20, Page 1

A NOVEL ENERGY-EFFICIENT REFRIGERATION SYSTEM

SUBCOOLED BY LIQUID DESICCANT COOLING CYCLE

Xiaohui SHE, Yonggao YIN*, Xiaosong ZHANG, Shuhong LI

School of Energy and Environment, Southeast University,

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

* Yonggao YIN
Email: y.yin@seu.edu.cn; Tel: 86-25-83792722

ABSTRACT
A new energy-efficient refrigeration system subcooled by liquid desiccant dehumidification and evaporation was
proposed in this paper. In the system, liquid desiccant system could produce very dry air for an indirect evaporative
cooler, which would subcool the vapor compression refrigeration system to get higher COP than conventional
refrigeration system. The desiccant cooling system can use the condensation heat for the desiccant regeneration.
Thermodynamic analysis is made to discuss the effects of operation parameters (condensing temperature, liquid
desiccant concentration, ambient air temperature and relative humidity) on the system performance. Results show
that the proposed hybrid vapor compression refrigeration system achieves significantly higher COP than
conventional vapor compression refrigeration system, and even higher than the reverse Carnot cycle at the same
operation conditions. The maximum COPs of the hybrid systems using hot air and ambient air are 18.8% and 16.3%
higher than that of the conventional vapor compression refrigeration system under varied conditions, respectively.

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, refrigeration systems consumed a large amount of energy in maintaining thermal comfort for
occupants and suitable climatic conditions for cooling cases, which made up 50% of building energy consumption
(Perez-Lombard et al., 2008). The utilization of evaporative condensing indicated energy efficient potential in
reduction of power requirements (Thu and Sato, 2013).

In a traditional refrigeration system, a great deal of condensation heat, which could be used for other purposes, is
directly dissipated to the environment. The dissipated heat not only wastes energy, but also causes severe heat island
effect in the surrounding areas. Many methods have been attempted to tackle these problems. Some researchers
utilized the condensation heat from air conditioners to preheat domestic hot water (Gong et al., 2012; Jiang et al.,
2011), leading to claims that water heating in summer, primarily for bathing. It can be made available virtually free
whenever space cooling is required, and is considered one of the most cost effective energy conservation measures.
Several other researchers tried to add a heat recovery system on the refrigeration system. For instance, a condensing
heat recovery with thermal storage of phase change material (paraffin wax as PCM) was designed and analyzed by
Zhang et al. (2011).

From thermodynamic standpoint, further cooling of liquid refrigerant leaving condenser can significantly increase
the cooling capacity and improve the system COP. The regenerative refrigeration cycle adopted a liquid-suction heat
exchanger as a sub-cooler to improve the system coefficient of performance (Hermes, 2013; Torrella et al., 2011).
This subcooling method may result in the superheated degree existing at the compressor inlet and reduce the system
efficiency. In order to eliminate the drawbacks of the liquid-suction heat exchanger, Qureshi and Zubair (2012) and

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 2
Qureshi et al. (2013) used integrated and dedicated mechanical-subcooling methods to enhance the system COP and
also to remove the superheated degree, respectively. Thermoeconomic considerations were given to heat exchanger
inventory allocation in vapor compression cycles with mechanical subcooling by Qureshi and Zubair (2013), and it
was concluded that the cost optimization of the integrated mechanical subcooling system was qualitatively the same
as the dedicated subcooling system.

The liquid desiccant system using low-grade heat resource was proposed by Lof (1955), and its application in air-
conditioning systems has been widely investigated (Woods and Kozubal, 2013; Uçkan et al., 2013; Yin et al., 2007).
In this paper, a novel energy-efficient vapor compression refrigeration system combined with a liquid desiccant
cooling system is proposed. The vapor compression system is subcooled by the liquid desiccant cooling cycle driven
by condensing heat to achieve more subcooling degree of the refrigerant than the conventional system. This paper
will discuss the potential of the performance improvement and the effect of different climatic and operating
conditions on the performance of the system, and a comparative study was made on the effect of different utilization
ways of condensation heat.

2. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Fig. 1 illustrates the novel refrigeration cycle subcooled by the liquid desiccant dehumidification and evaporation,
which is composed of refrigeration cycle, closed air cycle and liquid desiccant cycle. The refrigeration cycle
includes an evaporator, a compressor, a solution-to-refrigerant heat exchanger and a condenser. Refrigerant R-22 is
chosen to be the working fluid inside the refrigeration cycle, and the refrigerating capacity of the baseline system is
30 kW. The closed air cycle consists of an indirect evaporative cooler, an air-to-air heat exchanger, a dehumidifier
and an air cooler, while the liquid desiccant cycle is made up of a dehumidifier, a solution cooler, a solution-to-
solution heat exchanger, a regenerator and a solution-to-refrigerant heat exchanger. The dehumidifier is internally
cooled by cooling water and its physical size is assumed large enough to make the air outlet humidity ratio be in
equilibrium with the solution inlet humidity ratio above the surface. The regenerator is adiabatic, and LiCl-H2O is
used as the liquid desiccant. Fig. 2(a) shows the ideal pressure enthalpy diagram of refrigeration cycle, and a
conceptual schematic diagram for the processes of the liquid desiccant cycle and closed air cycle is shown in Fig.
2(b).

Solution cooler

Solution-to-
9 17 15 20
16 solution heat
exchanger
Air cooler

Dehumidifier Regenerator

10 13
8 12 19 14

Air-to-air heat
exchanger

4 3
11 7
Condenser Solution-to-refrigerant
heat exchanger
2
18
Indirect
evaporative
cooler Fan Compressor

5
Pump
Throttle valve
Evaporator
6

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of proposed energy-efficient refrigeration system

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 3

Subcooled

5 4 3 2 14
15 Xs

Temperature (℃)
17 12
9 8

6 1 00%
RH=1

11 7

h
Humidity ratio (kg/kg)

(a) (b)
Figure 2: Refrigeration cycle baseline and process air line in liquid desiccant cycle

3. MODELING OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT REFRIGERATION SYSTEM

3.1 System Definitions

To analyze the thermodynamic performance of this system, several assumptions are made as follows:
 The refrigerant temperature at the outlet of solution-to-refrigerant heat exchanger is assumed to be equal to
the condensing temperature.
 The refrigerant temperature leaving condenser is assumed to 40 oC in all operating conditions. What’s more,
the outlet temperature of ambient air heated by condenser is set to be 5 oC lower than the condensing
temperature.
 The power consumption including pumps and fans is 10% of that consumed by the compressor in the
hybrid systems, and 5% in the baseline system (Hajidavalloo and Eghtedari, 2010; Niu et al., 2010).

3.2 Model Description

For a given refrigerating capacity of the baseline system, the mass flow rate of refrigerant (Gref) can be obtained. The
solution temperature entering regenerator (T14) is calculated through energy conservation of the solution-to-
refrigerant heat exchanger, as shown in Eqs. (1).

T14=T13+Gref*(h2-h3)/(Gs*Cps) (1)

The ambient air mass flow rate (Gamb) is calculated using Eqs. (2). For different operating conditions, air mass flow
rate in the regenerator should be chosen properly to achieve the best regeneration effect. For example, in some cases,
all the Gamb should be used in the regenerator, while in other occasions, only part of Gamb is chosen.

Gamb= Gref *(h3-h4)/(h19-h18) (2)

In the regenerator, NTU-Le model and finite element method (Yin and Zhang, 2008) are employed to analyze
internal changes of regenerator. The governing equations for heat and moisture conservation in the air and solution
can be written as follows.

d a=dNTU*( s-a) (3)

da=dNTU*Le*(s-a) (4)
dha=dNTU*Le*[(hs-ha)+(1/Le-1)*2500*( s-a)] (5)
dTs=(Cps*Ts*Ga*d a-Ga*dha)/(Gs*Cps) (6)
dXs= Ga*d a*Xs/(Gs-Ga*d a) (7)

The outlet temperature of diluted solution (T13) and concentrated solution (T16) in solution-to-solution heat
exchanger can be calculated by Eqs. (8) and (9), respectively.

