The following article was published in ASHRAE Journal, August 2002.

© Copyright 2002 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-

Conditioning Engineers, Inc. It is presented for educational purposes only. This article may not be copied and/or distributed electronically or in
paper form without permission of ASHRAE.

By Lewis G. Harriman III, Member ASHRAE, and James Judge, P.E., Member ASHRAE

n recent years, commercial and institutional building owners have stant-volume DX cooling unit removes
I been more willing to invest in dehumidification equipment. Per-
haps, they have been sensitized by litigation regarding indoor air qual-
very little moisture although moisture
loads remain high. The compressor does
not run long enough to make condensed
ity problems that seem related to moisture. Or, perhaps their inter- moisture actually drip off the coil and
into the drain.
est is prompted by comfort problems caused by the moisture load
This problem can be seen in Figure 1,
from higher ventilation rates. which shows the measured dehumidifi-
cation performance of a 3-ton
When the client’s goals in- Measured Cooling Coil Performance @ Rated Conditions (11 kW) cooling unit con-
10
clude humidity control, as op- trolled by temperature alone.1
posed to humidity moderation, The compressor operated for
Latent Capacity (1,000 Btu/h)

manufacturers offer many ON Cycle

only 12 minutes of the 50-
5
novel dehumidification tech- Moisture minute test. When the com-
nologies. This article de- Removal pressor was operating, the coil
scribes three of these condensed moisture, remov-
products, and suggests some 0 ing it from the air. However,
OFF Cycle
techniques a designer might Moisture when the compressor
use to assess the costs and Addition switched off, most of that con-
typical performance for dehu- –5 densed moisture was still on
midif iers in different cli- the coil. Therefore, it re-
mates. First, it may be helpful Compressor evaporated back into the air
to consider why buildings –10 from the coil surface. The
0 10 20 30 40 50
served by thermostatically unit’s dehumidification ca-
Time (min)
controlled cooling equipment pacity is then zero.
Figure 1: After the compressor shuts off, moisture condensed
may have difficulty control- on the cooling coil re-evaporates.1 Henderson’s research sug-
ling humidity. gests that until the run-time
ume direct expansion (DX) cooling sys- exceeds 40% of each hour, the moisture
Ineffective Dehumidification tem only operate for a short portion of removal of a conventional cooling unit
In commercial buildings without de- each hour. As soon as the thermostat is is so small as to be negligible.1
humidifiers, excess humidity may be- satisfied, the compressor shuts off, the Short run times explain why cooling
come a problem during “off-peak” coil stops dehumidifying, and moisture About the Authors
hours—when a building’s sensible heat remaining on its surface can re-evapo- Lewis G. Harriman III is director of research
load is low, but its moisture load remains rate back into the air. At the same time, and consulting at Mason-Grant, Portsmouth, N.H.
high. humid ventilation air flows through that He was the principal investigator for ASHRAE
When the sensible load in the space inactive coil, flooding the building 1047-RP: Development of a Design Guide for
Humidity Control in Commercial Buildings.
is low, the compressors in a typical ther- with excess humidity. The net result is James Judge, P.E., is a principal at LINRIC Com-
mostatically controlled, constant-vol- that when sensible loads are low, a con- pany, Bedford, N.H.

