IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Experimental Evaluation for NDWCT

Performance Using Different Types of
Packing Fills in Iraq
Qasim Saleh Mahdi1 , Muwafaq Rahi Al-Hachami2
1.

Professor, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Al-Mustansiriyah University, Iraq,

2.

Ph.D. Student, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Al-Mustansiriyah University, Iraq,

Abstract
An experimental analyses for geometrical and thermo dynamical simulated rig of Natural Draft Wet Cooling Tower (NDWCT)
to study the heat performance using three types of packing fills namely honey cell, splash, and trickle fill under the effect of
cross wind. Experimental tests were done in summer season in Iraq (hot and dry weather) using (10) cm of packing fills. Water
mass flow rate has been changed from (0.8 to 2.4) gpm, and cross wind has changed from (0 to 1) m/s. The experimental
results clarify that trickle fill has better performance than splash and honey cell by (43.09% and 37.78%), (14.93% and 26.215),
(22.91% and 11.86%), (42.19% and 31.3%), and (46.14% and 37.31%) for tower range, change in effectiveness, air relative
humidity, cooling capacity, and heat rejected to air using (10) cm thickness respectively.

Keywords: Artificial Neural Network, Cooling Tower, Iraq, Natural Draft, Packing Fill
Nomenclature
d
Top diameter (58.17m)

Difference

Cp

Specific heat (kJ/kg.k)

Density (kg/m3)

Gravity (9.81 kg/m2s)

Effectiveness

Enthalpy (kJ/kg)

Subscript

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Air

Tower range ( C)

in

At inlet

Temperature ( C)

out

At outlet

Wind velocity (m/s)

Vapor

Cross wind velocity (m/s)

Water

Vapor content in air (kgv/kga )

win

Wet at inlet

1. Introduction
The use of Natural Draft Wet Cooling Towers (NDWCT)s is expanded due to the need of power where big projects of
power generations are built. Initial cost of building these NDWCT is too high so it has to be improved in any applicable
way to increase heat performance and to cover all kinds of weather conditions at that area. Increasing heat performance
may come from different ways including design of shell, water distribution, fill type and thickness. In this project will
focus on improving cooling tower heat performance by using different type of packing fills and find out the best of
them. Packing fill effects in two main ways to increase heat and mass transfer firstly by increasing contact surface area
between falling hot water and drafted up air either by making thin films of water, scatter and divide big drops into
small drops, or both and secondly by increasing time of contact to give enough time for more heat and mass transfer.
These two targets has to be gathered with less impedance in front of drafted up air where there is no meaning if surface
and time of contact are increased and there is no enough air to perform heat and mass transfer. Experimental tests are
done at hot and dry weather.
Naphon, [1]. A column packing unit is fabricated from the plastic plates consists of eight layers. The working fluids are
air and water and the tests are done at the air and water mass flow rates with range limited between (0.01 and 0.07)
kg/s, and between (0.04 and 0.08) kg/s, respectively. At inlet air and water temperatures are (23) C, and between (30

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 1

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

and 40) C, respectively. Elsarrag, [2], studied theoretically and experimentally the long life burned clay to be used as a
filling material. Long life burned clay protects against problems resulting from chemical water treatment and
deterioration. Petruchik et al., [3], investigated the evaporative cooling of water in film flows in a double-corrugation
spray zone. The main conclusion is the contribution to increase efficiency of evaporative cooling in such spray zones is
made by artificial turbulization of air flow on the corrugations of the guards. Lemouari and Boumaza, [4], an
experimental investigation of the performance characteristics of a counter flow wet cooling tower represented by the
heat rejected by the tower and its thermal effectiveness is presented. This study has enabled to investigate the effect of
the air and water mass flow rates on the effectiveness and the heat rejected by a counter flow wet cooling tower filled
with a VGA (Vertical Grid Apparatus) type packing. Hajidavalloo et al., [5], used a mathematical model to predict the
thermal behavior of an existing cross flow tower under variable wet bulb temperature and comparing the results with
experimental data in various operating conditions. Available fill characteristic curve of the tower is obtained to estimate
its departure from the design conditions.
The aims of this research are to find out the best fill among the three fill types used namely honey cell, splash, trickle
fill and studying NDWCT performance regarding each fill type.

2.Experimental Work
Thermo-dynamical and geometrical similarity (NDWCT) used to build a rig according to real one built in Australia,
where the tower height is (131) m and the fill base diameter is (98) m. This tower has been used as reference tower for
many investigations before as like [6, 7, and 8].
Geometrical similarity with scale of 1:100 made the shell dimensions are (58.17 cm 98 cm 131 cm) (top outlet
diameter bottom diameter height), [8]. A net of seven nozzles with (2) mm diameter are used to spread hot water
which simulate load at (50) C using two electrical heaters. Water mass flow rate is controlled using two valves at (0.8,
1, 1.2, 1.6, 2, and 2.4) gpm. Cross wind is simulated using two fans. The upper fan supply cross wind with velocity
two times as the bottom fan so wind velocity is changed as (0, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, and 2) m/s and ( 0, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1) m/s
respectively. Commercial honey cell fill is used where splash and cylindrical shape of trickle fill are simulated using
polyethylene net as shown in figure (1). Air mass flow rate measured at top tower diameter using hot wire anemometer
where air density is calculated by measuring air conditions at top of tower. Air conditions also measured at inlet of
tower which is the same of environment conditions. Figure (2) shows schematic diagram for tests rig.

Figure (1) net used in fills simulation.

Figure (2) Schematic diagram for experimental rig, [9].

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 2

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm
Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

3.Results and Discussions

The study of this research to find out the best fill among the three fill types used namely honey cell, splash, trickle fill
will be led through the following comparison and the best results conclude the best fill among them. The comparison
included many tower parameters using (10) cm thickness with different cross wind velocities and different water mass
flow rates.
1-Cooling tower range
The target of water outlet temperature is to reach till wet bulb temperature of air enters to tower. Temperature
difference between water inlet and water outlet is called tower range.
(1)
Range ( R ) Tw in Tw out
Figures (2) to (7) show that higher values of tower range are found by using trickle fill type. It is found that trickle fill
is the best fill among three fills for all values of cross wind used as per average tower range values (average is taken for
six values of tower range where water mass flow rate changed from 0.8 gpm (3.028 liter/min) to 2.4 gpm (9.084 liter
/min)) as listed in table (1).
These averages can be reformulated as increments percentage in tower range for trickle fill due to splash and honey cell
type which can give idea about the performance for the three fills used.
Increment percentage = (bigger value- smaller value) / smaller value.
Table (1) list the percentage increments comparing between trickle fill type due to splash and honey cell type. It is clear
that trickle fill performance is better than splash and honey cell performance at any value of cross wind velocity.
The total average for all tower range values for each fill type (total average is the average of thirty values where water
flow rate change six times and cross wind velocity hanged five times) show that trickle fill is better than splash and
honey cell fill by (43.09% and 37.78%) respectively.
2- Tower effectiveness ()
It represents the ratio of tower range due to the total deference between water inlet temperature and wet bulb
temperature of air inlet (range + approach).

Effectiven ess

(Twin Twout )
(Twin Ta win )

(2)

Maximum value of tower effectiveness is one when water temperature at outlet equal wet bulb temperature for air at
inlet and this can be achieved theoretically only by using infinity fill thickness.
Figures (8) to (12) show effectiveness due to water flow rate for splash, honey cell, and trickle fills. Trickle fill type
shows better effectiveness for all figures.
Trickle fill type having better contact surface area by combining between dividing water drops into smaller drops and
offering thin films of water with less air flow resistance which performs heat and mass transfer and finally decrease
water temperature at outlet (increase tower range and effectiveness) and so water temperature at outlet will be closer to
the wet bulb temperature for air at inlet.
Average effectiveness values and increment percentages are listed in table (2) show that total effectiveness average of
trickle fill is better than splash and honey cell fill by (22.91% and 11.86%) respectively.
3- Change in relative humidity
Figures (13) to (17) show higher change in relative humidity using trickle fill.
The more effective contact surface area offered using trickle fill, the better mass transfer from water to air side so air
will be more humid as it is drafted up. Because of the higher surface contact area for trickle fill, it can be noted that
trickle fill lead air-vapor mixture near saturation line more quickly than other type of fills.
Maximum relative humidity values for air at outlet is (97%) for (10 cm) thickness of trickle fill at water mass flow rate
is 2.4 gpm (9.084 liter/min) and zero cross wind. Average values for change in relative humidity have been calculated
proving that trickle fill offer better humidity change among other fills. The average values of relative humidity changes
and increment percentages are listed in table (3). The total air humidity change average for trickle fill is better than
splash and honey cell by (22.91% and 11.86%) respectively.
4- Cooling capacity and heat rejection
Cooling capacity represents the amount of heat subtract from water inside cooling tower. It is the product of cooling
range and water mass flow rate so increasing any of them, increase cooling capacity. For all type of fills, mass flow rate
values are controlled during tests so the better cooling, the better cooling capacity. Cooling tower capacity is calculated
as [10]:

Towercapacity
(kW)

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

cpw

mw Tin 1 mw Tout
1000

(3)

Page 3

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

Where m w is water consumed by evaporation which calculated by:

mw vout

( d 2 )
Wout Win
4

(4)

(W) represents vapor content in air (kgv/kga) and (d) is top diameter.
Heat rejected to air (kW) is the amount of heat carried by air flow and rejected to environment. It is calculated by:
( d 2 )
(5)
heatreject ed v out
i out i in
4
Figures (18) to (22) show cooling capacities for different fills using six different water mass flow rates. Higher cooling
capacities are recorded using trickle fill. The average values of cooling capacities and heat rejections are listed in table
(5) where increments in cooling capacity and heat rejections for trickle fill due to splash and honey cell fill are listed in
table (6).
The total average of cooling capacity and heat rejection increments are (42.19% and 31.3%), and (46.14% and 37.31%)
due to splash and honey cell fill respectively.

4.Conclusions
Trickle fill performance is better than splash and honey cell type by the meaning tower range, effectiveness, air
humidity change, cooling capacity, and heat rejection.
Change in cross wind velocity effects performance of cooling tower using any type of fills.
According to the range of water mass flow rate studied, tower range and effectiveness fluctuated by increasing water
mass flow rate where air humidity increasing till saturation and cooling capacity keep increasing.

References
[1] Naphon P., Study on the Heat Transfer Characteristics of an Evaporative Cooling Tower, International
Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 32, pp.10661074, 2005.
[2] Elsarrag E., Experimental Study and Predictions of an Induced Draft Ceramic Tile Packing Cooling Tower,
Energy Conversion and Management, vol.47, pp.20342043, 2006.
[3] Petruchik A. I., Solodukhin A. D. and Fisenko S. P., Evaporative Cooling of Water in Complex-Configration
Film Spray Zones, Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics, vol. 81, no.1, 2008.
[4] Lemouari M. and Boumaza M., Experimental Investigation of the Performance Characteristics of a Counter Flow
Wet Cooling Tower, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol.49, pp.2049-2056, 2010.
[5] Hajidavalloo E., Shakeri R. and Mehrabian M. A. Thermal Performance of Cross Flow Cooling Towers in
Variable Wet Bulb Temperature, Energy Conversion and Management, vol.51, pp. 12981303, 2010.
[6] Williamson, Behnia and S. W. Armfield, Thermal optimization of a natural draft wet cooling tower, International
Journal of Energy Research, 2008; 32:13491361.
[7] Williamson N., Behnia M. and Armfield S., 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, vol.51, pp.22272236,
2008.
[8] Qasim Saleh Mahdi and Muwafaq Rahi Al- Hachami, Performance Comparison for NDWCT Using Trickle Fill at
Different Weather Conditions, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, Volume 19 Number 3
Jan 2015, pp 134-139.
[9] Qasim Saleh Mahdi and Muwafaq Rahi Al- Hachami, Experimental Analyses for NDWCT Performance Using
Trickle Fill Under the Effect of Cross Wind, International Journal Of Scientific Research And Education, Volume
3, Issue 3, pp 2969-2977, 2015.
[10] Lemouari M. and Boumaza M., Experimental Investigation of the Performance Characteristics of a Counter Flow
Wet Cooling Tower, International Journal of Thermal Sciences, vol.49, pp.2049-2056, 2010.

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 4

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm
Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Table (1) List average values for tower ranges.

Cross
wind
No.

velocity

Tower range
(C)
Splash fill

(m/s)

increments
percentage
(trickle

Tower range
(C)
Honey cell fill

to splash)

increments
percentage
(trickle to

Tower range
(C)
Trickle fill

honey cell)

Zero

5.2

75.321%

7.05

29.314%

9.1167

0.4

7.45

38.031%

6.97

47.608%

10.283

0.6

6.7

41.791%

7.18

32.251%

9.5

0.8

6.783

39.066%

7.18

31.323%

9.4333

7.167

30%

6.53

42.602%

9.3167

Table (2) Average effectiveness for different fill types.

Cross

No.

increments

increments

wind

Effectiveness

percentage

Effectiveness

percentage

Effectiveness

velocity

Splash fill

(trickle

Honey cell fill

(trickle to

Trickle fill

(m/s)

to splash)

honey cell)

Zero

0.191

43.46%

0.274

0.126%

0.274

0.4

0.265

17.74%

0.261

19.54%

0.312

0.6

0.228

20.18%

0.243

12.76%

0.274

0.8

0.234

22.22%

0.243

17.70%

0.286

0.247

10.93%

0.251

9.16%

0.274

Table (3) Average air humidity change for different fill types.
Cross

Relative

increments

Relative

increments

Relative

wind

Humidity

percentage

humidity

percentage

humidity

velocity

Change (%)

(trickle to

Change (%)

(trickle to

Change (%)

(m/s)

Splash fill

honey cell)

fill

honey cell)

Trickle fill

Zero

49.48

10.29%

46.1

18.37%

54.57

0.4

50.1

8.94%

44.55

22.51%

54.58

0.6

50.1

8.92%

47.15

15.74%

54.57

0.8

48.12

22.26%

47.15

24.77%

58.83

47.62

24.88%

40.33

47.46%

59.47

No.

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 5

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm
Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Table (4) The average values of tower capacities and heat rejected by air using (10) cm thickness of different fills.
Cross
wind
No.

Splash fill

Honey cell fill

(kW)

Trickle fill

(kW )

(kW)

velocity

Cooling

Heat

Cooling

Heat

Cooling

Heat

(m/s)

capacity

rejected

capacity

rejected

capacity

rejected

Zero

2.24

2.47

3.15

2.95

3.88

3.78

0.4

3.10

3.09

3.07

2.86

4.29

3.84

0.6

2.81

2.61

3.10

2.66

3.97

4.07

0.8

2.87

2.43

3.10

2.66

3.94

3.84

2.95

2.51

2.80

2.57

3.78

3.61

Table (5) List increments in cooling capacity for trickle fill due to splash and honey cell fill.

Cross wind

increments percentage

increments percentage

(trickle to splash)

(trickle to honey cell)

velocity
No

(m/s)
Cooling capacity

Heat rejected

Cooling capacity

Heat rejected

Zero

73.28%

53.47%

23.21%

28.38%

0.4

38.38%

24.19%

39.86%

34.14%

0.6

41.60%

56.25%

28.06%

53.25%

0.8

37.18%

58.20%

26.87%

44.53%

27.99%

43.88%

34.74%

40.25%

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 6

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 7

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

Fig. (12) Effectiveness due to water mass flow rate change for different fill types, (u=1 m/s).

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 8

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

Fig. (17) Air relative humidity due to water mass flow rate change for different fill types, (u=1 m/s).

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 9

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

A Publisher for Research Motivation........

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Email: editoriijme@ipasj.org
ISSN 2321-6441

Fig. (22) Cooling capacity due to water mass flow rate change for different fill types, (u=1 m/s).

Volume 3, Issue 3, March 2015

Page 10