CONTENTS ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Cooling in steam power plant 1.2 Cooling tower classification 1.3 Evolution of Cooling towers 1.4 Types of Natural Draft towers 1.5 Packing fills classifications 1.6 Cooling tower terminology 1.7 Design parameters and Losses in cooling tower CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION AND WORKING OF A NATURAL DRAFT. COUNTER- FLOW WET COOLING TOWER 3.1 Cooling Towers 3.2 Schematic of a Natural Draft Counter flow Wet Cooling Tower 3.3 System and components of cooling tower 3.4 Working of Counter flow wet cooling tower CHAPTER 4 AANeaWUYN 14 14 15 17 ANALYSIS OF NATURAL DRAFT COUNTER - FLOW WET COOLING TOWER 4.1 Method of Analysis - Poppe’s Approach 4.2 Heat and Mass transfer Analysis in the fill section 4.3 Numerical technique for the solution of the Poppe’s equations. 4.4 Calculation of Inlet conditions of Air 4.5 Initial Approximation of Variables 4.6 Mass velocities ‘Seared with CamScanner 19 19 24 24 25 274.7 Quantities required to evaluate the rain zone transfer coefficient 4.8. Transfer Coefficients (Merkel Number) 2 4.9 Heat rejected by the cooling tower a 4.10 Loss Coefficients Bo 4.11 Amount of water lost due to evaporation. 31 4.12 Effectiveness of Cooling tower » (CHAPTER S EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION CHAPTER7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK 7.1 Conclusions a 7.2 Future scope of work ‘Scanned with CamScannerABSTRACT Cooling tower which is a heat and mass transfer device commonly used to dissipate heat from devices like condensers in power plants, compressors, pumps in industries. Natural draft wet-Cooling tower works on the principle of evaporative cooling in which water is cooled down by the impact of flowing air (buoyancy). The steam after expansion from the turbine outlet at Stanwell Coal Power Station, Australia is condensed using cooling water. The cooling water which is hot, now flows back to the natural draft wet-cooling tower. This water is cooled naturally by air and then falls back into the bottom of the cooling tower to be recycled through the condenser. ‘The heat and mass transfer phenomena in the packing region of a counter flow cooling tower are analyzed using the Poppe method. The Poppe’s method avoids the simplifying assumptions made by Merkel, and consists of differential equations that evaluate the air outlet conditions in terms of enthalpy and humidity, taking into account the water lost by evaporation. Also, the analysis of Thermal performance of a natural draft wet- cooling tower is carried out by applying Poppe’s method. Fill performance characteristics such as mass of vaporization, heat lost, loss-coefficient and the draft (buoyancy) across a film type fill packing are evaluated. ‘The variations in the operational parameters of the cooling tower are graphically depicted by plotting graphs. All the related calculations at different temperatures are made to amalgamate into tables and are kept in appendix. sil ail —— ‘Seared with CamScannerNOMENCLATURE, area, m? surface area per unit volume, m capacity specific heat, J/kg K specific heat at constant pressure, J/kg K mass velocity, ke/sm? energy heat transfer coefficient, W/m?K ‘mass transfer coefficient, kg/sm? enthalpy, J/kg latent heat, J/kg, length, m merkel number mass flow rate, ke/s number of units A a G c op G E h hy i ify a Me mn n ‘Scanned with CamScannerSette 5 eee toe wet-bulb ‘Scanned with CamScannerS.No LIST OF FIGURES AND GRAPHS Title Figure 1.1 Simple steam power plant with cooling tower Figure3.1_ Natural Draft Counter-Flow Wet-Cooling Tower Figure 3.2. Film-Type Cooling Tower Fil Figure 3.3 Asbestos Cement Blade-Type Drift Eliminators Figure 4.1 Control volume of the counter flow fill Figure 4.2. Air-side control volume of the fill Figure 4.3 Control volume of the fill Figure 4.4 Graphical representation of the Runge-Kutta method. LIST OF TABLES Page No 2 20 21 24 52 33 ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER | INTRODU 1.1 Overview of cooling towers Heat is discharged in power generation, refrigeration, petrochemical, steel, processin and many other industrial plants. In many cases, this heat is discharged into the atmosphere with the aid of a cooling tower. Figure 1.1 shows an example of the application of a cooling tower in a simple steam power plant. Heat is discharged into the atmosphere by the cooling tower via a secondary cycle with water as the process fluid. Figure 1.1 Simple steam power plant with cooling tower direct contact type heat exchanger in which warm water gets cooled down by mixing it with high velocity air. It is mostly used in power plants, process industries to carry away the heat from the warm cooling water