Accepted Manuscript

Research Paper

A Novel Approach for Performance Assessment of Mechanical Draft Wet Cool-

ing Towers

B. Kiran Naik, P. Muthukumar

PII: S1359-4311(17)30953-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.04.042
Reference: ATE 10191

To appear in: Applied Thermal Engineering

Received Date: 13 February 2017

Revised Date: 11 April 2017
Accepted Date: 12 April 2017

Please cite this article as: B. Kiran Naik, P. Muthukumar, A Novel Approach for Performance Assessment of
Mechanical Draft Wet Cooling Towers, Applied Thermal Engineering (2017), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.applthermaleng.2017.04.042

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
1 A Novel Approach for Performance Assessment of

2 Mechanical Draft Wet Cooling Towers

3 B. Kiran Naik1, *P. Muthukumar1,

1
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering

5 Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati, Assam, 781039, India.

6 Abstract

7 Wet cooling tower is one of the key components of large scale water cooled air conditioning

8 plants, whose efficiency influence the COP of the plant to a large extent. This study proposes

9 a simple analytical model for calculating the amount of water taken up by the ambient air in a

10 cross – flow wet cooling tower. An expression is derived using the condenser and the cooling

11 tower effectiveness, to estimate the water evaporation loss of the cooling tower in terms of

12 known inlet parameters. The model predictions are compared with experimental data and

13 good agreement is observed. Also, good agreement exists between the predictions from the

14 analytical model and experimental findings available in the literature. The influence of

15 operating parameters such as water inlet temperature, relative humidity, air dry bulb

16 temperature and specific humidity on the evaporation loss, heat load and tower efficiency are

17 investigated for a humid subtropical climate. The results show that the above listed operating

18 parameters, except air dry bulb temperature have a significant impact on the performance of

19 the cooling tower. Furthermore, influences of refrigerant inlet temperature, thermal

20 effectiveness of the cooling tower and condenser effectiveness on the performance of the wet

21 cooling tower are also investigated.

22

* Author for correspondence: Email: pmkumar@iitg.ernet.in, pmuthukumar@yahoo.com

Tel: +91-361-2582673, Fax: +91-361-2690762
23 Keywords:

24 Cross – flow wet cooling tower, Humidification effectiveness, Evaporation loss,

25 Mathematical modelling, Thermal effectiveness, Heat load, Cooling tower efficiency

26 1. Introduction

27 Wet cooling tower is a key element of a water cooled air-conditioning plant for removing heat

28 from the warm water that exits the condenser. Although many technologies are available for

29 the heat rejection process, wet cooling towers are more attractive due to their flexibility in

30 handling large heat loads (> 100 TR or 352 kW). Also, they are relatively inexpensive and

31 reliable [1].

32 Wet cooling towers work on the principle of evaporative cooling where ambient air is

33 humidified and warm water is cooled due to heat and mass transfer interactions between

34 them. The driving potential for heat transfer is the temperature difference between the

35 ambient air and the water whereas for the mass transfer it is the vapour pressure difference.

36 The heat and mass transfer processes in a cross – flow wet cooling tower are complex; they

37 have been studied by several researchers since 1925. The first mathematical model for the

38 heat and mass transfer processes in wet cooling towers was proposed by Merkel [2]. Using

39 Merkel’s theory, analysis on counter – flow, cross – flow and co-flow cooling towers have

40 been studied widely. Depending on the usage and the superior performance, counter – flow

41 towers got more attention compared to other types [3]. Snyder [4] developed a cross – flow

42 cooling tower model by applying the theory for design of heat exchangers to calculate the

43 heat and mass transfer characteristics. The author assumed a linear relationship between the

44 water temperature and the saturated air enthalpy.

45 Zivi and Brand [5] developed a model using the finite difference method and solved it

46 numerically assuming a nonlinear relationship between the air enthalpy and the water
47 temperature. Schechter and Kang [6] used the model developed by Zivi and Brand and

48 concluded that the temperature of water and the saturated air enthalpy are at equilibrium for a

49 certain period. Later, an integral solution was proposed by Baker and Shryock [7] based on

50 Merkel’s theory. Poppe and Rogener [8] developed an iterative method which is entirely

51 different from Merkel’s model. They utilized the Bosnjakovic relation [9] to study the water-

52 air interface humidity ratio. Similarly, Bourillot [10] and Baard [11] also developed

53 mathematical models using a fourth order Runge-Kutta approach for defining the specific

54 humidity at the outlet of the packed fill. Few years later, Jaber and Webb [12] developed

55 several equations for applying the ε-NTU method directly to a cross – flow cooling tower.

56 This effectiveness model simplifies complicated calculations which are encountered in the

57 Merkel and Poppe method [2, 8] and reduces the computational time. However, for the

58 assessment of performance of cooling towers employed in large scale power plants, the

59 Poppe method is still very popular [13].

60 Kopplers and Kroger [9] compared the Merkel, Poppe and ε-NTU models. They concluded

61 that to determine the water temperature at the outlet of the cooling tower either the Merkel or

62 ε-NTU method should be used, but for the estimation of the heat transfer rate, the prediction

63 through the Poppe approach was more accurate. Khan and Zubair [14-15] considered the

64 effects of Lewis number and heat transfer resistance at the air-water interface and developed

65 a detailed model for counter – flow wet cooling towers. They assumed the Lewis factor as 0.9

66 and correlated with the Simpson and Sherwood [16] measurements. Prasad [17] developed a

67 numerical model to estimate the packed fill characteristics across a cross – flow cooling

68 tower. Bernier [18] explained the performance of a cooling tower by examining the heat and

69 mass transfer mechanism from a single water droplet to the ambient air. However, the author

70 did not consider the effect of air temperature when the droplet is moved from the bottom to

71 the top of the tower. Nimr [19] presented a mathematical model to describe the thermal
72 behaviour of cooling towers that contain packing materials accounting both for sensible and

73 latent heat transfer effects. Xiao Li et al. [20] developed a dynamic model based on the finite

74 volume method for control design as well as faults detection and diagnostics of a mechanical

75 draft cooling tower. Ren [21] presented an analytical solution of a detailed model for

76 mechanical draft wet cooling towers, which takes into consideration the Lewis factor and

77 water evaporation. Fisenko et al. [22] developed a mathematical model that optimizes the

78 performance of a mechanical draft wet cooling tower under different atmospheric conditions.

