A Techno-Economical Analysis Ofaco Heat Pump: Mr. W. Groenew Ald
A Techno-Economical Analysis Ofaco Heat Pump: Mr. W. Groenew Ald
A Techno-Economical Analysis Ofaco Heat Pump: Mr. W. Groenew Ald
OF A CO 2 HEAT PUMP
Mr. W. GROENEWALD
M.lng (Mechanical)
NORTH-WEST UNIVERSITY
YUNIBESm VA BOKONE-BOPHIRIMA
NOORDVVES-UNfVERSITEIT
Innovation through diversity POTCHEFSTROOM CAMPUS
1
ABSTRACT
There is a global concern for the environment and the impact we as humans have on
it. The latest movement in the refrigeration sector is to phase out refrigerants such as
Freons that contribute to global warming. This resulted in the industry being forced to
start implementing natural refrigerants again.
One solution identified is to use carbon dioxide (C0 2 ), CO 2 is a natural gas found in
the atmosphere, it has no ozone depleting potential and has a global warming
potential of one. It is regarded as a safe gas seeing that it is non-flammable and non
toxic. The biggest challenge when using CO 2 as a refrigerant in water heating heat
pumps is the fact that it will work in a high pressure transcritical state. The advantage
on the other hand is that the use of a gas cooler makes it possible to heat water to
much higher temperatures than with conventional refrigerants.
From the results found it can be concluded that a CO 2 heat pump system is a
feasible possibility to replace HFC and HCFC refrigerants. It offers an
environmentally friendly and energy efficient system for water heating in the domestic
and commercial market. The outcome of this study forms the basis for future
research and development on CO 2 water heating heat pump technology at the North
West University.
OPSOMMING
Daar is 'n globale bekommernis oar die omgewing en die impak wat ons as mense
op dit het. Daar word tans druk toegepas deur die verkoelingsbedryf am koelmiddels
soos Freons uit te faseer aangesien dit lei tot aardverwarming. Dit het op sy beurt
daartoe gelei dat industriee geforseer word am natuurlike gasse te begin
implimenteer.
Een oplossing wat oorweeg word is die gebruik van koolstofdioksied (C02 ), CO2 is In
natuurlike gas wat vry voorkom in die atmosfeer, met In aardverwarmingspotensiaal
van een en nie skadelik is vir die osoonlaag nie. Die gas is nie-flambaar en nie-giftig
nie en word daarom as 'n veilige gas beskou. Die grootste uitdaging wanneer CO 2 as
In koelmiddel gebruik word is dat dit by baie hoe drukke in In transkritiese toestand
verkeer. Die voordeel hiervan is dat daar van 'n gasverkoeler gebruik gemaak word
am die gas aan die hoe druk kant af te koel en dit moontlik maak am die water tot
baie hoer temperature te verhit as met konvesionele koelmiddels.
Uit die resultate word afgelei dat In CO 2 waterverhittings hittepomp 'n goeie
alternatief is om HFC en HCFC gasse te vervang. Dit bied In omgewingsvriendelike
en energie-effektiewe sisteem vir waterverhitting deur middel van 'n
hittepompsisteem. Die uitkoms van die studie vorm die basis vir toekomstige
navorsing m.b.t. CO 2 waterverhittings-hittepomp tegnologie by die Noord-Wes
U niversiteit.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT
OPSOMMING ii
REFERENCES iv
ApPENDIX A iv
ApPENDlxB iv
ApPENDIXC iv
NOMENCLATURE v
GREEK SYMBOLS v
ABBREVIA TlONS v
LIST OF TABLES xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
2.1 Background 7
2.2 History of CO 2 10
2.3 Phasing out of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs 13
2.4 Properties of CO 2 15
2.5 Applications of CO 2 29
2.5.1 Cascade systems 29
2.5.2 Mobile air conditioning and heating 31
2.5.3 Space heating 32
2.5.4 Heat pumps for domestic water heating 33
2.5.4.1 Conventional heat pumps for domestic water heating 33
2.5.4.2 Transcritical heat pumps for domestic hot water heating 35
4.1.1 Scenario 89
SYSTEM
References
129
Appendix A A-1
AppendixB 8-1
Appendix C C-1
NOMENCLATURE
Specific heat at constant pressure
Cp J/(kg-K)
h Enthalpy J/kg
q,Q Heat transfer W
T Temperature
K Kelvin K
KW Kilowatt
W Work W
kg Kilogram kg
p Pressure Pa
P Power input W
m Mass flow rate kg/s
eta Efficiency
GREEK SYMBOLS
f., Delta or difference
Efficiency
ABBREVIA TlONS
Carbon Dioxide
Carbonic Acid
Water
HP Heat pump
NHa Ammonia
P-h Pressure-enthalpy
Pa Pascal
T-s Temperature-entropy
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.13: Pseudo critical temperature and maximum isobaric specific heat for 25
CO 2 .
Figure 2.17: The transcritical C02 heat pump cycle operated at four different high- 28
side pressures. The C02 outlet temperature from the gas cooler is
Figure 2.26: Primary energy demand and utilization of renewable heat for different 40
hot water heating systems (electric immersion heaters, heat pump and
solar heater).
Figure 2.27: Simulated relative COPs for a C02 heat pump water heater as fUnction 43
a
of the inlet water to the gas cooler at 60 and 80 C set point
Figure 2.29: T-s diagram, including a diagram of a transcritical heat pump system 45
Figure 2.30: Measured heating COP of prototype system with an inlet water 46
temperature of 10°C.
CHAPTER 3
Figure 3.4: T-s diagram showing certain points for simulation description. 56
Figure 3.18: T-s diagram: T_wi=1 O°C; T_gc=288K; and P_dis=1 OOOOkPa. 78
Figure 3.20: T-s diagram: T_wi=1 O°C; T _gc=308K; and P_dis=1 OOOOkPa. 78
CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.2: Daily water consumption for all three systems (summer). 93
Figure 4.3: Daily water consumption for all three systems (winter). 94
Figure 4.6: Top temperatures of vessel 1 for all three systems (summer). 97
Figure 4.7: Bottom temperatures of vessel 1 for all three systems (summer). 97
Figure 4.8: Top temperatures of vessel 2 for all three systems (winter). 99
Figure 4.9: Bottom temperatures of vessel 2 for all three systems (winter). 99
Figure 4.10: Daily power consumption of the CO 2 heat pump system (summer). 103
Figure 4.11: Daily power consumption of the R-22 heat pump system (summer) 103
Figure 4.12: Daily power consumption of the ILH heat pump system (summer). 104
Figure 4.13: Daily power consumption of the CO 2 heat pump system (winter). 106
Figure 4.14: Daily power consumption of the R-22 heat pump system (winter). 106
Figure 4.15: Daily power consumption of the I LH heat pump system (winter). 107
Figure 4.16: Summary of yearly water consumption for all three systems. 109
Figure 4.17: Summary of yearly minimum water supply temperature for the C02 110
system.
Figure 4.18: Summary of yearly minimum water supply temperature for the R-22 111
system.
Figure 4.19: Summary of yearly minimum water supply temperature for the I!.:.H 111
system.
Figure 4.20: Summary of yearly energy consumption for the CO 2 system. 112
Figure 4.21: Summary of yearly energy consumption for the R-22 system. 113
Figure 4.22: Summary of yearly energy consumption for the ILH system. 113
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.4: Cost difference between the three systems (%). 121
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
CHAPTER 2
CHAPTER 3
pressures.
Table 3.8: Results for a discharge pressure of 10000kPa with varying evaporating 84
temperatures and gas cooler outlet temperatures.
CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 5
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Energy efficient means of water heating, space cooling, space heating and
refrigeration received a lot of attention over the past few years. This is mainly due to
the increasing dilemma of the availability of electricity especially in South Africa and
the tariff increases experienced. This resulted in more emphasis being put on the
implementation of energy efficient products and projects. Heat pump technology has
proved itself to be a very effective solution for water heating.
The emphasis on the use of natural refrigerants in heat pump cycles has globally
become" substantial. Five substances are recognized as natural refrigerants in
modern refrigeration, being air, water-vapour, ammonia, hydrocarbons and carbon
dioxide (C0 2), Restrictions on the first four substances mentioned above have
focused global research towards the implementation of carbon dioxide (C0 2) as
natural working refrigerant in refrigeration applications. Being a natural refrigerant,
CO 2 has no ODP and a GWP of 1 (Flemming et 81.).
CO2 has been used in refrigeration applications in the early 1900's but with the
implementation of CFCs and HCFCs it gradually became a forgotten technology. It
has only been revised as a probable refrigerant since 1994, has only been
implemented again from 1998 and is therefore considered to be a new technology.
The implication of this is that cycle components are not yet freely available and more
expensive than conventional system components (Kim et 81.).
Though the concept of a water heating CO 2 heat pump cycle is still similar to that of
conventional systems, there is a big difference in the conditions under which a CO2
cycle operates. This resulted in the need for a thorough understanding of CO 2 and its
properties.
To satisfy the purpose described in section 1.2, the study will consist of the following:
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE STUDY
CHAPTER 2
2. LITERATURE STUDY
The aim of this chapter is to gain in-depth knowledge of carbon dioxide (C0 2), also
known as R-744 , and its properties. The literature study will aim to cover all relevant
aspects of CO 2 including applications as a refrigerant. The literature study will be
divided into the following categories:
• Background.
• History of CO 2 •
2.1 Background
More than 20 years ago the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide (C02 ) in the
atmosphere was not generally admitted nor did it draw any concerns. The cost of
energy was relatively low and electricity was cheap to use, resulting in purchasers
mainly considering the installation cost of equipment and not the energy savings
potential (Pearson, 2005).
CO2 forms a vital part of our eco-system and is produced as a raw material through
plant photosynthesis and is also a product of human and animal respiration. Only
approximately 1-2% of CO 2 available on earth is found in the atmosphere, the rest is
absorbed by the oceans and trees, (ANON (c), s.a.). A natural greenhouse effect is
created by the CO 2 and water vapour that protects the earth from excessive heat
loss. It is documented as a fact that the earth is getting warmer. According to Butler
(2007) the average global temperature is predicted to increase between 1 and
4.5K in the next 100 years. The warmest recorded years all occurred since 1981.
There is scientific evidence that human behaviour affects the natural temperature of
the earth. This is mainly due to unnecessary CO2 emissions and the use of aerosols
that all contribute to increasing the earth's greenhouse effect (ANON (c), s.a.).
During the last few years, more restrictions have been put on the refrigeration, air
conditioning and heat pump industries. Phasing out of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)
substances has already been widely implemented, but the change-over to ozone
friendly substances has not yet been completed, as hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(HCFCs) are still widely used in industry. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) also made their
appearance and were long thought to be a permanent replacement. Though HFCs
have no ozone depleting potential (ODP) they still have a big effect on global
warming. The global warming potential (GWP) is an index of a substance's ability to
be a greenhouse gas. Table 2.1 gives an indication of the GWP, ODP and some
properties of refrigerants known and used in refrigeration cycles. Large amounts of
CO2 can be recovered from waste gas and is therefore not necessary to be
produced, thus eliminating the net global warming contribution of this fluid when used
as a refrigerant (Fartaj et a/., 2004).
According to studies done by Taira (2008), water heating contributes to more than
20% of residential CO2 emissions in Japan. This is due to the fact that more than
90% of water heaters in Japan are combustion systems. It is found that CO2 water
heaters have the potential of equivalent or better performance than HFC systems.
¢ atobal \\!!lnnlIl8 pIJlelltllll ill rel~til.ltl w l00:ye= !~M time.. from tbe Imergo\'m'ntlleoUil Plmcl 011 Oimllle Chru:~ OPCC}.
There is still an argument that designing and using CO 2 systems are less cost
effective than using conventional systems. According to R744.com (b) two factors are
influencing this argument considerably: firstly the costs of chemical fluids are
becoming more expensive due to supply shortages, and fuel costs are rising. It is
assumed that prices of chemical refrigerants could go up as much as 50% in the next
5 years. Not only is this playing a big role but secondly the fact that training and
support of using HFCs to comply with the regulations placed on users has lowered
the cost competitiveness of curr~nt systems.
2.2 History of CO 2
Because CO 2 is a relatively old technology, a brief look at its history and also the
recent reinvention of CO2 is deemed necessary for the purpose of this study,
because it will give a better view of the recent activities taking place regarding this
situation.
Carbon dioxide has been used for over 130 years in vapour compression cycles as a
refrigerant (Pearson, 2005). The first era of refrigerants occurred roughly around the
1820's and lasted up to about 1930, where any substance that could produce
refrigeration was used. According to Bensafi and Thonon (2007) and Calm (2008)
this era was known as the "whatever worked" era. Up until the 1930's the most
common refrigerants used were the natural refrigerants ammonia, carbon dioxide
and sulphur dioxide as well as hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane. Some
other refrigerants used were methyl chloride and ethyl chloride but these were
flammable chemical refrigerants. 80% of CO2 applications were in marine systems
but it was also used in air conditioning and stationary refrigeration applications. It
seems that Alexander Twining was the first to propose CO2 as a refrigerant in 1850.
But it was not until the late 1860's that the first CO 2 system was built by Thaddeus
S.C. Lowe. Despite this achievement he did not continue his research in this field. In
1881 the first CO2 system was built in Europe by Carl Linde. CO 2 technology was
then taken considerably further by the German Windhausen. Manufacturing of
these systems was commenced by the company J. & E. Hall in Britain in 1887 and
they also improved the technology. The applications of these systems were primarily
in marine refrigeration which was dominated by CO 2 up until the 1960's (Kim et a/.,
2003).
Because of the restrictions placed on the use of flammable and toxic refrigerants
such as ammonia (NH3) and sulphur dioxide (S02) in Europe at the end of the
1900's, CO2 was the only choice as refrigerant. CO2 was widely used in refrigeration
systems throughout the United States and since the 1900's in comfort cooling.
Because of the safety of CO 2 over NH3 and S02 it enjoyed preference in the use in
public systems and on board of ships. Common disadvantages of were low
coefficient of performance (COP) and loss in capacity at high heat rejection
temperature. The high pressure at which CO2 was operated was also of concern,
mostly because technology in sealing was lacking at that time and containment of the
refrigerant was difficult. The loss of capacity and efficiency could be reduced by
operating the system at supercritical high side pressure and various two-stage
operations (Kim et a/., 2003).
From the 1930's the so-called safety refrigerants were introduced. These refrigerants
were primarily chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) such as R-11, R-12 and R-13, and hydro
chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) such as R-22 and R-502. The introduction of these
refrigerants brought about the replacement of all the old working fluids in most
applications. The major argument for implementing these refrigerants was because
of their improved safety. CO 2 was also replaced by the transition to CFC refrigerants
(Freund, s.a.).
It was not until the 1970's that the disastrous effects of these refrigerants on the
ozone layer were discovered. The CFC problem was becoming a pressing issue in
the 1980's which lead to the phasing out of these refrigerants. Chemical alternatives
first introduced by the chemical industry are the various hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
such as R-134a, R-507 and R-407c. While the HFCs have no ODP they are still
synthetic greenhouse contributing greatly to global warming even more than
the refrigerants they replaced. With all of these problems building up, the refrigeration
industry was searching for viable alternatives (Kim et a/., 2003) .
.. Xigure ?1l?hows the progression of refrigerants over the years according to Calm
(2008).
Figure 2.1: Refrigeration Progression (Calm, 2008).
fourth generation
2Q10
global warming
,.--------j zerolfow DDP. low GWP,
short T""". high efficiency
third generation
1990-20105
,.---,.".::----,.".---1 Q?one prot<JCtlon
(HCFCs). HFCs. NHa•
H20. HCs, CO Z• •••
From the brief look at the history of the refrigerants used, it is clear that, as
refrigerants evolved, no global approach has been implemented to simultaneously
.. ' address the various issues surrounding global warming and the effect on the ozone
layer. This is mainly because of the lack of knowledge and also because scientific
evidence of the effects of refrigerants was not acknowledged (Bensafi & Thonon,
2007; Calm, 2008). Until recently man-made sUbstances were used as refrigerants
mainly because their environmental effect could only be identified on a long term
basis. With HFCs introduced, the problem surrounding global warming is not
resolved and with the worldwide climate change becoming an ever greater concern,
the use of HFCs will be regulated (Bensafi & Thonon, 2007).
This section will discuss the progress around the world towards the phasing out of
CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs. The Montreal and Kyoto Protocols leading to the phasing
out of the above-mentioned refrigerants will also be looked at. The phasing out of
conventional refrigerants has a greater impact on industries around the world than
can be imagined.
Evidence that the ozone layer was getting thinner because of man-made chemicals
was overwhelming in the 1980's. In 1985 the United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) coordinated the Vienna
convention which provided the framework for the Montreal Protocol (UNEP, 2007). In
1987, the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer (UNEP
1987) was brought about (McQuay, 2002). In the United States the production of
CFCs was stopped at the end of 1995 due to the requirements of the Montreal
Protocol enforced on developed countries. According to the Montreal Protocol,
HCFCs are to be phased out by up to 65% by 2010, up to 90% by 2015 and fully by
2030 in developed countries (McQuay, 2002). According to Thonon (2006), the
phasing out of R-22 is scheduled for 2011.
A framework on climate change was formed by the United Nations in the 1990's.
Since 1992 over 172 countries including the U.S. ratified this agreement. In 1997 the
international agreement was signed in Kyoto, Japan, hence the name Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol strives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2% from 2008 to
2012. Each country is left with the responsibility to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
on their own. So far only the United Kingdom and Germany are on track to meet their
goals (McQuay, 2002).
So far all CFCs are banned and out of production. HCFCs are still used but are
already being replaced by HFCs, and HCFCs are to be phased out entirely by 2015.
Restrictions on phasing out HFCs are already being put into place.
The public only took notice of the potential problems when the European Parliament
voted for the phasing out of refrigerants universally to be used in automotive air
conditioning on March 2004 (Bullard, 2004-5).
Switzerland was to start phasing out HFCs since 1 January 2003. Uses of HFCs are
granted only where there is no replacement technology available. A license is
needed to operate systems with more than 3kg charge HFC, and only if no
substitutes are available. Norway will need to pay duty and a deposit if it is looking to
use an HFC system. Germany is phasing out HFCs as well (Danfoss, 2002a).
From the article, NRTB (2005) it is quoted: "the Conservatives are committed to
phasing out the use of hydro fluorocarbons, or HFCs, between 2008 and 2014". He
continued, saying that "HFCs have solved one problem they do not damage the
ozone layer. But they have caused another - they contribute significantly to global
warming. Their impact is some thousands of times greater than CO 2 • HFCs currently
account for two percent of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions and that will have
doubled by the end of the first decade of the twenty first century".
The phasing out of all refrigerants including HFCs, which was thought to be the
solution, is happening all around. Soon these refrigerants will not be produced any
more and components for the use in these systems will not be produced either. From
this we can make the assumption that if Europe, the U.S. and other developed
countries continue with the phasing out of these refrigerants, the rest of the world will
have to follow, whether they are required to or not.
