Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

A simplified methodology to optimize the cooling tower approach T

temperature control schedule in a cooling system
⁎
Jiajun Liaoa, , Xie Xieb, Hala Nemera, David E. Claridgea, Charles H. Culpa
a
Energy Systems Laboratory, Texas A&M University, TX, United States
b
China State Construction Engineering Corporation Ltd., Beijing, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents a comprehensive methodology helpful to engineers and plant managers for designing and
Approach temperature reset schedule achieving optimized operating conditions for cooling systems. The most widely accepted and utilized theories,
Cooling tower such as the Merkel and Poppe models, has brought deviation of modeling performance or computational burden.
Condenser water leaving temperature Thus, the effectiveness cooling tower model by Braun is adopted to model the cooling tower performance with
Building cooling system
field measurements. A typical electric chiller model based on the condenser entering temperature is applied from
the EnergyPlus Engineering Reference. These two models are integrated to determine the optimal operation for
the cooling system. Correlations between the power consumption of chillers and cooling tower fans and ap-
proach temperatures are analyzed to determine the “near-optimal” operation. Furthermore, an optimized ap-
proach temperature reset schedule is evaluated in a case study. About 15.6% of the actual power consumption
can be saved for the 68 sampled days with the proposed optimal control.

1. Introduction
The heating and cooling of buildings use 14.6% of U.S. energy use
[1,2]. Central plants providing heating and cooling for building groups
is a common practice and there has been substantial research devoted
to reducing plant energy use [3–11]. Take Texas A&M University as an
example. According to the Texas A&M University Energy Management
Report [12], the primary energy consumption was 211 kBtu per gross
square foot, totaling 4.98 trillion Btu during the fiscal year 2014. The
total annual cost was more than $75 million. Even a small percentage
decrease in the plant energy requirements could produce significant
dollar savings when the total cost is this large.
Cooling towers are widely used in large heating and cooling plants
to reduce the temperature of circulated condenser water to improve
overall plant efficiency [13,14]. Cooling towers work on the principle
of evaporative cooling and hence the condenser water temperature is
limited by the wet bulb temperature of the cooling air [15]. Usually,
engineers are primarily interested in the water inlet and outlet tem-
peratures of cooling towers and seek to reach the desired approach
temperature.
1.1. Outlet air conditions in cooling tower
Outlet air from a cooling tower is treated as saturated air in most
models [16–20] even though it does not achieve the complete state of
saturation. Zheng et al. found that the outlet air conditions were un-
saturated at inlet air temperatures of 290 K, 300 K and 310 K for am-
bient relative humidity varying from 8% to 97% and were all super-
saturated at an inlet air temperature of 280 K for the specific cooling
tower they investigated [21]. Kloppers and Kröger stated that it does
not matter how much water vapor is present in the supersaturated air
for a specific air enthalpy because the lines of constant air enthalpy in
the supersaturated region are very close to vertical, and the results
calculated from supersaturated governing equations are fairly close to
unsaturated ones [22]. However, the assumption of saturation has been
adopted in models to avoid computational burdens.
1.2. Cooling tower methods and models
Several classical methods have been used to model the performance
of a cooling tower. The first practical theory and equation set was de-
veloped by Merkel in 1925 [23]. This theory is widely used for the
thermal evaluation of cooling towers. It relies on three critical as-
sumptions to simplify the calculations involved: (1) the water loss by
evaporation is negligible; (2) the air exiting the cooling tower is satu-
rated; and (3) the Lewis number relating heat and mass transfer is unity.
Eqs. (1) and (2) for the Merkel theory are obtained from mass and
energy balances of control volumes shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jjliao@tamu.edu (J. Liao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.111950
Received 21 June 2019; Received in revised form 14 August 2019; Accepted 16 August 2019
Available online 28 August 2019
0196-8904/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Liao, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950

dw
dTw
c pw (ws, w − w) mw
= /[h s, w − hma + (Le − 1)
ma
{h s, w − ha − (ws, w − w) hv } − (ws, w − w) c pw Tw] (3)

dha
dTw
c pw mw
= [1+(ws, w − w) c pw
ma
Tw /[h s, w − ha + (Le − 1){h s, w − ha − (ws, w − w) hv }
− (ws, w − w) c pw Tw] (4)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of a counterflow cooling tower.
Fig. 2. Control volume of the counterflow fill.
h 2 ws, w + 0.622 ws, w + 0.622
Le = = 0.865 3 ⎛ − 1⎞/ ln ⎛ ⎞
h d c pa ⎝ w + 0.622 ⎠ ⎝ w + 0.622 ⎠ (5)
where ws,w is the saturation humidity ratio of air at the local bulk water
temperature, Le is the Lewis number, cpa is the specific air of the air,
and hv is the enthalpy of the vapor.
A modified non-dimensional model developed by Halasz [27]
transformed the complex system of differential equations to a pure non-
dimensional form (θ, ∊) show in Eqs. (6) and (7). In order to obtain the
simplest possible non-dimensional model, the Lewis number is assumed
to equal to 1 while the outlet air condition is not assumed saturated.
When the temperature difference between water inlet and outlet is
greater than 18°F (10 °C), this model yields more accurate results than
Merkel method. However, it is not validated when the water inlet and
outlet temperature are close. In addition, since an approximate formula
for the enthalpy of unsaturated air is used in deriving this model, errors
are inevitable.

dha hd a fill Afront Ta − TWB T − TWB

= (hs, w − ha ) θa = ; θw = w
dy ma (1) Tai − TWB Tai − TWB (6)
wa − wWB ws, w − wWB
∊a = ; ∊''w =
dTw m a dha wWB − wai wWB − wai (7)
=
dy m w cpw dy (2) The effectiveness model by Braun [28] partially integrated the ef-
fectiveness-NTU model [29]; it utilizes the assumptions of linearized
where ha is the enthalpy of the air, hs, w is the enthalpy of the saturated saturated air enthalpy on wet bulb temperature [30,31] and Lewis
air at the local bulk water temperature, hd is the mass transfer coeffi- number of unity. This method can estimate the water loss in cooling
cient, a fill is the surface area of the fill per unit volume of fill, Afront is towers and predict the outlet air conditions. The Braun model of the
the front surface area of the fill, ma is the air mass flowrate, and cpw is cooling tower is simplified to Eqs. (8) and (9).
the specific heat of water.
Guo et al. proposed a parallel hybrid model based on Merkel’s dha NTU
=− [(ha − h s, w )]
theory [24]. In this model, the least square vector machine model dV VT (8)
compensates the deviation of the Merkel model, and the Gaussian dh
dTw ma ( dVa )
mixture model calibrates the simulated performance to the actual op- =
erating data of the counter flow wet-cooling tower. dV mw C pw (9)
Kloppers and Kröger argued that the Lewis factor assumption of
where VT is the total tower volume and NTU is the number of transfer
Merkel is not correct and that the Lewis factor is most likely in the
units.
range from 0.6 to 1.3 [18]. More heat is rejected from the tower for
Since Braun’s effectiveness model was developed in 1988 [28] it has
higher Lewis factors, with a corresponding increase in outlet air tem-
been widely used to model the performance of numerous different
perature and a decrease in the outlet water temperature. Because of
cooling tower systems. For example, it was used by O’Mary and Dyer to
those three assumptions, the Merkel model underestimates the cooling
optimize the energy consumption of a cooling tower in a medical fa-
capacity and cannot accurately represent the physics of the heat and
cility [32,33]. Wan et al. used the model to optimize a hybrid ground-
mass transfer processes [25].
source heat pump using a wet-bulb temperature control method [34].
In the early 1970s, Poppe [18] adopted a more complex and accu-
More recently, Dalibard et al. used TRNSYS, a simulation program in
rate model for a cooling tower. The governing equations for un-
which the cooling tower model used is the Braun effectiveness model, to
saturated outlet air, listed in Equations (3) to (5), are solved by an
model a chilled-water plant and optimize its performance through the
iterative procedure. It is a computationally laborious task requiring
sequencing of the operation of cooling towers in a plant and introdu-
help from super computers [26]. Despite its high accuracy, the Poppe
cing an outdoor air temperature dependent cooling water setpoint [35].
method is seldom used in the field due to this computational burden.
Additionally, Braun’s effectiveness model was used by Wang et al., to
optimize a condenser water loop control in order to determine the
energy saving potential of a variable water flow control sequence [36].
Along with the effectiveness model, Braun also gave a detailed
thermodynamics analysis with minimum simplifying assumptions [28].

2
J. Liao, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950

The assumptions include a constant air flowrate, a steady-state energy

balance condition and negligible heat transfer from the walls. With
given NTU, Lewis number, and inlet conditions, Eqs. (10)–(12) can be
solved numerically for air and water outlet conditions after an iteration
process.

dha − C pw (Tw − Tref ) dwa

dTw = m
[ mwi − (wao − wa)] C pw (10)
a

dwa NTU
=− (wa − ws, w)
dV VT (11)