79 Wetter [23] proposed a model using static mapping technique for investigating the

80 performance of a York cooling tower.

81 Meroney [24], Hanna [25] and Policastro et al. [26] predicted the drift and droplet

82 evaporation using CFD model. They studied the droplet deposition patterns which leads to

83 spread of legionella bacteria in a cooling tower. Sanchez [27] numerically predicted the

84 lifetime of droplets emitted from the mechanical draft wet cooling towers and addressed the

85 issue of Legionnaires' disease. Ruiz et al. [28] investigated the evaporation loss and drift

86 deposition from the mechanical draft wet cooling towers and developed a drift deposition

87 model for studying the impact of Legionnaires' disease in the urban environments. Their

88 model predictions found to have good agreement with the experimentally measured data.

89 Consuegro et al. [29] developed a numerical model for studying the impact of water droplet

90 evaporation, drift and deposition of droplets emitted (which causes to spread of Legionella

91 bacteria) by the wet cooling towers on buildings.

92 Many mathematical models for predicting the performance of a wet cooling tower have been

93 developed. These models are complex in nature and require numerous data for estimating the

94 parameters. In this paper, dimensionless humidification and thermal effectiveness of the wet

95 cooling tower, suitable for air humidification using a warm fluid (water), are defined. Also, a
96 simple analytical solution is obtained for estimating the water evaporation loss from the

97 warm water to the ambient air (rate of moisture absorption) using the specific heat capacity

98 rates of the fluids, dimensionless thermal effectiveness of the wet cooling tower,

99 effectiveness of the condenser and known inlet temperatures of the ambient air, warm water

100 and refrigerant. Furthermore, the wet cooling tower efficiency and the heat load

101 characteristics of a cross – flow mechanical draft wet cooling tower are expressed in terms of

102 condenser effectiveness and known inlet temperatures of the ambient air, warm water and

103 refrigerant.

104 2. Dimensionless performance parameters for air humidification process

105 The purpose of the ambient air humidification process is to transfer the latent heat from the

106 water to the ambient air where the specific humidity (moisture) of the ambient air increases

107 during this process of vaporization. Many operating parameters such as, relative humidity of

108 the ambient air, flow rates of ambient air and water and inlet temperatures of ambient air and

109 water influence the performance of the wet cooling tower. The driving force for the heat

110 transfer between the water and the ambient air is the temperature difference, whereas the

111 driving force for mass transfer is the difference in partial pressure between the water and the

112 water vapour present in the ambient air. These driving forces depend upon the changes in the

113 local temperature and the liquid-vapour interface equilibrium condition.

114 The vapour pressure of the ambient air is an important property since it influences the mass

115 transfer rate. It is to be noted that the determination of the humidity ratio at the air-water

116 interface using the finite difference model needs the assumption of Lewis number or Merkel

117 number [2-5]. In fact, for defining the humidity ratio at the interface, Merkel method assumes

118 the Lewis number as 1.0 [13]. Khan and Zubair [14-15] estimated the Lewis number as 0.9
119 and some researchers determined the Lewis number in terms of humidity ratio at the interface

120 using Bosnjakovic’s relation [8].

121 In the present study, the humidity ratio at the air-water interface is defined in terms of

122 evaporation loss and specific humidity of the air at the inlet. For this purpose, two new

123 dimensionless variables, humidification effectiveness and thermal effectiveness are

124 introduced. Further, the proposed variables are used for characterizing the simultaneous heat

125 and mass transfer processes occurring in between the hot water and the ambient air instead of

126 using dimensionless parameter, Lewis number. Since, the ambient air temperature is always

127 lower than the water inlet temperature, the warm water is sprayed in the cooling tower for the

128 heat rejection process. Hence, along with the evaporation process, heat is also rejected due to

129 the temperature difference between the water and the ambient air. Thus, two performance

130 parameters related to heat and mass transfer processes are to be defined as non-dimensional

131 ratios, one for the temperature difference and another one for the vapour pressure difference.

132 A non-dimensional specific humidity difference ratio or humidification effectiveness (ζ) for

133 the evaporation process is defined in terms of the ambient air specific humidity as

o  i
 (1)
max  i

134 As the specific humidity at the air – water equilibrium interface (ωint), i.e. for ϕa = ϕw at a

135 given temperature, sets the maximum possible (theoretical) limit that the specific humidity of

136 ambient air can achieve, it is formulated as

int  max (2)

137 Eq. (1) can be rewritten as

 o  i
 (3)
int  i

138 The partial pressure of the warm water at the inlet of the wet cooling tower is greater than

139 that of the water vapour present in the inlet ambient air. Thus, the partial pressure of water at

140 inlet is set as a maximum limit that the partial pressure of the ambient air can achieve and it is

141 expressed as

a,o,max  w,i (4)

142 Since the specific humidity of the ambient air is a function of partial pressures of the water

143 vapour and the ambient air [31], Eq. (1) is reformulated in terms of the vapour pressure

144 difference ratio as

a ,o  a ,i
 (5)
w,i  a ,i

145 Since the value of ϕw,i is greater than ϕa,o, the specific humidity difference ratio is always less

146 than 1 and positive.

147 The temperature difference ratio or thermal effectiveness (ξ) of the wet cooling tower, is

148 formulated according to the non-dimensional vapour pressure difference ratio as defined in

149 Eq. (5), to attain a simplified relationship, viz.

Ta ,o  Ta ,i
 (6)
Tw,i  Ta ,i

150 The outlet temperature of the ambient air is less than the temperature of the water at the inlet

151 and greater than that of the inlet ambient air (Table 1). Hence ξ is always positive and less

152 than 1. In this paper, aforementioned dimensionless performance parameters are combined
153 with the energy balance equation to obtain a simple expression for predicting the rate of

154 moisture evaporated from the warm water to the ambient air in terms of known inlet

155 temperatures and specific heat capacity rates of the fluids.

156 3. Mathematical modelling

157 The schematic of a cross – flow heat and mass transfer process occurring between the

158 ambient air and the water is represented in Fig.1. The following assumptions are made in

159 order to simplify the analysis

160  Operation is steady.

161  Variation of thermo – physical properties of the fluids with respect to temperature is

162 considered to be negligible.

