Numerical Modeling of Wet

A. K. Majumdar
Mem. ASME Cooling Towers—Part 2:
A. K. Singhal
Mem. ASME
Application to Natural and
CHAM of North America Incorporated, Mechanical Draft Towers
Huntsville, Ala. 35810
This paper presents several applications of the mathematical model described in
Part 1 of the paper. Natural and mechanical draft towers of counterflow and
H. E. Reilly crossflow arrangement have been considered. Predicted thermal performances
compare well with the available data from operating towers. The distributions of air
velocities, pressure, temperature, moisture fraction, and water temperature have
J. A. Bartz been assessed from the considerations of physical plausibility only, since no ex-
Mem.ASME perimental data are available for comparison. Some sample parametric com-
putations for a mechanical draft crossflow tower are also presented. The
Electric Power Research Institute,
parameters studied are: (a) air travel dimension of fill; (b) aspect ratio of fill; (c)
Palo Alto, Calif. 94303 fan power; and (d) atmospheric pressure. The results are self-consistent and
demonstrate the applicability of the model as an analysis tool.

Introduction
A general mathematical model for predicting thermal mechanical daft towers were selected. Figure 1 shows
performance of wet cooling towers has been described in Part schematic representation of these towers together with sample
I of the paper [1]. The purpose of Part II is to demonstrate, by grid distributions. The main geometrical and flow parameters
way of specific examples, the flexibility and accuracy of the are:
model. To this effect, several calculations for the natural and
mechanical draft towers of both counterflow and crossflow Natural Draft Tower
designs are presented. The order of presentation satisfies, in Radius at the base = 28.00 m
sequence, the following objectives: Radius at the exit = 16.00 m
Radius at the throat = 15.00m
1 To demonstrate the stability and accuracy of the Tower height = 80.00 m
numerical scheme Inlet port height = 6.00 m
2 To provide comparison of predicted performance Fill height = 2.50m
parameters with Kelly's method [3], as well as with test data Spray height = 1.50m
of operating towers Fill type - Asbestos louver
3 To present and analyze the predicted distributions of air
velocity components, pressure, temperature, moisture Mechanical Draft Tower
fraction, and water temperature Mean half-width of the tower in air travel direction = 11.00 m
4 To present and analyze results of parametric com- Longitudinal width of the cell = 11.00 m
putations Fill height -11.00m
5 To indicate the computer storage and execution time Fill width in air travel direction - 4.57 m
requirements for typical calculations Fan diameter - 9.14 m
Fan hub diameter = 2.74 m
All calculations employ Merkel's model of heat transfer, in Stack diameter at exit = 10.67 m
conformity with the available fill data. Stack height = 4.27 m

Stability and Accuracy of the Numerical Scheme Fill type Standard wood lath
(Vertical pitch = 20.32 cms
As explained in Part 1 of the paper, the mathematical Horizontal pitch = 20.32 cms)
model requires simultaneous solution of a set of second-
order, nonlinear, coupled partial differential equations which All computations were performed with the following values of
represent the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy in property data.
each control cell of a cooling tower. An iterative calculation
scheme is used to solve these equations. The test and usability Specific heat of dry air = 1004.832 J/kg °C
of such a solution scheme lies in the certainty and speed of Specific heat of vapor =1814.8 J/kg °C
convergence of the iterative procedure. Another important Molecular weight of dry air = 28.97
consideration is the capability of producing practically grid- Molecular weight of water = 18.
independent solutions, so that the calculations show accurate Lewis Number = 1.
manifestations of the supplied flow and geometric conditions. Ka values were calculated from equations (23) and (24) of [1]
For studying these features, two typical natural and
for counterflow and crossflow, respectively.
Convergence Behavior of Solutions. Figures 2 and 3
Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division and presented at the 21st
present the convergence behavior of the solutions for the
ASME/AIChE National Heat Transfer Conference, Seattle, Washington, July natural draft counterflow tower. The following points may be
24-28, 1983. Manuscript received by the Heat Transfer Division July 19,1982. noted from these figures.