coming from condensers, cooling jackets of compressors, pumps, IC engines. Here warm water is pumped at the top of cooling tower and sprayed through rows of nozzles. It then falls on fill material packing where actual heat transfer takes place by the phenomenon of evaporative cooling which is combination of latent heat removal of water from itself and sensible cooling by air. Finally the cold water is collected into the water basin and again recirculated through these devices ‘Seanned with CamScanner1.2 Cooling tower classification Cooling towers can be classified according to the type of draft through the tower. This Section describes two main types of Cooling Towers: * Natural Draft Cooling Tower “ Mechanical Draft Cooling Tower The draft in the Natural Draft Cooling Towers is established by the buoyancy of the hotter air inside the tower shell compared to the cooler ambient air on the outside of the tower shell. The Draft in the Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers is established by fans that force or draw air through the towers, usually referred to as forced draft and induced draft respectively. A further distinction between cooling towers is whether they are counterflow or ¢ross- flow towers. In a cross-flow tower the fill is usually installed at some angle to the vertical to make provision for the inward motion of the droplets due to drag forces caused by the entering cooling air. Less pumping power is needed for modem counterflow towers, as the towers are generally not as high as cross-flow cooling towers. Icing and wind effects are more prevalent in cross-flow towers than in counterflow towers. In addition, Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers can be of: > Induced Or Forced Draft Counter Flow > Induced Or Forced Draft Cross Flow When a single cooling tower incorporates a wet and a dry section, this is also sometimes referred to as a Hybrid system. Figure below shows an example of a hybrid cooling tower. Hybrid cooling towers are generally used for plume abatement and in regions where water is relatively scarce. 1.3 Evolution of Cooling towers The fact of the matter is that the cooling towers are nothing more than chimneys that cool water, and lots of it One of the largest natural draft cooling tower in the world is a S02-foot diameter, 541-foot tall design that reduces the temperature of 951,050 gallons of water per minute by about 17.5 degrees Fahrenheit. This mammoth structure services the 1350-MW Isar Nuclear power station unit 2 near Landshut, Germany. Before 1970, before the US Environmental Protection Agency was created and before there were any nuclear power plant cooling towers in operation in the US; the preferred method of heat removal from power plants involved pumping millions of gallons of water each day from a nearby river or lake into the plant’s steam condenser, where the cooling water is heated and then discharged back into the river or lake at a point downstream from the cooling water intake. Unfortunately, when the temperature of a natural body of water is increased to abnormally high levels, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water can be reduced to the extent that aquatic plants and animals such as fish and amphibians are harmed. 3 Li ‘Scanned with CamScannerWith the Enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970, construction of cooling towers became mandatory in new and in older existing power plants in order to curb thermal pollution, Although the art of evaporative cooling is quite ancient, the first natural draft cooling, tower was only constructed in 1916 at the Emma Pit in the Netherlands by the Dutch State Mines. 1.4 Types of natural draft cooling towers Natural draft cooling tower designs employ either cross-flow or counter-flow fill arrangements. In cross-flow cooling towers, water flows downward while the cooling ait traverses crosswise, horizontal path through the fill (see Figures 4 and 5). In counter- flow cooling towers the air and water flows are countercurrent, i.e., water flows downward and air flows upward through the fill system. The first natural draft cooling tower constructed in the western hemisphere was a counter-flow design completed in 1962 at Kentucky Power Company’s Big Sandy Power Plant Unit 1, a 260 Mw subcritical pulverized coal fired generating unit. The 320-foot tall Big Sandy Unit 1 cooling tower was designed and constructed by The Marley Cooling Tower Company of Kansas City, Kansas under license agreement with L.G. Mouchel of London, England. Mouchel’s first concrete natural draft cooling tower was installed in 1925 at the Lister Drive Power Station in Liverpool, England. Cross-flow natural draft cooling towers are very rare in European power