All off the above created doubt about the long-term availability of HFCs. No profitable
business who wants to remain successful can afford to be caught unprepared
because of legislation banning the SUbstances which playa key role in their products.
Therefore the need for a replacement refrigerant is of great significance (Fleming et
a/., 1992).
2.4 Properties of CO 2
An
""c"
I ~
~
~~
'"<c
~
~~
'-R744 . I
I
------
:-R404A ""1"\
~~
'-R410A I ~I!:
~
,~
-in
':::
~
Bar (g)
, , , n
'-"
Most refrigerants reject heat to the air through condensation at typical ambient
temperatures; carbon dioxide operates at transcritical conditions. CO 2 evaporates in
the subcritical region and rejects its heat at temperatures above its critical point in a
gas cooler and not a condenser as conventional fluids (Bullard, 2004-5). Figure 2.3
shows the position of the critical point on a P-h diagram.
Figure 2.3: Critical point illustrated on carbon dioxide P-h diagram (Rasmussen, 2003).
Critical point
~. (p = 73.7 bar, T= 31.1 0c)
60.0
JOD
40.0
lOD -_ ...
10.0
9.0
6.0
SD
4.0
3D
Solid phase
2DL-----x_~D.~IO~~O~~~O~~~O'-AO~~O~·~~~Q~~0~~o.rr~~~o~.ao~~o~~o~~
S".0'.55 OM 0.75 o..as 0.95 1.DS LlS 125 1.3.5 1.45 1.55 1£5 1.7,5 1a5 1.9.5 2.OS :,U5
IilI 1lO loti 1:J1l 14) 100 lllO 200 2211 240 200 2m 31l1l 3:l1l 31JJ 3.10 3&0 400 42ll 441 46!l 4X(I SlID $1lJ 5.() S!o $l!Cl
E.ntllolpy[kl~
When the CO 2 system is operating above its critical point, the cycle takes on an
additional degree of freedom relative to subcritical systems - which means the
decoupling of the usual relationship between the normal pressure and temperature of
conventional systems (Sienel, 2006). There are a few ways of controlling the
operating pressure to give the acquired temperature gradient.
Table 2.2 shows some selected physical properties for Carbon Dioxide (Freund,
s.a.).
Mokcular~
\Ilhi:re STP stand$ for Standa:rd To:tttpe£aUlfe and Pressure. wbleh is O'C and 1.013 bar.
So=s: Air liquiile !l"5 data :table; EJrk.othmer (1985); NIST (2003).
Figure 2.4 shows the phase diagram for CO 2 and how its properties and its physical
state changes by varying the pressure and temperature. Heat absorption or release
takes place in each of its phase changes from solid-gas, solid-liquid and liquid-gas
phases. However, if it changes phase from the transcritical condition to liquid or from
transcritical to gas it does not require the release of heat. This is a useful design
property for CO 2 compression facilities since it could avoid the heat handled
associated with the liquid gas phase change (Freund, s.a). It could be seen that a low
triple point is present, which means that the solid state could be reached under
normal operating or pump down situations. This should be avoided since the forming
of ice reduces the pressure and when the refrigerant returns back to a liquid or gas
state the pressure will increase drastically and create a safety hazard.
,\~e
-&,0;;:" Triple Point
0l-~'l>
S-S C02 Vapour
Sublimation
Point
Copyright 1999© ChemlcaLogic Corporation
Dra\'l!J with CO2 Tab V1.0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature eq
CO2 has a much higher vapour pressure and volumetric refrigeration capacity than
conventional fluids. Its volumetric capacity is 22,545kJ/m 3 at aoc which is between 3
and 1a times higher compared to other fluids. The critical pressure and temperature
for CO2 is 73.8 bar and 31.1 °C respectively, the pressure is very high compared to
conventional systems. Therefore the operating pressure in the system will be 5 to 2a
times higher than conventional systems. This is illustrated in figure 2.5, which
compares the pressure-enthalpy diagrams of CO2 and HFC-134a.
Above its critical point it is impossible for CO2 to transfer heat to ambient conditions
by condensation as in conventional vapour compression cycles. The heat transfer
process for carbon dioxide takes place through gas cooling and this results in a
system to be known as a transcritical system. In the supercritical region the high side
pressure and temperatures are not connected and could be regulated independently
to attain an optimum operating condition.
From the phase diagram shown in Figure 2.4 it could be seen that the temperature
and pressure for the triple point is at -56.6°C and 5.2 bar respectively and its
saturation at aoc is at 35 bar. The triple point is known as the pressure temperature
combination at which carbon dioxide can exist simultaneously in its three states. If
the pressure is reduced the liquid flashes to gas and ice. If the temperature is
reduced the liquid will freeze. If the temperature is increased the liquid boils and
forms a gas (ANON (a), s.a.). Its reduced pressure at O°C is at 4.7 bar which is much
higher than for conventional refrigerants. Because of its high reduced pressure and
its low critical point, sub-critical operation will be much closer to the critical point than
for conventional systems (Kim et a/., 2003). Carbon dioxide dissolves readily in most
liquids. The higher the pressure the more CO 2 will dissolve in a certain liquid. When
dissolved in water, carbonic acid (H 2 C0 3 ) will form which is quite weak and unstable
and will tend to revert back to CO 2 and H2 0. CO 2 is about 53% heavier than air and
would settle on the ground if released freely, (ANON (a), s.a.).
Figure 2.5: Comparison of the P-h diagrams for R-134a and CO 2 (Stene, 2007).
ro
0..
10 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l - - - '-
1
+------;--,~---_f.----~--------~_7~ 40°C
I
-56.6·C
0.518 MPa
aoc
0.4 triple
point
triple
point
Figure 2.6: Enthalpy change of CO 2 in the gas cooling process. (Kim et ai, 2003).
15l
~
J ~100
0
>.
a.
.c;
oJ:::: -200 --4MPa
+'
t: ---SMPa
W
--iOMPa.
- - - 12MP:a.
-300 . ..... 14MPa.
_
Figure 2.7: Entropy change of CO 2 in the gas cooling process. (Kim et ai, 2003).
~O.4
-0.6
-0.8
-----
j--(
~ -1
-
0)
,.x;
J
,.x;
\......t -1.2
>.
a. --4MPa
,...,
0
...... -1.4 --- 8MPa
t
UJ ~10MPi3
~i.6 - - 12MPa
~~14MPa
-1.8
o 20 40 60 80 100 '120
Figures 2.6 and 2.7 show how the enthalpy and entropy of CO 2 changes in the gas
cooling process at constant pressures. The enthalpy and entropy decreases with
temperature in the super-critical region. More distinct changes in enthalpy and
entropy take place near the critical point. Above the critical point pressure has an
influence on the entropy and enthalpy but pressure has less effect on the entropy
and enthalpy under the critical point because pressure drops may be allowed to be
higher (Kim et ai., 2003). It could be seen that at higher pressures the entropy and
enthalpy changes more linear because it is further away from the critical point. The
change of enthalpy and entropy in the sub-critical region is represented by the 4MPa
pressure line and it could be seen that change under the critical point is linear.
Figure 2.8: Vapour pressure for different refrigerants. (Kim et ai, 2003).
- . - R~744
8'
t _ _ R410A
....,....- R-717
-<:- R-407C
- - R...2 2
6 --- R~134a
-R-12
o 20 40 60 80
T('Cl
The vapour pressure and the slope of saturation pressure curves are shown in
Figures 2.8 and 2.9 respectively for CO2 and other refrigerants. Compared to other
refrigerants the vapour pressure of CO 2 is between 4 and 10 times higher. Near its
critical temperature (31.1 DC) the vapour pressure curve for CO 2 gets very steep,
resulting in a smaller temperature change for a given pressure change. This means
that the temperature change associated with pressure drop in the evaporator will be
smaller. Because of the high vapour pressure and its closeness to the critical point,
the characteristics of the liquid and vapour densities of CO2 is to a large extent
different (Kim et a/., 2003).
Although CO2 operates at very high pressures and the difference between the
suction and discharge pressure is very high, the pressure difference to be overcome
Figure 2.9: Slope of saturation pressure curve for different refrigerants. (Kim et ai, 2003).
--R'-12
H-134<l
-R.,290·
--<>- R-407C
--R-Z2
- - R-117
--R-410A
o
-40 -20 o 20 40 60 100
T f'cl
The density of CO2 changes drastically near its critical point as a function of
temperature and the density ratio is much less than for conventional refrigerants
giving it a more homogenous two-phase flow. The above-mentioned is shown in
figure 2.10. The density of CO2 in its gas phase can be very large, approaching or
even exceeding the density of water in its liquid phase (Freund, s.a.). The high
vapour density of CO2 gives it its unique high volumetric refrigeration capacity. The
volumetric refrigeration capacity of CO2 increases as the temperature increases, but
reaches a maximum at 20°C and then starts to decrease again (Kim et al., 2003).
This is shown in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.10: Variation of density as a function of temperature and pressure (Freund, s.a.).
1200
til 800
--
E
OJ
~
"-'
600
..0
"0}
Q)
0 400
200
0
0 so 60 90 120 150 180 210
Temperature (OC)
, / Vapourizatlon GUlVe () Critical Point - - - Supercrlticaf Boundary
Figure 2.11: Variation of Volumetric refrigeration capacity for refrigerants {Kim et al., 2003}.
25000
20000
1~moo
10000 ",#
5000
O~~~-L--~--~~--~--~--~~~~--~--~~~~
According to Kim et al. (2003), one of the most important characteristics of a super
critical fluid near its critical point is that the fluld properties change rapidly as the
temperature changes in an isobaric process and especially near the pseudo-critical
point (the temperature at which the specific heat becomes a maximum for a given
pressure). This phenomenon is shown in Figures 2.12 and 2.13, where the isobaric
--14MPa
--- 12MPa
_10Mpa
~~~ 8Mpa
-~. 4MPa
10
O~~_-L_J- __~~_~--~--L-~--~--~--~~--~
-2Q o 20 40 60 so tOO 120
T~GJ
Should the £-NTU or LMTD-method be used to attain data, one should find out
whether the specific heat is constant, because these methods require the specific
heat to be constant over the test section (Kim al., 2003).
Figure 2.13: Pseudo critical temperature and maximum isobaric specific heat for CO 2 (Kim et a/., 2003).
40
30 ~
m
--
.x:
-:!
.......
.!iG
2.0 c..
<>
10
P ,[MPaJ
Transport properties of a refrigerant play an important role when it comes to the heat
transfer and pressure drop characteristics. Figures 14 and 2.15 give schematics of
the important transport properties thermal conductivity and viscosity at sUb-and
supercritical pressures.
--14MPa
--12MPa
--1{)MPa
--~ 8MPa
--4MPa
0'.03
-~--~-----~------~---~
_ .... 14MPa
--~ 12MPa
--.10 MF'a
--- 81\APa;
--4MPq,
~
-"
E
'Q}
.x:
.......
::t
80
ao L
40~
~f
The Prandtl number plays an important role in the heat transfer coefficients. It is
associated with the specific heat and thus has a maximum at the pseudo-critical
temperature and the maximum value decreases with pressure. The Prandtl number
gets higher at temperatures exceeding 60°C in the super-critical region.
Figure 2.16: COP of a transcritical CO 2 heat pump as a function of the CO 2 outlet temperature from the gas
cooler and the evaporation temperature (Stene, 2007).
5~~--~------~------~----~------~----~------~
4 -r--
I I
I I
1 1 1 1 1
_____ L __ L _____ L ___ L _____ L
2 1 1 1
1 I
I I I I
I
Variable evaporation temperature
1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
CO2 Outlet Temperature [OC]
From Figure 2.16 it could be seen that the COP of the heat pump system is
dependent on the evaporating and also the gas cooler outlet temperature. Studies
made by Stene (2007) show that for a higher gas cooler outlet temperature the lower
the COP will be, but for a higher evaporating temperature, the higher the COP will be.
The heating capacity and COP of a transcritical CO2 heat pump system are affected
by the high-side pressure. Figure 2.17 illustrates the transcritical cycle in a
temperature-enthalpy diagram for high-side pressures ranging from 8 to 11 MPa. The
evaporating temperature was kept constant at and the gas cooler outlet
temperature was kept constant at 35°C.
It could be seen that the inlet enthalpy to the gas cooler increases and the outlet
enthalpy decreases as the high-side pressure increases. The change of enthalpy due
to the change in temperature is not proportional to the change in specific compressor
work and for each fixed outlet temperature from the gas cooler there will be an
optimum high-side pressure leading to a maximum COP (Stene, 2007).
Figure 2.17: The transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle operated at four different high-side pressures. The CO 2
outlet temperature from the gas cooler is assumed to be constant at 35°C (Stene, 2007).
110
28 - 3a: 8 MPa
S
<>
2b 3b: 9 MPa
........
2c 3c: 10 MPa
Q.) 90
'
:::I 2d - 3d: 11 MPa
.....
ctI
'
Q.)
0.. 70
E
Q.)
f
50
__3E~C____ 3d
30
10
4d
-10
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850
Specific Enthalpy [kJ/kg]
2.5 App/icationsof CO 2
Cascade systems are widely used for commercial refrigeration in places like
supermarkets. According to Palandre (2004) conventional commercial refrigeration
has the largest emissions, contributing to about 37% within its sector. Leakage on
these systems is reported to be up to 30% of the total refrigerant charge. This
resulted in a need for a safe, efficient and environmentally friendly solution (Neksa et
al., 1998).
Pressure
..... -----
.,-'
."
.. '"
"
,-""
\
\ R404A
.I I
I I
r 7 - --------7----·
I / I I
1/ I I
I
I I
I
/
I
I I t f
I [ I
[ f
_L_..1
I
[
I
1
I
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
1
Enthalpy
Some of the advantages about CO 2 cascade systems are the reduction in low
temperature compressor size, no liquid pump is necessary, fewer stages are
necessary for heat transfer, smaller pipe sizes are required and its safety aspect is
advantageous (Neksa al., 1998).
By using CO2 in the transcritical high temperature side of a cascade system a large
temperature glide can be attained with a low volume flow resulting in small pipe
dimensions. Waste heat from the high temperature side could be implemented
towards the use of tap water heating. According to Neksa et al. (1998), a comparison
of a CO 2 system and a conventional R-22 system has resulted in a decrease of up to
32% in energy consumption. The Coca Cola Company and McDonalds has also
announced that CO 2 as refrigerant is a good alternative to HFCs in the use of their
systems (Neksa et a/., 1998). Figure 2.19 shows the principle diagram for a cascade
system used in supermarket refrigeration (Danfoss, 2002b).
Figure 2.19: Principle diagram CO2 cascade system with 2 temperature levels (Danfoss, 2002b).
+30~
R717 , R404, R134a, ...
C02
In 2008 Australia implemented their first full CO 2-based supermarket installation. The
system was operated under the worst summer conditions in Australia having
temperatures of up to 40°C. After two months of operation it was shown that the CO 2
system used electricity than the conventional R-404 systems. This
implementation was the first big step in showing the viability of CO2 in high climate
conditions and not only in the cooler regions such as Europe where most tests on
CO2 usage are done. A big interest in implementation of these easy-to-install
systems has been sparked under leading retail groups, according to R744.com (a).
Further studies compared CO2 to R-134a as refrigerant of which results are shown in
Figure 2.20. Comparable cooling COPs were found at most operating conditions.
Equal capacity was attained at high operating temperatures of up to 54.4°C when the
car is in its idling condition. When operated at ambient temperatures of less than
40°C the CO 2 system showed a higher COP of up to 40% compared to the baseline
R-134a system COP (Kim et al., 2003).
7r--------~~~----------------------------------------~
<iriv1ng
.oompaclR134a
'. ooml'sct CO2
-}
i
Idllng
•
't~
•
..
#~
.
cycfing
1
l' ....
.. ... ...
~~,----~----~----~------~----~----~----~----~----~
o 0.5 1 2.5 3.5 4.5,
Conventional modern vehicles use waste heat for heating of the passenger
compartment, which has a long heat-up period and slow defrost action. According to
Neksa (2004) one possible solution could be to operate the air conditioning system
as a heat pump. The heat pump systems could become an important factor for
implementing CO2 in mobile air conditioning applications. One problem anticipated in
such an application is the freezing of the evaporator and defrosting thereof. There is
a much greater heat up time than with conventional systems (Neksa, 2004).
The market for CO2 heat pumps would be expanded to a great extent if the demand
for space heating is investigated in-depth and implemented as is done with water
heating. Systems that combine space heating with water heating are widely
considered. This is also an efficient way of making use of the gliding gas cooler
temperature for water heating (Neksa, 2002).
A comparison with a system using R-134a as a working fluid was made. It was
shown that CO2 had a more favourable seasonal performance for air heating
applications than R-134a. A study done in Norway showed that larger buildings
typically needed more than 50% of the total heat demand for the building in air
heating applications and this is drastically increased as air quality demand is
increased. This makes CO2 a promising candidate for use in these kinds of
applications (Neksa, 2002).
Most studies on the use of heat pump technology for space heating concentrate on
combining it with tap water heating. This contributes to a more efficient system where
one application covers two heating demands. With the temperature glide found in the
gas cooler it is made possible to make full use of heat pump applications for
combined space heating and tap water heating (Neksa, 2002).
In a typical heat pump system as shown in figure 2.21, the evaporator extracts heat
from a heat source at a low temperature. Through the evaporator, heat is absorbed
by the low temperature fluid turning it into a low temperature gas as it absorbs the
heat. The gas pressure is then increased by means of a compressor causing the fluid
temperature to rise drastically, producing a heating effect which is exploited in heat
pumps. The hot gas flows to the condenser where the heat is rejected from the
working fluid and changes it from a gas to a liquid. As the working fluid is still at a
high pressure it is passed through an expansion valve which reduces the pressure,
producing a cooling effect which is used for refrigeration. By doing this the fluid
returns to a liquid phase at low pressure. The working fluid then returns to the
evaporator and the cycle starts over again (ANON (b), s.a.).
In conventional heat pump cycles which may use HFCs or HCFCs the liquefaction
process occurs below the critical temperature of the refrigerant. The critical
temperature is the point above which liquid cannot exist thus there it is referred to as
a subcritical cycle. This cycle requires that the refrigerant critical temperature must
be above the temperature at which the medium is rejecting its heat. Thus condensing
of the refrigerant vapour yields a condensing pressure that is also below the critical
pressure. condensing pressure and temperature are linked by a unique
relationship that depends on the nature of the refrigerant (Bensafi & Thonon, 2007).
which will be used for comparison with CO2 in the chapters to follow. Figure 2.22
gives the pressure-enthalpy diagram of a subcritical cycle using R-22 as refrigerant.
Figure 2.21: Principle schematic diagram of a heat pump water heater (ANON (b), s.a.).
