Simple item page
 

Determination of Performance of Different Pad Materials and Energy Consumption Values of Direct Evaporative Cooler

cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtual.author-orcid0000-0002-0340-3273
cris.virtual.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid1ed1f464-ad28-4276-94f3-9b7597fe3851
cris.virtualsource.author-orcid#PLACEHOLDER_PARENT_METADATA_VALUE#
dc.abstract.enThe purpose of this study is to determine the performances of luffa and greenhouse shading netting (which can be used as alternatives to commercial cellulose pads, that are popular for cooling greenhouses), the contribution of external shading to the evaporative cooling performance, and the energy consumption of the direct evaporative cooler. In this experiment, eight different applications were evaluated: natural ventilation (NV), natural ventilation combined with external shading net (NV + ESN), cellulose pad (CP), cellulose pad combined with external shading net (CP + ESN), luffa pad (LP), luffa pad combined with external shading net (LP + ESN), shading net pad (SNP), and shading net pad combined with external shading net (SNP + ESN). The cooling efficiencies of CP, CP + ESN, LP, LP + ESN, SNP, and SNP + ESN were found to be 37.6%, 45.0%, 38.9%, 41.2%, 24.4%, 29.1%, respectively. Moreover, their cooling capacities were 2.6 kW, 3.0 kW, 2.8 kW, 3.0 kW, 1.7 kW, 2.0 kW, respectively. The system water consumption values were 2.9, 3.1, 2.8, 3.2, 2.4, 2.4 l h−1, respectively. The performance coefficients of the system were determined to be 10.2, 12.1, 11.3, 11.9, 6.6, 7.8. The system’s electricity consumption per unit area was 0.15 kWh m−2. As a result of the study, it was determined that commercially used cellulose pads have advantages over luffa and shading net materials. However, luffa pads can be a good alternative to cellulose pads, considering their local availability, initial cost, cooling efficiency, and capacity.
dc.affiliationWydział Inżynierii Środowiska i Inżynierii Mechanicznej
dc.affiliation.instituteKatedra Melioracji, Kształtowania Środowiska i Gospodarki Przestrzennej
dc.contributor.authorJakubowski, Tomasz
dc.contributor.authorBoyacı, Sedat
dc.contributor.authorKocięcka, Joanna
dc.contributor.authorAtılgan, Atılgan
dc.date.access2024-08-22
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-22T10:15:39Z
dc.date.available2024-08-22T10:15:39Z
dc.date.copyright2024-06-07
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstract<jats:p>The purpose of this study is to determine the performances of luffa and greenhouse shading netting (which can be used as alternatives to commercial cellulose pads, that are popular for cooling greenhouses), the contribution of external shading to the evaporative cooling performance, and the energy consumption of the direct evaporative cooler. In this experiment, eight different applications were evaluated: natural ventilation (NV), natural ventilation combined with external shading net (NV + ESN), cellulose pad (CP), cellulose pad combined with external shading net (CP + ESN), luffa pad (LP), luffa pad combined with external shading net (LP + ESN), shading net pad (SNP), and shading net pad combined with external shading net (SNP + ESN). The cooling efficiencies of CP, CP + ESN, LP, LP + ESN, SNP, and SNP + ESN were found to be 37.6%, 45.0%, 38.9%, 41.2%, 24.4%, 29.1%, respectively. Moreover, their cooling capacities were 2.6 kW, 3.0 kW, 2.8 kW, 3.0 kW, 1.7 kW, 2.0 kW, respectively. The system water consumption values were 2.9, 3.1, 2.8, 3.2, 2.4, 2.4 l h−1, respectively. The performance coefficients of the system were determined to be 10.2, 12.1, 11.3, 11.9, 6.6, 7.8. The system’s electricity consumption per unit area was 0.15 kWh m−2. As a result of the study, it was determined that commercially used cellulose pads have advantages over luffa and shading net materials. However, luffa pads can be a good alternative to cellulose pads, considering their local availability, initial cost, cooling efficiency, and capacity.</jats:p>
dc.description.accesstimeat_publication
dc.description.bibliographyil., bibliogr.
dc.description.financepublication_nocost
dc.description.financecost0,00
dc.description.if3,0
dc.description.number12
dc.description.points140
dc.description.reviewreview
dc.description.versionfinal_published
dc.description.volume17
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/en17122811
dc.identifier.issn1996-1073
dc.identifier.urihttps://sciencerep.up.poznan.pl/handle/item/1676
dc.identifier.weblinkhttps://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/12/2811
dc.languageen
dc.pbn.affiliationenvironmental engineering, mining and energy
dc.relation.ispartofEnergies
dc.relation.pagesart. 2811
dc.rightsCC-BY
dc.sciencecloudsend
dc.share.typeOPEN_JOURNAL
dc.subject.enevaporative cooling
dc.subject.enalternative materials
dc.subject.encooling efficiency
dc.subject.encooling capacity
dc.subject.encoefficient of performance
dc.titleDetermination of Performance of Different Pad Materials and Energy Consumption Values of Direct Evaporative Cooler
dc.title.volumeEnergy Sources from Agriculture and Rural Areas II
dc.typeJournalArticle
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.issue12
oaire.citation.volume17
project.funder.nameb.d.