45 views

Uploaded by neeraj

a brief description of cooling tower

- YCSA_50_60_80_100
- Take It to the Limit ...or Just Halfway
- AHRI_Standard_550-590_I-P_2015_with_Errata[022-049]
- Cooling Tower 1
- ROBUR Pocket-guide USA 11-2014
- Panwater PCF Series Cooling Tower.pdf
- Cooling Tower 45
- KEL DF CoolingTowers 2018-05 en V1
- Basics Cooling Tower
- Cooling Tower M
- Chiller
- Optimizing Cooling Towers
- Bulletin 7 - Heat Recovery From DG Set Jacket Cooling Water
- vrv-basic-training-manual.pdf
- Chaptr28 MASTERCLASS - AIR CONDITIONING TECHNOLOGY
- FLP CATALOUGE.pdf
- (CARNOT CYCLE) Lab Report on Cooling and heating effects in an air conditioning system
- uploads_newsletter_NEWSLETTER_1BF288444BCA9BC4Newsletter_JAS12.pdf
- Refco Brochure Condensate Pumps GB
- HSU-7-9-12-14-18-22 haer

You are on page 1of 16

Cooling Towers

Introduction

A cooling tower is a counter-flow or cross-flow heat exchanger that removes heat from water

and transfers it to air. Cooling towers come in many configurations. An induced-draft cooling

tower, which is common in HVAC and industrial applications, is shown in Figure 1a. As warm

water from the process falls through the tower, some of it evaporates, which cools the

remaining water. The cooled water collects at the bottom of the cooling tower and is returned

to the plant where it is used for cooling. Figure 1b shows an evaporative condenser, which is

common in industrial refrigeration applications. Water, which is cooled by evaporation, falls

over a closed heat exchanger (usually carrying refrigerant) in the top part of the tower. It then

falls over more fill to enhance evaporation in the lower part of the tower. A small pump

circulates water from the bottom to the top of the tower.

HOT

WATER

IN

HOT

WATER

IN

WARM AIR OUT

Hot Water

Distribution

AIR IN

Fill

Fill

AIR IN

Air Inlet

Louvers

Sump

Hot Water

Distribution

Refrigerant Vapour In

Fill

AIR IN

Secondary

Recirculating

Pump

Air Inlet

Louvers

The temperature difference of water through a tower, dT = Tw1-Tw2, is determined by the

load, Ql, and the mass flow rate of water, mw. Neither the size of the tower nor the state of

the outside air influences the temperature difference; however, larger towers or lower outdoor

air wet-bulb temperatures will decrease the exit water temperature, Tw2.

Depending on the entering air and water temperatures, the water may be cooled by sensible

and latent cooling of the air, or simply by latent cooling of the air. In either case, latent, i.e.

evaporative, cooling is dominant. For example, consider the case in which the air enters at a

lower temperature than the water (Figure 3a). The air will leave completely saturated and the

cooling is part sensible and part latent. The sensible portion occurs as the air temperature

increases by absorbing heat from the water. The latent portion occurs as some of the water

evaporates, which draws energy out of the water.

If the air enters at the same wet bulb temperature as before, but at a higher dry-bulb

temperature than the water, then the air will cool as it saturates (Figure 3b). Thus, the sensible

2

cooling component is negative, and the all the cooling is due to evaporation. In general, cooling

is dominated by latent cooling.

A2

A 2

Qlat

Qtot

Qsen

A1

A1

A2

A 2

Qlat

Qtot

-Qsen

A1

A1

Figure 2. Psychrometric process lines for air through a cooling tower, if the entering air

temperature is a) less than the entering water temperature, and b) greater than the entering

water temperature.

The total cooling, ma (ha2 ha1) is the same for both cases since enthalpy is a function of wetbulb temperature alone. However, the dry-bulb temperature significantly influences the

evaporation rate, mwe = ma (wa2-wa1). The rate of evaporation increases as the dry-bulb

temperature increases for a given wet-bulb temperature.

