Professional Documents
Culture Documents
h i g h l i g h t s
A new computational approach for hybrid (dry/wet) cooling tower is proposed.
The performance of a hybrid cooling tower is determined.
The model simulation has been validated and it is used as a design tool.
Air ow rate has a major role in hybrid cooling system performance.
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 19 February 2014
Accepted 12 June 2014
Available online 27 June 2014
The performance of hybrid cooling tower is analyzed using experiments and numerical simulations on a
wide variety of working conditions. A computational model for predicting the behavior of dry, wet and
hybrid cooling systems has been developed. The hybrid cooling tower model is expressed as a combination of a dry cooling model and a wet cooling model. The effectiveness-NTU equation and the Merkel
equation, fundamental equation of heat transfer in dry and wet cooling towers, are presented and discussed. The cooling tower characteristics are a function of water-to-air ratio for each cooling mode.
Comparison of the model tower test results with those of a computer simulation has demonstrated the
validity of that simulation and its use as a design tool. Using the information presented in this paper, it
will be possible to incorporate dry and wet cooling tower design, and simulation into a procedure to
evaluate and optimize hybrid cooling tower performance.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Hybrid cooling tower
Dry cooling tower
Wet cooling tower
Tower model
Simulation
1. Introduction
The state of the art in cooling tower has advanced to the point
where further signicant improvement cannot be considered only
in terms of energy efciency but also in connection with environmental problems. For this reason, in recent years increasing
attention and effort have been devoted to invent and experiment
on conservation of natural resources in cooling towers. Dry cooling
towers (or air cooled heat exchangers) require large surface areas
and have relatively high energy consumption, even with higher
water temperatures, in comparison to the more efcient and
signicantly smaller surface areas of wet cooling towers (or evaporative coolers) [1]. However, the wet cooling towers consume
relatively large fresh water quantities due to evaporation, drift and
draining losses. In addition, a visible plume may be formed at the
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wanchai.asv@kmutt.ac.th (W. Asvapoositkul).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.06.023
1359-4311/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
84
Consequently, the hot and dry air (TDB,2, T WB,2) from the dry
section is then mixed with hot and humid air (TDB,3, T WB,3) from the
wet section so that the state of the cooling tower exhaust is locally
as uniform as possible. When this exhaust air (TDB,4, T WB,4) is mixed
with the ambient air (TDB,1, T WB,1), a plume is no longer formed.
In the dry section, the limiting temperature to which the water
can be cooled is the ambient air dry-bulb temperature. In the wet
section, the limiting temperature to which the water can be cooled
is the ambient air wet-bulb temperature. Therefore, the dry section
approach temperature (ADCT) is the difference between the outlet
water temperature (T W,DCT,2) and the ambient dry-bulb temperature (TDB,1). The wet section approach temperature (AWCT) is the
difference between the outlet water temperature (T W,WCT,2) and the
ambient wet-bulb temperature (T WB,1). The relationships are
illustrated in Fig. 2. Generally, hybrid cooling towers are designed
by taking advantage of the dry section with the higher inlet water
temperature to reduce water consumption and eliminate plume
formation. While the wet section can take advantage of the closer
approach temperature to increase tower efciency.
1.2. Model description
In this study, cooling towers of dry, wet and hybrid types were
analyzed using mathematical models for the computation of tower
characteristics. The analysis for wet cooling section is based on
Merkel approach and that for dry cooling section is based on
effectiveness-NTU approach. The analogous expressions for evaluation of both sections are expressed in terms of liquid-to-air ratio
(L/G).
1.3. Wet cooling tower
1.3.1. Wet tower demand curve
The wet cooling section cools water by a combination of heat
and mass transfers. It is quite common to use the Merkel equation
to calculate the thermal demand, KaV/L, based on the design temperature and selected liquid-to-air ratio, L/GWCT. The Cooling
Technology Institute (CTI) publication has published a cooling
85
tower acceptance test code [11] that is the industry standard for
evaluating and predicting the performance of a tower.
KaV
TW;WCT2
Z
TW;WCT1
cpw dTfw
hsw ha
(1)
KaV/L is a dimensionless variable which is the basis of determining the size of a wet cooling system. The mass and heat transfer
characteristics of cooling tower ll are described by Ka, a volumetric mass transfer coefcient. V is an effective tower ll volume.
The (hsw ha) is the difference between the enthalpy of saturated
air at water temperature (hsw) and the enthalpy of air at the air
temperature (ha). The tower characteristic (KaV/L) is determined by
solving the right-hand side of Eq. (1). The principle and numerical
methods, for evaluation of wet cooling tower, are present in CTI
[11], Leeper [12], and Asvapoositkul and Treeutok [13].
Plotting several values of KaV/L as a function of L/GWCT gives
what is called the wet tower demand curve (see Fig. 3). The
approach lines (AWCT T W,WCT,2 T WB,1) are shown as parameters.
