Predicting Condensate Collection From HVAC Air Handling Units

©2010 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).
Published in ASHRAE
Transactions (2010, vol 116, part 2). For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or
digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE’s prior written permission.
AB-10-C001
Predicting Condensate Collection

from HVAC Air Handling Units
T.M. Lawrence, Ph.D. Jason Perry Peter Dempsey
Member ASHRAE Associate Member ASHRAE Student Member ASHRAE
ABSTRACT
Awareness is growing about the need to conserve and reuse freshwater supplies across the U.S. and
around the world. In much of the U.S. and other developed nations, there is commonly a basic assumption
that there will be always be plenty of water to supply and feed a lifestyle that we have become accustomed
to. Other areas of the globe have continually lived with water shortages, and in these regions water is
treated like the valuable commodity that it is. Supply (or lack of it) and demand does influence the price of
water, although in most developed nations the price of water does not fluctuate much in the near-term.
ASHRAE recognizes the importance of water to society and the consumption of water by buildings and
building systems. Some now consider water concerns to be just as important as energy within the green
building circle. Two ASHRAE Standards are being developed or recently released that address water use
within buildings. Standards 189.1-2010 (Standard for the Design of High Performance Green Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings) and 191P (Standard for the Efficient Use of Water in Building, Site
and Mechanical Systems) each provide requirements for water using systems and condensate collection.
Since existing buildings comprise approximately 98% of the building stock (the other 2% being new
construction), a significant and immediate benefit to society in terms of energy or water consumption
savings exists with the existing building stock. In the right situation, retrofitting existing buildings has the
potential to provide significant water consumption savings. This paper presents a methodology for
predicting the amount of water collected from an air handling unit. The prediction model could be used to
estimate the water collected for either a retrofit or new construction scenario. Data taken during the 2009
cooling season on a 100% outdoor air unit were used to validate a model for the amount of condensate
collected. The data included the amount of condensate collected, outdoor and supply air conditions
(temperature and relative humidity), and supply airflow (the unit has a VFD control for the fan). Results
indicate that it is possible to predict the amount of condensate, but the accuracy of the prediction strongly
depends on the accuracy of the relative humidity sensors used.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Recent water shortages in the southeastern US and elsewhere have increased the perceived value of fresh
water beyond its financial cost. Local, interstate, and international disputes over water rights are likely to
further this trend. The increasing concern for water resources within ASHRAE is reflected in two new
Standards that address water use in buildings: Standards 189.1-2010 (Standard for the Design of High
Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings) and 191P (Standard for the Efficient
Use of Water in Building, Site and Mechanical Systems). Both standards provide requirements for water
using systems, addressing efficient usage as well as water reclamation and reuse.
Condensate collection from air handling units (AHUs) is one method of water reuse that has been
successfully incorporated in new buildings and is even required in new construction in some locations.1
Condensate can most easily be routed directly to a cooling tower sump, but with storage (and usually in
concert with a rainwater collection system) can be used for irrigation or ornamental purposes; with further
processing it can be used for indoor applications such as toilet flushing or even potable water.
Tom Lawrence is a Public Service Associate in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Georgia,
Jason Perry is a Research Engineer in the Faculty of Engineering Outreach Service at the University of
Georgia and Peter Dempsey is an engineering undergraduate student at the University of Georgia
©2010 ASHRAE 3
©2010 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org). Published in ASHRAE
While incorporating condensate collection into new buildings can be relatively straightforward, retrofitting
existing buildings can be more complicated. Since existing buildings comprise approximately 98% of the
building stock (the other 2% being new construction), they represent a significantly greater immediate
benefit to society in terms of energy or water consumption savings. It is thus worthwhile to study and
facilitate condensate collection retrofits in existing buildings.
It is easy to estimate the cost to install a condensate collection system, but it is more difficult to calculate
the financial payback due to water savings. Dire water shortages in some areas may make the financial
question moot, but for now in the majority of cases it is likely that some financial justification will be
necessary.
Currently, prediction methods and tools are not widely available for evaluating whether condensate
