Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

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

Performance investigation of a counterflow packing tower for flue gas

waste heat recovery
Yan Jiang, Huan Zhang, Yaran Wang *, Shijun You, Zhangxiang Wu, Zixu Song
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tianjin University, Haihe Education Area, Jinnan District, Tianjin 300350, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Direct emission of flue gas waste heat into the environment causes a great waste of energy. In order to recover the
Flue gas waste heat recovery waste heat of the flue gas efficiently, a counterflow packing tower for flue gas waste heat recovery is presented.
Packing tower In this paper, the mathematical model of the counterflow packing tower is established and experiments were
Heat and mass transfer
conducted for model validation. A Genetic Algorithm based approach was proposed to obtain the correlation
Dynamic heat transfer model
Genetic Algorithm
equations of the heat and mass transfer coefficient between the flue gas and cooling water. The performance of
the counterflow packing tower under different operational conditions is studied with the mathematical model.
Results indicate that: (1) For different packing heights, the relative position of the maximum diffusion flux re­
mains unchanged, which is 0.2 in this study. (2) The effectiveness of CFPT of the counterflow packing tower is
positively correlated with the flue gas inlet temperature, the flue gas inlet humidity ratio, the cooling water mass
flow rate and the packing height. When the flue gas inlet temperature is 75–95 ◦ C, the cooling water inlet
temperature is 20–26 ◦ C, the effectiveness of CFPT is about 50–67%.

1. Introduction
In northern China, clean heating has become one of the main ways to
decrease haze and air pollution [1]. Gas boilers are widely used in dis­
trict heating system as a substitute for coal boilers [2]. Improving the
energy efficiency of gas boilers has become an important measure to
reduce the district heating energy consumption [3]. The flue gas tem­
perature of gas boilers is generally around 100 ◦ C. About 15% of the
total fuel energy will be discharged into the atmosphere with the flue gas
[4]. Waste heat recovery of the flue gas is key to improve gas boiler
efficiency [5,6].
The main constituent of natural gas is methane. The flue gas of gas
boilers contains large amounts of water vapor carrying plenty of latent
heat. Condensing tower is widely used as an ideal total heat recovery
equipment. In the condensing tower, the flue gas transfers heat with the
cooling water by direct contact. The flue gas temperature can be reduced
to be lower than the dew point temperature. Both the sensible and po­
tential heat can be recovered by the cooling water. It will cause a sharp
increase of gas boiler efficiency, and also contributes to water saving
[7]. The recovered heat can be used directly as heat energy to heat water
or space, or as a low temperature source for the heat pump [8,9]. The
heat pump can upgrade the waste heat and supply it to the heat network
to improve the overall efficiency of the gas boiler district heating system
[10], as shown in Fig. 1.
Using the condensing tower for flue gas waste heat recovery has the
advantages of low cost, high heat transfer efficiency, and corrosion
resistance [11]. Min et al. [12] added conical baffles staggered arranged
or falling film plates to spray condensing tower, which significantly
improved the flue gas the effectiveness of CFPT. Chen et al. [13]
designed a gas–liquid flow pattern controlling device to enhance the
mass transfer of spray condensing tower for the dehumidification pro­
cess. Ma et al. [14] proposed a novel waste heat recovery system based
on spray condensing tower for sulfide-containing flue gas. The recovery
coefficient of the novel system was analyzed under different operating
conditions. Cui et al. [15] presented a novel spray condensing tower
with upward spraying and downward flow, which had lower flow
resistance and better performance of heat and mass transfer. Yu et al.
[16] added packing to the spray tower, enabling the tower to operate
flexibly under different environmental conditions.
To sum up, spray condensing tower are widely used in heat recovery
[17], but it has two drawbacks: (1) The spray tower needs a large vol­
ume to achieve sufficient heat and mass transfer between the gas and
liquid, which needs more space and increases the total costs; (2) The
spray tower requires the nozzle to generate smaller atomized liquid
particles, which needs higher pressure head of the pump and operating