163  Change in mass flow rate of water and air are negligible [13, 14].

164  Heat loss to the surroundings is neglected.

165 The overall energy balance for the wet cooling tower can be written as (see Fig. 1)

mwhw  mw (hw  dhw )  ma ha  ma (ha  dha ) (7)

or :  dhw  dha (7a)

166 3.1 Air side

167 The enthalpy on the air side is given by

ha (Ta , )  C p,aTa  (C p,vTa   ) (8)

168 where ha is enthalpy of ambient air (kJ/kg), Cp,a and Cp,v are specific heat of ambient air and

169 water vapour at constant pressure (kJ/kg°C), T a is temperature of ambient air (°C) and δ
170 latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg). Specific humidity (or moisture content) ω, is the mass of

171 water vapour present in the unit mass of dry air (kgv/kgda).

172 Differentiation of Eq.8 results in

dha  (C p,a  C p,v )dTa  d(C p,vTa   ) (9)

173 3.2 Water side

174 The enthalpy on the water side is given by

hw (Tw )  C p,wTw (10)

175 Differentiation of Eq.10 results in

dhw  C p,wdTw (11)

176 Substituting Eq. (9) & (11) in (7a), the overall energy balance is obtained as

ma (C p,a  C p ,v )dTa  d (C p ,vTa   )   mwC p ,wdTw (12)

177 Eq.12 can be integrated as

Ta ,o a ,o Tw ,o (13)
 m (C
Ta ,i
a p ,a  C p ,v )dTa   m (C
a ,i
a T   )d    mwC p ,w dTw
p ,v a
Tw ,i

178 where Ta ~ Ta,i

179 After integrating Eq.13, the final equation can be obtained as

 ma (C p,a  a,iC p,v )(Ta,o  Ta,i )  ma (C p,vTa,i   )(a ,o  a ,i )  mwCp ,w (Tw,i  Tw,o ) (14)

180 From Eq. (6), the air temperature at the outlet of the wet cooling tower is written as

Ta,o  Tw,i  Ta,i (1   ) (15)

181 3.3 Condenser effectiveness

182 The water outlet temperature of the wet cooling tower in terms of known refrigerant and

183 water inlet temperatures, can be obtained from the condenser effectiveness [30]

Tw,i  Tw,o
 (16)
Tr  Tw,o

184 The water outlet temperature in terms of refrigerant temperature, water inlet temperature, and

185 condenser effectiveness is obtained as

Tw,i   Tr (17)
Tw,o 
(1   )

186 3.4 Evaporation loss

187 The rate at which the vaporization of water takes place inside the wet cooling tower is

188 referred as evaporation loss (λ) and is given by

d   ma d (18)

189 After integrating Eq.18, the evaporation loss is written as

  ma (a,o  a,i ) (19)

190 By replacing in Eq.14, Ta,o, Tw,o and λ, from Eqs, (15), (17) and (19), respectively, the amount

191 of evaporation loss from the warm water to the ambient air is expressed as

  1  w (Tr  Tw,i )   a (Tw,i  Ta ,i )  (20)

192 where   (  C p ,vTa ,i ) ,  w  mwc pw and  a  ma (c pa  a,i c pv )

193 By equating Eqs. (20) & (19), the outlet specific humidity of the ambient air is obtained as

a ,o    m   a ,i (21)
 a

194 where    w (Tr  Tw,i )   a (Tw,i  Ta ,i ).

195 From Eqs. 3 and 21, the specific humidity at the air-water equilibrium interface is obtained as

int   m    a ,i (22)

 a 

196

197 3.5 Heat load

198 The amount of heat rejected from water to the ambient air is termed as heat load and is

199 expressed as

dq   wdTw (23)

200

201 After integrating Eq.23, the heat load is obtained as

q   w (Tw,i  Tw,o ) (24)

202 Substituting Eq. 17 in Eq. 24, the heat load in terms of water inlet temperature, refrigerant

203 temperature and condenser effectiveness is formulated as

  w (Tr  Tw,i ) (25)
q
(1   )

204 3.6 Tower efficiency

205 The thermal efficiency of the wet cooling tower is given by [31]

Tw,i  Tw,o (26)


Tw,i  TWBT

206 Substituting Eq. 17 in Eq. 26, the efficiency in terms of condenser effectiveness and

207 refrigerant, water inlet and wet bulb temperature is obtained as

 (Tr  Tw,i ) (27)


(1   )(Tw,i  TWBT )

208 4. Experimental apparatus and procedure

209 An existing vapour compression refrigeration system at IIT Guwahati campus providing

210 conditioned air for part of the academic buildings has been the object of investigation. The

211 schematic, the pictorial view and the distribution of temperature and humidity ratio

212 measuring points of the cross – flow mechanical draft wet cooling tower are shown in Figs.

213 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c). This cooling tower has the dimensions of 1.2 3.2 2.7 m with 2.43 m

214 fill height. The fills are pack – type and made up of PVC material. Warm water exiting the

215 condenser is pumped by a centrifugal pump and enters at the top of the cooling tower. Water

216 is distributed uniformly across the packing material through a spray nozzle; droplets of water

217 come in contact with ambient air flowing in a cross – flow direction. The cold water is

218 collected at the bottom of the tower and sent back to the condenser, where the water takes up

219 heat from the refrigerant of the vapour compression refrigeration system (R134a) and is re-
220 circulated to the cooling tower. A centrifugal fan situated on top of the cooling tower blows

221 the humidified air into the atmosphere. The operating conditions of the tower are listed in

222 Table 1.

223 Four T-type thermocouples are placed at the inlet and outlet of the condenser for measuring

224 the temperature of the refrigerant and the water. A sling psychrometer is used for measuring

225 the dry and wet bulb temperatures of the ambient air at the inlet and outlet of the cooling

226 tower. The velocity of the ambient air is measured at the top of the cooling tower by means of

227 a rotating vane anemometer. While measuring the ambient air velocity, Log Tchebycheff

228 Method [32] is implemented. An ultrasonic flow meter is used for measuring the water

229 velocity at the inlet of the tower. Table 2 lists the details of the different measuring devices in

230 the experimental setup.

231 4.1 Working principle

232 The schematic of a cross – flow mechanical draft cooling tower for evaporative cooling is

233 shown in Fig. 2(a). Initially, the warm water sprayed at the top of the cooling tower comes in

234 contact with the ambient air flowing in cross – flow direction. Due to the partial pressure

235 difference, evaporation of water takes place. During this process of vaporization, latent heat

236 of water is released to the air and the air gets humidified. As a result, the water gets cooled,

237 and depending on the water temperature, either the air gets cooled or heated. The cold water

238 exiting the cooling tower enters the condenser (Fig. 1), where it is heated up due to heat

239 exchange between the refrigerant and the water. Then, the warm water is pumped into the

240 cooling tower and the process continues.

