Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Research Paper

Experimental study on the drag characteristic and thermal performance of T

non-uniform fillings for wet cooling towers under crosswind conditions
⁎
Yang Zhou, Kun Wang, Ming Gao , Zhigang Dang, Suoying He, Fengzhong Sun
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Shandong University, Jinan 250061, China

H I GH L IG H T S

• The performance of non-uniform fillings for wet cooling towers is studied in lab.
• Non-uniform fillings can alleviate adverse effect of crosswind on cooling towers.
• P4 is optimal non-uniform pattern if giving the priority to energy conservation.
• P3 is the optimal pattern if considering water-saving characteristic preferentially.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A thermal-state model experimental study was performed to investigate the drag characteristic and thermal
Wet cooling tower performance of non-uniform fillings for wet cooling towers under crosswind conditions, several valuable per-
Non-uniform fillings formance parameters, including cooling efficiency, drag coefficient, ventilation rate, heat transfer coefficient and
Drag characteristic Merkel number, etc. were analyzed in this paper. Experimental researches proved that the non-uniform fillings
Thermal performance
are not sensitive to the crosswind, and can alleviate the adverse effect of crosswind on wet cooling towers. From
Crosswind conditions
the perspective of drag characteristic and thermal performance, the P4 pattern is the optimal non-uniform
pattern under crosswind conditions, which has the higher ventilation rate, heat transfer coefficient, Merkel
number and lower drag coefficient within the experimental crosswind velocity range. However, the P3 pattern
has the lower evaporation loss and the outstanding relatively water-saving performance. Therefore, studies in
this paper revealed that the optimal non-uniform pattern should be selected by terms of comprehensive con-
sideration of energy conservation and water-saving. The P4 pattern is the optimal non-uniform pattern if giving
the priority to energy conservation, and conversely, the P3 is the optimal pattern if considering water-saving
characteristic preferentially.

1. Introduction respectively. Meanwhile, the thermal performance of NDWCTs is highly

The natural draft cooling towers (NDCTs) consist of mainly dry
cooling towers (NDDCTs) and wet cooling towers (NDWCTs) [1–3], and
the NDDCTs are adopted to some power plants where is lack of water
resources due to the water-saving performance[4–6]. Compared with
the NDDCTs, the NDWCTs are used widely in thermal power plants
(including some nuclear power plants) as one of the main equipments in
the cold-end system [7,8], and the overall thermal efficiency of power
plants depends on the thermal performance of NDWCTs to a great ex-
tent.
According to the previous work [9], the fillings zone accounts for
70% of the heat exchange amount for the NDWCTs, and the raining
zone and water distribution zone account for 20% and 10%,
sensitive to ambient conditions, particularly the ambient crosswind
velocity [10]. Therefore, it is indispensable and significant to study the
thermal performance of fillings zone for the NDWCTs, especially under
crosswind conditions. Fillings used in the cooling towers can be clar-
ified into three types, i.e., film, trickle and splash fillings [11,12], and
nowadays, film fillings are the most popular one. In 1940s, Simpson and
Sherwood [13] began to the first investigation for the fillings. From
then on, many researchers were convinced of the importance of fillings
investigation, then carried out this research work in three ways, i.e.,
theoretical study, experimental research and numerical simulation.
First of all, in the aspect of theoretical study, Dreyer and Erens [14]
developed one-dimensional mathematical model to study the thermal
performance of splash fillings, which can be used to guide optimum

