Comparison of two methods of improving dehumidification in air conditioning systems: Hybrid system (refrigeration cycle - Rotary desiccant) and heat exchanger cycle

5Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The objective of this research is evaluating and comparing two methods of improving dehumidification in air conditioning systems. The two methods are the hybrid system: (refrigeration cycle - rotary desiccant) and the heat exchanger cycle. The impact of the desiccant performance on the hybrid system performance was studied. The impact of the heat exchanger efficiency on the performance of heat exchanger cycle was studied. Hybrid system, heat exchanger cycle, and conventional refrigeration cycle were compared at different design air flow rates and different air conditions. It was found that the hybrid system and the heat exchanger cycle can achieve lower SHR and dew point temperature than those of the conventional cooling system. On general, the hybrid system can achieve lower SHR and dew point than those of the heat exchanger cycle. Although the heat exchanger cycle can achieve lower SHR and dew point than those of the conventional cooling system, the coefficient of performance and the cooling effect of the heat exchanger cycle are lower than those of the conventional cooling system, because the temperature of the cooling coil of the heat exchanger cycle is lower than that of the conventional cooling system. The coefficient of performance and the cooling effect of the hybrid system are close to those of the conventional cooling system, because the temperature of the cooling coil of the hybrid system is close to that of the conventional cooling system. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sayegh, M. A., Hammad, M., & Faraa, Z. (2011). Comparison of two methods of improving dehumidification in air conditioning systems: Hybrid system (refrigeration cycle - Rotary desiccant) and heat exchanger cycle. In Energy Procedia (Vol. 6, pp. 759–768). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.05.086

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free