Condenser
Expansion valve
Figure 2.22: A subcritical cycle using R-22 as refrigerant (Bensafi & Thonon, 2007).
Therefore it could be seen that heat pumps using conventional refrigerants such as
R-22 will operate with a condensing pressure that depends only on the cooling
medium conditions and on the refrigerant charge. The pressure at which the
refrigerant will condense is much lower than the refrigerant critical pressure.
refrigerant flow rate is controlled by an expansion device in order to avoid the carry
on of liquid droplets to the compressor (Bensafi & Thonon, 2007).
Figure 2.23: A transcritical cycle using CO 2 as refrigerant (Bensafi & Thonon, 2007).
1000
100
10
-500
When using a transcritical cycle the gas cooler pressure is not a function of the CO 2
temperature because there is no relationship between temperature and pressure
above the critical point. This means that the cycle can be operated at different values
of high pressure which must be set by the control scheme i.e. the system pressure
must be fixed by a control device so that the cycle can operate under its optimum
condition (Bensafi & Thonon, 2007).
Table 2.3 gives the main differences between a transcritical CO2 cycle and
conventional systems.
Table 2.3: Main differences between Transcritical CO 2 cycle and subcritical cycle (8ensafi & Thonon, 2007) .
According to Sarkar et al. (2004), it is found that CO2 heat pumps can successfully be
used for medium and high temperature processes. For heating applications, CO 2 is
superior to other alternative refrigerant choices because of its good heat transfer
capabilities. For process heat application CO 2 seems to have better performance
than other alternative refrigerants.
According to ANON (b) (s.a.) heat pumps can save up to 1.8 billion tonnes of CO 2
emissions per year resulting in a saving of up to 8% in global CO 2 emissions This is
the equivalent of planting 50 million hectares of In hotels, hospitals, apartment
buildings etc. the annual energy demand for heating water typically range between
25% - 60%, (Stene, 2004).
Due to the demand for hot water heaters in Japan, a CO 2 heat pump water heater
was developed under the brand name "Eco-Cute" and sale thereof started in
February 2002. It is able to generate hot water up to 90°C with an average annual
COP of above 3 (Kasai & Shibata, 2003).
Stene (2004) did a study where he compared four different kinds of heat pump
designs with each other. The four designs were:
1) Heat pump with condenser and desuperheater;
2) Heat pump with sub-cooler, condenser and desuperheater;
3) Heat pump with suction gas heat exchanger, condenser and
desuperheater; and
4) CO 2 heat pump with a single counter-flow gas cooler.
The first three designs were tested with R-134a and R290 and the last heat pump
design used CO 2 as a refrigerant. All of the above-mentioned designs were tested at
the same conditions and the results were compared.
Figure 2.24: Principle schematic of a CO 2 heat pump water heater (Stene, 2004).
LPR
,
1
COMPRESSOR
,1
,,,
!
,, Hot water
1____1 consumption
(50 to 5500)
6Qto 850C
EVAPO GAS
COOLER
RATOR
SINGLE-SHELL
HOT WATER
TANK
PUMP
City water
(5 to 250C)
HEAT EXCHANGER
From Stene's results it was evident that the CO 2 system had on average a 20%
higher COP than the best performed system between systems 1 - 3. This is most
likely due to the higher compressor efficiency and the good temperature fit in the gas
cooler between the water and CO2 . Figure 2.25 shows the calculated COP values for
the different heat pump water heating systems as a function of the evaporation
temperature. The calculations were based on the assumptions of a total UA-value of
2100 WK for the gas cooler/condensers and evaporators, 5°C inlet water
temperature and an outlet water temperature of 70°C (Stene, 2007).
~1 (R-134a)
4,5 ____ 1 (R-290)
1
::!::
£L 4,0
I -t----:::;;;..-f"""+-----r-~rz:;:;I"":5>I1I'
~,=:;,;;=2 (R-134a)
.",,*-2 (R-290)
oo
-!+E- 3 (R-134a)
-+-3 (R-290)
-+-4 (R-744)
2.5+-----~-----~~----+_------~
-10 -5 5 10
According to the results from Stene (2007), profitability was determined. It was found
that when groundwater at a temperature of rc was used as the heat source, the
calculated seasonal performance factor was approximately 3.8 for the CO2 heat
pump water heater, resulting in an approximate annual energy saving of 70-75%
compared to conventional domestic hot water systems that uses electric immersion
heaters. It also corresponds to an approximate 20-35% higher saving than that of the
Scandinavian domestic hot water systems which use high efficient solar based
collectors with electric immersion heaters as backup (Stene, 2007). Figure 2.26
illustrates this schematically.
Figure 2.26: Primary energy demand and utilization of renewable heat for different hot water heating systems
(electric immersion heaters, heat pump and solar heating) (Stene, 2007).
Renewable heat
According to Chen et al. (2006). CO 2 has no pinch limitations in the heat exchanger
and therefore the delta temperature between the refrigerant and the medium can
come close to one another. This also contributes to the fact that high temperature
water outlet temperatures are attainable because of the temperature glide found in
the transcritical heat exchanger. Conventional refrigeration systems are compared by
operating the systems at the same boiling and condensing temperatures. Because
CO2 transfers heat through a gliding temperature, the mean temperature could be
used to compare such a system with conventional systems (Chen et a/., 2006).
CO2 systems have the same effect as conventional systems as far as the decrease in
heating capacity is concerned, since the surrounding ambient temperatures also
decrease (Zha et a/., 2006). This makes CO 2 a favourable option for South African
applications where the ambient temperatures are high.
The rise in temperature for water heating matches the temperature glide of the
refrigerant well, enabling the ability to provide hot water temperatures with a relatively
small compressor ratio. Conventional systems are very efficient at low heating
temperatures, but CO2 systems show that the COP of the cycle decreases more
slowly with increasing temperatures (White et a/., 2002). According to White et a/. the
maximum heating capacity to be gained from a CO 2 system decreased with about
33% and the heating COP decreased with about 21 % as the hot water outlet
temperature was increased from 65 to 120"C, yet the COP was found to be still close
to 3 even at low evaporating temperatures and high water outlet temperatures. These
studies were done at an evaporation temperature of -6.5"C. The reductions observed
in the system performance and COP is relatively small compared to conventional
systems, whereas conventional systems would have to make use of a multi stage
system and will still have a COP of less than 2 (White et a/., 2002).
The properties of supercritical CO2 vary rapidly at high inlet water temperatures
making the design of the gas cooler very important (Fartaj et a/., 2004). The main
components of the CO2 system are the compressor, gas cooler, internal heat
exchanger, evaporator and expansion valve. Figure 2.24 shows the typical layout of
these components. The high temperature CO 2 enters the gas cooler where it rejects
its heat to the water, in the gas cooler the heat is rejected with a glide at constant
pressure. The high pressure CO2 exiting the gas cooler is cooled by the low pressure
CO 2 coming from the evaporator through the use of an internal heat exchanger. The
cooled CO2 expands through the expansion valve to a state of low pressure and low
temperature refrigerant. Entering the evaporator it absorbs heat from the surrounding
air causing the refrigerant to vaporize. Finally the low pressure CO 2 enters the
From the results of Sarkar (2007) it was noted that there is an increase in system
COP of up to 75% when the evaporation temperature is varied from -10°C to 10°C. It
was also found that the system COP increases sharply as the gas cooler outlet
temperature decreases. For an evaporating temperature of O°C the system COP
almost doubles as the gas cooler exit temperature decreases from 50 to 35°C,
(Sarkar, 2007). Therefore it could be seen that the system COP is dependent on the
evaporation temperature, compressor efficiency, gas cooler outlet temperature,
compressor discharge temperature and the heat exchanger effectiveness, and as a
result attention should be given to these factors. From the results mentioned above
the two factors that a designer has to take in account is to design a CO2 system with
the lowest possible gas cooler outlet temperature and the highest possible
evaporation temperature. This is highly relevant for South African conditions since
the ambient temperatures are usually high resulting in heat pump systems having a
high evaporation temperature. It is only the gas cooler outlet temperature that would
have to be looked at closely since the water inlet temperatures are also usually
higher because of the high ambient temperatures. According to "findings made by
Sarkar et al. (2006), CO 2 systems can effectively be used in plants where
temperatures of between 100°C and 140°C are required. Typically other refrigerants
are not capable of reaching these temperatures. Although reaching these
temperatures would lead to less efficient cycles, the high temperatures reached are
worthwhile for some applications.
Constraints that arise from the very high operating pressure make it hard to design
and manufacture basic components, but the industry is starting to solve these
problems. The high density of CO2 helps manufacturers to find solutions since the
high density allows the use of smaller components (Cecchinato et al., 2005). The
storage tank for the hot water is also an important factor with regard to system
efficiency. Good stratification is difficult to be obtained and this increases the inlet
water temperature to the system thus decreasing system performance and also
increasing the water flow rate, as illustrated in Figure 2.27. Therefore stratification
becomes mandatory when high energy efficiency is required for heat pumps using
CO 2 as refrigerant (Cecchinato et al., 2005). Because of the high operating pressures
the pressure drop in the heat exchangers of a CO2 system is lower than for a
conventional refrigerating system (Cecchinato et al., 2005).
Figure 2.27: Simulated relative COPs for a CO 2 heat pump water heater as a function of the inlet water
temperature to the gas cooler at 60 and ao°c set point temperature for domestic hot water. (Stene, 2007).
1.00 I I
I I
I I
I I I
0.95 ------1""--- ---1""-- 1' -----
I I f
I I
......
,
......, 0.90 --------r-
I
-1" -- -
I I I
0 f I f
0 0.85
I
-/
I
+-- --+
f
..
()
f f f
CD I I I
> f I I
0.80 ---/------- .f..- --/-0
t\l I I
I I
CD
a::: 0.75 I
L_
I
--.1..--
~DHW80°C I f
I I
__ LI J
0.70 --6-DHW 60"C .1..-
0.65
5 10 15 20 25 30
Inlet Water Temperature [OeJ
The optimum gas cooler pressure was found to be between 9 and 11 MPa. CO2 heat
pumps for domestic hot water production ranging between S to 20 kW have since
been tested by various researchers including Rieberer and Halozen, Hwang a.nd
Radermacher and Saikawa and Hashimoto. These systems had the same typical
measured COPs than for the SOkW machine built by Neksa (2004) which will be
discussed later on. According to Stene (2007) the Denso Corporation Ltd. in Japan
was the first company to start production of a residential air source heat pump water
heater in 2001. This machine is a 4.SkW system able to produce hot water at
temperatures of up to 8SoC.
There are three specific distinctions favouring a CO2 system above systems using
HCFC and CFC refrigerants. The first is the fact that heat is rejected at a supercritical
pressure. This classifies the system as a transcritical system because it operates
above the critical point of the refrigerant. In a transcritical system the high side
pressure is determined by the refrigerant charge and not the saturation pressure as
with conventional systems. This means that the systems design should take into
account the possibility of controlling the high side pressure to ensure a good COP.
An example of the importance of manipulating the discharge pressure is given in
Figure 2.28 (Neksa et a/., 1998). Figure 2.28 shows how the heating capacity,
heating COP and compressor shaft power vary with the compressor discharge
pressure. The heating capacity tends to increase steeply in the beginning but as the
discharge pressure increases the heating capacity evens out. The compressor shaft
power increases linearly as the discharge pressure increases. The heating COP of a
system is determined by the ratio of the heating capacity and the power input with the
maximum COP found as indicated on Figure 2.28. It could also be seen that the COP
evens out a little around its optimum area (Neksa, 2006). Therefore the maximum
COP of a system is said to be around discharge pressures of 90 110 bar
depending on the surrounding conditions. When operating in a subcritical state, the
COP is dependent on the heat sink temperature.
Figure 2.28: Variation of discharge pressure and the effect thereof (Neksa et aI., 1998).
r--150
~ 7
~
t.......J
'" Heating
~
(l)
"
40 Capacity 6
0
::>
P-1 r---l
<p 30 5 I
t.......J
C\:l
..q .O-!""'
48
(/)
!' 20
P-.i
C\:l
Q
~1) 10 3
.~
Compressor /OptunUlTI
C\:l
(l)
Shaft Power Pressure
:::q 0 0
70 80 90100 110 120
Discharge Pressure, [bar]
Secondly the pressure level inside a CO2 system is remarkably higher than
conventional refrigerant systems, able to reach operating pressures of 130 bar and
higher, Because of the smaller size of the components and piping the explosive
energy inside a CO2 system is not much different from conventional systems. One of
the benefits from the high pressure is the effect it has on the compressor
displacement needed for a given capacity; it could be up to 80-90% smaller. Thirdly it
has a large refrigerant temperature glide during heat rejection. At supercritical
conditions most of or even all of the heat rejection from the refrigerant takes place by
cooling the compressed gas, therefore the heat exchanger is known as a gas cooler.
Having a proper gas cooler the refrigerant can be cooled to a few degrees above the
entering coolant temperature, contributing to a high COP of the system (Neksa et al.,
1998).
Figure 2.29: T-s diagram, including a diagram of a transcritical heat pump system commonly used for water
heating (Neksa et a/., 1998).
3
120
4Q
20
o
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4,2
Entropy [kJ/kg KJ
According to Neksa (2002), the first CO 2 systems on the market were heat pump
systems for water heating because of the favourable thermodynamic properties.
Figure 2.29 shows a Temperature-Entropy diagram for a CO 2 heat pump system.
Studies relating to CO 2 heat pump water heaters have been initiated in the early
eighties by SINTEF/NTNU and a first full scale 50kW lab prototype heat pump water
heater was built in 1996 (Neksa, 2002). Results attained from the prototype showed
that a COP of above 4 was achievable even for a hot water outlet temperature of
above 60°C. These results are shown in Figure 2.30. It was noted that water
temperatures of up to 90°C and higher are achievable with a CO2 heat pump water
heater without operational problems and only a sma!! !oss in the systems efficiency
(Neksa, 2002). Measured results from the lab prototype heat pump showed that
increasing the water outlet temperature from 60°C to 80°C resulted in a decrease in
the heating COP from 4.3 to 3.6 at an evaporating temperature of O°C. This lead to
one of the biggest advantages of a CO 2 heat pump system running at supercritical
conditions, namely the ability to produce high temperature water with a good COP
(Neksa et al., 1998). This made CO 2 a feasible possibility as refrigerant in heat pump
water heaters for domestic use including hotels and restaurants.
According to Neksa et al. (1998) the temperature difference between the outlet of the
gas cooler and the secondary fluid is determined by the high-side pressure. When
operating at high compressor outlet pressures the temperature difference is small
and stays more or less the same but as the pressure decreases the temperature
difference increases. This is because of a temperature pinch point occurring in the
gas cooler. The reason for the pinch point occurring at lower operating temperatures
is because of the fact that the temperature glide becomes more curvaceous as it
reaches the critical point (Neksa et al., 1998).
Figure 2.30: Measured heating COP of prototype system with an inlet water temperature of 10°C (Neksa et ai,
1998).
6
I
~
0
+->
0 5 ~
H ~
. ~
i-i
...-;
(,)
q 4 ~i
-,.-1 ~
'--'
~
3
~
I I
0-:
0 2 I
I
u 1
I
I i
p.., I
,.r::::: 1 II I -'
The implementation of an internal heat exchanger is for further cooling down the high
pressure CO 2 and to vaporise any CO 2 liquid entering the low pressure receiver (if
installed) from the evaporator (Kern aL, 2006). According to Aprea and Maiorino
(2008), the thermodynamic efficiency of a CO2 system could be improved by
implementing an internal heat exchanger. The specific volume of the refrigerant
vapour entering the compressor increases and thus increases specific compressor
work too. Figure 2.31 shows the difference in operating pressures between a
transcritical and subcritical system. Here the big difference between the two
operating cycles can be seen.
Figure 2.31: Comparison of transcritical cycle to subcritical cycle. (Endoh et ai, 2006).
According to Wolf aL (2006), Japan plans to have 5.2 million CO2 hot water heat
pumps installed by 2010. Endoh et af. (2006) developed a CO 2 heat pump that gives
instant hot water. CO2 systems developed before this one used storage tanks of up
to 300-480L capacity and were constantly kept at temperature by means of a 4.5
6kW heat pump system. Endoh's heat pump supplies the hot water at exactly the
required temperature. To realize this they had to develop a 23kW heat pump system.
They included a support tank that has a capacity of 45L and so doing, combined the
heat pump and storage tank into a single unit. A picture of this heat pump is given in
Figure 2.32.
The system has a COP of 4.6 rated at water inlet and outlet temperatures of 12°C
and 42°C respectively and with dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures of 16°C and 12°C
respectively (Endoh a/., 2006).
Figure 2.32: Instant hot water supply heat pump (Endoh et al., 2006).
Experiments done by Kuwabara et al. (2006) showed that the higher the gas cooler
inlet temperature or the lower the air temperature was, the lower the COP and
heating capacity. were as a result, although the water outlet temperature was
reasonably unaffected by these changes. Figure 2.33 shows the P-h diagram for a
CO2 heat pump cycle with different water inlet temperatures. From the diagram it can
be seen that as the water inlet temperature is increased the compressor discharge
pressure will be higher. The effect on the gas cooler directly affects the system COP.
As the water inlet temperature is higher so will the gas cooler outlet temperature be
higher which plays a role in the COP of the system (Kuwabara et al., 2006).
According to Huff and Sienel (2006), eight commercial-sized CO2 heat pump water
heaters have been developed and installed in the North American market under
diverse conditions. These systems have already been working for over 8000 hours.
From the performance results obtained, a considerable benefit over conventional
systems was showed as the CO 2 systems provided between US$4000 and
US$10000 saving in annual energy cost compared to the other refrigerants used.
Figure 2.33: P-h diagram of CO 2 heat pump cycle (Kuwabara et at., 2006).
16
Gascooler ColTpressor
Outlet Dscharge
14
Rejected Heat ----->
12
39"C
~ 10
2!
e
:J
8
tJj
gs
'
0... 6
0
eXJ ffi) 700 750 800
Enthalpy [kJ! kg]
The pinch point, which is the smallest temperature difference to be reached in a heat
exchanger between the refrigerant and the secondary fluid, occurs at the outlet of the
gas cooler because of the temperature glide that occurs. Therefore it is able to cool
the refrigerant to the lowest possible temperature before entering the expansion
device. It also means that the water entering the gas cooler could be close to the
temperature at which the refrigerant is leaving the gas cooler (Huff & Sienel, 2006).
In conclusion it could be seen that CO2 has great potential to be used as a refrigerant
for future refrigeration and heating systems. From the literature study one is able to
see that the properties of CO2 are to its advantage when used as a refrigerant. The
disadvantages of CO 2 are relatively easy to overcome. Therefore CO2 will make a
feasible replacement as a natural refrigerant.
