ISSN 00406015, Thermal Engineering, 2013, Vol. 60, No. 6, pp. 426–428. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2013.

Original Russian Text © A.S. Pushnov, 2013, published in Teploenergetika.

STEAMTURBINE, GASTURBINE, AND COMBINEDCYCLE

PLANTS AND THEIR AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT

The Effect the Pressure Drop of Regular Packings Has on the Return
Water Evaporation Cooling Efficiency in Cooling Towers
A. S. Pushnov
Moscow State University of Environmental Engineering, Staraya Basmannaya ul. 21/4, Moscow, 105066 Russia

Abstract—Results obtained from a qualitative analysis aimed at determining the effect the pressure drop
coefficient of regular film, dropletfilm, and droplettype packings has on the efficiency of the return water
cooling process in cooling towers are presented.

Keywords: evaporation cooling, regular packings, process efficiency, pressure drop

DOI: 10.1134/S0040601513060074

Packedcolumn apparatuses relate to the most and the Merkel number is given by
widely used types of heat and masstransfer equip
ment applied in power engineering and in the chemi Ме = AH λ m, (2)
cal industry. One feature in which the absorption pro where the coefficient А characterizes the effect the
cesses in packedcolumn apparatuses differ from the design features of packing have on its cooling capacity,
return water evaporation cooling processes in cooling m–1; λ = qa/ql is the ratio of air and liquid mass flow
towers lies in the values of spraying density ql, which rates, kg/kg; H is the packing block height, m; and m
may differ from each other by a factor of 10–15. Thus, is the exponent characterizing the dependence of bulk
the value of ql typical for absorption and rectification mass transfer coefficient on the variation of air mass
processes is equal to 120 m3/(m2 h), whereas that for velocity.
evaporation cooling is 8–10 m3/(m2 h) [1, 2]. Figure 1 shows the pressure drop coefficient ξ as a
It is obvious that the value of ql has an essential function of air velocity wa for one of filmtype pack
effect on the pressure drop coefficient of packing in ings. We see that at wa ≥ 2.0 m/s this dependence is
the apparatus. In [3], the efficiency of absorption pro selfsimilar in nature. The dependences ξ = f(wa)
cesses as a function of pressure drop across irregular obtained for other regular packings being analyzed
heatandmasstransfer packings ζ was considered have a similar pattern.
taking Type GIAPNZ packing as an example. The By now, the results of many works devoted to study
effect the structure of dumppacking devices has on ing the return water cooling process in different types
the hydrodynamics of packedcolumn apparatuses of regular packings have been published, e.g., [10, 11].
was studied in detail in [4]. Work [9] deals with evaluating the effect of different
factors on the evaporation cooling efficiency and con
Modern regular packings are made in the form of tains the results from an analysis carried out only for
blocks assembled from vertically installed corrugated dropletfilmtype packings [12].
plates the surface of which forms channels of intricate
geometrical shape. Air flow moving in such channels
can be regarded as a constricted turbulent flow near a ξ
rigid surface [5–7]. –1
15
–2
The effect the pressure drop of packings has on the
effectiveness of evaporation cooling depends quite
essentially on the course of masstransfer process. For 10
example, this process in an absorption packedbed
column may be limited by the pressure drop of both
liquid and gas phases [8]. 5
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 wa, m/s
The air phase exerts a limiting influence on the
process of cooling return water in a cooling tower. The
bulk mass transfer coefficient, m3/(m2 h) or kg/(m2 h)
is determined from the following formula [2, 9]: Fig. 1. Pressure drop vs. air velocity for Type 40+6 indus
trygrade packing produced by CHV praha a.s. (Czech
β xv = Aq lλ , (1) Republic). H, m: (1) 1.2 and (2) 1.8.

