Merge pull request #4405 from karthikeyad-pnnl/issue3492_DirectEvaporativeCooler

JayHuLBL · web-flow · commit 6fff469feb88 · 2025-11-14T09:00:17.000-08:00
Issue3492 direct evaporative cooler
diff --git a/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/IndirectDry.mo b/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/IndirectDry.mo
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ equation
 annotation (defaultComponentName="indDryEva",
 Documentation(info="<html>
 <p>
-Model for a indirect dry evaporative cooler.
+Model for an indirect dry evaporative cooler.
 </p>
 <p>
 This model contains two components, a direct evaporative cooler 
diff --git a/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/IndirectWet.mo b/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/IndirectWet.mo
@@ -174,7 +174,11 @@ equation
 annotation (defaultComponentName = "indWetEva",
 Documentation(info="<html>
 <p>
-Model for a indirect dry evaporative cooler.
+Model for an indirect wet evaporative cooler. In this component, the primary airflow
+is cooled within the heat exchanger by an evaporative effect when water is directly
+sprayed on to the secondary surface of the heat exchanger to saturate the secondary
+air-flow. Therefore, it is assumed that the secondary air is completely saturated,
+and simply vented away after use.
 </p>
 <p>
 This model consists of the following components:
@@ -206,8 +210,8 @@ air temperature.
 <p>
 Note: The model works correctly only when the ports a1 and a2 are used as inlet ports, 
 and ports b1 and b2 are used as outlet ports, for the primary and secondary flow 
-respectively. Also, the secondary air outlet conditions are currently not validated, 
-and it is recommended that it is vented to an object acting as a sink, and without
+respectively. Also, the secondary air outlet conditions are not validated,
+and it is recommended that it be vented to an object acting as a sink without
 connecting any downstream components to it.
 </p>
 </html>", revisions="<html>
diff --git a/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/Direct.mo b/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/Direct.mo
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ model Direct
     redeclare final package Medium = MediumA,
     final initType=Modelica.Blocks.Types.Init.InitialOutput,
     final m_flow_nominal=m_flow_nominal,
-    final T_start = 293.15)
+    final T_start=293.15)
     "Outlet air temperature sensor"
     annotation (Placement(transformation(origin={40,0}, extent={{-10,-10},{10,10}})));
 
@@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ model Direct
     annotation (Placement(transformation(origin={70,0}, extent={{-10,-10},{10,10}})));
 
   Modelica.Blocks.Math.Mean mea(
-    final f=1/600)
+    final f=1/600,
+    x0=293.15)
     "Mean block to average output data"
     annotation (Placement(transformation(origin={70,60}, extent={{-10,-10},{10,10}})));
 
