4.6 Article

An experimental study of a cross-flow type plate heat exchanger for dehumidification/cooling

Journal

SOLAR ENERGY
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 59-71

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0038-092X(01)00078-0

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The thermal and dehumidification behaviour of a standard cross-flow type plate heat exchanger, intended for use as a dehumidifier/cooler, has been investigated both experimentally and numerically. Three sets of experiments have been carried out where air is blown into the primary and secondary sides of the exchanger, while water and liquid desiccant were being sprayed in a counter flow arrangement. The first set represents the indirect evaporative cooling of the primary stream by the secondary air stream. The second set is with liquid desiccant only and no indirect evaporative cooling. In the third set of experiments the primary air stream is indirectly evaporatively cooled by the secondary air stream and dehumidified by the liquid desiccant sprayed into the primary side of the exchanger. The above experiments indicate that the heat exchanger performs well when used with liquid desiccant. Furthermore, for an exchanger angle of 45degrees, there is an optimum value of air mass flow rate at which the effectiveness and dehumidification efficiency of the plate heat exchanger are maxima. To investigate the effect of the ambient air conditions on the PHE performance, further experiments were carried out using a heater element and a humidifier. The results show that under laboratory conditions the exchanger effectiveness and dehumidification efficiency increase with increasing primary air inlet temperature and humidity ratio. The experimental results were used to validate a computer model developed for the cross-flow type plate heat exchanger/dehumidifier. Comparison indicates that the numerical results are in good agreement with the experiments. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available