Numerical simulation of a closed wet cooling tower with novel design

Xia, Z.Z.; Chen, C.J.; Wang, Ruzhu

doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.02.025

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Apparently, the rise of air flow rate promotes the heat and mass transfer between the air and the spray water [7], which contributes to improving the thermal performance of CWCTs. Similar results were reported in [2,11,22,32,35]. However, the bigger the air flow rate, the larger the fan energy consumption.…”

Section: Effect Of Air Flow Ratesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…(2) Water and air specific heats are constant [2,23,[25][26][27]. The heat and mass transfer coefficients are constant [25].…”

Section: Assumptions and Simplificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The heat and mass transfer coefficients are constant [25]. (3) Heat transfer from the tower fans to air or water streams is negligible [26], and the heat exchange between the wall of CWCT and the surroundings is negligible [2,3,25,26]. (4) The spray water flow rate is sufficient to wet all surfaces of the tubes [2][3][4]7].…”

Section: Assumptions and Simplificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two typical CWCTs with different counter-flow constructions, the spray water flows from the top to the bottom, and the moist air and cooling water flow in the opposite direction vertically (parallel) or horizontally (cross), respectively. As compared to an open cooling tower, a CWCT is usually more expensive because the tubular heat exchangers consume a substantial amount of metallic materials [2]. However, the integration of CWCT into chillers can keep the cooling water clean and make the chiller setup more convenient [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Xia et al [2] reported a novel designed CWCT and developed a one-dimensional transient distributed-parameter model to evaluate the cooling tower performance under different operating conditions. Khan et al [5] used a detailed model to investigate the characteristics of a counter-flow wet cooling tower and reported the cooling tower performance variation along the height of the tower.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Performance Analyses of Counter-Flow Closed Wet Cooling Towers Based on a Simplified Calculation Method

Wei

Peng

et al. 2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:As one of the most widely used units in water cooling systems, the closed wet cooling towers (CWCTs) have two typical counter-flow constructions, in which the spray water flows from the top to the bottom, and the moist air and cooling water flow in the opposite direction vertically (parallel) or horizontally (cross), respectively. This study aims to present a simplified calculation method for conveniently and accurately analyzing the thermal performance of the two types of counter-flow CWCTs, viz. the parallel counter-flow CWCT (PCFCWCT) and the cross counter-flow CWCT (CCFCWCT). A simplified cooling capacity model that just includes two characteristic parameters is developed. The Levenberg-Marquardt method is employed to determine the model parameters by curve fitting of experimental data. Based on the proposed model, the predicted outlet temperatures of the process water are compared with the measurements of a PCFCWCT and a CCFCWCT, respectively, reported in the literature. The results indicate that the predicted values agree well with the experimental data in previous studies. The maximum absolute errors in predicting the process water outlet temperatures are 0.20 and 0.24 • C for the PCFCWCT and CCFCWCT, respectively. These results indicate that the simplified method is reliable for performance prediction of counter-flow CWCTs. Although the flow patterns of the two towers are different, the variation trends of thermal performance are similar to each other under various operating conditions. The inlet air wet-bulb temperature, inlet cooling water temperature, air flow rate, and cooling water flow rate are crucial for determining the cooling capacity of a counter-flow CWCT, while the cooling tower effectiveness is mainly determined by the flow rates of air and cooling water. Compared with the CCFCWCT, the PCFCWCT is much more applicable in a large-scale cooling water system, and the superiority would be amplified when the scale of water distribution system increases. Without multiple iterative calculations and extensive experimental data, the simplified method could be used to effectively analyze the thermal performance of counter-flow CWCTs in operation. It is useful for optimization operation of counter-flow CWCTs such that to improve the energy efficiency of the overall cooling water system.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Air Flow Ratesupporting

confidence: 86%

“…(2) Water and air specific heats are constant [2,23,[25][26][27]. The heat and mass transfer coefficients are constant [25].…”

Section: Assumptions and Simplificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assumptions and Simplificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Performance Analyses of Counter-Flow Closed Wet Cooling Towers Based on a Simplified Calculation Method

Wei

Peng

et al. 2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Experimental and thermal analysis of energy efficient novel design wet cooling towers

Raj

Prakash

Pathak

2019

Heat Trans. Asian Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Waste heat is generally dissipated from process water to atmospheric air in cooling towers. In the present study, a novel design is used to extract more amount of heat without any additional energy input by incorporating secondary ambient air in an induced draft wet cooling tower. In addition, more fresh air is induced in the tower from the rain zone, which increases the effectiveness at any value of the water to air flow rate (L/G ratio). Moreover, tower characteristics, range, and evaporation loss were also increased due to the novel design. It is noteworthy that secondary fresh air increases effectiveness, heat rejection, and tower characteristics by 10.12%, 19.65%, and 26.11%, respectively, and decreases approach by 16.32% at 0.55 L/G ratio, 44°C inlet water temperature, 29.7°C dry bulb temperature, and 18.4°C inlet air wet bulb temperature.

show abstract