, Mark Eugene A.1
1
Student, School of Chemical Engineering and 6
Chemistry, Mapa University, Manila, 1002,
Philippine 4

2 approach value vs air flowrate

Results and Discussion
cooling range vs air flowrate
0
There are several factors that affect the 66.5 67 Air67.5
flow rate68
(L/s) 68.5 69
performance of a cooling tower. These includes:
1) flow rate of air, 2) flow rate of water, 3) Figure 1: Approach value and cooling range vs
temperature of water, 4) inlet air temperature and Air flowrate
humidity, 5) packing used, and lastly 6) packing
area and volume. The air flow rate and water flow It can be observed that the plot of approach value
rate are the two factors that were observed in this vs the air flowrate has a decreasing trend. It
experiment as the effects of varying these factors means that as the air flowrate increases, the
to the performance of cooling tower were approach value decreases. However, in the
assessed. cooling range vs air flowrate graph, increasing
trend was observed which shows direct
When warm water is brought into contact with proportionality between these two factors. As the
unsaturated gas, part of the liquid evaporates and air flowrate increases, the cooling range also
the liquid temperature drops. The most important increases.
application of this principle in the use of cooling
tower to lower the temperature of recirculated
water used for condensers and heat exchangers in 10
Approach value, Cooling

chemical plants, power plants and air 8 approach value vs

conditioning. 6
water flow rate
range(0C)

cooling range vs water

The difference between the inlet and exit water
temperature from the tower is defined as the
cooling range while the difference between the
temperature of the water leaving the tower and
the inlet wet bulb temperature of the air is defined
as approach value. The water evaporates more
quickly when the flow rate of the air is increased
which results to in change in approach value,
cooling range and cooling load[1]. Figure 1 shows
the graph of approach value and the cooling range
vs. air flow rate .
4 flow rate
2
0
0 1 2 3
Water flow rate (L/min)
Figure 2: : Approach value and cooling range vs
water flowrate
The figure 2 shows the relationship of the water
flow rate and the approach value and cooling
tower. It can be observed that the graph of
approach value vs the water flow rate has an
increasing trend which shows that direct
proportionality exists between these two factors.
On the other hand, the graph of the cooling range
vs water flow rate shows inverse proportionality
with each other in which as the water flowrate
increases, the cooling range decreases.
15
Cooling Range(0C)
10
30 C
5 0.2
40 C
0 50 C
0 1 2 3
Water flow rate (L/min)
Figure 3: Range vs flow rate
Figure 3 shows the graph of cooling range vs the
water flowrate at set point temperatures 30 oC, 40
o
C and 45 oC. For all the temperature, it was
observed that as the water flow rate increases, the
cooling range decreases. Inverse proportionality
exists between the cooling rage and the water
flowrate.
8 The most important effect in a cooling tower so
Approach value (oC)
6 far is the effect of evaporation. The reason for this
4 30 C
2 40 C
0 50 C
0 1 2 3
Water flow rate (L/min)
Figure 4: Approach value vs water flow rate
The graph of approach value vs the water flow
rate at set point temperatures 30 oC, 40 oC and 45
o
C. is shown in figure 4. For all the set point
temperature, direct proportionality was observed
between approach value and water flow rate. As
the water flow rate increases, the approach value
increases.
1.2
1
Effectiveness
0.8
0.6 30 C
0.4 40 C
50 C
0
0 1 2 3
Water flow rate (L/min)
Figure 5: Effectiveness vs Water flow rate
Figure 5 shows graph of the effectiveness vs
water flow rate at set point temperature of 30 oC,
40 oC and 45 oC. For all the set point temperature,
inverse proportionality relationship was observed
between the effectiveness and water flow rate. It
was observed that as the water flow rate
increases, the effectiveness also increases.
is that as the water molecules diffuse from the
surface into the atmosphere, the cooling process
takes place. The decrease in the cooling range and
approach value of the system is due to the
increase in air flowrate in the cooling tower
which allows the water leaving to be almost equal
to the wet bulb temperature of the inlet air[2].
More heat dissipation is allowed as the driving
force between the inlet wet bulb temperature of
the air and the hot water temperature which is
affected by the changes in approach value and
cooling range. The cooling tower performance
characteristics is influenced by the approach
value while the process water source is
influenced by the cooling range. The better
indicator of the cooling tower performance is the
approach value[1].
The rate at which heat is removed from the
circulating water is called the heat load or the
cooling load of a cooling tower. Heat load is a
function of water flow rate and cooling range.
The cooling load of a process has direct
proportionality with the approach of a cooling
tower. The cooling load decrease since the
approach values decreases with the increasing air
and water flow rate.
The ratio of range to the ideal range is defined as
the cooling tower effectiveness. It is the ratio of
range to the difference between cooling water
inlet temperature and ambient wet bulb
temperature. As can be seen in the in the figure 5,
the increase in water flow rate diminishes the
effectiveness of the cooling tower. Lower energy
exchange between the two contacting fluid is the
result of increasing the flow rate of the hot water
which shift down the effectiveness of the cooling
tower[3].
There could be no human error during the
experiment since it was fully automated. The
recording of data should be done once the system
has stabilized to get better results.
The range is the difference between hot water
temperature and cold water temperature. The
range is influenced by the heat rejection of the
process for which a cooling tower serves. It was
observed that as the water flow rate increases, the
cooling range decreases.
The performance of a cooling tower, overall, is
affected by the air flow rate, water temperature,
water flow rate, the inlet air temperature
humidity, the type of packaging used and the area
and volume of the packaging.
References:
[1] Cooling Towers: Understanding Key
Components of Cooling Towers and How to
Improve Water Efficiency. Retrieved from:
eere.energy.gov
[2] How Cooling Towers Work. Retrieved from:
coolingtowerproducts.com

