Proceedings of the ASME 2014 Power Conference
POWER2014
ADVANCED COOLING TOWER CONCEPT FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
APPLICATIONS
Sergey Anisimov, PhD, ScD Aleksandr Kozlov ∗, PhD, ScD
Wroclaw University of Technology Gas Technology Institute
Wroclaw, Poland Des Plaines, IL, USA
Mark Khinkis Valeriy Maisotsenko, PhD, ScD
Gas Technology Institute Idalex Corporation
Des Plaines, IL, USA Denver, CO, USA
INTRODUCTION
For the majority of cooling towers installed, of which there are
greater than half a million installed in the U.S., tower design
uses direct evaporative cooler technology where an ideally
enthalpy-neutral process cools the process water stream to a
temperature above the ambient wet bulb. This ambient wet bulb
temperature is the limiting factor for the process cooling. As
such the energy-water connection is clear, these cooling towers
are direct consumers of treated water and their cooling
performance is intimately tied to the process efficiency.
In this paper the authors describe the Advanced Dew-Point
Cooling Tower concept that integrates the indirect evaporative
cooling approach with advanced heat transfer and fluid flow
techniques to significantly improve the operating efficiency of
the process, due to enhanced cooling of the process fluid to
temperatures approaching the ambient dew point. By
modifying the flow path arrangement in conventional heat and
mass exchange packing, that was successfully demonstrated in
other cooling applications, the ambient air is sensibly pre-
cooled in the packing then cooled through direct evaporation,
through integrated staging. Through this integrated sensible-
then-latent cooling of the ambient air stream, the theoretical
limit of the process water cooling is now to the ambient dew
point temperature. Relative to direct evaporative cooling
towers, the advanced approach simultaneously reduces the flow
of humid air rejected and increased the process cooling
potential to sub-wet bulb ambient temperatures, doubly
improving water and energy efficiency. In this paper the
∗
Corresponding Author: Aleksandr Kozlov (aleksandr.kozlov@gastechnology.org)
1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
July 28-31, 2014, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
POWER2014-32020
Paul Glanville, PE
Gas Technology Institute
Des Plaines, IL, USA
Jessica Shi, PhD
Electric Power Research Institute
Palo Alto, CA, USA
authors discuss the results of numerical modeling of the
advanced cooling tower packing over a range of operational and
climate conditions. Conventional packing rearrangement has
been made to experimentally simulate the first order of process
in cooling tower environment. The computational model results
have been verified with respect to air/water temperature in the
tested fills. While not discussed in this preliminary modeling,
the considered flow arrangement aligns process flow with
favorable density gradients, leveraging buoyancy effects where
available.
REVIEW OF COOLING TOWER PERFORMANCE
The most typical cooling tower design uses direct evaporative
cooling technology [1,2]. Used in swamp coolers for air
conditioning, warm and dry air is humidified by spray, often
passing through a fill (wetted surface) to enhance evaporation
and heat transfer, and the latent heat of water vaporization cools
the air. Ideally, this is an adiabatic process in which there is a
direct energy swap of the latent heat of vaporization of water to
sensible cooling of the supply air, and therefore, there is no net
cooling capacity. The theoretical cooling limit is the wet-bulb
temperature (tWB) of the incoming air stream; for this reason,
the wet-bulb temperature of the air entering the cooling tower
determines the minimum operating cooling tower temperature
level. Taking into account actual inefficiencies, this energy
swap is not enthalpy neutral with a sensible-to-latent transfer
ratio of less than 1.0; therefore, in practice, water is cooled to a
temperature higher than the ambient air wet-bulb temperature.
 In general terms, an approach (the difference between the
cooled water temperature and the air wet-bulb temperature)=
less than 3°F to 5°F (1.7°C to 2.8°C) is a practical limit of the
typical cooling tower performance [3]. As a result, typical
cooling towers are most suitable for regions with extremely dry
climates. However, a significant number of the typical cooling
towers in operation in the United States are in locations that are
not optimal for efficient operation (such as the Gulf Coast). The
typical cooling tower process shown in Figure 1 is estimated for
