INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696 (DOI: 10.1002/er.

990)

Performance evaluations of refrigeration systems with air-cooled, water-cooled and evaporative condensers
M. Hosoz1,n,y and A. Kilicarslan2
1 2

Department of Mechanical Education, Kocaeli University, Izmit, Turkey Department of Mechanical Engineering, Gazi University, Corum, Turkey

SUMMARY This paper compares the performance characteristics of refrigeration systems employing three types of condensers, namely the air-cooled, the water-cooled and the evaporative condensers. Experimental studies were conducted in the same vapour-compression refrigeration unit operating with a dierent condenser in each test. It was found that the system with water-cooled condenser had a higher refrigeration capacity by 2.914.4%, and a higher COP by 1.510.2% than the one with evaporative condenser. However, the refrigeration capacity and COP of the unit with evaporative condenser were higher than those of the one with air-cooled condenser by 31.0 and 14.3%, respectively. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

air-cooled condenser; water-cooled condenser; evaporative condenser; refrigeration; performance

1. INTRODUCTION All vapour-compression refrigeration systems utilize the condenser to reject the heat absorbed by the refrigerant in the evaporator. The condenser also rejects the heat equivalent of the work of compression to the cooling medium. Depending on the type of the cooling medium, condensers can be classied as air-cooled, water-cooled and the combination of the both known as the evaporative condenser. Since air-cooled condensers require little maintenance and oer lower initial cost, they are used in small to medium-sized (up to 20 tonnes of capacity) refrigeration and air conditioning systems. However, the power requirement for a system with an air-cooled condenser is greater than those with a water-cooled and an evaporative condenser due to the fact that the air-cooled condenser requires condensing temperatures of about 15208C above the temperature of the ambient air. The higher condensing temperature increases pressure ratio across the compressor, thus increasing the power costs and decreasing the compressor life as well as the coecient of performance.

Correspondence to: M. Hosoz, Teknik Egitim Fakultesi Makina Egitimi Bolumu, Kocaeli Universitesi, 41100 Izmit, Turkey. E-mail: mhosoz@kou.edu.tr

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 24 July 2003 Accepted 22 September 2003

684

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

In the systems with a water-cooled condenser, the heat absorbed by the water at the condenser is rejected to the ambient air by means of a cooling tower. This lowers condenser pressure and power requirement, thus increasing the coecient of performance and the compressor life. The drawbacks of water-cooled condensers are water cost, higher initial cost and the needs for water treatment and continuous supervising. However, the water-cooled condenser is the only type utilized when the distance between the compressor and the heat rejection site is too long to pump the refrigerant vapour with an acceptable pressure drop. In practice, water-cooled condensers are built in sizes from 0.5 to 10 000 tonnes of refrigeration capacity (ASHRAE, 1992). The evaporative condenser is a compact heat exchanger combining the functions of an aircooled condenser, a water-cooled condenser and a cooling tower. In this condenser, the hot refrigerant vapour pumped by the compressor ows through a bank of tubes, outside of which is continually kept wet by a water-distributing system. At the same time, air is drawn or pushed through the condenser casing and sent upwards over the coil. Some of the water on the tubes evaporates into the air absorbing latent heat of evaporation both from the refrigerant through the tube walls and from the remaining water, thus cooling it. Consequently, the refrigerant vapour passing through the tubes is condensed by giving up its heat to the air stream. The remaining water drains down into a water tank at the bottom of the condenser casing. The water is drawn out of the tank, and pumped back to the water distribution system. The coils in an evaporative condenser are generally the bare pipe because the high rates of heat transfer from the wetted external coil surface to the air eliminates the need for ns. The evaporation rate of the circulated water is about 5%, and an equal amount of makeup water is provided to the system by means of a oat valve located in the water tank. Since the water-cooled and evaporative condensers oer condensing temperatures limited by ambient wet bulb temperature, which is almost always lower than ambient dry bulb temperature, refrigeration systems with these types of condensers can work with lower condensing temperatures, thus using energy more eciently. Consequently, systems with these types of condensers have higher coecient of performance and refrigeration capacity than the systems with an air-cooled condenser. Furthermore, the water-cooled and evaporative condensers require a lower air ow rate than that of the air-cooled condenser because of the fact that these types of condensers rely on not only sensible but also latent heat transfer. Although the evaporative and water-cooled condensers consume about the same amount of water per unit refrigeration, the evaporative condenser contains much less water than a watercooled condenser-cooling tower combination because the whole parts of the water circulation system of the evaporative condenser is contained within the condenser casing. Moreover, initial cost of the evaporative condenser is lower than that of the water-cooled condenser due to the reduced space and number of the components. Although the water and air-cooled condensers are relatively simple to model accurately, the evaporative condenser presents some diculties because of water evaporation into the air stream involved. Early evaporative condenser models (Goodman, 1938; Thomsen, 1946) assumed that the temperature of water stream would stay constant. Then, it was found that this assumption gave incorrect results for the heat performance of the system. Accepting that the water temperature would change, investigators presented a simple model requiring only analytical solution (Parker et al., 1961). Based on the work by Parker, another analytical model (Peterson et al., 1988) was developed and tested on an evaporative condenser. It was found that this model underpredicted the heat load by 30%. One study (Goswami et al., 1993) investigated
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

