Design of Cooling Towers by the

Effectiveness-NTU Method
H. Jaber
B. L. Webb
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802

This paper develops the effectiveness-NTU design method for cooling towers. The
definitions for effectiveness and NTU are totally consistent with the fundamental
definitions used in heat exchanger design. Sample calculations are presented for
counter and crossflow cooling towers. Using the proper definitions, a person competent in heat exchanger design can easily use the same basic method to design a
cooling tower of counter, cross, or parallel flow configuration. The problems associated with the curvature of the saturated air enthalpy line are also treated. A
"one-increment" design ignores the effect of this curvature. Increased precision can
be obtained by dividing the cooling range into two or more increments. The standard
effectiveness-NTU method is then used for each of the increments. Calculations are
presented to define the error associated with different numbers of increments. This
defines the number of increments required to attain a desired degree of precision.
The authors also summarize the LMED method introduced by Berman, and show
that this is totally consistent with the effectiveness-NTU method. Hence, using proper
and consistent terms, heat exchanger designers are shown how to use either the
standard LMED or effectiveness-NTU design methods to design cooling towers.

Introduction
Berman (1961) described how the "log-mean enthalpy tions may be simplified using the moist air enthalpy potential
method" (LMED) may be applied to cooling tower design. He proposed by Merkel (1926). The enthalpy potential method is
also developed a correction factor to account for the curvature approximate, and combines the driving potential of the heat
of the saturated air enthalpy curve. In their 1940 publication, and mass transfer processes into a single enthalpy driving poLondon et al. introduced definitions of e and NTU to use in tential. The driving potential is the enthalpy difference of the
plotting cooling tower test data. However, these definitions moist air at the water film-air interface and the bulk air stream.
are not generally consistent with the basic defintions used today Webb (1988) presents a critical discussion of precise and apin heat exchanger design. They developed empirical curve fits proximate design methods. Attempts to apply the F-LMED or
of their e-NTU curves for design purposes. Moffatt (1966) is e-NTU methods to cooling tower design must use the enthalpy
apparently the first to derive the e-NTU equation for a cooling driving potential. Thus, the "log-mean enthalpy difference"
tower (counterflow). As will be shown later, his definitions do (LMED) corresponds to the "log-mean temperature differnot agree with the basic definitions of e and NTU for certain ence" (LMTD) of heat exchanger design. One problem ascombinations of water and air flow rate. Others have used sociated with use of the F-LMED or e-NTU methods for cooling
their e and/or NTU definitions for graphic representation of tower design is that the slope of the saturated air enthalpy
test data. Other than Moffatt (1966), no authors have at- curve (4) versus temperature is a curved line. So, use of the
tempted to employ these definitions actually to design a cooling F-LMED method will involve errors associated with approxtower.
imating this curve with a straight line. Berman (1961) rigorously
The F-LMTD and e-NTU methods have long been used for applied the F-LMED method to cooling towers, and defined
design of heat exchangers. It is desirable to apply the basic a correction factor (8) to correct for the curvature of the is
concepts of the F-LMTD and e-NTU methods to the design versus T curve. The correction factor essentially provides a
of evaporative heat exchangers (cooling towers and evaporative two-increment design (N= 2). The derivation of this correction
fluid coolers or condensers). The objective of this paper is to factor is presented in the Appendix.
show how the e-NTU method may be applied to cooling tower
Traditional cooling tower design methods typically use an
design. The present development will observe the precise con- incremental method, which approximates the 4 versus Tcurve
cept definitions used in the e-NTU method for heat exchangers into N segments, where N may be in the range of 4 or more.
and be applicable to all cooling tower operating conditions.
Each segment is a straight line approximation to the 4 versus
Traditional cooling tower design methods typically use a T curve. The simplest application of the F-LMED or e-NTU
method and nomenclature that are unlike the traditional F- methods to cooling tower design would use one segment (N
LMTD and e-NTU heat exchanger design methods. Hence, = 1). It will be shown that one may use N > 1 if increased
heat exchanger designers cannot successfully translate their accuracy is desired.
design methodology to cooling tower design. A key benefit of
Application of the e-NTU method to cooling tower design
the present development is that heat exchanger designers will requires physical and algebraic definition of the effectiveness
clearly understand how to apply their understanding of heat (e) and the "number of transfer units" (NTU). A number of
exchanger design to cooling towers.
attempts have been made to define e and NTU for cooling
Simultaneous heat and mass transfer processes occur in cool- tower design. However, virtually all of these definitions are
ing towers. Hence, the design equations must account for both flawed, in the sense that they are inconsistent with the corenergy transfer processes. The complexity of the design equa- responding basic definitions used for heat exchanger design.
Baker (1984) and the ASHVE Guide (1941) have defined e and
NTU strictly for convenience, and they have not attempted to
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division and presented at the ASME Winter apply these definitions to the actual e-NTU design method.
Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, December 13-18, 1987. Manuscript Baker (1984) essentially dismissed his definition as being of
received by the Heat Transfer Division April 6,1988; revision received November
"no value." The e-NTU design method for heat exchangers
15,1988. Paper No. 87-WA/CRTD-2. Keywords: Heat Exchangers, Mass Transinvolves use of the "capacity rate ratio" (CR = Cmin/Cmax).
fer.
Journal of Heat Transfer

