Vol. 11(22), pp.

306-320, 30 November, 2016

DOI: 10.5897/IJPS2016.4565
Article Number: 18FBFB161635 International Journal of Physical
ISSN 1992 - 1950
Copyright ©2016 Sciences
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
http://www.academicjournals.org/IJPS

Full Length Research Paper

Thermo-economic study of hybrid cooling tower

systems
Sonia Parsa1, Hossein Shokouhmand2*, Amirmohammad Sattari2, Mohammad Nikian1 and
Fatemeh Entezari Heravi2
1
Islamic Azad University of Takestan, Iran.
2
School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Received 19 September, 2016; Accepted 13 October, 2016

In this paper, the effects of ambient temperature and relative humidity on performance of wet, dry, and
two combined cooling systems are studied for a typical 250 MW power plant in Hamedan, Iran.
Although there have been many works in background of effects of different parameters on performance
of cooling towers, there is no detail analysis about different alternatives of hybrid cooling systems due
to the water consumption. In this study, four alternatives were considered for the cooling system: wet,
dry, and two combined wet and dry cooling systems. One of the hybrid systems demanding only half of
the cells of the existing wet cooling system so has a limitation for water consumption. Another one has
no limitation for utilizing all of the cells of the existing wet cooling towers and as a result does not have
any limitation for water consumption. Investigating mentioned cases are significant due to the lack of
water in middle-east countries. Also, by means of monthly profiles of ambient temperature, the amount
of annual power loss is computed for each case. The water consumption for each case, is computed as
well. Finally, the best alternative was determined by computing both the capital and annual costs, and
annual water consumption.

Key words: Wet cooling tower, dry cooling tower, hybrid cooling tower, power plant, economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

Cooling towers are among the most important heat transfer approach, wet, dry, and combined cooling
components of power plants. They are utilized to reduce towers. Wet cooling towers operate upon evaporative
the augmented temperature of water in power plants and cooling. The working fluid and the evaporated fluid are
return the cold water into the main plant cycle. Cooling the same in these towers. Dry cooling towers operate
agent in these towers can be either air or water that, with with a surface that intercepts the working fluid from the
either direct or indirect contact, reduces the temperature ambient air, which is used for convective heat transfer.
of hot water coming from the condenser. Cooling towers The dry cooling towers do not use evaporation as a
are classified into three different types based on their means for cooling; therefore, they consume much less

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].

Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 International License
 Parsa et al. 307

water. According to the water shortage problem in Iran, temperature and cross wind on efficiency of cooling
replacement of wet cooling towers with dry ones seems towers. They concluded that effect of outlet water
an attractive approach. So, the influence of different temperature has non-linear and linear relationship with
parameters on the performance of cooling towers is a the wind velocity and the ambient temperature
major issue for designers. respectively. Finally, He et al. (2015) performed
Among different parameters which affect the experimental study on application of two trickle media for
performance of cooling towers, ambient temperature and inlet air pre-cooling of natural draft cooling towers. They
relative humidity are the most influential. So, there are optimized size of trickles which has the less pressure
many works done in this background. In 1946, one of the drop and the highest performance. Another major
first investigation of performance of cooling towers has parameter that affect performance of cooling towers,
been conducted by Simpson and Sherwood (1946). They especially natural-draft cooling towers, is wind that widely
found constants for evaluating coefficient of mass considered in many works (Harnach and Niemann, 1980;
transfer. Berman was the first one who described how the Dachun and Chenxin, 1987; du Preez and Kröger, 1995;
Log-Mean Enthalpy Method (LMED) may be applied to Su et al., 1999; Al-Waked and Behnia, 2004; Ke and Ge,
cooling tower design (Berman, 1961). Besides, Moffat 2014). Since the mean wind speed of the target site of
(1966), for the first time derived the -NTU equation for a the current research is low, and dry cooling system is one
counter-flow cooling tower. Furthermore, Jaber and of the alternatives of this research, effect of wind speed is
Webb (1989) developed the -NTU design method for not considered.
cooling towers. They presented sample calculations for Another topic that attracted many attentions is to
counter and cross-flow cooling towers. Also, the authors utilizing saline water in cooling tower systems. For
summarized the LMED method introduced by Berman, instance, Kinnon et al. (2010) showed that NaCl is the
and show that this is totally consistent with the  -NTU main salt in the saline water from coal-bed methane
method. Bernier (1995) reviewed the heat and mass production. Sadafi et al. (2015a) monitored the saline
transfer processes in cooling towers. He also presented a water droplet size at different ambient conditions using
practical correlation for evaluating water evaporation rate microscope digital camera. They showed that for 500 µm
affiliated with mass transfer at the water-air interface. In radius droplets with 3 and 5% initial NaCl mass
other research Söylemez (2004), for the first time concentrations the net energy required to evaporate the
optimized the water to air mass ratio for counter flow droplet falls by 7.3 and 12.2%, respectively (compared to
cooling towers that included the ambient pressure and a pure water droplet). Also, in a subsequent study, Sadafi
average of tower and basin temperature of cooling towers (2015b) investigates the performance of saline water,
in detail. Muangnoi et al. (2008) investigated the compared to pure water in spray cooling and
influence of temperature and humidity on performance of demonstrates the existence of several advantages.
counter-flow wet cooling towers by using exergy analysis In the current research, four cases are considered for
and finally by utilizing optimization methods, best the cooling system of a typical power plant, with a
temperature and humidity for achieving the highest nominal capacity of 250 MW placed in Hamedan city in
efficiency were computed. Also, Lucasa et al. (2010) due Iran. These cases are utilizing wet cooling towers, dry
to disadvantages of the moisture that goes out from cooling towers and two combined wet and dry systems
cooling towers, worked on the effect of psychometric (hybrid systems), which in one case there is a limitation
environmental conditions on the amount of the afore- of using wet cooling towers due to lack of water sources
mentioned moisture. They concluded that by increasing in the region, while there is no limitation in another case.
dry-bulb temperature, the amount of the moisture Utilizing dry and combined cooling systems are important
escaping from the tower declines. In another research, issues due to lack of water in the world, especially in Iran.
Papaefthimiou et al. (2012) studied thermodynamic effect Hence, in the present work, at first, thermodynamics of
of ambient temperature on specifications of the cooling wet and dry cooling towers are studied. Then, the effects
towers. They resulted that by decreasing inlet wet-bulb of ambient temperature and relative humidity on the
temperature, the temperature will be more reduced in the performance of wet and dry cooling towers are
tower; as well as the amount of waste of water. In other investigated. Using profiles of ambient temperature and
work He et al. (2014) investigated the influence of relative humidity of Hamedan power plant, diagrams
environmental conditions and water flow on performance relevant to the performance of wet, dry and combined
of cooling towers with pre-cooled air. They found that cooling towers are extracted. Finally, four mentioned
influence of water flow on performance of cooling towers cases are compared by the economical aspect and the
is negligible. Also, it was concluded that employing this best one is determined.
type of cooling towers, under the conditions of high
ambient temperature and low humidity is very helpful.
And finally the evaporation rate of water in this type of PRESENT MODEL
towers is lower than wet cooling towers. Thereafter Ma et
al. (2015) surveyed the effect of both the ambient In this paper, four alternatives are considered for cooling
308 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Figure 1. Scheme of the present wet cooling tower.

