Modelica-Based Heat Pump Model for
Transient and Steady-State Simulation
Using Low-GWP Refrigerants
Paper 2264
Jiazhen Ling, Abdullah Alabdulkarem,
Hongtao Qiao, Vikrant Aute
(
[email protected]),
Reinhard Radermacher
15th International Refrigeration And Air Conditioning
Conference at Purdue, July 14-17, 2014, Purdue, Indiana
Contents
Objectives
Modelica Component Library
Heat Pump System Schematic and Test
Matrix
System Modeling, Simulation Results and
Validation
Summary
2
OBJECTIVES
3
Objectives
Characterize transient performance of
heat pump system1
Models are capable of evaluating various
low GWP refrigerants such as D2Y60 and
R32
Models are validated using experimental
data
Facilitates dynamic control strategy
development
1:A. Alabdulkarem, Y. Hwang, R. Radermacher, System Drop-In Tests of Refrigerants R-32, D2Y-60,
and L-41a in Air Source Heat Pump, Test Report #20, AHRI
4
MODELICA COMPONENT
LIBRARY
5
Modelica Component Library
Flow network Heat Exchangers
Air, brine & refrigerant flow network Tube fin heat exchanger model
Compressors Micro-channel heat exchanger
Fixed-speed compressor model model
Variable-speed compressor model
Fluid-to-refrigerant plate heat
Economized scroll compressor model exchanger model
Valves
Moving boundary heat exchanger
Generic orifice model
model
Adiabatic capillary tube model
Mixture two-phase flow model w/o
Check valve model
interfacial exchange
Reversing valve model
Fluid-to-fluid internal heat
TXV model
Accessories
exchanger model
Accumulator model Pipe model
Receiver model Frosting model
Flash tank model Defrosting model
Fan model
Qiao, H., Aute, V., Radermacher, R., 2014. Transient modeling of a flash tank vapor injection heat pump
system. Part I – model development. International Journal of Refrigeration. (accepted)
6
SYSTEM SCHEMATIC AND
TEST MATRIX
7
Heat Pump System Schematic
Indoor Outdoor Operation
Test
DB WB DB WB
Extended condition 46.1°C Steady state
A 19.4°C 35.0°C Steady state
B 26.7°C 27.8°C NA Steady state
C Steady state
<=13.9°C 27.8°C
D Cyclic
SYSTEM MODELING,
SIMULATION RESULTS AND
VALIDATION
9
Heat Exchanger Model
Finite volume analysis
Quasi-steady state on Fin
the air side
Tube
Frosting and defrosting
modeling capabilities Air flow Control
volume
3 control volumes direction
Refrigerant stream
Tube and the
associated fins
Air stream
Staggered grid scheme
10
Compressor Model
Curve-fitted model based on the performance map
, ,
60
, , ,
Heat transfer inside the shell and from shell to
environment is taken into account
Accumulator Model
d acc
Vacc m in m out
Mass balance dt
dp
Vacc acc acc acc m in hin hacc m out hout hacc
dh
Energy balance
dt dt
Leaving enthalpy
Case 1: no phase separation
hout hacc m out , hout
m in , hin
Case 2: phase separation Vapor
hf if H liq H out d out Hout
Hacc
H liq H out
hg h f Hliq
hout hg if H out d out H liq H out Liquid
d out
hg if 0 H liq H out
12
Example of Simulation Results
Qcond. = 12.00 kW
Qcond,exp = 12.70 kW
Error = 5.5%
Power = 3.33 kW
Powerexp = 3.43 kW
Error = 2.9%
Qevap. = 8.90 kW
Qevap,exp = 8.94 kW
Error = 0.4%
R32, Extreme Condition
R32 Steady-State Validation
Test condition A Test condition B Test condition C
R32
Sim. Exp. Error Sim. Exp. Error Sim. Exp. Error
Qevap (kW) 10.0 10.2 1.96% 10.4 10.9 4.59% 10.0 9.6 -4.17%
Qcond (kW) 12.4 12.5 0.88% 12.4 13.4 7.46% 12.1 11.9 -1.68%
COP (comp.
power only) 4.0 3.9 -0.77% 5.0 4.9 -2.04% 4.8 4.5 -6.67%
Pdischarge (Bar) 28.0 26.1 -7.28% 23.7 22.6 -4.87% 2.3 2.2 -4.55%
Psuction (Bar) 10.9 11.0 0.91% 10.5 11.0 4.55% 10.0 10.0 0.00%
14
D2Y60 Steady-State Validation
Test condition A Extended condition
D2Y60
Sim. Exp. Error Sim. Exp. Error
Qevap (kW) 8.14 8.11 -0.37% 7.19 6.85 -4.96%
Compressor
2.05 1.98 -3.54% 2.6 2.55 -1.96%
Input (kW)
COP
(compressor 3.97 4.10 3.06% 2.77 2.69 -2.94%
power only)
Pdischarge (Bar) 20.1 20.62 2.52% 25.7 26.97 4.71%
Psuction (Bar) 9.2 8.76 -5.02% 9.02 9.09 -0.77%
Test condition B Test condition C
Sim. Exp. Error Sim. Exp. Error
Qevap (kW) 8.15 8.58 5.01% 8.07 7.99 -1.00%
Compressor
1.75 1.74 -0.57% 1.83 1.73 -5.78%
Input (kW)
COP
(compressor 4.66 4.93 5.55% 4.41 4.62 4.52%
power only)
Pdischarge (Bar) 18.5 17.81 -3.87% 16.78 17.56 4.44%
Psuction (Bar) 8.77 8.67 -1.15% 8.77 8.2 -6.95%
15
D2Y60 Cyclic Simulation Results
Compressor on Compressor off Compressor on
D2Y60 Cycle Cooling Capacity Comparison
Accumulated cooling capacity deviation: 7%
17
D2Y60 Cycle Pressures Comparison
D2Y60 Cycle Charge Migration
R32 Cycle Cooling Capacity Comparison
Accumulated cooling capacity deviation: 3.4%
20
R32 Cycle Pressure Comparison
SUMMARY
22
Summary
Developed cycle model according to in-
house HP test facility
Validated the model using R32 and D2Y60
under both steady-state and transient
conditions
Models predicted performance matching
experimental data
23
Thank You
24