collection is worthwhile. Guz (2005) suggests a rule of thumb of 0.1 to 0.3 gallons (0.4–1.1 L) of
condensate per ton of air conditioning, per hour of operation, but this only applies to San Antonio. A
simple online calculator (no longer available) created by Wilcut and Fry determined the steady-state
condensate production rate for a given set of conditions, but was not useful for predicting condensate over a
season of varying weather. Painter (2009) developed a prediction model for dedicated outdoor air handling
units with enthalpy wheel energy recovery, in which he used the expected difference in humidity ratio on
the entering and leaving sides of a cooling coil. He developed the model to predict condensate production
in three locations in Texas using annual daily average temperature and humidity data.
With this paper we present our methodology for predicting the amount of water collected from an air
handling unit, and we describe an attempt to validate and refine the model with empirical measurements
taken throughout the 2009 cooling season in Athens, Georgia. The model is designed to be adapted to any
location for which hourly data are available.
CONDENSATE COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The system used in this study was the second condensate collection retrofit installed at the University of
Georgia (UGA), and has been in operation since February 2009. (see Lawrence, et al., 2010). It is
comprised of a stainless steel collection basin measuring about 2 ft (600 mm) square and 9 in (230 mm)
deep, a 1/6 HP (125 W) sump pump with an external diaphragm switch, and an analog totalizing water
meter with 1/10th gallon (0.38 L) resolution. The system is equipped with a check valve above the pump to
prevent backflow into the basin.
The basin was installed so that it could intercept the original path of the condensate drain pipe without
changing the slope or the dimensions of the U-trap at the drain outlet from the AHU. An emergency
overflow pipe is connected near the top of the basin and leads to the existing floor drain, so that the original
drain path would be completed in the case of a pump failure.
The meter was installed at eye level in the vertical section of pipe above the pump so that it would always
be measuring full pipe flow. This was a lesson learned from the first installation at UGA in which the meter
was installed horizontally in a section of pipe with essentially open-channel flow, raising concerns that the
meter might be fooled into reporting more water than is really flowing through it.
After the meter, the pipe runs up and over the AHU, through the penthouse wall, across the roof at a slope
of ¼ inch per foot (21 mm per m), and joins a pipe from another condensate collection system before
dropping down an exterior wall to the sump of the building’s cooling tower.
Measurement Equipment and Methods
Dataloggers were used measure the air temperature and relative humidity at the outdoor air intake and in
the fan section of the AHU. We employed a combination temperature and relative humidity datalogger,
which has a RH measurement accuracy of ± 3.5% from 25% to 85% over the range of 59° to 113°F (15° to
45°C) and ± 5% from 25% to 95% over the range of 41° to 131°F (5° to 55°C). The logger temperature
accuracy is ± 0.72°F from 32° to 104°F (± 0.4°C from 0° to 40°C).
4 ASHRAE Transactions
We recorded fan speed during the study using fan motor current as proxy data for fan speed and hence
airflow. A current transformer (CT) rated for 50 amperes was placed on one leg of the three phase motor
circuit and connected it to a datalogger. The CT and datalogger combination is rated as being accurate to
± 2.25 A.
We synchronized and programmed the three dataloggers to record every five minutes, and we downloaded
data from them about once a month.
Airflow Baseline
From our initial observations of the supple air fan operation, the fan current draw (as indicated on the
variable frequency drive display) tended to be within a fairly narrow range, but did vary some. We
obtained the baseline airflow of the AHU by conducting pitot tube traverses across the supply air ductwork
leading from the AHU, and recorded the current to the fan. The baseline airflow measurements were made
when the fan was in normal operation and the current draw near the ‘nominal’ level. We next also
conducted pitot tube traverses with the fan speed manually set near the upper end and then again near the
lower end of what our data loggers had recorded as being the fan normal operating range. From the pitot
tube traverses we then calculated the supply airflow at the ‘baseline’ current, which was used as the
primary reference point for determining the airflow for all data points during the cooling season.
Water Meter Validation
To ensure that the water meter was not affected by turbulence due to its proximity to the pump, a
calibration procedure was performed using a graduated one gallon (3.8 L) container. One gallon at a time
was added to the system’s collection basin until the pump was triggered and the water pumped out. This
process was repeated approximately 15 times, with a recording taken from the meter each time. There was
no significant error between the measured input of water and the cumulative meter reading at the end of the
process.
DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC MODEL
General method for computing condensation

