Full version of this article is available at the Journal website www.rehva.

eu-> Rehva Journal Articles

Frost-protection measures in
energy recuperation with multiple
counterflow heat exchangers
Raffael Ahmed Julian Appelhoff
Dr.-Ing. Dipl.-Ing., FH
Product Development Engineer Product Development Engineer
GEA Air Treatment GmbH GEA Air Treatment GmbH
raffael.ahmed@gea.com julian.appelhoff@gea.com

M
anufacturers of air handling units (AHUs)
continuously improve the electrical and ther-
mal efficiency of their systems. These efforts
include the optimization of energy recovery. The new
GEA multiple counterflow principle is intended to
achieve high energy-recovery coefficients in conjunc-
tion with low pressure drop. Additionally, the new sys-
tem allows a bypass cycle that prevents pressure drop in
the energy-recovery system with free cooling – and of-
fers various possibilities for frost protection. The authors
describe the energy costs of several frost protection solu-
tions, in accordance with various climate conditions.

Energy-recovery systems in air handling units (AHUs)

now on the market can in some cases already satisfy the
high levels of heat-recovery efficiency stipulated by the
upcoming ErP Directive. It is important to note, how-
ever, that greater heat-recovery efficiency – as a rule – is An iced-up energy-recovery system reduces heat-recovery
also associated with greater pressure drop, with negative efficiency and increases pressure drops. Effective frost-pro-
effect on power consumption. In addition, increasing tection strategies are therefore crucial for efficient opera-
heat-recovery efficiency will cause extract air to be cooled tion of an energy-recovery system on cold winter days.
nearer to the outdoor temperature. This extract air has
greater humidity than the outdoor air. On winter days
Multiple counterflow heat exchangers
with freezing temperatures, condensate from the extract
air may develop on cold surfaces of the energy-recov- This new energy-recovery system should offer a high
ery system. High heat-recovery efficiencies and therefore heat-recovery coefficient and, at the same time, should
lower outgoing air temperatures accordingly raise the risk be easily kept free of ice. Also desirable here is an en-
of ice formation in the energy-recovery system. This, in ergy-recovery system that can be simply circumvented
turn, leads to reduced effectiveness and to even greater in free cooling mode, so that the system does not cause
pressure drop. The objective is therefore to reach a satis- pressure drop in the transitional period. The GEA mul-
factory compromise among high levels of heat recovery, tiple counterflow heat exchanger, now in development,
low pressure drop, and effective frost protection, to en- offers all these characteristics with a heat-recovery coef-
hance the total efficiency of an air handling unit. ficient of more than 80%.

REHVA Journal – October 2013 37

 Articles

The GEA multiple counterflow heat exchanger is based 3. Preheating of the outside air, without re-heater.
on a solution with several layers or levels, and with a mod- Before its entry into the multiple counterflow
ular-configured counterflow principle (see Figure 1). heat exchanger, the outside air is pre-heated to
−2°C. (Figure 2).
If use of the energy-recovery system is not essential, the 4. Preheating of the extract air, to prevent the out-
bypass flaps open on the supply-air and on the extract-air going air temperature from falling below 2°C.
side, and the air flows unimpeded pass the energy-recovery (Figure 3)
heat exchanger – for example, in free cooling mode. During 5. Recirculation of outside air for preheating of this
operation of the energy-recovery system, typical pressure air to −2°C before entry into the multiple coun-
drop can be expected at the order of magnitude of Δp = 80 terflow heat exchanger, by admixture of supply
– 140 Pa (at an AHU face velocity of 1.5–2 m/s). air (Figure 4).

One energy-recovery system but The selection of the most effective frost-protection strat-
many possible frost-protection egies to be used will depend in good part on the climate
measures conditions of the installation location. The following
Multiple counterflow technology offers a selection from will illustrate these interrelationships by describing sim-
various feasible continuous frost-protection variants. ulation of the various frost-protection strategies for dif-
Alternatives 1–5 are described and illustrated below. ferent climate conditions. Simulations are based on the
following data:
1. Opening of the outside-air bypass (Figure 1),
in accordance with the value given by a surface- • GEA CAIRplus® SX 096.064 AHU
temperature sensor, with setpoint value ≥ 0°C. o Maximum air flow: 4,000 m³/h
2. Configuration as shown in Figure 1; but instead o Air velocity in free cross-section: approx.
of a fixed setpoint ≥ 0°C, the system takes the 1.8 m/s
dewpoint temperature of the extract air into ac- o Energy recovery system: GEA multiple
count. If there is no risk of condensation in the ex- counterflow; heat-recovery coefficient 0.807
tract air, frost protection remains out of operation. at balanced air flows

Outgoing
air Outside air

Extract air Supply air

Figure 1. Frost protection by ourdoor air bypass.

Outgoing
air Outside air

Extract air Supply air

Figure 2. Frost protection with preheating of outdoor air.