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gm@sdu.edu.cn (M. Gao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.05.071
Received 9 February 2018; Received in revised form 9 May 2018; Accepted 18 May 2018
Available online 18 May 2018
1359-4311/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Zhou et al.
layout of fillings. Additionally, Milosabljevic and Heikkilä [15] also
derived a mathematical model according to one-dimensional heat and
mass balance equations, and analyzed the thermal performance of dif-
ferent filling materials. Aiming at the fillings in different types of water-
cooling towers, Jose [16] came up with the concept of thermo-fluid
dynamic efficiency which is not a function of the height of the fillings,
then validated it by experimental data.
Based on three kinds of conventional fillings, Kloppers and Kröger
[17,18] presented a new form of empirical equation, and obtained the
loss coefficient correlations for fillings of NDWCTs. Afterwards, they
analyzed three mathematical models, and the results reported that
Poppe model had high accuracy and reliability. Additionally, Stabat
and Marchio [19] presented a simplified model for indirect cooling
towers behavior by using simulation tools, and this model can estimate
energy and water consumptions under different operating conditions. In
the same year, Khan et al. [20] investigated the fouling characteristic of
fillings and proposed a fouling model in the fillings zone. According to
the exergy analysis, Muangnoi et al. [21] put forward to a mathematical
model which can be used to study the properties of water and air in
fillings zone, and the results showed that the lowest exergy destruction
is located at the top of the tower. Recently, Ghazani et al. [22] per-
formed the comprehensive analysis of a model wet cooling tower using
the laws of thermodynamics, and calculated the entropy generation of
every part. The research conclusions can help to choose fillings of high
quality.
Secondly, for the experimental research, previous work mostly fo-
cused on the fillings type, fillings arrangement and fillings materials.
Lemouari and Boumaza [23] performed the experimental study for wet
cooling towers filled with a VGA (Vertical Grid Apparatus) type fillings
which is 0.42 m high, and they focused on mainly the influence of air-
water ratio and water temperature on thermal performance and heat
exchange amount. About the fillings arrangement, Grobbelaar et al.
[24] also studied experimentally the thermal performance for the
counter-flow and cross-flow fillings, and reported that the thermal
performance for cross-counter flow fillings is between that of purely
counter-flow and cross-flow fillings. In addition, Shahali et al. [25] also
conducted the experimental research to reveal the thermal performance
under different types and arrangements of fillings, including three kinds
of PVC fillings which are 7, 9 and 18 ribs. Experimental study obtained
that the cooling temperature and efficiency enhances with the in-
creasing of rib numbers of packings. In another work, Li et al. [26]
studied heat and mass transport mechanism of film type cooling, which
was combined with an on-site test on counter flow film type cooling
tower, and developed a mathematical model on the evaporation and
cooling efficiency. Mofrad et al. [27] performed the experimental study
on the effect of different types of filled beds on the thermal performance
of wet cooling towers. By analyzing six kinds of filled beds, they drawn
the conclusions that metal reticular bed is the best choice.
Moreover, several researchers studied experimentally the fillings
performance for forced-draft wet cooling towers. Gharagheizi et al. [28]
presented an experimental study for two film-type fillings which are
vertical corrugated packings (VCP) and horizontal corrugated packings
(HCP), and obtained that compared with the HCP, the tower with VCP
has outstanding thermal performance. Lavasani et al. [29] also study
the performance of a forced draft wet cooling tower filled with a ro-
tational splash type fillings, and the results showed that rotational
splash type packings with higher rotational velocity reject more heat
from water considerably. Singh and Das [30] conducted the experiment
to research trickle, film and splash fills, and concluded that the wire-
mesh (trickle) fills are the most efficient fills for forced draft mechanical
cooling tower. Besides, Singla et al. [31] analyzed the changing rules of
Merkel number under different operating conditions based on the ex-
panded wire mesh packings, and the conclusions can guide the opera-
tion of forced-draft wet cooling towers.
Finally, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method has being used
to research the thermal performance of fillings for wet cooling tower,
399
Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405
including two-dimensional axisymmetric two-phase model for fillings
which has the capability to represent non-uniformities in fill layout and
water distribution [32], CFD model for the fillings material and
spraying water in cooling tower [33], Fillings fouling model [34], the
two-dimensional model for the optimal fills shape and water distribu-
tion [35], and the fillings model of heat/mass transfer for wet cooling
tower [36], and so on. Besides, the CFD method also is used to simulate
and solve other issues for cooling towers, such as effect of crosswind on
thermal performance [37,38], thermal performance research for dry
cooling towers [39,40], and the hybrid (dry/wet) cooling system
[41,42].
Briefly, a lot of literatures analyzed the characteristic of fillings by
using theoretical model, experiment research and numerical simula-
tion, and obtained some valuable conclusions for the further study of
the fillings, especially Behnia’s research work [32] which discussed the
non-uniformities in fill layout by numerical simulation laid the theo-
retical foundation for the future research of non-uniform fillings. Cer-
tainly, most of the research work above-mentioned regarded the fillings
as uniform layout, and failed to discuss the issue of non-uniform layout
fillings by the thermal-state model experiment method.
Additionally, on the basis of model experiment in lab, Gao et al.
[43,44] recently studied the thermal performance of different layout
patterns under windless conditions and the typical crosswind condition,
including uniform and non-uniform fillings. Experimental results de-
monstrated that the non-uniform layout patterns have the outstanding
thermal performance under windless conditions. But Gao et al. did not
analyze the adaptability of non-uniform fillings to crosswind, and ne-
glected to study the drag characteristic and thermal performance, failed
to obtain the optimal pattern under crosswind conditions. Actually, the
NDWCTs have to face to the variable crosswind velocity during the
operating process.
Consequently, studies regarding the drag characteristic and thermal
performance of non-uniform fillings under crosswind conditions are
more crucial to the further energy-saving research and optimal design
for NDWCTs. Based on this, under various crosswind velocity condi-
tions, the thermal-state model experiment is performed in this study to
reveal the drag characteristic and thermal performance for different
layout patterns of fillings, and derive the optimal layout pattern under
crosswind conditions. This study may provide a new direction to the
energy-saving of NDWCTs under crosswind conditions, and furthermore
it can guide engineering design of fillings zone if considering the am-
bient crosswind.
2. Experimental study design
2.1. Experimental objectives
In this study, the corresponding inlet and outlet parameters inside
wet cooling towers with different layout patterns of fillings are mea-
sured to calculate and derive the cooling efficiency, cooling tempera-
ture difference, drag coefficient, heat transfer coefficient, Merkel
number and evaporation loss under various crosswind velocity, and the
effect of crosswind on these performance parameters is analyzed. The
ultimate objective is to obtain the optimal non-uniform pattern under
crosswind conditions.
2.2. Experimental setup and measurement instruments
The experimental diagram is shown in Fig. 1. The pictures of model
tower and water distributing system are showed in Fig. 2. The model
tower is manufactured and installed according to the similarity prin-
ciple [43,45,46], the related measuring instruments are depicted in
Table 1. Additionally, the detailed information for similarity criteria
can be found in Gao’s paper [43,45,46].
Y. Zhou et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405

