PART SCORE

COVER PAGE (5)

ABSTRACT (10)
INTRO (5)
M & M (5)
R & D (40)
S & C (10)
RECOM (5)
REFERENCES (5)
APPENDICES (5)
SAMP. CALC (5)

EXERCISE 2

HUMIDIFICATION

Group 3

JOAB C ACDA
ORION ARLENUS DIMAPILIS
JERICO VALDERAMA GALLANO
JAMES MATTHEW LIMPIN

CHE 156 - 3L

Date Performed: FEBRUARY 12, 2019

Date Submitted: FEBRUARY 19, 2019

ENGR. VIC JAYSON NISOLA

Faculty-in-Charge
 1

ABSTRACT
ACDA, JOAB CAHIGAS DIMAPILIS, ORION ARLENUS PALACPAC. GALLANO,
JERICO VALDERAMA. LIMPIN, JAMES MATTHEW PAZ. College of Engineering and
Agro-Industrial Technology, University of the Philippines Los Baños. February 2019.
Humidification.

Faculty-In-Charge: Engr. Vic Jayson Nisola

The effects of air and water flow rate on the performance of an induced counterflow
cooling tower were determined. The water flow rates were 98.3793 and 239.8900 mL/s ; the air
flow velocities were 1.6 and 3.2 m/s ; and the reservoir contains 60 L of water set at 40°. For each
combination of air and water flowrate, the equipment was run for 20 minutes and temperature
measurements were done on 2-minute intervals. The cooling range, cooling approach, and tower
characteristics were calculated as indicators of the cooling towers performance.

For the effects of varying water flow rate at constant air flow rate, the cooling range was
6.7091 deg. F, the cooling approach was 22.515 deg. F , the tower characteristics was 0.2399, and
the tower efficiency was 26.99 %, for a water flow rate of 98.3793 mL/s ; and for the water flow
rate of 239.89 mL/s , they were 4.8273 deg. F, 24.858 deg. F, 0.1615, and 19.42 % , respectively.
It was inferred from the obtained data that as the water to air flow ratio (L/G) decreases, the range
increases, the approach decreases, the tower efficiency, and the tower characteristics increases as
well.

As for the varying air flow rates at constant water flow rate, the air flow velocity of 1.6 m/s
resulted to a cooling range, cooling approach, tower characteristics, and tower efficiency of 4.5
deg. F, 24.858 deg. F, 0.1575, and 18.1028% ; while for the air flow velocity of 3.2 m/s , they were
4.7455 deg. F, 22.515 deg. F, 0.1674, and 19.09%. This means that as the air flow rate increases,
the L/G flow ratio decreases; the tower efficiency increases. The experiment has an overall
experimental error of 27.38%.
 2

I. INTRODUCTION

In unit operations, humidification is a process wherein water is cooled by exposing its

surface to air. The main purpose of humidification is the conservation of cooling water by reusing

it optimally. The process involves the transfer of water from the liquid phase into the gas phase

with a mixture of air. Humidifying is increasing the amount of water vapor in a gas stream by

allowing the stream to contact with the liquid, thus passing over the liquid form of the vapor

(McCabe et al., 1993).

The cooling tower is the most common humidifier whose sole purpose is to cool water in

a large-scale basis. A cooling tower is a kind of packed tower in which the warm liquid is made to

contact with the cold air to cool the liquid. During contact, part of the liquid vaporizes thus

decreasing the temperature in the liquid; also known as evaporative cooling. The maximum surface

area of contact between the water and the air is desired to obtain optimal cooling. This is achieved

by sparging the water thus producing massive amounts of small water droplets from the top of the

tower (McCabe et al., 1993). Cooling towers may be mechanical or natural draft. A mechanical

draft tower has a control apparatus which controls the gas velocity inlet. Fans are used to control

the gas inflow which may be placed on the bottom (forced-draft) or at the top of the tower (induced

draft). Another classification of the cooling towers is the nature of air flow and gas flow.

Counterflow towers admit air from the bottom of the tower, while crossflow towers admit air from

the sides. Meanwhile, natural draft towers only use the natural air convection; but, the tower must

be large and tall enough to operate efficiently (Geankoplis, 1993).