Table 1. General specifications in the design of the wet cooling

tower.

Parameter Value
Number of cells 12
Water inlet temperature 38.2°C
Water outlet temperature 27.8°C
Wet bulb temperature 14.5°C
Maximum air flow rate 889150 (cfm/cell)
3
Quantity of make-up water (at 35% RH) 675.6 (m /h)

system of a typical power plant with 250 MW nominal Geometry and general specifications of dry cooling tower
capacity. These alternatives are of the current work are illustrated in Figure 2 and Table 2
respectively. It should be noted that there is no auxiliary
A) Wet cooling towers system (such as peak coolers) in studied dry cooling
B) Dry cooling towers towers.
C) Wet/dry system with 50% capacity of wet cooling
towers
D) Wet/dry system which in any conditions power plant Case C
work with full load capacity.
In this case, as shown in Figure 3, cooling water, first,
Case A enters a dry cooling tower, and, next, enters a shell and
tube heat exchanger. Half of the present wet cooling
This case contains a series of wet cooling systems towers (6 cells) supply the cooling water of the heat
including twelve wet cooling towers. Dimensions of exchanger. So, in this case, limitation of water
present wet cooling towers and specifications are consumption, due to presence of wet cooling towers,
presented in Figure 1 and Table 1 respectively. confines the accessibility to the full capacity of wet
cooling system (12 cells). So it is expected that, in this
particular case, power losses occur at high ambient
Case B temperatures. It should be noted that the specifications of
wet and dry cooling towers in this case are similar to
In this case, cooling system contains a dry cooling tower. those of cases A and B.
 Parsa et al. 309

Figure 2. Geometry model of the dry cooling tower of the work.

Table 2. General specifications of the dry cooling tower.

Parameter Value
Number of deltas 120
Height of deltas 20 m
Tower height (from base) 120 m
Base diameter of tower 105 m
Upper diameter of tower 65 m
2
Cooler surface 8,000 m
3
Cooling capacity 28,000 m /h

Case D requisite cooling capacity to achieve to the full load

capacity of the power plant (250 MW). It means that in
Difference of this case with case C is that the limitation of higher ambient temperature more cells will be utilized in
make-up water is not considered. So, in case D, at high order to achieve to the desired cooling capacity.
ambient temperature conditions, more wet cooling towers
come into the cooling system and compensate amount of MATHEMATICAL MODELS
power losses which happens in case C. It should be
noted since the dry cooling tower is present in this case, Dry cooling tower modeling
all of the wet cooling towers will not be utilized even at
Governing equations that are utilized in this work for
the high temperatures. So, the amount of water usage in thermodynamic analysis of dry cooling tower are heat transfer in
this case is lower than case A. The number of cells heat exchangers and energy conservation. A brief description of
utilized in any ambient temperature is dependent on the mentioned governing equations is presented in the following.
310 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Figure 3. Schematic of the current combined system.

