Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effect of Heat Rejection Load and Wet Bulb On Cooling Tower Performance Part 1 PDF
Effect of Heat Rejection Load and Wet Bulb On Cooling Tower Performance Part 1 PDF
Effect of Heat Rejection Load and Wet Bulb On Cooling Tower Performance Part 1 PDF
This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, January 2014. Copyright 2014 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or
distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Mick Schwedler, P.E., is applications engineering manager for Trane, a division of Ingersoll Rand in LaCrosse, Wis. He is past chair of SSPC 90.1 and a member of SPC 90.4.
20
p Range 10
water economizer mode. In addi-
Range 8
tion, it must be considered when 15
Range 6
determining tower setpoints at Range 4
10
reduced wet-bulb temperatures. If
inaccurate assumptions are made, 5
tower design and/or the method of
controlling cooling tower setpoint 0
30 40 50 60 70 80
will be less than optimal.
Wet-Bulb Temperature (°F)
Why do these phenomena
occur? They are related to the
TABLE 2
Cooling tower approach temperature at 60°F wet-bulb temperature.
psychrometric properties of air. At lower tempera-
RANGE (°F) PERCENT LOAD APPROACH (°F)
tures, air simply cannot hold as much moisture.
4 29% 2.8
Interestingly, at these lower temperatures, a greater
6 43% 3.9
proportion of heat rejection is sensible, so the amount
of water evaporated is reduced compared to design 8 57% 5.3
conditions. 10 71% 6.4
12 86% 7.7
So What? 14 100% 9.0
What difference can this make when controlling cool-
ing towers for optimal system performance or perform- approach temperature remains constant at the design
ing analyses? Two examples follow. approach temperature of 4.5°F (2.5°C). (The author
has seen similar assumptions used in a number of
Example 1 “spreadsheet calculations.”)
A project team decides that in lieu of full-year To compare this assumption with actual performance,
analysis they will use a spreadsheet to estimate condi- the 4.5°F (2.5°C) approach and Table 2 data are used to
tions. They incorrectly assume that the cooling tower construct Table 4.
TABLE 4
Comparison of available cooling tower water temperatures.
INCORRECTLY ASSUMED ACTUAL (AT 60°F OAWB)
PERCENT APPROACH TEMPERATURE APPROACH (°F) TEMPERATURE
LOAD (°F) AVAILABLE (°F) AVAILABLE (°F)
29% 4.5 64.5 2.8 62.8
43% 4.5 64.5 3.9 63.9
57% 4.5 64.5 5.3 65.3
71% 4.5 64.5 6.4 66.4
86% 4.5 64.5 7.7 67.7
100% 4.5 64.5 9.0 69.0
Example 2 TABLE 4
Comparison of tower approach temperatures.
A project team applies a waterside INCORRECTLY ASSUMED ACTUAL
economizer for use in a data center.
WET-BULB APPROACH TOWER TOWER LOAD APPROACH TOWER TOWER LOAD
The chilled-water system design TEMPERATURE (°F) LEAVING ENTERING HANDLED (°F) LEAVING ENTERING HANDLED
(°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F)
temperature is 54.0°F (12.2°C).
The heat exchanger has a 2.0°F 30 4.5 34.5 48.5 100% 21.5 51.5 65.5 100%
(1.1°C) approach temperature, so 35 4.5 39.5 53.5 100% 18.6 53.6 67.6 84%
the tower must produce 52.0°F 40 4.5 44.5 58.5 100% 16.0 56.0 70.0 60%
(11.1°C) water to satisfy the entire 45 4.5 49.5 63.5 100% 13.9 58.9 72.9 31%
load. The chilled-water tempera- 4.5 54.5 68.5 75% 62.0 76.0 0%
50 12.0
ture difference at that load is 10.0°F
55 4.5 59.5 73.5 25% 10.4 65.4 79.4 0%
(5.5°C), which results in constant
60 4.5 66.5 80.5 0% 9.0 69.0 83.0 0%
return-water temperature of 64.0°F
(17.8°C). The system load is constant 65 4.5 69.5 83.5 0% 7.4 72.4 86.4 0%
at 100%; therefore, the cooling tower 70 4.5 76.5 90.5 0% 6.0 76.0 90.0 0%
range is 14.0°F (7.8°C). In its analy- 78 4.5 82.5 98.5 0% 4.5 86.5 98.5 0%
sis, the project team incorrectly
assumes a constant 4.5°F (2.5°C) assumption and actual perfor- References
tower approach temperature. mance. The error in estimated 1. ASHRAE. 2010. ASHRAE GreenGuide: The De-
sign, Construction, and Operation of Sustainable
Clearly, significant discrepan- savings depends on the number Buildings, 3rd ed.
cies exist between the incorrect of operational hours in the range
2. Taylor, S. 2011. “Optimizing design & con-
between 35°F and 55°F (1.5°C and trol of chilled water plants; part 3: pipe
12.8°C) wet-bulb temperature for sizing and optimizing ΔT.” ASHRAE Journal
the specific weather location. 53(12):22–34.
3. 2012 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Systems and
Summary Equipment, Chapter 40, Cooling Towers.
For a given cooling tower, 4. Hydeman, M., K. Gillespie, R. Kammerud.
approach temperature is dependent 1997. National Cool-Sense Forum. Pacific
Gas & Electric (PG&E).
on heat rejection load and entering
5. Braun, J.E., G.T. Diderrich. 1990. “Near-
wet-bulb temperature. At reduced
optimal control of cooling towers for
wet-bulb temperature, colder tower chilled water systems.” ASHRAE Transactions
water temperature is available— 96(2): 806–813.
but it is not as cold as many think. 6. Schwedler, M. 1998. “Take it to the limit…or
Therefore, accurate knowledge just halfway?” ASHRAE Journal 40(7):32–39.
of these correlations is necessary. 7. Cascia, M. 2000. “Implementation of
Advertisement formerly in this space.
Many cooling tower suppliers can a near-optimal global set point control
method in a DDC controller.” ASHRAE
offer assistance in predicting the
Transactions (1)249–263.
tower leaving temperature at vari-
8. Crowther, H., J. Furlong. 2004. “Optimiz-
ous wet bulb and load conditions. ing chillers and towers.” ASHRAE Journal
Practitioners can use this knowledge 46(7):34–40.
to improve system operation and, 9. Li, X., Y. Li, J. Seem, P. Li. 2012. “Self-
therefore, efficiency during both optimizing control of cooling tower for ef-
“normal” and waterside economizer ficient operation of chilled water systems.”
International High Performance Buildings
operation. The second article of this
Conference at Purdue.
series will discuss additional energy
10. Stout, M.R. 2003. “Cooling tower fan con-
savings opportunities for water- trol for energy efficiency.” North Carolina
cooled systems. State University Master’s Thesis.