[3] Cooling Tower. Retrieved from:

Conclusion: http://www.em-ea.org/guide%20books/book-
The objectives of the experiment were met 3/chapter%203.7%20cooling%20tower.pdf
including the determination of how the changes
Appendix:
in the air flow upwards and water flowrate
downwards through the packaging inside the Experimental Data
tower affects the performance of the tower and
the corresponding value for range, approach and Table 1: Raw data
cooling load.
Set point flowrate: 1.5-2.5 Set
The simplest function of a cooling tower is to cool point
water to a desired temperature. For evaporative temp
process, approach is the difference between the Flow rate T1 T2 30 C
cold between the cold water temperature and 1.49 30.1 27.8
entering wet bulb temperatures. Cooling tower 2 29.9 28
manufacturers often use approach as a benchmark 2.52 29.8 28.1
for cooling tower performance. A cooling tower 1.49 40.6 31.4 40 C
with a smaller approach is thermally superior to a 2 40.3 32
tower with larger approach. It was observed in the 2.5 39.8 32.4
experiment that there are direct relationship exists 1.47 45.1 32.6 50 C
between the approach and the water flow rate. 2 45.3 33.6
 2.49 44.7 39.9 Approach value = T2 Twetair

= 27.8 oC 27.7 oC
Table 2: Range at various temperatures
= 0.1 oC
Table 1. Range at Different Temperatures
Flow Rate Range Range Range Effectiveness = 100*((Cooling
(L/min) 30 C 40 C 45 C range)/(Range + Approach))
1.5 2.3 9.2 12.5
= 100 * (2.2/(2.2+0.1))
2 1.9 8.3 11.7
2.5 1.7 7.4 10.3 = 96.65 %

Table 3: Approach at various

temperatures

Flow Approach Approach Approach

Rate 30 C 40 C 45 C
(L/min)
1.5 0.1 3 4.7
2 0.4 4 6.5
2.5 0.6 4.5 7.5

Table 4: Effectiveness at various

temperatures

Flow Effective Effective Effective

Rate ness 30 C ness 40 C ness 45 C
(L/mi
n)
1.5 0.958333 0.754098 0.726744
33
2 0.826086 0.674797 0.642857
96
2.5 0.739130 0.621849 0.578652
43

Sample computations:

Cooling range = T1 T2

= 30 oC 27.8 oC

= 2.2 oC