Tower model

The difference between T0 and Twbt measures the degree of unsaturation of the inlet air. If the air is initially saturated with water vapor, then neither vaporization of the liquid nor depression of the wet bulb temperature occurs. A simple cooling tower model that can be used in conceptual design is presented elsewhere2. 

Figure 4.1 Eiffel Tower model built from small Meccano pieces.

Figure 4.18 Upper right figure shows a forced-draft or blowthrough tower, which has a fan at the bottom for driving air through the fill above, Tower selection for smaller units can be made from the accompanying curves and table for a cold water temperature of 85°F (this is generally the water basin discharge temperature for small towers). As an example, enter at 104°F hot water temperature to a wet bulb value of 75°F, then drop vertically to the water flow selected (580 gpm). This falls between curves that designate the manufacturer s distinct model size. Select the next larger size, i,e., the curve immediately below, and follow across to the recommended tower model).

Observations showed that the wind direction is not perpendicular to the cooling tower axis when a cooling tower is standing on a slope. To analyze pressure distributions on the inside and the outside face of the shell, tests were carried out at the Institut fuer Massivbau of the Technical University of Hannover to conduct the measurements of the inside and outside pressure distributions of an idealized cooling tower model in a wind tunnel and of perpendicular and nonperpendicular air stream to the model axis. 

An Experimental Study of the) Effect of Wind-Tunnel Walls on the Flow Past Circular Cylinders and Cooling Tower Models... 

The ultimate extension of FRACHEM/ECES is to combine the ability to model rate limiting kinetics with the electrolyte equilibria capabilities of ECES. A need for such a tower model arose recently in the development of a new pollution control process. In this process certain organic species in dilute concentrations in waste water streams undergo reactions to form weak electrolytes which are then stripped from the waste water. In order to simulate and optimize the process a suitable tower model was needed. 

Pump and tank model Compressor model Heat exchanger model Cooling tower model Boiler model Furnace model... 

Pump and tank model Compressor model Heat exchanger model Cooling-tower model Steam-generation model Furnace model Distillation model Reaction model Separation model Absorption and stripping model Combination of the preceding models... 

Figure 17-8 shows the basic components of a cooling-tower model. A variety of troubleshooting scenarios can be applied to this simple model. Variations depend on the instructor s experience and questions generated by the students. 

Yamada, T. et al. 1995. Experimental evaluation of a UHV tower model for lightning surge analysis. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 10 393 02. 

Ametani, A., Y. Kasai, J. Sawada, A. Mochizuki, and T. Yamada. 1994. Frequency-dependent impedance of vertical conductor and multiconductor tower model. lEE Proc.-Gener. Transm. Distrib. 141(4) 339-345. 

Influence of a tower model on a tower top voltage, (a) Measured results, (b) Frequency-dependent tower model with a resistive-footing impedance, (c) Distributed line tower model with various footing impedances. 

Simulation results of arc horn flashover phases corresponding to Figure 2.50. Single-phase FO, x two-phase FO. (a) A simple distributed line model, (b) Recommended tower model. 

Nagaoka, N. 1991. Development of frequency-dependent tower model. Trans. lEE Jpn. B-111 51. 

Ametani, A. et al. 2002. Investigation of flashover phases in a lightning surge by new archorn and tower models. In Proceedings of the IEEE PES T D Conference 2002, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 1241-1426. 

Noda, T. 2007. A tower model for lightning overvoltage studies based on the result of an FDTD simulation. lEEJ Trans. Power Energy 127(2) 379-388 (in Japanese). 

Figure 2.51 shows simulation results of arc horn flashover phases by a simple distributed line "tower model," that is, neglecting the RL circuit in... 

Figure 2.39 with the parameters in Table 2.4, and by the recommended model illustrated in Figure 2.39. This figure should be compared with the field test result shown in Figure 2.50. It is clear that the recommended model cannot duplicate the field test result, while the simple distributed line model shows a good agreement with the field test result. The reason for the poor accuracy of the recommended model [28] is that the model was developed originally for a 500 kV line on which the lower phase flashover was less probable as explained in the previous section [23]. Thus, the recommended tower model tends to result in lower flashover probability of the lower phase arc horn. An R-L parallel circuit between two distributed lines in Figure 2.39 represents traveling wave attenuation and distortion along a tower. The R and L values were determined originally based on a field measurement (a in Equation 2.9), and thus those are correct only for the tower on which the measurement...

---