Copyright 1989 by ASME

NOVEMBER 1989, Vol. 111 / 837

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

AIR FLOW

SPECIFIC HUMIDITY

<
X

V/

<
WATER FILM

Fig. 2 Gravity-drained water film with temperature, velocity, and humidity ratio profiles

The first term accounts for the single-phase heat transfer

from the water-air interface to the air, and the second term
Fig. 1 Water operating line on enthalpy-temperature diagram
is the water evaporated at the interface. Webb (1988) shows
that equation (1) may be approximated as the enthalpy driving
potential, given by
Whillier (1976) defined a term "tower capacity factor," which
dq = Km(ii~i)dA
(2)
was intended to correspond to the capacity rate ratio used in
heat exchanger design. His definition was not consistent with
The present e-NTU formulation uses (/, /) as the driving
the definition of CR. Nor did he attempt to establish an al- potential. This potential corresponds to (TH - Tc) used in
gebraic relationship for e-NTU. Moffatt (1966) was apparently heat exchanger design.
the first to attempt to establish an algebraic e-NTU relationFigure 1 shows a plot of air enthalpy versus water tempership. As will be shown later, his method works if the water is ature for a counterflow cooling tower. The curved line is the
the minimum capacity rate fluid, but fails if it is not. Except enthalpy of saturated air (is) and the straight line is the "water
for Moffatt's work, the rash of NTU definitions reported in operating line." The driving pontential (*',- i) is illustrated by
the literature have contributed little but a myriad of conflicting the dashed lines. Typically, one assumes that the water-air
definitions.
interface temperature is equal to the local mixed water temperature, which is an approximation. Actually, the interface
temperature is less than the local mixed water temperature.
The Driving Potential
The water film-air process at the interface is illustrated in Fig.
As presented by Webb (1988) the driving potential is
2. The dashed line in Fig. 1 of slope -a.JKm defines the
dq= [a a Le 2 ' 3 (r,- T) + hgiKm( W,- W)]dA
(1) interface temperature. Since the water film heat transfer coefTEMPERATURE

A = heat transfer area, m2

A = approach = Tw2 -Tb, C
a = heat and mass transfer area
per unit volume, m 2 /m 3
C
P = fluid specific heat, kJ/kg-C
capacity rate ratio = mmin/
cR = "'max
fluid capacity rate = mcp,
c = kJ/s-C
d = differential element
E = error defined as (1 - N T U /
NTU) x 100, percent
f = slope of saturated air enthalpy versus temperature
curve = di/dT, kJ/kg-C
h = enthalpy of water, kJ/kg
i = enthalpy of moist air at bulk
condition, kJ/kg
h = enthalpy of moist air at interface condition: /,-, at water inlet, ii2 at water outlet, ilav at
average temperature of increment, kJ/kg
A/ = enthalpy difference between