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3
3. HEATPUMPSIMULATIONMoDEL
The aim of this chapter is to give background on the development of the simulation
model of a transcritical water heating heat pump system. It includes the steps taken
to formulate a simulation system model as well as the results obtained using the
model.
In short, to develop the transcritical heat pump model the first step was to identify a
compressor for which a performance chart was available in order to characterize the
compressor. The characterized compressor was implemented into a heat pump
simulation model from which the system could be characterized. The heat pump
cycle was finally expressed by two formulas that can be used for comparison studies
with a conventional R-22 system. In the sections to follow this process will be
discussed in more detail.
• Compressor characterization.
• System simulation.
• Characterization of compressor.
• Updating the EES program.
• Characterization of the CO2 system.
120
110
100
90
"
rc
,Q
80
...::J
~
70
..,
VI
...C.
(I.l 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-55 -50 45 40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 o 5 10 15 20
Evaporating temperature rq
It was decided to use the TCS362-D compressor from the range. This compressor
was chosen because it could be compared to an R-22 heat pump of the same
heating capacity of on average 50kW. It is a transcritical compressor suitable for the
following applications:
• Commercial refrigeration for medium to low evaporating temperature.
• Refrigerated transport.
• Sanitary hot water heat pump and ambient heating systems.
• Chillers.
• HVAC systems.
Figure 3.2 shows a picture of a typical DORIN compressor similar to the one selected
for the purpose of this study.
The application envelope shown in Figure 3.3 for the TCS-compressor range is valid
for values lower than 1OKfor suction superheat.
Figure 3.3: DORIN compressor TCS range main features (DORIN, s.a.).
TCS RANGE
\50
______ JI _______ 1I_______ 1 _______ L
I ______ 1I __
~
140 I I I !
J , J
130 -----~-- ---1-------+
,
I J
tl 100 -------~------~-------I-----
I , ,
1:i
" 90
E' --- 1 I
---r------7-------~------7-------
I I
I 1
~
."
70
,
J
,
---r------,-------~------~--
,
,
I
l\l 60 -r-
, ---1----
, --~-
E
'0 _t.._
., 50
l
" l l
_ ..... --r
ti" 40
______ , _______ L, ______ I __
l!! ~ ~
0. 30
,
,
,
I I
20 -- ---4 ~----~~-
J I
10 ------,-------r------,-----
I
I
I l
Table 3.1 shows the compressor performance for the TCS362-D compressor that will
be used in the system simulation.
Table 3.1: Performance chart for the TCS3S2-D compressor (DORIN, s.a.).
CO2 compressors can work at higher pressure levels than HFC and HCFC
compressors, which have two main benefits:
• The pressure drop inside the system is important because of the lower
pressure difference that needs to be overcome.
• heat transfer coefficient is very high in both the gas cooler and the
evaporator.
Therefore if the system is kept at the same refrigeration capacity and the same
ambient temperature, the mean .6.T inside the evaporator and gas cooler can be kept
smaller compared to conventional systems. A .6.T of 2K is possible inside the gas
cooler.
In the previous section the reasons for choosing a suitable compressor were
discussed. This section describes the system simulation of the transcritical heat
pump and determines the unknown variables needed to describe a heat pump cycle.
After the system has been simulated, the chosen compressor will be implemented.
Figure 3.5 shows the system diagram layout and the positioning of the components
making up the heat pump system. The CO2 heat pump system consists of the DORI N
compressor, pressure relieve valve, gas cooler, internal heat exchanger, expansion
valve, air to refrigerant evaporator and liquid receiver. For the characterization of the
compressor the internal heat exchanger was not taken into account seeing that the
compressor chart was obtained with sub-cooling being added.
Figure 3.4: T-s diagram showing certain points for simulation description.
380
I 360
r! ..
t:z'l:
F820
I- ..
II 300
!
280
Pressure ReIleve
Valve (120bar)
2
Compressor
3
8
Illlemal
Heal Ex.chattger
6 7
4
A simple cycle simulation has been done using Engineering Equation Solver (EES).
The data used for this simulation can be found in table 3.1 The EES programming
code and results are found in Appendix A.
The methodology behind the cycle simulation is given below, while Figure 3.4 shows
a T-s diagram indicating some critical points to refer to the methodology of the cycle
simulation:
• (5) The suction pressure, evaporating temperature and refrigeration capacity
are known variables found in table 3.1.
• A constant enthalpy is assumed over the expansion valve.
• The quality of the refrigerant at the inlet to the evaporator is calculated in
terms of enthalpy and suction pressure.
• The entropy is determined in terms of the quality of the refrigerant and the
suction pressure.
• (6) It is assumed that evaporation takes place at a constant pressure throL1gh
the evaporator.
• It is also assumed that there is no pressure drop through the liquid receiver
and internal heat exchanger.
• A superheat of 10K is assumed in the evaporator.
[3.1]
• The entropy of the refrigerant after the evaporator is calculated in terms of the
temperature of the refrigerant after the evaporator and the suction pressure.
• (1) The temperature, pressure, entropy and enthalpy entering the compressor
are now known.
• (2) The discharge pressure and compressor power are given in the
compressor chart of Table 3.1.
• With the compressor power known and the mass flow of the refrigerant
already calculated, the enthalpy exiting the compressor can be calculated
with the following formula:
[3.2]
• From all the known factors, the heating coefficient of performance (COP) of
the system can now be calculated with the following formula:
COP =
Q p [3.5]
• (3) The gas cooler outlet temperature is known from the compressor chart
and a constant pressure over the gas cooler is assumed.
• The enthalpy and entropy of the refrigerant leaving the gas cooler can be
calculated in terms of the gas cooler outlet temperature and the discharge
pressure.
• The cycle is completed and all the variables required were calculated.
The important variables calculated in the cycle simulation mentioned above are the
COP, heating capacity, mass flow and compressor efficiency of the cycle. The results
are given in table 3.2 for the conditions in table 3.1.
The average heating COP obtained from the results is 3.3, which is in accordance
with the literature and with what is expected from a heat pump system. As expected it
can be seen that the COP is higher for a higher evaporating temperature, lower for a
higher gas cooler outlet temperature and lower for a higher discharge pressure. This
corresponds well with what was found in the literature.
The average heating capacity obtained from the results is 46kW, which is about the
same as that of the R-22 heat pump system it will be compared to later.
The average compressor efficiency obtained from the results is 63%.
!
1972 7500 253 298 0.1022 18.8 9.9 2.555 25.3 0.6565
i 1972 i
9000 253 308 0.09068 13.7 10.3 1.98 20.39 0.6498
!
2293 288 I
L~293 7500 I 258 298 0.1255 23.1 10.4 2.887 30.03 0.6662
2293 i
9000 258 308 0.1164 17.6 11.2 2.248 25.17 0.6762
•
2293 11000 258 313 0.09832 14.5 12.8 1.72 22.02 0.5873
I
~2650
!
7500 263 288 0.1545 33.3 10.5 3.869 40.62 0.6973
• 2650 7500 263 298 0.155 28.5 10.5 i 3.414 35.84 0.6994
!
2650 9000 263 308 0.1443 21.8 11.7 2.565 30.01 I 0.7018
2650 12000 263 313 0.12 18.4 15.3 1.773 27.13 0.5708
3486 7500 273 288 0.2241 47.9 12.2 i 4.535 55.33 0.6088
3486 9000 273 308 0.2103 31.4 14.1 2.852 40.22 0.6255
i
3486 i 10000 i 273 288 0.2046 44.5 14.9 i 3.635 ! 54.16 0.6483
3486 10000 273 i 298 0.2045 39.1 14.9 3.272 48.75 0.648
3486 12000 273 313 0.1681 25.5 16.5 2.123 35.03 0.5776
3969 I 7500 I
278 288 0.2672 56.7 12.4 i
5.149 63.85 0.5764
3969 7500 278 i 298 0.2686 48.5 12.4 4.491 55.68 0.5794
3969 9000 278 308 0.2525 37.3 14.9 3.099 46.18 0.5961
P_suc P dis I
T_ev Tgc_o I
mass
Q (kW) P (kW) COP Qh eta_c !
(kPa) (kPa) (K) ut (K) flow
3969 12000 278 298 I
0.2324 45
17.4 3.245 56.47 0.659
3969 12000 278 08
0.2313 38.4
17.4 2.863 49.81 0.6559
3969 12000 278 313
0.2026 30.4
17.4 2.322 40.39 0.5744
I
4501 7500 283 288
0.3238 68
11.7 6.387 74.73 0.5752
i 4501 7500 i 283 298
0.3246 57.9 11.7 5.525 64.65 0.5766
4501 9000 283 308
0.3141 45.7 14.7 i
3.725 54.76 0.6162
4501 12000 283 288
0.2814 60.7 17.9 4.058 72.63 0.6666
4501 12000 283 298
0.2837 54.3 17.9 3.705 66.33 0.6719
4501 12000 283 308
0.2826 46.3 17.9 3.256 58.28 0.6695
4501 12000 283 313
0.2468 36.5 17.9 2.624 46.97 0.5847
i 4501 13000 283 288
0.2729 59.1 19.5 3.68 71.76 0.6493
4501 13000 283 298
0.2731 52.7 19.5 3.352 65.37 0.6497
This section uses the results obtained from the simulation above to characterize the
compressor. Characterizing the compressor into only two [3.23,3.24] formulas both in
terms of evaporation pressure and discharge pressure, enables the manipulation of
the first cycle simulation so that results can be obtained for any evaporation
temperature, gas cooler outlet temperature and discharge pressure.
With all the variables known and from the compressor chart the following plots can
be made;
1. evaporating capacity against evaporation temperature,
2. mass flow against evaporating pressure and
3. compressor efficiency against evaporating pressure.
These plots are shown in Figures 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 respectively and will discussed
in more detail in the section to follow. All the variables used were attained from the
results as shown in Table 3.2.
Figure 3.6 shows cooling capacity against evaporation temperature in terms of the
discharge pressure and the gas cooler outlet temperature.
• Plot 1 is at a discharge pressure of 7500kPa and a gas cooler outlet
temperature of 288K.
• Plot 2 is at a discharge pressure of 7500kPa and a gas cooler outlet
temperature of 298K.
• Plot 3 is at a discharge pressure of 9000kPa and a gas cooler outlet
temperature of 308K.
• Plot 4 is at a discharge pressure varying between 11000 to 12000kPa and a
gas cooler outlet temperature of 313K.
70
60
§: ...
~40+ • ·T'············· --'T'" ,................... ~~
l
a
30
O+-------~------+-------r-------r_------+_------r_----~
250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285
From figure 3.6 it could be seen that as the gas cooler outlet temperature increases
there is a loss in the evaporating capacity because less heat is rejected in the gas
cooler which affects the amount of heat to be absorbed in the evaporator. It is also
clear that as the evaporating temperature increases, the cooling capacity increases
because there is a lot more energy in the surrounding medium to be extracted.
The evaporating temperature is directly linked to the ambient wet bulb temperature
since the cycle simulated consists of an air to refrigerant evaporator. Therefore from
figure 3.8 it can be clearly seen that a better system performance will be attained at
high wet bulb ambient temperatures and a low gas cooler outlet temperature which is
directly linked to the water inlet temperature because the system simulated consists
of a refrigerant to water gas cooler. This is because the warmer the ambient
temperature the more heat there is for the refrigerant to extract from the ambient air.
For the gas cooler, the lower the water inlet temperature is the more heat could be
rejected into water. These both lead to a highly efficient system with a good COP.
Figure 3.7 shows the mass flow against evaporation pressure in terms of the
discharge pressure and the gas cooler outlet temperature.
MassFlow vs P_ev
0.3
--7500(288)
--7500(298)
___ 9000
:-<0-11 000-13000
,-Poly. (7500(298»
i-poly. (7500(288»
From figure 3.7 it can be seen that there is a near linear increase in the mass flow
through the system as the evaporating pressure increases. As the discharge
pressure and the gas cooler outlet temperature increases the mass flow through the
system decreases. This is a result of the mass flow compensating, by means of the
expansion valve, for a constant evaporating capacity in the system which is
determined by the evaporating pressure and gas cooler outlet temperature as
mentioned earlier.
The plot made for figure 3.8 is made up out of compressor efficiency against
evaporating pressure in terms of the discharge pressure and the gas cooler outlet
tem perature.
--7500(288)
__ 7500(298)
__ 11000
-Poly. (7500(298))
-PQly. (7500(288»
- Poly. (9000)
- Poly. (11000)
From figure 3.8 it can be seen that the compressor efficiency stays reasonably
unaffected with the change in evaporating pressure, discharge pressure and gas
cooler outlet temperature. This is because the compressor efficiency is directly linked
to the manufacturing of the compressor and is only slightly influenced by the
discharge pressure and suction pressure.
In figures 3.7 and 3.8 a polynomial equation is fitted to the profiles attained from the
plots made. The polynomial fitted through the mass flow resulted in a 3 rd order
polynomial equation describing the mass flow of the system in terms of evaporating
pressure. The polynomial fitted through the compressor efficiency resulted in a 6 th
order polynomial equation describing the compressor efficiency in terms of the
evaporating pressure. The R2-equation shows the accuracy of the equations obtained
from the polynomials fitted through the plots, 1 being a good fit and 0 being a bad fit.
The equations obtained are given below:
The 3 rd order polynomial equations describing the mass flow in terms of the
evaporating pressure are as follow:
R2 9.9978xlO-1
= 9.9985x10-1
R2 = 9.99885 xl 0-1
R2 9.9805xlO-1
The 6th order polynomial equations describing the compressor efficiency in terms of
the evaporating pressure are given below:
•
[3.10]
•
[3.11 ]
- 2.0752xl 0-2 X+ 1.2432xl01
•
[3.12}
•
[3.13]
All of the above fitted equations are reasonable fittings and can now be used to
describe the system mass flow and compressor efficiency in terms of evaporating
pressure for any given circumstance, 'x' being the common denominator for the
evaporating pressure.
Because we want the mass flow and the compressor efficiency to be in terms of both
evaporating pressure and discharge pressure and not only evaporating pressure, the
above attained equations must be plotted against the discharge pressure in order to
attain the required equations. The coefficients from the equation attained are plotted
against the discharge pressures given in the compressor chart.
The coefficients from the equation describing the mass flow in terms of evaporating
pressure is plotted against the corresponding discharge pressure as shown in table
3.3.
Table 3.3: Coefficients from mass flow equation against the suitable discharge pressure.
aO
6.72E-09
-1.17E-02 4.50E-05 6.56E-09
9000 -8.13E-04 3.08E-05 8.58E-09
12000 -9.87E-03 3.51 E-05 4.78E-09
The following plots are made according to table 3.3. The plots are shown in figures
3.9, 3.10 and 3.11.
-+--a1
-Poly. (al)
As in the first few plots, a polynomial equation is fitted through the different plots with
R2-equation showing the accuracy of the plot.
The polynomial equation resulted in 3rd order polynomial equations taking the
discharge pressure into consideration as well.
The 3rd order polynomials taking the discharge pressure into account are given
below:
y:::::: -2.1646xlO-9 x 2 +4.2438xlO-5 x 2.0742xlO-1
• [3.14]
R2 9.8358xlO-1
• [3.16]
R2 =9.984x10- 1
All of the above fitted equations are reasonable fittings, with 'x' being the common
denominator for the discharge pressure.
The coefficients from the equation describing the compressor efficiency in terms of
evaporating pressure is plotted against the corresponding discharge pressure as
shown in table 3.4.
Table 3.4: Coefficients from compressor efficiency equation against the suitable discharge pressure.
P dis as a4 a3 a2 a1 aO !
The following plots are made according to table 3.4. The plots are shown in figures
3.12,3.13,3.14,3.15,3.16 and 3.17.
2.50E+01
2.00E+01
1.50E+01
1.00E+01
5.00£+00
O.OOE+OO
-5.00E+00
-1.00E+01
·1.50E+01
-2.00E+01
4.00E-02
3.00E-02
2.00E-02
i.00E-02
O.OOE+OO
Poly. (a4)
-i.00E-02
-2.00E-02
I
·3.00E-02
-4.00E.02
3.00E-OS
2.S0E-OS
2.00E-OS
i.S0E·OS
i.00E-OS
-+-a3
S.OOE..Q6
-Poly. (a3)
O.OOE+OO
-S.OOE-06
-i.00E-OS
-i.S0E-OS
-2.00E-OS
S.DDE-D9
S.OOE-D9
4.00E-09
2.00E-09
O.OOE+OO
-2.DDE-D9
-4.00E-09
-S.OOE-09
-S.OOE-D9
-i.00E-OS
1.50E-12
1.00E-12
5.00E-13
___ a1
-Poly. {a1j
O.OOE+OO
-5.00E-13
-1.00E-12
6.00E-17
4.00E-17
2.00E-17
O.OOE+OO
-2.00E-i7
-4.00E-i7
-S.OOE-i7
-S.OOE-17
-i.OOE-i6
A polynomial equation is fitted through the different plots with R2-equation showing
the accuracy of the plot. The polynomial equation resulted in 3rd order polynomial
equations taking the discharge pressure into consideration as well.
The 3 rd order polynomials taking the discharge pressure into account are given
below:
• [3.18]
R2 = 9.9979x10-1
• [3.19]
R2 = 9.998x10-1
• [3.20]
R2 = 9.9981x10-1
•
y =2.899x1 0-24 X 2 2.8348 xl 0-20 x-2.4274x1 0-17
[3.22]
R2 = 9.9982x10-1
All of the above fitted equations are reasonable fittings, 'x' being the common
denominator for the discharge pressure.
From all of the above generated polynomial equations the mass flow through the
system and the compressor efficiency can be described in terms of evaporating
pressure and discharge pressure. All the polynomial equations can now be combined
into two final equations - one equation describing the mass flow in terms of
evaporating pressure and discharge pressure and the other describing the
compressor efficiency in terms of evaporating pressure and discharge pressure.
The formula for the compressor efficiency and the formula for the mass flow system
are now implemented into the first EES equation. The program containing the
two formulas is given in Appendix A. With the implementation of the two formulas all
the heat pump system variables could be determined for any evaporating
temperature, gas cooler outlet temperature and discharge pressure combination.
For the first run all the known variables for evaporating temperature, gas cooler outlet
temperature and discharge pressure found from the compressor chart is kept as the
known variables. This is done so that the unknown variables of the system can be
determined and compared to the values of the compressor chart where the
determined variables were known. This is to establish whether the characterizing of
the compressor was successful. The results after implementing the equations into the
EES program are shown in table 3.5 with the error compared to the given variables
found in table 3.2.
Table 3.5: Results after implementation of equations into EES and the errors compared to known variables.
