Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Analysis of air humidification process for humid air turbine cycle with a
detailed air humidifier model
Qing Zhang , Ming He , Yuzhang Wang *, Shilie Weng
School of Mechanical Engineering, Key Laboratory for Power Machinery and Engineering of Ministry of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ., 800 Dong Chuan Rd.,
Shanghai 200240, PR China

H I G H L I G H T S

• Local mass transfer coefficients are obtained based on experimental data.

• The humidifier model combined with performance evaluation is established.
• The theoretical model can reflect the actual heat and mass transfer process.
• The driving force distribution during the humidification process is investigated.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Humid Air Turbine (HAT) cycle is one of the most efficient humidified gas turbine cycle that shows the potential
Humid air turbine cycle to be competitive with combined cycle The humidifier is the distinctive component of the HAT cycle, and the air
Humidifier humidification process is of significance for the overall performance. However, due to the lack of reliable mass
Two-phase flow
transfer coefficient, the existing theoretical model of the humidifier cannot reflect the actual humidification
Mass transfer coefficient
process. This work focuses on a method to estimate the heat transfer coefficient for the humidification process
Thermodynamics analysis
Theoretical model based on experimental data. The global and local mass transfer coefficients are obtained, respectively. The results
show that the segmented simulation with the local mass transfer coefficients (SL-2) is significantly better than the
overall simulation with the global mass transfer coefficients (SL-1). The mass transfer coefficient (hD) distributed
along the height of the humidifier is obtained. At the bottom and the top of the humidifier, the sensible heat
transfer and the latent heat transfer dominates the air humidification, respectively. In the packing segment of the
humidifier, the heat transfer has low effectiveness of 43%, but the exergy efficiency is 96%. At the top and
bottom of the humidifier, the effectiveness of heat transfer is higher than 70%, but the exergy efficiency at the
bottom of the humidifier is lower than 20%. Adopting appropriate inlet air and water temperature are the
available methods to reduce the exergy loss. The thermodynamic analysis in this work can provide a basis for
optimizing HAT cycle configuration and humidifier structure.

1. Introduction
Gas turbine simple cycle and combined cycles dominate the power
generation market for high efficiency and low capital costs [1–3]. The
humid Air Turbine (HAT) cycle, also as known as the evaporative gas
turbine cycle (EvGT), is a novel advanced gas turbine cycle that shows
the potential to be competitive with combined cycle [4–7]. The HAT
cycle utilizes vapor-air mixtures to increase the mass of working fluid
through the expander, resulting in high power output, low NOx emis­
sions, and high heat recovery potential [8–10], and thus has attracted
considerable interest since Rao [11] took patent in 1989. The humidi­
fier, as the key component of the HAT cycle, utilizes low-level heat to
provide heat for evaporation [12–14]. Simultaneous heat and mass
transfer occur when the compressed air in countercurrent contacts with
hot water [15]. The exact definition of the humidification process re­
quires to account for heat and mass transfer. However, the experimental
study only obtains limited data due to the layout of the measurement
system, constraining the in-depth understanding of the heat and mass
transfer process inside the humidifier. Simulating the humidification
process is to obtain detailed physical properties of two-phase flow,
which is of great significance for performance analysis and optimization