1.3.2. Wet tower supply curve
For a xed wet cooling tower design, the value of KaV/L may be
determined as following [11].
KaV
L
C
L WCT GWCT
nWCT
(2)
G
cpa
Lcpw
NTU ln 1 DCT
ln 1
Lcpw
GDCT cpa
GDCT cpa TDB;2 TDB;1
TW;DCT2
T
R
W;DCT1
DCT
ITD
Lcpw TW;DCT1 TDB;1
TW;DCT1 TDB;1
(3)
(4)
Lcpw
G cpa
NTU
ln 1 DCT
ln1
GDCT cpa
Lcpw
(5)
Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;DCT2
Lcpw RDCT
GDCT cpa ITD
GDCT cpa TW;DCT1 TDB;1
(6)
CDCT
L
GDCT
nDCT
(7)
86
G4 GT GDCT GWCT
(12)
GT u4 GDCT u2 GWCT u3
(13)
Energy
GT h4 GDCT h2 GWCT h3
(14)
GWCT
G
h h2 u4 u2
1 DCT 4
GT
GT
h3 h2 u3 u2
intersection of this supply curve and demand curve is the operating point for the dry tower being considered for the duty such as
shown in Fig. 4. This procedure is similar to that presented in wet
cooling tower performance test method as described in the previous section. The principle and numerical methods, for evaluation
of a dry section (air-cooled heat exchanger), were developed by
Kuansathan [10].
Once is known, the QDCT and outlet temperatures can be
calculated as followings:
QDCT Qmax
(8)
QWCT
Q
1 DCT
QT
QT
GWCT
GT
(9)
Case II
Q DCT
h3 h1
h3 1 GGWCT
h2 h1
T
(16)
COP
GDCT cpa TW;DCT1 TDB;1
GWCT
GT
The COP of the cooling tower is the ratio of the heat rejection to
the power in the form of work supplied to operate the system, as
determined from Eq. (17).
Case I
Q DCT Lcpw TW;DCT1 TDB;1
(15)
(10)
Energy balance
QDCT Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;DCT2 GDCT cpa TDB;2 TDB;1
(11)
QT QDCT QWCT
PT
Pfan Ppump
(17)
QT dQT QT
>
PT dPT PT
QT dQT PT dPT
>
QT
PT
dQT dPT
>
QT
PT
(18)
dQT dPT
<
QT
PT
87
(19)
2.1. Experiments
The hybrid cooling tower test-rig was constructed at KMUTT to
validate the mathematical models as well as to perform comparative
performance studies of the tower in various heat rejection ratios
between the wet cooling and the dry cooling. A schematic diagram
of the cooling tower is shown in Fig. 1. The cooling tower can operate
as a dry cooling tower, wet cooling tower and hybrid cooling tower.
The hybrid cooling tower combines the operating performance of
the dry cooling tower with that of the wet cooling tower and the
resulting performance is between the two, depending on the chosen
ratio which may be varied by adjusting each damper. The tower's
inside dimensions were 1000 mm 1000 mm with a total height of
3350 mm. The dry cooling system consists of four automotiveradiators, which are installed at each side of the tower, and connected for water ow in a series.
For dry cooling operations, ll and nozzles were removed and
the outlet water from the radiators were directed to a tank. To avoid
air ow into the wet section, the inlet louver was sealed with a
plastic board.
The wet cooling system consists of eight nozzles and a lm ll of
600 mm height. For wet cooling operations, the dampers at the
nned-tube were completely closed.
The water is heated at the tank by a gas burner and pumped
through a metering valve before entering the rotameter. The hot
water ow through the dry and the wet sections before returning to
the tank. Water temperature at the inlet and the exit of each cooling
section was measured by a thermocouple.
Air was induced by a fan in a parallel ow through the dry and
the wet sections. The fan speed could be varied by variable
Fig. 5. Flow diagram for calculation operating point of hybrid cooling tower.
88
The surface heat transfer for both the dry tower and the wet
tower were xed in this study. According to the design data,
approximately 83% of the heat transfer in this cooling tower is due
to the wet cooling mode.
Combinations of dry and wet cooling tower working conditions
were studied in a variety of heat load, L/G and ambient conditions
and their performance were calculated. Its working modes are
determined by GWCT/GT. A dry cooling mode has GWCT/GT 0 and a
wet cooling mode has GWCT/GT 1.
An equation form used to analyze the thermal performance
capacity of a specied dry cooling tower is given in Eq. (7). This
equation ts well with test data with the value of CDCT 0.71 and
nDCT 0.26, as shown in Fig. 4. It can be used to predict the dry
cooling tower performance under changed operating conditions by
superimposing on each demand curve, since the and L/GDCT
relationship is a linear function on the logelog demand curve.
An equation form used to analyze the thermal performance
capacity of a specied wet cooling tower is given in Eq. (2). This
equation ts well with test data with the value of CWCT 0.92 and
nWCT 0.58, as shown in Fig. 3.
The wet tower supply curve (Fig. 3) together with the dry tower
supply curve (Fig. 4) are then used to evaluate the hybrid cooling
tower thermal capacity. Results from Eq. (15) were compared,
shown in Fig. 6, with the experiment data. It can be seen that they
are in good agreement.
A method for reducing the thermal capacity of a hybrid cooling
tower is to decrease QWCT/QT. This can be done conveniently by
decreasing GWCT/GT. The values of QWCT/QT based on Eq. (16) were
calculated and compared with that of experimental data as shown
in Fig. 7. It should be noted that the result from Eq. (16) was based
on the design conditions for each cooling type while that from the
test values was with varying heat load of 58% to 30% of design
load, ambient conditions at temperature of 2 C of design TDB and
at temperature of 1 C of design T WB. The trend apparent from
those gures indicates that the wet cooling tower has a dominant
inuence on the tower capacity. The value of QWCT/QT is large at
high GWCT/GT and drops to zero when GWCT/GT 0 (when the tower
is in the completely dry cooling mode).
The amount of air (G) and water (L) for each cooling mode reects the energy use and the rejected heat. The total power
Table 1
The specications of the measuring devices.
Measurement
Instrument
Accuracy
Resolution
Water ow rate
Water temperature
Air temperature
Air velocity
Power
Rotameter
Thermocouple type-K
RTD temperature probe
Vane anemometer
Multi-meter
2%
e
2%
2%
2%
12.5 l/min
0.3 C
0.1 C
0.1 m/s
0.1 V, 0.01 A
Fig. 6. Comparison of GWCT/GT and ha,4 ha,2/ha,3 ha,2 at the mixing section between
the experiment data and the predicted value from Eq. (15).
Fig. 7. Comparison of heat rejection in the wet cooling unit to the total heat rejection
between the experiment data and the predicted value from Eq. (16).
89
Fig. 9. The rejected heat for dry, wet and hybrid cooling modes.
consumption for the cooling tower is the sum of the fan power and
the pump power. Based on the measurement, as shown in Fig. 8, the
power input in the fan would require over 8 times more than that in
the pump for all types of cooling modes. It is interesting to observe
from this study that the dry cooling tower (GWCT/GT 0) trends to
require more power than the wet cooling tower (GWCT/GT 1). The
power input requirement for the hybrid cooling tower (0 < GWCT/
GT < 1) is between these two cooling modes.
The results, as shown in Fig. 9, indicate that the wet cooling
tower can reject heat about 5 times more than the dry cooling
tower. The rejected heat for the hybrid cooling tower is between
these two cooling modes and increased as GWCT/GT is increased, by
increasing the heat rejection during the evaporation process. As the
air mass ow rate increases, the rejected heat and the total power
consumption will increase. Therefore, the ratio of the two needs to
be considered.
Fig. 8. Measured pump power and fan power for dry, wet and hybrid cooling modes.
Fig. 10. The COP for dry, wet and hybrid tower modes.
90
Fig. 12. The rejected heat from dry and wet cooling towers for different water and air
mass ow rates.
0.40
900.0
800.0
0.30
700.0
0.25
600.0
500.0
0.20
COP
Power (kW)
0.35
Measured data
0.15
COP
400.0
300.0
Measured data
@ L= 2.92 kg/s
COP
@ L=2.08 kg/s
COP
@ L= 2.92 kg/s
COP
@ L= 2.08 kg/s
0.10
200.0
0.05
0.00
0.50
100.0
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
G (kg/s)
3.00
3.50
4.00
Fig. 11. Input pump power and fan power curves for different water and air mass ow
rates.
0.0
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
G (kg/s)
3.00
3.50
4.00
Fig. 13. The COP of dry and wet cooling towers for different water and air mass ow
rates.
approach ( C)
coefcient of performance
air mass ow rate (kg/s)
enthalpy (kJ/kg)
current (A)
volumetric mass transfer coefcient (kg/m3 s)
wet cooling characteristic
water mass ow rate (kg/s)
number of heat transfer unit
power (kW)
heat load (kW)
range ( C)
temperature ( C)
effective tower ll volume (m3)
voltage (V)
Greek symbol
effectiveness
u
humidity ratio
Subscripts
a
air
DB
dry bulb
DCT
dry cooling tower
fan
fw
max
pump
sw
W
WB
WCT
T
1
2
3
4
91
fan
saturated water
maximum
pump
saturated air at water temperature
water
wet bulb
wet cooling tower
total or hybrid cooling tower
inlet dry section
outlet dry section or inlet wet section
outlet wet section
outlet mixing section
Appendix A
Uncertainty analysis of hybrid cooling tower COP
The main parameter of interest in hybrid cooling tower is coefcient of performance (COP). The coefcient of performance is
calculated by the following equation.