Heat transfer equations

So:
It is common to use Forgo T60 type heat exchangers in dry cooling
towers. Total heat transfer coefficient includes three different heat 1 1 1 𝑕𝑤 𝑕𝑎
transfer coefficients including convection of internal water flow, = + ⟹𝑈= (6)
conduction from tubes, and convection between air and tubes. So,
𝑈 𝑕𝑤 𝑕𝑎 𝑕𝑤 + 𝑕𝑎 (6)
Equation (1) can be considered for determining the total heat
transfer coefficient. In above equations, total heat transfer was considered for clean
tubes, and effect of fouling has not been not included. For
1 1 1 𝛿 considering fouling, total heat transfer can be modified as Equation
= + + (1) (7).
𝑈 𝑕𝑤 ,𝑖 𝐴𝑖 𝜂𝑕𝑎 ,𝑓 𝐴𝑓 𝐾𝐴𝑡 (1)
1 1
Calculating heat transfer of dry cooling towers based on front = + 𝑅𝑓 (7)
surface is a common approach. So, Equation (1) can be rewritten 𝑈𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑈𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛
as Equation (2). (7)

1 1 1 𝛿 As a result,
= + + (2)
𝑈𝐶 (𝐴𝑓 /𝐴𝑓𝑟 ) 𝑕𝑤 ,𝑖 (𝐴𝑖 /𝐴𝑓𝑟 ) 𝜂𝑕𝑎,𝑓 (𝐴𝑓 /𝐴𝑓𝑟 ) 𝐾(𝐴𝑡 /𝐴𝑓𝑟 )
(2) 𝑈𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛
𝑈𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑡𝑦 = (8)
Considering that dimensions of Forgo T60 heat exchangers are
𝑈𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑅𝑓 + 1
(8)
specified, in order to simplify equations, Equations (3) to (5) are
assumed, Rf is sediment coefficient. For Forgo heat exchangers in dry cooling

𝐴𝑖
systems Rf is considered to be (Know HowDocuments,
𝑕𝑤 = 𝑕𝑤 ,𝑖 𝐴 (3) 1984).
𝑕𝑤𝑤 =
=𝑕𝑕 𝐴
𝐴𝑖 𝑓𝑟
𝑖
(3)
𝑕 𝑤𝑤,𝑖 ,𝑖 𝐴𝑓𝑟 (3) (3) Combining Equations 6 and 8, total heat transfer can be
𝐴𝑓𝑟
1 calculated through Equation 9.
𝑕𝑎 = 1 1
𝑕𝑎𝑎 =
𝑕 = 𝑕𝑤 . 𝑕𝑎
𝑈=
𝑕𝑤 + 𝑕𝑎 + 𝑅𝑓 . 𝑕𝑤 . 𝑕𝑎
(9)
1 𝛿 (4)
1 + 𝛿 (4)
1 + 𝛿 (4) In order to calculate water and air side heat transfer coefficients (hw,
+
𝜂𝑕 𝐴𝑓𝐴𝑓 𝐴 𝐴𝑡 ha), Equation (10) has been presented by the manufacturer of
𝜂𝑕 𝑎 ,𝑓
𝑎 ,𝑓 𝐴𝑓𝐴𝑓𝑟𝐴𝑓𝑟 𝐾 𝐾 𝑡 𝐴
𝐴𝑓𝑟𝑡 𝐴𝑓𝑟 Forgo T60 heat exchangers (Know HowDocuments, 1984)
𝜂𝑕𝑎 ,𝑓 𝐴𝑓𝑟 𝐾 𝐴𝑓𝑟
(4) 0.8
𝑕𝑤 = 317.3 + 2.82 𝑇𝑤𝑖 + 𝑇𝑤𝑜 𝑄𝑜𝑤
𝐴𝑓𝐴𝑓
𝑈
𝑈==𝑈𝑈
𝐶𝐶 (5) (5) 0.64 0.515
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑓
𝑓𝑟 𝑚𝑎 𝜌𝑜𝑎
𝑈 = 𝑈𝐶 𝑓𝑟 (5) 𝑕𝑎 = 1180
𝐴𝑓𝑟 𝐴𝑓 𝜌𝑎𝑚
(5) (10)
 Parsa et al. 311

ma is average air specific mass through a heat exchanger that is The simplified equation would be,
equal to:

𝜌 𝜌 (19)
𝜌 (11)
𝑕
By inserting the Louis factor, 𝑒 𝑕 𝑐 in Equation 19, and a
Energy conservation
little bit simplification, the Equation (20) is obtained.
Forgoing heat losses in plumbing and water transfer route from the
condenser to the tower, heat released from vapor to the cooling 𝑚 𝑑𝑕 𝑚 𝑑𝑊 𝑕 (20)
liquid in condenser is equal to the heat released from cooling tower
𝑕 𝐴 𝑑𝑉 [ 𝑒 𝐶 𝑇 𝑇
water. The released heat from cooling water is equal to the
absorbed heat by the passing air from tower. So, 𝑕 (𝑊 𝑊)]

𝑄 𝑚 𝐶 𝑇 𝑚 𝐶 𝑇 (12) Combining the aforementioned equations, Equation (21) is derived.