736/Vol. 105, NOVEMBER 1983 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1983 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 t f t t t <L
.
1200 <G
^=^_
Y h
1000 G

-c ^ 800 3 s
600

400

Iteration Number

• 79.57 kg/s

10 15 20 1 (bl
Iteration Number

Fig. 3 The variation of (a) air enthalpy and moisture fraction at a point
near axis at the base plane and (b) total air flow rate with iterations for a
Mechanical natural draft tower
Draft
CroofMow
/
I lllllWil
F
y=^\
[ \

1 II I
|o"
llllllllillllll
Fig. 1 Sample grid distribution for (a) natural draft counterf low and (b) **°~-—<> o. -o
mechanical draft crossflow tower

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

Normalized Residue, RS, of: N u m b e r of C o n t r o l Cells in Fill Region
O Vertical Momentum
% Horizontal Momentum
A Air Enthalpy
V Moisture Fraction
A Water Enthalpy
D Continuity DC 900

IS

log 1 0 (RS)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Number of C o n t r o l Cells in Fill Region

Fig. 4 The effect of grid distribution on the predicted approach and air
flow rate in a mechanical draft crossflow tower

(6) All residuals have been reduced by at least 5 decades (5

orders of magnitudes) in 100 iterations.
(c) Air flow rate is settled in about 30 iterations.
(d) The moisture fraction and air enthalpy at a typical
point also show a settled behavior after the same number of
iterations.
-r 120 In Fig. 3, dotted and full lines present the calculated air flow
40 60 80 100
Number of Iterations rates for two runs, which employed two different values of the
Fig. 2 Reduction of normalized residual errors in a natural draft initial (guessed) air mass flow rates (80 and 320 kg/s). In spite
counterflow tower of this large difference, after about 10 iterations both runs
show nearly the same values of air flow rate. Similar checks
(ft) The logarithmic values of normalized residual errors of were made for different initial guesses of the hot water
each conservation equation are plotted on the ordinates, at an temperature (cooling range is prescribed as a boundary
interval of ten iterations. condition).

Journal of Heat Transfer NOVEMBER 1983, Vol. 105 / 737

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Calculation of the mechanical draft tower also showed Type of fill: Splash bar
satisfactory convergence behavior; details are provided in [4]. (Fill H of Kelly's [3] Handbook)

Grid Independence of Solutions. A series of computations Number of Velocity Heads

has been performed to examine the sensitivity of predicted
tower performance on grid distribution. Figure 4 shows the
effect of grid distribution on predicted approach and air flow
rate in the mechanical draft crossflow tower. This study
shows that with 400 controls cells in the fill region the
predicted tower performance is practically independent of
grid distribution. Figure 5 shows the effect of grid distribution
on tower performance for the natural draft counterflow
tower. For counterflow towers, practically grid independent
solutions were obtained with 25 control cells in the vertical
direction (21 in the fill and spray region) and 12 cells in the
horizontal direction.
Comparison With Kelly's Method
Cooling Tower Institute [2] and Kelly [3] provided methods
for calculating thermal performance of counterflow and
crossflow cooling towers, respectively. Both methods employ
a graphical solution of demand and fill-characteristic curves
as explained in [1]. The present mathematical model requires
empirical correlations to determine mass transfer coefficient,
Ka. However demand curves are not required since the model
calculates fluid flow, heat transfer, and thermodynamic
properties from basic physical laws.
Figure 6 provides the comparison of predicted approach by
present mathematical model with those obtained with Kelly's
method [3] for the mechanical draft crossflow tower. The
present model predicts slightly higher values of approach, i.e.,
poorer performance of the tower. The observed differences
are within 2.5 percent in thermal effectiveness, (17 =
Range/Range + Approach) of the tower. There are several
factors which could contribute to the discrepancies as
described below.
Lost at Drift Eliminator = 9.93
Number of Velocity Heads
= 2.06
Lost at inlet louver
Fan Horsepower = 177.60
The comparison of measured and predicted approach values
shows a reasonable agreement.
Predicted Flow Distributions
Figures 7-10 show the predicted distributions of water
temperature, air temperature, vapor fraction, relative
humidity, presure, density, and velocity in the mechanical
draft crossflow tower. The main observations are summarized
below:
9
Figure 7 shows a significant variation in water tem-
perature at the cold water basin level.
8
Air temperature, moisture fraction and relative humidity
increase as air passes through the fill.
8
Both pressure and density of the air decrease as air passes
through the fill. The density contours are similar to that of
vapor fraction, implying a strong dependence of density on
the vapor fraction.
• The predicted air flow distribution shows an expected
trend, i.e., practically uniform flow in the fill (because of high
resistance), very low motion in the lower part of the plenum
(i.e., near the centerline of the tower), and a smooth turning
and acceleration of flow towards the exit. It should be
reminded here that the fan stack has been simulated as a point
model; its detailed simulation may show different velocity
distribution near the exit.

