A Simplified Procedure for Calculating Cooling Tower Performance

T S Chan*, Y H Yau*
*School of Science and Technology, The Open University of Hong Kong
Corresponding author: yhyau@ouhk.edu.hk

Abstract
Tower coefficient is commonly used to characterized the heat rejection capability of cooling tower. A simplified
calculation procedure of tower coefficient is presented. The procedure is then applied to a popular cooling tower
model, to illustrate the relationship between tower coefficient and water-air flow ratio. The data from a cooling tower
site test are provided to verify the Merkel cooling tower theory, which is the basis of tower coefficient concept.

Keywords
Tower coefficient , Cooling tower, Merkel cooling tower theory

INTRODUCTION
In HVAC systems, cooling tower is commonly used as the final heat rejection equipment for the
chiller plant, and cooling tower is very effective. Comparing with their direct air-cooled
counterparts, chiller plants using coolint towers are proved to be much more energy efficient.
There has been a wave of replacement of air-cooled chillers to water-cooled types in Hong Kong.
The most commonly used cooling tower in HVAC applications is the mechanical draft type. These
towers typically consist of a casing made of plastic or metal. Warm water is distributed near the
top and flows counter-currently to an air stream. Water cascades down through the packing, and
leaves at the bottom to the collecting basin. Air enters at the bottom and flows upwards through
the descending water. The tower packing usually consists of plastic fills, or of packed bed, or of
slats of inert materials that provide a large contact area betweeen the water and air. Fans are used
to induce air flows. According to the relationship of flow directions between the water and air
streams, cooling towers can be classified into counter-flow and cross-flow types. Before being
discharged into the atmosphere, the water-laden exhaust air passes through a drift eliminator which
removes the water droplets from the leaving air stream.

Desipte that cooling tower is so widely used, the theory of cooling tower is complex and obscured.
In this paper, a simplified procedure for calculating cooling tower performance is presented. The
procedure will then be employed to calculate the performace of a certain popular model of cooling
tower for illustration.

To charaterize the operation of a cooling tower, two parameters are particularly convenient to use:
 Approach: The difference between the cooling tower leaving water temperature and the
wet bulb temperature of ambient air.
Page 1 of 11
  Range: The difference between the cooling tower entering water temperature and leaving
water temperature.
In HVAC trade, common values of range and approach are 5°C and 3°C respectively. The
approach, range, together with the circulation water flow rate, they are the three primary parameters
that should be specified during design.

REVIEW OF COOLING TOWER THEORY

The classic cooling tower theory has been developed by Merkel [1925], Later Baker and Shryock
[1961] published a comprehensive analysis of cooling tower. A modern derivation of the basic
equations in cooling tower theory was made by Braun [1988], who referred the derivation to
Sutherland [1983]. The heat and mass transfer processes in a counterflow cooling tower is
schematically shown below.

Figure 1. Schmatic of a counter-flow cooling tower

Making the standard assumptions, the below quantities are assumed to be constant for cooling tower
operation:
𝐿 : Water flow rate, kg/sec
𝐺 : Air flow rate, kg/sec
𝑎 : water-air interface area per unit volume, m2/m3
𝐶𝑝,𝑤 : specific heat of water, kJ/(Kg . K)
ℎ𝑔,𝑤 : latent heat of evaporation for water, kJ/kg
𝐾 : mass transfer coefficient of water in air, kg/(sec . m2)
The variables involved inclued the below:
𝑇𝑤 : Water temperature, °C
ℎ𝑎 : Air enthalpy, kJ/kg
𝑊 : humidity ratio of air stream, which has no dimension, kg of water / kg of dry air
Note that the air temperature (dry bulb) is not explicitly involved. In fact, the wet bulb
temperature of air is more important. Wet bulb temperature is strongly dependent on air enthalpy,
Page 2 of 11
and is very weakly dependent on the dry bulb temperature. Therefore once the air enthalpy is
known, a corresponding wet bulb temperature can be found. In the table 2 – Thermodynamic
properties of mosit air at standard atmospheric pressure of chapter on pyschrometrics in ASHRAE
handbook (Fundamentals), saturated air enthalpy is on column 8 and corresponding wet bulb
temperature will be found on column 1.

