UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
CHNG 2009 CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
LABORATORY 2 2010
NAME OF EXPERIMENT: COOLING TOWER
(HMT2)
INFORMAL
DATE CONDUCTED: 4TH OCTOBER, 2010
DATE SUBMITTED: 18TH OCTOBER, 2010
NAME OF STUDENT: TERRANCE ALI
STUDENT ID: 809000670
LAB GROUP: B

ABSTRACT
The aim of this experiment was to perform a heat and water balance
on a cooling tower and determine its performance. To accomplish this
water and air were sent into a cooling tower at the top and bottom
respectively. The air and water flow rates were allowed to vary and
the wet and dry bulb temperatures of the inlet and outlet air were
measured together with the inlet and outlet water temperatures. A
psychrometric chart was used to determine relevant values to
perform the balances on the system. It was found that as the air flow
rate increased, the outlet water temperature decreased and the
overall mass co-efficient increased. Since the mass co-efficient values
were small (0.6497 -1.2981 s-1) it was determined that the cooling
tower was not very efficient but it still removed heat from the water
which meant that it was effective. It was also seen that the rate of
evaporation

and the heat loss by conduction increased with

increasing air flow rate.

EXPERIMENTAL
APPARATUS

Manometer
Rotameter
Wet and Dry Bulb Thermometers
Water Pump
Fan
Cooling Tower
Raschig Rings
Water Tank
Valves to Control Airflow
Orifice Plate
Sling Psychrometer
Steam Sparger

EXPERIMENTAL
1. Water was charged into a water tank until it was about two
thirds full.
2. The pump was started and water was allowed to pass around
the recycle system back to the tank.
3. The steam to the sparger was turned on in the water tank and
the water was heated up to about 500C.
4. The fan was started and air was allowed to pass through the
tower.
5. The water flow rate was set to 2.5 on the Rotameter by opening
the valve on the water line to the tower and reducing the
recycle. Water was allowed to flow in from the mains to
maintain the level in the water tank and the steam rate was

adjusted to give a water temperature into the tower in the

range 45 to 500C.
6. The air flow rate was increased until it was close to the flooding
point. Conditions were allowed to settle down.
7. The following readings were taken:

Water Flow Rate

Air Flow Rate
Inlet Water Temperature
Outlet Water Temperature
Inlet Air Temperature
Outlet Air Wet and Dry Bulb Temperatures
Inlet Air Wet and Dry Bulb Temperatures (close to the fan)

8. The wet and dry bulb temperatures were taken with the sling
Psychrometer.
9. Step 7 was repeated over a wide range of air velocities. Four
more readings were taken.
10.

The steam, flow of water, and flow of air were shut off in

that order.

RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS

TABLE 1: Pressure Readings
Run

Water Flow
Rate (L/min)

2.5

Pressure (mm)
H1
35.75

H2
34.75

1.5

35.75

34.75

1.4

35.75

34.75

1.3

35.6

35

1.1

35.6

35

TABLE 2: Temperature Readings

Water Temperature
(C)

Air Temperature (C)

Run

Inlet Dry

Inlet
Wet

Outlet
Dry

Outlet
Wet

Inle
t

Inlet

Outlet

32.2

25.6

46.5

44.5

33

49

37

32.2

25.8

47.5

46.5

33

49

36.5

32.2

26.1

47

45.5

33

50

37

32.2

26.1

46.5

45

33

49

38

32.2

26.1

46

45

33

48

38

Diameter of Column
Orifice Diameter

= 4 inches = 0.1016 m
= 0.75 inches

= 0.01905 m

Pipe Diameter

= 2 inches = 0.0508 m

Co-efficient of Discharge

= 0.61

Height of Column

= 0.761 m

TABLE 3: Pressure Readings in SI Units

Run

Water Flow
Rate (kg/s)

Height of
Manometer (m)
H1
H2

H (m)

0.042

0.3575

0.3475

0.01

0.025

0.3575

0.3475

0.01

0.023

0.3575

0.3475

0.01

0.022

0.3560

0.3500

0.006

0.018

0.3560

0.3500

0.006

All calculations will be done using Readings from the Second Run.

Converting Flow Rate of Water to SI Units

Water Flow Rate = 1.5 Lmin-1
= 0.0015 m3/min
= 0.0015/60
=0.0000025 m3/s
=m/v

m= x v
= 1000 x 0.000025= 0.025 kg/s

Hence water flow rate L = 0.025 kg/s

Determination of Rate of Evaporation

Finding Change in Air Humidity
An online Psychrometric Calculator was used to determine
this.
(www.sugartech.co.za/psychro/index.php)
Change in Humidity

= Humidity Ratio Out - Humidity Ratio In

= 0.0704 - 0.0184
= 0.052

Finding Flow Rate of Bone Dry Air

Air Flow Rate(A) = Bone Dry Air Flow Rate (BDA) + Water
Vapour Flow Rate(WV)
Therefore,
BDA

= A - WV

Air Flow Rate (A) =

Where,
CD

= Co-efficient of Discharge
= 0.61

AO

= Cross Sectional Area of Orifice Plate

= r2
= (0.01905 / 2)2
= 2.85 x 10-4 m2

= Specific Volume of Inlet Air

= 0.890 m3/kg (Obtained from Psychrometric Chart)

= Change In Pressure
= (m a)gh
Where,
m

= Density of Manometer Fluid (Water)=

= Density of Air = 1.29 kg/m3

= Acceleration due to Gravity = 9.81

1000 kg/m3

ms-2

= Change in Height of Manometer

Readings
= 0.3575 0.3475

= 0.01

= (1000 1.29) x 9.81 x 0.01

97.97 Pa
A1

= Cross Sectional Area of Pipe

= r2
= (0.0508 / 2)2
= 2.027 x 10-3 m2

Hence A =
= 0.00261
= 2.61 x 10-3 kgs-1
Finding Flow Rate of Water Vapour
WV

= Inlet Air Humidity x BDA

= 0.0184 x 0.00261
= 4.8024 x 10-5 kgs-1

Therefore, Flow Rate of Bone Dry Air

= 2.61 x 10-3 - 4.8024

x 10-5
= 2.562 x 10-3 kgs-1.
Rate of Evaporation

E = H x GBDA
Where
E

Rate of Evaporation

Change in Air Humidity

GBDA Flow Rate of Bone Dry Air

= 0.0520 x 2.558 x 10-3

= 1.33 x10-4 kgs-1

Table 4: Values Obtained From Psychrometric Chart

Humidity

Run

1
2
3
4
5

Inlet

0.018
0.018
4
0.018
9
0.018
9
0.018
9

Enthalpy
(kJ/kg)

Inlet Air
Specific
Volume
(m/kg)

Outlet

Inlet

Outlet

0.062
3
0.070
4
0.066
2
0.064
3
0.064
6

78.5
1
79.3
8

207.7
9
229.7
7

80.7

218.5

0.8904

80.7

213.1

0.8904

80.7

213.1
5

0.8904

0.8892
0.8897

Table 5: Calculated Results For Rate of Evaporation

Ru
n

Chang
e In
Humidi
ty

Inlet
Air
Specifi
c
Volume

H
(m)

P
(Pa)

Air
Flow
Rate
x10
(kg/s)

Water
Vapour
Flow
Rate
x10

BDA
Flow
Rate
x10
(kg/s)

Rate of
Evaporati
on x
10(kg/s)

(m/kg)
1
2
3
4
5

(kg/s)

0.0443

0.8892

0.01

97.9
7

2.607

4.692

2.560

1.134

0.052

0.8897

0.01

97.9
7

2.606

4.795

2.558

1.330

0.0473

0.8904

0.01

97.9
7

2.605

4.923

2.556

1.209

0.0454

0.8904

0.00
6

58.7
8

2.018

3.813

1.980

0.899

0.0457

0.8904

0.00
6

58.7
8

2.018

3.813

1.980

0.905

Water Balance
Rate of H2O in + Rate of H2O Entering Air Inlet Stream
=
Rate of H2O Out + Rate of H2O Leaving Air Outlet Stream
Now,
Rate of Evaporation

= Rate of H2O Leaving Air Outlet Stream -

Rate of H2O Entering Air Inlet

Stream

Therefore:
Rate of H2O in

= Rate of H2O out + Rate of

Evaporation
Rate of H2O in

= 0.025 kgs-1

Rate of Evaporation

= 1.33 x 10-4 kg-1

Rate of H2O out

= 0.025 1.33 x 10-4

=0.0249 kgs-1

Heat Balance

Rate of Heat Gained by Air + Rate of Heat Lost by Conduction =

Rate of Heat Lost by H2O
GBDA(HG2 HG1) + Rate of Heat Lost by Conduction = LCL(TL2 TL1)
Where,
HG2

Enthalpy of Outlet Air

= 229.77 kJ/kg

HG1

Enthalpy of Inlet Air

= 78.51 kJ/kg

CL

Specific Heat Capacity of H2O

= 4.2 kJ/K kg

TL2

Inlet H2O Temperature

= 49 C

TL1

Outlet H2O Temperature

= 36.5 C

GBDA Bone Dry Air Flow Rate

= 2.558 x 10-3 kg/s

= 0.025 kg/s

Water Flow Rate

Rate of Heat Gained by Air

= 2.558 x 10-3 x (229.77 78.51)

= 0.385 kJ/s
Rate of Heat Lost by H2O

= 0.025 x 4.2 x (49-36.5)

= 1.313 kJ/s
Rate of Heat Lost by Conduction = Rate of Heat Lost by H2O Rate of Heat Gained by Air
= 1.313 0.385
= 0.928 kJ/s

Table 6: Calculated Values From the Heat and Water

Balance

Run

1
2

Rate of
Evaporati
on (kg/s)

1.134E04
1.330E04

Water
Flow
Rate IN
(kg/s)

Water
Flow
Rate
OUT
(kg/s)

0.042

0.0416

0.025

0.0249

Heat
Loss
By
Water
(kJ/s)

2.100
0
1.312
5

Heat
Gained
By Air
(kJ/s)

Heat
Loss By
Conducti
on (kJ/s)

0.3309

1.7691

0.3847

0.9278

3
4
5

1.209E04
8.987E05
9.046E05

0.023

0.0232

0.022

0.0216

0.018

0.0182

1.274
0
1.001
0
0.770
0

0.3522

0.9218

0.2621

0.7389

0.2622

0.5078

Height of a Transfer Unit

The graph presented below is only used to show what the undermentioned terms represent. It is NOT an actual graph depicting the
results attained in this experiment. To view the actual graphs please
refer to the Appendix.

Table 7: Data Used to Plot Saturated Air Curve

Wet Bulb
Temperature (C)

Specific Enthalpy
(kJ/kg)

21

60

26

81

30

100

33

117

35

129

39

158

41

175

44

204

45

214

46

225

49

262

50

275

51

289

52

304

53

320

54

337

55

355

Height of a Transfer Unit (H.T.U.)

of Transfer Units (N.T.U.)

= Height of Column (Z) / Number

To calculate the Height of a Transfer Unit, an assumption was made in

that the resistance to heat transfer in the liquid phase can be ignored,
so that the driving force lines are vertical.

HM

= 195 - 155

= 40 kJ/kg

H1

= 139 - 79.38

= 59.62 kJ/kg

H2

= 260 - 229.77

= 30.23 kJ/kg

These values were then used to find the following ratios so that the
Correction Factor could be determined with the aid of a chart.

= 0.6709

= 1.3232

These values yielded a correction factor of 1.02.

Therefore,
Number of Transfer Units

Where,
HG2

= Enthalpy of Inlet Air

HG1

= Enthalpy of Outlet Air= 79.38

229.77 kJ/kg

kJ/kg

Now,
H.T.U.

= 0.761 / 3.45
= 0.221 m.

Overall Mass Transfer Co-efficient

Where,

kg/m

= 1.1769

Mean Density of the Air

GBDA

Flow Rate of Bone Dry Air

H.T.U.

Height of a Transfer Unit

hD a

Overall Mass Transfer Co-efficient

Cross Sectional Area of Column

r2
(0.1016/2)2
= 0.00811
m2

= 1.298 s-1.

Table 8: Calculated Values for Height of A Transfer Unit

and Overall Mass Transfer Co-efficient
1

Run
3

Inlet Water
Temperature (C)

49

49

50

49

48

Outlet Water
Temperature (C)

37

36.5

37

38

38

Mean Water
Temperature (C)

43

42.75

43.5

43.5

43

Outlet Air Enthalpy

(kJ/kg)

207.79

229.77

218.5

213.1

213.15

78.51

79.38

80.7

80.7

80.7

140

139

140

145

150

260

260

260

260

250

H1 (kJ/kg)

61.49

59.62

59.3

64.3

69.3

H2 (kJ/kg)

52.21

30.23

41.5

46.9

36.85

HM (kJ/kg)

55

40

50

55

45

HM /H1 (kJ/kg)

0.8945

0.6709

0.8432

0.8554

0.6494

Inlet Air Enthalpy

(kJ/kg)
Enthalpy of Air at
Bottom of Column,
H1 (kJ/kg)
Enthalpy of Air at
Top of Column, H2
(kJ/kg)

HM /H2 (kJ/kg)

1.0534

1.3232

1.2048

1.1727

1.2212

Correction Factor (f)

1.01

1.02

0.99

1.01

1.02

Number of Transfer
Units

2.33

3.69

2.78

2.38

2.89

0.327

0.206

0.273

0.319

0.264

0.8201

1.2981

0.9796

0.6497

0.7866

Height of a Transfer
Unit (m)
Overall Mass
Transfer
Coefficient (s-1)

DISCUSSION
The aim of a cooling tower is to remove heat from a liquid stream
entering from the top of the tower. The liquid stream flows down the
tower where it comes into contact with air which enters the tower
from the base. Based on the laws of density, the liquid will fall down
the tower while the air rises up the tower. Heat is then transferred
from the warm liquid to the cool air since a temperature gradient exist
between the two substances and both substances would want to
achieve a state of equilibrium. Heat is also removed from the water
through the process of evaporation. The air which is present in the
tower will cause some of the water to be evaporated. The energy
required for the water to change its state is provided from the water
itself. As a consequence the water temperature would decrease.
From the results attained in this experiment it is seen that the inlet
water temperature is higher than the outlet water temperature. The
air temperature at inlet is constant and at exit the temperature is
higher than what it was when the air entered the column. As such the
experiment conducted agrees with the above mentioned theory in
that the water loses heat and the air gains heat.

From the graph of outlet water temperature against air flow rate it is
seen that as the air flow rate increases the outlet water temperature
decreases. This is expected since the more air present within the
tower would mean increased contact between the air and water and
as such there would exist a greater chance for the heat exchange to
occur. More air is present within the tower as the pressure drop
increases as evident in Table 5 which leads to an increased rate of
evaporation which would mean that more heat is removed from the
water hence the decrease in the outlet water temperature.
Furthermore, the increased rate of evaporation would mean that there
is more water present in the outlet air stream, i.e. the humidity of the
stream would be larger. This trend is noticed in some of the results
presented in Table 4. There were errors present within the experiment
which would account for the trend not being noticed in all of the runs
which are presented further on in the Discussion. In all of the runs it is
seen that as the air flow rate increased, the specific enthalpy of the
air in increased. This is expected since the air now has a greater
temperature and as the temperature of a substance increases so too
will its enthalpy.
The heat balance which was conducted on the system showed that all
of the heat lost by the water was not equal to the heat gained by the
air. A vast amount of the heat was lost through conduction through
the walls of the column. This is evident is the results presented in
Table 6 where it is seen that the heat lost by conduction is much
greater than the heat gained by air.
The height of a transfer unit indicates the amount of packing
available for mass transfer. The higher the height of a transfer unit

the greater the area available for mass transfer and thus the more
efficient the column. As a result there would be more evaporation of
the water as well. The graph of Height of Transfer Unit against Air
Flow Rate shows that as the air flow rate increased, the height of
transfer unit decreased but this is not expected and this result could
be attributed to experimental errors. When the air flow rate is
increased, there would be more air particles requiring contact with
the water particles. As such the Height of the Transfer Unit should
have increased since more area would be required for heat and mass
transfer to occur. It should be noted that the maximum Height of a
Transfer Unit occurred when the air flow rate was at a maximum
which is in accordance with theory, (air flow rate of 0.00261 kg/s,
height of transfer unit 0.327m) but the general trend on the graph did
not concur with this.
The overall mass transfer co-efficient provides an idea of the
efficiency of the cooling tower. High values of the mass transfer coefficient imply that the column is more effective in cooling. It was
seen that as the air flow rate was increased the overall mass transfer
co-efficient increased. This is expected since more air would allow for
more heat to be removed from the water, thereby increasing the
effectiveness of the column.

Safety Analysis

A pressure build up valve was present within the apparatus so

as to ensure that there would be no emergent situations when
using high air flow rates.

Throughout the equipment there were stop valves located along

the lines so that in the event of a mishap there flow through

these pipes could be stopped immediately.

Thermal gloves were used when adjusting the valve on the

steam supply into the tank since this valve was hot.
When using the sling psychrometer it should be ensured that no
one is in the near vicinity since the psychrometer needs to be
rotated

which

can

cause

it

to

become

free

from

the

experimenter's hand and injure someone.

To read the outlet air temperatures one had to climb on a stool.
This is an unsafe practice which can cause injury to the
experimenter when ascending and descending the stool.

Sources of Errors

The wet and dry bulb temperature of the inlet air was taken at
the pump entrance. The actual temperature of the air entering
the column would have been different sice the temperature of
the air would have increased due to friction within the transport

pipes and the heat generated from the pump.

The water flow rate which was read off the rotameter was
inaccurate since it kept bobbing up and down and as such the

actual water flow arte was not known.

As the air exited the column it contained within it water vapour
which would have condensed on the dry bulb thermometer thus
producing inaccurate values of temperature. Furthermore, when
water was placed on the wet bulb thermometer some of it
would have fallen on the dry bulb thermometer causing
inaccurate dry bulb temperature readings.

The difference between the manometer readings was very small

and as such parallax errors would have had a profound effect on

the results of this experiment.

The outlet water temperature was measured a great distance
away from the actual exit of the column and as such there could
have been a temperature drop between the exit of the column
and the point at which the temperature was measured.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

It was concluded that:

The cooling tower was effective in cooling the water entering

the it since the outlet water temperature was lower than the
inlet water temperature and the outlet air temperature was

higher than the inlet air temperature.

As the air flow rate increased, the outlet water temperature

decreased.
The rate of evaporation as well as the outlet air humidity

increased as the air flow rate increased.

The Overall Mass Transfer Co-efficient increased as the air flow
rate increased which meant that the column became more

efficient with increasing air flow rate.

From the heat balance conducted on the system it was seen
that all of the heat energy lost by the water was not absorbed
by the air.

The cooling tower was not very efficient since the Mass Transfer

Co-efficient were small (0.6497 -1.2981 s-1).

The Height of a Transfer Unit ranged from 0.206 to 0.307 m.

It is recommended that:

The tower be insulated so as to prevent heat loss to the

environment.
The manometer be replaced with one which has a better scale

so that more accurate readings could be taken.

The pump be placed a shorter distance away from the rest of
the equipment so as to reduce the increase in temperature of

the air in the transport pipes due to friction.

The outlet water temperature should be recorded at a point
closer to the actual exit from the column so that the effect
which the environment would have on the temperature would

be reduced.
The rotameter which is used to measure the water flow rate
should be replaced with a newer one so that an accurate water
flow rate could be recorded.

REFERENCES

Coulson, J.M. and J.F. Richardson (1996). Chemical Engineering

Volume 1. Butterworth- Heinemann, Oxford.

Eckert, E.R.G and Drake R.M (1992). Analysis of Heat and Mass

Transfer.
Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
McCabe, W.L. and J.C. Smith (1993). Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.

APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract
1

Experimental

Results and Calculations

4
Discussion
15
Conclusions

& Recommendations

18
References
19
Appendix

20