Cooling Towers

LABORATORY REPORT

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING IN TECHNOLOGY

IN

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

In the

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Of the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

By

Masuku H 222102330

Group 09

DUE: 10 OCTOBER 2023

i
Abstract
To observe the relationship between different heat loads and the wet bulb temperature
approach and how changing the heat load affects the wet bulb approach temperature. The
cooling tower apparatus was preset to working conditions and after water was filled into tank
where the flowrate was set to 40g/s. The heat load was set to 0.5kW where the apparatus was
allowed to run for 10 minutes and temperatures T1 to T6 were recorded. The same procedure
was done for heat load of 1.0kW and 1.5kW. calculations for the wet bulb approach,
evaporation rate, range and enthalpies were done. The trend showed that with an increase in
heat load many of the parameters increase with it. It was concluded that with an increase in
heat load the wet bulb approach increases as well and many of the other calculated
parameters are affected by the heat load. To make the experiment better an automated
temperature reader that can make recording instantaneously can be used to reduce human
error and improve the quality of the results.

ii
Declaration
I Masuku H, of the University of Johannesburg declare that the information recorded in this
lab report except where otherwise indicated and is my original work. Acknowledgement of
sources from other researchers has been done accordingly.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Mr I Ramatsa for providing me with opportunity to do the experiment
and teaching me how to structure and present a correct lab report, I would also like to thank
the lab instructor Ms Tsuke for helping me and guiding me through the practical. I would like
to also extend my gratitude to my group members for providing clarification where needed.

iv
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................ii
Declaration............................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................................iv
1.0Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
1.1Objectives.....................................................................................................................................1
1.2Theoretical background................................................................................................................1
2.0Experimental Procedure...................................................................................................................3
3.0Results, calculations and discussions................................................................................................4
3.1Calculations and Results...............................................................................................................4
3.2Discussions...................................................................................................................................7
4.0Conclusion........................................................................................................................................8
5.0Recommendations............................................................................................................................9
6.0References......................................................................................................................................10
7.0Appendices.....................................................................................................................................11
7.1Appendix a; raw data and formulae............................................................................................11
7.2Appendix b : psychometric chart................................................................................................13

v
1.0Introduction
1.1Objectives
To observe the relationship between different heat loads and the wet bulb temperature
approach and how changing the heat load affects the wet bulb approach temperature.

1.2Theoretical background
There are many industrial cooling processes to temperature control and mostly heat
exchangers are used for this task. One of the most common heat exchangers used is the
cooling tower which in layman’s terms can de defined as a unit operation that pulls heat from
water through evaporative cooling to release heat to the atmosphere leaving the water near
wet bulb temperature (Xi et al., 2023). Cooling towers work principle is to remove energy from
hot water cool dry air in a counter current operation whereby water is sprayed through
nozzles at the top of the column and cool dry air is propelled from the bottom. The column is
packed to increase the surface area for contact with dry air to maximize heat and mass
transfer. A high heat transfer coefficient is also required to support a higher rate of heat
transfer (Milosavljevic and Heikkilä, 2001). (Rossing et al., 2010)

Figure1; counter current cooling tower diagram(Tyagi et al, 2012)

A cooling tower uses evaporative cooling, and this means that the wet bulb approach is vital
for its operation. Wet bulb approach is the difference between the outlet temperature of the
water from the cooling tower and the air inlet wet bulb temperature. The wet bulb approach is
a very important parameter in cooling tower efficiency because the lowest temperature that
the outlet water can reach is the wet bulb temperature. This means that the lower the wet bulb

1
approach the greater the efficiency of the tower (Ashrae,2010). A formula for calculating
efficiency is.

Range
η=
Range+ approach

Where the range is the difference between the water outlet from the tower and the water inlet
to the tower (Pontes, Yamauchi and Silva, 2019).

It is generally assumed that the only water loss in a cooling tower is evaporation losses,
evaporative losses account for major heat loos in a cooling tower operation. The amount of
water lost is observed by calculating the make-up volume which is the difference in the water
inlet volume and the water outlet volume. From this data the make up rate can be calculated
by diving the make-up volume by the time for cooling a certain cooling period. The make-up
rate trend increases when the heat load is increased because the is more heat energy in the
system and there is more evaporation of water. Mounting filters at the top of the tower can
minimize the water losses by evaporation. (Shublaq and Sleiti, 2020)

Other water losses in the cooling tower include blow down, splash and leaks and drift. Blow
after evaporation the concentration of dissolved solids remains in the circulating water, the
water will have to be replaced to prevent corrosion caused by the buildup of these solids and
some of the water is lost during that process. Drift refers to the water that may be lost because
it was carried from the tower as mist or small droplets. Splash and leaks are the water lost
when the make-up water is poured in or when the tank overflows or leaks. The humidity at
the top of the cooling tower is noticeable more than at the bottom meaning that the humidity
of up flowing air increases and almost saturated when leaving the tower. The humidity
increases because as water evaporates there is a mass transfer into the air thus increasing the
water vapor in the air. (Sutherland, 1983)