241 4.2 Uncertainty in measurement

242 The maximum possible errors in various measuring parameters such as dry and wet bulb

243 temperatures, air and water velocities, water and refrigerant temperatures are estimated from

244 the minimum value of the measurement range and the accuracy of the instrument. The errors

245 in estimated parameters such as air and water flow rate, evaporation loss, heat load and

246 cooling tower efficiency are calculated using the method proposed by Mc Clintok [33] and

247 the uncertainties involved in the aforementioned parameters are obtained using Eq. 28, Eq.

248 29, Eq. 30, Eq. 31 and Eq.32. Accordingly, the maximum errors in the determination of

249 ambient air and water flow rates, evaporation loss, heat load and tower efficiency are 2 %,

250 3 %, 3 %, 5 % and 3 %.

251 The uncertainty in mass flow rate of ambient air and water are calculated using Eq. 28.

2
 m   m   m 
2 2

m       A    v  (28)
    A   v 

252 The density of water is taken as constant. Therefore, the uncertainty in the mass flow rate is

253 calculated using uncertainties in velocity and area, where the uncertainty in area

254 measurement is determined using Eq. 29

 A
2

A   d  (29)
 d 

255 The uncertainty in evaporation loss is calculated using Eq. 30

2
       
2 2

  2  ( )    v    A  (30)
 ( )   v   A 

256 The uncertainty in heat load is calculated using Eq. 31

 2
  Q 
2
 Q  Q 
2

Q   m    C p   2    T   (31)
 m 
  C p   (T ) 


257 As the specific heat of water (Cp) is constant, uncertainty in water flow rate and difference in

258 water temperature are taken into account for calculating the uncertainty in the heat load.

259 The Cooling tower efficiency uncertainty is calculated using Eq. 32

2 2
     
  2  (T1 )   2  (T2 )  (32)
 (T1 )   (T2 ) 

260 where ∆T1 = Tw,i – Tw,o and ∆T2 = Tw,i – TWBT

261 5. Model validation

262 In order to use the simplified mathematical model for estimating the heat load, the

263 evaporation loss, tower efficiency and all the other exit parameters of a cross – flow cooling

264 tower, validation is needed. Therefore, a comparison is made for 11 cases of the

265 experimentally determined values with the predicted values calculated by the simplified

266 model (Table 3). The experimental results are used for calculating the dimensionless

267 temperature difference ratio (ξ) and the condenser effectiveness (ɛ). It is observed that ξ

268 varies from 0.24-0.55 depending upon the weather conditions, whereas the condenser

269 effectiveness varies between 0.60-0.74. The latent heat of vaporization is assumed to be

270 constant at 2501 kJ/kg. The inlet parameters of the experimental data are used for predicting

271 the exit parameters of the wet cooling tower [13, 21].

272 With reference to the results obtained in Fig 3 (a – e), there is a good agreement between the

273 experimental values of water and air outlet temperatures, mass of water evaporated

274 (evaporation loss), heat load, tower efficiency and outlet specific humidity and the respective
275 ones predicted from the proposed model. In all the 11 cases, the predicted values for water

276 and air outlet temperature are slightly higher than the measured values whereas evaporation

277 loss, heat load and tower efficiency are slightly higher or lower. This deviation is mainly due

278 to the assumptions made in the analytical solution. Especially, there is a very good agreement

279 between the outlet conditions of temperature and humidity. From Fig. 3 (a), it is observed that

280 the simplified analytical model yields the outlet temperature of the ambient air slightly less

281 than the experimental values. The maximum deviation is -5.3 % and the mean deviation is -

282 3.5 %. The specific humidity of air at the outlet and the water outlet temperature deviate as

283 much as -1.8 % and -1.4 %, whereas the mean deviation is about 0.4 % and -0.01 % (Fig. 3

284 (a) and 3 (b)). The predicted evaporation loss has a maximum deviation of -7.2 % from the

285 experimental values, the mean deviation being about -1.8 % (Fig. 3 (c)). Slightly higher

286 discrepancies, up to -7.7 % and 7.5 % have been observed in case of heat load and tower

287 efficiency; however, the mean difference is still very low, at 0.5 % and -1.4 % (Fig. 3 (d) and

288 3(e)). From Table 3, the maximum difference for air and water outlet temperatures, outlet

289 specific humidity and evaporation loss are -1.7 C, - 0.4 C, -0.5 gv /kgda and -0.017 kg/s,

290 respectively whereas the mean difference is attained as -1.2 C, - 0.01 C, -0.12 gv /kgda and -

291 3.91 g/s.

292 Table 4 presents experimental data for an induced draft cooling tower analysed by Simpson

293 and Sherwood [16] and Xia Li et al. [20]. In addition, the predicted water outlet temperature

294 of the cooling tower using the novel analytical model is also included in this table. The

295 maximum difference for water outlet temperature is observed to be -1.8 C. Fig. 4 (a) and 4

296 (b) show the comparison of results from the analytical model with the experimental data of

297 [16,20] for water outlet temperature and tower efficiency. Using the data given in Table 4, the

298 predicted results for water outlet temperature and tower efficiency have a maximum deviation

299 of -6.0 % and 14.4 % and a mean deviation of -1.7 % and 5.1 %.
300 In figures 5 (a – i) the experimental results for evaporation loss, tower efficiency and heat

301 load are compared with the results from the analytical model in accordance with humid

302 subtropical climate. The variables that have most significant effect on cooling tower

303 performance are water and air inlet temperature and specific humidity. From Fig. 5 (a), it is

304 observed that the evaporation loss decreases with increase in specific humidity ratio of the

305 ambient inlet air. This is due to the fact that at higher humidity ratio, there will be higher

306 partial pressure of water vapour and subsequently, lower potential for mass transfer.