Table 1
Monitored parameters and measurement instruments.
Items Measuring Range Accuracy
instruments

Atmospheric pressure Hot-wire manometer 0–4.99 m/s ± 3%

(KA31)
Wet bulb temperature Psychrometer 0–50 °C ± 0.1 °C
Inlet air temperature Psychrometer 0–50 °C ± 0.1 °C
Outlet air temperature Thermocouple 0–200 °C ± 0.1 °C
Inlet/outlet water Mercury thermometer 0–50 °C ± 0.1 °C
temperature
Relative humidity of air Hygrometer 10–95% RH ± 2%
Water flow rate Rotameter 0–60 L/min ± 1.5%
Crosswind velocity Hot-wire manometer 0–4.99 m/s ± 0.01 m/s
(produced by lower (KA31)
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of experimental cooling tower. fan)

2.3. Experimental operating conditions

Table 2
In order to reveal and obtain relationship between drag character- Experimental operating conditions.
istic, thermal performance and the layout patterns of fillings under Items
crosswind conditions, it is indispensable to conduct experiment of
Circulating water flow rate
variable conditions, including the variation of circulating water flow
Circulating water temperature
rate, inlet water temperature, crosswind velocity, fillings layout pat- Experimental crosswind velocity (Upper
terns, and the different operating conditions are listed in Table 2. fan)
In the following discussion, crosswind velocity is the crosswind Experimental crosswind velocity (Lower
velocity produced by the lower fan (seen in Fig. 1). fan)
Fillings layout patterns
Detailed operating conditions
4 L/min, 6 L/min, 8 L/min
50 °C, 55 °C, 60 °C
0, 0.2 m/s, 0.4 m/s, 0.6 m/s,
0.8 m/s
0, 0.4 m/s, 0.8 m/s, 1.2 m/s,
1.6 m/s
Five kinds (Seen in Part 2.4)

2.4. Fillings layout patterns inside the model tower

In this experiment, the fillings inside model tower adopt different

height at the different radius, as seen in Fig. 3, i.e. non-uniform layout.
In order to study the drag characteristic and thermal performance for
different layout patterns, all of the layout patterns have the same fill-
ings volume. Fig. 4 illustrates the block plan of non-uniform fillings,
and the detailed information of filling size is listed in Table 3.

3. Thermal performance analysis for uniform and non-uniform

fillings under crosswind conditions

In this part, the cooling temperature difference Δt and efficiency η Fig. 3. Fillings layout inside model tower.
are selected as the performance evaluation indicators, and the expres-
sions of Δt and η are given by,
Δt = t1−t2 (1)

t1−t2 Δt
η= =
t1−tlim t1−tlim (2)
In above equations, t1 is the circulating water inlet temperature, °C, t2 is
the outlet temperature, °C, and tlim represents inlet air wet bulb tem-
Fig. 4. Block plan of non-uniform fillings.
perature, °C.
Figs. 5–8 illustrate the changing rules of Δt and η for different layout

Fig. 2. Pictures of model tower and water distributing system.

400
Y. Zhou et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405

Table 3
Details of five layout patterns.
Item P1 P2 P3 P4 P5

Uniform fillings Non-uniform fillings

ra (cm) 29.5 9 11 13 15
rb (cm) 29.5 24.7 23.2 21 19
rc (cm) 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5 29.5
ra/rc – 0.31 0.37 0.44 0.51
rb/rc – 0.84 0.79 0.71 0.64
H1 (cm) 8 4 4 4 4
H2 (cm) 8 8 8 8 8
H3 (cm) 8 10 10 10 10

P1: uniform fillings; P2–P5: non-uniform fillings.

Fig. 7. Relation curves between cooling temperature difference and crosswind

velocity under different layout patterns (50 °C, 6 L/min).

Fig. 5. Relation curves between the cooling temperature difference and cross-
wind velocity under different layout patterns (60 °C, 6 L/min).

Fig. 8. Relation curves between cooling efficiency and crosswind velocity

under different layout patterns (50 °C, 6 L/min).

Fig. 6. Relation curves between the cooling efficiency and crosswind velocity
under different layout patterns (60 °C, 6 L/min).
patterns under crosswind conditions. Among of them, the circulating
water inlet temperature and circulating water flowrate are 60 °C and 6
L/min in Figs. 5 and 6, and 50 °C and 6 L/min, respectively in Figs. 7
and 8.
It can be observed form Figs. 5 and 6 that theΔt and η for the non-
uniform fillings (P2–P5 patterns) are dramatically higher than those of
the uniform fillings (P1 pattern) under any crosswind velocity. Under
P1-P5 conditions, these two parameters decrease firstly, and then in-
crease with the increasing of crosswind velocity, then reach to the
minimum while the crosswind velocity is equal to 0.4 m/s.
In addition, experimental study shows that, for uniform pattern
(P1), the Δt and η at 0.4 m/s crosswind reduce by 7.7% and 4.7%, re-
spectively compared with those of the windless condition. However, for
the four non-uniform fillings (P2–P5), their reductions are within
3.5–5.0% and 1.5–4.5%, respectively. It demonstrates that the non-
uniform fillings can alleviate the adverse effect of crosswind on thermal
performance, i.e., the non-uniform fillings are not sensitive to the
crosswind.
Almost the same phenomena can be found for the different working
conditions in Figs. 7 and 8. For uniform pattern (P1), the Δt and η at
0.4 m/s crosswind reduce by 9.0% and 3.0%, respectively compared
with those of the windless condition. However, their reductions are
only within 2.5–3.8% and 1.3–3.0%, respectively for the four non-
uniform fillings (P2–P5).
According to the analysis of the cooling temperature difference and
cooling efficiency, it can be drawn that the non-uniform fillings have
the superior thermal performance under crosswind conditions, even
though the crosswind velocity equals to 0.4 m/s which is the extremely
adverse crosswind velocity [44–46]. It proves that the uniform air