685

the increase in the performance of air conditioners with air-cooled condensers when a stream of ambient air was evaporatively cooled before it was sent to the condenser. It was observed that the condenser utilizing evaporatively cooled air saved energy up to 20% compared with the same condenser utilizing air at ambient conditions. Correlations for the external heat transfer coecient and the eectiveness of an evaporative condenser used for condensing superheated water vapour were developed in another study (Ettouney et al., 2001). The performance of the evaporative condenser was also compared with that of the same device operating as an aircooled condenser in this study. One investigation (Hwang et al., 2001) compared the experimental performance of a novel evaporative condenser with that of an air-cooled condenser for a split heat pump. This condenser was submerged in a water tank and relied on disks partially submerged into the water. The disks rotated continually to reject heat to an air stream, thus cooling the water around the condensing coil. It was found that the novel evaporative condenser had a higher capacity than the original air-cooled condenser up to 8.1% and a higher coecient of performance up to 21.6%. It is seen from the literature survey that there is not any study comparing performances of refrigeration systems employing the three condenser types. This study investigates experimental performances of the systems having dierent types of condensers coupled to the same refrigeration cycle. Each system with a dierent condenser was operated under the same condensing and evaporating temperatures, and environmental conditions. Then, the performance characteristics such as refrigeration capacity, condenser heat rejection rate, work of compression, coecient of performance, etc., of the systems were compared with each other. Thus, advantages and disadvantages of each condenser type over others were determined quantitatively considering the operation of a refrigeration system with a low energy cost as the main goal.

2. EXPERIMENTAL UNITS The layout of the experimental set-up with an evaporative and air-cooled condenser is shown in Figure 1 while that with a water-cooled condenser is illustrated in Figure 2. Most of the equipment used in both units is the same. A refrigeration cycle consisting of a reciprocating compressor, a shell-and-coil-type water-cooled condenser, a thermostatic expansion valve and an electrically heated evaporator was used as the base unit. In order to operate the system as the unit with a water-cooled condenser, the base unit was coupled to a bench-top cooling tower. When the system was required to operate as the unit with an evaporative condenser, the evaporative condenser described below was retrotted onto the existing water-cooled condenser of the base unit. The evaporative condenser utilized the casing and water distribution system of the cooling tower. Only the packing in the tower was replaced with a coil of bare tubes with appropriate geometry forming the condensing coil. The evaporative condenser also served as an air-cooled condenser by turning o the circulation pump and draining the water from the system. Both units were charged with 600 g of refrigerant R-134a. The twin-cylinder open-type compressor of the base unit has a swept volume of 75.7 cm3 rev1 and a nominal rpm of 460. It is belt driven by a single-phase electric motor mounted in trunnion bearings to allow measurement of shaft torque. The water-cooled condenser consists of a vertical coil enclosed in welded steel shell with a heat transfer area of 0.075 m2. A thermostatically controlled internally equilized valve operated by superheat at the evaporator outlet served as the expansion valve. The evaporator consists of copper tube and two
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

686

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

Figure 1. Schematic of the experimental unit with evaporative condenser.

