Sei sulla pagina 1di 255

PLATE-FIN-AND-TUBE CONDENSER PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN FOR

REFRIGERANT R-410A AIR-CONDITIONER

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

Georgia Institute of Technolog


May 2000

PLATE-FIN-AND-TUBE CONDENSER PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN FOR


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

List of Symbols with Greek Letters


SUMMARY

xxiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Research Objectives

1
4

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE SURVEY


Previous Studies on Variations of Heat Exchanger Geometric
Parameters

Previous Work in R-22 Replacement Refrigerants

5
8

Two-Phase Flow Regime considerations in Condenser and


Evaporator Design

13

Two-Phase Flow Heat Transfer Correlations

16

Two-Phase Flow Pressure Drop Correlations

19

CHAPTER III: AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM AND COMPONENT


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

Refrigerant Mass Inventory

45

CHAPTER IV: REFRIGERANT-SIDE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFIECIENT


AND PRESSURE DROP MODELS
51
Single Phase Heat Transfer Coefficient
51
Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficient

56

Evaporative Heat Transfer Coefficient

61

Pressure Drop in the Straight Tubes

62

Pressure Drop In Tube Bends

70

CHAPTER V: AIR-SIDE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AND PRESSURE


DROP MODELS
76
Heat Transfer Coefficient
76
Pressure Drop

81

CHAPTER VI: DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY


Figure of Merit (Coefficient of Performance)

89
89

System Design

94

Optimization Parameters
Operating Parameters
Geometric Parameters

94
95
96

Software Tools

97

CHAPTER VII: OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATING PARAMETERS


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

98
100

Effects on the Seasonal COP

109

Range of Optimum Operating Parameter

111

Effect of Operating Parameters on System Cost

111

CHAPTER VIII: OPTIMIZATION OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS


FOR FIXED CONDENSER COIL COST
112
Area Factor and Cost Facto
136
Varying Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

113

Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting

115

Varying Fin Pitch

124

Varying Tube Diameter

137

iv

Operating Costs

145

CHAPTER IX: OPTIMIZATION OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS


FOR FIXED CONDENSER FRONTAL AREA
152
Varying the Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes
153
Varying Fin Pitch

159

Varying Tube Diameter

163

Operating Costs

170

Varying the Base Configuration Frontal Area

179

CHAPTER X: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


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

APPENDIX A: AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM: EES PROGRAM

197

REFERENCES

227

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: List of Refrigerant R-22 Alternative Refrigerant Mixtures

12

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

84

Table 5-2: Staggered Array Geometry Factor

85

Table 5-3: Correction Factors for Individual Rows of Tubes

87

Table 6-1: Distribution of Cooling Load Hours, i.e. Distribution of Fractional


Hours in Temperature Bins

91

Table 8-1: Material Costs (London Metals Exchange, 1999)

114

Table 8-2: Condenser Circuiting Configurations

124

Table 8-3: Refrigerant Pressure Drop Distributions at 82 F Ambient Temperature


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

Figure 2-1: Typical Plate Fin-and-Tube Cross Flow Heat Exchange

Figure 2-2: Horizontal Two-Phase Flow Regime Patterns

14

Figure 3-1: The Actual Vapor-Compression Refrigeration Cycle

24

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

30

Figure 3-3: Hexagonal Fin Layout and Tube Array

37

Figure 4-1: Refrigerant-Side Single Nusselt Number vs. Reynolds Numbe

55

Figure 4-2: Condensation Heat Transfer Coefficient vs. Total Mass Flux Fo
Refrigerant R-12

58

Figure 7-1: Effect of Operating Conditions on Evaporator Frontal Area

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

Sub-cool at 95 F Ambient Temperature


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

Condenser of 8.5 ft/s


105
Figure 7-5: Effect of Ambient Temperature on the Evaporator Capacity for
Varying Degrees Sub-Cool at 95 F Ambient Temperature with at

