Membrane Evaporative Cooling to 30
C or Less

2. Membrane Evaporative Air Cooling

SIDNEY LOEB
P.O. Box 41, Omer, Israel

ABSTRACT: Microporous hydrophobic membranes were examined for use in

steady state membrane evaporative air cooling. The examination consisted of
calculating membrane performance as a function of overall heat and mass
transfer coefficients already obtained and reported in Part 1 (previous paper,
this volume). This performance was compared with that obtained by similar
calculations made on existing evaporative air coolers. It was found that the
cooling performance of the membrane evaporative air cooler was not as good
as that of the existing evaporative air cooler. This is to be expected since the
existing cooler has only one resistance, the air boundary layer (ABL), whereas
the membrane cooler has the ABL and the membrane resistance. However, the
membrane air cooler has advantages, such as appreciably lower water con-
sumption and operation under more sanitary conditions, that is, without inti-
mate conjunction of flowing air and liquid water on solid surfaces.
KEYWORDS: evaporative air cooling; microporous hydrophobic membranes;
membrane evaporative air cooling
NOMENCLATURE:
See also Part 1 (previous paper, this volume)
ABL air boundary layer
EXC existing air cooler (porous canvas)
f final condition
i initial condition
MC membrane air cooler (microporous hydrophobic membrane)
2
m perm total permeation area of all capillary tubes, m 2
2
m cs,avail total available cross-sectional area for air flow
x2 cross-sectional area of imaginary square just containing one
capillary tube, m 2 (see APPENDIX 2)

GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR COMPARING PERFORMANCES OF

EXISTING AND MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE AIR COOLERS

Initial Air Properties

As shown in FIGURE 1, hot desert air is assumed to enter the apparatus (tempera-
ture 32°C, relative humidity 22%).

Address for correspondence: Sidney Loeb, P.O. Box 41, Omer 84965, Israel.
sidloeb@bgumail.bgu.ac.il

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 984: 528–538 (2003). ©2003 New York Academy of Sciences.
LOEB: MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE COOLING 2 529

FIGURE 1. General conditions for comparing performances of evaporative air coolers.

EXC, existing cooler (porous canvas); MC, membrane cooler (microporous hydrophobic).
530 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Ratio of Mass Rate of Air Flow to Permeation Area, kg/secm2

It was found by calculation that the liquid water temperature is close to the wet
bulb temperature of the incoming air. Hence, if the above ratio of air rate to perme-
ation area is inadequately low, the air may cool closely to its wet bulb temperature
but at the expense of economic utility. If the ratio is too high the amount of air cool-
ing will be insufficient. The calculations showed that the optimum value of this term
is of the order of 0.035kg/sec m2 (see APPENDIX 1).

FIGURE 2. Existing evaporative air cooler. Calculated using the methods of APPENDIX 1.
Overall transfer coefficients: heat, U = 0.0393 kJ/secm2 °C; mass, K = 0.0349 gmH2O
vapor/sec m2 W.
LOEB: MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE COOLING 2 531

The Overall Heat and Mass Transfer Coefficients for

Membrane Evaporative Air Cooling
These coefficients, shown in FIGURE 1, were determined in the first of these two
papers (previous paper, this volume). The difference in performance cited herein
between the existing and the membrane evaporative air cooler is due essentially to
the differences in these overall transfer coefficients.

COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING AND MEMBRANE

EVAPORATIVE AIR COOLERS

FIGURE 1 shows six terms to be evaluated. The procedure for this is shown in
APPENDIX 1. The results are shown in FIGURES 2 and 3, which give the performance
of existing and membrane evaporative air coolers, respectively. These data enable
comparison between the two types of coolers.
The comparison is quantified in TABLE 1. According to Column 5 of this table,
the air temperature decrease for the membrane air cooler was only (7.8/11.2)(100) =
70% that of the existing cooler. This ratio was the same for Column 6 and for
Column 9. In this last column the criterion was kilowatts of cooling per square meter
of permeation area. Thus, it is clear that the membrane evaporative air cooler does
not function as well as the existing air cooler.

TENTATIVE DESIGN OF A MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE AIR COOLER

The cooler is assumed to be a shell and capillary tube device, the flows occurring
within a duct having a square cross-section with dimensions as shown in FIGURE 4.
The air and water flows are parallel to the capillary tubes, that is, the long dimension
of the duct. The water is supplied from within the capillary tubes and the air flows
through the space between the tubes. The flow rates of air and water are not counter-
current, as is common in a heat exchanger, for example, because, as we have seen,
the temperature of the water is virtually constant throughout the length of the flow
path, that is, the length of the capillary tube.
Two questions arise from considerations of the optimum properties of the cooler.

Choice of Air Velocity

In the tests discussed in the water cooling paper, the air rate was 3 meters per sec-
ond, impinging at 90° on the permeation surface. Because in the air cooling process,
the air flow is parallel to the permeation surface, it is assumed herein that the transfer
coefficients for cooling air is the same as those chosen for cooling water if the par-
allel flow rate of air is twice that in air cooling, that is, 6 meters per second.

