Building Serv. Eng. Res. Technol. 24,3 (2003) pp.

203–219

Parameter estimation based model of water-to-

water heat pumps with scroll compressors and
water/glycol solutions
Hui Jin PhD and J Spitler PhD PE MASHRAE
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA

A recently developed parameter estimation-based steady state simulation model

of water-to-water reciprocating vapor compression heat pumps (Jin H, Spitler JD,
ASHRAE Trans. 2002; 108(1)) is built up from models of individual components.
Various unspeciŽ ed parameters for individual components are estimated from
catalogue data for the overall unit performance. This approach has been shown
to give better accuracy and extrapolation capability than polynomial Ž t models.
It has also been shown to give accuracy similar to more detailed deterministic
models that require additional information not typically available to an engineer
performing energy analysis. This paper covers two important extensions to the
model — scroll compressors and glycol/water mixtures. A Ž ve-parameter
(including intake volumetric  ow rate, built-in compression ratio, leakage co-
efŽ cient and two efŽ ciency-related parameters) scroll compressor model replaces
the reciprocating compressor model previously used. While necessary in some
applications for providing protection from freezing, water/glycol solutions
adversely impact heat transfer performance. A procedure for adjusting the model
parameters to account for the change in working  uids is presented. In addition,
a preliminary Ž eld validation of the modiŽ ed water-to-water heat pump model
is presented. The heat pump utilized both a scroll compressor and a propylene
glycol/water mixture as the working  uid.

List of symbols and heat transfer area (W/°C or

Btu/(h-°F))
k thermal conductivity (W/(m-°C) or
A area (m2 or ft2) Btu/(h-ft-°F))
C leakage coefŽ cient m
Ç mass  ow rate (kg/s or lbm/h)
Cp speciŽ c heat (J/(kg-°C) or Btu/(lbm- Nu Nusselt number
°F)) P pressure (Pa or psia)
DF degradation factor Pr Prandtl number
d diameter of tubes or pipes (m or ft) R heat transfer resistance (°C/W or (h-
h convection heat transfer coefŽ cient °F)/ Btu)
(W/(m2-°C) or Btu/(h-ft2-°F)) Re Reynolds number
hA product of heat transfer coefŽ cient UA heat transfer coefŽ cient (W/°C or
Btu/(h-°F)
Address for correspondence: J Spitler, Oklahoma State University, u  uid velocity (m/s or ft/min)
Stillwater, OK 74078, USA. E-mail: spitler@okstate.edu v volume ratio; speciŽ c volume (m3/kg
or ft3/lbm)
First presented at System Simulation in Buildings, Sixth Inter-
national Conference, 16–18 December 2002, University of VÇ volumetric  ow rate (m3/s or ft3/min)
Liège, Belgium WÇ compressor power input (W)
Ó The Chartered Institution of Building Services
Downloaded Engineers 2003
from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016 10.1191/0143624403bt072oa
204 Water-to-water heat pumps
p pressure ratio
g isentropic exponent
h loss factor used to deŽ ne the electro-
mechanical loss that is supposed to
be proportional to the theoretical
power
m dynamic viscosity (N-s/m2 or
centipoise)
n kinematic viscosity (m2/s or ft2/s)
r density (kg/m3 or lbm/ft3)
Subscripts
c condensing state
e evaporating state
i internal or ‘build-in’
loss constant part of the electro-
mechanical power losses
r refrigerant
t theoretical power
w water
1 Introduction
This paper describes two extensions to a recently
developed parameter estimation-based steady
state simulation model of water-to-water recipro-
cating vapor compression heat pumps.1 The goal
of the model is to support design and energy cal-
culations made by engineers who select heat
pumps from catalogues. In contrast to other
detailed models previously presented,2–9 the
parameters for this model may be estimated
solely from commonly available catalogue data.
It is, in many respects, similar to the model
developed by Bourdouxhe et al.8 except that it
does not require internal measurements such as
condensing and evaporating temperatures and
subcooling and superheating temperature differ-
ences. Instead they are treated as intermediate
variables and parameters estimated from manu-
facturers’ catalogue data. The two extensions to
the model maintain the same approach, requiring
only catalogue data:
· The Ž rst extension involved the development
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
of a scroll compressor model. Scroll com-
pressors are frequently used as an alternative
to reciprocating compressors in heat pumps.
A Ž ve-parameter scroll compressor model
will be presented in this paper.
· The second extension involved the develop-
ment of a procedure for modeling heat pump
performance when antifreeze solutions are
used. Antifreeze solutions are commonly used
in ground source heat pump applications, and
it is desirable to be able to model the resulting
degradation in heat pump performance.
Unfortunately, there is relatively little data
available on which a model that accounts for
the antifreeze might be based. Accordingly,
an approach to adjust the heat exchanger
model by modifying the heat transfer co-
efŽ cient, as a result of the change in the
physical properties of the secondary heat
transfer  uid will also be presented.
The paper describes the extensions below, along
with a comparison to experimental data.
2 Modeling of the scroll compressor
For the scroll compressor, compression is
accomplished by the rotary motion of two
interfacing, spiral-shaped scrolls. At the suction
state, refrigerant vapour is trapped in a pocket
at the outer periphery of the scrolls. As the
scrolls move, this pocket is continuously made
smaller, compressing the vapour as it proceeds
toward the discharge port. The scroll com-
pressor’s Ž xed volume ratio is set by the
geometry of the scrolls and the location of the
discharge port. This feature provides the scroll
compressor with different performance charac-
teristics from those of reciprocating com-
pressors.
A few scroll compressor models have been
described in the literature.10–14 However, these
models are targeted at the redesign of the scroll
compressor for improved performance. The
models require an exhaustive description of all
the components in the compressor such as the
conŽ guration of the scrolls, the location of the
 Hui Jin and J Spitler 205
P
ports, and the rotation speed, etc. The high num-
ber of parameters in these models make them
P2
infeasible for use with the parameter estimation
based modeling approach, at least in cases where
the overall heat pump performance is modeled.
Winandy et al.,15 presented a hermetic scroll Pi = P2

