International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 1215–1220

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / i c h m t

Dry cooling towers as condensers for geothermal power plants☆

Kamel Hooman
School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of Queensland, Qld4072, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Available online 1 August 2010 The aim of this paper is to present scaling laws for a dry natural draft cooling tower by modelling the heat
exchanger and the tower supports as a porous medium. Porous medium modelling of the tube bundles that
Keyword: allows a vigorous theoretical analysis of the problem is adopted. Scale analysis is used as the theoretical tool
Natural draft cooling towers to study the problem of turbulent free convection through the heat exchanger bundles and along the cooling
Free convection tower chimney. Results are then compared with full numerical simulation of the problem to observe
Air-cooled splendid agreement.
Porous medium
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Geothermal energy
Scale analysis

1. Introduction
The need for renewable energy has pushed the world towards the
use of more difficult or less economical options (at least at the short
term) which are environmentally friendly. For instance, Australia has
recently focused on the use of solar and geothermal energy on top of the
already existing solar and hydropower sources. This is in spite of the fact
that Australia has huge coal mines that can feed the coal-fired power
plants which are the main power generation systems in the country.
Such coal-fired power plants are the most economically feasible
practices in Australia should there be no environmental issues. However,
there has been great concern about the carbon emission from such coal-
fired power plants in the past couple of decades. A large number of
research projects aim at carbon capture from the emission sources
leading to practical yet expensive ways of (almost) zero-emission power
generation. While one research avenue is to reduce the costs of carbon
capturing, the other one is to concentrate on renewable and green
energy sources like geothermal to produce the electricity for the nation.
Studies show that the earth crustal temperature can be close to
300 °C at a depth of approximately 5 km. Nonetheless, these resources
are mostly located at the arid areas where there is no water for
evaporative cooling of the power plant. Besides, water scarcity during
the past couple of years makes wet cooling even a less popular idea.
Hence, air-cooled heat exchangers attract more attention to replace
wet cooling systems. Mechanical draft systems lead to high parasitic
losses depending on the fans which are in turn affected by the ambient
air temperature. Hence, the use of natural draft cooling towers seems
to become an immediate alternative to avoid parasitic losses.
There are a number of studies, some of them dating back to early
1960's, addressing the fairly complex problem of heat and fluid flow in
such cooling towers [1–15]. Such specific issues as the effects of cross-
wind on the performance of cooling towers have been recently
addressed [16–24]. Liu [25] compares numerical predictions with field
data. Williamson et al. [26] present an interesting one-dimensional
model that compares well with the two-dimensional numerical
simulations for a wet cooling tower. Lees [27] reports on the economy
of wet and dry cooling towers. Kloppers and Kroger [28] investigate
the performance evaluation of cooling towers by different methods. In
a notable study, the world's tallest cooling tower in Germany has been
simulated by Busch et al. [29].
Kroger [30] offers an excellent review of the literature and provides
detailed empirical correlation to predict the pressure drop and heat
transfer through the cooling tower. However, the use of the draft
equation can be impossible without an iterative procedure. Hence, a
reliable rough and ready estimate to correlate the tower geometry to
its heat transfer performance is yet missing in the literature.
The aim of this paper is to fill this gap in the literature. Besides,
running the experiments to try different heat exchangers in a cooling
tower is almost impossible. Hence, a small scale cooling tower of 2 m
height with square cross-section (1.4 m × 1.4 m base and 1 m × 1 m
throat) is built in our QGECE lab [31] to study the scaling of the cooling
towers. How the heat transfer and pressure drop of a prototype
cooling tower relate to a small scale model is a question to be
answered during the course of this paper.
2. Theoretical analysis
The driving force in a cooling tower is the air density difference that,
following the use of Boussinesq approximation, takes the following form
Δp = ρgHβΔT ð1Þ

☆ Communicated by W.J. Minkowycz. This pressure difference should be higher than or at least equal to
E-mail address: k.hooman@uq.edu.au. the tower hydrodynamic resistance. There are heat exchanger and