No. Present model Kelly's method

1 Accounts for loss of water due to vapori- Does not account for
zation; this leads to nonuniform water loss of water due to
distribution vaporization
2 Heat transfer rate depends upon atmospheric Heat transfer rate is
pressure independent of atmos-
pheric pressure
3 Calculates nonuniform air distribution Assumes uniform air
throughout the tower distribution
4 Allows for air density variation Assumes uniform air
density
Obtains grid independent solution by Obtains grid independent
refining mesh size solution by extrapolating
coarse mesh size solution
to zero mesh size

The above remarks about Kelly's method are made on the

basis of [3].
Comparison With Field Test Data
Figures 11-13 show the predicted velocity distributions for
Table 1 provides a comparison between the model's the cooling towers of other three designs, namely, mechanical
prediction of performance and existing field test data on a draft counterflow, natural draft counterflow, and natural
mechanical draft crossflow tower. Specific details of the draft crossflow, respectively.
tower are given below.
Mean half-width of the tower = 9.70 m Fan diameter = 8.53 m
Longitudinal width of the cell = 10.97 m Hub diameter = 1.22 m
Cell height = 11.98 m Stack diameter = 9.68 m
Air travel width of the fill = 5.15 m Stack height =4.27 m

738/Vol. 105, NOVEMBER 1983 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 C O N T O U R S OF W A T E R TEMPERATURE, °C
CONTOUR VALUE
32.000
36.000
40.000

So
'

'0 5 10 15
Number of C o n t r o l Cells in A i r Travel Direction
of the Fill Region

CONTOURS OF D R Y B U L B T E M P E R A T U R E , °C
CONTOUR VALUE
1 33.000
2 34.000
3 36.000
4 37.500
0 5 10 15
Number of C o n t r o l Cells in A i r Travel Direction
of the Fill Region

Fig. 5 The effect of grid distribution on the predicted approach and air
flow rate in a natural draft counterflow tower

DVERA2D
oKELLY
12
Water fl ow Rate = 1147 kg/s
11
Range = b.b7"C
10 Wet Bulb Temperature = 23.33°C
Fill - Plastic A i r f o i l
9
a
0
D
o
Approach 6 II

° 5
<> Fig. 7 Predicted contours of air and water temperature
0
4
E but at a significant angle. It clearly shows the need of im-
3
2 proving empirical data base for fills.
1 Also, the velocity distribution approaching the fill is
0
considerably nonuniform. This nonuniformity is due to the
1.0 1.5 right angle turn of the air stream immediately after its entry to
_L_
G
the tower. Finally, in Fig. 12, exit air velocity is fairly
•VERA2D nonuniform (with low velocities near the wall).
OKELLY

Performance Curves
a
Figure 14 shows the predicted performance curves for a
typical mechanical draft crossflow tower at two different flow
) rates. At each flow rate, computations are performed for
D different ranges and wet-bulb temperatures. The predictions
Approach
show that cold water temperature increases with the increase
°C o in cooling range, wet-bulb temperature, and water flow rate.
Figure 15 shows the predicted performance curve for a
typical natural draft counterflow tower. For a given cooling
Water F l o w Rate = 1147kg/s
range, the predicted cold water temperatures are plotted
Range = 6.67°C against wet-bulb temperature for different ambient relative
Wet Bulb Temperature = 15.56°C humidities. Lower cold water temperatures are predicted at
F i l l - P astic A i r foil higher relative humidity. For natural draft towers, ambient
1.0 1.5 relative humidity plays a major role in tower performance,
L
since the amount of air flow through the tower directly
Fig. 6 Comparison of predicted approach (by VERA2D) with that of
depends on the density of ambient air. For a given cooling
Kelly for a mechanical draft crossflow tower range, the tower performance deteriorates at lower relative
humidity due to the reduction in air flow rate. The air flow
It is interesting to note that in the counterflow fills, the rate reduces because the drier air is heavier than the moist air.
predicted flow distributions are far from being uniform or These performance curves show the same trends as reported in
vertical, i.e., flow is really not countercurrent to waterflow, [6]