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 4

T13=T12+SHE*(T15-T12) (8)
T16=T15-SHE*(T15-T12) (9)

The dehumidifier is internally cooled by cooling water, and the temperature of solution and air in the dehumidifier is
kept stable. When solution inlet conditions are certain, the air outlet humidity ratio ( ) can be obtained, which is in
equilibrium with the solution inlet humidity ratio above surface ( ).

17=0.622*Ps(X17, T17)/(101325- Ps(X17, T17)) (10)

where, Ps(X17,T17) is the equilibrium vapor pressure above solution.

The closed air temperature of T8 and T11 in the air-to-air heat exchanger can be calculated by Eqs. (11) and (12),
respectively.

T8=T7+AHE*(T10-T7) (11)
T11=T10-AHE*(T10-T7) (12)

where, AHE is the effectiveness of air-to-air heat exchanger. T7 and T8 are the inlet and outlet temperature of
saturated closed air, while T10 and T11 are the inlet and outlet temperature of dry closed air leaving dehumidifier.

In the model of indirect evaporative cooler, the closed air is believed to be fully humidified. In ideal case (i.e. AHE is
1.0), the process taking place in the indirect evaporative cooler is isothermal. The closed air mass flow rate (Ga) can
be obtained through mass conservation, as shown in Eqs. (13).

Ga= Gamb*( -)/( -) (13)

The refrigerant outlet enthalpy (h5) in the indirect evaporative cooler is calculated by Eqs. (14), based on the energy
conservation.

h5= h4-Ga*(h7-h11)/ Gref (14)

When h5 is certain, the refrigerant outlet temperature (T5) will be obtained. If the heat and mass transfer process in
the indirect evaporative cooler is fully developed, T5 should be equal to the closed air outlet temperature (T7).

3.3 Performance Indexes

In this study, three performance indexes are used to investigate the influences of the studied parameters on the
proposed energy-efficient refrigeration system. These indexes are as follows:
 Subcooling degree (△ Tsc), which is defined as the temperature difference between condensing temperature
and the refrigerant temperature leaving indirect evaporative cooler.

△ Tsc=Tcon-T5 (15)

 Specific refrigerating capacity (q0), which is calculated from the enthalpy difference between outlet and
inlet refrigerant of the evaporator.

q0=h1-h6 (16)

 Coefficient of performance (COP), which is defined as the ratio between the specific refrigerating capacity
and the total specific power consumption including compressor, pumps and fans in the energy-efficient
refrigeration system.

COP=q0/(1.1*wcom) (17)

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 5

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effects of key parameters on performance of the proposed system are presented in this section. The main
parameters of the system are as follows: condensing temperature (Tcon), ambient air temperature (Tamb), ambient air
relative humidity (RHamb) and liquid desiccant concentration in regeneration (Xs). In each case, only one parameter is
changed, while other parameters are kept constant at the reference values. The reference value for each parameter
and the variation range are shown in Table 1. To make comparative studies, four different systems are employed, as
listed in Table 2.

Table 1: The reference values and variation ranges of the studied parameters

Reference Minimum Maximum

Increment Unit
value value value
o
Tamb 35 31 39 2 C
RHamb 60% 30% 70% 10% -
o
Teva 5 - - - C
△Tsh 5 - - - o
C
o
Tcon 50 45 55 2.5 C
Xs 33% 31% 35% 1% -

45 200
System 1 System 1
37 System 2 System 2
190
System 3 System 3
△Tsc (o C)

q 0 (kJ/kg)

29
180
21

13 170

5 160
45 47.5 50 52.5 55 45 47.5 50 52.5 55
Tcon ( o C) Tcon ( o C)
(a) (b)
7.0
System 1
6.5 System 2

6.0 System 3
COP

System 4
5.5

5.0

4.5
45 47.5 50 52.5 55
Tcon (o C)

