ruppsn
2017-08-04 11:54:16
- #1
Hello everyone,
I am currently in the final stages of making a decision for our controlled residential ventilation system in the new building (solid construction, KS). Specifically, I am stuck with the following question:
In new buildings, there is initially expected to be construction moisture that has to go somewhere. With the plate heat exchanger (PWT), such as (cross) counterflow heat exchangers, there is a condensate drain where the moisture is removed, meaning the construction moisture basically disappears into the drain.
How is it with the rotary heat exchanger (RWT) with [FRG], which usually does not have a condensate drain? Are problems with too high humidity to be expected because the moisture remains "in the system," that is, inside the house?
Background: At the moment I tend to choose a normal counterflow heat exchanger without enthalpy for the initial period until the construction moisture is out, and then, if necessary, retrofit a [FRG] via an enthalpy heat exchanger later, should the air become too dry in winter.
The only problem is that a very promising offer relies on a rotary heat exchanger (with the desired [FRG]). It’s not that easy to retrofit a [FRG] on an RWT, so we would have to decide on the [FRG] now and cannot simply omit it at first and add it later. We would thus already have to decide on the [FRG] now.
The duct plan is promising because it fits much better with the house layout than planning alternatives from other manufacturers – mainly due to space and structural reasons.
So should RWTs with [FRG] in new buildings rather be approached with caution, and PWT without enthalpy be preferred with regard to construction moisture?
Do you have experience with RWTs in new buildings and problems with humidity?
I am currently in the final stages of making a decision for our controlled residential ventilation system in the new building (solid construction, KS). Specifically, I am stuck with the following question:
In new buildings, there is initially expected to be construction moisture that has to go somewhere. With the plate heat exchanger (PWT), such as (cross) counterflow heat exchangers, there is a condensate drain where the moisture is removed, meaning the construction moisture basically disappears into the drain.
How is it with the rotary heat exchanger (RWT) with [FRG], which usually does not have a condensate drain? Are problems with too high humidity to be expected because the moisture remains "in the system," that is, inside the house?
Background: At the moment I tend to choose a normal counterflow heat exchanger without enthalpy for the initial period until the construction moisture is out, and then, if necessary, retrofit a [FRG] via an enthalpy heat exchanger later, should the air become too dry in winter.
The only problem is that a very promising offer relies on a rotary heat exchanger (with the desired [FRG]). It’s not that easy to retrofit a [FRG] on an RWT, so we would have to decide on the [FRG] now and cannot simply omit it at first and add it later. We would thus already have to decide on the [FRG] now.
The duct plan is promising because it fits much better with the house layout than planning alternatives from other manufacturers – mainly due to space and structural reasons.
So should RWTs with [FRG] in new buildings rather be approached with caution, and PWT without enthalpy be preferred with regard to construction moisture?
Do you have experience with RWTs in new buildings and problems with humidity?