Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1031–1035

Performance of cool towers under various climates in Jordan

Ali A. Badran∗
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of Jordan, Amman 11942, Jordan
Received 15 December 2002; received in revised form 20 March 2003; accepted 7 April 2003

Abstract

The concept of cool towers, which is a modern version of the historical wind catchers was re-visited. In contrast with the expression of
cooling towers, which usually refers to equipment used to cool the water in power stations, air conditioning plants etc., cool towers are
used to cool the air to provide comfort conditions for occupants. The main driving force for air in cool towers is the difference in density
of air between the inside and outside of the tower. Since the inside air is cooler than the outside, its density is higher and the resulting
density difference creates a reversed chimney effect. This effect translates into the flow of cold air down the tower to the conditioned
space. A new set of criteria for Amman, Jordan was used in this work, which resulted in a realistic performance of the tower. In addition,
the performance of the tower was studied for other climatic regions of Jordan, such as the desert areas, Jordan valley (Ghor) and Aqaba,
where air conditioning is needed most. It was found that under those climates, the height of the tower necessary to create proper air flow
is less than 9 m. This is in contrast to the traditional design which may reach up to 15 m in height. A tower of 4 m height can produce the
equivalent of 1 t of refrigeration.
© 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cool towers; Evaporative cooling; Natural cooling; Wind catchers; Jordan

1. Introduction among which Amman, Jordan was one. He considered

several design criteria, such as wind speed, temperature,
Evaporative cooling is one of the oldest methods used for etc. But, wind speeds chosen by Bahadori (5, 10 and
air conditioning in dry climates. This concept was used in 15 m/s) are considered very high compared to those ac-
old Middle Eastern cities and Gulf states. The application tually existing in Jordan, also summer design conditions
ranged from having the walls and the floor of a room sprayed chosen for Amman, do not actually match the design con-
with water by the occupants, to building special structures ditions stipulated by the National Building Code of Jordan
to bring cold and humid air to the living space. Billington (1988).
and Roberts [1] gave a good description of those structures. Kent and Thompson [3] presented methods for calculating
In Syria, this building element is called Badinge. In Iran it the air flow rate and temperature in those towers. Examples
is called Baud-Geer, in Saudi Arabia and Gulf States it is of their designs for Arizona, Nevada and Saudi Arabia were
called wind catcher. discussed. Recently [4], the concept has been revived as be-
The simplest form of this structure provides sensible ing one of the corrective measures that could be taken to
cooling only. When water is introduced into the system, protect the built environment against “degradation of frag-
evaporative cooling occurs. In many of those structures, ile ecological zones, damage to natural resources, chemical
groundwater seeps through to the inside of the basement pollution . . . ”.
wall of the structure so that the air passing over those walls Also, the concept has been introduced [5] as an ar-
is evaporatively cooled. In those designs, natural down-draft chitectural element in the design of a facility in Cali-
is utilized to produce the necessary air flow from the outside fornia that uses evaporative cooling to reduce its energy
to the inside of the living space. needs.
Bahadori [2] performed full analysis of the design of In this work, the design and performance of cool towers
cool towers. He applied his analysis to several locations, is investigated based on weather conditions and comfort cri-
teria in Amman, Jordan [6]. This criteria is different from
∗ Tel.: +962-6-535-5000; fax: +962-6-535-5588/5522. that previously adopted [2], where higher-than-actual wind
E-mail address: [email protected] (A.A. Badran). speeds were assumed (5, 10 and 15 m/s).

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0378-7788(03)00067-7
1032 A.A. Badran / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1031–1035

Nomenclature
A cross-sectional area of the flow path (m2 )
Cp pressure coefficient
de equivalent diameter (m)
f friction factor
h heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2 ◦ C))
H height of column (m)
k thermal conductivity (W/(m ◦ C))
ṁ mass flow rate (kg/s)
n a constant in Eq. (13)
P pressure (Pa)
P pressure difference (Pa)
Pr Prandtl number
Re Reynolds number
V air velocity (m/s)
w specific humidity (kgv /kga )

Greek letter
ρ air density (kg/m3 )