(c)
Figure 3: Effect of condensing temperature (Tcon) on (a) subcooling degree (△ Tsc), (b) specific refrigerating
capacity (q0) and (c) coefficient of performance (COP)

4.1 Effect of the Condensing Temperature on the System Performance

Fig. 3 shows the effects of condensing temperature Tcon on the subcooling degree of the liquid refrigerant ( △ Tsc), the
specific refrigerating capacity (q0) and the COP. When the condensing temperature (Tcon) rises from 45 oC to 55 oC,
the hybrid systems (system 1 and system 2) could achieve more subcooling degree of the liquid refrigerant ( △ Tsc),

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 6
compared with the baseline refrigeration system (system 3), as shown in Fig. 3(a). The results also indicate that
△ Tsc of system 1 is significantly higher than that of system 2 when Tcon is higher than 50 oC. The higher the
condensing temperature (Tcon), the higher the solution inlet temperature of regenerator (Ts,in), which would provide
more heat for the desiccant cycle and enhance the desiccant regeneration. Fig. 3(b) shows that specific refrigerating
capacity (q0) of the hybrid systems is much higher than that of baseline refrigeration system. With the increase of
Tcon, q0 of system 2 increases gradually from 178.7 kJ/kg to 185.7 kJ/kg, while q0 of system 1 rises generally at first,
increases significantly as Tcon rises from 50 oC to 52.5 oC, and remains stable when Tcon is higher than 52.5 oC. All
these changes result from the similar variation of △ Tsc. As shown in Fig. 3(c), with the increase of Tcon, the COPs of
system 3 and system 4 decrease linearly due to the fact that higher condensing temperature would result in larger
increase of compressor power consumption wcom. However, the situation for system 1 is not different since it drops
slowly when Tcon is below 50 oC, increases generally when Tcon rises from 50 oC to 52.5 oC and then decreases
slightly as Tcon rises above 52.5 oC. For system 1, it seems that there exists a maximum COP while Tcon is around
52.5 oC.

36 200
System 1 System 1
30 System 2 System 2
System 3 190
System 3

q 0 (kJ/kg)
24
△Tsc (o C)

180
18
170
12

6 160

0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35
Xs Xs

(a) (b)
6.5
System 1
System 2
6.0
System 3
System 4
COP

5.5

5.0

4.5
0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35
Xs

(c)
Figure 4: Effect of liquid desiccant concentration (Xs) on (a) subcooling degree (△ Tsc), (b) specific refrigerating
capacity (q0) and (c) coefficient of performance (COP)

Table 2: Description of different systems involved in the energy-efficient refrigeration system

Systems Description
The energy-efficient refrigeration system which uses hot air from the condenser in the
System 1
desiccant regeneration
The energy-efficient refrigeration system which uses ambient air in the desiccant
System 2
regeneration
Baseline refrigeration system without the desiccant cycle which keeps the refrigerant
System 3
temperature leaving condenser at 40 oC
System 4 Reverse Carnot cycle