2~=~t
253 308 9000 1961 • 0.56 0.09254 2.19
253 313 11000 1961 0.56 0.08037 7. 11.86 7.82
258 288 7500 2281 0.52 0.1248 0.32 .94 0.22
258 298 7500 2281 0.52 0.1248 0.56 23 0.43
258 308 9000 2281 0.52 0.114 2.06 17.27 1.88
258 313 11000 2281 0.52 0.09894 I 0.63 14N 0.76
263 288 7500 . 2637 0.49 0.1522 1.49 32.84 1.38
263 298 7500 2637 0.49 0.1522 1.81 28.03 1.65
263 308 9000 2637 0.49 0.1401 2.91 21.19 2.80
263 313 12000 2637 0.49 0.1105 7.92 16.98 7.72
273 • 288 7500 3471 0.43 I 0.2231 0.45 • 47.74 0.33
273 I 298 ! 7500 3471 0.43 0.2231 0.89 • 4¥s-H73
273 ! 308 9000 3471 0.43 0.2095 0.38 31. .22
273 288 • 10000 I 3471 0.43 0.1961 4.15 • 42.7 • 4.04
273 298 10000 •
! 3471 0.43 0.1961 4.11 37.54 • 3.
273 I 313 12000 • 3471 0.43 0.1589 5.47 24.15 I 5.29 •
278 288 7500 3954 I !0.38 0.2683 • 0.41 57 0.53 •
278 298 7500 ! 3954 0.38 0.2683 ! 0.11 48.5~ 0.04 I
278 I 308 9000 3954 0.38 0.2551 1.03 37.76 1.23 !
278 288 12000 """14 0.38 0.1889 18.33 41.21 18.23
1~To1
278 298 12000 3954 0.38 0.1889 18.72 36.62
278 308 12000 3954 0.38 0.1889 18.33 31.41 18.
278 I 313 12000 3954 u.38 0.1889 6.76 I 28.4 6.58
.
T_ev Tgc_ou P dis P suc P_suc_ mass m_dote Qe
Qe_err
(K) t(K) (!cPa) (kPa) err flow rr (kW)
283 288 • 7500 4485 0.36 0.3216 0.68 67.63 0.54
283 298 i 7500 4485 0.36 0.3216 0.92 57.47 0.74
283 308 ! 9000 4485 0.36 0.3099 1.34 45.2 i 1.09
283 ! 288 12000 4485 0.36 0.2234 20.61 48.26 • 20.49
283 298 • 12000 4485 0.36 0.2234 21.25 42.83 • 21.12
283 308 12000 4485 0.36 I 0.2234 20.95 36.66 20.82
283 • 313 12000 4485 0.36 0.2234 9.48 33.1 9.32 •
283 • 288 13000 4485 0.36 0.1758 35.58 38.12 35.50
283 298 13000 4485 • 0.36 0.1758 35.63 i 33.98 35.52
Table 3.5 cont.: Results after implementation of equations into EES and the errors compared to known
variables.
o~
10.79 12.98 5.951 15.58 64.24 288 346.1 0.6703 16.291
•
From the results found in table 3.5 the following conclusions could be made. The
error for the determination of the suction pressure is on average less than 1 % which
indicates a very good correlation. Because of the way that the compressor chart is
put together, seeing that not all of the pressures are kept constant throughout the
DORIN simulation, the pressures implemented into the equations could not be
constant throughout the correlation. Values in the original compressor chart are given
for a constant pressure of 7500 and 9000kPa throughout the compressor chart but
with higher pressures it varies between 10000, 11000 and 12000kPa. To get a plot
for all the given evaporating temperatures a plot had to be prepared which consisted
of both pressures - 11 OOOkPa at a lower evaporating temperature and 12000kPa for
a higher evaporating temperature.
This could be determined from the errors displayed in table 3.5. The purpose of the
polynomial equations determined earlier is to interpolate between given pressures.
Therefore, for pressures at 7500 and 9000kPa the errors are small, not exceeding
5%, this is because these values are well within the boundaries and the equations
have been correlated from a plot that used these pressures for all evaporating
temperatures. A more significant error is seen for pressures 11000 and 12000kPa,
this is because of the fact that one plot had to be made containing both pressures for
certain evaporating temperatures. These values are still considered acceptable
reaching only a 20~o, error at mos~.
The most positive result found from the correlation is the error for the correlations at
10000kPa. There are only two results found for 10000kPa in the compressor chart
initially given and therefore they were not implemented into the determination of the
polynomial equations. The errors at a pressure of 10000kPa do not exceed 5%. This
is satisfactory because this is exactly what is expected from the polynomial
equations, to determine the values needed at any given discharge pressure,
evaporating temperature and gas cooler outlet temperature.
From the above results we can now determine the unknown variables for any
evaporating temperature, gas cooler outlet temperature and discharge pressure
keeping in mind that we should stay within the boundaries of the determined
polynomials. From the literature it was found that best performance of a CO 2 system
was for discharge pressures between 8000 and 11000kPa. Knowing that the gas
cooler outlet temperature depends on the water inlet temperature and knowing that
the evaporation temperature cannot exceed the gas cooler outlet temperature this
also has to be kept in mind.
The following section is to determine at which discharge pressure the system will
operate at its best for certain evaporating and gas cooler outlet temperatures. A
water temperature gradient was built into the EES simulation which is given in
Appendix A. The gradient was made for a certain inlet water temperature and a fixed
outlet water temperature of 60 ac. From this we could see whether or not the water
profile fits with the temperature slope in the gas cooler.
The simulations were done with the gas cooler temperatures and evaporating
temperatures as given in the compressor chart. The simulations were done for
discharge pressures of 8000,9000,10000 and 11 OOOkPa respectively.
The following is the comparison between the results at different discharge pressures.
The average COP, heating capacity and compressor efficiency was used to compare
the system at different types of discharge pressures. This is given in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Average COP, heating capacity and compressor efficiency at different discharge pressures.
From Table 3.6 it could be seen that the average values does not differ that much. At
8000kPa and 11 OOOkPa they start to deviate from the results found in the simulations
done at 9000 and 10000kPa, this could be because they are close to the boundaries
from which the polynomials were derived. At 9000 and 10000kPa the results are
satisfactory, the average COP being very good and the average heating capacity
being what is needed to compare it to the R-22 system later on. Thus it could be
seen that for discharge pressures of 9000 and 10000kPa the system results are
satisfactory.
The water temperature gradient should not exceed the gas cooler gradient and the
water inlet should also not be higher than the gas cooler outlet temperature.
Therefore a discharge pressure and gas cooler outlet temperature should be chosen
so that the inlet water temperature is not higher than the gas cooler outlet
temperature and also that the water temperature gradient does not exceed the gas
cooler's decreasing temperature gradient Secondly, for certain inlet water
temperatures and evaporating temperatures it had to be determined at which gas
cooler outlet temperature and discharge pressure the system will have to operate.
This was done by bringing into account the water profile.
The water inlet temperatures were implemented at 10, 20 qnd 30°C. The system
was simulated with gas cooler outlet temperatures of 288, 298 and 308K respectively
at the different water inlet temperatures. These were all simulated at evaporating
temperatures of 273,278 and 283K and at discharge pressures of 9000 and
10000kPa. All the runs were plotted on a temperature-entropy (T-s) diagram and are
shown in the following figures.
The results for 10000kPa, an evaporating temperature of 0 degrees and the gas
cooler outlet temperature being changed from 288K, to 298K and to 308K are shown.
Figure 3.18: T-s diagram: T_wi '" 1O°C; T_gc = 288K and P_dis'" 1OOOOkPa.
Figure 3.19: T-s diagram: T_wi = 10°C; T_gc = 298K and P_dis 10000kPa.
Figure 3.20: T-s diagram: T_wi '" 10·C; T--9c 308K and P_dis'" 1OOOOkPa.
Figure 3.21: T-s diagram: T_wi = 20·C; T_gc 288K and P_dis = 10000kPa.
Figure 3.22: T-s diagram: T_wi =20·C; T_gc = 298K and P_dis =10000kPa.
Figure 3.23: T-s diagram: T_wi =20°C; T_gc 308K and P_dis =10000kPa.
From Figures 3.18 to 3.23 the effect of the gas cooler outlet temperature on the T-s
diagram of the CO 2 cycle could be seen. We know that the gas cooler outlet
temperature cannot be lower than the water inlet temperature and the reason for this
can be seen in Figures 3.18 to 3.23. Where if the water inlet temperature is higher
than the gas cooler outlet temperature, the two profiles (refrigerant temperature and
water temperature profile) will cross and that is impossible in practice.
Because the refrigerant cools down with a temperature glide in the gas cooler, it was
also a concern whether or not the water profile will cross the refrigerant profile as the
refrigerant cools down in a glide. It could be seen that as long as the water inlet
temperature is kept lower than the gas cooler outlet temperature that these two
profiles won't cross each other. This could be a problem for lower discharge
pressures since the refrigerant also cools down with a temperature glide but at a
constant pressure.
Therefore from Figures 3.18 to 3.23 it could be seen that as the water inlet
temperature rises the gas cooler temperature will have to rise as well. This
corresponds with what was found in the literature and this is the reason why the
water inlet temperature is directly linked to the system's performance. If the water
inlet temperature rises the gas cooler temperature will have to rise causing the heat
that is available to be extracted from the ambient air to be less and this decreases
the system's cooling capacity which decreases the systems heating capacity and
therefore results in a less efficient system.
Figure 3.24: T-s diagram: T_wi = 30°C; T_gc = 308K and P_dis = 9000kPa.
Figure 3.24 shows the T-s diagram for a discharge pressure of 9000kPa, water inlet
temperature of 30 degrees and gas cooler outlet temperature of 308K and
evaporating temperature of 273K. From this it could be seen that in the centre of the
gas cooler temperature glide the water profile gets very close to the temperature
glide within the gas cooler. From the literature it is known that the delta temperature
between the refrigerant and medium could be as close as 2K, but this is for a highly
efficient gas cooler and can potentially cause problems in practice. Therefore one of
the reasons that lead to 1OOOOkPa to be the preferred discharge pressure at which to
operate is because the delta temperature between the medium and refrigerant is
much more likely in practice at a discharge pressure of 10000kPa.
From the simulations made to attain Figures 3.18 to 3.23 the heating capacity, COP
and power was determined. These results were compared with each other and are
shown in Table
Table 3.7: Comparison of COP, Q_h and P at different T_ev, T_wi, T_gc and discharge pressures.
P_dis
9000 10000 11000
T wi T T wi wi T c
10 288 10 288 10 288
0(273) 20 298 20 298 20 298
30 308 30 308 30 308
10 10 288 10 288
T_ev 5 (278) 20 20 298 20 298
30 30 308 30 308 •
10 10 10 2
10 (283) 20 20 20 298
30 30 30 308
Table 3.7 cont.: Comparison of COP, Q_h and P at different T_ev, T_wi, T_gc and discharge pressures.
P dis
9000 10000 11000
P Q h COP P Q h COP P Q h COP
~
14.11 59.46 4.013 15.87 58.25 3.67 56.43 3.361
14.82 53.63 3.62 15.87 53.04 3.342 51.78 3.084
14.82 45.45 3.068 15.87 46.54 2.932 16.79 46.3 2.758
. 15.83 69.9 4.416 17.05 68.49 4.016 17.87 65.81 3.682
15.83 62.81 3.968 17.05 62.14 3.644 17.87 60.16 3.366
15.83 52.84 3.338 17.05 54.2 3.178 17.87 53.5 2.993
I 15.12 80.34 5.313 16.53 78.71 4.763 17.58 75.29 4.282
15.12 71.72 4.743 16.53 70.98 4.294 17.58 68.44 3.892
15.12 59.61 3.942 16.53 61.32 3.71 17.58 60.37 3.433
Table 3.7 gives a very good indication of how the system is affected by the
evaporating temperature, water inlet temperature, gas cooler outlet temperature and
discharge pressure.
It could be clearly seen that as the water inlet temperature increases the gas cooler
outlet temperature has to increases as well and this causes a decrease in the COP of
the system and the heating capacity available. This was predicted and can now be
seen from the data that was found.
For a higher discharge pressure the COP decreases, this is because the power that
is needed to reach the higher discharge pressure increases and therefore reduces
the system's COP. On the other hand as the discharge pressure increases so. does
the heating capacity, this is because more energy is put into the system to reach the
higher discharge pressure.
Figures 3.25 and 3.26 show the pressure enthalpy diagram for the CO2 system. Both
are done at an evaporating temperature of 283K and a discharge pressure of
10000kPa. The gas cooler outlet temperature is changed from 288 to 308K and the
drastic change in the P-h diagram can be seen. The reduction in heating capacity
could be clearly seen from the figures as the gas cooler outlet temperature increases.
The effect of the added superheat could also be seen from the figures.
Figure 3.25: P-h diagram: T_ev = 283K; T_gc =288K and P_dis = 10000kPa.
Figure 3.26: P-h diagram: T_ev =283K; T_gc =308K and P_dis = 10000kPa.
The final step in the process is to characterize the system into two equations in terms
of the system's heating capacity and COP. This will enable us to compare the CO 2
system with the R-22 system for which a characterization already exists in terms of
heating capacity and COP.
For the CO2 system to be compared with an R-22 system a reasonable condition had
to be chosen at which to run the CO 2 system. It was chosen to run the compressor at
a constant discharge pressure of 10000kPa, this is possible with the expansion valve
implemented in the system, correct refrigerant charge and with a variable speed
pump determining the mass flow of the water.
To characterize the CO 2 system, equations for the system in terms of COP and
heating capacity had to be determined. The equations also have to be in terms of gas
cooler outlet temperatures and evaporating temperatures since these variables will
determine at which conditions the system is running and in turn will determine the
COP and heating capacity of the system.
Therefore it was assumed that for a certain inlet water temperature, the gas cooler
outlet temperature must be 5K higher than the inlet water temperature. It is known
that the delta temperature between the refrigerant and medium could be lower but 5K
is a reasonable and easily achievable delta. The delta temperature is implemented
because the simulations that will be done to compare the CO 2 system with the R-22
system will be in terms of the water inlet temperature and the gas cooler outlet
temperature should react to the inlet water temperature's value. Therefore the delta
temperature implemented will ensure that the gas cooler outlet temperature is always
higher than the water inlet temperature.
For the evaporating temperature it was decided that the evaporation temperature will
be 7K lower than the ambient wet bulb temperature. This is an assumption which in
practice has shown to be more or less accurate. The delta temperature is
implemented because the simulations that will be done to compare the CO2 system
with the R-22 system will be in terms of the evaporation temperature. The delta
implemented will ensure that the system is run at an evaporating temperature of 7K
lower than the wet bulb temperature which is known.
The simulations are done within a wider spectrum of running conditions. It is done for
evaporating temperatures of 0, 5 and 10K respectively with the delta temperature
between the evaporating temperature and ambient wet bulb temperature
implemented in the EES program (given in Appendix A). The water inlet temperature
is varied from 278 to 303K as shown in Table 3.8. The delta temperature between
the inlet water temperature and gas cooler outlet temperature is implemented in the
EES program as sh0-vv:n in Appendix A..
Table 3.8: Results for a discharge pressure of 1OOOOkPa with varying evaporating temperatures and gas
cooler outlet tern peratures.
10000 kPa
P COP
278 283 3.588
50.87----------------~
14.18
--~----~-+----
283 14.18 3.451
-5 (268) 288 14.18 3.307
14.18 3.151
14.18 2.978
14.18 2.776 i
278 15.87 3.819
283 15.87 3.67
0(273) 288 15.87 3.512
293 15.87 3.342
298 15.87 3.153
303 15.87 2.932
The EES program has all the variables that are shown in Table 3.8 in terms of the
wet bulb temperature and water inlet temperature. From the results given to the
program it can make a profile fit through the equations, determining the coefficients
built into the formulas in the program. Once the coefficients are determined they
can be replaced within the formula leaving only the ambient wet bulb temperature
and the water inlet temperature as the unknown. We now have two formulas, one for
determining the COP of the system and one for the determining the heating capacity
of the system in terms of ambient wet bulb temperatures and water inlet
temperatures. Therefore these two equations can give the systems COP and heating
capacity for any wet bulb temperature and any water inlet temperature.
COP =3.626+6.925x1
•
[3.25]
Q =47.51+2.131· 0.1785· Tw - 0.02479· Ta +
•
5.58x10-2 ·T/ [3.26]
The power of the system can also be calculated with equation [3.5]. With the power,
heating capacity and COP known, a close comparison between the CO2 system and
R-22 system can be done. This is done in Chapter 4.
CHAPTER 4
SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 4
This chapter compares an in-line electrical heating (ILH) system and R-22 heat pump
system with the CO 2 heat pump system described in the previous chapter. The three
heating systems are compared based on performance criteria under the same conditions
pertaining to where they are situated and on the demand for hot water.
In chapter 3 the method for deriving the formulas for a CO 2 heat pump system in terms
of COP and heating capacity was discussed. The same equations were derived by M
Tech Industrial (pty) Ltd. for a heat pump system operating with R-22 as refrigerant.
These equations are now implemented into the WHSIM Statistical program (Rousseau,
2006) which can be used to compare the two systems, and they are also compared to a
system having only an ILH. The ILH system is also implemented in the programme used
to determine the performance.
The WHSIM Statistical program describes and predicts the performance and power
consumption of a heat pump under any circumstances taking into consideration the
location and weather and will be used to compare the three systems under the same
given conditions. It is a software application containing weather data for certain areas in
South Africa and different setup possibilities like for instance a hotel situation. The
scenario surrounding the implementation of the three systems are given in Table 4.1.
The program contains historic weather data of South Africa so the heat pump systems
can be compared for every half hour over a period of a total year.
4,1.1 Scenario
7900 litres
Series
50kW
used with heat pum s 48kW
(on its own)
The installation is set up with a typical hotel situation. It is set that the occupancy of the
hotel is 190 persons and it is set that each person will use an average of 75 litres of hot
water per day. The WHSIM Statistical software is programmed to increase the water
consumption with a certain factor for the winter time. It is assumed that the hotel is at
maxim um capacity for the full year.
Both the heat pump systems are evaluated with the heat pump installed in parallel with
two storage vessels in series. The ILH system is installed in the same way as the heat
pumps but with the ILH in parallel with the series-connected vessels. The capacity of one
storage vessel is 7900 Htres giving a total storage capacity of 15800 litres. For the
system there are two thermostats determining the operation of the heat pump system
and the in-line heater system. The thermostats are situated near the top of the hot vessel
and the bottom of the cold vessel.
It is important that both the systems are compared at the same ambient conditions and
at the same demand for hot water by users. When compared under the same conditions
a ciear comparison could be derived to see how the systems will operate in relation to
each other. For comparison purposes the location was selected as Johannesburg and
will therefore be operated at the same weather conditions over a period of one year.
WHSIIVI can also show the results for a single day in summer and a single day in winter
for more detailed hourly comparisons. The summer day was chosen as the 9th of
December and the winter day as the 29th of July.
The winter periods are considered to be from the first of June to the end of August and
the summer periods are from the first of September to the end of May. The input files for
the above-mentioned are shown in Appendixes B.
Storage
Vessel 1
I ' Storage
Vessel 2
.!