For simplicity, consider the process of a unit conditioning 100% outdoor air (such as with a dedicated
outdoor air system or DOAS). The psychrometric chart shown in Figure 1 represents a path of outdoor air
as it passes across the cooling coil for the 0.4% cooling design condition in Athens, Georgia. Assuming a
supply air condition of 55° F (12.8° C) and 85% relative humidity (wet bulb T=52.5° F or 11.4° C), the
humidity ratio changes across the coil from 0.0141 to 0.0078 lb/lbair (kg/kgair). The difference in absolute
humidity (ω) between the incoming outdoor air and supply air leaving the unit represents the amount of
condensation that occurs. Thus, for every pound (or kg) of air supplied by the unit, 0.0141 – 0.0078 or
0.0063 pounds (kg) of water are condensed.
The total amount of condensate expected is determined by the equation below:
Condensate collected Airflow x density x 60 x ∆ω (1)
Assuming for example 1,000 cfm (472 l/s) of outdoor air is being conditioned, the total amount of
condensate expected would be.
Condensate = 1,000 x x 60 x 0.0141 0.0078

13.133
28.8 13.1
This is approximately 3.5 gallons (13.1 liters) per hour at the cooling design condition.
For the condensate prediction study described in this paper, a spreadsheet model was developed which
computed an estimate of the condensate collection rate expected during each five-minute data logging time
period through the course of the cooling season. The model uses the following data inputs:
ASHRAE Transactions 5
• Outdoor air temperature and relative humidity (from data logger)

• Supply air temperature and relative humidity (from data logger)
• Outdoor air and supply air humidity ratio (computed from recorded data set)
• Supply fan input current (from data logger)
• Air handling unit supply airflow rate at ‘baseline’ flow and specific current input values (measured
using pitot tube traverses at ‘normal operating’ fan speed and other points by manually adjusting
fan speed at the VFD controller)
Spreadsheet model logic
The following computational steps are performed by the spreadsheet model for each of the five-minute data
recording periods.
1. Compute the differential between outdoor and supply air humidity ratio. (Δω)
2. Estimate the supply airflow rate for this period, assumed to be a function of the cube root of the
current.
(2)
33.9 Amps 3 ;
19,128 cfm
3. Multiply the supply volumetric airflow by density and 60 min/hr to get supply air mass flow rate
( ) in lbm/hr.
4. Compute the predicted condensate collection rate. ∆ The result is

the predicted condensate collected in lb/hr.
5. Convert the predicted condensate mass flow rate into a volume flow rate, gallons/hr and gallons/min
(gpm).
6. Determine the predicted total condensate produced for this data logging time period
gpm 5 min
The total condensate produced is summed up between each field meter reading period, which was typically
done on a daily basis during each weekday. For each period between field meter readings, the total
predicted condensate is compared to the actual measured amount.
Figure 1 – Conditioning of outdoor air across a cooling coil
RESULTS DISCUSSION
Baseline model evaluation