COP
QDCT QWCT QT
Pfan Ppump
PT
dCOP
COP
"
dQT
QT
2
dPT
PT
2 #1=2
QT QDCT QWCT
Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;DCT2 Lcpw TW;WCT1 TW;WCT2
Let T W,DCT2 T W,WCT1
QT Lcpw TW;DCT1 TW;WCT2
QT Lcpw R
The uncertainty in QT becomes:
dQT
QT
"
2 #1=2
dL 2
dR
L
R
dL
0:020
L
Total cooling range (R) is dened as
92
R TW;DCT1 TW;WCT2
The uncertainty in R becomes:
dR
"
#1=2
dTW;DCT1 2
dTW;WCT2 2
R
R
Therefore:
h
2
2 i1=2
dR dTW;DCT1 dTW;WCT2
2
!2
!2 3
dPT 2
1 4 dPfan
dPfan
2
dI
dVoltfan 5
PT
dIfan fan
dVoltfan
Pfan
"
2
dPpump
1
2
dIpump
dIpump
Ppump
2 #
dPpump
dVoltpump
dVoltpump
2
!2
dPT 2 4 dIfan
PT
Ifan
82
!2
dPT <4 dIfan
:
PT
Ifan
dR
h
dTW;DCT1
2
dVoltfan
Voltfan
dVoltpump
Voltpump
dVoltfan
Voltfan
#
2
9
!2 3 "
2
2 #=1=2
dI
dVolt
pump
pump
5
;
Ipump
Voltpump
2 i1=2
dTW;DCT1
h
2 i1=2
dR 2 dTW;DCT1
i h
io1=2
dPT nh
0:0202 0:0202 0:0202 0:0202
PT
"
2 #1=2
1
0:3
dR 2
2
dPT
0:040
PT
dR 0:212C
i1=2
dCOP h
0:0242 0:0402
COP
The uncertainty of QT is
"
#1=2
dQT
0:212 2
2
0:020
15:9
QT
dQT
0:024
QT
Total power (PT) is dened as
PT Pfan Ppump
When
Pfan
p
3Ifan Voltfan
and
PT
!2 3 "
dIpump 2
5
Ipump
p
3Ifan Voltfan Ipump Voltpump
dCOP
0:046
COP
COP 545:73425:104
References
[1] J.P. Jensen, B. Conrad, U. Schuetz, F.R. Ullrich, A. Wanning, Hybrid dry coolers
in cooling systems of high energy physics accelerators, in: Proceedings of
EPAC, Lucerne, Switzerland, 2004.
[2] S.K. Tyagi, A.K. Pandey, P.C. Pant, V.V. Tyagi, Formation, potential and abatement of plume from wet cooling towers: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 16 (2012) 3409e3429.
[3] P. Lindahl, K. Mortensen, Plume abatement e the next generation, CTI J. 31
(2010).
[4] E. Al-Bassam, G.P. Maheshwari, A new scheme for cooling tower water conservation in arid-zone countries, Energy 36 (2011) 3985e3991.
[5] M. Lucas, P.J. Martnez, A. Viedma, Comparative experimental drift study between a dry and adiabatic uid cooler and a cooling tower, Int. J. Refrig. 31
(2008) 1169e1175.
[6] T. Michioka, A. Sato, T. Kanzaki, K. Sada, Wind tunnel experiment for predicting a visible plume region from a wet cooling tower, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 95 (2007) 741e754.
[7] T. Pistochini, M. Modera, Water-use efciency for alternative cooling technologies in arid climates, Energy Build. 43 (2011) 631e638.
[8] E. Rezaei, S. Shaei, A. Abdollahnezhad, Reducing water consumption of an
industrial plant cooling unit using hybrid cooling tower, Energy Convers.
Manag. 51 (2010) 311e319.
[9] G.J. Kosten, Wet, dry and hybrid system, a comparison of thermal performance, in: Electric Power Research Institute Cooling Towers and Advanced
Cooling Systems Conference, St Petersburg, Florida, August/September,
1994.
93
[14] A. Streng, Combined wet/dry cooling towers of cell type construction, Energy
Eng. 124 (1998) 104e121.
[15] F.P. Incropera, D.P. Dewitt, T.L. Bergman, A.S. Lavine, Fundamentals of Heat
and Mass Transfer, sixth ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[16] M. Choi, L.R. Glicksman, Computer Optimization of Dry and Wet/Dry Cooling
Tower System for Large Fossil and Nuclear Power Plants, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Energy Laboratory, 1979.
[17] American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineerings,
ASHARE Handbook of Fundamentals, Atlanta, 2013.