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yuzhangwang@sjtu.edu.cn (Y. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115833
Received 6 May 2020; Received in revised form 28 August 2020; Accepted 31 August 2020
Available online 11 September 2020
0306-2619/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Q. Zhang et al.
Nomenclature
A cross sectional area (m2)
C molar concentration (kmol m− 3)
CA, CB molar concentration of A, B (kmol m− 3)
CBm logarithmic mean value of CB
CP specific heat capacity (kJ kg− 1 k− 1)
CT total molar concentration (kmol m− 3)
D diffusivity (m2 s− 1)
dm mass transfer rate (kg s− 1)
dq heat transfer rate (kJ s− 1)
dz height of tower cell (m)
G air mass flow rate (kg s− 1)
HTU height of a transfer unit
h enthalpy (kJ kg− 1)
hD mass transfer coefficient (m s− 1)
m mass flow rate (kg s− 1)
M’ total mass flow rate (kg m-2s− 1)
N molar rate of diffusion per unit area (average value) (kmol
m− 2 s− 1)
N’ total molar rate of diffusion per unit area (kmol m− 2 s− 1)
NTU number of a transfer unit
P pressure (MPa)
R universal gas constant (8314 J kmol− 1 K− 1)
T temperature (oC)
of humidification strategies.
A one-dimensional theoretical model, based on the heat and mass
transfer equation and the energy conservation, has been established to
investigate the thermodynamic process of the humidifier by numerous
researchers [16–19]. To obtain the temperature and humidity profiles
along the humidifier height, Dalili [17] established the numerical
calculation model by dividing the height into many segments. However,
the change of thermodynamic parameters, such as water temperature
and heat transfer, were assumed constant in each segment. Araki [18]
solved a one-dimensional difference equation in which the humidity
difference between the bulk air and the film as the driving force for mass
transfer, but the verification between theoretical calculations and in­
ternal experimental data of the humidifier was absent. Parente [22]
compared the SAT model based on the mass-energy balance and CT
model according to the Merkel theory. The results showed that the SAT
model was able to predict more accurate outlet humid air parameters
and internal packing sizes, especially at higher than 16 bar pressures.
Therefore, it is a prerequisite to establishing the corresponding heat and
mass transfer model according to the mass transfer driving force for
obtaining accurate fluid profiles, and the theoretical calculation needs to
be supported by the internal experimental data of the humidifier.
Mass transfer coefficient, hD, as the most important parameter for the
theoretical model, has been measured by many researchers [20,21].
However, the effects of humidifier type, packing type, operating tem­
perature, and pressure levels have not been considered. The hD could be
estimated by adopting a modified Reynolds analogy because the
mechanisms governing mass transfer are similar to those involved in
heat transfer [22], but Ackerman correction must be introduced to
obtain accurate hD in humidifiers, which makes the calculation more
complicated. Similarly, the hD could be calculated through the Sher­
wood number (Sh) [23], which is determined by the operating condi­
tions, and some important parameters have application range, such as
the diffusion coefficient. The difficulty in defining the mass transfer
coefficient is that it is closely related to the operating conditions,
physical properties of the two-phase flow, and varying dynamically
along the tower height. It would bring unacceptable errors to the actual
humidification process if the mass transfer coefficient is assumed to a
2
Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833
W/A water–air ratio
zG the thickness of the film (m)
Z packing height (m)
Greek letters
α heat transfer coefficient (W m− 2 k− 1)
ε effectiveness
μ viscosity of fluid (N s m− 2)
ρ density (kg m− 3)
η exergy efficiency
Г flow rate per length (kg s− 1 m− 1)
Subscripts
A Component A
B Component B
a dry air
g gas
i interface
j nodal point
L Liquid
w water
v vapor
1 Phase 1
2 Phase 2
constant over the whole height, even if the exit parameters have suffi­
cient accuracy. So far, it is absent for the mass transfer coefficient that
can objectively reflect the actual humidification process due to a lack of
internal experimental data. As mentioned above, using the internal
experimental data of the humidification tower obtained from two-phase
flow measurement system, the mass transfer coefficient of each segment
could be obtained under given operating conditions. Furthermore, the
assumption that the heat transfer of each calculation segment is iden­
tical can be removed. So, it is imperative to combine the theoretical
model with experimental data of the humidifier to demonstrate the heat
and mass transfer process at this stage.
The performance of the HAT thermodynamic cycle was evaluated by
thermal efficiency and output power [24]. Researchers [25–27] have
presented the performance of the HAT cycle from various aspects of
thermodynamics: the variation of thermal efficiency with the pressure
ratio and turbine inlet temperatures [27]; the benefits of water injection
into compressed air was clarified based on the first law of thermody­
namics [28]; and exergy loss of each component according to the second
law of thermodynamics [29]. The humidifier, as the distinctive
component of the HAT cycle, the performance of which is concerning the
following factors: exit humid air temperature; humidity; and exit water
temperature [30,31]. The humidification process of the compressed air
is similar to the heat dissipation and water evaporation process in a
cooling tower. However, the Merkel theory [32], which is widely used to
evaluate the performance of cooling towers, had a large deviation in
high-pressure humidifiers. Although an effectiveness-NTU model for
countercurrent humidifier was developed by Xu [33], there is no anal­
ysis on the humidification process nor uniform criteria to evaluate the
thermal performance of humidifiers.
Based on the above analysis, the effectiveness based on the first law
of thermodynamics and the exergy efficiency based on the second law of
thermodynamics are proposed to reveal the humidification process of
the compressed air. In thermodynamics, heat utilization efficiency (as
known as effectiveness) focuses on the distribution of energy flows be­
tween sources and sinks and it allows visually evaluating the efficiency
and losses of the humidification process. However, heat utilization ef­
ficiency based on the first law of thermodynamics does not evaluate the
Q. Zhang et al. Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

irreversible loss in the heat recovery process. A better way of further
assessing the performances of humidification is to carry out a second law
analysis, in which exergy flows depicts the humidification process. Such
analysis can also reveal where exergy is destroyed in the humidifier and
provide valuable insights for possible performance improvements [34].
This work focuses on the mass transfer coefficient, thermodynamics
analysis, and performance evaluation based on the theoretical model.
The global and local mass transfer coefficients are obtained by the
experimental data. A one-dimensional model in which humidity differ­
ence as the driving force for mass transfer is established. The theoretical
models using different mass transfer coefficients are also established: the
overall calculation with the global mass transfer coefficient (SL-1) and
the segmented simulation with the local mass transfer coefficient (SL-2).
The mass transfer coefficient (hD) distributed along the height of the
humidifier is obtained. Humidification properties along the tower
height, including evaporation rate, exergy, and enthalpy, are discussed
in detail. Effectiveness and exergy efficiency are also proposed to eval­
uate air humidification. The available methods to reduce the exergy loss
are proposed as well. The research can be employed for the design of
humidifiers in future work.
is similar to the process of heat dissipation and water evaporation in the
cooling tower. However, the humidifier distinguishes from the cooling
towers by high pressure, temperature, and humidity. The evaporation
rate should not be neglected in mass balance and the lef should not be
assumed to be 1. Thus, the Merkel theory [32] widely used in cooling
towers is not suitable for the high-pressure humidifiers. Therefore, the
conservation equations must be considered for mass and heat transfer
processes. The evaporation process is considered as the diffusion of
water vapor into the air. The evaporation rate depends on the concen­
tration difference of vapor between the film and the air stream. The
driving force can also be expressed by the partial pressure difference of
vapor, and the partial pressure of vapor corresponds to the humidity in
the air. For simplification, a one-dimensional model with the humidity
difference as the driving force of mass transfer is established. The hu­
midification process of the compressed air is divided into N segments in
the vertical direction. Fig. 2 shows the heat and mass transfer of each
control volume in the countercurrent humidifier. The governing con­
servation equations can be written as follows:

2. Heat and mass transfer model for the humidifier

2.1. Mass and energy balances of the control volumes

Generally, the compressed air is put into countercurrent contact with

heated water in the humidifier. The heated water flows downwards
overpacking for countercurrent contact with the compressed air which
enters at the bottom, as shown in Fig. 1. Simultaneous heat and mass
transfer occur in the humidification process: humidifying the com­
pressed air and cooling the hot water. The mass flow rate of the evap­
orated water entering the air stream is determined by the concentration
difference of the vapor at the interface. The heat transfer between gas-
Fig. 2. Control volume of countercurrent humidifier.
liquid two-phase flow is determined by the temperature difference. It

Fig. 1. Schematic of packing humidifier.