401
Y. Zhou et al.
dynamic field under non-uniform fillings is still beneficial to the heat
and mass transfer performance even though under crosswind condi-
tions.
The heat and mass transfer performance for the wet cooling towers
depends on mainly the uniformity of air dynamic field and the synergic
match between dynamic and drag field. According to the analysis of
Gao et al. [43], the uniform fillings produce the non-uniform air dy-
namic field, disorder the synergic match between dynamic and drag
field, which deteriorates the heat and mass transfer course. This phe-
nomena become more severe under crosswind conditions.
Compared with the uniform fillings, the non-uniform fillings can
balance the air dynamic field inside tower under crosswind conditions,
which impels outer air to enter into the tower center and reduces the
ventilation resistance. Thus, for the non-uniform fillings, the outer cold
air can enter into the center as far as possible, which can improve the
heat and mass transfer performance near the center, and set up synergic
match between dynamic and drag field.
Briefly, the non-uniform fillings generate the uniform relatively air
dynamic field inside tower under crosswind conditions, which results in
the balance of heat and mass transfer in the whole tower. So the non-
uniform fillings has the superior relatively thermal performance under
crosswind conditions.
4. Comparative study for four non-uniform fillings under
crosswind conditions
In order to derive the optimal pattern of non-uniform fillings under
crosswind conditions and realize the engineering application, the drag
characteristic and thermal performance are analyzed for the four non-
uniform fillings, and five performance parameters, including the drag
coefficient, ventilation rate, heat transfer coefficient, Merkel number
and evaporation loss, are introduced to act as the evaluation indictors
in this part.
4.1. Calculation method of evaluation indicators
In this paper, the ventilation rate G can be calculated by,
G = λ·Qw (3)
where Q w is the circulating water flowrate, m /h, and λ is the air-water
3
ratio which can be given by,
Cpw·Δt
λ=
K (i2−i1) (4)
In Eq. (4), cpw is the specific heat of water, kJ/kg °C, i1 and i2 are the
specific enthalpy of inlet air and outlet air, kJ/kg. Additionally, the K in
Eq. (4) is called as heat coefficient, and the K value can embody the
evaporation loss to a certain degree, which can be written by,
t2
K = 1−
586−0.56(t2−20) (5)
The ventilation drag is different due to the various layout patterns of
fillings, so the drag coefficient is also an important parameter which
can evaluate the drag characteristics of different non-uniform fillings.
The balance equation between drag force and draft force is written by,
v02
He g (ρ1−ρ2 ) = ξ ·ρm
2 (6)
According to the Eq. (6), the ventilation drag coefficient ξ can be
written by,
2He ·g ·(ρ1−ρ2 )
ξ=
ρm ·v02 (7)
where He is the height of model tower, m, ρ1 and ρ2 are the air density
of inlet tower and outlet tower, kg/m3, ρm is the average value of ρ1 and
ρ2 , kg/m3, g is the gravity acceleration, m/s2, v0 represents the average
402
Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405
wind velocity of fillings section, m/s, which can be derived by,
4G
v0 =
πD 2 (8)
D is the diameter of fillings section, m.
Besides the ventilation drag ξ and ventilation rate G, the other three
parameters, which are heat transfer coefficient α v , evaporation loss Qew ,
and Merkel number Ωn , are adopted to evaluate thermal performance of
wet cooling towers.
As one of the crucial evaluable indicators, the heat transfer coeffi-
cient α v can be written by,
Cpma·G (θ2−θ1)
αv =
(tm−θm)·V (9)
3
Here, G is the ventilation rate, m /h, θ1, θ2 and θm are the inlet air
temperature, outlet air temperature and the average air temperature,
°C. Additionally, V is the fillings area, m2, and Cpma is the specific heat
of wet air, kJ/kg °C, which can be calculated by,
Cpma = Cpd + χ1 Cpv = 1.005 + 1.842χ1 (10)
What’s more, evaporation loss Qew cannot be ignored due to the growing
shortage of water resources, meanwhile, the wet cooling towers bring
out the relatively large evaporation loss. Thus, evaporation loss also is
introduced to act as an evaluation indicator, which can be given by,
Qew = G·ρm ·(χ2 −χ1 ) (11)
In Eqs. (10) and (11), χ1 and χ2 are the humidity ratio of inlet and outlet
air, kg/kg, which can be calculated by,
ϕ1·pθ″1
χ1 = 0.622·
pa −ϕ1·pθ″1 (12)
ϕ2 ·pθ″2
χ2 = 0.622·
pa −ϕ2 × pθ″2 (13)
where ϕ1 and ϕ2 are the relative humidity of inlet and outlet air, pa is the
atmosphere pressure, Pa, In addition, pθ″1 and pθ″2 are the saturated
water vapor pressure at the temperature of θ1 andθ2 , Pa.
Finally, another considerable parameter is Merkel number, and the
calculation method of Merkel number refers to the enthalpy potential
method proposed by Merkel in 1925 [47], and Simpson expansion
formula can be written as,
cpw·Δt ⎛ 1 4 1 ⎞
Ωn = ⎜ + + ⎟
6K ⎝ i 2″−i1 im″−im i1″−i2 ⎠ (14)
In Eq. (14), i1″, i 2″ and im″ represent the corresponding saturated enthalpy
when the temperature is t1, t2 and tm = (t1 + t2)/2 , kJ/kg. i1, i2 and
im = (i1 + i2)/2 are the specific enthalpy of inlet air, outlet air and the
average value, kJ/kg. cpw represents specific heat of water, kJ/kg °C.
In the following text, the above-mentioned five performance para-
meters would be used to analyze the drag characteristic and thermal
performance for the four non-uniform fillings.
4.2. The drag characteristic for the four non-uniform fillings
While the circulating water flowrate and inlet temperature keep
constant, meanwhile, the other components of cooling towers are not
changed, the drag coefficient inside tower mainly depends on the
geometry of non-uniform fillings and crosswind conditions. Thus, the
changing rules of drag coefficient are studied in this part under dif-
ferent non-uniform fillings and crosswind velocities.
Figs. 9 and 10 depict the changing rules of drag coefficient and
ventilation rate under crosswind conditions for the non-uniform fillings
when the circulating water flowrate is 6L/min and the inlet water
temperature is 60 °C.
It can be observed in Fig. 9 that, for the four non-uniform fillings,
Y. Zhou et al. Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405

