0 Voti positivi0 Voti negativi

28 visualizzazioni255 pagineJun 06, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

© All Rights Reserved

28 visualizzazioni

© All Rights Reserved

- Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
- WomanCode: Perfect Your Cycle, Amplify Your Fertility, Supercharge Your Sex Drive, and Become a Power Source
- The Hormone Reset Diet: The 21-day Diet That Resets Your Metabolism
- The Final Day: A John Matherson Novel
- Bloody Sunday: A Thriller
- Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
- HBR's 10 Must Reads on Managing Yourself (with bonus article "How Will You Measure Your Life?" by Clayton M. Christensen)
- The Making of the Atomic Bomb
- Amity and Prosperity: One Family and the Fracturing of America
- Vermilion Drift: A Novel
- King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine
- Chernobyl 01:23:40: The Incredible True Story of the World's Worst Nuclear Disaster
- Midnight in Chernobyl: The Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
- The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind: Creating Currents of Electricity and Hope
- Free to Focus: A Total Productivity System to Achieve More by Doing Less
- Multipliers, Revised and Updated: How the Best Leaders Make Everyone Smarter
- Lost in the Solar System
- The Energy Bus: 10 Rules to Fuel Your Life, Work, and Team With Positive Energy
- The Subtle Body: An Encyclopedia of Your Energetic Anatomy
- University Physics

Sei sulla pagina 1di 255

A Thesis

Presented to

The Academic Faculty

By

Monifa Fela Wright

In Partial Fulfillmen

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

May 2000

REFRIGERANT R-410A AIR-CONDITIONER

Approved:

________________________________

Samuel V. Shelton

________________________________

James G. Hartley

________________________________

Prateen Desa

Date Approved____________________

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

vii

NOMENCLATURE

List of Symbols

xii

xii

SUMMARY

xxiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

Research Objectives

1

4

Previous Studies on Variations of Heat Exchanger Geometric

Parameters

5

8

Evaporator Design

13

16

19

MODELING

Refrigeration Cycle

System Component Models

Compressor

Condenser

Condenser Fan

Expansion Valve

Evaporator

Evaporator Fan

23

23

25

25

28

40

40

41

44

iii

45

AND PRESSURE DROP MODELS

51

Single Phase Heat Transfer Coefficient

51

Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficient

56

61

62

70

DROP MODELS

76

Heat Transfer Coefficient

76

Pressure Drop

81

Figure of Merit (Coefficient of Performance)

89

89

System Design

94

Optimization Parameters

Operating Parameters

Geometric Parameters

94

95

96

Software Tools

97

Effects of Air Velocity, Ambient Temperature, and Sub-Cool

98

100

109

111

111

FOR FIXED CONDENSER COIL COST

112

Area Factor and Cost Facto

136

Varying Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

113

115

124

137

iv

Operating Costs

145

FOR FIXED CONDENSER FRONTAL AREA

152

Varying the Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

153

Varying Fin Pitch

159

163

Operating Costs

170

179

Conclusions

List of Conclusions

185

185

188

Recommendations

Optimization Parameters and Methodology

Computational Methods

Refrigerant-Side Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Models

Economic Analysis

191

191

193

196

196

197

REFERENCES

227

LIST OF TABLES

12

Table 5-1: Coefficients for the Euler Number Inverse Power Series

84

85

87

Hours in Temperature Bins

91

114

124

128

Table 8-4: Seasonal COP and Area Factors for Varying Fin Pitch at Optimum Air

Velocity and Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

130

Table 8-5: Condenser Tube Dimensions (www.aaon.com. AAOP Heating and AirConditioning Products web site)

138

Table 8-6: Optimum Seasonal COPs and Area Factors for Varying Tube

Diameters

141

Table 9-1: Optimum Operating Conditions for Varying Number of Rows with

Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

154

Table 9-2: Optimum Operating Conditions and Cost Factor for Varying Fin Pitch

with Fixed Frontal Area

162

Table 9-3: Optimum Operating Conditions and Cost Factor For Varying Tube

Diameters with Fixed Frontal Area

166

vi

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

14

24

Figure 3-2: Typical Cross Flow Heat Exchanger (fins not displayed)

30

37

55

Figure 4-2: Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Total Mass Flux Fo

Refrigerant R-12

58

99

Figure 7-2: Effect of Air Velocity on COP for Various Ambient Temperatures and

Optimum Degrees Sub-Cool

101

Figure 7-3: Effect of Air Velocity on Compressor and Condenser Fan Power 13 F

103

Figure 7-4: Effect of Ambient Temperature on COP for Varying Degrees Sub-Cool

at 95 F Ambient Temperature with an Air Velocity Over the

105

Figure 7-5: Effect of Ambient Temperature on the Evaporator Capacity for

Varying Degrees Sub-Cool at 95 F Ambient Temperature with at

106

Figure 7-6: Evaporator Capacity vs. Ambient Temperature for Various Sub-Cool

conditions at 95 F Ambient Temperature and Optimum Air Velocity

108

vii

Figure 7-7: Effect of Air Velocity on the Seasonal COP for Varying Sub-cool

Conditions

110

Figure 8-1: Effect of Number of Rows on the Seasonal COP at Optimum Air

Velocity and Varying Sub-Cool for Fixed Cost of Condenser Materials

116

Figure 8-2: Effect of Number of Rows on Compressor Power and Refrigerant

Pressure Drop at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed

Condenser Material Cost at 82 F Ambient Temperature

118

Fixed Condenser Material Cost at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

119

Figure 8-4: Effect of Number of Rows of Tubes on Condenser Fan Power and

Airside Pressure Drop for Fixed Condenser Material Cost at 82 F

120

Figure 8-5: Effect of Air Velocity on Seasonal COP for Varying Number of Rows at

Optimum Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

122

Figure 8-6: Effect of Number of Rows on the Optimum Air Velocity and

Volumetric Flow Rate of Air Over the Condenser at Optimum SubCool for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

123

Figure 8-7: Seasonal COP vs. Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting at Optimum

Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

126

Figure 8-8: Refrigerant-Side Pressure Drop for Various Circuiting at 82 F

Ambient Temperature and at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity fo

Fixed Condenser Material Cost

127

Figure 8-9: Seasonal COP vs. Air Velocity for Varying Fin Pitch at Fixed

Condenser Material Cost and Optimum Sub-Cool

130

Figure 8-10: Effect of Fin Pitch on the Seasonal COP at Optimum Sub-Cool and

Air Velocity Over the Condenser for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

131

Figure 8-11: Air-side Pressure Drop vs. Fin Pitch for Fixed Condenser Material

Cost at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity at 95 F Ambient

Temperature

133

viii

Figure 8-12: Power Requirements vs. Fin Pitch for Fixed Cost at Optimum SubCool and Air Velocity and 95 F Ambient Temperature

134

Figure 8-13: Effect of Fin Pitch on Condenser Frontal Area at Optimum Sub-Cool

and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

136

Figure 8-14: Optimum Seasonal COP for Varying Tube Diameter at Optimum SubCool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

138

Figure 8-15: Optimum Operating Parameters for Varying Tube Diameters at Fixed

Condenser Material Cost

140

Figure 8-16: Condenser Tube Length Allocation for Varying Tube Diameters at

Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool and 82 F Ambient Temperature

for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

141

Figure 8-17: Effect of Tube Diameter on Pressure Drop at Optimum Sub-Cool and

Air Velocity at 82 F Ambient Temperature for Fixed Condenser

Material Cost

143

Figure 8-18: Power Requirements for the Condenser Fan and the Compressor vs.

Tube Diameter at Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool for Fixed

Condenser Material Cost and 82 F Ambient Temperature

144

Figure 8-19: Operating Costs vs. Area Factor For Various Geometric Parameter

at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity with Fixed Condenser

Material Cost

146

Figure 8-20: Seasonal COP at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Varying

Condenser Tube Circuiting with Fixed Condenser Material Cost and

5/16 Tube Outer Diameter

149

Figure 8-21: Comparison of the Effect of the Number of Tubes per Circuit on

Seasonal COP for 5/16 and 3/8 Outer Tube Diameters at Optimum

Sub-Cool and Air Velocity with Fixed Condenser Material Cost

150

Figure 9-1: Effect of Air Velocity Over Condenser for Varying Numbers of Rows at

Optimum Sub-Cool with Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

154

Figure 9-2: Effect of the Number of Rows of Tubes on the Seasonal COP at

Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

155

ix

Figure 9-3: Refrigerant-Side Pressure Drop vs. Number of Rows with Fixed

Condenser Frontal Area for Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity at 82

F Ambient Temperatur

157

Figure 9-4: Compressor and Condenser Fan Power for Varying Number of Rows

with Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity at 82 F Ambient

158

Figure 9-5: Effect of Air Velocity on Seasonal COP for Varying Fin Pitch with

Optimum Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

160

Figure 9-6: Effect of Fin Pitch on the Seasonal COP at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air

Velocity for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

161

Figure 9-7: Effect of Air Velocity For Varying Tube Diameter at Optimum SubCool for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

164

Figure 9-8: Effect of Tube Diameter on the Seasonal COP for Fixed Condenser

Frontal Area at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

165

Figure 9-9: Refrigerant-Side Pressure vs. Tube Diameter for Fixed Frontal Area at

82 F Ambient Temperature, Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity 168

Figure 9-10: Power Requirements for Varying Tube Diameters with Fixed

Condenser Frontal Area at 82 F Ambient Temperature, Optimum

169

Figure 9-11: Air-Side Pressure Drop vs. Tube Diameter for Fixed Condenser

Frontal Area at 82 F Ambient Temperature, Optimum Air Velocity

and Sub-Cool

171

Figure 9-12: Operating Cost Factor vs. Cost Factor of Condenser Materials for

Varying Geometric Parameters with Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

and Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool

172

Figure 9-13: Seasonal COP for Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting with Fixed

Frontal Area and 5/16 Tube Outer Diameter at Optimum Sub-Cool

and Air Velocity

175

Figure 9-14: Comparison of the Effect of the Number of Tubes per Circuit on th

Seasonal COP for 5/16 and 3/8 Outer Tube Diameters with Fixed

Frontal Area at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

178

Figure 9-15: Operating Cost Factor vs. Condenser Material Cost Factor for

Varying Tube Diameter and Tube circuiting at Optimum Air Velocity

and Sub-Cool

180

Figure 9-16: Operating Cost Factor vs. Condenser Material Cost Factor for

Varying Geometric Parameters and Various Fixed Frontal Areas at

Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool

182

xi

NOMENCLATURE

List of Symbols

a

ast

Correlation

ax

Ac

Aci

Afin

Afr,con

Amin

Ao

= Total air-side heat transfer area including the fin and tube areas

AF

= Area Factor

= Buoyancy Modulus

= Two-phase flow refrigerant side pressure drop Coefficient for a tube bend

o degrees

bst

= Ratio of the tube spacing normal to the air flow, to the tube diameter

Correlation

xii

= Heat capacity

C1

Correlation

C2

Correlation

C3

Correlation

cp

cp,eff

cp,l

Cmin

= Minimum heat capacity between that of the air and the refrigeran

Cmax

= Maximum heat capacity between that of the air and the refrigerant

Cr

Cz

cz

CF

= Cost factor

COP

= Coefficient of Performance

COPseas

Cost

Cost Al

Cost Cu

= Tube diameter

Ddepc

Dh

Hydraulic diameter

xiii

d( )

= Differential change in ( )

Eu

= Euler number

Eucor

= Friction factor

fGO

fLO

ffin

fri

Fr

= Froude number

= Mass flux

Gmax

gcs

Specific enthalpy

h1

h2

h2s

h2a

condenser

h2b

condenser

h3

h4

ha

xiv

hevap

hL

hr

hr,SP

hTP

= Colburn factor

JP

= Thermal conductivity

k1

= Geometry factor for staggered tube array for the air-side pressure drop

correlation

kl

kb,

= Two-phase flow refrigerant side pressure drop Coefficient for a tube bend

o degrees

= Length

Lcon,sa

Lcon,sc

Lcon,sh

Levap,sat

Levap,sh

Lsat

Ltot

xv

mass

.

m

ma,sat

.

ma,tot

= mass of flow rate of air f owing over the saturated portion of the

condenser

=

mair

mcon,sat

mcon,sc

mcon,sh

mes

mevap,sat

mevap,sh

= Blausius coefficien

NTU

NuD

= Pressure

pr

= Reduced pressure

Prat

pressure

Pe

= Perimeter

PD

Pr

.

Q

= Prandtl number

= Rate of total heat trans erred between the refrigerant and the air

xvi

= Amount of heat per unit mass transferred between the air and the

refrigerant

Qave,seas

= Average cooling load of the system over all cooling load hours

qcon,sat

= Amount of heat per unit mass transferred between the air and the

refrigerant in the saturated portion of the condenser

qcon,sc

= Amount of heat per unit mass transferred between the air and the

refrigerant in the sub-cooled portion of the condenser

qcon,sh

= Amount of heat per unit mass transferred between the air and the

refrigerant in the superheated portion of the condenser

qcst

.

Qe

.

Qmax

rb

Rb

rcst

Rcv,PD

Re

Rf,r

Rf,a

rr

Rw

Re

= Reynolds number

ReD

= Maximum possible amount of heat transferred between the refrigerant and

the air

xvii

Rel

Rers

= Entropy

scst

St

= Stanton Number

= Temperature

Tc,i

tcst

Th,i

Ti

Trat

Temperature

UA

UAhouse

= Specific volume

v1

v2

Va,con

vl

vm

vv

xviii

Vol,Al,eva = Volume of the aluminum components of the evaporator (fins)

Vol,Cu,cond = Volume of the copper co ponents of the condenser (tubes)

Vol,Cu,evap = Volume of the copper components of the evaporator (tubes)

wa,com

Wave,seas

.

Wcom

.

Wf,con

.

Wf,evap

= Average electricity required by the system over all cooling load hours

ws,com

= Vapor quality

xe

xi

Xl

Xt

Xtt

= Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter

= Compressor power

= Condenser fan power

= Evaporator fan power

xix

circular radius for hexagonal fins

hlat

hsens

htot

= Pressure drop

p a,con

p b

p b,LO

= Refrigerant-side pressure drop inside a tube bend with all fluid flowing as

a liquid

p b,SP

p b,TP

pf

a straight tube

pfins

pm

inside a straight tube

p S,SP

p S,TP

p tot,ac

p tubes

xx

= Change in quality

= Fin effectiveness

pr

= Pipe roughness

hexagonal fin

b2

determination inside a tube bend

= Fin efficienc

fan,con

= Surface efficiency

s,a

s,r

2b,LO

= Two-phase multiplier for the refrigerant side pressure drop inside tube

bends

= Viscosity

= Viscosity of the fluid evaluated at the temperature of the inner tube wall

surface

TP

xxi

= 3.14159..

= Density

= Ratio of the minimum free-flow area to the frontal area of the hea

exchanger

circular radius for hexagonal fins

xxii

SUMMARY

refrigerant, R-22, as the working fluid. In accordance with the Montreal Protocol, a

production ban of all equipment utilizing R-22 will begin in 2005, and a total ban on the

production of R-22 is also impending. A binary zeotropic mixture, R-410a, is a strong

candidate for R-22 replacement due to its many favorable performance characteristics;

e.g., non-flammability, high working pressures, and good cycle efficiency.

Since R-410a has significantly higher working pressure and vapor densities than R22, current air cooled finned tube condenser designs are not appropriate. The optimum

condenser and other high-pressure-side components are expected to employ smaller

diameter tubes, which will affect other design parameters. At this time, there is limited

information about condenser coil design and optimization using R-410a as the working

fluid. Furthermore, the heat transfer and friction data are also limited.

This work includes an examination of the available refrigerant-side two-phase flow

heat transfer and pressure drop models for refrigerants. A model based on first principles

is used to predict the performance of a unitary air-conditioning system with refrigerant R410a as the working fluid. The seasonal coefficient of performance of the airconditioning system is used as the figure of merit. The primary objective of this research

was to provide guidelines for the design and optimization of the condenser coil for tw

xxiii

distinct criteria: (1) fixed condenser frontal area (size constraint), and (2) fixed

condenser material cost (capital cost constraint).

This study concludes that for both design criteria, the velocity of air flow over the

condenser ranges between 7.5 ft/s and 8.5 ft/s while the optimum sub-cooling of the

refrigerant exiting the condenser is approximately 15 F. It is also concluded that

condensers employing tubes of smaller diameters yield the best system performance.

Recommendations for further research into the modeling of the in-tube condensation o

refrigerant R-410a are outlined. An exhaustive search optimization study could not be

performed due to computational speed limitations, therefore more advanced optimization

search techniques are also recommended for further study.

xxiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The decade of the 1990s has been a challenging time for the Heating Ventilation Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration (HVAC&R) industry worldwide. Due to their role in the

destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer, provisions of the Montreal Protocol and its

various amendments required the complete phase-out of chlorine-containing refrigerant

such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). These

compounds have been used extensively as refrigerants in heat pumps, air conditioners

and refrigeration systems (Ebisu and Torikoshi, 1998). CFCs, which are characterized by

a high ozone-depletion potential (ODP), underwent a complete production phase-out in

the United States in 1995. Because HCFC-22 (chlorodifluoromethane) has been readily

available, inexpensive, and less harmful to the environment than CFCs, HCFC-22 has

been widely used in the air-conditioning and heat pump industry, especially in residential

unitary and central air-conditioning systems, for many years (Bivens et al., 1995).

However, the 1992 revision of the Montreal Protocol stipulated the first producti

ceiling for HCFCs starting in 1996 (Domanski and Didion, 1993). In the United States,

regulations published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prohibit the

production of HCFC-22 after 2010 except for servicing equipment produced prior to

2010. The deadline is much earlier in some European countries (Gopalnarayanan and

Rolotti, 1999).

In addition, another international agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, has been initiated to

reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in order to lower the potential risk o

increased global warming. Representatives of more than 150 countries met in Kyoto,

Japan in December of 1997. As a result of this agreement, the nations agreed to roll back

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other GHGs, including HFCs, to about 5.2%

below 1990 levels by 2010. Individual emissions targets were adopted for most

developed countries (Baxter et al., 1998). With CO 2 emissions tied directly to energ

use, the pressures for further HVAC&R equipment efficiency improvements will increase

in the early decades of the next century. At the same time, pressures from internationa

competition have continued unabated.

The choices for short-term and long-term replacements for R-22 are being driven by

environmental regulations, energy standard requirements, and the cost of implementation.

The differences in R-22 phase-out dates for the different countries seem to significantl

influence the choice of replacement refrigerants (Gopalnarayanan and Rolotti, 1999).

However, several programs are underway for evaluating R-22 alternatives. One such

industry program is the Alternative Refrigerants Program (AREP) initiated by the Air

Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute (ARI). The objective of this program is to provide

performance data on replacement refrigerants in compressors, air-conditioning syste

components and/or systems by conducting tests with participating member companies.

Throughout the evaluation process, equipment manufacturers have made requests that the

alternatives meet several requirements. In order to meet these customer needs, a family

of alternatives has been developed for replacing R-22 (Bivens et al., 1995).

Unfortunately, no single-component HFCs have been discovered that have

thermodynamic properties close to that of R-22. Consequently, this has led to the

introduction of binary or ternary refrigerant mixtures. Several alternatives, including

binary and ternary blends of HFCs, as well as propane, are being considered as potential

R-22 replacement fluids (Gopalnarayanan and Rolotti, 1999). One very promising

replacement, from the viewpoint of zero ODP and non-flammability, is the binary

mixture, R-410a (Ebisu and Torikoshi, 1998). Note that R-410a is a near azeotropi

mixture consisting of 50% (wt%) R-32 and 50% R-125.

Besides the basic characteristics such as thermal properties and flammability, very

little heat transfer and pressure drop data for R-410a is available; although Wijaya and

Spatz (1995) have shown limited experimental data for heat transfer coefficients and

pressure drops for R-410a inside a horizontal smooth tube. Yet, knowledge of the

performance characteristics of air-cooled refrigerant heat exchangers with alternative

refrigerants is of practical importance in designing air-cooled heat exchangers required in

air-conditioning equipment. Therefore, more knowledge of the two-phase flow heat

transfer and pressure drops that occur in refrigerant R-410a heat exchangers is needed.

Research Objectives

The primary objective of this current work is to study the design and optimization o

the operating conditions and the geometric design parameters for the air-cooled

condenser coil of a vapor compression residential air-conditioning system wit

refrigerant R-410a as the working fluid. The condenser and total system operating

conditions are varied so that the systems coefficient of performance can be evaluated as

a function of the heat exchanger design. Subsequently, it is also the intent of this stud

that the optimization methodology detailed in this work provide guidelines to the coil

designer for future design optimizations of this type. A secondary objective of this study

is to investigate various two-phase flow heat transfer and pressure drop evaluation

methods for refrigerant R-410a.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE SURVEY

The heat exchanger of interest for this present study is of the plate-fin-and-tube

configuration. A schematic of a typical plate-fin-and-tube heat exchanger is shown in

Figure 2-1.

Air Cross

Flow

Air

Cross

Flow

T= f(x,y)

Refrigerant

Flow

Refrigerant

Flow

There have been several studies on heat exchangers of this type. Wang et al. (1999)

conducted an experimental study on the air-side performance for two specific louver fin

patterns and their plain plate fin counterparts. This study investigated the effects of fin

pitch, longitudinal tube spacing and tube diameter on the air-side heat transfer

performance and friction characteristics. This study found that for plain plate fin

configurations ranging from 8 to 14 fins per inch, the effect of longitudinal tube pitch on

the air-side was negligible for both the air-side heat transfer and pressure drop. However,

the heat transfer performance increased with reduced fin pitch.

Chi et al. (1998) conducted an experimental investigation of the heat transfer and

friction characteristics of plate fin-and tube heat exchangers having 7 mm diameter tubes.

In this study, 8 samples of commercially available plate-fin-and-tube heat exchangers

were tested. It was found that the effect of varying fin pitch on the air-side heat transfer

performance and friction characteristics was negligible for 4-row coils. However for 2row coils, the heat transfer performance increased with a decrease in fin pitch. This stud

used a plate-fin-and tube heat exchanger configuration with louver fin surfaces, which are

widely used in both automotive and residential air-conditioning systems. The transverse

fin spacing ranged from 21 mm to 25.4 mm and longitudinal fin spacing ranged from

12.7 mm to 19.05 mm

Wang et al. (1998) also collected experimental data on a plate-fin-and tube hea

exchanger configuration. They examined the effect of the number of tube rows, fin pitch,

tube spacing, and tube diameter on heat transfer and friction characteristics. This stud

found that the effect of fin pitch on the air-side friction pressure drop was negligibly

small for air-side Reynolds numbers greater than 1000. It was also found that the hea

transfer performance was independent of fin pitch for 4-row configurations.

Furthermore, the results indicated that reducing the tube spacing and the tube diameter

produced an increase in the air-side heat transfer coefficient. The fin surfaces utilized in

this study were of the louver type, with transverse fin spacing ranging from 21 mm to

25.4 mm, and longitudinal fin spacing ranging from 12.7 mm to 19.05 mm. The

longitudinal tube spacing investigated for this studied ranged from 15 mm to 19 mm and

the tube diameters ranged from 7.94 mm to 9.52 mm.

One of the earliest and most complete investigations of heat exchanger heat transfer

and pressure drop characteristics was performed by Kays and London (1984). An

extensive amount of experimental heat transfer and friction pressure drop data were

complied for several different plate-fin-and-tube heat exchanger configurations as part of

this study. However, no optimization of the heat transfer surfaces and geometry was

performed.

Shepherd (1956) experimentally tested the effect of various geometric variations on

1-row plate fin-and-tube coils. He investigated the effects of varying the fin spacing, fin

depth, tube spacing, and tube location on the heat transfer performance of the coil. The

results of Shepherds study showed that as the fin pitch increased, the air-side hea

transfer coefficient, for a given face velocity, increased only slightly. He also found tha

as the fin depth and tube spacing increased, with all other variables constant, the air-side

heat transfer coefficient decreased. Rich (1973) studied the effect of varying the fin

spacing on the heat transfer and friction performance of multi-row heat exchanger coils.

Rich found that over the range from 3 to 14 fins per inch, the air-side heat transfer

coefficient was independent of fin pitch. Neither Richs nor Shepherds investigations

involved the optimization of the heat exchanger operating conditions and geometric

parameters.

All of the above studies provide valuable insight into the effects of varying different

geometric parameters on the heat transfer and friction performance of plate-fin-tube heat

exchangers. However none of the above works investigated the effects that varying these

geometric parameters has on the optimization of a complete air-conditioning system

Again, a major focus of this work is the study of the effect of the condenser plate-finand-tube heat exchanger design parameters on the performance of a refrigerant R-410a

unitary air-conditioning system. However, as discussed in Chapter I, due to the

impending ban of refrigerant R-22 production, there is a pressing need for studies on the

performance characteristics of alternative refrigerants in air-conditioning and heat pump

systems. Therefore a survey of the previous investigations on R-22 replacemen

refrigerants in these systems is a very important part of this present study.

There has been a substantial amount of work done in the area of air-conditioning and

heat pump R-22 replacement refrigerants. Only some of the relevant studies are

mentioned here. Radermacher and Jung (1991) conducted a simulation study of potential

R-22 replacements in residential equipment. The coefficient of performance (COP) and

the seasonal performance factor (SPF) were calculated for binary and ternary substitutes

for R-22. They found that for a ternary mixture of R-32/R-152a/R-124 with a weight

concentration of 20 wt%/20 wt%/60 wt%, the COP was 13.7% larger and the compressor

volumetric capacity was 23% smaller than the respective values for R-22. This stud

found that in general, based on thermodynamic properties only, refrigerant mixtures have

the potential to replace R-22 without a loss in efficiency. Efficiency gains are possible

when counterflow heat exchangers are used and additional efficiency gains are possible

when capacity modification is employed.

Kondepudi (1993) performed experimental drop-in (unchanged system, same heat

exchangers) testing of R-32/R-134a and R-32/R-152a blends in a two-ton split-system air

conditioner. Five different refrigerant blends of R-32 with R-134a and R-152a were

tested as drop-in refrigerants against a set of R-22 baseline tests for comparison. No

hardware changes were made except for the use of a hand-operated expansion device,

which allowed for a drop-in comparison of the refrigerant blends. Hence, other than

the use of a different lubricant and a hand-operated expansion valve, no form of

optimization was performed for the refrigerant blends. Parameters measured included

capacity, efficiency, and seasonal efficiency. The steady state energy efficiency ratio

(EER) and seasonal efficiency energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of all the R-32/R-134a and

R-32/R-152a blends tested were within 2% of those for a system using R-22. The 40

wt%/60 wt% blend of R-32/R-134a performed the best in a non-optimized system.

Fang and Nutter (1999) evaluated the effects of reversing valves on heat pump system

performance with R-410a as the working fluid. A traditional reversing valve enables a

heat pump to operate in either the heating mode or cooling mode. It performs this

function by switching the refrigerant flow path through the indoor and out door coils,

thus changing the functions of the two heat exchangers. However, use of reversing

valves causes increased pressure drops, refrigerant leakage from the high pressure side to

the low pressure side, and undesired heat exchange. This study measured the overal

effects of a reversing valve on a 3-ton heat pump system using R-410a and made

comparisons to the same valves performance with R-22 as the working fluid. It was

found that changing from refrigerant R-22 to R-410a resulted in an increase in mass

leakage, but did not significantly change the effect that the reversing valve had on the

system COP.

Domanski and Didion (1993) evaluated the performance of nine R-22 alternatives.

The study was conducted using a semi-theoretical model of a residential heat pump with

a pure cross-flow representation of heat transfer in the evaporator and condenser

(Domanski and Mclinden, 1992). The models did not include transport properties since

they carried the implicit assumption that transport properties (and the overall heat transfer

coefficients) are the same for the fluids studied. Simulations were conducted for dropin performance, for performance in a modified system to assess the fluids potentials,

and for performance in a modified system equipped with a liquid line/suction-line hea

exchanger. The simulation results obtained from the drop-in evaluation predicted the

performance of candidate replacement refrigerants tested in a system designed for the

original refrigerant, with a possible modification of the expansion device. The drop-in

model evaluations revealed significant differences in performance for high-pressure

10

fluids with respect to R-22 and indicated possible safety problems if those fluids were

used in unmodified R-22 equipment. The simulation results obtained from the constantheat-exchanger-loading evaluation corresponded to a test in a system modified

specifically for each refrigerant to obtain the same heat flux through the evaporator and

condenser at the design rating point. This simulation constraint ensures that the

evaporator pressures are not affected by the different volumetric capacities of the

refrigerants studied. The results for the modified system performance showed tha

capacity differences were larger for modified systems than for the drop-in evaluation.

However, none of the candidate replacement refrigerants exceeded the COP of R-22 at

any of the test conditions.

Bivens et al. (1995) compared experimental performance tests with ternary and binary

mixtures in a split system residential heat pump as well as a window air-conditioner.

This study investigated refrigerants R-407c, a ternary zeotropic mixture of 23 wt% R-32,

25 wt% R-125 and 52 wt% R-134a, and R-410b, a near azeotropic binary mixture

composed of 45 wt% R-32 and 55 wt% R-125 as working fluids. The heat pump used for

the evaluations was designed to operate with R-22 and was equipped with a fin-and-tube

evaporator with 4 refrigerant flow parallel circuits, and a spined fin condenser with 5

circuits and 1 sub-cooling circuit. It was found that R-407c provided essentially the same

cooling capacity as compared with R-22 with no equipment modification. R-410b

provided a close match in cooling capacity using modified compressor and expansion

devices. The energy efficiency ratio for R-407c versus R-22 during cooling ranged from

0.95 to 0.97. The energy efficiency ratio for R-410b versus R-22 during cooling ranged

11

from 1.01 to 1.04. Window air-conditioner tests were conducted with R-407c in three

window air-conditioners ranging in size from 12,000 to 18,000 Btu/hr. The result

demonstrated equivalent capacity and energy efficiency ranging from 0.96 to 0.98

compared with R-22.

In summation, in the search for a replacement for refrigerant R-22 many refrigerants

have been studied. As discussed throughout this work, many of those studied are

refrigerant mixtures. A list of many of the refrigerant mixtures studied by the sources

sited in this literature survey is shown in Table 2-1.

Refrigerant

Weight Percent

R-410a

R-32/50%, R-125/50%

R-407b

R-32/45%, R-125/55%

R-407c

(1991)

Kondepudi (1993)

R-32/40%, R-134a/60%

12

As a result of many of the studies discussed in this literature survey, refrigerant R-410a

has emerged as the primary candidate to replace R-22 in many industrial and residential

applications. There is at least one commercially available air-conditioning system using

R-410a as the working fluid, which is made by Carrier. Therefore, as discussed in

Chapter I, R-410a is the refrigerant of interest for this current study.

The prediction of flow patterns is a central issue in two-phase gas-liquid flow in hea

exchangers. Design parameters such as pressure drop and heat and mass transfer are

strongly dependent on the flow pattern. Hence, in order to accomplish a reliable design

of gas-liquid systems such as pipelines, boilers and condensers, an a priori knowledge of

the flow pattern is needed (Dvora et al., 1980).

Figure 2-2 shows one version of the commonly recognized flow patterns for twophase flow inside horizontal tubes. Description of these patterns is highly subjective, of

course, and there is some variation among researchers in the field concerning the

characterization of the various patterns. However, the essential situation is this: For

ordinary fluids under ordinary process conditions, two forces control the behavior and

distribution of the phases. These forces are gravity, always acting towards the center o

the earth, and vapor shear forces, acting on the vapor-liquid interface in the direction o

motion of the vapor. When gravity forces dominate (usually under conditions of low

vapor and liquid flow rates), one obtains the stratified and wavy flow patterns shown

13

14

in Figure 2-2. When vapor shear forces dominate (usually at high vapor flow rates), one

obtains the annular flow pattern (with or without entrained liquid in the core) shown on

the diagram. When the flow rates are very high and the liquid mass fraction dominates,

the dispersed bubble flow pattern is obtained, which is a shear-controlled flow of som

importance in boiler design but of very limited interest in condensers. Intermediate flow

rates correspond to patterns in which both gravitational and vapor shear forces are

important (Bell, 1988).