separate electric resistance heaters rolled inside the tube. The refrigeration load is supplied to the evaporator by varying the voltage across the resistance heaters by means of a variable transformer. This voltage may be varied from zero to 220 V, which is the mains voltage. The cooling tower consists of air circuit and water circuit elements along with a column of packing material through which the two uid streams are brought into contact with each other. Ambient air is pulled into the tower by means of a centrifugal fan at a rate determined by adjustment of the damper setting. Having absorbed heat and moisture from the water stream, the air stream passes through the droplet arrester, and then discharged to the atmosphere via an orice used for measuring air ow rate. The hot water stream coming from the condenser is uniformly distributed over the packing material and let to fall down spreading over the packing. Then, the cooled water passes into a water tank in which the water level is kept constant by a oat operated valve connected to water mains. The oat valve is adjusted to maintain a water depth of 0.20 m in the tank. The circulation pump draws the water from the tank and sends to the condenser via a water control valve determining the water ow rate circulated in the system. The column of the tower is 150 mm 150 mm 600 mm high, and fabricated from clear PVC. The column contains eight decks of inclined and wettable plastic plates giving a total heat transfer area of 1.14 m2.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

687

Figure 2. Schematic of the experimental unit with water-cooled condenser.

When the system was required to run with an evaporative or air-cooled condenser, the packing inside the column was replaced with a bare copper coil consisting of three refrigerant circuits connected in parallel by headers. The tube outside diameter is 6.35 mm 1 4 in and total external surface area of the coil is 0.100 m2. In the operation of the evaporative condenser, the pump circulated the water only inside the condenser at the required rate. Since the internal volume of the evaporative condenser coil was not large enough to collect the unused refrigerant when the thermostatic expansion valve reduced the ow at low loads, a receiver was mounted downstream the condenser. The evaporator, the cooling tower, the water-cooled and the evaporative condensers, the liquid receiver and the pipeline were insulated with either polyurethane foam or elastomeric insulator. During operation, both the cooling tower and the evaporative condenser were located inside a special room where dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures could be kept at required values. This was performed by utilizing heating and cooling coils inside the room and sending fresh air to the room continuously.

3. INSTRUMENTATION The locations where mechanical and electrical measurements conducted are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Mechanical measurements include temperature, pressure, mass ow rate, compressor
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

688

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

motor torque and compressor speed while electrical ones consist of power supplied to the compressor motor, evaporator load voltage and evaporator current measurements. All temperature measurements were performed using Type K thermocouples. Thermocouples for refrigerant temperature were soldered to the copper tube while water and air thermocouples were in direct contact with the uid streams. Refrigerant thermocouples were located at the inlet and outlet of each cycle component. Both dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures of the air stream entering and leaving the cooling tower and the evaporative condenser were measured. Refrigerant pressures were measured using Bourdon tube gauges sensing the pressures at the inlet and outlet of the compressor. Since the length of the pipeline is relatively short and all heat exchangers oer very little resistance to the refrigerant ow due to their special construction, evaporator and condenser pressures are assumed to be equal to the measured pressures. Refrigerant mass ow rate was measured by a variable area R-134a ow meter mounted in the liquid line while mass ow rate of the water circulated in the cooling tower and evaporative condenser was measured by a variable area ow meter with a needle control valve. Air mass ow a passing through the cooling tower and the evaporative condenser was found by rate m measuring orice dierential in mmH2O hm with an inclined manometer, determining specic volume of the air ve at the exit of the column utilizing dry and wet bulb temperatures, and substituting them into the equation below: s s 2DP hm a re K 0 A 0 Y m 1 0:0137 re ve where re is density of air at the exit of the column, K0 is ow coecient, A0 is orice crosssectional area, Y is expansion factor and DP is orice pressure drop. In order to determine the motor shaft power, torque and speed measurements were performed. The motor torque given to the compressor was measured by a dynamometer (spring balance) tted to the motor. The electric motor was mounted in trunnion bearings and the torque developed was resisted by the dynamometer sensing the force at the end of a torque arm. Compressor speed was continually monitored by a digital tachometer relying on optic principles. The motor speed was found by multiplying the compressor speed with belt pulley ratio. Heat input to the evaporator was found by measuring the voltage across evaporator resistance heaters and the current passing through heaters. The electrical power supplied to the compressor motor was measured by an analogue wattmeter. Both units are also equipped with a high pressure switch that turns o all electrical supplies to the system when condensing pressure exceeds a pre-determined value. Some features of the instrumentation are summarized in Table I.

4. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Comparisons of the systems with three dierent condensers were made at a constant condensing temperature of 408C. This is the temperature at which three systems can operate at moderate pressures and oer a broad range of comparable results. Constant condensing temperature was maintained by adjustment of either water or airow rates and varying the evaporator heat input to the desired value. During the experiments, dry bulb and wet bulb temperatures of the air at
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

689

Table I. Characteristics of the Instrumentation. Measured variable Temperature Pressure Refrigerant ow rate Water mass ow rate Air mass ow rate Motor torque Compressor speed Electrical power Voltage Current Instrument Type K thermocouple Bourdon gage Variable area ow meter Variable area ow meter Orice-inclined manometer Spring-balance dynamometer Digital tachometer Analogue wattmeter Analogue voltmeter Analogue ammeter Range 50/1008C 100/600, 0/2000 kPa 020 g s1 050 g s1 040 mmH2O 020 N 0999 rpm 01000 W 0250 V 010 A Accuracy 0.18C 5/20 kPa 0.5 g s1 2 g s 1 1 mmH2O 0.5 N 5 rpm 10 W 2V 0.1 A

the inlet of the cooling tower, the evaporative condenser and the air-cooled condenser were kept at 22.5 0.38C and 19.5 0.38C, respectively. Steady-state conditions were assumed to reach when changes in temperature and pressure at the key points of the unit had ceased. It was accepted that when temperature deviations at the points considered were lower than 0.38C for 10 minutes, the steady state was achieved. The units were usually brought to steady state within 20 min after input conditions were changed. As soon as stabilized conditions were occurred, data were collected to analyse the performance of the unit tested. The refrigeration capacity was evaluated both for the heaters side and refrigerant side and given by r hevap e hevap i Qevap VI m 2 As seen in Equation (2), heaters side calculations are based on voltage and current measurements for the heaters while refrigerant side calculations utilize refrigerant mass ow rate and enthalpies of the refrigerant at the evaporator exit and inlet obtained from a simulation program for refrigeration (CoolPack, 2001). Since the capacity deviation between two sides was within 5%, only heaters side results were used. The condenser heat rejection rate was evaluated both for the refrigerant side and the cooling medium side. The deviations between the values obtained from both sides were also within 5%. Therefore, only refrigerant side results relying on enthalpies at the inlet and exit of the condenser were evaluated in the following equation: r hcond i hcond e Qcond m Assuming that the compressor was adiabatic, work of compression was evaluated by r hcomp e hcomp i W m 3

In order to evaluate mechanical power input to the compressor shaft, the results from force and speed measurements were substituted into the equation below: 2pnc Wsh Frf 60 5

where F is the force measured by the dynamometer, r is length of the torque arm (0.165 m), f is belt pulley ratio (3.08), and nc is the speed of the compressor.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

690

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

The ratio of heat rejection at the condenser to the refrigeration capacity is known as heat rejection factor: Qcond 6 HRF Qevap Coecients of performance based on work of compression, shaft power input and electrical power input were evaluated from the following equations: Qevap COP 7 W COPsh COPel Qevap Wsh Qevap Wel 8 9

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Figure 3 shows the refrigeration capacity as a function of the evaporating temperature for the three systems with dierent condenser types. The refrigeration capacity of the system with water-cooled condenser is higher than those of other systems while the capacities converge at low evaporating temperatures. Since the system with air-cooled condenser required airow rates beyond the capacity of the fan utilized to keep the condensing temperature at 408C, evaporating temperatures above 228C were not reached in the experiments on this system. The refrigeration capacity of the system with evaporative condenser is 31.0% higher than that with air-cooled condenser at the evaporating temperature of 248C. Compared to the system with evaporative condenser, the system with water-cooled condenser gives higher capacities as much as 14.4%. Figure 4 indicates that the water-cooled condenser oers the highest heat rejection rates while the evaporator condenser yields comparable results with it. Since the air-cooled condenser

1000

Refrigeration Capacity, W

800 600 400 200

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

0 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 3. Refrigeration capacity as a function of evaporating temperature at 408C condensing temperature.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

