Detailed Comparison of the Operational Characteristics of Energy-Conserving HVAC Systems during the Cooling Season

Chul-Ho Kim, Seung-Eon Lee, Kwang-Ho Lee and Kang-Soo Kim
Additional contact information
Chul-Ho Kim: Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Seung-Eon Lee: Department of Living and Built Environment Research, Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Technology, 283 Goyangdae-Ro, Ilsanseo-Gu, Goyang-Si, Gyeonggi-Do 10223, Korea
Kwang-Ho Lee: Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Kang-Soo Kim: Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Korea University, 145 Anam-Ro, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 02841, Korea

Energies, 2019, vol. 12, issue 21, 1-29

Abstract: To provide useful information concerning energy-conserving heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, this study used EnergyPlus to analyze in detail their operational characteristics and energy performance. This study also aimed to understand the features of the systems under consideration by investigating the dry-bulb temperature, relative humidity, and airflow rate at major nodes in each system’s schematic. Furthermore, we analyzed the indoor environment created by each HVAC system, as well as examining the cooling energy consumptions and CO 2 emissions. The HVAC systems selected for this study are the variable air volume (VAV) commonly used in office buildings (base-case model), constant air volume (CAV), under-floor air distribution (UFAD), and active chilled beam (ACB) with dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS). For the same indoor set-point temperature, the CAV’s supply airflow was the highest, and VAV and UFAD were operated by varying the airflow rate according to the change of the space thermal load. ACB with DOAS was analyzed as being able to perform air conditioning only with the supply airflow constantly fixed at a minimum outdoor air volume. The primary cooling energy was increased by about 23.3% by applying CAV, compared to VAV. When using the UFAD and ACB with DOAS, cooling energy was reduced by 11.3% and 23.1% compared with VAV, respectively.

Keywords: energy-conserving HVAC systems; variable air volume (VAV); underfloor air distribution (UFAD); active chilled beam (ACB) with dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS); EnergyPlus; primary energy consumption; CO 2 emissions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/21/4160/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/21/4160/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:12:y:2019:i:21:p:4160-:d:282060

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().