PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 007
M Pitarch-Mocholi, E Navarro-Peris, J Gonzalvez-Macia, JM Corberan / 12th IEA Heat Pump Conference (2017) O.1.9.3 Figure 3: Model validation. a) Heating COP, b) Condensing pressure In order to define a fair comparison between both systems the condenser of the SMC model was enlarged in order to have the same heat exchange area than the condenser and the subcooler of the SMS HP prototype together. In this sense, it’s the results of both systems can be compared directly. In order to have an equal heat transfer area in the high pressure side without changing significantly the heat transfer coefficient the height of the condenser was increased. The other alternative, increasing the number of plates, affects the refrigerant velocity, and hence the heat transfer coefficient. Therefore, the condenser height will pass from 0.476 m to 0.591 m, a 25% longer (25% more area). The area of the modified condenser will be 4.37 m2, the same than the condenser and the subcooler together. For the sake of clarity, the SMC model with the enlarged condenser will be referenced as SMCL, the Subcooling Made in Subcooler with Larger condenser. One should notice that even if the subcooler area is added to the condenser, the plate pitch of the heat exchange area dedicated to the subcooling in the SMS system is different to the SMCL system. 4. Results 4.1 High efficient subcritical heat pump alternatives to produce SHW Figure 4a) shows the heating COP as a function of the subcooling for the SMC and SMCL models (different condenser height) and the experimental results for the SMS HP configuration. COP increased for the whole range of subcooling for the SMCL model (condenser height 0.59m). At low and high subcooling, the COP improvement is moderate, for instance, in the case of Tw,ci=50oC at subcooling higher than 12 K, COP is practically the same for both condenser heights. The maximum COP improvement is found at the optimum subcooling. As reported by Pitarch et al. [21], if the SMS configuration is compared with the SMC with less heat exchange area, the SMS system has a greater performance. This situation changes if the system is equipped with a larger condenser with an equivalent heat exchange area to the SMS (the SMCL model). In this case, the performance of SMCL is still below the results for SMS at Tw,ci=10oC, but at higher Tw,ci, SMCL have higher performance than the SMS for water inlet temperatures of 30oC and 50oC. Figure 4b) shows the condensing pressure as a function of the subcooling. Condensing pressure is reduced for the whole subcooling range for the enlarged condenser model (SMCL). This decrease is more significant at 7PDF 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)