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yaran_wang@tju.edu.cn (Y. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2021.117315
Received 5 April 2021; Received in revised form 7 June 2021; Accepted 30 June 2021
Available online 5 July 2021
1359-4311/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Jiang et al.
Nomenclature
A cross sectional area of packing (m2)
cp specific heat capacitance (kJ/(kg⋅K))
Dfg humidity ratio of flue gas (kg/kg)
Dcw saturated humidity ratio of flue gas at the cooling water
temperature (kg/kg)
G per unit area mass flow (kg/(m2∙s))
H height (m)
h enthalpy (kJ/kg)
M mass flow (kg/s)
Q heat transfer rate (kJ/s)
RH relative humidity (%)
S specific surface area of packing (m2/m3)
T temperature (◦ C)
V volume flow rate (m3/h)
v flow rate (m/s)
x the direction of packing height (-)
costs [18]. Utilization of the packing within the condensing tower can
provide efficient contact between the gas and liquid [19]. The complex
structure of packing increases the heat transfer area between the gas and
liquid without the need of larger tower volume, and the liquid film
formed on the packing surface enhances the heat and mass transfer
between the gas and liquid.
There have been numerous studies on the packing performance of
the condensing tower. Gharagheizi et al. [20] studied the relationship
between the efficiency of corrugated packing and the gas–liquid ratio.
The experimental results showed that the packing efficiency decreased
with the reduction of gas–liquid ratio, and vertical corrugated packing
was more efficient than horizontal corrugated packing. Goshayshi et al.
[21] analyzed the influence of geometric parameters on the mass
transfer coefficient of corrugated packing through experiments and
regressed the empirical correlation formula of mass transfer coefficient
and pressure drop coefficient by using experimental data. Wang et al.
[22] studied the effect of environmental parameters on the packing
performance by using statistical analysis principle. Shahali et al. [23]
studied the influence factors of cooling tower performance by experi­
ment, the results showed that cooling water flow rate, cooling water
inlet temperature, air flow rate, packing volume and packing stacking
form had significant influence on the performance of cooling tower.
Singla et al. [24] analyzed the relationship between parameters such as
Fig. 1. Heat pump upgrade flue gas waste heat.
2
Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315
Subscripts
assumed assumed value
cw cooling water
exp experiment
fg flue gas
in inlet
input input value
out outlet
sim simulation
wv water vapor
Greek symbols
α heat transfer coefficient (kJ/(m2∙s∙K))
β mass transfer coefficient (kg/(m2∙s))
γ laten heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)
δ residual (-)
Abbreviations
CFPT counterflow packing tower
Merkel number, cooling efficiency, heat and mass transfer coefficient,
air flow rate and cooling water flow rate of countercurrent mechanical
cooling tower, and regressed the correlation equation of Merkel number
on air flow and cooling water flow. Xu et al. [25] and Kong et al. [26]
studied the performance of ceramic corrugated packing applied to
counter flow cooling tower. The results showed that with the increase of
air–water ratio of cooling tower, the efficiency increases, and the heat
release decreases.
Studies on the modeling and simulation of packing in condensing
tower is always essential for performance enhancement of the
condensing tower. Zhang et al. [27] established a mathematical model
of the counter flow packing tower based on heat and mass transfer
balance equations. A multi-objective particle swarm optimization was
adopted to optimize the economics of packing tower. Restrepo et al. [28]
established a one-dimensional heat and mass transfer model of the
counter flow packing tower with more accurate calculation results and
representative expression. Hawlader et al. [29] predicted the tempera­
ture, humidity and flow distribution of flue gas and water in the cooling
tower by establishing a two-dimensional numerical model. Singh et al.
[30] has established a set of feedback models that can calculate the
required proportion of flue gas and cooling water according to the
changes of cooling tower load and inlet water temperature, which is
conducive to the efficient operation of cooling tower. Sadeghifar et al.
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

[31] proposed a fast and flexible method for calculating the heat transfer (3) The heat transfer between the CFPT and the external environ­
efficiency of packing, which can be applied to the calculation of indus­ ment is ignored;
trial grade packing tower. (4) The heat transfer area and mass transfer area in the packing are
Numerous researches have been carried out on the performance of the same.
packing in condensing tower, however, studies on the utilization of
packing for flue gas waste heat recovery of gas boilers are rare. As the 2.2. Mathematical model
packing performance is highly dependent on the operating environment,
it is essential for studying the performances of the packing under flue gas A one-dimensional model is established along the packing height di­
waste heat recovery condition. In addition, in the current modeling of rection, the energy and mass conservation analysis of the elements is shown
packing condensation tower, the heat and mass transfer coefficient are in Fig. 3. The energy conservation equation includes heat convection, heat
usually fixed. However, in the direction of packing height, the variation exchange between flue gas and cooling water, and heat of water vapor
of heat and mass transfer coefficient with the change of flue gas and condensation. The mass conservation equation includes mass convection
cooling water parameters should be considered. and mass exchange between flue gas and cooling water. The diffusion terms
In this paper, the counterflow packing tower (CFPT) for flue gas of the conservation equations in the direction of fluid flow are ignored and
waste heat recovery was comprehensively studied. The mathematical the convective terms adopted the first-order upwind difference scheme. The
model of heat and mass transfer between flue gas and cooling water in conservation equations can be expressed as follows:
CFPT was established. The experimental setup was constructed to test Energy conservation equation for the flue gas is:
the CFPT and the mathematical model was validated with measured
d(Mfg Tfg ) d(Mfg Dfg ) [ ( )
data. The heat and mass transfer coefficient of the packing for flue gas cp,fg +γ − aSA(Tfg − Tcw ) − cp,cw Tfg − Tcw
waste heat recovery was obtained by a Genetic Algorithm (GA) based dx dx
] d(Mfg Dfg )
data driven approach. The packing performance and the effectiveness of +γ
CFPT under different conditions were analyzed. The research work in dx
this study contributes to promoting the application of packing in flue gas =0 (1)
waste heat recovery and improve the overall efficiency of the gas boiler Energy conservation equation for the cooling water is:
district heating system.
d(Mcw tcw ) [ ( ) ] d(Mfg Dfg )
cp,cw + aSA(Tfg − Tcw ) + cp,cw Tfg − Tcw + γ =0
2. Methods dx dx
(2)
2.1. CFPT structure Mass conservation equation for the flue gas is:

The structure of CFPT for flue gas waste heat recovery is shown in Fig. 2. d(Mfg Dfg )
− βSA(Dfg − Dcw ) = 0 (3)
The heat and mass transfer between flue gas and cooling water in CFPT is a dx
counterflow total heat transfer process. The flue gas flows upward from the Mass conservation equation for the cooling water is:
bottom of CFPT, and the cooling water is ejected downward from the nozzle
dMcw
located at the top of the CFPT. The cooling water forms a water film on the + βSA(Dfg − Dcw ) = 0 (4)
dx
surface of the packing. The flue gas constantly skims over the water film
surface and transfers heat and mass with the cooling water. Overall energy conservation equation for flue gas and cooling water
is:
Assumptions. The mathematical model is established for the packing
section of CFPT. The following assumptions are considered to establish d(Mfg Tfg ) d(Mfg Dfg ) d(Mcw tcw )
cp,fg +γ + cp,cw = 0 (5)
the mathematical model [32]: dx dx dx
Overall energy conservation equation for flue gas and cooling water
(1) The process of heat and mass transfer between flue gas and
cooling water in packing is steady state;
(2) The temperature and humidity of the cooling water are evenly
distributed on the cross section perpendicular to the flue gas flow
direction of the packing, the process is simplified as one-
dimensional transfer;

Fig. 2. The structure of CFPT. Fig. 3. The energy and mass conservation analysis of the elements.