38 REHVA Journal – October 2013

 Articles

o No cooling coil the flow of supply air to comfortable temperature lev-

o Fan efficiency: 60% els, the air would have to be cooled – or cold outside air
• Additional equipment for frost-protection types would have to be mixed in. Neither solution would be
3 to 5: secondary-circuit pump for the heater technically feasible.
• Operation: 8,760 h/a at full load
• Supply-air temperature: 17.7°C; extract-air On the basis of prevailing outside winter temperatures,
temperature: 22°C variant no. 5, with 3,399 €/a, would be the most cost-
• Humidity load: + 1.5 g/kg effective: i.e., for outside-air recirculation. This is ef-
fective only for temperatures down to approx. −9°C at
Energy prices were assumed to be 0.06 €/kWh for heat maximum recirculation of 45%. During cold winters,
and 0.18 €/kWh for electricity. temperatures can fall below this limit. Raising the recir-
culation rate would result in higher costs.
Cost of frost protection alternatives in
various locations The remaining variants nos. 1, 2, and 3, feasible for
Barcelona, Spain Frankfurt, would lead to slightly different energy costs
At the Mediterranean location of Barcelona, the outside of 3,550 €/a, 3,587 €/a, and 3,436 €/a, respectively. The
temperatures are so high that, even on winter days, frost energetically most favorable solution – i.e., preheating of
protection is not necessary. the outside air – does not feature a re-heater and there-
fore allows only supply air temperatures below the ex-
Frankfurt am Main, Germany tract air temperature (here approx. 18°C). This is usually
The simulation situation for Frankfurt am Main is more sufficient due to existent internal loads and additional
differentiated. The most expensive frost-protection vari- systems for individual temperature control in the par-
ant was no. 4, with extract-air preheating, in which the ticular zones of the building. An extra re-heater would
heating and power costs added to 3,773 €/a. This vari- mean additional investment and operating costs due to
ant is not practically relevant, since heating of the ex- further pressure drop. For variants 1 and 2, on the other
tract air to 54.3°C would be necessary. The supply-air hand, the re-heater is already available. With respect to
temperature would in this case rise to 42°C. To reduce flexibility of the supply air temperature, solutions with

Outgoing
air Outside air

Extract air Supply air

Figure 3. Frost protection with preheating of extract air.

Outgoing
air Outside
air

Extract air Supply air

Figure 4. Frost protection with recirculation.

REHVA Journal – October 2013 39

 Articles Location Moscow (Russian Federation)
9000

8000

7000
Operational Costs per Year [€]

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
Outside Air Bypass
Outside Air Bypass
Concerning Dew-Point
Concerning Temperature Outside Air Preheating Extract Air Preheating Outside Air Recirculation
Temperature of PHE
of PHE Surface
Surface
Auxiliary Energy 0 0 26 98 0
Heating 2821 1184 1339 4958 612
Fans 3261 3292 3320 3428 3527

Figure 5. The operational cost (heat and electricity) of frost protection in the case study with an air handling unit of
4 000 m³/h.

frost protection via outside-air bypass are advisable; with For the case of frost protection by outside-air pre-
respect to operating costs, however, variant no. 3 applied heating, the operating expenses would not be even
without re-heater is the most favorable. 5% more expensive than variation no. 2. Despite the
disadvantage of only being able to provide supply air
Moscow, Russian Federation temperatures below the exhaust air temperature if no
The exclusion criteria applied for Frankfurt am Main additional re-heater is applied, a factor in favor of
also apply to Moscow, which is much colder in win- outside-air preheating is the fact that the outcome of
ter (daily low outside temperatures of down to −24°C, energy consumption is independent of extract-air hu-
according to weather statistics). Variants 1 to 3 would midity. For this reason, this variant is likewise advis-
be feasible for selection here as well. Of these three op- able – or in cases with humidification – even superior.
tions, the purely temperature-controlled outside-air by- This solution is also supported in terms of investments
pass (variant 1) would represent by far the most expen- by the fact that the heating coil and the heat genera-
sive. The air heater in this case would necessarily provide tor can be dimensioned at 30 kW, which is 46% less
heating duty of 56 kW to raise the air temperature to than required for variant 1 or 2. A detailed consider-
17.7°C, due to heat recovery being completely bypassed ation of the individual case may lead either to the most
under extreme winter conditions. economic variant of dewpoint controlled bypass, or to
outside-air preheating.
If surface dewpoint temperatures were used to control the
bypass (variant no. 2), the operating costs would be 26% Conclusion
lower compared to the purely temperature-controlled These simulations reveal that one preferable frost-pro-
outside-air bypass (variant no. 1) – and would moreover tection strategy for all of Europe is not possible. Only
represent the strategy with minimal expenses. The bypass extract-air preheating and outside-air recirculation do
would be in operation 500 h/a less, and the flap would not come into consideration at all. The multiple coun-
never have to be opened 100%. This is because a temper- terflow solution enables the possibility of implement-
ature drop below the dewpoint could hardly be expected, ing two cost-effective frost-protection strategies, high
owing to the dry cold in conjunction with the assumed heat-recovery coefficients, and low-loss free cooling.
humidity load of only 1.5 g/kg. For cases with higher hu- Product launch of the new GEA multiple counterflow
midity load or AHUs with humidifiers, the results would system is scheduled for late 2013.
be worse and tend more to those of variant 1.

40 REHVA Journal – October 2013