Question-and-Answer Resource for the Building Energy Modeling Community
Get s tarted with the Help page

# Modelica Buildings MixingVolumeMoistAir

Hi,

I am trying to develop a cooling and dehumidifying coil and would like to use Buildings.Fluid.MixingVolumes.MixingVolumeMoistAir.

I wonder why this model uses enthalpyOfWater for calculating QLat_flow instead of enthalpyOfVapotization which I've found to be the standard for calculating latent heat flow? I am surely missing something theoretical here.

The issue is that since I am calculating mWatFlow from Sensible and Latent heat calculations, the Q_flow calculated by the MixingVolumeMoistAir is different from the ones I calculate internally giving me big errors in enthalpy of outflowing air.

Bests regards,

edit retag close merge delete

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted

The reason for using enthalpy of water is as follows: The energy balance has two different components that cross the thermodynamic boundary of the volume: The incoming and leaving moist air, and the water.

For the moist air, water is assumed to be in vapor form. However, for the water, mWat_flow is the water mass flow rates that is drained from the components (in your case, drained from the dehumidifying coil). This drainage flow is in the form of liquid water. Hence, the leaving enthalpy flow needs to use the enthalpy of liquid water.

more

Hi Michael,

Many thanks for your reply. I was intending to use mWat_flow to denote water, in vapor form, removed from the air. Hence the issue (the info does says it has to be liquid form and I overlooked it, my fault).

I'll have a think.

Bests regards, Raymond

( 2017-03-15 07:14:57 -0500 )edit

Raymond,

If you need to add (or remove) water vapor, you could use the same mWat_flow (in kg/s), and add the difference in enthalpy flow rate (in Watts) between the liquid and vapor form to the heat port of the volume. This will then yield the correct mass and energy balance for your situation.

Best,

Michael

( 2017-03-15 08:40:26 -0500 )edit

Excellent! I was taking a similar approach but this is definitely cleaner.

Many thanks. Raymond

( 2017-03-15 09:03:05 -0500 )edit