Mechanism of Heat Transfer

The heat transfer in the cooling tower is governed by the principles of latent heat

and sensible heat. The latent heat refers to the 80% of the total heat transferred which involves the

vaporization of small amounts of water. Meanwhile, sensible heat is driven by the temperature
 3

gradient between the inlet air and the inlet hot water; it pertains to the remaining 20% of the total

heat transferred. The amount of heat removed from the inlet water is strongly affected by (1) Air

Temperature, and (2) Moisture content of the air. The moisture content may be determined based

from the wet-bulb temperature.

Dry and Wet-Bulb Temperature

Cooling towers are designed based on the highest wet-bulb temperature; it is the

lowest temperature that the water can be cooled. But in actuality, the wet-bulb temperature as the

cooled outlet temperature can never be achieved. Contacting the entire surface area of the water

with the inlet air is impossible. In the cooling process, no mass of water is lost; no evaporation will

occur since the vapor pressure of water at the wet-bulb temperature is equal to the vapor pressure

of the water in the tower.

Tower Characteristics

Range and approach are important because they can strongly affect the wet-bulb

temperature. These factors can also determine the overall design of the cooling tower. The cooling

range is defined as the maximum possible difference of the temperature of hot inlet water and the

cold outlet water. Meanwhile, the approach is the difference between the cold outlet water

temperature and the wet-bulb temperature.

𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑇ℎ𝑜𝑡(𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) − 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) (Eqn. 1)

𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑(𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟) − 𝑇𝑤𝑒𝑡−𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑏 (Eqn. 2)

The tower characteristics indicate the design of the cooling tower. In determining the tower

characteristics of a cooling tower (KaV/L), the Merkel equation and the Chebychev’s method will

be used in this experiment. The Merkel Equation is the most common theory in cooling tower
 4

processes wherein the driving force is the difference in the enthalpy. The Merkel equation is a

shown:
𝑇1
𝐾𝑎𝑉 𝑑𝑇 𝑇1 − 𝑇2 1 1 1 1
= ∫ = ( + + + )
𝐿 ℎ𝑤 − ℎ𝑎 4 ℎ1 ℎ2 ℎ3 ℎ4
𝑇2

where K is the mass transfer coefficient (lb H20/hr-ft2 ), a is the contact area (ft2 /ft3 tower

volume), V is the active cooling volume (ft3 /ft2 plan area), L is the water flowrate (lb/hr-ft2 ), ℎ𝑤

is the enthalpy of saturated air at water temperature (Btu/lb), h is the enthalpy of air stream (Btu/lb),

T1 is the entering water temperature (deg F) and T2 is the leaving water temperature (deg F) (Perry

et al., 1997).

Significance

Humidification is one of the most essential process in many industries, especially in the

food industry as it is needed to control the environment’s condition. In most industries, the

humidity level is controlled primarily to ensure the preservation of materials, prevent static

buildup, and to produce a conducive working environment for the workers and equipment alike.

The process is also usually done to recover water by contacting it with low humidity air. In

here, the heat lost by the water can be reused in a heat exchanger in a plant.

In the food industry, humidifiers ensure quality of food products as it preserves the

freshness of food. It is also used in facilities like semiconductor manufacturing and hospital

rooms where humidity must be monitored. Furthermore, humidification is used to prevent

shrinkage and curling in paper and printer manufacture. Such process has also been used in

other industries like packaging industry, pharmaceutical manufacture, explosives manufacture

etc.
 5

Objectives:

The general objective of the experiment is to calculate the of the cooling

tower’s tower characteristics based on the gathered water flowrate and air flowrate

of the system. Specifically, it aims to:

1. Determine how the water flowrate affects the cooling approach and cooling

range at constant flowrate;

2. Determine how the air flowrate affects the cooling approach and cooling range

at constant flowrate, and;