3
Q. Zhang et al. Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

Mass balance of the film: of the film, CBi and CB2 represent the vapor concentration at the film and
on the air side, respectively.
dml = dmg (1)
DV CT CB2
Mass conservation of water vapor: (13)
′
NA = ln
zG CBi
ma ⋅(Xj+1 − Xj ) = dmg (2) CBm is the logarithmic mean of CBi and CB2:
Enthalpy conservation of liquid side: CB2 − CBi
CBm = (14)
ml,j+1 ⋅hl,j+1 = ml,j ⋅hl,j + dqs + dml ⋅hl (Ti ) (3) ln(CB2 /CBi )

Enthalpy conservation of humid air: Combining Eq. (13) with Eq. (14) gives
[ ] [ ]
ma ⋅hg,j+1 = ma ⋅hg,j + dqs + dmg ⋅hv (Ti ) (4) ′
NA =
DV CT CB2 − CBi
=
DV CT CAi − CA2
(15)
zG CBm zG CBm
Global enthalpy balance:
Hence, the total molar rate of transfer of vapor per unit time over the
ma ⋅hg,j + ml,j+1 ⋅hl,j+1 = ma ⋅hg,j+1 + ml,j ⋅hl,j (5) unit area is given by:
Mass transfer equation:
(16)
′
NA = hD (CAi − CA2 )
dmg = kh ⋅a⋅(Xi − X)⋅A⋅dz (6)
where
Heat transfer equations:
DV CT
dqs = α⋅a⋅(Tl − Ta )⋅A⋅dz (7) hD = (17)
zG CBm
The diffusion coefficient DV at temperature T and pressure P can be
2.2. Calculation of mass transfer coefficient calculated by:
( )1.70
2.2.1. Number of a transfer unit p0 T
DV = D0 × 10− 5 (18)
The increment in air mass is expressed by the humidity difference of P T0
the air:
where D0 represents the diffusion coefficient of water vapor in the air
(8)
(101.3 kPa, 273 K) with the value of 1.38 × 10-5 m2 s− 1. The film
ma dx = kh ⋅a⋅(Xi − X)⋅A⋅dz
The number of transfer units (NTU) is the rate of change in humidity thickness zG is obtained by:
with height for unit driving force [35]. It can be expressed as: ( )0.333
3 μl Γ
∫ Xout zG = 2
(19)
dX ρl g
NTU = (9)
Xin (Xi − X)
where Г is the flow rate per length (4.33 kg/ (s m)), g is the gravitational
which can be calculated by numerical integration method from the acceleration (9.81 m/s2). The analogy of heat and mass transfer is
air inlet/outlet and water inlet/outlet conditions. The NTU represents demonstrated by the j-factor of Chilton and Colburn [36,37]. The rela­
the difficulty of mass transfer when the humidity difference is consid­ tionship between the mass transfer coefficient and the heat transfer
ered as the driving force. The packing height (Z) can be determined by coefficient can be expressed as [38]:
Z = NTU⋅HTU (10) ( )( )0.67
α CT Pr
hD = (20)
The mass transfer unit height, HTU, refers to the packing height of CP ⋅ρ CBm Sc
each mass transfer unit. It consists of the mass transfer coefficient and
the airflow rate. The mass transfer coefficient is obtained by: 3. Performance evaluation criteria
∫ Xout
ma dX
kh = (11) The compressed air is put into countercurrent contact with heated
Z⋅a⋅A Xin (Xi − X)
water in the humidifier, and the compressed air is being humidified by
cooling and evaporating the water, through which the air turns into the
2.2.2. The film model-Stefan’s law
high-humidity air.
The film theory is one of the main models of heat and mass transfer
mechanisms between two phases. The film theory assumes that heat and
mass transfer between two phases is controlled by a steady-state mo­ 3.1. Effectiveness
lecular transfer region. There is a film at the interface between water and
air, and the resistance to heat and mass transfer are in the film. The According to the first law of thermodynamics, the effectiveness of the
thickness of the film is generally different depending on the type of pressurized packing humidifier is defined as the ratio of the actual heat
liquid and the flow characteristics. transfer to the maximum heat transfer [33]:
The evaporation is regarded as the vapor diffusion process. The
Qact Δh
vapor must diffuse through a saturated air film before entering the bulk ε= = (21)
Qmax Δhmax
air stream. The driving force of mass transfer is the vapor concentration
gradient of the saturated air film near the interface, which can also be Considering the energy conservation inside the humidifier, the
expressed as the difference of vapor concentration between the film and actual heat transfer can be expressed by the enthalpy difference of the
the air stream. Thus, Stefan’s law is applied to describe the mass transfer water stream or the air stream:
process of water vapor (A) into the air (B) [35].
Δhw = Δha = mda (ha,o − ha,j ) = mw,i hw,i − mw,o hw,o (22)
CT dCA
(12) The limit of heat recovery is that the water temperature drops to the
′
NA = − DV
CB dz
dew point temperature of the inlet air. Therefore, the maximum possible
On the integration of the film thickness, zG represents the thickness enthalpy difference of water (Δhmax,w ) can be given as:

4
Q. Zhang et al. Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

Δhmax,w = mw,i hw,i − mw,id hw,id (Tdp ) (23) 4. Results and discussion

4.1. Theoretical model validation

3.2. Exergy efficiency
The effectiveness of the one-dimensional model affects the evalua­
A way of assessing the performance of humidifiers is to carry out the
tion of humidification performance. Therefore, the model for the hu­
second law of thermodynamics, also known as exergy analysis. Exergy,
midifier was validated by comparing the simulation results with the
called effective energy or available energy, refers to the part of the en­
reported experimental data, as listed in Table 1, including the inlet
ergy which can be converted into usable power under certain conditions.
conditions and the corresponding outlet conditions. Among them, Case
Exergy analysis is an important method for studying thermodynamic
C [19] is the comparison between the simulation results and experi­
processes. Exergy loss refers to available energy destruction during the
mental data of the humidifier established at Lund University. The
irreversible process, which has a guiding significance for improving the
maximum error of the main parameters is 3.84%, and the simulation
humidification performance by reducing irreversible losses. Exergy loss
results are well suited to the experimental data. Hence, the simulation
can be expressed by:
parameters along the tower height can provide a reference for thermo­
EXloss = (EXw,in − EXw,out ) − (EXa,out − EXa,in ) (24) dynamic analysis considered in this work.

