Energy Vol. 23, No. 11, pp.

943–947, 1998
Pergamon  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
PII: S0360-5442(98)00044-9 Printed in Great Britain
0360-5442/98 $19.00 + 0.00

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PERFORMANCE OF

A COUNTER-FLOW, PACKED-BED MECHANICAL COOLING
TOWER
S. V. BEDEKAR,‡ P. NITHIARASU†§ and K. N. SEETHARAMU얏
‡
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Chennai 600 036, India;
§
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Wales, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK; 얏School of Mechanical
Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Perak Campus Branch, Tronoh 31750, Malaysia

(Received 4 November 1997)

Abstract—Results are presented in terms of tower characteristics, water-outlet temperature, water

to air flow rate ratio (L/G ratio) and efficiency. Tower performance decreases with an increase in
the L/G ratio as is also observed in other types of cooling towers.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights reserved

1. INTRODUCTION

Cooling towers are widely used to remove heat from industrial processes and from refrigeration and
air-conditioning systems. Simultaneous heat- and mass-transport processes at every section of the coo-
ling tower give rise to complicated design equations. Experimental investigations of cooling towers
should lead to better designs. In counter-flow cooling towers, hot water is sprayed into an air stream.
Heat and mass are transferred and the water enthalpy decreases while that of air increases. In order to
increase the cooling rate, the interface area between air and water is increased by providing packed
and fluidized beds. There are three types of packings in use, namely, film, splash and film-grid packings.
In the present studies, film packings were used.
Cooling tower packings play an important role in increasing the effective contact area between air
and water to promote better heat and mass transfer. Fluidized-bed cooling towers have been shown to
enhance the cooling rate [1]. The higher pressure drop due to particles in the bed is a main drawback
for this system.
Seetharamu and Swaroop [1] have studied the performance of fluidized-bed cooling towers; ignoring
the higher pressure drop compared to other film- and flash-type towers, their performance was excellent.
Sisupalan and Seetharamu [2] examined the performance variation of a fluidized-bed cooling tower for
different static bed heights. Recently, Dreyer and Evens [3] studied the modelling of a cooling tower
splash pack. The performance of a falling film-type cooling tower has been studied by Ibrahim et al.
[4] There are many studies [5–8] available on mathematical modelling of cooling tower heat- and
mass-transport, including a number of recent publications [9–11]. The available literature shows a lack
of experimental data on film-type, packed-bed cooling towers. In this study, we give results for an
induced draft packed-bed cooling tower.

2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

Figs. 1 and 2 are schematics of the experimental setup and packings. The system includes a basin
tank, packings and drift-water arrangements, as well as a motor and induced-draft fan section. The
basin tank is 110 × 110 × 120 cm3 in size into which exit water falls and then passes to a heating tank
by buoyancy. Hot water is pumped to the cooling tower and the flow is monitored by a control value
at the outlet of the pump; 12 (4 kW) electric heaters are installed with individual controls to maintain
a constant heating-tank temperature.

†
Author for correspondence, Fax: (01792) 295676; e-mail: [email protected]
943
944 S. V. Bedekar et al

Fig. 1. Schematic of the experimental set-up.

Fig. 2. Schematic of the film-type packing.

The middle portion contains packings, grid and spraying nozzles. The vertical packings (see Fig. 2)
are supported by a grid. Cone-type nozzles above the packings (Fig. 1) are connected to a header by
a 40-cm long pipe. The top section consists of a 3-phase motor with an induced-draft fan, guide vanes
to control the air-flow rate, drift eliminator, a psychrometer, and a rubber bellow to control vibrations.
The psychrometer is fixed at the top to measure the dry- and wet-bulb temperatures. The air- and water-
flow rates are measured with an orifice meter and a control value, respectively. The inlet and outlet
temperatures are measured using thermometers.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE AND OBSERVATIONS

Water is allowed to circulate through the cooling tower with the heaters on until the temperature
reaches a steady value. Different water temperatures are maintained by increasing or decreasing the
heat input to the tank. After reaching a steady state, the air is sucked through by the induced draft fan.
The air flow rate is maintained at different levels by adjusting the control vanes.
At the steady state, the outlet and dry- and wet-bulb temperatures of air at the inlet and exit were
measured for the following conditions: liquid flow rates (kg/h) = 1500, 1800, 2100, 2400, 2700; air
 Cooling tower performance 945

Fig. 3. Outlet-water temperatures vs L/G for different liquid flow rates.

Fig. 4. Outlet-water temperatures vs L/G for different wet-bulb temperatures.

flow rates (m3 /h) = 17,400, 19,685, 21,645, 23,600, 25,240, 26,870; water temperatures at the inlet to
the tower (°C) = 40, 43, 47, 52.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The performance of a cooling tower depends on the range of cooling, the approach of the cold-water
to the wet-bulb temperature of air and the L/G ratio. At given operating conditions, the outlet water
temperatures measure tower capabilities. Fig. 3 shows the outlet-water temperature variation with L/G
ratio for different water flow rates. The rate of increase in water temperature is quite small at low L/G
ratios. As the L/G ratio increases, a sudden increase in the slopes of the curves is observed. This change
occurs at lower L/G ratios when the water flow rate is small; it is delayed with an increase in flow
946 S. V. Bedekar et al

Fig. 5. Tower characteristics vs L/G for different inlet-water temperatures.

rate. It is apparent from Fig. 3 that locations before the steep-slope increase are zones of improved per-
formance.
For the best performance, water should be cooled to the entering air wet-bulb temperature. In practice,
this is possible either when the water flow tends to zero or the packing height to infinity (see Figs 3
and 4). In Fig. 4, the outlet-water temperature variation is shown as a function of L/G ratio for different
inlet air wet-bulb temperatures. A decrease in air wet-bulb temperature reduces the outlet-water tempera-
ture. In a fluidized-bed tower, the reduction is 12.5°C for an approach of 5°C at a wet-bulb temperature
of 24°C with a 12 cm packing height [1]. Our study shows a range of about 10°C for the same
operating conditions.
For a cooling tower, the tower performance is measured by

冕
T2

KaV/L = dT/(ii − ig ), (1)

T1

Fig. 6. Efficiencies vs L/G for different inlet-water temperatures.

 Cooling tower performance 947

where K is the convective mass-transfer coefficient, a the surface area of the water interface per unit
volume, V the active volume of the cooling tower per unit of plan area, L the water flow rate, T1 the
bulk water temperature at the inlet, T2 the bulk water temperature at the exit, ii the specific enthalpy
of saturated air, and ig the specific enthalpy of the bulk of air locally.
Fig. 5 shows tower-characteristics variations with the L/G ratio for different inlet water temperatures.
A decrease in performance with an increase in L/G ratio agrees well with theoretical predictions [5].
The efficiency of the tower is given by

␩ = (T1 − T2 )/(T1 − T1w ), (2)

where T1w is the wet-bulb temperature of inlet air. The efficiency is plotted against the L/G ratio in
Fig. 6. The available thermal potential with an increase in water flow rate is clearly delineated in Fig.
6. It is seen that we obtain higher efficiencies at higher inlet-water temperatures due to the higher
available thermal potential.

REFERENCES

1. Seetharamu, K. N. and Swaroop, S., Wärme- und Stoffübertragung, 1990, 26, 17.
2. Sisupalan, N. and Seetharamu, K. N., Wärme- und Stoffübertragung, 1992, 27, 499.
3. Dreyer, A. A. and Evens, P. J., International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1996, 39, 109.
4. Ibrahim, G. A., Nabhan, M. B. W. and Anabtawi, M. Z., International Journal of Refrigeration, 1995, 18, 557.
5. Baker, D. R. and Shyrock, H. A., ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 1961, 83, 339.
6. Sutherland, L. W., ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 1983, 105, 576.
7. Ravi, K., Varma, S. M., Nithiarasu, P. and Seetharamu, K. N., in Proceedings of 4th International Symposium
of Natural Draught Cooling Towers, ed. U. Wittek, W. B. Kratzig and A. A. Balkema. Rotterdam, 1996.
8. Osterle, F., International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1991, 34, 1313.
9. Eldessouky, H., Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 1996, 74, 331.
10. Givoni, B., Renewable Energy, 1997, 10, 173.
11. Eldessouky, H. T. A., Alhaddad, A. and Aljuwayhel, F., ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, 1997, 119, 617.