The Influence of Capillary Tube Diameter on Performance

The shell cross-section area is (0.5)2 = 0.25 m2. If the total cross-sectional area of
all the capillary tubes is vanishingly small compared to the total cross-sectional area,
the total air flow rate will be (0.25)(6) = 1.50 m3/sec.
532 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

In APPENDIX 2 calculations are shown for the influence of various capillary tube
diameters on total volumetric air flow rate and other properties, with the results
shown in TABLE 2. As can be seen the total volumetric air flow rate decreases slowly
with increasing tube diameter, but at 0.005meters approaches a limit for allowable
tube diameter because of decreasing volumetric air flow rate. The required number
of tubes diminishes with increasing tube diameter because the total permeation area
of all the tubes is constant at about 50square meters. FIGURE 4 shows the dimension
of the tentative cooler and relevant data for the cooler if the tube outer diameter is
0.002 m.

FIGURE 3. Membrane evaporative air cooler. Calculated using the methods of

APPENDIX 1. Overall transfer coefficients: heat, U = 0.0315 kJ/secm2 °C; mass, K =
0.0164gmH2O vapor/sec m2 W.
TABLE 1. Comparative performance of existing and membrane evaporative air coolers
Evaporative Overall Transfer Air Temperature Decrease Relative Humidity, RH% Unit Refrigeration
Air Cooler Coefficients Initial dry bulb temperature, TDB,i = 32 Initial Rate
Type Initial wet bulb temperature, TWB,i = 17.6 RH = 22% kJ/sec m2 =
Max. possible temp. decrease, 32 − 17.6 = 14.4 kilowatts/m2
Heat, U Mass, K
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
final air air temp. percent of final relative relative humidity Notes 1 and 2
temperature, °C decrease, °C maximum humidity increase, RHf
TDB,f TDB,i − TDB,f possible temp.
decrease
LOEB: MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE COOLING 2

FIGURES 2 and 3 32 − Col. 4 ( 100 ) ( Col. 5 ) FIGURES 2 and 3 (Col. 7 − 22) (0.035)(1.01)
---------------------------------
( 14.4 ) (Col. 5)
Existing 0.0393 0.0349 20.8 11.2 78 70 48 0.40
(FIG. 2)
Membrane 0.0315 0.0164 24.2 7.8 54 52 30 0.28
(FIG. 3)
NOTE 1: The value 0.035 is in FIGURES 1, 2, and 3; 1.01 kJ/kg°C is the specific heat of air.
NOTE 2: Tons of refrigeration per square meter of permeation area, Column 9/3.51.
533
534 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

FIGURE 4. Characteristics of a (tentative) shell and capillary tube evaporative air

cooler. Example: tube outer diameter, 0.002 m; see APPENDIX 2 and TABLE 2.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions are very similar to those of the first paper (previous paper, this
volume), that on evaporative water cooling. A membrane evaporative air cooler
would not work as well as an existing (canvas) air cooler, nor be as cheap. However,
the membrane cooler would be less subject to viral or bacterial contamination
because contact between air and liquid water would be eliminated.
Water consumption would tend to be less because it is virtually restricted to vapor
transmission through the membrane, there being no liquid water seepage through
it. However, a small amount of liquid water would have to be released on the down-
stream side of the unit to prevent precipitation of concentrated solutes inside the
capillary tubes.
LOEB: MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE COOLING 2 535

TABLE 2. Influence of capillary tube diameter on membrane evaporative air cooler of

FIGURE 4a,b
Assumed Total Volumetric Required Total Permeation Permeation Area
Capillary Tube Air Flow Rate Number of Area of all Packing Density c
Diameter, m m3 air/sec Capillary Tubes Capillary Tubes
0 1.50 none 0 0
0.001 1.46 8,030 50.5 101
0.002 1.42 3,900 49 98
0.005 1.32 1,570 49 99
a Air velocity 6 m/sec.
b 0.035 kg air/sec m 2.
c Cooler dimensions of FIGURE 4. The cooler volume is 0.5 m3.

APPENDIX 1:
CALCULATION OF AIR COOLER PERFORMANCE

Example: Existing Evaporative Air Cooler (Porous Canvas)

FIGURE 1 shows the given terms for the calculation. There are six unknown terms
shown in the figure: W H O, i , W H O, f , T H O, f , T H O, i , TDB,f, and Wf. (The terms
2 2 2 2
TWB,f and RHf are obtained from a psychrometric chart, FIGURE 5 of Part 1.) The sub-
scripts i and f refer to initial and final conditions.
As can be seen, on the liquid water side the unknown terms are inside the cooler.
This is because the externally added liquid water is scarcely more than sufficient for
evaporation needs, so that changes, if any, in water temperature, T H O , and water
2
equivalent humidity ratio, W H O , occur within the air cooler. In the following equa-
2
tions, the small overall sensible heat changes in the liquid water passing through the
cooler are not considered.
The six equations for the six unknown terms are as follows:
W H O, i = 0.948T H O, i – 3.53 (1.1)
2 2