Although extensive research on flow patterns has been conducted, most of this

research has been concentrated on either horizontal or vertical flow. For horizontal flow

the earliest and perhaps the most durable, and best known of pattern maps for two-phase

gas-liquid flow was proposed by Baker (1954). Taitel and Dukler (1976) proposed a

physical model capable of predicting flow regime transition in horizontal and near

horizontal two-phase flow.

There are several points that need to be emphasized concerning the use of any flow

pattern map (Bell, 1988):

1. The definition of any two-phase flow pattern is highly subjective and differen

observers may disagree upon exactly what they are looking at. Adding to this

ambiguity are the various means of measuring two-phase flows and the resulting

different criteria that are used to characterize two-phase flows.

transition regions from one well defined flow pattern to another.

15

4. Most flow pattern maps are based on air-water flows. Hence it is assumed tha

the ratio of the vapor to liquid mass flow does not change from one part of the

conduit to another. Yet condensing and vaporizing flows are in a state of

perpetual change form one quality to another.

Even considering all of the above warnings, it is still better to use whatever limited

information one can find and to use it with full recognition of its limitations than to

totally ignore these considerations in the design of equipment (Bell, 1988).

A very large number of techniques for predicting the heat-transfer coefficients during

condensation and evaporation inside pipes have been proposed over the last 50 years or

so. These range from very arbitrary correlations to highly sophisticated treatments of the

mechanics of flow. While many of these have been valuable as practical design tools and

have added to our understanding of the phenomena involved, there does not appear to be

any general predictive technique which has been verified over a wide range of parameters

(Shah, 1979).

Nusselt (1916) extended his vertical plate analysis to laminar film condensation

inside a vertical tube with forced vapor flow. He assumed a constant condensate fil

thickness, and that the condensing process in no way affected the vapor flow. He further

16

assumed that the shear at the edge of the condensate film is directly proportional to the

pressure drop. This shear was expressed in terms of a constant friction factor and the

vapor velocity. Consequently, Nusselt succeeded in obtaining a correlation for the hea

transfer coefficient, which applies if the condensate is in laminar flow. However there

are significant discrepancies between Nusselts theory and the experimental data when

the condensate flow becomes turbulent or when the vapor velocity is very high (Soliman

et al., 1968).

Soliman et al. (1968) develop a model for two-phase flow heat transfer that includes

the contribution of the gravity, momentum and frictional terms to the wall shear stress.

In this work, a general correlation for the condensation heat transfer coefficient in the

annular flow regime was developed. The major assumption used in the development o

this correlation was that the major thermal resistance is in the laminar sublayer of the

turbulent condensate film. Experimental data for several fluids (including steam,

refrigerant R-22, and ethanol) was used to determine empirical coefficients and

exponents. This correlation predicts the experimental data within 25%.

Yet another semi-empirical condensation heat transfer correlation for annular flow

was developed by Akers et al. (1959). Correlations for both the local and average values

of the condensation heat transfer coefficient were developed in the Akers study. The

Akers correlation predicts the experimental heat transfer coefficients generated b

Soliman et al. (1968), within 35%.

Traviss et al. (1973) applied the momentum and heat transfer analogy to an annular

flow model using the von Karman universal velocity distribution to describe the liquid

17

film. Since the vapor core is very turbulent in this flow regime, radial temperature

gradients were neglected, and the temperatures in the vapor core and at the liquid-vapor

interface were assumed to be equal to the saturation temperature. Axial heat conduction

and sub-cooling of the liquid film were also neglected. An order of magnitude analysis

and non-dimensionalization of the heat transfer equations resulted in a simple

formulation for the local heat transfer coefficient. The analysis was compared to

experimental data for refrigerants R-12 and R-22 in a condenser tube, and the results

were used to substantiate a general equation for forced convection condensation. Since

the heat transfer analysis assumed the existence of annular flow, the sensitivity of this

analysis to deviations from the annular flow regime is important. When the mass flux of

the refrigerant vapor exceeded 500,000 lbm/hr-ft 2, there is appreciable entrainment of

liquid in the upstream portion of the condenser tube. Since the analysis assumed tha

annular film condensation exists and that all of the liquid is on the tube wall, analytical

predictions are below the experimental data in the dispersed or misty flow regime.

However, the entrainment of liquid is not very large because the main resistance to hea

transfer occurs in the laminar sublayer, and liquid removed from the turbulent zone di

not increase the heat transfer coefficient in direct relation to the amount of liquid

removed. Yet, according to the experimental data collected and analyzed by Singh et al.

(1996), the mean deviation for the Traviss correlation deviates by -%40 from the data.

The above correlations were developed for one specific flow regime (annular flow).

However, in many instances a correlation that is applicable to more than one flow regime

is needed. Shah (1979) developed a very simple dimensionless correlation, which he

18

then verified by comparison with a wide variety of experimental data. Data analyzed

included refrigerants, water, ethanol, and benzene, condensing in horizontal, vertical and

inclined pipes and included diameters ranging from about 7 to 40mm. Very wide ranges

of heat flux, mass flux, vapor velocities and pressures were covered. The 473 data points

from 21 independent experimental studies were correlated with a mean deviation of abou

15%. From this study, Shah asserts that this semi-empirical correlation is recommended

for use in all flow patterns and flow orientations. However, according to the

experimental data collected and analyzed by Singh et al. (1996) the values for

condensation heat transfer coefficients computed using the Shah correlation deviate by

mean of 30% from the data.

Again, a substantial amount of research has been performed in the development o

two-phase flow heat transfer models. The models most applicable to this current stud

are from the works of Akers et al. (1959), Traviss et al. (1976) and Shah (1979). A more

detailed evaluation of these models and their relevance to this current study is contained

in Chapter IV.

Despite the importance of pressure drop in two-phase flow processes, and the

consequent extensive research on the topic, there is still no satisfactory method for

calculating two-phase pressure drop. The best current methods are cumbersome in

structure, heavily dependent on empirically determined coefficients, and have

19

methods can only be achieved with a narrowing of the ranges of applicability (Beattie and

Whalley, 1982).

Early two-phase flow studies emphasized the development of overall pressure drop

correlations encompassing all types of flow regimes. Furthermore, most of the

experimental data were obtained from relatively small and short pipes (Chen and

Spedding, 1981). Hence, no satisfactory general correlation exists. For several years,

experimental pressure drop data have been collected for horizontal gas-liquid systems,

and many attempts have been made to develop, from the data, general procedures for

predicting these quantities. Errors of about 20% to 40% can be expected in pressure-drop

prediction, and even this range is optimistic if one attempts to use the various predictive

schemes without applying a generous measure of experience and judgment. A major

difficulty in developing a general correlation based on statistical evaluation of data is

deciding on a method of properly weighing the fit in each flow regime. It is difficult to

decide, for instance, whether a correlation giving a good fit with annular flow and a poor

fit with stratified flow is a better correlation than one giving a fair fit for both kinds o

flow (Russell et al., 1974).

Lockhart and Martinelli (1949) developed one of the first general correlations.

Although various other general correlations have since been proposed the original

Lockhart-Martinelli approach is still in many respects the best. As discussed by Chen

and Spedding (1981), this method continues to be one of the simplest procedures for

calculating two-phase flow pressure drop. One of the biggest advantages of thi

20

procedure is that it can be used for all flow regimes. For this flexibility, however,

relatively low accuracy must be accepted. Detailed checks with extensive data have

shown that the correlation overpredicts the pressure drop for the stratified flow regime

(Baker, 1954); it is quite reasonable for slug and plug flow (Dukler et al., 1964); and for

annular flow, it underpredicts for small diameter pipes (Perry, 1963), but overpredicts for

larger pipes (Baker, 1954).

Souza et al. (1993) developed a correlation for two-phase frictional pressure drop

inside smooth tubes for pure refrigerants using the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter, Xtt (the

square root of the ratio between the liquid only pressure drop and the vapor only pressure

drop), the Froude number, Fr, and experimental data. The pressure drop due to

acceleration was calculated using the Zivi (1964) equation for void fraction. A single

tube evaporator test facility capable of measuring pressure drop and heat transfer

coefficients inside horizontal tubes was utilized, and pressure drop data were collected.

During the tests, the predominant flow pattern observed was annular flow. For lower

mass fluxes and qualities, stratified-wavy, and semi-annular flow patterns were also

observed. The resulting correlation of experimental data for refrigerants R-134a and R12 for turbulent two-phase flow predicted the pressure drop within 10%.

Chisolm (1973,1983) has published important results on pressure drop and has

improved several correlations that predicted the frictional pressure drop during two-phase

flow for many different fluids. According to the data collected by Souza et al. (1993),

Chisolms two-phase flow multipliers overpredicted the experimental data for low

qualities and slightly underpredited those for high qualities. Overall, Chisolms

21

correlation for friction pressure drop predicts the experimental values within 30% with a

mean deviation of 14.7%.

Jung and Radermacher (1989) developed a correlation for pressure drop during

horizontal annular flow boiling of pure and mixed refrigerants. For this correlation, a

two-phase multiplier based on total liquid flow was introduced for the total pressure drop

(frictional and acceleration pressure drop) and was correlated as a function of the

Lockhart and Martinelli parameter, Xtt. However, Jung and Radermachers correlation

overpredicts the experimental data by an average of 29%.

In summary, the general correlation procedures yield fair predictions of pressure drop

for all flow regimes because they are based on a large amount of correlatable data.

However, when these correlations are applied to systems other than those used in their

development, or to flow over extended distances (fully established flow), predicted

pressure drops can be in error by as much as a factor of 2. For more reliable predictions

of pressure drop, correlations based on specific models for individual flow regimes are

preferable, yet difficult to model analytically without concrete knowledge of the quality

distribution throughout the tubes (Greslpvoch & Shrier, 1971).

22

CHAPTER III

Refrigeration Cycle

Heating, Ventilating, and Air-Conditioning (HVAC) systems that provide a cooling

effect depend on a refrigeration cycle. Both the control and performance of HVAC

systems are significantly affected by the performance of the refrigeration cycle.

Therefore a basic understanding of the refrigeration cycle is needed in the design and

optimization of HVAC systems. Of the three basic refrigeration cycles (vapor

compression, absorption, and thermo-electric), the cycle typically used in the HVAC

industry is the vapor compression cycle. Vapor compression refrigeration has many

complex variations, but only the basic compression cycle will be discussed here. The

working fluid for the system in this study is refrigerant R-410a.

The vapor compression refrigeration cycle modeled for this study is shown in Figure

3-1. As the figure shows, low pressure, superheated refrigerant vapor from the

evaporator enters the compressor (State 1) and leaves as high pressure, superheated vapor

(State 2). This vapor enters the condenser where heat is rejected to outdoor air that is

forced over the condenser coils. Next the refrigerant vapor is cooled to the saturation

23

S

Condenser

Sub-cooled

Saturated

2b

Superheated

Expansion

Valve

Compressor

Saturated

4

2a

Superheated

4a

Evaporator

24

temperature (State 2b), and then cooled to below the saturation point until only subcooled liquid is present (State 3). The high pressure liquid is then forced through the

expansion valve into the evaporator (State 4). The refrigerant then absorbs heat from

warm indoor air that is blown over the evaporator coils. The refrigerant is completel

evaporated (State 4a) and heated above the saturation temperature before entering the

compressor (State 1). The indoor air is cooled and dehumidified as it flows over the

evaporator and returned to the living space.

Compressor

The purpose of the compressor is to increase the working pressure of the refrigerant.

The compressor is the major energy-consuming component of the refrigeration system,

and its performance and reliability are significant to the overall performance of the

HVAC system. In general there are two categories of compressors: dynamic compressors

and displacement compressors. Dynamic compressors convert angular momentum into

pressure rise and transfer this pressure rise to the vapor (McQuiston and Parker, 1994).

Positive displacement compressors increase the pressure of the vapor by reducing the

volume. For this study scroll type positive displacement compressors, which dominate

the residential air-conditioning industry, are utilized.

The amount of specific work (work per unit mass of refrigerant) done by an ideal

compressor can be expressed with the following:

25

ws ,com = (h2 s h1 )

(3-1)

where h is the refrigerant enthalpy. For a non-ideal compressor, the actual amount o

work done depends on the efficiency,

wa, com =

ws ,com

= (h2 h1 )

(3-2)

where c is the compressor thermal efficiency. For a scroll type compressor, Klein and

Reindl (1997) have determined that the thermal efficiency is related to a pressure ratio

and a temperature ratio by the following relationship,

2

2

c = 60.25 3.814 Prat 0.281Prat + 111.3Trat 50.31Trat + 3.061Prat Trat

26

(3-3)

where Prat is the pressure ratio and Trat is the temperature ratio, which are defined by

the following relationships,

Prat =

Psat ,cond

Trat =

Tsat ,cond

Psat ,evap

Tsat ,evap

(3-4)

(3-5)

The coefficients in this correlation are based on saturated temperatures and not on the

actual temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the compressor.

The volumetric efficiency is another important consideration in selecting and

modeling compressors. The volumetric efficiency is the ratio of the mass of vapor that is

compressed to the mass of vapor that could be compressed if the intake volume were

equal to the compressor piston displacement. The volumetric efficiency is expressed as:

27

v = 1 Rcv , pd 1 1

v

(3-6)

where v is the compressor volumetric efficiency, Rcv,pd is the ratio of clearance volume

to the piston displacement, and v is the specific volume. The volumetric efficiency is

.

also used to determine the mass flow rate of the refrigerant though the compressor, m, for

a given compressor size by the following expression,

m=

v PD

v2

(3-7)

Condenser

The condenser is a heat exchanger that rejects heat from the refrigerant to the outside

air. Although there are many configurations of heat exchangers, finned-tube hea

28

exchangers are the type most commonly used for residential air conditioning applications.

Refrigerant flows through the tubes, and a fan forces air between the fins and over the

tubes. The heat exchangers used in this study are of the cross-flow, plate-fin-and-tube

type. A schematic of this heat exchanger is shown in Figure 3-2. The plate fins are

omitted from the schematic for simplicity.

When the refrigerant exits the compressor, it enters the condenser as a superheated

vapor and exits as a sub-cooled liquid. The condenser can be separated into three

sections: superheated, saturated, and sub-cooled. The amount of heat per unit mass o

refrigerant rejected from each section can be expressed as the difference between the

refrigerant enthalpy at the inlet and at the outlet of each section:

qcon, sh = h2 h2 a ,

(3-8)

(3-9)

q con, sc = h2b h3 .

(3-10)

and

29

Horizontal

Tube

Spacing

Air Cross

Flow

Vertical Tube

Spacing

Height

1 Refrigerant Flow

Parallel Circuit

Width

3 Tubes per Circuit

row 1

row 2

row 3

Depth

Figure 3-2: Typical Cross Flow Heat Exchanger (fins not displayed)

30

The total heat rejected from the hot fluid, which in this case is the refrigerant, to the

cold fluid, which is the air, is dependent on the heat exchanger effectiveness and the hea

capacity of each fluid:

Q = C min (Th, i Tc , i )

(3-11)

where is the heat exchanger effectiveness; Cmin is the smaller of the heat capacities o

the hot and cold fluids, Ch and Cc respectively; Th,i is the inlet temperature of the hot

fluid; and Tc,i is the inlet temperature of the cold fluid. The heat capacity C, is expressed

as

C = mc p

(3-12)

where m is the mass flow rate of fluid and cp is the specific heat of the fluid. The hea

capacity, C, is the extensive equivalent to the specific heat, and it determines the amoun

of heat a substance absorbs or rejects when the temperature changes.

31

The amount of air flowing over each section of the condenser is proportional to the

tube length, L, corresponding to each specific section. For example, the mass of air

flowing over the saturated section of the condenser can be found by the following

relation,

ma , sat

ma , tot

Lsat

Ltot

(3-13)

The heat exchanger effectiveness discussed earlier in this chapter is the ratio of the actua

amount of heat transferred to the maximum possible amount of heat transferred,

Q

Q max

(3-14)

each fluid and on the paths of the fluids as the heat transfer takes place, i.e. parallel-flow,

counter-flow, or cross-flow. In most typical condensers and evaporators, the refrigeran

32

mass flow is separated into a number of discrete tubes and does not mix between fluids.

Furthermore, the plates of the heat exchanger prevent mixing of the air flowing over the

fins. Therefore, air at one end of the heat exchanger will not necessarily be the same

temperature as the air at the other end. For a cross flow heat exchanger with both fluids

unmixed, the effectiveness can be related to the number of transfer units (NTU) with the

following expression (Incropera & DeWitt, 1996):

1

= 1 exp

C r

[ (

) ]

(3-15)

Cr =

33

C min

.

C max

(3-16)

In the saturated portion of the condenser, the heat capacity on the refrigerant side

approaches infinity and the heat capacity ratio, Cr goes to zero. When C r is zero, the

effectiveness for any heat exchanger configuration is expressed as

= 1 exp ( NTU ).

(3-17)

The NTU is a function of the overall heat transfer coefficient, U, and is defined as

NTU =

UA

,

C min

(3-18)

where A is the heat transfer area upon which the overall heat transfer coefficient, U, is

based. The overall heat transfer coefficient accounts for the total thermal resistance

between the two fluids and is expressed as follows.

34

R "f ,a

R "f , r

1

1

1

=

+

+ Rw +

+

,

s , r Ar s , r hr Ar

UA s ,a ha Aa s , a Aa

(3-19)

where Rf,(a or r) is the fouling factor, R w is the wall thermal resistance, s(a or r) is the

surface efficiency, andh is the heat transfer coefficient. There are no fins on the

refrigerant side of the condensing tubes; therefore, the refrigerant side surface efficiency

is 1. Neglecting the wall thermal resistance, Rw (this value is usually 3 orders o

magnitude lower than the other resistances), and the fouling factors, R f,(a or r), the overall

heat transfer coefficient reduces to:

1

1

+

UA =

h A

s ,a a a hr Ar

(3-20)

The methodology for determining the refrigerant and air-side heat transfer coefficients

are discussed Chapter IV and Chapter V, respectively.

To determine the overall surface efficiency for a finned tube heat exchanger, it is firs

necessary to determine the efficiency of the fins as if they existed alone. For a plate-fin-

35

and-tube heat exchanger with multiple rows of staggered tubes, the plates can be evenly

divided into hexagonal shaped fins as shown in Figure 3-3. Schmidt (1945) analyzed

hexagonal fins and determined that they can be treated as circular fins by replacing the

outer radius of the fin with an equivalent radius. The empirical relation for the equivalen

radius is given by

Re

1/ 2

= 1.27 ( 0.3) ,

r

(3-21)

where r is the outside tube radius. The coefficients and are defined as

Xt

2r

(3-22)

and

1

=

Xt

2 X t2

Xl +

36

1/ 2

(3-23)

Transverse Tube

Spacing

Xl

Air Flow

Xt

Tube Spacing

Normal to Air

Flo

37

where Xl is the tube spacing in the direction parallel to the direction of air flow, and X t is

the tube spacing normal to the direction of air flow.

Once the equivalent radius has been determined, the equations for standard circular

fins can be used. For this study, the length of the fins is much greater than the fin

thickness. Therefore, the standard extended surface parameter,

h Pe

=

kA

c

mes

1/ 2

2h

= a

kt

es

1/ 2

(3-24)

where ha is the air-side heat transfer coefficient, k is the thermal conductivity of the fin

material, Pe is the fin perimeter,

R

= e 11 + 0.35 ln e

r

r

38

(3-25)

es,

expressed as

f =

tanh (mes Re )

.

mes Re

(3-26)

s = 1

A fin

Ao

(1 f ),

(3-27)

where Afin is the total fin surface area, A o is the total air-side surface area of the tube and

the fins.

39

Condenser Fan

Natural convection is not sufficient to attain the heat transfer rate required on the airside of the condenser used in a reasonably sized residential air-conditioning system.

Therefore a fan must be employed to maintain the airflow at a sufficient rate of speed.

Although much of the power consumed by the total system is due to the compressor, the

condenser fan also requires a significant amount of power. The power required by the

fan is directly related to the air-side pressure drop across the condenser and to the

velocity of air across the condenser:

W f ,con =

fan , con

(3-28)

where Va,con is the air velocity over the face of the condenser, Pa,con is the air-side

pressure drop over the condenser, Afr,con is the frontal area of the condenser, and fan,con is

the condenser fan efficiency. Calculations for the air-side pressure drop are discussed in

Chapter V.

Expansion Valve

The expansion valve is used to control the refrigerant flow through the system

Under normal operating conditions, the expansion valve opens and closes in order to

40

maintain a fixed amount of superheat in the exit of the evaporator. In this study, the

superheat will be maintained at the typical 10 F. Because the expansion valve can only

pass a limited volume of refrigerant, it cannot maintain the specified superheat at the

evaporator exit if the refrigerant is not completely condensed into liquid. If incomplete

condensation in the condenser occurs, the vapor refrigerant backs up behind the

expansion valve and the pressure increases until the refrigerant is fully condensed. As a

result, the expansion valve cannot regulate the refrigerant mass flow rate, and canno

maintain a fixed superheat at the evaporator exit. The energy equation shows that the

enthalpy is constant across the expansion valve.

h3 = h4

(3-29)

Evaporator

The purpose of the evaporator is to transfer heat from the room air in order to lower

its temperature and humidity. Because the refrigerant enters the evaporator as a liquidvapor mixture, it is only divided into saturated and superheated sections. No sub-cooled

section is necessary. The analysis of the thermodynamic parameters of the evaporator is

41

involving the evaporator results in some modifications of the analysis. To maintain the

simplicity of the evaporator model, the evaporator coil is assumed to be dry, thus the airside heat transfer coefficient is not affected. However, because the air flowing over the

evaporator is cooled to a temperature below the wet bulb temperature, some of the heat

rejected by the air causes water to condense out of the air rather than simply lowering the

temperature of the air. Therefore, the specific heat must be modified to account for this

condensation. The total enthalpy change of the air is thus the sum of the enthalpy change

due to the decrease in temperature (sensible heat), and the enthalpy change due to

condensation (latent heat).

(3-30)

If the specific heat for dry air is utilized in the model for the evaporator, the resulting

exit temperatures will be too low for complete vaporization. Therefore, an effective

specific heat that takes into account both the latent heat and the sensible heat must be

utilized. Using an effective specific heat will result in a more accurate determination o

42

the evaporator exit temperature without the complications associated with using the

standard equations for air-water mixtures. Since the evaporator is not the focus of this

study, this approximation should not effect the condenser optimization methodology.

Dividing (3-30) by the temperature change gives the following.

=

+

T

T

T

(3-31)

The ratio of the sensible heat enthalpy change to the temperature change is by definition,

the specific heat, cp. Therefore, after substituting cp into (3-31) and rearranging, the

following expression is obtained:

c p , eff = c p +

43

hlat

T

(3-32)

where cp is the specific heat ratio for dry air and cp,eff is the effective specific heat. To

maintain indoor humidity, the latent heat accounts for approximately 25% of the tota

enthalpy change of the air flowing over an evaporator. The effective specific heat can

thus be expressed in terms of the specific heat for dry air only,

0.25hlat

c p ,eff = c p +

T

hsens

0.75htot

= 1.33c p .

(3-33)

Evaporator Fan

Because the evaporator is not the primary focus of this study, introducing wet coils

would present unwelcome complications in the overall analysis. In addition to affecting

the heat transfer, wet coils also have an effect on the air-side pressure drop. Although

there are correlations available for determining the pressure drop over wet coils, they are

cumbersome to use and again, the evaporator is not the primary focus of this

investigation.

After the air flows over the evaporator, it enters a series of ducts that then return the

air back inside the living space. The power required by the evaporator fan depends on

the losses in these ducts and can vary from configuration to configuration. Therefore, the

44

default power requirement used by the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI,

1989) of 365 Watts per 1000 ft3/minute of air will be used.

The degrees of sub-cooling at the condenser exit are controlled by the syste

operating conditions and the quantity of refrigerant mass in the system, as is discussed

further in Chapter VI. The mass of refrigerant in the tubes connecting the components is

neglected. Since the compressor contains only vapor, the mass of refrigerant in the

compressor is also neglected. Therefore the total mass of the system includes the mass o

refrigerant in the sub-cooled, saturated, and superheated portions of the condenser, and in

the saturated and superheated portions of the evaporator.

The following text outlines the procedure for finding the refrigerant mass in the

saturated portion of the evaporator. The same procedure is also used to determine the

mass of refrigerant in the saturated portion of the condenser, however the boundary

conditions are different

The mass of refrigerant can be expressed as

Aci dl

.

v

L

m=

45

(3-34)

where, Aci is the cross sectional area of the refrigerant-side of the tube, and v is the

specific volume, which at saturated conditions is a function of quality expressed as

v(x ) = v l (1 x ) + v v .

(3-35)

The boundary conditions for the saturated portion of the evaporator are

x(l = 0) = xi

(3-36)

x (l = L ) = 1

(3-37)

and

46

where l is integral variable evaporating tube length and L is the total evaporating tube

length. Using the boundary conditions and assuming the quality varies linearly with tube

length, the following expression results

x(l ) =

1 xi

l + xi .

L

(3-38)

Substituting (3-38) into (3-35) yields an expression for the specific volume as a functi

of length,

1 xi

v(l ) = v l + xi (v v v l ) + l

(v v v l ).

L

For a uniform cross sectional area, substituting (3-39) into (3-34) yields

47

(3-39)

1

dl.

= Aci

1 xi

l =0 v + x (v v ) + l

(v v v l )

i v

l

l

L

l =L

msat ,evap

(3-40)

l=L

m sat ,evap

Aci L

1 xi

ln v l + xi (v v v l ) + l

=

(v v v l ) .

L

l =0

(1 xi )(v v v l )

Substituting for l, the expression for the final mass in the saturated portion of the

evaporator is expressed as:

48

(3-41)

m sat ,evap =

vv

ln

(1 xi )(v v v l ) xi (v v v l ) + v l

Aci L sat ,evap

(3-42)

The mass of refrigerant in the superheated portions of the condenser and evaporator are

expressed simply as:

(3-43)

(3-44)

and

Finally, the mass of refrigerant in the sub-cooled section of the condenser is expressed as

49

50

(3-45)

CHAPTER IV

DROP MODELS

For a constant surface heat flux for single phase laminar flow, the Nusselt number can

be approximated by the following expression.

Nu D = 4.36

(4-1)

In the turbulent region, however, there are a number of expressions available for the

Nusselt number. One of the more commonly used correlations for turbulent flow is the

Dittus-Boelter equation. This correlation is valid for fully developed flow in circular

51

tubes with moderate temperature variations (Incropera & DeWitt, 1996). For refrigeran

cooling in a condenser, the Dittus-Boelter equation is expressed as

D

(4-2)

This mathematical relation has been confirmed by experimental data for the following

conditions:

0.7 Pr 160

ReD 10,000

L/D 10

In the sub-cooled portion of the condenser in this study, the temperature difference at the

inlet and exit is usually less than 20 F, and the moderate temperature variation

assumption is valid. However in the superheated portion of the condenser, the inlet and

exit temperatures can differ by as much as 90 F. Therefore, the temperature difference

between the air flowing over the tubes and the refrigerant flowing inside the tubes is

large. This causes the temperature difference between the inner surface of the tubes and

the refrigerant to also be large in the superheated portion of the condenser. Thus, under

these conditions, the Dittus-Boelter equation is less accurate.

52

Yet another Nusselt number correlation for single phase turbulent flow has been

developed by Sieder and Tate (1936). This correlation was developed for a large range of

property variations based on the mean fluid temperature and the wall surface temperature,

and is expressed as

Nu D = 0.027 Re Pr

0.8

D

1/ 3

0.14

(4-3)

where all properties except for s are evaluated at the mean fluid temperature, and s is

evaluated at the temperature of the inner tube wall surface. Again, since this model is

developed for a large range of property variations, it is valid for larger temperature

differences within the fluid flowing inside the tube.

Kays and London (1984) have also developed a heat transfer correlation for single

phase turbulent flow. This correlation was developed using empirical data taken from a

variety of refrigerants in circular heat exchanger tubes under several thermodynamic

conditions. Unlike most heat transfer correlations, Kays and London have developed the

equations for the transition region between laminar and turbulent flow. The correlation is

expressed as:

53

St Pr 2 / 3 = ast Rebst

(4-4)

ast = 1.10647,

bst = -0.78992

bst = 1.03804

ast = 0.2243,

bst = -0.385

Laminar

Re < 3,500

St =

Nu D hr , SP

=

Re Pr Gc p

(4-5)

where cp is the specific heat at constant pressure, and G is the total mass flux.

The Nusselt numbers calculated using each of the correlations discussed above are

plotted versus the Reynolds number in Figure 4-1. The difference between the wall

temperature and the refrigerant is taken as 40 F. The calculations are performed using a

54

140

Laminar, Constant

Heat Flux

120

Turbulent

Kays &

Londo

Dittus Boelter

Nusselt Number

100

Sieder and Tate

80

Laminar

Transition

60

Dittus-Boelter

40

Kays &

Londo

20

0

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Reynolds Number

55

25000

tube diameter of 0.2885 in, with refrigerant R-410a flowing as superheated vapor at a

mean temperature of 140 F and a pressure of 395 psia (conditions typically found in the

superheated portion of the condenser for this study). In the turbulent region, the value o

the Nusselt number calculated using the Kays and London correlation is on average about

70% higher than the Nusselt numbers calculated using both the Dittus-Boelter and the

Sieder and Tate correlations. This is due to the fact that both the Sieder and Tate and

Dittus-Boelter equations have assumed a smooth pipe. However the Kays and London

correlation was developed with experimental data taken from actual heat exchangers

which employ tubes with rougher surfaces. Because the Kays and London relation is

based on experimental data taken directly from heat exchangers similar to those

investigated in this work, and because the issue of the transition from laminar to turbulent

flow has been addressed, this correlation is used.

As discussed in Chapter II, the hea transfer coefficient in two-phase flow is

dependent on the flow regimes that are present. Annular flow is generally assumed to be

the dominant flow pattern existing over most of the condensing length during bot

horizontal and vertical condensing inside tubes (Soliman et al., 1968). Baker (1954) and

Gouse (1964) have derived flow pattern maps from numerous data, and have verified the

validity of this assumption. In most cases, annular flow is established soon after

condensation begins, and continues to very low quality. For horizontal condensing,

56

gravity-induced stratification exists at low quality, but this usually occupies only a small

portion of the overall condensing length (Soliman et al., 1968). Annular flow is a

particularly important flow pattern since for a wide range of pressure and flow

conditions, and it occurs over a major part of the mass quality range, from 0.1 up to unity

(Collier & Thome, 1996). Therefore, heat transfer correlations developed for annular

flow, in addition to a correlation developed for all flow regimes, are considered for use in

this present study.

Two-phase flow heat transfer correlations developed by Traviss et al. (1973), Akers e

al. (1959), and Shah (1979) are evaluated for this current work. The correlations o

Akers et al. and Traviss et al. were developed for annular flow, while the Shah correlation

is proposed to be applicable to all flow regimes. Figure 4-2 shows the condensation hea

transfer coefficients for refrigerant R-12 calculated from the correlations of Shah, Traviss

et al., and Akers et al., versus the total mass flux. The figure also shows experimenta

condensation heat transfer coefficients for refrigerant R-12 taken from experimental data

collected by Eckels and Pate (1991). Using the parameters designated by the Baker

(1954) flow regime map, it is determined that for the experimental conditions of Eckels

and Pate, a slug flow pattern exists for mass fluxes between 100 and 250 kg/m2-s, and an

annular flow regime exists for mass fluxes greater than 250 kg/

shows, the Traviss correlation overpredicts the experimental data for the entire range o

mass fluxes shown. The Akers and Shah correlations slightly underpredict the

experimental values for relatively low mass fluxes and slightly overpredict the

experimental data at higher mass fluxes (annular flow).