Based on the previous discussion, it is clear that cooling tower performance is a function of the

wet-bulb temperature of the entering air. In an infinite cooling tower, the leaving air wet-bulb

temperature would approach the entering water temperature, and the leaving water

temperature would approach the web-bulb temperature of the entering air. The difference

between the leaving water temperature and the entering air wet-bulb temperature is called the

approach. The relationship between air wet-bulb and water temperature is shown in the figure

below. In an infinite cooling tower, the approach would be zero.

Neglecting fan power and assuming steady state operation, an energy balance on a cooling

tower gives:

mw1 cpw Tw1 mw2 cpw Tw2 + ma (ha1 ha2) = 0

Assuming steady state operation, a mass balance on water flow gives:

mw1 mw2 + ma (wa1 wa2) = 0

mw2 = mw1 + ma (wa1 wa2)

Substituting mw2 into the energy balance gives:

mw1 cpw Tw1 [mw1 + ma (wa1 wa2)] cpw Tw2 + ma (ha1 ha2) = 0

mw1 cpw Tw1 mw1 cpw Tw2 - ma (wa1 wa2) cpw Tw2 + ma (ha1 ha2) = 0

The fraction of incoming water that is evaporated, ma (wa2-wa1) / mw1, is typically less than

1%. Thus, ma (wa1 wa2) is much less than mw1, and the term ma (wa1 wa2) cpw Tw2 can

be neglected with negligible error to give:

mw1 cpw (Tw1 Tw2) = ma (ha2- ha1)

Both sides of this equation represent the total cooling capacity of the tower.

The effectiveness, E, of a heat exchanger is the ratio of the actual to maximum heat transfer.

E = Qactual / Qmax

For a heat exchanger, Qmax occurs if the air leaves the cooling tower completely saturated at

the temperature of the incoming water. Thus, effectiveness is

E = Qactual / Qmax = [mw1 cpw (Tw1 Tw2)] / [ ma (ha,sat,tw1- ha1)]

The two most common tower designs for HVAC applications are forced-air counterflow and

induced air cross-flow. Cooling tower energy use is a function of fan and pump power. To

generate the same quantity of cooling, forced-air counterflow towers require more fan and

more pump energy then induced-air crossflow towers. Thus, induced-air crossflow towers are

almost always more energy efficient.

Forced-air counterflow towers require more fan energy because centrifugal fans are made to

generate low flow against high pressure, but cooling towers generally need high flow at low

pressure. In comparison, induced air crossflow towers use propeller fans, which generate high

flow against low pressure, which is more suited to cooling towers.

Forced-air counterflow towers require more pump energy because these towers are taller in

order to facilitate the counterflow heat transfer as the water falls through the tower. This

height increases elevation head in the piping system. In addition, forced-air counterflow

towers spray water through nozzles, which increases pressure drop. In comparision, inducedair crossflow towers are shorter and wider since the path of the air through the water is

horizontal. In addition, the supply water simply drains from feeding pans into fill, which

eliminates the need for nozzles.

A comparison of cooling tower energy use for the same loads is shown below.

Comparison of F.D. Blower Tower vs I.D. Propeller Tower for 400 Tons

Cooling

Operating

Fan

Tower

Additional

Total

Tower

Fan Motor

Motor

Pump Head Pump Motor

Operating

Type

HP

KW (1)

FT. (2)

KW (3)

KW

Counterflow

with Blower

40

32.4

23

6.9

39.3

Crossflow

With Propeller

20

15.2

10

3.0

19.2

Source: Marley Technical Report H-001A, Cooling Tower Energy and Its Management,

October, 1982.

In HVAC applications, chiller evaporator loads vary depending on weather and building

occupancy, and the quantity of heat rejected by the condenser varies accordingly. The cooling

tower will always reject the all the heat from the condenser. However, the temperature of the

cold water return to the condenser will decline at lower loads.

Various methods are used to control cooling tower capacity to generate the desired cold water

return temperature. The two control points for cooling towers are water flow and air flow.

However, cooling tower manufacturers strongly recommend that water flow remain constant

at all times. Thus, primary control methods generally rely on varying air flow. The common

control methods are listed below.

Run Fans Continuously

This type of control results in the coldest possible return water temperature, which reduces

chiller energy use. However, it also results in the highest cooling tower fan energy use.

Because the improvement of chiller efficiency with lower condenser water temperature is

asymptotical at some minimum temperature, this method of control rarely results in the best

overall energy efficiency.