3
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

is: Based on the inlet parameters of flue gas and cooling water, the same
trial calculation method could be used to obtain the outlet parameters of
d(Mfg Dfg ) dMcw
+ = 0 (6) flue gas and cooling water that minimize the objective function δ2
dx dx
defined in Eq. (10). GA is utilized to conduct the parameter calibration
The boundary conditions of the mathematical model are listed procedure. Fig. 4 shows the solution procedure flowchart of the heat and
below: Tfg (0) = Tfg_in, Tcw (H) = Tcw_in, Dfg (0) = Dfg_in, Mcw (H) = Mcw_in. mass transfer model.
Saturation humidity ratio of flue gas at the cooling water temperature ⃒ ⃒
(Dcw) is obtained by psychrometric chart interpolation. δ2 = ⃒Tcw\_in,input - Tcw\_in,assump ⃒ (10)

2.3. Model solution 3. Experimental setup

To solve the above mathematical model, the heat and mass transfer
coefficient of flue gas and cooling water in the packing needs to be
determined and it is related to flue gas parameters including tempera­
ture, humidity ratio, mass flow, and cooling water parameters including
temperature and mass flow. The heat and mass transfer coefficients vary
along the flow direction. The correlations of heat and mass transfer
coefficients are generally obtained through experiments [33], which can
be written in the forms of Eqs. (7) and (8), respectively [34]. The
calculation procedure of the heat and mass transfer coefficient correla­
tions are given as below: (i) Initialize the values of A1–A6 and B1–B6. (ii)
Based on the experimental values of flue gas inlet parameters and
cooling water outlet parameters, the heat transfer coefficient α and mass
transfer coefficient β of node 1 are calculated by Eqs. (7) and (8). (iii)
Heat and mass transfer coefficients, flue gas parameters and cooling
water parameters of each node are calculated successively to obtain flue
gas outlet parameters and cooling water inlet parameters. (iv) The above
trial calculation steps are repeated to find the A1–A6 and B1–B6 that
minimize the objective function δ1 defined in Eq. (9) and the correla­
tions of heat and mass transfer coefficient are obtained.
α = A1 TfgA2 DAfg3 MfgA4 Tcw
A5 A6
Mcw
β = B1 TfgB2 DBfg3 Mfg
B4 B5 B6
Tcw Mcw
3.1. Experimental rig and procedure
The experimental system of CFPT for flue gas waste heat recovery is
discussed in this section, the performance of CFPT is tested and the heat
and mass transfer coefficient of the packing is calibrated by experi­
mental. The sketch and photograph of experimental rig for CFPT are
depicted in Fig. 5a and b. The experimental system mainly includes
burner, main air duct, packing, spray humidifier, induced draft fan,
water tank, ice slab, water pump and nozzle, which can be divided into
flue gas system and cooling water system.
In the flue gas system, the flue gas is generated by a gas burner,
driven by an induced draft fan at the outlet of the duct, and the flow is
regulated by an air valve. The flue gas temperature generated by the gas
burner is about 800 ◦ C, which is much higher than the actual operating
environment of CFPT for flue gas waste heat recovery. Air inlets are
installed on both sides of the burner to reduce the flue gas temperature
by mixing normal temperature air. But the humidity ratio of the mixture
air is lower than humidity ratio of flue gas in the actual operating
environment, and it is necessary to humidify the flue gas with spray
humidifier. To prevent heat loss of flue gas into the environment, the
(7) main duct is wrapped with thermal insulation material. The flue gas
flows up through the packing and is finally discharged from the top of
(8) the main duct.
In the cooling water system, the temperature of the cooling water in
the water tank is adjusted by the ice plate, then the cooling water is

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2 ( )2̅
Tfg\_out,exp - Tfg\_out,sim Dfg\_out,exp - Dfg\_out,sim Tcw\_in,exp - Tcw\_in,sim
δ1 = + + (9)
Tfg\_out,exp Dfg\_out,exp Tcw\_in,exp

Fig. 4. Solution procedure flowchart of the heat and mass transfer model.

4
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

Fig. 5. (a) Sketch and (b) photograph of experimental rig for CFPT.

pumped to the nozzle and sprayed evenly on the packing surface. The
heat and mass transfer between cooling water and flue gas is completed
in the packing, and the cooling water is finally discharged from the
bottom of the duct.
During the test, Tfg_in, RHfg_in, Tfg_out, RHfg_out, vfg_out, Tcw_in, Tcw_out,
Vcw_in are monitored. The measuring instruments are introduced in
Table 1. The component parameters of the experimental system are
presented in Table 2.