where EXloss is the exergy loss, EXw,in and EXw,out are the exergy of inlet
water and outlet water exergy, respectively, EXa,out and EXa,in are the
exergy of inlet air and outlet humid air, respectively.
Therefore, the exergy efficiency (the second-law efficiency) is
defined as:
EXa,out − EXa,in EXloss
η= × 100% = (1 − ) × 100%
EXw,in − EXw,out EXw,in − EXw,out
The ISO standard state (T0 = 15 ◦ C, P0 = 101325 Pa, φ = 60%) is
selected as the reference point, and the exergy of the humid air and
water is calculated by Eq. (26) and Eq. (27), respectively.
T T P experimental data in Table 3, the humidity profiles of air and the film
EX = (Cp,a + XCp,v )T0 ( − 1 − ln ) + (1 + 1.608X)Ra T0 ln
T0 T0 P0
1 + 1.608X0 X between the film and water is neglected, so the film temperature is
+Ra T0 [(1 + 1.608X)ln + 1.608Xln ]
1 + 1.608X X0
As shown in the Eq. (26), the first term represents the thermody­
namic exergy caused by the temperature difference, the second term
represents the thermodynamic exergy due to the pressure difference
between the air and the environment, and the latter one represents the
chemical exergy generated by the vapor concentration difference be­
tween the humid air and the environment.
EXw = hw (T, P) − T0 sw (T, P) − h0 (T0 , P0,w ) + T0 s0 (T0 , P0,w )
where, hw and sw represent the enthalpy value and the entropy value of
water at the corresponding temperature and pressure, respectively. h0
and s0 represent the enthalpy value and entropy value of water under the
standard state, respectively. T0 represents the temperature at the refer­
ence point, and P0, w represents the partial pressure of vapor at the
reference point.
4.2. Mass transfer coefficient
The test system of a pressurized packing humidifier is designed and
built at Shanghai Jiao Tong University [30]. Using the re-developed
gas–liquid two-phase measurement system, the exit humid air/water
temperature and the humidity under various operating conditions are
(25)
obtained, as shown in Table 2. According to the arrangement of
measuring points, the parameters of the two-phase flow inside the hu­
midifier are also obtained, and the experimental data under No. 16 is
shown in Table 3. The method to estimate the mass transfer coefficient
based on the experimental results is shown in Fig. 3. According to the
obtained by fitting are plotted in Fig. 3(a). The heat transfer resistance
(26)
assumed to be equal to the water temperature. The moisture content of
the saturated air film is obtained by its partial pressure corresponding to
the water temperature. Use the least-squares method to fit the moisture
content curves of humid air and saturated air film along the humidifier
height, respectively. The driving force for mass transfer is the humidity
diffidence between the saturated air film and humid air. Similarly, the
specific enthalpy profiles of humid air and the film along the tower
height is obtained by fitting curve, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The sensible
(27) heat is transferred from the hot air to the water side since the inlet air
temperature is much higher than that of water at the bottom of the
humidifier. At this stage, the specific enthalpy of the humid air slightly
decreases because the heat transfer and mass transfer are in the reverse
directions. Therefore, it is more suitable to use the humidity difference
between the film and the bulk air stream as the driving force for vapor
entering the compressed air. The humidity difference between the
saturated air film and the air stream is plotted in Fig. 3(c). The driving

Table 1
The model validation for humidifier.
Case A [14] B [16] C [19] D [30]

Data type Experiment Experiment Experiment Experiment

Inlet condition Air temperature (℃) 98.08 73.6 68 123.3

Air pressure (kPa) 300 788 816 189
Air mass flow (kg⋅s− 1) 5.03 2.17 2.19 1.198
Air humidity (kg⋅kg− 1) 0 0.0065 0.007 0.006
Water temperature (℃) 75.73 146.2 147 90
Water pressure (kPa) 300 788
Water mass flow (kg⋅s− 1) 0.00503 3.48 3.27 0.62
Outlet condition Air temperature (℃) Ref 65.26 116 118 58
Model 65.56 116.9 117.7 58.12
Error (%) 0.46 0.77 0.25 0.36
Air humidity (kg⋅kg− 1) Ref 0.0577 0.1828 0.185 0.076
Model 0.0586 0.1822 0.178 0.078
Error (%) 1.56 0.33 3.84 2.63
Water temperature (℃) Ref 44.56 79.7 73 49
Model 43.43 78.5 73.7 50.02
Error (%) 2.6 1.5 0.96 2

5
Q. Zhang et al. Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

Table 2
Experimental data under different operating conditions.
No. test Inlet air Inlet water Outlet air Outlet water

Ta, in d Ga, in Tw, in Lw, in Ta, out D Tw, out Lw, out

(℃) (kg kg− 1) (kg s− 1) (℃) (kg s− 1) (℃) (kg kg− 1) (℃) (kg s− 1)

1 120 0.0115 1.027 50 0.41 51.2 0.0290 45.7 0.392

2 120 0.0115 1.027 60 0.41 55.4 0.0321 48.6 0.389
3 120 0.0115 1.027 70 0.41 57.9 0.0316 50.7 0.389
4 120 0.0115 1.027 80 0.41 59.0 0.0360 53.2 0.384
5 120 0.0105 1.023 50 0.62 51.0 0.0349 47.6 0.595
6 120 0.0105 1.023 60 0.62 52.5 0.0401 48.6 0.589
7 120 0.0105 1.023 70 0.62 58.6 0.0435 51.3 0.586
8 120 0.0105 1.023 80 0.62 61.0 0.0552 54.6 0.574
9 120 0.0123 1.038 50 0.83 51.2 0.0435 47.6 0.798
10 120 0.0123 1.038 60 0.83 53.9 0.0506 49.2 0.790
11 120 0.0123 1.038 70 0.83 56.4 0.0584 51.5 0.782
12 120 0.0123 1.038 80 0.83 60.7 0.0684 55.3 0.772
13 120 0.0118 1.025 50 1.025 52.0 0.0457 47.8 0.990
14 120 0.0118 1.025 60 1.025 57.0 0.0594 49.4 0.976
15 120 0.0118 1.025 70 1.025 59.9 0.0690 51.9 0.966
16 120 0.0118 1.025 80 1.025 64.1 0.0817 55.6 0.953