22 August 2002|ASHRAE Journal


equipment sized for peak sensible loads and controlled by a
thermostat is not effective in controlling excess humidity.
Unfortunately, many designers compound this problem by
adding cooling capacity when they see that moisture loads
will be high, perhaps under the misimpression that extra ca-
pacity somehow removes moisture. It won’t. Extra cooling
capacity does not remove moisture when the cooling coil is
controlled by the thermostat, as shown in Figure 1.
Undersizing the cooling equipment for the peak sensible load
would be a slightly better strategy to moderate high humid-
ity. The compressor would run longer to remove the sensible
load, increasing dehumidification at the same time.
Usually, however, undersizing for the peak sensible load is
not acceptable. When a building’s owner needs humidity con-
trol rather than just moderation, adding a dedicated dehu-
midifier and humidistat is the most effective approach.
In most commercial buildings, the dehumidifier is placed
on the incoming ventilation airstream. That way, excess mois-
ture is removed before it spreads throughout the building.
Location of Dehumidifiers
Legend has it that when Willie Sutton, the notorious bank
robber was asked why he robbed banks, he replied, “Because
that’s where the money is.” Similarly, dehumidifiers are usu-
ally placed on the incoming makeup air because that’s where
most of the moisture is.
Figure 2 illustrates this point. It shows a moisture load
estimate for a medium-size retail store located in Atlanta dur-
ing 0.4% dew-point conditions. (The moisture load is likely
to be exceeded for only 35 hours in a typical year.) It’s obvi-
ous that the ventilation moisture load is greater than all other
loads combined. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001, Ventila-
tion for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, recommends this level
of ventilation, and most local building codes require the
ASHRAE-recommended air quantities as the minimum ac-
ceptable ventilation rate. It is especially important to note
the nature of this load element. During occupied hours, the
ventilation load is continuous. However, the loads from
people, opening doors and infiltration are intermittent.
If the moisture load from ventilation air is allowed to blend
into the return airstream, the simple, constant-volume DX
cooling units will have a very difficult time removing it for
ASHRAE Journal|August 2002
Dehumidification
Figure 2: The
largest moisture
load in most
commercial
buildings comes
from the ventila-
tion air.
the reasons described earlier. Consequently, a dehumidifier
will be most effective if it dries the ventilation air, continu-
ously removing the largest and most constant moisture load
from the rest of the system.
That’s why the authors chose to describe three types of
dehumidification equipment that are specifically designed
for the difficult task of drying 100% outdoor air.
Ventilation Air Dehumidifiers
During the last 10 years, manufacturers have been actively
developing new dehumidification equipment. The alterna-
tives discussed here are not the only commercial dehumidi-
fication choices, but they all handle 100% outdoor air and
are each available from at least two manufacturers. Figure 3
shows three types of rooftop dehumidifiers that meet these
criteria. They represent commercial rather than scientific in-
novations—lower-cost and more fault-tolerant combinations
of established mechanical and desiccant-based dehumidifi-
cation technology.
Type 1: Mechanical Dehumidifier with Passive Desiccant
Passive
Wheel
This equipment uses a passive desiccant wheel to recover
the cooling and dehumidification effect contained in the
building’s exhaust air. The passive desiccant wheel adsorbs
moisture and heat from the incoming air, reducing the load
on the dehumidifier whenever the wheel is turning, provided
that the exhaust air is drier than the outdoor air.
At peak sensible load conditions, this combination costs
less to operate than the other ventilation dehumidifier de-
scribed later, because of the partial moisture load reduction
accomplished by the passive desiccant wheel (aka: enthalpy
wheel, total heat wheel or rotary enthalpy heat exchanger).
Also, compared to the other types shown here, this equip-
ment is often the most economical to purchase.
It has some limitations, including that it cannot operate
without exhaust air. Performance depends on the dryness of
the exhaust, and the exhaust air ductwork must be brought
back to the unit. Also, the unit will need reheat to avoid
delivering air that is too cold for the space. Finally, during
many hours of the year the wheel may not turn. If it did, it
would recover unwanted heat from the exhaust air. When the
23
 Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Figure 3: Recent commercial innovations for ventilation dehumidification.

wheel is not turning, it does not reduce the moisture load on
the dehumidifier. So ironically, operating costs for this type
of equipment can sometimes be highest during part-load
weather conditions when the passive desiccant wheel is not
operating.
Type 2: Mechanical Dehumidifier with Sensible Heat
Exchanger
Avoiding any need for exhaust air, this design uses an air-
to-air heat exchanger to pre-cool and reheat the outdoor air
that is dried with a mechanical dehumidifier. Heat pipes, coil
runaround loops and plate-type heat exchangers have been
used for this purpose.
Because of the second pass through the heat exchanger,
this equipment delivers air closer to the indoor temperature
than the Type 1 configuration. Also, since the Type 2 unit’s
performance does not require dry exhaust air, this
equipment can dry the ventilation air any time the humidity
rises above setpoint. So, it is often configured to control
humidity rather than just moderate the extreme as in the Type

24 August 2002|ASHRAE Journal


Figure 4: Using TMY observations to determine the mode (the most typical) outdoor moisture content when the dry-bulb
temperature is 75°F (24°C).2
1 configuration.
Also, the supply fan must overcome the friction of two
passes through a heat exchanger. This friction, plus the extra
dehumidification work for more hours of the year, sometimes
makes this equipment more costly to operate. Of course, it’s
usually doing more work than the Type 1 system.
Type 3: Two-stage Desiccant/Mechanical Dehumidifier
Two-stage
This two-stage equipment uses the condenser heat from a
mechanical dehumidifier to reactivate an active desiccant
wheel. First, ventilation air is precooled and partly dried by
the mechanical dehumidifier. Then the air is dried more deeply
and also reheated by the desiccant wheel.
This arrangement uses both technologies at favorable
points of performance. Mechanical dehumidifiers are most
effective and economical at higher inlet conditions, and des-
iccants gain advantages at cooler and more saturated condi-
tions. Also, in this arrangement the heat normally wasted in a
mechanical dehumidifier is put to productive use drying the
desiccant wheel. Further, the design allows several stages of
capacity modulation. The mechanical dehumidification sec-
ASHRAE Journal|August 2002
Dehumidification
tion has two compressors, which are staged, and the desiccant
wheel can be stopped while the mechanical DH section con-
tinues to operate. This allows a close match between chang-
ing loads and energy use. Finally, the air leaves the unit much
closer to the indoor air temperature than is the case with
desiccant-only equipment. So, the overall performance of this
configuration is quite impressive in terms of all-weather deep-
drying capacity as well as low operating costs.
Limitations of this configuration include the fact that the
supply air temperature changes according to how much dry-
ing the desiccant wheel does. So the leaving air temperature
from this equipment is neither constant nor controllable.
Evaluating Ventilation Dehumidifiers
In commercial HVAC, the needs are very diverse, and so are
the equipment offerings. Any comparison between compet-
ing offerings will be specific to a particular set of economic
and geographic circumstances. The authors would suggest
that, at the very least, the vendors should be willing to pro-
vide the designer with the answers to these questions:
• What does the unit cost?
25
Figure 5: A two-stage desiccant/mechanical ventilation dehumidifier at 2% dew-point design, and part-load conditions.
• How does it perform at peak dew-point design? (How
much moisture will it remove from the ventilation air and
from the building itself?)
• What is the performance at the more common part-load
condition?
• How much energy does it use at part-load condition?
The unit’s price is obviously important. Its moisture re-
moval is equally so, and is useful to note that the perfor-
mance questions really have two parts. Ventilation
dehumidifiers remove moisture from incoming air. Also, at
some outdoor conditions, they deliver dry air somewhat be-
low the indoor design dew point, dehumidifying the space as
well. However, that is not always the case.
Under other conditions, the unit may not dry the ventila-
tion air deeply enough to remove any moisture from the build-
ing. The vendor needs to quantify moisture removal from the
space itself as well as the delivered air temperature. With that
information, the designer can adapt the rest of the system to
take advantage of the dehumidifier’s strengths and compen-
sate for any limitations.
Further, although the energy use at peak design is useful
information, the more important figure is the typical hourly
energy use. In other words, the energy consumed for 98% of
the operating hours instead of for just 2% of them. When
possible, an 8,760-hour building simulation will provide the
best estimates of operating costs. However, not all projects
have design budgets that justify such analysis. Another ap-
proach is to have the vendor calculate the performance and
energy use at some “off-peak” condition, which may be more
26
typical of the bulk of the operating hours than its perfor-
mance at the peak load.
As far as the authors are aware, no general agreement exists
on what constitutes a reasonable and consistent off-peak con-
dition with which to test dehumidifier performance and en-
ergy use. The authors have a suggestion that other designers
may wish to consider.
Part-Load Dehumidification Design Conditions
Chapter 27 of the 2001 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamen-
tals notes that the peak dehumidification design condition
is a useful checkpoint for part-load cooling conditions. That
seems logical, since at the peak moisture, the sensible heat
load is much reduced. Checking a cooling system’s perfor-
mance at that point makes sense, because the calculation
could expose limitations of control system logic or limita-
tions of equipment capacity modulation. The handbook
makes no similar suggestion of a part-load condition for high-
lighting any limitations of dehumidification systems.
We propose a latent part-load design point (the “LPL”) at
which the ventilation load is entirely latent. That is to say,
the point when the outdoor dry bulb is the same as the tem-
perature in the space, so any load from ventilation air in-
volves removing moisture alone. To find out how much
moisture is probable, one can examine the typical hourly
weather for that location, and determine the “most common”
moisture content of the ventilation air when the outdoor dry
bulb temperature is neutral. This produces an LPL design
point below the peak sensible and moisture loads, and as
August 2002|ASHRAE Journal

such it allows examination of the “more usual” behavior of
the dehumidifier.
Figure 4 shows how one can use TMY weather data to con-
struct this off-peak design point for moisture. TMY weather
data was constructed by the U.S. Department of Energy. It
contains a full year of hourly observations (8,760 hours). The
data were selected from the long-term record, and are repre-
sentative of the typical weather pattern at each location.3
First, the full year’s hourly observations of dry-bulb tem-
perature and humidity ratio are extracted from the TMY record.
Then, the hours are sorted by dry-bulb temperature. Hours
when the temperature is between 74.5°F and 75.5°F (23°C
and 24°C) are selected for further analysis. The mode (the
most common) of the selected humidity ratios is calculated
for that range. The latent part-load condition is then 75°F
(24°C) with the mode of the humidity ratios that occur at that
temperature. Figure 4 shows the results for Miami. The red
horizontal bars on the chart show the number of hours each
humidity ratio occurs when the temperature is between 74.5°F
and 75.5°F (23°C and 24°C). Underneath the bars, the color-
coded dots indicate the binned TMY hourly observations for
all 8,760 hours of a typical year in Miami.
Using the mode of humidity ratios for the selected dry-
bulb temperature range has some advantages. In most loca-
tions, the mode gives higher values than either the mean
(average) or the median (mid-point) of the range. At the mode,
the ventilation air is still likely to carry a moisture load with
respect to the control point in the building. On the other
hand, in high altitude or desert climates, the humidity ratio
mode at 75°F (24°C) is likely to show that the dehumidifier
will seldom operate. In those climates, it may be more appro-
priate to compare offerings based on energy use at the peak
load, since that condition may be most representative of the
hours the system will actually operate.
Figure 5 helps illustrate this point. The 2% dew-point de-
sign value for Phoenix is surprisingly similar to the more
humid climate of Chicago. But at the suggested LPL, it’s
clear that Chicago usually has a moisture load while that is
seldom the case when the outdoor temperature is 75°F (24°C)
in Phoenix.
Figure 5 shows how the answers to the questions suggested
earlier help the designer understand how geography affects a
dehumidification offering. (Note: The results in the table come
directly from one of the manufacturers of the third equipment
alternative: the two-stage mechanical/active desiccant dehu-
midifier. The authors have no means of validating that perfor-
mance data independently. So we suggest this particular
information is most useful for understanding the geographic
performance variation of Type 3 equipment, rather than being
useful for comparisons with competing technologies.)
Consider the difference in part-load performance of this
particular equipment in Atlanta compared to either Hono-
lulu or Chicago. In Atlanta, the part load is still high enough
ASHRAE Journal|August 2002
Dehumidification
to require running both compressors in the dehumidifier. So
the total energy does not change. In either Honolulu or Chi-
cago, however, the unit easily achieves the required moisture
removal with a single compressor, so the typical running en-
ergy reduces from 9.8 kWh to 5.9 kWh.
Also, consider the difference in moisture removal from the
space at peak load compared to the latent-part-load condi-
tions. Under Miami peak loads, this particular unit does not
quite bring the outdoor air to a neutral humidity ratio. The
2,000 cfm (944 L/s) of ventilation air still adds about 8 lb/h
(3 kg/h) to the internal moisture load. But at the more com-
mon part-latent-load condition, the equipment dries the in-
coming air deeply enough to remove 17 lb/h (6 kg/h) from
the space. Given this performance at the more frequent part-
load conditions, the designer might consider whether the
cooling system can remove any remaining moisture load dur-
ing the few hours of the peak load condition.
By asking vendors to quantify part-load performance, the
designer obtains a better feel for the typical behavior of the
system with respect to energy consumption and indoor hu-
midity. The answer to the part-load performance question is
also a way to find out if the vendor has really considered how
the equipment will modulate and perform under typical rather
than extreme operating conditions. When 8,760-hour analy-
sis is not practical, quantifying part-load performance at a
single point is a useful way for both the designer and the
manufacturer to better understand what the building’s occu-
pants will experience most of the time.
Summary
The case for dehumidifying the ventilation air is strong
because air carries the largest part of the building’s total mois-
ture load. Given the current focus on humidity control, equip-
ment manufacturers are likely to offer these and other
innovative ventilation dehumidifiers more widely. Part-load
performance analysis is a useful tool to crosscheck a unit’s
typical moisture removal effectiveness compared to its more
brief operation at the peak design condition.
References
1. Henderson, H. 1998. “The impact of part-load air conditioner
operation on dehumidification performance: Validating a latent capac-
ity degradation model.” Proceedings of the 1998 ASHRAE Indoor Air
Quality Conference.
2. Judge, J. 2002. PsycPro™. Psychrometric chart and weather
summary program.
3. Harriman, L.G., G. Brundrett, R. Kittler. 2001. Humidity Con-
trol Design Guide For Commercial and Institutional Buildings.
ASHRAE.
Bibliography
Hickey, D. 2001. “Focus on humidity control.” ASHRAE Journal
43(10):10–11.
Novosel, D. and D. Munn. 2001. “Design phase commissioning
for dehumidification.” HPAC Engineering Magazine October.
27