2
2.0Experimental Procedure
The apparatus was preset to meet its working conditions, the wick of the wet bulb
temperature probes was wet using water from a tap. The tank was filled to the lowest level
mark and the make-up tank was also filled with approximately 1 L water. The apparatus was
then turned on and the flow rate of water was set to 30g/s and the equipment was let to run
for 10 minutes with the heat load at 0kW. The heat Lod was then increased to 0.5kW and
using a measuring cylinder the make-up tank was filled with tap water and the volume was
recorded. The orifice differential was recorded to being 15mmHg and the working conditions
were kept constant for the rest of the operation. In intervals of 10 minutes the temperature
readings (T1-T6) were recorded for 3 different heat loads 0.5kW, 1kW and 1.5kW while
keeping the other conditions constant.

3
3.0Results, calculations and discussions
The aim of the experiment was to observe the relationship between different heat loads and
the wet bulb temperature approach and how changing the heat load affects the wet bulb
approach temperature. Equations conversions and other information used in these
calculations were sourced from appendix a. Data from psychometric chart was taken in
appendix b.

3.1Calculations and Results

Below is a sample calculation for a heat load of 0.5kW

1.Temperature Range:

T 5−T 6=19.0 ° C−15.8 ° C=3.2° C

2. Welt bulb temperature approach:

T 6−T 2=15.8 ° C−11.6 ° C=4.2° C

3. Air mass flow rate:

ma=0.0137
√ x
va
×A

9.80665 Pa
x=15 mmHg × =1470.9975 Pa
1 mmHg

2
110 m 3 2
A=tower density ×water capacity=0.003 m × 3
=0.33 m
m
3
m
V a =0.835
kg

∴ ma=0.0137
√ 147.09975
0.835
× 0.33=
0.06 kg
s

4. Air enthalpy across the tower:

0.4916 Kj
ΔH =m ( H 2−H 1 ) =0.06 ( 41.1181−32.9246 ) = Values taken from psychometric
s
chart.

5. water enthalpy change

Δ H=mC p ΔT =0.04 × 4.18 × ( 15.8−19 )=−0.535

4
6. Evaporation Rate(assume only water loss by evaporation):

0.000288 kg
m × Δhumidity =0.06 × ( 0.0094−0.0046 )=
s

7. Make up rate

3
0.000159 m 6 3
=2.65 × 10 m / s
60 s

8. Cooling tower efficiency:

Range 3.2
η= = =0.432
Range+ approach 3.2+ 4.2

5
Table 1: Calculated values for the 1kW and 1.5kw heat loads.

Heat Range(° Approach(° Mass Air Water Evaporatio Make efficien

load(k C) C) flowrat enthalp enthalp n rate(kg/s) up(m^3/s) cy
W) e y y
(Kg/s)
1 4.1 5.9 0.0597 0.8352 -0.685 0.0003820 0.0000023 0.41
8 3
1.5 5.5 7.3 0.0594 1.1709 -0.919 0.0004695 0.0000050 0.43
76 17

0.0005

0.00045

0.0004
evaporation rate (kg/s)

0.00035

0.0003

0.00025

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

0.00005

0
0.25 0.75 1.25

heat load(kW)

Figure 2: Histogram of evaporation rate against heat load

6
3.2Discussions
The wet bulb approach (WBA) was increasing as the heat load of the apparatus was being
increased. As stated by Ashrae (2012) the wet bulb approach is the difference in water outlet
temperature and welt bulb temperature. As the heat load is increased the WBA is increased
this is because as the temperature the temperature of the water outlet temperature increases
because less evaporation will happen since the temperature on the inlet water will have been
increased. The increase in the water outlet temperature means that the wet bulb approach will
also increase resulting to a larger difference each time. The WBA is a vital parameter because
it helps to analyze the efficiency of the tower, the lower the WBA the greater the efficiency
and the wet bulb is the lowest temperature the exit water can reach.

Many water loss operation took place in this operation but during this experiment it was
assumed that water loss is only due to evaporation. According to Shublaq and Sleiti (2020)
evaporative cooling results to some of the water being lost because the is mass transfer
between the water and air which results to the water being lost by evaporation. To minimize
this water loss filters are fitted at the top of the cooling tower to filter the water molecules
that escape with air. Increasing the heat load resulted to the evaporation rate increasing which
increased the volume of water lost as such. The evidence of this can be seen in the increase in
make-up volume for each heat load. Using the psychometric chart, it was found that the
humidity at the top of the tower was more than the humidity at the bottom of the tower. This
is because as the water evaporates the air gains water trough mass transfer and the water
content in the air is increased which increases the humidity at the top of the column compared
to bottom (Sutherland,1983).

