4.7 Article

Energy benefit of a dedicated outdoor air system over a desiccant-enhanced evaporative air conditioner

期刊

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 804-815

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.07.185

关键词

Dedicated outdoor air system; Decoupled system; Desiccant evaporative cooling; Desiccant-enhanced evaporative air conditioner

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) [2015R1A2A1A05001726]
  2. Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  3. Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy (MOTIE) of the Republic of Korea [20164010200860]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2015R1A2A1A05001726, 22A20152613333] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study is to comparatively evaluate the energy performances of a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) and desiccant-enhanced evaporative air conditioner (DEVap) in building applications. The DOAS effectively accommodates latent cooling loads and some of the sensible cooling loads of the space by introducing cooled and dehumidified ventilation air into a building while integrating a parallel system aimed at reducing the remaining sensible load. The DEVap enhances the energy performance of a variable air volume system by reducing cooling coil loads through preconditioning of the supply air before it reaches a coil. The preconditioning is accomplished by using a liquid desiccant system and dew-point indirect evaporative cooler. In this paper, the operating and annual primary energy consumptions of both the DOHS and DEVap systems are compared based on detailed energy simulations. The results indicated the energy saving potential of DOAS to be greater than that of the DEVap. Specifically, a DOAS with ceiling radiant cooling panels experienced 20% less primary energy consumption compared to a DEVap. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据