307 Increasing the specific humidity from 16.5 gv/kgda to 24.7 gv/kgda decreases the evaporation

308 loss by 57 %. As illustrated in Fig. 5(b), the evaporation loss increases with increase in water

309 inlet temperature. This can be explained by the fact that the partial pressure of water is highly

310 dependent on the temperature, and the higher the temperature the higher the partial pressure,

311 and consequently, the higher the potential for mass transfer. Increasing the water inlet

312 temperature from 34.5 °C to 39 °C, the evaporation loss is increased by 41 %. The

313 evaporation loss increases slightly with increase in air inlet temperature, up to about 33 °C;

314 then remains about constant (Fig. 5 (c)). It happens because higher air inlet temperature

315 provides higher scope for mass transfer at the air – water interface due to lower vapour

316 pressure existing in the air.

317 Fig. 5 (d) shows that the evaporation loss increases with increase in tower efficiency. This is

318 due to fact that at high tower efficiency there is a high potential for mass transfer at the air –

319 water interface. As a result there is high absorption of water vapour by the ambient air.

320 Increase in tower efficiency from 32.3 % to 52 % increases the evaporation loss by 44 %. The

321 tower efficiency decreases with increase in relative humidity (Fig. 5 (e)). This happens

322 because, a higher relative humidity implies higher vapour pressure of air and subsequently

323 lower potential for mass transfer from warm water to the ambient air. Increasing the relative

324 humidity from 59 % to 86.7 % decreases the tower efficiency by 36.5 %. With increase in
325 tower efficiency, the heat load increases (Fig. 5 (f)). This is because as the tower efficiency

326 increases, the heat transfer from warm water to the ambient air is increased due to high

327 temperature as well as partial pressure difference between the ambient air and the warm

328 water. Increase in efficiency from 29.3 % to 55 %, increases the heat load capacity by 27 %.

329 The heat load decreases with increase in the specific humidity ratio (Fig. 5 (g)). This is due to

330 the fact that higher specific humidity indicates a lower partial pressure of water and

331 subsequently, there is a less scope for releasing both sensible and latent loads. With increase

332 in specific humidity ratio from 16.5 gv/kgda to 26.8 gv/kgda the heat load decreases by 40 %. It

333 is observed from Fig. 5 (h) that, heat load increases with increase in water inlet temperature.

334 This happens because as the water inlet temperature increases, the partial pressure of water

335 increases and hence there is a higher potential for release of sensible and latent loads. For a

336 water inlet temperature increase from 34.5 °C to 39.0 °C, the heat load increases by 12.1 %.

337 The heat load decreases initially and then it increases gradually with increase in air inlet

338 temperature (Fig. 5 (i)). This happens because from 27 C to 31 C, the difference in dry bulb

339 and wet bulb temperature of the ambient air are low and from 31 C to 34 C, the difference

340 in these temperatures are high. Therefore, the heat load decreases from 27 C to 31 C and

341 then it increases from 31 C to 34 C.

342 Based on the comparison between experimental data and the predicted values, it is concluded

343 that the proposed analytical model is well suited for predicting the performance of a cross –

344 flow cooling tower without involving a complicated analysis.

345

346 6. Results and discussions

347 Many researchers [3-6, 7-10, 12-23] examined the influences of operating parameters such as

348 air inlet humidity ratio, air inlet temperature and specific humidity at the equilibrium

349 interface on the performance of the cooling tower in detail by implementing many

350 mathematical models. In this paper, with a novel simple model the influences of refrigerant

351 temperature, water inlet temperature, temperature difference ratio and the condenser

352 effectiveness on the performance of the cooling tower are studied by varying the water flow

353 rate. The design variables that have been kept constant during the study are listed in Table 5.

354 Figure 6 shows the results obtained for water evaporation loss at different water flow rates

355 and the refrigerant temperatures. The refrigerant temperature is varied from 38.0 C to 41.0

356 C. This is achieved by varying the compressor load or amount of heat added at the

357 evaporator. For a specific flow rate of water, as the refrigerant temperature increases, the

358 evaporative loss increases. This is due to the fact that when the latent load of the refrigerant at

359 the condenser increases, the water sensible load at the cooling tower decreases. This indicates

360 that the water has a longer period of contact with the ambient air and thereby resulting in high

361 evaporation loss.

362 It is found that increasing the refrigerant temperature from 38.0 C to 41.0 C, increases the

363 water evaporation loss by 77 %. Flow rate of the water causes negligible change in the

364 evaporation loss at lower refrigerant temperature and the variation is significant at higher

365 refrigerant temperatures. However, it may be noted that higher water flow rate is undesirable

366 because of potential over – flooding and it should be avoided for smooth operation of cooling

367 tower.

368 The influence of condenser effectiveness on the evaporation loss is shown in Fig.7. For the

369 given design variables, as the effectiveness of the condenser increases, the evaporation loss

370 also increases. This is due to the fact that as the condenser effectiveness increases, the water
371 outlet temperature of the cooling tower decreases and subsequently, there is a substantial

372 increase in water evaporation loss. For a particular water flow rate, decrease in condenser

373 effectiveness from 0.7 to 0.6, decreases the evaporation loss by 23 %.

374 Fig. 8 shows the variation in evaporation loss with water flow rate for different temperatures

375 of the warm water at the inlet. As the ambient temperature is low and relative humidity is

376 high at humid subtropical climate, the lowest possible warm water temperature is expected to

377 be 34.5 C; it is varied up to 37.5 C to study the effect of evaporation loss. It is found that

378 with increase in water inlet temperature, evaporation loss increases for a particular water flow

379 rate. This is explained by the fact that partial pressure of water is highly dependent on the

380 temperature, i.e., partial pressure increases with increase in temperature and subsequently

381 there is a higher scope for mass transfer between the water and the ambient air due to partial

382 pressure difference. Therefore, more vaporization of water takes place leading to higher

383 evaporation loss. For a given flow rate of water, increasing the water inlet temperature from

384 34.5 C to 37.5 C, the evaporation loss increases by 70 %. It is also observed that the flow

385 rate of water causes insignificant variation in the evaporation loss at lower water inlet

386 temperature and the effect is more pronounced at higher warm water inlet temperature.

387 Figure 9 shows the evaporation loss for different water flow rates and temperature difference

388 ratio (thermal effectiveness). For a given flow rate of water, as the thermal effectiveness

389 decreases, the evaporation loss increases, due to decrease in the water outlet temperature of

390 the cooling tower. For a given ξ of 0.65, the evaporation loss increases by about 29 % when

391 the flow rate of water is increased from 140 kg/s to 170 kg/s.