Fig. 9. Relation curves between drag coefficient and crosswind velocity under
non-uniform fillings (60 °C, 6L/min).
Fig. 11. Average value for ventilation rate and drag coefficient under non-
uniform fillings.
be seen obviously in Fig. 11 that the P4 pattern has the higher average
ventilation rate and lower average drag coefficient which are 151.6 m3/
h and 32.6, respectively.
Based on the analysis of drag coefficient and ventilation rate, the P4
pattern has the lower drag coefficient and larger ventilation rate. It can
be derived that the crosswind has the relatively weak influence on the
P4 pattern. Therefore, the P4 pattern has the excellent relatively drag
characteristic under crosswind conditions, especially under the con-
ventional adverse crosswind velocity (0.4 m/s).

4.3. The thermal performance for the four non-uniform fillings

Besides the drag characteristic, three thermal performance para-

meters, including heat transfer coefficient, Merkel number and eva-
poration loss, are used to evaluate the heat and mass transfer perfor-
mance for the four non-uniform fillings, and the relation curves
between heat transfer coefficient, Merkel number, evaporation loss and
crosswind velocity are shown in Figs. 12–14 when the circulating water
Fig. 10. Relation curves between ventilation rate and crosswind velocity under flowrate is 6L/min and the inlet water temperature is 60 °C.
non-uniform fillings (60 °C, 6 L/min). Figs. 12 and 13 describe the relation curves between heat transfer
coefficient, Merkel number and crosswind velocity under the four non-
the drag coefficient increases firstly and then decreases with the in- uniform fillings. It can be seen from these two figures that the heat
creasing of crosswind velocity, and reaches to the maximum at 0.4 m/s
crosswind velocity. Moreover, the drag coefficient of P2–P5 at 0.4 m/s
crosswind velocity enhances by 29.0%, 28.3%, 17.4% and 28.9%, re-
spectively compared with that of windless condition. Apparently, the
drag coefficient for P4 pattern has the relatively smaller increasing
amplitude which is only 17.4%, i.e., the P4 pattern has the lower
ventilation resistance.
And the almost same rules can be seen in Fig. 10, the ventilation
rate decreases firstly and then increases with the increasing of cross-
wind velocity, and reaches to the minimum when the crosswind velo-
city equals to 0.4 m/s. Additionally generally speaking, the P4 pattern
has the relatively higher ventilation rate under crosswind conditions,
and the ventilation rate of P2–P5 at 0.4 m/s crosswind velocity reduces
by 10.4%, 10.3%, 9.5% and 10.2%, respectively compared with that of
windless condition. Obviously at the conventional adverse crosswind
velocity (0.4 m/s), the ventilation rate for P4 pattern has the relatively
smaller decreasing amplitude which is only 9.5%.
In addition, there are crossovers in Figs. 9 and 10 due to probably
the experimental error, so in order to analyze visually the ventilation
rate and drag coefficient under the four non-uniform fillings, the ar-
ithmetic average value for the two parameters at five velocity points (0, Fig. 12. Relation curves between heat transfer coefficient and crosswind ve-
0.2 m/s, 0.4 m/s, 0.6 m/s and 0.8 m/s) are introduced in Fig. 11. It can locity under non-uniform fillings (60 °C, 6 L/min).

403
Y. Zhou et al.
Fig. 13. Relation curves between Merkel number and crosswind velocity under
non-uniform fillings (60 °C, 6 L/min).
Fig. 14. Average value for heat transfer coefficient and Merkel number under
non-uniform fillings.
transfer coefficient and Merkel number also decrease firstly, and then
increase with the increasing of crosswind velocity, and the turning-
points also appear at 0.4 m/s crosswind velocity. It reports in Fig. 12
that the heat transfer coefficient reaches to the minimum value at
0.4 m/s crosswind velocity, and the decreasing amplitudes of heat
transfer coefficient for P2–P5 patterns come to 7.9%, 10.5%, 5.3% and
8.0%, respectively compared with that of the windless condition. Fur-
thermore, based on Fig. 13, the reductions of Merkel number for P2–P5
patterns are 4.2%, 5.6%, 2.3% and 4.8%, respectively.
There are also crossovers in Figs. 12 and 13 due to probably the
experimental error. In a similar way, the arithmetic average value for
the heat transfer coefficient and Merkel number at five velocity points
are introduced in Fig. 14. Moreover, since the experimental Merkel
number is much smaller than the heat transfer coefficient, so the Merkel
number in Fig. 14 is 100 times of the original experimental value so as
to put the heat transfer coefficient and Merkel number in one figure. It
can be seen obviously in Fig. 14 that the P4 pattern has the higher
average heat transfer coefficient and average Merkel number which are
75.8 w/m2 °C and 11.9, respectively. Surely, the actual experimental
Merkel number equals to 0.119.
According to the heat transfer coefficient and Merkel number, it can
be inferred that the crosswind has the relatively slight influence on the
P4 pattern, i.e., the P4 pattern has the outstanding thermal performance
under crosswind conditions, especially under the conventional adverse
404
Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405
Fig. 15. Relation curves between evaporation loss and crosswind velocity
under non-uniform fillings (60 °C, 6 L/min).
crosswind velocity (0.4 m/s). As mentioned above (in Fig. 11), there are
higher ventilation rate and lower drag coefficient for the P4 pattern,
additionally the non-uniform fillings provides the uniform relatively
aerodynamic field. Thus, the P4 presents the outstanding thermal per-
formance under crosswind conditions.
Finally, the evaporation loss is discussed in this paper for the four
non-uniform fillings under crosswind conditions. Fig. 15 describes the
relation curves between evaporation loss and crosswind velocity under
the four non-uniform fillings. In Fig. 15, the evaporation loss also de-
creases firstly, and then increases with the increasing of crosswind
velocity. Additionally, the evaporation loss for P4 pattern has the lar-
gest value under crosswind conditions, and the average value of eva-
poration loss at five velocity points is 1.08 g/s, 1.06 g/s, 1.14 g/s and
1.13 g/s, respectively for the P2–P5 patterns. According to the previous
analysis, the P4 pattern has the higher heat transfer coefficient and
ventilation rate under crosswind conditions, so the larger evaporation
loss appears in the P4 pattern.
Obviously, the P4 pattern is not the optimal pattern if only con-
sidering the evaporation loss, but the P3 pattern has the outstanding
water-saving performance.
According to the comparative study for the four non-uniform fill-
ings, it points out that the optimal non-uniform pattern should be se-
lected by terms of comprehensive consideration of energy conservation
and water-saving. Experimental researches show that the P4 is the
optimal pattern if giving the priority to energy conservation, and con-
versely, the P3 is the optimal pattern if considering water-saving
characteristic preferentially.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the fillings are divided into three blocks which are
inner block, medium block and outer block, and the radius of three
blocks are ra, rb and rc, respectively. As a result, there are one uniform
and four non-uniform layout patterns due to the different radius. Then
the drag characteristic and thermal performance of different layout
patterns are analyzed under crosswind conditions. By the discussion of
several performance parameters, the main conclusions are as follows,
(1) The analysis of model experiment discovers the cooling tempera-
ture difference and cooling efficiency for the non-uniform fillings
are higher than those of the uniform fillings under crosswind con-
ditions. More importantly, it also demonstrates that the non-uni-
form fillings are not sensitive to the crosswind, and can alleviate the
adverse effect of crosswind on thermal performance for wet cooling
towers.
Y. Zhou et al.
(2) Experimental researches prove that the P4 pattern is the optimal
non-uniform pattern from the perspective of drag characteristic and
thermal performance under crosswind conditions. Within the ex-
perimental crosswind velocity range, the P4 pattern has the higher
