CHE 151-1L CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING LABORATORY 2
MAPUA UNIVERSITY
COOLING TOWER
LABORATORY REPORT
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Part A: Effect of Water Flowrate
Cooling towers are used to remove undesired heat As defined, approach is the temperature of the water
from a cooling fluid, used in industrial processes, to leaving the cooling tower minus the ambient wet
lower its temperature and reuse it [1]. This experiment bulb temperature [2]. On the other hand, range is
was all about evaluating the performance of a cooling the difference between the water’s temperature
tower. In addition, this experiment was divided into coming in and out.
two parts. First, the effect of water flowrate on the
performance of a cooling tower and second, the effect
of water inlet temperature.
3.5
For the first part of the experiment, the effect of 3
(oC)
water flowrate was being evaluated. Shown on 2.5
Approac
Table 1 were the calculated approach value, cooling
2
h
range, cooling load, and effectiveness in each
1.5
specific water flowrate.
1
0.5
Water 0.5 1 1.5 2
flowrate 0
(l/min) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Approach 1.53633 1.864 3.1343333 2.9383 Water Flowrate (L/min)
Value (ºC) 3 3 3
Range (ºC) 4.03333 4.033 3.9666666 3.7
3 3 Figure 1. Water Flowrate VS. Approach
Cooling 0.16666 0.283 0.40333333 0
Load kW 6 3 3
Effectiveness 72.4160 68.38 55.8606769 55.736
6 8
Table 1. Calculated Value Based on the Raw Data
Page 1 of 6
, less of a heat load can cool to lower cold-water
temperatures than a similar cooling tower cooling
4.1 more heat load.
4.05
4
0.45
Range
3.95
0.4
3.9 0.35
d (kW)
3.85 0.3
Coolin Loa
3.8 0.25
3.75 0.2
3.7 0.15
g
3.65 0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.05
Water Flowrate (L/min) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Water Flowrate (L/min)
Figure 2. Water Flowrate VS. Range
Figure 3. Water Flowrate VS. Cooling Load
As can be seen on Figure 1, as the water flowrate
increases, the approach value also increases which
means there will be more heat rejected because the 3.5
driving force between the temperature of the water 3
and the wet bulb temperature increases. However, a
2.5
Approach (oC)
decrease in approach shows that the water on the
cooling tower gets closely to the wet bulb 2
temperature of the surrounding air. Furthermore, 1.5
approach varies inversely to cooling tower 1
performance and is used as the benchmark for
0.5
measuring the cooling capability of cooling towers
[3]. 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Cooling Load (kW)
On the other hand, Figure 2 shows that as the water
flowrate increases, the range decreases. The range is
influenced by the heat rejection of the process for Figure 4. Cooling Load VS. Approach
which a cooling tower serves [3]. Under the
condition conditions of same flow and heat The approach of a cooling tower varies directly with the
rejection, the range will still stay consistent. heat load of a process. It can be proven on the graph
shown on Figure 4. As the cooling load increases, the
Moreover, Figure 3 shows that as the water flowrate approach also increases which proves their direct
increases, the cooling load also increases. It only proportionality to each other. Heat load is defined as the
reveals that there is more heat rejection as the flowrate
increases because it is directly proportional to the heat
load and the range. Heat load is a function of water
flow rate and range. Therefore, the heat load will
increase with increasing flow or range. Cooling
Page 2 of 6
ENGINEERING LABORATORY 2
MAPUA UNIVERSITY
COOLING TOWER
LABORATORY REPORT
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Part A: Effect of Water Flowrate
Cooling towers are used to remove undesired heat As defined, approach is the temperature of the water
from a cooling fluid, used in industrial processes, to leaving the cooling tower minus the ambient wet
lower its temperature and reuse it [1]. This experiment bulb temperature [2]. On the other hand, range is
was all about evaluating the performance of a cooling the difference between the water’s temperature
tower. In addition, this experiment was divided into coming in and out.
two parts. First, the effect of water flowrate on the
performance of a cooling tower and second, the effect
of water inlet temperature.
3.5
For the first part of the experiment, the effect of 3
(oC)
water flowrate was being evaluated. Shown on 2.5
Approac
Table 1 were the calculated approach value, cooling
2
h
range, cooling load, and effectiveness in each
1.5
specific water flowrate.
1
0.5
Water 0.5 1 1.5 2
flowrate 0
(l/min) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Approach 1.53633 1.864 3.1343333 2.9383 Water Flowrate (L/min)
Value (ºC) 3 3 3
Range (ºC) 4.03333 4.033 3.9666666 3.7
3 3 Figure 1. Water Flowrate VS. Approach
Cooling 0.16666 0.283 0.40333333 0
Load kW 6 3 3
Effectiveness 72.4160 68.38 55.8606769 55.736
6 8
Table 1. Calculated Value Based on the Raw Data
Page 1 of 6
, less of a heat load can cool to lower cold-water
temperatures than a similar cooling tower cooling
4.1 more heat load.
4.05
4
0.45
Range
3.95
0.4
3.9 0.35
d (kW)
3.85 0.3
Coolin Loa
3.8 0.25
3.75 0.2
3.7 0.15
g
3.65 0.1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0.05
Water Flowrate (L/min) 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Water Flowrate (L/min)
Figure 2. Water Flowrate VS. Range
Figure 3. Water Flowrate VS. Cooling Load
As can be seen on Figure 1, as the water flowrate
increases, the approach value also increases which
means there will be more heat rejected because the 3.5
driving force between the temperature of the water 3
and the wet bulb temperature increases. However, a
2.5
Approach (oC)
decrease in approach shows that the water on the
cooling tower gets closely to the wet bulb 2
temperature of the surrounding air. Furthermore, 1.5
approach varies inversely to cooling tower 1
performance and is used as the benchmark for
0.5
measuring the cooling capability of cooling towers
[3]. 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Cooling Load (kW)
On the other hand, Figure 2 shows that as the water
flowrate increases, the range decreases. The range is
influenced by the heat rejection of the process for Figure 4. Cooling Load VS. Approach
which a cooling tower serves [3]. Under the
condition conditions of same flow and heat The approach of a cooling tower varies directly with the
rejection, the range will still stay consistent. heat load of a process. It can be proven on the graph
shown on Figure 4. As the cooling load increases, the
Moreover, Figure 3 shows that as the water flowrate approach also increases which proves their direct
increases, the cooling load also increases. It only proportionality to each other. Heat load is defined as the
reveals that there is more heat rejection as the flowrate
increases because it is directly proportional to the heat
load and the range. Heat load is a function of water
flow rate and range. Therefore, the heat load will
increase with increasing flow or range. Cooling
Page 2 of 6