refrigeration compressor model, which shares

some signiŽ cant features with the screw com-
pressor model presented by Lebrun et al.16 Simi-
lar to screw compressors, scroll compressors
have ‘built-in’ pressure ratio or internal pressure
ratio, deŽ ned by the following equation.
Pi
pi =
Pe
Where pi is the ‘built-in’ pressure ratio, Pi is the
internal discharge pressure and Pe is the evapor-
ating pressure.
Another related characteristic to the ‘built-in’
pressure ratio is the ‘built-in’ volume ratio, vi,
which is the ratio of the volume of the trapped
gas pocket immediately after closing to the vol-
ume of trapped gas pocket immediately before
opening to discharge. If the compression is
assumed to be isentropic, the relationship
between the ‘built-in’ pressure ratio and the
‘built-in’ volume ratio is:
pi = ngi
The ‘external pressure ratio’, which is the ratio
of the condensing pressure (Pc) to the evaporat-
ing pressure (Pe), is also important:
Pc
p=
Pe
The difference between external pressure ratio
and ‘built-in’ pressure ratio results in three
modes of operation of the scroll compression
process—design operation, over-compression
and under-compression. Under design con-
ditions, the ‘built-in’ pressure ratio is equal to
the external pressure ratio. Figure 1 shows the
thermodynamic cycle with design condition.
This should be the optimal operating point.
However, the scroll compressor operates over a
range of conditions where the external pressure
P1
V
Figure 1 Thermodynamic cycle of a scroll compressor
under design conditions
(1)
ratio varies and it does not match the internal
pressure ratio.
When the condensing pressure is lower than
internal discharge pressure, over-compression
occurs. In this case, the trapped gas pocket is
compressed above the condensing pressure and
expands into the discharge as the port is
uncovered, with resultant lost work. Figure 2
shows the thermodynamic cycle with over-
compression; the lost work is represented by the
shaded area.
When the condensing pressure is higher than
the internal discharge pressure, under-
(2) compression occurs. In this case, the trapped
pocket opens early to a higher pressure in the
discharge line and then must pump against this
higher pressure for the remaining rotary motion
P
(3)
Pi
P2
Pi >P2
P1
V
Figure 2 Thermodynamic cycle of a scroll compressor
with over-compression loss

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016

206 Water-to-water heat pumps

of the scrolls, requiring higher torque than would efŽ ciency of the compressor. The actual power
have been required if the pressure had built up input for the compressor is calculated by the fol-
gradually to the condensing pressure. This oper- lowing equation:
ation mode is shown in Figure 3, and again, the Çt
W
lost work is represented by the shaded area. Ç=
W Ç loss
+W (6)
Both over-compression and under- h
compression may lead to energy losses in the Where W Ç is the compressor power input, W Ç t is
compressor. The theoretical power consumption the theoretical power, h is the electro-
of the compressor will be a little higher than the mechanical efŽ ciency, and W Ç loss is the constant
power required to perform a pure isentropic part of the electro-mechanical power losses.
compression. Due to the absence of suction and discharge
If external pressure ratio matches the ‘built- valves and theoretically negligible re-expansion
in’ pressure ratio, the isentropic power consump- volumes, the refrigerant volume  ow rate at the
tion is: beginning of the compression, VÇ r, is equal to the

Wt =
g
g21 F
g 21
PeVÇ r p g 2 1 G (4)
product of the volume of the pockets that seal
the suction gas at the beginning the compression
and the rotational speed. Thus, the refrigerant
If the external pressure ratio does not match the mass  ow can be determined as:
‘built-in’ pressure ratio, the power consumption
VÇ r
will be higher than that of the isentropic process: Çr=
m (7)

F G
nsuc
g
Wt = P VÇ · Where nsuc is the speciŽ c volume at the suc-
g21 e r

F G
tion state.
g 2 1 p 1 g 21 In practice, leakage will reduce the refrigerant
+ p g 21 (5)
g ni g i mass  ow rate in the scroll compressor calcu-
A simple linear representation, which follows lated by Equation (7). In the scroll compressor
the same modeling approach as the reciprocating model presented by Chen et al.,17 the leakage
compressor discussed previously, has been used due to the gap between the bottom/top plate and
to account for the electrical and mechanical the scrolls and the gap between the  anks of the
two scrolls has been discussed quantitatively.
Based on the analysis of Chen et al.,18 the leak-
age was found to be a function of the ratio of
discharge pressure and suction pressure. To sim-
P2 plify the calculation, the discharge pressure is
assumed to be equal to condensing pressure and
Pi
the suction pressure is equal to the evaporating
pressure. Hence, the leakage rate is deŽ ned as
follows:
Pi < P2
Pc
Ç leak = C ·
m (8)
Pe
P1
Where Pc is condensing pressure, Pe is evaporat-
ing pressure, and C is the coefŽ cient to deŽ ne
V the relationship between pressure ratio and leak-
Figure 3 Thermodynamic cycle of a scroll compressor age rate.
with under-compression loss The refrigerant mass  ow rate calculated in