Km
Le =
m =
m+

N =
NTU =
q =
R =
T =
U =
V =
W =
z =

air at interface and local bulk

air, A/, = ia - iu M2 = in
- i2, AI, defined by equation (3) (or (5))
mass transfer coefficient, kg/
m2-s
Lewis number of moist air
fluid mass flow rate, kg/s
water side capacity rate, kg/s
number of increments
number of transfer units, as
defined by equation (16)
heat exchange, kW
cooling range = Twl - Tw2,
C
temperature, C
overall heat transfer coefficient, kW/m 2 K
cooling tower packing volume, m3
humidity ratio = kg of
steam/kg of dry air
packing depth (in air flow direction), m

a = heat transfer coefficient,

kW/m 2 -s
13 = water film thickness, m
5 = enthalpy correction factor,
kJ/kg
e = thermal effectiveness = qact/
Qmax

Subscripts
1 = air or water inlet conditions
2 = air or water outlet conditions
a = air
act = actual heat transfer
av = average
C = cold fluid
f = liquid water
g = saturated water vapor
H = hot fluid
i = at air-water interface
m = moist air
s = saturated air
w = water
wb = wet bulb

838/Vol. 111, NOVEMBER 1989

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

mQ, 1 +di
W + dW

w'V

R,C

SYMBOL

1
1

10
15

in-

/
/

20

25

m 0 ,i

vdmw

//

<tz

,w
20-

h f -dh f

y'

Fig. 3 Control volume illustrating the heat and mass transfer processes
at the air-water interface

,**'

-.-.

O lf

.-"

10i

ficient is unknown, one typically assumes the path of the OLJ

Km = oo line, which is the vertical dashed line. The assumption
aw/Km = e will be employed in the present analysis. However,
this assumption is not necessary for the e-NTU equations to
be developed.

,/

i -

10

'

20

30

40

EXIT WATER TEMPERATURE, C

F - L M E D Formulation
Assuming a linear variation of is versus T, one may define
the log-mean enthalpy difference (LMED) for the cooling tower
process illustrated in Fig. 1 as
A/2-A/!
A/m =
ln(AI2/AIl)

(3)

Fig. 4 Enthalpy correction factor & versus the exit water temperature
TM for different cooling ranges R

Substitution of dTw from equation (7) into equation (6) and

solving for dit gives
dq=(mwcpw/f')dii

(8)

where AT) = ia - ij and AI2 = in - i2.

The F-LMTD method of heat exchanger design uses the UA
value of the heat exchanger. The corresponding value for cooling tower design is KA. As seen in Fig. 1, the is versus T
curve is not a straight line. Hence, equation (3) introduces an
approximation. Berman (1961) developed an analytical based
correction factor to correct for the nonlinearity of the is versus
T curve, which is derived in the Appendix. The correction
factor 8 is given by

When one solves equation (9) for dq and substitutes the

result into equation (2), the result is

= ('/i + n - 2 / | J / 4

The corresponding equation that occurs in the e-NTU development for a heat exchanger with CH = Cmin is

(4)

Note that the enthalpy correction factor is independent of

Twb, A (approach), and mw/ma. It is a function of the cooling
range only. Figure 4 presents the enthalpy correction factor
versus the exit water temperature (Tw2) for different values of
the cooling range.
Introducing equation (4) in equation (3) gives the corrected
LMED
A/ra

A/ 2 -A/,
ln[(A/2-5)/(A/1-6)]

Effectiveness-NTU Method
Figure 3 shows a control volume on a differential element
of the cooling tower. Equation (1) is the transport equation
for the energy transfer from water to air. An energy balance
on the water film and the air, over the length dz, gives
(6)

The e-NTU derivation is performed for a counterflow cooling tower, using the terminology defined in Fig. 1. The derivation essentially parallels that for a counterflow heat
exchanger. It is necessary to express dq in equation (1) in terms
of the air enthalpy. The slope of the is versus T curve is defined
as
f'=di/dTw
Journal of Heat Transfer

d(i, - /) = dq[ {/' /m^cpn) - \/ma]

77T7?

