14.09.2014 Views

Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a PCM-Supported ...

Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a PCM-Supported ...

Experimental and Numerical Analysis of a PCM-Supported ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

uncertainties associated with the flood-point concept <strong>and</strong> prediction <strong>and</strong> to keep the<br />

design point away from the region at which efficiency rapidly diminishes (just below<br />

the flood point) [32]. Strigle [36] recommended designing packed towers with a 10 to<br />

20 percent margin from the maximum operational capacity. Since MOC is usually<br />

about 5 percent below the flood point, the Strigle’s criterion is equivalent to designing<br />

at 76 to 86 percent <strong>of</strong> flood point velocity. This criterion is therefore less conservative<br />

than the flood point criterion [32].<br />

Packed towers are also designed that the pressure drop at any point in the tower<br />

does not exceed a recommended maximum value. Maximum pressure drop criteria<br />

for packed towers are listed by Kister [32]. The generalized pressure drop correlation<br />

(GPDC) is the classic sizing method for packed towers <strong>and</strong> is used in many<br />

industries. It is, however, based mostly on the small pilot tower data. As long as the<br />

correlation is applied to small packing, it appears to give reasonable results, but<br />

when the performance <strong>of</strong> large packing in large towers is assessed, then the results<br />

appear overly optimistic [89]. The majority <strong>of</strong> designers prefer the flood point criterion<br />

over the MOC [32]. For more conservative designs, the maximum pressure drop<br />

criterion is recommended [32] to be used with the flood point criterion or MOC<br />

criterion.<br />

Strigle [36] stated that the use <strong>of</strong> r<strong>and</strong>om dumped tower packing is not customary in<br />

water cooling towers. Because <strong>of</strong> the pressure drop available, the maximum packed<br />

depth for large size plastic packings is under 1.8 m. Some figures are provided for<br />

the height <strong>of</strong> gas phase transfer unit for r<strong>and</strong>om packing cooling towers. The<br />

average values for packing sizes 2.5, 3.8, 5, <strong>and</strong> 7.75 or 8.9 cm, are 0.4, 0.46, 0.56,<br />

<strong>and</strong> 0.76m respectively. In addition, the average packed depths specified must make<br />

allowance <strong>of</strong> around 20% to 40% greater than these values for large size tower<br />

packings to account for lower quality distribution <strong>of</strong> both liquid <strong>and</strong> gas [36]. He<br />

added that, cooling towers which operated with natural draft are hyperbolic <strong>and</strong> may<br />

require an overall height <strong>of</strong> 67m. The fill that used in such a column must be quite<br />

open to avoid any significant pressure drop. Such fill can have a T- or V- shape<br />

cross section molded from perforated plastic sheets. Corrugated sheets made <strong>of</strong><br />

asbestos <strong>and</strong> cement are popular in large natural draft towers, noting that asbestos<br />

is banned for its carcinogenic effects. A ceramic cellular block that is stacked into the<br />

tower also is used. However, these fills provide a small interfacial area per unit<br />

volume so mass transfer is rather low per unit <strong>of</strong> packed depth.<br />

4.4 Modeling solid-liquid phase change<br />

Typically, three methods have been developed for fixed domain class solid-liquid<br />

phase change problems: temperature based method, the enthalpy-based method,<br />

<strong>and</strong> the apparent heat capacity [18].<br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!