57

4000

Coefficient (W/m2-s)

3500

Traviss, et al.,

correlation

3000

Shah

correlation

2500

experimental data

2000

Eckels&Pate-experimental data

1500

Akers-correlation

1000

Shah-correlation

500

Akers et al.,-correlation

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Figure 4-2: Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Total Mass Flux Fo

Refrigerant R-12

58

The fact that the Traviss correlation greatly overpredicts the experimental data for

when the flow regime is annular is surprising since this correlation was developed for

annular flow. The Akers correlation predicts the experimental data to within an average

14.3% while the Shah correlation predicts the experimental data to within an average o

14.7%. Therefore the Shah and Akers correlations are in good agreement with each

other, and are both more accurate than the Traviss correlation for the conditions

investigated.

Using the parameters of the Baker (1954) flow regime map, and the typical operating

conditions of the condenser studied in this present work (mass fluxes approximately

greater than or equal to 400 kg/

dominant flow regime is indeed annular. However, this study also finds that for low

qualities, stratified-wavy flow exists. As a result, the use of a general correlation that is

valid for more than one flow regime is advantageous for the work of this investigation.

Therefore, the correlations developed by Akers et al. and Traviss et al., are not used.

Hence, the two-phase flow heat transfer correlation developed by Shah is used for this

investigation.

The two-phase flow heat transfer model developed by Shah is a simple correlation

that has been verified over a large range of experimental data. In fact, experimental data

from over 20 different researchers has been used in its development. The model has a

mean deviation of about 15% and has been verified for many different fluids, tube sizes,

and tube orientations.

59

For this model, at any given quality, the two-phase heat transfer coefficient is defined

as:

hTP

0.04

3.8 x 0.76 (1 x )

0.8

= hL (1 x ) +

0.38

pr

(4-6)

wherehTP is the two-phase flow heat transfer coefficient, x is the quality, hL is the liquid

only heat transfer coefficient, and p r is the reduced pressure. By integrating the

expression (4-6) over the length of the tube, the mean two-phase flow heat transfer

coefficient can be determined.

L

0.76

(1 x )0.04

hL

0.8 3.8 x

=

(1 x ) +

dL

(Le Li )

pr 0.38

hTPM

(4-7)

Li

If one assumes that the quality varies linearly with length, the mean two-phase flow hea

transfer coefficient can be approximated b

60

xe

hTPM

hL (1 x )0.8

=

+ 0.37

1.76 2.76 .

(xe xi ) 1.8

pr

(4-8)

This assumption of linearly varying quality typifies fixed heat transfer per unit length.

For complete condensation, (x varying from 1 to 0), the mean two-phase heat transfer

coefficient reduces to the following expression.

2.09

hTPM = hL 0.55 + 0.38

pr

(4-9)

As discussed in Chapter III, the modeling of the evaporator is not the primary focus

of this study. To this end, the correlations investigated to determine the evaporator hea

transfer coefficient were limited. The expression for the average evaporative two-phase

heat transfer coefficient is taken from Tong (1965). This relationship assumes a constan

temperature difference between the wall and the fluid along the length of the pipe and is

expressed as:

61

hevap = (0.0186875)

0.2

D

l

kl

0.8 C

l p, l

k

l

0.4

0.375

0.075

xe xi

0.325 0.325

x

xi

(4-10)

The pressure drop in the straight-tube portions of the superheated and sub-cooled

sections of the condenser (single phase vapor and liquid respectively) can be determined

by applying the standard pressure drop relationship for pipe flow.

p S , SP =

fG 2 L

(4-11)

The friction factor, f, for circular pipes depends on the Reynolds number as shown in the

following expressions:

62

f =

64

Re D

Laminar

(Incropera &

Dewitt, 1996)

(4-12)

and

1

f

1/ 2

pr / D

2.51

= 2 log 10

+

.

Re D f 1 / 2

3.7

Turbulent

(Colebrook, 1938)

(4-13)

where pr is the pipe roughness, which for the drawn copper tubes utilized in this study, is

assumed to be 0.000005 ft.

For two-phase flow, determining the pressure drop is not as simple. As discussed in

Chapter II, there is still no satisfactory, universal method for calculating the two-phase

pressure drop, while taking into account flow regime considerations. Again using the

parameters of the Baker (1954) flow regime map, and the typical operating conditions o

the condenser studied in this present work (mass fluxes approximately greater than or

equal to 400 kg/

regime is indeed annular. However for low qualities, stratified-wavy flow also exists.

Therefore, only semi-empirical, general pressure drop correlations are considered for use

in this study. Although, various other general correlations have since been proposed, as

discussed in Chapter II, the original Lockhart-Martinelli approach is still one of the

63

simplest, as discussed by Chen and Spedding (1981). Again, one of the bigges

advantages of this procedure is that it can be used for all flow regimes. While the cost o

this flexibility is decreased accuracy, as indicated in Chapter II, subsequent genera

correlations do not appear to be substantially more accurate than the Lockhart-Martinell

model. Therefore, the method of Lockhart and Martinelli is used to determine the twophase flow refrigerant-side pressure drop for the heat exchangers investigated in this

study.

The Lockhart-Martinelli method, or L and M method, is derived from the separated

flow model of two-phase flow. This model considers the phases to be artificiall

segregated into two streams; one of liquid and one of vapor (Collier and Thome, 1996).

The separated flow model is based on the following assumptions:

1) constant but not necessarily equal velocities for the vapor and liquid phases, and

2) the attainment of thermodynamic equilibrium between the phases

Hiller and Glicksman (1976) detail the procedures for calculating the frictional

momentum, and gravitational components of the two-phase flow pressure drop using the

Lockhart-Martinelli model. Hiller and Glicksman expound on the method of LockhartMartinelli in the following manner.

The total two-phase pressure drop is divided into frictional, gravitational, and

momentum components as follows:

64

dP dP dP dP

= + + ,

dz dz f dz g dz m

(4-14)

Hiller and Glicksman then derive the following expression for the frictional component,

G2

v

0.2

dP

v (0.09) v 1 + 2.85 X 0.523

=

tt

G D

g cs D

dz f

v

(4-15)

where gcs is a units conversion constant, and Xtt is the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter

which is expressed as:

1 x

X tt =

0.875

65

0.5

0.125

(4-16)

Gv2

dP

v 1 l

=

B

g cs D Fr 2 v

dz g

(4-17)

where Fr is the Froude number based on the total flow (Traviss, 1973),

G

v

2

Fr =

axD

(4-18)

with ax defined as the axial acceleration due to gravity; B is the Buoyancy modulus;

B=

l v

,

v

66

(4-19)

1

1 x v

1+

x l

2/3

(4-20)

Finally, Hiller and Glicksman give the momentum pressure drop component as:

G2

dP

=

dz m g cs v

1/ 3

v

v

dx

2x + (1 2 x) + (1 2 x)

dz

l

l

2/3

2(1 x ) v .

l

(4-21)

Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict the variation of the quality with length, dx/dz.

However, as is the case with the condensation heat transfer coefficient, a linear profile is

assumed for the work of this study. If the quality variation is divided in to small

increments of x, the resulting pressure drops over each small increment can be summed

to yield the total pressure drop over the entire length. For horizontal tube flow, the

gravitational pressure drop term is neglected. The pressure drop per unit length as a

67

function of the variation in quality for the frictional and momentum components are then

integrated over the length of the tube, utilizing the aforementioned incremental

procedure. The frictional pressure drop in the two-phase region then reduces to the

following expression:

2

+ C3 (0.538 0.329 x )x1.86

(4-22)

xe

xi

C3 = 2.85 l

v

C2 =

0.0523

v

l

0.262

(4-23)

0.09 vG1.8

C1g c v D1.2

(4-24)

xe xi

.

ze zi

(4-25)

C1 =

68

The momentum pressure drop in the two-phase region then reduces to:

G2

p m =

v gc

v

1+

1/ 3

v

l

2 v v

l l

1/ 3

2/ 3

(4-26)

xe

x .

2/3

Hence, the total two-phase refrigerant pressure drop in the straight tube section is simply

the sum of the momentum and frictional pressure drop components.

p S ,TP = p m + p f

69

(4-27)

The work of Chisolm (1983) is used to determine the pressure drop inside tube bends.

For single phase flow, the pressure drop in tube bends is calculated simply by assigning

an equivalent length to each bend based on the flow diameter and the bend radius. For

two-phase flow in tube bends, the pressure drop is calculated for liquid-only flow, and

correction factors are applied to determine the approximate two-phase flow pressure

drop. Instead of predicting the two-phase pressure drop in inclined bends that are found

in most heat exchangers, this method predicts the pressure drops for two-phase flow in

horizontal bends. However, no accurate correlations are available for predicting the twophase flow pattern in an inclined bend. Furthermore, the pressure gradients due to

elevation changes caused by the incline are negligible compared to friction pressure

losses. Hence, the horizontal bend model developed by Chisolm is sufficient for this

study. Since the bends are not finned and do not come into contact with air flow, the hea

transfer in the bends is neglected.

The first step in computing the pressure drop in tube a tube bend is to determine the

equivalent length of the bend. The equivalent length, y, is a function of the relative

radius, rr:

rr =

rb

D

70

(4-28)

where rb is the radius of the bend, and D is the inner diameter of the tube. Most

condensers utilize tubes with a relative radius between 1 and 3, which according to

Chisolms model corresponds to an equivalent length of between 12 to 15 diameters for

90 bends. The equivalent length for a 180 return bend is approximately twice the

equivalent length of a 90 bend. For this study, 180 return bends are assumed to have an

equivalent length of 26 diameters.

Chisolm approximates the single-phase pressure drop in a bend by simply substituting

the equivalent length of the bend, y, for the straight pipe length in the standard pressure

drop equation,

pb , SP

fG 2 y

=

2 D e

71

(4-29)

For the two-phase flow pressure drop in bends, the calculations are more involved.

Assuming homogeneous two-phase flow, the friction factor is determined by the same

expressions that are used for single phase flow as shown in (4-12). However, Chisolms

development uses a Reynolds number based on the two-phase flow viscosity.

Re =

GD

TP

(4-30)

The two-phase viscosity is a function of the quality and is determined by the following

expression:

TP = v x + (1 x ) l .

(4-31)

Chisolm defines a two-phase flow bend pressure drop coefficient for a 90 bend, kb,90,

which is expressed as:

72

y

kb ,90 o = f

D e

(4-32)

Another coefficient for 90 bends, B90 is also defined, and is expressed by:

B 90o = 1 +

2.2

k b , 90o (2 + Rb / D )

(4-33)

where Rb is the bend recovery length. The B coefficient for bends that are not 90 is

expressed as:

]k

B = 1 + B 90 o 1

k b ,90o

(4-34)

b ,

In the case of 180 bends, the bend pressure coefficient kb,180, is approximately twice the

value of kb,90, so B180 can be calculated by the following expression.

73

(4-35)

Chisolm defines a two-phase multiplier, 2, for the pressure drop in a tube bend as:

)(

n

n

n

2

2

b,lo = 1 + b 1 B x (2 )/ 2 (1 x )( 2 ) / 2 + x (2 )

(4-36)

where b2 is the physical property coefficient for a tube bend and is determined by,

= l

v

2

b

(4-37)

74

f

ln LO

f

n = GO

v

l

(4-38)

The friction factors fLO and fGO are determined using (4-12) by assuming all of the mass is

flowing alone as either a liquid or a vapor.

The two-phase pressure drop is then calculated as the product of the liquid-onl

single-phase pressure drop and the two-phase multiplier, 2b,LO:

2

p b ,TP = p b , LO b , LO

75

(4-39)

CHAPTER V

MODELS

The works of McQuiston (McQuiston and Parker, 1994), Rich (1973), and Zukauskas

and Ulinskas (1998), are used to evaluate the air-side heat transfer and pressure drop over

finned tubes in air cross-flow. The following development of the work of McQuiston,

Rich, and Zukauskas is taken from a thesis entitled Optimization of a Finned-Tube

Condenser for a Residential Air-Conditioner Using R-22 by Emma Saddler (2000).

This development is detailed here in this study for completeness.

The work of McQuiston (McQuiston and Parker, 1994) is used to evaluate the air-side

convective heat transfer coefficient for a plate finned heat exchanger with multiple rows

of staggered tubes. The model is developed for dry coils. The heat transfer coefficient is

based on the Colburn j-factor, which is defined as:

76

j = St Pr 2 / 3 .

(5-1)

Substituting the appropriate values for the Stanton number, St, gives the following

relationship for the air-side convective heat transfer coefficient, ha,

ha =

jc p Gmax

Pr

2/3

(5-2)

where cp is the specific heat, and Gmax is the mass flux of air through the minimum flow

area which is expressed as:

Gmax =

77

mair

,

Amin

(5-3)

McQuiston (McQuiston and Parker, 1994) use a 4-row finned tube heat exchanger as the

baseline model, and define the Colburn j-factor for a 4-row finned-tube heat exchanger

as:

(5-4)

JP = Re

0.4

D

Ao

A

t

0.15

(5-5)

where, Ao is the total air side heat transfer surface area (fin area plus tube area), and

the tube outside surface area. The Reynolds number, Re D in the above expression is

based on the outside diameter of the tubes, Do, and the maximum mass flux, G max. The

area ratio can be expressed as:

78

is

Ao 4 X l X t

=

,

At Dh Ddepc

(5-6)

where Xl is the tube spacing parallel to the air flow (transverse), X t is the tube spacing

normal to the air flow, D depc is the depth of the condenser in the direction of the air flow,

Dh is the hydraulic diameter defined as:

Dh =

4 Amin Ddepc

Ao

(5-7)

and is the ratio of the minimum free-flow area to the frontal area,

Amin

.

Afr

79

(5-8)

The j-factor for heat exchangers with four or fewer rows can then be found using the

following correlation:

1 1280 z Re rs1.2

jz

=

,

(5-9)

where z is the number of rows of tubes, and Re rs is the Reynolds number based on the

row spacing, Xrs,

Re rs =

80

Gmax X rs

.

(5-10)

Pressure Drop

According to Rich (1973), the air-side pressure drop can be divided into two

components, the pressure drop due to the tubes, ptubes, and the pressure drop due to the

fins, pfin. The work of Rich is used to evaluate the air-side pressure drop due to the fins,

which is expressed as

p fin = f fin v m

2

G max Afin

,

2 Ac

where, ffin is the fin friction factor, v m is the mean specific volume,

(5-11)

fin

area, and Ac is the minimum free-flow cross sectional area. In experimental tests, Rich

found that the friction factor is dependent on the Reynolds number, but it is independent

of the fin spacing for fin spacing between 3 and 14 fins per inch. In this range of fin

spacing, Rich expresses the fin friction factor as:

81

(5-12)

where the Reynolds number is based on the tube spacing parallel to the direction of the

air flow (transverse tube spacing), Xl,

Rel =

GX l

.

(5-13)

To determine the pressure drop over the tubes, the relationships developed by

Zukauskas and Ulinskas (1998) are used. The pressure drop over the banks of plain tubes

is expressed as:

p tubes = Eu

G2

z,

2

(5-14)

where z is the number of rows, and Eu is the Euler number. Rich expresses the Euler

number as a function of the Reynolds number and the tube geometry. For staggered,

equilateral triangle tube banks with several rows, Rich expresses the Euler number by a

fourth order inverse power series by the following:

82

Eu = q cst +

rcst

s

t

u

+ cst + cst +

2

3

Re D Re D Re D Re 4

D

(5-15)

where ReD is the Reynolds number based on the outer tube diameter. The coefficients

qcst, rcst, scon, tcst, and u are dependent on the Reynolds number and the parameter a,

which is defined as the ratio of the transverse tube spacing to the tube diameter. The

coefficients for a range of Reynolds numbers and spacing to diameter ratios have been

determined from experimental data by Zukauskas and Ulinskas (1998) and are expressed

in Table 5-1.

For non-equilateral triangle tube bank arrays, the staggered array geometry factor k 1

must be used as a correction factor to the coefficients in Table 5-1. The staggered arra

geometry factor is dependent on the Reynolds number based on: the outer tube diameter;

the parameter a, which again is defined as the ratio of the transverse tube spacing to the

tube diameter; and the parameter b, which is defined as the ratio of the tube spacing in

the direction normal to the air flow and the tube diameter. The equations for k 1 are found

in Table 5-2.

83

Table 5-1: Coefficients for the Euler Number Inverse Power Series

a

Reynolds Number

qcst

rcst

scst

tcst

0.795

0.247 x 103

0.335 x 103

-0.155 x 104

0.241 x 104

0.245

0.339 x 104

-0.984 x 107

0.132 x 1011

-0.599 x 1013

0.683

0.111 x 103

-0.973 x 102

0.426 x 103

-0.574 x 103

0.203

0.248 x 104

-0.758 x 107

0.104 x 1011

-0.482 x 1013

0.713

0.448 x 102

-0.126 x 103

-0.582 x 103

0.000

0.343

0.303 x 103

-0.717 x 105

0.880 x 107

-0.380 x 109

0.162

0.181 x 104

-0.792 x 108

-0.165 x 1013

0.872 x 1016

0.330

0.989 x 102

-0.148 x 105

0.192 x 107

0.862 x 108

0.119

0.848 x 104

-0.507 x 108

0.251 x 1012

-0.463 x 1015

1.25

1.5

2.0

2.5

84

ReD

a/b

102

103

104

105

106

k1

a

k1 = 0.93

b

a

k1 =

b

0.48

(5-16)

0.048

(5-17)

a

k1 = 0.951

b

k1 = 1.28

0.284

(5-18)

0.708

0.55

0.113

+

2

(a / b ) (a / b ) (a / b )3

a

a

k1 = 2.016 1.675 + 0.948

b

b

3

a

a

0.234 + 0.021

b

b

85

(5-19)

(5-20)

4

If the tube bank has a small number of transverse rows, the average row correction

factor, Cz, must be applied because the pressure drop over the first few rows will be

different from the pressure drop over the subsequent rows. Cz is the average of the

individual row correction factors, cz.

Cz =

1 z

cz

z z =1

(5-21)

The equations for the individual row correction factors are given in Table 5-3. Once

the average row correction factor is found, the corrected Euler number can be determined

as

86

(5-22)

ReD

cz

10

<3

cz = 1.065

0.18

z 0.297

(5-23)

102

<4

cz = 1.798

3.497

z + 1.273

(5-24)

103

<3

cz = 1.149

0.411

z 0.412

(5-25)

104

<3

cz = 0.924

0.269

z + 0.143

(5-26)

> 105

<4

cz = 0.62

1.467

z + 0.667

(5-27)

87

The corrected Euler factor, Eucor can then be used in equation (5-14) to determine the

pressure drop over the tubes. Since the relations in Table 5-1, Table 5-2, and Table 5-3,

are given for discrete values of the a parameter and the Reynolds number, a linear

interpolation is used to estimate the values of Eu, k1, and cz. The total pressure drop over

the heat exchanger is then simply the sum of the pressure drop over the tubes and the

pressure drop over the fins:

88

(5-28)

CHAPTER VI

In order to quantitatively evaluate the performance of any air-conditioning system, a

figure of merit must be established. For an air-conditioning system utilizing a vapor

compression refrigeration cycle, the efficiency is expressed in terms of the cooling

coefficient of performance or the COP. The coefficient of performance is a

dimensionless quantity. It is the ratio of the rate of cooling or refrigeration capacity (hea

absorbed by the evaporator), to the electrical or mechanical power used to drive the

system (compressor power, condenser fan power, and evaporator fan power). The COP

is expressed as:

COP =

Qe

Wcom + W f , con + W f , evap

89

(6-1)

often given in dimensional terms, Btu/(W-hr), as an energy efficiency ratio or EER.

Since 3.412 Btu = 1.0 W-hr, an EER rating of 10.0 would be equivalent to a COP o

10/3.412 or 2.93. The performance of an air-conditioning device over a summer is

referred to as the seasonal COP, or COP seas, in dimensionless terms. The seasonal COP

takes into account the effect of varying outside temperatures on the performance of the

system. It is the ratio of the average cooling load for the system during its normal usage

or cooling load hours to the average electricity required by the system over all cooling

load hours. Cooling load hours are defined as hours when the temperature is above 65

F, which is when air-conditioning systems are typically operated. In warmer climates,

there are more cooling load hours, per year than in cooler climates. In Atlanta, for

example, the total cooling load hours are approximately 1300 hours per year, while in

Detroit, MI the cooling hours are about 700 per year. The air-conditioning syste

actually runs fewer hours than the cooling load hours since at ambient temperatures

below 95 F, the system usually cycles on and off, as regulated by a thermostat. (The

cycling inefficiencies that result from the system cycling on and off are neglected in this

study.) The distribution of temperature during these cooling hours is approximately the

same for all major cities in the United States. Therefore, the Air-Conditioning

Refrigeration Institute, ARI, has developed a temperature distribution model based on

cooling load hours which is used throughout the United States. This is shown in Table 61 as the distribution of fractional hours in temperature bins (ARI, 1989). Table 6-1

shows for example that the outside temperature will be between 80 F and 84 F

90

Hours in Temperature Bins

Bin #

Bin Temperature

Ti, Representative

Range (F)

65-69

67

0.214

2

3

70-74

75-79

72

77

0.231

0.261

4

5

80-84

85-89

82

87

0.161

0.104

6

7

90-94

95-99

92

97

0.052

0.018

100-104

102

0.004

(temperature bin # 4) approximately 16.1% of the time that the ambient temperature is

above 65 F.

Again, the seasonal COP is therefore the ratio of the average cooling load for the

system over all cooling load hours to the average electricity required by the system over

all cooling load hours, and is expressed as:

COPseas =

Qave,seas

W ave, seas

91

(6-2)

The average cooling over all cooling load hours is calculated by summing the hourly

house cooling load over all cooling load hours, and is expressed as:

Qave, seas =

8

i =1

(6-3)

where UAhouse is the overall house heat transfer coefficient, i is the temperature bin

number, Ti is the representative temperature bin, and fr i is the fraction of total

temperature bin hours (as shown in Table 6-1). The average electricity required by the

system over all cooling load hours is expressed as:

UAhouse Ti 65 o F fri

Wave, seas =

,

COPi

i =1

92

(6-4)

house,

is common to both

expressions, dividing (6-3) by (6-4) yields the following expression for the seasonal

COP:

(Ti 65 o F )fri

8

COPseas =

i =1

8

i =1

(6-5)

(T 65 F)fr

o

COPi

The numerator of the above expression is a constant. Since the air-conditioning syste

of this study is sized to deliver a specified amount of cooling at 95 F ambient

temperature, the indoor temperature will rise when the ambient temperature is greater

than 95 F. As a result, the temperature difference of (Ti - 65F) is limited to a maximu

of 30 F for this study.

In dimensional terms, the seasonal COP can be given as the seasonal energ

efficiency ratio, or SEER, and is expressed in Btu/W-hr. This is the efficiency rating tha

is required by the United States Department of Energy to be placed on a yellow sticker on

all air-conditioning systems sold in the United States.

93

System Design

The primary focus of this study is the optimization of the condenser configuration.

However, some assumptions about the parameters of the complete air-conditioning

system must be made. Air-conditioning systems are characterized by their cooling

capacity at 95 F ambient temperature. The most common residential air-conditioning

systems sold in the United States have a cooling capacity rating of 30,000 Btu/hr (2 1/2

tons). Hence, for the air-conditioning system modeled in this study, the cooling capacity

at 95 F is fixed to 30,000 Btu/hr. It is also customary in most residential airconditioning applications to employ an evaporator that has a 45 F saturation

temperature. At this temperature, humidity control is maintained by removing sufficient

water vapor from the cooled air. Therefore the evaporator saturation temperature is fixed

at 45 F in this study. As discussed in Chapter III, the evaporator fan power and the

volume flow rate of air over the evaporator, are fixed to 365 Watts per 1000 ft 3/minute o

air flow respectively (equates to a constant fan power of 1245 Btu/hr).

Optimization Parameters

When designing and optimizing the condenser to yield the maximum seasonal COP

of the air conditioning system there are a large number of parameters that can be varied.

For this investigation, these optimization parameters have been divided into two

categories: operating parameters for the system, and geometric design parameters specific

to the condenser coil.

94

As part of the optimization process, comparisons are made between the seasona

performances of air-conditioning systems with condensers of various geometric

configurations (tube diameters, fin spacing, etc.). However, it is not possible to make

valid comparisons between different heat exchanger configurations without first

optimizing the operating parameters at each configuration to yield the maximum seasonal

COP. For example, it is erroneous to compare the performance of a system with a 3-row

condenser coil configuration in which the operating parameters have been optimized to

system with a 2-row condenser coil configuration in which the operating parameters have

not been optimized. No valid conclusions can be made about which configuration yields

the best performance unless the operating parameters are re-optimized for each new

geometric configuration tested. Therefore, in this study, the performance of each

configuration at its optimum operating conditions will be determined and compared.

Operating Parameters

The operating parameters of the system studied are the refrigerant charge, the ambien

temperature, the level of superheat exiting the evaporator, the amount of sub-cool exiting

the condenser, and the velocity of the air flowing over the condenser. For this study, the

level of superheat exiting the evaporator is fixed at a constant value of 10 F, which is

typically used in most residential air-conditioning systems, and required by the

compressor manufacturers to prevent liquid from returning to the compressor.

For this study, the air velocity over the condenser and the sub-cool in the condenser

are specified at 95 F. The resultant compressor piston displacement and mass o

95

refrigerant in the system (refrigerant charge) that yield 30,000 Btu/hr of cooling capacity

at 95 F are determined. The mass inventory at 95 F dictates the sub-cool at other

ambient temperatures. Hence, the air velocity over the condenser and the sub-cool in the

condenser at 95 F are the two operating parameters that are optimized for each

condenser geometric configuration investigated during this study. The method for

calculating the mass of refrigerant in the system (mass inventory) is detailed in Chapter

III.

Geometric Parameters

There are a large number of condenser coil geometric design parameters that can be

varied in order to optimize the seasonal performance of an air-conditioning system.

These parameters include the tube diameter, the tube spacing, the number of refrigerant

parallel flow circuits, the number of tubes per refrigerant parallel flow circuit, and the fin

spacing or pitch. For this study, the tube diameter, the number of refrigerant parallel flow

circuits, the number of tubes per refrigerant flow circuit, and the fin spacing will be

optimized. In all cases, the vertical and horizontal tube spacing are specified as 1 in. and

0.625 in., respectively. These values are typical of those found in condenser coils for

unitary air-conditioning systems. In Chapter III, Figure 3-2 shows a schematic of a

typical finned-tube condenser coil. In this figure, geometric parameters such as the tube

spacing, number of tube refrigerant flow circuits, number of tubes per refrigerant flow

circuit, and the number of rows of tubes are detailed.

96

Software Tools

For this study, all modeling and simulations are performed using Engineering

Equation Solver (EES). EES is a software package developed by Dr. Sanford Klein of

the University of Wisconsin. EES incorporates the programming structures of C and

FORTRAN with a built-in iterator, thermodynamic and transport property relations,

graphical capabilities, numerical integration, and many other useful mathematica

functions. By grouping equations that are to be solved simultaneously, EES is able to

rapidly solve large numbers of transcendental equations. EES can also be used to

perform parametric studies. Most important for this study, EES has the ability to

seamlessly incorporate fluid property calls. Thermodynamic transport properties for

steam, air, and many different refrigerants are built into EES.

97

CHAPTER VII

operating conditions and parameters. As detailed in Chapter VI, without optimizing the

operating conditions, it is not possible to determine the condenser configuration that

yields the optimum seasonal COP. Again, the operating parameters investigated for this

study are the air velocity over the condenser and the refrigerant charge measured by the

sub-cool in the condenser at 95 F ambient temperature. To determine the effects of the

various operating parameters on the seasonal COP, a typical evaporator and condenser

coil pair is arbitrarily selected for the base configuration. All of the characteristics o

the condenser are specified, and all but the frontal area of the evaporator are specified.

The dimensions of the heat exchangers are shown in Table 7-1.

Figure 7-1 shows the effect that the operating parameters of refrigerant charge (given

here in terms of the degrees of sub-cool at 95F ambient temperature) has on the frontal

area of the evaporator for the given design conditions and a fixed condenser geometry.

98

Dimension

Evaporator

Condenser

1.25 x 1.083

0.349

0.375

2.5

3

12

3

12

2

Tube inner diameter (in)

Tube outer diameter (in)

Height (ft

Finned width (ft)

Fin pitch (fin/in)

Number of rows

Number of circuits

Number of tubes per circuit

1.00 x 0.625

0.349

0.375

1.5

N/A

12

4

9

2

3.2

3.4

2.8

Tsubcool=5 F

Tsubcool=10 F

2.6

Tsubcool=15 F

Tsubcool = 20 F

2.4

2.2

2

5

10

11

12

13

14

15

99

As the figure shows, the necessary finned frontal area of the evaporator is virtually

independent of this operating parameter. The compressor piston displacement is

calculated such that at each design condition, the system will deliver an evaporator

capacity of 30,000 Btu/hr at 95 F ambient temperature. The mass inventory at 95 F

ambient temperature dictates the sub-cool at other ambient temperatures. Therefore, the

air velocity over the condenser and the sub-cool (refrigerant charge) are the operating

parameters optimized for each condenser geometric configuration investigated in this

study.

For a fixed amount of sub-cool at 95 F ambient temperature, there is an air velocity

that yields the maximum COP. Figure 7-2 shows the effect of air velocity on the COP for

various ambient temperatures at optimum degrees sub-cool. As the figure shows, the

COP has an optimum with respect to the air velocity for any ambient temperature. For

ambient temperatures ranging from

an air velocity between 8.0 ft/s and 9.0 ft/s for this sub-cool condition (15 F). For each

ambient temperature, in this range of velocities the COP is relatively insensitive to the air

velocity and varies by less than 1%. For example, at 77 F sub-cool, the maximum COP

is 4.31 and it occurs at an air velocity of 8.5 ft/s. Because the COP varies so little with

air velocity in the optimum range, it is difficult to determine the exact optimum velocity

for each sub-cool within an accuracy of more than 0.1 ft/s. However in actual practice,

100

4.90

COP

4.40

3.90

Locus of

Optimums

Tambient = 67 F

Tambient = 77 F

Tambient = 97 F

3.40

2.90

4

10

12

14

16

Figure 7-2: Effect of Air Velocity on COP for Various Ambient Temperatures and

Optimum Degrees Sub-Cool

101

the air speed cannot be specified to such high tolerances. Hence, the accuracy which is

indicated in this investigation is sufficient.

The above observations of the insensitivity of the COP to air velocity near the

optimum range may initially be counter intuitive. Since the condenser fan power

increases proportionally with the cube of the velocity, one does not expect the COP to

become insensitive to changes in the velocity. However, in this range of velocities, as the

condenser fan power requirement is increasing, the required compressor power is

decreasing by approximately the same amount. This phenomenon is demonstrated in

Figure 7-3, which shows the effect of the air velocity on the compressor power and the

condenser fan power at 95 F ambient temperatures and optimum sub-cool. As the air

velocity over the condenser increases, the condensing temperature decreases, and the

inlet enthalpy to the evaporator also increases. This causes a reduction of the mass flow

rate of refrigerant required to maintain the evaporator cooling capacity. Hence, the

amount of compressor work is decreased. The condensing temperature of the refrigeran

can never be lower than the inlet air temperature. Thus, there is a minimum power

requirement for the compressor. As the air velocity increases beyond the optimal

recommended range, the power required for the condenser fan begins to grow rapidly. At

this point, the decrease in the compressor power requirement will not compensate for this

increase in the condenser fan requirement, thus resulting in lower values of the seasonal

COP.

102

9000

8000

Power (Btu/hr)

7000

6000

5000

Total Power

Compressor Power

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

5

10

11

12

13

14

15

Figure 7-3: Effect of Air Velocity on Compressor and Condenser Fan Power 13 F

103

Figure 7-2 also shows that as the ambient temperature decreases, the COP increases.

This phenomenon is also displayed in Figure 7-4. This figure shows how the COP varies

with the ambient temperature for various sub-cool conditions. This phenomenon can be

explained by an analysis of the effects of ambient temperature on the condensing

temperature and pressure, the compressor power, and the evaporator cooling capacity.

As the ambient temperature decreases, the saturation pressure in the condenser also

decreases. Therefore, the pressure rise in the compressor decreases. As a result, the

compressor requires less power, and hence, the COP increases. Furthermore, as the

ambient temperature decreases, the condensing temperature decreases. Thus, the

enthalpy of the refrigerant entering the evaporator is reduced. The decrease in the

enthalpy of the refrigerant entering the evaporator that is produced by the decrease in the

ambient temperature causes the evaporator cooling capacity to increase. This decrease in

the enthalpy of the refrigerant entering the evaporator also causes a reduction of the mass

flow rate of refrigerant required to maintain the evaporator cooling capacity. Hence, the

amount of compressor work is decreased. Therefore, the ultimate result of decreasing the

ambient temperature is an increase in the COP of the system.

Figure 7-5 shows how evaporator capacity varies with ambient temperature. For the

reasons mentioned above, the figure shows that as the ambient temperature decreases, the

evaporator capacity increases. Unfortunately, this trend is the opposite of the trend in the

residential cooling requirements, which increase with ambient temperature.

104

5.50

5.00

4.50

Locus of Optimums

COP

4.00

3.50

3.00

Tambient=67 F

2.50

Tambient=82 F

2.00

Seasonal

Tambient=97 F

1.50

Tambient=102 F

1.00

0

10

15

20

25

Figure 7-4: Effect of Ambient Temperature on COP for Varying Degrees Sub-Cool

at 95 F Ambient Temperature with an Air Velocity Over the Condenser of 8.5 ft/s

105

5.00

4.50

COP

4.00

3.50

Tsubcool at 95 F =10

Tsubcool at 95 F =15

3.00

Tsubcool at 95 F =5

Tsubcool at 95 F = 20

2.50

2.00

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

Varying Degrees Sub-Cool at 95 F Ambient Temperature with at Optimum Air

Velocity

106

Figure 7-6 shows the effect that the refrigerant charge (sub-cool at 95 F ambient

temperature) has on the COP at various ambient temperatures at optimum air velocity

over the condenser. According to the figure, as the ambient temperature decreases the

optimum sub-cool at 95 F increases. As discussed in Chapter VI, the sub-cool is

specified at 95 F. The resultant mass of refrigerant in the system (refrigerant charge)

that yields 30,000 Btu/hr of cooling capacity at 95 F is determined, and the mass

inventory at 95 F dictates the sub-cool at other ambient temperatures. As noted earlier,

as the ambient temperature decreases, the condensing temperature also decreases, and the

enthalpy of the refrigerant entering the evaporator is reduced. As a result, the inle

quality is also lower and more of the refrigerant in the evaporator exists in the liquid

state. The total mass of refrigerant in the entire system is constant. Hence, as the

ambient temperature decreases, the mass of refrigerant in the evaporator increases and the

mass of refrigerant in the condenser decreases. When the mass of refrigerant in the

condenser decreases, the volume of the condenser that contains low density refrigerant

vapor increases and the volume of refrigerant in the condenser that contains higher

density sub-cooled liquid decreases, causing an overall decrease in the mass of the syste

(refrigerant charge). Thus it is possible for the mass of refrigerant in the condenser to

drop to very low levels such that complete condensation does not occur. In these

instances where the refrigerant is not completely condensed when it exits the condenser

107

33500

33000

32500

32000

31500

31000

Tsubcool at 95 F = 20

30500

Tsubcool at 95 F = 15

30000

Tsubcool at 95 F = 10

29500

29000

28500

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

10

10

Figure 7-6: Evaporator Capacity vs. Ambient Temperature for Various Sub-Cool

conditions at 95 F Ambient Temperature and Optimum Air Velocity

108

and enters the expansion valve, the valve goes to its wide open position, and a fixed

superheat cannot be maintained. This reduces the COP of the system. As a result, more

sub-cool at 95 F is needed to maintain some sub-cool at the lower ambient temperatures

(i.e. as the ambient temperature decreases, the degrees of sub-cool also decrease).

Figure 7-4 also shows that the seasonal COP is nearly identical to the COP that exist

at 82 F ambient temperature for a vast range of sub-cool conditions. This is due to the

relatively large seasonal weighting assigned to the 82 F ambient temperature. Ambien

temperatures at 82 F and below constitute more than 82% of the seasonal COP

weightings. Thus the performance of the system at these ambient temperatures greatly

influence the seasonal performance of the system.

Figure 7-7 shows the effect of air velocity on the seasonal COP at varying sub-cool

conditions. As the figure shows, the COP varies quadratically with the air velocity for

any sub-cool condition. For sub-cools ranging from 5 F to 30 F, the maximum seasonal

COP occurs at an air velocity between 7.5 ft/s and 10.0 ft/s. This figure also shows that

the maximum seasonal COP occurs at a sub-cool between 10 F and 15 F, while the

minimum seasonal COP occurs at a sub-cool of 20 F.

109

4.05

4.00

3.95

Seasonal COP

3.90

3.85

3.80

3.75

3.70

Tsub-cool at 95 F = 15

3.65

Tsub-cool at 95 F = 10

Tsub-cool at 95 F = 5

3.60

Tsub-cool at 95 F = 20

3.55

3.50

4

10

12

14

16

Figure 7-7: Effect of Air Velocity on the Seasonal COP for Varying Sub-cool

Conditions

110

Based on the results discussed in this chapter, it is clear that there is a range of

operating parameters that yield the optimum performance for the base configuration

system. It is determined that systems with between 10 F and 16 F degrees sub-cool in

the condenser and air flowing over the condenser with velocities ranging from 6 ft/s and

12 ft/s will yield the optimum seasonal COP for the base configuration investigated in

this study.

As the sub-cool and the air velocity over the condenser are varied for a fixed

condenser geometric configuration, the cost of the entire system is affected. This is

because the size and cost of the condenser fan are also assumed to vary with changes in

the operating conditions. This varying condenser fan and compressor equipment cos

analysis is beyond the scope of this study, however the variation of these costs is not

expected to be large. Therefore, only the condenser cost of materials is considered in this

study. However, the designer should be aware of the effects of these factors on syste

costs.

111

CHAPTER VIII

CONDENSER COIL COST

The two most pertinent constraints on condenser design are its costs and space

requirements (frontal area). It is not possible to maintain a fixed condenser frontal area

and a fixed condenser cost while varying only one geometric design parameter. Yet, it i

very difficult to isolate the effects of individual geometric design parameters while

simultaneously varying more than one. The condenser frontal area is the dominant

geometric design variable, since it determines the volume of the entire system. Hence,

for this study, two distinct investigations of the condenser geometric design effects are

considered: (1) effects of geometric design changes with fixed condenser cost, and (2)

effects of geometric design changes with fixed condenser frontal area. Each, geometric

design parameter is isolated and varied while the others are maintained at the values of

the base configuration. After an analysis of these results, the geometric parameters

having the greatest effect on the COP are varied simultaneously in the appropriate

combinations to yield a more nearly absolute optimum configuration. In this chapter, the

112

cost of the condenser is fixed while the condenser frontal area is allowed to vary for each

of the configurations investigated.

In order to compare the frontal area of each condenser configuration investigated, an

area factor, defined as the ratio of the frontal area of the test configuration to that of the

base configuration (detailed in Chapter VII) is given by the following.

.

AF =

Frontal Area

Frontal Areabase

(8-1)

To compare the relative cost of each condenser and evaporator configuration a cost

factor, defined as the ratio of the cost of the test configuration to that of the base

configuration (detailed in Chapter VII) is given by the following.

CF =

Cost

Costbase

113

(8-2)

The cost of the heat exchanger is determined primarily by the cost of materials. Hence

the cost of each heat exchanger configuration is defined as:

Cost = (VolCu , cond + VolCu , evap ) Cu CostCu + (Vol Al , cond + Vol Al , evap ) Al Cost Al

(8-3)

where Vol is the volume of the component, x is the density of the x material, and Cost x

is the cost per lbm of the x material. The costs of the heat exchanger materials per lbm

are summarized in Table 8-1.

Material

Copper

Aluminum

Cost ($/lbm)

0.8

0.7

The material cost of the base condenser configuration is $26.00. The optimum

compressor piston displacement, and thus the compressor size, will change with each

condenser configuration. For the vast majority of reasonable operating conditions, the

114

compressor piston displacement varies 3% from the optimum configuration to the base

case configuration. Therefore, the cost of the compressor will not be considered for this

investigation.

The number of rows of condenser tubing, which dictates the condenser coil depth, is

the first geometric design parameter studied. For this investigation, the height of the

condenser remained constant while the width of the condenser was free to vary. The

number of tubes per circuit, the fin spacing, the tube diameter, and the tube spacing were

fixed to the values of the base configuration. Figure 8-1 shows the effect of the number

of rows of condenser tubing on the optimum seasonal COP at the optimum air velocity

over the condenser and varying degrees sub-cool at

F ambient temperature.

One would expect that a heat exchanger with only one long row of tubes and no tube

bends, providing the largest heat exchanger frontal area possible, would yield the best

performance. This prediction is verified by Figure 8-1, which shows that as the number

of rows of tubes decreases, the seasonal COP increases. This is because decreasing the

number of rows of tubing also decreases the number of tube bends. Hence the frictional

losses in the tubes and the required compressor work are also reduced, increasing the

seasonal COP. The difference between the temperature of the refrigerant flowing inside

the condenser tubes and the temperature of the air flowing over the condenser tubes is

115

4.30

4.25

4.20

Seasonal COP

4.15

4.10

4.05

4.00

3.95

15 degreees sub-cool at 95 F

3.90

10 degreees sub-cool at 95 F

3.85

20 degreees sub-cool at 95 F

3.80

0

Figure 8-1: Effect of Number of Rows on the Seasonal COP at Optimum Air

Velocity and Varying Sub-Cool for Fixed Cost of Condenser Materials

116

also maximized by using only one row of tubes. This also results in a decrease in

compressor power, further contributing to increasing the COP. This reduction in

compressor power and refrigerant-side pressure drop is shown in Figure 8-2.

While decreasing the number of rows produces an increase in the seasonal COP, it

also causes an increase in the frontal area of the condenser. Figure 8-3 shows the effec

of the number of rows of tubes on the frontal area. As the number of rows is decreased

from 4 to 1, where the seasonal COP is the maximum, the frontal area of the condenser

nearly quadruples from approximately 5.9 ft2 to 23.2 ft 2. A condenser that has a frontal

area of 23.2 ft2 is generally not feasible in most residential air-conditioning applications.

Therefore, when determining the number of rows of tubes, one must make a tradeoff

between space constraints and optimum performance when the cost of the configuration

is fixed.

Although the main cause of the increased seasonal COP with decreased number of

tube rows (decreased coil depth) is the decrease in compressor power, there is also a

decrease in condenser fan power with a decreased number of tube rows. Figure 8-4

shows the effect of the number of tube rows on the condenser fan power and the air-side

pressure drop. The figure shows that the air-side pressure drop also decreases as the

number of tube rows decreases. In fact, the decrease in the condenser fan power is due to

the reduction in air-side pressure drop, which results from a decrease in the depth of the

air passage produced by using fewer tube rows.

117

6500

20

19

Compressor Power

6400

18

6300

17

6200

16

6100

15

6000

14

5900

13

5800

12

5700

6600

11

0

Pressure Drop at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condense

Material Cost at 82 F Ambient Temperature

118

25

20

15

10

0

0

Fixed Condenser Material Cost at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

119

300

0.007

0.006

250

0.005

200

0.004

150

0.003

100

0.002

Condenser Fan Power

50

350

0.001

0

0

Figure 8-4: Effect of Number of Rows of Tubes on Condenser Fan Power and

Airside Pressure Drop for Fixed Condenser Material Cost at 82 F Ambient

120

The number of rows of condenser tubes also effects the optimum operating

parameters such as the air velocity over the condenser. Figure 8-5 displays the effect o

air velocity over the condenser on the optimum seasonal COP for varying number o

rows. The figure shows that as the number of rows increases, the optimum air velocit

increases. For example, for a condenser configuration utilizing only 1 row of tubes, the

optimum seasonal COP occurs at an air velocity of approximately 7.0 ft/s. However for a

deeper condenser configuration utilizing 4 rows of tubes, the optimum seasonal COP

occurs at an air velocity of approximately 9.0 ft/s. The increase in optimal air velocity

coupled with the increase in air-side pressure drop shown in Figure 8-4 causes the fan

power to more than double as the number of rows is increased from 1 to 4.

Figure 8-6 shows the effect of the number of rows on the optimum air velocity and

optimum volumetric flow rate of air over the condenser. This figure shows that while the

optimum air velocity increases as the number of rows increases, the optimum volumetric

flow rate of air over the condenser decreases.

121

4.35

4.30

4.25

Seasonal COP

4.20

4.15

Locus of

Optimums

4.10

4.05

4.00

3.95

1 row

3.90

2 rows

3 rows

3.85

4 rows

3.80

5

10

11

12

13

14

Figure 8-5: Effect of Air Velocity on Seasonal COP for Varying Number of Rows at

Optimum Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

122

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

8000

9000

10

2000

1000

(ft/s)

10000

0

0

Figure 8-6: Effect of Number of Rows on the Optimum Air Velocity and

Volumetric Flow Rate of Air Over the Condenser at Optimum Sub-Cool for Fixed

Condenser Material Cost

123

Another condenser geometric design parameter that has an effect on system

performance is the tube circuiting. Varying the number of condenser tubes per circui

does not affect either the cost factor or the configuration or the frontal area of the

condenser. For this investigation, the number of rows, the tube diameter, the tube

spacing, and fin spacing were fixed to the values used for the base configuration. While

varying the number of tubes per circuit, the number of circuits was also varied in order to

maintain a nearly constant height to width ratio of approximately 0.83. The refrigeran

flow circuit configurations investigated for this study are summarized in Table 8-2. Each

configuration was tested for air velocities ranging from 6 ft/s to 13 ft/s and sub-cools

ranging from

for every configuration tested occurs within this selected range of operating conditions.

Number of

Condenser Width

Circuits

(ft)

12

3.0

3.0

3.0

2.9

Tubes/Circuit

124

Figure 8-7 shows the effect of the number of tubes per circuit on the optimum

seasonal COP based on the optimum operating conditions for each configuration. The

figure shows that the maximum seasonal COP occurs when the refrigerant flow is divided

among 3 tubes. However, the seasonal COP for the optimal configuration is only

approximately 2.0 % greater than that of the base configuration (2 tubes per circuit), 0.2

% greater than a configuration utilizing 4 tubes per circuit, and 0.6 % greater than a

configuration with five tubes per circuit. Hence, in the range of optimum operating

conditions, the seasonal COP is relatively insensitive to variations in the number of tubes

per circuit.

The improved seasonal COP that occurs when the tubes per circuit increases from 2

to 3 results from the decrease in refrigerant pressure drop which tends to reduce the

required compressor power. The decrease in pressure drop occurs because as the number

of tubes per circuit increases, the mass flow of refrigerant through each individual tube

decreases. This decrease in the amount of mass flowing in each tube leads to a decrease

in the pressure drop through each tube. Figure 8-8 shows how the refrigerant-side

pressure drop varies with changes in the number of tubes per circuit at an ambient

temperature of 82 F for the optimum operating conditions for each configuration. As the

figure shows, the refrigerant-side pressure drop does indeed decrease with an increased

number of tubes per circuit. However, increasing the number of tubes per circuit also

causes the refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient to decrease, which has a negative

effect on the seasonal COP. Therefore, two competing effects are at work. At a certain

point, the decrease in the refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient that results fro

125

4.16

4.15

Seasonal COP

4.14

4.13

4.12

4.11

4.10

4.09

4.08

1

Figure 8-7: Seasonal COP vs. Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting at Optimum

Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

126

18

16

14

12

Total

10

Straight Pipe

Bends

8

6

4

2

0

1

Ambient Temperature and at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed

Condenser Material Cost

127

increasing the number of tubes per circuit has a larger effect than the resulting decrease in

the refrigerant-side pressure drop. As a result, the seasonal COP begins to decrease as

the number of tubes per circuit increases. According to Figure 8-7, this point occurs

when the number of tubes per circuit is increased from 3 to 4.

While the total refrigerant-side pressure drop decreases with an increase in the

number of tubes per circuit, the percentage of the total pressure drop due to tube bends

actually increases considerably. This is because the actual number of bends is increased

by increasing the number of parallel flow passages. The refrigerant-side pressure drop

distribution between the straight tube and the tube bends at an ambient temperature of

82 F for various condenser tube circuit configurations is shown in Table 8-3.

Tubes

per

Circuit

Bend

Pressure

Drop

(psia)

Straight Pipe

Pressure Drop

(psia)

5.40

11.2

16.6

32.5 %

1.70

3.32

5.02

33.9 %

0.77

1.31

2.08

37.0 %

0.41

0.44

0.85

48.2 %

128

Total Pressure

Drop

(psia)

% of Total

Pressure Drop

Due To Bends

The condenser fin pitch is another geometric design parameter considered for this

study. To investigate the effect of condenser tube fin pitch on system performance for a

fixed heat exchanger cost factor, the tube size, tube spacing, circuiting, and number o

rows were fixed to the values of the base configuration. For this study, the syste

performance was calculated for fin pitches ranging from 8 fins per inch to 14 fins per

inch (fpi). With the cost of the condenser materials fixed, varying the fin pitch involves a

compromise between purchasing more aluminum fins versus purchasing more copper

tubing.

Figure 8-9 shows the variation of seasonal COP with air velocity for various fin pitch

values at optimal sub-cool conditions for each configuration (15 sub-cool at 95 F for

every case). As the figure shows, the optimum velocity for every fin pitch configuration

occurs between 8 ft/s and 9 ft/s. Thus, according to these results, the fin spacing has very

little affect on the seasonal COP or the optimal operating conditions. The optimu

seasonal COPs and area factors for varying fin pitch at fixed heat exchanger cost ar

shown in Table 8-4. Figure 8-10 shows a graphical demonstration of the effect of the fin

pitch on the optimum seasonal COP that is documented in Table 8-4.

Table 8-4 and Figure 8-10 also show that as the number of fins per inch increases

from 8 fins per inch to 10 fins per inch, the seasonal COP increases slightly from 4.10 to

4.11. However, as the fin pitch increases from 10 fins per inch to 14 fins per inch, the

seasonal COP decreases steadily from 4.11 to 4.08. It might be expected that increasing

129

4.15

4.10

4.05

Seasonal COP

4.00

3.95

3.90

8 fins per inch

3.85

10 fins per inch

3.80

14 fins per inch

3.75

3.70

4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Figure 8-9: Seasonal COP vs. Air Velocity for Varying Fin Pitch at Fixed

Condenser Material Cost and Optimum Sub-Cool

Table 8-4: Seasonal COP and Area Factors for Varying Fin Pitch at Optimum Air

Velocity and Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

Fin Pitch (fpi)

Area Factor

4.10

1.30

10

4.11

1.15

12

14

4.09

4.08

1.00

0.93

130

4.12

Seasonal COP

4.11

4.10

4.09

4.08

4.07

4.06

6

10

12

14

16

Figure 8-10: Effect of Fin Pitch on the Seasonal COP at Optimum Sub-Cool and

Air Velocity Over the Condenser for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

131

the fins per inch should decrease the power requirements of the compressor and thus

increase the seasonal COP. However, as the fin spacing becomes smaller, the air-side

pressure drop also increases thus increasing the required power for the condenser fan.

This phenomenon is displayed in Figure 8-11, which shows the air-side pressure drop

versus the fin pitch at optimal operating conditions. At a certain plateau, the fin spacing

becomes too small and produces a pressure drop so large that the resultant increase in

condenser fan power is more than the decrease in the compressor power requirement.

Hence, the seasonal COP is lower.

Figure 8-12 shows how the power requirements of the condenser fan and the

compressor vary with the fin pitch at the maximum seasonal COP. The figure shows

that, as expected, the condenser fan power requirement increases with increasing fin

pitch. Figure 8-12 also shows that as the fin pitch increases from eight fins per inch to

ten fins per inch, the compressor power decreases from 7440 Btu/hr to approximatel

7400 Btu/hr at the maximum seasonal COP of each configuration. However, this figure

appears to contradict the theoretical prediction of decreased compressor power with

increased fin pitch since as the fin pitch increases from ten fins per inch to fourteen fins

per inch, the compressor power increases from approximately 7400 Btu/hr to 7420

Btu/hr. While this increase is a very small percentage of the total power requirement, it is

still surprising given the theoretical prediction. One possible explanation for this result

can be found in an analysis of the optimal operating conditions yielding the maximu

seasonal COP. The optimum seasonal COP occurs at a slightly different air velocity for

each configuration. The compressor power requirement steadily decreases with increased

132

0.0050

0.0045

0.0040

0.0035

0.0030

0.0025

0.0020

7

10

11

12

13

14

15

Figure 8-11: Air-side Pressure Drop vs. Fin Pitch for Fixed Condenser Material

Cost at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity at 95 F Ambient Temperature

133

7450

350

300

7400

250

7350

200

7300

150

Compressor Power

Condenser Fan Power

7250

100

7200

7500

50

7

10

11

12

13

14

15

Figure 8-12: Power Requirements vs. Fin Pitch for Fixed Cost at Optimum SubCool and Air Velocity and 95 F Ambient Temperature

134

air velocity over the condenser while conversely the condenser fan work steadily

increases with increased air velocity. The maximum COP for each fin pitch

configuration occurs where the combined power requirement for the condenser fan and

the compressor is at a minimum. For fixed cost of condenser materials, as the number o

fins per inch increases, the air-side heat transfer area increases thus causing a decrease in

the compressor power and an increase in the seasonal COP. However increasing the fin

pitch also reduces the refrigerant-side heat transfer area, since for fixed cost, the fronta

area decreases with increasing fin pitch. Therefore, two competing effects are at work.

When the fin pitch is increased from 8 to 10, the effect of the increase in the air-side hea

transfer area is larger than the effect of the decrease in the refrigerant-side heat transfer

area. Therefore, the compressor power is decreased, producing an increase in the

seasonal COP. However when the fin pitch is further increased from 10 to 12, the effec

of the reduction in the refrigerant-side heat transfer area is larger than the effect of the

increase in the air-side heat transfer area. Hence, the compressor power begins to

increase, thus causing the seasonal COP to decrease.

While the fin pitch has very little effect on the seasonal COP it does affect another

important aspect of heat exchanger design, the frontal area. Figure 8-13 shows the effec

of the fin pitch on the condenser frontal area. The figure shows that as the fin pitch is

increased, the frontal area decreases. This is due to the fixed material cost constrain

requiring less tubing with increasing fin pitch. This trend can also be seen in Table 8-4,

which shows that increasing the fin pitch causes a decrease in the area factor. Thus, if the

135

10.00

9.50

9.00

8.50

8.00

7.50

7.00

6.50

6.00

6

10

12

14

16

Figure 8-13: Effect of Fin Pitch on Condenser Frontal Area at Optimum Sub-Cool

and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

136

designers primary goal is for a more compact heat exchanger, a larger fin pitch should be

utilized. Again, the fin pitch has very little effect on the optimal operating conditions and

the seasonal COP; thus using the maximum fin pitch would create a compact hea

exchanger without significantly sacrificing performance.

Yet another geometric design parameter studied in this work is the condenser tube

diameter. The tube sizes considered for this study are taken from the AAON Heating and

Refrigeration Products specifications (www.aaon.co . AAON Heating and AirConditioning Products web site). The dimensions of the tubes investigated are

summarized in Table 8-5. For this investigation, the number of rows, number of tubes

per circuit and number of fins per inch were all maintained at the values used in the base

configuration.

Figure 8-14 shows how the optimum seasonal COP is affected by the tube diameter.

For all sub-cool conditions in the recommended range of 10 F to 20 F at 95 F ambient

temperature, utilizing tubes of 5/8 outer diameter yields unreasonably low condensing

temperatures inside the tubes for the resultant frontal area at the given fixed hea

exchanger cost.

137

Table 8-5: Condenser Tube Dimensions (www.aaon.com. AAOP Heating and AirConditioning Products web site)

Outside

Diameter (in.)

Inside

Diameter (in.)

Wall Thickness

(in.)

0.3125

0.3005

0.0120

0.3750

0.3630

0.0120

0.5000

0.4840

0.0160

0.6250

0.6170

0.0180

4.12

4.08

Seasonal COP

4.04

4.00

3.96

3.92

3.88

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

Figure 8-14: Optimum Seasonal COP for Varying Tube Diameter at Optimum SubCool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

138

Tubes of this size also greatly deteriorate the system performance, and thus are not

considered in this discussion of the effect of tube size at fixed heat exchanger cost. As

Figure 8-14 shows, the optimum seasonal COP occurs with a tube diameter of 3/8. The

optimum seasonal COP of 4.09 is exactly equal to the optimum value for the base

configuration.

While varying the tube circuiting and the fin spacing has very little effect on the

optimal operating conditions, varying the tube diameter does indeed have a significan

effect. Figure 8-15 shows the effect of the tube diameter on the optimum air velocity

over the condenser and the optimum sub-cool conditions. As the figure shows, the

optimum air velocity increases continuously with tube diameter. However the optimu

sub-cool has a distinct minimum which exists at a tube size of 3/8. The optimu

seasonal COP, area factor, and operating conditions for each tube size investigated are

shown in Table 8-6. The decreasing frontal area with increasing tube diameter is a result

of the fixed condenser material cost constraint. As both Table 8-6 and Figure 8-15

demonstrate, the optimum air velocity varies with changes in tube diameter.

The length of condenser tubing allocated to the superheated, saturated, and subcooled portions of the condenser is also affected by the tube diameter, as shown in Figure

8-16. The figure shows that as the tube diameter increases from 5/16 to 5/8, the

condenser allocation for the superheated and the saturated portions of the condenser tube

increases steadily while that of the sub-cooled portion decreases steadily. The portion o

139

15

11

10

14

13

8

Subcool

Air Velocity

12

16

11

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

6

9/16

Figure 8-15: Optimum Operating Parameters for Varying Tube Diameters at Fixed

Condenser Material Cost

140

Table 8-6: Optimum Seasonal COPs and Area Factors for Varying Tube Diameters

Outer Tube

Optimum

Diameter (in) Seasonal COP

Optimum Air

Velocity (ft/s)

Optimum Degrees

Sub-cool (F)

Area

Factor

5/16

3.91

8.0

15

1.13

3/8

4.09

8.5

15

1.00

1/2

3.99

10.0

15

0.82

0.8

0.7

Condenser Allocation

0.6

0.5

Saturated

Subcooled

0.4

Superheated

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

Figure 8-16: Condenser Tube Length Allocation for Varying Tube Diameters at

Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool and 82 F Ambient Temperature for Fixed

Condenser Material Cost

141

the condenser allocated to the sub-cooled and superheated portions is nearly identical a

the optimum tube diameter of 3/8. The amount of tube length allocated to each portion

of the condenser will have an effect on the refrigerant pressure drop, which in turn affects

the compressor power required. Figure 8-17 shows the effect of the tube diameter on the

refrigerant-side pressure drop at optimum operating conditions and 82 F ambient

temperature. As the figure shows, the refrigerant-side pressure drop decreases as the tube

diameter increases.

Figure 8-18 shows the effect of the tube diameter on the power required for the

condenser fan and the compressor for the optimum seasonal COP at each tube diameter.

As the figure shows, the compressor power required is a minimum at the optimum tube

diameter 3/8. Again, the optimum seasonal COP occurs where the total power required

by the condenser fan and the compressor is at a minimum. Just as with the fin spacing,

the minimum power required varies as the tube diameter varies. While the total power

required at the optimum steadily decreases with increased tube diameter, the required

compressor power reaches a minimum at a tube diameter of 3/8 and then increases when

the tube diameter increases to 1/2.

142

45

40

35

Total

saturated

30

superheated

25

subcooled

20

15

10

5

0

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

Figure 8-17: Effect of Tube Diameter on Pressure Drop at Optimum Sub-Cool and

Air Velocity at 82 F Ambient Temperature for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

143

7900

(Btu/hr)

800

700

7800

600

7700

500

7600

400

7500

300

Total Power

7400

200

Compressor Power

7300

7200

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

8000

100

0

9/16

Figure 8-18: Power Requirements for the Condenser Fan and the Compressor vs.

Tube Diameter at Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser

Material Cost and 82 F Ambient Temperature

144

Operating Costs

The operating costs for the air-conditioning system are inversely proportional to the

seasonal COP (1/COP operating cost). In this study, an operating cost factor is defined

as: 1/COP = operating cost factor. Figure 8-19 shows how the operating cost factor

varies with the area factor for all of the geometric parameters investigated for this study.

According to the figure, decreasing the number of rows from the base configuration value

of 3 rows to 1 row produces the largest decrease in operating costs. In fact, the lowes

operating cost occurs when 1 row of tubing is used. However, the frontal area for this

configuration is more than 3 times that of the base configuration. The frontal area for the

2-row configuration is 50% greater than that of the base configuration. Hence

configurations utilizing 2 and 3 rows of tubing generally may not be feasible at a fixed

condenser material cost factor when space constraints are of concern. In this space

constrained situation, the configuration using 3 rows of tubing will yield the best

performance and lowest operating cost with the most reasonable frontal area.

Once configurations of 1, 2, and 4 rows of tubes are eliminated, Figure 8-19 shows

that the two geometric parameters having the most significant effect on the operating cos

of the complete air-conditioning system are the tube diameter and the number of tubes

per circuit. The figure shows that when only 2 tubes per circuit are used, as in the base

configuration, the optimum tube diameter is 3/8 with fixed heat exchanger cost.

However, the figure also shows that for a tube diameter of 3/8, and 3 rows of tubing, the

lowest operating cost occurs for a condenser configuration utilizing 3 tubes per circuit.

The initial investigations outlined throughout this chapter did not test the effect of tube

145

0.258

Base configuration:

12 Fins Per Inch (FPI)

5/16"

0.254

Tube

Diameter

1/2"

0.250

3 Rows

4 rows

3/8" Diameter

0.246

14 FPI

Base

Case

0.242

10 FPI

Tube Diameter

8 FPI

5 TPC

Fin Pitch

4 TPC

3 TPC

Number of Rows

Tubes per Circui

0.238

2 rows

0.234

1 row

0.230

0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Area Factor

Figure 8-19: Operating Costs vs. Area Factor For Various Geometric Parameter

at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity with Fixed Condenser Material Cost

146

diameter on the system performance when tube circuiting other than the base

configuration of 2 tubes per circuit is utilized. From an analysis of the figure, it is

obvious that an examination of this effect is warranted.

While Figure 8-19 shows that for fixed heat exchanger cost, a configuration with a

5/16 tube diameter yields the highest operating cost and the worst performance, this tube

diameter was only investigated for the base case configuration of 2 tubes per circuit.

When the number of tubes per circuit is increased, the amount of mass of refrigerant

flowing through each individual tube is decreased. Therefore, tubes of smaller diameter

can be utilized without degrading system performance. Employing a smaller diameter

tube does not greatly increase the frontal area with fixed condenser material cost since the

resultant area factor is only 1.13. Furthermore, increasing the number of tubes per circuit

has no affect on the frontal area.

As a result of the above analysis, the effect of the number of tubes per circuit on the

system performance was investigated, for a configuration utilizing a tube diameter of

5/16, 3 rows of tubes, and 12 fins per inch. Although Figure 8-10 shows that the

optimum fin pitch is 10 fins per inch for the base case configuration, Figure 8-19 shows

that the fin pitch has virtually no effect on the optimum system operating cost and system

performance. In fact, both Figure 8-10 and Figure 8-19 show that there is very littl

difference in the optimum seasonal COP (minimum operating cost) for a range of 8 fins

per inch to 12 fins per inch. Therefore since there is very little difference in the operating

cost for the varying fin pitch, a configuration employing 12 fins per inch was used in this

supplemental investigation of the effect of tubes circuiting with tubes of 3/8 and 5/16

147

diameter. A configuration of 12 fins per inch will yield an area factor of unity while stil

providing a near optimum seasonal COP (lowest operating cost).

Figure 8-20 shows the effect of the number of tubes per circuit on the optimum

seasonal COP for a condenser configuration with a tube diameter of 5/16 with a fixed

cost factor. The figure shows that for a tube diameter of 5/16, as the number of tubes

per circuit increases from 2 to 4, the optimum seasonal COP increases by approximately

8% from approximately 3.91 to 4.22. As the number of tubes per circuit increases from 4

to 5, the optimum seasonal COP increases from 4.22 to a maximum of 4.23. The

optimum seasonal COP then decreases to 4.21 when the number of tubes per circuit

increases from 5 to 6. The explanations for this trend are the same as for the trends

discussed earlier in this chapter under the section entitled Varying Condenser Tube

Circuiting. As discussed in that section, the improved seasonal COP that occurs when

the tubes per circuit increases from 2 to 5 results from the decrease in the refrigeran

pressure drop having a larger effect on increasing the COP than the decrease in the

refrigerant-side heat transfer has on decreasing the COP.

Figure 8-21 shows the optimum seasonal COP versus the number of tubes per circuit

for the both 3/8 tube diameter configuration (base configuration) and the 5/16 tube

diameter configuration. As the figure shows, the optimum seasonal COPs achieved for

condensers using a 5/16 diameter tube are higher than those with a 3/8 diameter tube.

For a condenser with a tube diameter of 3/8, the optimum seasonal COP occurs when 3

tubes per circuit is used. However, when the diameter is decreased to 5/16, the optimu

148

4.25

4.20

Seasonal COP

4.15

4.10

4.05

4.00

3 rows of tubes

12 fins per inch

3.95

3.90

3.85

1

Figure 8-20: Seasonal COP at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Varying

Condenser Tube Circuiting with Fixed Condenser Material Cost and 5/16 Tube

Outer Diameter

149

4.25

4.20

Seasonal COP

4.15

4.10

4.05

3/8" Outer Tube Diameter

4.00

3.95

3 rows of tubes

12 fins per inch

3.90

3.85

1

Figure 8-21: Comparison of the Effect of the Number of Tubes per Circuit on

Seasonal COP for 5/16 and 3/8 Outer Tube Diameters at Optimum Sub-Cool and

Air Velocity with Fixed Condenser Material Cost

150

seasonal COP occurs when 5 tubes per circuit are used. When the number of tubes per

circuit is the value used for the base configuration (2 tubes per circuit), a tube diameter of

3/8 yields a slightly higher optimum seasonal COP than a 5/16 diameter tube.

Conversely, when the tubes per circuit are increased, configurations with a tube diameter

of 5/16 yield the highest seasonal COP. The optimum seasonal COP for the 5/16 tube

diameter configuration is 4.23, which is approximately 2% greater than the optimum

seasonal COP for the 3/8 diameter tube configuration that has a value of 4.15.

Therefore, when the cost factor of the heat exchanger configuration is fixed, a condenser

with an outer tube diameter of 5/16, 5 tubes per circuit, 3 rows of tubes, and 12 fins per

inch yields the highest seasonal COP (lowest operating cost) with the most reasonable

frontal area.

151

CHAPTER IX

CONDENSER FRONTAL AREA

The effects of varying the number of rows, the number of tubes per circuit, the tube

diameter, and the fin pitch while keeping the heat exchanger costs constant wer

presented in the previous chapter. While producing changes in performance, varying

these parameters (with the exception of the tubes per circuit) also produces changes in the

frontal area of the condenser since it is allowed to vary freely. However, as discussed

earlier, the residential air-conditioning system designer encounters space constraints tha

prevent the use of a heat exchanger with a large frontal area. In this chapter, the effects

of varying the number of rows, the tube diameter, and the fin pitch for fixed frontal area

with variable cost will be investigated.

152

Varying the depth of the coil by changing the number of rows of condenser tubing

with fixed frontal area is the first geometric design parameter investigation considered for

this part of the study. The number of tubes per circuit, fin spacing, tube diameter, frontal

area, and tube spacing are all fixed to the values of the base configuration. Figure 9-1

shows the effect of the air velocity on the seasonal COP for varying numbers of rows

with optimum sub-cool at 95 F ambient temperature. According to the figure, for much

of the range of air velocities shown, the optimum seasonal COP occurs for configurations

utilizing 3 rows of tubes. The figure also shows that as the number of rows decreases, the

optimum air velocity increases. This trend is summarized in Table 9-1, which shows the

optimum operating conditions for each row configuration. Figure 9-2 shows the effect o

the number of rows on the seasonal COP at optimum operating conditions. This figure

reinforces the trends observed in Figure 9-1, and again shows that the maximum seasonal

COP occurs when 3 rows of tubes are employed.

As shown in the Table 9-1, the maximum seasonal COP occurs when 3 rows of tubes

are utilized with 15 F sub-cool at

ft/s. The seasonal COP while showing a major increase when the number of rows i

increased from 2 rows to 3 rows, actually shows a slight decrease when the number o

rows is further increased from 3 to 4. Continuing to increase the number of rows of tubes

also further increases the heat transfer area. Hence, intuitively one might assume that the

seasonal COP would also continue to increase. However as both Figure 9-1 and Table 91 have shown this is not the case.

153

4.15

4.10

4.05

Seasonal COP

4.00

3.95

Locus

of

Optimums

3.90

3.85

3.80

3 rows

3.75

4 rows

2 rows

3.70

3.65

5

10

11

12

13

14

Figure 9-1: Effect of Air Velocity Over Condenser for Varying Numbers of Rows at

Optimum Sub-Cool with Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

Table 9-1: Optimum Operating Conditions for Varying Number of Rows with

Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

Number of

Rows

Seasonal

COP

Cost Factor

Air Velocity

(ft/s)

Degrees Sub-coo

at 95 F ( F)

3.98

0.75

11.0

13

4.09

1.00

8.5

15

4.07

1.32

7.0

13

154

4.10

4.08

Seasonal COP

4.06

4.04

4.02

4.00

3.98

3.96

1

Figure 9-2: Effect of the Number of Rows of Tubes on the Seasonal COP at

Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

155

As the number of rows of tubes increases, the depth of the condenser increases and

both the refrigerant-side and air-side heat transfer areas increase. However, increasing

the number of rows also increases the refrigerant flow path, as well as the air flow path

(deeper coil), thus increasing both the refrigerant-side and air-side pressure drops. The

increase in the refrigerant-side pressure drop with increasing number of rows is shown in

Figure 9-3. Therefore, two competing effects are at work. As the number of rows is

increased from 2 to 3, the increase in the overall heat transfer area has a larger effect on

the seasonal COP than the resultant increase in the in the pressure drop, hence the

seasonal COP increases. Figure 9-4 displays the compressor and condenser fan power

versus the number of rows, and shows that the compressor power decreases when the

number of rows is increased from 2 to 3. Again, this is because the increase in the overall

heat transfer area has a larger effect on the seasonal COP than the increase in pressure

drop. However, when the number of rows is increased from 3 to 4, the resultant increase

in the pressure drop has a larger effect on the seasonal COP than the increase in the

overall heat transfer area, thus the seasonal COP decreases. Figure 9-4 shows that as the

number of rows is increased from 3 to 4, the compressor power actually increases, thus

confirming the aforementioned trend.

156

25

20

15

Total

Straight Tube

10

Bends

0

1

Figure 9-3: Refrigerant-Side Pressure Drop vs. Number of Rows with Fixed

Condenser Frontal Area for Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity at 82 F Ambient

Temperature

157

5975

350

325

5950

300

5925

275

5900

250

5875

225

Compressor Power

5850

6000

200

5825

175

1

Figure 9-4: Compressor and Condenser Fan Power for Varying Number of Rows

with Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity at 82 F Ambient Temperature for Fixed

158

The next geometric design parameter varied while fixing the condenser frontal area is

the fin pitch. The frontal area, tube diameter, number of rows, number of tubes per

circuit and the tube spacing are all fixed to the values of the base configuration. Figure 95 shows the effect of air velocity on the seasonal COP for varying fin pitch with optimu

sub-cool at 95 F ambient temperature. As the figure shows, varying the fin pitch has a

small affect on the optimum seasonal COP when keeping the frontal area of the

condenser fixed (optimums range from 4.00 to 4.10). According to the figure, the

recommended range of operation is between air velocities of 8.0 ft/s and 11.0 ft/s. The

optimum air velocity increases from 8.0 ft/s to 10.5 ft/s as the fin pitch decreases from 14

fins per inch to 8 fins per inch.

Figure 9-6 shows the effect of the fin pitch on the seasonal COP at optimum air

velocity and sub-cool. The figure shows that the optimum seasonal COP increases as the

number of fins per inch increases. However, the increase in the optimum seasonal COP

is only approximately 2.5 % when the number of fins per inch increases form 8 to 14.

Thus the fin pitch has only a small on the optimum seasonal COP when the frontal area

of the condenser is fixed. Varying the fin pitch also has very little affect on the optimum

sub-cool conditions. However, unlike the case in the previous chapter where the hea

exchanger cost is fixed, varying the fin pitch does have a significant affect on the

optimum air velocity over the condenser when the frontal area of the condenser is fixed.

159

4.20

4.10

Seasonal COP

4.00

Locus of

Optimums

3.90

3.80

3.70

10 fins per inch

3.60

3.50

4

10

12

14

16

Figure 9-5: Effect of Air Velocity on Seasonal COP for Varying Fin Pitch with

Optimum Sub-Cool for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

160

4.12

4.10

Seasonal COP

4.08

4.06

4.04

4.02

4.00

3.98

6

10

12

14

16

Figure 9-6: Effect of Fin Pitch on the Seasonal COP at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air

Velocity for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

161

As is demonstrated in Figure 9-5, at a fin pitch of 8 fins per inch the optimum air velocity

is approximately 10.5 ft/s. Yet when the fin itch increases to 14 fins per inch, the

optimum air velocity decreases to 8.0 ft/s.

Using condenser designs with more fins per inch yields better performance. The

maximum variation in the optimum seasonal COP as the fin pitch is varied from 8 fins

per inch to 14 fins per inch is approximately 2.0 %. For this improvement in the seasona

COP, the cost of this configuration increases by approximately 41% as shown in Table 92. This table shows the cost factor, optimum operating conditions, and the optimum

seasonal COP for varying fin pitch with fixed condenser frontal area.

Table 9-2: Optimum Operating Conditions and Cost Factor for Varying Fin Pitch

with Fixed Frontal Area

Optimum Sub-cool a

95 F ambient

Temperature (95 F)

15

10

15

9.5

4.05

0.89

12

15

8.5

4.09

1.00

14

15

8.0

4.10

1.10

Fin

Pitch

Optimum Air

Velocity (ft/s)

Optimum

Seasonal COP

Cost

Factor

10.5

4.00

0.78

162

As the fin pitch increases, the airside pressure drop over the fins also increases. When

the frontal area of the condenser is fixed, the increased pressure drop due to increasing fin

pitch is transferred directly to the fan power, causing it to increase as well. However, the

compressor fan power required decreases by approximately the same amount as the fan

power increases. Thus, the phenomenon of increased airside pressure drop resulting fro

increased fin pitch does not cause the seasonal COP to decrease.

The final geometric parameter varied with fixed condenser frontal area is the tube

diameter. The frontal area, the number of rows, the fin pitch, the tube spacing and the

number of tubes per circuit are all maintained at the values utilized for the base

configuration. Figure 9-7 shows the effect of the air velocity on the seasonal COP for

various tube diameters at optimum sub-cool. According to the figure, the absolute

maximum seasonal COP is 4.11 and occurs at a tube diameter of 1/2. Conversely, in the

previous chapter is was found that for fixed heat exchanger cost and variable frontal area,

the maximum seasonal COP is 4.09 and occurs for a tube diameter of 3/8. Figure 9-8

shows how the seasonal COP varies with the tube diameter at optimum operating

conditions. Figure 9-8 only reinforces the trends displayed in Figure 9-7. The seasonal

COP increases by approximately 5.4 % from 3.88 to 4.09 as the tube diameter is

increased from 5/16 to 3/8. The seasonal COP then increases by only 0.5% from 4.09

163

4.20

Seasonal COP

4.10

4.00

Locus of

Optimums

3.90

3.80

3/8" tube diameter

3.70

5/16" tube diameter

3.60

5

10

11

12

13

14

Figure 9-7: Effect of Air Velocity For Varying Tube Diameter at Optimum SubCool for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area

164

4.15

Seasonal COP

4.10

4.05

4.00

3.95

3.90

3.85

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

5/8

11/16

Figure 9-8: Effect of Tube Diameter on the Seasonal COP for Fixed Condenser

Frontal Area at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

165

to 4.11 when the tube diameter increases from 3/8 to 1/2. When the diameter is further

increased from 1/2 to 5/8, the optimum seasonal COP decreases by only 2.8 % fro

4.11 to 4.00. These results, along with the optimum operating conditions and cost factors

for varying tube diameters, are shown in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3: Optimum Operating Conditions and Cost Factor For Varying Tube

Diameters with Fixed Frontal Area

Tube

Diameter

(in)

5/16

Optimum Sub-coo

at 95 F ambient

Temperature (95 F)

15

Optimum

Air Velocity

(ft/s)

8.5

3/8

15

1/2

5/8

Optimum

Seasonal COP

Cost

Factor

3.88

0.92

8.5

4.09

1.00

15

8.5

4.11

1.20

15

8.0

4.00

1.59

Increasing the tube diameter has a large impact on many physical phenomena in the

system. Increasing the tube diameter causes a decrease in the refrigerant-side pressure

drop and an increase in the refrigerant-side heat transfer area. Both of these phenomena

have a positive impact on the seasonal COP. However, increasing the tube diameter also

reduces the minimum air flow area, producing an increase in the air drag. As a result, the

166

air-side pressure drop increases, and the condenser fan power also steadily increases.

These phenomena have a negative impact on the COP. Hence, there are competing

negative phenomena and positive phenomena at work. According to Figure 9-8, when

the tube diameter is increased from 5/16 to 1/2, the increase in the COP that results

from the reduction in the refrigerant-side pressure drop and the increase in the

refrigerant-side heat transfer area is larger than the reduction in the COP that results from

the increased air-side pressure drop and increased condenser fan power. Thus, as Figure

9-8 shows, the seasonal COP increases when the diameter is increased from 5/16 to

1/2. Figure 9-9 shows the refrigerant-side pressure drop versus tube diameter at

optimum sub-cool and air velocity. According to Figure 9-9, when the tube diameter is

increased from 5/16 to 1/2, the refrigerant-side pressure drop decreases significantly.

Figure 9-10 shows the power requirements of the compressor and the condenser fan

versus the tube diameter at optimum sub-cool and air velocity. The figure shows that the

reduction in the refrigerant-side pressure drop is indeed large enough to produce a

decrease in the compressor power as the tube diameter is increased from 5/16 to 1/2,

while the condenser fan power increases steadily.

Conversely, when the tube diameter is further increased from 1/2 to 5/8, the

reduction in the COP that results from the increased air-side pressure drop and increased

condenser fan power is larger than the increase in the COP that results from the decrease

in the refrigerant-side pressure drop and the increase in the refrigerant-side heat transfer

area. Therefore, when the diameter is increased from 1/2 to 5/8, the seasonal COP

167

40

35

30

25

Total

Straight Tube

20

Bends

15

10

5

0

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

5/8

11/16

Figure 9-9: Refrigerant-Side Pressure vs. Tube Diameter for Fixed Frontal Area at

82 F Ambient Temperature, Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

168

6700

1000

900

Compressor Power (Fixed Area)

6500

800

6400

700

6300

600

6200

500

6100

400

6000

300

5900

200

5800

6600

100

5700

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

5/8

0

11/16

Figure 9-10: Power Requirements for Varying Tube Diameters with Fixed

Condenser Frontal Area at 82 F Ambient Temperature, Optimum Sub-Cool and

Air Velocity

169

decreases, as shown in Figure 9-8. The increase in the air-side pressure drop tha

accompanies an increase in the tube diameter is displayed in Figure 9-11. Figure 9-10

shows that when the tube diameter is increased from 1/2 to 5/8, the compressor power

actually increases. Moreover, Table 9-3 shows that when the tube diameter is increased

from 1/2 to 5//8, the optimum air velocity decreases in an effort to reduce the increase

in the fan power that results from the increased drag. The reduction in the optimum airvelocity results in a decrease in the effective temperature difference between the

refrigerant and the air. Therefore, the reduction in the minimum air flow area coupled

with the decrease in the effective refrigerant-to-air temperature difference produces a

decrease in the air-side heat transfer coefficient. Hence, the negative effects on the

seasonal COP become even larger.

Operating Costs

As discussed in the previous chapter, the operating cost of the air-conditioning system

is inversely proportional to the seasonal COP (1/COP operating cost). In this study, an

operating cost factor is defined as: 1/COP = operating cost factor. Figure 9-12 shows

how the operating cost factor, varies with the condenser material cost factor with fixed

frontal area for all of the geometric parameters investigated for this study. According to

the figure, when the frontal area of the condenser is fixed, the lowest operating cost i

achieved when a configuration utilizing 3 rows of tubes, with tube of diameter 3/8, a fin

170

0.008

Total (Fixed Area)

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0

1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

5/8

11/16

Figure 9-11: Air-Side Pressure Drop vs. Tube Diameter for Fixed Condenser

Frontal Area at 82 F Ambient Temperature, Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool

171

0.260

Base Configuration

12 Fins Per Inch (FPI)

0.258

Tube Diameter

5/16"

Number of Rows

2 Tubes per Circuit (TPC)

0.256

0.254

Fin Pitch

Tube

Diameter

3 Rows

0.252

2 rows

5/8"

0.250

8 FPI

0.248

10 FPI

0.246

4 rows

Base Configuration

0.244

14 FPI

5 TPC

0.242

1/2"

4 TPC

3 TPC

0.240

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 9-12: Operating Cost Factor vs. Cost Factor of Condenser Materials for

Varying Geometric Parameters with Fixed Condenser Frontal Area and Optimum

Air Velocity and Sub-Cool

172

pitch of 12 fins per inch, and employing 3 tubes per circuit. This configuration has a cost

factor of unity, and thus cost the same as that of the base configuration.

Figure 9-12 also shows that, unlike in Chapter VIII where the cost factor of the hea

exchangers is fixed, when the frontal area is fixed the lowest operating cost occurs when

3 rows of tubes are used. Increasing the number of rows to 4 actually increases both the

coil material cost and the operating cost factor. Although there is a relatively significant

2.3% decrease in operating cost when the fin pitch decreases from 8 fins per inch to 12

fins per inch, there is only a 0.2% decrease in the operating cost when the fin pitch is

further decreased to 14 fins per inch. A configuration using 14 fins per inch yields lower

operating costs than do those employing fewer fins per inch. However, the material cos

factor of this configuration is 1.1, which is 10% greater than the base case configuration

(12 fins per inch). Therefore, when the frontal area of the condenser is fixed, it is

recommended that a fin pitch of 12 fins per inch be employed.

It can also be discerned from Figure 9-12 that the tube diameter and the number o

tubes per circuit have a significant effect on the operating cost of the complete airconditioning system. Figure 9-12 shows that when only 2 tubes per circuit are used, as in

the base configuration, the optimum tube diameter is 1/2 with fixed heat exchanger cost.

However, the figure also shows that for a tube diameter of 3/8 and 3 rows of tubes, the

lowest operating cost occurs for a condenser configuration utilizing 3 tubes per circuit.

The initial investigations outlined throughout this chapter did not examine the effect of

tube diameter on the system performance when tube circuiting other than the base

173

obvious that an examination of this effect is warranted.

While Figure 9-12 shows that for fixed heat exchanger cost, a configuration with a

5/16 tube diameter yields the highest operating cost, and the worst performance.

However, this tube diameter was only tested for the base case configuration of 2 tubes per

circuit. This low performance is related to the higher refrigerant-side pressure drop tha

results when a tube diameter this small is employed with only 2 tubes per refrigerant flow

circuits. Increasing the number of tubes per circuit should relieve the detrimental effec

of the higher refrigerant-side pressure drop. When the number of tubes per circuit is

increased, the amount of mass of refrigerant flowing through each individual tube is

decreased. Therefore, tubes of smaller diameter can be utilized without degrading syste

performance. Employing a 5/16 diameter tube with the frontal area of the condenser

fixed actually reduces the cost factor to 0.92. Furthermore, increasing the number o

tubes per circuit has no effect on the frontal area. Therefore, configurations with smaller

diameter tubes and a greater number of tubes per circuit do not increase the cost o

materials for the total system when the frontal area of the heat exchangers is fixed. As a

result of the above analysis, the effect of the number of tubes per circuit on the system

performance will be investigated, for a configuration utilizing a tube diameter of 5/16, 3

rows of tubes, and 12 fins per inch.

Figure 9-13 shows the effect of the number of tubes per circuit on the seasonal COP

at optimum operating conditions for a heat exchanger configuration with a tube diameter

174

4.20

4.15

Seasonal COP

4.10

4.05

4.00

3 rows of tubes

12 fins per inch

3.95

3.90

3.85

1

Figure 9-13: Seasonal COP for Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting with Fixed

Frontal Area and 5/16 Tube Outer Diameter at Optimum Sub-Cool and Ai

Velocity

175

of 5/16 with a fixed cost factor. The figure shows that for a tube diameter of 5/16, as

the number of tubes per circuit increases from 2 to 4, the seasonal COP increases by

approximately 7.2% from approximately 3.88 to 4.16. As the number of tubes per circuit

increases from 4 to 5, the optimum seasonal COP increases from 4.16 to a maximum o

4.17. The optimum seasonal COP then decreases to 4.14 when the number of tubes per

circuit increases from 5 to 6.

The explanations for the aforementioned trends in the optimum seasonal COP with

varying number of tubes per circuit are the same as for the trends discussed earlier in

Chapter VIII under the section entitled Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting. As

discussed in that section, the improved seasonal COP that occurs when the tubes per

circuit increases from 2 to 5 results from the decrease in refrigerant pressure drop which

reduces the required compressor power. The decrease in pressure drop occurs because,

as the number of tubes per circuit increases, the amount of mass of refrigerant through

each individual tube decreases. This decrease in the amount of mass flowing in each tube

leads to a decrease in the refrigerant-side pressure drop through each tube, which has a

positive effect on the seasonal COP. However increasing the number of tubes per circuit

also decreases the refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient, which has a negative effect on

the seasonal COP. For the 5/16 diameter tube configuration, when the number of tubes

per circuit is increased from 2 to 5, the positive effect of the reduced refrigerant-side

pressure drop has a larger impact on the seasonal COP than the negative effect of the

decreased refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient. Thus the seasonal COP increases.

However, when the tubes per circuit is increased from 5 to 6 for the 5/16 tube

176

configuration, the decreased refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient has a larger effec

on the seasonal COP than the decreased refrigerant-side pressure drop, and the seasonal

COP decreases. Hence, there is a certain plateau at which the number of tubes per circuit

cannot increase without causing a decrease in system performance. For a condenser with

a tube diameter of 3/8, this occurs when 3 tubes per circuit are used. However when the

tube diameter is decreased to 5/16, this plateau occurs at a configuration utilizing 5

tubes per circuit.

Figure 9-14 shows the optimum seasonal COP versu s the number of tubes per circui

for the both 3/8 tube diameter configuration (base configuration) and the 5/16 tube

diameter configuration with fixed condenser frontal area. As the figure shows, the values

of the optimum seasonal COP achieved for condensers using a 5/16 diameter tube are

slightly higher than those with a 3/8 diameter tube. For a condenser with a tube

diameter of 3/8, the optimum seasonal COP is 4.15 and occurs when 3 tubes per circuit

is used. However, when the diameter is decreased to 5/16, the optimum seasonal COP is

4.17 and occurs when 5 tubes per circuit are used. Thus, the optimum seasonal COP

obtained when using tubes of 5/16 diameter is 0.5 % higher than the optimum obtained

using tubes of 3/8 diameter.

When the number of tubes per circuit is the value used for the base configuration (2

tubes per circuit), a condenser using tubes of diameter of 3/8 yields a much higher

optimum seasonal COP, COP = 4.09, than a condenser using tubes of diameter 5/16,

COP = 3.88. Conversely, when the number of tubes per circuit is increased,

177

4.20

4.15

Seasonal COP

4.10

4.05

4.00

3.95

3.90

3 rows of tubes

12 fins per inch

3.85

1

Figure 9-14: Comparison of the Effect of the Number of Tubes per Circuit on th

Seasonal COP for 5/16 and 3/8 Outer Tube Diameters with Fixed Frontal Area at

Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

178

configurations utilizing tubes of 5/16 diameter yield the highest seasonal COP.

Furthermore, the cost factor of a configuration utilizing tubes of diameter 5/16 and 5

tubes per circuit, 0.92, is 8.0% lower than the 1.0 cost factor obtained when condenser

tubes of 3/8 diameter are employed. Figure 9-15 shows the operating cost versus the

material cost factor for varying tube circuiting and tube diameter. Only the tube

circuiting of the base configuration, 2 tubes per circuit, is utilized for tube diameters o

1/2 and 5/8. As shown in Figure 9-15, condensers with tube diameters of 1/2 and 5/8

have not only significantly higher material cost factors but also higher operating cost than

condensers employing tubes of 5/16 and 1/2 diameter. Therefore, when the frontal area

of the heat exchanger is fixed to the area of the base configuration (7.5 ft 2), a condenser

with an outer tube diameter of 5/16, 5 tubes per circuit, 3 rows of tubes, and 12 fins per

inch yields the highest seasonal COP (lowest operating cost) of all configurations

investigated in this study, and has the most reasonable heat exchanger material cost (cost

factor lower than the base configuration).

As discussed in Chapter VIII, the frontal area of the base heat condenser

configuration, 7.5 f 2, has been selected as a value typically found in most residential airconditioning systems rated at 30,000 Btu/hr. In many instances, there are space

constraints and/or material cost constraints imposed on the heat exchanger designer that

179

0.260

3/8" Tube Diameter

2 tpc

0.256

5/8" Tube Diameter

0.252

2 tpc

0.248

2 tpc

0.244

6 tpc

4 tpc

0.240

2 tpc

5 tpc

4 tpc

3 tpc

5 tpc

0.236

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 9-15: Operating Cost Factor vs. Condenser Material Cost Factor for

Varying Tube Diameter and Tube circuiting at Optimum Air Velocity and Sub-Cool

180

restrict the size of the condenser and consequently sacrificing performance. In these

situations, the frontal area of the condenser may have to be even smaller and/or cheaper

than that of the base configuration used in this study. However, there are also examples

in which space and material cost constraints are not stringent, and a larger and/or more

expensive condenser can be employed to produce a lower operating cost (or higher

seasonal COP). Yet, as shown in Figure 9-13, the cost of materials can be increased or

decreased in a number of ways including: increasing the number of rows, increasing the

fin pitch, increasing the tube diameter, or by simply increasing the frontal area. Hence,

two hypothetical questions arise from this: (1) If the material cost of the condenser must

be reduced by a specified amount, what geometric parameter or dimension should be

reduced to ensure that only a minimum increase in the operating cost results? (2) If the

cost of materials is allowed to increase by a specified amount, what geometric parameter

or dimension should be increased in order to produce the maximum decrease in the

operating cost?

As discussed earlier, Figure 9-15 shows that condenser configurations employing

tube diameters of 1/2 and 5/16 do not yield the best system performance. Therefore in

addressing the two hypothetical questions posed above, tube diameters of this size are not

studied. Figure 9-16 shows the operating cost factor versus the material cost factor for

varying fin pitch and varying numbers of rows for the base configuration. This figure

also shows the operating cost of the condenser configuration utilizing 5/16 diameter

tubes, 5 tubes per circuit, 3 rows of tubes, and 12 fins per inch for 3 condenser frontal

areas: (1) frontal area equal to the base configuration, (2) frontal area 20% lower than the

181

0.256

Fin Pitch

0.252

20% smaller frontal area

Number of Rows

2 rows

8 FPI

0.248

10 FPI

4 rows

0.244

14 FP

5/16"

diameter

0.240

Base

Configuration

Base Configuration

12 Fins PerInch (FPI)

0.236

0.232

3 Rows

3/8" Diameter Tube

0.228

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Figure 9-16: Operating Cost Factor vs. Condenser Material Cost Factor for

Varying Geometric Parameters and Various Fixed Frontal Areas at Optimum Air

Velocity and Sub-Cool

182

base configuration, and frontal area 20% greater than the base configuration. An

investigation of the slopes of the curves in this figure is needed to discern the best

methods to vary the frontal area in order to achieve reductions in the material cost or the

operating cost.

In question (1), the material cost of the condenser is to be reduced by a specified

amount. The three methods considered for reducing the material cost are: reducing the

number of rows, reducing the fin pitch, and reducing the frontal area. According to

Figure 9-16, decreasing the fin pitch from the base configuration value of 12 fins per inch

to 8 fins per inch produces a smaller increase in operating cost than decreasing either the

number of rows or decreasing the frontal area. The slope of the line of row variation is

smaller than the slopes for frontal area variation and fin pitch variation in the direction of

decreasing material cost.

In question (2), the material cost of the condenser is allowed to increase by a

specified amount in order to reduce the operating cost. Again, the three methods

considered for increasing the material cost are: increasing the number of rows, increasing

the fin pitch, and increasing the frontal area. According to Figure 9-16, increasing the

frontal area, produces the largest reduction in the operating cost. The slope of the line o

frontal area variation is negative in the direction of increased material cost. The slope of

the line of fin pitch variation is also negative in the direction of increased material cost.

However, increasing the fin pitch produces only a slight decrease in the operating cost.

Conversely, increasing the number of rows actually increases the operating cost for the

183

base configuration detailed in the figure. Therefore, increasing the material cost in this

manner is a lose-lose proposition in that no reduction in the operating cost results.

While the above analysis attempts to address the two hypothetical questions posed in

regards to methods of increasing and decreasing material cost, the questions have not

been universally answered by the work of this study. As indicated in the figure, the

frontal area was varied only for the configuration optimized with fixed frontal area

configuration (5/16 diameter tubes, 5 tubes per circuit, 3 rows of tubes, and 12 fins per

inch). For the reasons detailed in the section of this chapter entitled Operating Costs,

the number of rows and the fin pitch were varied only for the base configuration (3/8

diameter tubes, 2 tubes per circuit, 3 rows of tubes, and 12 fins per inch). Therefore in

the above discussion it is assumed that the slopes of the lines of varying fin pitch and

varying number of rows will be the same regardless of tube diameter and tube circuiting

in order to address the hypothetical questions posed in this study.

184

CHAPTER X

Conclusions

Refrigerant R-410a is one of the primary candidates to replace refrigerant R-22 in

residential heat pump and air-conditioning applications. As a result of this current study,

many conclusions can be drawn regarding the design of a fin-and-tube condenser coil for

a unitary air-conditioning system with refrigerant R-410a as the working fluid. A

computational model that determines the seasonal COP of an air-conditioning system for

various operating conditions and geometric configurations of the condenser is also used.

In addition, a methodology is detailed for optimizing the condenser design using the

seasonal COP of the system as the figure of merit. While the primary objectives of this

work are not to perform detailed economic analyses, the system operating cost factor and

the capital cost factor for the heat exchanger materials are both considered when detailing

the selection of the best design. Design guidelines taking into account space constraints

have also been given. It is concluded that selecting the final optimum configuration

depends on the constraints imposed upon the heat exchanger designer. If the space

constraints are stringent, then the base condenser configuration for the system

185

investigated with the frontal area of the condenser fixed is the optimum (5/16 tube

diameter, 5 tubes per circuit, 3 rows of tubes, 12 fins per inch, 7.5 ft 2 frontal area).

However, if the space constraints are not stringent, and a higher seasonal COP is the

primary goal, then the condenser configuration for the system optimized with the cost o

heat exchanger materials fixed may be preferred (5/16 tube diameter, 5 tubes per circuit,

3 rows of tubes, 12 fins per inch, 8.5 ft 2 frontal area). Hence, more information about the

space and economic constraints imposed on the designer is required before the bes

condenser configuration of those investigated in this study can be selected.