dha LeNTU 1
=− [(ha − h s, w) + h g, w ⎛ − 1⎞ (wa − ws, w)
dV VT ⎝ Le ⎠ (12)
Fig. 3. Air Heat Transfer Effectiveness Comparisons versus NTU.
where hg, w is the enthalpy of water vapor at the local water tempera-
ture, wao is the outlet air humidity ratio, and Tref is the reference tem-
2. Methodology
perature for zero enthalpy of liquid water.
Whillier introduced a fundamental concept called the tower capa-
2.1. Model comparisons
city factor, R, as a basis for correlation of test data and for predicting
performance and presented an optimal ratio of water flowrate to air
Comparisons between cooling tower model results are obtained
flowrate for a certain set of outside conditions to minimize the average
with (1) detailed analysis with Lewis number of unity, (2) The Merkel
water temperature across the cooling tower [37].
model, (3) The Braun Model, and (4) The Halaz model.
Thermodynamic cooling tower models have been developed to
Fig. 3 shows the cooling tower air heat transfer effectiveness (εa )
predict the tower performance. Naik and Muthukumar developed a
versus NTU when the mass ratios of water to air flowrate are 0.5, 1, and
thermodynamic analytical model and analyzed the heat and mass
2 respectively. The operating condition is fixed at 70°F (21.1 °C) dry-
transfer in a cooling tower to calculate water evaporation loss in a
bulb, 60°F (15.6 °C) wet-bulb, and 90°F (32.2 °C) water inlet tempera-
cooling tower [38]. Ghazani et al. used the first and second laws of
tures. Overall, the Merkel, the Braun, and the Halasz models all agree
thermodynamics to calculate the air properties at the inlet conditions of
well with the detailed analysis under all conditions. The Merkel model
the cooling tower which was validated against test results from a lab-
slightly underpredicts the heat transfer effectiveness and the water
scale cooling tower [39]. Lu and Cai developed a model based on the
evaporation rate but the error decreases for increasing ambient air
Merkel and Braun models as well as the laws of mass and energy bal-
temperatures. Errors associated with the Braun model are primarily a
ance, which allowed for the use of fewer input variables and simpler
result of the assumption of a linear saturation enthalpy relationship.
calculations due to the lack of iterative computation required by
The Halasz model also assumed a linear air saturation line, so similar
Braun’s model [40].
errors exist for the Halasz model. And the overestimation of the Halasz
model is more distinct as the ratio of water to air mass flow decreases.
1.3. Chiller and cooling system models Fig. 4 shows the cooling tower water temperature effectiveness (εw )
under the same conditions as
For the chiller models, thermodynamic models of reciprocating Fig. 3. The water temperature effectiveness is defined as the ratio of
chillers [41], centrifugal chillers, and a “universal” thermodynamic the temperature difference between the inlet and outlet water to the
model for chillers [42] are available. maximum possible temperature difference if the leaving water is at the
There have been several attempts to optimize the operating meth- entering air wet-bulb temperature. The Merkel model overstates the
odology of a cooling system. Van utilized the condenser water flowrate water temperature effectiveness slightly due to the neglect of the water
and cooling tower fan speed as the control variables [43] while loss. The εw values predicted by the Halasz model are higher than those
Schwedler and Bradley used average water temperature to determine predicted by the detailed analysis when the ratio of water to air is 0.5
the capacity of the tower [44]. Most of these attempts only optimized and 1 but the gap decreases as the water-air ratio goes to 2.0. The Braun
the operation of one component such as the chiller or the cooling tower model gives results consistently closer to the detailed thermodynamic
instead of the whole system. analysis results for εw than those of Merkel and Halasz.
Studies have also addressed the optimization of the entire cooling Therefore, the Braun model performs better than the Merkel and
system as a whole with partial success. For instance, an optimum water Halasz models and offers a good compromise between simplicity,
flowrate was used to achieve the lowest possible average temperature
of water when dissipating a specific amount of heat into a specific
stream of air. Braun developed an algorithm, based on an open-loop
control equation, for the near-optimal control of the cooling system
[45]. He pointed out that the minimum total power occurs at a point
where the rate of increase in the fan power with airflow is equal to the
rate of decrease in the chiller power. Zhang et al. then demonstrated
that the optimal cooling tower approach temperature reset schedule can
be approximated with two straight lines, which can produce significant
energy savings compared with the scenario with a constant cooling
tower condenser water leaving temperature [14]. However, currently,
no single model in the published literature performs the operation op-
timization of all components in the cooling system [46]. Cortinovis
et al. summarized specific situations to increase either the water flow-
rate or the air flowrate for optimal operation from their case studies
[47]. Fig. 4. Water Temperature Effectiveness Comparisons versus NTU.