average ventilation rate and lower average drag coefficient which
are 151.6 m3/h and 32.6, respectively. Additionally, it also has the
higher average heat transfer coefficient and average Merkel number
which are 75.8 w/m2 °C and 0.119, respectively.
(3) If only considering the evaporation loss, the P3 pattern has the
outstanding relatively water-saving performance, and the average
evaporation loss is only 1.06 g/s under the experimental conditions,
however that of the other three patterns (P2, P4 and P5) is 1.08 g/s,
1.14 g/s and 1.13 g/s, respectively.
Briefly, studies in this paper manifest that the optimal non-uniform
fillings should be selected by terms of comprehensive consideration of
energy conservation and water-saving. The P4 pattern is the optimal
non-uniform pattern if giving the priority to energy conservation, and
conversely, the P3 is the optimal pattern if considering water-saving
characteristic preferentially. Here, ra/rb and ra/rc are 0.37 and 0.79,
respectively for P3 pattern, but they are 0.44 and 0.71, respectively for
P4 pattern.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (51776111) and Natural Science Foundation of Shandong pro-
vince (ZR2016EEM35/ZR2017QEE010).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.
05.071.
References
[1] D.G. Kröger, Air-cooled Heat Exchangers and Cooling Towers, Thermal-flow
Performance Evaluation and Design, Begell House, Inc., New York, 1998.
[2] R. Al-Waked, M. Behnia, The performance of natural draft dry cooling towers under
crosswind: CFD study, Int. J. Energy Res. 28 (2004) 147–161.
[3] R. Al-Waked, M. Behnia, CFD simulation of wet cooling towers, App. Therm. Eng.
26 (2006) 382–395.
[4] X. Lia, H. Gurgenci, Z. Guana, X. Wang, S. Duniama, Measurements of crosswind
influence on a natural draft dry cooling tower for a solar thermal power plant, Appl.
Energy 206 (2017) 1169–1183.
[5] J.K. Calautit, H.N. Chaudhry, B.R. Hughes, S.A. Ghani, Comparison between eva-
porative cooling and a heat pipe assisted thermal loop for a commercial wind tower
in hot and dry climatic conditions, Appl. Energy 101 (2013) 740–755.
[6] X. Li, S. Duniam, H. Gurgenci, Z. Guan, A. Veeraragavan, Full scale experimental
study of a small natural draft dry cooling tower for concentrating solar thermal
power plant, Appl. Energy 193 (2017) 15–27.
[7] M. Gao, F. Sun, K. Wang, Y. Shi, Y. Zhao, Experimental research of heat transfer
performance on natural draft counter flow wet cooling tower under cross-wind
conditions, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 47 (2008) 935–941.
[8] S.R. Alavi, M. Rahmati, Experimental investigation on thermal performance of
natural draft wet cooling towers employing an innovative wind-creator setup,
Energy Convers. Manage. 122 (2016) 504–514.
[9] N. Williamson, M. Behnia, S. Armfield, Comparison of a 2D axisymmetric CFD
model of a natural draft wet cooling tower and a 1D model, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf.
51 (2008) 2227–2236.
[10] M. Gao, F. Sun, S. Zhou, Y. Shi, Performance prediction of wet cooling tower using
artificial neural network under cross-wind conditions, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 48 (2009)
583–589.
[11] S. He, H. Gurgenci, Z.Q. Guan, X. Huang, M. Lucas, A review of wetted media with
potential application in the pre-cooling of natural draft dry cooling towers, Renew.
Sustain. Energ Rev. 44 (2015) 407–422.
[12] S. He, Z. Guan, H. Gurgenci, K. Hooman, Y. Lu, A.M. Alkhedhair, Experimental
study of the application of two trickle media for inlet air pre-cooling of natural draft
dry cooling towers, Energy Convers. Manage. 89 (2015) 644–654.
[13] W.M. Simpson, T.K. Sherwood, Performance of small mechanical draft cooling
towers, Refrig. Eng. 52 (1946) 535–543.
[14] A.A. Dreyer, P.J. Erens, Modeling of cooling tower splash pack, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transf. 39 (1996) 109–123.
[15] N. Milosabljevic, P. Heikkilä, A comprehensive approach to cooling tower design,
405
Applied Thermal Engineering 140 (2018) 398–405
Appl. Therm. Eng. 21 (2001) 899–915.
[16] A.S. Jose, The use of thermo-fluid dynamic efficiency in cooling towers, Heat
Transfer Eng. 23 (2002) 22–30.
[17] J.C. Kloppers, D.G. Kröger, Loss coefficient correlation for wet cooling tower fills,
Appl. Therm. Eng. 23 (2003) 2201–2211.
[18] J.C. Kloppers, D.G. Kröger, A critical investigation into the heat and mass transfer
analysis of counterflow wet cooling towers, Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 48 (2005)
765–777.
[19] P. Stabat, D. Marchio, Simplified model for indirect-contact evaporative cooling-
tower behavior, Appl. Energy 78 (2004) 433–451.
[20] J.R. Khan, B.A. Qureshi, S.M. Zubair, A comprehensive design and performance
evaluation study of counter flow wet cooling towers, Int. J. Refrig. 27 (2004)
914–923.
[21] T. Muangnoi, W. Asvapoositkul, S. Wongwises, An exergy analysis on the perfor-
mance of a counter-flow wet cooling tower, Appl. Therm. Eng. 27 (2007) 910–917.