As discussed in previous chapters, due to the impending ban of refrigerant R-22

production there is a pressing need for studies on air-conditioning systems that utilize

alternative refrigerants. Therefore, in this current study comparisons are made between

the condenser configurations and seasonal performance of air-conditioning systems

designed using refrigerant R-410a as the working fluid (this current study) to systems

designed using refrigerant R-22 as the working fluid. A thesis entitled Optimization of

Finned-Tube Condenser for a Residential Air-Conditioner Using R-22 by Emma Saddler

(Saddler, 2000), details the design methodology for an air-conditioning system with

refrigerant R-22 as the working fluid. The base configuration condenser, as well as the

component and property models used in Saddlers study are similar to those used in this

current work. Likewise, the geometric and operating parameters varied in Saddlers

optimization are also similar to those of this current study.

According to Saddlers results, the R-22 air-conditioning system designed with the

frontal area of the condenser fixed has a maximum seasonal COP of 4.18, 13 degrees of

186

sub-cool in the condenser, and an air velocity of 8.3 ft/s over the condenser with the

following geometric parameters: a frontal area of 7.5 ft 2, 4 rows of tubes, 6 tubes per

circuit, tubes that are 5/16 in diameter, and 12 fins per inch. The major differences

between the geometric and operating parameters of this system and those of the R-410a

system designed with the fixed condenser frontal area constraint are the number of rows,

and the tube circuiting. The maximum seasonal COP for the R-22 system designed with

the fixed condenser frontal area constraint is approximately 0.2% greater than the

maximum seasonal COP for the comparable R-410a system.

With a fixed heat exchanger cost constraint identical to that used in this current study,

Saddlers results show that the R-22 air-conditioning system has a maximum seasonal

COP of 4.22. For this maximum seasonal COP design, the R-22 system has 10 degrees

of sub-cool in the condenser, and an air velocity of 8.3 ft/s over the condenser with the

following geometric parameters: a frontal area of 10.6 ft 2, 3 rows of tubes, 6 tubes per

circuit, 5/16 tube diameter, and 8 fins per inch. The major differences between the

geometric and operating parameters of this system and those of the R-410a system

optimized with the fixed heat exchanger cost constraint are the tube circuiting, and the fin

pitch. The maximum seasonal COP for the R-22 system designed with the fixed cost

constraint is approximately 0.2% lower than the maximum seasonal COP for the

comparable R-410a system.

Because the seasonal COP of the R-22 systems and the R-410a systems optimized

with both the fixed material cost and fixed frontal area constraints are nearly identical

(vary within 0.3%), the estimated operating costs of both systems are also roughl

187

equivalent. In addition, for both the R-22 and R-410a air-conditioning systems, the best

performing condenser configurations investigated utilize the smallest tube diameter

examined in both studies (tube diameter = 5/16).

It is expected that the best performing condenser configurations investigated for the

R-410a air-conditioning system would require fewer tubes per circuit than the best

condenser configurations investigated for the R-22 air-conditioning system. This is

because the working pressure and the vapor phase density for R-410a are much higher

than for R-22. Based on the results of both this current work and Saddlers thesis, this

expected trend has been confirmed.

The results of this study confirm the viability of refrigerant R-410a as a replacemen

for refrigerant R-22 in vapor compression air-conditioning systems similar to those

investigated in this work. The R-410a systems have seasonal performance and operating

costs equivalent to those of the R-22 systems designed with the same frontal area and

material cost constraints. Therefore environmental safety is achieved without sacrificing

cost and performance.

List of Conclusions

The specific conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:

performance. The United States Department of Energy regulations require a seasonal

188

temperatures ranging from

questionable. However, the United States Department of Energy regulations require

all residential air-conditioning systems to be labeled with this rating.

by calculating the systems performance at 82 F ambient temperature.

When packaging and space constraints are not present, the condenser configuration

with the largest frontal area possible yields the best system performance.

When typical volume and space constraints are imposed, condensers employing 3

rows of tubes yield the best performance. Contrary to intuition, increasing the

number of rows to 4 actually increases the material cost of the coil and decreases the

system performance when space constraints are imposed.

10 and 15 degrees sub-cool at 95 F ambient temperature produces the optimu

performance.

189

For all geometric configurations investigated, the optimum velocity of air flow over

the condenser coil ranges from roughly 6 ft/s and 12 ft/s.

is needed to produce the highest COP increases.

If the material cost of the condenser must be reduced, decreasing the fin pitch from

the base configuration value of 12 fins per inch to 8 fins per inch produces a smaller

increase in operating cost than decreasing either the number of rows or the frontal

area.

frontal area produces the largest reduction in the operating cost. However, increasing

the number of rows or the fin pitch actually increases the operating cost for the base

configuration detailed in the figure. Therefore, increasing the material cost in this

manner is a lose-lose proposition, in that no reduction in the operating cost results.

All parameters that do not affect material cost of the condenser, such as the operating

parameters and the tube circuiting, should be optimized for every geometric

configuration investigated before the performance of different systems is compared.

190

Recommendations

Optimization Parameters and Methodology

Again, a principal goal of this study was to provide heat exchanger designers with

guidelines for optimizing a condenser with the alternative refrigerant R-410a as the

working fluid using the seasonal COP of the air-conditioning system as the figure of

merit. Perhaps the most salient lesson learned during this study is the significant effec

that the operating conditions have on the system performance, and subsequently the

optimization process. The operating parameters examined in this study include the subcool in the condenser and the velocity of airflow over the condenser. It is of the utmost

importance that heat exchanger designers be aware that it is not possible to make valid

comparisons between heat exchangers of different geometric configurations without first

optimizing the operating parameters at each configuration to yield the maximum seasonal

COP. Therefore, in all future studies of this kind, it is recommended that the operating

parameters continue to be optimized at each geometric configuration in a manner similar

to the method detailed in this study.

Varying the sub-cool in the condenser and the air velocity over the condenser does

not significantly alter the frontal area or the material cost of the heat exchanger. During

this study, it has also been determined that varying the number of tubes per refrigeran

flow parallel circuits also does not alter the cost of materials or the frontal area of the hea

exchanger. However, as discussed in Chapter VIII and Chapter IX, the refrigerant flow

tube circuiting does have a major effect on the optimum seasonal COP, and hence, the

optimum design. Therefore, for future optimization studies of this kind, it is

191

recommended that in addition to the operating conditions, the condenser tube circuiting

should also be optimized at each geometric configuration investigated. For example, in

order make a valid comparison between a system using a condenser with 2 rows of tubes

to one using 3 rows of tubes, the optimum air velocity, the optimum degrees sub-cool in

the condenser, and the optimum tube circuiting arrangement should be determined for

both systems.

The spacing of the tubes in the condenser during this investigation is the standard

recommended for condensers by most heat exchanger manufacturers. However, it is

possible that this spacing is not the optimum spacing. The tube spacing affects the

efficiency of the fins. The closer the tube spacing, the higher the fin efficiency, and

hence a higher air-side heat transfer coefficient is produced. As a result, it is

recommended that the tube spacing be varied and optimized for future studies of this

kind.

Due to the limitations of the air-side pressure drop and heat transfer models,

condensers utilizing tubes of diameter smaller than 5/16 have not been investigated in

this study. As stated previously, for the air-conditioning systems investigated in this

study, the optimum condenser configurations utilize the smallest tube diameter

investigated, 5/16. It is therefore recommended that condensers with tubes of 1/4 outer

diameter be included in future optimization studies, since it is possible that even better

performance can be achieved. As a result, air-side pressure drop and heat transfer models

that are valid for tubes of smaller outer diameter must be used.

192

Computational Methods

For this study, all modeling computations were performed using Engineering

Equation Solver (EES) operating on a 250 MHz Intel Pentium II processor. The

optimization parameters analyzed in this study included the sub-cool in the condenser,

the air velocity over the condenser, the number of rows of tubes, the refrigerant tube

circuiting, the fin pitch, and the tube diameter. A breakdown of the computational time

involved to determine the effects of these various parameters on the system performance

is as follows:

For this study, in order to calculate the seasonal COP at one condenser geometri

configuration and with the operating parameters specified (1 run), 5 minutes o

computational time was needed: 5 minutes/run

Determining the optimum air velocity at one sub-cool condition at one geometric

configuration required a minimum of 12 runs: 12 runs/ velocity

required 12 runs: 12 runs/ sub-coo

Therefore calculating the seasonal COP for one condenser geometric configuration

required:

193

of run time to determine the optimum sub-cool and air velocity for one geometric

configuration of the condenser.

circuiting

Design constraints of fixed frontal area and fixed material cost: 2 runs/design

constraint

Therefore the total computational time required for an exhaustive optimization search

scheme is:

194

(4 runs/tube diameter) x (5 runs/tube circuiting) x (4 runs/number of rows) x (2

runs/design constraints) = 460,800 minutes or 7,680 hours of computational time.

Hence, the total computational time involved is 7,680 hours, or more than 10 and 1/2

months. The EES model developed to calculate the system performance for this stud

involves more than 2000 equations. Of these 2000 equations, 1000 must be solved

through iteration. The solution of these 100 simultaneous equations is heavily dependen

on the guess values for each variable. For varying geometric configurations and

operating conditions, the guess values must be continuously adjusted in order to ensure

the convergence of the solution. Therefore, the researcher is required to be in attendance

for all computations, since in nearly all instances, the guess values must be adjusted for

every run. Therefore, the actual total time for this exhaustive search is considerably

longer than the 7,680 hours that have been calculated. Hence, for future studies of this

kind, a more powerful and concise method for finding the optimum values of each

parameter should be developed. For example, entropy minimization techniques tha

quantify the tradeoff between pressure drop irreversibilities and heat transfer

irreversiblilities might be useful in finding a universal optimization relation for the tube

circuiting. More advanced search techniques will allow further investigation into the

coupling and interactions of the geometric parameters for a larger number of

configurations.

195

Several echniques for predicting the heat transfer coefficients and pressure drops

during condensation and evaporation inside tubes have been evaluated during this study

Many of the current methods are cumbersome in structure, heavily dependent on

empirically determined coefficients, and have considerable uncertainty. In this work,

general correlations based on statistical evaluation of data, and proposed to be valid for

all flow regimes, were used to calculate the condensing heat transfer coefficients and

pressure drop. While it was determined that the dominant flow regime for the conditions

of this present study is the annular flow regime, at low qualities, stratified-wavy flow also

exists. Furthermore it was assumed that the quality varies linearly with length. It is

recommended that this assumption be studied further, and that correlations based on

specific models for individual flow regimes should be used.

Economic Analysis

Again, the goal of this study is not to conduct a detailed economic analysis for

residential air-conditioning systems. Moreover, the cost of the compressor and condenser

fan units are excluded from the cost analysis (material cost factor) for this investigation.

However, in determining the optimum heat exchanger configuration, a tradeoff must be

made between the capital cost and the operating cost (using the reciprocal of the seasonal

COP as an operating cost factor). It is recommended that a detailed economic analysis be

performed that includes both the capital cost and the operating cost of each component o

the system.

196

APPENDIX A

A. Pressure Drop

1. singledp

2. twophasedp

3. tpbenddrop

B. Heat transfer Coefficients

1. h_bar_single

2. h_bar_c

3. h_bar_e

II. Air -Side

A. Heat Transfer coefficients

1. ha

B. Pressure Drop

1. GetEuler

III. Heat Exchanger Procedures and Functions

A. Surf_eff

B. Exch_size

C. Exch_size_un_un

D. sat_size

E. Tubing

IV. Compressor Procedure

A. Compeff

}

197

{Purpose-to determine the single phase pressure drop for flow in tubes}

{velocity of refrigerant through tube, ft/hr}

vel=m_r/((pi*D^2/4)*rho*nr) "[ft/hr]"

delP=(f*(L/D)*(rho*Vel^2)/2)*convert(lbm/ft-hr2,psi)

end

PROCEDURE twophasedp(xi,xf,T1, T2, D, m_dot, nr,L:DP)

{Purpose- to determine the two phase pressure drop for flow in tubes

Inputs

D- equivalent diameter of flow passage, ft

E- surface roughness, ft

G- mass flow per unit area lbm/hr-ft^2

mu_v- viscosity of vapor phase, lbm/hr-ft

mu_l- viscosity of liquid phase, lbm/hr-ft

rhov- density of liquid phase

rhol- density of vapor phase

ReV- Reynold's number of vapor phase

ReL- Reynold's number of liquid phase

Dztp- length of two phase region

xf- final quality

xi- initial quality

v- exit specific volume of vapor phase, ft^3/lb

nr- number of flow passages

L- length of tube

OutputDeltaP- pressure drop over two phase region

}

Tav=(T1+T2)/2

G=(m_dot/(D^2*pi/4))/nr

mu_v=viscosity(R410A, T=Tav, x=1)

mu_l=viscosity(R410A, T=Tav, x=0)

rhov=density(R410A, T=Tav, x=1)

rhol=density(R410A, T=Tav, x=0)

{Momentum component of 2 phase pressure drop}

DpM=((xf^2-xi^2)*(1+rhov/rhol-(rhov/rhol)^.333-(rhov/rhol)^(2/3))-(xfxi)*(2*rhov/rhol-(rhov/rhol)^(1/3)-(rhov/rhoL)^(2/3))*G^2/(rhov)*convert(lbm/hr^2ft,psi))

C1=(xf-xi)/L "[1/ft]"

C2=.09*mu_v^.2*G^1.8/(C1*rhov*D^1.2*32.2*convert(ft/s^2,ft/hr^2))*convert(lbf/ft^2

, psia)

198

C3=2.85*(mu_l/mu_v)^(.0523)*(rhov/rhoL)^.262

{Friction component of 2 phase pressure drop}

DPf2=2*c3*(.429*(xf^2.33-xi^2.33)-.141*(xf^3.33-xi^3.33)-.0287*(xf^4.33-xi^4.33))

DPf3=C3^2*(.538*(xf^1.86-xi^1.86)-.329*(xf^2.86-xi^2.86))

DPf=c2*(.357*(xf^2.8-xi^.28)+DPf2+DPf3)

DP=(DpM+DPf

end

Procedure singlebenddrop(tpc, D_i, m_dot_r,P, T1, T2, L, Width, f:DP)

{Pressure Drop in bends for single phase regions}

T=(T1+T2)/2

G=m_dot_r/(tpc*D_i^2*pi/4)

equiv_L=13*2

rho=density(R410A, T=T, P=P)

grav=32.2*convert(1/s^2,1/hr^2)

ncirc=trunc(L/width)

DP=f*G^2*equiv_L/(2*grav*rho)*convert(lbf/ft^2, psia)*ncirc

end

PROCEDURE tpbenddrop(nr,D_i_1,m_dot_r, h_f, T_c, L_c, L_22a, L_2a2b,width:DP)

{Pressure Drop In bends for two-phase regions}

{for 180 degree bends}

equiv_L=13*2

R_b=h_f/2 "[ft]"

z=R_b/D_i_1

G=m_dot_r/(nr*D_i_1^2*pi/4)

e=.000005

DP=0

num_circuit_2a2b=trunc(l_2a2b/Width)

num_circuit_22a=trunc(L_22a/width)

L_o=L_22a-Width*num_circuit_22a

L=width-L_o

mu_v=viscosity(R410A, T=T_c, x=1)

mu_l=viscosity(R410A, T=T_c, x=0)

grav=32.2*convert(1/s^2,1/hr^2)

Rho_l=density(R410A, T=T_c, x=0)

rho_v=density(R410A, T=T_c, x=1)

Re_l=G*D_i_1/mu_l

A_l=(2.457*ln(1/((7/Re_l)^0.9+.27*e/d_i_1)))^16

B_l=(37530/Re_l)^16

lambda_l=8*((8/Re_l)^12+(1/((A_l+B_l)^(3/2))))^(1/12)

199

Re_v=G*D_i_1/mu_v

A_v=(2.457*ln(1/((7/Re_v)^0.9+.27*e/d_i_1)))^16

B_v=(37530/Re_v)^16

lambda_v=8*((8/Re_v)^12+(1/((A_v+B_v)^(3/2))))^(1/12)

n=ln(lambda_l/lambda_v)/ln(mu_l/mu_v)

i=0

repea

i=i+1

x=-L/L_2a2b+1

If x<=0 then goto 10

mu_TP=mu_v*x+mu_l*(1-x)

Re_tp=G*D_i_1/mu_tp

A_tp=(2.457*ln(1/((7/Re_tp)^0.9+.27*e/d_i_1)))^16

B_tp=(37530/Re_tp)^16

lambda_tp=8*((8/Re_tp)^12+(1/((A_tp+B_tp)^(3/2))))^(1/12)

DELTAp_b_lo=lambda_l*G^2*equiv_L/(2*grav*rho_l)*convert(lbf/ft^2, psia)

{k_b for 90 degree bend}

k_b=lambda_tp*equiv_L/2

GAMMA_B=rho_l/ ho_v*(mu_v/mu_l)^n

B=1+2.2/(k_b*(2+R_b/D_i_1)) {B for 90 degree bend}

{B for 180 degree bend}

B=.5*(1+B)

phi_b_lo=1+(GAMMA_b-1)*(B*x^((2-n)/2)*(1-x)^((2-n)/2)+x^(2-n))

DELTAp_b=DELTAp_b_lo*phi_b_lo

DP=DP+DELTAp_b

L=L+width

until i>=num_circuit_2a2b-1

10:DP=Dp

end

{single phase heat transfer coefficient in the superheated portion of the condenser}

Area=(D/2)^2*pi

G=m_dot_r/Area

Tav=(T1+T2)/2

rho=density(R410A, T=Tav,P=P)

c_p=specheat(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

mu=viscosity(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

Pr=prandtl(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

If Re<3500 then

a=1.10647

b=-.078992

endIF

if (Re>3500) and (Re<6000) then

a=3.5194e-7

200

b=1.03804

ENDIF

if Re>6000 then

a=.2243

b=-.385

endif

St=a*Re^b/(Pr^(2/3))

h_bar=St*G*C_p

end

Procedure h_bar_single4a1sh(D, m_dot_r, T1, T2, P:Re,h_bar, rho)

{Single phase refrigerant heat transfer coefficient for the superheated portion of th

evaporator}

Area=(D/2)^2*pi

G=m_dot_r/Area

Tav=(T1+T2)/2

rho=density(R410A, T=Tav,P=P)

c_p=specheat(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

mu=viscosity(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

Re=m_dot_r*D/(Area*mu)

Pr=prandtl(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

If Re<3500 then

a=1.10647

b=-.078992

endIF

if (Re>3500) and (Re<6000) then

a=3.5194e-7

b=1.03804

ENDIF

if Re>6000 then

a=.2243

b=-.385

endif

St=a*Re^b/(Pr^(2/3))

h_bar=St*G*C_p

end

{Single refrigerant heat transfer coefficient for the sub-cooled portion of the condenser}

Area=(D/2)^2*pi

G=m_dot_r/Area

Tav=(T1+T2)/2

rho=density(R410A, T=Tav,P=P)

201

mu=viscosity(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

Re=m_dot_r*D/(Area*mu)

Pr=prandtl(R410A, T=Tav, P=P)

If Re<3500 then

a=1.10647

b=-.078992

endIF

if (Re>3500) and (Re<6000) then

a=3.5194e-7

b=1.03804

ENDIF

if Re>6000 then

a=.2243

b=-.385

endif

St=a*Re^b/(Pr^(2/3))

h_bar=St*G*C_p

end

{Shah-Correlation: Two-phase refrigerant heat transfer coefficient in the condenser}

G=m_dot_r/(D^2*nr/4)

mu_l=viscosity(R410A, T=T, x=0)

mu_g=viscosity(R410A, T=T, x=1)

rho_l=density(R410A, T=T, x=0)

rho_g=density(R410A, T=T, x=1)

Pr_l=prandtl(R410A, T=T-1, P=P)

k_l=conductivity(R410A, T=T, x=0)

P_r=P/p_crit(R410A)

Re_l=G*D/mu_l

h_l=0.023*Re_l^.8*Pr_l^.4*k_l

h_bar_c=h_l*(.55+2.09/(P_r^.38))

end

Function h_bar_e(Te, Pe,De, m_r, x_in)

{Purpose to evaluate the evaporation two phase heat

transfer coefficient for forced convection flow inside tubes}

x_i:=x_in

Pr_L=prandtl(R410A, T=Te-1, P=Pe) "Prandtl # of liquid phase in evaporator"

kl=conductivity(R410A, T=Te, x=0) "conductivity of liq. phase"

mu_v=viscosity(R410A, T=Te, x=1) "viscosity of vap. phase"

202

rho_l=density(R410A, T=Te, x=0)

rho_v=density(R410A, T=Te, x=1)

x_e:=1

g:=m_r/(pi*De^2/4)

h_bar_ave_e1 := 0.023 * 0.325 * 2.5 * kl * (g / mu_l) ^ 0.8 * De ^ (-0.2) * Pr_L ^ 1.4

h_bar_ave_e2 := (rho_L / rho_V) ^ 0.375 * (mu_v / mu_l) ^ 0.075 * (x_e - x_i) / (x_e

^.325 - (x_i ^ 0.325))

h_bar_e := h_bar_ave_e1 * h_bar_ave_e2

End

FUNCTION ha(hf, eta,t,L, ma, mu, D_o, Ao,At, Cp, Pr, n)

{Returns air-side heat transfer coefficient based on McQuiston Method}

{h_bar_a- external heat transfer coefficient (btu/hr-ft^2-R)}

"[ft^2]"

A_min=(hf/2)*(1/eta-t)

"[lbm/hr-ft^2]"

Gmax=ma*(1/eta-t)/(A_min*L)

Re_D=Gmax*D_o/m

Re_L=Gmax*hf/mu

dum1=(Ao/(At))

JP=Re_D^(-.4)*(Ao/(At/(1-t*eta)))^(-.15)

j4=.2675*JP+1.325*10^(-3)

jn=(1-n*1280*Re_L^(-1.2))*j4/(1-4*1280*Re_L^(-1.2))

ha=jn*Cp*Gmax/(Pr^(2/3))*convert(1/s,1/hr)

end

FUNCTION geteuler(Re, h_f, dep_f, D, nrow)

{finds Euler number for staggered banks of tubes for a fin-and-tube cross flow hea

exchanger}

{Modify Euler number to account for non- equilateral geometry

find correction factor k1 to account for a/b ratio, use k1 with other relationships to

correct Euler # for row spacing}

a=dep_f/D

b=h_f/D

Check1=1

Check2=1

Check3=1

spacerat=a/b

Eu=0

k1=0

If (spacerat>.5) and (spacerat<1.2) and (re>=1000) and (Re<10000) then {this

relationship is stated for Re=1000, not the range 1000<Re<10000}

k1=spacerat^(-.048)

k2=1.28-.708/spacerat+.55/(spacerat^2)-0.113/(spacerat^3)

203

k1=(k2-k1)/(10000-1000)*(Re-1000)+k1

endIF

if (spacerat>1.25) and (spacerat<3.5) and (Re>1000) and (Re<10000) then

k1=.951*spacerat^.284

k2=1.28-.708/spacerat+.55/(spacerat^2)-0.113/(spacerat^3)

k1=(k2-k1)/(10000-1000)*(Re-1000)+k1

endIF

If (spacerat>.45) and (spacerat<3.5) and (Re>=10000) and (Re<100000) then {stated for

Re=10000}

k1=1.28-.708/spacerat+.55/(spacerat^2)-0.113/(spacerat^3)

k2=2.016-1.675*spacerat+.948*spacerat^2-.234*spacerat^3+.021*spacerat^4

k1=(k2-k1)/(100000-10000)*(Re-10000)+k1

endif

If ((spacerat>.45) and (spacerat<3.5) and (Re>=100000)) or ((spacerat>.45) and

(spacerat<1.6) and (Re>=1000000)) then {stated for Re=100000}

k1=2.016-1.675*spacerat+.948*spacerat^2-.234*spacerat^3+.021*spacerat^4

endIF

if (spacerat>1.25) and (spacerat<3.5) and (Re>100) and (Re<1000) then

k1=.93*spacerat^.48

k2=spacerat^(-.048)

k1=(k2-k1)/(1000-100)*(Re-100)+k1

endIF

if (spacerat=1.155) then

k1=1

endif

If k1=0 then check1=0

If (a>=1.25) and (a<1.5) and (Re>3) and (re<1000) then

a=1.25}

Eu1:=(.795+247/re+335/(re^2)-1550/Re^3+2410/Re^4)

eu2:=(.683+1.11e2/re-97.3/Re^2+426/re^3-574/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(1.5-1.25)*(a-1.25)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=1.25) and (a<1.5) and (Re>1000) and (Re<2e6) then

Eu1:=(.245+3390/Re-9.84e6/Re^2+1.32e10/re^3-5.99e12/Re^4)

Eu2:=(.203+2480/re-7.58e6/re^2+1.04e10/re^3-4.82e12/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(1.5-1.25)*(a-1.25)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=1.5) and (a<2) and (Re>3) and (Re<100) then

eu1:=(.683+1.11e2/re-97.3/Re^2+426/re^3-574/re^4)

Eu2:=(.713+44.8/Re-126/Re^2-582/Re^3)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2-1.5)*(a-1.5)+Eu1

204

{Stated for

endif

If (a>=1.5) and (a<2) and (Re>100) and (Re<1000) then

eu1:=(.683+1.11e2/re-97.3/Re^2+426/re^3-574/re^4)

Eu2:=(.343+303/re-7.17e4/re^2+8.8e6/re^3-3.8e8/Re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2-1.5)*(a-1.5)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=1.5) and (a<2) and (Re>1000) and (Re<10000) then

Eu1:=(.203+2480/re-7.58e6/re^2+1.04e10/re^3-4.82e12/re^4)

Eu2:=(.343+303/re-7.17e4/re^2+8.8e6/re^3-3.8e8/Re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2-1.5)*(a-1.5)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=1.5) and (a<2) and (Re>10000) and (Re<200000) then

Eu1:=(.203+2480/re-7.58e6/re^2+1.04e10/re^3-4.82e12/re^4)

Eu2=(.162+1810/Re+7.92e7/re^2-1.65e12/Re^3+8.72e15/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2-1.5)*(a-1.5)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=2) and (a<2.5) and (Re>7) and (Re<100) then

Eu1:=(.713+44.8/Re-126/Re^2-582/Re^3)

Eu2:=(.33+98.9/re-1.48e4/Re^2+1.92e6/re^3-8.62e7/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2.5-2)*(a-2)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=2) and (a<2.5) and (Re>100) and (Re<5000) then

Eu1:=(.343+303/re-7.17e4/re^2+8.8e6/re^3-3.8e8/Re^4)

Eu2:=(.33+98.9/re-1.48e4/Re^2+1.92e6/re^3-8.62e7/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2.5-2)*(a-2)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=2) and (a<2.5) and (Re>5000) and (Re<10000) then

Eu1:=(.343+303/re-7.17e4/re^2+8.8e6/re^3-3.8e8/Re^4)

Eu2:=(.119+498/Re-5.07e8/Re^2+2.51e11/Re^3-4.62e14/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2.5-2)*(a-2)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=2) and (a<2.5) and (Re>10000) and (Re<2000000) then

Eu1:=(.162+1810/Re+7.92e7/re^2-1.65e12/Re^3+8.72e15/re^4)

Eu2:=(.119+4980/Re-5.07e7/Re^2+2.51e11/Re^3-4.62e14/re^4)

Eu=(Eu2-Eu1)/(2.5-2)*(a-2)+Eu1

endif

If (a>=2.5) and (Re>100) and (Re<5000) then

Eu:=(.33+98.9/re-1.48e4/Re^2+1.92e6/re^3-8.62e7/re^4)

endif

205

Eu:=(.119+4980/Re-5.07e7/Re^2+2.51e11/Re^3-4.63e14/re^4)

endif

If Eu=0 then Check2=0

{Modify for less than 4 rows}

z=1

C=0

c_z=0

if nrow<10 then

repea

If z>=3 then

c_z=1

else

IF Re>=10 THEN

c_z1=1.065-(.180/(z-.297))

c_z2=1.798-(3.497/(z+1.273))

c_z=(c_z2-c_z1)/(100-10)*(Re-10)+c_z1

endif

IF Re>=100 THEN

c_z1=1.798-(3.497/(z+1.273))

c_z2=1.149-(.411/(z-.412))

c_z=(c_z2-c_z1)/(1000-100)*(Re-100)+c_z1

endif

IF Re>=1000 THEN

c_z1=1.149-(.411/(z-.412))

c_z2=.924+(.269/(z+.143))

c_z=(c_z2-c_z1)/(10000-1000)*(Re-1000)+c_z1

endif

IF Re>=10000 THEN

c_z1=.924+(.269/(z+.143))

c_z2=.62+(1.467/(z+.667))

c_z=(c_z2-c_z1)/(100000-10000)*(Re-10000)+c_z1

endif

IF Re>=100000 THEN

c_z=.62+(1.467/(z+.667))

endif

endif

z=z+1

C=C+c_z

until z>nrow

C=C/nrow

206

endif

Eu=Eu*C*k1

geteuler=Eu

end

Procedure surf_eff(D_o_1, h_bar_a,h_f, d_f,t, Af,Ao:fin_eff,surfeff)

{finds the tube surface efficiencey and fin efficiency }

h_f=h_f*convert(in,ft)

d_f=d_f*convert(in,ft)

"[ft]"

{outside radius of tube}

r_t=D_o_1/2

"[ft]"

M=h_f/2

L=.5*sqrt(d_f^2+M^2) "[ft]"

psi=M/r_t

BETA=L/M

"[ft]"

R_e=R_t*1.27*psi*(BETA-.3)^.5

k=237*convert(W/m-K, BTU/hr-ft-R) "[BTU/hr-ft-R]" {conductivity for pure

Aluminum, Incropera & Dewitt}

m_eff=sqrt(2*h_bar_a/(k*t))"[1/ft]"

phi=(R_e/R_t-1)*(1+.35*ln(R_e/r_t))

fin_eff=tanh(m_eff*r_t*phi)/(m_eff*r_t*phi)

surfeff = 1 - Af/Ao*(1-fin_eff)

end

{Finds the UA of the saturated portions of the heat exchangers}

Cr:=0

NTU:=-ln(1-E)

UA:=NTU*Cunmixed

end

Procedure exch_size_un_un(Cair, Cfridge,UA:E)

{Finds the UA of the sub-cooled and/or superheated sections of the heat exchangers}

Cmin=min(Cair, Cfridge)

Cmax=max(Cair, Cfridge)

Cr=Cmin/Cmax

NTU=UA/Cmin

E=1-exp((1/Cr)*NTU^.22*(exp(-Cr*(NTU^.78))-1))

end

Procedure tubing(Type:D_i,D_o)

{Returns the inner and outer diameter of copper tubes based on AAON product

specifications

207

1

5/16

2

3/8

3

1/2

4

5/8

}

if type=1 then

D_i=.2885

D_o=.3125

endIF

if type=2 then

D_i=.3490

D_o=.375

endIF

if type=3 then

D_i=.4680

D_o=.5000

endIF

if type=4 then

D_i=.5810

D_o=.6250

endIF

D_i=D_i/12

D_o=D_o/12

end

{computes efficiency of scroll compressor based on condensing and evaporating

Temperature and pressure}

Pr=P_o/P_i

Tr=(T_o+459)/(T_i+459)

compeff=-60.25-3.614*Pr-.0281*Pr^2+111.3*Tr-50.31*Tr^2+3.061*Tr*Pr

end

Function fri(Tac)

{Sets the ambient temperature weight fractions in order to compute the seasonal COP}

fri=0

If (Tac>65) and (Tac<69) then

fri =.214

endif

If Tac=72 then

fri =.231

endif

208

fri =.216

endif

If Tac = 82 then

fri =.161

endif

If Tac=87 then

fri =.104

endif

If Tac=92 then

fri =.052

endif

If Tac=97 then

fri =.018

endif

If Tac=102 then

fri =.004

END

Module At95(Tsc, V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c, Tubetype_c,

ncircuit_c:PD, m_sys, A_e, A_c,

Tc_ave,width_e,width_c,W_dot_fc,W_dot_com,DELTAP_tot_ac,CF_e,CF_c,DELTAP_

ResideBEND_total,DELTAP_Residecondnser_total,L_22a,L_2a2b,L_2b3)