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016

 Hui Jin and J Spitler 207
14
Equation (7) is then corrected by subtracting the
leakage mass  ow rate calculated in Equation 13

(8). To summarize, the parameters chosen to rep- 12 +10%

resent the scroll compressor model will be

WCalc(kW)
VÇ r, ni, C, Wloss and h. These parameters, along 11
-10%
with the UA values for both heat exchangers and 10
the superheat, are estimated from catalogue heat 9
pump data. (As described later, use of antifreeze
further increases the parameters.) 8

7
2.1 Scroll compressor model validation 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Since, in our application, the scroll com- WCat(kW)

pressor model is only used within a heat pump
model, it is difŽ cult to directly validate its oper-
ation. One indirect validation is to apply two
variations of a water-to-water heat pump
model—one with reciprocating compressor, the
other with scroll compressor, to a water-to-water
heat pump model that actually has a scroll com-
pressor. The scroll compressor model may be
judged successful if it improves the overall per-
formance of the heat pump model. A Florida
Heat Pump model WP 120, which utilizes a
Copeland scroll compressor, has been modeled
with both variations of the water-to-water heat
pump model. Figures 4 and 5 show the heating
Figure 5 Calculated power versus catalogue power
(hypothetical reciprocating compressor)
capacity and power consumption when the heat
pump is modeled with a hypothetical reciprocat-
ing compressor. Figures 6 and 7 show the heat-
ing capacity and power consumption when the
heat pump is modeled with a scroll compressor.
The RMS errors are summarized in Table 1. In
addition, Table 1 shows the RMS errors of the
heat pump model prior to adding the leakage
parameter ‘C’ to the model. It noticeably
improves the model performance.
As can be seen from Figures 4–7, the perform-

QLCat(Btu/Hr)
85295 105295 125295 145295 165295 185295
55 185295

50
165295
QLCalcl(Btu/Hr)

45
+10%
QLCalcl(kW)

145295
40
-10% 125295
35

105295
30

25 85295
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
QLCat(kW)
Figure 4 Calculated heating capacity versus catalogue heating capacity (hypothetical reciprocating compressor)

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016

208 Water-to-water heat pumps
QLCat(Btu/Hr)
85295 105295 125295 145295 165295 185295
55 185295

50
165295
+10%
45

QLCalc(Btu/Hr)
QLCalc(kW)

145295
-10%
40

125295
35

105295
30

25 85295
25 30 35 40 45 50 55
QLCat(kW)
Figure 6 Calculated heating capacity versus catalogue heating capacity (scroll compressor)

14
ance of the heat pump model is signiŽ cantly
improved, both for predicting heating capacity
13
+10%
and power, when the scroll compressor equipped
12 heat pump is modelled with the scroll com-
pressor version of the heat pump model. There-
WCalc(kW)

11
-10% fore, use of the scroll compressor model is rec-
10 ommended for a heat pump with scroll
compressors.
9

8 3 Modelling of heat pump performance

7
with antifreeze
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

WCat(kW) It is common in ground source heat pump sys-

Figure 7 Calculated power versus catalogue power
tems to utilize an antifreeze mixture, sometimes
(scroll compressor) called ‘coolant’, as the secondary heat transfer
 uid. As compared to a system using pure water,

Table 1 A comparison of the model prediction RMS errors

Heating capacity Power Heat of extraction

Reciprocating compressor 1.27% 3.15% 2.19%

Scroll Comp. w/o leakage 1.32% 1.03% 2.15%
Scroll Comp. w/leakage 0.30% 0.67% 0.62%

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016

 Hui Jin and J Spitler 209

this degrades the heat pump performance. It
would be useful to be able to model the impact
of antifreeze on the performance of the heat
pump. Unfortunately, very little information is
available from manufacturers with regards to the
change in system performance when antifreeze
mixtures are used. The Trane Company has pro-
vided the most detailed procedures to adjust the
catalogue data for pure water to the performance
with antifreeze mixtures.19 Correction factors for
heating capacity, cooling capacity and power
consumption are presented versus the concen-
and physical properties. Thus, it may vary con-
siderably as a result of changes in  uid proper-
ties when antifreeze is added to water. The
geometry of the heat exchanger may not be
known, but is likely to be a co-axial heat
exchanger. Some manufacturers also use com-
pact heat exchangers. For the purpose of calcu-
lating a degradation factor, it is reasonable to
assume a co-axial heat exchanger geometry, with
the coolant  owing through the inner tube. In
this case, the Sieder-Tate correlation20 may be
taken as a reasonable approximation:

S D
tration of the antifreeze mixture in tables and 0.14
charts. Given the very limited amount of data Nu = 0.027 Re0.8Pr0.33 m/mw (9)
available, only a preliminary effort has been
made to develop a procedure for adjusting the However, since we are only interested in the
model. This procedure is described later along relative performance, we are only assuming that
with a check of how it performs compared to the the general form of the equation and the
Trane correction factors. exponents are correct.
Heat transfer taking place in the condenser or Substituting the deŽ nitions of the dimen-
evaporator will be affected by the degraded heat sionless group into Equation (9) yields:
transfer coefŽ cient, density and speciŽ c heat of
the  uid. In the parameter estimation model, the h = 0.027u0.8d2 0.2m2 0.47r0.8C0.33
p k
0.67
(10)
previously assumed constant heat transfer co- The relationship of the convection heat transfer
efŽ cient will be replaced by a variable heat coefŽ cients between  uids with different physi-
transfer coefŽ cient that depends upon the  uid cal properties can be found as follows, providing
side volumetric  ow rate. This allows the separ- that the volumetric  ow rate or velocity is the
ate estimation of the refrigerant side resistance same.
and coolant side resistance. Assuming the forms
of the correlation for the  uid to heat exchanger
wall convection allows an estimate of a degra-
dation factor by substituting in correct values of
h1
h2
=
m1
m2 SD SD S D SD
2 0.47
r1
r2
0.8 Cp1
Cp2
0.33
k1
k2
0.67

(11)
density, speciŽ c heat, viscosity and conductivity.
The degradation factor multiplies the  uid-side A degradation factor of the convection heat
heat transfer coefŽ cient estimated for pure water, transfer coefŽ cients between antifreeze and pure
so that the heat pump performance with anti- water is deŽ ned as:
freeze can be predicted. (hA)antifreeze
DF = (12)
(hA)water
3.1 Derivation of antifreeze degradation
factor Since the heat exchanger dimensions do not
The overall heat transfer resistance consists of change when antifreeze is used, the degradation
a coolant side convection heat transfer resist- factor can be reduced to:
ance, refrigerant side convection heat transfer hantifreeze
resistance, a tube wall resistance and, perhaps, DF =
hwater

S D S D
a fouling resistance. According to classical heat
transfer theory, the coolant side convection heat mantifreeze 2 0.47
rantifreeze 0.8
=
transfer resistance is a function of  uid velocity mwater rwater

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016

210 Water-to-water heat pumps
S Cpa n tifr e e z e
Cpw a te r D S
0.33
kantifreeze
kwater
The degradation factor for propylene glycol sol-
ution is plotted in Figure 8 against the concen-
tration by per cent volume with different tem-
peratures. The propylene glycol properties were
calculated with the functions developed by
Rees.21
3.2 Volumetric  ow-dependent heat
exchanger model
In order to apply the degradation factor
developed in the previous section, it is necessary
to split the heat transfer resistance between the
coolant side convection and the other parts
(refrigerant side convection, tube wall resistance
and fouling). The heat pump model described
previously1 only used a single UA value for each
heat exchanger. This did not lend itself to differ-
entiating between the two resistance compo-
nents.
The modiŽ ed procedure takes advantage of
Figure 8 Degradation factor for propylene glycol/water mixture by per cent volume
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
D 0.67
(13)
the fact that water source heat pump catalogues
give performance data for a range of water  ow
rates. Using an analogy to the Wilson Plot22
allows the two resistances to be estimated separ-
ately when pure water is used. Then, the pre-
viously described degradation factor may be
applied when antifreeze is used.
The overall heat transfer coefŽ cient is a func-
tion of coolant side heat transfer coefŽ cient,
refrigerant side heat transfer coefŽ cient, tube
wall resistance and fouling resistance.
1 1 1
= +
(UA)total (hA)refrigerant (hA)coolant
+ Rwall + Rfouling (14)
If the sum of the resistances of refrigerant side,
tube wall and fouling is assumed constant and
deŽ ned as:
1
R9 = + Rwall + Rfouling (15)
(hA)refrigerant
Then Equation (14) can be reduced to:
 Hui Jin and J Spitler 211

1 1 where the  ow rate is varied on one side of the

= + R9 (16) heat exchanger. As discussed previously, for a
(UA)total (hA)coolant
water-cooled condenser, total heat transfer
From the Sieder-Tate Correlation, the coolant resistance, denoted as 1/Uo, is the sum of the
side convection heat transfer coefŽ cient is: individual resistances including water side heat
h = 0.027u0.8d2 0.2m2 0.47r0.8Cp0.33k0.67 (17) transfer resistance, tube wall resistance, refriger-
ant side resistance and fouling resistance if appli-
Since the temperature range in which the coolant cable. The water side convection heat transfer
operates is relatively small, physical property coefŽ cient, denoted as hi, can be assumed to fol-
variations of pure water are negligible. Thus, for low the relationship given by Equation (23), pro-
pure water, the convection heat transfer co- vided the temperature range is not large.
efŽ cient may be assumed to be a function of
 uid velocity only. hi = (constant) (V0.8) (23)
u0.8 The ‘Wilson Plot’ for the condenser then will be
Let (hA)water = , R9 = C2, Equation (16)
C1 a graph of 1/Uo versus 1/V0.8. If the refrigerant
becomes: side heat transfer coefŽ cient remains constant,
the overall heat transfer resistance should be a
1 C1
= + C2 (18) straight line in the plot. The intercept of the
(UA)totalFwater u0.8 straight line on the 1/Uo axis is equal to the sum
Or of refrigerant side resistance and tube wall resist-
ance.
1 In other words, C3VÇ 2 0.8 is the estimated cool-
(UA)totalFwater = (19)
C1u 2 0.8
+ C2 ant side resistance and C2 is the estimated resist-
ance due to refrigerant to tube wall convection,
Since  uid velocity is related to the volumetric tube wall conduction and fouling, if any. C2 and
 ow rate by the cross-sectional area of the C3 can be estimated from catalogue data given
pipe as: for use with pure water.
VÇ Then, the degradation factor can be applied
u= (20) when the model is used with antifreeze:
A
Then 1
(UA)totalFantifreeze = (24)
C3VÇ 2 0.8/DF + C2
1