Optimum Air Velocity

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

Figure 8-3: Effect of Number of Rows of Tubes on Condenser Frontal Area fo


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

Ambient Temperature at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity


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

Temperature for Fixed Condenser Frontal Area


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

Sub-Cool and Air Velocity


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

= Ratio of the transverse tube spacing to the tube diameter

ast

= Stanton Number coefficient in the Kays and London (1984)


Correlation

ax

= Axial acceleration due to gravity

= Total heat transfer area

Ac

= Minimum free-flow cross sectional area

Aci

= Cross sectional area of the refrigerant-side of the tube

Afin

= Total fin surface area

Afr,con

= Frontal area of condenser

Amin

= Minimum free-flow area

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

Stanton Number coefficient in the Kays and London (1984)


Correlation

xii

= Heat capacity

C1

= Constant of the Hiller-Glicksman refrigerant-side pressure drop


Correlation

C2

= Constant of the Hiller-Glicksman refrigerant-side pressure drop


Correlation

C3

= Constant of the Hiller-Glicksman refrigerant-side pressure drop


Correlation

cp

= Specific heat at constant pressure

cp,eff

= Effective specific heat at constant pressure

cp,l

= Specific heat of fluid in the liquid phase

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

= Ratio of the minimum heat capacity to the maximum heat capacity

Cz

= Average row correction factor

cz

= Individual row correction factor

CF

= Cost factor

COP

= Coefficient of Performance

COPseas

= Seasonal Coefficient of Perfor mance

Cost

= Cost of materials for the heat exchangers

Cost Al

= Cost per pound of Aluminu

Cost Cu

= Cost per pound of Copper

= Tube diameter

Ddepc

= Depth of condenser in the direction of air flow

Dh

Hydraulic diameter

xiii

d( )

= Differential change in ( )

Eu

= Euler number

Eucor

= Corrected Euler number

= Friction factor

fGO

= Friction factor for fluid flowing as vapor onl

fLO

= Friction factor for fluid flowing as liquid only

ffin

= Fin friction factor

fri

= Fraction of temperature bin hours

Fr

= Froude number

= Mass flux

Gmax

= Mass flux of air through the minimum flow area

gcs

= Units conversion constant

Specific enthalpy

h1

Specific enthalpy of refrigerant entering the compressor

h2

Actual specific enthalpy of refrigerant exiting the compressor

h2s

Ideal specific enthalpy of refrigerant exiting the compressor

h2a

Specific enthalpy of refrigerant exiting the superheated portion of the


condenser

h2b

Specific enthalpy of refrigerant entering the sub-cooled portion of the


condenser

h3

Specific enthalpy of refrigerant entering the expansion valve

h4

Specific enthalpy of refrigerant exiting the expansion valve

ha

= Air-side heat transfer coefficien

xiv

hevap

= Two-phase refrigerant-side evaporative heat transfer coefficien

hL

= Liquid phase refrigerant side heat transfer coefficien

hr

= Refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient

hr,SP

= Single phase refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient

hTP

= Two-phase refrigerant-side heat transfer coefficient

= Temperature bin number

= Colburn factor

JP

= Parameter for the Colburn factor calculation

= Thermal conductivity

k1

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

kl

= Liquid phase thermal conductivity

kb,

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

= Length

= Integral variable evaporating tube length

Lcon,sa

= Tube length of the saturated portion of the condenser tubes

Lcon,sc

= Tube length of the sub-cooled portion of the condenser tubes

Lcon,sh

= Tube length of the superheated portion of the condenser tubes

Levap,sat

= Tube length of the saturated portion of the evaporator tubes

Levap,sh

= Tube length of the superheated portion of the evaporator tubes

Lsat

= Tube length of the saturated portion of the heat exchanger tubes

Ltot

= Total tube length of the heat exchanger tubes

xv

mass

.
m

mass flow rate

ma,sat
.

