Survey of hybrid liquid desiccant air conditioning systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 186-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdulrahman Th. Mohammad ◽  
Sohif Bin Mat ◽  
M.Y. Sulaiman ◽  
K. Sopian ◽  
Abduljalil A. Al-abidi
Keyword(s):  
Air Conditioning ◽  
Liquid Desiccant ◽  
Air Conditioning Systems

scholarly journals Indoor Air Quality Enhancement Performance of Liquid Desiccant and Evaporative Cooling-Assisted Air Conditioning Systems

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beom-Jun Kim ◽  
Junseok Park ◽  
Jae-Weon Jeong
Keyword(s):  
Air Quality ◽  
Indoor Air Quality ◽  
Indoor Air ◽  
Reference System ◽  
Air Conditioning ◽  
Evaporative Cooling ◽  
Quality Enhancement ◽  
Liquid Desiccant ◽  
Air Conditioning Systems ◽  
Indoor Pm2.5

The main objective of this study is to investigate the indoor air quality enhancement performance of two different liquid desiccant and evaporative cooling-assisted air conditioning systems, such as the variable air volume (VAV) system with the desiccant-enhanced evaporative (DEVap) cooler, and the liquid desiccant system with an indirect and direct evaporative cooling-assisted 100% outdoor air system (LD-IDECOAS), compared with the conventional VAV system. The transient simulations of concentration variations of carbon dioxide (CO2), coarse particles, and fine particles (PM10 and PM2.5) in a model office space served by each system were performed using validated system models that were found in the literature. Based on the hourly thermal loads of the model space predicted by the TRNSYS 18 program, each air conditioning system was operated virtually using a commercial equation solver program (EES). The results indicated that the LD-IDECOAS provided the lowest annual indoor CO2 concentration among all the systems considered in this research, while the VAV system with DEVap cooler exceeded the threshold concentration (i.e., 1000 ppm) during the cooling season (i.e., July, August, and September). For the indoor particulate contaminant concentrations, both liquid desiccant and evaporative cooling-assisted air conditioning systems indicated lower indoor PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations compared with the reference system. The LD-IDECOAS and the VAV with a DEVap cooler demonstrated 33.3% and 23.5% lower annual accumulated indoor PM10 concentrations than the reference system, respectively. Similarly, the annual accumulated indoor PM2.5 concentration was reduced by 16% using the LD-IDECOAS and 17.1% using the VAV with DEVap cooler.

scholarly journals Energy Performance Comparison between Two Liquid Desiccant and Evaporative Cooling-Assisted Air Conditioning Systems

Energies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 522
Author(s):  
Su Liu ◽  
Jae-Weon Jeong
Keyword(s):  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Air Conditioning ◽  
Evaporative Cooling ◽  
Dew Point ◽  
Outdoor Air ◽  
Liquid Desiccant ◽  
Energy Saving Potential ◽  
Evaporative Cooler ◽  
Air Conditioning Systems ◽  
Direct Evaporative Cooler

This study investigated the annual energy saving potential and system performance of two different evaporative cooling-based liquid desiccant and evaporative cooling-assisted air conditioning systems. One system used an indirect and direct evaporative cooler with a two-stage package to match the target supply air point. The other was equipped with a single-stage, packaged dew-point evaporative cooler that used a portion of the process air, which had been dehumidified in advance. Systems installed with the two evaporative coolers were compared to determine which one was more energy efficient and which one could provide better thermal comfort for building occupants in a given climate zone, using detailed simulation data. The detailed energy consumption data of these two systems were estimated using an engineering equation solver with each component model. The results showed that the liquid desiccant and dew-point evaporative-cooler-assisted 100% outdoor air system (LDEOAS) resulted in approximately 34% more annual primary energy consumption than that of the liquid desiccant and the indirect and direct evaporative-cooler-assisted 100% outdoor air system (LDIDECOAS). However, the LDEOAS could provide drier and cooler supply air, compared with the LDIDECOAS. In conclusion, LDIDECOAS has a higher energy saving potential than LDEOAS, with an acceptable level of thermal comfort.

Comparison study of air mixing modes in liquid desiccant based all-air air conditioning systems

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu Xiao ◽  
XiaoFeng Niu
Keyword(s):  
Energy Consumption ◽  
Air Conditioning ◽  
Coefficient Of Performance ◽  
Liquid Desiccant ◽  
Total Energy Consumption ◽  
Air Conditioning System ◽  
Operation Conditions ◽  
Air System ◽  
Air Mixing ◽  
Air Conditioning Systems

Liquid desiccant is an energy-saving, environmentally friendly and healthy means of air dehumidification. A liquid desiccant-based all-air air conditioning system is studied by simulation. Two different modes of air mixing between the return air and the fresh air are compared, that is mixing before and mixing after the liquid desiccant dehumidifier, respectively. System performance and total energy consumption of the two modes under different operation conditions are obtained. The results show that mixing air after dehumidification consumes less energy than mixing air before dehumidification. Coefficient of performance (COP) of the all-air system with air mixing after dehumidification is higher. The differences of COP and energy consumption between the two air mixing modes increase when the outdoor air temperature and relative humidity increase. Practical application: Liquid desiccant based all-air system is quite suitable for museums, libraries and computer centres where water is not allowed to enter the space for property safety and strict thermal-hygrometric control is necessary. The results of this paper provide guidelines on the selection of air mixing modes in liquid desiccant-based all-air systems, considering energy consumption and system COP.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document