{This model returns the compressor piston displacement, amount of sub-cool, evaporator

frontal area,

condenser frontal area and mass of refrigerant in the system in order to provide an

evaporator capacity

of 30,000 Btu/hr at 95 F ambient temperature}

{System Constraints}

{variable refrigeration cycle parameters}

{Design Conditions @ Tac1=95 F}

"[F]"

T4a=45

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_dot_e=30000

x4a=1

x2a=1

"[F]" {refrigerant superheat in evaporator from states 4a-1, F}

Tsh=10

Tc_ave=(T2a+T2b)/2 "[F]"

"[ft]"

{roughness for drawn tubing (White), ft}

e=.000005

"[lbm/hr]" {mass flow rate per tube}

m_r_t=m_dot_r/tpc_c

209

Tac1=95

"[F]" {Air inlet T into Condenser}

V_ac=V_dot_ac*convert(1/min,1/sec)/A_c {Air velocity over condenser} "[ft/s]"

{viscosity of air flowing over the

mu_ac=viscosity(AIR, T=Tac1)*convert(1/hr,1/s)

condenser} [lbm/ft-s]"

rho_ac1=density(AIR, T=Tac1, P=Pac1) "{density of air flowing over the condenser}

[lbm/ft^3]"

m_dot_ac=m_ac*convert(1/hr,1/s) "{mass flow rate of air flowing over the condenser}

[bm/s]"

m_ac=V_dot_ac*convert(1/min,1/hr)*rho_ac1 "{mass of air flowing over the

condenser} [lbm/hr]"

h_bar_ac=ha(h_c, eta_c,t_c, width_c,m_dot_ac, mu_ac, D_o_c, A_o_c,A_t_c, C_p_air,

Pr_ac, nrow_c) {air-side heat transfer coefficient over the condenser} "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

c_p_air=specheat(AIR, T=Tac1) {specific heat at constant pressure of air flowing over

the condenser} "[Btu/lbm-R]"

Pr_ac=prandtl(AIR, T=Tac1) {Prandtl number of air flowing over the condenser}

{Air Flow over Evaporator}

"[F]"

{Air inlet T into Evaporator}

Tae1=80

"[cfm]" {air flow rate over evaporator in cfm

V_dot_ae=30000*400/12000

assuming 400 cfm/ton at design Q_e of 30,000 BTU/hr}

V_ae=V_dot_ae*convert(1/min,1/sec)/A_e "{Velocity of air flow over evaporator}

[ft/sec]"

rho_ae1=density(AIR, T=Tae1, P=14.7) {Density of air flow over the evaporator}

"[lbm/ft^3]"

m_ae=V_dot_ae*convert(1/min,1/hr)*rho_ae1 {mass of air flowing over the

evaporator} "[lbm/hr]"

{mass flow rate of air flowing over the

m_dot_ae=m_ae*convert(1/hr,1/s)

evaporator} "[lbm/s]"

mu_ae=viscosity(AIR, T=Tae1)*convert(1/hr,1/sec) {Viscosity of are flowing over the

evaporatr} "[lbm/ft-s]"

h_bar_ae=ha(h_e, eta_e,t_e, width_e,m_dot_ae, mu_ae, D_o_e, A_o_e, A_t_e, C_p_air,

Pr_ac, nrow_e) {heat transfer coefficient of air flowing over the evaporator} "[Btu/hrft^2-R]"

W_dot_fe=365*V_dot_ae*convert(W, BTU/hr)/1000

{Compressor}

nc=compeff(P2a,P4,tc_ave,T4)

gamma_R410A=1.16

{Percent}

Clearance=.05 "[%]"

v1=volume(R410A, P=P1,T=T1)"[ft^3/lbm]"

210

v2=volume(R410A, P=P2,T=T2)"[ft^3/lbm]"

{Compressor volumetric efficiency, Klein}

nv=1-R*(v1/v2-1)

{ratio of clearance volume to displacement}

R=.025

PD=m_dot_r*v1/nv "[ft^3/hr]" {compressor piston displacement}

{condenser Characteristics}

{Variable Condenser characteristics}

spac_rat=h_f_c/d_f_c {tube spacing ratio-horizontal to vertical tube spacing}

"[ft]"

{condenser depth, ft}

Dep_c=d_fft_c*nrow_c

width_c=3 {base configuration width} "[ft]"

L_c=Width_c*nrow_c*ncircuit_c "[ft]" {Total length of condenser}

"[ft]"

{height of condenser, ft}

H_c=h_fft_c*tpc_c*ncircuit_c

V_c=Width_c*h_c*dep_c "[ft^3]" {Volume of Condenser}

"[ft^2]" {frontal area of condenser, ft^2}

A_c=Width_c*H_c

CALL Surf_eff(D_o_c, h_bar_ac,h_f_c, d_f_c,t_c, A_f_c,A_o_c:phi_f,phi_c) {calls the

fin efficiency and tube surface efficiency for the condenser}

Call tubing(TubeType_c:D_i_c,D_o_c) {calls the tube diameter based on the 4 tube

types for the condenser}

A_i_c=L_c*D_i_c*pi*tpc_c {the condenser refrigerant-side inner tube heat transfer

area} "[ft^2]"

"[ft^2]"

A_t_c=D_o_c*pi*L_c*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c

A_f_c=2*L_c*eta_c*tpc_c*(h_fft_c*d_fft_c-pi*(D_o_c/2)^2) {the total fin heat transfer

area} "[ft^2]"

A_o_c=A_t_c+A_f_c {the total heat transfer area -air-side and refrigerant}

"[ft^2]"

A_flow_c=Width_c*(1-eta_c*t_c)*(H_c-D_o_c*ncircuit_c*tpc_c) "{the total refrigerant

flow area} [ft^2]"

{the condenser refrigerant-side inner tube heat

A_i_c=A_i_22a+A_i_2a2b+A_i_2b3

transfer area} "[ft^2]"

{evaporator Characteristics}

{Variable Evaporator characteristics}

"[in]" {tube vertical spacing on centers, in}

h_f_e=1

"[ft]"

{thickness of fins, ft}

t_e=.006/12

"[1/ft]" {evaporator fin pitch, fins/ft}

eta_e=12*12

"[in]" {evaporator fin depth per tube, in}

d_f_e=.625

{evaporator depth, ft}

Dep_e=d_f_e*nrow_e*convert(in,ft) "[ft]"

{number of tubes per refrigerant flow parallel circuit}

tpc_e=2

{number of rows of tubing}

nrow_e=4

ncircuit_e=9

L_e=Width_e*nrow_e*ncircuit_e {evaporator tube length} "[ft]"

{height of evaporator ft}

H_e=h_f_e*tpc_e*ncircuit_e*convert(in,ft "[ft]"

TubeType_e=2

211

"[ft^2]" {frontal area of evaporator ft^2}

A_e=Width_e*H_e

CALL Surf_eff(D_o_e, h_bar_ae,h_f_e, d_f_e,t_e, A_f_e,A_o_e:phi_f_e,phi_e) {calls

the fin efficiency and tube surface efficiency for the evaporator}

Call tubing(TubeType_e:D_i_e,D_o_e) {calls the tube diameter based on the 4 tub

types for the evaporator}

"[ft]"

d_fft_e=d_f_e*convert(in,ft)

"[ft]"

h_fft_e=h_f_e*convert(in,ft

"[ft^2]" {the evaporator refrigerant-side inner tube

A_i_e=L_e*D_i_e*pi*tpc_e

heat transfer area}

A_t_e=D_o_e*pi*L_e*(1-t_e*eta_e)*tpc_ {the total refrigerant side tube heat transfer

area for the evaporator} "[ft^2]"

A_f_e=2*h_fft_e*tpc_e*d_fft_e*eta_e*L_e-2*pi*(D_o_e/2)^2*eta_e*L_e*tpc_e {the

"[ft^2]"

total fin heat transfer area for the evaporator}

A_o_e=A_t_e+A_f_e {the total heat transfer area -air-side and refrigerant}

"[ft^2]"

A_flow_e=width_e*(1-eta_e*t_e)*(H_e-D_o_e*ncircuit_e*tpc_e) {the total refrigerant

flow area for the evaporator}"[ft^2]"

{***********************************************************

Begin Cycle Analysis -analyzes the vaporcompression refrigeration cycle

************************************************************}

{Compressor Equations}

"[Btu/lbm]"

h1=enthalpy(R410A, T=T1, P=P1)

"[Btu/lbm-R]"

s1=entropy(R410A, T=T1, P=P1)

"[Btu/lbm-R]"

s1=s2s

h2s=enthalpy(R410A, P=P2, s=s2s) "[btu/lbm]"

"[btu/lbm]"

wcs= h2s-h1

"[Btu/lbm]"

wc=wcs/nc

"[btu/lbm]"

h2=h1+wc

T2=temperature(R410A, P=P2, h=h2) "[F]"

{Condenser Equations}

{pressure of refrigerant exiting the

P2a=P2-DELTAP_22a-DELTAP_b_22a

superheated portion of the condenser} "[psia]"

P2b=P2a-DELTAP_2a2b-DELTAP_b_2a2b {pressure of refrigerant exiting the

saturated portion of the condenser}"[psia]"

{pressure of refrigerant exiting the subP3=P2b-DELTAP_2b3-DELTAP_b_2b3

cooled portion of the condenser} "[psia]"

212

{Temperature of refrigerant exiting the

T2a=temperature(R410A, P=P2a, x=x2a)

superheated portion of the condenser} "[F]"

{Enthalpy of refrigerant exiting th

h2a=enthalpy(R410A, T=T2a, x=x2a)

superheated portion of the condenser}

"[Btu/lbm]"

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_22a=m_dot_r*(h2-h2a)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_22a=E_22a*min(C_22a,C_a22a)*(T2-Tac1)

C_a22a=m_ac*specheat(AIR, T=Tac1)*L_22a/L_c "[Btu/hr-R]"

"[Btu/hr-R]"

C_22a=m_dot_r*specheat(R410A, T=T2, P=P2)

Call exch_size_un_un(C_a22a, C_22a,UA_22a:E_22a)

{Superheated UA} "[Btu/hr-R]"

UA_22a=U_o_22a*A_o_22a

U_o_22a=(1/(phi_c*h_bar_ac)+A_o_22a/(h_bar_22a*A_i_22a))^(-1) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

Call h_bar_single(D_i_c, m_r_t, T2, T2a, P2:Re_22a, h_bar_22a, rho_22a)

A_t_22a=D_o_c*pi*L_22a*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

A_f_22a=2*h_f_c*tpc_c*convert(in, ft)*d_f_c*convert(in,ft)*eta_c*L_22a2*pi*(D_o_c/2)^2*eta_c*L_22a*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

"[ft^2]"

A_o_22a=A_t_22a+A_f_22a

"[ft^2]"

A_i_22a=L_22a*tpc_c*pi*D_i_c

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_22a=(A_i_22a/A_i_c)*m_ac*(hac22a-hac1)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2a2b=(A_i_2a2b/A_i_c)*m_ac*(hac2a2b-hac1)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2b3=(A_i_2b3/A_i_c)*m_ac*(hac2b3-hac1)

"[F]"

Tac22a=temperature(AIR, h=hac22a)

"[F]"

Tac2a2b=temperature(AIR,h=hac2a2b)

"[F]"

Tac2b3=temperature(AIR,h=hac2b3)

"[Btu/lbm]"

hac1=enthalpy(AIR, T=Tac1)

Call SingleDP(m_dot_r, tpc_c,D_i_c,L_22a,f_22a,rho_22a:DELTAP_22a)

call singlebenddrop(tpc_c, D_i_c, m_dot_r,P1, T2, T2a, L_22a, Width_c,

f_22a:DELTAP_b_22a)

1/f_22a^0.5=-2*log10((e/(D_i_c*3.7))+2.51/(Re_22a*f_22a^0.5))

{Saturated portion of condenser}

T2b=temperature(R410A, P=P2b, x=.1) "[F]"

CALL TwophaseDp(x2a, x2b,T2a, T2b, D_i_c, m_dot_r, tpc_c,L_2a2b:DELTAP_2a2b)

CALL tpbenddrop(tpc_c,D_i_c,m_dot_r, h_f_c, T_c, L_c, L_22a, L_2a2b,

Width_c:DELTAP_b_2a2b)

x2b=0

h2b=enthalpy(R410A, T=T2b, x=x2b) "[Btu/lbm]"

Q_2a2b=m_dot_r*(h2a-h2b)"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2a2b=E_2a2b*C_a2a2b*(T2a-Tac1)

"[Btu/hr-R]"

C_a2a2b=m_ac*specheat(AIR, T=Tac1)*L_2a2b/L_c

213

U_o_2a2b=(1/(phi_c*h_bar_ac)+A_o_2a2b/(h_bar_2a2b*A_i_2a2b))^(-1) "[Btu/hrft^2-R]"

UA_2a2b=U_o_2a2b*A_o_2a2b "[Btu/hr-R]"

h_bar_2a2b= h_bar_c(T2a, P2a,D_i_c, m_dot_r,tpc_c) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

"[ft^2]"

A_t_2a2b=D_o_c*pi*L_2a2b*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c

A_f_2a2b=2*tpc_c*L_2a2b*eta_c*(h_fft_c*D_fft_c-pi*(D_o_c/2)^2) "[ft^2]"

A_o_2a2b=A_t_2a2b+A_f_2a2b "[ft^2]"

A_i_2a2b=L_2a2b*tpc_c*pi*D_i_c "[ft^2]"

{Sub-cooled portion of Condenser}

"[Btu/lbm]"

h3=enthalpy(R410A, T=T3, P=P3)

"[F]"

T3=T2b-Tsc

Q_2b3=m_dot_r*(h2b-h3) "[Btu/hr]"

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2b3=E_2b3*min(C_2b3, C_a2b3)*(T2b-Tac1)

C_a2b3=m_ac*specheat(AIR, T=Tac1)*L_2b3/L_c "[Btu/hr-R]"

"[Btu/hr-R]"{assume Cp for

C_2b3=m_dot_r*specheat(R410A, T=T3, P=P3)

R410A constant over Tsc}

{CALL Exch_size(C_2b3, C_a2b3, E_2b3:UA_2b3)}

Call exch_size_un_un(C_a2b3, C_2b3,UA_2b3:E_2b3)

UA_2b3=U_o_2b3*A_o_2b3 "[Btu/hr-R]"

U_o_2b3=(1/(phi_c*h_bar_ac)+A_o_2b3/(h_bar_2b3*A_i_2b3))^(-1) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

Call h_bar_single(D_i_c, m_r_t, T2b, T3, P2b:Re_2b3,h_bar_2b3, rho_2b3)

A_t_2b3=D_o_c*pi*L_2b3*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

A_f_2b3=2*h_f_c*tpc_c*convert(in, ft)*d_f_c*convert(in,ft)*eta_c*L_2b32*pi*(D_o_c/2)^2*eta_c*L_2b3*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

A_o_2b3=A_t_2b3+A_f_2b3 "[ft^2]"

"[ft^2]"

A_i_2b3=L_2b3*tpc_c*pi*D_i_c

"[ft/hr]" {velocity of refrigerant

vel_2b3=m_r_t/((pi*D_i_c^2/4)*rho_2b3)

through tube, ft/hr}

Call SingleDP(m_dot_r, tpc_c,D_i_c,L_2b3,f_2b3,rho_2b3:DELTAP_2b3)

call singlebenddrop(tpc_c, D_i_c, m_dot_r,P2b, T2b, T3, L_2b3, Width_c,

f_2b3:DELTAP_b_2b3)

1/f_2b3^0.5=-2*log10((e/(D_i_c*3.7))+2.51/(Re_2b3*f_2b3^0.5))

DELTAP_Residecondnser_total= DELTAP_22a+DELTAP_b_22a+DELTAP_2a2b+

DELTAP_b_2a2b+DELTAP_2b3+DELTAP_b_2b3 "[psia]"

{Total Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop Due To Bends in the Condenser}

214

DELTAP_ResideBEND_total=DELTAP_b_22a+DELTAP_b_2a2b+DELTAP_b_2b3

"[psia]"

{Valve Equation}

h4=h3 "[Btu/lbm]"

{Evaporator Equations}

"[psia]"

P4=P4a

"[psia]"

P4=P1

Q_dot_e=Q_44a+Q_4a1"[Btu/hr]"

A_i_e=A_i_44a+A_i_4a1 "[ft^2]"

{A_o_e=A_i_e*D_o_1/D_i_c}

T4=T4a "[F]"

P4=pressure(R410A, T=T4, h=h4) "[psia]"

{m_ae=V_dot_ae*convert(1/min,1/hr)/volume(AIR, T=Tac1, P=14.7)}

x4=quality(R410A, T=T4, h=h4)

{saturated portion of evaporator}

Cp_44a_cor=specheat(AIR, T=Tae1)*1.33 "[Btu/lbm-F]"

"[Btu/lbm]"

h4a=enthalpy(R410A, T=T4a, x=x4a)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_44a=m_dot_r*(h4a-h4)

Q_44a=E_44a*C_a44a*(Tae1-T4)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_44a=(A_i_44a/A_i_e)*C_a44a*(-Tae44a+Tae1)

C_a44a=m_ae*Cp_44a_cor*A_i_44a/A_i_e

call sat_size(C_a44a,E_44a:UA_44a)

UA_44a=U_i_44a*A_i_44a "[Btu/hr-R]"

"[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

U_i_44a=(C1+1/h_bar_44a)^(-1)

h_bar_44a=h_bar_e(T4, P4,D_i_c, m_dot_r, x4) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

{CALL TwophaseDp(x4a,x4, T4, T4a, D_i_e, m_dot_r, tpc_e,L_44a:DELTAP_44a)

CALL tpbenddrop(tpc_c,D_i_c,m_dot_r, h_f_c, T_c, L_c, L_22a, L_2a2b,

Width_c:DELTAP_b_2a2b)}

"[ft^2]"

A_i_44a=L_44a*tpc_e*pi*D_i_e

{superheated portion of evaporator}

"[F]"

T1=T4a+Tsh

Q_4a1=m_dot_r*(h1-h4a) "[btu/hr]"

Q_4a1=E_4a1*min(C_4a1, C_a4a1)*(Tae1-T4a)

C_a4a1=m_ae*specheat(AIR, T=Tae1)*A_i_4a1/A_i_e

C_4a1=m_dot_r*specheat(R410A, T=T1, P=P1)

call exch_size_un_un(C_4a1,C_a4a1, UA_4a1:E_4a1)

"[Btu/hr-R]"

UA_4a1=U_i_4a1*A_i_4a1

"[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

U_i_4a1=(C1+1/h_bar_4a1)^(-1)

Call h_bar_single(D_i_e, m_dot_r, T4a, T1, P4a:Re_4a1,h_bar_4a1, rho_4a1)

215

{C1=D_i_c/(D_o_1*h_bar_ae)}

{constant represents air side term for

evaporator U}

"[hr-ft^2-R/BTU]"

C1=1/(Area_rat*h_bar_ae)

Area_rat=A_o_e/A_i_e

{Call SingleDP(m_dot_r, tpc_e,D_i_e,L_4a1,f_4a1,rho_4a1:DELTAP_4a1)

call singlebenddrop(tpc_e, D_i_e, m_dot_r,P4a, T4a, T1, L_4a1, Width_e,

f_4a1:DELTAP_b_4a1)}

1/f_4a1^0.5=-2*log10((e/(D_i_e*3.7))+2.51/(Re_4a1*f_4a1^0.5))

"[ft^2]"

A_i_4a1=L_4a1*tpc_e*pi*D_i_e

{COP}

W_dot_com=wc*m_dot_r "[Btu/hr]"

Q_c=Q_22a+Q_2a2b+Q_2b3 "[Btu/hr]"

COP=Q_dot_e/(W_dot_com+W_dot_fc+W_dot_fe)

{Mass balances}

Vol_22a=L_22a*D_i_c^2*pi*tpc_c/4 "[ft^3]"

Vol_2a2b=L_2a2b*D_i_c^2*pi*tpc_c/4 "[ft^3]"

Vol_2b3=L_2b3*D_i_c^2*pi*tpc_c/4 "[ft^3]"

"[ft^3]"

Vol_44a=A_i_44a*D_i_c/4

"[ft^3]"

Vol_4a1=A_i_4a1*D_i_c/4

m_22a=rho_22a*Vol_22a "[lbm]"

vfg2a2b=volume(R410A, T=T2a, x=1)-volume(R410A, T=T2a, x=0) "[ft^3/lbm]"

m_2a2b=-(Vol_2a2b/vfg2a2b)*ln(volume(R410A, T=T2a, x=0)/volume(R410A, T=T2a,

x=1)) "[lbm]"

"[lbm]"

m_2b3=rho_2b3*Vol_2b3

m_c=m_22a+M_2a2b+m_2b3 "[lbm]"

"[lbm]"

m_4a1=rho_4a1*Vol_4a1

vfg44a=volume(R410A, T=T4a, x=1)-volume(R410A, T=T4a, x=0) "[ft^3/lbm]"

m_44a=(Vol_44a/(x4*vfg44a))*ln(volume(R410A, T=T4, x=1)/(volume(R410A, T=T4,

x=0)+x4*vfg44a)) "[lbm] check this equation"

m_sys=m_4a1+m_44a+m_c "[lbm]"

m_e=m_4a1+m_44a

{Air Side Pressure Drop}

"fan efficiency"

E_fc=.65

W_dot_fc=V_ac*DELTAP_tot_ac*convert(psia,lbf/ft^2)*A_c/E_fc*convert(ftlbf/s,btu/hr) "[Btu/hr]"

"[ft]"

d_fft_c=d_f_c*convert(in,ft)

"[ft]"

h_fft_c=h_f_c*convert(in,ft

216

{Flow rate}

"[lbm/ft^2 hr]"

G_max_ac=m_ac/A_flow_c

"[psia]"

Pac2=P_atm

"[psia]"

P_atm=14.7

grav=32.2*convert(1/s^2,1/hr^2) "[lbm-ft/hr^2-lbf]"

Re_D_c=G_max_ac*D_o_c/(mu_ac*convert(1/s,1/hr))

{Pressure Drop Calculation}

DELTAP_tot_ac=Pac1-Pac2

"[psia]"

DELTAP_tubes=Eu_c*G_max_ac^2*nrow_c/(2*rho_ac1)*convert(lbm-ft/ft2-hr2, psia)

"[psia]"

DELTAP_tubes_inH2O=DELTAP_tubes*convert(psia, inH2O) "[inH2O]"

DELTAP_tot_ac=DELTAP_tubes+DELTAP_fin

DELTAP_fin=(f_f*G_max_ac^2*A_f_c/(2*A_flow_c*grav*rho_ac1))*convert(1/ft^2,1/

in^2) "[psia]"

DELTAP_fin_inH2O=DELTAP_fin*convert(psia,inh2o) "[inh2O]"

f_f=1.7*Re_L_ac^(-.5)

Re_L_ac=G_max_ac*h_fft_c/mu_ac*convert(1/hr, 1/s)

{Cost Factors for metals

Fins made from pure aluminum

Tubes made from pure copper}

{copper is about $0.8/lb on the London Metals

Cf_cu=.8 "[1/lbm]"

Exchange}

"[1/lbm]" {aluminum is about $0.7/lb}

Cf_al=.7

"[lbm/ft^3]" {Incropera and DeWitt}

rho_al=2702*convert(kg/m^3,lbm/ft^3)

"[lbm/ft^3]"

rho_cu=8933*convert(kg/m^3, lbm/ft^3)

V_cu=L_c*pi*(D_o_c^2/4-D_i_c^2/4)*tpc_c+L_e*pi*(D_o_e^2/4-D_i_e^2/4)*tpc_e

"[ft^3]"

"[ft^3]"

V_al=A_f_c*t_c/2+A_f_e*t_e/2

CF=(rho_al*V_al*Cf_al+rho_cu*V_cu*Cf_cu)/CF_base_total

CF_base_total=35.88

{CF=1}

CF_e=(rho_al*A_f_e*t_e/2*Cf_al+rho_cu*L_e*pi*(D_o_e^2/4D_i_e^2/4)*tpc_e*Cf_cu)/CF_base_e

CF_c=(rho_al*A_f_c*t_c/2*Cf_al+rho_cu*L_c*pi*(D_o_c^2/4D_i_c^2/4)*tpc_c*Cf_cu)/CF_base_c

End

217

Module WithSubcool(Tac1, PD, A_e, A_c, m_sys, V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c,

nrow_c, Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_i, Tsc)

{This module returns the seasonal COP of the system and the sub-cool in the condenser

for the various ambient temperatures for a system whose compressor has been sized for a

system capacity of 30,000 Btu/hr at 95 F ambient temperature}

x4a=1

x2a=1

"[F]" {refrigerant superheat in evaporator from states 4a-1, F}

Tsh=10

Tc_ave=(T2a+T2b)/2 "[F]"

"[ft]"

{roughness for drawn tubing (White), ft}

e=.000005

"[lbm/hr]" {mass flow rate per tube}

m_r_t=m_dot_r/tpc_c

{Air flow over Condenser}

V_ac=V_dot_ac*convert(1/min,1/sec)/A_c {Air velocity over condenser} "[ft/s]"

{viscosity of air flowing over the

mu_ac=viscosity(AIR, T=Tac1)*convert(1/hr,1/s)

condenser} [lbm/ft-s]"

rho_ac1=density(AIR, T=Tac1, P=Pac1) "{density of air flowing over the condenser}

[lbm/ft^3]"

m_dot_ac=m_ac*convert(1/hr,1/s) "{mass flow rate of air flowing over the condenser}

[bm/s]"

m_ac=V_dot_ac*convert(1/min,1/hr)*rho_ac1 "{mass of air flowing over the

condenser} [lbm/hr]"

h_bar_ac=ha(h_c, eta_c,t_c, width_c,m_dot_ac, mu_ac, D_o_c, A_o_c,A_t_c, C_p_air,

Pr_ac, nrow_c) {air-side heat transfer coefficient over the condenser} "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

c_p_air=specheat(AIR, T=Tac1) {specific heat at constant pressure of air flowing over

the condenser} "[Btu/lbm-R]"

Pr_ac=prandtl(AIR, T=Tac1) {Prandtl number of air flowing over the condenser}

{Air Flow over Evaporator}

"[F]"

{Air inlet T into Evaporator}

Tae1=80

"[cfm]" {air flow rate over evaporator in cfm

V_dot_ae=30000*400/12000

assuming 400 cfm/ton at design Q_e of 30,000 BTU/hr}

V_ae=V_dot_ae*convert(1/min,1/sec)/A_e "{Velocity of air flow over evaporator}

[ft/sec]"

rho_ae1=density(AIR, T=Tae1, P=14.7) {Density of air flow over the evaporator}

"[lbm/ft^3]"

m_ae=V_dot_ae*convert(1/min,1/hr)*rho_ae1 {mass of air flowing over the

evaporator} "[lbm/hr]"

{mass flow rate of air flowing over the

m_dot_ae=m_ae*convert(1/hr,1/s)

evaporator} "[lbm/s]"

218

evaporatr} "[lbm/ft-s]"

h_bar_ae=ha(h_e, eta_e,t_e, width_e,m_dot_ae, mu_ae, D_o_e, A_o_e, A_t_e, C_p_air,

Pr_ac, nrow_e) {heat transfer coefficient of air flowing over the evaporator} "[Btu/hrft^2-R]"

W_dot_fe=365*V_dot_ae*convert(W, BTU/hr)/1000

{Compressor}

nc=compeff(P2a,P4,tc_ave,T4)

gamma_R410A=1.16

{Percent}

Clearance=.05 "[%]"

v1=volume(R410A, P=P1,T=T1)"[ft^3/lbm]"

v2=volume(R410A, P=P2,T=T2)"[ft^3/lbm]"

{Compressor volumetric efficiency, Klein}

nv=1-R*(v1/v2-1)

{ratio of clearance volume to displacement}

R=.025

PD=m_dot_r*v1/nv "[ft^3/hr]" {compressor piston displacement}

{condenser Characteristics}

{Variable Condenser characteristics}

spac_rat=h_f_c/d_f_c {tube spacing ratio-horizontal to vertical tube spacing}

"[ft]"

{condenser depth, ft}

Dep_c=d_fft_c*nrow_c

L_c=Width_c*nrow_c*ncircuit_c "[ft]" {Total length of condenser}

"[ft]"

{height of condenser, ft}

H_c=h_fft_c*tpc_c*ncircuit_c

V_c=Width_c*h_c*dep_c "[ft^3]" {Volume of Condenser}

"[ft^2]" {frontal area of condenser, ft^2}

A_c=Width_c*H_c

CALL Surf_eff(D_o_c, h_bar_ac,h_f_c, d_f_c,t_c, A_f_c,A_o_c:phi_f,phi_c) {calls the

fin efficiency and tube surface efficiency for the condenser}

Call tubing(TubeType_c:D_i_c,D_o_c) {calls the tube diameter based on the 4 tube

types for the condenser}

A_i_c=L_c*D_i_c*pi*tpc_c {the condenser refrigerant-side inner tube heat transfer

area} "[ft^2]"

"[ft^2]"

A_t_c=D_o_c*pi*L_c*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c

A_f_c=2*L_c*eta_c*tpc_c*(h_fft_c*d_fft_c-pi*(D_o_c/2)^2) {the total fin heat

transfer area} "[ft^2]"

A_o_c=A_t_c+A_f_c {the total heat transfer area -air-side and refrigerant}

"[ft^2]"

A_flow_c=Width_c*(1-eta_c*t_c)*(H_c-D_o_c*ncircuit_c*tpc_c) "{the total refrigerant

flow area} [ft^2]"

{the condenser refrigerant-side inner tube heat

A_i_c=A_i_22a+A_i_2a2b+A_i_2b3

transfer area} "[ft^2]"

219

{evaporator Characteristics}

{Variable Evaporator charcteristics}

"[in]" {tube vertical spacing on centers, in}

h_f_e=1

"[ft]"

{thickness of fins, ft}

t_e=.006/12

"[1/ft]" {evaporator fin pitch, fins/ft}

eta_e=12*12

"[in]" {evaporator fin depth per tube, in}

d_f_e=.625

{evaporator depth, ft}

Dep_e=d_f_e*nrow_e*convert(in,ft) "[ft]"

{number of tubes per refrigerant flow parallel circuit}

tpc_e=2

{number of rows of tubing}

nrow_e=4

ncircuit_e=9

L_e=Width_e*nrow_e*ncircuit_e {evaporator tube length} "[ft]"

{height of evaporator ft}

H_e=h_f_e*tpc_e*ncircuit_e*convert(in,ft "[ft]"

TubeType_e=2

V_e=width_e*h_e*dep_e "[ft^3]" {Volume of evaporator}

"[ft^2]" {frontal area of evaporator ft^2}

A_e=Width_e*H_e

CALL Surf_eff(D_o_e, h_bar_ae,h_f_e, d_f_e,t_e, A_f_e,A_o_e:phi_f_e,phi_e) {calls

the fin efficiency and tube surface efficiency for the evaporator}

Call tubing(TubeType_e:D_i_e,D_o_e) {calls the tube diameter based on the 4 tub

types for the evaporator}

"[ft]"

d_fft_e=d_f_e*convert(in,ft)

"[ft]"

h_fft_e=h_f_e*convert(in,ft

"[ft^2]" {the evaporator refrigerant-side inner tube

A_i_e=L_e*D_i_e*pi*tpc_e

heat transfer area}

A_t_e=D_o_e*pi*L_e*(1-t_e*eta_e)*tpc_ {the total refrigerant side tube heat transfer

area for the evaporator} "[ft^2]"

A_f_e=2*h_fft_e*tpc_e*d_fft_e*eta_e*L_e-2*pi*(D_o_e/2)^2*eta_e*L_e*tpc_e {the

"[ft^2]"

total fin heat transfer area for the evaporator}

A_o_e=A_t_e+A_f_e {the total heat transfer area -air-side and refrigerant}

"[ft^2]"