Cycle Fans On and Off

This type of control reduces excess fan energy use at cold outsider air temperatures, and is

widely used. At relatively cold temperatures, however, the fan may cycle on and off too

frequently. The maximum number of fan cycles is about 8 per hour. Thus, many cooling towers

are equipped with water bypass loops. In most applications, water bypass control is only used

at low temperatures when fan cycling could be a problem.

Use Two-Speed Fan

This method of control adds an intermediate level of cooling between full-on and full-off. This

results in considerable fan energy savings, since fan energy varies with the cube of flow. Thus,

fan energy at 50% air flow is only 12% of the fan energy at full air flow. This type of stepped

7

control can be further extended with two cell towers with one fan in each cell. This leads to

four possible steps of control. A typical relationship between cold water temperature and fan

flow is shown below.

Continuously Control Fan Speed with VSD

This method results in the lowest fan energy use by continuously achieving savings, due to the

fan law that fan energy varies with the cube of flow.

Vary Air Flow Using Inlet Air Dampers

Before VSDs, cooling towers were sometimes controlled by running the fan at full speed while

varying the inlet air dampers to modulate air flow. This method of control results in

intermediate energy savings between fan cycling and continuous VSD control. However, is

rarely used now that the VSD control is now commonplace.

Total chiller and cooling tower energy use for these control methods for a typical HVAC

application are shown below.

Comparative Energy Usage with Various Methods of Control

Propeller

Blower

Operating

Hours of

Average KW Fan Energy

Fan Energy

Situation

Operation

Usage

(kW hr)

(kW hr)

Constant Operation

P = 16.2

at Full Capacity

1202.2

B = 32.4

19475.6

38951.2

Single-Speed

P = 765.3

P = 16.2

Fan Cycling

B = 852.7

B = 32.4

12397.9

27627.5

Two-Speed

P = 1132

P = 4.3

Fan Cycling

B = 1146

B = 8.55

4867.6

9798.3

Variable Control

P = 2.72

at Constant Speed

1202.2

B = 5.44

3270

6540

Variable Speed

P = 1.99

Control

1202.2

B = 3.98

2392.4

4784.8

Source: Marley Technical Report H-001A, Cooling Tower Energy and Its Management,

October, 1982.

Variable Cold Water Set-Point Temperature

The energy efficiency of all the control discussed above can be improved by varying the cold

water set-point temperature with the outdoor air wet bulb temperature. This type of control

takes into account the fact that towers can only produce water at a few degrees above the wetbulb temperature (this temperature difference is called the approach); hence fan energy can

be reduced when that temperature is achieved, since continued fan operation results in

minimal further reductions in cold water temperature.

Fan Motor Power with Fan Speed and Air Volume Flow Rate

The figure below shows fan motor power draw as a function of input frequency for a cooling

tower fan equipped with a VFD. The fan affinity laws would predict a relationship between

fraction power (FP) and fraction speed (FS) of:

FP = FS3

Regression of the data show a slightly better fit using the exponent 2.8:

FP = FS2.8

Since fan speed is proportional to volume flow rate, this relation also hold for fraction volume

flow rate, FV.

FP = FV2.8

The slightly reduced exponent is caused by declining VFD, motor and fan efficiencies at reduced

speed.

ASD Performance

Input Power and Fan Speed vs Frequency

2000

35

1800

30

25

1400

1200

20

1000

15

800

1600

600

10

I np

ut

Po

r

we

400

200

peed

Fan S

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Source data: An Application of Adjustable Speed Drives for Cooling Tower Capacity Control,

Welch, W. and Beckman, J.

Variable-speed cooling tower fans generate the least savings compared to constant-speed fans

during warm weather and when the cooling tower set point temperature is low because the fan

runs more frequently at these times. Alternately, variable-speed fans generate the greatest

savings during cool weather and when the cooling tower set point temperature is high because

the fan runs less frequently at these times. The CoolSim output screens shown below

demonstrate these concepts. Thus, variable frequency drives on cooling tower fans will

generate the greatest savings on year-round cooling applications with relatively high set-point

temperatures characteristic of industrial process applications.

