Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cooling Towers
Introduction
A cooling tower is a counter-flow or cross-flow heat exchanger that removes heat from water
and transfers it to air. Cooling towers come in many configurations. An induced-draft cooling
tower, which is common in HVAC and industrial applications, is shown in Figure 1. As warm
water from the process falls through the tower, some of it evaporates, which cools the
remaining water. The cooled water collects at the bottom of the cooling tower and is returned
to the plant where it is used for cooling. Figure 2 shows an evaporative condenser, which is
common in industrial refrigeration applications. Water, which is cooled by evaporation, falls
over a closed heat exchanger (usually carrying refrigerant) in the top part of the tower. It then
falls over more fill to enhance evaporation in the lower part of the tower. A small pump
circulates water from the bottom to the top of the tower.
HOT HOT
WATER WATER
IN IN
Hot Water
Distribution
AIR IN AIR IN
Fill Fill
Air Inlet
Louvers
Sump
1
Hot Water
WARM AIR OUT
Distribution
Refrigerant Vapour In
Fill
AIR IN
Air Inlet
Secondary Louvers
Recirculating
Pump
If the air enters at the same wet bulb temperature as before, but at a higher dry-bulb
temperature than the water, then the air will cool as it saturates (Figure 3b). Thus, the sensible
2
cooling component is negative, and the all the cooling is due to evaporation. In general, cooling
is dominated by latent cooling.
A2
ωA 2
Qlat
Qtot
Qsen
ωA1
A1
A2
ωA 2
Qlat Qtot
-Qsen
ωA1
A1
Figure 3. Psychrometric process lines for air through a cooling tower, if the entering air
temperature is a) less than the entering water temperature, and b) greater than the entering
water temperature.
The total cooling, ma (ha2 – ha1) is the same for both cases since enthalpy is a function of wet-
bulb temperature alone. However, the dry-bulb temperature significantly influences the
evaporation rate, mwe = ma (wa2-wa1). The rate of evaporation increases as the dry-bulb
temperature increases for a given wet-bulb temperature.
3
Cooling Towers as Heat Exchangers
Based on the previous discussion, it is clear that cooling tower performance is a function of the
wet-bulb temperature of the entering air. In an infinite cooling tower, the leaving air wet-bulb
temperature would approach the entering water temperature, and the leaving water
temperature would approach the web-bulb temperature of the entering air. The difference
between the leaving water temperature and the entering air wet-bulb temperature is called the
approach. The relationship between air wet-bulb and water temperature is shown in the figure
below. In an infinite cooling tower, the approach would be zero.
Neglecting fan power and assuming steady state operation, an energy balance on a cooling
tower gives:
mw1 cpw Tw1 – [mw1 + ma (wa1 – wa2)] cpw Tw2 + ma (ha1 – ha2) = 0
mw1 cpw Tw1 – mw1 cpw Tw2 - ma (wa1 – wa2) cpw Tw2 + ma (ha1 – ha2) = 0
4
The fraction of incoming water that is evaporated, ma (wa2-wa1) / mw1, is typically less than
1%. Thus, ma (wa1 – wa2) is much less than mw1, and the term ma (wa1 – wa2) cpw Tw2 can
be neglected with negligible error to give:
Both sides of this equation represent the total cooling capacity of the tower.
The effectiveness, E, of a heat exchanger is the ratio of the actual to maximum heat transfer.
E = Qactual / Qmax
For a heat exchanger, Qmax occurs if the air leaves the cooling tower completely saturated at
the temperature of the incoming water. Thus, cooling tower effectiveness is
With negligible error (due to water evaporation), the cooling tower effectiveness can also be
expressed as
E = Qactual / Qmax = [mw1 cpw (Tw1 – Tw2)] / [mw1 cpw (Tw1 – Twb1)]
E = Qactual / Qmax = (Tw1 – Tw2) / (Tw1 – Twb1)
Example: Calculate the approach and effectiveness for a cooling tower with inlet water at 95 F,
outlet water at 85 F, and air wet-bulb temperature = 78 F.
Note that the leaving water temperature can be above or below the entering air dry-bulb
temperature. For example, for the conditions specified here, if the entering air were (Twb = 78
F, RH = 90%), the entering air dry-bulb temperature would be about 80 F. Thus in humid
conditions like this, the leaving water temperature (85 F) would be greater than the air dry-bulb
temperature (80 F). However, if the entering air were (Twb = 78 F, RH = 40%), the entering air
dry-bulb temperature would be about 99 F. In dry conditions like this, the leaving water
temperature (85 F) would be less than the air dry-bulb temperature (99 F).
5
Example: Calculate the approach and effectiveness for the same cooling tower now operating
with inlet water at 69 F, outlet water at 59 F, and air wet-bulb temperature = 40 F.
Thus, cooling tower approach increases and effectiveness decreases at lower wet-bulb
temperatures.
Example: Calculate the approach and effectiveness for the same cooling tower now operating
with inlet water at 91 F, outlet water at 71 F, and air wet-bulb temperature = 40 F.
Thus, cooling tower effectiveness increases at higher inlet-outlet water temperature ranges.
6
Forced-air counterflow towers require more fan energy because centrifugal fans are made to
generate low flow against high pressure, but cooling towers generally need high flow at low
pressure. In comparison, induced air crossflow towers use propeller fans, which generate high
flow against low pressure, which is more suited to cooling towers.
Forced-air counterflow towers require more pump energy because these towers are taller in
order to facilitate the counterflow heat transfer as the water falls through the tower. This
height increases elevation head in the piping system. In addition, forced-air counterflow
towers spray water through nozzles, which increases pressure drop. In comparision, induced-
air crossflow towers are shorter and wider since the path of the air through the water is
horizontal. In addition, the supply water simply drains from feeding pans into fill, which
eliminates the need for nozzles.
A comparison of cooling tower energy use for the same loads is shown below.
7
Comparison of F.D. Blower Tower vs I.D. Propeller Tower for 400 Tons
Cooling Operating Fan Tower Additional Total
Tower Fan Motor Motor Pump Head Pump Motor Operating
Type HP KW (1) FT. (2) KW (3) KW
Counterflow
with Blower 40 32.4 23 6.9 39.3
Crossflow
With Propeller 20 15.2 10 3.0 19.2
Source: Marley Technical Report H-001A, “Cooling Tower Energy and Its Management”,
October, 1982.
Various methods are used to control cooling tower capacity to generate the desired cold water
return temperature. The two control points for cooling towers are water flow and air flow.
However, cooling tower manufacturers strongly recommend that water flow remain constant
at all times. Thus, primary control methods generally rely on varying air flow. The common
control methods are listed below.
8
control can be further extended with two cell towers with one fan in each cell. This leads to
four possible steps of control. A typical relationship between cold water temperature and fan
flow is shown below.
9
be reduced when that temperature is achieved, since continued fan operation results in
minimal further reductions in cold water temperature.
Fan Motor Power with Fan Speed and Air Volume Flow Rate
The figure below shows fan motor power draw as a function of input frequency for a cooling
tower fan equipped with a VFD. The fan affinity laws would predict a relationship between
fraction power (FP) and fraction speed (FS) of:
FP = FS3
Regression of the data show a slightly better fit using the exponent 2.8:
FP = FS2.8
Since fan speed is proportional to volume flow rate, this relation also hold for fraction volume
flow rate, FV.
FP = FV2.8
The slightly reduced exponent is caused by declining VFD, motor and fan efficiencies at reduced
speed.
ASD Performance
Input Power and Fan Speed vs Frequency
35 2000
1800
30
1600
25
Fan Speed (RPM)
1400
Input Power (kW)
1200
20
1000
15
800
10 600
r
we
Po 400
ut
5 I np
200
peed
Fan S
0 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
ASD Frequency (Hz)
Source data: “An Application of Adjustable Speed Drives for Cooling Tower Capacity Control”,
Welch, W. and Beckman, J.
10
Variable-speed cooling tower fans generate the least savings compared to constant-speed fans
during warm weather and when the cooling tower set point temperature is low because the fan
runs more frequently at these times. Alternately, variable-speed fans generate the greatest
savings during cool weather and when the cooling tower set point temperature is high because
the fan runs less frequently at these times. The CoolSim output screens shown below
demonstrate these concepts. Thus, variable frequency drives on cooling tower fans will
generate the greatest savings on year-round cooling applications with relatively high set-point
temperatures characteristic of industrial process applications.
11
Cooling Tower Pumping Pressure Drop
Typical cooling tower pressure drops are shown below. The Estimated Head Loss column is for
a standard condenser and 15 year old piping. The Actual Head Loss column is for a low-
pressure loss condenser and new piping.
The same tower system will be evaluated; estimated head will be compared with actual head loss.
Estimated Head Loss Actual Head Loss
Condenser 25' 8'
Valves, Strainer, etc. 7' 7'
150' Piping (15 year Old) 6' 3'
Total Flow-Friction 38' 18'
Static or Open ⊕12' ⊕12'
Total Pump Head 50' 30'
A “nominal cooling tower ton” is defined as cooling 3 gpm of water from 95 F to 85 F at an air
wetbulb temperature of 78 F. Thus, the actual cooling associated with a “nominal cooling
tower ton” is:
Qact = 3 gpm x 8.33 lb/gal x 60 min/hr x 1 Btu/lb F x (95 – 85) F = 15,000 Btu/hr
This strange convention exists to make it easy for users to select cooling towers by matching
the “nominal cooling capacity” of the chiller with the chiller cooling capacity. The convention
works because most chillers have a COP of about 3, and total heat rejected by the condenser to
the cooling tower is about 15,000 Btu/hr for every 12,000 Btu/hr through the evaporator.
12
Source data: BAC Product and Application Handbook, Volume 1, 2005.
Model 8601 8603 8605 8607 8608 8610 8611 8613 8614
Nominal Tons 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Length 5'-4 1/2" 7'-3 1/2" 7'-3 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 7'-10 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2" 9'-4 1/2"
Width 12'-0" 12'-0 1/4" 13'-7 5/8" 15'-3 1/4" 16'-7 3/4" 16'-7 3/4" 17'-7 3/4" 19'-3 3/4" 19'-3 3/4"
Height 8'-9 5/8" 9'-8 3/8" 9'-8 3/8" 10'-7 3/8" 10'-7 3/8" 10'-7 3/8" 11'-6 1/8" 11'-6 1/4" 13'-3 7/8"
Shipping Wt. 3430 4610 5130 6640 7800 8690 9860 10700 11990
Operating Wt. PVC 5500 7120 8260 10880 12200 13980 15520 17280 19260
Motor HP 5 7 1/2 10 10 15 20 20 25 25
RPM 666 547 547 547 427 427 427 427 427
CFM 29820 50000 54820 58610 69050 82630 91920 94760 105270
GPM (min.) 100 120 175 190 200 210 240 250 280
GPM (max.) 500 750 960 1250 1440 1715 1880 2160 2500
Source data: Marley Cooling Towers, 2000.
13
Source: ASHRAE Handbook, HVAC Systems and Equipment, 2004.
Relations for the temperature of cooling water leaving the tower, Tc, can be derived from
regressing data from the 3 gpm/ton and 5 gpm/ton curves shown above. The relation and
regression coefficients are shown below. The R2 for these relations exceeds 0.995 and the
average error, [abs(Tc – Tc,pred)], is less than 0.8 F.
These equations can be incorporated into software to predict cooling tower performance with
varying ambient conditions. For example, CoolSim (Kissock, 1997) calculates exit water
temperatures, and the fraction of time that a cooling tower can deliver water at a target
temperature, based on water temperature range Tr and TMY2 weather data. This information
is useful in determining how often a cooling tower can replace a chiller in cooling applications.
Regressing the data from the 3 gpm/ton and 5 gpm/ton performance curves, with fraction of air
flow, FV, set to 1.0 for the 3 gpm/ton data and 0.6 for the 5 gpm/ton data gives the following
relation for the temperature of cooling water leaving the tower, Tc, at reduced air flow. The R 2
for this relation is R2 = 0.978 and the average error [abs(Tc – Tc,pred)] is 1.9 F. Theoretically,
the fraction of air flow, FV, could vary between 0 and 1.0. However, this relation was
generated using data that represent peak air flow at 0.6 and 1.0. Thus, it is not recommended
that this relationship be used outside of this range.
Coef Value
14
a 39.24367
b 0.548254
c 2.772236
d 0.002112
e -0.02421
f -0.0175
g -23.1667
Evaporation Rate
As discussed in the previous section, cooling in cooling towers is dominated by evaporation.
The evaporation rate can be calculated from the psychrometric relations in the previous
section, if the inlet and exit conditions of the air are known. For example, consider the case in
which the cooling load, Ql, mass flow rate of air, ma, (which can be calculated based on the fan
cfm and specific volume of the inlet air), and inlet conditions of air are known. The enthalpy of
the exit air, ha2, can be calculated from an energy balance.
Ql = ma (ha2 – ha1)
ha2 = ha1+ Ql / ma
The state of the exit air can be fixed by assuming that it is 100% saturated with an enthalpy ha2.
The evaporation rate, mwe, can be determined by a water mass balance on the air.
mwe / mw
Using this method for entering air temperatures from 50 F to 90 F, we determined that the
fraction of water evaporated typically ranges from about 0.5% to 1%, with an average value of
about 0.75%.
Another way to estimate the fraction of water evaporated is to assume that all cooling, Ql, is
from evaporation, Qevap. The cooling load Ql, is the product of the water flow rate, mw,
specific heat, cp, and temperature difference, dT. The evaporative cooling rate is the product
of the water evaporated, mwe, and the latent heat of cooling, hfg.
Ql = Qevap
mw cp dT = mwe hfg
Assuming the latent heat of evaporation of water, hfg, is 1,000 Btu/lb, and the temperature
difference of water through the tower, dT, is 10 F, the fraction of water evaporated is:
15
mwe / mw = cp dT / hfg = 1 (Btu/lb-F) x 10 (F) / 1000 (Btu/lb) = 1%
If on average, 75% of the cooling were from evaporation and 25% from sensible cooling, then
the evaporation rate would be:
75% x 1% = 0.75%
Thus, both methods suggest that 0.75% is a good estimate of the rate of evaporation; however,
we have seen manufacturer data indicating average evaporation rates as low as 0.30%. Water
lost to evaporation should not be subjected to sewer charges. Typical sewer charges are about
$2.20 per hundred cubic feet.
Some water may be lost as water droplets are blown from the tower by oversized fans or wind.
This type of water loss is called “drift”. Drift rates are typically about 0.2% of flow (ASHRAE
Handbook, HVAC Systems and Equipment, 2000); however, we generally assume that drift
losses are included in the 0.75% evaporation rate.
Bacterial Growth
The typical method of controlling bacterial growth is to add biocides at prescribed intervals and
to keep the cooling tower water circulating. If the tower will not be operated for a sustained
period of time, then the cooling water should be drained.
Dissolved Solids
Water evaporated from a cooling tower does not contain dissolved solids. Thus, the
concentration of dissolved solids will increase over time if only enough water is added to the
tower to compensate for evaporation. To maintain the dissolved solids at acceptable levels,
most towers periodically discharge some water and replace it with fresh water. This process is
called blow down. It the level of dissolve solids increases too high, scale will be begin to form,
and/or the water may become corrosive and damage piping, pumps, cooling tower surfaces
and heat exchangers. Usually, the primary dissolved solid to control is calcium carbonate
CaCO3.
Blow down can be accomplished by continuously adding and removing a small quantity of
water, periodically draining and refilling the cooling tower reservoir, or by metering the
conductivity of water and adding fresh water only when needed. By far the most efficient
method is to meter the conductivity of water, which increases in proportion to the level of
dissolved solids, and add fresh water only when needed.
16
The required quantity of blow down water depends on the acceptable quantity of dissolved
solids in the tower water, PPMtarget, the quantity of dissolved solids in the makeup water,
PPMmu, and the evaporation rate, mwe. The target level of dissolved solids is typically
quantified in cycles, where:
For example, if the quantity of dissolved CaCO3 in the makeup water, PPMmu, is 77 ppm and
the maximum level to prevent scaling, PPMtarget, is 231, then the cooling tower water must be
maintained at three cycles:
By applying mass balances, it can be shown that the blow down water required to maintain a
certain number of cycles is
The total makeup water required mwmu, is the sum of the water added for evaporation and
blow down:
For example for a 1,000 gpm tower with a 0.75% evaporation rate and CaCO3 concentration at 3
Cycles, the quantity of makeup water required would be about:
17