1

VOLUME 8 NUMBER 35 NOVMEMBER 2022

WWW.IACPE.COM
2
 3

Cooling Tower Makeup Water Estimation

Jayanthi Vijay Sarathy

Cooling Towers in Process Industries are part also contains TDS, because of which as the
of Utilities design. As the name suggests their makeup water enters into the system, so
primary purpose is to provide cooling require- does the TDS content increases relative to
ments to industrial hot water from unit opera- the TDS in the system water. Therefore if the
tions & unit processes. Examples include chill- concentration of cycle is 4, then the TDS in
ers and air conditioners. The principle of opera- the CT system is 4 times the TDS in the
tion is to circulate hot water through a tower makeup water supply. Higher cycles of
and allow heat dissipation to the ambient. Cool- concentration allows reducing the makeup
ing towers can operate by natural draft or water quantity for blowdown losses, however
forced draft methods wherein fans are used to this also means increasing the risk of scale
increase heat transfer. Below is a schematic of formation which can cause corrosion.
a cooling tower. GENERAL NOTES
Cooling towers [CT] however experience drift, 1.Cooling Tower Range [R] can be defined as
evaporation losses & blowdown losses. the temperature difference between hot wa-
Evaporation losses pertain to the water lost to ter entering and cold water exiting the sys-
the ambient due to evaporation. tem.
Drift losses refer to water escaping as mist or (2)
tiny droplets and this can be reduced by using
baffles or drift eliminators.
2. Approach [A] can be defined as the
Blowdown losses refer to water with concen- difference between temperature of cold water
trated total dissolved solids [TDS] removed [TC] and ambient dew point temperature
from the system to reduce scaling. As the wa- [TW].
ter evaporates, the TDS concentration increas-
(3)
es, aiding in the formation of scales due to cal-
cium, silica, magnesium, chlorides, etc. As a
result, water needs to be removed from the wa- 3. The cooling tower effectiveness [% Effi-
ter basin at the bottom of the cooling tower. ciency] can be defined as,
(4)

4. The evaporation losses as per Perry’s

Handbook can be evaluated using the empiri-
cal relationship,
(5)

Where,
Figure 1. Cooling Tower Schematic [6]
CE = Evaporation Loss Constant
QC = Circulation Rate [m3/h]
Therefore the makeup water rate, M [m3/h] can
be estimated as, The above empirical expression is based on
the assumption that the rate of evaporation is
(1)
approximately 1% of the circulation flow for
Where, E = Evaporation Losses [m3/h] each 5.560C temperature rise of the Range.
B = Blowdown Losses [m3/h] The value of CE can be taken as 0.85. For
D = Drift Losses [m3/h] more humid climates the value of CE
decreases while CE increases with drier
To quantify the makeup water efficiency of the
atmosphere. Therefore for moist climates, the
cooling tower, a parameter called Concentra-
value of CE can be taken as 0.65 and 1.0 to
tion of Cycle [C], is introduced. Makeup water
1.2 for very arid conditions [2].
 4

8. To improve cooling tower efficiencies, they

can be retrofitted with provisions such as –
Side Stream filtration system to filter out silt
and suspended solids.
9. Water softening systems can also be in-
stalled since the cycles of concentration are
limited by the amount of TDS.
10. Installing a cover on open distribution sys-
tem to reduce sunlight & prevent biological
growth.
11. Chemical Monitoring systems can be in-
stalled to monitor scale and corrosion Float
Control can be added to prevent basin leaks
and overflow.
EXAMPLE CASE
Figure 2. Cooling Tower Range & Approach A forced draft cooling tower operates with a
capacity 1,000 m3/h. The inlet water
5. Alternatively based on a heat balance, the temperature is 400C which requires to be
evaporation losses can be estimated by equat- cooled to 300C. Taking a drift loss percent-
ing the heat removed from the water to the age of 0.2% and number of cycles of 4.0, cal-
heat absorbed by the ambient air. Therefore culate the makeup water requirement. The
the % evaporation becomes,
specific heat of water is taken as 4.179 kJ/
(6) kg.K and the latent heat of vapourization is
2,429 kJ/kg. To estimate using Perry’s Meth-
Taking R = TH-TC od, the correction factor is taken as 0.85. The
dew point temperature at 350C ambient and
(7) relative humidity of 50% is 230C.
The evaporation rate is estimated as, Cooling Tower Range
(8) The Cooling Tower Range [R] is,
(12)
Where, Cooling Tower Approach
Cp = Specific Heat of Water [kJ/kg.K] The Cooling Tower Approach [A] is,
lv = Latent Heat of Vapourization [kJ/kg] (13)
Cooling Tower Efficiency
6. The drift losses [D] can be estimated as a
percentage of the Total circulation rate, i.e., The Cooling Tower Efficiency [%E] is,
Natural draft CT, (9) (14)
Cooling Tower Evaporation Losses
Forced draft CT, (10) The Cooling Tower Evaporation Losses is,
(15)
7. Blowdown Rate is a function of the cycle of
concentration and is expressed as follows,
(11) (16)
Using Perry’s Method, the evaporation loss
The cycle of concentration[ C] is typically kept is,
between 3.0 and 7.0. (17)
 5

Cooling Tower Drift Losses REFERENCES

The Cooling Tower Drift Losses is,
https://www.energy.gov/
(18)
https://checalc.com/solved/ctmakeup.html
Cooling Tower Blowdown Losses https://chemicalengineeringsite.in/cooling-
The Cooling Tower Blowdown Losses is, tower-efficiency-calculations/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-
heat-capacity-water-d_660.html
(19)
Using Perry’s Method, the Blowdown Loss is, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-
properties-d_1573.html
(20)
https://aqua-analytics.com/summer-is-heating
-up-top-5-ways-to-save-on-cooling-tower-
Total Makeup Water Requirements bleed/
The Total Makeup Water Requirement is,
AUTHOR
(21)
Using Perry’s Method, total makeup water is,
(22)

APPENDIX: CALCULATIONS

Vijay Sarathy holds a master’s degree in

Chemical Engineering from Birla Institute of
Technology & Science (BITS), Pilani, India
and is a Chartered Engineer from the Institu-
tion of Chemical Engineers, UK. His expertise
over 16 years of professional experience co-
vers Front End Engineering, Process Dynam-
ic Simulation and Subsea/Onshore pipeline
flow assurance in the Oil and Gas industry.
Vijay has worked as an Upstream Process
Engineer with major conglomerates of Gen-
eral Electric, ENI Saipem and Shell.
6