Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Experimental analysis of dehumidification performance of an evaporative T

cooling-assisted internally cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier
⁎
Joon-Young Park, Beom-Jun Kim, Soo-Yeol Yoon, Yoo-Suk Byon, Jae-Weon Jeong
Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Hanyang University, 222 Wangsimni-Ro, Seungdong-Gu, Seoul 04763, Republic of Korea

H I GH L IG H T

• Evaporative cooling-assisted internally cooled liquid desiccant was proposed and tested.
• The effect of the working air flow variation on the performance indices was evaluated.
• The optimal performance was observed when the working-to-primary air flow ratio was 0.5.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The aim of this study is to empirically investigate the impact of the working-to-primary air flow ratio variation
Dehumidification system on the dehumidification performance of an evaporative cooling-assisted internally cooled liquid desiccant de-
Internally cooled liquid desiccant system humidifier. In the experiment, the process air passed through the primary (or dehumidification) channels of the
Desiccant cooling internally cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier at a constant flow rate, while the working air flow passing
Evaporative cooling
through the secondary (or evaporative cooling) channels was modulated to vary the working-to-primary air flow
ratio from 0.25 to 1.0 in 0.25 increments. To evaluate the impact of the working-to-primary air flow ratio on the
dehumidification and cooling performance of the internally cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier, four different
performance indices, i.e., cooling capacity, wet-bulb effectiveness, volumetric mass transfer coefficient, and
coefficient of performance, were measured in a series of experiments performed under various working-to-
primary air flow ratios. From those performance indicators, the overall heat, mass transfer performance, and
energy efficiency of the internally cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier could be rated. The experimental results
indicate that the maximum values of the four selected performance indices are obtained at a working-to-primary
air flow ratio of 0.5. To verify the reliability of the experimental results, a detailed simulation of the internally
cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier was performed using a sorption system simulation program (SorpSim). The
measured performance data was in good agreement with the simulation results, within 20% error bounds.
Consequently, we determined that the optimal dehumidification and cooling performance of the internally
cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier could be expected when the working-to-primary air flow ratio is 0.5.

1. Introduction numerical or empirical investigations to better understand and simulate

Liquid desiccant (LD) dehumidification technology, as an alter-
native to conventional approaches, is attracting increasing attention to
obtain dry air based on the vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. The
LD system requires low-grade heating sources (i.e., 60–80 °C) for the
regeneration of desiccant solutions [1]. In a number of LD-assisted air
conditioning applications found in open literature [2,3], the process air
is typically dehumidified by the LD unit, and subsequently cooled by
cooling devices to meet the required supply air temperature set point.
Over the past few decades, numerous researchers have conducted
the dehumidification process, especially as experienced in packed bed-
type LD dehumidifiers [4–9]. The packed bed-type LD dehumidifier
provides adiabatic dehumidification; however, because this process is
exothermic, the heat released during the dehumidification of the pro-
cess air should be removed to maintain the LD-assisted dehumidifica-
tion process [10]. Consequently, in a conventional LD system, the de-
siccant solution should be precooled before entering the absorber where
the exothermic dehumidification process occurs [11,12]. Additional
equipment for solution cooling, such as a chiller and heat exchanger,
are required.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jjwarc@hanyang.ac.kr (J.-W. Jeong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.101
Received 14 August 2018; Received in revised form 5 October 2018; Accepted 28 October 2018
Available online 05 November 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.-Y. Park et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

Nomenclature ε effectiveness [–]

ω humidity ratio [kg/kg]
A specific surface area [m2]
b bias standard uncertainty Subscripts
C cooling capacity [kW]
c specific heat [kJ/(kg·K)] e equilibrium
COP coefficient of performance in inlet
E energy consumption m mass
h enthalpy [kJ/kg] out outlet
K volume mass transfer coefficient [kg/(m3·s)] PA process air
Le Lewis number sol desiccant solution
M number of multiple tests v volume
m moisture removal rate [kg/s] w moisture
ṁ mass flow rate [kg/s] WA working air
NTU number of transfer units water water
p precision standard uncertainty wet wet bulb
sr standard deviation of result
T temperature [°C] Abbreviations
U overall uncertainty
V volume [m3] AFR air flow ratio
WBT wet-bulb temperature [°C] ICLD internally cooled liquid desiccant
LD liquid desiccant
Greek symbols LiCl lithium chloride
SorpSim sorption system simulation program
αC heat transfer coefficient [kW/(m2·°C)] WBT wet-bulb temperature
αD mass transfer coefficient [kg/(m2·s)]