I
•
Heat pump
An in-line heater with a heating capacity of 48kW with a discharge temperature of 60°C
is installed as a backup for when the heat pump system is not able to operate due to low
ambient conditions or when the demand for hot water is more than what can be
generated by the heat pump. The ILH is a two stage heater using only its full capacity
when necessary. The minimum dry bulb temperature at which the heat pump system can
operate is set at 5°C; therefore the heat pump system will not operate below a dry bulb
ambient temperature of 5°C and the in-line heater will come in operation should this
occur. The storage vessel supplying the heat pump with water is set to turn off the heat
pump when the supply temperature of the water reaches 30°C. Therefore the inlet water
temperature to the heat pump system will not exceed 30°C.
The three systems described are an R-22 heat pump, a transcritical CO2 heat pump
(both of 50kW nominal heating capacity as described in the previous chapter), and the
ILH which is a 72kW step up electrical heating system. The two heat pump systems
consist of an ILH (48kW) as well to give some support and therefore, when used on its
own, a bigger capacity ILH (72kW) is needed to provide its own backup and to ensure
that the ILH system on its own will be enough to keep up with the demand.
An in-line heater can be implemented as a backup system for the heat pump to help in
situations where i) the heat pump is not operating at low ambient temperatures, or ii)
conditions of extreme water consumption. The storage capacity can be given as input
and the demand profile for hot water can be chosen as well.
The three systems can now be compared to one another under the same conditions as if
alJ of the systems were installed in the same place and with the same hot water demand
under the same conditions. The three systems are compared with each other operating
at one summer and one winter day and are then compared over a running period of one
year.
The following section is dedicated to the day analysis, one for winter and one for
summer, of the three different systems as described in section 4.1 - one system
containing the CO 2 heat pump, one the R-22 system and the last containing only the
72kW ILH.
Figure 4.2 shows the summer daily normalised water consumption profile for the hotel
case study. This is a typical twin peak profile where there is a higher demand for hot
water in the mornings between 06:00 and 08:00 and then again at between
approximately 18:00 to 21 :00 in the evening.
Figure 4.2: Daily water consumption for all three systems (summer).
0.35
0.3
0.25
'if
::::.
c 0.2
.2
0.
E
ill
c
0.15
0
tJ
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [h]
Figure 4.3: Daily water consumption for all three systems (winter).
0.6 ~------:----:----------r---:------....,.---,
0.5
c
o
~ 0.3
::l
~
o
U 0.2
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [h]
Figure 4.3 shows the winter daily normalised water consumption that is higher than for
summer.
The weather conditions for all three the systems are shown in figure 4.4 and 4.5 for the
summer and winter condition respectively. The blue line shows the dry bulb ambient
temperature and the red line the wet bulb temperature in degrees Celsius.
For the winter condition it can be seen that the dry bulb ambient temperature is below
5°C up until just past 08:00 which confirms why the heat pump systems only came into
operation at that time of hour.
I ...
~,
~
I
,
l
1"""""'"
I-""
,....r i
2: 20
it-I
, \....
.g'" 15 ~~
W ).,.",
'"
"-
E
'"
!- 10
I
5 --- ........
I I-r- ~
o
1-&-1- I lJ"'"
o 2 4 £ a 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h]
Time [hJ
Figure 4.6 shows the supply temperatures inside storage vessel 1 for all three the
systems. Figure 4.7 shows the bottom temperatures inside storage vessel 2 for all three
the systems. These temperatures are for the summer condition.
It can be seen that the temperature profiles for the three systems do not vary much. This
is because the conditions at which the systems are operating are exactly the same and
therefore the demand for hot water is the same and also because the systems are
closely matched as far as their capacities are concerned.
It can be seen that the bottom temperatures of storage vessel 2 are at 30°C for all three
systems. This is because the thermostat is set at this temperature to ensure that the
heat pump does not have an inlet water temperature of above 30°C. Thus when the
bottom thermostat senses a temperature of 30°C the system will turn of and has now
reached the favourable temperature. Both storage tanks are considered to be at the
desired temperature.
Storage vessel 1 has a temperature of up to 60°C and therefore the hotel and its
recipients will receive hot water at these temperatures, heat losses in the pipe network
neglected. From the top temperatures in storage vessel 1 of all three systems it can be
seen that the systems are all capable of keeping up with the hot water demand under
the summer conditions.
Figure 4.6: Top temperatures of vessel 1 for all three systems (summer).
70
65
60
e
t! 55
8
_ _ R22
- +-1Ll-l
50
45
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time[h]
_ _ _I
40 -r--~-----,-- - - -
35
15
10 -l-!---,--...------,.----,---...;...--I-------.---;--+-----,---.;!
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
~
Timelli/
For winter, figure 4.8 shows the top temperatures inside storage vessel 1 for all three the
systems, and Figure 4.9 shows the bottom temperatures inside storage vessel 2 for all
three the systems.
From the bigger deviation in the temperature of the storage vessels it can be seen that
the hot water demand for the winter period is higher than for the summer condition. The
larger temperature drop in storage vessel 1 could be because the heat pump is most
likely not operating at that period of the morning due to low ambient conditions and are
therefore struggling to keep up with the demand for hot water. This could also be seen
because the ILH does not have a significant temperature drop since it can operate at low
ambient temperatures.
The difference in the water temperatures at the bottom and top thermostats are much
bigger in storage vessel 1 for the winter period compared to the summer period. This
could be because the demand for hot water is not as easily met as for the summer
conditions and the tanks are losing temperature easier because of the colder ambient
surroundings.
The in-line heater will most likely also be in operation more often than for the summer
period due to the larger water consumption and heat losses in the winter. The ILH
system will also have to be in operation more often because it can be seen that at
certain periods the ILH system is also struggling to cope with the demand and therefore·
has a slight decrease in its temperature profile.
70
65
00
w
t
~
55
[3
___ R-22
____.ILH
50
45
40
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Trme[h]
40 ..-----:---,---~---- - . , - - - - - - - - - . , , - - - - - - - , - - -,----,
35
Atr-
. , '
A-A1..A---·..•--1.·
30
t
~--lJL\l't-~;T
20
8 10 12 14
Trme[h]
For both heat pump systems the top temperature of storage vessel 1 is kept at a
reasonable temperature and the two systems are still able to provide hot water of
approximately 50°C to the hotel. Only once does the R-22 system drop to a supply
temperature of about 45°C. Therefore it is good to see that at cold ambient conditions
the system seems to be keeping up with the hot water demand satisfactory, regardless
the fact that the R-22 system drops to 45°C at one point. The ILH system manages to
keep the top temperature more constant and is thus keeping up with demand to a higher
degree than the two heat pump systems. This is because the ILH is able to be in
operation the whole time even for the coldest conditions and it has a bigger heating
capacity than the heat pump systems. Therefore if the heat pumps are unable to operate
they only have a backup ILH of 48kW, whereas the ILH system has 72kW of heating
capacity regardless of the ambient conditions.
The most interesting difference between the two heat pump systems is the variation in
the storage vessel temperatures. It can be seen that the overall temperature for the CO 2
system is a bit higher than that of the R-22 system. with a maximum deviation of 8% in
storage vessel 1. The top temperature of storage vessel 1 of the R-22 system drops well
below 50°C for two times during the day. From the water temperature profile curves it
can be depicted that the CO 2 system is keeping up with the demand easier than the R
22 system and it seems that the increase in water temperature of the CO 2 storage tanks
is faster than it is for the R-22 storage vessels. The ILH system on average keeps the
two storage tanks at its desirable temperature better than the heat pump systems do.
This can be seen from figure 4.8 where the storage tank of the ILH system has a more
constant water outlet temperature.
The CO 2 system will have a shorter operating time than the R-22 system because it
seems the CO2 system is reheating the storage vessels faster than the R-22 system. [t is
also known that the COP of the CO 2 system is highly dependable on the inlet water
temperature and this could also mean that the performance of the system will still be
good at winter conditions because of the colder inlet water temperature at the colder
ambient conditions.
In a comparison between the heat pump systems and the ILH system it is seen that the
CO 2 heat pump system is operating closer to the ILH system having only a SoC
temperature difference in the supply to the hotel than the ILH.
Table 4.2 gives the summarized results for both the heat pump systems and the ILH
system for the one winter day and one summer day. The table includes the total daily
water consumption that was used by the occupants. The average outlet temperature is
the average temperature supplied by the two heat pump systems to the storage vessel 1
and will be the supply temperature to the building. It finally gives the average heat pump
COP for a full day.
The daily water consumption by the reCipients are more or less the same for all three the
systems in the summer and winter condition. The increase of hot water demand in the
winter condition can be clearly seen. This corresponds with the water temperature
profiles shown for the winter analysis above. Therefore the heat pump systems will
clearly be operating more frequently at the winter conditions.
Table 4.2: Summer and winter summarized results for all three systems.
The outlet temperatures for all three the systems are more or less the same for both the
heat pump systems and ILH system at both the summer and winter conditions. This is
expected since both the heat pump systems are manufactured with either a head
pressure valve or a variable speed pump determining the water flow that ensures a
constant discharge temperature from the heat pumps. The ILH has a water regulating
valve ensuring a constant discharge temperature. It can be expected that for the winter
conditions the water mass flow will be lower than for the summer conditions.
The average COP for the CO 2 heat pump system is 10.4% higher at the summer
conditions than for the R-22 system and for the winter conditions the CO 2 heat pump
system it is 21.1 % higher than for the R-22 system. It can therefore be claimed that the
CO 2 heat pump system is a more effective system than the R-22 heat pump system.
This corresponds with the statement made about the water temperature profiles in
figures 4.8 and 4.9 that the CO 2 heat pump system seems to be coping better with the
demand for hot water than the R-22 system.
An interesting occurrence that can be observed from table 4.2 is that the average COP
of the CO 2 system is higher at the winter condition than it is for the summer condition.
This can be due to the fact that the inlet water temperature is lower in the winter
condition than for the summer condition and because the CO 2 system could be less
affected by the ambient conditions than the R-22 system. It is known that the inlet water
temperature plays a big role when it comes to the performance of the CO 2 heat pump
system.
The daily power consumption of the two heat pump systems during summer are shown
in figure 4.10 and figure 4.11 respectively, with the daily power consumption of the ILH
system shown in figure 4.12. The green line shows the power consumption of the heat
pump and will be at a maximum of 18kW. The purple line shows the power consumption
of the in-line heater and will either be at 24kW when operating in one step and will be at
48kW when fully operating. For the in line heater the purple line will be at 72kW when
operating and will be equal to the total power consumption. The red line is the total
power consumption of the heat pumps together with the in-line heater when in operation.
The R-22 heat pump is in operation longer at a time than the CO 2 system. The short
running time of the ILH system shows that it is able to keep up with the hot water
demand sufficiently for the summer condition. The difference between a heat pump
system and an ILH system can be clearly seen from the power consumptions. Here it
can be seen that the heat pump uses about 55% less power to heat the same amount of
water as the ILH does.
Figure 4.10: Daily power consumption for the CO z heat pump system (summer).
70,000~-----------------,------------------~----~-------,--~
,
60,000
~ 40,000 ---,-----
o~. .- -__~~__~--~~--____I--~~~
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [h]
Figure 4.11: Daily power consumption for the R-22 heat pump system (summer).
70,000..,,----------------------------,---,-------,-----,
,
60,000 ' - -
,._
1"'1
10,000
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [h]
Figure 4.12: Daily power consumption for the ILH heat pump system (summer).
70,000 ,-"" +-
80,000 . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - - , - - - - - , - - - - ,
60,000 .,-""·····_··_·-·---1-I!········_······_·-;
1"'-- ~
r-- _ ......... - - ..-
1--- r" k r""" ,...,,1 ~-
~·--·f···-I_---ii_l-f··-·CI-.····+·.... -.+- .........
50,000
~
~ 40,000 1 - - - - _ _ c-..•..•._..+..,-.._ _ _._.._... ,
ll.
20,000
It~-1----rt-. I
10,000 +-----Il-I----I-"~+-ii--'--I-11--I--I---I-'.---i-l--'--i--+--I---I-H- ,
, I
O~---- . .._--~--._--~--__--~--__~__--__~~~
a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [h]
Table 4.3: Total run time for the three systems (summer).
I Total run time ILH Total run time HP Total Power Consumption
I CO 2 120 min 660 min 1647563 W
I R-22 110 min 700 min 1715385 W
IILH 520 min o min 3740000W.
Table 4.3 gives the summer total running time of all three systems and the operating
times of the backup in-line heater for the two heat pump systems. The run time for the R
22 heat pump is 40 minutes longer than for the CO 2 heat pump and the operating time
for the in line heater in the R-22 system is 10 minutes longer than for the CO 2 system.
Therefore it can be seen that the CO 2 system will be more efficient than the R-22 system
because of its higher COP. The total running time of the ILH system is much less than
for both the heat pump systems, showing that the ILH system is keeping up well with the
hot water demand.
The total power consumption for the summer day period is shown in table 4.3. It shows
that the R-22 system uses about 4% more power than the CO 2 system. The reason for
this is because of the longer operation period of the R-22 system compared to the CO 2
system. These results show that the CO 2 system is more efficient than the R-22 system
under the same situation and conditions. Here the big difference in power consumption
between the heat pump systems and ILH system is evident. The ILH system uses a lot
more power although it is not in operation as much as the heat pump systems.
The winter daily power consumption of the two heat pump systems are shown in figure
4.13 and figure 4.14 respectively and the ILH system in figure 4.15. From the figures it
can be seen that during winter, the two heat pump systems must operate longer
because the ambient temperatures are much lower than for the summer condition and
the water consumption is higher. The ILH system is in operation more often for the winter
conditions and it could also be seen that it has to operate longer from 06:00 to 10:00 in
the morning and then again from approximately 17:00 to 23:00 in the evening. This is
because of the higher consumption rate at those specific times of day. Although the ILH
systems is operational for a substantial part of the day, it is not required to be in
operation for the whole day showing that it is still able to keep up with the hot water
demand under the winter conditions.
The power savings gained by using a heat pump can be seen from the power
consumption profiles of the heat pump systems and the ILH system. From these figures
it is clear that there is a big advantage in using a heat pump rather than an ILH system
when it comes to peak demand power usage.
Both heat pump systems only come into operation after 08:00 in the morning because
the ambient temperature is typically below 5°C. At temperatures lower than 5°C the heat
pumps will not come into operation because there is no heat to extract from the
surrounding air and the evaporator could begin to freeze if it has any condensate on it.
During these times the in-line heater will operate and this can be seen from the figures.
The ILH system is not controlled by the ambient conditions and can therefore be
operational through the entire day as seen in figure 4.15. The in-line heater consists of
two stages of equal capacity so that the heater is only in operation at half of its capacity
at certain periods. This is done to limit kVA contribution during peak periods.
From both of the heat pump system figures it can be seen that the in-line heater turns off
when the heat pumps come into operation and the in-line heater switches to half
capacity during the peak hours. A system is more efficient if it is not necessary for the in
line heater to operate concurrently with the heat pump.
Figure 4.13: Daily power consumption for the CO2 heat pump system (winter).
70,000
60,000
50,000
~ 40,000
~
'"3:
it. 30,000
20,000
10,000
° 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [hJ
Figure 4.14: Daily power consumption for the R-22 heat pump system (winter).
70,000
60,000
50,000
~ 40,000
...
'"
3:
it. 30,000
20,000
10,000
0
a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [hJ
Figure 4.15: Daily power consumption for the ILH heat pump system (winter).
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
~
~ 40,000
0
0..
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time [h]
When the heat pumps are in operation it could be seen that they are in operation for the
remaining time that the ambient conditions allow. This shows that the low surrounding
ambient temperatures and the bigger demand for hot water ensures that the heat pump
is required to operate at all times. From about 21:00 in the evening both the heat pump
and in-line heater is operational, this however is during the off-peak hours and does not
contribute excessively to the electricity bill.
Table 4.4: Total runtime for the in-line heater and heat pump for all three systems (winter).
Total run time ILH Total run time HP Total Power Consumption
CO 2 730 min 900 min 4384864 W
R-22 770 min 900 min 4668307W
ILH 980 min o min 7056000 W
Table 4.4 gives the total running time of all three systems and the operating time of the
in-line heater for the two heat pump systems in winter. The operating time for the in-line
heater within the R-22 system is 40 minutes longer than for the CO 2 system. This is not
too much but still shows that the CO 2 system is Goping better with the demand for hot
water and with the lower ambient conditions than the R-22 system. This is because of
the lower inlet water temperature to the CO 2 heat pump which results in a better COP for
the CO 2 system. The ILH system is in operation a lot more than was necessary for the
summer condition although it is still a lot less operational than the heat pump systems
including their backup in line heaters.
The total running time for all three the systems are to a certain extent higher during the
winter condition than during the summer condition. This is expected due to the lower
ambient temperatures and the increase in demand for hot water at the winter conditions.
This shows that both the heat pump systems will be more efficient and cost effective in
the summer period because of the higher energy available in the surrounding ambient
conditions.
The total power consumption is also higher for the R-22 system than for the CO 2 system,
as it was under the summer conditions. This is again the result of the CO 2 system having
a higher COP than the R-22 system and a lower total operation time. The total power
consumption for the winter condition is much higher than for the summer condition
because the in-line heater is in operation more often under the winter conditions and
uses a lot more power than the heat pumps use when operating on their own. The ILH
system's power consumption is still a lot more than that of the heat pump systems but it
can be seen that the difference between the heat pump systems and ILH system are
less for the winter conditions than it was for the summer condition. The reason being that
in the winter the heat pump systems in-line heaters are more operational and consumes
a lot more power than the heat pumps.
In this section the same heat pump systems and ILH system are compared to each other
over a period of a year. All three the systems are simulated with the same demand in hot
water, occupancy and conditions as stipulated in section 4.1. The WHSIM Statistical
program contains the weather data for the area in which the heat pumps are placed for a
period of a year and can therefore give an accurate analysis of the systems over this
period.
Figure 4.16 shows the seasonal daily water consumption for the three systems. There is
a considerable increase in hot water consumption for the colder months than for the
warmer months reaching its peak at round about the middle of winter. Therefore, when
designing a hot water system it should be designed to have a sufficient heating capacity
for the winter months, because this is when the system will be operating under its most
strenuous conditions. There should be a sufficient amount of storage capacity to meet
the hot water demand.
Figure 4.16: Summary of yearly water consumption for all three the systems.
20000
18000
16000
S 14000
t:
.2
} 12000
;:l
rn
§ 10000
u
'-
.l!l
en 8000
~
>,
en 6000
c
4000
2000
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
From figure 4.17, figure 4.18 and figure 4.19 the daily minimum water supply
temperature to the building for the three systems can be seen. In the winter months
there is a slight drop in the supply temperature due to the fact that the demand for hot
water is higher than the heating capacity of the heat pump system combined with the
storage capacity. The supply temperature is still sufficient for use by the occupants.