SD
(UA)totalFwater = (21)
VÇ 2 0.8
3.3 Antifreeze model performance
C1 + C2
A Regrettably, there is little data available from
manufacturers of water-source heat pumps
Let C3 = C1A0.8; then the overall heat transfer regarding performance with antifreeze. What is
coefŽ cient takes the form: available only covers water-to-air heat pumps.
1 As a preliminary check on the effect of anti-
(UA)totalFwater = Ç (22) freeze on the water-to-water heat pump model,
C3V 2 0.8
+ C2
we have used it to model a water-to-air heat
This part of the procedure is analogous to a tech- pump for which the manufacturer has provided
nique introduced by Wilson in 1915.22 The tech- correction factors for use with antifreeze (a
nique, which is often called ‘Wilson Plot’ by Trane GSUJ 018, which utilizes a scroll
later authors, is used to infer heat transfer co- compressor), operating in heating mode only. In
efŽ cients on both sides of a heat exchanger when heating mode, the water-to-water heat pump per-
the total resistance is measured for series of tests forms much like the water-to-air heat pump,

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016

212 Water-to-water heat pumps
Table 2 Parameter estimation results for the Trane water- As can be seen in Figure 8, the degradation
to-air heat pump model GSUJ 018 (heating)
factor varies with both antifreeze concentration
Parameter Estimated value and temperature. Since temperature varies
throughout the simulation, the degradation factor
Swept volume, VJ r 1.28 3 102 3 m3 /s (162.7 ft3 /h)
Built-in volume ratio, ni 2.21
is recalculated at every model iteration as a func-
(UA)load 0.425 kW/°C (806 Btu/h-°F) tion of temperature and concentration. The tem-
C3 0.125 perature is taken as the average of the inlet and
C2 1.11°C/kW (5.86 3 1024 (h-°F)/Btu)
h 0.897
outlet coolant temperatures. Once calculated, the
Wloss 0.55 kW degradation factor is applied as shown in Equ-
Superheat, DTs h 16.79°C (30.22°F) ation (24). In addition, properties such as density
and speciŽ c heat used in the model implemen-
tation have to be changed to match the tempera-
since there is no condensation of water vapour ture and concentration of the antifreeze solution.
on the refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger. The model has then been run with the same
The manufacturer has tabulated performance inlet temperatures and volumetric  ow rates
data for operation with pure water. In addition, given in the catalogue, along with a range of
three groups of correction factors for cooling concentrations of propylene glycol. Figure 9
capacity, heating capacity and pressure drop shows the resulting resistances for three different
across the heat pump are also provided by the  ow rates, averaged for all entering  uid tem-
manufacturer in case an antifreeze mixture peratures, as a function of propylene glycol con-
(propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, or methanol) centration. The water-side resistance varies sig-
is used as the source side secondary heat transfer niŽ cantly as the propylene glycol concentration
 uid. The parameters estimated for the heat increases. The effect is most signiŽ cant at low
pump model (with scroll compressor and two-  ow rates.
parameter evaporator model) are given in Table The increased heat transfer resistance that
2. The resulting RMS errors for 35 points are occurs with increasing concentration of propy-
1.35%—heating capacity, 1.68%—heat extrac- lene glycol results in a decreasing heating
tion rate, and 0.52%—power. capacity. The manufacturer has provided a cor-

3.0

1.4
2.5
1.2
Rtotal (F-Hr/Btu)

2.0
Rtotal (C/kW)

1.0
0.21 l/s (3.3 GPM)
1.5 0.8 0.32 l/s (5.0 GPM)
0.38 l/s (6.0 GPM)
0.6
1.0
R’ 0.4
0.5
0.2

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Concentr ation in Pe rcent Volum e

Figure 9 Evaporator overall heat transfer resistance (Trane GSUJ 018 water-to-air heat pump)