@@ -141,19 +142,26 @@ The validation generates three subplots.
 </p>
 <ul>
 <li>
-Subplot 1 shows the inlet air mass flowrate from the EnergyPlus model varying with the cooling load.
+Subplot 1 shows the inlet air mass flowrate measured from the EnergyPlus model
+used to activate the component model.
 </li>
 <li>
-Subplot 2 compares the outlet air humidity ratio generated by Modelica and EnergyPlus model.
+Subplot 2 compares the outlet air dry bulb temperature measurements from the Modelica
+(<code>to_degCOut.y</code>) and EnergyPlus (<code>combiTimeTable.y[7]</code>) models.
+The Modelica measurements converge on and then closely track the EnergyPlus
+measurements with continuous operation of the component.
 </li>
 <li>
-Subplot 3 compares the outlet air dry bulb temperature generated by Modelica and EnergyPlus model.
+Subplot 3 compares the outlet air humidity ratio measurements from the Modelica
+(<code>mea1.y</code>) and EnergyPlus (<code>toTotAirOut.XiTotalAir</code>) models.
+Again, the Modelica measurements converge on and then closely track the EnergyPlus
+measurements with continuous operation of the component.
 </li>
 </ul>
 <p>
 The validation results demostrate that, with time-varying air flow rate, the
 Modelica model can effectively capture the dynamics of outlet air humidity ratio
-and dry bulb temperature, which match the data generated by Energyplus.
+and dry bulb temperature.
 </p>
 </html>", revisions="<html>
 <ul>
diff --git a/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/IndirectDry.mo b/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/IndirectDry.mo
@@ -191,19 +191,26 @@ The validation generates three subplots.
 </p>
 <ul>
 <li>
-Subplot 1 shows the inlet air mass flowrate from the EnergyPlus model varying with the cooling load.
+Subplot 1 shows the inlet air mass flowrate measured from the EnergyPlus model
+used to activate the component model.
 </li>
 <li>
-Subplot 2 compares the outlet air dry bulb temperature generated by Modelica and EnergyPlus model.
+Subplot 2 compares the outlet air dry bulb temperature measurements from the Modelica
+(<code>TOut_mean.y</code>) and EnergyPlus (<code>combiTimeTable.y[7]</code>) models.
+The Modelica measurements converge on and then track the EnergyPlus measurements
+with continuous operation of the component.
 </li>
 <li>
-Subplot 3 compares the outlet air humidity ratio generated by Modelica and EnergyPlus model.
+Subplot 3 compares the outlet air humidity ratio measurements from the Modelica
+(<code>XOut_mean.y</code>) and EnergyPlus (<code>toTotAirPriOut.XiTotalAir</code>)
+models. Again, the Modelica measurements converge on and then closely track the
+EnergyPlus measurements with continuous operation of the component.
 </li>
 </ul>
 <p>
 The validation results demostrate that, with time-varying air flow rate, the
 Modelica model can effectively capture the dynamics of outlet air humidity ratio
-and dry bulb temperature, which match the data generated by Energyplus.
+and dry bulb temperature.
 </p>
 </html>", revisions="<html>
 <ul>
diff --git a/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/IndirectWet.mo b/Buildings/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/IndirectWet.mo
@@ -183,22 +183,26 @@ The validation generates three subplots.
 </p>
 <ul>
 <li>
-Subplot 1 shows the inlet air mass flowrate from the EnergyPlus model varying
-with the cooling load.
+Subplot 1 shows the inlet air mass flowrate measured from the EnergyPlus model
+used to activate the component model.
 </li>
 <li>
-Subplot 2 compares the outlet air dry bulb temperature generated by Modelica
-and EnergyPlus model.
+Subplot 2 compares the outlet air dry bulb temperature measurements from the Modelica
+(<code>TOut_mean.y</code>) and EnergyPlus (<code>combiTimeTable.y[7]</code>) models.
+The Modelica measurements converge on and then track the EnergyPlus measurements
+with continuous operation of the component.
 </li>
 <li>
-Subplot 3 compares the outlet air humidity ratio generated by Modelica and
-EnergyPlus model.
+Subplot 3 compares the outlet air humidity ratio measurements from the Modelica
+(<code>XOut_mean.y</code>) and EnergyPlus (<code>toTotAirPriOut.XiTotalAir</code>)
+models. Again, the Modelica measurements converge on and then closely track the
+EnergyPlus measurements with continuous operation of the component.
 </li>
 </ul>
 <p>
 The validation results demostrate that, with time-varying air flow rate,
 the Modelica model can effectively capture the dynamics of outlet air humidity
-ratio and dry bulb temperature, which match the data generated by Energyplus.
+ratio and dry bulb temperature.
 </p>
 <p>
 Note: There is no validation reference data for the secondary outlet air,
diff --git a/Buildings/Resources/Scripts/Dymola/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/Direct.mos b/Buildings/Resources/Scripts/Dymola/Fluid/Humidifiers/EvaporativeCoolers/Validation/Direct.mos
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
 simulateModel("Buildings.Fluid.Humidifiers.EvaporativeCoolers.Validation.Direct", method="CVode", tolerance=1e-6, startTime=350000,stopTime=604800, resultFile="DirectEvaporativeCooler");
-createPlot(id=1, position={0, 0, 1577, 950}, y={"sou.m_flow_in"}, range={340000.0, 1000000.0, -0.5, 2.0}, autoscale=false, grid=true, colors={{28,108,200}});
-createPlot(id=1, position={0, 0, 1577, 314}, y={"toTotAirOut.XiTotalAir", "mea1.y"}, range={300000.0, 1000000.0, -0.005, 0.024999999999999998}, grid=true, subPlot=2, colors={{28,108,200}, {238,46,47}});
-createPlot(id=1, position={0, -512, 1579, 958}, y={"to_degCOut.y", "combiTimeTable.y[7]"}, range={340000.0, 900000.0, -10.0, 30.0}, grid=true, subPlot=3, colors={{28,108,200}, {238,46,47}}, displayUnits={"degC", ""});
+createPlot(id=1, position={0, 0, 1577, 950}, y={"sou.m_flow_in"}, range={340000.0, 605000.0, -0.5, 2.0}, autoscale=false, grid=true, colors={{28,108,200}});
+createPlot(id=1, position={0, -512, 1579, 958}, y={"to_degCOut.y", "combiTimeTable.y[7]"}, range={340000.0, 605000.0, 0.0, 30.0}, grid=true, subPlot=2, colors={{28,108,200}, {238,46,47}}, displayUnits={"degC", ""});
+createPlot(id=1, position={0, 0, 1577, 314}, y={"toTotAirOut.XiTotalAir", "mea1.y"}, range={340000.0, 605000.0, -0.005, 0.025}, grid=true, subPlot=3, colors={{28,108,200}, {238,46,47}});
