1.

Introduction
Power plants, large air-conditioning systems, and some industries generate large

quantities of waste heat that is often rejected to cooling water from nearby lakes or rivers. In
some cases, however, the cooling water supply is limited or thermal pollution is a serious
concern. In such cases, the waste heat must be rejected to the atmosphere, with cooling water
recirculating and serving as a transport medium for heat transfer between the source and the
sink (the atmosphere). One way of achieving this is through the use of wet cooling towers.
A wet cooling tower is essentially a semienclosed evaporative cooler. An induceddraft counterflow wet cooling tower is shown schematically in Figure 1-1. Air is drawn into
the tower from the bottom and leaves through the top. Warm water from the condenser is
pumped to the top of the tower and is sprayed into this airstream. The purpose of spraying is
to expose a large surface area of water to the air. As the water droplets fall under the influence
of gravity, a small fraction of water (usually a few percent) evaporates and cools the
remaining water. The temperature and the moisture content of the air increase during this
process. The cooled water collects at the bottom of the tower and is pumped back to the
condenser to absorb additional waste heat. Makeup water must be added to the cycle to
replace the water lost by evaporation and air draft. To minimize water carried away by the air,
drift eliminators are installed in the wet cooling towers above the spray section.

Figure 1-1: Schematic diagram for an induced-draft counterflow wet cooling tower

The air circulation in the cooling tower described is provided by a fan, and therefore it
is classified as a forced-draft cooling tower. Another popular type of cooling is the naturaldraft cooling tower, which looks like a large chimney and works like an ordinary chimney.
The air in the tower has a high water-vapour content, and thus it is lighter than the outside air.
Consequently, the light air in the tower rises, and the heavier outside air fills the vacant space,
creating an airflow from the bottom of the tower to the top. The flow rate of air is controlled
by the conditions of the atmospheric air. Natural-draft cooling towers do not require any
external power to induce the air, but they cost a lot more to build than forced-draft cooling
towers. The natural-draft cooling towers are hyperbolic in profile, as shown in Figure 1-2 and
Figure 1-3, and some are over 100 m high. The hyperbolic profile is for greater structural
strength, not for any thermodynamic reason.

Figure 1-2: Schematic diagram for a natural-draft cooling tower

Figure 1-3: Natural-draft cooling tower

The idea of a cooling tower started with the spray pond, where the warm water is
sprayed into the air and is cooled by the air as it falls into the pond, as shown in Figure 1-4.
Some spray ponds are still in use today. However, they require 25 to 50 times the area of a
cooling tower, water loss due to air drift is high, and they are unprotected against dust and
dirt.

Figure 1-4: Spray pond

We could also dump the waste heat into a still cooling pond. As shown in Figure 1-5,
a cooling pond is basically a large artificial lake open to the atmosphere. Heat transfer from
the pond surface to the atmosphere is very slow, however, and we would need about 20 times
the area of a spray pond in this case to achieve the same cooling.

Figure 1-5: Cooling pond

4

2.0

Experimental Procedure

Figure 2-1: Cooling tower

Figure 2-2: Schematic diagram for the cooling tower

Firstly, the power button of cooling tower was switched on. The pump was started and
the water flow rate was adjusted to 50 L/h as indicated on the flow meter. Next, the fan was
started and the fan speed was measured by using air velocity meter. After that, the heater was
turned on. The current was immediately adjusted to 3 A. The following temperatures were
measured and recorded after a steady value had achieved: the water temperature at the tower
outlet, T 1 , the wet-bulb temperature of air at the column top, T 2 , the water temperature
at the heater outlet, T 3 , the dry-bulb temperature of air at the column top, T 4 , the water
temperature at the tower inlet, T 5 , the wet-bulb temperature of air at the column bottom,
T 6 , the water temperature at the tank, T 7 , and the dry-bulb temperature of air at the
column bottom, T 8 . The aforementioned steps were repeated by increasing the current to 4
A, 5 A, and 6 A. This experiment was repeated by adjusting water flow rate to 100 L/h and
150 L/h.