3
J. Liao, et al.
Fig. 5. Flowchart showing the main calculation steps to determine NTU.
accuracy, and completeness [48].
2.2. NTU value determination process
Braun takes NTU as a vital indicator for cooling tower performance
in his model [28]. The NTU is not given in tower specifications and is
normally unknown for existing cooling towers. Thus, before utilizing
the Braun model for a specific cooling tower, data must be measured for
the specific tower from which the NTU can be determined. Parameters
that must be measured include water and air flowrates, ambient dry-
bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, and water inlet and outlet tempera-
tures. These measurements were taken at 15-minute intervals on the
cooling tower and chiller side for the case study presented here. Sample
weeks during summer, winter, and the transition period were measured
throughout 2015 to cover all different types of weather conditions at
the study site. Sample data were taken for 68 days to reduce the mea-
surement and analysis workload while producing an adequate quality
and quantity of data.
The flowchart diagram in Fig. 5 shows the main calculation steps to
determine NTU for the Braun model [48], where Cs is the saturation
specific heat and the subscript “mod” means a temporary value in the
iterative process, as shown in Eqs. (13)–(15). Each set of daily mea-
surements can produce a value of the NTU by programming the Braun
model in the Engineering Equation Solver (EES). After applying all the
measurement sets to the Braun model, all the corresponding NTU values
can be obtained and averaged.
dh hs , w , i − hs , w , o
Cs = ⎛ s ⎞ =
⎝ dT ⎠T = Tw Tw, i − Tw, o
1 − exp (−NTU (1 − m))
εa =
1 − mexp (−NTU (1 − m))
m a Cs
m =
mw, i Cpw
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950
Table 1
Design operating conditions of the cooling towers.
Inputs Water Dry-Bulb Wet-Bulb Water Inlet Water Outlet
Flowrate Temp Temp
Value 7010 lb/min 85°F 80°F 96°F 86°F (30 °C)
(29.4 °C) (26.7 °C) (35.6 °C)
3. Calculations and results
3.1. Case study of the cooling tower operation
The two cooling towers at the Moore Connally Building, on the
campus of Texas A&M University are analyzed as a case study. These
towers are from Ceramic Cooling Towers Company manufactured in
Fort Worth, Texas. The towers have a splash grid fill with water spray
nozzles above. Each tower has a capacity of 280 tons and a rated fan
power of 15 hp. The design operating conditions at the capacity of 220
tons listed in Table 1. Fig. 6 shows the picture of the cooling towers.
The cooling system has two sets of cooling towers, chillers and
pumps, which are shown schematically in Fig. 7. Only one set is run-
ning at a time. Each cooling tower (CT) in this system is operated with
its associated chiller. The cooling tower piping has the ability to deliver
water to either the top of the cooling tower or directly to the basin,
based on the condenser water temperatures and setpoints. Each cooling
tower fan has a VFD, and the operation of the fan is also based on the
condenser water temperature and the setpoint. When the condenser
water pump valve is open to the basin, the cooling tower fan is off.
When the condenser water temperature (Tcond,e) is above the set point,
the fan will operate between 20% and 100% speed to maintain the set
point.
The minimum possible condenser water temperature is the ambient
wet-bulb temperature, which cannot be achieved at any significant
load. The design approach temperature for these cooling towers is 6°F
(3.3 °C). There is also an isolation valve that will shut the water off
completely when there is no need for the water cooling. Fig. 8 shows
the measured data for the cooling range, which is defined as the dif-
ference between the inlet and outlet water temperatures, and the
measured water flowrate of the cooling tower in 2015 retrieved from
the campus building automation system.
3.2. Cooling tower fan modeling and analysis
Regressing the measured airflow versus fan speed results in the
linear relationship between the air flowrate (CFM) and the VFD speed
given in Eq. (16).
Air Flowrate (CFM) = 883.12 ∗ (VFD %) − 8442.4 (16)
Regressing the measured fan power (Pfan) versus the fan speed gives
the polynomial relationship given in Eq. (17).
Pfan (kW) = −0.0000014 ∗ (VFD Speed)3 + 0.00073 ∗ (VFD Speed)2
+ 0.0021 ∗ (VFD Speed) + 0.57 (17)
The average of all NTU values calculated is 1.42 using the iterative
process shown in Fig. 5. Eq. (18) presents the relationship between Two
and other parameters in the Braun model. Furthermore, the fan power
(kW) and the power input per capacity (kW/ton) can be obtained using
the Eqs. (18)–(24) developed in the Braun model.
(13) mw, i (Tw, i − Tref ) C pw − ma (ha, o − ha, i )
Two =
ṁ w, o C pw
= g (mw , ma , Twi Tai, TWB, NTU)
(14) (18)
Tapp = Two − TWB (19)
(15) The relationship between Tapp and ṁ a can be built when using the
4
J. Liao, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950

Fig. 6. Test facility cooling towers.

3 ṁ a + 1092.6 2
⎢
(
67.369 )
⎡− 0.0000014 ∗ ṁ a + 1092.6 + 0.00073 ∗ ( 67.369 ) +⎤
⎥
⎢ ⎥
P
0.0021 ∗ ( 67.369 )
ṁ a + 1092.6
+ 0.57
εfan = fan = ⎣ ⎦
Q [ṁ w  (Twi − Two )]
= f2 (m w , Tapp, Twi, Tai, TWB, NTU) (24)

If = m w , Twi, Tai, TWB and NTU are fixed at a given set of values and
inserted in Eqs. (18)–(24), the functions that relate the approach tem-
perature (Tapp) to the fan power (kW) and power input per capacity
(kW/ton) can be obtained, as shown in Fig. 9. As more electricity is
consumed by the fan, a lower approach temperature can be achieved.