7
4.0Conclusion
The aim of the experiment was to observe the relationship between different heat loads and
the wet bulb temperature approach and how changing the heat load affects the wet bulb
approach. The experiment showed that with an increase in the heat load of 0.5kW to1.5kW
the wet bulb approach was increasing. The air enthalpy was also increasing because more
heat was being added to the system, the evaporation rate as well as the make-up volume were
also increasing with a few anomalies. These results show that increasing the heat load will
increasing the wet bulb approach and yield a lower efficiency of the cooling tower each time.

8
5.0Recommendations
1.Replace the water to avoid the build up of solids that remains after evaporation that can
lead to corrosion

2.Use of a water feed system that is integrated into the tank to avoid minor water losses like
splashes

3.Use an automatic temperature reader that record the temperatures to spreadsheet as soon as
the time reaches 10 minutes to avoid late recording giving false results

9
6.0References
Milosavljevic, N. and Heikkilä, P. (2001) ‘A comprehensive approach to cooling tower design’, Applied
Thermal Engineering, 21(9), pp. 899–915. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-
4311(00)00078-8.

Pontes, R.F.F., Yamauchi, W.M. and Silva, E.K.G. (2019) ‘Analysis of the effect of seasonal climate
changes on cooling tower efficiency, and strategies for reducing cooling tower power consumption’,
Applied Thermal Engineering, 161, p. 114148. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2019.114148.

Rossing, N.L. et al. (2010) ‘A functional HAZOP methodology’, Computers & Chemical Engineering,
34(2), pp. 244–253. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPCHEMENG.2009.06.028.

Shublaq, M. and Sleiti, A.K. (2020) ‘Experimental analysis of water evaporation losses in cooling
towers using filters’, Applied Thermal Engineering, 175, p. 115418. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2020.115418.

Sutherland, J.W. (1983) ‘Analysis of Mechanical-Draught Counterflow Air/Water Cooling Towers’,

Journal of Heat Transfer, 105(3), pp. 576–583. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3245624.

Xi, Y. et al. (2023) ‘Research on heat and mass transfer characteristics of a counterflow wet cooling
tower using a new type of straight wave packing’, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 193, p.
108540. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJTHERMALSCI.2023.108540.

10
7.0Appendices
7.1Appendix a; raw data and formulae
Table 2: Raw data from experiment

0.5 kW 1kW 1.5kW

T1 21.1 21.4 21.5
T2 11.6 11.7 11.9
T3 17.1 19.2 21.2
T4 14.7 16.8 18.8
T5 19.0 21.7 24.7
T6 15.8 17.6 19.2

Formulae

Calculating air mass flow rate.

ṁ=0.0137 A
√x
va

Enthalpy of the air across water.

∆ H =ṁ ( H 2−H 1 )

Enthalpy changes of water.

∆ H =ṁC p ( T 2−T 1 )

V
Make up rate¿
t

A = tower density x water capacity

Where: ṁ is the mass flowrate

X is 15mmH2O
Va is the specific volume.
H2 is outlet enthalpy.
H1 is inlet enthalpy.
Cp is the constant pressure value.
T2 is the outlet temperature.
T1 is the inlet temperature.

11
 V is the volume at each heat load.
t is the time taken (in seconds)
A is the area of the tower
Conversions

1mmH2O = 9.80665 Pa

1L = 0.001 m^3

12
7.2Appendix b : psychometric chart

13
Milosavljevic, N. and Heikkilä, P. (2001) ‘A comprehensive approach to cooling tower design’, Applied
Thermal Engineering, 21(9), pp. 899–915. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-
4311(00)00078-8.

Pontes, R.F.F., Yamauchi, W.M. and Silva, E.K.G. (2019) ‘Analysis of the effect of seasonal climate
changes on cooling tower efficiency, and strategies for reducing cooling tower power consumption’,
Applied Thermal Engineering, 161, p. 114148. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2019.114148.

Rossing, N.L. et al. (2010) ‘A functional HAZOP methodology’, Computers & Chemical Engineering,
34(2), pp. 244–253. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPCHEMENG.2009.06.028.

Shublaq, M. and Sleiti, A.K. (2020) ‘Experimental analysis of water evaporation losses in cooling
towers using filters’, Applied Thermal Engineering, 175, p. 115418. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APPLTHERMALENG.2020.115418.

Sutherland, J.W. (1983) ‘Analysis of Mechanical-Draught Counterflow Air/Water Cooling Towers’,

Journal of Heat Transfer, 105(3), pp. 576–583. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3245624.

Xi, Y. et al. (2023) ‘Research on heat and mass transfer characteristics of a counterflow wet cooling
tower using a new type of straight wave packing’, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, 193, p.
108540. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJTHERMALSCI.2023.108540.

14