water cooled from 90°F to 72°F (32°C to 22°C), which
corresponds to 75% efficiency of the cooling tower at desired
conditions (as defined below), using standard ASHRAE
psychrometric relationships for air [4]. The evaporation rate
(the percentage of total hot inlet water evaporated) is 1.5%, and
air humidity gain is 0.0162 lb of water per 1 lb of dry air
(0.0162 kg of water per 1 kg of dry air). Because these are
favorable ambient conditions with low air humidity,
performance will degrade as a function of the ambient wet-bulb
temperature.
Tw,e − Tw,o
η=
Tw,e − TWB ,e
Figure 1: Forced-draft typical cooling tower (a) flow
diagram, (b) packing, (c) psychrometric chart
To break through this performance barrier limiting process
cooling to t wb , air in , different technologies have been proposed,
primarily through supplemental water cooling and/or air
precooling. Often supplemental water cooling is achieved with
mechanical refrigeration to chill return water further, however
this in turn adds installation costs and system complexity
(reliability concerns), and does not address water consumption.
Air precooling may offer a greater opportunity with a reduced
energy penalty. In principle, reducing temperature of the
ambient air at a fixed humidity would lead to a reduction of its
wet-bulb temperature and, therefore, the reduction of cooled
water temperature [4]. With cooling to at or below t wb , air e , an
appropriate metric for analysis air precooling is dew-point
effectiveness (DPE) rather than the more typically used wet-
bulb effectiveness (WBE) has typically been used, with both
defined as follows:
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Tdb ,air e − Tdb ,air o Tdb ,air e − Tdb ,air o
of WBE = ; DPE
Tdb ,air e − Twb ,air e Tdb ,air e − Tdp ,air e
Sub-wet-bulb cooling can be achieved through the sensible
precooling of the incoming ambient air before direct
evaporative cooling begins [5]. This takes advantage of the fact
that when a parcel of air is sensibly cooled, the saturated water
vapor pressure decreases, reducing its wet-bulb temperature and
thus increasing its evaporative cooling potential. Incoming air
can be sensibly cooled through several means, including
mechanical vapor compression (direct exchange or indirect
cooling), indirect-direct evaporative staged cooling, energy
recovery from exhaust air, and partial consumption of cooled
water. These four air precooling techniques reviewed are
summarized below, with estimates of evaporative losses and
cooled water temperatures using two different ambient
conditions in Table 1. Estimates are made using standard
calculations [4] and, where noted, assumptions made by other
researchers. The pathways are assumed to be frictionless (no
estimation of pump or fan power), and surface heat loss to the
environment is neglected.
• Mechanical refrigeration. With strictly sensible cooling,
the evaporation losses are the least for precooling with
refrigeration. With parasitic cooling loads at 10% and 20%
of total shown, these represent nontrivial capital,
maintenance, and energy costs (approximately 0.5 kW/ton
[1.986 kJ/kg] of cooling [6]); therefore, this is not typically
a viable option.
• Indirect-direct. Because this technique effectively requires
the use of smaller cooling towers for precooling,
evaporation losses are the largest in comparison. In
addition, for these ambient conditions with relatively large
wet-bulb depressions (30°F and 20°F, respectively), only
moderate cooling temperatures are achieved.
• Waste heat recovery. As noted by Wenger [7], this
technique is useful only in hot, dry climates; therefore, little
cooling benefit is achieved, and an air-side pressure loss is
incurred for mild and humid ambient conditions. In
addition, the process is limited for wide differences in inlet
and outlet water temperatures; these estimates are for 10°F.
Estimates assume a passively managed intermediary heat
transfer system (such as a heat pipe). A pumped system will
incur added cost and energy penalty. The assumed recovery
efficiency (ηR) is defined as the ratio of recovered
(precooling) to available exhaust heat.
• Air precooling with cold basin water. In terms of the
precooling techniques described, this method provides the
most effective cooling and minimized evaporation losses
(compared to mechanical refrigeration); however, it
requires a nontrivial amount of cooling tower load, between
20% and 30%. Thus, in effect, this method of cooling
requires that the tower be oversized between 30% and
50%. In addition to the cost of the necessary water pumps,