Subscripts
a air Fig. 1. A cross-section of a typical cool tower.
e exit
i inlet tion, which is evaporative cooling. Water-spraying pipes are
i section number installed at the top of this section to provide evaporative cool-
m mass transfer ing action. The conduits are made of baked, unglazed clay
o free stream condition of circular cross-section with the following specifications:
r room
s smooth duct 1. A wall thickness of about 10 mm, and 10 cm outside di-
t total mensions.
v vapor 2. Wind tower cross-section of 1 m2 .
3. Total number of conduits = 50/m2 of the tower
cross-section.
4. Total heat transfer area of 36 m2 in 1 m height.
2. Theoretical analysis 5. Mass of the 50 conduits (1 m height) = 306 kg.
6. Thermal capacitance of the 50 conduits = 256 kJ/◦ C per
In this work, a certain proposed design [2] for the tower 1 m height of the conduits (1 m3 ).
is analyzed. In locations where wind is predominantly in According to the National Building Code of Jordan [6,7]
one direction, the tower head has only one opening facing and the weather data of the country, the following design
that direction. In areas with variable wind directions the conditions are tabulated for the three climatic zones to which
tower head has openings in all directions. Fig. 1 shows the the country is classified as shown in Table 1.
cross-section of a typical cool tower which has four openings
on top to accommodate wind in all directions. The air flow 2.1. Fluid flow analysis
passages in the tower may have equal or different areas.
Following the analysis previously used, the flow of air and The driving potential of air flow through the cool tower
the resulting pressure drop that occurs along its flow path is the pressure difference between the inlet section of the
may be studied as follows. Air enters the tower at opening 1,
or the windward opening with positive wind pressure coeffi- Table 1
cient, and leaves through any opening which has a pressure Climatic summer design conditions for Jordan
coefficient less than 1. Afterwards, air enters a section of the Dry-bulb Relative Wind speed,
tower at opening 2 where clay conduits fill the tower. In this temperature, humidity, Vo (m/s)
section, most of the air cooling effect occurs. In this part of Tdb (◦ C) φ (%)
the structure, which has been cooled by the environment the Jordan rift valley 38 39 3.5
night before, the hot air looses its heat to the conduit mass. Desert areas 36 32 5
Hilly areas 32 39 4
Another important mechanism of cooling occurs in this sec-
 A.A. Badran / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1031–1035 1033

tower and the door or window through which the air leaves drop through the column, or P23 , was determined using the
the building. friction chart provided for galvanized steel and a correction
The pressure difference may be expressed as factor recommended for a rough column surface [8]. An
Pa = 21 (Cp,i − Cp,e )ρVo2 (1) absolute surface roughness e = 3 mm (as compared with
0.15 mm for galvanized steel) was chosen. This value may
where Cp,i and Cp,e are wind pressure coefficients at the be recommended for rough clay duct [10]. P23 can be
tower head inlet and exit section of the building, Vo the expressed as
wind velocity and ρ the air density. Cp,i is positive and
Cp,e is negative. These coefficients are determined through H V22
P23 = f ρ (11)
experimental studies of cool tower models in wind tunnel de 2
[8]. Values of coefficients may be selected as Cp,i = 0.85
where f is the friction factor obtained from the friction chart,
and Cp,e = −0.17. Hence,
V2 the air velocity in the conduits and de the equivalent
Cp = Cp,i − Cp,e = ∼1 (2) diameter of the conduit. Eq. (11) can be used in conjunction
with Eq. (4) to obtain the values of V1 and V2 .
Following the path of the air flow through the building from
the tower inlet at point 1 to the basement exit (Fig. 1), the
total pressure drop through the whole building is 2.2. Heat transfer and energy storage analysis

Pt = P1 + P12 + P23 + P34 + P46 The average convection heat transfer coefficient for air
+ P67 + P78 + P8e + Pe (3) flowing through a smooth duct or pipe may be obtained [10]
from the equation
where the longest path of air flow was chosen because it

ka
suffers the maximum pressure drop. hs = 0.023 (Re)0.8 (Pr)0.4 (12)
Assuming a constant density for the air as it flows through de
the tower, the continuity equation becomes
where ka and Pr are the thermal conductivity and Prandtl
V1 A1 = V2 A2 = V4 A4 = V5 A5 + V6 A6 (4) number for the air, de the equivalent diameter of the conduit
and Re the Reynolds number. For rough surfaces, one may
and
use the following relation [11–13]
V5 A5 = Vr Ar = Ve Ae (5)

n
h f
In order to simplify the analysis, it may be assumed that = (13)
hs fs
A1 = A4 = A5 = A7 , A8 = Ae = 2A1 , Ar = 9A1 where n is a constant which depends on the nature of the
Then, neglecting pressure drops in the passages were the air surface roughness, and f and fs the friction factors for the
velocities are small, or taking rough and smooth ducts. For sand-grain roughness, n = 0.68
may be used. Selecting n = 0.68 to represent the roughness
P34 = P46 = P67 = P8e = P = 0 of the baked unglazed clay conduits is considered in this
Eq. (3) becomes analysis.
Combing Eqs. (11) and (12), to obtain
Pt = P1 + P12 + P23 + P78 + Pe (6)


0.68
ka f
or h = 0.023 (Re)0.8 (Pr)0.4 (14)
de fs
Pt = 21 Ct ρV12 + P23 (7)
where Ct is the total loss coefficient, accounting for all pres- 2.3. Mass transfer and evaporative cooling analysis
sure loss through all sections (except 2 and 3). Ct was found
to be equal to 5 [9]. Then Eq. (7) becomes Assuming that the surface area of the clay conduit is uni-
formly moist, for a turbulent flow of the air in the conduits,
Pt = 25 ρV12 + P23 (8)
and for air and water vapor at low mass flow rates, the Lewis
For any wind velocity Vo , a flow is maintained in the tower relation gives [10]
and the building so that h
hm = (15)
Pa = Pt (9) Cp,a
or, combining with Eqs. (1), (2) and (8) where h and hm are the heat and mass transfer coefficients
2 ρVo
1 2
= 25 ρV12 + P23 (10) and Cp,a the specific heat of air. The rate of water evaporated
into the air is given by
which can be solved for V1 in terms of the pressure drop
through the column, and a given wind speed Vo .The pressure ṁv = hm Am (w − w) (16)
1034 A.A. Badran / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1031–1035

where Am is the mass transfer area, w the humidity of air

taken as saturated at wall temperature and w the humidity
ratio at free stream conditions.
As air flows through the conduits, water evaporates into
the air stream adiabatically, and the moisture content or hu-
midity ratio of air increases. Dividing the height of the col-
umn into small sections, and assuming a constant moisture
content within each section, the moisture content at the next
section is determined from