plants. Consequently, counter-flow natural draft cooling towers were constructed in U.S. Power plants with increasing frequency beginning in 1967 when Research-Cottrell of Bound Brook, New Jersey entered the U.S. cooling tower market under license agreement with the Belgian cooling tower designer, Hamon-Sobelco. Furthermore, when Zurn Industries, Inc. Cooling Tower Division of Tampa, Florida completed construction of their first counter-flow natural draft cooling tower in 1980, under license agreement with the world’s oldest cooling tower company, Germany's Balcke-Diirr Aktiengesellschaft, the day of the cross-flow natural draft cooling tower was over. ‘The selection of cross-flow natural draft cooling tower designs for large power plant applications came to an abrupt end as the following advantages of counter-flow designs became apparent 4 Counter-flow cooling tower designs proved to be much less susceptible to damage due to ice accumulation in cold weather. One of the primary advantages of counter-flow natural draft cooling tower designs over cross-flow designs is that, in cold weather operation, the counter-flow fill system is shielded from direct contact with the cold ambient air stream by virtue of the fact that the fill material is completely enclosed within the confines of the cooling tower shell, and by virtue of the preheating effects of the rain zone beneath the fill system. eee ‘Scanned with CamScanner‘% The fragile array of splash bars in cross-flow towers, on the other hand, come into direct contact with the inflowing airstream, resulting in freezing and formation of ice accumulations that can damage cooling tower structures and components. % The elevation of the hot water distribution system in a cross-flow NDCT design is typically 20 feet (or more) higher than the elevation of the hot water distribution system of a counter-flow design of comparable thermal performance duty. Consequently, the water pumping head and pumping horsepower requirements for cross-flow designs are significant greater than those of counter-flow designs The emergence of film-type PVC fill designs in the early 1980s resulted in more thermally efficient counter-flow designs. This technological innovation permitted design and construction of physically smaller and less costly counter-flow NDCT designs, in contrast to the larger size and cost of cross-flow NDCT designs that incorporated splash-type fill systems. And therefore, every natural draft cooling tower constructed in the United States after 1980 is a counter-flow design. 1.5 Packing fill classification Hot water is sprayed over the fill material. The spray zone can account for as much as 25% of the total heat transfer in a tower. It is very important that the water is distributed uniformly over the fill. Maldistribution of liquid flow is often cited as a cause of reduced performance in packed towers. A poor water flow distribution over the fill is commonly experienced at water flowrates in excess of around 4.2 kg/m’s. If the flowrate is increased beyond this value, the water cascades in thick streams instead of falling as a spray, so that the effective area is reduced. This condition is called flooding. On the other hand, if the water flowrate drops to about 0.8 kg/m s or less, surface tension causes the waterflow to channel. This gives a poor water distribution, and hence a marked drop in performance. The fill increases the transfer area by breaking the water up into smaller droplets or by forming a thin film depending on the type of fill. The fill also increases the contact time between the water and the air. The factors influencing the choice of fill are its heat transfer performance, quality of water, pressure drop, cost and durability. Over the last 30 years, there has been a gradual change in the types of fill used in process cooling towers. The most dramatic change has been the introduction of film fills that provide significantly higher thermal performance through the increase of water-to-air contact area and a reduction in pressure drop. This results in a reduction in capital expenditures, lower operating costs and smaller tower footprint, However, in many applications, due to poor water quality or potential process contamination, these benefits are nade the older splash fill technology is still used. ‘The film fill designs can be grouped in three alll ies: cross corrugated, vertical offset and vertical flow as can be seen, Mirsky 4 a ‘Scanned with CamScannerand Bauthier present a history of the development of wet-cooling tower fills. Aull and Krell investigated the performance of various film fills 1.6 Cooling tower terminology ¢ Air flow: total quantity of air along with water vapour flowing through the tower * Recirculation: the proportion of air from outlet which reenters the tower. + Heat load (or cooling load): rate of heat removal from the water flowing through the tower expressed in kw. * Dry bulb temperature: temperature of air measured under atmospheric conditions. + Wet bulb temperature: the temperature in degree celsius to which air can be cooled, making it adiabatic to saturation by the addition of water vapour. In practical terms, the wet bulb temperature is the temperature indicated by a thermometer, the bulb of which is kept moist by a wick and over which air is circulated. + Basin: the area at the bottom of the tower for collecting cold water. Cross flow towers have a hot water distribution basin at the top and in some cases, a water basin between the top and bottom basin. 1.7 Design parameters and Losses in cooling tower Range: The numerical difference between inlet and outlet temperature of water. * Approach: The difference in temperature (degree celsius) of the cold water leaving the tower and wet bulb temperature of ambient air. + Cooling Tower Effectiveness (in percentage): Iti the ratio of range, to the ideal range, ile, difference between cooling water inlet temperature and ambient wet bulb temperature, or in other words: Effectiveness = range / (range + approach) i the ratio of dissolved solids in circulating water to * Cycles of concentration (C.0.C) the dissolved solids in makeup water. ‘Scanned with CamScannerof Losses: rift loss: taking drifi losses as 0.20% of circulating water, DL= (0.20 x Mw)/ 100 raporation Loss: taking evaporation losses as 1% of circulating water per 10°F of cooling EL= (0.01 x Myx Rangey/10 indage Loss: taking windage losses as 0.50% of circulating water, WL= (0.005 x Mw) down Loss: taking the relation to get blow-down loss as, BL= EL / (C.0.C - 1) ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Berman [1]: in his book discussed the origin and early history of technical papers dealing with theories are surveyed by Berman, L D, Evaporative Cooling of Circulating Water, The main objective of early investigators of cooling tower theory grappled with the evaporative heat exchange mode. Zivi and Brand (2): in his book provided analysis of a cross flow cooling tower. He discussed various types of cooling tower and basic important components of wet cooling tower and he also discussed on clements influences cooling tower performance estimation and energy efficient cooling tower opportunities Mirsky [3]: in his book discussed the history of the development fill in counter flow and cross flow cooling towers done by Gary R. Mirsky, Custodis- Hamon Constructors in the Evolution of Cooling Tower Fill and its application principles, economics, and test methodology used here to assure accurate performance predictions. Robert D. Fulkerson reformed the Comparative Evaluation of Counter flow Cooling Tower Fills , in Cooling Tower Technology, they discussed the testing and development of heat transfer and pressure drop data for several commonly used counter flow fill materials. Benton [4]: in his book provided Influenced factor of the fill that the Lewis Number effect and Flow Orientation is determined from experimental data for counter flow splash and cross flow film fill. The relative influence of fill type (film/splash) and flow orientation (counter/cross flow) on the Lewis number is examined in light of this more complete data set by the Dudley J. Benton in Engineering Laboratory. Kloppers [5]: in his PhD Thesis he provided the Critically Evaluated and Refined the Performance Prediction of Wet-Cooling towers. Kroger and Kloppers(6]: in their book they investigated into the heat and mass transfer analysis of cross and counter flow wet- cooling towers. They conducted various experimental analyses on. different types of cooling towers and provided various empirical correlations for performance of cooling tower. Merkel (7): in his paper he provided the detailed procedure to predict the performance analysis, of cross and counter flow cooling towers by Merkel method. The most widely and univer adopted means used for cooling towers calculation is based on the theory developed in principle over 70 years ago Merkel. This work was largely neglected until 1941 when the paper was translated into English. Since then, the model has been widely applied. The Merkel model is a very popular model and its employment is recommended by international standards. The Merkel theory relies on several critical assumptions to reduce the solution of heat and mass transfer in wet-cooling towers to a simple hand calculation, 9 _ i; —x_aZZ!, ‘Scanned with CamScannerLey Davidovich Berman[8}: in his book he provided basic principal of cooling tower. The basic principal of heat transfer in cooling tower is sensible heat transfer because of temperature difference and the latent heat flow due to the evaporation are lumped together and a single driving force for the total heat transfer and unique transfer coefficient are used. The driving force is the difference between the enthalpy of the saturated air at the interface and the enthalpy of the humid air stream. The formulation and the implementation of Merkel’s theory in evaporative cooling of circulating water is presented and discussed detailed in the text book. Example Lev Davidovich Berman. Alwaked [9]: in his paper he provided different counter flow towers and cooling zones. Cooling zones are categorized as: spray, fill and rain zones, whereas in cross flow towers there is essentially only a fill zone. In counter low towers, more than 80% of the cooling can take place in the fill region. Merkel was the first to develop a model to predict the rate of cooling in the fill Zivi and Brand(10]: they developed and solved the Merkel model for a cross flow cooling tower. This cross flow model is two- dimensional and is solved numerically using a computer. However, Merkel’s theory is relatively simple and based on many assumptions. The basic postulations and approximations that are inherent in the Merkel’s equation are, The resistance for heat transfer in the liquid film is negligible. The mass flow rate of water per unit of cross sectional area of the tower is constant (there is no water loss due to evaporation). The specific heat of the air-stream mixture at constant pressure is the same as that of the dry air, and the Lewis number for humid air is unity. he cited in his paper that the effect of water evaporation is respectively small and Baker{1 ns and gives a value for number of transfer units(NTU) that is varies with the operating condi 1.34% too low. Threlkeld and Webb{12): they studied the effect of water evaporation on the cooling tower performance by using various empirical correlations. They also conduct various experimental analysis on cross and counter flow cooling towers. Merkel[13}; he developed a cooling tower theory for the mass (evaporation of a small portion of ‘water) and sensible heat transfer between the air and water in a counter flow cooling tower. The theory considers the flow of mass and energy from the bulk water to an interface, and then from the interface to the surrounding air mass. The flow crosses these two boundaries, each offering resistance resulting in gradients in temperature, enthalpy, and humidity ratio. Merkel demonstrated that the total heat transfer is directly proportional to the difference between the enthalpy of saturated air at the water temperature and the enthalpy of air at the point of contact with water. Lewis{14]: he find a constant that has great influence on performance of cooling tower, the ‘constant is Lewis number or Lewis factor. Another source of errors which has been examined is the resistance to heat transfer in the fills and the non unity values of Lewis number Raghavan ‘Stevens et al,and Jefferson introduced an adjustment coefficient to account for the effect of the Actual value of the Lewis number, Sadasivam and Balakrishan initiated new definition of air 10 ‘Sand with CamScannerenthalpy ,there by obviating the need to invoke the Lewis reaction. Yadigraoglue and Pastor proved that the approximations inherent in the Markel equation contribute to over all error. Poppe and Régener [15]:they developed the Poppe method which does not make the same simplifying assumptions as Merkel and can be solved for cross or counter flow. The Poppe method is not as simple as the e-NTU and Merkel methods and requires solving multiple differential equations. It can be solved one dimensionally for counter flow but requires a two dimensional calculation for cross flow. The air can, be unsaturated, saturated, or even supersaturated, according to the Poppe method. Poppe method which is usually solved by runga kutta forth order numerical equation which is divided in some phases and procedure evaluated in iterative manner for counter flow taking place through the fills and this is the non dimensional phenomena. While in the cross flow it is performed in forward differentiation. The humidity of the air through the entire cooling process is predicted by the Poppe approach, unlike the Merkel approach where only the outlet condition of the air is known, ic. it is saturated. Jaber and Webb [16]: they developed a way to use the effectiveness NTU approach directly to wet cooling towers, similar to the e-NTU method normally used for heat exchangers. The eNTU method has an advantage over the Merkel method, which is it can calculate cooling for cross or counter flow with equal effort. Kroger{17): in his textbook Air- Cooled Heat Exchangers and Cooling Towers, given different governing equations for cooling tower performance and mathematical modulation for cross and counter flow wet cooling towers. Accordingly, he presented a core precise method to access the errors associated with the approximate Merkel method. He found that the approximations unity of the Lewis number and specific heat of the air water vapour mixture are the same as that of the dryair, affecting the driving potential by a very small amount (-1.5 to 0.2 %),and the0 neglecting of water film resistance probably results in a greater error. He pointed out that more completely; symmetrically analysis for a range of practical interest would be of value. George Meek [18]: The Munters Corporation started investigation on the Cellular Cooling Tower Fill and explained the purpose of the fill in the heat transfer evaluation by different fills (flash fill, splash fill and film fill. Kelly(19}: in his data book he provided the basic correlations for heat and mass transfer analysis of eross and counter flow cooling towers. He also provided the properties of fluids at various temperatures. Moffatt (20): he was the first to derive the NTU equation for the counter ~current cooling tower. ‘Webb mentioned that the Moffatt method applies only if the water is the minimum capacity rate fluid, but fails if it is not. And the rash if NTU detentions, consequently, they redefined the NTU to be based only on the minimum flow capacity fluid and asserted that their definition is the only correct and consistent one. The proposed definitions for both ¢ and NTU are in precise Agreement those widely used for heat exchanger design. However, the definition the tower effectiveness may cause some confusion, as it be shown later. Additionally, itis necessary keep ‘ack of minimum flow capacity fluid (Cmin). ‘Seared with CamScannerKloppers, Kréger [21]: they provided cooling tower performance by the Merkel and e-NTU inethods make the following simplifying assumptions, change in water flow rae fom evaporation is negligible in the energy balance; the air leaving the fill is saturated with water vapour and the Lewis factor is equal to unity. Despite these assumptions the methods allow for an accurate evaluation of water outlet temperature. However, the prediction of air outlet temperature and humidity is inaccurate. For cooling towers with plume abatements like hybrid towers itis essential to determine the conditions of the air leaving the fill correctly. ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION AND WORKING OF A NATURAL DRAFT COUNTER-FLOW WET COOLING TOWER ‘Scanned with CamScannerCHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTION AND WORKING OF A NATURAL DRAFT COUNTER-FLOW WET COOLING TOWER Cooling Towers Cooling towers are designed to cool a warm water stream through evaporation of some of the water into an air stream. The towers are commonly used in large thermal systems to reject the waste heat from the systems via a water loop between the two devices. Wet-cooling towers are onsidered in this study. 32 Natural Draft Counter-Flow Wet-Cooling Tower Wet-cooling in the NDCT takes place when the water is in direct contact with the air Cooling is the result of sensible and latent heat transfer where the latent heat transfer component generally dominates. Ambient air is drawn into the tower and flows in a counter current manner to the water stream which enters at the top of the tower as a spray and flows downward through the tower. Hot air being less dense moves upwards and cold air is made to enter into the tower through air inlet at bottom. Figure 3.1 Natural Draft Counter-Flow Wet-Cooling Tower 14 Ree ‘Scanned with CamScannerSystems ‘A generic natural draft cooling tower water distribution system includes Inlet header piping: This is the piping, which may be above or below grade elevation, that delivers hot water to the cooling tower and feeds the riser pipes (see Figure 7). Riser pipes: Thes Pipes transport the hot water flow vertically upward to the water distribution elevation (see re 8) Water Distribution Headers or Flumes: These water conduits form the main water arteries at the | 3501.641.8577(7 ~273- 15)- ae, 273.15) )\ 4100-1 (005%1316.086 1,00416(288.6- 2 a) ~| 3501.6 41.8577(288.6- 273 15)- i hanes 273.15) = 0.008127 ke/kgof air Specific heat of dy ai tint T ure 7,-295K 161783 x 10'7, + 7.083814 x 107,” — 2.705209 * 1077, oa = 1.045356 « 10° 3: " = Z ater vapour at Temperate, 03K Cu ae sp 291324%3103-2.467H4*10 1310.3" + 5.91332 1013310." 69.2. 0eK pest of water at ene tse -2,8062T 1 om vn 78 320K ‘Temperature T,,,-308.9K 45,11283x10°Ty?-2-17582N10 3 ‘Scanned with CamScanner