3. Evaluate how the air and water flowrate affects the tower characteristics of the

equipment analyzed.
 6

II. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

The materials and equipment used in this exercise is the cooling tower at the unit operations

laboratory with the following components: temperature controller; fan speed controller; heating

tank composed of heater, recycle pipe, suction water pipe, by-pass pipe, drain; pump, flowrate

meter, and the cooling tower. Two thermometers, ample amount of water, a mini thermo-

anemometer, cotton, and stopwatch were also used. For the preliminary procedure, the set-up was

checked for any signs of leaks and cooling tower was cleaned and all obstructions in the pipes were

removed. Fan was also tested for any sign of damage. After inspection, the tank was filled with just

enough water for us to measure the temperature of the water going out of the cooling tower and

water going into the tower. The temperature controller was turned on and temperature was

maintained at 40 deg. C. The set-up was allowed to operate until steady state condition was

achieved. After achieving a steady state condition (with temperature maintained at 40 deg. C), the

experiment begun. The volumetric flowrate was 1.5 gallons per minute (gpm) and the inlet and

outlet temperatures of both air and water were measured. Also, the wet-bulb temperature was

measured by wrapping a thermometer with a wet (saturated with water) cotton and swirling the

thermometer and then measuring the temperature. Wet-bulb temperatures were measured at the

inlet and outlet air. These measurements were all done every 2-minute interval for 20 minutes.
 7

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In the experiment, the effect of varying the water flowrate and air flowrate on the cooling

approach and the cooling range of the tower was studied. The cooling tower used is the induced-

type mechanical cooling tower which has a counterflow nature. This type of cooling tower is more

efficient than crossflow towers (Foust, 1980). In the operation, the hot water was pumped from a

reservoir maintained at 40𝑜 𝐶 into the sparger, where the water is sprayed on the middle of the

cooling tower. According to Brown et. al., (1950), the temperature of the interface of water and air

tends to approach the wet-bulb temperature of the air. At the top of the tower, heat is transferred

from the hot water to the air; the energy transfer both involves sensible and latent heat, thus cooling

the water relative to its usual temperature and the hot air relative to the ambient air.

4.8

4.75
Cooling Range (deg. F)

4.7

4.65

4.6

4.55

4.5

4.45
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Air Velocity (m/s)

Figure 2.1. The effect of varied air velocities to the cooling range with constant water
flowrate.
 8

1.8

Liquid to Gas Flowrate Ratio (L/G)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Air Velocity (m/s)

Figure 2.2. The effect of varied air velocities to the L/G ratio with constant water flowrate.

According to Figure 2.1, the air velocity has a direct relationship with the cooling range. As

the air flowrate is increased from 1.6 𝑡𝑜 3.2 𝑚/𝑠, the cooling range increased from

4.5000 𝑡𝑜 4.7455 𝑜 𝐹. Meanwhile, in Figure 2.2, the liquid to gas ratio decreases as the air flowrate

is increased.

7
Cooling Range (deg. F)

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Water Flowrate (mL/s)

Figure 2.3. The effect of water flowrate to the cooling range with constant air inlet velocity.
 9

0.9

Liquid to Gas Flowrate Ratio (L/G)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Water Flowrate (mL/s)

Figure 2.4. The effect of water flowrate to the cooling range with constant air inlet velocity.

According to Figure 2.3, increasing the flowrate of the inlet hot water decreases the cooling

range. Increasing the water flowrate from 98.3793 𝑡𝑜 239.8900 𝑚𝐿 decreased the cooling range

from 6.7091 𝑡𝑜 4.8273 𝑜 𝐹. Meanwhile in Figure 2.4, the L/G ratio increased as the water flowrate

increased, thus decreasing the cooling approach.

An increase in the gas flowrate will correspondingly increase the efficiency of the cooling

process, thus increasing the cooling range and decreasing the cooling approach. When the water

flowrate was increased, a decrease in range was observed. The result of increasing the water

flowrate is the decrease in cooling range, thus lowering the efficiency of the cooling process.

Theoretically, increasing the air flowrate while maintaining the water flowrate constant will

decrease the L/G ratio, and cooling approach while increasing the cooling range and efficiency. It

is important to note that the change in cooling range and approach does not directly affect the tower

characteristics; but, it can affect the L/G ratio by adjusting the air and water flowrates (Perry et al.,

1997).
 10

In determining the tower characteristics, the Chebyshev method is used; the Merkel Equation

is a common theoretical approach. The tower characteristics were computed using the Merkel

equation as shown:

𝑇1
𝐾𝑎𝑉 𝑑𝑇 𝑇1 − 𝑇2 1 1 1 1
= ∫ = ( + + + )
𝐿 ℎ𝑤 − ℎ𝑎 4 ℎ1 ℎ2 ℎ3 ℎ4
𝑇2

where the enthalpies from 1 to 4 are differences between ℎ𝑤 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑎 in different temperatures.