Fig. 7. Schematic of the cooling system at the Connally Building.

3.3. Verification of the simplified Braun model

parameters given in Eqs. (20) and (21). The Braun model gives a good prediction for water outlet condi-
tions. Fig. 10 plots the predicted and actual outlet water temperatures
Tapp = f (mw , ma , Twi, Tai, TWB, NTU) (20)
versus dry-bulb temperature, as well as the corresponding wet-bulb
temperatures and design condensing water supply temperatures. The
ma = f (mw , Tapp, Twi, Tai, TWB, NTU) (21)
minimum outlet water temperature is set to 65°F (18.3 °C) because of
Insert Eqs. (16) and (21) to Eq. (17), and then the relationship be- the by-pass operation. Although the actual outlet water temperatures
tween fan power and VFD speed becomes: are generally slightly higher than the design values, the cooling tower
exit temperatures are almost all less than 3.5°F (1.9 °C) above the design
ṁ + 1092.6 ⎞3 ṁ + 1092.6 ⎞2 points. When the dry-bulb temperature is lower than 60°F (15.6 °C), the
Pfan = −0.0000014 ∗ ⎛ a + 0.00073 ∗ ⎛ a
⎝ 67.369 ⎠ ⎝ 67.369 ⎠ outlet water temperatures are relatively constant at 65°F (18.3 °C) be-
ṁ a + 1092.6 cause of the by-pass setting for the cooling tower.
+ 0.0021 ∗ ⎛ ⎞ + 0.57
⎝ 67.369 ⎠ The optimal cooling tower approach setpoint reset schedule can be
approximated with a 4-parameter change-point model [14]. This kind
= f1(mw , Tapp, Twi, Tai, TWB, NTU) (22)
of schedule can help achieve significant energy savings compared with
the use of a constant cooling tower condenser water leaving tempera-
Cooling Capacity Q = Cpw ∗ mw ∗ (Twi − Two) (23) ture (CWLT). Meanwhile, chiller part load ratio (PLR), chilled water

Fig. 8. Cooling range and water flowrate through the year of 2015.

5
J. Liao, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950

Fig. 11. Cooling tower approach temperatures versus ambient wet-bulb tem-
peratures.

3.4. Chiller modeling and analysis

The input power curves of the chillers can be generated based on the
typical electric chiller model in the EnergyPlus Engineering Reference
[49] as shown in Equation (27). Since the chiller input power varies as a
function of PLR and the chilled water leaving temperature, a more
accurate model with the different chilled water leaving temperature
(Tcw,l) intervals applied is introduced, and an example result of PLR
higher than 80% and the Tcw,l=(41, 42)°F or (5, 5.6)°C is given in Eq.
(28). Fig. 12 shows the distribution of the scattered points of Chiller kW
and kW/ton versus approach temperatures, respectively. Note that most
of the points are clustered in the vicinity of an approach temperature of
about 6°F (3.3 °C) as designed.

Fig. 9. Fan power consumption versus approach temperature.

Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted, design, actual water outlet, and wet-bulb
temperatures.

leaving temperature, and the climate have minor effects on the coeffi-
cients of the optimal CWLT reset schedule [14]. The approach setpoint
reset schedule with two straight lines is applicable for the cooling tower
as plotted in Fig. 11. Thus, when the chiller PLR is 80%, and the chilled
water leaving temperature is about 42.0°F (5.6 °C), the approach tem-
perature reset schedule can be expressed as Eqs. (25) and (26) instead
of operating the cooling tower with a constant approach temperature
(Tapp) at 6°F (3.3 °C).

Tapp = −0.99Twb + 64.73 if Twb ⩽ 54°F (12.2 °C) (25)

Tapp = −0.2 Twb + 21.88 if Twb > 54°F (12.2 °C) (26) Fig. 12. Chiller power consumption versus approach temperature at
Tcw,l = (41, 42)°F or (5, 5.6)°C.

6
J. Liao, et al.
Q̇ ref
PChiller = *(ChillerCapFTemp)*(ChillerEIRFTemp)
COPref
*(ChillerEIRFPLR)
PChiller (kW) = −0.00007357 ∗ (Tcond,e ) 4 + 0.02218499 ∗ (Tcond,e )3
− 2.48569803 ∗ (Tcond,e )2 + 125.93271371 ∗ Tcond,e
− 2419.84
According to the water pump power consumption data throughout
the year 2015, pump power consumption is relatively constant with an
average consumption of 7.19 kW. Therefore, the water pump power can
be neglected when optimizing the total power consumption of the
cooling system.
3.5. Cooling system modeling and analysis
The optimum operation of the cooling system should consider both
the chiller power and cooling tower fan power. By adding the perfor-
mance curves of the chiller and the cooling tower fan, the dependence
of the total energy consumption on CWLT and the approach tempera-
ture can be obtained. The lowest total energy consumption reveals the
optimal operation point.
Since the wet-bulb temperature has a major impact on the perfor-
mance curves, the total power consumption curves are plotted at three
different wet-bulb temperatures levels [70°F (21.1 °C), 75°F (23.9 °C),
80°F (26.7 °C)]. Take the case of Tcw,l interval of (41, 42)°F or (5,
5.6)°C and the wet-bulb temperature of 70°F (21.1 °C) as an example.
The power input per capacity (kW/ton), as a function of the approach
temperature, is obtained by adding Eqs. (29) and (30).
Pfan (kW/ton) = −0.0000356 ∗ (Tapp)3 − 0. 000904 ∗ (Tapp)2
+ 0.0057 ∗ (Tapp) + 0.0181
Pchiller (kW/ton) = 0.00297992 ∗ (Tapp)2 − −0.09992197 ∗ (Tapp)
+ 1.43860069
If the approach temperature varies from 1°F (0.6 °C) to 30°F
(16.7 °C), a curve showing the corresponding power (kW) and the
power input per capacity (kW/ton) at different approach temperatures
can be plotted. Similarly, the curves at eight other cases of different
wet-bulbs and chilled water leaving temperatures values are obtained.
Fig. 13 shows that the kW/ton curves at different chilled water leaving
temperatures are very close and a higher wet-bulb temperature even
reduces the impact of the Tcw,l on these curves.
When the wet-bulb temperature is 70°F (21.1 °C), the total power in
kW/ton is listed in Eq. (31).
Total Power (kW/ton) = 0.0000356 ∗ (Tapp)3 + 0.00058175 ∗ (Tapp)2
− 0.04909153 ∗ Tapp + 1.19231536
Fig. 13. Comparison of kW/ton at different Tcw,l and Twb.
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950
dTotal Power ( ) = 0.0000356 ∗ 3 ∗ (T
kW
ton 2
app ) + 0.00058175 ∗ 2
dTapp
(27)
∗ (Tapp) − 0.04909153 (32)
Let Eq. (32) equal to 0, solve for Tapp , substitute its value into Eq.
(31) and then the lowest total power consumption and the corre-
(28) sponding optimal approach temperature is obtained. The lowest value
of kW/ton for this case is 0.701 at Tapp = 16.7°F (9.3 °C). If the opti-
mized range is defined as 5% higher than the lowest power consump-
tion, the corresponding optimized Tapp is within the range of (12.7,
20.5)°F or (7.1, 11.2)°C. Similarly, when the wet-bulb temperature is
75°F (23.9 °C), the lowest value of kW/ton is 0.764 at Tapp = 13.1°F
(7.2 °C) or within the range of (9.9, 16.1)°F or (5.5, 8.9)°C; when the
wet-bulb temperature is 80°F (26.7 °C), the lowest value of kW/ton is
0.925 at Tapp = 7.3°F (4.1 °C) or within the range of (5.1, 9.2)°F or
(2.8, 5.1 °C) .
As the wet-bulb temperature increases from 70°F (21.1 °C) to 80°F
(26.7 °C), the optimized approach temperature decreases from 16.7°F
(9.3 °C) to 7.3°F (4.1 °C) while the optimized total power over the
tonnage of the cooling tower increases from 0.701 kW/ton to
0.925 kW/ton.
3.6. Optimization of the total power consumption
The optimized approach temperature values are substituted into the
total power (kW) equation so that the minimum total power can be also
achieved. Specifically, when the wet-bulb temperature is 70°F (21.1 °C),
the total power is 31.6 kW; when wet-bulb temperature is 75°F
(23.9 °C), the total power is 38.4 kW; when wet-bulb temperature is
80°F (26.7 °C), the total power is 73.7 kW. Repeat the above calculation
(29) steps for other ambient conditions throughout the year 2015, and then
the optimized total power (kW) for the whole year can be obtained. The
sampled 68 days, used for NTU calculation and chiller modeling, were
(30) also utilized to show the saving potential for the cooling system.
Fig. 14 plots the comparison between the actual and optimized total
power, and the power savings for these sampled 68 days. It shows that
the optimization methodology can help save more energy at the high-
temperature range, while the total power consumption after optimiza-
tion is close to the actual power consumption at the low-temperature
range. The total power consumption and power savings for these
68 days are listed in Table 2.
Meanwhile, when this optimal approach temperature calculation
process is repeated for all ambient air wet bulb temperature values, the
optimized approach temperature is plotted versus wet-bulb tempera-
ture in Fig. 15, which is quite different from the actual reset schedule in
Fig. 11.
(31)
Fig. 14. Optimized chiller plant power comparison.
7
J. Liao, et al.
Table 2
Total power and savings for 68 sampled days.
Actual Consumption Optimized Consumption Saving Saving (%)
(kWh) (kWh) (kWh)
114,508 96,629 17,879 15.6
Fig. 15. Optimized approach temperatures versus wet-bulb temperatures.
4. Conclusions and discussion
This paper focuses on combining the whole process of optimizing
the cooling system’s performance. The development of classical and
subsequently modified models for the cooling towers and the chillers
provides opportunities to explore complex cooling systems in a simple
but reliable way. Traditional models for the cooling towers are com-
pared. The Braun model is selected and simplified because it can bridge
the gap between the Merkel and Poppe models by combining the sim-
plicity of the rating procedure with a high degree of accuracy.
Field measurements were conducted to determine the NTU value for
the cooling tower and the fan power as a function of airflow. The
measurement of the air velocity verifies the linear relationship between
the air flowrate and the VFD speed.
The performance curves for the cooling tower and chiller together
yield the optimal operation point for the cooling system. An optimized
approach temperature reset schedule was given and evaluated at a
certain operating condition. About 15.6% of the actual power can be
saved for the evenly distributed 68 sampled days with the optimization
methodology in this study applied. The trade-off actions between the
power consumption of the chillers and cooling tower fans can also be
considered for further enhancement of the cooling system performance.
Overall, the selection of models for the cooling towers and chillers
system, the subsequent analysis, and trade-off considerations in this
study can be regarded as a reference for other researchers doing similar
work in the future.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Sieminski A. Annual energy outlook 2015, US Energy Information Administration
(2015).
[2] EIA, Annual Energy, Outlook 2018, (2018).
[3] Liao J, Claridge DE, Wang L. Analysis of whole-building HVAC system energy ef-
ficiency. ASHRAE Trans 2018;124(1):72–88.
[4] Lu L, Cai W, Soh YC, Xie L, Li S. HVAC system optimization––condenser water loop.
Energy Convers Manage 2004;45(4):613–30.
[5] Arabkoohsar A, Andresen G. Supporting district heating and cooling networks with
a bifunctional solar assisted absorption chiller. Energy Convers Manage
2017;148:184–96.
8
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950
[6] Pérez-Mora N, Lazzeroni P, Martínez-Moll V, Repetto M. Optimal management of a
complex DHC plant. Energy Convers Manage 2017;145:386–97.
[7] Urbanucci L, Testi D, Bruno JC. An operational optimization method for a complex
polygeneration plant based on real-time measurements. Energy Convers Manage
2018;170:50–61.
[8] Ifaei P, Ataei A, Yoo C. Thermoeconomic and environmental analyses of a low water
consumption combined steam power plant and refrigeration chillers-Part 2:
Thermoeconomic and environmental analysis. Energy Convers Manage
2016;123:625–42.
[9] Ifaei P, Rashidi J, Yoo C. Thermoeconomic and environmental analyses of a low
water consumption combined steam power plant and refrigeration chillers–Part 1:
Energy and economic modelling and analysis. Energy Convers Manage
2016;123:610–24.
[10] Bošnjaković F, Knoche K-F. Pinch analysis for cooling towers. Energy Convers
Manage 1998;39(16–18):1745–52.
[11] Burger R. Energy conservation strategy, the ignored cooling tower, Energy
Conversion Engineering Conference, 1996. IECEC 96, Proceedings of the 31st
Intersociety, IEEE, 1996, pp. 1852–1856.
[12] TAMU, https://utilities.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/TAMU-Energy-
Management-Report-November-2014.pdf. Retrieved 12/24/2018, (2014).
[13] García Cutillas C, Ruiz Ramírez J, Lucas Miralles M. Optimum design and operation
of an HVAC cooling tower for energy and water conservation. Energies
2017;10(3):299.
[14] Zhang Z, Li H, Turner WD, Deng S. Optimization of the cooling tower condenser
water leaving temperature using a component-based model. ASHRAE Trans
2011;117(1).
[15] McKelvey KK, Brooke M. The industrial cooling tower: with a special reference to
the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of water cooling towers.
Elsevier Pub. Co.; 1959.
[16] Jin G-Y, Cai W-J, Lu L, Lee EL, Chiang A. A simplified modeling of mechanical
cooling tower for control and optimization of HVAC systems. Energy Convers
Manage 2007;48(2):355–65.
[17] T.G.o.E.R.f. Heating, C.o. Buildings, Proposed procedures for simulating the per-