0735-1933/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2010.07.011
1216 K. Hooman / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 1215–1220
tower resistances. The tower resistance can be approximated by the
tower wall friction when the tower is looked at as a duct or a
converging–diverging nozzle. The heat exchanger, on the other hand,
can be modelled as a porous medium. In a previous study [32], a
typical finned-tube bundle has been modelled as a porous medium
with the following permeability and form drag coefficient
2 3
d φ
K=
100ð1−φÞ2
CF = 0:55ð9:887ð1−φÞðφ−0:323Þ−0:8443Þ
where d is the tube diameter, and φ is the porosity of the tube bundle.
Hence, the heat exchanger pressure drop for flow of air across a
finned-tube bundle of thickness t reads
! given by
μU C ρU 2
Δp = t + Fpffiffiffiffi
K K
Normalizing the drags with the viscous (Darcy drag), the
pffiffiffiffi! order of
CF ρU K
magnitude for the form/viscous drag ratio is O . Making
μ that the heat transferred to the fluid flowing through the porous
use
 of atmospheric
pffiffiffiffi air properties at 25 °C, the ratio
 scales
pffiffiffiffi well with
O 105 CF U K . This hints that for cases when O CF U K N Oð10−5 Þ
the form drag is the dominant pressure drop term. Besides, according
to [32] the form drag coefficient and the permeability change with the
internal flow structure as well as the porosity of the porous medium;
however, the average value of the form drag reported there is O(0.1)
while that of the permeability is O(10−5) for a commercial finned tube
bundle. Making use of that finding, the criteria for a form drag-
dominant flow through a finned-tube bundle is U N O(10 − 2).
Generally speaking, for high velocity and low viscosity fluids, the
flow is very likely to be form drag-dominant (depending on the form
drag coefficient and the permeability).
The tower frictional pressure drop, for fluid velocity Uf, is the sum
of distributed and local (changes in cross-sectional area, recirculation,
and other imperfections) losses [33]
 
2 4H
Δp = 0:5ρUf f +κ
Dh
where κ, as given by Table 1.1 of [33], puts on higher values than those
given by f ≅ 0.08Re− 0.25. The tower height and hydraulic diameter are,
in most of the practical designs, comparable so that one can simply
neglect the distributed losses. Then, the pressure drop through the
tower scales with local losses
2
Δp e 0:5κρUf
One verifies to see that the order of magnitude of the svelteness
[33], defined as the ratio of external flow length scale divided by
that of internal flow, of the most of the cooling towers is much less
than O(10). This means that one would expect local losses to be
comparable with distributed counterparts or even be the dominant
pressure losses.
The total pressure drop should scale with
2 C ρU 2
Δp e 0:5κρUf ; t Fpffiffiffiffi
K tional to it.
Mass continuity can be used to relate the fluid velocity through the
heat exchanger (volume-averaged velocity) to that in the cooling
tower as U = φUf. This leads to
Δp
1; Ω
0:5κρUf2 e
The two pressure drop terms can be comparable when the
φffi 2
pF ffiffi
dimensionless group Ω = 2tC κ K e
Oð1Þ. For very high/low values of
Ω, the tower/bundle pressure drop is the dominant one. For a specific
problem of finned-tube bundle considered in [32], we have Ω~ O(10)
and the heat exchanger pressure drop becomes the dominant one.
However, one is in uncharted water if one takes this as a general
conclusion that the heat exchanger pressure drop is always the dominant
one. It cannot be known which term is the dominant one a priori.
ð2Þ
In view of the above, the heat exchanger pressure drop should be
balanced by the buoyant effects (when Ω>>1)
ð3Þ
2
C ρU
ρgHβΔT e t Fpffiffiffiffi ð9Þ
K
Rearranging the above equation, the volume-averaged velocity is
ð4Þ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffi
K gHβΔT
Ue ð10Þ
tCF
According to the first law of thermodynamics, it is easy to show
medium increases the enthalpy of the fluid, i.e. Q = ρAUcpΔT to get the
volume-averaged velocity as
Q
U= ð11Þ
ρAcp ΔT
In most of the industrial applications the main goal is to dissipate a
certain amount of heat (a known parameter) with a cooling tower of a
certain height. This height is to be determined. To answer this
question, one equates the right-side of Eqs. (10) and (11) to eliminate
the velocity. Then, one can find the minimum required height for a
tower that dissipates a certain amount of heat (Q) as follows
 
CF Qt 2
H et pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð12Þ
Bo Da kAΔT
with Da = tK2 being the Darcy number, Bo = RaPr being the Boussi-
ð5Þ υ
nesq r number,
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Pr = α being the effective Prandtl number, and
gβΔTt 3
Ra = being the Rayleigh number. The term in the paren-
υα
thesis, conduction imperfection, is a measure of heat dissipation by
conduction. The total generated heat can be dissipated by conduction
through a porous layer of thickness t and effective thermal conductivity
k. Only perfect conduction could have dissipated the heat generated by
the hot fluid flowing in the condenser tubes. Hence, the numerical value
ð6Þ of the term in the parenthesis, conduction imperfection, is always less
than one. Poor conduction leads to higher tower and this increases the
cost whereas a more conductive material for the heat exchanger leads to
a shorter tower and dissipates heat more efficiently. The tower height is
linearly proportional to the form drag coefficient and the heat exchanger
thickness, as one would expect. An increase in the form drag and/or the
heat exchanger thickness increases the pressure drop and this asks for a
taller cooling tower to provide the required driving buoyancy force. This
observation favours a more compact heat exchanger that introduces less
flow resistance. Finally, higher Boussinesq number leads to better heat
transfer and thus the cooling tower height is inverse-linearly propor-
ð7Þ
Eq. (12) is general enough to cover all heat exchanger configurations
but for comparison purpose, horizontal and vertical bundle arrange-
ments are further examined in this paper. For the case of vertical
arrangement, the cross-sectional area A in Eq. (12) is given by
A = πDL ð13Þ
ð8Þ
where D is the tower base diameter and L is the heat exchanger height.
 K. Hooman / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 1215–1220 1217

Eq. (12) now reads

 2
CF Qt
H et pffiffiffiffiffiffi ð15Þ
Bo Da kπDLΔT

for vertical and

!2
C Qt
H e t pFffiffiffiffiffiffi ð16Þ
Bo Da k π4 D2 ΔT

for horizontal heat exchanger arrangement.

3. Numerical details

Assuming no wind conditions, the cooling tower is modelled as an

axisymmetric body so that the computational time and cost are
reduced. The computational model is chosen to be bigger than the
physical counterpart, as illustrated by Fig. 1, to eliminate the entrance
and exit effects similar to [19]. The governing equations can be
written in the form of a generic equation Eq. (17) and Table 1
   
∂ðuϕÞ ∂ðvϕÞ ∂ ∂ϕ ∂ ∂ϕ
+ = Γϕ + Γϕ + Sϕ ð17Þ
∂x ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y

Commercially available software CFD-ACE (ESI Software) is used,

Fig. 1. Generated grids to solve for the physical domain (the tower and the heat
exchangers around the tower base; vertical arrangement).
For a horizontal tube arrangement, to a good approximation, the
area is given by
π 2
A= D ð14Þ
4 inlet gauge pressure, at a distance D from the heat exchangers, is set
similar to [34,35], to solve full set of turbulent governing equations. While
the inlet temperature and pressure are assumed to be known, a constant
and uniform heat generation rate throughout the heat exchanger is
assumed. The computational domain was generated with triangular grids
for this 2-D geometry using the commercial package CFD-GEOM (ESI
Software) that is typically used in conjunction with the commercially
available finite volume flow solver CFD-ACE. Grids were controlled in
CFD-GEOM using curvature criterion, transition factor, and maximum
and minimum cell sizes. These values were 30°, 1.1, 0.0025, and 0.00003,
respectively. The results were found to be accurate when the total
number of nodes is 29,579. Grid-independence was tested by control runs
on a finer grid with 41,580 nodes that produced consistent results (with a
maximum error being less than 3%). Hence, finer grids were not used in
reporting the results. It should be noted that the convergence criterion
(maximum relative error in the values of the dependent variables
between two successive iterations) in all runs was set at 10− 5.
The heat exchanger is modelled as a heat generating porous
medium following [32] aiming at dumping 283 MWth to produce
50 MWe, see also [36]. The total heat is divided by the volume
occupied by the heat exchanger for a tower of 200 m height. This
volumetric heat generation rate is then used as an input for the CFD
simulation. The walls are modelled as adiabatic and impermeable. The

Table 1
Summary of the governing equations with νT = 0.09 k2/ε.

Equations ϕ Γϕ Sϕ

Continuity 1 0 0 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi    
− 1ρ ∂p − ðν + νT Þu ∂
ðν + νT Þ ∂u ∂
ðν + νT Þ ∂v
2 2
x-momentum u/φ2 (ν + νT)/φ ∂x K − CF u Ku1 = 2+ v + ∂x ∂x
+ ∂y ∂x
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi    
− 1ρ ∂p − ðν + νT Þv ∂
ðν + νT Þ ∂u ∂ ∂v
2 2
y-momentum v/φ2 (ν + νT)/φ ∂y K − CF v Ku1 = 2+ v + ∂x ∂y
+ ∂y
ðν + νT Þ ∂y + gβΔT

Energy T α + νT/PrT qb/(ρcp)

 2  2 !
∂u ∂v  2
Turbulent energy* k ν + νT νT 2 +2 + ∂u
∂y
+ ∂v
∂x
−ε
∂x ∂y
 2  2 ! !
∂u ∂v  2
ε
Turbulent dissipation* ε ν + 0.77νT 1:44νT 2 +2 + ∂u
∂y
+ ∂v
∂x
−1:92ε
k
∂x ∂y

For clear fluid only; in porous layer we have k = 1.5 φ2(u2 + v2)1/2/104 and ε = 1.643 k3/2.
1218 K. Hooman / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 1215–1220

equal to zero while the inlet temperature can change parametrically

to simulate different operating conditions. This allows for a transient
simulation when the temperature variation is severe over a certain
period of time. All in all, the ambient air temperature, the inlet
velocity, and the total generated heat can vary as well as the heat
exchanger porosity (influences both form drag coefficient and
permeability). More importantly, the tower geometry can change so
that the scaling effects can be examined numerically.

4. Results and discussions

Fig. 2a, b presents a sample of numerical results illustrating the

dimensionless streamlines and isotherms. The streamlines are
normalized by the bundle velocity as the velocity scale and the base
diameter as the length scale where as the air temperature difference
from inlet to outlet is used as the temperature scale for the
dimensionless velocity. A circulation region in the tower is notable.
This can be attributed to the tower shape driving home the point that
the geometry should be defined to morph the flow so that local losses
are minimized [33]. The isotherms in the porous region are indicating
a diffusion mechanism for heat transfer and this is more pronounced Fig. 3. Dimensionless horizontal velocity and temperature in a cross-section half-way
towards the bottom of the cooling tower where the fluid movement is through heat exchangers versus the normalized height of the tower opening. Details are as
affected by the hydrodynamic boundary layer formed at the ground. per Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Dimensionless streamlines (a) and isotherms (b) for a tower of height H = 100 m, base diameter D = 70 m, and exit diameter De = 44 m. The heat exchangers are 80% porous
6 m long and 5 m deep with CF = 0.1, and K = 10− 5 m2.
 K. Hooman / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 1215–1220
Table 2
A comparison between theoretical and numerical results.
Scale analysis CFD H (m) Difference
2.48 2.54 62.5 2.3%
2.27 2.22 50 2.25%
2.05 2.08 37.5 1.44%
1.78 1.77 25 0.5%
Moving towards the interior of the tower, say at a cross-section in the
middle of the heat exchanger section, the isotherms tend to follow
streamlines showing that heat is convected away from the tube
bundles. As seen, the heat generated by the porous medium increases
the air temperature close to the tube bundle. The air density then
decreases and the light air rises. Hence, the stagnant outside cold air is
sucked into the tower en masse. This cold air then removes heat from
the hot tubes and leaves the tower at a higher temperature. The flow
becomes steady and the cycle continues similar to Bejan's [37] heat
engine formulation of a similar problem; see also [38–40].
Fig. 3 illustrates numerical results for fluid velocity and temperature
which are normalized by those from scale analysis. In this figure the
horizontal velocity, normalized by the velocity scale given by Eq. (10), is
plotted versus y/L where L is the height of the tower opening, see Fig. 1.
The air inlet-outlet temperature difference is used as the temperature
scale. As seen, the dimensionless velocity and temperature are O(1)
showing that the results from scale analysis are of the same order of
magnitude as those obtained by numerical simulations.
Table 2 demonstrates a comparison between numerical and
theoretical predictions of the air velocity through a vertical bundle
for a fixed porosity, permeability, and form drag coefficient which are
characterized by a typical air-cooled heat exchanger. As seen,
numerical results are in close agreement with those predicted by
scale analysis. This leaves no doubt about the applicability of the
proposed scaling laws for the cooling towers.
5. Conclusion
Numerical simulations to the full set of turbulent governing
equations are compared with theoretical results obtained by scale
analysis of the problem for vertical arrangement of the tube bundles.
The scale analysis results are found to be in good agreement with
those of CFD. It is observed that under similar conditions, same heat
exchangers and same tower dimensions, the fluid velocity is higher
for a vertical bundle. On the other hand, horizontal bundles offer the
possibility of protecting the heat exchanger from unwanted/unex-
pected external effects among which study of dust and fouling
resistance as well as wind effects on the thermohydraulic perfor-
mance of the cooling tower is left for a future report.
Acknowledgement
The author benefitted from fruitful discussions with Professor
Gurgenci of The University of Queensland.
References
[1] I.A. Furzer, Natural draft cooling tower — an approximate solution, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 7 (4) (1968) 555-&.
[2] I.A. Furzer, Natural draft cooling tower — maximum liquid loading, Industrial &
Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development 7 (4) (1968) 561-&.
[3] A.H. Stenning, I. Furzer, Natural draft cooling tower, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Process Design and Development 8 (4) (1969) 599-&.
[4] A. Bakay, Cooling tower without vapour emission (protecting environment by air-
cooled condensation plants), Brennst-Warme-Kraft 25 (2) (1973) 52–54.
[5] C.W. Stuttgar, Testing stage for wet and dry cooling towers and other air-cooled
apparatuses, Brennst-Warme-Kraft 25 (12) (1973) 474–475.
1219
[6] D.A. Bartlett, A.R. Foster, Natural draft cooling tower performance with varying
ambient conditions applied to a direct cycle HTGR, Mechanical Engineering 98 (5)
(1976) 101-.
[7] J. Buxmann, Influence of temperature stratification on thermal performance of a
dry cooling-tower with natural draft, Brennst-Warme-Kraft 29 (3) (1977) 90–94.
[8] J.G. Ecker, R.D. Wiebking, Optimal design of a dry-type natural-draft cooling-
tower by geometric-programming, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applica-
tions 26 (2) (1978) 305–323.
[9] Y. Lee, Comparison of observed and predicted behaviour of natural draft cooling-
tower plumes, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 59 (9) (1978)
1233-.
[10] P.R. Slawson, Observation and predictions of natural draft cooling tower plumes at
paradise steam plant, Atmospheric Environment 12 (8) (1978) 1713–1724.
[11] E. Baer, Influence of wind on the flow in the chimney of a cooling tower with
natural draft, Brennst-Warme-Kraft 31 (6) (1979) 261–262.
[12] J. Buxmann, Operational behaviour of a natural draft dry cooling tower, Brennst-
Warme-Kraft 38 (7-8) (1986 Jul–Aug) 335–339.
[13] J. Form, The ring-stiffened shell of the ISAR-II nuclear-power-plant natural-draft
cooling-tower, Engineering Structures 8 (3) (1986 Jul) 199–207.
[14] W. Kast, H. Klan, Influence of the shape of a natural draft cooling tower on its
thermal properties, Brennst-Warme-Kraft 39 (3) (1987 Mar) 118–122.
[15] G. Iovino, H. Mattoni, L. Mazzocchi, R. Senis, R. Vanzan, Optimal Sizing of Natural
Draft, Dry Cooling Towers for ENEL Combined Cycle Power-Plants, in: S.S. Stecco,
M.J. Moran (Eds.), Florence World Energy Research Symp; 1990 May 28–Jun 01,
Pergamon Press Ltd, Florence, Italy, 1990, pp. 669–680.
[16] A.F. Dupreez, D.G. Kroger, Effect of wind on performance of a dry-cooling tower,
Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 13 (2) (1993 Mar) 139–146.
[17] A.F. duPreez, D.G. Kroger, The effect of the heat exchanger arrangement and wind-
break walls on the performance of natural draft dry-cooling towers subjected to
cross-winds, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 58 (3)
(1995 Dec) 293–303.
[18] S. Fu, Z.Q. Zhai, Numerical investigation of the adverse effect of wind on the heat
transfer performance of two natural draft cooling towers in tandem arrangement,
Acta Mechanica Sinica 17 (1) (2001 Feb) 24–34.
[19] R. Al-Waked, M. Behnia, The performance of natural draft dry cooling towers
under crosswind: CFD study, International Journal of Energy Research 28 (2)
(2004 Feb) 147–161.
[20] R. Al-Waked, M. Behnia, The effect of windbreak walls on the thermal performance
of natural draft dry cooling towers, Heat Transfer Engineering 26 (8) (2005 Oct)
50–62.
[21] J. Madadnia, E.R. Bergstrom, J. Rennie, Wind Tunnel Studies of Methods to Reduce
Wind-Induced Cooling Tower Performance Losses, in: E. Leonardi, C.V. Madhu-
sudana (Eds.), 6th Australasian Heat and Mass Transfer Conference; 1996 Dec 09–
12, Begell House, Inc, Sydney, Australia, 1996, pp. 469–475.
[22] Z. Zhai, S. Fu, Improving cooling efficiency of dry-cooling towers under cross-wind
conditions by using wind-break methods, Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (10)
(2006 Jul) 1008–1017.
[23] S.R. Sabbagh-Yazdi, M.A. Goudarzi, N.E. Mastorakis, Solution of Internal and
External Wind Induced Pressure for a Single Cooling Tower in KAZERUN Power
Plant (IRAN), in: S.H. Sohrab, H.J. Catrakis, N. Kobasko, S. Necasova, N. Markatos
(Eds.), 6th IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and
Aerodynamics; 2008 Aug 20–22, World Scientific and Engineering Acad and Soc,
Rhodes, GREECE, 2008, pp. 29–34.
[24] W.L. Zhao, P.Q. Liu, Ieee. Effect of Wind on Recirculation of Direct Air-cooled
Condenser for a Large Power Plant, in Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering
Conference, 2009.
[25] B.M. Liu, Numerical Prediction for the Performance of a Natural Draft Cooling
Tower with Comparison to the Field Test Data, in: G.F. Hewitt (Ed.), 10th
International Heat Transfer Conference; 1994 Aug 14–18, Institute of Chemical
Engineers, Brighton, England, 1994, pp. 309–314.
[26] N. Williamson, M. Behnia, S. Armfield, Comparison of a 2D axisymmetric CFD
model of a natural draft wet cooling tower and a 1D model, International Journal
of Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (9–10) (2008 May) 2227–2236.
[27] M. Lees, The economics of wet versus dry cooling for combined cycle. Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part a, Journal of Power and Energy 209
(A1) (1995) 37–44.
[28] J.C. Kloppers, D.G. Kroger, Cooling tower performance evaluation: Merkel, poppe,
and e-NTU methods of analysis, Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power-Transactions of the ASME 127 (1) (2005 Jan) 1–7.
[29] D. Busch, R. Harte, W.B. Kratzig, U. Montag, New natural draft cooling tower of
200 m of height, Engineering Structures 24 (12) (2002 Dec) 1509–1521.
[30] D.G. Kroger, Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers and Cooling Towers Tulsa, Pennwell
Corp, Okl, 2004.
[31] K. Hooman, H. Gurgenci, Different heat exchanger options for natural draft cooling
towers. World Geothermal Congress Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, 2010 Paper #
2633.
[32] K. Hooman, H. Gurgenci, Porous Medium Modeling of Air-Cooled Condensers,
Transport in Porous Media 84 (2010) 257–273.
[33] A. Bejan, S. Lorente, Design with Constructal Theory Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, N.J,
2008.
[34] M. Famouri, K. Hooman, Entropy generation for natural convection by heated
partitions in a cavity, International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35 (4)
(2008) 492–502.
[35] K. Hooman, A superposition approach to study slip-flow forced convection in
straight microchannels of uniform but arbitrary cross-section, International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (15–16) (2008) 3753–3762.
1220 K. Hooman / International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37 (2010) 1215–1220

[36] A. Ejlali, A. Ejlali, K. Hooman, H. Gurgenci, A Comparative Study on Dry Cooling of
Different Working Fluids for Geothermal Applications, in: H. Gurgenci, A. Budd
(Eds.), Australian Geothermal Energy Conference, 2008, Melbourne, Australia.
[37] A. Bejan, Convection Heat Transfer, 3 ed.Wiley, Hoboken, N.J, 2004.
[38] K. Hooman, Energy flux vectors as a new tool for convection visualization,
International Journal Of Numerical Methods for Heat And Fluid Flow 20 (2010)
240–249.
[39] K. Hooman, H. Gurgenci, Heatline visualization of natural convection in a porous
cavity occupied by a fluid with temperature dependent viscosity, Journal of Heat
Transfer - Transactions of the ASME 130 (2008) paper # 012501.
[40] K. Hooman, H. Gurgenci, Effects of temperature dependent viscosity on Bénard
convection in a porous medium using a non-Darcy model, International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 51 (2008) 1139–1149.