Figure 2. Excerpt from ASHRAE table of properties of moist air

In fact, a formula can be provided to calculate the ℎ𝑔,𝑤 :

ℎ𝑔,𝑤 = 1.006 × 𝑇𝑤𝑏 + 𝑊𝑠𝑎𝑡 (2501 + 1.860 × 𝑇𝑤𝑏 )
The conversion forth and back between wet bulb temperature and saturated air enthalpy should be a
standard and well-practiced procedure. And it is better performed using interpolation with data
from table 2.
Using a steady-state heat balance, mass balance and mass diffusion equations applying to the
volume element, Braun developed the equations below:
𝑑ℎ𝑎 − 𝐶𝑝𝑤 (𝑇𝑤 − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) 𝑑𝑊
𝑑𝑇𝑤 =
𝐿 (1)
[ 𝐺𝑖𝑛 − (𝑊𝑜𝑢𝑡 − 𝑊)] ⋅ 𝐶𝑝𝑤

𝑑𝑊 𝑁𝑇𝑈
=− (𝑊 − 𝑊𝑠,𝑤 ) (2)
𝑑𝑉 𝑉𝑇
𝑑ℎ𝑎 𝑁𝑇𝑈 1
= −𝐿𝑒 ⋅ ⋅ [(ℎ𝑎 − ℎ𝑠,𝑤 ) + ( − 1) ⋅ (𝑊 − 𝑊𝑠,𝑤 )ℎ𝑔,𝑤 ] (3)
𝑑𝑉 𝑉𝑇 𝐿𝑒

Where 𝐿𝑒 = 𝐾𝑐 /(𝐾 ⋅ 𝐶𝑝𝑚 ); and 𝐶𝑝𝑚 = 𝐶𝑝𝑎 + 𝑊𝐶𝑝𝑣

𝐾𝑎 𝑉𝑇
NTU is the number of transfer unit, 𝑁𝑇𝑈 ≡ ; 𝑉𝑇 is the total volume of the packed section.
𝐺

𝐶𝑝𝑚 is the specific heat of moist air. 𝐾𝑐 is the convective heat transfer coefficient between water
and air.

Page 3 of 11
Equations (1), (2) and (3) constitute the governing equations in the cooling tower theory. There
are typically two problems relating to cooling tower; the performance problem and the design
problem. In the performance problem, the NTU, Le, and the inlet conditions, 𝐿, 𝑇𝑤,𝑖𝑛 , 𝐺, & 𝑇𝑤𝑏
are known, and it is required to calculate the outlet conditions, 𝑇𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 , & ℎ𝑎,𝑜𝑢𝑡 . In the design
problem, the inlet and outlet conditions are given, the Le is known or assumed, and it is required to
calculate the size of the cooling tower. Equations (1), (2) and (3) may be numerically solved in an
iterative manner. At each iteration, the equations are integrated over the tower volume from air inlet
to outlet.

MERKEL COOLING TOWER THEORY [1925]

It is commonly accepted among researchers that the first practical theory of cooling tower was
developed by Merkel [1925]. It has been the basis of most other cooling tower analyses ever since.
The computation of cooling tower performance is simplifed considerably by the use of two
assumptions.
 neglected the effect of the water loss due to evaporation
 set the Lewis number to unity (Le = 1)

It simplifies the equations to the following:

𝑑𝑞 = 𝐺𝑑ℎ𝑎 = −𝐿𝐶𝑝𝑤 𝑑𝑇𝑤 = 𝐾𝑎 ⋅ 𝑑𝑉 ⋅ (Δℎ) = 𝐾𝑎 ⋅ 𝑑𝑉 ⋅ (ℎs,w − ℎ𝑎 )
Aftering a little alegbra, the governing differential equations can be written as below:
𝑑ℎ𝑎 𝑁𝑇𝑈
=− (ℎ𝑎 − ℎ𝑠,𝑤 ) (4)
𝑑𝑉 𝑉𝑇
𝑑𝑇𝑤 𝐺 𝑑ℎ𝑎
= ⋅ (5)
𝑑𝑉 𝐿𝐶𝑝𝑤 𝑑𝑉
It is customary to describe that the heat and mass transfer is driven by the enthalpy difference
between the water surface and the air stream. Integrating equation (4), we obtain a formula for
NTU:
𝑕𝑎,𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝐾 𝑎 𝑉𝑇 𝑑ℎ𝑎
𝑁𝑇𝑈 ≡ =∫ (6)
𝐺 𝑕𝑎,𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑠,𝑤 − ℎ𝑎
In HVAC trade, it is common practice to use an alternative variable, tower coefficient. Its
relationship with NTU is as below:
𝑇𝑤,𝑖𝑛 𝐶 𝑑𝑇
𝑝𝑤 𝑤 𝐺 𝑕𝑎,𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑑ℎ𝑎
𝑇𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 ≡ ∫ = ∫ (7)
𝑇𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 ℎ𝑠,𝑤 − ℎ𝑎 𝐿 𝑕𝑎,𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑠,𝑤 − ℎ𝑎