Journal of Heat Transfer NOVEMBER 1983, Vol. 105/739

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 Table 1 Comparison of VERA2D predictions with field test data for a Table 3 Effect of alternative fill arrangements
mechanical draft crossflow tower
Predictions
Specified Conditions Approach l°C Case
Predicted
W.t Bulb Difference Air Flow Number Approach A i r Flow Rate
Dry Bulb Watar Flow Between
(°CI
TBmpaiatura Tampatatura Rata Me* lured Predicted
Measured &
Rata (°C) (kg/s)
N mb ("CI <°C) tko/»ac] (kg/sac)
" " Predicted

Base Case 8.46 792.5

8.33 29.00 21.38 1118.25 9.16 9.279 -0.119 64 7.2

8.29 29.80 21.87 1148.57 8.94 9 301 -0.361 644.5

2.1 7.691 883.0
8.10 30.25 22.25 1153.68 8.85 9.045 -0.195 643.8

8.11 30.30 22.28 1148.96 8.76 9.003 -0.243 644.0

2.2 10.52 634.4
8.06 30.50 22.39 1152.51 8.64 8.950 -0.310 643.7

7.78 32.00 23.85 1143.45 7.34 8.108 -0.768 642.3

7 7.73 30.25 22.26 1132.82 8.48 8.594 -0.114 645.5

i i

7.56 31.00 22.67 1130.46 8.16 8.289 -0.129 644,9

7.31 31.80 23.56 1126.52 7.54 7.740 -0.200 644.1

h

10 3.02 30.15 22.16 1155,66 8.70 9.035 -0.335 644.0 Air j

11 B.20 29.55 21.75 1153.29 8.96 9.318 -0.358 644.6
W
12 8.03 29.45 21.66 1137.94 8.97 9.146 -0.176 645.8 Fill

13 8.15 28.85 21.26 1137.94 9.14 9.352 -0.212 646.5

14 7.79 30.00 22.02 1137.94 8.65 8.773 -0.123 645.5 Case 2.1

Wpj|| is Decreased b y 2 5 % W p j n is Increased by 2 5 %

15 8.11 28.95 21.31 1137.94 8.94 9.301 -0.361 646.4
h p j u is Increased b y 2 5 % h p j u is Decreased by 2 5 %

Table 2 Effect of changing the air travel dimension of fill

Predictions Table 4 Effect of ambient pressure

Case
Number Approach Air Flow Rate Predictions

<°C) (kg/s) Run Air

Description of the Run Flow
Number
Approach
Rate
Base Case 8.46 792.5 (kg/s)

Base A m b i e n t Pressure ( A t Sea Level 6.45 894.8

Case Altitude) = 101323 N/M2
1.1 8.64 732.2
F a n HP = 1 8 0 . 0

L/G = 1.12
1.2 9.34 644.9
3.1 A m b i e n t Pressure [ A t 2 5 0 0 Feet 6.24 821.5

(762M) Altitude] =91109.64 N/M2

Water Water
Fan H P = 1 8 0 . 0 0 (Fixed)

L/G = 1.22 (Calculated)

3.2 A m b i e n t Pressure = 5.69 892.5

91109.64 N/M2

Fan HP = 2 2 2 . 3 9 (Calculated)

L/G = 1.12 (Fixed)

Case 1.1 Case 1.2

Wpin is Increased by 25%
Sample Parametric Studies
Effect of Increasing Air Travel Dimension of a Fill. Table
2 shows the predictions of approach and air flow rate for
three cases:
Case 1: Base case, mechanical draft crossflow tower with
conditions described in section 1 of this paper
Case 2: Air travel dimension of fill increased by 25
percent from that of base case
Case 3: Air travel dimension of fill increased by 50
percent from that of base case
The results show that in spite of the increase of fill
dimension (and hence volume of the fill), the tower per-
formance deteriorates. This is because for the selected fill, an
increase in flow resistances reduces air flow significantly; i.e.
10 to 20 percent. The results could be different for different
fills, which will have different heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics. However, for a given fill, the optimum
dimensions can be found by a more detailed parametric study.
^ F i l l ' s l n c r e a s e d by 50% Effect of Alternative Fill Arrangement. The predictions
for two alternative fill arrangements (maintaining the same
fill volume) and their comparison with the base case is shown
in Table 3. The predictions clearly show that the taller and
slender arrangement of fill performs better than the shorter
and thicker arrangement. Once again, optimum fill
arrangements can be determined by performing similar
parametric computations over a wider range.
Effect of Fan Power. The predicted effect of varying the
power input to fan on the approach and air flow rate of an
induced draft crossflow tower is shown in Fig. 16. As ex-
pected, the air flow rate increases and approach decreases
with the increase in fan horsepower. Figure 16(6) also shows
that approach, like air flow rate, can be related with fan horse
power by a power law expression.
Effect of Ambient Pressure. The effect of ambient
pressure has been studied by performing two additional runs
(Table 4). At lower ambient pressure pertinent to a higher
altitude, for example, in run 3.1, the fan power was retained
constant, while in run 3.2 the flow rate was retained constant,
i.e., equal to that of the base case. Following are the ob-
servations.

740/Vol. 105, NOVEMBER 1983 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 CONTOURS OF VAPOR FRACTION CONTOURS OF RELATIVE PRESSURE, Pa
CONTOUR VALUE CONTOUR VALUE
1 .018 1 -150.000
2 .023 2 -100.000
3 .028 3 - 50.000
4 .042

CONTOURS OF RELATIVE HUMIDITY CONTOURS OF FLUID DENSITY, kg/m 3

CONTOUR VALUE
1 1.1 10
2 1.118
3 1.126
4 1.135

Fig. 8 Predicted contours of vapor fraction and relative humidity in a

mechanical draft crossflow tower Fig. 9 Predicted contours of pressure and density in a mechanical
draft crossflow tower

Maximum Velocity (m/s) = 8.48

1 Same fan (with identical input power) at a higher altitude
draws less amount of air. In spite of this, tower performance
improves due to the enhancement of evaporation rate at the
reduced ambient pressure.
2 The tower operation with a constant L/G shows a
significant improvement in the tower performance at higher
altitudes, due to the reduction in ambient pressure.
I h'
Computational Details
All computations have been performed with the aid of the
A
^ /
i
/ / / /
/ /
\
\
m
\
\
\
\
N
V
VERA2D computer code which is written in standard y / / / \ \ \ v
FORTRAN IV and is described in [3] and [4]. The code y ,• / l \ \ \ V
— ' ..- / / I V V v ~- —
requires about 37K decimal words SCM storage, and about 4
x 10~4 s per cell per iteration execution (CPU) time on a
CDC 7600 computer. For a typical mechanical draft tower
with 500 control cells, about 50 iterations are needed and the
corresponding execution time is 11 s. The calculations are Fig. 10 Predicted velocity vectors for the mechanical draft crossflow
regarded as converged when the maxima of normalized tower
residual errors in all conservation equations become less than
0.001. Computation of a natural draft tower with the same mathematical model described in [1]. The presented examples
number of control cells requires about 20 percent more time demonstrate:
(i.e., about 13 son a CDC 7600 computer).
(a) The accuracy and stability of the numerical solution
scheme
Concluding Remarks
(b) The physical realism of predicted global and local
The paper has described several applications of the quantities

Journal of Heat Transfer NOVEMBER 1983, Vol. 105/741

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 VELOCITY VECTOR Maximum Velocity (m/s) = 7.12
Maximum Velocity (m/s) = 5.24

J^R
1 1 1 1 1
/ / / / / \ \ \\ \\ \\ \

nut
i, 7, 7, 7, tun
,
ih

Fig. 13 Predicted velocity vectors in a natural draft crossflow tower

CONTOURS OF STREAM FUNCTION, kg/s
CONTOUR VALUE

Water Flow Rate = 1200 kg/s <s^

15 20
Wet Bulb Temperature, °C

Water Flow Rate = 1080.00 kg/s

Fig. 11 Predicted velocity vectors and stream function in a
mechanical draft counterflow tower

Maximum Velocity (m/s) = 4.04

Range = 14°C

Wet Bulb Temperature, °C

Fig. 14 Performance curves for a mechanical draft crossflow tower

The model can be used for relative performance evaluation,

and design optimization studies. It can also be used as a
research tool for the development of adequate heat and mass
transfer models and associated empirical data, which are very
much needed for more accurate performance predictions.

Acknowledgment
The work has been supported by Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California under the contract no.
Fig. 12 Predicted velocity vectors in a natural draft counterflow tower
RP 1262-1. The developed code "VERA2D" is available from
Electric Power Software Center, University Computing
(c) Sample performance curves Company, Dallas, Texas 75207. The authors wish to thank
(d) Self-consistent and physically plausible results for the Dr. L. T. Tam for providing computer graphics and Mr. N.
parametric studies K. Agrawal for assistance in computations. Thanks are also
(e) The modest computer time requirements for both due to Lynn Wilson and Kelli King for the preparation of the
mechanical and natural draft towers typescript.