d(TH-Tc)
{TH-TC)

(7)

KmUf'/myfip,,)

- Uma]dA

Ull/mfjCpH-l/mcCpddA

(9)

(10)

01)

Notice that equation (10) contains the term ma, as compared

to the "capacity rate" mcCpCm equation (11). By analogy with
equation (11), we will define ma as the air capacity rate for a
cooling tower, and the water capacity rate as
ml=mwcpJf

(5)

UA and LMTD are used in heat exchanger design; the corresponding definitions for cooling tower design are KA and
LMED. The flow configuration correction factor (F) used in
heat exchanger design applies equally well to cooling tower
design.

dq = mwcpwdTw = madi

Using di = dq/ma from equation (6) and equation (8) one

may write di, - di = rf(i, - /) as

(12)

Consistent with heat exchanger design terminology, we will

define
CR = Wmin/^raax

(13)

There are two possible cases: m < ma and + > ma.

Case 1: m^ < ma. After substituting m% = w min and ma =
/ftmax in equation (10) one obtains
dUi-i)
Vi-i)

KmdA
ITlrr

(1-Cj)

(14)

Equation (14) corresponds to the heat exchanger e-NTU equation

d(TH-Tc)
(THTC)

UdA
Cmin

a-cR)

(15)

In heat exchanger design, the term UA/Cmm is defined as

the "number of transfer units," NTU. The analogous definition for the NTU of a cooling tower is
NTU =

KA

(16)

NOVEMBER 1989, Vol. 111 /839

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Previous works on cooling towers, in which NTU was defined, have not observed the precise definition of equation
(16). Some authors (London et al., 1940; Moffatt, 1966; Zivi
and Brand, 1956) have defined KmA/ma as the "NTU of the
air," while others (Kelly, 1976; Keyes, 1972; Majumdar and
Singhal, 1983; Baker and Shryock, 1961) have defined KJ\./
mw as "the NTU of the water." The authors assert that equation (16) is the only correct and consistent definition.
Next, it is necessary to define the heat exchange "effectiveness" e. This will be defined identically to that used for heat
exchanger design
(17)

= 9act/<7,
act' ymax

basic definitions for effectiveness and NTU are used, and the
same algebraic equation for the e-NTU relationship applies.
A one-increment design (N= 1) may be performed very quickly.
The e-NTU (or the F-LMED) method is subject to approximations involved in linearizing the is versus Tcurve as a straight
line. However, the desired accuracy can be obtained by breaking the design down into N increments. Traditional cooling
tower design methods typically use an incremental method.
One may use the correction factor (5) given by equation (4)
for the e-NTU method, which essentially gives a two-increment
design. To do this, one redefines /,, and ia as (in 5) and (ii2
S), respectively. Hence, the definition of e is rewritten as
m

wcpw \ Tv\ T2)

where
<7max mmmUi\

'l )

(18)

Referring to Fig. 1 and integrating equation (14) between

the entering and leaving air states, ;'i and i2, respectively, gives
'/2-*i
'ii -

= exp[-NTU(l-C*)]

(19)

It can be shown that

ig-h
in-ii

eCfl-1

(20)

Equating equations (19) and (20) gives the final e-NTU equation for the counterflow cooling tower
l-exp[-NTU(l-Q)]
'l-C/jexpI-NTUa-C*)]

(21)

Equation (21) is identical to the e-NTU expresssion for a

counterflow heat exchanger.
For case 1 where mmin mj,, if the exit water temperature
is assumed to be equal to the air entering wet bulb temperature,
then one can write qmaxas m* (Twi - Twb). Under such conditions one can show that the effectiveness can be expressed
as
T

R
R+A

(22)

Case 2: ma<m%. For this case, ma = mmin and m% =

mmm. Substitution of these expressions into equation (10) gives
equation (14). Continuing as for Case 1 leads to equation (21).
For Case 2, one cannot write the effectiveness in terms of
temperatures, as was done in equation (22) for Case 1. For
Case 2, one may express the effectiveness by
mmmUn-S-'i)

(23)