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 7

4.2 Effect of the Liquid Desiccant Concentration on the System Performance

Fig. 4 shows the effects of the desiccant concentration Xs on the system performance indexes. As shown in Fig. 4(a),
in general, △ Tsc of the hybrid system, including system 1 and system 2, is at least 137% higher than that of the
baseline system (system 3) in the variation range. △ Tsc of system 1 is higher than that of system 2, especially when
Xs is below 0.33. It can be observed that △ Tsc of system 1 increases slightly from 34.7 oC to 35.1 oC when Xs
increases from 0.31 to 0.32, and drops significantly as Xs is beyond 0.33, however △ Tsc of system 2 decreases
slightly always with the increase of Xs. The reasons can be explained as follows: the higher the Xs, the lower the
desiccant regeneration thermal efficiency when Ts,in remains stable. Consequently the desiccant cycle would provide
less evaporative cooling capacity and the relatively less △ Tsc in system 1 and system 2. Fig. 4(b) shows q0 of system
1 increases slightly when Xs increases from 0.31 to 0.32, and drops significantly from 194.96 kJ/kg to 183.78 kJ/kg
as Xs increases from 0.32 to 0.33, however q0 of system 2 decreases only by 1.47% in the variation range and is
lower than that of system 1. As shown in Fig. 4(c), COPs of the hybrid systems (system 1 and system 2) are much
higher than that of the baseline system (system 3). The COP of system 1 increases slightly with lower desiccant
concentration, and then drops significantly when the Xs is more than 0.32. Whereas, COP of system 2 is lower than
that of system 1 and decreases slightly from 5.59 to 5.52 as Xs increases from 0.31 to 0.35. Suitable concentration of
the desiccant solution should be considered carefully for higher performance of the hybrid system. In the typical
case, the suggested concentration of the LiCl-H2O solution is around 0.32 for the hybrid vapor compression system.

40 200
System 1 System 1
35 System 2
190 System 2
30 System 3 System 3
q 0 (kJ/kg)
△Tsc (o C)

25 180

20
170
15

10 160
31 33 35 37 39 31 33 35 37 39
Tamb ( o C) Tamb (o C)
(a) (b)
6.5
System 1

6.0 System 2
System 3
COP

5.5 System 4

5.0

4.5
31 33 35 37 39
Tamb ( o C)
(c)
Figure 5: Effect of ambient air temperature (Tamb) on (a) subcooling degree (△ Tsc), (b) specific refrigerating
capacity (q0) and (c) coefficient of performance (COP)

4.3 Effect of the Ambient Air Temperature on the System Performance

The parameters of the ambient air would impact the desiccant cooling system evidently. In the analysis, the
temperature of the air varies from 31 oC to 39 oC while the relative humidity of the air is kept constant at 60%. Fig. 5
shows the effects of Tamb on the performance indexes. The hybrid systems (system 1 and system 2) achieve much
more subcooling degree (△ Tsc) than the baseline system (system 3). As Tamb increases, △ Tsc of the hybrid system
decreases, as shown in Fig. 5(a). It is clear that △ Tsc of system 1 is significantly influenced, while △ Tsc of system 2
decreases slightly in the studied range. Due to the same relative humidity of the air in the analysis, the air humidity

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 8
ratio increases significantly with the increase of Tamb, which would reduce the regeneration effect. For the system 1,
the general decrease of △ Tsc is due to the fact that higher air temperature determines higher dehumidification
temperature, which results in the increase of dew point temperature of closed air entering the indirect evaporative
cooler. Fig. 5(b) shows that q0 of system 1 decreases generally from 200 kJ/kg to 183.78 kJ/kg as Tamb increases
from 31 oC to 35 oC, while q0 of system 2 decreases slightly in the variation range, which is due to the corresponding
changes of △ Tsc when Tcon is kept constant. Fig. 5(c) shows the comparisons of COP of different systems involved
in the energy-efficient refrigeration system. It can be observed that COP of the hybrid systems (system 1 and system
2) is at least 6.14% higher than that of the baseline system (system 3). The COP of system 1 is higher than that of
system 2, especially when Tamb is lower than 35 oC.

45 210
System 1 System 1
37 System 2 200 System 2
System 3 System 3
△Tsc (o C)

q 0 (kJ/kg)
29 190

21 180

13 170

5 160
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
RHamb RHamb

(a) (b)
6.5
System 1
6.2 System 2
System 3
5.9
System 4
COP

5.6

5.3

5.0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
RHamb

(c)
Figure 6: Effect of ambient air relative humidity (RHamb) on (a) subcooling degree (△ Tsc), (b) specific refrigerating
capacity (q0) and (c) coefficient of performance (COP)