air-to-water heat exchangers, and the necessary upsizing of
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 the fan, the oversized tower requires a significant initial
capital investment.
ADVANCED COOLING TOWER CONCEPT
An enabling technology to address these performance issues of
evaporation losses and cooled water temperatures while
simultaneously providing integrated plume abatement, the
thermodynamic Maisotsenko cycle (M-cycle) has broken the
limit of the ambient wet-bulb temperature for evaporative
cooling [5]. It has clearly demonstrated for air conditioning
applications that a compact, integrated heat- and moisture-
exchange process can effectively cool a moist air stream to a
level below the ambient wet-bulb temperature (with
substantially lower water and energy consumption
requirements). Researchers have estimated that water and
process air (fan power) reductions of 45% and 74%,
respectively, compared to indirect-direct technologies, are
feasible with this method [8]. In this case, it is not absolutely
necessary to precool the incoming air outside the fill or to use
any multistage cooling to achieve the dew-point temperature
level that often is achieved by using supplementary vapor
compression refrigeration. Instead, the air flow can be specially
arranged in the fill to be precooled by evaporating water, which
is what drives this novel cycle.
As proposed in the advanced dew-point cooling tower
(ADPCT) concept, it is feasible to achieve the benefits of
integrated precooling-cooling tower operation in a compact
heat-and-mass exchanger that is capable of effective heat-and-
mass transfer and, in some designs, integrated plume abatement.
Figure 2 shows the integration of vertical dry precooling and
wet direct evaporative channels in a unique flow arrangement
[9, 10].
Warm water
Air
Air
Air
Steam
Condenser
Cooled water
Figure 2: Advanced Dew Point Cooling Tower Concept
An energy and exergy analysis has been applied for the first
time to the evaluation of the ADPCT based on the M-cycle
process [11]. This analysis was conducted in terms of exergy of
the system components as well as exergy of the overall system.
For all air streams in the cooling tower the chemical, thermal
and mechanical exergies are considered separately.
The following assumptions have been made:
• the DPE of the M-cycle process is assumed to be equal
80%
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
• the isentropic efficiency of the cooling tower fan is equal
75%
• relative humidity of ambient (inlet) air is 60%
• the effect of the cooling tower drift is negligible
• pressure losses are 2.5% within the dry channel and 3.5%
within the wet channel of ambient air total pressure
The value of energy efficiency (or coefficient of performance –
COP) of the advanced cooling tower is estimated and equal
0.86 at 2.2% of the cooling tower evaporation rate.
For the exergy analysis the ambient air conditions are set as the
reference (initial) state of the system. Chemical and physical
exergies associated with each air stream in the cooling tower are
considered separately. A further splitting of the physical exergy
into its thermal and mechanical components was also made
[12].
The exergy efficiency of the cooling tower itself (without
considering the air fan) is estimated in the range that
corresponds to gas-gas heat exchangers. The overall exergy
efficiency is 3.5%. This value is not surprisingly low. For
comparison, the overall exergy efficiency of compression
refrigeration systems is in the range of 3%-25%. The values of
the pressure drop assumed in the process significantly affect the
exergy efficiency so that reducing the pressure drop would
essentially improve exergy efficiency. If the exergy analysis is
conducted in terms as “exergy output” and “exergy input” then
the exergy efficiency will be 29%. In order to improve the
overall efficiency of the system, the exergy of all streams (air
and water) should be as high as possible.
ACTC MODEL DEVELOPMENT
To estimate heat and mass exchange within the ADPCT to go
beyond the idealized estimates of the previous section, a model
is developed to describe heat and mass transfer within the fill.
Air
Several geometries of the advanced cooling tower fill have been
selected for numerical analysis, namely cross flow, parallel
counter current flow, and parallel cocurrent flow. The
mathematical model domain for cross flow configuration is
shown in Figure 3.
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 ∂tw ∂t  ∂t r ∂x 
Gw + W1 1 − W2  2 + w 2 2 + Ψ ′2 ( t2 ,x2 ,tw′ 2 ) =0
∂Y ∂X  ∂X c p 2 ∂X 