691

cannot reject heat as eciently as other types, the system employing it cannot receive heat from the refrigerated medium adequately, thus yielding the lowest refrigeration capacity. Although this disadvantage is tried to overcome partially by employing high airow rates at the condenser, this results in excessive energy use and noise due to oversized fans compared to the evaporative condenser. The superiority of water-cooled and evaporative condensers originates from their good heat transfer characteristics on the outside of the condensing coil. At the evaporating temperature of 248C, the system with evaporative condenser rejects 23.9% more heat than the system with air-cooled condenser. The heat rejected at the water-cooled condenser is 12.6% higher than that at the evaporative condenser at the evaporating temperature of 48C, the maximum heat rejection dierence observed. Figure 5 shows work of compression given to the refrigerant at the compressor with respect to evaporating temperature. It is seen that the refrigerant ow rejecting heat at the water-cooled condenser absorbs greater work than those rejecting heat at the evaporative and the air-cooled condensers. This causes an increase in the amount of heat pumped from the refrigerated medium, thus yielding higher refrigeration capacities. Because of low capacities it can provide, the system with air-cooled condenser requires as much as 12.3% less work compared to the system with evaporative condenser.
1200

Condenser Heat Rejection Rate, W

1000 800 600 400 200 0 -35

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 4. Heat rejection rate at the condenser as a function of evaporating temperature.

180 160 Work of Compression, W 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 5. Work of compression as a function of evaporating temperature.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

692

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

Electrical power input to the compressor motor for the three cases is shown in Figure 6. Since work of compression given to the refrigerant by the system with water-cooled condenser is higher, this system requires greater electrical power inputs than others. Depending on evaporating temperature, the system with water-cooled condenser requires 2.34.2% higher electrical power than that with evaporative condenser while the system with air-cooled condenser needs 10.1% less power than the one with evaporative condenser at the evaporating temperature of 248C. Figure 7 indicates shaft power input to the compressor given by the electric motor for the three cases. Drawing the highest electrical power, the electrical motor applies the greatest mechanical power to the compressor in the case of water-cooled condenser. Owing to relatively low demand of work of compression, the system with air-cooled condenser requires less shaft power input. Heat rejection factors for the three systems are shown in Figure 8. It is understood that the system with air-cooled condenser oers higher HRFs than others. This is caused by the fact that the use of air-cooled condenser results in a low evaporator capacity, thereby increasing the heat rejection factor. On the other hand, the HRFs of the system with evaporative condenser are

Electrical Power Input to the Compressor Motor, W

600 550 500 450 400 350 300 250 -35

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 6. Electrical power input to the compressor motor as a function of evaporating temperature.

Shaft Power Input to the Compressor, W

350 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 7. Shaft power input to the compressor as a function of evaporating temperature.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

693

higher than those with water-cooled condenser as much as 2.1%, which occurs at 88C evaporating temperature. Figure 9 shows coecient of performance of the three systems based on work of compression. As a result of better heat rejection at the condenser, the system with water-cooled condenser oers higher COP values than others. While COP values of the three systems converge at low loads, the COP of the system with evaporative condenser is 14.3% higher than that with aircooled condenser at the evaporating temperature of 248C. The dierences in the COP values oered by the systems with water-cooled and evaporative condensers range from a minimum of 1.5% (at the evaporating temperature of 248C) up to a maximum of 10.2% (at the evaporating temperature of 48C). This means that the system with water-cooled condenser requires less work of compression in order to provide the same refrigeration capacity. Figure 10 shows coecient of performance of the three systems based on electrical power input to the compressor motor. Since the system with water-cooled condenser uses energy more eciently, it yields greater COP values based on electrical power than others. Although the system with evaporative condenser oers comparable COP values at low evaporating temperatures, it is exceeded by the system with water-cooled condenser at high evaporating temperatures oering 10.1% higher COP values than the one with evaporative condenser. The

1.55 1.50

Heat Rejection Factor

1.45 1.40 1.35 1.30 1.25 1.20 1.15 -35 -30 -25 -20

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

-15

-10

-5

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 8. Heat rejection factor as a function of evaporating temperature.

5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0

C.O.P. Based on Work of Compression

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 9. Coecient of performance based on work of compression.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

694
C.O.P. Based on Electrical Power Input
1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 10. Coecient of performance based on electrical power input to the compressor motor.