Bypass control is typically used only at low outdoor air wetbulb temperatures in order to

reduce fan cycling. Bypass should not be used in sub-freezing temperatures since this can lead

to tower freeze up. The preferred tower bypass plumbing is shown below. The preferred valve

is a single two-way butterfly valve placed in the bypass line.

Basic Tower Bypass Methods

10

Typical cooling tower pressure drops are shown below. The Estimated Head Loss column is for

a standard condenser and 15 year old piping. The Actual Head Loss column is for a lowpressure loss condenser and new piping.

The same tower system will be evaluated; estimated head will be compared with actual head loss.

Condenser

Valves, Strainer, etc.

150' Piping (15 year Old)

Total Flow-Friction

Static or Open

Total Pump Head

25'

7'

6'

38'

12'

50'

8'

7'

3'

18'

12'

30'

In HVAC applications, the starting place for cooling towers selection is typically to match the

nominal cooling tower tons, as supplied by the tower manufacturer, to the cooling capacity of

the chiller or chiller plant. The water flow rate through the cooling tower is initially set at 3 gpm

per nominal cooling tower ton. Subsequent design optimization may occur from this starting

point. Engineering data for a typical model of induced-air crossflow cooling towers are shown

below. Based on these data, fan motor hp is about 0.1 hp/ton and air flow rates are about

2,000 cfm/hp.

A nominal cooling tower ton is defined as cooling 3 gpm of water from 95 F to 85 F at an air

wetbulb temperature of 78 F. Thus, the actual cooling associated with a nominal cooling

tower ton is:

Qact = 3 gpm x 8.33 lb/gal x 60 min/hr x 1 Btu/lb F x (95 85) F = 15,000 Btu/hr

This strange convention exists to make it easy for users to select cooling towers by matching

the nominal cooling capacity of the chiller with the chiller cooling capacity. The convention

works because most chillers have a COP of about 3, and total heat rejected by the condenser to

the cooling tower is about 15,000 Btu/hr for every 12,000 Btu/hr through the evaporator.

Model

Number

3240A

3272A

3299A

3473A

3501A

3985A

31056A

Norminal

Tonnage

240

272

299

473

501

985

1056

Motor

HP

10

15

20

25

30

60

75

Weights (lbs)

Fan

Heaviest

(CFM) Operating Shipping Section

62,790

14,770

6,790

6,790

71,340

14,900

6,920

6,920

78,110

14,960

6,980

6,980

118,870

23,090

10,190

10,190

125,900

23,140

10,240

10,240

229,950

40,240

15,560

9,460

246,700

40,330

15,650

9,550

Dimensions

L

8'-5 3/4"

18'-0 1/2"

9'-3 5/8"

8'-7 3/4"

11'-9 3/4" 21'-6 1/2" 21'-8 7/8" 20'- 9 1/2"

11

Model

8601

8603

8605

8607

8608

8610

8611

8613

8614

Nominal Tons

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Length

5'-4 1/2" 7'-3 1/2" 7'-3 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2"

Width

12'-0"

12'-0 1/4" 13'-7 5/8" 15'-3 1/4" 16'-7 3/4" 16'-7 3/4" 17'-7 3/4" 19'-3 3/4" 19'-3 3/4"

Height

8'-9 5/8" 9'-8 3/8" 9'-8 3/8" 10'-7 3/8" 10'-7 3/8" 10'-7 3/8" 11'-6 1/8" 11'-6 1/4" 13'-3 7/8"

Shipping Wt.

3430

4610

5130

6640

7800

8690

9860

10700

11990

Operating Wt. PVC

5500

7120

8260

10880

12200

13980

15520

17280

19260

Motor HP

5

7 1/2

10

10

15

20

20

25

25

RPM

666

547

547

547

427

427

427

427

427

CFM

29820

50000

54820

58610

69050

82630

91920

94760 105270

GPM (min.)

100

120

175

190

200

210

240

250

280

GPM (max.)

500

750

960

1250

1440

1715

1880

2160

2500

The performance of typical cooling towers at water flow rates of 3 gpm/ton and 5 gpm/ton is

shown below. Similar performance data for specific cooling towers can usually be obtained

from the manufacturer. These curves predict the temperature of the cold water leaving the

cooling tower as a function of the water temperature range (Th-Tc) and entering air web bulb

temperature. Temperature range is generally known and can be used as an input value in these

charts, since the temperature range is set by the water flow rate and heat rejection rate of the

condenser.

12

Relations for the temperature of cooling water leaving the tower, Tc, can be derived from

regressing data from the 3 gpm/ton and 5 gpm/ton curves shown above. The relation and

regression coefficients are shown below. The R2 for these relations exceeds 0.995 and the

average error, [abs(Tc Tc,pred)], is less than 0.8 F.

Tc = a + b Twb + c Tr + d Twb2 + e Tr2 + f Tr Twb

Coef

a

b

c

d

e

f

3 gpm/ton

16.790751

0.6464308

2.2221763

0.0016061

-0.0159268

-0.015954

5 gpm/ton

24.6299229

0.45007792

3.32229591

0.00261818

-0.0324886

-0.0190476

These equations can be incorporated into software to predict cooling tower performance with

varying ambient conditions. For example, CoolSim (Kissock, 1997) calculates exit water

temperatures, and the fraction of time that a cooling tower can deliver water at a target

temperature, based on water temperature range Tr and TMY2 weather data. This information

is useful in determining how often a cooling tower can replace a chiller in cooling applications.

Cooling Tower Performance at Reduced Air Flow Rates

Comparison of the 3 gpm/ton and 5 gpm/ton performance maps can be used to predict cooling

tower performance at reduced air flow rates. For example, for a cooling tower operating with a

water flow rate of 3 gpm/ton, the 3 gpm/ton performance map shows tower performance at a

set water-to-air flow rate ratio. The 5 gpm/ton chart shows tower performance for a higher

water-to-air flow ratio, or, inversely, at a lower air-to-water flow rate ratio. Thus, the 5 gpm/ton

performance map indicates tower performance if water flow rate is held steady while the air

flow rate is reduced to 3/5 = 60% of maximum airflow.

Regressing the data from the 3 gpm/ton and 5 gpm/ton performance curves, with fraction of air

flow, FV, set to 1.0 for the 3 gpm/ton data and 0.6 for the 5 gpm/ton data gives the following

relation for the temperature of cooling water leaving the tower, Tc, at reduced air flow. The R 2

for this relation is R2 = 0.978 and the average error [abs(Tc Tc,pred)] is 1.9 F. Theoretically,

the fraction of air flow, FV, could vary between 0 and 1.0. However, this relation was

generated using data that represent peak air flow at 0.6 and 1.0. Thus, it is not recommended

that this relationship be used outside of this range.

Tc = a + b Twb + c Tr + d Twb2 + e Tr2 + f Tr Twb + g FV

Coef

Value

13

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

39.24367

0.548254

2.772236

0.002112

-0.02421

-0.0175

-23.1667

Evaporation Rate

As discussed in the previous section, cooling in cooling towers is dominated by evaporation.

The evaporation rate can be calculated from the psychrometric relations in the previous

section, if the inlet and exit conditions of the air are known. For example, consider the case in

which the cooling load, Ql, mass flow rate of air, ma, (which can be calculated based on the fan

cfm and specific volume of the inlet air), and inlet conditions of air are known. The enthalpy of

the exit air, ha2, can be calculated from an energy balance.

Ql = ma (ha2 ha1)

ha2 = ha1+ Ql / ma

The state of the exit air can be fixed by assuming that it is 100% saturated with an enthalpy ha2.

The evaporation rate, mwe, can be determined by a water mass balance on the air.

mwe = ma (wa2- wa1)

The fraction of water evaporated is:

mwe / mw

Using this method for entering air temperatures from 50 F to 90 F, we determined that the

fraction of water evaporated typically ranges from about 0.5% to 1%, with an average value of

about 0.75%.

Another way to estimate the fraction of water evaporated is to assume that all cooling, Ql, is

from evaporation, Qevap. The cooling load Ql, is the product of the water flow rate, mw,

specific heat, cp, and temperature difference, dT. The evaporative cooling rate is the product

of the water evaporated, mwe, and the latent heat of cooling, hfg.

Ql = Qevap

mw cp dT = mwe hfg

Assuming the latent heat of evaporation of water, hfg, is 1,000 Btu/lb, and the temperature

difference of water through the tower, dT, is 10 F, the fraction of water evaporated is:

14

If on average, 75% of the cooling were from evaporation and 25% from sensible cooling, then

the evaporation rate would be:

75% x 1% = 0.75%

Thus, both methods suggest that 0.75% is a good estimate of the rate of evaporation; however,

we have seen manufacturer data indicating average evaporation rates as low as 0.30%. Water

lost to evaporation should not be subjected to sewer charges. Typical sewer charges are about

$2.20 per hundred cubic feet.

Some water may be lost as water droplets are blown from the tower by oversized fans or wind.

This type of water loss is called drift. Drift rates are typically about 0.2% of flow (ASHRAE

Handbook, HVAC Systems and Equipment, 2000); however, we generally assume that drift

losses are included in the 0.75% evaporation rate.

Cooling tower water must be treated to prevent bacterial growth and maintain the

concentration of dissolved solids at acceptable levels to prevent scale and corrosion.

Bacterial Growth

The typical method of controlling bacterial growth is to add biocides at prescribed intervals and

to keep the cooling tower water circulating. If the tower will not be operated for a sustained

period of time, then the cooling water should be drained.

Dissolved Solids

Water evaporated from a cooling tower does not contain dissolved solids. Thus, the

concentration of dissolved solids will increase over time if only enough water is added to the

tower to compensate for evaporation. To maintain the dissolved solids at acceptable levels,

most towers periodically discharge some water and replace it with fresh water. This process is

called blow down. It the level of dissolve solids increases too high, scale will be begin to form,

and/or the water may become corrosive and damage piping, pumps, cooling tower surfaces

and heat exchangers. Usually, the primary dissolved solid to control is calcium carbonate

CaCO3.

Blow down can be accomplished by continuously adding and removing a small quantity of

water, periodically draining and refilling the cooling tower reservoir, or by metering the

conductivity of water and adding fresh water only when needed. By far the most efficient

method is to meter the conductivity of water, which increases in proportion to the level of

dissolved solids, and add fresh water only when needed.

15

The required quantity of blow down water depends on the acceptable quantity of dissolved

solids in the tower water, PPMtarget, the quantity of dissolved solids in the makeup water,

PPMmu, and the evaporation rate, mwe. The target level of dissolved solids is typically

quantified in cycles, where:

Cycles = PPMtarget / PPMmu

For example, if the quantity of dissolved CaCO3 in the makeup water, PPMmu, is 77 ppm and

the maximum level to prevent scaling, PPMtarget, is 231, then the cooling tower water must be

maintained at three cycles:

Cycles = PPMtarget / PPMmu = 231 ppm / 77 ppm = 3

By applying mass balances, it can be shown that the blow down water required to maintain a

certain number of cycles is

mwbd = mwe / (Cycles 1)

The total makeup water required mwmu, is the sum of the water added for evaporation and

blow down:

mwmu = mwe + mwbd

For example for a 1,000 gpm tower with a 0.75% evaporation rate and CaCO3 concentration at 3

Cycles, the quantity of makeup water required would be about:

mwe = (mwe/mw) x mw = 0.75% x 1,000 gpm = 7.5 gpm

mwbd = mwe / (Cycles 1) = 7.5 gpm / (3 1) = 3.75 gpm

mwmu = mwe + mwbd = 7.5 gpm + 3.75 gpm = 11.25 gpm

The overall makeup water rate would be about:

11.25 gpm / 1,000 gpm = 1.1%

16

- YCSA_50_60_80_100Uploaded bygeorge1582
- Take It to the Limit ...or Just HalfwayUploaded bymagdyeng
- AHRI_Standard_550-590_I-P_2015_with_Errata[022-049]Uploaded byJhon Lewis
- Cooling Tower 1Uploaded byPrasanna kumar subudhi
- ROBUR Pocket-guide USA 11-2014Uploaded bynascas
- Panwater PCF Series Cooling Tower.pdfUploaded byEkka Prasetia
- Cooling Tower 45Uploaded byahmed nawaz
- KEL DF CoolingTowers 2018-05 en V1Uploaded byDani Pro
- Basics Cooling TowerUploaded byRahm Emmanuel
- Cooling Tower MUploaded byarun elshaddai
- ChillerUploaded bySnehashis Sharma
- Optimizing Cooling TowersUploaded byhanifahhanifah
- Bulletin 7 - Heat Recovery From DG Set Jacket Cooling WaterUploaded bySivaram Krishnamoorthy
- vrv-basic-training-manual.pdfUploaded byCandra Setiawan
- Chaptr28 MASTERCLASS - AIR CONDITIONING TECHNOLOGYUploaded byChuku Ebube
- FLP CATALOUGE.pdfUploaded byPriti Sonawane
- (CARNOT CYCLE) Lab Report on Cooling and heating effects in an air conditioning systemUploaded byUmer Qureshi
- uploads_newsletter_NEWSLETTER_1BF288444BCA9BC4Newsletter_JAS12.pdfUploaded byamitbslpawar
- Refco Brochure Condensate Pumps GBUploaded bynairam2003
- HSU-7-9-12-14-18-22 haerUploaded byprotek506
- JPEE_2016012716334095Uploaded bySyed Moazzam Ali Ali
- Daikin Fan CoilsUploaded bySMBEAUTY
- HVAC Chilled Water Distribution SchemesUploaded byInventor Solidworks
- Wet_lay-up Corrosion CoupenUploaded byMorris Morrison
- 1503-10c1412-midea-chiller-family.pdfUploaded bynarimene
- i p f2017 IndexixUploaded byAntonio Julián Sánchez Nuño
- summerinternshipreport-2014-140709130851-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byRaihan islam
- adsoprtion1Uploaded byDeyvisVillegas
- Final CT SpecificationsUploaded byANIMESH JAIN
- LG_MULTI_F_3828A20097W_1[1]Uploaded byClaudiu Radu

- CharacterisationUploaded bySravan Kumar Muppu
- Urn 100549Uploaded bySubin S Nair
- CPWR_Step_Ladders.pdfUploaded byIgnacio Romero
- Developing a Marketing PlanUploaded byRahul Dalmia
- Theory and Practice of International Business Lecture 2 (1).pptxUploaded byPolash Roy
- Consumer Buying Behviour on hero honda bikeUploaded bypatiltarang
- Predictive Analysis of Gate and Runner System for Plastic Injection MouldUploaded byijripublishers
- PALE Cases July 2016.docxUploaded byjezahsanado
- Penny Stretcher 05/14/2014Uploaded bySherman Publications, Inc.
- 20140614 Digitaleurope Model CA Mcard-2020 FinalUploaded byManoj Gaur
- H2S Scavengers WhitepaperUploaded byPankaj Kumar
- Water Soaking time determination for corrugated cartonUploaded byEnamul hasan
- 2012_noc_proxyUploaded bysar2233
- From the December Youth Uprisin - Petropoulou, Kriste (KhrusantheUploaded byi_pistik
- Royal Purple Lowest Total Cost of OwnershipUploaded byAlex Priori
- Aaron Speakman ResumeUploaded byAaron Speakman
- ECSS-E-ST-35-06C_rev.1(15November2008)Uploaded byjsadachi
- Step 5 Programming Package for the Communications Processors CP 524 and CP 525 (S5-DOS)Uploaded byRoseleiLopes
- Karongwe Monthly Achievements June 2017Uploaded byGVI Field
- Case Study Vibrating ScreenUploaded byadb
- ACC422 Wiley CPA Excel Chapters 13 AnswersUploaded bykixbenn1
- 2012 Jeep Liberty Owners ManualUploaded byEdu Perez Oliv
- DOESTHECOMMONADVISORCREATEVALUEIN MERGERANDACQUISITION?Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- HRIA Registration Manual - External Document v5Uploaded byhr_arjun
- Tcp SequenceUploaded byIonut Stiuj
- 1Uploaded byibrahim 12
- ESA 16Uploaded byLakshmiNarayana Adari Lucky
- emeronUploaded byzaidthegr8
- Building2.4GHz10ElementYagiAntenna.pdfUploaded byfabianmendez
- Kuratko9eCh03Uploaded bylobna_qassem7176