We made a total of 108 water meter readings during the 2009 cooling season. Data were recorded from
April 1 through the end of September. By April 1 the installed water meter had already recorded some
condensate collected but our data logging equipment was not installed and validated until then. A second
AHU in this mechanical room was retrofitted with a condensate collection system in early October, and the
output pipe from this new unit connected into the collection basin used for our study AHU, therefore we
had to stop data recording on September 29. Since this was getting near the end of the condensate
collection and cooling season, it was not felt to be a significant problem.
Readings were made nearly every day during the normal workweek (Monday through Friday; the building
is locked to outsiders on weekends and holidays). The predicted condensation results were computed using
the supply fan airflow as measured in the spring and using the installed data logger measurements for
outdoor air and supply air conditions and these compared to the actual condensate collected using the
installed totalizing flow meter.
Using the prediction method described earlier and the recorded measurements from the dataloggers, the
condensate quantities predicted by the model were consistently lower than the actual quantities measured
throughout the cooling season. The total predicted condensate for this air handling unit during the cooling
season was 134,021 gallons (507,325 liters), but the actual amount collected was 171,793 gallons (650,307
liters), for a net under-prediction error of 28%. Figure 2 shows the results for each data reading period in
terms of average condensate flow rate (gallons per minute) during the recording period, which makes for an
easier comparison than just the total predicted or actually collected, as the time lengths between readings
varied.
To check how consistent this error was through the cooling season and if it depended on the weather
conditions, Figure 3 is provided which shows a scatter diagram of the ratio of actual to predicted total
condensate collected versus the average outdoor air humidity ratio. Although the predicted values seem to
be a little closer to the actual during periods of higher ambient humidity, this is not a strong trend and does
not appear to provide any insight to the analysis.
Evaluation of potential sources of error – Supply airflow rate
The amount of predicted condensate during any given period is a direct linear function of the supply
airflow rate used in the calculation, since the condensate collection predicted is based on the humidity ratio
of mass of water per mass of dry air (lb/lb or kg/kg). Thus, if the actual flow were say 10% higher than
used in the calculation, there would be an underestimation of condensate collection by 10% even if all other
data were perfectly known and the equation was perfectly accurate and applicable to this situation.
This is illustrated by considering a case where the supply airflow used in the condensate prediction
calculation is arbitrarily increased by 30%, representing a case where the actual airflow were 30% more
than determined by the field measurements. The resulting total condensate predicted for this cooling
season is 174,227 gallons (659,522 liters), or an error compared to the actual measure of about 1%. The
plot of average condensate flow rate for each data recording period shows a fairly good match as well
(Figure 4). While this 30% extra fan flow seems to be a possible explanation for the difference, it is not the
only potential contributor to the error measurement. The 30% error in airflow measurement is also
considered larger than what is generally considered acceptable in practice (more on this later).
Evaluation of potential sources of error – Relative humidity measurements
The accurate measurement of relative humidity has been an issue in the past within the HVAC industry.
For example, earlier versions of humidity sensors used in economizer controllers had a propensity for early
failure, leading to bypassing of the economizer control and giving a black eye to this concept for years.
The particular humidity sensors used for this study have a manufacturer’s stated accuracy of ±3.5% for the
majority of the temperature range that they were used to measure. Since the calculation of condensate
collection potential in this study involved a differential of humidity ratio between the incoming outdoor air
and the supply air, there potentially could be anywhere between a -7% and +7% error (double one sensor)
even if the sensors used were within the manufacturer’s specifications.
Consider the extreme case of this and with the error in the proper direction to bring the predicted
condensate level closer to the actual measured value. This would be if the case were that the actual relative
humidity differential between incoming outdoor air and the supply air were 7% larger. A plot of the
average condensate flow rates during each data recording period is given in Figure 5. The predicted annual
condensate collected under this scenario would be 165,541 gallons (626,643 liters), for a 4% error in the
prediction. While this scenario is possible, it relies on a ‘best case’ assumption of the error in relative
humidity measurements.
Other scenarios were also evaluated with an assumed larger relative humidity differential of 1% and 3.5%
as well. These results had corresponding levels of improvement in the condensate prediction.
Evaluation of potential sources of error – One realistic possibility
This scenario evaluated one case where the relative humidity and supply fan flow rate error values would
be within that expected for a ‘typical’ case. For this evaluation, we evaluated the predicted condensate
flow assuming the following errors in sensor readings or measurements.
• Relative humidity – assumed a 3.5% higher difference between outdoor air and supply air than we
measured
• Supply airflow – assumed the supply air fan had a 15% higher flow rate
A 15% error in measurement of the supply fan airflow rate is a very reasonable estimate. For example, the
U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED-2009 program for IEQ Credit 1 considers a ±15% differential in
measured incoming outdoor airflow an acceptable value.
Figure 6 gives a comparison plot of the average condensate flow rates during each data recording period.
The results compare very similarly to the actual measured values, and the total annual condensate predicted
is 170,428 gallons (645,142 liters), for an under-prediction of only 1% compared to the actual measured
value.
Evaluation of potential model simplifications – Assume constant supply airflow rate
This final section evaluates the impact of using more simplified model approaches. One of these is to use