392 The results obtained for the heat load at different refrigerant temperatures and flow rates of

393 water is illustrated in Fig. 10. As the ambient temperature is low in humid subtropical

394 climates, the lowest value of refrigerant temperature is expected to be 38.0 C, it is varied up
395 to 41.0 C in order to investigate its influence on the heat load. For a given flow rate of water,

396 as the refrigerant temperature increases, the heat load also increases. This happens because,

397 by the definition of condenser effectiveness, when the refrigerant temperature increases, the

398 cooling water outlet temperature increases. This implies that more heat is transferred from the

399 refrigerant to the cold water and hence the heat load increases. Moreover, the flow rate of

400 water causes negligible variation in the heat load at lower refrigerant temperatures and the

401 effect is more pronounced at higher refrigerant temperatures. For a particular flow rate of

402 water, increasing the refrigerant temperature from 38.0 C to 41.0 C, the heat load is

403 increased by 72 %.

404 The effect of condenser effectiveness on heat load is shown in Fig. 11. For the given design

405 variables, as the effectiveness of the condenser increases, the heat load increases. This

406 happens because, as the effectiveness of the condenser increases, the effective heat transfer

407 between the refrigerant and the cold water is better leading to high cold water temperature at

408 the outlet of the cooling tower. As a consequence, there is a significant increase in the heat

409 load. For a given ɛ of 0.7, increasing the water flow rate from 140 kg/s to 170 kg/s, increase

410 the heat load by 19 %.

411 7. Conclusions

412 A simple thermodynamic model for analyzing the heat and mass transfer processes occurring

413 in a cross – flow induced draft wet cooling tower has been developed using dimensionless

414 performance parameters such as thermal effectiveness and humidification effectiveness. The

415 predicted performance of the cooling tower using the developed thermodynamic model

416 showed good agreement with experimental data. An analytical investigation of the

417 evaporative cooling process is carried out by varying the condenser effectiveness and thermal

418 effectiveness. It is observed that as the refrigerant temperature, inlet temperature of the water,
419 thermal effectiveness and the condenser effectiveness increase, the evaporation loss

420 increases. It is also observed that as the condenser effectiveness and refrigerant temperature

421 increase, the heat load decreases, whereas with increase in specific humidity ratio at the inlet,

422 the heat load decreases. The influence of refrigerant temperature on heat load, warm water

423 temperature on evaporation loss and relative humidity on tower efficiency are analyzed for a

424 humid subtropical climate. Accordingly, the effect of tower efficiency, evaporation loss and

425 heat load is more prominent at warm water and refrigerant temperatures of above 37 °C and

426 41.0 °C and a relative humidity of below 72 %. Also, with decrease in tower efficiency,

427 evaporation loss and amount of heat transferred from warm water to ambient air decreases.

428 The developed simple analytical model allows a quick calculation of wet cooling tower

429 performance characteristics such as evaporation loss, heat load, tower efficiency, outlet

430 specific humidity and outlet temperatures of ambient air and water, based on knowledge of

431 input parameters only (Ta,i, Tw,,i, Tr, a, w, and ωi), which can be easily measured. Further,

432 it is also possible to design a wet cooling tower using the proposed mathematical model.

433 8. Acknowledgments

434 The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Engineering Section, IIT Guwahati, Sterling

435 and Wilson Company Private Limited, Kolkata Branch for providing the necessary technical

436 support during the experiment.

437 9. References
438
[1] HVAC Systems and Equipment’s, ASHRAE Handbook, Chap.40 (2012).

[2] F. Merkel, Evaporative cooling, Z. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (VDI), 70 (1925) 123–128.

[3] E. Hajidavalloo, R. Shakeri, M.A. Mehrabian, Thermal performance of cross – flow

cooling towers in variable wet bulb temperature, Energy Conversion and Management, 51
 (2010) 1298-1303.

[4] N.W. Snyder, CEP Symposium (1956) 61–79.

[5] S.M. Zivi, B.B. Brand, An analysis of the cross – flow cooling tower, Refrigeration

Engineering, 64 (1956) 31–34.

[6] R.S. Schecheter, T.L. Kang, Industrial Engineering Chemical, 51 (1959) 1373–84.

[7] D.R. Baker, H.A. Shryock, A comprehensive approach to the analysis of cooling tower

performance, Journal of Heat Transfer, 83 (1961) 339–349.

[8] M. Poppe, H. Rogener, Calculation of cooling process, VDI-Warmeatlas, (1991) 1-15.

[9] J.C. Kloppers, D.G. Kroger, Cooling tower performance evaluation: Merkel, Poppe, and e-

NTU methods of analysis, Journal of Engineering Gas Turbines Power, 127 (2005) 1–7.

[10] C. Bourillot, TEFERI- Numerical Model for Calculating the Performance of an

Evaporative Cooling Tower, EPRI Report, CS-3212-SR, Electric Power Research Institute,

Palo Alto, (1983).

[11] T.W. Baard, Performance Characteristics of Expanded Metal Cooling Tower Fill, M - Tech

Thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa, (1998).

[12] H. Jaber, R.L. Webb, Design of Cooling Towers by the Effectiveness-NTU Method, ASME

Journal Heat Transfer, 111 (1989) 837–843.

[13] M. Nasrabadi, D.P. Finn, Mathematical modeling of a low temperature low approach direct

cooling tower for the provision of high temperature chilled water for conditioning of

building spaces, Applied Thermal Engineering, 64 (2014) 273-282.

[14] J.R. Khan, S.M. Zubair, Performance characteristics of counter flow wet cooling towers,

Energy Conversion and Management, 44 (2002) 2073–2091.

[15] J.R. Khan, S.M. Zubair, An improved design and rating analyses of counter flow wet

cooling towers, Journal of Heat Transfer Transaction, ASME, 123 (2001) 770–778.
[16] W.M. Simpson, T.K. Sherwood, Performance of small mechanical draft cooling towers,

Refrigeration Engineering, 52 (1946) 535-543 574-576.

[17] M. Prasad, Economic up gradation and optimal use of multi-cell cross – flow evaporative

water cooling tower through modular performance appraisal, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 24 (2003) 579–593.

[18] M.A. Bernier, Thermal performance of cooling towers, ASHRAE J. 37, (1995) 56–61.

[19] M.A. Nimr, Modeling the dynamic thermal behavior of cooling towers containing packing

materials, Heat Transfer Eng. 20, (1999) 91–96.