Table 3
Experimental data of two-phase flow inside the humidifier under No.16.
Normalized Height Tg (oC) Tl (oC) X (kg kg− 1)
0.268 120 55.6 0.011
0.378 46.1 45.7 0.032
0.558 49.3 47.1 0.037
0.739 52.9 55.9 0.045
1 64.1 81.0 0.081
force of mass transfer is strong at the bottom since there is a large hu­
midity difference at the interface. The driving force is weakened with
the shrinking of humidity difference in the packing segment. The inlet
water temperature is much higher than the air temperature at the top of
the humidifier, and the driving force is maintained and enhanced due to
the temperature difference. According to the humidity profile of the
humid air in Fig. 3(a), the humidity increment in the humid air along the
humidifier height is obtained. The increment in humidity is consistent
with the variation in the driving force of mass transfer, as shown in Fig. 3
(c). In Fig. 3(d), HTU and NTU are plotted along the humidifier height
with the Eq. (9) and Eq. (10). The total NTU is about 3.6 and the HTU is
around 0.21. The increase in NTU is due to the decrease in humidity
difference near the interface in the packing segment.
The mass transfer coefficient, kh, is calculated separately according
to Eq. (11) in different segments (Table 4). Table 5 shows the compar­
ison of the different simulation results under No. 16, including air
temperature (Tg), water temperature (Tl), and humidity (X). SL-1 is
given the global mass transfer coefficient, and SL-2 is given the local
mass transfer coefficient for each segment. To highlight the difference in
the simulation process adopting different mass transfer coefficients, the
air temperature profiles from SL-1 and SL-2 under No.16 condition are
plotted in Fig. 4(a). Simulation results adopting different mass transfer
coefficients are compared with the experimental data under different
working conditions. The relative error between simulation results and
experiential data can be calculated by:
YCal. − YExp.
error = × 100% (28)
YExp.
The air temperature of SL-1 has a large deviation with the experi­
mental data, and the maximum error is 18.9%. The calculation results of
SL-2 in the air temperature is closer to the measurement data with the
maximum error of 4.3%, as shown in Fig. 4(a), which are acceptable for
further thermodynamics analysis. The simulation conditions are
consistent with the experimental conditions, and the experimental data
comes from Table 2. To compare the differences in simulation results
using two different mass transfer coefficients, the error of air tempera­
ture (Tg), water temperature (Tl), and humidity (X) under all experi­
mental conditions are plotted in Fig. 4(b). The results show that the SL-2
is significantly better than the SL-1. From the views of the simulation
process and results, the local mass transfer coefficient is obtained by
segmented calculation, which better describes the actual mass transfer
process.
Several application-dependent methods to estimate the global mass
transfer coefficient have been developed. As the mechanisms governing
mass transfer are similar to those involved in heat transfer, the mass
transfer coefficient is estimated according to the heat transfer coeffi­
cient. Another estimating mean is based on the Merkel theory where the
enthalpy difference is the driving force of mass transfer, and the
measured data at the inlet and outlet of the humidifier are used to
calculate the mass transfer coefficient. In this research, the humidity
difference between the saturated air film and the air stream is consid­
ered as the driving force of mass transfer. Dividing the humidification
process into several segments, the local mass transfer coefficient is
estimated based on the experimental data. The above analysis shows
that the simulation results based on the local mass transfer coefficient
are well consistent with the experimental data. Due to the layout of the
measurement system, the experimental data and local mass transfer
coefficients obtained are limited. To obtain the distribution of the mass
transfer coefficient along the height of the humidifier, the calculation
results of SL-2 are used.
According to the calculation results of SL-2 under No.16, the pa­
rameters of each discrete element, including water temperature, air
temperature, moisture content, and relative humidity are obtained.
Adopting Stephen’s Law based on the film model, the total diffusion
molar rate per unit area (N’) under this condition is estimated, and the
estimated mass transfer of each discrete element is called SL-3. Since SL-
3 uses molar concentration as the driving force for mass transfer, the
mass transfer rate (N’) is expressed as the total diffusion molar ratio per
unit area. For comparison, the total mass transfer rate M ’calculated
from SL-2 and SL-3 is plotted in Fig. 5(a). These two total mass transfer
rates are well consistent, and the maximum calculation error based on
SL-2 is about 12.5%. The numerical model of the SL-3 is validated by the
total mass transfer rate (M’). Subsequently, the mass transfer coefficient,
hD, is estimated applying Stephen’s Law based on SL-3. Distinguishing
from the mass transfer coefficient kh in Table 2, the driving force is
expressed as a difference in humidity. hD is a mass transfer coefficient
with the driving force expressed as a difference in molar concentration.
The mass transfer coefficient (hD) distributed along the height of the
humidifier is plotted in Fig. 5(b).

6
Q. Zhang et al. Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

Fig. 3. Mass transfer coefficient is obtained from experimental data. (a) Absolute humidity of the film and humid air. (b) Enthalpy diagram of the saturated air film
and humid air. (c) Humidity difference and increment of humidity. (d) NTU and HTU as a function of normalized height.