The R-22 heat pump system has a larger drop in the water supply temperature than the
CO 2 system during the winter period. The CO 2 heat pump system average supply
temperature is above 50°C, where the R-22 system average temperature drops below
50°C a few times. This is due to the fact that the R-22 system has a lower COP,
especially during the winter period, and is therefore less efficient than the CO 2 system.
From fig ure 4.19 it could be seen that the I LH does not have any problems in keeping up
with the hot water demand, this is because it has a higher heating capacity than the heat
pump systems.
Figure 4.17: Summary of yearly minimum water supply temperature for the CO2 system.
70 ,
:
, I
60
,
!
~ .... AI> • .! !
~
.aI!
<l)
50
.• r~q;v
,r .' ,
.
.......
Q.
E
$ 40
>.
,
Q. !
Q.
:::l
<Il 30 I ,
,
E
:::l
I
E ,
:~ 20 -- .. ------.---~.~
E
>.
ro ,
o
10
, :
, , i ,
o
o 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
Figure 4.18: Summary of yearly minimum water supply temperature for the R-22 system.
70
, : I
60 , ,
§: .... ...ald .
E: .~ :111 ~ i''f..
T
.3 50
E
, , r~
<l>
C.
E
2 40 , ,
>.
C.
C.
:::I , , ,
rJ)
30
E , .
:::I
E I
'r: ._ _",____p_._..... ! ,
E 20 .,.m
, I
,
>.
'"
0
10
. I
!
f
0
I
o 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
Figure 4.19: Summary of yearly minimum water supply temperature for the ILH system.
70 -r---:----,-
60 +--~---+--
<ll
o +---.----i---t---i--
o 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
The daily energy consumption over a period of one year is shown for all three the
systems in figure 4.20, figure 4.21 and figure 4.22. There is a linear increase in the
power consumption as the year draws closer to the winter months. There is a direct
influence of the water consumption on the power consumption which can be seen from
the water consumption and energy consumption profiles. The deviation in the energy
consumption profile for the heat pump systems during the winter months is because the
in-line heater will be in operation more often, due to lower ambient conditions affecting
the heat pump COP. It can be seen that the power consumption is much higher for the
ILH system than it is for the heat pump systems, reaching a maximum of 1200kWh per
day compared to the less than 800kWh per day for the heat pump systems.
The power consumption for the R-22 heat pump system is higher, reaching a maximum
of almost 800kWh as opposed to the energy usage of the CO 2 system which is just
above 700kWh in the winter months due to the difference in COP. The power
consumption during the summer months is more or less the same for both the heat
pump systems since the in-line heater is not in operation as much as during the winter
months.
Figure 4.20: Summary of yearly energy consumption for the CO2 the system.
800~--,---------------------------------------~---,---,
600
:<: 500
3:
=.
>.
l::' 400
OJ
J::
OJ
>.
£3 300
200
100
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
Figure 4.21: Summary of yearly energy consumption for the R-22 the system.
900
800
700
~ 600
.r:
:s:.:.:
;:: 500
Cl
lii
;; 400
>
0 '"
300
200
100
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
Figure 4.22: Summary of yearly energy consum ption for the ILH the system.
1400~--~----,-------~----.-------~~--,---~----c---~--~----,
800
>
E'
Q)
c:
Q) 600
ia'
o
400 -.,''',.,.,''''-'''----+--'''''''''''''''''-,---'------i--"-,.,'-''-''''.+,--".,,--i-··,"""'"·,-,,,·,,-"----r'-·----'-"""'-,,-<----I
200 ,,-'''-,-,----4,.,.-,,--''''''''',.,.,,--,,-,--....,-.,----'-'''',.,..--;---·"''''''''''1'''''---,'''''-,,..,,·+'''',,·-''''---,,-''''--,-,,---1
o 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390
Day
Table 4.5 shows the summary of the annual water consumption and the annual energy
consumption on a monthly basis for all three the systems. The increase in energy
consumption between January and July for the R-22 system is 58.1 %, for the CO 2
system it is 53.6% and for the ILH system it is 45.8%. The greater increase in energy
consumption for the heat pump systems is because the in-line heaters will be in
operation more often in the winter than it will be in the summer.
There is a 4.5% saving in the energy consumption of the CO 2 heat pump compared to
the R-22 heat pump for the above-mentioned months. This shows that the increase in
energy demand from the summer to the winter is 4.5% less for the CO2 heat pump
system.
The total water consumption and energy consumption for the year is given in table 4.6
for all three the systems. The most important difference to note is the total annual energy
consumption of the two heat pump systems. The R-22 system uses 9.4% more energy in
total for the year than the CO 2 system. This shows the difference in energy demand for a
system with a higher COP compared to a system with a lower COP.
The savings that can be realised by using a heat pump system instead of an ILH system
is clearly indicated here. There is a 57.8% increase in the total energy usage over the
period of one year for the ILH system when compared to the CO 2 heat pump system.
R-22 heatpump~ystem
Year total consumption :::: 5350000 [I]
Year total energy 149000 [kWh]
CO 2 he<:\t pump system
r-YE?ar total consumption '" 5340000 [n ·
Year total energy '" 135000 [kWh]
ILH heat pump system i
From the results found in chapter 4 it is clear that the CO 2 system has a better COP than
the R-22 system and will thus be a more energy efficient system than the R-22 system.
CHAPTER 5
--~--.----.---------
CHAPTERS
SYSTEM
This chapter focuses on the economical evaluation of the three systems described in the
previous chapter. The two main areas that will be discussed are the operational cost and
the capital cost. In this chapter a clear view will be given to see which system is the most
cost effective and will generate the best savings over a period of time.
The tariff and rates used was taken from the latest figures available from Eskom. Eskom
is South Africa's distributor and supplier of power from rural to industrial applications.
The tariff structure used is Megaflex which is generally used in the commercial and
industrial sectors. This is listed in more detail in Appendix C. Electricity charges are
based on a c/kWh method. There are certain rates depending on what time of year and
what time of day the energy is being used. Table 5.1 gives a summary for the rates used
to calculate the operational cost of the three systems.
Network demand
Peak [c/kWhJ Standard [c/kWhJ Off-Peak [clkWhJ
[RlkVAimonth]
Summer 29.99 18.41 12.91 9.00
Winter 107.25 27.94 14.96 9.00
The winter months are taken as June to August and the summer months September to
May. The peak demands are based on when energy consumption is at its greatest in
South Africa and therefore the tariffs charged for energy consumption during these
periods of the day are more expensive. Fig ure 5.1 shows the time table for the peak, off
peak and standard tariff rates.
Figure 5.1: Peak, off-peak and standard time periods, Eskom (2009/10).
Peak
Off-peak
Standard
Figure 5.2 shows the monthly energy consumption of all three systems and it is used to
explain the difference in operating cost between the three systems. The ILH system uses
on average 57.5% more energy per month to deliver the same heating capacity as the
CO 2 heat pump system and will definitely be the more expensive system when it comes
to its operating cost. The R-22 system uses 9.5% more energy per month on average as
the CO 2 system. The other reason for the R-22 heat pump system having higher energy
consumption is because of its lower COP resulting in more power required for the same
thermal heating. It is clear that all three the systems use more energy in the winter time
when it is colder than in the summer time mainly due to the higher water consumption.
~.O,-------~·------------ ---------.~~------------~------_.
35CXXJ.0 + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3CXXXJ.0 +-----------------------'i!il_---li!-
~.o+_--------------~~~~i!il_--_Ii!_---
i 2CXXXl.O +------
E 150:0.0 +---i'1iil---{....---1!ll\r--~1__
~
10000,0 +-~~:---
50:0.0
0.0
Month
The total monthly energy cost for all three systems are shown in figure 5.3. The
operating cost of the ILH system is 65% more for the whole year than for the CO 2 heat
pump system. The operating cost of the R-22 heat pump system is also 12% more than
that of the CO 2 heat pump system as a result of the energy consumption shown in figure
5.2.
The in-line heaters are in operation more during the winter time and thus increase the
operating cost of the heat pump systems and the ILH system in the winter time.
2O,CXXJ.00
18,<XXl.00
16,<XXl.00
14,<XXl.00
12,<XXl.00
If:
~
~
10,<XXl.00
8,<XXl.00
------------------~I:~I
.c
~ 6,CXXJ.00
4,<XXl.00
2,<XXl.00
0.00
R22 CO 2 ILH
Month Cost Cost i Cost
i - [R] [R] [Rl
Jan 2,001.70 1,782.00 5,005.60
i Feb 1,939.50 1,727.60 4,819.00 i
-"
Mar 2,267.70 2,071.40 5,770.00 •
Apr 2,593.50 2,293.60 6,384.50
May 3,047.90 2,681.30 7,423.00
Jun 6,450.90 i 5,796.50 17,530.00
Jul 6,691.10 5,919.10 18,137.00
Aug 6,365.20 5,479.70 17,439.00 .
Sep 2,958.50 2,518.30 6,917.20
Oct 2,581.90 2,211.10 6,237.00
Nov 2,172.10 1,917.10 5,390.00
Dec 2,065.10 i 1,834.00 5,097.30
Total -
41,135.10 I 36,231.70 106,149.60 •
Table 5.2 shows the summary of the monthly energy cost for all three systems. The
annual operating cost for the R-22 system is R4, 903.40 more than that of the CO 2 heat
pump system. The ILH system has an operating cost of R69, 917.90 more than the CO 2
heat pump system. Figure 5.4 shows the percentage difference between the operating
costs of the three systems.
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
~ 30.00
&
c::
I!!
~ 20.00
i:i
~
10.00
0.00
-10.00
The R-22 system is 11.92% more expensive over a period of one year and the ILH
system 65.87% more expensive than the CO 2 system. The ILH cannot compete with a
heat pump system when it comes to its operating cost seeing that it is more than 50%
more expensive than a heat pump system. The 11.92% difference in operating cost
between the two heat pump systems are quite substantial and it shows that on operation
the CO 2 heat pump system will be a lot more cost effective than the R-22 system.
The operating cost pertaining to the three systems are very important since South Africa
is in a power crisis where businesses are forced to save power and at the time of
publishing the results of this study, the price of electricity is scheduled to go up
drastically again in the near future. As the cost of electricity increases the difference in
the operating costs will become more substantial between the two heat pump systems.
Therefore the CO 2 heat pump system has a substantial advantage because of its lower
operating cost and lower energy usage.
2,OXI,OXI.CO ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
1.BCO.OXI.CO
1,6CXl,OXI.CO i
1,4CO,0XI.CO + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - 1
i
g: 1.2CO.0XI.CO -r-'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ; r - - - - - - - - - - - - - l
6CXl,OXI. co
4CO,OXI.CO +-------:fIr-------:;7''''''=.-'''------'-~-----'
2CO,OXI.00 + - - - - - ; r " - - - - - - = - - s - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1
O.CO +-------,--------r------,,------...-----,-------1
• '0 '.- 2 4 6 8 10 12
Year
The energy cost tariff is taken as was found from the tariff rates, an increase in the tariff
rates is taken to be 25% for the first two years and then 10% thereafter. This is from a
prediction made for the increase in tariff rates for South Africa over the following years.
Figure 5.5 shows the total operating cost for the first year and the accumulated operating
cost for the years to follow including the increase in tariff rates for a period of ten years.
Therefore with the increase in tariff rates taken into account the operating cost alone for
the CO 2 heat pump system will be R3, 030,781.71 for ten years. The operating cost for
the R-22 heat pump system and ILH system will be R3, 440,951.12 and R8, 879,414.04
respectively.
The capital cost of the three systems plays a significant role when a consumer has to
choose a system. For the capital cost calculation the following were taken into account:
• Component costs.
• Manufacturing labour.
• Mark-up.
This was done so that the costing is realistic in terms of what the consumer would have
to pay when he orders anyone of the systems. The R-22 heat pump cost was obtained
from a local manufacturer, so has the in-line heater cost.
The CO 2 system cost was projected according to the same principle applied to the
costing of the R-22 system. The price for the compressor was received from the
manufacturers of DORIN compressors, while the cost for the control equipment was
received from Danfoss (2002). The cost of the gas cooler was determined by KAORI
which specified a brazed plate heat exchanger to give the acq uired heating capacity.
There is a big difference between the cost of the two heat pump systems and the ILH
system. This is because a heat pump is a more expensive and detail-manufactured
machine compared to the in-line heater. The cost difference between the R-22 and CO2
system is 11.7% which is a relatively small difference, therefore not crucial. The main
reasons for the cost difference between the two heat pump systems are because the
CO 2 system is a new concept and its components are not mass-produced at this stage
(compared to R-22 components).
Therefore the CO2 compressor is potentially a lot more expensive than the R-22
compressor. The systems control components like the expansion valve is more
expensive because of the higher pressures at which the CO 2 is operating. Because of
the higher pressure the pipes would also be more expensive because they should be
able to withstand higher pressures than what is necessary for the R-22 system, but the
cost difference is not that big because the CO 2 is able to operate with smaller diameter
pipes than the R-22 system which lowers the cost again.
2, ()(X),()(X).OO
1,800,()(X).oo ,
1,600,()(X).oo
1i'
c 1.4OO.()(X).00
t )(
Ql 1.2oo,()(X).00
.!!
:J
1,()(X),()(X).OO
~
3
1ii 8OO,()(X).00
....>c
~ 6OO,()(X).00
400,()(X).00
200,()(X).00 :
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Year
Figure 5.6 shows the present value cost of the systems over a period of ten years and
depicts the life expectancy of the three systems. Each system's capital cost was
implemented in year one including the operating cost of the first year and thereafter the
accumulated operating cost is shown with the increase in tariff rates as previously
mentioned. When comparing Figure 5.6 with Figure 5.5 the effect of capital cost on a
system's life cycle cost can be seen. The ILH system has a low capital cost and
therefore will be the less expensive choice to install when conSidering the first year of the
system's life. However, it can be seen that just before two years the ILH system will
already be costing its owner more than the two heat pump systems would because of its
high operating cost.
For the two heat pumps it is clear that the higher capital cost of the CO 2 machine makes
it a more expensive option when considering the two systems. The CO 2 heat pump
system will cost the consumer more initially than it would cost to install the R-22 system.
However, it can be seen that after a period of four years the CO 2 system will be the less
expensive option because of its lower operating cost
CHAPTER 6
CLOSURE
CHAPTER 6
6. CLOSURE
6.1 Conclusions
This study aimed to start the research and development of CO 2 as a refrigerant in a heat
pump system at the North-West University. A thorough discussion of the refrigerant
properties was done to acquire a better understanding of the topic.
The main advantages of CO 2 are that it is a natural refrigerant with zero ozone depleting
potential (OOP), negligible global warming potential (GWP) and is also non-flammable
and non-toxic. Worldwide there is a lot of pressure on governments to ensure that global
warming is subdued and the phasing out of HFC and HCFC refrigerants are already
implemented, stimulating thorough research for the implementation of environmentally
friendly gasses.
A critical issue of CO 2 is its high operating pressure of up to 130 bar. This results in the
development of CO 2 components to be more difficult due to the risks that can" occur'
when operating the system at these pressures. CO 2 has a low critical point and will
operate in a transcritical state when used for heat pump applications. It therefore makes
use of a gas cooler on the high pressure side to cool down the refrigerant but will not
condensate the refrigerant. The advantage with gas cooling is that water temperatures of
up to 90°C is possible to achieve compared to the usual 60°C when working with
conventional refrigerants.
A CO 2 heat pump system was characterized to determine the performance thereof under
any operating condition. It was identified that the CO 2 heat pump system efficiency
depends on the gas cooler outlet temperature which is determined by inlet temperature
of the water. A comparison between a CO 2 heat pump system and R-22 heat pump
system was done using an ILH system as a reference for energy consumption.
The CO 2 heat pump showed on average a 15% better coefficient of performance (COP)
than the R-22 heat pump. The effect of the COP difference could clearly be seen in the
annual energy consumption of the two systems. The R-22 heat pump system uses 9.4%
more energy than the CO 2 system. The CO 2 heat pump system costs 11.7% more than
the R-22 heat pump system. This is mainly due to it being a relatively new technology
and the components used with CO 2 as a refrigerant is not mass produced yet. The cost
of the CO 2 components should drop as the technology improves and the demand for the
components increases. The R-22 heat pump system has a higher operating cost of
about 11.9% when compared to the CO 2 system. Even though the CO 2 system is
currently more expensive than the R-22 system it has a lower operating cost resulting in
an additional capital expense payback period of about 4 years.
Based on the work done in this study and the results found the following has been
identified as areas requiring further attention:
• .A study needs to be conducted specifically on the gas cooler to get a better
understanding of the thermodynamic process when operating in a transcritical
state.
• Component models need to be developed for a detailed system simUlation to
assist in the design and sizing of system components.
• The development of a prototype CO 2 heat pump system will be valuable for the
research to generate practical results for simulation model verification.
• Applications surrounding CO2 as a refrigerant needs to be investigated further.
The possibility to heat water to 90°C could lead industrial applications for the CO 2
technology_
REFERENCES
ANON (a). s.a. All about carbon dioxide. Toromont Process Systems. 42p.
ANON (b). s.a.. Heat pumps can cut global emissions by up to 8%. IEA/OECD
Technical research institute of Sweden, Heat Pump Programme. 8p.
ANON Cd). s.a. The widest C02 compressor range, carbon dioxide for all your needs.
DORIN Innovation, Technical Brochure of the DORIN compressor range.
BENSAFI, A. & THONON, B. 2007. Transcritical R744 (C0 2) heat pumps - technicians
manual. SHERPA-CETIAT, France. 62p.
BUTLER, A. 2007. CO 2 transcritical cooling with heat reclaim. RAC cooling with carbon
dioxide conference. Space Engineering Services, Bristol. 10p.
CALM, J.M. 2008. The next generation of refrigerants - historical review, considerations
and outlook. International journal of refrigeration, (31): 1123-1133.
CECCHI NATO, L., CORRADI, M., FORNASIERI, E. & ZAMBONI L. 2005. Carbon
dioxide as refrigerant for tap water heat pumps: a comparison with the traditional
solution. International journal of refrigeration (28): 1250-1258.
DANFOSS. 2002a. HFC phase out in Europe. Refrigeration and air conditioning. 16p.
DORIN Innovation. s.a. The widest CO 2 compressor range - carbon dioxide for all your
needs. 28p.
EN DOH, K., KUONO, GOMMORI, M., TANAAMI, T., MIZUTANI, K. & MIYATA, M.
2006. Instant hot-water supply heat-pump water heater using CO 2 refrigerant for home
use. 7th IRR Gustav Lorentzen Conference on natural working fluids, Trondheim,
Norway. 8p.
FARTAJ, A., TING, D.S.K. & YANG, W. 2004. Second law analysis of the transcritical
CO 2 refrigeration cycle. Energy conversion and management (45):2269-2281.