426
 THE EFFECT THE PRESSURE DROP OF REGULAR PACKINGS HAS ON THE RETURN 427

According to the wellknown statements of turbu A, m–1

lence theory [5, 6], the flow alternation phenomenon
emerges at closetocritical values of the Reynolds
number. The occurrence of this phenomenon entails 1.4
distortion of velocity profiles, and the formula for cal
culating pressure drop takes another form [6]. Obvi 1.2
ously, the inverse statement is also valid: a growth of
pressure drop coefficient points that the flow has
1.0
become turbulized. As is shown in [13, 14], this turbu
lization, accompanied by a growth of pressure drop
and flattening of velocity profile, leads to enhance 0.8
ment of heatandmass transfer processes.
In what follows, we discuss the results obtained 0.6
from a study of the return water evaporation cooling
process in different types of regular packings, includ 0.4
ing film, droplet, and dropletfilm ones. As is rightly
pointed out in [13], application of any method of heat
andmass transfer enhancement entails additional 0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ξ/H, m–1
expenditures of energy. In view of the importance of
(а)
the energy conservation problem, it is of interest to
find out the form of dependence between the evapora A, m–1
tion cooling efficiency and pressure drop. 0.6
Since the flow of liquid phase moving in the volume
of regular packings has specific features for different 0.4
types of packings, it is advisable to carry out an indi
vidual analysis for each of the abovelisted types of 0.2
packings. Such analysis was carried out using the array
of experimental data from [15], in which the results of
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 ξ/H, m–1
experiments carried out with different designs of regu (b)
lar packings are reported. Those experiments were A, m–1
carried out on the same test facility or on facilities with 1.4
approximately the same geometrical dimensions, due
to which there is no need to introduce a scale factor.
Full data on all parameters characterizing the consid 1.2
ered regular packings are given in [11, 15, 16]. The
parameters A and ξ/H were used in carrying out the 1.0
analysis. To exclude the influence of λ, the results of
experiments were compared at λ = 1.
0.8
The dependences A = f(ξ/H) for different types of
packings are shown in Fig. 2.
0.6
As the pressure drop coefficient ξ/Н increases from
1 to 14, the coefficient А for filmtype packings
increases from 0.35 to 1.32, i.e., by a factor of 3.8 (see 0.4
Fig. 2a).
As the pressure drop coefficient ξ/Н increases from 0.2
3.5 to 17, the coefficient А for droplettype packings
increases from 0.2 to 0.65, i.e., by a factor of 3.2 (see
Fig. 2b). The dependence A = f(ξ/H) for this group of 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 ξ/H, m–1
packings has the same pattern as that for filmtype
(c)
packings; namely, the coefficient А shows a monotonic
growth as the pressure drop coefficient increases from
3.5 to 17.
As the pressure drop coefficient ξ/Н increases from
2 to 16, the coefficient А for dropletfilm packings Fig. 2. Dependence A = f(ξ/H) for regular packings of film
(a), droplet (b), and dropletfilm (c) types. Points are for
increases, as in the case of droplettype packings, from experimental data and curves represent the approximation
0.30 to 0.93, i.e., by a factor of 3.1 (see Fig. 2c). How of experimental data carried out by the author. Experimen
ever, as the pressure drop coefficient ξ/Н increases tal data: (a) from [2, 5, 7, 8], (b) [6, 8], and (c) [4–14].

THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 60 No. 6 2013

428 PUSHNOV
further from 16 to 26, the coefficient А decreases to
some extent (by 19%).
CONCLUSIONS
(1) A sustained growth of evaporation cooling pro
cess efficiency is typically observed for all considered
types of regular packings as the value of ξ/Н increases
from 2 to 14. This growth amounts to 380, 325, and
310%, respectively, for packings of the film, droplet,
and dropletfilm types. This result indirectly confirms
the conclusion that was drawn earlier in [2]: filmtype
packings are the most efficient design solution for real
izing evaporation cooling.
(2) The parameter ξ/Н, which characterizes the
effect of design features and type of packing on the
cooling capacity, typically exerts a more essential
influence on the coefficient A at higher values of the
pressure drop coefficient.
(3) A growth of the relative pressure drop coeffi
cient ξ/Н in the range from 2 to 16 leads to an essential
increase of the coefficient А for all types of packings.
(4) The obtained results can be used in designing
new packings only for estimating the effect of the rel
ative pressure drop coefficient ξ/Н on the efficiency of
the return water evaporation cooling process in a cool
ing tower.
(5) The regularities pertinent to the effect the pres
sure drop of regular packing has on the return water
evaporation cooling process efficiency that have been
established in this study are in qualitative agreement
with the tendencies that were revealed earlier in [12]
for regular dropletfilm packings and are consistent
with the statements set out in [17] about the design
methods for enhancing heat and mass transfer in
opentype apparatuses.
REFERENCES
1. A. G. Laptev and M. I. Farakhov, Hydromechanical
Processes in Petrochemistry and Power Engineering.
A Handbook on Calculation of Apparatuses (Kazan
Univ., Kazan, 2008) [in Russian].
2. V. S. Ponomarenko and Yu. I. Aref’ev, Cooling Towers
for Industrial and Power Facilities: a Handbook, Ed. by
V. S. Ponomarenko (Energoatomizdat, Moscow, 1998)
[in Russian].
3. A. M. Kagan, A. S. Pushnov, and L. A. Yudina, “On a
Correlation between the Pressure Drop of Irregular
HeatandMassTransfer Packings and Their Effi
ciency,” Khim. Promyshl. 88 (2), 75 (2011).
4. A. S. Pushnov and A. M. Kagan, Structure and Hydro
dynamics of Tower Apparatuses. An Introduction to
Chemical Engineering (Polytechn. Univ., St. Peters
burg, 2011) [in Russian].
5. J. O. Hinze, Turbulence. An Introduction to Its Mecha
nism and Theory (McGrawHill Book Co., New York,
Toronto, London, 1959; Gos. Izd. FizMat. Lit, Mos
cow, 1963).
6. L. G. Loittsyanskii, Fluid Mechanics, a revised and
extended 4th ed. (Nauka, Moscow, 1973) [in Russian].
7. A. S. Pushnov and A. M. Kagan, Structure and Hydro
dynamics of Tower Apparatuses. An Introduction to
Chemical Engineering (Polytechn. Univ., St. Peters
burg, 2011) [in Russian].
8. I. A. Gil’denblat, N. M. Gurova, and V. M. Ramm,
“The Influence of Spraying in Packed Absorbers on the
Mass Transfer Efficiency in the Liquid Phase,” Khim.
Promyshl., No. 4, 219 (1969).
9. V. A. Kalatuzov, “Calculation Dependences for Cool
ing Tower Sprayers,” Energosber., Vodopodg., No. 1
(69), 62–66 (2011).
10. G. B. Dmitrieva, Hydrodynamics and Mass Transfer in
Structured Packings Composed of Corrugated Sheets,
Candidate’s Dissertation in Technical Sciences
(MGUIE, Ivanovo, 2007).
11. A. S. Ryabushenko, Hydrodynamics and Evaporation
Cooling in Packings for Cooling Towers, Candidate’s
Dissertation in Technical Sciences (MGUIE, Moscow,
2009).
12. A. S. Pushnov and N. P. Lozovaya, “Pressure Drop of
Regular Packings and Efficiency of Evaporation Cool
ing Processes in Cooling Towers,” Energosber.,
Vodopodg., No. 3, 36–37 (2011).
13. A. G. Laptev, Boundary Layer Models and Calculation
of HeatandMass Transfer Processes (Kazan. Univ.,
Kazan, 2007) [in Russian].
14. S. V. Alekseenko, D. M. Markovich, and A. R. Evseev,
“An Experimental Study of Liquid Distribution in a
Column Containing Structured Packings,” Teor. Osn.
Khim. Tekhnol. 41 (4), 442–448 (2007).
15. A. M. Kagan, A. S. Pushnov, M. G. Berengarten, et al.,
“Performance Characteristics of IndustryGrade Pack
ings for Evaporation Cooling of Return Water in Cool
ing Towers,” Khim. Neftegaz. Mashinostr., No. 7, 11–
13 (2009).
16. A. M. Kagan, A. S. Pusjnov, and A. S. Ryabushenko,
“Comparing the Efficiency of IndustryGrade Pack
ings for Evaporation Cooling of Return Water in Cool
ing Towers,” Khim. Promyshl. Segodnya, No. 4, 44–48
(2007).
17. A. G. Laptev, N. A. Nikolaev, and M. M. Basharov,
Methods for Enhancement and Simulation of Heat and
Mass Transfer Processes: a Handbook (Teplotekhnik,
Moscow, 2011) [in Russian].
Translated by V. Filatov
THERMAL ENGINEERING Vol. 60 No. 6 2013