5
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

Table 1
Measuring instruments in the experimental rig for CFPT. 70

(%)
Parameters Instruments Uncertainties 65

r
Tfg_in, Tfg_out, Tcw_in, Tcw_out T- sheathed thermocouple ±0.5 ◦ C
60

Simulated value of efficiency

RHfg_in, RHfg_out Hygrometer self - recorder ±2%
vfg_out Testo-405i hotwire probe ±0.1 m/s
Vcw_in LWGY15 turbine flowmeter ±0.01 m3/h 55
50
Table 2 45
The component parameters of the experimental system.
Packing Type: Metal orifice corrugated packing 350Y
40
Materials: Stainless steel
Size: 200 × 200 × 200 (mm × mm × mm); S = 350 (m2/m3)
35
Burner Type: Harmonica burner; Power: 24 (kW)
Spray humidifier Volume flow rate: 5 (L/min) 30
Induced draft fan Rated air flow: 7 (m3/min); Wind pressure: 250–300 (Pa)
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Test value of efficiency r
(%)
3.2. Experimental results and model validation
(a)
To study the performance of the packing under flue gas conditions,
9
the operating conditions of the flue gas were maintained. The flue gas
temperature and humidity ratio in this study are maintained 75–95 ◦ C 8
and 45–55 g/kg, respectively. While the per unit area mass flow of flue
gas, inlet temperature of cooling water, per unit area mass flow of 7
cooling water, height of packing are in the range of 1.14–1.52 kg/(m2∙s), 6
20–26 ◦ C, 1.74–3.13 kg/(m2∙s), 0.2–1.0 m, respectively.
Relative error (%) 5
During the test, five experimental standard values are taken for flue
gas temperature and packing height, and three experimental standard
4
values are taken for other variables. In this study, orthogonal test
method is adopted. According to the principle of orthogonal design, 3
representative combination conditions are selected to ensure that the
different experimental standard values of each variable meet at least 2
once. Except for the orthogonal conditions, other experimental data are
1
utilized for regression of A1–A6 and B1–B6 for heat and mass transfer
coefficient correlations, as shown in Table 3. 0
To evaluate the performance of CFPT for flue gas waste heat recov­
ery, the effectiveness of CFPT (ηr) is defined as the ratio of the recovered 5 10 15 20 25
enthalpy to the inlet enthalpy of flue gas (shown in Eqs. (11) and (12)). Case number
The uncertainty of the effectiveness of CFPT (Eηr) is calculated according
(b)
to Eq. (13), and it is 6.2% during the test. The comparison of recovery
efficiencies and relative error are given in Fig. 6. The average and Fig. 6. Comparison of tested and simulated waste heat recovery efficiencies (a),
maximum relative error of simulated and tested recovery efficiencies are and relative error (b).
2.2% and 8.0%, respectively. As the packing height of the conditions 1–3
is lowest and the flue gas mass flow is large, the flue gas in the packing
has strong turbulence. Therefore, the relative errors of conditions 1–3 √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) ( ) ( )2̅
are greater than 5%, and the test values of recovery efficiencies are ∂ηr 2 ∂ηr 2 ∂ηr
higher than the simulated values. In addition, the relative errors of the E ηr = ΔTfg out + Δvfg out + ΔRHfg out
∂Tfg out ∂vfg out ∂RHfg out
remaining 23 conditions are less than 5%, considering the instrument (13)
errors, the heat and mass transfer model established in this research is
reliable. 4. Result and discussion
( )
hfg = cp,fg Tfg + Dfg γ + cp,wv Tfg (11)
Based on the mathematical model of CFPT for flue gas waste heat
h − hfg\_out recovery, the distribution of flue gas and cooling water parameters, the
ηr = fg\_in × 100% (12) heat and mass transfer coefficient and diffusion flux along the height of
hfg\_in
the packing is analyzed. Moreover, the effectiveness of CFPT can reflect
the performance of CFPT. The cooling water outlet temperature in­
dicates the exergy of heat recovery. The effects of flue gas, cooling water
Table 3 and packing height parameters on the effectiveness of CFPT and cooling
Experimental regression results of heat and mass transfer coefficient water outlet temperature are studied. Standard values of the parameters
correlations. used in the simulation are listed and they are maintained constant
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 δ1 except for variable values, and the variable values are limited in the
range of the experiment parameters.
1.975 0.072 1.035 − 0.688 − 0.749 0.359 0.012
Tfg_in = 85 ◦ C, Dfg_in = 50 g/kg, Gfg_in = 1.33 kg/(m2∙s), Tcw_in = 23 ◦ C,
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6
2 0.702 0.771 0.468 − 0.499 0.612
Gcw_in = 2.43 kg/(m2∙s), H = 0.6 m.

6
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

4.1. Parameters distribution at different packing height

When the standard values are used as the boundary conditions, the
temperature, humidity ratio, heat and mass transfer coefficient, heat
flux and mass flux distribution curves of flue gas and cooling water along
the height of the packing are depicted in Fig. 7a, b and c. After heat and
mass transfer with the cooling water, the flue gas temperature is reduced
from 85 to 27.9 ◦ C, and the humidity ratio is reduced from 50 to 22.9 g/
kg, the cooling water temperature is increased from 23 to 38.9 ◦ C, and
the saturation humidity ratio is increased from 17.9 to 45.8 g/kg. The
thermal diffusivity and molecular diffusivity increase with the temper­
ature increasing, so the heat and mass transfer coefficient at the bottom
of the packing is the largest and decreases gradually along the direction
of the packing height (see Fig. 7 a, b). From the bottom to the top of the
packing, the temperature difference (between the flue gas and cooling
water) and the heat transfer coefficient decrease. The sensible heat flux
between flue gas and cooling water decreases from 1.19 to 0.08 kW/m2,
which indicates that the sensible heat transfer between flue gas and
cooling water at the bottom of the packing is the most intense (see
Fig. 7a, c). Although the mass transfer coefficient decreases gradually
along the packing height, the humidity ratio difference between flue gas
and cooling water increases first and then decreases. This is because the
humidity ratio of flue gas gradually approaches the cooling water inlet
saturation humidity ratio at the top of packing and the humidity ratio of
cooling water gradually approaches the flue gas inlet humidity ratio at
the bottom of packing, hence the humidity ratio difference between the
two ends of the packing is small. The maximum diffusion flux between
flue gas and cooling water is 0.31 g/(m2∙s) at about 0.1 m of the packing
height, and the corresponding latent heat flux is 0.75 kW/m2 (see Fig. 7
b, c). While as illustrated in Fig. 7c, the sensible heat flux between flue
gas and cooling water is greater than the latent heat flux under 0.1 m of
the packing, and the reverse is true at other locations of the packing.
Under this condition, the total sensible heat transfer is 3.0 kW, while the
total latent heat transfer is 3.6 kW. In fact, the latent heat often accounts
for a large proportion of the total recovered heat in the flue gas waste
heat recovery.
In the process of heat and mass transfer between flue gas and cooling
water, the relation between heat and mass transfer can be expressed by
Lewis factor (Lef). Lewis factor is the ratio of heat transfer Stanton
number (ST) to mass transfer Stanton number (STm) as shown in Eq.
(14). When the standard values are used as the boundary conditions, the
average Lewis factor calculated by the heat and mass transfer coefficient
of experimental regression in this research is 0.83. And the Lewis factor
calculated by the classical correlation formula (shown in Eq. (15)) is
0.81 [35], as the heat and mass transfer coefficient obtained by exper­
imental regression in this research is reliable.
ST Nu Sh α
Lef = = / = (14)
STm RePr ReSc βcp,fg
[( )/ ( )]
Dcw + 0.622 Dcw + 0.622
Lef = 0.6812/3 − 1 ln (15)
Dfg + 0.622 Dfg + 0.622

4.2. Diffusion flux distribution at different packing height

Fig. 7. (a) Temperature and heat transfer coefficient, (b) humidity ratio and
mass transfer coefficient and (c) heat flux and diffusion flux distribution curves
along the height of packing.
The latent heat transfer caused by mass transfer is a key factor in the
packing condensing tower. It is essential to analyze the distribution of
diffusion flux along the packing height under different conditions, and
provide a basis for the optimal layout of packing. Effect of flue gas
temperature, humidity ratio and mass flow per unit area on the diffusion
flux distribution along the height of packing are illustrated in Fig. 8a, b
and c.
As shown in Fig. 8a, with the increase of flue gas inlet temperature,
the sensible heat transfer between flue gas and cooling water ascends. At
the bottom of the packing, for specific flue gas inlet humidity ratio, with
the temperature and saturation humidity ratio of cooling water rising,

7
Y. Jiang et al.
Fig. 8. Effect of flue gas (a) temperature, (b) humidity ratio and (c) mass flow
per unit area on the diffusion flux distribution along the height of packing.
8
Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315
the humidity ratio difference between the flue gas and the cooling water
decreases. Although the mass transfer coefficient slightly rises, reduc­
tion of the humidity ratio difference has a greater impact on the diffu­
sion flux. Therefore, with the flue gas inlet temperature increasing, the
diffusion flux decreases. At the top of the packing, for specific saturated
humidity ratio of cooling water, due to the decrease of the diffusion flux
at the bottom of the packing, the flue gas at the top of the packing retains
more humidity, and the humidity ratio difference of flue gas and cooling
water ascends. In addition, the mass transfer coefficient rises, so with the
flue gas inlet temperature increases, the diffusion flux rises. With the
increase of flue gas inlet temperature, the maximum diffusion flux de­
scends and moves up along the direction of the packing height. When the
flue gas inlet temperature is 75 ◦ C, the maximum value of diffusion flux
is 0.33 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.05 m of the packing height. When the
flue gas inlet temperature is 95 ◦ C, the maximum value of diffusion flux
is 0.30 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.12 m of the packing height.
As is shown in Fig. 8b, with the increase of flue gas inlet humidity
ratio, the humidity ratio difference between flue gas and cooling water
rises, and because the latent heat transfer ascends, the cooling water
temperature increases, which results in the increase of mass transfer
coefficient. Hence, with the increase of humidity ratio difference and
mass transfer coefficient, the diffusion flux increases significantly. When
the flue gas inlet humidity ratio is 45 g/kg, the maximum value of
diffusion flux is 0.24 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.10 m of the packing height.
When the flue gas inlet humidity ratio is 55 g/kg, the maximum value of
diffusion flux is 0.38 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.08 m of the packing height.
The influence principle of flue gas mass flow per unit area and flue gas
inlet temperature on diffusion flux is similar, as shown in Fig. 8c. But
with the flue gas mass flow increasing, the temperature and saturated
humidity ratio of the cooling water increase more obviously. When the
flue gas mass flow per unit area is 1.52 kg/(m2∙s), the humidity ratio
difference at the bottom of the packing is almost 0. Therefore, the
diffusion flux at different flue gas mass flow has a larger difference
compared with that at different flue gas inlet temperatures. When the
flue gas mass flow per unit area is 1.14 kg/(m2∙s), the maximum value of
diffusion flux is 0.38 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.03 m of the packing height.
When the flue gas mass flow per unit area is 1.52 kg/(m2∙s), the
maximum value of diffusion flux is 0.29 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.16 m of
the packing height.
The influence of cooling water temperature and mass flow per unit
area on the diffusion flux distribution along the height of packing are
illustrated in Fig. 9a and b. As presented in Fig. 9a, with the rise of
cooling water inlet temperature, the cooling water outlet temperature
and saturated humidity ratio increase, the humidity ratio difference and
the diffusion flux between flue gas and cooling water descend at the
bottom of the packing. So, the humidity ratio of flue gas decreases slowly
along the upward direction of packing height and then humidity ratio
difference at different cooling water inlet temperature tends to be the
same. When the cooling water inlet temperature increases, the slightly
higher diffusion flux at the top of the packing is because of the mass
transfer coefficient ascends. When the cooling water inlet temperature is
20 ◦ C, the maximum value of diffusion flux is 0.42 g/(m2∙s), occurring at
0.04 m of the packing height. When the cooling water inlet temperature
is 26 ◦ C, the maximum value of diffusion flux is 0.24 g/(m2∙s), occurring
at 0.14 m of the packing height.
As shown in Fig. 9b, when the cooling water mass flow per unit area
reaches 3.13 kg/(m2∙s), the temperature change of cooling water is very
small, the saturated humidity ratio of cooling water at the bottom of the
packing will not be close to the flue gas inlet humidity ratio, and the
mass transfer coefficient decreases along the upward direction of the
packing height, so the diffusion flux directly decreases and the
maximum value occurs at the bottom of packing. When the cooling
water mass flow per unit area is 1.74 kg/(m2∙s), the diffusion flux still
increases first and then decreases. It should be noted that at the bottom
of packing, due to the large temperature rise of the cooling water, the
saturated humidity ratio is greater than the flue gas inlet humidity ratio,
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