Page 4 of 11
 Figure 3. Cooling tower heat rejection process – enthalpy vs water temperature

𝐾 𝑎 𝑉𝑇
𝑇𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡 ≡ (8)
𝐿

Fom first principle, the location of the volume element (V & dV) is used as the independent variable.
However, in the cooling tower performance calculation, the water temperature is adopted as the
independent variable instead. The other variables are expressed as functions of water temperature.
By now, it should be clear that why the tower coefficient is preferred to when used as the parameter
characteristing the behavior of cooling tower.

In the performance problem, the solution of the equation (4) will only involve interation with
𝑇 𝐶𝑝𝑤 𝑑𝑇𝑤
respect to a single variable, 𝑇𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 . At each iteration, the integral ∫𝑇 𝑤,𝑖𝑛 is calculated
𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑕𝑠,𝑤 −𝑕𝑎

once, assuming a trial value for 𝑇𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 .

Simplifying numerical integration of tower coefficient using Simpson’s approximation

In fact, the integration of tower coefficient can be calculated more conveniently using Simpson’s
approximation.
𝑏
(𝑏 − 𝑎) 𝑎+𝑏
∫ 𝑓(𝑥)𝑑𝑥 ≈ (𝑓(𝑎) + 4 × 𝑓 ( ) + 𝑓(𝑏)) (9)
𝑎 6 2
For the temperature ranges encountered in HVAC application, a single interval should be sufficient.
That is, a is the leaving water temperature (cold), b is the entering water temperature (hot). If so
desired, the water temperature range can be divided into two equal parts. Simpson’s approximation
is then applied to the two parts separately. It is like connecting the two cooling tower sections
back to back.

Page 5 of 11
 (𝑇𝑤,𝑖𝑛 − ℎ𝑎,𝑖𝑛 ) 1 4
𝑡𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓. ≈ 𝐶𝑝,𝑤 ( +
6 ℎ𝑠,𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 − ℎ𝑎,𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑠,𝑤,𝑚𝑖𝑑 − ℎ𝑎,𝑚𝑖𝑑
(10)
1
+ )
ℎ𝑠,𝑤,𝑖𝑛 − ℎ𝑎,𝑜𝑢𝑡

TOWER COEFFICIENT
Tower coefficient is commonly used in the HVAC industry. ASHRAE and most manufacturers
provide mass transfer data using the below correlation between tower coefficient and mass flow
ratio.
𝐾 𝑎 𝑉𝑇 𝐿 𝑛
=𝐶( ) (11)
𝐿 𝐺
where c and n are empirical constants specific to a particular tower design, and the numerical values
of them are obtained from nonlinear regression. The procedure is to use a log-log plot. As MS
Excel becomes so popular, the regression functionality it provides can be used to perform the
regression easily.

The tower coefficient indicates the heat transfer units or size of the fill. It is the primary parameter
characterizing the heat rejection capability of cooling tower.

It is evident that the NTU can be easily obtained too, by multiplying both sides of (11) with L/G:
𝐾 𝑎 𝑉𝑇 𝐿 𝑛+1
= 𝐶( ) (12)
𝐺 𝐺

COOLING TOWER MANUFACTURER CATALOG DATA

The manufacturer catalog data for a certain popular cooling tower model used in Hong Kong has
been obtained. It has 250 condenser ton nominal capacity. Two such cells will be combined to
form a cooling tower unit, with a nominal capacity of 500 condenser ton. The catalog
performance data are presented in the following way: for a set of constant entering water
temperature, leaving water temperature and ambient air wet bulb temperature, the maximum water
flow rate that can be sufficiently handled by the cooling tower cell is provided. That is:
𝐿 = 𝑓(𝑇𝑤,𝑖𝑛 , 𝑇𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡 , 𝑇𝑤𝑏 )
The selection data in the manufacturer catalog are excerpted below:
Condition Ref No 1 2 3 4 5 6
Entering temp., °C 37 37 37 37 37 37
Leaving temp., °C 32 32 32 32 32 32
Wet bulb temp, °C 29 28 27 26 25 24
Water flow, l/s 54.72 65.28 75.00 84.44 93.33 101.94
Table 1. Excerpt from cooling tower manufacturer catalog data