4.3. Thermodynamic analysis of humidification process

Table 4
Calculating parameters for the simulation model under No.16.
4.3.1. Temperature-enthalpy diagram
Parameter Value The humidification process of compressed air is described by the
Ambient condition 1.013 bar, 25 ◦ C, 60% RH temperature-enthalpy diagram. The operating line describes the humid
Inlet air mass flow 1.056 kg s− 1 air enthalpy and the water temperature meeting each other at the same
Pressure ratio 2 location. The saturation curve shows the enthalpy of saturated humid air
Inlet water mass flow 1.02 kg s− 1
Inlet air temperature 120 ◦ C
versus corresponds temperature. The air curve corresponds to the tem­
Inlet water temperature 81 ◦ C perature of humid air and actual enthalpy. Generally, the evaporation
The global mass transfer coefficient (kh) 24 kg m− 2 s− 1 rate is ignored, and the operation line is approximated as a straight line
Mass transfer coefficient of humidifier bottom 36 kg m− 2 s− 1 passing through the air and water inlet/outlet conditions. Fig. 6 de­
Mass transfer coefficient of packing segment 17 kg m− 2 s− 1
scribes the air humidification process according to the experimental
Mass transfer coefficient of humidifier top 49 kg m− 2 s− 1
data and the segmented calculation results of SL-2 under No.16, and the
humidification process is divided into several segments. The water is
heated and the enthalpy of the water increases at the bottom since the
Table 5 air temperature is very high at the inlet of humidifier. Moreover, the
Comparison of simulation results adopting different mass transfer coefficients
enthalpy of humid air slightly decreases with the sharp drop in the air
under No.16.
temperature at the bottom of the humidifier (Segment 1). This phe­
Normalized Height Tg (oC) Tl (oC) X (kg kg− 1) nomenon is related to the working conditions of ’hot air and cold water’.
SL-1 SL-2 SL-1 SL-2 SL-1 SL-2 Besides, the air is in the saturated state from the packing segment
0.268 120 120 53.6 52.1 0.011 0.011 (Segment 2).
0.378 44.4 48.1 42.6 46.9 0.026 0.034
0.558 43.7 48.4 44.1 49.5 0.030 0.036 4.3.2. Thermodynamics properties inside the humidifier
0.739 46.9 51.6 47.8 55.8 0.035 0.043 Fig. 7(a) shows the water temperature and air temperature profiles
1 67.5 64.1 81.5 81.7 0.083 0.081
from SL-2 along the humidifier height. The air temperature and the
water temperature are equal at point A, and there is no sensible heat
transfer between the air stream and the water side. The transfer direc­
tion of sensible heat is reversed along the interface after point A. The

7
Q. Zhang et al.
Fig. 4. Difference in simulation calculations using global/local mass transfer coefficients. (a) Air temperature profiles from SL-1 and SL-2 under No.16. (b) Com­
paration between experimental data and calculated results.
Fig. 5. Mass transfer coefficient distributed along the height of the humidifier is obtained. (a) Comparation of two calculated results on mass flow rate (insets:
enlargements of indicated normalized height ranges). (b) Mass transfer coefficient calculated according to SL-3.
Fig. 6. Temperature-enthalpy diagram.
water temperature leaving the humidifier is higher than the dew-point
temperature of the incoming air. The air comes to a saturated state
with the humidification process along the tower height. The absolute
humidity is significantly improved at the bottom and top of the hu­
midifier, as shown in Fig. 7(b). Heat transfer is divided into two forms
8
Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833
illustrated in Fig. 7(c). The driving force of sensible heat transfer is the
temperature difference between the water and the air stream. The sen­
sible heat transfer occurs intensely at the bottom due to the large tem­
perature difference, which is transferred from water side to the air
stream after the dividing line. The latent heat transfer occurs simulta­
neously with the mass transfer, and the latent heat transfer is propor­
tional to the evaporation rate. Fig. 7(c) shows that there is a strong mass
transfer with the rapid evaporation at the bottom and top of the hu­
midifier. Therefore, latent heat transfer is significant at the bottom and
top, which is consistent with the increment in absolute humidity in Fig. 7
(b). In addition, the marked part of Fig. 7(c) shows the condensation of
vapor at the interface, which corresponds to the decrease in the air
humidity marked in Fig. 7(b). From Fig. 7(d), the sensible heat transfer
dominates the air humidification at the bottom due to the high tem­
perature of incoming air. The contribution of latent heat transfer is
gradually enlarged, and the mass transfer dominates at the top with the
humidification process.
According to the simulation results of SL-2 under No.16, the hu­
midity profiles of humid air and the saturated air film are obtained.
Consequently, the partial pressure profiles of vapor in humid air and the
film are plotted in Fig. 8 based on the relationship between the humidity
and the vapor partial pressure. It is worth noting that the direction of
mass transfer is determined by the concentration difference of the vapor
near the film and in the bulk air stream. Mass transfer rate appears
negative at the bottom of the humidifier, which is caused by the
condensation of vapor in the humid air at the interface. Intrinsically,
Q. Zhang et al.
Fig. 7. Temperature and the humidity profiles inside the humidifier.
Fig. 8. Partial pressure of water vapor and mass transfer rate (insets: en­
largements of indicated normalized height ranges).
when the vapor partial pressure of the air is greater than that of the
saturated air film, the vapor condenses in the interface, which is
consistent with the illustration in Fig. 8.
Fig. 9(a) shows water and humid air exergy profiles from SL-2 inside
the humidifier, and the exergy of water is always large than that of
humid air. The exergy of the air, which consists of convective exergy and
evaporative exergy, decreases at the bottom due to the sharp reduction
in the air temperature. Convective exergy refers to the available energy
that is transferred from water to air stream during the sensible heat
transfer. Evaporative exergy is accompanied by mass transfer, and
evaporative exergy is the available energy that conserved in the vapor
and is conveyed to the humid air side. As shown in Fig. 9(b), the
convective exergy is negative at the bottom of the humidifier, because of
the sensible heat transfer from the hot air to water side. There is a
positive correlation between the evaporative exergy and the mass
transfer rate. So evaporative exergy has a remarkable increase due to the
rapid evaporation rate at the bottom and top of the humidifier (Fig. 9
(c)). Water is heated at the bottom of the humidifier because the air is
much hotter than the water. So, the enthalpy of water increases, as
9
Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833
shown in the marked part of Fig. 9(d). The transfer direction of sensible
heat and latent heat is the opposite, and the latent heat entering the
humid air is lower than the sensible heat transferred to the water side.
Therefore, the enthalpy of the humid air decreases at this stage. The
enthalpy of humid air increases after entering the packing segment in
Fig. 9(d). There is a rapid increase in the enthalpy of humid air at the top
of the humidifier because significant sensible and latent heat is trans­
ferred from the water side to the humid air.
4.4. Performance evaluation on the air humidification
4.4.1. Effectiveness
Fig. 10(a) shows the heat transfer between water and air according
to the simulation results of SL-2. The actual heat transfer is represented
by the increment in the enthalpy of the air stream. Heat is transferred
from the air to the water at the bottom of the humidifier, due to the
working conditions of “hot air and cold water”. The actual heat transfer
gradually increases with the humidification process. Heat transfer grows
rapidly on top of the humidifier because significant sensible and latent
heat is transferred from water to humid air. According to the definition
of effectiveness (the ratio of the actual heat transfer to the maximum
heat transfer), unutilized heat is expressed as the difference between the
maximum heat transfer and the actual heat transfer. Even if the actual
heat transfer is little at the bottom of the humidifier, the proportion of
unutilized heat is small, resulting in the effectiveness of 82% as shown in
Fig. 10(b). However, the effectiveness drops to 43% in the packing
segment. This means that the heat transfer in the packing segment needs
to be improved. The heat recovery capacity gradually rises with the
increase in water temperature, and the effectiveness is 86% at the top of
the humidifier.
4.4.2. Exergy efficiency
The heat transfer results from the temperature difference and the
mass transfer results from the vapor concentration difference are typical
irreversible processes. Therefore, both heat transfer and mass transfer
lead to entropy generation, which results in the exergy loss. Fig. 11(a)
shows the exergy loss profile according to the simulation results of SL-2.
Exergy loss generated at the top and bottom is the main source of loss
during the air humidification. Exergy loss can also reveal where energy
is destroyed along the humidifier height. The exergy profile provides a
valuable solution method for improvements. The main reason for exergy
Q. Zhang et al. Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833