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016


rection factor that multiplies the heating capacity
with pure water to give the heating capacity with
an antifreeze mixture. This is given only as a
function of the concentration of propylene gly-
col. Presumably, the reduction in heating
capacity also varies with the  ow rate and
entering  uid temperature. We have calculated
the reduction in heating capacity for a range of
propylene glycol concentrations,  uid  ow rates,
and entering  uid temperatures. The calculated
correction factor is taken as the ratio of the heat-
ing capacity calculated with antifreeze to the
heating capacity calculated (with the model) for
pure water.
Correction factors provided by the heat pump
manufacturer may be compared to correction
factors calculated with the water-to-water heat
pump model in Figure 10. The model-calculated
correction factors are averaged for all catalogue-
speciŽ ed entering  uid temperatures at each  ow
rate. As can be seen, the correction factors for
the three different  ow rates show some diver-
gence from the manufacturer’s single curve.
Assuming for a moment that the curves calcu-
lated with the model are correct, the manufac-
turer’s single curve probably provides a reason-
able approximation for designers. However, it is
desirable for modelling purposes to be able to
more accurately represent the effects of anti-
1.00
0.99
0.98
0.97
Correction Factor
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.90
0 10
Concentration in Percent Volum e
Figure 10 Heating capacity correction factor with varying  ow rates (Trane GSUJ 018 water-to-air heat pump)
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Hui Jin and J Spitler 213
freeze. Further experimental work is needed to
establish the accuracy of the model.
Since propylene glycol properties vary sig-
niŽ cantly with temperature, the sensitivity to
heat pump entering  uid temperature was also
examined. For a single, intermediate  ow rate,
the correction factors were calculated for three
different entering  uid temperatures. The results
are shown in Figure 11. While some variation
in correction factor may be observed, the differ-
ences over the expected range of temperature are
not as signiŽ cant as the differences over the
allowable range of  uid  ow rates.
4 Field validation of the water-to-water
heat pump model
As mentioned earlier, additional experimental
work is needed to validate the extensions to the
water-to-water heat pump model. It would be
particularly useful to do so in a laboratory where
the  ow rates and propylene glycol concen-
trations could be readily varied. This has not yet
been done—this section of the paper reports on a
simpler ‘Ž eld validation’. Experimental data was
collected from an operating water-to-water heat
pump, which contains a scroll compressor and
utilizes a 42% by weight propylene glycol on the
condenser side and pure water on the evaporator
0.21 l/s (3.3 GPM)
0.32 l/s (5.0 GPM)
0.38 l/s (6.0 GPM)
Manufacturer’s CF
20 30 40 50
214 Water-to-water heat pumps
1.00

0.99

0.98
Correction Factor

0.97 7.2 C (45 F)

20.0 C (68 F)
0.96
30.0 C (86 F)
0.95 Manufacturer’s CF
0.94

0.93

0.92
0 10 20 30 40 50
Concentration in Percent Volum e
Figure 11 Heating capacity correction factor with varying entering  uid temperatures (Trane GSUJ water-to-air
heat pump)

side of the heat pump. (The application in this
case was a pavement heating system rather than
a building.) Additional information regarding the
heat pump, instrumentation, other operating con-
ditions, etc. is given by Jin.23
The test was performed on a Florida Heat
Pump (FHP) model WP120 water-to-water heat
pump with nominal cooling capacity of 35.2 kW
(10 tons). The unit is design to operate with
entering  uid temperatures between 27°C
(20°F) and 49°C (120°F). The manufacturer
gives heating capacity, heat of absorption, and
power consumption data for a range of leaving
load side  uid temperatures, entering source
 uid temperatures, a 1.51 L/s (24 GPM) source
 uid  ow, and a 5.56°C (10°F) temperature rise
on the load side. With an entering source  uid
temperature of 4.44°C (40°F) and a leaving load
 uid temperature of 48.9°C (120°F) the heating
capacity is 33.54 kW (114 442 Btu/h).
Catalogue data were used to Ž t coefŽ cients for
the water-to-water heat pump model (with scroll
compressor and two-parameter condenser and
evaporator models). Table 3 gives the estimated
parameters for the model. Note that in this case,
both the evaporator and condenser are modelled

Table 3 Parameter estimation results for the FHP water-to-water heat pump model WP120

Parameter Estimated value

Swept volume, VJ r 8.09 3 102 3 m3 /s (1028 ft3 /h)

Built-in volume ratio, ni 2.43
Load side heat 6.095 3 102 2
exchanger, C3
Load side heat 0.186°C/kW (9.82 3 102 5 (h-°F)/Btu)
exchanger, C2
Source side heat 5.747 3 102 2
exchanger, C3
Source side heat 6.086 3 102 2 °C/kW (3.21 3 102 5 (h-°F)/Btu)
exchanger, C2
h 0.95
Wlo ss 3.35 kW
Superheat, DTs h 16.70°C (30.06°F)

