PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 006
M Pitarch-Mocholi, E Navarro-Peris, J Gonzalvez-Macia, JM Corberan / 12th IEA Heat Pump Conference (2017) O.1.9.3 3.1 Model validation: Subcooling made in the condenser (SMC) For the validation of the SMC heat pump model, the experimental results from Pitarch et al. [21] were used. Figure 3 shows this comparison for COP and condensation pressure. The results are presented as a function of the subcooling and for different water inlet temperatures to the condenser (Tw,ci). The inlet water temperature to the evaporator (Tw,ei) is fixed to 20oC and the water mass flow rate to the evaporator is fixed to 7000kgh-1. There is a good agreement between the experimental and theoretical values for COP, COP dependency with the subcooling is captured by model. COP increases with subcooling up to a maximum, and then starts to decrease and the optimum subcooling is reproduced with a deviation lower than 2 K). The maximum discrepancies are found at high water inlet temperatures to the condenser (Tw,ci=50oC), being less than 4%. Regarding to the condensing pressure, the theoretical results also match with the experimental ones. At low subcooling, it increases slowly with subcooling, and after a certain value of the subcooling the condensing pressure starts to increase at a higher rate. This point of inflection is where the maximum COP takes place. As in the heating COP, the greatest discrepancies are found at high water inlet temperatures to the condenser (Tw,ci=50oC), being less than 2%. Table 2 shows the heating COP, the heating capacity and the compressor consumption for the model and the experimental values working at the optimum subcooling. It can be seen a great agreement for the three variables, COP discrepancies are below the 1%, for Tw,ci 10oC and 30oC, while the heating capacity and the compressor consumption are all below 2% of discrepancies. 3.2 Model adjustment to the heat pump with subcooler (SMSL) Comparing the experimental results obtained by Pitarch et al. [19] and [21], the SMS heat pump configuration (with subcooler) has a slightly higher performance than the SMC heat pump configuration (subcooling at condenser). For instance, at the nominal point (Tw,ei=20oC and warming water from 10oC to 60oC), the SMS heat pump gave a heating COP of 5.61, while the COP for SMC was 5.35. Nevertheless, the experimental results obtained with the separate subcooler configuration cannot be fairly compared with the SMC heat pump configuration, since the first one has 25% more of heat exchange area on the high pressure side. Table 2: SMC mode validation at the optimum subcooling COPh SMC exp. Tw,ci = 10oC 5.44 Tw,ci = 30oC 4.75 Tw,ci = 50oC 3.91 Qh [kW] SMC exp. 46.31 40.98 35.96 Wc [kW] SMC exp. 8.51 8.64 9.21 COPh SMC model 5.43 4.79 4.03 Qh [kW] SMC model 45.57 41.55 36.54 Wc [kW] SMC model 8.39 8.68 9.06 6PDF Image | Comparative analysis of two subcritical heat pump boosters using subcooling
PDF Search Title:
Comparative analysis of two subcritical heat pump boosters using subcoolingOriginal File Name Searched:
subcritical-heat-pump-boosters.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
CO2 Organic Rankine Cycle Experimenter Platform The supercritical CO2 phase change system is both a heat pump and organic rankine cycle which can be used for those purposes and as a supercritical extractor for advanced subcritical and supercritical extraction technology. Uses include producing nanoparticles, precious metal CO2 extraction, lithium battery recycling, and other applications... More Info
Heat Pumps CO2 ORC Heat Pump System Platform More Info
CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@infinityturbine.com (Standard Web Page)