4.4 Effect of the Ambient Air Relative Humidity on the System Performance
Fig. 6 shows the effects of the ambient air relative humidity RHamb on subcooling degree (△ Tsc), specific
refrigerating capacity (q0) and the COP. △ Tsc of the hybrid systems (system 1 and system 2) is much higher than
that of baseline system (system 3). As shown in Fig. 6(a), △ Tsc of system 1 decreases gradually from 41.7 oC to
37.8 oC as RHamb increases from 30% to 50%, drops significantly by 30.9%, and decreases slightly when RHamb
increases beyond 0.6, whereas △ Tsc of system 2 drops considerably by 31.5% as RHamb increases from 30% to 40%.
The ambient air humidity ratio increases with the increase of RHamb and constant air temperature, which reduces its
potential for the moisture transfer from solution to air in the desiccant regeneration, and consequently both curves of
system 1 and system 2 decrease with the increase of RHamb. Fig. 6(b) shows the similar trends of q0 and △ Tsc. For
system 1, q0 decreases gradually when RHamb is below 50% and reduces significantly from 198.25 kJ/kg to 183.78
kJ/kg. In terms of system 2, q0 decreases considerably from 198.6 kJ/kg to 183.78 kJ/kg when RHamb increases from
30% to 40%. All the changes of q0 result from the corresponding changes of △ Tsc with the increase of RHamb, when
Tcon is kept constant. Fig. 6(c) shows the comparisons of COP. It is observed that COPs of system 1 and system 2
are at least 6% higher than that of the conventional vapor compression system (system 3) with different relative
humidity of the ambient air. COP of system 1 decreases from 6.19 to 6.05 linearly when RHamb rises from 30% to

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 9
50%. Moreover, COP of system 1 is even higher than that of the ideal Carnot cycle (system 4) when RHamb is below
40%.

5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents the thermodynamic analysis of the energy-efficient refrigeration system subcooled by the liquid
desiccant dehumidification and indirect evaporation. The indirect evaporative cooler with dry air leaving from
dehumidifier is employed to subcool the liquid refrigerant at the outlet of condenser, while the compensation heat of
the desiccant regeneration is provided by the condensation heat. Main conclusions can be drawn as follows:
 Generally, the proposed hybrid vapor compression refrigeration system shows significantly higher COP
than conventional vapor compression refrigeration system with the maximum COPs using hot air and
ambient air increasing by 18.8% and 16.3% respectively, and even higher than the reverse Carnot cycle at
the same operation conditions, which indicates that the subcooling method using liquid desiccant and
evaporation is quite an efficient way to improve the performance of conventional refrigeration system.
 Effects of important operation parameters on the hybrid vapor compression refrigeration system are
disclosed. The system would show more obvious potential compared with traditional vapor compression
refrigeration system at higher condensing temperature. Suitable concentration of the desiccant solution in
the desiccant cycle should be considered carefully for higher performance of the hybrid system. In regard to
LiCl-H2O as the desiccant, the suggested mass concentration is around 0.32.
 Theoretical calculations using hot air from condenser and ambient air for desiccant regeneration indicate
that the performance of system 1 is higher than that of system 2, especially when the air inlet temperature
of regenerator is higher than the minimum regeneration temperature. The maximum difference percentage
between system 1 and system 2 is 9.5% under studied conditions.

NOMENCLATURE
COP coefficient of performance (–) Subscripts
Cp specific heat capacity (kJ·kg-1·K-1) a air
d differential (–) AHE air-to-air heat exchanger
G mass flow rate (kg·s-1) amb ambient
h enthalpy (kJ·kg-1) com compressor
H height (m) con condenser
 effectiveness (–) eva evaporator
 humidity ratio (kg·kg-1) IEC indirect evaporative cooler
L Lewis number (–) in inlet
Le number (–) out outlet
m adiabatic index of refrigerant (–) max maximum
U number of mass transfer unit (–) min minimum
P pressure (Pa) ref refrigerant
Q refrigerating capacity (kW) reg regenerator
q0 specific refrigerating capacity (kJ·kg-1) s solution
RH relative humidity (%) sc subcooling
T temperature (oC) sh superheat
△ Tsc subcooling degree (oC) SHE solution-to-solution heat exchanger
△ Tsh superheat degree (oC)
w specific power consumption (kJ·kg-1)
W width (m)
X concentration (%)

REFERENCES
Perez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., Pout, C., 2008, A review on buildings energy consumption information, Energy and
Buildings, vol. 40, no. 3: p. 394-398.