ma,tot

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

total mass flow rate of air flowing over the condenser

mair

mass flow rate of air flowing over heat exchanger

mcon,sat

mass of refrigerant in the saturated portion of the condenser

mcon,sc

mass of refrigerant in the sub-cooled portion of the condenser

mcon,sh

mass of refrigerant in the superheated portion of the condenser

mes

= extended surface geometric parameter

mevap,sat

mass of refrigerant in the saturated portion of the evaporator

mevap,sh

mass of refrigerant in the superheated portion of the evaporator

= Blausius coefficien

NTU

= Number of transfer units

NuD

= Nusselt number based on the tube diameter

= Pressure

pr

= Reduced pressure

Prat

= Ratio of the condenser saturation pressure to the evaporator saturation


pressure

Pe

= Perimeter

PD

= Compressor piston displacemen

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

= Empirical constant for the Euler number correlation

= Outer radius of tube

rb

= Radius of tube bend

Rb

= Tube bend recovery length

rcst

= Empirical constant for the Euler number correlati

Rcv,PD

= Ratio of clearance volume to the piston displacemen

Re

= Equivalent radius for a hexagonal fin

Rf,r

= Refrigerant-side heat exchanger fouling factor

Rf,a

= Air-side heat exchanger fouling factor

rr

= Relative radius of tube bend

Rw

= Tube wall thermal resistance

Re

= Reynolds number

ReD

= Reynolds number based on diameter

= Cooling capacity of the syste


= Maximum possible amount of heat transferred between the refrigerant and
the air

xvii

Rel

= Reynolds number based on transverse tube spacing

Rers

= Reynolds number based on row spacing

= Entropy

scst

= Empirical constant for the Euler number correlati

St

= Stanton Number

= Temperature

Tc,i

= Temperature of cold fluid entering the heat exchanger

tcst

= Empirical constant for the Euler number corr elation

Th,i

= Temperature of hot fluid entering the heat exchanger

Ti

= Representative bin temperature

Trat

= Ratio of the condenser saturation temperature to the evaporator saturation


Temperature

= Overall heat transfer coefficient per unit area

= Empirical constant for the Euler number correlati

UA

= Overall heat transfer coefficien

UAhouse

= Overall house heat transfer coefficien

= Specific volume

v1

= Specific volume of refrigerant entering the compressor

v2

= Specific volume of refrigerant exiting the compressor

Va,con

= Velocity of the air flowing over the condenser

vl

= Specific volume of the fluid in the liquid phase

vm

= Mean specific volume of air flowing over the heat exchanger

vv

= Specific volume of the fluid in the vapor phase

xviii

Vol,Al,cond = Volume of the aluminum components of the condenser (fins)


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

= Actual compressor work per unit mass of refrigeran

Wave,seas
.
Wcom
.
Wf,con
.
Wf,evap

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

ws,com

= Isentropic compressor work per unit mass of refrigeran

= Vapor quality

xe

= Vapor quality at the exit of the heat exchanger

xi

= Vapor quality at the inlet of the heat exchanger

Xl

= Transverse tube spacing

Xt

= Tube spacing normal to air flow

Xtt

= Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter

= Equivalent length of tube bend

= Number of rows of tubes

= Compressor power
= Condenser fan power
= Evaporator fan power

xix

List of Symbols with Greek Letters

= Local void fraction.