FREUND, P. s.a. Properties of CO 2 and carbon based fuels. IPCC special report on
carbon dioxide capture and storage, p385-398.
FLEMING, E.A., BROWN, L.M. & COOK, R.I. 1992. Overview of production aspects of
operating the Denver unit CO 2 flood.
FLEMING, J. s.a. Carbon dioxide as the working fluid in heating and/or cooling
systems. Review article. Department of mechanical engineering, University of
Strathclyde. 5p.
HUFF, H. & SIENEL, T. 2006. Commercial sized CO 2 heat pump water heater North
American field trial experience. 7th IIR Gustav Lorentzen Conference on natural working
fluids, Trondheim, Norway. 6p.
KASAl, K. & SHIBATA, Y. 2005. Development of a new type heat exchanger for natural
refrigerant CO 2 heat pump water heaters. DAIKEN air conditioning R&D lab, Japan. 5p.
KERN, R., HARGREAVES, J.B., WANG, J.F., WHITE, S.D. & CLELAND D.J. 2006.
Performance of a prototype heat pump water heater using carbon dioxide as the
refrigerant in a transcritical cycle. 7th IIR Gustav Lorentzen Conference on Natural
Working Fluids, Trondheim, Norway. 8p.
KIM, M., PETERSEN, J. & BULLARD, C. 2003. Fundamental process and system
design issues in CO 2 vapour compression systems. Progress in energy and combustion
cycles, (30):119-174.
MADSEN, K.B. 2008. Course on carbon dioxide as a refrigerant given by Cool Concerns
(presenter Jane Gartshore). www.coolconcerns.co.uk . Danish Technological Institute.
NEKSA, P., REKSTAD, H., ZAKERI, G.R. & SCHIEFLOE, P.A 1998. CO 2 heat pump
water heater: characteristics, system design and experimental results. International
journal of refrigeration (21):172-179.
NEKSA, P. 2002. CO 2 heat pump systems.lnternationaljournal of refrigeration (25):421
427.
NEKSA, P. 2004. C02 as refrigerant for systems in trans-critical operation principles and
technology status. Sept. SINTEF Energy Research, Norway. EcoLibrium. 6p.
PALANDRE, L. 2004. HCFC's and HFC's emissions from the refrigerating systems for
the period 2004-2015.
PEARSON, A.B. 2005. Carbon dioxide new uses for an old refrigerant. International
journal of refrigeration, (2S):1140-114S.
PEARSON, A.B. 2006. District heating systems with CO 2 as refrigerant. 7th IIR Gustav
Lorentzen Conference on natural working fluids, Trondheim, Norway. Sp.
PEARSON S.F. 2006. Highly efficient water heating system. 7th IIR Gustav Lorentzen
Conference on natural working fluids, Trondheim, Norway. Sp.
PISANO, G. s.a. The use of carbon dioxide in refrigeration and heat pump systems.
Officine Mario DORIN S.p.A., Italia. Sp.
RASMUSSEN, B.D. 2003. Refrigerant cycles - cycle processes with carbon dioxide.
Danfoss CO 2 Workshop, Powerpoint. 11 p.
R744.com (a), 2008-02-22. Industry visits Australia'S first CO 2-only supermarket system.
http://www.r744.com/articles/2008-02-22-industry-visits-australia-first-co2-only
supermarket.php Date of access: 23 Oct. 2008.
SARKAR, J. 2007. Optimization of ejector expansion transcritical CO2 heat pump cycle.
Energy (33):1399-1406.
SARKAR, J. 2008. Transcritical CO 2 heat pump simulation model and validation for
simUltaneous cooling and heating. International refrigeration and air conditioning
conference, Purdue. 8p.
STENE, J. 2007. Integrated CO 2 heat pump systems for space heating and hot water
heating in low-energy houses and passive houses. International Energy Agency Heat
pump programme (32). 14p.
STENE, J. 2004. Residential CO 2 heat pump system for combined space heating and
hot water heating. NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology. (Thesis
PhD). 324p.
STENE, J. s.a. High-efficiency CO 2 heat pump water heater systems for residential and
non-residential buildings. SINTEF energy research, 7465 Trondheim, Norway. 7p.
SIENEL, T. & HUFF, H. 2006. Control bifurcation issues of transcritical CO 2 heat pump
water heaters.
TAIRA, S. 2008. The development of high temperature water heating using heat
pump. (Product development group). DAIKEN. Powerpoint. 17p.
TAIRA, S. 2008. The development of heat pump water heaters using CO 2 refrigerant.
Daiken Industries limited. 17p.
THONON, B. 2006. The SHERPA project natural refrigerants for heat pumps. 7th IIR
Gustav Lorentzen Conference on natural working fluids, Trondheidm, Norway. 8p.
UNEP, 2007. Montreal Protocol on SUbstances that deplete the ozone layer. 2006
Assessment report of the technology and economic assessment panel. 162p.
WANG, R.Z. & L1, Y. 2006. Perspectives for natural working fluids in China. International
journal of refrigeration (article in press): 1-14.
WHITE, S.D., YARRALL, M.G., CLELAND D.Jl & HEDLEY R.A. 2002. Modeling the
performance of a transcritical CO 2 heat pump for high temperature heating. International
journal of refrigeration, (25):479-486.
YANG, J., MA, Y., LlU, S. & ZENG, X. 2006. Comparison investigation on the heat
transfer characteristics for supercritical CO 2 fluid and conventional refrigerants. 7th II R
Gustav Lorentzen Conference on natural working fluids, Trondheidm, Norvvay. 6p.
YOKOYAMA, R., SHIMIZU, T., ITO K. & TAKEMURA, K. 2005. Influence of ambient
temperatures on performance of a CO 2 heat pump water heating system. Journal of
environment and engineering, Japan. 13p.
EES PROGRAMMING
'Wynand Groenewald"
"Fluid is R744(C02)"
(cpJSJ=Cp(R744, T==TJSJ,P=P_{SJ))
sJ5]=Entropy(R744.x=x_[5].P=P_[5])
=
PJ6] P_(5] "Evaporation takes place at constant pressure"
TJ6] =TJ5]
xJ6] == 1 "Gas"
h_(6]==Enthalpy(R744,x=x_[6],P==P_[6])
hJ7]=Enthalpy(R744,T=T_(7].P=P _[7])
sJ6]=Entropy(R744,x=xJ6],P=PJ6])
s_[7]=Entropy(R744.T=T_(7],P=P _(7])
(hJ8]-hJ7]) (h_[3]-hJ4])
TJ8]=Temperature(R744,h==h_[8], P=PJ8])
s_[8]=Entropy(R744,T=T_(8],P=P_[8])
TJ4] T_[3]-O
P_[4] = P_[3]
h_[4]=Enthalpy(R744.T=T_[4], P=P_[4])
s_[4J=Entropy(R744,T=TJ4J,P=PJ4])
=
(OJ] 17.9 [kW}) "Compressor work"
(eta_c == 0.9)
COP == Q_h/Q_p
TJ2] = Temperature(R744,P=PJ2],h=h_[2])
=
(TJ3J 308 [K}) "outlet Temp gas
cooler"
P_[3] == P_[2]
hJ3]=Enthal py(R744,T=TJ3],P=P_[3])
s_[3]=Entropy(R7 44,T=T_[3],P=P_[3])
=
m_doCg (-0.0000000021646*P-13]A2 + 0.000042438*P_[3] -0.20742) +
0.000000000010683*P_[3] -0.00000004147)*P-15]A2
'Water-side"
T_wi 283 [I<]
=
P_w 300 [kPa]
C-pw=Cp(Water,T=T_wi,P=P_w)
"Final program"
'This program contains the coefficients that were attained and is used to compare our results to the
"Compressor chart used was attained from DORIN innovation- compressor =: TCS362-D"
"Fluid is R744(C02)"
{cpJS]=Cp(R744,T=TJS],P=PJS])}
s_[5]=Entropy(R744,x=x_[5], P=P_[5])
=
P_[6] PJS] "Evaporation takes place at constant pressure"
TJ6] = TJ5]
U6]= 1 "Gas"
h_[6]=Enthalpy(R744,x=x_[6],P=P_[6])
hJ7j=Enthalpy(R744,T=:T_[7],P:::PJ7])
Q3 = m_dot_g * (hJ7]-hJ5])
s_[6]=Entropy(R744,x=x_[6],P=P_[6])
sJ7j=Entropy(R744,T=TJ7],P=P_[7])
PJ8]=P_[7]
(hJ8]-hJ7]) (hJ3]-hJ4])
TJ8]=Temperature(R744,h=hJ8],P=PJ8])
sJ8]=Entropy(R744,T=TJ8],P=PJ8])
T_[4] :::; TJ3]-0 "no heat exchange is added through the internal heat exchanger"
=
P_[4] PJ3]
h_[4]=Enthalpy(R744,T=T_[4],P=P _[4])
s_[4]=Entropy(R744,T=T_[4], P=P_[4])
{eta_c::: 0.9}
COP = Q_hfPJ)
=
PJ) QJ)*1.05
T_(2] = Temperature{R744,P=P_[2],h=h_[2])
{h_[2]:::: Enthalpy(R744,T=T_[2],P=P_[2])}
s.12]= Entropy{R744,T=T.12],P=P_[2])
h_s[2]=ENTHALPY(R744,p=p.12],s=s_[1])
P.13] = P.12]
h.13]=Enthalpy(R744,T=T_[3],P=P_[3])
s.13]=Entropy(R744,T=T.13],P=P_[3])
"Curve"
T_[2] = T _[20]
=
T -I3] T_[30]
DELTAT = (T-I20)-T_[30])/10
P-I2) == P_[20]
DELTAP = (P.J20]-P.J30])/10
h_[2] = h.J20]
h.J3] = h_[30]
s.12] s.J20]
s.J3] = s.130]
duplicate i 1,9
"Coefficients"
0.000000000010683*P_[3] -0.00000004147)*P_[5]"2
"Water-side"
Cjlw=Cp(Water,T=T_w[1],P=P_wi)
=
Q_h m_dot_w * Cjlw * (T_w[2] - T_w[1])
{T_w[1] T_w[30]}
T_w[2] =T_w[20]
and COP"
duplicate i=1, 23
=
err_2ru (abs(Q[U - Q_fit@)"2
end
II Heatpump.cpp
#include IStdAfx.h"
#include "Heatpump.h"
#include "Genutil.h"
Heatpump::HeatpumpO
{ initflag = 0;
Q_hpnom = 0;
Q_hp = 0;
COP = 0;
power = O;}
Heatpump::~HeatpumpO{}void Heatpump::setparameters(char *systemname_input,
double Q_hpnom_input, double HP_max_temp, double HP_min_temp){
initflag = 1;
strcpy(systemname,systemname_input);
Q_hpnom = Q_hpnom_input;
Q_hp = 0;
COP = 0;
power = 0;
initflag = 1;}
Twb_o = T_wetbulb;
T_hi = T_supply;
if (status == 1) {
Q_hp =1000*(47.51
+ 2.33*Twb_o
- 0.1785*T_hi
- O.02579*Twb_o*T_hi
+ O.0558*Twb_o*Twb_o
- 0.006202*T_hi*T_hi);
COP =3.626
+ 0.006925*Twb_o
- 0.01331*T_hi
- 0.001 065*Twb_o*T_hi
+ 0.004622*Twb_o*Twb_o
- 0.0004428*T_hi*T_hi;
power = Q_hp/COP; }
else {
power = 0;
COP = 0;
Q_hp = 0; }
if (errorflag == 0)
return 1;
else
return O;}
/I Heatpump.cpp
#include "StdAfx.h"
#include "Heatpump.h"
#include "Genutil.h"
Heatpump::HeatpumpO{
initflag = 0;
Q_hpnom = 0;
Q_hp = 0;
COP = 0;
power =O;}
Heatpump::-HeatpumpO{}void Heatpump::setparameters(char *systemname_input,
double Q_hpnom_input, double HP_max_temp, double HP_min_temp){
initflag = 1;
strcpy(systemname,systemname_input);
Q_hpnom Q_hpnom_input;
Q_hp = 0;
COP =0;
power 0;
initflag = 1;}
bool Heatpump::setheatpumppower(int status, double T _wetbulb, double T_supply){
bool errorflag = 0;
double Twb_o, T _ho;
if (initflag == 0) {
error("Heat pump not initialised, cannot set heat pump capacity");
errorflag 1; }
Twb_o =T_wetbulb;
T_ho =T_supply;
if (status == 1) {
Q_hp = Q_hpnom*(0.994564
+ 0.0370009*Twb_o
+ 0.000345315*Twb_o*Twb 0
- 0.0031483*T_ho
-0.00015912*Twb_o*T_ho
-4.6942e-5*T_ho*T_ho);
COP == 5.21333
+ 0.1 03693*Twb_o
+ 0.0002237*Twb_o*Twb_o
- 0.068073*T_ho
+0.00031 02*T_ho*T_ho;
power = Q_hp/COP; }
else {
power=0;
COP =0;
Q_hp =O;}
if (errorflag == 0)
return 1;
else
return O;}
Reservoir number: 1
Reservoir_type(VIH): V
Number_of_layers: 11
Diameter[m]: 2.2
Length[mJ: 2.0
Thickness_oClagging[mJ: 0.025
kvalue_oClagging[W/mK]: 0.15
N on-dimensional_height_oCintank_ heateryosition: 0.05
Intank_heater_capacity[W]: 0.0
N on-dimensional_height_of_bottom_ thermostatyosition: 0.05
Non-dimensional_height_oCmiddle_thermostatyosition: 0.5
Non-dimensional_height_of_top_thermostatyosition: 0.9
Non-dimensional_height_oCringmainJeturnyipe: 0.8
lnitial_temperatures[C]: 55.0
Reservoir number: 2
Reservoir_type(V/H): V
Number_oClayers: 11
Diameter[m]: 2.2
Length[mJ: 2.0
Thickness_oClagging[m]: 0.025
kvalue_oClagging[W/mK]: 0.15
Non-dimensional_height_oCintank_heateryosition: 0.05
Intank_heater_capacity[W]: 0.0
Non-dimensional_height_oCbottom_thermostatyosition: 0.05
Non-dimensional_height_oCmiddle_ thermostatyosition: 0.5
Non-dimensional_height_oCtop_thermostatyosition: 0.9
Non-dimensional_height_oCringmain_returnyipe: 0.8
Initial_temperatures[C]: 55.0
Thermostat number: 1
Set-point[C] : 30.0
Dead-band[C]: 5.0
Thermostat number:
2
Set-point[C] :
50.0
Dead-band[C]:
5.0
Installed- on- reservoir- no:
2
Installed_inyositi on(B/MIT):
T
Inlineheater number: 1
In-line_heater_capacity[W]: 36000
Heatpump_number: 1
Heatpump_nom_capacity[W]: 60000
MEGA FLEX
----- --------~--
APPENDIX C: J\1EGAFLEX
~. \'l:!bg>
VAT=l
1'<3k
Hi9!l d4m:a.n1i Ul:a.on {Jon "AtlS]
v• .rmd
I - Y~Tncl V'Tind
I cifp.ajt
V"'T.,,~ Ytlrll'd
I V!..Teu::l
r..>k
to'f~d·"J$~n
VATrd
_d ,
VATexd
f.Si:Jt .. ~Jj
v:.l'itd
Oi'fPo3l:
'\'AT"/!ld: 'V~isd
II
":"I~d
..----"
~ .. utir..,"~·
VATiid
<'i'!YN 11!M!! 135.75 I 30m 35.l!S 1650 18.B1 33:.22 fl7.1!:! 20.34
23.19 L 14.:21 16.21) fl297 flS.S!l
I ,,&<>V~.<w.vl 11(;.29 1atA! 2».97 34.17 15.01 11l.25 3219 00.70 22.48 I la79
19.72 15.72 1<271 Ra09 ,
I
$:lOO<m
I ;'1£1<\1&:<:_11 111.11
.,. t32t;V 101.25
126.67
122.27
28.91
2TJl4
32.1'6
3U15
15,<\7
14.9&
17.54
17.05
3M5
2:9.99
85.40
34.19 L
lQ.1lII
21.11 13.34
3l.Qil ! 1291
lllA1
I 15.21
loU2
R264
fl3.34
RlUl1
R3..81
<sr.rJ'I 12().2l' 137.11 I 31.22: 35.50 16.67 19.00 33.&5 38.25 I 2O.5:? 25.l111 I 14.$5 l6.SS fl2.99 R ~.41
\
>::!(QorUITD
!
! ~s:tN"&. .r;:5ftV: 116.41 132.71 I 30.25 34;.A.9 16.16 1M2 32;49 37.04 I 19.9& 22.69 13.92 lS.I>7 1'1274 1'13.12 I
I s/iOOIm !!;EWl8.Sl:!2m' 112.21 127.92 29.1lf 33.28 1&.82 17.81 31.35 35.76 I 11<'22 21.91 I 13A5 15.33 R2.6G 1'IS.03
>\;l2l:V 1011.30 123M :28.2() S2.15 15.10 17.21 30.30 94.54 i 16.59 21.19 13.01 14.33 R3.SG RS.aS I
<!'HN 121.4,6 lsa.4G 31.69 35.94. 1&.ll2 19.17 sall7 sa.sl I 20.72 23.&2 L 14.47 16.50 R3.03 R3A5
>&I:)ionil!ld ::'SOO\f~<6QV' 117.51' 134.03 SO.55· a.t.as 1&.'03.0 lB.58 32:81 31.41l L~ 22.00 14.09 15.99 11275 113.15 i
";!KI01:o l>EWI&:O:U1I.J 111>.32 121l.18 :29.46' 38.58 l!i:l5 H.PS 31.<;. SS.O!I 11).39 22.lOl 13.56 15.46 fl2.S9 :F!!U)7
>W-w 100.37 124.58 26.41 32.46 15.24 17.37 3(),.59 S4.B7 I 1Jl.75 21.sa. I 13:14 14.98 RS42 R3.!1O I
<s:tN 122.60 159,83 31.112 Sli!l7 16.91 19..35 $4:11> sa..97 2l)Jli 23.l!4 I 14.81 18.SS I R3.04 R:;.q
>9X><m
~'5f.N ~ <'-6OW 11!1.74 135.llS 30.M 35.16 lG.!1S 18.15 S3.12 I
3:7.7fl '20.26 23.10 14.17 I 16.15 R2.79 n3.1B
~WN..s. ~ t:W.'V 114.4!i 100.47 2lJ.14· 2!l.SI} 15.00 lB.13 81.95 00.42
I 19.58 22.92 13.Gll 15.81 I 11270 H3,D8 i
>l32l.V 110'.46 125.92 :2S.73: 32.75 15.38 17.53 3a:llG 35.t9 I laB3 21.58 13.25 i 15.11 I Fl3.44 A3.B2
E
;;:
"'I""'\l'
V~T""" VAlr'" ~
~
VATu~
""""""V.!lTin:!
~ R.5.Q3 RB.7B ~