Table 2.1. The calculated values of cooling range, L/G, and tower characteristics

AIR FLOWRATE WATER FLOWRATE

PARAMETERS
Low High Low High
Range (deg. F) 4.5 4.7455 6.7091 4.8273
Approach (deg. F) 24.858 22.515 22.515 24.858
Tower Efficiency 18.1028 19.09 26.99 19.42
L/G 1.6203 0.8101 0.3322 0.8101
KaV/L 0.1575 0.1674 0.2398 0.1615

Increasing the air flowrate increases the tower characteristic (KaV/L), thus increasing the

cooling tower efficiency. Meanwhile, increasing the water flowrate decreases the tower

characteristic, thus decreasing tower efficiency. At a higher L/G ratio, the enthalpy of the air at the

wet-bulb temperature will increase, decreasing the driving force and increasing the tower

characteristic; the driving force for evaporation is the difference between the vapor pressure of

water and the vapor pressure of water at wet bulb temperature. The low L/G ratio will decrease the

enthalpy of air thus the driving force will decrease and KaV/L will increase.

The graphical behavior as shown by the figures and the table above corresponds to most of the

theoretical aspects in humidification which is comparable with the optimum conditions of an

efficient cooling tower. However, according to Perry et al. (1997), for a cooling tower with an L/G

ratio of 0.75 to 1.5 the tower characteristic should be in the range of 0.5 to 2.5.
 11

A 27.38% experimental error is computed from the minimum tower characteristic literature

value and the computed value. During the experiment, the students noticed that the sparger of the

cooling tower is not working uniformly; some parts of the cooling tower are hotter, thus, the water

flowing from the top of the tower is not uniformly distributed. Second, the students had a difficult

time in maintaining the hot water reservoir to 40𝑜 𝐶 due to limited equipment. Improvisation by

using three heaters have caused minor fluctuations in the hot water inlet temperature. In reading

the temperature of the water every 2 minutes, the use of a thermometer in the experiment might

have produced human errors.

 12

IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Different parameters were tested for the experiment mainly, cooling range, approach and tower

characteristics by varying the effects of water flow rate and air flowrate of the system. At first the

effects of water flowrate were tested by changing it and the air flowrate was held constant. The water

flow rate used was 98.3793 mL/s and the range, L/G, KaV/L, and approach of the cooling tower with

a constant air flow velocity of 1.6 m/s were 6.7091 deg. F, 0.3322, 0.2938, and 22.515 deg F.

respectively. The other flow rate used was 239.89 mL/s, and gives a range, L/G, KaV/L, and approach

of 4.8273 deg. F, 0.8101, 0.1615, and 24.858 deg. F respectively. Based from this the cooling tower

efficiency increases as the water flow rate decreases which corresponds to the trend done by Cervera

(2000). The computed efficiencies were as follows; for a flow rate of 98.3793 mL/s, the value is

26.99% and for a water flow rate of 239.89 mL/s, the value is 19.42%.

Then, the effects of varying flow rates were determined while the air flow rate was held

constant. First a constant water flow rate of 98.3793 mL/s was used. The higher air flowrate velocity

of 3.2 m/s gives a range, L/G, KaV/L, and approach of 4.5 deg. F, 1.6203, 0.1575, and 24.858 deg. F

respectively. And the lower air flowrate velocity of 1.6 m/s gives a range, L/G, KaV/L, and approach

of 4.7455 deg. F, 0.8101, 0.1674, and 22.515 deg. F respectively. Moreover, the cooling tower

efficiency increases as the air flow rate increases which corresponds to the trend done by Cervera