[22] M.A. Ghazani, A.H. Hosseini, M.D. Emami, A comprehensive analysis of a labora-
tory scale counter flow wet cooling tower using the first and the second laws of
thermodynamics, Appl. Therm. Eng. 125 (2017) 1389–1401.
[23] M. Lemouari, M. Boumaza, Experimental investigation of the performance char-
acteristics of a counterflow wet cooling tower, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 49 (2010)
2049–2056.
[24] P.J. Grobbelaar, H.C.R. Reuter, T.P. Bertrand, Performance characteristics of a
trickle fill in cross- and counter-flow configuration in a wet-cooling tower, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 50 (2013) 475–484.
[25] P. Shahali, M. Rahmati, S.R. Alavi, A. Sedaghat, Experimental study on improving
operating conditions of wet cooling towers using various rib numbers of packing,
Int. J. Refrig. 67 (2016) 80–91.
[26] Y. Li, X. You, Q. Qiu, J. Li, The study on the evaporation cooling efficiency and
effectiveness of cooling tower of film type, Energy Convers. Manage. 52 (1) (2011)
53–59.
[27] P.I. Mofrad, Z.H. Saeed, M. Shanbedi, Experimental investigation of filled bed effect
on the thermal performance of a wet cooling tower by using ZnO/water nanofluid,
Energy Convers. Manage. 127 (2015) 199–207.
[28] F. Gharagheizi, R. Hayati, S. Fatemi, Experimental study on the performance of
mechanical cooling tower with two types of film packing, Energy Convers. Manage.
48 (2007) 277–280.
[29] A.M. Lavasani, Z.N. Baboli, M. Zamanizadeh, M. Zareh, Experimental study on the
thermal performance of mechanical cooling tower with rotational splash type
packing, Energy Convers. Manage. 87 (2014) 530–538.
[30] K. Singh, R. Das, An experimental and multi-objective optimization study of a
forced draft cooling tower with different fills, Energy Convers. Manage. 111 (2016)
417–430.
[31] R.K. Singla, K. Singh, R. Das, Tower characteristics correlation and parameter re-
trieval in wet cooling tower with expanded wire mesh packing, Appl. Therm. Eng.
96 (2016) 240–249.
[32] N. Williamson, S. Armfield, M. Behnia, Numerical simulation of flow in a natural
draft wet cooling tower – the effect of radial thermofluid fields, Appl. Therm. Eng.
28 (2008) 178–189.
[33] D. Huang, C. Du, Numerical optimization on arrangement of the filling material and
spraying water in cooling tower, Chin J. Appl. Mech. 17 (2000) 102–110 (In
Chinese).
[34] B.A. Qureshi, S.M. Zubair, A complete model of wet cooling towers with fouling in
fills, Appl. Therm. Eng. 26 (2006) 1982–1989.
[35] N. Williamson, M. Behnia, S.W. Armfield, Thermal optimization of a natural draft
wet cooling tower, Int. J. Energy Res. 32 (2008) 1349–1361.
[36] A. Klimanek, R.A. Bialecki, Solution of heat and mass transfer in counterflow wet-
cooling tower fills, Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 36 (2009) 547–553.
[37] Z. Zou, H. Gong, X. Lie, X. Li, Y. Yang, Numerical investigation of the crosswind
effects on the performance of a hybrid cooling-tower-solar-chimney system, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 126 (2017) 661–669.
[38] A. Klimanek, M. Cedzich, R. Białecki, 3D CFD modeling of natural draft wet-cooling
tower with flue gas injection, Appl. Therm. Eng. 91 (2015) 824–833.
[39] M. Goodarzi, R. Keimanesh, Numerical analysis on overall performance of Savonius
turbines adjacent to a natural draft cooling tower, Energy Convers. Manage. 99
(2015) 41–49.
[40] X. Li, L. Xia, H. Gurgenci, Z. Guan, Performance enhancement for the natural draft
dry cooling tower under crosswind condition by optimizing the water distribution,
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 107 (2017) 271–280.
[41] G. Barigozzi, A. Perdichizzi, S. Ravelli, Wet and dry cooling systems optimization
applied to a modern waste-to-energy cogeneration heat and power plant, Appl.
Energy 88 (2011) 1366–1376.
[42] W. Asvapoositkul, Kuansathan.M. Comparative evaluation of hybrid (dry/wet)
cooling tower performance, Appl. Therm. Eng. 71 (2014) 83–93.
[43] M. Gao, L. Zhang, N. Wang, Y. Shi, F. Sun, Influence of non-uniform layout fillings
on thermal performance for wet cooling tower, Appl. Therm. Eng. 93 (2016)
549–555.
[44] M. Gao, C. Guo, C. Ma, F. Sun, Thermal performance for wet cooling tower with
different layout patterns of fillings under typical crosswind conditions, Energies 10
(65) (2017) 1–8.
[45] M. Gao, F. Sun, A. Turan, Experimental study regarding the evolution of tempera-
ture profiles inside wet cooling tower under crosswind conditions, Int. J. Therm.
Sci. 86 (2014) 284–291.
[46] M. Gao, F. Sun, N. Wang, Experimental research on circumferential inflow air and
vortex distribution for wet cooling tower under crosswind conditions, Appl. Therm.
Eng. 64 (2014) 93–100.
[47] S. Askari, R. Lotfi, A. Seifkordi, A.M. Rashidi, H. Koolivand, A novel approach for
energy and water conservation in wet cooling towers by using MWNTs and nano-
porous graphene nanofluids, Energy Convers. Manage 109 (2016) 10–18.