and the diffusion flux becomes negative. When the cooling water mass
flow per unit area is 1.74 kg/(m2∙s), the maximum value of diffusion flux
is 0.24 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0.27 m of the packing height. When the
cooling water mass flow per unit area is 3.13 kg/(m2∙s), the maximum
value of diffusion flux is 0.62 g/(m2∙s), occurring at 0 m of the packing
height.
To analyze the diffusion flux distribution at different packing
heights, the packing height is normalized (see Fig. 10). As the packing
height increases, the humidity ratio difference between flue gas and
cooling water at the same relative packing height descends, hence the
diffusion flux decreases. When the packing height is 0.2 m, the heat and
mass transfer between flue gas and cooling water is insufficient, and the
saturated humidity ratio of cooling water at the bottom of the packing
does not tend to the flue gas inlet humidity ratio, the change of humidity
ratio difference is small. Therefore, the mass transfer coefficient is the
main factor affecting the diffusion flux, the diffusion flux decreases
along the upward direction of the packing height with the mass transfer
coefficient descends. With the packing height increasing from 0.2 to 1 m,
the maximum value of diffusion flux decreases from 0.60 to 0.26 g/
(m2∙s). Except for the packing height of 0.2 m, the maximum diffusion
flux is about 0.2 of the relative packing heights. Under certain operating
parameters, the distribution of diffusion flux at different packing heights
is basically consistent.

Fig. 9. Effect of cooling water (a) temperature and (b) mass flow per unit area
on the diffusion flux distribution along the height of packing.

Fig. 10. Effect of packing height on the diffusion flux.

Fig. 11. Effect of flue gas parameters on the CFPT performance.