(2000). Some possible sources of error in the experiment includes varying environmental conditions

such as the air temperature and pressure. There should also be calibration of the equipment used to

minimize error.
 13

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

One of the difficulties encountered in the conduct of the experiment is the maintenance of

the water in the reservoir at a constant temperature. To avoid this, it is recommended that a heater

sufficient for heating a large amount of water immediately be installed, as well as a mechanical stirrer

to keep the temperature constant and uniform in the reservoir. Another reason for a new heater to be

used is that it took a long time to heat the water in the reservoir to the designated temperature. It is

also recommended that a flow meter be installed in the setup since the method of measuring the water

flow rate, the graduated cylinder-timer method, has high degree of inaccuracy. There were also times

that the fan controller and the pump were inconsistent, hence, replacements may be needed.
 14

VI. REFERENCES

BROWN, G.G., FOUST, A.S., WHITE, R.R. 1991. Unit Operations. College of
Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan: CBS Publishers

CERVERA, R. P. 2000. Instrumentation, Control and Performance Evaluation of an Existing

Induced – Draft Counterflow Cooling Tower. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis.
Department of Chemical Engineering. University of the Philippines Los Banos.

FOUST, A.S., WENXEL, L.A., CLUMP, C.W., MAUS, L. & ANDERSEN, L.B. 1980.

Principles of Unit Operations. 2nd ed. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

GEANKOPLIS, C.J. (1993). Transport processes and unit operations (3rd Ed.). New

Jersey: USA, Prentice-Hall

MCCABE, W. L., SMITH, J. C. & HARRIOTT, P. (1993). Unit operations of chemical

engineering (5th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

PERRY, R.H., GREEN, D.W., & MALONEY, J.O. 1997. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’

Handbook. 7th Ed. NY: McGraw Hill.ZAINI, M.

 15

APPENDIX A
Determination of the Range, Approach and Efficiency of the Cooling Tower
Using the values from the first condition of varying air velocity (1.6 m/s),

• Calculating the approach:

𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 − 𝑇𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑏
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = (35.5 − 26.9) deg 𝐶
𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ = 8.6 deg 𝐶

• Calculating the range:

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑇ℎ𝑜𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 − 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = (39 − 35.5) deg 𝐶
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 3.5 deg 𝐶

• Calculating the tower efficiency:

𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝑥 100
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 + 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑐ℎ
3.5
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝑥 100
3.5 + 8.6
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 28.9256198 %
 16

APPENDIX B
Determination of the Tower Characteristic (KaV/L) of the Cooling Tower
Using the values from the first condition of varying air velocity (1.6 m/s),

• Calculating the water flow rate:

𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 𝜌𝑄
Where 𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = mass flow rate of water
𝜌 = density of water
Q = volumetric flow rate of water
239.89𝑚𝐿 1𝐿 1𝑚3 𝑘𝑔
𝑚̇𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 = ( )( )( )(995.9 3 )
𝑠 1000𝑚𝐿 1000𝐿 𝑚
𝑘𝑔
𝑚̇𝑙𝑖𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑑 = 0.2389065
𝑠
• Calculating the air flow rate:
𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 𝜌𝐴𝑣
𝑚 1.1603𝑘𝑔 𝜋
𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 = (0.318𝑚)2 (1.6 )( )( )
𝑠 𝑚3 4
𝑘𝑔
𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 0.1474465
𝑠
• Calculating the L/G ratio:
𝐿 𝑚̇𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
=
𝐺 𝑚̇𝑎𝑖𝑟
𝑘𝑔
𝐿 0.2389065 𝑠
=
𝐺 0.1474465 𝑘𝑔
𝑠
𝐿
= 1.6202927
𝐺
• Calculating the temperatures in between intervals of x:
𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 𝑇𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 + 0.1 ∗ (𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒)
𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = (99.5 + 0.1(4.5))℉
𝑇𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 = 99.95℉

• Interpolation of the enthalpies of water, hw:

getting the enthalpy values from Table 12-1 of Perry’s, 7th Edition.
 17

71.73 − 68.23 48.22 − ℎ𝑤,1

=
100 − 98 100 − 99.5
solving:
𝐵𝑡𝑢
ℎ𝑤 = 71.6425
𝑙𝑏 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑖𝑟

• Interpolation of the enthalpy of air at wet-bulb temperature:

43.69 − 41.58 43.69 − ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟,1
=
80 − 78 80 − 79.142
𝐵𝑡𝑢
ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟 = 42.78481
𝑙𝑏 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑖𝑟

• Calculation of the enthalpy of air at proceeding intervals:

𝐿
ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟 = ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟,1 + (0.1)( )(𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒)
𝐺
ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟,1 = 42.74481 + (0.1)(1.6203)(4.5)
𝐵𝑡𝑢
ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟,1 = 43.5139
𝑙𝑏 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑖𝑟

• Calculating 1/Δh:
1 1 1 1 1
= + + +
∆ℎ ∆ℎ1 ∆ℎ2 ∆ℎ3 ∆ℎ4
1 1 1 1 1
= + + +
∆ℎ 28.1285583 28.4271631 28.6493997 29.0877545
1 𝑙𝑏 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑎𝑖𝑟
= 0.14001215
∆ℎ 𝐵𝑡𝑢
• Calculating the tower characteristic, KaV/L:
𝐾𝑎𝑉 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 1
= ∗
𝐿 4 ∆ℎ
𝐾𝑎𝑉 4.5
= ∗ 0.14001215
𝐿 4
𝐾𝑎𝑉
= 0.15751367
𝐿
 18

APPENDIX TABLES
 Table 1. The effect of the air velocity of 1.6 m/s on the cooling range and approach.

TEMPERATURE (deg C)
TIME Water Inlet Air Outlet Air COOLING
APPROACH EFFICIENCY
(min) RANGE
Dry Wet Dry Wet
Hot Cold
Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb
0 40 40 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 0 13.1 0
2 40 38.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.5 11.6 11.45038
4 40 38 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 2 11.1 15.26718
6 39.5 38 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.5 11.1 11.90476
8 39 37.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.5 10.6 12.39669
10 39 37.2 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.8 10.3 14.87603
12 39 37 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 2 10.1 16.52893
14 38.5 37 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.5 10.1 12.93103
16 38 37 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1 10.1 9.009009
18 38.5 36.8 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.7 9.9 14.65517
20 39 35.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 3.5 8.6 28.92562

Table 2. The effect of the air velocity of 3.2 m/s on the cooling range and approach.

TEMPERATURE (deg C)
TIME Water Inlet Air Outlet Air COOLING
APPROACH EFFICIENCY
(min) Dry Wet Dry Wet RANGE
Hot Cold
Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb
0 40 40 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 0 13.1 0
2 40 39.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 0.5 12.6 3.816794
4 40 38.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.5 11.6 11.45038
6 39.5 38 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 1.5 11.1 11.90476
8 39.5 37.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 2 10.6 15.87302
10 39.5 36.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 3 9.6 23.80952
12 39 36.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 2.5 9.6 20.66116
14 39.5 36.5 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 3 9.6 23.80952
16 39.5 36 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 3.5 9.1 27.77778
18 39 36 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 3 9.1 24.79339
20 39 36 29 26.9 30.02 26.9 3 9.1 24.79339
 1

Table 3. Effect of the water flowrate of 239.89 mL/s on the cooling range and approach.

TEMPERATURE (deg C)
TIME Water Inlet Air Outlet Air COOLING
APPROACH EFFICIENCY
(min) Dry Wet Dry Wet RANGE
Hot Cold
Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb
0 40 40 29 26.9 30 26.9 0 13 0
2 40 38 29 26.9 30 26.9 2 11 15.3
4 40 37.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 2.5 11 19.1
6 40 37.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 2.5 11 19.1
8 40 37.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 2.5 11 19.1
10 40 37 29 26.9 30 26.9 3 10 22.9
12 40 37 29 26.9 30 26.9 3 10 22.9
14 40 37 29 26.9 30 26.9 3 10 22.9
16 40 36.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 3.5 9.6 26.7
18 40 36.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 3.5 9.6 26.7
20 40 36 29 26.9 30 26.9 4 9.1 30.5

Table 4. Effect of the water flowrate of 98.3793 mL/s on the cooling range and approach.

TEMPERATURE (deg C)
TIME Water Inlet Air Outlet Air COOLING
APPROACH EFFICIENCY
(min) Dry Wet Dry Wet RANGE
Hot Cold
Bulb Bulb Bulb Bulb
0 40 40 29 26.9 30 26.9 0 13 0
2 40 38 29 26.9 30 26.9 2 11 15.3
4 40 37.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 2.5 11 19.1
6 40 37.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 2.5 11 19.1
8 40 36 29 26.9 30 26.9 4 9.1 30.5
10 40 36 29 26.9 30 26.9 4 9.1 30.5
12 40 35.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 4.5 8.6 34.4
14 40 35 29 26.9 30 26.9 5 8.1 38.2
16 40 35 29 26.9 30 26.9 5 8.1 38.2
18 40 34.5 29 26.9 30 26.9 5.5 7.6 42
20 40 34 29 26.9 30 26.9 6 7.1 45.8
 2

Table 5. Data on the computation of the tower characteristic with low air velocity

TEMPERATURE
Hw Ha Hw-Ha 1 / Hw-Ha
(deg. F)
99.5 70.855 42.78481
99.95 71.6425 43.5139417 28.1285583 0.03555106
101.3 74.1285 45.7013369 28.4271631 0.03517762
102.2 75.809 47.1596003 28.6493997 0.03490475
103.55 78.43475 49.3469955 29.0877545 0.03437873
104 79.31 50.0761272
SUM 0.14001215

Table 6. Data on the computation of the tower characteristic with high air velocity

TEMPERATURE
Hw Ha Hw-Ha 1 / Hw-Ha
(deg. F)
99.2545455 70.4254 42.78481
99.7045455 71.2129 43.5139417 27.6989583 0.03610244
101.054545 73.6756 45.7013369 27.9742631 0.03574714
102.2 75.809 47.1596003 28.6493997 0.03490475
103.55 78.4348 49.3469955 29.0878045 0.03437867
104 79.31 46.6293227
SUM 0.141133

Table 7. Data on the computation of the tower characteristic with low water flowrate

TEMPERATURE
Hw Ha Hw-Ha 1 / Hw-Ha
(deg. F)
99.1727273 70.2822 42.78481
99.6554545 71.1271 43.1758897 27.9512103 0.03577663
101.103636 73.7661 44.349129 29.416971 0.03399398
102.069091 75.5542 45.1312885 30.4229115 0.03286996
103.517273 78.3711 46.3045277 32.0665723 0.03118512
104 79.31 46.6956074
SUM 0.1338257
 3

Table 8. Data on the computation of the tower characteristic with high water flowrate

TEMPERATURE
Hw Ha Hw-Ha 1 / Hw-Ha
(deg. F)
97.2909091 67.0564 42.78481
97.7736364 67.8553 43.1758897 24.6794103 0.04051961
99.2218182 70.36815 44.349129 26.019021 0.03843342
102.069091 75.5542 45.1312885 30.4229115 0.03286996
103.517273 78.3711 46.3045277 32.0665723 0.03118512
104 79.31 45.0138545
SUM 0.14300811

Table 9. Data on Computed Range, L/G, and KaV/L on different air and water flowrates

AIR FLOWRATE WATER FLOWRATE

PARAMETERS
Low High Low High
Range 4.5 4.7455 6.7091 4.8273
L/G 1.6203 0.8101 0.3322 0.8101
KaV/L 0.1575 0.1674 0.2398 0.1615
 4

VII. CERTIFICATE OF CONTRIBUTION

This is to certify that the following members of Group 3 Section 3L of ChE 156 2nd

Semester AY 2018-2019 have contributed in the conduct of this exercise through Pre-Lab

Preparation, Laboratory Experiment and Post-Lab Report.

NAME CONTRIBUTION SIGNATURE

Introduction (Principles and

ACDA, Joab C. Relevant Equations), Summary and
Conclusions, Drying proper, Timer

DIMAPILIS, Orion Arlenus Introduction (Principles),

P. Appendices, Calculations, Drying
proper, Timer

Materials and Methods, Results

GALLANO, Jerico V.
and Discussion, Drying proper,
SUPERVISOR
Timer

Recommendation, Abstract,
LIMPIN, James Matthew P.
Drying proper, Timer