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014

 20, Page 10
Thu, H.T.M., Sato, H., 2013, Proposal of an eco-friendly high-performance air-conditioning system part 2.
Application of evapo-transpiration condenser to residential air-conditioning system, International Journal of
Refrigeration, vol. 36, no. 6: p. 1596-1601.
Gong, G.C., Chen, F.H., Su, H., Zhou, J.Y., 2012, Thermodynamic simulation of condensation heat recovery
characteristics of a single stage centrifugal chiller in a hotel, Applied Energy, vol. 91, no. 1: p. 326-333.
Jiang, M.L., Wu, J.Y., Wang, R.Z., 2011, Research on refrigerant flow characteristics and performance of a multi-
functional heat pump system, Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 52, no. 6: p. 2323-2328.
Zhang, X.L., Yu, S.X., Yu, M., Lin, Y.P., 2011, Experimental research on condensing heat recovery using phase
change material, Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 31, no. 17-18: p. 3736-3740.
Hermes, C.J.L., 2013, Alternative evaluation of liquid-to-suction heat exchange in the refrigeration cycle,
International Journal of Refrigeration, xxx: p. 1-9.
Torrella, E., Sánchez, D., Llopis, R., Cabello, R., 2011, Energetic evaluation of an internal heat exchanger in a CO2
transcritical refrigeration plant using experimental data, International Journal of Refrigeration, vol. 34, no. 1: p.
40-49.
Qureshi, B.A., Zubair, S.M., 2012, The effect of refrigerant combinations on performance of a vapor compression
refrigeration system with dedicated mechanical sub-cooling, International Journal of Refrigeration, vol. 35, no.
1: p. 47-57.
Qureshi, B.A., Inam, M., Antar, M.A., Zubair, S.M., 2013, Experimental energetic analysis of a vapor compression
refrigeration system with dedicated mechanical sub-cooling, Applied Energy, vol. 102: p. 1035-1041.
Qureshi, B.A., Zubair, S.M., 2013, Cost optimization of heat exchanger inventory for mechanical subcooling
refrigeration cycles, International Journal of Refrigeration, vol. 36, no. 4: p. 1243-1253.
Lof, G.O.G., 1955, Cooling with Solar Energy, Congress on Solar Energy, Tuscon, Ariz: p.171-189.
Woods, J., Kozubal, E., 2013, A desiccant-enhanced evaporative air conditioner: Numerical model and experiments,
Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 65: p. 208-220.
Uçkan, İ., Yılmaz, T., Hürdoğan, E., Büyükalaca, O., 2013, Experimental investigation of a novel configuration of
desiccant based evaporative air conditioning system, Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 65: p. 606-615.
Yin, Y.G., Zhang, X.S., Chen, Z.Q., 2007, Experimental study on dehumidifier and regenerator of liquid desiccant
cooling air conditioning system, Building and Environment, vol. 42, no. 7: p. 2505-2511.
Hajidavalloo, E., Eghtedari, H., 2010, Performance improvement of air-cooled refrigeration system by using
evaporatively cooled air condenser, International Journal of Refrigeration, vol. 33, no. 5: p. 982-988.
Niu, X.F., Xiao, F., Ge, G.M., 2010, Performance analysis of liquid desiccant based air-conditioning system under
variable fresh air ratios, Energy and Buildings, vol. 42, no. 12: p. 2457-2464.
Yin, Y.G., Zhang, X.S., 2008, A new method for determining coupled heat and mass transfer coefficients between
air and liquid desiccant, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 51, no. 13-14: p. 3287-3297.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51006022) and the 12th Five Year Science
and Technology Support Key Project of China (No.2011BAJ03B14).

International Soprtion Heat Pump Conference, March 31-April 3, 2014