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016


with the two-parameter heat exchanger model.
The resulting RMS errors for 20 points are:
1.28%—heating capacity, 1.99%—heat extrac-
tion rate, and 1.78%—power.
One data set is selected here for presentation.
In this case, the heat pump was operated con-
tinuously for over 9 h. The  uid temperatures
and  ow rates vary over time. However, some-
thing approaching a quasi-steady-state operation
is achieved, particularly during the last 5 h. The
 uid  ow rates are shown in Figure 12. Exper-
imentally measured entering and exiting  uid
temperatures are shown in Figures 13 and 14.
The model has been used to determine leaving
 uid temperatures and power consumption, tre-
ating the experimentally measured entering  uid
temperatures and  ow rates as inputs. The leav-
ing  uid temperatures are plotted in Figures 13
and 14, and power consumption is plotted in Fig-
ure 15.
Figures 13 and 14 show quite good agreement
between the measured leaving  uid temperatures
and the model predictions. The maximum devi-
ation (around 4°C or 7°F) is observed at the Ž rst
two points after the heat pump is turned on. Pre-
1.4
1.2
1.0
Flow rate (l/s)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
12:00 14:24
Figure 12 Heat pump load/source side  ow rates
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Hui Jin and J Spitler 215
sumably, this transient behavior is due to the
heat storage inside the heat pump and  uid trans-
port delays during start-up. During the last 5
hours, the temperature deviation is much
smaller, and results in a RMS error of about 6%
in the heating capacity and about 11% RMS
error in the source-side heat transfer rate. On
both sides, the model over-predicts the heat
transfer rate compared to the experimental
measurement. Jin23 gives a detailed uncertainty
analysis of both the experimental measurements
and the model predictions. The errors described
fall within the uncertainty analysis. There is also
the possibility that the individual unit perform-
ance has fallen below the catalogue speciŽ -
cations. (In the uncertainty analysis, the cata-
logue data were assumed to be accurate to within
65%. Degradation of performance due to foul-
ing, refrigerant charge leakage, mechanical wear,
etc. was not quantiŽ ed.)
Figure 15 shows a comparison of the meas-
ured electrical power consumption and the
model-predicted electrical power consumption.
Consistent with the over-prediction of heat trans-
fer rates, the model over predicts the power con-
25
20
Source f low
Flow r ate (GPM)
15
Load flow
10
5
Circulating pump on
0
16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00
Time
216 Water-to-water heat pumps
140

52
120
42
100
Load EFT & LFT (C)

Load EFT & LFT (F)

32
80
22
60
12

System On 40
2

-8 20

-18 0
12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00
Tim e

Load EFT Load LFT Exp Load LFT Sim

Figure 13 Heat pump model validation in heating mode: load side entering/leaving  uid temp

80

22
70

17
60
Source EFT & LFT (C)

Source EFT & LFT (F)

12
50
7
40
2
System On 30
-3

20
-8

-13 10

-18 0
12:00 14:24 16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00
Tim e

Source EFT Source LFT Exp Source LFT Sim

Figure 14 Heat pump model validation in heating mode: source side entering/leaving  uid temp

Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016


14
12
10
Heat pump power (kW)
6 Heat pump on
0
12:00 14:24
HP Power Exp
Figure 15 Heat pump model validation in heating mode: power input
sumption. During the last 5 h, the RMS error of
the model compared to the experimental power
consumption is about 7%. This is slightly below
the estimated combined uncertainty of the
experimental measurement and the model. The
model assumes a perfect energy balance—in
heating mode, the source side heat transfer rate
plus the compressor electrical power consump-
tion will always equal the load side heat transfer
rate. In practice, this may not be met due to
losses from the heat pump e.g., heat transfer
from the compressor shell. Furthermore, errors
in the experimental measurements necessarily
preclude a perfect measured heat balance. The
relative energy imbalance, calculated as the dif-
ference between the load side heat transfer and
the sum of the source side heat transfer and com-
pressor heat, divided by the sum of the source
side heat transfer and compressor heat, in the last
5 h, varies between 3% and 7%.
To summarize, the heat pump model gives
reasonably good agreement to the experimental
data. The most signiŽ cant error occurs during the
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Hui Jin and J Spitler 217
16:48 19:12 21:36 0:00
Time
HP Power Sim
heat pump start-up. For many types of energy
calculations this will result in a very small error
in the prediction of energy consumption. How-
ever, if the heat pump cycles on and off fre-
quently, as in some residential applications, it
may be worthwhile to consider a simple dynamic
model. In order to retain the physical basis of
the model, and the ability to estimate all para-
meters from catalogue data, it is likely that a
dynamic model would be very simple—say, tre-
ating the heat pump thermal mass as a lumped
capacitance.
5 Conclusions and recommendations
A parameter estimation based model of water-
to-water heat pumps has been revised to include
scroll compressors and allow an accounting for
the effects of antifreeze. A Ž ve-parameter scroll
compressor model has been incorporated into the
heat pump model. As the goal of the heat pump
model is to produce a physically-realistic model
for which all parameters can be estimated from
218 Water-to-water heat pumps
catalogue data, the scroll compressor sub-model
was validated by comparing the results of both
the scroll-compressor-equipped and reciprocat-
ing-compressor-equipped heat pump models
applied to catalogue data for a scroll-
compressor-equipped heat pump. The scroll
compressor version of the heat pump model
gives noticeably improved results over the recip-
rocating compressor version. It was noted that
the overall accuracy of the heat pump model was
improved by including the Ž fth parameter into
the scroll compressor model: a differential
pressure-dependent leakage.
A preliminary investigation of a methodology
for modelling the use of antifreeze solutions with
water-to-water heat pumps has been described.
The methodology retains the physically-realistic
approach of the heat pump model, and should,
in theory, allow the prediction of heat pump per-
formance to be extended to a range of antifreeze
solutions, even when only pure-water-based
catalogue data are available. To date, we can
only say that the results appear to be approxi-
mately consistent with the correction factors
offered by one manufacturer. The model does
show sensitivity to  ow rates and  uid tempera-
tures that are not re ected in the manufacturer’s
recommendations. It would be desirable to per-
form an experimental investigation of the anti-
freeze effects on water-to-water heat pumps
under laboratory conditions, where entering  uid
temperature,  ow rate and antifreeze concen-
tration can be more easily changed and con-
trolled.
A limited Ž eld validation was performed for
a water-to-water heat pump that incorporated a
scroll compressor, and utilized a propylene–
glycol antifreeze mixture on the source-side. A
comparison between experimental data and
model prediction shows reasonably good agree-
ment between the predicted and the measured
leaving  uid temperatures and power consump-
tion. The maximum deviations are observed at
the beginning of the on-cycle. Presumably, this
is due to heat storage inside the heat pump and
 uid transit delay during the start-up period. For
many energy calculations, this will be insigniŽ -
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
cant. However, further investigation into a
dynamic model that retains the beneŽ cial charac-
teristics of this model—its physical basis and
ability to estimate all parameters from catalogue
data, is recommended.
Acknowledgements
The revisions to the water-to-water heat pump
model and experimental measurements were
funded by the U.S. Federal Highway Adminis-
tration under Grant No. DTFH61–99-X-00067.
Support by the Federal Highway Administration
does not constitute endorsement of the views
expressed in this paper.
References
1 Jin H, Spitler JD. A parameter estimation based
model of water-to-water heat pumps for use in
energy calculation programs. ASHRAE Trans.
2002; 108: 3–17.
2 Fischer SK, Rice CK. The Oak Ridge heat
pump models: 1. A steady-state computer design
model for air-to-air heat pumps. Report no.
ORNL/CON-80/R1. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
3 Domanski PA, Didion DA. Mathematical model
of an air-to-air heat pump equipped with a
capillary tube. Int. J. Refrigeration 1984; 7:
249–55.
4 Parise JAR. Simulation of vapor-compression
heat pumps. Simulation 1986; 46: 71–76.
5 Greyvenstein GP. A computer simulation model
for the design and optimization of heat pumps
and refrigeration systems. SA J. Science 1988;
84: 494–502.
6 Cecchini C, Marchal D. A simulation model of
refrigerant and air-conditioning equipment based
on experimental data. ASHRAE Trans. 1991; 97:
388–93.
7 Stefanuk NBM, Aplevich JD, Renksizbulut M.
Modeling and simulation of a superheat-
controlled water-to-water heat pump. ASHRAE
Trans. 1992; 98: 172–84.
8 Bourdouxhe J-PH, Grodent M, Lebrun JJ,
Saavedra C, Silva KL. 1994. A toolkit for

primary HVAC system energy calculation—part
2: reciprocating chiller models. ASHRAE Trans.
1994; 100: 774–86.
9 Gordon JM, Ng KC. Thermodynamic modeling
of reciprocating chillers. J. Appl. Phys. 1994;
75: 2769–74.
10 Morishita E, Sugihara M, Inaba T, Nakamura T.
Scroll compressor analytical model:
Proceedings of the Purdue Compressor
Technology Conference/Proceedings of the 1984
International Compressor Engineering
Conference—At Purdue 1984; 487–95.
11 Qu Z, Li X, Li S. Analytical modeling of
thermodynamic process for scroll compressor
with back pressure optimization. Journal of
Xi’An Jiaotong University 1998; 32: (7) 51–55.
12 Bush J, Elson J. Scroll compressor design
criteria for residential air conditioning and heat
pump applications: Proceedings of the 1988
International Compressor Engineering
Conference (1), OfŽ ce of Publications, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN, 1988: 83–97.
13 Ikegawa M, Sato E, Tojo K, Arai A, Arai N.
Scroll compressor with self-adjusting back-
pressure mechanism. ASHRAE Trans. 1984; 90:
314–26.
14 Etemad S, Nieter J. Design optimization of the
scroll compressor. Int. J. Refrigeration 1989;
12: 146–50.
15 Winandy E, Saavedra C, Lebrun J.
Downloaded from bse.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 9, 2016
Hui Jin and J Spitler 219
Experimental analysis and simpliŽ ed modeling
of a hermetic scroll refrigeration compressor.
Appl. Therm. Eng. 2002; 22: 107–20.
16 LeBrun J, Bourdouxhe J-P, Grodent M. HVAC
1 toolkit: a toolkit for primary HVAC system
energy calculations. Atlanta: ASHRAE, 1999.
17 Chen Y, Halm N, Groll EA, Braun JE. A
comprehensive model of scroll compressors,
part I: compression process modeling:
Proceedings of the 2000 International
Compressor Engineering Conference at Purdue.
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2000:
715–24.
18 Chen Y, Halm N, Groll EA, Braun JE. A
comprehensive model of scroll compressors,
part II: overall scroll compressor modeling.
Proceedings of the 2000 International
Compressor Engineering Conference at Purdue.
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 2000:
725–34.
19 Newton H. Personal communication, 2001.
20 Kern DQ. Process heat transfer. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1950.
21 Rees SJ. Personal communication, 2002.
22 Wilson EE. A basis for rational design of heat
transfer apparatus. ASME Trans. 1915; 37: 47–
70.
23 Jin H. Parameter estimation based heat pump
models. PhD thesis. Oklahoma: Oklahoma State
University, 2002.