[20] Xiao Li, Yaoyu Li, J.E. Seem, Dynamic modelling of mechanical draft counter-flow wet

cooling tower with modelica, International conference on refrigeration and air conditioing.

1094 (2010), from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc.

[21] C. Ren, An analytical approach to the heat and mass transfer processes in counter flow

cooling towers, ASME J. Heat Transfer 128, (2006) 1142-1148.

[22] S.P. Fisenko, A.A. Brin, A.I. Petruchik, Evaporative cooling of water in a mechanical draft

cooling tower, Int. J. Heat and Mass Transfer 47, (2004) 165–177.

[23] M. Wetter, Philip Haves Lawerence, Berkeley National Laboratory, (2009) from

https://gaia.lbl.gov/bir.

[24] R. N. Meroney, CFD prediction of cooling tower drift, J. Wind Engineering and Industrial

Aerodynamics 94, (2006) 463 – 490.

[25] S.R. Hanna, A simple drift deposition model applied to the chalk point dye tracer

experiment, in: Symposium on Environmental Effects of Cooling Tower Plumes, May 2–4,

1978, University of Maryland, PPSP CPCTP-22, WRRC Special Report No. 9

[26] A.J. Policastro, W.E. Dunn, P. Gavin, B. Boughton, J. Ziebarth, Studies on mathematical

models for characterizing plume and drift behaviour from Cooling Towers, Vol. 3:
 Mathematical Model for Single-Source(Single-Tower) Cooling Tower Drift Dispersion,

Argonne National Laboratory, prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,

CA (1981) 8.1 – 8.9.

[27] F. Sáncheza, A.S. Kaisera, B. Zamoraa, J. Ruizb, M. Lucasb, Prediction of the lifetime of

droplets emitted from mechanical cooling towers by numerical investigation, Int. J. Heat

and Mass Transfer 89, (2015) 1190–1206.

[28] J. Ruiza, C.G. Cutillasa, A.S. Kaiserb, M. Ballestaa, B. Zamorab, M. Lucasa, Experimental

study of drift deposition from mechanical draft cooling towers in urban environments,

Energy & buildings 125, (2016) 181 – 195.

[29] A.J. Consuegro, A.S. Kaiser, B. Zamora, F. Sánchez, M. Lucas, M. Hernández, Numerical

modelling of the drift and deposition of droplets emitted by mechanical cooling towers on

buildings and its experimental validation, Building & environment 78, (2014) 53 – 67.

[30] R. K. Shah, D P Sekulic, Fundamentals of Heat Exchanger Design, John Wiley & Sons,

(2003).

[31] Cooling tower chapter, Energy Efficiency in Thermal Utilities, Bureau of Energy

Efficiency (BEE), (2015).

[32] E.L. MacFerran, Equal Area vs Log Tchebycheff, HVAC Engineering, (1999).

[33] S.J. Kline, F.A. Mc Clintock, Describing uncertainties in single-sample experiments, Mech.

Eng. (1953) 3-12.

439 10. Nomenclature

440 cp specific heat at constant pressure (kJ/kg°C)

441 mass flow rate (kg/s)

442 T temperature (°C)

443 h enthalpy (kJ/kg)

444 q heat load (kW)

445 HRR heat rejection ratio

446 Greek letters

447 δ latent heat of vaporization (kJ/kg)

448 ω air specific humidity (kg v /kgda)

449 γ heat capacity rate (kJ/K-s)

450 ζ humidification effectiveness

451 ξ thermal effectiveness

452 ɛ condenser effectiveness

453 λ evaporation loss (kg/s)

454  partial pressure or vapour pressure (Pa)

455 Ƞ cooling tower thermal efficiency (%)

456 Subscripts

457 a air

458 v water vapour

459 r refrigerant

460 i inlet
461 o outlet

462 w water

463 int interface

464 max maximum

465 WBT wet bulb temperature

466 List of Tables

467 Table 1 Operating conditions of the cooling tower.

468 Table 2 Specification of measuring instruments / sensors.

469 Table 3 Comparison of experimental data with the predicted model.

470 Table 4. Comparison of experimental results [16, 20] with the present model.

471 Table 5 Cooling tower parameters considered for the parametric investigation.

472 List of figures

473 Figure 1 Energy and mass flow diagram of a water cooled condenser.

474 Figure 2 Cross – flow induced draft cooling tower.

475 Figure 3 Comparison of present model with the experimentally findings: (a) water and air

476 outlet temperature, (b) outlet specific humidity, (c) evaporation loss, (d) heat load and (e)

477 Tower efficiency.

478 Figure 4 Comparison of present model with the experimental data [16, 20]: (a) water outlet

479 temperature and (b) Tower efficiency.

480 Figure 5 Comparison of experimentally measured data with the analytical model.

481 Figure 5 (a) Influence of specific humidity on evaporation loss.

482 Figure 5 (b) Influence of water inlet temperature on evaporation loss.

483 Figure 5 (c) Influence of air inlet temperature on evaporation loss.

484 Figure 5 (d) Influence of tower efficiency on evaporation loss.

485 Figure 5 (e) Influence of relative humidity on tower efficiency.

486 Figure 5 (f) Influence of tower efficiency on heat load.

487 Figure 5 (g) Influence of specific humidity on heat load.

488 Figure 5 (h) Influence of water inlet temperature on heat load.

489 Figure 5 (i) Influence of air inlet temperature on heat load.

490 Figure 6 Influence of refrigerant temperature on evaporation loss.

491 Figure 7 Influence of condenser effectiveness on evaporation loss.

492 Figure 8 Influence of warm water inlet temperature on evaporation loss.

493 Figure 9 Influence of thermal effectiveness on evaporation loss.

494 Figure 10 Influence of refrigerant temperature on heat load.

495 Figure 11 Influence of condenser effectiveness on heat load.

496

497
498

499

500

501

502 Table 1 Operating conditions of the cooling tower.

503
Ambient relative humidity (%) 59 – 87

Mass flow rate of water (kg/s) 149

Mass flow rate of air (kg/s) 34.0

Chiller capacity (TR) 600

Cooling tower capacity (TR) 840 (HRR =1.4)