just an ‘average’ value for the supply fan flow rate. Since we were not directly measuring the supply flow,
only the electrical current input to the fan, this will have to be approximated. Fortunately, the fan speed did
not vary considerably during any given day or through the course of the cooling season. In fact, our
baseline airflow measurement taken in the early spring was at a fan speed (based on current reading)
considered very representative for the entire cooling season. This flow rate was measured at 19,128 cfm
(9,027 liters/s), so this scenario evaluated the predicted collection of condensate assuming the supply
airflow was a constant 19,128 cfm (9,027 liters/s). One other point to note is that there is an error
introduced from measuring the current as well; our current transducers and datalogger together are accurate
to ±2.25 A and we were measuring current in the range of about 30 to 40 A
The resulting predicted annual condensate was 136,532 gallons (516,830 liters), essentially the same as the
baseline case when a fan speed (using measured current) correction was applied. In fact, this number is
slightly closer to the actual measured amount of condensate collected.
Evaluation of potential model simplifications – Assume constant supply air humidity ratio
Another possible simplification is to assume that the supply air humidity ratio is constant, and thus there
would be no need to measure the supply air temperature and relative humidity. This is an important
simplification that makes estimation of any AHU for condensate collection potential (retrofit or new
installation) much easier.
For this scenario, we assumed that the supply air humidity ratio was that if the supply air temperature and
relative humidity were 56º F and 85%, respectively. This corresponds to a humidity ratio of 0.008
lbwater/lbdry air (kgwater/kgdry air).
The resulting predicted annual condensate was 133,288 gallons (504,548 liters), again essentially the same
as the baseline case using measured temperature and relative humidity of the supply and the corresponding
humidity ratio for those conditions.
Other Sources of Error
Several other potential sources of error might exist, and one of these could include the sensor locations.
For example, the outdoor air intake is shielded from direct sun, but there may still be some error from that
since the intake is on the south side of the building. The supply air conditions were recorded with the data
logger located in an easy to access section of the fan chamber; it was assumed the air is fairly well mixed
but this may not have exactly been the case.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study evaluated a model for predicting condensate collected from an AHU that conditions 100%
outdoor air. A number of cases and possible scenarios for the impact of measurement error were studied to
see if these alone could account for the under-prediction of condensate compared to the measured value
during an entire cooling season. A summary of all the evaluation scenarios is given in Table 1.
Even though the baseline model using measured values for key parameter inputs such as outdoor and
supply air temperature and relative humidity and an estimation of the supply airflow based on fan current
draw underpredicted the condensate that would be collected, there are several potential scenarios that could
explain this simply by error introduced by sensor (in)accuracy. One very real possibility was discussed
with an assumed 3.5% error in relative humidity (the manufacturer’s advertised accuracy) and 15% error in
airflow.
Even if there were a 30% error in predicted condensate, this may be acceptable if the only answer really
desired was if one should install or retrofit a condensation collection system or not. A 30% error in
estimated condensate would result in 30% error of the potential cost of water savings or recovery, which
may or may not be significant to the decision maker.
We also determined that two simplifications could be made to the prediction if one is only concerned with
the total annual condensate collected. For this AHU, a constant supply fan flow could be assumed. This
assumption may not apply to all AHUs across the board as it would depend on the variation in fan speed
expected and how wide that variation is. The assumption of a constant supply air humidity ratio also can
be reasonably assumed, where this should be based on the average supply air conditions expected.
Based on all these results, we conclude that our model for estimating the condensate collection potential for
any AHU with 100% outdoor air is a relatively simple and valid approach. But what if the AHU is not
100% outdoor air (as most are not)? We feel the model is applicable there as well, with it being up to the
engineer to determine or estimate the incoming outdoor airflow and variation in flow to use.
The purpose of this study was to validate our approach for estimating the potential application of
condensate to a new or existing AHU and the amount of water expected. Before this study, we have done
this using typical weather data (Marion and Urban 1995). Based on the fairly successful results of this
study, we can safely recommend applying this model approach using ‘typical’ weather data to predict
condensate collection during a ‘typical’ cooling season.
1.40
Predicted Condensate Flow vs. Actual Recorded
Baseline Evaluation
1.20
Average Condensate Flow (gpm)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Predicted condensate rate (gpm)
Actual Condensate Rate (gpm)
0.00
16‐Apr‐09
30‐Apr‐09
20‐Aug‐09
17‐Sep‐09
14‐May‐09
28‐May‐09
9‐Jul‐09
2‐Apr‐09
3‐Sep‐09
23‐Jul‐09
6‐Aug‐09
11‐Jun‐09
25‐Jun‐09
Figure 2 – Condensate average flow rate during each data reading period
(baseline evaluation)
3.00
Ratio of Actual/Predicted Condensate vs OA Humidity Ratio
(Baseline Evaluation)
Ratio of Actual / Predicted Condensate
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016
Outdoor Air Humidity Ratio, lb water/lb air [kg water/kg air]
Figure 3 – Ratio of actual to predicted condensate against the average ambient humidity
during each data recording period
1.60
Predicted Condensate Flow vs. Actual (30% Higher Fan Flow)
1.40
1.20
Condensate Flow (gpm)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
14‐May‐09
28‐May‐09
9‐Jul‐09
23‐Jul‐09
6‐Aug‐09
16‐Apr‐09
3‐Sep‐09
30‐Apr‐09
11‐Jun‐09
25‐Jun‐09
20‐Aug‐09
17‐Sep‐09
2‐Apr‐09
Figure 4 – Condensate average flow rate assuming actual supply fan flow is 30% larger
1.40
Predicted Condensate Flow vs. Actual
(7% Higher Relative Humidity Differential)
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
14‐May‐09
28‐May‐09
9‐Jul‐09
6‐Aug‐09
3‐Sep‐09
16‐Apr‐09
30‐Apr‐09
23‐Jul‐09
11‐Jun‐09
25‐Jun‐09
20‐Aug‐09
17‐Sep‐09
2‐Apr‐09
Figure 5 – Condensate average flow ate assuming a 7% larger difference in relative