𝑄 is released heat from condenser which based on number of 𝑑𝑕 ( 𝑒𝑓 . 𝑐𝑝,𝑎 . 𝑇𝑤 𝑇 + 𝑕𝑓𝑔 ,𝑤 . (𝑊𝑠,𝑤 𝑊))
deltas and pass flow rate from a column can be written as follows: = (21)
𝑑𝑊 𝑊𝑠,𝑤 𝑊
(21)
𝑄 𝑚 𝐶 𝑇 𝑚 𝐶 𝑇 (13)
Again, a simplification would result in derivation of Equation (22).

Wet cooling tower modeling 𝑕 𝑕 𝑐 𝑇 𝑇 𝑕 𝑊 𝑊 (22)

The control volume of a counter flow cooling tower is illustrated in By assuming constant specific heat capacity for air in the preceding
Figure 4. The most important assumptions are summarized as equations, the Equation (23) is obtained.
follows:
𝑕 𝑕 𝑐 𝑇 𝑇 𝑕 𝑊 𝑊 (23)
1) Heat and mass transfer occur only in the perpendicular direction
of the flows. Ultimately, inserting Equation 23 in Equation 22 and succeeding
2) Losses of heat and mass transfer through tower walls are simplifications will result in the Equation 24.
neglected.
3) Mass transfer coefficient is constant all over the tower. 𝑑𝑕 (𝑕 𝑕)
4) The water temperature distribution is uniform in each cross 𝑒 (𝑕 𝑕 𝑒) (24)
𝑑𝑊 (𝑊 𝑊)
section.
5) The tower cross section is constant in every height. Equation 25 indicates the steady state energy balance between the
6) The Louis factor is considered as a variable in the modeling. water and air.
The conservation of mass equation for the entering water into the 𝑚 𝑑𝑕 𝑚 𝑑𝑕 𝑚 𝑑𝑊𝑕 (25)
air in the steady state is indicated by Equation (14).

𝑊 Be careful that the last term in Equation 25 indicates the impact of

𝑚 𝑊 𝑕 𝐴 𝑑𝑉(𝑊 𝑊) 𝑚 [𝑊 𝑑𝑉] (14) water evaporation on the energy equation and 𝑚 represents the
𝑉 mass flow rate of water in any altitude of the tower. Commonly,
In which dV is the control volume element which can be seen in because of the low percentage of water vapor in the air, the
Figure 4. diminution in water flow rate is neglected in the modeling (ASHRAE,
Equation (14) is simplified as, 1975) and 𝑚 𝑚 𝑚 ; However, in the present work, in
order to increase the accuracy of evaluating losses, these changes
𝑚 𝑑𝑊 𝑕 𝐴 𝑑𝑉(𝑊 𝑊) (15) have been considered.

The general energy balance equation of the moist air could be 𝑚 𝑑𝑕 (𝑚 𝑚 𝑊 𝑊 ) 𝑑𝑕 𝑚 𝑑𝑊𝑕 (26)
expressed as Equation (16).
It is clear that dhf,w=Cp,wdTw. By substituting this in Equation (26)
𝑕 and then in Equation 24, Equation 27 is achieved.
𝑚𝑎 𝑕 + 𝑕𝑐 𝐴𝑉 𝑑𝑉 𝑇𝑤 𝑇 + 𝑕𝐷 𝐴𝑉 𝑕𝑓𝑔 ,𝑤 𝑑𝑉(𝑊𝑠,𝑤 𝑊) = 𝑚𝑎 [𝑕 + 𝑑𝑉] (16)
𝑉 (16)
𝑑𝑕𝑓,𝑤 𝑑𝑕 𝑑𝑕𝑓,𝑤 1 (𝑕𝑠,𝑤 𝑕)
(𝑚𝑤,𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑎 𝑊𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑊 ) = 𝑕 ⟹ = 𝑒𝑓 + (𝑕𝑓𝑔,𝑤 𝑕𝑔0 . 𝑒𝑓 ) 𝑕𝑓,𝑤 (27)
After simplification, Equation (16) would be rewritten as 𝑑𝑊 𝑑𝑊 𝑓,𝑤 𝑑𝑊 (𝑚 𝑚𝑎 𝑊𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑊 ) (𝑊𝑠,𝑤 𝑊)
𝑤,𝑖𝑛
𝑚𝑎 𝑑𝑕 = 𝑕𝑐 𝐴𝑉 𝑑𝑉 𝑇𝑤 𝑇 + 𝑕𝐷 𝐴𝑉 𝑕𝑓𝑔 ,𝑤 𝑑𝑉(𝑊𝑠,𝑤 𝑊) (17)
(17) Finally, Equations 28 to 30 will be used for the simulation of the
cooling tower core:
The energy balance for water could be expressed as a function of
heat (hC) and mass (hD) transfer coefficients, 𝑚 𝑑𝑊 𝑕 𝐴 𝑑𝑉 𝑊 𝑊 (28)

𝑑𝑕 (𝑕 𝑕) (29)
𝑒 (𝑕 𝑕 𝑒)
(18) 𝑑𝑊 (𝑊 𝑊)
312 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Figure 4. Control volume for conservation of mass and energy

balance in a counter flow cooling tower.