An internally cooled liquid desiccant (ICLD) dehumidifier simulta-
neously removes the heat released during the dehumidification process
by providing a cooling source directly to the dehumidifier. A number of
studies have been conducted to investigate ICLD dehumidifiers based
on conventional fin-tube or plate heat exchangers [10,13–17]. Gao
et al. [10] proposed an ICLD dehumidifier and compared its perfor-
mance with the conventional adiabatic dehumidifier. In their system,
the process air was dehumidified by the desiccant solution sprayed on
the film in the absorber of the ICLD, and the exothermic heat released
during the dehumidification process was accommodated by the cooling
water sprayed on the opposite side of the film. They indicated that their
ICLD dehumidifier was advantageous over the conventional packed-
bed-type LD dehumidifier because the temperature and concentration
of the desiccant solution required in their proposed system were rela-
tively lower than those for the conventional system. Lowenstein et al.
[13] proposed a low-flow ICLD dehumidifier comprising a plastic plate
heat exchanger to maintain a lower liquid-to-gas ratio than a conven-
tional LD dehumidifier. They delivered chilled water to their ICLD de-
humidifier to remove the heat released during the dehumidification
process. Qi et al. [14] proposed theoretical models for predicting the
effectiveness values of an ICLD dehumidifier. Their proposed models
returned three different effectiveness values, enthalpy effectiveness,
moisture effectiveness, and temperature effectiveness, under different
operating conditions, all of which are critical information for predicting
the dehumidification performance and thermodynamic behavior of the
ICLD dehumidifier. Zhang et al. [15] studied an ICLD dehumidifier
comprising a fin-tube heat exchanger. They analyzed the performance
of their proposed system using moisture removal rate, dehumidification
effectiveness, and volumetric mass transfer coefficient as performance
indicators. Their measured performance was in good agreement with
data acquired from the existing literature and numerical models, and
was within 20% error bounds. Kessling et al. [16] investigated the
performance of an ICLD dehumidifier assisted by a solar thermal
system. To enhance the dehumidification performance of their system,
chilled water was supplied to the ICLD dehumidifier to accommodate
the heat released at the process air side during the dehumidification.
Yin et al. [17] proposed an ICLD dehumidifier comprising a plate-fin
heat exchanger, and experimentally evaluated the impact of the inlet
temperature of the desiccant solution on the dehumidification perfor-
mance of their proposed system. They experimentally verified that the
lower the internal temperature of the ICLD, the higher the dehumidi-
fication performance.
As has been shown in previous studies, ICLD dehumidifiers based on
a water coil or heat exchanger are efficient in dehumidifying the pro-
cess air. However, they required a chiller or water cooler for producing
chilled water to be delivered to the water coil or heat exchanger of the
ICLD dehumidifier. In addition, if the coil or heat exchanger was made
of metallic materials, anti-corrosion coating on the surface of the coil or
heat exchanger was essential for avoiding corrosion caused by the li-
quid desiccant solution.
To eliminate the requirement for additional equipment for the so-
lution cooling, and to prevent corrosion of the ICLD dehumidification
system, an evaporative cooling-assisted ICLD dehumidifier was pro-
posed. Saman and Alizadeh [18] proposed an ICLD dehumidifier that
implemented the indirect evaporative cooling approach for accom-
modating the heat released in the dehumidification process. They used
an ICLD of thin polymer sheets to avoid corrosion by the desiccant
solution. The primary and secondary channels were separated by thin
plastic plates. The heat released during the dehumidification process in
the primary channels was transferred to the working air experiencing
evaporative cooling in the secondary channels through the thin plastic
plates.
Available literature reporting the dehumidification performance
and energy benefits of an evaporative cooling-assisted ICLD is scarce.
Therefore, in this study, a cross-flow-type evaporative cooling-assisted
ICLD is proposed, and its dehumidification performance and energy
saving benefits are empirically investigated by varying the working-to-
primary air flow ratio, which is the ratio of the working air flow rate in
the secondary channels to the primary air flow rate in the primary
channels. The working-to-primary air ratio could significantly affect the
dehumidification and energy performance of the ICLD dehumidifier.
However, the impact of the working-to-primary air ratio on the per-
formance of the evaporative cooling-assisted ICLD has not been thor-
oughly investigated experimentally.

