University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Process Systems Laboratory

ENCH 435

Cooling Tower Analysis

Written By

Anthony Paolucci

September 18, 2002

Instructors
Dr. Jim Henry
Dr. Frank Jones

Red Team Members

Ron Vail
Troy Hall
Abstract
The Red Team measured the temperature, relative humidity and velocity of the

inlet and outlet air streams on four cooling towers in order to perform an analysis on the

tons of cooling produced by each. A psychrometric chart was used to determine the

needed enthalpies and a spreadsheet was created to aid in the calculations.

The Challenger Center cooling tower, a dry type of cooling tower and the smallest

of the four produced 8 tons of cooling. The Administrative Building cooling tower, a wet

type, produced 11 tons of cooling. The Central Energy Plant has two wet cooling towers,

an old one and new one, approximately the same size. These units were the biggest and

thus produced 200 and 110 tons of cooling respectively. The analysis on the new tower

was just done on the one running fan.

Page 2 of 40
Table of Contents

Section Page

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..4

Background and Theory…………………………………………………………………...5

Equipment…………………………………………………………………………………8

Procedure………………………………………………………………………………...10

Results……………………………………………………………………………………18

Discussion………………………………………………………………………………..33

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………34

Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..35

References………………………………………………………………………………..36

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………37

Page 3 of 40
Introduction

During the first three weeks of class, the Red Team gathered data from four

separate cooling towers in order to analyze the performance of each. Velocity,

temperature (wet and dry bulb), and relative humidity measurements were taken for the

inlet and outlet air streams in order to perform an energy balance to determine the tons of

cooling produced by each unit. The four cooling towers are the Challenger Center

cooling tower (CC), the Administrative Building cooling tower (AB), the Central Energy

Plant (CEP-old) old cooling tower, and the Central Energy Plant (CEP-new) new cooling

tower. Both the AB and CEP are wet cooling towers while the CC is a dry cooling tower.

The difference between the wet and dry type is, with the dry type, the liquid being cooled

is not in direct contact with the air that cools it and therefore evaporation does not occur.

Cooling towers are a very important part of many industrial plants. They

represent a relatively inexpensive and dependable means of removing low grade heat

from cooling medium. Hot fluid from heat exchangers and other sources are sent to the

cooling tower. The fluid exits the cooling tower at a lower temperature and returns to the

exchangers or other units for further cooling use in the plant. This is normally referred to

as a closed loop cooling tower system.

Page 4 of 40
Background and Theory

The general idea of a wet cooling tower is fairly straightforward. Warm water,

referred to as a “return” stream, enters the top of the cooling tower, trickles down the

packing in a column, and encounters air flowing upwards, usually from one or more fans.

The fan draws air in from the sides of the tower and pulls it up through the center. A

small portion of the water evaporates, requiring latent heat, which causes the temperature

of the water to fall. The cooler water exits the bottom of the tower through the “supply”

line. A water source is used to replenish water that is lost due to evaporation. Because

there is a direct air/water interface, heat transfer is controlled by the wet bulb temperature

of the air1 . Figure 1 below is a schematic of a typical wet cooling tower.

Figure 1. Wet Cooling Tower

The dry cooling tower operates in a similar fashion, but the coolant is enclosed

within a piping network, thus there is no direct contact made between the air and the

coolant. In fact, in most dry cooling towers as is the case with the CC cooling tower,

Page 5 of 40
water is not used as the coolant. The coolant can be any type of brine or Freon solution.

Heat transfer is based on the dry bulb temperature of the air and the thermal transport

properties of the piping material1 . Cooling efficiency is lower for dry cooling systems

than wet cooling towers due to the higher dry bulb temperature1 .

The theory behind the operation of the cooling tower is the First Law of

Thermodynamics, which is the conservation of energy. In simpler terms, the energy that

enters the system must exit the system; energy can neither be created nor destroyed, just

transformed from one form to another.2

Energy that enters the cooling tower is in the form of the warm fluid entering the

cooling tower from the cooling return line. This warm fluid is cooled by forced

convection from the fan by which air is pulled in and forced up through the falling water

or across the enclosed fluid in a dry tower. Both the entrance and exit temperatures of

the air and/or fluid can be measured. Once this data is recorded, an energy balance can be

conducted on the system.