humidity
1.40
Predicted Condensate Flow vs. Actual
Humidity Difference +3.5%, Fan Flow +15%
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
14‐May‐09
28‐May‐09
9‐Jul‐09
6‐Aug‐09
3‐Sep‐09
16‐Apr‐09
30‐Apr‐09
23‐Jul‐09
11‐Jun‐09
25‐Jun‐09
20‐Aug‐09
17‐Sep‐09
2‐Apr‐09
Figure 6 – Condensate average flow rate with a realistic error scenario assumption
Table 1 – Summary of Condensate Prediction Scenario Results

Condensate Collected or
Case Predicted, gal (liters) Error, %
Actual Measured 171,793 (650,307) -
Baseline 134,021 (507,325) 28%
Airflow sensitivity
30% higher supply airflow 174,227 (659,522) 1%
Humidity measurement sensitivity
1% greater difference in RH 138,335 (523,654) 24%
Error attributable to measurement accuracy
only?
3.5% greater difference in RH and
15% higher supply airflow 170,428 (645,142) 1%
Potential simplifications (using baseline case
values for other parameters)
No fan speed correction for airflow 136,532 (516,830) 26%
Use ‘typical’ supply air humidity ratio 133,288 (504,548) 29%
REFERENCES
Guz, K. 2005. “Condensate Water Recovery”, ASHRAE Journal 47(6):54-56.

Lawrence, T.M., J. Perry and P. Dempsey, 2010, “Making Every Drop Count: Retrofitting Condensate
Collection on HVAC Air Handling Units”, ASHRAE Journal 52(1):48-54.
Marion, W. and K. Urban. 1995. Users Manual for TMY2s. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, Colorado
Painter, F. 2009. “Condensate Harvesting from Large Dedicated Outside Air-Handling Units with Heat
Recovery”, ASHRAE Transactions 2009, 115(2):xxx
Wilson, A. 2008. “Alternative Water Sources: Supply-Side Solutions for Green Buildings”, Environmental
Building News, May 2008. Available from: http://www.buildinggreen.com/auth/article.cfm/ID/3903/
[accessed December 2009].
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Predicting Condensate Collection From HVAC Air Handling Units

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Predicting Condensate Collection From HVAC Air Handling Units

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

©2010 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (www.ashrae.org).

Predicting Condensate Collection

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

CONDENSATE COLLECTION SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

DESCRIPTION OF THE BASIC MODEL

General method for computing condensation

Condensate collected Airflow x density x 60 x ∆ω (1)

Condensate = 1,000 x x 60 x 0.0141 0.0078

• Outdoor air temperature and relative humidity (from data logger)

4. Compute the predicted condensate collection rate. ∆ The result is

Figure 1 – Conditioning of outdoor air across a cooling coil

Baseline model evaluation

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 5 – Condensate average flow ate assuming a 7% larger difference in relative

Table 1 – Summary of Condensate Prediction Scenario Results

Guz, K. 2005. “Condensate Water Recovery”, ASHRAE Journal 47(6):54-56.

You might also like