formance of components and systems for energy calculations, ASHRAE1971.
[18] Kloppers JC, Kröger DG. Cooling tower performance evaluation: Merkel, Poppe, and
e-NTU methods of analysis. J Eng Gas Turbines Power 2005;127(1):1–7.
[19] Bourillot C. TEFERI: Numerical model for calculating the performance of an eva-
porative cooling tower, Electricite de France, 78-Chatou. Thermal Transfer and
Aerodynamic Dept., 1983.
[20] Stoecker WF. Procedures for simulating the performance of components and sys-
tems for energy calculations, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers…, 1975.
[21] Zheng W-Y, Zhu D-S, Zhou G-Y, Wu J-F, Shi Y-Y. Thermal performance analysis of
closed wet cooling towers under both unsaturated and supersaturated conditions.
Int J Heat Mass Transf 2012;55(25–26):7803–11.
[22] Kloppers JC, Kröger DG. A critical investigation into the heat and mass transfer
analysis of counterflow wet-cooling towers. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2005;48(3–4):765–77.
[23] Merkel V-F, V.D.I.F. Verdunstungskühlung, no. 275, Verdunstungskuhlung. Berlin,
Germany: VDI Forschungsarbeiten (1925).
[24] Guo Y, Wang F, Jia M, Zhang S. Parallel hybrid model for mechanical draft counter
flow wet-cooling tower. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125:1379–88.
[25] Grange J. Calculating the evaporated water flow in a wet cooling tower, Electricite
de France (EDF), 1994.
[26] Halasz B. A general mathematical model of evaporative cooling devices. Revue
générale de thermique 1998;37(4):245–55.
[27] Halasz B. Application of a general non-dimensional mathematical model to cooling
towers. Int J Therm Sci 1999;38(1):75–88.
[28] J.E. Braun, Methodologies for the design and control of central cooling plants,
1988.
[29] ASHRAE, HVAC 1 toolkit: a toolkit for primary HVAC system energy calculation,
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (1999).
[30] J.L. Threlkeld, Thermal environmental engineering, Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs,
NJ1970.
[31] Jaber H, Webb R. Design of cooling towers by the effectiveness-NTU method. J Heat
Transfer 1989;111(4):837–43.
[32] O'Mary G. Energy Cost Reduction for Medical Facilities, 2012.
[33] O’Mary G, Dyer D. Application of a cooling tower model for optimizing energy use.
Adv Fluid Mech X 2014;10:305.
[34] Wan H, Xu X, Li A, Yan T, Gang W. A wet-bulb temperature-based control method
for controlling the heat balance of the ground soil of a hybrid ground-source heat
pump system. Adv Mech Eng 2017;9(6). 1687814017701705.
[35] Dalibard A, Biesinger A, Cotrado M, Trinkle A, Bartels U, Eicker U. Performance
improvement of a large chilled-water plant by using simple heat rejection control
strategies. Int J Refrig 2018;94:1–10.
[36] Bahman AM, Ziviani D, Groll EA. Development and validation of a mechanistic
vapor-compression. Cycle Model 2018.
[37] Whillier A. Fresh look at the calculation of performance of cooling towers. ASHRAE
Trans.; (United States) 1976;82.
[38] Naik BK, Muthukumar P. A novel approach for performance assessment of me-
chanical draft wet cooling towers. Appl Therm Eng 2017;121:14–26.
[39] Ghazani MA, Hashem-ol-Hosseini A, Emami MD. A comprehensive analysis of a
laboratory scale counter flow wet cooling tower using the first and the second laws
of thermodynamics. Appl Therm Eng 2017;125:1389–401.
[40] Lu L, Cai W. A universal engineering model for cooling towers, (2002).
[41] Chua H, Ng K, Gordon J. Experimental study of the fundamental properties of
J. Liao, et al.
reciprocating chillers and their relation to thermodynamic modeling and chiller
design. Int J Heat Mass Transf 1996;39(11):2195–204.
[42] Gordon J, Ng KC, Chua HT. Centrifugal chillers: thermodynamic modelling and a
diagnostic case study. Int J Refrig 1995;18(4):253–7.
[43] Dijk J, POLL C, Poldervaart P. Investment in cooling tower control pays big divi-
dends. Process Eng 1985;66(10):57–60.
[44] Schwedler M, Bradley B. Departments-data digest “Uncover the hidden assets in
your condenser water system”. HPAC Engineering 2001;73(11). 68-68.
[45] Braun J, Diderrich G. Near-optimal control of cooling towers for chilled-water
systems, ASHRAE Transactions (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Energy Conversion and Management 199 (2019) 111950
Air-Conditioning Engineers);(United States) 96(CONF-9006117–) (1990).
[46] Graves RD. Thermodynamic modeling and optimization of a screw compressor
chiller and cooling tower system. Texas A&M University; 2004.
[47] Cortinovis GF, Paiva JL, Song TW, Pinto JM. A systemic approach for optimal
cooling tower operation. Energy Convers Manage 2009;50(9):2200–9.
[48] Xie X. Modeling and Optimization of the Cooling Tower under Unsaturated Outlet
Air Conditions, 2016.
[49] U. DoE, Energyplus engineering reference, The reference to energyplus calculations
(2010).