= Coefficient of the empirical relation for determining the equivalen


circular radius for hexagonal fins

hlat

= Change in the latent enthalpy

hsens

= Change in the sensible enthalpy

htot

= Change in the total enthalpy

= Pressure drop

p a,con

= Pressure drop on the air-side of the condenser

p b

= Refrigerant-side pressure drop inside a tube bend

p b,LO

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

p b,SP

= Single phase refrigerant-side pressure drop inside a tube bend

p b,TP

= Two-phase refrigerant-side pressure drop inside a tube bend

pf

= Friction component of the two-phase refrigerant-side pressure drop inside


a straight tube

pfins

= Air-side pressure drop due to fins

pm

= Momentum component of the two-phase refrigerant-side pressure drop


inside a straight tube

p S,SP

= Single phase refrigerant-side pressure drop inside a straight tube

p S,TP

= Two-phase refrigerant-side pressure drop inside a straight tube

p tot,ac

= Total air-side pressure drop

p tubes

= Air-side pressure drop due to tubes

xx

= Change in quality

= Fin effectiveness

pr

= Pipe roughness

= Fin parameter that is a function of the equivalent circular radius of a


hexagonal fin

b2

= Physical property coefficient for the refrigerant-side pressure drop


determination inside a tube bend

= Compressor thermal efficienc

= Fin efficienc

fan,con

= Condenser fan efficiency

= Surface efficiency

s,a

= Air-side surface efficienc

s,r

= Refrigerant-side surface efficienc

= Compressor volumetric efficiency

2b,LO

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

= Viscosity

= Viscosity of the fluid in the liquid phase

= Viscosity of the fluid evaluated at the mean fluid temperature

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

TP

= Two-phase fluid viscosity

= Viscosity of the fluid in the vapor phase

xxi

= 3.14159..

= Angle of tube bend

= Density

= Density of the fluid in the liquid phase

= Density of the fluid in the vapor phase

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

= Coefficient of the empirical relation for determining the equivalen


circular radius for hexagonal fins

xxii

SUMMARY

Current residential air-conditioners and heat pumps use the hydrochlorofluorocarbon


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

Previous Studies on Variations of Heat Exchanger Geometric Parameter


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

Figure 2-1: Typical Plate Fin-and-Tube Cross Flow Heat Exchange

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

Previous Work in R-22 Replacement Refrigerants


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.

Table 2-1: List of Refrigerant R-22 Alternative Refrigerant Mixtures


Refrigerant

Weight Percent

R-410a

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

R-407b

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

R-407c

R-32/23%, R-125/25%, R-134a/52%

Radermacher and Jung


(1991)
Kondepudi (1993)

R-132/20%, R-R-152a/20%, R-124/60%


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.

Two-Phase Flow Regime Considerations in Condenser and Evaporator Design


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

Figure 2-2: Horizontal Two-Phase Flow Regime Patterns

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.

2. The boundaries drawn on a map as lines should be viewed as very broad


transition regions from one well defined flow pattern to another.

15

3. Few flow pattern maps are represented in non-dimensional form.

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).

Two-Phase Flow Heat Transfer Correlations


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.

Two-Phase-Flow Pressure Drop Correlations


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

considerable uncertainty. Simpler forms or firmer theoretical bases for predictive


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

AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM AND COMPONENT MODELING

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

Figure 3-1: The Actual Vapor-Compression Refrigeration Cycle

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.

System Component Models


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)

where PD is the Piston Displacement (Threlkeld, 1970).

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)

qcon, sat = h2 a h2b ,

(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)

The heat exchanger effectiveness is dependent on the temperature distribution within


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

[ (

) ]

(NTU )0.22 exp C r (NTU )0.78 1 ,

(3-15)

where Cr is the heat capacity ratio,

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

Figure 3-3: Hexagonal Fin Layout and Tube Array

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

can be expressed as,

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,

is the fin cross sectional area, and t is the thickness o

the fin. For circular tubes, a parameter can be defined as

R
= e 11 + 0.35 ln e

r
r

38

(3-25)

The fin efficiency, f, for a circular fin is a function of

es,

Re, and f, and can be

expressed as

f =

tanh (mes Re )
.
mes Re

(3-26)

The total surface efficiency of the fin, s is therefore expressed as

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 =

Va ,con Pa ,con A fr ,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

nearly identical to that of the condenser. However, the dehumidification process


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).

htot = hsens + hlat

(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.

htot hsens hlat


=
+
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.

Refrigerant Mass Inventory


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)

Integrating (3-40) yields the following expressi

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:

mcon, sh = v Aci Lcon,sh

(3-43)

mevap, sh = v Aci Levap, sh .

(3-44)

and

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

49

mcon, sc = v Aci Lcon, sc .

50

(3-45)

CHAPTER IV

REFRIGERANT SIDE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AND PRESSURE


DROP MODELS

Single Phase Heat Transfer Coefficient


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

Nu D = 0.023 Re0.8 Pr 0.3 .


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)

where the coefficients ast and bst are as follows:

ast = 1.10647,

bst = -0.78992

Transition 3,500 Re 6,000

ast = 3.5194 x 10-7,

bst = 1.03804

Turbulent 6,000 < Re

ast = 0.2243,

bst = -0.385

Laminar

Re < 3,500

and the Stanton number, St is expressed as:

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 and Londo

Kays &
Londo

Dittus Boelter

Nusselt Number

100
Sieder and Tate

80
Laminar

Transition

Sieder & Tate

60
Dittus-Boelter
40
Kays &
Londo

20

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Reynolds Number

Figure 4-1: Refrigerant-Side Single Nusselt Number vs. Reynolds Numbe

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.

Condensation Heat Transfer


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/

-s. As Figure 4-2

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

Condensation Heat Transfer


Coefficient (W/m2-s)

3500
Traviss, et al.,
correlation

3000
Shah
correlation

2500

experimental data

2000
Eckels&Pate-experimental data

1500
Akers-correlation

Traviss, et al., -correlation

1000

Shah-correlation
500

Akers et al.,-correlation

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Total Mass Flux (kg/m -s)

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/

-s or 300,000 lbm/ft 2-hr), it is determined that the

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

3.8 x1.76 0.04 x 2.76


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)

Evaporative Heat Transfer Coefficient


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)

Pressure Drop in the Straight Tubes


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/

-s or 300,000 lbm/ft 2-hr), it is determined that the dominant flow

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)

The gravitational component is then expressed as:

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)

and is the local void fraction

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:

p f = C2 0.357 x 2.8 + 2C3 0.429 0.141x 0.288 x 2 x 2.33


2
+ C3 (0.538 0.329 x )x1.86

(4-22)
xe
xi

where the constants C 3, C2, and C1 are determined by:


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)

Pressure Drop In Tube Bends


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

where pb,SP is the single phase pressure drop in the bend.

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

B180 o = 0.5 1 + B90o

(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)

and n is the Blausius coefficient, which is calculated by the following expression.

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

The liquid-only bend pressure drop, pb,LO is then determined by (4-28).

75

(4-39)

CHAPTER V

AIR-SIDE SIDE HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT AND PRESSURE DROP


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.

Heat Transfer Coefficient


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)

where Amin is the minimum air flow area.


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:

j4 = 0.2675 JP + 1.325 106 ,

(5-4)

and the parameter JP is defined as:

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
=
,

j 4 1 (1280 )(4 )Re rs1.2

(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

is the fin surface

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:

f fin = 1.7 Re l0.5 ,

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

3 < ReD < 10 3

0.795

0.247 x 103

0.335 x 103

-0.155 x 104

0.241 x 104

103 < ReD < 2 x 106

0.245

0.339 x 104

-0.984 x 107

0.132 x 1011

-0.599 x 1013

3 < ReD < 10 3

0.683

0.111 x 103

-0.973 x 102

0.426 x 103

-0.574 x 103

103 < ReD < 2 x 106

0.203

0.248 x 104

-0.758 x 107

0.104 x 1011

-0.482 x 1013

7 < ReD < 10 2

0.713

0.448 x 102

-0.126 x 103

-0.582 x 103

0.000

102 < ReD < 104

0.343

0.303 x 103

-0.717 x 105

0.880 x 107

-0.380 x 109

104 < ReD < 2 x 106

0.162

0.181 x 104

-0.792 x 108

-0.165 x 1013

0.872 x 1016

102 < ReD < 5 x 103

0.330

0.989 x 102

-0.148 x 105

0.192 x 107

0.862 x 108

5 x 103 < ReD< 2 x 106

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

Table 5-2: Staggered Array Geometry Factor


ReD

a/b

102

1.25 < a/b < 3.5

0.5 < a/b < 3.5


103

1.25 < a/b < 3.5

104

0.45 < a/b < 3.5

105

0.45 < a/b < 3.5

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

0.45 < a/b < 1.6

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

Eu cor = k1C z Eu.

86

(5-22)

Table 5-3: Correction Factors for Individual Rows of Tubes


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)

For values of z greater than 4, cz = 1

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:

ptot , ac = ptubes + pfin .

88

(5-28)

CHAPTER VI

DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION METHODOLOGY

Figure of Merit (Coefficient of Performance)


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)

In the United States, the performance of residential air-conditioning equipment is


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

Table 6-1: Distribution of Cooling Load Hours, i.e. Distribution of Fractional


Hours in Temperature Bins
Bin #

Bin Temperature

Ti, Representative

fri, Fraction of Total

Range (F)

Temperature for Bin (F)

Temperature Bin Hours

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 =

UAhouse (Ti 65 o F)fri ,


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

where COPi is the COP at each representative temperature bin.

92

(6-4)

Since the overall house heat transfer coefficient, U

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

OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATING PARAMETERS

The performance of air conditioning systems is highly dependent on specific


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

Table 7-1: Base Case Condenser and Evaporator Characteristics


Dimension

Evaporator

Condenser
1.25 x 1.083
0.349
0.375
2.5
3
12
3
12
2

Tube Spacing (in x in)


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

Evaporator Frontal Area (ft )

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

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

Figure 7-1: Effect of Operating Conditions on Evaporator Frontal Area

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.

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


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

F to 97 F, the maximum seasonal COP occurs at

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

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

Condenser Fan Power

3000
2000
1000
0
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

Sub-cool at 95 F Ambient Temperature

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

Degrees of Sub-Cool at 95 F Ambient Temperature (F)

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

Ambient Temperature (F)

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


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

Evaporator Capacity (Btu/hr)

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

Ambient Temperature (F)

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).

Effects on the Seasonal COP


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

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

110

Range of Optimum Operating Parameter


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.

Effect of Operating Parameters on System Cost


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

OPTIMIZATION OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FIXED


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.

Area Factor and Cost Facto


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.

Table 8-1: Material Costs (London Metals Exchange, 1999)


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.

Varying Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes


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

Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

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

Compressor Power (Btu/hr)

20
19
Compressor Power

6400

18

Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop

6300

17

6200

16

6100

15

6000

14

5900

13

5800

12

5700

Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop (psia)

6600

11
0

Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

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


Pressure Drop at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condense
Material Cost at 82 F Ambient Temperature

118

25

Condenser Frontal Area (ft2)

20

15

10

0
0

Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

Figure 8-3: Effect of Number of Rows of Tubes on Condenser Frontal Area fo


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

119

300

Condenser Fan Power (Btu/hr)

0.007

0.006

250

0.005

200

0.004

150

0.003

100

0.002
Condenser Fan Power

50

Air Side Pressure Drop (psia)

350

0.001

Air Side Pressure Drop

0
0

Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

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

Temperature at Optimum Sub-Cool and Air Velocity

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

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

Over Condenser (ft /min)

9000

Optimum Air Flow Rate

10

2000

Optimum Air Flow Rate

1000

Optimum Air Velocity Over Condenser

Optimum Air Velocity Over Condenser


(ft/s)

10000

0
0

Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

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

Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting


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

F to 20 F at 95 F ambient temperature. The maximum seasonal COP

for every configuration tested occurs within this selected range of operating conditions.

Table 8-2: Condenser Circuiting Configurations


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

Number of Condenser Tubes per Circuit

Figure 8-7: Seasonal COP vs. Varying Condenser Tube Circuiting at Optimum
Sub-Cool and Air Velocity for Fixed Condenser Material Cost

126

18

Refrigerant-Side Pressure Drop (psia)

16
14
12
Total

10

Straight Pipe
Bends

8
6
4
2
0
1

Number of Condenser Tubes per Circuit

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


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.

Table 8-3: Refrigerant Pressure Drop Distributions at 82 F Ambient Temperature

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

Varying Fin Pitch


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

12 fins per inch


14 fins per inch

3.75
3.70
4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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)

Optimum Seasonal COP

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

Fin Pitch (fins/inch)

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

Airside Pressure Drop (psia)

0.0045

0.0040

0.0035

0.0030

0.0025

0.0020
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

Fin Pitch (fins/inch)

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

Compressor Power (Btu/hr)

350

300

7400

250

7350

200

7300

150

Compressor Power
Condenser Fan Power

7250

100

7200

Condenser Fan Power (Btu/hr)

7500

50
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

Fin Pitch (fins/inch)

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

Condenser Frontal Area (ft2)

9.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
6

10

12

14

16

Fin Pitch (fins/inch)

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.

Varying Tube Diameter


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

Outer Tube Diameter (in)

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

Optimum Sub-Cool (F)

11

10

14

13

8
Subcool
Air Velocity

12

Optimum Air Velocity (ft/s)

16

11
1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

6
9/16

Outer Tube Diameter (in)

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

Tube Outer Diameter (in)

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

Refrigerant-Side Pressure Drop (psia

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

Tube Outer Diameter (in)

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

Total Power & Compressor Power


(Btu/hr)

800
700

7800

600

7700

500

7600

400

7500

300
Total Power

7400

200

Compressor Power

7300

Condenser Fan Power

7200
1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

Condenser Fan Power (Btu/hr)

8000

100
0
9/16

Tube Outer Diameter (in)

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"

1/COP (Operating Cost Factor)

0.254

2 Tubes per Circuit (TPC)


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

5/16" Tube Diameter


3 rows of tubes
12 fins per inch

3.95
3.90
3.85
1

Number of Condenser Tubes per Circuit

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

5/16" Outer Tube Diameter


3/8" Outer Tube Diameter

4.00
3.95

Fixed Material Cost


3 rows of tubes
12 fins per inch

3.90
3.85
1

Number of Condenser Tubes per Circuit

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

OPTIMIZATION OF GEOMETRIC DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR FIXED


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 Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes


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

F ambient temperature and an air velocity of 8.5

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

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

Number of Rows of Tubes

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

Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop (psia)

25

20

15
Total
Straight Tube

10
Bends

0
1

Number of Rows of Tubes

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

Compressor Power (Btu/hr)

350

325

5950

300

5925

275

5900

250

5875

225
Compressor Power

5850

Condenser Fan Power (Btu/hr)

6000

200

Condenser Fan Power

5825

175
1

Number of Rows of Condenser Tubes

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

Condenser Frontal Area

158

Varying Fin Pitch


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

14 fins per inch

3.70

12 fins per inch


10 fins per inch

3.60

8 fins per inch

3.50
4

10

12

14

16

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

Fin Pitch (fins/inch)

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.

Varying Tube Diameter


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

1/2" tube diameter


3/8" tube diameter

3.70

5/8" tube diameter


5/16" tube diameter

3.60
5

10

11

12

13

14

Air Velocity Over Condenser (ft/s)

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

Outer Tube Diameter (in)

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

Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop (psia)

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

Outer Tube Diameter (in)

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

Total Power (Fixed Area)


Compressor Power (Fixed Area)

6500

Condenser Fan Power (Fixed Area)

800

6400

700

6300

600

6200

500

6100

400

6000

300

5900

200

5800

Condenser Fan Power (Btu/hr)

Total & Compressor Power (Btu/hr)

6600

100

5700
1/4

5/16

3/8

7/16

1/2

9/16

5/8

0
11/16

Tube Outer Diameter (in)

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)

Air-Side Pressure Drop (psia)

0.007

Fins (Fixed Area)

0.006

Tubes (Fixed Area)

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

Tube Outer Diameter (in)

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)

1/COP (Operating Cost Factor)

0.258

Tube Diameter

5/16"

Number of Rows
2 Tubes per Circuit (TPC)

0.256
0.254

Fin Pitch

Tube
Diameter

3 Rows

Tubes per Circuit

3/8" Diameter Tube

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

Condenser Material Cost Factor

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

configuration of 2 tubes per circuit is utilized. From an analysis of Figure 9-12, it is


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

5/16" Tube Diameter


3 rows of tubes
12 fins per inch

3.95

3.90

3.85
1

Number of Condenser Tubes per Circuit

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

5/16" Outer Tube Diameter

4.05

3/8" Outer Tube Diameter

4.00

3.95

Fixed Frontal Area

3.90

3 rows of tubes
12 fins per inch

3.85
1

Number of Condenser Tubes per Circuit

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).