Page 6 of 11
Using the numerical integration technique described in the earlier sections, the tower coefficients,
𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇
, are calculated for the different conditions. The results are listed below:
𝐿

Condition Ref No 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water flow, l/s 54.72 65.28 75.00 84.44 93.33 101.94
mass air flow, kg/s 48.12 48.44 48.72 48.99 49.27 49.55
L/G 1.137 1.347 1.540 1.724 1.894 2.058
Tower coefficient 1.0756 0.9348 0.8329 0.7569 0.6963 0.6475
Table 2. L/G & Tower coefficient calculated for the catalog data
𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇
A log-log plot of the vs. is made.
𝐺 𝐿

0.2

0.1
y = -0.8565x + 0.1857
R² = 0.9999
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
ln(Tower coeff.)

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
ln(L/G)

Figure 4. log-log plot of Tower coefficient vs L/G

It is evident from the regression that: = 𝑒 0.1857 = 1.204 , and 𝑛 = 0.857. This is essentially a
reverse-engineering of the mathematical model of the cooling tower model.

EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF THE COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE

The site testing of a sample of this cooling tower model was carried out. The cooling tower was
newly installed. The weather was colder than that in the design condition. The heat rejection
demand is lower than the design capacity. The results are provided below:

Page 7 of 11
 Entering Leaving Wet bulb Water mass air
Ref No
temp., °C temp., °C temp, °C flow, l/s flow, kg/s
Test 1 28.5 24.5 19.5 52 52.46
Test 2 28.5 24.5 19.5 55.2 52.11
Table 3. Data from cooling tower site testing

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇
Using the same calculation technique, and for the test data are calculated. And thus two
𝐺 𝐿

𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇
test data points are obtained. They are plotted on the same
𝐺
vs.
𝐿
log-log plot. The result

is as below:

Water mass air Tower

Ref No L/G
flow, l/s flow, kg/s coefficient
Test 1 52 52.46 0.9913 0.99218
Test 2 55.2 52.11 1.0593 1.03919
Table 4. L/G and Tower coefficient calculated for the site testing

0.2

0.1
Test 2
Test 1
0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
ln(Tower coeff.)

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

-0.5
ln(L/G)

Figure 5. Data points of cooling tower site testing

It is appropriate to compare the tower coefficients as predicted from manufacturer catalog data and
the tower coefficients obtained from site test.

Page 8 of 11
 Test Tower Predicted tower
Ref No L/G
coefficient coefficient
Test 1 0.9913 0.9922 1.195
Test 2 1.0593 1.0392 1.265
Table 5. Comparison between test tower coefficient and predicted value

It is evident that actual tower coefficient is approximately 20% lower than the predicted value.
The source of error has not been located. Further test may be carried out to arrive at a correlation
𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇 𝐿
of site test and . For single calculation of cooling tower performance with near 1.0,
𝐺 𝐿 𝐺

the site test result tower coefficient should be used. That is the tower coefficient is approximately
equals to 1.20

Discussions
𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇 𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇
1. Site test 𝐺
vs. 𝐿
log-log plot – It can be observed that the 𝐺
vs. 𝐿
line (log-log plot)

does not correspond well with the cooling tower installed on site. For characterization of the
𝐿 𝐾𝑎𝑉𝑇
actual cooling tower performance, a new vs. line has to be plotted. Data for the cooling
𝐺 𝐿

𝐿
tower heat rejection for different ‘s are needed. Unfortunately, in the site testing, which was
𝐺

𝐿
done in a single day, the range of was too small.
𝐺

2. Analogy of enthalpy difference to temperature difference as the driving force in the heat and
mass transfer process – Building upon Merkel’s theory, and to further simplify computation, Braun
[1988] proposed a cooling tower effectiveness model. He introduced the derivative of saturated air
enthalpy with respect to temperature (water temperature and air saturation temperature) evaluated at
the water temperature. The effective saturated air enthalpy at the water surface is linearized. When
the saturated enthalpy and air enthalpy are both linear functions of water temperature, an analogy
between cooling tower enthalpy transfer process and counter-flow heat exchanger heat transfer
process can be established. We obtain formulae for the cooling tower heat transfer (q), and air side
transfer effectiveness (𝜖𝑎 ) , as a function of the capacity ratio (Cr) and NTU. Actually for any
heat exchanger it can be shown that: 𝜖𝑎 = 𝑓(𝑁𝑇𝑈, 𝐶𝑟 ).
𝜖𝑎 is the air side heat transfer effectiveness:
ℎ𝑎,𝑜𝑢𝑡 − ℎ𝑎,𝑖𝑛
𝜖𝑎 ≡
ℎ𝑠,𝑤,𝑖𝑛 − ℎ𝑎,𝑖𝑛
𝐶𝑠 is the effective saturated air enthalpy at the water surface:

Page 9 of 11
 ℎ𝑠,𝑤,𝑖𝑛 − ℎ𝑠,𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝐶𝑠 ≡
𝑇𝑤,𝑖𝑛 − 𝑇𝑤,𝑜𝑢𝑡
𝐺 𝐶𝑠
𝐶𝑟 is the ratio of specific heats: 𝐶𝑟 = 𝐿 𝐶
𝑝𝑤

1 − exp(−𝑁𝑇𝑈(1 − 𝐶𝑟 ))
𝜖𝑎 =
1 − 𝐶𝑟 ⋅ exp(−𝑁𝑇𝑈(1 − 𝐶𝑟 ))

𝑞 = 𝐾𝑎 ⋅ 𝑉𝑇 ⋅ (Δℎ)𝑙𝑚 = 𝐿 ⋅ (𝑇𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑒𝑓𝑓. ) ⋅ (Δℎ)𝑙𝑚

(Δℎ)𝑙𝑚 is the log mean enthalpy difference, it is an analogy to the log mean temperature difference
and it has a similar definition and calculation formula.
Δℎ2 − Δℎ1
(Δℎ)𝑙𝑚 =
Δℎ
𝑙𝑛 2
Δℎ1
As an illustration, the(Δℎ)𝑙𝑚 for the standard rating condition (37 /32 / 29°C) and site test
condition (28.5 / 24.5 / 19.5) are calculated.

Top, station 1 Bottom, station 2

[kJ/kg] (Δℎ)𝑙𝑚
ℎ𝑠,𝑤 ℎ𝑎 Δℎ ℎ𝑠,𝑤 ℎ𝑎 Δℎ
Design 143.294 118.682 24.6121 110.985 94.882 16.103 20.06
Test 1 92.431 76.635 15.795 74.446 55.889 18.557 17.14
Test 2 92.431 78.061 14.370 74.446 55.889 18.557 16.37
Table 6. Calculation of log mean enthalpy difference for the design condition & site test condition

From the calculation, the log mean enthalpy difference for the test is found to be approximately
83% (16.6 kJ/kg / 20.0 kJ/kg). Because the cooling tower is tested in part load, the log mean
enthalpy difference is smaller than the design value (20.06 kJ/kg).

Of course, when the entering and leaving water temperatures are measured, the amount of heat
transfer can be most conveniently calculated using the 𝑚̇𝐶 Δ𝑇 formula.

CONCLUSION
A simplified calculation procedure of cooling tower performance is presented. It shows that the
Merkel cooling tower theory and Braun derivation of the formulae are sufficiently accurate for most
HVAC engineering applications. Using this procedure, especially when performing the calculation
with Excel, the tower coefficient, leaving water temperature, leaving air enthalpy and heat rejection
of a cooling tower can be quickly and conveniently calculated. This paves the way for carrying
out optimization of cooling tower operation by mathematical optimization.

Page 10 of 11
REFERENCES
Baker, D. R., & Shryock, H. A. (1961). A comprehensive approach to the analysis of
cooling tower performance. Journal of Heat Transfer, 83(3), 339-349.
Braun, J. E. (1988). Methodologies for the design and control of central cooling
plants (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison).
Lu, L., Cai, W., Soh, Y. C., Xie, L., & Li, S. (2004). HVAC system optimization––
condenser water loop. Energy Conversion and Management, 45(4), 613-630.
McQuiston, F. C., Parker, J. D., & Spitler, J. D. (2005). Heating. Ventilating and Air
conditioning: Design and analysis, 6th edition, John Wily, NY. Chapter 13.
Morvay, Z., & Gvozdenac, D. (2008). Applied industrial energy and environmental
management (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Stoecker, W. F. (1976) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers. Task Group on Energy Requirements for Heating and Cooling of Buildings.
(1976). Procedures for simulating the performance of components and systems for energy
calculations. W. F. Stoecker (Ed.). ASHRAE.
Wang, S. K. (2000). Handbook of air conditioning and refrigeration. Chapter 10, Sections
9 to 13.

Page 11 of 11