A_flow_e=width_e*(1-eta_e*t_e)*(H_e-D_o_e*ncircuit_e*tpc_e) {the total refrigerant

flow area for the evaporator}"[ft^2]"

{***********************************************************

Begin Cycle Analysis -analyzes the vaporcompression refrigeration cycle

************************************************************}

{Compressor Equations}

"[Btu/lbm]"

h1=enthalpy(R410A, T=T1, P=P1)

"[Btu/lbm-R]"

s1=entropy(R410A, T=T1, P=P1)

"[Btu/lbm-R]"

s1=s2s

220

"[btu/lbm]"

wcs= h2s-h1

"[Btu/lbm]"

wc=wcs/nc

"[btu/lbm]"

h2=h1+wc

T2=temperature(R410A, P=P2, h=h2) "[F]"

{Condenser Equations}

P2a=P2-DELTAP_22a-DELTAP_b_22a

{pressure of refrigerant exiting the

superheated portion of the condenser} "[psia]"

P2b=P2a-DELTAP_2a2b-DELTAP_b_2a2b {pressure of refrigerant exiting the

saturated portion of the condenser}"[psia]"

{pressure of refrigerant exiting the subP3=P2b-DELTAP_2b3-DELTAP_b_2b3

cooled portion of the condenser} "[psia]"

{Superheated portion of condenser}

{Temperature of refrigerant exiting the

T2a=temperature(R410A, P=P2a, x=x2a)

superheated portion of the condenser} "[F]"

{Enthalpy of refrigerant exiting th

h2a=enthalpy(R410A, T=T2a, x=x2a)

superheated portion of the condenser}

"[Btu/lbm]"

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_22a=m_dot_r*(h2-h2a)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_22a=E_22a*min(C_22a,C_a22a)*(T2-Tac1)

C_a22a=m_ac*specheat(AIR, T=Tac1)*L_22a/L_c "[Btu/hr-R]"

"[Btu/hr-R]"

C_22a=m_dot_r*specheat(R410A, T=T2, P=P2)

Call exch_size_un_un(C_a22a, C_22a,UA_22a:E_22a)

"[Btu/hr-R]"

UA_22a=U_o_22a*A_o_22a

U_o_22a=(1/(phi_c*h_bar_ac)+A_o_22a/(h_bar_22a*A_i_22a))^(-1) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

Call h_bar_single(D_i_c, m_r_t, T2, T2a, P2:Re_22a, h_bar_22a, rho_22a)

A_t_22a=D_o_c*pi*L_22a*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

A_f_22a=2*h_f_c*tpc_c*convert(in, ft)*d_f_c*convert(in,ft)*eta_c*L_22a2*pi*(D_o_c/2)^2*eta_c*L_22a*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

"[ft^2]"

A_o_22a=A_t_22a+A_f_22a

"[ft^2]"

A_i_22a=L_22a*tpc_c*pi*D_i_c

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_22a=(A_i_22a/A_i_c)*m_ac*(hac22a-hac1)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2a2b=(A_i_2a2b/A_i_c)*m_ac*(hac2a2b-hac1)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2b3=(A_i_2b3/A_i_c)*m_ac*(hac2b3-hac1)

"[F]"

Tac22a=temperature(AIR, h=hac22a)

"[F]"

Tac2a2b=temperature(AIR,h=hac2a2b)

"[F]"

Tac2b3=temperature(AIR,h=hac2b3)

"[Btu/lbm]"

hac1=enthalpy(AIR, T=Tac1)

Call SingleDP(m_dot_r, tpc_c,D_i_c,L_22a,f_22a,rho_22a:DELTAP_22a)

221

f_22a:DELTAP_b_22a)

1/f_22a^0.5=-2*log10((e/(D_i_c*3.7))+2.51/(Re_22a*f_22a^0.5))

{Saturated portion of condenser}

T2b=temperature(R410A, P=P2b, x=.1) "[F]"

CALL TwophaseDp(x2a, x2b,T2a, T2b, D_i_c, m_dot_r, tpc_c,L_2a2b:DELTAP_2a2b)

CALL tpbenddrop(tpc_c,D_i_c,m_dot_r, h_f_c, T_c, L_c, L_22a, L_2a2b,

Width_c:DELTAP_b_2a2b)

x2b=0

h2b=enthalpy(R410A, T=T2b, x=x2b) "[Btu/lbm]"

Q_2a2b=m_dot_r*(h2a-h2b)"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2a2b=E_2a2b*C_a2a2b*(T2a-Tac1)

"[Btu/hr-R]"

C_a2a2b=m_ac*specheat(AIR, T=Tac1)*L_2a2b/L_c

Call sat_size(C_a2a2b, E_2a2b:UA_2a2b)

U_o_2a2b=(1/(phi_c*h_bar_ac)+A_o_2a2b/(h_bar_2a2b*A_i_2a2b))^(-1) "[Btu/hrft^2-R]"

UA_2a2b=U_o_2a2b*A_o_2a2b "[Btu/hr-R]"

h_bar_2a2b= h_bar_c(T2a, P2a,D_i_c, m_dot_r,tpc_c) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

"[ft^2]"

A_t_2a2b=D_o_c*pi*L_2a2b*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c

A_f_2a2b=2*tpc_c*L_2a2b*eta_c*(h_fft_c*D_fft_c-pi*(D_o_c/2)^2) "[ft^2]"

A_o_2a2b=A_t_2a2b+A_f_2a2b "[ft^2]"

A_i_2a2b=L_2a2b*tpc_c*pi*D_i_c "[ft^2]"

{Sub-cooled portion of Condenser}

"[Btu/lbm]"

h3=enthalpy(R410A, T=T3, P=P3)

"[F]"

T3=T2b-Tsc

Q_2b3=m_dot_r*(h2b-h3) "[Btu/hr]"

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_2b3=E_2b3*min(C_2b3, C_a2b3)*(T2b-Tac1)

C_a2b3=m_ac*specheat(AIR, T=Tac1)*L_2b3/L_c "[Btu/hr-R]"

"[Btu/hr-R]"{assume Cp for

C_2b3=m_dot_r*specheat(R410A, T=T3, P=P3)

R410A constant over Tsc}

{CALL Exch_size(C_2b3, C_a2b3, E_2b3:UA_2b3)}

Call exch_size_un_un(C_a2b3, C_2b3,UA_2b3:E_2b3)

UA_2b3=U_o_2b3*A_o_2b3 "[Btu/hr-R]"

U_o_2b3=(1/(phi_c*h_bar_ac)+A_o_2b3/(h_bar_2b3*A_i_2b3))^(-1) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

Call h_bar_single(D_i_c, m_r_t, T2b, T3, P2b:Re_2b3,h_bar_2b3, rho_2b3)

A_t_2b3=D_o_c*pi*L_2b3*(1-t_c*eta_c)*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

A_f_2b3=2*h_f_c*tpc_c*convert(in, ft)*d_f_c*convert(in,ft)*eta_c*L_2b32*pi*(D_o_c/2)^2*eta_c*L_2b3*tpc_c "[ft^2]"

A_o_2b3=A_t_2b3+A_f_2b3 "[ft^2]"

"[ft^2]"

A_i_2b3=L_2b3*tpc_c*pi*D_i_c

222

vel_2b3=m_r_t/((pi*D_i_c^2/4)*rho_2b3)

through tube, ft/hr}

Call SingleDP(m_dot_r, tpc_c,D_i_c,L_2b3,f_2b3,rho_2b3:DELTAP_2b3)

call singlebenddrop(tpc_c, D_i_c, m_dot_r,P2b, T2b, T3, L_2b3, Width_c,

f_2b3:DELTAP_b_2b3)

1/f_2b3^0.5=-2*log10((e/(D_i_c*3.7))+2.51/(Re_2b3*f_2b3^0.5))

DELTAP_Residecondnser_total= DELTAP_22a+DELTAP_b_22a+DELTAP_2a2b+

DELTAP_b_2a2b+DELTAP_2b3+DELTAP_b_2b3 "[psia]"

{Total Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop Due To Bends in the Condenser}

DELTAP_ResideBEND_total=DELTAP_b_22a+DELTAP_b_2a2b+DELTAP_b_2b3

"[psia]"

{Valve Equation}

h4=h3 "[Btu/lbm]"

{Evaporator Equations}

{Neglect Pressure drop across evaporator}

"[psia]"

P4=P4a

"[psia]"

P4=P1

Q_dot_e=Q_44a+Q_4a1"[Btu/hr]"

A_i_e=A_i_44a+A_i_4a1 "[ft^2]"

{A_o_e=A_i_e*D_o_1/D_i_c}

T4=T4a "[F]"

P4=pressure(R410A, T=T4, h=h4) "[psia]"

{m_ae=V_dot_ae*convert(1/min,1/hr)/volume(AIR, T=Tac1, P=14.7)}

x4=quality(R410A, T=T4, h=h4)

{saturated portion of evaporator}

Cp_44a_cor=specheat(AIR, T=Tae1)*1.33 "[Btu/lbm-F]"

"[Btu/lbm]"

h4a=enthalpy(R410A, T=T4a, x=x4a)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_44a=m_dot_r*(h4a-h4)

Q_44a=E_44a*C_a44a*(Tae1-T4)

"[Btu/hr]"

Q_44a=(A_i_44a/A_i_e)*C_a44a*(-Tae44a+Tae1)

C_a44a=m_ae*Cp_44a_cor*A_i_44a/A_i_e

call sat_size(C_a44a,E_44a:UA_44a)

UA_44a=U_i_44a*A_i_44a "[Btu/hr-R]"

"[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

U_i_44a=(C1+1/h_bar_44a)^(-1)

h_bar_44a=h_bar_e(T4, P4,D_i_c, m_dot_r, x4) "[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

{CALL TwophaseDp(x4a,x4, T4, T4a, D_i_e, m_dot_r, tpc_e,L_44a:DELTAP_44a)

223

Width_c:DELTAP_b_2a2b)}

"[ft^2]"

A_i_44a=L_44a*tpc_e*pi*D_i_e

{superheated portion of evaporator}

"[F]"

T1=T4a+Tsh

Q_4a1=m_dot_r*(h1-h4a) "[btu/hr]"

Q_4a1=E_4a1*min(C_4a1, C_a4a1)*(Tae1-T4a)

C_a4a1=m_ae*specheat(AIR, T=Tae1)*A_i_4a1/A_i_e

C_4a1=m_dot_r*specheat(R410A, T=T1, P=P1)

call exch_size_un_un(C_4a1,C_a4a1, UA_4a1:E_4a1)

"[Btu/hr-R]"

UA_4a1=U_i_4a1*A_i_4a1

"[Btu/hr-ft^2-R]"

U_i_4a1=(C1+1/h_bar_4a1)^(-1)

Call h_bar_single(D_i_e, m_dot_r, T4a, T1, P4a:Re_4a1,h_bar_4a1, rho_4a1)

{C1=D_i_c/(D_o_1*h_bar_ae)}

{constant represents air side term for

evaporator U}

"[hr-ft^2-R/BTU]"

C1=1/(Area_rat*h_bar_ae)

Area_rat=A_o_e/A_i_e

{Call SingleDP(m_dot_r, tpc_e,D_i_e,L_4a1,f_4a1,rho_4a1:DELTAP_4a1)

call singlebenddrop(tpc_e, D_i_e, m_dot_r,P4a, T4a, T1, L_4a1, Width_e,

f_4a1:DELTAP_b_4a1)}

1/f_4a1^0.5=-2*log10((e/(D_i_e*3.7))+2.51/(Re_4a1*f_4a1^0.5))

"[ft^2]"

A_i_4a1=L_4a1*tpc_e*pi*D_i_e

{COP}

W_dot_com=wc*m_dot_r "[Btu/hr]"

Q_c=Q_22a+Q_2a2b+Q_2b3 "[Btu/hr]"

COP=Q_dot_e/(W_dot_com+W_dot_fc+W_dot_fe)

{Mass balances}

Vol_22a=L_22a*D_i_c^2*pi*tpc_c/4 "[ft^3]"

Vol_2a2b=L_2a2b*D_i_c^2*pi*tpc_c/4 "[ft^3]"

Vol_2b3=L_2b3*D_i_c^2*pi*tpc_c/4 "[ft^3]"

"[ft^3]"

Vol_44a=A_i_44a*D_i_c/4

"[ft^3]"

Vol_4a1=A_i_4a1*D_i_c/4

m_22a=rho_22a*Vol_22a "[lbm]"

vfg2a2b=volume(R410A, T=T2a, x=1)-volume(R410A, T=T2a, x=0) "[ft^3/lbm]"

m_2a2b=-(Vol_2a2b/vfg2a2b)*ln(volume(R410A, T=T2a, x=0)/volume(R410A, T=T2a,

x=1)) "[lbm]"

"[lbm]"

m_2b3=rho_2b3*Vol_2b3

m_c=m_22a+M_2a2b+m_2b3 "[lbm]"

224

"[lbm]"

m_4a1=rho_4a1*Vol_4a1

vfg44a=volume(R410A, T=T4a, x=1)-volume(R410A, T=T4a, x=0) "[ft^3/lbm]"

m_44a=(Vol_44a/(x4*vfg44a))*ln(volume(R410A, T=T4, x=1)/(volume(R410A, T=T4,

x=0)+x4*vfg44a)) "[lbm] check this equation"

m_sys=m_4a1+m_44a+m_c "[lbm]"

m_e=m_4a1+m_44a

{Air Side Pressure Drop}

"fan efficiency"

E_fc=.65

W_dot_fc=V_ac*DELTAP_tot_ac*convert(psia,lbf/ft^2)*A_c/E_fc*convert(ftlbf/s,btu/hr) "[Btu/hr]"

"[ft]"

d_fft_c=d_f_c*convert(in,ft)

"[ft]"

h_fft_c=h_f_c*convert(in,ft

{Flow rate}

"[lbm/ft^2 hr]"

G_max_ac=m_ac/A_flow_c

"[psia]"

Pac2=P_atm

"[psia]"

P_atm=14.7

grav=32.2*convert(1/s^2,1/hr^2) "[lbm-ft/hr^2-lbf]"

Re_D_c=G_max_ac*D_o_c/(mu_ac*convert(1/s,1/hr))

{Pressure Drop Calculation}

DELTAP_tot_ac=Pac1-Pac2

"[psia]"

DELTAP_tubes=Eu_c*G_max_ac^2*nrow_c/(2*rho_ac1)*convert(lbm-ft/ft2-hr2, psia)

"[psia]"

DELTAP_tubes_inH2O=DELTAP_tubes*convert(psia, inH2O) "[inH2O]"

DELTAP_tot_ac=DELTAP_tubes+DELTAP_fin

DELTAP_fin=(f_f*G_max_ac^2*A_f_c/(2*A_flow_c*grav*rho_ac1))*convert(1/ft^2,1/

in^2) "[psia]"

DELTAP_fin_inH2O=DELTAP_fin*convert(psia,inh2o) "[inh2O]"

f_f=1.7*Re_L_ac^(-.5)

Re_L_ac=G_max_ac*h_fft_c/mu_ac*convert(1/hr, 1/s)

Den_COPseas_i = (Tac1-67)*fri(Tac1)/COP

End

225

Call At95(Tsc, V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c, Tubetype_c,

ncircuit_c:PD, m_sys, A_e, A_c, Tc_95, width_e, width_c, W_dot_fc, W_dot_com,

DELTAP_tot_ac95,CF_e,CF_c,DP_Rbend_95,DP_Rtotal_95,L_22a95,L_2a2b_95,L_2b

3_95)

Call WithSubcool(67,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_67,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(72,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_72,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(77,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_77,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(82,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_82,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(87,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_87,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(92,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_92,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(97,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c, nrow_c,

Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_97,Tsc[1])

Call WithSubcool(102,PD,A_e,A_c, m_sys,V_ac, h_f_c, t_c, eta_c, d_f_c, tpc_c,

nrow_c, Tubetype_c, ncircuit_c: Den_COPseas_102,Tsc[1])

COPseas = 11.27/(Den_COPseas_67 + Den_COPseas_72 + Den_COPseas_77 +

Den_COPseas_82 + Den_COPseas_87 + Den_COPseas_92 + Den_COPseas_97 +

Den_COPseas_102)

Tsc=15

[F] {Sub-cool in the condenser}

V_ac=8

[ft/s] {Air velocity over condenser, ft/s}

"[in]" {tube vertical spacing on centers, in}

h_f_c=1.25

"[ft]"

{thickness of fins, ft}

t_c=.006/12

"[1/ft]" {condenser fin pitch, fins/ft}

eta_c=12*convert(1/in,1/ft)

"[in]" {condenser fin depth per tube, in}

d_f_c=1.083

{number of rows per refrigerant flow parallel circuit}

tpc_c=2

{number of columns of tubing}

nrow_c=3

{Indicates tube diameter for standard copper pipe}

TubeType_c=2

{indicates number of refrigerant flow parallel circuits}

ncircuit_c=12

226

REFERENCES

Akers, W. W., and Rosson, H. E.,1959. ASME-AIChE 3rd National Heat Transfer

Conference, Storrs, Conn., Aug. 1959.

ARI, 1989. Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Standard 210/240-89, p. 3, section 5.1.

Baker, O., 1954. Simultaneous Flow of Oil and Gas, Oil and Gas Journal, vol. 53, pp.

185-195.

Baxter, V., Fischer, S., and Sand, J., 1998. Global Warming Implications of Replacing

Ozone-Depleting Refrigerants, ASHRAE Journal, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 23-30.

Beattie, D. R. H. and Whalley, P. B., 1982. A Simple 2-Phase Frictional Pressure Drop

Calculation Method, Int. J. Multiphase Flo , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 83-87.

Bell, K. J., 1988. Two-Phase Flow Regime Considerations in Condenser and Vaporizer

Design, International Communications in Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 15, pp. 429488.

Bivens, D. B., Shiflett, M. B., Wells, W. D., Shealy, G. S., Yokozeki, A., Patron, D. M.,

Kolliopoulos, K. A., Allgood, C. C., and Chisolm, T. E. C., 1995. HFC-22

Alternatives for Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, ASHRAE Transactions, vol.

101, pt. 2, pp. 1065-1071.

Chen, J. J. J. and Spedding, P. L., 1981. An Extension of the Lockhart-Martinelli

Theory of 2-Phase Pressure Drop and Holdup, Int. J. Multiphase Flo , vol. 7,

no. 6, pp. 659-675.

Chi, K., Wang, C. C., Chang, Y. J., and Chang, Y. P., 1998. A Comparison Study of

Compact Plate Fin-and-Tube Heat Exchangers, ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 104,

no. 2, pp. 548-555.

227

Chisolm, D., 1973. Pressure Gradients Due to Friction During the Flow of Evaporating

Two-phase Mixtures in Smooth Tubes and Channels, Int. J. of Heat and Mass

Transfer, vol. 16, pp. 347-358.

Chisolm, D., 1983. Two-Phase flow in Pipelines and Heat Exchangers, Longman Inc.,

New York.

Colebrook, C. F., 1938-1939. Turbulent Flow in Pipes, with Particular Reference to the

Transition between the Smooth and rough Pipe Laws, J. Inst. Civ. Eng. Lond.,

vol. 11, pp. 133-156.

Collier, J. G. and Thome, J. R., 1996. Convective Boiling and Condensati , 3rd Edition,

Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Domanski, P. A. and McLinden, M. O., 1992. A Simplified Cycle Simulation Model for

the Performance Rating of Refrigerants and Refrigerant Mixtures, Int. J. Refrig.,

vol. 15, no. 2.

Domanski, P. A. and Didion, D. A., 1993. Thermodynamic Evaluation of R-22

Alternative Refrigerants and Refrigerant Mixtures, ASHRAE Transactions, vol.

99, pt. 2, pp. 627-635.

Dvora, B., Shoham, O., Taitel, Y., and Dukler, A.E., 1980. Flow Pattern Transition for

Gas-Liquid Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Pipes: Comparison of Experimental

Data with Theory, Int. J. Multiphase Flo , vol. 6, pp. 217-225.

Ebisu, T. and Torikoshi, K., 1998. Heat Transfer Characteristics and Correlations for R410A Flowing Inside a Horizontal Smooth Tube, ASHRAE Transactions, vol.

104, no. 2, pp. 556-560.

Eckels, S. J. and Pate, M. B., 1991. An Experimental Comparison of Evaporation and

Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficients for HFC-134a and CFC-12, Int. J.

Refrig., vol. 14, pp. 70-77.

Fang, W. and Nutter, D., 1999. Analysis of system Performance Losses Due to the

Reversing Valve for a Heat Pump Using R-410a, ASHRAE Transactions, vol.

105, pt. 1, pp. 131-139.

Gopalnarayanan, S. and Rolotti, G., 1999. Total Equivalent Warming Impact of R-22

Alternatives in Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Applications, ASHRAE

Transactions, vol. 105, pt. 1, pp. 1228-1236.

Gouse, S., 1964. An Introduction to Two-Phase Gas-Liquid Flow, Report No. DSR

8734-3, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

228

Hiller, C. C. and Glicksman, L. R., 1976. Improving Heat Pump Performance via

Compressor Capacity Control-Analysis and Test, Report No. 24525-96, Heat

Transfer Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Incropera, F. P. and DeWitt, D. P., 1996. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th

Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 445.

Kays, W. M. and London, A. L., 1984. Compact Heat Exchangers, 3rd Edition, McGrawHill, New York.

Klein, S. A. and Reindl, D. T., 1997. The Relationship of Optimum Heat Exchanger

Allocation and Minimum Entropy Generation for Refrigeration Cycles,

Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division, vol. 37, pp. 87-94.

Kondepudi, S. N., 1993. Drop-In Testing of R-32 Blends As R-22 Alternatives in a

Split-System Air Conditioner, ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 99, pt. 2, pp. 406-413.

Lockhart, R. W. and Martinelli, R. C., 1949. A Proposed Correlation of Data For

Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-Component Flow In Pipes, Chem. Eng. Progr., vol.

45, no. 1, pp. 39-48.

McQuiston, F. C. and Parker, J. P., 1994. Heating Ventilating and Air-ConditioningAnalysis and Design, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Nusselt, M., 1916. Die Oberflchenkondensation des Wasserdampfes, Zeitshr. Ver.

Deutsch. Ing., vol. 60, pp. 541-569.

Perry, J. H., 1963. Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th Edition, Boucher D. F. & Alves

G. E., New York, pp. 540-547.

Radermacher, R. and Jung, D., 1991. Theoretical Analysis for Replacemen

Refrigerants for R-22 for Residential Uses, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Report, US EPA/400/1-91/041.

Rich, D. G., 1973. The Effect of Fin Spacing on the Heat Transfer and Friction

Performance of Multi-Row, Smooth Plate Fin-and-Tube Heat Exchangers,

ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 79, pt. 2, pp. 137-145.

Russell, T. W. F., Etchells, A. W., Jenson, R. H., and Arruda, P. J., 1974. Pressure Drop

and Liquid Holdup in Stratified Gas-Liquid Flow, AIChE J., vol. 20, no. 4,

pp.664-665.

229

Saddler, E. M., 2000. Optimization of a Finned-Tube Condenser for a Residential AirConditioner Using R-22, MS Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta,

GA

Schmidt, T. E., 1945. La Production Calorifique des Surfaces Munies dailettes,

Annexe Du bulletin De LInstitut International Du Froid, Annexe G-5.

Shah, M. M., 1979. A General Correlation For Heat Transfer During Fil

Condensation Inside Pipes, Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 22, pp. 547-556.

Shepherd, D. G., 1956. Performance of One-Row Tube Coils with Thin Plate Fins,

Heating, Piping, & Air Conditioning, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 137-144.

Sieder, E. N., and Tate, G. E., 1936. Ind. Eng. Chem., vol. 28, p. 1429.

Singh, A., Ohadi, M. M., and Dessiatoun, S. V., 1996. Empirical Modeling o

Stratified-Wavy Flow Condensation Heat Transfer in Smooth Horizontal Tubes,

ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 102, no. 2, pp. 596-603.

Soliman, M., Schuster, J. R., and Berenson, P. J., 1968. A General Heat Transfer

Correlation for Annular Flow Condensation, J. Heat Transfer, Trans. ASME, vol.

90, no. 2, pp. 267-276.

Souza, A. L., Chato, J. C., Wattelet, H. P., and Christoffersen, B. R., 1993. Pressure

Drop During Two-Phase Flow of Pure Refrigerants and Refrigerant-Oil Mixtures

In Horizontal Smooth Tubes, Heat Transfer With Alternative Refrigerants, vol.

243, pp. 35-41.

Taitel, Y. & Dukler, A. E., 1976. A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transition in

Horizontal and near Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow, AIChE J., vol. 22, pp. 47-55.

Threlkeld, J. R., 1970. Thermal Environmental Engineering, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall

International, New York, pp.55.

Tong, L. S., 1965. Boiling Heat Transfer and Two-Phase Flow, John Wiley & Sons, New

York.

Traviss, D. P., Rohsenow, W. M., and Baron, A. B., 1973. Forced Convection

Condensation Inside Tubes: A Heat Transfer Equation for Condenser Design,

ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 157-165.

230

Wang, C. C., Chi, Y. P. Chang, K. Y. C., and Chang, Y. J., 1998. An Experimental

Study of Heat Transfer and Friction Characteristics of Typical Louver Fin and

Tube Heat Exchangers, Int. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 41, no. 4-5, pp.

817-822.

Wang, C. C., Lee, C. J., Chang, C. T., and Chang Y. J., 1999. Some Aspects of Plate

Fin-and-Tube Heat Exchangers With and Without Louvers, J. Enhanced Heat

Transfer, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 357-368.

Wijaya, H. and Spatz, M. W., 1995. Two-Phase Flow Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop

Characteristics of R-22 and R32/125, ASHRAE Transactions, vol. 101, no. 1, pp.

1020-1026.

Zivi, S. M., 1974. Estimation of Steady-State Steam Void Fraction by Means of the

Principle of Minimum Entropy Production, Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 86,

pp. 247-252.

Zukauskas, A. and Ulinskas, R., 1998. Banks of Plain and Finned Tubes, Hea

Exchanger Design Handbook, G. F. Hewitt Edition, Begell House, Inc., New

York, pp. 2.24-1 2.24-17.

231

- Ultra Pasteurization English FSHS2008-1Caricato daWill Cabas
- Tutorial Questions on Heat Ex ChangersCaricato daPuneet Garg
- Heat Exchanger Performance MonitoringCaricato daNaresh
- Catalogo Chiller (1)Caricato daJoan Sebastian Daza
- PAP.2012.B02.PFD-REVISICaricato daUtami Ledyana Daulay
- Sustainable HVACCaricato daaravoof84
- refrigerantcalculator-v1-4 (1).xlsCaricato daorganicspolybond
- VRF Carrier - Spechs 38VMH-2EDCaricato daJose Enrique Sanchez Thompson
- NSTAR-Electric-Company-CoolSmart-Central-A/C-Air-Source-Heat-Pump-RebateCaricato daGenability
- selfstudy-5Caricato daVarun Gill
- Heat ExchangerCaricato danasrpk
- GuideCaricato daESPT Department
- General Catalogue VRVCaricato dadom007thy
- Volunteer-Electric-Coop-Heat-Pump-LoanCaricato daGenability
- fichaCaricato daalexis
- MODULAR_AIR_COOLED_CHILLERS.pdfCaricato daBehnam
- Air Cooled ASP SeriesCaricato dajoe1256
- 2014-LCP-60Hz-R410A-DC-Inverter (1).pdfCaricato daBenjie Aleta Penales
- EP011Caricato daaurelian177
- New Microsoft Office Word DocumentCaricato daUsman Ashraf
- Mihirjha LatestCaricato damihir_jha2
- Addtional Flaws(Process)Caricato darajeshvalluri12345
- Assets AMA Conferences AMA Conferences 2013 Proceedings 2013 SENSOR 2013 A5.4 SENSOR2013Caricato dasurendra061024
- Mckinley 2008Caricato dawendy
- Effect of Baffle Orientation on Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers With and Without Leakage FlowsCaricato daulhaq637
- Optimization of Shell and Tube Heat ExchangerCaricato daAna Quintana
- Lecture 6- Heat Transfer Equipment - CopyCaricato daLouie Gresula
- MM Refrigeration-IIAR 2006 Conference-CO2 Cascade Refrigeration SystemsCaricato daHarsha Vardhan B
- ACHE ThermopediaCaricato dasaverr
- Air Cooled Heat ExchangersCaricato daDigitalMastersTX

- En 14491-2006 Dust Explosion Venting Protective SystemsCaricato dadmpresas
- Lechler Brochure Tank Equipment Cleaning EnCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Lechler Tankcleaning Series 5P2 5P3Caricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- BEUMER Cement IndustryCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- P&IDCaricato daabvgdzolic
- Grundfos MTS Screw Spindle PumpCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Plastic AnalysisCaricato dagaiagmr
- Snl PlummerCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Plates and ShellsCaricato dakoteswararao_u
- Flame Propagation in Pipe of Interconnected VesselCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Curved BeamsCaricato daAnonymous EKqkRJsJN
- Compression members - Local buckling and section classification.pdfCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- 3_Structural_analysis_handout.pdfCaricato datoliveira80
- Tool palettes.pdfCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Scripting Components for AutoCAD Plant 3DCaricato daJose Torres
- Air to Air Heat ExchangerCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Cinematica Robot DeltaCaricato daMiguelDelBarrioIglesisas
- Non-Circular Pressure Vessels SquareCaricato daAbhilash Kurian
- MSResearch_thesis Parallel RobotsCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Project 2003 Basic ManualCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Dust Collector ValvesCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Porous Particle Drying in a Vertical Upward Pneumatic Conveying DryerCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo
- Example of Convective Heat TransferCaricato daMuhammad Fakhir
- 10a Piping Diagrams and DrawingsCaricato daAnonymous lswzqlo

- Benzene.pdfCaricato daAnne Claire Paderanga
- CV, Waqas Arshad, JobCaricato dakliaquat2821
- Degradación de PETCaricato dajeque661
- An Investigation Into Catalysts to Improve Low Temperature Performance in the Selective Catalytic Reduction of NO With NH3Caricato daŞansal Dikmener
- Electrochemical Modification Of Carbon Paste Electrode Using Polyaniline And Gold Particles For Signal EnhancementCaricato daIOSRjournal
- UAE-HPCaricato daMaqsood Iqbal
- thermod17Caricato daAkshat Gupta
- Biophysics Final QuestionsCaricato dahadigy1001
- Spartan -Conjugated SystemsCaricato daIvan Katyshev
- deshumidification issues ASHRAECaricato daRene
- Unidad I Equipo II Aula 703 Horario 11-12Caricato daMiguel Angel Moreyra
- 8902 Solutions AndrewsCaricato dafrancesco
- ASHRAE 90.1 LEED RequirementsCaricato daAbdul Malik Malinao Diamla
- THEORY discussion air cond.docxCaricato daAmirul Haris
- 3B_Rusting as a Redox ReactionCaricato daCheq Chenta
- Chemical Ideas Section 10 AnswersCaricato davkrmmahal
- Practice Questions - Weeks 345_3rdEdCaricato daJon Levins
- TheoryCaricato daHarsh Tyagi
- Lista 1 Lei Da TemodinamicaCaricato daJailson da Silva
- F Advanced Heller System Technical 2005Caricato daBabis Papadopoulos
- Hints and Sample Molarity ProblemsCaricato daJohn Jones
- CH1010 C17 C02 SyllabusCaricato daCaitlinKyaw
- GuideCaricato dadavidmaree
- Set 3 Chapter 3Caricato dascribble_55
- relative volatility& equlibrium data.pdfCaricato daAqib Amir Hansuw
- Prob Set 10Caricato daPayal S
- PsychometryCaricato daShahbaz Quadri
- Practice Problem Set 9 Gas ChromatographyCaricato daMenaka Madusanka
- Sheet_goc_1_theory_english.pdfCaricato daRamJiPandey
- hakizimana2016Caricato daZahra Gh

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.