Fan diameter (m) 1.9

Ambient air temperature (C) 27.0 – 36.0

Ambient wet bulb temperature (C) 23.9 – 31.2

Warm water temperature (C) 34.1 – 39.0

Refrigerant temperature (C) 35.6 – 40.7

Tower efficiency (%) 29.0 – 52.2

504 Table 2 Specification of measuring instruments / sensors.

Measuring equipment Quantity Range Accuracy

Rotating anemometer Air velocity (m/s) 0.25 to 30 2%

Sling Psychrometer Temperature (C) 0 to 50 0.5 C

Ultrasonic flow meter Velocity (m/s) 0 to 12 3%

 T-type thermocouple Refrigerant and water -50 to 200 0.5 C

temperature (C)

505

506
 Table 3 Comparison of experimental data with model predictions.

Experimental Predicted Difference

Inlet Outlet Outlet Outlet

Ta,i ωa,i Tw,i Tr ξ ɛ Ta,o ωa,o Tw,o λ Ta,o ωa,o Tw,o λ Ta,o ωa,o Tw,o λ

36 23 39 40.7 0.5 0.7 37.5 30.4 35.3 0.251 38.3 30 35 0.24 -0.8 0.4 0.3 0.011

34.5 26.9 38.5 40 0.38 0.68 36 33 35.4 0.207 36.9 32.7 35.3 0.196 -0.9 0.3 0.1 0.011

34 20.9 37 38.7 0.33 0.73 35 28.4 32.3 0.254 35.7 28.9 32.4 0.271 -0.7 -0.5 -0.1 -0.017

33 23.1 38 39.5 0.3 0.71 34.5 28.8 34.3 0.194 35.6 29.2 34.4 0.208 -1.1 -0.4 -0.1 -0.014

33 21.1 36 37.7 0.5 0.7 34.5 27.9 31.8 0.231 35.3 28.1 32 0.239 -0.8 -0.2 -0.2 -0.008

32 21.4 37 38.7 0.5 0.7 34.5 27.5 33.1 0.207 35.8 27.3 33 0.201 -1.3 0.2 0.1 0.006

31 20.8 37.5 39.2 0.31 0.71 33 27.6 33.4 0.231 34.4 27.4 33.3 0.224 -1.4 0.2 0.1 0.007

30.5 23.4 34.5 35.6 0.25 0.65 31.5 27.8 32.5 0.149 32.3 27.5 32.4 0.14 -0.8 0.3 0.1 0.009

29.5 21.8 38.5 40.4 0.26 0.66 31.9 28.7 34.7 0.234 33.6 28.4 34.8 0.223 -1.7 0.3 -0.1 0.011

29 21 37 38.7 0.25 0.65 31 27.3 33.8 0.214 32.5 26.9 33.7 0.199 -1.5 0.4 0.1 0.015

27 17 34.1 37.8 0.53 0.59 31.5 27.5 29.4 0.357 33.2 27.2 29.8 0.345 -1.7 0.3 -0.4 0.012

Units

T - C
ω – ( gv/kgda)
λ - kg/s
 Table 4 Comparison of experimental results with the present model.

Experimental data Simpson and Sherwood [16]

Inlet parameters Experimental Predicted Difference
Case Ta,i Ta,i WBT Tw,i Tr Tw,o Tw,o Tw,o
(C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
1 35.2 26.8 38.8 42.0 29.5 31.3 -1.8
2 35.2 26.8 38.8 42.0 29.5 31.1 -1.6
3 30.7 21.3 34.7 38.0 26.4 27.8 -1.4
4 30.5 21.1 34.5 38.5 26.6 25.6 1.0
5 35.0 26.7 38.8 41.4 29.9 31.7 -1.8
Experimental data Xiao Li et al. [20]
Inlet parameters Experimental Predicted Difference
Case Ta,i Ta,i WBT Tw,i Tr Tw,o Tw,o Tw,o
(C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C) (C)
6 28.8 21.1 33.2 37.1 25.5 25.0 0.5
7 31.8 26.7 34.4 37.6 29.0 28.4 0.6
8 35.0 26.7 38.8 42.6 29.3 28.9 0.4

Table 5 Cooling tower parameters considered for the parametric investigation.

Circulating fluid Water

Air inlet temperature (C) 32
Specific humidity ratio at the inlet (gv/kgda) 22.1
Flow rate of the air (kg/s) 34
Water inlet temperature (C) 37
Condenser inlet temperature (C) 39
Condenser effectiveness 0.7
Thermal effectiveness 0.6
Figu
re 1
Ene
rgy
bala
nce
of
wet
cool
ing
tow
er.
 (a) Schematic view

(b) Pictorial view

(c) Distribution of temperature and humidity ratio measuring points.

Figure 2 Cross – flow mechanical draft wet cooling tower.

(a)
(b)

(c)
 (d)

(e)

Figure 3 Comparison of model predictions with own experimental data: (a) water and air
outlet temperature, (b) outlet specific humidity, (c) evaporation loss, (d) heat load and (e)
tower efficiency.
 (a)

(b)

Figure 4 Comparison of model predictions with the experimental data of [16, 20]: (a) water
outlet temperature and (b) tower efficiency.
 Figure 5 (a) Influence of specific humidity on evaporation loss.

Figure 5 (b) Influence of water inlet temperature on evaporation loss.

Figure 5 (c) Influence of air inlet temperature on evaporation loss.

Figure 5 (d) Influence of tower efficiency on evaporation loss.

Figure 5 (e) Influence of relative humidity on tower efficiency.

Figure 5 (f) Influence of tower efficiency on heat load.

Figure 5 (g) Influence of specific humidity on heat load.

 Figure 5 (h) Influence of water inlet temperature on heat load.

Figure 5 (i) Influence of air inlet temperature on heat load.

Figure 5 Comparison of measured data with results from analytical model.

Figure 6 Influence of refrigerant temperature on evaporation loss.

Figure 7 Influence of condenser effectiveness on evaporation loss.

 Figure 8 Influence of warm water inlet temperature on evaporation loss.

Figure 9 Influence of thermal effectiveness of cooling tower on evaporation loss.

Figure 10 Influence of refrigerant temperature on heat load.

Figure 11 Influence of condenser effectiveness on heat load.

Highlights

 Simple analytical model for cross – flow cooling tower is proposed.

 Predicted performances of the cooling tower match well with the experimental data.

 Analyzed the performances of the cooling tower for humid subtropical climate.

 Effects of various operating parameters on cooling tower performances are studied.

 Developed model provides useful guidelines for the preliminary design purposes.