9
Y. Jiang et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315

4.3. Effect of operation parameters on the CFPT performance

The effectiveness of CFPT and cooling water outlet temperature are

important indices for the CFPT performance. Effect of flue gas param­
eters on the CFPT performance are illustrated in Fig. 11. With the flue
gas inlet temperature increasing from 75 to 95 ◦ C, the cooling water
outlet temperature and the effectiveness of CFPT increase by 2.4 ◦ C and
2.98% under different flue gas mass flow, and the maximum are 41.6 ◦ C
and 64.14%, respectively. This is because with the flue gas temperature
rise, heat and mass transfer coefficient and the temperature difference
between flue gas and cooling water ascend. The cooling water gets more
heat from flue gas, which leads to the cooling water outlet temperature
increase. In addition, the extra waste heat recovery is greater than the
total heat increases due to flue gas inlet temperature rises, and the
effectiveness of CFPT ascend. The flue gas inlet humidity ratio and inlet
temperature have the same effect on cooling water outlet temperature
and the effectiveness of CFPT. With the flue gas inlet humidity ratio from
45 to 55 g/kg, the cooling water outlet temperature and the effective­
ness of CFPT increase by 2.9 ◦ C and 4.02% under different flue gas mass Fig. 12. Effect of cooling water parameters on the CFPT performance.
flows, and the maximum are 41.9 ◦ C and 64.40%, respectively. With the
flue gas mass flow per unit area from 1.14 to 1.52 kg/(m2∙s), the cooling
water outlet temperature increases while the effectiveness of CFPT de­
creases. Under different flue gas inlet temperature and humidity ratio,
the cooling water outlet temperature increases by 3.2 ◦ C on average and
the effectiveness of CFPT decreases by 5.04% on average. Therefore, the
effectiveness of CFPT and cooling water outlet temperature should be
comprehensive considered in the choice of flue gas mass flow.
Fig. 12 depicts the effect of cooling water parameters on the CFPT
performance. With the cooling water inlet temperature from 20 to 26 ◦ C,
the effectiveness of CFPT decreases by average of 10.54% under
different cooling water mass flow, and the minimum is 47.80%. Due to
the descends of the effectiveness of CFPT, the cooling water outlet
temperature only increases by average of 3.0 ◦ C. This is because with the
increase of cooling water temperature, the difference of temperature and
humidity ratio between cooling water and flue gas decreases, and the
heat and mass transfer capacity descend. Although the rising tempera­
ture of cooling water increases the heat and mass transfer coefficient, the
heat and mass transfer capacity still decrease, and the effectiveness of
CFPT descends. With the cooling water mass flow per unit area from
1.74 to 3.13 kg/(m2∙s), the effectiveness of CFPT rises by average of Fig. 13. Effect of packing height on the CFPT performance.
8.90% but the rising trend gradually slowed down, and the cooling
water outlet temperature descends by average of 7.0 ◦ C. With the in­ model of CFPT packing section is established and verified by experi­
crease of cooling water mass flow, the average temperature and outlet mental results obtained from the CFPT setup. Then, the distribution of
temperature of cooling water are reduced. The difference of temperature temperature, humidity ratio and heat and mass transfer coefficient of
and humidity ratio between flue gas and cooling water increase, and the flue gas and cooling water in the packing section are simulated using the
effectiveness of CFPT rises. With the further increase of cooling water mathematical model. The effects of CFPT operating parameters on
mass flow, the difference of temperature and humidity ratio tend to be diffusion flux, the effectiveness of CFPT and cooling water outlet tem­
constant, hence the rising trend of the effectiveness of CFPT gradually perature are analyzed. The main conclusions are drawn as follows:
slowed down.
Effect of packing height on the CFPT performance are illustrated in (1) The average and maximum relative error of simulated and tested
Fig. 13. With the packing height increases from 0.2 to 1.0 m, the cooling recovery efficiencies are 2.2% and 8.0%, respectively. Consid­
water outlet temperature and the effectiveness of CFPT ascend from 35.2 ering the instrument errors, the heat and mass transfer model
to 40.0 ◦ C and from 46.34 to 64.41%, respectively, but the rising trend established in this research is reliable.
gradually slowed down. This is because the rise of packing height in­ (2) The sensible heat transfer at the bottom of the packing is greater
creases the heat and mass transfer area, and the heat and mass transfer than the latent heat transfer, while the opposite is true at the top
capacity between flue gas and cooling water is raised. When the packing of the packing. Under the standard condition of this study, the
is increased to a certain height, the temperature and humidity ratio of total sensible heat transfer is 3.0 kW, while the total latent heat
flue gas and cooling water above the packing are the same. If the packing transfer is 3.6 kW.
height continues to be increased, heat and mass transfer between flue (3) The performance of packing is positively correlated with the
gas and cooling water is no longer carried out, the cooling water outlet operating condition. When the operating condition of CFPT is
temperature and the effectiveness of CFPT tends to be constant. unchanged, the relative position of the maximum diffusion flux
under different packing heights is basically the same, which is 0.2
5. Conclusions in this study. Under the standard condition of this study, with the
packing height increasing from 0.2 to 1 m, the cooling water
In this study, the performance of counterflow packing tower (CFPT) outlet temperature increases by 4.8 ◦ C, and the effectiveness of
for flue gas waste heat recovery has been researched. The mathematical CFPT ascends by 18.07%.