WH = 0.948T H – 3.53. (1.2)

2 O, f 2 O, f
Equations (1.1) and (1.2) are for straight lines representing conditions on the satura-
tion curve of FIGURE 5 of Part 1 over the short range 15° to 25°.
K ( W H O, i – 6.5 )2.46 = U ( 32 – T H O, i ) (1.3)
2 2

K (W H – W f )2.46 = U ( T DB, f – T H f ), (1.4)

2 O, f 2 O,

where 2.46kJ/gm is the latent heat of vaporization of water, W = 0.0393 kJ/sec m2 °C,
K = 0.0349 gm H2O vapor/secm2 W. K and U are the overall mass and heat transfer
coefficients, respectively, those shown in FIGURE 4 of the previous paper.
Equations (1.3) and (1.4) state that the flux of latent heat in the water vapor per-
meating the membrane, kJ/secm2, is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to
the flux of sensible heat permeating the membrane due to the temperature difference
between the air and the liquid water (see FIG. 4).
536 ANNALS NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

K
0.035 ( W f – 6.5 ) = ( W H – 6.5 ) ---- .
– W f + WH (1.5)
2 O, f 2 O,
2 i

According to (1.5), the mass flow rate of water vapor per unit area, gmH2O/sec
m2, added to the independently variable flow rate of air passing longitudinally
through the apparatus (FIG. 1) is equal to the average mass flux over the entire appa-
ratus of water permeating perpendicularly through the membrane into the air. The
0.035 term (kgair/sec m2) shown in FIGURE 2 was found to be about optimum in giv-
ing both adequate air flow rate and adequate air cooling simultaneously, a subject
raised in the next section.
1.01 ( 32 – T DB, f ) = 2.46 ( W f – 6.5 ), (1.6)
where 1.01kJ/kg°C is the specific heat of air. Equation (1.6) states that the overall
sensible cooling of a kilogram of air in the longitudinally-moving airstream is equal
to the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor finally added to this kilogram
of air.
These six equations were solved for the existing (porous canvas) evaporative air
cooler of FIGURE 2. From the values thus obtained for the final dry bulb temperature,
TDB,f, and final humidity ratio, Wf, both at the outlet air stream, the values of TWB,f
and RHf can be determined from the psychrometric chart (FIG. 5 of Part 1).
Similar performance calculations were made for the membrane evaporative air
cooler, the principal difference being the values of 0.0315 and 0.0164 for the heat
and mass transfer coefficients, respectively.

APPENDIX 2:
RELEVANT AIR COOLER PROPERTIES AS AFFECTED BY
CAPILLARY TUBE DIAMETER (TABLE 2)

The selected air velocity in the shell and capillary tube cooler is 6meters per sec-
ond. We have also chosen 0.035kilograms of air per second for each square meter of
2
permeation area. Let m perm denote the total permeation area of all the tubes. Then
the velocity can be expressed as follows:
2
0.035 m perm
------------- ------------------- = 6,
1.19 m 2
cs avail
where 1.19kg air/m3 is the standard density of air and m cs 2
avail is the total available
cross-section area for air flow after taking the capillary tube cross-sectional area into
account. The above relation may be written
2
m perm
------------------
- = 207. (2.1)
m cs 2
avail
Now consider a capillary tube having any given external diameter, say, 0.002
meters. The cross-section of the tube can be considered to be centered within a
square having an area of x2 meters. Then
2 2 π- ( 0.002 ) 2
m cs avail/tube = x – --
4
(2.2)

and
LOEB: MEMBRANE EVAPORATIVE COOLING 2 537

2
m perm/tube = 2π ( 0.002 ), (2.3)
where the cooler length is 2meters.
Equations (2.2) and (2.3) are substituted in (2.1) to obtain x = 0.008 meters. Then,
−5 2
avail/tube , is 6.09 × 10 m /tube. The volumetric
2
by (2.2) the unit available area, m cs
−5 −5
air flow rate per tube is (6)6.09× 10 = 36.5 × 10 m /sec tube.
3
The cross-sectional area of the shell is (0.5)(0.5) = 0.25 m2. Thus, the total num-
ber of capillary tubes is 0.25/(0.008)2 = 3,900 tubes, where (0.008)2 is the area of
one square associated with a capillary tube.
The total volumetric air flow rate for the cooler is (3,900)36.5× 10−5 =
1.42 m3/sec. The total permeation area for all the tubes is, by (2.3), (3,900)(π)
(0.002)(2) = 49 m2. The cooler volume is (2)(0.5)(0.5) = 0.5 m3. Thus, the air cooler
packing density is 49/0.5 = 98 m2 of tube permeation area per cubic meter of cooler.