𝑑𝑕 (𝑕 𝑕) 𝑕 𝐴 𝑉 𝑚
𝑒 𝑇𝑈 | 𝑐 (33)
𝑑𝑊 (𝑚 𝑚 𝑊 𝑊 ) (𝑊 𝑊) 𝑚 𝑚
(30)
(𝑕 𝑕 𝑒) 𝑕 The effectiveness of the cooling tower is defined as the ratio of the
actual energy to the maximum possible energy and is calculated
using Equation (34).
For evaluating the temperature distribution, the Equation (31) is
used. 𝑕 𝑕
𝜀
𝑕 𝑕 (34)
(𝑑𝑕 𝑑𝑊 𝑕 )
𝑑𝑇
𝑐 𝑚 (31) Also, it is necessary to define the non-dimensional temperature
𝑊 𝑊
𝑚 difference, or temperature ratio in the cooling tower literature, as
the ratio of the actual loss to the maximum value through Equation
In the Equations (28) to (31), the coefficient of mass transfer is (34).
unknown. This problem is often resolved using Equation (32).
𝑇 𝑇
𝑕 𝐴 𝑉 𝑚 𝑅 (35)
𝑐 (32) 𝑇 𝑇
𝑚 𝑚
In extracting Equations (14) to (34), it is assumed that there is no
In which 𝑛 and 𝑐 are the experimental coefficients used for the resistance against the heat flow in the air-water interface. In other
tower design. Braun has fitted the curve of the cited n and c. This words, the common interface temperature is assumed to be equal
work has been executed based on Simpson and Sherwood (1946) to the water bulk temperature. In this way, all of the terms in
measurements, for different tower designs operating under design Equations (14) to (34) which have the subscripts (𝑠 𝑤) are
conditions (Braun et al., 1989). The values of c and n in present substituted by (s,int). Jabir and Web assumed that Tw is
model are considered 1.405 and -0.727 respectively based on approximately near to Tint+0.5 (Jaber and Webb, 1989).
Braun work. Figure 5 illustrates both enthalpies of the saturated water-air
mixture and the operating line of the tower as a function of water
By multiplying both sides of Equation (32) in ( ) and temperature. By assuming a low difference between the values of
considering the definition of Number of Transport Units (NTU), the hs,w and hs,int on the saturated line as a linear function, Equation (36)
experimental value of NTU is achieved as Equation (33) represents. could be derived.
 Parsa et al. 313

Figure 5. Water operating line on the temperature-enthalpy diagram, indicating

the effect of 𝐸 𝑕 ⁄𝑕 on the saturated air enthalpy.

𝑕 𝑕 𝑕 𝑕 𝐸 𝑇 𝑇 (36) Effect of ambient temperature

The slope E is calculated utilizing the Equation (37).
The most important parameter that influences per-
𝑕 formance of cooling towers is the ambient temperature.
𝐸 (37)
𝑕 Changes of ambient temperature cause changes in heat
transfer rate of towers. It is clear that the increase of the
Equation (37) could be used to determine the temperature at the ambient temperature generally causes an increase in
interface. For large values of E, interface and bulk temperatures are
approximately equal.
condenser temperature, and, as a result, reduces the
Based on what has been said so far, the term of the average output power of the turbine. Furthermore, performance of
mass transfer coefficient (𝑕 𝐴 ), could be calculated using dry cooling towers is more dependent on ambient
experimental results of Simpson and Sherwood (1946). In the temperature in comparison with wet cooling towers, since
present paper, besides the experimental exit temperatures, the heat release mechanism in wet cooling towers are mostly
water mass transfer coefficient, k’a, and the total heat transfer through evaporation.
coefficient, K’a, have been calculated too. The two aforementioned
coefficients could be correlated through Equation (38)
In order to determine the amount of power loss due to
changes in ambient temperature for each case in
𝑕 𝑕 Hamedan power plant, the following steps have been
(38)
𝑕 𝑕 𝐾 taken. First, the generated power in a 250 MW power
plant was computed as a function of ambient temperature
By assuming that the interface and bulk temperatures are equal, based on the equations mentioned in the theory
the last two coefficients also would have the same value. The
modeling. The range of temperature is considered
experimental data will hand in the value of the average mass
transfer coefficient, K’a. between 0 and 40°C. Figure 6 illustrated output power of
the power plant versus ambient temperature for four
cases.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION As shown in Figure 6, the augmentation of the ambient
temperature leads to the diminution of the plant’s power
In this work, effects of ambient temperature and relative generation, since the first causes the diminution of the
humidity on the performance and water consumption of a dry cooling tower effectiveness and then the augmen-
power plant for four mentioned cooling systems are tation of the exit water temperature. This augmentation in
investigated for case study of Hamedan Power plant. temperature makes the turbine inlet pressure higher and,
Also, cases are economically compared and the best as a result, lowers its generated power. But as shown in
choice is distinguished. this figure, ambient temperature does not affect
314 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Figure 6. Power generations for mentioned cases as a function of ambient temperature.

45

40

35

30
Temperature(oC)

25

20

15

10

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

Figure 7. Monthly temperature of Hamedan Power plant.

performance of cases A and D, because of the presence plant versus month was collected (Figure 7). Based on
of wet cooling towers. Figures 6 and 7, the annual amount of power produced
As mentioned before, case study of current paper is and that of any month can be calculated.
Hamedan Power plant in Iran. So for calculating the By utilizing Figures 6 and 7, energy production of the
amounts of the annual energy loss due to the ambient power plant for each case versus month can be extracted
temperature, diagram of temperature for Hamedan Power which is shown in Figure 8. As shown in this figure, there
 Parsa et al. 315

Figure 8. Monthly power production due to the ambient temperature of Hamedan power plant for
four mentioned cases.

Table 3. Comparison between energy losses during a year of different methods due to
ambient temperatures.

Case Energy loss during a year (MWh) Annual investment loss ($)
A 0 0
B 186,624 2,799,360
C 174,240 2,613,600
D 0 0

is no power loss in cases A and D since full capacity of air, the more capability of evaporation that causes
wet cooling towers is achieved and evaporation heat increasing of cooling capacity. But in dry cooling towers,
transfer mechanism can supply the amount of heat because of the convective heat transfer mechanism,
transfer required for full capacity power generation of the relative humidity does not have noticeable effect and is
power plant. After these cases, case C has the most considered as a second factor (Mehdi, 2000)
power generation due to its utilization of wet cooling In order to determine the power loss in power plants
towers. Finally, dry cooling towers produce the higher due to changes in relative humidity, first of all, the
back pressure of turbine that, as a result, has more generated power in a 250 MW power plant was
power loss in comparison with other alternatives. computed as a function of relative humidity due to the
So the amount of annual power loss due to the ambient relations mentioned in the theory modeling. The range of
temperature is calculated. By utilizing amounts of power relative humidity is considered between 0 and 1. Figure 9
generation at each case, as well as regarding the cost of illustrated power of power plant versus relative humidity
electricity in Iran that is 15$ per MWh, the amount of total for four cases.
annual investment loss can be calculated too. These As illustrated in Figure 9, and as mentioned before,
results are shown in Table 3. relative humidity does not have noticeable effect on
performance of dry cooling towers. On the other hand,
despite of the presence of wet cooling towers in other
Effect of humidity alternatives, since present wet cooling towers are
including forced-draft fans, lack of heat transfer can be
In wet cooling towers, by increasing relative humidity, the compensated by changing pitch angle of the fans and
efficiency of the system decreases due to mechanism of also more flow rate of the cooling water. So, in these
cooling system which is mainly arising from evaporation. cases power loss is negligible. On the other word,
So, the more decreases in relative humidity of ambient however relative humidity has noticeable effect on
316 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Figure 9. Power generations as a function of relative humidity.

Table 4. Comparison amounts of water consumption between different methods.

3
Case Total annual water demand (m /y) Costs of water consumption ($)
A 11,000,000 1,320,000
B 850,000 102,000
C 1,375,000 165,000
D 2,750,000 330,000

performance of wet cooling towers, in present power cases due to the structure of cases. It is clear that dry
plant, wet cooling towers have been designed in a way cooling towers have the least amount of water
that they can overcome to the relative humidity by consumption and are suitable for places which confront
increasing flow rate of the cooling water and pitch angle the problem of water shortage, even though performance
and speed of the fans. This fact was observed directly and power generation is lower than other cases. Wet
from data sheets of the power plant during the year. But, cooling towers have the most water demand; but their
as discussed before, by increasing relative humidity more performance is the most appropriate for regions that have
circuit water is needed in order to overcome power loss enough sources of water. It was an interesting
and this needs more cooling water in hot days of the comparison with combined cooling system cases. In fact,
year. This is going to be considered in estimating the these cooling systems can be utilized in places that have
amount of water consumption. midrange sources of water and also need high
performance and power generation. Case D has more
annual water demand than case C. Instead, approxi-
Water consumption mately there is no power loss in this case. On the other
hand, in comparison with wet cooling towers, it has lower
Using thermodynamic analysis for Hamedan power plant annual water demand and has the same performance,
in Iran, average annual amounts of water consumption but need more capital cost due to the utilization of dry
for four alternatives was calculated and is shown in Table cooling towers. On the other side, considering that the
4. Amounts of water consumption are different in four water price is 0.12$ per cubic meter in industrial
 Parsa et al. 317

Table 5. Total investment cost amounts of different methods.

Case Capital cost ($) Annual running cost ($)

A 38,514,149 3,999,400
B 18,373,851 2,781,400
C 56,888,000 2,844,400
D 56,888,000 3,174,400

applications in Iran, amount of water consumption cost as The internal rate-of-return (IRR) method solves for the
running cost can be computed for each case that is discount rate for which dollar savings are just equal to
shown in Table 4. dollar costs over the analysis duration; that is the rate for
which the NPV is zero. This discount rate is the rate of
Payback the investment. It is compared to the investor’s
Economic analysis minimum plausible rate of return to specify whether the
investment is favorable. Unlike the preceding three
Utilizing mentioned descriptions and, also, an exact techniques, the internal rate of return does not call for the
investigation of required utilities and instruments of each inclusion of a prespecified discount rate in the calculation;
case, amounts of capital and annual running costs of rather, it solves for a discount rate.
each case was computed. It should be reminded that The rate of return is usually computed by a process of
capital cost of cases C and D are similar due to similarity trial and error, by which diverse compound rates of
of structures and just running costs are different. interest are applied to discount cash flows until a rate is
Cost details of this project consists of the expenditure found for which the NPV of the investment is zero. The
of purchasing requirement equipment and building method has the following procedure: (1) Compute NPV
structures as capital cost, operating and maintenance using Eq. (39), except substitute a trial interest rate for
costs and water demand as running cost. In addition, the discount rate, d, in the equation. A positive NPV
power production sales are considered as income of the means that the IRR is greater than the trial rate; a
work. Capital and annual running costs of different negative NPV means that the IRR is less than the trial
alternatives (for building and operating of cooling rate. (2) Based on the information, try another rate. (3) By
systems) are listed in Table 5. a series of iterations, find the rate at which NPV is zero.
In this study, three commonly methods are applied for In this study, economic analysis was conducted based
economic evaluation: Net present value (NPV), internal on following assumptions in order to render the analysis
rate-of-return (IRR) and normal payback method (NP). A more traceable:
brief mathematical model of them will be presented.
The net present value (NPV) method recognizes the i) Construction time of the project is considered 2 years.
surplus of benefits over costs, where all measures are ii) Operation time of the project is considered 20 years.
reduced for their time value. (If costs exceed benefits, net iii) Inflation is assumed 15% based on reports of Central
damages result). Also, The NPV method is often called Bank of Iran.
the net present worth or net savings method. When this iv) Tax is considered to be 5% of the benefits.
method is applied for measuring a cost-reducing v) Load factor is assumed to be 0.65 for all cases.
investment, the cost savings are the benefits, and it is
often called the net savings (NS) method. NPV from an The above assumptions are based on typical value in
investment, such as an investment is calculated by Iran. Economic analysis results for different alternatives
following equation: are listed in Table 6.
As shown in Table 6, the best choice from the
economic aspect is case B, that is, utilizing dry cooling
𝐵𝑡 𝐶𝑡 towers. On the other hand, negative NPV in case C
𝑃𝑉𝐴1:𝐴2 = (39)
1+𝑑 𝑡 (39) shows that this case does not have economic justification.
𝑡=0
But it should be noted that although dry cooling towers
where NPVA1:A2 is NB, for example present value benefits have the most economic benefit, they have relatively
(savings) net of present value costs for alternative A1 as large power loss, especially in summer times. But, on the
compared with alternative A2, Bt is benefits in year t, other hand, they have the least water consumption
which may be specified to contain energy savings, Ct is among other alternatives. So, it should be considered
costs in year t related with alternative A1 as compared that based on which one of the following parameters,
with a mutually exclusive alternative A2, and d is the power production or water consumption, is more important
reduce rate. in a specific region, the final decision will be different. As
318 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Table 6. Economic analysis results.

Case IRR (%) NPV ($) NP (year)

A 34.44 24,320,072 3.95
B 48.28 17,516,140 3.71
C 20.09 -22,570,974 5.98
D 21.02 3,431,506 5.78

a matter of fact, if a region is faced with lack of water cooling towers under crosswind: CFD study. Int. J. Energy Res.
28:147-161.
sources, like case study of current paper, Hamedan ASHRAE (1975). ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory-
Power plant, it is preferable to use dry cooling towers Equipment, chap. 21, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
alone. But if national power grid needs full load capacity Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta GA,USA.
of the power plant, case D, that is, utilizing combined Berman L (1961). Evaporative cooling of circulating water. Pergamon,
New York 1961.
cooling system that generates full load power, is more
Bernier M (1995). Thermal performance of cooling towers. ASHRAE J.
suitable. For places near water sources like lakes and 1995.
rivers, certainly case A, that is, using wet cooling towers, Braun J, Klein S, Mitchell J (1989). Effictiveness models for cooling
will be the best choice. towers and cooling coils. ASHRAE Trans. 95(2).
Dachun Y, Chenxin L (1987). Wind tunnel simulation of wind effect on a
group of high cooling towers. Acta Mech. Sin. 3(1):36-43.
du Preez AF, Kröger DG (1995). The effect of the heat exchanger
Conclusion arrangement and wind-break walls on the performance of natural
draft dry-cooling towers subjected to cross-winds. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
The cooling towers are among the most crucial Aerodyn. 58(3):293–303.
components of every thermal power plant. Their Harnach R, Niemann HJ (1980). The influence of realistic mean wind
loads on the static response and the design of high cooling towers.
performance directly affects the outlet power and the
Eng. Struct. 2:27-34.
plant efficiency. Although there have been many works in He S, Guan Z, Gurgenci H, Hooman K, Lu Y, Alkhedhair AM (2015).
background of effects of different parameters on Experimental study of the application of two trickle media for inlet air
performance of cooling towers, there is no detail analysis pre-cooling of natural draft dry cooling towers. Energy Convers.
Manag. 89:644-654.
about different alternatives of hybrid cooling systems due
He S, Guan Z, Gurgenci H, Jahn I, Lu Y, Alkhedhair AM (2014).
to the water consumption, to the knowledge of the Influence of ambient conditions and water flow on the performance of
authors. So, in the present work, the effects of the pre-cooled natural draft dry cooling towers. Appl. Therm. Eng. 66(1–
ambient temperature and relative humidity on dry, wet 2):621–631.
Jaber H, Webb RL (1989). Design of Cooling Towers by the
and two cases of combined cooling towers (which Effectiveness-NTU Method. J. Heat Transf. 111(4):837.
designed based on water consumption) performance Ke S, Ge Y (2014). “The influence of self-excited forces on wind loads
were studied. Results showed that the plant power and wind effects for super-large cooling towers.” J. Wind Eng. Ind.
generation generally declines with the increase in the 132:125-135.
Kinnon ECP, Golding SD, Boreham CJ, Baublys KA, Esterle JS (2010).
ambient temperature and relative humidity, which have “Stable isotope and water quality analysis of coal bed methane
matching with pervious works. All of the simulations were production waters and gases from the Bowen Basin, Australia.” Int. J.
executed for a 250 MW plant capacity. Finally, the Coal Geol. 82(3-4):219-231.
amount of water consumption of the dry, wet and hybrid Know HowDocuments (1984). Ref. No. 8428 – LK، 1984، EGI،
Budapest.
towers is evaluated. The results maintained that the need
Lucas M, Martínez PJ, Ruiz J, Kaiser AS, Viedma A (2010). “On the
for the make-up water increases as an outcome of influence of psychrometric ambient conditions on cooling tower drift
augmentation of either ambient temperature or relative deposition.” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 53(4):594-604.
humidity. Finally, by an economic analysis, dry cooling Ma H, Si F, Li L, Yan W, Zhu K (2015). Effects of ambient temperature
and crosswind on thermo-flow performance of the tower under
system was determined to be the best choice, from both energy balance of the indirect dry cooling system. Appl. Therm. Eng.
the economical aspect and the amount of water 78:90-100.
consumption of the case study, Hamedan Power plant in Mehdi RL (2000). Conceptual design of main Heller cooling system,
Iran. “Center of Power Research (MATN)”, Ref. No. ME-04D0-02, 2000,
Iran.
Moffat R (1966). The periodic flow cooling tower: a design analysis.
Standford Univ. 1966.
Conflict of Interests Muangnoi T, Asvapoositkul W, Wongwises S (2008). “Effects of inlet
relative humidity and inlet temperature on the performance of
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests. counterflow wet cooling tower based on exergy analysis.” Energy
Convers. Manag. 49(10):2795-2800.
Papaefthimiou VD, Rogdakis ED, Koronaki IP, Zannis TC (2012).
REFERENCES Thermodynamic study of the effects of ambient air conditions on the
thermal performance characteristics of a closed wet cooling tower.
Al-Waked R, Behnia M (2004). “The performance of natural draft dry Appl. Therm. Eng. 33–34:199-207.
 Parsa et al. 319

Sadafi MH, Jahn I, Hooman K (2015b). Cooling performance of solid Söylemez MS (2004). On the optimum performance of forced draft
containing water for spray assisted dry cooling towers. Energy counter flow cooling towers. Energy Convers. Manag. 45(15-
Convers. Manag. 91:158-167. 16):2335-2341.
Sadafi MH, Jahn I, Stilgoe AB, Hooman K (2015a). “A theoretical model Su MD, Tang GF, Fu S (1999). Numerical simulation of fluid flow and
with experimental verification for heat and mass transfer of saline thermal performance of a dry-cooling tower under cross wind
water droplets. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 81:1-9. condition. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 79(3):289-306.
Simpson WM, Sherwood TK (1946). Performance of small mechanical
draft cooling towers. Refrig. Eng. 52(6):535-543-576.
320 Int. J. Phys. Sci.

Nomenclature

A: Surface area
Af: The outer surface of the pipe
Ai: Inner surface of the tube
At: Average heat transfer area of the tube
Afr: Front surface of the heat exchanger
h: Heat transfer coefficient
ha: External flow heat transfer coefficient (air side)
h C: Convective heat transfer coefficient
h D: Convective mass transfer coefficient
h W: Internal flow heat transfer coefficient (water side)
K: Thermal conductivity of the pipe
: Mass flow rate through a column of heat
exchanger
Total mass flow rate of air
Total mass flow rate of water
Qow: Flow rate of water through a column of heat
exchanger
: Released heat from condenser
R f: Sediment coefficient
Twi: Inlet water temperature
Two: Outlet water temperature
U: Total heat transfer coefficient
Uc: Total heat transfer coefficient based on cold
surface
W: Absolute humidity

Greek symbols

: Thickness of the tube

: Efficiency of the fin and tube
oa: Air specific mass at standard conditions
ma: Average air specific mass through a heat
exchanger.