178
J.-Y. Park et al.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to empirically determine the
working-to-primary air flow ratio (AFR) that provides the optimal de-
humidification performance of the cross-flow-type evaporative cooling-
assisted ICLD dehumidifier. The impact of AFR variation on the dehu-
midification performance of the ICLD dehumidifier was investigated by
adjusting the AFR from 0.25 to 1.0 in 0.25 increments in the experi-
ment. Performance indicators, such as the cooling capacity, wet-bulb
effectiveness, volumetric mass transfer coefficient, and coefficient of
performance (COP) of the ICLD dehumidifier, were estimated based on
measured data for the different AFRs. Because of the lack of compara-
tive experimental data available from available literature, the reliability
of the measured data and experimental results of this study was verified
by comparing them to the simulation results obtained from an existing
sorption system simulation program (SorpSim) [19,20].
2. Experimental setup
The cross-flow ICLD dehumidifier used in this study, which is si-
milar to an indirect evaporative cooler, is shown in Fig. 1. The liquid
desiccant solution is sprayed into the process air channels of the ICLD
dehumidifier for dehumidifying the process air, and the process air is
cooled simultaneously by transferring the heat to the working air ex-
periencing direct evaporative cooling in the working air channels. A
38% lithium chloride (LiCl) solution was used to dehumidify the pro-
cess air in this study. In each experiment, the concentration of the LiCl
solution at the ICLD inlet was maintained at 38% so as to avoid the
effect of desiccant solution concentration on the experimental results.
The ICLD dehumidifier shown in Fig. 1 comprises 30 pairs of wet
channels in both the process air and working air sides. Each channel
was manufactured from corrugated polyethylene phthalate sheets with
fiber-fabricated papers for uniformly distributing the desiccant solution
or water on the channel surface. The geometry of the channels shown in
Fig. 2 was identical in both the primary and working air sides of the
proposed ICLD dehumidifier. The thickness of the channel was 0.2 mm,
the gap of the channel was 5 mm, and the channel pitch was 9 mm. The
volume of the ICLD dehumidifier was 0.099 m3, with a height of
340 mm, and the length and width were both 540 mm. The wettability
of the wet channels is approximately 0.92 in water and 0.6 in aqueous
solution according to the data sheets from the manufacturers. Table 1
presents the primary parameters of the ICLD dehumidifier used in the
experiment.
3. Performance measurement
3.1. Measurement setup
To evaluate the dehumidification and cooling performances of the
ICLD dehumidifier, the unit was placed in the test facility, as shown in
Fig. 3, which comprised two chambers: the outdoor air chamber and the
room air chamber. Each chamber was maintained at a specific constant
temperature and humidity level to satisfy the required test conditions.
The outdoor air chamber was controlled to produce the hot and humid
air supplied to the process air channels of the ICLD dehumidifier, and
the room air chamber was maintained at a typical room air condition to
provide the working air to the working air channels.
To maintain the target test conditions, a 2500-m3/h environment
control unit with a 12.5 kW cooling capacity and a 5 kW heating ca-
pacity was installed in each chamber. The dry-bulb and wet-bulb
temperatures of the process air and the working air were measured at
the inlet and outlet of the ICLD dehumidifier, using resistance ther-
mometer detectors (i.e., RTDs) installed in the code testers. The mass
flow rate of each air stream was determined by the pressure drops
measured by differential pressure sensors and static pressure sensors in
each code tester. The inlet temperatures of the desiccant solution and
the water were measured by thermocouples. The concentrations of the
LiCl solution entering and exiting the ICLD dehumidifier were
179
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185
measured by glass hydrometers. Table 2 presents the ranges and ac-
curacies of the measuring equipment. The measuring equipment used in
this study was calibrated before the experiment to ensure their re-
spective rated accuracies. Fig. 4 shows the actual test setup for the
experiment for evaluating the performance of the ICLD dehumidifier.
3.2. Experiment overview
To evaluate the impact of the working air flow rate on the dehu-
midification and cooling performance of the ICLD dehumidifier, a series
of experiments were performed under a constant process air flow rate of
0.167 kg/s (i.e., 500 m3/h), while the working air flow rate was varied
by increasing the AFR from 0.25 to 1.0 in 0.25 increments (Table 3).
The inlet condition of the process air was maintained at a dry-bulb
temperature of 32 °C and 40% relative humidity (i.e., 11.96 g/kg) in the
outdoor air chamber. These outdoor air conditions were recommended
by the local design standard [21] for representing the hot and humid
condition of the outdoor air. The inlet condition of the working air was
maintained by the room air chamber at a dry-bulb temperature of 24 °C
and 60% relative humidity (i.e., 18.6 °C wet-bulb temperature), re-
presenting the recommended room air conditions [22].
A 38% LiCl aqueous solution was supplied into the process air
channels at 23 °C and a 0.02 kg/s mass flow rate through the solution
distributor for dehumidifying the process air. In the working air chan-
nels, water at 21 °C and a 0.02 kg/s mass flow rate was supplied,
without any cooling, for the evaporative cooling of the working air.
3.3. Uncertainty analysis
The overall uncertainty of the experimental data was determined
based on existing guidelines [23]. To estimate the uncertainty value, we
used both the basis (bx ) and precision ( px ) uncertainties calculated for
the measured value at the inlet and outlet of ICLD dehumidifier system
( Xi ). The overall uncertainty was estimated by Eq. (1) based on the
basis (bx ) and precision ( px ) uncertainties, which were determined by
Eqs. (2) and (3). The uncertainty analysis was performed using the
engineering equation solver (EES), a commercial equation solver [24],
and it is included in the experimental results.
Ux = (b2x + px2 )1/2 (1)
n 2 1/2
⎡ ∂x ⎤
bx = ⎢∑ ⎛ bx ⎞
x i ⎥
⎜ ⎟
∂
⎣ i=1 ⎝ i ⎠ ⎦ (2)
2Sr
px =
M (3)
3.4. Performance index
The performance of the ICLD dehumidifier was evaluated using
cooling capacity, wet-bulb effectiveness, volumetric mass transfer
coefficient, and coefficient of performance (COP) as performance in-
dicators. The cooling capacity and wet-bulb effectiveness of the ICLD
dehumidifier were measured to estimate the indirect evaporative
Fig. 1. Configuration of ICLD dehumidifier.
J.-Y. Park et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