An energy balance is a form of bookkeeping that accounts for the energy entering

and leaving the system. The main component of the energy balance is enthalpy, which is

defined as:

H = U + PV è ∆H = Q - W (1)

Where H is enthalpy, U is internal energy, P is pressure, V is volume Q is heat and W is

work. For our purposes, work will be ignored so the equation reduces to ∆H = Q.

Enthalpy can be calculated, readily referenced from steam tables or more importantly, be

directly read from a pshycrometric chart.

Page 6 of 40
 By utilizing the Chemical Heat & Energy Analysis Picture (CHEAP), the below

equation displays the general method for conducting the necessary energy balance for the

air and water entering and exiting the system.

Σ∆Hin = Σ∆Hout (2)

By determining all of the required enthalpies, an analysis of the cooling tower can be

conducted.

Page 7 of 40
Equipment

The analysis of the cooling towers required the use of several types of instruments

in order to measure the desired properties. Below is a list of the instruments used and

their functions.

Sling psychrometer – This instrument was used to measure the amount of moisture in

the air. It consists of two thermometers. One thermometer measures the dry air

temperature while the other one measures the wet-bulb temperature. After the wick of

the wet-bulb thermometer is dipped in water, the sling psychrometer is whirled around

using the handle. Water evaporates from the wick on the wet-bulb thermometer and

cools the thermometer due to the latent heat of vaporization. The wet-bulb thermometer

is cooled to the lowest value possible in approximately two minutes. This value is known

as the wet-bulb temperature. The drier the air the more the thermometer cools and lowers

the wet-bulb temperature. The sling psychrometer was used to measure the temperature

and relative humidity of both the inlet and outlet air. Once the dry and wet bulb

temperatures are known, the relative humidity can be read off of the scale that is printed

on the instrument.

Anemometer – This instrument was used to measure the velocity of the air exiting the

cooling tower fans. Several anemometers were used for each cooling tower.

Calibrated Wind-Vane : This was used for the new and old CEP towers. It was a

wind vane type anemometer that had three dials on it. As the wheel turned, the

arms on the dial moved accordingly, and the air velocity can be read from the

dials. It was a manual-type instrument because it had to be reset by pushing a

lever and started by releasing the level. It read in ft/min.

Page 8 of 40
 Turbo: This was used for the AB and CC towers. This was a digital-type

instrument that read in m/s.

Mini: This was used for the AB and CC towers, but only for comparison

purposes. This was also a digital-type instrument that read in m/s.

Digital Thermometer/RH – this was used to measure the temperature and relative

humidity at the CEP. It is a digital-type instrument.

Psychrometeric Chart – this was used as a tool to determine enthalpies, volume per

pound of dry air and moisture. An example of a paper chart can be seen in the appendix.

In addition to the paper chart, a psychrometric calculator was also used. The name of the

program is PsyCalc983 . The calculator was used to verify the readings from the paper

chart. Unfortunately the calculator displayed units of grains instead of lbs, so a unit

conversion was built into the spreadsheet that was used for the calculations.

Page 9 of 40
Procedure

1. Inlet Air Data – Temperature & Relative Humidity

A. Challenger Center

B. Administrative Building

On the first day this experiment was started, temperature and relative humidity

measurements were recorded for the outside conditions and this data was used to

approximate the inlet air data for both the Challenger Center and Administrative Building

cooling towers. The data that was recorded can be seen in Table 1 below.

Avg.
Table 1. Comparison of Different Instruments for Outside Conditions for AB & CC towers

As can be seen, measurements from many different instruments were taken, and

there is a fairly small range among the readings for temperature and relative humidity

Page 10 of 40
(RH) between each instrument. Because the two digital instruments (Y and TB ) did not

have both dry and wet bulb temperatures, nor a RH reading, these measurements were not

used. And since the Ω instrument was recorded as a range, and its RH was so different

from the other instruments, this reading was also excluded. Seeing as the readings were

so close for the remaining instruments (Round, Square A and B), the temperatures and

relative humidity results (highlighted in yellow) were averaged to determine the inlet air

conditions that were used in both the CC and AB cooling tower calculations. The

average temperature and relative humidity are 82°F and 70% respectively.

Also from Table 1, it was noted that compressor B on the CC cooling tower was

running for 34137 hours. Compressor B was for the smaller side of the cooling tower,

which only contained four fans. A schematic of the Challenger Center cooling tower can

be seen in Figure 2 below.

Challenger Center

Side B

Figure 2. Challenger Center Cooling Tower

A reading for the compressor time was taken 24 hours after the initial one, and it was

determined that in a 24 hour period, compressor B ran for 22 hours.

Page 11 of 40
C. Central Energy Plant

As for the inlet air data for the Central Energy Plant, a single temperature and

relative humidity reading was taken at the bottom of the tower where the air is pulled in

from, using the digital Ω instrument. It was a very hot, dry day. The temperature was

recorded as 98°C and the relative humidity was recorded as 7%.

2. Outlet Air Data – Temperature, Relative Humidity & Velocity Measurements

A. Challenger Center

Temperature, relative humidity, and air velocity measurements were taken for the

air exiting the fans, however they were taken at more strategic locations. Measurements

were taken at several different positions around the fan as well at different radii across

the fan. Figure 3 below shows a diagram of the different measuring point locations taken

for the Challenger Center cooling tower.

0.1 m
0.3 m
0.5 m

Figure 3. Challenger Center Cooling Tower Fan

As can be seen, measurements were taken at the 4:00, 8:00 and 12:00 positions for each

of the three radii. The radius for the CC fan is 0.5 meters.

Page 12 of 40
 The temperature and relative humidity measurements were taken using a sling

psychrometer and the air velocity measurements were taken using a digital turbo

anemometer. Since the fans were so high off of the ground, a ladder had to be used to be

able to reach over the fans in order to take the measurements.

When taking measurements with the sling psychrometer, the instrument was held

over the fan for approximately 2 minutes. The air moving across the instrument, which

simulated the whirling motion of normal operation. Since the thermometer readings

changes so fast once the instrument was removed from the fan, the readings were taken

while the anemometer was still over the fan. Three different sling psychrometers were

used during the experiment. The air velocity measurements were taken in much the same

way. The anemometer was held over the fan until display readout stabilized, and the

reading was recorded. Again, three different anemometers were used for comparison.

B. Administrative Building

From the schematic of the Administration Building Cooling Tower in Figure 4

below, it should be noted that this cooling tower has only one fan located in the center.

Moist Air Fan

Inlet Water Pump

Water

Evaporation Inlet Air

Air
Water Outlet

Figure 4. Administration Building Cooling Tower

Page 13 of 40
The AB cooling tower outlet air measurements were taken in the following locations as

noted in Figure 5 below.

12 in

19 in

Fan radius = 43 in 26 in

33 in

40 in

Figure 5. Administration Building Cooling Tower Fan

As can be seen, measurements were taken at the 1:00, 4:00, 7:00 and 10:00 positions for

each of the five radii. The radius for the CC fan is 43 inches. Again, the temperature,

relative humidity, and air velocity measurements were taken exactly as with the

Challenger Center cooling tower. Because the bulb on the wet thermometer of the round

sling psychrometer broke, the digital Ω instrument was used in its place.

C. Central Energy Plant

The outlet air data was taken in much the same manner for both the new and old

CEP cooling towers as it was for the CC and AB cooling towers with one notable

assumption. The outlet air was measured at four different radii, but the measurements

were recorded for only one location with the assumption that every spot around the fan at

the respective radii would give a similar reading. Figure 6 on the following page shows

the locations of the measuring points at the four different radii.

Page 14 of 40
 3.50 ft

4.67 ft

Fan radius = 9.25 ft 6.17 ft

7.67 ft

Figure 6. CEP New and Old Cooling Tower Fans.

The assumption was made for a couple of reasons. One, the skirt around the fan

was so high that it was hard to reach over it to take measurements so we picked a location

where we could stand on some piping to easily reach over and take measurements.

Second, the fan was so big that we could have taken an abundant amount of

measurements, so mainly it was done to reduce the sampling time.

As a note, a couple comparison measurements were taken around the fan to test

our assumption, and the results were within an acceptable range. Both the old and new

cooling towers both had two fans each, but the new cooling tower had only one fan

operating at the time of measuring.

Another difference with these measurements compared with the CC and AB

cooling towers was that only one instrument was used for temperature and relative

humidity measurements, and only one instrument for air velocity measurements.

Since the fans were so large, a special apparatus had to be used in order to take

readings out over the fan. A large “L” shaped metal bracket was used to aid us in our

measurements. The calibrated wind vane anemometer was attached to the end of the

Page 15 of 40
bracket using a screw and nut, and the probe of the digital Ω thermometer/RH instrument,

which was on a long wire, was run down the bracket and fastened to the end with duct

tape. With the apparatus set up as described, we positioned the “base” end of the bracket

on the ground in front of the fan and then we were able to swing the “instrument” end

over the fan. Because of this, we were actually limited to what instruments we could use

to take the needed measurements.

A 50-ft. tape measure was used to measure the diameter of the fan, being careful

to keep it tight as to not let the slack get caught up in the fan blades. The digital

Ω thermometer/RH instrument was ideal due to the long cord attached to the probe. The

probe could be placed over the fan and the display could safely be read from our standing

position. Likewise, the calibrated wind vane anemometer was the perfect instrument.

Due to its manual operation, the gage could be started and stopped as needed.

The calibrated wind vane anemometer worked a little different than the digital

ones. Instead of giving an instantaneous readout of length per time, the gage had to be

manually started. Once started, the measurement had to be timed. In order to determine

the reading, the length had to be manually read. The face of the instrument contained

three dials, one for tens, one for hundreds, and one for thousands of feet. To obtain your

length per time velocity, the readout had to be combined with the length of time that was

used.

Because the anemometer had to be started before it reached the measuring point, a

dead time factor had to be established. The dead time is defined as the time it takes for

the instrument to reach it destination (once it was started) plus the time it takes to swing

Page 16 of 40
back, in order to stop the dials. It was determined that a dead time of 10 seconds would

be used, and a nominal 150 feet would be added to each measurement.

In view of the fact that we were unable to actually measure the radius of the

locations used to obtain our data, tape was placed on the bracket before each

measurement as a marker. We were able to go back at the end and measure the distance

from the end of the bracket to the tape to determine our measuring radius.

Page 17 of 40
Results

A. Challenger Center

The temperature and relative humidity measurements that were recorded for the

Challenger Center cooling tower can be seen below in Table 2.

Table 2. Challenger Center Temp & RH data

The error associated with each fan measurement was calculated using a Student T-test.

Although the error seems a little high, the measurements themselves are very close. Due

to this, the average from each fan was averaged, which is highlighted in yellow, and was

used to approximate the temperature and relative humidity of the exiting air.

The air velocity measurements that were taken are tabulated in much the same

manner, in Table 3 on the next page. The error, also calculated using a Student T-test,

looks much better for the velocity measurements than for the temperature.

Page 18 of 40
Table 3. Challenger Center Air Velocity Data

Page 19 of 40
To determine the air velocity exiting the cooling tower, the velocity for each position, for

each fan, was averaged. These averages are shown in bold in the table. An average was

taken of these values to obtain the data seen in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Challenger Center Average Air Exit Velocity

Now knowing the average velocity and the radius for each measurement, it is possible to

Determine the volume of air exiting the tower, otherwise know as the volumetric flow

rate (VFR). This is accomplished by plotting the average velocity times the radius versus

the radius. This generates a graph as seen below in Figure 7 for fan 1 of the CC cooling

tower.

Figure 7. Volumetric Flow Rate Approximation for CC fan 1

Page 20 of 40
 A second order polynomial trend line was generated using Excel to approximate

the equation of the line running through the experimental data points. The fit seems to be

acceptable. By using a TI-86 calculator, it is possible to integrate the generated equation,

using zero and the radius (0.5 m) for the lower and upper limits, respectively, to calculate

the area under the curve, which is equal to the volumetric flow rate. The y-axis, in m2 /sec

times the x-axis, in meters yields the units for volumetric flow rate, which are m3 /sec.

This kind of graph was made for each of the four fans. The other three graphs can be

found in the appendix. Table 5 below shows the results for all four fans.

Table 5. Total Volumetric Air Flow Exiting the CC Cooling Tower.

As seen at the bottom of Table 5, the total volumetric flow rate was calculated to be 2.6

m3 /sec or 92 ft3 /sec. This was found by adding the individual average volumetric flow

rates of all four fans. The psychrometric chart can now be used to determine the pounds

of dry air and the enthalpies. This is where the psychrometric calculator came in handy.

Instead of approximating the values from the chart, the calculator gave more exact

readings.

With the outlet air conditions of 97°F and 44% RH, the specific volume can be

determined. A value of 14.41 ft 3 /lb dry air was read from the chart. By dividing this

result from the total VFR, a value of 6.37 lbs. dry air/sec is found. This flow rate of the

exiting air is assumed to be the same as the inlet air stream, so the inlet air also has a flow

Page 21 of 40
rate of 6.37 lbs. dry air/sec. From the exit air conditions, an enthalpy can also be read

from the psychrometric chart. The enthalpy of the exiting air was read to be 41.71

Btu/lb. By multiplying this result times the air flow rate, a heat rate can be found. The

heat rate for the air exiting the tower was calculated to be 266 Btu/sec.

With the inlet air flow rate of 6.37 pounds/sec known, we can now calculated the

heat rate for the inlet air. This is accomplished by multiplying the flow rate times the

enthalpy of the inlet air. The enthalpy for the inlet air was read from the psychrometric

chart to be 37.84 Btu/lb. The result is 241 Btu/sec. The difference between the two

enthalpies can now be calculated. The difference between the enthalpies for the inlet and

exit air was calculated to be 25 Btu/sec.

The inlet and outlet data points were plotted on a psychrometric chart. Figure 8

below shows that the points are located on a horizontal line which displays that the

pounds of water per pounds of dry air does not change from inlet to outlet.

Outlet Air:
97°F, 44%
Inlet Air:
82°F, 70%

Figure 8. Challenger Center Data plotted on a Psychrometric Chart

Page 22 of 40
Due to accuracy limitations with the drawing tools in Microsoft Word, the values plotted

are just approximate values. The blue lines can be followed from right to left to read the

approximate enthalpies (inlet-38 and outlet-42) from the chart.

The tower’s cooling capacity can now be found. It is known that 1 ton of cooling

is equal to 3.33 Btu/sec. So by dividing the ∆Η value by this conversion factor, the

cooling capacity for the Challenger Center Cooling Tower, with four fans running, is

calculated to be 8 tons of cooling.

B. Administrative Building

The Temperature and relative humidity measurements that were recorded for the

Administrative Building cooling tower can be seen in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Administrative Building RH & Temp Data

The error associated with the measurements was calculated using a Student T-test. The

error for the humidity was quite large, but the range of the three values is big. We chose

to accept the 71% value obtained by the digital Omega Instrument, even though it is quite

different from the values obtained from the sling pshychrometers. The error for the

Page 23 of 40
temperature is much more reasonable. The average values, highlighted in yellow, are the

values that will be used for the outlet air.

The air velocity measurements that were taken are tabulated in Table 7 below.

Table 7. Administrative Building Air Velocity Data

Page 24 of 40
The error, also calculated using a Student T-test, looks much better than the temperature

and relative humidity measurements. The velocity at each radius for each position was

averaged to obtain the data shown in Table 8 below.

velocity (m/s)

Table 8. Administrative Building Average air velocities

Now knowing the average velocity at the radius (highlighted in yellow), it is possible to

determine the volume of air exiting the tower, otherwise know as the volumetric flow rate

(VFR). This is accomplished by plotting the average velocity times the radius versus the

radius. This generates a graph as seen below in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Administrative Building Volumetric Flow Rate Approximation

Page 25 of 40
A third order polynomial trend line was generated using Excel to approximate the

equation of the line running through the experimental data points. The fit looks to be

fairly good. By using a TI-86 calculator, it is possible to integrate the generated equation,

using the measuring points for the lower and upper limits, to calculate the area under the

curve, which is equal to the volumetric flow rate. The y-axis, in m2 /sec times the x-axis,

in meters yields the units for volumetric flow rate, which are m3 /sec. It should be noted

that the AB cooling tower only has one fan. The total VFR for the AB cooling tower was

calculated to be 1.96 m3 /sec or 69 ft3 /sec.

Now the volumetric flow rate has been found, the psychrometric chart can now be

used to determine the specific volume of the air, lbs. H2 0/lbs. Dry Air, and enthalpies.

Again the psychrometric calculator was used to obtain more accurate results. The

following equation displays the composition of the moist air:

Moist Air (MA) = Dry Air (A) + Moisture(in) (M) + Evaporation (E) (3)

Using the outlet conditions of 86°F and 88% RH, the specific volume can be read from

the chart. The specific volume was 14.29 ft3 /lb. Dividing the VFR by the specific

volume will give the value for the mass of dry air per second, which is 4.83 lbs./sec. This

will be used as the mass of air for both inlet and outlet.

The moisture content in the outlet air can now be found, (lbs. H2 O/lbs of dry air)

and is read directly from the chart. This was found to be 0.024 lbs. H2 O/lbs of dry air.

The outlet air moisture flow is calculated by multiplying this value times the mass of the

dry air. The moisture flow rate of the outlet air was calculated to be 0.12 lbs. H2 O/sec.

The Enthalpy of the dry air is found by multiplying the mass of dry air times the specific

Page 26 of 40
heat of air times the change in temperature from inlet to outlet. This was calculated to be

–3.5 Btu/sec.

The inlet air stream is now used to determine the moisture content of the inlet air.

This value was read directly from the chart and was determined to be 0.0156 lbs. H2 O/lbs

of dry air. The inlet air moisture flow is calculated by multiplying this value times the

mass of the dry air. The moisture flow rate of the inlet air was calculated to be 0.08 lbs.

H2 O/sec.

The evaporation rate can now be found by subtracting the moisture out by the

moisture in flow rates. The evaporation rate was calculated to be 0.04 lbs. H2 O/sec.

The Enthalpy of the moisture in is found by multiplying the moisture out times

the specific heat of water times the change in temperature from inlet to outlet. This was

calculated to be –0.15 Btu/sec. The enthalpy of evaporation is calculated by multiplying

the evaporation rate times the heat of vaporization of water. The enthalpy of evaporation

was calculated to be 38.86 lbs. Btu/sec.

The total change in enthalpy is calculated by adding the enthalpies for the dry air,

moisture and evaporation. This was found to be 35.22 Btu/sec. The tower’s cooling

capacity can now be found. It is known that 1 ton of cooling is equal to 3.33 Btu/sec. So

by dividing the total ∆Η value by this conversion factor, the cooling capacity for the

Administrative Building Cooling Tower is calculated to be 11 tons of cooling.

This entire process was automated using an Excel Spreadsheet. All the user needs

to do is to enter the inlet and outlet temperatures, the volumetric flow rate, specific

volume, and the grains of moisture per pounds of dry air. All the calculations and

conversions will done automatically. The specific volume and grains are read directly

Page 27 of 40
from the psychrometric calculator. Figure 10 below shows this spreadsheet with all of

the prompts highlighted in yellow. Note the constants and conversion factors in the

upper right corner.

Figure 10. Cooling Capacity Spreadsheet – Administrative Building.

C. Central Energy Plant

Since the cooling towers at the Central Energy Plant are also wet cooling towers,

the exact procedure and spreadsheet that was used for the Administrative Building is also

used for both cooling towers at the Central Energy Plant. There are a few minor

differences in the way the volumetric flow rates were found for the towers at the Central

Energy Plant, but other than that, the calculations are the same. Figure 11 on the

following page shows the data that was collected for the outlet air streams of both the

new and old cooling towers. The old tower had an average outlet temperature of 60°F,

average relative humidity of 81% and an average air velocity of 1189 ft/min, with the

new tower having values of 85°F, 53%, and 1249 respectively.

Page 28 of 40
Figure 11. Central Energy Plant Data

For the CEP cooling towers, both a 2nd and 3rd order polynomial fit was used and

the two were averaged to determine the volumetric flow rates. As seen for the CEP

North fan on the following page in Figure 12, the 3rd order fit yielded a volumetric flow

Page 29 of 40
rate of 38583 ft3 /min and the 2nd order fit yielded a 48384 ft3 /min volumetric flow rate.

The average of the two is 43484 ft3 /min.

Figure 12. Volumetric Flow Rate Calculation – CEP Old Tower North Fan

This average was compared to finding the area using the trapezoid rule as well.

The graph for the area found by the trapezoid rule can be found in Figure 13 on the

following page. As seen in Figure 13, the area was found to be 41500 ft3 /min. The two

methods proved to be fairly close in value. Due to the ease of generating a polynomial fit

in Excel and using the TI-85 to calculate the area, it was determined that the values

obtained using this method were accurate enough for our calculations. The graphs using

both methods for the other two CEP fans can be found in the appendix.

Page 30 of 40
Figure 13. Volumetric Flow Rate – Trapazoid Rule – CEP Old Tower North Fan

Figure 14 on the following page shows the spreadsheet used to calculate the

cooling capacity for the old and new towers at the Central Energy Plant. The old tower

had a cooling capacity of about 200 tons and the new tower had a cooling capacity of

about 110 tons. The difference in capacity is due to the fact that the new tower only had

one fan running at the time the data was collected. It could be approximated that if both

fans had been running that the new tower might have had a slight edge in performance

versus the old tower.

Page 31 of 40
Figure 14. Cooling Capacity Spreadsheet – CEP Old and New Towers.

Table 9 below summarizes the results for the cooling capacity of the four cooling

towers that were evaluated.

Table 9. Cooling Capacity of the Four Cooling Towers

Page 32 of 40
Discussion

We first started this experiment wondering how cooling towers worked and how

we were going to analyze them. After doing a little research and speaking with Dr.

Henry, we went out to take measurements of the different towers. Through experimental

trial and error, we learned that different types of instruments yield different and that it

may be hard to determine which instrument is giving the correct reading. It is very

important to use calibrated instruments in order to have confidence in your readings.

When not known if an instrument is calibrated, it is best to take several measurements

and average the results. A Students T-test can be used to evaluate the error for the

measurements.

At the beginning of the experiment it was hard for us to imagine that by

just measuring the inlet and exit air conditions, that a cooling tower can be analyzed.

Water temperatures are not needed in order to perform an energy balance. The

psychrometric calculator aided us greatly in interpreting the paper chart. We did however

verify the calculator results on the paper chart.

Page 33 of 40
Conclusion

It was determined that as the volumetric flow rate increases, the cooling capacity

also increases. This is usually achieved by using a larger fan, thus a bigger cooling

tower. Although wet and dry cooling towers appear quite different, the calculations to

determine their cooling capacity are very similar.

Table 10 below summarizes the conditions for the four cooling towers that were

evaluated. As can be seen with the wet cooling towers (AB and CEP), the larger the

volumetric flow, the larger the cooling capacity. Also from the table, the statement that

was made previously in the report; that the dry cooling tower is not as efficient as the wet

cooling tower, is confirmed by comparing the CC and AB towers. The CC tower has a

larger volumetric flow rate, but the cooling capacity is slightly less than that of the AB

tower.

Table 10. Comparison of the four cooling towers.

Page 34 of 40
Recommendation

Many improvements can be made on the experimental technique in evaluating the

cooling towers to achieve a more accurate analysis. Ensuring that reliable instruments

are used is the first step. The initial data is very important because it is used to determine

the cooling capacity of each cooling tower. If you are not confident in your initial

measurements, then you will not be sure if the values you obtain are accurate.

Now that we have created spreadsheets with all of the needed formulas, it is the

measured data that is plugged into the worksheet that now becomes very significant. The

more data points taken on each fan, the better the average measurement will be.

Page 35 of 40
References
1
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/environment/water/policy/cwis.html
2
Boles, M. A. and Y. A. Gengel, Thermodynamics, Engineering Approach , 2nd ed.,
3
http://www.linric.com/

Page 36 of 40
Appendix

Challenger Center fan 2 – Volumetric Flow Rate Approximation

Challenger Center fan 3 – Volumetric Flow Rate Approximation

Page 37 of 40
Challenger Center fan 4 – Volumetric Flow Rate Approximation

Volumetric Flow Rate Calculation (polynomial fit) – CEP Old Tower South Fan

Page 38 of 40
Volumetric Flow Rate Calculation (polynomial fit) – CEP Old Tower South Fan

Volumetric Flow Rate – Trapazoid Rule – CEP New Tower South Fan

Page 39 of 40
Volumetric Flow Rate – Trapazoid Rule – CEP New Tower South Fan

CEP – Inlet & Outlet Conditions

Page 40 of 40