3.0

Experimental Result
Table 3-1: Experimental data for water-flow-rate setting of 50 L/h

Temperatures (
)

H1: 240 V ,

H2: 240 V ,

H3: 240 V ,

H4: 240 V ,

3A

4A

5A

6A

T1

21.0

21.1

22.0

22.4

T2

20.6

20.7

21.6

22.0

T3

27.7

29.4

32.5

36.1

T4

21.3

21.6

22.6

23.1

T5

26.8

28.6

31.8

35.3

T6

20.1

19.9

20.3

20.1

T7

20.6

20.4

20.5

20.6

T8

21.7

21.6

21.5

21.3

Table 3-2: Experimental data for water-flow-rate setting of 100 L/h

Temperatures (
)

H1: 245 V ,

H2: 245 V ,

H3: 245 V ,

H4: 245 V ,

3A

4A

5A

6A

T1

21.8

21.6

22.1

23.0

T2

22.3

22.0

22.2

23.0

T3

26.0

26.8

28.6

31.5

T4

22.9

22.7

23.1

24.1

T5

25.2

26.2

28.0

30.7

T6

20.1

20.1

20.2

20.0

T7

21.0

20.9

20.9

21.2

T8

21.3

21.3

21.3

21.3

Table 3-3: Experimental data for water-flow-rate setting of 150 L/h

7

Temperatures (
)

H1: 240 V ,

H2: 240 V ,

H3: 240 V ,

H4: 240 V ,

3A

4A

5A

6A

T1

22.1

21.9

22.3

23.1

T2

22.9

22.6

22.7

23.5

T3

25.2

25.8

26.9

29.4

T4

23.4

23.2

23.6

24.5

T5

24.6

25.3

26.4

28.9

T6

19.9

19.7

19.7

19.6

T7

21.4

21.1

21.2

21.6

T8

21.3

21.2

21.3

21.3

Table 3-4: Recorded fan speed for each water-flow-rate setting

4.0

Water-flow-rate setting ( L/h )

Fan speed ( m/s )

50
100
150

4.50
4.75
4.69

Discussion
Consider this cooling tower experiment is an adiabatic saturation process and a

steady-flow process.
Taking subscript 1 as the inlet condition and subscript 2 as the outlet condition, the
mass balance equation for dry air can be written as

m
a =m
a =m
a
1

The mass balance equation for water vapour can be written as

m
w +m
f=m
w
1

(4.1)

m
a 1 + m
f =m
a 2
m
f =m
a ( 21 )
f
where m

(4.2)

is the rate of droplet evaporation. Therefore, if inlet specific humidity, 1

and outlet specific humidity, 2 are known, the rate of droplet evaporation can be
determined.
The energy balance equation for the process can be written as

m
a h1+ m
f hf =m
a h2
2

m
a h1+ m
a ( 2 1 ) hf =m
ah2
2

h1 + ( 2 1) h f =h2
2

( c p T 1 + 1 h g ) + ( 2 1 ) hf =( c p T 2 + 2 h g )
1

1 =

c p ( T 2T 1 ) +2 hf g
h g h f
1

2 =0.622

(4.3)

Pg
P2P g
2

(4.4)
2

Table 4-1: Unit conversion for water-flow-rate setting

Water-flow-rate setting ( L/h )

3
Water-flow-rate setting ( m /s )

50
100
150

1.389 x 10-5
2.778 x 10-5
4.167 x 10-5

Table 4-2: Data analysis for water-flow-rate setting of 50 L/h

P2 (

Pg

kPa )

kPa )

2.622

2.356

2.605

2.327

5.51
3
5.19

hf g

hg

hf

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

2453.26

2539.77

84.33

5.508

2453.74

2540.31

83.50

5.190

2.588

2.389

2.555

2.356

7
7.45
4
7.35
1

2452.79

2542.13

85.17

7.441

2453.26

2543.04

84.33

7.333

Table 4-3: Data analysis for water-flow-rate setting of 100 L/h

P2 (

Pg

kPa )

kPa )

2.555

2.356

2.555

2.356

2.555

2.372

2.555

2.339

7.35
1
7.35
1
8.07
5
6.73
7

hf g

hg

hf

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

2453.26

2542.68

84.33

7.334

2453.26

2542.31

84.33

7.336

2453.03

2543.04

84.75

8.057

2453.50

2544.86

83.92

6.715

Table 4-4: Data analysis for water-flow-rate setting of 150 L/h

P2 (

Pg

kPa )

kPa )

2.555

1.682

2.539

1.683

2.555

1.683

2.555

1.683

1.19
8
1.22
3
1.20
0
1.20
1

hf g

hg

hf

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

2453.74

2543.59

83.50

1.193

2454.21

2543.22

82.66

1.219

2454.21

2543.95

82.66

1.195

2454.45

2545.59

82.24

1.195

Table 4-5: Rate of droplet evaporation for each water-flow-rate setting

Current,

I
)
3
4
5
6

( A

f
Rate of droplet evaporation, m
50 L/h
7.445 x 10-8
1.001 x 10-7
1.888 x 10-7
2.431 x 10-7