742/ Vol. 105, NOVEMBER 1983 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Ranges 12.34°C
Design HP = 198.2
Water F l o w Rate = 5000.00 kg/s Air Flow
Approach kg/s
Range - 6.4°C
°C
16,

240 320 80 160 240 3

HP HP
E (a) Approach and Air Flow Rate Plotted on a Linear Scale

Approach Air Flow

°C kg/s
20001

50 100 200 300 50 100 200 300

HP HP
(b) Approach and Air Flow Rata Plotted on a Log-Log Scale
Wet Bulb Temperature, ° C

Fig. 15 Performance curves for a natural draft counterf low tower Fig. 16 Predicted effect of fan horsepower on approach and air flow
rate

4 Majumdar, A. K., Singhal, A. K., and Spalding, D. B., "VERA2D—A

References
1 Majumdar, A. K., Singhal, A. K., and Spalding, D. B., "Numerical
Modeling of Wet Cooling Towers; Part 1: Mathematical & Physical Models,"
ASME JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER, Vol. 105,No.4,Nov. 1983, pp. 728-735.
2 Cooling Tower Institute, "Cooling Tower Performance Curves,"
Cooling Tower Institute, Houston, Texas, 1967.
3 Kelly, N. W., Kelly's Handbook of Cross/low Cooling Tower Per-
formance, Neil W. Kelly and Associates, Kansas City, Missouri, 1976.
Compuer Program for Two-Dimensional Analysis of Flow, Heat, and Mass
Transfer in Evaporative Cooling Towers: Vol. 1—Mathematical Formulation,
Solution Procedure and Applications," EPRI Report No. CS-2923, Project
1262-1, Mar. 1983.
5 Majumdar, A. K., and Singhal, A. K., "VERA2D—A Computer
Program for Two-Dimensional Analysis of Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer in
Evaporative Cooling Towers: Vol. 2—User's Manual," EPRI Report No. CS-
2923, Project 1262-1, Mar. 1983.
6 Cooling Tower Institute, "Acceptance Test Code for Water Cooling
Towers," CTI Code ATC-105, Feb. 1975.

(contents continued)

830 On the Cooling of Fibers

A. Moutsoglou
835 Turbulent Boundary Layer Heat Transfer Experiments: A Separate Effects Study on a Convexly
Curved Wall (81-HT-78)
T. W. Simon and R. J. Moffat
841 The Response of a Turbulent Boundary Layer to a Double Step-Change in a Wall Heat Flux
J. Andreopoulos
846 Influence of Forced Flow on the He ll-He I Transition in the Presence of Heat Flow
S. Caspi and T. H. K. Frederking
851 Enhanced Heat Transfer in a Flat Rectangular Duct With Streamwise-Periodic Disturbances at
One Principal Wall
E. M. Sparrow and W. Q. Tao
862 A Numerical And Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Heat Transport Downstream From
an Abrupt Pipe Expansion
R. S. Amano, M. K. Jensen, and P. Goel
870 In-Tube Heat Transfer for Skewed Inlet Flow Caused by Competition Among Tubes Fed by the
Same Plenum
M, Molki and E. M. Sparrow
878 Heat Transfer Coefficient in Ducts With Constant Wall Temperature
A. Haji-Sheikh, M. Mashena, and M. J. Haji-Sheikh
884 Flow Field Measurements of an Unsteady Reacting Muzzle Exhaust Flow (82-HT-34)
G. Klingenberg, H. Mach, and G. Smeets
889 Large Heat Transport Due to Spontaneous Gas Oscillation Induced in a Tube With Steep
Temperature Gradients
T. Yazaki, A. Tominaga, and Y. Narahara
895 Study on Properties and Growth Rate of Frost Layers on Cold Surfaces
I. Tokura, H. Saito, and K. Kishimani
902 Growth and Decay of a Thermal Pulse Predicted by the Hyperbolic Heat Conduction Equation
B.VickandM. N.Ozifki

(contents continued on page 781)

Journal of Heat Transfer NOVEMBER 1983, Vol. 105/743

Downloaded From: http://heattransfer.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/15/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use