ṁv
wi+1 = wi + (17)
ṁa
where i denotes the section number.
The dry-bulb temperature and humidity ratio of air leav-
ing the evaporative cooling column can be determined by
assuming each section to be 1 m high, and to be at a constant
wall temperature equal to the ambient air wet-bulb temper-
ature.

3. Results and discussion

Figs. 2–4 show conditions of air leaving the evaporative

cooling column of the cool tower for the three climatic zones
studied. The common behavior for the three zones is that
relative humidity of air leaving the tower steadily increases Fig. 3. Variation of air outlet velocity, dry-bulb temperature and relative
with the height until a certain value of height (about 9 m) humidity with height of tower column for desert areas.

Fig. 2. Variation of air outlet velocity, dry-bulb temperature and relative Fig. 4. Variation of air outlet velocity, dry-bulb temperature and relative
humidity with height of tower column for hilly areas. humidity with height of tower column for Jordan rift valley.
 A.A. Badran / Energy and Buildings 35 (2003) 1031–1035 1035

is reached. Any further increase in height will not signifi- 4 m height and 0.57 m × 0.57 m cross-section can produce
cantly increase humidity because air approaches saturation. the equivalent of 1 t of refrigeration.
Another common behavior is that both dry-bulb tempera-
ture and velocity of air leaving the tower steadily decrease
with height until the same 9 m height is reached. Any fur- References
ther increase in height will not significantly affect the two
parameters. [1] N.S. Billington, B.M. Roberts, Building Services Engineering: A
Based on this, it is clear that cool towers, the way they Review of its Development, vol. 1, International Series on Building
were built in the past which reached up to 15 m height, Environmental Engineering, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982.
[2] M.N. Bahadori, An improved design of wind towers for natural
were unnecessarily high. Reducing the height down to less ventilation and passive cooling, Solar Energy 35 (2) (1985) 119–129.
than 9 m would have reduced the cost without a noticeable [3] K. Kent, T.L. Thompson, Natural draft evaporative cooling, in: Pro-
reduction in performance. ceedings of the ASES Annual Conference and the 15th National
The height required is, in fact, less than half the above Passive Solar Conference, Austin, TX, 1990.
9 m, especially for Jordan valley and the desert. It can be [4] J. Steele (Ed.), Sustainable Architecture Principles, Paradigms and
Case Studies, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
shown that a tower of 4 m height and 0.57 m × 0.57 m [5] S.S. Mathaudhu, Evaporative cooling in California, ASHRAE Journal
cross-section can produce an air flow of 0.3 m3 /s and 42 (10) (2000) 81–84.
cool it from a dry-bulb temperature of 36 to 25 ◦ C. [6] ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals, ASHRAE, 2001.
This effect is usually produced by about 1 t refrigeration [7] National Building Code of Jordan, Thermal Insulation Code, vol.
13, 1st ed., Ministry of Public Works and Housing, Jordan, 1985.
machine.
[8] National Building Code of Jordan, Mechanical Ventilation and Air
Conditioning Code, vol. 24, part 2, Ministry of Public Works and
Housing, Jordan, 1988.
4. Conclusions [9] M.N. Bahadori, Pressure coefficients to evaluate air flow pattern in
wind towers, in: Proceedings of the International Passive and Hybrid
The objectives of this work were to re-visit, analyze and Cooling Conference, American Section of ISES, Miami Beach, FL,
check the design of traditional cool towers that use evap- 1981, pp. 206–210.
[10] I.H. Shames, Mechanics of Fluids, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
orative cooling and natural down-draft to achieve natural
1988.
cooling under various climates in Jordan. It was found [11] D.F. Dippery, R.H. Sabersky, Heat and momentum transfer in smooth
that, under those climates, the height of the tower neces- and rough tubes at various Prandtl numbers, International Journal of
sary to create proper conditions for providing cool air flow Heat and Mass Transfer 6 (1963) 329–353.
to the living space is less than 9 m. This is in contrast [12] G.A. Kemeney, J.A. Cyphers, Heat transfer and pressure drop in an
annular gap with surface spoilers, International Journal of Heat and
to the traditional design which may reach up to 15 m in
Mass Transfer 83 (1961) 189–198.
height. [13] V. Kolar, Heat transfer in turbulent flow of fluids through smooth
It was also found a much less height than the above is and rough pipes, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 8
necessary to produce a reasonable cooling effect. A tower of (1965) 639–653.