100 L/h
4.538 x 10-7
4.213 x 10-7
5.131 x 10-7
6.128 x 10-7

( kg /s )
150 L/h
1.885 x 10-7
1.911 x 10-7
2.101 x 10-7
2.640 x 10-7

As can be seen from Table 4-5, two general trends can be observed. The first one is, as
the current increases, the rate of droplet evaporation increases. However, the rate of droplet
10

evaporation for water-flow-rate setting of 100 L/h and heater setting of 245 V, 5 A is slightly
deviated from the trend. A possible reason is, the raw data were recorded before it had settled
down to a steady value. The second trend that can be observed from Table 4-5 is, as the flow
rate of water increases, the rate of droplet evaporation increases. However, the rates of
droplet evaporation for water-flow-rate setting of 100 L/h are heavily deviated from the trend.
This is because the voltage setting for the heater was 245 V instead of 240 V. Therefore, the
rates of droplet evaporation for water-flow-rate setting of 100 L/h are higher than that of 50
L/h and 150 L/h. It should be noted that wet-bulb temperatures are used in calculations
instead of the actual adiabatic saturation temperature. Therefore, there are slight discrepancies
from the actual value. Nevertheless, the results are accurate enough for any practical use.
The specific heat transfer from heater can be written as

q heater =c p ( T 3 T 7 )
where c p=1.005 kJ /kg K , T 3

(4.5)

is the water temperature at the heater outlet, and T 7

the water temperature at the tank.

The specific heat transfer between the droplets and the air can be written as

q droplet =c p ( T 5 T 1 )
where c p=1.005 kJ /kg K , T 5

(4.6)

is the water temperature at the tower inlet, and T 1 is

the water temperature at the tower outlet.

In this case, the rate of heat transfer can be written as

m
q
Q=

Q=
V c p T

11

(4.7)

is

Since it is known that the density of water is approximately 1000 kg/m3, the rate of heat
transfer can be computed for both cases.

Table 4-6: Heat transfers for each water-flow-rate setting

V
L/h

)
50

100

150

q heater (

q droplet (

heater
Q
(

A )

kJ /kg )

kJ /kg )

kJ /s )

kJ /s )

3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6
3
4
5
6

7.136
9.045
12.06
15.58
5.025
5.930
7.740
10.35
3.819
4.724
5.730
7.840

5.829
7.538
9.849
12.96
3.417
4.623
5.930
7.740
2.513
3.417
4.121
5.830

0.0991
0.1256
0.1675
0.2164
0.0698
0.0824
0.1075
0.1438
0.0530
0.0656
0.0796
0.1089

0.0810
0.1047
0.1368
0.1801
0.0475
0.0642
0.0824
0.1075
0.0349
0.0475
0.0572
0.0810

droplet
Q

As can be seen from Table 4-6, two general trends can be noticed. The first one is, as
the current increases, the heat transfer increases. This is expected because a heater with high
current setting will produce more heat compared to a heater with low current setting. Since
the heat transfer between the droplets and the air is directly proportional to the heat transfer
from heater, when the heat transfer from heater increases, the heat transfer between the
droplets and the air increases. Another interesting trend observed is, as the volumetric flow
rate increases, the heat transfer decreases. This is because, as the volumetric flow rate
increases, the contact time between the water and the heater decreases, therefore the heat
transfer from the heater decreases. As a consequence, the heat transfer between the droplets
and the air decreases.
A graph of heat transfer between the droplets and the air versus heat transfer from the
heater is plotted.

12

13

5.0

Conclusion
In this experiment, the two major factors affecting the cooling effect (heat transfer

between the droplets and the air) of the cooling tower are volumetric flow rate and current
setting of the heater. As the volumetric flow rate increases, the cooling effect of the cooling
tower decreases because the heat transfer between the droplets and the air decreases. As the
current of the heater increases, the cooling effect of the cooling tower increases because the
heat transfer between the droplets and the air increases. It should be noted that the wet-bulb
temperature was used in the calculations instead of the adiabatic saturation temperature.
There are discrepancies in the computed results. However, since the wet-bulb temperature is
approximately equal to the adiabatic saturation temperature, the computed results are accurate
enough for any practical use.
6.0

References

Cengel, Y. A., & Boles, M. A. (2011). Thermodynamics: An engineering approach (7th ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill.

14