Indirect natural-draft tower with vertical bundles, against an independent implementation

Tier 3: CFD, co-simulation or another model.

What was compared: The air mass flow rate and the heat transfer rate of an indirect natural-draft dry cooling tower whose bundles stand vertically around the inlet, on the shell, the 142 bundles and the 4 390 kg/s of water of Kröger's Example 7.3.1.
Against: An independent implementation of the same specification (the author's MATLAB model), built on the tower and array of Kröger's Example 7.3.1 (Kröger, Vol. 2, Section 7.3). It is another model and not a published or measured result.
The agreement: The air mass flow rate is reproduced to within 0.7% (11 573 kg/s against 11 492 kg/s) and the heat transfer rate to within 0.2% (351.2 MW against 352 MW), inside the case's tolerance of ±1.5%.
What it shows: The agreement shows that two implementations of one specification agree, and it says nothing about the accuracy of either against a built tower. It is the only comparison held for this arrangement and carries no model-form uncertainty.
Source: An independent implementation of Kröger's Example 7.3.1 specification arranged vertically. The source document is no longer part of this project (LICENSING.md).Kröger Vol. 2 Example 7.3.1's tower and array, stood up; the reference numbers are the other implementation's, not the book's.