Performance and design analyses of various configurations of dew point evaporative cooling-based desiccant air-conditioning (DAC) systems for hot and humid conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Thermally driven desiccant- and evaporative cooling-based technologies are promising greener and cheaper alternatives to compressor-based systems due to the separate handling of latent and sensible loads. Desiccant air-conditioning (DAC) systems comprise a desiccant dehumidifier, a sensible cooling unit, a heat source for regeneration, and a heat recovery unit. These components of a DAC system can be arranged in various ways to give different configurations with varying advantages and disadvantages. In this study, five configurations of thermally driven desiccant dehumidifier- and dew point evaporative cooling (DPEC)-based DAC systems were investigated. Seven evaluation criteria namely regeneration temperature, desiccant moisture removal capacity, COPt, DPEC L/H, heat exchanger UA, system size, and fan power requirement were employed. Results show that the standard cycle in ventilation mode offers the highest COPt despite having the highest regeneration temperature. Recirculation of the return room air can operate at a significantly lower regeneration temperature at the expense of larger equipment size and much lower COPt. DAC with an internally cooled dehumidification can operate at low regeneration temperature at the expense of higher fan power and slightly lower COPt. Dividing the dehumidification process into two stages can offer operation at moderately lower regeneration temperature without severely affecting the other criteria. This study can serve as a guide for the selection of an appropriate DAC configuration for space cooling depending on the objective criteria and the resources available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".