Fig. 9. Exergy and enthalpy profiles along the height of humidifier.

Fig. 10. Heat transfer and effectiveness.

Fig. 11. Exergy loss and exergy efficiency.

loss is the large temperature difference and vapor concentration differ­ efficiency is as high as 96% at the packing segment due to the little
ence between the air stream and the film. The exergy efficiency is low at temperature difference and vapor concentration difference. The exergy
the bottom of the humidifier, which is caused by the large temperature loss increases at the top of the humidifier in Fig. 11(a), which results in
difference as shown in the illustration of Fig. 11(b). However, the exergy the drop to 83% of the exergy efficiency. To reduce the entropy

10
Q. Zhang et al.
generation in the irreversible process and reduce the exergy loss, the
available methods are proposed as follows:
a) Adopting appropriate inlet air temperature, and the optimum inlet
air temperature is close to the outlet water temperature. It is a
feasible measure to recover low-temperature heat from compressed
air. The aftercooler reduces exergy loss at the humidifier bottom.
However, aftercooler is not suitable for microturbines and it in­
creases the complexity of the system layout.
b) Adopting appropriate inlet water temperature to reduce the tem­
perature difference between the inlet water and the exit humid air.
5. Conclusion
In this work, a method based on experimental results has been pro­
vided to estimate the heat transfer coefficient. A one-dimensional model
is established in which humidity difference as the driving force of mass
transfer. Based on this model, thermodynamics analysis and perfor­
mance evaluation have been focused, and valuable conclusions are as
follows:
1) According to the experimental measurement data of gas-liquid two-
phase flow, the local and global mass transfer coefficients are ob­
tained, respectively. The segmented simulation with the local mass
transfer coefficient (SL-2) is significantly better than the overall
calculation with the global mass transfer coefficient (SL-1), and SL-2
is in good agreement with the experimental results.
2) The mass transfer coefficient (hD) distributed along the height of the
humidifier is obtained according to SL-3. The vapor condensation
occurs at the interface when the partial pressure of vapor in the air
stream is higher than that in the film.
3) At the bottom of humidifier, the sensible heat transfer dominates the
air humidification, and the enthalpy of the humid air is declined at
this stage. At the top of the humidifier, the mass transfer dominates
the humidification and there is a rapid increase in the enthalpy of
humid air.
4) In the packing segment of the humidifier, the heat transfer has low
effectiveness of 43%, but the exergy efficiency is 96%. At the top and
bottom of the humidifier, the effectiveness of heat transfer is more
than 70%. However, the exergy efficiency at the bottom of the hu­
midifier less than 20%. Adopting appropriate inlet air and water
temperatures are available to reduce the exergy loss. For the effective
heat utilization, the after-cooler is necessary for the HAT cycle.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Qing Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Ming He: Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Visualization. Yuzhang Wang: Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Resources, Writing - original draft, Writing - review &
editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding
acquisition. Shilie Weng: Validation, Formal analysis, Resources, Su­
pervision, Project administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by National Science and Technology Major
Project (No. 2017-I-0009-0010).
11
Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115833.
References
[1] Yan J., Handbook of Clean Energy Systems, 6 Volume Set; 2015.
[2] Boyce M. Gas turbine engineering handbook. fourth ed. New York: Elsevier; 2011.
[3] Saravanamuttoo H, Rogers G, Cohen H. Gas turbine theory. sixth ed. Harlow:
Pearson Education; 2001.
[4] Saghafifar M, Gadalla M. Analysis of Maisotsenko open gas turbine power cycle
with a detailed air saturator model. Appl Energy 2015;149:338–53.
[5] Lindquist T, Rosén P, Torisson T. Theoretical and experimental evaluation of the
EvGT-process. ASME AES 2000;38.
[6] Jonsson M, Yan J. Humidified gas turbines-a review of proposed and implemented
cycles. Energy 2005;30:1013–78.
[7] Xu Z, Lu Y, Wang B, Zhao L, Chen C, Xiao Y. Experimental evaluation of 100 kW
grade micro humid air turbine cycles converted from a microturbine. Energy 2019;
175:687–93.
[8] Zhu G, Chow T, Fong K, Lee C. Comparative study on humidified gas turbine cycles
with different air saturator designs. Appl Energy 2019;254:113592.
[9] Montero Carrero M, De Paepe W, Bram S, Parente A, Contino F. Does
humidification improve the micro Gas Turbine cycle? Thermodynamic assessment
based on Sankey and Grassmann diagrams. Appl Energy 2017;204:1163–71.