(TPA, in − TPA, out )

εwet =
(TPA, in − WBTWA, in ) (5)

To evaluate the dehumidification performance of the ICLD dehu-

midifier, the volumetric mass transfer coefficient is calculated by Eq.
(6) [15], where the moisture removal rate at the process air channels is
estimated using Eq. (7). In Eq. (6), V and ωe, sol are the volume of the
ICLD dehumidifier and the equilibrium humidity ratio of the strong
desiccant solution, respectively. In Eq. (7), ωPA, in and ωPA, out are the
humidity ratios of the process air at the inlet and outlet of the process
air channels, respectively.
mw
Kv =
Fig. 2. Channel geometry of ICLD dehumidifier. V (ωPA, in − ωe, sol ) (6)

m w = ṁ PA (ωPA, in − ωPA, out ) (7)

Table 1
Primary parameters of wet channel in ICLD dehumidifier. The COP of the ICLD dehumidifier is estimated by Eq. (8), where E
is the overall operating electric energy consumption of the ICLD de-
Wet channel gap 5 mm
humidifier, including the fan and pump energy consumptions, on both
Wet channel pitch 9 mm
Wet channel thickness 0.2 mm the process and working air sides.
ICLD unit length 540 mm
C ṁ PA (hPA, in − hPA, out )
ICLD unit width 540 mm COP = =
ICLD unit height 340 mm E ΣEfan + ΣEpump (8)
Wettability 0.92 (water), 0.6 (desiccant solution)

cooling performance affecting the process air exiting the ICLD dehu-
midifier. The volumetric mass transfer coefficient was determined to
estimate the normalized dehumidification rate of the process air [15].
The COP of the ICLD dehumidifier was estimated to evaluate the energy
consumption performance.
The cooling capacity and wet-bulb effectiveness were determined
using Eqs. (4) and (5). In Eq. (4), hPA, in and hPA, out are the enthalpy of
the process air at the inlet and outlet of the process air channels, re-
spectively; and ṁ PA is the mass flow rate of the process air. In Eq. (5),
TPA, in and TPA, out are the temperatures of the process air at the inlet and
outlet of the process air channels, respectively; and WBTWA, in is the wet-
bulb temperature of the working air entering the working air channels.
C = ṁ PA (hPA, in − hPA, out )
4. Measurement results
To evaluate the impact of working air flow variations on the per-
formance of the ICLD dehumidifier, the AFR was changed from 0.25 to
1.0 in 0.25 increments.
4.1. Measured performance indices
4.1.1. Cooling capacity
Table 4 presents the measured operating data and performance in-
dices of the ICLD humidifier under different working air flow rates
adjusted to meet the AFR preset in each test. During the experiment, the
mass flow rates of both the desiccant solution and the water supplied to
the process air and working air channels were maintained at 0.02 kg/s.
(4) The temperature of the 38% LiCl solution entering the ICLD was 23 °C,
and the water temperature at the inlet of the ICLD was 21 °C.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of test setup.

180
J.-Y. Park et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

Table 2
Characteristics of measurement devices.
Device Type Range Accuracy

Dry-bulb temperature RTD sensor −50 to 150 °C ± (0.15 + 0.002t) °C

Wet-bulb temperature RTD sensor −60 to 260 °C ± (0.15 + 0.002t) °C
Air flow Differential pressure sensor 0–1250 Pa ± 0.3%
Static pressure Differential pressure sensor 0–1000 Pa ± 0.3%
Temperature sensor Thermocouple −80 to 300 °C ± (0.05 + 0.005t) °C
Density meter Glass hydrometer 1.0–1.5 g/ml 0.001 g/ml

Fig. 4. Experimental setup of ICLD dehumidifier.

Table 3
Experimental process air and working air flow rates.
No. Process air flow rate Working air flow rate AFR (ṁ WA/ṁ PA )
(ṁ PA ) (ṁ WA )

1 0.167 kg/s 0.04 kg/s 0.25

2 0.167 kg/s 0.08 kg/s 0.5
3 0.167 kg/s 0.12 kg/s 0.75
4 0.167 kg/s 0.167 kg/s 1.0

Fig. 5 shows the cooling capacity variations of the ICLD dehumi-

difier under various AFR values. As can be seen, the maximum cooling
capacity was observed when the AFR was 0.5; that is, when the working
air flow rate was one-half the process air flow rate, the ICLD humidifier
provided the highest enthalpy reduction of the process air. Interest-
ingly, the cooling capacity of the ICLD humidifier decreased when the
AFR was greater than 0.5. This means that the indirect evaporative
cooling effect of the ICLD humidifier would not be enhanced by in-
creasing the working air flow rate after the AFR reached 0.5. In addi- Fig. 5. Cooling capacity of ICLD dehumidifier for various AFRs.
tion, the cooling capacity of the ICLD dehumidifier predicted by the
SorpSim simulation (Fig. 5), performed under identical operating con- (i.e., 0.5) because the channel surface area where the evaporative
ditions to those of the experiments, exhibited the highest cooling ca- cooling occurs does not change, even though the working air flow in-
pacity when the AFR was 0.5. Consequently, one may conclude that the creases.
evaporative cooling effect in the working air channels would not be
enhanced once the working-to-primary AFR reached a certain value

Table 4
Measured operating data and performance indices of ICLD dehumidifier.
No ṁ PA ṁ WA AFR TPA, in ωPA, in WBTWA, in TPA, out ωPA, out C εwet Kv
[kg/s] [kg/s] [–] [°C] [g/kg] [°C] [°C] [g/kg] [kW] [–] [kg/m3 s]

1 0.167 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.01 0.25 32.4 ± 0.2 12.3 ± 0.1 18.4 ± 0.3 27.4 ± 0.4 11.7 ± 0.1 1.09 ± 0.3 0.36 ± 0.1 0.13 ± 0.1
2 0.167 ± 0.03 0.08 ± 0.02 0.5 32.3 ± 0.2 12.0 ± 0.1 19.1 ± 0.3 25.8 ± 0.3 10.3 ± 0.1 1.82 ± 0.2 0.49 ± 0.1 0.43 ± 0.1
3 0.167 ± 0.02 0.12 ± 0.01 0.75 32.3 ± 0.3 12.2 ± 0.1 18.7 ± 0.2 25.7 ± 0.2 11.2 ± 0.2 1.36 ± 0.2 0.45 ± 0.1 0.25 ± 0.1
4 0.167 ± 0.02 0.167 ± 0.03 1 31.9 ± 0.3 11.9 ± 0.1 19.5 ± 0.4 27.4 ± 0.4 10.8 ± 0.1 1.12 ± 0.1 0.35 ± 0.1 0.26 ± 0.1

181
J.-Y. Park et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

Fig. 6. Wet-bulb effectiveness of ICLD dehumidifier for various AFRs. Fig. 8. Overall COP of ICLD dehumidifier for various AFRs.

performance. Regarding the variation of the volumetric mass transfer

coefficient under different AFR values in the ICLD dehumidifier, it can
be seen in Fig. 7 that the maximum volumetric mass transfer coefficient
was observed at an AFR of 0.5. This means that it might not be ne-
cessary to supply more than one-half of the process air flow as working
air to the secondary channels in the ICLD operation to obtain the op-
timum dehumidification performance. The predicted volumetric mass
transfer coefficient from the SorpSim simulation was also a maximum
when the AFR was 0.5. Because the maximum cooling of the process air
was obtained in the proposed ICLD at an AFR of 0.5 (Fig. 5), one might
also expect the maximum dehumidification of the process air to un-
dergo an exothermic process.

4.1.4. Coefficient of performance

In each experiment, two 40-W circulation pumps were used to
maintain a constant mass flow rate in both the LiCl solution and water
loops. The electric power consumption of the two variable flow fans
was measured during the experiment. The electric power consumption
Fig. 7. Volume mass transfer coefficient of ICLD dehumidifier for various AFRs.
of the fans and pumps measured in each experiment is presented in
Table 5. As can be seen in Fig. 8, the maximum COP value of 13.94 was
Table 5 observed, as expected, when the AFR was 0.5, because of the high
Electric energy consumptions for various AFRs. cooling capacity and the low electric power consumption.
AFR Primary fan Secondary fan Primary Secondary
[ṁ WA /ṁ PA ] pump pump
4.2. Reliability of experimental data
[W] [W] [W] [W]

0.25 39.31 ± 0.8 4.75 ± 0.3 40 40 The reliability of the measured performance data for the ICLD de-
0.5 40.33 ± 0.2 10.42 ± 0.7 40 40 humidifier was validated by comparison with the predicted values from
0.75 40.19 ± 0.3 22.92 ± 0.1 40 40
the SorpSim simulation [19,20]. The SorpSim was developed by the
1 41.20 ± 0.7 39.73 ± 0.4 40 40
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Purdue University to provide a
convenient platform for absorption system simulation studies. It is an
4.1.2. Wet-bulb effectiveness open-source simulation tool for evaluating the dehumidification per-
The wet-bulb effectiveness represents the indirect evaporative formance of a liquid desiccant system, and the liquid desiccant models
cooling performance of indirect evaporative cooling devices [25,26]. As demonstrated its versatility in predicting and analyzing the perfor-
can be seen in Fig. 6, the maximum wet-bulb effectiveness of the ICLD mance of a variety of liquid desiccant dehumidifiers.
dehumidifier was obtained when the AFR was 0.5, while the wet-bulb For simulating the ICLD dehumidifier, the numerical model for the
effectiveness decreased after the AFR reached 0.5. The predicted wet- ICLD dehumidifier was established using the finite difference method in
bulb effectiveness obtained from the SorpSim simulation yielded si- SorpSim platform [13,16,17]. The initial conditions for simulating the
milar results, while it did not differ significantly from the experimental ICLD dehumidifier are presented in Table 6. The inlet temperatures and
result. mass flow rates of the desiccant solution and the water, and the con-
centration of the LiCl solution, were identical to those in the experi-
ments. The wettability of the evaporative cooling sheets applied in this
4.1.3. Volumetric mass transfer coefficient ICLD was taken as 0.92 for water and 0.6 for the desiccant solution.
Because the mass flow rate of the process air was constant in the The NTU for the mass transfer (NTUm ) was calculated using Eqs. (9)
experiments, the variation of the volumetric mass transfer coefficient and (10) with averaged values of 0.201 obtained from the experimental
represented the impact of the AFR values on the dehumidification data. The Lewis number (Le ) defined by Eq. (11) was assumed to be 1.0

182
J.-Y. Park et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

Table 6
Initial conditions for ICLD dehumidifier simulation in SorpSim.
Tsol, in [°C] Twater , in [°C] ṁ sol [kg/s] ṁ water [kg/s] Xsol, in [%] Wettability [%] NTUm

23 21 0.02 0.02 38.2 0.6 0.246

(a) Cooling capacity (b) wet-bulb effectiveness

(c) Volume mass transfer coefficient

Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental data and predicted values.

183
J.-Y. Park et al.
according to existing literature [27,28].
mw
αD =
A (ωPA, in − ωe, sol ) (9)
αD ∗A
NTUm =
mPA (10)
αC
Le =
αD CPA (11)
Fig. 9 shows the comparison of the measured cooling capacity, wet-
bulb effectiveness, and volume mass transfer coefficient of the ICLD
dehumidifier with the predicted values from the SorpSim simulation. As
can be seen, the experimental data and predicted values are in good
agreement, within 20% error bounds.
4.3. Discussion
In the experiment performed in this study, it was observed that the
proposed ICLD dehumidifier exhibited maximum values of the four
performance indices when the AFR was 0.5. Therefore, one could ex-
pect the optimal dehumidification performance of the evaporative
cooling-assisted cross-flow ICLD humidifier when the working air flow
rate, experiencing direct evaporative cooling, is half of the process air
flow rate dehumidified by the liquid desiccant.
Because the dehumidification occurring in the process air channels
is an exothermic process, the heat released during the dehumidification
should be removed by transferring it to the working air experiencing
direct evaporative cooling in the working air channels in order to en-
hance the dehumidification performance of the ICLD. Typically, when
the process air flow rate and the temperature difference between the
process air and working air are held constant, the amount of heat
transferred from the process air channels to the working air channels
would increase with increasing working air flow rate. However, the
experimental results indicated that there would be an upper limit of the
working air flow rate enhancing the heat transfer from the process air
channels to the working air channels. There should inherently be an
upper limit of the amount of evaporative cooling because the specific
contact area between the channel surface and the working air flow
could not be increased with increasing working air flow rate. For the
given geometry of the working air channels, the upper limit of the
evaporative cooling in the working air channels was attained at an AFR
of 0.5. Consequently, the maximum dehumidification performance of
the proposed ICLD was also observed at this AFR. Similar results were
observed for the ICLD dehumidifier in [18], where the upper limit of
the AFR was approximately 0.8.
5. Conclusions
In this study, the impact of the working-to-process air flow ratio
(AFR) on the cooling, dehumidification, and energy performance of the
evaporative cooling-assisted internally cooled liquid desiccant (ICLD)
dehumidifier was empirically evaluated. When the working air flow
rate varied from 25 to 100% of the process air flow rate, i.e., when the
AFR increased from 0.25 to 1.0, the experimental data indicated that
the maximum values of the performance indices, such as the cooling
capacity, wet-bulb effectiveness, volume mass transfer coefficient, and
system coefficient of performance (COP), would be attained at an AFR
of 0.5. The measured data from the experiment was in good agreement
with the predicted values of the SorpSim simulation, within 20% error
bounds.
As for conventional indirect evaporative coolers, it is typically
known that a higher AFR value could provide better cooling perfor-
mance [29–34]. However, the cross-flow ICLD dehumidifier, with a
physical geometry similar to the indirect evaporative cooler, indicated
that the best dehumidification and cooling performance occurred at an
AFR of approximately 0.5. One may conclude that, for a given heat
184
Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185
transfer area between the process and working air channels of the ICLD,
the removal rate of the exothermic heat released in the primary channel
during the dehumidification of the process air becomes maximal at an
AFR of 0.5. An increase in the working air flow to greater than one-half
of the process air might not enhance the performance of the evaporative
cooling-assisted ICLD dehumidifier. The evaporative cooling-assisted
ICLD dehumidifier indicated that the maximum system COP was at an
AFR of 0.5 because of the reduction of additional cooling equipment
operation. Although it was not addressed in this study, in addition to
the good energy saving potential, the proposed ICLD dehumidifier
could also have the advantage of avoiding corrosion problems caused
by liquid desiccant solutions.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure
Technology Advancement (KAIA) grants (18CTAP-C116268-03 and
18CTAP-C141826-01), and the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) (No. 20184010201710).
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.10.101.
References
[1] Goetzler W, Zogg R, Young J, Johnson C. Energy savings potential and RD&D op-
portunities for non-vapor-compression HVAC technologies. Navigant Consulting
Inc., prepared for US Department of Energy; 2014.
[2] Kim M-H, Park J-S, Jeong J-W. Energy saving potential of liquid desiccant in eva-
porative-cooling-assisted 100% outdoor air system. Energy 2013;59:726–36.
[3] Dieckmann J, Roth KW, Brodrick J. Liquid desiccant air conditioners. ASHRAE J
2004;46(4):58–9.
[4] Chung T-W, Luo C-M. Vapor pressures of the aqueous desiccant. J Chem Eng Data
1999;44:1024–7.
[5] Martin Viktoria, Yogi Goswami D. Effectiveness of heat and mass transfer processes
in packed bed liquid desiccant dehumidifier/regenerator. HVAC&R Res
2000;6(1):21–39.
[6] Liu XH, Qu KY, Jiang Y. Empirical correlations to predict the performance of the
dehumidifier using liquid desiccant in heat and mass transfer. Renew Energy
2006;31:1627–39.
[7] Liu XH, Yi XQ, Jiang Y. Mass transfer performance comparison of two commonly
used liquid desiccants: LiBr and LiCl aqueous solution. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52:180–90.
[8] Liu XH, Zhang Y, Qu KY, Jiang Y. Experimental study on mass transfer performances
of cross dehumidifier using liquid desiccant. Energy Convers Manage
2011;47:2682–92.
[9] Park J-Y, Yoon D-S, Lee S-J, Jeong J-W. Empirical model for predicting the dehu-
midification effectiveness of a liquid desiccant system. Energy Build
2016;126:447–54.
[10] Gao WZ, Shi YR, Cheng YP, Sun WZ. Experimental study on partially internally
cooled dehumidification in liquid desiccant air conditioning system. Energy Build
2013;61:202–9.
[11] Gommed K, Grossman G. Experimental investigation of a liquid desiccant system for
solar cooling and dehumidification. Sol Energy 2007;81:131–8.
[12] Jain S, Tripathi S, Das RS. Experimental performance of a liquid desiccant dehu-
midification system under tropical climates. Energy Convers Manage
2011;52:2461–6.
[13] Lowenstein A, Slayzak S, Kozubal E. A zero carryover liquid-desiccant air condi-
tioner for solar applications. Proceedings of the ASME international solar energy
conference. 2007. p. 397–407.
[14] Qi R, Lu L, Yang H. Development of simplified prediction model for internally
cooled/heated liquid desiccant dehumidification system. Energy Build
2013;59:133–42.
[15] Zhang T, Liu X, Jiang J, Chang X, Jiang Y. Experimental analysis of an internally-
cooled liquid desiccant dehumidifier. Build Environ 2013;63:1–10.
[16] Kessling W, Laevemann E, Kapfhammer C. Energy storage for desiccant cooling
systems component development. Sol Energy 1998;64:209–21.
[17] Yin Y, Zhang X, Wang G, Luo L. Experimental study on a new internally cooled/
heated dehumidifier/regenerator of liquid desiccant systems. Int J Refrig
2008;31:857–66.
[18] Saman WY, Alizsdeh S. Modeling and performance analysis of a cross-flow type
plate heat exchanger for dehumidification/cooling. Sol Energy 2001;70(4):361–72.
[19] Yang Z. Development of simulation modules for liquid desiccant systems in SorpSim
[Master’s Thesis] Purdue University; 2015.
[20] Yang Z, Qu M, Gluesenkamp KR, Abdelaziz O. Liquid desiccant system component
J.-Y. Park et al. Applied Energy 235 (2019) 177–185

models in the sorption system simulation program (SorpSim). Proceedings of 12th transfer processes in liquid desiccant air dehumidifier/regenerator. Energy Convers
IEA heat pump conference. 2017. O. 4. 6. 2. Manage 2007;48:2221–32.
[21] SAREK. SAREK Standard 202. Method of Testing for Rating Desiccant [28] Liu XH, Li Z, Jiang Y. Similarity of coupled heat and mass transfer between air–-
Dehumidifiers Utilizing Heat for the Regeneration Process. The Society of Air- water and air–liquid desiccant direct-contact systems. Build Environ
Conditioning and Refrigerating Engineers of KOREA; 2014. 2009;44:2501–9.
[22] ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 55. Thermal environmental conditions for [29] Chen Y, Yang H, Luo Y. Indirect evaporative cooler considering condensation from
human occupancy. American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air- primary air: model development and parameter analysis. Build Environ
Conditioning Engineers, Inc; 2013. 2016;95:330–45.
[23] ASHRAE. ASHRAE Guideline 2. Engineering Analysis of Experimental Data. [30] Chen Y, Yang H, Luo Y. Parameter sensitivity analysis and configuration optimi-
American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc; zation of Indirect Evaporative Cooler (IEC) considering condensation. Appl Energy
2010. 2016;104:87–104.
[24] Klein SA. F-Chart Software, Engineering Equation Solver. EES Manual: Getting [31] Kim H-J, Ham S-W, Yoon D-S, Jeong J-W. Cooling performance measurement of two
started. Solar Energy Laboratory, University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2013 cross-flow indirect evaporative coolers in general and regenerative operation
[chapter 1]. modes. Appl Energy 2017;195:268–77.
[25] Velasco Gómez E, Tejero González A, Rey Martínez FJ. Experimental character- [32] Duan Z, Zhan C, Zhang X, Mustafa M, Zhao X, Alimohammadisagvand B, et al.
isation of an indirect evaporative cooling prototype in two operating modes. Appl Indirect evaporative cooling: past, present and future potentials. Renew Sustain
Energy 2012;97:340–6. Energy Rev 2012;16(9):6823–50.
[26] Tejero-gonzález A, Andrés-chicote M, Velasco-gómez E, Rey-martínez FJ. Influence [33] Peterson J. An effectiveness model for indirect evaporative coolers. ASHRAE Trans
of constructive parameters on the performance of two indirect evaporative cooler 1993;99:392–9.
prototypes. Appl Therm Eng 2013;51:1017–25. [34] Guo XC, Zhao TS. A parametric study of an indirect evaporative air cooler. Int
[27] Liu XH, Jiang Y, Xia JJ, Chang XM. Analytical solutions of coupled heat and mass Commun Heat Mass Transf 1998;25(2):217–26.

185