Discussion of the e-NTU Design Method

Using the definitions for effectiveness and NTU described
above, the resulting e-NTU equations for a counterflow cooling
tower have been shown to be identical to those for heat exchanger design. It may also be shown that the e-NTU equations
for crossflow heat exchangers are also applicable to crossflow
cooling towers. Use of the unmixed/unmixed e-NTU equation
is recommended. Similarly, a parallel flow cooling tower would
be designed using the e-NTU equation for a parallel flow heat
exchanger.
The definition for effectiveness satisfies the thermodynamic
definition, e = qaa/qm!a, and the NTU must be defined as
K,A/mmin. The myriad of definitions in the cooling tower
literature for effectiveness and NTU are generally inconsistent
with those used here.
The heat exchanger designer should have no difficulty in
understanding cooling tower analysis, since precisely the same

(24)

/Wmin('il-5-'l)

A typical problem that often arises in cooling tower design

is the determination of the NTU when Twb, R, A, and ma/mw
are given. The traditional method of solution is to use the
curves given in publications by Kelly (1976) and The Cooling
Tower Institute (1967). These curves are based on use of the
Merkel method, and were generated for a wide range of practical operating conditions. The Cooling Tower Institute curves
(1976) were generated using the Tchebychev integration method
with three increments (N = 3). One may very simply use the eNTU graphs (or equations) for the particular flow configuration desired (counter, cross, or parallel flow), with three
increments, to design for any of the operating conditions. A
simple procedure for a one-increment design using the enthalpy
correction factor is outlined below:
1 Calculate the
2 Calculate m
mine CR =
3 Find Ai =
4 Calculate the
5

slope of the saturation line, / ' = Ai/R.

= mwcpw/f and compare to ma to determmin/mmax.
(mw/ma)cpwR.
effectiveness e = {maAi) / [mmin (in - 5

Read (or calculate) the e-NTU from chart (or equation).

One should note that, for two or more increments, it is

possible for the minimum capacity rate fluid to change over
the length of the water temperature range. This is because of
the change of slope of the is versus Tcurve (see equation (12)).
If this happens, one merely redefines CR and mmin for the
increment.
Illustration of the 6-NTU Design Method
This section presents numerical results for counterflow cooling towers using the e-NTU method. The calculations presented
here are performed for a range of practical operating conditions, as a function of number of increments (iV) between 1
and 10. By varying the number of increments, one may estimate
the number of increments required to attain a particular desired
degree of accuracy. All calculations were performed assuming
aJKm = oo and neglecting the effect of evaporation on the
air enthalpy leaving the increment. However, the first assumption has no bearing on use or applicability of the e-NTU
method.
Calculations were performed for the following operating
conditions listed in Table 1. The number of increments was
varied between 1 and 10. The value calculated is the NTU
required to perform the cooling duty corresponding to the
operating conditions listed in Table 1. The calculated results
are presented in Figs. 5-8 in the form of Error (E) = (1 NTU/NTU) x 100 percent versus the number of increments
(TV), where NTU r is the "precise" NTU. NTU r is calculated
using the traditional design method of integrating equation
(25) using Simpson's rule with 10 increments.
KA

840 / Vol. 111, NOVEMBER 1989

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Ai

(25)

Transactions of the ASME

_^^-^====
-2-

-2TVIB, C

SYM80L
-4,-C

-6-

"

- 8 -

SYMBOL

5
10
15

-6-

! 1

-8-

g
g

A,C

-4-

5
15
25,35

-10-

-10-

-12-

-12-

-14-

-14-

-16-

-16-

NUMBER OF INCREMENTS (N)

NUMBER OF INCREMENTS (N)

Fig. 5 Error versus the number of increments N for mjm,

= 12C,A = 8C

1.0, B

Fig. 7 Error E versus the number of increments W for

= 10C, Tb = 20 C

mjm,

1.0, Ft

-2SYMBOL
-4-

mw/ma

/{!