10
Y. Jiang et al.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China
(No. 2019YFC1903904-01).
References
[1] Y. Li, J. Xia, Y. Su, Y. Jiang, Systematic optimization for the utilization of low-
temperature industrial excess heat for district heating, Energy 144 (2018)
984–991.
[2] K. Zhu, J. Xia, X. Xie, Y. Jiang, Total heat recovery of gas boiler by absorption heat
pump and direct-contact heat exchanger, Appl. Therm. Eng. 71 (2014) 213–218.
[3] B. Yang, W. Yuan, L. Fu, S. Zhang, M. Wei, D. Guo, Techno-economic study of full-
open absorption heat pump applied to flue gas total heat recovery, Energy 190
(2020), 116429.
[4] J. Wang, J. Hua, L. Fu, D. Zhou, Effect of gas nonlinearity on boilers equipped with
vapor-pump (BEVP) system for flue-gas heat and moisture recovery, Energy 198
(2020), 117375.
[5] S. Tang, Y. He, F. Wang, Q. Zhao, Y. Yu, On-site experimental study on fouling and
heat transfer characteristics of flue gas heat exchanger for waste heat recovery,
Fuel 296 (2021), 120532.
[6] M. Kassai, Experimental investigation on the effectiveness of sorption energy
recovery wheel in ventilation system, Exp. Heat Transfer 32 (2018) 106–120,
https://doi.org/10.1080/08916152.2017.1397815.
[7] J. Li, Z. Liu, C. He, H. Yue, S. Gou, Water shortages raised a legitimate concern over
the sustainable development of the drylands of northern China: Evidence from the
water stress index, Sci. Total Environ. 590 (2017) 739–750.
[8] H. Jaber, T. Lemenand, M. Ramadan, M. Khaled, Hybrid heat recovery system
applied to exhaust gases – thermal modeling and case study, Heat Transfer Eng. 29
(2019) 1521–10537, https://doi.org/10.1080/01457632.2019.1692495.
[9] E. Dudkiewicz, P. Szalanski, Overview of exhaust gas heat recovery technologies
for radiant heating systems in large halls, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 18 (2020),
100522.
[10] H. Jouhara, N. Khordehgah, S. Almahmoud, B. Delpech, A. Chauhan, S.A. Tassou,
Waste heat recovery technologies and applications, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 6 (2018)
268–289.
[11] Z. Cui, Q. Du, J. Gao, R. Bie, D. Li, Development of a direct contact heat exchanger
for energy and water recovery from humid flue gas, Appl. Therm. Eng. 173 (2020),
115214.
[12] C. Min, X. Yang, J. He, K. Wang, L. Xie, D.I. Onwude, W. Zhang, H. Wu,
Experimental investigation on heat recovery from flue gas using falling film
method, Therm. Sci. Eng. Prog. 22 (2021), 100839.
[13] Z. Chen, C. You, H. Wang, N. Xie, A novel technical route based on wet flue gas
desulfurization process for flue gas dehumidification, water and heat recovery,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 171 (2020), 115102.
[14] H. Ma, N. Liang, N. Zhang, X. Luo, C. Hou, G. Wang, Simulation of a novel waste
heat recovery system with sulfide-containing flue gas, Appl. Therm. Eng. 187
(2020), 116556.
[15] H. Cui, N. Li, J. Peng, R. Yin, Investigation on the thermal performance of a novel
spray tower with upward spraying and downward gas flow, Appl. Energy 231
(2018) 12–21.
11
Applied Thermal Engineering 196 (2021) 117315
[16] Z. Yu, C. Sun, L. Zhang, B. Bao, Y. Li, S. Bu, W. Xu, Analysis of a novel combined
heat exchange strategy applied for cooling towers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 169
(2021), 120910.
[17] Y. Men, X. Liu, T. Zhang, Performance comparison of different total heat
exchangers applied for waste heat recovery, Appl. Therm. Eng. 182 (2021),
115715.
[18] G.P. Narayan, M.H. Sharqawy, E.K. Summers, et al., The potential of solar-driven
humidification–dehumidification desalination for small-scale decentralized water
production, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (2010) 1187–1201.
[19] J. Zhu, P. Zhao, Q. Zhang, S. Yang, Q. Yan, Modeling and experimental studies on
chemical absorption of sulphur dioxide with ethylenediamine-phosphoric acid
solution in a θ-ring packed tower for purification of flue gas, Sep. Purif. Technol.
255 (2021), 117764.
[20] F. Gharagheizi, R. Hayati, S. Fatemi, Experimental study on the performance of
mechanical cooling tower with two types of film packing, Energy Convers. Manage.
48 (2007) 277–280.
[21] H.R. Goshayshi, J.F. Missenden, The investigation of cooling tower packing in
various arrangements, Appl. Therm. Eng. 20 (2000) 69–80.
[22] J.G. Wang, S.S. Shieh, S.S. Jang, C.W. Wu, Discrete model-based operation of
cooling tower based on statistical analysis, Energy Convers. Manage. 73 (2013)
226–233.
[23] P. Shahali, M. Rahmati, S.R. Alavi, A. Sedaghat, Experimental study on improving
operating conditions of wet cooling towers using various rib numbers of packing,
Int. J. Refrig. 65 (2016) 80–91.
[24] R.K. Singla, K. Singh, R. Das, Tower characteristics correlation and parameter
retrieval in wet-cooling tower with expanded wire mesh packing, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 96 (2016) 240–249.
[25] Z. Xu, Y. Xie, Y. Xiao, A compact packing humidifier for the micro humid air
turbine cycle: Design method and experimental evaluation, Appl. Therm. Eng. 125
(2017) 727–734.
[26] Q.J. Kong, X.Y. Zhao, D.Q. Xie, B. Zhang, P. Wang, Experimental investigation of
the heat and mass transfer phenomena in a counterflow wet cooling tower with
foam ceramic packing, Adv. Mech. Eng. 10 (2018) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1177/
1687814017752579.
[27] Y. Zhang, H. Zhang, Y. Wang, S. You, W. Zheng, Optimal configuration and
operating condition of counter flow cooling towers using particle swarm
optimization algorithm, Appl. Therm. Eng. 151 (2019) 318–327.
[28] L.R. Mario, M.R. Robinson, Modeling and simulation of counterflow wet-cooling
towers and the accurate calculation and correlation of mass transfer coefficients for
thermal performance prediction, Int. J. Refrig. 74 (2017) 47–72.
[29] M.N.A. Hawlader, B.M. Liu, Numerical study of the thermal-hydraulic performance
of evaporative natural draft cooling towers, Appl. Therm. Eng. 22 (2002) 41–59.
[30] K. Singh, R. Das, A feedback model to predict parameters for controlling the
performance of a mechanical draft cooling tower, Appl. Therm. Eng. 105 (2016)
519–530.
[31] H. Sadeghifar, A.A.S. Kordi, A new and applicable method to calculate mass and
heat transfer coefficients and efficiency of industrial distillation columns
containing structured packings, Energy 36 (2011) 1415–1423.
[32] Y. Zhang, H. Zhang, W. Zheng, S. You, Y. Wang, Optimal operating conditions of a
hybrid humidification-dehumidification and heat pump desalination system with
multi-objective particle swarm algorithm, Desalination 468 (2019), 114076.
[33] A. Klimanek, Numerical modelling of natural draft wet-cooling towers, Arch.
Comput. Methods Eng. 20 (2013) 61–109, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-013-
9081-9.
[34] J.C. Kloppers, A Critical Evaluation and Refinement of the Performance Prediction
of Wet-cooling Towers, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 2003.
[35] J.C. Kloppers, D.G. Kroger, The Lewis factor and its influence on the performance
prediction of wet-cooling towers, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 44 (2005) 879–884.