Varying the Base Configuration Frontal Area


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

1/COP (Operating Cost Factor

2 tpc

5/16" Tube Diameter

0.256

1/2" Tube Diameter


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

Material Cost Factor

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

1/COP (Operating Cost Factor)

0.252
20% smaller frontal area

Number of Rows

2 rows
8 FPI

5/16" diameter, 5 tubes per circuit

0.248
10 FPI

4 rows

0.244

14 FP
5/16"
diameter

0.240

Base
Configuration

Base case frontal area


Base Configuration
12 Fins PerInch (FPI)

0.236

20% greater frontal area

2 Tubes per Circuit (TPC)

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

Material Cost Factor

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 AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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:

Condenser design for air-conditioning systems must be based on seasonal


performance. The United States Department of Energy regulations require a seasonal

188

performance rating, which incorporates the systems performance at ambien


temperatures ranging from

F to 102 F, weighted with the cooling load

distribution factors. Whether this rating is consistent with actual practice is


questionable. However, the United States Department of Energy regulations require
all residential air-conditioning systems to be labeled with this rating.

The seasonal performance of an air-conditioning system can be closely approximated


by calculating the systems performance at 82 F ambient temperature.

Condenser tubes of smaller diameter enhance performance.

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.

For all geometric configurations investigated, a refrigerant charge producing between


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.

As the ambient temperature decreases, the sub-cool at 95 F ambient temperature that


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.

If the cost of materials is allowed to increase by a specified amount, increasing the


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

Determining the optimum sub-cool at one condenser geometric configurati


required 12 runs: 12 runs/ sub-coo

Therefore calculating the seasonal COP for one condenser geometric configuration
required:

193

(12 runs/velocity) x (12 runs/sub-cool) x (5 minutes/run) = 720 minutes (12 hours)


of run time to determine the optimum sub-cool and air velocity for one geometric
configuration of the condenser.

An exhaustive search over the range of geometric design parameters requires:

Investigating fin pitch varying from 8 to 14 fins/inch: 4 runs/fin pitch

Investigating tube diameter varying from 5/16 to 5/8: 4 runs/tube diameter

Investigating tube circuiting varying from 2 to 6 tubes per circuit: 5 runs/tube


circuiting

Investigating the number of tube rows varying from 1 to 4: 4 runs/number of rows

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

(5 minutes/ run) x (12 runs/velocity) x (12 runs/sub-cool) x (4 runs/fin pitch) x


(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

Refrigerant Side Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop Models


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

AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM: EES PROGRAM

{I. Refrigerant-Side Procedures and Functions


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

PROCEDURE singledp(m_r, nr,D,L,f,rho:delP)


{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

Procedure h_bar_single22ash(D, m_dot_r, T1, T2, P:Re,h_bar, rho)


{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

Procedure h_bar_single2b3sc(D, m_dot_r, T1, T2, P:Re,h_bar, rho)


{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

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

FUNCTION h_bar_c(T, P,D, m_dot_r,nr)


{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

mu_l=viscosity(R410A, T=Te, x=0)


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

If (a>=2.5) and (Re>5000) and (Re<2000000) then


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

If C=0 then Check3=0


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

Procedure sat_size(Cunmixed, E:UA)


{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

Type Standard size(in)


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

Function compeff(P_o, P_i, T_o, T_i)


{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

If Tac =77 then


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

{Air flow over Condenser}


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)

{compressor efficiency thermal efficiency}

{specific heat ratio of Cp/Cv}


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

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
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

{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)
{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

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
"[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))

{Total Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop for condenser}


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]"

Eu_c=GetEuler(Re_d_c, d_f_c, h_f_c, D_o_c, nrow_c)


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

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)

{compressor efficiency thermal efficiency}

{specific heat ratio of Cp/Cv}


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

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}
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

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
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

"[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))

{Total Refrigerant Side Pressure Drop for condenser}


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

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)
{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]"

Eu_c=GetEuler(Re_d_c, d_f_c, h_f_c, D_o_c, nrow_c)


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