4.7 Article

Application of a statistical design for analyzing basic performance characteristics of the cross-flow Maisotsenko cycle heat exchanger

Journal

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.11.060

Keywords

Indirect evaporative cooling; Mathematical model; Heat and mass exchanger

Funding

  1. National Science Center Poland [DEC-2015/161/T1/ST8/00484]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the simplified model generated by response surface methodology (RSM) for analyzing basic performance characteristics of the Maisotsenko cycle heat and mass exchanger. A five level central composite design (CCD) was employed and filled with the experimental data and data obtained from the validated numerical model. Four performance factors were selected as the representative responses: outlet product airflow temperature, specific cooling capacity, dew point effectiveness and the theoretical COP. The statistical significance, accuracy and overall predictive capability of the model developed was examined using F-test, regression analysis of the coefficient of determination R-2 and absolute average deviation (AAD) by comparing predicted responses with the experimental data. The statistical approach identified the effect of five independent parameters on the selected performance characteristics and the effectiveness of heat and mass transfer processes in the channels of the cross flow M-cycle exchanger was found to be significantly influenced by supply airflow mass flow rate, inlet air temperature and relative humidity. The models developed allow for the fast and precise calculation of the most important performance factors of the Maisotsenko cycle heat and mass exchangers in a variety of climate conditions. The results of this study have clearly demonstrated high efficiency of the examined heat exchanger and possible ways of its improving. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available