3.5

C.O.P. Based on Shaft Power Input

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -35

water-cooled condenser evaporative condenser air-cooled condenser

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

Evaporating Temperature, C

Figure 11. Coecient of performance based on shaft power input to the compressor.

system with air-cooled condenser gives 15.2% lower COP values than that with evaporative condenser at the evaporating temperature of 248C. Coecient of the performance of the three systems based on shaft power input to the compressor is indicated Figure 11. As expected from the graphics in Figure 10, the system with water-cooled condenser yields the highest COP values while that with air-cooled condenser oers the lowest ones.

6. CONCLUSIONS The performance characteristics of refrigeration systems with air-cooled, water-cooled and evaporative condensers were experimentally evaluated. It was experimentally shown that under the same evaporating and condensing temperatures, the system with water-cooled condenser were superior over others in terms of refrigeration capacity, heat rejection at the condenser and the amount of compression work required per unit refrigeration, i.e. coecient of performance. However, the system with evaporative condenser oered comparable results with the one employing water-cooled condenser in many operating conditions while the system using air-cooled condenser showed signicantly lower performance.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS OF REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS

695

The superior performance of the systems with water-cooled and evaporative condensers stems from better heat transfer on the heat-rejected-medium side of the condenser. The latent heat transfer to the air stream passing through the cooling tower and the evaporative condenser increases not only heat rejection rate but also refrigeration capacity. This also lowers the condensing pressure, thus decreasing work of compression per unit refrigeration and increasing compressor life. The COP values based on electric power were determined by taking into account only the power input to the compressor motor. Since the fan consumed a considerable amount of energy for sending air at high ow rates to keep the condensing temperature at the required level, the system employing air-cooled condenser would give even lower COP values based on electric power if fan power were also taken into account.

NOMENCLATURE A0 COP COPel COPsh F h hm HRF I K0 m nc Qcond Qevap r ve V W Wel Wsh Y Greek symbols f re DP = belt pulley ratio = density of the air at the exit of the evaporative condenser or cooling tower (kg m3) = orice pressure drop (Pa)
Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

orice cross sectional area (m2) coecient of performance based on work of compression coecient of performance based on electrical power input coecient of performance based on shaft power input force measured by the dynamometer (N) enthalpy of the refrigerant (kJ kg1) orice dierential (mmH2O) heat rejection factor current ow through the heaters (A) ow coecient mass ow rate (kg s1) compressor speed (rpm) heat rejection rate at the condenser (W) refrigeration capacity (W) length of the torque arm (m) specic volume of the air at the exit of the evaporative condenser or cooling tower (m3 kg1) voltage across the heaters (V) work of compression (W) electric power input to the compressor motor (W) mechanical power input to the compressor shaft (W) expansion factor

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

696 Subscripts a comp cond evap e i r = = = = = = = air compressor condenser evaporator exit inlet refrigerant

M. HOSOZ AND A. KILICARSLAN

REFERENCES ASHRAE. 1992. Hvac Systems and Equipment Handbook. ASHRAE, Inc.: Atlanta, GA. CoolPack. 2001. A collection of simulation tools for refrigeration. www.et.dtu.dk/CoolPack. Ettouney HM, El-Dessouky HT, Bouhamra W, Al-Azmi B. 2001. Performance of evaporative condensers. Heat Transfer Engineering 22:4155. Goodman W. 1938. The evaporative condenser. Heating, Piping and Air Conditioning 10:165328. Goswami DY, Mathur GD, Kulkarni SM. 1993. Experimental investigation of performance of a residential air conditioning system with an evaporatively cooled condenser. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 115(4):206211. HwangY, Radermacher R, Kopko W. 2001. An experimental evaluation of a residential-sized evaporatively cooled condenser. International Journal of Refrigeration 24:238249. Parker RO, Treybal RE. 1961. The heat, mass transfer characteristics of evaporative coolers. Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium Series 57:138149. Peterson D, Glasser D, Ramsden R. 1988. Predicting the performance of an evaporative condenser. ASME Transactions, Journal of Heat Transfer 110(3):748753. Thomsen EG. 1946. Heat transfer in an evaporative condenser. Refrigeration Engineering 51:425431.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Int. J. Energy Res. 2004; 28:683696