Numerical analysis of a counter-flow wet cooling tower and its plume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A one-dimensional model to study the heat and mass transfer inside and immediately above a wet counter-flow cooling tower is described. The wet cooling tower thermodynamic model assigns zone-specific Merkel numbers to each of the rain, fill, and spray zones, and it includes an atmospheric plume model. Using the present formulation, zone-by-zone rates of heat rejection and water evaporation can be estimated, as can the visible plume height. The model is validated against the well-established Poppe and Merkel methods as well as select field data. Cooling tower performance and plume visibility are evaluated under a variety of climatic conditions (hot-dry, hot-humid, cool-dry and cool-humid), cooling tower designs (e.g. fill zone height, Hfz), and operating conditions (e.g. water-to-air mass flow rate ratio, L/G). The parametric study in question highlights the ability of the proposed model to predict the impact of ambient conditions, cooling tower design parameters, and operating conditions on overall performance and patterns of atmospheric dispersion. The proposed model is ideal for numerical optimization of cooling towers that need to meet stringent thermal performance and plume visibility requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".