0.5
1.0
1.5

- 6 - '/
-8-

1
<

-10-12-14-16-

i "

NUMBER OF INCREMENTS (N)

Fig. 6 Error E versus the number of increments N for
= 20 C, A --= 8C

NUMBER OF INCREMENTS (N)

mjm,

i.o, r,

Figures 5-8 show that the e-NTU method underpredicts the

NTU. Table 2 gives the minimum required number of increments to achieve a design, within 2 percent of the 10-increment
Simpson integration reference. Table 3 shows the effect of the
correction factor on the accuracy of a one-increment design.
For the range of parameters considered in Table 1, a oneincrement design with an enthalpy correction factor will produce less than 3 percent error. The tower characteristic was
also calculated using the Tchebychev integration technique.
This method gave approximately 1 percent error with respect
to the Simpson reference for the range of operating conditions
listed in Table 1. A similar result can be achieved using the eNTU method with three increments.

Fig. 8 Error E versus the number of increments A/ for

= 10C, A = 8C

Tb = 20C, H

165

155 -

l\

145135

//

125CT>

-3

1 15 i
105 -

^>-

95^

<
fE

85-

LINE E - ^

//

V
//
//
//

z
/
W
Examples of Sizing and Rating Calculations
75S
/
A sizing problem determines the NTU (size of the tower)
65\
/
for given air and water conditions. A rating calculation de*
55termines the leaving water temperature for given air and water
AREA A ,
AREA A,
inlet conditions and the tower characteristic.
45T2
*~ T
-~T|
Counterflow Sizing Calculation. The following example
35- /
presents a one-increment sizing calculation for a counterflow
1
1
cooling tower. The same procedure would be used per incre35
40
15
20
25
30
10
ment for a multi-increment design. Both the e-NTU and LMED
TEMPERATURE, C
methods will be illustrated.
Fig. 9 Graphic representation of the enthalpy correction factor S
Consider the following operating conditions: Water enters
at a temperature of 35C and is cooled to 30C. The correThe air enthalpy change is found from the energy balance,
sponding saturation enthalpies are /sl = 129.54 kJ/kg and is2
= 99.96 kJ/kg. The air entering is 25C (wet bulb) with an equation (6): A/' = (mw/ma)cpwR - 20.93 kJ/kg; the air exit
enthalpy of /, = 76.6 kJ/kg. The mass flow rate ratio is mw/ enthalpy is i2 = 97.53 kJ/kg.
ma = 1.0. The average water temperature is T = (30 + 35)/
7 The LMED Method.
2 = 32.5C and the corresponding saturation enthalpy is isav
A/, = isl-ix = 99.96-76.6 = 23.36 kJ/kg
= 113.92 kJ/kg. The enthalpy correction factor is calculated
using equation (4) giving a value of 0.414 kJ/kg.
M2= isl-i2= 129.54-96.54 = 33.09 kJ/kg
wav

Journal of Heat Transfer

NOVEMBER 1989, Vol. 111 / 841

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Table 1 Operating conditions for calculations

R, C
m/m
Figure

< wb<

5-35
20
20
20

12
10, 20
10
20

5-15

1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5-1.5

5
6
7
8

Table 2 Number of increments necessary to achieve a design

within 2 percent of the 10-increment Simpson integration, without using the enthalpy correction factor 5
mjma, C
R, C
A, C
N
Figure
5-35
12
1.0
3
5
20
10-20
1.0
3
6
20
10
1.0
2
7
5-15
20
10
0.5-1.5
2
8

Table 3 Effect of the enthalpy correction factor (5) on a oneincrement design using the e-NTU method
TWb>

5-35
20
20
20

A, C

R, C

mw/ma

8
8
5-15
8

12
10-20
10
10

1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5-1.5

Error,
percent
<3
<3
<2
<3

5
6
7
8

If myjCpvl/ma < / ' , then m < ma (Case 1). The terms e,

CR, and NTU are calculated using equations (17), (18), (13),
and (16), respectively
CR = mmin/mmm

= 0.555

= 0.708

NTU =KmA/mmin=

1.051 or A'm^/wM, = 0.74

The small difference in numerical values obtained by both

methods is due to round-off errors.
Counterflow Rating Calculation. Assume that the given is
KmA/rrin = 1.87 and mw/ma = 1.0. The air and water inlet
conditions are Twl = 35C and Tb = 20C, respectively. The
corresponding air and water enthalpies are 129.54 kJ/kg and
57.544 kJ/kg (the correct exit water temperature is 25C; however, for the sake of illustration it will be assumed that this
fact is not known). An exit water temperature is assumed, say
T2 = 29C, and hence a mean water temperature is calculated
as Twau = (35 + 29)/2 = 32C. The exit and mean water enthalpies are then is2 = 94.851 kJ/kg and ism = 110.95 kJ/kg,
respectively. The following steps are carried out exactly as in
a sizing problem:
5 = Osi + is2 ~ 2isa)/4 = 0.623 kJ/kg
/ ' = (i,i - / * ) / ( T w i - Tw2) = 5.782 kJ/kg-C
&i = mwcpAT/ma= 25.121 kJ/kg
If mwcpvl/ma

< / ' , then m% < ma (Case 1). Hence

Cr = Mmin/mmm

= w + // = mwcpw/f

Specify the leaving water temperature.

Set several A Tw increments and calculate the K,A/ma
required for each increment. Sum the KmA/m,, values
for each increment.
3 When the calculations for the last increment yields Y,KA/
ma greater than the given value, decrease the ATW for the
last increment and continue until T,KmA/ma equals the
given value.

1
2

Crossflow Sizing Calculation. The operating conditions are

considered to be the same as those in the counterflow sizing
example. All the parameters are calculated the same way and
have the same numerical values as before, except for the value
of the NTU, which depends on the crossflow e-NTU relation
used. It is recommended to use the unmixed/unmixed relation.
The NTU is found from tables given in the Kays and London
book (1984) to be 1.169 and the tower characteristic as K,A/
ma = 0.827.

Figure

Using equation (5), AIm = 27.56 kJ/kg and hence KmA/m

= 0.76.
2 The e-NTU Method.
Applying equation (7) we get:
/ ' = (129.54 - 99.96)/5 = 5.916 kJ/kg-C

e = [ma(i2-ii)]/[mmin(isl-5-ii)]

The counterflow rating calculations may be performed without iterations using the following procedure:

ma = 0.724

e = ( m a A / ) / [ f f j + a , - 5 - / 1 ) ] = 0.486
At the calculated values of CR and e, one obtains NTU =
KmA/m^
= 0.84 and K^/rriy, = 0.608, as compared to the
given value of 1.87. One may continue the iterative calculation
using a bi-section method until the calculated tower characteristic agrees with the given value.

Comparison With Moffatt's Analysis

The one-increment e-NTU design method developed by Moffatt (1966) provides results in agreement with the present Case
1 (wmin = mi,)- Moffatt defined effectiveness as
R/(R+A),
which agrees with equation (22). His NTU was defined &sK,A/
ma. Moffatt's analysis will not give the correct answer if
(mmin = ma).

Conclusions
1 The analysis presented herein shows how the e-NTU theory of heat exchanger design may be applied to cooling towers.
The effectiveness and NTU are defined by equations (17) and
(16), respectively. The effectiveness and NTU definitions are
in precise agreement with those used for heat exchanger design,
and are applicable to all cooling tower operating conditions.
2 One-increment sizing calculations may be quickly performed for any flow configuration. The calculations are improved by using multi-increments and/or the enthalpy
correction factor.
3 The influence of the four independent variables, R, A,
Twb, and m/ma on the accuracy of the e-NTU method is
evaluated as a function of the number of increments used. The
ranges of the parameters considered is given in Table 1. The
calculations show that:
(a) The NTU is underpredicted when the e-NTU method is
used. For J? < 20C and Twb > 15C, the underprediction is 4-8 percent for a one-increment design, and
less than 3 percent for a two-increment design. The underprediction is highest for low wet bulb temperatures
and high cooling ranges.
(b) Use of the enthalpy correction factor reduces the error
associated with a lower number of increments. Moreover, a one-increment design with this correction factor
is equivalent to a two-increment design without the correction.
4 Using the methods outlined herein, a person competent
in the e-NTU (or the F-LMTD) method of heat exchanger
design can use the same procedure to design cooling towers of
any flow configuration.
5 Using the e-NTU curve for the appropriate flow configuration, one may quickly calculate the required NTU for specified operating conditions. This negates the need for the
extensive sets of curves given by Kelly (1976) and the Cooling
Tower Institute (1967).

842/Vol. 111, NOVEMBER 1989

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

Transactions of the ASME

References
ASHVE, 1941, ASHVE Heating, Ventilation, Airconditioning Guide, 19th
ed., Chap. 26, pp. 522-523.
Baker, D. R., and Shryock, H. A., 1961, "A Comprehensive Approach to
the Analysis of Cooling Tower Performance," ASME JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER, Vol. 83, pp. 339-350.
Baker, D., 1984, Cooling Tower Performance, Chemical Publishing Co., New
York, Chap. 6, p. 101.
Berman, L. D., 1961, in: Evaporative Cooling of Circulating Water, 2nd ed.,
Henryck Sawistowski, ed., Pergamon Press, New York, Chap. 2, pp. 94-99;
translated from Russian by R. Hardbottle.
Cooling Tower Institute, 1967, Cooling Tower Institute Performance Curves,
The Cooling Tower Institute, Houston, TX.
Kays, W. M., and London, A. L., 1984, in: Compact Heat Exchangers, 3rd
ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, Chap. 2, p. 51.
Kelly, N. W., 1976, Kelly's Handbook of Crossflow Cooling Tower Performance, Neil W. Kelly & Associates, Kansas City, MO.
Keyes, R. E., 1972, "Methods of Calculation for Natural Draft Cooling
Towers," presented at the 13th National Heat Transfer Conference, Denver,
CO, Aug. 6-9.
London, A. L., Mason, W. F., and Boelter, L. M. K., 1940, "Performance
Characteristics of a Mechanically Induced Draft, Counterflow, Packed Cooling
Tower," Trans. ASME, Vol. 62, pp. 41-50.
Majumdar, A. K., Singhal, A. K., and Spalding, D. B., 1983, "Numerical
Modeling of Wet Cooling TowersPart 1: Mathematical and Physical Models,"
ASME JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER, Vol.

105, pp. 728-735.

Merkel, F., 1926, "Verdunstungskuhlung," VDI Zeitschrift deutscher Ingenieure, Vol. 70, pp. 123-128.
Moffatt, R. J., 1966,' 'The Periodic Flow Cooling Tower: A Design Analysis,''
Technical Report No. 62, Dept. Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University,
CA.

Journal of Heat Transfer

Webb, R. L., 1988, " A Critical Review of Cooling Tower Design Methods,"
in: Heal Transfer Equipment Design, R. K. Shah, E. C. Subbarao, and R. A.
Mashelkar, eds., Hemisphere Pub. Corp., Washington, DC, pp. 547-558.
Whillier, A., 1976, " A Fresh Look at the Performance of Cooling Towers,"
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 82, pp. 269-282.
Zivi, S. M., and Brand, B. B., 1956, "Analysis of the Cross-Flow Cooling
Tower," Refrigeration Engineering, Vol. 64, No. 8, pp. 31-34.

A P P E N D I X
The derivation of the enthalpy correction factor is given
below with reference to Fig. 9. The saturation line is divided
into two straight line segments resulting in two trapezoids
whose areas are Ax and A2, respectively; hence
A i = (i,-i + ijav) (Twau - Tw2)/2
A1=(ia + iiv){Twl-Twav)/2

(26)
(27)

Twav is the average water temperature, Twav = (Twl + Tw2)/

2. Line E is drawn such that the area under it is equal to Ax
+ A2. Denoting this area by A, we have
A = Wa-S) + (/a -&)](Twl - Tw2)/2
(28)
where 5 is a correction factor. Setting A = At + A2 and using
the definition of Twav, the final desired result is
6 = (/,, + i B - 2 i t o ) / 4

(29)

NOVEMBER 1989, Vol. 111 / 843

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2013 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms