Abstract
Cooling tower experiment was conducted to determine the correlation of water to air mass flow ratio with increasing water flow rates. The parameters that were varied for this experiment are the flow rates of water and blowers. For the first experiment, the flow rates were varied at 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 !min while the blowers was full" closed. For the second experiment, the blowers were set to be full" opened, semi#opened and closed while the water flow rates was $ept constant at 1.0 !min. The heater power was $ept constant at 0.%$& for both set of experiments. The unit was run for 20 minutes for each different parameters before reading and recording the data at T1 to T'. The results for the first experiments shows that the heat load decreases when the water flow rates increases. The heat load was calculated to be 0.(%0, 0.3)* and 0.31($& at flow rates of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 !min respectivel". The efficienc" of the cooling tower was found to be increases as the water flow rates decreases with the value of +0.0, **.( and '2.). For the second experiment, for the full" opened blowers, the heat load is 0.((1$& with the efficienc" of )).2. For the semi#opened, the heat load is 0.3'($& with the efficienc" of *2.). For the full" closed closed blowers, the heat load load is 0.300$& with with the efficienc" efficienc" of '0.0. '0.0. -" referring referring to the results calculated, the lower the water flow rate and the higher the air flow rates give higher results of heat load thus increasing the efficienc" to the cooling towers.
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Result WATER FLOW RATES
Column C, rea / 102.( m2 eat eater er 0.% 0.% $& -lower Closed
Table 1.0 ata for var"ing water flow rates and its effect on the temperature.
Water flow rate (L/min)
3.0
.0
!.0
ir inlet dr" bulb, T1 ° C )
3(.*
3(.)
33.'
ir inlet wet bulb, T2 ° C )
33.0
33.1
33.2
ir outlet dr" bulb, T3 ° C )
(0.%
((.1
(2.%
ir outlet wet bulb, T( ° C )
3*.1
(2.3
(1.+
&ater &a ter inlet temperature, T% ° C )
%1.+
%3.%
%3.3
&ater &a ter outlet temperature, T' ° C )
(+.)
%0.*
(*.+
eater 4ower, &
(2'
(2)
(30
p, orifice 4a5
3*
%3
*%
p, column 4a5
30
(%
''
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Table Table 1.1 The effect of water flow rates to the efficienc" of cooling tower. &ater flow
Cooling range
eat load
pproach to
7verall heat transfer
8fficienc"
rate !min5
6C5
$&5
wet bulb
coefficient $&!m2.6C5
5
1 .0
' .(
0.(%0
1 ( .*
'.)* 9 10#(
+0.0
2 .0
2 .)
0.3)*
1 * .'
1.3% 9 10#3
**.(
3 .0
1 .%
0.31(
1 ' .)
2.0( 9 10#3
'2.+
Figure 1.0 The effect of water flow rate to the efficienc" of cooling tower.
Water fow rate vs Eciency 100 90 80 70 60
Eciency, %
50 40 30 20 10 0 0.5
1
1.5
2
2 .5
Water fow rate, L/min
3
3.5
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
"LOWER
Column C, rea / 102.( m2 eater 0.% $& &ater flow rate 1.0 !min
Table Table 1.2 ata for open, semi#open and closed blower. "lower
O#en
Semi$o#en
%lose&
ir inlet dr" bulb, T1 ° C )
31.0
2+.+
31.(
ir inlet wet bulb, T2 ° C )
2'.(
2).+
2+.0
ir outlet dr" bulb, T3 ° C )
2).1
30.1
31.)
ir outlet wet bulb, T( ° C )
2+.(
2*.2
31.3
&ater &a ter inlet temperature, T% ° C )
33.1
3%.3
3*.(
&ater &a ter outlet temperature, T' ° C )
2'.)
30.1
33.1
eater 4ower, &
(3(
(3%
(2+
p, orifice 4a5
*0
%)
1*
p, column 4a5
''
'0
10
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
Table Table 1.( The effect b" b " var"ing of blowers b lowers to the efficienc" of cooling tower. Cooling range
eat load
pproach to
7verall heat transfer
8fficienc"
6C5
$&5
wet bulb
coefficient $&!m2.6C5
5
7pened
' .3
0.((1
0 .(
'.)( 9 10#(
)).2
:emi#opened
% .2
0.3'(
1 .2
'.)3 9 10#(
*2.)
Closed
(.3
0.300
( .1
'.)1 9 10#(
'0.0
-lower
Figure1.1 8ffect of blower;s condition against the efficienc" of the cooling tower.
$ower" &" Eciency o' coo$in( tower 100 90
88.2
80
72.8
70
60
60
Ecienc Ec iency y.%
50 40 30 20 10 0
o e ne !
" e mi#o e ne !
$ower)" con!ition
c$o " e !
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
%onclusion
The ob
For the second experiment, the blowers were set to be full" opened, semi#opened and closed while the water flow rates was $ept constant at 1.0 !min. From the experiments, for the full" opened blowers, the heat load calculated is 0.((1$& with the efficienc" of )).2. For the semi#opened, the heat load is 0.3'($& with the efficienc" of *2.). For the full" closed blowers, the heat load is 0.300$& with the efficienc" of '0.0. From this results, it can be concluded that as the flow rates of air decreases given b" the blowers, the heat load decreases and thus decreases the efficienc" of the cooling tower. =n conclusion, we can said that this experiment was successfull" conducted because the ob