[10] Farzaneh-Gord M, Deymi-Dashtebayaz M. A new approach for enhancing
performance of a gas turbine (case study: Khangiran refinery). Appl Energy 2009;
86:2750–9.
[11] Rao A. Process for producing power. US4829763 A; 1989.
[12] De Paepe W, Montero Carrero M, Bram S, Contino F, Parente A. Waste heat
recovery optimization in micro gas turbine applications using advanced humidified
gas turbine cycle concepts. Appl Energy 2017;207:218–29.
[13] MosayebNezhad M, Mehr A, Lanzini A, Misul D, Santarelli M. Technology review
and thermodynamic performance study of a biogas-fed micro humid air turbine.
Renew Energ 2019;140:407–18.
[14] Pedemonte AA, Traverso A, Massardo AF. Experimental analysis of pressurised
humidification tower for humid air gas turbine cycles. Part A: Experimental
campaign. Appl Therm Eng 2008;28:1711–25.
[15] Wan Y, Ren C, Wang Z, Yang Y, Yu L. Numerical study and performance correlation
development on counter-flow indirect evaporative air coolers. Int J Heat Mass Tran
2017;115:826–30.
[16] Lindquist T, Thern M, Torisson T. Experimental and theoretical results of a
humidification tower in an evaporative gas turbine cycle pilot plant. In:
Proceedings of ASME turbo expo: power for land, sea, and air; 2002. p. 475-84.
[17] Dalili F. Humidification in evaporative power cycles. Kemiteknik 2003.
[18] Araki H, Higuchi S, Marushima S, Hatamiya S. Design study of a humidification
tower for the advanced humid air turbine system. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2006;128:
543–50.
[19] Lindquist T. Evaluation, experience and potential of gas turbine based cycles with
humidification: Department of Heat and Power Engineering. Doctoral Thesis, Lund
university; 2002.
[20] Facao J, Oliveira AC. Thermal behaviour of closed wet cooling towers for use with
chilled ceilings. Appl Therm Eng 2000;20:1225–36.
[21] Lebrun J, Silva C. Cooling tower-model and experimental validation. ASHRAE
Trans 2002;108:751.
[22] Parente J, Traverso A, Massardo A. Saturator analysis for an evaporative gas
turbine cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2003;23:1275–93.
[23] Lindquist T, Thern M, Torisson T. Experimental and theoretical results of a
humidification tower in an evaporative gas turbine cycle pilot plant. In:
Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2002: Power for Land, Sea, and Air; 2002, p.
475-84.
[24] Thern M. Humidification processes in gas turbine cycles. Sweden: Lund University
Lund; 2005.
[25] Gallo W. A comparison between the HAT cycle and other gas-turbine based cycles:
efficiency, specific power and water consumption. Energ Convers Manage 1997;38:
1595–604.
[26] Kavanagh R, Parks G, Obana M. Multi-objective optimisation of the humid air
turbine. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo 2007: Power for Land, Sea, and
Air; 2007, p. 211-21.
[27] Nyberg B, Thern M. Thermodynamic studies of a HAT cycle and its components.
Appl Energy 2012;89:315–21.
[28] Carrero M, De Paepe W, Bram S, Parente A, Contino F. Does humidification
improve the micro Gas Turbine cycle? Thermodynamic assessment based on
Sankey and Grassmann diagrams. Appl Energy 2017;204:1163–71.
[29] Zhao P, Dai Y, Wang J. Performance assessment and optimization of a combined
heat and power system based on compressed air energy storage system and humid
air turbine cycle. Energ Convers Manage 2015;103:562–72.
[30] Hui Y, Wang Y, Weng S. Experimental investigation of pressurized packing
saturator for humid air turbine cycle. Appl Therm Eng 2014;62:513–9.
[31] Wang Y, Li Y, Weng S, Su M. Experimental investigation on humidifying
performance of counter flow spray saturator for humid air turbine cycle. Energ
Convers Manage 2007;48:756–63.
[32] Kloppers J, Kro Ger DG. Cooling tower performance evaluation: Merkel, Poppe,
and e-NTU methods of analysis. J Eng Gas Turb Power 2005;127:1–7.
Q. Zhang et al.
[33] Xie Y, Xu Z, Mei N. Evaluation of the effectiveness-NTU method for countercurrent
humidifier. Appl Therm Eng 2016;99:1270–6.
[34] Yan J, Eidensten L, Svedberg G. Externally fired evaporative gas turbine with a
condensing heat exchanger. In: Proceedings of the ASME 1996 International Gas
Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition; 1996, vol 3.
[35] Coulson J, Richardson J, Backhurst J, Harker J. Chemical Engineering: Fluid flow,
heat transfer and mass transfer. Butterworth-Heinemann; 1999.
12
Applied Energy 279 (2020) 115833
[36] Chilton T, Colburn A. Mass transfer (absorption) coefficients prediction from data
on heat transfer and fluid friction. Ind Eng Chem Res 1934;26:1183–7.
[37] Colburn A. A method of correlating forced convection heat-transfer data and a
comparison with fluid friction. Int J Heat Mass Tran 1964;7:1359–84.
[38] Dalili F, Westermark M. Design of Tubular Humidifiers for Evaporative Gas
Turbine Cycles. In: Proceedings of the ASME 1998 International Gas Turbine and
Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition; 1998, vol 4.