The following correction is required due to change of air

temperature in wet channels when evaporated water is mixed
with air.
c  ∂x
Ψ ′2 ( t2 ,x2 ,tw′ 2 ) =
−  pv  ( tw′ 2 − t2 ) 2
c  ∂X
 p 2

6) System of sensible heat-balance equations near the wall

Figure 3: Mathematical Model Domain of the ADPCT Fill surfaces of dry and wet channels (to determine channels
walls temperatures t p1 and t p 2 ).
The following major balance equations were employed for the
modeling of the advanced dew-point cooling tower fill:
  δ  2 
1) Heat balance equation for air stream in dry ribbed channels α1 ( t p1 − t1 ) 1 − rib1  + th ( mrib1hrib1 ) 
(taking into account sensible heat only):   srib1  mrib1srib1 
 δ   
∂t1 2   λp 
= NTU1* ( t p1 − t1 )  1 − rib1  + th ( mrib1hrib1 )  +   ( t p1 − t p 2 ) = 0
∂X  srib1  mrib1srib1   δp 
2) Mass-balance equations for moisture in air stream in wet 
 λ p  t − t + α t − t =
 δ p  ( p 2 p1 ) w2 ( p 2 w2 )
channels 0
 
∂x2  1 
− NTU*2 
=  σ p 2 ( x ′p 2 − x2 )
∂X  Le 2  The following assumptions and correlations are used:

3) Sensible heat-balance equation for air stream in wet tw′ 2 ≈ tw 2

channels
rw =( ro − 2.38 ⋅ 103 tw ) , J kg

∂t2  c  ∂x  =ro 2.501 ⋅ 106 , J kg

− NTU*2 ( t ′p 2 − t2 ) +  pv  ( t ′p 2 − t2 ) 2 
=
∂X  c p 2 ∂X  p v ,sat
 x v ,sat = 0.622
Pb − p v ,sat
4) Mass-balance equation for water in wet channels
Initial conditions for thermodynamic parameters of air and
∂Gw ∂x water flows at inlets of corresponding channels are as follows:
= G2 2
∂Y ∂X
t1 = t1e ; x=
1 x=
1e const ; t=
2 t2=
e t1o
5) Energy-balance equation for water in wet channels,
X =0 ; X= 0 ÷ 1 ; X =1
describing heat transfer from water to air in dry and wet
channels and evaporation of water in wet channels. Y= 0 ÷ 1 Y= 0 ÷ 1 Y= 0 ÷ 1

 rw 2 − c pv 2   ∂x x= x= x= x1e tw = twe G
= G= 1,0
∂tw ∂t1 ∂t2 2 2e 1o w we
Gw + W1 − W2 − W2 
 
 ( t w 2 − t2 ) 
′ 2
0
=
X =1 ; X= 0 ÷ 1 ; X= 0 ÷ 1
∂Y ∂X ∂X  c p 2   ∂X
Y= 0 ÷ 1 Y =0 Y =0

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

   • Air temperatures shown in Figure 5 primarily show a
2 2α1
mrib1 =   mirror image to water temperatures in Figure 4. Near the
 λrib1δ rib1 + 2 ( λmet )rib1 (δ met )rib1  air inlet and outlet, as one approaches the top of the domain
( X = Y = 0), the dry bulb temperature of dry channel air
The model is made dimensionless with the following drops below the wet channel air, showing the impact of
relationships: initial sensible heating by the 40°C water. This limits
cooling and evaporative performance, thus presenting a
challenge to sizing of channel pathways and material
α1F1 α1F1 α 2 F2 α 2 F2
NTU
= 1* = ; NTU
= 2* = selection while restricting performance in unfavorable, but
G1c p1 W1 G2c p 2 W2 common, operating conditions where twe > t1e.
Gw = Gw Gwe ; G2 = G2 Gwe
W1 = G1c p1 ; W2 = G2c p 2 ; Ww = Gwcw
Wwe
= = Gwecw ; W1 (=
G c ) (G c )
1 p1 we w W1 Wwe
W2 (=
G c ) (G c )
2 p2 we w W2 Wwe

PRELIMINARY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The system of equations (1)-(6) is a system of partial derivative
equations with ill-defined initial boundary value conditions. A
modified method of Runge-Kutta has been used to solve the
system of equations [13]. The shooting method has been used
for solving the boundary value problem by reducing it to the
solution of an initial value problem [14].
A summary of preliminary results for the ADPCT fill in a cross
flow configuration is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Considering water and air temperatures separately:
• Water temperature is shown with respect to X and Y relative
coordinates. The process water is coldest where the air
transitions from dry to wet channel, corresponding to the
coldest air within an “M-Cycle” process. As the water
descends in the Y coordinate, the cooling rate drops along
the air path within the wet channel from X = 1 to 0.
Figure 5: Modeling Results for Air Temperature in Dry (t1)
and Wet (t2) Channels
CONCLUSION
Compared the baseline cooling tower (Figure 1), which cooling
of the inlet water is limited to above the inlet air wet bulb
temperature, the preliminary ADPCT results of Figure 4 and
Figure 5 show improvement at the transition from the dry to wet
channel, where the water is cooled to the incoming wet bulb
temperature, tWB,e = 20°C, for a comparable evaporation loss.
With the concept presented and framework described, the
project team will continue to investigate alternative ADPCT
flow arrangements (e.g. parallel counter current flow) with
guidance from a prior literature review [15], to demonstrate
improved performance compared to the alternative methods
presented in Table 1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the Electric Power
Research Institute for providing the funding assistance to this
challenging work under Technology Innovation Water
Conservation Program [Contract EP-P41748/C18320].

NOMENCLATURE
Figure 4: Modeling Results for Water Temperature in Wet
Symbols
Channel
cp Specific heat (J/kgK)

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 dh Specific enthalpy difference, dry air basis (kJ/kgDA) REFERENCES
F Surface area, m2 [1] Detlev G. Kroger, 2004, “Air-Cooled Heat Exchangers
G Mass flow rate (kg/s) and Cooling Towers: Thermal-Flow Performance Evaluation
h Height (m) and Design (Vols. 1–2)”. Pennwell Corp., Tulsa, OK.
l length (m) [2] B.A. Qureshi and S.M. Zubair, 2006, “A Complete Model
mrib1 Dry channel rib’s temperature coefficient (1/m) of Wet Cooling Towers with Fouling in Fills,” Applied Thermal
rw Latent heat of vaporization of water (kJ/kg) Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 16, pp. 1982–1989.
s Rib pitch
[3] Hensley, J.C. editor. 2009, “Cooling Tower Fundamentals:
T Temperature (K)
Second Edition”, SPX Cooling Technologies, Overland Park,
t Temperature (°C)
KS.
V Volumetric flow rate (kL/min)
[4] ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals. ASHRAE, Atlanta,
W Specific heat capacity (W/K)
GA. 2009.
x Moisture content (kg/kg)
X Longitudinal axis in dry channel (parallel to air flow) [5] Gillan, L., Glanville, P. and Kozlov, A., 2011,
Y Axis parallel to water flow in wet channel “Maisotsenko-Cycle Enhanced Cooling Towers”. Proceedings
Z Axis parallel to rib direction of the 2011 Annual Conference of the Cooling Tower Institute.
[6] Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute standard ARI
α Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2·K) 550/590, 2011 “Performance Rating of Water Chilling Packages
β Mass transfer coefficient (kg/m2·s) Using the Vapor Compression Cycle”.
δ Thickness (m) [7] Wenger, J., 2010, “Enhanced Cooling Tower for Colder
η Efficiency Water, Energy Savings and Reduced Evaporation,” in
λ Thermal conductivity (W/mK) Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Conference of the Cooling
σ Fill surface incomplete wetting coefficient, σ∈(0,1) Tower Institute, Houston, TX.
φ Relative humidity [8] P. Glanville, A. Kozlov, and V. Maisotsenko, 2011, “Dew
Point Evaporative Cooling: Technology Review and
Non-dimensional Parameters Fundamentals,” in Proceedings of the 2011 ASHRAE Winter
Meeting.
DPE Dew point effectiveness: Defined in text
[9] V. Maisotsenko et al. Soviet Union Certificate of Invention
Le Lewis number: Le = α ( β c p )
620745, 1978 “Device for Indirect Evaporative Cooling of Air”.
NTU Number of heat transfer units: Defined in text [10] V. Maisotsenko et al. U.S. Patent 6854278, 2005, “Method
WBE Wet bulb effectiveness: Defined in text of Evaporative Cooling of a Fluid and Apparatus Therefor”.
X Relative x-coordinate: X = X l X
[11]. Morozyuk T., Tsatsaronis G., Maisotsenko V., and
Y Relative y-coordinate: Y = Y lY KozlovA. “Exergetic Analysis of a Maisotsenko-Process-
Enhanced Cooling Tower”, Proceeding of the ASME 2012
Z Relative z-coordinate: Z = Z hrib
International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition,
Subscripts IMECE 2012, Nov. 9-15, 2012, Houston, Texas, 6 pp.
1 Air flow in dry channels [12] Morozyuk T., Tsatsaronis G., 2008, “New approach to the
2 Air flow in wet channels exergy analysis of absorption refrigeration machines”, Energy.
b Atmospheric pressure The International Journal, 33, pp. 890-907.
DB Dry bulb [13] Atkinson, K. A. 1989, “An Introduction to Numerical
DP Dew point Analysis” (2nd ed.), New York: John Wiley & Sons.
e Inlet
[14] Press, W.H.; Teukolsky, S.A.; Vetterling, W.T.; Flannery,
o Outlet
B.P. 2007. "Section 18.1. The Shooting Method". Numerical
met Metal plate
Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (3rd ed.). New York:
p Fill plate at constant pressure
Cambridge University Press.
R Recovery of waste heat
rib Rib [15] Chudnovsky, Y.; Kozlov, A.; and Glanville, P., 2012,
sat Saturated “Program on Technology Innovation: Review of Advanced
v Water Vapor Cooling Tower Technologies with Reduced Cooled Water
w Water Temperature and Evaporation Losses”. Prepared by the Gas
WB Wet bulb Technology Institute for EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. Report No.
’ Evaporating surface 1026878.
* Plate surface

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 1: Estimates of Evaporative Losses and Cooled Water Temperatures for Current Air-Precooling Techniques

Ambient: 100°F (38°C) DB Ambient: 86°F (30°C) DB

70°F (21°C) WB 66°F (19°C) WB
Air Outlet: 95°F (35°C) Sat. Outlet: 82°F (28°C) Sat.
Precooling Notes Graphical Representation
Method Evaporation Cooled Evaporation Cooled
lb/MBTU Water lb/MBTU Water
(kg/kWh) Temp. (kg/kWh) Temp.

10% of 0.839 67.3°F 0.862 65.4°F

total load (1.299) (19.6°C) (1.334) (18.6°C)
Mechanical
N/A
refrigeration 0.708 58.4°F 0.728 60.8°F
20% of
total load (1.096) (14.7°C) (1.127) (16°C)

1.452 64.3°F 1.391 63.2°F

Indirect-direct
Air Air (2.248) (17.9°C) (2.153) (17.3°C)

4
Cooled
water

75% ηR
and 10°F 1.030 74.8°F
(5.56°C) Warm water (1.594) (23.8°C)
range*
Waste heat Steam
Condenser N/A
recovery [7] 75% ηR
and 4°F Air Air 1.370 67.2°F
(8.67°C) (2.121) (19.6°C)
range* Cooled water

90% DPE
(average 0.944 58.4°F 0.967 58.3°F
28% of
total Warm water (1.461) (14.7°C) (1.497) (14.6°C)
Air
load)
precooling
Steam
with cold 80% DPE Condenser
basin water (average
Air Air
0.944 62.7°F 0.967 62.9°F
26% of
total Cooled water
(1.461) (17.1°C) (1.497) (17.2°C)
load)
* ηR =Waste heat recovery efficiency

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 11/25/2014 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms